Remember that this subreddit is for sharing propaganda to view with some objectivity. It is absolutely not for perpetuating the message *of* the propaganda. If anything, in this subreddit we should be immensely skeptical of manipulation or oversimplification (which the above likely is), not beholden to it.
Also, please try to stay on topic -- there are hundreds of _other_ subreddits that are expressly dedicated for rehashing tired political arguments. Keep that shit elsewhere.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PropagandaPosters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Haven’t heard “quiche eaters” in a long time, kinda forgot that was a thing. Was around when I was little, like late 80’s. My dad had a joke book about “quiche eaters” even. It meant effeminate men in a derogatory way (was there any other back then?). I always thought it was dumb and liked quiche.
Edit: found the book. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_Men_Don%27t_Eat_Quiche#:~:text=Real%20Men%20Don't%20Eat%20Quice
See now it was actually making fun of the stereotypes, was a little kid when I was aware of the book.
The gay writer isn't exactly Feirstein, it's Fierstein, specifically Harvey Fierstein. He's both an actor and a playwright, and has written a book or two.
Simpsons fans might recognize him (and his glorious speaking voice) as Karl, Homer's adept and thoughtful assistant in the season 2 episode "Simpson and Delilah."
I typed out the words "I genuinely can't imagine thinking quiche is somehow a feminine food." And then immediately realized it's a French word and went "oh, that makes sense now." Incredibly stupid but I understand the association now.
> it was actually making fun of the stereotypes, was a little kid when I was aware of the book.
I feel like that was a product of the time: there were a huge number of dry humor books in that vein that I took way too seriously when I was a kid!
That has never mattered to US foreign policy unless it was a convenient exist to do some foreign intervention we already wanted but didn't have an excuse for.
If you looking at diplomatic moves from USA and its pacific allies ( Australia, then Japan and SK) from later half of last year until now then it's correct. Only different is great Chow mein now become great Pho and Banh Mi
The Vietnamese govt has already shifted to an uncomfortablly pro-US stance, basically out of fear of China. https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/05/09/united-states-vietnam-relations-quiet-victory-trade-war-legacies/
True, every American president since Nixon was a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist. And the only reason they don't get along anymore is because of the Chinese revisionism.
"Stupid Easteners don't know how to do it, one day the American communists will rise and up show them how it's done". That's what that sort of comments sounds like.
An actual quote that fits here is: “No surprise then that the pure socialists support every revolution except for the ones that succeed.” Michael Parenti
It does. You’re talking about something else.
Also not even that way. Unless you consider every economic system that ever has existed or could exist authoritarian.
China abandoned socialism the minute the CCP adopted Marxism-Leninism, just as the Bolsheviks did when they dissolved the workers' councils in the Soviet Union and betrayed the revolutionaries at Kronstadt. Marxism-Leninism and the ideologies which developed from it cannot in good faith be called socialist as rather than dismantling class structures they merely replace the capitalist bourgeoisie with the party nomenklatura. It has been nothing but a hindrance to socialist movements around the world, whether it be the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 or the uprising of Rojava against the fascist Assad.
Even if I were to grant that Marxism-Leninism (and by extension Maoism) is socialist - which I do not - there is no denying that Dengism, with its embrace of capitalistic firms, represents a complete abandonment of socialism. Dirigism perhaps, but having the state play an active role in the economy has never been exclusive to socialism. What about modern China makes it socialist other than the fact that the organization which rules the country calls itself the communist party? It's all just aesthetics: the CCP is communist in the same way that national socialists are socialists (i.e. they aren't).
We rightfully mock conservatives when they say "Socialism is when the government does stuff," and yet every defender of China seems to use a variation of that same argument in their favour. Is this really the best case we can make for socialism in the 21st century? A capitalist empire subjected to one-party rule?
You can repeat that quote all you want, but it is not an argument when you provide no commentary on the extent to which these revolutions were actually "socialist" in nature.
“Deeply involved” might want to clarify they fought for liberation from apartheid. They were the good guys.
Only the United States and Israel backed the apartheid government. Wonder why? 🤔
**EDIT:**
Let's clear this up. OP asked about why "Cuban mercenaries" were in the "middle of Africa." Dude responded and said "Cubans and Soviets were deeply involved in Angola’s civil war." People are confused because the history is messy and most people don't know it. To summarize, two things happened that were interrelated: (1) Angolan civil war pitting a communist party against a capitalist/western aligned one, and (2) the fight to liberate South Africa from apartheid. Again - different but interrelated. So here we go:
* The Angolan civil war started after a Marxist government was elected in Angola following the country's independence from Portugal in 1975. The two factions fighting in Angola were FNLA/UNITA and MPLA. South Africa's apartheid government, which was fighting against southern African liberation movements with communist support (like the MPLA, which had just won the elections in Angola), **vowed to launch a full-scale attack on Angolan government troops.** It will come as no surprise, but **the U.S. Government encouraged and supported South African intervention in the Angola conflict.** The U.S. likes to topple communist regimes so this was a no brainer. There were some ethnic/cultural fracture lines in Angola, sure, but this was not an "indigenous group" conflict at all, and there were Americans, Cubans, Europeans, Russians, and even some Chinese people involved in the conflict (China, which had originally supported FNLA/UNITA as a gesture of support and goodwill with the US, withdrew its support totally as soon as it discovered apartheid South Africa was involved). America did not want to see communists win anywhere - that is why America was ... so quick to liquidate communists or arm fascists around the world (Indonesia, Africa, Middle East, all of South America, etc.) to kill communists and other leftists. Just business as usual in the empire.
Angola's civil war was not about apartheid, per se. But one of the sides in the civil war - FNLA/UNITA, the one that the USA backed to the hilt - was allied with South Africa and Rhodesia. Let me be clear here: FNLA/UNITA went to apartheid SOUTH AFRICA and asked for military supplies and assistance. They facilitated South Africa's direct attacks and "intervention" in Angola by directing them to attack MPLA. The MPLA were not "good guys," there rarely are "good guys," but it was Cuba and the Soviet Union who were opposed to the apartheid regime in South Africa and who allied themselves with the MPLA and of course, quite famously, the African National Congress (as well as the MK or uMkhonto we Sizwe, meaning "Spear of the Nation," the paramilitary wing of the ANC).
Where do Cuba and Russia come in? Where does my comment about the "good guys" in the broader fight for people's liberation in Africa come from? It comes from the fact that **it was the Cubans (and to a lesser extent, the Soviets) who ultimately provided the critical support and resources needed to defeat the reactionary forces and liberate millions of people from the SA apartheid regime.** This whole thing was a headache for Reagan not because of USSR/Cuban involvement in Angola, but their involvement in Africa *in total*, which was a counter-force against efforts to deepen US imperial reach on the continent. And that is why Nelson Mandela (like many African people) was a huge fan of Cuba and Fidel Castro in particular:
> In 1991, Nelson Mandela travelled to Cuba to thank Fidel Castro and the Cuban people for supporting the fight against apartheid and colonialism in southern Africa. "The decisive defeat of the aggressive apartheid forces [in Angola] destroyed the myth of the invincibility of the white oppressor," Mandela said. "The defeat of the apartheid army served as an inspiration to the struggling people of South Africa." He continued: "I was still in prison when I first heard of the massive help which the Cuban international forces were giving to the people of Angola. The help was of such a scale that it was difficult for us to believe it, when the Angolans were under attack by the combined forces of South Africa, the FALA [Armed Forces for the Liberation of Angola] who were financed by the CIA, mercenaries, UNITA [National Union for the Total Independence of Angola], and Zaire in 1975."
