Discussion in 'General Education' started by AlwaysAttend, Dec 16, 2017.
Dec 21, 2017
Dude, did you just but-ALL-lives-matter @webmistress ?
"The racist housing policies that made your neighborhood"
"And, of course, the mortgage industry as a whole—the expansion of which allowed people without large savings or family money to buy homes—adopted many of these same practices. This had all sorts of truly horrific consequences for black people, black families, and black neighborhoods."
"Black people with upper-middle-class incomes do not generally live in upper-middle-class neighborhoods. Sharkey’s research shows that black families making $100,000 typically live in the kinds of neighborhoods inhabited by white families making $30,000. “Blacks and whites inhabit such different neighborhoods,” Sharkey writes, “that it is not possible to compare the economic outcomes of black and white children.”
"While some social scientists see the siting of hazardous facilities in minority communities as a demonstration of intentional racism, whereby these communities are targeted for prejudicial reasons, belief in racial inferiority, or a desire to protect racial group privilege, others see the causes of environmental racism as structural and institutional."
"The traditional perspective views discrimination as more individualistic, sporadic, and episodic than the institutional perspective. Processes such as suburbanization, gentrification, and decentralization lead to patterns of environmental racism even absent intentionally discriminatory policies. For example, the process of suburbanization (or white flight) consists of non-minorities leaving industrial zones for safer, cleaner, and less expensive suburban locales. Meanwhile, minority communities are left in the inner cities and in close proximity to polluted industrial zones. In these areas, unemployment is high and businesses are less likely to invest in area improvement, creating poor economic conditions for residents and reinforcing a social formation that reproduces racial inequality."
"Urban decay (also known as urban rot and urban blight) is the process by which a previously functioning city, or part of a city, falls into disrepair and decrepitude. It may feature deindustrialization, depopulation or changing population, restructuring, abandoned buildings and infrastructure, high local unemployment, fragmented families, political disenfranchisement, crime, and a desolate cityscape."
"The business practices of redlining, mortgage discrimination, and racially restrictive covenants contributed to the overcrowding and physical deterioration of areas where minorities chose to congregate. "
"In the 1930s, states outside the South (where racial segregation was legal) practiced unofficial segregation via exclusionary covenants in title deeds and real estate neighborhood redlining – explicit, legally sanctioned racial discrimination in real property ownership and lending practices. Blacks were effectively barred from pursuing homeownership, even when they were able to afford it."
Main article: Blockbusting
"The real estate business practice of "blockbusting" was a for-profit catalyst for white flight and a means to control non-white migration. By subterfuge, real estate agents would facilitate black people buying a house in a white neighborhood, either by buying the house themselves, or via a white proxy buyer, and then re-selling it to the black family. The remaining white inhabitants (alarmed by real estate agents and the local newsmedia), fearing devalued residential property, would quickly sell, usually at a loss. Losses happened when they sold en masse, and would sell the properties to the incoming black families, profiting from price arbitrage and the sales commissions from both the blacks and the whites. By such tactics, the racial composition of a neighborhood population often changed completely in a few years"
Government-aided white flight
"The federal government contributed to white flight and the early decay of non-white city neighborhoods by withholding maintenance capital mortgages, thus making it difficult for the communities to either retain or attract middle-class residents."
The new suburban communities limited the emigration of poor and non-white residents from the city by restrictive zoning; thus, few lower-middle-class people could afford a house in the suburbs. Many all-white suburbs were eventually annexed to the cities their residents had left."
Desegregation of schools
Main article: Desegregation busing
"In some areas, the post–World War II racial desegregation of the public schools catalyzed white flight. In 1954, the US Supreme Court case Brown v. Board of Education (1954) ordered the de jure termination of the "separate, but equal" legal racism established with the Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) case in the 19th century. It declared that segregation of public schools was unconstitutional. Many southern jurisdictions mounted massive resistance to the policy. In some cases, white parents withdrew their children from public schools and established private religious schools instead. These schools, termed segregation academies, sprung up in the American South between the late 1950s and mid-1970s and allowed parents to prevent their children from being enrolled in racially mixed schools."
Lots of articles about whys. Some including phrases such as, "even absent intentionally discriminatory policies". Blamed for something that wasn't even purposeful.
Where is the fix?
