I turned away more than once while watching Stanley Nelson’s documentary The Black Panthers: Vanguard of the Revolution. I averted my eyes from the screen when FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover’s nefarious mug first appeared. I turned away once more when the charismatic and admirable Fred Hampton was first shown, knowing that eventually he would be murdered by Chicago police and federal agents.
But, of course, I could never turn away for long, because Nelson’s documentary is something all Americans should watch to better understand the country’s current racial climate, including the formation of the #BlackLivesMatter campaign.
The hashtag #BlackLivesMatter first entered public consciousness after George Zimmerman’s acquittal, in July 2013, on charges of second-degree murder in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin. Three activists, Alicia Garza, Patrisse Cullors and Opal Tometi, are credited with coining the phrase. Tellingly, it wasn’t until a year later — in August 2014 when a white police officer killed Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri — that the hashtag gained greater prominence and morphed into an enduring movement against police brutality.
I write “tellingly” because many black American riots can be traced back to an act of police violence. For black citizens, particularly those who are economically disadvantaged, the police are the most consistent and cruel representatives of the white supremacist state. It makes sense then that the same origin story would be true for the revolutionary Black Panthers, who organized after police killed a black person 49 years ago.
Nelson’s documentary, which he spent seven years making, opens with the organization’s founding in Oakland, California, in October 1966, after the death of Matthew Johnson. Johnson’s death convinced Panthers co-founders Huey P. Newton and Bobby Seale of the need for a different, more proactive black movement. In Newton’s mind it was time for black Americans to defend themselves against police violence.
The Oakland Police Department, like so many today, was notorious for its treatment of black residents. The Panthers, legally armed with guns after Johnson’s death, began following the Oakland police around to monitor their actions. Whenever the police made a stop, armed Panthers were there, ensuring no racist harassment or brutality would take place.
One of the great virtues of Nelson’s film is the opportunity to see rare footage. There’s a clip of John Lennon, dressed in a Boston Red Sox jersey, chatting on a talk show with Black Panthers. And there’s the scene of Bobby Seale, depicted with court sketches and audio, gagged and tied to a chair during a trial because he kept calling the presiding judge a “racist, pig, fascist, liar.”
Given the Panthers’ cultural significance, it’s surprising that The Black Panthers is the first documentary to present a thorough examination of the group. (I omit from consideration the vapid and cartoonish 1995 docudrama Panther.) And the film is replete with information many viewers will find new. Nelson reminds us that one of the first major public displays of black power occurred when the Panthers entered the California legislature in Sacramento, armed with guns. Another surprising detail was that after Hoover declared war on the Panthers in the late ’60s, 233 of 295 domestic covert actions by the FBI aimed at black nationalist groups were directed against the Panthers. Undercover agents infiltrated the group almost from the very beginning. It was also news to me that the first known SWAT raid in American history was against the Black Panthers in Los Angeles, just five days after the notorious assassination of Illinois Black Panther leader Fred Hampton.
The 116-minute film leaves viewers wanting more, however. Nelson barely touches on the subject of Newton’s alleged shooting of a white Oakland police officer during a traffic stop in October 1967. Likewise, Newton’s struggle with a crack cocaine addiction later in life, and his 1989 killing by a drug dealer, receive little attention in Nelson’s documentary.
The film does, however, focus on Eldridge Cleaver, the eccentric Panther who along with Seale and Newton composed the Panthers’ powerful Troika. Some of the most exciting storytelling occurs when the documentary recounts how Cleaver fled the U.S. for Cuba, and then Africa, after being charged with attempted murder following a botched attack on the police. Nelson also focuses on how Cleaver, before his death, renounced his radical past and converted to Mormonism. In 1958 Cleaver was convicted of assault during an attempted rape, though Nelson doesn’t mention it except in passing. But with so much attention given to Cleaver’s antics, Nelson ignores the radical substance of the Panthers.
Former Panther Elaine Brown, writing in the Daily Beast, accused Nelson of “excising from his film the Party’s ideological foundation and political strategies, despite the wealth of published materials articulating the Party’s goals and ideals, reducing our activities to sensationalist engagements, as snatched from establishment media headlines.”
The colorful characters who made up the Panthers may provide a cautionary example for the young activists leading Black Lives Matter. Big personalities and internal conflict helped to tear the group apart, but so too did interference and disruption from the racist FBI. Like the Panthers, Black Lives Matter has struggled with refashioning and expanding its missions. The Panthers began a successful breakfast program in Oakland that gave free meals to young people, and attempted to start black businesses with the hope of constructing an economic foundation for black Americans. Black Lives Matter doesn’t seem quite sure where it wants to go next, though some St. Louis activists are attempting to organize black people around economic issues such as the Fight for $15 campaign.
