Upload
andrew-leahey
View
214
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/14/2019 Hist136Pap2
1/3
Andrew Leahey
History 136
Paper #2
Kevin Starr reaction
In the essay "Radicalism in Nineteenth Century San Francisco", Kevin
Starr discusses the paradigm shifts with regards to labor that occurred in
San Francisco, California. It starts around the time of the Gold Rush (1849)
as a movement, started by the laborers, away from the intense labor and
low-wages that were the norm. There was a labor deficit because thetranscontinental railroad had not yet connected California to the rest of the
country; this gave the laborers an advantage. This produced an environment
that fostered the rise of the common man, and an economic environment
unique to this region and time. The completion of the railroad, however,
coupled with a economic depression, would soon change all of that.
The very same laborers who just a few years earlier had demanded an
eight hour work day and increased pay, now with the massive influx of
immigrant workers and the mass-laying off of railroad workers once the
transcontinental line had been completed, were unemployed. They were
"idl[ing] around fires blazing in the empty sandlots of San Francisco, passing
a bottle if one were available, muttering desperately to each other about the
lack of jobs"[Starr,122]. Sprinkle in some "First International" rhetoric (a
pseudo-communist organization) and there was a full-scale riot. The riots
were so severe revolution was a serious concern for the US Government,
and they felt compelled to anchor gunboats off the coast of San Francisco.
8/14/2019 Hist136Pap2
2/3
One cause unemployed white men saw for their woes were the local
Chinese immigrant workers. After attacking an innocent Chinese man, an
angry mob went on to sack Chinatown, troops eventually having to be sent
in to restore order. Denis Kearney was an Irish immigrant in San Francisco
who fancied himself as something of a leader. He enters the picture as a
critic of the white working class, even going so far as to join in patrolling
with an axe-handle, protecting businesses that hired Chinese immigrant
workers. He soon sees however, in the seething hatred for the Chinese, an
opportunity to satisfy his lifelong ambition to lead. After a series of
incendiary speeches by Kearney, a statement was issued by theWorkingmen's Party for which he was a leader, "We have made no secret of
our intentions.... we declare that the Chinamen must leave our shores.".
Kearney fed on the sensationalism, and issued still more radical statements;
he called for the expulsion of the police and the hanging of the Prosecuting
Attorney, who he felt protected the Chinese. This sensationalist language
would prove his undoing, as he had now crossed the line dividing free
speech and revolutionary speech. The militia was called out, and Kearney
was arrested.
After Kearney's, and other revolutionaries arrest, it was evident to the
Workingmen that such a radical policy would have the end effect they
desired. If changes were to be made, they must be enacted through legal
channels. "Thus the Workingmen transformed themselves into a bona fide
party, committed ... to the reform of California through an adjustment of its
constitution" [Starr, 130]. They likewise saw that any affiliation with Kearney
or any of his revolutionaries, would prove counter-intuitive to their new
commitment to respectability. They distanced themselves from him, and
8/14/2019 Hist136Pap2
3/3
deposed him as their leader. Just as he had begun, Kearney wound up a
poor no one, selling coffee and donuts behind a counter in a squatters
village.
To summarize Kevin Starr's argument, I believe one has to see the
metaphorical connection he makes between Kearney and radicalism in San
Francisco. The very same radical rhetoric that rose Kearney out of obscurity,
proved to be his undoing. This is also true of radicalism itself; the same
policies that brought it to the forefront of politics in San Francisco brought
about its demise, when it was seen to be unable to make the changes itendorsed.