Tuesday, April 21, 2009

The Ludlow Massacre

Why am I writing a post about the Ludlow Massacre 95 years after it happened? For one, I think that the progressive movement today lacks historical perspective. Or, if it has historical perspective, progressives themselves don't bring historical lessons to bear on today's issues. We often lack a sense of continuity of purpose with the people's movements, the underdogs' resistance of American history.

In my first post on this blog, I said, "Today's Web-surfin' progressives--whether we know it or not--are part of the same struggle as the strikers, suffragists, abolitionists, and civil rights marchers who came before us." And I believe it. We look back on so many of these stories from history, and the motives of the actors involved, the broader themes at play, and the lessons are so clear. I might be criticized as oversimple to say that, when we look, it's also clear who were "the good guys" and who were "the bad guys." But it's usually true!

Progressives today don't have to reinvent the wheel. We're fighting for the same things progressives, liberals, radicals have always fought for: democracy applied broadly, justice applied equally, a fair distribution of our nation's resources. We can look back and see what worked and what didn't for our forbears. We can examine what kinds of people, and philosophies, and systems opposed them. Then we can look and see the very same kinds of people, and philosophies, and systems opposing us today.

This is a general theme I feel is lacking in much of the blog world, so I aim to continue it on BTM.

That's one reason I'm writing this post. Another reason is that, ever since I first read about Ludlow, in the "early springtime" I get that tune in my head.


"It was early springtime when the strike was on..."
That's how Woody Guthrie begins his tribute to the victims of the "Ludlow Massacre" of 1914.

In southern Colorado, mine workers had been on strike since September 1913 against the big coal interests of the region, chief among them the Colorado Fuel and Iron Corporation, owned by John D. Rockefeller. The miners' demands included the eight-hour day, more honest procedures for weighing the mined coal, the right to buy and trade in any store they pleased, recognition of the union, and other basic dignities that were already supposedly guaranteed under the law--a common theme in the labor movement's history.
"They drove us miners out of doors,
Out from the houses that the company owned..."
The company owned the workers' houses, set the wages, and paid the workers in scrip that could only be spent at stores that the company owned, where the company set the prices. The surrounding towns, and indeed the state itself, were all but controlled by the great mine interests. So, when Mr. Rockefeller owns everything, and you are striking against Mr. Rockefeller, you are turned out to the cold.
"We moved into tents up at old Ludlow."
The workers were forced out of their homes and out of the mining towns--all private property belonging to the mine owners. They formed tent colonies on public ground in the hills around the towns and were supported by the United Mine Workers (UMWA). The largest tent camp was at Ludlow. 
"I was worried bad about my children,
Soldiers guarding the railroad bridge,
Every once in a while a bullet would fly,
Kick up gravel under my feet." 
The winter was cold, and the strike dragged on. Martial Law had already been declared, although there had been no violence from the miners. The Rockefeller interests' hired guns, such as the Baldwin-Felts Detective Agency, periodically raided the tent colonies throughout the winter, killing mine workers. (When a company hires a gunman or arms a thug, he is called a "detective.") But the workers would not yield. Some of them were armed and would defend themselves. 
"We were so afraid you would kill our children,
We dug us a cave that was seven foot deep,
Carried our young ones and pregnant women
Down inside the cave to sleep."
When spring arrived and the miners still held out, the great owners got impatient. Baldwin-Felts used an improvised armored car, with a mounted machine-gun, that drove around and sprayed bullets into the tent camps. The miners called it the "Death Special." The miner families dug trenches around their camps and holes beneath the floors of their tents for protection. 

The miners gathered more arms and ammunition; they had to know that more brutal attacks were coming. It's hard to imagine today how living in tents and fighting against armored vehicles and mounted machine-guns seemed like a better alternative than returning to the same working and living conditions as before the strike.

By this time the National Guard had joined the "detectives," militias, and armed thugs surrounding the striking miners, so that government and corporate interests were one force. The National Guard was under the command of the governor, who was of course under the de facto command of the mining interests. The Rockefellers were even paying the Guardsmen's wages.
"That very night your soldiers waited,
Until all us miners were asleep,
You snuck around our little tent town,
Soaked our tents with your kerosene."
On the morning of April 20th, gunmen attacked the Ludlow camp in earnest, with machine-gun fire slicing through the tents. At one point during the fight, the soldiers summoned the miners' leader into the hills to discuss a truce, where he was shot to death by a company of National Guardsmen. That night, the soldiers descended on the camp with torches and lit up the tents. 
"You struck a match and in the blaze that started,
You pulled the triggers of your gatling guns,
I made a run for the children but the fire wall stopped me.
Thirteen children died from your guns."
Early sources say that 33 people were killed, more than half of whom were children. More recent sources indicate that 20 people, including 11 children, were killed in the tent camp on April 20th. The discrepancies between those numbers, the ones in Woody's song, and those in other early sources may relate to confusion over when people were killed (on April 20th? during April? during the Spring? etc). But according to A People's History of the United States, 66 people were killed over the duration of the strike.

The workers grew more militant after the massacre, and they were supported by people throughout the region. Armed miners from around southern Colorado descended on the Ludlow area. Thousands of people marched on the state capitol, demanding that the Guardsmen be tried for murder. The funeral for those killed at Ludlow was held in Trinidad, the main town in the area. After the funeral, miners armed themselves and took to the surrounding hills to attack the mine guards and blow up mine shafts. A company of state soldiers ordered to Trinidad refused to mobilize, saying they would not shoot women and children.

12 more miners were killed before federal troops arrived to "restore order." The strike was over. Mr. Rockefeller and the great corporations won, because they could go to whatever lengths necessary for victory and rest assured that state and federal government stood ready to assist. The solidarity of working families throughout Colorado was no match for the solidarity of corporations and government throughout the country. When it was all over, none of the company's gunmen were charged with a crime.
"I said, 'God bless the Mine Workers' Union,'
And then I hung my head and cried."
Today, most people have not heard of the Ludlow Massacre. You probably did not learn about it in school. I didn't. But our history is full of "Ludlows." Tent colonies and armored machine-gun cars may sound old-fashioned. But a privileged class that benefits materially from slowly crushing working families and is willing to act ruthlessly to maintain its privilege never goes out of style. The systems and philosophies and distractions that made it possible then are still at work today. The story has not fundamentally changed. The difference is that there has been progress, thanks in large part to the awakening of the public by events throughout our history like the Ludlow Massacre. But it's been a slow and grinding progress, and we've seen indications of how easily it can be rolled back.

We would do well to arm ourselves with the knowledge and memory of the Ludlows of our history.

:::::

Sources for this post:
From The Folks Who Brought You The Weekend, by Priscilla Murolo and A.B. Chitty
Wikipedida

Monday, April 20, 2009

Obama's Worst Decision Yet

Last week, the Justice Department issued a statement saying that "intelligence community officials" would not face federal prosecution for torturing prisoners. The Department of Justice also promised to defend alleged torturers in any "judicial or administrative proceeding" brought against them and to compensate them "for any monetary judgement or penalty ultimately imposed."

That's right. In a short press release the Obama Administration promised not only to let torturers walk but also to use public money to defend their conduct.

President Obama made a speech the same day,
"To assure those who carried out their duties relying in good faith upon legal advice from the Department of Justice that they will not be subject to prosecution."
And explaining why justice should take a back seat to politics, Obama continued:
"This is a time for reflection, not retribution. I respect the strong views and emotions that these issues evoke. We have been through a dark and painful chapter in our history. But at a time of great challenges and disturbing disunity, nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past. Our national greatness is embedded in America's ability to right its course in concert with our core values, and to move forward with confidence. That is why we must resist the forces that divide us, and instead come together on behalf of our common future."
Remember, Obama was the editor of the Harvard Law Review. He was a professor of constitutional law. He's smart. But here he is describing war criminals being held responsible in a court of law as "retribution" and "laying blame for the past." Oh, don't worry, he respects the "strong views and emotions" that U.S.-sanctioned torture evokes. But holding torturers accountable would be too divisive, so we're just going to try to not let it happen again.

As disappointed as I was with this news, I noticed that the statement from the Justice Department and Obama's remarks each offered amnesty for "intelligence officials" acting on guidance from the Bush Justice Department. There was no mention of those actually in the Bush White House and Justice Department who gave the guidance, who set the policy, to torture. I wondered if that was intentional. I can live with amnesty for the intelligence officers and military personnel following orders if we hold accountable the ones who gave the orders. So I waited for some clarification about how far up the chain Obama's "get out of jail free" card would go.

