Article comparing Mississippi to an undeveloped nation; Source: Kansas City Timeshttps://egrove.olemiss.edu/jws_clip/1319/thumbnail.jp

Reston, James

English

eGrove (Univ. of Mississippi)

University of Mississippi eGrove Clippings James W. Silver Collection 1963 Why Not Mississippi Foreign Aid? James Reston Follow this and additional works at: https://egrove.olemiss.edu/jws_clip Recommended Citation Reston, James, "Why Not Mississippi Foreign Aid?" (1963). Clippings. 320. https://egrove.olemiss.edu/jws_clip/320 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the James W. Silver Collection at eGrove. It has been accepted for inclusion in Clippings by an authorized administrator of eGrove. For more information, please contact egrove@olemiss.edu. THE KANSAS CI~Y T .lIfIES, Why Not MississiPPi 'Foreign Aid'? By James Reston. (© 1963, New York Times News Service.) WASHINGTON - When - the United States Com-mission on Civil Rights proposes that the state of Mississippi be treated like a foreign power, it is fairly obvi-ous that' something' is seriously wrong. The commission does not say so directly, but it suggests that the President should do every-thing in his power "to withhold federal funds from the state of Mississippi, until the state of Mississippi demonstrates its compliance with the Constitution and laws of the United States." This, of course, is a popular prucedure in handling unco-op-erative foreign nations under the foreign aid act. If they refuse to do what Washington wants there is always a cry here to cut or eliminate their funds; but until now there has been little support for treating states of the Union like rebel-lious children. THERE A--R-E-a-t l=-east two rea-sons for taking a skeptical view of this proposal: • First, it is wrong in princi-ple. '. Second, it wouldn't work. Mississippi is in trouble to-day partly because it is so isolated in mind and spirit from the rest of the nation, and part-ly because it is so poor. The effect of the commission's pro-posals, if accepted by Congress, would probably not be to bring the state to heel, but merely to increase both its poverty and its isolation, and to deepen the tragedy even more. Mississippi's annual per capita income in 1961 was $1,233-low-est in the nation, $420 less than the average for the Southeastern states, and $1,032 lower than the national average. It is divided between white and black, between the dry and radical hills and the wet and conservative delta. In 1960, the state had 915,700 Negroes, 43 per cent of its population. This is the highest percentage of Negroes of liny state in the Union. HALF OF THE population of the state over 25 have had few-er than nine years in school; and in 1956, Mississippi abol-ished its 138-year-old compul-sory education law as a device to avoid racial integration in the public schools. The average annual salary for full-Hme flicul-ty professors at the -University of Mississippi is $6,683. At the University of Alabama it is $7,934 and at the University of California, $11,130. It is true, ' as the Civil Rights commission says, that Mississip-pi gets more from the federal cept her own. The way to bring government than it pays in along the "underdeveloped na-taxes. Per capita income tax tions," this government be-collection in 1960, for example, lieves, is to provide them with was only $129.95 in Mississippi. "development grants" and The latest figures for fiscal year "technical assistance," and "in-1962 indicate that the federal vestment guarantees," and a government received from all cataract of teachers, technicians sources in Mississippi only 270 and industrialists. million dollars, while the pay- We preach "interdependence" ments of the federal govern- and "partnership" among the ment to Mississippians, as cal- Atlantic nations. We have a culated by the commission, ex- Peace corps composed of many ceeded 650 million in the same of -our finest young teachers period. and technicians all over the The commission's reaction to world and an Alliance for Prog-this is not only to encourage ress in Latin America. cutting off federal aid until Mis- OUR FELLOW-COUNTRY-sissippi meets the President's MEN in Mississippi will not view of the state's constitutional thank us for the analogy, but duty, but to oppose federal con- of their in tracts to the state as well. I~~~~~~~:;:~.;,;~~t ABOUT THE cO.mmission's ob--p'~~~~!~~~~~d~ jectives there is regional .:I ment in Washington, but its proposed means of achiev-ing those ends there is a great deal of national opposition. As a matter of fact, there is much to be said for the opposite ~tf ~~;~~~~~~~~~~ the commission's punitive ommendations, not tO~:~~i~~i~~!~;~!~~!~ MiSSissippi for its spirit, but to bring into the prevailing and economic well-being of the nation as a whole. .c~~~i~~~_~i..§S~aru:e~ Ironically, Washington has policy for most of the under-developed areas of the world ex-

Why Not Mississippi Foreign Aid?

https://egrove.olemiss.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1319&context=jws_clip

Why Not Mississippi Foreign Aid?

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

eGrove (Univ. of Mississippi)