It used to be “extremism” to worry about poverty or about social justice, especially if you thought the Federal government could help. But it’s fashionable now to talk about poverty. At long last, Americans admit its existence. But they still want to put plenty of distance between poverty and themselves.
Bushels of mail about poverty flow into Washington every day. Some of the letters are well-meaning and compassionate, like the one from a woman in Skokie, Illinois:
“I know you’re busy, but could your secretary let me know in what country, state or city most of the poor people live? Thank her, because I’m collecting money for the poor people.”
The writer of the letter meant well. She really did. But for her, the poor still live in another country, in another state, in another city. The poor are a class and people set apart. There is a dichotomy, a sharp division between “we” and “they” -- between “we Americans” and “they, the poor.”
It comes through in letter after letter we get in Washington -- like the one from Phoenix that says:
“I feel that we should go-ahead and send them money.”
Do you know what those words “send them” really mean? They mean that the poor are somewhere else -- and that our contact with them can be confined to the U.S. mail!
It reminds me of the time in 1961 when President -- then Vice President -- Johnson was visiting Africa for the independence ceremonies in Senegal. He rode through the streets of Senegal with our Ambassador. Typically, President Johnson reached out of the official car to shake hands with the Africans. But when he did, our Ambassador grabbed his arm back. He offered -- or rather, he almost insisted -- that Johnson put on gloves -- so that our President’s hands, his flesh would not be contaminated by touching the flesh of the Africans. And it will come as no surprise to you that our President refused to put on those gloves.
But too often we have been dealing with poverty the wrong way -- making sure that if we shook hands with the poor, if we had to shake hands with them -- that we were wearing gloves! That’s not the way we’ve acted in the Peace Corps -- and that’s not the way we’re going to act in the war against poverty! Last January, in Panama, anti-American riots broke out. At that time, Peace Corps Volunteers were stationed all over Panama. We feared for their safety. Latin American “experts” advised us to withdraw all Peace Corps Volunteers from the country -- or at least order them to the “safety” of the Canal Zone. We rejected that advice -- the advice of the experts. We had gone to Panama for one purpose -- to work -- to work for and with the Panamanians. And we decided to stick it out! Orders were dispatched to every Volunteer -- “stay put -- don’t leave your villages.”
And then we held our breath -- and sweated: For three days we heard nothing. And then the cables started coming through -- they told how the Peace Corps Volunteers, those white North Americans, those “imperialists,” those “gringos,” had been protected by the Panamanians, hidden, when necessary, in Panamanian homes. And, then, the New York Times came out with the incredible story: Not one single Peace Corps Volunteer had been injured. Only in the “safety” of the Canal Zone, surrounded by the armed might of U. S. military forces, had anyone been hurt. In the rural villages, in every town, where Peace Corps Volunteers lived, the villagers had repulsed every marauding band searching for North American victims, and hidden the Volunteers in their own homes.
From that incident, we can learn a lesson. If we think back to the long, hot summer of 1964, last August and September -- in Philadelphia, in Rochester, in Harlem, in Brooklyn, angry mobs of citizens roamed the streets, defying policemen, looting, and rioting and injuring innocent bystanders. Do you think that the inhabitants of those neighborhoods -- many of them as poor as the villagers in Panama -- do you think they would have offered protection to the teachers, the welfare investigators, the social workers, the building inspectors? Do you think they would have taken those “professionals” into their homes -- the very professionals who are dedicated to helping the poor, to serving the people in those neighborhoods? And if not, why not? These are the persons now in closest contact with the poor. Is it because they insist on wearing gloves, on keeping a safe distance? Is it because they don’t really trust the poor -- but instead fear and reject them? Is it because the poor know this, and sense how they feel?
If we distance ourselves from the poor, if we fear and distrust them, we will find our worst suspicions confirmed -- and our distrust substantiated. Fear breeds fear. The alien alienates. The professional who holds himself aloof is rejected as an outsider.
Our rejection of the poor does more than hurt the poor. It hurts us! It cripples our nation! It scars our spirit! And particularly, it frightens our children. They find their world peopled by bogeymen -- by people who are different: black instead of white; speaking Spanish, not English; poor, not rich. And because they don’t know these people as friends, they fear them as enemies.
Our children become the prey of our own fears and the captives of our own myths!
How different it is -- in Panama -- and here, at this conference, -- when we bring trust and warmth and respect to each other regardless of race, color, creed, or cultural background.
When we started the Peace Corps in 1961, the “experts” -- experts from universities, from the Foreign Service, from congressional committees -- made many flat predictions.
They said:
-- A bunch of college kids can’t change the image of the “Ugly American.”
But they were wrong.
They said:
-- Jews can not be sent as Peace Corps Volunteers to Arab countries.
But they were wrong.
They said:
-- Don’t send white girls upcountry into the heart of Africa. The “natives” will attack them.
-- Don’t send Protestants to Catholic villages in South America. The priests will ostracize them.
-- Don’t send amateurs without special degrees in engineering, or community organization, or agriculture. They will not contribute to the progress of under-developed countries.
But they were wrong .... they were wrong .... they were wrong.
The world’s better off because the amateurs, those who had faith and trust in mankind, did not listen to the experts, who had lost both!
