I live in Annapolis, MD, very close to the downtown area. Two-to-three hundred-year-old buildings line Main Street downtown, housing quaint boutiques, tourist shops, sushi joints and numerous pubs. At the base of Main Street are the docks, where upper and upper-middle class folks tie up motor boats, sailboats and impressive yachts while visiting our little old town. Tourists of various income levels love to take a turn riding on water taxis, visiting historic sites and generally buying everything in sight. If you've never been here, I recommend a visit. It's quite lovely.
However, most tourists probably won't visit my street. That's despite the fact that it is also a historic street; the house I live in is about seventy years old and was reportedly once a boarding house for musicians including Pearl Bailey and Lena Horne. (There's an old player piano in the house - I wonder who played it?!) It's also a depressed area of town, and its residents are about 90% African American. The area once thrived, but when the city decided to erect a parking structure where some of the old black music clubs stood, the area lost its primary source of revenue and fell victim to poverty and urban blight.
Things are looking up on my street. While many Annapolitans associate the area with crime, there actually isn't much reported violent crime. A large Habitat for Humanity project is almost complete, and grateful residents already live in some of the houses. And there is a sense of community among my neighbors, many of whose families have lived here for generations. I am a white woman, and I have heard some white Annapolitans say they are afraid of our neighborhood, but my friends from Washington, DC visit without incident. In fact, while I feel that I am perceived as being quite different from others on my street because of the color of my skin and perhaps because of my education level, I also generally feel welcome. I think a lot of this has to do with the fact that my family and I aren't trying to change the neighborhood or trying to do or be something we're not. We're just a little down on our luck right now, just as many of our neighbors are, and that's why we're here. No pretenses. We respect our neighbors and they respect us. It's not perfect, but it generally works.
Recently this attitude of respect became more apparent, particularly in comparison with the crowds that flock downtown in the summer. I am currently employed as "Ghost Tour" guide in downtown Annapolis. I wear 18th century costume which is hot and unpleasant in addition to a bit of scary make-up. I don't look my best, and that's the point. When I give a tour, I have to put on my costume and walk up my street in order to get downtown to the docks where my tours begin. And I've begun to notice a pattern.
My neighbors were curious about my costume and asked about it at first, and they quickly understood it's a part of my job. Now most are used to it, although children do stare as they say hello. Even people who don't know me have been very courteous as I walk through my neighborhood looking rather strange. I can think of only one teenage boy who made a joke, and his friend actually gently objected to his remark.
When I get downtown, though, I sometimes get rude remarks. I'd say I get at least one rude remark every time I walk downtown in costume. People shout from their car windows and make loud comments as they pass me on the sidewalk. They clearly think they are being funny, but they aren't. The tone of their remarks is completely disrespectful. What's more, all these people, without exception, have had one thing in common. They have all been visibly well-off white men in their twenties. These are guys in polo shirts, shorts and deck shoes or leather flip-flops. It's obvious to any adult that I'm working, which makes me wonder if these guys have ever even had a job. I also suspect, from some of their remarks, that they do not respect women very much.
So what is going on here? I wonder. I will say that I am thinking a lot about the intersection between race and class and gender. But I am not really sure I have an answer yet.
Monday, July 11, 2011
Monday, July 4, 2011
Dear America, Thanks for the Chance to Get It Right - Eventually.
Today I am aware of and grateful for the freedom of dissent. Seeing all the patriotic July Fourth messages in the media, including protestations of pride and adoration from friends on Facebook, I cannot say I fully share the sentiments. Don't get me wrong; I am happy and grateful to live in the United States, surrounded by beauty and a chance at privilege. I do not take my freedoms for granted.
But I cannot say I am proud and truly loving of my country and its government. First, I am wary of pride that does not recognize the wrongs our ancestors brought upon the native people of North America and the slaves who unwillingly built the economy that enabled our country to thrive. As history gives way to modern times, I cannot love our gaping inequality of means, an inequality that has grown alarmingly wide over the past half century. I am not proud that our people were duped into fighting a war in Iraq under false pretenses. I am not proud that it took several years before we materially supported our troops and veterans of that war. Our national inability to tolerate religious differences, to educate the populace on science and the environment, to ensure every person has health care, to extend freedom of speech and association to the workplace, to allow every adult to choose to marry freely - these are among the weaknesses that must be addressed before I can hold my head up with patriotic fervor among those who hail from other industrialized nations.
