The religion of Islam was spread by the sword is a fallacy. When you study the history from the Muslim historians' point of view, you get a different picture. I imagine it's the same as if you study the the history of the war between England and the American revolutionaries. You get a different view of it from England side than you get from from from the side over here. They don't call George Washington a patriot. You know, they call him a traitor or something of that sort. Well, it's the same situation with with the Muslims. When you read about Muslim history that has been written by Christians, you actually don't get an objective look at the picture. I don't think you would. And I wouldn't blame them for not telling it fairly. The. Religion of Islam spread naturally in Africa and Asia. But when it hit Europe, it ran into a stone wall. It seemed that the Europeans didn't go for the something in their nature that I think didn't fit into the scheme of things where Islam was concerned. They seem to have a tendency by nature to go for Christianity more. So then they went for Islam and this caused the clash. And out of it developed a period of history known as the Crusades, when it was the Christians who took up the sword and tried to fight their way down into Jerusalem to get the tomb of Jesus. From what I understand, if I'm wrong, you correct me. And it was at that time that the Muslims picked up the sword and in defense of the Holy Land. And from what I understand, even the Christian historians say that they defended it quite successfully because none of the crusades on the part of the Christians were ever successful in wresting the Holy Land from the Muslims and on the our outlook toward intermarriage. And we don't go for intermarriage at all. We think that it makes more it creates more problems than it solves the. The also historically, most of these racial inter mixed use have not so much been having been the result of intermarriage intermarrying. It always takes place at a very, very small scale. The intermixing of the races has usually resulted when an invading army conquers an area, kills the men, and then the women become the spoils of war. Most of the racial mixture of the people from Eastern Europe, the only took place when the Asians under Attila or Genghis Khan, Kublai Khan, some of the others conquered that area and destroyed the men and then mixed their blood with the women who were left behind. Even when this country defeated Japan. And most of the marriages actually took place, Usually the marriage that took place was the man. The white man from America took the Japanese woman. But seldom do you see instances where the Japanese man who was conquered becoming the husband of the woman of the conqueror, usually these mixed and in where our people are concerned in this country. It happened the same way. We were a conquered people in this society and all of the race mixing blood mixture that resulted resulted because our mothers and our sisters and our women were the property, the spoils of war, so to speak, at the hands of the white man in this country. And the intermarriages have been few and far between. And I might even add this, that then, because of the psychological reaction on the part of Negroes actually developing an inferiority complex, there was a time when Negroes felt that just to have a white woman was like a status symbol, and you'd find Negroes walk through Harlem with a white woman on his arm. This was years ago, and it was not that he loved her or was weak for her, but it was a status symbol, like a Cadillac or a new suit or something like that. When 20 years ago the Negro couldn't take a white woman into a white community and live with her, married or not. So 20 years ago, he would end up living with her in the Negro community. To show you how times have changed, today you are mixed. Couples still can't live in the white community. The white community still frowns down upon it and rejects it. And surprisingly, the same thing now is true of the Negro community. So what it has done, it has created a situation where most of these people who are involved in a mixed marriage have to end up living in the village down in the bohemian area where moral standards don't even enter into the picture. And most of them who are involved in these intermarriages malls aren't even part of their makeup. They they live a bohemian, bohemian type life. So there's nothing that into intermarriage, in my opinion, leads to nothing. But all of the immorality and the destruction of the races are destruction of self pride and everything else that goes along with it. And and I can say very frankly that I'm one. Thousand percent against it. This doesn't mean that I'm anti white or anti anything. I think white people look good, married to white people and black people look good, married to black people. This is the is look, it seems to me that this is the way nature intended for it to be. I mean, whenever you try and cross it up, you get or you get a product or you get results that are not so good. And this beachhead thing that you mentioned in Detroit is too late for beachheads. They should have started the beachhead 200 years ago. The the impatience that exists among black people in 1964 is to such a degree that I don't think you'll find anyone in the young generation now, among the old Negroes, what we call the handkerchief head type Negro, you. And he doesn't have to have a handkerchief to be a handkerchief head. He can be. You have a top hat, he can be immaculate, articulate, speak with a Harvard accent and be nothing but a handkerchief head. Nowadays you have the 20th century type Uncle Tom. That is as much an Uncle Tom in this society today as Tom was on the plantation 100 years ago. Only this one. He's more refined, he's more cultured, he's more articulate. He's usually a doctor or a lawyer or a reverend or. Right. Reverend. Dr.. He is he fits all these different categories, but he's just as much an Uncle Tom today as he was then. Now, Tom will be satisfied with the beachhead. But this young black man or the young generation isn't interested in beachhead. He's not interested in tokens. He wants the real thing. Or not at all.

