On November 27, 2012 the editors and some contributors to A Lie of Reinvention: Correcting Manning Marable’s Malcolm X gathered to discuss their work. Here are portions of two presentations, an intro from Jared Ball and an important presentation from A. Peter Bailey.
Jared Ball: An Introduction to A Lie
A. Peter Bailey: Real Work with Brother Malcolm v. Marable’s Distortions
In the following video, referenced above by Jared Ball, Wendy Wolf, Viking Press editor and one intimately involved the publication of Manning Marable’s Malcolm X: A Life of Reinvention, offers us further justification for our A Lie of Reinvention: Correcting Manning Marable’s Malcolm X.
1. Wolf begins by explaining her lack of expertise as a scholar and that her view of Malcolm X, up until the moment Marable “walked into [her] office,” was one driven by her experience growing up in the segregated south with her “liberal integrationist family” where reading Malcolm’s Autobiography frightened her, “he was a scary dude.” It is this distance that allows her to later refer to Malcolm’s “native intelligence” and explains her simple ignorance around the political trajectories of Malcolm X and Dr. King (to name but two). I’ll come back to that point, but this is why our volume’s contributors seek to dislodge Wolf, Viking, Columbia University and Marable as being capable, certainly not solely capable, of interpreting the life and politics of Malcolm X. Their approach is inherently hostile to and fearful of the revolution Malcolm represented/represents.
2. Wolf assumes authority over Alex Haley, Spike Lee and Malcolm himself by dismissing each as best able to tell and interpret Malcolm’s life and politics. Wolf says Lee’s film was nice but was just “Betty’s story” which cleaned up the realities of their love life. Wolf also goes on to joke that “… and no, Betty didn’t look like Angela Basset.” Is that relevant? No more than my sincere belief that Betty Shabazz was indeed more physically attractive than Angela Basset. But authority is authority. Again, we wanted to make some attempt, or to join those making similar attempts, to directly challenge their claim to being definitive and all-supplanting when it comes to life of Malcolm X or to the ways in which his ideas are to be distilled.
3. Wolf uses “we” in describing the writing process, the style, and their book’s approach almost as much as Marable used “maybe, probably, could have, might have” to describe what they call “evidence.” Wolf even says that she merely went to Marable for his “approval” of either her severe editing or outright writing of the book. She says, for instance, “We set out to rebuild an era” in which to describe Marcus Garvey and the ideas and world that would influence Malcolm X and then says that to do that she referred back to her experience talking with White students who, like Freedom Riders, went down south to register voters. She says nothing of what Marable brought to bear when interpreting the era she was rebuilding but shares with us a lot about the worldview that influenced her own.
4. Wolf then is apparently reluctant to bring up the infamous “page 66″ and the claim of Malcolm’s homosexuality. She says this as if to say that she cannot avoid doing so because so much has been made of it but says nothing of the coincidence of this – and other salacious and unsupported claims – helping to promote her book or situate it politically. And once again, there is absolutely no evidence to support these claims or even an attempt to define the alleged acts as “homosexual.” In fact, on that very page they simply say – and with no footnote or citation – that Malcolm “was probably describing his own homosexual encounters with Paul Lennon” (emphasis mine). To say that pouring talcum powder on a man for money is gay is to deny the existence of a continuum that might include this as a business transaction on one end and on another, for example, full blown (pun intended) homosexual intercourse between consenting adults. Or is this just the sexuality version of not being a little pregnant? Wolf proceeds to perform just that denial and then says that though the initial claim by Malcolm was that this was the act of a friend “we” now know that he confided to his brother and sister that it indeed was him. Wolf is also misleading in that these claims are repeated, beyond her “page 66,” where later “homosexual” is simply listed with several other applied labels as a now-established-taken-for-granted-fact, “Detroit Red… pimp, drug addict… homosexual…” (p. 78). But, much like Marable’s book, she offers no proof of this and says nothing of the fact that their book too has not one citation supporting this allegation. More importantly, Wolf says nothing of how this falsely-dropped titillating morsel allows for mass distraction and the necessary – plus beneficial – opposing claim by Wolf and Marable that they are “humanizing” Malcolm. Now critics can be dismissed as childishly incapable of handling the reality of a man for whom they have too much unbridled respect.
