Favorite Black Panther [Archive]

elijahcraig

9th September 2003, 19:51

Has anyone ever heard this song?

"George Jackson" by Bob Dylan

I woke up this mornin',
There were tears in my bed.
They killed a man I really loved
Shot him through the head.
Lord, Lord,
They cut George Jackson down.
Lord, Lord,
They laid him in the ground.

Sent him off to prison
For a seventy-dollar robbery.
Closed the door behind him
And they threw away the key.
Lord, Lord,
They cut George Jackson down.
Lord, Lord,
They laid him in the ground.

He wouldn't take shit from no one
He wouldn't bow down or kneel.
Authorities, they hated him
Because he was just too real.
Lord, Lord,
They cut George Jackson down.
Lord, Lord,
They laid him in the ground.

Prison guards, they cursed him
As they watched him from above
But they were frightened of his power
They were scared of his love.
Lord, Lord,
So they cut George Jackson down.
Lord, Lord,
They laid him in the ground.

Sometimes I think this whole world
Is one big prison yard.
Some of us are prisoners
The rest of us are guards.
Lord, Lord,
They cut George Jackson down.
Lord, Lord,
They laid him in the ground.

Umoja

9th September 2003, 22:11

Assata Shakur, and Sundiata Acoli. I guess Stokley Carmicheal had his moments as well.

elijahcraig

9th September 2003, 22:18

Wasn't Carmichael in the SNCC? NOt the BPP?

Umoja

9th September 2003, 22:59

He was the head of the BPP for awhile, and was also in SNCC as well.

CompadreGuerrillera

9th September 2003, 23:05

Huey was my favorite George and Fred were cool as well.

Dark Capitalist

9th September 2003, 23:17

David Duke, William Pierce, Don Black......

Rastafari

9th September 2003, 23:28

You are so fucking despicable I can't even reply. Do you honestly agree with these people? Have you ever read any thing that David Duke has said? It is not only a joke, but a disgustingly bad one. Good thing his ass is in prison. I feel a lot safer than I did.

And..."The Turner Diaries" for you sig? You've gone from arguing capitalism to insinuating fascism, DC. If you have lost so many arguements that you figure quoting Fascism is your last resort, you can go ahead and leave. At least SN gave the members here that decency

Dark Capitalist

9th September 2003, 23:39

Don't you see what I was trying to point out? They're listing the names of black nationalists, I'm listing the names of white nationalists. What they're doing is no different from what I'm doing.

elijahcraig

9th September 2003, 23:52

But the BPP wasn't nationalist, it was Maoist. So, your "point" fails miserably.

Hampton

10th September 2003, 00:14

Originally posted by Dark [email protected] 9 2003, 06:39 PM
Don't you see what I was trying to point out? They're listing the names of black nationalists, I'm listing the names of white nationalists. What they're doing is no different from what I'm doing.
You're not doing anything except making stupid comments on a messageboard, so I guess you just openly declared yourself a white nationalist too. You're such a sad human being it really is pathetic, if you can't add anything to the topic stay the fuck out with your bullshit on David Duke, who should now be reffered to as "the prison *****".

CompadreGuerrillera

10th September 2003, 01:09

Originally posted by Hampton+Sep 10 2003, 12:14 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Hampton @ Sep 10 2003, 12:14 AM)
Dark [email protected] 9 2003, 06:39 PM
Don't you see what I was trying to point out? They're listing the names of black nationalists, I'm listing the names of white nationalists. What they're doing is no different from what I'm doing.
You're not doing anything except making stupid comments on a messageboard, so I guess you just openly declared yourself a white nationalist too. You're such a sad human being it really is pathetic, if you can't add anything to the topic stay the fuck out with your bullshit on David Duke, who should now be reffered to as "the prison *****". [/b]
never spoke a truer word, man

Yeah, really DC, use ur brain the Black Panthers aint nationalist, they never were nationalist, and theyll (hopefuly) never be nationalist,

in regards to David Duke, well my comrades before my reply summed up my feelings quite nicely, man DC i never knew u were Cappie, and a FuckFace! Wow, learn something new everyday....

redstar2000

10th September 2003, 01:35

I don't see how the Panthers appointed their leadership positions has anything to do with what they did in the community to help the sick or the kids who couldn't get breakfast before school.

