Well that is good to know, and I guess we get to use that very same; "I make no apologies for having a critical view of typical union hyperbole and ideology, while remaining a supporter of union issues." in a racially charged context then too?
How would you feel if someone were to say "I make no apologies for having a critical view of typical anti-racist hyperbole and ideology, while remaining a supporter of racicially biased issues."?
Lets just extricate ourselves from any notion of how the privileges of contemporary workers came into existence, and just make a flat comparison of the lives of contemporary unionized workers, and 19th century slavery and call it a day. We can also forget that we have read "Death Ship" by B. Traven, or Dickens or the Jungle, or any other descriptive work that creates a picture of the degradation, poverty and abuse that existed among the working class prior to coming of the labour movement and the right to strike and all that other privileged nonsense, and forget that it is precisely those conditions which gave birth to the term "wage slavery", and pretend we are talking about comfy privileged existence provided for worker by contemporary consumer capitalism, instead, and forget that this had anything to do with the labour movement at all.
"I'm singing in the rain... just singing in the rain...."
Isn't there a difference between someone who has the choice to join a union or not and suffer anti-union sentiment or even aggression and someone who is born into a particular ethnicity and suffers racism and even aggression from day one? Or is this "oppression trumping"?
Of course there is. There is extensive racism operating in the union movement and elsewhere. What of it? A right is a right. Very simple. I am not going to spend my day trying to determine if the right to strike trumps the right to abortion. They are both "rights". They are not really negotiable.
I should waltz into a union meeting saying: "Sisters and brothers, what the hell are you griping about? Look at me! My whole family including a sibling were murdered, in Europe, because of their ethnicity! How dare you complain of your problems when I plan to beat you over the head with my story forever!"
No thank you, Makwa.
You know how solidarity is built? By taking other people's liberation as seriously as, or more seriously than, one takes one's own.
You don't have to agree with me. But you do have to stop your name-calling.
For my money 19th century working condition of non-unionized wokers existing in a society where strikes could legally be repressed by the police is far more comparable to slavery, than slavery is to the conditions of unionized workers today. Why on earth is anyone even suggesting that the comparison is being made between slavery and the conditions of contemporary workers?
That would be absurd.
Obviously, the comparison is between slavery and the conditions of workers in a society where the right to strike is not existent, as the powers that be in this country are attempting to make it here.
Until informed by the mods of the labour forum, I shall continue to post what I wish, thank you. Please feel free to contact the moderators to request my expulsion at any time.
The moderators of the labour forum are refusing to moderate. It's anarchy over there, remember?
In fact, given the anti-union article was on the front page of babble, and in conflict with the rules of rabble even, I would hope that the unions subsidizing rabble think strongly about any continued funding, if such a thing was to continue, or happen again. Nothing like biting the hand that feeds you, eh?! They may as well put their money into the msm media, at least there they would get wider PR, while being slammed on the other side.
So, building strategic alliances -- now we're talking.
Thanks, such a comparison would be dumb. Glad we have cleared that up.
Let's not forget that Unionist was not anywhere close to comparing the conditions of contemporary workers with antebellum slavery, either favourably or unfavourably. The idea of a "comparison" was invented by Makwa, out of whole cloth.
Unionist has [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/rabble-reactions/are-workers-rights-debate-labou... explained[/u][/url], for the hard of comprehending, what he meant by his reference to slavery. I won't bother trying to paraphrase it.
ETA: [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/labour-and-consumption/should-transit-be-essenti... in the other thread[/u][/url]
Let's not forget that Unionist was not anywhere close to comparing the conditions of contemporary workers with antebellum slavery, either favourably or unfavourably. The idea of a "comparison" was invented by Makwa, out of whole cloth.
I fail to see how these, "my feelings of being oppressed are stronger than your feelings of being oppressed" meta-discussions help anything. A similar feud between gays and feminists pretty well ruined another forum I know of.
Until we can figure out that these particular battles are part of the same war we won't get very far.
WTF is antebellum?
Pre-Civil War. A reference to the "culture", economy, nice dresses, and other horrors of the slave states.
I see. So its just American jargon, like IED, when you mean "bomb". K. Thanks.
