- White people who claim to oppose racism are running out of excuses to remain unorganized, unaccountable, and structurally irrelevant.
Enough waiting. Enough posting. Enough asking for permission from the very people already carrying the heaviest load.
This is a moment that demands organization, discipline, and risk. White people who claim to oppose racism are running out of excuses to remain unorganized, unaccountable, and structurally irrelevant. Showing up to rallies is not enough. Reading the right books is not enough. Asking Black-led movements how to join them is not only misguided, it is a failure to understand the assignment.
This is not a call for proximity to justice.
This is a call to build something that actually moves it.
Why Asking to Join Black Liberation Movements Misses the Point
The Black Panther Party was not created as a broad, open political club. It was forged in response to police violence, racial terror, economic exclusion, and state abandonment of Black communities. Its programs fed children, treated the sick, and defended neighborhoods because no one else would. Its politics were inseparable from lived Black experience.
When white people ask to join Black liberation organizations, even with good intentions, they often reproduce the same dynamic these movements exist to resist. White needs to move to the center. White comfort becomes a consideration. White voices begin to crowd the room.
That is not solidarity. That is drift.
Black-led movements do not exist to rehabilitate white consciousness. They exist to secure Black survival, dignity, and power. Respecting that boundary is not exclusion. It is recognition.
The Answer Was Never “Come In.” It Was “Go Organize.”
Huey P. Newton was clear when asked what white supporters should do. Do not attempt to join Black organizations. Go organize white people. Confront racism where it is most protected. Build structures that take responsibility for dismantling white supremacy from the inside.
That guidance led to the formation of the White Panther Party. It was explicitly anti-racist. Explicitly aligned with Black liberation. Explicitly focused on mobilizing white communities against white supremacy, capitalism, and state violence. It did not seek to speak for Black people. It sought to neutralize white complicity.
The White Panther Party was imperfect and limited by its time, but its premise remains unfinished business. White people do not need another role in Black movements. We need infrastructure of our own that is answerable, disciplined, and effective.
Why We Need a White Panther Party Now
We are living in a moment of coordinated regression. White nationalism is no longer whispering. State violence is being normalized. Trans people are openly targeted. Disabled people are discarded. Immigrants are scapegoated. History is being rewritten in real time.
Black communities are not responsible for stopping this alone. They never were.
A modern White Panther Party, or an organization grounded in its principles regardless of name, would exist for one reason. To organize white people to do the work that white people alone can do.
That means confronting racism in families, schools, workplaces, unions, churches, and local governments. It means disrupting extremist organizing before it hardens. It means materially supporting Black-led efforts without attempting to steer them. It means accepting accountability without seeking praise.
This is not about branding. It is about capacity.
Solidarity Without Structure Is Theater
Too much of what passes for allyship today is symbolic and disposable. Signs go up. Posts go viral. Then the moment passes, and the systems remain intact.
Real solidarity requires organization. Organization requires commitment. Commitment requires sacrifice.
A revived White Panther Party would not dilute Black liberation movements. It would strengthen them by removing the expectation that Black activists must also manage white participation. It would take on the labor of educating, disciplining, and mobilizing white communities so that Black movements can focus on their own priorities, strategies, and survival.
This is not about guilt. It is about responsibility.
The Call
If you are white and serious about justice, stop asking to be invited in. Start building something that stands on its own feet and carries its own weight.
The road map exists. The need is urgent. History has already answered the question.
The only thing left is whether we are willing to organize like it matters.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
“White people who claim to oppose racism are running out of excuses to remain unorganized, unaccountable, and structurally irrelevant.”
Fortunately, I (as a “white”) person never tried to “make excuses”. Nor do I view racism as “my” responsibility in any way, shape or form.
Just as individual black people, for example, are not responsible for the actions of others that share their skin color.
This is also related to the reason that I’d never become an “anti-racist”, and would not read a book such as “White Fragility”.
