Hot on HuffPost:

See More Stories

New Black Panther Leader: A Black Man Can't Be a Racist

4 years ago
  0 Comments Say Something  »
Text Size
This past Sunday, The Washington Post's ombudsman lamented the fact that the paper had been "virtually silent" regarding the New Black Panther story. It occurs to me that I have also failed to cover the story.

As you may know, in November 2008, New Black Panther Party members were accused of intimidating voters at a Philadelphia polling place.

The case has recently become relevant again because of the Justice Department's decision not to pursue criminal charges against the group. Regardless, this story has sparked a heated debate between the left and the right, and the story continues to ignite passions as both sides make their arguments on cable TV.

The latest controversy occurred on Fox News yesterday, when Malik Shabazz, chairman of the New Black Panther Party, made this statement:
A black man really -- or a black leader -- cannot be a racist. You cannot take the slave who takes the whip from the slave master and begins beating the slave master -- you cannot call the slave a reverse racist.

White people have not experienced racism, Jim Crow, and terrorism the way my people have. I have the right to use different language.
Here's an excerpted video:


Our New Approach to Comments

In an effort to encourage the same level of civil dialogue among Politics Daily’s readers that we expect of our writers – a “civilogue,” to use the term coined by PD’s Jeffrey Weiss – we are requiring commenters to use their AOL or AIM screen names to submit a comment, and we are reading all comments before publishing them. Personal attacks (on writers, other readers, Nancy Pelosi, George W. Bush, or anyone at all) and comments that are not productive additions to the conversation will not be published, period, to make room for a discussion among those with ideas to kick around. Please read our Help and Feedback section for more info.

Add a Comment

*0 / 3000 Character Maximum Comment Moderation Enabled. Your comment will appear after it is cleared by an editor.

Comments

Filter by:
pedluvnky

Reverse racism is still racism. I firmly believe in reparations too. The US Treasury should pay a million dollars to any black person who has proof that he was a slave. Otherwise, if blacks can demand reparations, then I want reparations from Italy and the Vatican for my British (Britannic) ancestors being enslaved by the Romans 2000 years ago. "But that was a long time ago", you say. Yea, so was over 144 years ago. It's just a matter of time!

July 20 2010 at 1:34 PM Report abuse +8 rate up rate down Reply
Pat

Racism is racism, regardless of the ethnicity of the hater. There isn't a black man in America today who has ever "taken a whip from a slave master." Is racism alive and well? The answer is yes, on both sides of the question. If you discriminate against someone because of his or her race, it doesn't matter what color you are; you're a racist.

July 20 2010 at 1:14 PM Report abuse +10 rate up rate down Reply
rphill102

I respectfully disagree. Slavery ended 145 years ago. The Civil Rights Movement ended Jim Crow laws. Anyone who defines people as "good" or "bad," worthy or unworthy of respect and decent treatment, solely on the basis of skin color is racist. People who reserve to themselves & those like them the "priviledge" to hate, the perogative of using "different language," and the justification to threaten and commit violence are no better than the Klan members who participated in lynchings. Bigotry is bigotry, regardless of the skin color of the bigot.

July 19 2010 at 7:57 PM Report abuse +13 rate up rate down Reply
Sam I Am

That explains alot. He needs to realize that he was never a slave and that no white man alive today ever owned slaves. Hate is hate just the same as a rose is a rose. I do not wish him or any of his people any harm. All I can do is pray for him.

July 19 2010 at 4:59 PM Report abuse +30 rate up rate down Reply
djh6721

You have a better chance of being hit by lightening five times while standing in the same spot kissing a supermodel, then ever meeting any of these people. Isn't there a cat stuck in a tree somewhere that would be more relevant?

July 19 2010 at 4:31 PM Report abuse -22 rate up rate down Reply
1 reply to djh6721's comment
enrickue

How sad, rather than discredit this act of racism, you choose to make excuses. We could say that you are justifying these actions, just like we could say that those actions were racist actions supported by people like you. I have not heard or read where even one black person came out and spoke up against the actions of the New Black Panthers. Where does that leave the leaders of the black people, supporting racism?

