I believe that the white population going as far as comparing themselves to chattel slaves is completely unfounded. Although, white artisans and workers did face harsh standards in the form of thirteen or fourteen hour long days. However, even overworked and underpaid workers never experienced the total lack of liberty and total subordination that black slaves have encountered. Despite their claims to lacking complete rights as a citizen of America, they never faced the abuse and other horrors that slaves faced working on plantations under the money-hungry, abusive slave masters. I do agree that the Whites were treated unjustly under their money-hungry bosses, who they referred to as "masters" to further draw the comparison between workers and slaves, but their situations, although unfair, were still much better than the slaves. The slaves did not even have the privilege of being paid. While workers were being treated as a lower class of human being, slaves were being treated as property and being bought and sold.In conclusion, I do believe that neither group existed nor worked in conditions that exemplified the rights or liberty granted to a citizen, but to draw a parallel between white workers and slaves is unfathomable and unfounded.
I found the fact that the United States was the "leader in militant criticisms of wage work as slavery" very interesting, as the class in the US were not nearly as defined as they were in other countries, and in much of Europe the rise of the working class led to radical revolution. For the U.S. to be the most critical of wage labor is odd, but at the same time makes sense because U.S. citizens were very certain that they had the right to freedom and liberty, and before then were used to it in their daily lives. They responded to this believed enslavement to the Capitalists with protest for better conditions. Even as they compared themselves to slaves, they exercised their liberty to change and better their situation, something that slaves were not so lucky to have. I also really liked his point that Americans were worried that "Catholics, Mormons, Masons, monopolists, fashion, alcohol, and the national bank were about to enslave the republic" as it showcased exactly how "paranoid" the people were about their freedom. That people often shared the viewpoints of radical labor and proslavery was a really interesting connection, and his argument for why this is true was simple but insightful. These viewpoints perfectly displayed the hypocrisy of the period, and how people seemed to believe that human rights only applied to them, not to others. The arguments they constructed for why wage slavery was worse then chattel slavery were completely unfounded and ridiculous. If one did not like ones job, then one could quit, or protest for better conditions. Slaves were treated as property, bought and sold. Slaves did not have the right to make basic decisions for themselves, let alone "quit" working.
I thought that this reading brought up an interesting point as to suggest that the experience of the white artisans and factory workers may have been equatable to the life of an African American slave of the same period. Over the course of the essay, David Roediger attempts to assert the view of many white workers as members of "wage slavery."(319) At first, I felt that this claim was a bit ridiculous. To my prior knowledge, I had always felt that the 1800s were a rather equitable time for most white citizens of the United States. However, as I continued reading, I began to see that for many workers, life was certainly not easy. Many workers spent ten or more hours working in factories, and were paid meager sums of money in exchange. Despite the fact that the line, "some workers...did describe themselves as slaves and their peers as already enslaved,"(323) made me realize the people's perception of their hardship, I don't really agree with the essay's assertion that their lives were on par with that of chattel slaves. The main reason, in my mind, is the meaning of actually being a "chattel" slave. Chattel slavery implies that the enslaved are actually treated as property of another human being, i.e a plantation owner, or other type of slaveholder. White workers definitely experienced some harsh, condescending treatment, they were degraded to the same point as African American chattel slaves who were legally owned by another person. To me, the difference between having tough conditions, and the moral degradation of being an inferior human being to white owners is an important distinction. While factory workers certainly experienced tough working conditions and oppressive bosses, I feel that the lack of actual human ownership of white workers by a boss provides a discrepancy between the two situations that is too great to allow a valid equation of the white factory workers to the chattel slaves.
I think the essay reveals the how slavery was not so much the issue tearing the Union apart, but rather the strong hold of racism in the United States that was meeting an abolitionist movement from the north. When the term "white slaves" was publicized, people reacted passionately to stop the injustice, and therefore had to justify the treatment of chattel slaves. Their only justification was, very unfortunately, turning to racism. The feeling of racism was intensified and highlighted by the movement to stop overworking white laborers. Slavery of whites, or anything that hinted at it, resembled it, or led to it, was appalling. But chattel slaves, despite the American ideals of liberty and equality, were still left to be oppressed without any moral consequence on behalf of the whites. Instead, they invented reasons why chattel slavery should be accepted and continued, while simultaneously fighting against slavery. As Roediger wrote, "Moore denounced abolition not only as, 'blind, reckless, feverish fanaticism' but also as a plot to rob whites of their independence." He also writes, "The fear of job competition with emancipated Blacks has received emphasis– perhaps even overemphasis...it was usually raised in combination with broader fears of amalgamation." Many of the reasons beside fear of "amalgamation" had to do with money, profit and the economy. The South's economy would be destroyed if slavery was abolished, and whites publicized the idea that the freed blacks would take all the jobs. This shows America putting money above everything else, using racism to fuel an anti-white "slavery" movement and pro-chattel slavery movement simultaneously.
