HERBERT APTHEKER'S BLINDNESS AS HISTORIAN - AND BLINDNESS SPREADS

HERBERT APTHEKER: STUDIES IN WILLFUL BLINDNESS

(New York: Anthony Flood, 2019)

BY ANTHONY FLOOD

Rev. by Hugh Murray

In his short book Mr. Flood has written an essential work for anyone interested in the many volumes of history written by Dr. Herbert Aptheker. The questions Flood raises, however, are not limited to Aptheker, but concern all historians and indeed all intellectuals who were members of the Communist Party (CP), U.S.A., and other Communist parties world-wide. The question simply put, “Can they be trusted?” When Gary Murrell sought to write about Aptheker for his dissertation, his academic advisor rejected that proposal because “Aptheker's work can't be trusted.”(55) Murrell accommodated his advisors by writing on another topic. However, Murrell clearly disagreed with his academic gatekeepers, and after receiving his doctorate, Murrell wrote a sympathetic biography of Aptheker. One chapter of Flood's book is a review of Murrell's biography.

Flood also includes chapter on a related topic – should Communists be allowed to teach? Sidney Hook, a Professor of Philosophy at New York U. wrote an article published in the New York Times, 9 July 1950, maintaining that CP members should not teach, “Heresy, Yes – But Conspiracy, No.” Hook contended that Communists should be barred from teaching because they were committed to the Communist ideology and would therefore commit “educational fraud.” They could not be objective. Flood includes some of Aptheker's reply to Hook: “You say that they [Communists] must violate the ethics of their profession because as Communists they must think and act in a certain way...The way to demonstrate a scholar's lack of objectivity, his failure to adhere to the canons of scholarship is to examine his writings...(p. 9) Mr. Flood did just that, and found Dr. Aptheker's writings wanting.

Herbert Aptheker began dating the woman whom he would marry, his cousin Fay, in 1936. She had joined the CP in 1929. Herbert then moved in Communist circles, even lecturing on Black history for them at a radical school. In August 1939 Nazi Germany and Communist USSR signed a “Non-Aggression Pact.” While many in the CPUSA were aghast that Stalin was suddenly in league with the bete noir of the Reds, and the American party lost a quarter of its membership, Herbert proudly joined the party at this time. In September 1939 Germany invaded Poland, and so began WWII in Europe. A fortnight later, the Soviets invaded Poland from the East. Dr. Aptheker undoubtedly supported the twists and turns of the Soviet line during this period. Why? Aptheker believed “The marvel of the greatest event in human history [the development of the USSR] was at stake.”(75)

In 1942 Aptheker received his Ph.D. from Columbia U. with his dissertation, a revolution in itself, and revolutionary, a challenge to the accepted historiography of the time on his topic. The history profession then was dominated by the works of U. B. Phillips, whose American Negro Slavery revealed how the “peculiar institution,” overall, was not so bad. It took the slaves from savagery and lifted them, Christianized them, protected them. Aptheker, who in the 1930s and early 40s had traveled in the South searching for historical documents, and also helping to organize an anti-peonage campaign. On at least one occasion, he was severely beaten. His dissertation was a rebellion against the prevalent pro-Southern Philipsian portrayal of American Negro Slavery; thus, Aptheker's title: American Negro Slave Revolts. In this work Aptheker blasted the notions of the contented slave, as he presenting evidence for 240 plots and conspiracies by slaves to destroy the system under which they were forced to live.

During WWII Aptheker served in Europe, commanding Black infantrymen in an artillery unit. Flood once asked Aptheker about his time in the Army, and the historian replied that “we” were fashionable then. At war's end, Aptheker the Communist wrote one of the Army's official histories of events in Europe; he was an officer with an office in the Pentagon.

With war's end, Aptheker still could find no university teaching post because he was a Communist. He became a research assistant to W. E. B. Du Bois, who had an office in the NAACP suite on 40^th Street, across from the New York Public Library. Aptheker received $25 a week for this work. In post-war America, hostility extended beyond Communists to others on the Left. W. E. B. Du Bois lost his teaching position at Atlanta U. (his age was the excuse, but he suspected that politics were the real cause). Then in 1948 the NAACP (that non-partisan, tax exempt organization), had Democratic President Harry Truman address the organization's convention, the first president to do so. It was an election year, and most of the leaders of the NAACP favored Truman. When Du Bois openly endorsed one of Truman's opponents, former Vice-President Henry Wallace, running on the Progressive Party ticket, the NAACP fired Du Bois, who had been one of the founders of the organization. Since then, the NAACP has generally been a Democratic Party front-group.

What Mr. Flood spotlights in his short book, and what all the famous doctors of history have failed to clearly reveal, is that Aptheker in his American Negro Slave Revolts and in his many other works of history, fails to mention and fails to cite the important related work on slave revolts - the only successful slave revolt in the Americas – the uprising in Haiti. That rebellion against the French, which led to an independent Haiti, occurred only a few years after the American rebellion against the British, which led to an independent U.S.A. That revolution in Haiti was described in a major work by C. L. R. James in his Black Jacobins, published in 1938, several years before the completion of Aptheker's dissertation on Black revolts in the US. James's book received wide-spread publicity, even being reviewed in Time Magazine, as well as in academic journals. Aptheker must have heard of it. Aptheker often made efforts to meet other historians of Black history. Apparently he made no effort to meet James. Aptheker never mentions James or Black Jacobins in his dissertation or his book on the subject that followed. Why did Aptheker snub the Black man who wrote Black Jacobins? Flood exposes James as Aptheker's “Invisible Man.”

Flood notes how major historians have fumbled this question – Eugene Genovese, John Bracey, Robin D. G. Kelley, Manning Marable, Eric Foner (former president of the Organization of American Historians), Jesse Lemisch, and Dr. Du Bois. All of these historians have discussed both Aptheker and James, but they either ignored how one omitted the other, or they discussed it barely in passing. The basic reason for Aptheker's expelling James from his histories – Aptheker was a Stalinist-Communist; James was a Trotskyist. Communists were not supposed to read or associate or have anything to do with such heretics. The historians mentioned above generally bemoan how the history profession treated Aptheker quite badly, despite how much research Aptheker did, how many books he wrote, how many pioneering studies he fomented, and yet he could not find a full-time teaching job. Moreover, Aptheker was often ignored in the major history works by others. He was ostracized by the history profession. Yet, Aptheker was doing to James what the profession was doing to Aptheker, and those moaning about Aptheker's ostracism do not moan about his ostracizing James.

Strange that it took someone outside the history profession, like Mr. Flood, to expose the blindness, not only of Aptheker, but of other major historians in the field to that blindness.

Flood also points out that in the 7 volumes of Aptheker's Documentary History of the Negro People in the US, he never mentions James. If the excuse be that James was a West Indian, then why, asks Flood, is Eric Williams included? Williams, as Prime Minister of Trinidad even had the Marxist C. L. R. James imprisoned.(81) Aptheker includes the words of the jailer, but not the jailed Black radical.

Flood goes beyond the purging of James from the many places in Aptheker's histories where the Black scholar of the Haitian revolution should have been discussed and cited. Flood also discusses the interview of Aptheker in the Journal of American History,(39-41) where Mr. Flood is critical because Robin D. G. Kelley failed to ask the elder Aptheker certain general questions about slavery. Kelley contended that in the interview they were discussing Black slavery in the US, but Flood argues that Aptheker's general views on slavery and slave insurrections should have been explored. For example, Flood thought Kelley should have asked about Aptheker's book, The Truth about Hungary, in which the American scholar justified the Soviet invasion of Hungary in 1956 to suppress a popular revolution in the Soviet satellite. In Flood's view, Aptheker, who described and justified slave rebellions in the US, wrote a book justifying the Soviets brutally crushing the “slave” rebellion in Hungary. To Flood, it was a clear case of oppressed workers trying to overthrow their Soviet overlords, but losing the battle to tanks and modern weapons. Flood detects a contradiction in Aptheker's position on slavery and rebellion, one not discussed in the interview. Mr. Flood also presents and alternative title to Aptheker's book: The Pravda about Hungary.(37)

More telling, Flood reminds readers of Aptheker's views on slave rebellions and oppression in another area. In 1950 while Aptheker was still a commissioned officer in the US Army, he wrote and published something on events in Korea. Major Aptheker wrote: “As soon as the reactionary and imperialist nature of the American occupation in South Korea and of its creature, the [Syngman] Rhee clique, became clear, demonstrations, strikes, uprisings and guerrilla warfare appeared once again. These appeared . . . in South Korea only – not in North Korea. Uprisings come from oppression. In North Korea the people ruled – therefore no revolts; in South Korea a new foreign master and new Korean traitors held power – therefore constant rebellion.”(41-42) Aptheker wrote this during the Korean War while American soldiers were shooting and being shot at by the forces of North Korea. Flood jabs a point: the expert on slavery and oppression failed to see that rebellions can occur when things are not so bad, and rebellions may not occur when oppression is overwhelming. As there are still no strikes and rebellions in North Korea, using Aptheker's flawed analysis, we can conclude that the people still “rule” in the North.

