Saturday, May 14, 2011

Chris Hedges and Michael Moore Weigh in On What the Death of Osama Bin Laden Really Means and Why We Should Never Forget Its Lessons

The remains of the crumbling Colosseum in Rome, also a once-crumbling empire. (Photo: permanently scatterbrained (Eric Molina)/Flickr)


http://www.truth-out.org/some-final-thoughts-death-osama-bin-laden/1305297509

All,

A very wise and typically incisive commentary by Chris Hedges who unlike most people actually knows in terrifying and intimate first hand detail just how deadly and destructive both global terrorism and American Empire politics (and military actions) are for millions of human beings throughout the world...

Kofi


Chris Hedges Speaks on Osama bin Laden’s Death
Monday 2 May 2011
by Chris Hedges
Truthdig


I know that because of this announcement, that reportedly Osama bin Laden was killed, Bob wanted me to say a few words about it … about al-Qaida. I spent a year of my life covering al-Qaida for The New York Times. It was the work in which I, and other investigative reporters, won the Pulitzer Prize. And I spent seven years of my life in the Middle East. I was the Middle East bureau chief for The New York Times. I’m an Arabic speaker. And when someone came over and told Jean and me the news, my stomach sank. I’m not in any way naïve about what al-Qaida is. It’s an organization that terrifies me. I know it intimately.

But I’m also intimately familiar with the collective humiliation that we have imposed on the Muslim world. The expansion of military occupation that took place throughout, in particular the Arab world, following 9/11 – and that this presence of American imperial bases, dotted, not just in Iraq and Afghanistan, but in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Doha – is one that has done more to engender hatred and acts of terror than anything ever orchestrated by Osama bin Laden.

And the killing of bin Laden, who has absolutely no operational role in al-Qaida – that’s clear – he’s kind of a spiritual mentor, a kind of guide … he functions in many of the ways that Hitler functioned for the Nazi Party. We were just talking with Warren about Kershaw’s great biography of Hitler, which I read a few months ago, where you hold up a particular ideological ideal and strive for it. That was bin Laden’s role. But all actual acts of terror, which he may have signed off on, he no way planned.

I think that one of the most interesting aspects of the whole rise of al-Qaida is that when Saddam Hussein … and I covered the first Gulf War, went into Kuwait with the 1st Battalion, 1st Marines, was in Basra during the Shiite uprising until I was captured and taken prisoner by the Iraqi Republican Guard. I like to say I was embedded with the Iraqi Republican Guard. Within that initial assault and occupation of Kuwait, bin Laden appealed to the Saudi government to come back and help organize the defense of his country. And he was turned down. And American troops came in and implanted themselves on Muslim soil.

When I was in New York, as some of you were, on 9/11, I was in Times Square when the second plane hit. I walked into The New York Times, I stuffed notebooks in my pocket and walked down the West Side Highway and was at Ground Zero four hours later. I was there when Building 7 collapsed. And I watched as a nation drank deep from that very dark elixir of American nationalism … the flip side of nationalism is always racism, it’s about self-exaltation and the denigration of the other.

And it’s about forgetting that terrorism is a tactic. You can’t make war on terror. Terrorism has been with us since Sallust wrote about it in the Jugurthine Wars. And the only way to successfully fight terrorist groups is to isolate themselves, isolate those groups, within their own societies. And I was in the immediate days after 9/11 assigned to go out to Jersey City and the places where the hijackers had lived and begin to piece together their lives. I was then very soon transferred to Paris, where I covered all of al-Qaida’s operations in the Middle East and Europe.

So I was in the Middle East in the days after 9/11. And we had garnered the empathy of not only most of the world, but the Muslim world who were appalled at what had been done in the name of their religion. And we had major religious figures like Sheikh Tantawy, the head of al-Azhar – who died recently – who after the attacks of 9/11 not only denounced them as a crime against humanity, which they were, but denounced Osama bin Laden as a fraud … someone who had no right to issue fatwas or religious edicts, no religious legitimacy, no religious training. And the tragedy was that if we had the courage to be vulnerable, if we had built on that empathy, we would be far safer and more secure today than we are.

We responded exactly as these terrorist organizations wanted us to respond. They wanted us to speak the language of violence. What were the explosions that hit the World Trade Center, huge explosions and death above a city skyline? It was straight out of Hollywood. When Robert McNamara in 1965 began the massive bombing campaign of North Vietnam, he did it because he said he wanted to “send a message” to the North Vietnamese—a message that left hundreds of thousands of civilians dead.

These groups learned to speak the language we taught them. And our response was to speak in kind. The language of violence, the language of occupation—the occupation of the Middle East, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan—has been the best recruiting tool al-Qaida has been handed. If it is correct that Osama bin Laden is dead, then it will spiral upwards with acts of suicidal vengeance. And I expect most probably on American soil. The tragedy of the Middle East is one where we proved incapable of communicating in any other language than the brute and brutal force of empire.

And empire finally, as Thucydides understood, is a disease. As Thucydides wrote, the tyranny that the Athenian empire imposed on others it finally imposed on itself. The disease of empire, according to Thucydides, would finally kill Athenian democracy. And the disease of empire, the disease of nationalism … these of course are mirrored in the anarchic violence of these groups, but one that locks us in a kind of frightening death spiral. So while I certainly fear al-Qaida, I know it’s intentions. I know how it works. I spent months of my life reconstructing every step Mohamed Atta took. While I don’t in any way minimize their danger, I despair. I despair that we as a country, as Nietzsche understood, have become a monster that we are attempting to fight.

Thank you.

Chris Hedges spent nearly two decades as a foreign correspondent in Central America, the Middle East, Africa and the Balkans. He has reported from more than 50 countries and has worked for The Christian Science Monitor, National Public Radio, The Dallas Morning News and The New York Times, for which he was a foreign correspondent for 15 years.



http://www.truth-out.org/some-final-thoughts-death-osama-bin-laden/1305297509

All,

Michael Moore eloquently and strongly reminds Americans what's truly important for us all to teach, remember, and learn from the death of Osama Bin Laden in this country.

Kofi

Some Final Thoughts on the Death of Osama bin Laden Friday
13 May 2011

by Michael Moore
Michael Moore's Blog

People crowd surf at ground zero in New York City in the hours after President Barack Obama announced that Osama bin Laden was killed, on May 2, 2011. (Photo: Joshua Bright / The New York Times)


"The Nazis killed tens of MILLIONS. They got a trial. Why? Because we're not like them. We're Americans. We roll different." Michael Moore in an interview last week


When I heard the news a week ago Sunday, I immediately felt great. I felt relief. I thought of those who lost a loved one on 9/11. And I was glad we finally had a President who got something done. This is what I had to say on Twitter and elsewhere on the internet in that first hour or two:

I want to point out that Barack Obama took two years to do what Bush couldn't do in over seven. That's the difference between STUPID in charge and SMART in charge. STUPID pursues two reckless wars, lets OBL escape from Tora Bora, keeps looking for him in caves and invades the wrong country. He bankrupts us to the tune of $1.2 trillion for the Iraq War (it will eventually actually be over $3 trillion), and worse, he cost us the lives of almost 5,000 of our troops, not to mention hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan – and, after all that, he STILL couldn't bring the perp to justice. In fact, in 2005, Bush closed down the CIA station that was devoted to looking for bin Laden! What does SMART do? He sends in a small elite strike force, no troops are killed, and the perpetrator is stopped for good.

I was thrilled that the Osama bin Laden era was over. There was now an end to the madness.

Being near Ground Zero that night, I decided to head over there and join with others who saw this event as a chance to have some closure. On 9/11, Bill Weems, a good and decent man I knew and worked with (we had just recently completed a shoot together in Boston), was on the plane that was flown into the Twin Towers. I dedicated 'Fahrenheit 9/11,' in part, to him.

But before leaving to go to the former World Trade Center site, I turned on the TV, and what I saw down at Ground Zero was not quiet relief and gratification that the culprit had been caught. Rather, I witnessed a frat boy-style party going on, complete with the shaking and spraying of champagne bottles over the crowd. I can completely understand people wanting to celebrate – like I said, I, too, was happy – but something didn't feel right. It's one thing to be happy that a criminal has been captured and dealt with. It's another thing to throw a kegger celebrating his death at the site where the remains of his victims are still occasionally found. Is that who we are? Is that what Jesus would do? Is that what Jefferson would do? I was reminded of the tale told to me as a kid, of God's angels singing with glee as the Red Sea came crashing back down on the Egyptians chasing the Israelites, drowning all of them. God rebuked them, saying, "The work of My hands is drowning in that sea – and you want to friggin' sing?" (or something like that).

I remember my parents telling me how, on the day it was announced that Hitler was dead, there was no rejoicing in the streets, just private relief and satisfaction. The real celebration came six days later at the announcement that the war in Europe was over. THAT'S what the people wanted to hear – not just the demise of one evil madman, but the end to all the killing.

When the atom bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, people didn't pour into the streets to whoop it up. Yes, people were happy that it might help end the war, but there was not a public display of "Yippee! A hundred thousand Japs have been fried!" If they had done that, well, who could have blamed them after so many tens of thousands of their sons and fathers had been lost in the war (including my uncle, a paratrooper, killed by a sniper near Manila). But the sailor kissing the girl in Times Square was on August 14th, 1945, when the Japanese surrendered and the war was officially over. That's when America went crazy with joy – not over a killing, but over an announcement of peace.

We are a different people now, aren't we? Well, sorta. There was no bloodlust euphoria on the day Timothy McVeigh was executed. We were silent. The families of the Oklahoma City dead were silent, relieved. What is the difference between McVeigh and bin Laden, other than the number they slaughtered? I wonder. I think we know the answer.

Though bin Laden is dead, we are told that Orwell's Permanent War – the "War on Terror" – must continue! Not allowed to have our V-J day and run into Times Square with exhilaration! No, there could be terrorists there. So all we're left with is to cheer the death of one evil man, and that is supposed to make us feel powerful and good. There can be no celebration for the end of the Afghanistan War because the war isn't ending. The war must continue! Even though our own CIA tells us there are no more than a few dozen al Qaeda left in Afghanistan. We still have 100,000 troops there fighting a few dozen crazies? We say we're fighting the Taliban, too, but the Taliban are Afghan citizens, not an invading force, and, for better or worse, they seem to enjoy the support of many of the common people throughout Afghanistan. (If you don't believe that, ask any soldier who has served there and seen it. Every day is like Apocalypse Now. Poppies, anyone?)

Meanwhile, we – me, included – get lost in the weeds of how this one madman was killed. The official story from the Pentagon changed four times in the first four days! It went from OBL firing on the troops with one hand and using his wife as a human shield with the other, to, by the fourth day, not single person in the main house, including bin Laden, being armed when killed. Instantly, this created a lot of suspicion about what really happened, which itself was a distraction.

Here's my take: I know a number of Navy SEALs. In fact (and this is something I don't like to talk about publicly, for all the obvious reasons), I hire only ex-SEALs and ex-Special Forces guys to handle my own security (I'll let you pause a moment to appreciate that irony). These SEALs are trained to follow orders. I don't know what their orders were that night in Abbottabad, but it certainly looks like a job (and this is backed up in a piece in the Atlantic) where they were told to not bring bin Laden back alive. The SEALs are pros at what they do and they instantly took out every adult male (every potential threat) within a few minutes – but they also took care to not harm a single one of the nine children who were present. Pretty amazing. This wasn't some Rambo-style operation where they just went in guns blazing, spraying bullets. They acted swiftly and with expert precision. I'm telling you, these guys are so smart and so lethal, they could take you out with a piece of dental floss. (And in fact, one of my ex-SEAL guys showed me how to do that one night. Whoa.)

In a perfect world (yes, I would like to reside there someday, or at least next door to it, in Slightly Imperfect World), I would like the evildoers to be forced to stand trial in front of that world. I know a lot of people see no need for a trial for these bad guys (just hang 'em from the nearest tree!), and think trials are for sissies. "They're guilty, off with their heads!" Well, you see, that is the exact description of the Taliban/al Qaeda/Nazi justice system. I don't like their system. I like ours. And I don't want to be like them. In fact, the reason I like a good trial is that I like to show these bastards this is how it's done in a free country that believes in civilized justice. It's good for the rest of the world to see that, too. Sets a good example.



Get Truthout in your inbox every day! Click here to sign up for free updates.
The other thing a trial does is, it establishes a very public and permanent historic record of the crimes against humanity. This is why we put the Nazis on trial in Nuremberg. We didn't do it for them. We did it for ourselves and for our grandchildren so that they would never forget these horrors and how they were committed. And we did it for the German people so they could see the evidence of what their elected leaders had done. Very helpful. Very necessary. Very powerful.

And for those who wanted blood back then – well, the majority of the Nazis all hanged in the end. So, it doesn't mean the bad guys get away – they still swing from the highest tree.

My own spiritual beliefs do not allow for capital punishment, and I was raised in the state (Michigan) that in the 1840s was the first government in the English-speaking world to outlaw it. So, I'm just not inclined that way. I don't believe in "an eye for an eye." I know the old book said that, but I like its sequel better (a rare case in which the sequel – like Godfather II, Star Trek II, Terminator II – is better than the original). If you don't believe the way I believe (it's also the official position of the Catholic Church, for whatever that's worth these days), then that's your right, and I understand.

Perhaps there was no way to bring him back alive – I sure as hell wouldn't want to be in that dark house trying to make that snap decision. But if the execution was ordered in advance, then I say we should be told that now, and we can like it or not like it.

For nine years I wrote and I said that Osama bin Laden was not hiding in a cave. I'm not a cave expert, I was just using my common sense. He was a multimillionaire crime boss (using religion as his cover), and those guys just don't live in caves. He had people killed under the guise of religion, and not many in the media bothered to explain that every time Osama referenced Islam, he wasn't really quoting Islam. Just because Osama said he was a "Muslim" didn't make it so. Yet he was called a Muslim by everyone. If a crazy person started running around mass-killing people, and he did so while wearing a Wal-Mart blazer and praising Wal-Mart, we wouldn't automatically call him a Wal-Mart leader or say that Wal-Mart was the philosophy behind his killings, would we?

Yet, we began to fear Muslims and round them up. We profiled people from Muslim nations at airports. We didn't profile multi-millionaires (in fact, they now have their own fast-track line to easily get through security, an oddity considering every murderer on 9/11 flew in first class). We didn't run headlines that said "Multi-Millionaire Behind the Mass Murder of 3,000" (although every word in that headline is true). You can say his wealth had nothing to do with 9/11, but the truth is, there is no way he could have kept Al Qaeda in business without having the millions he had.

Some believe that this was a "war" we were in with al Qaeda – and you don't do trials during war. It's thinking like this that makes me fear that, while bin Laden may be dead, he may have "won" the bigger battle. Let's be clear: There is no "war with al Qaeda." Wars are between nations. Al Qaeda was an organization of fanatics who committed crimes. That we elevated them to nation status – they loved it! It was great for their recruiting drive.

We did exactly what bin Laden said he wanted us to do: Give up our freedoms (like the freedom to be assumed innocent until proven guilty), engage our military in Muslim countries so that we will be hated by Muslims, and wipe ourselves out financially in doing so. Done, done and done, Osama. You had our number. You somehow knew we would eagerly give up our constitutional rights and become more like the authoritarian state you dreamed of. You knew we would exhaust our military and willingly go into more debt in eight years than we had accumulated in the previous 200 years combined.

Maybe you knew us so well because you were once one of our mercenaries, funded and armed by us via our friends in Pakistan to fight the other Evil Empire in the last battle of the Cold War. Only, when the killing stopped, the trained killer, our "Frankenstein," couldn't. The monster, you, would soon turn on us.

If we really want to send bin Laden not just to his death, but also to his defeat, may I suggest that we reverse all of that right now. End the wars, bring the troops home, make the rich pay for this mess, and restore our privacy and due process rights that used to distinguish us from any other country. Right now, our democracy looks like Singapore and our economy has gone desperately Greek.

I know it will be hard to turn the clock back to before 9/11 when all we had to worry about were candidates stealing elections. A multi-billion dollar industry has grown up around "homeland security" and the terror wars. These war profiteers will not want to give up their booty so easily. They will want to keep us in fear so they can keep raking it in. We will have to stop them. But first we must stop believing them.

Hideki Tojo killed my uncle and millions of Chinese, Koreans, Filipinos and a hundred thousand other Americans. He was the head of Japan, the Emperor's henchman, the man who was the architect of Pearl Harbor. When the American soldiers went to arrest him, he tried to commit suicide by shooting himself in the chest. The soldiers immediately worked on stopping his bleeding and rushed him to an army hospital where he was saved by our army doctors. He then had his day in court. It was a powerful exercise for the world to see. And on December 23, 1948, after he was found guilty, we hanged him. A killer of millions was forced to stand trial. A killer of 4,000 (counting the African embassies and USS Cole bombings) got double-tapped in his pajamas. Assuming it was possible to take him alive, I think his victims, the future, and the restoration of the American Way deserved better. That's all I'm saying.

Good riddance Osama.

Come back to your ways, my good ol' USA.

