We were discussing groups and how they interact. He listed "positive" and "negative" groups. I have no idea what he listed as positive. I was reading posts on soulstrut. But he listed negative groups in this order:
Taliban Gangs KKK Black Panthers
Your per'fessor is a jackass who doesn't know what he/she's talking about. The differences between the groups listed and the circumstances in which they were created/existed are vastly different (as is their intent).
First of all: "negative" groups vs. "positive" groups???? Nevermind just the Panthers example-- is this *topic* for real? For real, you should drop the class, if not the school.
While they served a purpose, they were a militant group. Certainly not of MLK caliber.
Going over what he said:
Violent [ X ] check
Hateful [ X ] check
Negative [ X ] check
I don't see how you can't agree with the above three.
1. Violent - Anyone following this appallingly simplistic "+/-" line of analysis must also accept- as difficult as it may seem- the violence inherant in the so-called non-violent resistance movement. Believe it or not, the non-violent resistance movement was fueled by...violence! MLK et al. exploited violence. The movement required violence. Violence perpetrated by whites on blacks. Violence carefully harnessed, subverted, transformed, but nevertheless still violence. And to use the crude terms of the classroom debate, this violence must absolutely be considered "negative", even though the movement sought to turn it, through self-sacrifice, into a "positive".
2. Hateful - "Hate" should not be confused with "anger". Be very careful in accusing the Panthers of hate [of white people, presumably?], as you would be hard-pressed to find any documentation of such motivation in official Panthers literature.
On a slightly related note, I just wondered if any of you had ever seen this picture before.
Taken in Washington D.C. in 1961, it shows George LINCOLN ROCKWELL, head of the American Nazi Party, and his henchmen at a black Muslims rally. The story goes that the Nation of Islam had a secret agreement with the American Nazi Party that they would divide America between them.
The are some extremely abstract pictures. Nothing makes sense. I must admit i had never heard of this historical oddity. Would make a fascinating documentary...
Earlier this year I found an original 1970 paperback of Bobby Seale's, 'Seize the Time: The Story of the Black Panther Party' in a country town for $1. I read it all the way through & I never thought that they hated whites, they despised the same oppressive governmental/political/judicial structures that i dislike & think are unfair. Itw as all about empowerment. The sixties in the US were a totally different environment than now, so one must look at what was happening in that context.
There's a great little story in there on how they bought up cheap copies of Mao Tse Tung's communist quotations 'Red Book' & then sold them to white radical students at a profit to enable them to save enough money to buy weapons. Crazy tale...
I'd recommend tracking the book down. It's very compelling reading.
If this was a communications class, then the professor was probably referring not to the agenda or plan of the panthers, but rather their image in the rest of America--which was negative. A reason for this is because the panthers gave press conferences in fatigues toting guns. They sold Mao's little red book to gullible Berkeley students who at the time conflated an act of supremely violent egotism with revolutionary socialism. The organization went out of its way to offend the sensibilities of what Nixon called the silent majority. Ironically, the panthers did not engage in many acts of violence and their success, if you could call it that, was largely through the manipulation of symbols. They represented the potential radicalization of black America if serious grievances were not addressed. More progress was made regarding those grievances by a generation of black politicians who succesfully ran for office and worked within the system. At the end of the day the Congressional black Caucus was more effective than black seperatism in America.
As for Bambouche's claim that America created or funded the Taliban, that's just wrong. The CIA funded the Pakistani ISI, which in turn funded the Mujahadin resistance against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. The taliban came from the madrassas in Pakistan. Some of the mujahadin that were trained by the ISI helped train the fighters that became the Taliban. Others however went on to form the northern alliance which fought against the taliban. Some members of the northern alliance were tribal warlords alligned at the time with the Soviets too. But the view that the Taliban and by extension 9-11 are chickens coming home to roost is simplistic slogan talk. One can trace this meme to Mumia Abu Jamal's speech from jail to the first ANSWER rally protesting the Afghan intervention. interesting that a group so offended by Reagan's alleged support for the Taliban would be so opposed to their toppling.
