Star Glove Jackets

[cbez]

I'd say you're right that working conditions were a factor they were bragging about, but I'd say the context is specifically to contrast with the image of non white 'sweatshops.'

My response to that interpretation is what actually compelled me to start this line of reasoning. Namely: white supremacy was the default position for all of the United States in the 1930s with very very small and secluded pockets of exception (none in LA that I know of but there was some kind of a jazz culture in LA so I'll speculate that there were some voices of dissent). Those "contemporary voices" you talk about where so far drowned out as to be non-existent: most particularly in a world where even access to a radio was relatively new and expensive. You had to be in a specific sub-culture to hear any messaging whatsoever about desegregation or racial equality.

This I disagree with. There is polling from the 40s for example asking if blacks should have equal chances to get any kind of job, 54% said yes. This is during/post ww2. obviously it was becoming more accepted but I don't think it went from drowned out and non existent to 54% in less than a decade.

Also from what I can find the non white (including mexican/latino) population in CA around that time was around 12% and I'm sure white supremacy was hardly their 'default position'.

 

[The Lost Cowboy]

I'd say you're right that working conditions were a factor they were bragging about, but I'd say the context is specifically to contrast with the image of non white 'sweatshops.'

I absolutely agree - I no longer know where we disagree.

"There is polling from the 40s for example asking if blacks should have equal chances to get any kind of job, 54% said yes. This is during/post ww2. obviously it was becoming more accepted but I don't think it went from drowned out and non existent to 54% in less than a decade."

Polling of whom? And where? And yes, I would absolutely say the WWII experience changed people's lives and opinions in radical ways. Plus the notion that blacks should be able to get any job is a FAR cry from a belief that blacks are equal.

Also from what I can find the non white (including mexican/latino) population in CA around that time was around 12% and I'm sure white supremacy was hardly their 'default position'.

12% who are ghettoized and have next to no voice are going to raise the consciousness of the other 88%? Let's not be pedantic.

Besides, there is ample evidence that many of the colonized people under the British literally believed the British were superior. I don't know American history and literature as well as I know my European colonial, but I would speculate that some portion of the 12% non-whites were also white supremacists - at least as many as there were whites who believed in "equality" (in whatever way that was conceived of) .

 

[cbez]

That laundry ad is from 1930, Florida.

I agree they weren't saying 'buy from us cuz we're racist!'.

It was back to what I was saying about supporting a white business, having a product made by whites, etc. It comes from a context of many of thewhite majority believing foreign/non white labor in california was undercutting whites, putting out lower quality work etc.

The sweatshop thing is heavily racialized, otherwise why not talk about just their working conditions? They bring up race because race is a big factor.

 

[The Lost Cowboy]

That laundry ad is from 1930, Florida.

I agree they weren't saying 'buy from us cuz we're racist!'.

It was back to what I was saying about supporting a white business, having a product made by whites, etc. It comes from a context of many of thewhite majority believing foreign/non white labor in california was undercutting whites, putting out lower quality work etc.

The sweatshop thing is heavily racialized, otherwise why not talk about just their working conditions? They bring up race because race is a big factor.

I totally agree and it is the point I have been trying to make now taken further (which is a good thing). Now I begin to ask if the anti-sweatshop campaign by FDR was racially motivated. I never thought of FDR as white supremacist (I mean, I wouldn't be surprised) but this certainly makes me wonder.

edit:
Btw, I never said that this was not a racist statement. I have argued that if we do nothing more than dismiss it as such (and therefore beneath us) then we miss any other nuance and insight. The sweatshop angle is a massive insight into that era that is completely obfuscated by dismissing this statement as morally unworthy of our consideration.

 

[cbez]

I just don't think you can say a belief is non existent/drowned out/irrevant when I'm sure if you asked the 700k~ non whites in California back then if they deserved equal pay and working conditions, or be allowed to work in a leather goods shop next to white girls, the vast majority would say yes.

That polling in 1944 was National Opinion Research Center 45% of whites said blacks should have as good as chance to get any kind of job. Obviously it was less in the 30s, but I still don't think it would be vanishingly small.

 

[The Lost Cowboy]

I just don't think you can say a belief is non existent/drowned out/irrevant when I'm sure if you asked the 700k~ non whites in California back then if they deserved equal pay and working conditions, or be allowed to work in a leather goods shop next to white girls, the vast majority would say yes.

That polling in 1944 was National Opinion Research Center 45% of whites said blacks should have as good as chance to get any kind of job. Obviously it was less in the 30s, but I still don't think it would be vanishingly small.

