承认的诡计:奴隶制余生中的黑人劳工

IF 1.8 2区 社会学 Q2 ETHNIC STUDIES
Venus Green, Cedric de Leon
{"title":"承认的诡计:奴隶制余生中的黑人劳工","authors":"Venus Green, Cedric de Leon","doi":"10.1177/23326492241247786","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Given the abolitionism professed by successive labor leaders in the years following the U.S. Civil War, why did the cause of interracial solidarity fail to gain traction in postbellum organized labor? Drawing on archival and secondary data on the encounter of Black and White labor from Reconstruction to the turn of the twentieth century, we trace the failure of interracial solidarity to the labor movement’s refusal to reckon institutionally with what Hartman calls the “nonevent of emancipation” and the “afterlife of slavery” for Black populations. Enslaved artisans dominated the skilled trades before the war, and White unions emerged correspondingly to exclude Black labor. When, after the Civil War, the formerly enslaved began to argue that they were being excluded from unions, White labor used emancipation as an anti-Black discursive technology to deny those claims. White labor also employed violence to exclude Black people from the labor movement. By addressing the research puzzle in this way, we offer a novel synthesis of Black studies and the sparse but important body of work on the sociology of slavery to reframe the mainstream approach to interracial solidarity in the sociology of labor and labor movements.","PeriodicalId":46879,"journal":{"name":"Sociology of Race and Ethnicity","volume":"77 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Ruse of Recognition: Black Labor in the Afterlife of Slavery\",\"authors\":\"Venus Green, Cedric de Leon\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/23326492241247786\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Given the abolitionism professed by successive labor leaders in the years following the U.S. Civil War, why did the cause of interracial solidarity fail to gain traction in postbellum organized labor? Drawing on archival and secondary data on the encounter of Black and White labor from Reconstruction to the turn of the twentieth century, we trace the failure of interracial solidarity to the labor movement’s refusal to reckon institutionally with what Hartman calls the “nonevent of emancipation” and the “afterlife of slavery” for Black populations. Enslaved artisans dominated the skilled trades before the war, and White unions emerged correspondingly to exclude Black labor. When, after the Civil War, the formerly enslaved began to argue that they were being excluded from unions, White labor used emancipation as an anti-Black discursive technology to deny those claims. White labor also employed violence to exclude Black people from the labor movement. By addressing the research puzzle in this way, we offer a novel synthesis of Black studies and the sparse but important body of work on the sociology of slavery to reframe the mainstream approach to interracial solidarity in the sociology of labor and labor movements.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46879,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Sociology of Race and Ethnicity\",\"volume\":\"77 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Sociology of Race and Ethnicity\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/23326492241247786\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHNIC STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sociology of Race and Ethnicity","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/23326492241247786","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHNIC STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在美国内战后的岁月里,历任劳工领袖都宣称废除种族隔离,那么为什么种族间团结的事业未能在战后有组织的劳工运动中获得支持呢?根据从重建时期到 20 世纪之交黑人和白人劳工相遇的档案和二手资料,我们追溯了种族间团结失败的原因,即劳工运动拒绝从制度上考虑哈特曼所说的 "非解放事件 "和黑人的 "奴隶制后遗症"。战前,受奴役的工匠在技术行业中占主导地位,白人工会相应地出现,将黑人劳工排除在外。内战结束后,曾经的被奴役者开始辩称他们被工会排斥在外,白人劳工则利用解放作为一种反黑人的话语技术来否认这些说法。白人劳工还使用暴力将黑人排除在劳工运动之外。通过以这种方式解决研究难题,我们将黑人研究与有关奴隶制社会学的稀少但重要的研究成果进行了新颖的综合,重新构建了劳工社会学和劳工运动中有关种族间团结的主流方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Ruse of Recognition: Black Labor in the Afterlife of Slavery
Given the abolitionism professed by successive labor leaders in the years following the U.S. Civil War, why did the cause of interracial solidarity fail to gain traction in postbellum organized labor? Drawing on archival and secondary data on the encounter of Black and White labor from Reconstruction to the turn of the twentieth century, we trace the failure of interracial solidarity to the labor movement’s refusal to reckon institutionally with what Hartman calls the “nonevent of emancipation” and the “afterlife of slavery” for Black populations. Enslaved artisans dominated the skilled trades before the war, and White unions emerged correspondingly to exclude Black labor. When, after the Civil War, the formerly enslaved began to argue that they were being excluded from unions, White labor used emancipation as an anti-Black discursive technology to deny those claims. White labor also employed violence to exclude Black people from the labor movement. By addressing the research puzzle in this way, we offer a novel synthesis of Black studies and the sparse but important body of work on the sociology of slavery to reframe the mainstream approach to interracial solidarity in the sociology of labor and labor movements.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
6.70%
发文量
62
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信