Abuse, poverty and racism didn't end with the abolition of slavery. Rather it took on a new form. Black Americans have stood proudly on picket lines, and in labour struggles against the economic and political disenfranchisement of the working class, as the member of that class most often abused by the free market, which especially at the begining, basically transferred the conditions of slavery from one form to another.
... What would you call forcing someone to work, on threat of impoverishment and starvation, anyway? That is the essentials of how coffee plantation workers in South America are forced into labour, in conditions not to far different than those of Georgia Cotton plantation circa 1845.
I have seen similar things here, when I worked in northern Ontario, where I saw Cree people being abused in non-unionized forestry piece work. Native people were not allowed out of the camp on weekends because "they drink" and the crew bosses instilled general fear in the non-white population by wandering around the camp proudly displaying their small arms, shotguns and what have you.
Sigh, I promise not to go back to why such comparisons to chattel slavery, even during the early capitalist wage exploitation period, are inappropriate in an anti-racist context.
However, I must protest your depiction of Northern Cree as cowed and servile people. Being from a Northern Cree band, I can think of no families on the reservation who don't own a number of arms, and who are very unlikely to be intimidated by anyone, supervisor or otherwise, who like to show off their weapons. I suggest this has more to do with the internalized fear and racism of the supervisory staff.
In any case, this thread is yet another example of how babble is generally an unpleasant place for POC and FN people, as if more examples were necessary, thus the dearth of POC and FN posters. Peace.
Even now / We are not lost: If you look out at the night / You'll see the colours and the lights seem to say / People are not far away, at least in distance, / And it's only our own dumb resistance / That's making us stay.
Thanks for the protest. Hardly did it seem that the Cree people I met were servile and whatever else it is you think I was implying. I was talking about a specific episode in a work camp that I worked at. It was quite evident, despite the paranoia of the crew bosses about the people they had employed that their employees thought it was all a big joke.
In other words if you actually attempted to read my posting for content you would see that I was talking about direct experiences in a camp, not on a reserve, or in towns, or in the bush, where of course many Northern Cree people also have small arms. Who doesn't up there? But go on with whatever denouciations and other crap you wish to make.
Now you are just picking a bullshit fight.
You know how solidarity is built? By taking other people's liberation as seriously as, or more seriously than, one takes one's own.
It's more of a concept actually, in terms of the larger, comfortably established movements. Granted, they arrived there years ago the hard way. Nowadays, using their collective power to further liberation in other areas seems more of a far fetched inconvenience, as hundreds of thousands of workers exist under wage serfdom offered by the corporate parasites that run big box enterprises, fast food, and the loathsome employment agencies who skim off the backs of their workers, who have no access to benefits of any sort. Mostly, that is where the disadvantaged and marginalized exist, on another tier entirely from the liberation that others comfortably value.
triciamarie, thank you for editing out your earlier comment that "moderators seem to be circling the wagons," (in presumed defense from violent aboriginal folk, or perhaps Mormons) because you know I would have been all over that. I'm glad to see that some people are aware of the legacy of racism inherent in some established English idioms. Ta.
Even now / We are not lost: If you look out at the night / You'll see the colours and the lights seem to say / People are not far away, at least in distance, / And it's only our own dumb resistance / That's making us stay.
Maybe I didn't handle it as well as I should have, but it's done now, the thread is closed, and don't worry - I won't be starting another one, no matter what! :)
With respect, I don't think this is done now at all. The disgusting thread is closed, but I don't remember hearing any firm indication from any one moderator that workers will henceforth be respected on babble. Instead, I hear talk of 'first principles' apparently trumping workers' rights, and personal smears against Unionist.
Am I wrong?
What is inherently racist about the term "circling the wagons"? I don't see how it impugns FN people, or anyone. Perhaps I just don't get it, so some explanation would be nice.
Yes, Makwa, that's why I removed it. Sorry.
Now if we could just get people to quit saying "as a rule of thumb" -- ie, the size of a stick that a man could legally use to beat his wife.
We've all been there triciamarie, those of us who relapse to the traditional vernacular from time to time. It certainly is a legacy issue as Makwa pointed out. Another of the many things that need to be overcome.
Is the term Blitzkreig inherently antisemitic?
