June 12, 2003


White Australian middle-class university student Robert Corr says “Yay!” for the Black Panthers, who were killing people before Rob was born:

I've just finished a paper on the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense, in which I claim the Black Panthers were an inevitable, necessary and desirable extension of the non-violent civil rights movement. For all the symbolic gains made in the 1950s and 1960s, the situation for the average black American was worse than when the civil rights movement started. It took a group that was willing to stand up to the racist police force and justice system while challenging white middle-class sensibilities to effect real positive change.

Not once in Corr’s 5,500 word puke-a-thon does the name “David Horowitz” appear. Tex sets him straight.

Posted by Tim Blair at June 12, 2003 03:30 AM

Unfortunately, David Horowitz's name is mud among the leftists who could use some education on the "glorious" history of their movement. There is a constant movement in America to resuscitate the name of the Panthers ... it'll take a fresh face, and new investigations, to kill that.

Basically, Panther advocates blame the FBI for everything that went wrong with the group. It caused internal dissent, killed Fred Hampton, and thus the group responded with violence. Of course they did; the machine they sought to overthrow was so darn evil!

Posted by: Dave Weigel at June 12, 2003 at 05:06 AM

Oh, fer Chris' sake, people still believe that twaddle? That's pathetic! I volunteer him for duty in late-night Oakland, to be robustly Fisked and thank modern panthers for the beating.

Posted by: KevinV at June 12, 2003 at 09:01 AM

Corr is a stupid white boy.Read also his essay on rascism.
Until the mid-1980's, such essays of freshers studying would have been graded a fail.Sweeping generalisations, no solid grounding in history, emotion substituted for detached reasoning, fallacies in gross form such as begging the question litter paragraph after paragraph.His sustained ad hominem attack, alright , maybe, for general public polemics, against Howard is telling.

As for the claim -`logical...' that is silly
as to almost not warrant comment accept for one thread of the assertion: determinism; i.e nothing necessarilly happens; nothing perforce follows.Why, first, history is physics manifest.Secondly, that someone might do x is contained in a set of possible actions.More-over, nothing cited by Corr substantiates, one jot, his second major claim, the Black Panthers served the promotion of economic liberty for blacks.

The last is over and above the following three observations. The Democratic Party was the party of slave owners the heartland being the South.Secondly, it is in the South into the 60's blacks were persecuted. Thirdly, as with so many self-styled freedom movements, the Black Panther was a communist cell, committed to violence, remains still very much so, which exploited the quite reasonable, as in very understandable complaints of some blacks -stress some blacks as in mainly of the South , to ends not even co-terminus with the aspirations of blacks.

It is plausible he is studying history, particularly in view of dumbing down and political correctness from c.1985. It is equally plausible he is taking an excercise in outright charlatanism , sociology.Either way, he is one dumbed down kid. Go change your nappies Corr.

Posted by: d at June 12, 2003 at 10:15 AM

The depressing thing is that he probably would have been expelled, and prosecuted, for writing drivel like this on how the Nazis were badly misunderstood and should have been applauded for standing up to the unjust imperialistic regime imposed on Germany by the Treaty of Versailles. We can't be judgemental about thuggish brown people, though - which strikes me as the ultimate racism.

Posted by: Craig Ranapia at June 12, 2003 at 10:18 AM

My father was a NJ State Trooper in the 70's, when Joanne Chesimard of this necessary "movement" killed one of his classmates from the academy, for a simple traffic stop. Here's how one of her support sites describe it:

Shakur, still referred to as Joanne Chesimard by her former captors and their agents, was a member of the Black Panther Party and the Black Liberation Army. On May 2, 1973, in what call ‘The Turnpike Massacre,’ the car she and two other colleagues were riding in was stopped and fired upon by NJ state troopers on the NJ Turnpike in New Brunswick. When it was all over, she was critically wounded. Another colleague Zayd Shakur and a state trooper Werner Foerster were dead. Later, Shakur was tried and convicted along with Sundiata Acoli, the other surviving colleague, by an all-white jury in a very prejudiced and sensational atmosphere for being responsible for Foerster’s death and was sentenced to life plus 30 years.

Stopped and fired on, my ass. They were merely stopped and began firing. These were violent criminals. It disgusts me to see their story rewritten and popularized by deluded leftists and Hollywood.

Posted by: Bill at June 12, 2003 at 11:00 AM

Oh for fuck's sake.

Comparing the Black Panthers to Nazis? Unlike other Black Power groups, they allowed whites to join.

Pointing out that they were corrupt and involved in extortion, prostitution, intimidation, robbery, etc? Show me a political party or movement that hasn't been involved in such things.

And I never claimed that they achieved "economic liberty". In fact, they campaigned against the type of economic liberty you would no doubt support, and which blacks already had (freedom to be unemployed, freedom to starve, etc). They were communists, for heaven's sake. Their free breakfasts program demonstrated their commitment to the type of economic liberty they argued for.

Yeah, it's a crap essay. There aren't exactly thousands of books on the Black Panthers over here in Perth, Western Australia, and I spent about a week researching and writing it. I'm an undergraduate -- the point of these things is to get them over with and go to the pub.

(Thanks for the hits, Tim. Pity your readers are such losers.)

Posted by: Robert at June 12, 2003 at 12:34 PM

The Nazi's allowed various non-Germans to join in on the genocide to Rob.

Posted by: Angus Young's Gibson SG at June 12, 2003 at 01:27 PM

Robert - You just admitted you don't thouroughly understand your topic. And yet, in the paragraphs above, you defend yourself. That's pretty lame.

Posted by: Eddie at June 12, 2003 at 01:48 PM

Yeah, but how many Jews could join the Nazi party?

(I should point out here that I found the antisemitism and homophobia of the Black Panthers repulsive. I had to stop reading Bobby Seale's book at one point.)

Posted by: Robert at June 12, 2003 at 01:48 PM

Funny, I never read that bit in your essay...

Posted by: Yobbo at June 12, 2003 at 01:59 PM

This link is worth a read on this topic - http://www.city-journal.org/html/eon_5_27_03ss.html

Posted by: DrDan at June 12, 2003 at 02:19 PM

It looks to me like it was an argumentative essay, Yobbo.

Some universities expect undergraduates to acknowledge the other fellow's POV, even when putting forth an argument. Mine does. Perhaps Rob's doesn't: if so, why should he continue researching and writing when he could be finished, and down at the pub?

(Yeah, yeah, "getting an accurate view of history" and so on. But if it's eating into serious drinking time, and not going to be in the exam, it's not keeping me in *my* seat...)

Posted by: mark at June 12, 2003 at 02:33 PM

I guess there is no system of interlibrary loans in the Australian university system? And to Mr. Corr -- if even you consider it a crap paper why publish it on the internet for the multitude to mock? As for turning in badly-researched and -written papers, is this your way of shitting on academia? Not that a lot of aspects of academia worldwide doesn't deserve to be shat on, but I would think that at least the pursuit of knowledge (represented in part by those papers you seem to think are mere interruptions in your quest to become one with the masses by drinking yourself into oblivion) would be that part of the scholarly life which deserved rescuing, not trashing. But you are some kind of socialist marxist thing, or so I have gathered from your comments, so maybe you aren't interested in the pursuit of knowledge.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at June 12, 2003 at 02:37 PM

That should be "a lot of aspects don't..." Excuse my gaff.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at June 12, 2003 at 02:38 PM

My god ! I pissed myself when I read this comment

"(I should point out here that I found the antisemitism and homophobia of the Black Panthers repulsive. I had to stop reading Bobby Seale's book at one point."

Hmm, murder and beatings are fine because they are a fight for black issues = legitimate.

But oh my, they were a little racist and homophobic.

Get into the real world. I gather your point is that attacking whites is ok, attacking white homosexuals is not?
Just a little bit PC don't you think?

Posted by: nic at June 12, 2003 at 02:49 PM

Nic: everyone knows white people deserve it. We are, after all, evil oppressors.

Posted by: Yobbo at June 12, 2003 at 03:46 PM

Yobbo: Is there any way for my kid to avoid this crap when he goes to Uni.

Posted by: Gary at June 12, 2003 at 04:24 PM

These days, Gary, from zip to low - depends on the calibre of the Profs and tutors.

Posted by: d at June 12, 2003 at 04:41 PM

By a strange coincidence, today's San Francisco Chronicle had a laudatory article about the Panthers:

"History takes 2nd look at Black Panthers
Scholars gather to offer more complete picture of radical group.

The Black Panther Party is the subject of growing academic interest as historians born after the 1960s take a new look at a movement known to their generation mostly from movies, memoirs and negative government reports.

Scholars from around the country will meet in Boston beginning today to give more than 40 new papers on the Panthers. Organizers are saying the conference breaks new ground as a scholars-only assessment of the group ..."

Nowhere in this article does the phrase "David Horowitz" appear. But you guessed that.

Posted by: Floyd McWilliams at June 12, 2003 at 04:42 PM

d: He's a black belt so that might help him then?.

Posted by: Gary at June 12, 2003 at 05:02 PM

Gary: Just make sure he does a course that doesn't contain many socialists. Like Engineering... Or, um...Aviation!

Posted by: Yobbo at June 12, 2003 at 05:26 PM

Gary: You could also encourage him to go to ADFA. This will also save you a lot of money.

Posted by: Yobbo at June 12, 2003 at 05:28 PM

Black belt seems as good a defence against the dark art of tripe these days.Oh, and some femmo-nazis are more butch then the lads: had such a type ram her fist in front of my face because I refused to take one the proganda leaflets she and her fellow crappers were littering the student union building with.

I had just finished training in the weights room and swim pool . I weighed 120K and man, was I tempted to flatten the thing.So, a black belt does come in handy.

Posted by: d at June 12, 2003 at 05:46 PM

I was thinking of the ADFA and he wants to be a lawyer.

Posted by: Gary at June 12, 2003 at 07:33 PM

I'm sure Rob is nowhere near as intellectually challenged as his irrationality so often suggests. The problem is a form of selective[almost unconscious] blinkering, all too often associated with those who [like Rob] seek a political career. As apparatchiks go, Rob isn't all that bad. Some are far worse.
His main problem seems to arise from his self imposed isolation. Should he ever venture out of this cocoon, and engage in debate, who knows?
He might even manage a coherent essay?

Posted by: Norman at June 12, 2003 at 08:54 PM

I don't even know about ADFA anymore. They've infested that place too. Look at Adrian d'Hage.

Posted by: AndyM at June 12, 2003 at 10:16 PM

Robert wrote:
Oh for fuck's sake.

Comparing the Black Panthers to Nazis? Unlike other Black Power groups, they allowed whites to join.

I reply:
No, Robert I wasn't comparing the Black Panthers to Nazis. I was speculating whether you'd get your sorry arse thrown out if you decided to pen a similarly drool cup revisionist essay on the Nazi Party because, despite its ideological and institutional racism and homophobia, they were stanting up to the hegemony of England and France with genocidal violence. BTW, good on you for finding racism and homophobia "repulsive" - where do I send the medal?

Posted by: Craig Ranapia at June 12, 2003 at 10:52 PM

OK, perhaps we're being a little unfair. I wrote (for academic credit) my share of essays that appeared to have been written by drunken monkeys with a ouija board. The difference is, Mr. Corr, I had the good sense not to post them on the internet for the mockery of thousands who might just know what they're talking about.

Posted by: Craig Ranapia at June 12, 2003 at 10:56 PM

Actually, the Nazis employed many Jews in their ranks, mostly to help ferret out other Jews who were in hiding. They were called the Jüdische Ordnungsdienst.

These Jews often hoped that, by selling out their fellow Jews, they would be spared being sent to the death camps. Unfortunately, once all the other Jews in their districts were gone, they quickly got shipped off themselves.

As for the Black Panthers, I would rather support an organization that didn't allow whites to join, as long as it didn't engage in robbery, rape, and murder. Robert has a seriously twisted set of priorities.

Posted by: Tatterdemalian at June 13, 2003 at 12:38 AM

Re R Corr I made the mistake of hitting this DIPSTICKS site. Never again. I've actually helped fund this CRETINS education. Here in Perth no less. My tax dollars at work. Good Grief!!!

Posted by: aussieoldfart at June 13, 2003 at 02:10 AM

aussieoldfart, I'm confused. I admit, being a liberal, that I'm easily confused and given to flights of fancy (oh dear, ah'm all-aflutter...), but I wonder if you can walk me through a few things...

a) How does visiting Rob's site -- which adds to his transfer rate and has the potential to cost him money if he exceeds his transfer limit -- help fund his education?

b) How are your "tax dollars" working to help him on his way through a private university to which he has earned a scolarship?

c) Wait, scratch that. What if he *were* on HECS? How are these essays such a waste of your tax dollars? Is it because of the half-hour (I'm being generous) his tutor spends getting paid to mark them?

d) What was so horrifying about his site?

Posted by: mark at June 13, 2003 at 02:46 AM

Mark, sorry to be the one to tell you, but: --- a] Taxpayers' dollars do play a significant role in funding private 'universities'.
b] Many people do question the merit of allocating taxpayers' dollars to institutions in which the TOP students create perhaps well enough written, but nonetheless trite or flawed essays, and the less competent churn out even worse material.
c] I'm sure he only saw it as a trite site. He was, understandably, shocked [as someone often is when first encountering what passes for tertiary level standards] that taxes were being used to fund such drivel. Now with "horrified", that's usually the reult when they see the work of students who couldn't cope with analysing a pumpkin pie recipe --- and Rob's surely capable of doing that.

Posted by: Norman at June 13, 2003 at 03:11 PM

To mark. re--- Your're confused. Thanks for the nitpick. I mostly prefer to sandag on the side. If I do post, I generally try to exercise a measure of brevity as opposed to long winded dissertations. Also, I am barely computer literate having been dragged kicking & screaming into the techno-age due to the intro of G.S.T. & the demands of my business. So, therefore, I should have put in whizz-bang staggered line breaks (I don'nt know how) to seperate the context of each short sentence so that you wouldn't get confused!!! Many thanks to Norman for going in to bat for me at (a) (b) (c) (d) while I slept & then worked. Saved me the trouble of coming back almost word for word. Whoa... Had to stop myself there from getting stuck into trainee left wing radicals about the old fashioned work ethic thing. I'll save that for another rambling rant. Which I can turn on if prodded & the beer fridge is stocked up & I'm in the mood. Back to R Corr. I don't need to elaborate on him anymore as both Tex & Ken Parish did a pretty good job of laying into him on their Blogs. (I can't do that link shit yet either) Also noticed that mark commented at Ken Parish (Troppo Armadillo) He posted. He crashed. He burned. Personally mark if I were you, I would give up while are still behind. Rather than ending up ffffurther back. It's late. Fridge m/t. Cookie yelling at me. Bed beckons. Enough said.

Posted by: aussieoldfart at June 14, 2003 at 05:59 AM

The black panthers have an almost narcotizing effect on young and privileged white liberals. I bet Robert has that poster of (pimp/drugdealer/crackhead) hughey newton with the spear right next to his che poster and malcolm x at the window pictures. I was born in Oakland and got to witness these "revolutionaries" first hand.

Posted by: S.A. Smith at June 15, 2003 at 09:53 AM

Young Master Corr has it wrong. It was not Black
Panthers who went down South and stood up to those
redneck racists (and broke a few of their heads,
too). It was (mostly) white idealists who got
between the crackers and their hereditary prey.
I was one of those idealists. We heard never a
peep out of the Panthers (bunch of posturing losers and petty criminals).

Posted by: Smiling Dave at June 16, 2003 at 09:19 PM

Posting a link to Ken Parish to see if it works.

Posted by: aussieoldfart at June 17, 2003 at 04:40 AM

Sorry Gary. I stuffed up the link somehow. Forgot to click on to check at preview. Hangs head in shame. Puts padlock on beer fridge. Disappears quietly into the background. Takes handful of antidepressants. Gone to bed. Wake me when it's over Cookie.

Posted by: aussieoldfart at June 17, 2003 at 05:04 AM

Norman, I'll concede "b".

You (and aussieoldfart!) completely ignore "a", and you brush aside "d". "c", now, you haven't adequately explained.

Let's step through this, shall we? Suppose my Law tutor told me to write a nice, simple 2000-word essay on /Mabo/. Now, taxpayer's money was used to get me into uni (as I'm on HECS). Taxpayer's money is presumably helping to pay my tutor's wages. So the time it took him to devise the essay and hand it to me is theoretically taxpayer-funded. Now I return a week later with an absolute shitter of an essay, and present it to him with the standard flourish, ready for marking. He's getting paid for the time he spends in that tutorial (the time it takes to receive it), plus in theory the time he takes to mark it. All that is taxpayer funded, right?

Okay. Now, the money would be spent whether I wrote a killer essay explaining every judgment succinctly and entertainingly and finished up having written the perfect layman's guide, and in a mere 2000 words, too; or, if I'd done to /Mabo/ what Rob allegedly did to the Black Panthers (not having read his BP essay, I can't say he did either way). The tutor would even have been paid if a different student was there in my place. Or -- and here's the tricky part -- if I hadn't even submitted the essay and all he had to do was give me a zero! How about that? Now why, exactly, is one of these alternatives a waste of taxpayer's money?

Unless you mean that, should I have written absolute tosh in place of a decent short essay, I'm wasting my education and therefore the money provided by the government. In which case, that's not really an issue: I'll be paying it back later anyway.

I can't claim to know exactly how Rob's finances are arranged and if any of this applies to him, but then, neither can you.

But let's go back to "a". How does visiting Rob's website, which will either cost him nothing and give him nothing, or will actually cost him money, helping to fund his education?

Posted by: mark at June 17, 2003 at 05:07 AM

"Also noticed that mark commented at Ken Parish (Troppo Armadillo) He posted. He crashed. He burned. Personally mark if I were you, I would give up while are still behind."

Care to explain? Or, well, *justify*?

Posted by: mark at June 17, 2003 at 05:09 AM