David R. Hoffman: Why the exploitation of political groups remains an oppressor's tool

EDITOR'S NOTE: The views and opinions expressed are those of the writer and not of Ottawa News Network.

One of the most overlooked comedy routines in the 1979 movie “Monty Python’s Life of Brian” is its clever mockery of group dynamics.

Set in biblical times, the film depicts a variety of revolutionary groups seeking to challenge the Roman occupation, but, instead of fighting against the common enemy, these groups spend most of their time fighting against each other while the Romans passively look on.

Working in groups can be a very powerful weapon, because not only do you have others who can watch your back, but also because politicians tend to be influenced more by groups, and the votes they possess, than one individual (unless, of course, that individual has a lot of money).

But groups can run into two problems, internal and external. Internal is when clashes of egos, or disputes about methods or goals, occur within a group, often resulting in schisms and the group even splitting into smaller, less effective factions.

External conflicts occur when several groups may have similar goals, but different ideas about how to achieve them. These ideological differences can deny them the unity that could otherwise make them more effective.

For example, two prominent civil rights groups during the 1960s were the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC), led by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), led, at different periods, by Ella Baker, John Lewis, Stokely Carmichael, and H. Rap Brown.

While both groups initially worked with White activists, in 1966 SNCC voted to expel them. While some argue this was motivated by racism, the more accepted explanations were that their opponents claimed civil rights groups could only function if they had White members and SNCC wanted to prove them wrong; that the media routinely ignored the murders of Black activists, while the killings of White activists were usually front-page news; and that White activists often did not reside in the regions where they were working, meaning the length of time they would stay was often limited and uncertain.

But many believe that SNCC, regardless of their reasons, made a mistake. This was probably articulated best by a former police officer in the 2015 documentary “The Black Panthers: Vanguard of the Revolution.”

In this documentary, this officer said that law enforcement was not overly concerned about the Black Panther Party (BPP), because most of their members lived in neighborhoods that could be easily surveilled and contained. What was more concerning, he stated, was White college students chanting Panther slogans on campuses.

One of the most charismatic leaders of the Black Panthers, Chicago’s Fred Hampton, discerned this power of unity as well, and set out to form a “Rainbow Coalition” that included people and groups of all races, like the primarily White “Young Patriots Organization,” the Puerto Rican “Young Lords Organization,” and the “Students for a Democratic Society,” amongst others.

To the political power structure, this made Hampton extremely dangerous, and the FBI, under the auspices of its “COINTELPRO” operation, responded by sending anonymous letters to a large Chicago street gang, falsely claiming that the Black Panthers were planning to kill the gang’s leader, and telling him, “if I was you, I’d know what to do.”

But when this failed to incite the retaliatory violence the Bureau hoped would occur, Hampton was subsequently killed, along with fellow Panther Mark Clark, in a predawn police raid in December of 1969.

Although Cook County Attorney Edward Hanrahan tried to frame the raid as a dramatic shootout, where the Panthers repeatedly refused to surrender, subsequent ballistics tests revealed that out of almost one hundred shots fired, the Panthers had fired only one, and that was a convulsive shot by Clark after having been struck in the chest by incoming gunfire.

Naturally, some may be asking what this has to do with today. The answer is that “divide and conquer” tactics and the weaponization of the legal system are still political strategies, and even more blatantly used. When those in power can compel people to blame each other, they divert their eyes from the real problem, like the fact that, according to some estimates, the superrich control almost 32% of the nation’s overall wealth, leaving millions of Americans to struggle for their share of the remaining 68%.

The reality is it’s difficult to work in a group. Not only does one often have to suppress their personal ego for a greater cause, but they often have to do so in the face of constant setbacks and mendacious political attacks. 

But there is still some veracity in the saying “In Unity There is Strength.”

One of the greatest gifts human beings have been blessed with is their minds, and one of their greatest curses is how readily so many are willing to surrender control of their minds to exploitative con artists, bigots and cult leaders. This means that, if you sense manipulation in a group that deviates from their stated goals, there is absolutely no shame in severing ties with it.

Just remember these words from the late anti-apartheid activist Steve Biko, who, in 1977, was beaten to death while in the custody of South African police: “The most potent weapon in the hands of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed.”

— David R. Hoffman is a retired civil rights and constitutional law attorney.

How to submit an opinion

Ottawa News Network accepts columns and letters to the editor from everyone. Letters should be about 300 words and columns should not exceed 1,000 words. ONN reserves the right to fact-check submissions as well as edit for length, clarity and grammar. Please send submissions to newsroom@ottawanewsnetwork.org.