Panthers: The Last Vanguard

    The Black Panther Party for Self-Defense was, from approximately 1968 to 1980, the preeminent organization of the Black Freedom movement. Despite this it is nearly erased from most telling of the history of that time period, caricatured as an armed group of “reverse racist” fanatics to be feared by white America. The Black Panther Party was in reality a revolutionary community organization devoted to the empowerment of black and oppressed people in the United States and throughout the world. Since the Party's disbandment in 1980, no other organization or movement has yet emerged to carry on the revolutionary struggle. The Black Panther Party represented at the time a revolutionary vanguard not only of black communities, but (like the Communist Party and the Industrial Workers of the World before it) of the entire American proletariat.

     Though the Panthers stand as the latest episode in a legacy of revolutionary resistance to white supremacist colonization and slavery dating back to the slave revolts given a face by the iconic Nat Turner and including the legacies of Douglass, Tubman, Garvey, Parsons, and DuBois; the Panthers by their own admission were the result of a black generation brought alive by one towering figure in particular: Malcolm X. Though they espoused themselves a part of the then-dominant left tradition of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, it was the speeches and writings of Malcolm that were required reading for Party members and it was for him that the Panthers called themselves “the heirs of Malcolm.” The Panthers in essence represented a more Marxist version of Black Nationalism. Given the history of each of these as the two dominant paradigms of post-slavery black liberation in the US (as embodied by Garvey's Universal Negro Improvement Association on the one hand and the IWW, DuBois, Parsons, and the CPUSA on the other), the dynamic results of their synthesis should be unsurprising.

     Though the Panthers espoused an unwaveringly revolutionary vision and were often most characterized in the press by their firearms, the most crucial practice to the success of the Party was that of widespread community service operations. Most notable among these was the Free Breakfast for Children program, but a number of programs were run by the Party including Free Health Clinics (particularly vis-a-vis sickle cell anemia), Free Clothing exchanges, Free Busing to Prisons, and Free Legal Aid, in a addition to numerous community schools and literacy and political education programs for both children and adults. Though not every Chapter offered every program, committed community service was a universal tenant of Party work. These aided tremendously in the rise of the Panthers in that they lent them a credibility that had eluded other political groups. Community service demonstrated, perhaps most importantly, that the Panthers' first allegiance was first and foremost to the reality of conditions in the community and not to some outside ideological agenda.

     Far from diverting all the Party's energy into dead-end reformism or paternalistic charity, such a demonstration of on-the-ground commitment combined with explicitly revolutionary politics served not only to raise radical consciousness but also to greatly increase the membership and community support (that is to say, the operating capacity) of the Black Panther Party. Minister of Defense Huey Newton made the distinction that these programs actually were not revolutionary. They were “survival programs pending revolution... they do not change social conditions, but they are life-saving vehicles until conditions change.” He further stressed the particular significance of this approach to the black struggle: “The masses of Black people have always been deeply entrenched and involved in the basic necessities of life. They have not had time to abstract their situation.”

     To aid in the task of reaching such a community with the politics of revolution was the Black Panther Party's 10-Point Program. The Program was printed prominently in every edition of the Black Panther Intercommunal News Service, was widely distributed in leaflet form, and was memorized by every Panther-in-Training. Each point is accompanied by a brief elaboration, but the ten demands are:

1. We want freedom. We want the power to determine the destiny of our Black Community.
2. We want full employment for our people.
3. We want an end to the robbery by the capitalist of our Black Community.
4. We want decent housing, fit for shelter of human beings.
5. We want education for our people that exposes the true nature of this decadent American society. We want education that teaches us our true history and our role in the present-day society.
6. We want all black men to be exempt from military service.
7. We want an immediate end to the police brutality and murder of black people.
8. We want freedom for all black men held in federal, state, county, and city prisons and jails.
9. We want all black people when brought to trial to be tried by a jury of their peer group or people from their black communities, as defined by the Constitution of the United States.
10. We want land, bread, housing, education, clothing, justice, and peace. And as our major political objective, a United Nations-supervised plebiscite to be held throughout the black colony in which only black colonial subjects will be allowed to participate for the purpose of determining the will of black people as to their national destiny.