Mm hmm. Mr. Black, you commented in your presentation about your concern with the health and welfare problems. Can you speak up a little bit mentioning particularly the drug addiction and what you're missing? And I'm sure you could have mentioned others. Would you elaborate a little bit on what you consider to be your tactics and strategy? Dealing with this problem.

Yes, we've been more successful with drug addicts and alcoholics and even these persons who. Come into the world through bastardization. We've been most successful in changing their behavior, their thinking and their behavior pattern than any other group in this country. And all of these evils, in fact, the Negro himself, who's the victim, is not really responsible. I think most sociologists agree that this is a throwback on the type of condition that was set up during slavery when the black man was never permitted an opportunity to be the father, to be to be the one to whom the mother looked for protection, for food, clothing and shelter and things of that. In fact, the black man during 300 years was not even allowed to point toward his offspring as his offspring. He was a breeder of slaves. And this has come right down into the psychological makeup of black people to this very day. There is the sense of responsibility of holding a family together that was destroyed during slavery is reflected in the illegitimacy, high rate of illegitimacy that exists in our community, in our neighborhoods today. Even our women didn't have to get married to have a man. They were the victims of any man who wanted them. They were they were producers of children, their master or another slave. As long as that woman was what produced a child. Well, all of these evils that were practiced during slavery reflect themselves in the present condition today. So the only way to stamp out that evil is to go right to the cause, to the real and the whole. And you have to go right into the mind of the Negro himself, Negro man and Negro woman and change it. They have to their image of themselves has to be rearranged. The image that the Negro has of himself is so low, so close to nothing that when he tramples on himself, as far as he's concerned, he's trampling upon nothing. He he sees no part in the higher fabric of society, where he can be, where he can place himself. He sees himself only in the lowest fabric of the society. So his image, not the white man's image of him, but his image of himself must be changed. And our approach is designed to work not on changing the white man's mind about the Negro, but changing the Negroes mind about himself. And once the Negroes mind is of himself and one of them once the Negroes mind, is change where his own image is concerned and his and he gets a better image of himself, he will try and live up to it, but he'll never live up to it by telling him while he is in such a low state that he is just he that he is just as good as this man over here. How in the world can he be just as good as this man over here? And he doesn't have a factory. He doesn't have a school. He doesn't have a name. He doesn't have a history. He doesn't have anything that he can use to prove that he's just as good as this man over here. So he has to be given that. And once these things are given to him, then he will see that he once was a part of the human family. And once he finds his place in the past, in the in the human family tree, he will realize that he can play a part in the human family tree today. And this is why we stress human rights instead of civil rights. His human rights has to be restored. His right to be a human being has to be restored, and he has to be given that which will enable him to prove that he was once part of the human family. Once he can prove that he was once part of the human family. He has more confidence when he put forth an effort to prove that he's still part of the human family today. And the real crime, sir, that Uncle Sam committed is not kidnaping us and bringing us here. The crime that Sam committed was when Uncle Sam stripped us of our culture, of our language, our names, identity, stripped us of the things that we could use to prove that we had a culture, that we had a civilization, that we had a government, and we're capable of operating a functional government at a higher level than they had functioning in Europe. At the same time, this is the crime that Uncle Sam committed against the Negro and in the sense he committed this crime against his own people because many white have been so brainwashed until they themselves don't realize that on the African continent they had governmental societies that were functioning at a higher level than was or functioning at the same time up there on the European continent. So our approach is on the Negro. Once you change his mind, he'll change his own habits. But you can never change his habits until you first change his mind. Yes, sir.

