First off on my Blog today I’m going to show how many while they might believe it is a good thing that Corporations have been allowed in the Citizen voice of Government, which has turned into whom has the most Lobbyist with the deepest Pockets, and our own government while it is very apparent has become so bogged down in it’s own pursuit of greed and corruption, by attempting to present it’s self as a modern day liberalist which is nothing more than a facade, we gone back to what we originally as a Country Fought against, Rule by tyrants!
Recently, when PayPal and Deutsche Bank ditched nearly 700 new jobs they promised to North Carolina, and over 160 corporations told Gov. Pat McCrory, “It’s the economy, stupid,” I was not surprised. With the lightning passage of the state’s anti-LGBT House Bill 2, North Carolina’s economic barometer tanked.
What does surprise me, however, is the impression this sea change happened overnight. Not by a long shot. In fact, it may have been the best-not-kept-secret in the nation. The real truth is this tide in American business actually emerged over two decades ago.
When I started Out & Equal 20 years ago, the United States was a different society. While many of us came to work each morning, most of us still left our real identities at home, especially the life we enjoyed with the partner we loved.
However, by hosting the Out & Equal Workplace Summit each year — the impact of bringing together more than 3,500 LGBT and ally executives and employee resource group leaders has shifted the global workplace equality landscape.
When I began this work 20 years ago, I started by simply building vocabularies and explaining the meaning of basic terms like lesbian and gay, let alone bisexual and transgender. In the absence of a federal law to protect us, I went company by company to ensure that they included us in their policies. This patient and painstaking dialogue gave many people the confidence to open their minds before they opened their doors and improved their policies.
Achieving LGBT equality has always had many struggles, and the workplace is just one of them, but a crucial one we discovered early and often. Experience tells us that business leaders, as a habit, tend to be cautious and conservative. They understand the balance of risk and reward and make most decisions accordingly.
Nonetheless, many business leaders also have vision and the gift to see trends before many others do. When markets evolve, opinions change, metrics adapt; they get it. These conversations not only transformed how business sees us but how we see ourselves as contributing to our employers’ success. It wasn’t about us or them. It was about us — all of us.
We argued for equal treatment, equal respect, and equal worth — by advocating for same-sex partner benefits, championing nondiscrimination policies that touched all of us, and campaigning for transgender-inclusive health care.
Twenty years ago, fewer than 5 percent of Fortune 500 employers banned discrimination due to a person’s sexual orientation. Today, 93 percent of these companies offer sexual orientation protections, while 75 percent also provide protections against discrimination based on gender identity or expression.
Much has changed since we began building these deep relationships, but there is still much to be done. Out & Equal has been leading the international movement towards global workplace equality for well over a decade. We can be arrested and imprisoned and even killed in nearly 80 countries around the globe, simply because of who we love — it is clear, our global work is as important in 2016 as it was in 1996.
We work to help companies navigate the muddy waters of a global marketplace, we provide opportunities for companies to come together to build community and share best practices in countries where that’s most needed. And while we do that work in every corner of the globe, it is now needed just as much here in our country. This was highlighted just last week, when after the draconian and discriminatory laws in the South were passed, the U.K. put out a travel warning for its LGBT citizens who were thinking of visiting the U.S.
We know that with progress come setbacks and backlash. In some parts of the U.S., we see discriminatory legislation in the form of “bathroom bills,” targeting vulnerable transgender people. Other reprisals take the shape of so-called religious freedom or religious exemption legislation that invents new forms of sanctioned discrimination for those who mistakenly believe our civil rights are on a collision course with people of faith.
In North Carolina, as we witnessed in Indiana, Georgia, Mississippi, and Tennessee, corporate and business leaders have been our unflinching allies to defeat these backward moves, and in some cases, to take their jobs and their valuable investments elsewhere. And many other progressive states are equally enthusiastic to welcome them instead.
I am especially proud to see partners like IBM, Disney, Marriott, and Dow Chemical, for example, speak up and speak out about these hurtful and damaging policies. They have learned over the years that discriminatory legislation is not only morally wrong, it is incompatible with a successful company culture and with the corporate imperative to attract, retain, and develop the best and the brightest talent that the U.S. has to offer.