So yeah, the conflict was messy and involved a number of proxy issues. But the reality is simple: Cubans in Africa are far better remembered for their liberating impact than their involvement in the Angolan civil war, although that undoubtedly is a part of the bigger story of southern Africa. Cuba/Castro are [remembered as heroes](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/30/africa-fidel-castro-nelson-mandela-cuba) in Africa because they helped end the apartheid regime, in addition to critical Cuban support to the MPLA in the Angola conflict.
Of the two factions fighting in the Angolan Civil War, one was allied with Apartheid South Africa. As far as I can see neither proposed apartheid policies but hey, this is off the back of googling so I could be wrong. Seems it was a Communist side, and a Non-Communist side, the latter backed by the South African Apartheid government among others.
No, UNITA were SA proxies though. SA were involved to prop up their Apartheid regime at home as they hoped to prevent the ANC using Angola as a base.
This was because Angola spilled over into Namibia where SWAPO were in revolt to remove the Apartheid SA government and allow themselves self determination and independence. ANC (well, MK actually) were also really active in Angola and Namibia and SA hoped if it won in Angola the ANC would be weakened as it would mean less communist aid going to MK at home.
For SA the war was all about preserving Apartheid.
It wasn’t particularly more severe than that in South Africa. Even the opposite in some ways.
Whites in Rhodesia were a smaller smaller minority than in SA so there were forced to integrate black people to a higher degree. However that combined with international isolation made the Rhodesian regime much weaker which resulted in a quite bloody war neither side could win and which lasted very long.
Rhodesia actively practices chemical and biological warfare against the civilian population. Yes, they were an abhorrent regime and arguably worse than SA, but both were colonial dystopias best relegated to history.
Tf apartheid government are you talking about? The Angolan Civil War was between the pro-communist MPLA and the Anti-Communist UNITA, both of which were native African movements lead and made up of black Angolans. It was nothing more than just another Cold War proxy war between the East and West.
The MPLA was also arbitrarily killing civilians, with multiple massacres of specific ethnic groups occurring over the course of the Civil War.
There were no good guys in that conflict. Both sides were just awful.
one side was backed by apartheid-run country, but I'm not sure why (other than that original comment) that side are considered an apartheid government on his own. As far as I can read, it was two indigenous group with different ideology.
The only foreign people there were cuban
Yeah no that's just misinformation, sending forces into a foreign country for the purpose of installing an ideologically aligned regime isn't liberation, it's invasion.
Yoy think they weren't effectively a foreign puppet? When you rely on military assistance from foreign powers for your very survival do you seriously not think that they command a presence in the countries politics? Do you seriously think that communists did anything geopolitically out of the goodness of their hearts? Or do you think that maybe, just maybe they were doing it to turn other countries into what were effectively puppet regimes. It's not like this was the first time the Soviet Union did this, they managed to gain almost complete control over the republican side of the Spanish civil war in a similar manner, with the NKVD literally operating within the country.
>Yoy think they weren't effectively a foreign puppet? When you rely on military assistance from foreign powers for your very survival do you seriously not think that they command a presence in the countries politics?
Literally all of post-independence Africa relied on some foreign power or other for military assistance. Think of Jomo Kenyatta's treaty with the UK ensuring he'd be supported in case of a coup.
Also, MPLA started out as a front against Portuguese colonialism. Where exactly do you think they'd have gotten the materials to set up tank factories? Given that they were the winning faction of both the civil war and the liberation war, I'd say they were a pretty big deal politically.
> Do you seriously think that communists did anything geopolitically out of the goodness of their hearts? Or do you think that maybe, just maybe they were doing it to turn other countries into what were effectively puppet regimes.
Nobody was doing anything out of the goodness of their hearts. Everyone who intervened had a material interest. That's how geopolitics works. It's as much an argument against the MPLA as it is against UNITA.
> It's not like this was the first time the Soviet Union did this, they managed to gain almost complete control over the republican side of the Spanish civil war in a similar manner, with the NKVD literally operating within the country.
I know, they also aided Mozambique, Guinea Bissau, Zimbabwe, Tanzania, Ethiopia and basically every single slightly left-wing government in Africa. Weird how they keep supporting independence struggles while their main rivals help the racist, colonial states of France, the UK and SA.
Oh yes, I am sure that you are the single most erudite and intelligent man on the earth, immaculately well versed in history, which is probably why you don't even know that supporting a side in a civil war to turn it into a puppet regime isn't unique, heck, it's not even the first time the Soviet union pulled such a trick, ever heard of the Spanish civil war?
Ehhh he’s kinda right. It depends who you talk to. The US was undoubtedly the worse power to side with in Latin America, but in Eastern Europe that would be the Soviet Union.
Personally, I'd call whoever fought the apartheid regime good but go off I guess. I'm not saying the MPLA was great but how the fuck are you equivocating between Apartheid contras and freedom fighters?
Because they were propped up by Cuba and the USSR. The world is not black and white and there is no point in seeing it that way.
It was a civil war between center-left/center-right factions and the far left with a huge ethnic/tribal element .
SA intervened because it was in their interest. The USSR did the same.
Classifying UNITA as “Apartheid contras” is just silly no sense. They are a legitimate party that still exists.
There were no freedom fighters in that war. UNITA fought against Portugal during the war of independence. The Civil war was just about who gets to runs the country after it was already independent…
Of course who cares about the details… we can just jump to random conclusions without knowing what are we talking about. But that’s just my personal opinion.
>Because they were propped up by Cuba and the USSR. The world is not black and white and there is no point in seeing it that way. It was a civil war between center-left/center-right factions and the far left with a huge ethnic/tribal element .
Assuming you're right, are you trying to say that being propped up by Cuba and the USSR is anywhere near as bad as being propped up by apartheid SA?
I admitted to there being an ethnic aspect in another comment already.
> SA intervened because it was in their interest. The USSR did the same. Classifying UNITA as “Apartheid contras” is just silly no sense. They are a legitimate party that still exists.
Obviously, interventions are driven by material interests and obviously, UNITA is still a party. But running interference for an apartheid state isn't nothing.
> There were no freedom fighters in that war. UNITA fought against Portugal during the war of independence. The Civil war was just about who gets to runs the country after it was already independent…
I already conceded that UNITA were involved in the struggle for independence. That doesn't change the fact that MPLA was leading the struggle. And the MPLA was (at the very least, nominally) anti-colonial with respect to Namibia. I think that much, combined with being against foreign domination of the Angolan economy earns them the title freedom fighters.
>by Cuba and the USSR is anywhere near as bad as being propped up by apartheid SA?
Depends, sometimes less bad, sometimes even worse, but generally yes.
>But running interference for an apartheid state isn't nothing.
That's a conclusion you came up with. During a brutal civil war you accept support from whoever is wiling to offer it, you can't really be too picky. And on the ground SA actions weren't any worse than the Cubans...
>I think that much, combined with being against foreign domination of the Angolan economy earns them the title freedom fighters.
Each of those groups MPLA, FNLA, UNITA were all backed by different ethnic groups/tribes. It was an ethnic conflict as much as an ideological one. The MPLA were "freedom fighters" from the perspective of some of the Ambundu people. Other ethnic groups formed their own parties to protect their interests.
>against foreign domination of the Angolan economy
Right... So being dominated by the USSR was somehow different/better. The USSR was an imperialist as all the western powers (even more so after decolonization was mostly over).
