Abstract
Using insights from a content coding analysis of discourse from the most influential White supremacist segregationist organization of the early Cold War decades, Citizen’s Councils of America (CCA or Council), I argue that social movement organizations use a master frame cluster, a package of closely related, overlapping frames with a core master frame to adapt and update pre-existing, older ideology to contemporaneous sociopolitical currents and thereby mainstream, modernize, and streamline propaganda messaging. From its media outlets and White supremacist ideology, the Council deployed what I call its Anti-Communist Master Frame Cluster, proclaiming that unrestrained Black savagery and misguided White sympathy, including liberals, leftists, and socialists, all followed a downward slope toward communist tyranny or what the Council called, “Communist controlled Black barbarism.” Twenty-first century conservative rightwing media has inherited the CCA’s master frame cluster to discredit Black Lives Matter protests, still using anti-communist messaging, but with a “Black-on-Black” crime narrative as the main propaganda weapon against Black protest.
Integration represents darkness, regimentation, totalitarianism, communism and destruction. Segregation represents the freedom to choose one’s associates, Americanism, state sovereignty and the survival of the white race. These two ideologies are now engaged in mortal conflict and only one can survive. They cannot be fused any more than day can exist in the night. The twilight of this great nation would certainly follow. ‘Choose ye this day whom you will serve’ (The Citizens’ Council 1955).
1
The Citizen’s Councils of America (CCA or Council) attacked integration and defended segregation with a variety of propaganda themes such as in the above quote. Integration was cast as dark, totalitarian, and communistic while segregation was portrayed as essential to the preservation of civilization. Such themes can be understood as what social movement researchers call frames. Social movement organizations (SMOs) deploy frames, understood here as “schemata[s] of interpretation” (Goffman 1974:21), to shape public discourse on issues relevant to their cause for collective action. At the same time, frames reflect a larger movement ideology; conceptualized here as the interconnected dynamic web of interpretive schemata, or the entire constellation of frames, structuring the central intellectual logic of a movement. The question animating this paper is how we might more clearly theorize the relationship between frames and ideology to make sense of the layers of meaning that underpin editorials like this one.
Drawing on data from the CCA, I argue that SMOs strategically deploy a master frame cluster, a package of closely related “overlapping collective action frames” (Benford and Snow 2000:623); organized around a mainstream, cutting-edge master frame, the “more abstract or generic interpretive schema that render events or occurrences meaningful for a variety of movements…” (Noakes 2000:660), to renovate and adapt older, pre-existing ideology to contemporaneous sociopolitical circumstances, thereby giving cultural relevance to that SMO’s cause for collective action. Through its propaganda media, the CCA’s pre-existing white supremacist ideology was adjusted to contemporaneous culture by using its Anti-Communist Master Frame Cluster, depicting segregation as synonymous with freedom, and labeling racial egalitarianism as an ominous sign of an eventual decent into “Communist controlled Black barbarism.” 2 Ian Davis’s (2015), “White-Collard White Supremacists: The Mississippi Citizens’ Councils and the Origins of Rightwing Media,” argues the CCA laid the foundation for modern conservative right-wing messaging, balancing the tension between mainstream conservativism and blatant racism. The legacy of the Council’s master frame cluster is evident in 21st century conservative rightwing propaganda against Black Lives Matter activism, representing such efforts as foundationally Marxist, and therefore anti-American.
From its three media platforms, its official paper, The Citizens’ Council (1955–1961) 3 , its broadcast series, Citizens’ Council Forum (1955–1966) 4 , and its official journal, The Citizen (1961–1979) 5 , the CCA deployed its Anti-Communist Master Frame together with two overlapping collective action frames (Negro Vices Frame and Anti-Liberal/Leftist/Socialist Frame) to form the Anti-Communist Master Frame Cluster. This master frame cluster wove the Council’s propaganda narrative of Black savagery into a political spectrum of ideological anti-Americanism, each a step closer toward America’s collapse under Soviet Communism if allowed to proliferate without the civilizing restraint of segregation. According to the Council, a fundamental misunderstanding of the true savage nature of “the Negro” and his unattended vices, and misguided White sympathy for Black grievance against American racism, including liberals, leftists, and socialists, all followed a downward slope toward communist tyranny. Narratively, the Anti-Communist Master Frame Cluster went as follows. Unrestrained Black savagery or “Negro vices” misunderstood by well-meaning but naïve liberal idealism (racial egalitarianism) leads to the proliferation of leftist social experimentation (racial integration and miscegenation), which then breaks down the “natural order” (racial segregation), increasing social chaos (civil rights protests), which allows for centralized socialist control (federal civil rights reforms) at the expense of state and local authority, which inevitably results in America’s collapse under foreign communist tyranny (Black freedom), or what the CCA called “Communist controlled Black barbarism.” 6
Platt and Williams’s (2002) study is closely related to this research where segregationist rhetoric is analyzed and categorized into themes from letters sent to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr, organizing them into variations on segregationist argumentation, or what they call, “differentiated ideologies.” It is instead suggested here that what Platt and Williams term “differentiated ideologies” should be understood as various pro-segregationist frames deployed from a singular White supremacist ideology. Although individual segregationists may have subscribed to a multiplicity of ideological threads, their unifying ideology was White supremacy. Platt and Williams also assert that segregationist letter writers to Dr. MLK Jr were “creating ideologies” to fit their structural, cultural, and immediate circumstances (328). However, I contend that movement participants are not by themselves capable of creating entirely new ideologies but can at best add to and reshape existing ideology. Segregationist letter writers, like the CCA, were refashioning an old, historically deep-rooted White supremacist ideology; the common philosophy from which all segregationists, without exception, rationalized and defended their vision of society. Platt and Williams seem to share this view (341) by quoting historian Neil R. McMillen’s (1971) assertion that, “primarily the ideology of the Citizen’s Councils was the ideology of white supremacy” (161). After analyzing CCA media, I too, take the view that its “movement specific ideology” (Valocchi 1996), was White supremacy, from which an interrelated cluster of segregationist frames were deployed with a master frame (anti-communism) to modernize this pre-existing ideology through the Anti-Communist Master Frame Cluster.