Companies that lead with an authentic commitment to diversity have witnessed that when a person is truly empowered to bring their entire, authentic self to work they perform better. And in choosing where to work, employees seek out companies with inclusive policies and benefits. To successfully compete in today’s global marketplace, companies must be committed to workplace diversity and inclusion.
Consumers also value businesses that are diverse in philosophy and inclusive in practice. The vast majority of LGBT consumers in the U.S. say they take a company’s inclusive policies into account when making purchases with their collective $884 billion buying power. At this critical juncture on the path to equality, supporting businesses that take a proactive stance for LGBT equality is vital. To achieve the change that we want to see, we know that we cannot have better friends than our business allies and advocates.
In the past, many of us spent so much effort hiding ourselves just to keep our jobs. Today, we know it’s by being honest and open on the job and in our lives that’s given us the power to change America and the world. Tens of thousands of LGBT employees and our allies have literally changed the world – one cubicle, one workplace … and one state at a time.
SELISSE BERRY is founder and chief executive officer of Out & Equal Workplace Advocates, the world’s largest nonprofit organization specifically dedicated to creating safe and equitable workplaces for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Introduction In November 1999, the U.S. Congress passed the National Park System New Area Study Act of 2000 (S. 1349) as contained in Public Law 106-113, Appendix C, “National Park Service Studies Act of 1999.” The act instructed the Secretary of the Interior “to direct special resource studies to determine the national significance of the sites, and/or areas, listed in Section 5 of this Act to determine the national significance of each site, and/or area, as well as the suitability and feasibility of their inclusion as units of the National Park System.” Among the areas to be studied were “Civil Rights Sites” on a “multi-state” level. As part of its National Historic Landmarks program, the National Park Service in partnership with the Organization of American Historians (OAH) prepared this civil rights framework study to assist the National Park Service in identifying and prioritizing those areas of history significant in illustrating the civil rights story. Implementation of the framework’s recommendations will help planners evaluate proposals by Congress and others for additions to both the National Park System and the National Trails System, and will also assist the responsible authorities in states, federal agencies, and Indian tribes to identify sites for National Historic Landmarks designation. The period of significance for the study begins in 1776, when Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that “all men are created equal.” The period ends in 1976, to include the growing civil rights movements of several minority groups in the dozen years following the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Before 1776, certainly, the rights of enslaved people, women, American Indians, and immigrants such as the Scots-Irish were routinely violated within the boundaries of the present United States, especially with respect to personal liberty, voting, educational opportunities, property ownership, and religious affiliation. During this period, however, such rights were subject not only to the laws of the mother country but also to the laws and judicial interpretations of the several colonies, some of which took a more liberal approach than did others. There was no national government to define or ensure civil rights, much less a national consensus about what those rights were. It was not until 1776 that a clear statement regarding civil rights rang out, in the words of the Declaration: “We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Although Thomas Jefferson’s words have sometimes seemed to ring hollow, they nonetheless constitute one of America’s shining ideals— an inspiration to the world—that all citizens have equal rights and stand equal before the law. Almost two centuries later, the preamble of another great document, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, clearly stated as its purpose the guarantee of the principles enunciated in the Declaration. Congress passed the act “to enforce the constitutional right to vote, to confer jurisdiction upon the district courts of the United States to provide injunctive relief against discrimination in public accommodations, to authorize the Attorney General to institute suits to protect constitutional rights in public facilities and public education, to extend the Commission on Civil Rights, to prevent discrimination in federally assisted programs, to establish a Commission on Equal Employment Opportunity, and for other purposes.” Although the protected parties were defined somewhat differently in individual sections of the act, generally they included all citizens without regard to “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” Subsequent interpretations of the act have applied the equal protection principle regardless of sexual orientation. The provisions of the act relating to the right to vote, access to public accommodations, public education, and equal employment opportunity (in the private sector as well as in federal government employment) serve as themes within the Civil Rights Framework. In 1990, the Americans with Disabilities Act extended the “powers, remedies, and procedures” of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to disabled Americans to prohibit the discrimination in employment, public accommodations, and other matters.
