they have a fabulous exhibit looking at secession. and now, i'm quite confident that 20 years ago that narrative would have been all about the f that would have been all about that. not now. those exhibits show all the complexity of virginia politicians that we saw in the presence of mine enemies. a book we didn't read. so it has pro, it has con, it has vividly displayed a group of virginia politicians, who, of course, seceded on their own from virginia to create west virginia. so the narrative may actually be moving a little bit. although there is this statue, and i realize this is hard to see. this is a statue that is called brothers. it was installed in the virginia capital in 2011.

it depicts this mythical encounter of brothers, one fighting for the union, one for the confederacy. they're embracing. if you're close enough you could see the union soldier has real shows, the southern soldier's shoes are falling apart. it is brand-new. it's next to, or across the hall from the plaques that talk about secession in a complicated way. but even though i think that this is very much all about reconciliationist memory, i don't know how you could possibly be more about reconciliationist memory than this, i do think that the narratives are changing and much more complicated. we had a candid conversation about slavery. we had a candid conversation about the ways in which the end of slavery became part of the union mission during the war. we had a capped identification conversation about reconstruction. public narratives are shifting a little bit. but i was also kind of curious,

and i only had a little bit of time to do some research for this. virginia, of course, is the northern part of the south. i'm not sure virginians want to hear it that way. but virginia is almost border land country. we see from ed ayers' book, it's right there on the cusp until lincoln calls for troops to put down the rebellion. a good chunk in virginia is not interested in secession. but if you go to richmond, you can see other kinds have changed. so this is monument avenue. who's been to richmond? not many of you? monument avenue is sort of the pantheon of confederate greatness. one statue after another. i can't even begin to show scale. this is huge. that's jeff davis up on top there. there's one for robert e. lee. but in the 1990s, there was one for arthur ashe. as kind of the -- as richmond became a more diverse city,

people argued there should be something on monument avenue that does not reflect that segregationist past. the result was this arthur ashe statue, which is pretty big. not as big as jeff davis, but it's pretty big. it's pretty large. so moving away from virginia, though, i'm sort of curious -- yeah, matt? >> in doing a paper, i actually came across an article that was in the southern -- southeastern geographer, and the article explored the symbolic meaning of lee to the city. this is about richmond. it is now mostly african-american. and the argument was that, i guess they had re-done the canal area. there's this big mural of robert e. lee there. and it's like the african-american population demanded that it be taken down. and so it does seem like there is a real expression of

political power in that city now. >> well, it's an interesting place. it does come up. if you go, i also highly recommend the museum of the confederacy. it's a fascinating place in its own right. its bookstore is fascinating. it is not -- you might imagine being up here in new england, you might imagine it is completely going to be committed to the lost cause memory, but it's not. what's interesting about it is jefferson davis' white house is what it's called and the museum of the confederacy are smack dab in the middle of a massive hospital complex. so if you go to it, you have a largely african-american city. you have a very diverse population. as you walk to it. and then when you get to the museum of the confederacy, suddenly everyone around you is white, and older. it's a very clear demographic shift.

>> but it's just interesting, again, for -- to equate it, or to look at it from connecticut's point of view. >> yes. >> i forget where it was, but the piquaut, i think stonington had this big monument to the victory over the piquauts. and now they're a very powerful force in connecticut politics. and i believe they had -- they were able to muster enough political support to get that monument taken down. >> i don't know about that one. >> but a point of the fact as groups start to exert certain political power, they're able to change the narrative, and change the memory of any particular given event. >> it's certainly about power. sometimes it's raw political power. across the board. but sometimes it's also the power of the changing narrative. which you sort of hope historians are part of. we don't want to be immodest, because we noticed, speaking on behalf of professional

historians, we notice a lot of people pay no attention to what we have to say. we have noticed this. i think scholarship does move things ever so slightly. it is probably also the case that we are looking for narratives that fit better who we are today. and that may mean taking some monuments down. it may mean rethinking them. i think i mentioned in this class, the classes start to blur, that for many, many years new orleans had a series of schools named for john mcdonough who gave a fabulous fortune to the city of new orleans in the 19th century. he gave the money to be used on -- to be used for schooling. quote, without regard for cast or color. new orleans got half the money, baltimore got the other half. they both created non-segregated schools. i believe there are no longer john mcdonough schools in new orleans, because the name was synonymous with segregation. there's a decent sized john mcdonough statue, though.

so i went looking. i went looking for kind of more memory. and i have to say that it's actually very, very hard to look for civil war commemoration memories in new england outside of connecticut. it's a little -- even as somebody from a border state, it's -- the civil war is less visible, it's less present. like i said, you grew up near robert e. lee park, you can't not know something, right? but in new england, it's very, very different. the narrative here is all about abolition. the whole notion of the civil war being a war to free the slaves, that's got a lot to do with new england's abolitionist's memory of itself. i went looking. it's got nothing to do with civil war reality. so i went looking. my first hit was fascinating to me. and i will share. april, 1864, a battle at poison springs in arkansas. and these two plaques are old plaques that commemorate a

confederate victory over union troops. now, it is an interesting battle, because there was a reenactment two weeks ago, and i wish i was there, because i have a question. poison springs was a fairly minor skirmish in the grand scheme of things. but what happened after poison springs, the picture may not show this, but the battle was between confederate troops and the first kansas colored infantry. okay? and after the battle, both union and confederate accounts demonstrate that confederate soldiers murdered surviving black soldiers. all right? like ft. pillow, smaller scale. it fascinates me to no end that washington county, arkansas, reenacted the battle. created a group of african-american -- created a

reenactment of the first kansas colored to reenact the battle. the question is, what did they do at the end of the battle? and i am curious. the -- one of the folks involved in the reenactment is a state official. i'm going to write him and ask. but even without knowing that, even without knowing what they did with the massacre, it tells us something, i think, about the public narrative that you can go to washatau county and have a reenactment of a battle between white troops and black troops. that is put on by the local historical society, enchampioned on the state's civil war commemoration commission. one or two more pictures of the battle. here's my last thing. so i wanted to talk together about what we think will happen with the civil war bicentennial. we should keep it fairly brief because we're running out of

time. here's what i think is going to happen. at least a start. i think one of the big questions is going to be diversity. because i think we can see that the narrative has changed. at some level. all right? we all generally accepted that slavery is tied to the cause of the civil war. we all tend to see that emancipation, and the disintegration of slavery driven by african-americans themselves changes the nature of the war, changes the nature of the conflict. at a professional level, i think those things are not going to change much. whether or not the public narrative moves further, or private narrative moves further is open to question. what happens in the bicentennial? i don't know. but i think it will be shaped by two things. one is the changing diversity of the country. because it is already the case that huge numbers of americans have no familial tie, even

distantly, to the civil war. and the other is, i'm not sure that the political lessons of the civil war will translate as well in 50 years. but i'm not sure. but let's open it up to you guys. what do you think it will look like in 50 years? i assure you, dr. warshower and i will have nothing to do with it. >> i don't want to make it all political in a powerful thing that is not memory, but as the demographics of the country change, i think the memory is going to shift. i think what year, but it will be long before the 200th anniversary. you're going to have where the white is not going to be a clear majority in this country. i think that will probably affect how the memory of the war is portrayed. >> john? >> to go on that, i think the

reconciliation thing is going to be very much absent, or very much less stated because of the growing diversity. you see the changing demographics in areas where the lost cause are the strongest, and places like that. there's going to be less of that divide between north and south as you see immigration and other factors go into it. >> i'm going to be fascinated to see what happens in new england. because i've talked a lot about the south. but i'm actually not sure what civil war memory is going to look like in new england, because i think it already is not that visible. if it wasn't for a very active state level commemoration commission, i'm not sure what they would be doing in connecticut right now. connecticut strikes me as being the new england state that's doing a lot. but will there be a bicentennial commission? what will it do? how many of the sites that we talk about will be gone? even now, we talk about the battlefields that are disappearing.

it will be interesting if we have kind of more of an emancipationist memory. it will raise some interesting questions. we talk all about the anniversaries of the civil war. but we never talk about the anniversary of reconstruction. so i think there's still a limit, right? and it may be the case that we have crossed -- sort of crossed a rubicon with slavery. that doesn't mean we've dealt with racism. it doesn't mean we've dealt with that part. if we were to commemorate reconstruction, i don't know where we would do it or how. but i know it would be a lot more uncomfortable than recreating the battle at poison springs. overall. any questions? john? yeah? >> i think to approach reconstruction in the future, you might have to look at the civil rights movement in the 1960s and say this is a long

lesson learned by our country. >> it might be that the civil rights commemoration might be more important of the 200th, it may be bigger than the 200th of the civil war. that would be interesting. jamie? >> i think at the federal level, slow recognition of the -- i think they put up a portrait of the rebel also in the capital, i want to say. there is sort of, as much as the public understands reconstruction, it's very messy. that's going to be up there forever. and it's sort of -- it's 150 years late, but an attempt to say this happened. and this is what it was. >> yeah. right. austin? >> i'm going to take a shot in the dark. maybe in about 50 years' time, the country, or, you know, the nation will be more willing to talk about the negative side, like reconstruction, which is which is pretty a bleak period of history.

