A look at ‘The Color of Wealth’

WASHINGTON ñ A multicultural history of American wealth ñ that is the billing given ìThe Color of Wealth,î a socioeconomic textbook of 300-plus pages, divided among chapters on American Indians, Latinos, blacks, Asian-Americans and European-Americans. Tellingly, the chapter on European-Americans is subtitled ìWhite Advantages in Wealth Accumulation.î The chapters on the minority groups are variations on the theme of obstacles to wealth and what it takes to overcome them.

Meizhu Lui, of United for a Fair Economy, and Rebecca Adamson, of First Peoples Worldwide, two of the bookís five co-authors, explained why those remain dominant themes for people of color in presentations on Capitol Hill and at Olssonís bookstore Sept. 26.

ìWe looked at African-American wealth in 1958 and 2004,î Lui said, ìand we found that in 1958 African-Americans made about 55 cents to the white personís dollar. And by 2004 it had risen only three cents, to 58 cents for the white personís dollar. Now, the civil rights movement made it go up for a while, but then it came back down. … We calculated that at that rate of speed, it would take 362 more years to reach income parity with or between blacks and whites.î

Disparities in net worth are also pronounced, Lui said.

Americans have always had easy explanations for minority poverty, often involving alleged behavior factors such as laziness, unmarried motherhood and debt brought on by irresponsible spending. Lui used an anecdote of J. Paul Getty, one of Americaís first oil millionaires, to dismiss the mythic discredit poured on the poverty of minority groups. Getty revealed his ìthree little secretsî for getting rich, Lui said: work hard, rise early, and find oil ñ or in other words, get lucky.

Gettyís message was that without luck, you can do everything else it takes to get rich and still not get rich. Lui, though, was pointing out that without the property unmentioned by Getty ñ without the asset, land that yielded the oil ñ even luck wouldnít have done it. The larger message here was that people of color have been deprived of assets they owned, or on other occasions excluded from owning them, throughout U.S. history.

ìThe Color of Wealthî provides detail for the proposition that lack of assets is the main reason for the wealth gap between white Euro-Americans and people of color. But in the presentation version, the case was Adamsonís to make. As founder and president of First Nations Development Institute for 25 years before tackling global indigenous land and resource issues with First Peoples Worldwide, she has made Native assets her lifework.

Government policy makes a difference, she said on Capitol Hill. Current socioeconomic policies are devastating all low- to moderate-income people, she added. ìBut what we have seen is that good policy can create fair, equitable societies and economies. What made this country great was the Homestead Act in the 1800s, because people were allowed to own land for the first time. … Having not been an aristocrat and born into wealth, they for the first time ever had an opportunity at assets, ownership, property ownership on their own. … If you werenít Native American, you did get a chance.î

The Homestead Act, among many other measures, dispossessed Natives. Even so, Adamson said, Indians and Alaska Natives own 5 percent of U.S. surface land today, making them the largest private landowners in the country. Considered altogether, their properties vie with Alaska, California and Texas in terms of land mass. The minerals and fossil fuels in their earth, the board feet in their forests, the natural resources on their lands are the assets of wealth. ìHow could we be the poorest people in the United States and own this amount of assets? … Itís deliberate government [policy] … The action is so misguided, and Iíll give them the benefit of the doubt on the intention. I think in some cases, there was clear intention to give some to a group, and to aggrieve other groups. But by and large we were operating under a democratic republic that was looking at the future of the country. And these policies that got put into place ñ the Homestead Act, the veterans [GI] bill, the federal housing administration ñ these were good things for the average person. The way the Social Security Act was drafted was good. That was a safety net.

ìThey always had a group that got excluded, no matter what.î

A timeline the co-authors unscrolled showed the measures Congress has taken to weaken the asset holdings of brown-skinned people. Exhibit No. 1 for Adamson was the termination initiative in the 1950s, when the federal government decided it would not recognize a series of tribes with large timber holdings. They offered money in return for lands that reverted to the government once it revoked the tribesí federal recognition, and with it reserved rights to lands and resources.

Termination has been abandoned as federal policy. The co-authors urged lawmakers to visit the same fate on policies that favor assets for any one interest group at the expense of another.

ìThe Color of Moneyî can be purchased at www.thenewpress.com. Other online outlets include the United for a Fair Economy Web site, www.faireconomy.org.

