I didn't "forget." I don't think you get extra points for what your wife has accomplished. It could also be that she got elected not in spite of their sexism and racism, but because she worked in a way that enabled her to gain the respect and even change the views of some or many of them (at least with respect to her qualifications for leadership). Does that mean they are no longer influenced by racism and sexism? Not at all. It just suggests that how one works with others makes a bigger difference than what truths one shouts at them.
>> I doubt that you have ever held a real conversation with any of the
>> multitude of white male workers there who you have summarily dismissed with
>> this one-word epithet.
>
>I have no problem face-to-face with individual white male workers. And it
>didn't interfere with my wife being elected an officer of the McLean
>County Trades and Labor Assembly, nor in my friendly relations with the
>members of her union local. And some day those men may be very glad that
>they have a friend (even if he does call them scabs when they are scabs)
>who has solid relationships in the black community, relations which go
>back 30 years.
A) See above about the pitfalls of vicarious achievements by virtue of marriage. B) "Some of my best friends are......."???? Is the fact that you know some African Americans, even have some as friends, proof of the truth of your political analysis? C) When these white men come to their senses I am sure they will appreciate that you are available as their ambassador to the African American community. How lucky they will be!
> What comes through in the tone of your response is
>> not principle but contempt.
>
>Not contempt for male workers in general; contempt for those on lbo-talk
>who claim to be leftist but are seemingly so naive about how real and
>terrible a barrier to progress racism within the working class is. (And
>yes, racism is even worse among university faculty, professionals, petty
>producers, and capitalists proper. But I don't care about them. I do care
>about workers, including white male workers, and so I do care about the
>history of their racism.
Are you so certain that you are among but a small number on this list who really understand the role that racism and sexism play in dividing the working class and incapacitating movements for radical change? Do you believe that you are among a lonely few who are conscious of the history of racism and its impact on the white working class?
Rather than express your "contempt for those on lbo-talk who claim to be leftist but are seemingly so naive...." as a broad brushed comdemnation and moral judgment, it would be more productive if you addressed yourself to the specific remarks of particular individuals and discussed how their positions demonstrate naivate about racism in the working class. Better still, it would be useful if you would draw from your own experience to demonstrate how you succeeded in getting racist workers to part with their prejudices.
>One of the first principles I adopted when I became radicalized in my late
>30s was not to blame people for believing their leaders. It is perfectly
You could have fooled me!
>"natural" to trust one's leaders, even when like Lydnon Johnson and George
>Meany they were genocidal mad men. It is the responsibility of those of us
>who by luck know better to bring about a change. But while I'm not
>interested in assigning personal guilt, I remain damn interested in
>telling the truth. And the truth is that for 200 years white workers,
I'm not sure about "personal guilt" but you sure are quick to indict everyone with a pink penis. Better you should assign personal guilt.
As for telling the truth, I'm afraid that your version of the truth may not correspond with how others see the world and that fact does not make you right and everyone who disagrees wrong. Your Reader's Digest version of U.S. history leaves a lot to be desired.
>generically, and with many many individual exceptions, have sided with the
>bosses against blacks, immigrants, etc. I think that under the right
>circumstances they can and will change. But your attitude won't ever give
>them a chance to change.
I'm not sure what about my attitude keeps white workers, or anyone else for that matter, from changing. I'm not even sure that you have bothered to find out what my attitude really is, not to mention what I have done or am doing. My problem with your approach is that you are too quick to draw sweeping conclusions and harsh judgments based on a very skewed and limited view of large groups of people. Your indictments based on gender and skin color of everyone (albeit with your disclaimer of "... many, many individual exceptions") who fits a stereotype is exactly the kind of intellectual construct that allows racists to draw their stereotypes of Blacks, immigrants, Jews, Arabs, and other victims (contemporary and historical) of racist abuse and exploitation.
[SNIP]
>One last query: What would have happened if in 1936-40 the CIO had carried
>its organizing drive into the south, basing it on strong anti-racist
>principles? Talk to Bill Fletcher (Education Director, AFL-CIO) some day.
>
>Carrol Cox
Actually, if you must know, I spoke to Bill Fletcher today, but not about Operation Dixie.
I think historical conjecture can be interesting, even entertaining. Historical analysis, however, is more useful. I have not, nor has anyone else who has contributed to this thread, argued that racism and sexism have not played a central role in retarding the ideological and political consciousness of American workers and as a consequence greatly impeded the struggle for radical change. That insight is, I suspect, widely acknowledged by most everyone who has actively contributed to this list. Similarly, I have not heard anyone say that the situation at Mitsubishi did not represent a particularly pernicious and outrageous current example of that point. My dispute with you is primarily your propensity to make sweeping generalizations on the basis of particularly egregious examples, for in doing so, you do not contribute to greater enlightenment or help illuminate how to make progress on these fronts, but rather create additional barriers.
In solidarity, Michael