American Civil Rights Review

Civil Rights is always controversial. Those who demand more rights for their groups step on the previous rights of others. Someone has to give up something for someone else to gain something. This causes dissention, debate, and numerous studies of each situation. This section of American Civil Rights Review is dedicated to these discussions.

The Minneapolis public schools have experienced an interesting variation of an old problem. Ethnic tensions and outright violence have arisen as an influx of immigrant black students from Somalia have encountered, not the vanishing minority of white students left in the school system, but rather native born African-American students.

There is no cause for alarm, however. The highest wisdom of the school district's administrators has been brought to bear on the problem.

The assistant principal at one of the affected schools, an African-American himself, convened an assembly of his school's students to address the problem. As reported by the Minneapolis Star Tribune, he instructed them: "You Somali kids need to understand that you are black. You African-American kids need to understand that you are African."

One cannot help but ask on what basis the assistant principal believes these students are to treat their fellow students and teachers who are neither African nor black with respect. Indeed, students appear to have drawn obvious inferences from the assistant principal's remarks. One such African-American student is quoted as observing: "We shouldn't be against our color. If we're going to be against anyone, we should be against the people who brought us here." Is it not clear that there is something radically wrong here?

What is wrong, of course, is the inane multiculturalism that divides students into groups on the basis of race and ethnicity. It is this multiculturalism that pervades the Minneapolis public schools and underlies the assistant principal's instructions to his students.

This multiculturalism has become the reigning orthodoxy in the Minneapolis public schools since the school district established its "Multicultural, Gender Fair and Disability Aware" (MCGFDA) Task Force in 1990 and acted on its recommendations. Among other things, the MCGFDA Task Force recommended the adoption of an "inclusive educational program" that would give "special emphasis" to "American Indians/Alaskan Natives, Asian Americans/Pacific Islanders, Black Americans, and Hispanic Americans." The school district even established a model school expressly to embody its multicultural orthodoxy.

New York Times reporter Richard Bernstein has studied the curriculum produced by multiculturalism in Minneapolis. According to Bernstein, the most notable feature of the curriculum is "the veritable cult of difference…the power of the pressure on pupils to think of themselves as members of small groups whose character and identities stemmed from that association." This multiculturalism is profoundly misguided.

Alone among the countries of the world, the United States is founded on the basis of an idea rather than on the basis of tribal, kinship, or other such blood associations. That idea is the doctrine of human equality, the "self-evident truth" asserted in the Declaration of Independence that all men are created equal. It is this idea on which our common citizenship and rights are based under the Constitution.

By virtue of its devotion, however imperfect, to this governing idea, the United States has become the first successful multiethnic, multiracial country in the history of the world. Examples of failed multiethnic countries abound. The most prominent contemporary examples are the former Soviet Union and the former Yugoslavia in Europe as well as Rwanda in Africa.

The immigrant students in the Minneapolis public school system are not part of some unprecedented phenomenon; rather, they are part of the traditional American story. In 1858, for example, Abraham Lincoln noted that recent German, Irish, French, and Scandinavian immigrants roughly equalled the number of descendants of the Founding generation. Specifically addressing their common bond with those who founded the country, Lincoln observed, "If they look back through [our] history to trace their connection with those days by blood, they find they have none."

But, Lincoln continued, "when they look through that old Declaration of Independence, they find that those old men say that 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,' and then they feel that that moral sentiment taught in that day evidences their relation to those men…and they have a right to claim it as though they were blood of the blood, and flesh of the flesh, of the men who wrote the Declaration, and so they are."

The teaching of the Declaration that all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights forms the only true basis on which respect among racial and ethnic groups can be predicated or demanded. If the Minneapolis public schools have abandoned this teaching in favor of a misguided multiculturalism, we should not be surprised as the schools come to resemble Yugoslavia rather than America.

In an increasingly common display cowardice by America's corporate community, Charlotte; NC-based Nation's Bank recently pledged $350 BILLION (!) in extortion payments to several dangerously radical and subversive groups in order to buy the silence of these Negro, communist and Hispanic shake-down artists.

Seeking to deflect criticism of it's proposed $60 billion merger with San Francisco-based Bank of America, Nation's Bank unveiled its 10 year plan to make this enormous sum available in loans and grants to several minority "public interest" and "public advocacy" groups.