You're not that human in a short range perspective.

Identify yourselves with efforts to our better public welfare administration in New York City. Higher relief standards.

Better hospital care. When the. What would be your posture with regard assuming that the war on poverty has objective? But you could align yourself. Or do you what what is your posture with regard to the war on poverty? Well.

As poor as our people are, we would be almost insane not to be very receptive to any idea that anyone had concerning a war on poverty. When you talk about war on poverty, are you talking about Negroes right there? They're the ones that are being referred to in a very diplomatic way. Uh, as long as the war on poverty is done without political motivation, then it will get good results. Is not the action that gets the results. It's the motive. If the motive is is behind the action is is proper, then the results will be good. But if this war on poverty is just another political trick, and sometimes you have to forgive me, but my own experience and observation has made me a very cautious person where anything that stems from the lips of a politician is concerned. Usually it's for political expediency, it's for votes. And now, if the present concept of war on poverty is designed to hit at the root of the Negroes poverty and the causes of his poverty, well and good. But if it's designed to make him just the recipient of more welfare, which makes him a better, it continues him in a role of a beggar. This unsolved problem. His poverty isn't only material. His poverty, his poverty is cultural. His poverty. Poverty is psychological. His poverty is he. He's poor. Where education is concerned. He's his poverty is even in incentive. His poverty is in the image of himself. He has a poor image of himself. So a war on poverty has to cover many different aspects or it's a waste of time. You give a you know, I'll give you an example. Muhammad the prophet. A poor brother came to him one day and asked him for some money, and Muhammad told him he didn't have any money to give him. But he he asked, And what did he have at home? So the brother told him he had a rug and Muhammad told him, When you go and sell your rug and take what you get for the sale of that rug and buy some kindling wood and then take the kindling wood and sell it, and then take the money that you get from that sale and buy some more kindling wouldn't sell it. So this brother went and did exactly as Muhammad told him, and he developed a thriving kindling wood business over there in that part of the world. Well, now, Muhammad could have given him some money when he asked for it, but he would have continued to be a beggar. But what Muhammad did to help him was to show him how to help himself. And this eliminated the very cause of his poverty. The only reason that that brother was poor is he did know how to help himself. And the reason that Negroes in this country are poverty stricken is we don't know how to help ourselves. Whites can't help us. They can only help us by showing us how to help ourselves. And if a war on poverty is designed to show the Negro how to get to the root of his own problem, then that war on poverty will be successful. You got a better example of it with Peter in the Bible came to a man who was sitting at the gate begging. He was poor too. And the type of war on poverty that Peter carried on with him was brilliant in that the man asked him for a handout and Peter told him, Gold and silver have I none? But such as I as I have, I give under the pick up and I bid. And what Peter showed the man how to get up and walk, how to get up and do something for himself and solve this problem. You know, if he had done what others had done, just give him some more aid, the man would have been sitting there the next day, the next day and the next day. So with the government continuing with these welfare programs, that's just designed to drop something in the Negroes lap. It doesn't make it make the Negro do do anything but continue to be a third and fourth and fifth generation beggar. And this doesn't solve the problem.

All right. And Merle. Recently a group of Presbyterians and South to our Negro. Said to us.

They were tired of a hundred years.

Of being used as objects of mission. Objects to promote mission. I would like if you would comment on the role of the church.

In relation to the struggle today. And terms of this business of use. Offer you the opportunity as well to.

Direct any questions or concerns you have at us as well as. Or just using you to get things from you. Right.

