Scan barcode
aerlenbach's review
4.0
This is a short book about how armed resistance against reactionaries is necessary and can be more effective than nonviolent resistance. Violent resistance was erased from US history by liberals who don’t want real material change and by reactionaries who think they invented it.
This book was cited a lot in the book I read last year about the subject "In Defense of Looting: A Riotous History of Uncivil Action" by Vicky Osterwell (2019), which I highly recommend.
Robert F. Williams’ thesis was that in societies where the state does not protect victims of oppression, violent resistance may be needed in order to achieve equal protection under the law. Is it always necessary? No. Does it always work? No. But to take it off the table is to fight injustice with one arm tied behind our backs. We must learn our history. We must not fall for the whitewashed propaganda.
Reactionaries, conservatives, fascists, they all understand this. They are ready for mass unrest. They are ready for civil war. We must not go looking for violence but we must be prepared in the event of violence. We must not assume the state will protect us from itself or our fellow man.
Short book. Pretty good.
This book was cited a lot in the book I read last year about the subject "In Defense of Looting: A Riotous History of Uncivil Action" by Vicky Osterwell (2019), which I highly recommend.
Robert F. Williams’ thesis was that in societies where the state does not protect victims of oppression, violent resistance may be needed in order to achieve equal protection under the law. Is it always necessary? No. Does it always work? No. But to take it off the table is to fight injustice with one arm tied behind our backs. We must learn our history. We must not fall for the whitewashed propaganda.
Reactionaries, conservatives, fascists, they all understand this. They are ready for mass unrest. They are ready for civil war. We must not go looking for violence but we must be prepared in the event of violence. We must not assume the state will protect us from itself or our fellow man.
Short book. Pretty good.
stevia333k's review
5.0
Very helpful in explaining the intersection of gun control laws before Reagan's governorship mixed with how the SCOTUS didn't declare individual gun rights legal until like 2008. Like if you're talking about gun clubs, that was the basic unit of gun ownership basically, excluding how white fascists were getting guns out of the military.
There's a quote from a personal letter in my life that's basically like I'll be fine, god will save me, regarding a separation/divorce, but then the person saying that lost their house & had to work for the rest of their life... like, yeah there are complications, but the optimism in this book feels painful as someone who's been alive since like the 1990s. But basically, 2 books kind of fit this flow
- "The Myth Of The Entrepreneurial State" which puts way too much faith in the market, even though it argues that the private/public sector distinction is bullshit. As someone living in 2021, damn is it failed
- "Good Muslim Bad Muslim" which gets into how USA's military adapted to people's war & how CIA's terrorism got normalized. Like that specific book only goes up to about 2005, and right now I'm in the 1980s part of it, but still. There's also discussion about various types of Islam, but still.
There were some quotes that made me be like damn, that was a racism problem I've had. Like I need to look back for them, and I got the audiobook version instead of a printed version so oy vey, but still.
Also, the epilogue gives a contemporary take on what "the new left" was, which ends up being a very different take than the one compiled in "goliath" but to be fair the contemporary take was from 1967, while "goliath" was not a contemporary take & had like 50 years of hindsight to work with, as well as mainly focusing on the 1970s.
There's a quote from a personal letter in my life that's basically like I'll be fine, god will save me, regarding a separation/divorce, but then the person saying that lost their house & had to work for the rest of their life... like, yeah there are complications, but the optimism in this book feels painful as someone who's been alive since like the 1990s. But basically, 2 books kind of fit this flow
- "The Myth Of The Entrepreneurial State" which puts way too much faith in the market, even though it argues that the private/public sector distinction is bullshit. As someone living in 2021, damn is it failed
- "Good Muslim Bad Muslim" which gets into how USA's military adapted to people's war & how CIA's terrorism got normalized. Like that specific book only goes up to about 2005, and right now I'm in the 1980s part of it, but still. There's also discussion about various types of Islam, but still.
There were some quotes that made me be like damn, that was a racism problem I've had. Like I need to look back for them, and I got the audiobook version instead of a printed version so oy vey, but still.
Also, the epilogue gives a contemporary take on what "the new left" was, which ends up being a very different take than the one compiled in "goliath" but to be fair the contemporary take was from 1967, while "goliath" was not a contemporary take & had like 50 years of hindsight to work with, as well as mainly focusing on the 1970s.
clayby's review
dark
emotional
informative
reflective
tense
fast-paced
4.0
Negroes with Guns, by Robert F. Williams
This one has been on my TBR list for a while, and I'm very glad I finally got around to reading it.
In the book, Robert F. Williams recounts his time as President of the Monroe, North Carolina chapter of the NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People) in the 1950's. It's a harrowing account of the terrible violence and abuse the Black citizens of Monroe faced at the hands of their White "neighbors," which lead to the eventual breakdown of law in the town, and Robert fleeing to Cuba to escape persecution.
Throughout the book, Williams also questions the efficacy of non-violent direct action (advocated by Martin Luther King Jr.) in the struggle of Black liberation, compared to his own methods of armed self-defense. He certainly puts forth a strong argument for armed self-defense, citing occasions where it kept picketers safe in the worst circumstances, and also helped them to achieve their goals.