I didn't suggest that. If you're in need of help and someone offers it, you rarely stop to ask why?.

Rather what I point out is that the way the BPP was structured--completely undemocratically--may explain why elijahcraig and other so-called "communist" sheep-herders like it.

It's kind of "nice" when you never have to answer to the membership.

Not sure if he was a Black Panther but Bill Epton was a good comrade, only died last year. Wasn't Angela Davis a member of the CPUSA and now heads the COC?

Sorry to hear about Bill Epton--I knew him (though not well). An electrician by trade, he was expelled from the Communist Party USA for "ultra-leftism" around 1960 or so and then also expelled from the Progressive Labor Party for "nationalism" in the late 1960s. Another victim of "democratic centralism".

Angela Davis was indeed an outspoken public member of the CPUSA; they "courted" the Black Panther Party aggressively in the early 1970s and Davis was quite close to George Jackson. I'm not aware of what she's doing currently--through she is presumably approaching retirement age from her university teaching position (if she still has it).

I remember that in one of the last articles that Jackson wrote before he was murdered by prison guards, he referred to the white supporters of the BPP as "mules" and spoke of harnessing them more effectively.

"Mules" or "sheep"...take your pick.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

elijahcraig

10th September 2003, 04:00

Good lord you are obsessed with that nonsense. I don't give a fuck what he wrote. Malcolm X wanted race war! I admire him as well. H. Rap Brown was and is a Black Nationalist, and? There exists a Black Nation, nations have the right to self-determination.

RS, your pathetic attacks on The BPP for not practicing "democracy" is nonsense. You know as well as I that they followed Mao's line, meaning hierarchy, taking orders. This is meant to design a fortress of a party, as Hilliard said quoting Stalin.

BTW, Davis teaches at University of California, Santa Cruz I think.

Quote I like from Fred Hampton:

"You can kill a revolutionary but you can't kill the revolution."

"They are now showing great interest in the thoughts of Mao Tse-tung, Nkrumah, Lenin, Marx, and the achievements of men like Che Guevara, Giap, and Uncle Ho."
-George Jackson, speaking of the Black Nation

redstar2000

10th September 2003, 16:16

I don't give a fuck what he wrote.

That must greatly simplify your efforts at political understanding. The rest of us mere mortals must actually look at what people say and determine if it makes sense or not.

Malcolm X wanted race war! I admire him as well.

I think it's unlikely he would return the feeling. As I understand Malcolm's views, he wanted black people to defend themselves against racism by any means necessary. That's not "wanting a race war" in my opinion.

But as you say, you "don't give a fuck what people write".

There exists a Black Nation, nations have the right to self-determination.

Indeed they do. Does that fact grant "immunity from criticism" from all who are not members of that nation?

Do not forget that the Nazis advocated self-determination for the Germans residing in Austria, the Sudetenland region of Czechoslovakia, etc. You wouldn't care to argue that "therefore" the Nazis should "not be criticized", would you?

RS, your pathetic attacks on The BPP for not practicing "democracy" are nonsense. You know as well as I that they followed Mao's line, meaning hierarchy, taking orders. This is meant to design a fortress of a party, as Hilliard said quoting Stalin.

Yes, I'm well aware of the fact that there was a good deal of "playing soldier" in the BPP. And I'm even more aware that you admire that sort of thing.

What you do not understand is that it has nothing to do with communism.

But then, neither do you.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

Hampton

10th September 2003, 17:47

elijahcraig

10th September 2003, 21:23

I don't give a fuck what he wrote.

That must greatly simplify your efforts at political understanding. The rest of us mere mortals must actually look at what people say and determine if it makes sense or not.[/QUOTE]

?

Malcolm X wanted race war! I admire him as well.

I think it's unlikely he would return the feeling. As I understand Malcolm's views, he wanted black people to defend themselves against racism by any means necessary. That's not "wanting a race war" in my opinion.[/QUOTE]

Malcolm X was a Black Nationalist, you have not read the man if you think he wasn’t for violent revolution based on that ideology.

But as you say, you "don't give a fuck what people write".

It seems so based on your understanding of the man’s ideology.

There exists a Black Nation, nations have the right to self-determination.

