X-Factor
Manning Marable's exhaustive biography of Malcolm X has heterosexists in a panic; they're trying to ignore and diminish revelations about Malcolm's sexuality.
Malcolm X engaged in homosexual activity.
That was the bombshell dropped into the laps of heterosexists everywhere with the release of the already bestselling Malcolm X: A Life of Reinvention, written by noted (and recently deceased) scholar Manning Marable.
Whether this means that Malcolm actually identified as homosexual or bisexual or gay-for-pay or closeted or not-heterosexual (or felt free enough--under the purview of the Nation of Islam, the black community, and the eras in which he lived--to do so) is a subject for debate. But what is not debatable is that he was queer.
And it is that fact that has thrown the heterosexist worldview into a shambles.
The Grio's Javier E. David is one of those individuals who feel the revelation is, at best, irrelevant.
The possibility of Malcolm X's bisexuality begs the obvious question: so what? In the current environment, there seems to be a prurient temptation to refract the legacies of historical figures through a prism of modern-day sexual mores. Such notions, however, are devoid of the necessary context. Although his biography can polarize, Malcolm continues to be a world-bestriding historical figure, and by all accounts was a devoted husband and father. The example that he set, as a family man and a person of deeply held principle, is one that can be emulated by anyone, regardless of their race, creed or sexuality.
It seems that David is completely unaware of the inconsistencies in his response. On the one end, he argues that Malcolm's sexuality is irrelevant, but then immediately follows up by noting that, "by all accounts," Malcolm "was a devoted husband and father." So, sexuality matters only when it is heterosexual? I see.
And this, of course, spurred me to respond in the comments section:
Sisters and Brothers,
Help me with something:
Why is it that when we overtly talk about heterosexuality (vis-à-vis marriage) or covertly talk about heterosexuality (vis-à-vis progeny), no one complains or remarks that one's sexuality has nothing to do with one's historical accomplishments, but the moment that sexuality is revealed to be, possibly, something other than heterosexuality, people find a billion different excuses/ways to express how irrelevant the historical figure's sexuality is?
Why is there always this push to keep history as white, male, and straight as possible? And why is it that so many of us who are not white or male or straight so complicit in that paradigm? Has white supremacy and its awful puritanism been so successful that we want to pretend like a person's sex life is irrelevant or, worse, doesn't exist--particularly if they are queer?
The idea that Malcolm X might have been gay/bisexual/not-straight absolutely makes a difference in the same way that discovering that Africans made vast contributions to society makes a difference: It shatters the myth of heterosexual superiority in the same way African excavation shattered the myth of white superiority. It serves as a small piece of evidence against those heterosexists and their supporters who claim--with their brutal propaganda and endless self-loathing--that queers are nothing more than deviants who have done little to contribute positively to the human race. (Malcolm X may have sucked a few penises and had anal sex with men during his lifetime: Can you now remain homophobic in light of that? And if you can, there's some serious cognitive dissonance going on. Seek help.)
And while some of us might feel as though they don't need any historical figures/great leaders/celebrities to be homosexual in order to validate/feel good about their own sexuality, millions, maybe billions, do. And I'm not so much thinking about those who claim to be self-sufficient as I am about the homosexual child who has no support, has to endure relentless abuse, and has no way and no place to build their esteem.
People who wish to regard Malcolm's homosexual encounters as irrelevant simply want to keep their own fantasies about him intact. I say the world has too many fantasies already, and has suffered terribly in service to them. It's time we grow up and face reality.Quite frankly, I grow tired of those members of our community who feel so comfortable as to complain about the other members of the community in that way that each and every one of us has heard countless times:
"Man, I hate gay folk. They always want somebody else to be gay!" (News flash: A great many of your icons, whom you believe to be heterosexual because of your own blinders, are closeted homosexuals precisely because of your blinders.)
Never mind the fact that a great many heterosexuals want everyone else to be heterosexual--and some of them will hit you over the head with their religious documents, beat the shit out of you, or murder you to have it their way. No complaints about that, though. Nah. Instead, it's the homosexuals that should be hated.
I wish I had a cure for conscious, subconscious, and unconscious homophobia (and an antidote for heteronormative dogma) but I don't. In the meantime, however, I will stand behind anyone who wishes to reveal the truth about history and its players--no matter how uncomfortable that truth might make me, no matter how it might force me to let go of my preconceived notions about the world. Because I'm the type of person that values truth, the WHOLE truth, even when it contradicts my opinions or worldview.
I find that there isn't any other way to grow or evolve.
You are going to hear many defensive explanations for this aspect of Malcolm's life: "He was tricked by the white man!" "They made this up to undermine his legacy!" Believe none of it. Instead, let the evidence speak for itself even if you do not wish to hear it.
We must not tolerate historical erasure.
