DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Michael Tee on January 20, 2008, 06:25:16 PM
-
from today's Hufpo - -
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/max-blumenthal/mike-huckabees-white-sup_b_82263.html
This stuff is political dynamite, or will be outside the South. The Huckster taped an address to the Council of Concerned Citizens, successor to the white Citizens Councils formed to fight integration in the South, which was apparently "very well received" by the white racist audience. The question now is whether the C of CC will release the Huckster's address to them so the country can judge for itself just how racist or non-racist the Huckster actually is.
The lead-in to the article also shows the Huckster doing a little [Confederate] flag-waving in South Carolina for his current campaign and generally gives us a window into some of his seamier connections in the white racist South. Really interesting stuff. Scratch a Southerner, find a Klansman. Probably holds a little less true today than it did in the 50s and 60s but I'll bet it's still the general rule. They are getting better at covering it up, though.
-
Probably holds a little less true today than it did in the 50s and 60s but I'll bet it's still the general rule. They are getting better at covering it up, though.
========================================
These are different people, Tee. The guys running the South in the 1950's (Bubba-One's) were in their 30's , 40's and 50's then, and are therefore now in their tombs or old folks' homes. If you were born in the 1920's, like a guy in his 30's was in 1960, you are now between 68 and 78 years old. These guys sons (Bubba Juniors) are 48-58, and their sons (Bubba III's) are 28-38.
They are less overtly racist with every generation. It would be really hard to get a decent lynch mob up these days, even if NWA gang-banged Miss Savannah.
It could be argued that chicken-fried steak was a powerful ally of the Civil Rights Struggle, because it no doubt clogged so many of Bubba-Ones' arteries. Of course, Southern cookin' was not kind to Black people, either.
-
Geeez . . . wasn't long ago in here that racism was so occluded in terms of its existence in the South that we were supposed to feel dishonest if we brought it up.
I seem to remember that some even claimed that people in the South no longer call Blacks 'niggers.'
I would venture to propose that, before long at all, this race is about racism above every other issue at play.
Good thing it is not up to Memphis to decide the race. We already know what that caucus has to say.
-
In lieu of his appearance, according to Baum, Huckabee "sent an audio/video presentation saying 'I can't be with you but I'd like to be speaker next time.'"
This took place in 1993.
-
This took place in 1993.
I can forgive a statement, no matter how awful it is (and I'll admit that I'm clueless as to what this is referencing) after 15 years. I am actually curious as to his response to the fact that in the past he advocated quarantining HIV victims. Though some could make a legitimate point that this is a public health standpoint, I don't think that the fact that most HIV sufferers in this country are homosexual men escapes many people.
Personally, I think a President should be guided by his faith and moral beliefs, not necessarily ruled by them.
-
I think Blumenthal is making an issue out of thin air. He didn't appear in 93 and didn't appear in 94, though asked, when the convention was held in little rock.
Dick Gephardt did speak at their convention at one time and when that was pointed out during the 2000 primaries, the seriousness of the issue faded away.
Go figure.
-
Dick Gephardt did speak at their convention at one time and when that was pointed out during the 2000 primaries, the seriousness of the issue faded away.
Did Mr. Gehpardt ever find his eyebrows?
-
I think they were over on 8th street
http://www.dlapiper.com/dick_gephardt/
-
http://prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped-archive?month=07&year=2007&base_name=post_4141
-
Page not found
-
Huckabee To Pick Up Black Endorsement On MLK Day
Last Edited: Sunday, 20 Jan 2008, 5:49 AM EST
Created: Sunday, 20 Jan 2008, 5:35 AM EST
ATLANTA (AP) -- Republican presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee is set to pick up the endorsement of a conservative black church leader on Martin Luther King Day.
The Reverend Bill Owens, leader of the Coalition of African American Pastors, cited Huckabee's strong track record as governor of Arkansas in promoting blacks to board posts and embracing racial reconciliation.
Owens says he was not bothered by Huckabee's recent statements in South Carolina about the Confederate flag. Huckabee says it should be up to South Carolina whether to fly the symbol -- of racism to some, Southern pride to others -- over the state Capitol dome.