Truth be told, I don’t feel very “fragile” in regard to what others tell me I should do, based on my skin color, sex, gender, etc. Pretty sure I can come up with a list of things “they” should so, instead (if we’re going to start assigning responsibility based on skin color, for example).
We live in a competitive world, and are competing against everyone – INCLUDING those who share our personal attributes. Perhaps even especially so, regarding the latter group.
“Fortunately, I (as a “white”) person never tried to “make excuses”. Nor do I view racism as “my” responsibility in any way, shape or form. ”
Seems to be a tension between these two sentences
“We live in a competitive world, and are competing against everyone – INCLUDING those who share our personal attributes. Perhaps even especially so, regarding the latter group.”
Do you believe that competition gives license to kill?
Not seeing any tension, there.
Sure – kill everyone. (What kind of question is that?)
And actually, do we have Greenland yet? Get those white people out of there. Pretty sure we can take on a “country” the size of Woodland or Davis. (Yes, that’s a joke regarding competition, sort of.)
It’s a question to establish that there are limits to competition and the only question is where to draw the line.
And there’s plenty of tension between not making excuses and not bearing responsibility one could argue failure to take responsibility is in fact a form of excuse
Bottom line is that I don’t care what other people think I should do based on my skin color, gender, sexual orientation, hair color, disability status (which isn’t always apparent), etc.
And in fact, I consider it racist, sexist, ageist, or any other “ist” to even bring it up in the first place. It’s actually none of any one else’s business, let alone “assigning” whatever meaning they think should be applied to it. (Which always, without exception, means that they think someone like me “owes” others something based on those attributes I didn’t select in the first place.) (Though who knows, maybe it’s like the NFL draft, before we’re born? Or some kind of lottery system?)
Next time, I’m coming back as a trust fund baby – regardless of skin color, sex, etc. First-round pick in the draft.
Pointing out race, gender, or disability at a structural level isn’t about assigning moral debt or saying anyone “owes” something for who they are. Rather it’s about recognizing patterns of advantage and disadvantage that exist independently of personal intent.
Ron,
You say you don’t make excuses, but your entire comment is a textbook example of the deflection I’m talking about. You’re conflating individual prejudice with systemic power dynamics to justify checking out of the fight entirely.
First, no one is asking you to atone for the actions of every white person in history. The point isn’t that you are personally guilty of the sins of the past; the point is that you benefit from the system that was built on them. Systemic racism isn’t about individual bad actors; it’s about the structures—housing, banking, policing, education—that continue to funnel opportunity away from specific groups and toward others. Refusing to acknowledge that reality doesn’t make you “tough”; it makes you complicit by default.
You claim you don’t want to be an “anti-racist” and reject books like White Fragility because you don’t like being told what to do based on your skin color. That’s a convenient dodge. Anti-racism isn’t about self-flagellation or feeling guilty; it’s about recognizing the machinery of inequality and refusing to let it operate unchallenged in your name.
Your view of the world as a purely “competitive” arena where we are all just isolated individuals fighting for survival is a capitalist fantasy. It ignores the reality that white people, generally speaking, have been granted a head start in that competition. We are competing in a game where the rules were written for us. When you say you aren’t responsible for racism, you’re essentially saying you’re fine with reaping the benefits of a stacked deck as long as you don’t have to think about how it got that way.
As for your final point about listing things “they” should do—that is exactly the kind of irrelevant, reactionary noise that proves why white people need to organize separately. We need to build a culture where white people stop looking for ways to blame the victims of racism and start focusing on neutralizing the white people who are actively maintaining the hierarchy. You don’t have to join the party, Ron, but history will note that when the time came to dismantle the machinery of white supremacy, you chose to defend your right to be “unaccountable.”
“The point isn’t that you are personally guilty of the sins of the past; the point is that you benefit from the system that was built on them. Systemic racism isn’t about individual bad actors; it’s about the structures—housing, banking, policing, education—that continue to funnel opportunity away from specific groups and toward others. Refusing to acknowledge that reality doesn’t make you “tough”; it makes you complicit by default.”
