8 ms·

It doesn't sound like they tried to kill him. They tried to prove an alignment with the communist party (and failed miserably). I can't believe the FBI honest

It doesn't sound like they tried to kill him. They tried to prove an alignment with the communist party (and failed miserably). I can't believe the FBI honestly thought a note would drive him to suicide.

VonGuard 13y ago
The FBI was doing a whole lot more than trying to link him to the communists. It was standard operation to infiltrate all civil rights groups. I don;t know specifically what they did to King's org, but the Black Panthers were fucked by the FBI. Malcom X's body guard, for example, was an undercover FBI agent. Most of the civil rights groups had undercover FBI inside them, and in high ranking positions. Yet another example of our government hating our freedoms.... Oh wait, I thought those were the terrorists....
- sliverstorm 13y ago
  Can infiltrating the Black Panthers really be considered "anti-freedoms"? What freedoms, exactly? The freedom to be violent?
  - VonGuard 13y ago
    The Panthers did a LOT more than be violent. They opened soup kitchens, and housed the homeless. They were a terrific organization for helping people int heir communities. The violence and such was, actually, a product of the FBI. Just as they do today, the FBI embedded rabbel rousers in Panther events, and used them to touch off violence and whip up the crowd. The FBI actually encouraged the behavior they were there to prevent. They do the EXACT same thing in Occupy protests, today. The fact that you believe the Panthers were nothing more than a violent group shows that the FBI won this battle. Here, read up on the Panthers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Panther_Party http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Panther_Party From the Wikipedia: Federal Bureau of Investigation Director J. Edgar Hoover called the party "the greatest threat to the internal security of the country,"[13] and he supervised an extensive program (COINTELPRO) of surveillance, infiltration, perjury, police harassment and many other tactics designed to undermine Panther leadership, incriminate party members and drain the organization of resources and manpower. Through these tactics, Hoover hoped to diminish the Party's threat to the general power structure of the U.S., or even maintain its influence as a strong undercurrent.[14] Angela Davis, Ward Churchill, and others have alleged that federal, state and local law enforcement officials went to great lengths to discredit and destroy the organization, including assassination.[15][16][17] Black Panther Party membership reached a peak of 10,000 by early 1969, then suffered a series of contractions due to legal troubles, incarcerations, internal splits, expulsions and defections. Popular support for the Party declined further after reports appeared detailing the group's involvement in illegal activities such as drug dealing and extortion schemes directed against Oakland merchants.[18] By 1972 most Panther activity centered on the national headquarters and a school in Oakland, where the party continued to influence local politics. Party contractions continued throughout the 1970s; by 1980 the Black Panther Party comprised just 27 members.[19]
  - e12e 13y ago
    Perhaps the freedom to self defence? The Black Panther party didn't magically appear out of a vacuum, to boldly proclaim equal rights and freedom from police brutality, where no oppression existed.
    - Zimahl 13y ago
      MLK decided to use peaceful civil disobedience following the lead of Ghandi. Peaceful protest doesn't lead to a majority backlash, whereas aggressive, militant tactics do. MLK and his movement are remembered for boycotts and protest leading to the Civil Rights Act. The Black Panthers are remembered as being violent and divisive. For all the good you do can be wiped out in one instant by a single bad.
      - andybak 13y ago