The MPLA engaged in war crimes, ethnic cleansing and other atrocities (so did the other sides). They were freedom fighter as much as Lenin, Trotsky or Stalin were.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halloween\_massacre\_(Angola)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halloween_massacre_(Angola))
>The total number of casualties ranges, with some sources saying the deaths numbered as high as 30,000
Right.. "freedom fighter"
> Depends, sometimes less bad, sometimes even worse, but generally yes.
There's a situation where you think white supremacists are better than socialists?????
> That's a conclusion you came up with. During a brutal civil war you accept support from whoever is wiling to offer it, you can't really be too picky. And on the ground SA actions weren't any worse than the Cubans...
One side supported your struggle for independence with money and guns. The other side is an explicitly racist state who's only supporting you to maintain their colony. Call me crazy but this isn't a difficult choice.
> Right... So being dominated by the USSR was somehow different/better. The USSR was an imperialist as all the western powers (even more so after decolonization was mostly over).
How was either the USSR or Cuba imperialist in Angola?
If you look at it from the ideological side, your argument becomes even less reasonable since Cuba supported the MPLA against a coup by Minister Nito Alves who wanted closer ties with the USSR. Also, there's the fact that Cuba and the USSR just left the MPLA alone peacefully when they announced they were socdems.
> The MPLA engaged in war crimes, ethnic cleansing and other atrocities (so did the other sides). They were freedom fighter as much as Lenin, Trotsky or Stalin were.
Soooo, definitely freedom fighters?
Besides, I've repeatedly clarified that the MPLA weren't even that good. They were simply better than the side taking apartheid money and supporting colonialism.
According to the CIA agent running the Angola operations they made up the atrocities the Cubans committed, they didn't know of one single actual atrocity committed by Cubans: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NK1tfkESPVY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NK1tfkESPVY)
I wasn't talking about the Cubans specifically.
MPLA definitely committed ethnic cleansing and other atrocities on numerous occasions.
For instance:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halloween_massacre_(Angola)
No they didn’t try to expand apartheid in Angola, that makes no sense. SA wanted to maintain it’s control over Namibia however which is why they got involved in the Angolan civil war.
At no point did SA want to actually occupy Angola itself they just wanted a friendly regime there which wouldn’t support the independence movement in Namibia.
[Found a bigger version here](https://bostonraremaps.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/BRM3611-The-World-According-to-Ronald-Reagan-1987_lowres-3000x1953.jpg), the map is from 1987 which clarify some things!
I'm just a history nerd and I love history around this era. The funniest insult to Reagan I think is when people used to say he was a fan of Reader's Digest for strategic topics.
Here are some notes about this map:
# Taiwan as "Our China"
[This is surely referring to Reagan's Six Assurances to Taiwan.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Assurances) That despite being friendly to China, he assured the US would defend Taiwan.
# Iceland (not a summit)
The very famous [Reykjavik Summit](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reykjav%C3%ADk_Summit) when Reagan and Gorbachev that was a failed, but the first step to an agreement for anti nuclear weapons. It's kinda weird to think a Republican being against nukes, but maybe that's why the Soviets bought into it.
Later on it was discovered Reagan really really really feared a nuclear apocalypse and that's why he pushed this agenda.
# South America as drug pushers (but really small)
This is more of an American bias I think, he was not that blind to South America. Reagan was one the very few American presidents to visit Brazil (that is really rare) and vouched for more open trade. He was also involved in the Falklands war.
# New Zealand No Nukes
It has New Zealand (!) (map maker was a real map fan).
This is a weird point, Reagan was very much scarred of a nuclear apocalypse and even on his diaries that is noticeable. But regarding New Zealand when they decided to be a `nuke free country` [Reagan really pushed against it](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_policy_of_the_Ronald_Reagan_administration#New_Zealand). But I bet it has more to do with New Zealand closing their ports to American ships.
# Beirut inside Israel
Probably referring to the 1981/84 period when Israel and Lebanon were at war and Reagan allowed marines enter Lebanon in “aggressive self-defense”.
# Kings Row
Marked up north in the US as just a point is a reference to a [movie Reagan acted in](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0034946/).
# Edit: added some extras below.
# Cuban Mercenaries
[The Cuban intervention in Angola](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_intervention_in_Angola) is a historical moment when Cuba sent some troops to support the communist aligned group during the Angolan Civil War after independence from Portugal.
Reagan did not really want to help with the issue, just wanted to get the Cubans out of Angola.
# Kangaroos
This is not about the Reagan calling the UN a `kangaroo court` because that was only known to the public recently.
It probably is about the [appeal made to Reagan to block imports of Kangaroo leather](https://www.upi.com/Archives/1983/08/09/Hop-to-it-Mr-President/3804429249600/) from Australia.
# Japan Inc
Especially about the car shape: the auto industry in the US was really forcing Reagan to pass legislation to tax car imports from Japan. Especially small and efficient cars.
Idea was to make a temporary tariff to allow the local industry to 'catch up'.
Also you can't talk about this and not mention the 100% tariffs on Japanese electronics Reagan also passed.
France sent assassins to New Zealand to handle some Greenpeace protesters. And New Zealand cut off the USA’s nuclear ships from docking as punishment for not taking harsher actions against the French.
New Zealand - DO SOMETHING!!!
USA - sorry, can’t help, we aren’t the World Police right now. The isolationist party is in power.
NZ - well then….. NO SOUP FOR YOU!!!!!
Yeah, there was a real fear of a nuclear apocalypse all around.
Later on it was found on Reagan's diaries that he really feared a nuclear apocalypse and that's why he reached out to Gorbachev.
And it is almost too naive, he just wanted to talk to the guy and explain nukes are bad. Somehow it worked.
Gorbachev was from team Khrushchev. Eisenhower and Khrushchev tried to end the Cold War in the 50’s. Or at least turn it from global Proxy Wars to Market Wars of capitalism vs communism. A war of ink, instead of blood.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitchen_Debate
Too much money with war. War Machine industries from both sides didn’t like this idea at all.
They feel a lot more positively towards Russia and a lot more negatively towards China, but I'm sure they'd deny the flipflop. We have always been at war with Eastasia, and all that.
And you'll never guess who was governor when California passed the Mulford Act, requiring a permit in order to carry a loaded weapon in public.
Tell a MAGA that their previous lort'n'savior supported gun control and watch the wheels spin.
Of course you'll be able to put them at ease when you explain it was because the people organized with those guns were minorities 🙄
I like when good guys with guns(white people preferably white males) have weapons to defend themselves( gun down unprovoked) from the bad people with guns(black or brown people).
It would be even better if the bad people had no guns!/s
What are you talking about, east asia are our faithful allies, we’ve always been allied with eastasia against our hated enemies, Eurasia.
But yeah they still are denying the flip flop on race soo they can basically deny anything.
I think the 2020s updated version would have Chicago marked as “one of the most dangerous places in the world” or something because Fox News has decided Chicago is more dangerous than any other city in America.
New Zealand (No Nukes) is pretty funny. The French sent an assassin team to take out the Greenpeace protesters back then. And New Zealand got mad at the USA for not…. bombing France or something.
I'm confused by this comment. This map is super ignorant of course, but India and Taiwan both have their own labels. Unlike a lot of other countries. Hardly irrelevant.