Indeed they do. Does that fact grant "immunity from criticism" from all who are not members of that nation?[/QUOTE]

No, it does not. But you attempt in every post I see to demonize Leninists, and anyone who admires them. “Sheep-herder”? Stop this trash RS.

Do not forget that the Nazis advocated self-determination for the Germans residing in Austria, the Sudetenland region of Czechoslovakia, etc. You wouldn't care to argue that "therefore" the Nazis should "not be criticized", would you?

This has nothing to do with the thread, nazi-black comparisons are unworthy of attention by anyone.

RS, your pathetic attacks on The BPP for not practicing "democracy" are nonsense. You know as well as I that they followed Mao's line, meaning hierarchy, taking orders. This is meant to design a fortress of a party, as Hilliard said quoting Stalin.

Yes, I'm well aware of the fact that there was a good deal of "playing soldier" in the BPP. And I'm even more aware that you admire that sort of thing.[/QUOTE]

What you do not understand is that it has nothing to do with communism.[/QUOTE]

So say the Utopian Socialist? Ha. Let’s all sit around the campfire with grandpa, and let HIM tell us how the jury in communist society will have 500 members, or whoever wants to participate. Or, what about the great “voluntary” work system, right after the revolution? What about his total misunderstanding of economics, to the point that every question concerning the subject is replied to with “That’s not COMMUNIST economics.” !

On “playing soldier”…see Hampton’s brilliant post.

But then, neither do you.

?

redstar2000

11th September 2003, 02:40

I don't know about anyone else, but, having your office shot up by cops, being shot in the back after being arrested, being pulled over and shot in the stomach, and being killed in your sleep as the police fire rounds into your apartment hardly sounds like "playing soldier" to me.

Sure it was. When you display weaponry in a provocative manner--and don't tell me you don't think the BPP did that--and then you are unable to shoot back, then you are "playing soldier".

Where, for example, were the BPP sentries on the night of that murderous attack by the Chicago police? Where was that highly-publicized "armed resistance"?

If you talk "tough" to the ruling class, better be prepared to act tough...otherwise you're "playing soldier" and will be murdered.

Personally, I'm in favor of armed self-defence...and against holding press conferences to brag about it.

But they didn't ask my advice.

Something else I learned today: Setting up free schools, free breakfast centers, giving away free shoes and clothing, and giving free medical exams has nothing to do with communism.

That's correct. Communism is not about charity.

There's nothing wrong with "good works" per se; even some capitalists do them.

But it really doesn't have anything at all to do with proletarian revolution or communist society.

Most people who do charity stuff do it so they can feel less guilty about their relative prosperity. They have a conscience...but that's not the same thing as a genuinely revolutionary ideology.

The BPP, to their credit, did try to use their charity work to raise political consciousness in the Black community.

But I personally don't think that's a workable approach.

Evidently, neither did history.

Malcolm X was a Black Nationalist, you have not read the man if you think he wasn’t for violent revolution based on that ideology.

I'm not aware that he ever issued a call for armed insurrection by Black people in the United States or ever suggested that he would do so at some point in the future.

So, unless you can produce evidence to the contrary, my point that he did not "want a race war" stands.

Try to learn something about these people, elijah, before you put their pictures on your bedroom wall, as if they were "rock stars".

But you attempt in every post I see to demonize Leninists, and anyone who admires them. "Sheep-herder"? Stop this trash RS.

Sorry, elijah, but I call them like I see them. Remember when your mentor Comrade RAF talked about "herding" the workers like "sheep"? Remember when you yourself endorsed the "sheep theory"?

You don't like it now because it makes you look bad. Like some Hollywood celebrity, an unflattering photograph requires burning the film and smashing the camera...and even beating up the photographer.

But you can't do that here, can you?

So says the Utopian Socialist? Ha. Let’s all sit around the campfire with grandpa, and let HIM tell us how the jury in communist society will have 500 members, or whoever wants to participate. Or, what about the great "voluntary" work system, right after the revolution? What about his total misunderstanding of economics, to the point that every question concerning the subject is replied to with "That’s not COMMUNIST economics."!

And what about the fact that I won't stop giving you a hard time over your shitty politics?

Throw another log on the camp-fire, sonny, and I'll tell you some more...

