It was 1966 in Oakland, California, a time of racial discrimination and turmoil amongst African Americans and the police forces (Duncan, 2017). In order to combat these social injustices, two men named Huey Newton and Bobby Seale founded a revolutionary group known as the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense (later changed simply to the Black Panther Party) (Duncan, 2017). Originally, the Black Panthers were to safeguard African American neighborhoods from the police, but they eventually became even more precautious; they promoted arming every African American and the exemption of African Americans from the draft (Duncan, 2017). There was much social tension between in-groups during this period of the 1960s. What else was there to do but to ban together and protect one another from the wanton violence that continually seemed to plague African Americans and their families?
The Black Panther Party was not vehement toward all white people, but aligned themselves with nonracist whites, as each had a common purpose to bring about social justice and eradicate the racial discrimination and chaos that had been ravaging that part of the country (Duncan, 2017). This leads me to believe that the nonracist white people valued their social identity (a committed membership to a group that is significant to one’s self-concept) within the Black Panther Party more than their own personal identities (e.g., race, appearance, desire for personal achievement). However, the Black Panther Party and all of its members seemed to exhibit the characteristics explicated by the Social Dominance Theory.
The Social Dominance Theory explains that every individual belongs to a group, and that each individual offers resources of some kind for members of that particular group. These members are always inclined to protect the group over their individual selves. The aim of the Black Panther Party seemed to be to gain equal footing with the whites in power at the time. Each group desired the resources and the power associated with being at the top of the social hierarchy. Positive social value (e.g., high status) causes members of the high status groups to aim to maintain the social hierarchy just as it is (Pratto, Sidanious, & Levin, 2006; Sidanius & Pratto, 1999), lest they relinquish their resources and power to another subordinate group (in this case, the Black Panther Party). This led to the FBI’s director, J. Edgar Hoover to declare the group the “greatest threat to national security” in 1969 (Duncan, 2017).
Even though the Black Panther Party provided social services like “education, tuberculosis testing, legal aid, transportation assistance, ambulance service, and the manufacture and distribution of free shoes to poor people,” the FBI labeled the Black Panthers a communist organization and therefore an adversary of the United States government (Duncan, 2017). After this, many underhanded tactics (e.g., sabotage, misinformation, lethal force) by COINTELPRO essentially wiped out the Black Panther Party. The FBI and the United States government was the more powerful and resourceful in-group at the time (and still remains so). There is much to learn from this fearful reaction from our US government, and much to learn about how in-groups view out-groups as bona fide threats.
“I think what motivates people is not great hare, but great love for others.” – Huey P Newton (BrainyQuotes.com)
This was a very informative post that gave a concise history of the Black Panther Party. I, personally, do not know as much about the Black Panthers as I should but I was already quite aware that the party was not what mainstream media says it was. I am sure, at that time that the coverage of the movement was even worse; painting the party with broad strokes as to easily highlight the negatives and hide the positives of what the group was trying to accomplish. This is no different than how the media pushes that the Muslim religion is a religion of hate and violence. I am a Christian but I see through the facade, most do not unfortunately. The mainstream media is a very lucrative industry and whenever news entities favor their bottom-line (above educating the public on what is really going on in the this country/the world) then it will always be vulnerable to be swayed by those with the most resources (ie. the dominant group). The Black Panther’s were made up of majority sub-dominant group members (Blacks), which made their challenge of the status quo, whether just or injust, a threat to the members of the dominant group (Whites, not all, but the ones in power and the ones who blindly follow them).
The Black Panther Party challenged the standard quo which led to the dominant group feeling threatened. “[Huey P Newton] believed the black working class needed to seize the control of the institutions that most affected their community and formed the Black Panther Party for Self Defense with Bobby Seale in October of 1966 to pursue that goal.” (blackpast.org) The Black Panthers original goal was to gain financial independence from the established businesses at the time. Preaching financial independence and financial literacy to the poor can be considered a threat by many in the dominant group, which is why it was incumbent for them to act quickly, swiftly, and without prejudice; or else loosing the leverage that they held over the minority groups. (I say group[s] plural because if Blacks would had been an example of building their own businesses and becoming self sufficient than other minority groups would have soon followed.) This would have surely dismantled the status quo and a power shift would be inevitable. Those with power do not give it up willingly, they fight to keep it by any means necessary.
“Taking advantage of a California law that allowed people to carry non-concealed weapons, the Panthers instituted armed patrols that monitored police activity in the black community.” (blackpast.org) This led to tension with the police even thought the members of the Party were acting within the law. Perhaps the police, were motivated by the messages disseminated from the news as this movement being a threat and were the initial aggressors? That would make sense in regards to the Social Dominance Theory, which states that members within the hierarchy, no matter what position, move in order to maintain the status quo. Perhabs, the members of the Black Panther’s were getting unfairly attacked and had to either give up their cause or fight back? Perhaps they were pushed into a corner and that is what brought out the militant side of the Party that is the most popular view of them? Like I said, I do not know as much as I should about them, but I am not blind to the fact that their is another story out there than the one the news and histroy classes taught me.
I also do not know much about COINTELPRO but from my understanding it was a a program sanctioned by a criminal element within our government. The federal agents engaged in under-handed, dishonorable, and illegal tactics to bring the Black Party Panther down. With this understanding I can see how the Black Panthers could have shifted from law abiding tactics to more of a militant mentality. Sneak attack someone and then make them look like their the bad guy. Its a simple bully tactic that a sixth grader can understand. Perhaps if the government would have let the citizens of the Black Panther Party simply educate and establish their own businesses, then the Black Panther Party would have been known in history for a very different reason. Due to the illegal and unjust war waged against them, by a criminal element within our own government, we will never know.
Thank you for posting this. Knowledge is power and we, as Americans, cannot forget our history or we will repeat it. Happy Black History Month.
I have heard about
It was interesting to read your post on diversity and uncover some new information. It’s not unusual when people talk about diversity or discrimination, that we immediately think about race. This may be because racism still exists in a blatant form. Similar to the Governmental intervention which assisted in the demise of the black panther group, there are many powerful people who are dedicated to maintaining segregation. The question is why? As the social identity theory teaches us the in-group discriminates against the out group in order to separate themselves socially, and be the better group. If this is the case though, isn’t there enough ‘blending’ in society to eradicate this mentality? It leaves some questions about the validity of the conflict resolution hypotheses.