Let’s just say (for the sake of argument) that’s true.
You’re asking me to voluntarily give them up? Really? How’s that working out? Plus, how would I personally control “the systems” that you’re referring to?
Kind of reminds me of those who say they’re concerned about high housing prices, but aren’t willing to sell their own below market value when the time comes.
Tell me first why I should care about ANY particular group (including my own) based on skin color, sex, etc. Those (my own “group”) are usually the same people I’m competing against, regarding jobs, housing, mates, etc. You think I care about them, more than anyone else based on those attributes?
And are you familiar with that group that’s doing better than everyone else (including “white” people)? The (non-white) people who would be most negatively-impacted by Affirmative Action in education, etc.?
The admission that the system is rigged, followed immediately by a refusal to do anything about it, is exactly the kind of moral vacancy that necessitates a White Panther Party. It’s not a confusion about the facts; it’s a conscious decision to cash the checks written by a history of theft. That isn’t “rugged individualism,” it’s opportunism (and gross).
The argument that “I can’t control the systems” is a cop-out. No, you don’t sit on the Federal Reserve, but you inhabit a society. You don’t get to claim you are powerless in the face of history while simultaneously benefiting from it every single day. Power isn’t just about the guy at the top; it’s about the masses at the bottom who decide whether to enforce the status quo or dismantle it. Opting out isn’t neutrality; it’s active collaboration.
This hyper-competitive worldview, that your primary rivals are the people who look like you and that society is just a Hunger Games for resources, is sad. It’s the logic of an atomized consumer who has been convinced that human solidarity is a sucker’s bet. That’s not one surviving; just one justifying their own isolation.
As for the Affirmative Action pivot: using other non-white groups as a shield to deflect from Black oppression is a tired trope. It doesn’t disprove systemic racism; it just proves you’re looking for any excuse to keep the hierarchy exactly as it is.
The goal of this article isn’t to debate the people cheering for the hierarchy. The goal is to build the machinery that wrecks it.
Note how I stated, “for the sake of argument”.
“As for the Affirmative Action pivot: using other non-white groups as a shield to deflect from Black oppression is a tired trope. It doesn’t disprove systemic racism; it just proves you’re looking for any excuse to keep the hierarchy exactly as it is.”
What it “proves” (if anything) is that the system isn’t rigged for white people.
What you’re advocating for is to purposefully “rig the system” for others, based on skin color.
Beyond that, you’re going to have to rig the system based on “particular” skin colors – maybe some kind of hierarchical ranking system (e.g. “black” people, “brown” people, “indigenous” people, etc.).
The casino monopoly provided exclusively to tribes is an example of this.
Not to mention sex, etc. (Women are now over-represented in universities.)
Thankfully the White Panthers disbanded in the 1970’s.
Us whitey’s have to stick together, Keith – to ensure that the non-whiteys don’t get their share.
(At least, that’s what I’m gathering from these type of articles.) :-)
Bonus points for being male (and for acknowledging that there are males and females).
There isn’t enough privilege for everyone, so I certainly want to hog it all. (At least, that’s what I’m told.)
The “for the sake of argument” defense is a rhetorical maneuver that allows one to hypothetically concede the game is rigged, only to immediately argue that the spoils should still be collected. Logically, if you accept the premise that the system funnels opportunity based on race, you cannot then argue that maintaining that disparate outcome is the result of a fair competition. You are effectively admitting you want to keep the head start.
Claiming that equity is “rigging” the system relies on a false equivalence. You cannot “rig” a system that is already skewed. If the architecture of society currently tilts the floor to ensure resources roll to one group, then leveling the floor isn’t discrimination; it is the establishment of a neutral baseline. To call that “oppression” is to argue that the slanted floor was the natural order of things. The opposition to these measures suggests a fear of finally facing the same unvarnished competition that was deemed acceptable when it didn’t apply to you.