After reading this essay, I was in no way convinced that “white slavery” was nearly as oppressive as chattel slavery. Although Roediger is able to present aspects of white labor that appear to be comparable, he brushes aside the notion that human beings were treated as property and the psychological toll I can only imagine that had on a person. He argues that, “Southern masters worked their Black slaves far few hours per day – perhaps only half the number required by Northern employers” (325). Not only were slaves also over-worked, but their suffering continued well into the night after the workday was over. I also found the argument weak that a slave had a “master interested in prolonging his life” (326). It is common knowledge that for the most part, the desire to keep slaves alive was inspired by slaveholders looking out for their own self-interest. Roediger does not discuss the fact that slaves did not have the freedom to move, to marry, to choose whom they wanted to live with, and countless other basic civil liberties that we often take for granted. While white laborers worked and lived under harsh conditions, at least they were not forced to sacrifice these rights. Furthermore, although both cases were products of economic systems, there is a profound difference between someone living terribly because he or she doesn’t have the necessary skills to bring to the market place, and because a person is born into a system that offers no legal protections simply because of their race and social class. In short, I found Roediger’s attempt to make a comparison between white laborers and slaves troubling and absurd.
I found this essay to be very informative. Not only did I learn that the plight of the working class was nowhere near as terrible as chattel slavery but I was reminded of the terrible racism that was present in the 1800’s. While “white slavery” was a complete and utter over statement it did not take away from the fact that the conditions of the white working class were in fact repressive. I was shocked to learn that in some cases “whipping of workers in some small mills” (322) existed. While this was only in small mills and provoked outrage it still shows the harsh conditions of the working class. The long thirteen to fourteen hours also made me sympathetic to the working class but when they make rash claims that they are “slaves in every sense of the word” (323) my sympathy begins to deteriorate. The conditions of the working class paled in comparison to the brutal conditions that slaves were forced to go though. Throughout the essay I found irony in the fact that while many workers compared themselves to slaves they still supported slavery. Many of the workers often stressed the fact that they were better than African-Americans. The hypocrisy that existed among the workers baffled me. This essay shines a light on a part of embarrassing American history full of poor working conditions and racism.
While the working conditions of the white artisans and factory workers were atrocious, they do are not compatible with the lives of slaves. While from a strict work perspective there are great similarities, long days, poor conditions, and few days off the worst suffering of the slaves was not simply the work they had to do. Slaves had no rights, they could be punished brutally for insubordination or for anything really, no one would bat an eye. The slaves families were broken apart at will and had very little hope for betterment. The white wage workers at least could dream of saving enough money or getting a promotion. The white workers lives were not compatible with the lives of the slaves.
This essay provided me with an alternative perspective on the life of wage workers and slaves in America. Many slaves and slaveholders developed connections and lived together, not in constant tension. The working conditions in factories, however, were absolutely horrible. Many white men may have felt that they were being violated, and with good reason. The extent of this violation, however, should not, for moral reasons, be compared to slavery. Some may argue that these workers, unlike slaves, were not born into their work and therefore had the option to choose where they worked freely. While there is some truth to this, poor, urban laborers were often stuck in there situation much the same way slaves were, and had no ability to move up or down the social or economic scale. In many respects, the plight of urban workers mirrors that of slaves in the South.
Mr. Roediger brings up a very intriguing point. During this time there was no minimum wage and many workers were at the mercy of their employers. Slaves on the other hand had a promised food and housing source in their masters. I believe that many workers referred to themselves as "slaves" because they wanted other white men to pity them. No freedom loving man would have ever allowed their fellow citizen to slip to the depths of slavery. Specifically in the North and Middle states, the concept of slavery, as seen in the middle of page 322 was outrageous, especially when the slaves were white men and women.
The fact that the laborers compared themselves to the slaves is an unfair comparison. As Roediger points out, the workers were 'freemen'. As low as their salaries were and as long as their workdays were, they still were in possession of themselves and had a much greater degree of control over their lives. A worker took his own name, not his master's. However, the workers were perhaps just trying to strike a familiar chord by comparing themselves with slavery, since it was a known example of oppression. They probably thought that by suggesting that they were being treated like slaves, it would seem outrageous since they were white and hence entitled to greater rights then blacks. They still made sure to clarify racial distinctions: "Opposed to these substantial reasons for white workers to at least entertain comparisons of themselves and slaves was the continuing desire not to be considered anything like African Americans" (321). Yet, their comparisons to slavery perhaps reveals that the workers realized that slavery was wrong: certainly they thought it was wrong for white people, but did it perhaps cross their minds that slavery was not right for blacks either?