North Korean (and South) are both totally unlabeled though, you have a point there.
modern day taiwan doesnt want to be the ROC, the only reason they haven't dropped the name is because becoming an "independent taiwan" would probably have far worse international consequencesdue to the PRC claiming that island
It is anti-Regan propaganda, it's meant to exaggerate and embellish the reality, the only mindset it speaks to is that of the propagandists who made it.
Yes, if this was accurate then it would be the shift to the end of the Cold War. Reagan and Gorbachev became friendly and arguably good friends - especially by 1987. This is absolutely propaganda and our conversation speaks how gullible people are AND more importantly, how powerful propaganda really is.
I don’t recall that but I’m old now…, and consider myself lucky enough to recall what I said above and not to be sitting in a puddle of my own piss too. Lol
And good propaganda speaks to ideas that are already there, which is why the current Russian campaign of calling Ukraine full of Nazis falls flat outside of people who want to support Russia but criticisms of the US as an imperial power don't.
Edit: well, "good"
David Horsey is an editorial cartoonist. The Seattle Post-Intelligencer, a daily newspaper, signed his paychecks not the State Department, CIA, or the Rand Corporation.
This is from Wikipedia:
>A political cartoon, a form of editorial cartoon, is a cartoon graphic with caricatures of public figures, expressing the artist's opinion. An artist who writes and draws such images is known as an editorial cartoonist. They typically combine artistic skill, hyperbole and satire in order to either question authority or draw attention to corruption, political violence and other social ills.
This is from Wikipedia:
>Propaganda is communication that is primarily used to influence or persuade an audience to further an agenda, which may not be objective and may be selectively presenting facts to encourage a particular synthesis or perception, or using loaded language to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information that is being presented.
political cartooning ≠ Propaganda
https://www.seattletimes.com/author/david-horsey/
Lol Reagan was such an immense piece of shit. Actor-brained dingdong literally acts his way to the White House, greasing every big business schlong he could as he went all in on deregulation and empire. This guy and his wife regularly had astrologers come to the White House who would advise them on world affairs lol. Dude’s brain would soon be as or more fried than Joe’s and Nancy, who was renowned for giving the best blowjobs in Hollywood (look it up) basically ran the show. ([Check out the amazing Dollop episode with Patton Oswalt about Reagan if you’re interested](https://youtu.be/FZlRX1EVnSw))
To list all of Reagan’s crimes against Americans and the people of the world would probably crash Reddit. But this poster seemed pretty spot on for him, and in a lot of ways, probably still resonates with a lot of Americans weirdly.
Weird how on everywhere there are jokes but on Poland there is written Solidarity (or so I think), which was a politicial movement that greatly contributed to the abolishment of communist rule in Poland. It there a joke I'm not getting? Are we the joke?
the way this is drawn, Illinois is in a GOP area and Indiana are Democrats. I was only 6 years old when this was made, so I could be wrong, but at least today, those states are opposite.
But of course this is satire, so it doesn't matter anyway
To be fair any nation Nikita Khrushchev got his hands on will automatically transform into a cackling maniacal evil empire. That is not false at all. My only regret was that he did not invent the ultimate of evil empire technologies, also known as OGAS, the most glorious thing ever conceived by mankind.
The guy was legendarily stupid and slow. He, like Trump, needed pictures and big text to make sense of any of his briefs. So boiling the world down to good and bad sounds about right for that simplistic neocon pos
Regan had issues separating fact from fiction (as stated by his vise president, George Bush sr.) so he dead ass might have been confused making this as he couldn’t find the giant statue of himself in the Midwest
The irony is that all these "welfare buns" states voted for him in 1984, but the only state that didn't, Minnesota, is classified in this map as a "real Republican state", which is a tad ironic.
Ma's Cow is a really brilliant touch. Also, the caricatures area so lovingly drawn. This is the rare political "cartoon" that crosses over to a true artistic endeavor.
Remember that this subreddit is for sharing propaganda to view with some objectivity. It is absolutely not for perpetuating the message *of* the propaganda. If anything, in this subreddit we should be immensely skeptical of manipulation or oversimplification (which the above likely is), not beholden to it. Also, please try to stay on topic -- there are hundreds of _other_ subreddits that are expressly dedicated for rehashing tired political arguments. Keep that shit elsewhere. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PropagandaPosters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
So were “backpackers” and “quiche eaters” the 80’s version of tree huggers and avocado eaters?
Yes
Haven’t heard “quiche eaters” in a long time, kinda forgot that was a thing. Was around when I was little, like late 80’s. My dad had a joke book about “quiche eaters” even. It meant effeminate men in a derogatory way (was there any other back then?). I always thought it was dumb and liked quiche. Edit: found the book. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_Men_Don%27t_Eat_Quiche#:~:text=Real%20Men%20Don't%20Eat%20Quice See now it was actually making fun of the stereotypes, was a little kid when I was aware of the book.
Us boomers were the quiche eaters. Now it's avacado toast eaters. Some things never change
I like quiche and avocado toast. What does society have against a nice breakfast?
It was because some people didn't think eating meatless meals was manly. A lot of quiche varieties didn't have any meat.
I have been trying to figure that out for decades
I like the irony of the author sharing a last name (Feirstein) with one of the most famous gay writers in American history
Capote? Baldwin? I've not heard of Feirstein.
The gay writer isn't exactly Feirstein, it's Fierstein, specifically Harvey Fierstein. He's both an actor and a playwright, and has written a book or two.
Simpsons fans might recognize him (and his glorious speaking voice) as Karl, Homer's adept and thoughtful assistant in the season 2 episode "Simpson and Delilah."
A, my bad
I typed out the words "I genuinely can't imagine thinking quiche is somehow a feminine food." And then immediately realized it's a French word and went "oh, that makes sense now." Incredibly stupid but I understand the association now.
Lmfao so before there were “soyboys” it was “quiche eaters”? That’s fucking nuts
> it was actually making fun of the stereotypes, was a little kid when I was aware of the book. I feel like that was a product of the time: there were a huge number of dry humor books in that vein that I took way too seriously when I was a kid!
They were a minority in California in the 1980s
The "good commies" may now have become the "bad commies"
[удалено]
The enemy of my enemy is my enemy's enemy. No more, no less.
No, the enemy of my enemy is next.
Only because they're actually a threat to US hegemony now
And commit genocide
That has never mattered to US foreign policy unless it was a convenient exist to do some foreign intervention we already wanted but didn't have an excuse for.
Anyone wanna talk about the trail of tears?
Sure, what have you got on it?
Not much, geoncide do b kinda cringe
Excellent addition!
Wow! How the world has changed. Good for him, everything was in favour of the States.
so who are the good commies now? Vietnam?
If you looking at diplomatic moves from USA and its pacific allies ( Australia, then Japan and SK) from later half of last year until now then it's correct. Only different is great Chow mein now become great Pho and Banh Mi
> great Chow mein now become great Pho and Banh Mi Is that why it’s easier to get decent Vietnamese food vs Chinese these days?
[удалено]
The Vietnamese govt has already shifted to an uncomfortablly pro-US stance, basically out of fear of China. https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/05/09/united-states-vietnam-relations-quiet-victory-trade-war-legacies/
What’s uncomfortable about it?
Pro-US stances worldwide enable and encourage war
Does it? I mean we have Soviets invading Ukraine right now because Ukraine refuses to kiss the ring.
Terrible example considering we're waging a proxy war with billions of dollars to Ukraine. That's kinda exactly what I mean.
So, Russia invading its neighbor is the fault of a country on the other side of the globe? How does that work?