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

elijahcraig

11th September 2003, 03:22

QUOTE]Sure it was. When you display weaponry in a provocative manner--and don't tell me you don't think the BPP did that--and then you are unable to shoot back, then you are "playing soldier".

Where, for example, were the BPP sentries on the night of that murderous attack by the Chicago police? Where was that highly-publicized "armed resistance"?[/QUOTE]

They did shoot back. Hell, Bobby Hutton was killed in a shootout.

If you talk "tough" to the ruling class, better be prepared to act tough...otherwise you're "playing soldier" and will be murdered.

I agree. Though I think they were fully prepared to do what they said. Much of it was rhetoric which they couldn’t back up.

I'm not aware that he ever issued a call for armed insurrection by Black people in the United States or ever suggested that he would do so at some point in the future.

So, unless you can produce evidence to the contrary, my point that he did not "want a race war" stands.

Ever read/heard his speech entitled, “The Cure of White’s Disease: Race War”?

Try to learn something about these people, elijah, before you put their pictures on your bedroom wall, as if they were "rock stars".

And you should learn something about economics, before going and designing utopian societies, with 500 member juries and “INSTANT COMMUNISM” Packaged for free?

Sorry, elijah, but I call them like I see them. Remember when your mentor Comrade RAF talked about "herding" the workers like "sheep"? Remember when you yourself endorsed the "sheep theory"?

I never thought of it in that way, and I made that clear. I explained myself fully, and you edited my post to fit your little “theories”, and proceeded to call me a fascist.

You don't like it now because it makes you look bad. Like some Hollywood celebrity, an unflattering photograph requires burning the film and smashing the camera...and even beating up the photographer.

Makes me look bad? This is a fucking message board RS. Maybe you get freaked out when your cult of liberal “communists” stray a little, but I don’t. I’m not that pathetic, yet.

And what about the fact that I won't stop giving you a hard time over your shitty politics?

Hard time? You simply dodge every discussion on the issue I raise, edit my post out to say something like “I…am…a…she[ep]…he[rder].” And move the fuck on. Pathetic really.

Hampton

11th September 2003, 03:57

Sure it was. When you display weaponry in a provocative manner--and don't tell me you don't think the BPP did that--and then you are unable to shoot back, then you are "playing soldier".

Fred was drugged that night by an FBI agent who unknowingly was Fred's bodyguard, so it was kind of hard to shoot back although he did manage to fire off 1 round before he died. Huey shot back when he was pulled over by the police and killed an officer, you may remember that trial he had. Bobby Hutton was shot in the back when he and Eldrigde were arrested coming out of someone's basment naked after a shoot out that lasted a couple of hours.

They did fire back but they also knew that there would be certain consequences for doing so, which is why they didn't go around doing what the BLA did later on. The law dosen't take kindly to blacks who shoot at cops, self defense of not, look at Mumia, hell they even arrested Akua Njeri who(Fred's wife) was 8 months pregent, and 7 other survivors who were charged with attempted murder, aggravated assault and assault with a deadly weapon. I wouldn't call expressing a right that's covered in the Bill or Rights as provocative either, if it was white people they're wouldn't be a problem-because they're called cops-they were simply showing that if they were provoked they would fire back in self defense, it is this society that has the problem that makes them think blacks with guns means the overthrow of the government.

elijahcraig

11th September 2003, 04:02

What do you think of the BLA Hampton?

Hampton

11th September 2003, 04:22

As far as I'm concerned, the BLA, as an idea and as a concept, was just a response to the brutal repression of the Panthers. In many ways it could be see as self defense, if the police had caught them, they would have been dead you can count on that. So this creates a kill or be killed situation which was the case of those who chose to become radicals and were then targeted by the government for dissenting. I don't think to many people know a lot about them, and if they did they wouldn't talk about it, but, I'm glad they freed Assata for one thing.

BTW it's my long winded way of saying that I like them and wish every member that is in jail now should be released.

elijahcraig

11th September 2003, 04:29

We agree.

synthesis

11th September 2003, 04:29

I never thought of it in that way, and I made that clear. I explained myself fully, and you edited my post to fit your little “theories”, and proceeded to call me a fascist.

