Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

During the 60's and 70's our government was assassinating Black Panther members by the dozen

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
NNN0LHI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-11 01:05 PM
Original message
During the 60's and 70's our government was assassinating Black Panther members by the dozen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Panther_Party

Black Panther Party

The Black Panther Party (originally the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense) was an African-American revolutionary leftist organization. It was active in the United States from 1966 until 1982. The Black Panther Party achieved national and international notoriety through its involvement in the Black Power movement and in U.S. politics of the 1960s and 70s. The anti-racism of that time is today considered one of the most significant social, political and cultural currents in U.S. history. The group's "provocative rhetoric, militant posture, and cultural and political flourishes permanently altered the contours of American Identity."

Founded in Oakland, California, by Huey Newton and Bobby Seale on October 15, 1966, the organization initially set forth a doctrine calling primarily for the protection of African American neighborhoods from police brutality. The organization's leaders espoused socialist and communist (largely Maoist) doctrines, however the Party's early black nationalist reputation attracted a diverse membership. Black Panther Party objectives and philosophy expanded and evolved rapidly during the party's existence, so ideological consensus within the party was difficult to achieve, and some prominent members openly disagreed with the views of the leaders.

The organization's official newspaper, The Black Panther, was first circulated in 1967. Also that year, the Black Panther Party marched on the California State Capitol in Sacramento in protest of a selective ban on weapons. By 1968, the party had expanded into many cities throughout the United States, among them New Orleans, Chicago, Los Angeles, Detroit, San Diego, Denver, Newark, New York City, Kansas City, Boston, Dallas, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Seattle, Washington, D.C., Baltimore, San Francisco and Omaha. Peak membership neared 10,000 by 1969, and their newspaper, under the editorial leadership of Eldridge Cleaver, had a circulation of 250,000. The group created a Ten-Point Program, a document that called for "Land, Bread, Housing, Education, Clothing, Justice and Peace", as well as exemption from conscription for African-American men, among other demands. With the Ten-Point program, What We Want, What We Believe, the Black Panther Party expressed its economic and political grievances. snip

Federal Bureau of Investigation Director J. Edgar Hoover called the party the greatest threat to the internal security of the country, and he supervised an extensive program (COINTELPRO) of surveillance, infiltration, perjury, police harassment, assassination, and many other tactics designed to undermine Panther leadership, incriminate party members and drain the organization of resources and manpower. Through these tactics, Hoover hoped to diminish the Party's threat to the general power structure of the U.S., or even maintain its influence as a strong undercurrent. Angela Davis, Ward Churchill, and others have alleged that federal, state and local law enforcement officials went to great lengths to discredit and destroy the organization, including assassination.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Mr Deltoid Donating Member (694 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-11 01:07 PM
Response to Original message
1. Yep, the FBI and local police departments
One of the coolest things I ever did was go to a lecture by Bobby Seale
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JVS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-11 01:07 PM
Response to Original message
2. Why are you trying to pass off some of the worst moments of our government's behavior as a norm...
for acceptable behavior?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mattvermont Donating Member (428 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-11 01:17 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. the point, I think is
that the government does not now and has not needed an excuse to assassinate us citizens on or off American soil for a very long time.
Nobody is saying it is acceptable, but it is the norm.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JVS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-11 01:23 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. But the point is exceedingly stupid. It would be like saying that because someone has regularly...
raped their daughter in the past that they have the right to continue doing so indefinitely.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yardwork Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-11 01:24 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. I didn't read the OP to be saying that it is right to assassinate anybody.
My impression of the OP was the opposite. By pointing out other times when the U.S. government has unjustly killed citizens without due process, we see what a bad idea it was and is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JVS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-11 01:27 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. The OP is not offering an opinion, but in light of other recent threads started by the OP...
I do believe that you are mistaken about the general intent of the series of threads of this nature that have been posted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yardwork Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-11 04:49 PM
Response to Reply #11
39. Ok. I haven't read most of them. I'll just offer my opinion. It's wrong to assassinate people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mattvermont Donating Member (428 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-11 01:43 PM
Response to Reply #7
13. again
nobody is saying it is acceptable or that they have such right, or that they even claim said right. It is simply a fact. I in no implied that they have a right to kill anybody.
So the point is not 'exceedingly stupid', but rather an observation of fact...get it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JVS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-11 01:47 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. The grass is green and the sky is blue.
Edited on Sat Oct-01-11 01:49 PM by JVS
Observations of fact outside of any context are really not interesting.

There is a reason that the OP posted the facts he did at the time he did. I asked him (and not you) why. Now he may not wish to come out and say it, and that is his right. But if we are not to view this within a context, then the proper follow up would be "So what?"

