Poverty occurs on a significant scale in a place where there is 'enough' to go around because of grossly inequitable distribution of resources. It just seems logical, in this instance, that concentrated wealth depends on the existence of a rate of poverty within the population that is far in excess of what the available resources suggest is either unavoidable, and/or mainly attributable to the 'failings' of most of those people who live in a state of poverty.

Racism (or tribalism, or choose-your-religionism, depending on what part of the world you happen to inhabit) does not cause poverty.    Institutionalized racism is, however, a very useful and efficient vehicle by which a society or dominant culture may assign a large number of the necessary number of people to be part of an exploitable underclass. It provides the rationale and 'moral' justification needed for a society to do so, while letting most of it's better off inhabitants be able to go to sleep at night with a clear conscience. It further serves to create and help maintain the social conditions necessary to insure the continuity of an underclass.

Assuming the same history of social and economic conditions and policies exclusive of slavery, I opine that the number of people living in poverty in the USA today would be the same, even if slavery had never existed. Demographic characteristics of the underclass would be different--as a society we would have identified other groups to serve disproportionately as an underclass.

Janie