It seems odd though That allot of Africa American as so Like to be addressed, but if a Caucasian person preferred to be called European American they get so offended because to many have become too lulled by the facade of what Liberalism is,used to be called communism back in the past, but because of Liberalism they have made school books politically correct meaning , change History books that teach our children not to make the same mistakes of past generations by making History soft, well New’s flash History is ugly and allot of the time brutal and should be taught as so, that it is taken seriously, and it interesting that when one mentions civil right most African americans think it should be about them how wrong or conceded can they be.
A number of civil rights-related sites have not been recognized. The historians who contributed to this study listed many events, places, and people in the overview that are not yet evaluated within a theme study. This list is not intended to be comprehensive or definitive, but to help National Park Service assess how well civil rights sites are represented. Regarding the various minority groups, the inventory of civil rights sites is limited for Hispanics and Asian Americans, and American Indians in the New Deal (1934-1945), Termination (1945-1960), and Self-Determination (1960-1975) eras. In regard to historical themes, however, the National Park Service is addressing the topics of public accommodations, equal employment, housing, and voting within theme studies.
And this doesn’t even cover the Transgender folks,If you address it for one group of folks it should be included for all not a limitation as in the same in hiring, there should never be no hiring based on color of ones skin. sad state of affairs where has dignity and class and professionalism gone in the work place? In 1964 Congress adopted the most comprehensive civil rights legislation in United States history. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (1) guaranteed all Americans the right to vote; (2) prohibited discrimination in public accommodations based on race, color, religion, or national origin; (3) outlawed job discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; and (4) gave the federal government broad authority in enforcement. The civil rights movement leading up to this act was “one of the most publicized events in United States history. Short of a declaration of war, no other act of Congress had a more violent background—a background of confrontation, official violence, injury, and murder that has few parallels in American history.”2 The issue of who is guaranteed legal equality has been contested by women, minority groups, congresses, and federal courts ever since Thomas Jefferson asserted in the Declaration of Independence that “all men are created equal.” Clearly, the evolution of our present understanding of civil rights is deeply tied to our collective story and represents the highest aspirations and deepest tragedies that followed the adoption of our national charter. It is wholly within the mission of the National Park Service to locate, evaluate, recognize, preserve, and interpret nationally significant sites associated with the many threads of the civil rights story. The National Park Service has identified a number of civil rights-related resources, some of which have been established as units of the National Park System. Still others have been designated as National Historic Landmarks. To identify and interpret other related sites, the National Park Service must consider the site’s relationship to the civil rights story’s chronology, historical themes, and how various minorities are represented. The National Park Service has partnered with the Organization of American Historians (OAH) to provide an overview of civil rights history, and a list of people, events, and places that tell the story. Participating OAH historians are identified in the Contributors section of this framework. This framework study identifies broad themes within the civil rights story, as well as the events, persons, and places that represent those themes, and assesses the degree to which related sites are represented and recognized. The framework will enable the National Park Service to decide which themes and minority groups need further intensive study to identify and evaluate nationally significant sites. Implementing the framework will allow planners to evaluate proposals by Congress and others to add units to the National Park System, establish National Historic Trails, and recognize sites through National Historic Landmark designation.
