Why The 1950's Were Not So Great - Why The South Must Prevail by William F Buckley

The South confronts one grave moral challenge. It must not exploit the fact of Negro backwardness to preserve the Negro as a servile class. It is tempting and convenient to block the progress of a minority whose services, as menials, are economically useful.  Let the South never permit itself to do this. So long   as it is merely asserting the right to impose superior mores for whatever period it takes to effect a genuine cultural equality between the races, and so long as it does so by humane and charitable means, the South is in step with civilization, as is the Congress that permits it to function.

Parts of this article read more like something someone might have seen in the 1870's as southerners tried to keep blacks from being granted the vote after emancipation.  But no, this came during the so-called (by some conservatives) "the greatest decade" . I think one guy on Newstalkers here has called the 50's the pinnacle of American greatness. 

I was inspired to look up this column by Buckley after reading a seed Bob Nelson put up yesterday.  I wish it had gotten more comments because its theme is related to what I have posted here, only on a present day basis. A writer for the right wing think tank The Claremont Institute wrote a new article where he paints the current situation in America as a fight for western civilization, and he specifically mentions black lives matter as being an enemy of western civilization.  I think he would have made Buckley proud. 

Bob obviously reads Salon. What you and he need to do is be fair when you decide to write about any historical figure. By the time William F Buckley ran for mayor of NYC in 1965, eight years later, he had changed his views considerably. He was the first & leading Conservative to endorse affirmative action. He also promised to crack down on labor unions that discriminated against minorities in addition to advancing a welfare “reform” plan whose major components were job training, education and daycare. One other thing. That National Review article was completely out of step with the thinking of Republicans, such as Dwight Eisenhower, at that time.

"Bob obviously reads Salon."

Oh the horror ... Bob's article didn't come from Salon.

So.....if William F Buckley can change his spots, why can't Democrats such as Robert Byrd?

Why? William and Robert were zebras, one was black with white stripes and the other white with black stripes obviously.

By the time William F Buckley ran for mayor of NYC in 1965, eight years later, he had changed his views considerably.

I imagine he concluded it would be hard to get elected mayor of NYC if his racist flag was flying. 

In February of 1965, Buckley debated James Baldwin at Cambridge University. Are you familiar with what Buckley said and how he was received ? 

from the book "The Fire Is upon Us: James Baldwin, William F. Buckley Jr., and the Debate over Race in America by Nicholas Buccola

“The idea of white supremacy,” Baldwin had written in “Stranger in the Village,” “rests simply on the fact that white men are the creators of civilization and are therefore civilization’s guardians and defenders.” This describes precisely how Buckley thought about the meaning of conservatism. Indeed, if we alter Baldwin’s sentence slightly, we capture the core of Buckley’s creed: “The idea of conservatism rests simply on the fact that men have created a civilization worth preserving and conservatives are therefore civilization’s guardians and defenders.”

What is not stated in my imagined Buckley version of this statement, but is there implicitly in his consternation at Baldwin’s line about power, is this: white people are the possessors of civilization, which is what black people really need and should want, prior to any claim to power. Buckley had said this explicitly enough in many of his writings on race, from the infamous “Why the South Must Prevail” editorial to his more recent columns on the fight for voting rights in Mississippi. For Buckley, whiteness was—usually but not always—synonymous with civilization and blackness was suggestive of its absence. Thus, what Buckley wanted black people to seek was not power but rather civilization, and it was the duty of white people to help them get it. Once they are civilized, Buckley said, then we will be willing to start talking about sharing some of our power.

...Although Buckley conceded that blacks were victims of discrimination, he was sure to emphasize that this was the result of the “dreadful efforts” of “many individual American citizens.” This is telling because it exemplifies a common rhetorical strategy employed by conservatives in discussions of racial inequality. The stress is almost always on the aberrant behavior of individuals—“a few bad apples,” it is frequently said—in order to draw attention away from the historical and structural conditions that empowered these individuals in the first place. In addition, Buckley suggested that there has been a “failure of the Negro community.” What is interesting here is that he shifted from an emphasis on the individual in his discussion of the perpetrators of racial discrimination to a focus on the community in his discussion of the victims of racial discrimination. Why not say that “many individual American Negroes” had failed to make “certain exertions” instead of saying this is true of “the Negro community”? I would like to suggest that Buckley was quite deliberate in these rhetorical choices. Just as the decision to highlight the individual’s culpability in racial discrimination diverted attention away from structural inequality, the decision to claim failure by “the Negro community” was meant to direct attention away from the historical and societal roots of racial inequality, and toward the apparent shortcomings of a particular group of people, abstracted from the context that created the conditions in which they live.

