[WS:] I understand that much, even though my knowledge of the issue is limited, as someone else pointed that out. But then, I do not pretend to know everything, as some on this list do.
I also understand than any social movement - call it self-defense, insurrection, revolutionary party or what not - is to redress some grievances and accomplish some social goals, and it deploys certain strategies and tactics to achieve these goals. But what baffles me is what makes otherwise intelligent people choose tactics that by a rational account not only have a zero chance of success, but also a very high chance of backfiring and producing effects that are opposite to those sought by the movement in question.
We can say all the good things we want about the Panthers, Weather Underground, RAF, Red Brigades, etc. - but their choice of tactics is baffling. I've been involved in protest movements myself, both here and overseas, but it never occurred to me or anyone I was associated with that shooting cops or even higher up political figures would accomplish anything other than bringing more repression and destroying the movement. Au contraire, many demos used the so-called "legal observers" to reduce the risk of violent confrontations with the cops.
So the mindset that produces a tactic that entails armed confrontation with one of the best armed military machines in the world - or even a good chance of such confrontation really baffles me. I really want to know what people who do or are prepared to do such things are thinking. I have a few conjectures of my own, but I'd rather hear what others have to say on this.
Wojtek
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 4:35 PM, Max Sawicky <sawicky at verizon.net> wrote:
> The deal was armed self-defense, not armed insurrection.
>
> Since being a gun-carrying black militant was illegal for all practical
> purposes, and since cops liked to shoot black men, and since the FBI was out
> to demonize and destroy the BPP by any means available, there were a batch
> of those incidents.
>
> Panthers were not averse to shooting police under certain circumstances, but
> they understood the difference between that and armed insurrection.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 4:03 PM, Wojtek S <wsoko52 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> So the following account is not true?
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Panther_Party#Violence
>>
>> "From the beginning the Black Panther Party's focus on militancy came
>> with a reputation for violence. They employed a California law which
>> permitted carrying a loaded rifle or shotgun as long as it was
>> publicly displayed and pointed at no one.[38] Carrying weapons openly
>> and making threats against police officers, for example, chants like
>> "The Revolution has co-ome, it's time to pick up the gu-un. Off the
>> pigs!",[39] helped create the Panthers' reputation as a violent
>> organization.
>>
>> On October 17, 1967, Oakland police officer John Frey was shot to
>> death in an altercation with Huey P. Newton during a traffic stop. In
>> the stop, Newton and backup officer Herbert Heanes also suffered
>> gunshot wounds. Newton was convicted of voluntary manslaughter at
>> trial. This incident gained the party even wider recognition by the
>> radical American left, and a "Free Huey" campaign ensued.[40] Newton
>> was released after three years, when his conviction was reversed on
>> appeal.
>>
>> On May 2, 1967, the California State Assembly Committee on Criminal
>> Procedure was scheduled to convene to discuss what was known as the
>> "Mulford Act", which would ban public displays of loaded firearms.
>> Cleaver and Newton put together a plan to send a group of about 30
>> Panthers led by Seale from Oakland to Sacramento to protest the bill.
>> The group entered the assembly carrying their weapons, an incident
>> which was widely publicized, and which prompted police to arrest Seale
>> and five others. The group pled guilty to misdemeanor charges of
>> disrupting a legislative session.[41]
>>
>> On April 7, 1968, Panther Bobby Hutton was killed, and Cleaver was
>> wounded in a shootout with the Oakland police. Each side called the
>> event an ambush by the other. Two policemen were shot in the
>> incident.[42]
>>
>> >From the fall of 1967 through the end of 1970, nine police officers
>> were killed and 56 were wounded, and ten Panther deaths and an unknown
>> number of injuries resulted from confrontations. In 1969 alone, 348
>> Panthers were arrested for a variety of crimes.[43] On February 18,
>> 1970 Albert Wayne Williams was shot by the Portland Police Bureau
>> outside the Black Panther party headquarters in Portland, Oregon.
>> Though his wounds put him in a critical condition, he made a full
>> recovery.[44]"
>>
>> end-quote
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 3:02 PM, Dennis Claxton <ddclaxton at earthlink.net>
>> wrote:
>> > At 11:56 AM 10/28/2010, Wojtek S wrote:
>> >
>> >> I do not want to split hair, but they did not stand a chance -
>> >> cointelpro or not. No armed insurrection in the US stands a chance.
>> >
>> >
>> > To call the Panthers an armed insurrection is to miss what they were
>> about.
>> > As is comparing them to the Red Brigades.
>> >
>> >
>> > ___________________________________
>> > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>> >
>>
>> ___________________________________
>> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>