Newspaper Page Text
February, 1966
THE SPELMAN SPOTLIGHT
Page 3
The Case of Julian Bond
Freedom Challenged
Most of us are partially, if not totally,
familiar with events which ultimately led to
the unseating of Julian Bond in the Georgia
House of Representatives. To bring us up to
date, first SNCC, the organization with
which Julian Bond works as Communications
Director, issued a public statement on Jan
uary 6, 1966, stating its opposition to United
States involvement in Viet Nam.
The statement, in part, read thusly:
“We believe the United States government
has been deceptive in its claims of concern
for freedom of the Vietnamese people, just
as the government has been deceptive in
claiming concern for the freedom of colored
people in such other countries as the Domin
ican Republic, the Congo, South Africa,
Rhodesia, and in the United States itself.
“We, the Student Non-violent Coordinat
ing Committee, have been involved in the
black people’s struggle for liberation and
self-determination in this country for the
past five years. Our work, particularly in
the South, has taught us that the United
States government has never guaranteed the
freedom of oppressed citizens, and is not yet
truly determined to end the rule of terror
and oppression within its borders.
“We question, then, the ability and even
the desire of the United States government
to guarantee free election abroad. We main
tain that our country’s cry to ‘preserve free
dom in the world’ is a hypocritical mask
behind which its squashes liberation move
ments which are not bound, and refuse to be
bound, by the expediencies of United States
cold war policies.
“We are in sympathy with, and support,
the men in this country who are unwilling
to respond to a military draft which com
pels them to contribute their lives to United
States agression in Viet Nam in the name
of ‘freedom’ we find so false in this country.
“We therefore encourage those Americans
who prefer to use their energy in building
democratic forms within this country. We
believe that the work in the civil rights
movement and with other human relations
organizations is a valid alternative to the
draft. We urge all Americans to seek this
alternative, knowing full well that it may
cost them their lives. . . as painfully as in
Viet Nam.”
Secondly, Julian Bond publicly endorsed
that statement. Widespread distortion of his
endorsement led to mass confusion from
local college campuses to national civil
rights organizations.
Thirdly, the Georgia House of Represen
tatives, acting as a Judiciary, voted over
whelmingly to deny a seat to the duly elected
representative of the 136th District. In his
dissenting, Julian Bond agreed with a group
of concerned Americans. His disagreement
was not analogous to the thinking of the
Georgia Legislature.
What happens to dissenters? As has been
evidenced in the past, they are quickly
eliminated or made to suffer economic or
social reproaches. An example is that of
many civil rights workers throughout the
South who have bravely lost their lives in
the pursuit of peace and happiness for
minority Americans. This, of course, is an
aim that is contrary to American tradition.
Minorities haVe always suffered; therefore,
those human rights workers who tried to
activate a change disagreed with the general
American trend. As a result, they paid their
lives for their dissention.
Perhaps, then, the “safest” thing to do is
to sit by, remain unconcerned about those
less fortunate, agree with everything that is
handed down and let your total being sink
into the quagmire of devastation, degradation
and retrogression.
Many people, Negroes at that, have said
that Julian Bond should have kept his mouth
shut until he was seated. If Bond had gotten
into the habit of “waiting for the right time
to speak,” he’d be waiting forever, no doubt.
How are people to be represented with a
still tongue?
Until now, the people in the 136th Dis
trict had no voice in their government. The
majority of Bond’s electors are living in
abject poverty. Although poor, they are con
cerned with others who are suffering outside
the geographical United States.
These people happen to be colored too.
Daily napalm bombs are annihilating homes,
families, schools and nurseries filled with
crying suckling babies, children’s bodies are
being mutilated for a lifetime. Old men are
made to cry like babies. Young girls are
raped. Wives see their husbands castrated.
This is suffering in a war-torn country. The
people in Bond’s district don’t want to suf
fer, nor do they want others to suffer. Be
cause war means human suffering, they are
opposed to war for any reason; consequently,
they want their representative to voice their
sentiment.
However, Georgia refuses to accept change
for the better. It refuses to follow the tide.
It refuses to forget the past. Georgia is
afraid of dissenters. For these reasons, and
others to be sure, the Georgia lawmakers
can hold themselves totally responsible for
a possible mass human volcano that will
erupt sometime in the near future.
—Gloria Ann Wise
Role of African States
In the Rhodesian Crisis
On December 3, 1965, the Organization of African Unity
called upon all the African nations to sever diplomatic re
lations with Britain, if Britain had not intervened to crush
Rhodesian Prime Minister Ian Smith’s white-supremacist re
gime by December 15. Undoubtedly, the OAU’s resolution
reflects the mass opposition of black
Africa to Smith’s brazen attempt to firmly
institute and stabilize white-supremacist
rule in Rhodesia; and it serves to pinpoint
the volatile role that Britain is playing in
this crisis. While Britain has declared an
economic boycott of all Rhodesian goods
on the one hand, it has, on the other
hand, taken no decisive stand that will,
in any way, cripple the Smith regime.
Conversely, Britain does not want to make
any serious attempt to topple the Smith government, for to
do so would be perilous to a government set up by the
British. Moreover, Britain’s economic boycott of Rhodesian
goods, in effect, has not and will not hamper the economy
of Rhodesia, for whatever immediate losses Rhodesia might
suffer, it is obvious that trade with Holland, Portugal, France,
and South Africa will more than compensate.
Although many of the African states have clamored for
Britain’s immediate and effective intervention, such a re
quest has not been granted, owing essentially to Britain’s
self-interests and gain. Thus, another fundamental aspect of
the Rhodesian situation arises. That is the question of whether
those African leaders, Jomo Kenyatta, Sir Ababakar Tafawa,
and Haile Selassi among them, who demand a firmer and more
decisive stand by Britain, will take action themselves, should
Britain fail to act, as indeed is likely. Ultimately, this is the
decisive question for Africa.
—Juanita Price
Know Your Profs?
In this month of hearts, I wonder how many of us are
aware of the hearts of our professors. By this I mean, the
little obsessions that influence their everyday lives. Let’s see
how well you know the hearts of your professors.
He is short and bearded, lost of fun and his
heart lies in cooking and history.
She is of medium height, always on the go,
her heart lies in the field of English and
an obsession with the color green.
She hails from the state of Minnesota,
her heart is Economics but she has taught
Political Science and Contemporary Social
Issues. She is often seen with a pet named
Clansy.
This giant of a man hails from the state of
Tennessee, his heart was once in the field
of divinity but now it is well grounded in
the teaching of mathematics.
His manner is open and often outgoing, his
stature resembles that of a college football
player with the exception of his boyish
grin. His obsessions are driving and drama.
Her obsessions are jewelry and music. She
is seen most frequently at the piano. She
hails from Maine.
She is very short. Her personality is an
outgoing one. Her obsessions are dance
and creating charm and poise in her stu
dents. —
Mr. X is most frequently seen in Tapley.
His second obsession is photography.
She is very seldom known by the whole
student body. Her abode is the Home Eco
nomics building. She has an obsession with
the color blue.
—Brenda Greene