As someone who spent a considerable time with the Panthers both in
Oakland and Los Angeles, before and after the split in the party, I find
the various critiques of the BPP from those who knew it either from a
limited association (Horowitz) or from some distance (Pearson) to be
largely government-serving propaganda pieces designed to rewrite the
history of what was one of the most important groups on the 60s
political scene.
Horowitz, who apparently after writing a history of the Rockefellers,
became enamored of their life-style, only became involved with the
Panthers after the split, during which most of the transgressions that
he, Pearson, and others decry, took place, and the BPP had become a very
different organization from what it was while Netwon was in prison, one
that coincidentally, had been heavily infiltrated by the FBI as part of
its COINTELPRO operation.
The notion that COINTELPRO was a wholly new invention on the part of the
FBI at the time, and/or that it has put an end to the practices it used,
successfully, against the BPP and other key forces in the political
movements of the time, is based on a limited knowledge of the long
history of the US government's war on dissidents. COINTELPRO was simply
the name given to the process at that time.
To add to what Art McGee has already put forth, I would remind those who
may have forgotten that two aspects of the BPP's existence on the scene
have largely been neglected. The first is the transformation that took
place in the communities where the Panthers had a presence. In San
Francisco and Oakland, for example, they became political role models
where none had existed before replacing the glorification of getting
into "the life." And they became an inspiration to other non-Anglo
communities leading to the founding of organizations like the Brown
Berets, the Young Lords, and the I Wor Kuen.
Instead of the government-inspired "gang wars" that we have seen since
all of these groups were destroyed, we had Brown Berets and Panthers
standing together in front of the Alameda Court House and and at BPP
rallies. Inside the prisons, prisoners, taking their cues from the
outside, began to be politicized and a strong revolutionary message from
inside, exemplified but not limited by any means to George Jackson began
to be heard. All this represented a major threat to the system that
went beyond anything the SDS was capable of, and the government reacted
accordingly. A story yet to be written is how the government, through
infiltration of drugs into the prisons, stimulated the creation of the
present gang-structure which it uses as an excuse for building and
maintaining the Corcorans and Pelican Bays.
Inernationally, the Panthers became recognized as a powerful and potent
voice for black liberation, and were one of the inspirations for the
student revolt in France and elsewhere in '68. Mistakes, misjudgements,
sure they made them. But why what standard of revolutionary stuggle and
successes in this country are their critics measuring them?
> Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 18:48:23 -0700
> From: "J. R. Molloy" <jr@shasta.com>
> Subject: Re: [sixties-l] Re: The Black Panthers
>
> >The reviewer claims that Cointelpro was the principal agent of the Panthers
> >destruction. 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.
>
> The government was the Panthers' role model.
> The government was the biggest, baddest, most violent gang the Panthers knew.
> The government was involved in its own self-destruction, AKA "mutual assured
> destruction."
> Cointelpro simply acted as a catalyst.
> Or not. Who really cares after all these years.
>
> - --J. R.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 15:34:11 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Art McGee <amcgee@igc.org>
> Subject: [sixties-l] Re: The Black Panthers
>
> 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 : Tue Jun 13 2000 - 08:30:18 CUT