And how does any of this counter my argument that white supremacy was the default position for all of America in the 1930s except for very very small pockets? 12% is a small pocket (and becomes infintely tinier when set against a national stage) and I still argue that even some of them were white supremacists.

But it doesn't matter because you are equating private opinion with "default position". I apologize, that language was obscure. By "default position" I mean the official overarching hegemonic rule either of law or practice. Segregation was not the law in California but it was absolutely the practice. And most people accepted it without question.

 

[jchance]

Google AI says both racial and gender discrimination. Note that the ad says “white girls”, not “white women”. Title IX did not become law until 1972.

 

[The Lost Cowboy]

I just don't think you can say a belief is non existent/drowned out/irrevant when I'm sure if you asked the 700k~ non whites in California back then if they deserved equal pay and working conditions, or be allowed to work in a leather goods shop next to white girls, the vast majority would say yes.

But they were not asked, so yes their voices were absolutely "drowned out" and for all practically political purposes at the time, "irrelevant".

 

[cbez]

Speaking of FDR, 6 years after that star glove article he did an executive order making racial discrimination for employment illegal (in defense industry only which he could control with executive orders). This was in response to pressure from civil rights orgs that were going to march on Washington to protest racist hiring practices. yes, ww2 context, but 6 years is like now back to covid, not much time at all.

So, I'd say the idea that whites only hiring was wrong wasn't some vanishingly small belief, even if it was a minority belief in 1935.

 

[cbez]

But they were not asked, so yes their voices were absolutely "drowned out" and for all practically political purposes at the time, "irrelevant".

The way I'm approaching it is, in the population as a whole were there people who would have felt this was wrong in 1935?

I say yes, probably 30% of whites or so (based on that 1944 poll), and almost all non whites. In total that would be about 36% of California.

Their opinion was definitely in a minority and would be politically drowned out until the civil rights era, but it's not like it was some radical fringe belief either.

 

[The Lost Cowboy]

The way I'm approaching it is, in the population as a whole were there people who would have felt this was wrong in 1935?

I say yes, probably 30% of whites or so (based on that 1944 poll), and almost all non whites. In total that would be about 36% of California.

Their opinion was definitely in a minority and would be politically drowned out until the civil rights era, but it's not like it was some radical fringe belief either.

Again, you are citing a poll that asked about whether blacks should be able to get any job they want. Not anything else. Not if they can live next door, not if they can date your daughter or even go to her school. And how many said no? 55% said no? That they shouldn't even be able to get any job they want?

I think that poll demonstrates the opposite of what you believe it says: it says even during the WWII experience, the majority of Americans were willing to deny African-Americans the right to even try for a good job. That's huge.

Plus, 1944? Who was polled? Not men in uniform, I'm assuming and definitely nobody stationed oversees. So the ones who were polled were the men who stayed home and the women. Not a representative sample.

I hear your point, which is that there were enough dissenting voices against racial inequality that the rest should have known better. But this poll just doesn't have enough validity to support that in 1944, let alone 1935.

And furthermore, they-should-have-known-better-isms act as if people are morally clear even today. Hell no, far from it - we have soooo many points of moral contention today. I heard a young man ask in a debate if women shouldn't have the right to vote revoked. And he was 20 years old and perfectly serious!

I gotta stop now. Thanks for a useful discussion, despite our differences on moral relativism.

 

[cbez]

Again, you are citing a poll that asked about whether blacks should be able to get any job they want. Not anything else. Not if they can live next door, not if they can date your daughter or even go to her school. And how many said no? 55% said no? That they shouldn't even be able to get any job they want?

I think that poll demonstrates the opposite of what you believe it says: it says even during the WWII experience, the majority of Americans were willing to deny African-Americans the right to even try for a good job. That's huge.

Plus, 1944? Who was polled? Not men in uniform, I'm assuming and definitely nobody stationed oversees. So the ones who were polled were the men who stayed home and the women. Not a representative sample.

I hear your point, which is that there were enough dissenting voices against racial inequality that the rest should have known better. But this poll just doesn't have enough validity to support that in 1944, let alone 1935.

And furthermore, they-should-have-known-better-isms act as if people are morally clear even today. Hell no, far from it - we have soooo many points of moral contention today. I heard a young man ask in a debate if women shouldn't have the right to vote revoked. And he was 20 years old and perfectly serious!

I gotta stop now. Thanks for a useful discussion, despite our differences on moral relativism.

I'm only really talking about the hiring discrimination on display, not some concept of absolute racial equality or whether white people wanted Peter Chow to marry their daughter.

