Category: African American history
Who was Muhiyidin d’Baha, Black Lives Matter activist gunned down in New Orleans?

Who was Muhiyidin d’Baha, Black Lives Matter activist gunned down in New Orleans?

Muhiyidin d’Baha, identified by the New Orleans Police Department as the 32-year-old man who died after being shot on Bienville Street early Tuesday (Feb. 6), was a Black Lives Matter activist from Charleston, S.C.

d’Baha, whose legal name is Muhiyidin Elamin Moye, made national headlines in February 2017 when he took a flying leap to wrestle a large Confederate battle flag from a protester in South Carolina, and the event was captured on video.

That incident occurred at an event at the College of Charleston, where activist Bree Newsome – known herself for climbing a flagpole to remove a Confederate flag at the statehouse in Columbia, S.C. – was speaking.

d’Baha was at the event, and told the Washington Post he was talking to elders in his group when he saw someone holding the flag.

“And I looked at our elders and I saw, like, fear in their eyes,” he said. “And I saw them back up, almost. That was the moment for me. We’re not going to pass this on another generation. Not another generation of people are going to be intimidated by this flag.”

He leapt across caution tape and tried to grab the flag away to “help them understand what it is to meet a real resistance, to meet people that aren’t scared,” he told the Post.

He was charged with disorderly conduct and malicious injury to real property, according to The Post and Courier in Charleston. The sequence of events was caught on video, as well as on a live TV broadcast, and the footage rapidly spread online.

Muhiyidin d’Baha grabs Confederate flag at protest.

d’Baha is originally from Poughkeepsie, N.Y., and moved with his family to South Carolina when he was 13, according to an interview in the New Yorker.

“As a kid, he got in trouble for stealing cars, but then he straightened himself out and went to a good magnet school; in college, he studied psychology and played football,” the New Yorker article said.

In that interview, he spoke of the conflict he saw in “respectability politics,” referring to what the article described as “voices of forgiveness” from the black church community in court proceedings for Dylann Roof, who killed nine people at a black Charleston church.

“That was accommodating white feelings and white superiority. It was ‘Yes, Massa, can I have another?’,” he said in the interview. “But, at the same time, it was spiritual fortitude forged in a crucible of terrorism. It speaks of a spiritual level that I haven’t attained… There has been an arrangement here, created over generations, to be able to endure terrorism. At this point, this is the way it is. We endure. We don’t ask for more.”

A candidate for mayor of North Charleston in 2019, Thomas Dixon, who leads an activist group there call The Coalition, told the Charleston City Paper that d’Baha was “a consummate social justice activist.”

While the two disagreed on some matters, Dixon told the outlet, “we both understood that the mission and the message superseded differences, so we were always friends no matter what.”

Dixon wrote in his activist group’s Facebook page on Tuesday to meet that evening with flowers outside City Hall to remember d’Baha.

“My brother, I am eternally grateful to you and for you … for your spirit that refused to accept injustice, your courage that showed the world that fear in the face of wrong was not an option, and your strength that kept you on the battlefield, even when no one else was there,” Dixon wrote of d’Baha on the Coalition’s Facebook page.

Brandon Fish, who described d’Baha as his “dear friend” in a social media post, wrote of the loss on Facebook. “We all have lost so much, so very much, whether you know it or not. This world was a better place because he walked around in it,” Fish wrote, asking for respect for the family as more information is made available.

Damon Fordham, historian and author of a 2008 book, True Stories of Black South Carolina, wrote in a Facebook post he saw d’Baha last summer, before d’Baha “left for Louisiana, where he passed.” Fordham said in the post d’Baha reached out to him for historical information to guide him, and referred to Fordham and his nephew as “big brothers.”

“To those who complained of the apathy of the millennial generation, he was proof of the error of that thinking,” Fordham wrote.


Scandalize my Name…

Scandalize my Name…

– from Greg Godels is available at:

For the owners, publishers, and editors of the The New York Review of Books anti-Communism is still alive. The periodical occupies a unique, indispensable role in fostering and sustaining Cold War myths and legends.

The New York Review of Books has embraced rabid anti-Communism since its opportunistic birth in the midst of a newspaper strike. Founded by a cabal of virulent anti-Communists with identifiable links to the CIA through The Paris Review and the American Committee for Cultural Freedom, NYRB maintains the posture of the popular intellectual journal for academics, high-brow book clubbers, and coffee shop leftists for over half a century. Seldom would an issue go by without an earnest petition signed by intellectual celebrities pointing to human rights concerns in some far-off land that was coincidentally (perhaps?) also in the crosshairs of the US State Department. To be sure, the NYRB would muster a measure of indignation over the most egregious US adventures, particularly when they threatened to blemish the US image as the New Jerusalem.

