The Coalition of Immokalee Workers campaign against Taco Bell picked up a big moral boost as Cesar Chavez and Dolores Huerta’s United Farm Workers passed a resolution endorsing the boycott of Taco Bell [IMC]. The solidarity from UFW is inspiring, given UFW’s historical role as a spearhead of organizing for the human dignity of migrant farmworkers and their near-legendary inspiration for low-wage laborers and Chicanos across the nation.

CIW launched its boycott of Taco Bell in April, 2001, in response to repeated stonewalling from Taco Bell management. CIW had asked Taco Bell to take responsibility for the abysmal working conditions of Florida tomato pickers (the average farmworking family lives on about $7,000/year; farmworkers have no labor rights under US law; the piece rate paid for tomatos picked has not increased since the 1970s). Taco Bell claims that it is not responsible for the contracts made by its suppliers — an excuse just as phony as Nike’s excuses that it is not responsible for its outsourced sweatshops in Indonesia or Mexico. If Taco Bell would pay just one penny extra per pound of tomatoes, it could double the income of tomato pickers. But they will not take any responsibility or make any moves to bring their suppliers to the bargaining table with the CIW. So the CIW has launched a dynamic and creative campaign to speak truth to Taco Bell and hold them accountable.

The campaign is surging forward as the Taco Bell Truth Tour begins. We had a Taco Bell protest here in Auburn during the Southern Girls Convention, and, who knows, we may work on some more later.

For further reading:

• GT 7/27/2001 reports on Southern Girls Convention, including the Taco Bell protest
• Also, check out the Coalition of Immokalee Workers’ website

Take Action!

• CIW Taco Bell Take Action page

With Jesse Jackson hurting from recent scandals, Al Sharpton may be trying to establish himself as the leading Black candidate in the Democratic Party, as he announces that he is forming an exploratory committee for a possible Presidential run in 2004 [evote]. To which I say: good. Although he is an amazing speaker and voices ideals which are strongly progressive, Jesse Jackson has long since ceased to pose any challenge to the Democratic Party power structure, and has simply faded into the role of party hack.

Many radicals and progressives will never forgive Jackson for his decision to hamstring Rainbow/PUSH Coalition after politicos such as Al Gore Jr. hatcheted Jackson’s Presidential bid in 1988 and it began to look like Rainbow/PUSH might be moving to act as an independent, grassroots coalition rather than a caucus within the Party. Jackson has become well-known for his Faustian bargains to salvage his personal access to power within the Party. On the other hand, Al Sharpton is still scary to the Right-wing elite within the Democratic Party and outside of it – as evidenced by the constant derision he faces from the Punditocracy. I have limited hopes for Sharpton personally, and for anyone to be able to change the Democrats without massive changes in the basic structure of elections (such as, say, Instant Runoff Voting, lowered ballot access requirements, and other pro-democracy ballot reforms), but I think that Sharpton could help check the Right-ward tilt much more than Jesse Jackson over the next few years.

Jason Mallory, an awesome boy from Fort Worth that I met at Southern Girls Convention, tipped me off to a Left/Progressive journal in Bryan/College Station (home of Texas A&M) that published a good article of his on the rape of men in prison. I was doubly pleased to read the rest of Touchstone and find an article once again blasting the historical and political attempts to whitewash the Confederacy and pretend like the Civil War had nothing much to do with slavery. (It was all about states’ rights! States’ rights to… to… to have states’ rights!)

For further reading:

• GT 5/28/2001 More on pro-Confederate revisionism and the Confederate constitution
• 3/16/2001 Anti-Southern Bigotry and Elitist Yankee Faux Liberals

Richard Shedenhelm wrote a good, brief article using the Confederate Constitution to help refute revisionist claims that Southern secession was about state’s rights, Northern tariffs, or what have you. Although Shedenhelm doesn’t note it, one of the provisions he discusses — Article IV, Section 3 codifies the decision of the United States’ Supreme Court in Dredd Scott v. Sanford by specifying in the Constitution that the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States. Like Dredd Scott, this is in fact a profoundly anti-states’ rights provision, since it fundamentally barred the states of the CSA from self-determination on whether or not to enforce an abolition of slavery within their own borders. Therefore, it seems that the maintenance of white supremacist slavery was more important to the crafters of the Confederacy than states’ rights ever were (which we might also note is backed up by their use of military occupation to keep 1/2 of the state of Tennessee from seceding back into the Union, and Jefferson Davis’s repeated speaches denouncing the ideology of states’ rights as harmful to the Confederate cause).

On the occasion of volume 2 of David Levering Lewis’s biography of W.E.B. DuBois winning a Pulitzer Prize, David Greenberg has published a decent biographical essay on W.E.B. Du Bois [Slate.com]. Greenberg doesn’t quite seem to grasp the difference between forced segregation and the separatism that DuBois began to feel amenable to later in life, but it’s nice to see anything on DuBois published at all, really.