I'm thinking this morning about the similarities between the Ottawa truck convoy and Occupy--not because they are alike in politics, but because in both cases the medium became the message. That is, the form of protest came to stand in for the content of the protest.
Thinking about the medium as the message--here, angry masculinist disruption via giant belching diesel trucks--helps explain why the Ottawa convoy has spread internationally, and how American fascists can glom onto it without caring about the specifics of Canadian politics.
As my friend @Dra_m_a would point out, iconography and form has been an important part of popular uprisings, and a major way that leftist and decolonial politics spread in the '60s. So this isn't anything new.
@Dra_m_a This is really a half-formed thought, but to me it helps explain how the idea of the convoy has spread back and forth across borders. And, of course, how American Trumpist and Confederate iconography has been on display in Ottawa.
@benjaminopowers I am a broken record when I say that the heart of the Canada-US relationship is not trade or shared defense, but rather ordinary people and their ideas crossing and recrossing the border.
@benjaminopowers If you--like so many people (and governments) who dominate the discourse of the US-Canada relationship--focus only on trade and the military, you can't possibly comprehend what's going on now with the convoy.
I wish this article about Starbucks firing unionists mentioned how extremely common this is. Research by @KBronfenbrenner has shown that pro-union workers are fired in more than half of organizing drives. (Have I got this right, Kate?) nytimes.com/2022/02/08/bus…
Workers organizing their unions get fired despite the law saying unequivocally that firing a worker for organizing a union is illegal. So why does it happen so often?
First is that, as Wilma Lieb says in the article, it’s really hard to prove that a worker was fired because of union activity. Most workers break the rules routinely. Most workplaces only function because of this rule breaking. (That’s why work to rule is an effective strategy.)
New York State allocated $27 million to give to undocumented victims of Hurricane Ida. (That's good.) But the eligibility structure is such that the fund has disbursed only $725,674, with an average grant of only $5,000. (That's bad.) ny1.com/nyc/all-boroug…
Why does the Hurricane Ida documented relief fund carry such a terrible curse? Because even this program is stuck in the paradigm of worthy and unworthy poor, deserving and undeserving immigrants. Families and households aren't, it turns out, "documented" or "undocumented."
Even a well-meaning program like this is stuck imagining a heteropatriarchal family, a household in which everyone shares legal or familial ties and immigration status. A lot of households--especially those forced to live in dangerous apartments--don't look like that.
An interesting column by @davidsirota about big insurance companies continuing to insure big oil and gas project that create climate change while withdrawing homeowners' coverage for homes at risk of burning down because of climate change. dailyposter.com/what-if-i-cant…
@davidsirota The larger point here about how it's ordinary homeowners that have the financial and other risk from climate change, while big financial companies continue to reap the profits is a good one.
I suspect the homeowners advocates' solution is also a good one for existing houses--that is, to make houses insurable if they take major fireproofing steps.
A thing I’ve learned in the last 5-2 years is that a huge amount of this country’s problems boil down to a culture that celebrates being an asshole, to the extent that many Americans will act like assholes even when it hurts themselves materially.
Some of this is about power. Just as working class people will give up, say, wages in order to have more control over their workdays and lives, rich people give up material things (e.g. better health outcomes) to keep more control of society.
Two key texts on the preceding tweet: David Montgomery’s classic essay “Worker Control of Machine Production in 19th Century America” (labor disputes are about power), The Spirit Level (rich people in unequal places have worse outcomes than rich people in more equal society), and
One of the things I repeat to my students all the time is how people fought and died--literally--for the 8 hour day and 40 hour week for 75 years before it was enshrined in federal law. And then it was standard for maybe 60 years before employers reneged again.
It's fascinating to see the demand for shorter and more predictable hours--8 hours for work, 8 hours for sleep, and 8 hours for what we will--reassert itself as a major struggle at Nabisco, Kellogg's, Deere, New York Magazine, etc., etc.
One of the things workers are (re)learning now is that legal requirements for short hours won't cut it. The Fair Labor Standards Act was not the first law to limit working hours. Many others had been passed and ignored. What gets workers shorter hours is power--that is, a union.