Let's err on the side of caution and say only 15% of white people would have thought it was wrong. That would still mean about 1 in 4 people you asked on the street would have thought it was wrong.

So if the question is, is it fair in 2025 to say that was kind of a **** move, my response would be well at least 1 in 4 people back then would have agreed with you. It wasn't some ultra fringe belief like arrest billionaires and seize their wealth, or only let white males vote would be today.

Whether that 1/4 number, or 1/3 number is relevant at all is something people can only decide for themselves. Some might say it's wrong even if everyone was fine with it, and some would say since they were going along with the majority belief at the time it's okay.

 

[The Lost Cowboy]

I'm only really talking about the hiring discrimination on display, not some concept of absolute racial equality or whether white people wanted Peter Chow to marry their daughter.

Let's err on the side of caution and say only 15% of white people would have thought it was wrong. That would still mean about 1 in 4 people you asked on the street would have thought it was wrong.

So if the question is, is it fair in 2025 to say that was kind of a **** move, my response would be well at least 1 in 4 people back then would have agreed with you. It wasn't some ultra fringe belief like arrest billionaires and seize their wealth, or only let white males vote would be today.

Whether that 1/4 number, or 1/3 number is relevant at all is something people can only decide for themselves. Some might say it's wrong even if everyone was fine with it, and some would say since they were going along with the majority belief at the time it's okay.

Jeez you're ******* me back into this.

First of all, 15% is not 1 in 4. I understand that you're saying 1 in 4 as a guesstimate of the entire population, but by and large whites did not care about non-white voices so the non-white opinions would have held little persuasion.

But also, you assume that the Latino and Asian communities would have voted yes, that blacks should be able to get any job they wanted. That's a huge assumption as there is historically a strong anti-black strain in both of those communities.

So 1 in 4? In 1935? I'm not buying that as a number that had any real social influence. A more substantive question is how many from the 30s did actually say anything against racial inequality? I mean, that's a number we can almost count - and it is very small indeed.

i'm really really done this time... (I hope...)

 

[cbez]

Jeez you're ******* me back into this.

First of all, 15% is not 1 in 4. I understand that you're saying 1 in 4 as a guesstimate of the entire population, but by and large whites did not care about non-white voices so the non-white opinions would have held little persuasion.

But also, you assume that the Latino and Asian communities would have voted yes, that blacks should be able to get any job they wanted. That's a huge assumption as there is historically a strong anti-black strain in both of those communities.

So 1 in 4? In 1935? I'm not buying that as a number that had any real social influence. A more substantive question is how many from the 30s did actually say anything against racial inequality? I mean, that's a number we can almost count - and it is very small indeed.

i'm really really done this time... (I hope...)

I'm not really approaching it from the angle of, should the owner have been persuaded, would it have had social influence, did politicians care or did it have political momentum, etc. Some ideas are massively popular but don't happen politically (i.e. paying teachers more). I'm only using that poll as one data point to somewhat narrow us down with a large margin of error since there wasn't any polling on the subject earlier than that.

It's entirely possible Mr. Schwertfeger wasn't particularly racist at all in his personal life and just did it as a marketing move to differentiate the brand from the 'sweatshops' competing with him for market share.

I think it's fair to say that almost every non-white in California would have thought white-only hiring in general was wrong. So that's my 12 percent or so. Add in the 15% of whites which I think would be an underestimate, and you have about 1/4 of people you'd pass on the street in Ventura. I think everyone has to do with that what they will, but from my perspective it's not insignificant.

 

[jchance]

for the record, I am not feeling argumentative, just think it's an interesting discussion on the history of the industry that we don't often get into.

Some days I get up and people really feel argumentative for some reasons. Maybe they got up on the wrong side of the bed. I’m not one who’d back down from an argument. I entertain them a bit then let them have the last word. Not even sure what the point is sometimes.

 

[cbez]

True, but where else can you get a discussion on hiring practices in 1930s leather goods shops.

 

[jchance]

Y’all have no skin in the game. Thanks to @Biff42 ’s excellent research, at least one person is boycotting products from those dead white men and women, as if that would affect them beyond the grave. I still have a Star Glove jacket to sell, thanks for blowing it up. One less potential customer, though it prob wasn’t his size anyways.

I’m prob meant to keep it and wear it because it was made by white grannies (former ‘em “white girls”). If they were teenagers in the 1930s, they are over 100 years old and prob in the grave, too. Or there’s prob a Republican somewhere that would want to buy this. I just need to advertise it to the right audience.