Liberals, Black and especially White, were shaken to their cores by his calls for armed, organized self-defense. He was labeled a Communist, a Black Nationalist, and so on, in an attempt to discredit his activities as dangerous and un-American. Robert F. Williams, like many before him, was essentially marked for death for wanting to protect his friends, family, and community from the murderous, white supremacist ideology the U.S. is built on.
Negroes with Guns was a monumental book when it first released, inspiring the Black Power movement and groups such as the Black Panther Party. It's a quick, albeit heavy read, and I believe it should be read by anyone wanting to involve themselves in any sort of liberation movement.
This one has been on my TBR list for a while, and I'm very glad I finally got around to reading it.
In the book, Robert F. Williams recounts his time as President of the Monroe, North Carolina chapter of the NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People) in the 1950's. It's a harrowing account of the terrible violence and abuse the Black citizens of Monroe faced at the hands of their White "neighbors," which lead to the eventual breakdown of law in the town, and Robert fleeing to Cuba to escape persecution.
Throughout the book, Williams also questions the efficacy of non-violent direct action (advocated by Martin Luther King Jr.) in the struggle of Black liberation, compared to his own methods of armed self-defense. He certainly puts forth a strong argument for armed self-defense, citing occasions where it kept picketers safe in the worst circumstances, and also helped them to achieve their goals.
Liberals, Black and especially White, were shaken to their cores by his calls for armed, organized self-defense. He was labeled a Communist, a Black Nationalist, and so on, in an attempt to discredit his activities as dangerous and un-American. Robert F. Williams, like many before him, was essentially marked for death for wanting to protect his friends, family, and community from the murderous, white supremacist ideology the U.S. is built on.
Negroes with Guns was a monumental book when it first released, inspiring the Black Power movement and groups such as the Black Panther Party. It's a quick, albeit heavy read, and I believe it should be read by anyone wanting to involve themselves in any sort of liberation movement.
nicolemillo's review against another edition
informative
fast-paced
This book offers a lot to think about. It addresses things like self-defence, when it is appropriate to use violence, double-standards for who can use violence and what actions (and by whom) are even considered violence at all, pacifist hypocrisy, Uncle Toms, gains made because the dominant force (white racists) didn’t find denying those gains inconvenient, how some victories can become detrimental to the cause by mollifying activists, taking for granted Black people’s patience and “willingness” to endure abuse and so on.
I really love how measured Williams is. His arguments follow a very plain logic and he does not seem like a violent man so much as simply a reasonable, pragmatic man who sees the need to employ all methods available to protect the dignity of his community which was regularly put in mortal danger. I remain very strongly anti-guns, but as far as the place of violence in the Black liberation movement goes, there is a lot of room for nuance in what could be made into a black and white argument (pun unintended) where one is expected to be abused until the abuser decides to stop. I think this book explains that well and, even though the ideal would be non-violence, I see where the use of violence has been effective in liberation struggles where all other non-violent methods have been exhausted. When you are forced into a corner and your life and those in your community (or other vulnerable people) are in danger, what other choice do you have?
Something that jumped out at me was that Williams’ NAACP chapter seemed to be one of the few that white racists were wary of because they were willing to fight back and had driven the KKK away on one(?) occasion. It’s interesting too that some of the white, pacifist freedom riders said in a written statement (to the NAACP which was denouncing Williams’ stance of armed self-defence if necessary) that they supported/understood the need sometimes for violent retaliation.
I’m reading this one for a leftist/anarchist/Black liberation book club and we should be meeting to discuss it tomorrow so I’m interested to hear what everyone else has to say about it.
I really love how measured Williams is. His arguments follow a very plain logic and he does not seem like a violent man so much as simply a reasonable, pragmatic man who sees the need to employ all methods available to protect the dignity of his community which was regularly put in mortal danger. I remain very strongly anti-guns, but as far as the place of violence in the Black liberation movement goes, there is a lot of room for nuance in what could be made into a black and white argument (pun unintended) where one is expected to be abused until the abuser decides to stop. I think this book explains that well and, even though the ideal would be non-violence, I see where the use of violence has been effective in liberation struggles where all other non-violent methods have been exhausted. When you are forced into a corner and your life and those in your community (or other vulnerable people) are in danger, what other choice do you have?
Something that jumped out at me was that Williams’ NAACP chapter seemed to be one of the few that white racists were wary of because they were willing to fight back and had driven the KKK away on one(?) occasion. It’s interesting too that some of the white, pacifist freedom riders said in a written statement (to the NAACP which was denouncing Williams’ stance of armed self-defence if necessary) that they supported/understood the need sometimes for violent retaliation.
I’m reading this one for a leftist/anarchist/Black liberation book club and we should be meeting to discuss it tomorrow so I’m interested to hear what everyone else has to say about it.
wjg36's review against another edition
4.0
Very interesting book though I wish it gave a wider history of black Americans and guns, not just in one specific instance
More...