Well, I can understand the attitude of the brothers in the South for being reluctant to allow themselves to be used as. In the in the in the used by the church in its missionary work. Actually, in one sense, it's the same way that the American troops used Indian scouts when they were selling this country and taking the the land from the Indians. Uh, they used, they, they used Indian scouts and sent them among the Indians or used those Indian scouts to prepare the way for them to go among the Indians. And they went among the Indians under the pretext that they were there for the welfare of the Indians. Now, imagine how that scout bell, who would take the American troops into Indian territory and actually be responsible for taking in some people who eventually would always take his own people's land? Well, the the. I met a Negro today doing missionary work for the church, which he considers to be a white church. Whether he says it's a white church or not or whether it says it's a white church, still, it's a white church. So I'm thinking Negro would probably feel that he's being used in the same capacity that the Army used the scouts when they were trying to take over this country. The incoming troops never did the Indians any good. And Negroes are beginning to develop the opinion that the church, when it comes in, doesn't solve the problems of Negroes. And actually the problem will become more complex, become worse. So. Again, in my own opinion, and I used to be a Christian. I was born in the Christian church. My father was a Baptist minister. And in those days you had a white Baptist church and a Negro Baptist church. You had a white Presbyterian church, I guess. And I never heard they didn't have too many Negro Presbyterian churches in those days. This is something that only been doing in recent years that the Negro has. Evolved, you might say, to the level of the Presbyterian Church and some some some may resent my saying this, but if you doubt that what I'm saying is true, you can go in the Negro community and tell his educational level almost by the church that he belongs to. Usually when you go into the sanctified church, which is very emotional, most of the Negroes in there have a very low education collectively, and as they get a little more education, they get into the Baptist church and and they are not quite as emotional, although they are very emotional. And I mean, the difference being that in the sanctified church they roll all over the floor and and carry on in that manner. Whereas in the Baptist church they get very emotional. But seldom do they roll on the floor. They knock over benches and things of that sort. But it's a more controlled emotional reaction. And then as the Negro gets a little more education, you find him in the Methodist church and in there they try not to get emotional at all. They once in a while you'll hear someone shout in a very dignified way. It's not as you'd find them shouting in a Baptist church and then on up the ladder. As the educational level rises, they become filled with a desire to change. Then finally they get a whole lot of education. They become agnostic and atheist the out of the church completely. So this is a pattern that follows our people. And I think that is not a stereotype. It's a reality.

All right. The second part was, are there any questions that you have that you would like to ask this group?

Yes, I would.

My question is.

But yes, I would like to, since the church has come out vocally and I emphasize vocally in support of the civil rights. Of the 22 million African-Americans in this country. And I think that most people in the church are intelligent enough to see all of the obstacles in the path that will prevent the black people in this country from getting civil rights. They have knowledge of government and how government works more so than the African-American does. I would like to ask, since there is a section in the United Nations Charter on Human Rights that would open the door for the struggle or the plight of the African-American in this country to be taken before the United Nations at the human rights level. I'm very much curious as to why the intelligent whites who have been involved in this struggle have not shown the Negro how to take his case into the United Nations rather than to waste his time for the past ten years in Washington, D.C..

I think, number one, that, uh. There's a false assumption involved. Is the.

Assumption that. White men who are acting politically. Or at the same time. And in this church, we. What I'm trying to say is that. White men who act in the church. And in terms of how to do we serve people.

When they act in government in the political sphere. In terms of how do we govern and protect ourselves, not as church. And the fact that the Protestant church has recently. Moved to relate this on an international scale by trying to bring the World Council of Churches into. Service programs in this country, particularly in the South, I think emphasizes what.

I'm talking about, that the church sees itself in terms of this.

It not recognized. They must also as. Churchmen is operating in the political sphere. In other words, what I'm saying is I don't think. But people in the church traditionally recognize that while they're operating in the political sphere.

That is a concern in the church. I said to this.

Last year, I think there's a certain amount of white or national arrogance related to this problem. We just, as Americans say we we can solve our own problems. We don't have to coordinate.