And then...

White House Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel appeared on ABC's "This Week" today and said, 
"Those who devised the policy, [the president] believes that they were, should not be prosecuted either." [sic]
And there you have it: Obama's worst decision yet as president. We pinky swear we won't torture anymore, but we won't hold anyone responsible. Never mind if the decision violates the U.N. Convention Against Torture by failing to make torture a crime and prosecuting those who engage in it. Pesky laws don't fit with the image of unity and "looking forward" that the White House would like to maintain.

What makes this even more bizarre is that the "amnesty for torturers" decision came on the same day the administration made the good and decent decision to release the Bush administration's torture-approving memos. (Thanks to the ACLU, whose Freedom of Information Act lawsuit initiated the release.) So as it sinks in with us that our president will not lift a finger against the torturers, we get to read how nasty the torture actually was. Here are some of the "enhanced interrogation techniques" authorized and practiced by Bush administration officials whom the Obama administration now promises to defend:
  • Waterboarding (Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded 183 times in one month.)
  • Forced nudity (including in front of female officers)
  • Sleep deprivation up to 7 1/2 days
  • Slapping prisoners on the face or abdomen
  • Slamming a prisoner into a wall (aka "walling")
  • Facial hold (I guess grabbing a prisoner by the face?)
  • Cramped confinement for up to 18 hours
  • Forced stress positions (standing, sitting, squatting, kneeling in uncomfortable ways for long periods of time)
  • Insects placed with prisoner inside cramped confinement box
  • Wall standing (prisoner leaned toward a wall to hold weight up with his fingers for a long time)
  • Dietary manipulation (withholding solid food from prisoners)
  • Spraying prisoners with cold water
  • Combining and repeating above methods
As I write this, there is still some talk around the Web along the same lines as my earlier question: 
Does Obama's amnesty for CIA officials leave the door open for prosecuting senior Bush officials? 
Marc Ambinder, of The Atlantic, even quotes "senior administration officials" saying that there is no blanket immunity for all interrogators--just the ones who acted "in good faith" following the Justice Department's guidance. If that's true, then the door would also be open for prosecuting the big wigs. But until they are quoting people with actual names, I'm going to believe the White House Chief of Staff's comments on ABC. 

Wednesday, April 15, 2009

On a (Right) Wing and a Tea Bag: Corporate Power Desperate for a Movement

With a progressive labor-friendly President in the White House, large Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress, and the public turning against the capitalist extremism that led to the economic collapse, the old right wing is desperately searching for a spark. Hmm, where to look?

"Hey how 'bout these tea bags?!"  

Trying to create the illusion of a rising tide of conservative populism, corporate lobbyists have created the "tea party" movement. It's a loose coalition of anti-tax, anti-government, mainly anti-Obama protesters, funded by lobbyists and conservative think tanks and heavily promoted by FOX News. Oh and it's supposed to remind you of the Boston Tea Party. Today--on tax day!--there were teabaggin' rallies staged all over the country.

How'd it go? Well, let's see. In San Francisco, 300 or 400 confused white people waved little tea bags in the air. In Washington, the Secret Service shut down the rally at the White House when someone threw a package over the fence. The teabaggers wanted to dump a million tea bags in the already-polluted-enough Potomac River but realized they would be arrested. Then they were going to dump them on the ground in Lafayette Park, near the White House, but weren't allowed to drive their big rental truck into the park. In Chicago, a CNN reporter interviewed a teabagger who had a poster calling President Obama "a fascist." When asked why he called the President a fascist, the man answered, "Because he is." 

And so went the story all across the country. Corporate money organized angry, snow-white crowds. Right-wing TV exaggerated their numbers and boosted their story:



And the rest of us were left confused. 

What country are the teabaggers living in? They are vaguely worked up about taxes being raised when the only taxes going up are those on people making over $250,000 a year and on cigarette purchases. Their signs say things like, "Taxed Enough Already" and "Taxed to Death!" when 95% of American households just got a tax cut. So their messages only make sense if they are... 
  1. Very rich, 
  2. Tobacco company executives, 
  3. Representatives/lobbyists for the rich, or 
  4. Completely duped by a right-wing ploy to get working people to lead a "revolution" to demand more wealth and power for the wealthy and powerful. 
I've studied the crowds a little bit, and I'm pretty sure it's #4.  