Many people have asked me -- and I have asked myself -- why the experts were so wrong so often.
Why in a country like Indonesia where the Red Cross has been thrown out, where the Boy Scouts have been thrown out, where the Ford Foundation has been thrown out, where even the U. N. has been thrown out -- why is it that the Peace Corps is still there and still welcome?
Why is it that in Afghanistan the King and his cabinet last summer took unprecedented official action to open up every part of the country to the Peace Corps Volunteers -- from the Hindu Kush to the Khyber Pass -- an action unprecedented in that nation’s modern history?
Why is it when the Dominican Republic suspended diplomatic relations with the U.S. and expelled our military advisers, our economic advisers, our State Department officials -- why is it the Peace Corps was invited to stay?
The answer is becoming clearer and clearer and it goes like this:
First, Peace Corps Volunteers do not live apart. They live in a country, not off it! They live in a culture, not despite it! They drink the same drinking water, eat the same food, live in the same kinds of houses, use the same transportation, and speak the same language as the people!
Second, in order to survive, Peace Corps Volunteers must adapt! And this means they must learn from the only people who can teach them -- the local people. They learn about the local culture, the local habits and local customs. The local people teach the Peace Corps Volunteers to recognize and avoid dangers, to know and use the local resources.
And because of this, every Bolivian, every Indonesian, every Nigerian can teach something important to our Volunteers. And for the first time, a situation exists where Americans must learn from others -- where the local people know they have something to offer. And because the people know this they can also accept the Volunteer’s advice, his help and his contribution -- because that advice comes as part of a mutual giving and taking. It is not noblesse oblige; it is not a distribution of charity; it is not a way of asserting superiority! It is part of a “give and take” in which each person keeps his dignity because each has something to contribute and something to learn!
Third, and finally, Peace Corps Volunteers are not out to impose their way of thinking, their way of life, their political ideology and values on their hosts. Peace Corps Volunteers have only one purpose: --
To help, to place their talents and energy at the disposal of others, to solve the problems others think are important in ways that make sense and are acceptable to others.
We can profit from this lesson -- from the Peace Corps experience -- in the war against poverty. For too long we have referred to the poor, as the culturally deprived. For too long, we have assumed that the poor can tell us nothing about the problems of poverty, of education, of employment, of housing, of welfare, of family services. For too long, we have assumed that only experts can devise ways of reaching the poor. For too long, we have assumed that the middle class culture is the right one -- that the poor must be converted to the middle class ethic and style and way of life.
Perhaps all of us who have been busy trying to help the poor have really been trying only to remake the poor in our own image. And perhaps, in doing so, we have distanced ourselves as effectively as the American tourist who lives in special housing, frequents only certain parts of the city, breaks bread only with fellow tourists, drinks especially bottled water -- and would, if he could, walk around in a plexiglass container breathing compressed Arizona air.
The problems of poverty will not be solved by tourists turned “do gooders” -- whether professionals or amateurs -- who breeze in and out, work their eight-hour day and then retreat to the suburbs for evenings and weekends.
The problems of poverty -- and they are many -- will not be solved until we follow the example of the Peace Corps -- until we acknowledge that the poor have as much or more to give than they get -- in insight, in culture, in spontaneity, and in basic humanity.
The problems of poverty will not be solved until we have insured that the solutions undertaken are devised by and with -- as well as for -- the poor.
The process has started. It is already underway in cities, towns and counties, in states and regions -- and already, the experts have been proven wrong.
The experts told us:
No Southern official would voluntarily cooperate with Negro leaders in designing local anti-poverty programs. But already they are wrong. Integrated programs are already working in the Deep South.
They told us:
Public School officials won’t work with parochial school officials to launch a massive educational program for the children of the poor. But already they are wrong.
They told us:
The poor are apathetic, inarticulate, incapable of formulating demands, designing programs, assessing and diagnosing their own needs.
They told us:
Without the exotic appeal of service abroad, nobody, age 21 or 81, would volunteer for service in a domestic Peace Corps.
But they were wrong on each and every count.
They told us:
Negroes from a big city will not stay together with white youths from Appalachia for a single day in a Job Corps center.
They told us:
No town or city would welcome the creation of a community of two hundred school dropouts in its vicinity and that no Southern governor or Republican governor would permit the establishment of a Job Corps center or a Community Action Program without exercise of their veto.
But already, they have been proven wrong. Not one veto has been exercised by any governor, Republican or Democrat, North or South.
Finally, they said, we would never really permit or encourage the genuine involvement of the poor.
And this conference, here today, is going to prove them wrong once again.
For the fact remains -- that you are here, that we are all here together -- in defiance of what some claim is the prevailing attitude of this Southwest region.
We are beginning to see poverty for the first time. And for the first time, we begin to perceive the poor not as a threat to our civilization, but as a new source of fruition, of humanity, of compassion, and of dignity!
That is the significance of this conference -- not just for this region -- but for us in Washington. We did not come here with a Federal check book. We did not come here with a Federal blue print! We did not come here to impose our views on you -- to tell you what is “best for the poor.”
We came, instead, to listen to the voices of the poor and the voices of those genuinely concerned about poverty.
We came to learn -- as Peace Corps Volunteers have learned from those whom they sought to help. We came above all to gain a new vision for this society -- and for all humanity.