Finally regarding the UN resolution cited by Bambouche. It's problem is at the end where it says, "Considers that nothing in the present resolution could in any way prejudice the right to self-determination, freedom and independence, as derived from the Charter of the United Nations, of peoples forcibly deprived of that right referred to in the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, particularly peoples under colonial and racist regimes and foreign occupation or other forms of colonial domination, nor, in accordance with the principles of the Charter and in conformity with the above-mentioned Declaration, the right of these peoples to struggle to this end and to seek and receive support." This would give a pass to any terrorism committed by almost any organization. What terrorist organization do you know of that says they seek to kill civilians because they enjoy blood shed? It's always for a nationalist cause.
And finally, the Kurds love America now. They are grateful the hegemon unseated their tormentor in Iraq and protected them from further incursions from Saddam during the sanction years. On both these issues, the left was distinctly anti-Kurdish.
Finally regarding the UN resolution cited by Bambouche. It's problem is at the end where it says, "Considers that nothing in the present resolution could in any way prejudice the right to self-determination, freedom and independence, as derived from the Charter of the United Nations, of peoples forcibly deprived of that right referred to in the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, particularly peoples under colonial and racist regimes and foreign occupation or other forms of colonial domination, [/b]nor, in accordance with the principles of the Charter and in conformity with the above-mentioned Declaration, the right of these peoples to struggle to this end and to seek and receive support." This would give a pass to any terrorism committed by almost any organization. What terrorist organization do you know of that says they seek to kill civilians because they enjoy blood shed? It's always for a nationalist cause.
It would, of course, have nothing to do with the peoples under our foreign occupation?
You are referring to Iraq, no? But here is the problem with this analogy. To start, most of the victims of terror in Iraq are Iraqi. Furthermore, a good chunk of them are fighting for the return of a family run tyranny that occupied Kurdish peoples, not to mention Shiite Arabs and all creeds that disagreed with the policies of the former prison state, which at the time of the writing of this UN document was an American client. A fact often neglected by those that seek to legitimize the car bombers in Baghdad is that the intervention was supporterd by the Iraqi communist party among others of Saddam's victims. Perhaps you think that tyrants are legitimate so long as they are vaguely of the same ethnicity as their captives.
But bringing this back to the original topic, there is a strange view among the left that terrorism is the inevitable response to colonialism, occupation and racism. It is as if terror was an abstract social disease afflicting the otherwise lawful and peaceful citizen. But if these conditions are always the cause of terrorism, why is it that civil rights organizations in America were hugely succesful following a nonviolent path? Why didn't SNCC or for that matter the black panthers become terrorists? Why were their no Estonian terrorists fighting against Soviet occupation?
why is it that civil rights organizations in America were hugely succesful following a nonviolent path?
But bringing this back to the original topic, there is a strange view among the left that terrorism is the inevitable response to colonialism, occupation and racism. It is as if terror was an abstract social disease afflicting the otherwise lawful and peaceful citizen.
soooo...are you saying that certain types of people are just pre-disposed to be terrorists?
why is it that civil rights organizations in America were hugely succesful following a nonviolent path?
Indeed, I think the *threat* of a violent faction forming was what enabled the nonviolent progress to be made. For whites in power, it was a lesser of two evils.
Analyzing one without reference to the power of the other is suspect.
No I'm saying the opposite. I'm saying that terrorism is a choice made by opposition groups fighting for a political goal. Palestinians for example in 1988 (at least the ones living under Israeli occupation) chose to make the first intifadah nonviolent. In 2000, the second intifadah was violent. Like any struggle, the choice to blow up civilians is a matter of strategy. And why is it suspect to point out the success of nonviolent civil rights movements in America. Do you think no progress has been achieved since the passage of the Voter rights act?
You are referring to Iraq, no? But here is the problem with this analogy. To start, most of the victims of terror in Iraq are Iraqi. Furthermore, a good chunk of them are fighting for the return of a family run tyranny that occupied Kurdish peoples, not to mention Shiite Arabs and all creeds that disagreed with the policies of the former prison state, which at the time of the writing of this UN document was an American client. A fact often neglected by those that seek to legitimize the car bombers in Baghdad is that the intervention was supporterd by the Iraqi communist party among others of Saddam's victims. Perhaps you think that tyrants are legitimate so long as they are vaguely of the same ethnicity as their captives.
