Tag: history

Four stories from the seventies and a few other decades

TUESDAY, 28 MAY 2024

The BBC’s Culture section posted an article with an interview they did in 1976 with amongst other people, the lead singer of the Sex Pistols, Johnny Rotten.

Rotten, who got his nickname because of the state of his teeth, filled decent people of the middle to late 1970s with loathing and fear for the future.

Yet what did Rotten do as soon as he had some cash in his pocket? Spend it on drug-fuelled parties? Got himself a hotel room for a couple of months and spent all his money on booze and women? No, he bought himself a nice apartment in a nice neighbourhood, where he settled down with his wife. They remained happily married for more than four decades, until she died after several years of suffering from Alzheimer’s disease. For the last five years of her life, Johnny Rotten was her full-time caregiver. Very rotten of old Johnny.

FRIDAY, 31 MAY 2024

Europe, in the 1860s. A princess known for her beauty is engaged to the crown prince of a neighbouring state. Everyone thinks they are a beautiful couple. Then the prince dies. His fiancée returns to her native country. She’s inconsolable. Her fiancé’s family let it be known that they really liked her, and what are the chances that she might marry her late fiancé’s brother (who is madly in love with one of his mother’s chambermaids). She replies that she is very sad and that nothing can change that. Nevertheless, the brother visits her. They cry together. Then they get engaged. Everyone thinks they are a beautiful couple. She gives birth to four sons and a few daughters. She and her husband ascend to the throne after terrorists blow off her father-in-law’s leg. After a decade, her eldest son becomes king. She is convinced that her adopted country needs reform to stave off revolution. However, little reform is implemented. Twenty years later, her eldest son, the king, her daughter-in-law, and six of her grandchildren are murdered in the basement of a large house where they were kept under arrest by revolutionaries that had overthrown the government. She and her daughters flee south. Her sister, who was married to the king of another country, convinces her own son, now himself king of her adopted country, to send a ship. The group of seventeen nobles who are thus saved includes her one daughter who goes on board with five of her sons, six dogs, and a canary.

* * *

East Coast of America, February 1978. A catastrophic blizzard hits people on their way home. It snows continuously for more than thirty hours. Schools and universities and businesses shut down. Trains stop running. Thousands of cars are stuck on the highway and other roads. Fourteen people die because their cars are so covered in snow that the exhaust gases cannot escape. Many people are without heat, water, food and electricity for days. Accumulated snow is dumped into the harbour to make way for more snow. Many houses collapse or are washed away into the ocean. One child disappears a few meters from the front door of his house during the storm. His body was not found until three weeks later.

* * *

England and Ireland, 1970s. A woman born into a rich family sells all her shares in the family business, sells her house, and distributes the cash to poor people. She lives with her lover in a working-class neighbourhood. Together they rob her family’s mansion. Later she joins a terrorist organization in Ireland. She throws milk jugs with explosives from a helicopter. She takes part in another robbery. This time they steal a bunch of paintings – among them the only Vermeer outside Buckingham Palace in private hands. The police find the paintings in the trunk of a car. In prison she marries another lover and gives birth to his child. On the loose again, she makes powerful missiles, with packets of cookies to absorb the recoil. She continues arguing and fighting until she dies decades later, penniless, living with old nuns in a retirement home run by the Poor Servants of the Mother of God.

______________________

A topic I don’t really want to think about

FRIDAY, 1 NOVEMBER 2019

15:58

What follows is the most recent note on a topic I don’t really want to think about. If more than ten people regularly read what I write, notes on this subject will definitely get me in trouble. Nobody – but especially not white people, and then especially not white men – is supposed to form any thoughts on this subject that are not in line with approved mainstream ideology. “Why would you after all have any other types of thoughts about it?” anyone might ask. “Are you a bad person? Are you wicked? Are you the devil?”