Even with the Cold War behind us, the NYRB maintains an active stable of virulent anti-Soviet writers, partly to hustle its back list of Cold War classics and obscure “dissident” scribblers, partly to pre-empt any serious anti-capitalist thought that might emerge shorn of Red-dread.

Paul Robeson on Trial

In a recent essay/book review (The Emperor Robeson, 2-08-18), the NYRB brought its Red-chopping hatchet to the legacy of Paul Robeson in a piece transparently ill-motivated and poisonous.

Paul Robeson was nothing if not an exceptional, courageous political figure who galvanized US racial and political affairs in mid-century. Yet NYRB assigned Simon Callow, a UK theater personality, to the writing task despite the fact that he reveals in an interview cited in Wikipedia that “I’m not really an activist, although I am aware that there are some political acts one can do that actually make a difference…” And his essay bears out this confession along with his embarrassing ignorance of US history and the dynamics of US politics.

Callow begins his essay seemingly determined to prove his inadequacy to the task: “When I was growing up in Britain in the 1950s and 1960s, Paul Robeson was much in evidence… His name was haloed with the sort of respect accorded to few performers…” He then goes on at some length, heaping praise on Robeson. Then suddenly at “some point in the 1960s, he faded from our view…”

Whether Callow’s impressions are reflective of the UK experience is irrelevant. Surely, the important truth, the relevant fact, is that in Robeson’s country– the US– he was, throughout that time, a veritable non-person, the victim of a merciless witch hunt. To fail to acknowledge the fact that Robeson and his work were virtually unknown, were erased by the thought police, underscores Callow’s unfitness to discuss Robeson’s career. Indeed, members of the crowd that sought, at that time, to put lipstick on the ugly pig of racism and anti-Communism were soon to found the NYRB.

To say, as Callow does, that before the Cold War Robeson was “…lionized on both sides of the Atlantic…” is to display an unbelievable ignorance of the racial divide in the US. Robeson’s unequalled command of and success at multiple disciplines failed to spare him the indignities and inequalities that befell all African Americans in that era of US apartheid.

As for the post-World War II Red-scare, Callow simply ignores it as if it never occurred. Never mind the harassment, the surveillance, the denied careers, the confiscated passports, and the HUAC subpoenas that Robeson, like thousands of others, suffered from a hysterical, vicious anti-Communist witch hunt. For Callow, Robeson’s problems spring from a meeting granted by then President Truman in which Robeson had the audacity to make demands on his government. “From that moment on…” Callow tells us, “…the government moved to discredit Robeson at every turn…”

What a deft, nimble way to skirt the suffocating, life-denying effects of an entire era of unbridled racism and anti-Communism.

And, from Callow’s myopic perspective, Robeson’s campaign for peace and Cold War sanity resulted in “…universal approbation turned overnight into nearly universal condemnation.” For Callow, standing for peace against the tide of mindless conformity and mass panic is not the mark of courage and integrity, but a tragic career move.

In contrast to Paul Robeson’s life-long defiance of unjust power, Callow attributes a different approach to Robeson’s father, William: “But the lesson was clear: the only way out of poverty and humiliation was hard, hard work– working harder than any white man would have to, to achieve a comparable result.” One waits futilely to read that this reality is precisely what son, Paul, was trying to correct.

Like so many of today’s belated, measured “admirers” of Paul Robeson, Callow cannot resist delving into Robeson’s sexual proclivities, an interest which bears relevance that frankly escapes me. Similarly, Callow raises the matter of Robeson’s mental health and his withdrawal from public life.

Rather than considering the toll that decades of selfless struggle and tenacious resistance might have taken on Robeson’s body and mind, as it did countless other victims of the Red Scare, Callow contrives different explanations. “Robeson, it is clear, knew that his dream was just that: that the reality was otherwise. But he had to maintain his faith, otherwise what else was there?” So, for Callow, Robeson’s bad faith was responsible for mental issues and ill health. It was not a medical condition, the emotional stress of racism, or the repression of his political views that explain his decline. Instead, it was the consequences of bad politics.

