=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 1 Mar 2001 10:37:09 -0500
Reply-To:     Labor History Forum 
Sender:       Labor History Forum 
From:         David Montgomery 
Subject:      Opening Message from David Montgomery
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Dear Labor History forum subscribers,

The purpose of this month=92s discussion is to enable us to consider
together ways of improving the presentation of the lives and struggles
of working men and women in the U.S. history courses we offer in
secondary schools, colleges and universities, and labor studies
programs. I look forward to an exchange of insights and questions, in
addition to offering my own responses to your questions.

Where working people appear in most textbooks, it is in the context of
social problems and disorders encountered during "the onward
march of Progress." During the last half-century, however, fine
historians have written insightful studies of the lives, beliefs, and
communities of working people and of their influence on the country=92s
social and political development. Nevertheless, those books and
articles remain much more likely to be read and taught in specialized
university courses than in the surveys and television shows, which
provide most students their primary access to the country=92s past.

It is that gap that History Matters is designed to help bridge. Teachers
need especially to identify and locate documentary sources, which
their students can use and interpret. Some valuable collections of
documents are accessible through the internet. For the most part,
however, funds have not been forthcoming to digitize union, socialist,
and foreign language newspapers, legislative investigations into
industrial conditions, pamphlets and leaflets, and other such
revealing sources, the way they have for major commercial
newspapers and the papers of famous men. Consequently these
collections, oral histories, and writings by working people that are
available in print or on microfilm will be especially important to locate.

I anticipate that much of our attention will be devoted to working
conditions, labor unions, race and gender discrimination, social
insurance, and labor legislation. Both recent scholarship and older
writings have been much concerned with such questions. The central
concern of the more recent work, however, has been on the relations
among human beings generated by different forms of production of
goods and services, by community life, and by the institutions working
people have created for themselves. Great strikes, like those of July
1877 and the 1912 Lawrence strike, continue to hold great interest
both because of their impact on public policy and because thy provide
evidence of working-class beliefs and aspirations that remain hidden
from public view during periods of quiescence.

Much of the most innovative writing of the last half century has focused
on the period between the 1790s and the 1890s, when the United
States was transformed from an overwhelmingly agricultural society of
some four million inhabitants into a land of 75 million people, which
had surpassed all other countries of the world in the production of
manufactured goods. At the beginning of that century a variety of labor
systems had existed and expanded their domains simultaneously.
Both local and global markets were supplied with commodities
produced by slaves, white indentured servants, Native American
hunters, women and men who owned or rented farms, self-employed
artisans, and wage earners. By the 1890s employment for wages and
salaries had virtually eclipsed all other productive relations in
manufacturing, commerce, and large-scale agriculture, while court
rulings and state legislation held governmental regulation of the
economy to a minimum in deference to the ideal of a self-adjusting
market.

By mid-century "the working class" was a concept employed by social
and political commentators from all walks of life. It was deployed as a
badge of self-identification by participants in the Working Men=92s
parties and General Trades Unions of the 1830s, in the two National
Labor Unions formed in the aftermath of the Civil War (one
predominantly white and the other predominantly black), in the Knights
of Labor and the American Federation of Labor, and in the socialist
and anarchist movements. By the turn of the century mobilizations of
the working class in workplace, community, and municipal affairs
played a major role in shaping the American polity.

Most students today are interested primarily in the twentieth century,
and especially in the rise of industrial unions and in the creation (and
more recently, the dismantling) of government measures designed to
safeguard workers and their families against the ravages of the "free
market." Historians have argued vigorously among themselves over
the character and impact of working people=92s collective efforts to
refashion the world in which they then lived, especially during the
Progressive and New Deal eras. But workers tend to disappear from
view in our survey courses when it comes to the postwar years. They
should not. Work relations and urban life were profoundly transformed
by the expansion of union membership to its all-time peak early in the
1950s, a new and increasingly complex legal framework governing
that movement, and the simultaneous impact of Cold War politics and
purges, unprecedented economic growth between the 1940s and the
1960s, and a successful popular struggle to replace legal
segregation with new statutes prohibiting racial and gender
discrimination in employment, public accommodations, and voting.

Moreover, even the postwar decades had come and gone long before
most of our students were born. The global restructuring of the
economy, which began in earnest early in the 1970s, and the
attendant flight of industry from its historic urban centers, repudiation
of New Deal innovations by both major parties, and precipitous
decline of union influence in manufacturing and construction (along
with the rise of unions in the public sector and academic life) have not
only reshaped and diminished working people=92s influence on public
life, but have also tempted textbook writers and teachers of survey
courses to dismiss consideration of working-class influence even
from their discussions of the American past. Few students have
contact with the lives and roles of their own parents and ancestors,
except perhaps in the form of immigrant success stories.

The materials to remedy this ignorance exist in many museums, in
libraries, in archival collections around the land. I hope our discussion
will help guide all participants to locate these resources and think
about ways in which our students might use them. It would be
especially helpful if participants could say what they have done in their
own classes, what has worked well, and what has not done so well.

David Montgomery

This forum on Labor History is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 1 Mar 2001 12:22:12 -0500
Reply-To:     Labor History Forum 
Sender:       Labor History Forum 
From:         Ellen Noonan 
Subject:      labor history resources on History Matters

Dear Labor History forum subscribers,

I wanted to follow up Professor Montgomery's opening message with
a brief guide to the many resources for teaching about labor history to
be found on the rest of History Matters. As the creators of the
two-volume textbook Who Built America? Working People and the
Nation's Economy, Politics, Culture, and Society (new edition just out
from Worth Publishers) and two interactive CD-ROMs based on those
books, ASHP has since its inception made labor history the
foundation for all of its work, and History Matters is no exception.

There is a rich array of documents (150 now with more added every
week)  relating to labor history in the Many Pasts section of the site,
the majority of them first person accounts by working men and women
that span all regions and trades. History Matters also provides links to
13 web sites (again, with more added weekly) on labor history topics,
including curriculum resources and some terrific online exhibits that
help bring the treasures of the archives to students no matter where
they're located.

In the Past Meets Present section, "Between a Rock and a Hard Place:
A History of American Sweatshops, 1820-Present" places the current
debate on sweatshops in the garment industry in a historical context
and explores the complex factors that contribute to the existence of
sweatshops today. We even have two puzzles ("Who Built the
Railroad" and "Women Garment Workers Strike") that require a close
viewing of two historical photographs.

History Matters is fully searchable, so you can search the site for
topics as broad as "labor and labor movements" or add more
qualifiers, such as "women" or "western states" or "emergence of
modern america 1890-1930" to narrow your search.

You should also check out the online essay "The Future of Labor's
Past?: American Labor History on the World Wide Web" by John
Summers, located at the Center for History and New Media site at
http://chnm.gmu.edu/chnm/LaborWor.html

If you've already used some of these online resources, let us know
how, and how students responded. If you haven't, I urge you to check
them out!

Ellen Noonan



Ellen Noonan
American Social History Project/Center for Media and Learning
365 Fifth Avenue, Rm. 7301.10
New York, NY  10016
(212) 817-1969
enoonan@gc.cuny.edu

This forum on Labor History is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 1 Mar 2001 10:49:15 -0700
Reply-To:     Labor History Forum 
Sender:       Labor History Forum 
From:         geverett 
Subject:      Re: labor history resources on History Matters
In-Reply-To:  
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

Hello,

I would like to add another online labor history resource that is now
available:

http://www.butteamerica.com/labor.htm

It focuses on labor history surrounding metals mining in Butte,
Montana.  It contains an image map and full text with contemporary and
historical photographs.   The piece first appeared (with footnotes) in the
summer 1998 issue of Labor's Heritage Magazine.

It is also a way to introduce myself as an interested "lurker" on this
forum who is interested in learning more about how to approach educating
students and others about labor history.

George Everett
http://www.butteamerica.com


At 12:22 PM 3/1/01 -0500, you wrote:
>Dear Labor History forum subscribers,
>
>I wanted to follow up Professor Montgomery's opening message with
>a brief guide to the many resources for teaching about labor history to
>be found on the rest of History Matters. As the creators of the
>two-volume textbook Who Built America? Working People and the
>Nation's Economy, Politics, Culture, and Society (new edition just out
>from Worth Publishers) and two interactive CD-ROMs based on those
>books, ASHP has since its inception made labor history the
>foundation for all of its work, and History Matters is no exception.
>
>There is a rich array of documents (150 now with more added every
>week)  relating to labor history in the Many Pasts section of the site,
>the majority of them first person accounts by working men and women
>that span all regions and trades. History Matters also provides links to
>13 web sites (again, with more added weekly) on labor history topics,
>including curriculum resources and some terrific online exhibits that
>help bring the treasures of the archives to students no matter where
>they're located.
>
>In the Past Meets Present section, "Between a Rock and a Hard Place:
>A History of American Sweatshops, 1820-Present" places the current
>debate on sweatshops in the garment industry in a historical context
>and explores the complex factors that contribute to the existence of
>sweatshops today. We even have two puzzles ("Who Built the
>Railroad" and "Women Garment Workers Strike") that require a close
>viewing of two historical photographs.
>
>History Matters is fully searchable, so you can search the site for
>topics as broad as "labor and labor movements" or add more
>qualifiers, such as "women" or "western states" or "emergence of
>modern america 1890-1930" to narrow your search.
>
>You should also check out the online essay "The Future of Labor's
>Past?: American Labor History on the World Wide Web" by John
>Summers, located at the Center for History and New Media site at
>http://chnm.gmu.edu/chnm/LaborWor.html
>
>If you've already used some of these online resources, let us know
>how, and how students responded. If you haven't, I urge you to check
>them out!
>
>Ellen Noonan
>
>
>
>Ellen Noonan
>American Social History Project/Center for Media and Learning
>365 Fifth Avenue, Rm. 7301.10
>New York, NY  10016
>(212) 817-1969
>enoonan@gc.cuny.edu
>
>This forum on Labor History is sponsored by History Matters--please visit
>our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for
>teaching U.S. History.

This forum on Labor History is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 2 Mar 2001 12:46:46 EST
Reply-To:     Labor History Forum 
Sender:       Labor History Forum 
From:         Jack Zevin 
Subject:      Re: labor history resources on History Matters
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Sounds good, but do you have any websites on labor mysteries, like the famous
Haymarket 'riot'? or other case studies,

thanks, Jack Zevin

This forum on Labor History is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 2 Mar 2001 12:43:02 -0600
Reply-To:     carl@schulkin.org
Sender:       Labor History Forum 
From:         Carl Schulkin 
Subject:      Re: Opening Message from David Montgomery
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed

Dear Professor Montgomery and colleagues,

     As a high school teacher of the U.S. History survey, I have struggled
over the years with my unit on the efforts of labor to organize in response
to the growing power of businesses in the period from 1877 to 1914.  Among
the aspects of this period that have given me the greatest difficulty have
been: 1) finding estimates of the growth of union membership to place in
perspective the growth of organized labor; and 2) deciding and providing
reliable data to show that REAL WAGES for most workers did or did not
increase during this period.  In regard to the second issue, I have read
supposedly reliable sources that stated that REAL WAGES for workers
increased during this period, but that prices rose faster.  To me that
appears to be a contradiction, since REAL WAGES by definition take into
account rising prices.

     Any enlightenment that you might provide me on this two issues would be
greatly appreciated.

Carl Schulkin
Pembroke Hill School

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

This forum on Labor History is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 2 Mar 2001 12:44:51 -0600
Reply-To:     Labor History Forum 
Sender:       Labor History Forum 
From:         James Carter 
Subject:      Re: Opening Message from David Montgomery
In-Reply-To:  
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: 8BIT

In response to Professor Montgomery's opening statement, I would like to
ask a question of the other viewers/participants.  As someone who teaches
the late nineteenth century labor movement in some detail, I would like to
hear how others deal with the diferences between skilled and unskilled
labor in that period.  I have in the past emphasized the old Debs/Gompers
split to illustrate these differences and what they mean for workers.  I
have become less satisfied with it, however, because the reality is more
complicated than that.  Anyway, I would be interested to see what others
have done or are doing; even if it is not necessarily that different.
Thank you,
James Carter
University of Houston

At 10:37 AM 3/1/01 -0500, David Montgomery wrote:
>Dear Labor History forum subscribers,
>
>The purpose of this month’s discussion is to enable us to consider
>together ways of improving the presentation of the lives and struggles
>of working men and women in the U.S. history courses we offer in
>secondary schools, colleges and universities, and labor studies
>programs. I look forward to an exchange of insights and questions, in
>addition to offering my own responses to your questions.
>
>Where working people appear in most textbooks, it is in the context of
>social problems and disorders encountered during "the onward
>march of Progress." During the last half-century, however, fine
>historians have written insightful studies of the lives, beliefs, and
>communities of working people and of their influence on the country’s
>social and political development. Nevertheless, those books and
>articles remain much more likely to be read and taught in specialized
>university courses than in the surveys and television shows, which
>provide most students their primary access to the country’s past.
>
>It is that gap that History Matters is designed to help bridge. Teachers
>need especially to identify and locate documentary sources, which
>their students can use and interpret. Some valuable collections of
>documents are accessible through the internet. For the most part,
>however, funds have not been forthcoming to digitize union, socialist,
>and foreign language newspapers, legislative investigations into
>industrial conditions, pamphlets and leaflets, and other such
>revealing sources, the way they have for major commercial
>newspapers and the papers of famous men. Consequently these
>collections, oral histories, and writings by working people that are
>available in print or on microfilm will be especially important to locate.
>
>I anticipate that much of our attention will be devoted to working
>conditions, labor unions, race and gender discrimination, social
>insurance, and labor legislation. Both recent scholarship and older
>writings have been much concerned with such questions. The central
>concern of the more recent work, however, has been on the relations
>among human beings generated by different forms of production of
>goods and services, by community life, and by the institutions working
>people have created for themselves. Great strikes, like those of July
>1877 and the 1912 Lawrence strike, continue to hold great interest
>both because of their impact on public policy and because thy provide
>evidence of working-class beliefs and aspirations that remain hidden
>from public view during periods of quiescence.
>
>Much of the most innovative writing of the last half century has focused
>on the period between the 1790s and the 1890s, when the United
>States was transformed from an overwhelmingly agricultural society of
>some four million inhabitants into a land of 75 million people, which
>had surpassed all other countries of the world in the production of
>manufactured goods. At the beginning of that century a variety of labor
>systems had existed and expanded their domains simultaneously.
>Both local and global markets were supplied with commodities
>produced by slaves, white indentured servants, Native American
>hunters, women and men who owned or rented farms, self-employed
>artisans, and wage earners. By the 1890s employment for wages and
>salaries had virtually eclipsed all other productive relations in
>manufacturing, commerce, and large-scale agriculture, while court
>rulings and state legislation held governmental regulation of the
>economy to a minimum in deference to the ideal of a self-adjusting
>market.
>
>By mid-century "the working class" was a concept employed by social
>and political commentators from all walks of life. It was deployed as a
>badge of self-identification by participants in the Working Men’s
>parties and General Trades Unions of the 1830s, in the two National
>Labor Unions formed in the aftermath of the Civil War (one
>predominantly white and the other predominantly black), in the Knights
>of Labor and the American Federation of Labor, and in the socialist
>and anarchist movements. By the turn of the century mobilizations of
>the working class in workplace, community, and municipal affairs
>played a major role in shaping the American polity.
>
>Most students today are interested primarily in the twentieth century,
>and especially in the rise of industrial unions and in the creation (and
>more recently, the dismantling) of government measures designed to
>safeguard workers and their families against the ravages of the "free
>market." Historians have argued vigorously among themselves over
>the character and impact of working people’s collective efforts to
>refashion the world in which they then lived, especially during the
>Progressive and New Deal eras. But workers tend to disappear from
>view in our survey courses when it comes to the postwar years. They
>should not. Work relations and urban life were profoundly transformed
>by the expansion of union membership to its all-time peak early in the
>1950s, a new and increasingly complex legal framework governing
>that movement, and the simultaneous impact of Cold War politics and
>purges, unprecedented economic growth between the 1940s and the
>1960s, and a successful popular struggle to replace legal
>segregation with new statutes prohibiting racial and gender
>discrimination in employment, public accommodations, and voting.
>
>Moreover, even the postwar decades had come and gone long before
>most of our students were born. The global restructuring of the
>economy, which began in earnest early in the 1970s, and the
>attendant flight of industry from its historic urban centers, repudiation
>of New Deal innovations by both major parties, and precipitous
>decline of union influence in manufacturing and construction (along
>with the rise of unions in the public sector and academic life) have not
>only reshaped and diminished working people’s influence on public
>life, but have also tempted textbook writers and teachers of survey
>courses to dismiss consideration of working-class influence even
>from their discussions of the American past. Few students have
>contact with the lives and roles of their own parents and ancestors,
>except perhaps in the form of immigrant success stories.
>
>The materials to remedy this ignorance exist in many museums, in
>libraries, in archival collections around the land. I hope our discussion
>will help guide all participants to locate these resources and think
>about ways in which our students might use them. It would be
>especially helpful if participants could say what they have done in their
>own classes, what has worked well, and what has not done so well.
>
>David Montgomery
>
>This forum on Labor History is sponsored by History Matters--please visit
our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for
teaching U.S. History.
>
>

This forum on Labor History is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 2 Mar 2001 17:15:49 -0500
Reply-To:     Labor History Forum 
Sender:       Labor History Forum 
From:         David Montgomery 
Subject:      Re: Opening Message from David Montgomery
In-Reply-To:  <3.0.6.32.20010302124451.007d16a0@bayou.uh.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; types="text/plain,text/html";
              boundary="=====================_9881381==_.ALT"

--=====================_9881381==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Your important question about skilled and unskilled workers can be answered
much more easily for college and university teaching than for high school.
The first three chapters of my book, The Fall of the House of Labor (Cambridge
University Press, 1987) are devoted directly to the question of differences in
experience and styles of mobilization for skilled workers, operatives (on
highly specialized tasks, often called semi-skilled), and laborers between the
1860s and the 1890s. The rest of the book is concerned with the ways in which
the concentration of industry and restructuring of production between the end
of the 1890s and the 1920s  changed the mix and, among other things, opened up
the movement's controversies over craft vs industrial unions. My effort
throughout i to examine how different groups of workers mobilized themselves
and what sort of improvements they demanded.
Important debates about the role of gender in defining "skill" (ie. what the
word meant, not simply who got what job) deserve a complete discussion of
their
own. But I would refer you initially to Patricia Cooper, Once a Cigar Maker:
Men, Women, and Work Culture in American Cigar Factories, 1900-1919
(Urbana:University of Illinois Press, 1987).

Moreover, Margo Anderson Conk wrote a very perceptive analysis of how the
census bureau defined the concept, and changed its definitions, in The United
States Census and Labor Force Change: A History of Occupational Statistics,
1870-1940 (Ann Arbor: UMI Research, 1978)

Let me make one suggestion about a source through which students can wrestle
with the question of skilled and unskilled workers : U.S. Strike Commission,
Report on the Chicago Strike of June-July 1894 (U.S. Congress, 53rd Cong, 3rd
sess., Senate Executive Document No. 7, Washington, D.C. 1895). It is rich
with
testimony from men and women working at Pullman about their jobs and how they
were paid. Since the American Railway Union organized everybody, but put
different categories of workers at Pullman into different locals, the
testimony
reveals much about the slippery and changing world of "skilled" and
"unskilled." But students should do some secondary readings about your
question
and about the nature of piece work before they plunge in. Of course, your
library must have the serial set (in the flesh or on line).

David Montgomery





At 12:44 PM 3/2/01 -0600, you wrote:
>In response to Professor Montgomery's opening statement, I would like to
>ask a question of the other viewers/participants.  As someone who teaches
>the late nineteenth century labor movement in some detail, I would like to
>hear how others deal with the diferences between skilled and unskilled
>labor in that period.  I have in the past emphasized the old Debs/Gompers
>split to illustrate these differences and what they mean for workers.  I
>have become less satisfied with it, however, because the reality is more
>complicated than that.  Anyway, I would be interested to see what others
>have done or are doing; even if it is not necessarily that different.
>Thank you,
>James Carter
>University of Houston
>


--=====================_9881381==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"


Your important question about skilled and unskilled workers can be
answered much more easily for college and university teaching than for
high school. 

The first three chapters of my book, The Fall of the House of
Labor (Cambridge University Press, 1987) are devoted directly to the
question of differences in experience and styles of mobilization for
skilled workers, operatives (on highly specialized tasks, often called
semi-skilled), and laborers between the 1860s and the 1890s. The rest of
the book is concerned with the ways in which the concentration of
industry and restructuring of production between the end of the 1890s and
the 1920s  changed the mix and, among other things, opened up the
movement's controversies over craft vs industrial unions. My effort
throughout i to examine how different groups of workers mobilized
themselves and what sort of improvements they demanded.

Important debates about the role of gender in defining "skill"
(ie. what the word meant, not simply who got what job) deserve a complete
discussion of their own. But I would refer you initially to Patricia
Cooper, Once a Cigar Maker: Men, Women, and Work Culture in American
Cigar Factories, 1900-1919 (Urbana:University of Illinois Press,
1987).



Moreover, Margo Anderson Conk wrote a very perceptive analysis of how the
census bureau defined the concept, and changed its definitions, in The
United States Census and Labor Force Change: A History of Occupational
Statistics, 1870-1940 (Ann Arbor: UMI Research, 1978)



Let me make one suggestion about a source through which students can
wrestle with the question of skilled and unskilled workers : U.S. Strike
Commission, Report on the Chicago Strike of June-July 1894 (U.S.
Congress, 53rd Cong, 3rd sess., Senate Executive Document No. 7,
Washington, D.C. 1895). It is rich with testimony from men and women
working at Pullman about their jobs and how they were paid. Since the
American Railway Union organized everybody, but put different categories
of workers at Pullman into different locals, the testimony reveals much
about the slippery and changing world of "skilled" and
"unskilled." But students should do some secondary readings
about your question and about the nature of piece work before they plunge
in. Of course, your library must have the serial set (in the flesh or on
line). 



David Montgomery











At 12:44 PM 3/2/01 -0600, you wrote:

>In response to Professor Montgomery's opening statement, I would like
to

>ask a question of the other viewers/participants.  As someone
who teaches

>the late nineteenth century labor movement in some detail, I would
like to

>hear how others deal with the diferences between skilled and
unskilled

>labor in that period.  I have in the past emphasized the old
Debs/Gompers

>split to illustrate these differences and what they mean for
workers.  I

>have become less satisfied with it, however, because the reality is
more

>complicated than that.  Anyway, I would be interested to see
what others

>have done or are doing; even if it is not necessarily that
different.

>Thank you,

>James Carter

>University of Houston

>





--=====================_9881381==_.ALT--

This forum on Labor History is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 2 Mar 2001 17:23:15 -0500
Reply-To:     Labor History Forum 
Sender:       Labor History Forum 
From:         David Montgomery 
Subject:      Re: labor history resources on History Matters
In-Reply-To:  
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; types="text/plain,text/html";
              boundary="=====================_11396187==_.ALT"

--=====================_11396187==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

The Illinois Labor History Society has done a fine job putting up sources on
Haymarket and other Chicago events. Try "Illinois Labor History Society" on a
browser. The American Social History Project web page also has some good
Haymarket documents.

If by "mysteries" you mean mystery stories involving labor conflicts, like say
George Lippard, The Wuaker City, Or the Monks of Monk Hall (1844), that's
another question. Perhaps someone can clue us in on labor fiction web sites.

David Montgomery





At 12:46 PM 3/2/01 -0500, you wrote:
>Sounds good, but do you have any websites on labor mysteries, like the famous
>Haymarket 'riot'? or other case studies,
>
>thanks, Jack Zevin
>
>This forum on Labor History is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our
Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S.
History.
>

--=====================_11396187==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"


The Illinois Labor History Society has done a fine job putting up sources
on Haymarket and other Chicago events. Try "Illinois Labor
History Society" on a browser. The American Social History
Project web page also has some good Haymarket documents.



If by "mysteries" you mean mystery stories involving labor
conflicts, like say George Lippard, The Wuaker City, Or the Monks of
Monk Hall (1844), that's another question. Perhaps someone can clue
us in on labor fiction web sites.



David Montgomery











At 12:46 PM 3/2/01 -0500, you wrote:

>Sounds good, but do you have any websites on labor mysteries, like
the famous

>Haymarket 'riot'? or other case studies,

>

>thanks, Jack Zevin

>

>This forum on Labor History is sponsored by History Matters--please
visit our Web site at
http://historymatters.gmu.edu
for more resources for teaching U.S. History.

> 



--=====================_11396187==_.ALT--

This forum on Labor History is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 4 Mar 2001 08:46:11 -0500
Reply-To:     Labor History Forum 
Sender:       Labor History Forum 
From:         Dan Graff 
Subject:      Re: labor history resources on History Matters

Although they term it a "drama" rather than a "mystery," the folks at the
Chicago Historical Society have put together a quite extensive online
exhibit on Haymarket.  The exhibit features digitized primary documents
from the museum's collection.  The address is:

http://www.chicagohs.org/dramas/overview/over.htm

Take care,
Dan Graff
Visiting Instructor, University of Notre Dame (US Labor History)
Adjunct Faculty, Columbia College Chicago (History of the American Working
Class)

On Fri, 2 Mar 2001 12:46:46 EST, Jack Zevin  wrote:

>Sounds good, but do you have any websites on labor mysteries, like the
famous
>Haymarket 'riot'? or other case studies,
>
>thanks, Jack Zevin
>
>This forum on Labor History is sponsored by History Matters--please visit
our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for
teaching U.S. History.

This forum on Labor History is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 4 Mar 2001 16:02:56 -0500
Reply-To:     Labor History Forum 
Sender:       Labor History Forum 
From:         David Chase 
Subject:      Knights of Labor (from David Chase)

Dear James Carter and all,

Currently I am putting together a lecture on the Knights of Labor.  I am
getting some very interesting stuff from an old book "The Labor Movement in
the United States 1860-1895" by Norman Joseph Ware.  Pub Vintage Books 1964,
reprint of 1929 edition.  The Evergreen State College Library has it (at
least when I finish with it).   Its call number is HD 8072.W263 1964.  It
discusses a bit about the philosphy and the structure of the KoL and some of
it's stances on skill and "unskilled".  I hope this helps.

Also I recently found a book entitled "The Voice of Labor" published in
1888.  I found it at Powell's Bookstore in Portland, OR (look for their
inventory on the web, they just went ILWU).  It seems to contain most of the
major works by the KoL.  I believe that this will be a significant work
since its publishing date is 2 years after the Haymarket Massacre.  I have
yet to read it, though.

To the Spike that pierces the Iron Heel,
Eric Chase
Olympia IWW

This forum on Labor History is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 4 Mar 2001 16:10:58 -0500
Reply-To:     Labor History Forum 
Sender:       Labor History Forum 
From:         Vince DiGirolamo 
Subject:      Re: Skilled and unskilled labor
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

        In addition to David Montgomery's suggestions for further reading on
skilled and unskilled work, I would suggest glancing at the writings of
several British historians,particularly feminist historians.  See especially
Anne Phillips and Barbara Taylor, "Sex and Skill: Notes Towards a Feminist
Economics," Feminist Review Vol. 6 (1980), 79.  Skill usually refers to a
combination of practical knowledge and manual dexterity.   It is that
virtuous alliance of head and hand that equips one to produce that which
would otherwise be impossible to realize.  But Philips and Taylor point out
that skill is an elusive and highly gendered concept.  It is often
attributed to certain types of work by virtue of the sex or social power of
the doer rather than the inherent difficulty of the doing.  "Skill
definitions," they point out, "are saturated with sexual bias."

        Despite using a masculine idiom, Adam Smith anticipated this
feminist critique of skill when he said that "the very different genius
which appears to distinguish men of different professions, when grown up to
maturity, is not upon many occasions so much the cause, as the effect of the
division of labour."  Marx, too, saw skill as a product of social relations
rather than an objective economic fact.  He characterized skilled labor as
"multiplied simple labor," and viewed workers' continual accumulation of
knowledge as their chief resource. So, too, did American efficiency expert
Frederick Winslow Taylor. Writing in the early twentieth century, he defined
skill as a "mass of rule-of-thumb, or traditional knowledge," which he
praised lavishly while devising new ways to diminish the control over
production that it gave to workers.  Meanwhile, Samuel Gompers advanced the
view that "'unskilled labor' is really unorganized labor."  He feigned
amazement that jobs once regarded as unskilled acquired new prestige after
workers formed unions and gained better wages and conditions.

        See Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, Vol. 1, (1776), 17; Karl Marx,
Theories of Surplus Value, Vol. 3, 266-67, 295; and Capitol, Vol. 1, 11-12;
Frederick Winslow Taylor, The Principles of Scientific Management (1911).
Reprint.  (New York, 1967), 32; and  Samuel Gompers, Seventy Years of Life
and Labor: An Autobiography (1925).  Reprint. Nick Salvatore, ed., (Ithaca,
1984), 48. Also helpful is Charles More, "The Concept of Skill," in Skill
and the English Working Class, 1870-1914 (London, 1980), 15-26; and John
Rule, "The Property of Skill in the Period of Manufacture," in Patrick
Joyce, ed., The Historical Meanings of Work (Cambridge, 1989), 99-118.

        These primary and secondary sources were particularly valuable to me
in my study of child street labor.  By most definitions, newsboy,
bootblacks, and messengers were unskilled; their youth precluded the
possibility of extensive training and the low status of their work mitigated
against any appreciation of the actual talents involved.  It is still easy
to belittle a newsboy's genius for judging headlines, a bootblack's knack
for making his polish last, a messenger's mastery of urban geography, and
their collective adroitness in securing tips without appearing to solicit
them, but these are skills nonetheless.

        I try to take it one step further and argue that street children's
sexual knowledge was a kind of skill.  A gendered analysis of skill calls
for reevaluating a worker's ability to negotiate his or her labor power in a
market in which sex, youth, and beauty are prized commodities.  The fact
that sexual sagacity and precocity were not recognized virtues in the
nineteen and early twentieth centuries should not prevent us from
recognizing them as skills nonetheless, particularly in the street trades,
where sexual knowledge was a key to survival, if not success.  I'm not sure
if Debs or Gombers would agree, but I think its important to explore ways in
which the history of labor and sexuality intersect.

Vincent DiGirolamo

Colgate University and the
American Antiquarian Society







> ----------
> From:         James Carter
> Reply To:     Labor History Forum
> Sent:         Friday, March 2, 2001 1:44 PM
> To:   LABORFORUM@ASHP.LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU
> Subject:      Re: Opening Message from David Montgomery
>
> In response to Professor Montgomery's opening statement, I would like to
> ask a question of the other viewers/participants.  As someone who teaches
> the late nineteenth century labor movement in some detail, I would like to
> hear how others deal with the diferences between skilled and unskilled
> labor in that period.  I have in the past emphasized the old Debs/Gompers
> split to illustrate these differences and what they mean for workers.  I
> have become less satisfied with it, however, because the reality is more
> complicated than that.  Anyway, I would be interested to see what others
> have done or are doing; even if it is not necessarily that different.
> Thank you,
> James Carter
> University of Houston
>
>

This forum on Labor History is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 4 Mar 2001 16:31:50 -0500
Reply-To:     Labor History Forum 
Sender:       Labor History Forum 
From:         "Roy A. Rosenzweig" 
Subject:      Re: labor history resources on History Matters
In-Reply-To:  <200103022242.RAA11211@pantheon-po03.its.yale.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"

A few suggestions in response to David and Jack's comments:
        1. there is an excerpt from Lippard's book at
http://www.geocities.com/ruritanian_muglug/monks.html
        2. the Chicago Historical Society has a new and excellent
exhibit and archive on Haymarket called "The Dramas of Haymarket" at
http://www.chicagohs.org/dramas/
        You can go directly to the Haymarket Digital Collection at
http://www.chicagohs.org/hadc/
        Among other things, it includes the 3,323-page transcript of
witness testimony and the accompanying evidence books from the trial
as well as major portion of the original 4000-page transcript of the
jury selection proceedings.
        3. History Matters has a chapter from  T. Fulton Gantt's
novel, Breaking the Chains: A Story of the Present Industrial
Struggle, available online; search for "Gantt" on our general search
page: http://historymatters.gmu.edu/search.taf
        In addition, as Ellen Noonan has noted, we have a very large
selection of other labor documents in our "Many Pasts" section:
search under "labor and labor movements" and "Many Past"
best,
Roy


At 5:23 PM -0500 3/2/01, David Montgomery wrote:
>The Illinois Labor History Society has done a fine job putting up
>sources on Haymarket and other Chicago events. Try "Illinois Labor
>History Society" on a browser. The American Social History Project
>web page also has some good Haymarket documents.
>
>If by "mysteries" you mean mystery stories involving labor
>conflicts, like say George Lippard, The Wuaker City, Or the Monks of
>Monk Hall (1844), that's another question. Perhaps someone can clue
>us in on labor fiction web sites.
>
>David Montgomery
>
>
>
>
>
>At 12:46 PM 3/2/01 -0500, you wrote:
>>Sounds good, but do you have any websites on labor mysteries, like the famous
>>Haymarket 'riot'? or other case studies,
>>
>>thanks, Jack Zevin
>>
>>This forum on Labor History is sponsored by History Matters--please
>>visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more
>>resources for teaching U.S. History.
>>

This forum on Labor History is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 5 Mar 2001 08:56:31 EST
Reply-To:     Labor History Forum 
Sender:       Labor History Forum 
From:         Jack Zevin 
Subject:      Re: labor history resources on History Matters
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Thank you very much for the advice and website...much appreicated.
Jack zevin

This forum on Labor History is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 4 Mar 2001 23:28:40 -0500
Reply-To:     Labor History Forum 
Sender:       Labor History Forum 
From:         Rosemary Feurer 
Subject:      skilled and unskilled labor

I think THE POWER IN 0UR HANDS: A LABOR HISTORY CURRICULUM, by Norman
Diamond and ? has a great role-playing exercise on late 19th century
divisions between skilled and unskilled. It can be easily modified and
updated. It uses the Homestead strike of 1892 as a starting point. I
would add that it requires that students not know the outcome of the
strike meeting in order for it to work the best. I've used this in modified
form in several adult labor education sessions I've conducted, and
participants universally commend it as a great exercise that gives them
perspective on current issues in the workplace. I would emphasize that it
needs modification, as some of the handout information is incorrect.
    I've thought for some time that a similar role-playing exercise could be
developed for the 1882 strike described by Ardis Cameron in Radicals of the
Worst Sort, where one could involved unpaid, paid, skilled and unskilled,
male and female players in the contest of ideas and ideology.

This forum on Labor History is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 5 Mar 2001 11:30:48 -0600
Reply-To:     Labor History Forum 
Sender:       Labor History Forum 
From:         Joe Berry 
Subject:      Re: Skilled and unskilled labor
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Another source for the gender bias in what is defined as skill is Ava
Baron's collection, Work Engendered. I used it for a Gender and Labor
(history) class last semester and it sparked good discussions. Some of
the ecxamples, especially in facory settings, were very clear and
totally arbitrary.

