
The Roots of May DayToday's marchers are liberals' best hope.
Posted Monday, May 1, 2006, at 4:10 PM ET
Today's May Day marches are putting hundreds of thousands on the street and have politicized more people than anything since the height of the civil rights movement. Like every other massive social protest in American history, the events have generated their share of fear. Democrats and some leaders of D.C.-based immigrant groups worry that the call to boycott work and shut down Latino-dependent businesses will generate a backlash. Republicans and nativists see them as un-American.
But all this is beside the point, a tiff that misses the marches' transformative impact. These May Day demonstrations and boycotts return the American protest tradition to its turn-of-the-20th-century ethnic proletarian origins—a time when, in the United States as well as in much of Europe, the quest for citizenship and equal rights was inherent in the fight for higher wages, stronger unions, and more political power for the working class.
Because today's marches are on a workday, they recall the mass strikes and marches that turned workers out of factories that convulsed America in the decades after the great railway strike of 1877, the first national work stoppage in the United States. Asserting their citizenship against the autocracy embodied by the big railroad corporations, the Irish and Germans of Baltimore and Pittsburgh burned roundhouses and fought off state militia in a revolt that frightened both the rail barons and the federal government. Hence the 19th-century construction of all those center-city National Guard armories, with rifle slits designed to target unruly crowds. The protesters wanted not only higher pay and a recognized trade union but a new birth of egalitarian freedom. Indeed, May Day itself, as an international workers holiday, arose out of a May 1, 1886, Chicago strike for the eight-hour workday. The fight for leisure—clearly lost today—was a great unifying aspiration of the immigrant workers movement a century ago with its slogan, "eight hours for work, eight hours for sleep, eight hours for what we will."
The largest mobilization of immigrant workers in U.S. history occurred in 1919, when President Woodrow Wilson's rhetorical celebration of self-determination and "industrial democracy," or self-rule at the workplace, echoed across steel districts from Homestead, Pa., to Gary, Ind. Strike organizers printed their handbills in 15 different languages. Immigrant churches and working-class lodge halls served as soup kitchens. The strikers called the mounted police "Cossacks." All these eruptions, which would successfully Americanize millions of immigrants in the 1930s, blended trade unionism, ethnic self-consciousness, and the demand for full citizenship. That unity proved essential for a long season of New Deal hegemony. And that's why this spring's awakening of a new generation of immigrant working-class half-citizens holds such promise for liberals.
The last of these great labor-strike demonstrations came in 1947. On an April workday, the United Automobile Workers flooded Detroit's Cadillac Square with more than a quarter million of its members to protest congressional enactment of the Taft-Hartley Act, which curbed union strike power and disqualified radicals from labor leadership. Most laborites called Taft-Hartley a "slave labor law." Then as now, the leaders of the demonstration were divided over tactics. The left, and not just those oriented toward the Communists, wanted to shut down the factories so that American unions could deploy, as one top UAW officer put it, "the kind of political power which is most effective in Europe." More cautious unionists, led by UAW President Walter Reuther, sought a huge demonstration but one that began only after workers clocked out for the day. Capitalizing on these internal divisions, and on the early Cold War hostility to labor radicalism and political insurgency, the auto companies took their pound of flesh. They fired key militants and cut off the tradition of white, working-class strike demonstrations in industrial cities for the rest of the 20th century.
For our generation, as for the one before it, the idea that we might change the conditions of work life and the structure of politics has seemed either radical fantasy or Parisian self-indulgence. Celebrations of May Day, the holiday that embodies that imagined link, have been consigned to the most self-conscious and marginal radicals. In 1958, President Dwight D. Eisenhower proclaimed May 1 "Law Day" so as to snuff out any proletarian embers that might have continued to smolder through the Cold War.
The 1960s civil rights and anti-war movements kept their distance from workplace actions, which became the province of an increasingly stolid and constrained trade unionism. The protests of that era were almost always held on weekends. The 1963 March on Washington, where Martin Luther King Jr. gave his "I Have a Dream" speech, took place on a sweltering Saturday afternoon. There were plenty of protest signs paid for by the union movement, but no factories shut down that day. The same is true of the big anti-war marches, and American feminists and gay-rights advocates have continued that tradition. The linkage between workplace protest and civil engagement has been broken—one reason that the boycotts and work stoppages today seem so novel and controversial.
