The US Gov't in the 1970s Tried to Prevent an Alliance between Africa and Black America

[The Odum of Ala Igbo]

660+ views
Feds watching

 

[Samori Toure]

I know what the great migration was and you aren't telling anything I don't know or saying anything that disputes what I've said.
It seems you really are confused. As for Great Society, Lyndon Johnson the man's whose policy broke up the black family and out of his own mouth was used merely to pacify blacks? That LBJ?




I will say you should do a little more reserach on these labor unions you are caping for than wikipedia.
A great book is Walter Williams "Race and Economics" Here is a snippet about the labor unions, if you want the book let me know and I'll post it for you.

I am not caping for labor unions. I am saying that what you said doesn't make sense. The whole point was not to force Black people out of the workforce. That is just a ridiculous notion. That is the whole point of me reminding you of the history of what led to the shyt that you are talking about.

 

[David_TheMan]

I am not caping for labor unions. I am saying that what you said doesn't make sense. The whole point was not force Black people out of the workforce. That is just a ridiculous notion. That is the whole point of me reminding you of the history of what led to the shyt that you are talking about.

What i've said is documented, it isn't a matter of how you feel, its actual fact documented.
So what are you talking about? seriously.

 

[Crayola Coyote]

Like I said African-Americans doing business with Africans and getting our income from Africa is basically cutting whites OUT! Blacks are the second poorest group(if you include Native Americans) and is a large wealth gap.

This is NOT done by accident. Again getting our income from Africa I believe will address this. I think I remember @Poitier bringing up a very good point in that blacks in America do not get loans on the same level as whites which strengthen this wealth gap. If blacks in America were to cut out these American banks for African ones then they would no longer need to depend on America.

@MansaMusa I said this before and I think many agreed. I know Frank Lucas was a big time drug dealer but he is the perfect example for this. Before Frank Lucas got into the Southeast Asian Triangle Trade blacks were dependent on the Italians for their drugs. Since the Italians were the middle men/distributors(White Americans) they got most of the cash while the black dealers got little. But once Frank Lucas came in he said fukk the Italians(White Americans) and went straight for the source in Southeast Asia(Africa). Thus cutting out the Italians(White Americans) and getting most of the money for himself! There was no longer a money gap between him(Black Americans) and the Italians(White Americans). They were on an even playing field.

Well damn

 

[Samori Toure]

What i've said is documented, it isn't a matter of how you feel, its actual fact documented.
So what are you talking about? seriously.

The point that you are making is silly, which is probably why you were negged by the people that you complained about to begin with.

 

[Crayola Coyote]

I know this will backfire on white people. I just know that the backfire will be epic. Us black folks turn a negative into a positive for us.

 

[David_TheMan]

The point that you are making is silly, which is probably why you were negged by the people that you complained about to begin with.

So reality that white labor unions worked to kick blacks out and that blacks unionized in response to them, that black labor union leaders spoke out against this, that Booker T Washington and WEB Dubois openly agreed about how white labor was trying to cripple blacks economically, that documented letters to congress from white unions demanding their use in federal projects while they openly kept blacks out this isn't reality?

Its clear you reject reality to live in a very clear delusion of this pipe dream of labor unity. I bet you didn't even read that excerpt from the book that I posted, did you?

here is some more for you to not read I guess.

