In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

New Black Panthers to Vist Duke

Jill

I’m hesitant to comment too much on this one, because I’m not going to jump on the bandwagon that says the Black Panthers of the 1960s were violent hate-filled pushing-it-too-far dangerous black men who we should universally renounce.

But these aren’t the Black Panthers of the 1960s. These guys sound more than a little bit… off (to put it gently). And I think it’s fair to say that their presence in Durham probably isn’t especially helpful to the situation. Thoughts?

Thanks to Will for the link.

100 thoughts on New Black Panthers to Vist Duke

  1. I have a lot of respect and admiration for the original Black Panther party (which must sound weird coming from a white Jewish woman); I love the focus on community empowerment. I am mostly just scared by the current incarnation, which – at least in DC, when I lived there – mostly seemed interested in lashing out against The Jews and The Gays.

  2. I’m hesitant to comment too much on this one, because I’m not going to jump on the bandwagon that says the Black Panthers of the 1960s were violent hate-filled pushing-it-too-far dangerous black men who we should universally renounce.

    Oh please. How very “out-of-the-mainstream” of you, or not really that much once one realizes that lefties (especially rebellious rich white kids, who glorify revolution because they have nothing better to do. Hugo Schwyzer wrote about that and facing reality recently, with great honesty)) pretty much idolize the “empowering”, “revolutionary” Black Panther movement (these words make lefties throw common sense out of the window, it seems) .

    Why not call them what they are: Bunch of violennt racist vigilantes (“The New Black Panther Party says it will deal with lacrosse players charged with rape”).

    Now, the first paragraph is a bit harsh, but the point I’m making is that just because there is a bandwagon condemning the Black Panthers doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be condemned. Old and new. Same stuff, the old is just needlessly glorified by hipsters who want to be cool.

  3. Same stuff, the old is just needlessly glorified by hipsters who want to be cool.

    …is this directed at me? Because (a) I’m not glorifying the Black Panthers, I’m just not denigrating them, and (b) I am certainly not a hipster.

  4. The “old” and “new” Black Panthers, or more precisely the actual Black Panthers and those who have recently appropriated the name, are not at all the “same stuff”…

  6. Jill, I thought Tuomas was referring to my comment about the first incarnation of BPP being committed to community empowerment. I actually meant what I said, but to be more concrete and avoid Tuomas’s hated lefty-liberal buzzwords: I dig that they had soup kitchens, and curricula in schools that valued Black culture and history, and argued for universal pre-school. All of that makes my heart sing.

    And I’m not a hipster. Wow, am I not a hipster.

  7. It’s true, the new BPP isn’t the same as the old one. For example, they’ve yet to murder anyone. They also (probably) aren’t drug dealers. It’s fine to like the old BPP’s politics (careful how much you like them; when white people cheer too loudly over black nationalism, it’s a little, um, uncomfortable), but there was much more (or, depending on how one cares to look at it, far less) to the BPP.

  8. The “old” and “new” Black Panthers, or more precisely the actual Black Panthers and those who have recently appropriated the name, are not at all the “same stuff”…

    Ah, the classic “but they’re not real Black Panthers” trick. Who should I listen — The ones who have taken the name (apparently mostly uncotested by the Black Community, otherwise they couldn’t get away with it) or some apologist with an overly positive view on the “good old times” ?

    …is this directed at me? Because (a) I’m not glorifying the Black Panthers, I’m just not denigrating them,

    … Because that would be “racist”.

    but to be more concrete and avoid Tuomas’s hated lefty-liberal buzzwords: I dig that they had soup kitchens, and curricula in schools that valued Black culture and history, and argued for universal pre-school. All of that makes my heart sing.

    The left has little to do with Liberalism nowadays. Of course they (BP:s) had good qualities too. The world isn’t all black and white (pardon the subject-related pun) and you can find something good in even the most hateful groups. KKK took care of Confederate widows. I’m quite sure folks here wouldn’t find the same nuance when describing them as a racist group (which they are, as are BP:s).

    I am certainly not a hipster.

    Well, admiring certain lefty nonwhite revolutionaries is popular among middle to upper class whites who want to be cool and revolutionary. Not probably directed at anyone in particular, but describing a phenomena.

  10. The ones who have taken the name (apparently mostly uncotested by the Black Community, otherwise they couldn’t get away with it)

    Not necessarily true. See “feminists for life.” Just because someone claims to represent a particular group doesn’t mean that they do.

  11. Not necessarily true. See “feminists for life.” Just because someone claims to represent a particular group doesn’t mean that they do.

    Slightly misleading comparison: Most feminists are pro-choice, while most BP:s this day are the New kind, as the old doesn’t really exist.

  12. Tuomas, that’s bad comparison. The purpose of the KKK was, and remains (unless something has changed radically) to promote the White Race/maintain racial purity. The taking care of Confederate widows, while not violative of that mission, is not really directly related.

