"Say I am somebody." I am somebody. "I may be poor but I am somebody." I am somebody! "I may be hungry but I am somebody." l am somebody! Jesse Jackson

The Eastern Caravan arrived during the month of May after stopping off in New York City to pick up the Puerto Rico contingent. The Appalachian Trial Caravan was made up of people from Tennessee, Kentucky, the Virginias, and was a mixture of whites and blacks. Winding its way through 13 cities in the Deep South, the Southern Caravan made up of Mexicans and Southerners journeyed east. From California, New Mexico, and Oklahoma; the Western Caravan came with its Mexicans and Indians. The Northwest sent the Indian Caravan starting off in Oregon and passing through Washington with stops in Montana, North Dakota, and Minnesota. They all came in buses, beat-up cars and pickups, a “Freedom Train,” and even Mule trains. A cross-section of the nation’s regions; these people from all parts of America had one similarity, they were poor. In mass they followed their Freedom Roads from different parts of the country and descended upon Washington D.C. and with them they brought a list of demands for better education, jobs, homes, civil rights, and freedom. The incomes of the people ranged from $1.25/hour to nothing. The thousands who gathered in Washington D. C. erected a shanty town between the Lincoln and Washington Monuments calling it “Resurrection City.” They occupied this town from May 14 until June 24, 1968.

In 1967, Martin Luther King began to link the war in Vietnam as a detriment to increasing the prosperity of the poor in the US. Calling for a War on Poverty and using the President’s Commission on Civil Disorders as a basis, King called for a civil and non-violent Poor People’s March on Washington D.C. With such a March, he hoped to separate his Civil Right’s movement away from the Black Power movement of the time and make the Civil rights movement more of a class, human rights and economic struggle rather than that of one race. By shifting the emphasis to the economics of the poor and those living in poverty, King was hoping to force the country into recognizing the plight of the poor regardless of race thereby pushing Civil Rights for all. It was Bobby Kennedy who had told King to bring the poor people to Washington D.C. and King planned his Poor People’s March in three phases. The first phase would be the erection of a shanty-town within Washington, daily protests, and a march on Washington D.C.; the second phase would incorporate civil disorder and a large numbers of arrests in Washington; and the last effort would be a boycott of major corporations.

With the exception of Walther Reuther of the United Auto Workers; Unions, including the Memphis Sanitation Union and George Meany of the AFL-CIO, did not support the Poor People’s March on Washington D.C. Newspapers such as The Washington Post and the New York Times criticized the march as unjustified and placing Washingtonians and American’s rights in jeopardy. With Martin Luther King’s murder in April, the Poor People’s march still did not garner much support, and his untimely death lessened the impact of it with many calling it a failure. The March failed to attract the liberal, middle-class constituency’s support who were repulsed by the goals of the Poor People’s March which questioned the issues of class, the economics of a capitalistic way of life, and the skewing of resources towards those who were better off.

While many have pointed out The Poor People March’s failure, the March itself did bring to light the plight of 40 million people who were poor or living in poverty within the US. The March forced the middle class to recognize the issue and also their failure to support it. Not much has changed in today’s economy and the numbers of poor and those living in poverty has grown to ~120 million with a continued apathy of their plight by the middle class and those even more fortunate. Adding to the issues facing the success of the Poor People’s March was the death of Bobbie Kennedy on June 5, 1968. Besides King, Bobbie Kennedy was one of America’s poor biggest supporters and his campaign had pledged support of America’s poor.

During 28 of the 42 days of Resurrection City existence, it rained leaving its make-shift paths and roads quagmires of mud. Even so, while it existed, it had a police department, a village hall, a cultural center, a school, and even its. Finally on June 19th, 50,000 people marched in the “Solidarity March” on the Capital. It was there that Jesse Jackson gave his speech under the Lincoln Memorial:

“Whereas we stand in the shadows of Lincoln the Emancipator who freed us into capitalism without capital. Whereas we stand in a land of surplus food with 10 million starving citizens, and whereas the soil bank has become Holy Land. . . the land on which some men swim in wealth while others drown in tears from broken promises, destroyed dreams and blasted hopes. . . For the life we live and the life we love we vow to fight for a new sensitive and sensible economic order in that all men need a job or an income if they are to have human dignity; all men deserve a job or an income for it is not alone by men's work but by God's grace that America is so fertile and rich; And America can afford a job or an income for all men if she has the will to put healing programs over killing programs.”

