Posted: Wed May 19, 2010 3:46 am Post subject: May 19 post
Finish reading Ch. 6 and post thoughtfully on our forum. Posts without questions will not be counted. Think about: What tactics does the labor movement use? Have these changed over time?
This is unrelated to the posed question, but it was something that struck me as I was reading.
The situation of immigrants in the labor movement is an interesting one, both because of their huge part in it numbers-wise, the discrimination they faced and the way history handles the telling of that discrimination. Asians, as we have already seen, were despised across the board and excluded from even otherwise "progressive" unions for a very long time. European workers tended to get the better jobs (those of Scandinavian and German descent, I believe), but even they were generally "looked down upon" (Slavs were believed to be stupid and somehow simultaneously dangerously radical and pitifully docile). For a nation "built of immigrants", immigrants were marginalized from the beginning. On page 169, it was mentioned that "the annual number of deportations climbed from 3,600 in 1923 to 16,000 in 1929". I don't know about anyone else, but I've always thought of deportation (and active, vigilante guarding against immigrants, legal and illegal) as something more recent, specifically associated with the Mexican border and the heated current illegal immigrant debate. yet in 1929, the U.S. was shipping people back to their countries all over the world, despite that fact that anyone doing the deporting was probably no more than a fifth generation immigrant or so themselves.
My question is: is their evidence in what we've read that the "melting pot" vision of America is perhaps as distorted as we've seen the famed "American Dream" to be?
Joined: 24 Nov 2009 Posts: 15 Location: undisclosed, MA.
Posted: Wed May 19, 2010 6:22 am Post subject:
Well, grouping together ('one big union') is something the book stresses a lot. Strikes are more effective when everyone is striking, because otherwise the company could replace the strikers or simply cut their losses. Which is why it's pretty lame that there was so much of a racial divide. The unions said they wouldn't take chinese workers because they were, essentially, 'bad at strikes'. well having a union member who's ineffective must be better then having him become a scab, right?
And yes, The labor movement really has changed since then, it seems. It's definitely not the huge political issue it was. How many strikes are there, nowadays? you certainly don't here about them in the news, (except sometimes this shaw's one.) Maybe industries have become so big that strikes can't be organized that are big enough to intimidate them.
Why isn't there still a big labor movement? Are they not affective anymore? are the people not organized enough?
These readings have made America seem more like a stew, with a bunch of different vegetables and meet, than a melting pot. Every one is living together adding to the general flavor of American life, but they are each floating around as their own food so to speak. I see this especially in two places. One is the organization of unions where some are included in all activities and others are forcefully pushed out. Even though several of these groups out right hate each other, they are still all affected by each others actions. The other is the general break down of the work force. You have the Chinese on the railroads, the Jews in the garment district, the African Americans doing agricultural work, Mexicans in Californian orchards, etc. There is no big push for any of this to change. For any melting across race and job lines. it seems like there is no real desire for a “melting pot” in the first place.
Question: in 1919 the first "un-American acts" investigatory committee was crated. In your opinion who, if any one, should be able to decide what is “un-American” and what, if anything, is an "un-American" act?
Not only did the book talked about unions not accepting Asians, but also the prejudice of other workers of color was mentioned. In many places, Black workers were not accepted easily because there were issues between the white unionists and thus made it more complicated within the group. Due to these discrimination, racial conflicts were created between the workers and unions. So in the novel, it talks about how radicalism and racial pride became important for black workers…along with socialism and black liberation. Now, I will answer the question above: Why isn't there still a big labor movement? Are they not affective anymore? are the people not organized enough?
There are still many labor movements going on in the world, but I think people are not as much as aware as before. Just by looking at my country, Korea, I have grew up watching various labor movements that was aired in the news, but I feel that now a days, I can’t really find much labor movements as I did before. And, I think it’s because of overall the economic situation is falling and people need to work whether the working condition is terrible, or get paid lower than minimum wage, etc. Workers, I feel, are not as much as organized and affective anymore because in a place like today… where technology have improved so much and there are more machines and factory being made, the working situation is not as same as it used to be, and therefore people tend to accept what they have and work hard.
and now my question is,,, how did racism affect women's suffrage movement?
Man the past 3 posts where EXACTLY what I was planning on posting about. I suppose I’ll expand/answer some of the questions
I think Corinna’s question about America’s melting pot, and lily’s question of what it means to be un-American, are very connected. It’s interesting because growing up (at least in Massachusetts) the fact that America is a melting pot was always something to be proud of. But clearly there was a time when the melting pot was the un-American part of America. There where the “old Americans” and the immigrants. Actually, that was how America was founded. In the beginning there were colonists, and the slaves.