As is often the case with normal people, thoughts form in my head while I’m in the shower, or on my way somewhere. And because I’m not in the habit of placing a proverbial guard at the gate of my mind, all sorts of strange questions come up. And seeing that the question was then asked, I must address it. Or, I certainly don’t need to address it – especially when I know we’re only supposed to have pre-approved thoughts on certain topics. But I will be constantly aware that it is on the table and that I am ignoring it.

Anyway, here’s the thought. How did the policy known as Apartheid become the reality for so many people – of all races – in South Africa, between at least 1948 and 1990?

A simple explanation is that Apartheid was allowed to become and remain the practical reality for so long because the majority of the population – and the majority of the population were black people – had accepted Apartheid. Naturally people had a negative view of the policy and the political leaders they held responsible, but a critical percentage of the affected population accepted it as the way their society was managed.

Why was Apartheid eventually replaced by a better policy? Because a critical minority among the black population, with allies among other population groups, did not accept Apartheid, and dedicated their lives to undermining it and destroying it as a framework and policy by which the state was governed and the population controlled. This critical minority, which included people like Nelson Mandela and other leaders of the anti-Apartheid movement in the fifties and sixties, as well as Steve Biko and other activists in the seventies and eighties, but also thousands of other leaders who had close ties with the community on a daily basis, finally convinced a critical percentage of the population that they should be supported in their efforts to end Apartheid, and that everything would be better for them when they, the new leaders, were in control of the state.

16:49

The fact is, almost thirty years after the end of Apartheid, there are still white people who believe that Apartheid was “not so bad”, and that “even black people were happier under Apartheid than under a black government”. And there are black people who believe that they were passive victims of something bigger than them, and that they could mostly just wait until their leaders rectified the matter. Both of these opinions are wrong because the truth is a bitter pill to swallow.

(By the way, never trust an academic who doesn’t have a source of income that is independent of the institution, school, or university where they work. By the end of the second decade of the twenty-first century, it is common knowledge that academic institutions follow political agendas, and if academics do not endorse the dominant political ideology, their salaries – with which they pay rent and buy food and clothes – are at stake.)

TUESDAY 26 DECEMBER 2019

12:48

Does it make the misdeeds of the man who physically abuses his wife less evil because she stays with him day after day, month after month rather than escaping with her life?

No.

But what message does it send to women in abusive relationships to refer to them as powerless victims? What hope does it give to women in such relationships?

In the end, you are left with two options:

Option 1: See the woman as a powerless victim. In this case women who never left their abusive husbands don’t have to feel that they could have done anything to improve their own situations. The message to women who are currently involved in such relationships is that they should just hope someone saves them. Because they themselves are powerless.

Option 2: See the woman in a relationship with a man who is physically and emotionally abusive as someone with the ability to do something about it. She would probably have to be smart and courageous to protect herself and possibly her children, but she does have the ability and power to improve her life. This is good news for women who are currently trapped in such a relationship. But the message to the woman who had been in such a relationship in the past, and only got away because her husband died or something else happened to him, is that she could have done something about her situation – but unfortunately never got that far because perhaps she always thought of herself as powerless.

* * *

Seeing that I’m already politically incorrect, and stepping on sensitive toes, another question: When did the oppression of the black population begin in South Africa? Libraries full of research have been done on this, and perhaps my argument could be shot down with a battery of artillery fire from people smarter than me.

At this point I must also make clear that I am referring specifically to the black tribes and other black groups as was known to political leaders and white citizens in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.

The history of power politics between white people and coloured people in mainly the Western Cape, between white people and the San in initially the Southern and Eastern Cape, and between white and Indian people in originally KwaZulu-Natal, is different from the history between white groups and various black tribes and nations. Slaves revolted from time to time. The San waged guerrilla war against white farmers and communities. The Griquas forged alliances with other groups and also came into military conflict with white communities on their own.

