“You get it from both sides”

Protestors on Vine St, April 9, 1968. (courtesy UMKC Digital Special Collections)

To understand the causes of the April 1968 Race Riots, the Greater Kansas City Mental Health Foundation commissioned Robert Bechtel and Charles Wilkinson to write The Social History of a Riot: Kansas City, Missouri, April 9-13, 1969. The 1968 Riot Collection includes the complete manuscript of that book, as well as many of the interviews conducted by researchers. Interviewees included witnesses, protest participants, and members of law enforcement. There are four interviews with African-American members of the Kansas City Police Department who served during the riots. While Social History focused on these officers’ perception of racism within KCPD, the interviews paint a more complex picture. The relationship between black officers and the black community was often contradictory. The officers sympathized with civil rights protestors and felt the indignity of racism, but their sympathy for violent rioters ran out quickly. They also had a complex relationship with their fellow officers and superiors. In short, these men expressed conflict between their own identities as black men, their loyalty to their department, and their duty to uphold the law.

Major Garrison and Sergeant Walter Parker were interviewed together. At the time of the interview, Parker had been a member of KCPD for 19 years. Both men complained that even when off-duty, people knew they were officers. This could be nuisance, such as friends and relatives who wanted their tickets taken care of. It could also be serious, as when Black Panther militants threatened the safety of Parker’s family. Another interviewee, Leroy Swift, was called a “house n*****” by another black man. This insult carried a specific connotation of a black man placed in a position of power as tool of white supremacy. Interestingly, Swift said the man later admitted the insult was just for show. Parker described a similar dynamic: “I realize that it’s necessary for [Black Panther activists] to stay away from the police and call the police names and not have anything to do with them in order to keep [their movement] going.” According to Swift, many black officers in KCPD at this time were “black first and policeman second.” Being “black first” meant having some sympathy for activists. Parker and Garrison were united in calling for a constructive conversation between police and activist groups. However, they were skeptical that activist groups actually wanted to have those conversations. In other words, these officers were suspicious of militant activists, yet still empathized with them based on certain shared experiences. The activists might have shared a similar mixture of emotions.

Despite the lack of productive dialogue with activists, these officers felt they had strong ties to the African American community in Kansas City, and that these ties helped them succeed at their jobs, particularly during the riots. During the riot, “Tuckie” Saunders and two other black plainclothesmen helped one group of student protestors make an orderly march and demonstration. At one point the students asked Saunders to make a speech. The group Saunders was with seems to have been separate from the more volatile crowds. Saunders had his own method for dealing with disruptive protestors: “if [Saunders] had been in charge…he would have dispersed the kids with streams of water” because “it was cool that morning and when your clothes are wet you have to go home and change.” Saunders may have believed is method more efficient and humane than the use of mace or tear gas, which police employed during the riots.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Captain LeRoy Swift had a leadership role among officers facing the more violent protestors. At the very start of the riot, Swift and two other black officers pursued a group of black students who looted a store in plain sight of the officers. Swift speculates that the students thought the officers would look the other way because they were also black. The students were wrong. According to his account, he was later sent in to help calm things down between white police and African-American protestors. To do so he overruled some arrests made by white officers. Swift also described how some whites believed the police-enforced curfew did not apply to them.

Every officer interviewed expressed support and admiration for KCPD Chief Clarence M. Kelley. Saunders said he “was good as gold” and Swift called him “a good man” and “honest.” In contrast, Kelley’s command staff drew universal criticism from the African American officers for being racist, “biased and sneaky.” What was missing from KCPD, according to Saunders, was “black faces in high places.” Swift described a lack of sensitivity from white officers who still used the n-word with regularity. His testimony also demonstrates how black officers had to walk a fine line, and how their loyalty was always in question. If they identified too closely with the black community, they drew the suspicion of whites in the department. On the other hand, just wearing a badge was enough to alienate them from the black community.

These officers had unique insights on race relations and the responsibilities of law enforcement during this turbulent period, and they all expressed optimism that solutions could be found. It is too simplistic to characterize police and activists as natural enemies. In the case of the man who insulted LeRoy Swift, and the Black Panther activists who Sgt. Parker spoke of, their animosity towards the officers was occasionally not actually genuine. Instead, these interviews demonstrate the complex nature of the relationship between police and the communities they are asked to protect and serve.

 

Sources

Detective “Tuckie” Saunders, Interview Transcript, Box 1, Folder 35, 1968 Riot Collection, LaBudde Special Collections, UMKC.