Despite the struggles and the growing pains, Black Lives Matters represents, for the first time since the civil rights era, a social movement focused on battling American racism that has energized black Americans all around the country.
Perhaps the most important lesson that Black Lives Matter, and the rest of us, can learn from Nelson’s film can be encapsulated in an insight from Bobby Seale, which comes in the documentary’s closing scenes: “You don’t fight racism with racism, the best way to fight racism is with solidarity.”
I’d been missing you for awhile before this posting – and your whole “angry urbanite” thing. (Ha!)
You’ve probably seen this but I thought others here should, too.
http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/video_chris_hedges_explores_violence_against_blacks_with_revolutionaries_ed
I hope you got that I did miss your writing and also can’t abide haterz labeling you angry. Should have separated those better…
Because words matter, your opponent will try to tatter yours into saying what they mean. So make it mean something! Mean people SUCK! But I must be one because I love to mean the meanies, so blue.
I know hatred and vengeance are our global enemies because I wasted so many years of my life serving them. I even wrote a play about how they turn feud winners into losers, Romeo. But it’s full of cowboys, no Indians, go figure. The Scots brought enough heat to the barn burnings. True story. See you in hell, Tom Graham.
See what I mean? I’m as doomed as Valachi!
I can believe that about the Scots. Never trust a Scot with a heat source — who else would deep fry a Twinkie? Ya know? Insanity.
I think you meant Mars bars, not Twinkies.
” In 1958 Cleaver was convicted of assault during an attempted rape, though Nelson doesn’t mention it except in passing. But with so much attention given to Cleaver’s antics, Nelson ignores the radical substance of the Panthers.”
Cleaver’s antics and criminal behavior, colorful as they were, weren’t unusual among Panther Leadership . Huey Newton was basically a psychopath who killed a teenage girl for calling him “Baby”. No, what makes Cleaver such an embarrassment was his late career political conversion to the Republican party. The Panthers were a basically just a gang who picked up a little communist revolutionary rhetoric that made them the toast of the clueless Radical Chic. Like Che, they’re more remember for their revolutionary style than for anything they ever achieved.
What should we make of no mentions of Bill Clinton’s rape history? Just a little collegiate fun?
One man’s alleged rape history is the other side’s onions. Having spent nine years of my life in the trenches on that subject, could NSA be exploiting our duplicitous hatred/social acceptance of RAPE concerning ISIL? I’m sick of those dickering docs. So glad the TI tossed that drunk hustler who tried to score off of that tragic mashup here.
As remediation for Whendovescry’s facile bullshit, the wiki entry is sufficient: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Panther_Party
Yeah don’t miss the bits about the torture-murder or the fact that their biggest stunt, storming the capitol, was done in opposition to gun-control. #Blacklivesmatter indeed
Yes, and there is much more — all a reasonably good corrective to your initial prattle.
Get out from behind your computer and go outside. Its probably a nice day.
I did. After it stopped raining. In fact, I did a heavy duty aerobics work-out outside on my deck.
Is this true?
It is absolutely true that the Panthers were outraged that all the wingnuts in California, including Gov. Ronald Reagan, caught gun-control fever when black men began openly carrying in self-defense. That could not be tolerated and so it was banned.
“You don’t fight racism with racism, the best way to fight racism is with solidarity.”
So, the opposite of ‘racism’ is ‘solidarity’? Really? that is an ignorant and nonsensical statement, regardless of the source. Solidarity in any movement – good or bad – is empowering.
Lou, reading is fundamental:
No one wrote or implied that.
Yes, which no doubt is why Seale declared:
If you read better you’d see that you and Bobby Seale are on the same page.
The implied meaning of that statement is that two opposites are being compared – racism vs. solidarity. There is no relationship between the two in that context, therefore my reading comprehension is perfect and the criticism is valid.
Now fuck-off…
Not even sort of. He’s discussing what you “fight” with. And it isn’t more racism; it’s something else. And that something else you should fight with — the alternative weapon – – is…solidarity.
Got it now, Lou?
“The implied meaning of that statement is that two opposites are being compared – racism vs. solidarity. There is no relationship between the two in that context . . .”
Actually, there is. The opposite of solidarity is disintegration. Racism is an act of disintegration into at least two parts. Thus, solidarity acts to oppose racism.
“Not even sort of. He’s discussing what you “fight” with . . ”
Yes, sort of. Although he has not articulated why, his reasoning couldn’t be far from the above.
Bullshit. The man was talking about what one fights racism with. His weapon of choice is not more racism, it is solidarity. He’s not talking about antonyms; he’s assessing weapons.
“He’s not talking about antonyms . . . ”
neither was I, if that makes any difference.