July 19 2010 at 5:00 PM Report abuse +30 rate up rate down Reply
bobjmurphy9

how wrong were the Fourfathers about these Creachers of god

July 19 2010 at 3:50 PM Report abuse +5 rate up rate down Reply
Peg

This is 2010, isn't it? The ignorance tolerated from this so-called "community activist" is astounding.

July 19 2010 at 2:55 PM Report abuse +44 rate up rate down Reply
Gage

The definition of racism from dictionary.com:

"hatred or intolerance of another race or other races."

It says no where in there that only one race can be racist or that a specific race is essentially "immune" from being racist. On a side note, Jews have had it pretty bad in the past....Just some food for thought.

July 19 2010 at 12:23 PM Report abuse +63 rate up rate down Reply
jrb359

Thanks for covering this story. The same hatred. When were the black panthers slaves? Who were their slave owners? A bad time in US history, but time to move on.

July 19 2010 at 12:18 PM Report abuse +70 rate up rate down Reply
shifresegal

I beg to differ with Mr. Shabazz. Anyone can be a racist, black men included. According to the dictionary, racism is defined as "hatred or intolerance of another race or other races". Additionally, it has been determined that there is no distinction between "racial" discrimination and "ethnic" discrimination. Therefore, any person of any color (including a black man) who is intolerant of Asians, Blacks, Caucasians, Hispanics, black, brown, red, yellow, white, purple OR Jew, Gentile, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Greek, French, etc. would be considered a racist under those definitions. Intolerance of another based on color of skin, choice of worship, native language is a racism pure and simple and, rather than deny, we must all work hard to overcome whatever prejudices we may have and learn to embrace the colorful, wonderful differences that make each and every one of us unique!

July 19 2010 at 11:43 AM Report abuse +71 rate up rate down Reply
2 replies to shifresegal's comment
enrickue

We need to also look at who benefits from this in the political spectrum. Need look no further than the Dept Of Justice refusing to prosecute the culprits. Along with the other questionable acts by this govt in the name of fairness, does it surprise anyone the direction of this situation. We're supposed to be ashamed of who were are, Americans, in particular.

July 19 2010 at 4:50 PM Report abuse +21 rate up rate down Reply
MenyweatherWoods

Is this definition the one which the writer of Democracy in America wrote in 1830, I believe his name was Alexis de Tocqueville, and in Chapter 18 of his unabridged edition, he boldly asserts that if the American experiment was to be successful, certain races, not religions, not ethnic groups, had to be exterminated or removed from these shores (which every American President from Jefferson, Lincoln, Grant, Roosevelt (Theodore)) all attempted to remove but unsuccessfully; or you can read, if you dare, Moynihan's report, "Call to National Action: The Negro Family" whose publication defined racism for us, and remember he was declared America's Public Intellect and by his definition, not Mr. Shabazz, but this great American who happened to be White, and his words and statistical data continues to be used to denigrate, and he warned those who would read his report, be careful, for this data is questionable. Your defintions are based on a culture of revisions made during the prominence (sp) of the Social Darwinist (Murray's Losing Ground). Your definitions are not archaic but they fail to accurate distinguish between "hate," "racism," "ethnic" in a nation whose Constitution only mentionos the less than human of "one" race? You see, the trouble is, one cannot embrace a future until one whose fully to grips with the past. And every evening on the news, before the election of Obama and particular since the election the more things change the more they remain the same. Get your facts straight. There stands a sincere distinction between hate and racist, all men/women/noys/girls regardlss of color can be prejudice or haters, but not all can be racists. Hate can be overcome, but racism only begs the question and seeks avenues to justify its continual dwelling of superiority.

July 19 2010 at 7:41 PM Report abuse -4 rate up rate down Reply

Follow Politics Daily

  • Comics
robert-and-donna-trussell
CHAOS THEORY
Featuring political comics by Robert and Donna TrussellMore>>
  • Woman UP Video
politics daily videos
Weekly Videos
Woman Up, Politics Daily's Online Sunday ShowMore»
politics daily videos
TV Appearances
Showcasing appearances by Politics Daily staff and contributors.More>>