Is this true, Redstar?

redstar2000

11th September 2003, 12:35

I have never edited anyone's posts on this board with a single exception: elijahcraig once "posted" about one hundred lines of blank space...which I removed.

What elijah is pissing and moaning about is that I quoted from his posts and pointed out the parallels that existed (and still exist) between his (and Comrade RAF's) view of both "leadership" and "human nature" and those of classical fascism.

To be specific, they both think that the working class en masse are a bunch of "sheep" that need to be properly "herded" both before and after the revolution by them.

I did not, in fact, "call" them "fascist"...I simply drew attention to the implications of their stated views.

They didn't like it at the time; they still don't like it.

Too bad.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

redstar2000

11th September 2003, 13:21

I wouldn't call expressing a right that's covered in the Bill or Rights as provocative either, if it was white people they're wouldn't be a problem-because they're called cops-they were simply showing that if they were provoked they would fire back in self defense, it is this society that has the problem that makes them think blacks with guns means the overthrow of the government.

Don't you think it extraordinarily naive of them that they would think the "Bill of Rights" applies to Black people?

Since when???

And I think that black people with guns very definitely implies "the overthrow of the government".

In the Third Reich, Jews with guns would have been viewed as a serious threat to the government's existence; why not the same for Black people here?

I hope I am not being misunderstood here; I am very definitely in favor of Black liberation. I have no problem at all with the idea of a separate Black Republic before or after the proletarian revolution...self-determination is an absolute right of African-Americans. (Note: I also have no problem with a new Hispanic Republic in the American southwest.)

What I am not is a groupie. Just because someone says he is the "leader" of the struggle for Black liberation don't make it so. The same is true of groups.

And even if it is so, that still isn't the last word on the subject.

Groups have strengths and weaknesses, good ideas and bad ideas, etc. Communists should be especially attentive to what is really going on...instead of simply putting pictures on our walls like some of those who wear Che t-shirts without any idea of who he really was, what he really thought or did.

The very title of this thread is a bad example. Elijahcraig mentioned a speech by Malcolm X (I couldn't find a text on the internet, just a recording that would take 50 minutes to download.)

Post the text of that speech and let's discuss it! Forget about Malcolm "the folk hero" or "media celebrity"...let's give the man the respect of talking about his ideas in a serious way!

And the same thing, of course, for the Panthers, Angela Davis, etc.

These people all thought they were revolutionaries. Were they?

What is "the verdict of history"?

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

Umoja

11th September 2003, 21:20

I was curious about how the BLA exactly got Assata out of Prison, and what the motives of the organization were since Assata never went into detail in her biography.

elijahcraig

11th September 2003, 21:28

I have never edited anyone's posts on this board with a single exception: elijahcraig once "posted" about one hundred lines of blank space...which I removed.

Let’s say “edited quotes when replying” to make it more clear.

What elijah is pissing and moaning about is that I quoted from his posts and pointed out the parallels that existed (and still exist) between his (and Comrade RAF's) view of both "leadership" and "human nature" and those of classical fascism.

You don’t believe in leadership? You don’t believe human nature is determined by the material conditions of the time? It is not constant, obviously.

To be specific, they both think that the working class en masse are a bunch of "sheep" that need to be properly "herded" both before and after the revolution by them.

No, I think that we should “awaken” as many of them as possible, turn them into communists; and then stage a revolution when the time is right. You cannot deny that a large portion will simply “follow in line”.

I did not, in fact, "call" them "fascist"...I simply drew attention to the implications of their stated views.

In other words, you called us fascists.

Post the text of that speech and let's discuss it! Forget about Malcolm "the folk hero" or "media celebrity"...let's give the man the respect of talking about his ideas in a serious way!

You aren’t familiar with the teachings of Elijah Muhammad are you RedStar?

Hampton

11th September 2003, 23:12

And I think that black people with guns very definitely implies "the overthrow of the government".

Well that's the most common thought I suppose, the gun was for self defense, they couldn't be responsible for every misconception that someone had about them. But I'm pretty sure once anyone reads into what the Panthers were about and read their platform they can figure out they were not crazy gun nuts going around shooting random white people.

