Andrews in the opening pointed out how important the Ludlow Massacre was in relation to the growing labor movement in the U.S. He also wrote that it interested people like Howard Zinn and George McGovern decades after. At the same time, Andews pointed out that it is important that to fully understand the event that you cannot just look at the one day of the affair. Zinn is popular among many people who are interested in the "other side of history" and his account focuses prominently on the strikers. Is it irresponsible for history to be written in this manner or is it necessary to preserve the voice of the weak?
Andrews wrote: "The speakers told of watching partners and friends dies in fall of rock and coal- about bad air and short weights, pit bosses who demanded bribes..."
It seems very progressive that the strike workers were not only seeking to address issues of safety within the workplace, but that they were also attempting to work for better laws within the workspace to address issues such as corruption. This is important because it shows that they had a political agenda as well for striking. Importantly, this restores agency to the strikers and helps to place the actual massacre into better context.
One of the things that I really enjoyed about this book as a whole was the workers interactions within their landscape. Even the discussion of the formation of coal in the first chapter was intriguing because it helped create a sense of location (beginning on page twenty-six). Even further into the book, I found his discussion well argued when he discussed the connections between the disasters in the mine and the camaraderie formed amongst the workers. Too often I think that historians avoid reaching into other disciplines (i.e. science) to help their argument. Obviously there is a balance that a historian has to strike, but I think that the discussion of ecology and history is done well in these sections.
I thought Andrews' holistic interpretation of the 1914 coal miners' strike was definitely interesting. I think this book is one that can reach both the academic audience as well as the public. It's well-written and an easy read. I enjoyed the narratives he uses as well. The Palmer narrative at the beginning of the book was a nice opening that catches your attention right away and sets up the background information for how the coal mining industry began in Colorado. Several other mini narratives were strategically placed throughout the rest of the book to bring to life what Andrews was arguing. I really enjoyed this book and I am aware it was focusing on the strike but it still left me wanting to know more about how the Native Americans in the area were reacting.
I found the discussion of the formation of the coal fields in the Rockies really interesting. I think it provides an interesting backdrop to Andrews' following descriptions of the change in economy. By illustrating the organic process that changes coal into a fossil fuel, Andrews' does a nice job of setting up his narrative on the change from an organic economy to a fossil fuel based economy and how this change conquered previous societal limitations. Reading this section of the book raised some interesting parallels to the possible transitioning to a renewable energy based economy in the near future. I agree with the earlier post that the discussion of the ecology is balanced well with the history in this book.
Andrew's work allows one to draw interesting parallels to the on going struggle between labor unions and corporations today. His depiction of the debate between the coal workers and the corporate leaders over who was responsible for the lost time, and the lost lives, serves as a comparison to the debates that raged recently between the UAW and the General Motors Corporation. His work allows us to understand that the battle between corporations and labor unions is not a new one. While there may not be another Ludlow massacre, it is important that these problems do not go unresolved.
p.16 Andrews writes: "...we will explore how underground interactions between men and nature fomented decades of militancy in the southern Colorado coalfields".
While the aforementioned underground interactions are widely spread throughout Andrews' book, he argues successfully that these are the true motivators behind the events at Ludlow. Equally as important is a question the author raises midway through the reading: How did ethnically and socially diverse workers, "...begin to make common cause and organize themselves?" (p121)
Andrews offers the interesting juxtaposition of "miner's freedoms" underground (he set his own work hours, owned his tools, and enjoyed relative autonomy in his "room" in the mine) against the prophylaxis of the company town as an unexpected unifying force. Above ground, mine owners narrowly treated unionism as a disease to be contained with company towns, stores, and camp guards; below ground the impetus of hellish conditions and relative freedom bred a diverse workforce that saw red when employers exerted their authority. Andrews contends that the workscape of the colliers became the primary impulse for events that unfolded in Ludlow, not the intrigues of union organizers, as company leaders commonly believed.
Also, why did industrial moguls persist with their paternalistic and exploitative approach to workers in light of the then recent Pullman strike? It seems like the model of the company town should have seen some changes/improvements - did owners view this event as an aberration, or was the disconnect between the upper and lowest classes of American society so vast that there was no common ground between them. Colorado Fuel and Iron president Jesse Welborn hints at the truth following his conference with labor leaders before the Ludlow massacre:
"We reached no direct understanding,...In fact we wanted none..." p.266
Killing For Coal
ReplyDeleteAndrews in the opening pointed out how important the Ludlow Massacre was in relation to the growing labor movement in the U.S. He also wrote that it interested people like Howard Zinn and George McGovern decades after. At the same time, Andews pointed out that it is important that to fully understand the event that you cannot just look at the one day of the affair. Zinn is popular among many people who are interested in the "other side of history" and his account focuses prominently on the strikers. Is it irresponsible for history to be written in this manner or is it necessary to preserve the voice of the weak?
