jgo
jgo's JournalOn This Day: Protest movement started due to women's word counting half of men's endures - Feb. 12, 1983
(edited from article)
"
Women remember iconic 1983 demo, vow to fight oppression
Published February 13, 2019
In Pakistan, Feb 12 is a milestone in the country’s women’s rights movement. On this day in 1983, several women defied the military dictatorship of Gen Ziaul Haq by taking out a public demonstration on Lahore’s The Mall road despite martial law regulations that banned all political activity, processions and public protests.
“The primary reason for this demonstration was the proposed law of evidence, which would effectively have reduced the testimony of women to half of that of men,” said Farida Shaheed, who was a part of the historic protest.
The accumulative trigger was the dictatorship’s unrelenting push to rescind women’s rights and reduce their status to half a human. This demonstration became a symbol for women’s resistance to all forms of oppression and belief in an equal, equitable and just democratic order.
“State oppression in those days was through a military dictatorship,” added Ms Saeeda. “Today, even in a so-called civilian government, our freedom is being snatched from us and we are being pushed to the wall.”
"
https://www.dawn.com/news/1463551
(edited from Wikipedia)
"
1983 women's march, Lahore
On 12 February 1983, a women's march was held in Lahore, Pakistan. The march was led by the Women's Action Forum (WAF) and the Punjab Women Lawyers Association. It assembled at Mall Road in Lahore to proceed toward the Lahore High Court in Pakistan to protest against the discriminatory Law of Evidence and other Hudood Ordinances. The marchers were tear gassed and baton charged by police injuring many women. 50 of the marchers were arrested for defying the prohibition of public assembly that was in force. Pakistan's National Women's Day has been held officially on this day, in commemoration, since declared in 2012.
The prime cause for the demonstration was the proposed law of evidence, which intended to reduce the value of testimony of women to half of that of men. This was compounded by General Zia regime's moves to reduce women's rights. It was the first public demonstration by any group in defiance of the martial law of General Zia Ul.
According to Anita M. Weiss, due to continued protests by aggrieved women, the government had to delay implementation of contentious changes in the law for almost two years. Weiss says, the version of the law finally adopted devalued testimony of two women equaling to one man's testimony in financial matters and in other cases acceptance of single woman's testimony is left to the presiding magistrate's discretion.
Legacy
Pakistan's National Women's Day is annually observed on February 12 to mark the first women's march in Pakistan against the Zia regime which was on 12 February 1983. The date was recognised by Pakistan's prime minister, Yousaf Raza Gillani, in 2012.
According to The News International still there is long way to go and much remains to be done for gender equality, since getting better recognition to women's movement 1983 onward, Pakistani women have formed enduring civil society, advanced in academics at universities, and improved political presence, could get few discriminatory laws amended too. According to Ayesha Khan while discriminatory laws from Zia times are still on the statute but positive development is issues of women's rights are getting politicized and coming into focus since then.
"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_women%27s_march,_Lahore
---------------------------------------------------------
On This Day: Murder of rape target sparks protests against violence towards women - Feb. 11, 2015
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1016372570
On This Day: Eisenhower warns against United States war in Vietnam, and invests billions - Feb. 10, 1954
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1016372542
On This Day: Nuclear sub while doing public relations maneuvers kills 9 on fishing ship - Feb. 9, 2001
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1016372526
On This Day: Lands act takes effect, called one of most destructive for Native Americans in history - Feb. 8, 1887
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1016372474
On This Day: Florentines burn art, books, cosmetics, etc. in Bonfire of the Vanities - Feb. 7, 1497
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1016372410
On This Day: Murder of rape target sparks protests against violence towards women - Feb. 11, 2015
(edited from Wikipedia)
"
Murder of Özgecan Aslan
Özgecan Aslan (1995-2015) was a Turkish university student who was murdered while resisting attempted rape on 11 February 2015 on a minibus in Mersin, Turkey. Her burnt body was discovered on 13 February. All perpetrators were handed aggravated life sentences without the possibility of parole.
The murder caused nationwide outrage and sparked protests across the country on the following days. Thousands of protesters took to the streets in several provinces, with some criticizing the government for its "insufficient response" and alleged normalization of the rape of non-conservative women.
The protests were described as the first mass movement for Turkish women. It also provoked calls for reforms to combat violence against women more effectively. The case received great attention on social media and prompted women to share their experiences of harassment, with 16 February being dubbed as "Black Monday" due to protests. The murder was described as a catalyst for women to speak out about their long-withheld suffering.
Background
Özgecan was born into a poor Alevi Turkish family, who traced their origins to Tunceli. She was a first-year psychology student in the Çağ University in Tarsus. She was born and raised in Mersin, and wanted to study psychology, for which she had developed a strong passion while she was studying at the tourism high school. Her parents were supportive of her, with her mother returning to the workforce in order to fund her education, to augment the 50% scholarship she had earned.
Trial
According to Turkish law, the defendant in such cases must have a lawyer for the criminal prosecution to begin. However, the 1,600 lawyers of the bar association of Mersin made a joint statement that none of them wanted to support such "brutal savages" in the court and refused to assign a lawyer. This stalled the transfer of the suspects to the criminal prosecution.
The trial concluded on 3 December as the three defendants were given aggravated life sentences without possibility of parole.
Response
The case became a cause célèbre in Turkey as a marker of the violence against women. The brutality of the murder especially caused a public outcry, with thousands of protesters taking to the streets across Turkey.
In Tarsus, a mob tried to lynch the suspects as they were arrested by the police. The funeral of Özgecan was attended by around 5000 people and women defied the imam in the funeral by attending the prayer together with the men and carrying the coffin of Özgecan, against the religious tradition.
In Istanbul, protesters, most of whom were women, gathered in the İstiklal Avenue and marched to the Taksim Square on 14 February, also condemning the alleged inaction of the government and lack of official condemnation, with thousands further protesting in the Kadıköy district. In Ankara, protests took place despite police intervention, as demonstrators occupied a central park.
[Further protests took place throughout Turkey].
Members of a group of 50 women who hung banners in the Taksim Square, Istanbul, were arrested by the police. Claims of the courts having sympathies for perpetrators of violence against women and thus issuing reduced sentences were highlighted during the protests. According to CBC News, the motivation of the protesters is to show that "female lives are not disposable in Turkey". Hürriyet reported that the protests had simultaneously united and divided Turkey.
On 15 February, around 500 people marched in Sivas and a group of Turkish people protested in Trafalgar Square in London. In Mersin, a crowd gathered again for protests, and the police supported the demonstrators by distributing Aslan's pictures and chanting using megaphones.
On 17 February, protests continued both in Turkey and abroad. Northern Cyprus saw protests as around 100 protesters, among whom were members of the parliament, held a symbolic funeral prayer and marched through the streets of the capital, North Nicosia with a coffin.
On 18 February, major protests took place in Tarsus. 15,000 people marched in the Çağ University and blocked a major highway. The protesters almost all wore black, with some wearing clothes soaked in makeshift blood.
Protests continued on 19 February across Turkey despite severe weather conditions.
On 21 February, large protests took place in Istanbul. A group also protested in the Union Square in New York City.
Political response
The government response was criticized by many Turks as "too little, too late". Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu condemned the attack and announced that this would prompt a widespread campaign against violence against women. He also announced that a youth center in Antalya would be named after Özgecan. Özgecan's university also decided to name a newly built psychology lab after her. The Turkish Council of Ministers discussed the murder of Özgecan, but declined to condone a possible reintroduction of the death penalty for such offenses, as it had been proposed by some.
President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan also offered his condolences to the family of Özgecan. He later criticized the protesters, claiming that some of them had danced during the protests, committing a cultural offense due to their non-conformity to religious norms. On 17 February, he further criticized the women's rights movement in Turkey.
Ayşenur İslam, the Minister of Family and Social Affairs, who visited Özgecan's family, met with protests during a press statement. Members of the parliament from the Republican People's Party, the main opposition in Turkey, left the parliament when she was delivering a speech about the murder. Emine Erdoğan, the first lady of Turkey, said that the fate of Özgecan "never got out of their minds" and that "women were schools for their children". Sare Davutoğlu, the wife of the prime minister, visited Özgecan's family.
Social media
The murder sparked widespread outrage on social media, with the hashtag "#sendeanlat" ("you must also tell" becoming the most popular in the country, encouraging women to tell their own stories of harassment and everyday fears in Turkey. The campaign was also supported by popular figures in the country, including the actress Beren Saat, who wrote a lengthy account of her experiences of harassment.
It became the third most popular topic globally on Twitter, gathering more than 440,000 tweets in two days. Women shared stories of having to carry pepper spray and pocket knives for short everyday walks, wearing fake wedding rings and getting off buses early to avoid being the last passenger. There were also stories of girls started being harassed at the age of five and schoolgirls having to endure daily harassment on buses, especially when wearing skirts.
16 February was dubbed as "Black Monday" in Turkey, with many citizens, including celebrities, wearing black to raise awareness about violence against women, in accordance with the popular hashtag "#Özgecaniçinsiyahgiy " ("wear black for Özgecan " ). The campaign was widely popular as thousands marched in black in major cities and high schools across the country complied with it. An online petition demanding more responsible decisions from institutions in cases like Özgecan's gathered more than 600,000 signatures in two days. The murder caused widespread fear among women in Tarsus, some of whom stated that they would never use the minibus again and opt for trains as much as possible instead.