Joe Berry

Vince DiGirolamo wrote:
>
>         In addition to David Montgomery's suggestions for further reading on
> skilled and unskilled work, I would suggest glancing at the writings of
> several British historians,particularly feminist historians.  See especially
> Anne Phillips and Barbara Taylor, "Sex and Skill: Notes Towards a Feminist
> Economics," Feminist Review Vol. 6 (1980), 79.  Skill usually refers to a
> combination of practical knowledge and manual dexterity.   It is that
> virtuous alliance of head and hand that equips one to produce that which
> would otherwise be impossible to realize.  But Philips and Taylor point out
> that skill is an elusive and highly gendered concept.  It is often
> attributed to certain types of work by virtue of the sex or social power of
> the doer rather than the inherent difficulty of the doing.  "Skill
> definitions," they point out, "are saturated with sexual bias."
>
>         Despite using a masculine idiom, Adam Smith anticipated this
> feminist critique of skill when he said that "the very different genius
> which appears to distinguish men of different professions, when grown up to
> maturity, is not upon many occasions so much the cause, as the effect of the
> division of labour."  Marx, too, saw skill as a product of social relations
> rather than an objective economic fact.  He characterized skilled labor as
> "multiplied simple labor," and viewed workers' continual accumulation of
> knowledge as their chief resource. So, too, did American efficiency expert
> Frederick Winslow Taylor. Writing in the early twentieth century, he defined
> skill as a "mass of rule-of-thumb, or traditional knowledge," which he
> praised lavishly while devising new ways to diminish the control over
> production that it gave to workers.  Meanwhile, Samuel Gompers advanced the
> view that "'unskilled labor' is really unorganized labor."  He feigned
> amazement that jobs once regarded as unskilled acquired new prestige after
> workers formed unions and gained better wages and conditions.
>
>         See Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, Vol. 1, (1776), 17; Karl Marx,
> Theories of Surplus Value, Vol. 3, 266-67, 295; and Capitol, Vol. 1, 11-12;
> Frederick Winslow Taylor, The Principles of Scientific Management (1911).
> Reprint.  (New York, 1967), 32; and  Samuel Gompers, Seventy Years of Life
> and Labor: An Autobiography (1925).  Reprint. Nick Salvatore, ed., (Ithaca,
> 1984), 48. Also helpful is Charles More, "The Concept of Skill," in Skill
> and the English Working Class, 1870-1914 (London, 1980), 15-26; and John
> Rule, "The Property of Skill in the Period of Manufacture," in Patrick
> Joyce, ed., The Historical Meanings of Work (Cambridge, 1989), 99-118.
>
>         These primary and secondary sources were particularly valuable to me
> in my study of child street labor.  By most definitions, newsboy,
> bootblacks, and messengers were unskilled; their youth precluded the
> possibility of extensive training and the low status of their work mitigated
> against any appreciation of the actual talents involved.  It is still easy
> to belittle a newsboy's genius for judging headlines, a bootblack's knack
> for making his polish last, a messenger's mastery of urban geography, and
> their collective adroitness in securing tips without appearing to solicit
> them, but these are skills nonetheless.
>
>         I try to take it one step further and argue that street children's
> sexual knowledge was a kind of skill.  A gendered analysis of skill calls
> for reevaluating a worker's ability to negotiate his or her labor power in a
> market in which sex, youth, and beauty are prized commodities.  The fact
> that sexual sagacity and precocity were not recognized virtues in the
> nineteen and early twentieth centuries should not prevent us from
> recognizing them as skills nonetheless, particularly in the street trades,
> where sexual knowledge was a key to survival, if not success.  I'm not sure
> if Debs or Gombers would agree, but I think its important to explore ways in
> which the history of labor and sexuality intersect.
>
> Vincent DiGirolamo
>
> Colgate University and the
> American Antiquarian Society
>
> > ----------
> > From:         James Carter
> > Reply To:     Labor History Forum
> > Sent:         Friday, March 2, 2001 1:44 PM
> > To:   LABORFORUM@ASHP.LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU
> > Subject:      Re: Opening Message from David Montgomery
> >
> > In response to Professor Montgomery's opening statement, I would like to
> > ask a question of the other viewers/participants.  As someone who teaches
> > the late nineteenth century labor movement in some detail, I would like to
> > hear how others deal with the diferences between skilled and unskilled
> > labor in that period.  I have in the past emphasized the old Debs/Gompers
> > split to illustrate these differences and what they mean for workers.  I
> > have become less satisfied with it, however, because the reality is more
> > complicated than that.  Anyway, I would be interested to see what others
> > have done or are doing; even if it is not necessarily that different.
> > Thank you,
> > James Carter
> > University of Houston
> >
> >
>
> This forum on Labor History is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.

--
Joe Berry
1453 W. Flournoy, #3F
Chicago, IL 60607
Phone/fax: 312-733-2172
Email 

Please note that I discovered a virus (WM.Cap.A) on my computer (an
iMAC) on 2/5/01. I do not know how long it had been present. I have
dealt with it so this message is clean. However, please use the most up
to date Norton anti-virus or similar product on any messages, files or
discs you may have received from me in the past. Sorry about this. It
was an unpleasant surprise for me too. Macs now can have viruses too,
unlike in the past when they were asumed to be clean.

This forum on Labor History is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 5 Mar 2001 11:24:48 -0800
Reply-To:     Labor History Forum 
Sender:       Labor History Forum 
From:         Dan Jacoby 
Subject:      Skilled labor
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"

In exploring the division between skilled and unskilled workers mentioned in
several earlier comments,, it seems essential to me that labor history be
connected to our educational history.   The rise of education, and
vocational institutions particularly, between 1880 to 1920 owes much to
campaigns by industrialists to oppose worker-controlled apprenticeships.
Employers did not always and could not always deskill workers in the
Braverman tradition of Scientific Management, and although it is true that
traditional household apprenticeships had atrophied by the time of the Civil
War, there was very clearly an active attempt to resurrect the institution,
an attempt in which alternative visions pitted labor against business
interests.   The business vision involved a pragmatic program which often
substituted formal instruction, certification, and schooling to undermine
union controlled apprenticeships, which were decried as restrictive--and
indeed they often were--monopolistic devices which gave labor too much
control on the shop floor.  Shifting training away from union control meant
the values of worker independence and solidarity could be omitted as
elements of training.  Skilled workers imagined they owed their
opportunities either to industrialists or to public schools.

My pitch here is that labor historians will benefit by thinking more about
the strategies put forward by labor to control the production of skilled
workers: when did they work and, at what cost?  In the U.S., I'd argue that
public education has set back the labor movement in at least three ways.
Schools typically deny workers an education in their own history, an
education crucial to understanding real alternatives.  Second, schools often
produce skilled workers in institutions operating at an arms length from the
workplace and thus have weak linkages between the overproduction of
particular skills--a concern which no labor organization can afford not to
be concerned about.  Finally, schools make workers responsible for their own
investments in skills, and thus promote the impression that workers can or
should rely on themselves without forming solidaristic organizations.
Workers' understandings of their own class are profoundly mediated by their
public and private experiences, of which--since the turn of the
century--schooling became increasingly central .

I elaborate upon this history and political economy in a couple of pieces I
have written.  While I'd love additional readers for these works, even more
I'd love to see a return to the kind of labor and educational debates that
characterized an earlier generation of historians and social researchers who
appreciated the close relationship between labor and education.


Looking Backward on Labor in the United States, Working USA,
Janaury-February 2000
Plumbing the Origins of American Vocationalism, Labor History, Spring 1996
The Transformation of Industrial Apprenticeship, Journal of Economic
History, Dec. 1991

This forum on Labor History is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 6 Mar 2001 22:11:56 -0500
Reply-To:     Labor History Forum 
Sender:       Labor History Forum 
From:         David Montgomery 
Subject:      Re: Skilled and unskilled labor
In-Reply-To:  <01020B7EC4B7D311BE2E00508B6F7C1C0294F448@MAILSV06>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; types="text/plain,text/html";
              boundary="=====================_29812102==_.ALT"

--=====================_29812102==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

The discussion of skilled and unskilled labor has taken some very useful
turns.
Vince DiGirolamo and Joe Barry have offered fine suggestions about studies of
gender and historic conceptions of skill. Dan Jacoby has drawn our
attention to
the question of training. David Chase has offered sources for learning about
the Knights of Labor. Rosemary Feurer has returned out focus to the
question of
how different types of workers have mobilized workplace struggles, the
question
with which I began.
Here I would like to say a few more words about gender. First, I second
enthusiastically Joe Barry's enthusiasm for the pioneering anthology edited by
Ava Baron, Work Engendered. The essays in that book focus on very specific
types
of work and of workers' organizations and show the crucial role of gender in
determining how various groups of workers and other members of society
understood who was part of what work group and what "skill."
Moreover, DiGirolamo's point that all jobs involve skills, and indeed so does
simple survival in city streets and on the job.
Nevertheless, the social relations that enable some workers to set a value
their labor as "multiple simple labor" (as Marx put it for mathematic
convenience) cannot be understood solely as constituted in discourse or as
laws
of political economy. We need to think always about expertise, work cultures,
social evaluations (such as the Census Bureau has always used in defining
"skilled" etc.), and workplace struggles in determining who was "skilled" and
who was "unskilled." I referred in an earlier message to the rich 1894-5
testimony of workers at the Pullman Works because there one finds clear
evidence of, among other things, piece rates set for women on the basis of the
local "prevailing wage for women" (not simply the technical content of the
tasks), and set for men in ways that divided up tasks and reduced rates in
hard
times between 1880 and 1893, while important groups of workers through
in-plant
solidarities were able to restore and improve the "skill content" and pay for
the same jobs when the demand for Pullman cars was high.







At 04:10 PM 3/4/01 -0500, you wrote:
>        In addition to David Montgomery's suggestions for further reading on
>skilled and unskilled work, I would suggest glancing at the writings of
>several British historians,particularly feminist historians.  See especially
>Anne Phillips and Barbara Taylor, "Sex and Skill: Notes Towards a Feminist
>Economics," Feminist Review Vol. 6 (1980), 79.  Skill usually refers to a
>combination of practical knowledge and manual dexterity.   It is that
>virtuous alliance of head and hand that equips one to produce that which
>would otherwise be impossible to realize.  But Philips and Taylor point out
>that skill is an elusive and highly gendered concept.  It is often
>attributed to certain types of work by virtue of the sex or social power of
>the doer rather than the inherent difficulty of the doing.  "Skill
>definitions," they point out, "are saturated with sexual bias."
>
>        Despite using a masculine idiom, Adam Smith anticipated this
>feminist critique of skill when he said that "the very different genius
>which appears to distinguish men of different professions, when grown up to
>maturity, is not upon many occasions so much the cause, as the effect of the
>division of labour."  Marx, too, saw skill as a product of social relations
>rather than an objective economic fact.  He characterized skilled labor as
>"multiplied simple labor," and viewed workers' continual accumulation of
>knowledge as their chief resource. So, too, did American efficiency expert
>Frederick Winslow Taylor. Writing in the early twentieth century, he defined
>skill as a "mass of rule-of-thumb, or traditional knowledge," which he
>praised lavishly while devising new ways to diminish the control over
>production that it gave to workers.  Meanwhile, Samuel Gompers advanced the
>view that "'unskilled labor' is really unorganized labor."  He feigned
>amazement that jobs once regarded as unskilled acquired new prestige after
>workers formed unions and gained better wages and conditions.
>
>        See Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, Vol. 1, (1776), 17; Karl Marx,
>Theories of Surplus Value, Vol. 3, 266-67, 295; and Capitol, Vol. 1, 11-12;
>Frederick Winslow Taylor, The Principles of Scientific Management (1911).
>Reprint.  (New York, 1967), 32; and  Samuel Gompers, Seventy Years of Life
>and Labor: An Autobiography (1925).  Reprint. Nick Salvatore, ed., (Ithaca,
>1984), 48. Also helpful is Charles More, "The Concept of Skill," in Skill
>and the English Working Class, 1870-1914 (London, 1980), 15-26; and John
>Rule, "The Property of Skill in the Period of Manufacture," in Patrick
>Joyce, ed., The Historical Meanings of Work (Cambridge, 1989), 99-118.
>
>        These primary and secondary sources were particularly valuable to me
>in my study of child street labor.  By most definitions, newsboy,
>bootblacks, and messengers were unskilled; their youth precluded the
>possibility of extensive training and the low status of their work mitigated
>against any appreciation of the actual talents involved.  It is still easy
>to belittle a newsboy's genius for judging headlines, a bootblack's knack
>for making his polish last, a messenger's mastery of urban geography, and
>their collective adroitness in securing tips without appearing to solicit
>them, but these are skills nonetheless.
>
>        I try to take it one step further and argue that street children's
>sexual knowledge was a kind of skill.  A gendered analysis of skill calls
>for reevaluating a worker's ability to negotiate his or her labor power in a
>market in which sex, youth, and beauty are prized commodities.  The fact
>that sexual sagacity and precocity were not recognized virtues in the
>nineteen and early twentieth centuries should not prevent us from
>recognizing them as skills nonetheless, particularly in the street trades,
>where sexual knowledge was a key to survival, if not success.  I'm not sure
>if Debs or Gombers would agree, but I think its important to explore ways in
>which the history of labor and sexuality intersect.
>
>Vincent DiGirolamo
>
>Colgate University and the
>American Antiquarian Society
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> ----------
>> From:         James Carter
>> Reply To:     Labor History Forum
>> Sent:         Friday, March 2, 2001 1:44 PM
>> To:   LABORFORUM@ASHP.LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU
>> Subject:      Re: Opening Message from David Montgomery
>>
>> In response to Professor Montgomery's opening statement, I would like to
>> ask a question of the other viewers/participants.  As someone who teaches
>> the late nineteenth century labor movement in some detail, I would like to
>> hear how others deal with the diferences between skilled and unskilled
>> labor in that period.  I have in the past emphasized the old Debs/Gompers
>> split to illustrate these differences and what they mean for workers.  I
>> have become less satisfied with it, however, because the reality is more
>> complicated than that.  Anyway, I would be interested to see what others
>> have done or are doing; even if it is not necessarily that different.
>> Thank you,
>> James Carter
>> University of Houston
>>
>>
>
>This forum on Labor History is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our
Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S.
History.
>

--=====================_29812102==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


The discussion of skilled and unskilled labor has taken some very useful
turns. Vince DiGirolamo and Joe Barry have offered fine suggestions about
studies of gender and historic conceptions of skill. Dan Jacoby has drawn
our attention to the question of training. David Chase has offered
sources for learning about the Knights of Labor. Rosemary Feurer has
returned out focus to the question of how different types of workers have
mobilized workplace struggles, the question with which I began.

Here I would like to say a few more words about gender. First, I second
enthusiastically Joe Barry's enthusiasm for the pioneering anthology
edited by Ava Baron, Work Engendered. The essays in that book
focus on very specific types of work and of workers' organizations and
show the crucial role of gender in determining how various groups of
workers and other members of society understood who was part of what work
group and what "skill." 

Moreover, DiGirolamo's point that all jobs involve skills, and indeed so
does simple survival in city streets and on the job. 

Nevertheless, the social relations that enable some workers to set a
value their labor as "multiple simple labor" (as Marx put it
for mathematic convenience) cannot be understood solely as constituted in
discourse or as laws of political economy. We need to think always about
expertise, work cultures, social evaluations (such as the Census Bureau
has always used in defining "skilled" etc.), and workplace
struggles in determining who was "skilled" and who was
"unskilled." I referred in an earlier message to the rich
1894-5 testimony of workers at the Pullman Works because there one finds
clear evidence of, among other things, piece rates set for women on the
basis of the local "prevailing wage for women" (not simply the
technical content of the tasks), and set for men in ways that divided up
tasks and reduced rates in hard times between 1880 and 1893, while
important groups of workers through in-plant solidarities were able to
restore and improve the "skill content" and pay for the same
jobs when the demand for Pullman cars was high.















At 04:10 PM 3/4/01 -0500, you wrote:

>        In addition to David
Montgomery's suggestions for further reading on

>skilled and unskilled work, I would suggest glancing at the writings
of

>several British historians,particularly feminist historians. 
See especially

>Anne Phillips and Barbara Taylor, "Sex and Skill: Notes Towards
a Feminist

>Economics," Feminist Review Vol. 6 (1980), 79.  Skill
usually refers to a

>combination of practical knowledge and manual dexterity.  
It is that

>virtuous alliance of head and hand that equips one to produce that
which

>would otherwise be impossible to realize.  But Philips and
Taylor point out

>that skill is an elusive and highly gendered concept.  It is
often

>attributed to certain types of work by virtue of the sex or social
power of

>the doer rather than the inherent difficulty of the doing. 
"Skill

>definitions," they point out, "are saturated with sexual
bias."

>

>        Despite using a masculine
idiom, Adam Smith anticipated this

>feminist critique of skill when he said that "the very different
genius

>which appears to distinguish men of different professions, when grown
up to

>maturity, is not upon many occasions so much the cause, as the effect
of the

>division of labour."  Marx, too, saw skill as a product of
social relations

>rather than an objective economic fact.  He characterized
skilled labor as

>"multiplied simple labor," and viewed workers' continual
accumulation of

>knowledge as their chief resource. So, too, did American efficiency
expert

>Frederick Winslow Taylor. Writing in the early twentieth century, he
defined

>skill as a "mass of rule-of-thumb, or traditional
knowledge," which he

>praised lavishly while devising new ways to diminish the control
over

>production that it gave to workers.  Meanwhile, Samuel Gompers
advanced the

>view that "'unskilled labor' is really unorganized
labor."  He feigned

>amazement that jobs once regarded as unskilled acquired new prestige
after

>workers formed unions and gained better wages and conditions.

>

>        See Adam Smith, Wealth of
Nations, Vol. 1, (1776), 17; Karl Marx,

>Theories of Surplus Value, Vol. 3, 266-67, 295; and Capitol, Vol. 1,
11-12;

>Frederick Winslow Taylor, The Principles of Scientific Management
(1911).

>Reprint.  (New York, 1967), 32; and  Samuel Gompers,
Seventy Years of Life

>and Labor: An Autobiography (1925).  Reprint. Nick Salvatore,
ed., (Ithaca,

>1984), 48. Also helpful is Charles More, "The Concept of
Skill," in Skill

>and the English Working Class, 1870-1914 (London, 1980), 15-26; and
John

>Rule, "The Property of Skill in the Period of Manufacture,"
in Patrick

>Joyce, ed., The Historical Meanings of Work (Cambridge, 1989),
99-118.

>

>        These primary and
secondary sources were particularly valuable to me

>in my study of child street labor.  By most definitions,
newsboy,

>bootblacks, and messengers were unskilled; their youth precluded
the

>possibility of extensive training and the low status of their work
mitigated

>against any appreciation of the actual talents involved.  It is
still easy

>to belittle a newsboy's genius for judging headlines, a bootblack's
knack

>for making his polish last, a messenger's mastery of urban geography,
and

>their collective adroitness in securing tips without appearing to
solicit

>them, but these are skills nonetheless.

>

>        I try to take it one step
further and argue that street children's

>sexual knowledge was a kind of skill.  A gendered analysis of
skill calls

>for reevaluating a worker's ability to negotiate his or her labor
power in a

>market in which sex, youth, and beauty are prized commodities. 
The fact

>that sexual sagacity and precocity were not recognized virtues in
the

>nineteen and early twentieth centuries should not prevent us
from

>recognizing them as skills nonetheless, particularly in the street
trades,

>where sexual knowledge was a key to survival, if not success. 
I'm not sure

>if Debs or Gombers would agree, but I think its important to explore
ways in

>which the history of labor and sexuality intersect.

>

>Vincent DiGirolamo

>

>Colgate University and the

>American Antiquarian Society

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>> ----------

>> From:         James
Carter

>> Reply To:     Labor History Forum

>> Sent:         Friday,
March 2, 2001 1:44 PM

>> To:   LABORFORUM@ASHP.LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU

>> Subject:      Re: Opening Message from
David Montgomery

>>

>> In response to Professor Montgomery's opening statement, I would
like to

>> ask a question of the other viewers/participants.  As
someone who teaches

>> the late nineteenth century labor movement in some detail, I
would like to

>> hear how others deal with the diferences between skilled and
unskilled

>> labor in that period.  I have in the past emphasized the
old Debs/Gompers

>> split to illustrate these differences and what they mean for
workers.  I

>> have become less satisfied with it, however, because the reality
is more

>> complicated than that.  Anyway, I would be interested to
see what others

>> have done or are doing; even if it is not necessarily that
different.

>> Thank you,

>> James Carter

>> University of Houston

>>

>>

>

>This forum on Labor History is sponsored by History Matters--please
visit our Web site at
http://history=
matters.gmu.edu
for more resources for teaching U.S. History.

> 



--=====================_29812102==_.ALT--

This forum on Labor History is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 6 Mar 2001 17:39:46 -0500
Reply-To:     Labor History Forum 
Sender:       Labor History Forum 
From:         David Montgomery 
Subject:      Re: Skilled labor
In-Reply-To:  <4022C3ACA72BD311A19100105A99DC8E01212796@aphrodite.bothell
              .washington.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; types="text/plain,text/html";
              boundary="=====================_31818447==_.ALT"

--=====================_31818447==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Many thanks to Dan Jacoby for outting the question of training on the table.
Social historians in the United States have paid all too little attention to
the question of how men and women learned the "art and mysteries" of their
work
tasks. Tamara Hareven in oral histories published in Amoskeag amd in Family
Time
and Industrial Time was one of the first contemporary authors to show clearly
how women operatives in textile mills trained each other.
Jacoby's article, "Plumbing the Origins of American Vocationalism," Labor
History. 37 (Spring, 1996), 235-72, reveals that vocational education became a
major theater of battle as master plumbers in New York fought to abolish
union-controlled apprenticeship, thorugh which young men had learned union
codes of behaviour and solidarities along with leading, soldering, and cutting
pipes. Moreover, in New York it was the Knights of Labor, not the AFL union,
that fought with greatest determination to preserve the apprentice route to
skills in the trade.
In Massachusetts at the beginning of this century there was an open, very
public battle between proponents of two very different projects for vocational
education in the state: one promoted by unions and some prominent unionized
shoe manufacturers, and the other by the deadly foe of unionism: the National
Metal Trades Association. At the heart of the confrontation was the struggle
over what kind of socialization youth would receive with their vocational
training. Unfortunately the only book I know of on that Massachusetts
confrontation is in Japanese, by Jun Kinoshita. But happily a translation
is on
the way.
I would like to know if others can suggest good writings on workers' training.
The subject deserves close attention. In addition to the battle over
vocational
education, discussed by Jacoby, historians need to consider the systematic and
ubiquitous promotion of home economics for female students at the turn of the
century, and the ways in which clerical workers were trained.  For home
economics, I must turn to British work, and in particular to the splendid
observations of Anna Davin, "Imperialism and Motherhood," in Frederick Cooper
and Ann Laura Stoler, eds, Tensions of Empire: Colonial Cultures in a
Bourgeois
World (Berkeley, 1997).
For clerical work, consider the proliferation of commercial schools late in
the
nineteenth-century and the special role they played in the careers of
daughters
of skilled workers. After all, employers got their clerical workers trained in
writing, math, typing etc. at public expense. See Ileen A. DeVault, Sons and
Daughters of Labor: Class and Clerical Work in Turn-of-the-Century Pittsburgh
(Ithaca, 1990).


--=====================_31818447==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"


Many thanks to Dan Jacoby for outting the question of training on the
table. Social historians in the United States have paid all too little
attention to the question of how men and women learned the "art and
mysteries" of their work tasks. Tamara Hareven in oral histories
published in Amoskeag amd in Family Time and Industrial
Time was one of the first contemporary authors to show clearly how
women operatives in textile mills trained each other. 

Jacoby's article, "Plumbing the Origins of American
Vocationalism," Labor History. 37 (Spring, 1996), 235-72,
reveals that vocational education became a major theater of battle as
master plumbers in New York fought to abolish union-controlled
apprenticeship, thorugh which young men had learned union codes of
behaviour and solidarities along with leading, soldering, and cutting
pipes. Moreover, in New York it was the Knights of Labor, not the AFL
union, that fought with greatest determination to preserve the apprentice
route to skills in the trade. 

In Massachusetts at the beginning of this century there was an open, very
public battle between proponents of two very different projects for
vocational education in the state: one promoted by unions and some
prominent unionized shoe manufacturers, and the other by the deadly foe
of unionism: the National Metal Trades Association. At the heart of the
confrontation was the struggle over what kind of socialization youth
would receive with their vocational training. Unfortunately the only book
I know of on that Massachusetts confrontation is in Japanese, by Jun
Kinoshita. But happily a translation is on the way.

I would like to know if others can suggest good writings on workers'
training. The subject deserves close attention. In addition to the battle
over vocational education, discussed by Jacoby, historians need to
consider the systematic and ubiquitous promotion of home economics for
female students at the turn of the century, and the ways in which
clerical workers were trained.  For home economics, I must turn to
British work, and in particular to the splendid observations of Anna
Davin, "Imperialism and Motherhood," in Frederick Cooper and
Ann Laura Stoler, eds, Tensions of Empire: Colonial Cultures in a
Bourgeois World (Berkeley, 1997).

For clerical work, consider the proliferation of commercial schools late
in the nineteenth-century and the special role they played in the careers
of daughters of skilled workers. After all, employers got their clerical
workers trained in writing, math, typing etc. at public expense. See
Ileen A. DeVault, Sons and Daughters of Labor: Class and Clerical Work
in Turn-of-the-Century Pittsburgh (Ithaca, 1990).





--=====================_31818447==_.ALT--

This forum on Labor History is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 6 Mar 2001 18:04:40 -0500
Reply-To:     Labor History Forum 
Sender:       Labor History Forum 
From:         David Montgomery 
Subject:      Re: Knights of Labor (from David Chase)
In-Reply-To:  
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; types="text/plain,text/html";
              boundary="=====================_31820592==_.ALT"

--=====================_31820592==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

David Chase and Rosemary Feurer have both offered important suggestions about
learning and teaching the diverse ways in which workers with different
relations to the production process mobilized their own struggles, and how
skilled and unskilled workers regarded each other in major organizations and
strikes.
Feurer's suggestion of the role playing exercise in William Bigelow and Norman
Diamond, The Power in Our Hands -- a 16 unit high school curriculum with
lesson
plans, role plays, and discussion questions available from the Monthly Review
Foundation (212) 691-2555, deserves everyone's attention.
To improve the teacher's knowledge, I would suggest Paul Krause, Battle for
Homestead, 1880-1892 (Pittsburgh, 1992). It not only examines closely the
workplace, community and political role of the craft union, but also provides
rich information on the activities of mill laborers and helpers in the same
arenas -- especially the Slovak immigrants.
For a perceptive insider's view of the interactions among various
categories of
workers in a major strike, see the priceless self-critical analysis of the
1913
Paterson silk workers' strike by Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, "The Truth about the
Paterson Strike," in Joyce L. Kornbluh, Rebel Voices: An I.W.W. Anthology,
214-226.

Chase has reminded us of the fine old classic by Norman J. Ware, written in
the
late 1920s as a contribution to the intense debate over what was wrong with
the
lethargic AFL. Although a veritable deluge of new books about the Knights of
Labor appeared during the 1970s and 1980s, none of them has the kind of
overview quality for the USA that Ware had to offer. I suspect before the
month
is out we will get much deeper into discussion of this more recent work.
I would like to suggest, however, that the question of how skilled and
unskilled workers mobilized and related to each other within the Knights is
treated with special clarity in Kim Voss, The Making of American
Exceptionalism:
The Knights of Labor and Class Formation in the Nineteenth Century (Ithaca,
1993).
I would also suggest that Chase may find Symmes Jelley, Voice of Labor
(1888) a
rather weird book, when he reads it. Its running theme is lauding the most
conservative aspects of the Knights and denouncing anarchists.
Far and away the most useful book on the labor movement from that period is
the
collection of essays by many activists of the age, now available in reprint:
George E. McNeill, The Labor Movement: The Problem of To-Day (1887).

At some point we may also want to discuss skilled and unskilled workers during
early industrialization. Much fine work is available on the pre-Civil War
period. But that is for another day.




At 04:02 PM 3/4/01 -0500, you wrote:
>Dear James Carter and all,
>
>Currently I am putting together a lecture on the Knights of Labor.  I am
>getting some very interesting stuff from an old book "The Labor Movement in
>the United States 1860-1895" by Norman Joseph Ware.  Pub Vintage Books 1964,
>reprint of 1929 edition.  The Evergreen State College Library has it (at
>least when I finish with it).   Its call number is HD 8072.W263 1964.  It
>discusses a bit about the philosphy and the structure of the KoL and some of
>it's stances on skill and "unskilled".  I hope this helps.
>
>Also I recently found a book entitled "The Voice of Labor" published in
>1888.  I found it at Powell's Bookstore in Portland, OR (look for their
>inventory on the web, they just went ILWU).  It seems to contain most of the
>major works by the KoL.  I believe that this will be a significant work
>since its publishing date is 2 years after the Haymarket Massacre.  I have
>yet to read it, though.
>
>To the Spike that pierces the Iron Heel,
>Eric Chase
>Olympia IWW
>
>This forum on Labor History is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our
Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S.
History.
>

--=====================_31820592==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"


David Chase and Rosemary Feurer have both offered important suggestions
about learning and teaching the diverse ways in which workers with
different relations to the production process mobilized their own
struggles, and how skilled and unskilled workers regarded each other in
major organizations and strikes.

Feurer's suggestion of the role playing exercise in William Bigelow and
Norman Diamond, The Power in Our Hands -- a 16 unit high school
curriculum with lesson plans, role plays, and discussion questions
available from the Monthly Review Foundation (212) 691-2555, deserves
everyone's attention. 

To improve the teacher's knowledge, I would suggest Paul Krause,
Battle for Homestead, 1880-1892 (Pittsburgh, 1992). It not only
examines closely the workplace, community and political role of the craft
union, but also provides rich information on the activities of mill
laborers and helpers in the same arenas -- especially the Slovak
immigrants. 

For a perceptive insider's view of the interactions among various
categories of workers in a major strike, see the priceless self-critical
analysis of the 1913 Paterson silk workers' strike by Elizabeth Gurley
Flynn, "The Truth about the Paterson Strike," in Joyce L.
Kornbluh, Rebel Voices: An I.W.W. Anthology, 214-226.



Chase has reminded us of the fine old classic by Norman J. Ware, written
in the late 1920s as a contribution to the intense debate over what was
wrong with the lethargic AFL. Although a veritable deluge of new books
about the Knights of Labor appeared during the 1970s and 1980s, none of
them has the kind of overview quality for the USA that Ware had to offer.
I suspect before the month is out we will get much deeper into discussion
of this more recent work. 

I would like to suggest, however, that the question of how skilled and
unskilled workers mobilized and related to each other within the Knights
is treated with special clarity in Kim Voss, The Making of American
Exceptionalism: The Knights of Labor and Class Formation in the
Nineteenth Century (Ithaca, 1993).

I would also suggest that Chase may find Symmes Jelley, Voice of Labor
 (1888) a rather weird book, when he reads it. Its running theme is
lauding the most conservative aspects of the Knights and denouncing
anarchists. 

Far and away the most useful book on the labor movement from that period
is the collection of essays by many activists of the age, now available
in reprint: George E. McNeill, The Labor Movement: The Problem of
To-Day (1887).



At some point we may also want to discuss skilled and unskilled workers
during early industrialization. Much fine work is available on the
pre-Civil War period. But that is for another day.









At 04:02 PM 3/4/01 -0500, you wrote:

>Dear James Carter and all,

>

>Currently I am putting together a lecture on the Knights of
Labor.  I am

>getting some very interesting stuff from an old book "The Labor
Movement in

>the United States 1860-1895" by Norman Joseph Ware.  Pub
Vintage Books 1964,

>reprint of 1929 edition.  The Evergreen State College Library
has it (at

>least when I finish with it).   Its call number is HD
8072.W263 1964.  It

>discusses a bit about the philosphy and the structure of the KoL and
some of

>it's stances on skill and "unskilled".  I hope this
helps.

>

>Also I recently found a book entitled "The Voice of Labor"
published in

>1888.  I found it at Powell's Bookstore in Portland, OR (look
for their

>inventory on the web, they just went ILWU).  It seems to contain
most of the

>major works by the KoL.  I believe that this will be a
significant work

>since its publishing date is 2 years after the Haymarket
Massacre.  I have

>yet to read it, though.

>

>To the Spike that pierces the Iron Heel,

>Eric Chase

>Olympia IWW

>

>This forum on Labor History is sponsored by History Matters--please
visit our Web site at
http://historymatters.gmu.edu
for more resources for teaching U.S. History.

> 



--=====================_31820592==_.ALT--

This forum on Labor History is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 6 Mar 2001 15:51:16 -0800
Reply-To:     Labor History Forum 
Sender:       Labor History Forum 
From:         "Alan N. Walker" 
Subject:      resource
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
              boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0029_01C0A655.4738A720"

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0029_01C0A655.4738A720
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

As a former sociology major, may I recommend the vast collections of the =
Southern California Library for Social Studies and Research available =
at: http://www.socallib.org/

Alan Walker
Torrance, CA

------=_NextPart_000_0029_01C0A655.4738A720
Content-Type: text/html;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable








As a former sociology major, may I recommend the =
vast=20
collections of the Southern California Library for Social Studies and =
Research=20
available at: http://www.socallib.org/
 
Alan Walker
Torrance, CA

------=_NextPart_000_0029_01C0A655.4738A720--

This forum on Labor History is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 6 Mar 2001 19:04:59 -0700
Reply-To:     mcanz@earthlink.net
Sender:       Labor History Forum 
From:         "Mary C. Canzoneri" 
Subject:      Re: resource
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
              boundary="------------56EDDAD1C3B061B3513AD6D8"

--------------56EDDAD1C3B061B3513AD6D8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Thanks... I checked it out and found its progressive holdings very
useful...

peace...

"Alan N. Walker" wrote:

> As a former sociology major, may I recommend the vast collections of
> the Southern California Library for Social Studies and Research
> available at: http://www.socallib.org/ Alan WalkerTorrance, CA

--------------56EDDAD1C3B061B3513AD6D8
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit




Thanks... I checked it out and found its progressive holdings very useful...
peace...
"Alan N. Walker" wrote:

As a former sociology
major, may I recommend the vast collections of the Southern California
Library for Social Studies and Research available at: http://www.socallib.org/ Alan
WalkerTorrance, CA




--------------56EDDAD1C3B061B3513AD6D8--

This forum on Labor History is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 7 Mar 2001 10:24:18 EST
Reply-To:     Labor History Forum 
Sender:       Labor History Forum 
From:         Jack Zevin 
Subject:      Re: Skilled and unskilled labor
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Thank you for the advice.
Jack Z

This forum on Labor History is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 7 Mar 2001 08:24:48 -0500
Reply-To:     Labor History Forum 
Sender:       Labor History Forum 
From:         "John Russo, Center for Working-Class Studies,
              Youngstown State University" 
Subject:      American Exceptionalism

When I teach labor and working-class history,especially when discussing
comparative or international movements, the students try to move the
discussion to the idea of American exceptionalism. The same is true for
European scholars visiting the Center for Working-Class Studies at
Youngstown State University. I was wondering if David and other members of
the forum could discuss American exceptionalism and how they approach it in
their research and teaching. Are our views changing given the new global
economy. For a recent and interesting account of exceptionalism, see the
most recent, Dissent, which reproduces Jean-Paul Satre essays on the
American working-class in 1945.