Discrimination is illegal.
You want to re-institute it.
And yes, an example of what you’d likely support would negatively (and disproportionately) impact non-white people (Asians, in that case), as already noted. That’s just a simple and evidence-based fact; not an opinion.
I have yet to see anyone explain how that happens, in a system supposedly biased in favor of white people. A much better explanation is that Asians, as a group, take educational preparation more seriously than whites.
Also, still waiting for your hierarchy regarding different black, brown, and indigenous skin colors.
Fortunately (for white people), Jewish people are being increasingly scapegoated regarding these issues (thereby deflecting attention from the usual scapegoat). And even Asians are getting blamed for using “white supremacy to get ahead”, according to one former school board member in San Francisco.
Though it seems that Jewish people are sometimes lumped in with white people (or identify as such).
But my question is as follows: If Asians are able to use “white supremacy” to get ahead, doesn’t that mean it’s more of a method, than a skin color? And using that logic, shouldn’t everyone be using white supremacy to get ahead – including black and brown people?
Is white supremacy copyrighted? (I’m starting to suspect that I should have tried that at the local patent office. I’d be a billionaire by this point, selling licenses/franchises.)
Ah, Well Done! You have moved officially from ignorance to advocacy. By reducing white supremacy to a “method” or a “copyrighted strategy,” you are stripping the ideology of its violence and treating the oppression of millions as a useful business tactic. That is not a misunderstanding; it is a moral choice.
You are wielding the “Model Minority” myth as a weapon; a classic white supremacist tactic to pit groups against each other and maintain the hierarchy. You aren’t analyzing data; you are telling Black people that their oppression is their fault for not “playing the game” as well as an Asian person.
When you noted that Jewish people are being scapegoated and called it “fortunate” for white people, you dropped the mask. You aren’t interested in justice or fairness; you are interested in dodging accountability. You aren’t describing a system; you are defending a racket.
This article is obviously not for you…
Oh my…SMH
“You are wielding the “Model Minority” myth as a weapon; a classic white supremacist tactic to pit groups against each other and maintain the hierarchy. You aren’t analyzing data; you are telling Black people that their oppression is their fault for not “playing the game” as well as an Asian person.
Hell, white people aren’t “playing the game” as well as Asian people are. But you don’t need white people to “pit groups against each other”. They’ll do that on their own. Or to paraphrase Richard Nixon, “you won’t have us to kick around anymore”. (But seriously, there’s some truth to that as the percentage of white people decreases over time.) At which point, those of us who are left will just be bystanders while other groups fight it out.
(Not sure, but I think that’s pretty close to Charles Manson’s “plan”, though he added the part about coming out of the cave to rule over the masses at that point.)
“When you noted that Jewish people are being scapegoated and called it “fortunate” for white people, you dropped the mask. You aren’t interested in justice or fairness; you are interested in dodging accountability. You aren’t describing a system; you are defending a racket.”
I think we can all at least agree that Jewish people are to blame, or at least their “systems” are according to the logic you present. (Worked for the white Nazis, at least.)
“This article is obviously not for you…”
I beg to differ – I find it amusing (and sometimes enlightening to engage on this subject).
You are quoting Richard Nixon… a symbol of corruption… as a victim? That is a historical distortion. White people are not “tired of being kicked around”; they are being asked to account for a hierarchy they built. Conflating accountability with persecution is a lie.
And the attempt to drag Jewish people into this to validate your “system” argument is intellectually bankrupt. Scapegoating Jewish people is a core mechanism of white supremacy, not a rebuttal to it. Trying to goad me into antisemitism to prove a point about “systems” is a despicable debate tactic.
You find this “amusing” because you treat the lived reality of oppression as a game. That is the ultimate proof of your privilege. You are a spectator at a gladiatorial match, watching people die for your profit, and calling it entertainment.