This overview describes the efforts of women and minority groups to secure and enforce civil rights under the U.S. Constitution. The minority groups include American Indians, African Americans, Hispanics, Asian Americans, and gays and lesbians. Their struggles shaped the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and its provisions (equal employment, public accommodations, voting, and equal education) serve as major themes of the civil rights story both before and after the act’s passage. Other themes—less directly associated with the Civil Rights Act than the enumerated provisions but of equal historical importance—include immigrant rights, criminal injustice, and the American Indian nations’ struggle to retain their sovereignty, lands, rights, and culture. The level of information for each minority group in this historical overview is mainly dependent on two factors: whether the civil rights story of a minority group is documented and how closely related their story is to the themes. The best-known instance of denial of civil rights and the struggle to have them made effective was the resistance of southern states to the principle of blacks having equal rights with whites. By comparison, the history of civil rights for Hispanics is far less developed. Only within the past thirty years have specialists recovered the long neglected history of Hispanic people in the United States. Their historical record on some subjects such as public accommodations and equal employment is much less developed than for education and voting rights. Many books have been published in recent years that treat civil rights issues within broader themes of Hispanic culture and history. Similarly, the history of civil rights for Asian Americans has not been well publicized, but like that of other minorities, it is an important chapter in civil rights history. Few people know, for example, the critical contributions of Asian Americans to the development of the concept of citizenship in the United States. Asian Americans as a whole have faced harassment and discrimination in various forms, from brutal physical violence to obstacles in such areas as education, employment, and housing. Other important aspects of Asian American civil rights history are related to immigration and World War II internment. Cultural and ethnic diversity characterizes “Asian America,” and often one national group’s civil rights experience has been substantially different from that of other groups. Although relatively few books have been published solely on the subject of Asian American civil rights history, in recent years many books have addressed civil rights issues within broader themes of Asian American culture and history. The gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender movement began to emerge in the 1950s. Because people involved in same-sex relationships faced execution during the early years of the Republic, and ridicule, abuse, and discrimination thereafter, they long suppressed their stories. By the mid twentieth century, individuals and groups of gays and lesbians had begun asserting a right to public space, but as a form of cultural rather than political resistance. They also formed a variety of organizations to fight for justice and improve their lives. Of all the minority groups, only this one required a political act—coming out—for its members to be identifiable. Their civil rights history includes police harassment in public places and employment discrimination in government, schools, and the military. The civil rights struggle for women is a window on changing definitions of citizenship and the ways it has been shaped by gender, race, and class. Because women constitute half of every racial, ethnic, religious, or regional group, their story is difficult to tell in isolation. The clearest narratives are found in the campaign for the right to vote and the subsequent debates over the Equal Rights Amendment. Although educated, predominately white, and mostly middle-class women led the various movements, success depended on coalitions and alliances with workingclass and minority women. It is important to tell this story in a way that renders visible the full diversity of the participants and links the women’s civil rights struggles to those of other groups and to clarify the different perspectives and priorities that profoundly affect the implicit meanings of that ambiguous word “equality.” Very little has also been recorded about American Indian protests against discrimination in public accommodations, education, voting rights, and employment. Not all American Indian experiences fit the “civil rights” model. Rather, American Indians dealt with white racism while trying to define their individual rights vis-à-vis their own tribal governments, which makes their civil rights movement unique among minority groups. American Indians faced intense federal pressures to assimilate into white society while struggling to maintain their freedom, lands, and ways of life. Issues of sovereignty, treaty rights, land restoration, economic development, burial rights, and religious freedom define their movement. A wide variety of books has been published about American Indian history and culture that also discuss civil rights-related issues. The following overview is separated into chronological sections that identify phases in the development of civil rights between 1776 and 1976. Each section contains brief descriptions of women and minority experiences submitted by the OAH historians, as well as their lists of at least five to ten people, places, and events that they judge to be of national significance. Parts 1 through 6 discuss the experience of women and all minorities. Part 7 discusses the American Indian Movement and the unique civil rights experience of these people. These descriptions are placed within the political, social, or economic aspects of the time period to complete the overview.
