Re: [sixties-l] Re: The Black Panthers (McGee reply)

From: David Horowitz (
Date: Tue Jun 13 2000 - 02:44:48 CUT

  • Next message: David Horowitz: "Re: [sixties-l] Re: Black Panthers (Roz replies)"

    Well, this is the passage you quoted as an example of Henderson's superior
    reasoning in explaining what happened to the Panthers:

     "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."

    Now if this isn't a claim that Panthers were controlled by their "lumpen" status
    (unlike yourself and Mr. Henderson) I don't know what would. This is
    patronizing. Newton's brother, as I pointed out was a professor. Elaine Brown
    was a graduate of the Philadelphia Conservatory of Music, etc. The question Art
    McGee and all leftists need to ask themselves, is what are the implications of
    the fact that this criminal gang was supported by the entire left, by its
    lawyers, by its intellectuals, by its wealthy coteries, and is still so
    supported, despite what is known. Mr. McGee quotes Mr. Henderson, who quotes
    David Hilliard as an authority. Typically for the left, Hilliard is okay to
    quote and believe because he was a Panther and is still loyal to the Panther
    myth (criticisms and self-criticisms notwithstanding). In short, the word of
    someone deeply involved in the criminality, the lumpen fallcies, the entire mess
    that was the Panthers is more credible than any witness -- no matter what their
    politics -- who has distanced themselves from the Panther/gangsters. Hilliard is
    among other things a self-avowed wife abuser, alcohol and drug abuser, and yet
    Henderson and I guess Art McGee still have faith in his version of the truth.
    Now why would any sane person want to put their trust in a movement whose
    members think like this? wrote:

    > Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 17:47:20 -0700 (PDT)
    > From: Art McGee <>
    > Subject: Re: [sixties-l] Re: The Black Panthers
    > > well as we can. I have not reason to think that Art McGee is a racist
    > > (whether he's white or black), but he certainly writes about the Panthers
    > > as though they are controlled (by their class and ethnic circumstances) so
    > > totally they they can't think for themselves or as well as he can.
    > Fascinating. I hope the moderator doesn't block this as a
    > personal comment, but, this is just an outright LIE, and I
    > once again ask, what kind of a list is so concerned about
    > etiquette and decorum, but less concerned about outright
    > falsehood? I'm not talking about falsehood as a mis-
    > understanding or misconception, but LYING as in deliberate
    > and part of a plan. Mr. Horowitz has absolutely no
    > credibility or integrity whatsoever, or at least, he doesn't
    > display it on this list.
    > I mean, he just makes this stuff up as he goes along, with
    > no reference to anything that's actually been said. How can
    > you have a conversation, debate, dialogue, or whatever with
    > that kind of dishonesty.
    > Moderator? Say something!
    > Art
    > ---------------
    > modr8r note: determining what is and what is not outright falsehood or
    > dishonesty is not something this moderator is prepared to judge. nor would
    > i feel comfortable entrusting it to any other individual. one of the
    > purposes of this list is an attempt to arrive at some semblance of "the
    > truth" on a very contentious era. to accomplish this, a civil arena for
    > doing so needs to be maintained, thus my concern with protocol on this
    > list. i trust that list members and future researchers will be discerning
    > enough to come to their own conclusions as to the relative merits of any
    > one's particular opinion on an issue or on commentary engendered
    > by the discussion taking place here.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jun 13 2000 - 02:54:51 CUT