Response to a trotskyist comrade who called Huey Newton a homophobic bigot.

[The Red Panther Party]

During the past few years strong movements have developed among women and among homosexuals seeking their liberation. There has been some uncertainty about how to relate to these movements.

Whatever your personal opinions and your insecurities about homosexuality and the various liberation movements among homosexuals and women (and I speak of the homosexuals and women as oppressed groups), we should try to unite with them in a revolutionary fashion. I say " whatever your insecurities are" because as we very well know, sometimes our first instinct is to want to hit a homosexual in the mouth, and want a woman to be quiet. We want to hit a homosexual in the mouth because we are afraid that we might be homosexual; and we want to hit the women or shut her up because we are afraid that she might castrate us, or take the nuts that we might not have to start with.

We must gain security in ourselves and therefore have respect and feelings for all oppressed people. We must not use the racist attitude that the White racists use against our people because they are Black and poor. Many times the poorest White person is the most racist because he is afraid that he might lose something, or discover something that he does not have. So you're some kind of a threat to him.
This kind of psychology is in operation when we view oppressed people and we are angry with them because of their particular kind of behavior, or their particular kind of deviation from the established norm.
Remember, we have not established a revolutionary value system; we are only in the process of establishing it. I do not remember our ever constituting any value that said that a revolutionary must say offensive things towards homosexuals, or that a revolutionary should make sure that women do not speak out about their own particular kind of oppression. As a matter of fact, it is just the opposite: we say that we recognize the women's right to be free. We have not said much about the homosexual at all, but we must relate to the homosexual movement because it is a real thing. And I know through reading, and through my life experience and observations that homosexuals are not given freedom and liberty by anyone in the society.
They might be the most oppresed people in the society.


And what made them homosexual? Perhaps it's a phenomenon that I don't understand entirely. Some people say that it is the decadence of capitalism. I don't know if that is the case; I rather doubt it. But whatever the case is, we know that homosexuality is a fact that exists, and we must understand it in its purest form: that is, a person should have the freedom to use his body in whatever way he wants.


That is not endorsing things in homosexuality that we wouldn't view as revolutionary. But there is nothing to say that a homosexual cannot also be a revolutionary. And maybe I'm now injecting some of my prejudice by saying that "even a homosexual can be a revolutionary." Quite the contrary, maybe a homosexual could be the most revolutionary.
When we have revolutionary conferences, rallies, and demonstrations, there should be full participation of the gay liberation movement and the women's liberation movement. Some groups might be more revolutionary than others.

We should not use the actions of a few to say that they are all reactionary or counterrevolutionary, because they are not.
We should deal with the factions just as we deal with any other group or party that claims to be revolutionary. We should try to judge, somehow, whether they are operating in a sincere revolutionary fashion and from a really oppressed situation. (And we will grant that if they are women they are probably oppressed.) If they do things that are unrevolutionary or counterrevolutionary, then criticize that action.

If we feel that the group in spirit means to be revolutionary in practice, but they make mistakes in interpretation of the revolutionary philosophy, or they do not understand the dialectics of the social forces in operation, we should criticize that and not criticize them because they are women trying to be free. And the same is true for homosexuals. We should never say a whole movement is dishonest when in fact they are trying to be honest. They are just making honest mistakes. Friends are allowed to make mistakes. The enemy is not allowed to make mistakes because his whole existence is a mistake, and we suffer from it.

But the women's liberation front and gay liberation front are our friends, they are our potential allies, and we need as many allies as possible.
We should be willing to discuss the insecurities that many people have about homosexuality. When I say "insecurities," I mean the fear that they are some kind of threat to our manhood. I can understand this fear.

Because of the long conditioning process which builds insecurity in the American male, homosexuality might produce certain hang-ups in us. I have hang-ups myself about male homosexuality. But on the other hand, I have no hang-up about female homosexuality. And that is a phenomenon in itself. I think it is probably because male homosexuality is a threat to me and female homosexuality is not.


We should be careful about using those terms that might turn our friends off. The terms "faggot" and "punk" should be deleted from our vocabulary, and especially we should not attach names normally designed for homosexuals to men who are enemies of the people, such as Nixon or Mitchell. Homosexuals are not enemies of the people.
We should try to form a working coalition with the gay liberation and women's liberation groups. We must always handle social forces in the most appropriate manner.

[mosfeld]

And what made them homosexual? Perhaps it's a phenomenon that I don't understand entirely. Some people say that it is the decadence of capitalism. I don't know if that is the case; I rather doubt it. But whatever the case is, we know that homosexuality is a fact that exists, and we must understand it in its purest form: that is, a person should have the freedom to use his body in whatever way he wants.

For historical context, when exactly was homosexuality proven to be natural and normal?

[The Red Panther Party]

For historical context, when exactly was homosexuality proven to be natural and normal?


i am not sure but there is a book showing there are animals in all species that are actively attracted to members of the same sex and only engage in sexual activity with their same sex counterpart, even if it wasnt natural, we fly in planes, we get transplants, they are not normal and definately not natural in the original sense, but they are good, i dont care if somethings natural, as long as it makes humans happy and dosent exploit anyone.