But bringing this back to the original topic, there is a strange view among the left that terrorism is the inevitable response to colonialism, occupation and racism. It is as if terror was an abstract social disease afflicting the otherwise lawful and peaceful citizen. But if these conditions are always the cause of terrorism, why is it that civil rights organizations in America were hugely succesful following a nonviolent path? Why didn't SNCC or for that matter the black panthers become terrorists? Why were their no Estonian terrorists fighting against Soviet occupation?
A fact often neglected by those that seek to legitimize the car bombers in Baghdad [/b]
Who the f*ck is doing this? Or are you merely suggesting that everyone that opposes this insane war is "pro-car bomber"?
why is it that civil rights organizations in America were hugely succesful following a nonviolent path?
Indeed, I think the *threat* of a violent faction forming was what enabled the nonviolent progress to be made. For whites in power, it was a lesser of two evils.
Analyzing one without reference to the power of the other is suspect.
From whom did this threat come? Haven't we established that the panthers, which started after the legal victories of civil rights movement, weren't really that violent? I suppose there were some splinter groups in the 1970s that pulled off some bank heists, there was the weather underground, though their agenda was quite muddled. And there were riots after King was shot. But this is not comparable to say the Tamil Tigers, the real IRA, Hamas or other actual terrorist groups. I think nonviolent organizing worked because huge numbers of people withdrew their consent from a racial caste system in the south that economically needed them. I think it worked because of brilliant lawyers like Thurgood Marshall. And it worked because the movement appealed to the conscience of a majority of northern whites.
You are referring to Iraq, no? But here is the problem with this analogy. To start, most of the victims of terror in Iraq are Iraqi. Furthermore, a good chunk of them are fighting for the return of a family run tyranny that occupied Kurdish peoples, not to mention Shiite Arabs and all creeds that disagreed with the policies of the former prison state, which at the time of the writing of this UN document was an American client. A fact often neglected by those that seek to legitimize the car bombers in Baghdad is that the intervention was supporterd by the Iraqi communist party among others of Saddam's victims. Perhaps you think that tyrants are legitimate so long as they are vaguely of the same ethnicity as their captives.
But bringing this back to the original topic, there is a strange view among the left that terrorism is the inevitable response to colonialism, occupation and racism. It is as if terror was an abstract social disease afflicting the otherwise lawful and peaceful citizen. But if these conditions are always the cause of terrorism, why is it that civil rights organizations in America were hugely succesful following a nonviolent path? Why didn't SNCC or for that matter the black panthers become terrorists? Why were their no Estonian terrorists fighting against Soviet occupation?
A fact often neglected by those that seek to legitimize the car bombers in Baghdad [/b]
Who the f*ck is doing this? Or are you merely suggesting that everyone that opposes this insane war is "pro-car bomber"?
Not in the least. Just pointing out that the literature of some anti-war groups and some anti-war writers call the car bombers of baghdad a "resistance." Sometimes they compare them to the Algerian FLN, the Vietcong or even the American minutemen--all legitimate nationalist organizations. I am delighted Mr. Corners that you would be the first to disassociate yourself from the likes of michael moore and tariq ali. I only hope that more on your side of the issue would clarify the matter as you have.
No I'm saying the opposite. I'm saying that terrorism is a choice made by opposition groups fighting for a political goal. Palestinians for example in 1988 (at least the ones living under Israeli occupation) chose to make the first intifadah nonviolent. In 2000, the second intifadah was violent. Like any struggle, the choice to blow up civilians is a matter of strategy. And why is it suspect to point out the success of nonviolent civil rights movements in America. Do you think no progress has been achieved since the passage of the Voter rights act?
it's suspect to say that civil rights movement was nonviolent, given (as Johnny said) a largely perceived threat of violence on the side of the movement, and widespread use of violence by the government/establishment. (and I think anybody who thinks the civil rights movement was overwhelmingly successful or speaks about it in the past tense hasn't been to the US in a minute.)
terrorism is a choice, but so is violent oppression. the harder one pushes, the harder the other side pushes back. I'm not condoning terrorism, but I do think it's naive to punch someone in the teeth and be surprised and outraged when they swing back and break your nose. terrorism (suicide terrorism especially) has also been unfortunately effective across the globe, which might explain its continued presence.
Comments
Everything you say sounds off the top of your head; I wouldn't expect anything researchful. I take comfort in knowing I will learn nothing from you.
Your logic is flawed. Or, to quote a Panther, Diluged with misinformation.