From DreamDefenders, video clips of Ferguson activists, one year later. Especially people like LaRay Kay should educate themselves by hearing from the oppressed themselves. http://www.dreamdefenders.org/fergusonfrontlines
Reading this felt like reading a One Direction review written by a 13-year-old girl who was in love with all the boys in the band.
Sorry Juan, I’m not trying to be mean, just honest.
I thought the piece was great. And I say that as one who wasn’t sure Juan’s first work here was real quality — I’m sure now.
I nodded my head at his closing quote from Bobby Seale:
And Juan is right to sound the alarm about internal dissension that can destroy a movement. If the personalities dominate that is bad.
I agree – this guy is the weak link on TI. his abilities are mediocre at best, and seem sonly to be here to fill the ‘angry urban writer’ slot…
Actually, we strongly disagree. Many of the writers got much better when Betsy Reed arrived as editor. Juan has become very good, and I emailed Greenwald some months back to congratulate him on the hire.
Moreover, Juan’s voice isn’t angry. At all.
He’s a one-note race-baiter, pure and very simple…
He’s a “race-baiter?” What, pray tell, is that?
That should suffice for my daily iron supplement IF one pretends this thread is moving.
?Peter Ludlow in “The Nation”, back in 2013:
“The broader implications of this go beyond Brown; one might think that what we are looking at is Cointelpro 2.0—an outsourced surveillance state—but in fact it’s worse.”
http://www.thenation.com/article/strange-case-barrett-brown/
“Some journalists are now understandably afraid to go near the Stratfor files. The broader implications of this go beyond Brown; one might think that what we are looking at is Cointelpro 2.0—an outsourced surveillance state—but in fact it’s worse. One can’t help but infer that the US Department of Justice has become just another security contractor, working alongside the HBGarys and Stratfors on behalf of corporate bidders, with no sense at all for the justness of their actions; they are working to protect corporations and private security contractors and give them license to engage in disinformation campaigns against ordinary citizens and their advocacy groups. The mere fact that the FBI’s senior cybersecurity advisor has recently moved to Hunton and Williams shows just how incestuous this relationship has become. Meanwhile, the Department of Justice is also using its power and force to trample on the rights of citizens like Barrett Brown who are trying to shed light on these nefarious relationships. In order to neutralize those who question or investigate the system, laws are being reinterpreted or extended or otherwise misappropriated in ways that are laughable—or would be if the consequences weren’t so dire. “
?Peter Ludlow in “The Nation”, back in 2013:
Should be:
Peter Ludlow in “The Nation”, back in 2013:
It’s a shame the article has no discussion about the work the Black Panthers did with white solidarity groups like the White Panthers, Friends of the Panthers and the Young Patriots. Unlike today’s hashtag social justice warriors incl many in the BLM movement, the Panthers believed in the concept of real solidarity–whereas today’s activists believe in a watered down unrevolutionary notion of “allyship” (an absurd word) that devalues the strength & significance of genuine solidarity in political activism work.
good comment.
Interesting article and discussion.
I think this might be a good thread to post this Chris Hedges link. I’m not sure I’m on board with everything his featured subject, Naomi Murakawa, says, but some of what she says is very insightful.
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/corporate_capitalism_is_the_foundation_of_police_20150705
Now, Juan, please and pretty please, can you ask the responsible TI folks to lose those annoying outsized capitals that start some sections of articles? Please with sugar on top??? Sprinkles even.
Why did you say “Yes” to race?
I want to ask everyone the question–Why did you say “Yes” to race?
Since race is a socially imposed orthodoxy radically unencumbered by logic, science or rational thought and browbeaten into us by rote repetition–this is actually a rhetorical question designed to highlight today’s thesis:
Race itself is immoral.
There is literally nothing appealing about race. No upside. Race is horrible, disgusting, sick and demented. Race is incest.
Let me digress for a moment and address the shrinking pool of racial purity that race faces. Racial infidelity is quickly eroding the genetically undiversified pool of racially pure people available for reproductive race buttressing.
Anthropologist Buck Peters explains the problem for the Pro-Race Movement this way, “In race vs. horny, horny won–Hard. Asking people not to hit that shit really is a nonstarter.”
Sociologist Eve Cummings is even more blunt, “I am so fucking horny right now.”
Socio-Anthropologist Chuck Thick offers this advice to those hoping racial purity’s day is not quite over, “Let’s do this shit–right here, right now. First I want to watch you two. Fuck yes.”