     Former Panther and current political prisoner Mumia Abu-Jamal writes that “while central to the Party, [the 10-Point Program] was not the ideology of the Party; it was more of an organizing tool. It was a way of getting folks to think about change, and it proposed solutions to problems faced by Black folks across the nation.”

     Point 6 came to take on greater significance within the Party as its internationalist consciousness grew with the escalation of American war in Vietnam. Like SNCC before it, the Black Panther Party had from its founding openly opposed the draft as well as the war. Over time, and as national liberation movements around the world began fighting to overthrow the old colonial governments, the Panthers began to see their struggles as one and the same. Minister of Information Eldridge Cleaver wrote a piece for the Black Panther newspaper called “To My Black Brother in Vietnam” encouraging black soldiers to see the vietnamese as their “Brothers and Sisters who are fighting for their freedom” and to “Either quit the army, now, or start destroying it from the inside.... Stop killing the Vietnamese people. You need to start killing the racist pigs who are over there with you giving you orders.... Sabotage supplies and equipment, or turn them over to the Vietnamese people.” Beyond this, the Panthers proposed a “Pilots for Panthers” program where the NLF could turn over American POWs in exchange for incarcerated Panthers. Huey Newton once offered to send Black Panther volunteers to fight against the United States in Vietnam. Viet Cong Deputy Commander Nguyen Thi Dinh commented: “With profound gratitude, we take notice for your enthusiastic proposal; when necessary, we shall call for your volunteers to assist us.”

     One of the most blatant misconceptions about the Panthers was that this was a highly sexist and misogynist organization. While the Party was, to be sure, a product of the patriarchal society in which it arose, it was far less so than nearly any other left or revolutionary organization of the time. Like many other organizations in the Black Freedom movement, the majority of Black Panthers were women: 60% within a year of the Party's founding according to Chairman Bobby Seale. Additionally, and though it reads as arcane, the 7th of the Party's 8 Points of Attention (“Do not take liberties with women.”) helped forge an internal culture of some parity. Harlem Panther Afeni Shakur (Tupac's mother) recalled how her first encounter with the Panthers drove her to join: “It was the first time in my life that I ever met men who didn't abuse women. As simple as that. It had nothing to do with anything about political movements. It was just that never in my life had I met men who didn't abuse women, and who loved women because they were women and because they were people.” Again this is not to deny the existence of machismo among Panther men. Tarika Lewis, the first woman to join the BPP back when it only existed in Oakland, remarked that “When the guys came up to me and said 'I ain't gonna do what you tell me to do 'cause you a sister,' I invited 'em to come on out to the weapons range and I could outshoot 'em.” Other prominent Panther women included Communications Secretary Kathleen Cleaver who was the first woman to sit on the Central Committee and Elaine Brown who from 1974-77 served as Chairwoman of the Black Panther Party.

     The Black Panther Party was aptly referred to by FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover as the"greatest threat to the internal security of the country." The FBI's Counter Intelligence Program (more commonly referred to as COINTELPro) set out to curtail the influence of the left in general, but especially to crush the BPP with all vicious force and deceit. Through mass use of informants, infiltrators, and assassinations Hoover weakened the Party. But it took more than just targeting the Panthers. A 1969 edition of The Black Panther read “The Black Panther Party cannot be suppressed by the establishment and its racist pigs because the Party exists by the will of the people....” Sure enough, COINTELPro came to the conclusion that in order to neutralize the Panthers they had to neutralize the black community generally. This was the same time that crack cocaine emerged. This did irreparable damage to the Panthers' efforts; membership and cadre dwindled and then fizzled. In 1980, the Black Panther Intercommunal News Service was officially discontinued.

     There have been a few attempts to (mis)use the BPP's legacy in contemporary politics. Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Coalition PUSH appropriates the name of the Rainbow Coalition organized by martyred BPP Illinois State Chairman Fred Hampton. The Rainbow Coalition was a non-aggression pact between Chicago gangs facilitated by the Panthers and the Young Lords. Jesse Jackson's mock-up shares nothing but the name. The “New Black Panther Party” is a front for the Nation of Islam and has been widely denounced by former Panthers and even sued for use of the name by the Dr. Huey P. Newton Foundation.

