Was the Black Panther Party Really Notorious - Case Study Example

Was the Black Panther Party Really Notorious? A Critical Appreciation The Black Panther Party has stirred both interests and controversies from the day of its birth. Scholars often tend to portray them either notorious thugs or brilliant revolutionaries. The question which seems to haunt the historians is whether the rise of this counter culture in the late 1960s was the generation’s worst or best. Indeed, any revolutionary ideal often ends in enormous controversies because of the failures of the activists who hold it in their hearts. It is true that though the BPP started its journey quite successfully against the existing social evils and earned nationwide popularity, it failed tragically because of its activists’ disparaging activities. This failure was most probably induced by the shortsightedness of the BPP leaders. More visibly, it failed to give birth to a steady ideal among the activists which could prevent them from involving in crimes. Moreover, what panicked the mainstream American society was the Black panthers’ decision of armed self-defense. In a civil society, the idea of non-authorized and non-government armed people was notorious enough to make the common Americans as well as the American authority sleepless at night. So, despite many of their appreciable activities, the Black Panthers were nothing more than notorious terrorists. In this paper, I will argue that the Black Panthers were not as bad as they were portrayed to be. The Black Panthers were notorious for those polices who had abused their power illegally against the people of minor races, since they declared their hatred towards the police brutality. Apart from those polices who were killed in gunfights, the BPP members barely killed any white man. Yet, they adopted various social programs which were quite praiseworthy. Origin of the Black Panther Party In 1966, the “Black Panther Party” was co-founded by Huey P Newton and Bobby Seale who were formerly political activists of the ‘Black Power’ movement, popularly known as “Revolutionary Action Movement”. By nature, Newton was enthusiastic, vigorous and violent. During his studentship at Merritt College, he met Bobby Seale and became close friends because of the similarity of their political views. Both of them believed in a radical political change in favor of the black pollution in Oakland. In 1965, Robert F William, the president of the RAM, fled to Cuba in order to evade an arrest-warrant of the US security force. Newton and Seale became extremely dissatisfied with Williams’ failure to challenge the existing police brutality towards the Black people, they attempted to establish “the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense” on October 15 of the same year.1 Because of the circumstance oriented goal, their party began to attract attention of the common black youths. They could successfully convince people, mostly blacks, with their stance against the police brutality. Though initially they claimed to be black nationalists, they later adopted Marxist-socialist ideology and condemn ‘black nationalism’ as ‘black racism’.2 Newton and Seale successfully ran different social welfare programs in North Oakland. They collected about 5000 signatures in favor of their appeal, to the City Council, to review charges against police brutality. Moreover, they tirelessly worked to raise the black people’s political awareness. Their political enthusiasm and the relevancy of their political goals inspired innumerous people to participate their programs. This popular support inspired them to found the “Black Panther Party”.3 A Brief Overview of the Rise and Fall of the Black Panther Party The “Black Panther Party” was mostly known for its revolutionary zeal. In the United States, it remained active from 1966 to 1982. The members of the BPP gained both national and international prominence through their ideology known as “Black Power” and their social welfare activities such alleviation of poverty, feeding poor children, and improving the health status of the rural poor black communities. In the 60s and 70s, they began to influence the US politics.4 The panthers increased their acceptability among the mass black people through their race-free ideology of self-determination for the Black. They rejected “black nationalism” condemning it as “black nationalism”.5 Despite their armed self-defense motto, the Black Panthers had been able to soften their “public image” through these activities and political ideology.6 One of the great achievements of the Black Panthers war to raise public awareness against the police brutality which continued since 1940s in the US society. Yet the most controversial activity of the panthers was their attempt of armed-defense against police. Their armed defense later turned into violent criminal activities and tactics against the police. When in 1969 the party’s popularity reached the peak, the US authority became panicked by its threat to the general power structure of the country. Eventually, in order to diminish the Panthers’ growing popularity among the young blacks as well