Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/02/17

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: RE: [Leica] Covering Anti-War protest in Philly
From: "bdcolen" <bdcolen@earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 11:13:22 -0500

This presents a view of history and reality so twisted as to make Zinn
and his ilk appear positively fair and balanced. But then I'd probably
view the world through the same cracked, grime-smeared glass if I was
hunkered down in Roanoke waiting for the South to rise again and "states
rights" to trump all.




- -----Original Message-----
From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
[mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us] On Behalf Of Marc James
Small
Sent: Sunday, February 16, 2003 6:15 PM
To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: Re: [Leica] Covering Anti-War protest in Philly


At 08:25 PM 2/15/03 -0600, Matthew Powell wrote:
>Labor rights "would have been handled by Congress" without strikes,
>without protests and without the work of labor unions, who often had to

>fight government thugs as well as strike-breaking thugs? Please.

Almost all basic labor legislation was passed prior to 1920;  only the
creation of the NLRB and OSHA came after that.  And there were no
effective labor PROTESTS prior to that date or, really, until the end of
that decade, though the Wobblies tried hard enough to organize such.
There were lots of STRIKES but the purpose of those was to obtain
specific concessions from a specific employer, not to obtain legislation
from Congress.


>Civil Rights - when did Congress "handle" things of its own accord?

Oh, 1953, 1957, 1959, 1961, and 1962,  for starters.  The major piece of
Civil Rights legislation, the '64 Act, would have been passed in early
1963
- -- BEFORE the initial Civil Rights protest march -- had Kennedy not been
snowballed by the Democrat leadership in Congress.  For that matter,
Truman obtained Congressional approval in 1948 of the additional budget
for the FBI to add a Civil Rights office and, again, obtained this same
approval for the additional costs brought about by desegrating the
military the following year.

>Women's suffrage - you had fifty years of action by women before
>Congress and the states allowed women to vote. Where was Congress 
>working on its own there?

Hmm.  You have a marginally better case for this one.  There were some
minor suffragettes attempting to hold protests prior to 1920 but these
were quite small and obtained no significant press coverage in this
country, though similar protests did obtain good press in the UK.  But,
again, it wasn't "protests" which led the Constitution to be amended;
it was a growing awareness among the power elite (the yeomanry and
gentry) that it was time that such be done, the same manner in which all
of these changes are brought about -- and protests are the most certain
manner of alienating these groups.

>
>Why did "liberal Democrats and mainstream Republicans" finally get
>around to it after almost a century? Because of protests. Because of
the 
>civil rights movement, because of court actions by civil rights
lawyers, 
>because people outside of the government made it an issue, and because 
>Congress had to respond.
>

Wow!  You are confusing and conflating a zillion things, sir!  There
were
no general Civil Rights protest marches until that of 1963, though there
had been specific protests over specific issues before this.  However,
the
impetus for equality goes back a lot farther (see today's WASHINGTON
POST
MAGAZINE for a minor example of just how this worked in 1939) and really
dates back to the era before the First World War.  "Protests" are one
thing, "strikes" are another, and "court actions" are a third, and the
impetus behind them differs dramatically.  I said nothing about strikes;
I
said nothing about court actions -- hell, man, I'm an attorney!  I
merely
said, and say again, that mass public protests have been uniformly
ineffective in the history of the US in changing the manner in which our
government operates.

And, of course, the additional level of such ineffectiveness often
arises
from the confusion of purpose affecting the participants.  Study, for
instance, Coxey's Army or the Bonus Marchers to see how mixed the
motives
of the participants can be and how mass movements like these -- or the
earlier Whiskey Rebellion in Pennsylvania or Sheay's Rebellion in
Massachussetts or, for that matter, Bacon's Rebellion in colonial
Virginia
- -- failed as they rapidly lost focus.  Or, for that matter, look at how
ANSWER, the coördinating group behind the current spate of anti-War
marches
in the US, is keeping out groups which are not openly anti-Israeli.  

Finally, bear in mind that the US is a federation.  As such, there is an
equal burden on the states to protect the citizens, and the states are
accorded fair broader powers to do so than is the Federal government.
You
speak of everything n terms of "Congress" while forgetting the role of
the
Presidency and the Courts at our Federal level and the State governments
at
another.  

Finally, everyone who showed up at these various US protests yesterday
would have accomplished far more by speaking directly to their
Congressman
and Senators.  (And, yes, as I posted before, I also have deep
reservations
about US foreign policy -- and my Congressman, a friend, is well aware
of
my attitudes as are both of my US Senators.  ANY citizen can do the
same:
these guys are hungry to dsicuss issues with the voters.)

Marc

msmall@infi.net  FAX:  +276/343-7315
Cha robh bąs fir gun ghrąs fir!

- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html

- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html