Talk:Black Hammer Party

Black Hammer is Anti-Communist

Te "ideology" section should say "anti-communist" not "communist", here's a thread on twitter where they explain they are against communism as a "white idea".

https://twitter.com/blkhmmrtimes/status/1390110537867042819?lang=en 2600:1700:6730:9770:444C:FF07:CBA3:6106 (talk) 23:03, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm removing any references to far-left ideology that aren't quotes. The sources seem to conflict with each other in that regard so it's best to err on the side of caution. DannyC55 (Talk) 01:24, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Their actual left wing ideology seems to not extend beyond aesthetics, best I can tell this is a cult and I've found a few RS that agree with that. This is also definitely current events, but I'm wondering if this article will need to go to the past-tense soon SomerIsland (talk) 23:35, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

The Black Hammer Party is a political split from the Uhuru Movement. The Uhuru Movement is in and of itself a black Nationalist re-envisioning of a socialist ideology rooted in Marxism- Leninism with the ultimate goal of communism as seen through the lens of the Black revolutionary movement of the USA. All three are connected through adherence to dialectical and historical materialism as founded by Karl Marx.

Wither this renders the Black hammer Party Left or Right is then up to the observer and the observers assessment of wither this political trajectory is ultimately 'Left' or 'Right'. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uhuru_Movement Adawakush (talk) 05:10, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Far-left or far-right?

The party has made it clear that they do not support Marxism and sveral other idea related to Marx however, this does not mean that they are far-right. They activly cite and promote North Korean propaganda on their social media and on their website. The party was founded by former members of the African People's Socialist Party which is not a right-wing ideology. Futhermore, they met with the Communist Party of Kenya. How could they actually be called far-right when their ideology is leaning more left than right? Los Perros pueden Cocinar (talk) 15:18, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

The BHP is a fascist party. Plenty of people have exited leftist organizations and gone to the other end of the political spectrum. Docktuh (talk) 22:52, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Docktuh, where in the article is there any mention of BHP being fascist (or neo-Nazi or a close synonym). I cannot see any, so categorising them as such, apart from being WP:OR, is pointless. No one coming to the article is going to learn anything about their 'fascist' beliefs or acts, simply an unattributed label. I am UK and had never heard of BHP until a few days ago, and they are clearly fairly FRINGE and possibly with little ideological coherence. They appear to have far-right elements, but people with far-right elements are not thus automatically fascists. Pincrete (talk) 06:18, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Many of the other ideological 'positions' seem equally WP:OR and questionable - Trumpist and Garveyist both seem based on questionable primary sources.Pincrete (talk) 13:54, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

@Pincrete Firstly, BHP is only in the US. Secondly, right in the ideology section, with citations, it states that the BHP is Garveyist and Trumpist, both of which are distinctly American fascist movements. There are also citations for the party's antisemitism, as well as opposition to Marxism and Zionism, features which are common to fascist parties. It would be a different thing if they were simply a far-right party, but these are distinct and explicit elements. Docktuh (talk) 18:59, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

@Docktuh, this is pure WP:OR and WP:SYNTH - the pro- Trump and pro Garvey sources are primary sources and neither states explicitly that this org is pro-either. If I write a twitter post saying Malcolm X is a hero and ML King an Uncle Tom, have I automatically bought into all M X's beliefs at his most strident? Obviously not. The other claims are better sourced but anti-semitism/zionism and fascism are nowhere near being synonyms. This is your own invention. What 3rd party sources mainly emphasise is the incoherence of the fringe you-tuby cultish posturing of BHP. It's position on a left-right axis seems equally incoherent. I realise BHP is US - and barely has any presence there, that isn't a good reason for inventing categories to put it into when the org barely exists except as a series of postures. Pincrete (talk) 05:59, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

