100
1920s. The racial-ethnic division of labor served to distribute agents from the
various ethnic groupings to working-class places throughout the economic structure
of the region. As in other facets of the social structure, the central feature of this
division of labor was the color bar.^
Table 4-4, constructed from the 1930 U.S. Census, illustrates the broad
functioning of the racial-ethnic distribution by comparing the proportions of U.S.-
born whites, foreign-born whites, and Blacks2-5 in selected segments and
occupations of the Baltimore working class. This table shows that foreign-born and
U.S.-born whites were distributed throughout the employed section of the working
class in a very similar manner, one qualitatively distinct from that of Blacks.
As Table 4-4 indicates, the white U.S.-born population represented 60.1% of
the employed working class as a whole, white immigrants 10.1%, and African
Americans 29.5% or almost one-third. Of the three groups, Blacks alone
represented a larger portion of the working class employed than the gainfully
employed as a whole: 29.5% versus 21.8% for Blacks, 103% versus 11.1% for
foreign born whites, and 60.1% versus 66.9% for U.S.-born whites. The
exceptional concentration of Blacks in working-class places becomes even clearer if
their 29.5% portion of the employed working class is contrasted with their 17.7%
portion of the general population. Or looking at this phenomenon from a different
angle, 883% of all employed Blacks were working class, compared to only 60.9%
for foreign-born whites and 57.8% for U.S.-born whites. The Black community was
far more working class than either of the two white groupings, each of which had
similar profiles in this regard.
Keeping in mind the relative concentrations of U.S.-born whites, foreign-
born whites, and Blacks in the employed working class (60.1%, 103%, and 29.5%,
respectively), we can look at Table 4-4 for patterns of relative concentration for
each grouping in various segments of the working class. In manufacturing, the
|