Session: 1234567891011121314         Page 491492493494495496497498499500501502503504505506507508509510511512513514515516517518519520521522523524525526527528529530531532533534535536537538539540541542543544545546547548549550551552553554555556557558559560561562563564565566567 of 763

this racism because they're bringing in so-called Appalachian types, or whites, from the outside (they are bringing in workers from the outside) or is it because, as some construction executives or foremen have claimed, they have not had good attendance records to the extent that they have brought blacks in from the center of the District. Have you observed this sort of a phenomenon? Is this racism, or is there a problem of bringing in--

Oh, the rationalizations for racism--like in World War II: they didn't need a Civil Rights Act for Rosie the Riveter. What you had was a labor shortage. All the rationalizations about what women could or couldn't do were knocked out of the window in terms of the need. You know, I wonder about the economic aspects of in terms of recruiting whites from distances. I don't know; I just believe that their statement about attendance justifying not hiring blacks in the vicinity is a rationalization. What is the rationalization for? It's a rationalization for racism. What the hell else? I guess [6TM people can get away with rationalizations for racism. Seeing how deeply embedded racism is in our society, we can have sophisticated, subtle forms of racism. I assure you that if there were a desperate need for more workers that couldn't be filled by going to Appalachia and whatnot, that rationalization would disappear.

Of course, to the extent that they are recruiting from poor whites in Appalachia--they're poor in the ghetto; so the only difference is the skin color.