The Declaration of Independence declared that “all men are created equal,” and in 1788, the U.S. Constitution purported to “secure the blessings of liberty” to the American people. These rights and liberties, however, were meant only for white men of property. The Founding Fathers never imagined that women, African Americans (both slave and free), or men without property could be the equal of the propertied white men entrusted with participation in the civic arena. Nonwhite men who were of other than African descent were also excluded, as Congress had stipulated in the Naturalization Act of 1790 that only “free white persons” could become citizens. Ironically, the majority of white males who became naturalized citizens between 1830 and 1860 enjoyed manhood suffrage and other rights denied to native-born nonwhites. Crusaders against slavery and racism advanced the concept of equality before the law, regardless of race, and often quoted the Declaration of Independence to condemn the institution of slavery that evolved after the first Africans landed involuntarily at Jamestown, Virginia, in 1619. Many abolitionists searched for color-blind citizenship, while slavery proponents viewed nonwhites as inferior races unworthy of Constitutional rights. Women abolitionists of the 1830s and 1840s initiated their own movement in the 1840s; one rooted in an emerging white middle class and women’s traditional roles in creating a civil society. Their civic duty, as captured in the phrase “Republican motherhood,” was to raise virtuous citizens (sons) and to encourage their husbands to exercise civic virtues. Pushing against the boundaries of their so-called “separate sphere,” women began to challenge the assigned roles of men and women in civic life, as well as access to the duties of citizenship. Nineteenth-century territorial expansion raised civil rights issues among those who lost their lands and for new immigrants seeking economic prosperity. Mexicans who supposedly gained their constitutional rights of citizenship after the U.S. takeover of the Southwest confronted disputes in race wars, lynchings, murders, and the application of unequal justice that lasted into the early twentieth century. Chinese workers who arrived after the discovery of gold in California marked the first major wave of Asian immigration to America. Those who followed them from other Asian countries, such as Japan, Korea, and India, added a dynamic dimension to the racial diversity of American society. In comparison with African Americans, Asian Americans were not enslaved, although some were virtual “wage slaves.” Because they were nonwhite, however, they were denied many civil rights granted white European immigrants, including political and economic rights. They were, in other words, “between black and white.” Within American society, nontraditional relationships were not tolerated. People involved in same-sex relationships or those who crossed the gender line were threatened with execution, imprisonment, or other forms of punishment for gathering in public places, engaging in sexual activity, or cross-dressing in public.
Examples of civil rights events and individuals
Abigail Adams, the wife of President John Adams, urged better legal treatment of women before and after the American Revolution. 4 1776-1865 National Negro Conventions were held beginning in the 1830s. These periodic meetings of leading blacks organized the race’s protests against slavery and discrimination and devised plans and programs for racial advancement. The meetings foreshadowed later African American civil rights and self-help organizations.
Richard Allen of Philadelphia was the first national black leader in the United States. A founder of the Free African Society in 1787 and the African Methodist Episcopal (AME) Church in 1793, the race’s first self-help and independent institutions, he was also the president of the National Negro Convention. Frederick Douglass gained fame as an antislavery orator and writer. During the Civil War, he galvanized black support for the military effort, and afterwards was the nation’s chief spokesperson for civil rights. Starting in 1847, he published the weekly newspaper The North Star, which promoted abolitionism, African American rights, women’s rights, and a host of related reforms.
Sarah and Angelina Grimké were sisters who were 1830s Southern abolitionist pioneers. Woman’s Rights Convention, held in Seneca Falls, New York, in 1848, formally began the women’s struggle for equality. Such meetings would be held almost annually up to the onset of the Civil War.
Elizabeth Cady Stanton initiated the suffragist movement and at the Woman’s Rights Convention, wrote the Declaration of Sentiments that called for a broad array of rights for women. Lucretia Mott was a women’s suffrage organizer who, with Elizabeth Cady Stanton, agreed at the 1840 World Anti-Slavery Convention to plan the first women’s rights convention, which was held in Seneca Falls in 1848.
The Elizabeth Cady Stanton Home Women’s Rights National Historical Park National Park Service Photograph Sojourner Truth was a former slave who became a national symbol for strong black women and an advocate of women’s and blacks’ rights.