The Anti-Communist Master Frame Cluster Visualized
Visualized as overlapping circles in Figure 1., master frame clusters are composed of interrelated propaganda themes, or frames. In this case, three main frames comprise the CCA’s Anti-Communist Master Frame Cluster, named after its master frame, Anti-Communist Frame with the Negro Vices Frame, and the third frame composed of three sub-frames (Anti-Liberal Frame, Anti-Leftist Frame, and Anti-Socialist Frame). It is fair to note the difficulty at times in distinguishing liberal, leftist, and socialist from one another as the Council understood these political ideologies, which is why they were lumped together as a single frame. Throughout its literature, these terms were often used interchangeably in the same articles. However, this is the nature of master frame clusters, which are comprised of intersecting, overlapping, and interrelated propaganda themes. Anti-communist master frame cluster.
Since Figure 1 only illustrates the overlapping nature of frames which comprise a master frame cluster and not the dynamic relationship between them, Figure 2 represents the Anti-Communist Master Frame Cluster as interlocking gears in a dynamic relationship. The Anti-Communist Master Frame is the main source of energy in this dynamic frame cluster arrangement. Together, these three frames “do the most work” (as the most frequently recurring propaganda themes) in their deployment as a master frame cluster within the broader constellation of frames in the CCA’s ideology of White supremacy. In the era of segregationist resistance, White supremacist ideology was reconfigured to contemporaneous sociopolitical culture, largely defined by anti-communism. In the early Cold War decades of civil rights resistance, segregationist politicians, intellectuals, activists, and SMOs like the CCA, borrowed what came before and foregrounded anti-communism as the master frame within the entire constellation of segregationist frames that comprised White supremacist ideology. Anti-communist master frame cluster dynamism.
Illustrated in Figure 3., the Anti-Communist Master Frame Cluster functions as the gravitational focal point and driver of a larger dynamic constellation of segregationist frames structuring CCA White supremacist ideology. These frames are represented in circles of different sizes indicating their varying frequencies of deployment as propaganda themes, with the three largest of these circles comprising the Anti-Communist Master Frame Cluster. The arrows indicate the dynamic, circulating nature of frames as a system of propaganda themes deployed in conjunction with and relation to one another, and pulled by the gravitational mass of the core master frame cluster. Table 1 provides a complete list of defined coding terms and frame concepts in alphabetical order. Citizen’s councils of America’s dynamic constellation of 28 main frames structuring its white supremacist ideology. Terminology.
Main Frames and Coding References for The Citizens’ Council (1955–1961).
Main Frames and Coding References for Citizens’ Council Forum (1955–1966).
Main Frames and Coding References for The Citizen (1961–1979).
The CCA, White Supremacist Ideology, and Segregationist Anti-Communism
Formed in Indianola, Mississippi in 1954, the CCA became the “dominant sub-movement during the 1950s and 1960s” (Diamond 1995:10), representing the vanguard rank-and-file of the “massive resistance” movement (Bartley 1969), and was the most organized, widespread, and politically influential of segregationist organizations (McMillen 1971). The CCA was self-identified as “conservative” and was a “right-wing” SMO; one that “acts on behalf of relatively advantaged groups with the goal of preserving, restoring, and expanding the rights and privileges of its members and constituents” and “attempt [s] to deny similar rights and privileges to other groups in society (McVeigh 2009:32).” Like other SMOs, from conservative/right-wing to liberal/left-wing forms, the Council rooted its propaganda in a broader ideology to advance its agenda and is an important object of study for making sense of the relationship between frames and ideology, particularly for how frame messaging helps perpetuate, reshape, and modernize a pre-existing ideology with deep historical roots. In drawing on the long intellectual history of White supremacist thought in the southern Confederate nationalist tradition, the Council relied on what Noakes (2000), who studied the Cold War era political repression of Hollywood by the federal government, calls the “counter subversive anticommunist frame” (672). Using this frame, the CCA aimed to mainstream, modernize, and streamline the ideology of White supremacy to which it subscribed, by giving it Cold War geopolitical relevance.
As a defining feature of American thought since the colonial era (Kendi 2016), White supremacist ideology has been reproduced over generations by supporters inheriting what came before and adapting it to their times. White supremacist ideology and the ever-changing social systems of racial oppression (plantation slavery, Jim Crow segregation, mass incarceration) from which it has emerged and functioned to rationalize, has been sustained through its fluid adaptability (Doane 2017:979–980) to movement challenges from pre-Civil War abolitionism, civil rights protests, to the present BLM era of anti-racist activism. Rooted in the historical myths of inherent White superiority and innate Black inferiority as the basis for the South’s White-ruled racial hierarchy with Blacks as its subservient class, White supremacist ideology was inherited by segregationists and the CCA and renovated by anti-communism.
What anti-communism offered segregationists was a rejuvenation of traditional defensive arguments (Lewis 2004, 2006), and can be thought of as a neo-Confederate, self-preservationist, defensive nationalism (Woods 2004) energized by America’s Cold War geopolitical imperative to desegregate under international pressure from human rights critiques (Anderson 2003; Borstlemann 2001; Duziak 2000; Lyton 2000; Plummer 1996, 2003). Anti-communism internationalized segregationist politics. Segregationists revered White-ruled South Africa and used the “chaos” of African anti-colonial movements as the logical conclusion of desegregation. Therefore, the “civilizing” influence of White rule was asserted as necessary for preserving order, especially in the context of the global struggle against the presumed corrupting influence of communism (Noer 2003). In this setting, the CCA’s segregationist anti-communist campaign extended beyond the South. Stephanie Rolph’s (2016), “The Citizens’ Council and Africa: White Supremacy in Global Perspective,” documents relations between CCA leaders and White dignitaries in parts of White-ruled Africa.
In governance, southern state legislatures created investigative agencies styled after the House Un-American Activities Committee and used the pretext of communist infiltration to harass, intimidate, and criminalize civil rights activists and organizations (Bartley 1969; Bloom 1987; Braukman 2012; Egerton 1994; Horne 1998; Katagiri 2001; Lewis 2004, 2006; Record 1964; Schrecker 1994, 1998; Ward 2011; Whitfield 1996; Woods 2004). Similarly, to protect segregation from supposed anti-American civil rights radicalism, various southern local and regional segregationist organizations incorporated anti-communist political repression into their arsenal of terrorism (Bartley 1969, Lewis 2004, 2006, McMillen 1971, Woods 2004). Styling itself as respectable, law-abiding, and as merely an expression of middle-class values, but nonetheless engaging in economic and political intimidation to achieve White supremacist aims (Day 2014:11), the CCA was at the center of segregationist propaganda efforts to renovate white supremacist ideology by mainstreaming racially conservative Radical Right politics (Rolph 2018) to discredit racial egalitarianism through anti-communism.