But at the same time, the United States doesn't have this same attitude toward other countries. She wants to solve and solve Cuba's problems. She sticks their fingers in Brazil's problems in South Vietnam, all over the world. You see Uncle Hand, Uncle Sam's CIA fingers at work. But at the same time, when it comes to a very serious problem, and if you may forgive me for saying the most serious problem Uncle Sam has is the race problem. This problem can bring this government down just like that. It's not. It's like the Achilles heel. Achilles was invincible on in every spot except his heel. And his heel was the lowest part of his body. Uncle Sam is invincible, except for his heel. But his heel is the Negro. We are. We are Uncle Sam's heel. And we're his most sensitive spot. Uncle Sam, a white man, sounds intelligent on most questions. When you get him on the race problem, he sounds like a fool. If you want to make a fool out of a white man, just get him in a conversation on the race problem. And he sounds like that.

I think part of this problem is national arrogance. Do you think I should just do this now? Let me just finish up with one comment. Does this mean that as a church of some 3 million members, one of our major contributions to this problem would be to throw every effort we can into getting this considered a human rights level in the United States.

The only way it would be solved, Uncle Sam's moral consciousness. If you mean the politician, the politicians are destroying the country faster than Kruschev could with the bomb. Dirksen Not only Dirksen. Even the senators who are on the side of civil rights publicly are destroying it because privately, ofttimes they're not on the side of civil rights. Once you see that this is taking place, and if those senators felt that they would be taken into another court that could condemn them, I think the attitude not based on legality or morality, but just the thought that it is a threat to their own position of power, their own prestige. This in itself would have a greater determining factor in changing their attitude. Then the the moral approach.

You ask, why hasn't the church told Negroes this? How to do it now? Do you really believe that that today? Negroes will accept the advice of white men, even when they call themselves church.

Well, you take the whole civil rights struggle as led by whites. The whole civil rights struggle for the past ten years. The the the intellectual aspect, philosophical aspect has not come from Negroes. Negroes have been fronting for it, but the ideas have been put in their head by whites. And in fact, every one of your Negro organizations I would debate with anybody who has more Jewish influence than it has Negro influence when it comes to objectives and strategy. It is the most of the whites in this country who call themselves liberal and take an active part in the in the Negro struggle, financing and otherwise. When I say active part joiners, the ones who get run out there with them are of the Jewish element. And. In my opinion, what they have done has been to keep the Negro and the Gentile white man so busy fighting each other it has not given anybody a chance to see them in the light that they are really playing. And I don't say this as an anti-Semitic statement. I want to clarify it. They are so shrewd. The Jews have been so shrewd that they put everybody who is not a Jew in a position where if you criticize them, you're anti-Semitic. Even if your criticism, you can't even analyze them. Not on you don't have to criticize them. You can't even give them an objective analysis of the role that the Jew is playing in the whole situation without bringing down the ramp up on your hand of being anti-Semitic. And I think that this is unfair both for the white Gentile as well as for the Negro, because it clouds the issue and makes it impossible to get to the root of the problem.

Well, my question would take us back a little ways, but I see a considerable.

Relationship, to your point here, about the human rights issue.

Let's be specific.

What about the proposed program in Harlem?

Are you. Are you in favor of that? Well, your organization support it and participate in it as a movement, which ostensibly, at any rate, in its statements and proposals, wishes to help the Negroes understand how to help them.

So I think it's a good program. And certainly we've I've even when I was the minister of mass number seven. Spoken before the Hiu groups and tried to give them all of the incentive that I could because for one thing, it's for you and it is designed to give incentive to the youth and it's also dealing with the community itself. It's a good program.

All right. You dream for just a moment. And given what you might consider to be the prognosis of. This human rights level in terms of the UN, what at what point will we come out? If this is projected.

I don't quite understand how you mean.

Well. If you rule from the civil rights struggle into one of human rights and you projected into.

The UN level.