(Please welcome in the comments Paul Frymer, author of Black and Blue: African Americans, the Labor Movement, and the Decline of the Democratic Party — jh)
There is something really timely about this book. I’ve mentioned this particular paragraph to most of the people I’ve substantively talked with over the past week or so, and though I hate to drag the presidential election into anything else, the book has affected the way I view it and the dynamic between various ethnic and gender groups that often see themselves at odds in this race:
As with Cathy Cohen’s study of homophobia in the African American community, this book examines prejudices among groups that have little power themselves in American society. Labor unions have never dominated American politics; they have had moments of significant influence, but this power has always been precarious and necessitated bargains and compromises that weakened the more progressive elements of the coalition. In many ways, unions were at the forefront of civil rights policy advances. At the same time, labor had a significant internal race problem. Similarly, the civil rights groups such as the NAACP have fought for power and influence largely from the sidelines. The NAACP and local civil rights organizations have been critically important in helping to mobilize black workers to join and be more active participants in the labor movement. Yet, the NAACP made choices at different times that led it to attack potential allies (notably those whose economic ideology was to the left of the NAACP) and misconstrue and ignore some of the demands of those they attempted to represent.
The complex relationship between labor and African Americans has been, according to Frymer, exacerbated by a two-party political system designed to encourage "compromise" between various groups needed to create a majority, rather than provide real leadership:
The initial design of the American party system in the 1820s was motivated by the desire to induce politicians to talk to moderates, not to those demanding strong action on slavery. That system has since taken on an independent life, but with similary consequences: to win elections, politicians believe they must court NASCAR dads, soccer moms, and "silent majorities" at the expense of racial equality.
That dynamic was very much in evidence, Frymer notes, during the passage of the Wagner Act in 1935, "labor’s magna carta," protecting the rights of workers to unionize, to engage in collective bargaining and to strike. At the time Franklin Roosevelt signed the act, African Americans comprised less that 1% of the labor movement. While often viewed as a triumph of the New Deal coalition, the legislation could not have been passed without the help of populist Dixiecrats who insisted that unions have the right to prohibit African Americans from membership, and also to sign collective bargaining agreements that discriminated based on race.
It was a crippling compromise with destructive long-term consequences.
The regulatory arm established by the Wagner Act, the NLRB, largely ignored claims of racial discrimination, saying that such matters weren’t really in its purview. And although the top leadership of many labor organizations such as the CIO and the UAW worked closely with the NAACP to support its agenda and promote it both financially and within its own membership, they were often at odds with racist locals who staunchly opposed integration of their ranks. It left leadership in a position where "doing the right thing" and supporting African American union members who were important to their growth also meant hemorrhaging white union members (largely in the South) and thus weakening what they saw as their power to advocate for all their members.
It wasn’t until the passage of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin, that legislation was passed that could effectively begin to force integration. But ironically, it was a provision in the act allowing for attorneys’ fees to be paid to victorious litigants that created a very effective enforcement mechanism. That, and rules amended in 1966 which allowed or class action suits, "provided the prototypical example of where giving private lawyers a financial incentive enabled hem to perform a public good."
What neither congress nor the regulatory agencies had been able to do was achieved by threat of huge litigation and penalty costs to the labor unions. In 1970, there were 350 federal court cases involving Title VII litigation; by 1975, this number had reached roughly 1,500 and by 1983, the number had reached 9,000 cases.
