Point Barrow, Alaska, north of North Slope oil field.

sites, some of the most usable acreage in the State, and many potential mineral reserves are presently impris oned within Federal withdrawals.

The Natives have proven by their participation in government-several Natives are now serving in the State legislature-by the example of the Tyoniks, and by the organization of five Native cooperatives, that they will be ready and willing to assume control of their own affairs.

Native groups hope to control land and water resources so that their management of them can be used to create jobs for Natives and end the tradition of reserving the good jobs and high profits for outsiders. Native managers might be more devoted to maximizing their assets than would Federal or State management agencies facing many more conflicting policy objectives and constraints. It is therefore important that the money the Natives do receive does not go into an inactive, all but invisible trust-as has too often been the case with settlement money given other Indians but is used to set up a corporation owned and eventually fully operated by Natives.

It is also important that their money come to them soon and in large enough chunks to be useful. Even a healthy allocation, when spread out over several years, is not likely to do the Natives much good. And according to former Alaskan Governor and U.S. Senator Ernest Gruening, "The BIA must be kept completely out of the administration of the settlement. The Bureau has been the single most retarding influence on Native people because of its desire to perpetuate itself and keep the Natives as wards."

The concept of limited Federal involvement and of land, revenue, and management in the hands of Native stockholders is an approach to solving Indian claims that has never been tried in the lower 48. Should this experiment prove successful, it could form the framework for broader legislation that would

forever free American Indians from the paternalistic, discriminatory wardship of the Government and the BIA.

Time is running out for Alaska's Natives. If they are truly to get their share of economic opportunity and social justice, Congress must act quickly and generously. While the Native voice is growing steadily louder and stronger, the land battle is becoming more frantic and the stakes are shooting higher. Alaska's population has been booming since World War II as a result of the influx of non-Native settlers. Oil-rich Alaska is now aflutter with the prospect of new jobs and expanded incomes. Resource developers are becoming more and more a major economic force in Alaska. The State itself is anxious to gain control of as rich a natural storehouse as possible. After the enactment of the land claims bill, all Natives' claims in the State will be extinguished. According to Alaska's lone Representative in the House, Howard Pollack, "Alaska's Natives face an uncertain future while their land claims remain unresolved."

There is a real danger that, even in the face of accelerating economic development, the Native will remain on the economic sidelines. Representative Pollack warns: "Native rights may be swept aside under pressure of what at the moment may appear to be a higher and better use."

A just settlement could eliminate proverty among Alaskan Natives and give them control over their own affairs-in fact, make them equals in their own land. Anything less will only perpetuate the Government-produced and directed tragedy now being played out on the vast stage of Alaska's snowy wilderness.

DEBORAH MOVITZ

Miss Movitz, a former staff writer for the Civil Rights Digest, is now science and health reporter for the National Journal.

I consider myself a conservative, devoted to the democratic principle of individual rights and responsibilities, with strong emphasis upon the latter. I am uncomfortable in a nation which is accelerating towards socialism and an all-powerful federal government; and yet I am aware that this trend is caused in part by the failure of individuals and their sub-federal governments to recognize and to exercise their responsibilities in a democratic society.

We are in the midst of a revolution. This is a central fact which is indisputable, though tragically unrecognized by white America. It is a revolution in every sense of the word; a violent, bloody, social, and political upheaval; an evisceral reaction to the mores of our past and present society, democratic in concept, but which has never been fully responsive to the needs of all people. Unless our present society can adapt quickly to provide an effective response to the just demands of this revoltion, our society as we know it will cease to exist. It will be replaced, at least temporarily, by a society which is either anarchistic or totalitarian.

Consider the present scene. In 1954, the Supreme Court provided the opening shot of our new American Revolution in its declaration that separate was not equal. Fifteen years later, that decree has not yet been made truly effective. A "democratic" society has undemocratically barred the implementation of the Supreme Court's declaration of a basic democratic principle.

In 1955-1956, with the nonviolent, direct-action Montgomery bus boycott, black America caught hold of a dream—a realization that it did have the power to force change. A new Negro had emerged in the South -militant, unafraid, and prepared to use his collective

weight to achieve his legitimate goal of effective participation in a .democratic society. Nonviolent direct action was the effective tool utilized to achieve that end until 1964.

In 1960, the nonviolent sit-ins attempted, with varying degrees of success, to desegregate public facilities, and it was white America that initiated violence in response.

It was white America that brutalized and killed the nonviolent demonstrators for racial justice in Selma.

It was white America that saw fit to use chains and clubs to prevent tiny black children in Mississippi from fulfilling the Supreme Court's decree. It was white America that introduced violence into the current scene, and we have taught our lesson well.

It was and is white America that has made it increasingly impossible for Negroes to achieve their means. Suicidally, we whites have insisted that progress and racial justice will come only at the price of violence and bloodshed.

The new American Revolution is not merely a nuisance which will go away if only we ignore it. It will devour us and our society if we fail to heed promptly its just demands. Even with this sure prospect upon the horizon, we have not yet learned that we must do away with automatic reaction and substitute reasoned action in its place. There is no better example of our unreasoning, automatic reaction than our conditioned response to the phrase "black power." Instinctively "black power" connotes to us violence, chaos, disorder, hatred, and a further division of blacks and whites. Quite the contrary, "black power" is a slogan, a movement, a program; it implies new life, vigor, capability, and determination. The concept of black power came into prominence in 1966 only with the collapse of the

nonviolent civil rights movement, and black disenchantment with slow progress and seemingly futile effort. White power brought it inevitably into exist

ence.

