John Simkin
-
Posts
15,705 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by John Simkin
-
-
Richard Russell was LBJ's closest friend in Congress. After the assassination he spoke more to Russell than anyone else. Here is an extract from the telephone conversation that took place at 8.55 p.m on 29th November, 1963.
Richard Russell: I know I don't have to tell you of my devotion to you but I just can't serve on that Commission. I'm highly honoured you'd think about me in connection with it but I couldn't serve on it with Chief Justice Warren. I don't like that man. I don't have any confidence in him at all.
Lyndon B. Johnson: It has already been announced and you can serve with anybody for the good of America and this is a question that has a good many more ramifications than on the surface and we've got to take this out of the arena where they're testifying that Khrushchev and Castro did this and did that and chuck us into a war that can kill 40 million Americans in an hour....
Richard Russell: I still feel it sort of getting wrapped up...
Lyndon B. Johnson: Dick... do you remember when you met me at the Carlton Hotel in 1952? When we had breakfast there one morning.
Richard Russell: Yes I think so.
Lyndon B. Johnson: All right. Do you think I'm kidding you?
Richard Russell: No... I don't think your kidding me, but I think... well, I'm not going to say anymore, Mr. President... I'm at your command... and I'll do anything you want me to do....
Lyndon B. Johnson: Warren told me he wouldn't do it under any circumstances... I called him and ordered him down here and told me no twice and I just pulled out what Hoover told me about a little incident in Mexico City and I say now, I don't want Mr. Khrushchev to be told tomorrow (censored) and be testifying before a camera that he killed this fellow and that Castro killed him... And he started crying and said, well I won't turn you down... I'll do whatever you say.
-
I thought history teachers might be able to make use of this passage of George Catlin's book, Illustrations of the Manners, Customs, and Conditions of the North American Indians (1848).
On an occasion when I had interrogated a Sioux chief, on the Upper Missouri, about their Government - their punishments and tortures of prisoners, for which I had freely condemned them for the cruelty of the practice, he took occasion when I had got through, to ask me some questions relative to modes in the civilized world, which, with his comments upon them, were nearly as follow; and struck me, as I think they must every one, with great force.
"Among white people, nobody ever take your wife - take your children - take your mother, cut off nose - cut eyes out - burn to death?" No! "Then you no cut off nose - you no cut out eyes - you no burn to death - very good."
He also told me he had often heard that white people hung their criminals by the neck and choked them to death like dogs, and those their own people; to which I answered, "yes." He then told me he had learned that they shut each other up in prisons, where they keep them a great part of their lives because they can't pay money! I replied in the affirmative to this, which occasioned great surprise and excessive laughter, even amongst the women. He told me that he had been to our Fort, at Council Bluffs, where we had a great many warriors and braves, and he saw three of them taken out on the prairie and tied to a post and whipped almost to death, and he had been told that they submit to all this to get a little money, "yes." He said he had been told, that when all the white people were born, their white medicine-men had to stand by and look on - that in the Indian country the women would not allow that - they would be ashamed - that he had been along the Frontier, and a good deal amongst the white people, and he had seen them whip their little children - a thing that is very cruel - he had heard also, from several white medicine-men, that the Great Spirit of the white people was the child of a white woman, and that he was at last put to death by the white people! This seemed to be a thing that he had not been able to comprehend, and he concluded by saying, "the Indians' Great Spirit got no mother - the Indians no kill him, he never die." He put me a chapter of other questions, as to the trespass of the white people on their lands their continual corruption of the morals of their women - and digging open the Indians' graves to get their bones, etc. To all of which I was compelled to reply in the affirmative, and quite glad to close my notebook, and quietly to escape from the throng that had collected around me, and saying (though to myself and silently), that these and an hundred other vices belong to the civilized world, and are practiced upon (but certainly, in no instance, reciprocated by) the "cruel and relentless savage."
-
Chief Joseph of the Nez Percé tribe was one of the outstanding figures of 19th century America. He wrote an article in 1879 that is still worth reading. For futher details about Chief Joseph see:
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/WWjoseph.htm
Chief Joseph, An Indian's Views of Indian Affairs, North American Review (April, 1879)
My friends, I have been asked to show you my heart. I am glad to have a chance to do so. I want the white people to understand my people. Some of you think an Indian is like a wild animal. This is a great mistake. I will tell you all about our people, and then you can judge whether an Indian is a man or not. I believe much trouble and blood would be saved if we opened our hearts more. I will tell you in my way how the Indian sees things. The white man has more words to tell you how they look to him, but it does not require many words to speak the truth. What I have to say will come from my heart, and I will speak with a straight tongue. Ah-cum-kin-i-ma-me-hut (the Great Spirit) is looking at me, and will hear
me.
My name is In-mut-too-yah-lat-lat (Thunder traveling over the Mountains). I am chief of the Wal-lam-wat-kin band of Chute-pa-lu, or Nez Perces (nose-pierced Indians). I was born in eastern Oregon, thirty-eight winters ago. My father was chief before me. When a young man, he was called Joseph by Mr. Spaulding, a missionary. He died a few years ago. There was no stain on his hands of the blood of a white man. He left a good name on the earth. He advised me well for my people.