Things I have seen that have everything to do with those who inhabit an area. I've seen brand new low-cost housing destroyed in a matter of 3 years by those who receive free or almost free housing. They then complain that no one helps. Please explain why this is the fault of those who helped by having taxes utilized to allow people to live for free so they wouldn't have the burden of being homeless.
Assuming that people trapped in inner city poverty is just because they are 'lazy' has got to stop. There's no excuse for that type of ignorance and racism.
Blacks migrated in large numbers from the South to avoid being murdered and lynched by the KKK and other white racist mobs. Northern whites & the government thus began to pull the jobs, resources etc out of these areas and 'white flight' to and build up in the surburbs, which really weren't occupied much back then as most people lived in urban areas I believe.
"Rather, the federal government used its expanding power to promote apartheid-like separation of whites and blacks in cities and towns across the country.
"Twenty years later, after the Great Depression and World War II, and after millions of African Americans left the South for the North in search of economic opportunity — and safety from racist violence — segregation had worsened significantly.
Historian Says Don't 'Sanitize' How Our Government Created Ghettos
"It was not the unintended effect of benign policies," he says. "It was an explicit, racially purposeful policy that was pursued at all levels of government, and that's the reason we have these ghettos today and we are reaping the fruits of those policies."
Let's look at the New Deal by FDR
"History has often ignored the fact that many New Deal policies were implemented unevenly. This was particularly true in the South, where Southern Democrats held a lot of power, power which rested upon racial segregation. FDR needed Southern Democrat support, and so racist policies of segregation found their ways into the New Deal. This was especially evident in housing.
Infused with segregationist mentalities from Southern Democrats, these New Deal housing agencies were built around the concept that homeownership was something designed to protect white Americans, not all Americans. Therefore, the top priority of the HOLC and FHA was to secure and safeguard white homeownership.
In the racist attitudes of segregation, racially mixed neighborhoods were seen as a direct threat to the stability of white homeownership. The belief was that the property value of a neighborhood would drop precipitously once African Americans or people of other non-white ethnicities began moving in.
Since the goal was to use homeownership as a way to protect white families, the HOLC and FHA actually increased racial segregation in terms of living patterns, and institutionalized it within federal standards.
It is worth noting that no research was actually conducted by the government on the link between black residents and a decrease in property value. It was just assumed that having integrated neighborhoods would devalue property.
Private studies, however, actually found the exact opposite. Black families tended to be willing to pay more to get into a nice neighborhood, which actually increased property values throughout that community."
But it's easier for people to believe that Blacks are just lazy and less intelligent and refuse to better themselves, when there is no shortage of evidence that shows how the white supremacy government works to ensure that whites have the advantage when it comes to the resources and land...exactly going back to what this country was built on; Native American genocide, chattel Black slavery, rape etc.
That history has to be acknowledged and corrected if this country wants to move forward.
Who said this?
I asked why they destroy their properties.
People in poverty have trouble moving out of poverty ridden areas because they can't afford to do so. No matter how many "feel good" movies show how someone managed to move out of poverty by just showing up somewhere with nothing and managing to make it to middle class in less than two hours is just not reality.
Just read that. It seems like it was a very short term study, only done over two years. Their results were that after one year, student well-being was low because of the shock of separation from their family and friends. After year two however the well-being of students caught up. And they were doing better than their non-boarding counterparts. Yes the growth was driven by the stronger baseline students, but as they mentioned in the article, the weaker students took longer to adjust to the shock of moving to a boarding school system. I don't believe that particular study looked at data over a long enough period of time to see the actual effect on students.
This article however looks at data from 2005 to 2009 and looks at a type of urban boarding schools in the US, which are far more relevant. The school in question is a 5-day boarding school (meaning they go home on weekends). They found from their studies that students that attended an urban boarding school achieved with an effect size similar to reducing all class sizes from 24 to 12 students, in addition to other benefits, and claims that their method of boarding school education had the power to eliminate the racial gap in four years.
Of course when we say "boarding school" that has such a broad definition and infinite methods of implementation that it's hard to always pinpoint and say "boarding schools are good" just as it's hard to say the same of charter schools or public schools. Not a lot of studies have been done on the effect of boarding in urban students, so we simply need more data.
Keep in mind that a boarding model would help families. A lot of these families struggle to make ends meet, having to provide students with clothes and food, in addition to rent and healthcare. Regular schools often provide some of that, but a boarding school would provide food for the entire day, would likely provide uniforms for students, and would probably maintain standards of health and hygiene more uniformly.
