On January 5, 1916 Helen Keller gave the speech Strike Against War, calling for working class people to use the power of the strike to end to America’s involvement in World War I. Keller makes many valid points about the way war affects the working class of America; however, I disagree with how easily she suggests that the working class can rise to action, especially one as drastic as strike. The way that war is used to exploit has not improved since the World War I era. Keller begins by addressing that some in her audience consider her a mouthpiece for others’ beliefs. She states that she does not want “their pity” and would not change places with them. All she wants is “a fair field and no favor” (Zinn, 284). She is capable of getting information, …show more content…
All you need to do to bring about this stupendous revolution is to straighten up and fold your arms” (Zinn, 284). The almost flippant language “straighten up and fold your arms” makes this “revolution” seem a lot easier to achieve than it actually is. This change would have required sweeping reforms to the labor system in the United States that would have been nearly impossible for the public to perform without the same scale of changes to the legislation. Keller suggests that all the working class needs to do is to strike to create the change they want. I do think that the people could have brought about changes to the system. It would have required a staggering amount of work to reach enough of the work force to actually create enough momentum for there to be change. Convincing that large a part of the population that stopping the war in the face of the consequences they would face would be the first insurmountable task. Then there is the fact that working class people needed the resources from working in factories to survive. Walking away from one’s job for however long it takes for change to occur is an option only available to people with savings. The ability to walk out of work for a time and still survive is a privilege, and even if everyone with the means to do so went on strike, I feel that those who are in need could fill their …show more content…
In the article How Much Does It Cost to Liberate a Country? Tom Engelhardt explores some of the uses of taxpayer money in the post-war Middle East, specifically Iraq and Afghanistan. There have been many projects to repair local infrastructure that have cost significantly more than they should and have been unsuccessful in helping these countries. One example is a “$75 million dollar police academy” that was said to be critical to making the handoff of security from the US to Iraq successful. The building ended up being so poorly built that it was a “health hazard” (Engelhardt). On slightly less systematic scale during the war, American soldiers siphoned off $15 million dollars of fuel imported to Afghanistan to run machines and sold it to locals (Engelhardt). In the modern era “’reconstruction’ and ‘war’ have really been euphemisms for […] a massive system of corruption” (Engelhardt). The question I have about these after reading this article is similar to the one I have at the end of Keller’s speech: what can the American people realistically do about this? How do you get a population to question the sacred place our military has in society enough to realize that their work is exploited? Once again the number of people that would be needed to create the amount of pressure to actually make a change seems
... were left unprotected and abandoned by the unions. How is it that the unions can demand labors lose months of wages, be subject to labor blacklisting and ultimately sacrifice their lives without any protections for the strikers and still claim success? They can’t. If anything, the Pinkertons who dispersed the crowd did more to help the worker, by reopening the Homestead, than the union had done. Thus, the unions were an utter failure in furthering the position of the laborer, as the laborer was better off before hand. Before unions the laborer had their life, as many died in failed strikes, and their dignity, as society at least held an intrinsic value in their lives. However, unions succeeded in decimating any chance of advancement by tarnishing the reputations of all laborers, leading to a direct decline in the socio-economic position of the blue-collar worker.
Howard Zinn is a compelling writer in the context of American history. While sometimes his opinions may be overbearing in certain topics, his overall analysis of America's struggles during the 1920’s and 1930’s captured and focussed my attention to understand the situation more as a whole. I especially learned of the ever growing determination of a union striker during the time. Zinn pinpoints key information and details it and as always he seems to enlighten the
... (Piven & Cloward, 18) Workers protest by striking against their employer, it is easier for employees to protest because they are all located and working together under one roof and are fighting for one thing, and that one thing is related to the workplace. While it is easier for employees to protest, it is not that easy for lower class employees to protest because they have little ability to protect themselves against their institutional managers. When the lower class workers have an informal organizational protest the government is eventually stepping in to disarm the protestors and make efforts to conciliate, “…mobs of unemployed were granted relief in the 1930s…” (Piven & Cloward, 29) The protests cause disruption and sometimes that disruption can make a change but when people are protesting blindly they are more prone to social injustice then making a change.
In the chapter “The Other Civil War,” Zinn contended that while the working class attempted to reform the labor system, the government suppressed tensions and turned class anger toward other outlets. Zinn described the poor working and living conditions of industrial laborers as proof of the need for labor reform. Overcrowding in cities, long work days, widespread disease, and other factors led workers to seek improvements. He presented numerous examples of strikes, rebellions, and riots to prove that class anger sometimes surfaced despite efforts to repress resistance. While he maintained that these reform attempts failed due to government intervention, many of these actions did result in some gains for the working class.
