The KKK v The Black Panthers.

[Buddha Samurai Cadre]

For anyone who is new to communism, i know, when you first begin to explore socialism, you can get confused by lies and misinformation put out there.

The black panthers on the tv are called a hate group, but please watch this, and be sure to check out the marxist library.

here is a youtube video

The Black Panthers Vs. The Klan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BggYSUAIEOk&feature=related

American Revolution -Huey Newton and AIM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCfKdeEa9cY

Enjoy!

[Jimmie Higgins]

I really hate that myth and how right-wingers will repeat it and never get called on it (because for the establishment, defending a radical even against a obvious falsehood means you must be a radical and therefore have no credibility:rolleyes:). Even forgetting about politics and ideological theories about racism, 5 seconds of looking into the history of the BPP would quickly reveal how they constantly worked with revolutionaries from different backgrounds such as white, Asian, and Latino; one of the main guys was Asian, for fuck's sake.

It's connected to the whole "reverse-racism" myth and the way that "racism" has been re-branded and deliberately confused with bigotry in the US. In Arizona they want to ban ethnic studies programs on the basis that "learning about Latino history and civil rights struggles in the US is (inexplicably) Latino-supremacism"!?!

Mainstream politics in the US comes stright from Superman's bizzaro universe where up is down and "hello" means goodbye and apparently being an oppressed minority group means that you run society and reap all the benefits:blink:!

[danyboy27]

did the black panter hated some people who belong to a certain class of society?
its a verry naive question, not an accusation.

[Jimmie Higgins]

What We Want
What We Believe (http://www.nathanielturner.com/blackpantherpartyplatpro.htm)

Their "mission statement", so to speak, is linked above.

I don't think "hate" was really the right description - if I'm being eaten by the shark, I don't necessarily hate the shark, just hate being eaten and will want to do whatever I can to end that situation.

They had some fiery rhetoric by today's standards "off the pigs!", but they were also active at a time most major city had riots at least once over the course of 5 or 6 years and the radicalism of the black power and anti-war movements were at their height.

But compare their platform and goals to the KKK. White supremacists groups are not trying to end a system where they are legally or informally or extraleagally repressed - instead the KKK or neo-nazis want to come extend or uphold the repressed status of another group. So the KKK burns a cross by a black church to terrorize black people, brownshirts painted stars of david on the homes of Jewish people not to defend themselves but to terrorize the Jewish population, the neo-nazis from Detroit went to Los Angeles to call for the deportation of Latinos... there is no comparison in my opinion.

[mikelepore]

I can see why some people might think that the original Black Panther Party had some hate. In the Black Panthers around 1969, "off the pigs", "death to the pigs" and "death to the fascist pigs" were probably the 2nd, 3rd and 4th most common slogans, right behind the most common slogan, which was "all power to the people." Some people were not comfortable with these ideas.

[Robocommie]

I think in general, today, anybody comfortable with accusing the Black Panther Party for Self Defense of racism, and equating them on par with the KKK, should be seen as highly, highly suspect.

[blackwave]

The black panthers weren't inherently racist like the klan, but would it not be fair to argue that there were significant elements of anti-white sentiment and even black supremacism within their ranks?

I do fear that, as the above post indicates, there is a sort of 'enforced liberalism' overtaking society in which any criticism of black or feminist movements leaves you labelled a racist and a sexist.

[Barry Lyndon]

The Panthers didn't hang people from trees or burn them alive, they didn't bomb churches and murder little girls, they showed their faces and didn't mask them like cowards, they went toe to toe with their opponents and didn't attack helpless women, children and old people.
Anbody who equates the two is not only ignorant, but is almost always a closet racist, in my experience. Because only a racist would believe that black people don't have the right to defend themselves.
As for "off the pigs"-yes, they wanted to "off" police and federal agents that were brutal, corrupt, racist, were murdering their members openly paying patsies to murder them, collaborating with Klansmen and neo-Nazis to attack them, infiltrating their groups with drugs and prostitutes, using agent provaceteurs to stir up personal conflicts within the organization.
The FBI even created fake 'Black Panther coloring books' with inflammatory anti-white images and mailed them to thousands of white families, to make it seem that the Panthers were indoctrinating black kids to hate whites, because the Panthers had to audacity to feed hungry ghetto children and teach them to read.
In that context, yes, those police and FBI agents were pigs.

[Buddha Samurai Cadre]

Eldrige cleaver didnt help either, BLA was a huge mistake.
He was a reactionary gloryhunter

That rapist, adventurist macho asshole tore the party in two.
Fuck eldridge.

