Fascinating. I knew from his writings that Mr. Horowitz
wasn't that deep, but I had yet to experience it firsthand.
>Actually, what Pearson's book shows is that the Panthers
>were an urban street gang,
The members of the Panthers started out in street gangs
and yes, the Panthers were an outgrowth of that activity.
Everyone knows this, especially those of us still on the
Left. This says absolutely nothing about the nature of what
they were ultimately trying to accomplish, just as the fact
that Malcolm X was once a "hoodlum" and spouted "racist"
ideology says nothing about what he eventually became or
what he was trying to accomplish.
>which engaged in serious criminal violence against its own
>members, against black inner city communities
Once again, because of your lack of intellectual depth, you
seem to have missed this:
"The BPP did not fully appreciate the necessity for cultural
transformation in the movement. Instead, they promoted a
"revolutionary culture" that was amorphous and self-serving.
It was rooted in a Machiavellian rationalization of
Malcolm's "by any means necessary" dicta whereby members
simply legitimized their lumpen activities by asserting that
these were somehow "revolutionary." This approach was used
especially to sexually exploit women, to character
assassinate rivals, to rationalize the misuse of BPP funds
by the national leadership, to justify internecine violence,
or to excoriate rival organizations (such as with the NOI,
SNCC, RNA [Republic of New Afrika], and Us organization)
within the Black Power movement. This glorified lumpenism
was so expansive that Hilliard (1993, pp. 339-339) reports
that Huey even came to require that BPP members watch The
Godfather, as he began to argue for a "progressive
capitalism" (Newton, 1971). Allegedly, the Panther
nightclub, The Lamp Post, even became, among other things, a
front for prostitution and funding source for Huey's and the
Central Committee's personal indulgences."
You see, the difference between a Black Nationalist like Mr.
Henderson, who wrote the review, and a bitter old-man like
Mr. Horowitz, is that while they both have a sharp critique
of the Panthers, Mr. Henderson's purpose is to teach so as
to advance a continuing struggle, while Mr. Horowitz's
purpose is to take us back to the days of Jack Benny and
Rochester. This accounts for the more complex and fleshed
out critiques coming from Mr. Henderson, as opposed to the
all too familiar simplistic ranting eminating from Mr.
Horowitz.
>and against law enforcement officers
I won't even go there, cause if they didn't, I might be
disappointed. ;->
>while using a political rhetoric that snookered the left
>then (and obviously some leftists today who have learned
>very little in the intervening years) into thinking the
>Panthers were "revolutonaries" who would make things better
>rather than worse, as they did.
And that political rhetoric was? Just a small example would
be sufficient.
>The reviewer claims that Cointelpro was the principal agent
>of the Panthers destruction.
No, what he said was (in context):
"Pearson is correct that the BPP's downfall cannot simply be
attributed to COINTELPRO, though it was a principal agent of
its destruction. For the most part, however, COINTELPRO was
an external manipulation that capitalized on internal
weaknesses and contradictions. We are reminded of one of the
major lessons of Cabral: "That in the general framework of
the daily struggle this battle against ourselves--no matter
what difficulties the enemy may create--remains the most
difficult of all."
In other words, he's actually placing the RESPONSIBILITY for
the behavior on the Panthers, something that hacks like you
like to throw around rhetorically as being what's missing
from society. The diference is, he understands the concepts
of complexity and contradiction, something you apparently
missed while still in school.
Take Ghandi for example. A lot of people think Ghandi was
one of the greatest people that ever lived. However, Ghandi
was also a supporter, or rather, he never fought against,
the internal caste system WITHIN Indian society, that
relegated people such as the Dalits to "bottom-class"
citizenship in India. Are we supposed to hate Ghandi now?
Do we ignore all his teachings? No, we acknowledge and
recognize his contributions AND his flaws.
>Since Cointelpro was folded in 1970 and all the Panther
>leaders -- Newton, Seale, Hilliard, Brown etc -- were
>involved in its self-destruction, I would like to hear
>how the government is to be blamed for this mess.
First, the idea that an operation like COINTELPRO had some
specific end date is like saying that your fall ends after
you go splat on the ground. Sure, you're not falling
anymore, but now you've got this dead thing to deal with. In
addition, I reject the idea that it ever ended, or rather, I
believe it may have mutated into something else, but it
never ended. Of course I don't trust an agency or records
that come from an agency bent on the destruction of American
citizens like myself, so that's probably where you and I
differ.
Second, there were several different incarnations of the
Panthers, so someone would have to remind us of who was
running what, when.
Third, as is the case with obsfucating conservatives, you
once again chose to completely ignore all the comments the
reviewer made about the internal problems and the personal
responsibility (I know you love when I say that) the
Panthers themselves had for what happened. So, for those who
might still be under your magic spell, let me break it right
quick (again):
"Pearson is correct that the BPP's downfall cannot simply be
attributed to COINTELPRO, though it was a principal agent of
its destruction. For the most part, however, COINTELPRO was
an external manipulation that capitalized on internal
weaknesses and contradictions. We are reminded of one of the
major lessons of Cabral: "That in the general framework of
the daily struggle this battle against ourselves--no matter
what difficulties the enemy may create--remains the most
difficult of all."
and
"The BPP did not fully appreciate the necessity for cultural
transformation in the movement. Instead, they promoted a
"revolutionary culture" that was amorphous and self-serving.
It was rooted in a Machiavellian rationalization of
Malcolm's "by any means necessary" dicta whereby members
simply legitimized their lumpen activities by asserting that
these were somehow "revolutionary." This approach was used
especially to sexually exploit women, to character
assassinate rivals, to rationalize the misuse of BPP funds
by the national leadership, to justify internecine violence,
or to excoriate rival organizations (such as with the NOI,
SNCC, RNA [Republic of New Afrika], and Us organization)
within the Black Power movement. This glorified lumpenism
was so expansive that Hilliard (1993, pp. 339-339) reports
that Huey even came to require that BPP members watch The
Godfather, as he began to argue for a "progressive
capitalism" (Newton, 1971). Allegedly, the Panther
nightclub, The Lamp Post, even became, among other things, a
front for prostitution and funding source for Huey's and the
Central Committee's personal indulgences."
Art
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jun 12 2000 - 20:41:01 CUT