The Shadow of the Panther: Huey Newton and the Price of Black Power in America

by Hugh Pearson

Book Overview

The first complete and balanced history of the Black Panther Party--powerful and provocative
"Until The Shadow of the Panther there have been no serious book-length attempts to examine the Panthers' history and to evaluate their significance. . . . A Notable Book of the Year."--New York Times Book Review (front page)
"A keenly observed, often brilliant, Panther-busting book. . . . Pearson nevertheless portrays the Panthers'...

• Format: Paperback
• Language: English
• ISBN: 0201483416
• ISBN13: 9780201483413
• Release Date: April 1995
• Publisher: Da Capo Press
• Length: 444 Pages
• Weight: 1.41 lbs.
• Dimensions: 1.1" x 5.9" x 9.1"

Customer Reviews

Decent book, although it is missed the mark sometimes.

First off let me state that I am not implying that Pearson's research or what he stated in the book is untrue. I must say that of all the books I read on the BPP this book is very meticulous in citing sources. I also realize that some people Pearson sought to interview for the book who could have provided some insight into the different areas Huey Newton's life refused to be interviewed which is why the book is the way that it is. I think Pearson's claim that Newton couldn't change his life toward the positive is based one the fact that he didn't want to change is flawed because we have to take into account that Newton was a full blown drug addict. Unless you understand the complex nature of addiction you won't understand why some people (like David Hillard) can get clean or turn their life around and why others have a hard time doing so, or just flat out fail. I should also add that no mention was made of Newton's attempts to get clean either-Richard Pryor actually paid for Newton's stint in rehab. Maybe this was not known information when the book was published but either way the author never mentions it. It appears that he is implying that Newton enjoyed being a criminal and an addict. Even the chapter detailing Newton getting his PhD, is plagued by the negative. I don't believe that people who enjoy the criminal/drug lifestyle would go to back to school for a PhD unless they were trying to fight their personal demons. Also if one could figure out when Newton started heavily abusing drugs one can see the turns for the worse that the party kept taking. Although I do not excuse Newton's or anyone elses negative behavior in the party, we do have to take into account that heavy drug use does impare common sense and makes people fearless. I just get the impression that the author did not really understand the influence drugs had on Newton's situation and insane choices. Pearson also mentions SNCC and the Black Power movement a lot stating how they were flawed theology but it would have been nice to get a final anaylsis from people like Kwame Toure, who was apart of the movement, or other historian's take on the movement. Pearson just seems to assert that the movement was flawed and nothing else. I didn't see any positive writings that the movement could have had. He did spend a lot of time showing how the terminology was confusing and the people who were using it seemed to be confused as to what "Black Power" was all about, which is good but I was looking for more of a follow-up to the problems that the terminology presented. Perhaps a historian would have been better equipped to make a final anaylsis? The book spends a lot of time detailing the BPP underworld activities and the illegal things the party did but not enough was spent on other areas of the party and when they are mentioned we always see the corrupt part of the action. I am not saying that they did not happen, but I was hoping to see a little more balance. Some social programs ins

Wonderful Book!

A great in-dept analysis on the rise and fall of the Panther Party and how Heuy Newton was responsible for both. I would recommend this book to any history buff.

Great book about the Black Panthers!

I have read a few books on the Panthers, and have always been drowned in my own romantacism that I never questioned anything that came from the movement. This book sheds light on so many things; which may at times make readers uncomfortable. At one point you feel greatful for such an organization, while at others your disapointment may sadden you.That is what makes this a good book; objectivity. He lays the positives out, but does not ignore the negatives; in fact, a good percentage of this book is explaining so many of the negatives within the party. Still, at the same time, you get a feeling that the author truly appreciates the positive aspects of the BPP, but appreciates it without ignoring the blemishes within the party's past.Anyway, it's a good book. I have known a few Panthers, and one in particular I made a coment about how I looked up to Huey Newton. He started making some statments and I asked him to stop because I didn't want to have a tarnished image of the man. Now, after reading this book, I see both sides of the issue; which makes things all the more clearer. This book has left me both disapointed and greatful. Disapointed because some things in Panther past were not as I expected; and greatful that I got to see another side of the BPP.

Critical History of the Black Panthers

I became interested in the Panthers during high school, and during my research for a term paper on the BPP, I encountered sources that only supported and maintained the view that the Black Panthers were destroyed by FBI counterintelligence. Pearson's book finally provides a more accurate view of Panther history. While Pearson concentrates on the party's criminal activities and the overall negative impact on the community and its members' lives, he does not do it with Horowitz-style, moral judgement or a conservative, revisionist agenda. The story Pearson presents is the true story, whether we like it or not, and any educated perspective on the Panthers must take this work into account. However, I do feel that the book lacks serious discussion of the FBI's campaigns against the Panthers, which were damaging. The murder of Fred Hampton is the most egregious example of the government's persecution of the Party, but it only gets a passing mention. Also, Pearson forgets to bring it all together in the end and truly weigh the impact of the Party on the overall civil rights struggle, but overall, for any one who wants to finally see a less biased view of the Black Panters, this book is a definite read.

Biased in favor, but knowing

I think it's great that people are writing in about my husband's book. However, I'd like to know how the reader from Chapel Hill who has posted a review, would know whether or not Pearson slanted the information of his sources? Was he there for the book interviews? And if he's referring to the documented sources you can look up in the endnotes, I fail to see where my husband is misrepresenting them. Hugh Pearson simply reported his research findings then drew his own conclusions. And as far as the charge goes that he has no feel for the era. What does the reader mean? It's not like Pearson came up with conclusions based only on what he thought. He interviewed Panther veterans. There is one movement veteran in particular in the book who talks, for instance, about the murder of Black Panther Alex Rackley. She says that you have to put the murder of Rackley by fellow Panthers in the context of the times, which were crazy. And that the murder was a mistake that the authorities were using to do in the movement. The book is filled with interviews with veterans who take the reader back to the era. And Pearson doesn't step on any of what they have to say. So I'm at a loss for what the Chapel Hill reviewer is referring to. Lastly, I find it interesting that more people have said they find this negative review helpful than the positive reivews on line. This causes me to question a lot of the motivations of potential customers. Are they looking for reasons not to buy the book? Are they searching for reasons to dismiss what Pearson wrote as happened among so many people who didn't even bother to pick it up when it first came out, and simply went on the attack against him based purely on what reviewers said (many of whom were biased veterans of the era who were culpable in covering up Panther atrocities?). I wonder.