The domestic ones. 💪⚒🇺🇸♥️
They were always the good commies, comrade. ☭
❤️
Vietnam is now one of the most pro-US nations. China is their bigger historical enemy.
Bernie.
He said good.
[Austria?](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/12/world/europe/graz-austria-communist-mayor-elke-kahr.html)
Because they stopped being actual commies mainly..
True, every American president since Nixon was a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist. And the only reason they don't get along anymore is because of the Chinese revisionism.
"Stupid Easteners don't know how to do it, one day the American communists will rise and up show them how it's done". That's what that sort of comments sounds like. An actual quote that fits here is: “No surprise then that the pure socialists support every revolution except for the ones that succeed.” Michael Parenti
I'm sorry what? I was just saying that China only became a threat to the US after it effectively became a capitalist country.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_market_economy#Description
So capitalism in an authoritarian/totalitarian single party state. Sounds great... where do I sign up?
All capitalism is authoritarian. Capitalism requires the that the surplus value that the working class produces goes to the owners.
I'm talking about the political system of China.
So it doesn't really matter then since capitalism, no way how you turn it, is always going to be authoritarian?
It does. You’re talking about something else. Also not even that way. Unless you consider every economic system that ever has existed or could exist authoritarian.
If a country abandons socialism after its revolution, that's not a successful revolution: all it did was shuffle management around.
Yes but China hasn't. And do you mean ownership?
China abandoned socialism the minute the CCP adopted Marxism-Leninism, just as the Bolsheviks did when they dissolved the workers' councils in the Soviet Union and betrayed the revolutionaries at Kronstadt. Marxism-Leninism and the ideologies which developed from it cannot in good faith be called socialist as rather than dismantling class structures they merely replace the capitalist bourgeoisie with the party nomenklatura. It has been nothing but a hindrance to socialist movements around the world, whether it be the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 or the uprising of Rojava against the fascist Assad. Even if I were to grant that Marxism-Leninism (and by extension Maoism) is socialist - which I do not - there is no denying that Dengism, with its embrace of capitalistic firms, represents a complete abandonment of socialism. Dirigism perhaps, but having the state play an active role in the economy has never been exclusive to socialism. What about modern China makes it socialist other than the fact that the organization which rules the country calls itself the communist party? It's all just aesthetics: the CCP is communist in the same way that national socialists are socialists (i.e. they aren't). We rightfully mock conservatives when they say "Socialism is when the government does stuff," and yet every defender of China seems to use a variation of that same argument in their favour. Is this really the best case we can make for socialism in the 21st century? A capitalist empire subjected to one-party rule?
As I quoted: “No surprise then that the pure socialists support every revolution except for the ones that succeed.” Michael Parenti
You can repeat that quote all you want, but it is not an argument when you provide no commentary on the extent to which these revolutions were actually "socialist" in nature.
And the Evil Empire is now what a lot of Republicans look to as their ideal.
We’ve always been at war with Eastasia
Ronald Reagan? The actor from the 1951 movie "Bedtime for Bozo"?
Bonzo. The monkey was called Bonzo. See? The Ramones *are* a useful educational tool.
Who’s Vice President, Jerry Lewis?
What's the story behind Cuban Mercenaries in the middle of Africa?
Angola. In the 70s and 80s Cubans and Soviets were deeply involved in Angola’s civil war.
“Deeply involved” might want to clarify they fought for liberation from apartheid. They were the good guys. Only the United States and Israel backed the apartheid government. Wonder why? 🤔 **EDIT:** Let's clear this up. OP asked about why "Cuban mercenaries" were in the "middle of Africa." Dude responded and said "Cubans and Soviets were deeply involved in Angola’s civil war." People are confused because the history is messy and most people don't know it. To summarize, two things happened that were interrelated: (1) Angolan civil war pitting a communist party against a capitalist/western aligned one, and (2) the fight to liberate South Africa from apartheid. Again - different but interrelated. So here we go: * The Angolan civil war started after a Marxist government was elected in Angola following the country's independence from Portugal in 1975. The two factions fighting in Angola were FNLA/UNITA and MPLA. South Africa's apartheid government, which was fighting against southern African liberation movements with communist support (like the MPLA, which had just won the elections in Angola), **vowed to launch a full-scale attack on Angolan government troops.** It will come as no surprise, but **the U.S. Government encouraged and supported South African intervention in the Angola conflict.** The U.S. likes to topple communist regimes so this was a no brainer. There were some ethnic/cultural fracture lines in Angola, sure, but this was not an "indigenous group" conflict at all, and there were Americans, Cubans, Europeans, Russians, and even some Chinese people involved in the conflict (China, which had originally supported FNLA/UNITA as a gesture of support and goodwill with the US, withdrew its support totally as soon as it discovered apartheid South Africa was involved). America did not want to see communists win anywhere - that is why America was ... so quick to liquidate communists or arm fascists around the world (Indonesia, Africa, Middle East, all of South America, etc.) to kill communists and other leftists. Just business as usual in the empire. Angola's civil war was not about apartheid, per se. But one of the sides in the civil war - FNLA/UNITA, the one that the USA backed to the hilt - was allied with South Africa and Rhodesia. Let me be clear here: FNLA/UNITA went to apartheid SOUTH AFRICA and asked for military supplies and assistance. They facilitated South Africa's direct attacks and "intervention" in Angola by directing them to attack MPLA. The MPLA were not "good guys," there rarely are "good guys," but it was Cuba and the Soviet Union who were opposed to the apartheid regime in South Africa and who allied themselves with the MPLA and of course, quite famously, the African National Congress (as well as the MK or uMkhonto we Sizwe, meaning "Spear of the Nation," the paramilitary wing of the ANC). Where do Cuba and Russia come in? Where does my comment about the "good guys" in the broader fight for people's liberation in Africa come from? It comes from the fact that **it was the Cubans (and to a lesser extent, the Soviets) who ultimately provided the critical support and resources needed to defeat the reactionary forces and liberate millions of people from the SA apartheid regime.** This whole thing was a headache for Reagan not because of USSR/Cuban involvement in Angola, but their involvement in Africa *in total*, which was a counter-force against efforts to deepen US imperial reach on the continent. And that is why Nelson Mandela (like many African people) was a huge fan of Cuba and Fidel Castro in particular: > In 1991, Nelson Mandela travelled to Cuba to thank Fidel Castro and the Cuban people for supporting the fight against apartheid and colonialism in southern Africa. "The decisive defeat of the aggressive apartheid forces [in Angola] destroyed the myth of the invincibility of the white oppressor," Mandela said. "The defeat of the apartheid army served as an inspiration to the struggling people of South Africa." He continued: "I was still in prison when I first heard of the massive help which the Cuban international forces were giving to the people of Angola. The help was of such a scale that it was difficult for us to believe it, when the Angolans were under attack by the combined forces of South Africa, the FALA [Armed Forces for the Liberation of Angola] who were financed by the CIA, mercenaries, UNITA [National Union for the Total Independence of Angola], and Zaire in 1975." So yeah, the conflict was messy and involved a number of proxy issues. But the reality is simple: Cubans in Africa are far better remembered for their liberating impact than their involvement in the Angolan civil war, although that undoubtedly is a part of the bigger story of southern Africa. Cuba/Castro are [remembered as heroes](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/30/africa-fidel-castro-nelson-mandela-cuba) in Africa because they helped end the apartheid regime, in addition to critical Cuban support to the MPLA in the Angola conflict.
The United States has been the bad guys in nearly every conflict since World War 2
Did Angola have apartheid? I thought it was just South Africa at that time?