5. Wolf then lays down the trump card and the ultimate ideological-defining purpose of their book. She explains, by quoting Marable, how Malcolm would have condemned the “terrorist attacks of 9/11″ and had “his social vision expanded to include people of divergent nationalities and racial identities, his gentle humanism and antiracism could have become a platform for a new kind of radical, global ethnic politics. Instead of the fiery symbol of ethnic violence and religious hatred, as al-Qaeda might project him, Malcolm X should become a representative for hope and human dignity.” Wolf seems to practically take credit for writing those lines, she certainly endorses them and they are definitely designed to juxtapose enemies of the state against one another rather than in equal opposition to the same and truly leading source of global terrorism.
6. And lastly, please note in the 53rd minute the very lone sister who quietly, succinctly and quite specifically points out the research flaws in the Marable book and who is then summarily ignored with a mere “thank you” and a turn of the head. After speaking for nearly an hour about the meticulously researched and comprehensive biography Wolf has no words, none at all, for the sound and reasonably asked question about the nature of that comprehensive research. Her only option is avoidance, dismissal and redirect. It was shameful and yet so fruitful in demonstrating the soundness of our own project and those like it. We do not have to eschew our politics to be sound in our research. One need not cancel out the other. Wolf was simply not up to the task of soundly defending what is clearly her very ideological reading and interpretation of Malcolm X.
The editors and several contributors to A Lie of Reinvention: Correcting Manning Marable’s Malcolm X will be discussing all of this and more Monday November 26, 2012 at Bus Boys and Poets in Washington, DC (5th/K St).
Wendy Wolf
My first impression of this ‘lecture’ is- Why have a ‘liberal’ white woman publisher, Ms Wolf, who admits she wasn’t even an expert on Malcolm [nor even an admirer], address a Black Student Union event? [sounding like a school marm lecturing some white school kids]? IMO semi-bourgeois IE: Spike Lee & Alex Haley would have more credibility to lecture on Malcolm to a Black student union than this woman. Her view is obviously ‘liberal’- not even progressive let alone radical.
She said her [IE: Marable’s] book humanized Malcolm [IE: de-sainted him]. Yet she claimed, by presenting a ‘theory’- which is NOT backed up w proof, that the ‘Autobiography’ exaggerated his tenure as mean street-hustler- Detroit Red. I guess Malcolm as Detroit Red of the ‘Autobiography’ was a little too rawly human- for her
Then she [&/or Marable] extrapolates based on innuendo & pseudo psycho-analysis, that Malcolm is actually Rudy in the ‘Autobiography’- to rehash Bruce Perry’s dubious claim RE Malcolm as Detroit Red, homo-sexual past. She claims that Malcolm’s own brother & sister [un-named] backed this, yet the claim is that there’s good ‘circumstantial’ evidence that Rudy is actually Malcolm [aka Detroit Red]. IMO a man’s own brother & sister saying they heard him say it- is not merely ‘circumstantial’ evidence. And Dr Ball’s correct- The Sister challenged that claim as thin & unsupported & Ms Wolf’s response was dismissive.
Ms Wolf also glossed over the even more insidious attack [than Detroit Red’s alleged but unproven homo-sexuality] that her & Marable’s Book makes RE: Malcolm & Betty’s marriage- as not just as she described ‘bumpy’- but as adulterous. In fact the Book’s claims that both Malcolm & Betty were cheating on each other, & in fact that Malcolm maybe / possibly / could have engaged in an adulterous rendezvous on the eve of his assassination.
Mrs Wolf critiques Oliver Stone concerning JFK ‘We don’t know what JFK would have done RE: Vietnam’ – Yet IMO Oliver Stone [& Jim Douglass in ‘JFK & the Unspeakable’] makes a better fact based case that JFK was intending to disentangle himself from Vietnam, than she does concerning Malcolm’s view on the post 9-11 World. This Woman does NOT have a clue what Malcolm’s view on Al-Qaeda would have been. Maybe he would have renounced them as AL-CIAeda type Intel assets. I’m certain that Malcolm would have had a BIG Problem w the role that Al-Qaeda affiliates in Libya & the NTC racist lynch-mob rebel-rousers, & Al-Jazeera [& O-Bomber & Sue Rice, & DN!] played in devastating Libya last yr, but Ms Wolf would probably challenge that view as based on conjecture & my own political view-point. I say ‘What’s good for the Goose is good for the Gander’. All of Ms Wolf’s conjecture RE this matter is based on a white US ‘Liberal’s’ post 9-11 in the age of Obama view-point- nothing more.