What is inherently racist about the term "circling the wagons"? I don't see how it impugns FN people, or anyone....
Neither did John Wayne.
Well, I'm not sure, but on reflection I thought that the wagons in question likely belonged to settlers who would travel together and park in a circle and huddle in the middle, with the wagons facing out to facilitate shooting either predators or passing FN people.
What is inherently racist about the term "circling the wagons"? I don't see how it impugns FN people, or anyone....Neither did John Wayne.
I am sure he could tell the difference beween a snide cliquey remark, and an explanation, as well, thank you.
Well, for one thing, I didn't intend to say that babble moderators are akin to frontier settlers.
Well, I'm not sure, but on reflection I thought that the wagons in question likely belonged to settlers who would travel together and park in a circle and huddle in the middle, with the wagons facing out to facilitate shooting either predators or passing FN people.
Yes, that is what they did. I think it is also what they did when under attack by FN people defending their land. Ok, so how does referencing this specific military manouver impugn native people?
That is reasonable.
I got how "ugh" was a problem and "tribal" used pejoratively, but I really don't get this. I am not picking some abstract fight here, but seriously trying to understand the issue.
This replusive ignorance, must it be everyone's battle when it rears it's head? Is it essential when attempting to forge somewhat of a common struggle against it? Or is it none of our business, which I'd find hard to believe.
[Deleted. There's no point. But anyone who disagrees with me is plainly hostile to poor folk, marginalized folk, folk with disabilities, folk shoved into the mental health system, women folk, and Saami folk. And doesn't get it. And is repulsively ignorant.]
Thanks for doing your part to enlighten the stupid. Good luck with denouciation without explanation as the key tool in your kit for forging the "common struggle", and other Kafkaesque jokes.
Obviously you have time for offering up snide derrision. But none for offering up a simple explanation, when asked. It would seem your means are at odds with your objective, perhaps your object is not what you state that it is.
Oh, dear, this just gets more solidarityesque every minute doesn't it? Anyway, Cueball, I think you have a reasonable question. Many FN commentators bristle at the use of this imagery because it reproduces the ubiquitous 19th century racist cinematic and literary trope of western USian settlers constantly being under attack by savages who would rape, pillage, scalp etc. Historical records demonstrate very few verifiable examples of such guerilla warfare, however justified some modern commentators might deem them to be.I got how "ugh" was a problem and "tribal" used pejoratively, but I really don't get this.
Even now / We are not lost: If you look out at the night / You'll see the colours and the lights seem to say / People are not far away, at least in distance, / And it's only our own dumb resistance / That's making us stay.
Oh, dear, this just gets more solidarityesque every minute doesn't it? Anyway, Cueball, I think you have a reasonable question. Many FN commentators bristle at the use of this imagery because it reproduces the ubiquitous 19th century racist cinematic and literary trope of western USian settlers constantly being under attack by savages who would rape, pillage, scalp etc. Historical records demonstrate very few verifiable examples of such guerilla warfare, however justified some modern commentators might deem them to be.
[/quote]
that was a welcome bit of graciousness 
Ok thanks. Not sure if that is right. But thanks for laying it out. Someday someone will explain what "solidarity" means too, because my experience of it leads me to believe it means fighting amongst people who are supposed to like each other, but really don't.
Cueball, it may help in understanding why that phrase is problematic in that it's connected with the whole racist imagry of FN's being called 'wagon burners' and other things connect with wagons that I won't repeat here. It's still unfortunately used quite a bit as a racist epithet. I've heard it used to many times myself in recent years. At least that's what immediately comes to my mind when I read those words.
Thanks for doing your part to enlighten the stupid. Good luck with denouciation without explanation as the key tool in your kit for forging the "common struggle", and other Kafkaesque jokes.
As unimaginable as it is to consider it necessary that a dissection of the phrase 'circle the wagons,' be undertaken, I hesitate to take it upon myself to become the explainer. It doesn't require a white guy's intervention. Others are far more capable, eloquent, and affected.
This thread drift is wonderful. Thanks, Makwa, for the last twenty (20) diversionary posts.
I have a question for babblers:
Are workers' rights up for debate in the Labour and Consumption forum?
Will you take no for an answer?
This thread drift is wonderful.