Doing this for a family would remove pressure on the parents to provide this while they also try to make the rent. Many of these families also struggle with finding time to spend with their children. Some have to work multiple jobs and rarely can find time to be with kids leaving kids completely unsupervised without social interaction and the parents often come home tired and stressed from their jobs and not necessarily in a mood conducive to positive interactions with their child (especially if their child is causing more stress by acting out because of lack of attention).
The one problem it would create would be that the older children usually care for the younger children. That means a parent who once worked nights would have no one to care for the non-boarded child. Which almost puts the government into taking total control over the children of the poor.
Do you mean like infants and toddlers? (Pre-schooling children?)
If so, that would be a problem. I'll put some thought into that. I agree that I don't like the idea of the government taking over the children of the poor. But from most studies (even the French one) it seems to have good results, and if I'm just thinking about the well-being of the children, it would be clear to me which choice to make. The only thing I would object to is the "idea" of it, but that's just a gut reaction and not based on any real research.
Yes. Children the government doesn't take away for the work week.
Also in regards to my earlier post, I think a solution for school-age children, to avoid impressions of government control, would be to simply make the boarding school option available to parents who want it and demonstrate need. So the government isn't taking control unless they want it to relieve financial pressure, etc.
About infants and toddlers, there's a recent movement to require employers to offer day care support for families with non-schooling aged children. This could just be financial support for the family to purchase day care services, or some employers actually have a day care on site where parents can visit their children during work hours on their lunch breaks, etc. An expansion of this might be a good solution, but again, money comes into play (as it does for the boarding school idea).
I guess my worry is creating a choice between financial relief and rarely seeing their child or keeping their family physically together without help , even with choice. I think other options of helping out should be explored.
This will never happen across the board. Small businesses could never afford such a thing. If both parents work, which business should be required to pay? Should a business that is hiring someone part-time going to have to pay for full-time day care?
Yeah. I don't know the answers to those questions or even if that idea is an answer. Just stating that it's being put forward at the moment.
I also think that the endeavor would be rife with abuse by either staff or other students.
Understandable. I don't see why other models couldn't be explored simultaneously with this one (and they are at the moment). Boarding school is simply not an option that I'm seeing much explored at all and think it would be useful to study as a possible strategy.
Also I could see systems where parents could volunteer at the schools if they have more time to spend more time with their kids. Or they could come in the evenings for dinner and visiting and such. The thing is that if a family needs help, it should be available to them.
If anyone is interested, there was an excellent miniseries which touched on this topic called Show Me a Hero on HBO. Research says to avoid this issue you need to disperse the housing, have lawns people need to take care of themselves, etc. Problem with dispersing the housing is no one wants it in their neighborhood.
I can guarantee that even though "research" says this will fix the problem, I've seen HUD housing interspersed with non-HUD housing and guess what... the majority of them (not all) are trashed and not kept up. The landlord ends up taking care of the lawn if they are willing to do so. The majority, not all, end up destroying the property. Now, some are kept up. There are poor people who do take care of their things and work very hard. Sadly a good portion just do not. The big issue is there is no solution for those who do not and people know it which is why they are terrified to have the problem be interspersed within their neighborhood.
Then you start to see the flight of the original property owners who then sell to those who plan to rent to HUD families and eventually the neighborhood becomes a high-poverty neighborhood and the people who leave are called racist.
I've seen this in action.
There are no landlords with the type of housing I’m referring to.
No, that was not my intention. I don't think race has anything to do with whether a life matters or not. What people choose to do with their lives is what matters, or doesn't matter.
I'm not watching the whole mini-series and you gave little information. So they own their houses? If not, someone is a landlord whether it be the government via direct ownership of the housing (project) or by providing HUD funds to the landlords.
So, what exactly is this miracle because the housing projects in what were nice parts of the city are a mess and the crime is so bad that the people who lived near by them have moved because it is no longer safe.