Traditional Segregationist Frames and Their Anti-Communist Renovation
This section provides the social–historical context for five segregationist frames which were revived and renovated by anti-communist geopolitics. These five frames do not represent the totality of pro-segregationist argumentation but were singled out for elaboration for receiving the most scholarly discussion related to CCA ideology. They include (1) anti-racial miscegenation, (2) segregationist Christian theology, (3) segregationist science, (4) states’ rights philosophy, and (5) outside-agitator xenophobia. Although five are constructed separately here for discussion, these concepts functioned as interrelated, overlapping notions structuring White supremacist ideology, and were revived and renovated by anti-communism.
Anti-Miscegenation and its Anti-Communist Renovation
After the Brown (1954) decision, the specter of racial miscegenation was updated for mainstream consumption by incorporating it into Cold War anti-communism (Lewis 2004). As the greatest of segregationist anxieties, anti-miscegenation functioned as the most appealing arguments. “Negroid” blood, as contended, carried with it the germ of society’s demise. Racial intermixing was therefore a threat to civilization’s stability. Asserted as reasons to prevent integration, various Negro vices were believed to be embedded in the blood including the propensity toward criminality and susceptibility to certain diseases (McMillen 1971). For the CCA, integration was equated with miscegenation, resulting in the mixing of Negro blood with that of the presumed superior Caucasian. At the heart of segregationist mobilization, the Council, “Almost from its inception…equated the drive for Negro equality with a Marxist plot to destroy America by sapping its Caucasian energies through miscegenation” (McMillen 1971:195).
Segregationist Christian Theology and its Anti-Communist Renovation
After Brown, white southern religious elites were often at odds with local rank and file congregational membership (McMillen 1971), and segregationist religious fervor was largely reflected in the lay population (Chappell 2005). In instances where church leaders defied the will of their pro-segregationist congregations, ministers were usually ejected from their positions. As many local churches began to assert their autonomy in objection to the Southern Baptist Convention and other regional institutions, the struggle over the question of integration versus segregation became a contest over “cultural legitimacy” (Dailey 2005:163–165). This was the context in which the Council claimed authenticity as a grass-roots movement seeing no inconsistency between New Testament “brotherly love” theology and the notion of a divinely sanctioned segregated order (McMillen 1971). Just as it was argued by segregationists that Jim Crow was divinely ordained, integrationists were portrayed by organizations like the CCA as agents of forces of darkness, as foreign infiltrators in disguise working to corrupt the culture through equalitarianism. Following this narrative of foreign evil, anti-communist geopolitics was woven into the tapestry of segregationist southern white religiosity, as McMillen (1971) best captures. If segregation had the sanction of the providentially inspired writings and the approval of the Son of God, then integration could only be sinful, the work of either Satan or (as Council propaganda came increasingly to assert) his blood brother, Karl Marx. Indeed, the whole “myth of equality” could be traced to those in the various “–isms”—socialism, communism, and one–worldism—which threatened the ultimate annihilation of all Christendom. (McMillen 1971:177).
Segregationist Science and its Anti-Communist Renovation
For segregationists, the rhetoric of scientific objectivity offered a more reasoned and dispassionate appeal than the fiery bombast of groups such as the Ku Klux Klan which the Council often contrasted itself with. Because of the special authoritative position of science in society, scientific racism potentially had a special persuasive cultural force behind it that other segregationist defenses perhaps did not possess (Jackson Jr 2005:15). However, the problem for segregationist scientists was their increasing marginalization within mainstream academia by the latter half of the 20th century.
A devoted cadre of race scientists nonetheless aimed to expose the alleged truth: racial equalitarianism was a hoax perpetrated by liberal communist-leaning professors on an unsuspecting public. Many White southerners believed social science evidence employed by the NAACP in Brown had some connection to a larger communist conspiracy, or at least had the support of communist sympathizers. Often cited in Council media, segregationist political elites used this “conspiracy argument,” in public speeches when drawing a connection between the “liberalism” of mainstream science and communism. For example, Senator James O. Eastland of Mississippi before Congress in 1955, raised the specter of communism and questioned the legitimacy of alleged suspect social science used in the Brown case. This speech was incorporated into CCA literature and distributed across the South (Jackson 2005:74).
States’ Rights Philosophy and its Anti-Communist Renovation
The CCA’s ideology most closely mirrored that of the States Rights Democratic Party of 1948, and from the segregationist movement’s inception, states’ rights philosophy was a key unifying theme in the campaign against civil rights. At its core, states’ rights rationalized anti-black racism (McMillen 1971:189–190), and was inextricably intertwined with White supremacist ideology (Wilhoit 1973:62). States’ rights were the intellectual foundation for the Southern Manifesto which asserted state governments could defy federal civil rights reforms. According to this view, the Supreme Court had to respect the Constitution and all its amendments as explicitly written, the executive branch had no constitutional authority to intervene in state matters without their consent, and Congress could not legislate in ways which violated sovereignty of the states. This interpretation aimed to set strict limits on the central government through an emphasis on regionally fragmented sovereign political units (Wilhoit 1973).
The rhetorical shift toward Cold War anti-communism aimed to resuscitate the older states’ rights refrain, which originated with Civil War Confederate nationalism (Lewis 2004). The problem with states’ rights in the post-World War II era, however, was its logic did not have a sound legal constitutional basis. Attempting to revive it, segregationists saw a more solid legal and political foundation in Cold War anti-communism, which allowed segregationists to position their cause as one that would not only free the South from the scourge of civil rights but would protect the entire nation from communist take-over (Lewis 2004).
Outside-Agitator Xenophobia and its Anti-Communist Renovation
Outside-agitator xenophobia is one of the oldest arguments in southern white supremacist thought. Originating in the antebellum era to discredit abolitionism as a foreign corrupting influence on the slave population, its use continued in the South beyond the post-Civil War/Reconstruction era, resurfacing in the early 20th century Red Scare years, and again in the early Cold War years (Woods 2004:14). The consistent theme in “outside-agitators,” across eras, was Black unrest fomented by “agitators” from outside the South. White southerners regarded Blacks as unsophisticated and therefore incapable of orchestrating revolt. Neither would slaves, it was reasoned, oppose their own self-interests as recipients of the presumed virtues of White civilization. Wishful-minded Yankee northerners were the real culprits (Woods 2004).