Flood includes a short, well-written page (65) about a trip to Mexico that Aptheker took in the early 1950s. The question is whether historian Aptheker was also a hit-man or merely a bag-man for the Communists. This is an intriguing episode, and one deserving more research. J. Edgar Hoover had declared Aptheker the most dangerous Communist in America. Surely, the FBI must have been tapping his home and using other means to keep track of him. Are there any old files that could resolve this question, and while at it, possibly throw light on the alleged molestation by Aptheker of his daughter Bettina?

Flood concludes that Aptheker was an historical writer, but not an historian.(79) I disagree. So did Murrell, who wrote that every individual's experiences may influence and distort portrayals of reality.(55) I present my argument using recent events: on July 4, 2019, former footballer Colin Kaepernick posted sentences from an 1852 speech by Black abolitionist Frederick Douglass. In those words, Douglass was sharply critical of the US Government. Soon after Republican Texas Sen. Ted Cruz accused Kaepenick of distorting what Douglass had said. Cruz posted the entire speech, and he maintained Douglass was far less critical when you read the entire address. Of course, others might retort, that too is insufficient; think of the entire life of Douglass and what that meant. And others might reply, but think of all in America during that era, which ended with Civil War and the end of slavery. And others, no that is insufficient, one must include...And others when you consider...So the only way to avoid criticism that one is distorting and cherry-picking is to include a Hegelian everything, the universe. But no historian (or artist, or writer, etc.) can do that. Unable to include the all, historians must pick and choose what to include, and what to omit. History is an art.

However, Aptheker should be condemned for omitting James and Black Jacobins from his works because James's writings are pertinent, closely related to Aptheker's own research. They were writing on similar and sometimes identical subjects. But Aptheker failed to mention or cite or discuss James's works because Aptheker was a Stalinist; James a Trotskyist.

For centuries Roman Catholic priests wrote histories, but they too often had to get approval, from their Order, or from their Bishop before publication. To received such approval, they may have had to avoid certain topics, mention of certain heretics, exposition of certain novel but non-traditional notions of science, etc. Should we ignore what these priests have written? Or should we learn from them with an awareness that perhaps such a book might not be the best source for information concerning Martin Luther? A priest's history may have omissions, may not be “totally objective,” but we may still learn from it.

There is little doubt that Aptheker inspired interest in Black history, in slave rebellions, and in other topics. He was an historian, a Stalinist Communist historian, but an historian, none the less. We must keep things in perspective. Aptheker was not the only author with limitations, and I recall that he pointed to a then current volume on the intellectual history of the US published in 1950 by one of the most prestigious historians, Henry Steele Commager. Here is how wikipedia describes Commanger: “As one of the most active and prolific liberal intellectuals of his time, with 40 books and 700 essays and reviews, he helped define modern liberalism in the United States." I recently checked his book on American intellectual history, The American Mind, published in 1950. This highly praised book ignored Blacks. Was Commager color blind? In this book, Du Bois is absent, as is Booker T. Washington. No mention of Langston Hughes or Richard Wright or even the Harlem Renaissance. Nothing on Frederick Douglass, or the West Indian who founded one of the most popular Black organizations in American history, Marcus Garvey and his Universal Negro Improvement Assn. The only person Commager mentions as he discusses Negroes is Gunnar Myrdal, the Swede who had recently written American Dilemma.(American Mind, p. 414) By comparison, Aptheker omitted James. But liberal Commager seemed to have more blind spots than Stalinist Aptheker. Commager was teaching at Columbia when Aptheker was a student. It is wrong what Aptheker did concerning James, but keep things in perspective. One can learn, but one must be aware of the limitations of even famous historians, and indeed of all intellectuals. In my lexicon, Herbert Aptheker is an historian. And so is Commager.

On a different level, I have criticisms of Flood's book. Reading it, jumping back and forth between text and endnotes, I was sometimes confused as to where I was. The font of the endnotes should be smaller than the text and the numbers larger. Also, when I taught at a university where the main source of freshmen was the public school system, in my lectures, if I used a word or phrase that I believed the students might be unfamiliar with, I would start the sentence, use the difficult word, take a slight pause, the equivalent of a written comma, and then use a more common synonym. On a few occasions reading Flood's book, I wondered whom he was writing for. When he wrote about “adverts,”(59) I naturally assumed he was speaking about advertising, but he meant the far more obscure American definition. Elsewhere he uses “irenic,” and I assume most will read that as “ironic” with a minor misprint. However, he intends to convey a meaning quite different from ironic, more compromising, and pacific instead. Then use commas and add the more common term. Flood also inserts the term Phillipsian(43) in a chapter before he has given any information describing U. B. Phillips, so the reader will have no way of guessing why an adjective is derived from the man's name.

Finally, there is the issue of repetition. A book composed of published articles will likely contain repetition, but this is a mixed blessing. First, it can bore, but second, it allows for re-emphasis on important points. And in Flood's small book, there are many important points that should be emphasized. Flood has written a good, short book.

ADDENDUM

1) If it is fair to make an analogy between the Radical Reconstruction that occurred in the American South after the Civil War, with the even more radical reconstruction that occurred in Eastern Europe after WWII, we know that when the Yanks withdrew the military occupation forces after 1876, it was bad news for many Blacks and others who supported the Party of Lincoln. Had the Hungarian rebels succeeded so soon after WWII, what would have been their attitude toward those who viewed the Soviets as liberators? Which ethnic group was most grateful? I suspect Aptheker, and the far-right wing writer of history, David Irving, are probably correct in thinking a large pogrom might have occurred if the tanks had not been coming.

2) Another important point – should communists be allowed to teach? Though Flood does not emphasize it, Aptheker, often dubbed in the general media as the Party's theoretician, volunteered to act as an expert witness to help defend Steve Nelson in his trial in 1951 for violating the Smith Act. For several days Aptheker rolled out his knowledge of Marxism, attempting to persuade the jury that Nelson was guilty of no crime. However, in 1942 the FBI had bugged Nelson's home and knew he received a visit from a Soviet Embassy official who ordered Nelson to place reliable communists in the new Manhattan Project. The Soviet also gave Nelson money to implement the plans. Nelson was, in effect, being asked to establish a spy network to gather information about the development of the American atomic bomb to give to Stalin.

Did Aptheker, expert on Marxism and the Communist Party, know of Nelson's treason? Did he care? If he did not know, perhaps he was not the expert on Communism he claimed to be. If he did know, he favored the release of a man who set up a spy network to betray America concerning the most powerful weapon then in the human arsenal on behalf of the Soviets.

When someone joins the CP, he is expected to submit to Party discipline. This may mean not reading C. L. R. James and not citing him or giving him any credit in your books. It might also mean going to Mexico to deliver money to American comrades, or even eliminating the Mexican Communist who betrayed Gus Hall to the FBI. Or it might mean defending a man who planned the stealing of atomic secrets for Stalin. Would it also entail acts of treason? If a comrade were to ask you to pass an unopened envelope to someone, that seems innocent enough. It might be, but might not. All CPs had an open party and an underground party, and one task of the latter was to recruit some of the open party members to engage in espionage or to be agents of influence for the USSR. Of course, not all were recruited or would have accepted such an “invitation” to the dark side. But even Junius Scales, who was sent to jail for violating the Smith Act in North Caroline as a Communist in the 1950s, in his biography acknowledged, he was never asked, but wondered what his response would have been to the Party leaders if asked. Sidney Hook thought Communists should be barred from teaching because they might commit educational fraud. I think there may have been more serious issues to consider.

GRIST FOR THE MUELLER PROBE?

SILENT NO MORE: HOW I BECAME

A POLITICAL PRISONER OF MUELLER'S “WITCH HUNT”

(New York: Post Hill Press, 2019)

BY JEROME R. CORSI, Ph. D.

Review by Hugh Murray

Dr. Corsi's book is an account of his connection to the investigation of Special Counsel Robert Mueller into possible Russian collusion with the Trump campaign to “steal” the election away for Democratic candidate for President, Hillary Clinton in 2016. Corsi had published various books and worked for right-wing media. One of his books contended that President Barack Obama had been born in Kenya, and was thus ineligible to be President of the United States. Clearly, Democrats were not the biggest fans of Dr. Corsi's writings.