I don't think the Bill of Rights applies to a lot of people, in reality at least, but the idea was to challenge that and to ensure that one day it would, now whether or not they did that remains "the verdict of history" I suppose, I think the point is that they tried to fix what was wrong in this country.

redstar2000

12th September 2003, 01:12

You don’t believe in leadership? You don’t believe human nature is determined by the material conditions of the time? It is not constant, obviously.

No, by and large, I don't "believe" in "leadership".

I think people can come up with good ideas on occasion; and some people do that better than others.

But no one always has good ideas and never has bad ideas. Therefore, not even the person who is most consistent in coming up with good ideas can be "followed"...because his/her next idea could very well be complete horseshit.

To "follow" a "leader", to give up your autonomy and "let the leader decide" is a recipe for catastrophe. It is the single biggest fuck-up in politics that a person can make.

The rest of your statement is a tautology...of course "human nature" derives from material conditions.

The real question is: what is the "human nature" of people who make proletarian revolution?

Are they "passive followers" who "need" to be "herded" in the "right" direction? Or are they conscious of what they really want and how to shape social reality to achieve their goals?

The first choice leads to reformism or Leninism (two sides of the same coin); the second choice leads to communism.

You aren’t familiar with the teachings of Elijah Muhammad are you RedStar?

By all accounts he was a corrupt nutball, was he not? But I was suggesting a serious examination of serious ideas, those of Malcolm X, Huey Newton, etc.

For example, here is something I heard about Malcolm X not too long before he was murdered. Someone asked him if there were any white people that he admired or felt like he could unite with. His answer was John Brown, the 19th century abolitionist who attempted to initiate a guerrilla war against the slaveowners.

I like to mention this whenever people say that Malcolm was "full of hate for white people".

Not all white people.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

elijahcraig

12th September 2003, 01:27

You don’t believe in leadership? You don’t believe human nature is determined by the material conditions of the time? It is not constant, obviously.

No, by and large, I don't "believe" in "leadership".

I think people can come up with good ideas on occasion; and some people do that better than others.

But no one always has good ideas and never has bad ideas. Therefore, not even the person who is most consistent in coming up with good ideas can be "followed"...because his/her next idea could very well be complete horseshit.[/QUOTE]

That is true. I didn’t say dictator though. I said leader.

To "follow" a "leader", to give up your autonomy and "let the leader decide" is a recipe for catastrophe. It is the single biggest fuck-up in politics that a person can make.

I never said debate was not something to have, but a leader, such as a chairman, is not a dictator, as I said.

The rest of your statement is a tautology...of course "human nature" derives from material conditions.

The real question is: what is the "human nature" of people who make proletarian revolution?

Are they "passive followers" who "need" to be "herded" in the "right" direction? Or are they conscious of what they really want and how to shape social reality to achieve their goals?

I think a little of both.

The first choice leads to reformism or Leninism (two sides of the same coin); the second choice leads to communism.

And you lead to Owen-like drivel. How many jury members again RS? ANYONE can be on it? HAHAHAHA

You aren’t familiar with the teachings of Elijah Muhammad are you RedStar?

By all accounts he was a corrupt nutball, was he not? But I was suggesting a serious examination of serious ideas, those of Malcolm X, Huey Newton, etc.[/QUOTE]

Well, until Malcolm broke away near the end of his life, he was a follower of the man; and supported ALL of his ideas. That includes the apocalyptic race war. That’s why they were Nationalists.

For example, here is something I heard about Malcolm X not too long before he was murdered. Someone asked him if there were any white people that he admired or felt like he could unite with. His answer was John Brown, the 19th century abolitionist who attempted to initiate a guerrilla war against the slaveowners.

Yes, he said, “You have to be willing to do what John Brown did.” At least that is a quote I remember from a speech I read from the man.

I like to mention this whenever people say that Malcolm was "full of hate for white people".

Not all white people.

Near the end of his life, Malcolm X began to work with other non-Black groups; but before that, he was completely against even letting whites participate in the movement of Black Nationalism, since, well, it was BLACK nationalism.

Remember, Malcolm X was a member of the Nation of Islam, the same organization which contains Louis Farrakhan and Khallid Muhammad (or used to). Malcolm was the head spokesperson for this group, and was indeed a follower of Elijah Muhammad until the break with him over the fornication with women.

redstar2000

12th September 2003, 03:33

How many jury members again RS? ANYONE can be on it? HAHAHAHA

You have a problem with that idea, elijah?