Today, however, I will still gladly wave a flag and drink a toast to the United States of America. We have come too far not to continue our journey to become a nation of freedom for all. I will sing and praise the patriots, dissenters, and often-unwilling warriors of days past and present. I am ever grateful that I am living in the time and place where we will have the opportunity to fulfill the expectation of freedom. In short, today I will be corny and celebrate. Let freedom ring!
But I cannot say I am proud and truly loving of my country and its government. First, I am wary of pride that does not recognize the wrongs our ancestors brought upon the native people of North America and the slaves who unwillingly built the economy that enabled our country to thrive. As history gives way to modern times, I cannot love our gaping inequality of means, an inequality that has grown alarmingly wide over the past half century. I am not proud that our people were duped into fighting a war in Iraq under false pretenses. I am not proud that it took several years before we materially supported our troops and veterans of that war. Our national inability to tolerate religious differences, to educate the populace on science and the environment, to ensure every person has health care, to extend freedom of speech and association to the workplace, to allow every adult to choose to marry freely - these are among the weaknesses that must be addressed before I can hold my head up with patriotic fervor among those who hail from other industrialized nations.
Today, however, I will still gladly wave a flag and drink a toast to the United States of America. We have come too far not to continue our journey to become a nation of freedom for all. I will sing and praise the patriots, dissenters, and often-unwilling warriors of days past and present. I am ever grateful that I am living in the time and place where we will have the opportunity to fulfill the expectation of freedom. In short, today I will be corny and celebrate. Let freedom ring!
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
It's Between My Doctor & Me. Butt Out.
A friend of mine recently complained online about the "fat ass" of the person seated next to him on an airplane. I'm sure he meant well; my friend was uncomfortable in his own seat because of the bulging figure of the man encroaching on his space. My friend was understandably frustrated at feeling he had to share his own seat, and he was apparently blaming the larger man for having a body too big for his seat. (That airlines have been squeezing more and more seats onto planes in order to save money can't have escaped my friend's notice, so I'm sure he was frustrated with the airline as well.) I doubt, though, that my friend stopped to consider the physical discomfort caused by being too big for one's own airplane seat. I've been informed by someone larger than I am that bruised hips and other discomforts are among the difficulties of being too big for one's chair; I've also heard tall people complain of health problems because they don't fit happily in airline seats.
While tall people can do nothing to change their size, it's true that, over time, with much exercise and strict diet (and sometimes expensive surgery) obese persons may be able to reduce their girth. Occasionally (but rarely), obese people are able even to lose scores of pounds and manage to keep it off for the rest of their lives. Major weight loss is the exception, not the rule.
More to the point, an apparent need to lose weight is a health issue, and health issues are private ones. To refer to a person with such a health problem using derogatory terms such as "fat ass" is basically to refer to someone's private health problem in an unfairly judgmental and personal way. It's similar to making rude comments about skin conditions or baldness -- only it's worse, because modern society unfairly assigns weight an almost moral quality.
I have heard many people in the United States complain about fat people. People say they don't want to see "fatties" in bikinis on the beach. Or they talk about all the fat people in the park or at the mall with some mixture of pity and derision. Almost all the people I've ever known to complain about other people's "weight problems" are people who have never been more than 20 or so pounds overweight. They likely cannot imagine what it is like to be fighting not for the same 5 or 15 pounds, but against forces of societal pressures, self-preservation and genetics that causes people to be severely overweight. Most of the time, fear of fat drives insults, which puts weightism in the same class as racism. Only in this case, people are not so much afraid of other fat people as they are afraid of becoming fat themselves. I hate to tell the weightists this, but overweight and obese people are not an "other". They are people, with strengths and faults and feelings and thoughts. They are us.
