> Ah, the illogic of the left. The Panthers began as a street gang and
> ended up as a street gang but somehow in between they transformed
> themselves into an uplifting vanguard of the revolution -- until of
> course the evil empire's dirty tricks.... Get a life.
It appears that your bitterness at the death of your friend
has put you on a crusade which has led you down a path of
intellectual dishonesty. Mind you, I have no opinion either
way as to whether the Panthers killed that person, but
rather, I only ask that the organization be viewed in it's
totality, and not as a mere caricature. This is the problem
with all of your so-called analysis, it isn't analysis, it's
just distortions or outright lies.
> Forget the ideological claptrap in your next comment
> (lumpen and all that) and explain how white leftists like
I'm Black, thank you very much, so you can drop the "Slim
I know what your next thought is, "...oh, he must be one of
those upper-class or elite Negroes who has led other Black
people astray..." Wrong again. I grew up working-class and
still consider myself working class, or at the most lower
Wait, I bet you've got one more thought "Oh, this is one of
those Negro apologists for the Panthers, who's still living
in the past and reminiscing about their glory days..." Wrong
again. I'm only 30. When I was growing up, I knew very
little about the Panthers other than the caricatured or
> explain how Huey Newton's brother Melvin (to take one lumpen example
> among many I could cite) became a professor, a law abiding professor who
> at least in his personal life seems not to have raped, beaten, or
> otherwise abused anyone. I could name you a dozen Panthers I knew, who
> worked in the Panther school and who also were not given to lumpen
Was this supposed to refute some argument I made? Sorry, but
you're arguing against something that doesn't even exist, a
typical right-wing trick. In fact, you have actually made a
point that I was about to bring up, the fact that
irrespective of whatever wrongs the Panther "leadership" may
have committed, this says NOTHING about the ideals or
behavior of the general membership, or the masses of people
who supported them.
In other words, let's say that all the Panther leadership
were completely evil, and should have been tried and all of
them given the death penalty. This doesn't say a damn thing
about the need for radical social change in this country,
nor does it says anything about the goals of the Black
Freedom Movement as a whole. All it says is that those folks
were fucked up, and we need to try again, this time without
the criminal behavior. It does NOT say that revolution isn't
needed, it does NOT say that the Black Freedom Movement has
no purpose, it doesn't say anything other than that.
> I thought Stalinism was passe, but you seem to regard
> people -- or at least dark-skinned people, as sociological
> stick figures who have no control over their own actions.
Once again, this is a false argument that has no basis in
fact. Besides the fact that I am Black, and not the
paternalistic white person who seem to think I am "Mr.
Mathers", Mr. Henderson already made the point about
PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY, AND HE DID IT QUITE CLEARLY. I'm
fascinated that the moderator is such a stickler for
personal attacks, but lying outright in front of everyone on
the list has no consequences. This list will never gain any
true credibility if it continues in this manner.
> Also, while we are on the subject of "deep thought," kindly explain to
> me what a non "Machiavellian" interepetation of "by any means necessary
> would be."
When Malcolm said "by any means necessary", he didn't mean,
for example, that you could go out and start using violence
and shooting people just because you felt like it, or for
your own personal gain. What he meant is that if people were
not going to respect us as human beings, by unleashing dogs
on us while involved in peaceful protest, or lynching us, we
had the right to kill the dog or that person, if necessary.
This is basic self-defense and self-preservation instinct.
He also meant that you should use whatever means were at
your disposable short of violence first, but if that didn't
work, you had a right to defend yourself.
The problem is, it sounded shocking to most because they
didn't expect Black people to "hit back" at the time.
> Mr. Henderson's purpose is to obuscate to save leftists like you from
> having to confront the crimes of your movement and really think.
I didn't see any obsfucation in Mr. Henderson's review, only
a complexity that you seem unwilling or unable to grapple
with, mostly because of your personal bitterness.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jun 13 2000 - 00:28:07 CUT