Dynamics of Desegregation; 12; The Unsolid South

You're the crow, three, four, three, four, three, four, three, four, three, four, You're the crow, three, four, three, four, three, four, three, four, three, four. The dynamics of desegregation. For over a hundred years, the South has appeared to casual observers as solid as a unified homogenous

region. Slavery, secession, a lost war, poverty, and bitterness. The 11X Confederate states have shared a similar tragic fate down to the years. Yet the so-called solid south, it's never as solid as it appeared. Even when the need for unity was greatest during the Civil War, the southern states were often at odds with one another and they notably failed to develop a stable central government. In this century, the solid south cliche is generally referred to the section's devotion to the Democratic Party and to white supremacy. But even these last symptoms of solidarity are banishing. Politically, the southern electorate now gives increasingly

high percentages of its vote to Republican candidates for national office, racially too. Whatever solidarity existed in the south is disappearing. As the epitaph for Jim Crow is boldly written in each new headline of successful desegregation, any semblance of regional unity is lost from view. To be sure, the segregation system has always varied from state to state and even from one locality to another. But such traditional differences are minor compared with the contrast that exists today in the midst of the ongoing desegregation process. One community may have already desegregated its public parks, but still steadfastly refuses to have desegregated schools. While another, maybe less than just a hundred miles away, it's long since desegregated at schools, but it's closing its public parks to avoid desegregating them. Such discrepancies and segregation within the south

really gives away what the central motive was behind segregation. Well, you know, segregation was never really intended, as it is often claimed, to achieve racial separation. If it was so intended, segregation would be more consistent and rigid across the region. Instead of physically separating the races, racial segregation really forces the Negro southerner always to be in an assigned position of inferiority to that of the white southerner. Put more blatantly, segregation keeps the black man beneath the white man. It maintains white supremacy. But such a system is an expensive luxury, and when the price becomes too high, most segregation is perfectly prepared to relax the bars. This fact helps to explain the great differences in the system between one locality and another, and the many Jim Crow laws on southern

state stature books, which explicitly lists exceptions. For instance, Louisiana has a Putin law that requires all blood banks to separate blood by race, except that is in emergencies. Now, just as the states and localities of the south are not in agreement on race, neither are the individuals who comprise the south. For years, even up until World War II, paternalism and rank racism were the two different and dominant ideologies characterizing most southern segregationists. paternalism viewed Negroes as helpless children, with upper status whites as their kind protectors. At its best, it often involved genuine kindness and warmth, even love. At its worst, it was a thinly veiled excuse for white domination, a sad for the guilty conscience. A natural outgrowth of slavery and plantation life, paternalism

was the ideology of the gentil, the educated white segregationists. Consequently, the paternalists could turn on the poor unfortunate southern white and blame him for the more blatant outrageous against the Negro. Arthur Powell and Atlanta Lawyer was such a paternalist, and his 1943 autobiography, I Can Go Home Again, provides us with an unabashed example of the ideology. Mr. Powell writes, the southern Negro has made much advancement in intelligence, in morals, in education and in culture. No right-minded southerner begrudges this progress. The day may come when the Negro will attain many equalities, and these will be accorded to him as he merits them. But social segregation is a very different thing. Note the paternalists considered himself right-minded, who was not immediately threatened by

Negro advancement, though he couldn't conceive of social equality between the races. Note, too, that the paternalists set himself up as the master of the society, and the judge of other human beings, hence his reference to Negro's gaining equality as they merit it. Powell continues with a discussion of his native county in rural Georgia. Throughout that part of Georgia in which I was born, about 60% of the population is colored, yet, except for a short while during reconstruction, there has never been any Negro problem there. Actually, at least 11 Negroes have been lynched in Powell's home county. One of the lynchings occurring just two years before this book's publication. But the paternalists you see perceive no racial problem whatsoever, as long as his own superior status went unchallenged. As Powell