A campaign was started in Azerbaijan, where men posted photos of themselves wearing mini skirts in protest, with the hashtag #ozgecanicinminietekgiy ("wear a mini skirt for Özgecan " ). The campaign soon spread to Turkey and globally, with support from the actress Emma Watson.
"Özgecan Law"
Following the murder, a petition was started to prevent reduction of sentences being given to perpetrators of violence and murder against women. Before the Turkish general election of June 2015, the Peoples' Democratic Party (HDP) and the Republican Turkish Party (CHP) promised to pass the "Özgecan Law" after the election. The postponement of the "Özgecan Law" prompted further protests, which were supported by MPs from the CHP.
On 18 November, Aylin Nazlıaka put forward the proposed changes again. The proposed law, however, was criticized by a group of lawyers advocating women's rights from Antalya, who claimed that the heavier sentences would increase the brutality of future violence as perpetrators would want to destroy any evidence, and that the problem lay with the sexist upbringing of children. Upon the conviction of the perpetrators on 3 December, Özgecan's mother called for the "Özgecan Law" to be passed as soon as possible.
"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_%C3%96zgecan_Aslan
---------------------------------------------------------
On This Day: Eisenhower warns against United States war in Vietnam, and invests billions - Feb. 10, 1954
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1016372542
On This Day: Nuclear sub while doing public relations maneuvers kills 9 on fishing ship - Feb. 9, 2001
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1016372526
On This Day: Lands act takes effect, called one of most destructive for Native Americans in history - Feb. 8, 1887
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1016372474
On This Day: Florentines burn art, books, cosmetics, etc. in Bonfire of the Vanities - Feb. 7, 1497
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1016372410
On This Day: First African American settlers to Liberia face very high mortality rate - Feb. 6, 1820
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1016372394
On This Day: Murder of rape target sparks protests against violence towards women - Feb. 11, 2015
(edited from Wikipedia)
"
Murder of Özgecan Aslan
Özgecan Aslan (1995-2015) was a Turkish university student who was murdered while resisting attempted rape on 11 February 2015 on a minibus in Mersin, Turkey. Her burnt body was discovered on 13 February. All perpetrators were handed aggravated life sentences without the possibility of parole.
The murder caused nationwide outrage and sparked protests across the country on the following days. Thousands of protesters took to the streets in several provinces, with some criticizing the government for its "insufficient response" and alleged normalization of the rape of non-conservative women.
The protests were described as the first mass movement for Turkish women. It also provoked calls for reforms to combat violence against women more effectively. The case received great attention on social media and prompted women to share their experiences of harassment, with 16 February being dubbed as "Black Monday" due to protests. The murder was described as a catalyst for women to speak out about their long-withheld suffering.
Background
Özgecan was born into a poor Alevi Turkish family, who traced their origins to Tunceli. She was a first-year psychology student in the Çağ University in Tarsus. She was born and raised in Mersin, and wanted to study psychology, for which she had developed a strong passion while she was studying at the tourism high school. Her parents were supportive of her, with her mother returning to the workforce in order to fund her education, to augment the 50% scholarship she had earned.
Trial
According to Turkish law, the defendant in such cases must have a lawyer for the criminal prosecution to begin. However, the 1,600 lawyers of the bar association of Mersin made a joint statement that none of them wanted to support such "brutal savages" in the court and refused to assign a lawyer. This stalled the transfer of the suspects to the criminal prosecution.
The trial concluded on 3 December as the three defendants were given aggravated life sentences without possibility of parole.
Response
The case became a cause célèbre in Turkey as a marker of the violence against women. The brutality of the murder especially caused a public outcry, with thousands of protesters taking to the streets across Turkey.
In Tarsus, a mob tried to lynch the suspects as they were arrested by the police. The funeral of Özgecan was attended by around 5000 people and women defied the imam in the funeral by attending the prayer together with the men and carrying the coffin of Özgecan, against the religious tradition.
In Istanbul, protesters, most of whom were women, gathered in the İstiklal Avenue and marched to the Taksim Square on 14 February, also condemning the alleged inaction of the government and lack of official condemnation, with thousands further protesting in the Kadıköy district. In Ankara, protests took place despite police intervention, as demonstrators occupied a central park.
[Further protests took place throughout Turkey].
Members of a group of 50 women who hung banners in the Taksim Square, Istanbul, were arrested by the police. Claims of the courts having sympathies for perpetrators of violence against women and thus issuing reduced sentences were highlighted during the protests. According to CBC News, the motivation of the protesters is to show that "female lives are not disposable in Turkey". Hürriyet reported that the protests had simultaneously united and divided Turkey.
On 15 February, around 500 people marched in Sivas and a group of Turkish people protested in Trafalgar Square in London. In Mersin, a crowd gathered again for protests, and the police supported the demonstrators by distributing Aslan's pictures and chanting using megaphones.
On 17 February, protests continued both in Turkey and abroad. Northern Cyprus saw protests as around 100 protesters, among whom were members of the parliament, held a symbolic funeral prayer and marched through the streets of the capital, North Nicosia with a coffin.
On 18 February, major protests took place in Tarsus. 15,000 people marched in the Çağ University and blocked a major highway. The protesters almost all wore black, with some wearing clothes soaked in makeshift blood.
Protests continued on 19 February across Turkey despite severe weather conditions.
On 21 February, large protests took place in Istanbul. A group also protested in the Union Square in New York City.
Political response
The government response was criticized by many Turks as "too little, too late". Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu condemned the attack and announced that this would prompt a widespread campaign against violence against women. He also announced that a youth center in Antalya would be named after Özgecan. Özgecan's university also decided to name a newly built psychology lab after her. The Turkish Council of Ministers discussed the murder of Özgecan, but declined to condone a possible reintroduction of the death penalty for such offenses, as it had been proposed by some.
President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan also offered his condolences to the family of Özgecan. He later criticized the protesters, claiming that some of them had danced during the protests, committing a cultural offense due to their non-conformity to religious norms. On 17 February, he further criticized the women's rights movement in Turkey.
Ayşenur İslam, the Minister of Family and Social Affairs, who visited Özgecan's family, met with protests during a press statement. Members of the parliament from the Republican People's Party, the main opposition in Turkey, left the parliament when she was delivering a speech about the murder. Emine Erdoğan, the first lady of Turkey, said that the fate of Özgecan "never got out of their minds" and that "women were schools for their children". Sare Davutoğlu, the wife of the prime minister, visited Özgecan's family.
Social media
The murder sparked widespread outrage on social media, with the hashtag "#sendeanlat" ("you must also tell"
becoming the most popular in the country, encouraging women to tell their own stories of harassment and everyday fears in Turkey. The campaign was also supported by popular figures in the country, including the actress Beren Saat, who wrote a lengthy account of her experiences of harassment.
It became the third most popular topic globally on Twitter, gathering more than 440,000 tweets in two days. Women shared stories of having to carry pepper spray and pocket knives for short everyday walks, wearing fake wedding rings and getting off buses early to avoid being the last passenger. There were also stories of girls started being harassed at the age of five and schoolgirls having to endure daily harassment on buses, especially when wearing skirts.
16 February was dubbed as "Black Monday" in Turkey, with many citizens, including celebrities, wearing black to raise awareness about violence against women, in accordance with the popular hashtag "#Özgecaniçinsiyahgiy " ("wear black for Özgecan " ). The campaign was widely popular as thousands marched in black in major cities and high schools across the country complied with it. An online petition demanding more responsible decisions from institutions in cases like Özgecan's gathered more than 600,000 signatures in two days. The murder caused widespread fear among women in Tarsus, some of whom stated that they would never use the minibus again and opt for trains as much as possible instead.
A campaign was started in Azerbaijan, where men posted photos of themselves wearing mini skirts in protest, with the hashtag #ozgecanicinminietekgiy ("wear a mini skirt for Özgecan " ). The campaign soon spread to Turkey and globally, with support from the actress Emma Watson.
"Özgecan Law"
Following the murder, a petition was started to prevent reduction of sentences being given to perpetrators of violence and murder against women. Before the Turkish general election of June 2015, the Peoples' Democratic Party (HDP) and the Republican Turkish Party (CHP) promised to pass the "Özgecan Law" after the election. The postponement of the "Özgecan Law" prompted further protests, which were supported by MPs from the CHP.
On 18 November, Aylin Nazlıaka put forward the proposed changes again. The proposed law, however, was criticized by a group of lawyers advocating women's rights from Antalya, who claimed that the heavier sentences would increase the brutality of future violence as perpetrators would want to destroy any evidence, and that the problem lay with the sexist upbringing of children. Upon the conviction of the perpetrators on 3 December, Özgecan's mother called for the "Özgecan Law" to be passed as soon as possible.
"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_%C3%96zgecan_Aslan
---------------------------------------------------------
On This Day: Eisenhower warns against United States war in Vietnam, and invests billions - Feb. 10, 1954
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1016372542
On This Day: Nuclear sub while doing public relations maneuvers kills 9 on fishing ship - Feb. 9, 2001
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1016372526
On This Day: Lands act takes effect, called one of most destructive for Native Americans in history - Feb. 8, 1887
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1016372474
On This Day: Florentines burn art, books, cosmetics, etc. in Bonfire of the Vanities - Feb. 7, 1497
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1016372410
On This Day: First African American settlers to Liberia face very high mortality rate - Feb. 6, 1820
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1016372394
On This Day: Eisenhower warns against United States war in Vietnam, and invests billions - Feb. 10, 1954
(edited from article)
"
Dwight D. Eisenhower
34th President of the United States: 1953‐1961
The President's News Conference
February 10, 1954
Q. Marvin Arrowsmith, Associated Press: Mr. President, to go back for a moment to that question on Indochina, there seems to be some uneasiness in Congress, as voiced by Senator Stennis for one, that sending these technicians to Indochina will lead eventually to our involvement in a hot war there. Would you comment on that?
