EVOLUCION DE LOS PRECIOS EN EL MERCADO NACIONAL

As Dr. Onabanjo Martin wrote, “‘Your country’s hyper-sensitivity to the violations of human rights in Russia, thousands of miles away, compared to the bland indifference to gross violations of human rights in your own backyard is almost beyond belief.’”33 Here, he called attention to Americans’ tendency to focus on civil rights problems in distant lands while still failing to resolve issues on their own soil. The focus was so absurd, particularly given conditions in America, that Onabanjo placed it in the realm of the “almost” unbelievable. This kind of blunt remonstration was characteristic of Martin’s take on race relations. He encouraged action on the local level first. Many politicians were concerned about how race relations in America were perceived overseas and Martin, through Onabanjo, highlighted the hypocrisy: Americans were

32 _{See Louis E. Martin, “Dope and Data,” Chicago Defender 20 Jun. 1959, 10. See also Louis E. Martin,} “The Big Parade: Dr. Onabanjo Gets Very Upset Over Black Attitudes,” Chicago Daily Defender 12 Apr. 1969: 3. In this article, Martin comments at length about how Blacks in the U.S. are, per Dr. Onabanjo, “‘obsessed with getting even with whitey’” and should be focused on increasing their professional skills instead.

concerned about fair treatment abroad when it was obviously not taking place at home. The problems were played out in international coverage of events such that even an international observer could note that the rhetoric of a free and equal America did not reflect the reality.

Despite the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act Blacks were still suffering the injustices of second-class citizenship in the 1970s. Martin felt that this situation was particularly dire, in part, as there were other countries looking to the United States to see if the words and hype about freedom and liberty for all Americans matched the reality. Martin was using the international perception, via Onabanjo, as an argument for reform. In an article for the Tri-State Defender titled “The Ties That Bind Us All,” Martin stated: “Anyway [sic] you look at U.S. foreign policy, the presence of blacks in America is an asset. The world will also judge the U.S. by the way it treats its own black citizens.”34 In all cases, Blacks in the U.S. were a bonus to the nation as a whole, not a hindrance or a problem. Martin argued that the U.S. should use the talents of all its citizens to advance society as a whole. Failure to do so would constitute a true waste and detriment to the country. As an influential force in global politics, the actions of the U.S., Martin believed, would suffer harsh scrutiny if the premise of equality for all was not actuated.35 He had to explain the workings of the U.S. in race relations to international actors during his trips and assignments overseas. He had to somehow reconcile what was roundly believed about the U.S.—it was a place of equality and opportunity—with what the news reports were revealing about actual conditions for the U.S.’s people of color. Having spent a good amount of time overseas in years past, Martin had occasion to work with many international journalists and diplomats who questioned the state of social justice in the U.S.

34

Louis E. Martin, “The Ties That Bind Us All,” Tri-State Defender 27 May 1978: 5. 35

For a discussion of the Cold War and its impact on civil rights, see Mary L. Dudziak, Cold War Civil Rights: Race and the Image of American Democracy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000).

Some even suggested he might lose his passport on purpose.36 This suggestion revealed international opinion that to be black in the U.S. was to suffer injustices and inequality when there were more equitable places for Blacks to live and work. Martin knew about the

international conception of race relations in the U.S. and he similarly knew about protected rights. Onabanjo was one means to promote his belief in the need for Blacks to participate and take advantage of the opportunities before them—to use their wits and compete with Whites. Martin, writing as Dr. Onabanjo, continued to criticize: “‘Perhaps it comes with ill grace for me a Nigerian to talk too much about your injustices when I could talk about some in my own country. I feel justified, however, because we make no pretensions of godliness. You Americans seem unable to resist playing God.’”37 Through Onabanjo, Martin calls attention to the hypocrisy of race relations in the U.S. Using Onabanjo to comment on the differences between nations was Martin’s consistent tactic. Martin’s mention of “playing God” was also significant because it suggests the irrational holier-than-thou disposition of some Americans—particularly in matters of race. Dr. Onabanjo was also an astute student of American economics.