As discussed at length in Chapter 4, occupational licensing can reduce employment
opportunities by creating artificial or unrealistic standards. It can occur without apparent
racial motivation, as has been shown in the case of cosmetologists. Occupational licensing has
also been used as a tool to achieve racist goals, such as the elimination of blacks from a craft.
Historically, the tactic, when coupled with white-dominated craft unions, has been a
particularly effective means of reducing black employment. Plumbers' and electricians' craft
unions explicitly advocated licensure laws as a means to eliminate black competition. As
Lorenzo Greene and Carter G. Woodson said, Afavorite method of barring [Negroes] from
plumbing and electrical work was to install a system of unfair examinations which were
conducted by whites."
The following letter provides an example of one union's desire to eliminate black plumbers
through licensure:
Enclosed you will find a clipping from a Norfolk paper, which I would suggest that
you give space in the next issue of the Journal, believing that it will be of interest
to the members of U.A., especially of the southern district, as the Negro is a
factor in this section, and I believe the enclosed Virginia state plumbing law
which will eliminate him and the imposter from following our craft....(Signed) C. H. Perry, Sec. L.U.110'
Enclosed with the letter was a legislative bill containing the following commonly stated
justification for the licensing of plumbers: "To promote the public health and to regulate the
sanitary construction, house draining, and plumbing, and to secure the registrationplumbers in all cities....'
A northern trade publication carried the following report:
... All the other work, jobbing, etc, is done by Negroes.... Bro. Becker and a few of
the boys are going to run over to Greenville and make a thorough investigation
and try to have these bosses hire white men. It is a wonder to me that there are
not more Negroes working at our business from the way our members in a great
many places use them as helpers....'
The same issue of that publication contained this entry:
of
There are about tenNegro skate plumbers working around here [Danville,
Virginia], doing quite a lot of jobbing and repairing, but owing to the fact of not
having an examination board [licensing agency] it is impossible to stop them,
hence the anxiety of the men here to organize.5
Proposals for licensing as a means of eliminating black tradesmen were not restricted to the
South. In Kansas City, blacks were denied entry into a number of trades, including plumbing
and electricity' In New Jersey, it was reported to be impossible for a black to become a licensed
plumber or steamfitter.' A study by Sterling D. Spero and Abraham L. Harris found that "in a
city like Philadelphia, the licensing board will not grant a Negro a license-in Chicago the Negro
plumbers have failed to gain advances after years of effort."8
Another method used to exclude, especially effective against blacks, involved apprenticeship
examinations. Here are a few exam questions that, as late as 1968, a number of building trades
unions used to screen candidates for their apprenticeship programs:
1. Czolgosz is to Booth as McKinley is to
(a) Lincoln, (b) Washington, (c) Roosevelt, (d) Garfield.
2. Aztec is to Mexico as Maya is
(a) Peru, (b) Guatemala, (c) Haiti, (d) Uruguay.
3. is to phlegmatic as vivacious is
4. is to composer as Longfellow is

5. Revolution is related to evolution as flying is
(1) birds, (2) whirling, (3) walking, (4) wings, (5) standing.9

Typically, whites have attended higher-quality high schools than blacks and Hispanics. Such a
test, whether intended to or not, will therefore disproportionately exclude the latter groups. It
should go without saying that a capacity to answer questions such as those above have little
to do with one's ability to be a plumber or carpenter.

Black and White Labor Violence
Labor violence in Chicago was a classic instance of racial competition in the labor market, and
in 1919, it culminated in one of the nation's deadliest race riots.30 When the riot was over,
twenty-three blacks lay dead along with fifteen whites; well over five hundred people of both
races were injured. The history of Chicago's racial antagonism goes back to the Pullman strike