Roberts v. City of Boston was an 1849 Massachusetts Supreme Court decision that established the “separate but equal” doctrine in a public school segregation case. People v. Hall was an 1854 Supreme Court of California ruling that Chinese people, like blacks and Indians, could not give testimony in court against whites
RECONSTRUCTION AND REPRESSION, 1865–1900 In 1865, following the Civil War, southern state legislatures began enacting Black Codes to restrict freedmen’s rights and maintain the plantation system. The Republican-controlled Congress responded to these measures between 1866 and 1870 by passing the three great postwar constitutional amendments (Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth) that abolished slavery, guaranteed the newly freed blacks equal protection of the laws, and gave all male American citizens the right to vote regardless of their “race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” Congress also passed the Civil Rights Acts of 1866 and 1875 to protect the rights of all Americans (excluding Indians) regardless of race. Henceforth, all persons born in the U.S. were national citizens with rights to “the full and equal enjoyment” of public places, among other rights. Freedmen and other persons of color looked forward to asserting their political rights and receiving equal treatment before the law, but they were soon disappointed. As Reconstruction came to an end in 1877, the concept of equal rights collapsed in the wake of legislative and judicial actions. The Republican and Democratic parties sacrificed civil rights in exchange for white southern votes. In the Civil Rights Cases of 1883, the U.S. Supreme Court found the statutory guarantee of equal enjoyment of public accommodations unconstitutional on the grounds that the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment only applied to state activities and did not permit federal control of individual actions. This decision greatly limited the rights of blacks and strengthened Jim Crow laws in the South. The passage of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments was partly responsible for the singular focus of women’s rights activists on the right to vote. The enfranchisement of African American men, which many women supported, in effect embedded into the Constitution a gender-based definition of citizenship and divided the women’s rights activists in the northern and midwestern states who had been part of the abolition movement. For some, guaranteeing only black men the right to vote was a necessary compromise at the end of a long and incredibly bloody war. For others, it constituted a betrayal of the equal rights concept. For all the women who demanded civic equality, women’s suffrage soon became the principal objective. It was also the most controversial goal because it constituted a direct claim to participation in public life. Many of the restrictions that African Americans suffered, Asian Americans endured as well. They likewise were excluded from public life, isolated in segregated schools, and discriminated against in regard to employment and housing. They also suffered under bans on racial intermarriage and limitations on real property ownership. Unlike blacks, the Chinese were excluded from immigration after 1882, while many other Asians were limited in the numbers that could legally immigrate, and none were allowed to become citizens. In the 1890s, Congress and the Supreme Court began redefining which minorities were entitled to citizenship. Congress began conferring citizenship status on Indians in certain states, albeit without full citizenship rights, such as the right to travel freely, manage their own money, vote (in some states), and purchase firearms and alcohol. In the case of the United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court ruled in 1898 that individuals born in the United States of Chinese parents could not be stripped of their American citizenship, which the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed. This ruling upheld an important constitutional principle—persons born in America
are citizens entitled to civil rights protections and due process—but state and federal courts and legislatures frequently ignored the civil rights and due process aspects of the amendment nonetheless. Despite these partial successes, in 1896 the final devastating blow to the civil rights gains made during Reconstruction came in the form of judicially sanctioned segregation. In Plessy v. Ferguson, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the concept of separate but equal public facilities, thus ensuring racial segregation and discrimination, especially in education. Whites would use this concept to keep African Americans, as well as other minorities, in separate and unequal facilities. The last decades of the nineteenth century were a time when vast and dramatic changes took place throughout America, many of them as a consequence of the Civil War. Urbanization, industrialization, immigration, the ferment of populism and labor struggles, the expansion of education, the settlement of the West and the end of the frontier, and the emergence of women’s professions created a more diversified and complicated setting for the equal rights struggle. In the first years of the new century, these changes helped to inspire intensified civil rights efforts, particularly in the last phase of the women’s suffrage movement.
Examples of civil rights events and individuals
Susan B. Anthony, who was active in numerous reform movements, entered the fight for women’s rights in 1851. In 1869, she played the leading role in organizing the National Woman Suffrage Association, which focused on the passage of an amendment to the Constitution.
Ida B. Wells-Barnett led other African American women to mobilize their extensive networks of clubs and reform associations on behalf of women’s suffrage despite exclusion from most white suffrage associations. By late in the nineteenth century, middle-class African American women had created an educational and civic infrastructure within the black community, especially clubs. They knew the empowering necessity of suffrage as they experienced the crushing repression of southern Jim Crow laws and the disfranchisement of African American men. Wells-Barnett also led a fiery international anti-lynching campaign that resulted in the founding of the Anti-Lynching Committee in 1893 while she was on a speaking tour of London.
