Talk:New Black Panther Party

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject African diaspora. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles related to topics concerning persons of African descent and their cultures. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the Wikipedia:WikiProject African diaspora for more information. (See: Category:WikiProject African diaspora for more pages in this project.)
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-Importance within African diaspora.

Contents 1 "Black Supremacist?" 2 Exterminate White People 3 why is there still so much hate between blacks and whites? 4 The New Black Panthers 5 NPOV tag added, need sources 6 September 11th attacks 7 Protection? 8 Obama Endorsement?

[edit] "Black Supremacist?"

I've just visited the official website, and I am not finding anything that sounds like "Black Supremacist" ideology.

Cyclopiano (talk) 03:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Exterminate White People

Someone may want to add a reference to this. I don't know how to get the direct link, but from foxnews.com if you click on video and then on US there is an entry titled "'Exterminate' Follow Up" where the NBPP supports the professor who advocated "exterminating white people off the face of the earth" or something to that effect. It's a clip from a Hannity and Colmes show. AbstractClass 14:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have now added that and a link to the video clip in the new Anti-Europeanism section. Thank you. 85.82.195.131 02:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] why is there still so much hate between blacks and whites?

Taking the above as a serious question, I'm going to guess that ignorance is part of it and that stereotyping and history have something to do with it as well. --Dante Alighieri 23:32 20 May 2003 (UTC

I'm going to say that it's because there's still so much cause for resentment. By and large, those who have money and power are whites, and those who do not are people of color. Until that changes, I'm going to guess there's going to be a lot of anger to go around, whether it's sensible or not. Graft

People of color?  That phrase is in and of itself a racist concept, separating the "whites" from the rest of humanity as something unique.

That's what whites do though. And I'm (mostly) white so don't start calling me racist or whatever. That's just the truth.

"That is what whites do though."? Like the whites in the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP)?? The NAACP uses the term in a way that says, it is "us" against them (whites). So realize once again it is not a one-sided truth as you so blindly believe.

So you call people "weaklier pigmented" or "stronger pigmented"? Tell me about your non-racist terms, please. (That's a serious request, no offensive intention.)

There will allways be assholes who hate. I don't think we'll ever be free from it. Decent people need to expose and repudiate hate where-ever we find it. It's not a white thing or black thing - it's a human thing. There are hatefull people of all races, religions, philosophies, etc. Graft, I disagree with you in that changing the power structure is not going to eliminate hate or anger. AbstractClass 15:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Those who have money and power in the US may be predominantly white (hardly surprising, considering they make up the majority of the US population and have a 500 year history here), but it's hardly true around the world. Many of the world's richest and most powerful people are NOT white. For example, the world's fifth-richest man is Indian, eighth-richest is middle-eastern, and tenth-richest is Chinese. About 20% of those on the Forbes list of the world's 100 wealthiest people aren't of European ethnicity. And for power, a cursory look at the leaders of the world's nations will dispel the notion that power is by and large in the hands of white people.

So you're saying that 80% of the world's richest people are drawn from the 20% of them who happen to be white, and you think that means that the richest and most powerful people aren't predominantly white? Huh?And a headcount of national leaders is an absolutely ludicrous metric. Using that, the leaders of Madagascar or East Timor are counted as being as 'powerful' as the Presidents of the United States or of Russia. Not only that, but there's a good case to be made that the owner of General Motors has far more power in the world than the leader of, say Vanuatu. Specious reasoning twice over. --Aim Here 11:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Talk Pages are not a political discussion forum. They are only there for discussing edits to the articles. Thanks. -Bluedog423^Talk 02:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The New Black Panthers

"In response from numerous requests from individual's seeking information on the "New Black Panthers," the Dr. Huey P. Newton Foundation issues this public statement to correct the distorted record being made in the media by a small band of African Americans calling themselves the New Black Panthers. As guardian of the true history of the Black Panther Party, the Foundation, which includes former leading members of the Party, denounces this group's exploitation of the Party's name and history. Failing to find its own legitimacy in the black community, this band would graft the Party's name upon itself, which we condemn.

Firstly, the people in the New Black Panthers were never members of the Black Panther Party and have no legitimate claim on the Party's name. On the contrary, they would steal the names and pretend to walk in the footsteps of the Party's true heroes, such as Black Panther founder Huey P. Newton, George Jackson and Jonathan Jackson, Bunchy Carter, John Huggins, Fred Hampton, Mark Cark, and so many others who gave their very lives to the black liberation struggle under the Party's banner.

Secondly, they denigrate the Party's name by promoting concepts absolutely counter to the revolutionary principles on which the Party was founded. Their alleged media assault on the Ku Klux Klan serves to incite hatred rather than resolve it. The Party's fundamental principle, as best articulated by the great revolutionary Ernesto "Che" Guevara, was: "A true revolutionary is guided by great feelings of love." The Black Panthers were never a group of angry young militants full of fury toward the "white establishment." The Party operated on love for black people, not hatred of white people.

Furthermore, this group claims it would "teach" the black community about armed self-defense. The arrogance of this claim is overwhelmed by its reactionary nature. Blacks, especially in the South, have been armed in self-defense for a very long time; indeed, the spiritual parent of the Party itself was the Louisiana-based Deacons for Defense. However, the Party understood that the gun was not necessarily revolutionary, for the police and all other oppressive forces had guns. It was the ideology behind the gun that determined its nature." - blackpanther.org

This is the truth about the "New Black Panthers" straight from the source. People can admire groups of the past, but they should really do their research and get permission before they go about using names and making claims without clarification.

I've added the link to the full statement in the links section. I think it's very relevant that the original Panthers don't claim the "New" ones. Makes you wonder why the "New" Panthers even bother with the farce. PennyGWoods 16:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it's a farce. There is no evidence that any of the members don't believe they are the true successors of the party. There is also no evidence to dispute the fact that the founder of the NBPP personally was inspited by the BPP (or the BP militia) and felt he was founding a party in their legacy. The fact that many BPP members don't agree doesn't change any of this. It's not uncommon to have a party which supporters feel they founded in the legacy of another party even though many members of the original/real party don't agree. More generally, it's not uncommon that people who feel they are doing something in the name or in the legacy of something even tho many people other people who are living in that name or legacy don't agree. For example, there are many groups who identify as Christians and believers of Jesus Christ, some of which most Christians don't feel are Christians and who's believes and acts are seen as contrary the the spirit of Jesus Christ. Just as similarly there are some people who commit acts of terrorism in the name of Islam even though most Muslims feel that such acts are forbidden by Islam. People have different opions and different ideas. We may not agree with many of them and some of them may be shocking and unacceptable to many of us. It doesn't mean they don't have them or are just pretending. Of course, the fact that the NBPP is using the BPP name doesn't mean we should look down on the BPP because of that either. Nil Einne 16:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV tag added, need sources

I realize this deals with race relations in the US, which remains very controversial with many people maintaining it has actually gotten worse. However this article makes a lot of bold assertions that does not follow the NPOV policy. Also perhaps more importantly there are no sources cited. Please see the how, why, and what exactly is a reliable source pages. I'm not sure where this information came from, but I will start checking to see if I can locate the sources AND responses by members of the NBPP. Thanks, --Dejitarob 03:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello I am new to editing and discussing Wikipedia so I apologize a head of time if I do not follow the rules exactly as I am still reading them. On that note I would like to contest the NPOV tag on this article. I notice it was added over a year ago and after reading the article in its current form there appears to be references in every or every other sentence. I believe this satisfies the requirements to have the NPOV tag removed. In addition those references do include quotes, articles and text from the target subject matter's official website. Thanks for your time. Oct. 11th 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.2.116 (talk) 08:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] September 11th attacks

I have modified the following based on the ADL reference it links to

Following the September 11, 2001 attacks in New York City and Washington, DC the party began distributing propaganda around the country that Israel had planned and financed the attacks and that 4,000 Israelis who worked at the World Trade Center were warned ahead of time by their government and called in sick the day of the attack — a 9/11 conspiracy theory popularized in Amiri Baraka's poem "Somebody Blew Up America." [1]

Specifically, the ADL link makes no claim that any propaganda was distributed, it simple talks about a meeting where Shazz made numerous claims, inferences and anti-Israel/zionist (and possibly anti-semetic) statements. Also, Shazz does not claim that 4000 Israelis were warned. He simply states that it's a rumour that needs to be investigated. It's possible that propaganda was distributed-(at the meeting or some time else) or that at a later date, Shazz or the NBPP claimed as a fact that 4000 Israelis were absent. However without any evidence, we can't include such claims... Nil Einne 15:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protection?

i try to be carefull on editing wiki pages but judging from my urge to "vandalise" this artical it certainly seems like a good thing to do than again it doesnt seem to get enough traffic to realy need it i dont know just a thought. --Ggohtrin 12:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Obama Endorsement?

Should that be added? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.236.227 (talk) 02:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

If it can be referenced, then I say yes. I know they endorsed him, but mysteriously kept quiet and even denied later. --Hourick (talk) 02:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

== "Black Supremacist?" == I've just visited the official website, and I am not finding anything that sounds like "Black Supremacist" ideology. Cyclopiano (talk) 03:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)