THE PRESIDENT. I would just say this: no one could be more bitterly opposed to ever getting the United States involved in a hot war in that region than I am; consequently, every move that I authorize is calculated, so far as humans can do it, to make certain that that does not happen.
...
Q. Daniel Shorr, CBS Radio: Mr. President, should your remarks on Indochina be construed as meaning that you are determined not to become involved or, perhaps, more deeply involved in the war in Indochina, regardless of how that war may go?
THE PRESIDENT. Well, I am not going to try to predict the drift of world events now and the course of world events over the next months. I say that I cannot conceive of a greater tragedy for America than to get heavily involved now in an all-out war in any of those regions, particularly with large units.
So what we are doing is supporting the Vietnamese and the French in their conduct of that war; because, as we see it, it is a case of independent and free nations operating against the encroachment of communism.
"
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-346
(edited from article)
"
AMERICA'S VIETNAM
President Eisenhower was determined to keep the United States out of the French war in Vietnam
In the 1950s, American strategists viewed Asia as the most dangerous and unstable theater of conflict with the Communist bloc. In Korea, in Taiwan, and in Southeast Asia, Americans perceived dangerous threats to the “free world.” And nowhere did the stakes seems higher than in Indochina.
But when the French forces found themselves caught in a death struggle with Communist forces at a northern outpost called Dien Bien Phu in the spring of 1954, Eisenhower faced a terrible dilemma. Should he send Americans in to aid the French and halt a Communist victory in Vietnam? At the start of 1954, Eisenhower told his advisers “he simply could not imagine the United States putting ground forces anywhere in Southeast Asia…. There was just no sense in even talking about United States forces replacing the French in Indochina. If we did so, the Vietnamese could be expected to transfer their hatred of the French to us. I cannot tell you, said the President with vehemence, how bitterly opposed I am to such a course of action. This war in Indochina would absorb our troops by divisions!”
What did this mean for U.S. policy in Asia? Eisenhower avoided a direct military intervention in Indochina in 1954, and the French went down to defeat to the Communist forces in northern Vietnam. But Ike was determined not to allow another such fiasco. Following the partition of Vietnam into a communist North and pro-western South, Eisenhower chose to invest huge sums of money and prestige in transforming South Vietnam into a showcase of a new “free Asia.” Spending billions of dollars, sending military advisers, supporting the increasingly brutal tactics of the South Vietnamese regime of Ngo Dinh Diem—all this effort would help create a pro-American bastion in Southeast Asia and halt Communism. Yet it also left a terrible decision for his successors, once South Vietnam faced a new war with Communist forces.
Ike managed to avoid an American war in Vietnam during his two terms. But he invested so much American prestige and effort in the success of South Vietnam that by the end of the 1950s, America had become deeply invested in its fate. Eisenhower created an American Vietnam, and his successors would wage a bitter – and failed – war to keep it.
"
https://millercenter.org/the-presidency/educational-resources/age-of-eisenhower/americas-vietnam
---------------------------------------------------------
On This Day: Nuclear sub while doing public relations maneuvers kills 9 on fishing ship - Feb. 9, 2001
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1016372526
On This Day: Lands act takes effect, called one of most destructive for Native Americans in history - Feb. 8, 1887
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1016372474
On This Day: Florentines burn art, books, cosmetics, etc. in Bonfire of the Vanities - Feb. 7, 1497
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1016372410
On This Day: First African American settlers to Liberia face very high mortality rate - Feb. 6, 1820
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1016372394
On This Day: U.S. Steel born. In 2023, agreed to be bought by Nippon Steel. - Feb. 5, 1901
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1016372348
On This Day: Nuclear sub while doing public relations maneuvers kills 9 on fishing ship - Feb. 9, 2001
(edited from Wikipedia)
"
Ehime Maru and USS Greeneville collision
On 9 February 2001, about nine nautical miles south of Oahu, Hawaii, in the Pacific Ocean, the United States Navy (USN) Los Angeles-class submarine USS Greeneville collided with the Japanese fishery high-school training ship Ehime Maru from Ehime Prefecture. In a demonstration for some VIP civilian visitors, Greeneville performed an emergency ballast blow surfacing maneuver. As the submarine shot to the surface, she struck Ehime Maru. Within ten minutes of the collision, Ehime Maru sank. Nine of the thirty-five people aboard were killed: four high school students, two teachers, and three crew members.
Many Japanese people, including government officials, were concerned by news that civilians were present in Greeneville's control room at the time of the accident. Some expressed anger because of a perception that the submarine did not try to assist Ehime Maru's survivors and that the submarine's captain, Commander Scott Waddle, did not apologize immediately afterwards.
The USN conducted a public court of inquiry, blamed Waddle and other members of Greeneville's crew, and dealt non-judicial punishment or administrative disciplinary action to the captain and some crew members. After Waddle had been questioned by the Naval Board of Inquiry, it was decided that a full court-martial would be unnecessary, and he was forced to retire and given an honorable discharge.
In response to requests from the families of Ehime Maru's victims and the government of Japan, the USN raised Ehime Maru from the ocean floor during October 2001 and moved it to shallow water closer to Oahu. Once there, USN and Japanese divers located and retrieved the remains of eight of the nine victims from the wreck. Ehime Maru was then moved back out to sea and scuttled in deep water. The USN compensated the government of Ehime Prefecture, Ehime Maru's survivors, and victims' family members for the accident. Waddle traveled to Japan in December 2002 to apologize to the ship's survivors and victims' families.
The accident renewed calls by many in Japan for the United States to make more effort to reduce crimes and accidents involving U.S. military personnel who injure or kill Japanese citizens. In response to the accident, the USN changed its policies regarding civilian visits to its ships.
Prelude
On 10 January 2001, Ehime Maru, a Japanese fishing trawler owned by the government of Ehime Prefecture, departed from Uwajima Fisheries High School, a high school in Uwajima, Ehime Prefecture. The ship, captained by Hisao Ōnishi, headed for Hawaii on a planned 74-day voyage to train high school students who were interested in pursuing careers as fishermen. The ship's curriculum included long-line tuna fishing, maritime navigation, marine engineering, and oceanography.
On 9 February, USS Greeneville, a U.S. Navy nuclear-powered attack submarine, prepared to depart Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, to perform a public relations mission as part of the USN's Distinguished Visitor Embarkation (DVE) program. The program took civilians, members of Congress, journalists, and other "opinion makers" for rides on nuclear submarines to demonstrate the submarines' capabilities; its goal was to demonstrate the need to maintain a fleet of nuclear-powered submarines.
The submarine was to display its operational abilities and then return the DVs (Distinguished Visitors) to Pearl Harbor.
Collision
Before beginning the maneuvers, Waddle (the submarine captain) checked the submarine's sonar contacts and noted that there were several surface vessels in the vicinity, but none closer than seven nautical miles away. The civilians were spread throughout the control room, with three on the periscope platform and others in front of the fire control station, restricting free access to some of the displays.
For 15 minutes Greeneville performed a series of drastic maneuvers, including high-speed, full-rudder, 35-degree turns side to side, as well as rapid up-and-down movements. Waddle personally directed the maneuvers. According to Waddle, the DVs "were loving it".
As the high-speed maneuvers finished, Waddle called for Greeneville to perform an emergency dive (called an "emergency deep " ) followed by an emergency main ballast blow, a maneuver that brings the submarine from a depth of about 400 feet to the surface in a few seconds by using high-pressure air to force the water out of the ship's ballast tanks as quickly as possible. The rise is so rapid that the submarine's bow rises high out of the water upon surfacing.
Before executing this maneuver, the submarine was required to go to periscope depth to check for ships or dangerous obstacles on the surface. After completing the high-speed maneuvers, standing orders required the submarine to hold a steady course for three minutes to reestablish sonar contact, which had been disrupted by the high speed maneuvers, with any vessels in the area. In this case, however, Waddle ordered the submarine to change course and go to periscope depth after holding the steady course for only 90 seconds.
Although Ehime Maru was heading toward Greeneville's location, Waddle failed to see the ship. Regulations mandated that Waddle conduct a three-minute, 360-degree periscope scan before executing the emergency main ballast blow maneuver. Waddle, however, aware that they were still behind schedule, conducted a short scan, searching primarily in the sector where he believed the known contacts were located, noted that the haze was still present, and saw no ships in the vicinity.
Waddle invited two of the civilian guests, John Hall, CEO of a Texas oil company, and Jack Clary, a free-lance sports writer from Massachusetts, to operate the controls for the emergency main ballast blow. Clary sat in the helmsman's chair and Hall stood at the high-pressure air valve levers, supervised closely by Greeneville crewmen. After the two civilians had taken their positions, Waddle ordered the maneuver executed, and they threw the control levers as instructed. The submarine began its rapid ascent toward the surface.
