468 - Martin & Malcolm & America: A Dream or a Nightmare

Martin & Malcolm & America: A Dream or a Nightmare

By James H. Cone

Maryknoll, N.Y., Orbis, 1991. 358 Pp. $22.95.

This volume is the product of years of research by one of contemporary America's most prolific and popular theologians. Written by James H. Cone, the Charles A. Briggs Professor of Systematic Theology at New York's Union Theological Seminary, it examines the personalities, philosophies, methods, contributions, and legacies of Martin Luther King, Jr., and Malcolm X, two influential and controversial African-American leaders who epitomized the struggle for equal rights and social justice in the United States in the 1950s and 1960s.

Cone's discussion moves essentially in two directions. First, he devotes attention to how King and Malcolm related to each other. Second, Cone examines the two men's visions of and meanings for America. Throughout his discussion, Cone is mindful of the strengths and weaknesses of King and Malcolm, and of how their combined legacies of ideas and activism can benefit the continuing struggle for freedom, justice, and equality of opportunity in America.

Cone rejects the commonly held view that King and Malcolm were bitter enemies in a Manichaean contest, a view created in the public imagination by the American mass media and reinforced in the writings of misinformed scholars. He insists that there was no animosity between the leaders-that they "saw each other as a fellow justice-fighter, struggling against the same evil-racism-and for the same goal-freedom for African-Americans." Cone further notes that the failure of King and Malcolm to form "a black united front against racism" resulted primarily from enemies who pitted them against each other. Such a perception has merit, but it seems to undermine the extent to which the two men were divided by their different politicalreligious perspectives and methods, and by personal jealousies that were not particularly malicious in nature.

Interpretively, Cone's study is strongest when discussing King's and Malcolm's visions of America and their ultimate challenge to Americans of all racial and ethnic backgrounds. Much of the focus here is on King's idea of the unfulfilled dream and Malcolm's concept of the realized nightmare. Cone employs the "dream" and "nightmare" images not only to focus the two leaders' perspectives on America, but also to reveal something about the audiences to whom and for whom they spoke, and to highlight their differences on such concerns as

469 - Martin & Malcolm & America: A Dream or a Nightmare

integration and separatism, love and hate, nonviolence and selfdefense, and the relevancy of the Christian faith to the AfricanAmerican freedom struggle. At the same time, Cone argues convincingly that each man became increasingly disenchanted with his original vision, an experience that ultimately led King to speak of the American nightmare and Malcolm to become more open to the possibility of the realization of the American dream.

The contention that King's and Malcolm's roles in the black struggle were reciprocal, and that their complementary visions were converging at the time of their assassinations, is central to Cone's analysis. This contention is persuasive but not new. It was set forth more than two decades ago by John Morgan and was advanced by John A. Williams, James Baldwin, Louis Lomax, Harold Cruse, Gayraud S. Wilmore, and numerous others before appearing in my 1989 article in The Western Journal of Black Studies, "A Reassessment of the Relationship Between Malcolm X and Martin Luther King, Jr." But Cone develops this contention to a greater extent than any other scholar up to this time, an accomplishment that explains, in some measure, the value of his book.

Cone's study is not without glaring weaknesses. His classification of King as the pure integrationist and Malcolm as the pure nationalist is misleading because it largely ignores the degree to which these complex figures, confronted by the powerlessness of their people in a nation marked by contradictions and changing racial realities, had to combine both integrationist and nationalist principles in their liberation strategies. Although Cone appears mindful of this, he seems nevertheless to lapse from time to time into a rigid categorization of King as pure integrationist and Malcolm as pure nationalist.

Equally problematic is Cone's failure to establish properly the historical and cultural contexts of integrationism and nationalism among African-Americans. He mistakenly uses incompatible words like "protest" and "accommodation" to describe the values of historic black integrationism, thus running the risk of distorting King's image. Moreover, Cone does not distinguish clearly between political and cultural nationalism, a discussion quite essential for understanding Malcolm before and after his trips to Africa and the Middle East in 1964. Such mistakes and omissions are illustrative of what can happen when a theologian, however competent in his or her own field, tries to assume the role of historian.

Generally speaking, Cone has written a good book about two men who impacted American life and culture in decisive ways. Both scholars and the public at large can benefit from his critical reflections and his careful and cogent analysis.

LEWIS V. BALDWIN

Vanderbilt University
Nashville, Tennessee