[Robocommie]

The black panthers weren't inherently racist like the klan, but would it not be fair to argue that there were significant elements of anti-white sentiment and even black supremacism within their ranks?

I do fear that, as the above post indicates, there is a sort of 'enforced liberalism' overtaking society in which any criticism of black or feminist movements leaves you labelled a racist and a sexist.

Enforced liberalism? I'm not even sure what that's supposed to mean. Is that code for political correctness gone mad or something?

And no, it wouldn't be fair to say that there were significant "anti-white" elements within the Black Panther Party. It's too bad you weren't around for the thread on the New Black Panther Party - I actually mentioned this argument specifically. Black militants and black nationalists have always been accused of "anti-white" racism, and it's frankly offensive. If you knew just what kind of repression and violence black folks have faced in this country merely for the crime of being black, and just what the Black Panthers stood for and what they fought for, you ought to be embarrassed by making a statement like that.

"For in America, black people should never be accused of being violent, or advocating violence. In America, when a black man says 'I have to defend myself' you should call it what it is, self-defense. And if America has the right to defend herself from her enemy, the black man has the right to defend himself from his enemies." - Malcolm X

[Crusade]

Thank you. Hopefully more people see that video. It's lame that it's considered anti white, to not be anti non-white. :(

[Jimmie Higgins]

The black panthers weren't inherently racist like the klan, but would it not be fair to argue that there were significant elements of anti-white sentiment and even black supremacism within their ranks?

I do fear that, as the above post indicates, there is a sort of 'enforced liberalism' overtaking society in which any criticism of black or feminist movements leaves you labelled a racist and a sexist.Sorry comrade, but that's just not true - well at least in the US. Anytime someone points out racism in politics in the US, the opposite happens - they are accused by the right of "reverse-discrimination" against whites/men/straight people/Christians and if they are black they are accused of playing "the race card".

Just look at what happened with Rev. Wright during the campaign - all he said was that black people were angry and distrustful of the US government/mainstream society because of the legacy of racism. He was called a "reverse-racist" in the press, and Obama condemned him and threw him under the bus for basically saying what most people already know. Meanwhile at the same time, Glen Beck calls Obama a "reverse-racist" and Limbaugh says that blacks are anti-white but there is no official condemnation of them from the whole establishment like there is when Rev. Wright says "god damn America" or even when Prof. Gates gets angry for being arrested at his own house for being black and in a rich neighborhood!

[The Vegan Marxist]

I would argue that the New Black Panthers are very racist against anyone who is not black, especially the white race, but the original Black Panther Movement were definitely not racist. Huey spoke clearly about the freedom from exploitation of all races.

[The Inquisitor]

I prefer Steven Colbert's approach to the race issue. That said, we should just make everyone color blind. Problem solved. :cool:

But in all seriousness, good links, bro.

[BBKing]

I think a better comparison would be the Nation of Islam and the KKK.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I think a better comparison would be the Nation of Islam and the KKK.Even the NOI is not like the KKK, again it's nationalism of the oppressed and the nationalism of the opressor.

It's not like we are all equal and some whites and some blacks just out of the blue decide that they are superior. Black nationalism comes out of - as a response to - racism while white nationalism comes out of a desire to enforce the racial and class status quo.

It's like Palestinian nationalism and Israeli nationalism - while Palestinian nationalist ideas are certainty problematic and not the way to bring liberation in the end, this nationalism comes out of a response to Zionism. Without Zionism, Palestinian nationalism looses it's social purpose and appeal. It's similar with black nationalism in the US - the black population did not choose to be treated separately from the population as a whole, this was forced on them: out of this, historically there has been a level of black nationalist sentiment in the US. If you are forced into segregated communities, with separate services provided, black nationalist thought concludes: well if we are pushed into ghettos by society, then we should at least have control over these ghettos. If the rulers of the US want to treat blacks differently and don't want us to be part of our society, maybe we should leave.

So the KKK formed originally as a sort of counter-revolutionary terrorism to radical reconstruction in the south - it's aim was to restore the old social order and system of oppression as much as they could. Garvey and later the NOI developed followings in the early-mid 20th century not out of a desire to force whites into a subservient position, but in a sort of flawed (and petty-bourgeois) path to black liberation.