But between whites and blacks, there were at least a dozen conflicts that qualified as war. There were the nine border wars in the Eastern Cape, and a few uprisings. There were three wars between the Basotho and the citizens of the Free State. There were several bloody wars between the Voortrekkers and later citizens of the Transvaal and Natal and the Ndebele under Mzilikazi, and the Zulus under Dingaan and later other leaders. And then there were several wars between British colonial powers and the Ndebele, and the Zulus. Most of these military conflicts had come to an end by 1880. Up to this time, black and white fought each other as equals. One could argue that white soldiers had guns and cannons, but black warriors had other advantages, not to mention the fact that they could also get their hands on guns – and did use them, as in the Anglo-Zulu War of 1879.

My point here is that I have difficulty swallowing the narrative of the black person in South Africa as a powerless victim of white domination for 300 years. This narrative clearly has political value in the South Africa of the twenty-first century, but I find it extremely strange when people dismiss as insignificant the military power of black nations in the eighteenth and especially nineteenth century. Have these people never read descriptions of Xhosa or Zulu warriors? Have they never read of the military victories that Mzilikazi and Moshoeshoe achieved over white commandos?

My question is again: The oppression of blacks by whites that was such a feature of twentieth-century South African society – when did this chapter begin in the conflict between whites and blacks in Southern Africa? I think the 1880s are a good place to look for an answer.

My next question: After at least a century of sometimes successful resistance – where armed warriors stood against armed militias, how did it happen that the oppression of black people was carried out so extensively after 1880?

14:25

I don’t see black people in South Africa as long-suffering historical victims. There were events like Sharpeville in 1960 and Soweto in 1976, and there were government policies like the passbooks and forced removals, but those were all in the last hundred years. When I think of historical black figures, I see the Xhosa warrior on the Eastern Frontier; I see the imposing figures of Mzilikazi and Moshoeshoe; I see the intimidating figure of the Zulu warrior on the green hills of Natal; I see intellectuals like Sol Plaatje and Steven Biko; I see political leaders like Oliver Tambo, Nelson Mandela, Walter Sisulu, and their wives Winnie Mandela and Albertina Sisulu. I see the period 1880-1990 as a historical anomaly during which a critical percentage of black adults in South Africa seemingly accepted that they were second-class citizens of their country of birth, and when a critical percentage of black adults accepted that their children would become factory workers, gardeners, road workers and domestic helpers rather than engineers, doctors, dentists, scientists, and academics.

______________________

Devils in the White House – second notes

TUESDAY, 11 JULY 2017

Did Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, their CIA chief William Casey, and other people in the Reagan administration know how the people whom they had trained and armed attacked villages in Guatemala and brutally murdered men, women, and children? Did they know how children’s heads were smashed against rocks? Did they know how the people whom they had trained and armed and given moral support laughed because old people cried like sheep when their throats were cut with blunt knives?

Did the political leaders in Washington launch investigations when such rumours started making the rounds? If not, why not?

If they knew yet dismissed it as the price that had to be paid to stop “communism”, it is not unreasonable to claim that if Lucifer himself had sat in the White House with a bloody goat’s head on his shoulders instead of Reagan and his cohorts, he would not have had a more destructive impact on the lives of millions of people in Central America than Reagan, Bush, Casey and dozens of other shrieking demons actually had during that period.

Make no mistake: The Soviet Union might have been the “Evil Empire”, but you do not have to look far for evidence that America under Ronald Reagan was the “Kingdom of Lucifer”.

———–

More information:

Dos Erres massacre

Buried On a Hillside Clues To Terror; Scientists Uncover Evidence of a Massacre

Foreign policy of the Ronald Reagan administration: Guatemala

Guatemalan Slaughter Was Part of Reagan’s Hard Line

Call Attention to Ronald Reagan’s Criminal Involvement in Guatemalan Genocide

Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, formerly known as the U.S. Army School of the Americas

And a rather weak attempt to defend Reagan:

‘Did Reagan Finance Genocide in Guatemala?’

