| Reviews / Comptes Rendus | Labour/Le Travail, 52

Reviews / Comptes Rendus

Priscilla Murolo and A.B. Chitty, Illustrations by Joe Sacco, From the Folks Who Brought You the Weekend: A Short Illustrated History of Labor in the United States (New York: New Press 2001)

THIS BOOK IS TITLED a short history, but commences with the Spanish colonialization of Florida in the 16th century, and the English in Virginia in the 17th. The period covered concludes with Teamsters and Turtles in Seattle at the end of the last century. This is not an illustrated history in the sense of the American Social History Project, Who Built America? (New York 1992) which has drawings, paintings, and photographs liberally distributed throughout. Instead there are the cartoons of Joe Sacco, which rather than complementing the text, appear as the occasional oasis in a desert of "text book style" type.

This is not conventional labour history. It is not restricted to trade unions or working-class history. The authors are "more inclusive" in terms of "workers" and working peoples' movements, and thus it is also a story of forced and free labour, master and journeyman. It covers the struggles of women and oppressed minorities and is inclusive in terms of the events and historiography included.

Historiography here implies that the authors have largely depended on secondary sources for their narrative, a reasonable thing to do in a survey. But the lack of footnotes, and a very limited bibliography, make it difficult to locate the authors' sources. However, historiography is contentious by definition, most events having contested explanations in terms of cause, effect, and importance of outcome. The authors believe that because they are describing historical events "from the bottom up" of people united in pursuing common goals that a truer and more useful history is created than that provided in schools. But this raises the question: can history be taught in isolation from the controversies that are integral to it? There is a risk that ignoring complexities of interpretation creates a one-dimensional view of history.

For example, writing on Reconstruction, the authors state "the color line in employment was not challenged." (95) Regrettably, that was mainly the case. But it is not the whole story; William H. Sylvis of the Iron Molders' International Union and A.C. Cameron of the Chicago Workingman's Advocate argued for cooperation between black and white. It is also the case that Sylvis and Cameron failed to win the National Labor Union to their viewpoint. History from below cannot afford to ignore the minority that carried out a struggle for equality

Another example is the racism that undermined the precarious unity of black and white Populists. There are complex issues to be considered here. What was the extent of real black and white unity, and what caused the breakdown of such unity? This issue has caused much heated debate amongst historians. Perhaps a lack of space explains the authors' approach, but a footnote with an acknowledgement of the controversy involved, and a guide to the relevant literature could overcome this.

One problem in covering such a vast period of history in an abridged form is what is to be included, or left out. The authors include a massive amount of detail in their account. An amazing number of strikes, campaigns, and organizations are detailed here. That being the case, what has been left out? Often rather than leave anything out the authors cram important episodes into a few pages. So the massive struggles of 1919–22, one of the most extensive and important periods of working-class activity in US history, are dealt with on four pages. There is at times a feeling of a calendar of events rather than a periodization of history.

Another example of this is that of the Seattle General strike of 1919. Although the strike suffered a serious defeat, it had an enduring influence in Seattle, and nationally was used as a springboard to create a backlash against the IWW and immigrants (the notorious Palmer Raids or Red Scare). Yet this event is covered with only a few lines and no explanation of its wider effect or importance. (166)

The strikes of 1919–22, and the attempts to build a labour party disintegrated under the weight of a bosses' offensive, anti-Red scares, and troops. But the crass leadership of the AFL did not help. The authors imply some criticism of the AFL leadership, but there is a need for a more analytical approach to this. This shying away from analysis permeates the whole book.

Almost by default there is continuity here: strikes are won or lost, and are listed in detail. Forced labour, master craftsmen, journeymen, servants, skilled labour, unskilled labour, and the oppressed, all are detailed here. However there is no consideration that a master craftsman may have different aspirations to that of a wage labourer. At what stage does a journeyman give up hope of becoming a master, or labour cease to sell his/her labour just as a commodity, but realize it is part of a class? Surely the class position, or aspirations, of a master craftsman are not the same as unskilled workers. The term, "labour" should not be used indiscriminately; the labour of exploitation belongs to a different class than that of the working class. In a sense, labour here becomes synonymous with "the people," an approach that can blur and confuse class lines.

Further to this it is also important to address why, at times, there is a lack of unity among workers. Why do racism and sexism take a hold? To what extent are these divisions caused by the actions of the ruling class? The politics of workers is another important factor that needs more explanation and analysis here.

For example, the authors describe the effect of anti-communism in undermining the unions and paving the way for Taft-Hartley. But why were the Communists so unsuccessful in combating their tormentors? Why did the mainstream union leaders get so taken up with Red-baiting that they failed to prevent the shackling of the unions? There are hints at explanation, but the untrained eye could miss these hints. Those wanting to know more will feel that their wish is unfilled.

At the time of writing there are signs of the unions and movements in the US reviving, and many new activists will want to learn not just what happened in the past, but why. I feel it is in answering why that this book is at its weakest. The authors have not, as is fashionable in some parts of academia, written off the role of labour. For them no victory or defeat has ever been final, "for when the final conflict comes — as come it will — working people will have to be ready; the world will hang in the balance." (332)

These are noble sentiments but the key here is to be ready, not just for a "final conflict" but all the conflicts that are happening now. Today's activists want to know how to be ready and learn the lessons of the past. Why has US labour failed to have final victories? Why has labour, and the many movements, had to reinvent the wheel again and again, failing to build, so far, an organization that could ensure that final victory?

This book is strong on description of what happened (albeit if sometimes rather brief). However it may be better to cut back on the wealth of specific description, and provide an overview that relates to key conjunctures in the class struggle, leaving more space for controversy and analysis.


Andy Strouthous City and Islington College, London

Content in the History Cooperative database is intended for personal, noncommercial use only. You may not reproduce, publish, distribute, transmit, participate in the transfer or sale of, modify, create derivative works from, display, or in any way exploit the History Cooperative database in whole or in part without the written permission of the copyright holder.