The Negro magazine EBONY:
é
WHEN Louis Armstrong took young Gary Crosby under his trumpeting wing, some Negroes shook their heads, wondered: "With all the promising Negro youngsters who need a musical break, why did the mighty maestro choose, as his protégé, a towhead born with a silver spoon, heir to a golden throat?" When wealthy Mrs. Pearl C. Anderson gifted the Dallas Community Chest Trust Fund with several blocks of downtown property worth over $200,000, more than one brother gasped: "Why give all that wealth to the white folks?" When Michigan's Congressman Charles Diggs Jr. named, as his first military academy appointee, white Thomas Jozwiak. there were those who said: "Ain't that a shame!"
All three of these famous Americans have contributed unstintingly to the welfare of the Negro. In addition, they have succeeded, as few of us have, in rising above the narrow confines of color. When any Negro is big enough to bestow his favors on deserving persons and causes without regard to race, creed or color, he should be commended for his tolerance. Such deeds should be labeled a blessing instead of a shame.
Racial discrimination is as reprehensible when practiced by Negroes as it is when employed by whites. And the Golden Rule works both ways. Like many Negroes, Mrs. Anderson, Louis Armstrong and Congressman Diggs owe much of their success to white people. By virtue of their positions they have a moral obligation to society in general.
Granted, the white majority has done the Negro wrong, is responsible for much of his inferior status in society. But even though restrictions are placed upon the Negro, it profits no one to retaliate in kind. Two wrongs make nobody right. Negroes should be proud that there are members of their race who abide by the Christian principle of doing unto others as they would that others should do unto them.
DEMOCRATS CANNOT HIT IKE ON FOREIGN POLICY
Columnist WALTER LIPPMANN:
MR. Adlai Stevenson is severely critical of the way foreign affairs have been conducted by the Eisenhower Administration. As Mr. Stevenson is the leading candidate for the Democratic Presidential nomination, we may ask ourselves not whether there is ground for criticism but whether the Democratic Party can take issue legitimately and effectively with the Republican Administration.
As of now the Democrats cannot do it. That is not because the Eisenhower-Dulles record is above criticism. Far from it. It is because by their support and by their silence the Democrats have forfeited the chance, and with it one might say the right, to take issue with the President.
Things may look very differently a year hence. But as of now the Democrats have no quarrel with what the Administration has managed to do Their quarrel, long after the event, is with how, by backing and filling, by zigging and zagging. by talking tough and by talking soft, the Administration got where it is today. As the Democrats do not criticize the result, as they did not at the time oppose the method they have as the opposition party no issue. ihey have no record of their own to oppose to the Eisenhower record. And as the saying goes in politics, you can't beat a horse with no horse.