Michael Francis Moore is a critically acclaimed and Academy Award-winning American filmmaker, author, social activist, and political commentator. He is the director and producer of Capitalism: A Love Story, Bowling for Columbine, Fahrenheit 9/11, and Sicko, four of the top five highest-grossing documentaries of all time. In September 2008, he released his first free movie on the Internet, Slacker Uprising, documenting his personal crusade to encourage more Americans to vote in presidential elections. He has also written and starred in the TV shows TV Nation and The Awful Truth.

Moore has openly criticized globalization, large corporations, gun ownership, the Iraq War, former U.S. President George W. Bush and the American health care system in his written and cinematic works. In 2005 Time magazine named him one of the world's 100 most influential people. In 2005, Moore started the annual Traverse City Film Festival in Traverse City, Michigan. In 2008, he closed his Manhattan office and moved it to Traverse City, where he is working on his new film.

Tuesday, May 3, 2011

President Obama Takes Down Global Terrorist Osama Bin Laden--And the World Rejoices!

Osama Bin Laden, 1957-2011


Essam Draz/Balkis Press/SIPA

FREEDOM FIGHTER Osama bin Laden in 1989 with anti-Soviet fighters in Afghanistan as he was building his terrorism network, with American help.

Editor's Note: I have decided to further delay the immediate return of new posts on this site from this past Sunday to today in light of the incredible and stunning news that President Obama has successfully directed elite covert American military forces to capture and kill the notorious global terrorist, mass murderer, and religious tyrant Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan on Sunday, May 1, 2011. It was a truly courageous and clearly necessary decision by the President and we owe Mr. Obama not only our deep and enduring thanks for his tough and decisive leadership in this matter but he and his administration fully deserve immense credit and support for having the guts and political/moral clarity to successfully go after and eliminate one of the most heinous criminals in the world. That being said--and it can't be emphasized enough-- it should not be inferred that this extraordinary action in any way exempts the United States and its massive foreign and military policy apparatus from its collective responsibility for its own shameful historic displays of recklessly homicidal militarism and hubris in the Middle East which directly resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians throughout the region imposed by invasive U.S. miltary forces, and that far too often led to the ominous rise and expansion of murderous forces like Al Qaeda and merciless terrorists like Bin Laden in the first place. Nor can or should we blithely excuse our own complicit support as U.S. citizens over the past century for these military and imperialist misadventures precisely because they greatly contributed to the oppressive rise of extreme fundamentalist forms and deadly distortions of the religion of Islam or reinforced the oppressive power and authority of such backward and extremely wealthy feudalist Islamic regimes in the region like the major American ally Saudi Arabia where Bin Laden himself was born and raised. Nor should we absolve ourselves and our government for their blatant economic and military support for such criminally authoritarian secular versions of these kind of tyrannies as represented by brutal dictators that the U.S. government, economic elites, and military and paramilitary covert forces like the CIA have traditionally openly supported and bankrolled like The Shah of Iran, Saddam Hussein in Iraq, Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, and President Assad in Syria. Clearly all these forces have played (and continue to play) a significant role in how and why such rancid and deadly criminals like Bin Laden and his colleagues rise to terrorize not only the Western powers in Europe and the United States, but millions of innocent Muslims and religious followers of Islam throughout the rest of the world in the Middle East, Asia, Africa, and Latin America. In fact Al Qaeda and other terrorist networks have also killed and assaulted thousands of Muslims and peaceful/innocent advocates of Islam--another very important fact that none of us should ignore or deny.

Thus it was also to President Obama's credit that he forcefully reminded Americans and people throughout the world that the United States is NOT in a war with or against Islam. This is very important to remember and strongly emphasize in light of the ongoing history of this nation's involvement in the Middle East and in the larger global Muslim world generally. It is in this undeniable historical and broader political/economic/cultural context that I have posted the following self explanatory texts and video links below of the news, analysis, and commentary surrounding the events of May 1, 2011 in which the truly poisonous cancer spread and embodied by the now late Osama Bin Laden has been extinguished from this earth. We can only fervently hope with all our hearts and souls that such brazen criminality and homicidal terror that figures and organizations like Bin Laden and Al Qaeda generally advocate and represent continue to be strongly opposed, denounced, and systematically eliminated by all sane and decent human beings throughout the world. And that goes double for the imperialist and murderous policies and actions--past and present-- of all Western powers (especially including those of the United States!) that in any way whatsoever attempt to support, defend, justify, excuse, or enable ANY religious and/or secular tyrants and tyrannies anywhere in the world.

This is and should be the true legacy and profound lesson of the ugly rise and final demise of Osama Bin Laden and everything he and his supporters stand for. Parallel to that legacy and lesson is the equally powerful and necessary reminder that not even the so-called "exceptional" United States can or should escape the moral and ideological demands and requirements of History--past, present, or future...

Kofi


Updated: May 3, 2011
New York Times

Osama bin Laden was a son of the Saudi elite whose radical violent campaign to recreate a seventh-century Muslim empire redefined the threat of terrorism for the 21st century.

With the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001, Bin Laden was elevated to the realm of evil in the American imagination once reserved for dictators like Hitler and Stalin. He was a new national enemy, his face on wanted posters, gloating on videotapes, taunting the United States and Western civilization.

He was killed on May 2, 2011, by American military and C.I.A. operatives who tracked him to a compound in Pakistan and shot him during a firefight.

President Obama announced the death in a televised address to the nation from Washington, where it was still late on the night of May 1. "Justice has been done,'' he declared.

The United States had been trying to kill or capture Bin Laden since it launched an invasion of Afghanistan in November 2001. The next month, he escaped from American and Afghan troops at an Afghan mountain redoubt called Tora Bora, near the border with Pakistan. For more than nine years afterward, he remained an elusive, shadowy figure frustratingly beyond the grasp of his pursuers and thought to be hiding somewhere in Pakistan's remote tribal areas and plotting new attacks.

When he was hunted down, Bin Laden was killed not in the wilderness but rather in the city of Abbottadad, about an hour’s drive drive north of the capital of Islamabad, raising anew questions about whether the Pakistani intelligence services had played a role in harboring him.

Behind the attack lay years of intelligence work. The turning point came in July 2010,when Pakistanis working for the Central Intelligence Agency drove up behind a white Suzuki navigating the bustling streets near Peshawar and wrote down the car’s license plate.

The man in the car was Bin Laden’s most trusted courier, and over the next month C.I.A. operatives would track him throughout central Pakistan. Ultimately, administration officials said, he led them to a sprawling compound at the end of a long dirt road and surrounded by tall security fences in the wealthy hamlet 35 miles from Islamabad.

On a moonless night eight months later, 79 American commandos in four helicopters descended on the compound, the officials said. Shots rang out. A helicopter stalled and would not take off. Pakistani authorities, kept in the dark by their allies in Washington, scrambled forces as the American commandos rushed to finish their mission and leave before a confrontation. Of the five dead, one was a tall, bearded man with a bloodied face and a bullet in his head. A member of the Navy Seals snapped his picture with a camera and uploaded it to analysts who fed it into a facial recognition program.

And just like that, history’s most expansive, expensive and exasperating manhunt was over. The inert frame of Bin Laden, America’s enemy No. 1, was placed in a helicopter for burial at sea, never to be seen or feared again.

Elusive for Nearly a Decade

Long before the Sept. 11th attacks, Bin Laden had become a hero in much of the Islamic world, as much a myth as a man — what a longtime C.I.A. officer called “the North Star” of global terrorism. He had united disparate militant groups, from Egypt to Chechnya, from Yemen to the Philippines, under the banner of Al Qaeda and his ideal of a borderless brotherhood of radical Islam.

After the attacks, the name of Al Qaeda and the fame of Bin Laden spread like a 21st-century political plague. Groups calling themselves Al Qaeda, or acting in the name of its cause, attacked American troops in Iraq, bombed tourist spots in Bali and blew up passenger trains in Spain.

To the day of his death, the precise reach of his power remained unknown: how many members Al Qaeda could truly count on; how many countries its cells had penetrated; and whether, as Bin Laden boasted, he sought to arm Al Qaeda with chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. (His age also was unclear — either 53 or 54.)

Still, the most devastating blow to Al Qaeda may not be the death of its founder, but its sudden slide toward irrelevance as the youth of the Arab world took to the streets in early 2011 to push for democracy, not the Islamic caliphate that was Bin Laden's goal.

The Early Life

By accounts of people close to the family, Osama bin Muhammad bin Awad bin Laden was born in 1957, the seventh son and 17th child, among 50 or more, of his father.

His father, Muhammad bin Awad bin Laden, had immigrated to what would soon become Saudi Arabia in 1931 from the family’s ancestral village in a conservative province of southern Yemen. He found work in Jidda as a porter to the pilgrims on their way to the holy city of Mecca; years later, when he would own the largest construction company in Saudi Arabia, he displayed his porter’s bag in the main reception room of his palace as a reminder of his humble origins.

According to family friends, the Bin Laden family’s rise began with a risk — when the father offered to build a palace for King Saud in the 1950s for far less than the lowest bid. By the 1960s he had ingratiated himself so well with the Saudi royal family that King Faisal decreed that all construction projects be awarded to the Bin Laden group. When the Aksa Mosque in Jerusalem was set on fire by a deranged tourist in 1969, the senior Bin Laden was chosen to rebuild it. Soon afterward, he was chosen to refurbish the mosques at Mecca and Medina as well. In interviews years later, Osama bin Laden would recall proudly that his father had sometimes prayed in all three holy places in one day.

His father was a devout Muslim who welcomed pilgrims and clergy into his home. He required all his children to work for the family company, meaning that Osama spent summers working on road projects. The elder Bin Laden died in a plane crash when Osama was 10. The siblings each inherited millions — the precise amount was a matter of some debate — and led a life of near-royalty. Osama — the name means “young lion” — grew up playing with Saudi princes and had his own stable of horses by age 15.

But some people close to the family paint a portrait of Bin Laden as a misfit. His mother, the last of his father’s four wives, was from Syria, the only one of the wives not from Saudi Arabia. The elder Bin Laden had met her on a vacation, and Osama was their only child. Within the family, she was said to be known as “the slave” and Osama “the slave child.”

Within the Saudi elite, it was rare to have both parents born outside the kingdom. In a profile of Osama bin Laden in The New Yorker, Mary Anne Weaver quoted a family friend who suggested that he had felt alienated in a culture that so obsessed over lineage, saying: “It must have been difficult for him, Osama was almost a double outsider. His paternal roots are in Yemen, and within the family, his mother was a double outsider as well — she was neither Saudi nor Yemeni but Syrian.”

According to one of his brothers, Osama was the only one of the Bin Laden children who never traveled abroad to study. A biography of Bin Laden, provided to the PBS television program “Frontline” by an unidentified family friend, asserted that Bin Laden never traveled outside the Middle East.

That lack of exposure to Western culture would prove a crucial distinction; the other siblings went on to lead lives that would not be unfamiliar to most Americans. They took over the family business, estimated to be worth billions, distributing Snapple drinks, Volkswagens and Disney products across the Middle East. On Sept. 11, 2001, several Bin Laden siblings were living in the United States.

Bin Laden had been educated — and, indeed, steeped, as many Saudi children are — in Wahhabism, the puritanical, ardently anti-Western strain of Islam. Even years later, he so despised the Saudi ruling family’s coziness with Western nations that he refused to refer to Saudi Arabia by its modern name, instead calling it “the Country of the Two Holy Places.”

Newspapers have quoted anonymous sources — particularly, an unidentified Lebanese barber — about a wild period of drinking and womanizing in Bin Laden’s life. But by most accounts he was devout and quiet, marrying a relative, the first of his four wives, at age 17.

Soon afterward, he began earning a degree at King Abdulaziz University in Jidda. It was there that he shaped his militancy. He became involved with the Muslim Brotherhood, a group of Islamic radicals who believed that much of the Muslim world, including the leaders of Saudi Arabia, lived as infidels, in violation of the true meaning of the Koran.

And he fell under the influence of two Islamic scholars: Muhammad Quttub and Abdullah Azzam, whose ideas would become the underpinnings for Al Qaeda. Mr. Azzam became a mentor to the young Bin Laden. Jihad was the responsibility of all Muslims, he taught, until the lands once held by Islam were reclaimed. His motto: “Jihad and the rifle alone: no negotiations, no conferences and no dialogue.”

The Turning Point

For Bin Laden, as for the United States, the turning point came in 1989, with the defeat of the Soviets in Afghanistan.

For the United States, which had supported the Afghan resistance with billions of dollars in arms and ammunition, that defeat marked the beginning of the end of the cold war and the birth of a new world order.

Bin Laden, who had supported the resistance with money, construction equipment and housing, saw the retreat of the Soviets as an affirmation of Muslim power and an opportunity to recreate Islamic political power and topple infidel governments through jihad, or holy war.

He declared to an interviewer, “I am confident that Muslims will be able to end the legend of the so-called superpower that is America.”

In its place, he built his own legend, modeling himself after the Prophet Muhammad, who in the seventh century led the Muslim people to rout the infidels, or nonbelievers, from North Africa and the Middle East. As the Koran had been revealed to Muhammad amid intense persecution, Bin Laden saw his own expulsions during the 1990s — from Saudi Arabia and then Sudan — as affirmation of himself as a chosen one.

In his vision, he would be the “emir,” or prince, in a restoration of the khalifa, a political empire extending from Afghanistan across the globe. “These countries belong to Islam,” he told the same interviewer in 1998, “not the rulers.”

Al Qaeda became the infrastructure for his dream. Under it, Bin Laden created a web of businesses — some legitimate, some less so — to obtain and move the weapons, chemicals and money he needed. He created training camps for his foot soldiers, a media office to spread his word, and even “shuras,” or councils, to approve his military plans and his fatwas.

A Terror Network

Through the ’90s, Al Qaeda evolved into a far-flung and loosely connected network of symbiotic relationships: Bin Laden gave affiliated terrorist groups money, training and expertise; they gave him operational cover and a furthering of his cause. Perhaps the most important of those alliances was with the Taliban, who rose to power in Afghanistan largely on the strength of Bin Laden’s aid, and in turn provided him refuge and a launching pad for holy war.

Long before Sept. 11, though the evidentiary trails were often thin, American officials considered Bin Laden at least in part responsible for the killing of American soldiers in Somalia and in Saudi Arabia; the first attack on the World Trade Center, in 1993; the bombing of the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia; and a foiled plot to hijack a dozen jets, crash a plane into the C.I.A. headquarters and kill President Bill Clinton.

In 1996, the officials described Bin Laden as “one of the most significant financial sponsors of Islamic extremism in the world.” But he was thought at the time to be primarily a financier of terrorism, not someone capable of orchestrating international terrorist plots. Yet when the United States put out a list of the most wanted terrorists in 1997, neither Bin Laden nor Al Qaeda was on it.

Bin Laden, however, demanded to be noticed. In February 1998, he declared it the duty of every Muslim to “kill Americans wherever they are found.” After the bombings of two American Embassies in East Africa in August 1998, President Clinton declared Bin Laden “Public Enemy No. 1.”

The C.I.A. spent much of the next three years hunting Bin Laden. The goal was to capture him with recruited Afghan agents or to kill him with a precision-guided missile, according to the 2004 report of the 9/11 Commission and the memoirs of George J. Tenet, director of central intelligence from July 1997 to July 2004.

The intelligence was never good enough to pull the trigger. By the summer of 2001, the C.I.A. was convinced that Al Qaeda was on the verge of a spectacular attack. But no one knew where or when it would come.

The Aftermath of 9/11

After the attacks of Sept. 11, Bin Laden did what had become routine: He took to Arab television. He appeared, in his statement to the world, to be at the top of his powers. President Bush had declared that the nations of the world were either with the Americans or against them on terrorism; Bin Laden held up a mirror image, declaring the world divided between infidels and believers.

Bin Laden had never before claimed or accepted responsibility for terrorist attacks. In a videotape found in the southern Afghan city of Kandahar weeks after the attacks, he firmly took responsibility for — and reveled in — the horror of Sept. 11.

“We calculated in advance the number of casualties from the enemy, who would be killed based on the position of the tower,” he said. “We calculated that the floors that would be hit would be three or four floors. I was the most optimistic of them all.”

In the videotape, showing him talking to followers nearly two months after the attacks, Bin Laden smiles, hungers to hear more approval and notes proudly that the attacks let loose a surge of interest in Islam around the world.

He explained that the hijackers on the planes — “the brothers who conducted the operation” — did not know what the mission would be until just before they boarded the planes. They knew only that they were going to the United States on a martyrdom mission.

Bin Laden had long eluded the allied forces in pursuit of him, moving, it was said, under cover of night with his wives and children, apparently between mountain caves. Yet he was determined that if he had to die, he, too, would die a martyr’s death.

His greatest hope, he told supporters, was that if he died at the hands of the Americans, the Muslim world would rise up and defeat the nation that had killed him.