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mattvermont Donating Member (428 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-11 01:49 PM
Response to Reply #14
17. well, since the op won't
perhaps you would like to tell us the context that you so wisely picked up on
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JVS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-11 01:50 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. Read up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saras Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-11 01:56 PM
Response to Reply #7
22. Doesn't the Right argue pretty much exactly this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-11 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #4
10. They never claimed it was their legal right, did they?
Or maybe they did in an informal way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
no_hypocrisy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-11 01:08 PM
Response to Original message
3. Reagan was governor of California during the formative years of the Black Panther Party.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ixion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-11 01:20 PM
Response to Original message
5. just because they did it doesn't make it right or just or noble.
Edited on Sat Oct-01-11 01:20 PM by ixion
or legal, for that matter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-11 01:23 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. But It Makes Hash, Sir, Of the Current Resort To the Fainting Couch Proclaimng This Something New
Edited on Sat Oct-01-11 01:24 PM by The Magistrate
People who set themselves up as open enemies of a governmen, and proclaim their willingness to assail that government under arms, can reasonably expect to be killed without notice or mercy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-11 01:28 PM
Response to Reply #8
12. The fainting couch was fine when Bush only claimed he could
pick anyone up anywhere. He never said he could kill anyone anywhere on his sole determination, and that he didn't have to disclose his evidence for that decision as Obama has done.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JVS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-11 01:48 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. Watching this administration has been like seeing someone take atrociously ugly clay sculptures...
and put them in the kiln.

What was once a transgression becomes the norm.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-11 01:55 PM
Response to Reply #15
20. If I had a nickel for every time someone made George Bush's argument
Edited on Sat Oct-01-11 01:55 PM by EFerrari
for the global war on terror to me in the last 24 hours, I could buy myself a decent lunch today. It's dizzying, really.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ixion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-11 01:58 PM
Response to Reply #20
25. yeah, no kidding
who knew we had so many supporters of the Bush Doctrine on this board? :wow:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-11 02:05 PM
Response to Reply #25
27. I was just thinking politics are a trivial pursuit unless they're founded on social justice.
But I guess just like people can date and marry right wing nutcases that are racist, hate working people and think America has the right to bomb the F out of anyone without turning a hair and while congratulating themselves on their "tolerance", for some people there is no connection between social justice and political life.

I don't understand it but it seems to be true.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mattvermont Donating Member (428 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-11 01:57 PM
Original message
I fully agree
but it is an illusion that it was not the norm before Obama...although he may well be codifying the practice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MisterP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-11 02:59 PM
Response to Original message
33. codification, mainstreaming, Veal Penning--these are operative words
Edited on Sat Oct-01-11 03:27 PM by MisterP
if Obama does something conservative, not only will it be defended by some or many liberals, but it will be relabeled as liberal--Obama"Care," assassination, TARP, stuff that would've been opposed under the Republicans become accepted by Democrats

encouraging liberals--even a small portion of them--to give themselves the Oedipal treatment, to say "we have to vote for him" or "he has so much to clean up," weakens liberalism and civic society itself; adopting fascist slogans like "Awlaki was a THREAT! he gave up all his RIGHTS" "he GOT two terrorists AND made Moore and Gleenwald angry!" is just icing on the cake

the Overton Window becomes the Overton Sliding Door

also, the belief that all hopes, activism, hearts and minds be placed in one man, that all groups' goals can be fulfilled by voting for him (so they should turn all their efforts to GOTV for him, not policy), is also toxic
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-11 02:04 PM
Response to Reply #12
26. Not For Me, Ma'am
This is what is done, and it will be done by anyone in charge of a government which has open foes, and the capability to carry out such actions. It is true enough that it is often done sloppily, and that persons who were not actually enemies were arested. But there is in this particular instance no doubt the man was what he was killed for; an active enemy of the United States, engaged in attempting to inspire and guide attacks against its people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-11 02:15 PM
Response to Reply #26
30. You are addressing the case and not the principle, though.
And as usual, the principle is what interests me because that is what we will have to deal with in the longer term, Your Honor. And you know, likely better than I do, how useless it is to try to put any genie bearing presidential power back into the bottle.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-11 03:06 PM
Response to Reply #30
35. Fair Enough, Ma'am
But things alwats do come down to specific cases, and the specifics of a case.

The only basic principle is that the state is an engine of violence, and will employ violence against its enemies: people who set themselves up as foes of a state ought to bear this in mind, and not complain overmuch if what they couirt comes to them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-11 04:32 PM
Response to Reply #35
38. You'll Of Course Note, Sir, That When Another Country Had Rebellious Citizens...
...these same people claiming impropriety went to the defense of the state killing those citizens. The same exact group. As far as a case by case basis, it's clear that the sympathies are not really about the people involved, but about being anti-American.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newspeak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-11 01:55 PM
Response to Reply #8
21. free speech tv had a documentary on the black panthers
it's interesting that the black panthers started with helping the neighborhoods-feeding children, helping those in the hood who were impoverished. They interviewed FBI agents who told of the campaign to discredit the movement. Also, it talked about the rise of gang bangers after the black panthers were neutralized. Quite interesting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheKentuckian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-11 02:11 PM
Response to Reply #8
28. And you Sir, support a system where there is nothing in place to guarantee that such an act
was done by any individual. There is no burden of proof or accountability because the entirety of the decision tree is in a closed loop.

