History News Network puts current events into historical perspective. Subscribe to our newsletter for new perspectives on the ways history continues to resonate in the present. Explore our archive of thousands of original op-eds and curated stories from around the web. Join us to learn more about the past, now.
The OAH is moving its annual meeting from San Francisco to San Jose as a result of a labor dispute between the Hilton and its employees. The breaking story from OAH is here. Thanks to HNN Editor Rick Shenkman for the heads up.
There seems to me to have been no other acceptable choice. Vast numbers of historians were simply not going to attend had this issue not been resolved. Many would have stayed away for political, moral, or ethical reasons. Others would have decided that meetings in San Francisco are great but among the most expensive in the country, and if there was any risk that service would be poor or that things would be chaotic it would not be worth it. I am probably not headed out that way wherever it is going to be, but I could not see myself crossing picket lines for a conference I do not need to attend. It might be tougher as a junior faculty member were I on the program, or if I had any other professional reason to attend, but I am not and I do not.
That's how I see it. I actually thought that in my proposal of two possibilities -- historians reacting politically and historians reacting pragmatically, the latter probably would be at least as important. I tried to emphasize that, as a junior person, my plan is simply to avoid either the politics or the logistical mess and not head out west one way or the other. I am sympathetic with the strike and would not cross the lines anyway (I do have that right, yes, Mr. Rongstad? -- I have the right to choose not to spend hundreds of dollars to go to the OAH meeting?) but even if i were not, or if i were ambivalent, i would be disinclined to engage in what would be perceived by a small number as itself a political act. i am not on the program. i do not have other professional responsibilities there. So I can avopid it. Again, did i not say this in my post, or am i getting some sort of Memento-esque affliction? (OK, I'm chasing someone; No, he's chasing me.)
dc
Tom Bruscino -
2/16/2005
I'm reading. I didn't understand the last sentence of Mr. Rongstad's first comment either. My guess is that he is making a larger point about professional academic historians and their political and professional biases.
Fair enough (whatever that point actually is), I'm just not sure the OAH moving its meeting is the place to make that point. It strikes me that the move was done more out of pragmatism (a mix of cost, convenience, and moral issues) than anything else. The OAH stumbled into a mess and is just trying to get itself out.
Derek Charles Catsam -
2/16/2005
Richard --
First, you at least make an argument now, which is nice. second, you are confusing two things -- the fact that the OAH has a meeting every year and that they need to do so this year, and the fact that they want to show support for the strikers.
In terms of having the meeting, there were two options -- to hold the meeting at thehotel as was, thus crossing the picket lines. The second was to move it to another city and another hotel chain where they would not be crossing the picket line. I would place bets that the OAH made this move after consulting with the union involved in order to find out what they would prefer that we do. If you have evidence to the contrary, I'd be more than happy to change my opinion.
As far as supporting the strikers, this seems the way they would prefer that we do it. But I'll bet you a ham sandwixch on San Ferancisco sourdough bread that during the weekend of thew meeting there will in fact be some historians who do go up and picket for a while. If they do, all the better. But it is not being a "limosine liberal" to make the decision not to cross a picket line.
By the way, given that I have a pretty good bead on our readership, it is not "just you and [me] here." We have plenty of folks reading and making choices whether they weigh in or not.
Again, your sentence of "historical significance" makes no sense to me. I am a historian. Among historians, this is something that apparently matters as the largest organization of American historians has chosen to move its annual meeting. If that is not of global significance, so what? Does everything you do on a daily basis amount to a grand event of momentous proportions? I'd love to think that responding to a post on Rebunk does in fact reach that standard. But I know better. It seems an issue worth getting your dander up for reasons I cannot imagine.
Does anyone else find the substance of my post all that almighty objectionable? Historians are exercising free will and deciding where to hold their annual meeting! They decided not to cross picket lines, presumably after consultation with the workers' representatives! Apocolypse tomorrow! Newsflash at 11!
dc
Richard Rongstad -
2/16/2005
Derek, you ask "Is there an argument behind your invective?"
Well, my comments hardly rise to the level of invective, but I could put some invective behind an argument, and become known as "The Invectifier".
"Historians cannot vote with their feet and pocketbooks?"
Certainly, they can.
But on their feet, walking the 50 miles from San Jose back to San Francisco to show support for the strikers, would be challenging. I recommend renting a van and shuttling OAH members with political, moral and ethical sympathies up to San Francisco to walk the picket lines.
"How is moving to a different hotel in a different city crossing picket lines?"
How is moving your event 50 miles down the road from the San Francisco picket lines showing support for the strikers? (For political, moral or ethical reasons).
Th OAH decision to change to San Jose to avoid expenses, poor service and chaos in San Francisco impresses me as hypocrisy, particularly in the light of the reasons you gave. As you wrote, "Many [historian attendees] would have stayed away for political, moral, or ethical reasons." If they really have defensible political, moral, or ethical reasons to stay away, why couldn't they have political, moral, or ethical reasons to just cancel the OAH annual meeting in favor of joining the strikers? Or, better yet, if OAH members want to sing along with Al Gore, Jr. and work for the union label, they could carry signs and beat tin pans along with the hotel workers. They could even sandwich time on the picket line between OAH scheduled events.
"I have no idea what your last sentence means."
Work on it a bit more Derek.
OAH members voting their pocketbooks and taking their dollars to San Jose to show solidarity for the strikers in San Francisco. There's a concept of historical significance.
Derek, it's just you and I here. Surely you must know some RDB or limousine liberals in the history field that can weigh in on this.
Derek Charles Catsam -
2/15/2005
Is there an argument behind your invective? Historians cannot vote with their feet and pocketbooks? How is moving to a different hotel in a different city crossing picket lines?
I have no idea what your last sentence means.
dc
Richard Rongstad -
2/15/2005
What a great idea! Crossing picket lines by moving the annual meeting 50 miles down US 101 from San Francisco to San Jose. That way, labor sensitive politically correct historians and pseudo-historians can attend the meeting and still feel good about standing on principle. Oh! Kumbaya!
No doubt this OAH decision also reflects the guiding principle behind current research, writing, teaching and preaching by historians.