Huckabee is set to attend the Martin Luther King Day services at Atlanta's Ebenezer Baptist Church, where King had preached. He's the only one of the presidential candidates who'll be there Monday. Former President Bill Clinton will attend the tribute on behalf of his wife. U-S Senator Barack Obama is set to address the congregation there tomorrow, the day before the King Day services.
http://www.myfoxatlanta.com/myfox/pages/News/Detail?contentId=5535891&version=2&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.2.1
-
<<In lieu of his appearance, according to Baum, Huckabee "sent an audio/video presentation saying 'I can't be with you but I'd like to be speaker next time.'">>
The tape was "very well received" by the C of CC racists and has not been released to this day.
Think there's any good reason the ol' Huckster might have for NOT wanting folks to hear what he had to say to the C of CC?
-
Considering the tape is 15 years old, perhaps he doesn't have it.
At least the article had the pertinent timeline. You continue to act like this happened yesterday.
It didn't.
-
<<In lieu of his appearance, according to Baum, Huckabee "sent an audio/video presentation saying 'I can't be with you but I'd like to be speaker next time.'">>
The tape was "very well received" by the C of CC racists and has not been released to this day.
Think there's any good reason the ol' Huckster might have for NOT wanting folks to hear what he had to say to the C of CC?
If you factor in that Huckabee gets one in three votes in Repub South Carolina, and it is based on race as agreeing with, here, his Himmlerian leanings, what does that augur for Barack?
Will that thirty-three percent be balanced against the thirty-three held by Blacks?
From an overhead view, that would be an appalling visual of Racism, with two distinct factions breaking along clear color lines.
Better not say Race.
The game, ladies and gentlemen, is hold'em!
Is Jesus the wild card?
-
If he didn't have it, he'd SAY he doesn't have it. If the C of CC doesn't have it, they'd say they don't have it.
If it's all so harmless and ancient history, how come they don't release it?
Personally if a guy swore undying loyalty to the ideals of Adolf Hitler 20 years ago, I'd like to know about it. Racism is racism. The guy would have to have had a divine revelation like Paul on the road to Damascus to switch from being a racist pig in 1993 to an apostle of light and harmony in 2008. And I don't believe in divine revelation. I think how the guy thought on racial matters in 1993 is extremely relevant and the voters deserve to know. The cover-up pretty well confirms what I'm thinking about it anyway.
-
<<ATLANTA (AP) -- Republican presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee is set to pick up the endorsement of a conservative black church leader on Martin Luther King Day.
<<The Reverend Bill Owens, leader of the Coalition of African American Pastors, cited Huckabee's strong track record as governor of Arkansas in promoting blacks to board posts and embracing racial reconciliation.>>
What a sleazy puff job the AP produced. The Coalition of African American Pastors is a johnny-come-lately organization of Uncle Toms led by a black graduate of Oral Roberts "University," which supports right-wing nutcase crusades against abortion, same-sex marriages and similar causes dear to the heart of fascist Amerikkka. Whenever some crypto-fascist "conservative" needs the illusion of black support, whether it's Samuel Alito or in this case the Huckmeister himself, he can count on the CAAP to deliver.
For anyone who's interested in knowing a little more about the Huck's new-found black friends than the AP wants you to know, here's People for the American Way's capule profile of CAAP: http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=20342
-
Apparently being asked to speak at a convention for the Council of Concerned Citizens does not equate to professing undying devotion to Hitler, at least it didn't for Dick Gephardt.
And apparently a demand for disclosure from some partisan blogger on HuffPo doesn't carry the same weight as perhaps one from The NYTimes.
What is known is Huckebee never addressed the assembly lo those many years ago.
-
Huckabee is set to attend the Martin Luther King Day services at Atlanta's Ebenezer Baptist Church, where King had preached. He's the only one of the presidential candidates who'll be there Monday.
Strange behavior for a racist.
-
<<Huckabee is set to attend the Martin Luther King Day services at Atlanta's Ebenezer Baptist Church, where King had preached. He's the only one of the presidential candidates who'll be there Monday.