It's bad enough when someone makes insensitive comments about obesity. But often if the subject of eating or exercise comes up in discussing weight problems with others, everyone has an answer. Stop eating meat, some believe. Others believe more protein is the answer. Some swear by yoga, while others think running is the only way to a "slimmer" body. Join a gym, cut out carbs, eat five meals a day, try a cleansing enema - I have heard all of these "answers" and more. While I think a conversation like this is fine and probably harmless in private, one-on-one situations, it concerns me that so many people think they have an answer to a problem they've probably never had - namely, extreme weight gain.
If an overweight friend came to me for advice on losing weight (I'm an authority, of course, since I lost 20 pounds a couple years ago, right? even though I'm technically still overweight...), I would tell him what worked for me (lots of walking and a slight reduction in calories), remind him that the same solutions don't work for everyone, and then I would suggest he go see a doctor. A doctor can check for hormonal imbalances and drug side effects, and can consider whether a specific genetic predisposition means a higher weight is normal and healthy. A doctor can recommend physical therapists, personal trainers, nutritionists and others who have expertise on healthy, appropriate weight loss. Under some circumstances a doctor may even recommend further medical care.
Furthermore, I would only give this most minimal advice if I was asked. Why? Because I am not an expert. So many educated people I know these days seem to think they are experts on how a person should care for herself. They give advice constantly, unbidden. If I mention I'm feeling sad, my friends often don't sympathize (though often they do!); often they tell me all the things they think I should do to feel better. Maybe I'm just sad, and I don't feel the need for help! The same is true for being overweight. In some situations, being visibly overweight is a problem, while in others it might not be such a big deal. But that's between me and my doctor.
So the next time you think disapproving thoughts to yourself about another person's weight, whether that person is heavy or thin, really think about what you are saying. Are you expressing frustration at an unpleasant situation (as my friend on the plane)? Are you fearing lack of control over your own weight? Are you trying to play the medical expert when you are not one? Or are you just matching your expectations for others to society's ridiculous and unfair demands? Then remember that weight is a private health matter, and butt out.
While tall people can do nothing to change their size, it's true that, over time, with much exercise and strict diet (and sometimes expensive surgery) obese persons may be able to reduce their girth. Occasionally (but rarely), obese people are able even to lose scores of pounds and manage to keep it off for the rest of their lives. Major weight loss is the exception, not the rule.
More to the point, an apparent need to lose weight is a health issue, and health issues are private ones. To refer to a person with such a health problem using derogatory terms such as "fat ass" is basically to refer to someone's private health problem in an unfairly judgmental and personal way. It's similar to making rude comments about skin conditions or baldness -- only it's worse, because modern society unfairly assigns weight an almost moral quality.
I have heard many people in the United States complain about fat people. People say they don't want to see "fatties" in bikinis on the beach. Or they talk about all the fat people in the park or at the mall with some mixture of pity and derision. Almost all the people I've ever known to complain about other people's "weight problems" are people who have never been more than 20 or so pounds overweight. They likely cannot imagine what it is like to be fighting not for the same 5 or 15 pounds, but against forces of societal pressures, self-preservation and genetics that causes people to be severely overweight. Most of the time, fear of fat drives insults, which puts weightism in the same class as racism. Only in this case, people are not so much afraid of other fat people as they are afraid of becoming fat themselves. I hate to tell the weightists this, but overweight and obese people are not an "other". They are people, with strengths and faults and feelings and thoughts. They are us.
It's bad enough when someone makes insensitive comments about obesity. But often if the subject of eating or exercise comes up in discussing weight problems with others, everyone has an answer. Stop eating meat, some believe. Others believe more protein is the answer. Some swear by yoga, while others think running is the only way to a "slimmer" body. Join a gym, cut out carbs, eat five meals a day, try a cleansing enema - I have heard all of these "answers" and more. While I think a conversation like this is fine and probably harmless in private, one-on-one situations, it concerns me that so many people think they have an answer to a problem they've probably never had - namely, extreme weight gain.
