Lapas attēli

the private sector of the economy in depth in rebuilding our cities. We have little choice, because I don't believe we have the capacity to do it any other way.

AN URBAN TASK FORCE IN PUBLIC Basically, these hearings have been an urban task force in public. Some 70 witnesses, representing a cross section of America, have generously contributed their time and their knowledge. The record is filled with ideas-ideas that should be translated into legislation and acted upon. During the next few weeks, we will examine this record and make specific legislative proposals to the Congress so that all Americans can further debate the future of urban America. Hopefully, this legislation will be considered in conjunction with the administration program. But we need not wait upon the executive branch before we act. There is a great need for Congress to take its own initiative.

In addition, it seems clear that some definite organizational changes are necessary at the executive level of Government. I intend to introduce appropriate legislation in this field, and the subcommittee will hold further hearings in this area next year.


Finally, these hearings have been highly educational for the subcommittee. We hope they have been educational to others to the press, the news media, the public, the executive branch, the Congress, and to all those interested in the gerat problems of our cities.

Rebuilding urban America will take many years and some may grow weary. But that should not cause us to slacken our efforts or to regard the job ahead as less important.


I am grateful to Senator Javits and the staff for their work. I am especially grateful to Senator Kennedy. In addition to his participation, I want to pay Senator Kennedy the compliment of having become personally involved in many of these problems out in the field and out in the country.

He has visited Columbus and watched ECCO work. He has been in Philadelphia to see how Reverend Sullivan's programs have worked, and I tip my hat to him for taking the initiative in Bedford-Stuyvesant, because I believe this is a most important phase of where America has to work. I think that the Kennedy program in BedfordStuyvesant is excellent. I do believe that it has to have another dimension, with the participation of the Federal Government, too, but I do believe that there is a way to merge both of these for a meaningful program.

Again, Dr. King, we have had many, many distinguished witnesses who have been here during these 6 weeks, and none has been more distinguished than you, sir. In many ways you do reflect the conscience of all America irrespective of race, color and creed, and I thank you for coming here and being with us.

Dr. King. Thank you.

Senator KENNEDY. I just congratulate the chairman for holding these hearings and organizing them. I hope that they will continue next year, because by no means have we solved the problem.


Dr. King. I just want to say again that I welcome this opportunity and I do think these hearings have served a most constructive purpose. Although I haven't been in Washington, I have been reading the newspapers and I have kept up with them very closely, both the recent ones and in the earlier days when they started with some of the mayors of our cities, and I think this has done a great deal to bring to the forefront of the concern and conscience of the nation the problems that we face in our urban areas, and I am very happy to see the recommendations that you have there, and I am very happy to know that legislation will be offered, because I do feel that there is a great role for all of us to play here.

I talked about some of the challenges that I think we face in the civil rights movement in getting to the ghetto dwellers and the problems there, but I must be equally as strong in saying that our job will be made easier if we get the kind of support from the Federal Government and private agencies that we need.

The civil rights movement can't do it alone. Civil rights leaders certainly can't do it. We have got to go ahead, and when we face the fact that there are discussed cutbacks in domestic programs and buildup in military programs, it concerns us greatly because we feel that this will deepen frustrations in the ghetto, and we hope that these processes will be reversed, and that we will go all out to bring into full realization the great dreams of our country and democracy.

Senator RIBICOFF. I have here an article by Philip M. Hauser, the director of the Population Research and Training Center of the University of Chicago, which discusses the effect of demographic factors on the integration of the Negro. I also have two New York Times articles which discuss the Negro exodus from the South. I will place all three articles in the record at this point.

(The documents referred to follow :)


Demographic Factors in the Integration of the Negro


THE SIZE, rate of growth, distribution, and composition of the Negro population both influence integration and provide some indications of the extent to which it has been achieved. The precise way in which these demographic factors affect integration, positively or negatively, is not definitely known. Yet, what is known about the process of acculturation, on the one hand, and about population changes, on the other, permits some consideration of their interrelationships and, at least, speculation about the influence of the latter upon the former. This essay is an attempt to summarize the characteristics of the Negro population and to consider how changes in it affect integration.

It is necessary before proceeding with these tasks, however, to define the term "integration.” In popular usage the term is employed to encompass a variety of connotations ranging from mere desegregation or admixture of whites and Negroes, as a salt and pepper combination in an audience, to varying degrees of interaction and participation in common life activities. For purposes of this paper integration is viewed as more than mere desegregation; rather, it is seen as social interaction, effective communication, and a sharing in activities that fill one's life. In this sense integration is a social process that may be considered one form of acculturation social interaction embracing members of diverse racial as well as cultural backgrounds.

