So... are you going to see "Panther?'
Mario and Marvin van Peebles' latest endeavor, "Panther," targets (and needs to be seen by) all audiences, but it will probably be viewed by mostly black audiences. Why?
Well, the blacks are going to revel in the legacy of their most violent activist group and indulge themselves in happy reveries of black power and the advent of a black supremacist regime in America. While whites obviously have no need to go see a bunch of "lunatic Negroes" brandishing machine guns and "kill Whitey" buttons and having the audacity to accuse the government of not supplying the needs of something called a "black community." Uh-huh. Right.
Neither picture is what the Black Panthers were about.
It is time to redefine the Black Panther movement and rewrite history. "History" is always written by the victor in war; America's version of the Panther movement is no exception. To hear tales of war from the winners' side and then the losers' side is an exercise in confusion, objectivity and deductive reasoning for the very best detectives.
And let us not kid ourselves: The conflict between the Black Panther Party and the U.S. Government was no less a war than the American Revolution. Yes, the American Revolution.
History books and politicians have shamefully characterized one of Black America's most idealistic and aggressive political and social movement parties because of fear. The Black Panthers have been labeled everything from racist to evil to violent to dangerous to criminally insane.
It is highly hypocritical for a nation that continues to fight tooth and nail for the "right to bear arms" to demonize an organization for claiming that right. The more standard argument claims that the Panthers', however, were bearing arms against their own government, their own country. Yet a quick history review reminds us that the "right to bear arms" guarantee was sparked by colonists having to defend life, land and liberty from their own government across the seas in Great Britain.
The Panthers fought against the token participation of blacks in the government. What good is the right to vote if you are beaten or hung before you can get to the polls? Why cast a ballot to say "No," if ballot boxes are stuffed to guarantee a "Yes." The right to vote for blacks in the '60s was a farce--we all know that. It was an easy way to justify blacks position in society while holding them to their citizenly responsibilities, such as paying federal taxes and assembling peacefully, just as if they were full-fledged citizens.
Hmmm... I seem to remember token citizenship and taxation without representation as chief concerns of the American Revolutionists.
Both American revolutionaries and Black Americans attempted to persuade their government through numerous appeals and delegations. How many times did Booker T. Washington, W. E. B. DuBois, the Urban League and the NAACP meet with their government? The promises they received were emptier than Great Britain's. In both centuries, these democratic efforts yielded no results.
Then, after all peaceful means were deemed futile, the radical factions began to surface. Samuel Adams had his secret meetings and so did Angela Davis. The major difference is that American colonists made up the majority of colonial inhabitants and their freedom movement quickly gathered the heart of this majority. Lucky for twentieth century America that while a considerable number of blacks agreed with the ideology and philosophy of the Panthers, as other less radical alternatives appeared, the number of people willing to actively participate in the Black Panther Party trickled to a minority.
At first both the revolutionists and Panthers were reactionary, using a tit-for-tat strategy. The colonists retaliated against heavier taxes, then higher tariffs, then less self-government until finally, they were ready to declare war. The Panthers responded to more lynching, then more frequent police beatings, then more bombings until finally, they too were ready to declare war.
No dream, no revolution is without its faults. The founding fathers were chauvinists, racists and, of course, despite all the rhetoric used to hide it, they were very aristocratic.
Similarly, the Black Panther Movement cloaked prejudice, sexism, anger, violence and vengeful bitterness.
But per usual, to the victor go the spoils and the American Revolutionists and Thomas Jefferson have been glorified, while the Black Panthers and Huey Newton have been vilified.
If history is not reconstructed and the American sentiment toward the Black Panthers is not refocused from fear and misdirection to truth and empathy, we will all be losers in this war. It is time to tell the full story--time to hear the truth.
Go see "Panther"; better yet, read the books it is based on.
Tonya Matthews is an engineering senior and editorial page editor of The Chronicle.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.