To emphasize the point note how see responds to the question RE: Malcolm relationship w Fidel. Her fist response was that Fidel took control on Cuba but Malcolm never took control of ANY-THING! Her response was NOT even analytical, even though its known that both men respected each other, challenged the system [particularly w RE to the US] & counted each other as friends & comrades in struggle. If Ms Wolf can’t even give an analytical fact-based view on the importance of the relationship between Malcolm & Fidel, how the HELL can she give any meaningful insight on what Malcolm’s view would have been on post 9-11 Al-Qaeda & Obama- none of which even existed [or was even fore-seen] when he was assassinated in 1963!!!
I left this out – it shows that Malcolm’s ‘Autobiography’ was NO ‘white-wash’ [tried to make him 'saintly']: As a white woman liberal Ms Wolf latches on to Malcolm’s big regret being he’s blunt dismissal of a white female student at a college lecture when she asked what she could do to help ['Nothing']. Yet the ‘humanly flawed’ Malcolm wrote an Entire Chapter of Regret in his ‘Autobiography’ called ‘Laura’, explaining how he dumped Laura, who was a nice & smart Black girl’- for an older more ‘wordly’ white ritzy-ditzy woman [Sophia] who liked slummin- looking for a Black Stud on the side [IE: Malcolm- he literally left Laura on the dance-floor for Sophia]. In ‘Laura’ Malcolm says when he sees her again she’s become a drug addicted prostitute & assumes part of the blame for destroying her life.
IMO the story of how he mistreated Laura was far more significant for Malcolm than his dismissal of that white ‘liberal’ college student’s help.
More on Point 2: IMO Ms Wolf shows disrespect for Black women in several different ways during her 40 – 45 min presentation. Not only did she fail to bring up the significance of Malcolm’s ‘Autobigraphy’s’ chapter on ‘Laura’, & her dismissive non-response to the sister’s pertinent question & observation RE: the Book’s choice of title & spurious accusations [Note that Ms Wolf answered every other person's {mainly white men} question in some detail]…,
BUT Then Ms Wolf dismisses Spike Lee’s movie as just ‘Betty’s story to white-wash their troubled marriage- Which is simply NOT TRUE. Spike’s movie is based on Malcolm’s Auto-biography, anyone who’s read it & seen the movie would [or should] know that. IMO Ms Wolf used this as a chance to take a clever little pot-shot at Sis Betty, to justify [= distract] why her [& Marable's] Book trashed Betty [& other key Black women in Malcolm's life- or conveniently failed to mention them]. & to justify why Marable failed to interview Betty for his Book [IMO it's kinda hard to look into the eyes of Malcolm's widow know full well you're going to write an insidious hit-piece on both him & her].
Surprised!?… This would imply that you haven’t learned the lesson.
@Nixakliel
You answered the question in the first line of your own with the context. A white woman’s scholarship is colder in this world of academic masturbation. So she had to render the seal of disapproval and the mark of legitimacy for some people on the value of this critique. I’d also go on to say I don’t expect this book to win any accolades from any of the living conspirators of the other narrative.
@The purpose
The same “Dangerous ideas” that were erased to make King a Dreamer, are out to make Malcolm a Punk. This revisionism unabated will soon make Darwin the father of African history and Slavery a blessing. The battle is unending when you contend in a society that makes it profitable to defame yourself and aggrandize servility to the disorder of the world. I’m glad the book was written, yet often times these things seem to be more for posterity than to solving the issue at hand… but as scholars they chart one aspect of the war. So I suppose the issue of intellectual masturbation has more to do with people not doing anything with it outside of the classroom. So like tomes of wisdom locked in a monastery at the top of a mountain, other struggles need to be had to make credible information such as this accessible and relevant outside of academia.
