Urban poverty, in black and white

Discoveries revealed from a 25-year study in Baltimore may hold truths for other urban areas, such as the South Bronx.


Editor’s note: Karl Alexander is the academy professor and sociology research professor at Johns Hopkins University. Linda Olson is a research scientist at the Baltimore Education Research Consortium and the Hopkins Center for Social Organization of Schools. They are co-authors, with Doris Entwisle, of the book The Long Shadow: Family Background, Disadvantaged Urban Youth, and the Transition to Adulthood, published by the Russell Sage Foundation. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the writers.

(CNN) — Say “urban poor,” and the image that most likely comes to mind is one of young black men caught up in a swirl of drugs and violence and irresponsible single women having babies. But this pervasive stereotype overlooks a surprising reality: Many whites live side by side African-Americans in some of the country’s poorest urban neighborhoods.

Because white poverty is less expected, less recognized and less studied, we often exclude poor whites from our discussions. That masks a fundamental truth about economic inequality: Poverty is colorblind. But neither is it the same for everyone, as the white poor benefit from a lifetime of the hidden perks of white privilege.

As our nation continues down the road of economic recovery, this is a reality our local and national policymakers cannot afford to ignore as they seek to address employment and income inequality.

We traced the experience of nearly 800 children in Baltimore for more than 25 years, from the time they entered first grade in the fall of 1982 in 20 Baltimore public schools to well into their third decade. Half their families were low income, according to school records, and the typical low-income parent hadn’t finished high school. What might be surprising is that of that half, 40% are white.

Looking at where these children started in life and where they ended up, the study results are troubling but clear: At 28, hardly any of the children from a disadvantaged background, black or white, had finished college.

But even without the benefit of a college degree, whites, and white men especially, had vastly better employment outcomes. At every age, the white men experienced shorter spells of unemployment, were more likely to be working full-time and earned more.

Baltimore, like so many other American cities, suffered immensely under the ravages associated with de-industrialization: the loss of industry, population and wealth. Under such circumstances, many of the city’s disadvantaged youths stumbled along the way.

But the consequences have been especially dire for African-Americans. As young adults, African-American men had fared much worse than whites in the job market, even though they and their white counterparts had about the same levels of education and the whites reported higher rates of marijuana and heavy drug use and binge drinking.

Take, for example, the types of jobs the men in our study held. At 28, nearly half of the white men who had not attended college were employed in the industrial and construction trades, the highest-paying sector of blue-collar employment. By contrast, only 15% of African-American men worked in these sectors, and even within that small group, annual earnings were less than half that of whites — $21,500 versus $43,000.

This disparity is no accident.

It fits a broader pattern evident as far back as high school: About one-fifth of white men who grew up in disadvantaged families had after-school and summer jobs in these industries — important experience that can help secure a full-time job — while not a single African-American person did.

Indeed, throughout the course of our study, it was clear that African- Americans face greater barriers to employment. Having an arrest record or failing to complete high school were less consequential for white men than for African-American men: 84% of whites without a high school degree were employed at 22; among African Americans, just 40% were.

Racial inequality also is embedded in hidden ways in other spheres of life, including discrimination in housing and banking practices that have kept white and black Baltimore substantially separate and cut off working class African-Americans from potentially valuable social contacts.

Why do differences in employment track so sharply with color lines?

The race-based privilege that benefits working-class whites over working-class African-Americans has its origins in the discriminatory practices that excluded African-Americans from the skilled trades during Baltimore’s booming World War II and post-war industrial economy.

Although overt racial discrimination has lessened since then, the deep structural inequalities these barriers helped establish continue today through word-of-mouth hiring, employer attitudes that limit opportunities for African-Americans and segregated social networks.

The differences in how these young people found jobs illustrate the invisible ways race-based privilege is institutionalized in the job market.

When asked at age 22 how they found their current jobs, whites more often mentioned help from family and friends, while more African-Americans found jobs “on their own.” The white job seekers in our study had family, friends and neighbors who could help them access good-quality, higher-paying jobs.

And what of those women having babies?

Most of the women of disadvantaged background, white and African-American, became mothers as teenagers, worked sporadically and when working, their employment was concentrated in the low-pay clerical and service sectors.

The difference, though, is that many more white women were married or in a stable co-habiting relationship. An additional earner in the household makes a vast difference in economic well-being, which means that white men’s workplace advantages benefit white women as well.

