The Black Power Mixtape
- Approx. 1 hour 30 mins
- 2011 Documentary by Swedish filmmakers on the Black Power movement
- I think you will like it! They interview a number of contemporary Black artists: Talib Kwali, Erykah Badu, Questlove, and more.
Access
Can be accessed through MyRedDragon library tab.
Instructions
- Before watching: ask yourself, what do you know about the Black Panther Party and/or the Black Power movement? What ideas, images, or phrases come to mind?
- While watching the film, record any important quotes that stand out to you.
- After watching the documentary, please respond to one of the discussion questions below. Read them beforehand so you know what to look for and take notes on.
Instructions for 3/7 Online Class
In order to receive participation credit for our March 7 class, please complete the following:
- Respond to this short mid-semester check-in survey about how the class is going.
- Answer a discussion question (leave your response as a comment directly on this blog post) by 11:59 pm on Thursday, March 7.
Discussion Questions
Choose one! In your response, include at least one quote from the film. Aim for one thoughtful paragraph, roughly 200 words. Please leave your response as a comment directly on this post.
- What was the Black Panther Party? Citing some specific examples from the film, what did they do (what are some actions they performed)? How did this film change your perception of them?
- What is the difference between the Black Power movement and the Black Panther Party? How do you understand the relationship between the two?
- In this film, we see a range of different perspectives on violence: while Martin Luther King Jr. believed non-violent tactics could achieve racial justice, many members of the Black Panther Party saw that Black people were being murdered by a white supremacist society, and might need to use force to defend and protect themselves. With reference to some specifics from the film, what do you think about all of this?
- What is one thing you learned from the film that relates to something we have read or discussed in class?
- What is one important moment or idea from the film that struck you as particularly interesting or important? Why did you find this aspect of the film so interesting or important? Be as specific as possible.
During the movie, American artist Questlove made a point that I found extremely important and interesting. He highlights that just because there isn’t legal segregation anymore, it doesn’t necessarily indicate that equality is progressing. Questlove states, “just because I can eat the same turkey dinner at Wool Worth’s lunch counter or drink from the same water fountain doesn’t necessarily mean equal progress, or it doesn’t mean the wrongs of 400 years are justified” (51:45). As noted by Questlove, real progress toward equality entails more than merely enacting new legislation or permitting superficial integration. He makes the implication that despite legislative improvements, there are still fundamental social problems, such as systematic racism and inequality that prevent true unification. These problems have deep roots in the injustices of the last couple hundred years and are intricately woven throughout society’s history and foundation. It is evident that unless a drastic step is taken—not by one or a few people, but by the majority—African Americans will never be regarded as fully equal in the eyes of society, regardless of the laws that are in place to favor equality. I found this sentence to be especially important because I thought it was one of the most impactful quotes in the whole movie. It really helped to put into perspective how deeply rooted racism is and how it perpetuates from generation to generation. It shows that there will always be some degree of institutionalized racism and unfair perceptions of African Americans if attitudes don’t change.
The Black Panther Party and the Black Power movement were two very significant groups, or initiatives, that many African Americans across the United States took part in to gain not only equality, but recognition and respect as human beings and true Americans. Often when we think of the movement, we picture Martin Luther King Jr. Much of this was fueled through Martin Luther King Jr and his powerful speeches, to create a counter to racial discrimination and violence that people have been facing for hundreds of years. It was also a way to promote economic empowerment and fair politics. The movement was likely one of the largest ongoing civil rights movements to date. Most supporters of the movement followed Martin Luther King Jr’s philosophy and approach of non-violence. Through the Black Power movement, there were consistent peaceful protests such as non-violent marches, sit-ins, etc. And still African Americans would face violet consequences for there low-disruption protests. Others felt there needed to be a different approach by fighting violence with violence. With that came the birth of the Black Panther Party. They were an armed organization, teaching African Americans to defend themselves against harm by inflicting back to others. But either despite these differences of violence and non-violence, the Black Panther Party, at its basis, still fought against the same things the movement was set out to eliminate: to end racial discrimination.