I believe that the white population going as far as comparing themselves to chattel slaves is completely unfounded. Although, white artisans and workers did face harsh standards in the form of thirteen or fourteen hour long days. However, even overworked and underpaid workers never experienced the total lack of liberty and total subordination that black slaves have encountered. Despite their claims to lacking complete rights as a citizen of America, they never faced the abuse and other horrors that slaves faced working on plantations under the money-hungry, abusive slave masters. I do agree that the Whites were treated unjustly under their money-hungry bosses, who they referred to as "masters" to further draw the comparison between workers and slaves, but their situations, although unfair, were still much better than the slaves. The slaves did not even have the privilege of being paid. While workers were being treated as a lower class of human being, slaves were being treated as property and being bought and sold.In conclusion, I do believe that neither group existed nor worked in conditions that exemplified the rights or liberty granted to a citizen, but to draw a parallel between white workers and slaves is unfathomable and unfounded.
ReplyDeleteI found the fact that the United States was the "leader in militant criticisms of wage work as slavery" very interesting, as the class in the US were not nearly as defined as they were in other countries, and in much of Europe the rise of the working class led to radical revolution. For the U.S. to be the most critical of wage labor is odd, but at the same time makes sense because U.S. citizens were very certain that they had the right to freedom and liberty, and before then were used to it in their daily lives. They responded to this believed enslavement to the Capitalists with protest for better conditions. Even as they compared themselves to slaves, they exercised their liberty to change and better their situation, something that slaves were not so lucky to have. I also really liked his point that Americans were worried that "Catholics, Mormons, Masons, monopolists, fashion, alcohol, and the national bank were about to enslave the republic" as it showcased exactly how "paranoid" the people were about their freedom. That people often shared the viewpoints of radical labor and proslavery was a really interesting connection, and his argument for why this is true was simple but insightful. These viewpoints perfectly displayed the hypocrisy of the period, and how people seemed to believe that human rights only applied to them, not to others. The arguments they constructed for why wage slavery was worse then chattel slavery were completely unfounded and ridiculous. If one did not like ones job, then one could quit, or protest for better conditions. Slaves were treated as property, bought and sold. Slaves did not have the right to make basic decisions for themselves, let alone "quit" working.
ReplyDeleteI thought that this reading brought up an interesting point as to suggest that the experience of the white artisans and factory workers may have been equatable to the life of an African American slave of the same period. Over the course of the essay, David Roediger attempts to assert the view of many white workers as members of "wage slavery."(319) At first, I felt that this claim was a bit ridiculous. To my prior knowledge, I had always felt that the 1800s were a rather equitable time for most white citizens of the United States. However, as I continued reading, I began to see that for many workers, life was certainly not easy. Many workers spent ten or more hours working in factories, and were paid meager sums of money in exchange. Despite the fact that the line, "some workers...did describe themselves as slaves and their peers as already enslaved,"(323) made me realize the people's perception of their hardship, I don't really agree with the essay's assertion that their lives were on par with that of chattel slaves. The main reason, in my mind, is the meaning of actually being a "chattel" slave. Chattel slavery implies that the enslaved are actually treated as property of another human being, i.e a plantation owner, or other type of slaveholder. White workers definitely experienced some harsh, condescending treatment, they were degraded to the same point as African American chattel slaves who were legally owned by another person. To me, the difference between having tough conditions, and the moral degradation of being an inferior human being to white owners is an important distinction. While factory workers certainly experienced tough working conditions and oppressive bosses, I feel that the lack of actual human ownership of white workers by a boss provides a discrepancy between the two situations that is too great to allow a valid equation of the white factory workers to the chattel slaves.