    My understanding of the BPP is that its purpose was to support/advocate for Black/African-American people. The examples of BPP activity in the 60s/70s that I gave are directly related to that mission.

  14. to promote the White Race/maintain racial purity.

    (my emphases)

    BPP is that its purpose was to support/advocate for Black/African-American people.

    (my emphases)

    Whites are a race, and Blacks are people. KKK “promotes” while BPP “supports”.

    Face it. Wordplay does not change the fact that both are racially, culturally essentialist (=racist) groups. Both promote a correct White or Black “identity”, correct way to be a White or a Black, and are racially separatist.

  15. You need to find some evidence that the Black Panthers in their original incarnation promoted a specific way to be black. Their Ten Point Plan has nothing prescriptive for black people.

    If you’re thinking about the afros and fists, you’re confusing style with the actual mission.

    There were some real problems with the Panthers and other nationalist groups, but in the Panther case, separatism wasn’t one of them.

  16. Toumas, do you really not grasp the distinction between the quest for racial purity (by the already dominant group) and support of a marginalized* group?

    *Hate this word. Not coming up with a synonym.

  19. Tuomas, do you really not grasp the distinction between the quest for racial purity (by the already dominant group) and support of a marginalized* group?

    (my correction)

    Again the word play. I left out the power dynamic concern intentionally, because it is irrelevant to right and wrong. I do not operate with a post-modern mindset.

    rpp:
    I beg your pardon but their ten point plan is idiotic, the point 1 contradicts practically every later point (we want self-determination but we want the government [Whites] to give us this and this and this… Idiots.)

    BPP wouln’t call a black cop (who works for “the racist institution”) a race traitor? Riiight.

  20. Again the word play. I left out the power dynamic concern intentionally, because it is irrelevant to right and wrong. I do not operate with a post-modern mindset.

    I’m sure it would be easier just to ignore the obvious power dynamic at play whenever issues of race are discussed, but you really are missing a huge chunk of the picture when you do so.

  21. Again the word play. I left out the power dynamic concern intentionally, because it is irrelevant to right and wrong. I do not operate with a post-modern mindset.

    Man, this is fucked up. There is nothing post-modern about the idea that it’s fundamentally wrong for one group to *use its preexisting power* to oppress another. The KKK actively works to harm, denigrate, and oppress blacks, Jews, Catholics, Hispanics, etc. because those people are objectively considered inferior.

    Are you really so blind as to think that’s irrelevant in making your comparison?

  22. No matter how marginalized (or whatever) the group to which a person belongs, any call for racial purity is pig-ignorant.

  23. There is nothing post-modern about the idea that it’s fundamentally wrong for one group to *use its preexisting power* to oppress another.

    Using “well, we/they don’t have “preexisting power” to provide excuses for racism (leading to murder, drug-dealing, abolishing prisons for blacks) is completely fucked up.

    What part of: racist violence is WRONG no matter what “group” you belong to you fail to understand?

  24. Again the word play. I left out the power dynamic concern intentionally, because it is irrelevant to right and wrong. I do not operate with a post-modern mindset.

    The hell it is! The justice and sanity of complaints about feeling threatened, oppressed, or unfairly burdened has everything to do with whether or not any given group is actually oppressed. White people have suffered nothing of the kind, which means that when they complain about oppression, they’re actually advocating a deeply unjust power disparity. Their rights are only being violated if you accept the premise that parity constitutes theft.

    rpp:
    I beg your pardon but their ten point plan is idiotic, the point 1 contradicts practically every later point (we want self-determination but we want the government [Whites] to give us this and this and this… Idiots.)

    The government belongs to everyone; its resources are communally derived. These demands are for restitution, not charity.

  25. What part of: racist violence is WRONG no matter what “group” you belong to you fail to understand?

    Let’s roll tape:

    to promote the White Race/maintain racial purity.

    (my emphases)

    BPP is that its purpose was to support/advocate for Black/African-American people.

    (my emphases)

    Whites are a race, and Blacks are people. KKK “promotes” while BPP “supports”.

    Face it. Wordplay does not change the fact that both are racially, culturally essentialist (=racist) groups. Both promote a correct White or Black “identity”, correct way to be a White or a Black, and are racially separatist.

    Nothing in here about violence. You just straight-up equated black nationalism with the Klan.

  26. Yeah, except a quick google search doesn’t come up with anything linking the Black Panthers to a call for racial purity…

  28. What part of: racist violence is WRONG no matter what “group” you belong to you fail to understand?

    And where did you say a damn thing about racial violence? Your analogy equated the KKK’s quest for racial purity with “BPP is that its purpose was to support/advocate for Black/African-American people.”

    Let’s be clear here. I don’t support racist violence, but I also do not support people who ignorantly and flagrantly draw racist comparisons and then cower under the response of “well, you’re just a post modernist.”