just a case in point, with my paper for your class, about the little bighorn, i learned more about the western history as a whole. and it's changed the narrative merican side.ged the narrative and the nasty aspects of western expansion, i believe, they now have like -- the sites are a memorial to the sand creek massacre, or the washia, which is one of custer's battles against the indians, which was -- you can argue was a slaughter, or massacre. but it's just a more open -- it was brought to the public light and not shunned away for the turner thesis, so to speak. that's the way i see it. >> i think i will be pushing up daisies, so i don't think i will know. but anyway, that's all for this evening. i have one quick announcement.

that is, papers due one week from today, unless you're also in dr. jones' class, where you're doing the double paper. thank you, everybody. >> thank you. >> thank you. you've been watching "american history tv's" "lectures in history" series. you can watch other lectures every saturday evening at 8:00 p.m. and 12:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span3. the 19th amendment which allowed women the right to vote. hosted by the national archives in washington, d.c. we'll have that live at 7:00 p.m. eastern here on cspan3. now to oregon state university, for a lecture on the

civil rights movement in the 1960s, and the anti-poverty efforts of president lyndon johnson. the class is led by history professor marisa chappell. this is 1 hour 45 minutes. >> so, today we're talking about the war on poverty, and the urban crisis in the late 1960s in the united states. and we're looking at the ways in which the black freedom movement raised the issues of poverty, and of racial disadvantage. really to a level of national attention, and national action that we haven't really seen at any time since. so i want to start just by -- well, first i should lead you through the outline quickly. we'll talk about the ways in which americans at the time thought about black poverty. how did they interpret it. what causes did they think about. and then, what solutions,

therefore, did they turn to. so we'll talk about designing a war on poverty. the choices that the federal government made when the johnson administration announced that it was going to wage a war on poverty. and then we'll talk a little bit about the so-called riots that occurred each summer in the late 1960s in african-american communities. in cities. and the ways in which discussions about those really reflected different attitudes about racial disadvantage. and then finally, we'll discuss imagining alternatives. so some of the ways in which activists offered their own ideas about what might help overcome racial disadvantage and poverty. and i have here a quote from a. phillip randolph, freedom from oppression, freedom from political oppression. we've seen this throughout, right, that economic demands. demands for economic opportunity and economic security have been

really important to the black freedom struggle, and so we're going to see them kind of reappear here in significant form. so let me show you a couple of slides. these are statistics from the census. and here we have a comparison of white and black poverty in 1959 and 1968. not a hard graph to interpret. what do you see? cara? >> in 1968, poverty had declined a lot. but still black poverty is a lot higher than white poverty. and it's still probably like that today. so there was change, but it wasn't -- they're not equal. >> yes. so we see progress for both groups over this time. but as you say, we continue to

see a disparity. any other comments on this graph? all right. i want to show you a little more detail here. and i want you to tell me what you see in this graph. pedro? >> so, for -- you can tell with gender, there's a disparity where the poverty is, even among races. but with black females, they're among the most highest. well, actually -- yeah, among the most highest. they actually did decline slowly, but you can see even within race, there's also intersections within sex. so it sort of gives you a slight switch on race and gender and where it intersects. >> absolutely. the combined effects of race and gender on shaping economic opportunity and economic outcome, right? and i don't know if this is startling to you, but 1968, you

can see still over 50% -- these are households headed by. so over 50% of households headed by african-american women were in poverty, or officially under the federal poverty line. pauline? >> why is it that black women are more in poverty than any other, like, race or gender? >> that's a really great question. let's talk about it. what do you think? ashley? >> i think that it's a combination of probably -- well, probably lack of being able to find employment, being both a person of color and also a woman. so as you can see, like the white female in 1968 is on par with the black male. it's like a double whammy of discrimination. >> discrimination in the labor market. lack of access to well-paying jobs, both by sex and by race. and access to child care. a really good point. women's role in raising

children, and the time and resources that that takes. other thoughts? cara? >> well, also the time period is the same time that a lot of our articles we're talking about. so if it was like a single black woman, probably in poverty trying to raise a family, they were cut -- they weren't allowed aid to help raise their families. that's what's talked about in the articles that we read about, the struggle for them to receive government aid and the discrimination that they faced. >> access to the social safety net. we'll talk a little bit more about that, review that in a few minutes. but remember, the social safety net was segmented. by race and by gender. >> i think to touch on what they both said, i think it was also like, it was cheaper for the access to child care, for women of color.

it was like basically, you're not working -- you're working to pay for child care rather than just having money to, you know, cover your household. most of it was going to child care. and not enough was going to the actual household. >> for women who even had access to paid child care, right? black women were typically doing the paid child care for white women. we didn't have a proliferation of child care centers at the time. a lot of this had to be informal through kinship. difficult to arrange, absolutely. any other thoughts on this intersection of race and gender in terms of creating poverty? okay. so, i want you to keep these graphs in mind as we talk today. let's turn to the ways in which americans in the 1960s framed the problem of black poverty. americans were talking about poverty more broadly in the early 1960s.

but because as we've seen, we have this mass movement among african-americans. it's making black poverty particularly visible. and we also see african-americans in cities really challenging the economic manifestations of racism, right? so this is very much in the public eye. so let's look at daniel moynahan. so moynahan is a social scientist. he is a racial liberal. think back to our discussion of racial liberalism. he is secretary of labor in the johnson administration. he's a key policy maker among the federal officials who are determining what the federal government's response would be to poverty. and you read a short excerpt from a report he wrote called the negro family, a case for national action. this was a report meant for internalized, to convince other policy makers and president

johnson of the problem. and except that it was leaked. and it was made public. and so let's talk about what moynahan has to say about black poverty in 1965. cara? >> well, it talks about stuff we've learned about in other classes, about how black males just throughout history had been oppressed, and humiliated, and kind of like not the traditional -- yeah, the traditional role that males are supposed to have, as like big strong, like father figures. they talked about how that created a really unstable family environment. and led to crime, higher rates of crime. i don't know how i personally felt about this article, i thought it was a little bit messed up and a little bit sexist.

but it was interesting to look at. >> you were not the only one to notice that. thank you. other comments? what sort of language does moynahan use to describe the problem? >> deterioration of the family. >> deterioration of the family, yep. other phrases? >> a quote that kind of stuck out. as jobs became more and more difficult to find, the stability of the family became more and more difficult to maintain. >> yeah. and stability of family, right? a good phrase there. as jobs for who became more and more difficult to find? african-americans. which african-americans? >> males. >> males, right.

the stability of the family. a stable family here is a male breadwinner family, right? and so this causes a number of problems. if black men can't find jobs, what are the problems that this causes, according to moynahan? scott? >> the female has to become the moneymaker. >> yes. >> it says a fundamental fact of negro american life is often reversed roles of husband and wife. >> yes. so if the woman is doing the earning, somehow the family -- the roles are reversed and the family is an unstable family. and it leads to -- did anybody get the language of a matriarchal family structure, right? so that's deemed here a damaged family. right? so if the father's around, he's psychologically damaged, because he can't fulfill the role that men are supposed to fulfill in society as being the family breadwinner. so he's psychologically damaged. the availability of welfare

benefits, which we'll talk a lot about later, also creates a problem, and contributes to the matriarchal family structure, according to moynahan. how does that happen? we have this program aid to dependent children. ashley? >> i know it came up in the reading last week about how sometimes, like fathers would, like, step out of the picture so that the family could qualify for that aid. and then so then that would leave it to be a female head of household. >> that's right. so it's both that the man is psychologically damaged because he can't be a family breadwinner, so the mother becomes the breadwinner, and the man might actually leave, he might desert his family so that his children can be fed. right? through access to welfare

benefits. keep that in mind, because that becomes a key argument against social welfare measures, right? that it's causing -- now it's welfare, right? he's saying it's job discrimination, but it's a short trip to saying the availability of welfare for mothers is creating damaged families, right? okay. so moynahan says that initially, the problem is black men's inability to be breadwinners. but that this problem could become self-perpetuating. right? and that's an important part of his analysis, too. so moynahan here is really -- well, i have one more question based on moynahan. we watched "a raisin in the sun." cara's jumping ahead. >> i made some notes about

