Why are Americans so hesitant to discuss their history of labor violence? Slavery and Civil Rights are talked about all the time but violence against workers attempting to unionize (and the violent responses of workers themselves) is never discussed. Why is that?
Some notable examples:
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
Other urls found in this thread:
numbersusa.com
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
Because Americans associate the concept of workers rights with communism
>Why is that?
Because they want their proles to be stupid and docile and to believe in their bourgeois class mythology.
What's surprising is that the very same modern day Americans who support Trump and hate immigrants also hate unions. Yet until very recently white workers and their unions were at the forefront of legislation restricting immigration from Europe, Latin America, and Asia. They were the major force behind the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 and the Immigration Act of 1924. They also opposed the 1965 Immigration Act.
numbersusa.com
>Why are Americans so hesitant to discuss their history of labor violence?
What makes you say they are hesitant to talk about it? This time period is often covered extensively even in public school text books.
>This time period is often covered extensively even in public school text books.
Which events? We never talked about this stuff at my school.
Did at mine.
Whole section on innocent workers being shot to pieces by pinkertons with babies in their arms, etc
Because globalist overlords don't allow the discussion.
Slavery and civil rights while important for quite large part of the population in the past are totally irrelevant nowadays but due to those issues being based on quite clear lines of racial division which makes it easier to use divide and conquer. Just think of the very simple thing like affirmative action - you split people in pieces if you bring it up. You'll have whites who are racist and say that they don't want niggers and spics in the universities at all, you'll have whites who aren't racist but think that Jamal and Airwrecka getting free pass to Ivy League while being total idiots isn't how the higher education should work, you have "anti-racist" whites who call two previous groups racist, you have a minority of black people who live in kind-of MLK fashion - that is they're trying to live like white people do, you have niggers who are all for gibsmedat and you have the new breed of niggers who are all for gibsmedat otherwise it's racism/misogyny/etc. Then you also have hispanics somewhere and Asians who probably hold similar opionions to whites(with higher amount of them being the 2nd group).
Meanwhile the labour conflicts are about the people vs. the few.
Yeah it was always made out for you to sympathize with the workers. I always remember this image from my history textbook. The idea of Police attacking striking workers was alien to me.
>The idea of Police attacking striking workers was alien to me.
Because irl. it never happened.
These weren't striking workers it was bunch of communist terrorist acting like niggers during the LA Riots. Police and Army should bomb them to pieces with mortars and artillery, otherwise they'll never learn that property is sacred value upon which the American civilisation is built.
Are you Polish by any chance?
Pretty amusing post, here's your (you).
Never heard about this shit until college, and I grew up in one of the most leftist towns in the country,
Most people don't even know about the more recent labor conflicts like the PATCO and Arizona copper strikes in the 1980s.
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
Unions are tabboo in half of the country. This would also require the disruption of the narrative of the benevolent CEO getting held back from trickling down, by Uncle Sam. As industry dies, young people are exposed less and less to ideas of coordinated labor and are more beholden to talking heads shitting their brains out over social issues that divide the working class (not even a marxist). My history teacher spent maybe a day on all labor organization, from workingmen's parties to the AFL-CIO.
>Unions are tabboo in half of the country
It's more than half 2bh.
You are kinda incomprehensible.
Aside from Matewan, has any major film covered these types of events? Dozens of movies about slavery but only a handful about labor conflicts.
We didn't learn about much more than Homestead and maybe the Triangle Shirtwaist fire.
who cares lol
Because Labour strikes don't demonize the White man
>tfw Bisbee deportation
>communists
>late 1800s america
senpai...
The Communist manifesto was published in 1848.
What? No it isn't.
>implying workers shouldn't exterminate the capitalists on the streets
America was a mistake.
Both of these are facts
This place gets worse every day.
Americans aren't hesitant to talk about this shit, it's just not taught in our public schools because, until recently, there wasn't a massive push to turn every American kid into a good socialist. The vasts majority of Americans have no idea this stuff happened.
The majority of Americans are going to be non-white in a few decades, and are going to know even less about the dynamics of labor exploitation than the current majority demographic does.
There's no Roots about indentured Irishmen in the colonies, either, but what are you gonna do about it, honky?
>The majority of Americans are going to be non-white in a few decades, and are going to know even less about the dynamics of labor exploitation than the current majority demographic does.
