The BPP and White People

[ReVoLuTiOnArY-BrOtHeR]

comrades, does anyone know why white people weren't allowed to join the BPP. I kinda have an idea, so black proletarians wouldn't get alienated by seeing a white proletarian. I think thats it. Could anyone help me out?

[Robocommie]

The idea was essentially that struggle for black liberation was something that blacks had to do for themselves. This is partially inspired by the anti-colonialist writings of Frantz Fanon, who influenced the Black Panthers a lot. They also adopted his views on the lumpenproletariat as a revolutionary class, for example.

[ReVoLuTiOnArY-BrOtHeR]

The idea was essentially that struggle for black liberation was something that blacks had to do for themselves. This is partially inspired by the anti-colonialist writings of Frantz Fanon, who influenced the Black Panthers a lot. They also adopted his views on the lumpenproletariat as a revolutionary class, for example.

oh alrite thanks dude. What do you think marx would think of the BPP position regarding the lumpenproletaroat and not letting whites join?

[Guerrilla]

oh alrite thanks dude. What do you think marx would think of the BPP position regarding the lumpenproletaroat and not letting whites join?

Well, white people had the White Panther Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Panther_Party)

[ReVoLuTiOnArY-BrOtHeR]

Well, white people had the White Panther Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Panther_Party)

true but in actuality you see many groups that are multinational, i.e black,brown,white etc but the BPP would do soemthing else. why is it that there isnt no more groups that act as the BPP did

[Robocommie]

oh alrite thanks dude. What do you think marx would think of the BPP position regarding the lumpenproletaroat and not letting whites join?

I couldn't even speculate as to what Marx would think about not allowing whites to join the Black Panthers. As for the lumpenproletariat, he would have disagreed, Fanon's writings were a break from orthodox Marxism in that sense. Wheras Marx felt that the lumpenproletariat was inherently not revolutionary, Fanon took the exact opposite stance and stated that the lumpenproletariat were revolutionary because they, unlike the other classes, including the proletariat, were too tied into the system.

Huey Newton combined orthodox Marxism with Fanon's writings in this regard, and Lenin's concept of the vanguard party, as well as Maoist concepts of armed insurrection, to argue that a vanguard of militant, black lumpen-proletariats were the key to revolution in the United States. It borrows pretty heavily, but I think it also did more to advance revolution than most other groups in the US at any time except perhaps the '20s and '30s, even though they eventually fell apart.

[Sasha]

to prevent white supramecy continuing into the organisation, black ppl need(ed) to fight their own liberation struggle not have it fought for them.
same reasons why most radical feminist groups dont accept male members but only as supporters.

there was an white panter support party btw (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Panther_Party)

you saw the same in south-africa where Okhela (see for an bit of info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breyten_Breytenbach) tried to form an non-black anti-racist resistance group because they felt that the mostly white SACP's leading involment in the ANC was an contiuation of (unwhilling but non the less exsisting) white supremasist dynamics.

anyway, in later groups like the BLA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Liberation_Army) you saw more involment of non-black activists.

[ReVoLuTiOnArY-BrOtHeR]

to prevent white supramecy continuing into the organisation, black ppl need(ed) to fight their own liberation struggle not have it fought for them.
same reasons why most radical feminist groups dont accept male members but only as supporters.

there was an white panter support party btw (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Panther_Party)

you saw the same in south-africa where Okhela (see for an bit of info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breyten_Breytenbach) tried to form an non-black anti-racist resistance group because they felt that the mostly white SACP's leading involment in the ANC was an contiuation of (unwhilling but non the less exsisting) white supremasist dynamics.

anyway, in later groups like the BLA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Liberation_Army) you saw more involment of non-black activists.

what do ya think is better for our contemporary bourgeois society the model of the BPP or the multinational model?

[CartCollector]

what do ya think is better for our contemporary bourgeois society the model of the BPP or the multinational model?

I think the "BPP model," in a sense. Not around race, but class. Bourgeois (petit and haute) should be barred full membership in parties, since the proletariat has to fight its own fight, and allowing bourgeois in could lead to capitalist beliefs creeping in to the party and its platform.

[FreeFocus]

I'm not 100% sure that whites weren't allowed as members (they probably weren't), but that doesn't mean whites weren't allowed to cooperate with the BPP or lend solidarity or support. Many whites showed up at BPP rallies and speeches.

[syndicat]

There is also the fact that the BPP was aimed at community organizing within the black community, and at a time when the post-World War 2 ghettos had been consolidated. during the Great Migration of 5 million African-Americans from the south to western and northern ghettos, most had worked in casual labor in agriculture, particularly cotton, and lacked skills to compete in the urban labor market. so you have whole families suffering long term structural unemployment. This is why the "lumpen" label is a bit misleading. The BPP, in my observation (I was in L.A. in late '60s), had employed working class members also, and also was interested in alliances with radical or anti-racist whites. I worked with a member of BPP in 1969 in a gas station. He was quite friendly towards me. In my observation, what he wanted to see was black people being in solidarity with each other because they were engaged in a struggle.

on the other hand, the BPP had limitations to its perspective. they borrowed a lot of pseudo-militarist and vanguardist notions from the model of 3rd World MLism, and this led to top down leaderist and even corrupt practices.

on the specific question of a political group defined as black only, I think it will depend in a given time whether the particular group of working people of color find it necessary to have an autonomous organization of their own. to the degree that an organization of the class is vigorously pursuing racial equality and justice for people of color, they may not feel the need for it.

[scarletghoul]

to prevent white supramecy continuing into the organisation, black ppl need(ed) to fight their own liberation struggle not have it fought for them.
This. They learned from the experience of other groups like the SNCC, which had become dependent on white liberals -

There was somewhat of an unhealthy relationship in the past with the white liberals supporting the black people who were trying to gain their freedom. I think that a good example of this would be the relationship that SNCC had with its white liberals. I call them white liberals because they differ strictly from the white radicals. The relationship was that the whites controlled SNCC for a very long time. From the very start of SNCC until here recently whites were the mind of SNCC, They controlled the program of SNCC with money and they controlled the ideology, or the stands SNCC would take. The blacks in SNCC were completely controlled program-wise; they couldn't do any more than these white liberals wanted them to do, which wasn't very much. So the white liberals were not working for self-determination for the black co\mmunity. They were interested in a few concessions from the power structure. They undermined SNCC's program. Stokely Carmichael came along and realizing this started to follow Malcolm X's program of Black Power. This frightened many of the white liberals who were supporting SNCC. Whites were afraid when Stokely came along with Black Power and said that black people have a mind of their own and that SNCC would be an all black organization and that SNCC would seek self-determination for the black community. The white liberals withdrew their support leaving the organization financially bankrupt. The blacks who were in the organization, Stokely and H. Rap Brown, were left very angry with the white liberals who had been aiding them under the disguise of being sincere. They weren't sincere.
The result was that the leadership of SNCC turned away from the white liberal, which was very good. I don't think they distinguished between the white liberal and the white revolutionary, because the white revolutionary is white also and they are very much afraid to have any contact whatsoever with white people. Even to the point of denying that the white revolutionaries could give support, by supporting the programs of SNCC in the mother country. Not by making any programs, not by being a member of the organization, but simply by resisting. Just as the Vietnamese people realize that they are supported whenever other oppressed people throughout the world resist. Because it helps divide the troops. It drains the country militarily and economically. If the mother country radicals are sincere then this will definitely add to the attack that we are making on the power structure. The Black Panther Party's program is a program where we recognize that the revolution in the mother country will definitely aid us in our freedom and has everything to do with our struggle! (from a good interview , http://www.hippy.com/php/article-76.html )