This forum on Labor History is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 7 Mar 2001 13:43:54 -0600
Reply-To:     Labor History Forum 
Sender:       Labor History Forum 
From:         Colin Davis 
Subject:      SKILL
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
              boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00BD_01C0A70C.A6CEF100"

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_00BD_01C0A70C.A6CEF100
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I must say that I'm interested in Dan Jacoby's bi-lateral discussion of =
apprentice programs.  Having been trained as a tool-and-die =
maker(toolmaker) in England under a company scheme, I experienced no OF =
loss independence on the job.  I must point out also that even if =
trained under a company regime unions might be present to counter any =
employer initiaitives.  Additionally, working alongside skilled workers =
also introduce the worker to the required work and behavior on the job.  =
So whatever the particular apprentice scheme one must also take into =
account a union presence, and a culture of worker solidarity/rules.

I also think the discussion should move away from training as being an =
indicator of skill.  Such a narrow approach might make sense for =
discussing certain elitist tendencies within crafts and unions, but in =
the world of work it can only take us so far.  My recent work on =
dockworkers in NYC and London highlight a shifting definition of skill.  =
Although lacking formal entry requirements, dock work was perceived by =
most of these men as skilled.  Indeed, it was recognized as such by =
employers who sought out particular work gangs for certain types of =
cargoes.  Even those dockworkers doing supposed grunt work, lumber and =
coffee shipments, regarded their work as specialized, one in which the =
"knowledge" of the job imparted a notion of skill.

Another aspect of skill is how sometimes its racially constructed by =
workers.  Banana shipments brought this out in NYC.  Banana carriers =
were invariably African-American or Hispanic.  While the supposed more =
skilled job of banana stacker was reserved for whites =
(Italian-Americans). =20

So when teaching a class on skill its a good idea to talk about the =
different apprentice systems, and then move onto a discussion of jobs =
not normally perceived as skilled.  My students at UAB have had no =
difficulty in grasping these themes.  Indeed, when judged with their own =
experiences of work, the discussion can get quite sophisticated.

------=_NextPart_000_00BD_01C0A70C.A6CEF100
Content-Type: text/html;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable








I must say that I'm interested in Dan =
Jacoby's=20
bi-lateral discussion of apprentice programs.  Having been trained =
as a=20
tool-and-die maker(toolmaker) in England under a company scheme, I =
experienced=20
no OF loss independence on the job.  I must point out also that =
even if=20
trained under a company regime unions might be present to counter any =
employer=20
initiaitives.  Additionally, working alongside skilled workers also =

introduce the worker to the required work and behavior on the =
job.  So=20
whatever the particular apprentice scheme one must also take into =
account a=20
union presence, and a culture of worker solidarity/rules.
 
I also think the discussion should move =
away from=20
training as being an indicator of skill.  Such a narrow approach =
might make=20
sense for discussing certain elitist tendencies within crafts and =
unions, but in=20
the world of work it can only take us so far.  My recent work =
on=20
dockworkers in NYC and London highlight a shifting definition of =
skill. =20
Although lacking formal entry requirements, dock work was perceived by =
most of=20
these men as skilled.  Indeed, it was recognized as such by =
employers who=20
sought out particular work gangs for certain types of cargoes.  =
Even those=20
dockworkers doing supposed grunt work, lumber and coffee shipments, =
regarded=20
their work as specialized, one in which the "knowledge" of the job =
imparted a=20
notion of skill.
 
Another aspect of skill is how =
sometimes its=20
racially constructed by workers.  Banana shipments brought this out =
in=20
NYC.  Banana carriers were invariably African-American or =
Hispanic. =20
While the supposed more skilled job of banana stacker was reserved for =
whites=20
(Italian-Americans).  
 
So when teaching a class on skill its a =
good idea=20
to talk about the different apprentice systems, and then move onto a =
discussion=20
of jobs not normally perceived as skilled.  My students at UAB have =
had no=20
difficulty in grasping these themes.  Indeed, when judged with =
their own=20
experiences of work, the discussion can get quite=20
sophisticated.

------=_NextPart_000_00BD_01C0A70C.A6CEF100--

This forum on Labor History is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 9 Mar 2001 15:14:40 -0500
Reply-To:     Labor History Forum 
Sender:       Labor History Forum 
From:         David Montgomery 
Subject:      Re: American Exceptionalism
In-Reply-To:  
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; types="text/plain,text/html";
              boundary="=====================_19640887==_.ALT"

--=====================_19640887==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

John Russo has opened up the question of "American exceptionalism," and he has
placed it in the context of comparative or international workers' movements.
The question has often been framed as "why is there no socialism in the United
States ?" or in broader terms, "is the US a classless society ?" I think
anyone
pursuing either of these questions soon runs out of steam. Nevertheless, the
international and comparative approaches remain very valuable for
historians of
labor in the US.
The conventional ways of engaging in the debate have been well summarized in a
large anthology edited by John H.M. Laslett and Seymour Martin Lipset, Failure
of a Dream ? Essays in the History of American Socialism (New York, 1974).
From the same era, one can still profit from reading Lawrence Moore, European
Socialists and the American Promised Land (New York, 1970). Since that time
European scholars have devoted considerable attention to the history of
American workers, and they have often wrestled with these questions. I would
bring only two books of that type to everyone's attention, though they may be
hard to find in many libraries. Both are by Marianne Debouzy. The first is a
collection of contributions to a conference held in Paris in 1986,
commemorating the Haymarket affair, with essays in both French and English and
entitled In the Shadow of the Statue of Liberty: Immigrants, Workers, and
Citizens in the American Republic, 1880-1920 (Paris: Presses Universitaires de
Vincennes, 1988). The other is a splendid little book, offering
observations of
this very knowledgeable French scholar on workers in the US today, but
available only in French. Marianne Debouzy, Travail et travailleurs aux
Etats-Unis (Paris: Editions La Decouverte, 1984). (I apologize that I cannot
make French accents on this machine.) That book might be interesting to
some of
Russo's European visitors.

One great warning to everyone. Comparisons between US and European movements
often seem to rest on the assumption that European workers spent all day every
day on the barricades. Any historian of the US dealing with European
comparisons could profit greatly from reading Dick Geary, European Labour
Protest, 1848-1939 (London: Croon Helm, 1981). Geary's guiding question is:
what
made some European labor movements revolutionary and others reformist. The
book
is short, concise, and persuasive.

The global perspective can be extremely useful to researchers and teachers of
US labor history. It might be most useful, in introducing this question, to
break the subject down into some of its constituent parts.
1. Slavery and racism. Industrialization and the formation of a working class
and a workers movement in the US took place in a country dominated by chattel
slavery. As late as the 1850s there were more African-American slaves over the
age of 10 in the US than there were free wage earners. In fact it was during
that decade that the balance tipped in favor of wage earners. Slavery left its
mark on all working-class life and movements (just reread the classic Sidney
Mintz, Sweetness and Power: The Place of Sugar in Modern History (New York,
1985) for starters) , but for Europeans the slaves were overseas. North
American slavery evolved through a variety of forms in ways that directly
shaped the activities, possibilities, and thinking of free workers in the US.
See Alexander Saxton, Rise and Fall of the White Republic: Class Politics and
Mass Culture in Nineteenth-Century America (1990) and David Roediger, Wages of
Whiteness: Race and the Making of the American Working Class (1991).
To provide students with some historical perspective on the "global economy"
and working people's struggles (slave, waged, and indigenous) they should be
directed to a study of the Atlantic world in the 17th and 18th centuries,
which
is bound to hold the attention of any reader: Peter Linebaugh and Marcus
Rediker, The Many-Headed Hydra: Sailors, Slaves, Comoners, and the Hidden
History of the Revolutionary Atlantic (Boston, 2000).
Before I leave that subject, let me add that I have long directed my students
also toward the splendid comparison of two contemporaneous systems of bondage
that had much in common, as well as crucial differences, and both of which
left
legacies that shaped national labor movements,  Peter Kolchin, Unfree Labor:
American Slavery and Russian Serfdom (1985)

2. Immigration. Central to the exceptionalist argument is the proposition that
the ethnic diversity and immigrant origins of America's industrial workers
undermined any possibilities of class consciousness. Herbert Gutman turned
this
discussion around by arguing that immigrants and their children constituted
the
great majority of American workers during the late nineteenth century, and
that
the ideas, values, and solidarities they brought with them were not
impediments
to class consciousness, but rather decisively shaped the country's
working-class culture and its labor movement. See his collection of essays:
Work, Culture, and Society in Industrializing America (New York, 1976).
Gutman's
disciples and his antagonists stand at the heart of debates among
historians in
this country today.
Moreover,  writings of the last generation have broken the mold of  treating
the question as simply one of benighted peoples fleeing to the freedom and
prosperity of the US. Most important of all, we have begun to treat migration
as a global phenomenon, and not simply a story of going to America. A fine
introduction to this style of thinking, which is readily available to
students,
can be found in Eric R. Wolf, Europe and the People without History (Berkeley,
1982) , pp. 354-383. Among other things, this chapter by Wolf sets the reader
to thinking about the vast migration from India and China, little of which
came
to North America because of laws, shipping routes, and various colonial
policies, and about the economic changes that set people in motion. Wolf also
reminds us that in some settings, such as South Africa's gold mines and Sao
Paulo's coffee plantations, European immigrants were the more privileged
workers, while native-born inhabitants were at the bottom of  the job
hierarchy.
Donna Gabaccia is one of the most influential historians to have illuminated
the multi-national links among Italian immigrants in various parts of the
world. For an introduction to her thinking, students can readily use the
article "Is Everywhere Nowhere ? Nomads, Nations, and the Immigrant
Paradigm of
United States History," Journal of American History, 86 (December 1999),
1115-1134.
If you want to read what I think about immigration, class, race, and American
politics, see my article "Racism, Immigrants, and Political Reform," in the
forthcoming (March, 2001) issue of the Journal of American History, 1-25. It
should be out any day now.

3. Voting. One influential formulation of the exceptionalism argument is the
proposition that the American political system blocked the formation of a
mass-based working-class party because the right to vote came before the
industrial revolution, so that workers were absorbed into a pre-existing
system
of popular two-party politics. That thesis was first forcefully put by Norman
J. Ware, Industrial Worker, 1840-1860 (New York, 1924). In its most persuasive
forms that argument has been combined with the ethnic diversity thesis in the
proposition that U.S. party alignments were shaped  along ethnic, race, and
cultural, rather than class lines, especially in the nineteenth century. By
the
way Ware added another argument, which was soon forgotten but has recently
made
something of a comeback, that the California gold rush confirmed the myth of
upward mobility for a working class then in the making.
More recently the argument that the ballot box was "the coffin of class
consciousness" was forcefully put by Alan Dawley, Class and Community: The
Industrial Revolution in Lynn (Cabridge, MA, 1976).
Last year an important and extremely informative book appeared disputing the
very notion that workers in the US had access to the ballot while their
European counterparts were still forming parties to fight for the right to
vote. Alexander Keyssar, The Right to Vote: The Contested History of Democracy
in the United States (New York, 2000). Keyssar not only catalogues the
manifold
restrictions on voting based on gender, race. property, residence, etc. from
the beginning of the republic into this century, but also argues that as (and
because) the immigrant-based working class expanded after 1850 and slavery was
abolished, voting rights were correspondingly contracted throughout the
country. His evidence poses a sharp challenge to the contention of other
historians that the last half of the nineteenth century witnessed the highest
levels of voting participation in the country's history. Like I.W.W. orators
early in the twentieth century, who were  contemptuous of  electoral politics,
he asks: "who can vote, anyhow ?'

Let me cut this off here. There are other important aspects of the question of
exceptionalism, especially as it pertains to the twentieth century. If other
participants wish to do so, we could profitably consider historians debates
over corporate liberalism, over the distinctive character of the New Deal
(perhaps our most exceptional moment in contrast to the world tendency of
politics to move Right during the depression), to the role of women in shaping
and being targets of welfare policies (both state and private) -- an American
phenomenon often commented upon by European observers, to the character and
role of the law in shaping the U.S. labor movement (right now a hot topic), to
the role of imperialism in shaping workers' movements (a subject that has
received all too little attention from historians).

David Montgomery



--=====================_19640887==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


John Russo has opened up the question of "American
exceptionalism," and he has placed it in the context of comparative
or international workers' movements. The question has often been framed
as "why is there no socialism in the United States ?" or in
broader terms, "is the US a classless society ?" I think anyone
pursuing either of these questions soon runs out of steam. Nevertheless,
the international and comparative approaches remain very valuable for
historians of labor in the US.

The conventional ways of engaging in the debate have been well summarized
in a large anthology edited by John H.M. Laslett and Seymour Martin
Lipset, Failure of a Dream ? Essays in the History of American
Socialism (New York, 1974). 

From the same era, one can still profit from reading Lawrence Moore,
European Socialists and the American Promised Land (New York,
1970). Since that time European scholars have devoted considerable
attention to the history of American workers, and they have often
wrestled with these questions. I would bring only two books of that type
to everyone's attention, though they may be hard to find in many
libraries. Both are by Marianne Debouzy. The first is a collection of
contributions to a conference held in Paris in 1986, commemorating the
Haymarket affair, with essays in both French and English and entitled
In the Shadow of the Statue of Liberty: Immigrants, Workers, and
Citizens in the American Republic, 1880-1920 (Paris: Presses
Universitaires de Vincennes, 1988). The other is a splendid little book,
offering observations of this very knowledgeable French scholar on
workers in the US today, but available only in French. Marianne Debouzy,
Travail et travailleurs aux Etats-Unis (Paris: Editions La
Decouverte, 1984). (I apologize that I cannot make French accents on this
machine.) That book might be interesting to some of Russo's European
visitors.



One great warning to everyone. Comparisons between US and European
movements often seem to rest on the assumption that European workers
spent all day every day on the barricades. Any historian of the US
dealing with European comparisons could profit greatly from reading Dick
Geary, European Labour Protest, 1848-1939 (London: Croon Helm,
1981). Geary's guiding question is: what made some European labor
movements revolutionary and others reformist. The book is short, concise,
and persuasive.



The global perspective can be extremely useful to researchers and
teachers of  US labor history. It might be most useful, in
introducing this question, to break the subject down into some of its
constituent parts.

1. Slavery and racism. Industrialization and the formation of a working
class and a workers movement in the US took place in a country dominated
by chattel slavery. As late as the 1850s there were more African-American
slaves over the age of 10 in the US than there were free wage earners. In
fact it was during that decade that the balance tipped in favor of wage
earners. Slavery left its mark on all working-class life and movements
(just reread the classic Sidney Mintz, Sweetness and Power: The Place
of Sugar in Modern History (New York, 1985) for starters) , but for
Europeans the slaves were overseas. North American slavery evolved
through a variety of forms in ways that directly shaped the activities,
possibilities, and thinking of free workers in the US. See Alexander
Saxton, Rise and Fall of the White Republic: Class Politics and Mass
Culture in Nineteenth-Century America (1990) and David Roediger,
Wages of Whiteness: Race and the Making of the American Working
Class (1991).

To provide students with some historical perspective on the "global
economy" and working people's struggles (slave, waged, and
indigenous) they should be directed to a study of the Atlantic world in
the 17th and 18th centuries, which is bound to hold the attention of any
reader: Peter Linebaugh and Marcus Rediker, The Many-Headed Hydra:
Sailors, Slaves, Comoners, and the Hidden History of the Revolutionary
Atlantic (Boston, 2000).

Before I leave that subject, let me add that I have long directed my
students also toward the splendid comparison of two contemporaneous
systems of bondage that had much in common, as well as crucial
differences, and both of which left legacies that shaped national labor
movements,  Peter Kolchin, Unfree Labor: American Slavery and
Russian Serfdom (1985)

 

2. Immigration. Central to the exceptionalist argument is the proposition
that the ethnic diversity and immigrant origins of America's industrial
workers undermined any possibilities of class consciousness. Herbert
Gutman turned this discussion around by arguing that immigrants and their
children constituted the great majority of American workers during the
late nineteenth century, and that the ideas, values, and solidarities
they brought with them were not impediments to class consciousness, but
rather decisively shaped the country's working-class culture and its
labor movement. See his collection of essays: Work, Culture, and
Society in Industrializing America (New York, 1976). Gutman's
disciples and his antagonists stand at the heart of debates among
historians in this country today. 

Moreover,  writings of the last generation have broken the mold
of  treating the question as simply one of benighted peoples fleeing
to the freedom and prosperity of the US. Most important of all, we have
begun to treat migration as a global phenomenon, and not simply a story
of going to America. A fine introduction to this style of thinking, which
is readily available to students, can be found in Eric R. Wolf, Europe
and the People without History (Berkeley, 1982) , pp. 354-383. Among
other things, this chapter by Wolf sets the reader to thinking about the
vast migration from India and China, little of which came to North
America because of laws, shipping routes, and various colonial policies,
and about the economic changes that set people in motion. Wolf also
reminds us that in some settings, such as South Africa's gold mines and
Sao Paulo's coffee plantations, European immigrants were the more
privileged workers, while native-born inhabitants were at the bottom
of  the job hierarchy.

Donna Gabaccia is one of the most influential historians to have
illuminated the multi-national links among Italian immigrants in various
parts of the world. For an introduction to her thinking, students can
readily use the article "Is Everywhere Nowhere ? Nomads, Nations,
and the Immigrant Paradigm of United States History," Journal of
American History, 86 (December 1999), 1115-1134.

If you want to read what I think about immigration, class, race, and
American politics, see my article "Racism, Immigrants, and Political
Reform," in the forthcoming (March, 2001) issue of the Journal of
American History, 1-25. It should be out any day now.



3. Voting. One influential formulation of the exceptionalism argument is
the proposition that the American political system blocked the formation
of a mass-based working-class party because the right to vote came before
the industrial revolution, so that workers were absorbed into a
pre-existing system of popular two-party politics. That thesis was first
forcefully put by Norman J. Ware, Industrial Worker, 1840-1860
(New York, 1924). In its most persuasive forms that argument has been
combined with the ethnic diversity thesis in the proposition that U.S.
party alignments were shaped  along ethnic, race, and cultural,
rather than class lines, especially in the nineteenth century. By the way
Ware added another argument, which was soon forgotten but has recently
made something of a comeback, that the California gold rush confirmed the
myth of upward mobility for a working class then in the making. 

More recently the argument that the ballot box was "the coffin of
class consciousness" was forcefully put by Alan Dawley, Class and
Community: The Industrial Revolution in Lynn (Cabridge, MA,
1976).

Last year an important and extremely informative book appeared disputing
the very notion that workers in the US had access to the ballot while
their European counterparts were still forming parties to fight for the
right to vote. Alexander Keyssar, The Right to Vote: The Contested
History of Democracy in the United States (New York, 2000). Keyssar
not only catalogues the manifold restrictions on voting based on gender,
race. property, residence, etc. from the beginning of the republic into
this century, but also argues that as (and because) the immigrant-based
working class expanded after 1850 and slavery was abolished, voting
rights were correspondingly contracted throughout the country. His
evidence poses a sharp challenge to the contention of other historians
that the last half of the nineteenth century witnessed the highest levels
of voting participation in the country's history. Like I.W.W. orators
early in the twentieth century, who were  contemptuous of 
electoral politics, he asks: "who can vote, anyhow ?'



Let me cut this off here. There are other important aspects of the
question of exceptionalism, especially as it pertains to the twentieth
century. If other participants wish to do so, we could profitably
consider historians debates over corporate liberalism, over the
distinctive character of the New Deal (perhaps our most exceptional
moment in contrast to the world tendency of politics to move Right during
the depression), to the role of women in shaping and being targets of
welfare policies (both state and private) -- an American phenomenon often
commented upon by European observers, to the character and role of the
law in shaping the U.S. labor movement (right now a hot topic), to the
role of imperialism in shaping workers' movements (a subject that has
received all too little attention from historians). 



David Montgomery







--=====================_19640887==_.ALT--

This forum on Labor History is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 11 Mar 2001 12:29:40 EST
Reply-To:     Labor History Forum 
Sender:       Labor History Forum 
From:         Carmen Bardeguez-Brown 
Subject:      Re: American Exceptionalism
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I have followed the interesting conversations and I thank History Matters to
sponsor such events. I hope that there will be more forums such as the last
two.  My comment is directed to Professor Montgomery, I read an article by
Theodore Allen title "The Invention of The White Race" and a follow up
interview conducted by Jonathan Scott and Gregory Meyerson, in the electronic
magazine: Cultural
Logic[http://eserver.org/clogic/1-2/allen%20interview.html]. Basically,Mr.
Allen's argument is that yo cannot separate the analysis of race and class in
order to understand the ideology that has permeated among the "white
workers"in the United States. In other words a discussion of the working
class and the lack of a workers party needs to be analyzed in conjunction
with the lack of working class consciousness from the part of the "white
workers."
We also need to take into consideration the dialectical relation that exist
between the capitalist class ad the workers. How the Bourgeoisie uses the
state apparatus to undermine any possible attempt by the workers to engage in
an open warfare with the capitalists. The argument of Labor Studies cannot be
academic. It is not just what occurred 50 or 100 years ago, but what is
happening today, that Capitalism is the new world order. Marx, was right, in
order to understand the dynamics of the Capitalist system we need to
understand that it is based in two classes that have contrary
political/social and cultural goals that of the Capitalist and the Workers.
The Capitalist are well organized and create a system that supports its
regeneration. The Workers, on the other hand although have created successful
revolutions (Russia, China) have not been able to organized a political party
that can successfully help them achieve their goal.
Carmen

This forum on Labor History is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 11 Mar 2001 14:49:27 -0700
Reply-To:     mcanz@earthlink.net
Sender:       Labor History Forum 
From:         "Mary C. Canzoneri" 
Subject:      Re: American Exceptionalism
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Carmen,
I enjoyed your class/race analysis.
What you described can be readily seen in the study of women's suffrage (Eleanor Flexner's Century of [suffrage] Struggle, Harvard Press, 1996.)   Corporations split
women from men workers in general, then split white women from African American women in particular.  In the former, men were considered skillsful and women less so.
In the latter, white women were considsered skillful and non-white less so.  That dialectical division of labor continues to the present.  Corporate profit is best
served with divide-and-conquer tactics.

peace...



Carmen Bardeguez-Brown wrote:

> I have followed the interesting conversations and I thank History Matters to
> sponsor such events. I hope that there will be more forums such as the last
> two.  My comment is directed to Professor Montgomery, I read an article by
> Theodore Allen title "The Invention of The White Race" and a follow up
> interview conducted by Jonathan Scott and Gregory Meyerson, in the electronic
> magazine: Cultural
> Logic[http://eserver.org/clogic/1-2/allen%20interview.html]. Basically,Mr.
> Allen's argument is that yo cannot separate the analysis of race and class in
> order to understand the ideology that has permeated among the "white
> workers"in the United States. In other words a discussion of the working
> class and the lack of a workers party needs to be analyzed in conjunction
> with the lack of working class consciousness from the part of the "white
> workers."
> We also need to take into consideration the dialectical relation that exist
> between the capitalist class ad the workers. How the Bourgeoisie uses the
> state apparatus to undermine any possible attempt by the workers to engage in
> an open warfare with the capitalists. The argument of Labor Studies cannot be
> academic. It is not just what occurred 50 or 100 years ago, but what is
> happening today, that Capitalism is the new world order. Marx, was right, in
> order to understand the dynamics of the Capitalist system we need to
> understand that it is based in two classes that have contrary
> political/social and cultural goals that of the Capitalist and the Workers.
> The Capitalist are well organized and create a system that supports its
> regeneration. The Workers, on the other hand although have created successful
> revolutions (Russia, China) have not been able to organized a political party
> that can successfully help them achieve their goal.
> Carmen
>
> This forum on Labor History is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.

This forum on Labor History is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 11 Mar 2001 14:46:56 -0800
Reply-To:     Labor History Forum 
Sender:       Labor History Forum 
From:         emily rader 
Subject:      Re: American Exceptionalism
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative;
              boundary="MS_Mac_OE_3067166817_243813_MIME_Part"

> THIS MESSAGE IS IN MIME FORMAT. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

--MS_Mac_OE_3067166817_243813_MIME_Part
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

I'd like to suggest another issue to consider under the question of "Why no
socialism  . . . ." Instead of placing it only in an "American
exceptionalism" context, in which the American working class is compared
with that of Europe, it might be useful to compare American workers to those
in other "settler states," such as Australia, Canada, South Africa, and
others. Settler states were European (most often, British) colonies where
Europeans settled on native peoples' lands. Even in the case of Australia,
with its origins as a forced-migration colony for working class convicts,
the availability of land there and in other settler states laid the basis
for a different class structure than in Europe, one in which widespread
property ownership for whites depended on the dispossession of native
peoples and the exploitation of non-white labor. (In the U.S., much of this
was already well under way by the time other settler states were being
created in the mid- to late-nineteenth century, and the reliance on African
slave labor makes the U.S. picture somewhat more complicated than that of
other settler states.)

In the U.S. and other settler states, the inseparability of race and class
has meant that the working classes have not developed as they did in Europe.
Countries like Australia and South Africa (the latter with a more active
communist party than most settler states), are infamous for the racial
exclusivity of the white working class; this aspect of American
working-class history has been explored in recent years in books by
Roediger, Saxton and others, as Prof. Montgomery wrote. But there is also a
whole realm of literature on settlerism in various countries, published in
England, Australia, and Canada, for the most part.

Especially now, with new attention to comparative studies because of
globalization, it would be a good time to explore the impact of settlerism
on the U.S. working class. (I began researching the history of settlerism
and white supremacy--but not focused on workers--for my dissertation,
finished a few years ago; I have had to set aside continued research in the
past few years because of a heavy teaching load, but I plan to return to it
this summer.) There's a lot more I could write on this topic, but I'll stop
here. I have found that working-class historians (aside from Saxton) have
generally been uninterested in this approach, but I haven't given up hope
that some working-class/labor historians might be intrigued by the history
of settlerism. I'd be interested in further discussion with anyone
participating in this forum.

                                                    Emily Rader
                                                    History Instructor
                                                    El Camino College
--MS_Mac_OE_3067166817_243813_MIME_Part
Content-type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable






I'd like to suggest another issue to consider under the questio=
n of "Why no socialism  . . . ." Instead of placing it only i=
n an "American exceptionalism" context, in which the American work=
ing class is compared with that of Europe, it might be useful to compare Ame=
rican workers to those in other "settler states," such as Australi=
a, Canada, South Africa, and others. Settler states were European (most ofte=
n, British) colonies where Europeans settled on native peoples' lands. Even =
in the case of Australia, with its origins as a forced-migration colony for =
working class convicts, the availability of land there and in other settler =
states laid the basis for a different class structure than in Europe, one in=
 which widespread property ownership for whites depended on the dispossessio=
n of native peoples and the exploitation of non-white labor. (In the U.S., m=
uch of this was already well under way by the time other settler states were=
 being created in the mid- to late-nineteenth century, and the reliance on A=
frican slave labor makes the U.S. picture somewhat more complicated than tha=
t of other settler states.)         =
          



In the U.S. and other settler states, the inseparability of race and class =
has meant that the working classes have not developed as they did in Europe.=
 Countries like Australia and South Africa (the latter with a more active co=
mmunist party than most settler states), are infamous for the racial exclusi=
vity of the white working class; this aspect of American working-class histo=
ry has been explored in recent years in books by Roediger, Saxton and others=
, as Prof. Montgomery wrote. But there is also a whole realm of literature o=
n settlerism in various countries, published in England, Australia, and Cana=
da, for the most part. 



Especially now, with new attention to comparative studies because of global=
ization, it would be a good time to explore the impact of settlerism on the =
U.S. working class. (I began researching the history of settlerism and white=
 supremacy--but not focused on workers--for my dissertation, finished a few =
years ago; I have had to set aside continued research in the past few years =
because of a heavy teaching load, but I plan to return to it this summer.) T=
here's a lot more I could write on this topic, but I'll stop here. I have fo=
und that working-class historians (aside from Saxton) have generally been un=
interested in this approach, but I haven't given up hope that some working-c=
lass/labor historians might be intrigued by the history of settlerism. I'd b=
e interested in further discussion with anyone participating in this forum.<=
BR>


            &nb=
sp;            &=
nbsp;            =
;            &nb=
sp; Emily Rader

            &nb=
sp;            &=
nbsp;            =
;            &nb=
sp; History Instructor

            &nb=
sp;            &=
nbsp;            =
;            &nb=
sp; El Camino College



--MS_Mac_OE_3067166817_243813_MIME_Part--

This forum on Labor History is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 12 Mar 2001 08:55:27 -0700
Reply-To:     Julie Greene 
Sender:       Labor History Forum 
From:         Julie Greene 
Subject:      Beyond Exceptionalism
In-Reply-To:  <40.8987926.27dd1004@aol.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

I just joined this discussion last week, but like Carmen I think it's a
great opportunity to exchange ideas. I wonder if David Montgomery or
others could address more fully how we can reach beyond the boundaries of
the nation state as we teach US labor history? I'm very interested both in
issues of imperialism and in transnational approaches. Have folks used
books or methods for covering these topics that worked well? I am
currently choosing books for both an undergrad course in labor history and
a grad readings seminar, and am working hard to integrate these themes
into both courses. Any ideas would be much appreciated!

cheers,
Julie

Julie Greene
History Department
University of Colorado at Boulder

This forum on Labor History is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 13 Mar 2001 01:18:09 -0500
Reply-To:     sethw@maine.edu
Sender:       Labor History Forum 
From:         Seth Wigderson 
Subject:      American Exceptionalism and Class Struggle Analysis
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

Dear Friends

I have long been troubled by the many discussions about American
exceptionalism.  It seems to me that all of the various replies to the
"Why is there no socialism..." locate their answer within the American
working class.  Yet I think that this approach ignores (perhaps without
meaing to) the class struggle.

Rather than asking why is the American working class so different from the
French, German, Brazilian etc?  Might we not as profitably enquire whether
it is the American ruling class which is so different from its European
counterparts?

I think the answer is yes.  That by the end of Reconstruction there is an
amazingly united ruling class which is almost always able to put aside its
many internal differences to unite against its external enemies,
especially the working class(es).

That is, I suggest that the most important (although far from only) reason
that there is "No Socialism...."  is that the owning class has been too
powerful and that working people have fared worse in many aspects of the
class struggle compared with their European brothers and sisters who faced
weaker and more divided ruling classes.

A few examples from away (as we say in Maine)

Germany is a good example.  There feudal and bourgeois elements coexisted
uncomfortably and provided an opening for a mass SP.  Similarly in France
where the various strange factions of the Third Republic (Orleanist?) also
provided a divided enemy.

Of course the case of England where the capitalist rested on the workers,
temporarily (Corn Laws) was well noted by Marx.

Historically we see a great breakthrough for class legislation (welfare
state) after World War II when so many of the national capitalist classes
had either been greatly weakened or disredited.

Not surprsingly, one of the great errors for major change in the US is in
the 1930s during those few years when the system's defenders were on the
ropes.  Notice that as the ruling class(es) revived by 1937 they quickly
squelched any major steps forward.

For an account of the US in the 1960s see David Vogel's Fluctuating
Fortunes.

I am at a loss to explain why ruling class analysis has gone out of
fashion with the American left.  When I entered the radical movement in
the early 1960s we had Ferdinand Lundberg's Americas Sixty Families from
the 1930s and his later The Rich and the Super Rich.  We also had William
Domhoff's fine studies of the sociology.  Of course C Wright Mills's work
was invaluable.

But I am afraid that under the excellent impact of E P Thompson and the
(re)discovery of the American working class, scholars lost sight of the
other class.  While a great deal of labor history does include very fine
descriptions of owners of a particular company, or industry, or even town,
there seems to be a reluctance to go further.  This may be occasioned by
the abuse of vulgar Marxists (to misquote Engels) who simply yell
Capitalist Class every time McDonald's introduces a new hamburger.  But I
fear we may have inadvertently thrown out the baby with the bathwater.

Of course, I would not suggest that this is the only reason for Why There
Is No Socialism...  Obviously a host of factors within the working
class(es) are also relevant: massive migration, constant recomposition of
the working class, incredible weight of racism.  I am merely asking that
we include the other side of the class divide in our analysis.

Seth Wigderson
University of Maine at Augusta
Moderator H-Labor

This forum on Labor History is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 13 Mar 2001 10:44:11 -0500
Reply-To:     Labor History Forum 
Sender:       Labor History Forum 
From:         WILLIAM MCGAUGHEY 
Subject:      American Exceptionalism - a divergent view
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

Dear Friends,

I have a theory about this.  Even though it may make me enormously unpopular
with some of you, I will express it:  the Civil Rights movement and
political correctness have, in effect, derailed the labor movement in the
United States.

In the 1930s and 1940s, some employers broke strikes by hiring black
replacement workers.  This scared the white strikers who recognized that
blacks represented a large pool of the truly disadvantaged.  Also,
international communism recognized that blacks might be receptive to their
cause.  The business and government elite, trying to head off this, actively
acceded to demands of the Civil Rights movement.  They tried to remove a
potential source of opposition.  The labor movement bought into this as
well, partly for moral and ideological reasons and partly to remove blacks
as a competing force in the labor market.  So, apart from southern
segregationists, there was no effective opposition to the Civil Rights
movement.

I have never worked for an employer who did not ardently support affirmative
action.  And why not, the white males who currently hold leadership
positions are not the same individuals (white males) who are discriminated
against under affirmative action policies.  It is a fallacy to place them
both in the same category.  The corporate and professional elite, which is
unjustly enriching itself at the present time, finds it convenient to treat
"white males", or whites, or males, as an oppressive class.  This diverts
attention away from themselves, individually or as a more narrowly defined
group, as abusers.  Also, the U.S. ruling class actively recruits blacks and
women as spokesmen. They buy off individuals.  It is convenient for them to
spread the idea that only women and blacks have legitimate grievances and
that anyone who is a white male does not.  In effect, they say to the labor
movement (traditionally filled with white males): You have no right to
complain.

Toward the end of his life, Michael Harrington recognized that the
anti-white male movement was becoming a problem for the causes in which he
believed.  The rest of the people in the labor movement have not yet caught
on.

William McGaughey

This forum on Labor History is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 14 Mar 2001 20:17:53 +0000
Reply-To:     Labor History Forum 
Sender:       Labor History Forum 
From:         lause@ATT.NET
Subject:      Re: American Exceptionalism - a divergent view
Comments: cc: WILLIAM MCGAUGHEY 

I wouldn't formulate it as the civil rights movement, per
se, derailing the workers movement.  The employers put
the tracks where they want and allow for derailments when
and where it suits them.

As to Affirmative Action, the suburban white Reagan
Republicans at my university are the arbiters of what is
and is not in compliance with these regulations.
Generally, they apply them rigorously to the low-end,
low-status sections of the faculty (those with 4-4-4
teaching loads) as a counterbalance to the more
privileged parts of the faculty (2-2-2 or less), which
remain pretty much Lilly White and very masculine.

The last time it was invoked to kill a faculty search
here, the country clubbers intervened to prevent the
hiring of a sociologist we wanted to employ.  In usual
knee-jerk fashion, they cited the legal imperatives of
affirmative action.  The candidate we wanted to hire was
black and had two doctorates.