 

[AHP91]

You guys might be a bit surprised to learn about Levi’s branding. “The only kind made my white labor”

But seriously a mod should just this thread down asap. I have gotten dumber as a person as a result of skimming some of these posts.

 

[The Lost Cowboy]

I'm not really approaching it from the angle of, should the owner have been persuaded, would it have had social influence, did politicians care or did it have political momentum, etc. Some ideas are massively popular but don't happen politically (i.e. paying teachers more). I'm only using that poll as one data point to somewhat narrow us down with a large margin of error since there wasn't any polling on the subject earlier than that.

It's entirely possible Mr. Schwertfeger wasn't particularly racist at all in his personal life and just did it as a marketing move to differentiate the brand from the 'sweatshops' competing with him for market share.

I think it's fair to say that almost every non-white in California would have thought white-only hiring in general was wrong. So that's my 12 percent or so. Add in the 15% of whites which I think would be an underestimate, and you have about 1/4 of people you'd pass on the street in Ventura. I think everyone has to do with that what they will, but from my perspective it's not insignificant.

I took the night to consider your position.

Just to recap:
I believe we both find that the statement in the article about only hiring white girls was - while definitely racist - not an ad for "buy from us because we're racists" but rather "buy from us because we're not a sweatshop."

The issue is then, to what extent should business owners in 1935 have morally "known better" than to run white-employees-only businesses? You argue that we are today justified in judging them harshly on this standard since you feel it can be reasonably demonstrated that others in the same time period felt this practice was wrong (therefore the rest should have known it, too).

Here is where I disagree, and I'll try to go sort of from macro to micro:

1. I believe human access to truth is contingent. I bet you and I would agree on this point. Our understanding of truth is limited by biases, perspectives, hinderances, etc. that are both personal and collective.

Because of this, there is no overarching morality and no standard for conscience. There are many today who believe that human equality is the standard. That would have been an absurd claim to most people throughout the world in 1935. So the very premise of your contention seems flawed. If truth is contingent, then morality and conscience are both contingent and our truths today are no better than anybody else's truths throughout history.

Having said that, I appreciate that you attempt to ground your argument in the context of that era. So I'll comment on those specifics:

2. You cannot extrapolate from a 1944 poll anything about 1935. You cannot even extrapolate from a 1944 poll anything about 1946. The wartime environment in which the 1944 poll was held was so utterly unique that it must be seen as a exceptional moment in US history. Not only were most of the men unavailable for questioning, but I imagine the context of that poll was "We have a dearth of white male workers (because they are all off to war). Should we allow black workers to take their jobs?"

3. Also, the question of the poll was, "Do you think blacks should have as good a chance as whites to get any kind of job?" That is a COMPLETELY different question from "Do you think blacks should be able to get any job" or "Do you think white-only hiring practices should end?" 'Any KIND of job' is not at all the same as 'ANY job'. We cannot broaden the range of the poll question (I also made that mistake in this discussion).

4. Even if your contention is accurate that 1 in 4 Americans in 1935 believed that whites-only hiring was wrong, that still doesn't mean that it was that way in Ventura, California. It was certainly not 1 in 4 in the Deep South. What the reality was in Ventura is unknown.

5. We live in an echo chamber of social media today, but in 1935 people lived in echo chambers in their neighborhoods. I admit, this was somewhat reduced by the Great Depression when folks didn't have as much choice of where to live, but definitely most whites lived with whites and most non-whites lived elsewhere - this was legally enforced. Then, among whites there was further divide by politics, religion, morality, etc.. So many if not most of the 15% of those whites who believed white-only hiring was wrong likely lived in neighborhoods that were distinct from the other 85%. I would speculate many of them were in big cities where they were exposed to multi-ethnicism and mult-culturalism.

My point is that there was no easy way for these ideas to cross paths. They certainly didn't read the same newspapers or journals (if they read anything at all) - all of that stuff was even more politicized than it is today. There were not robust debates being held on social issues at the time - certainly debates were held by political candidates but not by regular citizens. Social media is the first time that regular Americans have ever expressed their personal opinions in such a public manner or on a regular basis.

6. I anticipate that you would say, "If some knew it was wrong then the rest should have also known it." But that would postulate that there is some kernel of moral truth that all of us have equal access to, that we should all be able to see in a similar manner. This brings me back to point 1 since that's just not accurate even among people in the same era, and is why morality so often works by the minority convincing the majority or the minority forcing the majority rather than spontaneous agreement.

 

[oneterrifichog]

Amazing! A civil conversation in 2025! Thank you for a very interesting read.

OTH