By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A resurgent group identifying as the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense has become more active in Philadelphia amid increased federal agent presence. Trained by surviving members of the original party, the group, led by National Chairman Paul Birdsong, attended an anti-ICE protest while carrying firearms, which they say are legally permitted. The group also holds regular free food programs in North Philadelphia, funded by members and community donations. This recent activity follows the killing of Renee Nicole Good by an ICE agent, and the group aims to see ICE abolished and the Trump administration held accountable.
Read the original article here
As Minneapolis shooting stirs fears of state violence, several Black Panther Party members made their presence known in Philly, a development that sparked a wave of reactions, both supportive and apprehensive. The very act of the Black Panther Party, reminiscent of their self-defense roots, re-emerging in the face of perceived state overreach resonates strongly with those who believe in the right to bear arms and community self-governance. It’s a statement that echoes the Second Amendment, but with a distinct emphasis on the right to defend oneself and one’s community from potential threats, including those posed by the state. This resonates particularly in a climate where fear of state violence is palpable, and communities feel vulnerable.
The resurgence of such groups is seen as a potential check on those who would abuse their power. There’s a prevailing sentiment that the police, by design, are not always allies to those in need, and that when the state fails to protect its citizens, the citizens are compelled to protect themselves. The Black Panthers, as a symbol of this very action, is a welcome development for those who champion community-led protection and mutual aid. This is a point of concern for some, who point to potential for increased tension, and possible violence.
One sentiment is clear: the history of state intimidation and suppression against groups like the Black Panther Party is long and well-documented. The FBI’s historical targeting of the Black Panthers, including their characterization as a threat to national security, is seen as a cautionary tale. This past is cited as a reason to be wary of over-reactions, from the state or from those opposing it. There’s a common understanding that such groups may attract scrutiny and potentially be infiltrated by those seeking to undermine their goals.
There’s a strong thread of support for community defense initiatives. The idea of armed citizens defending their neighborhoods is seen as a necessary measure, especially in areas where communities feel neglected by law enforcement. The notion of community militias training and preparing for potential confrontations underscores the seriousness of this sentiment, the feeling that people must be ready to protect themselves and each other.
There’s a strong sense of admiration for Philly’s proactive stance, which stands in stark contrast to the handling of the Minneapolis situation. The city’s willingness to stand up to federal agencies, like ICE, and protect its citizens from potential abuse, is seen as an inspiration for other cities. Philly is presented as a model of resistance, where authorities take a firm stance against any overreach, defending those in their community. This contrasts to the state of affairs in Minneapolis, which is being viewed as the catalyst for fear, and the perceived trigger for the resurgence of groups like the Black Panthers.
The discussion also raises questions about the definition of patriotism and who truly embodies it. The assertion is that those protesting and resisting the government, because they believe in the Constitution and the rule of law, are the true patriots. It’s also pointed out that “an armed society is a polite society”, which is a common defense for the right to bear arms, and is often misapplied to a variety of situations.
Moreover, there’s a recognition that different communities will react to this differently, which stems from the nature of the Black Panther Party itself, as well as the history of the country. This can lead to the consideration of how different communities might form their own groups, to protect their own interests.
The article ends by circling back to the overarching narrative, the anxieties about state overreach. The re-emergence of the Black Panthers is viewed as a direct response to a perceived need for self-defense in the face of this overreach, which is seen by some as a necessary step, and by others as a potentially dangerous escalation. Whether viewed with hope or trepidation, it’s clear that this development is a reflection of deep-seated concerns about the balance of power and the safety of marginalized communities.