mmjohn j.
It seems to me an opportunity
to reconcile our racial problems
is slowly evolving. If what I fore
see becomes the fact, we will
■have the “extremists” of both
sides to thank.
Let me dispose of the white
“extremists’? —the segregation
ists, of whom I am one — with
but a line: They have served,
as they are serving, their coun
try well by opposing'without
quiver the force of a government
bent on making half breeds of us
all And that, my friends, is the
greatest contributionthat can be
made since miscengenation
would spell the sure death of our
culture.
What I would write about,
principally, stems from the black
“extremists”, the black militants,
those who call to their own to
have pride in themselves, in
their race, in their color; “black,
is beautiful”.
As is apparent, there is noth
ing basically incompatible in
those two “extremes”; each
wants to control its own racial
destiny and that is as it should
be.
What stands between these
separate-but-equal thoughts, as I
say, is the force of government.
And that government, since
these troubles broke upon us,
has been controlled by the ele
ment within our national being
that argues, in effect, “brown is
beautiful”. These are the Marx
ists, the egalitarians, plus the
“breeds”, those who are, by
chance, brown.
The egalitarian government of
ours is made up of cliques, each
having its own particular fish to
fry. And it has maintained itself
by appeasing, in turn, each
clique. In short, it has maintain
ed itself in power by submitting
to blackmail. The meaning of
the phrase,' pro bono publico is
not in them.
The clique that has as its par
ticular interest the indiscrimi
nate mixing of the races has
been fronted by the NAACP
(which, incidentally, has never
had a Negro as its president).
The mass of these people are
not black; they are brown or
.yellow. They are half breeds,
clothed, in manner and style, as
are their half brdthers, the white
people. An NAACP convention is
a model of high-church decorum
and multi-syllabic words. Every
act of theirs is in sad mimicry of
white culture. There is nothing
negroid about such a gathering
and the reason there is not is
simple: The NAACP, particular
ly its hierarchy, does not identi
fy with Negroes It identifies
with white people. And what it
demands is acceptance of its
own view of things. And that, of
course, is the impossible dream.
In any event, it is these peo
ple, propelled by their unseen
financiers, who have inspired
the troubles we have known and
do know.
Noj£ comes the black militants,
the “extremists”, who spit on
the likes of these pseudo whites,
straight hair, rouge, mascara,
broad-a and all.
The militants want separatism,
social and commercial separa
tism, and I am for that for only
in such fashion can an amicable
solution of our mutual problem
be arrived at — equal but sepa
rate.
OTHER EDITORS
THE WEST VIRGINIA HILLBILLY
HlHybilly Editor's Thoughts on UNC
All this is a build-up for some
thing else which really isn’t
something else at all. Its an edi
torial from the Chapel Hill (N.
C.) Weekly, one of the best week
lies in this country, and I know
because I hung around there
some when I was finishing up
the second half of my Ford
Foundation fellowship at the
University of North Carolina
last year. The editorial is con
cerned over the fact that Philip
Nolan, reincarnated into the per
sonage of one Stokely Carmic
hael, returned to the United
States that he so soundly damn
ed, and made a speech at the
University of North Carolina re
cently, Mr. Chrmichael didn’t
say “Damn me United States,”
he said burn it, and that has the
Use Ready-Mix^
fONCRK^E
■N i
J fi^
No Mess — No Waiting —
on the job when yon Med it.
Our Ready-Mixed Concrete is
Also Sand, Gravel and Crush
ed Stone.
BARRUS READY MIXED
CONCRETE COMPANY
Free Estimates — New Bern Highway, Kinston, N. C.
editor Jim Shumaker of the
Chapel Hill paper alarmed, and
he in essence, has called upon
the University to explain wheth
er or not “Carmichael’s speech
But what force is there to
serve as the catalytic agent?
What force is there that can
dissolve the power of the mis
cegenationists? Who will bell the
cat?
Nixon? Bah! Humbug! Nixon
is not only a lifetime NAACP
member, by character he will
bend whichever way the wind
doth blow.
The answer lies in the pulpits
of te Negro churches. Among
Negroes, it is their preacher who
counts. And it, now, from here
on in, these natural leaders
grasp their opportunity to seek
peaee and well being — that is,
law and order with justice — by
espousing voluntary separatism,
they will find much support as
none would have dreamed of, a
year or so ago.
And I believe they will; they
will grasp their opportunity and
they will succeed.
Thus, if Nixon wants to re
unify this nation, and he says
he does, I would suggest he go
to the Negro preaeers. For there
lies the clear answer.
... violated the State law that
forbids the use of State build
ings to advocate the overthrow
of state or federal governments
by force or violence.”
“In our opinion,” editorialized
the paper, “Carmichael broke
the law, about as convincingly as
it can be broken. He proclaimed
himself to be a violent revolu
tionary and called for ‘revolu
tionary violence’ to destroy our
capitalistic system. Among oth
er things, he called for ‘urban
guerrilla warfare’ to bring down
today’s power structure. He did
not, it is true, advocate an arm
ed frontal assault on the White
House and Capitol Hill. Nor did
he say, specifically, who would
be shot, when and where. Never
theless, considering the whole
burden of his talk, he was ad
vocating the violent overthrow
of the United States govern
ment.”
The paper has decided not to
swallow the school’s anticipated
explanation that Carmichael was
simply exercising free speech.
The paper wants to know did
he violate the State law, and if
he did and is not apprehended,
then the law is meaningless, and
should be done away with.
And, the editorial goes far
ther. It wants to know if the Uni
versity did right in letting the
man speak in the first place,
knowing that he had said the
same thing before, and had even
had a history of inciting vio
lence, or if it did right in let
ting continue when he became
seditious.
“What,” asked the paper, “is
the University’s responsibility
when a visiting speaker clearly
is violating the State law?”
The paper becomes devil’s ad
vocate and asks, “Is the law real
ly enforceable? How do you de
Continued on page 6
mm,