[BBKing]

Greetings,


Even the NOI is not like the KKK, again it's nationalism of the oppressed and the nationalism of the opressor. Irrationality does not contain a higher degree of justification for the the opressed to use or advocate violence against innocents who share a likeness with their oppressors, nor should those who share the likeness with oppressors (and thus inadvertently, not directly, benefit) feel any less hurt when such violence is perpetuated against them by the oppressed.



It's not like we are all equal and some whites and some blacks just out of the blue decide that they are superior. Black nationalism comes out of - as a response to - racism while white nationalism comes out of a desire to enforce the racial and class status quo.This paragraph highlights a contradiction in your passive defense of black racism. White racism originally sprang forth out of real human motivations that are unfortunately shared by all people when circumstances allow - namely to conjugate wealth at the expense of others. Whites merely with the assistance of superior military technology came to dominate the nations of colors and justify this forced expropriation by differences in our appearances.

To then call for a system which merely turns the color lines around and has blacks become the oppressors is racism.


It's similar with black nationalism in the US - the black population did not choose to be treated separately from the population as a whole, this was forced on them: out of this, historically there has been a level of black nationalist sentiment in the US. If you are forced into segregated communities, with separate services provided, black nationalist thought concludes: well if we are pushed into ghettos by society, then we should at least have control over these ghettos. If the rulers of the US want to treat blacks differently and don't want us to be part of our society, maybe we should leave.

So the KKK formed originally as a sort of counter-revolutionary terrorism to radical reconstruction in the south - it's aim was to restore the old social order and system of oppression as much as they could. Garvey and later the NOI developed followings in the early-mid 20th century not out of a desire to force whites into a subservient position, but in a sort of flawed (and petty-bourgeois) path to black liberation.Herein lies the heart of this thread's confusion. The black nationalism of Malcolm X (after his falling out) and Marcus Garvey is not the black nationalism the Nation of Islam now enunciates. In the former we see a real struggle against the oppressive currents of modern society and a hope to be free of these restraints by means that do not directly harm those who are peaceful whites. It is defensive.

While the Nation of Islam was born from similar goals, it has since become a warped cult that deems whites sub-human lab experiments for a fictitious black scientist called Yakub whose only purpose is to "teach" the superior black race a lesson for a few centuries before...? something else... salvation, I suppose. It is offensive. It is racism.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Hi, and welcome comrade.

passive defense of black racism.There is no such thing as "black racism" as I understand racism. Bigotry, yes, anyone can be a bigot towards any group, but when I am talking about racism, I am talking about the structural nature of oppression in modern society.

No where are black police systemically locking up white people at a higher rate than other parts of the population - in fact, the black police are locking up BLACK and Latino people at a higher rate than the rest of the population. So, even though individual black people are police officers, this does not change the nature of the police and courts in the US as a racist system.


White racism originally sprang forth out of real human motivations that are unfortunately shared by all people when circumstances allow - namely to conjugate wealth at the expense of others. This is historically incorrect. Exploitation and oppression do not come from some mythical original sin or from genetic pre-programming - again it comes from the organization of society and who runs society and for what ends.


Whites merely with the assistance of superior military technology came to dominate the nations of colors and justify this forced expropriation by differences in our appearances. The second part of this is certainty true: race and religion were used to justify and institutionalize slavery.


To then call for a system which merely turns the color lines around and has blacks become the oppressors is racism. So where has the color line been reversed? Where is a black ruling elite forcing whites into second-class citizenship? I live in Oakland where probably 60% of the local business and political elites are non-white: a majority are black. In fact there has been a scandle here about organized crime and political corruption tied to Your Muslim Bakery which is a cultish off-shoot of the NOI. But who bears the brunt of racism in Oakland? Blacks and Latinos.


Herein lies the heart of this thread's confusion. The black nationalism of Malcolm X (after his falling out) and Marcus Garvey is not the black nationalism the Nation of Islam now enunciates. In the former we see a real struggle against the oppressive currents of modern society and a hope to be free of these restraints by means that do not directly harm those who are peaceful whites. It is defensive.
There are certaintly important differences in approaches to the nationalism of the oppressed. The NOI represents a much more bourgeois top-down approach than the black nationalism of Malcolm X. But this is besides the point, the much more revolutionary nationalism of Malcolm X is still flawed (class collaborationist and so on) as all nationalist approaches to liberation of the oppressed are to varying degrees.

But the question is not what are the various approaches to and distinctions within black nationalism - the question is: Is black nationalism and white nationalism the same. Empirically, no is my opinion. You seem to think it is the same, that it is "racism", on the other hand.