Paraphrasing the author of a book on Robeson that Callow favors, he speculates that Robeson’s physical and mental decline “may have directly stemmed from the desperate requests from Robeson’s Russian friends to help them get out of the nightmarish world they found themselves in.” We are asked to believe that a man who resisted every temptation of success, defied the racial insults of his time, and steadfastly defended his commitment to socialism was brought to his knees by anti-Soviet media rumors? Certainly, there is no evidence for this outlandish claim.

Again, using author Jeff Sparrow (No Way But This: In Search of Paul Robeson) as his mouthpiece, Callow reveals his “problem” with Robeson: “…Robeson’s endorsement of Stalin and Stalin’s successors, his refusal to acknowledge what had been done in Stalin’s name, is the tragedy of his life.” In other words, like Budd Schulberg’s fictional snitch in On the Waterfront, if Robeson had only denounced his class, ratted on his friends, and bent to authority, he could have been a “contender” for the respect of liberals and the blessings of bourgeois success. But since he didn’t, his life was “a pitiful spectacle.”

Thankfully, there are still many who draw inspiration from the “pitiful spectacle” of Paul Robeson’s extraordinary life.

One Who Does

As if misunderstanding Robeson were not enough, Callow attacks a prominent scholar who does understand Robeson’s legacy. In contrast with his fawning review of the Sparrow book (“as different as chalk and cheese”), Callow demeans the contribution of one of the most gifted and thorough chroniclers of the page in history that included the life of Robeson. As a historian, Gerald Horne’s prodigious work stretches across books on such politically engaged Robeson contemporaries as WEB DuBois, Ben Davis, Ferdinand Smith, William Patterson, Shirley Graham DuBois, and John Howard Lawson. His writings explore the blacklist and The Civil Rights Congress, both keys to understanding Robeson and his time. In most cases, they represent the definitive histories of the subject.

But Callow prefers the shallow Sparrow account that substitutes the overused literary devices of “in search of../searching for…” to mask its limited scholarly ambition.

Callow is baffled by Horne’s Paul Robeson: The Artist as Revolutionary. Horne’s insistence that Robeson was a ‘revolutionary’ makes Callow apoplectic (“…page after page…”). But if Robeson was not an authentic, modern US revolutionary, then who was?

Callow cannot find a “clear picture of Robeson’s personality” in the Horne account, a conclusion that probably should not trouble Horne who seems more interested in history rather than psychology.

Callow’s sensibilities are especially offended by Horne’s depiction of the odious Winston Churchill, the man many believe to share responsibility for the WWI blood bath at Gallipoli and the two million deaths in the Bengal famine of 1943. It seems that Horne’s words for the short, chubby, Champagne and Cognac-loving prima donna– “pudgy, cigar-chomping, alcohol-guzzling Tory” — struck Callow’s ears as “vulgar.”

But Callow spews his own venomous insults: Horne’s book lacks “…articulate analysis, his account is numbing and bewildering in equal measure, like being addressed from a dysfunctional megaphone…”

Horne’s concluding endorsement of the relevance of Marx and Engels famous slogan– Workers of the World, Unite! –really brings Callow’s rancor to a boil: “I’m sorry to break it to Mr. Horne, but he doesn’t. And it isn’t.”

We surely know which side of the barricades Simon Callow has chosen.

The Legacy

The legacy of Paul Robeson has been maintained for the four decades since his death by his comrades and allies of the left, principally the Communist left. Most of those who worked and fought alongside of him have also passed away. Yet a small, but dedicated group of a few academics and more political activists have continued to tell his story and defend his values against a torrent of hostility or a wall of silence. Through the decades, he has been forced out of the mainstream– the history books and popular culture.

Of course, he was not alone in suffering anonymity for his Communist politics. Another giant who was brought down by Cold War Lilliputians, denigrated by hollow mediocrities, was African American Communist, Claudia Jones. Until recently, her powerful thinking on race, women’s rights, and socialism could only be found by those willing to search dusty corners of used book stores.

Perhaps no one promised to live and further Robeson’s legacy than the young writer Lorraine Hansberry, celebrated before her tragic death for her popular play, A Raisin in the Sun. Her work with Robeson and WEB DuBois on the paper, Freedom, brought her politics further in line with theirs: militant anti-racist, anti-imperialist, pro-socialist, Communist.

Forgotten by those who wish to portray her as a mere cultural critic, she famously called out Robert Kennedy’s elitist, patronizing posture in a meeting with Black civil rights leaders as enthusiastically recalled by James Baldwin.