The Black Panther Party was a revolutionary organization that was founded in 1966 in California that was dedicated to face up to police brutality and self-defend themselves against them. The deeper concept was to stand up to the inequality and discrimination that colored people were suffering in America. They organized community programs such as free breakfast programs for the community (mainly low-income families), free health clinics, and education. In the film it shows 21 panthers were arrested but other members specifically female teachers were still teaching the community a political education and having discussions about them. The primary motive for their meetings was to teach people how to arm themselves properly and training them. They were recognized for mainly being models in low-income/diverse communities. Underserved communities that did not have the resources and providing them with a sense of empowerment. I would like to point out something that Sonia Sanchez, a poet said about the merge of the black power movement and the black panther party. She said, “The fusion of the southern movement and the northern movement to form quite a group of young people who were looking at the world in a way that did not necessarily say non-violence, but it didn’t say violence, it merely said at some point let’s take the movement a step further.” They wanted them to be engaged in political activism, participate in protests, raise awareness to the issues and struggles of being black in America and take a stand for themselves to cross that line of cowardice, as Elridge Cleaver said.
I think that Martin Luther King Jr.’s advocacy for non-violent tactics as a means to achieve racial justice stands in contrast to the perspectives of many members of the Black Panther Party, who believed that Black people were facing systemic violence and oppression from white supremacist society. The film highlights specific instances, such as the police brutality and discrimination faced by Black communities, which fueled the Black Panther Party’s stance on self-defense and the potential need for force to protect themselves.one specific incident that showed the police brutality was the arrest and beating of Rodney KIng 1991. The video footage of the incident, captured by a bystander, sparked outrage and protests against police violence. Another incident shown was the shooting of Amadou Diallo, an unarmed african american immigrant, by four New york City police officers in 1999. These incidents among others. Shed light on the pervasive issue of police brutality and its impact on marginalized communities. Sometimes in my opinion action is needed, Black people are tired of giving peace when it is not being earned.
In “The Black Power Mixtape”, we indeed witness contrasting viewpoints on violence as a means of achieving racial justice. Martin Luther King Jr. advocates for non-violent tactics, rooted in his philosophy of civil disobedience. He states, “I’m convinced that non-violence is the most potent weapon available to oppressed people in their struggle for freedom and justice”. This perspective emphasizes moral and ethical principles, aiming to effect change through peaceful means.
However, members of the Black Panther Party, such as Stokely Carmichael and Angela Davis, present a different perspective. They argue that violence may be necessary for self-defense against systemic oppression. Carmichael expresses, “The only way we gonna stop them white men from whuppin’ us is to take over. We’ve been saying ‘freedom’ for six years and we ain’t got nothin’. What we gonna start saying now is ‘Black Power!’” These quotes encapsulate the ideological divide between proponents of non-violence and those advocating for more militant tactics. King’s approach emphasizes the power of love and passive resistance, while the Black Panthers’ viewpoint reflects a sense of urgency and the belief that direct action, including armed self-defense, may be necessary in the face of ongoing violence and discrimination.
Both perspectives raise important questions about the efficacy and morality of different methods of resistance in the struggle for racial justice. While non-violence may appeal to moral principles, the Black Panther Party’s stance highlights the harsh realities of systemic oppression and the complexities of responding to violence with violence in pursuit of liberation.
As known from prior knowledge and facts from the film “Black Power Mixtape ”, Martin Luther King was known for many of his remarkable works, one of his main theories within leading and taking action was that there was no violence involved. Although as we see in the film the Black Panther Organization sought violence as more of a necessity when taking action within revolution. I think that the Black Panthers were in their rights of defending themselves when it came to being targeted and attacked, everyone has the right to bear arms so they should as they seek necessary. Although, with all human races no matter what color, shape, or size, violence can be taken too far within certain moments, so when is “self defense” considered illegal? Many African Americans during the 1970’s were being killed by white supremecists, and the Black Panthers knew that they had to respond to the violence with their own, although in 1972 the Black Panther organization decided to lead with new intentions, as stated in the film “What is new is that we stopped becoming a revolutionary cultist group, we are not here to build heroic images the point is for the struggle to be weighed between whites and the oppressed people not between the panthers and the police” I think this quote illustrates the interpretation of their intentions, they wanted to show the unjust behavior oppressed people were facing and it turned into a blood battle between the police and the oppressed. This was not their intention within starting the organization, the police attacked them more and more and began targeting oppressed groups of different minorities. The Black Panthers saw this as a very large issue, society was not grasping the real issues occurring, so therefore the Black Panthers held back some on violence although each person that joined the organization received medical and weapons training in case either was needed. I don’t think that the Black Panthers intentions were to cause violence but I believe their overall thoughts were that if they continued to be attacked and oppressed then they would fight back with the same intensity.