The percentage of minority membership in unions dramatically increased:
| Union | 1968 | 1972 | 1978 | 1983 |
| Asbestos Workers | .01 | 2.9 | 7.2 | 10.2 |
| Boilermakers | 7.6 | 9.6 | 17.6 | 15.9 |
| Bricklayers | 12.5 | 12.7 | 14.5 | 15.3 |
| Carpenters | 4.9 | 9.7 | 12.9 | 12.6 |
| Electrical Workers | 5.1 | 6.6 | 10.1 | 10.5 |
| Elevator Constructors | 2.5 | 5.1 | 6.3 | 7.8 |
| Hotel and Restaurant | 23.4 | 31.5 | 44.7 | 51.5 |
| Iron Workers | 5.3 | 6.5 | 11.6 | 12.1 |
| Operating Engineers | 4.3 | 5.1 | 12.0 | 11.8 |
| Painters | 12.0 | 13.9 | 17.7 | 19.3 |
| Plasterers | 25.4 | 31.4 | 36.2 | 37.1 |
| Plumbers/Pipefitters | 2.1 | 3.6 | 8.0 | 8.0 |
| Sheet Metal Workers | 2.6 | 6.4 | 8.2 | 11.0 |
| Stage/Motion Picture | 4.3 | 8.9 | 9.7 | 11.3 |
| Teamsters | 16.0 | N/A | 26.3 | 26.5 |
It did not come without a price, however. As Frymer notes, some union — like the Sheet Metal Workers in New York — were "bled to death" — they went bankrupt, having assets of only $2.5 million and forced to pay over $12 million in back wages.
As Frymer notes:
Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote in a fair representation breach by the IBEW that punitive damage awards not only would deplete union treasuries, they would impair "the effectiveness of unions as collective bargaining agents. Inflicting this risk on employees, whose welfare depends on the strength of their union, is simply too great a price for whatever deterrent effect punitive damages may have."
There isn’t enough space here to do the book justice, but Frymer devotes his book to the exploration of the thesis that racism in America is seen as a psychological issue, a problem of individuals. Both labor unions and the Democratic party largely adopted the notion that if only the "pie" was bigger and racist individuals dispensed with, it would cease to be a problem. But as he notes, the legislative failures that came about as a result of appeasing racist coalitions when crafting union and civil rights laws caused two groups which very much needed each other to be weakened in the ensuing conflict. Integration was achieved, but the mechanism for doing so was one of the many factors leading to the disempowerment of labor unions which had negative impact on wages and working conditions for union members and non-members alike of all races.
Which brings me back to my somewhat tortured metaphor involving the current Presidential race. The fractures between these groups who were important allies for each other was often exploited by powerful forces looking to disempower both. As Frymer concludes:
[A]ny success they may have will need to rely less on mobilizing and organizing and more on a frank recognition of the realities of democratic representation. This means the two movements must realize that they need each other. They also have to recognize that democratic politics are messy, and that choices will continually need to be made that will pit both movements against democratic purists. Once we escape the nostalgic glow of what people falsely claim to be the democratic project, we can more honestly and realistically go forward to bring about substantially greater equality.
Please welcome Paul Frymer to the book salon.
Related posts:
- FDL Book Salon Welcomes Paul Starobin, After America: Narratives for the Next Global Age
- FDL Book Salon Welcomes, Paul Davidson: The Keynes Solution: The Path to Global Economic Prosperity
- FDL Book Salon Welcomes Paul Tough, Whatever It Takes: Geoffrey Canada’s Quest to Change Harlem and America
- FDL Book Salon Welcomes Douglas A. Blackmon, Slavery By Another Name
- FDL Book Salon Welcomes Wade Rathke, Citizen Wealth: Winning the Campaign to Save Working Families
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search
Welcome Paul, thanks so much for being here today.
Thank you so much for having me!
Welcome, Paul…
One of the things you discus is the way that “lawyers and judges would redirect the integration of unions by the civil rights movement in a manner that downplays the connection of integration to economic inequality.” Could you explain a bit what you meant by that?
Paul, Welcome to the Lake.
(sorry to get into the weeds so fast, but I thought the book was fascinating, it’s definitely going to have to be read a second time).
Paul–
You didn’t engage globalization in your book–globalization played a crucial role in the disfranchisement of US labor unions, in addition to the other factors you discussed in your book. Why this elision? Because it might distract from your central argument in the book? Just curious…
Thanks. I appreciate it! The question about lawyers and judges is that many of these individuals so the problem of civil rights in labor unions as solely a race problem. In fact, corporate lawyers were among the leaders in pushing for civil rights in labor unions.