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/02/world/middleeast/02obama-text.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha2

http://video.nytimes.com/video/2011/05/02/world/asia/100000000799358/obama-announces-death-of-osama-bin-laden.html



TEXT

Obama’s Remarks on Bin Laden’s Killing

Published: May 2, 2011

Following is the text of President Obama’s remarks Sunday night announcing the killing of Osama bin Laden, as released by the White House:

Obama Announces Death of Osama bin Laden

Good evening. Tonight, I can report to the American people and to the world that the United States has conducted an operation that killed Osama bin Laden, the leader of Al Qaeda, and a terrorist who’s responsible for the murder of thousands of innocent men, women, and children.

It was nearly 10 years ago that a bright September day was darkened by the worst attack on the American people in our history. The images of 9/11 are seared into our national memory — hijacked planes cutting through a cloudless September sky; the Twin Towers collapsing to the ground; black smoke billowing up from the Pentagon; the wreckage of Flight 93 in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, where the actions of heroic citizens saved even more heartbreak and destruction.

And yet we know that the worst images are those that were unseen to the world. The empty seat at the dinner table. Children who were forced to grow up without their mother or their father. Parents who would never know the feeling of their child’s embrace. Nearly 3,000 citizens taken from us, leaving a gaping hole in our hearts.

On September 11, 2001, in our time of grief, the American people came together. We offered our neighbors a hand, and we offered the wounded our blood. We reaffirmed our ties to each other, and our love of community and country. On that day, no matter where we came from, what God we prayed to, or what race or ethnicity we were, we were united as one American family.

We were also united in our resolve to protect our nation and to bring those who committed this vicious attack to justice. We quickly learned that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by Al Qaeda — an organization headed by Osama bin Laden, which had openly declared war on the United States and was committed to killing innocents in our country and around the globe. And so we went to war against Al Qaeda to protect our citizens, our friends, and our allies.

Over the last 10 years, thanks to the tireless and heroic work of our military and our counterterrorism professionals, we’ve made great strides in that effort. We’ve disrupted terrorist attacks and strengthened our homeland defense. In Afghanistan, we removed the Taliban government, which had given bin Laden and Al Qaeda safe haven and support. And around the globe, we worked with our friends and allies to capture or kill scores of Al Qaeda terrorists, including several who were a part of the 9/11 plot.

Yet Osama bin Laden avoided capture and escaped across the Afghan border into Pakistan. Meanwhile, Al Qaeda continued to operate from along that border and operate through its affiliates across the world.

And so shortly after taking office, I directed Leon Panetta, the director of the C.I.A., to make the killing or capture of bin Laden the top priority of our war against Al Qaeda, even as we continued our broader efforts to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat his network.

Then, last August, after years of painstaking work by our intelligence community, I was briefed on a possible lead to bin Laden. It was far from certain, and it took many months to run this thread to ground. I met repeatedly with my national security team as we developed more information about the possibility that we had located bin Laden hiding within a compound deep inside of Pakistan. And finally, last week, I determined that we had enough intelligence to take action, and authorized an operation to get Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice.

Today, at my direction, the United States launched a targeted operation against that compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. A small team of Americans carried out the operation with extraordinary courage and capability. No Americans were harmed. They took care to avoid civilian casualties. After a firefight, they killed Osama bin Laden and took custody of his body.

For over two decades, bin Laden has been Al Qaeda’s leader and symbol, and has continued to plot attacks against our country and our friends and allies. The death of bin Laden marks the most significant achievement to date in our nation’s effort to defeat Al Qaeda.

Yet his death does not mark the end of our effort. There’s no doubt that Al Qaeda will continue to pursue attacks against us. We must –- and we will — remain vigilant at home and abroad.

As we do, we must also reaffirm that the United States is not –- and never will be -– at war with Islam. I’ve made clear, just as President Bush did shortly after 9/11, that our war is not against Islam. Bin Laden was not a Muslim leader; he was a mass murderer of Muslims. Indeed, Al Qaeda has slaughtered scores of Muslims in many countries, including our own. So his demise should be welcomed by all who believe in peace and human dignity.

Over the years, I’ve repeatedly made clear that we would take action within Pakistan if we knew where bin Laden was. That is what we’ve done. But it’s important to note that our counterterrorism cooperation with Pakistan helped lead us to bin Laden and the compound where he was hiding. Indeed, bin Laden had declared war against Pakistan as well, and ordered attacks against the Pakistani people.

Tonight, I called President Zardari, and my team has also spoken with their Pakistani counterparts. They agree that this is a good and historic day for both of our nations. And going forward, it is essential that Pakistan continue to join us in the fight against Al Qaeda and its affiliates.

The American people did not choose this fight. It came to our shores, and started with the senseless slaughter of our citizens. After nearly 10 years of service, struggle, and sacrifice, we know well the costs of war. These efforts weigh on me every time I, as Commander-in-Chief, have to sign a letter to a family that has lost a loved one, or look into the eyes of a service member who’s been gravely wounded.

So Americans understand the costs of war. Yet as a country, we will never tolerate our security being threatened, nor stand idly by when our people have been killed. We will be relentless in defense of our citizens and our friends and allies. We will be true to the values that make us who we are. And on nights like this one, we can say to those families who have lost loved ones to Al Qaeda’s terror: Justice has been done.

Tonight, we give thanks to the countless intelligence and counterterrorism professionals who’ve worked tirelessly to achieve this outcome. The American people do not see their work, nor know their names. But tonight, they feel the satisfaction of their work and the result of their pursuit of justice.

We give thanks for the men who carried out this operation, for they exemplify the professionalism, patriotism, and unparalleled courage of those who serve our country. And they are part of a generation that has borne the heaviest share of the burden since that September day.

Finally, let me say to the families who lost loved ones on 9/11 that we have never forgotten your loss, nor wavered in our commitment to see that we do whatever it takes to prevent another attack on our shores.

And tonight, let us think back to the sense of unity that prevailed on 9/11. I know that it has, at times, frayed. Yet today’s achievement is a testament to the greatness of our country and the determination of the American people.

The cause of securing our country is not complete. But tonight, we are once again reminded that America can do whatever we set our mind to. That is the story of our history, whether it’s the pursuit of prosperity for our people, or the struggle for equality for all our citizens; our commitment to stand up for our values abroad, and our sacrifices to make the world a safer place.

Let us remember that we can do these things not just because of wealth or power, but because of who we are: one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you. May God bless you. And may God bless the United States of America.


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/02/world/02osama-bin-laden-obituary.html?ref=middleeast

THE DEATH OF OSAMA BIN LADEN OBITUARY |
OSAMA BIN LADEN, 1957-2011

The Most Wanted Face of Terrorism

By KATE ZERNIKE and MICHAEL T. KAUFMAN
Published: May 2, 2011
New York Times

OBITUARY | OSAMA BIN LADEN, 1957-2011
The Most Wanted Face of Terrorism
By KATE ZERNIKE and MICHAEL T. KAUFMAN

Osama bin Laden, who was killed in Pakistan on Monday, was a son of the Saudi elite whose radical, violent campaign to recreate a seventh-century Muslim empire redefined the threat of terrorism for the 21st century.



Related

Obama Calls World ‘Safer’ After Pakistan Raid (May 3, 2011)
Behind the Hunt for Bin Laden (May 3, 2011)
Even Before Al Qaeda Lost Its Founder, It May Have Lost Some of Its Allure (May 3, 2011)
Times Topic: The Death of Osama bin Laden
Related in Opinion
Room For Debate: Why Did It Take So Long to Find Bin Laden?
ROOM FOR DEBATE


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/02/world/02osama-bin-laden-obituary.html?ref=middleeast

THE DEATH OF OSAMA BIN LADEN

OBITUARY | OSAMA BIN LADEN, 1957-2011

The Most Wanted Face of Terrorism

By KATE ZERNIKE and MICHAEL T. KAUFMAN
Published: May 2, 2011
New York Times

Al Qaeda's influence was waning, but will Bin Laden's death embolden a new wave of terrorists?

With the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001, Bin Laden was elevated to the realm of evil in the American imagination once reserved for dictators like Hitler and Stalin. He was a new national enemy, his face on wanted posters. He gloated on videotapes, taunting the United States and Western civilization.

“Do you want Bin Laden dead?” a reporter asked President George W. Bush six days after the Sept. 11 attacks.

“I want him — I want justice,” the president answered. “And there’s an old poster out West, as I recall, that said, ‘Wanted: Dead or Alive.’ ”

It took nearly a decade before that quest finally ended in Pakistan with the death of Bin Laden in a firefight with American forces who attacked a compound where officials said he had been hiding. He was generally believed to be 54.

The manhunt was punctuated in December 2001 by a battle at an Afghan mountain redoubt called Tora Bora, near the border with Pakistan, where Bin Laden and his allies were hiding. Despite days of pounding by American bombers, Bin Laden escaped. For more than nine years afterward, he remained an elusive, shadowy figure frustratingly beyond the grasp of his pursuers and thought to be holed up somewhere in Pakistan and plotting new attacks.

Long before, he had become a hero in much of the Islamic world, as much a myth as a man — what a longtime C.I.A. officer called “the North Star” of global terrorism. He had united disparate militant groups, from Egypt to the Philippines, under the banner of Al Qaeda and his ideal of a borderless brotherhood of radical Islam.

Terrorism before Bin Laden was often state-sponsored, but he was a terrorist who had sponsored a state. From 1996 to 2001 he bought the protection of the Taliban, then the rulers of Afghanistan, and used the time and freedom to make Al Qaeda — which means “the base” in Arabic — into a multinational enterprise for the export of terrorism.

After the Sept. 11 attacks, the names Al Qaeda and Bin Laden spread to every corner of the globe. Groups calling themselves Al Qaeda, or acting in the name of its cause, attacked American troops in Iraq, bombed tourist spots in Bali and blew up passenger trains in Spain.

To this day, the precise reach of his power remains unknown: how many members Al Qaeda could truly count on, how many countries its cells had penetrated — and whether, as Bin Laden had boasted, he was seeking chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.

He waged holy war with modern methods. He sent fatwas — religious decrees — by fax and declared war on Americans in an e-mail beamed by satellite around the world. Qaeda members kept bomb-making manuals on CDs and communicated through encrypted memos on laptops, leading one American official to declare that Bin Laden possessed better communications technology than the United States. He railed against globalization, even as his agents in Europe and North America took advantage of a globalized world to carry out their attacks, insinuating themselves into the very Western culture he despised.

He styled himself a Muslim ascetic, a billionaire’s son who gave up a life of privilege for the cause. But he was media savvy and acutely image-conscious. Before a CNN crew that interviewed him in 1997 was allowed to leave, his media advisers insisted on editing out unflattering shots. He summoned reporters to a cave in Afghanistan when he needed to get his message out, but like the most controlling of C.E.O.’s he insisted on receiving written questions in advance.

His reedy voice seemed to belie the warrior image he cultivated, a man whose constant companion was a Kalashnikov rifle that he boasted he had taken from a Russian soldier he had killed. The world’s most threatening terrorist, he was also known to submit to dressings down by his mother. While he built his reputation on his combat experience against Soviet troops in Afghanistan in the 1980s, even some of his supporters questioned whether he had actually fought.

And though he claimed to follow the purest form of Islam, many scholars insisted that he was glossing over the faith’s edicts against killing innocents and civilians. Islam draws boundaries on where and why holy war can be waged; Bin Laden declared the entire world as fair territory.

Yet it was the United States, Bin Laden insisted, that was guilty of a double standard.

“It wants to occupy our countries, steal our resources, impose agents on us to rule us and then wants us to agree to all this,” he told CNN in the 1997 interview. “If we refuse to do so, it says we are terrorists. When Palestinian children throw stones against the Israeli occupation, the U.S. says they are terrorists. Whereas when Israel bombed the United Nations building in Lebanon while it was full of children and women, the U.S. stopped any plan to condemn Israel. At the same time that they condemn any Muslim who calls for his rights, they receive the top official of the Irish Republican Army at the White House as a political leader. Wherever we look, we find the U.S. as the leader of terrorism and crime in the world.”

The Turning Point

For Bin Laden, as for the United States, the turning point came in 1989, with the defeat of the Soviets in Afghanistan.

To the United States, which had supported the Afghan resistance with billions of dollars in arms and ammunition, the Soviet retreat was the beginning of the end of the cold war and the birth of a new world order; to Bin Laden, who had supported the resistance with money, construction equipment and housing, it was an affirmation of Muslim power and an opportunity to recreate Islamic political power and topple infidel governments through jihad, or holy war.

He declared to an interviewer in 1998, “I am confident that Muslims will be able to end the legend of the so-called superpower that is America.”

In its place he built his own legend, modeling himself after the Prophet Muhammad, who in the seventh century led the Muslim people to rout the infidels, or nonbelievers, from North Africa and the Middle East. Just as Muhammad saw the Koran revealed to him amid intense persecution, Bin Laden regarded his expulsions from Saudi Arabia and then Sudan in the 1990s as signs that he was a chosen one.

In his vision, he would be the “emir,” or prince, in a restoration of the khalifa, a political empire extending from Afghanistan across the globe. “These countries belong to Islam,” he told the same interviewer, “not the rulers.”

Al Qaeda became the infrastructure for his dream. Under it, he created a web of businesses — some legitimate, some less so — to obtain and move the weapons, chemicals and money he needed. He created training camps for his foot soldiers, a media office to spread his word and even “shuras,” or councils, to approve his military plans and his fatwas.

Through the 1990s, Al Qaeda evolved into a far-flung and loosely connected network of symbiotic relationships: Bin Laden gave affiliated terrorist groups money, training and expertise; they gave him operational cover and furthered his cause. Perhaps the most important alliance was with the Taliban, who rose to power in Afghanistan largely on the strength of Bin Laden’s aid, and in turn provided him refuge and a base for holy war.

Long before Sept. 11, though the evidence was often thin, Bin Laden was considered in part responsible for the killing of American soldiers in Somalia and Saudi Arabia; the first attack on the World Trade Center, in 1993; the bombing of the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia; and a foiled plot to hijack a dozen jets, crash a plane into the C.I.A. headquarters and kill President Bill Clinton.

In 1996, American officials described Bin Laden as “one of the most significant financial sponsors of Islamic extremism in the world,” but he was not thought of as someone capable of orchestrating international terrorist plots. When the United States put out a list of the most wanted terrorists in 1997, neither Bin Laden nor Al Qaeda was on it.

Bin Laden, however, demanded to be noticed. In February 1998, he declared it the duty of every Muslim to “kill Americans wherever they are found.” After the bombings of two American embassies in East Africa in August 1998, President Clinton declared Bin Laden “Public Enemy No. 1.”

The C.I.A. spent much of the next three years hunting him. The goal was to capture Bin Laden using recruited Afghan agents or to kill him with a precision-guided missile, according to the 2004 report of the 9/11 Commission and the memoirs of George J. Tenet, the director of central intelligence from July 1997 to July 2004.

The intelligence was never good enough to pull the trigger. By the summer of 2001, the C.I.A. was convinced that Al Qaeda was on the verge of a spectacular attack. But no one knew where or when it would come.

The Early Life

Osama bin Muhammad bin Awad bin Laden was born in 1957, the seventh son and 17th child, among 50 or more, of his father, people close to the family say. Many experts believe he was born in March of that year, though Steve Coll, in his book “The Bin Ladens: An Arabian Family in the American Century,” reported that Bin Laden himself said he was born in January 1958.

His father, Muhammad bin Awad bin Laden, had immigrated to what would soon become Saudi Arabia in 1931 from the family’s ancestral village in a conservative province of southern Yemen. He found work in Jidda as a porter to the pilgrims on their way to the holy city of Mecca; years later, when he owned the largest construction company in Saudi Arabia, he displayed his porter’s bag in the main reception room of his palace as a reminder of his humble origins.

The elder Bin Laden began his family’s rise by skillfully navigating the competing interests within and around the House of Saud in the 1950s. He first built palaces for the royal family and was then chosen to renovate holy sites, including those at Medina and Mecca. In 1958, when several Arab countries set about to renovate the Dome of the Rock and the Al Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem, on one of the holiest sites in Islam, he won the bid for the Saudis by offering to do the job at a loss. In interviews years later, Osama bin Laden would recall proudly that his father had sometimes prayed in all three holy places in one day.

By the 1960s, King Faisal decreed that all construction projects be awarded to the Bin Laden group.

All of the Bin Laden children were required to work for the family company, meaning that Osama spent summers working on road projects. Muhammad bin Laden died in a plane crash in 1967, when Osama was 10. The siblings each inherited millions — the precise amount was a matter of some debate — and led a life of near-royalty. Osama — the name means “young lion” — grew up playing with Saudi princes and had his own stable of horses by age 15.

But some people close to the family paint a portrait of Bin Laden as a misfit. His mother, the last of his father’s four wives, was from Syria, and was the only one not from Saudi Arabia. The elder Bin Laden had met her on a vacation, and Osama was their only child. Within the family, she was said to be known as “the slave” and Osama “the slave child.”

Within the Saudi elite, it was rare to have both parents born outside the kingdom. In a profile of Osama bin Laden in The New Yorker, Mary Anne Weaver quoted a family friend who suggested that he had felt alienated in a culture so obsessed with lineage. “It must have been difficult for him,” the family friend said. “Osama was almost a double outsider. His paternal roots are in Yemen, and within the family his mother was a double outsider as well — she was neither Saudi nor Yemeni but Syrian.”