Now back to my rant about how horrible race is…
The only thing that scares the preachers of race more than evolution is interracial sex. Race at its base is really about being very very uncomfortable about sex and reproduction. There are not too many things that are as stupid as they are evil–race is one of them. Ok, here is something I will never understand–an atheist who believes in race. How did your “intellectual” sword slay God but leave race standing? Do you really think religion didn’t bring us race to begin with? Race is a religion. The Worst Religion. Race is the Worst Religion.
So why did you say “Yes” to race?
What is it about race that made you say–“I need to get in on that.”
Was it the purity of innate genetic categories that will separate us until the end of time? A divide that cannot be reasoned or fucked away. Was that it? Or maybe it is the full on stupid. Race makes scientology sound rational. Maybe it was the violence. If you like violence you are gonna love race. Maybe it is the hatred. If violence sounds a little too sexual for you, then hatred may be what turned you on about race.
How about name calling? Race revolutionized name calling. If you are into snappy zingers that tear out your heart and soul, then race is the place just for you. Maybe comedy is your game. Maybe it was the first racial joke you ever heard that made you say–“I’m not funny, but I want to be deeply hurtful.” Race welcomes you with closed arms. Maybe it was the killing? Killing lots of people is hard work. Race gives you that extra edge that allows you to stay sharp and push your numbers even higher. Let’s not forget slavery. I know lots of people jumped on board the race bandwagon the last time we offered this feature. Never say never.
How about political control? Maybe this is what made you say “Yes”.
Tell us why you said “Yes” to race in the comments below.
(Comments are brought to you by Scrapple–Our name is also our list of ingredients. And by…War–Serving America for over two hundred years. On the Internet at http://www.wwar.com. The second “w” is for more war. http://www.wwar.com)
Next: Who are the Preachers of Race? The answer might just surprise…You.
The Black Panthers message focused on empowering the disempowered seeking social justice for the preyed upon and the weak or defenseless and standing up to the indiscriminate criminalization and victimization of African Americans.
They asserted the right to defend themselves through the exercise of their second ammendment rights drilling publicly and creating safe zones where fellow activists repeatedly targeted by police could find refuge and respite. They provided a host of essential direct community services to hard to reach populations and a bold confident proactive image that law enfircement was intent to deny them.
All this in the face of the overwhelming number of black and brown youth serving
in Vietnam war commenced on the basis if fabricated intelligence and forseeable impact of a certain mine ships itinerary.
Back then Feds treated armed Black Panthers like domestic terrorists. Today Feds treat unarmed Black Lives Matter activists like domestic terrorists.
Pehaps the biggest change in the US has been the post Vietnam rise of the very Standing Army (an offensive all volunteer career military force) most successful democracys and republics counsel against.
Remarkable, singular set of resources on the BPP in this DVD set here:
http://www.akpress.org/whatwewantwhatwebelieve.html
Included are recent interviews with various people involved with the BPP in different ways. Of particular interest might be Gerry Lefcourt’s recounting of the Panther 21 trial in NYC — an incredible story of a (defensive) victory by the BPP that is so rarely told.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Power
Black Power is a political slogan and a name for various associated ideologies aimed at achieving self-determination for people of African/Black descent.[1] It is used by African Americans in the United States.[2] It was prominent in the late 1960s and early 1970s, emphasizing racial pride and the creation of black political and cultural institutions to nurture and promote black collective interests[3] and advance black values.
“Black Power” expresses a range of political goals, from defense against racial oppression, to the establishment of social institutions and a self-sufficient economy. The earliest known usage of the term is found in a 1954 book by Richard Wright entitled Black Power.[4] Although he did not “coin” the phrase, New York politician Adam Clayton Powell Jr. used the term on May 29, 1966 during a baccalaureate address at Howard University: “To demand these God-given rights is to seek black power.”[4]
snip
..
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/mar/30/black-power-salute-1968-olympics
..
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/04/24/sport/olympics-norman-black-power/
snip
It was an act that scandalized the Olympics. Smith and Carlos were sent home in disgrace and banned from the Olympics for life. But they were treated as returning heroes by the black community for sacrificing their personal glory for the cause. History, too, has been kind to them.
Yet few know that the man standing in front of both of them, the Australian sprinter Peter Norman who shocked everyone by powering past Carlos and winning the silver medal, played his own, crucial role in sporting history.
On his left breast he wore a small badge that read: “Olympic Project for Human Rights” — an organization set up a year previously opposed to racism in sport. But while Smith and Carlos are now feted as human rights pioneers, the badge was enough to effectively end Norman’s career. He returned home to Australia a pariah, suffering unofficial sanction and ridicule as the Black Power salute’s forgotten man. He never ran in the Olympics again.