Not much has changed since the last great march of the Civil Rights movement. It was on June 24, 1968; 1000 police converged on Resurrection City, its citizens dispersed, and the shanty-town bull-dozed. No one listened then and no one listens 40 years later on the same day.

“There go my people-I must catch up with them, for I am their leader.” - Mohandas Gandhi

<link> “Class Resurrection: The Poor People’s March of 1968 and Resurrection City”, Robert T, Chase

"Not much has changed since the last great march of the Civil Rights movement."

Except for black college enrollment went from 13 to 30%. ooh ooh, and the total number of blacks in congress went from 6 to 39. Ooh, and the massive strengthening of affirmative action in 1973. And uh, the fact that now blacks have pretty much the best actor in Hollywood (Will Smith), the best golfer, and are about to have a PRESIDENT(McCain will get curbstomped worse than that one guy in American History X).

It shocks me you can write such things and expect to be taken seriously.

What has changed, I hope you'll agree, is that the lines of class/race are becoming less important than the lines of age. Student loan debt is ensuring a huge huge gap between the 20somethings and the 40somethings.

And guess who's too busy trying to pay down debt instead of marching on washingston?

With such a March, he [King] hoped to separate his Civil Right’s movement away from the Black Power movement of the time and make the Civil rights movement more of a class, human rights and economic struggle rather than that of one race.

If we were simply talking about Blacks (Afro-Americans), or even women, then one Condi Rice would be sufficient to show that they have made it. But Run was talking about poverty, loosely defined as not having enough money to succeed in society. By that measure, the number has grown from 40 million 40 years ago to 120 million today. Fifty million have no health insurance. It takes a college degree to achieve the same level of security as a high school diploma gave 40 years ago.

I understand he was talking about poverty. If we agree college is a way to escape poverty, you will see that indeed, the percentage of blacks escaping poverty(going to college) has increased. The number of total people going to college has increased.

And, it would appear that our total job security has gone up, as overall labor participation is up. However, with the security, our debt loads have gone WAY up, especially for college-educated young adults, and I daresay, our sensitivity is up, because with that much debt, it's easier to feel trapped and harder to feel good about taking risks with a career.

Meanwhile, the bar is constantly being raised for what is good enough for the poor. Health insurance is a perfect example. You say 50 million, i.e. 1/6 of the US has no health care. Okay, any idea how many people didn't have health care back in 1968? I'll tell you this much... nobody talked about it! Why? Because back then, poor people were more concerned with more pressing needs than "insurance", like putting food on the table. Now, there's no food shortage, instead we have an obseity "epidemic".

So, I have trouble with your 40 million vs 120 million. In 1968, poor meant not getting to eat every day, no car, and no air condition. in 2008, the poor have the ac and cars(you can't tell me there's 120 million people with out a car) and food. Hmm...

80% of the population has cable TV, a luxury at first reserved to the richest 20% in the late 70s and of course, non-existent in 1968. Now I suppose part of the definition of poor is not having cable. Well fuck, by that definition, EVERYONE was poor in 1968.

In terms of air-conditioners and cars. But 40 years ago a white high school graduate could buy a single family dwelling on his paycheck alone, whereas nowadays even a couple both working may have trouble affording a condominium in the pricy coastal urban areas. Some things have declined in price, defined as average wage-hours, and some things have risen. Medical care is one of the things that has risen, and health insurance wasn't talked about because most people didn't bother with it--doctor's visits were still pretty cheap--like $10 or $20. What are they today? Ten times that. Ditto for hospitals--maybe even more. Our older society also consumes more medical care today than the younger society of 1968. In terms of the necessities that everyone needs, and frequently buys, many items have risen ten-fold since 1968 and paychecks have not kept up. The minimum wage in 1968 was about $1.25, and today is not even 5 times as much. Gas was about 30 cents in 1968 and is about 14 times that today. True, food costs haven't risen that much, thanks to millions of Mexican farmworkers earning peanuts and more efficient agriculture. Infrastructure is better in most places--though decaying in others. Schools are worse. It's a mixed bag.

diogene:

Maybe, you have been reading my Elizabeth Warren piece? You answered Madai well.