As Americans, we like to think that we are all on a level playing field. Our society treasures rags-to-riches stories of individuals overcoming their humble origins to achieve the American Dream. But, the harsh reality we witnessed in Baltimore is that race and class place severe limitations on a child’s ability to achieve that dream.

Too often, our policymakers focus on colorblind solutions, such as the Earned Income Tax Credit, to help the urban poor. Such programs only help those who already have jobs and fail to address chronic unemployment among African-Americans.

Amid the growing national conversation on economic inequality, now is the time for our leaders to recognize that race matters and develop creative programs, such as President Barack Obama’s “My Brother’s Keeper initiative, to address the different challenges facing poor African-Americans.

Tracking the lives of Baltimore children for 25 years, we witnessed all too clearly how family conditions and poverty early in life cast a shadow that follows children into adulthood and how that shadow extends much further if you are African-American.

Only by facing this reality head on with proactive programs and policies can we offer young African-Americans a fair shot at achieving the American dream.

Read CNNOpinion’s new Flipboard magazine

Follow us on Twitter @CNNOpinion.

Join us on Facebook.com/CNNOpinion.

Brazil claims victoryin World Cup

Many of the approximately 1 million foreign tourists who descended on Brazil took in the sights, as well as the World Cup matches.


Brazil’s national football team may have been smoked on the pitch by Germany, but now government officials are claiming a 2014 FIFA World Cup victory of another sort.

According to figures released this week by Brazil’s federal government, the World Cup was a triumph for the country’s transportation and tourism industries.

“We lost the trophy, but Brazil won the World Cup,” said Aloisio Mercadante, Brazilian president Dilma Rousseff’s chief of staff, in a statement.

“Brazil showed that they know how to win, lose, host and celebrate peace with respect and a ‘make yourself at home’ atmosphere that won the world over.”

According to government figures, 1 million foreign tourists visited Brazil during the month-long event, far exceeding its pre-Cup projection of 600,000 visitors coming to the country from abroad.

About 3 million Brazilians traveled around the country during the event, just short of the expected 3.1 million.

Additionally, according to the government, of the million foreign visitors, “95% of them said they intend to return.”

“We were saying that we would host the World Cup of World Cups,” said President Rousseff in a statement. “Indeed, we staged the World Cup of World Cups.

“We had one problem, our match against Germany. However … we beat the pessimistic predictions and hosted the World Cup of World Cups with the immense and wonderful contribution of our people.”

Not everyone onboard

The government’s assessment of the World Cup’s impact on travel was significantly more enthusiastic than a report last week in the Wall Street Journal that called the event “a bust for Brazil’s domestic travel industry.”

Citing figures from the Brazilian Airline Association, that story projected total air travel in Brazil falling 11% to 15% during the World Cup compared with the same period in 2013. The story blamed hiked-up prices and large crowds for scaring off domestic tourists.

Economists who study the impact of large sporting and other events on local and national economies tend to be less sanguine than the governments that host them.

“Every time you get a World Cup tourist you get one less regular tourist,” Dr. Andrew Zimbalist, a sports economist and economics professor at Smith College in Massachusetts, tells CNN.

“Generally speaking, the World Cup does not benefit the host’s tourism industry.”

Zimbalist says it’s doubtful Brazil’s international tourism profile will experience long-term positive impact as a result of the World Cup.

He points to heightened media coverage around the event that focused on “unsavory conditions” facing the country, such as violence, poverty, pollution and social unrest, as illustrated by public demonstrations against the huge amounts of public funds spent on new infrastructure.

Furthermore, he said, the World Cup won’t provide sustained promotion for the smaller of the event’s 12 host cities.

The Amazonas city of Manaus is an example.

Zimbalist cited public money spent on a stadium that will eventually become underutilized. Rather than inspire coverage of the beauty of the surrounding Amazon, media reports tended to focus on the new facility and the conflict that surrounded its construction.

It’s very hard to see how that’s going to promote tourism in Manaus,”says Zimbalist.

More where that came from

Turning mega-sporting events such as the World Cup and Olympics into proxy tourism campaigns remains an uncertain enterprise.

Some cities continue to reap the benefits of hosting.

Barcelona has seen a tenfold increase in tourist numbers since it hosted the 1992 Summer Olympics.

Meanwhile, a decade after hosting the 2004 summer games, Olympic venues in Athens have become decaying ghost towns.