Our fathers gave us many laws, which they had learned from their fathers. These laws were good. They told us to treat all men as they treated us; that we should never be the first to break a bargain; that it was a disgrace to tell a lie; that we should speak only the truth; that it was a shame for one man to take from another his wife, or his property without paying for it. We were taught to believe that the Great Spirit sees and hears everything, and that he never forgets; that hereafter he will give every man a spirit-home according to his deserts: if he has been a good man, he will have a good home; if he has been a bad man, he will have a bad home. This I believe, and all my people believe the same.
The first white men of your people who came to our country were named Lewis and Clarke. They also brought many things that our people had never seen. They talked straight, and our people gave them a great feast, as a proof that their hearts were friendly. These men were very kind. They made presents to our chiefs and our people made presents to them. We had a great many horses, of which we gave them what they needed, and they gave us guns and tobacco in return. All the Nez Perces made friends with Lewis and Clarke, and agreed to let them pass through their country, and never to make war on white men. This promise the Nez Perces have never broken...
For a short time we lived quietly. But this could not last. White men had found gold in the mountains around the land of winding water. They stole a great many horses from us, and we could not get them back because we were Indians. The white men told lies for each other. They drove off a great many of our cattle. Some white men branded our young cattle so they could claim them. We had no friend who would plead our cause before the law councils. It seemed to me that some of the white men in Wallowa were doing these things on purpose to get up a war. They knew that we were not strong enough to fight them. I labored hard to avoid trouble and bloodshed. We gave up some of our country to the
white men, thinking that then we could have peace. We were mistaken. The white man would not let us alone. We could have avenged our wrongs many times, but we did not. Whenever the Government has asked us to help them against other Indians, we have never refused. When the white men were few and we were strong we could have killed them all off, but the Nez Perces wished to live at peace...
I know that my race must change. We can not hold our own with the white men as we are. We only ask an even chance to live as other men live. We ask to be recognized as men. We ask that the same law shall work alike on all men. If the Indian breaks the law, punish him by the law. If the white man breaks the law, punish him also.
Let me be a free man - free to travel, free to stop, free to work, free to trade where I choose, free to choose my own teachers, free to follow the religion of my fathers, free to think and talk and act for myself - and I will obey every law, or submit to the penalty.
Whenever the white man treats the Indian as they treat each other, then we will have no more wars. We shall all be alike - brothers of one father and one mother, with one sky above us and one country around us, and one government for all. Then the Great Spirit Chief who rules above will smile upon this land, and send rain to wash out the bloody spots made by brothers' hands from the face of the earth. . . .
-
I have just come across this passage from Fanny Stenhouse's book, A Lady's Life Among the Mormons (1872).
I thought it might be useful when studying the family.
Soon after my arrival in Salt Lake City, I visited a family where there were five wives, three of whom I met on my first visit. They were all three intelligent women; but it pained me very much to see the sorrow depicted on the face of the first wife. She appeared to me to be suffering intensely while I was there; for the last wife, who seemed to be a thoughtless, lively girl, was jesting with her husband, toying with his hair, and fussing with him in general, in a manner which I felt at the time was quite out of place, even had she been his only wife. Under the circumstances, it was to me terribly offensive; and I felt that, if I had been the first wife, I should have annihilated her, could I have done so.
My sympathies then were all with the first wife. In fact, they have been always so, to a very great extent. But I also feel deeply for young girls, who contract such marriages from a sincere conviction that they are doing what is right, and what will be most pleasing in the sight of God. Then there are women who ignore religion, and every thing else, in the matter; all they think about is getting the man they want. These women are devoid of principle, and invariably cause trouble.
My whole soul was drawn out toward the lady whom I have just mentioned, when I saw how deeply she was suffering. I felt as it I wanted to throw my arms around her and speak words of comfort, if one in misery could console another; and resolved to become better acquainted with her. I did so, and we became very friendly. She told me of her sorrows. She thought it was very wicked of her to feel as she did, but she could not help it; and she told me that when she saw her husband so happy with the other wives, it was then that she felt most miserable, and could not hide her feelings from him. At those times, he would "sulk" with her, coming in and out of the house for days together without noticing her, and showing more than ever his fondness for the other one. She said, "I bear it as long as I can, and then I beg of him not to treat me so, as I can not live without his love."
I asked her how she could continue to love him when he treated her so?
"Oh Mrs. Stenhouse!" she said, "when he treats me at all kindly, I am satisfied. When he smiles on me, I am only too happy. When I cease to love him, then I must be dead; and even then," she added, "I think I should love him still!"
-
An extract from Ted Wragg’s article on Foundation Stage Profiles.
It is not often that I feel like celebrating something by doing cartwheels along the central reservation of a motorway, while singing the rudest song I can think of, but the publication of the Ofsted report giving a monumental pasting to the 117-item foundation stage profile was one such moment.