     What has stuck of the Panthers has been in the form of struggle against the prison-industrial complex. Though they never meant to, the Panthers were forced by state repression to deal with the prison system on a nearly constant basis. There are still many many BPP and Black Liberation Army members in prison today, not the least of whom is Mumia Abu-Jamal. Martyrs like George and Jonathan Jackson pioneered theories of prison resistance. Angela Davis, though never a Party member, was often associated with the Panthers and is one of the world's foremost advocates of what she calls Abolition Democracy.

“The main function of the party is to awaken the people and to teach them 

the strategic method of resisting the power structure.” - Huey Newton

I Think of Myself as a Man: Liberalism and Intersectionality in “Guess Who's Coming to Dinner”

          Stanley Kramer's 1967 classic “Guess Who's Coming to Dinner” is one of the important american films dealing with racism. It left a lasting impact on the popular and political culture of its time much of which can still be felt today. A contemporary analysis of this movie may yield some interesting and useful insights into our current race politics. I contend that the film represented an important and deliberate step in the right direction for its time, but that it also can serve now to coddle and congratulate the new liberal racism of the so-called “post-civil rights” era. The news for contemporary viewers isn't all bad though, as the film uses the its cross-section of characters to explore the intersectional power dynamics of White Supremacy, Patriarchy, and Capitalism in a way that's subtle, but surprisingly clear if you look for it.

          “Guess Who's Coming to Dinner?” is first and foremost about the character of Matt Drayton (a white 60-something liberal newspaper editor). It's secondary protagonist is his daughter's intended husband Dr. John Prentice (an accomplished black man whose story is one of professional ascent). The basic story is that Joanna Drayton and John Prentice (who've just fallen in love) go to the Drayton family home to break the news of their engagement and to ask for her parents' approval. Of course Matt and his wife Christina are each shocked at first. As the scenes progress Christina gets over it and Matt remains unsure. The Prentice family also arrive later, are shocked, and John's mother quickly gets over it. It boils down to mothers for it, fathers against it, and John unwilling to get married without Matt's approval. At the last minute, Matt has a change of heart and gives a rousing speech in which he approves of their love, and they all have dinner together, etc, etc.

Liberalism

          The fact that the story is set up to focus on these two kinds of men (white liberals and middle class blacks) can be seen as meaning a few things: a presentation of the “best” kind of black man allows for the deconstruction of the strict racial barriers that existed at that time; if it's ok for a white woman to marry an impressive middle class black man, then it means you can't be categorically against interracial marriage. This seems like a decent way to get the proverbial foot in the door to white consciousness in the short-term. But the flip side of this middle-class cherry-picking is that it doesn't disallow, in fact it fosters, the liberal racism of individual exceptions we see today. It allows whites to still hold people of color as a whole in contempt while considering some individuals exceptions if they play hard enough by the white rulebook.

          The most striking illustration of the difference in effect of this movie then from now is the John Prentice's references to difference and colorblindness. About half an hour in, John is explaining to Matt and Christina how he feels about Joanna. He talks about how unlike others she is and cites “It's not just that our color difference doesn't matter to her, it's that she doesn't seem to think there is any difference.” Now it's easy to imagine how useful this kind of thinking would be in an argument against de jure racial discrimination, and all credible science does bear out that there is negligible biological difference. But this simple attitude of praising erasure of difference obscures for liberals today that not only are there socio-cultural differences to be acknowledged like any others, but there are also differences of power and oppression that are the result of historical and continued white supremacy.

          Much later on, there is a scene which John says to his father, “...you think of yourself as a colored man. I think of myself as a man.” Now I'm not in a position to judge the commentary on black racial identity and consciousness here. But I do know that this statement, just like the first, serves to obscure real social differences. It further implies that black oppression is a function of how black people think of themselves, another lie of white supremacy.