Of course, no one was wrong to push for civil rights. But corporate lawyers obviously had a dual agenda. Civil rights in unions meant a fight against one of their biggest enemies.
So, class inequality–whether for blacks or whites–was often left out in this fight over civil rights.
Hi Biodun, Good question. I focus on a time period–the 1930s up through the Reagan presidency as a way to avoid globalization as an issue. Post 1980, and especially post NAFTA, globalization has had a huge impact on labor. But the wounds self-inflicted prior to this period were not from globalization but the politics surrounding black-labor alliances.
And these self-inflicted wounds, I would argue, would matter when globalization does become a central issue. Had labor and civil rights groups been stronger and more unified, for instance, they could well have defeated NAFTA, let alone Reagan/Bush before that. Remember the importance of Reagan Democrats in his elections–white union members upset at affirmative action, civil rights, among other issues.
Why write the book now? What was your motivation?
Paul:
I like these distinctions that your book implied:
There are crucial distinctions among racism, discrimination, and prejudice. Americans often use these terms interchangeably without distinguishing them. But these terms are quite different.
Racism. Racism is systemic, supported by institutions and their practices (sometimes called institutional practices). Some institutional practices of racism are unintentional (pace unconscious): it’s simply the way the system works and has always worked. Some individual practices of racism are also unconscious— a couple of examples of this are given below.
Discrimination. These are supported by conscious practices, as when an employer decides not to hire–or rent an apartment to–someone because of his/her race or ethnic identity.
Prejudice. This is supported by behavior informed by fear and loathing of the Other, of people different from the Same. This is behavior subvented by the binary system of Same–Other that most of us operate with—but might not necessarily be aware of. Most prejudice, therefore, is unconscious.
I think your book implied these distinctions, which a lot of Americans don’t make…
I will have to get the book. I just watched North Country with Charlize Theron which is about the intigration of women into the iron mining of Minnesota. The perceived threat of women by the male miners towards losing their jobs was heightened by management’s abilitiy play one group off against another. It took time for prejudice to be overcome. In the real world management still plays one group off against another to control outcomes.
Good question regarding motivation. It came initially out of a protest I attended years ago during the Willy Horton riots. Everyone at the protest was trying to figure out what could be done. And a union person spoke up and said, why not just support a union protest (that was going on at the time)–the union was 80% black and didn’t have much support.
This connection between civil rights and labor became really pronounced for me. And in subsequent years, watching the fractures in the Democratic Party that have continued to lead to Republican victories, I thought it would be interesting to see why this fracture began and continues to have importance.
I have to say that there are certainly elements of this fracture lining up between Obama and Clinton. Not clear fractures, but certainly elements that come out of Ohio and other union heavy states.
I haven’t seen North Country. And I like Charlize Theron. Definitely going to the top of my list.
What do you think the consequences of the failure to focus on class inequality were?
You really think so? Didn’t NAFTA simply formalize a process that had been in place defacto since the mid-1970s, when Fordism was transformed into post-Fordism? Capitalism and technology had already set up globalization–the free movement of products, people, and money at the time…Me thinks labor and civil rights groups in the US couldn’t really have stopped this tide, which led to the flight of domestic jobs into the global labor pool.
The people in OH know this only too well…they lost lotsa jobs to Mexico because of NAFTA…
Specifically — you mention that various civil rights activists such as DRUM, the NCDWA and the DBTU “were often asking not just for racial equality but for a more radical vision of labor economics.” I’m not quite clear what you meant by this.
Thanks Biodun–I appreciate the comment. I do think we tend to focus far too often on individual prejudice and ignore the quieter forms of racism that are systemic, and not necessarily even driven by individual prejudice so much as historic processes that have long been in motion and have a continuing impact on racial inequality in society.
Dr. Frymer, a great honor to have you here at FDL.
