Talk:Black Panther Party

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search


i removed them from the list of terrorists. they weren't terrorist y'all. they were a legitimate response to the oppression that the african american community was facing at the time. they served breakfast to poor children and helped a lot of would-be criminals work towards positive social change. terrorists? i don't think so. -Emmagrrl

I agree with you. However, you will find that your edit will soon be undone. I suggest not arguing the point if you want to keep editing. AliceBG 22:07, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

learn together-the founding fathers advocated armed violence against the british government. does that make them terrorists? -Emmagrrrl

Do you see them as being comparable? Learn together 03:51, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

i think that they were both passionate about working towards a world where their people could live without government oppression. i don't necessarily think that armed action against a government is terrorism. do you consider the Contras terrorists? because they fought against a government, but a lot of conservatives, namely Reagan and co. thought they were great. the "moral equivalent of the Founding fathers" i believe Reagan said. given that the contras are called freedom fighters on this site despite their abysmal human rights record, but the Panthers are called terrorists. i am not going to call the panthers freedom fighters here because this is an encyclopedia, but i think it's wrong to categorize some armed groups as terrorists if you're going to categorize others as freedom fighters. -Emmagrrrl

I believe the difference is between a form of government that does not grant rights versus one that does. The United States is and was a Democracy. Positive changes were already taking place. The Panthers had just as much say as any other person in the country, but they found this to be insufficient and advocated arms to force their point of view. I am not wholly convinced they were terrorists, but the information provided in the article seems to point that way. I am open to being shown otherwise. Learn together 14:26, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

i don't think that they had the option to get their voices heard. a lot of them were from very poor backgrounds and being poor and black in america is not a good combination. the African American community in Oakland was facing severe police brutality from a police force that was overwhelmingly white. the Black Panther Party for Self Defense was formed as a way to combat racism in the Oakland police force. in terms of terrorism, the Black Panthers never carried out attack against a civilian population. in California at least, they were allowed to carry the guns that they did. they never had a policy of aggression against the police and only responded with violence when faced with violence. none of that is the hallmark of a terrorist group. -Emmagrrrl

Good enough Learn together 16:23, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

250, 000 subscribers?

I think this number should be halved, the 139, 000 circulation figure one sees cited seems more realistic. And what does subscribers mean? As far as I know it was sold on the streets.--Radh 14:24, 24 March 2010 (EDT)

Seems like U.K. terminology, Radh. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 18:52, 24 March 2010 (EDT)
Thanks, I did not know that.--Radh 15:14, 27 March 2010 (EDT)