Based on the nonfiction book of the same name by Lisa Belkin, the miniseries "Show Me a Hero" tells the story of how civil rights violations tear apart Yonkers, N.Y., paralyze the municipal government, and forever change the lives of a rising politician and his constituents. Faced with a federal court order that remedies decades-long housing segregation in the city, newly elected Mayor Nick Wasicsko -- at 28, the youngest-ever mayor of Yonkers -- goes against his campaign position that advocated legal appeals, paving the way for low-income housing to be built in white neighborhoods of Yonkers. Residents rage about protecting property values, while those chosen to cross the color line will soon have neighbors who fiercely oppose them. "Show Me a Hero" is co-created by David Simon ("The Wire") and directed by Paul Haggis ("Crash").
Really not necessary, and demeaning to the participants of the conversation. If you don’t want to participate like an adult, pick another thread.
See, the problem is the term low-income housing refers not only to rentals with low rent for those who receive government subsidies, it also refers to builders being required to build real estate that can be priced lower than the other real estate than what is available in the area.
Are you saying that people were purchasing properties that were low-income housing rather than government projects that are owned and rented or provided by the government?
Dec 22, 2017
I hope this thread doesn't get closed, just remove the violators. Interesting enough Ron Clark just posted that he and his students just spent 6 hours at the Smithsonian Musuem of African American history and culture, and how those 6 hours don't even begin to touch the surface.
I heard it takes days to see everything in there. This should be a required field trip for all public schools. Even a virtual trip, anything!
Emmett Till's casket is in there, I know I never want to see that, doubt I could handle that.
Also, the shoes from one of the little black girls murdered by KuKluxKlan bomb in Alabama.
2 of the Klansmen who murdered these 4 little girls, walked around free for 40 years! Because overall, no one cared enough to bring them to justice, except Doug Jones who recently defeated Roy Moore in the Senate election.
If you don't respect Black history, then you don't respect Black life.
I believe that the housing was low income rentals. It was basically an indictment of high density projects with the one big court yard, and lots of hidden places for people to do bad things without being seen by authorities.
I’m also not nieve, I understand that same high density building could be rented out for top dollar in an affluent part of NYC, Hoboken, etc., and not lead to criminal activity.
With that said, it’s a well made miniseries I highly recommend.
So they don't really have lawns to take care of, do they? They do have a landlord of sorts which is called the building manager who takes care of problems for or with the tenants.
Happy to hear you enjoyed the mini-series. I have just seen similar and other versions of poverty being scattered among wealth and it hasn't worked.
@webmistress , One thing I teach my students (students of all races and cultures) is to give very little time to anyone that speaks in absolutes. Those authors/speakers/articles that frequently use "everyone", "always" and "none" tend to have little credibility. They are encouraged to seek other sources.
I now have three members set to ignore. They have nothing worthwhile to share with humanity.
Yes generally .edu and .gov are the "non biased" peer reviewed sources, with historical documents and detailed research methods used to reach their conclusions.
Wikipedia and regular .com articles are a good starting point, and they should never take 1 article as true, they should Google the author, and then they should make sure the information is repeated and confirmed on at least 3 other reputable .com sites, before then being ready to further confirm the truth of the information from .edu and .gov
I was referring to YOU and your words, not the links you shared. If you want people to take your message seriously, you should probably stop speaking in absolutes. You may have some valid points, but they get lost when surrounded by untruths.
It's not about me and my words. It's about historical facts, facts in which anyone can completely go research for themselves the information from the past 400 years. I didn't create nor author any of the research, so don't let me and my passion for Black kids be a distraction nor an excuse for anyone here to not go and do the work for themselves.
Because I will admit...I'm insanely passionate about Black kids and their safety, their souls...and I know that's not something people are used to. I'm extreme & I won't deny that.
But back to learning research skills, I also encourage students to do critical thinking of their own, along with taking into account the work from the scholars, and then also taking into account my interpretation.
So basically, what I make them do, is first, critically think on what I first introduce them to...question me, challenge the interpretation of what I am saying...Because these kids are smart enough, hopefully everyone knows that Black kids, even the ones in so-called failing schools, are extremely smart!, They are natural born leaders, they are brave, and they are already not going to take any adult's word 100% for anything.
So thus, I make sure they know they must construct answers and form conclusions on their own, and use a variety of sources (music, art, movies, articles, books, TV etc) to help them defend their own interpretations of the material, and also their real life experiences count in regards to interpreting the research material.
They can look at their own neighborhoods and see the abandoned buildings and see the evidence of environmental racism. They might not know the fancy terminology, but they know and are concerned about why there neighborhoods are allowed to decompose.
