Perhaps the freedom to self defence? The Black Panther party didn't magically appear out of a vacuum, to boldly proclaim equal rights and freedom from police brutality, where no oppression existed.
MLK decided to use peaceful civil disobedience following the lead of Ghandi. Peaceful protest doesn't lead to a majority backlash, whereas aggressive, militant tactics do. MLK and his movement are remembered for boycotts and protest leading to the Civil Rights Act. The Black Panthers are remembered as being violent and divisive.
For all the good you do can be wiped out in one instant by a single bad.
MLK would never have been listened to had there not been black men willing to fight for their freedom. The idea that freedom must be won peacefully, by the consent of one's oppressors, would have been alien to George Washington, to the French revolutionaries, to the slaves held in bondage in Southern plantations freed only through a bloody war.
It takes a very biased viewpoint to blame the Black Panthers for being violent when they only arose after decades of police brutality and lynchings and KKK terrorism. It's more likely that the threat of armed and organized black militia forced the white population to fold. King just gave whites an out--let's pretend we're going along with the nonviolent civil rights movement rather than admit we're terrified of all the black people who are giving up on the civil rights movement and buying rifles. So Malcolm X and the Black Panthers are marginalized and demonized to this day while King is venerated.
It takes a very biased viewpoint to blame the Black Panthers for being violent when they only arose after decades of police brutality and lynchings and KKK terrorism.
Based in California. I'm not saying that there wasn't oppression in California but if you are going to fight the war wouldn't you got to the front lines? MLK sure did.
So Malcolm X and the Black Panthers are marginalized and demonized to this day while King is venerated.
There are many ways to accomplish the same goal. How the history is remembered is decided by those who were the most successful in their pursuit. It's hard to deny that white folks - the ones who's support was needed to get the CRA passed - were not more interested in MLK's message than the Black Panthers and Malcom X.
> I'm not saying that there wasn't oppression in California but if you are going to fight the war wouldn't you got to the front lines?
The Black Panthers drove around with guns shouting legal advice to blacks who were pulled over by the notoriously racist Oakland PD. Is that not "on the front lines" enough for you?[1] Can't people fight racism in their own communities without having to move to the South--which, incidentally, King never did, he was born there?
> There are many ways to accomplish the same goal. How the history is remembered is decided by those who were the most successful in their pursuit.
Not true. History is remembered by what the majority of people choose to believe, not by what actually happened. This is especially true when it comes to assigning credit or blame.
> It's hard to deny that white folks - the ones who's support was needed to get the CRA passed - were not more interested in MLK's message than the Black Panthers and Malcom X.
Of course white folks were more interested in the nonviolent civil rights movement than in black nationalism. But if they weren't scared as hell of the black nationalists, they wouldn't have given enough of a shit to care about anyone seeking to end the oppression of black people. Up until then, white folks were most of all interested in continuing to oppress black folks! That's what I mean when I say MLK gave white folks an out. He made it look respectable and noble for them to fold in the face of a black population that was increasingly refusing to accept being oppressed any longer, because he helped them uphold the illusion that nonviolent, democratic change was still possible. And this illusion is the history that we teach our children.
[1]"...groups of armed Panthers would drive around following police cars. When the police stopped a black person, the Panthers would stand off to the side and shout out legal advice."
The Black Panthers also admittedly murdered cops. All the kudos go out the window at that point.
The militarism makes an easy excuse for a crackdown. If you think scaring the shit out of people, threatening their very existence with violence, is a good way to affect change, I think you are very uninformed. Find me one example where that worked.
The Republic of Ireland's independence from the UK and the end of apartheid in South Africa are the first two examples that come to mind.
Hell, just look at this country's own history: KKK terrorism was tremendously effective in preventing a civil rights movement from even existing for close to a century.
Cops murder black civilians to this day. If Nelson Mandela is a hero for bombing government buildings and killing government officials to resist apartheid in Africa, why are the Black Panthers villains for killing cops to resist apartheid in America?
Fear is a tremendous weapon if people can save face by pretending they never caved to it. Without the fear of more militant black nationalist groups, whites would have never given King the time of day.
> Peaceful protest doesn't lead to a majority backlash, whereas aggressive, militant tactics do.
Uh what!? Nonviolent protestors and activists faced tremendous amounts of violence for their activity in the civil rights movement, including being murdered. Freedom riders being attacked and having their buses attacked and burned, bombing of churches, lynch mobs, being assaulted at sit ins, etc.
> MLK and his movement are remembered for boycotts and protest leading to the Civil Rights Act. The Black Panthers are remembered as being violent and divisive.
Black Panthers were a group that was systematically attacked and dismantled by state and federal police. Further, black panthers are remembered for a variety of things, like school breakfast/lunch programs, providing community safety when the police were aggressors, and tons of political discourse, among other things.
> For all the good you do can be wiped out in one instant by a single bad.
Making villains of the Black Panther Party in media and gov't circles is heavily tied to the system racism that spurred the creation of the BPP. Trying to blame all black people for the behavior of the BPP or claiming that the BPP somehow set black people back is a hugely racist claim.
First, try to not be so inflammatory with your comments. At no point did I blame all black people for the behavior of the BPP or claiming that the BPP somehow set black people back. I merely stated that many of their tactics did not help the cause that they were for.
