The Home Page
NEW!
Introduction
Site Search
For Students
Veterans Roll Call
Speakers List
In Memory
Photo Album
History & Timeline
Freedom Movement
Documents
Letters From the Field
Our Stories
Our Thoughts
Your Thoughts
Discussions
Poetry
Web Links
Bibliography
Frequent Questions
Blog
Announcements
Nonviolence
Release Form
Archive
About Us
Sitemap
Privacy & Copyright
|
Memphis is Also America
by Pat Watters
(Director of Information, Southern Regional
Council)
Originally published in Nation magazine, April
22, 1968
[Written after the
assasination of Dr. King and violent revolts in hundreds of American
cities.]
His movement, his life were Southern; but Memphis, where he died,
symbolized more than the South. Its racial crisis of 1968 and its
murderous failure were those of all America. Dr. Martin Luther
King, Jr., went there during the fifth week of a garbage workers'
strike that had built into a civil rights movement and a
dangerous crisis. The Memphis Negro community had not developed
much of a civil rights movement during the early 1960s. So the
movement that did come in 1968 capsuled into a few swift weeks
the decade's history of white America's failure to respond to the
nonviolence of Dr. King, and black America's recoil into despair
and a violence of desperation.
The Southern Regional Council, a biracial human relations
organization in Atlanta, had warned of the dangers of Memphis in
two reports, one a week before the so-called riot there, the
other a week before the assassination of Dr. King. They were by
J. Edwin Stanfield of the Council staff whose reporting from
Memphis is the basis for the account that follows.
The strike began on February 12 over a grievance of twenty-two
sewer workers. Thirteen hundred Negroes,most of them garbage
workers, walked out. Some, but not all, were members of Memphis
Local 1733 of the American Federation of State, County and
Municipal Employees (AFL-CIO).
The union demanded better pay and working conditions, city
recognition of the union and a system of dues checkoffs. The
entire crisis hinged on the question of union recognition. Mayor
Henry Loeb, one of those rightist-tending, know-nothing, wealthy
businessmen-turned-politicians, who have emerged in important
public offices across the South in the wake of the Goldwater
movement, personable and certainly not of the old racist
demagogue breed, had refused to budge on the point. (He was still
refusing even after the assassination, as the Memphis Central
Labor Council and the Tennessee Council on Human Relations, a
private organization, demanded his resignation.) He contended
that unions of city employees were illegal, on the basis of an
obiter dictum in a state supreme court decision of several
years ago.
Negro leaders, including most ministers, began rather routine
support of the strike, and became increasingly incensed over the
intransigence of the Mayor in negotiations, and the
ineffectiveness of the City Council. On February 23, the Council
evaded taking a public stand in favor of union recognition, and
Negroes hastily organized a march on the downtown section in
protest. City police in large numbers — Negroes
said too large — accompanied the march. When some
marchers laid hands on a police car that some claimed had run
over a woman's foot, officers cut loose with mace up and down the
line of nonviolent demonstrators, spraying it into faces at close
range, using it as punishment rather than a deterrent.
The use of mace rather than clubs or shotguns was a mark of a
generally enlightened policy of Police Commissioner Frank
Holloman. But the performance of his men reflected a general
problem in the country, an inability to control police forces
shot through with their own tendencies to racism and hysteria.
Police and military overreaction to Negro protest and turmoil has
become common; the keepers of order become themselves causes of
disorder.
The police action in Memphis, the affront to the
leaders — men of God and to the
people — was the unifying factor, From then on
Memphis had a movement, a peaceful but deeply indignant one. The
issues of the strike were broadened to a protest against general
conditions for Negroes, not unlike those in cities across the
land — police brutality, unfit housing, lack of
jobs, low wages, discrimination in schools. These, as Dr. King
later noted, were the new national issues of Negro protest,
economic at base, the focal point of the Poor People's Campaign.
But the main issue in Memphis was dignity. Again and again,
preachers, union leaders and others demanded dignity, deplored
the indignity of the misused mace, of the Mayor's paternalistic
treatment of negotiators, his failure even to understand the
symbolic importance of union recognition for men whose legacy was
the powerlessness of plantation laborers.