In this book Corsi relates that the three attorneys who would interrogate him were donors to Democrats, but he does not stress that almost all of the attorneys hired by Special Counsel Mueller were Democrats and Democratic activists or contributors. Their case was that Russians hacked into the computers of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the personal files of DNC Chair John Podesta, that the Russians were working with and presented the stolen material to Wikileaks spokesman Julian Assange. Assange then prepared to release these secret documents in a manner to most damage the Democrats and influence the election against Clinton. To accomplish this, a connection with the Trump campaign was established through Trump friend and supporter Roger Stone. However, the direct connection between Stone and Assange was Dr. Corsi. Corsi, thus became a pivotal player in the case for collusion alleged by the Mueller prosecution attorneys.

Corsi notes the double standards and bias of the Mueller inquiry: never probing “the millions of dollars John Podesta and Hillary Clinton had made selling U. S. military technology to Russia” (p. 83, more on 101). Corsi reminds readers that “Podesta for awhile chaired the Clinton Foundation - [which was]. . . not a charity, but instead a massive international crime syndicate that specialized in laundering third world money.”(120) But the Mueller crowd was uninterested in any crimes by the Hillary crowd. Indeed, that crowd had been given immunity.(178)

Part of this book is a technical discussion concerning which parts of the DNC computers were hacked and what information might have been gleaned from them. Unfortunately, I am no techie and am unqualified to evaluate this section of the work. However, Corsi maintains that with his background, he was able to surmise what emails Assange had, and aware of the previous escapades of the Wikileaks group, Corsi was able to deduce what emails Assange had, and that he would release them just before the election in a drip by drip manner for maximum effect upon the voters. By contrast, Mueller's team of attorneys argued that Corsi must have had direct word from Assange to know these things.

Furthermore, Corsi maintains that EVEN IF he had contact with Assange, it was no crime because he was a journalist working for WND (World Net Daily) and he cites the famous 1971 Supreme Court case maintaining that the New York Times could publish the Pentagon Papers (stolen documents) without penalty because it had not stolen them.(75, 107, 158)

The Mueller team was convinced that Corsi was lying and was the essential bridge between Assange and Roger Stone (and Trump). Lying to the FBI could result in years in prison. The Mueller attorneys offered Corsi a plea deal to avoid jail, whereby Corsi would plead guilty to one count of lying, (in effect, saying he was the intermediary between Assange and Stone) and the judge would not sentence him to prison. However, when Corsi considered the deal and its ramifications with his own attorney, he realized it would prevent him from continuing work in real estate, and in the media, and worse, it would silence him. The sentencing of him in this case might be delayed indefinitely, and if he said anything to the press that the prosecution found objectionable, then the Mueller team could thereby scrap the plea bargain and send him to prison despite the deal. Corsi decided that no deal and prison would be preferable to such a plea bargain whereby he would have to lie and declare that he was the link between Assange and Stone when this was not true and the lie would thus make matters more difficult for Stone. And Corsi would be silenced as part of the agreement, so he could not inform the media that he had not been a link between the other two principals. With the plea agreement, Corsi would lie in order that the Mueller team could then press the links between Russian hackers to Assange to Corsi to Stone to Trump and thence to impeachment. The Democrats could finally cheer – proof of collusion, Trump is an imposter President, impeach him!

Today, Paul Manafort sits in prison for doing what many other lobbyists and wheelers and dealers in Washington do. Manafort was never in the sights of the Federals until he worked for the Trump campaign. Then the partisan Mueller attorneys, and their Democratic colleagues in New York State, colluded to prosecute Manafort, while Hillary and her crowd and the Clinton Foundation fraudsters remain free.

Lying to the FBI can bring severe penalties. But with the Mueller probe, only one side is prosecuted; the other side is granted immunity, or possible charges against them ignored. By the time of the 2016 campaign, the FBI and other agencies of government were determined to prevent the election of Donald Trump. When, despite the efforts of the Deep State, Trump was elected in the traditional American way (by the Electoral College), the Deep State used the firing of FBI Director James Comey as an excuse for Deputys Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to appoint Mueller as Special Counsel, without proper authorization or indication of a crime to be investigated. Corsi sees the results as a partisan attempt to annul the election and prepare for the impeachment of President Trump, threatening men like him with ruin unless they lie to promote the theory of Trump-Russian collusion. Corsi rejected the Mueller probe bargain, and continues to speak out. Dr. Corsi's book is an act of defiance. He will not lie to try to save himself or to satisfy his “persecutors” of the Mueller probe. We can all admire the courage of Dr. Corsi.

A personal note. Lying to the FBI can bring severe penalties. I recall being in the New Orleans Customs House Building on Canal Street around 1962 with many other young men called for induction by our draft board. A Black guy was going up to other Blacks in the large room pleading with them not to go in, not to join. An officer told him to stop, but the Black continued his arguments that the army and the US government were racist and Blacks should not serve. The officer, politely, ordered him to go to an adjoining room. He refused. The officer then ordered all the rest of us to go to another large room. We obeyed; the Black was left behind in the room with no one to appeal to.

We were told to fill out forms. One was a list of subversive organizations – had we ever been members of the Communist Party, the Ku Klux Klan and a rather list of lesser known groups. The question was not merely membership, but any connection to such organizations. I glanced down the list – whoops – I recognized one: the Jewish Culture Society. How to explain this? In August 1960 I had attended a training institute of the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) in Miami, with about 50 participants from throughout the nation, but most of us were Southerners. We were being trained in non-violent direct action and other procedures to use as we were expected to push to end of segregation in our home towns. Our conference was centered in a Black hotel, the Prince George. During the day, out classes and discussions occurred in the hotel's cocktail lounge, which was closed to customers until night. One day our teacher was baseball legend Jackie Robinson. 1960 was an election year and he proudly informed us he was for Richard Nixon and the Republicans. A few days later our instructor was Rev. Martin Luther King, and he told us, off-the-record, that he favored Democrat candidate John Kennedy for President. Fewer people heard King speak, because shortly before about half our group had been arrested after we held a sit-in in Shell's City's supermarket restaurant.

 Another day, we went to integrate one of the beaches. CORE must have booked a picnic table, and to try to avert trouble, a group sympathetic to integration had the table next to ours, the Jewish Culture club. It was hot, sunny, and we were on the beach and in the Atlantic (my first time). There was no trouble. Whereas most of our group were folks in the young 20s, the Jewish organization was mainly retirees, and most of them were in their 60s. I did speak to one of them about the 1948 election and the campaign of the Progressive Party, which favored integration. The Henry Wallace Progressive Party caused quite a stir in the South with Paul Robeson as his campaign chair. Bottom line, we had no trouble at the beach that day; we peacefully integrated it.

One night, we were to have a dance, but where? The hotel lounge would have been expensive, and alcohol may have been required. I don't recall, but it is possible alcohol may have been banned from the CORE conclave. I don't recall any alcohol among the CORE people during the 3-week sessions. It may have been a way to remain focused, to avoid any fights within or especially outside our group. Meanwhile, the Jewish Culture group offered us their premises and we had our dance. The elderly host group sat at tables and watched us dance, and I learned to do the “twist” for the first time. It was simply a dance, an integrated dance, with no trouble.

Back to the army form on my lap concerning the list of subversive organizations. If I lie, I faced a fine of $2,000, a huge amount at the time, and prison time. I thought about skipping the question and leaving it blank. It was only a dance. Then I remembered, many photos were taken. So I wrote on the form that I attended a dance at the Jewish Culture Club. When called before an officer to explain, he said in amazement, “But you're not even Jewish?!” Next problem on the form to explain – when the New Orleans CORE contingent departed Miami after our training and returned to the Crescent City, we began planning. About a week later I was among the seven, 5 Blacks and 2 whites, arrested in the first lunch-counter sit-in in what was still the largest city in the South in early September 1960. We were charged with a crime, and possibly more, for the judge was outraged when the 7 of us all sat together, integrating his court room. He demanded we sit according to the law or be cited with contempt of court. We obeyed, and separated by race. He also found us guilty of a felony, and we knew would remain “guilty” until our case reached the US Supreme Court, if ever did.

Earlier in 1962 I had “volunteered” for the navy. I passed several exams, but when the recruiter discovered I was guilty of a felony, he informed me that although I could be drafted, I could not volunteer for service. (Of course, in the 1960s, “volunteer” was a misnomer, for it was a way to choose the time and service one preferred, rather than wait to be drafted.)

