Imagine you are an American diplomat in 1970. You are part of a team sent to a strategic Third World country in hopes of making an alliance. Soviet diplomats have been there before you and have sugg
PROMPT
This is an exercise in ethics and civics.
Imagine you are an American diplomat in 1970. You are part of a team sent to a strategic Third World country in hopes of making an alliance. Soviet diplomats have been there before you and have suggested to the leaders of this Third World country that the United States should not be trusted as a partner because of how Americans treat their own minority populations. You have been asked to provide a formal, written rebuttal to the Soviet claims.
After giving the matter some thought, you have decided to base your rebuttal on key changes in both foreign and domestic policy over the past 50 years to convince this Third World country to join with the Americans as allies in the Cold War. You realize that you cannot simply "sugarcoat" things and be believable, therefore you plan to provide a thoughtful response that does admit inequities in American society in addition to discussing ongoing changes and positive policies.
What are the key three points you want to get across in your rebuttal?
Note 1: Successful initial posts will consider a broad range of evidence in support of arguments. Take a few moments to consider how you would respond by making a list of both "good" and "bad" aspects of American society and policy. When looking at the "good," ask yourself why they are good for the purposes of this rebuttal, how would non-Americans perceive things? When looking at the "bad" (which is what the Soviets used against us in the Cold War, as well as the Nazis in WWII, as propaganda), consider change over time. Are there groups working toward ameliorating the bad? Are public policy changes taking place, even if at a slow pace? Or is nothing being done? Admitting injustices while discussing efforts at reform may be enough to sway someone to your side.
One way to organize would be along the lines of first discussing domestic socio-economic issues, followed by domestic political issues, and finally foreign policies in the era under discussion. Remember that each of these elements of the overall argument would have its own paragraph and thesis (the rule of three)
Note 2: This is a real-life situation, there was a fight for the hearts and minds of the world. The Cold War is an ideological (and sometimes hot) battle over two socio-economic/political systems and 1970 is in the heart of the Cold War. Who will be the victor was not yet clear. Most of the Third World nations courted by the United States were not European, therefore how the US treated minorities would be a cause for concern. But these nations would also have very real geopolitical considerations beyond American domestic policy to consider. The Soviet propaganda was meant as a wedge. Also remember that no nation or society is perfect, that is not what you are arguing here. In your persona as a diplomat from 1970, you are giving an honest assessment of the US, warts and all, in hopes of gaining an ally.
Click here for interesting article on how the Soviet's used our civil rights conflicts against us.
Be sure to address issues of ethics and civics in your analytical initial post. Make comments on three other initial posts, offering meaningful debate/analysis on their key points.
How the Soviets Used Our Civil Rights Conflicts Against Us
By REBECCA ONION
JULY 09, 20131:55 PM
TWEET
SHARE
COMMENT
The Vault is Slate’s new history blog. Like us on Facebook, follow us on Twitter @slatevault, and find us on Tumblr. Find out more about what this space is all about here.
The John F. Kennedy Library and Museum recently digitized a portion of the Kennedy administration’s national security files. Among these papers was this June 1963 memo that summarizes Soviet media coverage of the growing American conflicts over civil rights. These Soviet broadcasts, which reached audiences in Asia, Africa, and South America, tried to turn global public opinion against the United States.
The memo, compiled by Thomas Hughes, assistant secretary of state for intelligence and research, saw an increase in volume of such Soviet broadcasts in the spring of 1963. That spring, after Martin Luther King Jr. was arrested in Birmingham, Ala., during the first widely televised protests and sit-ins, activists staged 758 demonstrations in 75 Southern cities.
A few major arguments of these broadcasts, as Hughes summarized them: Capitalism provided a natural environment for racism, which would never end so long as the American system needed cheap labor. The federal government’s policy of limited intervention in Southern conflicts was tantamount to support of Southern racism. The United States could not claim to be the leader of the free world while hypocritically refusing to support civil rights within its borders.
In the most politically damaging line of reasoning, Soviet broadcasters argued that American domestic policy toward its black citizens was “indicative of its policy toward peoples of color throughout the world.” Emerging African, Asian, and South American nations, in other words, should not count on Americans to support their independence.
On the fourth page of the memo, Hughes argued that the Soviets had their own PR problem when it came to treatment of ethnic and racial minorities within their borders (facing, for example, ongoing accusations of anti-Semitism in the world press). Hughes thought that Soviets might be trying to distract from recent negative coverage of their own internal conflicts by pointing a finger at the United States.
Previously on The Vault: an August 1963 film, produced by the U.S. Information Agency for foreign distribution, that featured actors Charlton Heston, Harry Belafonte, Sidney Poitier, Marlon Brando, and James Baldwin in conversation on the meaning of civil rights.