  29. Yeah, evil me.
    White nationalists are similar to Black nationalists.

    Actually, I’d go with racist, ignorant you.

  30. The government belongs to everyone; its resources are communally derived. These demands are for restitution, not charity.

    These demands are for Marxist redistribution of resources. Not charity, no. that would be begging and “Real Blacks Men” don’t beg. They demand. Empowerment, you know?. Simply taking money from others to fund whateverr strikes threir fancy, with government power, which they conveniently oppose otherwise (police etc.).

  32. These demands are for Marxist redistribution of resources. Not charity, no. that would be begging and “Real Blacks Men” don’t beg. They demand. Empowerment, you know?. Simply taking money from others to fund whateverr strikes threir fancy, with government power, which they conveniently oppose otherwise (police etc.).

    Yeah, slum control for slum lords and medical care for desperately poor people are so frivolous.

    Did you miss the part about how the government originally promised a “Marxist redistribution of resources” to solve the problem of all these freed people whose last paychecks had been misplaced by their owners? This disparity didn’t just spontaneously develop.

  33. Did you miss the part about how the government originally promised a “Marxist redistribution of resources” to solve the problem of all these freed people whose last paychecks had been misplaced by their owners?

    So now you’re moving the goalpost to talk about slavery?

    I’m not going to have an economic debate now. What I’m saying is that if you oppose the Evil Government and kill it’s servants, yet demand all “free” goodies from them, you are an idiot and a hypocrite.

    Well, I guess you’re right. All those cops murdered by the Black Panthers asked for it with their hereditary, collective guilt on the oppression of Blacks by the racist government.

    I do not frankly understand the opposition to the idea (=truth) that BPP was a racist criminal organization. Does this mean that nothing they did had redeeming qualities? No. I’ve never claimed that. But please don’t idolize them. They’re not worth that.

  35. One point about the context: I do not argue that blacks were not oppressed. I do not argue that it is not understandable in some ways that some blacks chose violence against “the oppressor”. But understanding is not accepting: I renounce their violent methods, and I think they do not lead to anything expect more hate.

    Context helps one to understand things, but it has little to do with right and wrong.

  36. I do not frankly understand the opposition to the idea (=truth) that BPP was a racist criminal organization. Does this mean that nothing they did had redeeming qualities? No. I’ve never claimed that. But please don’t idolize them. They’re not worth . I didn’t that.

    Similarly, please don’t misrepresent my comments (or those of anyone else who has pointed out reasons to appreciate the work of the BPP): no one here is idolizing BPP. We disagree with your assessment of their role in society, and whether, on balance, they were a net positive or a net negative for the world. That’s not the same thing as unthinking idolatry.

  37. So now you’re moving the goalpost to talk about slavery?

    No, I’m pointing out that what you call a “Marxist redistribution of wealth” was supported–and partially effected–by the American government during Reconstruction.

    I’m not going to have an economic debate now. What I’m saying is that if you oppose the Evil Government and kill it’s servants, yet demand all “free” goodies from them, you are an idiot and a hypocrite.

    Then don’t bring up Marxism. And don’t pretend you were originally talking about violence. So if you complain that the government’s racist policies are systematically destroying black citizens, it’s hypocritical to demand that the government be accountable to those citizens?

    Well, I guess you’re right. All those cops murdered by the Black Panthers asked for it with their hereditary, collective guilt on the oppression of Blacks by the racist government.

    For the final fucking time, you did not say a single word about violence when you complained about nationalism. You took issue with “advocating for black people.” Remember? That was enough for you to start shouting about reverse racism.

    I do not frankly understand the opposition to the idea (=truth) that BPP was a racist criminal organization. Does this mean that nothing they did had redeeming qualities? No. I’ve never claimed that. But please don’t idolize them. They’re not worth that.

    Strawman. And yes, you did. Unless you’re saying that a comparison to the Klan leaves room for “redeeming qualities.”

  38. Judging from Bobby Seale’s book, the original Black Panthers were strongly feminist (in theory, at least), but they were also very much anti-gay.

  39. For the final fucking time, you did not say a single word about violence when you complained about nationalism. You took issue with “advocating for black people.” Remember? That was enough for you to start shouting about reverse racism.

    When did I shout “reverse racism” (whatever that means!). I pointed out that advocating racial supremacy for Whites or for Blacks is counterproductive and does not help the cause of justice.

    I did not mention violence, because it is obvious. What next, do you need me to tell you KKK burn crosses and lynched blacks (*gasp*)?

    I did not take issue with the advocacy in itself, I pointed out that just because the BPP was not totally evil does not mean any reasonable person should fawn over them (. Lot of people support universal health care etc. AND pass strong judgement on groups that practice violence and drug trade (actually, I do, to reasonable extent).

    Strawman. And yes, you did. Unless you’re saying that a comparison to the Klan leaves room for “redeeming qualities.”