And it's nearly brought everyone to the much dreaded "100th post"!!! 
_______________________________________
[b]Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!![/b]
Will you take no for an answer?
I don't know, SJ. So far I've received three "YES" votes and one sort of irrelevant diversionary comment from four moderators, all of whom I respect. That tells me there's a problem here, a very big one, and I don't intend to let it drop.
I must say, however, that by my count, the vast majority of those who have weighed in so far are much more clearminded on this issue than our moderators have been. I want to actually thank everyone for their staunch defence of workers' rights, in the face of a lot of pressure to feel somehow guilty about it. Well done.
What remind said.
Cueball, it may help in understanding why that phrase is problematic in that it's connected with the whole racist imagry of FN's being called 'wagon burners' and other things connect with wagons that I won't repeat here. It's still unfortunately used quite a bit as a racist epithet. I've heard it used to many times myself in recent years. At least that's what immediately comes to my mind when I read those words.
Well, to me it seems like an idiom which is used most often to describe taking up a position of mutual defence among close allies. I get "wagon burners". That is obviously a pejorative racist slur.
I see that this term appears in the context of what is quite obviously a massive ethnic cleansing of FN's peoples, but then as I asked before, is Blitzkreig antisemitic? This is also a common idiom that appear in english, and one that has very dark beginings.
It is interesting to find out that guerilla attacks against settlers were less common than actually commonly believed, but I think I object to the somewhat negative connotation attached to the term "guerilla warfare", as if there is something wrong with that. It is clear to me that these negative connotations that surround this type of warfare as if it is dishonourable, sneaky or underhanded in some way is obviously a way of deligitmizing one of the few means that the weak have when confronting the mighty.
English is indeed filled with terms and implied meaning aimed directly at deligitimizing the struggle of weak, and the poor against the establishment. I really don't see how else Native people could have confronted the US cavalry, and the heavily armed settler wagon trains.
Thanks for doing your part to enlighten the stupid. Good luck with denouciation without explanation as the key tool in your kit for forging the "common struggle", and other Kafkaesque jokes.As unimaginable as it is to consider it necessary that a dissection of the phrase 'circle the wagons,' be undertaken, I hesitate to take it upon myself to become the explainer. It doesn't require a white guy's intervention. Others are far more capable, eloquent, and affected.
Of course, you had absolutely no compunction being a snide derider, even if you did not feel compelled to be the "explainer". The object of your intervention was then to intervene to assert your moral superiority? The fact that you were "in the know"? Prove something? what?
Is Blitzkreig antisemitic?
Is "black hole" racist?
If I convince you all that "thread drift" is an attack on garment workers, will you stop?
Naw, probably not.
Sure. It can be shown to have racist connotations, but its racist connotations are context dependent. And in fact it is directly linked etymologically with explicitly racist terminology.
I don't know, SJ. So far I've received three "YES" votes and one sort of irrelevant diversionary comment from four moderators, all of whom I respect. That tells me there's a problem here, a very big one, and I don't intend to let it drop.
What we have is an ill-advised decision in my view, to publish the article on Rabble. This is the crux of the issue. The separate issue, and the one that speaks to your question, surrounds the intent of having the article introduced into the Labour forum. The posting of the article into Babble was not intended to invite a debate of worker's rights, in my estimation, because the OP clearly suggested an opposition to the views contained in the article. If you disagree, and contend that pro or con arguments were welcomed intentionally, then I don't see how you could maintain that view in light of this:
You know why I posted that article in the Labour and Consumption forum? Because it was on the front page of rabble, and I wanted to see what babblers would have to say about it. Because I personally disagreed with the article, and I wanted to see our resident labour experts on babble debunk the arguments made.
Wouldn't the matter would be more appropriately addressed to the Rabble Editor?
If by the term 'racially biased issues' you mean anti-racist issues, I would say good for you, and good luck with that. I think all perspectives should be approached critically, especially by those who care about them most.How would you feel if someone were to say "I make no apologies for having a critical view of typical anti-racist hyperbole and ideology, while remaining a supporter of racicially biased issues."?
Even now / We are not lost: If you look out at the night / You'll see the colours and the lights seem to say / People are not far away, at least in distance, / And it's only our own dumb resistance / That's making us stay.
