tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post4250362896152707647..comments2024-03-28T14:47:11.132-04:00Comments on The Philosopher's Stone: THE EVANESCENCE OF MEMORYRobert Paul Wolffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11970360952872431856noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-66115494672332605212011-02-23T13:13:28.434-05:002011-02-23T13:13:28.434-05:00john - What I had in mind was the pre-'30s lab...john - What I had in mind was the pre-'30s labor movement. IIRC, the CIO was much more successful than prior organizations in large part precisely because they weren't whites-only. Cf. this little oral history: http://www.freepress.org/fleming/flemng75.html<br /><br />Mack - Yes, that's the book I remember hearing about. Thanks!Noumenahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02442204504120141558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-22834208057971434802011-02-23T11:37:32.477-05:002011-02-23T11:37:32.477-05:00Noumena, here's what you're looking for:
...Noumena, here's what you're looking for:<br /><br />http://www.salon.com/books/laura_miller/2011/02/15/last_ringbearer/index.htmlMackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05154967867382778943noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-74091828565832562712011-02-22T22:54:23.316-05:002011-02-22T22:54:23.316-05:00Umm... Nou, the CIO movement didn't exclude RC...Umm... Nou, the CIO movement didn't exclude RC's, since that was a large part of the urban working-class at the time, (the late 1930's). You might want to consult the case of Monsignor John Egan, who, despite the later defections of the Chicago Arch-diocese, still has a building in his name on the DePaul campus.john c. halaszhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06674692969448923049noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-28057662317414023352011-02-22T21:40:45.796-05:002011-02-22T21:40:45.796-05:00I vaguely recall hearing something about a rewriti...I vaguely recall hearing something about a rewriting of <em>Lord of the Rings</em> from the perspective of the Orcs, but I can only imagine how much fun Mills would have with it! <br /><br />Anyways, your point is well-taken. That would mark a significant change from the early decades of the labor movement, when many labor unions excluded blacks, right? (And Catholics, but that was also racial in a way.) Maybe I'll see if I can steer the conversation about Mills this semester towards this issue -- this semester's class really enjoyed the day on Crawford and the labor movement, and we haven't had a chance to talk about the events in Wisconsin yet. <br /><br />My identity isn't actually anonymous, you just have to find the right series of links to follow. I'm a grad student at Notre Dame, which is where I taught Mills last semester. (It was quite the education for the scions of the wealthy white Chicago suburbs -- I think I convinced about two-thirds of the class that if our society isn't deeply racially unjust then it's deeply economically unjust.) This semester I'm teaching the same Intro to Philosophy syllabus at our local state college, to a night class of much more diverse (and much more interesting) `non-traditional' students. If you can help me remember, I'll write a comment letting you (and anyone else who wanders past) know how our sessions on Mills went.Noumenahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02442204504120141558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-29880467463523800502011-02-22T09:59:39.029-05:002011-02-22T09:59:39.029-05:00I think that is right. [By the way, I think Mills...I think that is right. [By the way, I think Mills' book is terrific. I also have a copy of his unpublished ideological critique of LORD OF THE RINGS, which is just brilliant, but it is his paper, and not mine to put on the web.] Let me add one more bit to your explanation. To many White Americans, "middle class" means "not Black." To acknowledge that they are workers, hence beneficiaries of and natural constituents of labor unions, is to risk identifying with non-whites. So they embrace the epithet "middle classs" regardless of their income level and role in the social relations of production.<br /><br />Where are you teaching this, or would that be telling?Robert Paul Wolffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11970360952872431856noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-74588006906746892812011-02-22T09:08:30.753-05:002011-02-22T09:08:30.753-05:00As I gear up to teach Charles Mills' The racia...As I gear up to teach Charles Mills' <em>The racial contract</em> in my Intro to Philosophy class (next to the one day where we read Matthew Crawford and about the labor movement, it's my favorite part of the semester), I've been re-reading his little book and thinking about analogues to the issues you raise here. <br /><br />For Mills, white interest in remaining ignorant about the full extent of structural racism, past and present, does a lot of explanatory work, and I think it does so plausibly: whites don't want to talk about the racial impact of the war on drugs, say, and so they don't, and so their kids think of drugs as a matter of individual responsibility that either should be outlawed (because they're so dangerous) or legalized (because prohibition doesn't work), rather than as the mainstay of the economy in some black and brown neighborhoods and a rationalization for harassment by the police. The mechanism maintaining white ignorance here is quite simple: a combination of de facto segregation and white parents (schools, &c.) not talking about structural racism. I'm trying to keep this comment on the short side, but let me know if I need to explain this more carefully. <br /><br />Ignorance of the benefits of the labor movement is probably just as widespread as ignorance of structural racism. I wonder if a similar mechanism can explain this ignorance as well: The successes of the labor movement enabled many (white) families to get a college education and white-collar jobs and move into the petite bourgeoisie. White flight from the cities was also the flight of the petite bourgeoisie from industrialized manufacturing areas, and the children of lawyers and doctors no longer came into regular contact with the children of factory workers and auto mechanics. That is, we have de facto class segregation. At the same time, the parents and schools of the petite bourgeoisie don't talk about the labor movement except as something that happened long ago and far away (in California in the mid-'90s, we learned about the Pullman Strikes and the Triangle Shirtwaist fire, but not Cesar Chavez) and, in any case, did nothing to create a stable middle class (that was the state, through the New Deal and Great Society).Noumenahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02442204504120141558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-51868309821753586932011-02-22T09:07:31.135-05:002011-02-22T09:07:31.135-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com