For now, it’s unlikely there will be enough time to assess the long-term economic impact of the World Cup on Brazil’s economy in advance of the country’s next huge event — the 2016 Summer Olympics in Rio de Janeiro.

When cars made teens into gods

<a href=’http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-99316′>Brian McDaniels </a>bought this powder blue 1954 Chevrolet Bel Air when he was 18. It’s the car he would meet his future wife Linda in. She is seen here in 1962, sitting on the car in front of his driveway in Columbus, Ohio.


Experience “The Sixties” on CNN on Thursdays at 9 p.m. ET. Do you have 1960s photos you would like to share? Upload them to CNN iReport.

(CNN) — There were two distinct groups of guys in high school back in the ’60s: Those who had cars, and those who didn’t. For the sake of your reputation, you didn’t want to be the kid without a car, says 70-year-old Brian McDaniels.

From the time he was 12, McDaniels counted the days until he could get his license. He worked at a grocery store, sold ice cream and delivered newspapers just so he could buy a car as soon as he turned 16. He purchased a 1953 Ford Coupe in 1960 for $200 before he could even legally drive it, getting his license a few days after. Two years later, he traded that car in for his shining glory, a 1954 Chevy Bel Air.

The Chevy Bel Air was as amazing as he dreamed. This car was the center of his social life. It was where he listened to his local Columbus, Ohio, radio station’s Top 40 hits for hours on end, where he ate countless meals with friends at the drive-thru, and where he had his first date with the girl of his dreams, the woman he eventually married.

“When I got the car, it was really hard to describe the pride,” McDaniels says. “To work for so long and then to get it. There was a certain culture when you got the car, you spent time with the car.”

The 1960s era is known for its collection of trends and fads, from hippie fashion to British rock ‘n’ roll, but nothing defined youth culture more than the ’60s car, says Matt Anderson, a historian and curator at The Henry Ford museum in Dearborn, Michigan.

Songs from bands like the Beach Boys romanticized the American car, and movies like “Goldfinger” and “Bullit” emphasized the power and speed of those classic ’60s muscle cars, Anderson says. Cars were the ultimate status symbol that set teens apart from their friends.

It was a big deal for a teenager to actually own one. In the 1960s, nearly 79% of American households owned fewer than two vehicles, and more than one-out-of-five households didn’t own a vehicle at all, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. It’s a stark contrast from today’s car ownership norms, where you’re hard pressed to find a vehicle-less household outside of a few major cities.

“Back then those who had cars were gods among people,” Anderson says. “There was a lot of envy and admiration for those who had cars. People gravitated to those who had cars, and you’d want a car to have that status.”

Linda Glovach, 67, remembers how her life in the suburbs of New York changed after she got a blue 1961 Chevrolet Impala with a white convertible top as a high school graduation present from her grandmother. “I called everyone up,” she says. “Everyone I knew came over to look at it. … It wasn’t like today where if you have even a little bit of money, you can get a car. If one person got a car in the neighborhood, all your friends went for rides in it. I was lucky to get it.”

That car gave her a huge confidence boost and revved up her social life. It was an unexpected gift that transformed the way she and her girlfriends spent time together. Living on Long Island, Glovach did whatever she could to escape into the city. With her car, she could now take other girls along for the ride. “We would pile in as many people as we could,” she said. “It wasn’t that I was a rich girl, but I was a cool person to hang out with.”

Glovach and her girlfriends would take every opportunity they got to drive the Long Island Expressway into Manhattan. The expressway back then wasn’t a frantic scene of gridlock traffic and anxious drivers trying to get to work. The expressway was essentially a pickup scene. Glovach recalls cruising down the highway with her hair all teased up and a scarf strung delicately around her neck.

“I found freedom with my car,” Glovach said. “I lived in the suburbs and it was dreary. Houses were on top of each other and a lot of mothers were homemakers.”

Freedom, independence, love and popularity were just some of the abstract ideas that teens pinned onto car ownership. That’s not always the case with today’s generation of teenagers, says car historian Anderson

“Owning a car now is different from owning a car back then,” says McDaniels, who was desperate to own a vehicle as soon as he turned 16. He sees the shift of priorities for teenagers today with his 16-year-old granddaughter. She took three years to get her driver’s license because she doesn’t yet see a need to own a car herself since she uses public transportation often.