__________________________
Why questions about Malcolm X's sexuality are irrelevant
|
8:16 AM on 04/06/2011 |
Malcolm X during a press conference in Chicago, May 22, 1964 (AP Photo/Edward Kitch)
Among all of history's prominent black figures - and there are many - that have captured the public's imagination, perhaps none have inspired quite as much controversy as El Hajj Malik El-Shabazz, otherwise known as Malcolm X. Just as he did in life, the fiery orator and devout Muslim generates fierce debate, even in death. Early details of Malcolm's life, as outlined in a new scholarly tome, Malcolm X: A Life of Reinvention by recently deceased Columbia University scholar Manning Marable, appear ready to herald a new polemic about Malcolm's legacy.
WATCH MSNBC COVERAGE OF THIS STORY HERE
Marable's life-defining biography is a mesmerizing read that illuminates a figure that continues to fascinate and confound nearly five decades after his demise. While A Life of Reinvention covers much of familiar territory readers encountered in the national bestseller The Autobiography of Malcolm X, the book sheds new light on areas of Malcolm's life that were previously unknown, due to both circumstance and design.
As the Columbia University professor prolifically illustrates, Malcolm X was a complex figure who demonstrated a penchant for perpetual reinvention. His lack of formal education belied a verbal and intellectual agility that he commanded with ease, and helped him rival many of his more urbane civil rights era peers - particularly Martin Luther King Jr. As a result of his carefully-crafted public persona, much of what he didn't like - or simply didn't want people to know - was discarded on the cutting room floor of the selectively edited parts of his protean life.
Marable's book is a near-masterpiece, detailing events that transpired throughout Malcolm's life that were previously shrouded in mystery. Some of the more eyebrow-raising revelations found in A Life of Reinventioninclude Malcolm's extensive drug use prior to his conversion to Islam, which may have included cocaine; an alleged cover-up of the plot to assassinate Malcolm by the New York Police Department; and that a Newark manmay have played a key role in his slaying. But the book breathes new life into one element in particular of Malcolm's early years - his alleged bisexuality - which has long provided a subtext to the gripping narrative of the civil rights activist's life.
According to Marable's research, Malcolm spent much of his late teens and early 20s wending his way through a "variety of hustles" that included work as a "steerer" where he connected a network of prostitutes with willing johns. That line of work led him to be linked with one Paul Lemmon, a well-to-do Boston resident that may have been one of Malcolm's sexual conquests.
It should be said outright that this area of Malcolm's life is neither new nor novel. Speculation about his sexuality soared after the publication of a 1992 book, "Malcolm: The Life of a Man Who Changed Black America." The novel's author, Bruce Perry, alleges Malcolm had sporadic same-sex encounters throughout his hustling years, claims which have yet to be independently verified. However, Marable's scholarly research in A Life of Reinvention discounts the idea that Malcolm was a practicing bisexual. The rather amorphous claim, based exclusively on Malcolm's employment by Lennon as his personal butler, barely takes up one full page of the 600-plus behemoth. The professor even goes out of his way to explain that there was "no evidence from his prison record in Massachusetts or from his personal life after 1952 that he was actively homosexual."
For someone who was less than athletic in his adolescence, Malcolm X cut an imposing figure when he reached adulthood. Such was his raw power that none other than the Nation of Islam's firebrand Louis Farrakhan, upon encountering Malcolm for the first time in 1954, was quoted in Marable's book as saying the fallen civil rights hero could be so intimidating "I was scared of him." Malcolm X's unapologetic message of black self-actualization gets lost in historical accounts of his often strident rhetoric, but without question much of his mystique lay in his preternatural poise and unquestioned masculinity.
All the more reason why posthumous conjecture about Malcolm's sexual orientation is spurious at best, and utterly irrelevant at its worst. A Life of Reinvention makes clear that Malcolm's relationship with Lennon was limited at best: on its face the arrangement appeared much more financial than romantic. Much of the available literature about his life makes clear that Malcolm's early years were a blur of dissolute behavior and endless hustles that he probably regretted with age. Upon his release from prison, Malcolm devoted himself full-bore to civil rights activism and religious conversion. No verifiable claims of male liaisons have surfaced since.
The possibility of Malcolm X's bisexuality begs the obvious question: so what? In the current environment, there seems to be a prurient temptation to refract the legacies of historical figures through a prism of modern-day sexual mores. Such notions, however, are devoid of the necessary context. Although his biography can polarize, Malcolm continues to be a world-bestriding historical figure, and by all accounts was a devoted husband and father. The example that he set, as a family man and a person of deeply held principle, is one that can be emulated by anyone, regardless of their race, creed or sexuality.
Should the revelations about Malcolm's past magically transform him into some sort of black gay icon'? I think not. To be frank, Malcolm's sexuality is irrelevant to his overall historical contributions, as well they should be. Therefore, efforts in some quarters to redefine or claim a man who never openly identified as gay or bisexual are woefully misguided. Malcolm's legacy is inextricably bound to all of history, not a narrowly-defined demographic.
>via: http://www.thegrio.com/opinion/why-questions-about-malcolm-xs-sexuality-are-i...