I would agree with you. But I would say that the Black Panthers and the whole 60's and 70's militant black movements were a reaction to decades of hardcore racism, the noose, KKK, Tuskeegee, and a host of institutional racist persecution. Some African-Americans chose the route of MLK (the road of which I approve!) and some decided to fight fire with fire (Malcolm X and the gang). I can understand the Black Panther reactionism to some degree whereas the KKK and the anti-black stuff that started in this country hundreds of years ago is far more pervasive and scary....
A lot of the Black Panthers
were actually for equality between blacks/whites and many non-blacks were
a part of the group as well during the 60s/70s (influential scholars such as Cornel West being a part of the Black Panthers as well and loving people from all backgrounds). There was even a sister party to the Black Panthers made called White Panther which was meant to help fight racial discrimination (as seen
here ,
here and
here )
and aid women's rights.
It's often a stereotype to say that all of them were against whites--and to be clear, I'm not saying that you were noting that. I recently had a discussion with a friend of mine on the issue and she shared on the issue of how many reacted with aggressive protection of their group due to often having no options of protection from other groups that harmed them...many of which you noted. Much of what many Black Panther groups focused on was simply about confronting tyranny in government and the dominant culture wherever it could be found----and aiding whomever was harmed by it, be it blacks or whites (especially impoverished whites often in the struggle with blacks) or American Indians and so many others.
Militancy, moreover, was never something automatically divorced from the work done by Civil Rights leaders.
Even Dr.King was described as a Militant Pacifist by others in his day and was well respected by other militants. For King, it was about discovering which has more strength: fighting via violence self-defense or aggressive submission. And for anyone ever saying militant pacifists can never get anything accomplished, I simply say look at King..as he was willing to die for it to make a difference we live in today. I'm very thankful for Brother Martin for doing as he did....and for showing what COULD happen if someone was willing to do as they felt they should. I'm thankful for learning of how King was not an absolute pacifist — for at one time he believed that only armed conflict could bring about racial justice in the United States...but for him, it was always a last resort. For more, as it concerns good reviews/resources on the matter, one can go online/investigate the resource entitled
Lesson 6 :: A Threat to Justice Anywhere: War" ( )
Not many study the later years of both Martin and Malcom, as they seemed to achieve a remarkable degree of convergence. Malcom leaving the "Nation of Islam", denouncing it and being more willing to work with others who felt that violence was not the answer (even though he was for nationalism/seperatism to handle the issues of the black community)---and Martin, after Malcom died, went up to the areas Malcom had influence.....and in seeing the economic disparties/intentional discrimination via keeping others in poverty, he began to advocate more for the U.S having no real concern for blacks--and he was taken out once he began to denounce the Vietnam War due to how much he was militantly opposed to it and refusing to remain silent on what he felt was an action in evil. King also began to advocate for more on "Black Power" and letting other blacks know there was nothing wrong with being proud of one's black heritage.
For more on how Martin and Malcom saw convergence in their views, one can go
here and
here /
here /
here to the following:
</DIV>