28.01.2014 Views

Settlers - San Francisco Bay Area Independent Media Center

Settlers - San Francisco Bay Area Independent Media Center

Settlers - San Francisco Bay Area Independent Media Center

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

practiced segregation on a broad scale, it was equally<br />

prepared to use integration. When it turned after cracking<br />

GM and Chrysler to confront Ford, the most strongly antiunion<br />

of the Big Three auto companies, the UAW had to<br />

make a convincing appeal to the 12,000 Afrikan workers<br />

there. So special literature was issued, Afrikan church and<br />

civil rights leaders negotiated with, and - most importantly<br />

- Afrikan organizers were hired by the CIO to directly<br />

win over their brothers at Ford.<br />

The colonial labor policy for the U.S. Empire was,<br />

as we previously discussed, fundamentally reformed in the<br />

1830s. The growing danger of slave revolts and the swelling<br />

Afrikan majority in many key cities led to special restrictions<br />

on the use of Afrikan labor. Once the mainstay of<br />

manufacture and mining, Afrikans were increasingly moved<br />

out of the urban economy. When the new factories<br />

spread in the 1860s, Afrikans were kept out in most cases.<br />

The general colonial labor policy of the U.S. Empire has<br />

been to strike a balance between the need to exploit colonial<br />

labor and the safeguard of keeping the keys to<br />

modern industry and technology out of colonial hands.<br />

history of the UAW notes: "As the UA W official later<br />

conceded.. .in most cases the earliest contracts froze the existing<br />

pattern of segregation and even discrimination'."<br />

(41) At the Atlanta GM plant, whose 1936 Sit-Down strike<br />

is still pointed to by the settler "Left" as an example of<br />

militant "Southern labor history," only total whitesupremacy<br />

was goed enough for the CIO workers. The victorious<br />

settler auto workers not only used their new-found<br />

union power to restrict Afrikan workers to being janitors,<br />

but did away altogether with even the pretense of having<br />

them as union members. For the next ten years the Atlanta<br />

UAW was all-white. (42)<br />

So in answer to the question raised in 1937 by the<br />

NAACP, the true answer was "no" - the new CIO auto<br />

workers union was not going to get Afrikans more jobs,<br />

better jobs, an equal share of jobs, or any jobs. This was<br />

not a "sell-out" by some bureaucrat, but the nature of the<br />

CIO. Was there a big struggle by union militants on this<br />

issue? No. Did at least the Euro-Amerikan "Left" - there<br />

being many members in Flint, for example, of the Communist<br />

Party USA, the Socialist Party, and the various<br />

Trotskyists - back up their Afrikan "union brothers" in a<br />

principled way? No.<br />

It is interesting that in his 1937 UAW Convention<br />

report on the Flint Victory, Communist Party USA militant<br />

Bob Travis covered up the white-supremacist nature<br />

of the Flint CIO. In his report (which covers even such<br />

topics as union baseball leagues) there was not one word<br />

about the Afrikan GM workers and the heavy situation<br />

they faced. And if that was the practice of the most advanced<br />

settler radicals, we can well estimate the political<br />

level of the ordinary Euro-Amerikan worker.<br />

Neither integration nor segregation was basic -<br />

oppressor nation domination was basic. If the UAW-CIO<br />

On an immediate level Afrikan labor - as colonial<br />

subjects - were moved into or out of specific industries as<br />

the U.S. Empire's needs evolved. The contradiction between<br />

the decision to stabilize the Empire by giving more<br />

privilege to settler workers (ultimately by deproletarianizing<br />

them) and the need to limit the role of Afrikan labor<br />

was just emerging in the early 20th century.<br />

So the CIO did not move to oppose open, rigid<br />

segregation in the Northern factories until the U.S.<br />

Government told them to during World War 11. Until that<br />

time the CIO supported existing segregation, while accepting<br />

those Afrikans as union members who were already in<br />

the plants. Thi-s was only to strengthen settler unionism's<br />

power on the shop floor. During its initial 1935-1941<br />

organizing period the CIO maintained the existing oppressor<br />

nation/oppressed nations job distribution: settler<br />

workers monopolized the skilled crafts and the mass of<br />

semi-skilled preoduction line jobs, while colonial workers<br />

had the fewer unskilled labor and broom-pushing positions.<br />

For its first seven years the CIO not only refused<br />

to help Afrikan workers fight Jim Crow, but even refused<br />

to intervene when they were being driven out of the factories.<br />

Even as the U.S. edged into World War I1 many<br />

corporations were intensifying the already tight restrictions<br />

on Afrikan labor. Now that employment was picking up<br />

with the war boom, it was felt not only that Euro-<br />

Amerikans should have the new jobs but that Afrikans<br />

were not yet to be trusted at the heart of the imperialist war<br />

industry.<br />

Robert C. Weaver of the Roosevelt Administration<br />

admitted: "When the defense program got under way,<br />

the Negro was only on the sidelines of American industry,<br />

he seemed to be losing ground daily." Chrysler had<br />

decreed that only Euro-Amerikans could work at the new<br />

Chrysler Tank Arsenal in Detroit. Ford Motor Co. was<br />

starting many new, all-settler departments - while rejecting<br />

99 out of 100 Afrikan men referred to Ford by the<br />

88 U.S. Employment Service. And up in Flint, the 240

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!