    Obviously you are trying to make me into Klan supporter. Okay. Take a deep breath. KKK is reprehensible racist organization that practised unjust violence on blacks.

    Does that leave room for redeeming qualities? It’s not all Black and White (“KKK is evil, so their opposite must be good”), two sides of the same coin, both ugly by and large, and preaching hate toward the other race.

    I already said this in #8:

    Of course they (BP:s) had good qualities too. The world isn’t all black and white (pardon the subject-related pun) and you can find something good in even the most hateful groups.

    I do not value BPP (or KKK, to avoid strawmen) one bit. I see no reason to.

  40. piny:

    Strawman.

    I suppose you mean the idolization.

    Rachel said:

    I dig that they had soup kitchens, and curricula in schools that valued Black culture and history, and argued for universal pre-school. All of that makes my heart sing.

    Considering your attacks on me are not based on my writings, calling this strawman was low. I do not know in what world “making heart sign” is not idolization.

  41. I did not take issue with the advocacy in itself, I pointed out that just because the BPP was not totally evil does not mean any reasonable person should fawn over them (. Lot of people support universal health care etc. AND pass strong judgement on groups that practice violence and drug trade (actually, I do, to reasonable extent).

    Yes, you did. As above, you just equated advocating for black people with a belief in black supremacy.

    Obviously you are trying to make me into Klan supporter. Okay. Take a deep breath. KKK is reprehensible racist organization that practised unjust violence on blacks.

    Don’t be ridiculous. I get that the reference to the Klan is meant to be negative. I’m saying that because of this last sentence here, it’s unjust.

  42. Considering your attacks on me are not based on my writings, calling this strawman was low. I do not know in what world “making heart sign” is not idolization.

    Had she made that statement about the BPP, period, it would not be a straw man. Since she fucking well did not, it is.

  43. I implied I hated their violence (murder, drug trade) by endorsing Nobody’s post #7 in #9, so claiming that “I have no problem with their violence” is dishonest.

    Why do I have to defend my position that old BPP and new BPP are bad?

  44. I implied I hated their violence (murder, drug trade) by endorsing Nobody’s post #7 in #9, so claiming that “I have no problem with their violence” is dishonest.

    Not even close to what I said. Pretending otherwise is dishonest.

  45. Yes, you did. As above, you just equated advocating for black people with a belief in black supremacy.

    Black Panthers are generally classified as a Black Supremacist group.

    You are trying to claim I implied something that I never did, that simply “supporting” Black causes is Supremacism. I merely pointed out that people here use different language for White and Black supremacists, in effect excusing the latter.

  46. Piny #44:

    Not even close to what I said. Pretending otherwise is dishonest.

    Me # 43:

    I implied I hated their violence (murder, drug trade) by endorsing Nobody’s post #7 in #9, so claiming that “I have no problem with their violence” is dishonest.

    Piny #37:

    For the final fucking time, you did not say a single word about violence when you complained about nationalism. You took issue with “advocating for black people.” Remember? That was enough for you to start shouting about reverse racism.

    Shall we move on, or will we be forever stuck on who said what?

    On the issue of BPP, how do you feel about them?

  48. I tried Wikipedia, but this was a problem:

    The neutrality of this article is disputed.
    Please see the discussion on the talk page.

    Besides, nothing in the article changes my feelings on the group, that I summed up in post #35. Even the Wikipedia article admits that violence was very real, as was general criminal activity.

  50. Oh, for fuck’s sake. No, I don’t want to move on.

    You do this all the time. You show up on some comments thread and make an incredibly incendiary remark about feminists or leftists or liberals or all of the above. It’s never true, but that’s hardly the point. Then people get offended. Then you get shirty about them getting offended, and attempt to pretend that you didn’t derail the conversation in the first place.

    Go fuck yourself. I’m done.

  51. Tuomas, I respectfully request that you QUIT REFERRING TO WHAT I’VE SAID, as you seem unable to do it properly.

    I did not say BPP made my heart sing. I said, and I stand by this, that “soup kitchens, and curricula in schools that valued Black culture and history, and […] universal pre-school” made my heart sing, and that I dug it. I also said, waaaaaaay back earlier today, that I have “a lot of respect and admiration” for BPP. If you think that’s idolatry, then … well, Inigo Montoya said it best: “I do not think that word means what you think it means.”

    This, for future reference, is what it looks like when someone refers correctly to what I have said.

  52. Sorry for the double post, I missed this gem:

    Why do I have to defend my position that old BPP and new BPP are bad?

    Same reason I apparently have to defend, to you, why I think that old BPP was worthy of my respect/admiration: you disagree with my assessment, and I feel it’s important to be thorough in expressing my beliefs. Have I missed the point of having a discussion? You say one thing, I say another?

    Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

  53. Same reason I apparently have to defend, to you, why I think that old BPP was worthy of my respect/admiration: you disagree with my assessment, and I feel it’s important to be thorough in expressing my beliefs.