If an overweight friend came to me for advice on losing weight (I'm an authority, of course, since I lost 20 pounds a couple years ago, right? even though I'm technically still overweight...), I would tell him what worked for me (lots of walking and a slight reduction in calories), remind him that the same solutions don't work for everyone, and then I would suggest he go see a doctor. A doctor can check for hormonal imbalances and drug side effects, and can consider whether a specific genetic predisposition means a higher weight is normal and healthy. A doctor can recommend physical therapists, personal trainers, nutritionists and others who have expertise on healthy, appropriate weight loss. Under some circumstances a doctor may even recommend further medical care.
Furthermore, I would only give this most minimal advice if I was asked. Why? Because I am not an expert. So many educated people I know these days seem to think they are experts on how a person should care for herself. They give advice constantly, unbidden. If I mention I'm feeling sad, my friends often don't sympathize (though often they do!); often they tell me all the things they think I should do to feel better. Maybe I'm just sad, and I don't feel the need for help! The same is true for being overweight. In some situations, being visibly overweight is a problem, while in others it might not be such a big deal. But that's between me and my doctor.
So the next time you think disapproving thoughts to yourself about another person's weight, whether that person is heavy or thin, really think about what you are saying. Are you expressing frustration at an unpleasant situation (as my friend on the plane)? Are you fearing lack of control over your own weight? Are you trying to play the medical expert when you are not one? Or are you just matching your expectations for others to society's ridiculous and unfair demands? Then remember that weight is a private health matter, and butt out.
Monday, January 31, 2011
Saturday, January 29, 2011
Walmart Sucks. Just Don't Go There.
This is an old refrain, but I think it has to be repeated now and then. Yes, a lot of other retailers suck for some of the same reasons. But Walmart is the biggest and the baddest, guilty of the most egregious instances of big box retailer malfeasance. Some reasons to boycott Walmart:
1. Walmart's entrance into a town invariably causes small, local businesses to go belly-up. This has happened again and again across the country. Don't encourage the beast.
2. Walmart pays substandard wages to its associates. Health insurance has historically been prohibitively expensive for them as well. Then it has been known to frequently tell its workers to find financial aid through government programs, which means our tax dollars are subsidizing Walmart's unwillingness to pay livable wages. Ex-employees also allege that stores are intentionally kept understaffed, and that "full time" employees are given far fewer than 35 hours per week. There have been many documented wage-and-hour abuses.
3. Walmart is among the most aggressive companies when it comes to union busting. Even if you don't like unions, workers have a legal right to organize to advocate for better wages and working conditions. Rather than give in to unions, Walmart shows blatantly anti-union videos that misrepresent union protections. It also carries out extreme surveillance activities, including training managers to be paranoid about organizing activities and cameras on workers throughout stores. It employs scare campaigns among both employees and management to stop discussion about unionization even before it begins. Once a union begins to organize, Walmart has been known to consistently use tactics of questionable legality to scare employees into voting against a union.
4. Walmart has faced a class action suit by women across the country who say they were discriminated against becomes of their gender. Reports of corporate culture suggest this was widespread at one time, although it's unclear whether Walmart has mended its way as it claims.
5. When a Walmart opens in a town, it often receives subsidies from local governments in order to attract it. This may include government money used to build roads and other infrastructure. Walmart has received at least an estimated $1 billion in subsidies in recent years, often from municipalities that were trying to attract jobs but which in the process short-changed public schools and other municipal services. Worse, Walmart has been known to pick up and and move its entire store a couple miles away in order to avoid taxes, thus breaking its implicit social contract with the cities that subsidize them in the first place.
6. Walmart is the leading retail importer from China, importing billions of dollars of products each year from that nation. Chinese factory workers toil in sweatshop conditions for only a few dollars a day. Allegedly, such factory workers are forced to lie about their working conditions when government inspections take place.
7. Walmart also imports many of its goods from other developing nations, which have no wage or working condition protections at all. The company has been known to ignore inspectors' recommendations when factories in these companies are visited.
8. The evil that really says it all: the difference between CEO pay and average associate pay. For instance, in 2005, CEO Lee Scott made $27 million, while the average full time sales associate made about $13 thousand. Ask yourself, did Lee Scott really work *that* much harder than his sales associates? And when you compare his salary to the international factory workers, the situation becomes nothing short of obscene.
9. Sam Walton's surviving immediate family is worth well over $100 billion. Do you really need to contribute to that?
10. Walmart has a dismal record of security to protect its workers and customers. Apparently it uses its security capabilities, including camera and surveillance, primarily to bust unions.
There's more, but that should be enough. Please feel free to correct me if you think any of this has changed over the past decade. Certainly Walmart claims to have improved in some ways, but I can assure you that nothing much has changed with regard to employee pay and organizing rights, as well as cheap imports from cheap labor abroad. And when a Walmart comes to town, it will naturally have a negative impact on many existing business. That's a fact.
If you haven't seen it before, take a look at acclaimed filmmaker Robert Greenwald's 2005 movie WAL-MART: The High Cost of Low Prices. Although much of the above information is well-documented, the film contains this information and more.
1. Walmart's entrance into a town invariably causes small, local businesses to go belly-up. This has happened again and again across the country. Don't encourage the beast.
2. Walmart pays substandard wages to its associates. Health insurance has historically been prohibitively expensive for them as well. Then it has been known to frequently tell its workers to find financial aid through government programs, which means our tax dollars are subsidizing Walmart's unwillingness to pay livable wages. Ex-employees also allege that stores are intentionally kept understaffed, and that "full time" employees are given far fewer than 35 hours per week. There have been many documented wage-and-hour abuses.
3. Walmart is among the most aggressive companies when it comes to union busting. Even if you don't like unions, workers have a legal right to organize to advocate for better wages and working conditions. Rather than give in to unions, Walmart shows blatantly anti-union videos that misrepresent union protections. It also carries out extreme surveillance activities, including training managers to be paranoid about organizing activities and cameras on workers throughout stores. It employs scare campaigns among both employees and management to stop discussion about unionization even before it begins. Once a union begins to organize, Walmart has been known to consistently use tactics of questionable legality to scare employees into voting against a union.
4. Walmart has faced a class action suit by women across the country who say they were discriminated against becomes of their gender. Reports of corporate culture suggest this was widespread at one time, although it's unclear whether Walmart has mended its way as it claims.
5. When a Walmart opens in a town, it often receives subsidies from local governments in order to attract it. This may include government money used to build roads and other infrastructure. Walmart has received at least an estimated $1 billion in subsidies in recent years, often from municipalities that were trying to attract jobs but which in the process short-changed public schools and other municipal services. Worse, Walmart has been known to pick up and and move its entire store a couple miles away in order to avoid taxes, thus breaking its implicit social contract with the cities that subsidize them in the first place.
6. Walmart is the leading retail importer from China, importing billions of dollars of products each year from that nation. Chinese factory workers toil in sweatshop conditions for only a few dollars a day. Allegedly, such factory workers are forced to lie about their working conditions when government inspections take place.
7. Walmart also imports many of its goods from other developing nations, which have no wage or working condition protections at all. The company has been known to ignore inspectors' recommendations when factories in these companies are visited.
8. The evil that really says it all: the difference between CEO pay and average associate pay. For instance, in 2005, CEO Lee Scott made $27 million, while the average full time sales associate made about $13 thousand. Ask yourself, did Lee Scott really work *that* much harder than his sales associates? And when you compare his salary to the international factory workers, the situation becomes nothing short of obscene.
9. Sam Walton's surviving immediate family is worth well over $100 billion. Do you really need to contribute to that?
10. Walmart has a dismal record of security to protect its workers and customers. Apparently it uses its security capabilities, including camera and surveillance, primarily to bust unions.
There's more, but that should be enough. Please feel free to correct me if you think any of this has changed over the past decade. Certainly Walmart claims to have improved in some ways, but I can assure you that nothing much has changed with regard to employee pay and organizing rights, as well as cheap imports from cheap labor abroad. And when a Walmart comes to town, it will naturally have a negative impact on many existing business. That's a fact.
If you haven't seen it before, take a look at acclaimed filmmaker Robert Greenwald's 2005 movie WAL-MART: The High Cost of Low Prices. Although much of the above information is well-documented, the film contains this information and more.