If I'm not mistaken, it was actually used for several centuries by the ancient Athenian Republic.

Their juries consisted of 500 citizens drawn by lottery.

In fact, most of their public offices were filled by lotteries, not elections.

They had the "funny idea"--you can laugh here now, if you want--that all citizens were capable of discharging governmental functions.

(No, that doesn't mean that Athens was a "classless society"; non-citizen residents, women, the young, and slaves were all excluded from their "ruling class".)

It "worked" pretty good.

In communist society, we will have no slaves, of course, and probably won't bother making distinctions between "natives" and "aliens".

Probably the minimum age for jury "duty" will be around 13 or so...not that many kids would be interested in being on one.

And what do you have against a "big jury" consisting of people who "want" to be on it?

Look at it this way: if you go to trial now, your fate will be decided by 12 people who were not smart enough to get out of jury duty. Is that what you prefer?

Try to think about this stuff, elijah. You know, amaze your friends and confound your enemies. :lol:

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

Rastafari

12th September 2003, 03:37

harhar

interesting debate

Hampton

12th September 2003, 04:16

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2003, 04:20 PM
I was curious about how the BLA exactly got Assata out of Prison, and what the motives of the organization were since Assata never went into detail in her biography.
I've always wondered that myself, I mean I could guess they motives to get her out of prison so she didn't become another BLA member in prison for the next 40 years like some of them sadly are and probally will be for a long time to come. The most intresting to know is exactly how they did, how they got her on a plane to Cuba, and what exactly what going "underground" really meant. I know she describes getting into disguises and stuff, but there has to be more than that to it.

Maybe it's better we don't know for the ones still out there.

http://www.finalcall.com/images/assata06-11-2002.jpg

elijahcraig

12th September 2003, 04:18

How many jury members again RS? ANYONE can be on it? HAHAHAHA

You have a problem with that idea, elijah?

If I'm not mistaken, it was actually used for several centuries by the ancient Athenian Republic.

Their juries consisted of 500 citizens drawn by lottery.

Wow, that’s so efficient. Try NOT to get unbiased jurors, let’s just pull those motherfuckers out of a hat!

In fact, most of their public offices were filled by lotteries, not elections.

That would not be good, at all.

They had the "funny idea"--you can laugh here now, if you want--that all citizens were capable of discharging governmental functions.

This has nothing to do with jury sizes. I support what you just put forth.

(No, that doesn't mean that Athens was a "classless society"; non-citizen residents, women, the young, and slaves were all excluded from their "ruling class".)

It "worked" pretty good.

In communist society, we will have no slaves, of course, and probably won't bother making distinctions between "natives" and "aliens".

Probably the minimum age for jury "duty" will be around 13 or so...not that many kids would be interested in being on one.

And what do you have against a "big jury" consisting of people who "want" to be on it?

You put forth a system where ANYONE could be on ANY jury it wanted. That is just nonsense. You must choose unbiased jurors, those who have no, or nearly no, bias towards the accused, against the defendant.

Look at it this way: if you go to trial now, your fate will be decided by 12 people who were not smart enough to get out of jury duty. Is that what you prefer?

That’s not how it would be at all RedStar. That is a wrong way of looking at it. I would rather have 12 unbiased jurors deciding, than 500 who could all be biased, and serving because they “wanted” to.

Try to think about this stuff, elijah. You know, amaze your friends and confound your enemies.

Nice bold on the word “think”. Bah!

redstar2000

12th September 2003, 12:25

Elijah, I hate to be the one who brings you the bad news but...

There are no "unbiased" humans on the face of the earth; not now, not ever.

What you see in "jury selection" now is theater...it's a pretense. Most jurors are biased--not necessarily against this particular accused but against the accused in general. "If he hadn't done something, he wouldn't have been arrested", etc.

The real burden of proof is always on the accused--forget those bourgeois formulas in high school text books.

A "big jury" would hopefully consist of a lot of biased folks whose prejudices would cancel each other out...giving the accused at least a reasonable opportunity to make a case for his/her innocence.

Because that's the only thing that has a chance of saving your ass...particularly in trials that take on "political" overtones.