Jane, not only were black workers actively fighting to get into unions, many of their organizations wanted a far more radical fight against economic inequality than national unions were willing to make. George Meany, the head of the AFL-CIO during many of these years, was not just slow to make civil rights reforms, he was fairly moderate on economic inequality. The fight over civil rights–the race specific aspect of it–deflected from the economic demands being made.
What ecomomic demands?
Similarly, with regards to the role of lawyers/judges, they were entirely focused on ridding unions of racial inequality. But their understanding of this was of a very specific type. They cared little about substantive justice, economic reform, or anything else. They just wanted racial integration.
The problem, I argue in the book, is that all of these different groups from unions to civil rights activists to lawyers were all Democrats, all progressives, but all had very limited understandings of the broader picture that was at work. The absence of the broader picture allowed the true enemies of all these groups to ascend to authority under the Republican Party.
Many black workers cared less about integration than better wages and working conditions. This mattered specifically in situations where black workers were in segregated unions. Many were happy with this situation–it gave them good jobs, and they were stronger in these segregated unions than as minorities of integrated unions. It allowed them to fight more actively for better working conditions. This was lost on other civil rights activists, and especially in the courtroom.
In the book you suggest that legislation could have been written differently, and that enforcement mechanisms could have been set up more effectively to harmonize the interests of unions and civil rights, but that Dixiecrats and others blocked this. How would that have ideally worked, and do those circumstances still exist today, in your view?
Southern Democrats opposed to civil rights blocked potential provisions to labor law that would have enabled greater racial equality in unions. Had these provisions existed (civil rights protections in unions), we could well have seen a racially diverse and powerful labor movement that could have mobilized for the Democratic Party and provided a powerful base to fight Republicans, to fight some of the problematic features of globalization and so on. But labor’s rise in America occurred with little African American participation. When the civil rights movement fought for inclusion, it led to a tearing apart of the labor movement at a time when both groups needed to mobilize against Republicans.
Hey Paul, I enjoyed your new book but I’m also a fan of your previous work, especially _Uneasy Alliances_, and the way you show how the “rules of the game” disadvantage African Americans. Is that also the big story here in the new book? what would you say are the main differences between your two books?
But all in all, Paul:
This is a highly significant book, mainly in the way you argue that institutions played a larger role in the racism of the labor movement than is commonly acknowledged and also in the ways that institutions shaped the split between white and black workers, and the ways that these divisions have been repaired, for better and/or worse. And how racism divided the labor movement, and how these divisions were institutionalized by national labor policy.
Thank you Biodin!
Janos, I appreciate your question and kind words! The “rules of the game” are similarly central in the new book as they were in the first book. In the first book I looked specifically at how the Democratic Party wins elections–the way in which the rules to win elections, needing white swing voters, leads to an often silencing of black political interests in national campaigns. (I think this year, by the way, has interesting continuations and variations of this theme that are just playing themselves out).
In Uneasy Alliances, I argued that racism in elections is less about prejudiced people than rules and structures, as Biodun raised in an earlier response; same in this book. The rules structured how different individuals behaved, and why racial inequality maintained itself despite often well meaning individuals.
Similarly, with unions and civil rights
For a bit of humor, from the synopsis:
“Title VII litigation; by 2975, this number had reached roughly 1,500 and by 1983, the number had reached 9,000 cases….”
Wow! The Great Leap Forward. .
Seriously, a backward look into the FDR policies seems to be afoot these days. I for one have had the opportunity to visit and professionally photograph a jewel of the WPA: Timberline Lodge on Mt. Hood.
I envy that accomplishment.
Do you think there are lessons in _Black and Blue_ for how unions can deal with today’s high rates of immigration?Or how legislators should deal with the incorporation of immigrants into the labor market?
Good question Janos. John Skrentny, a sociologist at UC San Diego, is writing extensively about the impact of immigration on labor markets and in the work place. There is certainly no easy answer to this–labor unions initially thought the way to protect their jobs was to fight immigration; now they embrace immigration and have focused on unionizing these new workers.