    Rachel: I understand admiring BPP in some values that you share with them (universal healthcare etc.), but you did come across as uncritical of the bad aspects.

    I apologize if I unfairly read into that more than you meant, and thus my first post here was perhaps too harsh. I still maintain my position that despite the fact that BPP had some redeeming qualities, they are overshadowed by the negative ones (which were not mentioned in any way by you or Jill originally).

    Piny:
    Well, it appeared that the bad aspects BPP were missing in this discussion, and I provided them. IMHO relevant, and not derailment.

  54. Oh, you mean when Jill said “I’m not going to jump on the bandwagon that says the Black Panthers of the 1960s were violent hate-filled pushing-it-too-far dangerous black men who we should universally renounce.” she was ignoring the fact that there are negative aspects to the Black Panthers?

    Riiight.

  55. Oh, you mean when Jill said “I’m not going to jump on the bandwagon that says the Black Panthers of the 1960s were violent hate-filled pushing-it-too-far dangerous black men who we should universally renounce.” she was ignoring the fact that there are negative aspects to the Black Panthers?

    I’d go a bit further than that, actually. I thought she practically renounced the negative aspects, or at the very least downplayed them.

    She basically says that many think that BP:s were violent etc. but she points out that she is not one of those.

  56. Wow, that’s a flagrant misreading. Jill’s point is that there are negative aspects to the Black Panthers, people have discussed them extensively, but that’s not where she’s going in this post. She’s trying to restrict it to what’s going in Durham, but that’s long since been forgotten because this stupid ass flame war in which the KKK was invoked got going.

  57. I’m black myself.To be honest, while the panthers don’t have as much of a bloody and fearful past comparied to the kkk, I’m not ready to give them any respect whatsoever.What good have they actually done for the black community in the past?And were they able to do this, WITHOUT putting other groups down?I just can’t side with the panters of the past or present.

    PS
    I saw two panters in the subway today on my way home.They had a little kid with them, dressed up as a panther too.I felt so sorry for that kid.

  58. Wow, that’s a flagrant misreading.

    All she said what was she’s not going to jump in the bandwagon that says bad things about old BP:s. There was nothing implied there about where she wanted the discussion to go.

    Teh internets, write something, get criticized.

    but that’s not where she’s going in this post. She’s trying to restrict it to what’s going in Durham, but that’s long since been forgotten because this stupid ass flame war in which the KKK was invoked got going.

    It takes two (or more) to tango. I have not personally flamed anyone.

    Well, personally I think the presence of the new BPP and their promises on vigilante justice will bring an unfortunate “race war” aspect to this and will be counterproductive, and will be used against Blacks: “See? They are violent and do not respect law!” It does not help the alleged victim.

  60. Rachel: I understand admiring BPP in some values that you share with them (universal healthcare etc.), but you did come across as uncritical of the bad aspects.

    No, you decided to read your personal agenda into what I said as uncritical. In fact, again, IN MY FIRST POST, I referred to my objections to the new incarnation of BPP. Which, okay, for the second time, STOP REFERRING TO WHAT I’VE SAID if you’re going to insist on twisting my words.

  61. And besides, BP:s were ex-slaves? I didn’t know they were that old.

    With one side of his mouth, he whines about being called racist. with the otrher side of his mouth, he lifts arguments straight from Tom Metzger’s mouth. Why does anyone bother arguing with Tuomas?

    I’m a driftin’ this here thread.

    Has Jill been like seriously rocking anyone else’s world the last month or so? Because she’s been like seriously rocking my world the last month or so.

  62. Jill always rocks my world. Especially now that I know she’s danced with Shakira. She’s moved up from blog crush to idol. be still my beating heart! *eyelash flutter*

  63. If I’m not mistaken, one of the most controversial programs the Black Panthers had during the 60s and 70s was a free breakfast program for schoolkids in poor neighborhoods.

    Now, I’m well aware of some of the anti-white and anti-female leanings of some of the original Black Panthers. But subsequent research has borne out the wisdom of providing free breakfasts for poor kids, since free lunches were good, but free breakfasts AND free lunches were better.

    And, further, if I’m not mistaken, the free lunch program for low-income schoolkids was started during WWII, when so many young men were failing their draft physicals due to nutritional deficiencies that could have been prevented by at least one good meal a day that this was considered a matter of national security. So having one good meal a day will ensure sufficient physical development to fight for your country, but it takes two to help you develop sufficietnt mental capacity to be an officer or scientist. (On a similar tip, the Red Cross swimming certification programs arose out of the fact that so many soldiers in WWII were drowning while fording rivers, because they couldn’t swim.)

  64. Which, okay, for the second time, STOP REFERRING TO WHAT I’VE SAID if you’re going to insist on twisting my words.

    I’m not a mindreader. I try to have a conversation on what people write, I should have clarified that you came across as uncritical to old BPP specifically. I did not twist your words deliberately or read them into “my agenda”. Most of the discussion here is about old BPP. To clarify, I oppose both incarnations, the new and the old.