In a Guardian article in October 2002, I wrote a strong protest about the introduction of the wretched thing. It had no effect whatsoever. Reception class teachers must now assess children on 13 scales, each with nine different statements: 117 judgments. These labels are being assigned to four- and five-year-old beginners: for a class of 30 a grand total of 3,510 assessments each term.
Many of the tickboxes are ludicrous. Some are brainlessly vague, such as "maintains attention and concentrates" (on what, for goodness sake - setting fire to the wendy house?). The item "reads books of own choice with some fluency and accuracy" fails to distinguish between Little Twinky and War and Peace, while "uses everyday words to describe position" presumably earns a tick for both "'ere" and "45 degrees east north-east of Samarkand".
How on earth is one supposed to make a proper judgment on whether a four- or five-year-old child "has a developing respect for his or her own culture and beliefs and those of other people"? Reception-class teachers are supposed to go through all these ridiculous labels with parents. I wonder if anyone has yet dared tell a parent they weren't able to tick the "understands what is right, what is wrong and why" box. Are you suggesting my child is a psychopath? Well pick your choppers out of that, sunshine. Thwack.
The prize for gormless complexity goes to the following box, under "creative development". I swear I have not made it up. "Expresses feelings and preferences in response to artwork, drama and music and makes some comparisons and links betweendifferent pieces. Responds to own work and that of others when exploring and communicating ideas, feelings and preferences throughout art, music, dance, role-play and imaginative play." Er . . . yes, give him a tick. Hold on . . . maybe no. Too undiscriminating on tambourine technique and lack of empathy when pretending to be a potted plant.
In any sane society these dreadful 117 tickboxes would have been tipped on to the nearest dungheap where they belong. The very thought of administering them to every four- and five-year-old in the land would have been too stupid to contemplate. I finished my 2002 Guardian piece by saying we should not label children so young, nor bury teachers under a totally unnecessary bureaucratic avalanche. But we did, and now an Ofsted report has blasted the miserable instrument for all the reasons that were predicted.
http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/co...1228437,00.html
-
Over the last few weeks people throughout the world have been looking at photographs of American soldiers abusing Iraqi prisoners. The Americans have rightly been criticised for these obscene acts and some soldiers have already been punished for their crimes.
Little has been heard about the crimes committed by British soldiers. For example, in May, 2003, Gary Bartlam, a member of the 1st Battalion of the Royal Fusiliers, was detained by Warwickshire police when the film he took to be developed revealed images of British soldiers engaged in torture. According to the woman who took these pictures to the police, they were remarkably similar to those taken in Abu Ghraib. We have yet to hear if the people responsible for these acts of torture will be prosecuted.
As Kamil Mahdi from the University of Exeter has pointed out:
Despite the growing list of murder cases and a continuing stream of evidence of torture, the government's position remains one of obstinate denial. Tony Blair's preferred response is to say that a few troops have been engaged in "unacceptable" and individual acts of indiscipline.
No British troops have been punished and, despite a year of evidence, no British soldiers have been named by the military apart from Colonel Tim Collins - who was cleared of charges of war crimes by a British Army investigation.
In Britain, no report equivalent to that of General Taguba of the US has been made available, and investigations are conducted in secrecy, if at all. There have been no hearings in which parliamentary or other committees question publicly and government and military officials.
Nor has parliament been given a private viewing of gruesome photographs of sadistic acts by British troops against their Iraqi charges. The suspect photographs published by the Daily Mirror have been used to discredit all other evidence.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,...1228581,00.html
-
I note that Niall Ferguson, professor of history at New York University, has a new television series starting on Saturday called Colossus: the Rise and Fall of the American Empire. There is also a book of the series.
According to one review: "The United States today is an empire - but a peculiar kind of empire", writes Niall Ferguson in Colossus: the Rise and Fall of the American Empire. Despite overwhelming military, economic and cultural dominance, the US has had a difficult time imposing its will on other nations, mostly because the country is uncomfortable with imperialism and thus unable to use this power most effectively and decisively. The origin of this attitude and its persistence is a principal theme of this thought-provoking book, including how domestic politics affects foreign policy, whether it is politicians worried about the next election or citizens who "like Social Security more than national security".
It seems that the right-wing Ferguson has no problem with the term “American Imperialism”. However, he takes the view that American Imperialism is a force of good. He argues: “Many parts of the world would benefit from a period of American rule” (in the same way that many countries benefited from British rule in the 19th century).
Ferguson has recently been very critical of the History National Curriculum in the UK. He is particularly concerned about the way the subject of the British Empire is taught in schools. He feels that history teachers are far too critical of this period in our history.
A good review of Ferguson’s ideas can be found in George Monbiot’s article “An Empire of Denial”.
-
John Simkin, aged 42, history teacher in Brighton, Sussex.
In 1987 I visited both Cuba and China. In Cuba they even seemed to have achieved a certain degree of equality. The people took pride in the quality of education and health-care that was available to its citizens. Although I was disturbed by the harsh way the government treated its dissidents (political and sexual).