Back to the draft into the army in the Customs House. Now, when the Army officer discovered I had been found guilty of a felony, he told me a different story. This officer said I would have to speak to the FBI man before I could be inducted, but I would have to wait because he was then talking to the Black Muslim in the other room. When I got to speak to the FBI agent, I was told that because of the seriousness of the charge, he would have to speak with the District Attorney, and request that he drop the charges first in order that I could be inducted. Because that might take weeks, I was told to go home and await word. Although I did not travel from the Customs House in New Orleans to Fort Chaffee in Arkansas that day, I was allowed to keep the boxed chicken. Weeks went by. Apparently, the newly elected DA, Jim Garrison, refused to drop the sit-in felony charges. I was not inducted. But I would be interviewed again by the FBI on 26 November 1963.

KAMALA HARRIS AND THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY DEBATE - June 27, 2019

While Kamala Harris's performance at the Democratic candidates debate of 27 June 2019 has received immense media attention, the media, the spotlight has missed the most important point. The media have emphasized her defense of busing of school children in California to integrate schools. Harris shouted into former Vice President's stage presence that he had been defending segregation, and she, as a young girl, was one of the children bused to integrate the California schools. (One website denies that Harris was truthful when she said she integrated the 2^nd class of integration, contending the schools in that area had been integrated before she was born.)

Unfortunately, the main issue was missed entirely by the reporters. Here is my comment on the Breitbart website: Kamala Harris on the stage that very night, also said if elected, she would give Congress 100 days to solve the "gun problem," and if it did not, she, as President would act on her own. In effect, she was threatening to throw out the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution so she, as dictator, could implement her version of gun control. At heart, she is a totalitarian. Not one of the 9 Democrats on the stage with her challenged her appeal for dictatorial powers. Bottom line - the Democrats are pro-crime, pro-invasion, and pro-dictatorship.

Hugh Murray

REPARATIONS FOR SLAVERY - TO DESCENDANTS OF SLAVE OWNERS?

     Today in Congress, demands were heard for reparations to the descendants of slaves for the horrors that their ancestors endured.  Several Democratic candidates running for President in 2020 have endorsed the idea - Corey Booker, Kamala Harris, Pete Buttigieg, Elizabeth Warren, and possible others.  Let us consider the proposal.
    There were approximately 4 million slaves in the US in 1860.  Lincoln pushed for a compensated plan to free slaves in the District of Columbia, whereby the owners of about 1,000 slaves received $300 per slave from the Federal Government.  The other owners were not paid for their loss.  Indeed, one may contend that the most massive confiscation of private property by the US Government occurred during and after the American Civil War with the abolition of slavery.  Even if one accepts the deflated rate at $300 per slave, 300 times 4,000,000 meant that the owners, chiefly in the South, lost through government confiscation $1,200,000,000 as well thousands of dead soldiers and wounded veterans, and the war, burnt houses, destroyed barns, and other losses.  The South was, like Tara in Gone with the Wind, a relic at war's end.  It was difficult, even with the grit of Scarlet, to rebuild the society.  Even when rail lines were rebuilt, Northern corporations discriminated against the South (and the West) to expand industry in the North.  The South remained the poorest part of the nation for a century.
     Is it not time to rectify this injustice?  Is it not time to pay reparations, with a small interest rate, to the descendants of the slave owners (some of the slave owners were Black, by the way)?
     The freed slaves did receive help from the Federal Government at that time.  The Freedmen's Bureau was established to help the new citizens.  Religious groups in the North sent teachers South to help the former slaves, and the beginnings of the historically Black colleges and universities often have their origins during this period.  In the impoverished South, a semi-civil war would continue during Reconstruction, as some Blacks had served in the Union Army and had weapons, and white veterans of the CSA also had weapons.  The campaign song of the national Democratic Party in 1868 included lines, "We are the White Man's party."  The winning, wealthy North would determine the fate of the South.
     Slavery still exists in several nations in Africa, from Mauritania to South Sudan up to Libya.  Afro-Americans are probably, as a group, the richest Blacks, the free-est Blacks, the ones with the best health and dental care, highest literacy, number of autos, tv's, etc.  They should be thankful that their ancestors were sold away from their homelands and they ended in America.  And it is noteworthy that just last week, several hundred Africans were discovered crossing the border from Mexico into the US as illegal aliens. Some had walked from Colombia, in South America, up to the US border. If the US were so racist, and oppressive, why would Africans go to such trouble to get into the USA?
    Hugh Murray

A PERSONAL NOTE

To All,
    I want to thank all of you for your interest in my blog.  Over 83,000 have visited this site.  Admittedly, I suspect many came by by mistake, searching for information on Hugh Murray, the Scottish footballer, or Hugh Murray, also from New Orleans who is about my age, but who is an expert on computer encryption.
   I hope those who have stopped by and read a post or two found them interesting.  Many are provocative.  I apologize to those who made comments, and I did not respond.  I did not know how to do so.  I am 20th century, and have trouble with the new technologies.  I am happy to report that the comments that google said would disappear from the site - and they did, have suddenly reappeared.
  I hope to continue adding to the blog, but at the moment, I am working on putting together several of my essays into a book.  It takes more work than I thought.  Consequently, I will make fewer posts until I have the book ready 
   Thanks to all of you for stopping by, and I will keep posting from time to time.  Or to rephrase, I'll keep you posted, but less often till the book is ready.
    Hugh Murray

MAO'S CULTURAL REVOLUTION ENGULFS MORE OF AMERICA

Why We Need a New Civil War Documentary

The success and brilliance of the new PBS series on Reconstruction is a reminder of the missed opportunity facing the nation

y Keri Leigh Merritt

SMITHSONIAN.COM
APRIL 23, 2019

Read more: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/why-we-need-new-civil-war-documentary-180971996/#4YzVZ3pGROfbg4OW.99

Airing over a span of five nights during late September in 1990, Ken Burns’ “The Civil War” remains, to this day, the only documentary that claims to explain the entirety of the war that engulfed the United States in the mid-19th century. “The Civil War”’s premiere became the most-watched PBS program at the time, with the nine-episode series carrying a total running time of 11 hours, and to this day it remains one of the most popular shows ever to air on public broadcasting. Garnering scores of awards, “The Civil War” has now influenced generations of Americans and shaped their beliefs about slavery, the war itself, and its aftermath. The documentary had an outsized effect on how many Americans think about the war, but it’s one that unfortunately lead to a fundamental misunderstanding about slavery and its legacies—a failing that both undergirds and fuels the flames of racism today.

…

You can read her full article on the Smithsonian web site. Below is my comment on her article:

humura • 3 days ago

I recall the original Civil War series. Various historians were interviewed, and there were differences of opinion. My main objection was the failure to use music of the war, so many moving songs. Instead, they used a modern tune played on a violin. I suspect, they did not want to play many of the rousing songs of the Confederacy (too politically incorrect, even decades ago). Stephen Foster, the most popular of song-writers of that era, wrote the campaign song in the 1860 election, not for Lincoln, not for Northern Democrat Douglas, but for Southern Democrat Breckenridge. Let us hear it.
No series will please everyone. She complains the old series did not have university professors. When you considet the POLITICAL qualifications to teach at most universities, it is probably best they they were not so involved in the production of the series.
Dr. Merritt even brings into the conversation the accent of Shelby Foote to discredit him. I am old enough to recall when this was done by racists to discredit Blacks. Now the "good" doctor does it to discredit whites. - Hugh Murray

Philadelphia Flyers Remove Statue of Singer Kate Smith Amid Allegations of Racism

The team will also no longer play Smith’s famed rendition of ‘God Bless America’

By Brigit Katz

SMITHSONIAN.COM
APRIL 24, 2019

Read more: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/philadelphia-flyers-remove-statue-singer-kate-smith-amid-allegations-racism-180972026/#XqhBJeGTEU1dU2Ds.99

Since the late 1960s, a rendition of “God Bless America” by Kate Smith, one of the most prolific and popular American singers of the 20th century, has been a good luck charm for the Philadelphia Flyers. “The team began to win on nights the song was played,” the New York Times wrote in Smith’s 1986 obituary. Smith sang the tune live during game six of the 1974 Stanley Cup finals, which the Flyers went on to win against the Boston Bruins, taking home the coveted trophy. But as Anastasia Tsioulcas reports for NPR, the Flyers recently announced that they will no longer play Smith’s recording of “God Bless America” at games. A statue of the singer that stood outside the team’s arena has been removed.