Indeed, there is no verification after the fact to ensure that the process is in anyway dependable.

You may well be comfortable in this case...fine, but you well know it easily can become more murky from there. As you well know, both our Intelligence and discernment of it have been way off base in the past and that people that were not enemies (and sometimes those who could not be greater allies to our most fundamental ideals or our people) of our nation have been declared as such at the highest levels before.

You are no slowcoach, Sir, and know exactly what I mean and the easy path for great danger from this kind of power. There are no "fainting coaches" here, those who have always sought to restrain such power are naturally opposed to its evolution, codification, and open acceptance.

Here in the real world, sir, the worst that we reserve for the worst is all the innocent are guaranteed anything above that must be accompanied by good fortune.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-11 01:23 PM
Response to Original message
6. The Black Panthers were the real reason for "Gun Control". God forbid black folks have guns!!!
Edited on Sat Oct-01-11 01:23 PM by Odin2005
Reagan was one of the original supporters of Gun Control in the name of keeping guns away from those "uppity negroes".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saras Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-11 01:57 PM
Response to Reply #6
24. Wow. Best argument against gun control that I've heard in decades.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
provis99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-11 04:28 PM
Response to Reply #6
37. huh? What gun control law says blacks can't have guns?
You pro-gun people sure like making shit up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
malaise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-11 01:48 PM
Response to Original message
16. Yes indeed
Rec
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TBF Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-11 01:54 PM
Response to Original message
19. Fred Hampton


Fred Hampton (August 30, 1948 December 4, 1969) was an African-American activist and deputy chairman of the Illinois chapter of the Black Panther Party (BPP). He was assassinated as he lay in bed in his apartment by a tactical unit of the Cook County, Illinois State's Attorney's Office (SAO), in conjunction with the Chicago Police Department (CPD) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Hampton's death was chronicled in the 1971 documentary film The Murder of Fred Hampton, as well as an episode of the critically acclaimed documentary series Eyes on the Prize.

Read more here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hampton
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
villager Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-11 02:12 PM
Response to Reply #19
29. Fred Hampton, indeed, Shot in bed by Chicago PD
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TBF Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-11 01:57 PM
Response to Original message
23. Carl Hampton


On July 26, 1970, Carl Bernard Hampton, one of Black America's most articulate, courageous and heroic, young leaders was ruthlessly slain by the Houston Police Department's Central Intelligence Division (CID). At the age of 21, Carl was a tireless organizer who worked day and night to establish People's Party II<1>, a Black revolutionary group modeled after the Black Panther Party (BPP). Armed with determination to see his people free from the oppression, exploitation and degradation by a racist and corrupt system bent on the destruction of Blacks and people of color, he proceeded boldly with his mission. Consistently, he rallied people around the issue of police brutality and murder that was quite prevalent at that time. Speaking with much power and authority, he was able to capture the hearts and minds of the people and therefore, their respect and admiration. Seeing the effects his words and actions were having on the community, it would be only a matter of time before the government would move in to "neutralize" him.

The 2800 block of Dowling Street was known for its illicit activities of alcohol, drugs, prostitution and killings. Undaunted by threats on his life, Carl continued to organize within the infamous section of Houston's Black community, the Third Ward. Intensely sensitive to the poverty in the area and seeing people suffer as a result, Carl's immediate concern was to provide decent clothing and food to the many needy people who resided there. It was during his effort to obtain supplies for these programs that destiny would soon usher in events that would seal his fate.

More here: http://www.itsabouttimebpp.com/Chapter_History/Police_A...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dan Donating Member (595 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-11 02:25 PM
Response to Original message
31. I've been reading
a book called the "The Killing of Crazy Horse", and thinking of the selective targeting of people that have had a significant impact to a group, that is contrary to the best interest of the ruling elite. And, as I think of our history as a nation, we would like to believe that terrible actions are an aberration during certain periods by our government. Smarter people than me can figure that out. But what I was struck by, was - it is not the assassinations, as times change, but the level of sophistication used to commit the act is carried out. That scares me more... because there will come a time, when we will no longer know, how or why - one may die; - combined with the subjective application or "privilege" to Due Process, no person that takes a stand that is contrary to a selective norm, can ever again consider themselves safe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-11 02:30 PM
Response to Original message
32. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
bengalherder Donating Member (718 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-11 03:02 PM
Response to Original message
34. The killings of leaders
are one of the reasons we need to have none now.

We know what to do, we must do it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taverner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-11 03:08 PM
Response to Original message
36. Yes. And it was wrong then. And it's wrong now.
Your point?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Jul 12th 2014, 12:16 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC