The Black Liberation Army - Term Paper Example

Analysis of the Black Liberation Army Grade (October 9th, Analysis of the Black Liberation Army Introduction The Black Liberation Army was an underground Black extremist militant group that sought to liberate the blacks from the dominance and racism of the whites in America (Umoja, 1999). The nature of the extremism of this group forced it to operate from the underground, considering the fact that its violent murders and attacks against the police could not allow the group to operate as a known entity (Hewitt, 2005). The essence of the formation of the Black Liberation Army (BLA) was the establishment of a system of self-determination of the black Americans, through armed struggle, as opposed to other non-violent means that had not proved to be fruitful in liberating the black race. Historical Analysis of the Black Liberation Army The history of the Black Liberation Army dates back to the 1960s, when the Black Panthers Party (BPP), which was another wing of the African American elites, especially from high-class colleges, had proven to be too soft in advocating for the liberation of the blacks (Klehr, 1991). Thus, after the BPP was infiltrated by the FBI and the police, so much so that it was being divided and weakened, the radical members of the BPP then established the BLA as an underground arm of the BPP. The brutality of the police in handling the members of the BPP when they were arrested, which included beating them senselessly and even killing them, motivated the other members of the BPP to move their liberation a notch higher and invoke violence as a means of achieving their objective (Lazerow, 2006). In addition, the justice system especially in the New York State where the militant group was more active adapted the culture of harsh penalties for the arrested and charged members of the BPP. It is these harsh justice penalties that were handed to the members of the party in courts such as long-term prison sentences that gave the remaining members of the BPP a reason to establish an underground armed struggle. Thus, the underground arm of the BPP, which was established in the late 1960s and then consolidated into an attacking group in 1970, now became known as the Black Liberation Army (Macdonald, 1980). The actual formation process of the Black Liberation Army is not entirely known, considering the fact that it followed a series of underground events, only to come to the public limelight after it had perpetrated a series of crimes, which included murders, bombings, robberies and kidnappings (Umoja, 1999). Nevertheless, the fallout between the leadership of the BPP was the major motivation for the establishment of this underground, volatile but acutely dangerous group. Among the founders of the BPP was Huey P. Newton, who was later observed as being an ineffective leader, since he was accused of having been compromised by the FBI, prompting internal wrangles in the leadership of the party. Consequently, some of the other leaders and members of the BPP, lead by Eldridge Cleaver were expelled from the major decision-making organ of the BPP which was the central committee (Shakur & Davis, 1999). It is after the expulsion that the rebels established the underground arm of the BPP in the name of the BLA, but still aware of the dangers they were facing from the FBI and the police, they intended to keep the new formation underground, and operate from an unknown location or structure. However, there is a contrary narrative that presents the BLA as an already existing organization dating back to the dates of formation of the BPP in the early 1960s, and thus it was just a refuge in the camp of BPP, but not an entirely new formation after the BPP split (Shakur & Davis, 1999). Therefore, the major reason for the departure of the BLA from the camp of the BPP was because the BPP was found to be more of a reformist party than a revolutionary one that was idealized by the BLA, thus prompting the BLA to stand on its own, and chart its independent course (Bukhari, 2010). One of the notable and uniquely surprising characteristic of the BLA is that; it did not exhibit any centralized command or leadership expected of such a fiercely dangerous militant group. The BLA emerged as a rather amorphous organization, which operated from different states of the USA including Atlanta, New York, Philadelphia, San Francisco and California (Rosenau, 2013). This nature has remained a surprise, considering the fact that the attacks and violent activities of the BLA in different states appeared to be well choreographed and even at time simultaneous. Thus, the historical nature of the BLA has not been effectively unearthed, despite being an extremist group which attracted the attention of the whole security apparatus in American, owing to its ability to reform into an international extremist organization that would pose even much threat to the US security. Black Liberation Army ideology The ideology of the Black Liberation Army was formed around the liberation, protection and promotion of the black race status in America from that of a minority race that was dominated by the white race, to a more powerful and influential race that was able to chart its own destiny (Shakur & Davis, 1999). Therefore, perceiving the black race in America as having been exploited historically, the Black Liberation Army formed its ideology around the creation of a system where the dominant white race would operate on the same platform as the black race in relation to the economic, social and political influence. Thus, the Black Liberation Army formed its ideologies in several pillars which include: Anti-capitalism The anti-capitalism ideology was meant to replace the American capitalist system of the economy to a more communal system such as socialism, which entails the equal ownership and administration of the sources of production by the workers (Macdonald, 1980). This ideology was targeted at ensuring that neither of the races would be the majority owner of the sources of production, thereby creating an equalization system of the economy, where both the black and white races would share in the American resources and sources of production equally. Such a system, according to the Black Liberation Army would remove the scenario where the blacks, who were not privileged in many social circles such as education or even access to good employment, would no longer be exploited through being condemned to hard jobs or unemployment (Corrigan, 2009). The anti-capitalism ideology was thought to promote collectivism, which in turn would address the inequality question within the American society that had segregated the black Americans to the ghettos and the suburbs, while the whites were living in the lavish estates. Anti-sexist and anti-racist The anti-sexist component of the ideology served to open up the Black Liberation Army for membership from any gender, while the anti-racist sought to open the membership of the party to all races, as long as such members who were of a different race other than the blacks shared the same ideologies as the blacks. This being the case, the Black Liberation Army was able to attract followership across the board, with both male and female membership, as well as the membership of some white individuals such as Marilyn Buck, who was described as one of the fiercest gunrunners of the BLA (Hewitt, 2005). Thus, it is the anti-racist and the anti-sexist ideology that largely accounted for the success of the Black Liberation Army, considering the fact that its white members or its female members were able to attack unsuspected, due to the notion that the BLA was an underground organization that was formed by black American membership. As a matter of fact, some of its female members, such as Assata Shakur was able to stage bold attacks than his male counterparts and later she was involved in prison escape (Klehr, 1991). Armed struggle Armed struggle as an ideology for the Black Liberation Army was a fundamental principle, which provided for a revolutionary struggle for the liberation of the black Americans, as opposed to the application of the non-violent reformist tactics that were being adopted by the Black Panther Party, which did not seem to bear any fruits (James, 2003). Thus, armed struggle became the ideological representation of violence and radical atrocities against the individuals who were found to be a stumbling block to the violent means of the BLA achieving its ends. Further, the armed struggle ideology was informed by the cruelty of the police and the justice system, which tortured, killed or sentenced the members of the BPP to long-term sentences, ranging from 25 years of imprisonment as the short sentence, to life imprisonment. Consequently, the Black Liberation Army adopted the extreme violent means of dealing with the police, which entailed no less that shooting and killing them (Bukhari, 2010). In addition, the Black Liberation Army also planned for the bombing of police stations, while at the same time kidnapping those it deemed to be a threat to its mission of liberating the African Americans through armed struggle. The major doctrine of the Black Liberation Army was that there cannot be any liberation; if at all the black Americans are not in charge of their own destiny (Shakur & Davis, 1999). This was further extrapolated to mean that the black Americans cannot be freed from the exploitation and the dominance of the white race, unless through their own initiative, since the government and the dominant races did not seem ready to give the black Americans the necessary space or resources to chart their own destiny. Consequently, the Black Liberation Army advanced the ideology that striving for the elimination of the social ills that caused the exploitation and domination of the blacks such as capitalism and racism, armed struggle was a must (Corrigan, 2009). In addition, to be able to replace the capitalist institution with the desired socialist institutions that would see the equality of Americans, the black people must take up arms and join in the strife, so that eventually the black people would have an absolute control of their own destiny. Class struggle This ideology was in line with the anti-capitalist ideology, since it required that for the blacks to be liberated, then, they must strive to move up the social ladder, from the bottom of the hierarchy as the low class citizens, to the top of the social hierarchy where the white race occupied (Corrigan, 2009). However, considering the fact that the blacks did not have the ownership or even the ample access to the sources of production, the class strife could only be instituted through an armed struggle. The national condition of the 1970s had the black Americans at the bottom of the social class structure, because they were not getting good employment and they were not the owners of the means of production. Additionally, the black American population that had been well educated by then represented a small percentage and that percentage was still involved in the civil rights struggle. Nevertheless, the elite struggle through the civil rights movement did not seem to create any reasonable change in the conditions and living standards of the black, prompting the Black Liberation Army to adapt class strife, through armed struggle as the only viable option (Hewitt, 2005). Operational analysis of Black Liberation Army The operational tactics of the Black Liberation Army still remains elusive until present day, considering the fact that it was an underground organization that operated in a more volatile and amorphous structure, such that its command and leadership structure could not be effectively defined (James, 2003). Some pundits have held that the operational system of the Black Liberation Army was that of a criminal gang that had no centralized control, but operating from different localities under different initiatives. The fact that the Black Liberation Army committed atrocities in different states such as San Francisco, New York, Atlanta, new Jersey, Philadelphia and California tells of an underground organization that had considerable effective systems of coordination, yet the command and control structure was not known (Rosenau, 2013). The acclaimed mother organization of the BLA, which was the BPP, was known to have a centralized command structure with a well elaborate decision making organ in the central committee. However, once the BLA detached from the BPP, there was no organized leadership structure that was adopted, since the BLA needed to operate from the underground, so it could remain effective and evade the security agencies. Thus, the operational mode of the BLA is not elaborate. Nevertheless, with the elusive volatile command structure, the BLA was able to undertake a series of robberies, bombings, murders and kidnappings, having been able to kill 13 police officers in the duration the organization was active (Klehr, 1991). The impact of the Black Liberation Army on the fabric of contemporary society The impact of the Black Liberation Army on the fabric of the contemporary American society is to remind the nation that internal security threat is real, especially in the modern age of terrorism. Thus, it is possible for an extremist militant group to organize itself underground and commit atrocities in a manner that is complex for the security systems to effectively counter. Further, the impact of the Black Liberation Army on the contemporary American society is to define the nature of the extremist and criminal groups; as one that have no particular race, gender or origin classification, since as seen in the Black Liberation Army, whites and females were recruited in the course of fighting for the black liberation (Lazerow, 2006). This simply sends the message that the contemporary society is not safe from internal terrorist or criminal organization threats, and thus sufficient care should be taken to investigate even the least posing threats, since they could be the sign of a much more tragedy. Simply put therefore, the contemporary American society should dispel the notion of Muslims being the only terror threat, and realize that extremism and radicalization can take any form. References Bukhari, S. (2010). An Untold Chapter in Black History. Monthly Review: An Independent Socialist Magazine, 61(9), 52-55. Corrigan, L. M. (2009). Sacrifice, Love, and Resistance: The Hip Hop Legacy of Assata Shakur. Women & Language, 32(2), 2-13. Hewitt, C. (2005). Political violence and terrorism in modern America: A chronology. Westport, Conn: Praeger Security International. James, J. (2003). Imprisoned intellectuals: Americas political prisoners write on life, liberation, and rebellion. Lanham, Md: Rowman & Littlefield. Klehr, H. (1991). Far left of center: The American radical left today. New Brunswick [u.a.: Transaction Publ. Lazerow, J. (2006). In search of the Black Panther Party: New perspectives on a revolutionary movement. Durham, NC [u.a.: Duke Univ. Press. Macdonald, A. (1980). The Turner diaries: A novel. New York: Barricade Books, Inc. Rosenau, W. (2013). “Our Backs Are Against the Wall”: The Black Liberation Army and Domestic Terrorism in 1970s America. Studies In Conflict & Terrorism, 36(2), 176-192. Shakur, A., & Davis, A. (1999). Assata: An Autobiography. Chicago: Lawrence Hill Books. Umoja, A. (1999). Repression Breeds Resistance: The Black Liberation Army and the Radical Legacy of the Black Panther Party. New Political Science, 21(2), 131. Read More