The sudden change of heart was prompted by revelations that Smith had recorded at least two songs with racist lyrics in the 1930s. Last week, the New York Yankees, which had been regularly playing Smith’s recording during the seventh-inning stretch since 9/11, decided to switch to a keyboard version of “God Bless America” after the songs were brought to their attention. “The Yankees have been made aware of a recording that had been previously unknown to us and decided to immediately and carefully review this new information,” a spokesperson told Stefan Bondy of the New York Daily News. “And while no final conclusions have been made, we are erring on the side of sensitivity.”

Quickly following suit, the Flyers said in a statement on Sunday that while the team has “enjoyed a long and popular relationship with ‘God Bless America,’ as performed by the late Kate Smith,” it had recently learned that several of her songs “include lyrics and sentiments that are incompatible with the values of our organization, and evoke painful and unacceptable themes.” The statue of Smith that had been erected outside the Flyers’ Spectrum arena in 1987—and, when that venue was demolished, had been moved to the parking lot of Xfinity Live!—was cloaked in black and subsequently taken down.

One of the songs to come under scrutiny is “That’s Why Darkies Were Born,” which was written for a 1931 Broadway revue. The song was also performed by Paul Robeson, the famed African-American actor and bass baritone, and some have argued that it is a satire of racist attitudes. But for modern listeners, it is difficult to hear a white woman sing lyrics like, “Someone had to pick the cotton/Someone had to plant the corn/Someone had to slave and be able to sing/That's why darkies were born.”

Critics have also pointed to “Pickaninny Heaven,” which Smith performed for the 1933 film Hello, Everybody!, according to CNN’s Harmeet Kaur. Smith addresses the song to “a lot of little colored children, who are listening in at an orphanage in New York City,” and croons about a heaven filled with “great big watermelons.”...For the full article see:

Read more: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/philadelphia-flyers-remove-statue-singer-kate-smith-amid-allegations-racism-180972026/#XqhBJeGTEU1dU2Ds.99

My comment at the Smithsonian site:

humura • 3 days ago

Some people hate America and its past. Kate Smith sang a song today's Left condemns as racist, so she is a racist and destroy her statue, her records, her past. The Left is criminal!

One of the "racist songs sung by Kate Smith was also sung by Paul Robeson, the radical who spoke at Snick gatherings in the early 1940s (Southern Negro Youth Congress), and a leader of the 1948 Progressive Party that attacked segregation in the South, and in the late 1930s Robeson co-chaired a Scottsboro Defence Committee in Britain with Johnstone Kenyatta (later, known as Jomo when he led the Mau Mau to end British rule in Kenya). At the time Smith and Robeson sang about the Darkies, one of the most popular radio programs was Amos n Andy. The Left would destroy all of American culture from that era because it is deemed as "racist" by many today. The Left would burn most old books in the libraries, destroy all recordings of radio and TV shows. The Left in America today is like the destructive Communists during Mao's Cultural Revolution.
Restore the statue of Kate Smith and Gen. Robert E. Lee, celebrate America's heritage, and denounce the "hate-America" Left wing that dominates the academedia complex.. - Hugh Murray

IS THE MEXICAN BORDER THE AMERICAN TIENANMEN?

THE HUNDRED-YEAR MARATHON: CHINA'S SECRET STRATEGY TO

REPLACE AMERICA AS THE GLOBAL SUPERPOWER

(New York: St. Martin's Griffin, 2015)

BY MICHAEL PILLSBURY

Rev. by Hugh Murray

Pillsbury has written an informative book about Sino-American relations from his youth in the 1960s up to the copyright date of the 2015 volume. Unfortunately, he fails to raise questions pertinent to his topic, and these I shall discuss later in my review. Because Pillsbury knows Mandarin and is seeped in Chinese culture, he writes about various Chinese texts on strategy, which the Chinese war-hawks often cite, but these ancient writings reveal no more about general strategy than applied by players of games Risk or Diplomacy and which are implicit in regular common sense.

At the outset of Pillsbury's career, he writes: “Throughout Mao's tenure, American intelligence...[generally] viewed the Chinese as a reclusive, almost primitive people being led by a collection of radicals.”(p. 20) It saw China as unable to challenge the Soviet Union, much less the United States.(20-21) Was there a possible split between the S.U. and China in the 1960s? Pillsbury describes the contradictory information coming from Soviet defectors, like Yuri Nosenko, who came to the West in 1964. Interestingly, Pillsbury never mentions how vibrations of that split were already evident in 1962 among the separate groups organizing to attend the World Youth Festival that summer in Helsinki (not just the pro-Westerners, but the pro-Chinese factions distinct from the pro-Moscow ones).

In 1969 while the 24-year-old Pillsbury was working for the UN Secretariat, he also agreed to work as a spy for the US government.(24) Thereafter, he would hold various posts and provide information, analysis, and opinion to American leaders. A Soviet representative at the UN told Pillsbury that “the Soviet Union had essentially built the modern Communist Chinese state,(25) but now China “planned to use the Americans as they had used the Soviets – as tools...while pledging cooperation against a 3^rd rival power.”(27)

Pillsbury contends that it was not Nixon who sought to open up China, but “...the Chinese military secretly designed China's opening to America.”(54) Democratic Sen. Ted Kennedy was also quietly making overtures to Beijing, and Nixon, when told of his Democratic rival's initiative, the President felt pressured to finally plunge ahead with high-level meetings with the Chinese. Nixon also asked the Chinese not to invite any American politician to Beijing before him.(57) Because China was deemed a basket case, Nixon and Ford provided gifts to the Chinese, which were hidden from the American public for over 30 years. These included eliminating aid to the Dalai Lama and canceling naval patrols in the Taiwan Straight.(69) About this time, Pillsbury was advising to increase aid to China and to build Sino-American military ties against the USSR.(69) He writes that the Chinese were trying to use the US against its Soviet rival, but clearly the US was also attempting to use China against the same rival. In these types of agreements, each nation hopes to use the other for its own benefit.

After opening, the US and China cooperated, not only where the US provided China with early warning systems near the Soviet border, and help in nuclear affairs,(73) but in military operations: 1) against the Soviets in then-occupied Afghanistan, 2) in support of the anti-Vietnamese genocidal Communist Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, and 3) against the joint Soviet-Cuban groups fighting in Angola.(72, 74) China, which had felt itself surrounded by an increasingly hostile USSR and its allies, even went to war against Vietnam in 1979, following that nation's long wars with France and the USA. Basically, Pillsbury, and most others, would agree that Chinese-American cooperation helped topple the Soviet Union, the Kremlin crumbling that might not have happened without such joined ventures.

Then, in spring/summer 1989 there were student demonstrations in China. Pillsbury contends that US intelligence at that time greatly misread events in China. American leaders thought that Deng Xiaoping led the reform faction among China's leaders, but Pillsbury now believes this was a critical mistake. The student protests began with the mourning and funeral of a real reformer Hu Yaobang, who died 15 April 1989, These collective gatherings grew in size and spread throughout the nation. In Tienanmen, it became a love fest of the young Chinese for America, with an imitation Statue of Liberty (Goddess of Democracy) in the huge square and ever more people joining the continuing demonstrations. Dan Rather, anchor of the CBS Evening News flew to Beijing's Tienanmen to focus America's attention on the faraway events. While Pillsbury and others usually portray these protests beneath a halo, there were reports at the time that elsewhere in the country the demonstrators were beating Black students studying in China. How widespread was this, I do not know, and it may have been a reaction to special privileges afforded to foreign students by the Communist government. Pillsbury writes that at the time America's China experts tended to dismiss the protests, concerned more that they might cause problems for the “reform” faction led by Deng Xiaoping. Pillsbury later admits one of the great failures of American intelligence was in misunderstanding that the real reformers then were Zhao Ziyang and the late Hu Yaobang, while dominant Deng prepared to throw his weight to lead the anti-reform faction.

Deng and his allies ordered the crackdown. 300,000 troops were ordered to Beijing. Most of us recall the student who stood alone against an advancing tank, halting the military occupation of Tienanmen – for a short time. And then more orders were given, shots were fired, and blood of students flowed through the square, and into the streets nearby, and even up in the neighboring balconies when troops shot up into onlookers. Many regular citizens of Beijing had been killed trying to stop the troops from entering the city. Some were run-over by military vehicles, others shot with bullets meant to expand in the victim and cause more damage, others simply beaten. And many were arrested. This was happening before the army got to Tienanmen.

According to Pillsbury, Deng was horrified that Chinese youths should look to America as a model for China's future. From the early 1970s, when Mao met Nixon, the Chinese had portrayed America favorably. Deng now determined: - that must stop. So, history was suddenly rewritten and the media would popularize the new “view” of the past. Beginning with US President John Tyler and the 1844 Treaty of Wanghia (which gave most favored nation status in tariffs to the US, and which provided extraterritoriality; the treaty would remain in effect until 1943), America sought to follow Britain's imperial path and exploit China. Lincoln, Wilson, on to Truman and beyond, America was out to undermine and exploit China.(104-05) That would be the new outline for presenting the role of the US in China's sphere.

After the crackdown, China hands, and even former Pres. Nixon, urged Pres. George H. W. Bush not to allow the Tienanmen suppression to disrupt the improving relations with the US. Those relations were not disrupted.

Missing from the Pillsbury volume is any discussion of another series of demonstrations that also began in 1989. Outside the St. Nickolas Church in Leipzig, the second largest city of the German Democratic Republic (East Germany), Monday night demos began quite peacefully asking for more democratic reforms and the right to travel. In nearby Hungary (also part of the Soviet bloc), some GDR citizens were allowed to cross into the West without obtaining permission of the GDR authorities. Dissatisfaction and protests were growing. GDR leader Erich Honecker asked Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev to crack down. Instead, he demanded a softer approach, more in line with the Perestroika then unfolding in the USSR. Soon, he removed Honecker, and Egon Krenz was installed as the new leader of the GDR. Protests grew in size, and spread to the capital, East Berlin. But Leipzig remained the hub of the trouble. Special troops were called up to meet the crisis. What would they do? A repeat of the suppression in Germany that occurred in 1953? Would the authorities have the courage to do as the tanks in Tienanmen did to restore order, even if it meant mass killings? In the end, they did not fire on the crowds. The government sought to ease the situation by transmitting that the border would be open; but what did this mean, was the government really opening the wall? All was confused with masses suddenly gathering at Brandenburg Gate, and then, actually passing through the GDR barriers into West Berlin. The wall was eroding, and with it, the GDR. By 1991 the GDR had ceased to exist, and so had the USSR. If the troops had not brutally shot and killed and later imprisoned the protestors in Tienanmen and round that nation, would the People's Republic of China still exist? Pillsbury fails to ask this essential question.

So soon after the Chinese Communist Party reasserted its physical authority in China, rounding up reformers, keeping some reform leaders under house arrest for years, and for the small fry, prison, and possibly worse. The education/propaganda machine now portrayed America as an enemy of China's natural aspirations. And a most crucial point – the glue that held the Sino-American cooperation together, the fear of the mighty USSR, was removed with the disintegration of that Communist creation. Pillsbury maintains that while the China hands and experts in America continued to think that the cooperation would continue as before, the Chinese, freed from any renewed threat of Soviet encirclement, could now aim to grow and surpass the US, so that China could become the world's dominant power by 2049. But China would not show its true hand until ready, until sure it could defeat the Americans. Until then, it would play the part of the backward nation that required scientific, technical, and other assistance. And to win this assistance, China would continue to pretend to be moving toward democracy, toward a free market economy, while it announced its peaceful intentions to all other nations. To achieve these fine, acceptable goals, China might require America's help, in gaining admission to the World Trade Organization, and in dealings with the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. Thus, China needed America's help on these issues so it could continue progress toward a democratic and free-market economy, which would improve the standard of living for the average Chinese and make for a more peaceful world. So, American experts did indeed help China achieve WTO membership, which made China eligible for loans from the World Bank and the IMF. Experts from Goldman Sachs and other firms provided vital information to Chinese officials so they could present papers to international bodies promising to act like any other nation in international trade and finance. The Chinese were delighted to receive the memberships, but they had no intention of abiding by the terms of these treaties. Other Western experts were advising the Chinese on how to reform China's banks, so they could infuse funds into the stumbling state owned enterprises (SOEs), trimming them, making them financially muscular, rebuilding old state corporations and promoting new, promising ones.

However, there were also signs that China was testing a new policy with the US. In the wars that accompanied the break-up of Yugoslavia, the US, in alliance with Western Europe, sided with the opponents of Serbia. America flew planes in to bomb Serbian targets. On one mission, the night of 7 May 1999, apparently by mistake, US aircraft bombed the Chinese Embassy in the Serbian capital of Belgrade, killing 3 and injuring 20. The US quickly apologized. However, this was insufficient for the CCP nationalists and hawks. Massive demonstrations outside the American Embassy in Beijing basically entrapped the Ambassador in part of the enclave. Phone calls for help, both from the Embassy and from the US to authorities in Beijing were essentially evaded or ignored. At this point, no large demonstrations could occur in Beijing without the tacit support of the regime, especially when goaded to do so by the Chinese media to rouse the crowds. Deng had already begun the de-emphasis on Marx and the promotion of patriotism and nationalism; now he could combine that in an open way to test the reaction of the Americans to see how or if the superpower would respond to the humiliation of its Ambassador. The new China policy was not afraid to annoy or threaten the prestige of the USA.

Pillsbury contends that China's Marathon depends on the good-will of the US.(115) But China was now assuming it could retain that good-will even while holding the American Ambassador as a hostage. How would China keep good-will in America, and indeed throughout the world? In 2004 the Confucius Institute was created by CCP front groups. Like the British Council, and the Goethe Institute, the Confucius Institute's purpose is to make the homeland look good to the rest of the world. It would stress the pacific nature of Confucius, of Chinese culture and the Chinese nation. Pillsbury writes that it may also provide cover for “industrial and military espionage.”(125) The Confucius Institute will sign contracts with universities, and even high schools, to provide teachers of Mandarin and Chinese culture. But part of the agreements, - there can be no hostile research or discussion of Tienanmen, Tibet, or an independent Taiwan. A university with a Confucius Institute that allows a department to invite the Dalai Lama to lecture may find its funding cut. What most Westerners would deem “objective” research in “sensitive” areas is discouraged or rejected.

The Chinese can use the financial lever because of the enormous growth of the Chinese economy, and Pillsbury maintains the US is largely responsible for the Chinese economic miracle.(159) How can he assert this? The economy under Mao was a disaster, and Pillsbury relates that from 1958-61 some 30 million died of famine.(162) He provides no figure on how many were killed during the Cultural Revolution and other Maoist “reforms,” but under Mao's communism, consumerism was clearly another casualty. After Mao's death and the ensuing struggle for power with the Gang of 4 and others, Deng surfaced as the most powerful leader inside the CCP. He was determined to change the economic policies that he was convinced had held China back. Marx and the other saints of Communism would still be honored, but China would now aim for socialism with Chinese characteristics. And what did that mean precisely? The collapse of the Soviet Union witnessed a rush by the government to sell off the huge state operating enterprises (SOEs), operations that were usually heavy on bureaucracy and weak on producing quality goods. These dinosaurs were quickly bought by men with insider information, insider contacts, and skill who soon became known as the new Russian oligarchs. Should China follow the same path? Some suggested that this would be the fastest way to become a capitalist, free market economy, and China would then be prosperous. But Deng listened to alternative proposals. Some suggested that the CCP should rebuild, modernize, and innovate the old dinosaur SOEs. If this could be done, at least with some SOEs, then they could be subsidized by the state and Party in many ways. State banks could force mergers of stronger and weaker state corporations, force very weak ones into bankruptcy, aid others with tax incentives, with curbs to diminish and destroy foreign competition in the home market using ever more stringent regulations against the foreign companies; harassment. The objective of the CCP using these methods was for the dinosaurs to evolve into national champions, SOEs and new CCP-government favored corporations capable of competing with any foreign corporation. Pillsbury notes that in the 1960s, the only internationally known Chinese brand was Tsingtao Beer. Today, Huawei is only one of the most famous in the news.

Pillsbury presents a graphic example of how China's new wealth, accumulated in part by cheating, has influenced the globe. In the 2013 film “Gravity,” with Sandra Bullock, the star faces death in space because the Russians have, without any notification, blown up a satellite, and the fragments spinning through space, endanger anything in neighboring orbits including Bullock.(198) The film is fiction. The Russians had not exploded a satellite on purpose; but the Chinese had! And for the American film to gain access to the huge Chinese market, the film executives knew it had better not blame the villainy in the script on China. So they decided to assign that role to the Russians instead. Thus, the Russians became the bad guys. Money talks. And because of America's trade and other policies with China, that nation has gained lots of money

.

The People's Republic of China has used its newly acquired wealth to pressure nations to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan, as the PRC does not view the island as an independent nation but only a rogue breakaway province that must be returned to the mainland. It should be stressed that for over a century, Taiwan has been connected to Beijing for at most 5 years, and probably less. In 1895, as a result of the First Sino-Japanese War, Japan took the island calling it Formosa, and it remained Japanese until the end of WWII, 1945. It was then given to the officially recognized government of China, led by Nationalist leader Chiang Kai-Shek. As his forces lost to the Communists on the mainland, Chiang had to evacuate his troops to the island where he continued as head of the Republic of China, recognized by the US and some other nations until the 1970s. Mao's government had no power over Taiwan, though the PRC claimed it. When the US finally recognized the PRC as the official government of China, it then recognized Taiwan as a separate Chinese entity, as did many other nations allied with the US.