Despite the changing relationship between teens and cars today, Anderson says cars made and driven in the 1960s still have a soft spot for the young and old alike.

“I think for people who grew up in that era, we love what’s familiar. Cars are tangible things and they can bring back memories. It is like a song or movie. You can’t really put a price on that feeling,” he says. “And for younger people, I do think they think there is a certain kind of magic to them.”

Republicans to sue Obama over health law


(CNN) — House Republicans are going forward with plans to sue President Barack Obama and will base their legal case on the sweeping health care law he championed and they despise.

Speaker John Boehner said the suit, which also highlights an ironic Obamacare twist, will follow the argument Obama violated the Constitution by circumventing Congress and alone delaying the law’s requirement for businesses to provide coverage.

“In 2013, the President changed the health care law without a vote of Congress, effectively creating his own law by literally waiving the employer mandate and the penalties for failing to comply with it,” Boehner said in a statement.

“That’s not the way our system of government was designed to work. No president should have the power to make laws on his or her own,” he added.

The Republican-led House is expected to vote on a resolution authorizing legal action against the President over Obamacare at the end of the month, just before lawmakers head home for August to campaign for midterm votes.

Boehner then is expected to hire attorneys to actually file the suit in federal court. But the timing of that is unclear.

The Rules Committee plans to hold a hearing on the matter with outside legal experts.

White House calls it a ‘stunt’

The White House expressed disappointment in a statement, saying Boehner and Republicans are wasting time and taxpayer resources on a “political stunt.”

“As the President said today, he is doing his job — lawsuit or not — and it’s time Republicans in Congress did theirs,” the statement said.

Obama defiantly dared Republicans last week, saying he would continue to take steps he felt were necessary with or without the support of congressional Republicans.

“So sue me,” he dared them.

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi also dismissed the suit as a political “stunt.”

The case magnifies a toxic partisan climate that has engulfed Congress and come to define Obama’s relations with Republicans in general. Some arch-conservatives in the party want him impeached.

Pushing forward

Boehner doesn’t agree with such a step, but he’s plowing ahead with an unusual legal challenge built around Republican claims he has abused his authority at the expense of the legislative process.

Boehner’s staff has consulted experts and considered several options for the legal basis needed to make a case that Obama has overreached.

Another key area of contention was Obama’s move in 2012 to defer deportations of children who enter the country illegally — a hot button issue today with thousands of minors crossing the southern border unaccompanied. Also, environmental regulations and the Taliban prisoner exchange that freed Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl were criticized.

But a senior House Republican leadership aide said the health care case gives the House “the best chance of success in the courts.”

So far, the House has passed two bills aimed at curbing executive orders. Neither has gone anywhere in the Democratic-controlled Senate.

Must prove harm

Many legal experts have already said any lawsuit of this kind would face challenges.

In order for it to be formally considered by the courts, House Republicans must prove that it was somehow injured as an institution.

Obamacare has been a partisan flashpoint since it’s passage in 2010 with no GOP support. The House has approved dozens of bills aiming to weaken or repeal it.

The Obama administration a year ago postponed a requirement that businesses with more than 50 workers provide their employees with health insurance. The employer mandate now won’t take effect until 2015.

Ironically, the same lawmakers pressing the lawsuit on Thursday actually voted on legislation that would have delayed the mandate a year ago. But pushing that through the Democratic-controlled Senate would have required debate, possibly other changes, and a likely delay just as the administration was gearing up to put the measure into practice.

Justifying the apparent contradiction of suing the President over taking action they actually supported initially, Republican aides said it is up to Congress to make those changes in law, not the President.

Not personal

Another centerpiece of the initiative required individual Americans to obtain health insurance from Obamacare or on the private market, or face a possible fine. So far 9 million people have signed up for plans under the health law, the administration has said.

It’s the signature domestic policy achievement of Obama’s presidency so far and a rallying cry for Republicans, especially on the midterm campaign trail.

Earlier in the day, Boehner argued a suit wasn’t simply a personal issue, but a move to defend Congress as an equal branch of government.

“It’s not about Republicans versus Democrats. This is about the legislative branch that’s being disadvantaged by the executive branch. And it’s not about executive actions. Every president does executive orders,” Boehner said.

Saying most presidents act lawfully, Boehner said Obama “is basically rewriting law to make it fit his own needs.”