Let the people decide!

Remember, Malcolm X was a member of the Nation of Islam, the same organization which contains Louis Farrakhan and Khallid Muhammad (or used to). Malcolm was the head spokesperson for this group, and was indeed a follower of Elijah Muhammad until the break with him over the fornication with women.

Yes, I was aware of those details. What do you think about them?

Was Malcolm X mistaken to ever get involved with a fraud like the Nation of Islam?

Was he mistaken to ever take Islam (or any other religion) seriously?

Can we dismiss the Nation of Islam as a fraud today?

In general, should we take a "permissive" attitude towards political ideas in the African-American community that we would never tolerate in our own (white leftist) communities?

For example, a lot of Black preachers are openly homophobic and misogynist. Is that "ok" because, after all, it's "part of their tradition"?

Or, for example, it turns out that Black bourgeois politicians are just as corrupt as white bourgeois politicians (no surprise there); is it "racist" to condemn them in the same fashion as we would condemn white politicians?

Which do you think is ultimately the better tool to analyze society--class or ethnicity?

This is really complicated stuff...especially in the climate of a racist society like the U.S.

You can't just wing it.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

elijahcraig

13th September 2003, 01:44

Elijah, I hate to be the one who brings you the bad news but...

There are no "unbiased" humans on the face of the earth; not now, not ever.

If a man was on trial for child molestation, and a pedophile wanted to testify, would that be the same bias as say a thirty year old woman who was single who was not a pedophile? NO! Stop this bullshit.

What you see in "jury selection" now is theater...it's a pretense. Most jurors are biased--not necessarily against this particular accused but against the accused in general. "If he hadn't done something, he wouldn't have been arrested", etc.

In capitalist society, the lawyers choose jurors based on winning the case; in socialist society (communism to you, since you are against Leninism), the goal would not be to win, but to seek the truth, just as the goal of production under socialism is not profit but full satisfaction of the society’s needs.

The real burden of proof is always on the accused--forget those bourgeois formulas in high school text books.

I wasn’t working from them.

A "big jury" would hopefully consist of a lot of biased folks whose prejudices would cancel each other out...giving the accused at least a reasonable opportunity to make a case for his/her innocence.

This is just…beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee(he’s gone doctor!)

Because that's the only thing that has a chance of saving your ass...particularly in trials that take on "political" overtones.

Let the people decide!

……………………………………………………….ah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Remember, Malcolm X was a member of the Nation of Islam, the same organization which contains Louis Farrakhan and Khallid Muhammad (or used to). Malcolm was the head spokesperson for this group, and was indeed a follower of Elijah Muhammad until the break with him over the fornication with women.

Yes, I was aware of those details. What do you think about them?

I obviously don’t believe in those things since I am Marxist, but I would support him because I believe in the rights of nations to self-determination.

I personally dislike Elijah Muhammad.

Was Malcolm X mistaken to ever get involved with a fraud like the Nation of Islam?

I would say so.

Was he mistaken to ever take Islam (or any other religion) seriously?

I would say so, once again.

Can we dismiss the Nation of Islam as a fraud today?

Of course. But at that time, the NOI had over 30,000 members, and was one of the most feared organizations by White America. Today, it’s like the KKK.

In general, should we take a "permissive" attitude towards political ideas in the African-American community that we would never tolerate in our own (white leftist) communities?

Considering Whites are the oppressors, I would say so. Not “permissive,” but support rights of nations to self-determination.

For example, a lot of Black preachers are openly homophobic and misogynist. Is that "ok" because, after all, it's "part of their tradition"?

Well, Huey was not, and he was the leader. Of course this should not be ok. I am bisexual, I would never think that ok.

But this is not the same as being for the rights of nations to self-determination, which was what George Jackson was speaking of, in using the whites as “mules.”

Or, for example, it turns out that Black bourgeois politicians are just as corrupt as white bourgeois politicians (no surprise there); is it "racist" to condemn them in the same fashion as we would condemn white politicians?

I say spraypaint FUCK JESSE JACKSON and FUCK AL SHARPTON on all of the walls of the cities.

Which do you think is ultimately the better tool to analyze society--class or ethnicity?

I think we are in agreement on this point RS.