As soon as he got home he was hated,” explains his nephew Matthew Norman, who has directed a new film — “Salute!” — about Peter’s life before and after the 1968 Olympics.
snip
Black Lives Matter is amorphous and decentralized, so different than the Black Panthers. Both are good and important movements but comparing the two seems a bit wacky. May as well compare Gandhi to Anonymous. And this is probably true no matter how many gigantic single letters start a sentence on an article about this*.
*A bizarre choice since this isn’t a long article. And I tend to roll eyes at other similar things like an article that puts “…” breaks between paragraphs, as if we should re-read the last few because they’re so mind-blowingly important. Or as if the article contained 20,000 words so breaks are needed. Nope, mostly it’s done after 500 or so words just to make it seem more potent/highbrow/Pulitzer or something. Such font size and ellipses choices are either patronizing to a reader, or arrogance by an author (or editor or whoever fashioned this text as to be so viewed).
Just type words and have them sent to the internet and have people judge them. No need for ridiculous giant letters or whatever. Though I disagree with this article’s comparisons because these are different types of movements, I appreciate the article. And wish it wouldn’t have been put forth by gigantic single letters in (random?) paragraph starts.
Why did you find it necessary to post that petulant litany of formatting complaints?
As for this:
Did you actually read the piece which included this:
You would think, that lawyers specializing in Human Rights and Civil matters, would challenge their Government and the Attorney General to introduce Laws that would render the severest penalty, and that to include the rogue police officers, regardless of the incompetence and prejudice of police services.
I don’t think the this film is the first documentary on the Black Panthers. The second installment of Eyes on the Prize (“Power”) looked at the Black Power years, especially the BPP, and there was a doc on “The Murder of Fred Hampton.” You could make the argument that this is first full feature length doc, but the subject has been covered. See also The Black Power Tapes (2011).
Myth: Enlisting the “aid” of racists groups like the black panthers, BLM, the Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson machines will help.
Fact: These groups don’t care about anything but their own agenda! And they’re NOT TELLING YOU what that is! Getting “help” from these groups is like whites getting advice from the KKK or David Duke! Their NARROW FOCUS is designed to alienate most people. They’ll put gasoline on the flames until there is no room for REASON! Your town will look like Ferguson … crumbling ruins that may or may not recover. Throw them out now, while reason can prevail.
Alienating most ppl? Why do you say that? If anything, these ppl are the ones alienated by society.
You are very white, and dumb. All those CAPITAL LETTERS are telling.
In my estimation the National War on the Panthers began when they started threatening the local drug dealers with such pithy pronouncements to them personally as “We know you’re paying that white pig off, but when he goes home tonight, he can’t protect you”, moreso than their armed civil standby, or free breakfast for students, or any of their other programs.
Today, as then, the power elite depend on a disenfranchised drugged out populace to retain control. Then it was the French Connection Opium. Now it’s the war on Mexicans billed as the US Border War on Drugs, which just like the French Connection, is totally under the control of the CIA.
Interesting point.
Myth vs Fact
Myth: the justice system is anti black
Fact: the justice system has professional blacks everywhere. from legal aids, prosecuting attorneys, defense attorneys, judges, district attorneys, supreme court justices, mayors…heck the PRESIDENT is black! So CHILL! The SYSTEM is NOT out to put all blacks in jail/prison.
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Myth: all police departments are prejudiced against blacks
Fact: today almost EVERY police department has AT LEAST some blacks in their departments. In positions like police, dispatchers, jailers, CHIEFS of police and more!
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Myth: all cops hate blacks
Fact: well, some cops ARE black. And while the vast majority of white cops don’t HATE ANY GROUP in particular, they probably have at most a strong DISLIKE for criminals regardless of race.
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Myth: It FEELS like blacks are being “targeted”.
Fact: If it starts to FEEL like blacks are being “targeted”, check your local crime stats. It may be that cops are being CAREFUL not prejudice. For example: In BALTIMORE
Blacks do 94.4% of the crime while having 29% of population
Whites do 4.6% of the crime while having 58% of population… Be part of the SOLUTION not part of the problem. JOINING A LOCAL CRIME WATCHERS group can go a long way toward BEING A PART OF THE SOLUTION!
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Myth: Even while off duty, cops hate blacks.
Fact: Cops tend to socialize with each other while off duty. That is black and white cops along with all the other races that makeup a police force socialize with each other during their off time. Socializing together helps STRENGTHEN THE BOND REQUIRED to deal with the crazies, junkies and malcontents out there.
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Myth: Even while off duty, cops hate blacks part two.
Fact: Many black and white officers both male and female are involved in interracial relationships. Heck, some are even HAPPILY MARRIED or in long term COMMITTED RELATIONSHIPS with members of a different race! Its very possible that a white officer you have accused of prejudice has a spouse or partner of a different race! Take your own advice: DONT JUDGE A BOOK BY ITS COVER!