Maj. Garrison and Sgt. Walter Parker, Interview with Jeanie Meyer, June 2, 1969, Box 1, Folder 31, 1968 Riot Collection, Labudde Special Collections, UMKC.

LeRoy Swift, Interview Notes, Box 1, Folder 35, 1968 Riot Collection, LaBudde Special Collections, UMKC.

Celebrating Black History Month: Remembering Where We’ve Been and How Far We Have to Travel

Richard WrightWithin the Goldin collection, the political roundtable debates, dramas with social commentary, and panel discussions about real and significant problems, most of which have no answer and are still legitimate problems in America and abroad, are very relevant, despite the age of the recordings.

There are occasionally discs that will always stand out, such as This is South Africa: South African Problem. The “problem” referred to in the title is the “natural” cultural and developmental differences between indigenous South Africans and white South Africans. As the speaker explains it, racial segregation was necessary to allow particular races to enjoy their own cultural differences; indigenous tribes like the Zulu (there is an interesting, if not completely related, program on polygamy in Zulu society on the reverse of this disc) could continue their traditional ways of life without interference, and Europeans and European descendants were free to abide by their own ways of living. The real and harsh reality is that those justifications are false, almost laughably false if not for the terror they conceal. A point that the speaker stressed throughout was the different technological developments that separated the indigenous ethnic groups from the white South Africans. They never used the phrase, but “separate but equal” sums up his argument. We all know the history of that thinking in our own homeland.

Racial segregation in South Africa had begun during the colonial period, but didn’t become official policy and law until 1948. The South African general election of 1948 which created the system of racial segregation enforced by the National Party government that would later be known as apartheid was held May 26, 1948 and this disc was broadcast Dec. 12, 1948. The proximity of this broadcast to the passage of that law is astounding, and one assumes, a broadcast like this, intended for an international audience (and in this particular case, an American audience) was to present it in a positive light. When this vote was cast in South Africa, Jim Crow laws in the United States, in some form, had been around for over 70 years.

The reverse side of this disc features its own stand-alone program not meant to have any connection to this one, but featured a speaker making a statement about South Africa’s hospitality, weather, and other pleasantries saying, “[T]here’s something very familiar about South Africa to an American, so very much like our own country.” Heard in the context of the entire disc, this statement takes on a very different meaning than it was intended, but is all the more poignant.

Thankfully, there are many more discs in the Goldin collection that feature far more positive and progressive messages. New world a-coming is one outstanding example. This series focuses on many of the problems and challenges faced by racial and ethnic minorities in the US, and several programs focus on African Americans specifically.

Most of the programs focused specifically on discrimination in employment, such as A job for Jane which is about how labor unions are a solution to problems of unemployment and underemployment, and how everyone has the right to fair and equal employment, despite their race or gender; Black boy which is based on the autobiography by Richard Wright (pictured above), follows the difficulties faced by a young African American man trying to get a fair and decent job in the American South; and Color scheme is about a man hired to be the manager of a pharmaceutical factory (we’re to assume he’s white, because it’s never mentioned), who hires an African American to run one of the labs, and the discrimination he faces by his subordinates, as well as the factory’s owner. These dramas, in my opinion, are very impressive programs for 1945-46.

As important as these examples of the message that the American dream is for everyone, they aren’t too far removed from the reality of the time: as Goldin notes on the inventory form for Black boy, the part of the young African American man, Richard Wright, is played by a prominent (white) Jewish actor (although another post in itself, “New pilgrim,” deals with the discrimination faced by Jews in America.)  So was the reality of show business in America.

With the risk of continuing this increasing long blog post, let me briefly mention a few other programs of note, Neither free nor equal: The hate merchants is a dramatic-documentary about intolerance and discrimination in the United States, including useful ways to deal with hate mongers. Groups highlighted as being discriminated against include Jews, African Americans, communists, Catholics, and Protestants. A program called Creighton University of the air: Contributions of the colored race to the American heritage is a panel discussion about the contributions of African Americans to American society and takes the stance that greater equality for African Americans will be of benefit to the entire country by allowing more people to be working towards the greater good. Finally, there is a very interesting discussion from a program called In our opinion: The Negro and communism which discusses if communism is a more effective system for African Americans than the current system of capitalism. Whether it was or not is irrelevant when put in the context that this was 1947 and being an American and communist, or the mere appearance of “communist sympathizing” was dangerous for anyone of any background, to say the least.

There are other such programs in this collection, and I’m sure, there will be more to come. For assistance searching the Goldin collection, or any other, you can contact your friendly neighborhood reference librarian or Marr staff.

Anthony Prince, Goldin Project staff