Groups benefiting from this shake-down include ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now), La Raza Unida (literally, "The Race United"), the NAACP, the Urban League and many other groups whose primary function is to militate for the transfer of wealth from people who work for a living to those who won't.

Leverage for this shakedown comes from a 21 year-old statute, sponsored by Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA), called the Community Reinvestment Act, which essentially compels banks to actively pursue lending opportunities in low-income communities, irrespective of the credit-worthiness of borrowers or the profitability of such loans. In short; U is affirmative action for minority borrowers.

In an attempt to torpedo the Nation's Bank merger with Bank of America, these radical groups vowed to testify to evidence of so-called "red-lining" by both banks, as well as picket outside Federal Reserve Board hearings convened to consider the merger

AN UNHOLY ALLIANCE

This shakedown of corporate America by radical groups is a relatively new phenomenon: With America's "elite" news media as accomplices, these radical minority groups contrive to overwhelm large corporations with toxic publicity, and then extort huge sums from them as the price of ending what becomes a public relations nightmare.

Consider:

· In 1996, Texaco ended a two year-old race discrimination suit brought by minority employees with a settlement offer of $176 million. The offer came 11 days after two top executives were taped in a private phone conversation referring to black employees "black jelly beans" who remain at the bottom of the jar Allegations that the two had also used racial slurs were disproved by the tapes, but by then Jesse Jackson and other race hustlers had created a media feeding frenzy by calling for a nationwide boycott of Texaco.

Texaco's settlement offer included $115 million in cash payments to current and former black employees, $26 million in pay raises to all current black employees, and another $35 million in "sensitivity and diversity training."

· In 1991, 132 members of an all-black children's choir alleged race discrimination when they were turned away from a Denny's Restaurant in Wade City, VA after appearing unannounced around II RM. The beleaguered manager was understaffed for such a large group at so late an hour, and directed them to a larger Denny's franchise in Woodbridge, VA. Though larger than the first, the second Denny's was also understaffed, but agreed to seat half of the choir while recommending that the remainder of the group patronize another, nearby restaurant. The choir left in a huff.

Predictably the NAACP and other race vultures responded with a barrage of lawsuits, after the incident received national publicity from news media "point men." By 1993, Flagstar Corporation, the parent company of Denny's Restaurants, agreed to pay a $46 million settlement to black patrons of Denny's who alleged race discrimination by the firm. Flagstar also agreed to pay $8.7 million in legal fees generated by the plaintiffs, and vowed to divert approximately $1 billion in business opportunities to minority businesses over the next seven years. (Included was $450,000 for the choir!)

· In late 1997, Avis Rent-A-Car knuckled under to a $1.85 million settlement agreement with all black patrons alleged to have experienced race discrimination at Avis franchises. The settlement provides for paying legal and administrative costs associated with processing claims by blacks allegedly denied a rental car on account of their race.

Not only did Avis deny any wrongdoing but, as indicated in the settlement and as stated by the lead counsel for the black plaintiffs, "Based on our extensive investigation and review of thousands of documents, we believe the evidence does not show a pattern or practice of discrimination by Avis at corporate or independent licensee locations across the country.

"LA RAZA UNIDA"

While the role of black organizations such as the NAACP is shaking-down Texaco, Denny's, and Avis are probably well known to most readers, the subversive and violent activities of La Raza have generally escaped detection by a cowardly and leftist news media, unwilling to provoke the animosity of this group and probably sympathetic to them, as well. Yet La Raza's activities reveal it to be one of America's most serious national security threats, and an organization badly in need of DEFUNDING rather than the reverse.

ln an incident characteristic of La Raza's aims and activities, a peaceful group of demonstrators advocating immigration reform were viciously assaulted in an ugly and violent July 4th confrontation in front of the federal building in Westwood, CA in 1996. Their assault was perpetrated by an armed mob lead by representatives of La Raza and other PRO-immigration groups.

The assailants first zeroed-in on elderly participants, and began beating them with fists and placards and jabbing them with pointed sticks. An elderly woman was struck to the ground and mauled, while an elderly gentleman was beaten mercilessly about the head, and escaped only because a city bus pulled to the curb and allowed him to board. Many others were seriously injured when rocks and frozen cans of soft drinks were hurled at them, striking many in the head and face.

Most counter-demonstrators appeared to be Hispanic, and many wore red shirts reflecting their PRO-communist sympathies. Several carried Soviet and Mexican flags, and to further illustrate their contempt for America, a U.S. flag was flown upside-down in front of the adjoining memorial to U.S. war dead.