Black power is an unsettling concept to white America for the reason that we have never thought of Negroes in terms of any kind of power. For 300 years, Negroes have been the most powerless group in American society. The acquisition of power is an essential step in their battle for self-respect and for effective participation in a society composed of black blocs. In politics, black power means black control of political machinery in the ghetto, and the development of a cohesive bloc of black voters with the political muscle to back their political aims. In economics, black power means the creation of Negro business largely independent of the white economic structures. In social terms, black power means the development of an individual identity and self-respect as a black person. The emphasis of black power is upon self-help, racial unity, and, if necessary, retaliatory violence. Black power does not mean violence. It will be the failure of the rebellion against white racism, which will inevitably result in violence and destruction to our society.

What then, is white racism?

White racism is the desire to maintain the status quo, yielding slightly if necessary to keep the peace, but not altering the existing power structures controlled by the white community. James Reston observed recently:

The nation is appalled by the murder of Martin Luther King, but it is not appalled by the conditions of his people. It grieves for the man, but not for his cause. This is the curse and tragedy of America.

White racism is the attitude which concentrates its efforts upon the training of police and National Guard for riot control, while substantially ignoring the more difficult opportunities for riot prevention.

White racism is the attitude that deplores violence, even when confined to the ghetto, but does not try to understand why that violence has occurred. The violence which we do not attempt to understand provides white America with an excuse for inaction and a balm for conscience.

White racism is the attitude that believes that the American Revolution can be consummated without pain, substantial pain, to both blacks and whites. The change that is necessary to accomodate the American Revolution will be as painful as any change our

country has yet encountered, and we must recognize and accept this fact.

White racism is the attitude that cries we approve your goals, but we deplore your process; that we approve your ends, but deplore your means. In almost every instance, close examination reveals the argument to be specious and inapplicable, and the goals are really not applauded except in the abstract.

White racism means being educated in a vacuum of historical fact about Negroes and the social, economic, and political contributions of Negroes to our history and our society.

White racism is the attitude that, on the one hand, defends the integrity of the neighborhood school, but, on the other hand, demands the right of one's handicapped children to be bussed to special education classes; that refuses to recognize the handicaps imposed by education in de facto segregated schools; that objects to the alleged hardships of bussing one's children to another school, ignoring the fact that the majority of our country's children are bussed daily.

White racism is the attitude that reacts to the new American Revolution and says, "we have to go more slowly," not appreciating that we have not the luxury of time, and that justice is not a function of time.

White racism is the attitude that states we cannot legislate tolerance or beliefs, ignoring that beliefs arise from action and experience, and action and experience can be governed by legislation.

White racism is not believing that I am my brother's brother. Martin Luther King said:

The Negro needs the white man to free him from his fears. The white man needs the Negro to free him from his guilt.

In his involvement in the American Revolution there is one thing the white man cannot afford: a sentimental delusion about himself. He must face the new American Revolution honestly, and define honestly the goals which he seeks through his participation. He cannot afford the delusion that, through his participation in the struggle, he is going to redeem the Negro. The age of philanthropy and welfare colonialism is past. He cannot afford to believe that he is being liberal or charitable; for such an attitude is patently condescending, unacceptable to the object of his blundering pity. The surest and most noble way for the white man to ground his involvement and action is not upon abstract generosity, but rather upon a proper awareness of his own self-interest.

It is self-interest to want to be a part of a just society operating under the impartial concept of law. We have not been living in such a society. It is self-interest to want all members of society to contribute to

the limit of their abilities to the enrichment of that society. The structure of our society has prevented that. It is self-interest to seek friends among kindred souls. Our society has restricted such a quest. It is self-interest to want to escape from the pressures of conforming to values which are no longer valid. Our society has maintained such pressures. It is self-interest to want to escape from personal vanity into the hard realization that in the diminishment of others there is deep diminishment of self. "Ask not for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee." It is self-interest to want to preserve our democratic society and the democratic ideals which form its true foundation. Our society has stifled these ideals in the realities of American life.

It would be a sentimental delusion to think that our society can be changed easily and without pain, a deep personal pain to each one of us. It would be realism to understand that that pain would be a reasonable price to pay for what we all, selfishly, might get out of it-our own freedom!

JOHN B. MCCRORY

Mr. McCrory is a private attorney in Rochester, New York. This article is based on a speech before the Geneva Presbytery in Geneva, New York.

Is white America beginning to end 300 years of racism? A preliminary survey shows new efforts to confront this country's most pervasive and damning social problems-white racism.

CONSULTANTS ON ANTI-RACISM

The Committee for One Society (COS) has been working for over a year to develop a variety of programs to combat white racism. It is not a membership organization but a nonprofit group with a full-time staff funded by church and foundation groups. Their definition of institutional racism:

Any institution that works to the advantage of white people and to the disadvantage of black people is a racist institution. The same test applies to individual policies. Whether those institutions and policies are consciously racist or unconsciouly racist is not the issue. If the results are disadvantagous to blacks, it is racist; the burden of proof rests on behavior and not attitudes, on results and not opportunity. In order to have a non-racist institution, black people must not only have equal opportunities in employment, but there must be equality of results in all aspects of the operation including employment, ownership and control, and relations with the larger community.

Among the ways COS seeks to confront racism in Chicago institutions is to provide consulting services to