According to one of his brothers, Osama was the only Bin Laden child who never traveled abroad to study. A biography of Bin Laden provided to the PBS television program “Frontline” by an unidentified family friend asserted that Bin Laden had never traveled outside the Middle East.

That lack of exposure to Western culture would prove a crucial distinction; the other siblings went on to lead lives that would not be unfamiliar to most Americans. They took over the family business, estimated to be worth billions, distributing Snapple drinks, Volkswagens and Disney products across the Middle East. On Sept. 11, 2001, several Bin Laden siblings were living in the United States.

Bin Laden had been educated — and, indeed, steeped, as many Saudi children are — in Wahhabism, a puritanical, ardently anti-Western strain of Islam. Even years later, he so despised the Saudi ruling family’s coziness with Western nations that he refused to refer to Saudi Arabia by its modern name, instead calling it “the Country of the Two Holy Places.”

Newspapers have quoted anonymous sources — particularly an unidentified Lebanese barber — about a wild period of drinking and womanizing in Bin Laden’s life. But by most accounts he was devout and quiet, marrying a relative, the first of his four wives, at age 17.

Soon afterward, he began earning a degree at King Abdulaziz University in Jidda. It was there that he shaped his militancy. He became involved with the Muslim Brotherhood, a group of Islamic radicals who believed that much of the Muslim world, including the leaders of Saudi Arabia, lived as infidels, in violation of the true meaning of the Koran.

And he fell under the influence of two Islamic scholars: Muhammad Quttub and Abdullah Azzam, whose ideas would underpin Al Qaeda. Mr. Azzam became a mentor to the young Bin Laden. Jihad was the responsibility of all Muslims, he taught, until the lands once held by Islam were reclaimed. His motto was, “Jihad and the rifle alone: no negotiations, no conferences and no dialogue.”

The Middle East was becoming unsettled in 1979, when Bin Laden was at the university. In Iran, Shiite Muslims mounted an Islamic revolution that overthrew the shah and made the United States a target. Egypt and Israel signed a peace treaty. And as the year ended, Soviet troops occupied Afghanistan.

Bin Laden arrived in Pakistan-Afghanistan border within two weeks of the occupation. He said later that he had been asked to go by Saudi officials, who were eager to support the resistance movement. In his book “Taliban,” the Pakistani journalist Ahmed Rashid said that the Saudis had originally hoped that a member of the royal family might serve as an inspirational leader in Afghanistan, but that they settled on Bin Laden as the next closest thing when no princes volunteered.

He traveled more like a visiting diplomat than a soldier, meeting with leaders and observing refugees coming into Peshawar, Pakistan. As the family friend said, it “was an exploratory rather than an action trip.” He returned twice a year for the next few years, in between finishing his degree and lobbying family members to support the Afghan mujahedeen.

Bin Laden began traveling beyond the border into Afghanistan in 1982, bringing with him construction machinery and recruits. In 1984, he and Mr. Azzam began setting up guesthouses in Peshawar, which was the first stop for holy warriors on their way to Afghanistan. With the money they had raised in Saudi Arabia, they established the Office of Services, which branched out across the world to recruit young jihadists.

The recruits were known as the Afghan Arabs, though they came from all over the world, and their numbers were estimated as high as 20,000. By 1986, Bin Laden had begun setting up training camps for them as well, and he was paying roughly $25,000 a month to subsidize them.

To young would-be recruits across the Arab world, Bin Laden’s was an attractive story: the rich young man who had become a warrior. His own descriptions of the battles he had seen, how he had lost the fear of death and slept in the face of artillery fire, were brushstrokes of an almost divine figure.

But intelligence sources insist that Bin Laden actually saw combat only once, in a weeklong barrage by the Soviets at Jaji, where the Arab Afghans had dug themselves into caves using Bin Laden’s construction equipment.

“Afghanistan, the jihad, was one terrific photo op for a lot of people,” Milton Bearden, the C.I.A. officer who described Bin Laden as “the North Star,” said in an interview on “Frontline,” adding, “There’s a lot of fiction in there.”

Still, Jaji became a kind of touchstone in the Bin Laden myth. Stories sent back from the battle to Arab newspaper readers, and photographs of Bin Laden in combat gear, burnished his image.

The flood of young men following him to Afghanistan prompted the founding of Al Qaeda. The genesis was essentially bureaucratic; Bin Laden wanted a way to track the men so he could tell their families what had happened to them. The documentation that Al Qaeda provided became a primitive database of young jihadists.

Afghanistan also brought Bin Laden into contact with leaders of other militant Islamic groups, including Ayman al-Zawahri, the bespectacled doctor who would later appear at Bin Laden’s side in televised messages from the caves of Afghanistan. Ultimately Dr. Zawahri’s group, Egyptian Jihad, and others would merge with Al Qaeda, making it an umbrella for terrorist groups.

The Movement

Through the looking glass of Sept. 11, it seemed ironic that the Americans and Osama bin Laden had fought on the same side against the Soviets in Afghanistan — as if the Americans had somehow created the Bin Laden monster by providing arms and cash to the Arabs. The complex at Tora Bora where Qaeda members hid had been created with the help of the C.I.A. as a base for the Afghans fighting the Soviets.

Bin Laden himself described the fight in Afghanistan this way: “There I received volunteers who came from the Saudi kingdom and from all over the Arab and Muslim countries. I set up my first camp where these volunteers were trained by Pakistani and American officers. The weapons were supplied by the Americans, the money by the Saudis.”

In truth, the Americans did not deal directly with Bin Laden; they worked through the middlemen of the Pakistani intelligence service.

In the revisionism of the Bin Laden myth, his defenders would say that he had not worked with the Americans but that he had only tolerated them as a means to his end. As proof, they insisted he had made anti-American statements as early as 1980.

Bin Laden would say in retrospect that he was always aware who his enemies were.

“For us, the idea was not to get involved more than necessary in the fight against the Russians, which was the business of the Americans, but rather to show our solidarity with our Islamist brothers,” he told a French journalist in 1995. “I discovered that it was not enough to fight in Afghanistan, but that we had to fight on all fronts against Communism or Western oppression. The urgent thing was Communism, but the next target was America.”

Afghanistan had infused the movement with confidence.

“Most of what we benefited from was that the myth of the superpower was destroyed not only in my mind but also in the minds of all Muslims,” Bin Laden told an interviewer. “Slumber and fatigue vanished, and so was the terror which the U.S. would use in its media by attributing itself superpower status, or which the Soviet Union used by attributing itself as a superpower.”

He returned to Saudi Arabia, welcomed as a hero, and took up the family business. But Saudi royals grew increasingly wary of him as he became more outspoken against the government.

The breaking point — for Bin Laden and for the Saudis — came when Iraq invaded Kuwait in August 1990. Bin Laden volunteered to the Saudis that the men and equipment he had used in Afghanistan could defend the kingdom. He was “shocked,” a family friend said, to learn that the Americans — the enemy, in his mind — would defend it instead. To him, it was the height of American arrogance.

The United States, he told an interviewer later, “has started to look at itself as a master of this world and established what it calls the new world order.”

The Saudi government restricted him to Jidda, fearing that his outspokenness would offend the Americans. Bin Laden fled to Sudan, which was offering itself as a sort of haven for terrorists, and there he began setting up legitimate businesses that would help finance Al Qaeda. He also built his reserves, in 1992, paying for about 500 mujahedeen who had been expelled from Pakistan to come work for him.

The Terrorism

It was during that time that it is believed he honed his resolve against the United States.

Within Al Qaeda, he argued that the organization should put aside its differences with Shiite terrorist groups like Hezbollah in Lebanon, the better to concentrate on the common enemy: the United States. He called for attacks against American forces in the Saudi peninsula and in the Horn of Africa.

On Dec. 29, 1992, a bomb exploded in a hotel in Aden, Yemen, where American troops had been staying while on their way to Somalia. The troops had already left, and the bomb killed two Austrian tourists. American intelligence officials came to believe that it was Bin Laden’s first attack.

On Feb. 26, 1993, a bomb exploded in a truck driven into the underground garage at the World Trade Center, killing six people. Bin Laden later praised Ramzi Yousef, who was convicted of the bombing. In October of that year, in Somalia, 18 American service members were killed — some of their bodies dragged through the streets — while on a peacekeeping mission; Bin Laden was almost giddy about the deaths.

After leaving Afghanistan, the Muslim fighters headed for Somalia and prepared for a long battle, thinking that the Americans were “like the Russians,” he told an interviewer.

“The youth were surprised at the low morale of the American soldiers and realized more than before that the American soldier was a paper tiger and after a few blows ran in defeat,” he said. “And America forgot all the hoopla and media propaganda about being the world leader and the leader of the new world order, and after a few blows, they forgot about this title and left, dragging their corpses and their shameful defeat.”

By 1994, Bin Laden had established new training camps in Sudan, but he became a man without a country. The Saudi government froze his assets and revoked his citizenship. His family, which had become rich on its relations with the royal family, denounced him publicly after he was caught smuggling weapons from Yemen.

This seemed to make him only more zealous. He sent an open letter to King Fahd outlining the sins of the Saudi government and calling for a campaign of guerrilla attacks to drive Americans from Saudi Arabia. Three months later, in November 1995, a truck bomb exploded at a Saudi National Guard training center operated by the United States in Riyadh, killing seven people. That year, Belgian investigators found a kind of how-to manual for terrorists on a CD. The preface dedicated it to Bin Laden, the hero of the holy war.

The next May, when the men accused of the Riyadh bombing were beheaded in Riyadh’s main square, they were forced to read a confession in which they acknowledged the connection to Bin Laden. The next month, June 1996, a truck bomb destroyed Khobar Towers, an American military residence in Dhahran. It killed 19 soldiers.

Bin Laden fled to Afghanistan that summer after Sudan expelled him under pressure from the Americans and Saudis, and he forged an alliance with Mullah Muhammad Omar, the leader of the Taliban. In August 1996, from the Afghan mountain stronghold of Tora Bora, Bin Laden issued his “Declaration of War Against the Americans Who Occupy the Land of the Two Holy Mosques.”

“Muslims burn with anger at America,” it read. The presence of American forces in the Persian Gulf states “will provoke the people of the country and induces aggression on their religion, feelings, and prides and pushes them to take up armed struggle against the invaders occupying the land.”

The imbalance of power between American forces and Muslim forces demanded a new kind of fighting, he wrote, “in other words, to initiate a guerrilla war, where sons of the nation, not the military forces, take part in it.”

That same month in New York City, a federal grand jury began meeting to consider charges against Bin Laden. Disputes arose among prosecutors and American law enforcement and intelligence officers about which attacks against American interests could truly be attributed to Bin Laden — whether in fact he had, as an indictment eventually charged, trained and paid the men who killed the Americans in Somalia.

His foot soldiers, in testimony, offered different pictures of Bin Laden’s actual involvement. In some cases he could be as aloof as any boss with thousands of employees. Yet one of the men convicted of the bombings of the embassies said that Bin Laden had been so involved that he was the one who had pointed at surveillance photographs to direct where the truck bomb should be driven.

Bin Laden was becoming more emboldened, summoning Western reporters to his hide-outs in Afghanistan to relay his message: He would wage war against the United States and its allies if Washington did not remove its troops from the gulf region.

“So we tell the Americans as a people,” he told ABC News, “and we tell the mothers of soldiers and American mothers in general that if they value their lives and the lives of their children, to find a nationalistic government that will look after their interests and not the interests of the Jews. The continuation of tyranny will bring the fight to America, as Ramzi Yousef and others did. This is my message to the American people: to look for a serious government that looks out for their interests and does not attack others, their lands or their honor.”

In February 1998, he issued the edict calling for attacks on Americans anywhere in the world, declaring it an “individual duty” for all Muslims.

In June, the grand jury that had been convened two years earlier issued its indictment, charging Bin Laden with conspiracy to attack the United States abroad, for heading Al Qaeda and for financing terrorist activities around the world.

On Aug. 7, 1998, the eighth anniversary of the United States order sending troops into the gulf region, two bombs exploded simultaneously at the American Embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. The Nairobi bomb killed 213 people and wounded 4,500; the bomb in Dar es Salaam killed 11 and wounded 85.

The United States retaliated two weeks later with strikes against what were thought to be terrorist training camps in Afghanistan and a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan, which officials contended — erroneously, it turned out — was producing chemical weapons for Al Qaeda.

Bin Laden had trapped the United States in a spiral of tension, where any defensive or retaliatory actions would affirm the evils that he said had provoked the attacks in the first place. In an interview with Time magazine that December, he brushed aside President Clinton’s threats against him, and referred to himself in the third person, as if recognizing or encouraging the notion that he had become larger than life.

“To call us Enemy No. 1 or Enemy No. 2 does not hurt us,” he said. “Osama bin Laden is confident that the Islamic nation will carry out its duty.”

In January 1999, the United States government issued a superseding indictment that affirmed the power Bin Laden had sought all along, declaring Al Qaeda an international terrorist organization in a conspiracy to kill American citizens.

The Aftermath

After the attacks of Sept. 11, Bin Laden did what had become routine: He took to Arab television. He appeared, in his statement to the world, to be at the top of his powers. President Bush had declared that the nations of the world were either with the Americans or against them on terrorism; Bin Laden held up a mirror image, declaring the world divided between infidels and believers.

Bin Laden had never before claimed or accepted responsibility for terrorist attacks. But in a videotape found in the southern Afghan city of Kandahar weeks after the attacks, he did precisely that, reveling in the horror of Sept. 11.

“We calculated in advance the number of casualties from the enemy, who would be killed based on the position of the tower,” he said. “We calculated that the floors that would be hit would be three or four floors. I was the most optimistic of them all.”

In the videotape, showing him talking to followers nearly two months after the attacks, Bin Laden smiles, hungers to hear more approval and notes proudly that the attacks let loose a surge of interest in Islam around the world.

He explained that the hijackers on the planes — “the brothers who conducted the operation” — did not know what the mission would be until just before they boarded the planes. They knew only that they were going to the United States on a mission of martyrdom.

Bin Laden’s voice continued to be heard, off and on, for almost the next 10 years as he issued threats, warnings and pronouncements on video and audiotape from wherever he was hiding. As recently as October he appealed for aid for flood victims in Pakistan and blamed the West for causing climate change.

Bin Laden long eluded the allied forces in pursuit of him, moving, it was said, under cover of night with his wives and children, at first between mountain caves. Yet he was determined that if he had to die, he too would die a martyr’s death.

His greatest hope, he told supporters, was that if he died at the hands of the Americans, the Muslim world would rise up and defeat the nation that had killed him.



Michael T. Kaufman, a foreign correspondent, reporter and columnist for The Times, died in 2010; Tim Weiner contributed reporting.
This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: May 2, 2011

Saturday, April 30, 2011

Open Letter To Readers of and Contributors To This Site From the Editor--April 30, 2011

Editor's Note To Readers of this Site:

Today marks my official return to this site after a much needed and appreciated three week hiatus. The past month has been an especially tumultuous, disturbing, and challenging period in the historical life of this often deeply divided and conflicted society, and the increasingly somber and even bizarre events of our time continue to impact not only perceptions of who and what we are as a social and cultural force in the world, but goes to the very core of how we choose to project ourselves and our concerns and values as human beings in a nation whose presence and identity is informed by much more than the infantile, manipulative, and often demagogic "appeals" to our warped sense of "exceptionalism" and crudely self aggrandizing media image in the world.

Thus I return with an even more committed and renewed sense of the fundamental mission and purpose of this online magazine: To advocate, work toward, and promote a nuanced and resolutely critical intellectual and philosophical examination and informed analysis of the complex and ever evolving dynamics and dimensions of our political, cultural, economic, aesthetic, and spiritual lives as reflected in and informed by our individual and collective experiences within the contextual demands and influences of our age. In doing so we expect and insist that the writing, analysis, and commentary that makes up the bulk of what this site has to offer be bold, innovative, and intellectually honest and to openly advance the idea, spirit, and concrete materialist reality of fundamentally radical transformations in every area and aspect of 21st century U.S. culture, political economy, and life. May we proceed in our work as the iconic Italian revolutionary and cultural and social critic Antonio Gramsci (1891-1937) powerfully suggested "without illusions and without becoming disillusioned" and to always act upon in word and deed the incisive edict--also advanced by Gramsci--to exercise "pessimism of the intellect and optimism of the will." If we can remain true to the spirit and letter of these very insightful and useful words our human and social tasks as writers, critics, and progressive social activists will help us greatly to more fully represent, embody, and advocate the profound changes in our lives and society that we seek. In that spirit let's remember as always that the struggle continues.

