Also, before this thread inevitably gets locked, I think this is an interesting take on the subject at hand, http://www.slate.com/articles/...and_john_carlos.html
My first thought when I heard about this was the '68 Olympics, too.
Root history teacher to history teacher... You too are skewing the facts to support your argument. 'White people' didn't own EVERYTHING... A very small handful of white people owned everything - and yes it does matter. The understanding of this is critical to this entire debate. Root being the historian you are I am sure you are well aware of the conditions in the company towns of the industrial revolution. And the tenement buildings no doubt many of our ancestors lived in. And what they had to do to get their families out of that poverty and downright dangerous life threatening environment. Now I am not in for the 'who had it better' argument. I simply am not willing to go there although all we historians have at one time or another examined that topic. Yes we need to be aware of these things but at the same time in order to move forward we really do have to put the past in the past. That does NOT automatically minimize the significance of history but it does enhance our chances for greatness in the future. And root while I agree with you that the original intent of the old time democrats was to help I believe the modern Democratic Party has stumbled on the realization that they can feed the minority community just enough to keep them at sustenance level and keep their votes rolling in. It is systematic oppression. And since this thread is so far off the charts politically and religiously I will get my two cents in... You imply that social acceptance of a given era does not forgive immorality. Just as we gape in horror at the thought of the Romans discarding babies in the woods so to will we someday look on the horrors of our modern day equivalent to that practice. Hope you liberals feel the same shame over that some day. And now here comes the double standard you watch. After all that has been said on this thread mine will be the one to catch the wrath of the censors. But in fact it is open and honest communication like this that will HELP not hurt our chances. I used to teach my students that race relations are like a boiling pot with the lid on. We keep everything suppressed and some day the lid will blow. That someday is sadly getting closer. We need open communication even if it initially causes anger. We must negotiate and listen and even scream and yell at each other sometimes if necessary to come out a stronger nation. Or we can have another person come in here and tell us to sweep it back under the rug and get back to baseball.
P.S. Root I am sure you are also well aware of the atrocities against the settlers by the hands of select tribes as well right? And because I know we both want to be fair historians I will reach out the olive branch on this one and say there is no clear pattern that suggests either side 'started it' or is completely innocent. Now move to the center just a tad and come with me on that statement at least.
Also don't forget that moving minimum wage to a level that would make it economically equivalent to minimum wage in 1966 isn't feeding " the minority community just enough to keep them at sustenance level and keep their votes rolling in." It's trying to better their lives. Opposing an increase to those making far below what it takes to sustain life might be, though. This used to be a country where no matter what you did for a living, if you worked hard for 40 hours a week, you could keep yourself and your family fed and sheltered. It's not that anymore. By the way, who broke up those company towns? Unions.
root we also have to be careful to presume that people are all one way or the other. I no longer even consider myself a republican. I am a man without a party that represents my viewpoints. I am a fiscal conservative for sure - but yet I support an increase in minimum wage to a 'liveable ' level. But what is that exactly? What do we NEED to live? Is it acceptable to live in a trailer? I think so. Can you do that on a $10 an hour job? Yep. Can you raise a family on that... In a trailer? Doubt it. Does society owe you a wage no matter how menial the job that will afford you the ability to raise a family? Hmmmm, would have to think on that but first answer that comes to mind is probably not. Do I really NEED this cell phone I am typing on? Nope. Do we NEED cars? Nope. Believe it or not there are still people who bus to work. Do we NEED TV? Nope. Etc etc. we have wants and needs seriously confused in this modern world. So I agree with you anyone who works hard 40 hours a week should get a livable wage. 10-12 an hour is the number that comes to my mind. But I would be open to debate on that. I am very much an advocate for the poor and those truly in need of help. And especially for kids. But I think where a lot of disagreement may come in is what is a NEED!
I'll step back in on this because I don't consider it political. Some of what makes it expensive to live is that we have to consider what is an ordinary life. Your cell phone? I used to have the same view as you. That is, until I found myself in an emergency and had left the cell at home. Not too long ago, you would just find a pay phone in an emergency. Try that now. Bottom line is that bare minimum has always been based on being ordinary at the lowest level.
For example, what did you really need in, say 1955, to be "normal?" One car (very few families had a second car), a phone line, electricity, etc. Go back 50 years and many would have thought electricity and running water to have been an unnecessary luxury. By 1955 it was a basic need. Today, you pretty much need a lot of things you didn't need in 1955 to be "just like everyone else." One example would be internet access and maybe even cable service. In 1955 people got their news mostly still from a simple radio and a newspaper. Today, just to be minimally informed cost more money. Not to mention that in many areas a collapse of public transportation makes a second auto necessary. So, in 1955, you could be just like everyone else basically on a minimum amount of money and still support a family on one income.
As to your trailer example, you're still talking a minimum amount of $$ for rent, electricity, etc. Depending on where you live, maybe $10 an hour makes sense. In other areas, say San Francisco or New York, $10/hr couldn't even find you bare living arrangements. Yet someone has to work those fast food jobs.
Here's the other issue I don't think people consider. If you're making current minimum wage, you're also eligible for government aid from a number of sources. This makes up the gap between minimum wage and sustainable wage. So, basically, we, through government programs, support low wage industries by paying their workers the additional money and benefits that McDonald's should be paying them. Higher minimum wages means less tax dollars going to public support. If it means I pay an extra 75 cents for a Big Mac, I'm ok with that.