La Raza has even more insidious plans for the U.S. than physically harming its citizens: It isn't the least bit shy about its ultimate goal of annexing the southwestern United States, and reclaiming these states for Mexico. The objects of its plan are New Mexico, Texas, Arizona and California, which together are referred to as "Anlan."

A glimpse of what La Raza has in store for these southwestern states was evidenced in 1970, when it gained control of Crystal City, TX. All "Anglo" public employees lost their jobs, and when La Raza succeeded in winning a judgeship in 1974, all court sessions were conducted in Spanish, while "Anglo" and Hispanic non-supporters were harassed by public officials.

WHAT CAN BE DONE?

Most large corporations in the U.S. are no longer headed by the rugged individualists who founded them and, instead, are run by easily replaceable and interchangeable teams of MBAs who lack the same levels of personal loyalty held by its founders. As a result, even the very top CEOs often move from firm to firm, depending on the generosity of offers received.

In such an environment, the sole criteria for a given course of action becomes the bottom line. while most entrepreneurs would view extortionist demands by "civil rights" groups as a personal and moral affront, to be fought at any and all costs, today's corporate executives are far more likely to cave-in to the treachery of such a shakedown.

Their "bottom-line" focus dictates a path of least resistance in order to avoid the bad publicity of a boycott by professional race-baiters. Unfortunately, this strategy leaves them vulnerable to extortion by radical groups. Nevertheless, this situation also opens a window of opportunity for well-organized conservative organizations like the CofCC to influence corporate decision-making at its highest levels.

Conservatives should organize boycotts against any firm whose leadership caves in to the demands of race extortionists, and should publicly support any firms which have the courage to stand up to such a shakedown, Unlike our adversaries, we would be asking for nothing more than a demonstration of courage on the part of America's corporate leadership.

I am sorry that what I said upset you. I was concerned about the high amount of killing in this nation as seen in these three stories and in this little area of 2.4 million people by persons who have become so sensitive to the n word that they think just hearing it this allows them to murder a white person. If every white person killed a black person for using the slur word "racist" or the r word then that would not be right either. Words are not to be equated with souls on an equal basis of trade.

I stand by my statement that many blacks prefer to live with their own. Just ask one hundred of them. If they wanted to be with whites, they'd do white things, like attend white churches of the same denomination. Instead, many attend black churches, because their preference is there. Does it offend you to think that blacks might have a mind of their own and that they are not as taken by white culture as YOU are? What makes you think that white culture is better than theirs? It's not. Does it offend you that it is not better in the eyes of blacks? Your white culture which is in a small part the outgrowth of slavery and prejudice against blacks is just another option for a highly diverse black population, one option out of thousands. You seem to assume that you know better than blacks what's good for them. That is the trouble with liberal whites. They live in Chesterfield and think they know blacks. They say they like blacks but they never move their families to black areas. They understand that they don't want to be "Strangers in a Strange Land," but they think that blacks find that to be a charming idea, the love of giving up their culture for your "superior white culture." Let me tell you something. Your culture is in no way superior. It may seem so to you, but to millions of blacks who are proud of Harlem, East St. Louis, East New Orleans, and black Kansas City, white culture is just another rat race where stupid whites buzz about seeking money and driving themselves crazy, and they don't want that. They want a quiet, friendly, black neighborhood.

By the way, being poor doesn't mean that you don't have morals or class. Many poor people have class. In addition, when blacks are living in high crime areas, most of the blacks are still nice people. Saying they would get out or that their houses are insect infested and falling apart is rather insulting to blacks. Many blacks in North St. Louis may be poor and may be living in old housing, but they don't have insects, they bathe every day of the week, they dress nicely, and they keep their yards clean. Thousands of them have neighborhoods as immaculate as yours, and some of them have BETTER housing than you. Visit Fountain Square, the DeVille neighborhood, and the nice black communities north of Natural Bridge and west of Grand.

The people in high crime areas, however, are victimized. They have to lock their doors at night out of fear. Many times, we read of a poor hard working child with good grades, a college scholarship, and a future being killed for something as little as a $70 bike or a pair of shoes. And these victims are nearly ALWAYS very nice people. And even jerks deserve better. You don't have to be going anywhere in life to not want to be gunned down by a thug.