Madai:

How can I write about poverty, gender, and race? Easy, because there is so much wrong with society today. The days of equality and having the ability to raise one's self by their own bootstraps are rapidly disappearing. This is even more an issue for gender and/or race.

Is it any coincidence that African Americans have had an unemployment rate twice that of White America since WWII Gilligan, Fanon, and Bulhan)? Is it a coincidence that an African American born into the 1st quintile of income has an ~1 of 3 chance of moving up to the next quintile of income? As compared to White America's ~ 2 of 3 chance (Hertz)? You are citing extremes and I am talking about the general population. It is not enough to have Will Smith as a good Actor or "Tiger" as today's best golfer. And Congress? Less than 10 percent of that group is made up of Blacks when the population is 13%.

As I have written elsewhere (below here - you have not been around), the college degree today is the high school diploma of 1970 and the potential ticket to the Middle Class (Warren). What has changed is high school was all but paid for with tax dollars in 1970 and college is mostly paid for by the people attending it. Add to this the prerequisite of attending a paid pre-school before Grade School and one begins to understand why many economically disadvantaged people who are born into poverty or low income levels can not improve upon themselves. And, and, I have not touched upon the equivalency of schools in areas. We have not kept up with paying for advanced levels of schools for people.

For the record, my BA (Business and Math) was $1400 per year. My Masters from Loyola was $300-$350/course and I took additional courses. Of course, I had to supply my own abacus and later a slide rule (which I still have).

"How can I write about poverty, gender, and race? "

SPARE ME. I was taking issue with one ridiculous assertion, not that you were talking about the issue.

Ths one sentence:

"Not much has changed since the last great march of the Civil Rights movement."

Is HORSE SHIT. Are there still issues with poverty? Duh, yeah. Are you adding to the knowledge of the human race by making such ridiculous assertions? Not one bit.

My point is, we've made measureable, even HUGE progress on the issues we saw in 1968, and meanwhile, the "game"(for lack of a better word) itself has changed significantly, in some ways, masking the progress we've made.

As for farming, technology and mexicans are not the key factor. The key factor is government spending. Nixon changed the farm programs dramatically to lower food prices.

"What has changed is high school was all but paid for with tax dollars in 1970 and college is mostly paid for by the people attending it."

Whoo, this one's a doozy! It's worse than that. See, back in the 70's, tax dollars did far more for college as well. The GI bill and stuff. Rampant inflation in tuition costs have eroded the value of the GI bill, plus, the percentage of the population in the military has plummeted with the end of the draft.

So, while a historical perspective is certainly good, the challenges we face today, and the solutions we must employ to make progress, are far different.

For example, Genedio mentions housing, (an aspect which reinforces my point of young vs old). It is indeed hard to get a house. I have argued for progressive property taxes in the past, which would reduce the asset inflation of housing tremendously, and discourage the "buy with zero money down before it's too late!" mentality.

This is yet another huge example of something that HAS changed since 1968- housing taxes were higher, and with higher taxes they were more affordable especially at the front end.

Different problems, different solutions. If I had to summarize the key problem facing the US today, it would be mostly about our attitude towards debts, both public and personal. In 1968, this was clearly not the case. In 1968, the porblems were less about debt and more about basic things, like food, free will (draft), etc. And we created new problems by solving the old problems.

And my point stands: poor people marched in 1968 because they had nothing to lose. The poor and heavily indebted today HAVE something to lose, so it will be harder for them to summon the courage to march. And THAT may be the biggest change of all. Remember, this is the "Don't tase me bro!" generation, not the "4 dead in ohio" generation.

Nothing has changed except for EVERYTHING.

Madai:

I have cited from studies and you wish to cite an opinion? I also suggested you read another post which goes into some of the issues you bring up here in a definitive manner.

You can continue to attempt to clear your voice here as a point of contempt for my assertion; but, I believe I hold the high ground here and I have refuted each of your points.

As far as the GI Bill, if you were in the military in 1970, you certainly benefited from it; but, you did not need it to be successful then. The BA degree today is the high school education of 1970 and MOST Americans did not have the GI Bill in 1970 or even today. You are reaching for an extreme. I will stick with my contention that a High School education was paid for by the gov and it was all you needed in 1970. In 2005, to have the same advantage, you need a college degree to access the middle class and that cost comes mostly from our own pockets.