Let us review first some highlights in the population history of the Negro in the United States.

Characteristics of the Negro American Population
Total population. When the first Census of Population was

taken in 1790, there were some 3.9 million persons in this country.” Of these, 3.2 million were white and 757 thousand were Negro. By that time, Negroes had resided in the colonies for about 175 years as the indentured servants or property of their white slave-owner masters. At the first census, they constituted almost one-fifth (19.3 per cent) of the total population.

Negroes remained about one-fifth of the national total until 1810. From that date to 1930, they became a declining proportion of the population as slave importation ceased and white immigration continued. By 1930, Negroes had decreased to less than onetenth of the national total (9.7 per cent). Since 1940, the growth rate of the Negro population has exceeded that of the white; thus, by 1960, Negroes constituted slightly above one-tenth (10.6 per cent) of the total population. In fact, their absolute numbers had risen to 4.4 million by the onset of the Civil War, to 8.8 million by the turn of the century, and to 18.9 million by the 18th Decemial Census of Population in 1960.

Components of growth. The growth of the Negro population since 1820 was the result almost entirely of natural increase, that is, excess of births over deaths. Although the Negro birth rate, as the white birth rate, declined between 1850 and 1940, it has consistently been above the level of the white. As measured by the fertility ratio (children under five per 1,000 women twenty to fortyfour years old) Negro fertility declined by more than half between 1850 and 1940, while white fertility declined by about one-third.

Between 1940 and 1960, the birth rates of both whites and nonwhites rose with the postwar baby boom. Nonwhite fertility increased by 90 per cent (from a fertility ratio of 418 to 795) while white fertility rose by 88 per cent (from 395 to 742). The great increase in nonwhite birth rates represents an astonishing reversal and occurred, interestingly enough, even while the Negro was becoming rapidly urbanized and metropolitanized as is indicated below. The phenomenal increase in nonwhite fertility is a result of the striking rise in nonwhite urban fertility, largely because of the decrease in childlessness brought about by improved health, including reduction in venereal and debilitating diseases.

For many purposes the best measure of mortality is given by its converse, expectation of life. Negro death rates, as the white, have decreased sharply since the turn of the century. Moreover, throughout the course of this century, because of the improvement in the position of the Negro in the nation, Negro death rates have, from a

[ocr errors]

higher level, come down more sharply than white. In 1900, expectation of life at birth for nonwhites (mainly Negro) was 33.0 years as contrasted with 47.6 years for whites. By 1960, nonwhite life expectancy at birth had increased to 63.6 years, while white increased to 70.8 years. Thus, the difference in life expectation between the nonwhite and white decreased by more than half, from 14.6 years to 7.0 years.

As a result of more rapid decline in mortality and greater increase in fertility in recent decades, Negro natural increase has risen well above the white. Between 1905 and 1910, nonwhite natural increase at a level of 14.7 (excess of births over deaths per 1,000 persons) was not much above the level of white, 13.8. By 1960, nonwhite natural increase, at 22.0, was about two-thirds greater than that of white, at 13.2. The nonwhite rate of population growth in 1960, if sustained, would double the Negro population in a little over thirty years. In contrast, the continuation of the 1960 white rate would require over fifty years before doubling the population.

Some part of the difference in Negro and white patural increase is attributable to the difference in the age structure of the two populations. As will be seen below, the Negro population is appreciably younger than the white, a fact which tends to increase its birth rate and decrease its death rate. Even if this difference is taken into account, however, the nonwhite rate of increase is still over 60 per cent above the white, the nonwhite intrinsic rate being 31.2 in 1960 in contrast with 19.3 for whites.

[ocr errors]

Age. In 1840, the median age of nonwhites was 17.3 years as compared with 17.9 years for whites. A century later, because of differences in Negro and white fertility, mortality, and immigration, the nonwhite median age was only 25.2 years, compared with 29.5 years

for whites. In 1950, nonwhite and white median ages were, respectively, 26.1 and 30.8 years. Because of the baby boom, however, the median age of both the Negro and white populations decreased between 1950 and 1960 to 23.5 and 30.3 years respectively

. Another indication that the Negro population is younger than the white is seen in the fact that a greater proportion of their population is under twenty. In 1960, 45.6 per cent of the Negroes, as compared with 39.5 per cent of whites, were under twenty years

of A significant aspect of Negro-white differences in age structure, with important implications for integration, is shown by considering differences in the burden of dependency, that is, the difference in


« iepriekšējāTurpināt »