I think the biggest thing that legislators could do is make it harder for corporations to intimidate workers who try to unionize. This includes the intimidation of immigrant workers who routinely find threats of deportment if they join unions. That’s (at least one reason) why corporations like illegal immigration in America–these are workers who have few protections to fight for rights.
But it seems to come down to mechanisms for enforcement. You seem to be saying that even though union leadership might have been well-intended on the civil rights front, they were at odds with locals over whom they had little control other than to completely disenfranchise (at the expense of their own power) when it came to enforcing integration. When enforcement fell (almost inadvertently) to judges and civil litigation, it was expensive and destabilizing for the unions. How could things have been different on the enforcement front?
Finally, Paul: I like the following historical perspective in your book:
…the way you take to task those who say racism is a virus, a disease, and an irrational prejudice, as an individual pathology: Thomas Jefferson; Alexis de Tocqueville; W.E.B. Du Bois; and Gunnar Myrdal. Understanding racism this way allows us to depoliticize racism, you argue, and also to maintain the fiction that we are a nation of equality and freedom, with an increasingly smaller portion of the population having bigoted and uninformed thoughts. Such an understanding, you say, makes race and racism transhistorical and even metaphysical—which of course it isn’t.
Paul, thanks for the insights. if Obama or Clinton or even McCain contacted you for advice–either on policy or politics or both–what would you say?
You also seem to believe that the civil rights movement made a strategic mistake in distancing itself from the communist party. Could you explain?
It seems that when you bring people together by telling them it is in their interest to work to get a better deal from the controlling group, the card is played by that group saying you are playing the “class” card.. Republicans do that often.
Good question Jan. I would tell Clinton that you can’t solve racial inequality with ‘universalistic policies’ like health care. Not that such policies aren’t an important step forward, but racism and racial inequality are not just swept away by class-based policy making. Racial inequality subscribes to its own rubric and set of problems.
I question what Obama means by ‘Change’ when he says he wants to work with everyone to achieve reform. Corporate America has savaged both labor and meaningful civil rights reforms–is reforming labor and racial inequality the kind of thing that they can participate in? (They have been big supporters of affirmative action in recent years, but certainly not labor reform).
McCann has not shown an inclination to support labor unions. He’s been much more decent on immigration reform and civil rights, but that is in part because he sees why surplus labor helps corporations. More directly for him, I think he’s sitting back right now and watching and enjoying some of the fractures in the Democratic Party that I write about have the potential of defeating the party this November.
Cartwright and Jones, as well as Karen Chen, have argued that much of the decline of unions has to do with the leadership, rather than institutional rules of the game. Do you think if there was someone with a bigger or broader vision in power, things could have been done differently? How much of this is simply Meany’s fault?
Buried in the recent U.S. Unemployment Report:
13% of working men, ages 25 to 54, are not working.
No wonder the economy is broke.
You are right AZ Matt. Class is easier to play than race because race sounds so clearly divisive and class sounds at least less so (especially since 90%+ of Americans view themselves as middle class). But I think the Republicans have been more successful with the race card, whether as a way of dividing black and white workers from each other (on that point, see the sociologist I mentioned above, John Skrentny’s book Ironies of Affirmative Action), or by using race as a way of appointing conservatives to office and thus dividing potential opposition against them (i.e. Clarence Thomas).
further to this, Paul: Would you go as far to say the civil rights movement and the American labor movement short-circuited each other somewhat? Would you go as far as saying that?
I’ve read the Carwright and Jones piece you talk about and have heard of Chen’s important new work but haven’t had a chance to read it yet. Others have made similar arguments, especially labor historians such as Nelson Lichtenstein (see his important book, State of the Unions). But I don’t think so much of it was Meany’s fault. He was up against a set of historical forces that only an extreme visionary could have figured out; and even if he had figured it out, he likely would not have had the power to do much about it. There were visionaries in this period, Bayard Rustin for instance, but their voices were drowned out by people on all sides participating in a process that was heavily skewed against unity.