China appeared to me less successful than Cuba in removing inequalities. In fact, our guides constantly boasted about how the state was using the prospect of wealth to motivate its citizens. We were actually shown around the house of one successful businessman. He had all the latest modern domestic appliances in the house and we were told that this was his reward for showing initiative and entrepreneurial spirit.
I was also not very impressed by the new factories that were being run by the army. The workers were nearly all young women who had been shipped in from the rural areas. I was told that they were very happy to be earning such good wages. The wages were so high that they were able to send considerable amounts of money to their families living in the countryside. The guide did not appreciate my questions about free trade unions in China. According to the guide, the people of China did not need such things. After all, China had a communist government that could be trusted to look after the welfare of its citizens.
Freedom of information was the main thing denied to the Chinese people. I flew from London to Beijing in a Chinese aircraft. On the journey I began reading Edgar Snow’s The Long Revolution. Although the book was sympathetic to the communist revolution a member of the cabin crew tried to confiscate the book when I left it on my seat when I visited the toilet. I was so angry I stormed into the cabin area and took the book back. To my surprise I did not have my bags searched for the offending book when I arrived in Beijing.
While in China I became very friendly with a man who was deputy editor of a magazine. Although very nervous about the consequences he began telling me about his own views on the communist government. He was still a committed socialist but denied that the Chinese system had anything to do with creating an egalitarian society. He argued China had a two class system: Communist Party officials and the rest of the Chinese population. Although a dissident, he did not believe another revolution was possible. He claimed that the people of China did not have the right kind of collective personality to fight for a more democratic system. He believed that as long as the government could provide the basic needs of its people, the one party system would survive in China.
My new friend had won a place to study politics and economics at the LSE in London. However, the authorities were unwilling to let him take his place on the course. I asked him if there was anything I could do for him. He replied that he would love to get the opportunity to read certain books that had been published in the west on politics and economics that were unavailable in China. I said that I would willingly send these books to him but surely there not a danger that the authorities would open the parcel I sent him. He agreed but said he was willing to take that chance.
As soon as I got back to China I purchased the books on his list and sent them to him. I never received a reply. I have often wondered if my actions cost my friend what little liberty he had when I spoke to him during the summer of 1987.
-
John Simkin, aged 18, apprentice bookbinder in a printing company in Barking, Essex.
As a teenager living in Britain I did not know anyone who was murdered. I mainly associated death with old people (although I did know a couple of middle aged people who had been killed in road accidents).
It seemed to me that until the arrival of John F. Kennedy on the scene, all politicians were old and their deaths had little impact on me. When they were old they died. That is what old people did. However, even to a teenager like me, Kennedy was not an old man. That was my initial response to the assassination. A man had died before his time.
I did not immediately realise the political implications of the assassination. I was not interested in politics in 1963 and just accepted the idea that Kennedy had been killed by Lee Harvey Oswald.
This all changed the following year when I became involved in the protests against the Vietnam War. It was while investigating the background to the war that I discovered the way the US government had conspired with the CIA to prevent the public from discovering the truth about the real causes of the war.
When books were published that claimed that the Warren Commission Report was a cover-up, I was ready to believe it. Although the evidence was not conclusive, I was willing to give people like Joachim Joesten, Harold Weisberg and Mark Lane the benefit of the doubt.
This had a lasting impact on my political understanding. Now, whenever my government tells me anything, I never immediately believe it. I always ask the question: “Is there any reason why this might not be true?” This was my reaction when Tony Blair told us that we needed to invade Iraq because the country had WMD. I was therefore not too surprised when evidence emerged that he had lied to us. In many ways, the death of John Kennedy marked the point when I no longer trusted politicians. I suspect that is also true of a lot of people.
-
Interesting article in the Guardian about Sweden and the European Elections. Jon Henley writes:
Peaceful, prosperous, clean, sensible Sweden, with its enviably generous welfare state, unashamed tax-and-spend policies, and upstanding record of international solidarity, is a model in so many respects that, until last September, most people who call themselves social democrats would have said it pretty much enshrined EU ideals.
But the population of 9m exploded a good many myths when it voted in a referendum - by 56% to 42% with a turnout of nearly 83% - not to adopt the euro.
Henley points out the rapid growth in the new anti-EU party the Junilistan. An estimated 25% of the population are considering voting for this party in the elections for the European Parliament.
Jon Henley argues:
The Europe debate has seen the emergence of something quite remarkable in Sweden, a phenomenon that the governments of most continental European countries have so far managed to avoid: the drawing up of a whole new set of political dividing lines in which rightwing and leftwing activists find themselves unlikely allies against a perceived external threat.