While watching the Black Power Movement, I have realized I did not know as much as I thought about the history of our country, especially when it comes to racism. I never knew there was such a time period that was referred to as “a racist war”. This struck me as curious in a way because we are taught about racism and segregation, laws, and other issues, but I have never learned about a so-called war. This happened when Martin Luther King Jr. was killed. It was seen as a turning point, and I found this particularly interesting because many other blacks were killed within the same year. King was seen as a radical who was always looking to change and get rid of the color barrier. There was an idea mentioned that any man who tried to stand up for the black community was killed. I find this to be true as America did not seem to want change, and anything that was tried, was put to a stop immediately. Something else I found interesting was the media coverage of America in Sweden. To the Swedish, it was seen as “anti-American” or the hatred of the United States or American Culture. This, to me, was shocking as I had never realized other countries were invested in the racial issues going on in our country. Overall, I found many of the points in the documentary interesting, and it has broadened my viewpoint on the situation as a whole. To get an inside look on these issues truly goes to show just how horrible the creation of America, and our “free land” has gone over the years. It is sad to see the troubles these people went through in order to be treated in a more humane way, but it is even sadder to me that everything they fought for has not truly changed completely in the present we live in today.
One thing from the documentary that we have previously discussed in class is the idea that the United States is a young nation; such similar sentiments were held by Fredrick Douglass in his writing What to a Slave is the Fourth of July. What I find interesting is that the documentary takes place during the 1960s/70s, yet the nation is still referred to as a young nation. In the opening scene of the documentary, Abiodun Oyewole calls America “a young, dumb country and it needs all kinds of help.” Further calling the nation a “dumb puppy with big teeth that bite and hurt and we take care of America.” (The Black Power Mixtape 1967-1975 4:46-4:52.) About the nation’s age during his time, Fredrick Douglass calls the nation “so young. Seventy-six years, though a good old age for a man, is but a mere speck in the life of a nation.” (Douglass 380.) Douglass presented this speech in 1852, much earlier than when the documentary took place. Yet, both men have similar sentiments about the prosperity of the nation due to its young age. I find the connection between the reference to age from both Oyewole and Douglass to be interesting, both share similar sentiments, but with an over hundred-year gap in time.
In this film, we see a range of different perspectives on violence: while Martin Luther King Jr. believed non-violent tactics could achieve racial justice, many members of the Black Panther Party saw that Black people were being murdered by a white supremacist society, and might need to use force to defend and protect themselves. With reference to some specifics from the film, what do you think about all of this?
While watching “The Black Power Mixtape 1967-1975” I found the different perspectives on Martin Luther King Jr. very interesting, and they were something that I hadn’t really thought about the possibility of people viewing Dr. King’s practices in a negative way. In the film, there is a scene where Stokely Carmichael shares his thoughts on Dr. King. Carmichael says, “I think Dr. King is a great man full of compassion, he is full of mercy, and he is very patient. He is a man who could accept the uncivilized behavior of white Americans…and still have in his heart forgiveness. Unfortunately, I am from a younger generation. I am not as patient as Dr king, nor am I as merciful of Dr. King.” While Carmichael acknowledges that as a person Dr. King was a man of good morals, he questions Dr. King’s abilities to make a real change. I can understand where Carmichael is coming from; he is beyond frustrated with the treatment of Black Americans. Carmichael’s frustrations with Dr. King seem to come from a place of anger and impatience. He’s observed years without change coinciding with Dr. King’s speeches of peaceful protest and anti-violence. Carmichael saw King’s methods as unsuccessful and therefore was looking for a different approach. I think this perspective is one to be sympathized with, as I feel it is only human nature to want to defend yourself.
• What is the difference between the Black Power movement and the Black Panther Party? How do you understand the relationship between the two?