The feeling that exists between the two races involves an inborn spirit of no blessable bleach on the part of the whites, and the frank acceptance of their status on the part of the blacks. In many respects, the mind and conduct of the Negro is the mind and conduct of a child. He needs and expects from the white man understanding and protection, especially against himself. Yes, there is a problem, but it is not a Negro problem. It is the low down white problem. This ball and candid description of paternalism introduces us to the second early form of segregationist ideology, rank racism. Powell's low down whites, so-called, have often been the victims of many of the same forces that have oppressed Negroes. Indeed, many of these poverty

stricken white southerners join politically with the Negro in the populist movement, the late 19th century, until racism broke up the combination. Throughout this century, however, deprived whites in the South have tended to be racist. Ranked racism has shared many of the assumptions of paternalism with the smooth edges of paternalism. It calls for believing every Negro inferior to every white in every possible way, and it used the brute animal rather than the child as the stereotype of the Negro. We all know how this type of literature reads and it's not worth quoting now. This rank racism had its origins in early 19th century science and in distorted interpretations of certain old testament passages, and in pure form, its principal tents have remained unaffected by either science of the past 100 years or by the New Testament.

Now, today, the two leading segregationist ideologies are direct descendants of these earlier beliefs. A modified racism has replaced the rank racism of the past, and an ideology known as moderation has evolved out of paternalism. Modern racism is fundamentally a scientifically unsound as its ancestor, but some then races are slightly more sophisticated and less threatened than they used to be before World War II, and so they're very more among themselves now. Witness these contrasting reactions to the freedom rides that appeared in a Tennessee paper in letters to the editor on one single day during 1961. All the words in four languages cannot express my utter contempt and disdain for those flagrant violators of our Constitution as written by our wise, old, founding fathers. God made the black and the white,

but why don't we all just wait till that great and wonderful day when the Lord comes and saves us all? I say to the Negro, first help yourself in a sensible and sound way within your own race, then maybe your chance will come. Certainly standing, looking, pushing, riding, and sitting isn't going to help. I say to the white people, get out and vote in the next election. The error of the paternalist, the so-called moderate, is also not above invoking the founding fathers, the Lord, and white votes when it suits his purposes. The moderate usually shares other components too of the racist ideology, strong resentment toward the Supreme Court of the United States, and a basic distrust of racial change. But he is better educated and he has other values which conflict with his race views, such as a respectful law and order, and the economic need

to keep business going as usual, particularly his own business. Now, let me make it clear that the term moderate has become very ambiguous in today's side. It is used sometimes by dedicated white integrationist to make their ideas more acceptable, and sometimes by rabid racists in order to appear a little more polite. But generally, moderates are mild, not wild segregationist. They are the gentle people of prejudice who have deep doubts about racial equality, but they suspect that the desegregation process is inevitable. Here's a good example of what I mean. I'm afraid the Supreme Court just rammed this thing down our throats too fast. Over the years, in a century or two, I'm sure race relations down here would have changed anyway. But now all this desegregation business has upset the good race relations we did have.

Why the close communication we had in this town between us and the colored folks has just been destroyed. Even our businesses I heard by these crazy boycotts, people like myself in the south, the right-minded moderates have been caught by the extremists on both sides, the clans, the white citizens' councils, the NAACP, and this colored preacher, Martin Luther King, are really all alike. They're all making our task more difficult. Quite a bit of progress has been made, you see, from the old paternalists to this new modern. But there's still a long way to go before you remove the 19th century blinders, which so severely restrict his view. His fundamental tenet, you notice, is that he mans the lonely and unrewarding bastion between two equally dangerous camps of extremists, rabid racists on the right, and impatient integrationist on the left.

