"Since the Haymarket bomb," Nate was explaining, "we've had more work than we can handle, and it's about to get even more hectic, if the Governor decides to pardon that gang of anarchistic murderers. Heaven knows what that's gonna let loose on Chicago, the Fair in particular. Antiterrorist security now more than ever will be of the essence here. And, well, you boys enjoy the one perspective that all us in the 'spotter' community long for—namely, a view from overhead. We can't pay you as well as the Pinkertons might, but maybe we could work out a deferred arrangement, small percent of profits down the line instead of cash right now. Not to mention what tips or other off-the-books revenue might come your way."
* * * * * * * * * *
"the Haymarket bomb"
I know I should have read this book once before doing this blog but that's not the way things happened and we can't change the past so why do we think we can change the future oh no wait let me start over. . . .
I'm not sure of the overall themes of this book other than "America and the world changed a lot at the end of the 19th century & beginning of the 20th, and 1893 was a particularly interesting place to begin the story of that change." One of the major changes that wasn't based on technology (although was probably a major reaction to, for instance things like the expansion of industrial production via technological innovations? Forgive my ignorance on American Studies because I failed to take the last three credit course that would have allowed me to minor in it) was the fight for workers' rights. The Haymarket bomb is a reference to a riot that ensued during a rally supporting a strike in which workers were asking for eight hour days. Somebody threw some dynamite and seven police officers were killed in the blast and/or ensuing gun fire. Four civilians were killed.
Obviously this resulted in public outrage against the violence and the police were free to scoop up anybody they thought they could pin the attack on even though the police had, the day previous to the bombing, killed one worker and injured several others. As always, the public seem to be okay with police killing people but not the other way around. I'm not suggesting we should all be cop killers! But we should all, at the very fucking least, hold police accountable for the violence and mayhem they themselves cause, generally in accordance with the will of the rich and powerful.
This quote from Wikipedia (quoting labor historian William J. Adelman) helps to explain exactly why Pynchon can make a slight reference to the Haymarket bombing and yet have it mean so much to the rest of the text: "No single event has influenced the history of labor in Illinois, the United States, and even the world, more than the Chicago Haymarket Affair. It began with a rally on May 4, 1886, but the consequences are still being felt today. Although the rally is included in American history textbooks, very few present the event accurately or point out its significance."
I recommend just reading the Wikipedia page on it, just like you should be trained to do whenever Pynchon mentions any moment in history. There's a reason it's in the book!
The Haymarket in Chicago was located on the corner of Des Plaines Street and Randolph Street. Randolph St. I mean. What?
One fact (one that those who experience the truth with their eyes and ears and do not experience their "truth" from right-wing media outlets and Twitter liars would readily recognize) was how the rally before the bombing was entirely peaceful, for hours, until the police arrived and began bullying and ordering everybody to disperse. The bomb may have been the first act of violence but the police had already killed striking workers so their presence alone was a show of threat, intimidation, and violence. Also, the rally was expected by some (especially the anarchists who understood how the powers that be would never budge without violence against them in ways that would lead to a loss of profit (the only thing they cared about)) to be a means of revenge against the police for the previous day's killing.
"Nate was explaining"
It's as if we, the readers, got caught up in looking about Nate's office as Randolph made his way in and exchanged greetings with the man he had come to see. After checking out the office, we come back to their conversation already begun so we have "Nate was explaining". It's a slight variant on "in media res." Pynchon is able to leave out the mundane details by simply shuttling us along a slightly off-kilter temporal narration, like how the scene shifts from the receptionist asking about Randolph's parents immediately to Nate's office. It's the best way to narrate a story because you don't have to write all the boring and mundane bits into the text. You should expect the reader to fill in all of those gaps while you, the author, are able to stick to the stuff in which you can jam all the best subtext into. Like describing Nate's office in a manner that says, "Nate drinks a lot!"
"if the Governor decides to pardon that gang of anarchistic murderers"
The Governor was John Peter Altgeld and he eventually, later in 1893, pardoned four of the twelve people convicted for the bombings, citing "hysteria, packed juries, and a biased judge." Nate sees more trouble and violence on the way by people who believe everybody convicted must be "anarchistic murderers" angered by the pardons. The parallels with the way people are manipulated into anger and propaganda today are simply striking. Against the Day was published in 2006 so Pynchon is most definitely referencing America's reaction to the 9/11 attack as well.
"Antiterrorist security now more than ever will be of the essence here"
See? Definitely writing about America's response to 9/11, especially the "see something, say something" propaganda campaign asking the public to become private profilers constantly suspicious of anybody who might look different from them. In the early 2000s, that meant profiling anybody who might look of Middle Eastern decent, making life hell for every brown skinned American. Back in 1893 Chicago, that probably meant harassing and hassling anybody who might look or sound a little too German or Irish or Eastern European.
"Antiterrorism security" is never actually about stopping violence. Hell, policing isn't about stopping violence either. Because unless you've got psychics lying in a pool stopping thought crimes, you just can't be on hand to stop violence. But if you establish "antiterrorism security," you allow yourself the right to "stop crime" by hassling and arresting anybody you think might fit the profile of somebody who could be a terrorist. It's not about stopping violence; it's about power and control and making the status quo (generally white Americans of middle class) feel safe.
So the "See something, say something!" campaign gets started right here in 1893 as Nate asks the boys to keep an eye out for terrorism from the sky! And since they're basically unquestioning patriots (Randolph and Lindsay, mostly. Probably Miles. Currently Darby but the more he hangs out with Chick, the less he'll be so), they'll not think twice about being pawns against possible anarchy, or as it's also known, the labor movement.
"We can't pay you as well as the Pinkertons . . ."
Ugh. Just associating himself as a peer of the Pinkertons makes me like Nate less than I did after learning he was a drunken lout who knew Doc Holliday. The Pinkertons would pay more because they're paid by the corporate powers to bust heads and keep the workers down. I don't know how Nate makes his money. He's offering the Chums of Chance a percent of the profits but what profits could he possibly be speaking of?! How does one make money on spying on unions and striking workers from the air? I suppose the factories and corporations probably pay bounties on braining and bludgeoning the leaders and most charismatic figures of the movement?