Please come back with a little bit more than silliness and take a moment and read the other post.

Run, I was using several facts to make my case. If you would like me to get links for many of my factual assertions, like, the extent of the GI Bill's influence on college education, farming subsidies lowering food prices, etc, I'll be happy to look them up.

Are you saying that we've made zero progress since 1968? (hard data says we have)

Are you saying new problems have not arisen?(you might not think so because you're not the one getting screwed)

Finally don't you think the whole "don't tase me bro" incident provides a stunning contrast to the climate of the late 60's early 70s? (I think it does)

I should hope our points of disagreement are small, but I hope you see I am not at all being silly about this.

Madai:

You are not reading what I am writing in my posts. Of course the GI Bill had a great impact on America after WWII and not so great during Vietnam. I am not talking about that at all and I am discussing what general education is for MOST people without a GI Bill which was targeted to veterans and not the general populace.

Carefully read my answers to you. I have carefully cited several strongly supported facts concerning Black Americans in the US and the disadvantages that they have endured under, of which some go back as far as WWII with little or no change. In 1968, MLK's Poor People's March was rejected by lily-white liberal America because it clashed with their pull yourself up by your own capitalistic boot straps. I cited a 2006 study that stated that the chances of advancing are 1 of 3 for Black Americans as compared to 2 of 3 for White Americans. The one area Black Americans have really advanced in is the increased percentage of the prison population makeup, which is directly related to the environment they grew up in, the income of their parents, the availability of equal education, and overall health . . . the structural disadvantages. The progress you wish to point out is still not anywhere near what it should be if America was truly equal. Even during Clinton's administration, the gains were there but the gains did not put them any closer to the White Man's level of wealth and income.

The difference between today and 1968/70 is the subtlety of the discrimination. It is not as overt as 40 years ago. As I alsopointed out to you, the gains are not as near as to the percentage makeup of the population.

Read my other post on this same page Madai . . . "Politics, Economics, and the Middle Class" <link> There is a great link there, which I "believe" you may enjoy if you have a spare 57 minutes. The post is a boiled down version of it.

Run, I read all that stuff. Again, like I said, our disagreements are small. Sure, the progress for blacks has not been "enough". But what is the solution? more of the same? A march? Is the problem the same, or has it morphed over the years?

Are people more inclined to protest than they did in the 60s, or less? Do you think, back when you were a college student, you would have just sat there while your classmate was getting tasered just for asking a question?

Run says: "The BA degree today is the high school education of 1970"

LeRoy: Yes, and one of the major reasons for that is the very poor quality of most of our high schools today....both compared to what they were like in 1970 (though I would say 1965), and compared to what high schools are like in most of our trading competitors. As Bill Gates has said, "American high schools are obsolete." Less than 20% of our college-bound freshmen are even ready to take college-level science courses; if they want to, they must first take remedial courses...and the same is true in mathematics.

Really, to get any kind of a decent education today, you have to go to college....with very few exceptions. [I like to think that the high school where I teach is one of those exceptions, and I think the facts support that claim.]

The first-best option is to fix our high schools.

"Yes, and one of the major reasons for that is the very poor quality of most of our high schools today....both compared to what they were like in 1970 (though I would say 1965),"

I am not so sure that, in aggregrate, high schools were better in 1970 or 1965 than they are today.

There were very high dropout rates in the 60s, and while today's dropout rates may be obscured or blantant lies, that does not excuse the high rates of the 60s. One thing we can say for certain is that a higher percentage of students are going on to college, whether they are ready or not. Consider this: In 1967 13% of blacks went on to College. In 2005, 30% did. If High Schools performed exactly the same in 1967 and 2005, each producing a yield of only 13% black students ready for college, in 1967, 100% of those going to college would be ready(because only the 13% that were really ready went), and in 2005, only 43% enter ready(13% ready plus 17% not ready)

The fact is, the job market in the US has changed, A high school education was enough in 1965, because there was lots of unskilled labor. Now, most new jobs being created require highly-skilled labor.

I agree that high schools need some serious improvements, but I'm not sure trying to make them more like the schools of 1965 would be the improvement we need.

Leroy:

That was the topic of a different post. You must know by now my posts are pretty much interlinked to one another. There is no way I culd cover the breathe of the issues without multiple posts.