[Briefly: The Dos Erres massacre is considered one of the most horrific incidents in the history of Guatemala’s long and bloody civil war. The massacre occurred during the regime of General Efrain Rios Montt, who was known for his brutal tactics against suspected left-wing guerrillas and their supporters. The Kaibil Unit was a particularly notorious special forces unit of the Guatemalan military, known for their extreme brutality and ruthlessness.

The massacre at Dos Erres began when the Kaibil Unit arrived in the village to search for weapons and suspected guerrilla sympathizers. The soldiers gathered up the villagers, then separated the men from the women and children. The men were taken away and executed, while the women and children were subjected to terror and violence that included rape and torture. The soldiers then systematically killed the women and children, throwing their bodies into the village well and burning down the houses.

The aftermath of the Dos Erres massacre saw a number of legal proceedings against those responsible. Pedro Pimentel Rios, a former Kaibil soldier, was extradited from the United States to Guatemala and sentenced to over 6,000 years in prison for his role in the massacre. Two other former Kaibil soldiers were also sentenced to the same prison terms. However, the international response to the massacre was largely muted, with many Western governments continuing to support the Guatemalan military despite their well-documented record of human rights abuses.

The legacy of the Dos Erres massacre continues to haunt Guatemala and serves as a reminder of the horrors that were committed during the country’s long and bloody civil war.]

______________________

Devils in the White House – first notes

THURSDAY, 22 JUNE 2017

I was on my way back from the Chinese restaurant when I thought of America’s history of injustice against nations who were not strong enough to protect themselves. Could have thought of the Philippines almost 120 years ago, Iran in the 1950s, Vietnam in the 1960s.

Specifically, this time, I thought of how the US government acted to protect the concerns of a single company (the United Fruit Company) in Guatemala in the 1950s; how they played dirty tricks, lied, and deceived people in order to overthrow a progressive, democratically elected national leader; a leader who had already begun to give the people of Guatemala a little human dignity after decades of suffocating poverty and exploitation by the American company.

Then I wondered: What justice is there for the victims?

This: History condemns the shameless criminals who robbed these people of their dignity and of any chance of a decent life.

I know it’s cold comfort for the countless men, women and children who suffered and died because these greedy, stupid devils walked the earth. But at least the truth has been recorded, black-on-white, for anyone who wants to know.

———–

If you are interested in reading more about this history, these links are a good start:

1954 Guatemalan coup d’état

Congress, the CIA, and Guatemala, 1954

An Apology for a Guatemalan Coup, 57 Years Later

[Briefly: In 1954, the United States government, with the support of the United Fruit Company, orchestrated a coup in Guatemala that overthrew the democratically elected president, Jacobo Arbenz. The pretext for the intervention was the accusation that Arbenz was soft on communism and thus a threat to US national security. However, the real motive behind the coup was to protect the interests of the United Fruit Company, which owned vast amounts of land in Guatemala and was concerned about Arbenz’s land reform policies. (John Foster Dulles, then US Secretary of State, and his brother, then CIA Director Allen Dulles, had a significant relationship with the United Fruit Company through their partnership at the law firm Sullivan & Cromwell, where they facilitated numerous transactions for the company.)

The operation was carried out by the CIA and involved a range of tactics, including psychological warfare, propaganda, and the use of local anti-communist groups. Amongst other things, the CIA created a fake radio station that broadcasted messages designed to sow discord and confusion among the Guatemalan people. They also spread rumours and false information about Arbenz and his government in order to turn public opinion against him.

After the coup, the new dictator, Carlos Castillo Armas, reversed many of the social reforms that Arbenz had implemented, including land reform and labour protections. He also banned opposition parties and established a regime of terror and violence that lasted for decades. Thousands of people were tortured, disappeared, or killed by government forces during this period.

The United Fruit Company continued to profit from its operations in Guatemala, and the US government continued to support the regime, providing military and economic aid. The legacy of the US intervention in Guatemala is still felt today, as the country struggles to build a democratic society and address the human rights abuses of the past.]

______________________