The Negro ministers were in charge through the rest of the
fateful campaign; the mood was close to that of the early civil
rights struggle — nonviolent, firm but patient,
willing to work within traditional institutions. And until the
assassination of Dr. King, this was the predominant mood among
Negroes in the South. No major riot had occurred in a Southern
city. The adherents of black power waited in the wings in
Memphis; as across the South since 1966, the mood of black power
had hovered but not taken over.
Young militants told the ministers to try their nonviolence; they
would wait and act only when it was apparent nonviolence would
accomplish nothing. And the ministers passed on the threat of
this to the whites with whom they vainly sought accommodation,
the ministers speaking their own anger and indignation, saying
how their faith in nonviolence was shaking, how they might
eventually have to "go fishing," leaving the field to the young
militants.
The impasse and growing tension of the strike continued for five
weeks before Dr. King came in. One evidence of white support
heartened the Negroes; white unions gave money and on one day 500
white union members marched in support of the strike. There was
talk that the nucleus of a real coalition between labor rank and
file and the Negro movement was at last at hand.
But except for the unusual (in the South, unprecedented)
solidarity of labor, there was no meaningful action from any
level of white leadership or society to resolve what all should
have recognized as a deadly dangerous situation. Some white
churches made feeble, futile gestures. The two newspapers, both
part of the Scripps-Howard chain, were regarded by Negroes as
chief agents of indignity. They flatly supported the Mayor and
disparaged the strikers with such devices as a cartoon showing a
fat Negro man sitting on a garbage can with wavy lines indicating
a bad odor; it was titled, "Threat of Anarchy." Businessmen,
admittedly hurt by a Negro boycott, either kept hands off or
encouraged the Mayor. One of the biggest businessmen said
unionization of public employees had to be stopped before it
spread to police and firemen. The City Council, recently
reorganized to be more powerful, failed to support the strike
even verbally.
When it became known that Dr. King would come on the scene, with
the inevitable escalation of emotions, an attempt at nonbinding
mediation was made. It fell apart almost immediately. Union
representatives quit after three meetings, saying representatives
of the city had admitted that they were not authorized to agree
on any issue. Similarly, Negro leaders had almost ceased talking
with the Mayor, who continuously urged discussions with no
apparent intention to do anything but talk.
It was into this impasse that Dr. King walked on March 28. He had
been asked; it was typical that he left the crucial planning of
his Poor People's Campaign to engage in this Southern sortie.
Tension built before the march started. Dr. King was late. There
were rumors of police brutality to high school students.
Militants were on hand.
As the march of at least 5,000 got under way non-violently, some
young people, probably no more than fifty, took to the sidewalks
and broke store windows.
[Years after this
article was written, it was revealed that the cops had
bribed/blackmailed the youths to commit violence as a way of
discrediting Dr. King, undermining the strike, and providing a pretext
for martial law.]
Leaders stopped the march just before police ordered it ended.
Dr. King was whisked away; police violence took over. It was
probably not possible for officers to apprehend the window
breakers and allow the march to continue. But police, by most
accounts, discriminated not at all between the vandals and the
nonviolent in their clubbings and beatings. They shot and killed
one youth, accused of looting, injured nearly sixty Negroes, and
arrested 280. Four thousand National Guardsmen came in, and a
nightly curfew was enforced. Network television routinely
reported that no Negro could be on the streets without a reason.
It sounded like South Africa.
Other national reaction was not unlike that of white Memphis.
Almost uniformly, indeed almost as a conditioned reflex, the
press emphasized the window breaking rather than the weeks of
white Memphis' failure, and stressed implications for violence in
Dr. King's planned march on Washington. Not the
Memphis Press-Scimitar or Commercial Appeal but
The New York Times commented that the effect of Dr. King's
Memphis march was to "solidify white sentiment against the
strikers," and said: "Dr. King must by now realize that his
descent on Washington is likely to prove even more
counter-productive," Eugene Patterson, editor of The Atlanta
Constitution and a member of the United States Commission on
Civil Rights, wrote: "Dr. King offers the best hope of keeping
the smoke now heating in the ghettos from springing into fire.