***BTW, the calling-it-like-it-is award goes to the creators of this new website, $ave the Rich, that exposes the real power behind the tea party movement.

Honey, I love you so much that I just gave more money to Al Franken!

Well not exactly true, but I did say that a few times during the campaign. And yesterday's news has me feeling generous again.

We're inching closer to seeing Senator Franken in Washington. The Minnesota Election Contest Court, a three-judge panel, issued a unanimous decision yesterday that Franken won the election and should be given the official certificate of election declaring him a winner and allowing him to be seated in the Senate.

The court's 68-page ruling was apparently so thorough and it so utterly dismantled Coleman's central arguments that Republicans did not have a response for a long time. I'm still not sure what their response is.

Al Franken should now be seated in the Senate. If Norm Coleman wants to throw away more money on appeals or new lawsuits, fine. But this isn't even controversial anymore: Franken won. It was really close. Deal with it. Seat Franken, and then let Coleman decide what he wants to do.

For Coleman, it now comes down to weighing his options:  

1. On one hand, Republicans simply want to delay adding another Democrat to the Senate for as long as possible, even if the legal reasoning for more appeals is pretty silly. That's why Coleman has been raising so much money from national Republicans. It's easier for Republicans to filibuster in the Senate when there are 58 (instead of 59) Democrats.
2. On the other hand, Republicans as a whole don't mind looking silly, but Norm Coleman might. Taking this thing even further and continuing to deny Minnesota a senator could ruin his political future in the state.

In other words Norm can either continue to please his powerful GOP buddies (who could help him in a future presidential primary), or he can do what's politically best for him in the state of Minnesota (Governor Coleman anyone? No thank you.)

Either way, Franken won. Still. Again.

Monday, April 13, 2009

Sam Walton Rolls Over in His Grave

More than 180 workers at a Walmart in Canada won a union contract with the UFCW last Wednesday, after four years of legal opposition from the world's largest retailer. Congratulations to our northern neighbors! The workers in St-Hyacinthe, Quebec are the only Walmart employees in North America with union representation. 

So what will it take to unionize American Walmarts? 

Wally World is America's largest corporation and biggest private employer, with over a million workers. Walmart is virulently anti-union and pays poverty wages to most of its workers. These are the stomp-your-neighbor values that helped make the Walton gang the richest family in the world.

Consider this:
It would take someone making $20,000 a year (which is a relatively high wage for your typical Wal-Mart cashier) one million years to net the amount of money one Walton sibling is worth.
And this: Our country claims to value democracy; therefore, a $20,000-a-year Walmart employee and Jim Walton each have one vote. The Walton's would like you to pretend that this means they each have equal say in the way the country works... or just submit to the benevolent guidance of your corporate overlords... or just stop thinking.

Anyway, while you're deep in pondering, go check out Wake Up Walmart.

Sunday, April 12, 2009

Happy Easter

They cut him down, and he leapt up high.
Sometimes an apparent defeat is really the precondition for an even greater victory.

Saturday, April 11, 2009

Flying in the "Free Market"

cartel
noun
an association of independent commercial or industrial enterprises with the purpose of maintaining prices at a high level and restricting competition
Remember last summer when all the major American airlines started charging $15 extra to check a bag? The reason given at the time was the high price of oil and aviation fuel. Now the price of oil is down again, but the higher prices remain.

What are you, the "free market" consumer, supposed to do? 

Use airlines that don't charge the new fees? Well, you apparently have two airlines to chose from, JetBlue and Southwest. I hope they fly to your destination city. And serve your point of origin. Are you going to cut back on frivolous flights to teach the airlines a lesson? Well, who takes frivolous flights these days anyway? People fly for major life events for which they'll pay whatever it takes.

No, we will pay the new fees because the airline corporations tell us to. Our society has been built up around the assumption that middle class people will be able to fly around the country when they need to. At Christmas, we will fly to see grandma, we'll pay the baggage fee, and on the plane we'll pay for a sip of water and some peanuts. If next year the prices double or the airlines charge an extra fee for seats where rusty, broken springs don't stick in our butts, we'll pay those too. 

We'll pay whatever they ask, because we have to fly and our options are limited.