Negro violence
Sir: Father Huddleston has asserted in a letter to the Times (20 January), that Negro violence is due 'to 'racial attitudes which for
generations have been contemptuous of the dignity of the black man and have been given expression in the laws and social struc- tures . . . which have deprived him of basic human rights. The wonder is not that Negro violence has been so great, but that it has been so small.'
Since this way of looking at the matter is in vogue these days among so-called pro- gressives, and since no letter has appeared in the press to challenge Father Huddleston's ill-considered utterance, may I have the courtesy of your columns in order to place on record my opposition to it on grounds both of pragmatism and principle.
First, is it not also true that the last decade, which has witnessed an unparalleled improvement in the social and economic status of the American Negro, has been one of unparalleled Negro violence in the United States? There has been no lack of evidence from American cities and American camp- uses that there are elements among the Negro community hopelessly adrift in a tide of inarticulated and unrealisable expecta- tions, For such people, the mere extension of opportunities to mingle freely with, and to compete on equal terms with, members of the white community does not suffice. They want, almost literally, everything: Cadillacs, PhDs, top jobs in government, business, and academia; to have special black status—to have the protection of the laws and to be beyond the laws. And they want it all now. The relevant question is whether this mood is spreading or not; relevant at least for Britain.
Secondly, and more disturbing even than these social considerations, is the moral implication of Father Huddleston's state- ment, that Negro violence is not to be attributed to Negroes, but to their white oppressors, past and present. One can accept such a view only by positing that Negroes are not fully responsible beings, but simply the passive product of historical circum- stances. For it is surely possible for a minor- ity group to be persecuted over the centuries, and yet to choose neither to indulge in self- pity nor to run amuck committing violence. Other minorities have also been cruelly treated and are still cruelly treated. Disabilities against the Jewish people did not, alas, vanish with the greatest pogrom of all during the last war. For all that, they and other minority groups have re- sponded without lawless violence, and often with courage, forbearance and dignity— as indeed have many members of the Negro community.
I must therefore conclude, contrary to Father Huddleston, that Negroes are and will remain morally responsible, as well as legally responsible for any unlawful violence they choose to initiate or participate in. E. I. Mishan London School of Economics, Houghton Street, London wc2
Previous page