So, how dare you say that the blacks want to leave their communities to be with whites. You seem to feel that blacks are inferior, that they have nothing going for them in their communities, and that they have to have your white leadership to be justified. You are quite incorrect. Obviously, you are so prejudiced and unaware of blacks that you have never understood the positive nature of their communities. And, besides, if they all got up and left, then St. Louis would suddenly not be integrated.

Let me tell you something. There are more nice neighborhoods in the black communities of St. Louis than there are bad ones. North St. Louis is alive with good housing, good well trimmed lawns, and good Christian black people who proudly wear beautiful dresses and ladies' hats to Baptist Churches every Sunday and worship God and pray for their children and visit a nice restaurant for after church lunch with their families and friends. They have class, culture, and a sense of well-being in their black community, and they have no interest at all in joining some white "cracker" civilization with all of the run here and run there balderdash. In fact, many of them despise white culture and feel drained by it. How would you feel having white television in your face if you were a black, never having blacks run the shows for blacks only because the sponsors wouldn't pay for it, always showing blacks in the dress and likeness of whites in communities that are white dominated, never having "real" blacks as television ikons? My black friends dislike it very much and resent it greatly. It offends them. Moving to a white neighborhood just reinforces the destruction of black sensibilities to them and is a sign of being a total sell out and a black traitor.

Try to put yourself into black shoes. Not as a white man. But as a black man. A person who wants to live a black life and be proud.

You need to visit with these proud people and talk to them in their neighborhoods and churches. Then, you will see that many of them have lives that you cannot even imagine. Good lives. Straight lives. Class. Black class. In fact, many, many of the ladies and gentlemen in black St. Louis have something that only the highest class whites have in any number--being LADIES and GENTLEMEN.

Oh, yes, it's a little old fashioned, but white degradation of family in white communities where money is the root of evil and the only reason for existence has not touched the best of the black families of North St. Louis. Youthful degradation may have stifled many of our blacks right now, but you have wonderful blacks like Z. Dwight Billingsly, Clarence Harmon, Freeman Bosley Jr., Gregory Freeman, and tens of thousands of like-minded black city dwellers.

The problem is, there are enough bad blacks to keep the pages of the papers buzzing. However, do not confuse these persons with the good ones. Some of the worst families in the black and white communities, by the way, also, every now and then, produce a son or daughter who becomes a very classy act and who breaks the chain of poverty, or at least, lives in poverty as a lady or gentleman. For every highly visible Jacquie Joiner there are ten thousand silent black heroes up there. They go to work, come back home, stick to their families, attend their churches, and live a good life--and all without you whites telling them what to do in your white areas. They don't need your areas or your ways.

It's "come to Jesus time..."

Jesus was a very poor person. To say that, because Jesus was the son of simple carpenter, living in a cheap home with few items worth owning, he will always be a failure and should move to Chesterfield and be immersed in white culture would destroy all that Jesus represents. His message and way of life would be puffed out in an instant in white civilized materialistic anti-God and anti-Christian sinfulness. The same is true of thousands of good, class-act blacks who have lived excellent and holy lives in North and East St. Louis, despite the white stereotype about those areas. And they don't need you telling them that they are losers, because they live with blacks and prefer their kind to living with your kind. Thank you, very much...

I know that it hurts you to think that blacks would want to live in black communities and not in white communities. Evidently, you not have known blacks who live in North St. Louis good neighborhoods, blacks who produce kids who become Clarence Harmons, good holy blacks, as good and even better than whites.

I stick by my statement that blacks prefer to live in black neighborhoods. Look at the crying and moaning of the black people of Kinloch wishing to save their poor little town from destruction. Sure to you and me, Kinloch is a piece of crap. But there were person there who called it home, and some just wanted to be left alone there, to enjoy their lives without the likes of you overwhelming them with your do-goody desire to destroy them through absorption, stealing their black souls from them in your "superior white civilization." Look at the blacks of Meachem Park in Kirkwood who live decent lives and keep their homes spotless and neat, despite low family incomes. They have been victimized by whites who wanted to destroy their homes and lives with a development designed to dig them out of Kirkwood. Suggesting your white civilization is what they want is colonialistic. It is like the English coming to Cape Town and deciding that Queen Elizabeth was a perfect black role model. It is quaint and it is hurtful. I t is wrong of you.

