RW> shelters then.  There was no unemployment insurance, no job no money. 
RW>  There wasn't any welfare, no job no home.  There wasn't any 
RW> medicare/medicaid, no money no medicine.
RB> You answered your own question. Crime, stratification, real
RB> wage, all of these  things have gotten steadily worse and
RB> worse since the 20's. That's what makes  it worse.
So to you it is worse to be able to receive money if
you break your leg and can't work to support your
family then to be SOL?
RW> You better reread your history; there weren't jobs and unions 
RW> couldn't hold together because if they went out on strike.  If they 
RW> did there would be 5 men willing to take the place for each union 
RW> worker.
RB> No, you definitely need to re-read YOUR history. Unions have
RB> a long, strong  history in this country, especially in the
RB> late 19th-century and early  20th-century. In many cities,
We're talking about during the great depression, not
the 1890's.  The unions took a MAJOR hit during the
depression because of the number of out of work people.
RB> the one mainstream  newspaper is probably the only one that
RB> exists. There might be 5 men willing to 
RB> be scabs, but there were many more men waiting to kick the
RB> scab's ass. 
Nope.  Workers would line up in front of work places at
the beginning of the day just in case someone didn't
show up for work and THEY might be able to work for a
day.  Construction sites were the worse, some times the
boss would stand there and take the lowest bidder for
the job.  If one man said he'd work for a dollar a day
and another said he'd do it for seventy five cents the
seventy five center would be the one hired that day.
Almost the same thing would happen for farm hands.  The
farmer would show up on a street corner and say he
needed X number of people and would pay Y amount.  Then
it was more or less the first X people that made it on
the truck got the day work.
RW> Neither of the ones on my book shelf shows poverty CAUSES crime.  If 
RW> it did the crime rate in the poor rural areas would be just as high 
RW> as the poor urban areas.
RB> Right, whatever, now as I said, any book you pick up will
RB> show a link between  poverty and crime. 
No, not "Right, whatever".  There are no studies nor
papers nor anything else that shows a causal link
between poverty and crime.  It can be disproved by the
facts I point out.  If poverty caused crime the crime
rate in the poor rural areas would be just as high or
even higher then the poor urban areas.  The fact is the
crime rates are not the same therefore there can NOT be
a casual link between poverty and crime.
RW> Really?  You mean that it is common practices to address a black man 
RW> as "boy" on your street?  And when a white man gets on a full bus a 
RW> black stands up to givehim a seat?  When was the last time they found 
RW> a black man hanging from a tree there with a sign around his neck 
RB> You seem to think that because you don't see it on the
RB> street it doesn't exist. 
No I'm asking you if this is what happens on your
street.  After all you said you lived in a totally
racist area.  I know racism exist.  I know that some
whites would not hire a black if their life depended on
it.  I also know that some blacks who would not hire a
white if their life depended on it.  I also know that
light skinned blacks are treated and treat dark skinned
blacks different.  I know that some well off people
think all "poor" people are stupid and some how deserve
to be poor.
Everyone is preadjust in their own way.  Weather they
let their preadjust control their thoughts and lives or
they control it is what makes a person racist, sexist,
et al.
RB> YOUR attitude is the reason why covert/subtle racism is
RB> worse than the overt  racism of the 60s, and the reason why
RB> many blacks are saying that racism is  worse. Because in the
And you think that by forcing a racist to hire blacks
(or white or oriental or. . ) is going to stop it?  If
someone doesn't like me and doesn't want me working for
him I don't want to be there. 
Also I believe in individual freedom and the right of
private property.  If you own a business and only want
to hire one legged black men to work for you the
government shouldn't be able to come in and tell you
that the neighborhood is 10% oriental, 20% hispanic,
30% black and 40% white therefore your work force HAS
to be the same.  IOW, that you have to fire some of the
people you want to work for you to hire some people you
don't.
How is that going to make the people you were going to
hire or had hired feel when they see "their" jobs going
to someone else just because of the color of their
skin?  Are they going to say "This is a good thing
because it makes sure all the races are equally
employed."  Or are they going to say "Look at those
 taking our jobs.  The only
reason they got the job is because they are "  I think the latter in more
likely and how is this helping to stop racism?
RB> 60s, Ma and Pa Middleclass (YOU) would turn on their TV's 
Sorry I wasn't middle class in the 60s
RB> become institutional, subtle, systemic. And 
RB> then people like YOU deny it even exists and are completely
RB> unmotivated to do  something about it. So you see? Your
RB> attitude proves what I'm talking about. 
I don't see how you can say that when even before this
msg I have said that racism exist now, it existed in
the past and will continue to exist in the future no
matter what laws you pass or what "education" you give
people.
                      Remember:  Freedom isn't Free!
--- timEd-B11
---------------