1. Only a tiny fraction of blacks participated 2. The vast majority of blacks disapproved 3. Blacks perceived it as a meaningless event 4. Blacks expected white retaliation
"Participation in and support of riots in the black communities are hardly positions of a small minority of malcontents. A large proportion of Negro citizens regard the riots as a legitimate protest against the actions of the whites"
"Middle Americans feel that there has been too lenient an attitude toward Negro radicals... He detests the white liberals who lead peace marches, display the Viet Cong flag, and then retreat to the safety and seclusion of their homes in totally white suburbs"
This was written in 1970. First as tragedy, then as farce
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The US-AUS alliance in WWII and the Cold War was based on a shared Anglo-Saxon race. The Australian PM spoke to Congress in 1950, where he said “Americans are not foreigners in Australia.”
There is an absurd amount of kino from this period, so let's share some stories:
In the early 20th century, both the US and AUS had systems of racial domination: in the US, Jim Crow, in AUS, White Australia. A booklet prepared for AUS soldiers in WWII stated, "To the principle of ‘White Australia’ all political parties in the British Commonwealth subscribe."
Douglas MacArthur's first speech when he arrived in AUS observed that the US-AUS bond depends not on diplomatic doctrine, but on the "indescribable consanguinity of race"
Given the discussion of amnesty for illegal farm workers in the past few months, I think it's worth revisiting this article from a 2001 issue of Foreign Affairs.
TL;DR: there is nothing more permanent than temporary workers.
Here's the highlights:
Back in 2001 there were negotiations between Bush and the Mexican president (who referred to illegal migrants as 'heroes') on creating a guest worker program in order to regularize illegals status and benefit the agricultural industry.
A preliminary agreement had been reached, only to be tabled after 9/11 forced the Bush admin to deal with other matters. It was going to create a guest worker program for the agriculture, hospitality, and food service sectors
With the CRS discourse on the TL, I think it's time to post some anecdotes that I've been sitting on from former mediators. There are some crazy stories here:
In the 1970s, 150 Vietnamese refugees ended up in a small coastal town in Texas. They proceeded to ignore both the law and local custom and overfished many areas. They would find a good fishing spot and then invite their whole community to fish it until nothing was left
This led to conflict with the Anglo locals, who began harassing the Vietnamese. It escalated enough that two Vietnamese brothers were beaten by one Anglo guy. They then went home, got weapons, and killed the Anglo. So why did the CRS get involved? To protect the VIETNAMESE