The rapidly ascending Greeneville surfaced directly under Ehime Maru , and the submarine's rudder sliced Ehime Maru's hull from starboard to port. The people aboard Ehime Maru heard two loud noises and felt the ship shudder from two severe impacts. Ehime Maru's bridge crew looked aft and saw the submarine breach the water's surface next to their ship. Within five seconds Ehime Maru lost power and began to sink. As Waddle watched through Greeneville's periscope, Ehime Maru stood almost vertically on its stern and sank in about five minutes as the people on the fishing ship scrambled to abandon ship.
Emergency response
Greeneville radioed a distress call to COMSUBPAC at Pearl Harbor for assistance.
COMSUBPAC notified the local United States Coast Guard (USCG) unit which began a search-and-rescue effort.
A USCG helicopter arrived, noted the survivors in the life rafts, and began searching for any survivors who might still be in the water. A USCG rigid-hulled inflatable boat and patrol boat arrived and administered first aid to the survivors in the rafts. Media helicopters also arrived during the rescue operation, and the incident was reported quickly by major news organizations. Of the 35 people aboard Ehime Maru (20 crew members, 13 students, and 2 teachers), the USCG rescued 26 people and took them to Oahu for medical treatment. Only one of the survivors had a serious injury, a broken clavicle; he was hospitalized for five days.
Nine other people were missing, including four 17-year-old high school students and the two teachers. None of the nine missing were seen by any of the survivors, Greeneville crewmembers, or USCG personnel after the ship sank. Captain Ōnishi stated that the nine missing people were probably in the ship's galley and engine rooms when the ship sank. USCG and USN aircraft and ships searched the ocean around Ehime Maru's last location continuously for 22 days, until 2 March. Two Japanese civilian vessels also joined the search. No remains of the nine missing people were discovered during the search.
Immediate aftermath
Since the collision involved a commercial vessel, the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) had jurisdiction to conduct the investigation into the accident.
Two days after the sinking, on 11 February, U.S. President George W. Bush apologized for the accident on national television, stating, "I want to reiterate what I said to the prime minister of Japan: I'm deeply sorry about the accident that took place; our nation is sorry."
On 11 February, during an "extremely emotional exchange", the commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, Admiral Thomas B. Fargo, personally apologized to families of the Ehime Maru's victims, who had arrived in Hawaii the day before. Several of the family members asked that Ehime Maru be raised from the ocean floor. Waddle had asked to accompany Fargo to apologize to the victims' families as well, but the COMSUBPAC public affairs office told him that he could not. The next day, the family members were taken by boat to view the accident site.
The perceived lack of remorse by Waddle, and reports in the Japanese media that Greeneville had made no effort to assist Ehime Maru's survivors as they waited for almost one hour for rescue angered many Japanese citizens, especially the family members of the missing. One Japanese family member publicly referred to Waddle as, "the most terrible criminal of them all". In response, Waddle delivered letters of apology to the Japanese consulate in Hawaii for delivery to the victims' families during the last week of February.
Japanese government officials publicly expressed concern about the reports that civilians had been at Greeneville's controls during the collision. Japan's foreign minister, Yōhei Kōno, complained that U.S. officials had not provided details of the civilians' involvement, stating, "I cannot help but say it is an extremely grave situation if it were the case that the participation of civilians in the submarine's surfacing maneuver led to the accident."
In February 2001, vice chief of naval operations Admiral William Fallon was given Presidential special envoy status and dispatched to Japan to apologize for the collision. Fallon, along with Ambassador Tom Foley, met with family members of the victims at the Ambassador's official residence in Tokyo and in the Ehime Maru's home port of Uwajima, Ehime Prefecture, bowing deeply and expressing regret on behalf of the United States and President George W. Bush. His deferential show of contrition to the families, performed in front of news cameras, was widely credited with ameliorating a situation that had the potential to damage US-Japan relations.
Court of inquiry
In addition to the NTSB investigation, the USN also initiated their own investigation.
A USN court of inquiry is similar to a grand jury investigation in civil court. The court has subpoena power and provides legal safeguards for the affected parties, such as the right to be represented by counsel. The court is a military investigative process and as such has no judge. Instead, three admirals comprise the court and make a report based on the evidence presented in the inquiry. Testimony and other evidence presented in the court can later be used in court-martial proceedings.
The court of inquiry began on 5 March 2001.
The court made several findings, including that Waddle failed to take positive action in response to the non-availability of the AVSDU, nine of the 13 watchstations in and around the control room were manned by substitute personnel, and that one of the sonar operators was unqualified to stand watch. The court also issued numerous opinions, including that the accident was caused by "a series and combination of individual negligence(s) onboard Greeneville," "artificial urgency" by Waddle to rush the submarine through its demonstration schedule as it began to run late, failure to follow standard procedures, the abbreviated periscope search, distractions and obstruction caused by the presence of the civilian guests, crew training deficiencies, overconfidence and complacency, and Waddle's not paying enough attention to ship contact information. The court found that, although Brandhuber was the senior officer present on Greeneville, Waddle as captain was solely responsible for the safe navigation of the submarine. The inquiry report went into great detail on the purpose and rules surrounding the USN's DVE program.
The court recommended against court-martial for the officers involved because of an absence of any "criminal intent or deliberate misconduct." Instead, the court recommended non-judicial punishment for Waddle and [others]. The court recommended that the USN DVE program continue.
Relatives of Ehime Maru's crewmembers were angry that none of the USN personnel involved would be court-martialed and that Waddle could remain in the USN and would retain his retirement pension.
Compensation
On 10 April 2002, the USN signed an agreement to pay the Ehime Prefectural Government US$11.47 million in compensation for the sinking of Ehime Maru. Some $8.87 million was to help pay to replace the ship, and the remainder was to pay for counseling and financial aid for the survivors as well as to pay for a memorial ceremony for the victims.
On 14 November 2002, the USN agreed to pay $13.9 million in compensation to 33 of the 35 families of victims or injured survivors. The remaining two families accepted a $2.6 million settlement from the USN on 31 January 2003.
Waddle's trip to Japan
On 14 December 2002, Waddle, accompanied by Charles Gittins, traveled to Japan to apologize personally to the victims' families. On 15 December, Waddle visited the Ehime Maru memorial at Uwajima Fisheries High School and placed a wreath of white lilies before a monument to the dead, bowed in silence and then read the victims' names aloud. No local officials were present during Waddle's visit, citing statements from some victims' families that they did not want Waddle to visit. Later that day, Waddle met with some of the families of the victims and with some of the survivors. The next day, in Tokyo, Waddle met with Masumi Terata. Speaking of her meeting with Waddle, Terata stated, "I am first and foremost the family member of a victim and Mr. Waddle is first and foremost a victimizer. But when I saw Mr. Waddle as a person who was crying and apologizing, I thought he was apologizing from the heart."
In a press conference on 17 December, Gittins criticized the USN for their continued insistence that Waddle not come to Japan to visit the victims' families. Said Gittins, "For the life of me, I cannot understand why the Navy did not want Scott to come meet with the families and do what is morally right and what is understood in Japanese culture to be the right thing to do". Gittins added that he had received emails from the USN as recently as the week before urging Waddle not to make the visit. Gittins stated that the reason that it took two years for Waddle to make the visit to Japan was because Waddle was forbidden to do so while he was still in the USN and because of financial constraints and fear of litigation after his retirement.
Later events
The NTSB released its report on the accident on 19 October 2005.[84] The NTSB report largely confirmed the USN's inquiry findings, including that Waddle was primarily responsible for the collision. The NTSB report, however, was more critical of the distractions caused by the DV civilians on Greeneville that contributed to the accident. The report concluded that the USN had recognized the "detrimental operating conditions" aboard Greeneville and had taken "additional measures to address the safety of operations" on submarines, including additional restrictions on DVE visitors.
On the 20th anniversary of the incident in February 2021, former commander Scott Waddle published an open letter of apology.
"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehime_Maru_and_USS_Greeneville_collision
---------------------------------------------------------
On This Day: Lands act takes effect, called one of most destructive for Native Americans in history - Feb. 8, 1887
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1016372474
On This Day: Florentines burn art, books, cosmetics, etc. in Bonfire of the Vanities - Feb. 7, 1497
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1016372410
On This Day: First African American settlers to Liberia face very high mortality rate - Feb. 6, 1820
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1016372394
On This Day: U.S. Steel born. In 2023, agreed to be bought by Nippon Steel. - Feb. 5, 1901
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1016372348
On This Day: Stalin in powerful position as Yalta talks with FDR, Churchill commence - Feb. 4, 1945
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1016372302
On This Day: Lands act takes effect, called one of most destructive for Native Americans in history - Feb. 8, 1887
(edited from Wikipedia)
"
Dawes Act
The Dawes Act of 1887, [which became effective on Feb. 8 of that year,] regulated land rights on tribal territories within the United States.
It authorized the President of the United States to subdivide Native American tribal communal landholdings into allotments for Native American heads of families and individuals. This would convert traditional systems of land tenure into a government-imposed system of private property by forcing Native Americans to "assume a capitalist and proprietary relationship with property" that did not previously exist in their cultures.
The act allowed tribes the option to sell the lands that remained after allotment to the federal government. Before private property could be dispensed, the government had to determine which Indians were eligible for allotments, which propelled an official search for a federal definition of "Indian-ness."
Although the act was passed in 1887, the federal government implemented the Dawes Act on a tribe-by-tribe basis thereafter. For example, in 1895, Congress passed the Hunter Act, which administered the Dawes Act among the Southern Ute. The nominal purpose of the act was to protect the property of the natives as well as to compel "their absorption into the American mainstream."
Native peoples who were deemed to be mixed-blood were granted U.S. citizenship, while others were "detribalized." Between 1887 and 1934, Native Americans ceded control of about 100 million acres of land or about "two-thirds of the land base they held in 1887" as a result of the act. The loss of land ownership and the break-up of traditional leadership of tribes produced potentially negative cultural and social effects that have since prompted some scholars to consider the act as one of the most destructive U.S. policies for Native Americans in history.
The "Five Civilized Tribes" (Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Muscogee, and Seminole) in Indian Territory were initially exempt from the Dawes Act. The Dawes Commission was established in 1893 as a delegation to register members of tribes for allotment of lands. They came to define tribal belonging in terms of blood-quantum. But, because there was no method of determining precise bloodlines, commission members often assigned "full-blood status" to Native Americans who were perceived as "poorly-assimilated" or "legally incompetent," and "mixed-blood status" to Native Americans who "most resembled whites," regardless of how they identified culturally.
The Curtis Act of 1898 extended the provisions of the Dawes Act to the "Five Civilized Tribes," required the abolition of their governments and dissolution of tribal courts, allotment of communal lands to individuals registered as tribal members, and sale of lands declared surplus. This law was "an outgrowth of the land rush of 1889, and completed the extinction of Indian land claims in the territory. This violated the promise of the United States that the Indian territory would remain Indian land in perpetuity," completed the obliteration of tribal land titles in Indian Territory, and prepared for admission of the territory land to the Union as the state of Oklahoma.
During the Great Depression, the Franklin D. Roosevelt administration passed the US Indian Reorganization Act (also known as the Wheeler-Howard Law) on June 18, 1934. It prohibited any further land allotment and created a "New Deal" for Native Americans, which renewed their rights to reorganize and form self-governments in order to "rebuild an adequate land base."
The "Indian Problem"
During the early 1800s, the United States federal government attempted to address what it referred to as the "Indian Problem." Numerous European immigrants were settling on the eastern border of the Indian territories (where most of the Native American tribes had been relocated). Conflicts between the groups increased as they competed for resources and operated according to different cultural systems.
Searching for a quick solution to their problem, Commissioner of Indian Affairs William Medill proposed establishing "colonies" or "reservations" that would be exclusively for the natives, similar to those which some native tribes had created for themselves in the east. It was a form of relocation whereby the US government would offer a transfer of the natives from current locations to areas in the region beyond the Mississippi River. This would enable settlement by European Americans in the Southeast, where there was a growing demand for access to new lands.
The new policy intended to concentrate Native Americans in areas away from the new settlers. During the later nineteenth century, Native American tribes resisted the imposition of the reservation system and engaged with the United States Army (in what were called the Indian Wars in the West) for decades. Finally defeated by the US military force and continuing waves of new settlers, the tribes negotiated agreements to resettle on reservations. Native Americans ended up with a total of over 155 million acres of land, ranging from arid deserts to prime agricultural land.
The Reservation system, while compulsory for Native Americans, allotted each tribe a claim to their new lands, protection over their territories, and the right to govern themselves. With the US Senate to be involved only for negotiation and ratification of treaties, the Native Americans adjusted their ways of life and tried to maintain their traditions. The traditional tribal organization, a defining characteristic of Native Americans as a social unit, became apparent to the non-native communities of the United States. The tribe was viewed as a highly cohesive group, led by a hereditary, chosen chief, who exercised power and influence among the members of the tribe by aging traditions.
By the end of the 1880s, some US stakeholders felt that the assimilation of Native Americans into American culture was top priority and was needed for the peoples' very survival. This was the belief among people who "admired" them, as well as people who thought they needed to leave behind their tribal landholding, reservations, traditions and ultimately their Indian identities. Senator Henry Dawes launched a campaign to "rid the nation of tribalism through the virtues of private property, allotting land parcels to Indian heads of family."
On February 8, 1887, the Dawes Allotment Act was signed into law by President Grover Cleveland. Responsible for enacting the allotment of the tribal reservations into plots of land for individual households, the Dawes Act was intended by reformers to achieve six goals:
- breaking up of tribes as a social unit,
- encouraging individual initiatives,
- furthering the progress of native farmers,
- reducing the cost of native administration,
- securing parts of the reservations as Indian land, and
- opening the remainder of the land to White settlers for profit.
The Act facilitated assimilation; they would become more "Americanized" as the government allotted the reservations and the Indians adapted to subsistence farming, the primary model at the time.
Native Americans held specific ideologies pertaining to tribal land. Some natives began to adapt to the culture. They adopted the values of the dominant society and saw land as real estate to be bought and developed; they learned how to use their land effectively in order to become prosperous farmers. As they were inducted as citizens of the country, they would shed those of their discourses and ideologies that were presumed to be uncivilized, and exchange them for ones that allowed them to become industrious self-supporting citizens, and finally rid themselves of their need for government supervision.
Identity and detribalization
The effects of the Dawes Act were destructive on Native American sovereignty, culture, and identity since it empowered the U.S. government to:
- legally preempt the sovereign right of Indians to define themselves
- implement the specious notion of blood-quantum as the legal criteria for defining Indians
- institutionalize divisions between "full-bloods" and "mixed-bloods"
- "detribalize" a sizeable segment of the Indian population
- legally appropriate vast tracts of Indian land
The federal government initially viewed the Dawes Act as such a successful democratic experiment that they decided to further explore the use of blood-quantum laws and the notion of federal recognition as the qualifying means for "dispensing other resources and services such as health care and educational funding" to Native Americans long after its passage.
Under Dawes, land parcels were dispersed in accordance with perceived blood quanta. Indigenous people labeled "full-blooded" were allocated "relatively small parcels of land deeded with trust patents over which the government retained complete control for a minimum of twenty-five years." Those who were labeled "mixed-blood" were "deeded larger and better tracts of land, with 'patents in fee simple' (complete control), but were also forced to accept U.S. citizenship and relinquish tribal status."
Additionally, Native Americans who did not "meet the established criteria" as being either "full-blood" or "mixed-blood" were effectively "detribalized," being "deposed of their American Indian identity and displaced from their homelands, discarded into the nebula of American otherness." While the Dawes Act is "typically recognized" as the "primary instigation of divisions between tribal and detribalized Indians," the history of detribalization in the United States "actually precedes Dawes."
Land loss
Senator Henry M. Teller of Colorado was one of the most outspoken opponents of allotment. In 1881, he said that allotment was a policy "to despoil the Indians of their lands and to make them vagabonds on the face of the earth." Teller also said,
the real aim [of allotment] was to get at the Indian lands and open them up to settlement. The provisions for the apparent benefit of the Indians are but the pretext to get at his lands and occupy them. ... If this were done in the name of greed, it would be bad enough; but to do it in the name of humanity ... is infinitely worse.
Most allottees given land on the Great Plains were not successful at achieving economic viability via farming. Division of land among heirs upon the allottees' deaths quickly led to land fractionalization. Most allotment land, which could be sold after a statutory period of 25 years, was eventually sold to non-Native buyers at bargain prices. Additionally, land deemed to be surplus beyond what was needed for allotment was opened to White settlers, though the profits from the sales of these lands were often invested in programs meant to aid the Native Americans. Over the 47 years of the Act's life, Native Americans lost about 90 million acres of treaty land, or about two-thirds of the 1887 land base. About 90,000 Native Americans were made landless.
Culture and gender roles
The Dawes Act compelled Native Americans to adopt European American culture by prohibiting Indigenous cultural practices and encouraging settler cultural practices and ideologies into Native American families and children. By transferring communally-owned Native land into private property, the Office of Indian Affairs (OIA) "hoped to transform Native Americans into yeoman farmers and farm wives through the assignment of individual land holdings known as allotments."
In an attempt to fulfill this objective, the Dawes Act "outlawed Native American culture and established a code of Indian offenses regulating individual behavior according to Euro-American norms of conduct." Any violations of this code were to be "tried in a Court of Indian Offenses on each reservation." Included with the Dawes Act were "funds to instruct Native Americans in Euro-American patterns of thought and behavior through Indian Service schools."
By dividing reservation lands into privately owned parcels, legislators hoped to complete the assimilation process by forcing Native Americans to adopt individual households, and strengthen the nuclear family and values of economic dependency strictly within this small household unit. The Dawes Act was thus implemented to destroy "native cultural patterns." As a result, "they promoted Christian marriages among indigenous people, forced families to regroup under male heads (a tactic often enforced by renaming), and trained men in wage-earning occupations while encouraging women to support them at home through domestic activities."
Reduction of sovereignty
The allotted lands of Native Americans determined to be incompetent by the Secretary of the Interior were automatically leased out by the federal government. It was known by the Department of Interior that virtually 95% of fee patented land would eventually be sold to whites.
Fractionation
For nearly one hundred years, the consequences of federal Indian allotments have developed into the problem of fractionation. As original allottees die, their heirs receive equal, undivided interests in the allottees' lands. In successive generations, smaller undivided interests descend to the next generation. Fractionated interests in individual Native American allotted land continue to expand exponentially with each new generation.
