This is from the Army Times, a periodical I have never read, but the narrative on Afghanistan could have come from practically any US news organ, left or right, bemoaning the crisis of this "withdrawal" and the affected Afghanis left at the mercy of the Taliban.

This is strange, tiresome jibberish.

You will never read, except perhaps in People's World that Afghanistan did in fact have a stable government in 1978. That government was led by a party comprised of men and women, the People's Democratic Party. That government developed social and economic programs. That government sought to unify, not exploit as the UK and US have done in the region, the various ethnic groups that make up Afghanistan. That government was bringing women and girls into all areas of social and political life.

But this government was socialist, and that was intolerable.

The women and girls we're supposed to be worried about right now; the civil society we're supposed to worry about right now; the "tribal" tensions we're supposed to worry about right now - all this and much more were brought to Afghanistan by the same force that created it: the United States of America.

The US's response to this progressive, stable government was to create the counter-revolutionary force known as the Mujahedeen, aka, the Taliban. Osama bin-Laden was one of their recruits. The US had to reach deep into the sewer to pull out such a force as would be against all that the People's Democratic Party were achieving. The US and the West have always preferred destabilization and chaos to peace and socialism. That is why it always sides with the most retrograde, reactionary, fascist elements.

So all this public fretting about the fire that our arsonist set is laborious. The self-discipline and deference required by an educated sect of US intellectuals - reporters, think-tank researchers, academics - to handwring about the fate of this West Asian society and never a word about 1978 and what the US did is extraordinary.

But Mother was a communist

 

Katharine Martha Houghton Hepburn and Dr. Thomas N. Hepburn

A biographer of actress Katharine Hepburn, William Mann, who wrote Kate: The Woman who was Hepburn, [Henry Holt, 2006] writes that the actress's mother, Mrs. Katharine Martha Houghton Hepburn, almost joined the Communist Party USA and did not.

Mann's contribution, the most recent in a line of biographies which begin with Garson Kanin's "expose," Charles Higham's approved biography, Barbara Leaming's, and Scott Berg's posthumous work, all make much reference to the actress' mother's hard-left politics. A 1940 Life Magazine article even attributed "Bolshevik" sympathies to her.

"Dad was a dyed-in-the-wool socialist," Katharine Hepburn said about her parents in 1986 to a magazine reporter, "but Mother was a communist." 

She told Phil Donahue "I've been very lucky. I was brought up with people who had a lot of nerve and who fought for a better life for male and female in the world. Especially for people who didn't have a lot of money. And they weren't afraid to die." 

No evidence exists that the actress's mother, who co-founded Planned Parenthood with Margaret Sanger, was a Communist Party USA member, but abundant evidence exists she was close to the Party and its work.

Most biographical sketches end with Hepburn's involvement in the suffrage movement. Scant others will mention her role in founding Planned Parenthood.

Connecticut Women's Suffrage Association, 1911. (Mrs. Hepburn kneeling far left)

Indeed, this work itself would fill a volume - which no one has written.

Reminiscent of her daughter's film role in 1947's "Adam's Rib," the elder Hepburn led a crusade to have convicted wife pardoned of an imposed death penalty. The woman, Mrs. Bessie Wakefield was found guilty of conspiring to murder her husband. She denied it. The sentence was death by hanging. [1]

Hepburn, president of the Connecticut Women's Suffrage Association at the time, argued, “we protest against the extreme penalty being applied to a member of a class which has been denied the protection of representation.”

Bridgeport Evening Farmer. Nov 21, 1913

Hepburn resigned her position as president of the CWSA in 1917 over an ideological split in the suffrage movement over WWI and the importance of the suffrage fight.[2] [3] The National Women's Suffrage Association had condemned the National Women's Party for organizing protests against Pres. Woodrow Wilson and the war. The NWSA sought to de-prioritize the suffrage movement during the war effort. Hepburn and other radical women of the CWSA disagreed.

Upon Hepburn's resignation, she joined Alice Paul's NWP.

With the passage of the 19th amendment in 1920, Hepburn deepened her work with trade-unions in general and Sanger in particular.