as their criminal activities, the FBI agents began to infiltrate into the party and fueled the internal conflicts among the party members.7 During the late 1970s, the party began to suffer from increasing legal confrontations, internal conflicts, incarceration, etc. The party members got involved in increasing criminal activities such as extortion, drug-dealings, mafia-connection, street violence, secret murders, etc. As a result, the popularity of the BPP among the black commoners began to decrease severely.8 It is reported that the BPP’s activities became confined within the state headquarters of the country. Later, their activities became more confined to a school in Oakland where the BPP endeavored to extend their influence on local politics. Finally, the number of the party members reduced to 27 persons in 1980.9 The Positive Aspects of the Black Panther Party The birth of the Black Panther Party was, indeed, a response to the existing social evils, conventions and practices which are targeted to the black population. It was not an unique event of the 20th century. Rather it was a response of the African Americans with a new dimension and level severity. The BPP emerged from the African-Americans’ long political struggle and activism in the mainstream white society for sociopolitical rights. Historical evidences clearly show that Huey P Newton and Bobby Seale were greatly inspired by the “Lowndes County Freedom” (LCFO) and William’s “Revolutionary Action Movement”. To a great extent, the BPP can be considered as the legacy of Martin Luther King and Malcolm X. More correctly speaking, it was indeed a more radical response of the black youths who were frustrated by these prominent leaders’ failure to bring about any rapid changes. The emergence of the BPP was necessary in the sociopolitical context of the 1960s. It was necessary because the mainstream white society needed to know that the black population, as an opposing power, was not negligible. On the other hand, the African-Americans themselves needed to be aware of their potency and strength in the country’s politics and welfare. The BPP played a crucial role in the growth of such awareness among the blacks. Referring to the influence of the BPP on the contemporary society, Jama Lazerow notes: As inheritors of the discipline, pride, and calm self-assurance preached by Malcolm X, the Panthers became national heroes in black communities by infusing abstract nationalism with street toughness—by joining the rhythms of black working-class youth culture to the interracial élan and effervescence of Bay Area New Left politics…10 By adopting various social welfare programs and implementing them successfully, the BPP members had been able to grow the consciousness that the blacks themselves could be their own guardians. They had been able to grow the self-confidence that they could emerge as a political power in the country’s politics. During the early 1970s, the BPP members were “feeding poor children free breakfasts from Oakland to Milwaukee, Los Angeles to New Haven”11. They helped to spread the light of education to the poor black communities in the rural areas. They made the black population aware of the potential health risks of “sickle cell anemia”.12 Robert Self, a famous critic, evaluates the BPP’s social programs as following: “All of these things were creative, pioneering, audacious”.13 The Origin of Controversies About the BPP One of the main goals of the BPP was to protest against the police abuses and brutality. Huey Newton himself saw how helpless Robert F William, the president of the NAACP, North Carolina was in the face of police abuse. During his teenage, he was charged with several minor offenses, some of which were reported to be false. Whatever the reason was, Huey Newton grew a strong hatred against police brutality. On top of that, a strong black nationalist sentiment provoked Newton to organize an armed party for the black people’s defense against police brutality, as Robert Self notes, “[He] They revived the national struggle against police brutality, largely dormant since the 1940s”.14 Newton’s “Ten-Point Platform” was quite impressive regarding the political ideology it preached. His ‘ten-point program’ was quite sociopolitical in nature. Still his decision to organize the BPP in a paramilitary organization appears to be controversial. Different authors in different ages have interpreted this decision of Newton in different ways. Some historians have criticized his intention to gain power over the street-gangs behind the mask of a political party. In his own autobiography, Newton claimed that his sole intention was to divert the violent black youth towards a political goal. He thought that he could give birth to a political consciousness among those black young people on the streets, as he says, “I tried to transform many of the so-called criminal activities going on in the street into something political, although this had to be done gradually.”15 Probably, Newton himself failed to predict the consequences of creating an armed political party. Obviously, the drastic consequence of a political militia party was