Posted: Tue May 11, 2010 6:46 am Post subject: Forum Post Due 5/11
Please read pp. 52-75 from Ch. 3 of "From the Folks Who Brought You the Weekend" (not the whole chapter).
Post a response (min. 100-200 words) on our forum. Please include a question to help your peers. Continue thinking about the themes of inclusion/exclusion and solidarity.
An important solidarity I came across from the reading, was the unofficial union of the slaves; "With or without permission, slaves regularly came together for prayer and praise, for parties and dances and for self education. ' (p.57) Although the slaves didn't have an established union, their bond was essential for keeping their spirits up, educating each other and overall creating a secret community. Through this community they had something to look forward to in their lives, something no slaveholders could have taken from them. The education in their unions was key to liberating the slaves when they were together; "Educational meetings took place at "midnight schools" where literate slaves taught others how to read and write." (p.5 Just as any other union came together to broaden their horizons in education and awareness in the United States, so did the slaves. Their tactics weren't much different from the rest of America's, except the fact that their society was secrete from the rest of the world.
How did having a secret unions benefit the slaves, politically, emotionally,etc?
This time period was so damn radical. Especially after having just read the previous chapters to know that America went from slave labor to organized unions and strikes within the same century is incredible. It’s really exciting to know that even though the elite class was the one making the laws, this country was still founded on a progressive attitude towards authority and human rights. My favorite part was the socialist community in Northampton. I’m really curious to know if there was a lot of active protests against communities like that. Clearly those communities would have threatened the greater economy if there had been more of them, but since they were rare, I dont think anybody felt threatened that they would lose money. But was there résistance to people exploring other economic systems ?
I think that a large part of the secret unions was emotional support. Knowing that there are other people around them who felt the same way they did and desired the same freedoms kept the slaves spirits alive when everyone else is trying to literally beat it out of them. These unions kept the slaves from giving up hope “by nurturing the independent spirit slaveholders tried so hard to kill”(5.
I think these groups also helped by giving the slaves something to do that the slaveholders had no control over. During the day and even into the night masters tried to control every aspect of their slaves lives. By holding these meetings and singing songs and learning to read and write and throwing parties, the slaves got to make a point to the slaveholders that said you might think you have us beat but you are dead wrong.
My question is if you could strike for one thing what would you strike for?
ps. ziz there is a really cool commune called the oneida community in upstate new york that was founded in the late 1840's i believe.
if you are interested this is their site: http://www.oneidacommunity.org/
The solidarity of labor was limited in this period by a number of forces. There were major divisions between native protestant workers and immigrants, many of whom were Irish. Divisions existed between black laborers and whites as well. Women, who comprised, a large portion of the New England manufacturing workforce, were separated from other working groups. The labor movement tried to organize but was constrained by all these divisions.
Immigration was one of the most important forces limiting labor's power as there was always a new cheap source of labor. Workers had no bargaining power in this situation. each and every laborer was an expandable commodity, not to say that that was the reason for large death rates in dangerous labor intensive jobs at the time.
My question is do you think that this new labor solidarity that arose in the twentieth century was the product of moral progression? or was it due to regulation of industry?
Interestingly, I actually had the feeling after this reading that although there were a few "radical" (although I wouldn't classify radical as demanding a 10 hour work week, organizing a strike to raise wages, or slaves revolting against there "masters" but rather I would classify this unregulated oppressive capitalist system that was present in those days and I would argue still resent today as radical and extremist) organizations and uprisings these made little to no headway in changing the tyrannical status quo. I think this quote explains the dynamics of the society pretty well on pg.53 There were "two ruling classes-the South's richest planters, the North's industrial capitalists-dominated their respective regions and jockeyed for control of the federal government. Both regarded labor as nothing more than a commodity." Also earlier on the page it says that "the 1860 census counted nearly 4 million slaves and also free workers and their dependents, about 12 million people in all, lived on wages that averaged under 1$ a day." Now even accounting for inflation that is still barely no money to live a healthy life. Also it appeared that the working classes attempts at changing the status quo weren't effective as it says that "the courts routinely crushed their unions and strikes."
This chapter made me realize that the slaves might have been the first large-scale successful labor victory. As the book explain there countless different resistance techniques that often reinforced solidarity among the slaves, which they needed to defeat the brutal elite. Also, a big theme throughout this chapter was looking at various groups of people (such as white women, immigrants, Irish-Catholic immigrants, white men, free blacks, and slaves) and the different challenges that each of these groups faced. For example, "women routinely got one-half of what men earned for comparable work" and there are countless other inequalities and injustices that are highlighted in this chapter between different groups...like the nativism against the Irish. I feel like to some extent the inclusion/exclusion between groups existed because each individual was looking out for their best interest...as Thomas Devyr says "Emancipate the white man first, free him from the thraldom of his unsupplied wants and the day this is done, we'll commence the manumission of the much wronged black man within our borders." The hate that was rampant throughout different groups of people was just overwhelming. Ok I sort of want to wrap this up so here is my question:
On pg.56/57 the book says that the white slave owners did many things such as hiring armed patrollers and enforcing draconian laws to control the minds as well as the behavior of their slaves. "To make the system run smoothly, slave holders had to make emancipation unthinkable." Do you think, and if so how did, the elite in the north control the minds of the wage workers in the north in order to maintain the status quo? Also, who do you think controls/is the greatest influence on the dominant ideas of our society today?
Also here is a nice short article I found on nytimes.com that I believe reinforces the view that government as well as regulation are very important to the welfare of Americans and everybody.