After Brown, segregationists, likewise aimed their ire at those who sought to corrupt the assumed passive Negroes with alien un-American notions of equality (Lewis 2004; Wilhoit 1973; Woods 2004). In merging the traditional refrain of “outside-agitators” with anti-communism, southern regional xenophobia was connected to mainstream American nationalism as related to the perceived foreign influence of communist subversion (Lewis 2004:14).
The CCA’s Frame Constellation and its Anti-Communist Master Frame Cluster
Discussed above was the social-historical context of five segregationist frames revitalized by anti-communism. These frames do not represent the totality of segregationist propaganda but were singled out for elaboration for their scholarly attention related to CCA ideology. Because of this scholarly treatment, there was relatively little intellectual burden in conceptualizing them as collective action frames, which helped in constructing the fuller CCA media propaganda theme codebook using NVIVO, a qualitative data analysis software. This codebook includes twenty-eight main frames (the main segregationist argument being made), twenty-five sub-frames (following an aspect of the main segregationist argument), and four sub-topic frames (focused on a narrower aspect of the sub-topic). All these frames function as propaganda themes defending segregation and opposing integration. Again, Table 1 provides a complete list of defined coding terms and frame concepts in alphabetical order.
In the coding process, a single word, phrase, sentence, paragraph, or entire page (in the case of the literature) or segments of programs or entire programs (in the case of the broadcast programs), would be selected for categorization under a codebook theme. The CCA Propaganda Theme Code Book, Supplemental Appendix A, contains a list of themes categorizing coded data, organized alphabetically with definitions. The twenty-eight main frames are in bold type, the twenty-five sub-frames are underneath each respective main frame next to bullet points and italicized, and the four sub-topic frames are indicated next to Roman numerals. Codebooks constructed from content analyses are not static or final since multiple, subsequent coding cycles by the same researcher or others may structure a codebook on the same data according to different nomenclature. What should be consistently verifiable, however, is anti-communism as the CCA’s most frequently deployed frame, justifying the claim for it functioning as the Anti-Communist Master Frame.
In NVIVO, “references” means the total number of times a theme has been coded in a data set. (Tables 2–4) feature each of the three CCA data sets with its list of numbered main frames on the left column with the coding reference numbers in the right column. Across all three media platforms the Anti-Communist Master Frame has the highest at 767 references. The next two most frequently deployed frames include the Negro Vices Frame (606 references), and the Anti-Liberal/Leftist/Socialist Frame (546 references). These three frames alone add up to 1919 references, 38%, or over one third of all coded frames across all three data sets and reveal the gravitational focal point of CCA ideology: its preoccupation with communist subversion, and perceived dangerous political pathways toward communism (liberalism, leftism, and socialism), as the explanation for perceived mass Black anarchy in the form of resistance to segregation.
It should be noted that the Negro Vices Frame is not in the three highest referenced frames for the Forum. It is such a low count (12), far below the other two data set counts, necessitating an explanation. Generally, CCA broadcast, in contrast to print, exhibits relatively tamer content. The Forum (taking into consideration the pre-politically correct era of its time), was comparatively more subtle and polished for wider consumption, and displays sensitivity to avoiding the perception of being blatantly anti-Black, instead focusing more on communism. Many Forum programs concentrate almost entirely on Cold War geopolitics, much of which are critiques of U.S. policy toward Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam, and Soviet-Communism generally, at times with very little, if any, mention of civil rights or race relations in U.S. domestic context. The greater concern is the communist threat to American freedom.
In fact, the Freedoms Frame is the highest by far in the Forum at 251. Considering this, perhaps it should be added as a fourth component, at 435 total references across all three platforms, to the Anti-Communist Master Frame Cluster. The additional Freedoms Frame would bring the count to 46%; not far from the previous 38% of CCA propaganda frames. Empirically, the master frame cluster concept is the product of the researcher’s choice of how many of the highest, most frequently recurring frames should comprise an SMO’s master frame cluster. The three selected main frames reflect more about the most cutting-edge aspect of CCA ideology which is “doing the most work” in mainstreaming messaging. Together, the Anti-Communist Master Frame, Negro Vices Frame, and Anti-Liberal/Leftist/Socialist Frame, all comprising the Anti-Communist Master Frame Cluster, even without the Freedoms Frame, reveal core CCA messaging across all three platforms (1955–1979): Negro proclivities unleashed by liberal equalitarian idealism, leftist social experimentation, and socialist federal civil rights reforms, will collapse American freedom under communist tyranny.
The CCA’s Anti-Communist Master Frame Cluster
Negro Vices Frame
In making the case for the view that Blacks were irredeemably prone to dangerous vices, the CCA’s official paper presented numerous statistics and reports on their supposed criminal tendencies, especially murder and rape. Data on these Negro vices emphasize the idea that setting Blacks free from the restraint of segregation, and foolishly granting equality is to invite anarchy which would replace civil order. Southern Whites were therefore wiser for instituting what appeared to be, from the perspective of the naïve Northern liberal, an unjust system of control, but necessary domestication for those who, by their racial temperament, cannot govern themselves.