Read the resolution (PDF)

Boehner op-ed: Why we must now sue the President

Opinion: Dear Speaker Boehner: Do your job instead

Pilot buys pizza for delayed passengers

handing out pizza to passengers stranded on a plane


(CNN) — Adam Ritchie, a Domino’s Pizza manager in Cheyenne, Wyoming, said he’d never received a call like the one he got Monday night.

“I need to feed my whole plane,” the caller told him.

“Lucky me, I hear 160 people. It ended up being like 38 pizzas,” Ritchie told CNN.

A Frontier Airlines flight from Washington to Denver was diverted to Cheyenne because of bad weather. The plane was stuck on the ground for nearly two hours.

The food on board was gone, so the pilot decided to order pizzas for everyone, a passenger told CNN affiliate KDVR. Each row got its own pie.

“Next thing you know, Domino’s Pizza was rolling up to the plane,” passenger Logan Torres told CNN. She sent CNN photos of flight attendants passing out boxes.

Frontier Airlines spokeswoman Tyri Squyres said she wasn’t surprised at all by what the pilot did.

“This is not unusual for our pilots to go above and beyond to care for our customers,” she said. “We have some great pilots who work here.”

The hidden beauty of airport runways, and how to decipher them

The best ways to kill time at airports

Future of travel: Cheap flights, more rail and hands-free cars

Vets shortchanged on GI Bill

WWII war vets going to college on the GI bill take notes in a class at the University of Iowa.


Editor’s note: Glenn C. Altschuler is the Thomas and Dorothy Litwin professor of American Studies and the dean of the School of Continuing Education and Summer Sessions at Cornell University. He is the co-author, with Stuart M. Blumin of “The GI Bill: A New Deal for Veterans.”

(CNN) — Seventy years ago this week, President Franklin Roosevelt signed the GI Bill of Rights, formally the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act, which the House of Representatives and Senate passed unanimously. It authorized unemployment compensation for a maximum of 52 weeks and guaranteed farm, home and business loans up to $2,000 to World War II veterans.

Most importantly, by providing up to four years of education and training at annual tuition rates of up to $500 (the rate then charged by Harvard), plus a monthly living stipend, the bill made it possible for GIs to attend any college or university that would accept them.

That was then.

In 2014, the promise of full and equal access to higher education for men and women in the armed services, and, for that matter, for all academically qualified Americans, has not been fulfilled. Family income, not a concerted national initiative, still dictates whether students, including servicemen and women, go to college and which institutions they attend.

More than 2 million World War II veterans went to college on the GI Bill. At least a quarter of them could not have done this without it. Many excelled; GIs appeared with regularity on honors rolls and deans lists. And they more than paid back the investment that had been made in them. Many of them achieved higher occupational status, more job security, better health and pension benefits and paid more taxes than their peers.

They joined 50% more civic and political organizations and voted more frequently than their contemporaries in post-war America, according to Suzanne Mettler, author of “Soldiers to Citizens: The GI Bill and the Making of the Greatest Generation” and a professor of government at Cornell University.

They also upended a pervasive assumption at the time that college was best suited to affluent Americans. Influenced no doubt by the performance of the first wave of GI Bill students, the 1947 Truman Commission, Higher Education in American Democracy, called for “free and universal access to higher education” for all Americans based on the interests, needs, and abilities of each student, but without regard to race, creed, sex, national origin or economic circumstances.

The GI Bill and the Truman Commission Report touched off a golden age of higher education in the United States. Thanks in no small measure to funding for financial aid and research from states and the federal government, the number of undergraduates increased five-fold from 1945 to 1975, and graduate students nine-fold, according to Clay Shirky in “The End of Higher Education’s Golden Age.”

In the past 70 years, GI Bill benefits have become significantly less generous than the provisions of the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944. The Korean GI Bill of 1952, the Veterans Readjustment Benefits Act of 1966 and the Montgomery GI Bill of 1985 fell far short of covering tuition and fees at many public and private colleges and universities.

While 52% of World War II veterans enrolled in private colleges and universities under the GI Bill, only 20% of the veterans of Korea and Vietnam were able to do so. It has become more difficult to ask, as Time magazine did in the 1940s, “Why go to Podunk College when the government will send you to Yale?”

Although Sen. James Webb wanted his GI Bill, signed into law by President George W. Bush on June 30, 2008, to give veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan “the same educational chance that ‘The Greatest Generation’ had,” it provided tuition payments only up to the most expensive in-state public university and restricted eligibility to individuals who spent three years or more on active duty.