<<Strange behavior for a racist.>>
I beg to differ. Chasing after black votes and trying to cover up a racist past is not strange behaviour for a racist at all. Even Trent Lott finally saw the light and began babbling about how little he had really known about Dr. Martin Luther King and how maybe making a national holiday to honour him wasn't such a bad idea after all.
You seem to think that being a racist is incompatible with being a hypocrite. I on the other hand think that the two have to go hand in hand, especially now after the passage of the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act.
-
I think you are just grabbing at straws and trivializing the charge of racism.
You've got nothing.
-
<<Apparently being asked to speak at a convention for the Council of Concerned Citizens does not equate to professing undying devotion to Hitler, at least it didn't for Dick Gephardt.>>
My point was that racist attitude amounts to something more than a preference in necktie patterns and a lot of people would think it very significant if a politician exhibited racist tendencies even as far back as the Dark Ages of 1993, which you seem to think is around the time of the discovery of the Copernican Theory.
<<And apparently a demand for disclosure from some partisan blogger on HuffPo doesn't carry the same weight as perhaps one from The NYTimes.>>
I really don't think the Huckster has anything to fear from the New York Times, they've covered up much worse than that. But, yeah, I'm sure that Huck is aware of the Hufpo article, and the fact that he's not rushing forward with the tape speaks volumes. He's hoping the whole thing will just blow away. And you know, given the consolidation of the MSM and the marginalization of any news that the MSM doesn't see fit to print, I have to say that that is not a totally irrational or unrealistic hope.
<<What is known is Huckebee never addressed the assembly lo those many years ago.>>
Yeah that tends to happen when speakers accept an engagement and then blow off their hosts, forcing them to scramble for somebody else. In this case it turned out to have worked out not too badly for the old Huckmeister. Who knew back in 1993 that he'd be running for national office?
<<I think you are just grabbing at straws and trivializing the charge of racism.
<<You've got nothing.>>
Well, let's see. I've got the C of CC and I've got the invitation. They sure as hell weren't going to invite Ted Kennedy or Bill Clinton.
I've got even better than the invitation, I've got the acceptance. Nobody had to put a gun to old Baron von Huckstein's head.
And then I've got the reports of the taped address, which nobody has denied.
And then I've got the reports that the address was "very well received" by the C of CC
And then I've got the fact that while nobody will say that the tape does not exist, nobody will produce any copies of it.
Short of a video of the guy actually participating in a cross-burning with his hood off and full front face and right and left profile views, I think I've got quite a bit here. But you just go right ahead and deny the reality of it all if it's not particularly to your liking. Feel free to make up whatever alternative reality you like - - that Mike Huckabee is a passionate defender of civil rights, that sound good? How about he marched at Selma? Is that OK? an Alabama police dog bit him in the ass and he's still got the scars to show for it?
-
You know, Huckabee could very well be a racist. He could be a bigot also. Not real happy with his treatment of Romney. But the fact is he didn't speak at the convention, either the first or second time so you'll have to come up with something a little stronger than some smoking gun tape where he expresses regret for not being able to attend.
-
<< . . . so you'll have to come up with something a little stronger than some smoking gun tape where he expresses regret for not being able to attend.>>
Ah, but I did. It's too bad that you didn't read the article that I linked to more carefully. The tape was much more than a simple expression of regrets:
<<Baum's account of Huckabee's videotaped message was confirmed by a CofCC newsletter . . .
<<[quoting from the newsletter] " . . . Huckabee . . . sent a terrific videotape speech, which was viewed and extremely well received by the audience," . . . >>
The article further described the C of CC, whose invitation to speak the Huckster had enthusiastically accepted:
<<In its "Statement of Principles," the CofCC declares, "We also oppose all efforts to mix the races of mankind, to promote non-white races over the European-American people through so-called "affirmative action" and similar measures, to destroy or denigrate the European-American heritage, including the heritage of the Southern people, and to force the integration of the races.">>
Nice. THAT'S the group that received the Huckster's taped address "extremely well." Hmmm. Guess he must have told them that all men are created equal and then sung "Blowin' in the Wind" for them. Or maybe "Jesus Loves the Little Children."
