The utility companies have thus far had little to say about the alarming cost projections to operate electric vehicles (EVs) or the increased rates that they will be required to charge their customers. It is not just the total amount of electricity required⏤but the...
The Politics Behind the ‘War on Black People’
Racism is the belief that different races possess distinct characteristics, abilities, or qualities, especially so as to distinguish them as inferior or superior to one another.
Tribalism is the behavior and the attitudes that stem from strong loyalty to one’s own tribe or social group.
Racism is evil. Tribalism can be problematic, but it can also be positive. I think of the tribalism that exists within the American nation. Love of country is tribalism, yet it is also a powerful force in defense of our nation.
When tribalism and racism mix, which is to say when someone makes a race their tribe, that’s when the wheels come off the bus, and that is, sadly, where we are today with Critical Race Theory.
CRT proponents claim to be teaching history, and indeed, they do teach certain historical truths that many would like to forget, but they also ignore a great deal of history. Many of the historical facts they do use are taken grossly out of context.
CRT is not an accurate telling of history, but a political ideology dressed in the garb of history, and it is nothing more than that. Let’s get real on racism…
It is no secret that the United States has a racist past. With 300 years of slavery and Jim Crow, our country has an unsavory past with regard to race. What is not as well known is that some of the laws that were the most racist are still on the books, and still doing great harm.
Flashback to the decades before 1933. African Americans had been moving north in great numbers to seek better economic opportunities than were available in the South. There were better economic opportunities in the North, but the African Americans moving North to take those opportunities were not as well educated as the Northerners already working those jobs. Mix in the racism that existed at that time (North and South – this being the era of Jim Crow), and African Americans could only take jobs by offering to work for a little less than their white counterparts, even though they were doing the same work, with the same levels of productivity.
Businesses learned quickly that if they hired only African Americans for those jobs that did not require as much of an education, their labor costs were lower than were those of competitors who hired only white workers. In 1933, the African American unemployment rate was lower than that for white Americans, with a workforce participation rate that was higher than that for white Americans. African Americans still made less than white Americans for the same work (which is what drove the higher workforce participation rate and the lower unemployment rate), but the pay gap was closing. The children of African American workers in the North were better educated than their parents had been, and were moving further up in the workforce than their parents had.
Just as many voters today fear that immigration from Central and South America will displace American workers, so too in the early 1930s, white voters in the North were afraid that African Americans migrating North were displacing them from jobs, and reducing their income potential. Political pressure emerged to create something America had never had before: a national minimum wage.
In 1933, Franklin D. Roosevelt signed America’s first Minimum Wage Act into law, and suddenly, firms found that it was just as expensive to hire African American workers as it was to hire white workers. Racism no longer led to lower profitability compared to competitors who were not racist, and firms began hiring white people first again. The unemployment rate for African Americans immediately shot above that of white Americans, and it has never been the same as, or lower than, the unemployment rate for white Americans again.
Flash forward to South Africa, after World War Two. Black South Africans were dominating many fields, such as construction. Black South Africans, in fact, had a lower unemployment rate in South Africa than did white South Africans, and black South Africans had a higher workforce participation rate than did white South Africans. There was a pay gap between black and white workers doing the same things, but the pay gap was closing. The white labor unions pressed for political reform to address what they considered a major problem.
South Africa passed laws ensuring that black South African schools would always be inferior to white South African schools (it was a segregated society, so this was easy), and passed minimum wage and prevailing wage laws to ensure that black South African workers were just as expensive – but not as well educated – as white South Africans. Just as the minimum wage in America oppressed African American labor, so too these reforms in South Africa oppressed black South African labor. These reforms were a central pillar of the economic side of Apartheid.
Flash forward to the United States in the late 1950s and early 1960s. Inflation had effectively eliminated our minimum wage laws. We still had minimum wages on the books, but they were lower than the market-clearing price of labor, so everyone who wanted a job could find one, and the jobs all paid more than the minimum. The African American unemployment rate and workforce participation rates were approaching the white American rates, and though there was a wage gap, it was closing. Employers were quickly catching on that they could make more money by hiring African American labor first, and this time African Americans were, on average, much better educated than they had been 30 years earlier, and poised to move much further up the income ladder.
The Democrat Party under Lyndon B. Johnson had a problem. African Americans had been voting primarily Democrat since 1934 – ironically, one year after Roosevelt passed the first law specifically aimed to oppress African American labor. Jim Crow was still in effect, and the Democrats had been fighting to keep it, using every trick in the book to block Republicans from passing the Civil Rights Act. Lyndon B. Johnson had spent most of his career in the House of Representatives, and he had a perfect record of voting against the Civil Rights Act. African Americans were on the verge of turning Republican, which Johnson knew would be the death knell of the Democrat Party. At the same time, white Americans wanted African Americans oppressed in the workforce. What was Johnson to do?
First, he flipped on the Civil Rights Act, telling Democrats to pass it so he could sign it. The Civil Rights Act passed (with nearly universal Republican support – Democrat support was split), and was signed into law in 1964.