"raisin in the sun" when i was reading the article, how the grandma was this really strong, like, woman in the family who controls everything. you could see the son who was the dad trying to break out of that control, and find his own power in life. and be like the man of the family. i was thinking about that when i >> yeah. other comments on that, the film? pedro? >> i think something that she mentioned was like, what would your father do? the connections back to his father, so the expectations of actually heading their household, because it seemed like she was the head of the household but she wanted him to take ownership of the household and sort of be head of the household like his father was. it seemed like he was lost. and he didn't know what to do. the expectations, and him either fulfilling the expectations or just leaving the picture. especially with the one where, i was a little confused, i don't know if he was supposed to tell

his wife to not have an abortion? >> right. his mother was saying, tell her, right? and he didn't. and he -- yeah, he's clearly struggling. he's just in pain this whole time. yeah, pauline? >> i feel like the son had an issue -- well, like the son and the mother had issues. because they saw it differently. the man that she expected him to be is not the man he wanted to be. it was just the man she expects him to be. it was like she wanted him to mirror the -- like his father. but at the same hand, he wasn't his father. and like that idea of, like, them coming, like migrating, is completely different from the lifestyle that they were actually living. >> right. it's an interesting generational discussion, too, right? because the mother and father had migrated from the south to

chicago. and so their expectations were shaped by that migration. and then their son was born in chicago, in the ghetto, right? and so his expectations are different than theirs. and he feels -- yeah, he feels this tension about the role that his father played. a few of you were able to see the whole film. does he -- how does it end? does he become the man that his mother wants him to be? latrice? >> i think he stands up for himself. he almost sees what his mother is saying. like i want you to be your father. i think she meant that morally, like he would have stood up for us, not let the white people push us around. i think he got that gist at the end when he acted on impulse and called that back over to sell the house. and then the more he was out there, he thought about, no, my son's right in front of me. i can't let him see me bow down to them. because i don't want him to be that way. i think he starts to understands why his mother wanted him to be up to those expectations, because he has a little boy looking up to him.

him standing up for himself at the end and telling the guy no, we are going to live there, i think that made his mom proud. that's why she kind of conceded at the end, what do you have to say? he's the head of the family, it's him now. i thought that was cool. it showed that he did end up being like his father like she wanted him to, but then again, he took his own stance. cause it's like a different time period. >> the way that he sort of came into his manhood, he was chasing this dream of a liquor store and business ownership, right? but the way he comes into his manhood is by challenging racism. right? challenging discrimination, and saying, no, we're not going to take it. we're going to move into that suburb. so similar themes here from lorraine hansberry, where she's an african-american activist. she's on the left. moynahan's a racial liberal. and here what we see is what the historian darrell michael scott

has called the politics of pathology. i want you to think about that for a minute. what was the argument that swayed earl warren and the supreme court in the brown versus board of education case? cara? >> wasn't it the dolls? >> the dolls? which proved what? >> which proved that black children preferred the white dolls over the ones that looked more like them. so it showed some kind of deep-seeded, like self-hating kind of thing and moved the court. but that -- i don't know. that is interesting. because that's not -- i don't know what else to say. >> i think maybe what's going on there is, is there a problem with this kind of an argument. we'll definitely get there, right? but you see the politics, the pathology playing out in brown versus board of education. what's wrong with racism and discrimination and segregation

is it has a damaging psychological effect on african-americans. >> i remember what i was going to say. it doesn't show the -- like what caused the racism, and the bigger problem of like institutions that are keeping it in place. it's just showing racism is bad, they don't like themselves, we need to fix this, schools should be integrated. but it doesn't open the blight on the real issues, that needed massive government change and stuff like that. >> for some racial liberals, the hope was that by emphasizing this damage that racism and segregation did to african-americans, that would mobilize government action. so in other words, they're using this politics of pathology to try to get liberal measures in place, right? to try to push for equal opportunity, to try to push for jobs programs, et cetera. as we see, it's a problematic

kind of an argument. so moynahan's drawing on this framework then, as i said. remember that the post-war period is also a period where psychology is really popular. people think in psychological terms, and so it makes sense that this kind of argument is being made. we see this across the spectrum. charles silverman, crisis in black and white, he's a journalist, the disorganization of the family is reflected in the disorganization of negro life as well. absence of the inner strength and self-discipline necessary, if one is to be the master rather than the servant of his environment, in a competitive society. so the damage imagery, very, very often relies on a certain gender and family structure, right? the damage to the family, the damage to the man that creates damage to the family. so you see racial liberals, social scientists, black and

white, writing about this, making these arguments about family structure, and about pathology. many of them, again, we're hoping that this would convince the government to institute fixes to economic discrimination, that would enable african-americans to reestablish a patriarchal family structure, which would then have their children not become criminals, right, and damaged and perpetuate this cycle. so racial liberals then are using damage imagery to promote government intervention to address african-american economic disadvantage. one other framework for thinking about black poverty in the 1960s, and it's related to this politics of pathology, is the idea of culture of poverty. this idea of a culture of

poverty comes most explicitly from anthropologist oscar lewis. and lewis wrote a book, initially he was writing about a mexican family in a small village in mexico. and what he argued in this book is that the poverty that this family had lived in for generations had created a pathological culture. or a culture of poverty. so that these poor people had different values, a different way of living than non-poor people did. and he had a list of like 50 different characteristics. they were things like tendency toward violent, and inability to defer gratification. and all these sort of negative values that got passed on generation to generation. so again, even if you argue as lewis did and moynihan did that the origination of the problem

was being kept out of opportunity, he's arguing again that this culture become self-perpetuating. what causes children to be poor? it's the culture of their families and their communities that causes them to be poor. he wrote then a book about a puerto rican family in san juan in new york, a similar argument about a culture of poverty. this was challenged by a lot of researchers and social scientists who did a lot of research seeing is there really a culture of poverty? even though it was challenged quite robustly, the idea really was widespread and it became important to the ways in which federal policy makers designed programs to overcome poverty. so it's cultural characteristics rather than what kara is pointing to, what carmichael and hamilton would call cultural

racism creating these economic problems. amidst the debate in the 1950s and 1960s, when americans thought about poverty and when they thought about a lower class, they increasingly envisioned african-americans. nationian glazer put it this way in '63, terms such as "culturally deprived" and "disadvantaged," are only euphemisms for the negro child. even though the federal government when president kennedy was sort of thinking about anti-poverty programs, he was thinking about appalachia and whites in appalachia, but very quickly, right, black poverty became a central element in federal policy makers' approaches. so let me ask you this. if you were a federal anti-poverty planner, an aide to president johnson, and he comes to you and he says, what should we do to fix poverty, black

poverty in general and black poverty in particular? what would you advise? kara? >> you know, having representatives from the actual poor populations say what they need for their specific communities rather than, like, massive government things that don't exactly know the specific problems for certain areas. that was talked about in one of the articles. i forgot which one. i think the bigger articles, how the big programs by johnson didn't -- the voices of the actual people their programs would affect weren't heard at all. it's a good strategy to go about fixing these issues, see what they actually need themselves. >> let them design their own approaches. >> with their help, with the aide and money and funding to go with that. >> okay. other ideas.

how can we stop poverty? fix poverty? scott. >> equal education. >> okay. >> setting the bar for other people so they can get a good education and possibly turning into jobs. >> okay. >> providing opportunities. >> yeah. >> so there's not equal education at this time, right? what are the inequalities of education in the mid '60s? >> there's a lack of quality in education, like the schools are run down, like don't have enough staff. some of them, i think i read somewhere they don't even have a high school for some african-americans. and that's a very key part in education. i think, yeah. >> yeah. it's clear there's plenty of

evidence, right, that separate was not equal. separate was very unequal. not only in the south, which had had legislative segregation, but also because of the metropolitan development outside the south. pedro. >> so to go along with the first one, sort of give like certain communities the necessary money so they can do what they need to. instead of giving to larger organizations, give it to the direct community and them deciding what they need to do. and then going with the education, for some students, i guess they don't have -- if they don't have the necessary food, they are not actually, you know, if they are not healthy or if they don't even have like a breakfast, how are they supposed to function throughout the day? having access to nutritious food.