The Swedish battle may be the forerunner of a Europe-wide struggle, the stirrings of which are now being felt with the birth of EU-critical parties in Denmark, Austria, Holland and even Slovenia. It is pitting small, individual, local and familiar interests against big, multinational, impersonal, imported - and ultimately alien - pressures.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/st...1228070,00.html
-
The History Department of the European Virtual School has just launching a Cold War Oral Project. The plan is to start threads where people can provide first-hand accounts on important Cold War events (experiences and opinions). This will include people’s accounts of the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Vietnam War, the building and pulling down of the Berlin Wall, the reunification of Germany, the Fall of Communism, Communism in the Soviet Union, etc. It is hoped that people will post their recollections from all over the world. I plan to use this material to produce some teaching resources for students.
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=810
Some threads might be of particular interest to people who post in this forum.
The assassination of JFK.
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=853
Cuban Missile Crisis:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=813
CIA Covert Operations
-
Thank you for your support and you've made me smile incredibly after a difficult and tiring day.
And again, thankyou John for your generous offer of support as well. I shall attend to that asap.
I would also recommend you add the URL to your signature (see My Controls). This will then appear every time you post and will help your ranking in second-generation search-engines like Google.
-
Impressive website. I have emailed her and offered to feature it in next week's Education on the Internet (51,520 subscribers).
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/internet.htm
Please keep me informed about good websites in your different countries.
-
I have an eight page memo written by Attwood to Gordon Chase, with a three page addition penned later.
Yes please.
-
I am currently researching the role played by William Attwood played in conducting negotiations with Castro for JFK in 1963.
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKattwood.htm
Does anybody know anything about his career before becoming US Ambassador to Guinea in 1961? I know he edited Look Magazine. Does anyone have the dates?
Attwood seemed to be serving as adviser to Adlai Stevenson, the United States representative to the United Nations, at the same time as being US Ambassador to Guinea. Is that right?
Does anybody know anything about the role Attwood played in negotiating with Castro for Jimmy Carter? Why did Carter abandon these negotiations?
Did Attwood reveal anything about the assassination of JFK in his books, Making It Through Middle Age (1982) and The Twilight Struggle: Tales of the Cold War (1987).
-
The United States government was severely concerned about the success of communism in South East Asia. Between 1950 and 1953 they had lost 142,000 soldiers in attempting to stop communism entering South Korea. The United States feared that their efforts would have been wasted if communism were to spread to South Vietnam. President Eisenhower was aware that he would have difficulty in persuading the American public to support another war so quickly after Korea. He therefore decided to rely on a small group of Military Advisers' to prevent South Vietnam becoming a communist state.
Under the leadership of Colonel Edward Lansdale, a twelve-man team of American soldiers and intelligence agents was sent to Saigon in June, 1954. The plan was to mount a propaganda campaign to persuade the Vietnamese people in the south not to vote for the communists in the forthcoming elections.
In the months that followed, this small team of men distributed targeted documents that claimed the Vietminh and Chinese communists had entered South Vietnam and were killing innocent civilians. The Ho Chi Minh government was also accused of slaying thousands of political opponents in North Vietnam.
Colonel Lansdale also recruited mercenaries from the Philippines to carry out acts of sabotage in North Vietnam. This was unsuccessful and most of the mercenaries were arrested and put on trial in Hanoi.
Finally, Lansdale set about training the South Vietnamese army (ARVN) in modem fighting methods. For it was coming clear that it was only a matter of time before the communists would resort to open warfare.
In October, 1955, the South Vietnamese people were asked to choose between Bo Dai, the former Emperor of Vietnam, and Ngo Dinh Diem for the leadership of the country. Lansdale suggested that Diem should provide two ballot papers, red for Diem and green for Bao Dai. Lansdale hoped that the Vietnamese belief that red signified good luck whilst green indicated bad fortune, would help influence the result.
When the voters arrived at the polling stations they found Diem's supporters in attendance. One voter complained afterwards: "They told us to put the red ballot into envelopes and to throw the green ones into the wastebasket. A few people, faithful to Bao Dai, disobeyed. As soon as they left, the agents went after them, and roughed them up... They beat one of my relatives to pulp."
After the election Ngo Dinh Diem informed his American advisers that he had achieved 98.2 per cent of the vote. Lansdale warned him that these figures would not be believed and suggested that he published a figure of around 70 per cent. Diem refused and as the Americans predicted, the election undermined his authority.
Another task of Lansdale and his team was to promote the success of the rule of President Ngo Dinh Diem. Figures were produced that indicated that South Vietnam was undergoing an economic miracle. With the employment of $250 millions of aid per year from the United States and the clever manipulating of statistics, it was reported that economic production had increased dramatically.
-
It is interesting to examine the increase of inequality in Russia since the fall of communism. It is now the home of some of the richest men in the world. In fact, 23 men now own 60% of the Russian economy. Their combined wealth amounts to £44.6bn. In the UK the most famous of these is Roman Abramovich. He now lives in the UK and is officially our richest man (22nd richest in the world) and is estimated to be worth £7.5bn.
How did Abramovich get his money? Well he refuses to say. However, two journalists, Adrian Levy and Cathy Scott-Clark, have been investigating his business career. They have an interesting story to tell.