The Black Power movement or black liberation movement was a branch or counterculture within the civil rights movement of the United States started in 1966. The idea of the movement was to emphasize black self-reliance and self-determination more than integration and racial pride also. Black Power Movement influenced everything from popular culture to education to politics, and the movement had a challenge that was inspire other groups like the Asian Americans for example. The Black Panther Party was a Marxist-Leninist and black power political organization founded by college students Bobby Seale and Huey P. Newton in October 1966 in Oakland, California. The main purpose of The Black Panther Party was for self-defense, its members confronted politicians, challenged the police, and protected black citizens from the military. The relationship between the two seems very similar, and they both became a thing in 1966. They both have a goal of a sort of self-defense or determination which is another similarity. Newton was bailed out of jail, in the film they say “Huey Newton has been bailed out for a sum of $50,000”.
After watching the film “The Black Power Mixtape”, I found that there were two opposing sides within the same group of people who were struggling with oppression. There was the generation of Martin Luther King’s people, who believed that non violence would solve the problem, and that they needed to just believe in America to fix itself. And there was the other generation, after Dr. King, who believed that using violence (when they deemed necessary) was the only way to stop themselves from being oppressed. Stokley Carmichael, a Chairman for the SNCC, stated “He was not even verbally violent, he was peaceful. Dr. King’s policy was that nonviolence would achieve the gains for black people in the United States,” (6:40-6:53). I think understanding where Martin Luther King’s nonviolence approach comes from is very important. I understand, from an outside perspective, of why Dr. King may have wanted to stay nonviolent. It places the blame fully on the white people, if when they were protesting they did not act with violence, there would be no “excuse” for the white people to claim on why they decided to act the way they did.
But I am also able to understand why people like Stokley did not want to act in nonviolence anymore. This has been years and years of oppression by the time Stokley has his speech that is shown in “The Black Power Mixtape”. And I think that that is also a very important piece of information, they are tired of waiting for America to get their act together and fix what is broken. It was possibly easier for the people of Dr. King’s generation to believe in hope when it was something that still seemed achievable, but years later they are losing hope, and that is why they decide Martin Luther King’s ideas of a nonviolence protest may not be the answer anymore. I think Stokley’s next speech is also important. He says (talking about Martin Luther King) “he is full of mercy and he’s very patient… and still have in his heart forgiveness. Unfortunately, I am from a younger generation. I’m not as patient as Dr. King…And their unwilligness to deal with someone like Dr. King just means they have to deal with this younger generation,” (9:00-9:30). I understand this to mean that they watched Dr. King try and, unfortunately, fail, so they know they must do something different.
While watching Black Power Mixtape, you see a comparison between violent and nonviolent protesting and civil rights activists’ ideals. Towards the beginning of the film, Dr. King is brought up and the way in which his motives and actions are passive and nonviolent as opposed to the approach that the Black Panther Party took in terms of protesting. In the film, it’s stated, “The passive resistance of the bus boycott it did work but it would have never worked without people like Stokely Carmichael on the other side of it.” (6:58). The nonviolent approach that Dr. King took ended up being more effective in the eyes of the majority of civil rights activists. In class, we discussed his letter from Birmingham Jail and the insights he had while behind bars allowed us as the reader to understand the depth behind his actions and the knowledge of the consequences he would face in return. In the quote, it’s mentioned that Stokely Carmichael wouldn’t have acted in the same manner which is interesting to me as it is implied and discussed later in the movie that the violent tactics seemed to strike him and the Black Panther party as more effective, “His major assumption was that if you are nonviolent, if you suffer, your opponent will see your suffering and will be moved to change his hearth. That’s very good, he only made one fallacious assumption, in order for nonviolence to work your opponent must have a conscience, the United States has not, has not.” (05:12). The assumption that the US has no conscience and that this choice has no backbone to uphold it is frankly absurd. King’s choices were made meticulously and the thought he put into them were one of the sole reasons that this country appears and functions the way we see it today.
In this film something that stood out to me was a specific reference made about Martin Luther King Jr. This stood out to me especially because our last class was focused around King and his “Letter from Birmingham Jail.” Abiodun Oyewole says “I do agree with fighting fire with fire. I’m not going to fight fire with water necessarily. And if someone charges at me, I’m going to defend myself. Dr.King was not about that, but what he did do, the exposing the demons that existed in America, that’s priceless”(The Black Power Mixtape 1967-1975 21:53-22:13). I think these lines are super powerful because not many people would choose to do what King did. Like Oyeway I think many people would defend themselves and would turn to violence if necessary. Although King could have chosen to use this route, he chose to stand up for what he believed in by doing it through non-violent protests and using peace/love. However, he was punished for doing so, King was arrested several times throughout his life although he never opted for violence. Oyweole continues on to describe how King showed people what the true America was yet he was punished and beaten for doing so. Oyweole also says how when King was killed he was heartbroken and insulted because of the fact that King didn’t fight with guns/weapons and was assassinated. I had not looked deeply into this but Oyweole makes a great point. It is unfortunate that someone would try to kill another person. But the fact that King was shot when he always chose to use peace and love is absolutely disgusting. Overall this part of the film made me view things in a different perspective. I had never considered how King may have approached situations differently. It made me once again gain a greater appreciation for him and the way he peacefully advocated for what he believed in.
The Black Panther Party was a prominent and influential organization formed in 1966 by two college students named Bobby Seal and Huey Newton based in Oakland California. The purpose of the Black Panther Party was to make sure African Americans could come together to unite and protect one another from systemic racism and police brutality that was going on during everyday life and peaceful protest. The group wanted to make sure that despite hope for the future being low during that time, that being African American is something that is to be proud of, to embrace, and cherish no matter what the white man thought about them. At the thirty-four-minute mark, Bobby Seale is being interviewed by a reporter and she asked, “Black Panthers is an armed organization—what does that mean?” He replies with “it means if any racist dogs, policemen, or pigs want to attack us at any point or whatever point, we will defend ourselves, we will shoot them, we will kill them, because we are bent on surviving.” This quote shows the opposite of what Martin Luther King tried to achieve. Bobby Seale and the rest of the organization was tired of the nonviolent protest the leading to more and more African Americans dying to the hands of police, so he saw this as the only option to keep himself and his members safe. The 37-minute mark states between 1964 to 1972, there are 300 urban rebellions, 60,000 arrested, billions of dollars of property damage, and 250 were killed. My perception of the group wasn’t and still isn’t negative. If my friends, family, and loved ones were being killed and thrown in jails for literally just trying to live life then I don’t see why fire with fire is a bad thing, especially since the root of the conflict is systematic racism against a group of people based on their skin color.
The Black Power Mixtape was a film that opened my eyes to so many things about racism and equality that I didn’t know before. Within the first 10 minutes of the film, I found myself connecting one of the interviews back to what we had discussed in some of our earlier classes. The interviewer is asking questions to a 50-year-old dining worker about his business and being successful in America. I found this interview so interesting because the owner of the diner, Al, is so confident in his answer. The interview says, “’Interviewer: What would you say are the conditions of life today for an ordinary working man in America?’ Al: ‘…He has more freedom, he has more protection, got freedom of speech ‘Interviewer: ‘Would you say this is a land of equal opportunities for all?’ Al: It is. If a man has a little ambition, if he’s not lazy, he can always make a living.” (2:11). I found this quote relating back to the poem, “Let America Be America Again” by Langston Hughes, because Hughes talks about how his America, no matter how hard he works, will not be the free. Hughes touches on how a black man in America is not considered free. Hughes also writes, “I am the young man, full of strength and hope, tangled in that ancient endless chain- Of profit, power, gain, of grab the land!” (line 21-23). Hughes also writes, “The millions shot down when we strike? The millions who have nothing for our pay?” (lines 66-67). Hughes talks about how he has so many dreams for himself, but he is held down by the chain of America. He is frustrated so deeply by this chain because America prides itself on our freedom and Liberty and Justice for All. In the beginning of the documentary, it shows a beautiful beach in Miami with white people tanning and playing. They then show Al’s diner, filled with white people, where he talks about how free America is and as long as you are ambitious, you will always have the same opportunities. Al doesn’t see an issue with America, he is prideful in his country, and he believes that with hard work, anything can be possible. We know this is not true for minorities, especially African Americans at the time. I think this is very ironic, because as we see in the documentary, this was during the Civil Rights movement as well as the black power movement and it demonstrates what was occurring during this time. Opportunities were not equal, and America was not free. This documentary was around 30 to 40 years later, and they show how the fight was still continuing. Hughes’ words are proven to be correct even in a documentary about a time period that he was only alive for about two years for.
There is respectful talk about Dr. Martin Luther King and a stand out moment for me is one of the beginning speeches of the film where Stokely Carmichael explains King’s boycott of the bus system and how in theory, nonviolent protests would work because the other side will see the suffering and be moved to make a change, but then jokes “in order for nonviolence to work, your opponent must have a conscience, the United States has none.” Carmichael and King had different ideas of how to approach the racial injusticeunfairness in the United States, and Carmichael was the first to speak about black power, while King took a more patient role. It was noted how the black panther party was inspired by Carmichael and his less passive approach. The death of Martin Luther King Jr. ledlead to an “opening” as the film called it, where more people rose up, but were met with more brutality. Carmichael eventually merged with the black panther movement, and brought the north and south movements together. The black panther party is known for being confrontational, which contrasts the tactics of King. They are willing to defend themselves against police or any other armed forces, which is a more violent tactic but it is in the name of self defense. I think that both tactics are fair in how they want to approach the subject. I agree with King in wanting to not aggravate the oppressor with anything other than peace, because it createsit is creates a scene where the Government is punishing innocent people in public, not just in societal standards. I also agree that you should have the right to defend yourself, like with what the black panther party does. Fighting violence with violence is a powerful way to make your voice heard. I understand both sides of the tactics for equality and it is admirable how even if some didn’t agree with othersother’s ways of expressing the movement, they still have respect for them. Carmichael said in the film while handling a fire, “Nothing is wasted, everything just takes a different form” and this can represent the movement for black equality. Even though there are different approaches to an issue, they work towards the same goal and can ignite the fire in others to take action.
Martin Luther King Jr. advocated for nonviolent resistance as a means of achieving racial justice. He believed in the power of love, forgiveness, and peaceful protest to bring about social change. His approach was grounded in the principles of civil disobedience and moral persuasion, aiming to appeal to the conscience of the nation and effect lasting transformation. On the other hand, members of the Black Panther Party, influenced by the realities of systemic racism and violence against Black communities, saw the need for self-defense and armed resistance. They believed that Black people had the right to defend themselves against the oppressive forces of white supremacy, even if it meant resorting to forceful means. These differing perspectives reflect the complexity of the struggle for racial equality and justice in America. While some advocated for nonviolence as a moral imperative and a strategic approach, others felt compelled to confront violence with force in order to protect themselves and their communities. Both approaches were responses to the pervasive violence and injustice experienced by Black people in America, rooted in different ideologies and strategies for social change. It’s important to critically engage with these perspectives, understanding the historical context and the complexities of the issues at hand. Ultimately, the question of the efficacy and morality of violence in the pursuit of justice is a deeply contested and nuanced one, and there are valid arguments and critiques on both sides. “ Because he was laid off, he was always the first to be laid off. Why was he always the first to be laid off? Because he was nergo.” (12:24 – 12:29). This quote explains the quote you provided highlights a vicious cycle of discrimination and injustice faced by Black individuals in employment. It suggests that because this person was Black, they were consistently targeted for layoffs, regardless of their qualifications or performance. This discriminatory practice perpetuates a cycle where Black individuals are systematically disadvantaged in the workforce, facing barriers to economic stability and advancement solely based on their race. The quote also underscores the pervasive nature of racism in employment practices, where individuals are discriminated against and denied opportunities solely because of their race. It points to the underlying systemic issues of racial inequality and discrimination that persist in society, affecting various aspects of life, including employment, education, housing, and access to resources. This type of discrimination not only harms individuals but also perpetuates broader social and economic disparities between racial groups. It highlights the urgent need to address systemic racism and implement policies and practices that promote equity, diversity, and inclusion in all sectors of society.
