Some excerpts from the book "Big Government and Affirmative Action: the Scandalous History of the Small Business Administration"
Richard Nixon massively expanded affirmative action and minority set asides. I think he gets far too much credit in Internet right-wing circles - he had good ideas, but his actions were terrible.
Of course, he was called racist for not expanding them enough. Black activists compared the Small Business Administration to the KKK and threatened civil war unless gibs were expanded even further. Black activists were no more compromise-capable in the 70s than they are today.
Not that the fact that the objects of his affection hated him stopped Nixon. He even overrode the objections of congressional democrats!
The Small Business Administration, which tenders low-interest government loans to minority and women-owned businesses, tended to expand in election years. Not just Nixon who did this.
Shockingly, black owned businesses affirmative-actioned into government contracts/loans tended to become completely dependent on ever more gibs, and never "graduated" into private sector competitiveness. They also screwed federal government by failing to fulfill their contracts.
The book vindicates Steve Sailer; Asians got themselves classed as minorities for business set asides. Hasidic Jews tried to get it on it too, but were rebuffed (thankfully).
Minority-focused SBA loans have always been a destructive and unjust waste, but the damage is much bigger when 3/4 of the country (nonwhites + women) is eligible, including already capable groups like Asians, rather than just 1/8 (only blacks, like at the start). Need to be eliminated, ASAP, by the executive branch and the Supreme Court.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Thread with excerpts from the 'Pretorians' section of TR Fehrenbach's "Fire and Blood: A History of Mexico" (1973). In 1821, postcolonial nation-building seemed easy; the only example was the USA. But the US was homogenous, well-led, free, and already had an identity.
Mexico was the reverse, with no history of self-rule, the criollo/casta/indio split, and no great leadership. The two major factions were the 'continuistas' (conservatives) and the 'reformistas' (liberals).
Mexico was the reverse, with no history of self-rule, the criollo/casta/indio split, and no great leadership. The two major factions were the 'continuistas' (conservatives) and the 'reformistas' (liberals).
Excerpts from TR Fehrenbach's "Fire and Blood: A History of Mexico" (1973) on the Mexican War of Independence. The Mexican criollos were far less impressive than their South American counterparts, and produced no leaders equal to Bolivar or San Martin.
Where the South American criollos quickly declared independence upon the French conquest of Spain, the Mexican ones dithered. Acting quickly, the local peninsulares coup'd the government and the criollos accepted it.
With the criollos basically accepting Spanish domination, leadership of the independence struggle passed to men like Miguel Hidalgo, who turned it from a (hopefully) bloodless coup to a social and race war.
Thread with excerpts from the Colonial New Spain portion of TR Fehrenbach's 'Fire and Blood: A History of Mexico' (1973). His view is that New Spain would have remained permanent divided and stagnant if not for the northern frontier.
The true frontier of New Spain was not the thinly-populated and stagnant (almost identical when the Anglos showed up as in the 17th century) New Mexico, but much further to the south, in the arid regions only a little north of the Valley of Mexico.
The frontier lacked civilized Indians who could be reduced to slaves, and was instead populated by energetic mestizos and criollos, working owned ranchos for a market rather than owning huge estates for prestige.
A few excerpts from "Years of Peril and Ambition: US Foreign Relations 1776-1921." Several terms from the Treaty of Paris, especially that Britain would abandon its Great Lakes forts and the US would have the right to navigate the Mississippi, were not upheld.
Americans who moved into Spanish Louisiana retained "allegiance to the United States and displayed open contempt for their nominal rulers." Imagine that.
An 1810, American immigrants to Spanish West Florida seized control of Baton Rouge, proclaimed an independent republic and requested annexation by the US, though this failed.
More excerpts on Colonial Mexico from TR Fehrenbach's "Fire and Blood" (1973). Fehrenbach saw the discovery of silver in Mexico, mostly in the arid north, as a disaster, as it led to Spain administering Mexico as a loot box rather than developing the productive economy.
The thinly-populated, but silver-rich North became a military frontier.
The suspicious Spanish Crown gave those born in Spain, the peninsulares, a monopoly on offices (and commerce) in New Spain. As offices were the main route to upwards mobility, the local creoles resented this.
Thread with excerpts from the colonial Mexico portion of "Fire and Blood: A History of Mexico" (1973).
The Catholic Monarchs who united Spain reined in the aristocracy, abolished serfdom, disempowered the Castilian parliaments, and ended all noble presumptions to royal powers and revenues, creating a new bureaucracy (with a new army) to run the state loyal to themselves.
Spain combined this modern bureaucratic state and army with maintenance of privileges for the old nobility and an almost medieval religious mindset.