On this day in 1898, the Battle of Virden began when armed members of the United Mine Workers of America (UMW) surrounded a train full of strikebreakers and exchanged fire with company guards. 13 people were killed, dozens more wounded.
After a local chapter of the UMW began striking at a mine in Virden, Illinois, the Chicago-Virden Coal Company hired black strikebreakers from Birmingham, Alabama and shipped them to Virden by train.
The company hired armed detectives or security guards to accompany the strikebreakers, and an armed conflict broke out when armed miners surrounded the train as it arrived in town. A total of four detectives and seven striking mine workers were killed, with five guards, thirty miners, and an unrecorded number of strikebreakers wounded.
After this incident, Illinois Governor John Tanner ordered the National Guard to prevent any more strikebreakers from coming into the state by force. The next month, the Chicago-Virden Coal Company relented and allowed the unionization of its workers.
"When the last call comes for me to take my final rest, will the miners see that I get a resting place in the same clay that shelters the miners who gave up their lives on the hills of Virden, Illinois...They are responsible for Illinois being the best organized labor state in America."
Mother Jones
Megathreads and spaces to hang out:
- 📀 Come listen to music and Watch movies with your fellow Hexbears nerd, in Cy.tube
- 🔥 Read and talk about a current topics in the News Megathread
- ⚔ Come talk in the New Weekly PoC thread
- ✨ Talk with fellow Trans comrades in the New Weekly Trans thread
- 👊 Share your gains and goals with your comrades in the New Weekly Improvement thread
reminders:
- 💚 You nerds can join specific comms to see posts about all sorts of topics
- 💙 Hexbear’s algorithm prioritizes comments over upbears
- 💜 Sorting by new you nerd
- 🌈 If you ever want to make your own megathread, you can reserve a spot here nerd
- 🐶 Join the unofficial Hexbear-adjacent Mastodon instance toots.matapacos.dog
Links To Resources (Aid and Theory):
Aid:
Theory:
Once again after this recent batch of hurricanes in the gulf, I can't help but think that we should be organizing to get vulnerable populations out of areas that are going to be crushed by climate change or oppressed by reactionaries gaining more power. It's going to be so much harder to help each other once a critical mass of people recognizes what is inbound. I just wish I knew what we could do, and how to do it.
Of course it would be much better to empower people to be able to thrive where they are but imho it's probably way too late for that. And so if it's down being sacrificed by the orphan crushing machine or relocation, I want to be able to offer people the choice to get out.
Thoughts?
I think helping people move due to climate change is a reasonable project. A lot of people moved to Florida because housing was cheaper, some moved because they liked the chud De Santis political stuff, some moved because it's just nicer weather innit? For those who moved because housing was cheaper, hopefully shelter can be provided in more favorable areas.
I think there's some resilience style architecture they could do to make hurricanes more survivable and make flooding/rising tides better off. All over the carribean, they build with cinder blocks, and those handle storms quite handily. Cuba has remarkable storm resilience structures and infrastructure, including just beaurocratic infrastructure - and they're poor af and can't just move to Norcal.
As a project a handful of people could actually mount, honestly it's probably all we can do to provide moving assistance and shelter elsewhere nearby or very far away (like a hexbear mutual aid bat phone where you're willing to house another member for a short term during the hurricane and the recovery and maybe some cash to help the evacuee).
As a project that's actionable at a national/state level, yes there's a lot more that could be done. Regulations on building materials (no more stick built frames), nationalizing insurance so people can actually get it at a reasonable rate and they can actually get a payout after a disaster, decarbonizing so less extreme weather events happen in the future longer term, rewilding so carbon can be pumped back into the earth via plants (possibly BECCS too), on top of shelters and people who can check on you and get you to one, movement assistance for people seeking to leave due to disaster etc.
Thanks for the input.
I'm cautiously guarded about the feasibility of improving regulations, decarbonizing, and providing support in a fair and effective manner. Especially the feasibility of these making enough difference fast enough to keep areas like Florida habitable. Even before climate change really started impacting us, Florida was only widely habitable after the advent of air conditioning. Now there are millions of people situated to die from something as simple as an outdated and underfunded power grid going out. And the way Florida's insurance is going, I doubt the whole US will be able to subsidize the costs coming out of the southeast over the next few decades. Things like saltwater intrusion and storm strength are only going to get worse and worse. Even the limited existing enrollment in Citizens' is already enough to wipe out the state's coffers if a large chunk of them were to file at the same time.
I think these solutions are generally worth pursuing as degrees of progress that will benefit the world as a whole. I just don't think that they would realistically be implemented in a way that would do much of anything to save the people I am worried about. Which is what leads me to focusing on relocation - it's a smaller scale and more actionable solution that can be implemented without political consensus. Like you mentioned, hexbear mutual aid efforts could potentially be expanded to organize real support (at a limited scale).
Do you have thoughts on this perspective? For example, it seems like you might disagree about the feasibility of large-scale projects. Which is totally fair of course. I'm just trying to broaden my perspective (and to work out any kinks that might exist in it).
No, I don't think we can do large scale projects without seizing power so in my heart, they're not feasible under this economic paradigm even with a relatively progressive even FDR-scale effort - so I think we agree on short and medium term feasibility.
I think helping relocation efforts is nice and comes from a good place. But to me, it reminds me too much of things like the Trail of Tears just done with a far softer hand and carrot instead of stick. I don't think relocation can happen equitably without building hurricane/natural disaster resilience in Florida
Your second paragraph is where a lot of my concerns come from. It's not fair that some people should have to uproot and that others don't, that some should have to restart while others can continue accruing. That's definitely true. Even if it would end up being more of an Underground Railroad than a Trail of Tears, we can't overcome the reality of those fundamental problems (without seizing power). I've been a transplant, I know that it's not as simple as picking up where you left off. And anyone relying on strangers to help them relocate is also going to be at a very heightened risk of exploitation.
This is why I don't want to just start jumping into action with a half-baked plan. I'm very aware that the path to hell is paved with good intentions.
I would like to be able to survey relevant individuals, because I still feel like I would want the choice even if it were less than ideal - and that the inability to move is already an injustice - and if that is something others were sincerely interested in, then maybe it could be worth putting some more thought into. I figure I can't judge what is best for others but perhaps I can listen to what people say they need and try to support them in that way, as appropriate.
I'll put the idea back in the oven for now and let it bake a longer. Thanks again for your thoughts! The discussion was helpful for me.
Do insurance payouts require building/buying home in same place? Maybe some small agitation that this would only get worse will drive some people out of there, taking with them some part of the retiree economy (although old people can be stubborn)
I'm not sure.
I was groggy and it took me a few minutes to figure out your second sentence lol
I think agitation is probably a good idea, but those who don't have the means to move would still be unable to move. And I worry that if rich people are provoked into moving too soon, it could decimate what little savings disadvantaged people currently have tied up in real estate, making the situation that much more difficult for them.
Maybe i have slightly perverted view of florida, but i thought substantial part of florida is retirees (who, in insurance scheme, will get lump sum to move) and young people caring for them (thus renting). I mean if your real estate is gone, you aren't exactly tied up by it
Florida has a lot of retirees but they don't own most of the real estate value or act as the basis of the economy afaik. Many service workers rent but not all of them do, plus there's things like potential inheritances (like family homes) to consider for those who have been in the area for more than one generation. There's a lot of complicating factors that could cause things to take a turn for the worse imo.
Which is just to say, I'm not willing to put money on it all working out so simply and efficiently. But maybe it would. And maybe I'm over-thinking it.