Let me repeat that one: the six-figure administrators
interested in cutting job lines tried to deny employment
to a black double-PhD on the grounds of Affirmative
Action.  Sick, sad world?

So, the bottom line is that any reform--however
well-intended and well-conceived--can be used to purposes
very different than it was intended.

Solidarity,
Mark Lause
> Dear Friends,
>
> I have a theory about this.  Even though it may make me enormously unpopular
> with some of you, I will express it:  the Civil Rights movement and
> political correctness have, in effect, derailed the labor movement in the
> United States.
>
> In the 1930s and 1940s, some employers broke strikes by hiring black
> replacement workers.  This scared the white strikers who recognized that
> blacks represented a large pool of the truly disadvantaged.  Also,
> international communism recognized that blacks might be receptive to their
> cause.  The business and government elite, trying to head off this, actively
> acceded to demands of the Civil Rights movement.  They tried to remove a
> potential source of opposition.  The labor movement bought into this as
> well, partly for moral and ideological reasons and partly to remove blacks
> as a competing force in the labor market.  So, apart from southern
> segregationists, there was no effective opposition to the Civil Rights
> movement.
>
> I have never worked for an employer who did not ardently support affirmative
> action.  And why not, the white males who currently hold leadership
> positions are not the same individuals (white males) who are discriminated
> against under affirmative action policies.  It is a fallacy to place them
> both in the same category.  The corporate and professional elite, which is
> unjustly enriching itself at the present time, finds it convenient to treat
> "white males", or whites, or males, as an oppressive class.  This diverts
> attention away from themselves, individually or as a more narrowly defined
> group, as abusers.  Also, the U.S. ruling class actively recruits blacks and
> women as spokesmen. They buy off individuals.  It is convenient for them to
> spread the idea that only women and blacks have legitimate grievances and
> that anyone who is a white male does not.  In effect, they say to the labor
> movement (traditionally filled with white males): You have no right to
> complain.
>
> Toward the end of his life, Michael Harrington recognized that the
> anti-white male movement was becoming a problem for the causes in which he
> believed.  The rest of the people in the labor movement have not yet caught
> on.
>
> William McGaughey
>
> This forum on Labor History is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our
> Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S.
> History.

This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 14 Mar 2001 15:08:11 -0600
Reply-To:     Labor History Forum 
Sender:       Labor History Forum 
From:         Joe Berry 
Subject:      Re: American Exceptionalism - a divergent view
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

My experience as both a long time job seeker (read contingent faculty
member) and also as a union rep representing faculty is that Mark is
completely correct. I have seen the same and worse, and in the public
schools as well as in higher ed. This is not to say that everything in
the first post was wrong but we need to keep two things uppermost when
discussing these sorts of issues: 1. Who has the real power? and 2. How
can we speak and act so as to build the greatest and broadest solidarity
against the former?

Joe Berry

lause@ATT.NET wrote:
>
> I wouldn't formulate it as the civil rights movement, per
> se, derailing the workers movement.  The employers put
> the tracks where they want and allow for derailments when
> and where it suits them.
>
> As to Affirmative Action, the suburban white Reagan
> Republicans at my university are the arbiters of what is
> and is not in compliance with these regulations.
> Generally, they apply them rigorously to the low-end,
> low-status sections of the faculty (those with 4-4-4
> teaching loads) as a counterbalance to the more
> privileged parts of the faculty (2-2-2 or less), which
> remain pretty much Lilly White and very masculine.
>
> The last time it was invoked to kill a faculty search
> here, the country clubbers intervened to prevent the
> hiring of a sociologist we wanted to employ.  In usual
> knee-jerk fashion, they cited the legal imperatives of
> affirmative action.  The candidate we wanted to hire was
> black and had two doctorates.
>
> Let me repeat that one: the six-figure administrators
> interested in cutting job lines tried to deny employment
> to a black double-PhD on the grounds of Affirmative
> Action.  Sick, sad world?
>
> So, the bottom line is that any reform--however
> well-intended and well-conceived--can be used to purposes
> very different than it was intended.
>
> Solidarity,
> Mark Lause
> > Dear Friends,
> >
> > I have a theory about this.  Even though it may make me enormously unpopular
> > with some of you, I will express it:  the Civil Rights movement and
> > political correctness have, in effect, derailed the labor movement in the
> > United States.
> >
> > In the 1930s and 1940s, some employers broke strikes by hiring black
> > replacement workers.  This scared the white strikers who recognized that
> > blacks represented a large pool of the truly disadvantaged.  Also,
> > international communism recognized that blacks might be receptive to their
> > cause.  The business and government elite, trying to head off this, actively
> > acceded to demands of the Civil Rights movement.  They tried to remove a
> > potential source of opposition.  The labor movement bought into this as
> > well, partly for moral and ideological reasons and partly to remove blacks
> > as a competing force in the labor market.  So, apart from southern
> > segregationists, there was no effective opposition to the Civil Rights
> > movement.
> >
> > I have never worked for an employer who did not ardently support affirmative
> > action.  And why not, the white males who currently hold leadership
> > positions are not the same individuals (white males) who are discriminated
> > against under affirmative action policies.  It is a fallacy to place them
> > both in the same category.  The corporate and professional elite, which is
> > unjustly enriching itself at the present time, finds it convenient to treat
> > "white males", or whites, or males, as an oppressive class.  This diverts
> > attention away from themselves, individually or as a more narrowly defined
> > group, as abusers.  Also, the U.S. ruling class actively recruits blacks and
> > women as spokesmen. They buy off individuals.  It is convenient for them to
> > spread the idea that only women and blacks have legitimate grievances and
> > that anyone who is a white male does not.  In effect, they say to the labor
> > movement (traditionally filled with white males): You have no right to
> > complain.
> >
> > Toward the end of his life, Michael Harrington recognized that the
> > anti-white male movement was becoming a problem for the causes in which he
> > believed.  The rest of the people in the labor movement have not yet caught
> > on.
> >
> > William McGaughey
> >
> > This forum on Labor History is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our
> > Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S.
> > History.
>
> This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.

--
Joe Berry
1453 W. Flournoy, #3F
Chicago, IL 60607
Phone/fax: 312-733-2172
Email 

Please note that I discovered a virus (WM.Cap.A) on my computer (an
iMAC) on 2/5/01. I do not know how long it had been present. I have
dealt with it so this message is clean. However, please use the most up
to date Norton anti-virus or similar product on any messages, files or
discs you may have received from me in the past. Sorry about this. It
was an unpleasant surprise for me too. Macs now can have viruses too,
unlike in the past when they were asumed to be clean.

This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 15 Mar 2001 12:00:44 -0500
Reply-To:     Labor History Forum 
Sender:       Labor History Forum 
From:         David Montgomery 
Subject:      Re: American Exceptionalism - a divergent view
In-Reply-To:  <20010314201754.FVCU3266.mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net@webmail
              .worldnet.att.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; types="text/plain,text/html";
              boundary="=====================_7489170==_.ALT"

--=====================_7489170==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Mark Lause has provided a good response to William McGaughey. His
experience in
the academic world has been shared by many of us.
Let me add that to say the civil rights movement derailed the labor movement
is, among other errors, to think that history began after World War II. I have
already indicated in earlier responses how racism had "derailed" the labor
movement from the 1810s onward. No one who was active in the labor movement in
the 1950s could accept the idea that all opposition to civil rights had
disappeared, except that of southern segregationists. Thomas Sugrue's work on
Detroit, Origins of the Urban Crisis: Race and Inequality in Postwar Detroit
(Princeton, 1996)  is a good place to start on that question. Certainly my own
experiences in factories and unions in New York and St. Paul involved daily
confrontations with racism in union members' ranks, let alone in the larger
communities. And remeber the violent reception Martin Luther King got when he
led civil rights marches in the Chicago area. What is important to investigate
is the continuity between struggles to preserve de jure and de facto
segregation in northern and southern communities and later battles against
affirmative action, "bussing" etc. George Wallace's campaigns for the
presidency in the 1960s made the continuity of people and places evident.

This question does relate, however, to Seth Widgerson's plea to "bring the
ruling class back in." Historians of labor do indeed need to devote close,
empirical (not sloganeering) attention to policies of employers and
governments, as Judith Stein has done in Running Steel, Running America and
Howell John Harris has done in Bloodless Victories: The Rise and Fall of the
Open Shop in the Philadelphia Metal Trades, 1890-1940 (New York, 2000).

Widgerson's question is related to those of Carmen Bardeguez-Brown and
McGaughey in another way. There have been a number of   investigations of
employers' own views of their own hiring policies, usually done by people in
management studies. They reveal that systematic exclusion of people of color
and of women from consideration for many industrial and service jobs is far
from dead. See, for example, Philip Moss and Chris Tilly, Stories Employers
Tell: Race, Skill, and Hiring in America (New York, Russell Sage Foundation,
2001).
I would rate two books as exemplary studies of the interactions among (and
divisions within) all classes in a crisis situation Iver Bernstein The New
York
Draft Riots of 1863 (New York, 1990), and Reeve Huston, Land and Freedom:
Rural
Society, Popular Protest, and Party Politics in Antebellum New York (New York,
2000).

Both of those books deal with the early and middle decades of the nineteenth
century. That inspires me to intject a question fo Mark Lause. He is a walking
encyclopedia on the workers' movements of that period. Does he have any
suggestions for teachers of survey courses about where they might find readily
available sources for use in their teaching about that period ?

David Montgomery





--=====================_7489170==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


Mark Lause has provided a good response to William McGaughey. His
experience in the academic world has been shared by many of us. 

Let me add that to say the civil rights movement derailed the labor
movement is, among other errors, to think that history began after World
War II. I have already indicated in earlier responses how racism had
"derailed" the labor movement from the 1810s onward. No one who
was active in the labor movement in the 1950s could accept the idea that
all opposition to civil rights had disappeared, except that of southern
segregationists. Thomas Sugrue's work on Detroit, Origins of the Urban
Crisis: Race and Inequality in Postwar Detroit (Princeton,
1996)  is a good place to start on that question. Certainly my own
experiences in factories and unions in New York and St. Paul involved
daily confrontations with racism in union members' ranks, let alone in
the larger communities. And remeber the violent reception Martin Luther
King got when he led civil rights marches in the Chicago area. What is
important to investigate is the continuity between struggles to preserve
de jure and de facto segregation in northern and southern communities and
later battles against affirmative action, "bussing" etc. George
Wallace's campaigns for the presidency in the 1960s made the continuity
of people and places evident. 



This question does relate, however, to Seth Widgerson's plea to
"bring the ruling class back in." Historians of labor do indeed
need to devote close, empirical (not sloganeering) attention to policies
of employers and governments, as Judith Stein has done in Running
Steel, Running America and Howell John Harris has done in
Bloodless Victories: The Rise and Fall of the Open Shop in the
Philadelphia Metal Trades, 1890-1940 (New York, 2000). 



Widgerson's question is related to those of Carmen Bardeguez-Brown
and  McGaughey in another way. There have been a number
of   investigations of employers' own views of their own hiring
policies, usually done by people in management studies. They reveal that
systematic exclusion of people of color and of women from consideration
for many industrial and service jobs is far from dead. See, for example,
Philip Moss and Chris Tilly, Stories Employers Tell: Race, Skill, and
Hiring in America (New York, Russell Sage Foundation, 2001).

I would rate two books as exemplary studies of the interactions among
(and divisions within) all classes in a crisis situation Iver
Bernstein The New York Draft Riots of 1863 (New York, 1990), and
Reeve Huston, Land and Freedom: Rural Society, Popular Protest, and
Party Politics in Antebellum New York (New York, 2000).



Both of those books deal with the early and middle decades of the
nineteenth century. That inspires me to intject a question fo Mark Lause.
He is a walking encyclopedia on the workers' movements of that period.
Does he have any suggestions for teachers of survey courses about where
they might find readily available sources for use in their teaching about
that period ?



David Montgomery











--=====================_7489170==_.ALT--

This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 15 Mar 2001 16:56:52 -0000
Reply-To:     Labor History Forum 
Sender:       Labor History Forum 
From:         Brian Kelly 
Subject:      Re: American Exceptionalism - a divergent view
In-Reply-To:  <200103131538.f2DFcVX197156@pimout2-int.prodigy.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I want to respond to some of the points raised in William McCaughey'salternative explanation for American exceptionalism. First, I think we need
to reject popular wisdom about blacks as strikebreakers. It was the labor
movement's policy of racial exclusion--often formalized in trade union
charters--that handed over to employers a large army of potential
strikebreakers. As Warren Whatley argued in a 1993 article, "African
American workers living in communities that cushioned them from the stigma
of scabbing needed very little encouragement, particularly when the striking
union had a history of racial discrimination." The truly amazing thing,
though, is that despite the pervasiveness of white hostility, anti-unionism
was fairly weak among black workers. In an article published nearly fifty
years ago entitled "Were Negroes Strikebreakers?" Ray Ginger showed that
despite a long and difficult encounter with organized labor, black workers
often rejected the strikebreaking role designated for them by employers.
Employers very often did attempt to manipulate racial and ethnic divisions
in order to weaken working class organization, but that tactic developed
long before the 1930s and 1940s--at least as far back as the Gilded Age;
arguably it played a role in the urban, antebellum slave South. But so much
of the research done on southern labor in recent years--early articles on
the Knights of Labor by Melton McLaurin and Kenneth Kahn, Eric Arnesen's
_Waterfront Workers of New Orleans_, Daniel Letwin's _Challenge of
Intteracial Unionism_, Mike Honey's _Southern Labor and Black Civil Rights_,
my own (just published) _Race, Class, and Power in the Alabama Coalfields_
confirms Ginger's argument, showing 1) that white workers did not have a
monopoly on trade union militancy. Often African Americans were at the
forefront of struggles for unionism in the South, far more advanced than
their white fellow workers; and 2) that blacks had no monopoly on
strikebreaking. In the case of Alabama, white union officials often
favorably compare the determination of black strikers against the proclivity
for strikebreaking evident among many whites. I'm not arguing for a reversal
of William's formulation (ie black strikers/white scabs over white strikers/
black scabs), but I am saying that the prevailing wisdom is wrong, the
reality much, much more complex.

The notion that business and the government elite "actively acceded" to the
demands of the civil rights movement simply cannot be sustained; nor do I
see anyone in the Bush administration eagerly "spreading the idea
that...women and blacks have legitimate grievances...." The only section of
society whose grievances they seem to cater to are the corporations that
bankrolled their ride to Washington. Ditto for their predecessors. There is
an argument to be had about the character of the civil rights movement as it
emerged, and here I think it is possible to be critical of the liberal,
middle class, moralistic character (and I don't mean that pejoratively) of
the main civil rights leadership without falling into the trap of writing it
off as _the obstacle_ to working class unity, influence, in the US. See, for
example, Numan Bartley's very fine discussion of these issues in his _New
South_, or Glenn Eskew's recent, critical history of the civil rights
movement in Alabama, _But for Birmingham_. Both argue that the absence of a
class perspective in the movement, its single focus on the structures of
formal segregation rather than on the economic structures which underpinned
it (and outlived it), made it impossible for the civil rights movement to
reach potential allies in the southern white working class. We might extend
that to the nation as a whole. I think one has to be careful with this,
however. Even armed with an outlook more favorable to raising issues that
cut across the racial divide, such a movement would have had a difficult
time cutting through the racism that had deep historical roots, and which
had been whipped up more recently by segregationists.

It should be added that there were examples of labor activists who attempted
to take the spirit and determination of the civil rights movement into labor
organizing--indeed at least some SNCC activists concluded from their work
that similar organization had to be brought into southen working class white
communities. Chris Lutz gave a fine paper at the Southern Labor Studies
Conference several years back on interracial organizing at the Masonite
plant in Mississippi, which brought together black workers and ex-Klansmen
in a fight for union recognition. Some northern based labor unions--most
notably the UPWA--attempted to use their authority to promote interracial
solidarity among their southern black and white members. See Roger Horowitz'
excellent treatment of this in his _Negro and White, Unite and Fight!_.

The tragedy of southern labor history--and of American labor history more
generally--lies in DuBois' observation that racism has driven "such a wedge
between black and white workers that there are probably not anywhere two
groups of workers with practically identical interests who hate and fear
each other so deeply and persistently that neither sees anything of common
interest." (He hadn't visited Belfast, I take it, but here you see a very,
very similar dynamic at work). There is no doubt, I think, that affirmative
action has been manipulated by employers, even that it is limited in terms
of what it can deliver to working people of any race or either gender. But
to the extent that it has broken down segregation in the workplace, it has
been an important advance for the labor movement. The larger context for the
difficult debate it has given rise to, however, should be kept in mind. The
civil rights movement "triumphed", so to speak, at precisely that moment
that industrial American began to go into steep decline, when manufacturing
jobs were vanishing at a rapid rate. See Judith Stein's very important
_Running Steel, Runing America_ for a discussion of this difficult
conjuncture and its impact on the labor movement. There are plenty of good
reasons for [working class] white males to be angry in America today. But if
they conclude that their difficulties are the result of the meager gains
that blacks and women have managed to extract from the employers then they
will continue repeating the sorry mistakes of the past.

Brian Kelly

This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 15 Mar 2001 15:25:55 -0500
Reply-To:     Labor History Forum 
Sender:       Labor History Forum 
From:         David Montgomery 
Subject:      Fwd: Re: Beyond Exceptionalism
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; types="text/plain,text/html";
              boundary="=====================_20091369==_.ALT"

--=====================_20091369==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Dear Ellen:
Both this message and the one which follows were evidently sent by me only to
Julie Greene. They are for all participants.
Moreover, the message that follows is part of this one. I got cut off by
pushing some wrong button. Hope you can straighten this out.
David

>
> Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 11:00:14 -0500
> To: Julie Greene
> From: David Montgomery
> Subject: Re: Beyond Exceptionalism
>
> Julie Greene and Emily Rader have offered valuable contributions to
expanding
> the discussion of "exceptionalism" into a more promising discussion of
how to
> get labor history beyond the boundaries of the nation state and into issues
> of imperialism and transnational approaches.
>
> Let me suggest straight out that the March, 2001 issue of the Journal of
> American History, which should be out any day, will carry my own efforts to
> deal with these questions in its lead article, "Racism, Immigrants, and
> Political Reform," pp. 1-25. Teachers of both undergraduate and graduate
> students may well find that article a useful teaching device.
>
> In my response to the Labor Forum on March 9, I indicated some valuable
> readings and transnational approaches on the questions of slavery,
> immigration, and voting. Let me turn to three other questions related to
> imperialism and trade unionism here: union membership and policies; workers
> and national independence struggles, and imperialism and progressive reform.
>
> I cannot recommend too highly Frederick Cooper, Decolonization and African
> Society : The Labor Question in French and British Africa (1996). This
massive
> book is likely to be of greatest value for graduate students. It deals with
> colonial social policies, strike movements, the interaction of "settler"
> unions and struggles of African workers, and the interaction of African
> workers' struggles and nationa independence struggles, among other
questions.
>
> Railroad and maritime workers have played an especially prominent role in
> imperialism. Two readily available articles dealing with US railroad
> brotherhoods and northern Mexico (incorporated into the US economy since the
> 1880s) are Richard Ulrich Miller, "American Railroad Unions and the National
> Railways of Mexico: An Exercise in Proletarian Manifest Destiny," Labor
> History, 15 (Spring 1974), 239-660, and Lorena M. Parlee, "The Impact of
> United States Railroad Unions on Organized Labor and Government Policy in
> Mexico (1880-1914), Hispanic American Historical Review, 64 (August 1984),
> 443-475.
> The Canadian Brotherhood of Railway Employees was founded at the
beginning of
> this century as both an all-grades (but white supremacist) and Canadian
> nationalist union, in large part to fend off the kind of domination US
> railway brotherhoods practiced in Mexico. The interaction between the AFL
and
> Canadian unionism has been well studied by Robert H. Babcock,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> At 08:55 AM 3/12/01 -0700, you wrote:
> >I just joined this discussion last week, but like Carmen I think it's a
> >great opportunity to exchange ideas. I wonder if David Montgomery or
> >others could address more fully how we can reach beyond the boundaries of
> >the nation state as we teach US labor history? I'm very interested both in
> >issues of imperialism and in transnational approaches. Have folks used
> >books or methods for covering these topics that worked well? I am
> >currently choosing books for both an undergrad course in labor history and
> >a grad readings seminar, and am working hard to integrate these themes
> >into both courses. Any ideas would be much appreciated!
> >
> >cheers,
> >Julie
> >
> >Julie Greene
> >History Department
> >University of Colorado at Boulder
> >
> >This forum on Labor History is sponsored by History Matters--please visit
> our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for
teaching
> U.S. History.
> >




--=====================_20091369==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"


Dear Ellen:

Both this message and the one which follows were evidently sent by me
only to Julie Greene. They are for all participants.

Moreover, the message that follows is part of this one. I got cut off by
pushing some wrong button. Hope you can straighten this out.

David



Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 11:00:14 -0500 

To: Julie Greene 

From: David Montgomery 

Subject: Re: Beyond Exceptionalism 



Julie Greene and Emily Rader have offered valuable contributions to
expanding the discussion of "exceptionalism" into a more
promising discussion of how to get labor history beyond the boundaries of
the nation state and into issues of imperialism and transnational
approaches. 



Let me suggest straight out that the March, 2001 issue of the Journal
of American History, which should be out any day, will carry my own
efforts to deal with these questions in its lead article, "Racism,
Immigrants, and Political Reform," pp. 1-25. Teachers of both
undergraduate and graduate students may well find that article a useful
teaching device.



In my response to the Labor Forum on March 9, I indicated some valuable
readings and transnational approaches on the questions of slavery,
immigration, and voting. Let me turn to three other questions related to
imperialism and trade unionism here: union membership and policies;
workers and national independence struggles, and imperialism and
progressive reform.



I cannot recommend too highly Frederick Cooper, Decolonization and
African Society : The Labor Question in French and British
Africa (1996). This massive book is likely to be of greatest value
for graduate students. It deals with colonial social policies, strike
movements, the interaction of "settler" unions and struggles of
African workers, and the interaction of African workers' struggles and
nationa independence struggles, among other questions.



Railroad and maritime workers have played an especially prominent role in
imperialism. Two readily available articles dealing with US railroad
brotherhoods and northern Mexico (incorporated into the US economy since
the 1880s) are Richard Ulrich Miller, "American Railroad Unions and
the National Railways of Mexico: An Exercise in Proletarian Manifest
Destiny," Labor History, 15 (Spring 1974), 239-660, and
Lorena M. Parlee, "The Impact of United States Railroad Unions on
Organized Labor and Government Policy in Mexico (1880-1914), Hispanic
American Historical Review, 64 (August 1984), 443-475. 

The Canadian Brotherhood of Railway Employees was founded at the
beginning of this century as both an all-grades (but white supremacist)
and Canadian nationalist union, in large part to fend off the kind of
domination US railway brotherhoods practiced in Mexico. The interaction
between the AFL and Canadian unionism has been well studied by Robert H.
Babcock, 



















At 08:55 AM 3/12/01 -0700, you wrote:

>I just joined this discussion last week, but like Carmen I think it's
a

>great opportunity to exchange ideas. I wonder if David Montgomery
or

>others could address more fully how we can reach beyond the
boundaries of

>the nation state as we teach US labor history? I'm very interested
both in

>issues of imperialism and in transnational approaches. Have folks
used

>books or methods for covering these topics that worked well? I
am

>currently choosing books for both an undergrad course in labor
history and

>a grad readings seminar, and am working hard to integrate these
themes

>into both courses. Any ideas would be much appreciated!

>

>cheers,

>Julie

>

>Julie Greene

>History Department

>University of Colorado at Boulder

>

>This forum on Labor History is sponsored by History Matters--please
visit our Web site at
http://historymatters.gmu.edu
for more resources for teaching U.S. History.

> 






--=====================_20091369==_.ALT--

This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 15 Mar 2001 15:27:42 -0500
Reply-To:     Labor History Forum 
Sender:       Labor History Forum 
From:         David Montgomery 
Subject:      Beyond Exceptionalism, part 2,
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; types="text/plain,text/html";
              boundary="=====================_20094064==_.ALT"

--=====================_20094064==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"


>
> Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 11:29:42 -0500
> To: Julie Greene
> From: David Montgomery
> Subject: Re: Beyond Exceptionalism
>
> I hit some button by mistake and mailed off my reply to Greene and Rader in
> mid-stream. Can I pick up where I left    off ?
>
> Robert H. Babcock, Gompers in canada: A Study in American Continentalism
> before the First World War (Toronto, 1974) is very useful for understanding
> what went on on both sides of the border.  For more advanced study, try
David
> J. Bercuson, Fools and Wise Men (1978) a study of the One Big Union movement
> of the 1920s in Canada and New England, and Carlos A Schwantes, Radical
> Heritage: Labor, Socialism, and Reform in Washington and British Columbia,
> 1885-1917 (Seattle, 1979).
> A different nationalist resistance to US domination in Canada took the form
> of the nationalist/Catholic union movement in Quebec. The best study is
> Jacques Rouillard, Les syndicats nationaux au Quebec de 1900 a 1920.
>
> Maritime unions were inevitably directly involved in supporting or
combatting
> imperialism, as well as reinforcing or at times combatting racial job
> hierarchies.  Very useful for American students to read are Laura Tabili,
"We
> Ask for British Justice": Workers and Racial Difference in Late Imperial
> Britain (Ithaca, 1994) and Bruce Nelson, Workers on the Waterfront: Seamen,
> Longshoremen, and Unionism in the 1930s (Urbana, 1988). Both books deal well
> with global connections, racism, and internationalism among maritime
workers.
> Nelson has picked up those themes again, with very close attention to East
> Coast longshoremen in the US, and significantly revised bis conclusions in
> his fine new book, Divided We Stand: American Workers and the Struggle for
> Black Equality (Princeton, 2001).
>
> As a final note, related to "settlerism" the editors of Labour/Le Travail
have
> recently devoted a lot of attention to comparisons between the Australian
and
> Canadian workers' movements along these lines. There is much that is useful
> here, but I would warn everyone to be wary of using any structural
> determinant as locking in characteristics of workers' movements for all
time.
> By way of contrast, I find both Tabili and Nelson well aware of the
> importance of workers' agency and changing political environments in settler
> countries, as elsewhere. Cooper is too, to say the least.
>
> David Montgomery
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> At 08:55 AM 3/12/01 -0700, you wrote:
> >I just joined this discussion last week, but like Carmen I think it's a
> >great opportunity to exchange ideas. I wonder if David Montgomery or
> >others could address more fully how we can reach beyond the boundaries of
> >the nation state as we teach US labor history? I'm very interested both in
> >issues of imperialism and in transnational approaches. Have folks used
> >books or methods for covering these topics that worked well? I am
> >currently choosing books for both an undergrad course in labor history and
> >a grad readings seminar, and am working hard to integrate these themes
> >into both courses. Any ideas would be much appreciated!
> >
> >cheers,
> >Julie
> >
> >Julie Greene
> >History Department
> >University of Colorado at Boulder
> >
> >This forum on Labor History is sponsored by History Matters--please visit
> our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for
teaching
> U.S. History.
> >




--=====================_20094064==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"




Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 11:29:42 -0500 

To: Julie Greene 

From: David Montgomery 

Subject: Re: Beyond Exceptionalism 



I hit some button by mistake and mailed off my reply to Greene and Rader
in mid-stream. Can I pick up where I left    off ?



Robert H. Babcock, Gompers in canada: A Study in American
Continentalism before the First World War (Toronto, 1974) is very
useful for understanding what went on on both sides of the border. 
For more advanced study, try David J. Bercuson, Fools and Wise Men
(1978) a study of the One Big Union movement of the 1920s in Canada and
New England, and Carlos A Schwantes, Radical Heritage: Labor,
Socialism, and Reform in Washington and British Columbia, 1885-1917
(Seattle, 1979).

A different nationalist resistance to US domination in Canada took the
form of the nationalist/Catholic union movement in Quebec. The best study
is Jacques Rouillard, Les syndicats nationaux au Quebec de 1900 a
1920.



Maritime unions were inevitably directly involved in supporting or
combatting imperialism, as well as reinforcing or at times combatting
racial job hierarchies.  Very useful for American students to read
are Laura Tabili, "We Ask for British Justice": Workers and
Racial Difference in Late Imperial Britain (Ithaca, 1994) and Bruce
Nelson, Workers on the Waterfront: Seamen, Longshoremen, and Unionism
in the 1930s (Urbana, 1988). Both books deal well with global
connections, racism, and internationalism among maritime workers. Nelson
has picked up those themes again, with very close attention to East Coast
longshoremen in the US, and significantly revised bis conclusions in his
fine new book, Divided We Stand: American Workers and the Struggle for
Black Equality (Princeton, 2001).



As a final note, related to "settlerism" the editors of
Labour/Le Travail have recently devoted a lot of attention to
comparisons between the Australian and Canadian workers' movements along
these lines. There is much that is useful here, but I would warn everyone
to be wary of using any structural determinant as locking in
characteristics of workers' movements for all time. By way of contrast, I
find both Tabili and Nelson well aware of the importance of workers'
agency and changing political environments in settler countries, as
elsewhere. Cooper is too, to say the least.



David Montgomery















At 08:55 AM 3/12/01 -0700, you wrote:

>I just joined this discussion last week, but like Carmen I think it's
a

>great opportunity to exchange ideas. I wonder if David Montgomery
or

>others could address more fully how we can reach beyond the
boundaries of

>the nation state as we teach US labor history? I'm very interested
both in

>issues of imperialism and in transnational approaches. Have folks
used

>books or methods for covering these topics that worked well? I
am

>currently choosing books for both an undergrad course in labor
history and

>a grad readings seminar, and am working hard to integrate these
themes

>into both courses. Any ideas would be much appreciated!

>

>cheers,

>Julie

>

>Julie Greene

>History Department

>University of Colorado at Boulder

>

>This forum on Labor History is sponsored by History Matters--please
visit our Web site at
http://historymatters.gmu.edu
for more resources for teaching U.S. History.

> 






--=====================_20094064==_.ALT--

This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 16 Mar 2001 09:06:56 -0600
Reply-To:     Labor History Forum 
Sender:       Labor History Forum 
From:         Colin Davis 
Organization: Department of History - UAB
Subject:      EXCEPTIONALISM
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
              boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0038_01C0ADF8.734573C0"

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0038_01C0ADF8.734573C0
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I'd just like to add to some of the books that have been suggested to =
look at the issue of American exceptionalism.  A good starting point =
would be Rick Halpern's and Jonathan Morris' -American Exceptionalism: =
US Working-Class Formation in an International Context.  To carry on the =
maritime context a new multi-volume piece of dockworkers of which I'm a =
co-editor is a good place to look at the transnational experience, Dock =
Workers: International Explorations in Comparative Labor History, =
1790-1970.

Both these works lay to rest the notion of American exceptionalism, =
although I think the jury will always be out on the issue.  But the main =
point is that each nation is exceptional in its own right.  Perhaps a =
better approach is to examine the connections and differences between =
workers and their respective political movements.  Rather than being =
burdened by unnecessary catagories of exceptionalism, the emphasis could =
be on the shared experience, tempered by local or national political =
considerations.  My work on NYC and London dockworkers has brought me to =
the conclusion that although conflicts at work and in the union are =
framed by rank-and-file frustration, the different paths that the =
respective groups take to remedy their situations are entrenched in the =
political and cultural mileu in which operate.



------=_NextPart_000_0038_01C0ADF8.734573C0
Content-Type: text/html;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable








I'd just like to add to some of the =
books that have=20
been suggested to look at the issue of American exceptionalism.  A =
good=20
starting point would be Rick Halpern's and Jonathan Morris' -American =

Exceptionalism: US Working-Class Formation in an International=20
Context.  To carry on the maritime context a new =
multi-volume=20
piece of dockworkers of which I'm a co-editor is a good place to =
look at=20
the transnational experience, Dock Workers: International =
Explorations in=20
Comparative Labor History, 1790-1970.
 
Both these works lay to rest the notion =
of American=20
exceptionalism, although I think the jury will always be out on the =
issue. =20
But the main point is that each nation is exceptional in its own =
right. =20
Perhaps a better approach is to examine the connections and differences =
between=20
workers and their respective political movements.  Rather than =
being=20
burdened by unnecessary catagories of exceptionalism, the emphasis could =
be on=20
the shared experience, tempered by local or national political=20
considerations.  My work on NYC and London dockworkers has brought =
me to=20
the conclusion that although conflicts at work and in the union are =
framed by=20
rank-and-file frustration, the different paths that the respective =
groups take=20
to remedy their situations are entrenched in the political =
and cultural=20
mileu in which operate.
 
 

------=_NextPart_000_0038_01C0ADF8.734573C0--

This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 16 Mar 2001 14:37:07 EST
Reply-To:     Labor History Forum 
Sender:       Labor History Forum 
From:         Jack Zevin 
Subject:      Re: skilled and unskilled labor
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Thanks very much for your helpful suggestions.
Jack Zevin

This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 17 Mar 2001 16:28:25 -0800
Reply-To:     Labor History Forum 
Sender:       Labor History Forum 
From:         Mark Lause 
Subject:      Re: American Exceptionalism - a divergent view
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I'd suggest that surveys give some some attention to
importance of "the land question" in 19th century
America.  Reformers, including those associated with
labor and labor reform, largely saw America as
distinctive because it combined these vast expanses of
land and resources for potential exploitation with a
relatively small population.  This ongoing labor
shortage tended to shape generally higher wages (with
wild fluctuations from time to time and place to
place), and the prospect (if not the substance) of
upward mobility.  Indeed, almost every major 19th
century proposal to modify the impact of
industrialization and class polarization in the US
involved a manipulation of land policy.

Admittedly, we've been neck deep in end-of-the-quarter
preoccupations here, so I may have missed some of the
titles suggested here (or worse, passing over some
titles on a mistaken assumption they've been
mentioned).  I like to use primary sources, so those
unfamiliar with Henry George, _Progress and Poverty_
(originally 1879) should give it a quick read and
careful thought.  David S. Reynolds compiled a
regrettably out-of-print anthology of short pieces by
that antebellum novelist and advocate of land reform,
_George Lippard, Prophet of Protest: Writings of an
American Radical, 1822-1854_ (New York, 1986), in
addition to his biography of _George Lippard_ published
at the same time.   In addition to Reeve Huston, _Land
and Freedom_ (New York, 2000), I'd give high priority
to Jamie L. Bronstein,  _Land Reform and Working-Class
Experience in Britain and the United States,1800-1862_
(Stanford, 1999), which directly addresses the matter
of American distinctiveness in these terms.

I share with Prof. Montgomery an appreciation for Iver
Bernstein, _The New York Draft Riots of 1863_ (New
York, 1990), and Grace Palladino, _Another Civil War :
Labor, Capital, and the State in the Anthracite Regions
of  Pennsylvania, 1840-68 (Urbana, 1990).  However, I
question the Civil War-era Democratic argument that
militant Unionism became a class question.  The miners
who remained in the anthracite region at the time of
the war hardly offered a class perspective,
particularly given the fact that thousands of miners
absent at the time--like those in the 48th Pennsylvania
(the regiment that tunneled under Confederate lines at
Petersburg).  Iver Bernstein's chapters in background
to the draft riots discussed the movement of the early
1850s, some participants in which were not rioting
against the draft in 1863 but were off participating in
the Gettysburg campaign.   Perhaps this is another way
of saying that we need to get the ruling class back
into our consideration, to understand how apologists
for the status quo get the first and loudest crack at
intepretting what just happened.  .