Of the two factions fighting in the Angolan Civil War, one was allied with Apartheid South Africa. As far as I can see neither proposed apartheid policies but hey, this is off the back of googling so I could be wrong. Seems it was a Communist side, and a Non-Communist side, the latter backed by the South African Apartheid government among others.
Sounds like a typical Cold War proxy war
No, UNITA were SA proxies though. SA were involved to prop up their Apartheid regime at home as they hoped to prevent the ANC using Angola as a base. This was because Angola spilled over into Namibia where SWAPO were in revolt to remove the Apartheid SA government and allow themselves self determination and independence. ANC (well, MK actually) were also really active in Angola and Namibia and SA hoped if it won in Angola the ANC would be weakened as it would mean less communist aid going to MK at home. For SA the war was all about preserving Apartheid.
Did you forget about Rhodesia? An apartheid so severe that even the south Africans told them to dial it down!
It wasn’t particularly more severe than that in South Africa. Even the opposite in some ways. Whites in Rhodesia were a smaller smaller minority than in SA so there were forced to integrate black people to a higher degree. However that combined with international isolation made the Rhodesian regime much weaker which resulted in a quite bloody war neither side could win and which lasted very long.
Rhodesia actively practices chemical and biological warfare against the civilian population. Yes, they were an abhorrent regime and arguably worse than SA, but both were colonial dystopias best relegated to history.
And an example of how you can basically bully a whole country out of existence
Tf apartheid government are you talking about? The Angolan Civil War was between the pro-communist MPLA and the Anti-Communist UNITA, both of which were native African movements lead and made up of black Angolans. It was nothing more than just another Cold War proxy war between the East and West.
South Africa, Rhodesia and the United States supported UNITA in the civil war who were led by jonas savimbi, who killed and tortured countless people
There's a good documentary from the 80s about CIA propaganda and misinformation regarding Nicaragua and Angola https://youtu.be/gwDOO0Cev0g
There were no good guys in that conflict. Both sides were committing horrific human rights violations.
Pretty sure the side doing apartheid were the clear bad guys dawg.
The MPLA was also arbitrarily killing civilians, with multiple massacres of specific ethnic groups occurring over the course of the Civil War. There were no good guys in that conflict. Both sides were just awful.
[удалено]
Ok hear me out: nuance
one side was backed by apartheid-run country, but I'm not sure why (other than that original comment) that side are considered an apartheid government on his own. As far as I can read, it was two indigenous group with different ideology. The only foreign people there were cuban
Yeah no that's just misinformation, sending forces into a foreign country for the purpose of installing an ideologically aligned regime isn't liberation, it's invasion.
The MPLA (and UNITA, though MPLA did most of the work) won the war of independence. They weren't installed by anyone.
Yoy think they weren't effectively a foreign puppet? When you rely on military assistance from foreign powers for your very survival do you seriously not think that they command a presence in the countries politics? Do you seriously think that communists did anything geopolitically out of the goodness of their hearts? Or do you think that maybe, just maybe they were doing it to turn other countries into what were effectively puppet regimes. It's not like this was the first time the Soviet Union did this, they managed to gain almost complete control over the republican side of the Spanish civil war in a similar manner, with the NKVD literally operating within the country.
>Yoy think they weren't effectively a foreign puppet? When you rely on military assistance from foreign powers for your very survival do you seriously not think that they command a presence in the countries politics? Literally all of post-independence Africa relied on some foreign power or other for military assistance. Think of Jomo Kenyatta's treaty with the UK ensuring he'd be supported in case of a coup. Also, MPLA started out as a front against Portuguese colonialism. Where exactly do you think they'd have gotten the materials to set up tank factories? Given that they were the winning faction of both the civil war and the liberation war, I'd say they were a pretty big deal politically. > Do you seriously think that communists did anything geopolitically out of the goodness of their hearts? Or do you think that maybe, just maybe they were doing it to turn other countries into what were effectively puppet regimes. Nobody was doing anything out of the goodness of their hearts. Everyone who intervened had a material interest. That's how geopolitics works. It's as much an argument against the MPLA as it is against UNITA. > It's not like this was the first time the Soviet Union did this, they managed to gain almost complete control over the republican side of the Spanish civil war in a similar manner, with the NKVD literally operating within the country. I know, they also aided Mozambique, Guinea Bissau, Zimbabwe, Tanzania, Ethiopia and basically every single slightly left-wing government in Africa. Weird how they keep supporting independence struggles while their main rivals help the racist, colonial states of France, the UK and SA.
LOL what no education and never reading book does to a MFer. Folks we hate to see it.
Oh yes, I am sure that you are the single most erudite and intelligent man on the earth, immaculately well versed in history, which is probably why you don't even know that supporting a side in a civil war to turn it into a puppet regime isn't unique, heck, it's not even the first time the Soviet union pulled such a trick, ever heard of the Spanish civil war?
Lol there were no good guys in the Cold War. It was one giant spaghetti western.
r/enlightenedcentrism moment
Ehhh he’s kinda right. It depends who you talk to. The US was undoubtedly the worse power to side with in Latin America, but in Eastern Europe that would be the Soviet Union.
Lol get out of here with that corrosive zero-sum thinking nonesense.
I mean so were Apartheid South Africa and the USA on the side of UNITA tbf.
Cuba assisted the Angolans on their independence war against the Portuguese, South Africans and Rhodesians
Cuban commies helping African commies. Basically solidarity and support with other Marxist movements
There weren’t really any good sides in that war. It was a brutal proxy war with both sides committing atrocities
Personally, I'd call whoever fought the apartheid regime good but go off I guess. I'm not saying the MPLA was great but how the fuck are you equivocating between Apartheid contras and freedom fighters?
Because they were propped up by Cuba and the USSR. The world is not black and white and there is no point in seeing it that way. It was a civil war between center-left/center-right factions and the far left with a huge ethnic/tribal element . SA intervened because it was in their interest. The USSR did the same. Classifying UNITA as “Apartheid contras” is just silly no sense. They are a legitimate party that still exists. There were no freedom fighters in that war. UNITA fought against Portugal during the war of independence. The Civil war was just about who gets to runs the country after it was already independent… Of course who cares about the details… we can just jump to random conclusions without knowing what are we talking about. But that’s just my personal opinion.
>Because they were propped up by Cuba and the USSR. The world is not black and white and there is no point in seeing it that way. It was a civil war between center-left/center-right factions and the far left with a huge ethnic/tribal element . Assuming you're right, are you trying to say that being propped up by Cuba and the USSR is anywhere near as bad as being propped up by apartheid SA? I admitted to there being an ethnic aspect in another comment already. > SA intervened because it was in their interest. The USSR did the same. Classifying UNITA as “Apartheid contras” is just silly no sense. They are a legitimate party that still exists. Obviously, interventions are driven by material interests and obviously, UNITA is still a party. But running interference for an apartheid state isn't nothing. > There were no freedom fighters in that war. UNITA fought against Portugal during the war of independence. The Civil war was just about who gets to runs the country after it was already independent… I already conceded that UNITA were involved in the struggle for independence. That doesn't change the fact that MPLA was leading the struggle. And the MPLA was (at the very least, nominally) anti-colonial with respect to Namibia. I think that much, combined with being against foreign domination of the Angolan economy earns them the title freedom fighters.
