| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
145803
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article examines an important source of social unrest in Ottoman ports where ships could not be tied directly to the quays. In such places, boatmen ferried goods and passengers between the shore and ships that anchored offshore. Many of these boatmen wanted to work on the queue system because it provided work and income security to them. However, merchants and a few boatmen viewed this system as a major obstacle for their business to survive and grow. The Ottoman government also took part in this debate. However, rather than acting as a unitary actor, various components of the government adopted different positions on the issue. In the early twentieth century, these actors with different views and goals were involved in a series of conflicts. These conflicts forced Ottoman ruling elites to change their policies about the boat queue system several times at least but did not result in a decisive victory for one side or the other.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
133300
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2014.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
In the late 19th and early 20th century, tobacco exports from the Ottoman Empire rapidly increased. Thousands of workers began to earn their livelihoods in warehouses, sorting and baling tobacco leaves according to their qualities. Ottoman towns where tobacco warehouses were concentrated soon became the sites of frequent labor protests. This article analyzes strikes that broke out in two such towns, ?skeçe (Xanthi) and Kavala, in 1904 and 1905. It underlines the active role of the Ottoman government in the settlement of these strikes. It also shows that mobilized tobacco workers devised effective protest tactics and often secured a say in key decisions, such as when and under what conditions the warehouses operated. However, in both towns, labor activism was characterized by fragmentation as well as unity. The workers who took to the streets did not equally share the burdens and benefits of their collective actions. That inequality, the article argues, was rooted in gendered power relations, intercommunal rivalries, and other social tensions among the workers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|