        I'd like to get confirmation of this by someone who knows more Indian history than I do but I've been told more than once that the popular narrative than independence was secured almost entirely by Gandhian non-violence is woefully oversold. There are many statues to armed freedom fighters around India and Indian Railways famously have special counters provided as a privilege for "Senior Citizens, Disabled, MLAs and Freedom Fighters". Subhash Chandra Bose who led the Indian National Army against the British and with Japanese support is still regarded as a hero by many. I'm sure someone with better knowledge than I can provide other examples of how the armed struggle was key and is still regarded as such within India. Similarly there is evidence from Northern Ireland that it was the increasing violence - especially when it spread to the mainland - that led the British to negotiate with the Republicans. I aspire to pacifism by the way. I'm just not sure if every historical example can bend to support it.
        Zimahl 13y ago
        I can't talk to the complexities of India's fight for freedom. I will say that I've worked with Indians who hold Bose in higher regard than Ghandi due to Ghandi pushing for the separation of Hindu and Muslim countries and the conflicts and deaths that caused, but that's second hand information to me. Interesting nonetheless. India's resistance to British imperialism is similar to the US response to British imperialism. Sometimes armed resistance is necessary but when done within the official context of an army, with rules of engagement and hierarchy, it can be legitimized. However, when fringe militant resistance that is the definition of terrorism is used, it tends to have the opposite affect. The Black Panthers weren't doing themselves any favors within the establishment by being so militant. LBJ wouldn't have spent 5 minutes bowing to their demands but had no choice politically to negotiate with a preacher leading a peaceful, rights-driven resistance. What you have to understand is that politically the Democrats had full control of the southern states up until the Civil Rights Act. After LBJ (a Texas, southern Democrat) got the CRA passed the entirety of the southern Democrats became Republicans - where those same states are to this day. It was done at a huge cost to LBJ and the Democrats, but it was the right choice.
  - Zimahl 13y ago
    Agreed, I thought the same way. To quote the Beatles: We all want to change the world / But when you talk about destruction /Don't you know that you can count me out But when you want money / For people with minds that hate / All I can tell is brother you have to wait
    - king_jester 13y ago
      Easy for John Lennon to say as a misogynist white man who had all the money and privilege in the world.
      - Zimahl 13y ago
        I don't know about misogynist but he was white and was rich from his music. Lennon was a peace-loving hippie. The lyrics from 'Revolution' aren't necessarily talking about the Black Panthers, I always felt they were talking to the times and society in general, including government. Jay-Z is rich now too - can he not have opinions on politics/race/religion or do you also dismiss him as a misogynist black man who had all the money and privilege in the world?
        king_jester 13y ago
        John Lennon can't opt out the violence society perpetuates that seeks to uphold whiteness just by writing a song about how he's not into violence. He also can't opt out of the aspects of capitalism that perpetuate racism. That is what I mean about how it is easy for him to write or lyrics like that, he will not feel the full brunt of society's affects because 1) he is a man, 2) because he is white, and 3) because he had tremendous wealth. > Jay-Z is rich now too - can he not have opinions on politics/race/religion or do you also dismiss him as a misogynist black man who had all the money and privilege in the world? I don't know why you bring up Jay-Z, I never said that any musician can't have an opinion. But it is easy to be about non-violence when you are not yourself the primary target of systemic, state sponsored violence.
        darkarmani 13y ago
pohl 13y ago
Unsurprisingly, King saw the strongly worded letter as an invitation for him to take his own life, as did an official investigation in 1976 which concluded that the letter "clearly implied that suicide would be a suitable course of action for Dr. King." http://www.lettersofnote.com/2012/01/king-like-all-frauds-your-end-is.html http://www.lettersofnote.com/2012/01/king-like-all-frauds-yo... http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/part-2e.html http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report...