But in trying to recall the riotous element to the banner of
nonviolence, the outbreak of violence becomes his
failure — and his problem, as well as America's, and
particularly the Negro's," Alongside his column was a cartoon showing a
diminutive Dr. King in the hands of a Frankenstein monster labeled "Mob
Fever,"
Such admonitions, against the Poor People's March, common to Negroes as
well as white people of good intention and small understanding,
overlooked, as did white Memphis, the issue of dignity, They failed to
see the desperation which compelled the march. Winifred Green of the
American Friends Service Committee, who helped recruit marchers from
Alabama, described the very many who were ready to go: "They don't think
of things being made worse. They know things can't be any worse for
them. And they don't know anything else to do;"
The President of the United States, in his first reaction to Memphis,
said: "I want to again assure you that the resources of your government
stand behind local law enforcement agencies to the full extent of our
constitutional authority. Mindless violence — destroying
what we have all worked so hard to build — will never be
tolerated in America." Of the same pattern had been Johnson's lukewarm,
if not antagonistic, response to the urgent report of his National
Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders, and his withdrawal of opposition
to a riot-control bill to punish interstate travelers who contribute to
violence,
The Southern Regional Council had warned before the March 28 violence
that those in positions of power "never seemed to grasp the reality of
the situation, its danger, or its promise. ..." The comment seemed
applicable to all of America.
The outpouring of grief and guilt and bathos after the assassination,
coming from such an officialdom, a press, a society, and coming so soon
after the similar meaningless mourning of President Kennedy, had to be
called obscene. The appropriate response would be
action — in Memphis, a just settlement of the garbage
strike; in Washington, all the white sympathizers joining in the Poor
People's March; in Congress, a full, not token, program to meet the
needs of poverty and to eliminate institutionalized racism. Ending the
war in Vietnam would have to be a corollary, morally related action.
In Atlanta, Prof, Finley C. Campbell of Morehouse College, whose
influence helped prevent violence in student demonstrations
immediately after the assassination, said students were full of
"confusion, dread, ambivalence." They could be led either way.
Some would follow Dr. King's methods and his Southern Christian
Leadership Conference; others would go with Stokely Carmichael's
SNCC. Congress' immediate response would be the "last chance" for
traditional nonviolent methods in the South.
Negro colleges in the South seemed the likely focal points for whatever
came of protest and demands for racial justice in the aftermath of the
assassination. Ferment had already spread across the campuses before Dr.
King's death, in part responding to the situation where protest over
discrimination in education in Orangeburg, S.C., had resulted in the
needless killing of three students by state police. (One hopeful note
was widespread response to the assassination from white students across
the South.) The "young intellectuals" to whom C. Wright Mills hearkened,
who had mainly dropped out of the civil rights movement after the
sit-ins, might be heard from again.
Their tone would reflect a new era. During a march of students of the
Atlanta University complex the day after the assassination, a Negro
youth looked up to see Atlanta Police Chief Herbert Jenkins, noted for
his liberal influence in the Riot Commission, riding by. The young man
pointed a finger at the chief, and said, "You're going to pay the price
for this." The chief said nothing. A Negro Atlantan in his car said
sadly a few minutes later, "Do you know who that kid was? One of the
nine who desegregated Atlanta schools back in 1961." An era had begun
and ended in the South in the young m,an's history, with the beginning
and end of the career of Dr. King, the two not unconnected.
The "last-chance" hope or dream or myth was still feebly alive. But
manifest across America was the kind of blindness that afflicted white
Memphis. For America, in its white power centers, in the generality of
its white society, never really saw Dr. King, never heard him. It had,
in the words of his widow, "questioned his integrity, maligned his
motives, and distorted his views." But more frightening than that, it
had been so fascinated with the potential for violence in his nonviolent
demonstrations that it could never focus on the issues.
But there had always been hope, with Dr. King alive, that. somehow his
philosophy might prevail, that his followers, particularly Negro
Southerners, might somehow alter American society, might miraculously
reinstall in it a civilized decency. Now he was dead. The kind of chasm
that already seemed unbridgeable between black and white in the North,
would, it seemed inevitable, now become wide in the South. The erosive,
deteriorating effect of the King assassination, like that of President
Kennedy, would be at work in the months and years to come. It had never
been reasonable to expect one Negro leader, or his Negro followers, to
transform white America. Maybe at last white America would come to know
this. It would be the being of understanding what Martin Luther King was
talking about.
Copyright © Pat Watters, 1968.
|