Skip to main content

View Diary: No, Love Is Not All You Need (18 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Are you seriously suggesting (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bozepravde15, AmericanStudier

    The Black Panthers weren't a separatist  movement?

    From your link:

    When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume, among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

    If ever there were a statement of secession, that would be it.

    I'm not commenting here whether or not they had cause to do so, African-Americans surely did have real grievances at that time (and still do).  

    But, history is history.  Memories cannot "deligitimize" historical facts.  Let the facts speak for themselves rather than trying, as we do with most historical events, to make them fit our own philosophy.

    •  I hear you, but... (0+ / 0-)

      ...I'd still distinguish even the most extreme aspects of the Panthers' principal philosophies (and this is certainly an extreme aspect, agreed) from, for example, the Confederate secessionists. The latter wanted to secede in order to continue a system of oppression and terror; the former, when they did (and I don't think all Panthers wanted to separate, but some definitely did), did so in order to escape such a system as they saw it.

      I appreciate very much the question of paying attention to facts, and try to do that as much as I can. But I would argue that a word like "secessionist" also brings into play narratives and histories that go way beyond just facts, and thus is an interpretation of yours as well. Doesn't mean that it's necessarily an inaccurate one, of course; just that we're always doing that kind of analysis when it comes to the facts, y'know?

      Thanks,
      Ben

      •  Well, I would argue (0+ / 0-)

        the Panthers were more successful than not.

        While M. L. King preached a message of inclusion, the Panthers ad more savvy politicians of the day seized upon the idea of separate-but-equal, which exists to this day.

    •  bizarre statement of secession (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      AmericanStudier

      I find it odd that they copied and pasted the first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence for point ten.

      Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.

      by JHestand on Thu Jun 16, 2011 at 04:58:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  ... It seems (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      AmericanStudier

      You picked out one offensive phrase by which to judge the whole piece.

      And then YOU separated 'African Americans' from the " OTHER PEOPLE OF COLOR, All OPPRESSED PEOPLE INSIDE THE UNITED STATES."

      They have grievances, to. At least the Black Panthers acknowledged us.

      So, from what were they separating? From  The Establishment, and, as an 'other', I ever felt excluded from their umbrella until I read your interpretation of their ten points.

      If you meant to imply they were solely a racist movement, I call BS.

      If not, carry on, pls.

      “The most important trip you may take in life is meeting people halfway” ~ Henry Boye~

      by Terranova0 on Thu Jun 16, 2011 at 05:03:21 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  "Fact" or "conclusion" (0+ / 0-)

      Were the Panther's "separatist" ?

      I dunno.  It's a good question for a History final ...

      "Compare and Contrast the Separatism of any three of the following:

      Amish
      Chabad
      Black Panther Party
      Conch Republic
      Basque
      Quebquois

      But aside from that, why bring it up?

      A friend of mine with a Phd in History and an appointment to teach Military History at  Virginia Military Academy once described his profession this way

      "History is a form of literature for writers without the imagination to construct plots or the insight to develop characters."

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site