Saturday, January 22, 2011
Liberal Media Gets Less Liberal
I have been mulling for several days over writing a post about Kennedy's "Ask Not" speech and modern related speeches, but tonight I am flabbergasted by Keith Olbermann's abrupt announcement he is leaving MSNBC. I have often been critical of Keith's style, which is sometimes too sarcastic to be taken seriously by anyone not in his political camp. Nevertheless, he has been an important liberal voice and has carved a path for more circumspect commentators, particularly my political muse, Rachel Maddow. That's why this is a big deal. At a time when Fox News continues to ratchet up the rhetoric from the right and MSNBC's message is threatened by the Comcast merger, I hope Rachel and her MSNBC colleagues like Ed Schultz and Lawrence O'Donnell can take Keith's torch and run with it. In the meantime, I also hope Olbermann finds a new outlet for his unique vision and commentary. I'll miss his show.
Monday, January 17, 2011
A Reminder of Continuing Racism
A few evenings ago, my sister, brother-in-law and I were walking from downtown back to our street, a poverty-stricken area which has long been a center the of the African American community in our town. As we approached our street, a white man in his car stopped and said to us, "you all should be careful... you know you're in the hood, right?" My sister and I answered in unison, "we live in the hood." The man nodded his head and drove away. Surely he thought he was being helpful, but as we walked home, we couldn't help but comment on the odd incident. If we were three black adults, would this gentleman have stopped to warn us of the impending danger of our neighborhood? It seems as though this man cared to stop only because we were white, and because we were, in his opinion, in the "wrong" place.
I think that incident pretty much speaks for itself, no analysis needed.
I think that incident pretty much speaks for itself, no analysis needed.
Sunday, January 16, 2011
Why Labor Rights are Civil Rights
As the rhetoric heats up against public employee unions, and with the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday upon us, I thought it appropriate to re-post this essay from my last blog. Dr. King was committed to labor rights, literally until his dying day. The Story of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s last days fighting for sanitation workers can be found HERE.
My essay on the relationship between minority rights and labor rights, originally posted on August 6, 2009:
When black leader A. Philip Randolph began his career as a civil rights and union activist in the early part of the 20th Century, mostly-white unions usually fought against allowing African Americans to be members of their bargaining units. Just as white workers feared management would take advantage of them as individual employees, they also feared black workers would steal their jobs. And to a certain extent, they were right -- striking workers were sometimes replaced by black "scabs" to add racist insult to injury by management. Historically, management was able to play upon racist fears and blacks' low economic status to divide and conquer the workforce.
But Randolph was a visionary. When he helped unionize the mostly black railway porters of the Pullman Company in 1925, he understood that the company was taking advantage of racism and the economic condition of Black America to create a public image of subservient black men eager to please their white customers. He also understood that white unions and black unions would ultimately be fighting for the same goal: fair wages and tolerable working conditions accompanied by dignity and respect. The struggle for dignity and respect is at the heart of the black civil rights movement, and because they are shared goals of feminists, other minority activists and organized labor, all of these movements are rightly included in the larger struggle for civil rights.
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. knew this as well. As he said in a speech to the AFL-CIO's constitutional convention in 1961:
"Our needs are identical with labor's needs: decent wages, fair working conditions, livable housing, old age security, health and welfare measures, conditions in which families can grow, have education for their children and respect in the community....The duality of interests of labor and Negroes makes any crisis which lacerates you a crisis from which we bleed."
It was not long after this that A. Philip Randolph joined with leaders from communities of many colors and faiths to organize the 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, at which King made his now-legendary "I Have a Dream" speech. Randolph and King were at the crossroads of civil rights, and they understood that good jobs with fair wages and working conditions were at the heart of the civil rights they sought.
Today, organized labor continues to work side by side with minority groups like the NAACP to ensure dignity and respect for all people, especially those marginalized by racial and economic circumstance. Among the issues affecting laborers and minorities alike are the need for affordable health care for all Americans, the protection of American jobs from encroachment by cheap labor overseas, balance of work and family life, security for the aged, and education for all. Though even many politically liberal observers in the educated middle and upper middle classes may not realize it, organized labor is at the heart of civil rights, perhaps now more than ever. That's because now more than ever, the values of dignity and respect at work are spilling over to inform our values about how we treat one another as human beings -- and how we treat each other as human beings falls within the very definition of civil rights.