And, yes, nonviolent protesters can and do face a very large amount of violence. But being violent back tends to solve nothing and MLK knew that. He also knew that with enough favorable support he could affect change.
Further, black panthers are remembered for a variety of things, like school breakfast/lunch programs, providing community safety when the police were aggressors, and tons of political discourse, among other things.
I think you'd be able to find positives with a lot of fringe groups that take aggressive stances on issues. Sea Sheppard and Earth First are two environmental groups that have or continue to take this approach. But the fact remains that there is a lot of public backlash against these groups because of their tactics, even though you or I may agree on them.
> The exact type of rhetoric from a Black Panther that doesn't help his cause one iota. This is why MLK gets a national holiday and Carmichael is a footnote.
BPP and MLK are fundamentally about the advancement of black people from being considered 2nd class and subhuman. Of this cause you say BPP do not help their cause because of use of violence, this is a way of saying that the actions of BPP and the behavior of its members, who are predominantly black, are responsible for keeping their status in society from not improving. The realty is racism in the US has a long and violent history, that racism is what keeps black people and communities from improving their lives and status. Resistance to that violence is NOT responsible.
> And, yes, nonviolent protesters can and do face a very large amount of violence. But being violent back tends to solve nothing and MLK knew that. He also knew that with enough favorable support he could affect change.
That is true, but MLK was also keenly aware of the need for self defense and that not all forms of violence are unjustified[1][2][3]. Obviously this is a big split of ideology between MLK and BPP, but both MLK and BPP affected some kinds of change.
I'd like to get confirmation of this by someone who knows more Indian history than I do but I've been told more than once that the popular narrative than independence was secured almost entirely by Gandhian non-violence is woefully oversold.
There are many statues to armed freedom fighters around India and Indian Railways famously have special counters provided as a privilege for "Senior Citizens, Disabled, MLAs and Freedom Fighters".
Subhash Chandra Bose who led the Indian National Army against the British and with Japanese support is still regarded as a hero by many. I'm sure someone with better knowledge than I can provide other examples of how the armed struggle was key and is still regarded as such within India.
Similarly there is evidence from Northern Ireland that it was the increasing violence - especially when it spread to the mainland - that led the British to negotiate with the Republicans.
I aspire to pacifism by the way. I'm just not sure if every historical example can bend to support it.
I can't talk to the complexities of India's fight for freedom. I will say that I've worked with Indians who hold Bose in higher regard than Ghandi due to Ghandi pushing for the separation of Hindu and Muslim countries and the conflicts and deaths that caused, but that's second hand information to me. Interesting nonetheless.
India's resistance to British imperialism is similar to the US response to British imperialism. Sometimes armed resistance is necessary but when done within the official context of an army, with rules of engagement and hierarchy, it can be legitimized.
However, when fringe militant resistance that is the definition of terrorism is used, it tends to have the opposite affect.
The Black Panthers weren't doing themselves any favors within the establishment by being so militant. LBJ wouldn't have spent 5 minutes bowing to their demands but had no choice politically to negotiate with a preacher leading a peaceful, rights-driven resistance.
What you have to understand is that politically the Democrats had full control of the southern states up until the Civil Rights Act. After LBJ (a Texas, southern Democrat) got the CRA passed the entirety of the southern Democrats became Republicans - where those same states are to this day. It was done at a huge cost to LBJ and the Democrats, but it was the right choice.
> The Black Panthers weren't doing themselves any favors within the establishment by being so militant. LBJ wouldn't have spent 5 minutes bowing to their demands but had no choice politically to negotiate with a preacher leading a peaceful, rights-driven resistance.
When you and your communities existence is under direct violent threat, you are under no obligation to be nice and to wait for the persons harming you to play nice. Even after the CRA, racism and violence, both individual and systemic, persists and is a problem of US society.
"Dr. King’s policy was that nonviolence would achieve the gains for black people in the United States. His major assumption was that if you are nonviolent, if you suffer, your opponent will see your suffering and will be moved to change his heart. That’s very good. He only made one fallacious assumption: In order for nonviolence to work, your opponent must have a conscience. The United States has none."
The exact type of rhetoric from a Black Panther that doesn't help his cause one iota. This is why MLK gets a national holiday and Carmichael is a footnote.
Stokely Carmichael is 100% correct in this. Black people and communities have suffered violence from US society and the state for a long, long time. Carmichael may be a footnote to you, but he is one of the most influential activists in modern history.
At any rate, MLK didn't exist in a vacuum. It is quite possible that the movement, if it only consisted of people that aligned with MLK, wouldn't have been as successful?
MLK being assassinated doesn't doesn't change the fact that his focus on non-violence was more successful than the contrary position taken by the Black Panthers.
I tend to believe that things happen because they must. It was undeniable that the CRA was going to happen but without strong support from all over the nation due to the tempered approach espoused by MLK, who knows when it would've been realized.
This is incredibly revisionist. There was no strong support for CRA in US at the time. Entire south switched its party affiliation after the vote, and many northern congressmen only voted after incredible arm-twisting by LBJ and executive branch. The senate faced 83 days of filibuster from opposing senators, and few of them stood and talked for 10+ hours to stop its passage. Only by forgetting the entire history of how the act came to be can one claim that their was strong support in entire country.