Fractionation has become significantly worse. [...] in some cases the land is so highly fractionated that it can never be made productive. With such small ownership interests, it is nearly impossible to obtain the level of consent necessary to lease the land. In addition, to manage highly fractionated parcels of land, the government spends more money probating estates, maintaining title records, leasing the land, and attempting to manage and distribute tiny amounts of income to individual owners than is received in income from the land. In many cases, the costs associated with managing these lands can be significantly more than the value of the underlying asset.
Criticisms
Angie Debo's, And Still the Waters Run: The Betrayal of the Five Civilized Tribes (1940), claimed the allotment policy of the Dawes Act (as later extended to apply to the Five Civilized Tribes through the Dawes Commission and the Curtis Act of 1898) was systematically manipulated to deprive the Native Americans of their lands and resources. Ellen Fitzpatrick claimed that Debo's book "advanced a crushing analysis of the corruption, moral depravity, and criminal activity that underlay White administration and execution of the allotment policy."
"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawes_Act
---------------------------------------------------------
On This Day: Florentines burn art, books, cosmetics, etc. in Bonfire of the Vanities - Feb. 7, 1497
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1016372410
On This Day: First African American settlers to Liberia face very high mortality rate - Feb. 6, 1820
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1016372394
On This Day: U.S. Steel born. In 2023, agreed to be bought by Nippon Steel. - Feb. 5, 1901
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1016372348
On This Day: Stalin in powerful position as Yalta talks with FDR, Churchill commence - Feb. 4, 1945
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1016372302
On This Day: "Doomsday planes" for nuclear war begin continuous flight for 29 years - Feb. 3, 1961
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1016372291
On This Day: Florentines burn art, books, cosmetics, etc. in Bonfire of the Vanities - Feb. 7, 1497
(edited from Wikipedia)
"
Bonfire of the Vanities
A bonfire of the vanities is a burning of objects condemned by religious authorities as occasions of sin. The phrase itself usually refers to the bonfire of 7 February 1497, when supporters of the Dominican friar Girolamo Savonarola collected and burned thousands of objects such as cosmetics, art, and books in the public square of Florence, Italy, on the occasion of Shrove Tuesday, martedí grasso.
Francesco Guicciardini's The History of Florence gives a firsthand account of the 1497 Florentine bonfire of the vanities. The focus of this destruction was on objects that might tempt one to sin, including vanity items such as mirrors, cosmetics, fine dresses, playing cards, and musical instruments. Other targets included books that Savonarola deemed immoral (such as works by Boccaccio), manuscripts of secular songs, and artworks, including paintings and sculptures.
Precursors
Although often associated with Savonarola, such bonfires had been a common accompaniment to the outdoor sermons of San Bernardino di Siena in the first half of the 15th century.
Savonarola
Fra Girolamo Savonarola was a Dominican friar who was assigned to work in Florence in 1490 at the request of Lorenzo de' Medici – although within a few years, Savonarola became one of the foremost enemies of the House of Medici and helped bring about their downfall in 1494. Savonarola campaigned against what he considered to be the artistic and social excesses of Renaissance Italy, preaching with great vigor against any luxury.
His power and influence grew so much that with time, he became the effective ruler of Florence and had soldiers for his protection following him around.
Starting in February 1495, during the time in which the festival known as Carnival occurred, Savonarola began to host a regular "bonfire of the vanities". He collected objects that he considered objectionable: manuscripts, sculptures, paintings, tapestries, and many other works of art, as well as mirrors, musical instruments, and books on divination, astrology, and magic.
Anyone who tried to object found their hands being forced by teams of Savonarola supporters. These supporters called themselves Piagnoni ("Weepers " ) after a public nickname that was initially intended as an insult.
Savonarola's influence did not go unnoticed by the higher church officials, however, and his actions came to the attention of Pope Alexander VI. He was excommunicated on 13 May 1497. He was charged with heresy and sedition at the command of Pope Alexander VI. Savonarola was executed by hanging on 23 May 1498, and his body was burnt. His death occurred in the Piazza della Signoria, where he had previously held his bonfires of the vanities. Then the papal authorities gave word that anyone in possession of the friar's writings had four days to turn them over to a papal agent for destruction. Anyone who did not comply also faced excommunication.
Botticelli
Although some later sources reported that the Florentine artist Sandro Botticelli burned several of his paintings based on classical mythology in the great Florentine bonfire of 1497, the primary source on his life, Vasari's biography, does not mention this, and no early record does either. Vasari does assert that Botticelli produced nothing after coming under the influence of Savonarola, but that is not accepted by modern art historians, and several of his paintings are assigned dates after Savonarola's death in 1498. The art historian Rab Hatfield says that one of Botticelli's paintings, The Mystical Nativity, cryptically dated 1500, is based on the sermon Savonarola delivered on Christmas Eve, 1493.
Writing several centuries later, in 1851, Orestes Brownson, an apologist for Savonarola, vaguely mentions artworks by Fra Bartolomeo, Lorenzo di Credi, and "many other painters", along with "several antique statues" being burnt in the bonfire.
In popular culture
The event has been represented or mentioned in varying degrees of detail in several works ... including the Showtime series The Borgias, The Sky (Italy) and the Netflix (North America) series Borgia, and the third season (2019) of the Netflix (North America) series Medici in the final episode titled "The Fate of the City."
As a metaphor, Tom Wolfe used the event and ritual as the title for his 1987 novel The Bonfire of the Vanities and its film adaptation.
"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonfire_of_the_vanities
---------------------------------------------------------
On This Day: First African American settlers to Liberia face very high mortality rate - Feb. 6, 1820
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1016372394
On This Day: U.S. Steel born. In 2023, agreed to be bought by Nippon Steel. - Feb. 5, 1901
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1016372348
On This Day: Stalin in powerful position as Yalta talks with FDR, Churchill commence - Feb. 4, 1945
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1016372302
On This Day: "Doomsday planes" for nuclear war begin continuous flight for 29 years - Feb. 3, 1961
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1016372291
On This Day: Serum dog sled run reaches Nome, helps spur inoculations for diptheria - Feb. 2, 1925
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1016372240
On This Day: First African American settlers to Liberia face very high mortality rate - Feb. 6, 1820
(edited from Wikipedia)
"
Liberia
Liberia is a country in West Africa founded by free people of color from the United States. The emigration of African Americans, both freeborn and recently emancipated, was funded and organized by the American Colonization Society (ACS). The mortality rate of these settlers was the highest among settlements reported with modern record keeping. Of the 4,571 emigrants who arrived in Liberia between 1820 and 1843, only 1,819 survived (39.8%).
First ideas of colonization
From around 1800, in the United States, people opposed to slavery were planning ways to liberate more slaves and, ultimately, to abolish the practice. At the same time, slaveholders in the South opposed having free blacks in their states, as they believed the free people threatened the stability of their slave societies.
Slaves were gradually freed in the North, although more slowly than generally realized; there were hundreds of slaves in Northern states in the 1840 census, and in New Jersey, in the 1860 census. The former slaves and other free blacks suffered considerable social and legal discrimination; they were not citizens and were seen by many as unwanted foreigners who were taking jobs away from whites by working for less. Like Southern states, some Northern states and territories severely restricted or prohibited altogether entry by free blacks.
Some abolitionists, including distinguished blacks such as ship builder Paul Cuffe or Cuffee, believed that blacks should return to "the African homeland", as if it were one ethnicity and country, despite many having been in the United States for generations. Cuffe's dream was that free African Americans and freed slaves "could establish a prosperous colony in Africa," one based on emigration and trade.
American Colonization Society
The first ship of the American Colonization Society, the Elizabeth, departed New York on February 6, 1820, for West Africa carrying 86 settlers. Between 1821 and 1838, the American Colonization Society developed the first settlement, which would be known as Liberia. On July 26, 1847, Liberia declared itself a (free) sovereign nation.
The American Colonization Society (ACS) was founded in 1816 by Virginia politician Charles F. Mercer and Presbyterian minister Robert Finley of New Jersey. The goal of the ACS was to settle free blacks outside of the United States; its method was to help them relocate to Africa.
Starting in January 1820, the ACS sent ships from New York to West Africa. The first had 88 free black emigrants and three white ACS agents on board. The agents were to find an appropriate area for a settlement. Additional ACS representatives arrived in the second ACS ship, the Nautilus. In December 1821, they acquired Cape Mesurado, a 36-mile-long (58 km) strip of land near present-day Monrovia, from the indigenous ruler King Peter (perhaps with some threat of force).
[First colonies]
From the beginning, the colonists were attacked by indigenous peoples whose territory this was, such as the Malinké tribes. In addition, they suffered from disease, the harsh climate, lack of food and medicine, and poor housing conditions.
Until 1835, five more colonies were created by the colonization societies of five different states in the U.S. (Republic of Maryland, Kentucky-in-Africa, Mississippi in Africa, Louisiana, Liberia, and that set up by the Pennsylvania state colonization society and one planned by the New Jersey colonization society).
Rejection of colonization in the United States
Free people of color in the United States, with a few notable exceptions, overwhelmingly rejected the idea of moving to Liberia, or anywhere else in Africa, from the very beginning of the movement. Most of them had lived in the United States for generations, and while they wanted better treatment, they did not want to leave. In response to the proposal for blacks to move to Africa, Frederick Douglass said "Shame upon the guilty wretches that dare propose, and all that countenance such a proposition. We live here—have lived here—have a right to live here, and mean to live here."
