Long before the Montgomery bus boycott, leaders in Harlem were calling on members of the black community to refrain from spending their money in stores that refused to hire them. Blumstein Department Store was a primary target. In this column it looks as if Koch’s Department store made some concessions, but Blumstein was a harder case. “This reminds us to ask: What attitude have the Blumstein taken towards Hitler?” Ebenezer asks. “Are they among the thousands who indicted him recently in Madison Square Garden for his inhuman treatment to non-Aryans? If they are not, we are surprised. If they are, they might ask themselves the questions: Are we not also guilty to a similar attitude towards the Negroes of Harlem?” The reference to “Little Man,” appears to be an attack on William H. Davis, the publisher and part owner of the New York Amsterdam News. It appears that Davis suggested that the advocates of the Blumstein boycott had ulterior motives. My father suggested that Davis sold out for advertising dollars.
I wonder if my father was interested in writing hard-boiled crime fiction. Some of his columns about crime cases suggest that he might have. He ends this column reminding readers that the injustice in the Scottsboro Boys’ case continues.
On the occasion of his 36th birthday, my father offered some insights into his personality, then seized the opportunity to lash out at others for their questionable professional ethics and their hypocrisy.