>> okay. some kind of program of food assistance. >> finding representatives who would work with them. because even if you give them everything they need, they are not going to know what to, like, i guess to correctly do with their funds and stuff. so they still need that leadership just so that someone is there to help them through it all. he they're not like just on their own. >> rose. >> one important thing i think would be the continuation of helping the programs and kind of like going back and evaluating, okay, what can we do better and what should we change with the program instead of just giving up on it completely. seeing what they're doing right, seeing what they could improve instead of just like letting them kind of planning all of this, putting so much work into it then like, oh, it didn't work

and just not even doing anything about it. >> okay. kara and then ashley and then pauline. >> i think what was discussed in the black power a$b$y about an emergence of a new middle class. so in skilled positions like working with corporations, i think a way to help poverty to expand those corporations have more like job training to help actually like entrance level positions for people to come out of poverty and just start working in these massive corporations in the cities where they live. i think it makes sense. >> all right. ashley? >> mine was about job training, too. one of the articles we got for our paper was they were talking about how job training was like one of the most successful ways for upward mobility in their communities, teaching them

valuable job skills instead of just like, you know, pushing them out of the conveyer belt of high school where they are not fully literate. so the job training. >> good education and job training combined there. yeah. okay. pauline then pedro. >> so i was thinking, i remember the slcc and -- i forgot the other one. >> snip? >> yeah. i feel like all the programs should be on one page versus separate pages. >> you mean all the activists, the movement activists. some kind of unified -- that is less of a government issue though. united movement. >> when you wrote all these down, i was like tying them all

together. so the expert assistance, job training, lack of funding, you can create programs and employ people within a certain community so they can have employment and run a program that is for them so it's sort of tying all these things together. if they have a program in the community, it's run by the community members, not somebody from the outside. so again stressing on the job training and making sure they're, you know, trained to the highest level so they can run their program to the highest level. >> okay. scott. >> is that what the cdgm. >> community development group of mississippi. >> okay, yeah. that was a really interesting thing to read. that was pretty cool. >> it sort of embodies, and i'm guessing influenced some of your answers, right? that notion of maximum feasible

participation. yes, kara? >> so kind of going along with equal education and job training would be like equal job opportunity because, like we talked about before, even like black people who had the highest education, all they could do was be a teacher, basically. if they could have more job opportunities they would have better jobs that they could actually have instead of just being a teacher. >> a particular issue for racial minorities, right? 64 we get a prohibition on racial discrimination and employment. it takes a long time for an enforcement. so opening up access. >> i think a lot of these things have to be implemented by the law. so put in that law system. because then the mlk article, he talks about how the prime minister of india and similar problem they have with the

untouchables and most of the thin things, the indian constitution which specifies discrimination against untouchables is a crime punishable by imprisonment. through that they develop housing opportunities in villages heavily inhabited by untouchables. this system isn't something they create but implemented in a reenforced law. >> yeah. king has very particular ideas about what kind of law. definitely an enforcement of anti-discrimination, but also more government assistance, right, in terms of building communities. yeah. any other thoughts on how you would solve poverty? rose. >> one i think we missed was housing. some equal chances with that and not having such the segregated neighborhoods. then they would just call those

slums with the crime rate and everything. just more equal chances for housing. >> yeah. let's briefly, this is a and le some of the processes that self told us about in american babylon about metropolitan development and how it was that african-americans in oakland sort of got stuck in poor inner city neighborhoods. latrice? >> well, i remember from those readings that they started making policies, and as they expanded and took jobs out of certain areas and put them in others, along with that came more expensive housing and they kind of went through loopholes to exclude african-americans. so, like, they would destroy an african-american, you know, majority house setting, complex, and put something more expensive there, so they were all forced to move because they couldn't afford it.

that kind of just expanded and kept them in their pockets. i think that had a big thing to do with it. the types of housing policies they made, that they didn't allow black people to live in their homes. that contributed a lot to keeping them in the slums they were kept into. >> so racial covenants keeping african-americans out of certain areas and urban renewal programs that targeted the slums, minority neighborhoods and destroyed affordable housing. karra, rose, and kirra. >> like we read before in one of the articles, if they had white tenants they had to pay, they would make the rent way too high to pay for. so just fixing that somehow, i guess. >> yeah, african-americans ended up paying more for housing, right? they did not have access through -- because of red lining because of fha policies and private lender policies did not have access to the capital,

right, to the credit that allowed a whole swath of white working class americans to access single family housing in the suburbs which allowed them to have wealth accumulation, et cetera. rose? >> i was actually going so say something similar to that, but i think another big thing was, like, how white people were afraid of black people moving into their neighborhoods. also, what was -- how they would bring in black families to scare the neighborhood. >> block busting. >> yeah. it's just, like, ridiculous. i think fear controlled a lot of that too. people just were afraid of what they didn't understand and weren't accepting at all of that. >> the fear that property values are going to go down, a self-fulfilling prophesy here, right, that property values will go down if african-americans move into your neighborhood. kirra and latrice. >> just the other side of that fear from the black perspective.

there was a lot of violence against african-americans when they wanted to move out of their neighborhoods that they were forced into from violence just historically when there was the massive waves of migration up north from south when they were freed from slavery with all the job opportunities in the north. first of all, the factories were in the cities. so first that moved them into the inner cities. when blacks became populated, when people wanted to expand, there are riots and bombings and so many incentives to stay with your tight-knit community rather than move out. so that kept -- i forgot what the original question we were answering, but it kept people in the cities. that's what we were talking about, right? >> yeah. >> so many people were talking. >> okay. latrice? >> so kind of based off her fear thing on a different topic. fear had a big play in larger

organizations. like in amy jordan's thing, the oeo, they were providing all the these funds. then they got scared by the politics of it that they started giving the money that they were giving to this program to other, more federally funded programs that were -- so they could be on the good side of the politics and stuff. i think that fear definitely paid a big role in the types of assistance they got because the people ahead of those programs were scared to give them money because they were afraid that they were going to get the backlash of it. so i think that played a huge role in keeping, you know, blacks in poverty. >> so politics. yeah, and we'll talk about those articles a little more later. so let's -- now, we've talked about some of the reasons that african-americans had higher rates of poverty. you've offered some suggestions for how you might approach the problem. let's think about what the johnson administration did and if they took your advice. so designing a war on poverty.

so lyndon johnson in 1964 in his state of the union address declares this war on poverty. he says, unfortunately many americans live on the outskirts of hope. some because of their poverty and some because of their color. and all too many because of both. so, see, he's drawing those things together here for us. our task is to help replace their despair with opportunity. the administration today, here, and now declares unconditional war on poverty in america. expectations, right? wow. you're going to eliminate poverty. a war, right, this martial rhetoric. sounds like you're going to really, really go at it. so job training. what if there aren't jobs there? job creation, this was one

answer, yes, that many african-americans and those on left argued for. and within the johnson administration, secretary of labor willard proposed this. the poverty program must start out with immediate priority, emphasis on employment. the single immediate change, which the poverty program could bring about in the lives of most of the poor, would be to provide the family head with a regular decent paid job. right. so job creation. during the great depression, the federal government had public works, right. it built all this wonderful infrastructure and employed people. a lot of folks were calling for a renewal of public job creation. and when willard proposed this idea in a meeting with the president, he recalled, i have never seen a colder reception from the president. job creation is very expensive.

it's politically difficult because then you're seen as competing with private industry. so private industry doesn't like it. johnson wants to get rid of poverty, but he's not going to go that far, okay. another solution to poverty, which nobody offered, is if somebody's poor, what do they need? money. they need money, right? and some people work and are poor, even if they have a job, right. so a lot of activists and many liberals, many racial liberal by the late '60s were calling for a guaranteed income. that the government should make sure nobody falls below a certain level of poverty. so a guaranteed income. robert lantman of the council of economic advisers for johnson said that probably a politically acceptable program must avoid completely any use of the term

inequality or the term redistribution of income or wealth and a guaranteed income did not have popular support, right. the idea -- well, what would be arguments against a guaranteed income? magali and then joseph and pedro. >> well, from reading the redistribution of income or wealth, that seems very communist. >> yeah. >> so i think the idea of being called a communist when you're trying to fight it, it's like -- >> absolutely, right? we're still in a cold war at this point. definitely. yeah? >> -- incentives -- if they're not going to have to work for it. >> absolutely. long-standing worry you're going to erode the work ethic, right? people are naturally lazy. so if you just give them an income, they're not going to have any incentive to work for it, yeah. did you didhave a response?

>> i was going to say the same thing. they're just going to be really dependent on the guaranteed income. >> yeah. >> and not feel likely to work. >> this idea of dependence. then you'll have the taxpayers working so hard to pay lazy people not to work. how is that fair? kara and latrice. >> where does the government get most of their money from anyway? taxes. wealthier people or hard-working people may be less willing to give up their hard-earned money in taxes for people. i don't know. it's kind of -- it's still an issue today whenever there's -- when people -- i can't -- but yeah, it's still an issue today. >> right. we saw about the kind of homeowner politics. the taxpayers, right. the property tax issue became huge. yeah? >> mine is more like a question. if we just gave everybody money, wouldn't that lower the value of the u.s. dollar?