On one hand the Book tries to make Malcolm [as Detroit Red] out to be a homo-sexual prostitute for older white men [as a counter-narrative to his ‘stabling’ {?pimping?} even well to do white women {Sophia} as Detroit Red], & on the other hand tries to turn him & Betty into serial adulterers in an alleged ‘phony’ marriage [w him having fling(s) w girl(s) young enough to be his daughter(s) - which 'ironically' was one of the main reasons why Malcolm became disillusioned w Mr Muhammed].
All this was done in the name of ‘humanizing’ Malcolm- as if the ‘Auto-biography’ sugar-coated his life [It Did NOT]. Yet Ms Wolf claims [theorizes] that the ‘Auto-biography’ greatly exaggerated Malcolm’s mean street-hustler- Detroit Red persona [w little evidence to back it up], which then gave her & Marable the excuse to ‘Re-Invent Malcolm’s Life’ w their own narrative- fulfilling their own poly-trickal agenda(s), which obviously is antithetical to Malcolm’s goals.
and as Herb Boyd points out, Wolf also falsely states that the “missing chapters” are at the Schomburg Center when they are indeed in the hands of lawyer Gregory Reed in Detroit. I wonder if Wolf has even ever been to the Schomburg, or Harlem for that matter. Boyd also is right to note the fact that Wolf mispronounces Fanon, clearly unaccustomed to the man or his work and, therefore, even less likely to qualify as an authority on Malcolm X.
Other Observations: IMO Ms Wolf’s & Mr Marable’s ‘Book of Reinvention’ is a clever & insidious counter-narrative to Malcolm’s Auto-biography & LIFE. IMO a true friend &/or admirer [not necessarily a worshiper] of Malcolm’s- or one w just a basic level of respect for him as a champion for the liberation of Black people- would have operated on the premise that Malcolm’s Auto-biography was a basically a truthful [though not necessarily complete] account of his life; – & would only question that premise if rock-solid evidence to contrary came to the fore which was undeniable.
Obviously, from Ms Wolf’s own words, she [& presumably Marable] did NOT operate from the premise as she states: ‘We needed to know when Malcolm was lying about himself & why…’ From this position she [they] assumed ‘artistic license’ to ‘Reinvent’ Malcolm’s narrative, & delegitimize his Auto-biography, to attack his sexuality [IE: Manhood- See Note Below], His & Betty’s marriage [slandering them as serial adulterers- w gossip, rumor, innuendo & conjecture], & even Malcolm’s street creds as Detroit-Red [supposedly to 'humanize' him]- Let alone attempting to negate his actual political struggle / agenda RE Black-liberation & Nationalism & Pan-Africanism.
[NOTE: Ms Wolf claims that Rudy as Malcolm / Detroit Red's alter-ego was confirmed by 2 of his un-named siblings. Yet it must be noted that the Auto-biography was published AFTER Malcolm's DEATH- which is why the Epilogue was written entirely by Alex Haley. This begs the question just when & how did Malcolm have this conversation RE 'Rudy' w 2 un-named {IE: un-credited} siblings relative to his unpublished book?]
Another place where Ms Wolf tries to steer Malcolm toward more conventional waters is w this declaration: ‘Malcolm was a uniquely / profoundly American figure’ which is a counter-narrative to Malcolm declarations that: ‘We’re not Americans – We’re victims of America’… ‘I don’t see any American Dream – I see an American Night-mare…’ AND it was the NOI & Malcolm who helped popularize the term Black People when most US Blacks were offended by the term, preferring instead to be called ‘Negroes’ [ironically the Spanish word for black(s]. And it was Malcolm who helped coin the term African American & named his new organization the OAAU after Africa’s [via Kwame’ Nkrumah's & Sekou Toure's vision] OAU.