VonGuard 13y ago

The FBI was doing a whole lot more than trying to link him to the communists. It was standard operation to infiltrate all civil rights groups. I don;t know specifically what they did to King's org, but the Black Panthers were fucked by the FBI. Malcom X's body guard, for example, was an undercover FBI agent. Most of the civil rights groups had undercover FBI inside them, and in high ranking positions. Yet another example of our government hating our freedoms.... Oh wait, I thought those were the terrorists....

sliverstorm 13y ago
Can infiltrating the Black Panthers really be considered "anti-freedoms"? What freedoms, exactly? The freedom to be violent?
- VonGuard 13y ago
  The Panthers did a LOT more than be violent. They opened soup kitchens, and housed the homeless. They were a terrific organization for helping people int heir communities. The violence and such was, actually, a product of the FBI. Just as they do today, the FBI embedded rabbel rousers in Panther events, and used them to touch off violence and whip up the crowd. The FBI actually encouraged the behavior they were there to prevent. They do the EXACT same thing in Occupy protests, today. The fact that you believe the Panthers were nothing more than a violent group shows that the FBI won this battle. Here, read up on the Panthers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Panther_Party http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Panther_Party From the Wikipedia: Federal Bureau of Investigation Director J. Edgar Hoover called the party "the greatest threat to the internal security of the country,"[13] and he supervised an extensive program (COINTELPRO) of surveillance, infiltration, perjury, police harassment and many other tactics designed to undermine Panther leadership, incriminate party members and drain the organization of resources and manpower. Through these tactics, Hoover hoped to diminish the Party's threat to the general power structure of the U.S., or even maintain its influence as a strong undercurrent.[14] Angela Davis, Ward Churchill, and others have alleged that federal, state and local law enforcement officials went to great lengths to discredit and destroy the organization, including assassination.[15][16][17] Black Panther Party membership reached a peak of 10,000 by early 1969, then suffered a series of contractions due to legal troubles, incarcerations, internal splits, expulsions and defections. Popular support for the Party declined further after reports appeared detailing the group's involvement in illegal activities such as drug dealing and extortion schemes directed against Oakland merchants.[18] By 1972 most Panther activity centered on the national headquarters and a school in Oakland, where the party continued to influence local politics. Party contractions continued throughout the 1970s; by 1980 the Black Panther Party comprised just 27 members.[19]
- e12e 13y ago
  Perhaps the freedom to self defence? The Black Panther party didn't magically appear out of a vacuum, to boldly proclaim equal rights and freedom from police brutality, where no oppression existed.
  - Zimahl 13y ago
    MLK decided to use peaceful civil disobedience following the lead of Ghandi. Peaceful protest doesn't lead to a majority backlash, whereas aggressive, militant tactics do. MLK and his movement are remembered for boycotts and protest leading to the Civil Rights Act. The Black Panthers are remembered as being violent and divisive. For all the good you do can be wiped out in one instant by a single bad.
    - andybak 13y ago
      I'd like to get confirmation of this by someone who knows more Indian history than I do but I've been told more than once that the popular narrative than independence was secured almost entirely by Gandhian non-violence is woefully oversold. There are many statues to armed freedom fighters around India and Indian Railways famously have special counters provided as a privilege for "Senior Citizens, Disabled, MLAs and Freedom Fighters". Subhash Chandra Bose who led the Indian National Army against the British and with Japanese support is still regarded as a hero by many. I'm sure someone with better knowledge than I can provide other examples of how the armed struggle was key and is still regarded as such within India. Similarly there is evidence from Northern Ireland that it was the increasing violence - especially when it spread to the mainland - that led the British to negotiate with the Republicans. I aspire to pacifism by the way. I'm just not sure if every historical example can bend to support it.
      - Zimahl 13y ago
        I can't talk to the complexities of India's fight for freedom. I will say that I've worked with Indians who hold Bose in higher regard than Ghandi due to Ghandi pushing for the separation of Hindu and Muslim countries and the conflicts and deaths that caused, but that's second hand information to me. Interesting nonetheless. India's resistance to British imperialism is similar to the US response to British imperialism. Sometimes armed resistance is necessary but when done within the official context of an army, with rules of engagement and hierarchy, it can be legitimized. However, when fringe militant resistance that is the definition of terrorism is used, it tends to have the opposite affect. The Black Panthers weren't doing themselves any favors within the establishment by being so militant. LBJ wouldn't have spent 5 minutes bowing to their demands but had no choice politically to negotiate with a preacher leading a peaceful, rights-driven resistance. What you have to understand is that politically the Democrats had full control of the southern states up until the Civil Rights Act. After LBJ (a Texas, southern Democrat) got the CRA passed the entirety of the southern Democrats became Republicans - where those same states are to this day. It was done at a huge cost to LBJ and the Democrats, but it was the right choice.
- Zimahl 13y ago
  Agreed, I thought the same way. To quote the Beatles: We all want to change the world / But when you talk about destruction /Don't you know that you can count me out But when you want money / For people with minds that hate / All I can tell is brother you have to wait
  - king_jester 13y ago
    Easy for John Lennon to say as a misogynist white man who had all the money and privilege in the world.
    - Zimahl 13y ago
      I don't know about misogynist but he was white and was rich from his music. Lennon was a peace-loving hippie. The lyrics from 'Revolution' aren't necessarily talking about the Black Panthers, I always felt they were talking to the times and society in general, including government. Jay-Z is rich now too - can he not have opinions on politics/race/religion or do you also dismiss him as a misogynist black man who had all the money and privilege in the world?
      - king_jester 13y ago
        John Lennon can't opt out the violence society perpetuates that seeks to uphold whiteness just by writing a song about how he's not into violence. He also can't opt out of the aspects of capitalism that perpetuate racism. That is what I mean about how it is easy for him to write or lyrics like that, he will not feel the full brunt of society's affects because 1) he is a man, 2) because he is white, and 3) because he had tremendous wealth. > Jay-Z is rich now too - can he not have opinions on politics/race/religion or do you also dismiss him as a misogynist black man who had all the money and privilege in the world? I don't know why you bring up Jay-Z, I never said that any musician can't have an opinion. But it is easy to be about non-violence when you are not yourself the primary target of systemic, state sponsored violence.
        darkarmani 13y ago

pohl 13y ago

Unsurprisingly, King saw the strongly worded letter as an invitation for him to take his own life, as did an official investigation in 1976 which concluded that the letter "clearly implied that suicide would be a suitable course of action for Dr. King." http://www.lettersofnote.com/2012/01/king-like-all-frauds-your-end-is.html http://www.lettersofnote.com/2012/01/king-like-all-frauds-yo... http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/part-2e.html http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report...