    One might argue that using a KKK analogy is always flaming, but whatever.

    Yes, whatever indeed.

  65. With one side of his mouth, he whines about being called racist. with the otrher side of his mouth, he lifts arguments straight from Tom Metzger’s mouth.

    Provide quotes or shut up.

  66. Don’t be telling anyone to shut up, Tuomas.

    Remember when I said that sometimes you skate on thin ice?

    This is one of those times.

  68. Has Jill been like seriously rocking anyone else’s world the last month or so? Because she’s been like seriously rocking my world the last month or so.

    Oh, and I suppose piny and I are chopped liver.

    :::::flounce::::

  70. Tuomas, telling someone to “shut up” is, ipso facto, whining.

    Ha! But it was before:
    Chris Clarke’s statement:

    With one side of his mouth, he whines about being called racist. with the otrher side of his mouth, he lifts arguments straight from Tom Metzger’s mouth.

    So this as false and contained nothing but insults to me. I know of Tom Metzger only that I recall there was a documentary about him on TV some time ago. Some Neo-Nazi icon. And accusations of racism flow off me like water of a ducks back.

    I have explained many times what my position is on old and new BPP in this thread. I do not oppose everything that they happen to support (even a broken clock is right twice a day), but by and large, I would like to hear why I am wrong about them.

  72. If I’m not mistaken, one of the most controversial programs the Black Panthers had during the 60s and 70s was a free breakfast program for schoolkids in poor neighborhoods.

    This is, actually, weirdly true. Since cop killing was hardly controversial at all (pretty near everybody opposed it), any of there other policies would have to have been more controversial. If not quite more central to the meaning of the group. That aside, I find the attempts to divorce black nationalism from, “racial purity,” niggling. Whenever wingnuts say the word welfare, nobody (ha ha) has trouble calling that a codeword. Did all our decoder rings go on the fritz at the same minute? What does black nationalism mean, if not segregation? The Back to Africa crowd (the black half of it) wasn’t making an asthetic argument.

    This is a bit snarky, but not directed at any one, so I hope it won’t be taken as mean-spirited: how many innocents does a group have to murder before they stop getting credit for their free lunch/universal pre-school programs? Is there any point at which people can be judged without accounting for their politics? There was a thread here the other day pondering whether Cindi Lauper was feminst enough that her music could be enjoyed; I recognize that thread was in fun, but, seriously: Is there any thing wholly divorced from politics? Could you enjoy a piece of art if you knew it was created by a neo-con?

    If so, then I’m not paying close enough attention. If not, don’t you get sick of it?

  73. I would like to hear why I am wrong about them.

    You compared them to the KKK. And when people said that wasn’t a valid comparison, you persisted and pretended that racial oppression and power structures were irrelevant. I won’t deny that the Black Panthers have done some lousy stuff, but the comparison is ignorant at best and flaming at worse.

    And accusations of racism flow off me like water of a ducks back.

    Which is called denial. You’ve said some pretty racist things and then act like it’s nothing to be called on it. Come on already.

  74. Which is called denial.

    Ho hum. So this is denial, but if I protest, then it is whining. I can not understand why people need to make personal traits into the main topic here.

    You’ve said some pretty racist things and then act like it’s nothing to be called on it.

    Like?

    You compared them to the KKK. And when people said that wasn’t a valid comparison, you persisted and pretended that racial oppression and power structures were irrelevant.

    You dodged the question, about why BPP is more bad than good. And I did not say that power structures were irrelevant (but they are irrelevant to right and wrong specifically).

    So basically all you have is “You did a bad comparison!”

    Or do people really have to refrain from criticizing Black Panthers strongly in order to be anti-racist.

  75. Jesu Christo.

    If it’s all water off a duck’s back, you should’nt be getting your ire up about being called racist.

    What will get you banned, dear Tuomas, is making it all about you. So think very, very carefully about personalizing your reactions to any posts and about what your next post will be.

  76. For the last damn time: this KKK/Black Panthers analogy is not just lacking, it’s racist. And you can disagree all you like, but I’m standing by it.

    Augh, this is not some sort of dodge. I’m not denying the Panthers have done some bad stuff, and I don’t really know enough to balance their good side versus their bad. At a glance, I’d say it’s a wash.

    People have to avoid making gratuitous, unfavorable comparisons to the KKK to be anti-racist, yes.

  77. zuzu, you’re beautiful when you flounce.

    And you and piny always rock my world.

    All I’m saying is that Jill has been on FIRE lately.

    Oh, and that I’m not in the business of explaining to racists why they’re racists when they’ve shown no willingness to do anything but misrepresent other people’s arguments in the process.

    But I’m mostly all about the fire, and the world-rocking. And the flouncing.

