Martin, Malcolm and America: A Dream or A Nightmare by James Cone (review)

258 CanadianReviewof American Studies James Cone. Martin, Malcolm andAmerica: A Dream or A Nightmare. New York: Orbis Books, 1991. Pp. 358. No two personalities in the history of African-American experience are pitted against each other as the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr and Malcolm X. One is the "good guy," the other, the "bad guy." Admirers and detractors of both have erected a high wall between them, each side characterizing the other as the bad guyswho undermined and subverted the African-American struggle. The practice of separating African-American leaders into good guys and bad guys, saints and devils, and pigeon-holing them into such mutually exclusive and often ideologically conflictingcategories as "conservative," "radical," "nationalist," "separatist," and "integrationist ," has long informed scholarly studies of African-American leaders. The instrumentalist search for messiahs and heroes was a factor in the evolution of this conflict-differential paradigm. The impact on African-American historiography has been the circumscription of the puIViewof analysis, making it difficult, if not impossible , to appreciate the complex dimensions of African-American leaders. More recently, however, there is a noticeable move in African-American biographical studies away from the conflict-differential perspective in favour of what Howard Rabinowitz describes as a functional approach-a holistic paradigm that focuses on the complexities and paradoxes of the personalities and thoughts of African-American leaders (see Southern Black Leaders of the Reconstmction Era, edited by Howard Rabinowitz [Urbane, 1982]). The adoption of functionalism entails a reexamination of the careers of past African-American leaders, especially those hitherto conceived within the conflict-differential cum instrumentalist tradition . The last ten years has witnessed an outpouring of revisionist biographical and critical studies of several of these leaders. The studies reveal not only hitherto missed complex dimensions, but also something fundamental that was earlier undermined and suppressed-the similarities, and complementary nature, of the thought and programs of several black leaders. Cone's book fits into the functionalist tradition of African-American biography. According to August Meier (in an article appearing in Rabinowitz's Southern Black Leaders), a functional paradigm will reveal a "complex mix of motives and tactical consideration" and enhance our understanding of "militants who could compromise or an accommodationist who used militant rhetoric." The adoption of a perspective that highlights complexities and convergence has resulted in significant revisionist biographical studies (some with iconoclastic consequences). Most published works on the Reverend Martin Luther King and Malcolm X present the two as ideologically consistent personalities who also showed a mutual BookReviews 259 dislikeand distrust for each other's strategy and program. King was the apostle of peace, advocate of nonviolence and integration, sane, rational, while Malcolm was the fierynationalist-separatist, uncompromisingly antiwhite, prophet of violence and race hate, insane, irrational. Written within a functionalist framework, Cone's book challengesthe traditional perception and conception of both men. He presents two personalitieswith ideological values shaped by the realities of their conflicting backgrounds . King's relatively affluent background in Georgia and his access to education induced optimism and the possibility of integration. He envisioned a universal humanity built on Christian love and brotherhood. He entered the AfricanAmericanstruggle with the dream of a hannonious society-a product oflove (nonviolence ).At the other extreme, stood Malcolm, whose poor, wretched background nurtured an alienated personality. He advocated separation, affirmed AfricanAmericanculture and self-determination, preached violence and condemned whites to destruction. This conflicting background and response notwithstanding, a dissection of their thoughts reveals striking similarities. King emphasized justice, love, and hope. Justice within a segregated society was his primacy objective. He later shifted to love, in anintegrated society. Love, equated with nonviolence, was the leitmotif of King's philosophy.He regarded violence as not only impractical but also immoral. Though Malcolmalso preached love, justice, and hope, his conceptions differed fundamentallyfrom those of King. Equitable justice through vengeance was the cornerstone ofhisphilosophy. He insisted on the rationality of self-defense. Unlike King's ChristianGod who prioritized love, the God that Malcolm encountered in the Nation of Islamupheld justice and would ultimately punish the ''white devils." Malcolm's love wasdirected at the African-American community. He enjoined African Americans to unite, love each other and be self-conscious. He offered pessimism rather than...