Quote:My Grandfather (God Rest His Soul) was born iin 1913, came up through the depression and all that good stuff that happened in the 20's and 30's. Workd as a truck driver at the local stone quarry. At night he built his own house. Yeah it was a simple block house but he built it damn it. His wife mixed the motar for it. Oh, and he was a functional illiterate to boot. In 1948 he took a BIG chance and started his own business. He worked night and day to get it off the ground, one truck and a handful of men. That business survived the recession of the 70's and grew. He had a heart attack in or about 1972 and his son took it over. The Business grew even more. When he died in 93 he died a millionaire. Where was his white priviledge? He work his [BAD WORD REMOVED] off for everything he got. No one owed him anything and he owed no one. Oh, and he raised 5 kids in the process.

Who gave him the skilled labor job? If my Grandpa who lived during the same era applied to work where your GRANDFATHER did he mostly likely would have been denied employment. NO COLOREDS, NO NEGROS.




There's your white privilege.


If and this is a BIG if he was allowed to work he would be paid 50% less than your Grandfather. He would be told to eat at the Colored tables, drink from the colored fountains, and use the rest room for coloreds. That's IF the company even had separate facilities available.


More white privilege.


Here is an analysis of African American employment during the 1900s:THE COMPETITIVE DYNAMICS OF RACIAL EXCLUSION: EMPLOYMENT SEGREGATION IN THE SOUTH, 1900-1950*


Robert A. Margo

Vanderbilt University In 1940, the average annual earnings of black men were about 48 percent of the average annual earnings of white men. In 1980, the black- to-white male earnings ratio equalled 61 percent, an increase of 13 percentage points in four decades. Associated with the increase in the earnings ratio, and arguably a better indicator of fundamental change, is the post-World War Two emergence of a "new" black middle class composed of persons employed in a wide variety of white collar and skilled blue-collar occupations. Yet very little change in the earnings ratio appears to have occurred between 1900 and 1940. In 1900 the earnings ratio is estimated to have been 45 percent, just 3 percentage points less than in 1940.


Two frameworks have been advanced to explain the initial stability in the earnings ratio: a supply-side or "human capital" model, and a demand-side, or "institutionalist" model. Proponents of the human capital model argue that the initial stability of the earnings ratio can be explained by large and persistent racial differences in the "quantity" and "quality" of schooling that existed in the first half of the twentieth century. Institutionalists reject the claim that a narrower schooling gap in the first half of the twentieth century would have done much good in fostering black economic progress at that time. Rather, institutionalists believe that, early in the century, the majority of black men were trapped in very low- income jobs, primarily in southern agriculture. To initiate and speed up the process of absorption of black labor into higher paying non-farm jobs, positive "shocks" to the labor market, which permanently increased the non-farm demand for black labor, were required. Large increases in labor demand during the two world wars, for example, resulted in an outflow of blacks from the rural South. But wartime shocks were not sufficient to set in motion a large and sustained rise in the earnings ratio. Additional shocks (the Civil Rights Movement and associated anti-discrimination legislation) were necessary. Despite the emphasis given in the two frameworks to events in the South, previous research has largely been conducted using national aggregate data. This paper uses the public use samples of the 1900, 1910, 1940, and 1950 censuses to examine econometrically the determinants of racial differences in employment outcomes (occupation and industry) in the South during the first half of the twentieth century.


The South began the twentieth century as an agricultural economy -- a majority of male workers, black or white, worked in farming. Agricultural participation rates (the proportion of the male labor force engaged in agriculture) were slightly lower for adult males than for all males in the labor force, but were still substantial. Importantly, racial differences in agricultural participation rates were relatively small at the turn of the century -- 4 percentage points for males ages 10 and over, and 2 percentage points for adult males<a class="bbc_url" href='http://cliometrics.org/conferences/ASSA/Dec_90/Margo.shtml'>http://cliometrics.org/conferences/ASSA/Dec_90/Margo.shtml</a>

---