In general, the recognition of class was widespread in
19th century America, but "class" as contemporaries
would understand and use it. Martin J. Burke, _The
Conundrum of Class: Public Discourse on the Soical
Order in America) (Chicago, 1995) provides a good
introduction to the problem.  The ethnic stratification
of an emergent working class not only serves as
something of a substitute for class, but a major means
by which class is misunderstood by those who use the
term.  Timothy Messer-Kruse, _The Yankee International
: Marxism and the American Reform Tradition, 1848-1876_
(Chapel Hill, 1998) raises interesting questions about
the extent to which ethnicity warped both the German
introduction of Marxism into the US and the American
reception of it.

In closing, I'd add that local studies and case studies
allow for an understanding how such matters as land,
political deference and class affected different parts
of the American experience very differently.  I'd
advise that everyone on the list regularly take a
close, hard look at the catalogue of University of
Illinois titles for an outstanding overview of some of
the best work being done in nineteenth century American
labor.

In solidarity,
Mark Lause
U of Cincinnati

This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 18 Mar 2001 09:59:24 -0800
Reply-To:     Labor History Forum 
Sender:       Labor History Forum 
From:         emily rader 
Subject:      Re: Beyond Exceptionalism
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative;
              boundary="MS_Mac_OE_3067754365_98379_MIME_Part"

> THIS MESSAGE IS IN MIME FORMAT. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

--MS_Mac_OE_3067754365_98379_MIME_Part
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

Just a quick but big thank you to David Montgomery for your list of
suggested readings (sent in 2 messages on Mar. 15). I greatly appreciate
your inclusion of works on workers and national independence movements. This
is in part because of my own interest in settlerism. But I'm also happy to
see several works on our neighbor, Canada, a country almost overlooked by
most American historians, despite our close historical ties. And Cooper's
book on French and British African colonies looks very promising.
    Thanks also for "advertising" your upcoming article in JAH. It should
create a whole new range of topics and ideas for discussion in this forum.
                                                        Emily Rader
                                                        History Instructor
                                                        El Camino College
--MS_Mac_OE_3067754365_98379_MIME_Part
Content-type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable






Just a quick but big thank you to David Montgomery for your lis=
t of suggested readings (sent in 2 messages on Mar. 15). I greatly appreciat=
e your inclusion of works on workers and national independence movements. Th=
is is in part because of my own interest in settlerism. But I'm also happy t=
o see several works on our neighbor, Canada, a country almost overlooked by =
most American historians, despite our close historical ties. And Cooper's bo=
ok on French and British African colonies looks very promising. 

    Thanks also for "advertising" your upcomi=
ng article in JAH. It should create a whole new range of topics and ideas fo=
r discussion in this forum.

            &nb=
sp;            &=
nbsp;            =
;            &nb=
sp;     Emily Rader

            &nb=
sp;            &=
nbsp;            =
;            &nb=
sp;     History Instructor

            &nb=
sp;            &=
nbsp;            =
;            &nb=
sp;     El Camino College



--MS_Mac_OE_3067754365_98379_MIME_Part--

This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 18 Mar 2001 17:25:48 -0800
Reply-To:     Labor History Forum 
Sender:       Labor History Forum 
From:         E Mastrianni 
Subject:      Re: Skilled and unskilled labor
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative;
              boundary="MS_Mac_OE_3067781148_427549_MIME_Part"

> THIS MESSAGE IS IN MIME FORMAT. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

--MS_Mac_OE_3067781148_427549_MIME_Part
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

Concerning your conversation on gender, labor and skill levels---one of the
best succinct explaninations of how gender affects the value of labor I've
ever seen can be found on page 60 of Olwen Hufton's, The Prospect Before
Her: A History of Women in Western Europe 1500-1800, Knopf, NY 1996. She
describes how the cost of labor is inextricably linked to gender, tracing
these ideas back to a treatise by a French economist in 1808. Even though
she's writing about European history, I think she hits on an analysis which
is accurate for the US too.
--MS_Mac_OE_3067781148_427549_MIME_Part
Content-type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable






Concerning your conversation on gender, labor and skill levels---one of the=
 best succinct explaninations of how gender affects the value of labor I've =
ever seen can be found on page 60 of Olwen Hufton's, The Prospect Before =
Her: A History of Women in Western Europe 1500-1800, Knopf, NY 1996. She=
 describes how the cost of labor is inextricably linked to gender, tracing t=
hese ideas back to a treatise by a French economist in 1808. Even though she=
's writing about European history, I think she hits on an analysis which is =
accurate for the US too.



--MS_Mac_OE_3067781148_427549_MIME_Part--

This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 20 Mar 2001 09:27:01 -0500
Reply-To:     sethw@maine.edu
Sender:       Labor History Forum 
From:         Seth Wigderson 
Subject:      Skilled and unskilled labor
In-Reply-To:  <200103200501.f2K511K21993@franklin.unet.maine.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

On the discussion of gender and skill, let me recommend Gillian Creese's
Contracting Masculinity.  Creese studied the office union at BC Hydro (the
British Columbia power company) over many decades.  While we are used to
hearing that WHO defines skill is often as or more important than WHAT is
skill, she shows how this occurs even with a union present, and
furthermore a union which wants to do the right thing.  I think that
longitudinal studies like this are extremely valuable.

I have added the Table of Contents

****************************************************************


                   Contracting Masculinity
                   Gender, Class, and Race in a
                   White-Collar Union, 1944-1994

                   Gillian Creese

                   CONTENTS

                   Acknowledgements
                   Introduction: Gender, Race, and Clerical Work
                   1. Who Gets Ahead at the Office?
                   2. Becoming a Union: A Brief History of Local 378
                   3. Normalizing Breadwinner Rights
                   4. Transforming Clerical Work into Technical Work
                   5. Can Feminism Be Union Made?
                   6. Restructuring, Resistance, and the Politics of Equity
                   7. Learning from the Past, Re-visioning the Future
                   Appendix: Reflections on Methodology
                   Notes
                   Index

This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 23 Mar 2001 11:24:18 -0500
Reply-To:     Labor History Forum 
Sender:       Labor History Forum 
From:         David Montgomery 
Subject:      Re: American Exceptionalism - a divergent view
In-Reply-To:  
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; types="text/plain,text/html";
              boundary="=====================_7556089==_.ALT"

--=====================_7556089==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

I would like to add my own hearty endorsement to the reply by Brian Kelly on
the relationship of civil rights struggles to labor struggles. Kelly's
arguments deserve to be read with care.
Kelly's new book, Race, Class, and Power in the Alabama Coalfields, 1908-21
(University of Illinois Press, 2001) explores the activism of both black and
white miners with great care, and (consistent with Seth Wigderson's recent
plea
to Labor Forum) most clearly and definitely brings the employers back in.
Black workers were often union pioneers and mobilizers of strikes in
industries
where at least some important groups of white workers had a stake in existing
wage structures and divisions of labor that elevated them above their black
workmates. Railroads are the most obvious example -- the major industrial
employer of black workers in the South and arguably the most systematically
segregated industry in the country. Eric Arnesen, Brotherhoods of Color: Black
Railroad Workers and the Struggle for Equality (Harvard UP, 2001) investigates
the many ways in which black railroad workers organized themselves and
collectively used legal and railroad brotherhood structures that were rigged
against them to improve their conditions, and especially in a relentless
battle
to keep from being driven out of whatever better jobs they did hold (eg.,
locomotive firemen). In the Birmingham area steel industry African Americans
were the first to rally to the Steel Workers Organizing Committee-CIO during
the 1930s. As Hosea Hudson once observed, white participants in steel workers
public rallies for the union were overwhelmingly coal miners, there to lend
their support.
Finally, Robert J. Norrell's article "Labor at the Ballot Box: Alabama
Politics
from the New Deal to the Dixiecrat Movement," Journal of Southern History 51
(May, 1991), 201-34, shows how important anti-communist mobilization by
business and government was in minimizing the participation of white
workers in
union., let alone civil rights struggles from 1938 to 1948 (the year Strom
Thurmond was nominated by the States Rights Party and Truman was kept off the
ballot in Alabama).
Horace Huntley strongly reinforces these arguments in "Rise and Fall of Mine
Mill in Alabama: The Status Quo against Interracial Unionism," Journal of the
Birmingham Historical Society, 6 (Jan 1979), 7-13. Not only does Huntley show
the decisive role of black iron miners in forming the union and the companies'
policy of systematically hiring whites to undermine the union, but he also
reveals that the workers savagely beaten by Ku Kluxers were most often those
whites who stood by the interracial solidarity of their union.

David Montgomery







At 04:56 PM 3/15/01 +0000, you wrote:
>I want to respond to some of the points raised in William
McCaughey'salternative explanation for American exceptionalism. First, I think
we need
>to reject popular wisdom about blacks as strikebreakers. It was the labor
>movement's policy of racial exclusion--often formalized in trade union
>charters--that handed over to employers a large army of potential
>strikebreakers. As Warren Whatley argued in a 1993 article, "African
>American workers living in communities that cushioned them from the stigma
>of scabbing needed very little encouragement, particularly when the striking
>union had a history of racial discrimination." The truly amazing thing,
>though, is that despite the pervasiveness of white hostility, anti-unionism
>was fairly weak among black workers. In an article published nearly fifty
>years ago entitled "Were Negroes Strikebreakers?" Ray Ginger showed that
>despite a long and difficult encounter with organized labor, black workers
>often rejected the strikebreaking role designated for them by employers.
>Employers very often did attempt to manipulate racial and ethnic divisions
>in order to weaken working class organization, but that tactic developed
>long before the 1930s and 1940s--at least as far back as the Gilded Age;
>arguably it played a role in the urban, antebellum slave South. But so much
>of the research done on southern labor in recent years--early articles on
>the Knights of Labor by Melton McLaurin and Kenneth Kahn, Eric Arnesen's
>_Waterfront Workers of New Orleans_, Daniel Letwin's _Challenge of
>Intteracial Unionism_, Mike Honey's _Southern Labor and Black Civil Rights_,
>my own (just published) _Race, Class, and Power in the Alabama Coalfields_
>confirms Ginger's argument, showing 1) that white workers did not have a
>monopoly on trade union militancy. Often African Americans were at the
>forefront of struggles for unionism in the South, far more advanced than
>their white fellow workers; and 2) that blacks had no monopoly on
>strikebreaking. In the case of Alabama, white union officials often
>favorably compare the determination of black strikers against the proclivity
>for strikebreaking evident among many whites. I'm not arguing for a reversal
>of William's formulation (ie black strikers/white scabs over white strikers/
>black scabs), but I am saying that the prevailing wisdom is wrong, the
>reality much, much more complex.
>
>The notion that business and the government elite "actively acceded" to the
>demands of the civil rights movement simply cannot be sustained; nor do I
>see anyone in the Bush administration eagerly "spreading the idea
>that...women and blacks have legitimate grievances...." The only section of
>society whose grievances they seem to cater to are the corporations that
>bankrolled their ride to Washington. Ditto for their predecessors. There is
>an argument to be had about the character of the civil rights movement as it
>emerged, and here I think it is possible to be critical of the liberal,
>middle class, moralistic character (and I don't mean that pejoratively) of
>the main civil rights leadership without falling into the trap of writing it
>off as _the obstacle_ to working class unity, influence, in the US. See, for
>example, Numan Bartley's very fine discussion of these issues in his _New
>South_, or Glenn Eskew's recent, critical history of the civil rights
>movement in Alabama, _But for Birmingham_. Both argue that the absence of a
>class perspective in the movement, its single focus on the structures of
>formal segregation rather than on the economic structures which underpinned
>it (and outlived it), made it impossible for the civil rights movement to
>reach potential allies in the southern white working class. We might extend
>that to the nation as a whole. I think one has to be careful with this,
>however. Even armed with an outlook more favorable to raising issues that
>cut across the racial divide, such a movement would have had a difficult
>time cutting through the racism that had deep historical roots, and which
>had been whipped up more recently by segregationists.
>
>It should be added that there were examples of labor activists who attempted
>to take the spirit and determination of the civil rights movement into labor
>organizing--indeed at least some SNCC activists concluded from their work
>that similar organization had to be brought into southen working class white
>communities. Chris Lutz gave a fine paper at the Southern Labor Studies
>Conference several years back on interracial organizing at the Masonite
>plant in Mississippi, which brought together black workers and ex-Klansmen
>in a fight for union recognition. Some northern based labor unions--most
>notably the UPWA--attempted to use their authority to promote interracial
>solidarity among their southern black and white members. See Roger Horowitz'
>excellent treatment of this in his _Negro and White, Unite and Fight!_.
>
>The tragedy of southern labor history--and of American labor history more
>generally--lies in DuBois' observation that racism has driven "such a wedge
>between black and white workers that there are probably not anywhere two
>groups of workers with practically identical interests who hate and fear
>each other so deeply and persistently that neither sees anything of common
>interest." (He hadn't visited Belfast, I take it, but here you see a very,
>very similar dynamic at work). There is no doubt, I think, that affirmative
>action has been manipulated by employers, even that it is limited in terms
>of what it can deliver to working people of any race or either gender. But
>to the extent that it has broken down segregation in the workplace, it has
>been an important advance for the labor movement. The larger context for the
>difficult debate it has given rise to, however, should be kept in mind. The
>civil rights movement "triumphed", so to speak, at precisely that moment
>that industrial American began to go into steep decline, when manufacturing
>jobs were vanishing at a rapid rate. See Judith Stein's very important
>_Running Steel, Runing America_ for a discussion of this difficult
>conjuncture and its impact on the labor movement. There are plenty of good
>reasons for [working class] white males to be angry in America today. But if
>they conclude that their difficulties are the result of the meager gains
>that blacks and women have managed to extract from the employers then they
>will continue repeating the sorry mistakes of the past.
>
>Brian Kelly
>
>This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at
http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
>

--=====================_7556089==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


I would like to add my own hearty endorsement to the reply by Brian Kelly
on the relationship of civil rights struggles to labor struggles. Kelly's
arguments deserve to be read with care.

Kelly's new book, Race, Class, and Power in the Alabama Coalfields,
1908-21 (University of Illinois Press, 2001) explores the activism of
both black and white miners with great care, and (consistent with Seth
Wigderson's recent plea to Labor Forum) most clearly and definitely
brings the employers back in. 

Black workers were often union pioneers and mobilizers of strikes in
industries where at least some important groups of white workers had a
stake in existing wage structures and divisions of labor that elevated
them above their black workmates. Railroads are the most obvious example
-- the major industrial employer of black workers in the South and
arguably the most systematically segregated industry in the country. Eric
Arnesen, Brotherhoods of Color: Black Railroad Workers and the
Struggle for Equality (Harvard UP, 2001) investigates the many ways
in which black railroad workers organized themselves and collectively
used legal and railroad brotherhood structures that were rigged against
them to improve their conditions, and especially in a relentless battle
to keep from being driven out of whatever better jobs they did hold (eg.,
locomotive firemen). In the Birmingham area steel industry African
Americans were the first to rally to the Steel Workers Organizing
Committee-CIO during the 1930s. As Hosea Hudson once observed, white
participants in steel workers public rallies for the union were
overwhelmingly coal miners, there to lend their support. 

Finally, Robert J. Norrell's article "Labor at the Ballot Box:
Alabama Politics from the New Deal to the Dixiecrat Movement,"
Journal of Southern History 51 (May, 1991), 201-34, shows how
important anti-communist mobilization by business and government was in
minimizing the participation of white workers in union., let alone civil
rights struggles from 1938 to 1948 (the year Strom Thurmond was nominated
by the States Rights Party and Truman was kept off the ballot in
Alabama).

Horace Huntley strongly reinforces these arguments in "Rise and Fall
of Mine Mill in Alabama: The Status Quo against Interracial
Unionism," Journal of the Birmingham Historical Society, 6
(Jan 1979), 7-13. Not only does Huntley show the decisive role of black
iron miners in forming the union and the companies' policy of
systematically hiring whites to undermine the union, but he also reveals
that the workers savagely beaten by Ku Kluxers were most often those
whites who stood by the interracial solidarity of their union. 



David Montgomery















At 04:56 PM 3/15/01 +0000, you wrote:

>I want to respond to some of the points raised in William
McCaughey'salternative explanation for American exceptionalism. First, I
think we need

>to reject popular wisdom about blacks as strikebreakers. It was the
labor

>movement's policy of racial exclusion--often formalized in trade
union

>charters--that handed over to employers a large army of
potential

>strikebreakers. As Warren Whatley argued in a 1993 article,
"African

>American workers living in communities that cushioned them from the
stigma

>of scabbing needed very little encouragement, particularly when the
striking

>union had a history of racial discrimination." The truly amazing
thing,

>though, is that despite the pervasiveness of white hostility,
anti-unionism

>was fairly weak among black workers. In an article published nearly
fifty

>years ago entitled "Were Negroes Strikebreakers?" Ray
Ginger showed that

>despite a long and difficult encounter with organized labor, black
workers

>often rejected the strikebreaking role designated for them by
employers.

>Employers very often did attempt to manipulate racial and ethnic
divisions

>in order to weaken working class organization, but that tactic
developed

>long before the 1930s and 1940s--at least as far back as the Gilded
Age;

>arguably it played a role in the urban, antebellum slave South. But
so much

>of the research done on southern labor in recent years--early
articles on

>the Knights of Labor by Melton McLaurin and Kenneth Kahn, Eric
Arnesen's

>_Waterfront Workers of New Orleans_, Daniel Letwin's _Challenge
of

>Intteracial Unionism_, Mike Honey's _Southern Labor and Black Civil
Rights_,

>my own (just published) _Race, Class, and Power in the Alabama
Coalfields_

>confirms Ginger's argument, showing 1) that white workers did not
have a

>monopoly on trade union militancy. Often African Americans were at
the

>forefront of struggles for unionism in the South, far more advanced
than

>their white fellow workers; and 2) that blacks had no monopoly
on

>strikebreaking. In the case of Alabama, white union officials
often

>favorably compare the determination of black strikers against the
proclivity

>for strikebreaking evident among many whites. I'm not arguing for a
reversal

>of William's formulation (ie black strikers/white scabs over white
strikers/

>black scabs), but I am saying that the prevailing wisdom is wrong,
the

>reality much, much more complex.

>

>The notion that business and the government elite "actively
acceded" to the

>demands of the civil rights movement simply cannot be sustained; nor
do I

>see anyone in the Bush administration eagerly "spreading the
idea

>that...women and blacks have legitimate grievances...." The only
section of

>society whose grievances they seem to cater to are the corporations
that

>bankrolled their ride to Washington. Ditto for their predecessors.
There is

>an argument to be had about the character of the civil rights
movement as it

>emerged, and here I think it is possible to be critical of the
liberal,

>middle class, moralistic character (and I don't mean that
pejoratively) of

>the main civil rights leadership without falling into the trap of
writing it

>off as _the obstacle_ to working class unity, influence, in the US.
See, for

>example, Numan Bartley's very fine discussion of these issues in his
_New

>South_, or Glenn Eskew's recent, critical history of the civil
rights

>movement in Alabama, _But for Birmingham_. Both argue that the
absence of a

>class perspective in the movement, its single focus on the structures
of

>formal segregation rather than on the economic structures which
underpinned

>it (and outlived it), made it impossible for the civil rights
movement to

>reach potential allies in the southern white working class. We might
extend

>that to the nation as a whole. I think one has to be careful with
this,

>however. Even armed with an outlook more favorable to raising issues
that

>cut across the racial divide, such a movement would have had a
difficult

>time cutting through the racism that had deep historical roots, and
which

>had been whipped up more recently by segregationists.

>

>It should be added that there were examples of labor activists who
attempted

>to take the spirit and determination of the civil rights movement
into labor

>organizing--indeed at least some SNCC activists concluded from their
work

>that similar organization had to be brought into southen working
class white

>communities. Chris Lutz gave a fine paper at the Southern Labor
Studies

>Conference several years back on interracial organizing at the
Masonite

>plant in Mississippi, which brought together black workers and
ex-Klansmen

>in a fight for union recognition. Some northern based labor
unions--most

>notably the UPWA--attempted to use their authority to promote
interracial

>solidarity among their southern black and white members. See Roger
Horowitz'

>excellent treatment of this in his _Negro and White, Unite and
Fight!_.

>

>The tragedy of southern labor history--and of American labor history
more

>generally--lies in DuBois' observation that racism has driven
"such a wedge

>between black and white workers that there are probably not anywhere
two

>groups of workers with practically identical interests who hate and
fear

>each other so deeply and persistently that neither sees anything of
common

>interest." (He hadn't visited Belfast, I take it, but here you
see a very,

>very similar dynamic at work). There is no doubt, I think, that
affirmative

>action has been manipulated by employers, even that it is limited in
terms

>of what it can deliver to working people of any race or either
gender. But

>to the extent that it has broken down segregation in the workplace,
it has

>been an important advance for the labor movement. The larger context
for the

>difficult debate it has given rise to, however, should be kept in
mind. The

>civil rights movement "triumphed", so to speak, at
precisely that moment

>that industrial American began to go into steep decline, when
manufacturing

>jobs were vanishing at a rapid rate. See Judith Stein's very
important

>_Running Steel, Runing America_ for a discussion of this
difficult

>conjuncture and its impact on the labor movement. There are plenty of
good

>reasons for [working class] white males to be angry in America today.
But if

>they conclude that their difficulties are the result of the meager
gains

>that blacks and women have managed to extract from the employers then
they

>will continue repeating the sorry mistakes of the past.

>

>Brian Kelly

>

>This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site
at
http://history=
matters.gmu.edu
for more resources for teaching U.S. History.

> 



--=====================_7556089==_.ALT--

This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 23 Mar 2001 12:04:17 -0500
Reply-To:     Labor History Forum 
Sender:       Labor History Forum 
From:         David Montgomery 
Subject:      Re: American Exceptionalism - a divergent view
In-Reply-To:  <3AB40129.81BD95BA@worldnet.att.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; types="text/plain,text/html";
              boundary="=====================_9629978==_.ALT"

--=====================_9629978==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Thanks to Mark Lause for his fine suggestions on the land question and
workers'
movements.
Let me only add the thought that struggles against alienation from the land
not
only played a central role in working people's struggles to avoid total
dependence on those who owned property for a way to get income and for a place
to live, but also resonated with world-wide struggles against colonial and
racial subjugation. Thus Patrick Ford, militant land reformer editor of The
Irish World and American Industrial Liberator editorialized in furious terms
against the expropriation of the Lakota Indians by the U.S. government and
land
grabbers. Louis Riel framed his defense of the land rights of the Metis in
Canada as a struggle that allied him to the Irish Land League. (See Thomas
Flanagan,  Louis "David" Riel: Prophet of the New World (Toronto, 1996). Las
Goras Blancas, fighting to defend their land in New Mexico against ranchers'
incursion, struck a similar theme. See Robert J. Rosenbaum, Mexicano
Resistance
in the Southwest: "The Sacred Right of Self-Preservation. Moreover, T. Thomas
Fortune, the influential African-American journalist who strongly supported
Henry George for mayor of New York in 1886, had found in George's theory the
key to the defeat and betrayal of Reconstruction. Fortune, Black and White:
Land, Labor, and Politics in the South (New York, 1884).
I discuss this question at some length in my Journal of American History
(March
2001) article, "Racism, Immigrants, and Political Reform."
As Julie Greene reminded us, the international context has always been crucial
for labor historians to consider -- not just today. And land reformers offered
their own important styles of internationalism.
David Montgomery



At 04:28 PM 3/17/01 -0800, you wrote:
>I'd suggest that surveys give some some attention to
>importance of "the land question" in 19th century
>America.  Reformers, including those associated with
>labor and labor reform, largely saw America as
>distinctive because it combined these vast expanses of
>land and resources for potential exploitation with a
>relatively small population.  This ongoing labor
>shortage tended to shape generally higher wages (with
>wild fluctuations from time to time and place to
>place), and the prospect (if not the substance) of
>upward mobility.  Indeed, almost every major 19th
>century proposal to modify the impact of
>industrialization and class polarization in the US
>involved a manipulation of land policy.
>
>Admittedly, we've been neck deep in end-of-the-quarter
>preoccupations here, so I may have missed some of the
>titles suggested here (or worse, passing over some
>titles on a mistaken assumption they've been
>mentioned).  I like to use primary sources, so those
>unfamiliar with Henry George, _Progress and Poverty_
>(originally 1879) should give it a quick read and
>careful thought.  David S. Reynolds compiled a
>regrettably out-of-print anthology of short pieces by
>that antebellum novelist and advocate of land reform,
>_George Lippard, Prophet of Protest: Writings of an
>American Radical, 1822-1854_ (New York, 1986), in
>addition to his biography of _George Lippard_ published
>at the same time.   In addition to Reeve Huston, _Land
>and Freedom_ (New York, 2000), I'd give high priority
>to Jamie L. Bronstein,  _Land Reform and Working-Class
>Experience in Britain and the United States,1800-1862_
>(Stanford, 1999), which directly addresses the matter
>of American distinctiveness in these terms.
>
>I share with Prof. Montgomery an appreciation for Iver
>Bernstein, _The New York Draft Riots of 1863_ (New
>York, 1990), and Grace Palladino, _Another Civil War :
>Labor, Capital, and the State in the Anthracite Regions
>of  Pennsylvania, 1840-68 (Urbana, 1990).  However, I
>question the Civil War-era Democratic argument that
>militant Unionism became a class question.  The miners
>who remained in the anthracite region at the time of
>the war hardly offered a class perspective,
>particularly given the fact that thousands of miners
>absent at the time--like those in the 48th Pennsylvania
>(the regiment that tunneled under Confederate lines at
>Petersburg).  Iver Bernstein's chapters in background
>to the draft riots discussed the movement of the early
>1850s, some participants in which were not rioting
>against the draft in 1863 but were off participating in
>the Gettysburg campaign.   Perhaps this is another way
>of saying that we need to get the ruling class back
>into our consideration, to understand how apologists
>for the status quo get the first and loudest crack at
>intepretting what just happened.  .
>
>In general, the recognition of class was widespread in
>19th century America, but "class" as contemporaries
>would understand and use it. Martin J. Burke, _The
>Conundrum of Class: Public Discourse on the Soical
>Order in America) (Chicago, 1995) provides a good
>introduction to the problem.  The ethnic stratification
>of an emergent working class not only serves as
>something of a substitute for class, but a major means
>by which class is misunderstood by those who use the
>term.  Timothy Messer-Kruse, _The Yankee International
>: Marxism and the American Reform Tradition, 1848-1876_
>(Chapel Hill, 1998) raises interesting questions about
>the extent to which ethnicity warped both the German
>introduction of Marxism into the US and the American
>reception of it.
>
>In closing, I'd add that local studies and case studies
>allow for an understanding how such matters as land,
>political deference and class affected different parts
>of the American experience very differently.  I'd
>advise that everyone on the list regularly take a
>close, hard look at the catalogue of University of
>Illinois titles for an outstanding overview of some of
>the best work being done in nineteenth century American
>labor.
>
>In solidarity,
>Mark Lause
>U of Cincinnati
>
>This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at
http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
>

--=====================_9629978==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


Thanks to Mark Lause for his fine suggestions on the land question and
workers' movements. 

Let me only add the thought that struggles against alienation from the
land not only played a central role in working people's struggles to
avoid total dependence on those who owned property for a way to get
income and for a place to live, but also resonated with world-wide
struggles against colonial and racial subjugation. Thus Patrick Ford,
militant land reformer editor of The Irish World and American
Industrial Liberator editorialized in furious terms against the
expropriation of the Lakota Indians by the U.S. government and land
grabbers. Louis Riel framed his defense of the land rights of the Metis
in Canada as a struggle that allied him to the Irish Land League. (See
Thomas Flanagan,  Louis "David" Riel: Prophet of the New
World (Toronto, 1996). Las Goras Blancas, fighting to defend their
land in New Mexico against ranchers' incursion, struck a similar theme.
See Robert J. Rosenbaum, Mexicano Resistance in the Southwest:
"The Sacred Right of Self-Preservation. Moreover, T. Thomas
Fortune, the influential African-American journalist who strongly
supported Henry George for mayor of New York in 1886, had found in
George's theory the key to the defeat and betrayal of Reconstruction.
Fortune, Black and White: Land, Labor, and Politics in the South
(New York, 1884).

I discuss this question at some length in my Journal of American
History (March 2001) article, "Racism, Immigrants, and Political
Reform." 

As Julie Greene reminded us, the international context has always been
crucial for labor historians to consider -- not just today. And land
reformers offered their own important styles of internationalism.

David Montgomery







At 04:28 PM 3/17/01 -0800, you wrote:

>I'd suggest that surveys give some some attention to

>importance of "the land question" in 19th century

>America.  Reformers, including those associated with

>labor and labor reform, largely saw America as

>distinctive because it combined these vast expanses of

>land and resources for potential exploitation with a

>relatively small population.  This ongoing labor

>shortage tended to shape generally higher wages (with

>wild fluctuations from time to time and place to

>place), and the prospect (if not the substance) of

>upward mobility.  Indeed, almost every major 19th

>century proposal to modify the impact of

>industrialization and class polarization in the US

>involved a manipulation of land policy.

>

>Admittedly, we've been neck deep in end-of-the-quarter

>preoccupations here, so I may have missed some of the

>titles suggested here (or worse, passing over some

>titles on a mistaken assumption they've been

>mentioned).  I like to use primary sources, so those

>unfamiliar with Henry George, _Progress and Poverty_

>(originally 1879) should give it a quick read and

>careful thought.  David S. Reynolds compiled a

>regrettably out-of-print anthology of short pieces by

>that antebellum novelist and advocate of land reform,

>_George Lippard, Prophet of Protest: Writings of an

>American Radical, 1822-1854_ (New York, 1986), in

>addition to his biography of _George Lippard_ published

>at the same time.   In addition to Reeve Huston,=20
_Land

>and Freedom_ (New York, 2000), I'd give high priority

>to Jamie L. Bronstein,  _Land Reform and Working-Class

>Experience in Britain and the United States,1800-1862_

>(Stanford, 1999), which directly addresses the matter

>of American distinctiveness in these terms.

>

>I share with Prof. Montgomery an appreciation for Iver

>Bernstein, _The New York Draft Riots of 1863_ (New

>York, 1990), and Grace Palladino, _Another Civil War :

>Labor, Capital, and the State in the Anthracite Regions

>of  Pennsylvania, 1840-68 (Urbana, 1990).  However, I

>question the Civil War-era Democratic argument that

>militant Unionism became a class question.  The miners

>who remained in the anthracite region at the time of

>the war hardly offered a class perspective,

>particularly given the fact that thousands of miners

>absent at the time--like those in the 48th Pennsylvania

>(the regiment that tunneled under Confederate lines at

>Petersburg).  Iver Bernstein's chapters in background

>to the draft riots discussed the movement of the early

>1850s, some participants in which were not rioting

>against the draft in 1863 but were off participating in

>the Gettysburg campaign.   Perhaps this is another=20
way

>of saying that we need to get the ruling class back

>into our consideration, to understand how apologists

>for the status quo get the first and loudest crack at

>intepretting what just happened.  .

>

>In general, the recognition of class was widespread in

>19th century America, but "class" as contemporaries

>would understand and use it. Martin J. Burke, _The

>Conundrum of Class: Public Discourse on the Soical

>Order in America) (Chicago, 1995) provides a good

>introduction to the problem.  The ethnic stratification

>of an emergent working class not only serves as

>something of a substitute for class, but a major means

>by which class is misunderstood by those who use the

>term.  Timothy Messer-Kruse, _The Yankee International

>: Marxism and the American Reform Tradition, 1848-1876_

>(Chapel Hill, 1998) raises interesting questions about

>the extent to which ethnicity warped both the German

>introduction of Marxism into the US and the American

>reception of it.

>

>In closing, I'd add that local studies and case studies

>allow for an understanding how such matters as land,

>political deference and class affected different parts

>of the American experience very differently.  I'd

>advise that everyone on the list regularly take a

>close, hard look at the catalogue of University of

>Illinois titles for an outstanding overview of some of

>the best work being done in nineteenth century American

>labor.

>

>In solidarity,

>Mark Lause

>U of Cincinnati

>

>This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site
at
http://history=
matters.gmu.edu
for more resources for teaching U.S. History.