Your per'fessor is a jackass who doesn't know what he/she's talking about. The differences between the groups listed and the circumstances in which they were created/existed are vastly different (as is their intent).
i'm pretty sure this is a universally crap course no matter where you are.
F*ck that place...
The people in charge like to throw that word around indiscriminately.
terrorist
That's the one...
1. Violent - Anyone following this appallingly simplistic "+/-" line of analysis must also accept- as difficult as it may seem- the violence inherant in the so-called non-violent resistance movement. Believe it or not, the non-violent resistance movement was fueled by...violence! MLK et al. exploited violence. The movement required violence. Violence perpetrated by whites on blacks. Violence carefully harnessed, subverted, transformed, but nevertheless still violence. And to use the crude terms of the classroom debate, this violence must absolutely be considered "negative", even though the movement sought to turn it, through self-sacrifice, into a "positive".
2. Hateful - "Hate" should not be confused with "anger". Be very careful in accusing the Panthers of hate [of white people, presumably?], as you would be hard-pressed to find any documentation of such motivation in official Panthers literature.
The are some extremely abstract pictures. Nothing makes sense. I must admit i had never heard of this historical oddity. Would make a fascinating documentary...
Earlier this year I found an original 1970 paperback of Bobby Seale's, 'Seize the Time: The Story of the Black Panther Party' in a country town for $1. I read it all the way through & I never thought that they hated whites, they despised the same oppressive governmental/political/judicial structures that i dislike & think are unfair. Itw as all about empowerment. The sixties in the US were a totally different environment than now, so one must look at what was happening in that context.
There's a great little story in there on how they bought up cheap copies of Mao Tse Tung's communist quotations 'Red Book' & then sold them to white radical students at a profit to enable them to save enough money to buy weapons. Crazy tale...
I'd recommend tracking the book down. It's very compelling reading.
Nation Of Islam is most definitly not the same thing as the Black Panther Party
If this was a communications class, then the professor was probably referring not to the agenda or plan of the panthers, but rather their image in the rest of America--which was negative. A reason for this is because the panthers gave press conferences in fatigues toting guns. They sold Mao's little red book to gullible Berkeley students who at the time conflated an act of supremely violent egotism with revolutionary socialism. The organization went out of its way to offend the sensibilities of what Nixon called the silent majority. Ironically, the panthers did not engage in many acts of violence and their success, if you could call it that, was largely through the manipulation of symbols. They represented the potential radicalization of black America if serious grievances were not addressed. More progress was made regarding those grievances by a generation of black politicians who succesfully ran for office and worked within the system. At the end of the day the Congressional black Caucus was more effective than black seperatism in America.
As for Bambouche's claim that America created or funded the Taliban, that's just wrong. The CIA funded the Pakistani ISI, which in turn funded the Mujahadin resistance against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. The taliban came from the madrassas in Pakistan. Some of the mujahadin that were trained by the ISI helped train the fighters that became the Taliban. Others however went on to form the northern alliance which fought against the taliban. Some members of the northern alliance were tribal warlords alligned at the time with the Soviets too. But the view that the Taliban and by extension 9-11 are chickens coming home to roost is simplistic slogan talk. One can trace this meme to Mumia Abu Jamal's speech from jail to the first ANSWER rally protesting the Afghan intervention. interesting that a group so offended by Reagan's alleged support for the Taliban would be so opposed to their toppling.
Finally regarding the UN resolution cited by Bambouche. It's problem is at the end where it says, "Considers that nothing in the present resolution could in any way
prejudice the right to self-determination, freedom and independence, as
derived from the Charter of the United Nations, of peoples forcibly deprived
of that right referred to in the Declaration on Principles of International
Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance
with the Charter of the United Nations, particularly peoples under colonial
and racist regimes and foreign occupation or other forms of colonial
domination, nor, in accordance with the principles of the Charter and in
conformity with the above-mentioned Declaration, the right of these peoples to
struggle to this end and to seek and receive support." This would give a pass to any terrorism committed by almost any organization. What terrorist organization do you know of that says they seek to kill civilians because they enjoy blood shed? It's always for a nationalist cause.
And finally, the Kurds love America now. They are grateful the hegemon unseated their tormentor in Iraq and protected them from further incursions from Saddam during the sanction years. On both these issues, the left was distinctly anti-Kurdish.
hey docbreezy where do you go to college ?