-
From your article;
In lieu of his appearance, according to Baum, Huckabee "sent an audio/video presentation saying 'I can't be with you but I'd like to be speaker next time.'"
And it doesn't matter how well it was received. What does that have to do with Huckabee?
And they weren't too eneamored with him because in the same article they denounced him for being insufficiently intolerant.
the CofCC has since rebuked Huckabee for his insufficiently intolerant political behavior.
Guess that escaped your cherry picker.
-
<<In lieu of his appearance, according to Baum, Huckabee "sent an audio/video presentation saying 'I can't be with you but I'd like to be speaker next time.'">>
YOU'RE the one who's cherry-picking, BT. Sure, in one part of that article, it said that. But if you read the whole article, it's very plain that the taped address said more. "A terrific videotape speech" which was "very well received" by the racist audience. Does that really sound like "Sorry I can't come this year, can I come next year?" Why would a bunch of racists (a) consider that to be a "terrific" speech and (b) receive it "very well?" What's so "terrific" about sending regrets?
<<And it doesn't matter how well it was received. What does that have to do with Huckabee?>>
Well, BT, in the real world, audiences, particularly political audiences, get very enthusiastic and pumped up over speakers who they feel are on their side and can help them achieve their goals. They don't get enthusiastic over speakers who they perceive to be unsympathetic to their cause. So I would figure out from all this esoteric wisdom that something that the Huckster said must have appealed to this audience. Now here's the tough part: WHAT IS IT that Huckabee could have said that would have appealed to this audience of white racist pigs? Tough question, BT. THINK. Think hard, man. It'll come to you. I KNOW you can figure this one out.
<<And they weren't too eneamored with him because in the same article they denounced him for being insufficiently intolerant. >>
No, actually if you followed the article and the link to the denunciation, it was some four years after the 1993 invitation. The Huckster began taking on a slightly more liberal appearance (I think he set aside some $700K of state funds to memorialize some aspects of the civil rights struggle) and this pissed off the C of CC.
I think the voters have a right to know what the Huckmeister actually said on that tape in 1993. Obviously the Huckmeister himself is none too anxious for anyone to find out. I can figure out why even if you can't.
-
Since the CoCC had possession of the tape, the an release it Seems Baum is the only one talking about it. Perhaps it doesn't corroborate his version of events.
-
The tape is an embarrassment to Huckabee who happens to be the best friend those racist pigs have in the race. Whatever they think of Huckabee, they think worse of all the other contenders, so it makes no sense at all for them to embarrass the least unfriendly of all the candidates in the race.
Even if the tape is never released, you are still gonna have a problem white-washing the Huckster because in fact (a) those racists invited HIM and (b) he accepted the invitation. These guys were hardly some undercover group of racists maintaining an egalitarian facade and fooling everyone. Huckabee certainly can't plead ignorance of who they were.
-
I have no intention of white washing this episode in Huckabees life. He isn't a candidate i am considering. I didn't like his treatment of Romney.
But i also don't think you made your case that he is a racist, based on the ruminations of a known racist who questions the purity of Huckabees politics. Perhaps this is payback for standing the group up all those years ago.
-
It's not payback for anything, not in the sense of fabrication. Nobody denies the invitation or the acceptance. There's nothing harmless in the group and they saw something they liked in Huckabee. Huckabee saw something he liked in them. The taped address has too many uncontradicted little factoids clinging to it to be waved away - - no one denies its existence, no one denies that it pleased the audience of racists, and no one denies that a second invitation was issued and accepted, just that Huckabee backed out when he found out that a less reputable racist was also going to be speaking.
All the dots are there, BT, just waiting for a child's pencil to connect them.
-
I look forward to the tape either proving you right ...... or wrong.
-
You like to pretend that the tape is all I've got. I'm already proven right by all the other facts available. The tape is not gonna be an admonishment to forgo racism and treat the blacks as their equal - - THAT'S not what made it "extremely well received."
-
The issue isn't really whether Huckabee is a racist, it's whether he is willing to climb into bed with racists for political advantage.
