7 ms·

The Vexed Meaning of Equality in Gilded Age America

52 points by samclemens 7y ago

supernova87a 7y ago
My god, what a boring stuffy article that didn't even attempt to link some relevance to the modern age. Maybe I've got a short attention span and need things to be spelled out to me lately, but my skim of that story read like some dry textbook. I basically forgot every word except "Grange" as soon as I closed the tab...
Cogito 7y ago
This is a review of the book "Equality: An American Dilemma, 1866–1896" by Charles Postel. The 'Gilded Age' of America mentioned in the submission title is this period of 1886-1896. The whole review is a bit belaboured, or perhaps bogged down in detail, but tries to show how an analysis of this period can be used to understand the concept of equality today. The book apparently examines a number of different organisations that were founded in this time, such as the Grange, Women’s Christian Temperance Union, and the Knights of Labor. The claim is that these organisations were, at least in part, founded to try remove inequality but ended up leading to greater inequality. > the national orientation of [these groups] led them to embrace a “white nationalist framework of sectional reconciliation.” The struggle against slavery cast a long shadow over the Gilded Age. The era’s radicals often viewed it as a model for their own activism. Yet because of their desire to organize nationally and to recruit members regardless of their Civil War loyalties, these groups played an important role in disseminating a view of that conflict in which slavery played only a minor part and Reconstruction was considered a disastrous mistake. This had dire consequences for black Americans and for an ideal of equality that transcended racial difference. Their summary probably gets their point across most succinctly: > Thanks to Occupy Wall Street, the presidential campaigns of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, the work of the French economist Thomas Piketty, and more generally the dysfunctionality of contemporary capitalism, equality—or the widespread lack thereof—again occupies a prominent place in political debate. Beyond the fate of the individual organizations it covers, Equality reminds us of a homegrown radical heritage that critics of today’s deeply unequal America can be inspired by and must improve upon. The ideal of equality remains as radical as it was in Jefferson’s day. But equality limited to some is not equality.
- _iyig 7y ago
  I'm perplexed by writers who prioritize the social equality of a minority over economic equality among the majority. Don't get me wrong - I think both are important, but if we're honest, doesn't the general peace and well-being of society (from which better conditions for the minority tend to spring) depend more on the latter? You can't solve these problems easily in reverse order; the disgruntled majority will get tired of hearing about minority issues while they struggle to put food on the table. This is a bit of a false dichotomy, but as a continuous balance of focus between the two issues, I think the point stands.
  - sanderjd 7y ago
    > general peace and well-being of society (from which better conditions for the minority tend to spring) This parenthetical is doing a lot of the work in your argument, and alas, it is not always (or even usually) how things work.
    - _iyig 7y ago
      It’s harder to scapegoat minorities when nobody’s all that mad about anything. Conversely, it’s easier to be charitable when you have more to give. Finally, there’s Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs: self and family survival comes before everything else. If you have counterexamples to this theorizing of mine, I’d love to see them!
      - sanderjd 7y ago
        Well, you could a look at the antebellum south of the US, to start. Don't think much more needs to be said about that... Or you could look at the contemporary US. We have basically no unemployment, enormous wealth, no war on our land in over a century and a half, we're probably the most prosperous and least attacked people in history, and yet we see quite a lot of majority-minority strife. You could also look at the article or the book it's talking about, which is also talking about a period where your theorizing didn't hold up. Maybe let's flip it, do you have examples of peaceful high-well-being societies where people who were different from most people in the society were equivalent participants in that well being?
taiwanboy 7y ago
I would propose The most fundamental issue US needs to solve for inequality in the US is....whether US can continue to allow corporations to reap the benefits of a strong democracy coupled with the most vibrant economy, while at the same time, bankrupt the communities by continuing to ship jobs overseas and avoid paying any sort of taxes back to the communities where they make a profit. There are only two parties in the US right now. And one is for globalization. And the other is for stronger US labor unions, as mentioned in the article.
- sacrificedcapon 7y ago
  Neither party is for stronger US labor unions. Both parties are pro-globalism and pro-free trade. It was under a democratic president that China attained Most Favored Trading Nation status. It was Clinton, in the 90s, who did most of the legwork to get China into the WTO - though they officially entered under Bush's term in 2001.
  - flukus 7y ago
    > Both parties are pro-globalism and pro-free trade. Well a recent president tried to stop US workers competing with an underclass of illegal residents with a border wall and tried to help the competitiveness of US workers with increased tariffs on a large nation with much cheaper labor. For some reason those actions are unpopular with people that consider themselves left wing.
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    > Neither party is for stronger US labor unions. The Democratic Party believes that when workers are strong, America is strong. Democrats will make it easier for workers, public and private, to exercise their right to organize and join unions. We will fight to pass laws that direct the National Labor Relations Board to certify a union if a simple majority of eligible workers sign valid authorization cards, as well as laws that bring companies to the negotiating table. We support binding arbitration to help workers who have voted to join a union reach a first contract. https://democrats.org/where-we-stand/party-platform/raise-incomes-and-restore-economic-security-for-the-middle-classas https://democrats.org/where-we-stand/party-platform/raise-in... > It was under a democratic president [...]. It was Clinton, in the 90s, [...]. Yeah, it was both those things. But was is about the past, not the present. The Democratic Party— and the Republican Party, too—has shifted since then (and particularly since the Great Recession). The Democrats have seen the pro-labor progressive faction that had been marginalized since Clinton (and somewhat even earlier) by the neoliberal faction resurgent, while the Republicans have xenophobic mercantilist protectionists come to the forefront. The neoliberal consensus that peaked around the 1990s is well and truly dead; it may have supporters in bot parties, but they aren't dominant in either. No one is campaigning on free trade any more, and candidates are more likely to be disavowing their past support for free trade deals than endorsing current efforts.
jdkee 7y ago
Jack Balkin has a fantastic (!) lecture on the Second Gilded Age in America. Highly worth viewing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4daIk8PCPIc&feature=youtu.be https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4daIk8PCPIc&feature=youtu.be
- appleflaxen 7y ago
  the main speaker takes the stage several minutes into the clip: https://youtu.be/4daIk8PCPIc?t=850 https://youtu.be/4daIk8PCPIc?t=850