More generally, state appropriations for all higher education in recent years have leveled off or gone down, and federal funding for financial aid for undergraduates has not kept pace with the cost of attendance at public or private institutions. The maximum Pell grant, which accounted for about four-fifths of the cost at an average public university in the ’70s, now covers about 31%.

Little wonder, then, that three of four individuals from families in the top quartile of the economic distribution have received undergraduate degrees by age 24, but only one of five in the third tier and one of 10 in the fourth — and the median debt at graduation is rising rapidly. Or that the United States is no longer at the top — or even near the top — of countries that send the highest percentage of their young people to college.

More than ever, it is clear that educational achievement promotes economic growth, helps our nation compete in world markets and leads to high incomes as well as individual fulfillment.

So let’s mark the 70th birthday of the GI Bill not just by celebrating one of the greatest pieces of legislation in American history. We must also insist that Congress make it a high priority to provide the opportunity for our servicemen and women — and for all young men and women in the United States — to use higher education to fulfill the American Dream and go as far and as fast as their ambition, discipline and talent will take them.

Read CNNOpinion’s new Flipboard magazine

Follow us on Twitter @CNNOpinion.

Join us on Facebook.com/CNNOpinion.

Windy City wins George Lucas museum

George Lucas said in a statement that choosing Chicago was the right decision for the museum.


(CNN) The force was with Chicago. The Windy City beat out other cities, including a contentious battle against San Francisco, winning the bid to build an interactive museum for “Star Wars” creator George Lucas.

This is a milestone for the city, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel said Tuesday after the decision was announced. This is a tremendous opportunity for the city.

The decision was a stunning upset for San Francisco. Lucas has plenty of ties to the Bay Area. He’s from Modesto, California, and built his Skywalker ranch complex in Marin County north of the city. He started other ventures over the years also based in the Bay Area, including Lucasfilm Ltd.

Lucas said in a news release Tuesday that choosing Chicago over San Francisco was the right decision for the museum, but a difficult decision for me personally because of my strong personal and professional roots in San Francisco.

San Francisco Mayor Edwin M. Lee said there was a lot of support for the Lucas museum in his city. But Lee also said he understood why the iconic movie producer searched for sites in other cities for the cultural center.

The Presidio Trust unwisely rejected Mr. Lucas’ proposal for a site near Crissy Field, which  forced Mr. Lucas to look to cities like Chicago, and put San Francisco’s chance at landing the museum in jeopardy, Lee said in a statement Tuesday

The location for the future Lucas Museum of Narrative Art in Chicago, along the city’s famed lakefront as part of what’s known as the museum campus, was a deciding factor. Chicago was chosen because of the quality of the site proposed by the city’s task force. The 17-acre site offers unparalleled visitor access,” a news release said.

The campus is already home to the Shedd Aquarium, the Field Museum and the Adler Planetarium.

Lucas’ wife, Mellody Hobson, also calls Chicago home. She’s the president of Chicago-based Ariel Investments and sits on numerous corporate boards.

The new museum

The Chicago task force picked the location for the Lucas Museum of Narrative Art based on the site’s accessibility to public transportation and easy access. But the potential to create green spaces was important, too.

To accommodate the museum, existing parking spaces will be moved underground and acres of asphalt will be replaced with more parkland along the harbor, museum officials said in statement.

Final plans for the construction of the museum are expected this fall.

The museum will display some of Lucas’ extensive collection of artwork, including paintings by Norman Rockwell, Maxfield Parrish and N.C. Wyeth. It will also feature his large collection of movie posters and memorabilia, including props from his “Star Wars” films and others.

The museum is also billed as a “gathering place to experience narrative art and the evolution of the visual image — from illustration to cinema to digital arts,” according to a news release.

“No other museum like this exists in the world, making it a tremendous educational, cultural and job creation asset for all Chicagoans, as well as an unparalleled draw for international tourists, said Emanuel.

Lucas film history

Lucas created the blockbuster Star Wars franchise with the release of the first film, “Star Wars: Episode IV A New Hope in 1977. The film was a box office sensation and won seven Academy Awards.

He also made the Indiana Jones series of movies with famed director and friend Steven Spielberg.

The American Film Institute lists Lucas’ “Star Wars: Episode IV — A New Hope” as No. 15 on its list of the 100 greatest American films of all time.