While the Nation of Islam was born from similar goals, it has since become a warped cult that deems whites sub-human lab experiments for a fictitious black scientist called Yakub whose only purpose is to "teach" the superior black race a lesson for a few centuries before...? something else... salvation, I suppose. It is offensive. It is racism.This has always been the theological ideology of the NOI - this is what Malcolm X believed in the beginning. But like all religions, we need to look at it politically - the role it plays in society since. After-all, you can look at Revolutionary theology, Quakerism, and Right-wing evangelicalism and find the same myths - but the role these religions take in society is very different.

The NOI does not serve the same function as the KKK. The KKK never goes out and sells newspapers in WHITE neighborhoods. Instead, it posts fliers proclaiming their presence and warning non-whites in multi-ethnic communities. From an organizational perspective, what would be the goal of that - a poster with no contact info, no meeting times... they are not interested in recruiting from the general public this way, they are interested in intimidating the non-whites in that area. When they hold their own rallies and meetings it's away from the public in the backwoods or private houses - when they rally, though it is in black and latino and jewish neighborhoods. Their goal is to intimidate workers and "remind people what the social order is" and to "keep non-white in their place".

The NOI on the other hand does not go to college campuses to scare white people, they go there to sell their magazine and maybe take advantage of some white liberal guilt or something. But mostly they sell their paper in black and Latino neighborhoods to promote their ides for black liberation - which are very limited and petty-bourgeois: a moral code, starting businesses, strict family structure and so on.

Finally, go talk to an NOI person if you are white and if you are sincere, they will most likely have a conversation with you like anyone else. Then go up to a KKK member and tell them you are a communist or jewish or gay and see if they have a similar friendly conversation with you - then come back and tell me if the NOI and the KKK are the same.

The nationalism of the opressors in society must be smashed - the nationalism of the oppressed, on the other hand needs to be argued against as the best road to liberation for oppressed people. Radicals have and will continue to have their anti-racist organizing come into contact with black nationalist sentiment. To argue that this is the same as white-nationalism is political suicide because you will be alienating yourself and making radical politics seem totally disconnected from reality.

[BBKing]

Comrade, I hope you take no hard feelings away from my disagreements, but this all goes back to semantics. Most Americans, including most blacks, would define black supremacy as racism even if its adherents are currently incapable of suppressing people of other color.


After-all, you can look at Revolutionary theology, Quakerism, and Right-wing evangelicalism and find the same myths - but the role these religions take in society is very different.
Which one of those is founded explicitly on racial supremacy?


The NOI does not serve the same function as the KKK. The KKK never goes out and sells newspapers in WHITE neighborhoods. Instead, it posts fliers proclaiming their presence and warning non-whites in multi-ethnic communities.I have to disagree once again. The KKK does recruit in white communities that they think are open to the policy of white nationalism. I encountered one of their spokespersons in a town called Sledge only a few miles away from Oxford, Mississippi. Thank God their judgment was in error, but don't be fooled. The KKK's secrecy is a function of their disfavor. There are very few whites who want to associate with the Klan. Even amongst the Stormfront crowd it's taboo.

The Nation of Islam is simply not as well branded in the public consciousness. Far-right black Muslims involved in the Hanafi Siege or the Zebra Murders or the Black Mafia attacks on white residents don't strike me as all that different than the KKK going in and killing an innocent black American.


Is black nationalism and white nationalism the same. Empirically, no is my opinion. You seem to think it is the same, that it is "racism", on the other hand.I didn't say that. I argued that a distinction must be made between black nationalists who wanted a "Black Belt" to be free of oppression and black nationalists who deem whites inferior, "devils" (literally), or in need of extermination. The latter are categorically racist.


To argue that this is the same as white-nationalism is political suicide because you will be alienating yourself and making radical politics seem totally disconnected from reality.If anything, Americans view the left as being more disconnected whenever it tries to argue that only whites can be racist. Politicians like Cynthia McKinney have stumbled more heavily going down that path.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Comrade, I hope you take no hard feelings away from my disagreements, but this all goes back to semantics. Most Americans, including most blacks, would define black supremacy as racism even if its adherents are currently incapable of suppressing people of other color.No hard feelings. It's true that our argument is mostly a semantic one, but I think it's important that as radicals we make a strong distinction between racism as a tool of the system an the liberal concept of racism which is simply bigotry coming from and directed to anyone in society.

