Back to Chapter Headings Back to home page Contact Gene Lantz
History really matters, and it seems easy to learn because it's just reading. But it's not easy. A lot of what passes academically as history is whitewashed bunk. Our history is not their history; it's a matter of perspective.
Grave of the Haymarket Martyrs
I live in Texas, a place where pure fantasy is sold as solid facts. Consider what Texans think of the Alamo, then imagine a version that Mexican Americans might see!
"The history of an oppressed people is hidden in the lies and the agreed-upon myth of its conquerors." --Meridel Le Sueur.
Consider, for instance, the idea of reading history from the perspective of an African American.
"The history of the Negro in the United States is a history of crime without a parallel.” --Eugene V Debs.
Don't even get me started on history from the perspective of Native Americans:
“The troubles were always about taking my country from me. I could live in peace with all else, but they wanted my country and I was in trouble defending it. It was no use. They were bound to take my country away from me. It may have been that my country had to be taken away from me, but it was not justice." --Chitty Harjo (Crazy Snake)
Howard Zinn made an attempt to write a comprehensive and honest history of the United States. It's very good from the perspective of liberals, but it could be better from the strict perspective of American working people. There are a lot of "labor" histories, but a lot of them are self-serving and they carefully dance around any criticisms of the people who paid for publication. Of the many labor histories I've read, my favorite is "Rainbow at Midnight" by a professor named George Lipsitz. It's not actually even a history, but sort of a cultural comment that includes some labor history in a few chapters. It's the clearest explanation of where American unions went wrong (1947-1995) that I've ever seen. I don't see how anybody can claim to understand today's labor movement without that book. From time to time, I buy used copies of it and distribute them to my friends.
As long as we're sucked into "their" history, we can't even understand where we are, much less which way is forward.
I put my own list of facts, comments and interpretations on the web. I think it's an easy-access way to understand labor history beginning with ancient Egypt and coming up to the present progressive leadership of the AFL-CIO.
Most of us have spent our formative years in the “American Century,” from about 1945 to 1972.
World War II effectively eliminated all industrial competition in the world by bombing the industrialized nations flat. Only the U.S. and Canada were untouched, and both had revved up production far beyond normal levels. The corporations and banks of the United States dominated the world militarily, financially, and economically. In at least 2 out of 3, they still do.
The labor movement was tamed by divide-and-conquer, by intimidation, but most of all by unparalleled prosperity. Why have a fighting union when advances came so easily?
In 1972, while suffering a humiliating defeat in Vietnam, the United States ended their domination of the world’s gold. The US dollar was allowed to “float” against the price of gold. The effects of revived international competition began to be evident as foreign-made products, once the objects of derision, began to overtake U.S. products even in our home market. Americans had laughed at the first Volkswagens and Toyotas on our streets, but the laughter didn’t last long.
During the three decade “American century” unionized workers received 3% raises almost every year. “Cradle to grave” insurance and health care became the norm for union workers. “Golden year” pensions were expected by all and enjoyed by many. Non-union wages and benefits weren't as good but they tended to follow behind. Income and wealth inequality diminished.
International competition, international alienation, brought down the American century and is bringing it down yet. For a brief period, generally known as the “Carter years,” U.S. economic policies were more or less in limbo and did not adjust to the new situation. With the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980, the ruling class worked out its new program. They would win the international competition through military intimidation abroad and slashing of production costs at home.
“Production costs” turned out to be just a nice euphemism for your wages and benefits. Americans, for the first time since the Great Depression, saw their living standards sinking instead of rising. Their children began having lower incomes than they had, and many children began to move back home with their parents! Union membership and clout nosedived. Income and wealth disparity began to reach unprecedented proportions!
The international “race to the bottom” cannot be won decisively by any country, but must be won over and over with lower wages, fewer benefits, weaker unions, and more oppression. Every round of wage cuts brings the competing nations closer to desperation.
The American labor movement was much slower to grasp the new situation than the ruling class. There were a few “solidarity days” and a few breakthrough fights in labor, but in general the labor movement continued to weaken until 1995, when, for the first time in a century, outgoing AFL-CIO leaders were not allowed to choose their successors. The new leadership's ascent was more a palace coup than a revolution, but it was still a significant change from the policies of 1947-1995.
Powerful and hopeful change began to appear in the labor movement, and its success or failure has yet to be measured as of this writing.
I conducted a long discussion on labor history, interspersed with a few songs, on September 5, 2015. I get a chance, every now and then, to study and talk about labor history. There's a video of one such effort on YouTube.
Back to Chapter Headings Back to home page Contact Gene Lantz