of 1894, when packing and slaughterhouse workers struck in sympathy with Eugene V. Debs's
American Railway Union. This strike marked the first time in the history of the packing industry
that blacks were used as strikebreakers, and the action ended in defeat for the white workers.
In 1904, the packers once again went out on strike. This time the strike was over the skilledbutchers' demand for a minimum wage of 20 cents an hour for their unskilled brethren,
complaining that large packinghouses "began a system to crowd out the expert butchers and
replace them by cheaper men in every way." They were displaced by "cheap Polackers and
Hungarians.....31 As our earlier analysis of the economic effects of minimum wages would
predict, "The skilled worker realized that this specialization enabled unskilled workers with
`muscle' to replace him; it appeared inevitable that unless a minimum wage were obtained for
the unskilled, cut-throat job competition would drive all the wages
Once again, the packers' strike was broken by blacks, who were hired as replacements by the
thousands. And once again, they were subjected to extensive violence. Out of desperation as
well as miscalculation, union leaders wired Booker T. Washington asking him to come to
Chicago to lecture blacks on the subject: "Should Negroes Become Strikebreakers?"
Washington turned the invitation down. South Carolina's Senator "Pitchfork Ben" Tillman, a
rabid segregationist, came instead to tell the union workers, "It was the ******s that whipped
you in line.... They were the club with which your brains were beaten out."'
In 1905, during a Chicago teamsters' strike, trainloads of black workers were brought in to
deliver milk, coal, and other merchandise. They were set upon by angry strikers, and riots
ensued. Chicago's city council enacted an order requesting that the city's corporation counsel
file an opinion as to "whether the importation of hundreds of Negro workers is not a menace
to the community and should be restricted." The employers' association responded by
indicating a willingness not to import any more blacks, but refused to fire those already
employed. The teamsters' president replied, "You have the Negroes in here to fight us and we
answer that we have the right to attack them wherever found."
Indicative of white solidarity over strikebreaking was the sympathy strike conducted
byhundreds of grade school students. They stoned black drivers delivering coal to their
schools. Teachers and principals encouraged the students, in one case saying, "I invite the
students to strike, if the dirty ******s deliver coal at this school'
Despite union and political pressure, employers continued to hire blacks-as more than
temporary. According to an employer for Pullman Company, blacks were hired "not as
strikebreakers, but with the understanding that their positions would be permanent," and
they were "proving themselves much more efficient in every way than the cleaners who left...'
Labor competition benefited them. In 1910, Chicago's black population was 50,000; ten years
later, it had doubled. During that period, the number of black workers in Chicago rose from
27,000 to 70,000. In the cattle shipping yards, their numbers rose from a mere 6 percent of the
labor force to 32 percent. Black employment in every packinghouse increased by three to five
times.34
Black newspapers and the Urban League understood the economics of the conflict, and took a
conciliatory posture towards Chicago's racist unions saying, "We have arrayed ourselves on
the side of capital to a great extent; yet capital has not played square with us; it has used us asstrikebreakers, then when the calm came turned us adrift." Adding that if it were to the race's
"economic, social and political interest to join with organized labor now, it should not make
the least bit of difference what was their attitude toward us in the past, even if that past was
as recent as yesterday. If they extend the olive branch in good faith accept it today."35
Months later, after a convention of the American Federation of Labor (AFL), when its
constituent unions did nothing to remove exclusion and segregation clauses, the Chicago
Defender bitterly complained, "Unwillingly, we assume the role of strikebreakers. The unions
drive us to it."36 Black workers put their antipathy toward unions more forcefully: "fukk the
union, fukk you in the [union] button."