  78. zuzu:

    you should’nt be getting your ire up about being called racist.

    It bothers me because it is a distraction from the subject, the people making these accusations have not tried to say anything about the issue, and instead want a fight. I don’t want to give it to them, which appears to disappoint the accusers.

    What will get you banned, dear Tuomas, is making it all about you. So think very, very carefully about personalizing your reactions to any posts and about what your next post will be.

    If you want to ban me, then do so.

  79. It bothers me because it is a distraction from the subject, the people making these accusations have not tried to say anything about the issue, and instead want a fight. I don’t want to give it to them, which appears to disappoint the accusers.

    It’s not fair! I poked and yelled and said inflammatory things and people got mad! Waaah! It’s not my fault people are trying to derail the discussion!

  81. Black Panthers are generally classified as a Black Supremacist group.

    Well, lets look at the definition of supremacism in your link, hmm?

    Supremacism is the belief that a particular race, religion, gender, belief system or culture is superior to others and entitles those who identify with it to dominate, control or rule those who do not.

    I see the KKK in there, but I don’t see the Panthers. Although both ideologies are racially based, only one is based on the idea that their race is just intrinsically better, and ought to be in charge. The other is based on the idea that their race is getting screwed, and ought to be protected.

    There is a differencce between trying to improve the lot of one’s race and trying keep other races down. Equating the two is just asinine.

  82. Well, lets look at the definition of supremacism in your link, hmm?

    I see the KKK in there, but I don’t see the Panthers.

    You may not, but it is in the site listed under Supremacist groups, because it is a supremacist group. (Answers.com)

    Here is a link on them directly that includes the Wikipedia article.

    There is a differencce between trying to improve the lot of one’s race and trying keep other races down. Equating the two is just asinine.

    I agree. The article explains Black Supremacism, and this definition you present is inadequate (“they were just trying to improve the lot of their race”).

  83. The original link I’m talking about is in comment #45, and has link explaining Black Supremacy, Black Nationalism and the White counterparts.

    I suggest that people read it and the history of Black Panthers, as they do support my conclusion that Black Panthers were not net positive thing for society.

  84. You know, I don’t get too het up about the Black Panthers- if I started a Lolita supremacist group based on the premise that people who wear petticoats and victorian style dresses are better than everyone else, would you spend any time mentioning that in the same breath as the KKK?

    That sort of blinders is why it really doesn’t matter what we do- white people would just make something up. Really, the Black Panthers is so far to being a credible threat to anything or anybody, to even act like they matter is dumb. Even if they did get out of hand, they’d be punished instead of being made excuses for.

  85. I think we need a new referee.

    Tuomas: Provide quotes or shut up.

    Response:

    Zuzu: Don’t be telling anyone to shut up, Tuomas.

    But

    Piny: Go fuck yourself.

    Response:

    None.

    Consistency people, consistency.

  88. In any event, to drag this back to topic, I encourage anyone who equates the Black Panther Party with the KKK to read this wikipedia article on the Black Panthers.

    You will see that the violence of the Panthers was largely directed toward police officers and other law enforcement types as representatives of the white-dominated power structure, not against the white population. The Klan, by contrast, targets members of the populations of various groups who already are at a power disadvantage.

    The Klan has no overarching goal other than white supremacy. The Panthers had a goal of armed struggle against oppression — and they came to realize (at least some of them did) that they should ally themselves with other oppressed groups. And in fact, they did align themselves with groups of Latinos, gays and students prior to breaking up.

    Moreover, the Panthers engaged in community-building programs, such as the aforementioned breakfast program. Last I checked, the Klan does no such thing.

    So, anyone who maintains that the KKK and the Black Panthers are simply flip sides of the same coin is talking out his ass.

  89. RM’s calls for a new referee just remind me of the tryouts in Bring it On.

    “This isn’t a cheerocracy.”
    “You’re being a cheertator, Torrance!”

    …topic?

  90. I leave for a while and jeez.

    I’ve been EPUed on this, but to Tuomas, I posted their ten points because there’s no demand that blacks be a particular way as you wrote way back there in #14. I made no assertions about the appropriateness or sanity of them. If you want a serious discussion about the points, fine, but somehow I doubt it because . . .

    If you had done more than a perfunctory look at Answers.com you would have read that it’s the New Black Panthers that are defined as supremacists, not the ones from the 60s and 70s. Which leads me to suspect that you’re not very serious about any of this.

    As far as nationalists go, like many ideologies, they come in all flavors. Some are racial essentialists (like NOI) some are race pride folks, a concept that may seem antique now, but was imo a necessary corrective to cultural perceptions about blacks.

  91. Their murder was mostly directed at police. Their violence was mostly directed at any one who was uncooperative and unarmed. And while, deep down, they may have killed cops as symbols of The Man, in practice their cop killing was a means of escaping arrest for crimes they chose to commit (perhaps in furtherance of The Revolution, perhaps for the same reason most of the people who rob banks do), for the indignity of having been pulled over for traffic infractions, and in hopes of gaining status within the group.