I think that the secret unions held by the slaves had a tremendous impact during these times. These secret meetings were the core to the slaves' rebellious mindset. The major part the slave owners feared was a slave revolt (after their economic downfall), and tried their hardest to cut off the slaves' mean of communication. The meetings were a sign of protest against the slave owners. Through education and just being together and sharing experiences allowed the slaves to bond. Coming from different parts of Africa and unable to communicate with their fellow slaves, the meeting was a place where they became one.
This emotional support as well as having a common enemy (goal), the slaves became more aware of their situations, which was one of the things slave owners feared.
The benefit of having these secret unions was to bond together the slaves who were stuck and to broaden their awareness of their situations.
Did slave owners really have no control over these "secret" meetings? (They must have been suspicious)
So the previous question was…Did slave owners really have no control over these "secret" meetings? (They must have been suspicious)
Slave owners definitely tried their best to forbid their slaves to communicate and share their feelings whether it was through music, prayer, storytelling, art, dance, or anything. Slave owners continuously threatened them (both physically and emotionally) to make them forget about having sense of companion or recognizing their identity.
One of the examples can be a master giving “special name” to his slaves. Instead of calling slaves with their original name, master makes another name for slaves because they do not have the freedom to own anything. Thus, slaves loose their identity.
Sometimes, slave owners knew that their slaves were sneaking out to meet other slaves or go to church or share their passion and freedom in the field by singing… so the owners harmed, raped, and killed their slaves to show what consequence will be done for those who does not obey. But I guess… as time went by this strategies did not work as it used to be.
I was surprised to learn that the white males were most likely to strike out of every one. The best reason I could come up with is that they expected the most privileges out of their jobs, and they were most likely to believe that people would listen to them.
This chapter was farly frustrating, it felt like whenever a union was about to make significant progress, there would be a big old depression or something like that would just ruin it. Or the union would fail because they would refuse to work with some other identity group. Oh well
Joined: 18 Nov 2009 Posts: 16 Location: In your closet
Posted: Tue May 11, 2010 11:18 am Post subject:
I think the secret unions were essential. The slave owners hoped that the slaves were just mindlessly following what they tell them to do, with no question and just that. The slave owners don't want them to come together. Any sort of union would threaten their power over the slaves.
Also I think the slave owners didn't really have control over the secret meetings. They could limit what they do during the day, and they did try to be as harsh as they could, but the slaves needed some sort of connection with the others, they needed a way to communicate, and they always did find a way. _________________ WARNING: I am not responsible for what i type above because apparently, my cats learned how to type
gabechai.com
Joined: 24 Nov 2009 Posts: 15 Location: undisclosed, MA.
Posted: Tue May 11, 2010 3:57 pm Post subject:
The unions at this time were all very divided by race, etc. Seems like racism is a great benefit to the ruling class, eh? Perhaps these divisions is what kept these unions from being as effective as the early 20th century unions. Is that too much of a stretch? i don't know. In any case, I was surprised that there was so much activism at this time period (but i guess this book would say that, being principally about labor and all.)
I must say, at this point i wish the book would focus more on class struggles and less on racial exclusion. I know it's a 'new perspective' to look at labor history through a racial lens, but you know... I'm tired of racial lenses.
We discussed this in class today, but what really fascinates me when I read about the tremendous effort exerted by the working classes to fight for better conditions, and their determination that their unity and strength of will would get them those better conditions, is considering how much (or little) progress has been made sense those times. Unions have been largely inactive in this country for awhile now, and I would guess that that inactivity comes from a combination of less immediate need and intimidation tactics by corporations, but the lack of unions fighting rights violations does not, of course, mean that those rights violations are not still occurring.
The issue of need is really subjective, but I think in the context of the 12+ hour workdays and deadly machinery we've been reading about, the majority of today's legal workers have better work environments. There are still, however, plenty of jobs that do endanger the physical welfare of the workers. An extreme example of a deadly environment are the numerous nuclear reactors we use to generate our power -- an employee who works near such materials for thirty years can expect negative health impacts. Similarly, the mining trade has long been known to be unhealthy, and working with coal in particular is known to kill slowly, over decades. There are also the well-hidden horrors of common industry; slaughterhouses, pesticide manufacturers and other toxic work environments are running 24 hours a day all over this country, keeping us all fed. I see a similarity between the ill-treated, poor (often immigrant) factory workers of the 1850's and the ill-treated, poor (often immigrant) factory workers of 2010.
In fact, in many ways, today's conditions can be seen as worse. I'm sure the risks and the horrors of the old factories were comparable, but at least in the 19th century, near the dawn of the concept of factories and, later, assembly lines, these things were out on the open, and society had to see them, even if the elite pretended not to or just didn't care. With such a large chunk of the population working in such conditions, the face of "work in America" was those conditions, and eventually something was bound to be done about it. Today, however, we hide our slaughterhouses away (much as we do our prisons), as far from cities as the cost of transporting replaceable, faceless workers will allow. The face of work in America is the 9 to 5 office job, as far as I can see, and while everyone complains about their jobs, there are few effective resistance movements to the system of indentured servitude that we pretend to have overcome.
My question: do you think this could ever change? Or is a society where everyone (who wants to) works in clean, warm, relatively comfortable conditions for good money naïvely utopian?
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Just as any other union came together to broaden their horizons in education and awareness in the United States, so did the slaves. Their tactics weren't much different from the rest of America's, except the fact that their society was secrete from the rest of the world.