This hasn’t been a conversation; it’s been your confession.
I find it amusing because it’s complete and utter (edited)
And I notice (once again) that you (and those with your belief system) aren’t able to explain (and are entirely uncomfortable with) Asian success.
Not to mention your failure to address hierarchy, in regard to your victimization chart. (Probably pretty difficult to come up with one in regard to indigenous people vs. black people, in particular. I assume that “brown” people aren’t quite as victimized as those first two groups.)
I’d suggest a point system. Maybe a tie regarding the first two groups. They get a “5 out of 5”, while brown people get a “4” . . .
It is interesting, in that I recall a “real life” example of the hierarchy. As I recall, the former mayor of San Francisco believed she was “owed” an appointment to be California’s senator (when Feinstein died) due to her skin color, which had a higher victimization rating than the “brown” person who was selected, instead.
Needless to say, there was no way a white person would have been appointed to that position, and perhaps not even an Asian person.
Sex didn’t seem to be as much of a factor in that example, although we’ve all seen the “sex card” used in such situations as well.
Obviously, white men are at the bottom of that hierarchy – goes without saying.
We could also discuss Biden’s choice of a VP, if you’d like. Of course, he had to “make up” for being an old white man, himself.
Happy Martin Luther King Day . . . . . well, it was, until I read this. 58 years ago (sans three months) I marched at Stanford in a silent memorial to honor the passing of Dr. King. My memory, from the eyes of a child, was that everyone there was black except us. Should my mom have asked permission first, to ask if Jews were welcome to march with them in solidarity? I rather believe we were indeed welcome, considering that actual white supremacists at the time explicitly stated their desire to exterminate two peoples from the USA: blacks & Jews. But in today’s parlance, we as Ashkenazi are labeled ‘white appearing’, so perhaps I should call up mom on the other side and lay a guilt trip on her for intruding us into black spaces, as this articles attempts to do with white allies.
The tally: “white”-24 and “Black”-14 as for the word count. That’s a lot of racial labeling for a piece that claims to be about “structure” and “discipline.” It reads like a guilt sermon aimed at the same tiny slice of already-left-leaning white people who already show up, already read the books, already feel bad, and are now being told they’re also “structurally irrelevant” unless they do even more. Cool, thanks.
And the capitalization is a tell. “Black” is consistently elevated as a proper noun, and “white” is left lowercase like it’s a contamination. People can do that if they want, but it’s not some innocent style choice. It’s part of the moral framing: one group gets dignity language, the other gets “you are the problem” language. And I assume since Jews are now labeled as “oppressors” in the current ‘oppressor-oppressed’ simplistic paradigm, we are now actually lower-case ‘jews’ to go with the lower-case ‘whites’. Heck, I don’t really care as long as we all use the same language, but I found it odd that without explanation ‘black’ became ‘Black’ but ‘white’ did not become ‘White’ in media several years ago, but only in left-leaning and mainstream media, like it was a secret dog whistle. I use the grammar I’ve used for 60 years before I first saw a capital ‘B’. I will gladly change if an argument can be made that makes for clarity of language and isn’t politically divisive, but I haven’t heard one yet.
I didn’t know until today that there was an epidemic of white people asking to join black spaces. And no evidence was given that such asking is resented across the board. The author acts like the main obstacle to justice is . . . white allies being insufficiently organized. Not crime, not bad policy, not broken schools, not economic incentives, not family structure, not bad leadership, not extremist ideologies spreading online, not anything concrete. Nope, the emergency is that white people are “asking permission” and “posting” too much, and apparently not meeting as a large group of white people (what could possibly go wrong there?). This is left-activism’s version of “you didn’t clap hard enough.”
And here, dear audience, are the steps to the author’s guilt mechanics:
1) you say you oppose racism
2) you’re told that holds no weight in itself
3) you ask what to do
4) you’re told asking in itself is offensive
5) you’re told to build a structure
6) if you build it wrong, you’re still the problem
7) repeat forever
And pardon, but the “White Panther Party” revival pitch is just . . . not serious. Most people would hear that and think “cosplay politics.” It’s edgy branding pretending to be strategy. If the goal is persuading regular working people, this is the exact language that makes them tune out. But your target appears to be guilt-ridden white people – because you know this guilt stuff doesn’t work on most people, right? You write this in that hyper-online activist dialect where everything is an “assignment” and everyone is failing it.
Many years ago — exactly 50 in fact — I read an ad in the San Francisco Chronicle as a teenager about an activist group being established and having its first meeting. I went, and that group still exists today – though it split and is now under two new names. Nonetheless, it took fifteen years, but we did one huge and great thing that changed California forever. So how about, instead of writing a new fluffy, vacuous, ideological puff article every day for the Vanguard, you organize, “The first meeting of the Davis chapter of the white ally group The White Panthers will be meeting in the Blanchard Room of the Davis Branch Mary L. Stephens Library on Saturday, January 31st at 11:00 am.” Instead of all this empty talk, do something useful locally. The point being, how about showing leadership and taking action instead of guilt-tripping other people into creating this group for you?
You’ll have to decide of course if this is for white people only, or if other people can come without asking permission first. Or is it “Other” people?
And one more thing: the piece talks a lot about “accountability” but never explains accountable to who, exactly. Some committee? Some ideology? Whoever yells loudest on social media that week? Because in practice that’s what “accountability” usually means in this world. If someone wants to organize locally against racism, great. Do it. Go after actual discrimination, bad incentives, corrupt institutions, institutionalized racism. But this article isn’t really about building capacity. It’s about keeping a certain class of people in a permanent state of “you’re not doing enough.” Thanks for the guilt subscription.
My recommendation: stop treating “regular people” like they’re NPCs in your political therapy session, take the initiative, and form the White Panther Party of Davis. Here’s my contribution: if the White Panthers becomes a real thing in Davis for more than one year and has a least two-dozen active members, I will contribute $100. If not, I get to say “I told you so”. See you in in January 2027, for the verdict.
You are mistaking a critique of how we organize for a critique of whether we should.
Your mother’s solidarity in 1968 was honorable, but history didn’t stop there. The dynamics of allyship have evolved, and clinging to a 50-year-old memory of a march doesn’t exempt you from the need to analyze the failures of modern movements. The article isn’t saying white people shouldn’t help; it’s saying that the current method of “helping” often shifts the focus to white feelings rather than Black liberation.
Your fixation on capitalization is a semantic dodge. “Black” is capitalized to denote a specific cultural history and shared experience; “white” is lowercase because it refers to a pigmentation and a system of advantage, not a monolithic culture in the same way. You can argue grammar all day, but it doesn’t change the reality of the structural imbalance.
You call the “White Panther” concept “cosplay,” but that misses the point entirely. The name is a historical reference to a specific tactical strategy: white people organizing against white supremacy, independent of Black leadership, so they stop draining resources and attention from the movements they claim to support. Dismissing it as “edgy branding” is a convenient way to avoid engaging with the logic of the strategy.
You demand a meeting in a library room as the only valid form of “action,” but you can’t build a house without a blueprint. The article is providing the blueprint for a disciplined structure that avoids the pitfalls of previous activism. Organizing without this discipline… without a clear understanding of why we are there… leads to the very incoherence you are criticizing.
As for accountability: if you are fighting a fire, you are accountable to the people whose house is burning. If you are fighting racism, you are accountable to the communities suffering from it. It’s not a mystery; it’s a consequence of the work.
You are right about one thing: regular people aren’t NPCs. They are the ones who have the power to dismantle this system if they organize with discipline rather than defensiveness. We aren’t asking for your permission or your $100. We are calling for a structure that renders the “guilt trip” obsolete because the work will be done, regardless of who is watching.