>> um -- >> i mean, because -- >> do we have an economics major in here? 'j=um question. you can't just give everybody money. they'll just go buy everything and -- >> it's not one of the -- i've looked in my own research at this campaign to get a guaranteed income in the late '60s, early '70s. that's, in fact, not one of the arguments that i saw against it. there were a lot of arguments against it, and i never saw that one. so it's an interesting question. kara? >> i'm not really an expert on this, but i just learned about it in another class. it might be because of the economics at that time in america. it was just a different system. so the u.s. dollar was really, really strong at that time anyway. it was pegged directly to gold. so i think that the economic issue probably didn't even cross their mind because it wasn't,

like, america was so strong. just at that particular time in history. >> and i sort of can't think off the top of my head. remember that the social safety net was put in place not just because roosevelt and the new dealers didn't want people to starve. it was put into place because they have an idea of how to maintain economic growth. get money into people's hands so they can spend it. so in that way, a guaranteed income would actually fit very well into that model of economic growth. ashley? >> during this time, was there an established minimum wage? >> there was. the federal minimum wage was established in the 1930s with the fair labor standards act. remember when we talked about the social safety net, we talked about some groups that were left out. c>v domestic workers. >> yes. >> so could they also to fight

poverty, they could increase people's pay so that if only one -- maybe one person in the household was working, they wouldn't fall below poverty. that's still an issue now, even idç you work full time for minimum wage, you're still below poverty level. >> yeah, so raise the minimum wage, right. more government regulation of a labor market. make employers pay a certain wage.make employers pay a certa wage. you know from you know from contemporary cs te politics there are all kindsre i arguments against.t that. employers won't hire as many b people. that's certainly one approach too. all right. so if the johnson administration did not institute a guaranteed income, it did not create jobs, what did it do? it actually did some of the things you're talking about here. so the federal war on poverty included sort of three themes.ee there was some expansion of thef social safety net. so two important health programs

established in the 1960s. what are they? does anybody know? medicare and medicaid.re right. remember national universal health insurance.l health care does not happen, ce. right. it's falling victim to charges t of socialized medicine, et ocia cetera. it has too manyli enemies. but we do get programs to provide federal aid for health care for two particular populations. medicare targets the aged. medicaid targets the very poor. so that's an expansion of the social safety net. we also get some food assistance. we geted. food stamps.fo it's not a big program. a b it becomes bigger later. it's not a big program then, but that's part of the expanding tht social safety net. we also get more people -- we get an expansion of social insurance. so remember that under old age d insurance and under unemployment insurance, a lot of groups weret

left out.slowly slowly, gradually, more groups are incorporated and the level t of funding, increases. okay. but that's not the heart of the war on poverty. when we talk about the federal a war on poverty, we usually mean the programs under the economic opportunity act of 1964 that the office of economic rtunit opportunity -- somebody said oeo.oe office of economic opportunity operated. and those were focused on huma capital development. it's not about fixing our economy. it's about fixing poor people.i. educate them. job training.kills get them the skills so they'll be able to earn their way out oa poverty. a hand up, not a hand out. that's the motto of the oeo. and then community action, whicn is its own sort of interesting -- you know, you u'r read about this. so i want to talk about the human capital development aspect here for a minute.

so -- well, hold on a minute. jo we get job core, which was a a residential job training program for young men. disadvantaged young men. we get head start education. get poor children before they enter the school system so they'll have the skills before l they get in to the school system. upward bound work study for higr school and college students. so programs focused on education for the poor. now, given the interpretation of black poverty in particular, who do you think these programs, particularly the job training, targeted. black males, right.mal targeted black men.st so just to give you t a sense o

that, the women's bureau of thee federal government was pushing s really hard for a women's job core. they're like, women need to earn a living too. they finally got one, but it was tiny compared to the men's job core. and it alsored promised to teact women -- teach poor girls family responsibilities. like how to be homemakers and how to be good wives and mothers. the job training offered by the war on povertyon paralleled thed sex-segregated labor market. so so as one brochure offered, job training for men as automechanic heavy equipment, carpentry and electronics, women were offered training for secretary servicesa food services, cosmetology services, and nurses aid. servic it's not surprising the job core is build around this same idea about male poverty, black male s poverty i particular.urpris they rejected childcare. some folks said, maybe as part

of this we should offer childcare. so women will be able to earn a living. that was not part of this either. in fact, head start was not at a all about childcare, right. it was about this remedial education. okay. so "the new york times" editorialized, while mothers ed compose the bulk of the welfare population, it is the deserting father and the social and economic conditions that influence him to desert that is the main factor causing the welfare roles to grow. so even thoughto as afdc rolls e increased and people were kind of hysterical about a welfare we crisis, well, then shouldn't yor target women's poverty? no, the idea was if we train black men so they can be breadwinners, then that will take care of black women's of poverty, right, and black childrens poverty.because because the families won't break up and they'll be supported. okay. king, let's go back to king for a moment and why we can't wait.

1963. talked a little bit about this already. what does king offer as a solution to poverty? kara and then latrice. >> i really liked this excerpt from his book just because not only did he talk about, you know, african-americans and -- a you know, because that's -- you think of poor blacks when you're thinking of the civil rights movement and poverty. but he touches on, you know, heu poor whites. just a whole range of poverty in the united states. and he suggests a bill of rights for the disadvantaged. p so this whole process of helping -- disadvantaged. that includes everybody. it's not just, like -- i just really liked reading this.th he also mentions the urban league in his article. what did he suggest, though?

i'll let someone else talk aboua it, but it's really interesting. >> latrice? >> so i know what i thought wasw most interesting was kindas of f touching on what she said. he didn't just want an uprising of upafrican-americans. he wanted disadvantaged people as a whole to be able to uprise. i think he touched on the fact that you can't just make it equal and expect us to be okay with that. well, what about what happened before we were equal.ike like he used the really good example of, you know, two men starting at a race. if one has 100-year head start, you can't expect them to finish near the same. i think that was a really good analogy. and how he talked about you have to just -- not just give them the opportunity but you have toe also give them the equipment toe be able to seize the opportunity. you pm can't just, oh, here you, but you have no training, you're not able to do this. this

it didn't just come with didn'tj opportunity. it came with preparing for the e opportunity and giving them all of everything they need to do the opportunity. opp so giving them education, givind them better job training. i think that was cool that he n. want to tackle african-americans. he wanted to tackle everyone that was disadvantaged. i think that probably got ahi l of white people on his side.cau you're not just speaking for your kind. you're speaking for everyone. co that was cool. >> it was a politically smart thing to do. patrick then rose. >> i liked that he was actually trying to come up with a solution to it by coming up witt that bill of rights for the disadvantaged.of rig kind of like the g.i. bill. helping these underprivileged people go to work and maybe get to school, a trade school or he university. then they would also have the lg government backing to help themh so they wouldn't have to try to do it on their own because they didn't have is the means to do it on their own.wn so to have some kind of government help that would help them.

he said something about where it wouldn't be that big of a burdet on the federal government, state governments because just like r the g.i. billal where it gets pe into by everybody.ever so then everybody can benefit from it. >> right, yeah. rose and then kara. >> i really liked how he kind of related it also to the indian st structure and how he was talking to the prime minister and someone who he was with was asking about discrimination. i guess they said they let -- it it was a tie between an nother untouchable and another person,t they would accept the heuntouc untouchable. and he wase wondering if that ws discrimination. and he said, well, it may be, but this is our way of atoning for the centuries of injustices we've inflicted upon these f people. so he realizes, like -- he realizes that, yeah, we screwed up and we're trying to fix it, i but he's saying and the united e states, it's so different.

they're just kind of like, oh, it already happened.alread like, it's y over.d and we should just forget that g part. now then now we should, like, try equal. but it's like you can't put someone in a box and let them g and just have them on their own and they don't know what to do.> >> okay. kara? >> i think what'sra interesting about this also is, you know, first he's kind of has a racial liberal perspective when he's talking about how -- he says, tg like, certainly the negro has been deprived in addition to being enslaved for two tion t centuries.o like, he kind of brings up the moral argument. like, obviously this is wrong le how they've been treated. but he also kind of has more, not militant, but more rampant activism. when he's talking about, you lk know, what we can actually do w like to fix the whole systemsy a whole in general. so with his programs, it's just interesting because he's a combination of both the stuff

that we've been talking about in all our other glasses, in this writing at least. kinnd it may be a g you y don't recognize so much from ou popular narrative of king, right? his latrice? r >> i like his relations to the o handicapped and to the veterans and how they were so quick to give them opportunity and them programs and you don't dis discriminate against someone because they can't walk.t sot wa you don't discriminate against e someone because of what happened to them at war.ould so why would you do it because i of the color of their skin? so i think he did a good job of showing that relation.f i thought it was kind of funny talked about how the same people that fought for unions it fighting against exactly what we'riaell trying to do. >> so what specifically does he call for? b what is in the bill of rights for theill disadvantaged?disadvn kara? >> well, first there's an econo economic, you know, section, which i have highlighted. but i really liked his social

work section of it. you know, specifically, like, with job training, how to write a job application, how to go apc through an interview process. jt just basic social skills that have been kind of neglected in the past. i mean, sure, lots of people hae them, but just in general, you know, stuff that you might not o know because you've never had a job interview.in your parents have never gone tot a job interview before or iew be written a job application before. so just basic social things. a >> so a massive social services program, right. like serious money into social services. yes, that's one piece of it. ashley? >> he seemed to emphasize pretty heavily the job opportunities for people.nd and he says that, you know, african-americans don't want top live on welfare.live o that there's, you know, not -- there's no, like, honor in that.

