Mss13347 b3 f19 0008


and hold them as enclaves against increasing repression, charging
admission fees to suburban whites who must come to the city for
jobs and income, and who must depend on the city as a source of
police protection and utility service.

But we would also like to depend on white America as a source
of simple decency of treatment, a hope that many would call ex-

We would like, for example, to be treated as well as
American farmers are. First they were give free lands. Then
they were given low interest loans to enable them to buy farm
machinery. Then the Department of Agriculture sent out farm
agencts to show them how to use their machines and to rotate their
crops. Now we pay them not to do anything, a form of millionaire
welfarism that is scorned for poor people.

Suppose, for example, that an ADC mother was paid not to
produce at the same rate that gentleman farmer Senator James O.
Eastland is. That would mean that welfare mothers in Detroit or
Chicago or Los Angles could collect as much as $125,000 a year for
not having babies.

But the revolution demands that we be allowed not more than
but simply the same as other groups. Why we ask must patronage be abolished
as political reward when blacks take over the cities after political favorism
as done so much for Italians and Irishmen? Why must good government
advocate metropolitanism as a panacea to urban ills at a time when
we are about to take over some cities?

Page Notes

Please sign in to write a note for this page

Guest User

There is a correction that was made where "we ask" was inserted, but it was clearly in the wrong place "why [we ask] must patronage be abolished" when it should really be "why must [we ask] patronage be abolished". I went with the former but wasn't sure how to note this intentional error in the transcript.