[The Vegan Marxist]

For historical context, when exactly was homosexuality proven to be natural and normal?

If by normal you mean genetically natural, then there's a possibility that it may be true.

http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/news/20050128/is-there-gay-gene

Besides, think about it, when did we really "choose" to be gay or straight? Does one really wake up in the morning & says, "You know what...I'd like to have some dick tonight." or "I feel like I want some pussy." This isn't a fast food selection. This is a way of life for people, whether to be gay or straight. So if it's not natural, then when do we really choose to be such? Most gay & bi friends that I know have always told me that they never really chose who they were, they just had an attraction to the same sex. It wasn't like they chose to have those feelings for someone.

[RadioRaheem84]

I have mixed feelings about Newton, I keep reading about his rather gangster like life and his sudden death. What is the truth behind this character?

[scarletghoul]

I have mixed feelings about Newton, I keep reading about his rather gangster like life and his sudden death. What is the truth behind this character?
Well his 'gangster like life' was because he came from a gangster-infested ghetto (he started out as a petty criminal, before teaching himself to read at 16 and educating himself eventually in the revolutionary science of Marx Lenin Fanon Mao etc). The BPP started to defend itself against the racist capitalist government, not necessarily with violence but with the threat of violence. The black community has always been subjected to violent oppression. The Panthers' self-defense arose from the same culture of violence as the gangsterism of black amerika. The party of course discouraged illegal activity and drug dealing, but these things did find their way into the party ranks as a lot of gangster kids were atracted to the bad-assery of the Panthers. And of course the white bourgeois media did all it could to portray the Black Panthers as gangster thugs, feeding off racist stereotypes and the fact that the black community has long been subjected to selfdestructive gang violence. One of Huey's key theories is 'revolutionary suicide', sacrificing oneself for the progress and liberation of humanity rather than for selfish capitalistic reasons that serve to preserve the capitalist system (reactionary suicide). A lot of blacks are/were commiting reactionary suicide and unknowingly feeding the system and ideology that oppresses them, like when they kill eachother or sell drugs to eachother. When really they should be fighting the system (revolutionary suicide). Huey wanted to change this gang culture, this reactionary suicide, into a culture of resistance, revolutionary suicide. He was a truly inspirational figure. But to the white bourgeois establishment any black with a gun is a gangster unless he's waving the stars n stripes. So Huey is often portrayed as a gangster, but he was in fact a totally opposing force to the reactionary gangsterism that has fucked up the black community.

And his death wasn't a "sudden death" at all; it followed years of tragic drug addiction and self destruction. One weapon the government used to combat the panthers was heroin. They put huge amounts of dope into black communities, in what amounts to chemical warfare. Loads of blacks and other poor people became addicted, and this eventually included Huey. The COINTELPRO campaign of repression, terror, infiltration, and sabotage against the panthers took its toll and the Party went to shit, with the BLA splitting and much of the social programs devolving into revisionist charity, the party generally becoming a lot less active and popular. Huey himself fell by the wayside and became a tragic man addicted to heroin and crack. It's really upsetting to me, how this could happen to such a great revolutionary leader and thinker. He had so much potential and his genius can be seen clearly from all that he achieved at such a young age. He said himself at this point that he was commiting a reactionary suicide. This addiction went on for a while until 1989 when he was shot dead (by a member of Black Guerrilla Family. The BGF itself originated as a revolutionary prison organisation founded by George Jackson, but like Huey it fell into reactionary suicide. Apparently it was a drug money dispute that led this BGF member to shoot Huey).

It could be said that the rise and fall of Huey P Newton is symbollic of the black community itself- an oppressed petty criminal becomes a strong revolutionary who recognises his oppresser and struggles to overthrow it, setting a heroic and inspiring example for all of us, but becomes fucked up by drugs and get shot dead. Capitalist ideology and government force has pushed gang culture and dope into black communities and unfortunately it defeated the Panthers.

But despite his downfall, Huey P Newton remains one of the greatest figures in revolutionary history. His ideas remain indispensable and his actions remain inspiring. As a highly original and successful leader of one of the most successful modern first world revolutionary movements, he's up there with Marx Lenin and Mao in my opinion. I will never forgive the capitalists for what they done to him, how they destroyed what was a beautiful inteligent man. Certainly such oppression and chemical warfare was a result of Huey's revolutionary struggle, so though it might seem like a 'reactionary suicide' in the short term, I think that Huey really did commit a Revolutionary Suicide, even if his death was prolonged for years, because he was ultimately murdered through drugs by a bourgeoisie which feared his revolutionary genius.

Oops, went on a little bit there .. :lol: anyway hope that clears up a little for you. There's a lot more to him and the BPP, i was just trying to adress your points about gangsterism and his death.