...In his book Beyond the Melting Pot, Glazer had argued that blacks had failed to take advantage of the opportunities made available to them throughout American history. In support of this claim, Glazer pointed out that there were only four hundred more black doctors in the United States in 1960 as there were in 1900. This was not, Buckley suggested by way of Glazer, because there were no opportunities to advance in the medical field. To the contrary, there were more opportunities by 1960. It was because, Buckley explained, black people had failed to exert “particular energy” to take advantage of these opportunities. If one of the major factors causing “the Negro problem” was the failure of African Americans to exert sufficient energy toward the right social and economic goals, Buckley surmised, the solution was simple enough: “We should focus on the necessity to animate [the] particular energy” in the black community that has served other minority groups well throughout American history.

The interesting thing about all this is that we are still seeing some of these arguments being made by the right 60 years later.  "Black culture" , or Native American culture, or hispanic culture , or Asian culture, threaten western civilization. Supposedly. 

Is that what the alleged 'cancel culture' is all about?

Oh by the way, something like 70% of the Cambridge students in attendance at the debate , which was about 750 students, voted afterward that Buckley lost the debate. 

"So.....if William F Buckley can change his spots, why can't Democrats such as Robert Byrd?"

No, no, no, no, no and don't ask me why . . . or why not

When did I bring up Robert Byrd?

Not in this seed, but there have been plenty of times in the past where you or your comrades have brought him up and reminded everyone that he was a member of the KKK at one point in his life.

So. Why is it ok for Buckley to change his spots but Byrd will never get credit for it from you guys?

In February of 1965, Buckley debated James Baldwin at Cambridge University. Are you familiar with what Buckley said and how he was received ? 

Am I interested in how either Buckley or Baldwin were received?  No, I'm not, but thanks for the opinion piece. For anyone truly interested - the actual debate can be found on You-tube.  What happened after Black Americans had won their civil rights in the 60's, was that the modern progressive movement decided to go in a different direction, in which the idea's of equality taught to us by MLK were rejected & replaced with what is recently called "equity."  Equity seems to mean reparations and an equality of results based on race rather than merit. That's the discussion we should be having rather than a thinly veiled attempt to smear Conservatives.

What nonsense.

By the way, Buckley's racist comments during the debate were met with resistance in the form of audible noises from the audience at various times during his speech, and questions from the audience that objected to what he was saying. 

The Buckley - Baldwin debate took place early in 1965, well before the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was passed or put into effect. (August)  At the time of the debate Mississippi as well as other southern states were still trying to prevent Negro voting. 

As far as Martin Luther King goes, he fought for equal rights up until his death over three years after the debate. 

Equity seems to mean reparations and an equality of results based on race rather than merit. That's the discussion we should be having rather than a thinly veiled attempt to smear Conservatives.

As I noted in connection with this article, and as I am sure you are aware, some conservatives today claim that black lives matter is a threat to "western civilization".  There was another article on Newstalkers yesterday, where a far right advocate suggested that exact thing. But claiming blacks seeking rights is a threat to "civilization" doesn't just pertain to today's demand for equity, it was being used as Buckley's main argument in the debate with James Baldwin 56 years ago. 

but there have been plenty of times in the past where you or your comrades

I'm only responsible for myself. Most of the good people are gone.


So. Why is it ok for Buckley to change his spots but Byrd will never get credit for it from you guys?

The worst straw man argument ever. This seed is a smearing of Buckley and you are the only one talking about Byrd.

This seed is a smearing of Buckley 

That may be the most ridiculous sentence ever seen on this forum. 

The seed is a word for word reproduction of a William F Buckley column in his National Review magazine from August of 1957.  It's his own fault it was vilely racist. 

By the way, Buckley's racist comments during the debate were met with resistance in the form of audible noises from the audience at various times during his speech, and questions from the audience that objected to what he was saying. 