Starting in 1831 with William Lloyd Garrison's new newspaper, The Liberator, and followed by his Thoughts on African Colonization in 1832, support for colonization dropped, particularly in Northern free states. Garrison and his followers supported the idea of "immediatism," calling for immediate emancipation of all slaves and the legal prohibition of slavery throughout the United States. The ACS, Garrison declared, was "a creature without heart, without brains, eyeless, unnatural, hypocritical, relentless and unjust." It was not, in his view, a plan to eliminate slavery; rather, it was a way to protect it.
High mortality
The ACS knew of the high death rate, but continued to send more people to the colony.
Handing over command to Americo-Liberians
The ACS administrators gradually gave the maturing colony more self-governance. In 1839, it was reorganized into the Commonwealth of Liberia. In 1841, the Commonwealth's first non-white governor, Joseph Jenkins Roberts, was appointed by ACS's governing board. In early 1847, the ACS directed Liberian leadership to declare independence. On July 26, 1847, eleven signatories to the Liberian Declaration of Independence established the free and independent Republic of Liberia. It took several years for other nations to recognize Liberia's independence, most notably Britain in 1848 and France in 1852. In the United States, the Southern bloc in Congress refused to recognize Liberian sovereignty. In 1862, however, following the departure of most Southern congressmen due to the American Civil War and the secession of the Southern states, the United States finally established diplomatic relations and welcomed a Liberian delegation to Washington.
"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Liberia
---------------------------------------------------------
On This Day: U.S. Steel born. In 2023, agreed to be bought by Nippon Steel. - Feb. 5, 1901
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1016372348
On This Day: Stalin in powerful position as Yalta talks with FDR, Churchill commence - Feb. 4, 1945
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1016372302
On This Day: "Doomsday planes" for nuclear war begin continuous flight for 29 years - Feb. 3, 1961
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1016372291
On This Day: Serum dog sled run reaches Nome, helps spur inoculations for diptheria - Feb. 2, 1925
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1016372240
On This Day: CCP mass campaign for "systematic remolding of human minds" begins - Feb. 1, 1942
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1016372161
On This Day: U.S. Steel born. In 2023, agreed to be bought by Nippon Steel. - Feb. 5, 1901
(edited from article)
"
United States Steel: The First Billion Dollar Company?
Bryan Taylor, Chief Economist, Global Financial Data
December 23, 2023
US Steel was established on February 5, 1901, when it issued 5 million shares of common stock and 5 million shares of 7% Preferred. This led to a joke in which a student said, “God made the world in 4004 B.C., and it was reorganized in 1901 by J.P. Morgan.” The company had 168,000 employees and made over $100 million in profits during its first year. U.S. Steel produced 66% of America’s steel output and 40% of the world’s steel output. Half a century later, U.S. Steel had over 300,000 employees.
U.S. Steel faced new competition in the 1970s when Nucor (formerly the Nuclear Corp. of America) invested in electric-arc furnaces which were cheaper and more productive than the traditional blast furnace. Nucor is now the largest steel producer in the United States. It took 10.1 man hours to produce a ton of finished steel in 1980, but only 1.5 man hours in 2017 with some mini-mills requiring just 0.5 man hours to produce a ton of steel. The new steel mills, combined with competition from steel produced in Asia, has reduced the profitability of U.S. Steel.
It was announced [in Dec. 2023] that United States Steel has accepted an offer to be bought out by Nippon Steel for $55 a share turning the company into a $14 billion acquisition. This brings an end to the existence of one of the largest and most important firms in American history. Some could argue that US Steel, symbol X, was the first billion-dollar corporation. The curious thing is that technically, the original US Steel lives on as Marathon Oil.
"
https://globalfinancialdata.com/united-states-steel-the-first-billion-dollar-company
"
(edited from Wikipedia)
"
U.S. Steel
United States Steel Corporation, more commonly known as U.S. Steel, is an American integrated steel producer headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, with production operations primarily in the United States of America and in Central Europe. The company produces and sells steel products, including flat-rolled and tubular products for customers in industries across automotive, construction, consumer, electrical, industrial equipment, distribution, and energy. Operations also include iron ore and coke production facilities.
It was the eighth-largest steel producer in the world in 2008. By 2022, the company was the world's 24th-largest steel producer and the second-largest in the United States behind Nucor Corporation. Though renamed USX Corporation in 1986, the company was renamed United States Steel in 2001 after spinning off its energy business, including Marathon Oil, and other assets, from its core steel concern.
Pending regulatory and shareholder approval, US Steel is set to be acquired by Nippon Steel, Japan's largest steel producing company, for US$14.1 billion. The deal, announced in mid-December 2023, retains US Steel's name and headquarters in Pittsburgh.
In 1902, its first full year of operation, U.S. Steel made 67 percent of all the steel produced in the United States. About 100 years later, as of 2001, it produced only 8 percent more than it did in 1902, and its shipments accounted for only about 8 percent of domestic consumption.
[Slavery by Another Name]
According to the author Douglas Blackmon in Slavery by Another Name, the growth of U.S. Steel and its subsidiaries in the South was partly dependent on the labor of cheaply paid black workers and exploited convicts. The company could obtain black labor at a fraction of the cost of white labor by taking advantage of the Black Codes and discriminatory laws passed in the late 19th and early 20th centuries by Southern states after the Reconstruction Era. In addition, U.S. Steel had agreements with more than 20 counties in Alabama to obtain the labor of its prisoners, often paying locals nine dollars a month for workers who would be forced into their mines through a system of convict leasing. This practice continued until at least the late 1920s. While some individuals were guilty of a crime, they did not receive payment or recognition for their work; many died from abuse, malnutrition, and dire working and living conditions. This practice of convict leasing was fairly ubiquitous as eight Southern states had similar practices and many companies, as well as farmers, took advantage of this.
The Corporation, as it was known on Wall Street, was distinguished by its size, rather than for its efficiency or creativity during its heyday. In 1901, it controlled two-thirds of steel production and, through its Pittsburgh Steamship Company, developed the largest commercial fleet on the Great Lakes. Because of heavy debts taken on at the company's formation—Carnegie insisted on being paid in gold bonds for his stake—and fears of antitrust litigation, U.S. Steel moved cautiously. Competitors often innovated faster, especially Bethlehem Steel, run by Charles Schwab, U.S. Steel's former president. U.S. Steel's share of the expanding market slipped to 50 percent by 1911.
In March 1908, the company formed the Committee on Safety of United States Steel following chairman Elbert H. Gary's meetings on safety with casualty managers of the operating companies, thereby leading to the introduction of the modern "Safety First" movement. The committee's formation was intended not only to prevent worker accidents, but to safeguard the company against criticisms and legal liability.
Mid-century [tangles with U.S. Presidents]
U.S. Steel ranked 16th among United States corporations in the value of World War II production contracts. Production peaked at more than 35 million tons in 1953. Its employment was greatest in 1943, when it had more than 340,000 employees.
The federal government intervened to try to control U.S. Steel. President Harry S. Truman attempted to take over its steel mills in 1952 to resolve a crisis with its union, the United Steelworkers of America. The Supreme Court blocked the takeover by ruling that the president did not have the Constitutional authority to seize the mills. President John F. Kennedy was more successful in 1962 when he pressured the steel industry into reversing price increases that Kennedy considered dangerously inflationary.
According to the author Dan Carter in The Politics Of Rage: George Wallace, The Origins Of The New Conservatism, And The Transformation Of American Politics, U.S. Steel strongly resisted Kennedy administration efforts to enlist Alabama businesses to support the desegregation of the University of Alabama, which Gov. George Wallace had promised to block by standing in the schoolhouse door. Although the firm employed more than 30,000 workers in Birmingham, Ala., company president Roger M. Blough in 1963 "went out of his way to announce that any attempt to use his company position in Birmingham to pressure local whites was 'repugnant to me personally' and 'repugnant to my fellow officers at U.S. Steel.'"
In the postwar years, the steel industry and heavy manufacturing went through a restructuring that caused a decline in U.S. Steel's need for labor, production, and portfolio. Many jobs moved offshore. By 2000, the company employed 52,500 people.
The USX period - [tax breaks don't go into steel]
In the early days of the Reagan Administration, steel firms won substantial tax breaks in order to compete with imported goods. But instead of modernizing their mills, steel companies shifted capital out of steel and into more profitable areas. In March 1982, U.S. Steel took its concessions and paid $1.4 billion in cash and $4.7 billion in loans for Marathon Oil, saving approximately $500 million in taxes through the merger.
The architect of tax concessions to steel firms, Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA), complained that "we go out on a limb in Congress and we feel they should be putting it in steel." The events are the subject of "The U.S. Steal Song" by folk singer Anne Feeney.
In 1984, the federal government prevented U.S. Steel from acquiring National Steel, and political pressure from the United States Congress, as well as the United Steelworkers (USW), forced the company to abandon plans to import British Steel Corporation slabs. As part of its diversification plan, U.S. Steel had acquired Marathon Oil on January 7, 1982, as well as Texas Oil and Gas several years later. Recognizing its new scope, it reorganized its holdings as USX Corporation in 1986, with U.S. Steel (renamed USS, Inc.) as a major subsidiary.