> 



--=====================_9629978==_.ALT--

This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 23 Mar 2001 15:25:27 -0500
Reply-To:     Labor History Forum 
Sender:       Labor History Forum 
From:         "Barry, Bill" 
Subject:      Re: American Exceptionalism - a divergent view
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

Dear David et. al
        I am certainly enjoying all of the historical discussion in this
forum, but I would belatedly like to take up one of the original questions:
it was defined as "why is there no socialism in the United States?" This
question slid over to an extended discussion of American exceptionalism.
        I feel that they are two very different questions, and the issue
about socialism gives a volatile and political implication to everyone who
teaches workers history--an issue I call "for what/for whom."
        The "for what" involves a purpose and intention to workers
history--it is not just "another" history but one which advances the workers
cause. Workers learn from their own history, or should; one obvious reason
most schools don't teach workers history is to encourage, in effect, workers
to keep making the same mistakes (racism, sexism--any culture which divides
solidarity.) Having this "for what" in mind really changes how we look at
our own history, and how we present it to others.
        The "for whom" arises when we discuss the presentation. I teach
workers history to rank-and-file workers in labor history classes at a
community/vocational college. Many of them have limited reading levels, and
certainly no real knowledge of their history beyond their own immediate
experience; this personal history is, of course, rich and exciting but
obviously limited, as all personal history is.
        Unfortunately, there are very few books that are available to these
workers. Much of the vocabulary and assumptions presented in labor history
books are way beyond their reading skill and knowledge levels. Most of the
workers history books (certainly the ones I have seen discussed in this
forum) are written for other "historians," so I have to translate, in
effect, the jargon for my students. All of the discussion about what the
workers movement represents is wasted if we don't make these discussions
available to the objects (for that is how they appear)  of our discussions.
My students are very smart, obviously, or they wouldn't have survived to
become union activists, and to look for worker history courses, but we need
to develop material(s) that speak with them, not over them.
        If we can do this, we may solve the question about socialism in the
United States.
Bill Barry
Dundalk (MD) Community College
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Montgomery [SMTP:david.montgomery@YALE.EDU]
> Sent: Friday, March 23, 2001 11:24 AM
> To:   LABORFORUM@ASHP.LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU
> Subject:      Re: American Exceptionalism - a divergent view
>
> I would like to add my own hearty endorsement to the reply by Brian Kelly
> on the relationship of civil rights struggles to labor struggles. Kelly's
> arguments deserve to be read with care.
> Kelly's new book, Race, Class, and Power in the Alabama Coalfields,
> 1908-21 (University of Illinois Press, 2001) explores the activism of both
> black and white miners with great care, and (consistent with Seth
> Wigderson's recent plea to Labor Forum) most clearly and definitely brings
> the employers back in.
> Black workers were often union pioneers and mobilizers of strikes in
> industries where at least some important groups of white workers had a
> stake in existing wage structures and divisions of labor that elevated
> them above their black workmates. Railroads are the most obvious example
> -- the major industrial employer of black workers in the South and
> arguably the most systematically segregated industry in the country. Eric
> Arnesen, Brotherhoods of Color: Black Railroad Workers and the Struggle
> for Equality (Harvard UP, 2001) investigates the many ways in which black
> railroad workers organized themselves and collectively used legal and
> railroad brotherhood structures that were rigged against them to improve
> their conditions, and especially in a relentless battle to keep from being
> driven out of whatever better jobs they did hold (eg., locomotive
> firemen). In the Birmingham area steel industry African Americans were the
> first to rally to the Steel Workers Organizing Committee-CIO during the
> 1930s. As Hosea Hudson once observed, white participants in steel workers
> public rallies for the union were overwhelmingly coal miners, there to
> lend their support.
> Finally, Robert J. Norrell's article "Labor at the Ballot Box: Alabama
> Politics from the New Deal to the Dixiecrat Movement," Journal of Southern
> History 51 (May, 1991), 201-34, shows how important anti-communist
> mobilization by business and government was in minimizing the
> participation of white workers in union., let alone civil rights struggles
> from 1938 to 1948 (the year Strom Thurmond was nominated by the States
> Rights Party and Truman was kept off the ballot in Alabama).
> Horace Huntley strongly reinforces these arguments in "Rise and Fall of
> Mine Mill in Alabama: The Status Quo against Interracial Unionism,"
> Journal of the Birmingham Historical Society, 6 (Jan 1979), 7-13. Not only
> does Huntley show the decisive role of black iron miners in forming the
> union and the companies' policy of systematically hiring whites to
> undermine the union, but he also reveals that the workers savagely beaten
> by Ku Kluxers were most often those whites who stood by the interracial
> solidarity of their union.
>
> David Montgomery
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> At 04:56 PM 3/15/01 +0000, you wrote:
> >I want to respond to some of the points raised in William
> McCaughey'salternative explanation for American exceptionalism. First, I
> think we need
> >to reject popular wisdom about blacks as strikebreakers. It was the labor
> >movement's policy of racial exclusion--often formalized in trade union
> >charters--that handed over to employers a large army of potential
> >strikebreakers. As Warren Whatley argued in a 1993 article, "African
> >American workers living in communities that cushioned them from the
> stigma
> >of scabbing needed very little encouragement, particularly when the
> striking
> >union had a history of racial discrimination." The truly amazing thing,
> >though, is that despite the pervasiveness of white hostility,
> anti-unionism
> >was fairly weak among black workers. In an article published nearly fifty
> >years ago entitled "Were Negroes Strikebreakers?" Ray Ginger showed that
> >despite a long and difficult encounter with organized labor, black
> workers
> >often rejected the strikebreaking role designated for them by employers.
> >Employers very often did attempt to manipulate racial and ethnic
> divisions
> >in order to weaken working class organization, but that tactic developed
> >long before the 1930s and 1940s--at least as far back as the Gilded Age;
> >arguably it played a role in the urban, antebellum slave South. But so
> much
> >of the research done on southern labor in recent years--early articles on
> >the Knights of Labor by Melton McLaurin and Kenneth Kahn, Eric Arnesen's
> >_Waterfront Workers of New Orleans_, Daniel Letwin's _Challenge of
> >Intteracial Unionism_, Mike Honey's _Southern Labor and Black Civil
> Rights_,
> >my own (just published) _Race, Class, and Power in the Alabama
> Coalfields_
> >confirms Ginger's argument, showing 1) that white workers did not have a
> >monopoly on trade union militancy. Often African Americans were at the
> >forefront of struggles for unionism in the South, far more advanced than
> >their white fellow workers; and 2) that blacks had no monopoly on
> >strikebreaking. In the case of Alabama, white union officials often
> >favorably compare the determination of black strikers against the
> proclivity
> >for strikebreaking evident among many whites. I'm not arguing for a
> reversal
> >of William's formulation (ie black strikers/white scabs over white
> strikers/
> >black scabs), but I am saying that the prevailing wisdom is wrong, the
> >reality much, much more complex.
> >
> >The notion that business and the government elite "actively acceded" to
> the
> >demands of the civil rights movement simply cannot be sustained; nor do I
> >see anyone in the Bush administration eagerly "spreading the idea
> >that...women and blacks have legitimate grievances...." The only section
> of
> >society whose grievances they seem to cater to are the corporations that
> >bankrolled their ride to Washington. Ditto for their predecessors. There
> is
> >an argument to be had about the character of the civil rights movement as
> it
> >emerged, and here I think it is possible to be critical of the liberal,
> >middle class, moralistic character (and I don't mean that pejoratively)
> of
> >the main civil rights leadership without falling into the trap of writing
> it
> >off as _the obstacle_ to working class unity, influence, in the US. See,
> for
> >example, Numan Bartley's very fine discussion of these issues in his _New
> >South_, or Glenn Eskew's recent, critical history of the civil rights
> >movement in Alabama, _But for Birmingham_. Both argue that the absence of
> a
> >class perspective in the movement, its single focus on the structures of
> >formal segregation rather than on the economic structures which
> underpinned
> >it (and outlived it), made it impossible for the civil rights movement to
> >reach potential allies in the southern white working class. We might
> extend
> >that to the nation as a whole. I think one has to be careful with this,
> >however. Even armed with an outlook more favorable to raising issues that
> >cut across the racial divide, such a movement would have had a difficult
> >time cutting through the racism that had deep historical roots, and which
> >had been whipped up more recently by segregationists.
> >
> >It should be added that there were examples of labor activists who
> attempted
> >to take the spirit and determination of the civil rights movement into
> labor
> >organizing--indeed at least some SNCC activists concluded from their work
> >that similar organization had to be brought into southen working class
> white
> >communities. Chris Lutz gave a fine paper at the Southern Labor Studies
> >Conference several years back on interracial organizing at the Masonite
> >plant in Mississippi, which brought together black workers and
> ex-Klansmen
> >in a fight for union recognition. Some northern based labor unions--most
> >notably the UPWA--attempted to use their authority to promote interracial
> >solidarity among their southern black and white members. See Roger
> Horowitz'
> >excellent treatment of this in his _Negro and White, Unite and Fight!_.
> >
> >The tragedy of southern labor history--and of American labor history more
> >generally--lies in DuBois' observation that racism has driven "such a
> wedge
> >between black and white workers that there are probably not anywhere two
> >groups of workers with practically identical interests who hate and fear
> >each other so deeply and persistently that neither sees anything of
> common
> >interest." (He hadn't visited Belfast, I take it, but here you see a
> very,
> >very similar dynamic at work). There is no doubt, I think, that
> affirmative
> >action has been manipulated by employers, even that it is limited in
> terms
> >of what it can deliver to working people of any race or either gender.
> But
> >to the extent that it has broken down segregation in the workplace, it
> has
> >been an important advance for the labor movement. The larger context for
> the
> >difficult debate it has given rise to, however, should be kept in mind.
> The
> >civil rights movement "triumphed", so to speak, at precisely that moment
> >that industrial American began to go into steep decline, when
> manufacturing
> >jobs were vanishing at a rapid rate. See Judith Stein's very important
> >_Running Steel, Runing America_ for a discussion of this difficult
> >conjuncture and its impact on the labor movement. There are plenty of
> good
> >reasons for [working class] white males to be angry in America today. But
> if
> >they conclude that their difficulties are the result of the meager gains
> >that blacks and women have managed to extract from the employers then
> they
> >will continue repeating the sorry mistakes of the past.
> >
> >Brian Kelly
> >
> >This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at
>  for more resources for teaching U.S.
> History.
> >
>

This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 24 Mar 2001 13:35:22 -0500
Reply-To:     Labor History Forum 
Sender:       Labor History Forum 
From:         David Montgomery 
Subject:      Re: American Exceptionalism - a divergent view
In-Reply-To:  <1BEAC25E1748D311B7160008C791218389009A@CCBC-DE>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; types="text/plain,text/html";
              boundary="=====================_10300022==_.ALT"

--=====================_10300022==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

There are two important parts to Bill Barry''s inquiry. Let me just answer one
of them now, because it involves information of importance to everyone who
teaches labor history at community college, k-12, or union study classes. The
question is: how to find readable literature ?
The California Federation of Teachers has published a resource guide for
teachers, entitled Bringing Labor into the k-12 Curriculum. It includes lesson
plans, videotapes, internet resources, lists of ememplary labor in the schools
programs elsewhere in the country and readings arranged by school level
(elementary school, middle school, high school, and teacher readings. Of
course
the labor history is oriented toward the Pacific Coast (no harm in that) but
much of it deals with other parts of the US. The CFT has copies which it is
happy to share with teachers around the land.
Write to:
Fred Glass, Communications Director
California Federation of Teachers
One Kaiser Plaza, Suite 1440
Oakland, California  94612

or phone 510/832-8812

David Montgomery







At 03:25 PM 3/23/01 -0500, you wrote:
>Dear David et. al
>        I am certainly enjoying all of the historical discussion in this
>forum, but I would belatedly like to take up one of the original questions:
>it was defined as "why is there no socialism in the United States?" This
>question slid over to an extended discussion of American exceptionalism.
>        I feel that they are two very different questions, and the issue
>about socialism gives a volatile and political implication to everyone who
>teaches workers history--an issue I call "for what/for whom."
>        The "for what" involves a purpose and intention to workers
>history--it is not just "another" history but one which advances the workers
>cause. Workers learn from their own history, or should; one obvious reason
>most schools don't teach workers history is to encourage, in effect, workers
>to keep making the same mistakes (racism, sexism--any culture which divides
>solidarity.) Having this "for what" in mind really changes how we look at
>our own history, and how we present it to others.
>        The "for whom" arises when we discuss the presentation. I teach
>workers history to rank-and-file workers in labor history classes at a
>community/vocational college. Many of them have limited reading levels, and
>certainly no real knowledge of their history beyond their own immediate
>experience; this personal history is, of course, rich and exciting but
>obviously limited, as all personal history is.
>        Unfortunately, there are very few books that are available to these
>workers. Much of the vocabulary and assumptions presented in labor history
>books are way beyond their reading skill and knowledge levels. Most of the
>workers history books (certainly the ones I have seen discussed in this
>forum) are written for other "historians," so I have to translate, in
>effect, the jargon for my students. All of the discussion about what the
>workers movement represents is wasted if we don't make these discussions
>available to the objects (for that is how they appear)  of our discussions.
>My students are very smart, obviously, or they wouldn't have survived to
>become union activists, and to look for worker history courses, but we need
>to develop material(s) that speak with them, not over them.
>        If we can do this, we may solve the question about socialism in the
>United States.
>Bill Barry
>Dundalk (MD) Community College
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: David Montgomery [SMTP:david.montgomery@YALE.EDU]
>> Sent: Friday, March 23, 2001 11:24 AM
>> To:   LABORFORUM@ASHP.LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU
>> Subject:      Re: American Exceptionalism - a divergent view
>>
>> I would like to add my own hearty endorsement to the reply by Brian Kelly
>> on the relationship of civil rights struggles to labor struggles. Kelly's
>> arguments deserve to be read with care.
>> Kelly's new book, Race, Class, and Power in the Alabama Coalfields,
>> 1908-21 (University of Illinois Press, 2001) explores the activism of both
>> black and white miners with great care, and (consistent with Seth
>> Wigderson's recent plea to Labor Forum) most clearly and definitely brings
>> the employers back in.
>> Black workers were often union pioneers and mobilizers of strikes in
>> industries where at least some important groups of white workers had a
>> stake in existing wage structures and divisions of labor that elevated
>> them above their black workmates. Railroads are the most obvious example
>> -- the major industrial employer of black workers in the South and
>> arguably the most systematically segregated industry in the country. Eric
>> Arnesen, Brotherhoods of Color: Black Railroad Workers and the Struggle
>> for Equality (Harvard UP, 2001) investigates the many ways in which black
>> railroad workers organized themselves and collectively used legal and
>> railroad brotherhood structures that were rigged against them to improve
>> their conditions, and especially in a relentless battle to keep from being
>> driven out of whatever better jobs they did hold (eg., locomotive
>> firemen). In the Birmingham area steel industry African Americans were the
>> first to rally to the Steel Workers Organizing Committee-CIO during the
>> 1930s. As Hosea Hudson once observed, white participants in steel workers
>> public rallies for the union were overwhelmingly coal miners, there to
>> lend their support.
>> Finally, Robert J. Norrell's article "Labor at the Ballot Box: Alabama
>> Politics from the New Deal to the Dixiecrat Movement," Journal of Southern
>> History 51 (May, 1991), 201-34, shows how important anti-communist
>> mobilization by business and government was in minimizing the
>> participation of white workers in union., let alone civil rights struggles
>> from 1938 to 1948 (the year Strom Thurmond was nominated by the States
>> Rights Party and Truman was kept off the ballot in Alabama).
>> Horace Huntley strongly reinforces these arguments in "Rise and Fall of
>> Mine Mill in Alabama: The Status Quo against Interracial Unionism,"
>> Journal of the Birmingham Historical Society, 6 (Jan 1979), 7-13. Not only
>> does Huntley show the decisive role of black iron miners in forming the
>> union and the companies' policy of systematically hiring whites to
>> undermine the union, but he also reveals that the workers savagely beaten
>> by Ku Kluxers were most often those whites who stood by the interracial
>> solidarity of their union.
>>
>> David Montgomery
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> At 04:56 PM 3/15/01 +0000, you wrote:
>> >I want to respond to some of the points raised in William
>> McCaughey'salternative explanation for American exceptionalism. First, I
>> think we need
>> >to reject popular wisdom about blacks as strikebreakers. It was the labor
>> >movement's policy of racial exclusion--often formalized in trade union
>> >charters--that handed over to employers a large army of potential
>> >strikebreakers. As Warren Whatley argued in a 1993 article, "African
>> >American workers living in communities that cushioned them from the
>> stigma
>> >of scabbing needed very little encouragement, particularly when the
>> striking
>> >union had a history of racial discrimination." The truly amazing thing,
>> >though, is that despite the pervasiveness of white hostility,
>> anti-unionism
>> >was fairly weak among black workers. In an article published nearly fifty
>> >years ago entitled "Were Negroes Strikebreakers?" Ray Ginger showed that
>> >despite a long and difficult encounter with organized labor, black
>> workers
>> >often rejected the strikebreaking role designated for them by employers.
>> >Employers very often did attempt to manipulate racial and ethnic
>> divisions
>> >in order to weaken working class organization, but that tactic developed
>> >long before the 1930s and 1940s--at least as far back as the Gilded Age;
>> >arguably it played a role in the urban, antebellum slave South. But so
>> much
>> >of the research done on southern labor in recent years--early articles on
>> >the Knights of Labor by Melton McLaurin and Kenneth Kahn, Eric Arnesen's
>> >_Waterfront Workers of New Orleans_, Daniel Letwin's _Challenge of
>> >Intteracial Unionism_, Mike Honey's _Southern Labor and Black Civil
>> Rights_,
>> >my own (just published) _Race, Class, and Power in the Alabama
>> Coalfields_
>> >confirms Ginger's argument, showing 1) that white workers did not have a
>> >monopoly on trade union militancy. Often African Americans were at the
>> >forefront of struggles for unionism in the South, far more advanced than
>> >their white fellow workers; and 2) that blacks had no monopoly on
>> >strikebreaking. In the case of Alabama, white union officials often
>> >favorably compare the determination of black strikers against the
>> proclivity
>> >for strikebreaking evident among many whites. I'm not arguing for a
>> reversal
>> >of William's formulation (ie black strikers/white scabs over white
>> strikers/
>> >black scabs), but I am saying that the prevailing wisdom is wrong, the
>> >reality much, much more complex.
>> >
>> >The notion that business and the government elite "actively acceded" to
>> the
>> >demands of the civil rights movement simply cannot be sustained; nor do I
>> >see anyone in the Bush administration eagerly "spreading the idea
>> >that...women and blacks have legitimate grievances...." The only section
>> of
>> >society whose grievances they seem to cater to are the corporations that
>> >bankrolled their ride to Washington. Ditto for their predecessors. There
>> is
>> >an argument to be had about the character of the civil rights movement as
>> it
>> >emerged, and here I think it is possible to be critical of the liberal,
>> >middle class, moralistic character (and I don't mean that pejoratively)
>> of
>> >the main civil rights leadership without falling into the trap of writing
>> it
>> >off as _the obstacle_ to working class unity, influence, in the US. See,
>> for
>> >example, Numan Bartley's very fine discussion of these issues in his _New
>> >South_, or Glenn Eskew's recent, critical history of the civil rights
>> >movement in Alabama, _But for Birmingham_. Both argue that the absence of
>> a
>> >class perspective in the movement, its single focus on the structures of
>> >formal segregation rather than on the economic structures which
>> underpinned
>> >it (and outlived it), made it impossible for the civil rights movement to
>> >reach potential allies in the southern white working class. We might
>> extend
>> >that to the nation as a whole. I think one has to be careful with this,
>> >however. Even armed with an outlook more favorable to raising issues that
>> >cut across the racial divide, such a movement would have had a difficult
>> >time cutting through the racism that had deep historical roots, and which
>> >had been whipped up more recently by segregationists.
>> >
>> >It should be added that there were examples of labor activists who
>> attempted
>> >to take the spirit and determination of the civil rights movement into
>> labor
>> >organizing--indeed at least some SNCC activists concluded from their work
>> >that similar organization had to be brought into southen working class
>> white
>> >communities. Chris Lutz gave a fine paper at the Southern Labor Studies
>> >Conference several years back on interracial organizing at the Masonite
>> >plant in Mississippi, which brought together black workers and
>> ex-Klansmen
>> >in a fight for union recognition. Some northern based labor unions--most
>> >notably the UPWA--attempted to use their authority to promote interracial
>> >solidarity among their southern black and white members. See Roger
>> Horowitz'
>> >excellent treatment of this in his _Negro and White, Unite and Fight!_.
>> >
>> >The tragedy of southern labor history--and of American labor history more
>> >generally--lies in DuBois' observation that racism has driven "such a
>> wedge
>> >between black and white workers that there are probably not anywhere two
>> >groups of workers with practically identical interests who hate and fear
>> >each other so deeply and persistently that neither sees anything of
>> common
>> >interest." (He hadn't visited Belfast, I take it, but here you see a
>> very,
>> >very similar dynamic at work). There is no doubt, I think, that
>> affirmative
>> >action has been manipulated by employers, even that it is limited in
>> terms
>> >of what it can deliver to working people of any race or either gender.
>> But
>> >to the extent that it has broken down segregation in the workplace, it
>> has
>> >been an important advance for the labor movement. The larger context for
>> the
>> >difficult debate it has given rise to, however, should be kept in mind.
>> The
>> >civil rights movement "triumphed", so to speak, at precisely that moment
>> >that industrial American began to go into steep decline, when
>> manufacturing
>> >jobs were vanishing at a rapid rate. See Judith Stein's very important
>> >_Running Steel, Runing America_ for a discussion of this difficult
>> >conjuncture and its impact on the labor movement. There are plenty of
>> good
>> >reasons for [working class] white males to be angry in America today. But
>> if
>> >they conclude that their difficulties are the result of the meager gains
>> >that blacks and women have managed to extract from the employers then
>> they
>> >will continue repeating the sorry mistakes of the past.
>> >
>> >Brian Kelly
>> >
>> >This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at
>>  for more resources for teaching U.S.
>> History.
>> >
>>
>
>This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at
http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
>

--=====================_10300022==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"


There are two important parts to Bill Barry''s inquiry. Let me just
answer one of them now, because it involves information of importance to
everyone who teaches labor history at community college, k-12, or union
study classes. The question is: how to find readable literature ?

The California Federation of Teachers has published a resource guide for
teachers, entitled Bringing Labor into the k-12 Curriculum. It
includes lesson plans, videotapes, internet resources, lists of ememplary
labor in the schools programs elsewhere in the country and readings
arranged by school level (elementary school, middle school, high school,
and teacher readings. Of course the labor history is oriented toward the
Pacific Coast (no harm in that) but much of it deals with other parts of
the US. The CFT has copies which it is happy to share with teachers
around the land.

Write to: 

Fred Glass, Communications Director

California Federation of Teachers

One Kaiser Plaza, Suite 1440

Oakland, California  94612



or phone 510/832-8812



David Montgomery















At 03:25 PM 3/23/01 -0500, you wrote:

>Dear David et. al

>        I am certainly enjoying
all of the historical discussion in this

>forum, but I would belatedly like to take up one of the original
questions:

>it was defined as "why is there no socialism in the United
States?" This

>question slid over to an extended discussion of American
exceptionalism.

>        I feel that they are two
very different questions, and the issue

>about socialism gives a volatile and political implication to
everyone who

>teaches workers history--an issue I call "for what/for
whom."

>        The "for what"
involves a purpose and intention to workers

>history--it is not just "another" history but one which
advances the workers

>cause. Workers learn from their own history, or should; one obvious
reason

>most schools don't teach workers history is to encourage, in effect,
workers

>to keep making the same mistakes (racism, sexism--any culture which
divides

>solidarity.) Having this "for what" in mind really changes
how we look at

>our own history, and how we present it to others.

>        The "for whom"
arises when we discuss the presentation. I teach

>workers history to rank-and-file workers in labor history classes at
a

>community/vocational college. Many of them have limited reading
levels, and

>certainly no real knowledge of their history beyond their own
immediate

>experience; this personal history is, of course, rich and exciting
but

>obviously limited, as all personal history is.

>        Unfortunately, there are
very few books that are available to these

>workers. Much of the vocabulary and assumptions presented in labor
history

>books are way beyond their reading skill and knowledge levels. Most
of the

>workers history books (certainly the ones I have seen discussed in
this

>forum) are written for other "historians," so I have to
translate, in

>effect, the jargon for my students. All of the discussion about what
the

>workers movement represents is wasted if we don't make these
discussions

>available to the objects (for that is how they appear)  of our
discussions.

>My students are very smart, obviously, or they wouldn't have survived
to

>become union activists, and to look for worker history courses, but
we need

>to develop material(s) that speak with them, not over them.

>        If we can do this, we may
solve the question about socialism in the

>United States.

>Bill Barry

>Dundalk (MD) Community College

>> -----Original Message-----

>> From: David Montgomery [SMTP:david.montgomery@YALE.EDU]

>> Sent: Friday, March 23, 2001 11:24 AM

>> To:   LABORFORUM@ASHP.LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU

>> Subject:      Re: American
Exceptionalism - a divergent view

>>

>> I would like to add my own hearty endorsement to the reply by
Brian Kelly

>> on the relationship of civil rights struggles to labor
struggles. Kelly's

>> arguments deserve to be read with care.

>> Kelly's new book, Race, Class, and Power in the Alabama
Coalfields,

>> 1908-21 (University of Illinois Press, 2001) explores the
activism of both

>> black and white miners with great care, and (consistent with
Seth

>> Wigderson's recent plea to Labor Forum) most clearly and
definitely brings

>> the employers back in.

>> Black workers were often union pioneers and mobilizers of
strikes in

>> industries where at least some important groups of white workers
had a

>> stake in existing wage structures and divisions of labor that
elevated

>> them above their black workmates. Railroads are the most obvious
example

>> -- the major industrial employer of black workers in the South
and

>> arguably the most systematically segregated industry in the
country. Eric

>> Arnesen, Brotherhoods of Color: Black Railroad Workers and the
Struggle

>> for Equality (Harvard UP, 2001) investigates the many ways in
which black

>> railroad workers organized themselves and collectively used
legal and

>> railroad brotherhood structures that were rigged against them to
improve

>> their conditions, and especially in a relentless battle to keep
from being

>> driven out of whatever better jobs they did hold (eg.,
locomotive

>> firemen). In the Birmingham area steel industry African
Americans were the

>> first to rally to the Steel Workers Organizing Committee-CIO
during the

>> 1930s. As Hosea Hudson once observed, white participants in
steel workers

>> public rallies for the union were overwhelmingly coal miners,
there to

>> lend their support.

>> Finally, Robert J. Norrell's article "Labor at the Ballot
Box: Alabama

>> Politics from the New Deal to the Dixiecrat Movement,"
Journal of Southern

>> History 51 (May, 1991), 201-34, shows how important
anti-communist

>> mobilization by business and government was in minimizing
the

>> participation of white workers in union., let alone civil rights
struggles

>> from 1938 to 1948 (the year Strom Thurmond was nominated by the
States

>> Rights Party and Truman was kept off the ballot in
Alabama).

>> Horace Huntley strongly reinforces these arguments in "Rise
and Fall of

>> Mine Mill in Alabama: The Status Quo against Interracial
Unionism,"

>> Journal of the Birmingham Historical Society, 6 (Jan 1979),
7-13. Not only

>> does Huntley show the decisive role of black iron miners in
forming the

>> union and the companies' policy of systematically hiring whites
to

>> undermine the union, but he also reveals that the workers
savagely beaten

>> by Ku Kluxers were most often those whites who stood by the
interracial

>> solidarity of their union.

>>

>> David Montgomery

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>> At 04:56 PM 3/15/01 +0000, you wrote:

>> >I want to respond to some of the points raised in
William

>> McCaughey'salternative explanation for American exceptionalism.
First, I

>> think we need

>> >to reject popular wisdom about blacks as strikebreakers. It
was the labor

>> >movement's policy of racial exclusion--often formalized in
trade union

>> >charters--that handed over to employers a large army of
potential

>> >strikebreakers. As Warren Whatley argued in a 1993 article,
"African

>> >American workers living in communities that cushioned them
from the

>> stigma

>> >of scabbing needed very little encouragement, particularly
when the

>> striking

>> >union had a history of racial discrimination." The
truly amazing thing,

>> >though, is that despite the pervasiveness of white
hostility,

>> anti-unionism

>> >was fairly weak among black workers. In an article published
nearly fifty

>> >years ago entitled "Were Negroes Strikebreakers?"
Ray Ginger showed that

>> >despite a long and difficult encounter with organized labor,
black

>> workers

>> >often rejected the strikebreaking role designated for them
by employers.

>> >Employers very often did attempt to manipulate racial and
ethnic

>> divisions

>> >in order to weaken working class organization, but that
tactic developed

>> >long before the 1930s and 1940s--at least as far back as the
Gilded Age;

>> >arguably it played a role in the urban, antebellum slave
South. But so

>> much

>> >of the research done on southern labor in recent
years--early articles on

>> >the Knights of Labor by Melton McLaurin and Kenneth Kahn,
Eric Arnesen's

>> >_Waterfront Workers of New Orleans_, Daniel Letwin's
_Challenge of

>> >Intteracial Unionism_, Mike Honey's _Southern Labor and
Black Civil

>> Rights_,

>> >my own (just published) _Race, Class, and Power in the
Alabama

>> Coalfields_

>> >confirms Ginger's argument, showing 1) that white workers
did not have a

>> >monopoly on trade union militancy. Often African Americans
were at the

>> >forefront of struggles for unionism in the South, far more
advanced than

>> >their white fellow workers; and 2) that blacks had no
monopoly on

>> >strikebreaking. In the case of Alabama, white union
officials often

>> >favorably compare the determination of black strikers
against the

>> proclivity

>> >for strikebreaking evident among many whites. I'm not
arguing for a

>> reversal

>> >of William's formulation (ie black strikers/white scabs over
white

>> strikers/

>> >black scabs), but I am saying that the prevailing wisdom is
wrong, the

>> >reality much, much more complex.

>> >

>> >The notion that business and the government elite
"actively acceded" to

>> the

>> >demands of the civil rights movement simply cannot be
sustained; nor do I

>> >see anyone in the Bush administration eagerly
"spreading the idea

>> >that...women and blacks have legitimate grievances...."
The only section

>> of

>> >society whose grievances they seem to cater to are the
corporations that

>> >bankrolled their ride to Washington. Ditto for their
predecessors. There

>> is

>> >an argument to be had about the character of the civil
rights movement as

>> it

>> >emerged, and here I think it is possible to be critical of
the liberal,

>> >middle class, moralistic character (and I don't mean that
pejoratively)

>> of

>> >the main civil rights leadership without falling into the
trap of writing

>> it

>> >off as _the obstacle_ to working class unity, influence, in
the US. See,

>> for

>> >example, Numan Bartley's very fine discussion of these
issues in his _New

>> >South_, or Glenn Eskew's recent, critical history of the
civil rights

>> >movement in Alabama, _But for Birmingham_. Both argue that
the absence of

>> a

>> >class perspective in the movement, its single focus on the
structures of

>> >formal segregation rather than on the economic structures
which

>> underpinned

>> >it (and outlived it), made it impossible for the civil
rights movement to

>> >reach potential allies in the southern white working class.
We might

>> extend

>> >that to the nation as a whole. I think one has to be careful
with this,

>> >however. Even armed with an outlook more favorable to
raising issues that

>> >cut across the racial divide, such a movement would have had
a difficult

>> >time cutting through the racism that had deep historical
roots, and which

>> >had been whipped up more recently by segregationists.

>> >

>> >It should be added that there were examples of labor
activists who

>> attempted

>> >to take the spirit and determination of the civil rights
movement into

>> labor

>> >organizing--indeed at least some SNCC activists concluded
from their work

>> >that similar organization had to be brought into southen
working class

>> white

>> >communities. Chris Lutz gave a fine paper at the Southern
Labor Studies

>> >Conference several years back on interracial organizing at
the Masonite

>> >plant in Mississippi, which brought together black workers
and

>> ex-Klansmen

>> >in a fight for union recognition. Some northern based labor
unions--most

>> >notably the UPWA--attempted to use their authority to
promote interracial

>> >solidarity among their southern black and white members. See
Roger

>> Horowitz'

>> >excellent treatment of this in his _Negro and White, Unite
and Fight!_.

>> >

>> >The tragedy of southern labor history--and of American labor
history more

>> >generally--lies in DuBois' observation that racism has
driven "such a

>> wedge

>> >between black and white workers that there are probably not
anywhere two

>> >groups of workers with practically identical interests who
hate and fear

>> >each other so deeply and persistently that neither sees
anything of

>> common

>> >interest." (He hadn't visited Belfast, I take it, but
here you see a

>> very,

>> >very similar dynamic at work). There is no doubt, I think,
that

>> affirmative

>> >action has been manipulated by employers, even that it is
limited in

>> terms

>> >of what it can deliver to working people of any race or
either gender.

>> But

>> >to the extent that it has broken down segregation in the
workplace, it

>> has

>> >been an important advance for the labor movement. The larger
context for

>> the

>> >difficult debate it has given rise to, however, should be
kept in mind.

>> The

>> >civil rights movement "triumphed", so to speak, at
precisely that moment

>> >that industrial American began to go into steep decline,
when

>> manufacturing

>> >jobs were vanishing at a rapid rate. See Judith Stein's very
important

>> >_Running Steel, Runing America_ for a discussion of this
difficult

>> >conjuncture and its impact on the labor movement. There are
plenty of

>> good

>> >reasons for [working class] white males to be angry in
America today. But

>> if

>> >they conclude that their difficulties are the result of the
meager gains

>> >that blacks and women have managed to extract from the
employers then

>> they

>> >will continue repeating the sorry mistakes of the
past.

>> >

>> >Brian Kelly

>> >

>> >This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our
Web site at

>>
<http://historymatters.gmu.edu/>
for more resources for teaching U.S.

>> History.

>> >

>>

>

>This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site
at
http://historymatters.gmu.edu
for more resources for teaching U.S. History.

> 



--=====================_10300022==_.ALT--

This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 24 Mar 2001 10:29:26 EST
Reply-To:     Labor History Forum 
Sender:       Labor History Forum 
From:         Candace Jackson Gray 
Subject:      Birmingham
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
              boundary="part1_c9.e4bc9fa.27ee1756_boundary"

--part1_c9.e4bc9fa.27ee1756_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Just a quick note. A recent visit to the Birmingham Civil Rights Museum made
us realize the importance of the steel industry to Civil Rights. The Museum
and the volunteers (some of them children in the marches) have pulled these
two ideas together. This enabled me to tie in labor, civil rights and
communist influence for African Americans in my classes (albeit Richard
Wright)

Candace Jackson Gray
Social Science teacher
Pheba, Mississippi

--part1_c9.e4bc9fa.27ee1756_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Just a quick note. A recent visit to the Birmingham Civil Rights Museum made

us realize the importance of the steel industry to Civil Rights. The Museum

and the volunteers (some of them children in the marches) have pulled these

two ideas together. This enabled me to tie in labor, civil rights and

communist influence for African Americans in my classes (albeit Richard

Wright)



Candace Jackson Gray

Social Science teacher

Pheba, Mississippi

--part1_c9.e4bc9fa.27ee1756_boundary--

This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 24 Mar 2001 14:10:11 -0500
Reply-To:     Labor History Forum 
Sender:       Labor History Forum 
From:         Jeannette Gabriel 
Subject:      Readable Labor History
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed

Dear David and all,

I am wondering if anyone know of labor history materials in other languages,
particularly Spanish.  I have helped developed an Immigrant Workers History
Project in NYC and am giving labor history classes at immigrant workers
centers.  We are constantly searching for materials that we can use with
non-English speaking workers.  I have seen a copy of Labor's Untold Story in
Spanish but I don't know how to get more.  And of course any other ideas
would be greatly appreciated.

In solidarity,
Jeannette Gabriel


_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 24 Mar 2001 14:49:14 -0500
Reply-To:     Labor History Forum 
Sender:       Labor History Forum 
From:         David Montgomery 
Subject:      Re: Birmingham
In-Reply-To:  
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; types="text/plain,text/html";
              boundary="=====================_14731842==_.ALT"

--=====================_14731842==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Thanks to Candace Jackson Gray for drawing our attention to the Birmingham
Civil Rights Institute. The collection of hundreds of interviews that can be
found there is of great value to historians. Moreover, the Institute has
already made many of the interviews accessible to students and other
researchers who visit it. They include not only steel workers, but also many
coal miners, iron miners, packinghouse workers, post office workers, household
workers, Greyhound Bus Terminal workers, L & N railroad workers, and
others. In
other words, in Birmingham one can find very important testimony concerning
the
role of workers in civil rights struggles, long before and well after the
great
events of 1963.
Dr. Horace Huntley, who conducted many of these interviews, is currently
editing them for publication. The book will have separate seelections of
interviews edited by different people: Robin Kelley on foot soldiers,
Clayborne
Carson on ministers and religion, Rose Masey on students, Robert Corley on
white responses, Linda Reed on professionals, and me on labor.
David Montgomery




At 10:29 AM 3/24/01 -0500, you wrote:
>
> Just a quick note. A recent visit to the Birmingham Civil Rights Museum
made
> us realize the importance of the steel industry to Civil Rights. The Museum
> and the volunteers (some of them children in the marches) have pulled these
> two ideas together. This enabled me to tie in labor, civil rights and
> communist influence for African Americans in my classes (albeit Richard
> Wright)
>
> Candace Jackson Gray
> Social Science teacher
> Pheba, Mississippi




--=====================_14731842==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"


Thanks to Candace Jackson Gray for drawing our attention to the
Birmingham Civil Rights Institute. The collection of hundreds of
interviews that can be found there is of great value to historians.
Moreover, the Institute has already made many of the interviews
accessible to students and other researchers who visit it. They include
not only steel workers, but also many coal miners, iron miners,
packinghouse workers, post office workers, household workers, Greyhound
Bus Terminal workers, L & N railroad workers, and others. In other
words, in Birmingham one can find very important testimony concerning the
role of workers in civil rights struggles, long before and well after the
great events of 1963.