In fact, he sees them as virtual mirror opposites. Of course, this is absurd to compare bombs and burning crosses with the courts and the ballot box to compare the violent methods of the Kukuk's clans with the non-violent philosophy of a Martin Luther King clearly reveals that the moderate makes no distinctions whatsoever between different types of challenges to his power. The legacy of paternalism becomes obvious too, and the moderate accuses the desegregation process of destroying the good race relations and close racial communication of former times. Good race relations for him refers to those relaxed relations of paternalism when the white man's superior status went unquestioned. And communication between the races during the paternalistic era was never close in a two way sense. Negroes, frequently as servants, have known all about the white

community, but segregationists have rarely known the Negro community. No real breakdown of communications between the races has thus occurred, you see, very little ever existed to break down. Another present tension in American society is the necessary transitional period during which both races are learning the new ways of true equality and real two way communication between human beings. Typically, the moderate segregationist proposes more time, more time as the only solution. Century or two, he says, things would have changed anyway. But a hundred years after the emancipation proclamation, can white Americans in good faith ask Negro Americans to be patient for yet another century or two? Besides, time is never a factor in itself. It is done with time that is crucial, and here the moderate has few positive contributions to make.

The only importance of the ideology of moderation, I just simply cannot overemphasize. For the vast majority of influential white southerners subscribe today to one form or another of its tenets and assumptions. After allowing, even sometimes encouraging, the wild segregationist to resist desegregation with naked violence during the 1950s, the moderate in the 1960s is hard at work throughout most of the South, devising plans of token desegregation, plans which meet the letter, though not the spirit, of the Supreme Court's rulings. For example, my native state of Virginia has devised a state pupil placement board that carefully places just two or three Negro children in a community's previously all white schools, while denying hundreds of others admission on all conceivable grounds. The fact that the board does admit a token, even if scant

few, has so far protected it from federal court censure. Such plans are already proving to be a greater deterrent to the final writing of Jim Crow's epitaph than all the bombs and beatings inflicted on the South by the racist. Why do southern segregationists adhere to these beliefs? Why do they continue to subscribe to outworn 19th century ideas when all about them are kind of victory 20th century facts of life? Actually, reality is difficult for all of us to ascertain. We may not share the segregationist distortions of race relations, but we maintain our own distortions in other realms, despite daily contradictions all about us. Let me illustrate what I mean with this perceptual demonstration known as the Ames trapezoidal window illusion. Just watch for a moment

this rectangular window move. Now you see it's simply going around, isn't it? Now let me replace this rectangular window with this trapezoidal shaped window frame. I'll put it on the same apparatus. Now watch how it appears to move. What do you see? It seems to be oscillating, doesn't it? It isn't going around like the rectangular one, but rather it seems to be waving back and forth in front of you. Now, don't be concerned. This is a powerful illusion, experienced by almost everyone in western culture. I showed this to some zoo children in South Africa, and they didn't see it the way we do, but in western culture almost everyone does see it this way. Now let me prove

to you, however, that this trapezoidal window is in fact going around. I'll put this bar, this paper bar across the frame. At this time watch the whole frame, but watch how the bar itself appears to be moving. Now notice the bar does in fact go all the way around, doesn't it? And yet in spite of this contradictory information, you were still seeing the window frame itself oscillate back and forth, aren't you? What happens to the bar when it seems to hit the frame itself? Well, it appears to pass right through it, doesn't it? Or as if it were cutting through or somehow twisting around the frame. And yet you know, paper bars do not cut through or bend around metal window frames? Well, let me replace this bar with this little box. Now again, watch the whole window frame,

but also watch how this box tends to move. Now if you're getting the illusion, you still see the window oscillating, don't you? But you also see the box going completely around and even appearing to float out in the space on its own. So now we've seen the remarkable feats of a paper bar cutting through or bending around a metal window frame, a small box floating out in the space. All because we insist on seeing that window as oscillating, even though we know it is in fact going full circle. Now in spite of not being emotionally involved in this demonstration,

we've had difficulty in seeing reality clearly. Think now the difficulties of segregationists southerner must have in correcting his racial misconceptions when he is highly emotional on the subject. Why does the racist refuse to take into account the many niggos he sees and hears about who do not fit into the history type of niggro inferiority? Well, why can't we use the cues furnished by the bar and box and see the trapezoidal window frame going all the way around like it is? Why does the moderate segregationist cling desperately to time as a solution? Still deluding himself that there were excellent relations between the races back in the good old days? Well, once again, why do we persist in seeing that bar cut and twist and that box floated into space? Now the force of this window illusion is so great that the accurate cues being provided for you