All my original statement said was that we need to tone down our rhetoric, because the consequences of that rhetoric are a false increase in the perception of insult which as become a means to justify needless killing and of thereby escalating race hatred to violent ends in the minds of young, immature black youths.

Ask yourself this: Does a black person really have the innate right to kill a person using the n word? If so, does a white person have a right to kill a black person who calls him a honky, mf, or cracker? Does a person have the right to kill a Jew for senselessly calling him an "anti-Semite"? And to what end? Only insanity, if you ask me.

I again state what I said in my original little epistle:

We need to respect each other more.

We need to stop poking our noses into each other's business where there is no need to go poking around in it.

We need to respect the civilization of our black brothers by not breaking up what little racial identity they have left. Immersion in our culture means death to theirs. It is, in fact, genocide for the black race.

We are standing at a great precipice here, and deaths are occurring needlessly, and they are in danger of increasing. People of one race or the other are fulfilling the prophecy of their leaders and teachers by killing for the mere affront of an insult, which is only a word, not a human soul. Instead, we need to teach people that words do not kill. People kill. No matter what person says, turn the other cheek. What he says today, he may regret on his own tomorrow and come back and say he is sorry and beg your forgiveness. And, if he doesn't, maybe in a lifetime he will learn to forgive himself for disrespecting you with such ignorance. At any rate, nothing except self-defense in the face of immediately deadly force, like someone putting a gun on you, is not worth killing anyone over.

Finally, please learn about blacks. Visit them. Don't expect them to come to you. You go to them. See what they are doing. Find out why they might want sanctuary from you and your culture and why they might prefer theirs. Meet them on their turf. Don't be so open to wrecking what little dignity they have left, the dignity of NOT being absorbed in white materialist methods of ruining life through over-work, spending, and investments as opposed to a way of life that is slower and perhaps, for thousands, a lot more fulfilling. Let them live as they want and respect them for it. Quit trying to tell them your way is best.

It is not best.

BOMBAY, India -- The melodrama was irresistible to playwright Pradeep Dalvi: An eloquent, idealistic thinker, who had studied the teachings of history, fires three bullets into the bony chest of this century's greatest apostle of nonviolence, Mohandas K. Gandhi, then puts down his gun and shouts for the police to arrest him.

Audiences packed the Shivaji Mandir auditorium in July to see Dalvi's play about Gandhi's assassin, Nathuram Godse, 50 years after the murder of India's most beloved pacifist. Many theatergoers lustily cheered the killer's impassioned condemnations of Gandhi's philosophy.

"What kind of nonviolence is this?" the protagonist asks. "We are advised to keep quiet when Hindus are being massacred. But to allow a massacre is violence, not nonviolence."

The drama won no fans in the Hindu nationalist-led government in New Delhi. Despite sold-out shows, "I, Nathuram Godse Speaking," was shut down after only seven performances, banned as a threat to law and order on the strong recommendation of the national government. The play's producers say they will fight the ban in state court in coming weeks after they have the script translated into English from Marathi, as the court requires.

The case touches on free speech, but also on Indians' complicated attitude toward the man considered the father of their nation -- and toward his assassin. Gandhi is a kind of secular saint here, but his ideals are admired more in principle than in practice.

Recently, there has been a rash of plays and books that portray Gandhi as a flawed father and husband. They have been tolerated. But Dalvi's drama, which he says does not glorify the killer, has been widely interpreted as doing so. And that has proved more than the country's leaders are willing to countenance.

If the producers lose their court battle to lift the ban, the drama's next venue may well be Dayton, Ohio. There, Harsh Trivedi, who heads a small foundation that promotes Indian culture, will put on his own English translation of the play in the spring.

"I had planned to tone down some of the provocative lines, but in view of the ban, which is quite shocking, I'll produce the play in full without changing anything," he said.

Censorship has succeeded in bringing the drama to national prominence. A veritable army of columnists has dissected Godse's views.

The play is largely based on court records and Godse's lengthy final speech to the court, as well as Dalvi's interviews with surviving conspirators. Godse's character, talking easily with the audience, narrates his evolution from a young militant who saw himself as a defender of Hindus to the man who committed the most dastardly crime in modern-day India. The play takes hi mthrough his trial and walk to the gallows.

"People came backstage to touch the feet of the actor who played Godse," Dalvi said.

In his remarks to the court, Godse blamed Gandhi for the 1947 partition of the country into Pakistan and India, which Gandhi lobbied against behind the scenes but did not crusade against in public. Hundreds of thousands were killed in the mass migration of Hindus and Moslems after the division.