In recent years, China uses it wealth to pressure smaller nations to cut ties with Taiwan. If they want Chinese investment, Chinese help in building roads, infrastructure, then they should rid their capitals of any Taiwan embassy. So, some African and Latin American nations have severed diplomatic relations with the island, tending to isolate it from the international community. The mainland has been offering both the carrot and stick to Taiwan, itself. Taiwanese were allowed to invest in mainland areas, hiring large numbers of mainland workers at low wages, and producing products for the international market. Firms like Foxconn built huge factories on the mainland with conditions so oppressive that nets had to be installed below workers' dormitory windows to reduce the suicide rate. Taiwanese business men have done well in the PRC. And the CCP has invested in Taiwan, not so much in factories, but in politicians. While some politicians speak of declaring Taiwan an independent nation, others openly promote reunion with the mainland. But the PRC policy is not all carrots. Thus 1 April 2019 ABC New reported: “ Taiwan said Monday its planes warned off Chinese military aircraft that crossed the center line in the Taiwan Strait, and called China's move a provocation that seeks to alter the status quo...”

It was not only in Taiwanese politicians that the PRC was investing. In the 1996 Presidential campaign the Chinese indirectly funneled money to the campaign of then Pres. Bill Clinton. When the GOP sought to investigate, the pro-Democratic major media discounted Sen. Fred Thompson's efforts, but the Democratic National Committee would eventually be required to return $2.8 million in illegal and improper contributions from foreign nationals – some with connections to the Chinese military.(National Review, John Fund's piece, 16 July 2017). Pillsbury notes that the Chinese were caught paying into Democratic coffers in the 2000 Presidential campaign.(121) Since it was the Democrats, there was no years'-long investigation of collusion by a Mueller-type Special Counsel. We now know that the husband of Senator Diane Feinstein (Dem.-Cal.) won lucrative deals with Beijing, while she often voted for improved relations with the PRC. From 2009-2017 she chaired the Senate Committee on Intelligence, and was an important member of the committee even when the Democrats were not the majority. And at the time of the hearings for the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh for the US Supreme Court before the Judiciary Committee, on which Feinstein is the leading Democrat, it was revealed that Feinstein's chauffeur of over 2 decades was a spy for the Chinese Communists.

Pillsbury notes that a Chinese spy inside the CIA was convicted in 1985, but he had been plying his trade since 1945.(p. 53) This is one of the weaknesses of Pillsbury's book. He writes that for most of his time working for the US government, he was a “panda huger,” sympathetic to the PRC and urging cooperation and aid to that nation. Their operatives described him as part of the Red Team. But by around 2000, he questioned his former positions. He was becoming a panda slugger. However, aside from a sentence about a Chinese spy in the CIA going back to 1945, Pillsbury ignores the earlier Red Teams in the US government, ones that were probably far more influential in promoting Chinese Communism and in changing the world. The pro-Red Teams long preceded Nixon and the opening of China. They were in place during WWII.

WWII began in Asia with the 2^nd Sino-Japanese War, an escalation of an incident on the Marco Polo Bridge between Chinese and Japanese soldiers just outside of Beijing on 7 July 1937. The Japanese pressed south, taking Shanghai, and then Chiang's capital, Nanjing. The Imperial forces were so brutal it was called “the rape of Nanking.” By December 1941 Chiang had retreated to a capital in the south west, Chungking (Chongqing). Manchukuo had been carved from several provinces of China that had been home to the minority Manchus. The Japanese satellite nation was established in the early 1930s and headed by Pu Yi, a Manchu, and the last emperor of China. By 1941 most of the northern and central coast of China had been conquered by the Japanese. Mao and his Communists had been thrust from the Nationalist coalition government in the 1920s, and after a long march, were located closer to the Mongolian border (with possible help coming from the USSR). After several years of retreat, Wang Jingwei and others who had been close to Dr. Sun Yat Sen (he had led the rebellion that overthrew the Chinese dynasty in 1911), decided the best role for the Nationalists was to stop the war, and join as junior partners with Japan. He left Chungking, flew to Hanoi, and thence to Japanese occupied areas. He would lead a Nationalist collaborationist government, which had 600,000 troops in its military, and under which many more Chinese lived than under Chiang's anti-Japanese Nationalist government, or in the small areas under Mao.

In summer 1939 the USSR and Japan had a short, undeclared war near the borders of their satellites – (Soviet) Mongolia vs. (Japanese) Manchukuo. The Japanese lost badly. But the 2 nations wanted peace so they could test their warriors elsewhere. The USSR was one of the few nations to recognize Manchukuo. And after June 1941 when Hitler invaded, Stalin had little time to aid Mao. Chiang hoped for American aid after Pearl Harbor. But his Nationalist forces were isolated. All the coast that was not Japanese, was Japanese waters. Indo-China was Vichy French, working with the Japanese, Thailand was soon a Japanese ally, as was Burma. Only by flights over the hump of Tibet with supplies from British India, or through the vulnerable Burma road, could Chiang get supplies. American advisor, General “Vinegar” Joe Stilwell treated Chiang as a “peanut,” the nickname he used to mock the Chinese leader. Stilwell also abused Nationalist China, treating it as a satellite rather than as an ally.

Initially, the media were sympathetic to Chiang, but as the war went on, his image changed. As did the image of Joseph Stalin. FDR's Administration asked Hollywood for films to portray the Soviets in a favorable light. One such film, “Mission to Moscow,” was dubbed by those who knew better as “Submission to Moscow.” In some segments of the media, Chiang was now seen as corrupt, unwilling to fight the Japanese, while the agrarian reformers under Mao Zedong seemed idealists and determined to oppose the Japanese invaders. Washington began to press for a coalition government, of Nationalist and Communist to oppose both the Japs and Wang's collaborationist Nationalism. Chiang kept finding ways to reject these proposals.

Washington desperately wanted the Soviets to enter the war against Japan. Stalin promised to do so 3 months after the end of the war in Europe. Invasion of the Japanese home island might cost 2 million lives. The Japanese were ready to surrender and asked the Soviets to convey that message to the Americans. However, Stalin did not want the war to end until he could enter and receive the goodies Roosevelt had promised him. Stalin did not relay the Japanese message about surrender. Three months after the Nazis surrendered, the US dropped A-bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, AND the Soviets entered the war, easily sweeping through Manchukuo (where much of China's industrial belt was located, and which was denuded of Japanese troops as they were still occupying vast territories). Japan sued for peace. Almost by chance, the Soviets and Americans were to share the Korean peninsula, divided about half for each. For one week's war, the Soviet's did extremely well.

The Soviets prevented the Chiang government soldiers from quickly occupying Manchuria. The Soviets took as much of the industrial hardware as it could, but what to do with the left-over Japanese weapons? Should these go to the official government of China led by Chiang? Chiang did make mistakes. He tended to treat many of those who lived under the occupation government as traitors. But soon there was fighting between Nationalists and Communists.

The civil war continued. When Chiang was finally getting the upper hand by the spring of 1946. American General George Marshall, a good friend of Gen. Stilwell, came to arrange for a cease fire between the conflicting camps. The cease fire halted Chiang's offensive. Meanwhile, the Japanese weapons confiscated by the Soviets were given to the Chinese Communists. For Chiang to receive weapons from the Americans, Marshall demanded that he bring the Communists into his government. Chiang refused. So while Mao was being supplied with Japanese weapons seized by the Soviets, Chiang was denied weapons by the Americans. Then, for some bewildering reason, events on the battlefield began to change. Chiang's Nationalists began to lose, and lose. With the election in the US of the heavily Republican 80^th Congress in November, it voted a large sum to help Chiang, but the Treasury Department included those sympathetic to the Communist cause like Harry Dexter White, who sabotaged these funds. The war kept getting worse for Chiang. When finally the Americans decided to restore military aid to Chiang, rifles would be received, but no bullets, and other means of cripple his efforts. Meanwhile, secrets from the State Department were published in a left-wing Asian journal. The Deep State had employed many whose sympathies and actions favored the communist cause. Eventually, Chiang had to flee to Taiwan to survive. And in October 1949 Mao in Beijing declared victory and the establishment of the PRC, Would he have been able to do so without the help of Stalin and the pro-communist elements in the US? When Republicans asked, “Who lost China?” there was more to this question than liberals cared to admit. The elite of both parties still decry McCarthyism and believe he was rightly censured by the US Senate. But McCarthy alleged there were Red Teams in the US government, Teams that were far more influential than the FDR crowd and its successors (the academedia complex) would ever admit.