Kofi Natambu
Editor and Contributor

P.S. New posts will appear later tonight, April 30, 2011

Saturday, April 9, 2011

Dr. Manning Marable, 1950-2011: Historian, Scholar, Activist, Journalist, Public Intellectual, Educator, Critic, and Revolutionary

Dr. Manning Marable, 1950-2011



Dr. Manning Marable in his Columbia University office in 2001 beside painting of Malcolm X

Mario Tama/Getty Images



Dr. Manning Marable in his Columbia University Office in 2010
Photo by David Shankbone
Malcolm X : A Life of Reinvention by Manning Marable was published April 4, 2011 (Viking Press)


Beyond Boundaries: The Manning Marable Reader was published April 1, 2011 (Paperback edition), Paradigm Publishers

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/02/arts/manning-marable-60-historian-and-social-critic.html?ref=books

All,

Dr. Manning Marable was a true giant as both an extraordinary scholar and critic and his tireless work as a major African American historian, social theorist, committed radical activist, journalist, public intellectual, and gifted teacher over the past 40 years is legendary. Eloquence, power, wit, insight, and a very sharp and dynamic critical intelligence informed by an encyclopedic knowledge of history, politics, economics, philosophy, and sociology marked everything he did. I'm still in a state of shock over his untimely death. What a huge loss! Manning was one of the most important and prolific historians, theorists, and radical activists in the United States and we owe the man and his work a great debt that can only begin to be repaid by continuing to do serious work in our own lives and to generously SHARE IT WITH OTHERS as Dr. Marable did routinely throughout his astonishing life. It is in this spirit of deep and enduring revolutionary and human solidarity that we offer the following extended tribute to Manning's inspiring life and work.

Kofi


Manning Marable, Historian and Social Critic, Dies at 60
By WILLIAM GRIMES

April 1, 2011

New York Times

Manning Marable, a leading scholar of black history and a leftist critic of American social institutions and race relations, whose long-awaited biography of Malcolm X, more than a decade in the writing, is scheduled to be published on Monday, died on Friday in Manhattan. He was 60.

His wife, Leith Mullings, said that the cause was not known but that Mr. Marable, who lived in Manhattan, had entered the hospital with pneumonia in early March. In July 2010, he had undergone a double lung transplant.

Mr. Marable, a prolific writer and impassioned polemicist, addressed issues of race and economic injustice in numerous works that established him as one of the most forceful and outspoken scholars of African-American history and race relations in the United States.

He explored this territory in books like “How Capitalism Underdeveloped Black America” (1983), “Black Liberation in Conservative America” (1997) and “The Great Wells of Democracy” (2003), and in a political column, “Along the Color Line,” which was syndicated in more than 100 newspapers.

At nearly 600 pages, “Malcolm X: A Life of Reinvention,” to be published by Viking, presents a hefty counterweight to the well-known account “The Autobiography of Malcolm X.”

The autobiography, long considered a classic of the 1960s civil rights struggle, was an “as told to” book written with Alex Haley and published in 1965.

Mr. Marable, drawing on new sources, archival material and government documents unavailable to Mr. Haley, developed a fuller account of Malcolm X’s politics, religious beliefs and personal life, as well as his role in the civil rights movement and the circumstances of his assassination.

He also offers a revisionist portrait of Malcolm X at odds with Mr. Haley’s presentation of him as an evolving integrationist.

“We need to look at the organic evolution of his mind and how he struggled to find different ways to empower people of African descent by any means necessary,” Mr. Marable said in a 2007 interview with Amy Goodman on the radio program “Democracy Now.”

Mr. Marable’s political philosophy was often described as transformationist, as opposed to integrationist or separatist. That is, he urged black Americans to transform existing social structures and bring about a more egalitarian society by making common cause with other minorities and change-minded groups like environmentalists.

“By dismantling the narrow politics of racial identity and selective self-interest, by going beyond ‘black’ and ‘white,’ we may construct new values, new institutions and new visions of an America beyond traditional racial categories and racial oppression,” he wrote in the essay collection “Beyond Black and White: Transforming African-American Politics” (1995).

In a telephone interview on Friday, the scholar and author Cornel West called Mr. Marable “our grand radical democratic intellectual,” adding, “He kept alive the democratic socialist tradition in the black freedom movement, and I had great love and respect for him.”

William Manning Marable was born on May 13, 1950, in Dayton, Ohio. He earned a bachelor’s degree from Earlham College in Richmond, Ind., and a master’s degree from the University of Wisconsin before receiving his doctorate from the University of Maryland in 1976.

He directed ethnic studies programs at a number of colleges, notably the Race Relations Institute at Fisk University and the Africana and Latin American Studies program at Colgate University.

He was the chairman of the black studies department at Ohio State University in the late 1980s and also taught ethnic studies at the University of Colorado, Boulder.

At Columbia University, where he became a professor of public affairs, political science, history and African-American studies in 1993, he was the founding director of the Institute for Research in African-American Studies and the Center for the Study of Contemporary Black History.

In addition to his wife, who teaches anthropology at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York and who co-edited several of his books, Mr. Marable is survived by three children, Joshua Manning Marable of Boulder; Malaika Marable Serrano of Silver Spring, Md.; and Sojourner Marable Grimmett of Atlanta; two stepchildren, Alia Tyner of Manhattan and Michael Tyner of Brooklyn; a sister, Madonna Marable of Dayton; and three grandchildren.

His other books included Race, Reform and Rebellion: The Second Reconstruction in Black America, 1945-1982” (1984) and “The Great Wells of Democracy : The Meaning of Race in American Life” ( 2002), as well as two biographies published in 2005, W. E. B. DuBois: Black Radical Democrat” and “The Autobiography of Medgar Evers,” which he edited with Myrlie Evers-Williams, Evers’s widow.

He was the general editor of “Freedom on My Mind: The Columbia Documentary History of the African American Experience” (2003).

In 1992 he published “On Malcolm X: His Message and Meaning,” a work that prefigured the consuming project of his later years. “Beyond Boundaries: The Manning Marable Reader,” a selection of his writings, was published in January by Paradigm.


http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/jacketcopy/2011/04/malcolm-x-biographer-manning-marable-has-died.html


Jacket Copy
BOOKS, AUTHORS AND ALL THINGS BOOKISH

Malcolm X biographer Manning Marable has died
April 1, 2011
Los Angeles Times


Manning Marable, whose long-awaited biography of Malcolm X, "Malcolm X: A Life of Reinvention," will be published on Monday, died Friday. He was 60 years old.

Marable, who had led African American studies at Columbia University, was a professor there with many titles. Officially, he was the M. Moran Weston and Black Alumni Council Professor of African-American Studies and professor of history and public affairs at Columbia University. Columbia also notes that he was founding director of African American studies at Columbia from 1993 to 2003 and since 2002, he directed Columbia's Center for Contemporary Black History.

As far back as 2005, Marable was talking about "Malcolm X: A Life of Reinvention." In February of that year, on Malcolm X's birthday, he told Democracy Now about the materials that he had seen that others had not, including three "missing" chapters from Malcolm's autobiography that he said show the leader in a very different light.

Back then, Marable had already been at work on the biography for a decade -- meaning that he'd spent more than 15 years on the book and died just three days before its publication.

"A Life of Reinvention" by Manning Marable will be published by Viking on Monday.

Marable's other books include "Beyond Black and White: Race in America's Past, Present and Future" (1995), "The Crisis of Color and Democracy" (1995) and "The Great Wells of Democracy: The Meaning of Race in American Life" (2003).

The New York Times reports that Marable suffered from sarcoidosis and had undergone a double lung transplant as treatment for the disease last the summer. Last month he was hospitalized with pneumonia.

-- Carolyn Kellogg


http://www.thenation.com/print/blog/159661/great-wells-manning-marable

The Great Wells of Manning Marable
Melissa Harris-Perry
April 3, 2011
The Nation

We have suffered a great loss in the passing of Professor Manning Marable. As my Nation colleague John Nichols wrote yesterday [1], the coming weeks will be filled with tributes to Manning’s life and work. He was, as John says, “one of America’s truest public intellectuals.”

Manning was an unflinching and breathtakingly prolific scholar whose commitments to racial, economic, gender, and international justice were unparalleled. In decades of weekly columns, hundreds of academic journal articles and a dozen books, Manning has already written his own legacy. But despite the fact that we all have “Manning Marable shelves” in our personal libraries, there are two generations of African-American scholars who will remember him as much for the mentor he was to us as for the research legacy he leaves.

It is still a surprisingly lonely endeavor to be an African-American academic pursuing research on black life. Despite the outward appearance of successful careers, many black social scientists, historians and humanists wage a daily battle for relevance and respect in our departments and on our campuses. The fight begins in graduate school and does not seem to abate even after we have published articles, written books, achieved tenure or garnered professional praise.

In our loneliness and struggle many of us reach out for mentors. It is relatively easy to find senior scholars who will offer encouraging words, well-rehearsed advice and general praise. But Manning managed to do so much more than that. To be a student or a junior faculty member in Manning’s office was to wait for the smile. He would listen intently and seriously as you told him about the project you envisioned, the finding you made or a conclusion you’d drawn. As you spoke, his face was a mask of stillness covering a never-resting intellect just below the surface. It was more than a little intimidating to present an idea to Manning. But if he liked what you were up to or thought you had uncovered a promising direction then his face would crack into a broad and compelling smile that made the whole nerve-wracking experience worth it. If you got the smile then you knew you could keep going.

This was only the most surface way that Manning mentored us. As a student of politics and history, he understood that young race scholars faced steep structural barriers and entrenched academic practices that no amount of well-intentioned professional cheerleading could erase. Instead of just telling us we could do it, Manning helped make “doing it” possible.

As founding director of Columbia University’s Institute for Research in African-American Studies, Manning created a place where students could stretch their intellect in uncoventional ways. He encouraged students to study black life using methods and asking questions that typical disciplinary boundaries so often limit and discourage in our work. His institute was a gathering place for people from all over the world who insisted on critical connections between theory and practice. Through publication of his quarterly journal, Souls: A Critical Journal of Black Politics, Culture and Society [2], Manning gave many race scholars their first academic publications. Those early publications were decisive in the careers of many of the best professors in the academy today. Through his regular column "Along the Color Line" Manning gave us permission to and a model for reaching beyond the walls of the academy. He reminded us that our work was about something other than our own profession and that we owed debts to the communities who were the source material of our academic writing.

Manning did more than encourage us. He made a way for us. He cleared brush. He extended his protections. He shared his resources with uncompromising generosity. And he did all of this without needing to turn us into his personal collection. He very rarely took credit for our successes, despite his important role in all that we were able to do.

Manning Marable’s 2002 book is titled The Great Wells of American Democracy. It is a biting and critical text that challenges simplistic heroic narratives of American history, but simultaneously retains profound optimism about the inherent possibilities of the American experiment. When I think of Manning himself it is as a great well—possessing reserves of energy, intellect and commitment I have never before witnessed.

I have a recurring, Descartes-inspired, dualist fantasy. I imagine how much I could accomplish if I were not hindered by the realities of being embodied. I have so many ideas and intentions. I see so many paths and possibilities. I want to explore so many connections and paths. Think of how much I could accomplish if I were only mind and will unfettered by eyes that grow wearing of reading, hands that become exhausted from typing, a back that aches from sitting at the desk and a body that must eat and rest.

To those of us he mentored, it seemed like Manning had achieved this feat. I wondered if he had somehow bent the rules of the physical world in order to accomplish an unthinkable amount of work in such short periods. He felt like pure energy. But our dearest Manning was in a body. He was in a body that was broken and struggling. It turns out that our beloved mentor was mortal after all. I cannot believe that he is gone. I cannot even believe it is possible that he could be gone.

That we will have his long-anticipated, great and final work [3] even as he leaves us is so classically, tragically appropriate. Manning would never leave us without one more contribution, one more trail blazed, one more bar raised, one more possibility realized, one last drink from the great well of himself.

[1] http://www.thenation.com/blog/159660/manning-marable-public-intellectual-service-democracy
[2] http://www.columbia.edu/cu/ccbh/souls/
[3] http://www.amazon.com/Malcolm-X-Reinvention-Manning-Marable/dp/0670022209
[4] http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/nationnow/id399704758?mt=8


http://www.thenation.com/blog/159660/manning-marable-public-intellectual-service-democracy



Published in The Nation
http://www.thenation.com


Manning Marable: A Public Intellectual in the Service of Democracy
by John Nichols
April 2, 2011
The Nation


Many tributes will be paid in coming days to our friend and comrade from so many struggles, Manning Marable [1]. The accolades will be rich in sentiment and content, the praise high, and appropriately so.

The great historian of the African American political experience who as a Columbia University professor helped to establish the Institute for Research in African-American Studies and the Center for Contemporary Black History,” Marable was an academic heavyweight whose scholarship earned international recognition—and whose new book Malcolm X: A Life of Reinvention [2], which will be published Monday by Viking, will reconfirm his status as a groundbreaking historian. His death Friday at age 60, after a long battle with lung disease, was brutally timed, as the diligent scholar’s greatest moment of national prominence was about to arrive with the publication of a biography not just of a man, Malcolm X, but of movements and the transformation of a nation.

Had he lived, Manning would have used that moment, as he always did, to talk not just about his own work but about the many struggles to which he was devoted,

As one of America’s truest public intellectuals, Manning always engaged with the great debates of his days: debates about race, class, gender, war and elections. The record of that engagement is remarkable, and it remains in our possession, in the form of his “Along the Color Line” columns that appeared for years in African-American weekly newspapers (and eventually on the web).

Manning and I shared a passion for weekly newspaper writing. We both started contributing to our local papers as schoolchildren: he in his native Dayton, I in rural Wisconsin. When he was 17, his mother encouraged Manning to attend the funeral of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., after he was slain on April 4, 1968. She wanted her son “to witness a significant event in our people’s history.”

Manning made the trip as the “Youth Speaks Out” columnist for a weekly that served Dayton’s African-American community. Years later, he would write about these experiences in a fine collection of his columns and essays, Speaking Truth to Power: Essays On Race, Resistance, And Radicalism (Westview) [3].

“With Martin’s death, my childhood abruptly ended,” Manning explained. “My understanding of political change began a trajectory from reform to radicalism.”

Even as he embarked upon an educational path that aimed toward academia—gaining an undergraduate degree at Earlham College, a master’s degree from the University of Wisconsin-Madison and a PhD in American history from the University of Maryland—Manning remained a contributor and columnist for African-American weeklies and other publications. He was, as well, a prominent participant in the New America Movement, Democratic Socialists of America, the New Party, the Black Radical Congress and the Movement for a Democratic Society, which he chaired.

Manning was a radical democrat—with the emphasis on the small “d”—who believed in political participation with a purpose. “Progressives can gain positions within the state, especially at municipal and state levels, which can help fund and support grass roots interests and indirectly assist in the development of a socialist majority,” explained the professor whose columns chronicled the campaigns of Jesse Jackson for the presidency but also local contenders from across the country for school board seats and mayoralties.

Manning broke often with the Democratic Party and encouraged independent poitical endeavors. He sympathized with Ralph Nader’s run for the presidency in 2000, as with his friend and frequent intellectual and ideological ally Cornell West. But, in 2008, Manning made the case for why progressives who had doubts about Barack Obama should back the Democrat for the presidency.

When I was preparing my book on the influence of social-democratic movements in America, The “S” Word (Verso) [4], I consulted and quoted Manning’s observations on the Obama campaign. They were, as was consistently the case with his commentary, grounded in understandings of history both studied and experienced.

Manning had few illusions about Obama. At the same time, he had few doubts about the historical and political importance of the movement that elected the first African-American president.

While Manning identified Obama as a “liberal,” he also observed: [5] “What makes Obama different (from many other liberals) is that he has also been a community organizer. He has read left literature, including my works, and he understands what socialism is.”

The point was not to suggest that Obama was a socialist. Rather, it was to suggest that the senator from Illinois brought a broader range of experience—personal and ideological—to the campaign trail and the presidency than did most liberals.

Manning was hopeful about Obama, but not unrealistic [5].

“Most of us on the left have taken a position of critical support toward Obama. We have to press him to carry out his own agenda,” he wrote shortly after the 2008 election. “The analogy of FDR is appropriate. But someone has to play the role of A. Philip Randolph, the black socialist leader who attacked FDR from the left and in 1941 forced him to sign an executive order outlawing racial discrimination in factories producing for the war effort that refused to hire black people. Randolph threatened to bring 100,000 black workers to surround the White House. Roosevelt capitulated and signed an order that was the foundation of affirmative action.”

Perhaps he was being idealistic. But part of Manning’s contribution as a public intellectual in the service of democracy lay in his determination to keep the faith—to believe, and to help others to believe, that progress was possible, and that it was still realistic to speak of mobilizing masses of Americans on behalf of radical change.

In one of his finest “Along the Color Line” columns [6], a missive broadly circulated in the African-American weekly press and online, Manning Marable concluded: “If we can dare to dream politically, let us dream of the world as it should be.”




http://www.theroot.com/views/remembering-manning-marable




Published on The Root
(http://www.theroot.com)

Manning Marable: A Brother, a Mentor, a Great Mind
By Michael Eric Dyson
April 2, 2011 The Root

Michael Eric Dyson recalls the pioneering scholar as a 20th-century Frederick Douglass who nurtured and inspired talented young academics.

I discovered Manning Marable as a 21-year-old freshman at Knoxville College, a historically black college I'd left my native Detroit to attend after working in factories and fathering a son during the time most college-bound kids are in school.