YES
VICTORY FOR THE GOOD GUYS.
How shitfaced do you have to be to be triggered by none-whiteness?
>implying American workers ever had that goal
Class struggle is such a meme. In each of these instances, the number of working class people standing against labour unionism, either as strikebreakers or agents of oppression, was greater than the number of unionizing workers.
What we have instead is caste conflict. More specifically, the eternal conflict between warrior and priestly castes, which in America is manifested as the conflict between business and academia, the entrepeneurs and the intellectuals.
Both sides use workers as foot soldiers the same way the Guelphs and Ghibellines of medieval Italy would use peasant levies.
And to think all this shit is completely and utterly irrelevant now as more and more of this work either gets outsourced to china or given to illegal immigrants to whom normal labour laws simply don't apply. Just goes to show why you shouldn't bother, even if you succeed in your own life time all your achievements will be rendered irrelevant by future generations who simply don't care about them and there's nothing you can do about it.
Battle of Blair mountain, look it up
Closest thing the USA ever had to a revolution
Not really you're just retarded.
Already posted in the OP, my dude. And it was a big deal but I dunno if it was all that revolutionary.
thats not really an answer you know. I gave you and ugly but honest answer. You could at least have the curtosy of giving a breif summary, like a traumatic experience or family member involved in the sex trade was it?
Are you a man for example? It would give a completly diffrent dimension to your points you've made.
Also, and its just a nitpick on my part, could you cool it with ths 'shitlord's in your statments. Prehaps its an irony of "im a feminist so this is my word" but please, be creative with your insulting language, for the sake of everones sanity.
I disagree. many virtuous and sucessful people start with maual labour and it does indeed shape a man. you also get to appreciate your growing sucesses in life when you can look back on your humble beginings. "I had to fight hard to get here" that sort of thing.
However doing manual labour your whole life means your dim, or scared/lack drive in bettering yourself.
Depends on the labour i suppose. If your a proud plumber say, because your very good at your job and it feels fufilling, id say thats a worklife well spent.
>muh poor innocent working class they dindu nuffin
>Why are Americans so hesitant to discuss their history of labor violence?
Because most people simply don't know about it. It is not taught in schools at all. At least it wasn't in mine.
Are you kidding? A Peoples History of the US is the 2nd most used history textbook in American public schools
Labor unions in the U.S. today are closer to extortion rackets than anything their predecessors were.
I swear this gets more and more cringy each time you post it.
that is not a picture of vilfredo pareto rofl
>1274757
>The Communist manifesto was published in 1848.
that doesn't mean it actually existed as a relevant movement
...
Because wanting rights for the working man is communism, you dumb fuck. Fuck off back to your Marx and your Trotsky.
You're lucky if you learn about anything beyond the Triangle Shirtwaist fire
I could read it and I'm still in elementary school
Are you kidding? When i was in school labor strife was covered in detail.
Sucks to be you guys. We talked about the Pinkertons and various clashes between different labor groups in my high school.
>itt smug leftists use the opium of the intellectual, Marxism, to circlejerk and feel superior
>both sides
Which sides are you referring to?
Because if they talked about it theyd have to recognize that the workers were the ones who invited violence.
Legislation gutted unions and the ability of workers to organize reducing them to what they are now.
false
the transition of the US from a manufacturing based economy to a service based economy is what gutted traditional unions.
This.
This country calls anything vaguely anti-laissez faire or anti corporate a communist plot.
>le ebin helicopter mass murdering dictator maymay
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA FUCKINGGGGG EPICCC MAN XDDDDDDDDDDDDD!!!!!!!!!!111!!!!!!1!1!1!1!!!!!!
In some regions it's not.
...
>Labor Unions effectively running cities like Detroit and Chicago
>Had ties to organized crime.
>Would literally launder money and extort businesses on multiple occasions.
You see, the reasons labor unions are so despised is because they used to be trusted institutions by the common people. When a corporation does bad shit it's not surprising, but when a union that's supposed to protect workers rights starts doing the exact same thing, you lose your faith in them. That's what lead to their downfall.
That's why it's only the second and not the first.
>>>/leftypol/
Refreshing, as opposed to the clear lack of any detail our current pundits go into it aside from "it's bad" "they're good"