52 points by samclemens 7y ago

My god, what a boring stuffy article that didn't even attempt to link some relevance to the modern age. Maybe I've got a short attention span and need things to be spelled out to me lately, but my skim of that story read like some dry textbook. I basically forgot every word except "Grange" as soon as I closed the tab...

Cogito 7y ago

This is a review of the book "Equality: An American Dilemma, 1866–1896" by Charles Postel. The 'Gilded Age' of America mentioned in the submission title is this period of 1886-1896. The whole review is a bit belaboured, or perhaps bogged down in detail, but tries to show how an analysis of this period can be used to understand the concept of equality today. The book apparently examines a number of different organisations that were founded in this time, such as the Grange, Women’s Christian Temperance Union, and the Knights of Labor. The claim is that these organisations were, at least in part, founded to try remove inequality but ended up leading to greater inequality. > the national orientation of [these groups] led them to embrace a “white nationalist framework of sectional reconciliation.” The struggle against slavery cast a long shadow over the Gilded Age. The era’s radicals often viewed it as a model for their own activism. Yet because of their desire to organize nationally and to recruit members regardless of their Civil War loyalties, these groups played an important role in disseminating a view of that conflict in which slavery played only a minor part and Reconstruction was considered a disastrous mistake. This had dire consequences for black Americans and for an ideal of equality that transcended racial difference. Their summary probably gets their point across most succinctly: > Thanks to Occupy Wall Street, the presidential campaigns of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, the work of the French economist Thomas Piketty, and more generally the dysfunctionality of contemporary capitalism, equality—or the widespread lack thereof—again occupies a prominent place in political debate. Beyond the fate of the individual organizations it covers, Equality reminds us of a homegrown radical heritage that critics of today’s deeply unequal America can be inspired by and must improve upon. The ideal of equality remains as radical as it was in Jefferson’s day. But equality limited to some is not equality.