I was greatly discouraged by his saying that he wanted to change the Constitution to better reflect "Godly Principles" or 'Christian Principles'. I cannot imagine what changes these might be, but I am pretty sure that this would be a divisive move and a really bad idea.
The Republic of Ecuador legislature in the 1800's voted to "Consecrate the Republic to the Sacred Heart of Jesus". I am not sure exactly what this meant to the average cholo on the street, though.
I don't think electing preachers is all that good an idea. The Mexican Constitution of 1917 prohibits nuns, monks and priests from appearing in canonical garb in public. This made sense, as frequently the local priests would grab up the banner of Nuestra Se?ora de Guadalupe and go marching off to resist the government taking over the Church's extensive holdings in haciendas.
They don't seem to arrest priests for appearing in public anymore, as the PAN (Partido de Acci?n Nacional, Vicente Fox' party) is basically a conservative Christian Democratic Party, and as such is allied with the church. When I lived in Mexico, at any wedding of consequence, you would always see a line of men in suits standing at the door of the Church with their arms folded. They were PRI (Partido Revolucionario Institutional) electees and appointees who would not enter a church during their tenure. Their wives and sons and daughters, of course, did.
-
You know, I was thinking about the PRI over the last few days. The days of an anti-clerical, truly revolutionary party were very well portrayed in the Graham Green novel, The Power and the Glory.
I remember seeing photos in a book of huge anti-Nazi street rallies in Mexico City during the late 1930s. They were real socialists, real anti-fascists - - when and where did they go wrong? Where did they lose their way? I figure that the U.S.A. was somehow behind it all, but I don't really know how they did it.
-
They were real socialists, real anti-fascists - - when and where did they go wrong? Where did they lose their way?
When and where did they go wrong? Where did they lose their way?
When they became real socialists, that is when they lost their way!
It is merely a dead end road you don't stop at the wall on the end of a dead end road because you are confused , but because there is no further to go.
-
They had a lot further to go - - they could have nationalized the banks and all the means of production, not just the oil industry. They could have confiscated the possessions of the rich and executed the ruling class. They could have established the dictatorship of the proletariat. They could have created a People's Army and a People's Militia to defend themselves against the U.S.A. You say they reached the end of the road and hit a brick wall, but there were still miles to go on that road and nobody knows WHAT could have been at the end of it, brick wall or Workers' and Peasants' Paradise. I don't think either of us knows how the experiment would have turned out. It worked in China, Cuba and the U.S.S.R. till the Russians themselves fouled their own nest. Other countries went much further along the socialist path, but Mexico, despite very promising beginnings, seems to have turned back early. And my question was, simply, Why?
-
They had a lot further to go - - they could have nationalized the banks and all the means of production, not just the oil industry. They could have confiscated the possessions of the rich and executed the ruling class. They could have established the dictatorship of the proletariat. They could have created a People's Army and a People's Militia to defend themselves against the U.S.A. You say they reached the end of the road and hit a brick wall, but there were still miles to go on that road and nobody knows WHAT could have been at the end of it, brick wall or Workers' and Peasants' Paradise. I don't think either of us knows how the experiment would have turned out. It worked in China, Cuba and the U.S.S.R. till the Russians themselves fouled their own nest. Other countries went much further along the socialist path, but Mexico, despite very promising beginnings, seems to have turned back early. And my question was, simply, Why?
You keep answering your own question without realizing it.
Each of the things you mention are things that prevent entrepreneurship.
Each of the things you mention are things that reduce individual freedom.
Each of the nations you mention mae it "work" to their detriment, and each one had to turn back at some point in order to survive.
Scandinavia keeps getting mention as successfull in socialism , where their mild form of socilaism doesn't quash their economies to the point of collapse . But i countrie like those you mention and also in Mexico there is enough socialism to cause misery and more won't be better.
-
I think you're deluding yourself by rubber-stamping every socialist initiative as a failure without really examining the situation. If it blocks entrepreneurship, it's a failure. By definition. If it restricts "personal freedom," it's a failure. Also by definition.
