With the benefit of hindsight, the BPP ought to have adopted the approach of the older Deacons for Self-Defense in the deep South. Arm yourself legally for protection, but don't parade the fact around. More like the Nation of Islam.
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 8:07 AM, Wojtek S <wsoko52 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Max: "The deal was armed self-defense, not armed insurrection.:
>
> [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
> >
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>