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Myth: All whites hate blacks
Fact: see answer for; Even while off duty, cops hate blacks part two.
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Myth: If a cop tells you to do something, you don’t have to do it.
Fact: FIRST and foremost: If you have done nothing wrong, you’ll be OK. Just follow the cops instructions. CONVERSELY, if you’re a crook, dealer, drunk, not supposed to be driving or anything else, then be an adult and own up to it! RUNNING makes you a REAL CROOK!
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Myth: When you’re high, stoned, drunk, etc you’re SMARTER than everyone else!
Fact: You’re not. Dubose and countless others tried to run that game. It USUALLY DOES NOT END WELL for the one who thinks they’re “SMARTER” than everyone else.
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Myth: Enlisting the “aid” of racists groups like the black panthers, BLM, the Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson machines will help.
Fact: These groups don’t care about anything but their own agenda! And they’re NOT TELLING YOU what that is! Getting “help” from these groups is like whites getting advice from the KKK or David Duke! Their NARROW FOCUS is designed to alienate most people. They’ll put gasoline on the flames until there is no room for REASON! Your town will look like Ferguson … crumbling ruins that may or may not recover. Throw them out now, while reason can prevail.
“Fact: today almost EVERY police department has AT LEAST some blacks in their departments”
Fact: My “Progressive” California city of over 55,000 HAD ONE over the 40 years I’ve lived here, and he retired a year or so ago, and two new groups of recruits have been trained/deployed since then, without ONE Black Person…
Maybe Black people just don’t want to be oppressors.
Ha.
“Fact: very few black prosecuting attorneys.”
Your comment of “facts” could have been written by a 7 year old child taking dictation from a really shitty but somehow professional propagandist. It’s too candy-shit-nothing to bother taking apart bit by bit, as every bit of it has been demolished, and has documented as to be the balderdash that it is too many times before for any honest or not wantonly ignorant person to be posting any of it.
One edit to that: I agree with you about the Al Sharpton strongly, Jessie Jackson too but not as bad as Sharpton. The “Oath Keepers” are also self interested and self interested only.
No more so than anyone else that I’ve seen. They’ve been flat-out right before, such as in their strong support of Edward Snowden even before there was a lot of support.
Don’t forget that when the Panthers armed themselves in California, that led to Gov. Ronald Reagan (!!!) endorsing and signing a gun control law prohibiting open carry of most firearms. Armed black men was a bridge waaay too far for the usual defenders of the 2nd amendment.
As long as Oathkeeprs doesn’t attempt to co-opt #BlackLivesMatter, I don’t see why they shouldn’t be welcomed.
First, let’s be clear. Your “Myths” are your straw men. There is no “all” to describe what you’re lying about.
I’ll take this one as an example:
Actual Fact:
“Reuters interviewed 25 African American male officers on the NYPD, 15 of whom are retired and 10 of whom are still serving. All but one said that, when off duty and out of uniform, they had been victims of racial profiling, which refers to using race or ethnicity as grounds for suspecting someone of having committed a crime.
“The officers said this included being pulled over for no reason, having their heads slammed against their cars, getting guns brandished in their faces, being thrown into prison vans and experiencing stop and frisks while shopping. The majority of the officers said they had been pulled over multiple times while driving. Five had had guns pulled on them.”
Off duty black cops in New York feel threat from fellow police
The Preachers of Race and Racial Purity
Race is literally one of the stupidest ideas ever. It is directly opposed to evolution, science and logical thought. People preach race to divide and control other people.
Race is not just anti-science—the whole idea of race is immoral. The only moral position on race is to fight against it on all fronts. Luckily since race has no foundation in science, rationality or logical thought, all you have to do is stop lying about race–This may be harder for some than others.
But today I am here to talk about racial purity. The preachers of race don’t just preach race that race is true. The preachers of race are preaching Racial Purity.
I have long argued that the idea of race is directly opposed to evolution. To the preachers of race, race is unaffected by evolution. To the preachers of race, race cannot evolve–but race can devolve. Race can become impure. Races can become mixed.
There is a joke that “mixed race” is the only nod that the preachers of race will give to evolution, but understand that “mixed race” is not evolution. “Mixed race” is about racial purity.
Why do you think that when two different “races” make babies together they make “mixed race” babies. All “race mixing” is thrown into the “mixed race” category irrespective of which two races “mix.” There can be no evolution, no new races–only racial impurity.
If you stay within your own race when you procreate, then your child can have a racial identity, but if you stray from your own race, then your child will be impure. Your child is to be cursed without a racial identity.
Race without evolution can only be about racial purity.
The best part is that all race preachers, by definition of what they preach, believe that they are racially pure.