    The BPP and the KKK are clearly not reverse sides of the same coin. They are/were both segregationist and they are/were responsible for murder (the difference in scale, though, makes this like saying the Weather Underground and Hamas are roughly the same). This simplifies the similarities, but not unfairly, by my estimation.

    Moreover, the Panthers engaged in community-building programs, such as the aforementioned breakfast program. Last I checked, the Klan does no such thing.

    If the Klan did, how much credit would you give them? Any? You’d be the only one.

  92. “We as black men cannot sit idly by and allow white men to rape black women, regardless of what our sister (who by nature is a queen and a divine black woman) was doing,” Shabazz is quoted as saying in a media release announcing the event.

    By the sound of it, the New Black Panthers (not to be confused with The (old) Black Panthers who are not anti-semitic as a rule) sound like a nation of islam spin off (the current nation of islam think that shakespeare was black and want to kill the pope and his jewish overlords) who are just co-opting the name of the black panthers, and the NBP sound alot like a real black parralel to the KKK, but without the institutional support, and the century or so of wide spread terrorism under their belt.

    yeah, definately ideologically identical to the KKK, you’ve got the anti-semitism, the “respectful” (i.e. putting women on a pedastal they have to clean) misogyny, the racism plus the over the top firearm-fetish-cum-fragile-masculinity bent.

    Of course the KKK would have been nothing without the widespread institutional support they have recieved from both the government and mainstream society, and so will no doubt these wackos end up being.

  93. Wow, I didn’t actually read the bit where it says the NBPs are an off shoot of the nation of islam, ignore that bit then.

  94. My point in comparing BPP and KKK was never “they are exactly the same and equally significant”, but both are segregational, and are united in their willingness to cross the line into killing innocent people.

    You will see that the violence of the Panthers was largely directed toward police officers and other law enforcement types as representatives of the white-dominated power structure, not against the white population. The Klan, by contrast, targets members of the populations of various groups who already are at a power disadvantage.

    I think you’ll need to spell it out for me. Is killing a cop somehow justified? Is it less of a murder than some other murder?

    I do not accept the implication that the cops that BPP killed all deserved it by being racist, fascist pigs, nor even the lighter version of this that killing someone who is part of a powerful group is less wrong.

    Sounds like victim-blaming at worst, apologia at least.

    If you want a serious discussion about the points, fine, but somehow I doubt it because . . .

    If you have some serious arguments that you are ready to unleash, then shoot.

    I’ve been EPUed on this, but to Tuomas, I posted their ten points because there’s no demand that blacks be a particular way as you wrote way back there in #14. I made no assertions about the appropriateness or sanity of them.

    1. (part of it)
    WE WANT POWER TO DETERMINE THE DESTINY OF OUR BLACK AND OPPRESSED COMMUNITIES.

    Our?
    4.
    WE WANT DECENT EDUCATION FOR OUR PEOPLE THAT EXPOSES THE TRUE NATURE OF THIS DECADENT AMERICAN SOCIETY. WE WANT EDUCATION THAT TEACHES US OUR TRUE HISTORY AND OUR ROLE IN THE PRESENT-DAY SOCIETY.
    … And who will determine this “True nature of this decadent American society”, and “Our role”.

    R. Mildred:

    Of course the KKK would have been nothing without the widespread institutional support they have recieved from both the government and mainstream society, and so will no doubt these wackos end up being.

    WTF?

    The KKK was destroyed by the fact that most Whites do not support it (instead vehemently oppose them), the Klan was eventually destroyed (mostly) by the very “government and mainstream” that you claim supports them so much.

    KKK mostly brought this upon themselves by the injustices they committed, and you won’t see me shedding tears for them. Read Wikipedia.

  95. Okay. Let’s look at Wikipedia:

    In May 1969, Alex Rackley, a twenty-four year old member of the New York chapter of the Black Panther party, was tortured and murdered because party members suspected him of being a police informant. A number of party members had taken part, and three party officers eventually admitted guilt.

    One of many…

    I don’t admire them. Period.

  96. I think you’ll need to spell it out for me. Is killing a cop somehow justified? Is it less of a murder than some other murder?

    I do not accept the implication that the cops that BPP killed all deserved it by being racist, fascist pigs, nor even the lighter version of this that killing someone who is part of a powerful group is less wrong.

    Oh, so you see no difference between targeting the army of an occupying power and targeting the civilians?

  97. Oh, so you see no difference between targeting the army of an occupying power and targeting the civilians?

    …And you see no difference between a cop trying to do his job and an army of occupying power?

    Come on. All cops were agents of “occupying power”?

    Even if we existed in that hypothetical world, there is still the “largely” weasel world about who they targeted.

Comments are currently closed.