For example, a February 1957 article from the official paper titled, “Reaping The Whirlwind—Integration In Washington Creating Ominous Unrest,” provides several points about negative consequences for integrated public schools. First, the presumed inherent intellectual inferiority of Blacks lowered the overall quality of education as White schools adjusted to the mediocrity of alleged Black natural underachievement. Second, fundamental cultural differences between Black and White educators complicated the educational process. Third, the inherent predisposition of Blacks to various immoral behavioral characteristics broke down the social fabric of education. Noted among these undesirable qualities are “venereal disease and pregnancies,” and according to data cited, “Approximately one fourth of the Negro school children themselves are illegitimate.” A fourth point claims incidences of school violence had increased because of integration, stating, “Interracial conflict has sometimes involved a degree of violence which is new and shocking to many White families.” The above issues noted, according to the Council, all pointed to the fundamentally flawed court ordered and NAACP-engineered social experiment in which both White and Black children had been used as guinea pigs to prove some fanciful but dangerous liberal goal. 7
A November 1956 article titled, “Scandal of The Century! Facts of “Nation’s Model Schools” Shock Americans,” attempted to illustrate how various presumed questionable behavioral characteristics of Blacks, if allowed free reign by the naive liberalism of integration, could work to undermine the school system. According to the article, there had been a suppression of “ugly facts…concerning conditions in Washington public schools since they were integrated…” Considering this, as noted in the article, the House District Sub-committee held several hearings which revealed the extent of chaos plaguing D.C. schools., which brought to light examples of …violence, truancy, malicious destruction of public property, and thievery among students; of shocking sex behavior, involving not only students, but also at least one Negro principal; of pregnant Negro school girls, including a 13-year-old who was “expecting” her second illegitimate child; of cheating on examinations…
8
The conclusion is clear from the above excerpt. Negroes lack moral substance and integrated public schools would contaminate White people’s pure moral character. Further illustration of this logic is in a March 1956 article titled, “Disease, Prison Records Reflect Lapse in Morals Poses Real Threat to the Welfare of Our Entire Nation.” Again, the idea here is segregation as a check on unsavory behavioral inclinations that, left unrestrained, will have a deleterious impact on society. Evidence cited of the alleged positive effects of segregation in suppressing vices were the higher rates of various social maladies in the supposedly non-segregated North, such as illegitimate births, violent crime, larger Black incarceration, and increased incidence of venereal disease. By drawing attention to these social problems, the Council attempted to position itself as concerned with public health and safety, and conformity to values that strengthen the society. In contrasting the perceived chaos of the North with the ostensible virtues of southern society, the Council noted that, Southern officials, both law and health, point to the moral restrictions inherent in segregation as the principal reason for the differences, and again remind us of the fact, so well known to Southern officials and seemingly ignored by our Northern neighbors, that the negro has such a strong proclivity for “mistaking liberty for license.”
9
From the perspective of CCA ideology, set free from segregation, Blacks would have no restraint on incivility and would take sexual liberties with the presumed innocence of White women. Their immorality was evident in the numerous instances of un-wed Black mothers and, in the words of the Council, “This is proof of the well-known fact that our [N]egroes, as a race make a mockery of the white man’s holy Institution of matrimony.” The truth of Negro inferiority is a “painful” reality, according to the Council, but the question must be asked, “How would Integration affect the moral standards of our white children?” 10 The CCA’s answer was clear. The advancing tide of Black savagery overwhelming White schools, and all other public spaces reserved exclusively for Whites, would degrade White culture overtime, and had to be stopped by dealing with the real threat: race-agitating communist sympathizers (liberals, leftists, and socialists) bent on anarchy.
Anti-Liberal, Leftist, Socialist Frame
Anti-Liberal Sub-Frame
The Negro occupies a peculiar place in the mentality of the “liberal” element which controls our government and which has bent the forces of education and religion largely to its will. It is hard to define this position which the Negro occupies in the “liberal” psyche, but I assure you its privileges do not extend to other minorities. It had its origin in the abolitionist zealots of the last century who transmitted directly to latter-day bleeding hearts an emotionalism where the Negro alone is concerned which blots out rational thought processes. Thus, such conditioned response has been developed that the mere mention of the word “Negro” causes a “liberal” automatically to think, “Hate the South!”
11
As the CCA saw it, liberalism was as a pervasive wishful thinking, over-idealizing the world as one would desire it to be while ignoring the harsh reality of the “natural order.” This blissful mode of thought could not or preferred not to see the truth; that everyone had their place in the pecking order of civilized society, and that certain races were fit for self-government, while others, by evidence of their own barbaric history, had proven themselves to be unsuitable for the responsibility of stewardship over the free world. In its “bleeding heart” idealism on behalf of “the Negro,” liberalism aimed to correct supposed wrongs in society through untested social engineering, particularly the effort to racially integrate schools. The central flaw of liberalism, in the CCA’s view, was its wishful idealism in its desire to shape existing social reality to an unrealistic utopian vision not explicitly communist, but sympathetic to communist thinking, nonetheless.
Liberalism, according to the CCA, was rooted not only in blissful idealism but a kind of “holier-than-thou” arrogance which sought to shame that which it deemed inferior to itself. The favorite target of liberal critics was the South, which served as the canvas upon which they aimed to paint their utopian vision. Liberal arrogance was especially evident in their conviction that they even had the right to correct southern traditions on racial matters, ignoring their own northern urban problems, to create a society for Blacks better than what southerners had provided since the nation’s founding. The following excerpt from an article titled, “Segregation and Christian Love,” articulates the Council’s principal gripe with liberalism. The tragedy of America today is that the well-meaning liberal has been misled into believing that segregation is based on race hatred. When the misguided liberal realizes one simple thing—Segregation is not based on hate, it is based on Christian love—then will he begin to have some understanding of his conservative Southern neighbors and also some love. The only bias and prejudice that we have to worry about today in this country is the twisted and determined hate that northern reform liberals and their friends have for the men and women of the south. The Northern Liberal urge to remake the nature of their neighbors in their own image instead of loving their neighbors and respecting the differences is the ancient tragedy of great arrogance born of great ignorance.