by the bar and the box are simply not enough to overcome it. But as more and more information is provided, we are finally able, aren't we, to see the window moving as it really is. Notice that as you look down at the window frame from above, you can at last see it going completely around. Now just such a situation is occurring now in race relations throughout the nation, even in the unsolid size. More and more conflicting information is pouring in on segregationists and seeds of doubt are being planted. Just to seeing the window frame from above finally enables us to see the window turning. The relentless progress of desigregation is finally enabling many segregationists, both North and South, to see reality at least somewhat more accurately. Public opinion polls give us the most authoritative evidence of these changes.

Consider the old race's stereotype of the mentally retarded niggrove. One national polling agency, NORC, a national opinion research center, asked a representative sample in both 1942 and 1956 if it thought niggrove was intelligent as whites. As you can see, white Americans in both the North and the South sharply revise their opinions over this 14-year period. In the North, only half believed niggrove to be as intelligent as whites in 1942, but noticed by the graph that 83% did by 1956. In the South, only 21% agreed in 1942, but 58% agreed in 1956. Now these same NORC polls also ask questions regarding racial segregation. These polls found that the percentage of white NORC's favoring desigregation of public street

cars and buses rose from 57 to 73 during this 1942 to 1956 period. Notice two by the chart during these same years for white southerners that percentages rose from 4 to 27%. Now in school desigregation, the percentage of white NORC's approving climbed during these same years from 40 to 61%, and for white southerners climbed from 2 to 14%. Now similar gains were also noted in housing desigregation attitudes. To the question, if a niggrove with the same income and education as you moved into your block, would make any difference to you, 42% of the white NORC said it wouldn't in 1942, and 58% noticed said it wouldn't in 1956, while 12% of the white South said it wouldn't in 1942, and 38% said it wouldn't in 1956. One has provided the extra information,

like our bar box and our elevated perspective with the window illusion, to achieve such marked shifts in public opinion. Ironically, it seems that desigregation itself provides the extra cues needed by many segregationists before they see that their imagined fears of its results are unjustified. For example, an intensive study of Charlottesville, Virginia, where I went to the University of Virginia, was begun after the desigregation of the town's public schools. It found that attitudes among the town's segregationists have slowly but steadily become more favorable towards school desigregation with each passing year after the desigregation itself. Even more impressive are the annual findings of the Gallup polls. Each year, southerners are asked if they think the day will ever come in the south, when whites and niggos will be going to the same

schools eating in the same restaurants, and generally sharing the same public accommodations. At the time of the 1954 school desigregation ruling on the Supreme Court, only 45% said yes, they thought that desigregation day would come. Since then, each year the figure has risen, to 55%, to 60%, and by the early 1960s, almost 75% of the south believe complete racial desigregation of public facilities to be inevitable in the south. With each successful advance you see desigregation makes in the south, the handwriting on the wall becomes increasingly clear. In fact, as we said before, the handwriting on the wall is now so clear that even illiterates can read it. Looking at the days on the solid south, we have noted the divisions in segregationist ideology, the old split between the paternalist and the rank racist that has evolved into today's

self-style moderates and the modified races. Yet we've seen that in recent years these two ideologies have been grudgingly given ground to the realities of the 20th century, a significant shift in American opinion toward the negro and towards segregation has occurred in the south as well as in the north. Indeed, desigregation itself seems to be one of the principal reasons for this shift, but there's still a great deal of post-segregationist sentiment in our nation. The question is then, how much longer will it take before we Americans change our opinions with support second-class citizenship for our fellow Americans? How much longer will we let the bar cut and twist and the box float? The actors were Richard Kramer and Edgar Grossman. Epitaph for Jim Crow was a presentation of the Commission on Extension Courses Harvard University, an association with the

Lowell Institute Cooperative Broadcasting Council, WGB HTV Boston. Studio production costs were provided in part with the assistance of grants from the Anti-Defamation League of Benebrates, the Commonwealth School Boston, and the Claudia B. and Maurice L. Stone Foundation. This is NET, National Educational Television.