ReplyDeleteI think the essay reveals the how slavery was not so much the issue tearing the Union apart, but rather the strong hold of racism in the United States that was meeting an abolitionist movement from the north. When the term "white slaves" was publicized, people reacted passionately to stop the injustice, and therefore had to justify the treatment of chattel slaves. Their only justification was, very unfortunately, turning to racism. The feeling of racism was intensified and highlighted by the movement to stop overworking white laborers. Slavery of whites, or anything that hinted at it, resembled it, or led to it, was appalling. But chattel slaves, despite the American ideals of liberty and equality, were still left to be oppressed without any moral consequence on behalf of the whites. Instead, they invented reasons why chattel slavery should be accepted and continued, while simultaneously fighting against slavery. As Roediger wrote, "Moore denounced abolition not only as, 'blind, reckless, feverish fanaticism' but also as a plot to rob whites of their independence." He also writes, "The fear of job competition with emancipated Blacks has received emphasis– perhaps even overemphasis...it was usually raised in combination with broader fears of amalgamation." Many of the reasons beside fear of "amalgamation" had to do with money, profit and the economy. The South's economy would be destroyed if slavery was abolished, and whites publicized the idea that the freed blacks would take all the jobs. This shows America putting money above everything else, using racism to fuel an anti-white "slavery" movement and pro-chattel slavery movement simultaneously.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading this essay, I was in no way convinced that “white slavery” was nearly as oppressive as chattel slavery. Although Roediger is able to present aspects of white labor that appear to be comparable, he brushes aside the notion that human beings were treated as property and the psychological toll I can only imagine that had on a person. He argues that, “Southern masters worked their Black slaves far few hours per day – perhaps only half the number required by Northern employers” (325). Not only were slaves also over-worked, but their suffering continued well into the night after the workday was over. I also found the argument weak that a slave had a “master interested in prolonging his life” (326). It is common knowledge that for the most part, the desire to keep slaves alive was inspired by slaveholders looking out for their own self-interest. Roediger does not discuss the fact that slaves did not have the freedom to move, to marry, to choose whom they wanted to live with, and countless other basic civil liberties that we often take for granted. While white laborers worked and lived under harsh conditions, at least they were not forced to sacrifice these rights. Furthermore, although both cases were products of economic systems, there is a profound difference between someone living terribly because he or she doesn’t have the necessary skills to bring to the market place, and because a person is born into a system that offers no legal protections simply because of their race and social class. In short, I found Roediger’s attempt to make a comparison between white laborers and slaves troubling and absurd.
ReplyDeleteI found this essay to be very informative. Not only did I learn that the plight of the working class was nowhere near as terrible as chattel slavery but I was reminded of the terrible racism that was present in the 1800’s. While “white slavery” was a complete and utter over statement it did not take away from the fact that the conditions of the white working class were in fact repressive. I was shocked to learn that in some cases “whipping of workers in some small mills” (322) existed. While this was only in small mills and provoked outrage it still shows the harsh conditions of the working class. The long thirteen to fourteen hours also made me sympathetic to the working class but when they make rash claims that they are “slaves in every sense of the word” (323) my sympathy begins to deteriorate. The conditions of the working class paled in comparison to the brutal conditions that slaves were forced to go though. Throughout the essay I found irony in the fact that while many workers compared themselves to slaves they still supported slavery. Many of the workers often stressed the fact that they were better than African-Americans. The hypocrisy that existed among the workers baffled me. This essay shines a light on a part of embarrassing American history full of poor working conditions and racism.
ReplyDeleteWhile the working conditions of the white artisans and factory workers were atrocious, they do are not compatible with the lives of slaves. While from a strict work perspective there are great similarities, long days, poor conditions, and few days off the worst suffering of the slaves was not simply the work they had to do. Slaves had no rights, they could be punished brutally for insubordination or for anything really, no one would bat an eye. The slaves families were broken apart at will and had very little hope for betterment. The white wage workers at least could dream of saving enough money or getting a promotion. The white workers lives were not compatible with the lives of the slaves.
ReplyDeleteThis essay provided me with an alternative perspective on the life of wage workers and slaves in America. Many slaves and slaveholders developed connections and lived together, not in constant tension. The working conditions in factories, however, were absolutely horrible. Many white men may have felt that they were being violated, and with good reason. The extent of this violation, however, should not, for moral reasons, be compared to slavery. Some may argue that these workers, unlike slaves, were not born into their work and therefore had the option to choose where they worked freely. While there is some truth to this, poor, urban laborers were often stuck in there situation much the same way slaves were, and had no ability to move up or down the social or economic scale. In many respects, the plight of urban workers mirrors that of slaves in the South.
ReplyDeleteMr. Roediger brings up a very intriguing point. During this time there was no minimum wage and many workers were at the mercy of their employers. Slaves on the other hand had a promised food and housing source in their masters. I believe that many workers referred to themselves as "slaves" because they wanted other white men to pity them. No freedom loving man would have ever allowed their fellow citizen to slip to the depths of slavery. Specifically in the North and Middle states, the concept of slavery, as seen in the middle of page 322 was outrageous, especially when the slaves were white men and women.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that the laborers compared themselves to the slaves is an unfair comparison. As Roediger points out, the workers were 'freemen'. As low as their salaries were and as long as their workdays were, they still were in possession of themselves and had a much greater degree of control over their lives. A worker took his own name, not his master's. However, the workers were perhaps just trying to strike a familiar chord by comparing themselves with slavery, since it was a known example of oppression. They probably thought that by suggesting that they were being treated like slaves, it would seem outrageous since they were white and hence entitled to greater rights then blacks. They still made sure to clarify racial distinctions: "Opposed to these substantial reasons for white workers to at least entertain comparisons of themselves and slaves was the continuing desire not to be considered anything like African Americans" (321). Yet, their comparisons to slavery perhaps reveals that the workers realized that slavery was wrong: certainly they thought it was wrong for white people, but did it perhaps cross their minds that slavery was not right for blacks either?
ReplyDelete