That's in the eye of the beholder, John. There is a huge difference between what a real racist is and the millions that have recently been called "racist."

The Buckley - Baldwin debate took place early in 1965, well before the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was passed or put into effect. (August)  At the time of the debate Mississippi as well as other southern states were still trying to prevent Negro voting. 

I don't need you to tell me. I lived through all of that. I watched the debate quite a few times and I was keenly aware of what was going on back then.


As far as Martin Luther King goes, he fought for equal rights up until his death over three years after the debate. 

And today his biggest fans would be Conservatives, his biggest critics would be progressives.


As I noted in connection with this article, and as I am sure you are aware, some conservatives today claim that black lives matter is a threat to "western civilization".  There was another article on Newstalkers yesterday, where a far right advocate suggested that exact thing. But claiming blacks seeking rights is a threat to "civilization" doesn't just pertain to today's demand for equity, it was being used as Buckley's main argument in the debate with James Baldwin 56 years ago. 

Black Americans have their rights in addition to protected status. It's no longer about what they want. It's about where white progressives want.

And today his biggest fans would be Conservatives, his biggest critics would be progressives.

Conservatives have been trying to co-opt King's message for years, based on one sentence.

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

That is the sum total of what most conservatives know or like about King, who was a radical for equality his entire life. Few conservatives would be fans of King's entire message. 

That may be the most ridiculous sentence ever seen on this forum. 

It's not ridiculous, John. There are those who change their views and those people should be viewed in their totality. Cancel culture, which is a hateful, vicious disease wants to smear people based on something they said or did at some point in their lives. So Salon magazine dug up this old piece and we are suppose to gather together to condemn the most brilliant man in two generations. How about we dig up those 4 years of articles that did no more than call Donald Trump names?

You see, I can chronicle what people once said. It's the wonder of the internet.

.a past that continues the subjugation of those that may threaten their entire existence.

That would be democrats. They once enslaved blacks and now they seek to use them.

That is the sum total of what most conservatives know or like about King, who was a radical for equality his entire life.

And a registered Republican.

Learn the meaning of "straw man" argument.

I asked a question. You may say you only speak for yourself, but those "good" people as you call them weren't very nice and that's why they're gone. So please answer my question. But if you don't have an answer, just say so. [deleted]

There are those who change their views and those people should be viewed in their totality.

Interesting statement

That would be democrats. They once enslaved blacks and now they seek to use them.

Another interesting statement. We see this trope (?) trotted out quite often these days

"That would be democrats. They once enslaved blacks and now they seek to use them."

"Another interesting statement. We see this trope (?) trotted out quite often these days"

So tiresome

SSDD

Clinging desperately to their bibles, guns, and ignorance

I asked a question

You are inserting Robert Byrd. There is no such person in the conversation.

[deleted  meta][]]

So please answer my question. 

Your "question" is not a question


But if you don't have an answer, just say so.

I gave you the necessary response.


[[][deleted]

Welcome to a new century

Let's call it the era of the left.

I don't know what Salon magazine dug up. Salon magazine has nothing to do with why I posted this seed or where I found the 1957 magazine article by Buckley. 

I assume you are referring to the article Bob Nelson posted by the person from the Claremont Institute. I dont know what the source of that article was but I dont think it was Salon .  The article was an essay written by someone speaking on behalf of the right wing Claremont Institute which claimed that there is a civilizational struggle going on between the "good people" and groups like Black Lives Matter. The "good people" were described as Trump voters (what a stretch !).  In any case , in that article the writer mentions that the founder of the Claremont Institute was an inspiration to William F Buckley. I remembered that Buckley had written about "civilization" in his writings on racial issues and looked up both the 1957 article and the 1965 debate with Baldwin. 

Salon has nothing to do with it. The 1957 article from National Review and the Baldwin-Buckley debate are stand alone material. 

And a registered  R epublican.

Was Martin Luther King, Jr., a Republican or a Democrat? | Britannica

Political parties are always looking for endorsements from community leaders and other influencers. Having support from prominent figures can make or break a candidate or party. It’s no surprise that sometimes political groups will also try to claim affiliation with historical figures of note. One favorite subject is civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr.—which party did he support?