 

[David_TheMan]

Here is some more @Akan
You really should read and research what you are saying, instead of rejecting reality..
These white folks aren't your friend just because they say they are "pro-labor"

New Deal and Black Workers
While white unions could deny blacks membership, they were not as effective in denying them
employment. Like any other seller of goods or services, black would-be workers found that
they could appeal to employers' desire for higher profits through offering to work at lower
prices. During the period of the "old" Supreme Court, frequently referred to as the Lochner
era, laws that restricted freedom of contract and fostered monopolies were often struck down
as unconstitutional violations of the "privileges and immunities" clauses of the Fifth and
Fourteenth Amendments. That meant blacks (or any other lesspreferred group, such as
immigrants, women, and children) had a powerful weapon in coping with racial discrimination
the right to work for lower wages.
During the New Deal, the power of workers to offer that "compensating difference" began to
erode. The National Recovery Act (NRA), which became law in 1933, established codes that
required the payment of set wages for certain industries.37 Those codes were established
generally by exclusionary union-business panels. The NRA also provided for minimum wages
based on what certain classes of workers received in the past. Since the act created set wages,
it reduced employer incentives to hire blacks;" because such hiring provided no economic
advantage, there was no reason for employers to put up with the white worker hostility and
conflict that might result. Some employers dismissed black workers and hired whites in their
place.39 Others eliminated menial jobs held by blacks because they could not pay the
mandated wage.
Section 7a of the NRA certified unions as exclusive bargaining agents. The NAACP's Roy Wilkins
said that the AFLs strategy was to use sec tion 7a "to organize a union for all workers, and to
either agree with employers to push Negroes out of the industry or, having effected an
agreement with the employer, proceed to make the union Black spokesmen and the black
press were fully aware of the effects of the act. They referred to it variously as the "Negro Run
Around," "Negroes Rarely Allowed," "Negroes Ruined Again," "Negroes Robbed Again," "No
Roosevelt Again;' and the "Negro Removal Act."4' Professor Herbert Hill said that "the
legislation intended to be the cornerstone of President Roosevelt's program to protect and
uplift the working class had ... become a millstone around the Black worker's In 1935, the U.S.
Supreme Court ruled the NRA unconstitutiona1.43 New Dealers mourned,44 but the blackcommunity
The celebration was short-lived. In 1935, Section 7a of the NRA became Section 9 of the
National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), popularly known as the Wagner Act, which established
unions as the sole collective bargaining unit once the union became certified by the National
Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The Wagner Act banned company unions and allowed unions
to establish closed shops that had the power to bar non-members from employment.
Originally, the Wagner Act contained a clause barring unions from discriminating against
blacks. At the time, Howard's Professor Miller predicted "the doom of the Negro in America
industry if the Wagner Act did not contain a clause protecting Under AFL political pressure,
Senator Wagner dropped the anti-discrimination clause in order to retain union support and
insure the act's passage.47 Most New Dealers thought that discrimination against blacks was
an acceptable and inevitable cost of economic recovery.48
The Wagner Act was widely thought to be unconstitutional;49 however, the "new" Supreme
Court, having abandoned judicial review of economic legislation, upheld its constitutionality.50
This translated the unequal treatment of blacks by unions into a loss of previously available
employment opportunities. In 1945, the NLRB made a face-saving ruling that a statutory
bargaining agent must represent all employees fairly without regard to race.51 However, the
board also ruled that segregation and exclusion of blacks from union membership did not
constitute an unfair labor practice. And it held that segregating blacks and whites into
separate local unions was not a form of discrimination per se.52
New Deal legislation was clearly devastating for the black worker. In 1930, the national total
unemployment rate was 6.13 percent. However, in that year, unemployment for blacks stood
at 5.17 percent, almost a full percentage point below that for whites. Nineteen thirty was to be
the last year when a larger percentage of whites than of blacks would be unemployed.53
The Wagner Act not only conferred monopoly power on labor unions but also made it illegal
for employers to use blacks as strikebreakers. The higher, union-mandated wages led to
mechanization and the elimination of some low-skilled jobs performed by blacks. The
Agricultural Adjustment Act accelerated the mechanization of farms and displaced many black
workers. In addition, the Fair Labor Standards Act, enacting minimum wages, began the
elimination of many jobs and contributed to racial discrimination. As the renowned economist
Gunnar Myrdal argued:
When the jobs are made better, the employer becomes less eager to hire
Negroes. There is, in addition, the possibility that the policy of setting minimum
standards might cause some jobs to disappear altogether or to become greatly
decreased.... If labor gets more expensive, it is likely to be economized and
substituted for by machines. Also inefficient industries, which have hitherto
existed solely by the exploitation of labor, maybe put out ofbusiness when the
government sets minimum standards.14There is no question about racist union exclusionary policy and practices of the past. But what
can be said about today? There is little evidence of continued flagrant racial exclusion.
However, in some craft unions, blacks are virtually absent. That can be explained in several
interrelated ways. One is that black workers may not be seeking to join the union because,
seeing the relatively few black members, they view their chances of admission as slim. Second,
entry requirements may have been raised to discourage black membership. That, related to a
third possible reason, is the entire package of entry conditions, which includes long
apprenticeship periods and restrictions on the number of apprentices, seniority rules, and
artificially high wages, and licensure. Regardless of whether unions discriminate racially today,
all these union-supported practices tend to discriminate against lower-skilled tradesmen.

 

[Marciano]

*subs*

 

[Samori Toure]

So reality that white labor unions worked to kick blacks out and that blacks unionized in response to them, that black labor union leaders spoke out against this, that Booker T Washington and WEB Dubois openly agreed about how white labor was trying to cripple blacks economically, that documented letters to congress from white unions demanding their use in federal projects while they openly kept blacks out this isn't reality?

Its clear you reject reality to live in a very clear delusion of this pipe dream of labor unity. I bet you didn't even read that excerpt from the book that I posted, did you?

here is some more for you to not read I guess.

Once again I am telling you that the plan was not to put Black people out of the workforce. The plan was to drive down wages for all people in the workforce, which is why Black people were brought North and West. The Unions actually co-opted or maybe it was corrupted the Civil Right movement, so you can clearly see that the plan was not to drive Black people out of the workforce.

Btw, a modern day equivalency of what we are discussing is the use of illegal aliens (mostly Mexicans) and other foreign workers that come through the H1B visa program. Employers are not trying to cut Black and White American workers out of the workforce. They just want to pay less money to all workers in the workforce.

 

[David_TheMan]

Once again I am telling you that the plan was not to put Black people out of the workforce. The plan was to drive down wages for all people in the workforce, which is why Black people were brought North and West. The Unions actually co-opted or maybe it was corrupted the Civil Right movement, so you can clearly see that the plan was not to drive Black people out of the workforce.

Btw, a modern day equivalency of what we are discussing is the use of illegal aliens (mostly Mexicans) and other foreign workers that come through the H1B visa program. Employers are not trying to cut Black and White American workers out of the workforce. They just want to pay less money to all workers in the workforce.

