Of course we have been here before with books trying to redefine major historical figures under the pretext of making them more human. This is usually done with innuendo, hearsay and gossip supported by state surveillance reports, all amounting to nothing that can be supported with responsibly sourced data or withstand academic peer review.Right and exact.
The main trend uniting these books is their focus on redirecting the force of revolutionary nationalism towards social democracy reform of a kind that finds its home in the capitalist Democratic Party or towards the figure’s personal or sexual identity, being as influential as political identity. Such work has been written about, among others, Nat Turner (Styron 1976), Paul Robeson (Duberman 1989), Martin Luther King (Garrow 1987, Dyson 2000) and Malcolm X (Perry 1991, Lee 1992). As a generational deviation, this trend is exposed in the 2008 book, “Betrayal,” by Houston Baker. Marable’s book somewhat differs from this trend but nevertheless fits the genre.
The real aim of "humanizing" Malcolm is distorting him just enough to make him tolerable for white readers. The glowing reviews from the mainstream press seems to affirm this strategy.
I agree with many of Alkamilat's points. However, I disagree with the theoretical frame--"revolutionary nationalism." Malcolm certainly made lots of references to revolution, socialism, and nationalism but he was not a Marxist.
...our Ancestors did not wait around for Marx to exploit contradictions inherent in the system of white domination, rather we creatively exploited them to our own revolutionary ends...GI
I think that limitation of Abdul's critique reflects a general tendency of the black left to concede too much of our theoretical labor to dead white men. So, for example, in Abdul's article we are forced to keep a formal Marxist definition of "dialectical materialism" in our heads to fully grasp his analysis. To that I say that our Ancestors did not wait around for Marx to exploit contradictions inherent in the system of white domination, rather we creatively exploited them to our own revolutionary ends. All that to say I think we need to revisit the history and practice of black/Afrikan struggle with the aim of working out African-centered theories (i.e. theories based on our concrete practices) about revolutionary change. GI
You can read Abdul Alkamilat's entire essay @ Rethinking Malcolm: What was Marable thinking? | San Francisco Bay View
No comments:
Post a Comment