The First Chinese Exclusion Act, which Congress passed in 1882, banned Chinese labor immigration for ten years (the period was later extended numerous times) and declared that Chinese immigrants could not become naturalized citizens. A significant event in Asian American history, the law is also a landmark event in the development of U.S. immigration laws. It was the first comprehensive immigration act of the nation and marked the beginning of the federal government’s restrictive immigration policies. It was also the first law to ban immigration on the basis of race.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark resulted in a U.S. Supreme Court decision in 1898 that persons born in the United States of Chinese parents could not be stripped of their American citizenship, thereby reaffirming a vital legal principle established in the Fourteenth Amendment. Courts and legislatures continued, however, to ignore other aspects of the amendment’s equal protection provisions.
Federal legislation outlawing discrimination in employment and voting had a dramatic effect on this situation, starting in 1964. The share of black employees at South Carolina textile companies jumped from less than 5 percent in 1963 to more than 20 percent in 1970 and to more than a third by 1980. Similar patterns were observed in all the Southern textile states. According to oral histories, blacks in textile areas referred to integration as “The Change,” and associated it with the reversal of black regional migration in the 1960s and ’70s.
Although the industry later declined in response to global competition, desegregation of textiles was the single-largest contributor to the sharp increase in relative black incomes from 1965 to 1975, an exclusively Southern regional phenomenon, according to economists John Donohue and James Heckman. Not only did black living standards improve, but mill workers with limited schooling were often able to send their children to college, taking advantage of expanding educational and employment opportunities elsewhere in the region.
Gains in other sectors were longer in coming and often required protracted litigation. But the basis for political and legal mobilization was almost always in civil-rights legislation. The Supreme Court’s Griggs decision of 1971 arose in the aftermath of the Civil Rights Act, from a complaint by long-segregated black laborers at Duke Power Co. By invalidating racially biased testing, the court forced corporate employers to re-examine their internal systems for hiring, transfer and promotion.
The advent of affirmative action in corporate America is well-known. Less often recognized is that advances for black workers in skilled and white-collar employment were overwhelmingly concentrated in the South, and that these gains persisted through marked changes in the national political climate.
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 had an immediate impact on black-voter registration, and the number of black elected officials increased gradually over the next 30 years. By this measure, too, gains in the South far exceeded those in other parts of the country, even allowing for regional differences in racial demography. Political representation translated into real economic gains for black Southerners, indicated by the distribution of public services, access to public-sector employment and racial equity in the allocation of government contracts.
Even public-school desegregation, often derided today as a misplaced priority or an outright failure, has had lasting economic benefits, according to recent research. Long-term studies by economists Sarah Reber, Orley Ashenfelter, William Collins, Albert Yoon and Rucker Johnson have found that Southern school integration increased blacks’ graduation rates, test scores, earnings and adult health status, while reducing the probability of incarceration.
It is difficult to identify precisely what led to these results (whether it was increased resources, better teachers or peer effects) and to differentiate the impact of schooling from that of expanded job opportunities for black graduates. But these complex interconnections only confirm that the civil-rights revolution was an economic watershed.
A striking feature of that revolution is that, for the most part, economic gains for black Southerners didn’t come at the expense of white Southerners. At no time during this era did average white incomes fall as black incomes rose. Nor did Southern whites’ graduation rates and test scores drop after desegregation; instead these indicators continued their long-term progress toward national norms.
What we see, in other words, is not a redistribution in the name of historical justice, but an integration of black workers into the regional economy. When we consider that the civil-rights movement opened the South to inflows of capital, creativity and new enterprises from around the world, it becomes clear that most white Southerners were also long-term beneficiaries of this revolution.
This record may be difficult to appreciate as the country struggles to recover from a severe recession, which hit both the South and blacks disproportionately. But current economic struggles are all the more reason to remember the historic lesson that interracial cooperation has benefits for all concerned.
Well I like to present multiple options and research for yourselves and make your own mind up but clearly it has been proven time and time again when big business and Corporation are allowed to involve themselves in Government our rights and civil Liberties suffer, because we enslave ourselves or indentured servitude is the name of the game.