It would, of course, have nothing to do with the peoples under our foreign occupation?
Stay in Cairo.
I've never understood people who try to speak on topics they have no knowledge about. Fall back and pay attention.
You are referring to Iraq, no? But here is the problem with this analogy. To start, most of the victims of terror in Iraq are Iraqi. Furthermore, a good chunk of them are fighting for the return of a family run tyranny that occupied Kurdish peoples, not to mention Shiite Arabs and all creeds that disagreed with the policies of the former prison state, which at the time of the writing of this UN document was an American client. A fact often neglected by those that seek to legitimize the car bombers in Baghdad is that the intervention was supporterd by the Iraqi communist party among others of Saddam's victims. Perhaps you think that tyrants are legitimate so long as they are vaguely of the same ethnicity as their captives.
But bringing this back to the original topic, there is a strange view among the left that terrorism is the inevitable response to colonialism, occupation and racism. It is as if terror was an abstract social disease afflicting the otherwise lawful and peaceful citizen. But if these conditions are always the cause of terrorism, why is it that civil rights organizations in America were hugely succesful following a nonviolent path? Why didn't SNCC or for that matter the black panthers become terrorists? Why were their no Estonian terrorists fighting against Soviet occupation?
soooo...are you saying that certain types of people are just pre-disposed to be terrorists?
Indeed, I think the *threat* of a violent faction forming was what enabled the nonviolent progress to be made. For whites in power, it was a lesser of two evils.
Analyzing one without reference to the power of the other is suspect.
NO. Stay in Cairo.
No I'm saying the opposite. I'm saying that terrorism is a choice made by opposition groups fighting for a political goal. Palestinians for example in 1988 (at least the ones living under Israeli occupation) chose to make the first intifadah nonviolent. In 2000, the second intifadah was violent. Like any struggle, the choice to blow up civilians is a matter of strategy. And why is it suspect to point out the success of nonviolent civil rights movements in America. Do you think no progress has been achieved since the passage of the Voter rights act?
A fact often neglected by those that seek to legitimize the car bombers in Baghdad [/b]
Who the f*ck is doing this? Or are you merely suggesting that everyone that opposes this insane war is "pro-car bomber"?
From whom did this threat come? Haven't we established that the panthers, which started after the legal victories of civil rights movement, weren't really that violent? I suppose there were some splinter groups in the 1970s that pulled off some bank heists, there was the weather underground, though their agenda was quite muddled. And there were riots after King was shot. But this is not comparable to say the Tamil Tigers, the real IRA, Hamas or other actual terrorist groups. I think nonviolent organizing worked because huge numbers of people withdrew their consent from a racial caste system in the south that economically needed them. I think it worked because of brilliant lawyers like Thurgood Marshall. And it worked because the movement appealed to the conscience of a majority of northern whites.
Not in the least. Just pointing out that the literature of some anti-war groups and some anti-war writers call the car bombers of baghdad a "resistance." Sometimes they compare them to the Algerian FLN, the Vietcong or even the American minutemen--all legitimate nationalist organizations. I am delighted Mr. Corners that you would be the first to disassociate yourself from the likes of michael moore and tariq ali. I only hope that more on your side of the issue would clarify the matter as you have.
we get so many Iraqi war threads and so few Black Panther ones.
Vitamin:[/b] thought you ran away from soulstrut. Kinda surprised to see you back her
Bambouche:[/b] You seem to be on edge lately, I'm used to your posts being more level-headed.
it's suspect to say that civil rights movement was nonviolent, given (as Johnny said) a largely perceived threat of violence on the side of the movement, and widespread use of violence by the government/establishment. (and I think anybody who thinks the civil rights movement was overwhelmingly successful or speaks about it in the past tense hasn't been to the US in a minute.)
terrorism is a choice, but so is violent oppression. the harder one pushes, the harder the other side pushes back. I'm not condoning terrorism, but I do think it's naive to punch someone in the teeth and be surprised and outraged when they swing back and break your nose. terrorism (suicide terrorism especially) has also been unfortunately effective across the globe, which might explain its continued presence.
don't listen to this man - keep going guys, I'm sure one of you will be able to persuade the other any moment now...
---
awsome
Stay the fuck out of here with that bullshit.
Somebody get Guzzle a mirror already.