It's neither, both OR nor SYNTH, those are explicitly stated. Coming straight from the mouth of BHP itself. If they'd said they were falangists instead of Trumpists or Garveyists, that would still make them fascists. This is just categories. And the Garvey source is directly from an archive of their website, not their Twitter. I don't know why you opt to use that MLK/Malcolm X tweet hypothetical, it doesn't contribute anything, as we're talking about an organization's internal views as they espouse them, not an organization's views of other things. Docktuh (talk) 14:52, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Interpreting primary sources is pure, dictionary definition WP:OR. The MLK/MX analogy almost exactly equates to the 'evidence' that they are Garveyist - which is they compare Garvey favourably with du Bois, whom they seem to think was too much of an apologist/insufficiently 'hard-line'. That doesn't make them adherents of Garvey any more than if I praise some aspect of Malcolm X, I'm suddenly a muslim! If I admire actions taken by Abe Lincoln, am I a Republican? The 3rd party coverage of them represents them as having little coherence and as having varied their position on various subjects over time - that coverage is ignored in favour of your own interpretation of primary sources. They appear to have more political positions than sources that have mentioned them. Low levels of WP:RS coverage (which often happens with fringe orgs) is no excuse for WP:OR. Pincrete (talk) 17:05, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

First of all, no it isn't. One should certainly use caution when using primary sources, but this isn't in-and-of-itself inadmissible. We wouldn't doubt, for example, the claims of a vegan enjoying broccoli. The analogy is still bad to convey what it is you're trying to do, but nonetheless. BHP is referring specifically in that Garvey article to Black separatism, and is (if the title wasn't making it obvious) drawing a distinct line between Garveyism and DuBois' views of racial integration. It's not simply "praise" as you try reducing it to, it's an endorsement. Docktuh (talk) 21:39, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

So if they endorse a historical figure - Garvey, they buy into everything about that person's beliefs, and if they endorse a socially conservative moral agenda, (in a tweet) they're Trumpist , even if they don't mention Trump or Trumpism and sign themselves MAGA communists (whatever one of those is) and since Garveyism and Trumpism have fascist elements (according to some) BHP is fascist. This is so WP:OR and PoV, it's bonkers. BHP appears to be a fairly incoherent but fairly unattractive pot-pourri of attention-seeking postures and prejudices, but nothing suggests that WP:RS actually think they are fascists. Pincrete (talk) 22:07, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Are you trying to be willfully obtuse? This is a lot of posturing over things that have come straight from the horse's mouth, and you've yet to argue why that shouldn't be considered RS (given that primary sources are to be used with caution). All I did was categorize an article based on sourced things in that article. Docktuh (talk) 02:38, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

They don't say they are Garveyist and they don't say they are Trumpist and certainly don't say they are fascist - but even if they did, claims about themselves that are uncontroversial are the only accepted use of primary sources about themselves. Saying that a political group is fascist is not remotely comparable to saying that a celeb is vegan - it was added by you relatively recently without adding a single source to support it. I'm no friend of BHP, but I am a friend of WP being coherent RS'ed info, not editor surmisal.Pincrete (talk) 05:00, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

The recent ADL source added is a good independent source. BUT it doesn't anywhere mention any support for Trump or Trumpism (barely a political ideology anyway) - which is supposedly an ideology of BHP and what is claimed to be a defining feature of them. At the same time, almost everything said by ADL is ignored - most notably that it has probably almost no membership at all now, having briefly peaked in 2020 with "a few dozen members".

BHP is/was a black nationalist/seperatist group - it used anti-white anti-colonialist and anti-semetic rhetoric. It had/has little time for any white, or integrationist 'leaders' (whether liberal or Marxist, whether Biden or duBois or Marx), beyond that it's chief characteristics are its fringe-ness, its lack of coherence and its short life-span. It describes itself as 'conservative' on a handful of fashionable social issues (anti-child 'grooming', anti-CRT) - which it would be difficult to find anyone disagreeing with, and because of them being black, we extrapolate that they are "black-conservatives" - again, a demographic more than an ideology anyway. Most Biden voters, of all skin-colours, would probably be opposed to children "hating themselves because of their race", so BHP's is a very limited social conservatism. Despite this the number of ideological position espoused by BHP according to WP appears to exceed the total WP:RS who have covered them and roughly equal to the number of members! Pincrete (talk) 08:20, 22 May 2023 (UTC)