Reading Alondra Nelson‘s book Body and Soul: The Black Panther Party and the Fight Against Medical Discrimination was eyeopening, to say the least. To say my understanding of the Black Panther Party (BPP) was limited prior to reading this would be an understatement; I knew of them only as the violent, radical protest group my history classes had characterized them as (a sentiment echoed by many of my classmates).
Nelson’s book shows the “softer” side of the BPP, and offers unique information about the party’s health advocacy efforts, which helps to form a more nuanced and historically accurate picture.
In fighting against the medical discrimination black americans faced (and face) on a regular basis, the BPP took on some progressive and radical initiatives. The health clinics that many large, urban chapters of the BPP were able to offer undeserved communities in the 1970s certainly provided a needed safe space for discrimination-free care. However, I was troubled by a couple of things about the BPP health advocacy Nelson brought up in her discussion.
The BPP slogan “woe to he who behaves as though his body were his own” seemed to me the opposite of everything the concurrent women’s health movement stood for, in trying to reclaim for women control and ownership over their own bodies. Indeed, wasn’t the BPP trying to do the same for black americans?
The “freeze list” also struck me as hypocritical. Wasn’t maintaining a public list of people’s STD status something the BPP would have condemned as medical surveillance if it was coming from a private hospital, or a government-run clinic?
Thankfully, I had the opportunity to ask Nelson these questions directly in class on Monday via Skype. Nelson first reminded me, as she writes in her book (and as Sandra Morgen documents in her book on the women’s health movement, Into Our Own Hands) that the BPP and the women’s health movement did not necessarily hold completely common ideology. Indeed, the BPP wasn’t against medical surveillance or the medical profession itself – they just opposed the way it was used discriminatorily, and sought to provide equal access and care. More importantly, however, in answering my question, was the element of CHOICE. If one joined the BPP, they were not loosing ownership and control of their body, but willingly making a decision to put the BPP first. Similarly, if someone used a clinic that maintained a “freeze list,” they were knowingly giving their consent to have their STD status made public. As Nelson said, these were “opt-in” ideas and programs.
The fact that choice is the distinction between powerlessness and empowerment, between “medical surveillance” and “community health” seemed especially important to me given the meaning that word has when it comes to women’s health today. My recent blog posts have been especially focused on abortion, and the discussion with Nelson further affirmed my “pro-choice” identity – not just when it comes to abortion rights for women, but when it comes to any (controversial) health decision for anyone.
Leave a Reply