Abramovich was only 20 years old when Gorbachev decided to legalise private business in 1987. Abramovich, via his contacts in the Communist Party, was able to set up an oil trading company. He then bought cheap Russian oil for a few roubles a barrel and sold it abroad for a healthy profit. This enabled to build up his capital and put himself in a good position to exploit the situation when Russia fully embraced the concept of capitalism.
On 20th August, 1992, Boris Yeltsin announced that Russian industry was to be privatised. He explained that Russia was to become a stakeholding society (a word that Tony Blair prefers to privatisation). Each citizen was to be issued with a voucher worth 10,000 roubles (at the time the average monthly wage in Russia). These vouchers could then be exchanged for shares in the companies that employed them. By taking a stake in the company that employed them, Russians were going to be working for themselves. According to Yeltsin there would be “millions of owners rather than a handful of millionaires”. He added: “everyone will have equal opportunities in this new undertaking and the rest will depend on ourselves… The privatisation voucher is a ticket for each of us to a free economy.” Yeltsin also explained that the state would retain a third of the shares in these companies.
Yeltsin also announced the deregulation of prices. As a result the rouble fell on the foreign exchange market from 230 per dollar in 1992 to more than 3,500 by December, 1994. This wiped out most people’s savings in Russia. The impact on the health of the population was dramatic. Life expectancy for men fell from 65 in 1987 to 59 in 1993. The number of suicides rose by 53% and more than one third of the population slipped below the poverty line.
People in Russia were now desperate for money and began selling their possessions. Abramovich and his mates now made their move. In 1994 stalls started appearing in towns all over Russia. They offered to pay cash for people’s vouchers. The agents employed on the stalls told them they were now worth only a few kopeks. Desperate for money to feed their families, the people sold their vouchers. A recent survey showed that most Russians sold their vouchers during this period.
By 1996 the majority of people in Russia were worse off under capitalism than under communism. Yeltsin was in serious trouble and was expected to be beaten by the communists in the forthcoming elections. His only hope was to mount a propaganda campaign against the communists. He needed money to do this and so he struck a deal with Abramovich and his mates. In return for financial backing he would introduce a “loans for shares” scheme. Yeltsin told the Russian people that this was a temporary measure and once the economy had stabilised, the state would repay the loans and the state would reclaim its shares.
Abramovich was not the only one to take advantage of this situation. Vladimir Potanin, the deputy prime minister, purchased Norilsk Nickel for £78 million (now worth £2 billion). Another member of parliament, the 32 year old Mikhail Khodorkovsky, who helped draft the “loans for shares” legislation, was given the job of policing the system. He now owns 40 former Soviet enterprises and is estimated to be worth £8.4 billion.
During this period Abramovich obtained large chunks of Sibneft (oil), Aeroflot (national airline), RusAl (aluminium), GAZ (cars), Orsk-Khalilovsky (metal), Avtobank (insurance), Kraznoyarsk (hydroelectric), Ust Ilinsky (paper), etc.
The value of these companies have increased enormously since they were sold off for cut-down prices (sound familiar). The workers for these companies have not done so well as they are now earning less in real terms than they were in 1987.
So far Abramovich has spent £250 million on Chelsea. He also lives in England (a 450 acre estate in Sussex) although he is governor of Chukotka. Abramovich is aware that every time he returns to Russia he is in danger of being taken into custody. Mikhail Khodorkovsky, the richest man in Russia was recently arrested. Others have also escaped to the west and are busy trying to get their money out as well as it will only be a matter of time before their companies are renationalised. It could be argued that Abramovich's buying of Chelsea is an example of what the Mafia call money-laundering.
-
Vladimir Kalinin is from Belarus. A former soldier in the Red Army he is now a teacher in Smorgon.
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showuser=258
A lot of things were very bad during former USSR. We did not know about millions of people which had been killed by Stalin and his company because they were different, Gulags, etc. I think that communists would like to push history ahead too quickly and build communism everywhere. But they had to build concentration camps for many people within their own countries and in this sence they were very dangerous. But I have to say that a lot of things were quite positive - I mean social protection because we had a lot of things free of charge-medical care, education, etc. I read about unemployment only in the books but now we have a lot of poor and jobless people, anarchy and mafia games, wild capitalism which you in the West had passed 200 years ago. So, like in Russia they have 50 multi-millionaires who stole all property and 80 million people under living in extreme poverty.
What am I trying to say, that even cold war is not so primitive and simple as we thing, it's quite complicated issue.
-
John Simkin, aged 40, history teacher in Brighton, Sussex.
In the 1980s. I managed to visit several countries with communist governments: Cuba, China, the Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia and Hungary.
I found the time I spent in the Soviet Union was the most depressing of all these visits. I could find no enthusiasm for the communist government that existed at that time. I was shocked by the hostility towards Mikhail Gorbachev who I considered was a great statesman genuinely trying to reform the country. (The hostility was even greater towards his wife). It was clear that people no longer believed that the Soviet government could reform itself.