Dr. Horace Huntley, who conducted many of these interviews, is currently
editing them for publication. The book will have separate seelections
of  interviews edited by different people: Robin Kelley on foot
soldiers, Clayborne Carson on ministers and religion, Rose Masey on
students, Robert Corley on white responses, Linda Reed on professionals,
and me on labor. 

David Montgomery









At 10:29 AM 3/24/01 -0500, you wrote: 

Just a quick note. A
recent visit to the Birmingham Civil Rights Museum made 

us realize the importance of the steel industry to Civil Rights. The
Museum 

and the volunteers (some of them children in the marches) have pulled
these 

two ideas together. This enabled me to tie in labor, civil rights and


communist influence for African Americans in my classes (albeit Richard


Wright) 



Candace Jackson Gray 

Social Science teacher 

Pheba, Mississippi 






--=====================_14731842==_.ALT--

This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 24 Mar 2001 15:21:43 -0500
Reply-To:     Labor History Forum 
Sender:       Labor History Forum 
From:         WILLIAM MCGAUGHEY 
Subject:      response to comments: American exceptionalism - a divergent view
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable

I want to thank those who have responded to my message, =B3American
Exceptionalism - a divergent view=B2.  Let me try to respond to the
criticisms.

First, my message was posted in the context of a discussion of =B3American
exceptionalism=B2.  Perhaps the issue could be stated:  Why is U.S. society s=
o
singularly lacking in working-class solidarity?  Why has organized labor
failed to sign up as large a percentage of the private-sector labor force a=
s
it had forty or fifty years ago?  Why is there so little resistance to poor
leadership in our society=B9s major institutions?

In considering an answer to that question, one notes that the United States
is the world=B9s preeminent multi-racial society.  There has been a long
history of racial hostility in this country - now extended to gender
hostility and to other kinds of social divisions.  The Civil Rights movemen=
t
of the 1950s brought in a kind of orthodox thinking on these subjects.  It
is sometimes called =B3political correctness.=B2  =B3Political correctness=B2 has
teeth in it.  It means that if you express the wrong opinion on certain
subjects, you may lose your job.  You are no longer able to think freely or=
,
least least, express your thoughts freely without experiencing retaliation,
ostracism, and other negative consequences.  ( I am willing to do this
because I am personally immune from being fired.  I really did not expect
any of you to be foolish enough to join me.)

Racial tensions have been with us as a society for a long time but the
orthodoxy of thought that has appeared in the aftermath of the Civil Rights
movement is of recent vintage.  Somehow it roughly coincides with the
decline of the labor movement and the increased docility of the general
public in the face of inadequate or abusive leadership.  That is why I
raised the issue of a possible connection between these two events.

The relevance to organized labor is obvious:  Labor is based on the
principle of solidarity.  The working people, the little people, have to be
reasonably united if they are to stand up effectively to the boss.  If the
little people start fighting among themselves, their cause is doomed.  If
black people start fighting white people and while people fight blacks, if
men start fighting women and women fight men, then there is division in the
ranks.  This side will surely lose.  That is why it is to the advantage of
the corporate elite to promote divisions based on demographic factors.  I
think it indisputable that such divisions exist.  These divisions could
account for much of the decline of the labor movement and, indeed, the
general demoralization of the public.

I think that good leadership can stand on its own feet.  Poor leadership
cannot; it needs to keep the followers weak and demoralized.  I believe tha=
t
we in this country have grown accustomed to accepting terrible leadership -
corporate executives who loot the organizations that they manage by
excessive compensation, politicians essentially bribed by special interests=
,
professionals who gouge the public, media which distort the truth, etc. etc=
.
 Why do people stand for this?  I have proposed one reason.

The question is whether the corporate elite - which includes leadership in
many other types of organizations than just business - actively supports
affirmative action and the various other kinds of racial/ gender support
programs that exist today.  I think so.  The question is also whether the
white males who make up corporate leadership show any degree of solidarity
with the white males in lower ranks within their organizations.  I think
not.  Then why define them as a group?  Let=B9s have a discussion of this in
the context of American exceptionalism.

With respect to Mark Lause=B9s comments, the focus seems to be on affirmative
action, as if I suggested that the theory of affirmative action was
identical to its practice.  Of course, it is not.  The idea that
upper-echelon faculty apply affirmative-action principles rigorously to the
low-status sectors of faculty, while exempting themselves, seems to me to
support my point, not discredit it.  But the theory of affirmative action i=
s
bad enough; it is institutionalized unequal treatment of various individual=
s
under theories of group guilt.  Don=B9t tell me that this is OK because
certain persons have benefited from the policy unless you are willing to
look also at the persons who were hurt by it.  And don=B9t tell me that skin
color is a good reason for distinguishing between the rights and just
expectations of individuals, saying that it simply doesn=B9t matter what
happens to those in the disfavored groups.  Equal means equal - no ifs,
ands, or buts.  Affirmative action doesn=B9t cut it.

I think that some of the comments implied that I thought black people were
disloyal to the labor movement, or that black workers functioned generally
as strikebreakers, etc.  That was certainly not my point.  Neither did I sa=
y
or imply that the Civil Rights movement was out to derail the labor
movement.  When Martin Luther King was killed while in Memphis to aid a
sanitation worker=B9s strike, such as statement would be absurd.  There were
strong links between labor and the Civil Rights movement of the 1950s and
1960s.  But, at the same time, to elevate race consciousness means that
certain other kinds of consciousnesses will be lowered.  The public cannot
pay attention to too many different things at a time.

With respect to David Montgomery=B9s comments, I would take exception to his
statement, =B3to say the civil rights derailed the labor movement is, among
other errors, to think that history began after World War II.=B2  Now, of
course, I don=B9t think that history began after World War II.  I really fail
to see the relevance of this remark to my argument.  If there was a decline
in labor solidarity in recent decades, it is surely appropriate to look at
conditions existing in recent decades to try to find a possible explanation=
.
 Of course, racial animosities have existed for a long time; but political
correctness has not.  It is the intensity of race consciousness which
counts, especially insofar as it has solidified into an official creed.

I also object to the phrase =B3among other errors=B2.  When people express
different opinions, that does not mean that one of them is guilty of an
error.  I think you need to explain yourself.

Also, the statement is made:  =B3No one who was active in the labor movement
in the 1950s could accept the idea that all opposition to civil rights had
disappeared, except that of southern segregationists.=B2  I did not say =B3all=B2
opposition.  I said, =B3apart from southern segregationists, there was no
effective opposition to the Civil Rights movement.=B2  One can also argue tha=
t
opposition from the southern segregationists was not effective.  When
President Eisenhower sent in federal troops to integrate the schools of
Little Rock, it was fairly clear which side had won.

This may be enough response to the criticism.  I want to thank Joe Berry fo=
r
writing =B3This is not to say that everything in the first post was wrong.=B2
Also, thanks to Brian Kelly for writing =B3Employers very often did attempt t=
o
manipulate racial and ethnic divisions in order to weaken working class
organization ...=B2  I do disagree, however, with his later statement =B3the
notion that business and the government elite =8Cactively acceded=B9 to the
demands of the civil rights movement simply cannot be sustained.=B2  If you
want to attack me, you can do it there.  Yes, I do claim that the Civil
Rights movement had the general support of the business and government
elite.  What the new Bush administration has in mind is beyond my range of
speculation.  Thanks again to all who commented.

William McGaughey

This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 26 Mar 2001 13:21:25 -0500
Reply-To:     Labor History Forum 
Sender:       Labor History Forum 
From:         "Barry, Bill" 
Subject:      Re: Readable Labor History
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

Jeanette--one activity that I always use in a workers history project is to
have each learner give a term project on his/her own "labor" history. It is
the high point of each class, and gives the workers a sense of their own
importance, as well as bringing exciting and diverse narratives to the
class--they can provide"historical documentation" of pay stubs, union books,
personal memories and witnesses. I even had one woman do a very creative
video, revisiting all of the places she had worked.
Bill Barry

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeannette Gabriel [SMTP:jgabriel55@HOTMAIL.COM]
> Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2001 2:10 PM
> To:   LABORFORUM@ASHP.LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU
> Subject:      Readable Labor History
>
> Dear David and all,
>
> I am wondering if anyone know of labor history materials in other
> languages,
> particularly Spanish.  I have helped developed an Immigrant Workers
> History
> Project in NYC and am giving labor history classes at immigrant workers
> centers.  We are constantly searching for materials that we can use with
> non-English speaking workers.  I have seen a copy of Labor's Untold Story
> in
> Spanish but I don't know how to get more.  And of course any other ideas
> would be greatly appreciated.
>
> In solidarity,
> Jeannette Gabriel
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
>
> This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at
> http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S.
> History.

This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 26 Mar 2001 16:37:44 -0800
Reply-To:     Labor History Forum 
Sender:       Labor History Forum 
From:         Pete Haro 
Subject:      Re: Readable Labor History
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

Dear Forum Members: As a recent adjunct at a community college in San Diego,
I am continuously searching for "hands-on" activities that are appropriate
for a college level audience. I am trying to move beyond the "chalk and
talk" format that I am currently using. Any suggestions would be
appreciated. Sincerely, Pete Haro.

----------
>From: "Barry, Bill" 
>To: LABORFORUM@ASHP.LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU
>Subject: Re: Readable Labor History
>Date: Mon, Mar 26, 2001, 10:21 AM
>

> Jeanette--one activity that I always use in a workers history project is to
> have each learner give a term project on his/her own "labor" history. It is
> the high point of each class, and gives the workers a sense of their own
> importance, as well as bringing exciting and diverse narratives to the
> class--they can provide"historical documentation" of pay stubs, union books,
> personal memories and witnesses. I even had one woman do a very creative
> video, revisiting all of the places she had worked.
> Bill Barry
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jeannette Gabriel [SMTP:jgabriel55@HOTMAIL.COM]
>> Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2001 2:10 PM
>> To:   LABORFORUM@ASHP.LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU
>> Subject:      Readable Labor History
>>
>> Dear David and all,
>>
>> I am wondering if anyone know of labor history materials in other
>> languages,
>> particularly Spanish.  I have helped developed an Immigrant Workers
>> History
>> Project in NYC and am giving labor history classes at immigrant workers
>> centers.  We are constantly searching for materials that we can use with
>> non-English speaking workers.  I have seen a copy of Labor's Untold Story
>> in
>> Spanish but I don't know how to get more.  And of course any other ideas
>> would be greatly appreciated.
>>
>> In solidarity,
>> Jeannette Gabriel
>>
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
>>
>> This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at
>> http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S.
>> History.
>
> This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at
> http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.

This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 28 Mar 2001 12:00:41 -0500
Reply-To:     Labor History Forum 
Sender:       Labor History Forum 
From:         David Montgomery 
Subject:      Re: Readable Labor History
In-Reply-To:  <200103270033.QAA13651@scaup.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

I hope that before the week is out some more participants to the forum will
send their suggestions to Pete Haro. Let me only remind him of the message
I sent out on March 24, in response to Bill Barry. The California
Federation of Teachers has compiled an extesnsive guide to films, videos,
and instruction suggestions, as well as readings and curriculum guides and
a video on California workers' history, "Golden Lands, Working Hands."
Californians especially should contact Fred Glass, communications director
of the CFT. His email is cftoakland@igc.org , and his phone is (510)
832-8812.  Mailing address One Kaiser Plaza, Suite 1440, Oakland, CA  94612
David Montgomery

This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 28 Mar 2001 12:41:27 -0500
Reply-To:     Labor History Forum 
Sender:       Labor History Forum 
From:         David Montgomery 
Subject:      Re: Readable Labor History
In-Reply-To:  
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; types="text/plain,text/html";
              boundary="=====================_11548970==_.ALT"

--=====================_11548970==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

PS to Jeannette Gabriel:
My book El control obrero en Estados Unidos was published by the Ministerio de
Trabajo y Seguridad Social in Madrid in 1985, and my book El ciudadano
Trabajador: democracia y mercado libre en el siglio XIX norteamericano was
published by Instituto Mora in Mexico, DF in 1997.
Why don't other writers on US labor history whose works have been translated
into Spanish or other languages let us know.
David Montgomery




At 02:10 PM 3/24/01 -0500, you wrote:
>Dear David and all,
>
>I am wondering if anyone know of labor history materials in other languages,
>particularly Spanish.  I have helped developed an Immigrant Workers History
>Project in NYC and am giving labor history classes at immigrant workers
>centers.  We are constantly searching for materials that we can use with
>non-English speaking workers.  I have seen a copy of Labor's Untold Story in
>Spanish but I don't know how to get more.  And of course any other ideas
>would be greatly appreciated.
>
>In solidarity,
>Jeannette Gabriel
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
>
>This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at
http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
>

--=====================_11548970==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"


PS to Jeannette Gabriel:

My book El control obrero en Estados Unidos was published by the
Ministerio de Trabajo y Seguridad Social in Madrid in 1985, and my book
El ciudadano Trabajador: democracia y mercado libre en el siglio XIX
norteamericano was published by Instituto Mora in Mexico, DF in
1997.

Why don't other writers on US labor history whose works have been
translated into Spanish or other languages let us know.

David Montgomery









At 02:10 PM 3/24/01 -0500, you wrote:

>Dear David and all,

>

>I am wondering if anyone know of labor history materials in other
languages,

>particularly Spanish.  I have helped developed an Immigrant
Workers History

>Project in NYC and am giving labor history classes at immigrant
workers

>centers.  We are constantly searching for materials that we can
use with

>non-English speaking workers.  I have seen a copy of Labor's
Untold Story in

>Spanish but I don't know how to get more.  And of course any
other ideas

>would be greatly appreciated.

>

>In solidarity,

>Jeannette Gabriel

>

>

>_________________________________________________________________

>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
http://explorer.msn.com

>

>This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site
at
http://historymatters.gmu.edu
for more resources for teaching U.S. History.

> 



--=====================_11548970==_.ALT--

This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 28 Mar 2001 12:29:33 -0500
Reply-To:     Labor History Forum 
Sender:       Labor History Forum 
From:         David Montgomery 
Subject:      Re: Readable Labor History
In-Reply-To:  
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; types="text/plain,text/html";
              boundary="=====================_11546616==_.ALT"

--=====================_11546616==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

I have been asking around for good suggestions in relation to Jeannette
Gabriel's very important question, so far with little success. But --
Hector Delgado of the Mexican-American Studies and Research Center of the
University of Arizona has suggested two important anthologies in Spanish,
which
contain useful articles on working-class history. They are:
Juan Gomez-Quinones and David Maciel, Al norte del Rio Bravo, pasada lejano,
1600-1930, and
Juan Gomez-Quinones and David Maciel, Al norte del Rio Bravo, pasado
immediato,
1930-1981

I would add that Ruth Glasser, My Music Is My Flag: Puerto Rican Musicians and
Their Communities 1917-1940 has an extensive bibliography, which contains a
number of good studies in social and working-class history in Spanish, as well
as in English. Your students might find especially interesting Bernardo Vega,
Memorias de Bernardo Vega (Rio Piedras, 1977) -- which is also available in
English translation from Monthly Review Press, for working-class life and
movements.
Let me suggest that you contact directly the Centro de Estudios
Puertorriquenos
at Hunter College for other possible readings.

Andrew Lee at the Tamiment Institute (NYU) has expressed great interest in any
additional answers anyone can provide to this inquiry, in order to help him
build Tamiment's collection. There is much there on the U.S. from pre-1924
history in Yiddish, Finnish, German, Russian, and Italian.  The Tamiment also
has a coloring book on women workers, which is in English, Chinese, and
Spanish.

David Montgomery







At 02:10 PM 3/24/01 -0500, you wrote:
>Dear David and all,
>
>I am wondering if anyone know of labor history materials in other languages,
>particularly Spanish.  I have helped developed an Immigrant Workers History
>Project in NYC and am giving labor history classes at immigrant workers
>centers.  We are constantly searching for materials that we can use with
>non-English speaking workers.  I have seen a copy of Labor's Untold Story in
>Spanish but I don't know how to get more.  And of course any other ideas
>would be greatly appreciated.
>
>In solidarity,
>Jeannette Gabriel
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
>
>This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at
http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
>

--=====================_11546616==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"


I have been asking around for good suggestions in relation to Jeannette
Gabriel's very important question, so far with little success. But
--

Hector Delgado of the Mexican-American Studies and Research Center of the
University of Arizona has suggested two important anthologies in Spanish,
which contain useful articles on working-class history. They are:

Juan Gomez-Quinones and David Maciel, Al norte del Rio Bravo, pasada
lejano, 1600-1930, and

Juan Gomez-Quinones and David Maciel, Al norte del Rio Bravo, pasado
immediato, 1930-1981



I would add that Ruth Glasser, My Music Is My Flag: Puerto Rican
Musicians and Their Communities 1917-1940 has an extensive
bibliography, which contains a number of good studies in social and
working-class history in Spanish, as well as in English. Your students
might find especially interesting Bernardo Vega, Memorias de Bernardo
Vega (Rio Piedras, 1977) -- which is also available in English
translation from Monthly Review Press, for working-class life and
movements.

Let me suggest that you contact directly the Centro de Estudios
Puertorriquenos at Hunter College for other possible readings. 



Andrew Lee at the Tamiment Institute (NYU) has expressed great interest
in any additional answers anyone can provide to this inquiry, in order to
help him build Tamiment's collection. There is much there on the U.S.
from pre-1924 history in Yiddish, Finnish, German, Russian, and
Italian.  The Tamiment also has a coloring book on women workers,
which is in English, Chinese, and Spanish. 



David Montgomery















At 02:10 PM 3/24/01 -0500, you wrote:

>Dear David and all,

>

>I am wondering if anyone know of labor history materials in other
languages,

>particularly Spanish.  I have helped developed an Immigrant
Workers History

>Project in NYC and am giving labor history classes at immigrant
workers

>centers.  We are constantly searching for materials that we can
use with

>non-English speaking workers.  I have seen a copy of Labor's
Untold Story in

>Spanish but I don't know how to get more.  And of course any
other ideas

>would be greatly appreciated.

>

>In solidarity,

>Jeannette Gabriel

>

>

>_________________________________________________________________

>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
http://explorer.msn.com

>

>This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site
at
http://historymatters.gmu.edu
for more resources for teaching U.S. History.

> 



--=====================_11546616==_.ALT--

This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 28 Mar 2001 14:21:41 -0600
Reply-To:     Labor History Forum 
Sender:       Labor History Forum 
From:         Joe Berry 
Subject:      Re: Readable Labor History
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I am sorry to be so rushed, but I can suggest Paul leBlanc's Hisoty of
the US Working class a a good short thing I use for steards labor
hisotry and als Michael Yates Why Unions Matter which has good hisotry
and other good stuff and is very short and readable and both are
politically provocative. I am using both with a carpenters apprentices
labor history class right now.  there are other things too, but these
are the best I have found right now and both are up to date. Bill
Fletchers short thing on Black workers and unions is alsoi very good and
readable and is availabe in pamphlet form I think.

Joe Berry

David Montgomery wrote:
>
> I hope that before the week is out some more participants to the forum will
> send their suggestions to Pete Haro. Let me only remind him of the message
> I sent out on March 24, in response to Bill Barry. The California
> Federation of Teachers has compiled an extesnsive guide to films, videos,
> and instruction suggestions, as well as readings and curriculum guides and
> a video on California workers' history, "Golden Lands, Working Hands."
> Californians especially should contact Fred Glass, communications director
> of the CFT. His email is cftoakland@igc.org , and his phone is (510)
> 832-8812.  Mailing address One Kaiser Plaza, Suite 1440, Oakland, CA  94612
> David Montgomery
>
> This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.

--
Joe Berry
1453 W. Flournoy, #3F
Chicago, IL 60607
Phone/fax: 312-733-2172
Email 

Please note that I discovered a virus (WM.Cap.A) on my computer (an
iMAC) on 2/5/01. I do not know how long it had been present. I have
dealt with it so this message is clean. However, please use the most up
to date Norton anti-virus or similar product on any messages, files or
discs you may have received from me in the past. Sorry about this. It
was an unpleasant surprise for me too. Macs now can have viruses too,
unlike in the past when they were asumed to be clean.

This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 28 Mar 2001 15:34:09 -0500
Reply-To:     Labor History Forum 
Sender:       Labor History Forum 
From:         "Barry, Bill" 
Subject:      Re: Readable Labor History
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

Pete--another device for workers history that works well is to have a
retired worker/activist come to the class and talk about the history of a
particular shop or industry or area. You have to get the right person but if
you do, the learners will love it. You can expand the presentation with a
billboard of old union contracts, strike photos, memorabilia--I even had an
old steelworker baseball uniform from a plant team in the 1940s. Younger
workers have no conception of the past struggles and there is nothing better
than a first-hand account from someone who went through it.
Bill Barry

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pete Haro [SMTP:pkharo@EARTHLINK.NET]
> Sent: Monday, March 26, 2001 7:38 PM
> To:   LABORFORUM@ASHP.LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU
> Subject:      Re: Readable Labor History
>
> Dear Forum Members: As a recent adjunct at a community college in San
> Diego,
> I am continuously searching for "hands-on" activities that are appropriate
> for a college level audience. I am trying to move beyond the "chalk and
> talk" format that I am currently using. Any suggestions would be
> appreciated. Sincerely, Pete Haro.
>
> ----------
> >From: "Barry, Bill" 
> >To: LABORFORUM@ASHP.LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU
> >Subject: Re: Readable Labor History
> >Date: Mon, Mar 26, 2001, 10:21 AM
> >
>
> > Jeanette--one activity that I always use in a workers history project is
> to
> > have each learner give a term project on his/her own "labor" history. It
> is
> > the high point of each class, and gives the workers a sense of their own
> > importance, as well as bringing exciting and diverse narratives to the
> > class--they can provide"historical documentation" of pay stubs, union
> books,
> > personal memories and witnesses. I even had one woman do a very creative
> > video, revisiting all of the places she had worked.
> > Bill Barry
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Jeannette Gabriel [SMTP:jgabriel55@HOTMAIL.COM]
> >> Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2001 2:10 PM
> >> To:   LABORFORUM@ASHP.LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU
> >> Subject:      Readable Labor History
> >>
> >> Dear David and all,
> >>
> >> I am wondering if anyone know of labor history materials in other
> >> languages,
> >> particularly Spanish.  I have helped developed an Immigrant Workers
> >> History
> >> Project in NYC and am giving labor history classes at immigrant workers
> >> centers.  We are constantly searching for materials that we can use
> with
> >> non-English speaking workers.  I have seen a copy of Labor's Untold
> Story
> >> in
> >> Spanish but I don't know how to get more.  And of course any other
> ideas
> >> would be greatly appreciated.
> >>
> >> In solidarity,
> >> Jeannette Gabriel
> >>
> >>
> >> _________________________________________________________________
> >> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
> >>
> >> This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site
> at
> >> http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S.
> >> History.
> >
> > This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at
> > http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S.
> History.
>
> This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at
> http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S.
> History.

This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 28 Mar 2001 20:18:03 -0500
Reply-To:     Labor History Forum 
Sender:       Labor History Forum 
From:         Phil Eisemann 
Subject:      Re: Apprenticeship
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
              boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0004_01C0B7C4.31598FC0"

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C0B7C4.31598FC0
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

The skilled crafts have always had a class system. It is a class system =
based on skill and experience rather than wealth and power. In Mutual =
Aid (1916) Peter A. Kropotkin argues that the cooperation among the =
species is a key to survival. A part of this cooperation is the natural =
emergence of leaders among the pack, herd, or flock. He accepts mastery =
as a natural occurrence and cites guilds as an example of cooperative =
effort in mediaeval Europe. " A difference between master and =
apprentice, or between master and worker, existed in the mediaeval =
cities from their very beginnings; but this was at the outset a mere =
difference of age and skill, not wealth and power.=92 (p.146)=20

I am an electrician by trade and a teacher by profession with an abiding =
interest in apprenticeship as a system of education. When I graduated =
from high school in the late 50=92s apprenticeship was not an option. =
The only apprenticeship I knew was with the IBEW, open only to friends =
or relations of members. The only trade schools in the area (Milton =
Hershey and Thaddeus Stevens Trade School) were for orphans or "bad" =
boys. Girls need not apply. With a hard push I went the college route =
and took my new degree overseas from 1968 until 1972. When I returned I =
went back to the trades and found a renewed interest in apprenticeship. =
Over the past 30 years I have been participating in and observing =
apprenticeship. For the past five years I have been formally studying =
apprenticeship as a part of a program at Penn State University. My =
studies have left me with three questions I wish to pose to the forum.

1. We have discussed skilled and unskilled labor. In Europe today and in =
this country during the 18th century the terms Master, Journeyman, and =
Apprentice had very distinct meanings. What happened to that natural =
hierarchy within the trades? The Fitzgerald Act of 1937 defines =
apprentice as a person indentured to the trade. A Journeyman is a person =
who has completed an apprenticeship. What is a Master Craftsperson in =
our society? Is not that indeed the goal of every working person? How =
are those of us in vocational education to teach to mastery when that =
status in not defined?=20

2. What happened to apprenticeship between the economic depression of =
1837 and the emergence of non-union apprenticeship programs in the late =
60=92s? An important part of the labor movement is the control and =
training of fellow workers. Apprenticeship is an ideal foundation for a =
sense of brotherhood and solidarity. Still I find little or no mention =
of apprenticeship in the development of organized labor. This is working =
class education, why did the working class reject it or fail to boast =
about it?

3. Finally, Jean Lave and Etienne Wenger in Situated Learning (1991) =
discuss the concept of community of practice and legitimate peripheral =
participation. It seems that the community of practice is primarily =
interested in craft as a process while the businessperson is interested =
in the product. It would seem the master craftsperson in today=92s =
trades needs skills far beyond the technical. Have their been any =
attempts to study the manner in which these skills are passed? What is =
the role of experiential and incidental learning in the development of a =
master craftsperson?

I would welcome any thoughts and references on craft mastery and the =
apprenticeship process. I am also very interested in how labor history =
is being taught to the people who are doing the labor.

J. Phillip Eisemann


------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C0B7C4.31598FC0
Content-Type: text/html;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable










The skilled crafts have always had a class system. It is a class =
system based=20
on skill and experience rather than wealth and power. In Mutual Aid=20
(1916) Peter A. Kropotkin argues that the cooperation among the =
species is a=20
key to survival. A part of this cooperation is the natural emergence of =
leaders=20
among the pack, herd, or flock. He accepts mastery as a natural =
occurrence and=20
cites guilds as an example of cooperative effort in mediaeval Europe. =
" A=20
difference between master and apprentice, or between master and worker, =
existed=20
in the mediaeval cities from their very beginnings; but this was at the =
outset a=20
mere difference of age and skill, not wealth and power.’ (p.146) =

I am an electrician by trade and a teacher by profession with an =
abiding=20
interest in apprenticeship as a system of education. When I graduated =
from high=20
school in the late 50’s apprenticeship was not an option. The only =

apprenticeship I knew was with the IBEW, open only to friends or =
relations of=20
members. The only trade schools in the area (Milton Hershey and Thaddeus =
Stevens=20
Trade School) were for orphans or "bad" boys. Girls need not =
apply.=20
With a hard push I went the college route and took my new degree =
overseas from=20
1968 until 1972. When I returned I went back to the trades and found a =
renewed=20
interest in apprenticeship. Over the past 30 years I have been =
participating in=20
and observing apprenticeship. For the past five years I have been =
formally=20
studying apprenticeship as a part of a program at Penn State University. =
My=20
studies have left me with three questions I wish to pose to the =
forum.
1. We have discussed skilled and unskilled labor. In Europe today and =
in this=20
country during the 18th century the terms Master, Journeyman, =
and=20
Apprentice had very distinct meanings. What happened to that natural =
hierarchy=20
within the trades? The Fitzgerald Act of 1937 defines apprentice as a =
person=20
indentured to the trade. A Journeyman is a person who has completed an=20
apprenticeship. What is a Master Craftsperson in our society? Is not =
that indeed=20
the goal of every working person? How are those of us in vocational =
education to=20
teach to mastery when that status in not defined? 
2. What happened to apprenticeship between the economic depression of =
1837=20
and the emergence of non-union apprenticeship programs in the late =
60’s?=20
An important part of the labor movement is the control and training of =
fellow=20
workers. Apprenticeship is an ideal foundation for a sense of =
brotherhood and=20
solidarity. Still I find little or no mention of apprenticeship in the=20
development of organized labor. This is working class education, why did =
the=20
working class reject it or fail to boast about it?
3. Finally, Jean Lave and Etienne Wenger in Situated Learning =
(1991)=20
discuss the concept of community of practice and legitimate peripheral=20
participation. It seems that the community of practice is primarily =
interested=20
in craft as a process while the businessperson is interested in the =
product. It=20
would seem the master craftsperson in today’s trades needs skills =
far=20
beyond the technical. Have their been any attempts to study the manner =
in which=20
these skills are passed? What is the role of experiential and incidental =

learning in the development of a master craftsperson?
I would welcome any thoughts and references on craft mastery and the=20
apprenticeship process. I am also very interested in how labor history =
is being=20
taught to the people who are doing the labor.
J. Phillip Eisemann

------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C0B7C4.31598FC0--

This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 30 Mar 2001 11:00:23 -0500
Reply-To:     Labor History Forum 
Sender:       Labor History Forum 
From:         David Montgomery 
Subject:      Re: Apprenticeship
In-Reply-To:  <000701c0b7ee$1b5db780$95ac90d8@oemcomputer>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; types="text/plain,text/html";
              boundary="=====================_4450386==_.ALT"

--=====================_4450386==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Philip Eisemann's questions about apprecticeship and mastery take us back to
the first subject discussed extensively this month, but they also relate to
the
question of  maretials for the study of labor history that would be useful for
students in union classes and to self-educated working people generally.

Let me respond, first, that some craft unions have made labor history an
important part of their apprentice-training programs. Most famous among
them is
IBEW Local 3 in New York, whose apprentice training program has broadened its
admissions and its scope significantly since the days when it, too, had fit
Eisemann's desrciption of what he encountered in Pennsylvania in the late
1950s. I suggest that he contact the huge Local 3 directly to learn about its
program.
Another important case of incorporating history in apprenticeship training has
been developed in 1990 by the Iron Workers Local 357 in Springfield,
Massachusetts, and in particular by the iron worker Robert M. Cook. It is a
course entitled "The Dynamics of the American Labor Movement," which covers
the
whole of US history, and devotes one very well prepared unit to the history of
the International Association of Bridge, Structural, and Ornamental Iron
Workers (including close attention to the famous McNamara case before World
War
I). In earlier sections the history of guilds and of apprenticeship are also
discussed. You could write to the Joint Apprenticeship Committee, Iron
Workers'
Local 357, Springfield, MA and ask for a copy, or for more information about
their program.
In these course we find a partial answer (in today's terms) to another of
Eisemann's questions: how apprenticeship has socialized workers into their
crafts, as well as providing technical training. This is a central question of
the first chapter of my book, The Fall of the House of Labor and of the
opening
essay in Workers' Control in America. The best single discussion of how
experienced workers taught newcomers how to behave, i.e., about human
relations
that went with technical mastery, is about bituminous coal miners, who had no
formal apprenticeship. It is Carter Goodrich, The Miner's Freedom (1925). Also
from the same time period is the indispensible survey by Paul H. Douglas,
American Apprenticeship and Industrial Education (New York, 1921).

IN case Eisemann or others interested in this question missed the first
week or
two of the Labor Forum discussion, I would urge them to return to the
contribution of Dan Jacoby on March 2 ("re: Opening Message") and my reply to
him and others on March 5 ("skilled labor") on this forum.

Finally, a word on "master." In the historic meaning of the term a master
was a
boss, or at the very least an independent artisan. The journeyman had
completed
an apprenticeship and had, if you will, mastered the trade. But he (and it was
usually he, as you point out in connection with apprentice training) had
completed an apprenticeship. Moreover, to improve his skills the ambitious
journeyman quit often and moved about from job to job, hoping one day to
become
a master craftsman himself. In the South and elsewhere (especially late
eighteenth-century New York) many journeymen were slaves, who could hope to
become masters ever, of at all, only by making deals to buy themselves out of
bondage. (something that became increasingly common after the gradual
emancipation lacts of northern colonies in the 1780s and 1790s). As W.E.B.
DuBois first discussed in The Philadelphia Negro, however, very few white
masters would hire a free black journeyman, so that from the middle of the
nineteenth century on, most black craftsmen were masters -- were
self-emlployed
contractors - eg. stone masons in New England.
Sean Wilentz has offered a famous account of the breaking of the
journeyman-master link in various New York trades during the period 1810-1850,
as journeymen became workers and masters employers and the workers came vastly
to outnumber the employers (unlike the late 18th century, when in most trades
there were more masters than journeymen).
This does not mean that no workers any longer "mastered" their occupations, in
the sense of one's personal goal ,as mentioned by Eisemann. It does mean that
by our time we are more likely to call the "master craftsperson" a
"contractor."

David Montgomery








At 08:18 PM 3/28/01 -0500, you wrote:

>
> The skilled crafts have always had a class system. It is a class system
based
> on skill and experience rather than wealth and power. In Mutual Aid (1916)
> Peter A. Kropotkin argues that the cooperation among the species is a key to
> survival. A part of this cooperation is the natural emergence of leaders
> among the pack, herd, or flock. He accepts mastery as a natural occurrence
> and cites guilds as an example of cooperative effort in mediaeval Europe.
" A
> difference between master and apprentice, or between master and worker,
> existed in the mediaeval cities from their very beginnings; but this was at
> the outset a mere difference of age and skill, not wealth and power.
(p.146)
>
> I am an electrician by trade and a teacher by profession with an abiding
> interest in apprenticeship as a system of education. When I graduated from
> high school in the late 50 s apprenticeship was not an option. The only
> apprenticeship I knew was with the IBEW, open only to friends or
relations of
> members. The only trade schools in the area (Milton Hershey and Thaddeus
> Stevens Trade School) were for orphans or "bad" boys. Girls need not apply.
> With a hard push I went the college route and took my new degree overseas
> from 1968 until 1972. When I returned I went back to the trades and found a
> renewed interest in apprenticeship. Over the past 30 years I have been
> participating in and observing apprenticeship. For the past five years I
have
> been formally studying apprenticeship as a part of a program at Penn State
> University. My studies have left me with three questions I wish to pose to
> the forum.
>
> 1. We have discussed skilled and unskilled labor. In Europe today and in
this
> country during the 18th century the terms Master, Journeyman, and Apprentice
> had very distinct meanings. What happened to that natural hierarchy within
> the trades? The Fitzgerald Act of 1937 defines apprentice as a person
> indentured to the trade. A Journeyman is a person who has completed an
> apprenticeship. What is a Master Craftsperson in our society? Is not that
> indeed the goal of every working person? How are those of us in vocational
> education to teach to mastery when that status in not defined?
>
> 2. What happened to apprenticeship between the economic depression of 1837
> and the emergence of non-union apprenticeship programs in the late 60 s? An
> important part of the labor movement is the control and training of fellow
> workers. Apprenticeship is an ideal foundation for a sense of brotherhood
and
> solidarity. Still I find little or no mention of apprenticeship in the
> development of organized labor. This is working class education, why did the
> working class reject it or fail to boast about it?
>
> 3. Finally, Jean Lave and Etienne Wenger in Situated Learning (1991) discuss
> the concept of community of practice and legitimate peripheral
participation.
> It seems that the community of practice is primarily interested in craft
as a
> process while the businessperson is interested in the product. It would seem
> the master craftsperson in today s trades needs skills far beyond the
> technical. Have their been any attempts to study the manner in which these
> skills are passed? What is the role of experiential and incidental learning
> in the development of a master craftsperson?
>
> I would welcome any thoughts and references on craft mastery and the
> apprenticeship process. I am also very interested in how labor history is
> being taught to the people who are doing the labor.
>
> J. Phillip Eisemann




--=====================_4450386==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


Philip Eisemann's questions about apprecticeship and mastery take us back
to the first subject discussed extensively this month, but they also
relate to the question of  maretials for the study of labor history
that would be useful for students in union classes and to self-educated
working people generally.

 

Let me respond, first, that some craft unions have made labor history an
important part of their apprentice-training programs. Most famous among
them is IBEW Local 3 in New York, whose apprentice training program has
broadened its admissions and its scope significantly since the days when
it, too, had fit Eisemann's desrciption of what he encountered in
Pennsylvania in the late 1950s. I suggest that he contact the huge Local
3 directly to learn about its program.

Another important case of incorporating history in apprenticeship
training has been developed in 1990 by the Iron Workers Local 357 in
Springfield, Massachusetts, and in particular by the iron worker Robert
M. Cook. It is a course entitled "The Dynamics of the American Labor
Movement," which covers the whole of US history, and devotes one
very well prepared unit to the history of the International Association
of Bridge, Structural, and Ornamental Iron Workers (including close
attention to the famous McNamara case before World War I). In earlier
sections the history of guilds and of apprenticeship are also discussed.
You could write to the Joint Apprenticeship Committee, Iron Workers'
Local 357, Springfield, MA and ask for a copy, or for more information
about their program.

In these course we find a partial answer (in today's terms) to another of
Eisemann's questions: how apprenticeship has socialized workers into
their crafts, as well as providing technical training. This is a central
question of the first chapter of my book, The Fall of the House of
Labor and of the opening essay in Workers' Control in America.
The best single discussion of how experienced workers taught newcomers
how to behave, i.e., about human relations that went with technical
mastery, is about bituminous coal miners, who had no formal
apprenticeship. It is Carter Goodrich, The Miner's Freedom (1925).
Also from the same time period is the indispensible survey by Paul H.
Douglas, American Apprenticeship and Industrial Education (New
York, 1921).



IN case Eisemann or others interested in this question missed the first
week or two of the Labor Forum discussion, I would urge them to return to
the contribution of Dan Jacoby on March 2 ("re: Opening
Message") and my reply to him and others on March 5 ("skilled
labor") on this forum.



Finally, a word on "master." In the historic meaning of the
term a master was a boss, or at the very least an independent artisan.
The journeyman had completed an apprenticeship and had, if you will,
mastered the trade. But he (and it was usually he, as you point out in
connection with apprentice training) had completed an apprenticeship.
Moreover, to improve his skills the ambitious journeyman quit often and
moved about from job to job, hoping one day to become a master craftsman
himself. In the South and elsewhere (especially late eighteenth-century
New York) many journeymen were slaves, who could hope to become masters
ever, of at all, only by making deals to buy themselves out of bondage.
(something that became increasingly common after the gradual emancipation
lacts of northern colonies in the 1780s and 1790s). As W.E.B. DuBois
first discussed in The Philadelphia Negro, however, very few white
masters would hire a free black journeyman, so that from the middle of
the nineteenth century on, most black craftsmen were masters -- were
self-emlployed contractors - eg. stone masons in New England. 

Sean Wilentz has offered a famous account of the breaking of the
journeyman-master link in various New York trades during the period
1810-1850, as journeymen became workers and masters employers and the
workers came vastly to outnumber the employers (unlike the late 18th
century, when in most trades there were more masters than
journeymen).

This does not mean that no workers any longer "mastered" their
occupations, in the sense of one's personal goal ,as mentioned by
Eisemann. It does mean that by our time we are more likely to call the
"master craftsperson" a "contractor."



David Montgomery

















At 08:18 PM 3/28/01 -0500, you wrote: 



The skilled crafts have always had a class
system. It is a class system based on skill and experience rather than
wealth and power. In Mutual Aid (1916) Peter A. Kropotkin argues
that the cooperation among the species is a key to survival. A part of
this cooperation is the natural emergence of leaders among the pack,
herd, or flock. He accepts mastery as a natural occurrence and cites
guilds as an example of cooperative effort in mediaeval Europe. " A
difference between master and apprentice, or between master and worker,
existed in the mediaeval cities from their very beginnings; but this was
at the outset a mere difference of age and skill, not wealth and power.
(p.146) 



I am an electrician by trade and a teacher by profession with an abiding
interest in apprenticeship as a system of education. When I graduated
from high school in the late 50 s apprenticeship was not an option. The
only apprenticeship I knew was with the IBEW, open only to friends or
relations of members. The only trade schools in the area (Milton Hershey
and Thaddeus Stevens Trade School) were for orphans or "bad"
boys. Girls need not apply. With a hard push I went the college route and
took my new degree overseas from 1968 until 1972. When I returned I went
back to the trades and found a renewed interest in apprenticeship. Over
the past 30 years I have been participating in and observing
apprenticeship. For the past five years I have been formally studying
apprenticeship as a part of a program at Penn State University. My
studies have left me with three questions I wish to pose to the
forum.



1. We have discussed skilled and unskilled labor. In Europe today and in
this country during the 18th century the terms Master,
Journeyman, and Apprentice had very distinct meanings. What happened to
that natural hierarchy within the trades? The Fitzgerald Act of 1937
defines apprentice as a person indentured to the trade. A Journeyman is a
person who has completed an apprenticeship. What is a Master Craftsperson
in our society? Is not that indeed the goal of every working person? How
are those of us in vocational education to teach to mastery when that
status in not defined? 



2. What happened to apprenticeship between the economic depression of
1837 and the emergence of non-union apprenticeship programs in the late
60 s? An important part of the labor movement is the control and training
of fellow workers. Apprenticeship is an ideal foundation for a sense of
brotherhood and solidarity. Still I find little or no mention of
apprenticeship in the development of organized labor. This is working
class education, why did the working class reject it or fail to boast
about it?



3. Finally, Jean Lave and Etienne Wenger in Situated Learning
(1991) discuss the concept of community of practice and legitimate
peripheral participation. It seems that the community of practice is
primarily interested in craft as a process while the businessperson is
interested in the product. It would seem the master craftsperson in today
s trades needs skills far beyond the technical. Have their been any
attempts to study the manner in which these skills are passed? What is
the role of experiential and incidental learning in the development of a
master craftsperson?



I would welcome any thoughts and references on craft mastery and the
apprenticeship process. I am also very interested in how labor history is
being taught to the people who are doing the labor.



J. Phillip Eisemann







--=====================_4450386==_.ALT--

This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 30 Mar 2001 11:06:03 -0500
Reply-To:     Labor History Forum 
Sender:       Labor History Forum 
From:         David Montgomery 
Subject:      Re: Readable Labor History
In-Reply-To:  <3AC247D6.9CCB499D@igc.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; types="text/plain,text/html";
              boundary="=====================_4454591==_.ALT"

--=====================_4454591==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Some good suggestions here from Joe Berry and Bill Barry.
Let me just add one more very readable book, whose author has also played a
major role in the reinvigoration of Massachusetts' building trades: Mark
Erlich, With Our Hands: The Story of Carpenters in Massachusetts. Unlike
almost
everything else on construction workers, this is a history of the workers
themselves, not of the union per se, and it is very readable.
David MOntgomery



At 02:21 PM 3/28/01 -0600, you wrote:
>I am sorry to be so rushed, but I can suggest Paul leBlanc's Hisoty of
>the US Working class a a good short thing I use for steards labor
>hisotry and als Michael Yates Why Unions Matter which has good hisotry
>and other good stuff and is very short and readable and both are
>politically provocative. I am using both with a carpenters apprentices
>labor history class right now.  there are other things too, but these
>are the best I have found right now and both are up to date. Bill
>Fletchers short thing on Black workers and unions is alsoi very good and
>readable and is availabe in pamphlet form I think.
>
>Joe Berry
>
>David Montgomery wrote:
>>
>> I hope that before the week is out some more participants to the forum will
>> send their suggestions to Pete Haro. Let me only remind him of the message
>> I sent out on March 24, in response to Bill Barry. The California
>> Federation of Teachers has compiled an extesnsive guide to films, videos,
>> and instruction suggestions, as well as readings and curriculum guides and
>> a video on California workers' history, "Golden Lands, Working Hands."
>> Californians especially should contact Fred Glass, communications director
>> of the CFT. His email is cftoakland@igc.org , and his phone is (510)
>> 832-8812.  Mailing address One Kaiser Plaza, Suite 1440, Oakland, CA  94612
>> David Montgomery
>>
>> This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at
http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
>
>--
>Joe Berry
>1453 W. Flournoy, #3F
>Chicago, IL 60607
>Phone/fax: 312-733-2172
>Email 
>
>Please note that I discovered a virus (WM.Cap.A) on my computer (an
>iMAC) on 2/5/01. I do not know how long it had been present. I have
>dealt with it so this message is clean. However, please use the most up
>to date Norton anti-virus or similar product on any messages, files or
>discs you may have received from me in the past. Sorry about this. It
>was an unpleasant surprise for me too. Macs now can have viruses too,
>unlike in the past when they were asumed to be clean.
>
>This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at
http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
>

--=====================_4454591==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"


Some good suggestions here from Joe Berry and Bill Barry. 

Let me just add one more very readable book, whose author has also played
a major role in the reinvigoration of Massachusetts' building trades:
Mark Erlich, With Our Hands: The Story of Carpenters in
Massachusetts. Unlike almost everything else on construction workers,
this is a history of the workers themselves, not of the union per se, and
it is very readable.

David MOntgomery







At 02:21 PM 3/28/01 -0600, you wrote:

>I am sorry to be so rushed, but I can suggest Paul leBlanc's Hisoty
of

>the US Working class a a good short thing I use for steards
labor

>hisotry and als Michael Yates Why Unions Matter which has good
hisotry

>and other good stuff and is very short and readable and both
are

>politically provocative. I am using both with a carpenters
apprentices

>labor history class right now.  there are other things too, but
these

>are the best I have found right now and both are up to date.
Bill

>Fletchers short thing on Black workers and unions is alsoi very good
and

>readable and is availabe in pamphlet form I think.

>

>Joe Berry

>

>David Montgomery wrote:

>>

>> I hope that before the week is out some more participants to the
forum will

>> send their suggestions to Pete Haro. Let me only remind him of
the message

>> I sent out on March 24, in response to Bill Barry. The
California

>> Federation of Teachers has compiled an extesnsive guide to
films, videos,

>> and instruction suggestions, as well as readings and curriculum
guides and

>> a video on California workers' history, "Golden Lands,
Working Hands."

>> Californians especially should contact Fred Glass,
communications director

>> of the CFT. His email is cftoakland@igc.org , and his phone is
(510)

>> 832-8812.  Mailing address One Kaiser Plaza, Suite 1440,
Oakland, CA  94612

>> David Montgomery

>>

>> This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web
site at
http://historymatters.gmu.edu
for more resources for teaching U.S. History.

>

>--

>Joe Berry

>1453 W. Flournoy, #3F

>Chicago, IL 60607

>Phone/fax: 312-733-2172

>Email <joeberry@igc.org>

>

>Please note that I discovered a virus (WM.Cap.A) on my computer (an

>iMAC) on 2/5/01. I do not know how long it had been present. I have

>dealt with it so this message is clean. However, please use the most up

>to date Norton anti-virus or similar product on any messages, files or

>discs you may have received from me in the past. Sorry about this. It

>was an unpleasant surprise for me too. Macs now can have viruses too,

>unlike in the past when they were asumed to be clean.

>

>This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.

> 



--=====================_4454591==_.ALT--

This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 30 Mar 2001 11:57:14 -0500
Reply-To:     Labor History Forum 
Sender:       Labor History Forum 
From:         David Montgomery 
Subject:      Re: response to comments: American exceptionalism - a divergent
              view
In-Reply-To:  <200103242017.f2OKHWq164436@pimout4-int.prodigy.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; types="text/plain,text/html";
              boundary="=====================_7769099==_.ALT"

--=====================_7769099==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

A few thoughts and some reading suggestions in response to William=
 McGaughey's
"divergent view."=20
First, I agree that starting sometime around World War II (with the=
 Democratic
Party's adoption of a civil rights program in 1948 as historic benchmark)
people in government, corporate, and academic circles in the United States
generally began to espouse equal rights for people of all races and to
renounce
the open racism and defense of segregation that had prevailed before the=
 war.
So much so that today even opponents of advancement for peoples of color=
 couch
their arguments in terms of defending equal and color-blind treatment.=20
It is quite a leap from that observation, however, to the argument that
government and business supported the civil rights movement. It is the case
that civil disobedience movements were consciously designed to convince "the
power elite" (to use the vocabulary of the 50s and 60s) to come to terms and
desegregate. Just how difficult it was to pull government and business=
 leaders
from lip-service to action has been made evident by many good studies of=
 civil
rights and labor struggles. I would only recommend here Glenn T. Eskew, But
for
Birmingham (1997).
I would also agree that classifying "the white male" as the foe of all
struggles for social reform obscures the class, as well as gender and=
 racial,
dynamics of recent and historic battles for social reform. To say that white
males in corporate leadership showed little solidarity with their white male
underlings is putting it mildly. On the contrary, it has been the core of=
 the
doctrine of white supremacists that all white males (exploiter and those=
 they
exploited) had the same interest. This ideology is ably explored by Stephen
Kantrowitz, Ben Tillman and the Reconstruction of White Supremacy (2000).
Nevertheless, it remains vitally important to recognize where the goals of=
 the
civil rights movement were defeated and where white supremacist beliefs=
 among
working people (now often formulated as defense of "equal treatment") have
provided a driving force of the upsurge of anti-labor politics , culminating
the the Bush administration. I recommend here two books. Joshua Freeman,
Working
Class New York has demonstrated persuasively the defeat of efforts to
desegregate schools and housing in New York City and the persistent impact=
 of
that defeat on the city's labor movement and politics. Similarly, Thomas
Sugrue, Origins of the Urban Crisis: Race and Inequality in Postwar Detroit
 has
shown the decisive importance of racism in crippling working-class politics=
 in
Detroit.
These questions related clearly to Bill Barry's coments about what lessons
should be gleaned from the study of labor history. The all-out assault on=
 the
organizations, power, and needs of workers of all races and both genders we
face today makes these questions doubly urgent.
David Montgomery






At 03:21 PM 3/24/01 -0500, you wrote:
>I want to thank those who have responded to my message, =B3American
>Exceptionalism - a divergent view=B2.  Let me try to respond to the
>criticisms.
>
>First, my message was posted in the context of a discussion of =B3American
>exceptionalism=B2.  Perhaps the issue could be stated:  Why is U.S. society=
 so
>singularly lacking in working-class solidarity?  Why has organized labor
>failed to sign up as large a percentage of the private-sector labor force=
 as
>it had forty or fifty years ago?  Why is there so little resistance to poor
>leadership in our society=B9s major institutions?
>
>In considering an answer to that question, one notes that the United States
>is the world=B9s preeminent multi-racial society.  There has been a long
>history of racial hostility in this country - now extended to gender
>hostility and to other kinds of social divisions.  The Civil Rights=
 movement
>of the 1950s brought in a kind of orthodox thinking on these subjects.  It
>is sometimes called =B3political correctness.=B2  =B3Political correctness=
=B2 has
>teeth in it.  It means that if you express the wrong opinion on certain
>subjects, you may lose your job.  You are no longer able to think freely=
 or,
>least least, express your thoughts freely without experiencing retaliation,
>ostracism, and other negative consequences.  ( I am willing to do this
>because I am personally immune from being fired.  I really did not expect
>any of you to be foolish enough to join me.)
>
>Racial tensions have been with us as a society for a long time but the
>orthodoxy of thought that has appeared in the aftermath of the Civil Rights
>movement is of recent vintage.  Somehow it roughly coincides with the
>decline of the labor movement and the increased docility of the general
>public in the face of inadequate or abusive leadership.  That is why I
>raised the issue of a possible connection between these two events.
>
>The relevance to organized labor is obvious:  Labor is based on the
>principle of solidarity.  The working people, the little people, have to be
>reasonably united if they are to stand up effectively to the boss.  If the
>little people start fighting among themselves, their cause is doomed.  If
>black people start fighting white people and while people fight blacks, if
>men start fighting women and women fight men, then there is division in the
>ranks.  This side will surely lose.  That is why it is to the advantage of
>the corporate elite to promote divisions based on demographic factors.  I
>think it indisputable that such divisions exist.  These divisions could
>account for much of the decline of the labor movement and, indeed, the
>general demoralization of the public.
>
>I think that good leadership can stand on its own feet.  Poor leadership
>cannot; it needs to keep the followers weak and demoralized.  I believe=
 that
>we in this country have grown accustomed to accepting terrible leadership -
>corporate executives who loot the organizations that they manage by
>excessive compensation, politicians essentially bribed by special=
 interests,
>professionals who gouge the public, media which distort the truth, etc.=
 etc.
> Why do people stand for this?  I have proposed one reason.
>
>The question is whether the corporate elite - which includes leadership in
>many other types of organizations than just business - actively supports
>affirmative action and the various other kinds of racial/ gender support
>programs that exist today.  I think so.  The question is also whether the
>white males who make up corporate leadership show any degree of solidarity
>with the white males in lower ranks within their organizations.  I think
>not.  Then why define them as a group?  Let=B9s have a discussion of this=
 in
>the context of American exceptionalism.
>
>With respect to Mark Lause=B9s comments, the focus seems to be on=
 affirmative
>action, as if I suggested that the theory of affirmative action was
>identical to its practice.  Of course, it is not.  The idea that
>upper-echelon faculty apply affirmative-action principles rigorously to the
>low-status sectors of faculty, while exempting themselves, seems to me to
>support my point, not discredit it.  But the theory of affirmative action=
 is
>bad enough; it is institutionalized unequal treatment of various=
 individuals
>under theories of group guilt.  Don=B9t tell me that this is OK because
>certain persons have benefited from the policy unless you are willing to
>look also at the persons who were hurt by it.  And don=B9t tell me that=
 skin
>color is a good reason for distinguishing between the rights and just
>expectations of individuals, saying that it simply doesn=B9t matter what
>happens to those in the disfavored groups.  Equal means equal - no ifs,
>ands, or buts.  Affirmative action doesn=B9t cut it.
>
>I think that some of the comments implied that I thought black people were
>disloyal to the labor movement, or that black workers functioned generally
>as strikebreakers, etc.  That was certainly not my point.  Neither did I=
 say
>or imply that the Civil Rights movement was out to derail the labor
>movement.  When Martin Luther King was killed while in Memphis to aid a
>sanitation worker=B9s strike, such as statement would be absurd.  There=
 were
>strong links between labor and the Civil Rights movement of the 1950s and
>1960s.  But, at the same time, to elevate race consciousness means that
>certain other kinds of consciousnesses will be lowered.  The public cannot
>pay attention to too many different things at a time.
>
>With respect to David Montgomery=B9s comments, I would take exception to=
 his
>statement, =B3to say the civil rights derailed the labor movement is, among
>other errors, to think that history began after World War II.=B2  Now, of
>course, I don=B9t think that history began after World War II.  I really=
 fail
>to see the relevance of this remark to my argument.  If there was a decline
>in labor solidarity in recent decades, it is surely appropriate to look at
>conditions existing in recent decades to try to find a possible=
 explanation.
> Of course, racial animosities have existed for a long time; but political
>correctness has not.  It is the intensity of race consciousness which
>counts, especially insofar as it has solidified into an official creed.
>
>I also object to the phrase =B3among other errors=B2.  When people express
>different opinions, that does not mean that one of them is guilty of an
>error.  I think you need to explain yourself.
>
>Also, the statement is made:  =B3No one who was active in the labor=
 movement
>in the 1950s could accept the idea that all opposition to civil rights had
>disappeared, except that of southern segregationists.=B2  I did not say=
 =B3all=B2
>opposition.  I said, =B3apart from southern segregationists, there was no
>effective opposition to the Civil Rights movement.=B2  One can also argue=
 that
>opposition from the southern segregationists was not effective.  When
>President Eisenhower sent in federal troops to integrate the schools of
>Little Rock, it was fairly clear which side had won.
>
>This may be enough response to the criticism.  I want to thank Joe Berry=
 for
>writing =B3This is not to say that everything in the first post was wrong.=
=B2
>Also, thanks to Brian Kelly for writing =B3Employers very often did attempt=
 to
>manipulate racial and ethnic divisions in order to weaken working class
>organization ...=B2  I do disagree, however, with his later statement =B3th=
e
>notion that business and the government elite =8Cactively acceded=B9 to the
>demands of the civil rights movement simply cannot be sustained.=B2  If you
>want to attack me, you can do it there.  Yes, I do claim that the Civil
>Rights movement had the general support of the business and government
>elite.  What the new Bush administration has in mind is beyond my range of
>speculation.  Thanks again to all who commented.
>
>William McGaughey
>
>This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at
http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
>=20

--=====================_7769099==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


A few thoughts and some reading suggestions in response to William
McGaughey's "divergent view." 

First, I agree that starting sometime around World War II (with the
Democratic Party's adoption of a civil rights program in 1948 as historic
benchmark) people in government, corporate, and academic circles in the
United States generally began to espouse equal rights for people of all
races and to renounce the open racism and defense of segregation that had
prevailed before the war. So much so that today even opponents of
advancement for peoples of color couch their arguments in terms of
defending equal and color-blind treatment. 

It is quite a leap from that observation, however, to the argument that
government and business supported the civil rights movement. It is the
case that civil disobedience movements were consciously designed to
convince "the power elite" (to use the vocabulary of the 50s
and 60s) to come to terms and desegregate. Just how difficult it was to
pull government and business leaders from lip-service to action has been
made evident by many good studies of civil rights and labor struggles. I
would only recommend here Glenn T. Eskew, But for Birmingham
(1997).

I would also agree that classifying "the white male" as the foe
of all struggles for social reform obscures the class, as well as gender
and racial, dynamics of recent and historic battles for social reform. To
say that white males in corporate leadership showed little solidarity
with their white male underlings is putting it mildly. On the contrary,
it has been the core of the doctrine of white supremacists that all white
males (exploiter and those they exploited) had the same interest. This
ideology is ably explored by Stephen Kantrowitz, Ben Tillman and the
Reconstruction of White Supremacy (2000).

Nevertheless, it remains vitally important to recognize where the goals
of the civil rights movement were defeated and where white supremacist
beliefs among working people (now often formulated as defense of
"equal treatment") have provided a driving force of the upsurge
of anti-labor politics , culminating the the Bush administration. I
recommend here two books. Joshua Freeman, Working Class New York
has demonstrated persuasively the defeat of efforts to desegregate
schools and housing in New York City and the persistent impact of that
defeat on the city's labor movement and politics. Similarly, Thomas
Sugrue, Origins of the Urban Crisis: Race and Inequality in Postwar
Detroit  has shown the decisive importance of racism in crippling
working-class politics in Detroit.

These questions related clearly to Bill Barry's coments about what
lessons should be gleaned from the study of labor history. The all-out
assault on the organizations, power, and needs of workers of all races
and both genders we face today makes these questions doubly urgent.

David Montgomery













At 03:21 PM 3/24/01 -0500, you wrote:

>I want to thank those who have responded to my message,
=B3American

>Exceptionalism - a divergent view=B2.  Let me try to respond to
the

>criticisms.

>

>First, my message was posted in the context of a discussion of
=B3American

>exceptionalism=B2.  Perhaps the issue could be stated:  Why
is U.S. society so

>singularly lacking in working-class solidarity?  Why has
organized labor

>failed to sign up as large a percentage of the private-sector labor
force as

>it had forty or fifty years ago?  Why is there so little
resistance to poor

>leadership in our society=B9s major institutions?

>

>In considering an answer to that question, one notes that the United
States

>is the world=B9s preeminent multi-racial society.  There has been
a long

>history of racial hostility in this country - now extended to
gender

>hostility and to other kinds of social divisions.  The Civil
Rights movement

>of the 1950s brought in a kind of orthodox thinking on these
subjects.  It

>is sometimes called =B3political correctness.=B2  =B3Political
correctness=B2 has

>teeth in it.  It means that if you express the wrong opinion on
certain

>subjects, you may lose your job.  You are no longer able to
think freely or,

>least least, express your thoughts freely without experiencing
retaliation,

>ostracism, and other negative consequences.  ( I am willing to
do this

>because I am personally immune from being fired.  I really did
not expect

>any of you to be foolish enough to join me.)

>

>Racial tensions have been with us as a society for a long time but
the

>orthodoxy of thought that has appeared in the aftermath of the Civil
Rights

>movement is of recent vintage.  Somehow it roughly coincides
with the

>decline of the labor movement and the increased docility of the
general

>public in the face of inadequate or abusive leadership.  That is
why I

>raised the issue of a possible connection between these two
events.

>

>The relevance to organized labor is obvious:  Labor is based on
the

>principle of solidarity.  The working people, the little people,
have to be

>reasonably united if they are to stand up effectively to the
boss.  If the

>little people start fighting among themselves, their cause is
doomed.  If

>black people start fighting white people and while people fight
blacks, if

>men start fighting women and women fight men, then there is division
in the

>ranks.  This side will surely lose.  That is why it is to
the advantage of

>the corporate elite to promote divisions based on demographic
factors.  I

>think it indisputable that such divisions exist.  These
divisions could

>account for much of the decline of the labor movement and, indeed,
the

>general demoralization of the public.

>

>I think that good leadership can stand on its own feet.  Poor
leadership

>cannot; it needs to keep the followers weak and demoralized.  I
believe that

>we in this country have grown accustomed to accepting terrible
leadership -

>corporate executives who loot the organizations that they manage
by

>excessive compensation, politicians essentially bribed by special
interests,

>professionals who gouge the public, media which distort the truth,
etc. etc.

> Why do people stand for this?  I have proposed one=20
reason.

>

>The question is whether the corporate elite - which includes
leadership in

>many other types of organizations than just business - actively
supports

>affirmative action and the various other kinds of racial/ gender
support

>programs that exist today.  I think so.  The question is
also whether the

>white males who make up corporate leadership show any degree of
solidarity

>with the white males in lower ranks within their organizations. 
I think

>not.  Then why define them as a group?  Let=B9s have a
discussion of this in

>the context of American exceptionalism.

>

>With respect to Mark Lause=B9s comments, the focus seems to be on
affirmative

>action, as if I suggested that the theory of affirmative action
was

>identical to its practice.  Of course, it is not.  The idea
that

>upper-echelon faculty apply affirmative-action principles rigorously
to the

>low-status sectors of faculty, while exempting themselves, seems to
me to

>support my point, not discredit it.  But the theory of
affirmative action is

>bad enough; it is institutionalized unequal treatment of various
individuals

>under theories of group guilt.  Don=B9t tell me that this is OK
because

>certain persons have benefited from the policy unless you are willing
to

>look also at the persons who were hurt by it.  And don=B9t tell me
that skin

>color is a good reason for distinguishing between the rights and
just

>expectations of individuals, saying that it simply doesn=B9t matter
what

>happens to those in the disfavored groups.  Equal means equal -
no ifs,

>ands, or buts.  Affirmative action doesn=B9t cut it.

>

>I think that some of the comments implied that I thought black people
were

>disloyal to the labor movement, or that black workers functioned
generally

>as strikebreakers, etc.  That was certainly not my point. 
Neither did I say

>or imply that the Civil Rights movement was out to derail the
labor

>movement.  When Martin Luther King was killed while in Memphis
to aid a

>sanitation worker=B9s strike, such as statement would be absurd. 
There were

>strong links between labor and the Civil Rights movement of the 1950s
and

>1960s.  But, at the same time, to elevate race consciousness
means that

>certain other kinds of consciousnesses will be lowered.  The
public cannot

>pay attention to too many different things at a time.

>

>With respect to David Montgomery=B9s comments, I would take exception
to his

>statement, =B3to say the civil rights derailed the labor movement is,
among

>other errors, to think that history began after World War II.=B2 
Now, of

>course, I don=B9t think that history began after World War II.  I
really fail

>to see the relevance of this remark to my argument.  If there
was a decline

>in labor solidarity in recent decades, it is surely appropriate to
look at

>conditions existing in recent decades to try to find a possible
explanation.

> Of course, racial animosities have existed for a long time; but
political

>correctness has not.  It is the intensity of race consciousness
which

>counts, especially insofar as it has solidified into an official
creed.

>

>I also object to the phrase =B3among other errors=B2.  When people
express

>different opinions, that does not mean that one of them is guilty of
an

>error.  I think you need to explain yourself.

>

>Also, the statement is made:  =B3No one who was active in the
labor movement

>in the 1950s could accept the idea that all opposition to civil
rights had

>disappeared, except that of southern segregationists.=B2  I did
not say =B3all=B2

>opposition.  I said, =B3apart from southern segregationists, there
was no

>effective opposition to the Civil Rights movement.=B2  One can
also argue that

>opposition from the southern segregationists was not effective. 
When

>President Eisenhower sent in federal troops to integrate the schools
of

>Little Rock, it was fairly clear which side had won.

>

>This may be enough response to the criticism.  I want to thank
Joe Berry for

>writing =B3This is not to say that everything in the first post was
wrong.=B2

>Also, thanks to Brian Kelly for writing =B3Employers very often did
attempt to

>manipulate racial and ethnic divisions in order to weaken working
class

>organization ...=B2  I do disagree, however, with his later
statement =B3the

>notion that business and the government elite =8Cactively acceded=B9 to
the

>demands of the civil rights movement simply cannot be
sustained.=B2  If you

>want to attack me, you can do it there.  Yes, I do claim that
the Civil

>Rights movement had the general support of the business and
government

>elite.  What the new Bush administration has in mind is beyond
my range of

>speculation.  Thanks again to all who commented.

>

>William McGaughey

>

>This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site
at
http://history=
matters.gmu.edu
for more resources for teaching U.S. History.

> 



--=====================_7769099==_.ALT--

This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 30 Mar 2001 13:49:56 -0800
Reply-To:     Labor History Forum 
Sender:       Labor History Forum 
From:         Dan Jacoby 
Subject:      Apprenticeship
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"

Phillip Eiseman wrote,

"What happened to apprenticeship between the economic depression of =
1837 and the emergence of non-union apprenticeship programs in the late =
60=92s? An important part of the labor movement is the control and =
training of fellow workers. Apprenticeship is an ideal foundation for a =
sense of brotherhood and solidarity. Still I find little or no mention =
of apprenticeship in the development of organized labor. This is working =
class education, why did the working class reject it or fail to boast =
about it?"

This me as an important set of issues, though I am not sure I entirely agree
that apprenticeship provided the ideal foundation for "brotherhood and
solidarity."

> One way to understand the denial of this history is to see apprenticeship
> as a confrontation of ideals.  On the one hand, apprenticeship appears to
> be exactly that route which was to provide artisan mastery and
> independence.  Such a route was an ideological necessity for the early
> republic as it abandoned its agrarian roots.  As with indentured
> servitude, one submitted to temporary bondage to obtain independence.
> But during the period under consideration apprenticeship was being
> transformed uneasily in  context of larger shifts from status to contract,
> from slave to "free labor," under regimes of political economy--liberal or
> class conflict--that found it easier to accommodate mass public education
> than the guild economy of skill (Robert Steinfeld, The Invention of Free
> Labor, 1990; William Rorabaugh, The Craft Apprentice, from Franklin to the
> Machine Age in America, 1986, Daniel Jacoby, Laboring for Freedom, 1998).
> Bellamy's work, Looking Backward, attempted to accommodate guild
> apprenticeship in an industrial society, but his vision was roundly
> defeated by radicals for its reliance on authoritarian socialism (Arthur
> Lipow, Authoritarian Socialism in America, Edward Bellamy and the
> Nationalist Movement; Berkeley, 1982).
>
> Industrialists vied for the loyalty of workers by using liberal political
> economy to turn craft unionists into villainous monopolists who feared the
> competition of free entry into their crafts.  It is not clear that
> employers would not have recreated apprenticeship on their own terms if
> they could, extending through contract the property rights to the trades
> for which they employed workers.  But both employer associations and craft
> unionists hoped to leverage their control over skill into organizational
> success using techniques that were not widely popular ( Howell Harris,
> Bloodless Victories, 2000).  Employers used the property right of
> indentures to break strikes and to exact loyalty-- when they were not busy
> asserting that they also had the right to diminish training the training
> they provided to the low levels that were immediately useful to
> themselves.  Craft unionists, on the other hand, built solidaristic
> organizations in defense of their property in skills by excluding
> minorities and by using apprenticeship as a mechanism of labor discipline.
> Into this mix, was thrown mass production, the substitution of capital for
> skilled labor, the emergence of scientific management, and attempts to
> recruit skilled labor on contract from abroad.
>
> Thus when it came to the question how apprenticeship might be enforced,
> radical workers trusted craft unions no more than they trusted business to
> govern apprenticeship in the general interests of labor.   But to maintain
> apprenticeship, the law had to establish a new power to police the
> arrangements, precisely because the household indentures of the early
> republic were no longer applicable in wage labor markets.  Long-term labor
> contracts were increasingly regarded as a form of slavery, and craft
> unionists had to be conflicted about this because they abhorred imported
> contract labor at the same moment they hoped to establish for themselves
> the power to indentures.  The liberal institution of public schooling
> filled the breach.   With the temporary success of industrial unionism
> came the illusion that skill was not essential to the labor movement.
> Now, however, mass education has supplanted apprenticeship and the
> presumption of individual responsibility, freedom and opportunity has
> taken precedence over collective attempts to build competence.  Dorothy
> Cobble's work on waitresses provides one of many interesting anomalies
> regarding the way control over remained important organizationally.
> Finally, you might also be interested in Bernard Elbaum, Why
> apprenticeship persisted in Britain but not in the U.S., JEH 1989; and,
> Gillian Hamilton, The Decline of Apprenticeship in North America; Evidence
> from Montreal, JEH 2000).
>
> Finally, I'd note that the path of union/apprenticeship and the emergence
> of mass public education play significant roles, I suspect, in the
> question of American exceptionalism, whether that means the absence of
> socialism, or shape of labor solidarity in America.   Much of schooling,
> particularly higher education, is organized so as to provide workers and
> their children with the sense that they can leave the class of their
> birth.  Working class families regularly pack their children off to
> college in the hope that this will enable them to become part of the
> classes that they might otherwise regard as the enemy.   How this is
> played out varies from family to family, but that it does play a role in
> weak class formations here seems probable.
> ****************************************************************
>
>

This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.