The official answer is neither. King talked very infrequently about his personal politics and was not formally affiliated with either political party. Nor did he explicitly endorse any candidate. In fact, he stated, “I don’t think the Republican Party is a party full of the almighty God, nor is the Democratic Party. They both have weaknesses. And I’m not inextricably bound to either party.” What’s more, the parties of King’s time were different from the parties we know today; policies and platforms have changed drastically over time. According to King biographer David J. Garrow, King was fond of some Republican politicians, such as Richard Nixon, although it is almost certain that King voted for Democrats John F. Kennedy in 1960 and Lyndon Johnson in 1964. Among the few times he ventured into open partisanship was to denounce Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater, who, as a senator, had voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. King said in an interview, “I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy.” Although King supported Johnson’s presidential campaign, he later spoke out about his dissatisfaction with Johnson’s handling of the Vietnam War.

 
That King was often tight-lipped about his personal politics does not mean that he was not passionate about politics generally. His commitment to social and economic justice for African Americans defined his career, and he frequently expressed skepticism toward capitalism generally. He famously said, “A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.” King was intensely invested in expanding votership among African Americans, heading a group in the late 1950s that aimed to register new African American voters in the South. So, if you want to closely align your political practice with that of King, perhaps the best way would be registering to vote and ensuring that others have the right to do the same.

Just admit that it's ok to continue to berate Byrd for his transgressions but not Buckely...or any rebpublican

His commitment to social and economic justice for African Americans defined his career, and he frequently expressed skepticism toward capitalism generally. He famously said, “A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.” King was intensely invested in expanding votership among African Americans, heading a group in the late 1950s that aimed to register new African American voters in the South. So, if you want to closely align your political practice with that of King, perhaps the best way would be registering to vote and ensuring that others have the right to do the same.

We know that as late as 1965 Buckley was not particularly interested in seeing Negroes vote. 

As for Republicans and conservatives being fans of King , how many conservatives would be fans of this ? 

he frequently expressed skepticism toward capitalism generally. He famously said, “A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.”

Gee, get with the program TG.  IOKIYAAR

OMG!!!! Are you saying Dr King verged on the brink of ......SOCIALISM?????

I keep forgetting. Age ya know

Bob obviously reads Salon.

How is that relevant Vic? 

What you and he need to do is be fair when you decide to write about any historical figure.

John posted Buckley's editorial verbatim. HOW the fuck is that 'unfair'? 

By the time William F Buckley ran for mayor of NYC in 1965, eight years later, he had changed his views considerably. He was the first & leading Conservative to endorse affirmative action. He also promised to crack down on labor unions that discriminated against minorities in addition to advancing a welfare “reform” plan whose major components were job training, education and daycare.

So what? Buckley used his position on NR to advocate for segregation and the suppression of the votes of 'negros'. The editorial in the seed isn't the first time he did so nor was it that last. Many of those he employed at NR were as bad or worse. 

One other thing. That National Review article was completely out of step with the thinking of Republicans, such as Dwight Eisenhower, at that time.

Eisenhower may have been a Republican President but HE was 'out of step with the thinking of Republicans'. Proof of that is evident in the huge difference between the GOP 1952 platform and how Eisenhower campaigned and governed. 

presidency.ucsb

The NR was NOT out of step with the Taft wing of the Republican party. 

What happened after Black Americans had won their civil rights in the 60's, was that the modern progressive movement decided to go in a different direction, in which the idea's of equality taught to us by MLK were rejected & replaced with what is recently called "equity."  Equity seems to mean reparations and an equality of results based on race rather than merit.

Where did you come to the unfounded conclusion that 'the idea's of equality taught to us by MLK'  didn't include reparations Vic? MLK spoke about reparations in 1968, just before the 'Poor People's March on Washington' and said 'We are coming to get our checks'. 

That's the discussion we should be having rather than a thinly veiled attempt to smear Conservatives.

I find it hilarious how many paleo-conservatives here are decrying a verbatim post of Buckley's speech a a 'hit piece'. 

And today his biggest fans would be Conservatives,

Only when they think they can invoke him to support their own agenda and it's almost always fallacious, as your 1.2.11 post proves. 

his biggest critics would be progressives.

