Is it fair to call the Black Panthers a terrorist organization? I've heard black youth claim they don't have a history of violence, at least not of murder. This isn't supposed to be a "we wuz"-tier question, I'm genuinely curious. I don't know where to find documents pertaining to their history. You people seem more capable of answering than /pol/.
>>832739
I dont think the black panthers where very violent, but the bloods and crips have done some horrible shit
The feds really did a number on the black panthers
>>832739
At least historically, yes. The black panther party was a Marxist subversive hate-group comparable to the KKK of the era, and was dismembered appropriately by the dubiously ethical but very effective FBI's Counter Intelligence program.
https://vault.fbi.gov/cointel-pro/cointel-pro-black-extremists
>>832739
>>832752
Didn't panthers almost exclusively attack police though? Do police count as noncombatants? Considering the stuff that was happening at the time, it's kinda hard to say they weren't.
On top of that, hateful as they were, their hatred was completely different form that of the KKK. They aren't just black people in hoods (well, not that kind of hood) tying little white boys to crosses and burning them. In recent history the hatred of blacks has been proactive (where white people claim to be superior), wheras the hatred of white people by minorities has been reactive (in response to an atrocity or affront of some sort).
They were different from simply an organisation that used violence or the threat of violence to further their own political ends.
The black population rightly saw the police in opposition to them, as opposed to providing the security that a state and its law enforcement is supposed to provide for its citizens; so the panthers claimed the legitimate use of violence in defence of their communities.
>>832814
Terrorism for a legitimate cause is still terrorism though. What would sway this one way or the other is if someone were to determine who the actual targets of the panthers were and if those targets counted as combatants (which I think they do given the circumstance), not the moral legitimacy of their philosophy.
>>832739
The black panthers were literally radicalized civil rights activists
>>832814
>They were different from simply an organisation that used violence or the threat of violence to further their own political ends.
How so? From your next sentence they sound just like such an organization. Just because you feel bad for black communities and sympathize with their struggle, you can't go around saying people aren't terrorists if they have a few legitimate grievances. In principle, from what you've said, these are terrorists.
>>832897
There's a reason Mlk's way of doing things worked better, sure he got assassinated but he was so well received that it caused the final big push for African American Civil rights
>>832897
What's your point? Civil rights activists were basically radicalized by definition.
>>832912
Most activists were peaceful protesters. In fact the more aggressive approach had the opposite effect on the whole movement
>>832918
>Most activists were peaceful protesters.
One can be a peaceful radical. When such a person uses violence, one becomes a terrorist.
>In fact the more aggressive approach had the opposite effect on the whole movement
Right--because they were only somewhat radicalized, aside from the most aggressive ones.
>>832922
The black panthers were different from the majority of the protesters, they were killing people and obviously that's what brought down the rest of the movement for everyone else. They only time they had the big riots the Era is known for was in response to Mlk's assassination. He's why the movement was a success because he chose the right peaceful protest way
>>832922
Also peaceful and radical by definition are the exact opposites of one another
>>832922
You really need to read back up on your history
>>832794
>In recent history the hatred of blacks has been proactive (where white people claim to be superior), wheras the hatred of white people by minorities has been reactive (in response to an atrocity or affront of some sort).
I wouldn't get into these sorts of generalisations if I were you,
>>832943
>they were killing people and obviously that's what brought down the rest of the movement for everyone else.
Which was my point.
>He's why the movement was a success because he chose the right peaceful protest way
He was still a radical.
>The term political radicalism (or simply, in political science, radicalism) denotes political principles focused on altering social structures through revolutionary means and changing value systems in fundamental ways.
>movement
I don't even know which movement you're talking about. Please be more specific.
>>832958
Which history? The history of violent African-American groups in relation to gay civil rights leaders? To be honest, I've never heard this narrative in any of the history classes I've taken about the 20th century--Harvey Milk as *the* central figure of the successes enjoyed by the civil rights movement? What the fuck is this?