The astonishing sucesses of the People's Revolution in such places as China and Cuba don't fit into your theory, so they are set aside. Or in the case of Cuba, you just call the whole thing a failure, point to the economic refugees as proof of failure (ignoring the much heavier streams of refugees from capitalist Mexico) and give no credit at all to the astounding achievements of the Revolution in such areas as housing, health care and education.
How do you account for the fact that during the 1930s, the U.S.S.R.'s annual rate of growth was double-digit, surpassing that of any other industrialized country?
Communism has some serious problems that come with the territory, I'd never deny that, but it's hardly the guaranteed dead end that you seem to think it is. You give no weight to the ongoing efforts of the Western Powers to sabotage the U.S.S.R. at every opportunity. You give no weight to the Nazi invasion and its effects on the U.S.S.R. nor to the role of England, France and the U.S.A. in supporting Germany prior to the war (for example, their key action in freezing the gold reserves of the Spanish Republic, permitting the eventual fascist victory, rather than supporting the Republicans so they could bleed the invading fascist forces of both Germany and Italy?) Everything they did was geared to building German strength to the point where it could engage the U.S.S.R. A lot of extraneous factors contributed to the fall of communism in Russia, but you like to pretend it all fell of its own weight as the West just watched it happen.
-
I think you're deluding yourself by rubber-stamping every socialist initiative as a failure without really examining the situation. If it blocks entrepreneurship, it's a failure. By definition. If it restricts "personal freedom," it's a failure. Also by definition.
The astonishing sucesses of the People's Revolution in such places as China and Cuba don't fit into your theory, so they are set aside. Or in the case of Cuba, you just call the whole thing a failure, point to the economic refugees as proof of failure (ignoring the much heavier streams of refugees from capitalist Mexico) and give no credit at all to the astounding achievements of the Revolution in such areas as housing, health care and education.
How do you account for the fact that during the 1930s, the U.S.S.R.'s annual rate of growth was double-digit, surpassing that of any other industrialized country?
Communism has some serious problems that come with the territory, I'd never deny that, but it's hardly the guaranteed dead end that you seem to think it is. You give no weight to the ongoing efforts of the Western Powers to sabotage the U.S.S.R. at every opportunity. You give no weight to the Nazi invasion and its effects on the U.S.S.R. nor to the role of England, France and the U.S.A. in supporting Germany prior to the war (for example, their key action in freezing the gold reserves of the Spanish Republic, permitting the eventual fascist victory, rather than supporting the Republicans so they could bleed the invading fascist forces of both Germany and Italy?) Everything they did was geared to building German strength to the point where it could engage the U.S.S.R. A lot of extraneous factors contributed to the fall of communism in Russia, but you like to pretend it all fell of its own weight as the West just watched it happen.
"If it blocks entrepreneurship, it's a failure. By definition. If it restricts "personal freedom," it's a failure. Also by definition."
Yes ! Well said.
The Success of Cuba is laughable , the success of socailism in China is tragic.
IN 59 Castro was so nearly the King of Cuba that he could volenteer the death of every Cuban in Cuba for the sake of an effective attack on the USA , this kind of succes is not good for a people to acheive.
China,between 59 and 63 they were claiming success ,while they were actually in famine, how bad was this famine we may never know because the cheif historical success of socailism is in covering up truth.
-
You know, I was thinking about the PRI over the last few days. The days of an anti-clerical, truly revolutionary party were very well portrayed in the Graham Green novel, The Power and the Glory.
I remember seeing photos in a book of huge anti-Nazi street rallies in Mexico City during the late 1930s. They were real socialists, real anti-fascists - - when and where did they go wrong? Where did they lose their way? I figure that the U.S.A. was somehow behind it all, but I don't really know how they did it.
========================================================================================
This was the period of the term of Lazaro Cardenas, 1934-1940. When Cardenas nationalized the oil industry, many US interests wanted an invasion of Mexico. FDR sent a team of diplomats down and they agreed to allow the nationalization, because the US had a need for the oil and a war with Mexico would have been a disaster, as the 1846-1849 war had been.