Had Johnson stopped there, we would have a post-Racist nation today, but Johnson did not stop there. White America wanted white people protected in the workforce, which was still a job for Democrats like Lyndon B. Johnson.
Lyndon B. Johnson created what he called the ‘War on Poverty.’ Milton Friedman looked at the reforms – which were the same reforms South Africa had put in place after World War Two – and called it the ‘War on Black People.’
Lyndon B. Johnson knew that his housing and bussing laws would push, not only white people out of the inner cities, but also wealthy African Americans. ‘White Flight’ drove wealth into the suburbs. In some areas, like Kalamazoo, MI, (where I grew up), the suburbs were in the same school districts as the inner cities. Hence, the educational opportunities for African American and white American children were the same, but in bigger cities, like Detroit, the suburbs were separate cities, with separate educational systems. The suburban schools flourished, and the inner city schools decayed. There were far more people in big cities like Detroit, Chicago, and New York, than there were smaller cities, like Kalamazoo.
Minimum wage and prevailing wage laws ensured that kids graduating from High School all cost the same to hire, regardless of how well educated they were. Since the better-educated kids were in the suburbs (and were white), factories and other businesses that could move, moved to the suburbs. Over time economic opportunities in the inner cities (which were predominately African American) collapsed.
Welfare programs took care of inner-city families, but there was a catch – the father had to leave the home. In 1960, less than 30% of all African American children were born into single-parent homes. Today, more than 80% are.
A child born into the inner city found himself or herself with no economic opportunities, other than mothers with children, who could get welfare if they were single. Men had no economic opportunities at all. Men in the inner cities found that the only economic opportunities they had were illegal, and the War on Drugs exasperated that. Over time, many inner-city children lost interest in being educated.
Affirmative Action laws were passed to try and, amongst other things, even out educational opportunities. Unfortunately, while affirmative action laws helped minority students get into college, affirmative action did so by putting students into colleges they would never have been able to get into based on SAT scores and other objective measurements. The result was that the drop-out rate for those students who ‘benefited’ from affirmative action went through the roof. As just one example, MIT will take an African American student who is in the 90th percentile in math, but all of the white students getting in are in the 99th percentile. African American students at MIT who are in the 99th percentile in math graduate at the same rates as white students at MIT, but the African American students who are below that level, and who got into MIT because of affirmative action, have sky-high drop-out rates.
Affirmative Action helps white people, who can pat themselves on the back and say, “Look how diverse we are,” but I fail to see the benefit to a 22-year-old African American who now owes $100,000 in student loans to MIT, and who dropped out without a degree. Affirmative Action, far from propping up minority students, has proven to set them up for failure.
In today’s America, African American children born into two-parent households have the same per capita economic opportunities that white children born into two-parent households have. African American children whose parents are college-educated actually do better on a per capita basis than do white children whose parents are college-educated. White children born into the inner cities do just as poorly, in terms of per capita economic outcomes, as do African American children born in the inner cities.
The difference is that only 30% of white children are born into single-parent households, whereas more than 80% of African American children are. The proportion of white families where the parents are college-educated is much higher than the proportion of African American households where the parents are college-educated. The proportion of white children growing up in situations that are conducive to success is higher than the proportion of African American children growing up in situations that are conducive to success.
And we STILL have minimum wage laws, prevailing wage laws, Affirmative Action, and all of the other oppressive laws that were a part of the War on Poverty, on the books, keeping the economic side of our actual modern system of oppression alive and well. Many African Americans are still oppressed by laws specifically designed to put them at a competitive disadvantage in the workforce.
And you can thank Lyndon B. Johnson, and Franklin D. Roosevelt.
And you can thank the Democrat Party.
Disclaimer: The information contained in this website is for educational, general information, and entertainment purposes only and is never intended to constitute medical or legal advice or to replace the personalized care of a primary care practitioner or legal expert.
While we endeavor to keep this information up to date and correct, the information provided by America Out Loud, its website(s), and any properties (including its radio shows and podcasts) makes no representations, or warranties of any kind, expressed, or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability, or availability with respect to its website(s) or the information, products, services or related graphics and images contained on the website(s) for any purpose.
The opinions expressed on the website(s), and the opinions expressed on the radio shows and podcasts, are the opinions of the show hosts and do not necessarily represent the opinions, beliefs, or policies of anyone or any entity we may endorse. Any reliance you place on such information is therefore strictly at your own risk.
At no time, nor in any event, will we be liable for any loss, or damage, including without limitation, indirect or consequential loss of data or profits arising out of, in an association of, or connection with the use of this website.
Through this website, users can link to other websites that may be listed. Those websites are not under the control of America Out Loud or its brands. We have no control over the nature, content, or availability of those sites. America Out Loud has no control over what the sites do with the information they collect. The inclusion of any links does not necessarily imply a recommendation, nor does it endorse the views expressed with or by them.
Every effort is made to keep the website up and running smoothly. However, America Out Loud takes no responsibility for, nor are we, and will not be liable for being temporarily unavailable due to technical difficulties beyond our control. America Out Loud does not sell, trade, nor market email addresses or other personal data.
Use the code ‘OUTLOUD’ and receive your 20% discount on your first order.