Ask Lemmy

And the CIA pumped a load of heroin into the inner cities to pacify the urban black population as part of their financing of various undeclared wars in the South-East Asian conflict.

Decades later a similar thing would happen with crack cocaine as part of the anti-Sandinista action.

The Panthers did not hold women in the same regard as men, and thus, their female membership was non-existent.

https://gender.stanford.edu/news/women-were-key-black-panther-party

To simplify even more from a general anthropological perspective of many topics...

Tribalism is a reault of conservative values no matter how ethically good the cause or what those values may be. Not adapting to what's socially going on, or doing things like responding to an oppressing tribe by using the same tactics of that tribe just creates discord. One need simply compare MLK to the Panthers. Same cause at the core, but entirely different values and ideology. And of course, tribalism is rife when there's in-fighting of those that are ultimately wanting the same core outcome because it's deteriorated to camp vs camp.

Lastly and most importantly, it gives bad reputation to the core idea and creates social opportunity to instill doubt with fallacy...

"They champion for this. It's good."

"Yes. But they also do this, so it cannot be good."

"This is true."

It's not, but the average of our collective doesn't think hard enough to consider such things. We fucking love a good flag and warcry; tribalism is in our nature and an old lingering detrimental trait that even the most progressive of intents can be snuffed out or tarnished by.

I don't know the full details of the BP demise, but I imagine this general recipe we see countlessly in all history is not too far off.

This one feels a bit off the mark. Women served in key leadership roles as the party grew and evolved (partly owing to the fact that most of the original leadership was either imprisoned or murdered straight out). Is that to say that there were not problematic actions that should be called out re: women and their treatment within the party early on? Absolutely not. One of the things Huey later came to see as detrimental was his insistence on free association early on (i.e., free love) which ended up causing drama and caused a lot of harm particularly to the women involved in the arrangements later on. That being said, here are the words from the horses mouth (so to speak) re: women and other oppressed marginalized groups:

"Whatever your personal opinions and your insecurities about homosexuality and the various liberation movements among homosexuals and women (and I speak of the homosexuals and women as oppressed groups), we should try to unite with them in a revolutionary fashion. I say “whatever your insecurities are” because as we very well know, sometimes our first instinct is to want to hit a homosexual in the mouth and want a woman to be quiet. We want to hit a homosexual in the mouth because we are afraid that we might be homosexual; and we want to hit the woman or shut her up because we are afraid that she might castrate us or take the nuts that we might not have to start with. We must gain security in ourselves and therefore have respect and feelings for all oppressed people.

What truly did the party in was a combination of FBI and police assassinations, too much trust placed in Eldridge Cleaver (which Huey, again, came to regret later on), too much reliance on whitewashed panther satellites and academic-first "revolutionaries," along with Huey and Bobby spending close to a decade in prison and off the streets, during which time the party had morphed away from their community action roots and been splintered due to infighting.

I highly recommend Huey's "Revolutionary Suicide" for an insider's look and opinion (also, it's just a great read overall from a fascinating individual).

Edit: also, to call them an "extremis group" betrays, imo, bias founded on decades worth of whitewashed government propaganda.

I think this has more to do with it than the FBI personally.