The assassin also condemned what he saw as Gandhi's favoritism toward Muslims. In his final fast, Gandhi, who believed the best way to peace between Hindus and Muslims lay in the generosity of the dominant Hindus, insisted that India pay predominantly Muslim Pakistan a financial settlement promised at partition.

Ashis Nandy, a well-known political psychologist who is a senior fellow at the Center for the Study of Developing Societies in New Delhi, provocatively asserts that the murder cleared the way for India to become a conventional, modern nation built on reason, science and industry. Godse advocated what Nandy calls "Kissingerian realpolitik" -- that India should act in its own self-interest and strive to be a military and industrial power on the world stage.

"Godse articulated the myth of the modern nation-state in a way that the Indian middle-class would like to subscribe to, but he also killed Gandhi, so they feel morally uncomfortable about agreeing with some of Godse's ideas," Nandy said. "That is why they would like to avoid confronting the issues raised by the play."

The play certainly outraged guardians of Gandhian ideals across India. Even some of those who battled censorship under the British Raj say that restrictions on expression are occasionally justified in a country where words can lead to murderous outbreaks of violence between caste and religious groups.

In 1989, the Congress Party made this argument to justify banning Salman Rushdie's novel "The Satanic Verses," which some Muslims said had blasphemed their God. And this ambivalence is written into India's constitution, which guarantees free expression but also allows it to be restricted in the interests of public order and morality.

Critics say censorship has too often been used by elected officials who are really pandering to constituents -- in the case of Dalvi's play, the millions of Indians who revere Gandhi as a hallowed leader. But The Times of India, the nation's largest English-language daily, praised the decision. "Any act condoning a heinous crime offends public morality, as well," it said.

Dalvi said he got the idea for the play in the early 1980s when he met Godse's brother, Gopal, who kept the assassin's ashes in a pewter urn. "I actually saw the ashes," Dalvi said. "I touched them."

The Stage Performances Scrutiny Board in Maharashtra, a culture police that exists in all Indian states, denied permission to produce the play when Dalvi first requested it in 1984. But when he asked again this year, three years after a Hindu nationalist coalition took power here, the board gave its approval. Bal Thackeray, the head of the Shiv Sena party leading the government, has made no secret of his admiration for Godse.

"We are not staunch Gandhians," said Pramod Navalkar, Maharashtra's Minister of Culture. "But we respect Gandhi and we found that there was no insult to the Mahatma."

Usha Mehta, a tiny 78-year-old woman who heads the Gandhi Memorial Trust in Bombay and who was once a soldier in Gandhi's nonviolent army, disagreed and single-handedly sparked the campaign against the play.

She never saw the drama, but she was outraged when she read a newspaper article that quoted Dalvi as saying he hoped audiences would smash statues of Gandhi after seeing his play. Ms. Mehta immediately wrote a letter of protest to Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee.

"We as freedom fighters know the value of freedom of expression, but we certainly do not equate freedom with license," she said.

Dalvi denies that he encouraged playgoers to smash Gandhi's statue and insists that he was only trying to explain, not justify, Godse's indefensible act.

The opposition Congress Party led the fight to ban the play on the floor of Parliament in New Delhi. Vajpayee, who heads the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party and seeks to distance it from Godse's brand of zealotry, asked Home Minister L.K. Advani to act. Advani, in turn, advised the state to ban the play.

After the play's supporters and opponents clashed outside the theater on July 17, the state -- led by a coalition that includes Vajpayee's party -- held an emergency Cabinet meeting and bowed to the wishes of the government in New Delhi. The Bombay commissioner of police revoked the license to perfor mthe play.

Dalvi says his motives have been misunderstood and his rights violated. In an interview, he said that Nathuram Godse himself had become "the hero of this thing" and that Godse's co-conspirator and brother, Gopal, had credited the playwright with giving the assassin a voice from the grave.

Dalvi quoted Gopal: "Gopal said, 'I could not take what Nathuram wanted to say to the people for 50 years. What I could not do in 50 years, Pradeep Dalvi did in eight days."

American Civil Rights Review

The web's first and only known unabashed collection of both positive and negative civil rights publications for student comparison and contrast papers, general reading, and just plain surfin'.

Welcome. Number of Hits On Our Web Site Including Yours...