          Whatever the unintended consequences, Kramer's film was undoubtedly a deliberate use of cinema as an instrument of social change. There are many elements of the movie that clearly address themselves to liberal white audiences of the time. A scene in which Christina asks Joanna if she and John have slept together reveals that they haven't because he wouldn't yet. Given the hyper-sexualization of black bodies, this an important counter measure. The very next scene directly addresses a rather more innocuous stereotype remarkably well:

          “You say they don't have any special sense of rhythm?” Matt asks.

          “Hahahaha that's right.” John replies good-naturedly.

          “But hell you can see it. You can't turn on a television set anywhere without seeing those kids dancing, and I say the colored kids are better than the white kids.”

          “But there's an explanation for that: it's our dancing, and it's our music. We brought it here. I mean you can do the Watusi but we are the Watusi, if you know what I mean.”

          Later that same scene, in what is almost a direct appeal to the conscience of liberal viewers, john says of Joanna, “She said 'my dad, my dad is a lifelong fighting liberal who loathes race prejudice and has spent his whole fighting against discrimination.' She said 'my parents, well they'll welcome you with open arms.' And I said 'oh I sure wanna meet them.'”

          The funniest character in the movie is Monsignor Ryan who serves both as mild comic relief and as the joyful conscience of the story. He is the only white character not to stammer and gawk uncomfortably upon finding out about the engagement and in fact quite enjoys the whole thing. Talking about interracial marriages he remarks that “strangely enough, they usually work out quite well – I don't know why. Maybe because it requires some special quality of effort, more consideration and compassion than most marriages seem to generate these days.” He tells Matt that the situation is “rather amusing, too, to see a broken down old phony liberal come face to face with his principles. Of course, I always have believed that in that fighting liberal facade there must be some sort of reactionary bigot trying to get out.” The content of what he says throughout is combined with an easygoing near-comical manner that would make it difficult not to receive what was said.

          Another very subtle tactic of the film is that it is made clear almost right away that the substance of both fathers' concerns are for the safety and future hardships for their children and potential grandchildren, not for the purity of their race or whatever. By making the reason so non-bigoted and sympathetic, the viewer who might actually feel uncomfortable with interracial relationships is allowed to feel that way within a comfortable and understandable rationale – leaving them open to hearing the Monsignor or Christina or Mrs. Prentice and being genuinely moved to a change of heart. It's a brilliant little cinematic bait-and-switch.

          The argument that finally convinces Matt to approve the marriage is made by Mrs. Prentice: “I believe those two young people need each other like they need the air to breathe in. Anybody can see that by just looking at them.... If you ever felt what my son feels for your daughter you've forgotten everything about it, my husband too. You knew once, but that was a long time ago. Now the two of you don't know. And the strange thing for your wife and me is that you don't even remember. If you did, how could you do what you are doing?” This is similar to things Christina, John, and the Monsignor say throughout having to do with John and Joanna's love being so powerful as to transcend racial barriers. This, like some of the other elements discussed, makes the interracial marriage pill potentially easier for white audiences to swallow. But it is also beside the point: social or legal barriers to interracial relationships would be wrong even if they just kinda liked each other a little.

Intersectionality

          My favorite moment in the whole movie is a scene in Matt's study where John is placing a phone call. He's glancing around the room and while dialing sees a framed picture of Franklin Roosevelt. A few seconds later he looks back at it with a look of much less than the worship one might expect. But for anyone looking it was a clear communication of the often forgotten fact that FDR wasn't nearly so good for black people as for white.

          A surprisingly accurate depiction of racial dynamics you encounter is the portrayal of the initial shock and discomfort of various whites to John. The first is Christina, who stammers conspicuously, is advised to sit down lest she faint, and asks “I suppose it would be alright if I said 'my goodness' wouldn't it?” Matt is a bit less dramatic but clearly becomes quite unsettled. It's difficult to describe, but the acting is superb all around.

