It was achieved, whether because of them, I dont know, I don't know enough about housing equality in 60's US to debate that I am afraid. Even if they achieved some things, you cannot excuse engaging in open firefights with police in public, plus, from what I can tell, a lot of their funding came through extortion and crack cocaine manufacturing,
There was a targetted campaign to vilify them. The fights with police were warranted and in self defence due to police brutality, funnily enough something the right to bare arms is specifically for. Cointelpro was specifically set up to discredit the movement and we know now how much fake news was spread to make BP look bad and likes of MLK look good. Its fact that BP were behind policy changes for black.people.
I am sure there was a smear campaign against them. But Eldridge Cleaver, one of their leaders, admitted about 20 years ago, that the shootout that led to the death of Bobby Hutton was instigated by Panthers after they led a dozen Police officers in to an ambush and opened fire on them. I am sure their cause was noble, much like BLM's was these days, unfortunately though, these causes frequently get hijacked by overly militant idiots who take things too far. I will not contest that the BP movement brought about some civil rights changes, just that I disagree with some of the methods they employed in their fight.
Have to say when cleaver is said to have said that stuff he was also said to be saying how police were needed as heroes etc. Totally against his beliefs and maybe due to him being giving community service instead of prison time for assaulting police officers
Tupac's mum was a BP and she married one of their leaders. Proper G's. Guns, drugs and violence all the way.... but it's all ok because they changed some civil rights!
going to have to disagree slightly here about your Chris Hughton example. He was unfortunate to be sacked by Newcastle but it was under Mike Ashley who no one knows what his actual footballing philosophy is. He was then hired by Birmingham, did a good job and then hired by Norwich in which he was there for a season and a 3/4s. You could argue he was harshly sacked by Norwich as he wasn't in the relegation zone when he was with them and really their target should be 17th, however he was playing really boring football (i believe they still are) and they were in really bad form and the fans had been booing hughton for a while. You might say the fans would have given a white manager a longer time (think it was more about the defensive football) and they were racist but once the fans turn on your own team, most chairmans pull the trigger, especially after a run of bad results (normally come hand in hand). hughton then went onto get a job at brighton and the rest is history.
I'm not disagreeing with your views, however, the only problem I do see with those methods is that you are targeting an individual, not the problem. That person with a pillow over their head with two eye holes cut out, was not born like that, they were bred like that. So you've dealt with the problem in front of you, but you have not dealt with the root cause. And by using aggression you could be firing the flames of the root cause, however, I would beat the **** out of them too if it is of any help.
Seems to me the FA recognise they have a problem with institutionalised racism, and are taking steps to address it. Whatever they do, they will get criticised, but they deserve some credit for at least trying to do something. And they've only said they will interview one ethnic minority person for each job. They have not said they will give that person preferential treatment during the interview process. I would hope they still give the job to the person they consider best suited to it.
Whilst I respect your right to your opinions, you do talk an awful lot of ****. Martin Luther King and Ghandi - add Nelson Mandela (in later life) to that list - acheived far more of lasting value through peaceful means than any number of violent protesters have ever managed. Hate begets hate, violence begets violence. Love and brotherhood begets progress.
Sorry but that's just the narrative we've been told to follow. All the ones you named were good, Mandela after prison before that he was a terrorist, because they followed the status quo. Yet all acknowledges that without the "violence" nothing would have been achieved. Even MLK said that the oppressor doesn't give freedom voluntarily it must be demanded by the oppressed. Further to that his aim was always to get the "opposition" to become violent. That is why he used kids to march in protest, knowing and expecting the police to let the dogs loose and beat and imprison the kids. Likes of Malcolm X criticised using kids on the front line India had revolutionaries throughout its history and the Raaj. They had done their job. All ghandi did was out innocent people on the front line to be massacred then sat with those doing the massacring