Despite what the racist test scores and IQ tests say, my approach is to put the power in Black kids' hands and reassure them of their innate brilliance. And indeed, they sometimes make statements that take me months to figure out! They are deep, they are spiritual, they are smart...if only enough of them knew it.
**Note: I do this as part of my African education program. No way could I pull this off if I were a regular classroom teacher. With support from the principal, Social Studies teachers at a local middle school allow me to guest teach on various topics that are important to Black kids
Also I knew you were referring to me. That's why I referenced the .edu and .gov websites in which all of my information can be confirmed on.
Environmental racism? I’m not even going to go there.
Definition of racism (according to Merriam-Webster)
1: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2a : a doctrine or political program based on the assumption of racism and designed to execute its principles b : a political or social system founded on racism
3: racial prejudice or discrimination
If something does not meet one of these criterion, then it’s NOT racism!
“Despite glaring economic inequalities between a few rich suburbs and nearby central cities, the average black child and the average white child now live in school districts that spend almost exactly the same amount per pupil. Black and white schools also have the same average number of teachers per pupil, the same pay scales, and teachers with almost the same amount of formal education and teaching experience. The most important resource difference between black and white schools seems to be that teachers in black schools have lower test scores than teachers in white schools. This is partly because black schools have more black teachers and partly because white teachers in black schools have unusually low scores.”
In urban cities with high minority populations, we need to educate parents about the importance of receiving an education:
“A Different Starting Line
Educational expectations are lower for black children, according to Child Trends, a non-profit and non-partisan research center that tracks data about children. Black parents, most of whom are less educated than their white counterparts, don’t expect their children to attain as much education as white parents expect. Lower expectations become self-fulfilling prophecies, contributing to lower expectations from the student, less-positive attitudes toward school, fewer out-of-school learning opportunities and less parent-child communication about school.”
No, they were required to care for the lawn themselves. The idea was you take pride in what yours.
I'm happy it worked for them, but there are many in areas I have been in where it just didn't work. Fewer people are taking pride in what they have even people who aren't poor.
It's not about school spending, and technology. Much deeper than that..
I just did a tad extra reading on Christopher Jencks, one of the authors, and he appears to loosely promote the ideology that IQ is tied to race and genetics. Is that your belief?
This is nothing new and those types of beliefs are exactly what the country is built on.
Those types of white supremacy beliefs date back to the 1600s, a time that of course, pre-dates standardized testing and education.
We first need to examine why there is even such a ridiculous thing as "race?" The gene for brown skin has nothing to do with one's neurons.
"At the time of the American Civil War (1861–65), the matter of miscegenation prompted studies of ostensible physiological differences between Caucasians and Negroes. Early anthropologists, such as Josiah Clark Nott, George Robins Gliddon, Robert Knox, and Samuel George Morton, aimed to scientifically prove that Negroes were a human species different from the white people species; that the rulers of Ancient Egypt were not African; and that mixed-race offspring (the product of miscegenation) tended to physical weakness and infertility. "
"After the Civil War, Southern (Confederacy) physicians wrote textbooks of scientific racism based upon studies claiming that black freemen (ex-slaves) were becoming extinct, because they were inadequate to the demands of being a free man—implying that black people benefited from enslavement."
"In Medical Apartheid, Harriet A. Washington noted the prevalence of two different views on blacks in the 19th century: the belief that they were inferior and "riddled with imperfections from head to toe", and the idea that they didn't know true pain and suffering because of their primitive nervous systems (and that slavery was therefore justifiable). "
"Washington noted the failure of scientists to accept the inconsistency between these two viewpoints, writing that "in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, scientific racism was simply science, and it was promulgated by the very best minds at the most prestigious institutions of the nation. Other, more logical medical theories stressed the equality of Africans and laid poor black health at the feet of their abusers, but these never enjoyed the appeal of the medical philosophy that justified slavery and, along with it, our nation's profitable way of life."
"Racial studies by Georges Cuvier (1769–1832), the French naturalist and zoologist, influenced scientific polygenism and scientific racism. Cuvier believed there were three distinct races: the Caucasian (white), Mongolian (yellow) and the Ethiopian (black). He rated each for the beauty or ugliness of the skull and quality of their civilizations. Cuvier wrote about Caucasians: "The white race, with oval face, straight hair and nose, to which the civilised people of Europe belong and which appear to us the most beautiful of all, is also superior to others by its genius, courage and activity".