While Pillsbury mentions the Korean War on a few pages of his book, he never tries to relate the antics of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea to Chinese-American relations. Clearly, there were and are links between North Korea and the PRC. As Gen. MacArthur's UN troops approached the Yalu River, wiping the DPRK off the map, the PRC responded with masses of “volunteers” whose numbers overwhelmed the American-led armies. MacArthur was surprised by the Chinese intervention, and wanted to use nuclear bombs. Truman knew the UN, under whose flag we were fighting, would never agree. And Truman undoubtedly thought it a bad idea or he might have done it. So the UN troops fell back and the war continued with no sign of victory for either side. Truman's unwinnable war was one reason Republican Dwight Eisenhower ended a 20 year drought and brought the GOP back to the White House in 1952. He had promised to end the war, and a cease fire was concluded (though, still no peace treaty).

What is the relation between North Korea and China today? When North Korea does something the US dislikes, the US may ask for diplomatic help from the PRC. If China does intervene on behalf of the American request, what does China get in return from the US. Might China ever goad North Korea to do something it knows will upset Washington in order to gain a concession? But if China is not involved at the time, and American diplomats come for help because of some outrageous act by North Korea, China can plead impotence, or refer the US to another nation bordering the DPRK, the USSR (or later Russia). China-Korea can play a low-level extortion game with the US. What is Pillsbury view of this? He never alludes to it in his book.

Finally, one of the many disasters of the Obama Administration was to allow the PRC to build up tiny islands in the South China Sea, and then militarize them. The Chinese claims to the area were denied by the International Court in the Hague, but the new aggressive Chinese leadership cares nothing for such court rulings. Instead, it proclaims it has old maps showing the waters were once Chinese. Of course, it might also have maps laying claim to Siberia, but this is not the time to dust those off. The Chinese military presence in the South China Sea is a threat to Vietnam, Taiwan, Philippines, Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, and indirectly, Singapore. It is also a threat to all shipping nations. By taking such a surprise and powerful stand, and with no real opposition from Obama's appeasing White House, China shows it is aiming for bigger things, just as Pillsbury has written.

Pillsbury contends that the Chinese Communist leadership plans to become the dominant world power by 2049, the anniversary of Mao's victory in their civil war. Mao came to power with the help of the Soviets, AND with help from American Communist sympathizers in high-level posts, who may have given bad advice to some non-Communists like Gen. Marshall. The result was to effectively disarm Chiang Kai Shek and allow Mao's forces to defeat him. Within a year, Mao was strong enough militarily to snatch victory from the US in Korea. However, Mao's internal economic “reforms” set China back 30 years, in Deng's view. Many millions starved, and then thousands or millions were killed. The military pushed for an opening with the USA which occurred under Nixon. China, fearing encirclement by the Soviets, and the US, still in a Cold War against the Soviets, had a common foe in Moscow. The US and China worked together in Afghanistan, Angola, and Cambodia. But beginning in 1989 with protests, nations took different paths. The Soviet East Bloc chose not to crack down, and their systems collapsed. The Chinese under Deng did crack down and determined that never again would Chinese youths look to America for inspiration. Chinese history was rewritten, making America into just another imperialist nation intent on distorting and exploiting Chinese aspirations. China would pretend to be moving to democracy and a free-market economy, while building SOEs into national champion industries in a mercantilist trade system of cheating and stealing.

China had altered the result of the Korean “police action” in 1950. It won a short war with India in 1962, and an undeclared one with the Soviets in 1969. A decade later it had another one with Vietnam. Now it tries to isolate, strangle, and bribe Taiwan. Its new presence in the South China Sea makes it the bully of the neighborhood. Pillsbury writes that the US is still aiding the Chinese.(216) Whether this is true under Trump, is questionable. Pres. Trump has surely sought to shed the image (and reality) of Obamappeasement. Pillsbury makes a strong case that the US is now in a competitive race with China for world leadership, and that the freedoms we take for granted in the West may disappear in a “harmonized” world under Chinese leadership. Most Westerners still reject the harmony of the ant hill, preferring instead to retain the freedom, to fall or soar, instead.

There is another point, not directly related to China but to the competition Pillsbury describes between China and the US in the Middle Kingdom's marathon of the century. When protests rose in Eastern Europe in 1989 and the GDR leader asked Gorbachev to crack down, the Soviet leader declined. He wanted a softer approach, and more reform. The crowds in Germany grew, as did tensions. The troops were there with weapons. But they did not fire. The TV indicated the government would open the border. Masses went to the border points in Berlin, and they were permitted to leave the GDR for West Berlin! Suddenly, everything was in flux. In two years, the GDR ceased to exist; and so had the USSR. Somewhat earlier in 1989, in Tienanmen Square, growing masses of demonstrators demanded a more democratic China, symbolized by the students' version of the Statue of Liberty. Days went by, with the demonstrators growing in number. Finally the CCP leadership decided to end it. Like the GDR, where guards for the wall in Berlin were usually Saxons, not natives Berliners, Deng brought in Chinese troops from outside Beijing to shoot to kill those protesting against the nation's Communist leadership. And the crack-down continued, so that even today discussion of Tienanmen is blocked on the Chinese internet. Deng was brutal, but the CCP is still in power 30 years after Tienanmen.

These incidents have a relation to the US. In February 2019 some 75,000 invaders entered the US through the southern border with Mexico, and it's forecast that the number in March will be 100,000. Millions are already here. “Experts” on mainstream media announce that really nothing can be done to stop this. However, in the 1950s under President Eisenhower, Operation Wetback rounded up about a million illegals and deported them back over the border. (Now, with left-wing gatekeepers of language, we are no longer supposed to even use the word wetback.) America has laws on the books to apprehend and deport illegal entrants, yet whole cities, usually run by Democrats, openly announce their defiance of the law under the term “sanctuary” cities. Lawless cities would be more appropriate. Pres. Trump, whose signature issue was stopping illegal immigration – an issue that led him to victory over a dozen professional politicians in the primaries for the Republican nomination, and then led Trump to carry some blue-collar states to win the 2016 Presidential election over Hillary Clinton. He still orates against the invaders, but whenever he tries to build a wall or make it more difficult to enter, Trump is handcuffed, either by liberal judges, by Congress, or by the bureaucracy.

I ask, how will a wall stop the invaders when all they have to do is utter a few words and they will be home in the US where they will receive free schooling, welfare, healthcare, and other economic incentives. We live in a nation under stress: one major party supports open invasion of the nation. And some of the Republicans are just as bad. Even going back to the 1990s and the era of Pres. Bill Clinton, he gave a speech and announced that by the year 2050 whites would be a minority in the United States, and the audience applauded and cheered. Can you imagine Xi Jinping announcing that in 50 years the Han people will be a minority in China, and the Chinese cheer? Inconceivable! Or Prime Minister Modi making a similar comment about Indians being reduced to a minority in India. No Indian would cheer such an announcement.

To prevent an invasion of people who speak a foreign language with foreign customs, entering our country to take from the wealth of American citizens, a wall may help, but it is not sufficient. Those who say the caravans cannot be stopped are warped in their thinking (and some support the invasion). How do you stop an invasion? You use armed troops, border patrols, or regular army, or create a special force. They should have electronic speakers to make simple announcements in English first, and then Spanish. “This is the border. This is no entry point. If you want a visa, get it in the American Embassy in the capital city of your country. If you try to enter, you will not be permitted in. If you try to cross the border here, you may be shot.” If they ignore the announcement, first, shoot in the air. If they continue coming, shoot to stop or kill. It is probable few would need to be shot before the mob turns around and runs the other way. Do not interfere with the leftwing media as it films any killings. It will show to the world that America is determined to preserve itself and its borders. If only one invader is killed, the caravans would soon turn south to their points of origins. Those who hate America would hate it even more. Those who love America, will be grateful to know that the invasion has been halted by our government and American can continue to exist. Indeed, America could be great again.

If people are not willing to fight for their country, it will go under. But it is insufficient just to fight. When invaders try to cross the border, the defenders must be willing to shoot and kill. That way a nation survives and can continue to thrive. The invasion today is our Tienanmen, our Leipzig. The Germans learned the lesson: no border, no country. Will we have the courage to defend our borders and save our way of life? Even if we have to kill to do so? If we fail to stop the flood of invaders, America will soon join the Soviet Union in history's dustbin.