12
Reading the Council’s official paper, one may see how early in public debate the often-stated defensive argument was deployed by conservatives that the term racist in American politics, had become a kind of knee-jerk, derogatory, “smear” label which liberals weaponize to discredit those who express certain impolite but true views. According to the CCA, liberals were determined to shut down debate on controversial but important topics by trying to slander their conservative targets with the charge of racism. This liberal tactic, the presumably persecuted conservative Council felt, had been employed promiscuously, and too such an intolerant point, or perhaps to a cunningly calculated degree, that the “real” racial problems plaguing Blacks were being ignored for the more salacious, media-driven, ritual of the public shaming of honest, good intentioned, “tell-it-like-it-is” conservative-minded individuals who were pressured into conforming to liberal orthodoxy of polite politics. This liberal tactic, as the Council argued, was nothing more than an effort to distract America from actual Black problems, underachievement, out-of-wedlock birth, Black-on-Black crime, and a host of other issues which Blacks themselves apparently were responsible for and were not the product of southern White animosity. Do not be distracted by the diversionary rhetorical schemes of liberals, the Council advised. Failing to recognize the danger in their attempts to stifle free expression would inevitably lead to communist takeover of not only America’s political culture but the very minds of free peoples would be enslaved to the tyranny of conformism. An article titled, “‘Racist’ A Smear Word,” illustrates this argument, which ends in anti-communist framing. We have come to be afraid of a few smear words and terms, “Racist” is one of the worst. It is not defined so that the victim may disagree and defend himself. But it is so spat out, even in print, as accusation of some vicious crime placing the defendant beyond some pale. It presumes automatic condemnation without trial. But what is a “racist”? A “RACIST” IS A PERSON who approves his own race and prefers the society of his own people. Millions of human beings of all races, in fact, most of humanity, is “racist” by that definition. But the despised and persecuted “racist” meant by this propaganda is not condemned for his amiable preference, which implies no hostility to any other race. He is persecuted for showing the courage to express his preference in words and suiting his conduct to his words. He may express his preference in the most gentle, courteous and friendly language. But the mere expression is the crime of “racism.” There is also false assumption now accepted as undebatable truth that all minorities are entitled to special immunity from fair criticism and fair opposition. The very word “minority” has come to denote a small, helpless and, above all, absolutely inoffensive, element of human being. But reason holds that a majority also may be virtuous. And majorities were massacred in Soviet Russia by a minority which did not bother to pretend that it was harmless. The Communists are still a small minority throughout the Soviet empire. Controversy is not dead in the United States, but it has been strangled into unconsciousness. That is bad for our intelligence, our character and our souls.
13
The subversive anti-American influence of liberalism, according to the CCA, was also evident in Churches, the one institution presumably most immune to the un-godly logic of communist equalitarianism. Disturbed by the expansion of “liberal theology,” the Council aimed to correct the “misguided” actions of clergy who were “helping to betray our American Republic and Christianity itself.” One article questions the patriotism of religious leadership for embracing integration, asking in the title, “Are Some Church Leaders Betraying Their Country?” Liberals and well-meaning social thinkers, the article explains, “have been deluded by red propaganda into believing that there is a “Christian Socialism” which would eliminate poverty and trouble and stabilize human happiness and prosperity.” Many leading Christian hierarchies have all been “duped” by “false prophets” who are “Unwittingly…working for the spread of communism which is the deadly enemies of Christianity.” These naïve religious leaders, as contended, have been “infected” with the virus of “socialistic theories” which run contrary to the laws of God and nature, and ignore the lessons of history about the insidious nature of tyranny. 14
Anti-Leftist Sub-Frame
Left-wingers, as portrayed by the Council, were the more hard-edged version of liberals but essentially no different in their desire to corrupt the political system to their nefarious goal of remaking America into a collectivist utopia. In the left’s effort to weaken and destroy the nation, they advocated policies which would break down barriers to “race mongrelization” and promote a society where all are treated equally and can intermingle without regard to race differences. Seeking to collapse segregationist’s imagined racially harmonious society, left-wing activism aimed to usher in the dawn of a new race-mixing “Negrophile Dictatorship.” 15
Considering this, the CCA intended to expose the true left-wing plot to defile the supposed purity of the White race through racial miscegenation. An article titled, “Fair Question,” in which the author is identified only as “A pro-American” from Hillside, New Jersey, indicates the existence of like-minded pro-segregationist northerners who share the CCA’s disdain for left-wing interracial sex. Contrary to their publicly stated claims of not being interested in interracial marriage, as contended in the article, leftist organizations, particularly the NAACP, were in fact “working in the exact opposite direction” in their state-by-state agenda to gradually repeal laws against the “vicious practice” of miscegenation. 16
The Council similarly connected leftists to interracial sex in an article titled, “Left-Wing History Prof Bares Goal of ‘Do-Gooders’,” writing that, “the real goal of race-mixing attempts in America is intermarriage, a left-wing historian told an Illinois audience this month.” The article took issue with what was asserted to be the professors’ misquoting of Abraham Lincoln when he made the point that the Great Emancipator would surely have agreed with the Supreme Court’s striking down of segregation in public schools, and perhaps would have even endorsed racial integration in other spheres of American life. To expose the professors’ misunderstanding of the Civil War presidents’ views on race relations, “Lincoln’s own words on the subject,” expressed in the famous Lincoln–Douglas debates, were quoted. In 1858, in response to Senator Stephen Douglas who called into question Lincoln’s allegiance to White supremacy, Lincoln stated the following, as featured in the article. I will say then that I am not nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races—that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality.
17
In the above, the CCA functions as historical truth teller, correcting misguided or outright dishonest left-wing falsehoods and other hoopla, peddled by such intellectual “do-gooders” as the professor who was criticized in the article. Academia, from the standpoint of the Council, was a propaganda haven for leftists who were among the most insidious individuals in America, using their exalted positions to spread their un-American ideology. To illustrate the growing extent to which leftist ideas were taking root in the minds of America’s impressionable youth, the Council cited statistics indicating the left-ward drift. An article titled, “School Poll Has Socialist Trend,” explains how the Council saw the younger generations’ seeming affinity for un-American ideologies, noting that, “left-wingers have infiltrated American education,” producing a “large majority” in favor of labor unions and an increasing favorable opinion toward government-takeover of privately owned industry. 18
Anti-Socialist Sub-Frame
The communist plan, according to the CCA, was to turn America socialist to make way for Russian takeover. Socialism was the communist program for the reformation of society through social engineering by government bureaucrats who acquire their reformist logic from leftist academic elites. Socialists advocated for improvement of society not through free-market individualism, but through left-wing government coercion. When socialism takes root in America, communism will have reached its full maturity, ripe with the deadly fruit of totalitarianism. Socialism at its core was full only of the bitterness of radicalism. It aimed to create the conditions for a society under tyrannical rule. The clever nature of socialism was its subtle but infectious appeal to those whose state of mind was ever unsatisfied and ungrateful for the blessings of liberty as the Founding Fathers sacrificed for and instituted in the Republic. As the Council understood it, the government and wider political system at all levels was becoming infested with a small but growing influence that sought to dismantle the pillars of society; “A radical, socialistic, even communistic minority seeks control of the government that they, by dictatorship, may dominate the American people and lead them into a socialistic world government.” 19
Using the international media as an example of the infestation of socialism in American institutions, the Council focused its criticisms on reporting of racial upheavals in Africa. It saw the international media as a propaganda platform for socialist-communist ideology in its supposed disproportionate coverage of oppressed Blacks, exploited proletariat and other disaffected groups. The international press, largely headquartered in the U.S., was merely a mouthpiece for the un-American political establishment, especially the “USA’s Democrats,” “a party very largely dominated and directed by persons of Eastern European origin,” who were obsessed with dismantling White civilization everywhere. Citing the South African Observer in its assessment of racial problems in that country, the Council saw a similar struggle among White South Africans, but on a larger scale because of that country’s significantly higher Black population. Putting racial conflict in terms of Cold War geopolitics and raising the specter of a tyrannical one-world government, the South African Observer is quoted by the Council as stating the following. United Nations, UNESCO, the empires of Wall Street and Moscow and their dupes, viz. Internationalists, liberals, liberal-democrats and leftists generally, have marked out South Africa as an enemy because it is a bastion of white conservatism; because it believes in national sovereignty and western Christian civilization; and because it will not accept the Fabian, Socialist and Communist doctrine of Equality.
20
Not limited to the media or the political establishment, it was also in the Church, the CCA argued, where one could observe the growing influence of socialism, where ministers entertained novel theological notions divorced from traditional principles, making them susceptible to the idea that Christianity and segregation were incongruous. According to the Council, only socialistic thinking saw an incompatibility between the two. Christian-Biblical principles are unchanging. Only man in his imperfection is subject to change and adaptation to ways of thinking which are not in line with Christianity. The CCA claimed, “Our modern ministers have the Bible and Socialism, and for them segregation is incompatible with Christianity. The only difference is Socialism. The Bible hasn’t changed, and, if Socialism is omitted, segregation and Christianity are still compatible.” 21
Educational institutions were also in the communist plan for the takeover of America through socialism. The Council regarded federally mandated integrated public education as a “socialist school system.” Apparently private schools were increasingly becoming the preferred option for Whites seeking refuge for their children to escape the “black-and-tan schools.” 22 Institutions of higher learning were also falling under the influence of anti-American ideologies where “students are uniformly indoctrinated in Socialist theory.” To counter the nefarious encroachment of socialism, the Council would suggest “Books Worth Reading.” Among the list was a piece by F. Merrill Root entitled, “Collectivism on the Campus,” which warned of the susceptibility of college students to teachings which were anti-capitalist, anti-individualist, and atheist. 23
From the perspective of the CCA, liberalism, leftism, and socialism all comprised a political spectrum which served as gate-way philosophies to the real threat. Each represented a gradual step closer toward communism. Liberalism was thought to be a well-intentioned but foolishly naïve idealism that individuals who had fallen under its influence could still be rescued from if treated with a healthy dose of conservative-minded realism. The hard-edged cynicism of leftism was more intellectually sophisticated, however, in the worship of academic elites, and far more committed to its cause than liberals. Those under the spell of socialism were perhaps too far gone and almost thoroughly indoctrinated, as socialists had committed themselves to a philosophy fundamentally opposed to free-market capitalism and were therefore anti-American. Socialism, in the spectrum of un-Americanism ideologies, was the last step toward communism.
Anti-Communist Master Frame
According to the Council, communists understand that “the Negro problem” is the weakest link in the American democratic republic. It is therefore the greatest tool of exploitation to stir up the Negro and cause others to agitate on his behalf, bringing about in the cleverest of ways, the erosion of the very fabric of American society. Liberals fail to acknowledge this as fact, while leftists and socialists have committed themselves to their radicalism, all while the nation’s political leaders care nothing for serving the interests of a free society. Instead, as the CCA saw it, they would rather sell their souls in exchange for whatever the deceitful communists promise them.
The CCA often facilitated its anti-communist messaging through recurring guests on its Forum program. Myers G. Loman of Cincinnati, Ohio, who was the Executive Secretary of Circuit Riders Incorporated, made frequent appearances to advance the notion that communists were engaged in a psychological warfare effort for the specific goal of “neutralizing the United States against a preparation for war.” 24 Central to this psychological warfare effort was the infiltration of America’s institutions, especially churches, as well as the proliferation of socialist publications. Loman believed that America’s religious institutions “need to have an affirmative duty to have an anti-communist program,” especially places of worship that embraced the “race grievance” protestations of various civil rights organizations, which apparently communists aimed to exploit. 25
According to Loman, communist activities in America also included providing legal aid to individuals convicted of communism. The Southern Conference Educational Fund (SCEF), Loman explained, may supposedly exist to address racial issues, but it was in fact a “communist front advancing the cause of the communist apparatus.” Loman added that SCEF “… has probably exploited the race problem, the race grievance through the South as effectively as any other group in America.” 26 Although SCEF was presumably created to pursue a civil rights agenda, as was claimed, it was founded for the purpose of advancing the cause of communism. SCEF President Fred L. Shuttlesworth was involved in “race incitation meetings all over the United States,” along with Executive Director, Reverend James A. Dombrowski, who apparently had a record of activism so radical that it did not matter whether he was a communist. Loman also named Carl Braden, who was convicted in Kentucky for sedition and again in federal court for contempt at anti-communist hearings investigating his political identification. Lowman clarified that the named individuals were not “deliberately aiding the communist apparatus,” but indeed were aiding the cause of communism, whether they were aware of it or not. Loman repeatedly pointed to the inconsistency in self-identification of the individuals mentioned, some apparently going by different names in different regions of the United States to carry out their civil rights activism, while simultaneously existing in a perpetual state of denial about either their obvious communist affiliations or being a communist themselves. 27
Representative John Bell Williams, who also at times appeared alongside Myers G. Loman as guests on the Forum, featured a photograph of Martin Luther King Jr in attendance at a “communist training school” in Highlander, Tennessee. Loman validated the authenticity of the picture which he claimed was evidenced by the photographers’ testimony under oath that he indeed took the photographic images. Loman identified specific persons featured in the photo, naming among other individuals, Martin Luther King Jr, Aubrey Williams, Myles Horton, and Rosa Parks. Abner W. Barry was identified as, “a member of the National Committee of the Communist Party.” Aubrey Williams was also identified as having been a communist for at least “two decades.” Loman also mentioned that trade union activists had been ejected from the AFL-CIO because of their communist ties and were also involved in training the individuals featured in the image at the Highlander “communist training school.” When asked by Forum host Morphew whether a comparison could be made between protest tactics of labor leaders in the 1930s and civil rights activists, Loman made the following clarification. First, in order that nobody, either Negro or white, will misunderstand any one of the three of us, we are not speaking in a derogatory way about Negroes per se. We are all three talking about Negroes who wittingly or unwittingly become used in the exploitations of the communists and some of the hypocrites in our country for incitation purposes.