The American Dream, which we have defined as equal opportunity. The idea that if you work hard enough, you will succeed (—implying those who don’t succeed are just not working hard enough!) So maybe someone who is a part of the working class, because they’re not working hard enough of course, is someone not taking advantage of the American Dream, there for un-American. Unfortunately this means that the majority of American citizens are un-American because the majority of Americans where/are in the working class.
I see a lot of parallels between the anti-immigration movement from the 1900's and the one that's going on right now, i was wondering if there was a time in American history (aka in between?) when there wasn't such a fear of immigration?
Somewhere around the end of World War I, the US was allowing mass amounts of European immigrants into the country because we needed the labor. But even when the government opened up the gates and let European laborious in, this didn't account for the fear (in regards to the rest of the country.) So as far as i'm concerned, I don't think there was a time where there was no fear of letting immigrants into the country. There's always been a wall up between the people in America and the outside. This barrier was restricting and is still restricting America from moving forward in certain areas, at this point in time why not let certain immigrants into the country. Not to segregate, but people coming from high tech countries such as China, India and Russia, could do us well in the labor force. A lot of these people are educated well, and that ones who aren't are searching the "American Dream" that was spoken about before, so they are going to work hard to get it, or at least work hard to stay in the country and work jobs needed.
What is stopping us from "welcoming" immigrants into the country? What is all this fear about? If you think far back enough, we were all immigrants at one point in the US. I'm not asking for some philosophical answer, I am really just wondering if anyone has a hunch as to why.
Labor tactics varied across the unions and over time. The Socialist party and some unions favored trying to get improved wages and working conditions. The more conservative craft unions wanted to bargain collectively for higher wages from their workers. The Wobblies believed that that even violence was an appropriate tactic in the face of the power of antilabor forces. Each of these labor tactics had some drawbacks. The socialist party elected some people to Congress but it did not draw enough support to influence too much.
The craft unions were not that effective as it was hard to organize workers company by company. The Wobblies violent tactics mobilized workers but scared many people, including union workers.
American individualism may also have made people reluctant to join the labor movement.
In response to Rachel's question: I don't think the fact that we(people in this country) were all immigrants is not real point. everyone in the world that does not live in east africa is in some way a immigrant. One reason that people are scarred of immigrents is the fact that the "high tech", well educated, and wealthy immigrants are only a small minority. The majority of the people who immigrate to the USA are poor uneduacated immigrants. These people do not largely contribute to taxes for this country so that some believe that they are leaches on our economy are leeching off the economy. Also, the high teck immigrents that you speak of would be welcome and are welcome in this country. If you have money and a lot of education, it is much easyer to become a citizen. There is a feeling among many white Americans that you need to protect your own, even it means excluding people because of their race or country of origin.
my question is: why were labor tactics so ineffective in this period but became effective after the Great Depression.
There has been a lot of talk going around of the fear of immigrants. It was disappointing to see that most of the strikes failed even after reaching their peak after the war. I have to agree that much of the end of the chapter concerned racial matters. Not only Asians, but the discrimination against black workers was prominent during this time. Racism was still influencing a lot of the actions that were being made at that time. Many laws such as the women's suffrage were influenced through racism. The reason for the passing of the woman's suffrage was for that fact that it was seen as an act that would preserve the racial segregation. To the question of the fear towards the immigrants, I think just like the roots of racism, it is just a natural reaction to something people regard as foreign. Although like it was said before America is seen as a melting pot, many people can't help but fear being the minority.
If America was not a "melting pot" would the fear of the immigrants disappear?
Another reason why War is great for the government and corporate interests, which are intertwined because as the book said "Corporations dominated the political landscape," is not only because they subdue social unrest plus increase demand for goods but also because it often, just as it is happening today during these "Wars against Terrorism" opens up the opportunity for the government to infringe on Americans civil liberties under the pretext that they are protecting America from Terrorists, today, and back then "Un-American activities" which is translated into targeting Communists, labor unions, activists against the war or in some way blocking production of goods, especially military contracted goods. The acts that allowed the government to do this were the Espionage Act and if my memory serves me right, the Sedition Act. Anyone see similarities between those two acts and the more recent Patriots Act? Just as I was interested in Confederate Soldiers especially their motives to fight, I am also interested in the Vigilantes. Why are they so repressive against labor activists like the wobblies and also against integration? They don't seem like they are employers so what drives them to commit all of these atrocities? Are they just bigots or is there more to them?
Another pattern that I am seeing is the deterioration of unions during/after a recession or depression. For example, the book mentions a sharp depression in 1921-1922 and than right after that in 1923 total union membership dropped by 3.6 million people. It sort of makes sense because there are less jobs available so the companies can fire anyone they expect to be in a union and also doesn't have to listen to the unions demands because there are many unemployed workers that are willing to work. That explains the great growth of unions and there successes during the Great War b/c the companies needed the labor so they had a bargaining tool...striking.
My final question is: Why are so many workers such as policemen willing to suppress the unions and work to debilitate them?
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