Killing for Coal
ReplyDeleteP. 237
Andrews wrote: "The speakers told of watching partners and friends dies in fall of rock and coal- about bad air and short weights, pit bosses who demanded bribes..."
It seems very progressive that the strike workers were not only seeking to address issues of safety within the workplace, but that they were also attempting to work for better laws within the workspace to address issues such as corruption. This is important because it shows that they had a political agenda as well for striking. Importantly, this restores agency to the strikers and helps to place the actual massacre into better context.
One of the things that I really enjoyed about this book as a whole was the workers interactions within their landscape. Even the discussion of the formation of coal in the first chapter was intriguing because it helped create a sense of location (beginning on page twenty-six). Even further into the book, I found his discussion well argued when he discussed the connections between the disasters in the mine and the camaraderie formed amongst the workers. Too often I think that historians avoid reaching into other disciplines (i.e. science) to help their argument. Obviously there is a balance that a historian has to strike, but I think that the discussion of ecology and history is done well in these sections.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteKilling for Coal...
ReplyDeleteI thought Andrews' holistic interpretation of the 1914 coal miners' strike was definitely interesting. I think this book is one that can reach both the academic audience as well as the public. It's well-written and an easy read. I enjoyed the narratives he uses as well. The Palmer narrative at the beginning of the book was a nice opening that catches your attention right away and sets up the background information for how the coal mining industry began in Colorado. Several other mini narratives were strategically placed throughout the rest of the book to bring to life what Andrews was arguing. I really enjoyed this book and I am aware it was focusing on the strike but it still left me wanting to know more about how the Native Americans in the area were reacting.
I found the discussion of the formation of the coal fields in the Rockies really interesting. I think it provides an interesting backdrop to Andrews' following descriptions of the change in economy. By illustrating the organic process that changes coal into a fossil fuel, Andrews' does a nice job of setting up his narrative on the change from an organic economy to a fossil fuel based economy and how this change conquered previous societal limitations. Reading this section of the book raised some interesting parallels to the possible transitioning to a renewable energy based economy in the near future. I agree with the earlier post that the discussion of the ecology is balanced well with the history in this book.
ReplyDeleteAndrew's work allows one to draw interesting parallels to the on going struggle between labor unions and corporations today. His depiction of the debate between the coal workers and the corporate leaders over who was responsible for the lost time, and the lost lives, serves as a comparison to the debates that raged recently between the UAW and the General Motors Corporation. His work allows us to understand that the battle between corporations and labor unions is not a new one. While there may not be another Ludlow massacre, it is important that these problems do not go unresolved.
ReplyDeleteKilling For Coal...
ReplyDeletep.16
Andrews writes: "...we will explore how underground interactions between men and nature fomented decades of militancy in the southern Colorado coalfields".
While the aforementioned underground interactions are widely spread throughout Andrews' book, he argues successfully that these are the true motivators behind the events at Ludlow. Equally as important is a question the author raises midway through the reading: How did ethnically and socially diverse workers, "...begin to make common cause and organize themselves?" (p121)
Andrews offers the interesting juxtaposition of "miner's freedoms" underground (he set his own work hours, owned his tools, and enjoyed relative autonomy in his "room" in the mine) against the prophylaxis of the company town as an unexpected unifying force. Above ground, mine owners narrowly treated unionism as a disease to be contained with company towns, stores, and camp guards; below ground the impetus of hellish conditions and relative freedom bred a diverse workforce that saw red when employers exerted their authority. Andrews contends that the workscape of the colliers became the primary impulse for events that unfolded in Ludlow, not the intrigues of union organizers, as company leaders commonly believed.
Also, why did industrial moguls persist with their paternalistic and exploitative approach to workers in light of the then recent Pullman strike? It seems like the model of the company town should have seen some changes/improvements - did owners view this event as an aberration, or was the disconnect between the upper and lowest classes of American society so vast that there was no common ground between them. Colorado Fuel and Iron president Jesse Welborn hints at the truth following his conference with labor leaders before the Ludlow massacre:
"We reached no direct understanding,...In fact we wanted none..." p.266
Ouch.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete