RPW to Newsweek re review of WSFN searchable text

June 12, 1965

The Editor,
Newsweek,
444 Madison Avenue,
New York City.

Dear Sir:

          Your reviewer (June 7) kindly calls my Who Speaks for the Negro “important” as a “galley of leaders of the civil rights movement,” but he finds my own attitude “disappointing.”  He calls me a “moderate whose basic attitude is still paternalistic.”  The word moderate is of course, fuzzy, but as a term of condemnation it is usually taken to mean a person who disapproves of violence, professes friendship for the Negro, and looks more or less yearningly to the Sweet Bye-and-Bye when the Negro will be ready for “equality,” but who, meanwhile, believes that the white man must keep his hands firmlyon (firmly on) the machinery of power.

          That is not my view.  As for “paternalism,” I flatly say (p. 408) that “power is the key,” and that the Negro has developed a concentration of power and a technique for applying it which will win his rights.  I say (p. 443) that “the age of philanthropy is over, and it would be a vicious illusion for the white man to think that he … can reach a solution and pass it down to gratefully uplifted black hands.”  As for the ethical aspect of the question, I say (p.410) that by the white man’s own professed standards “the Negro is in the right.”  As for the time factor, I insist over and over that the matter is urgent and cannot be shelved.

          It would seem that your reviewer did not read the pages and passages I refer to.  In fact, in view of his distortions and plain errors (documentation on request), one may wonder exactly what pages he did read.

          Respectfully yours,

          Robert Penn Warren

[page 2: draft of letter with mutliple proofreading marks, corrections, and manuscript notes and insertions:]

          Your reviewer (June 7) kindly calls my WHO SPEAKS FOR THE NEGRO “important” as a “gallery of leaders of the civil rights movement,” but he finds my own attitude “disappointing.”  He calls me a “moderate whose basic attitude is still paternalistic.”  The word moderate is of course, fuzzy, but as a term of condemnation it is usually taken to mean a person who disapproves of violence, professes esteem for the Negro., still believes that the white man must keep his hand on machinery of power.

          That is not my view.  I quite explicitly say [unreadable manuscript note] (p. 408) that “power is the key,” and that the Negro has developed a concentration of power and a technique for  manipulating it.  I say (p. 443) that “the age of philanthropy is over,  and it would be a vicios illusion for the white man to think that he … can reach a solution and pass it down to gratefully  uplifted black hands.”  As for the ethical side of the matter, I say (p. 416) that the basis of the Negro movement is “moral power” and that by the white man’s own professed standards the Negro is “in the right.”  In fact, I think it quite probable that the Negro movement will do something toward a regeneration of out society.

          It would seem that your reviewer did not read these, and associated pages.  In fact, [unreadable manuscript note] one may wonder exactly what pages he did read.

          Respectfully yours,

[Additional manuscript notes in margins]