|
|
Posted on 02/25/2002 1:27:06 AM PST by kattracks
Over the past several years, there has been a growing romantic image of the Black Panther Party. Those guys who swaggered in their black leather jackets and berets, carried their copies of Mao's "Little Red Book" and talked more stuff than the radio are now seen as Robin Hoods of the black left, destroyed by FBI infiltration and the hot lead of local police departments.
This image completely distorts what the Panthers really were and how they functioned during the wild years following the 1965 Watts riot.
Purported revolutionaries seemed to rise from the sidewalks of Watts. Some were agents trying to dupe others into becoming part of an insane plot. I have no doubt about that, because I was in California at the time and encountered some myself.
Then the Panthers, led by Huey Newton and Bobby Seale, appeared, selling their papers, starting their free breakfast programs and calling for self-defense and all-out revolution.
I first came to understand the essence of Newton when he and a handful of followers turned up with their weapons at a meeting in San Francisco in 1967. Looking at Newton — who had the warmth of an iceberg in his eyes and a shotgun on his shoulder — I knew I was looking at a thug, but I had no idea what a force he and his gang would become.
They were soon at odds with the black nationalists of the day, who wore African garb, changed their names and talked of building African culture in America. The Panthers considered the nationalists reactionary, and the nationalists considered the Panthers no more than junkyard dogs of the white left. One black nationalist anti-Semite described Newton at a rally as a "walking, talking zombie Jew."
When Newton was arrested after a shootout with the cops in Oakland, Calif., "Free Huey" became the cry, and Newton became a radical celebrity. Eventually, he beat the case, but he emerged to disappoint all of those who were hoping he would have the rowdy, contemptuous charisma of Eldridge Cleaver, the Panthers' minister of information. Newton was a monster behind closed doors, but dull on the podium.
His great ambition, besides leading a revolution, was to be a gangster, and he succeeded: extortionist, rapist, murderer. His followers were either ex-prison inmates or naive college students ready for the barricades — or at least army surplus costumes. They were joined by equally naive white people — "Honkies for Huey," as Cleaver called them.
Yes, there was actual police brutality and there were criminal police homicides and there were many forms of bigotry distorting the nation. But that band of self-righteous desperadoes came to oppress those it claimed to be willing to die for in the name of revolution.
In his remarkable book "Shadow of the Panther," Hugh Pearson does us a great service by exposing all this. Read it, no matter your political persuasion. Don't believe the romanticized hype.
E-mail: scrouch@edit.nydailynews.com
Nathan Bedford Forrest, anyone?
The Panthers at least had the pride to demand their rights at gunpoint, much like both our Colonial and Confederate forefathers. No other Black group I can think of has ever done more than insist on being given them.
The Panthers probably were mostly thugs but their willingness to use force against an oppressive state did something to present Blacks as full citizens to an historically equally-willing-to-use-force White America.
EWW! I have to post a small hint of support for Shrillary?!? EWW!
If all she did was help make sure someone, even a vile criminal, got a fair trial, then I don't think we can hold this against her ethically. Is there more to the story? Inquiring minds want to know!
Support? No. Desire their right to a FAIR trial be upheld? Yes. Or do you simply throw out the Constitution once someone levels some (possibly false) allegation that you find offensive?
Of course I want the bad guys punished... but let's make sure we do it the way we're supposed to do it. If all Shrillary did was support that right (and that's all that post #8 said), then I do not see the problem and criticising her for supporting someone's Constitutional rights makes us look foolish. However, if she went around supporting his actions, and wanted the public to agree that he should get away with a crime, then she's her usual Clintonian self.
Fintan's post #13 has a nice Paul Harvey story, but all I see is that she did a too-good job of defending the bastards. Are we now suggesting punishments for litigators who get guilty perps lighter sentences and/or acquittals? (Not that I'd mind seeing a few of the worst shysters getting some jail-time, especially the Clintons!)
Yeah right ... pulling the same stunts, hawking the same leftist tactics (as if deceit worked the same as objective truth) and touting his "progressive" idea of the Party.
Horowitz didn't change as much as "conservatives" have.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