One thing I learned while watching the film that relates to what we talked about in class was at about 49 minutes into the movie, he talks about how ignorant and completely unaware of what is going on privileged people can be. This reminds me of what we talked about in class about being “color blind” or “not seeing color”. “To me, the worst crime that could ever be committed on mankind is really ignorance people who don’t do anything are perceived as just as guilty as someone who did do it.”(49minutes) I found it very interesting that Questlove brought that up in the film without saying the word “color blind” or “turning a blind eye”, but that is what he was clearly talking about. He goes on to talk about how so many Americans are unaware of the struggles of underprivileged people. I remember talking about this in class because I thought it was an interesting conversation because we brought up the idea of “why” this would be the case. I believe there is a lack of understanding and unity between the two communities. I think people can get along with anyone once they understand who they are (culture, religion, beliefs) it makes life a lot easier for both parties. The problem is no one wants to take the time to learn about a new culture. Instead, they frown upon it, then in extreme cases take action because of a different culture and they believe their culture is better. People who have traveled the world and embraced many cultures have had many pleasant new experiences that otherwise would not be possible without different cultures.
Question #5
So a part that I had found very interesting was when there was a bus scene going to Harlem. In the video, at 01:10:46 is when this scene starts. The driver talks or as in the video he is trying “give advice” towards the people in the bus of where not to go. It is just so wrong because during his advice he is just discriminating towards the black community saying they’re at the Black Man’s Ghetto. The realization that one must comprehend as the audience is how inequality is more of an issue than we already think. Racism overall is huge but I do not believe we recognize how bad it truly is. That is why I find this part so important. They value a current area less because of the fact that many black people around a current community. A topic that we had learned in our class meeting that can relate to this is Redlining. The reason why I bring this up is because of the fact that one does not give out a loan for a reason like this. If there is black people around a current community then most do not want to go which apparently that area has less value. That is not okay at all in any time frame. This scene stood out to me the most.
“Nothing is wasted, everything just takes a different form. What form will you take when you die?” This line was said by Stokely Carmichael. For me it relates to everyone, the Black Panther Party and Martin Luther King Jr.’s point of view. On the side of the Black Panther party, they started to take up arms in fear of death. They thought that from nonviolent protests they would end up getting killed. That soon enough the White Americans would end up killing all of the Black Americans. But on the other hand Martin Luther King Jr thought that through peaceful protest they could get their points across. There were also other points brought up. That the peaceful protest would not work because for it to work there would have to be a conscience from your oppressors.
Angela Davis was another big role in the Black Panther Party, her story was very moving. Because what was done from her and her family to stay safe was difficult. It is hard to live when you are in constant fear of your life. As well as her being tried and framed for murders that she didn’t do, just because of her being black and being a part of the Black Panther Party.
In watching this film, I realized that my perception of the Black Panthers was completely different from reality, which made me aware that the narrative of the Black Panther movement has been whitewashed and crafted to make those in power feel comfortable. My perception of the Black Panthers was that they were a violent, militant group centered around black supremacy ( not just equal rights). Watching the film made me realize that this is so far from the truth.
From what I gathered in the film, The Black Panthers were a socialist group focused on community empowerment. They were not specifically focused on racial justice but rather on organizing to make resources attainable and to empower all people. One of the leaders within the party that they interviewed in the film commented, “It’s for any human being that wants to survive…The very philosophy and slogan that we are spouting is ‘all power to all people.’ Whether you’re white, black, red, green, yellow or blue.” This demonstrates that their group is focused on community organizing and civic engagement, not black supremacy. I think it is fascinating that their mission became so warped, and I would consider that a reflection of retaliation from those in power. The government, especially at this time, like we saw with MLK jr in last week’s reading, sought to suppress anyone who threatened to change the status quo. The government does not want ‘all power to all the people’ because that threatens the social structure and power dynamics that exist in society. The film also noted that the Black Panther group was not the only group focused on community organizing and the dispersion of resources like this. The Black Panthers were targeted specifically because they were doing this work primarily in black communities, which then racialized their mission.
I find it interesting that the fact that they were armed made them considered dangerous and violent, when in the film they discussed that their choice to arm themselves was in response to the violent brutality of black people coming from police and white supremacists. This seems appropriate to me, and it is interesting to consider that white Americans are often seeking to protect the right to own a gun and protect themselves, but are distressed when it is a black person with a gun. This documentary, along with the article from Teen Vogue we read last week goes to show how tainted our perception of historical moments are by the people who are in power crafting the narrative of how we think of them so that the power structures in place can be maintained.