The enemies of the PRI were financed by US oil interests and the RC Church. One important leader was a writer named Salvador Borrego, whose books preached the alliance of the Communists, the Masons and the Jews to overthrow the Holy Mother Church. They built a huge statue of Jesus in Michoacan on a mountain called El Cubilete, the Cristo de la Monta?a, and had groups of guerrillas called the Cristeros, who raged through small towns in the states of Jalisco and Michoacan, burning government schoolhouses and ejidos (colective village farms). When WWII came, their funds dried up.
Jose Vasconcelos, the author of a book called La raza cosmica (the cosmic race) ran for president in opposition to Cardenas and was basically run out of the country. His theory was that the Mexican mestizo (mixed European, Indian and perhaps African) was through the advantage of diversity a forerunner of the actual master race.
In 1941, the pro American Padilla was defeated as a candidate of the revolutionary party by Miguel Aleman, who was slightly more pro American. My ex-wife's father was Padilla's chauffeur. Born in 1900, he was the most super Catholic person I have ever known. He did, however, use his influence to buy five or six lots around the fringes of Mexico City which meant that he managed to raise his family of six girls and a boy in a middle-class environment. He was a poor Indian baker from a small pueblo in the Sierra of Oaxaca who had come to Mexico City in the 1920's because the various guerrilla armies in the mountains printed worthless money to buy bread with that could not be used to buy food or flour with. I should also add that a baker is a sort of middle class profession, as poor Mexicans do not eat bread: they eat tortillas. Bread is a middle class thing in Mexico, or at least it was in 1920'sa Oaxaca.
Salvador Borrego's books were still prominently displayed in bookstores all over Mexico City when I was there in the 1960's. I would be surprised if they are not still in print.
In Mexico in the 1960's there were four parties: the PRI, which won nearly all elections, the PAN, which is the Catholic Party, the PARM, or Partido Autentico de la Revolucion Mexicana, an assortment of elderly generals longing for the past, and the PPS, the Partido Popular Socialista.
The PRI was probably defeated by Lazaro Cardenas' son Cuauhtemoc Cardenas in 1993 as a candidate of the PRD, Partido de la Revolucion Democratica (formed from the PPS, PARM and another Socialist Party), but the PRI stole the election. Only when Vicente Fox managed to get enough support to look as though the PAN was a viable party, did the US allow someone not of the PRI to win.
Mexican politics is a pretty complicated affair, because the most important moves are invisible to the average citizen, as are the mechanations of the US government.
Capitalism doesn't really work in Latin America. The most wealthy Latin nation is Puerto Rico, which has half of its citizens living in the US for lack of jobs, and is far poorer than Mississippi, the very poorest US state. Spain is clearly the most equitable Latin nation, and it has a rather typical European mildly Socialist government, with huge amounts of local control alloted to the various regions.
-
Has the Mexican oil industry been nationalied the whole time since the late thirtys?
-
Has the Mexican oil industry been nationalied the whole time since the late thirtys?
==============================================
PEMEX (Petroleos Mexicanos) was formed in 1935, after Cardenas nationalized the industry. American interests were reimbursed for their holdings, normally based on the value declared on their tax forms. THis tended to piss them off, and they funded the Cristeros, as I said.
Pemex was known for corruption and incompetence for many years, but in the 1980's and 1990's, satellite photography and other technology allowed for many more discoveries of oil fields. The fluctuation in price of oil caused the collapse of the economy in the 1990's. The US firms were also legendary in their corruption.
-
Has the Mexican oil industry been nationalized the whole time since the late thirty's?
==============================================
PEMEX (Petroleos Mexicanos) was formed in 1935, after Cardenas nationalized the industry. American interests were reimbursed for their holdings, normally based on the value declared on their tax forms. This tended to piss them off, and they funded the Cristeros, as I said.
Pemex was known for corruption and incompetence for many years, but in the 1980's and 1990's, satellite photography and other technology allowed for many more discoveries of oil fields. The fluctuation in price of oil caused the collapse of the economy in the 1990's. The US firms were also legendary in their corruption.