To all the race preachers in this thread–a couple questions:
1) When a “white” person and a “black” person have a baby together, what race is the baby? Is the baby “mixed race”? Is the baby now raceless? If the baby is now a new race–what is the name of this new race?
2) Do you believe that you are “mixed race”, or do you believe that you are racially pure?
Understand, that calling race a “sociological phenomenon” does not get around the fact that you are still preaching racial purity. If it makes you feel better to say that you are only arguing for racial purity in a “sociological” sense–go to town.
If a while person has a baby with a black person that baby has always been black.
@Queeki Fields
Does the one drop rule apply only to “black” blood or is this a statement about the weakness of “white” blood? Will any other blood beat out “white” blood, or does “black” blood beat out all other races of blood? Whatever blood turn out to be the power blood, I’m thinking that virgin blood can only make it better.
I never understood adopting the philosophy of your enemies, much less flying their flag.
—
Through an ancient curse he was forced to adopt the insane philosophy of the man who killed his brother. Trapped in the mind of psychopath he must now decide if revenge is really what it seems.
Earnest C. Hokum is…
“Blood Tied”
Be careful what you pass on to the next.
Rated R. Opening in theaters October 15th.
(It turns out the person who killed his brother was his dad. Pretty predictable when it was all said and done.)
So ?
No, in many parts of the world, they called those people “colored”. There was a time when “colored” people owned black slaves.
@thelastnamechosen –
Not having made a study of race myself (although I have thought “The History or White People” by Nell Painter would be good… I don’t know if she exactly is on your same wavelength, but I’ve heard a snippet of her talking about the book and it does sound intriguing.
I WOULD like to speak to the mixed race part. Which I what I am and call myself; I’m African-American, Caucasian-American, and Native American. You should see a picture of my extended family; it’s like a mini-U. N.—– many more races or ethnicities have been added through marriages.
As far as the one-drop rule: certainly blood is blood; but indeed, the one drop rule has been a cultural artifact. Maybe it does speak to a desire for “racial purity. However, I don’t think that exists. I learned in grade school that there were no pure races other than (at that time) the Pygmies of Africa). And can anyone deny what went on during slavery… author Ed Ball found out that there was indeed a slave ancestor on his family tree. I think just about any African-American will know of someone, an acquaintance or family member who has “passed” or “is passing.” Yes, there could be mixing and one wouldn’t even necessarily know about it.
Interestingly, Tom Brokaw did a show a few years ago about school integration; he noticed that many (not all, but quite some) families had students leave for other schools in high school – which he observed was when dating really started. You and me and others may find this —– not necessary or worse, but yes, that attitude is still around.
And I’ll end on an almost silly note, but one I’ve always remembered with an almost bitter sigh. I don’t know if anyone remembers the sitcom “Bridget Loves Bernie” starring Meredith Baxter and David Birney as a mismatched couple. Well, on the first show, the two of them have their friend, an African-American fellow, drive them to Bridget’s parents. Pop doesn’t see Bernie, he sees the other fellow and hides in a closet. After Bernie comes in, Mom gets him out with: “…it’s not that bad.” To this day, I can still hardly believe it and yes, the memory stings a bit.
@feline16
Thanks very much for your reply.
I would love to hear from more people who don’t self identify as racially pure.
This is a perspective that gets very little attention simply because it destroys the modern narrative about race.
Race and self-identification are very personal topics but I would like to respectfully ask you to consider not using the term “mixed-race.” It is very demeaning term that is meant to marginalize those that are not “pure.”
Great post.
Hi TLNC –
Thanks for reading and appreciating my post :-)
One question though – you said: “I would like to respectfully ask you to consider not using the term “mixed-race.” It is very demeaning term that is meant to marginalize those that are not “pure.””. Well, I’ve never felt it was demeaning – maybe because I already “knew/felt” there weren’t pure races anyway. In fact, another acquaintance of mine and I would joke we were “mutts.” We always said: weren’t mutts the most lovable dogs anyway?
I ‘ve never had a problem identifying as “mixed-race.” However, do you have an alternative??? “Multi-ethnic”, maybe???
One thing I think you also might agree with – race has probably been used (even if not ‘invented for that purpose) to keep us divided. And today we need to get united more than ever.
Hi feline16!
I want to repeat that I understand that the language of self-identity is a very personal thing. And there has long been debates about slurs and the reappropriation of words as an act of personal power. I am in no way opposed to reappropriation, but they message I want people to understand is that “mixed-race” isn’t meant as a compliment. It is a racial slur, and it is part of the structural racism that we have built using language, social systems and the human mind’s unique ability to construct elaborate narratives from very small amounts of data.
Structure determines narrative and narrative determines action.
