DIY History | Transcribe | Social Justice | Chicano-Indian American Cultural Center miscellaneous newsletters, 1977-1978 |

Transcribe
Translate

Chicano-Indian American Cultural Center miscellaneous newsletters, 1977-1978

In support of boycott;
reply to rationalization

The following is a reply to a recent piece advocating no support for the lettuce boycott. It is offered by contributor Fred A. Wilcox, a UI grad student.

I think Mr. Pinney's article is an excellent example of America's unique ability to rationalize cruelty. It is an argument, not without historical precedents, for maintaining the status quo in this particular instance being the poverty and nineteenth century working conditions of lettuce pickers.

The argument goes, inversely, that if we all buy more lettuce there will be more work for lettuce pickers. More work for lettuce pickers obviously means more profits for growers. And low, the argument untangles, more money for the owners means that more people wont' starve while trying to form a union. In other words, things are bad but they could get worse. Attempting to form a union or boycotting lettuce will making things worse: therefore, leave things alone. Keep on eatin' your four salads a day.

Such a tired, shopworn argument. It is the same argument used against civil rights demonstrations during the sixties. If black people are left alone, said the bigots and racists all over America, black people will be happy. In fact, said the folks who knew all about blacks, they were happy, before the agitators came along. The very intrusion of these communists was causing the good black citizens to become disenchanted with singing "Old Black Joe" while they worked fifteen hours a day on The Man's Plantation.

Civil rights agitation, said the liberal apologists for America's genocidal policy against twenty million blacks, will simply set the cause of black people back ten years. Civil Rights, wrote and spoke reasonable men who declared their devotion to "minority" groups, would come in due time. But patience, not non-violent demonstrations, would bring about those rights.
Black people had been patient for three hundred years. But just a little more patience would win their rights, the rights guaranteed in the Constitution. Malcolm X said forget it, the white liberal is a snake. The white liberal said. "Malcolm, you don't understand history, baby."
According to the argument "if you don't boycott lettuce things will eventually improve, or at least they won't get any worse for migrant workers," had the American public bought more dresses during the early twentieth century, child labor laws would have been automatically passed by Congress. And if the American public would have purchased more cars from Ford, he would not have locked out his workers and hired Pinkerton men to stomp and kill labor organizers.
If the coal mining interests could sell more coal, American would enforce it's mining safety standards, such as they be, and fewer men would die underground. If the steel workers would have just worked harder and given their children less to eat and forgotten all that union nonsense, then the big steel companies would not have hired goons to club and machine gun workers when they marched for a shorter working day or higher wages.

And obviously Uptown Sinclair didn't understand how things work when he wrote The Jungle. If the thousands of immigrants who were working in the packing industry for starvation wages just would have pushed a little harder, then surely the quality of meat would have improved for the general public and the workers' wages would have risen by a penny per hours. When I worked on high rise construction in our nation's capitol, we had deadlines to meet. If we ignored safety precautions and risked our lives we would certainly be rewarded: Our reward was the possibility of a job in the next winter, if we were still alive and in one piece. A lot of carpenters were not after a summer of racing to meet the demands of big builder profiteers.

The argument that a union is a closed shop which discriminates against those willing to work for low wages is nothing less than an apology for the capitalist system which keeps seventeen million people working full time for less than four thousand dollars a year.

The same argument, the argument that by forming a union some workers might be unable to secure employment, is a justification for keeping one quarter of the American population in poverty. Mr. Nixon used this argument, that things could get worse, to justify his genocidal policy in Vietnam. peace will come for "a generation." And the best way to get the prisoners back is to bomb Hanoi "back to the stone age." I've heard this same argument used by anyone who wants to maintain things, no matter how wretched and inhuman, the way they are. Keep the blacks in their place and they will eventually be assimilated into middle class America. Keep on bombing for peace. Keep on working for low wages and under painful, dirty, humiliating conditions and at least you keep on working. A union might mean you don't work.

Keep on eating lettuce in order to improve conditions for the migrant workers. At least by gobbling green stuff you don't make things worse.

I suggest that people who believe this argument go back and read American history. Nothing has been gained for the working people in this country except through boycott, strike, demonstration, violent confrontation. If the CIO had not organized workers, and if the workers had not gone into the streets or sat down in their factories, my daughter who is now eight would be out making buttons in some dingy factory from six to six, and I would be more likely shoveling sh-t in the stock yards. Or, don't bother reading American history. Most of it is as foolish and full of distortions as the argument for eating lettuce. Read Jack London. Things would be the same today for most of us., had it not been for millions of workers who choose unionization over perpetual indentured servitude. 