I was in the library stacks, browsing the sociology section, when I came upon a book that grabbed my attention: From the Grassroots: Social and Political Essays Towards Afro-American Liberation. It was clear that Marable's left politics reflected how he had baptized classic European social theory in the black experience. "Wow," I said to myself. "If Karl Marx was a brother, this is how he'd write and think."

The author photo on this intriguing book showed a young man with a handsome face that was crowned by a shock of black hair whose woolly Afro styling conjured a 20th-century Frederick Douglass. As I was to learn later, the comparison to Douglass didn't end at the 'fro, since Marable, like his 19th-century predecessor, was an eloquent spokesman for the democratic dreams of despised black people.

As I devoured Marable's brilliant work -- including his quick 1980 follow-up, Blackwater: Historical Studies in Race, Class Consciousness, and Revolution, and his pioneering 1983 work, How Capitalism Underdeveloped Black America -- I knew I was in the presence of a world-class intellectual who lent his learning to the liberation of the vulnerable masses. I was impressed that a man so smart and accomplished could so unashamedly identify with struggling black folk -- and I was really impressed that he was so young, only eight years older than I.

Years later, when he invited me to Columbia to teach as a visiting professor in the late '90s, and I recalled again to Marable my introduction to his work, he flashed that magnetic smile of his and said that he was glad his books could help a brilliant young intellectual find his way. That, of course, was vintage Marable: deflecting attention from his Herculean efforts to parse the meaning of black political destiny by embracing the promise of a younger colleague.

And that wasn't just something he did with me; Marable nurtured and guided a veritable tribe of graduate students and junior professors as they sought sure footing in the academy. He was generous with his time and insight; he had a real talent for spotting rising stars, and a genius for tutelage and inspiration, with either a bon mot if time was short or a hearty, dynamic, luxurious, sprawling conversation when you were blessed to find his inner circle.


What was remarkable about Marable is that he possessed none of the jealousies and backbiting that render the professional academic guild a highfalutin' version of hip-hop culture's lethal fratricidal tensions. Please don't be confused: Marable loved academic gossip and tidbits of underground cultural stories as much as the rest of us, but he was never mean-spirited or vicious in his often humorous relay of the folly or hubris of a colleague or acquaintance.

Marable was kind and sweet, a teddy bear of a patriarch who watched over his young charges with wise forbearance. And he proved, in the tender and enduring companionship that he forged with his life mate, the brilliant anthropologist Leith Mullings, that you can love and learn with a black woman and drink in her beauty and brains in one sweet swig.

Marable's huge hunger to tell the truth about black suffering could never be satisfied. In a relentless stream of articles, essays, newspaper columns and books, he detailed the burdens of race and class and how these forces -- along with gender, age and sexual orientation -- ganged up on black folk and mugged us at every turn, robbing us of our dignity and our right to exist without being ambushed by inequality and injustice.

Long before the term "public intellectual" became the rage, again, Marable showed us just what engaged academics worth their salt and degrees should be up to: offering sharp analysis of the social behaviors and political practices that shape or distort our democratic heritage, while encouraging the powerless to take on the mighty with pen and protest. Marable could never get enough of such work, and he taught us all how to combine sophisticated critical scrutiny and compassionate regard for the lowly, never putting either goal in jeopardy by neglecting the work that must be done to be both smart and good.

And now, even in death, Marable teaches us still. His magnum opus, his summum bonum -- what all of his books on the urgent relevance of black politics, the pitfalls and seductions of capitalism, the ironic opportunities and vices of history, the romance and ruin of culture, and the triumphs and travails of race have built up to -- is his book on Malcolm X, due out on Monday, April 4. It is now, sadly, a posthumously published masterwork that rescues the legendary leader from the catacombs of history, separating him from the hagiography of adoring acolytes and prying him free from the hateful grip of dismissive critics.

In death, Marable gives us a life's work. He speaks to us, too, in another way: the disease from which he perished, sarcoidosis, affects black folk in America far more than it does whites or other groups. Right down to his dying breath, Marable bore witness to the possibilities and pains, the privileges and limitations, of the black identity that he so brilliantly and bravely embraced.

I will sorely miss Marable as my very dear friend whom I love -- my mentor, my colleague and big brother -- and all of us will miss one of the greatest minds and one of the most forceful spirits this land and world have ever known.


Michael Eric Dyson is University Professor of Sociology at Georgetown University and the author of 17 books, including his latest, Can You Hear Me Now? The Inspiration, Wisdom and Insight of Michael Eric Dyson.

Like The Root on Facebook. Follow us on Twitter.

Source URL: http://www.theroot.com/views/remembering-manning-marable

Links:

[1] http://www.theroot.com/users/michaelericdyson
[2] http://www.amazon.com/dp/B002UXRZD0/ref=as_li_ss_til?tag=root04c-20&camp=213381&creative=390973&linkCode=as4&creativeASIN=B002UXRZD0&adid=1JSKAZHB1W27J1NHZR69
[3] http://www.facebook.com/theroot
[4] http://www.twitter.com/theroot247
[5] http://www.theroot.com/sites/default/files/manningmarable.jpg



Links:

[1] http://www.columbia.edu/cu/polisci/fac-bios/marable/faculty.html
[2] http://www.amazon.com/Malcolm-X-Reinvention-Manning-Marable/dp/0670022209
[3] http://www.amazon.com/Speaking-Truth-Power-Resistance-Radicalism/dp/0813388287
[4] http://www.amazon.com/Word-Short-History-American-Tradition-Socialism/dp/184467679X
[5] http://www.socialistreview.org.uk/article.php?articlenumber=10628
[6] http://academic.udayton.edu/race/2008electionandracism/raceandracism/race86.htm
[7] http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Manning_Marable_by_David_Shankbone.jpg



Manning Marable Remembered as Public Intellectual and Activist by Jamal Eric Watson
April 5, 2011
Diverse Issues in Higher Education

Categories: African/Afro/Black Studies / Social Sciences /

At the time of his death, Manning Marable held the M. Moran Weston and Black Alumni Council Professorship of African American Studies at Columbia University.

Dr. Russell Rickford hasn’t quite been the same since learning that his mentor and friend, Dr. Manning Marable, passed away at the age of 60, after suffering from complications from pneumonia.

Marable, who was diagnosed with sarcoidosis, underwent a double lung transplant last summer, but friends thought he was on the rebound toward recovery, eager to celebrate the release of his new book, Malcolm X: A Life of Reinvention, a project that took him 10 years to research and write.

A self-described Marxist, Marable had a distinguished career in the academy as a social activist and public intellectual. At the time of his death, he held the M. Moran Weston and Black Alumni Council Professorship of African American Studies at Columbia University, after serving as the founding director of the university’s Institute for Research in African-American Studies and establishing the Center for Contemporary Black History at Columbia in 2002.

After writing dozens of books and publishing more than 250 scholarly articles, friends and close associates of Marable say that he was most excited about his latest book, which was released on April 4, 2011.

“He understood this was going to be his magnum opus,” says Rickford, an assistant professor of history at Dartmouth College. “It’s a remarkable book because it transforms the way we understand Malcolm and it should imbue us with a greater respect for Malcolm’s political and intellectual legacy”

Rickford first met Marable in 2002 after arriving at Columbia as a graduate student. After serving as his dissertation advisor, Marable recently entrusted Rickford to edit and publish Beyond Boundaries: The Manning Marable Reader, a major collection of his intellectual writings over the past three decades. The reader was released earlier this month.

Rickford is one of Marable’s "intellectual sons and daughters,” as he puts it. It’s a group to whom the the celebrity scholar was never too busy to provide counsel and advice.

In recent days, many of these scholars took to their Facebook and Twitter accounts to remember Marable and pay tribute to a man who helped steer so many of them into the academy. Others are planning formal academic conferences in upcoming weeks and months aimed at promoting and celebrating Marable’s contributions to the field. His 1983 classic, How Capitalism Underdeveloped Black America influenced a generation of scholars.

“Manning did more than encourage us,” says Dr. Melissa Harris-Perry, an associate professor of political science and African-American studies at Princeton University. “He made a way for us. He cleared brush. He extended his protections. He shared his resources with uncompromising generosity. And he did all of this without needing to turn us into his personal collection. He very rarely took credit for our successes despite his important role in all that we were able to do.”

In an interview with Diverse, Georgetown University professor Dr. Michael Eric Dyson described Marable as a “brilliant scholar who believed scholars ought to have an activist background.”

Dyson says that Marable was committed to radical democratic principles and genuinely concerned with gender and class inequality. “Long before the term ‘public intellectual’ became the rage, Marable showed us just what engaged academics worth their salt and degrees should be up to: offering sharp analysis of the social behaviors and political practices that shape or distort our democratic heritage, while encouraging the powerless to take on the mighty with pen and protest.”

Those who have read Marable’s latest book on Malcolm X say it will likely stir up controversy, but seeks to contextualize the Black leader.

“Some people will not like it, but [Marable] was not about hero worship,” says Rickford. ”Marable loved Black folk. He loved us in all of our iterations and complexities and he would tell us about ourselves.”

A native of Dayton, Ohio, Marable graduated from Earlham College in 1971 and received a master’s degree in American history from the University of Wisconsin-Madison and a doctorate in American history from the University of Maryland. He taught at Cornell, Fisk, Colgate, Ohio State and the University of Colorado before arriving at Columbia.

The Marable family is planning to hold a public memorial service on May 27 at a location to be announced. Marable leaves behind a wife, Dr. Leith Mullings, three children and two stepchildren.


http://www.theroot.com/views/manning-marable-s-students-remember-him

Manning Marable's Students Remember Him

APRIL 04, 2011
The Root


They were a "veritable tribe" taught and guided by the Columbia University scholar of African-American life. Here are their tributes.

Compiled by Zaheer Ali

In his moving tribute to Manning Marable, black-studies scholar Michael Eric Dyson, a professor of sociology at Georgetown University, writes, "Marable nurtured and guided a veritable tribe of graduate students and junior professors as they sought sure footing in the academy." Here are the recollections of some members of that "veritable tribe," many of whom studied with him at Columbia University's Institute for Research in African American Studies.

Robyn C. Spencer, an assistant professor of history at Lehman College in New York City, was Marable's first graduate student.

The first time I saw Manning Marable was at his job talk at Columbia University in 1993. He delivered his audition lecture about the legacy of black radicalism embodied by Malcolm X with an unapologetic reverence that mainstream historians usually reserved for heads of state. In one fell swoop, he moved me and my coterie of graduate students --studying everything from poor black women mobilizing for welfare rights to Puerto Ricans in the Young Lords Party to black radical organizers in the Black Panther Party -- from the margin of American history to its center.

After he was hired, I couldn't wait to meet him and ask him to be my adviser. At our first meeting, he shared his vision for creating a space for research that validated the totality of the black past, including the radicals, progressives and feminists. He wanted to go beyond the ivory tower and interject into national debates about black life, shape public policy and, most of all, connect to grassroots political activism, especially in surrounding Harlem.

As I moved through the program, going from teaching assistant to doctoral candidate to assistant professor under Marable's guidance, I watched him nurture the IRAAS from the humble construction site where we held our first conversation to a leading scholarly institute -- all while employing unfunded graduate students in meaningful work and providing an institutional space for conversations about black life inside and outside the academy. I'd like to think that they were both labors of love.

Monique W. Morris is the CEO of MWM Consulting Group and the former vice president for advocacy and research at the NAACP. She is the author of Too Beautiful for Words and more than 35 research publications on social-justice issues.

Scholarship and advocacy are inextricably linked. That's what I learned most from my mentor and friend, Dr. Manning Marable. As the first staff person hired to work with him at IRAAS, I read everything he wrote and was responsible for maintaining a clipping file for his syndicated newspaper column, "Along the Color Line." That experience taught me that scholarship was an important weapon in the battle for human rights, which is a lesson that I have carried with me in my work for social justice.

Marable's mentorship was everything from quiet to challenging, but his critique was always rigorous. As a historian, he offered guidance through a spirit of sankofa. History's lessons were necessary to explore and confront if we were to move forward with a progressive black agenda.

As a democratic socialist, he challenged structural racism and the oppression of black people. Always, he was forward thinking and offered his students an opportunity to develop our own insights. A few months ago, he wrote to me that we needed a "new vision for black freedom." As we straddle life "along the color line," the time is now to advance that movement.
They were a "veritable tribe" taught and guided by the Columbia University scholar of African-American life. Here are their tributes.

In his moving tribute to Manning Marable, black-studies scholar Michael Eric Dyson, a professor of sociology at Georgetown University, writes, "Marable nurtured and guided a veritable tribe of graduate students and junior professors as they sought sure footing in the academy." Here are the recollections of some members of that "veritable tribe," many of whom studied with him at Columbia University's Institute for Research in African American Studies.

Robyn C. Spencer, an assistant professor of history at Lehman College in New York City, was Marable's first graduate student.

The first time I saw Manning Marable was at his job talk at Columbia University in 1993. He delivered his audition lecture about the legacy of black radicalism embodied by Malcolm X with an unapologetic reverence that mainstream historians usually reserved for heads of state. In one fell swoop, he moved me and my coterie of graduate students --studying everything from poor black women mobilizing for welfare rights to Puerto Ricans in the Young Lords Party to black radical organizers in the Black Panther Party -- from the margin of American history to its center.

After he was hired, I couldn't wait to meet him and ask him to be my adviser. At our first meeting, he shared his vision for creating a space for research that validated the totality of the black past, including the radicals, progressives and feminists. He wanted to go beyond the ivory tower and interject into national debates about black life, shape public policy and, most of all, connect to grassroots political activism, especially in surrounding Harlem.

As I moved through the program, going from teaching assistant to doctoral candidate to assistant professor under Marable's guidance, I watched him nurture the IRAAS from the humble construction site where we held our first conversation to a leading scholarly institute -- all while employing unfunded graduate students in meaningful work and providing an institutional space for conversations about black life inside and outside the academy. I'd like to think that they were both labors of love.

Monique W. Morris is the CEO of MWM Consulting Group and the former vice president for advocacy and research at the NAACP. She is the author of Too Beautiful for Words and more than 35 research publications on social-justice issues.

Scholarship and advocacy are inextricably linked. That's what I learned most from my mentor and friend, Dr. Manning Marable. As the first staff person hired to work with him at IRAAS, I read everything he wrote and was responsible for maintaining a clipping file for his syndicated newspaper column, "Along the Color Line." That experience taught me that scholarship was an important weapon in the battle for human rights, which is a lesson that I have carried with me in my work for social justice.

Marable's mentorship was everything from quiet to challenging, but his critique was always rigorous. As a historian, he offered guidance through a spirit of sankofa. History's lessons were necessary to explore and confront if we were to move forward with a progressive black agenda.

As a democratic socialist, he challenged structural racism and the oppression of black people. Always, he was forward thinking and offered his students an opportunity to develop our own insights. A few months ago, he wrote to me that we needed a "new vision for black freedom." As we straddle life "along the color line," the time is now to advance that movement.


Nishani Frazier is an assistant professor in the department of history at Miami University of Ohio. She is co-editor, with Manning Marable, of Freedom on My Mind: The Columbia Reader of African-American History.

I was leaving the safety of Durham, N.C., and the employment and guiding support of Dr. John Hope Franklin, another venerable historian who has passed on to the ancestors. New York was the big city, and Columbia University was the big, bad wolf. Although I entered graduate school with much trepidation, I knew that there was one place where I was welcome: It was the Institute for Research in African American Studies, a center built brick by brick by Manning Marable. It was not just the site of black studies; it was the place where many students found psychic, emotional and professional solace and security. In IRAAS, Marable created a safe haven.

Marable's greatest contribution to his students and many other students of black studies was to craft through IRAAS a powerful symbol of institutionalized mentorship. He provided for me and future students like me a shelter from the storm. This gift is among the ultimate tributes to his life, and his students reflect this legacy.

Zaheer Ali is a doctoral student in history at Columbia University, researching 20th-century African-American history and religion. He was a project manager of the Malcolm X Project.

In 2004, while working on Dr. Manning Marable's Malcolm X Project, I accompanied him to Chicago for a meeting with Minister Louis Farrakhan and his longtime aide Abdul Akbar Muhammad to discuss Marable's research on Malcolm X. It was the first time the two had ever met in person, and what was supposed to be a two-hour meeting turned into a six-hour conversation that extended into another two hours for dinner. Their political differences aside, Farrakhan expressed nothing but deep respect and appreciation for Marable's scholarship, and both men shared an interest in documenting and preserving black history.

This meeting and its follow-up would have been unlikely for me to accomplish on my own as a graduate student. But as was often the case, Marable created the circumstances wherein I could grow as a researcher and scholar: He asked me to assist in conducting the oral-history interviews of both Minister Farrakhan and Mr. Muhammad. Afterward, he granted me access to the Malcolm X Project files for my dissertation research.

Marable's generosity with his institutional and intellectual resources enriched me in ways that I have only begun to discover. His humility and faith in his students enabled him to treat us like junior colleagues, offering the chance to co-edit anthologies, submit articles to his many publications and lead major research initiatives.

He was fond of saying of the Malcolm X Project, "It's not just a job; it's a way of life." For him the history of black freedom was not just something he wrote about; it is something he lived as a radical democrat committed to equality. And he taught us to live it, too.

