Previous | Next
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.
© 2006 Columbia University
Libraries | Oral History
Research Office | Rights and
Permissions | Help