What was most striking was people’s dissatisfaction with the communist system. The main complaint was against the inequalities within the system. People claimed that the Soviet Union had a two class system. The ruling class were officials of the Communist Party. Everybody else were members of the second class (the same thing was said when I was in China). People pointed out the differences in goods that existed in shops set aside for party officials and foreign tourists with those available for the rest of the population.
What a betrayal of the idea of Karl Marx? The state had not withered away. The class system was far stronger than it was in the west. The inequalities (especially in power and the access of information) were far greater in this so-called communist system that we had in the capitalist west. I recalled what George Orwell had written in his novel Animal Farm: “All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others”. I thought Orwell had been guilty of exaggerating his point about what had happened in the Soviet Union (influenced by his experiences in Spain during the Civil War). After all, it was satire. However, I now realised that Orwell had got it right. There was nothing communist about the Soviet Union.
The big question was what would replace it? Would it become a modern democracy like Sweden or would it take the worst from the western system. We now know what the answer was to that question.
-
The latest section of photographs in the Assassination of JFK Photograph Archive have just been uploaded (Dealey Plaza).
-
Interesting point you make about Larry Jones. Most books about the Kennedy assassination have very little to say about Larry Jones or Bernard Weissman. Those that do point out that Weissman placed the anti-Kennedy advert in the Dallas Morning News that appeared on the morning of the assassination. Others refer to the claims made by Mark Lane that Weissman met Ruby and Tippit at the Carousel Club on 14th November, 1963.
Weissman was interviewed by the Warren Commission and he had a very interesting story to tell.
In August, 1961, Weissman joined the U.S. Army and served in Germany where he met Larrie Schmidt. The two men shared an interest in right-wing politics and were both supporters of the John Birch Society. While in Germany the two men discussed the possibility of establishing a right-wing political group when they returned to the United States.
Weissman was discharged in August 1963 but was unable to find work. Short of money, Weissman contacted Larrie Schmidt who was at that time living in Dallas. Schmidt told Weissman about his involvement in the attack on the liberal politician, Adlai Stevenson. According to Schmidt, this had been organized by General Edwin Walker. Schmidt added that his brother was working as General Walker's chauffeur and general aide.
Schmidt invited Weissman to Dallas. Weissman later told the Warren Commission that Schmidt argued: "If we are going to take advantage of the situation, or if you are," meaning me, "you better hurry down here and take advantage of the publicity, and at least become known among these various right-wingers, because this is the chance we have been looking for to infiltrate some of these organizations and become known," in other words, go along with the philosophy we had developed in Munich."
Weissman arrived in Dallas on 4th November, 1963. Soon afterwards Weissman joined an organization called the Young Americans for Freedom. Schmidt also invited Weissman to join the John Birch Society but according to his testimony before the Warren Commission he changed his mind when he discovered too many of them were anti-Semitic (Weissman was Jewish).
Schmidt introduced Weissman to Joe Grinnan of the John Birch Society. Grinnan was involved in organizing protests against the visit of John F. Kennedy. Grinnan seemed to know about the visit before it was officially announced to the public. Grinnan suggested that they should place a black-bordered advert in the Dallas Morning News on 22nd November, 1963. The advert cost $1,465. Grinnan supplied the money. He claimed that some of this came from Nelson Bunker Hunt, the son of Haroldson L. Hunt. Weissman was given the task of signing the advert and taking it to the newspaper office.
The advert attacked Kennedy's foreign policy as being anti-American and communistic. This included the claim that Gus Hall, "head of the U.S. Communist Party praised almost every one of your policies and announced that the party will endorse and support your re-election in 1964". It also attacked Kennedy's domestic policies. Another passage asked why Robert Kennedy had been allowed "to go soft on Communists, fellow-travelers, and ultra-leftists in America."
Weissman was shocked by the assassination of President John F. Kennedy and told Schmidt he feared he would be accused of being involved in the killing. He told the Warren Commission he suspected that Kennedy had been killed by supporters of General Edwin Walker and that as a result he would be implicated in the plot. Weissman watched the reports on the assassination in a bar with Schmidt. He told the Warren Commission he felt relieved when he discovered that Lee Harvey Oswald had been arrested for the murder. The Warren Commission did not ask how he knew that Oswald was not a right-winger. Despite this news, Weissman and Schmidt decided to leave Dallas
Mark Lane testified before that Warren Commission that Thayer Waldo, a journalist on the staff of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, had told him that Weissman was involved in a two-hour meeting with Jack Ruby and J. D. Tippit at the Carousel Club on 14th November, 1963. According to Joachim Joesten (How Kennedy Was Killed), "a rich oil man" was also at this meeting. Weissman denied he had ever been to the Carousel Club and had never met Ruby or Tippit.
George Senator told reporters that Jack Ruby had tried to contact Weissman after the assassination. According to Seth Kantor (Who Was Jack Ruby): "He (Ruby) couldn't get to Bernard Weissman. There was no such person in the Dallas phone book. He checked"
From this evidence it seems that Oswald was not the only one being set-up as a patsy in Dallas during November, 1963.