Zinga A. Fraser is a Ph.D. candidate in African-American studies at Northwestern University.

Although I was a train ride away from home, the IRAAS would become my second home. Professor Marable's vision of creating an intellectual and physical space at Columbia in the name of black people, but for all people, will remain his legacy. Not until I left the institute did I realize how special it is.

Observing his many projects, I saw firsthand what true theory and praxis are. While others examine the plight of incarcerated youth, he formed the Africana Criminal Justice Project. While people examine the facets of Malcolm X's life, he created the Malcolm X Project to engage students and the public on Malcolm's legacy.


Marable provided a model for my scholarship. When my project on black women in politics was questioned by some, his advice landed me at the university I now attend. At a recent talk, he said, as he did on many occasions, that it is his job to make his scholarship at Columbia relevant for those on 125th Street.

My time in the academy might suggest that I should be jaded by this concept, but I know that it is nothing abstract because I saw Marable do it daily. Although we are hurt by his loss, I am thankful to have been a part of his "living history."

Megan French is a Ph.D. candidate in history at Columbia University, researching race and urban policy in New Orleans. She was project manager of the Amistad Digital Resource.

In spring 2007, Dr. Marable asked if I would like to work on a project he was calling the Amistad Resource; it was to be an open digital resource for public school teachers on black history. He was my adviser, the person who encouraged me to do a Ph.D., but not even he knew the importance of this project for me.

I had been struggling with the way to connect the highly specific scholarship of academe with anything that would have an impact on the outside world. I was seeking ways in which scholar-activism really worked. Here, Marable opened the possible.

He wanted the site to be accessible, but also to create conversations in classrooms that had not happened when I was in high school, about racism, history and perspective. I watched someone take a risk in an academic environment where anything for public, nonprofit interests seems irrelevant and commit to the idea that this history was important for everyone.

Later that year, as we continued work on the site, Marable gave the address commemorating the 40th anniversary of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s anti-Vietnam War speech. Amid community leaders at Riverside Church -- again one of the few academics in the room -- Marable gave one of the most moving, provocative talks on civil rights I had ever heard. A woman next to me said, he really is all for the people. I said back to her, I know.

Elizabeth Kai Hinton is a Ph.D. candidate and the co-editor of Manning Marable's The New Black History: Revisiting the Second Reconstruction, which will be published by Palgrave MacMillan in November 2011.

We will remember Manning Marable's contributions to African-American studies as his foremost legacy, but he should also be recognized for the spaces he built for scholars of black history within academia. Professor Marable created the IRAAS at Columbia nearly 20 years ago to provide a safe haven for students to critically examine the nature of institutional racism, the contours of the African Diaspora and approaches to radical social change.

Like many of my peers also pursuing doctoral degrees at Columbia who had the privilege to study under Marable, the institute proved key to our survival on campus. In addition to his dedication to the work of a generation of young scholars, Marable's Souls: A Critical Journal of Black Politics, Culture and Society -- molded after W.E.B. Du Bois' Phylon -- also provides one of the few forums for black radical perspectives.

Among Marable's many legacies, both IRAAS and Souls stand as a testament to his support of young, progressive scholars, as well as his enthusiastic pursuit of history and political thought. While Marable himself is irreplaceable, he has provided a foundation for future generations and will continue to shape our understanding of social change and justice.

Zaheer Ali can be reached at mail@zaheerali.com. Follow him on Twitter. Like The Root on Facebook. Follow us on Twitter.


Links:

[1] http://www.theroot.com/user/35243
[2] http://www.theroot.com/views/remembering-manning-marable
[3] http://www.columbia.edu/cu/ccbh/mxp/
[4] http://www.columbia.edu/cu/ccbh/acjp/
[5] http://www.amistadresource.org/
[6] http://www.columbia.edu/cu/ccbh/souls/index.html
[7] mailto:mail@zaheerali.com
[8] http://www.twitter.com/zaheerali
[9] http://www.facebook.com/theroot
[10] http://www.twitter.com/theroot247


All,

Michael Eric Dyson and Bill Fletcher, Jr. reflect on the life and work and give tribute to the late Dr. Manning Marable on Democracy Now! program on April 4, 2011. They also talk about Manning's new book on Malcolm X.


Kofi




DemocracyNow.org

Two decades in the making, Manning Marable's nearly 600-page biography, "Malcolm X: A Life of Reinvention," is described as a reevaluation of Malcolm X's life, providing new insights into the circumstances of his assassination, as well as raising questions about Malcolm X's autobiography. Manning passed away on Friday, just days before his life's work was published. To discuss his legacy, Democracy Now! interviews Michael Eric Dyson, sociology professor at Georgetown University and author of "Making Malcolm: The Myth and Meaning of Malcolm X," and also by Bill Fletcher, Jr., a friend of Marable and a longtime labor and racial justice activist.

"There were three different sources that had an interest in Malcolm's death, and that's where [the book] becomes very, very important," Fletcher says. "It was the police and the FBI, it was the Nation of Islam, but there were also people in his own organization who resented the trajectory that he was moving. And so, there was this confluence of forces that led to a situation where he was permitted to be killed. And I think that when people read this, it's going to be an incredible eye opener."


For the video/audio podcast, transcript, and for Democracy Now!'s interviews with Manning Marable, visit:
http://www.democracynow.org/2011/4/4/making_malcolm_the_myth_and_meaning


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ri_unYMs6wk&NR=1

iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Ri_unYMs6wk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen>

All,

The late historian and scholar Manning Marable eloquently discusses the profound historical significance and legacy of Malcolm X on Democracy Now! programs from 2005 and 2007.

Kofi


Democracy NOW! DN! - Part 1-2 Renowned African-American historian Manning Marable passed away on Friday at the age of 60, just days before the publication of his life's work, a monumental biography about Malcolm X. Two decades in the making, Malcolm X: A Life of Reinvention, is described as a reevaluation of Malcolm X's life. We play excerpts from when Amy Goodman interviewed Marable in 2005 and 2007 about the chapters missing from Malcolm X's autobiography and the groups implicated in his assassination. Published, with written permission, from democracynow.org. http://www.democracynow.org Provided to you under Democracy NOW creative commons license. Copyright democracynow.org, an independent non-profit user funded news media, recognized and broadcast world wide.


PLEASE CLICK ON VIDEO LINKS (PARTS 1 & 2) BELOW TO VIEW VERY IMPORTANT MARABLE INTERVIEWS ON HIS GROUNDBREAKING RESEARCH AND WRITING ON MALCOLM X:








TAVIS SMILEY SHOW ON PBS--INTERVIEW WITH MANNING MARABLE

April 4, 2011

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPxc9SedgzE




http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tavis-smiley/remembering-dr-manning-ma_b_844743.html


Tavis Smiley
PBS talk show host, PRI radio host

Remembering Dr. Manning Marable
Posted: 04/ 4/11

Just days from now, Dr. Manning Marable was scheduled to appear on my PBS program to discuss his epic biography of Malcolm X. Dr. Marable passed away on Friday, April 1.

The book, in stores today, is his magnum opus -- a book over two decades in the making.

In addition to the new biography, Dr. Marable leaves a vast contribution to Black history, which is of course to say, American history.

When he joined us on the program in 2006, we discussed a wide range of topics, including what he saw as an incomplete understanding of Malcolm X.

The new book is called Malcolm X: A Life of Reinvention.

Our full 2006 conversation with Dr. Marable airs tonight on PBS. Here is a transcript of that interview:

Dr. Manning Marable
Airdate February 7, 2006
PBS

Dr. Manning Marable is Director of the Institute for Research in African American Studies at Columbia University. He also established the university's Center for Contemporary Black History. A prolific author, his work includes The Great Wells of Democracy and Living Black History. Marable was the Founding Director of Colgate University's Africana and Hispanic Studies Program. He also writes a political commentary series, Along the Color Line and is active in a variety of progressive causes.


Dr. Manning Marable

Tavis: Manning Marable is professor of history at Columbia University, and founding director of the school's Institute For Research And African-American Studies. He is the author of numerous books, including "The Autobiography of Medgar Evers.' His latest book is called 'Living Black History, How Reimagining The African-American Past Can Remake America's Racial Future.' He joins us tonight from New York. Professor Marable, nice to have you on the program, sir.

Manning Marable: Thank you, Tavis, it's great to be here.

Tavis: Nice to have you on. Let me start with the sad news of the day, and then we'll move on to how we can build up on the legacy left by one Coretta Scott King. Of course, we all know that earlier today in Atlanta, she was laid to rest. Your thoughts on the legacy and the living Black history that Coretta Scott King contributed to.

Marable: Coretta Scott King will go down in the annals of American history as a woman of remarkable courage and endurance. Without her vision and commitment to the ideals of her husband, we would not today have the Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. national holiday. We would not have the infrastructure for a King Center.

And I believe that history will show that she was truly an equal partner with Dr. King, and in many ways, when the two met several years prior to the launching of the Civil Rights movement, she was more progressive and more political than Martin was, when they were in graduate school. So her partnership and her ideas helped to shape his evolution. In many ways, more than most people are aware.

Tavis: Beyond that point, which is very significant, I'm glad you shared it with us, to remind us she did, in fact, go about carving out her own legacy, tell me how difficult you think that was that in a lot of the fact the guy she was standing next to (laugh) was a guy named Martin King. How does one go about creating one's own legacy and becoming living history oneself in that kind of shadow?

Marable: It's extremely difficult. I think that the way - what I would liken it to is the relationship, the close friendship that has cultivated, I've cultivated with Myrlie Evers-Williams, the widow of Medgar Evers. There is a parallel to it. Medgar had the toughest Civil Rights job in the United States, being the field secretary of the NAACP in Mississippi for nearly a decade.

And when he was shot in front of his family home in 1963, he instantly became a Civil Rights legend, an icon. How do you assert yourself as an active, involved, Civil Rights person, as an intellectual the way Myrlie was, in the wake of that terrible loss? Coretta Scott King faced a similar dynamic, even though for Coretta, it was more daunting, because King was a worldwide figure.

He was, perhaps, at his death, one of the three or four most influential figures on Earth. His speeches were read by millions, had been memorized by millions of people. And so, how do you assert yourself? And both in Myrlie's case and in Coretta's case, with incredible dignity, with grace, and with courage, they asserted themselves around practical tasks to ensure their husband's ideals would live on in the pursuit of their respective careers.

Myrlie through assuming presidency of the NAACP at a very difficult time in its history, a decade ago. And Coretta through the courageous battle to win a national holiday on behalf of Martin.

Tavis: Before I advance, Manning, to this notion of living Black history that I want to delve into here in just a second, let me ask what the value of Black history is. Every February, I see the grin on your face. Every February, don't ask me how we chose the coldest, shortest, darkest month of the year to do this in.

Marable: Thank you.

Tavis: Such a rich culture, heritage we have, condensed in 28 days. But that notwithstanding, what is the value of us pausing, at least for these 28 days once a year, to talk about Black history? And I wanna know your perspective on the value of it for Black folk and for folk who happen not to be Black? What's the value?

Marable: The value is very simple. We all live history every day. But Black folk and White folk in America have always talked about history in radically different ways. White Americans, for hundreds of years, have emphasized, as they reconstruct the meaning of the past, they emphasize values such as individual liberty and the ownership of private property as part of the American dream.

For African Americans, we've always understood, since 1619, that there was no such thing as an individual slave rebellion launched by a single person. That freedom was always a collective project, and that from that point on, as we construct our memories of the past, White racism has always sought to discredit or to literally destroy evidence of atrocities and racial injustice.

And Black history's logic has been to build a capacity, an argument, for the freedom, not just for African Americans, but for all people regardless of race, regardless of their socioeconomic class, or gender. And so in "Living Black History," I try to document innumerable examples of how Black history is being lost and being destroyed. And part of that has to do with the suppression of Black history.

And I give a lot of examples. Tulsa, Oklahoma. I recently visited and spoke at the University Of Tulsa, The M.L. King Day. Here's a city in the middle of America where in 1921, 2,500 African Americans were burned out of their homes, several hundred were killed, and this racial atrocity was suppressed for over 60 years. In New York City in 1991, as they expanded the federal courthouse and they were digging down into the bedrock of Manhattan Island, they discovered 19,000 corpses of African people who had been married over a century.

Today's African burial ground. This is a metaphor for the contestation that history, as a site of struggle, always is in a racialized society. After all, we were the first stock on the stock exchange. That African people built the wall on Wall Street. That if you go back in time and interrogate America's past, you find African Americans being at the heart of the American experience, building, in part, much of the wealth upon which the society has been produced. And that is why there is a deliberate effort to suppress the historical knowledge.

Tavis: Let me jump in right here, because you said a number of things I'm fascinated by, but one that I definitely want to get to before my time runs out. And that is this notion of the fact that for White folk and Black folk, we see the freedom struggle differently. And I got that point. I'm fascinated by your formulation, though, that for Black folk, freedom has always been a collective project.

I get that. I was on a plane not long ago, Manning, and talking to a White guy who recognized me and sat next to me on the plane said to me, asked me in fact, not said to me, asked me why it was that Black folk have done so well individually. And he started running the names of Black folk who've done well on an individual basis. But why we struggle so much as a collective. How would you have answered this White guy on the plane who asked me that question?

Marable: We have to introduce him to the concept of structural racism. Back 300 years ago, we had a triangle of racism; we called it the Triangle Slave Trade? That brought millions of African people to the new world, connecting Africa to the Americas to Europe. Today, there's a new triangle. And in my look "Living Black History," I talk about the colorblind racism of the twenty-first century.

A triangle that links mass unemployment, mass incarceration, and mass disenfranchisement. That the history of the future that is being made now is structuring a future for Black folk to remove us from civic conversation and democratic institutions. To limit or to reduce millions of people from having voting rights. Now have you a state like Mississippi where 30 percent of Black males in that state lost the right to vote for life.

Tavis: But Manning, that doesn't sound to me like color - I see where you're going with this. That doesn't sound like colorblind racism. It sounds to me like they know exactly who they are targeting.

Marable: Seems that way. But the White and Colored signs have been taken down. We live under a very different kind of racial domain. Fifty years ago, the history that Martin and Malcolm and Medgar had to encounter in the struggle for Black freedom was quite different than the colorblind racism of the twenty-first century.

In a way Jim Crow was always a curse and perverse blessing. Because whether you were a Ph.D. or you swept the streets, you rode in the back of the bus. And in the unity of our oppression, we felt a kinship, what the political scientist Michael Dawson refers to as linked fate. We were all part of a collective project to assert our freedom.

And in "Living Black History,' I try to talk about how important it is to document those struggles of the Black freedom movement of the 1960s. And that so many of these artifacts of the Civil Rights and Black Power period are actually being lost. I talk about, for example, from the classic book by Malcolm X and Alex Haley, 'The Autobiography Of Malcolm X," how there are three chapters that ended up being removed from the text.

And where those chapters ended up, in a law office of a lawyer in Detroit. That virtually no one has ever seen. And how Malcolm's political legacy is incomplete in part due to the gentrification of Black history. That artifacts are more valued by individual investors who can hold on to them and then market them for their own value, rather than putting them in a library or an archive and making them available to schoolchildren and for future generations.

Tavis: Well, I'm glad you didn't hold on to the good stuff found in this text. This is, of course, February, Black History Month, African American History Month, if you prefer. And spend a little time during this month familiarizing yourself with the struggle of African American people. Any number of texts you can read.

Might I recommend, though, "Living Black History, How Reimagining The African-American Past Can Remake America's Racial Future," written by Columbia Professor Manning Marable. Professor, nice to have you on the program, all the best to you.

Marable: Thank you.


http://www.npr.org/2011/04/04/135113358/mourning-a-mentor-students-pay-tribute-to-marable

April 8, 2011
NPR Shop | NPR Social Media

Mourning A Mentor: Students Pay Tribute To Marable
by JANAYA WILLIAMS
NPR

Listen to the Story
All Things Considered
[4 min 31 sec]
Add to Playlist


Manning Marable, pictured above in 2001, died Friday, just days before the publication of his life's work, a new biography of Malcolm X. "He was trying to save people with his ideas," says Marable's researcher, Zaheer Ali.


April 4, 2011 from WNYC

Columbia University professor Manning Marable did not live to see the publication of his life's work, a new biography called Malcolm X: A Life of Reinvention. The book was released Monday, just days after Marable, 60, died Friday of complications from pneumonia.

Marable was the author of 15 books and a multitude of scholarly articles. He founded Colgate University's Africana and Latin American Studies program as well as the Institute for Research in African-American Studies at Columbia, where he was a mentor to countless students. Three of them gathered in the late scholar's office over the weekend to discuss why Marable was such an important influence on them — and on African-American research in the U.S.

Zaheer Ali was the main researcher for the Malcolm X biography that Marable had been working on in one form or another for decades.

"He had this massive timeline for the Malcolm X project," Ali remembers. "It was this huge Excel chart that if you printed it out it would be over 100 pages." Marable used the chart to track discussion — from The New York Times to the FBI to the Muhammad Speaks newspaper — of events in Malcolm X's life and career.