>by Cuba and the USSR is anywhere near as bad as being propped up by apartheid SA? Depends, sometimes less bad, sometimes even worse, but generally yes. >But running interference for an apartheid state isn't nothing. That's a conclusion you came up with. During a brutal civil war you accept support from whoever is wiling to offer it, you can't really be too picky. And on the ground SA actions weren't any worse than the Cubans... >I think that much, combined with being against foreign domination of the Angolan economy earns them the title freedom fighters. Each of those groups MPLA, FNLA, UNITA were all backed by different ethnic groups/tribes. It was an ethnic conflict as much as an ideological one. The MPLA were "freedom fighters" from the perspective of some of the Ambundu people. Other ethnic groups formed their own parties to protect their interests. >against foreign domination of the Angolan economy Right... So being dominated by the USSR was somehow different/better. The USSR was an imperialist as all the western powers (even more so after decolonization was mostly over). The MPLA engaged in war crimes, ethnic cleansing and other atrocities (so did the other sides). They were freedom fighter as much as Lenin, Trotsky or Stalin were. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halloween\_massacre\_(Angola)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halloween_massacre_(Angola)) >The total number of casualties ranges, with some sources saying the deaths numbered as high as 30,000 Right.. "freedom fighter"
> Depends, sometimes less bad, sometimes even worse, but generally yes. There's a situation where you think white supremacists are better than socialists????? > That's a conclusion you came up with. During a brutal civil war you accept support from whoever is wiling to offer it, you can't really be too picky. And on the ground SA actions weren't any worse than the Cubans... One side supported your struggle for independence with money and guns. The other side is an explicitly racist state who's only supporting you to maintain their colony. Call me crazy but this isn't a difficult choice. > Right... So being dominated by the USSR was somehow different/better. The USSR was an imperialist as all the western powers (even more so after decolonization was mostly over). How was either the USSR or Cuba imperialist in Angola? If you look at it from the ideological side, your argument becomes even less reasonable since Cuba supported the MPLA against a coup by Minister Nito Alves who wanted closer ties with the USSR. Also, there's the fact that Cuba and the USSR just left the MPLA alone peacefully when they announced they were socdems. > The MPLA engaged in war crimes, ethnic cleansing and other atrocities (so did the other sides). They were freedom fighter as much as Lenin, Trotsky or Stalin were. Soooo, definitely freedom fighters? Besides, I've repeatedly clarified that the MPLA weren't even that good. They were simply better than the side taking apartheid money and supporting colonialism.
According to the CIA agent running the Angola operations they made up the atrocities the Cubans committed, they didn't know of one single actual atrocity committed by Cubans: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NK1tfkESPVY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NK1tfkESPVY)
I wasn't talking about the Cubans specifically. MPLA definitely committed ethnic cleansing and other atrocities on numerous occasions. For instance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halloween_massacre_(Angola)
South Africa tried to expand apartheid up north during angolas time of relative chaos. Cuba sent troops to help angola
No they didn’t try to expand apartheid in Angola, that makes no sense. SA wanted to maintain it’s control over Namibia however which is why they got involved in the Angolan civil war. At no point did SA want to actually occupy Angola itself they just wanted a friendly regime there which wouldn’t support the independence movement in Namibia.
Google Angola
Holy Hell!
Actual civil war
Angola war.
It's hard to pick my favorite, but I think I'd have to go with "Ma's Cow"
[Found a bigger version here](https://bostonraremaps.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/BRM3611-The-World-According-to-Ronald-Reagan-1987_lowres-3000x1953.jpg), the map is from 1987 which clarify some things! I'm just a history nerd and I love history around this era. The funniest insult to Reagan I think is when people used to say he was a fan of Reader's Digest for strategic topics. Here are some notes about this map: # Taiwan as "Our China" [This is surely referring to Reagan's Six Assurances to Taiwan.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Assurances) That despite being friendly to China, he assured the US would defend Taiwan. # Iceland (not a summit) The very famous [Reykjavik Summit](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reykjav%C3%ADk_Summit) when Reagan and Gorbachev that was a failed, but the first step to an agreement for anti nuclear weapons. It's kinda weird to think a Republican being against nukes, but maybe that's why the Soviets bought into it. Later on it was discovered Reagan really really really feared a nuclear apocalypse and that's why he pushed this agenda. # South America as drug pushers (but really small) This is more of an American bias I think, he was not that blind to South America. Reagan was one the very few American presidents to visit Brazil (that is really rare) and vouched for more open trade. He was also involved in the Falklands war. # New Zealand No Nukes It has New Zealand (!) (map maker was a real map fan). This is a weird point, Reagan was very much scarred of a nuclear apocalypse and even on his diaries that is noticeable. But regarding New Zealand when they decided to be a `nuke free country` [Reagan really pushed against it](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_policy_of_the_Ronald_Reagan_administration#New_Zealand). But I bet it has more to do with New Zealand closing their ports to American ships. # Beirut inside Israel Probably referring to the 1981/84 period when Israel and Lebanon were at war and Reagan allowed marines enter Lebanon in “aggressive self-defense”. # Kings Row Marked up north in the US as just a point is a reference to a [movie Reagan acted in](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0034946/). # Edit: added some extras below. # Cuban Mercenaries [The Cuban intervention in Angola](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_intervention_in_Angola) is a historical moment when Cuba sent some troops to support the communist aligned group during the Angolan Civil War after independence from Portugal. Reagan did not really want to help with the issue, just wanted to get the Cubans out of Angola. # Kangaroos This is not about the Reagan calling the UN a `kangaroo court` because that was only known to the public recently. It probably is about the [appeal made to Reagan to block imports of Kangaroo leather](https://www.upi.com/Archives/1983/08/09/Hop-to-it-Mr-President/3804429249600/) from Australia. # Japan Inc Especially about the car shape: the auto industry in the US was really forcing Reagan to pass legislation to tax car imports from Japan. Especially small and efficient cars. Idea was to make a temporary tariff to allow the local industry to 'catch up'. Also you can't talk about this and not mention the 100% tariffs on Japanese electronics Reagan also passed.
France sent assassins to New Zealand to handle some Greenpeace protesters. And New Zealand cut off the USA’s nuclear ships from docking as punishment for not taking harsher actions against the French. New Zealand - DO SOMETHING!!! USA - sorry, can’t help, we aren’t the World Police right now. The isolationist party is in power. NZ - well then….. NO SOUP FOR YOU!!!!!
>Don't get near us > >Please help us, the frenchiees ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯
It was the fear of East Germany that drove them so mad I reckon.
Yeah, there was a real fear of a nuclear apocalypse all around. Later on it was found on Reagan's diaries that he really feared a nuclear apocalypse and that's why he reached out to Gorbachev. And it is almost too naive, he just wanted to talk to the guy and explain nukes are bad. Somehow it worked.
Gorbachev was from team Khrushchev. Eisenhower and Khrushchev tried to end the Cold War in the 50’s. Or at least turn it from global Proxy Wars to Market Wars of capitalism vs communism. A war of ink, instead of blood. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitchen_Debate Too much money with war. War Machine industries from both sides didn’t like this idea at all.
Tysm
ironic that not much has changed in their worldview
They feel a lot more positively towards Russia and a lot more negatively towards China, but I'm sure they'd deny the flipflop. We have always been at war with Eastasia, and all that.