Yes the plan out of the union leaders and the US government's own mouths and in letters was specifically to put blacks out of the workforce.
AFL leader said he wanted to get rid of negro labor and european labor.
You keep claiming they wanted to drive down labor, but this is a lie, like all the blacks said at the time, who I quoted in those posts you don't read, if they unions wanted blacks to not drive down labor all they had to do was allow blacks memberships into the unions.

There is no modern day equivalency of US citizens being kicked out the workforce by the US government

 

[Samori Toure]

Here is some more @Akan
You really should read and research what you are saying, instead of rejecting reality..
These white folks aren't your friend just because they say they are "pro-labor"

Dude you are off on some dumb shyt. Anybody that read my posts know that I know that White people are not friends to the Black man.

You just don't understand how economics work. The point in all of these exercises from the standpoint of an employer is to drive down wages of all workers. You have to be crazy to think that they are trying force Black people onto welfare, when the government is destroying welfare to make people work. This is a multi prong issue. Hold down wages (keep minimum wage low) and cut out welfare. They want to get rid of healthcare, because that is an extra cost to employers.

 

[David_TheMan]

Dude you are off on some dumb shyt. Anybody that read my posts know that I know that White people are not friends to the Black man.

You just don't understand how economics work. The point in all of these exercises from the standpoint of an employer is to drive down wages of all workers. You have to be crazy to think that they are trying force Black people onto welfare, when the government is destroying welfare to make people work. This is a multi prong issue. Hold down wages (keep minimum wage low) and cut out welfare. They want to get rid of healthcare, because that is an extra cause to employers.

You don't seem to understand how economics works which is why you are stuck quoting myths that are easily dismissed with the actual documented quotes and reactions of blacks who were alive during the time fighting the unions working against them, with pie in the sky rhetoric about unions being reactionary, instead of racist white only organizations they were.

You literally ignore evidence counter to what you claim, and have claimed in this thread that what is documented in occuring isn't reality.

More info for you that i'm sure you won't read.

The Use of the State Against Blacks
Early U.S. Supreme Court decisions thwarted union attempts to exclude blackworkers. In re
Debs upheld a federal injunction against Eugene V. Debs' whites-only American Railway Union,
which sought to monopolize the labor market.75 Courts often issued injunctions enforcing
"yellow-dog" contracts, wherein workers, as a condition of employment, agreed not to join a
union. Pressured by labor unions, Congress enacted a statute banning interstate railroads
from enforcing those contracts.76 In 1908, in Adair v. United States, the Supreme Court
overturned the statute as a violation of the freedom of contract.77 In Coppage v. Kansas
(1915), the Court struck down state bans on yellow-dog contracts involving intrastate
railroads." That decision hampered the unions' ability to use state legislatures in their efforts
to remove black workers.
Blacks recognized the importance of yellow-dog contracts implied in the freedom to contract
for their services. In testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, during the Shipstead
anti-injunction hearings in 1928, Harry E. Davis, a black politician from Ohio, said, "It logically
follows that a colored worker who is denied the protection and benefits of organized labor
because they will not take him in, has only one place of redress in case his right of
employment is assailed and that is in our courts..." Davis went on to say, "The group I
represent has not got very much physical or tangible property, and their biggest asset is their
right to a job, recognized as a contract, but an intangible right, and I maintain that if this bill
becomes a law, it would affect very materially their right to the biggest thing which they have,

Racist Union Policy Toward Others: A Digression
Samuel Gompers, the first president of the AFL, is mistakenly revered by many as the
benevolent father of the labor movement. He is seen as not having a single racist bone in his
body. But he warned, "Caucasians are not going to let their standard of living be destroyed by
Negroes, Chinamen, Japs or any other.""

 

[Samori Toure]

You don't seem to understand how economics works which is why you are stuck quoting myths that are easily dismissed with the actual documented quotes and reactions of blacks who were alive during the time fighting the unions working against them, with pie in the sky rhetoric about unions being reactionary, instead of racist white only organizations they were.

You literally ignore evidence counter to what you claim, and have claimed in this thread that what is documented in occuring isn't reality.

More info for you that i'm sure you won't read.

I was alive during some of that stuff that you are talking about. So I am telling you what I know. Hell my mother and father were some of the first Black people in the transit union in Chicago. I had uncles and aunts that were in the postal union. My grandfather was a Pullman Porter.

We can agree to disagree.

 

[Houston911]

.....