Clifford Mason's 1968 New York Times Editorial: A Commentary of Sidney Poitier as a Civil Rights Movement Leader

Clifford Mason is largely critical of Sidney Poitier’s acting roles in his 1968 editorial for the New York Times due to Poitier’s race often being stripped from his identity in many of his films. Mason argues that Poitier embodies a nonthreatening asexual black manhood to white society. In most of his films, there is an innate purity to Poitier’s characters, which is problematic, because it holds African Americans to unrealistic social standards. Furthermore, Poitier does not intimidate the sanctity of white supremacy in many of his films due to his character’s subservience to white characters. Moreover, Poitier also embodies this asexual aspect in order to confront the topic of interracial relationships from a “respectful” viewpoint. Mason goes on to claim that Poitier should have been more regretful of more of his films as perpetuating stereotypes.

However, Mason’s standpoint is complicated by Poitier’s personhood as a symbol of the Civil Rights Movement. Although problematic, Poitier’s disconnect from his racial identity is what appeals to a leftist white audience. His success as a black actor marks Poitier as a figure at the forefront of the Civil Rights Movement even though Poitier was never registered to vote or actively organized on behalf of activism. Rather, Poitier seems to have pride in his blackness, but is also comfortable being in dialogue with the white elite institution. It has even been argued that figures like Poitier made it possible for leaders such as Obama to become successful through this nonthreatening identity of black manhood.

I argue that there are moments where Poitier breaks through racial tension in his films. Albeit, Poitier cannot act on behalf of all black people, but he does confront white supremacy and his blackness in his films. Even Mason acknowledges a moment in which Poiter’s character was allowed to retaliate at the face of racism, straying away from stereotypically characterized Poitier roles of a calm and resolved demeanor. Arguably, it is Poitier’s cast type, which made moments of racial tension culminate onto a full confrontation of racism in film. Potentially, Poitier paved the way to slowly address racism into what it is today theatrically.