Interesting , can the experience of Pemex be compared to anything similar elsewhere in the world that would demonstrate that it has done more for Mexico and its citizens as a nationalized enterprise than it would have done as a private enterprise?
BTW paying what their declared worth was on their tax forms seems like a very smart move, it would have been even smarter to offer these things for sale at auction to realize the difference in declared and true worth.
-
<<Mexican politics is a pretty complicated affair, because the most important moves are invisible to the average citizen, as are the mechanations of the US government.>>
EXACTLY how I figured it. Thanks, XO.
------------------------------------------
plane: <<The Success of Cuba is laughable . . . >>
With all due respect, you just don't know what you're talking about.
plane: << . . . the success of socailism in China is tragic.>>
nonsense
<<IN 59 Castro was so nearly the King of Cuba that he could volenteer the death of every Cuban in Cuba for the sake of an effective attack on the USA , this kind of succes is not good for a people to acheive.>>
Castro wanted the Russians to stand firm on principle and not give in to Kennedy's nuclear blackmail. He and the Chinese leadership IMHO correctly assessed JFK's threats as a bluff. Their reasoning was that while China and Russia would suffer larger casualties than the U.S. in a nuclear missile exchange, they could absorb their casualties and survive, whereas the U.S. could not absorb its casualties without falling apart. This was not volunteering the life of anyone, it was the decision of a man with balls of steel to stand up to a tyrant and face him down. Knowing that in reality, the people represented by the tyrant were blowhards, able to threaten convincingly but unable to absorb a nuclear strike. IMHO, the failure of Khruschev at that moment to stand up like a man and call the bluff was the start of the long slide into the end of communism. The Russian people had learned to read between the lines of what little news they were allowed to process, and they knew that their leaders had gone soft since the days of Stalingrad, that they had sold out to fascism .
<<China,between 59 and 63 they were claiming success ,while they were actually in famine, how bad was this famine we may never know because the cheif historical success of socailism is in covering up truth.>>
Oh, plane that is such bullshit. China was plagued by famine for centuries - - in 1944, 4 million Chinese died of famine. To blame the communists for famine, which in China was due to natural disaster, is ludicrous when the problem had existed for centuries, probably milennia, and the communists had been in power for all of eleven years. The fact is that at this point in time, the Communists have brought China to a point where they are unlikely to be plagued ever again by famine. You sure like to dwell in the past - - when it suits you. Today the evidence of communism's success in China is everywhere and it's undeniable. You just can't face it - - they did much better when they threw off Amerikkka's puppet rulers and took charge themselves.
-
Interesting , can the experience of Pemex be compared to anything similar elsewhere in the world that would demonstrate that it has done more for Mexico and its citizens as a nationalized enterprise than it would have done as a private enterprise?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before nationalization, the people of Mexico saw almost NO benefit from their petroleum resources. It is the nature of the oil business that the only people who really know what is under the ground, and how much is being pumped out, are the ones drilling the wells and doing the pumping. Observe that oil was not nationalized in Oklahoma, and huge discoveries were made on reservation land. The Indians have barely benefitted, the oil companies cleaned up bigtime.
For Mexico's people to see any benefit at all, for Mexico to even have Mexicans trained in petroleum engineerinf=g nationalization was the only possibility in 1934.
--------------------------------------------------
BTW paying what their declared worth was on their tax forms seems like a very smart move, it would have been even smarter to offer these things for sale at auction to realize the difference in declared and true worth.
So how the Hell do you propose that an auction be held if the resources are not to be sold? That is silly. The point was to make sure that whatever worth the oil had, it would at least go to some people in Mexico and not fly out of the country. The Mexican government could not auction off anything until it owned it. the oil cmpanies could not get any proice at all for any resources that were about to be lost. There could be no auction, and there wasn't, because this was not only a dumb idea, but impossible.
After FDR was elected the people of the US had little or no faith in Big Oil to do more than screw them. Capitalism in the US in 1934 was seen by most people as a dismal failure, and no one was in favor of sending troops off to die in Mexico for oil that would only belong to Standard Oil and friends. Cardenas was clever enough to see this and take advantage of it. And he was entirely right to have done so.
==============================================================================