Hi, my name is Enis Bektesevic from LaGuardia Community College. Violence in American Art and Culture (ENN195) is one of the courses I am currently studying here. So far we have been acquainted with extremely violent Bread and Railroad riots that occurred in the 19th century. It is not surprising that these extreme events are rarely mentioned today because of the influence they can provide to people who are fed up with American Government, City and State laws, and the Corporate world etc.
In J.T Headley's "Railroad Riots of 1877," railroad workers are bitter about wage cuts and decide to strike and completely put the railroad system at a standstill until they get what they want. The initial Martinsburgh strike sends off a chain reaction east and west to the point of National Crisis. The narrator's tone and language suggest that he is on the side of the owners although he sometimes mentions that workers are being treated unjustly. His main idea is that: being a victim of unfair wage cuts does not give anyone the right to commit a crime in return, in this case violence.
The Railroad owners are displaying abuse of power because they feel they are "above" the social status of the workers. It's fitting that the narrator (Headley) is against communism and one of the reasons being is that he believes people should have distinct ranks based on their position in social class. People are people, no matter how successful we are. Owners didn't really have a legit reason to cut wages, Headley himself admits that owners sometimes cut wages for the sole purpose of making more money (350). It's obvious that this is unethical and the workers have every right to strike and be angry. The owners are simply taking advantage of the workers and the workers simply don't want to take it. Can you really blame them? the owners are basically taking money away from their employees but are not taking away any amount sweat off their backs.
Do you think it is unethical for businesses to cut wages or layoff employees for the sole purpose of making more profit? Or do you think businesses are responsible for creating sufficient jobs for people as long as these businesses are doing well?
Is there any other way for the Railroad workers to get a solution to their unfair wage cuts beside acting violently? If there isn't, do you think their actions are justified?
Thursday, September 25, 2014
Thursday, September 18, 2014
"Flour Riot of 1837"
Hi my name is Enis Bektesevic, I am a student at LaGuardia Community College. One of the courses I am currently studying is ENN195 or Violence in American Art and Culture. The course involves reading and film of violent rioting that occurred in past America.
The first thought that comes to my mind when reading about violent rioting is whether or not the violence by people is justifiable. Some people can argue that violence is completely unacceptable, and probably should be; however, it's very important to try to understand why someone would resort to violence. Some times becoming violent is the only option in a situation where a solution is absolutely necessary. In the "Flour Riot of 1837," J.T Headley points out "... when they have a large stock of anything on hand, of which there threatens to be a scarcity, to hold on in order to make the scarcity greater- thus forcing higher prices." (99). The unfair effects of monopoly that the merchants are using as a weapon to make more money than they normally would is viewed as simply being greedy in the minds of New York residents. Residents do have the right to feel rage because merchants are playing around with the survival of other human beings. In this time period, flour was a vital part for food preparation. Instinct also tells the residents that if merchants get away with jacking up flour barrel prices to the point of being unreachable then maybe other merchants will do the same with other types of food ingredients. The reason behind the merchants greedy decision making is simply because they feel they can get away with it, which is most disturbing and deserving of retaliation even if it means violence.
The first thought that comes to my mind when reading about violent rioting is whether or not the violence by people is justifiable. Some people can argue that violence is completely unacceptable, and probably should be; however, it's very important to try to understand why someone would resort to violence. Some times becoming violent is the only option in a situation where a solution is absolutely necessary. In the "Flour Riot of 1837," J.T Headley points out "... when they have a large stock of anything on hand, of which there threatens to be a scarcity, to hold on in order to make the scarcity greater- thus forcing higher prices." (99). The unfair effects of monopoly that the merchants are using as a weapon to make more money than they normally would is viewed as simply being greedy in the minds of New York residents. Residents do have the right to feel rage because merchants are playing around with the survival of other human beings. In this time period, flour was a vital part for food preparation. Instinct also tells the residents that if merchants get away with jacking up flour barrel prices to the point of being unreachable then maybe other merchants will do the same with other types of food ingredients. The reason behind the merchants greedy decision making is simply because they feel they can get away with it, which is most disturbing and deserving of retaliation even if it means violence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)