What’s in a name? That’s more than a rhetorical question.
Clarence Jones, 26, is the leader of the Tampa Chapter of the New Black Panther Party. By all accounts, he has been a positive community influence by youth-mentoring as well as organizing several “Stop the Violence Tampa Bay” rallies and fund-raisers.
Jones, a Hillsborough Community College student who also goes by Ali Abdul Muhammad, has been successful in recruiting former Police Chief Jane Castor to the cause. Tampa Mayor Bob Buckhorn characterized his community efforts as “a force for good.”
But New Black Panther Party?
The original Black Panthers dated to the mid-1960s and were as controversial for their Maoist, black power advocacy as they were for criminal connotations. Hardly nostalgic for most of America.
It was reincarnated, sort of, as the “New Black Panther Party” in 1989. The original BPs don’t consider it “official.” The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights once labeled the NBPP a “hate group.” Not good for the image–although a “Freedom or Death” mantra is attention-getting.
Then a few years ago the previous Tampa chapter leader of the NBPP was widely criticized for a racist rant. Hardly helps.
Here’s a suggestion.
Given that Jones is working to reshape his group’s image with anti-violence rallies and even community fish fries, why not just jettison the New Black Panther Party appellation altogether? Instead of explaining what you are not to those who recall Huey Newton, why not concern yourself solely with underscoring what you really are and what your ultimate objective is–starting with the targeting of the “kids killing kids” syndrome too prevalent among black youth.
Given that names–no less than labels, caricatures, images and stereotypes–always matter, why maintain one that requires extra context in a time of increasing racial unrest and societal flashpoints?
Why not, say, the “All Of Us” Party or just “US” for the inclusive nation that we still aspire to be. For sheer signage, nothing would say it better than “All Lives Matter.” Leaves no opening for cherrypicking or hypocrisy.
And, BTW, “Freedom or Death” might sound idealistic or riveting and look good on a flag or a bumper sticker, but it implies a zero-sum approach–as well as ambiguity about whose death this is actually about.
And, who knows, maybe some pro bono assistance from the public relations community would help.