_iyig 7y ago
I'm perplexed by writers who prioritize the social equality of a minority over economic equality among the majority. Don't get me wrong - I think both are important, but if we're honest, doesn't the general peace and well-being of society (from which better conditions for the minority tend to spring) depend more on the latter? You can't solve these problems easily in reverse order; the disgruntled majority will get tired of hearing about minority issues while they struggle to put food on the table. This is a bit of a false dichotomy, but as a continuous balance of focus between the two issues, I think the point stands.
- sanderjd 7y ago
  > general peace and well-being of society (from which better conditions for the minority tend to spring) This parenthetical is doing a lot of the work in your argument, and alas, it is not always (or even usually) how things work.
  - _iyig 7y ago
    It’s harder to scapegoat minorities when nobody’s all that mad about anything. Conversely, it’s easier to be charitable when you have more to give. Finally, there’s Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs: self and family survival comes before everything else. If you have counterexamples to this theorizing of mine, I’d love to see them!
    - sanderjd 7y ago
      Well, you could a look at the antebellum south of the US, to start. Don't think much more needs to be said about that... Or you could look at the contemporary US. We have basically no unemployment, enormous wealth, no war on our land in over a century and a half, we're probably the most prosperous and least attacked people in history, and yet we see quite a lot of majority-minority strife. You could also look at the article or the book it's talking about, which is also talking about a period where your theorizing didn't hold up. Maybe let's flip it, do you have examples of peaceful high-well-being societies where people who were different from most people in the society were equivalent participants in that well being?

taiwanboy 7y ago

I would propose The most fundamental issue US needs to solve for inequality in the US is....whether US can continue to allow corporations to reap the benefits of a strong democracy coupled with the most vibrant economy, while at the same time, bankrupt the communities by continuing to ship jobs overseas and avoid paying any sort of taxes back to the communities where they make a profit. There are only two parties in the US right now. And one is for globalization. And the other is for stronger US labor unions, as mentioned in the article.

sacrificedcapon 7y ago
Neither party is for stronger US labor unions. Both parties are pro-globalism and pro-free trade. It was under a democratic president that China attained Most Favored Trading Nation status. It was Clinton, in the 90s, who did most of the legwork to get China into the WTO - though they officially entered under Bush's term in 2001.
- flukus 7y ago
  > Both parties are pro-globalism and pro-free trade. Well a recent president tried to stop US workers competing with an underclass of illegal residents with a border wall and tried to help the competitiveness of US workers with increased tariffs on a large nation with much cheaper labor. For some reason those actions are unpopular with people that consider themselves left wing.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > Neither party is for stronger US labor unions. The Democratic Party believes that when workers are strong, America is strong. Democrats will make it easier for workers, public and private, to exercise their right to organize and join unions. We will fight to pass laws that direct the National Labor Relations Board to certify a union if a simple majority of eligible workers sign valid authorization cards, as well as laws that bring companies to the negotiating table. We support binding arbitration to help workers who have voted to join a union reach a first contract. https://democrats.org/where-we-stand/party-platform/raise-incomes-and-restore-economic-security-for-the-middle-classas https://democrats.org/where-we-stand/party-platform/raise-in... > It was under a democratic president [...]. It was Clinton, in the 90s, [...]. Yeah, it was both those things. But was is about the past, not the present. The Democratic Party— and the Republican Party, too—has shifted since then (and particularly since the Great Recession). The Democrats have seen the pro-labor progressive faction that had been marginalized since Clinton (and somewhat even earlier) by the neoliberal faction resurgent, while the Republicans have xenophobic mercantilist protectionists come to the forefront. The neoliberal consensus that peaked around the 1990s is well and truly dead; it may have supporters in bot parties, but they aren't dominant in either. No one is campaigning on free trade any more, and candidates are more likely to be disavowing their past support for free trade deals than endorsing current efforts.

jdkee 7y ago

Jack Balkin has a fantastic (!) lecture on the Second Gilded Age in America. Highly worth viewing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4daIk8PCPIc&feature=youtu.be https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4daIk8PCPIc&feature=youtu.be

appleflaxen 7y ago
the main speaker takes the stage several minutes into the clip: https://youtu.be/4daIk8PCPIc?t=850 https://youtu.be/4daIk8PCPIc?t=850