and that even when things are desegregated that they still don't have access to many of nst these institutions or even to go out to dinner because they just make enough mon >> yeah.so i >> so in order for them to truly be equal, they need to open up a lot of these opportunities to them. >> so enforcement of civil ci rightsvi policies, right. but beyond that, not only this y massive social work apparatus but full employment, job creation, a guaranteed income for all. so nobody's poor, right.full em this is a pretty robust plan ofn federal investment and overcoming poverty. and the mention of the untouch shls and the mention of the g.ie bill are ways for him to justify, yes, it's for whites, too, but especially treatment, right?ht? compensatory treatment. he says, we can't -- at the very

beginning, he says, it is it is impossible to create a formula r for the future which does not n take intoot account that our society has been doing something special against the negro for hundreds of years. how, then, can he be absorbed into the mainstream of life if we do not do something special for him now? so this is suggesting various os forms of affirmative action to ensure, even if it's special treatment, and he uses the g.i. bill to say, you know, these -- we compensated these veterans as with education and training, right, and loans for homes and businesses, et cetera, because they were deprived for a few years as they went to fight for our country. well, african-americans have beenaf deprivedri for way longe than that, right? so why don't we do that for o that them? scott? fthem. scott. >> so i also found that >> i also found he mentioned the

wagner act w and compared the - you're allowed to organize, ed a like, as a labor group. he said a lot of the designs ert operated in the wagner act may p be the problem of civil rights enforcements during the next t decade. >> yeah, so this is '63. you've seen some of the images of what's happening in '63, right, in the south.the so we need the federal so t governmenthe basically to be mo proactive and to say, these folks have a right to organization. and for the federal government t to beo on their side. yeah. ye okay. so king proposed a bill of king rights for the disadvantaged. national urban league proposes e domestic marshall plan. we have the g.i. bill referred v to. now we have the marshall plan. the united states states spent billions of dollars to rebuild europe after world war ii. why don't they spend billions o dollars to rebuild our cities, s which are crumbling?do

and a. phillip randolph proposei a freedom budget for all americans. all of these plans wanted the federal government to spend billions of dollars redeveloping the cities, ensuring that cit everybody had a job at living wages, hensuring that everyboda had an income and nobody lived in poverty. you can imagine, too, that theyy participated in the same kind of rhetoric about racial poverty.oa racial discrimination has emasculated the negro male, created matriarchal families. the goal was forming the dependent man into the independent man. that's whitney young in arguing for a domestic marshall plan. baird rustin, the negro family recons can be trreconstructed only whes the negro male is permitted to e be the ecological and psychological head of the i wa family. so thisthis is widespread. it's very few people are saying, isn't that sexist?th some people are. a few people, right?

but you can see how even civil l rights leaders are sharing in n that kind of discourse. okay. so we obviously don't get this t kind of approach to poverty, right. we getpo a much narrow we aer -t education and job training. kara? >> i think a reason these big government plans don't work, even now, is because people are really apprehensive about big government. our country, the way it was re founded was toal have a smaller central federal government to get awayou from the british fon control. so i think when the federal vere government triesnt to implement these massive reaching changing plans, it messes up the status h quo and it also worries people about massive, big governments.t >> there's definitely ahe way iw whichay opponents of these kindf programs tap into that ideal ofp small government, right? if you look practically, they

weren't complaining about the te fha and all of the loans that were going to build the suburbs right. so it becomes visible in some debates and it remains invisible in others. that's a good point. pedro? >> i think you made a good poinr when you said when you go to the fha just because, you know, they have some privileges, and when there's a power struggle within different groups and one's pr privileges aren't seen as a privilege for one group, it's more of aen wider privilege. like, hey, that's mine. >> it's my right, right? >> well, it's my right, and it'' not for you. it's for us. sort of that struggle. oh, we don't want this.e. we don't want the government toe make it available d for everybor they want to make it really exclusive. >> yeah, yeah. and it's also the way these it'a programs are framed, right. social security or old-age insurance isn't seen as participate of the welfare state.

it's seen as on a entitlement.t i pay into it. the vast majority of people get way more out of that system than they ever paid into it. it's part of the welfare state, but it's not framed that way. t's not fviewed that way. system but it's not framed that way. it's not viewed that way. so much more modest war on poverty we get. programs under the office of economic opportunity never made more than 1.5% of the federal budget. is that really a war on poverty. i want to turn now to community action whic action, which is thisñi very in interesting program of offering federal tdds to local to f governmentsigfá -- that meant, the policy makers meant by that is that they didn't want blacks for excluded,

right? but people on the ground give it >> people on the ground give it a much more militant meaning saying poor people -- implement. so so community action, funds you read about two of these programs and sort of their political lpfate. you read about the child mississippi, which jamie jordan writes about.e9 in baltimore, which ronda williams writes about. let's talk about those for a few minutes. amy jordan, what is the child development group of mississippi, and how does it reflect community action? >> well, it was probably my favorite article to read, amy jordan's article. i think that there's so much emphasis on the negro e1male. we see these graphs andónthe quotes. everything revolves around the

negro male. everything in this program gave african-american women their own voices and let them show what could do. these little centers were run locally, by locals, for the influence. to come in and they don't have to be qualified to be a teacher. they don't have to have extensive education infá these segregated schools. i think they made it a point to be essentiallyt( the opposite because they wanted to show them that you're doing it wrong and here's how it's supposed to work. i think iti] really kind of -- made people want to be involved in it. so there was ajf ton of communi action as far as, you know, creating and building and just ejtfá a part of everything. it gave women their own way to express themselves. at the same time, they were able to bring in money for their i think it kind of changed a lot i really like the fact that it was almost -- i think it was

african-american women than it was the kids. you could just tell the difference it made in the women, their ability to express themselves in the way they they felt like maybe a sense of% pride that they were able to contribute and to do all this, really cool. >> yeah, it's a head start so it's in this kind of human capital development. but it unexpectedly on the ground through community action ends up, right,7l/ñ empowering l people to, see, we can design an different from thexd segregated mississippi system. we can run it and oet don't hav to be these experts, right. we are uexperts essentially. any other comments? yeah, ashley. >> another thing i thought was cool about the head start was that they -- there was an emphasis on parent involvementñ and if the parents had any concerns, they're like, well, you know, i think it was a good way for them tou feel like the were really investing in their

children and it was like empowering for them they felt like they were giving their kids a reallye1 good start in life. i think that was a struggle for a lot of people because, you know, being poor and everything, it's like you don't have a lot to offer your e1children, especially when they're that school yet. >>e1 yeah, yeah.xd any other comment? thoughts on amy jordan? why did the white power structure? mississippi target the child development.çóe1fáoke1t( >> -- came the knowledge of the programs and things that were being ran in mississippi that maybe they weren't so qaware of before hand. so it also gave themjf incentiv

to take action against it. so i think the uprising ofz]tha, the fact they wanted to be involved in higher than just this head start thing is they're like, hold up, no, no, no. that's where the backlash came from, the fact they didn't want these african-american women and uneducated. now they're becoming more educated. they didn't want them to partake in it. i think a lot>/q the backlash came from that. and i think that'slp a big reas the oeo took the grant away from them, because they had a lot of pressure.c@ cf1 o if you keep giving them money, they're going to keep becoming educated. they're going to keep sticking their nose where they shouldn't be. with the backlash ofñi e1it. they were becoming more w3awaref what was around them. >> yeah, they knew how to run a federal program. they were lear(tjt about various other federal programs. a lot of theset( federal progra were optional for states. so a state would say we're not going to do food stamps.w3 activists on the ground would push really hard and protest and lobby, right, and say,ç'yyes, y

are. we need food çóstamps. so absolutely. more access to a social safety net. and a connectione1 with desegregation, right. what's the connectionw3 between cd, gmñi and segregation? latrice again. >> i was just reading on çóit. i know that they started like a petitionú+ueñ demanded the desegregation of it. right after that they sued them and that's how they ultimately desegregated schools. other communities around them started going, okay, now we'll desegregate. it's kind of just like that little spark that made everything go around and that was the jump start to desegregation around them. >> yeah, and i love that statzv where alle1 of the kids5a who the first desegregators were kids who had been at cdgm, right? so those families, right. could be self-selection but also something about that involvement in the group. so thisw3 is an example of absolutely unintended

9ñ the federal government thought -- the johnson administration thought, $xwell we'll give some funds to kind of local people, and they'll have a service center, right, where they can tell people where they can get benefits or whatever. they'll do a job training program. and here we have federale1 mone going in?l to a group that not only empowers poor african-americans in mississippi but empowers them to begin challenging localxdofficials. so you can imagine state locale officials calling democrats, calling the johnson administration. hey, wait a minute. and there's the political pressure, right? all right. thee1 case in baltimore. kara then patrick. >> it was interesting because baltimore is a northern city. so you're having a different -- >> border state. >> okay, it's in maryland. yeah, i guess. anyway, so basically, the gist johnson's community action e1

programe1 going into baltimore. setting upçó social, you know, l this sufficient ittuff it's set. you have the activists in the city saying, we have our own things we wantjf to add to this plan that the poor actually want from theirxd communities. andxd they didn't just let ñi johnson's program come in and take over. they -- this groupxd formed ine 1965. actually, i don't know if it formed in 1965, but baltimore's union for jobs or income now, so u-join. and that kind of brought the poor people together in their neighborhoods like a grassroots movement to actually fight for what they really wanted with this program that was coming in to do what they actually wanted to do ratpe than it just be like what you're talking about before, just money coming in to do some basic good. they actually wanted full-rounded changes. >> right, political

representation. and this little federal money coming into the community provides a focus, right. it provides the resources necessary for organizing. up some of the economic conflict that's going on in these okcities. patrick? &háhp &hc% started trying to get that representation for more the poor fore1 their own communities tha the city wide thing, theyçó started that self-help housing program, which it seemed likejft was almost immediately taken up by the city council and they tried to put restrictions on them and it went from a community based organization that was going to try to help their own neighborhoods and community within the city to get into the bigger city council wherek&rqv started telling them they can't --lpu i can't remem specifically, but there was a lot of restrictions, saying they couldn't do a lot of things they wanted to do within their community. so on the bigger scale within a little city, you have this community control that's being taken over by a bigger