In the US I think there has been a deliberate attempt to redefine racism and divorce the systemic aspects of it in order to reduce the concept of racism to a sort of free-floating abstract phenomena in society. It's the same way liberals talk about any conflict in society: workers being angry at their bosses is just as bad as bosses mistrating their workers - Palestinians and Zionists are equally guilty of causing a "cycle of violence".

This concept of society is completely opposed to a class-based understanding of society since the same people who often argue that racism is just bigotry also blame poor whites as the source of racism or men for all sexism and so on. This is historically inaccurate (poor whites weren't even allowed to vote when the first restrictions on black servants were introduced to make them inferior to white servants in colonial America).

This conception of racism also is part of the concept of "post-racial" America. If there is no systemic racism, then any bigotry is equally bad and black "racism" is just as much of a problem as white "racism".


I have to disagree once again. The KKK does recruit in white communities that they think are open to the policy of white nationalism. I encountered one of their spokespersons in a town called Sledge only a few miles away from Oxford, Mississippi. Thank God their judgment was in error, but don't be fooled. The KKK's secrecy is a function of their disfavor. There are very few whites who want to associate with the Klan. Even amongst the Stormfront crowd it's taboo. Yes, they recruit, but you are missing the point I was making. They rally in order to intimidate workers and oppressed groups - the neo-nazis from Detroit that rallied in LA were not trying to gain some interest from people listening in, they came all the way across the country to intimidate Latinos and went the the place they probably see as the hub of Latino presence in the US.

The NOI has no interest in rallying in Portland Oregon in order to intimidate white hipsters that live there. they rally and organize in black neighborhoods because they think that their moral behavioral code and religious ideas are the road to black liberation.


The Nation of Islam is simply not as well branded in the public consciousness. What are you talking about? The NOI is probably the only black nationalist group known by most people in the US. If you say NOI to most white liberals they will probably say - oh, that anti-Semitic black group? By the way, the NOIs anti-semitism is much more troubling than any "anti-white" positions they advocate these days.


Far-right black Muslims involved in the Hanafi Siege or the Zebra Murders or the Black Mafia attacks on white residents don't strike me as all that different than the KKK going in and killing an innocent black American. It's different first of all in the fact that historically (and sometimes even now) the KKK would have had a free pass from the local sheriff and courts to lynch someone. This connection to the current status quo is not something any black nationalist group has ever had. This reveal the social difference between the nationalism of the oppressed and that of the oppressor: one comes from a desire to reinforce or bring back social inequality and an oppressive order in society, while the other is a reaction against an oppressive order in society.


I didn't say that. I argued that a distinction must be made between black nationalists who wanted a "Black Belt" to be free of oppression and black nationalists who deem whites inferior, "devils" (literally), or in need of extermination. The latter are categorically racist. First of all - not many people called for a "black belt" outside of Moscow and the US CP (and the US CP only used it for propaganda while never actually using that as the concrete source of their anti-racist organizing - they had their most success in urban areas where a southern "black belt" really didn't hold much of an appeal).


If anything, Americans view the left as being more disconnected whenever it tries to argue that only whites can be racist. Politicians like Cynthia McKinney have stumbled more heavily going down that path.It's politically taboo in the mainstream to actually talk about racism (unless you are talking about "reverse racism") look at the attacks on Obama when he said the cop that arrested Prof. Gates "acted stupidly". How was Obama incorrect in that statement (other than not going far enough and actually talking about systemic racial profiling?) But he had to sit down and talk with the cop that arrested a black man for "suspicion of home-ownership while black".

There are pleanty of racist white wingers out there to warn people of "black racism" and "homosexual bigotry against christians":rolleyes:. Our job is to expose and smash systemic racism and so that is why we need to be clear that all hate is not created equal and some is a response to oppression while some is an appeal to oppression.

Again, anyone can be a bigot and have bigoted ideas about men, women, straight/gay, catholic or what have you. But racism is rooted in the system and that is what must be fought against. Racism manifests itself in racial profiling of Blacks Arabs and Latinos primarily, inequality in the courts, housing and credit discrimination, and so on. These attacks hurt all workers (by using state funds on prisons and policing; decreasing civil rights in the name of stopping terrorists/undocumented workers/ethnic gangs; and in countless other ways) and they also drive wedges in the working class that keep people fighting amongst each-other.

Racial hatred and bigotry also drives a wedge between workers and is not helpful for our movement, but it is qualitatively different than racism that locks up blacks and Latinos, maintains and informal underclass with less rights, creates stereotypes that blame poor people for their own poverty and so on.