>>832951
>The term political radicalism (or simply, in political science, radicalism) denotes political principles focused on altering social structures through revolutionary means and changing value systems in fundamental ways.
Nothing about violence.
>inb4 HURR REVOLUTONARIES USE VIOLENCE
Yes, revolutionaries who resort to violence are terrorists. Radicalized individuals who don't actually use violence are objectively peaceful.
>>832922
>All violent radicals are terrorists
That's not even true though. you can't just staple words together like that when they've already been given definitions. If some guy shoots his wife because he believes women are inferior, he's not a terrorist, he's just a murderer. If two factions of opposite radical beliefs go kill eachother in war, they aren't inherently terrorists either.
>>832963
Why? It's a generalization based upon trends and average occurrence, but it's not a wildly inaccurate one even if counterexamples exist.
>>832994
>you can't just staple words together like that when they've already been given definitions
But the statement is true. Can you into syllogisms?
>Radicals are people who are committed to revolutionary structural change in society (R)
>Terrorists are people who use violence as a means to pursue political ends (T)
>If some guy shoots his wife because he believes women are inferior, he's not a terrorist, he's just a murderer. If two factions of opposite radical beliefs go kill eachother in war, they aren't inherently terrorists either.
I don't even understand what kind of point you're trying to make here. Yes, I agree, there are shades of grey, but the United States and al-Qaeda have a terrorist/terrorized relationship. I see no reason not to think so, though if you really cared to we could argue about who's terrorizing who.
>It's a generalization based upon trends and average occurrence, but it's not a wildly inaccurate one even if counterexamples exist.
Do you have data to back that up? Or did your sociology degree fail to teach you how to do research while it was failing to teach you how definitions work?
>>833017
>syllogisms
To conclude:
All terrorists are radicals
Some radicals are peaceful
Therefore not all radicals are terrorists
Remember that we've already defined radicals and terrorists.
>>833021
And 'peaceful' means 'not inclined to use, or currently using, violent means to achieve X end.'
>>833017
>Do you have data to back that up?
I'm not even going to go grab my costanza face
>>833067
Then I'm not even going to respond to you after this post. You can whine about narrative experience or whatever all you want--I see no reason to base government policy on your feelings if you can't make a proper argument or provide data to support your claims in place of an argument.
>>832922
>When such a person uses violence, one becomes a terrorist.
>the only one who can use violence legally is the state, because deal with it.
The state is the only terrorist.
>>833073
>I see no reason to base government policy on your feelings if you can't make a proper argument or provide data to support your claims in place of an argument.
>If you can't convince some guy posting on 4chan from his trailer that blacks face mass discrimination then it's not actually happening and you're just using feeeelings!
>I'm a hip alt-righter who doesn't even know the actual definition of terrorism, yet still believes I'm entitled to a genuine rebuttal from some guy on the internet!
>I "tell it like it is," by which I mean I make claims that make me look competent by association then rationalize them after establishing my belief rather than before!
You do you anon. Feel free to pretend you aren't the one covering your ears.
>>832922
Were the Libyan rebels terrorists? They used violence against the government while they were protesting.
>>833111
>The state is the only terrorist.
Edgy, but not an argument.
>>833135
Look, if you're going to shitpost about how sociology is a real science in other threads, you should be able and willing to back up your claims ITT. Shut up or put up.
>>833321
>They used violence against the government while they were protesting.
Sure.
>>833330
>"Sociology isn't a real science, you can't observe society and make empirical claims!"
>Spoken by anon, in the midst of claiming everyone else was wrong due to his own observations of society.
Convenience-minded.
>>833330
>demanding people should put up sociological data if they want you to take them seriously while simultaneously implying sociological data is worthless and stupid
>>833606
>>Spoken by anon, in the midst of claiming everyone else was wrong due to his own observations of society.