Regarding Negros, Cuvier wrote:
"The Negro race ... is marked by black complexion, crisped or woolly hair, compressed cranium and a flat nose. The projection of the lower parts of the face, and the thick lips, evidently approximate it to the monkey tribe: the hordes of which it consists have always remained in the most complete state of barbarism."
Many "studies" today are just trying to say the same things as these past scholars, but they dress it up with modern day terminology such as "single parents" and "Black on Black" crime, "lower test scores", "lower IQ", "failing" schools etc.
Nothing has changed. That has been my point all along. The story is the same, the cast is just different (because the original cast is dead) but, their horrific beliefs never died.
Nearly every white scholar, scientists, anthropologist, medical doctor of the past believe in innate white superiority. Are you saying you agree with them?
It's a way to justify war and torture against one group, and justify it without feeling guilty because hey, "they deserve it. They are lazy. They are violent."
Test scores, at their foundation, are the modern way to try and prove one group's inferiority and thus, make it seem as if they deserve any harm that comes their way because well, they have low test scores.
Why does the government classify test scores based on race? What is the point of that? Why is there even a need to continue on with racial classification that began with slave owners and other pro-slavery scholars of the past.
What's truly the purpose not only of test scores, but the purpose of dividing the scores up based on race?
TEN THINGS EVERYONE SHOULD KNOW ABOUT RACE
Our eyes tell us that people look different. No one has trouble distinguishing a Czech from a Chinese. But what do those differences mean? Are they biological? Has race always been with us? How does race affect people today?
There's less - and more - to race than meets the eye:
1. Race is a modern idea. Ancient societies, like the Greeks, did not divide people according to physical distinctions, but according to religion, status, class, even language. The English language didn't even have the word 'race' until it turns up in 1508 in a poem by William Dunbar referring to a line of kings.
2. Race has no genetic basis. Not one characteristic, trait or even gene distinguishes all the members of one so-called race from all the members of another so-called race.
3. Human subspecies don't exist. Unlike many animals, modern humans simply haven't been around long enough or isolated enough to evolve into separate subspecies or races. Despite surface appearances, we are one of the most similar of all species.
4. Skin color really is only skin deep. Most traits are inherited independently from one another. The genes influencing skin color have nothing to do with the genes influencing hair form, eye shape, blood type, musical talent, athletic ability or forms of intelligence. Knowing someone's skin color doesn't necessarily tell you anything else about him or her.
5. Most variation is within, not between, "races." Of the small amount of total human variation, 85% exists within any local population, be they Italians, Kurds, Koreans or Cherokees. About 94% can be found within any continent. That means two random Koreans may be as genetically different as a Korean and an Italian.
6. Slavery predates race. Throughout much of human history, societies have enslaved others, often as a result of conquest or war, even debt, but not because of physical characteristics or a belief in natural inferiority. Due to a unique set of historical circumstances, ours was the first slave system where all the slaves shared similar physical characteristics.
7. Race and freedom evolved together. The U.S. was founded on the radical new principle that "All men are created equal." But our early economy was based largely on slavery. How could this anomaly be rationalized? The new idea of race helped explain why some people could be denied the rights and freedoms that others took for granted.
8. Race justified social inequalities as natural. As the race idea evolved, white superiority became "common sense" in America. It justified not only slavery but also the extermination of Indians, exclusion of Asian immigrants, and the taking of Mexican lands by a nation that professed a belief in democracy. Racial practices were institutionalized within American government, laws, and society.
9. Race isn't biological, but racism is still real. Race is a powerful social idea that gives people different access to opportunities and resources. Our government and social institutions have created advantages that disproportionately channel wealth, power, and resources to white people. This affects everyone, whether we are aware of it or not.
10. Colorblindness will not end racism. Pretending race doesn't exist is not the same as creating equality. Race is more than stereotypes and individual prejudice. To combat racism, we need to identify and remedy social policies and institutional practices that advantage some groups at the expense of others.
RACE - The Power of an Illusion was produced by California Newsreel in association with the Independent Television Service (ITVS). Major funding provided by the Ford Foundation and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting Diversity Fund.
© 2003 California Newsreel. All rights reserved.
Separate names with a comma.