Probably because, within the US, minorities form a pool of low cost
labor in competition with white labor. This is somewhat true in the
>>>>>>>
]mbs] You are speculating on the cause of an assertion for which no evidence has been advanced, except for the micro-datapoint known as Rakesh.
>>>>>>>> . . .
When you have social dynamics like that, you're not going to appeal
to minorities by indirectly attacking one of the most prominent
minority groups in America (and the world, if you think about it) and
attacking low-cost labor in general.
>>>>>>>>>
The AFL is not 'attacking low-cost labor.' Quite the contrary.
MBS:
>IMPORTS. Who makes 'em is irrelevant. What they
>get paid is relevant.
The problem is that, due to colonialism (and slavery), there's a
strong correlation between color and poverty, on a global scale.
>>>>>>>>>
[mbs[ No shit. But the issue was whether opposition to trade stemmed from chauvinism of some type, or from a desire to defend one's standard of living. Our free- trade anti-imperialists repeatedly accuse labor's trade critics of racism. The only thing that has been cited here to support that are some unspecified allegations towards one dude -- the infamous Michael Dolan -- who is not a labor union person to begin with.
>>>>>>>>>>> . . .
This happens even in the US. Recently, my mother's workplace was
bought by a Japanese food conglomerate, which has been actively
eroding benefits and rights that were secured by the union years ago.
They're taking advantage of the large number of Latino workers in the
LA area. So, now, you have Japanese owners bringing in Anglo management to
exploit Latino labor.
>>>>>>>
Sounds like this can only heighten class consciousness, since the racial/ethnic roles are so scrambled.
mbs