inevitable. Newton himself was charged with several murder cases such the killing of John Frey, Kathleen Smith, etc. The BPP’s reliance on arms had given birth to innumerous violent activities including the following ones: clash with Oakland Police, their armed protest in “State Assembly Chamber in Sacramento”, “ armed rallies in Richmond”, etc. The BPP leaders failed to understand that they had chosen the wrong way for the right cause. What they were doing in the name of defense against police-brutality was to be defined as anarchy in a civil society. The guns which the BPP members used for self-defense were increasingly being used for different crimes in the late 1970s and the early 1980s. In a civil society, any armed defense against the state is nothing but a radicalism. In this regard, Newton failed to perceive that the emergence of such militant-style political party was a great to the power structure of a modern state. Was the BPP really Notorious? A Critical Appreciation It is true that the BPP’s concept of armed self-defense for the blacks was a wrong move on their part. At the same, it is also true that the BPP members stood up against the existing evil of police brutality. From 1966 to 1982, the BPP committed a number of murders, some which was quite notorious. These murders included the BPP members and the polices as well. Also there were many reported acts of violence also. A critical analysis of these violent acts and murders will necessarily reveal that their criminal activities were more terrifying than they were really. Most of these activities were direct confrontations with the police forces. Most of the victims of these confrontations were the BPP members themselves. Several police members and barely one or two unarmed white men were their victims. Their armed protests were mainly targeted at the police. But the rest of their victims were the BPP members who died because of internal conflicts. It is quite possible that members of a political organization will die from internal clashes and conflicts. Moreover, their goal of self-defense against police brutality was a radical one which pushed them towards inevitable gunfights with the police in those cases which provoked them to think that the police was on the wrong side. This statistical analysis shows that they were sincere enough not to turn their hatred towards the mainstream white society. Even by the end of 1968, they adopted the view that ‘black nationalism’ is a sort of ‘black racism’ and they abandoned the idea of black nationalism, as Curtis Austin states: [The Party] dropped its wholesale attacks against whites and began to emphasize more of a class analysis of society. Its emphasis on Marxist-Leninist doctrine and its repeated espousal of Maoist statements signaled the groups transition from a revolutionary nationalist to a revolutionary internationalist movement.16 Conclusion As a group, the BPP proved to be dangerous to the police only. They were never a threat to the mainstream white society. In a round-about way, they seemed to threaten the general power structure of the US government by their popular agenda of self-armed-defense. But the question which arises here is why some scholars tend to characterize them as notorious. As an answer, it can be said that these authors are panicked by the arms in the hands of the people of color. One of such authors is Hugh Person. The distrust for the people of a different race is evident in his description of the BPP’s “State Hall Protest”: “In May 1967, the Panthers invaded the State Assembly Chamber in Sacramento, guns in hand, in what appears to have been a publicity stunt. Still, they scared a lot of important people that day.”17 He says that the BPP invaded the “State Assembly”, but surprisingly, this armed invasion did not result in any sort of casualties. Since the Black Panthers belonged to those minority people who were feared both traditionally and culturally by the whites, these authors fear got multiplied because of these people’s armed defense against the police whom they [the white society] considered as their safeguards. Bibliography Austin, Curtis J. Up Against the Wall: Violence in the Making and Unmaking of the Black Panther Party. University of Arkansas Press. 2006. Bloom, Joshua; Martin, Jr., Waldo E. Black against Empire: The History and Politics of the Black Panther Party. University of California Press. 2012 Forner, Philip. The Black Panthers Speak, Da Capo Press, 2002. Harris, Jessica Christina. “Revolutionary Black Nationalism: The Black Panther Party”. Journal of Negro History 85.3 (2000): 162–74. Newton, Huey P. Revolutionary Suicide. Penguin, 2009. Pearson, Hugh. The Shadow of the Panther: Huey Newton and the Price of Black Power in America, De Capo Press. 1994 Seale, Bobby. Seize the Time (Reprint ed.) Black Classic Press, Seale, 1997 Self, Robert. “Are the Black Panthers Part of the "Bad Sixties"?”, History News Networks. http://hnn.us/article/1561 (accessed 07 April 2014) Williams, Yohuru and Lazerow, Jama (eds), In Search of the Black Panther Party: New Perspectives on a Revolutionary Movement, Duke University Press, 2006. Read More