Ali is just one of a generation of African-American scholars and public intellectuals who came of age influenced by Marable's work.

"When I got to campus the first question you were asked is, 'Have you seen Manning?' " Ali recalls. "It was almost like a rite of passage."

In addition to creating the Institute for Research in African-American Studies, Marable also founded the Center for Contemporary Black Studies. He encouraged rigorous scholarship and inquiry around radical historical figures and revolutionary movements: topics that were — until Marable's efforts — on the fringes of serious scholarship.

More On Manning Marable

Malcom X Scholar Dies As Life's Work Publishes
April 3, 2011
Malcolm X Scholar Dies Just Before Book Release
April 2, 2011
Manning Marable: 'Living Black History'
Jan. 16, 2006
Malcolm X, the Man Behind the Image
Feb. 21, 2005

Doctoral student Elizabeth Hinton, the editor of Souls, Marable's journal of black culture, remembers him as "unapologetic" about his politics. "In conversation with him, he would quote Trotsky and Lenin and Marx and Du Bois," Hinton says. "For people who were interested in a different social vision of the world and wanted to, very much in the spirit of Manning, use scholarship and political theory and historical research to envision a different kind of world, this is the space on campus that he created."

Marable's political ideas sometimes put him at odds with his peers in the field of black scholarship. But Robyn Spencer, Marable's first graduate student at Columbia almost 20 years ago, says he had a way of opening people's minds and making his work accessible.


Prof. Marable was willing to engage people with whom he had publicly disagreed — and do it civilly and with integrity.

- Zaheer Ali

"He was funny, he was always laughing," Spencer says. "He was irreverent, in some ways. He took historical actors that people think are larger than life, he brought them down to Earth. He would call Angela Davis 'Angie.' ... He made everyone accessible; he made you feel like you could access those people as well."

Marable embraced "transformationist" politics over nationalism or separatism — the idea that African-Americans could and should transform society by changing institutions in partnership with others. His interest in chronicling the black experience across ideological lines led him to exchange ideas with people of all political stripes. Ali remembers the time Marable took him along for a face-to-face meeting with Louis Farrakhan.

"I was a little nervous," Ali remembers. "They had never met before, and Professor Marable had written very critically about minister Farrakhan's nationalist politics." What began as a two-hour meeting turned into a six-hour meeting followed by dinner. "I watched two grown men have an intelligent, critical discussion about the meaning of black life in America," Ali says. "It was an important example of how Professor Marable was willing to bravely and courageously engage people with whom he had publicly disagreed — and do it civilly and with integrity."

The students whom Marable had mentored over the years call his presence on campus nothing short of a "revolution." By bringing fringe ideas into the mainstream, Marable found a way to challenge the existing canon — and create another.



http://www.bing.com/videos/search?publ=95CF74DB-61A8-4E7E-80FF-52807CB476DB&FORM=MFEVID&crea=STND_MFEVID_FY11H2_BR_CusVid_1x1&q=manning+marable&docid=877375586401&FORM=HUFPST#










http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y56EpwKen8M&feature=player_embedded

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?publ=95CF74DB-61A8-4E7E-80FF-52807CB476DB&FORM=MFEVID&crea=STND_MFEVID_FY11H2_BR_CusVid_1x1&q=manning+marable&docid=877375586401&FORM=HUFPST#first=41




http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/02/books/excerpt-malcolm-x-by-manning-marable.html?ref=books&pagewanted=all


April 1, 2011

‘Malcolm X: A Life of Reinvention’
Viking Press (c) 2011
By MANNING MARABLE

From Chapter 7, “As Sure as God Made Green Apples”

Malcolm may have publicly commanded his followers to obey the law, but this did little to lessen suspicion of the Muslims by law enforcement in major cities. Nowhere did tensions run hotter than in Los Angeles, where Malcolm had established Temple No. 27 in 1957. For most whites who migrated to the city, Los Angeles was the quintessential city of dreams. For black migrants, the city of endless possibilities offered some of the same Jim Crow restrictions they had sought to escape by moving west. As early as 1915, black Los Angeles residents were protesting against racially restrictive housing covenants; such racial covenants as well as blatant discrimination by real estate firms continued to be a problem well into the 1960s. The real growth of the black community in Southern California only began to take place during the two decades after 1945. During this twenty-year period, when the black population of New York City increased by nearly 250 percent, the black population of Los Angeles jumped 800 percent. Blacks were also increasingly important in local trade unions, and in the economy generally. For example, between 1940 and 1960, the percentage of black males in LA working as factory operatives increased from 15 percent to 24 percent; the proportion of African-American men employed in crafts during the same period rose from 7 percent to 14 percent. By 1960, 468,000 blacks resided in Los Angeles County, approximately 20 percent of the county’s population.

These were some of the reasons that Malcolm had invested so much energy and effort to build the NOI’s presence in Southern California, and especially the development of Mosque No. 27. Having recruited the mosque’s leaders, he flew out to settle a local factional dispute in October 1961. Such activities were noticed and monitored by the California Senate Fact-Finding Committee on Un-American Activities, which feared that the NOI had “Communist affiliations.” The state committee concluded that there was an “interesting parallel between the Negro Muslim movement and the Communist Party, and that is the advocacy of the overthrow of a hated regime by force, violence or any other means.” On September 2, 1961, several Muslims selling Muhammad Speaks in a South Central Los Angeles grocery store parking lot were harassed by two white store detectives. The detectives later claimed that when they had attempted to stop the Muslims from selling the paper, they were “stomped and beaten.” The version of this incident described in Muhammad Speaks was strikingly different, with the paper claiming that “the two ‘detectives’ produced guns, and attempted to make a ‘citizen’s arrest.’ Grocery packers rushed out to help the detectives . . . and black residents of the area who had gathered also became involved. For 45 minutes bedlam reigned.” About forty Los Angeles Police Department officers were dispatched to the scene to restore order. Five Muslims were arrested. At their subsequent trial, the store’s owner and manager confirmed that the NOI had been given permission to peddle their newspapers in the parking lot. An all-white jury acquitted the Muslims on all charges.

Following the parking lot mêlée, the LAPD was primed for retaliation against the local NOI. The city’s police commissioner, William H. Parker, had even read Lincoln’s The Black Muslims in America, and viewed the sect as subversive and dangerous, capable of producing widespread unrest. He instructed his officers to closely monitor the mosque’s activities, which is why, just after midnight on April 27, 1962, when two officers observed what looked to them like men taking clothes out of the back of a car outside the mosque, they approached with suspicion. What happened next is a matter of dispute, yet whether the police were jumped, as they claimed, or the Muslim men were shoved and beaten without provocation, as seems likely, the commotion brought a stream of angry Muslims out of the mosque. The police threatened to respond with deadly force, but when one officer attempted to intimidate the growing crowd of bystanders, he was disarmed by the crowd. Somehow one officer’s revolver went off, shooting and wounding his partner in the elbow. Backup squad cars soon arrived ferrying more than seventy officers, and a full-scale battle ensued. Within minutes dozens of cops raided the mosque itself, randomly beating NOI members. It took fifteen minutes for the fighting to die down. In the end, seven Muslims were shot, including NOI member William X Rogers, who was shot in the back and paralyzed for life. NOI officer Ronald Stokes, a Korean War veteran, had attempted to surrender to the police by raising his hands over his head. Police responded by shooting him from the rear; a bullet pierced his heart, killing him. A coroner’s inquest determined that Stokes’s death was “justifiable.” A number of Muslims were indicted.

News of the raid shattered Malcolm; he wept for the reliable and trustworthy Stokes, whom he had known well from his many trips to the West Coast. The desecration of the mosque and the violence brought upon its members pushed Malcolm to a dark place. He was finally ready for the Nation to throw a punch. Malcolm told Mosque No. 7’s Fruit of Islam that the time had come for retribution, an eye for an eye, and he began to recruit members for an assassination team to target LAPD officers. Charles 37X, who attended one of these meetings, recalled him in a rage, shouting to the assembled Fruit, “What are you here for? What the hell are you here for?” As Louis Farrakhan related, “Brother Malcolm had a gangsterlike past. And coming into the Nation, and especially in New York, he had a tremendous sway over men that came out of the street with gangster leanings.” It was especially from these hardened men that Malcolm demanded action, and they rose to his cry. Mosque No. 7 intended to “send somebody to Los Angeles to kill [the police] as sure as God made green apples,” said James 67X. “Brothers volunteered for it.”

As he made plans to bring his killers to Los Angeles, Malcolm sought the approval of Elijah Muhammad, in what he assumed would be a formality. The time had come for action, and surely Muhammad would see the necessity in summoning the Nation’s strength for the battle. But the Messenger denied him. “Brother, you don’t go to war over a provocation,” he told Malcolm. “They could kill a few of my followers, but I’m not going to go out and do something silly.” He ordered the entire FOI to stand down. Malcolm was stunned; he acquiesced, but with bitter disappointment. Farrakhan believes Malcolm concluded that Muhammad was trying “to protect the wealth that he had acquired, rather than go out with the struggle of our people.”

A few days later Malcolm flew to Los Angeles, and on May 4 he held a press conference about the shootings at the Statler Hilton. The next day he presided over Stokes’s funeral. More than two thousand people attended the service, and an estimated one thousand joined in the automobile procession to the cemetery. Yet the matter was far from resolved. If Malcolm could not kill the officers involved, he was determined that both the police and the political establishment in Los Angeles should be forced to acknowledge their responsibility. The only way to accomplish this, he believed, was for the NOI to work with civil rights organizations, local black politicians, and religious groups. On May 20, Malcolm participated in a major rally against police brutality that attracted the support of many white liberals, as well as communists. “You’re brutalized because you’re black,” he declared at the demonstration. “And when they lay a club on the side of your head, they do not ask your religion. You’re black — that’s enough.”

He threw himself into organizing a black united front against the police in Southern California, but once more Elijah Muhammad stepped in, ordering his stubborn lieutenant to halt all efforts. “Brother, stay where I put you,” ran his edict, “because they [civil rights organizations] have no place to go. Hold your position.” Muhammad was convinced that integration could not be achieved; the civil rights groups would ultimately gravitate toward the Nation of Islam. When desegregation failed, he explained to Malcolm (and later to Farrakhan), “they will have no place to go but what you and I represent.” Consequently, he vetoed any cooperation with civil rights groups even on a matter as contentious as Stokes’s murder. Louis X saw this as an important turning point in the deteriorating relationship between Malcolm and Muhammad. By 1962, Malcolm was “speaking less and less about the teachings [of Muhammad],” recalled Farrakhan. “And he was fascinated by the civil rights movement, the action of the civil rights participants, and the lack of action of the followers of the Honorable Elijah.”

At heart, the disagreement between Malcolm X and Elijah Muhammad went deeper than the practical question of how to respond to the Los Angeles police assault. Almost from the moment Muhammad had been informed about the raid and Stokes’s death, he viewed the tragedy as stemming from a lack of courage by Mosque No. 27’s members. “Every one of the Muslims should have died,” he was reported to have said, “before they allowed an aggressor to come into their mosque.” Muhammad believed Stokes had died from weakness, because he had attempted to surrender to the police. Malcolm could hardly stomach such an idea, but having submitted to the Messenger’s authority, he repeated the arguments as his own inside Mosque No. 7. James 67X listened as Malcolm told the congregation, “We are not Christian(s). We are not to turn the other cheek, but the laborers [NOI members] have gotten so comfortable that in dealing with the devil they will submit to him. . . . If a blow is struck against you, fight back.” The brothers in the Los Angeles mosque who resisted had lived. Ronald Stokes submitted and was killed.

Some of Malcolm’s closest associates were persuaded that Elijah Muhammad had made the correct decision, at least on the issue of retaliation. Benjamin 2X Goodman, for one, would later declare, “Mr. Muhammad said, ‘All in good time’ . . . and he was right. The police were ready. It would have been a trap.” But Malcolm himself was humiliated by the NOI’s failure to defend its own members. Everything that he had experienced over the previous years — from mobilizing thousands in the streets around Hinton’s beating in 1957 to working with Philip Randolph to build a local black united front in 1961–62 — told him that the Nation could protect its members only through joint action with civil rights organizations and other religious groups. One could not simply leave everything to Allah.

The Stokes murder brought to a close the first phase of Malcolm’s career within the NOI. He had become convinced that Elijah Muhammad’s passive position could not be justified. Malcolm had spent almost a decade in the Nation, and for all his speeches, he could point to no progress on the creation of a separate black state. Meanwhile, in the state that existed, the black men and women who looked to him for leadership were suffering and dying. Political agitation and public protests, along the lines of CORE and SNCC, were essential to challenging institutional racism. Malcolm hoped that, at least within the confines of Mosque No. 7, he would be allowed to pursue a more aggressive strategy, in concert with independent black leaders like Powell and Randolph. In doing so, he speculated, perhaps the entire Nation of Islam could be reborn.


From "MALCOLM X: A Life of Reinvention" by Manning Marable. Excerpted with the permission of Viking Books, the publisher.


Manning Marable
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Born May 13, 1950
Dayton, Ohio, United States
Died April 1, 2011 (aged 60)
New York City, New York, United States
Alma mater Earlham College, University of Maryland
Spouse Leith Mullings

William Manning Marable (May 13, 1950 – April 1, 2011)[1] was an American professor of public affairs, history and African-American Studies at Columbia University.[2] Marable founded and directed the Institute for Research in African-American Studies. Marable authored several texts and was active in progressive political causes. At the time of his death, Marable had completed a biography of human rights activist Malcolm X, entitled Malcolm X: A Life of Reinvention.[3]

Marable was born in Dayton, Ohio. He received his Bachelor of Arts degree from Earlham College and his PhD from University of Maryland. Marable taught at the University of Colorado at Boulder and Ohio State University, where he was chairman of the Department of Black Studies. He later took a position at Columbia University, eventually becoming the M. Moran Weston and Black Alumni Council Professor of African-American Studies. Marable also served as the founding director of the Africana and Hispanic Studies Program at Colgate University.[2]

Marable served as Chair of Movement for a Democratic Society (MDS).[4] Marable served on the Board of Directors for the Hip-Hop Summit Action Network (HSAN), a non-profit coalition of public figures working to utilize hip-hop as an agent for social change.[5] Marable was also a member of the New York Legislature's Amistad Commission, created to review state curriculum regarding the slave trade.[6]
It was reported in June 2004 by activist group Racism Watch that Marable had called for immediate action to be taken to end the U.S. military's use of Raphael Patai's book The Arab Mind which Marable described as "a book full of racially charged stereotypes and generalizations."[7] In a 2008 column, Marable endorsed Senator Barack Obama's bid for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination.[8]

Marable, who was diagnosed with sarcoidosis, underwent a double lung transplant as treatment in summer 2010.[9] Marable died of complications from pneumonia on April 1, 2011 in New York City at the age of 60.[10]

Writings

Malcolm X: A Life of Reinvention (2011) ISBN 978-0670022205

The Great Wells of Democracy: The Meaning of Race in American Life (2003) ISBN 978-0465043941

Freedom: A Photographic History of the African American Struggle (with Leith Mullings and Sophie Spencer-Wood, 2002) ISBN 978-0714842707

Let Nobody Turn Us Around (2000) ISBN 978-0847699308

Black Leadership (1998) ISBN 9780231107464

Black Liberation in Conservative America (1997) ISBN 9780896085596

Speaking Truth to Power: Essays on Race, Resistance, and Radicalism (1996) ISBN 978-0813388281

Beyond Black and White (1995) ISBN 9781859840498

On Malcolm X: His Message & Meaning (1992) ASIN B0006OW3HI

Race, Reform and Rebellion (1991) ISBN 9780878054930

How Capitalism Underdeveloped Black America (1983) ISBN 9780896081659


References

^ [1]
^Grimes, William. Manning Marable, Historian and Social Critic, Dies at 60. New York Times (April 1, 2011). Retrieved April 2, 2011

^ Goodman, Amy. Manning Marable on "Malcolm X: A Life of Reinvention" via Democracy Now! (May 21, 2007). Retrieved April 2, 2011

^ Good, Thomas. MDS Conference Elects Manning Marable Chair of MDS, Inc. Next Left Notes (February 20, 2007).

^ Hip-Hop Summit Action Network Board of Directors.

^ Bryant, Erica. City schools want better curriculum on Africa.‎ Democrat and Chronicle (December 29, 2008)

^ Glick, Ted. 2004 Racism Watch Calls for Action to End Use of Anti-Arab Books by the U.S. Government. via PCDC (June 2, 2004)

^ Marable, Manning. Cover Story: Barack Obama's Problem - And Ours - Along the Color Line. Black Commentator (March 6, 2008)

^ Kellogg, Carolyn. Malcolm X biographer Manning Marable has died. Los Angeles Times (April 1, 2011)

^ Rohter, Larry. Manning Marable, African-American Studies Scholar, Has Died at 60. New York Times (April 1, 2011)

External links

Manning Marable's faculty page:
http://www.sipa.columbia.edu/academics/directory/mm247-fac.html

Manning Marable via Columbia University Directory

Manning Marable interview via Tavis Smiley (PBS)
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/tavissmiley/archive/200602/20060207_marable.html