Delusional. 

that we will build a country where all have the same opportunity to succeed.

We have that. Some want an equality of results.

I don't know what Salon magazine dug up.

The same article you did. They did it a few years ago.


 assume you are referring to the article Bob Nelson posted

Nope, I don't read anything he posts. You referenced him.


The 1957 article from National Review and the Baldwin-Buckley debate are stand alone material. 

Stand alone for anyone ignoring the lifetime body of work of an intellectual who tried to prevent America's decline.

I don't know what Salon magazine dug up.

The same article you did. They did it a few years ago.

Oh. I don't necessarily remember what Salon did a few years ago. 

The same article you did. They did it a few years ago.

All that proves is that you make kneejerk assumptions. 

Salon isn't the only media outlet that has referred to Buckley's editorial. I'm surprised that you didn't cite the Intercept article since you've posted seeds from there. Of course, the Intercept article  scathingly documents Buckley's and NR's racism. It's actually quit a good article:

theintercept

No, what anyone should ask for is a level playing field

For the second time - you have that. You say no?  Show us how there isn't a level playing field.

Vic said:

es. So Salon magazine dug up this old piece and we are suppose to gather together to condemn the most brilliant man in two generations.

and Buckley said:"

If the majority wills what is socially atavistic, then to thwart the majority may be, though undemocratic, enlightened. It is more important for any community, anywhere in the world, to affirm and live by civilized standards, than to bow to the demands of the numerical majority. Sometimes it becomes impossible to assert the will of a minority, in which case it must give way, and the society will regress; sometimes the numerical minority cannot prevail except by violence: then it must determine whether the prevalence of its will is worth the terrible price of violence.

I just thought that I would put that up for perusal where people can think about it for awhile...

So it's just a talking point. Got it.

I just thought that I would put that up for perusal where people can think about it for awhile...

I think it was prophetic, don't you?

"That we will build a country where all have the same opportunity to succeed."

"We have that. Some want an equality of results."

NO, WE DON'T HAVE THAT.

"No, what anyone should ask for is a level playing field"

"For the second time - you have that."

NO, WE DON'T HAVE THAT EITHER.

Prophetic? Hardly. More of "telling" as to what someone thinks is going backwards (or atavistic, as used by Buckley in the quotation) while other people, the majority in this case, think that the direction which society is moving is positive and towards a more level playing field. 

I mean, the whole paragraph is basically him saying that white people need to take control of the lesser peoples because they cannot be trusted to govern themselves and that the eventual outcome of letting these lesser peoples have power will be the destruction of "civilized" (read "White") society. I think that the majority of people can see that this is a false narrative. How you get "prophetic" out of it is... interesting. 

Prophetic? Hardly.

To the contrary, America's civilization is long gone. We are now in a state of violent debate, double standards, indecency and victimology.

You perfectly describe trumpism. 

It's the ideology of the left.

Nope - it's trumpturdism.

Nope

You are just too good at debating!

[deleted]

93% of the black lives matter protests have been completely peaceful. It is a peaceful movement that has had outlier violence. 

[removed]

Yes, and the majority of those outliers were right wing agitators.

Without counting the loss of life and all the injured cops:

"The costs have amounted to the costliest period of civil unrest in insurance history, overtaking the 1992 Los Angeles  riots that cost  $775million  which, with inflation according to  Axios , would be $1.42billion.

Property Claim Services assessed the damage caused during the   Black Lives Matter   protests from May 26 to June 8.

The timeline covers from just one day after   George Floyd   died after former cop   Derek Chauvin   knelt on his neck for eight minutes.

Loretta L. Worters of the Insurance Information Institute told the outlet that this case is different because "it's all over the country" and not just in one state.

"And this is still happening, so the losses could be significantly more," Worters noted.

Tom Johansmeyer, head of PCS, added: "Not only is this the first, this is the first — kind of with a cymbal crash."

Back in June, the city of   Minneapolis   said the looting and property damage had caused at least $55 million in destruction.

At the time, vandals had damaged or set fire to at least 220 buildings."

thesun.co.uk


Thank God it was 93% peaceful and I might add about 95% underreported and close to 100% ignored by prosecutors.