Ignored by those who would like to see her as simply another civil rights reformer, her speech at a Monthly Review fundraiser, shortly before her death, resounds with revolutionary fervor:

If the present Negro revolt is to turn into a revolution, become sophisticated in the most advanced ideas abroad in the world, a leadership which will have had exposure to the great ideas and movements of our time, a Negro leadership which can throw off the blindness of parochialism and bathe the aspirations of the Negro people in the realism of the twentieth century, a leadership which has no illusion about the nature of our oppression and will no longer hesitate to condemn, not only the results of that oppression, but also the true and inescapable cause of it—which of course is the present organization of American society.

Today, there is a renewed interest in Robeson, Claudia Jones, and Lorraine Hansberry. Articles, books, and documentaries are appearing or are in the works. Some are offering ‘new’ perspectives on the lives of these extraordinary people, exploring aspects of their lives that show that their humanity perhaps reached further than previously thought. Yes, they were Communists, but they were not just Communists. Indeed, they belong to the world.

However, it would be a great tragedy if they were denied their conviction that capitalism– the present organization of American society, in Hansberry’s words– represented the foundation of other oppressions. It would be criminally dishonest if there were no acknowledgement that they were made enemies of the state precisely because they embraced socialism. For an African American, in racist, Cold War mid-century USA, the decision to embrace Communism was not taken lightly or frivolously. Robeson, Jones, and Hansberry knew exactly what that commitment meant to the forces of repression. And they risked it. They should be looked upon as people’s champions for their courage.

New researchers are welcome to explore other dimensions of the lives of these unbending fighters for social justice. But their authentic legacies are needed now more than ever.

Greg Godels
Robert E. Lee Mardi Gras beads are for losers | Opinion

Like the monument whose removal they bemoan, the “Forever Lee Circle” beads that some revelers are planning to throw for this year’s Carnival are tailor made for losers.  Only losers would purchase them as throws, and only losers would want to catch them and take them home.

The Robert E. Lee monument itself honored a loser to make other losers feel better about losing.  The same is true for monuments to Jefferson Davis and P.G.T. Beauregard.  Those monuments gloriously depicted losers so the losing side in the Civil War could maintain its delusions of grandeur and supremacy.

The monuments were the embodiment of that old aphorism:  If you can’t beat ’em, put up statues that pretend you did.  Or could have.  Or should have. Or will eventually.

The people responsible for the “Forever Lee Circle” beads are reportedly affiliated with the R.E. Lee Monumental Association, which, according to its website, was formed in New Orleans after Lee’s death in 1870.  The group lists three main goals on its website:  1) Ensure that the R.E. Lee monument be placed in the most honorable and respectable location as possible in the greater New Orleans area; 2) Educate and promote the historical importance of Robert E. Lee and Lee Circle in New Orleans; and 3) If bullet #1 is unattainable, build a new R.E. Lee monument in the greater New Orleans area.

A representative of Save Nola Heritage told WWL-TV that about 10,000 of the beads were produced. They’ve reportedly sold out.

The administrator for the “Forever Lee Circle” Facebook page, somebody whose online name is Mikas Eaux, said in an email to the Southern Poverty Law Center, “I hope the beads serve as a conduit to take the stigma out of southern history. People shouldn’t be afraid to be proud of their heritage.”

The person insisting that people should be proud of their heritage declined to give the SPLC his or her actual name.

This development should have been expected.  If people were defending monuments to Confederate leaders more than 150 years after the South’s surrender, then it shouldn’t come as a surprise that less than a year after New Orleans removed four obnoxious monuments, we would see people on the losing side of the issue expressing their hurt in just this kind of way.

Hey, we didn’t win, so let’s troll the people on the streets of New Orleans! Let’s roll through a majority-black city and toss out beads that celebrate a person who fought to extend black people’s enslavement!

The monuments were obviously a greater offense than these beads.  They were bigger, they were intended to be permanent, and they were erected at a time when segregationists were in control.  They celebrated losers and were put up by losers, but at the same time they served as a reminder to black people that white people weren’t so defeated that they weren’t still on top.

Beads aren’t as big as monuments. They’re not immovable.  Indeed, they’re trifles. And they will be tossed in a city where black people are the majority and, by and large, control the politics.

The people who toss them may feel big and powerful from their elevated position on a float, but they’re in the political minority in New Orleans and are resorting to such provocation because they lacked the power to keep the Lee monument and the other problematic monuments in place.

The beads are no more about Southern heritage than the monuments were.  They are about celebrating the people who were fighting for slavery’s expansion.  There’s no way around that. But the R.E. Lee Monumental Association tries to get around that with some tricks of editing.  Go to the group’s website, and the first thing you see is an excerpt of an 1856 letter Lee wrote his wife: “In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country.”

Six years later Lee was leading the army fighting to preserve and expand slavery; so maybe we shouldn’t put much stock in his letter.

Or maybe we should find the whole letter and read past the part the Lee monument group quoted.

Lee claims slavery “is a greater evil to the white man than to the black race.” According to an 1859 newspaper report, Lee gave administered 39 lashes to a woman who’d run away when the plantation’s resident “slave-whipper” couldn’t bring himself to do it.  But, you know, his whipping her probably hurt him more than it hurt her.

Lee goes on to say in that 1856 letter that “blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa” and calls slavery the “painful discipline they are undergoing.” He says abolitionists are pursuing “an evil course” meddling in the affairs of others, and he accuses abolitionists of being intolerant of slaveholders’ “spiritual liberty.”

Why do you think the R.E. Lee Monumental Association doesn’t quote Lee in full?

Could it be they fear we’d think of Lee as a big ole loser?

He was.

Plus, he lost the war.

Jarvis DeBerry is deputy opinions editor for NOLA.COM | The Times-Picayune. He can be reached at or at

Martin Luther King Opposed Everything Liberal America Represents

Martin Luther King Opposed Everything Liberal America Represents

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. gives a young picket a pat on the back as a group of youngsters started to picket St. Augustine, Fla.

Martin Luther King Opposed Everything Liberal America Represents

© AP Photo/

Get short URL
John Wight

There is nothing quite so nauseating as liberal America associating itself with the legacy of Dr Martin Luther King Jr., a man who stood against everything it stands for and represents, such as cozying up to Wall Street and the rich at home while unleashing war without end overseas.

That Martin Luther King Day is an annual circus of liberal hypocrisy is evidenced in the likes of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton using it an opportunity to engage in gushing tribute to a man whom, if alive today, would be among their most impassioned adversaries. As US academic Cornel West writes, “The litmus test for realizing King’s dream was neither a black face in the White House nor a black presence on Wall Street. Rather, the fulfillment of his dream was for all poor and working people to live lives of decency and dignity.”

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. receives Nobel Peace prize from Gunnar Jahn, the chairman of the Nobel Committee in Oslo, Norway in 1964
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. receives Nobel Peace prize from Gunnar Jahn, the chairman of the Nobel Committee in Oslo, Norway in 1964

It is hard to think of a political figure whose life and legacy been so abused, distorted, and exploited as Martin Luther King’s. Indeed, it is impossible to quantify the extent to which the true meaning of his work has suffered by dint of its appropriation by a liberal establishment that cloaks its mendacity and murderous propensity for war in the garb of compassion and democracy. When, for example, Hillary Clinton is tweeting the words of MLK, celebrating his life, you know you have entered the desert of the real.

So what then did Martin Luther King actually stand for? A trite response to that question is everything that Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and others of their kind do not stand for – namely justice for the poor of America and poor countries of the world threatened by America. Thus MLK was not killed because he had a ‘dream’ he was killed because he was awake to the fact that the United States government was, in his words, “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today.”

The speech in which he spoke those words is titled ‘Beyond Vietnam’. It is one of his most famous, which he delivered in New York in 1967 a year before his assassination in the midst of an imperialist war that would claim the lives of two million Vietnamese and 80,000 Americans by the time it ended in 1975.

READ MORE: Faith Leaders Protest Against Trump, Racism at MLK ‘Dream’ Speech Rally

But widely overlooked as a result of the sanitization of MLK’s legacy by this liberal establishment, for which opportunism is a mandatory requirement, is the animus that was directed at him for daring to oppose the war in Vietnam. As King biographer, James H Cone reveals, “Martin also felt that the vehement criticisms that he received from the white community regarding his opposition to the Vietnam War were motivated by racism.”

Many of those critical voices from within the white community were former allies in Washington, including within the Johnson administration, who’d been happy to support him when his focus was on racial equality at home but refused to understand or accept the circular relationship between structural racism at home and racist wars unleashed overseas.King was a man who did come to understand this relationship, along with the rank hypocrisy of opposing one while not opposing the other, which is why he became such a threat to the moral foundations of the liberal status quo. As he said to one of his black colleagues after said colleague expressed concerns that MLK’s stance against the war in Vietnam would alienate liberal support for the struggle for black civil rights at home, “what you’re saying my get you a foundation grant but it won’t get you into the kingdom of truth.”

The radicalism embraced by MLK towards the end of his life was the product of his refusal to ignore the truth his eyes were imparting to him. His belief and trust in a liberal establishment to deliver justice not only to black Americans but poor Americans had been rocked by the shocking condition of the poor of all colors and race he witnessed while touring the country.

READ MORE: Sanders Carries Torch as US Marks Death of Martin Luther King, Jr.

In the eminently informed analysis of Cornel West the “radical King was a democratic socialist who sided with poor and working people in the class struggle taking place in capitalist societies. This class struggle may be visible or invisible, manifest or latent. But it rages on in a fight over resources, power, and space.”

Martin Luther King, Jr.
© Photo: Wikipedia / Dick DeMarsico, World Telegram staff photographer – Library of Congress

West’s assertion is proved by MLK’s championing of the struggle of sanitation workers in Memphis for better pay and conditions a couple of months before he was murdered in 1968. “And I come by here to say that America too is going to hell if she doesn’t use her wealth,” he declared in a speech at a rally of striking workers and their supporters in the city. “If America does not use her vast resources of wealth to end poverty and make it possible for all of God’s children to have the basic necessities of life, she too will to hell.”Can anyone seriously imagine Hillary Clinton endorsing such sentiments, a woman whose embrace of Wall Street and big business is a matter of record? Or how about Barack Obama, Washington’s first black president, who swore his oath of office on MLK’s own personal bible?

READ MORE: Rallies Erupt in Cities All Around Country to Reclaim Legacy of MLK Jr.

Cornel West is someone who is in no doubt as to the insult to King’s legacy Obama’s transparent attempt to posit his election to the White House the symbolic culmination of MLK’s ‘dream’: “The dream of the radical King for the first black president surely was not a Wall Street presidency, drone presidency, and surveillance presidency with a vanishing black middle class, devastated black working class, and desperate black poor people clinging to fleeting symbols and empty rhetoric.”

When it comes to the legacy of Martin Luther King, the biting insight of Irish rebel leader James Connolly applies: “Apostles of freedom are ever crucified when alive, but glorified when dead.”

The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Sputnik.


It Was ‘A Necessity For Ruling Class To Assassinate’ Fred Hampton
Black Panther Party At California Capitol

It Was ‘A Necessity For Ruling Class To Assassinate’ Fred Hampton

© AP Photo/ AP

Get short URL

Forty-eight years ago Monday, Fred Hampton, chairman of the Illinois chapter of the Black Panther Party, was killed by the Chicago Police Department at the behest of the FBI.

Described by Noam Chomsky as “the greatest domestic crime of the Nixon administration,” the assassination took place at roughly 5 a.m. when 14 police officers raided Hampton’s apartment and fired off dozens of bullets. Along with Hampton, Mark Clark, a party leader, was shot dead, while several others received bullet wounds.

​Also in the bullet-ridden apartment was Deborah Johnson, Hampton’s eight-month-pregnant fiance who barely managed to escape with her life.

Speaking to Radio Sputnik’s By Any Means Necessary, Marshall Eddie Conway, a former Black Panther member and political prisoner, says Hampton’s ability to mobilize people is what “made him a very detrimental person in terms of the perils that be and the government.”

“It was just a necessity for the ruling class to assassinate him, not only that, but he was also very, very, young so he appealed to the young generation and so on and that in itself also was a threat,” Conway told show hosts Sean Blackmon and Eugene Puryear.

And yet, despite the years that have past, the relationship between the FBI and black movement campaigns haven’t exactly improved, notes Blackmon sardonically, pointing toward the Bureau’s recent report on so-called “black identity extremists.”

The report, titled “Black Identity Extremists Likely Motivated to Target Law Enforcement Officers,” was written and posted online in August and names groups such as the Black Liberation Army, which hasn’t been active for years.Could this be a sign that the agency “is sort of poised for a new wave of repression,” asks Blackmon.

Conway’s response? Yes.

“This black identity extremism doesn’t even designate particular groups, but it goes right across the black community to individual levels,” Conway said. “You can celebrate Kwanzaa and be considered a black identity extremist.”

For Conway, the situation is only going to continue to worsen until something changes.

Rosa Parks’ arrest over six decades ago sparked the Montgomery bus boycott

Rosa Parks’ arrest over six decades ago sparked the Montgomery bus boycott


Allen Toussaint Final New Orleans Concert ft. Irma Thomas – INCREDIBLE -Please Share