>> yeah, yeah. rose? >> e1also, itok says the baltim of stepped in and they were like, oh, why didn't you consult -- wait. the city's plan for actioni] ha not consulted black workers, social leaders, or civil rights or neighborhood organizations. that's including the poor people. soe1 they weren't really event( going to the root of the problem essentially. i feel like they could have done a lot better with talking that people and kind of getting more of thec fuller picture.e1 >> i feel like johnson's government program heçó set apa almost set up a snowball effect in all these cities it was being immateri

implemented in. when the self-help housing project went to the higher city councils, you have the formatiod of neighborhood housing action committee and all these people getting together. once they see it's effectivee1 some areas, other groups are getting together an ó saying, x1 rights. they're allowed to assemble and say what they want to say, so they're doing it. it's a snowball effect. so a little bit of money from the government is giving them ho hope. oh, we can do something with this now. when gets taken away from them, they're going to stand up because they feel like they have government backing this time. even though they actually don't, it's a hope. >> it's empowering for them, yeah. and the charges that are used to limit their political representation, limit their ability to run these programs.ed fraud, mismanagement, how can peoplz can't even earn a living run a federal program, right.3cf1 o when these programs were quite

successful, and this will be repeated over and over throughout ever since, right? charges of fraud, charges of mismanagementñi to undermine democratic participation here of poor people. yeah. all right. so any other comments on ronda williams or amy jordan? hitting back to amy jordan. for african-americans in the really makes the point that the po civil rights movement for them, right. economic empowerment, the ability to run their e1 communities, and it was also part of a stand that we're going to stay in our communities and not starve. activism, you get this movement among white elites in the south who were trying to encourage out

migration. they want african-americans to -- we don't neede1 them anyme on the plantations, right? we want them to leave.fá an example here is man,e1 a lawr whose last nam]á was çólucketto was on an anti-poverty boarde1 mississippi and resigned. the federal report said that luckett believes that the solution to thee1 raceçó proble the south is the outmigration of negros. +his belief seems to be the basis for his primary objection to the anti-poverty program$i he thinks that the real purpose of the oeo is to interfere with the norma&3 lawse1 of supply an demand and toe1 negate thee1 outmigration of negros from the delta. mississippi senator john stennis and georgia senator richard russell ac÷ñáally çóproposed th creationw3 of a voluntary relocation commission. andjf this would be a federal by that would encourage what they call equitableçó distribution o black residents throughoutok th

nation. so we're tired of being challenged on race. just get them out ofçó here, right? one application to the oeo from an african-american poor person in the south, i think,ñi express the counter to that. some people who were evicted have left the county, she said, and gone to other areas of the state. yet, others have elected to stay in the county and help solve the problems of their native land. these people deserve the right to be given a chance to be productive citizense1 in this place of their choosing. so it's almost a right to justç be here, right.zur(t&háhp &hc% and not have to go somewhere else. so that's one facet in the south of the warçó on qpoverty. the challenges that community action faced, though, made it particularly avoidable. democratic mayors and governors and congress people very angry that federal funds are being used to challenge state and

johnson agreed with them, and community action was very often implicated with civil rights activism. the martin luther kings and all of them are products of community aq7rjjy that's where they get the money. we finance all ofxd them. so we are fomenting revolution with federal funds, right? and noticee1 here linking black power folks withq martint( luth king and to community action. so johnson's no fan. he wants to get rid of community action. in 1967, there are all kinds of restrictions placed on itlpe1 t allow locale1 governments to ta moree1fá control over it. another thing that's linkede1 t community action is the so-called riots that o you are canned, t(right. beginning in harlem in '64. thew3 summer of '64, '65, 'oa,

'67, '68. outbreak of violence in african-american communities throughout the country. you read the introduction to thá kerner commission report or the national advisory commission on civil xddisorders. this was after the detroit riot was a particularly big one. five days, 41 dead after theñi detroit riot. there were 163 riots during the summer of '67. so johnson putst( together this panel to investigate and to come up with an explanation. interpreting urban e1uprisings. so what is the okkerner commission? this commission, by the way, is chaired by governor otto kerner from illinois. it has members from both parties on it. it has a business official. roy wilkins of the naacp. it's a real blue-ribbon panel here. what do they have to stay?

kara? >> well, they said here -- i thought this was interesting. i highlighted it. white institutions created it, white institutions maintain it, and white society condones it.çó talking about the violeniebqag has occurred, the riots. and i honestly thought -- >> they're talking about the ghetto. >> yeah, but that's where the riots occurred. so they're saying that the white institutions created it, maintain it, keep that status quo. i thought it's interesting they basically okdefined institution racism in this report. so it's!u pretty blatant that s there. but ia5 don't really know why nothing was fully done about it. i don't think anything was done. >> yeah, johnson actually shoved this report -- yeah, he was not happy with this report. >> this was a short quote that kind of stuck out to me. societies, one black, one white, separate and unequal.

ju, this is '67. the report comes out in '68. we've had a civil rights act passed. passed. '68 we have a fair housingok rights act passed. yet, here we are. we're moving into two separate and unequal societies. institutional racism, the whole process of metropolitan development. it's interesting to hear this federal commission, actually. black power by carmichael and hamilton. and here's a federale1 panel.e1c yes. okay. so the fákernerxd commission, therefore -- here's some pictures of the riots just to give you a sense. this is from the detroit riotw3f '67. institutional racism, relative depravation and frustratedtl@r(% expectations.

african-americansjf growing up an affluent society in the civil rights age who don't see things changing. they don't see opportunities.3 they go to bad schools. they live in poor neighborhoods. and so it's an outbreak of frustration is how the fákerner commissionok interprets it. how would toure and hamilton explain it? >> are you talking about just from this article or just -- >> just from what you know in w3 gdmeral. >> yeah, they'reçó talking abou how this has been, you know, implemented -- this racism. there's no actual changes that hó6# really come from this movement. it needs to be, çólike, a full societal change. it can't just be these acts that have been passed, these laws. it needs to reallye1 -- there needs to be actual action. also -- well, this article?; focused more on --

>> yeah, that's not really -- >> i'm trying to find something. >> i'm thinking about their use of the colonial metaphor to describe the ghetto, xdright.3w so certainly they would target institutional racism, but for them, this is a political movement. it's not just people are frustrated and angry. this is a political rebellion, right. you can hear this in different language people use to describe these uprises. is it a riot, criminality, or is it a rebellion? a political act. this is how they would see it, right. it's a colonial population attacking it the sources of exploitation, right. and in the xdriots, typically t property that was damaged was property owned by nonblacks, right. so they're targeting that notion of education ployatixploitation k rose? >> there's a good chance the parts of it. like in pretty much every other

story. and it affects how other people see -- like, that don't live by there. they're not there first hand. mostly what thew( get is on the news, the radio. a lot of white people control the media. the other side of the media is just like theok black power movement. but then the other white people see juste,kñ this one vision of shedding like the worst light on the black peopleok that really just want change. >> yeah, that's a really astute comment, right. because tv%(e are twot( explanations. here's the most commone1 explanation. it's a culture of poverty. these are young men growing up without father figures, right, in a matriarchal structure who end up being criminals and delinquents. you can see that in a couple of quotations i have here for you. first of all, "the wall street journal" in '64, this is a

headline. i lovew3 this. family life breakdown in negro hoodlut! hoodlums. there you have it, right? even the kerner commission, again, tapped into this gendered explanation. the culture of poverty that results from malew3 unemploymen and family breakup generates a system of ruthless, exploitative in the ghetto produces children who are likely participants in civil disorder. the more common explanation, as rose suggests, is thist( criminality. the answer is not massive programs to rebuild the ghetto or open opportunity. the answer is law and order. and in fact, the omnibus crime bill gave a windfall to local police tozvhspr'tain order in t ghetto. all right.