About 22,000 USX employees stopped work on August 1, 1986, after the United Steelworkers of America and the company could not agree on new employee contract terms. This was characterized by the company as a strike and by the union as a lockout. This resulted in most USX facilities becoming idle until February 1, 1987, seriously degrading the steel division's market share. A compromise was brokered and accepted by the union membership on January 31, 1987.
[Origin of term "rust belt"]
On February 4, 1987, three days after the agreement had been reached to end the work stoppage, USX announced that four USX plants would remain closed permanently, eliminating about 3,500 union jobs. The closure of so many plants created the term "rust belt" for a region of idle and derelict factories.
Corporate raider Carl Icahn launched a hostile takeover of the steel giant in late 1986 in the midst of the work stoppage. He conducted separate negotiations with the union and with management and proceeded to have proxy battles with shareholders and management. But he abandoned all efforts to buy out the company on January 8, 1987, a few weeks before union employees returned to work.
Recent history
At the end of the twentieth century, the corporation was deriving much of its revenue and net income from its energy operations. Led by CEO Thomas Usher, U.S. Steel spun off Marathon and other non-steel assets (except railroad company Transtar) in October 2001. It expanded internationally for the first time by purchasing operations in Slovakia and Serbia.
In the early 2010s, U.S. Steel began investing to upgrade software programs throughout their manufacturing facilities.
In January 2012, U.S. Steel sold its Serbian mills outside Belgrade to the Serbian government, as their operations had been running at an economic loss.
On July 2, 2014, U.S. Steel was removed from S&P 500 index and placed in the S&P MidCap 400 Index, in light of its declining market capitalization.
In October 2019, U.S. Steel announced a $700 million investment in Big River Steel, which became the first steel facility to be LEED-certified in 2017, in exchange for a 49.9% ownership interest. In December 2020, U.S. Steel announced it would acquire the remaining ownership interest in Big River Steel for $774 million. The acquisition was completed in January 2021.
In February 2022, U.S. Steel began construction on a new mill in Osceola, Arkansas which will be operational by 2024. In April 2022, the electric arc furnace flat-rolled Big River Steel mill in Osceola became the first ResponsibleSteel site certified in North America following an independent audit by SRI Quality System Registrar (SRI).
On December 18, 2023, Nippon Steel announced an agreement with U.S. Steel to purchase the company for $14.1 billion USD, or $55 USD per share, pending regulatory approval. The company agreed to maintain a headquarters for US Steel in its hometown of Pittsburgh and honor all steelworker union contracts.
"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Steel
---------------------------------------------------------
On This Day: Stalin in powerful position as Yalta talks with FDR, Churchill commence - Feb. 4, 1945
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1016372302
On This Day: "Doomsday planes" for nuclear war begin continuous flight for 29 years - Feb. 3, 1961
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1016372291
On This Day: Serum dog sled run reaches Nome, helps spur inoculations for diptheria - Feb. 2, 1925
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1016372240
On This Day: CCP mass campaign for "systematic remolding of human minds" begins - Feb. 1, 1942
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1016372161
On This Day: Congress votes against slavery, but for forced prison labor, still to today - Jan. 31, 1865
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1016372095
On This Day: Stalin in powerful position as Yalta talks with FDR, Churchill commence - Feb. 4, 1945
(edited from Wikipedia)
"
Yalta Conference
The Yalta Conference, held 4–11 February 1945, was the World War II meeting of the heads of government of the United States, the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union to discuss the postwar reorganization of Germany and Europe. The three states were represented by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Prime Minister Winston Churchill, and General Secretary Joseph Stalin. The conference was held near Yalta in Crimea, Soviet Union, within the Livadia, Yusupov, and Vorontsov palaces.
Intended mainly to discuss the re-establishment of the nations of war-torn Europe, within a few years, with the Cold War dividing the continent, the conference became a subject of intense controversy.
Yalta was the second of three major wartime conferences among the Big Three. It was preceded by the Tehran Conference in November 1943 and was followed by the Potsdam Conference in July of the same year, 1945.
Conference
During the Yalta Conference, the Western Allies had liberated all of France and Belgium and were fighting on the western border of Germany. In the east, Soviet forces were 40 mi from Berlin, having already pushed back the Germans from Poland, Romania, and Bulgaria. There was no longer a question regarding German defeat. The issue was the new shape of postwar Europe.
Each of the three leaders had his own agenda for postwar Germany and liberated Europe.
Roosevelt wanted Soviet support in the Pacific War against Japan, specifically for the planned invasion of Japan, as well as Soviet participation in the United Nations. Roosevelt wanted the Soviets to enter the Pacific War against Japan with the Allies, which he hoped would end the war sooner and reduce American casualties.
Churchill pressed for free elections and democratic governments in Central and Eastern Europe, specifically Poland.
Stalin demanded a Soviet sphere of political influence in Eastern and Central Europe as an essential aspect of the Soviets' national security strategy, and his position at the conference was felt by him to be so strong that he could dictate terms. According to US delegation member and future Secretary of State James F. Byrnes, "it was not a question of what we would let the Russians do, but what we could get the Russians to do".
Accordingly, Stalin stipulated that Polish government-in-exile demands were not negotiable, and the Soviets would keep the territory of eastern Poland that they had annexed in 1939, with Poland to be compensated for that by extending its western borders at the expense of Germany.
The Soviets wanted the return of South Sakhalin, which had been taken from Russia by Japan in the Russo-Japanese War in 1905, and the cession of Kuril Islands by Japan, both of which were approved by Truman. In return, Stalin pledged that the Soviet Union would enter the Pacific War three months after the defeat of Germany.
Furthermore, the Soviets agreed to join the United Nations because of a secret understanding of a voting formula with a veto power for permanent members of the Security Council, which ensured that each country could block unwanted decisions.
The Soviet Army had occupied Poland completely and held much of Eastern Europe with a military power three times greater than Allied forces in the West. The Declaration of Liberated Europe did little to dispel the sphere of influence agreements, which had been incorporated into armistice agreements.
Also, the Big Three agreed that all original governments would be restored to the invaded countries, with the exceptions of Romania and Bulgaria, and Poland, whose government-in-exile was also excluded by Stalin, and that all of their civilians would be repatriated.
Aftermath
On March 1, 1945, Roosevelt assured Congress, "I come from the Crimea with a firm belief that we have made a start on the road to a world of peace". However, the Western Powers soon realized that Stalin would not honor his promise of free elections for Poland.
Because of Stalin's promises, Churchill believed that he would keep his word regarding Poland and he remarked, "Poor Neville Chamberlain believed he could trust Hitler. He was wrong. But I don't think I am wrong about Stalin."
After the Second World War ended, a communist government was installed in Poland. Many Poles felt betrayed by their wartime allies. Many Polish soldiers refused to return to Poland because of the Soviet repressions of Polish citizens.
By March 21, Roosevelt's Ambassador to the Soviet Union, Averell Harriman, cabled Roosevelt that "we must come clearly to realize that the Soviet program is the establishment of totalitarianism, ending personal liberty and democracy as we know it". Two days later, Roosevelt began to admit that his view of Stalin had been excessively optimistic and that "Averell is right."
The Soviet Union had already annexed several occupied countries as (or into) Soviet Socialist Republics, and other countries in Central and Eastern Europe were occupied and converted into Soviet-controlled satellite states.
"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yalta_Conference
(edited from article)
"
The Yalta Conference at seventy-five: Lessons from history
February 7, 2020
by Daniel Fried, ambassador to Poland during the Clinton administration
... Yalta was not simply the failure of one US president at one meeting. The road to Yalta was the product of the doctrine of isolationism and the original “America First” movement that reflected conviction by great parts of the US political left and right that the United States had no vital interests in European security. Roosevelt’s foreign policy was constrained by the isolationists’ political power and, as a result, the United States left Britain and France, weakened by World War One, to deal with Hitler and Stalin on their own.
The consequences were catastrophic. It took the German conquest of France in June 1940 to substantially weaken the political power of the isolationists. By then, good outcomes were unobtainable. The United States was playing catch up from a bad position. When the United States entered World War Two in December 1941, it needed Stalin to defeat Hitler.
... core values may have more viability than it seems, especially in the long term ... The Yalta Conference failed but Yalta Europe was not forever. The strategic vision that Roosevelt spelled out in the Atlantic Charter and sought to realize at Yalta—even if miserably—now seems the right one.
That vision, in fact, provided the basis for US policy toward Poland and Central Europe after the fall of the Iron Curtain in 1989. That policy sought to fulfill the promise of the Atlantic Charter for all of Europe—and this time was more successful. Nor is that narrative over. With respect to Ukraine, a country also seeking a future with an undivided Europe, those debates and those tensions apply to this day.
"
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/the-yalta-conference-at-seventy-five-lessons-from-history/
---------------------------------------------------------
On This Day: "Doomsday planes" for nuclear war begin continuous flight for 29 years - Feb. 3, 1961
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1016372291
On This Day: Serum dog sled run reaches Nome, helps spur inoculations for diptheria - Feb. 2, 1925
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1016372240
On This Day: CCP mass campaign for "systematic remolding of human minds" begins - Feb. 1, 1942
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1016372161
On This Day: Congress votes against slavery, but for forced prison labor, still to today - Jan. 31, 1865
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1016372095
On This Day: Soviet Politburo begins process of mass murder and forced deportations of millions - Jan. 30, 1930
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1016372029
Profile Information
Member since: Thu Jun 30, 2022, 12:37 AMNumber of posts: 910
