Views in brief
The strikes that shaped FDR
THANKS FOR the shout-out ("The next FDR or the next Hoover").
Actually, I included the 1934 strikes--the wave of Carolina textile strikes, the farm workers in Southern California, the great San Francisco waterfront strike, and the (old, Dunne brothers) Teamsters takeover of downtown Minneapolis--in the original article, but they were cut, alas, for reasons of space. I have been mentioning them in interviews, and it is a valid point.
FDR was pushed to get where he got, just as we always have to push presidents and other politicians. Obama's timing is unfortunate in this sense. People are not that desperate yet. I don't mean to be callous when I write that--I don't want anyone to be desperate--but without real public fury, nothing is going to get done.
Kevin Baker, New York City
Union war not about big egos
REGARDING "UNITE HERE war gets nastier":While I agree that Bruce Raynor and Andrew Stern's actions are pathetic and infuriating, the tone of your piece frustrates me.
This is not just a conflict between union bosses with big egos. This is a conflict between two very different organizing models and visions for the U.S. labor movement.
John Wilhelm and his majority faction within UNITE HERE are dedicated to building grassroots strength and a sustainable, long-term movement of empowered and active members. His side of the UNITE HERE conflict has many leaders who have come up out of the rank and file and who have dedicated their lives to empowering working people. To dismiss the mainstream labor movement in its entirety without providing any alternative does working people a great disservice to the benefit of corporate America.
As a former Unite HERE organizer who has seen firsthand the tremendous transformation that workers undergo with the support and guidance of a truly grassroots union, I am extremely disappointed with much of the left's coverage of this conflict.
SEIU and Workers United are a dangerous threat to democratic unionism, and it's time that the left takes a stand and takes sides.
Devon Whitham, from the Internet
The burqa should be banned
REGARDING "AN attack on French Muslims" by James Fiorentino: The French have had a long history of the Catholic Church subjugating its citizens, and to understand the French perspective on this issue, this history must be understood.
The Church regularly backed tyrannical rulers such as Napoleon III to quell revolutionary worker uprisings in the 19th century. The church also backed Charles de Gaulle and his repressive regime prior to the great worker and student rebellions of 1968, which brought upon much-needed reforms.
Religion has played an oppressive role throughout French history, and this is also true throughout Europe--which is why Europeans as a whole are less religious than Americans.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy's pronouncement against the burqa is not so much anti-Muslim, as it is anti-sexist. It represents the expressed will of the French people to resist religious bigotry and chauvinism. Muslims deserve full political rights. They deserve the right to practice their religion, and express their opposition to criminal imperialist policies directed at people of their faith all over the world from Palestine to Guantánamo Bay. But extreme sexists should not have the right to oppress women.
The burqa robs women of identity and is aimed at suppressing female sexuality. It has not nothing to do with Islam, as many Muslims would attest.
The author's arguments about abortion are unconvincing. Just because France has reactionary laws regarding reproductive rights it should permit a segment of the population to be victims of even more blatant discrimination? The arguments regarding abortion are beside the point and trivial.
It may be true that Sarkozy is promoting this policy to divert attention away from his failed economic agenda, but even reactionaries can implement laws that are progressive. Ronald Reagan signed a deeply flawed but better-than-status-quo immigration amnesty in 1986. Richard Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency.
These men signed these laws because of the threat of worker and student struggle in the U.S. That is ultimately why Sarkozy is for this law. He knows he is expressing the sentiment of the majority of people in France who will not tolerate female oppression from any religion.
I understand the hesitation to regulate an individual's clothing. For instance I opposed the attempt to ban head scarves in French schools a couple years ago. But the burqa is such an extreme case.
James Fiorentino criticizes Sarkozy (but really the French people) for passing judgment on Islam. But isn't it really he who is passing judgment on the people of France for promoting their values in their own country?
There is nothing wrong with the telling the oppressed women of France: Take the damn burqa off and liberate yourself! Come out of the shadows and exist as equals!
David Feldman, North Hollywood, Calif.
Islamic dress degrading to women
REGARDING "AN attack on French Muslims": Your article attacking Sarkozy for his opinion of Islamic dress is way off.
I believe these forms of dress are degrading to women. If we ever hope to achieve a socialist state we must ensure that all organized religions are kept in check.
A person's religious beliefs are irrelevant to me as long as they do not interfere with the running of a secular state.
Michael Quirk, from the Internet