Paul -
With regards to present day, in an era of economic globalization isn’t there a danger of labour reform accelerating the movement of manufacturing jobs out of the country?
That’s not to say that it isn’t the right thing to do in and of itself, but how do we avoid the unintended cosquence of corporations being motivated to offshore even more jobs (as a way to avoid improving wages and working conditions.) What’s to stop them from doing so?
To say that the civil rights movement and labor movement short-circuited each other is both true and unfair. It is true in that they did fight each other and blame each other in critical moments that hurt both. It is unfair in that, in contrast to the rest of America, they were also active participants in each other’s movements. The fight came because their expectations of each other were so high and each failed to meet the other’s expectations. But that’s the thing–labor thought civil rights groups should naturally support labor, and ignored how race is meaningful even in a battle over class. Civil rights groups–especially civil rights lawyers–similarly ignored how class issues were necessary to bring about racial equality. Martin Luther King famously saw this–he was killed while helping a black sanitation workers strike in Memphis–but that message of his has been drowned out on both sides by each wanting one or the other, race or class, not both in a meaningful manner.
How much can we apply this to today? I’m trying to understand how this history is reflected in today’s politics. What does it say about the possibility of, say, a Clinton, achieving progressive goals, and how does it affect her ability to put together supportive coalitions? Analogous question for Obama. Does either seem aware of/sensitive to the forces you’re describing, Paul?
Hello Paul! Sorry I’m late — looks like a rousing discussion!
Paul, I’m seconding Jane’s comment WRT the Communist Party and whether it was a mistake for labor to distance itself from that party.
1,781 DAYZ AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND…
Citizen Biodun and the Firepup Freedom Fighters:
This is ,of course, the most important element of the Obama candidacy…for me anywayz. Obama has the opportunity to RE-politicize the problem of racism and then solve it with class-based solutions. He has, for instance, advanced class and income based affirmative action in education and deliberately avoided racial exclusive vocabulary when speaking to employment and bankin-finance discrimination.
Because of who he is and where he comes from, I trust ‘im now because I don’t believe that he is capable of denyin’ the historical truth that makes up an essential part of who he is. That’s why I don’t worry about his turnin’ neo-con in economics or foreign policy.
Of course I could be wrong…I was wrong once last year (I think) LOL!
KEEP THE FAITH AND PASS THE AMMUNITION…FASCISM DOESN’T GO AWAY BY ITSELF!!
Db11–an excellent point. This is why labor unions have started pushing for international standards as opposed to domestic standards. Globalization has progressed to the point that this fight can’t just happen in the U.S. any more.
I do think we can try to hold American capital more accountable. We saw some success with regards to the anti-sweatshop movement. Nike, Guess? and others took a lot of heat and made some reforms because they were accused of violating labor standards, as Naomi Klein has written so well about. If we make it clear how American capital hurts American workers, perhaps some reform is possible. But no politician is making this claim, not even when John Edwards was in the race. Except Nader of course.
Great discussion! I’ve just spent a lot of time talking about white privilege on various networks and not making much headway against the reactionary responses by people who claim their being blamed (which it isn’t about) I’m going to post some links to this to help clarify because so much is addressed here. Thank you.
Dr. Frymer: I have not read the book, but would love to. My question is, how do you deal with the above reactions? Do they happen for you as well?
I have not read your book but do you discuss the role of A. Phillp Randolf and the Pullman porters in the American Labor movement?
Absolutely, not when you throw India and China into the global labor pool…our children (my own teenagers) will be competing with these folk for jobs soon enough, and they’ll have college and even graduate degrees, which will not insulate them one bit…
Scarecrow, I think we see some of these fractures between Obama and Clinton. Clinton is pushing a universal-class based agenda that has failed to attract much black support (though a lot of Latino support). Even had Obama not been in the race, it is unclear how well her message would mobilize black communities.
In a way, I think Obama shows both the possibilities and limits of combining race and class agendas into a progressive campaign. Race is a divisive issue for many progressives–Obama avoids this division because he doesn’t have to talk about race. But if he wins, where will he go with this? Does he have an agenda that can confront real inequities or will it just provide a fuzzy gloss that avoids the crux of the problem?