I don’t have any recommendations for racial self identification, because I don’t believe in race. Telling people you are a racial atheist tends to elicit serious confusion.
Labels are like twitter. Anything worth saying takes much more room than the space provided. :)
Which reminds me of an aphorism about aphorisms:
An aphorism is an argument that.
—–
I definitely agree we need to get united more than ever.
Hi TLNC –
Interesting thoughts. I can agree that the language we use can be important… learned way back in Psych 101 I think (or was it child psych?) ” language mediates behavior.”
I never took “mixed-race” as a slur… always just thought of it as a description much as one might say blue paint and yellow paint mix to give green paint. And saying one is a race atheist I think would definitely one’s listener to be confused. :-)
Don’t know if my late Mom was a “race atheist”, but this discussion reminds me of how she REALLY hated racial/color labels. I did come to see where she was coming from… but that’s a whole different story.
What I think we need to work toward is seeing the person BEHIND the label. I’ve always been pretty individualistic and we need to see the individual in others.
And I’m trying to finish my ramble here but I also think that most people ultimately DON’T want to be circumscribed by labels. Take artists – artists, musician, writers, etc. many of them have said they don’t want to be labeled — or at least want to be free to experiment with work that is different from their usual output. Maybe race should be something like that – a “description” but not a limiting one.
And cool that you’re on with the unity program!!!
feline16,
“I never took “mixed-race” as a slur… always just thought of it as a description much as one might say blue paint and yellow paint mix to give green paint.”
But “mixed-race” is the very specific idea that blue and yellow don’t make green–they make grey. Race is the very specific idea that you can’t mix two colors and get a new color.
“Mixed-race” is the idea that racial impurity is evil. It really is right there in the words.
Think about it like this:
black + black = black
white + white = white
red + yellow = grey
yellow + blue = grey
black + yellow = grey
white + red = grey
Only the racially pure are allowed to have a racial identity. Everyone else is a mutt. That description isn’t meant to be nice. Race cannot exist without the idea of racial purity. Race is racial purity. Race is racism.
The idea of racial purity is so built into the idea of race that everyone accepts the language of “mixed-race”–which really is a horrible racial slur–without hesitation, because the point of race is racial purity.
Without racial purity race will die. That is why the racially impure are spit upon.
This is only one of thousands of reasons why race itself is evil.
Historical examples of the need for locally oppressed minority arming itself because no federal authority will step in to protect them has other examples such as the Deacons of Defense and the American Indian Movement.
These are important facts to keep in mind the debate on gun control.
“The Panthers, legally armed with guns after Johnson’s death, began following the Oakland police around to monitor their actions. Whenever the police made a stop, armed Panthers were there, ensuring no racist harassment or brutality would take place.”
That’s reasonable – law-abiding citizens being vigilant about the ever-present potential for abuse of police, and more broadly Government, powers.
In the same way, we should have many more Oath Keepers exercising every citizen’s right to bear arms and ensuring that no widespread destruction by BLM “protesters” and other similar thugs takes place.
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/oath-keepers-arm-50-blacks-ferguson-ar-15s-hold-open-carry-march-downtown/
Looks to me like the “Oath Keepers” are suffering from an acute bout of White Savior syndrome, whereas “Louise Cypher” is just being her or its usual full blown bigoted self calling an entire organization and millions of people “Thugs.”
Right on Kitt.
<blockquote:“Oath Keepers” are suffering from an acute bout of White Savior syndrome
I’m not so sure of that. And frankly, Louise totally misrepresents their purpose which has nothing to do with protecting property from “thugs.”
At least that STL County, Missouri Oathkeepr leader, Sam Andrews, appears to see himself as an ally, and not a savior. If he wants to deploy his white privilege in helping arm and protect black citizens so they can defend themselves, I’m not sure I have a problem with that. But it’s ultimately up to the #BLM people on the ground there.
When I read those quotes, I see “White Savior” mentality, I don’t see, so called, “ally.” We’ll see, maybe, how things play out.
Of course Louise misrepresents. I don’t know exactly what their purpose is, but whatever it is, Louise isn’t the one I’ll be listening to to point it out or describe it.
Surely worthy of a brief mensch’n:- I think by now it should be pretty clear to those who keep a track on her serial rantings @ The Intercept that this esiuoL is actually an incorrigible white supremacist of the worst kind — i.e., one who implicitly advocates from time to time, in so many words, an israelification of the USA (to this, cf. Max Blumenthal’s work). Moreover, her ignorance & arrogance appear so quintessentially Oxonian and Tory — or at least they do to someone intimately familiar with everything English (including syntax). How Americans can even tolerate such a bigot in their midst is perhaps impressive, but way beyond me.