In his book Death in the Haymarket, James Green recounted the American labor movement in the late 1800s. Green’s main focus in his book was the bombing of Haymarket, which occurred on May 4 of 1886. Beginning as a peaceful protest promoting the eight-hour work day, a bomb was thrown causing devastating consequences. The Haymarket bombing almost ended the labor movement altogether, with unjustified trials and fear implemented amongst all Americans. However, it is important to know that the Haymarket bombing is not just an isolated event. From starting out with wage cuts, to people going on strike, labor unions starting up, to almost losing the labor movement altogether. The Haymarket bombing
However, his essay has limitations that show he was reacting to problems immediately concerning him, but not fully engaged with the problems affecting many in early twentieth century America. However, Calkin’s presents an alternative moral equivalent of war that avoids many of the limitations of James. Unlike James’s, Calkin recognizes economic motivations contributing to war. She is aware of the many injustices occurring against women, people of color, and the poor and incorporates justice into her moral equivalent of war. In proposing a war against human nature, she is not advocating environmental destruction that could lead to further violent conflicts. Additionally, Calkin argued that injustice was a problem for humanity. No one should be limited by gender roles in the battle against
The early 1900s was a time of many movements, from the cities to the rural farms; people were uniting for various causes. One of the most widespread was the labor movement, which affected people far and wide. Conditions in the nation’s workplaces were notoriously poor, but New York City fostered the worst. Factories had started out in the city’s tenements, which were extremely cramped, poorly ventilated, and thoroughly unsanitary. With the advent of skyscrapers, factories were moved out of the tenements and into slightly larger buildings, which still had terrible conditions. Workers were forced to work long hours (around 12 hours long) six hours a day, often for extremely low pay. The pay was also extremely lower for women, who made up a large portion of the shirtwaist industry. If a worker were to openly contest an employer’s rule, they would be promptly fired and replaced immediately. Also, strength in numbers did not always work. Managers often hired brutal strikebreakers to shut movements down. The local police and justice were often of no help to the workers, even when women were being beaten. At the time, the workers needs were not taken seriously and profit was placed ahead of human life. This was not just a struggle for workers’ rights; it was also a movement for the working class’ freedom.
Beginning in the late 1700’s and growing rapidly even today, labor unions form the backbone for the American workforce and continue to fight for the common interests of workers around the country. As we look at the history of these unions, we see powerful individuals such as Terrence Powderly, Samuel Gompers, and Eugene Debs rise up as leaders in a newfound movement that protected the rights of the common worker and ensured better wages, more reasonable hours, and safer working conditions for those people (History). The rise of these labor unions also warranted new legislation that would protect against child labor in factories and give health benefits to workers who were either retired or injured, but everyone was not on board with the idea of foundations working to protect the interests of the common worker. Conflict with their industries lead to many strikes across the country in the coal, steel, and railroad industries, and several of these would ultimately end up leading to bloodshed. However, the existence of labor unions in the United States and their influence on their respective industries still resonates today, and many of our modern ideals that we have today carry over from what these labor unions fought for during through the Industrial Revolution.
In 1916 the United States was amidst the first of the World Wars. Keller hoped to rally people to “Strike against all ordinances and laws and institutions that continue the slaughter of peace and the butcheries of war. Strike against war” (). To promote pacifism, she insisted that it was the American citizen who is responsible for the destruction of war and that there is no purpose for the United States to join the war. Keller’s audience was the average American citizen, anyone who could cast a legal vote, but particularly parents and workers. Several times throughout her speech she referenced children, factory workers. The Women’s Peace Party and the Labor Forum were present.
In addition to these street demonstrations, there were massive waves of workers’ strikes in the mines and steel mills. At first, the government tried to threaten the protesters; the Committee of National Defense announced preparations for a national state of emergency. By the determination of the workers, the Communist realized that talks with the unofficial trade union were unavoidable. The actions of the workers’ forced the Communist regime to begin talking about the trade union movement called Solidarity.... ... middle of paper ... ...(1989 Twenty Years
In response to intervention, thousands of groups of people became defiant. Laborers living off the bare minimum often assembled into organized groups to enforce their demands upon the government, making a notable push for reform (D) while educated men such as Henry Demarest Lloyd promoted virtue, not land, as the ideal focus of government (B). Dissatisfaction continued within the middle class. As new industrial machines emerged, designed for mass product...
Led by Clara Lemlich, 20,000 immigrants, mostly young women, demanded a twenty percent pay raise, a fifty-two hour workweek, and a closed shop (59). Their cause gained a significant amount of attention and caught the eye of wealthy progressive reformers, such as Alva Belmont and Anne Morgan, who perceived the strike as an opportunity to also advocate their own objective: women’s suffrage. Wealthy elites like Carnegie and Sumner may have believed that efforts to change the natural order are futile, but Morgan claimed that after learning about the details of the strike, she and other women wouldn’t be able to live their lives “without doing something to help them” (72). These affluent women demonstrated their support from both sides of the spectrum, from modestly distributing ribbons and buttons, to Alva Belmont’s contribution of her several cars to a parade for the striking workers (682) and the pledge of her mansion as surety for the bail of four strikers (76). Without the aid of these women, it was doubtful the strikers “could have lasted much longer without progressive money” (70). However, frustration arose amongst picketers as these progressive reformers turned a strike based on class struggle into a “broader feminist revolt” (68). Morgan blamed the strikers’ treatment on the inability for women to vote, not their inability to unionize (67). Striker’s retorted, asking
Elizabeth Flynn, “The Industrial Workers of the World and the Free Speech Fights,” in Voices of Freedom. Ed. By Eric Foner
In closing, W.D Howells is successful in his use of these methods of argument. “Editha” paints a clear picture of the men who must fight and the people who casually call for war. He proves Editha’s motives are unworthy of devotion. After all, it is easy to sit back and call for war when it will be the common enlisted man who will die to provide this luxury. In the end, Howells made his point clear. War never comes without sacrifice or consequence.
Helen Keller is has changed the hearing, the deaf, and the blind culture. She inspired so many people to push beyond their limits and showed that, even the girl everyone called ‘dumb’ can be more than that. Keller was born in Tuscumbia, Alabama in a small town on the Ivy Green Estate. On July 27th 1880, she was a perfectly normal baby, she could hear, and see. Until she was 19 months old she became very sick with a terrible she lost her hearing and her sight. She was called a ‘wild child’ because she couldn’t understand others losing her sight and hearing was unexpected for her and so she didn’t know how to communicate with others.