4

[column one]
BOND (Continued from page 2)

opponents of "Black Power" as weak-kneed moderates or even as clever "divde and conquer" manipulators who aim at destroying the surface unity that exists among the various Negro civil rights groups.

The "white fright" position in basically that American whites have admittedly been burtal and oppressive with 400 years of white power; therefore, Black Power iwll mean that Negroes will be burtal and oppressive "if they ever get the upper hand."

The masochistic wishful thinking (both deplored and welcomed as proof of the incompetency of Negro militants) springs from a desire to eliminate the miltant-and therefore uncontrollable - sectors of the Negro movement. It amounts to little more than a refinement of that McCarthy era's Red-baiting techniques and might well be called "Black-baiting."

But the best analysis of the "white fright" condition-and its reaction to "Black Power"- has come, strangely enough, from a white, metropolitan daily newspaper, the Boston Hearld, whose lead editorial, "Reexamining Black Power," on July 9, 1966 reads:

Black Power has claimed its first two victims. They are Vice President Hubert Humphrey and Roy Wilkins, exexcutive secretary of the NAACP. Both men, honored veterans of the civil rights movement, succumbed, [column two] temporarily at least, to the most ancient of maladies; the inability to adjust to a new idea.

The editorial desccribed Humphrey's criticism of Black Power as "racism" and "apartheid" and gave Wilkin's description of Black Power as "Black death."

It went on to say, "we find nothing subversive in (SNCC Chairman Stokely) Carmichael's remarks. On the contrary," saus the Herald "this type of thinking is both practical and traditionally American."

"Nor should the older generation of civil rights leaders object to the young Negroes wanting to run their own show with white men supporting rather than dominating the various organizations. This should be interpreted as a sign of maturity. It means that Negroes, having won their legal rights under the old system, are now ready to work twoard their goals under their own leadership like any other minority. This, too, is traditional. American history does not show that the Irish were content to be led by Yankees or that working men were content to be led by their employees.

"In short, we are suggesting that the older generation of civil rights leaders avoid the mistakes of Hubert Humphrey and Roy Wilkins and resist the urge to panic at the sound of Black Power."

[column three]
The editorial ends with a warning to both white and Negro advocates of "white fright."

"We suggest that the older civil rights generation reexamine this new concept of direct action and concerntrate on the more thoughtful speeches of black power advocates. There young men are suprisingly [column four] realistic and are fully aware of both their capabilities and their limitations. And like it or not, they are distined to be the doers of the new era of civil rights. Whether they do good or evil depends in part on whether their predecessors encourage or repress them."