WASHINGTON ñ A multicultural history of American wealth ñ that is the billing given ìThe Color of Wealth,î a socioeconomic textbook of 300-plus pages, divided among chapters on American Indians, Latinos, blacks, Asian-Americans and European-Americans. Tellingly, the chapter on European-Americans is subtitled ìWhite Advantages in Wealth Accumulation.î The chapters on the minority groups are variations on the theme of obstacles to wealth and what it takes to overcome them.Meizhu Lui, of United for a Fair Economy, and Rebecca Adamson, of First Peoples Worldwide, two of the bookís five co-authors, explained why those remain dominant themes for people of color in presentations on Capitol Hill and at Olssonís bookstore Sept. 26. ìWe looked at African-American wealth in 1958 and 2004,î Lui said, ìand we found that in 1958 African-Americans made about 55 cents to the white personís dollar. And by 2004 it had risen only three cents, to 58 cents for the white personís dollar. Now, the civil rights movement made it go up for a while, but then it came back down. … We calculated that at that rate of speed, it would take 362 more years to reach income parity with or between blacks and whites.îDisparities in net worth are also pronounced, Lui said.Americans have always had easy explanations for minority poverty, often involving alleged behavior factors such as laziness, unmarried motherhood and debt brought on by irresponsible spending. Lui used an anecdote of J. Paul Getty, one of Americaís first oil millionaires, to dismiss the mythic discredit poured on the poverty of minority groups. Getty revealed his ìthree little secretsî for getting rich, Lui said: work hard, rise early, and find oil ñ or in other words, get lucky.Gettyís message was that without luck, you can do everything else it takes to get rich and still not get rich. Lui, though, was pointing out that without the property unmentioned by Getty ñ without the asset, land that yielded the oil ñ even luck wouldnít have done it. The larger message here was that people of color have been deprived of assets they owned, or on other occasions excluded from owning them, throughout U.S. history.ìThe Color of Wealthî provides detail for the proposition that lack of assets is the main reason for the wealth gap between white Euro-Americans and people of color. But in the presentation version, the case was Adamsonís to make. As founder and president of First Nations Development Institute for 25 years before tackling global indigenous land and resource issues with First Peoples Worldwide, she has made Native assets her lifework.Government policy makes a difference, she said on Capitol Hill. Current socioeconomic policies are devastating all low- to moderate-income people, she added. ìBut what we have seen is that good policy can create fair, equitable societies and economies. What made this country great was the Homestead Act in the 1800s, because people were allowed to own land for the first time. … Having not been an aristocrat and born into wealth, they for the first time ever had an opportunity at assets, ownership, property ownership on their own. … If you werenít Native American, you did get a chance.îThe Homestead Act, among many other measures, dispossessed Natives. Even so, Adamson said, Indians and Alaska Natives own 5 percent of U.S. surface land today, making them the largest private landowners in the country. Considered altogether, their properties vie with Alaska, California and Texas in terms of land mass. The minerals and fossil fuels in their earth, the board feet in their forests, the natural resources on their lands are the assets of wealth. ìHow could we be the poorest people in the United States and own this amount of assets? … Itís deliberate government [policy] … The action is so misguided, and Iíll give them the benefit of the doubt on the intention. I think in some cases, there was clear intention to give some to a group, and to aggrieve other groups. But by and large we were operating under a democratic republic that was looking at the future of the country. And these policies that got put into place ñ the Homestead Act, the veterans [GI] bill, the federal housing administration ñ these were good things for the average person. The way the Social Security Act was drafted was good. That was a safety net.ìThey always had a group that got excluded, no matter what.î A timeline the co-authors unscrolled showed the measures Congress has taken to weaken the asset holdings of brown-skinned people. Exhibit No. 1 for Adamson was the termination initiative in the 1950s, when the federal government decided it would not recognize a series of tribes with large timber holdings. They offered money in return for lands that reverted to the government once it revoked the tribesí federal recognition, and with it reserved rights to lands and resources.Termination has been abandoned as federal policy. The co-authors urged lawmakers to visit the same fate on policies that favor assets for any one interest group at the expense of another.ìThe Color of Moneyî can be purchased at www.thenewpress.com. Other online outlets include the United for a Fair Economy Web site, www.faireconomy.org.