          A major element of the film that's always just subdued is the politics of gender. On the one hand, the character of Joanna is shown as an object of the plot and is often kept out of the loop on things by everyone else. This is presumably for the protection of her character's Bambi-esque naivete. There is a moment during the final scene where Matt says, “This may be the last chance I'll ever have to tell you to do anything, so I'm telling you: shut up.” The implication here, given that she's 23, is that a father's right as parental dictator ends not when a daughter is of age, but when she is transferred by marriage to the possession of another man. There is also scene in which Mr. Prentice remarks on the age difference between John and Joanna that “women age faster than men.” What “age faster” really means of course is become supposedly undesirable to men sexually. And of course for a man in a patriarchal society to make the claim that men outlast women in sex appeal is a self-serving social illusion. Now it does take the two mothers significantly less time and effort than the fathers to accept the idea of their children marrying. It's tough to tell whether this is some comment on women's essential sentimentality. More likely it was just an interesting plot choice.

          Perhaps the most interesting and subversive aspect of “Guess Who's Coming to Dinner” is the character of Tilly, a black woman domestic worker in the Draytons' house. Though the viewer is not sure why, Tilly immediately reacts to John with tension and hostility. In their first encounter, Joanna asks Tilly to bring them some sandwiches on the terrace. Shortly after, Tilly states, “I don't care to see a member of my own race gettin' above hisself!” The most obvious meaning of this is that being involved with Joanna is John getting above himself, but I think there's also a division here between John and Tilly that has to do with that he's an upwardly mobile professional who she's asked to wait on the same way she does for the Draytons. In a scene on the terrace, Tilly serves coffee to Joanna, Christina, and John. When she gets to John she practically throws his cup across the table at him. Now this could just be an expression of any kind of anger, but I think it's not coincidental that the hostile act manifested itself as a resistance to the act of serving him in the same way as whites. This is a convergence of race and class politics. Tilly (in my interpretation) resents having to treat another black person in the same way she has to treat whites. She might view it as uppity or as a betrayal. Tilly's character is sadly underdeveloped and so we'll never know, but there's plenty of interesting speculation and interpretation to be had.

          There is a scene where Tilly confronts John, accusing him of being a smooth-talker and warning him not to harm Joanna etc. However this line comes right after unrelated dialogue and is followed by “and furthermore to that, you ain't even all that good lookin'!” This outburst of unrelated anger makes me think that she may not actually be angry for the reasons she articulates. There are of course a variety of pretty ridiculous class interactions between Tilly and the Draytons. Not a moment after they've finished arguing about John, Joanna asks Tilly, “What are we having for dinner tonight? Gotta make it something special.” The contrast between the tone of the two topics is strikingly offensive in a way that I'm not sure I know how to articulate. And near the end of the film, Matt calls Tilly into the room to hear his speech. He introduces her to Mr. and Mrs. Prentice “This is Miss Matilda Binks who's been a member of this family for 22 years.” I'm not sure if this is supposed to show how loving and inclusive they Draytons are, but it certainly doesn't.

          This brings us to the main event of the film: Spencer Tracy's (Matt's) climactic final speech:

“I admit that I hadn't considered it, hadn't even thought about it, but I know exactly how he feels about her and there is nothing, absolutely nothing that your son feels for my daughter that I didn't feel for Christina.... Where John made his mistake I think was in attaching so much importance to what her mother and I might think because in the final analysis it doesn't matter a damn what we think. The only thing that matters is what they feel, and how much they feel, for each other. And if it's half of what we felt, that's everything. As for you two and the problems you're going to have, they seem almost unimaginable, but you'll have no problem with me.... But you do know, I'm sure you know, what you're up against. There'll be 100 million people right here in this country who will be shocked and offended and appalled and the two of you will just have to ride that out, maybe every day for the rest of your lives. You could try to ignore those people, or you could feel sorry for them and for their prejudice and their bigotry and their blind hatred and stupid fears, but where necessary you'll just have to cling tight to each other and say "screw all those people"!... But you're two wonderful people who happened to fall in love and happened to have a pigmentation problem, and I think that now, no matter what kind of a case some bastard could make against your getting married, there would be only one thing worse, and that would be if – knowing what you two are and knowing what you two have and knowing what you two feel – you didn't get married.... Well, Tilly, when the hell are we gonna get some dinner?”