Last week we reported an article appearing in the Daily ‘orker, written by James i, JackSon, editor of the New York Worker, which contained a vicious smear attack upon the Black Muslim movement. It has since come to our notice that this article was actually a partial reprint from the July 7 issue of the Yorker, What is more the original article contained similar attacks on otaer militants in the Negro struggle, I+ said:
"There are certain other personalities who, in their egotiemm and ignorance, persist in counterposing their conceited schemes to ths primary requirements of the Negro masses,..Whaterer the merita of their contribution in the past, the role they play in the present situation only brings grist to the mille of the segregationists, Sich a personality is Hobert F, Williams, whose utterly irresponsible attacks upon perconalities of Negro leaders and their allies in the thick of battles here which appear in his broadcasts from Cuba and in his newsletters O The Crusader, must ba roundly denounced, ™
Thus whilst it finds praise for the Kennedy administration, the New York Yorker concentrates its fire against those who have suffered the worst repression, The Black /fuslim movement has been the victim of mimerous frame ups and suppressions in various citiss in the U.5., the latest example being an announcement by the U.S, Civics Sarvice Commission that a dozen Muslims have been fired from government jobs because of their adherence to their religon, Robert Williams, formor leader of the NAACP branch in Monroe, North Caroline, was framed on a phoney kidnep charge and had to flee to Cuba,
The 'racialisn' of such movements as the Black lluslims is of a totally different character to that of the segregationasts. It has its roots in the failure of big sections of the white 'progressive' movement to take a princ= ipled stand against the oppression of the Negro people, _ Incorrect ideas should be criticised no matter from what source they come. ut when movenents are actually engaced in determined struggle with reactionary forces this eriticism should be of a sympathetic character. The New York Yorker makes not an idm@logical criticism bit one which seeks to equate those who are being oppre dod with their oppressors, The comnection between these attacks and the latest shift in Sovist foreign policy is not hard to see,