My essay on the relationship between minority rights and labor rights, originally posted on August 6, 2009:
When black leader A. Philip Randolph began his career as a civil rights and union activist in the early part of the 20th Century, mostly-white unions usually fought against allowing African Americans to be members of their bargaining units. Just as white workers feared management would take advantage of them as individual employees, they also feared black workers would steal their jobs. And to a certain extent, they were right -- striking workers were sometimes replaced by black "scabs" to add racist insult to injury by management. Historically, management was able to play upon racist fears and blacks' low economic status to divide and conquer the workforce.
But Randolph was a visionary. When he helped unionize the mostly black railway porters of the Pullman Company in 1925, he understood that the company was taking advantage of racism and the economic condition of Black America to create a public image of subservient black men eager to please their white customers. He also understood that white unions and black unions would ultimately be fighting for the same goal: fair wages and tolerable working conditions accompanied by dignity and respect. The struggle for dignity and respect is at the heart of the black civil rights movement, and because they are shared goals of feminists, other minority activists and organized labor, all of these movements are rightly included in the larger struggle for civil rights.
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. knew this as well. As he said in a speech to the AFL-CIO's constitutional convention in 1961:
"Our needs are identical with labor's needs: decent wages, fair working conditions, livable housing, old age security, health and welfare measures, conditions in which families can grow, have education for their children and respect in the community....The duality of interests of labor and Negroes makes any crisis which lacerates you a crisis from which we bleed."
It was not long after this that A. Philip Randolph joined with leaders from communities of many colors and faiths to organize the 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, at which King made his now-legendary "I Have a Dream" speech. Randolph and King were at the crossroads of civil rights, and they understood that good jobs with fair wages and working conditions were at the heart of the civil rights they sought.
Today, organized labor continues to work side by side with minority groups like the NAACP to ensure dignity and respect for all people, especially those marginalized by racial and economic circumstance. Among the issues affecting laborers and minorities alike are the need for affordable health care for all Americans, the protection of American jobs from encroachment by cheap labor overseas, balance of work and family life, security for the aged, and education for all. Though even many politically liberal observers in the educated middle and upper middle classes may not realize it, organized labor is at the heart of civil rights, perhaps now more than ever. That's because now more than ever, the values of dignity and respect at work are spilling over to inform our values about how we treat one another as human beings -- and how we treat each other as human beings falls within the very definition of civil rights.
Sunday, January 9, 2011
Violence
I am looking for answers to the Whys of the Gabby Giffords assassination attempt this morning, as many of us are. I want to know why this woman's life was ruined, why our Democracy could have been threatened in this way, and why innocent people - including a federal judge and a small child - were killed and injured.
I am thinking about hateful and violent rhetoric. I am thinking about the easy availability of ridiculous firearms in the United States, especially in Arizona. I am thinking of our collective inability to recognize and address mental illness and instability. I am thinking of our need to increase security for our Congresspersons. All of these factors undoubtedly played a part in our newest national tragedy.
The factor that most haunts me this morning, though, is that violence is our society's answer to violence. In our collective unconsciousness (or consciousness, really, I suppose), we see someone get hurt and we want to answer by hurting the hurter. Whether it's by invading a country which we believe has produced terrorists, whether it's with what some call "preemptive war", or whether it's by executing a convicted murderer, we seek retribution. In doing so, we condone violence as the answer to violence.
There's a fine line here - we have the right, after all, to defend ourselves. If a nation attacks us, as Japan attacked our territory in 1941, then of course we have the right to prevent further attacks. While some liberal colleagues may disagree with me, I believe we had a right to enter Afghanistan in 2001 and root out terrorist enclaves (that's not what we actually did, but that's a whole other blog entry). We certainly have a right to protect ourselves against known criminals, but we can do so by separating them from society. In extreme cases, it probably makes sense to lock people up and throw away the key. But while retribution is certainly a natural human response, retribution is also a primitive response - one that can do more harm than good and can be tempered with a society's decision that retribution is an unacceptable answer to violence.