I've used a broadly accepted definition of terrorist. My opponents have either claimed that the only true terrorist is the state for some unexplained reason, or thrown their hands up in frustration when asked for evidence that could support apparently fact-based claims.
>>833619
>sociological data
Any kind of data that can support those claims would be good.
I'm from the former Eastern Block and I have it from a good source that prominent Black Panthers like Angela Davis, Huey Newton, Assata Shakur and Stokely Carmichael were Soviet agents, directly funded by the USSR and its sattelite states (Czechoslovakia, DDR, Cuba) to ignite race war in the US.
Common misconception is that MLK was also a Soviet spy, this is actually bullshit as the Soviets funded violent black groups almost exclusively, a guy who wanted to solve the race issue peacefully was of no use to them.
So from the American perspective, the Black Panthers were not only terrorists but also traitors.
>>833627
>My opponents have either claimed that the only true terrorist is the state for some unexplained reason
He was joking, implying that by your own definition the state would thusly be the only true terrorist.
>I've used a broadly accepted definition of terrorist
No
> or thrown their hands up in frustration when asked for evidence
Because you've already established that you're the sort of person who'll only deny it on principle.
>>833648
>implying that by your own definition the state would thusly be the only true terrorist.
Maybe if you're too stupid to understand what statehood implies in terms of legitimacy.
>No
"No."
>Because you've already established that you're the sort of person who'll only deny it on principle.
No, I've established that I want to see data. It isn't my fault that people who make claims like "Black people almost always have legitimate grievances against white people and white people almost never have good reasons to complain about black people" get salty when you ask them for evidence. I wouldn't talk shit about sociology if this weren't an experience I've had with people like >>832794.
>>833641
Being funded by enemies is not exclusively traitorous. For example, much of our political process is funded by Saudis.
>>832739
Usually I would call you a dumb frog poster but that Nubian Pepe is a qt
>>833761
>saudis
>enemies of the US
>>833761
Saudis and Israelis are technically allies, but yes, people who push pro Saudi policies that undermine the US are by definition traitors.
The BPP were radical and militant black activists who arose from a racially corrupt social climate.
White kids were raised to see MLK as the good and Malcolm X/BPP as bad but the fact is they spoke highly of eachother except when it came to black and of color liberation.
BPP creates WIC which to this day provides food to pregnant and baby raising low income women in California, the provided after school programs all over and breakfast programs for black, Latino and Samoan youth in Bayview Hunters point.
There were CIA undercover agents to create conflict (like Japanese American Richard Aoki), these were attempts at a federal level to make BPP look bad
J Edgar Hoover (a closeted queen and passing octoroon hated both blacks and gays) formed COINTELPRO
>While the declared purposes of these programs were to protect the "national security" or prevent violence, Bureau witnesses admit that many of the targets were nonviolent and most had no connections with a foreign power. Indeed, nonviolent organizations and individuals were targeted because the Bureau believed they represented a "potential" for violence—and nonviolent citizens who were against the war in Vietnam were targeted because they gave "aid and comfort" to violent demonstrators by lending respectability to their cause.
>The imprecision of the targeting is demonstrated by the inability of the Bureau to define the subjects of the programs. The Black Nationalist program, according to its supervisor, included "a great number of organizations that you might not today characterize as black nationalist but which were in fact primarily black." Thus, the nonviolent Southern Christian Leadership Conference was labeled as a Black Nationalist-"Hate Group."
Some of you guys are retards for thinking the gov't wasn't intentionally trying to smear BPPs image.
I don't think a couple of black guys in America are gonna get an upper hand on whitey. Don't worry you're still the top dogs
>>833666
>wouldn't talk shit about sociology if this weren't an experience I've had with people [who disagree with me]
>>832739
I heard a lecture on this at my college once. I know the professor is big into black power culture, so i trust his opinion on this. He seems to belive the old black panthers were not, but that group feel apart in the 80's, and a "neo" black panther group arose who would probably fit the terrorist label
>>838797
I agree with the person I'm demanding evidence from.