Without counting the loss of life and all the injured cops:

The 95% of BLM protest that were PEACEFUL had NO loss of life or injured cops OR property damage. 

Fail. 

You must have thought I couldn't find it?

"At least 11 Americans have been killed while participating in political demonstrations this year and another 14 have died in other incidents linked to political unrest, according to new data from a non-profit monitoring political unrest in the United States.

Nine of the people killed during protests were demonstrators taking part in Black Lives Matter protests. Two were conservatives killed after pro-Trump “patriot rallies”. All but one were killed by fellow citizens."

theguardian

And we will never forget this man:


David Dorn, a 77-year-old retired St Louis police officer. was shot and killed at a pawn shop on 2 June 2020.  Photograph: Scott Bandle/AP

You must have thought I couldn't find it?

Just out of curiosity, why end a statement with a question mark? Did you get that from Fox?

Secondly, I didn't ask you to find anything. I made a statement. Your reply doesn't refute my statement. 

We are now in a state of violent debate, double standards, indecency and victimology.

Brought about by what and perpetrated by whom?

Violent debate. This has been a constant throughout human history, usually because someone is stepping on someone else in some form or fashion. Always have we had conflict as to how to run our societies.The only people who thought their times were not permeated by violent debate are the ones who were insulated from the debate by means of social and economic status that most often occurred because of an accident of birth.

I can't speak for most people, but I know that I just want to live and not be run over by somebody who has a Big Stick up their ass, like Buckley had. 

Double Standards? Come on. Multiple double standards existed and multiple double standards still do.I would posit that the only reason you think that double standards are applied now as to then is because the double standards that existed in your youth helped you, so you did not really notice them. Now, they are trying to or have already emplaced new standards that are to the benefit of someone else. You don't need them. You are already comfortable living out your curmudgeonly existence. Stand aside, it is time for someone else to take the wheel. 

Indecency is in the eye of the beholder. Quite frankly, it matters not one whit to me as long as nobody is being demeaned.  

Victimology? You mean like you are doing right now?

and the majority of those outliers were right wing agitators.

You've been asked multiple times to show your proof of this, but somehow, you never seem to be able to do it..

I know, I know...you don't answer to me, blah, blah, blah...

The truth is you don't have any proof.

You don't have to respond.

He always does.  I wonder if he has a Trump Tramp Stamp on his ass like Roger Stone has of Nixon on his back.

The truth is exactly what I said.  

No

It appears some members here prefer to live in the past. 

The  great majority of the Negroes of the South who do not vote do not care to vote, and would not know for what to vote if they could.

Nice, huh ? 

Has echoes to today. 

It appears some members here prefer to live in the past.

They are scared to death to allow others to have the same constitutional, ethical, and moral opportunities as they demand for themselves. 

I can no more dismiss Buckley for being a product of his times that can I Richard Wagner for being a product of his. Both made one think.

Buckley was racist for many years and people say he changed later in life. Okay fine, his racism alone was not the purpose of seeding this article. We have people saying in our society now, today, including at least one prominent conservative voice on Newstalkers, that we need to protect western civilization and even try to mimic the way the nation was during the 1950's. One of the precepts of white supremacy is that they want to 'return' to the days when whites were the norm and everyone else needed to aspire to be like whites. 

Elsewhere on NT there is an article by a right wing think tanker who is making roughly the same type of arguments Buckley was making 65 years ago. 

There are no conservative voices on Newstalkers. If some beg to differ, ignore them.

Just like the alleged 'compassionate conservatives' back in the day.  No such thing.  

How many times have I posted "Scotty, please beam me back to the 1950s"?  Who needed computers and internet back then?  Those were my teenage years, and some of the best times of my life - of course it was in Canada where there wasn't the racial turmoil that America was experiencing.  My only experiences back then with racism was when I was vacationing at Xmas (1954) in Miami Beach.  In a department store I saw something I had never in my life seen before - certainly not in Canada - a water fountain with a sign above it "Colored Only".  I used that fountain.  As well, I got on a bus and went to my favourite spot to sit - the back of the bus.  The driver turned around and told me to come up front.  I said no, I like it here, and he said he would not move the bus until I came up front, and all the "white" people on the bus started yelling at me so I had no choice.  Welcome to 1950s America.