When weekday work stoppages did take place, their marginality, and even alienation, from mainstream America was revealing. Arab workers put down their tools in June 1967 to protest U.S. support of Israel in the midst of the Six Day War. Millions of black workers left work when they learned of MLK's assassination on April 4, 1968, but black power efforts to use the strike to build a radical movement on the assembly lines largely failed in Detroit a year later. Today's marches and boycotts are restoring to May Day something of its old civic meaning and working-class glory. Even some of the most viciously anti-union employers of Latino labor, like Perdue, Cargill, and Tyson Foods, kept their factories closed. As in the crucial struggles that began more than a century ago, today's marches have forged a link among working-class aspiration, celebrations of ethnic identity, and insistence on full American citizenship. It's an explosive combination. And it could revive and reshape liberal politics in our time.
Happy Birthday, Smokey Bear
Are Gas Grills More Eco-Friendly Than Charcoal Ones?
He-Man: Briefs of Rage and Other Toy-Inspired Movies We're Dying To See
Kaus: Seven Possible Theories Explaining Palin's Resignation
The U.S. Embassy in Djibouti Cordially Invites You to a Fourth of July Cookout
The Week's Best Editorial Cartoons











Remarks from the Fray:
Even before there was public talk of un dia sens imigrantes, it seemed to me that the best way for the workers to demonstrate that they contribute to the US economy was to down tools for a day. [...] They don't take jobs from "native born" workers, because those workers won't do the jobs for the pittance that the employers are willing to pay, and won't stand for the conditions of work that the employers think should be tolerated. The net effect of all these workers, as of the millions who preceeded them, is positive. The Irish, the Germans, those from Eastern Europe, have all faced the same blatant discrimination and prejudice that is now visited on the mostly brown-skinned immigrants. I certainly hope that they make their point, and that those who are descended from earlier immigrants will hear them. After all, the two main differences between the current crop of immigrants and the earlier groups are that the earlier groups had white skin, and that this group didn't have to steal the land of and exterminate the prior inhabitants! Si, se Pueda!
--w8izf
(To reply, click here.)
The problem we have is that Mexico is owned lock, stock and barrel by criminal organizations, public officials do what the narcorrafficantes tell them to do or else their heads are severed and mailed to their families. The result is that Mexicans, citizens of a nation of proud people with a culture and heritage they love, with abundant natural resources and a billion dollar tourist trade, are reduced to crawling across the border to feed their families. [...]
We need to stop the flow of contraband, human and otherwise over our border, we need a wall and we need the National Guard backing up the border patrol. We need to expel people here against the laws We The People have enacted, just as we need to welcome people who wish to visit America in order to work, but most importantly, we need to help Mexico become a free nation again. [...]
--MoscowMike
(To reply, click here.)
The last thing liberals need to do is to cling to romantic notions about old-fashioned labor unions and try to get the Bradford weavers and the Irish under one big tent. They're going to lose the non-immigrants entirely, because they see rightly that their own labor is being undercut by illegal immigrants, and they are angry about it. They're angry about outsourcing, too, but it's not like companies bringing in illegal labor, breaking labor laws with no fear whatsoever of being prosecuted, and giving illegal workers jobs that Americans did yesterday and would do in a minute today if the employers didn't prefer a workforce that has no rights and demands no benefits. Let's stop calling them illegal immigrants and start calling them illegal employees, and put this issue into perspective.
--NeverHome
(To reply, click here.)
Other than radicals on the fringe left, most Democrats are upset to see foreign nationals marching in our streets DEMANDING that they get all the benefits of being a citizen. We see foreign flags. We see signs that say "We Are America", not saying "we want to be a part of America" or "we want to join America". You don't have to be xenophobic to find this disturbing.
--TJA
(To reply, click here.)
I feel that there is a difference between the issue of immigration reform and the issue of undocumented alien workers. While the two issues tend to overlap and get mixed up in the same conversation, it appears to me that they are distinctly different, but related issues. [...]
The USA should implement a rational alien worker program, which gives non-Americans the opportunity to legally work in the USA, while insuring that alien workers and American employers comply with American law. The jobs now being illegally filled by undocumented aliens are not just going to go away, these jobs will still have to be done, but with a rational alien worker program the jobs can be held up to the same tax, wage and safety standards that regulate American workers. Legal alien workers will earn the same wages as American workers, thereby eliminating the drag on American wages caused by the massive pool of cheap labor of undocumented laborers.
--LannonMac
(To reply, click here.)
(5/2)