Democratic Fantasies vs. Cold War Realities

Laurence R. Jurdem
{"title":"Democratic Fantasies vs. Cold War Realities","authors":"Laurence R. Jurdem","doi":"10.5810/KENTUCKY/9780813175843.003.0007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The strain of Black Nationalism that existed within the United Nations also worried conservatives as they monitored the evolution of events in Southern Africa. In their intense desire to rid the world of communism, other issues, such as race, were either marginalized or ignored. The chapter analyzes the three publications’ view of race as it relates to the issue of Rhodesia during the height of the Cold War. In ignoring the suppression of an entire race of people, Human Events and National Review contrasted what they perceived to be a stable, anticommunist, biracial society with the militarism and lawlessness that they argued defined the 1960s and 1970s. While the two conservative publications viewed Rhodesia as a model of biracial success, Commentary focused on the Carter administration’s dismissive attitude about the dangers of Soviet encroachment within the African hemisphere. The Right argued that the Carter White House, in its refusal to endorse Rhodesia’s 1979 parliamentary elections due to a lack of representation of militant nationalist groups, and its belief in the policy of détente, continued to send a message of American weakness and indifference to totalitarianism around the world.","PeriodicalId":19749,"journal":{"name":"Paving the Way for Reagan","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-07-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Paving the Way for Reagan","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5810/KENTUCKY/9780813175843.003.0007","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The strain of Black Nationalism that existed within the United Nations also worried conservatives as they monitored the evolution of events in Southern Africa. In their intense desire to rid the world of communism, other issues, such as race, were either marginalized or ignored. The chapter analyzes the three publications’ view of race as it relates to the issue of Rhodesia during the height of the Cold War. In ignoring the suppression of an entire race of people, Human Events and National Review contrasted what they perceived to be a stable, anticommunist, biracial society with the militarism and lawlessness that they argued defined the 1960s and 1970s. While the two conservative publications viewed Rhodesia as a model of biracial success, Commentary focused on the Carter administration’s dismissive attitude about the dangers of Soviet encroachment within the African hemisphere. The Right argued that the Carter White House, in its refusal to endorse Rhodesia’s 1979 parliamentary elections due to a lack of representation of militant nationalist groups, and its belief in the policy of détente, continued to send a message of American weakness and indifference to totalitarianism around the world.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
民主幻想vs.冷战现实
在关注南部非洲事态的演变时,存在于联合国内部的黑人民族主义也令保守派感到担忧。在他们强烈希望摆脱共产主义世界的愿望中,其他问题,如种族,要么被边缘化,要么被忽视。这一章分析了这三份出版物对种族的看法,因为它与冷战高峰时期的罗得西亚问题有关。《人类事件》和《国家评论》忽略了对整个种族的镇压,将他们所认为的稳定、反共、混血人社会与他们所认为的60年代和70年代的军国主义和无法无天进行了对比。虽然这两份保守出版物将罗得西亚视为混血人成功的典范,但《评论》关注的是卡特政府对苏联入侵非洲半球的危险的不屑态度。右派认为,卡特政府拒绝支持罗德西亚1979年的议会选举,原因是缺乏激进民族主义团体的代表,以及它对dasten政策的信仰,继续传递出美国软弱和对全世界极权主义漠不关心的信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
An Erosion of Credibility A Symbol of Appeasement A Loss of National Pride The De-moralization of the Cold War A Friend in the White House
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1