so alternatives to the federal government's focus on human capital development, we talked about one alternativen"ralready which was king and the urban league, right,e1 andu the free budget s massive investment. let's talk about two others. one is the emergence of a welfare rights movement. the other is king'se1 last visi before he was assassinated, which is the poor people's campaign. then a third one we're going to talk about is the black powerfá perspective from toure and hamilton. we'll see if we can get through all of this.?; so remember the segmented welfare e1state? see if i have -- let me wipe this off. we've alluded to it here a little bit, bute1 in the social security act of 1965 that set up the structure of the american we have on the

one side social insurance. that would be old age. what we call social security now. old age insurance. and unemployment insurance. and remember that a lot of most predominantl?á agricultura workers, including food processing workers. and domestic. so 85% of b

white widows, okay. as white widows get folded in here, we add survivors here.çó and women who are -- widows who had been married to a covered, insured male through this system now can get funded that way,ñi right, who don't have access to this. so over the post-war period, the population of a5adc, afdc shif. theu image of it becomes much less positive. so ldv's look at a couple of the you read twm3 that involve adc n particular. one is the urban league of new orleans, which is responding to whauwtheyokq see as a crisis in louisiana in 1960. the other is the advocate fore1 welfare. this ise1 elizabeth wickendon,

who's proposing a certain response to these problems. so what did you read? what's happening in louisiana i( ìáhp &hc% >> in fu%m%91ñ they were going to pass a bill, or a few bills, that would say if a child was going to receive money, it had to be in ae1 suitable home. single parents or a parent that's not working, they would be leftq outjf of the bill. the document was arguing that it was backed bye1 racialn&ow3 st ore1 racial -- i guess standard. >> yeah, so the suitable home provision really said that if the household has an illegitimate child in it, a child born out of wedlock, then it's consider+

the roles. almost all of them african-american. and the urban league isxd sayin this is part of a segregationist package of w3legislation, right. >> what i think is important about this article is, you know, they sayxd that the urban leagu says there üsr)qpublic inaction. no one was doing anything about this. and it seems pretty blatantly messed up just from any çó perspective. there's definitely like white people who have illegitimate children i'mxd sure. so -- >> the rates were actually growing faster for whites, but many white family -- you know, you'd give it up for adoption. it's a whole other xdsystem.ñi yeah. >> right. and so the press barely paid any attention to it. so the urban league was trying to get the press to shed some light on this. they actually ended up getting attention from international -- you know, from like england. >> british women. >> yeah, other people around the world. it's kind oflú+u)prising. it showsçó the institutional racism at that time where no

onexd -- the big massive -- the press, you know, ' f government, ignoring this starving children. >> yeah. rose? >> even in like the first paragraph when they say how the newly passedó[ suitable home provision strikes 23,000 and their mothers fromçó roles of t adc program. and then it says the governor referred to the mothers as alp bunch of prostitutes. like, that is just so offensive. if someone said that now, they would have to step down immediately. it's just like there's so much sexism and so much racism in this. and the -- what is it?é@ the urban league, i'm glad they caught it and were ;like, okay, why is no one talking about this? it's so wrong. and theyw3 see how wrong it is d people just would pass it over.(

it's ridiculous to me that they could just beaw4 like, oh, they a bunch of prostitutes. it's like blaming them for the problems that they've because most civil rights organizations kept a distance from welfare problems. why do you think they would try to distance themselves? kara? >> it's a touchy subject. a lot of the civil rights group we talked about are trying to work with the government, trying to get the government on their side. why would they want to battle government programs and stuff like that. it's kind of a risky move if they are trying to save face. yeah, rose? >> i was going to say i think they more want to highlight on a

lot of progress they are making instead of showing there's so much wrong. the poor people, i don't know, it's not like they were avoiding them. they didn't want that view of the african-american culture to be broadcast and taken advantage of by the media. >> there's a debate on the one hand african-american activists want to highlight the damage. on the other hand it also looks bad. those who were opposed to racial change are very effective at using that damage imagery to say, yeah, you're right. there's a culture of poverty and it's self-perpetuating. there's nothing we can do about it. it's in the our fault. it's their culture. exactly. aid to families with dependent children on the one hand allowed

women to escape abusive relationships, provide for their children when they were unable to work. on the other hand the grants were really low, way below the poverty line everywhere. and all sorts of restrictions. as you can imagine and read, these are racially applied as well. suitable home rules. man in the house are substitute father rules. midnight raid. social workers would come in the middle of the night and demand entrance to the house and search closets to see if they found evidence of a male presence. if you had a male in the house, he was assumed to be a substitute father and therefore you're not eligible for welfare aid. charges of neglect. susceptible to them saying you're neglectful and we're going to take your children away from you. cotton season. nobody on welfare. get out and pick cotton. african-american women seen by power structure as laborers. their mothering role is

incidental. residency requirements, coercive sterilization. pressure if you want welfare benefits, you better have your tubes tied. these are the conditions that poor single mothers face. and in the 1960s they began to organization. this is unprecedented. the most vulnerable population, poor single mothers, mostly minority, are organizing to assert a right to live that nobody should starve, essentially. johnny tillman shown here was a woman who migrated from arkansas, lived in watts. she had worked as a dishwasher. she worked in all sorts of jobs of very physically taxing jobs. this is what happened to a lot of women. their jobs are physically taxing. she got crippling arthritis and

couldn't work in those jobs anymore. she was divorced, had five children, applied for aid. she started talking to women in their housing project and they started to organize. in 1966, this man george wiley, who had been with core called a conference and got these folks from all over the country to come together and they formed a national welfare rights organization. their symbol indicates anti-poverty movement plus civil rights movement together. 85% of the members were african-american women. welfare rights activists used protest strategies, sit-ins, marches. they did individual advocacy for other women, they got a lot of people on the roles. this is why roles increased. not that more people are eligible, more people on the roles because they are being pressured. politically pressured.

pushing states, as i said, to start a food stamp program or child medical screening program. they really wanted an adequate income, increase in grants. they wanted a guaranteed income, everybody to have guaranteed income. they wanted job training for jobs they could actually do and work their way out of poverty and wanted child care to do it. they also asserted they are mothers. their moerg has value. like white middle class mothering has value, culturaly. one put it, if government was smart it would call day and night care, create an agency, pay us a decent wage for work we're doing and say the welfare crisis is solved because mothers are put to work raising nor their children. this welfare rights movement had

some success but i'm fast forwarding to 1977. it had success for a short time but never established legally a right to live. we don't have poverty as a suspect class under the 14th amendment. there is no right to live. and the kind of negative culture of poverty rhetoric raises this notion of an underclass, pathological underclass by the late '70s and 1980s. we'll get there. okay. running out of time here. martin luther king, jr., decided southern christian leadership conference should wage a poor people's campaign. his vision was bringing masses of poor people to washington, d.c. to commit civil disobedience, try to disrupt, disrupt the workings of

government to demand a right to live. guaranteed in come, investment in cities, those kinds of things. you can see that in the poster. he was assassinated during the planning of this. sclc continued to plan this. this is when he's talking to a reporter, this is king. the reporter says, doesn't sound like you're doing civil rights anymore. this is multi-racial poor people's movement. he says in a sense you could say we're engaged in a class struggle, yes. it will ab long and difficult struggle for our program calls for redistribution of economic power. bam. yet this isn't a purely materialistic or class concern. i feel this movement on behalf of the poor is the most moral thing. it is saying every man is an heir to the legacy of dignity and worth. he's taking that same moral authority he gave to the civil rights struggle and trying to expand that struggle. then he says you're not doing

civil rights, but you can say i am. he smiled and said, i am in human rights. a broadening there of the struggle. in 1968 from nine different caravans, poor people, "multi-racial poor people around the country came to welsch d.c. this. is the mule train electric mississippi. they actually had a mule train. other folks came by bus and train. they set up resurrection city in west potomac park. you can see the washington monument there. six-month encampment in washington, d.c. resurrection city had a tent called soul center, which was focused specifically on interracial, intercultural exchange. they would have musical programs, different cultures, pressing that. they would lobby and press

demands and have demonstrations and protests. the press was largely disapproving. the press contrasted this to the 1963 marine on washingtonish which they said was wonderful. this is not so wonderful. why would there be that difference? did i see a hand? kara? >> the march on washington had the whole moral thing to it. martin luther king was giving a speech. it was the height of the movement. it was more morally based. this was real -- not to say moral issues aren't real at all. these are economic, political, this is massive movement. it could change the whole status

quo. it can easily be looked upon more negatively. i don't know. it's a whole different thing. >> more radical in some ways. >> much more radical, i think. >> much more radical, i think. occurs in 1963 ends up being really focused on pushing the passage of the civil rights bill. focus on segregation and discrimination in the south. it's a regional problem. the answer not in the speeches, right, but in the way the press covered it and in our memory. the answer is federal legislation to outlaw discrimination. here it's a challenge to capitalism. a massive redistribution of economic power, says king. it's a national problem. it's an economic problem. whereas the march -- march on washington of '63 was sort of within -- could be interpreted within a narrow understanding of the civil rights movement,