More follow up info: “Rudy’s” & “Sophia’s” real identities:
More proof that Marable’s & Ms Wolfs Book of a ‘Reinvented’ Malcolm is a LIE [If I'm able to find out this info- certainly Marable & Ms Wolf w all of their resources & contacts could have if they had really wanted to]: Multiple sources IE: Reel.History’s analysis of Spike Lee’s ‘Malcolm X’, Brother.Malcolm.net, ‘Malcolm X, African American Revolutionary’ By Dennis Wainstock [2009], etc have identified- Sophia Her Sister & ‘RUDY’…
From Reel.History: } In the next scene Malcolm, Shorty, Sophia & her 17 yr old little sister Joyce are setting up their burglar ring. In reality it was Malcolm, Sophia, Joyce, a Kora Marderosian & Francis ‘Sonny’ Brown [aka ‘RUDY’] who started the gang. Shorty was reluctantly pulled in later… {
From Wiki.Answers.net: } Malcolm X’s white girl-friend’s real name is Beatice Caragulian of Armenian back-ground. She was called ‘Sophia’ in the Auto-biography to protect her identity. Apparently as of 2011 she was / is still alive. {
Thus Marable’s & Ms Wolf’s strong circumstantial evidence that Rudy is really Malcolm / as Detroit Red’s homo-sexual prostitute alter ego is pure BS!!!
Plus the fact that Malcolm in his Auto-biography used ‘Sophia’ as an alias for his white ex-girl-friend, instead of her real name [Beatrice] to protect her identity- considering they did NOT part on the best of terms & Malcolm’s ‘white people are the devil’ indoctrination w the NOI- IMO shows that Malcolm was a man w a hi-sense of personal loyalty & integrity…, unlike Marable.
Assuming the 1959 letter to Mr Muhammed to be authentic RE: Malcolm concerns about his relationship to Betty, there’s another explanation besides Marable’s & Ms Wolf’s psycho-babble about Malcolm alleged homo-sexual prostitute past & as prelude to him & Betty both ‘allegedly’ being unfaithful to each other [according to Marable’s ‘Reinvented’ Malcolm]. First Malcolm’s only other long-term intimate relationship w a woman beside Betty was w his white ex-girl friend [‘Sophia’ / Beatrice]. 2nd Malcolm intro to women was thru the lens of a pimp & street hustler- Detroit Red. Most of the women he interacted w as Detroit Red, both Black & white, were prostitutes- who therefore could NOT be fully trusted. So imagine trying to have a ‘pure’ marital relationship w Betty, from such a back-ground beginning as a teen-ager! Yeah one might have a few intimacy ‘issues’ trying to relate to your wife from a pure marital perspective! But of-course it’s NOT Marable’s & Ms Wolf’s objective to pursue that logical course, but rather to dig-up dirt / mud, apparently ‘inventing’ some in the process, to sling at Malcolm’s & Betty’s reputations & marriage!
Did you happen to record the audio from Busboys and Poets? As much as Marable’s book brings a discussion of Malcolm X to the fore via critical scholars such as yourself, I am pleased. I still haven’t gotten the book yet, but it will definitely be a winter vacation/New Years read. Thank you, Todd Burroughs, and everybody else who are forcing the issue and keeping Malcolm X, a man who loved us profoundly, with all of his supposing flaws, alive.
Peace
Jared
thanks for pointing to this. you are so right this is why we must speak for our selves. if not us who. the sister as you indicate made a brave and informed critique without answer. let’s keep working, our children will then know us by our deeds.
Thanks Brother Ball for posting that response by Bro A.Peter Bailey to Marable’s book’s attempt to ‘Reinvent’ Malcolm. Bro Bailey clearly shows just how Cleverly DisHonest Marable’s book is- that it twisted Marable’s own interview w Bro Bailey into a contrived [= untrue] confrontation seemingly moments before Malcolm’s assassination, when in fact the conversation was non-confrontational & took place the day before.
And the idea that Malcolm was backing-up from Black Nationalism & becoming so-called ‘race-neutral’ [What exactly in HELL is that?] by embracing Pan-Africanism & a 3rd World view??? As if Black Nationalism & Pan-Africanism is some-how mutually exclusive & at odds w each other- instead of potentially complementary [Certainly Marable understood that the origins of US Blacks & nearly all other Blacks in N-&-S_America are in AFRICA!]. Or that Pan-Africanists are some-how at odds w a 3 World agenda vs white-supremacy – instead of in potential alliance w the broader 3rd World vs white-supremacy.