-
It is alarming that many schools do not have an interest in this cross-curricular topic. Unless the science teacher has a particular interest, it seems that many children miss out on this vital aspect of their education. The environment is probably the most important topic that children can learn about, as all of us depend on a healthy environment to live.
I agree, that is why we have set-up a special forum to discuss these issues:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showforum=137
I have also added the topic to my ideal History National Curriculum.
-
Newsletter 13
Oral History
Members of the European Virtual School are currently involved in using the forum to create databases of primary sources. I hope all members of the forum will consider contributing to these projects.
Cold War Oral Project
The plan is to start threads where people can provide first-hand accounts on important Cold War events. This will include people’s accounts of the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Vietnam War, the building and pulling down of the Berlin Wall, the reunification of Germany, the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe, etc. It is hoped that people will post their recollections from all over the world. This is something that students could get involved in by interviewing parents or grandparents about these events. This material could then be used as a teaching resource. For example, I plan to create some teaching activities based on the material that is produced.
Could you always add your name, age, etc. at the time the event took place. If possible, add a picture of yourself at this date. If it is an interview use the name, age, photograph, etc. of the person being interviewed.
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=810
Olympic Games Project
I have started a section on the forum where people can post memories of past Olympic Games. I am hoping to persuade former Olympic competitors to take part in this experiment. Later, another section will be formed where people can post impressions of the 2004 Olympic Games. Would any of your students be interested in this project? It would be a good experience for any student who wants to become a sports reporter.
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showforum=143
Environmental Issues
I have been asked to create a forum for those interested in Environmental Issues. It is hoped to persuade writers to discuss their books and articles in this section. There is currently a debate on Global Warming taking place. Over the next few weeks other subjects will be added.
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showforum=137
Membership
We now have 688 members. Reading the biographies section it seems we now have members from Britain (79), USA (26), France (14), Australia (12), Spain (9), Netherlands (6), Sweden (5), Canada (5), Belgium (4), Italy (4), Greece (3), Finland (3), Brazil (2), China (1), Denmark (1), Germany (1), Poland (1), Serbia (1), Belarus (1), Israel (1), South Korea (1), Sudan (1), Ireland (1), Philippines (1), Austria (1), India (1) and Hong Kong (1).
Newsletters
Past copies of newspapers can be found at:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=163
Debates
At the moment, the following issues provide opportunities for good debate. I would welcome your contributions to these and other debates taking place on the forum.
Are Holidays Really Necessary?
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=793
Corporal Punishment and Torture
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=836
What Should We Study in History
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=822
Personalised Learning
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=833
Government Websites
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=740
Schools and Obesity
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=384
Internet Radio
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=133
Science Coursework
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=117
Why Should We Study the Assassination of JFK
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=823
Someone Would Have Talked?
-
We now have 688 members. Reading the biographies section it seems we now have members from Britain (79), USA (26), France (14), Australia (12), Spain (9), Netherlands (6), Sweden (5), Canada (5), Belgium (4), Italy (4), Greece (3), Finland (3), Brazil (2), China (1), Denmark (1), Germany (1), Poland (1), Serbia (1), Belarus (1), Israel (1), South Korea (1), Sudan (1), Ireland (1), Philippines (1), Austria (1), India (1) and Hong Kong (1).
Elections in Iraq
in Political Debates
Posted
Great posting Mike. The reason that the United States is a great country is because it has always had people who have questioned the policy of its government. I think the proudest moment in its history was when people were willing to risk their lives in order to obtain equal rights for their fellow citizens. Here is a long list of names involved in this struggle.
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAcivilrights.htm
There has also been a long history of people in the United States who have opposed military action. I am thinking of people like Henry David Thoreau, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Eugene Debs, Abraham Muste, Dorothy Day and David Dellinger (who died last week).
However, there are still those who believe that a growth of an American Empire would be good for the world. Niall Ferguson, professor of history at New York University, has just published a new book entitled Colossus: the Rise and Fall of the American Empire.
According to one review: "The United States today is an empire - but a peculiar kind of empire", writes Niall Ferguson in Colossus: the Rise and Fall of the American Empire. Despite overwhelming military, economic and cultural dominance, the US has had a difficult time imposing its will on other nations, mostly because the country is uncomfortable with imperialism and thus unable to use this power most effectively and decisively. The origin of this attitude and its persistence is a principal theme of this thought-provoking book, including how domestic politics affects foreign policy, whether it is politicians worried about the next election or citizens who "like Social Security more than national security".
Ferguson takes the view that American Imperialism is a force of good. He argues: “Many parts of the world would benefit from a period of American rule” (in the same way that many countries benefited from British rule in the 19th century).
Ferguson has recently been very critical of the History National Curriculum in the UK. He is particularly concerned about the way the subject of the British Empire is taught in schools. He feels that history teachers are far too critical of this period in our history.
A good review of Ferguson’s ideas can be found in George Monbiot’s article “An Empire of Denial”.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1228811,00.html
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=822