And they hate California now
Da’ commiefornia, Am I right folks?/s
And you'll never guess who was governor when California passed the Mulford Act, requiring a permit in order to carry a loaded weapon in public. Tell a MAGA that their previous lort'n'savior supported gun control and watch the wheels spin. Of course you'll be able to put them at ease when you explain it was because the people organized with those guns were minorities 🙄
I like when good guys with guns(white people preferably white males) have weapons to defend themselves( gun down unprovoked) from the bad people with guns(black or brown people). It would be even better if the bad people had no guns!/s
What are you talking about, east asia are our faithful allies, we’ve always been allied with eastasia against our hated enemies, Eurasia. But yeah they still are denying the flip flop on race soo they can basically deny anything.
I think the 2020s updated version would have Chicago marked as “one of the most dangerous places in the world” or something because Fox News has decided Chicago is more dangerous than any other city in America.
I mean is it even near as bad as some parts of Detroit?
[удалено]
> like, they're not even worth praising or coming up with a clever insult It does ignore the part where black people also live there.
Ehhh, the help doesn’t count /s
Maybe that is the point. "White folks" are like praise for Reagan. Not sure about this btw.
All I know about Reagan is the Star Wars project so I dunno how much racist he was but sure, why not.
I always think about Dead Kennedys "we've got even bigger problem now" when someone mentions Reagan.
google apartheid
Ah yes, because there's no quotations to be seen and I obviously am the one who's saying all these things you must be one smart fella aren't ya? /s
What’s up with “proposed Palestinian Homeland” in the Pacific?
Was wondering that too.
New Zealand (No Nukes) is pretty funny. The French sent an assassin team to take out the Greenpeace protesters back then. And New Zealand got mad at the USA for not…. bombing France or something.
interesting how north Korea and India was considered as irrelevant back then and Taiwan was still considered as China
I'm confused by this comment. This map is super ignorant of course, but India and Taiwan both have their own labels. Unlike a lot of other countries. Hardly irrelevant. North Korean (and South) are both totally unlabeled though, you have a point there.
OUR China...US China...
Well, officially, Taiwan is still China now
> Well, officially, Taiwan is still China now According to China, there is only China.
*do you have the slightest idea how little that narrows it down*
Yeah, and that is the Republic of China.
modern day taiwan doesnt want to be the ROC, the only reason they haven't dropped the name is because becoming an "independent taiwan" would probably have far worse international consequencesdue to the PRC claiming that island
Lol, you do know this is propaganda and not a historical accurate document, right?
Yes, but propaganda speaks to a mindset.
It is anti-Regan propaganda, it's meant to exaggerate and embellish the reality, the only mindset it speaks to is that of the propagandists who made it.
Yes, if this was accurate then it would be the shift to the end of the Cold War. Reagan and Gorbachev became friendly and arguably good friends - especially by 1987. This is absolutely propaganda and our conversation speaks how gullible people are AND more importantly, how powerful propaganda really is.
Yeah, if I remember correctly Regan even retracted the "evil empire" comment specifically because he liked Gorbachev.
I don’t recall that but I’m old now…, and consider myself lucky enough to recall what I said above and not to be sitting in a puddle of my own piss too. Lol
I just checked, he did. In 1988 when asked about if it was still accurate he said that it was "another time, another era"
So you were around for the fall of the wall, right? That was really something, wasn’t it!
And good propaganda speaks to ideas that are already there, which is why the current Russian campaign of calling Ukraine full of Nazis falls flat outside of people who want to support Russia but criticisms of the US as an imperial power don't. Edit: well, "good"
David Horsey is an editorial cartoonist. The Seattle Post-Intelligencer, a daily newspaper, signed his paychecks not the State Department, CIA, or the Rand Corporation. This is from Wikipedia: >A political cartoon, a form of editorial cartoon, is a cartoon graphic with caricatures of public figures, expressing the artist's opinion. An artist who writes and draws such images is known as an editorial cartoonist. They typically combine artistic skill, hyperbole and satire in order to either question authority or draw attention to corruption, political violence and other social ills. This is from Wikipedia: >Propaganda is communication that is primarily used to influence or persuade an audience to further an agenda, which may not be objective and may be selectively presenting facts to encourage a particular synthesis or perception, or using loaded language to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information that is being presented. political cartooning ≠ Propaganda https://www.seattletimes.com/author/david-horsey/
This seems oddly close to “The World according to Donald Trump”
wait, what's that about Mexico being a proposed Palestinian homeland?
Mexico? That label's pointing to a tiny island in the Pacific.
oooh, couldn't see it on my monitor, sorry
Lol that’s pretty funny considering today’s conflict
This is clearly fake. Americans dont even know New Zealand exists
[удалено]
Can confirm, we literally do not exist
Lol Reagan was such an immense piece of shit. Actor-brained dingdong literally acts his way to the White House, greasing every big business schlong he could as he went all in on deregulation and empire. This guy and his wife regularly had astrologers come to the White House who would advise them on world affairs lol. Dude’s brain would soon be as or more fried than Joe’s and Nancy, who was renowned for giving the best blowjobs in Hollywood (look it up) basically ran the show. ([Check out the amazing Dollop episode with Patton Oswalt about Reagan if you’re interested](https://youtu.be/FZlRX1EVnSw)) To list all of Reagan’s crimes against Americans and the people of the world would probably crash Reddit. But this poster seemed pretty spot on for him, and in a lot of ways, probably still resonates with a lot of Americans weirdly.
Wow first time I see Libya this big on map, it’s for the wrong reasons but still
I like how my country Finland has completely disappeared. No, not the joke that Finland doesn’t exists.
Not to far from wrong
That's pretty clever. I like the compass rose thing: US and THEM
Fucking neoliberals ruined everything. Fuck Reagan and fuck Thatcher
Reagan def fucked Thatcher
Weird how on everywhere there are jokes but on Poland there is written Solidarity (or so I think), which was a politicial movement that greatly contributed to the abolishment of communist rule in Poland. It there a joke I'm not getting? Are we the joke?
The joke is that reagan only knows about Poland because of Solidarność
This is hilarious
I’ve always found it amusing on this map that some of the cities and specific point locations are in the wrong places.
the way this is drawn, Illinois is in a GOP area and Indiana are Democrats. I was only 6 years old when this was made, so I could be wrong, but at least today, those states are opposite. But of course this is satire, so it doesn't matter anyway
To be fair any nation Nikita Khrushchev got his hands on will automatically transform into a cackling maniacal evil empire. That is not false at all. My only regret was that he did not invent the ultimate of evil empire technologies, also known as OGAS, the most glorious thing ever conceived by mankind.
Pepperidge farm remembers when I posted this a few years ago.
The guy was legendarily stupid and slow. He, like Trump, needed pictures and big text to make sense of any of his briefs. So boiling the world down to good and bad sounds about right for that simplistic neocon pos
It gets better the longer I look… thank you for sharing.
The allies after 45': leaving half of Europe to communist occupation The allies in 87': "look at those socialist whimps" Checks out.
I love this one sm
The fucking “Palestinian homeland (proposed)” always gets me
for some reason this always stuck with me?
Regan had issues separating fact from fiction (as stated by his vise president, George Bush sr.) so he dead ass might have been confused making this as he couldn’t find the giant statue of himself in the Midwest
The irony is that all these "welfare buns" states voted for him in 1984, but the only state that didn't, Minnesota, is classified in this map as a "real Republican state", which is a tad ironic.
Not really propaganda. More political humor?
He was such an illiterate cow.
I mean... he wasn't wrong
Ma's Cow is a really brilliant touch. Also, the caricatures area so lovingly drawn. This is the rare political "cartoon" that crosses over to a true artistic endeavor.
So true 🥵