Class and afirmative action(morphed into reverse discrimination) are two cards that get played out often. Being an overt racist, or openingly discriminating, are harder to do a get away with. So it seems that class and afirmative action are the coded words used by people who see their privelages being challenged.
The book is great, BTW, it’s quite short and information-dense while being really easy to read at the same time.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/06911…..SZHG6HKPR&
Phoenix Woman, I talk a bit about both labor and civil rights groups’ distancing from the Communist Party. In the 1950s, communists were leading the campaign for racial and economic justice especially in the south where few others were brave enough or visionary enough to even try. When the CP was ravaged by McCarthyism, both labor and civil rights causes suffered greatly. Both labor (through Meany) and civil rights groups participated in rabid anti-communism.
Naomi Klein, ah…my heroine. As for making American capital more accountable, I say good luck on that one. That ship has sailed…a long time ago, in the mid-1970s, as I claimed earlier…
Audrey, by emphasizing systemic features, I try to defuse personal blame against individuals. I think most of us, progressives and conservatives alike, are fairly ambivalent when it comes to race and we respond to political and societal cues. It is too much pressure to ask every individual to bravely challenge racism by themselves. We need to understand this as something systemic that requires change at that level. Once it occurs there, participation in it will be easier.
But I agree with you that people’s initial response is defensiveness. No one wants to be labeled a racist. I try to avoid that by emphasizing the nuances and complexities of individuals, and the way they respond to political norms and incentives.
You may well be right Biodun, which is why I think the 1960s and 70s are so critical to understanding. But you have to keep hope alive, right? :)
One of the frustrating things we’re dealing with right now is a Congress that’s getting ready to capitulate on FISA law. And I thought this part of your book really condensed quite well what we’re dealing with:
That’s everything that’s going on right now in a nutshell — the attempt to write meaningless details into legislation they can take “credit for,” and at the same time give everything over to “organize interests” (i.e., the telecos & Bush administration criminals) that they want.
It’s pretty disgusting.
Thank you, Jane. I’ve bookmarked the link and will pass it on along with the link to this salon. :)
Steve, I do discuss A. Philip Randolph and the Pullman workers. For even more discussion, check out Beth Tompkins Bates, Pullman Porters and the Rise of Protest Politics in Black America; and Eric Arnesen, Brotherhoods in Color. Both excellent books.
Randolph, by the way, is an overlooked radical in American history. Especially his early speeches are strikingly powerful and visionary for encapsulating a progressive race and class agenda.
You are absolutely right, Jane. The sad thing is that no one in Congress is seemingly accountable. They make empty claims and get away with it time and time again.
I say the ship has sailed because it’s global capital now–every national economy is tied to the global stock exchanges: Dow Jones Index, Tokyo Nikkei, Dax in Frankfurt, FTSE in London, Hang Seng Index in Hong Kong, and so on and so on..what happens in one affects the others…it’s not really only up to American capitalism by itself anymore…That’s why Greenspan stumbled, and why Bernanke is stumbling…
Thank you. From Jane’s intro and your comments, I get the impression this is a multi-faceted “big picture” book and well worth the read. I’ve just learned a lot by being here today. Can’t wait to read it.
Thanks for your answer. Agree that international standards (enforced through trade agreements) are a neccessary component.
Second question: given the trouble that American auto companies find themselves in, and the likely prospect of even more factory closings and huge job losses, will this disproportionally hurt African American unionized workers?
Will that increase economic disparity in those regions? (given the proportion of black auto workers and the loss of very high paying unionized jobs) What is your outlook on this and is their any way to mitigate the likely damage?
Very true Biodun. Max Weber wrote many years ago about the iron cage of capitalism, and his words seem rather prophetic. But America is powerful enough to at least carve out a different version of it. It requires a lot of vision that doesn’t seem to exist at the moment, but I think it’s out there.