28
Loman elaborated on how communists exploit race grievances and asserted that the NAACP was the most infiltrated organization, and that a struggle was going on within the organization to keep communists from taking it over. Representative Williams also pointed to the clear and certain communist identification of W.E.B. Dubois. Morphew asked whether there was anything typical about the sort of demonstrations occurring in the streets, to which Representative Williams replied, “If anarchy is typical of America, this is typical of America, but if adherence and obedience to the law and order is typical of America, street demonstrations certainly are not typical of America, and I think they ought to be deplored.” 29
Senator Strom Thurmond was also a frequent Forum guest, and often discussed the connection between communism and the civil rights movement. According to the senator, communists aimed to create discord among the American people through their teach-ins among students, which had their nefarious connections to struggles overseas as the U.S. carried out military operations in Southeast Asia and Africa. If America failed to address the threat in these foreign lands, according to Thurmond, “Before you know it, they’ll reach Hawaii.” 30 But communists were already operating within the United States, as Thurmond explained. Evidence of their subversive activities were protests in the North’s big cities. Thurmond claimed, “communists not only have infiltrated these demonstrations but they have inspired these demonstrations and, in many cases, have directed these demonstrations. Communism is at the bottom of the Negro demonstrations. 31
Conclusion: The CCA’s Propaganda Legacy and Analyzing other SMO Media
The Council’s use of White supremacist anti-communism is still employed by modern conservative rightwing media. Zeigler (2015) has noted the re-emergence of “Red Scare racism” discourse during the Obama presidency as part of a conservative rightwing driven conspiracy narrative to portray the first Black president as a rage-filled, foreign-born, Kenyan anti-colonial, radical Islamic infiltrator whose upbringing in anti-capitalist, communist, community organizing, needed exposure so the public understood his true secret anti-American, Marxist agenda. Similarly, BLM, in conservative thought, has a “Marxist agenda,” 32 as claimed by Mike Gonzalez, senior fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, in, BLM: The Making of a New Marxist Revolution.
The notion that BLM is Marxist–Communist centers on the idea that because its three founders, (Patrisse Cullors, Alicia Garza, and Opal Tometi) are self-identified Marxists, means the movement is foundationally Marxist. Patrisse Cullors, particularly, has been singled out for a 2015 interview in which she identified herself and Alicia Garza as “trained Marxists”; which has been referenced in conservative media as evidence of BLM’s true intent. Brietbart News, for example, claims, Patrisse Cullors “was the protégé of a communist-supporting domestic terrorist for over a decade, spending years in political organizing and absorbing the radical Marxist-Leninist ideology which shaped her worldview.” 33 Similarly, the conservative nonprofit organization, PragerU has used the 2015 clip to expose BLM’s “extreme agenda for America.” 34 Also featured on their website is the conservative intellectual and author, Carol Swain, who asserts BLM “is using Black people to advance a Marxist agenda.” 35
The fallacy in the logic of this claim is exposed by the nature of BLM as decentralized, non-hierarchal, ideologically diverse, spanning the geography of the nation and, after the 2020 murder of George Floyd by police, revived itself as a veritable international movement. Activists who rally under BLM’s banner are not necessarily self-identified Marxists. However, this is beside the point for its opponents who believe, as the CCA did, that one does not have to be explicitly Marxist–Communist in their ideological orientation to be unwittingly aligned with Marxist–Communist plans.
Although anti-communism is still used by conservative rightwing media as a propaganda weapon against Black protest, it does not appear to function as a master frame centering a frame cluster. Instead, the Negro Vices Frame, termed according to CCA language of its era, appears to have reemerged as a master frame focusing anti-BLM propaganda. For segregationists, the Negro Vices Frame was defined by references to inherent Black criminality, disease, sexual deviance, and general immorality. Currently, the emphasis seems to be almost exclusively on Black criminality to counter BLM’s call for attention on police brutality. Conservative media is fixated on urban gun violence, and “Black-on-Black” crime, deploying what we might call a Black-on-Black Crime Master Frame, to counter BLM with the idea that the greatest threat to Black lives is Black people themselves, and not police brutality. The focus on Chicago violence, 36 especially via conservative rightwing juggernaut, Fox News, is possibly the best illustration of how anti-BLM messaging, including the perhaps now less effective Anti-Communist Frame, is streamlined by a present-day Black-on-Black Crime Master Frame. Coding discourse analyses like this study might confirm this hypothesis. Similarly, as in the era of the CCA’s use of anti-communism together with the Negro Vices Frame, “Black-on-Black” crime counternarratives function as disingenuous concerns with Black pathology to distract away from critiques of White supremacist systemic racism. More research on anti-Black protest propaganda should seek to connect contemporary messaging to the past, where other conservative rightwing SMOs beyond the CCA and outside the South, such as the John Birch Society (Mulloy 2014), relied on anti-communism to streamline messaging against Black liberation from White supremacy.
Content discourse analyses of SMO media (whether conservative right-wing or liberal progressive) can benefit from constructing propaganda theme codebooks for quantitative analysis, such as in this study. This can provide more empirical support in identifying the central focus of pre-existing ideology which SMOs inherit but attempt to reconfigure and adapt to contemporaneous sociopolitical currents through what this research calls a master frame cluster. Ideally, coding for propaganda themes occurs through multiple cycles to ensure consistency and is done alongside a deep reading of SMO media content and a thorough examination of relevant literature on that SMO, which helps the researcher better grasps how to analyze its discourse for propaganda themes.
Supplemental Material
Supplemental Material - “Communist Controlled Black Barbarism”: The Citizen’s Councils of America’s Anti-Communist Master Frame Cluster and the Renovation of White Supremacist Ideology
Supplemental Material for “Communist Controlled Black Barbarism”: The Citizen’s Councils of America’s Anti-Communist Master Frame Cluster and the Renovation of White Supremacist Ideology by Devon A. Wright in Social Currents
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
Dr. Cedric Deleon, Professor of Sociology & Labor Studies, University of Massachusetts Amherst.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Supplemental Material
Supplemental material for this article is available online.
Notes
References
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
