Well, to me it's quite an analogy. I think Mr Nixon became president by
playing to the base, biased prejudice of white America. You see, of the
votes that Richard Nixon got for president, 65% of those votes. . .
well, 65% of the vote in the country went to Richard Nixon. Of theother
35% that was left, 25% of that that went to George McGovern was black.
George McGovern got less than 10% of the white vote in this country. So,
you see, every time Nixon used the word busing that was
Page 7 nothing but a code word for nigger. Everytime he used welfarism,
permissiveness. You see, it gave Americans who felt chagrined to say
that they were for segregation of the races, segregation forever, and
all that bull. . . . But when he gave them a convenient umbrella under
which to stand and say "I'm against busing," well,
what they're really saying. . . . It ain't the bus, it's who's on the
damn bus. It's us. That's, you know, that's the question about busing.
And if they were busing nothing but white kids, there'd be no problem.
See, busing has been used as a tool for getting children to school as
long as the public school system has been a part of America. But as long
as they were using busing to maintain segregation, there was nothing
wrong with busing. And now that we're using busing to effect
integration, then the president and everybody—not
everybody—the president and several other people get the
impression that busing is so wrong. It's really an issue that is
attempting to return America to the days when segregation, when racial
segregation had a legal foundation in this country. If we return to the
neighborhood school idea with housing as segregated as it is, with many
of the larger cities where whites have moved to the suburbs, etc. . . .
If there is not the tool of busing, black children and white children
again are going to be separated. You don't learn from books. You don't
learn from movies. You don't learn from osmosis that other people are
just like you. Except you have the opportunity of dealing man to man or
person to person with them meeting. White boys get the idea that they're
better than black boys because they are separated from black boys. And
they don't have any way of comparing their ability with black children.
And of course black children begin to feel that they are less than white
children because they have no positive way of identifying their
abilities with white children. And the textbook structure of this nation
so ignores the black contributions that it helped make America the kind
of country
Page 8 that it is today. That the textbooks
expose the virtues of the whites and either plays down or absents the
activities of blacks. So consequently, without models, without heros,
without persons of black stature for black kids to look up to, they are
going to be brainwashed by the textbooks of this country that only white
men have been involved in building America the way it is. It's subtle.
But if you look at the elementary books of your and my time where Dick
and Jane was always white, you know. There was no blacks involved in any
of the primary books that were around when you were in grammar school or
when I was in grammar school. The nearest thing you had to it was little
black Sambo. And of course black Sambo was always a buffoon. He was a
very unsavory character. And as long as these are the kind of models we
are going to give children to emulate, you're bound to get a
master-servant philosophy, you're bound to justify Gunnar Myrdal's
position in
American Dilemma when he says that when
you separate children from others because of their race, that you commit
an act that is calculated to warp their minds in a manner never likely
to be undone. And the warping of the mind suggests to the white child
that he's better than the black child; suggests to the black child that
he's less than the white child. And consequently this master-servant
thing prevails.