Thanks Audrey. I appreciate it. It does try to combine big picture with a focus on what happened between labor and civil rights in the 20th century.
I agree..he was active with labor and civil rights for at least 60 years. I am old enough to remember him from the 50’s and 60’s. Anoter good book about The Pullman workers is Larry Tye’s “Rising from the Rails”.
Db11, I think you are right. Black workers are a big part of the auto industry. Long have been. And they are going to be hurt very badly if the auto industry continues to struggle. (An irony for progressives on this front is that the SUV has been one of the biggest catalysts of revitalization in American auto).
It’d be interesting to see if any of this gets play were Michigan to revote in the Democratic primaries.
Black workers are currently centered heavily in industries that are experiencing big losses. Compare this to the huge numbers of immigrants in service sector and technology sector economies for instance. This job loss is something that no one is talking about, certainly in the political campaign. And the job loss is not race neutral in that black workers are going to receive the brunt of losses.
I’ll check out Tye’s book. I’ve heard good things…
You’re welcome. And thanks again. Your answers include information that would have helped tremendously to mitigate the defensiveness and contention I’ve been dealing with.
It is hard to get people to see the connections between different sectors of the economy when their noses are stuck to the grindstone trying to make ends meet. When a auto worker is laid off a cowboy in Arizona doesn’t much think about that. But when fewer people are buying the beef he helps raise and his job goes kaput then the connections can be made, though tool late.
Paul – reminds me of Halle Berry’s speech in Bullworth about the effects of the loss of (unionized) manufacturing jobs in the urban centres. (One of my favorite political movies)
Seems that there’s a real danger of big swaths of the working black middle class losing a generations worth of economic gains. Not pretty.
Getting past the defensiveness is one of the hardest things in all of this. People put up huge boundaries and stop listening. Racism is a word that creates such extreme responses. But we can’t get beyond it by pretending it doesn’t exist. We just need to get at it by making everyone aware of how they participate in this process, usually unknowingly. It isn’t to blame these individuals–its just to create awareness of the ways in which we are both participants in this process and how the process involves mechanisms that we need to identify to target for change.
Instead, as I say in the preface of my book, we scream at Michael Richards and others who make bigoted comments, and ignore all the systemic features of racial inequality. Corporations never get accused of racism because their participation is much more subtle, is by the ‘rules’, and rarely gets any awareness.
Bullworth is a great film. It would be real interesting to see if a President Obama would address what is happening in the black community, or whether he’d feel such pressure to be a ‘national’ president that he’d bend over backwards to distance himself–and rely on his personal charisma to appease and deflect from policy demands.
You are right Matt. That’s why organizations, like the labor and civil rights movements, are so important. They take people in their workplaces, their everyday life, and ask them to participate in a broader national vision where they can make these kinds of connections.
There are only so many steaks a millionaire can eat in a year.
Paul thank you for stopping by the Lake and spending the afternoon. We enjoyed your company and conversation.
Thanks everyone. I enjoyed the discussion very much. Enjoy the rest of the weekend!
During the Earl Butz era of agriculture it was get big or get out. Farmers in the San Joaquin Valley got big and little towns suffered. Fewer people were left on the land to sell goods and services to.
Agree about Obama. One of the reasons I think his candidacy is so important is that he has re-engaged black voters in the political process. That there may (finally) be someone in the white house that actually cares about their interests, (or at worst won’t work actively against them) gives some hope for a future which can otherwise seem unbearingly bleak.
Whether he has (or will find) the political courage to do so remains at question, but at least there is a possibility that he will.
Thanks Paul!
Perfect description. It is frustrating. I’m glad I asked. :)
Thanks Paul – great discussion. Learned lots!
Ditto! Thanks to Bev and Jane and all who asked such great questions as well. I love this community.
Thanks Dr. Frymer for an excellent salon.
Thanks so much for being here today, Paul. Very interesting disscussion, I learned a lot and have almost the entire book underlined, so I’m sure I’ll be referring to it again.