I am not a pacifist. I do not believe all problems can be solved without shedding blood, although I wish to G-d every day they could be. I believe, however, that most violence does not require more violence. So this morning, while I am thinking that vitriol does play a part in our nation's relatively violent temperament, I am more convinced that it's the violence itself that begets violence. It's not violent video games or violent song lyrics or violent movies that hurt us - those are just stories. I am wondering if it is the real live violence that we, as a nation, condone through our actions that makes us a violent society.
I am thinking about hateful and violent rhetoric. I am thinking about the easy availability of ridiculous firearms in the United States, especially in Arizona. I am thinking of our collective inability to recognize and address mental illness and instability. I am thinking of our need to increase security for our Congresspersons. All of these factors undoubtedly played a part in our newest national tragedy.
The factor that most haunts me this morning, though, is that violence is our society's answer to violence. In our collective unconsciousness (or consciousness, really, I suppose), we see someone get hurt and we want to answer by hurting the hurter. Whether it's by invading a country which we believe has produced terrorists, whether it's with what some call "preemptive war", or whether it's by executing a convicted murderer, we seek retribution. In doing so, we condone violence as the answer to violence.
There's a fine line here - we have the right, after all, to defend ourselves. If a nation attacks us, as Japan attacked our territory in 1941, then of course we have the right to prevent further attacks. While some liberal colleagues may disagree with me, I believe we had a right to enter Afghanistan in 2001 and root out terrorist enclaves (that's not what we actually did, but that's a whole other blog entry). We certainly have a right to protect ourselves against known criminals, but we can do so by separating them from society. In extreme cases, it probably makes sense to lock people up and throw away the key. But while retribution is certainly a natural human response, retribution is also a primitive response - one that can do more harm than good and can be tempered with a society's decision that retribution is an unacceptable answer to violence.
I am not a pacifist. I do not believe all problems can be solved without shedding blood, although I wish to G-d every day they could be. I believe, however, that most violence does not require more violence. So this morning, while I am thinking that vitriol does play a part in our nation's relatively violent temperament, I am more convinced that it's the violence itself that begets violence. It's not violent video games or violent song lyrics or violent movies that hurt us - those are just stories. I am wondering if it is the real live violence that we, as a nation, condone through our actions that makes us a violent society.
Friday, January 7, 2011
Nancy Pelosi: Beloved By Many, Ignored by News Magazines
Ms. Magazine points out that, compared to her male peers, Nancy Pelosi been practically ignored by the major news magazines. Yet some say she was the most effective Speaker of the House since Tip O'Neill (you won't be surprised to discover I agree).
Does this matter? It could be a symptom of sexism. Then again, it could be a symbol of Nancy Pelosi either not being as amusingly ridiculous or Republican as, say, Sarah Palin.
Ms. Magazine: Boehner Bias?
Does this matter? It could be a symptom of sexism. Then again, it could be a symbol of Nancy Pelosi either not being as amusingly ridiculous or Republican as, say, Sarah Palin.
Ms. Magazine: Boehner Bias?
A Modern Political Trance
Betsy Morgan, formerly of the Huffington Post, has moved on to work with Glenn Beck. Wait, what? Yep, you heard right. Apparently it's Beck's "brand" that attracts her. She claims to be apolitical.
This, in a nutshell, is what is wrong with our culture right now. A significant number of Americans are politically polarized, apparently out of a misguided sense of fear, following leaders on the paranoid edge of the political spectrum. Others are completely unengaged, blindly following the scent of money. Both groups are in a disturbingly hypnotized state.
Forbes: Betsy Morgan On What Drew Her To Glenn Beck
This, in a nutshell, is what is wrong with our culture right now. A significant number of Americans are politically polarized, apparently out of a misguided sense of fear, following leaders on the paranoid edge of the political spectrum. Others are completely unengaged, blindly following the scent of money. Both groups are in a disturbingly hypnotized state.
Forbes: Betsy Morgan On What Drew Her To Glenn Beck
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)