[Handwriting]
The Daily Iowan
9/26/72

Saving...

In support of boycott; reply to rationalization The following is a reply to a recent piece advocating no support for the lettuce boycott. It is offered by contributor Fred A. Wilcox, a UI grad student. I think Mr. Pinney's article is an excellent example of America's unique ability to rationalize cruelty. It is an argument, not without historical precedents, for maintaining the status quo in this particular instance being the poverty and nineteenth century working conditions of lettuce pickers. The argument goes, inversely, that if we all buy more lettuce there will be more work for lettuce pickers. More work for lettuce pickers obviously means more profits for growers. And low, the argument untangles, more money for the owners means that more people wont' starve while trying to form a union. In other words, things are bad but they could get worse. Attempting to form a union or boycotting lettuce will making things worse: therefore, leave things alone. Keep on eatin' your four salads a day. Such a tired, shopworn argument. It is the same argument used against civil rights demonstrations during the sixties. If black people are left alone, said the bigots and racists all over America, black people will be happy. In fact, said the folks who knew all about blacks, they were happy, before the agitators came along. The very intrusion of these communists was causing the good black citizens to become disenchanted with singing "Old Black Joe" while they worked fifteen hours a day on The Man's Plantation. Civil rights agitation, said the liberal apologists for America's genocidal policy against twenty million blacks, will simply set the cause of black people back ten years. Civil Rights, wrote and spoke reasonable men who declared their devotion to "minority" groups, would come in due time. But patience, not non-violent demonstrations, would bring about those rights. Black people had been patient for three hundred years. But just a little more patience would win their rights, the rights guaranteed in the Constitution. Malcolm X said forget it, the white liberal is a snake. The white liberal said. "Malcolm, you don't understand history, baby." According to the argument "if you don't boycott lettuce things will eventually improve, or at least they won't get any worse for migrant workers," had the American public bought more dresses during the early twentieth century, child labor laws would have been automatically passed by Congress. And if the American public would have purchased more cars from Ford, he would not have locked out his workers and hired Pinkerton men to stomp and kill labor organizers. If the coal mining interests could sell more coal, American would enforce it's mining safety standards, such as they be, and fewer men would die underground. If the steel workers would have just worked harder and given their children less to eat and forgotten all that union nonsense, then the big steel companies would not have hired goons to club and machine gun workers when they marched for a shorter working day or higher wages. And obviously Uptown Sinclair didn't understand how things work when he wrote The Jungle. If the thousands of immigrants who were working in the packing industry for starvation wages just would have pushed a little harder, then surely the quality of meat would have improved for the general public and the workers' wages would have risen by a penny per hours. When I worked on high rise construction in our nation's capitol, we had deadlines to meet. If we ignored safety precautions and risked our lives we would certainly be rewarded: Our reward was the possibility of a job in the next winter, if we were still alive and in one piece. A lot of carpenters were not after a summer of racing to meet the demands of big builder profiteers. The argument that a union is a closed shop which discriminates against those willing to work for low wages is nothing less than an apology for the capitalist system which keeps seventeen million people working full time for less than four thousand dollars a year. The same argument, the argument that by forming a union some workers might be unable to secure employment, is a justification for keeping one quarter of the American population in poverty. Mr. Nixon used this argument, that things could get worse, to justify his genocidal policy in Vietnam. peace will come for "a generation." And the best way to get the prisoners back is to bomb Hanoi "back to the stone age." I've heard this same argument used by anyone who wants to maintain things, no matter how wretched and inhuman, the way they are. Keep the blacks in their place and they will eventually be assimilated into middle class America. Keep on bombing for peace. Keep on working for low wages and under painful, dirty, humiliating conditions and at least you keep on working. A union might mean you don't work. Keep on eating lettuce in order to improve conditions for the migrant workers. At least by gobbling green stuff you don't make things worse. I suggest that people who believe this argument go back and read American history. Nothing has been gained for the working people in this country except through boycott, strike, demonstration, violent confrontation. If the CIO had not organized workers, and if the workers had not gone into the streets or sat down in their factories, my daughter who is now eight would be out making buttons in some dingy factory from six to six, and I would be more likely shoveling sh-t in the stock yards. Or, don't bother reading American history. Most of it is as foolish and full of distortions as the argument for eating lettuce. Read Jack London. Things would be the same today for most of us., had it not been for millions of workers who choose unionization over perpetual indentured servitude. [Handwriting] The Daily Iowan 9/26/72