[lbo-talk] Black Panther Coloring Book

c b cb31450 at gmail.com
Fri Oct 29 08:46:31 PDT 2010


The larger context of the rise of the Panthers was scores of urban riots/rebellions in Black ghettos across the US. This was spontaneous mass struggle ( not very conscious or thought out or radical Party-led). This was also a period of expose and resistance to racist police brutality. There was an element of urgency to stop racist police brutality by any means necessary. So, there was a conscious, heroic , and , yes, naive, willingness to take on of the risk of confronting the gigantic US special repressive apparatus particularly its police section for the limited goal of curbing police brutality. What did they have to lose ? They might get shot anyway.

The Panthers didn't advocate or lead or organize urban rebellions. But carrying guns, which was a big thing for the NRA of the right wing anyway, was a la mode, especially in the West, like California. Some of the carrying guns was not only in defense against police but other racist groups.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_riots

http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/2/7/4/9/6/p274966_index.html

http://www.67riots.rutgers.edu/d_index.htm

http://www.greenwood.com/catalog/C5945.aspx

Also, since the Panther goal was not armed overthrow of the government, but more limited goals like stopping racist police brutality, they _did_ succeed in the more limited goal by pushing other less radically demonstrative activists and politicians to oppose police brutality. In Detroit, the first Black mayor was elected majorly on ending an infamous police unit the brutalized Black youth.

The goal of some measure of self-determination for Black populations ( more limited than armed overthrow of US capitalism; broader than curbing racist police brutality) was achieved to some degree, not directly by the Panthers, but by masses of city voters.

Malcom X spoke on the ballot or the bullet. The Black ghetto used the bullet then the ballot.

CB

^^^^^^^^^^^

Wojtek S


> 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



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list