Perhaps reminiscent of the CWSA rupture, two decades later, Hepburn hinted at taking a similar stance within the Congress of Industrial Organizations [CIO], a radical union forged from a break from the American Federation of Labor. Hepburn worked with the CIO intimately, and its WWII decision - along with the CPUSA's - to suspend all labor actions for the duration of the war got a similar reaction from Hepburn. 

Perhaps, we do not know, if this is the reason she considered and never joined the Communist Party USA.

Regardless, due to those close associations with CPUSA comrades and front groups, several Congressional House Committees on Un-American Activities (HUAC) throughout the late 30's, 40’s and 50’s thought she had joined.

Several citations from the House investigations from California to Washington, DC, name Houghton Hepburn - using the older, patriarchal form: “Mrs. Thomas Norval Hepburn” - as a member or affiliated with several Communist Party front groups.

The front groups were a feature of the popular front strategy the Party employed from the middle 1930's. These enabled people sympathetic to the Party's mission to participate with actual Party members in the struggle to achieve these goals. Some examples of these front groups are the Southern Negro Youth Congress, Civil Rights Congress, and Sojourners for Truth & Justice, among many others.

One of the earliest HUAC citations, from 1939, is questioning the motive and composition of the CIO's National Citizens Political Action Committee, formed expressly "for the election of Franklin D Roosevelt and a Progressive Congress." The CIO was a union federation formed from a break with the more conservative American Federation of Labor. It was not a Communist union but many of its organizers were open Communist Party members, and many of its unions were led by Communists. 

Among "the overwhelming preponderance of fellow travelers" cited by the Committee was Houghton Hepburn. Fellow traveler is defined as "a person who is not a member of a particular group or political party (especially the Communist Party), but who sympathizes with the group's aims and policies." But remember that "overwhelming preponderance" phrasing ...

In May 1944, in a HUAC hearing, Houghton Hepburn was named as one of "11 prominent American leaders" who had signed a joint statement against a witch hunt of "29 men and women" on behalf of the National Committee to Combat Anti-Semitism. Once again, the HUAC report reads "the overwhelming preponderance of fellow travelers on the National Committee to Combat Anti-Semitism is convincing proof of Communist infiltration."

Margaret Sanger [left] and Katharine Houghton Hepburn [right] at Congressional Hearings

In July 1953, progressive Garfield Bromley Oxnam, a bishop in the Methodist Episcopal church and IWW supporter, was called before the HUAC to explain his associations with communists. Houghton Hepburn was named because of her sponsorship of the National Council of American-Soviet Friendship.

She was further cited or named in House Un-American Activities sessions by witnesses as late as 1957 when the House was investigating "Communist Political Subversion" the document reads. 

As Houghton Hepburn died in 1951, the HUAC citations after this are interesting. According to several biographies, her surviving husband, Dr. Thomas Norval Hepburn, burned all her papers upon her death, including his correspondence with playwright and socialist, George Bernard Shaw. *

These associations can't answer the question definitively was she or was she not a CPUSA member. We're left to speculate. We're also left to speculate whether she was ever called to testify to HUAC [her daughter was allegedly subpoenaed and defied it]. Many who were merely supporters of the Party were swept up in the witch hunts and blacklist.

What's definitive is Houghton Hepburn's longtime support for these causes and her willingness to work time and time again with the Communist Party.

Why the burning of all her papers, an act which the actress-daughter has lamented? Houghton Hepburn died suddenly of a heart attack on March 17, 1951. Julius and Ethel Rosenberg had been arrested in July of the previous year. Their espionage trial began March 6, 1951, more than a week before her death. The Smith Act trials against Communist Party members began in 1949 and went on until the late 50's [the leadership of the Hawaii Party were rounded up in 1951]. 

The witch hunts had the desired side effect of creating fear of in any way being associated with the Communist Party USA.

____________________________

* a note on sources. It would be unforgivable to cast the elder Hepburn's politics based on HUAC documents alone. I only do so given the corroborating testimony of her family, including her actress daughter and granddaughter, and the destruction of Hepburn's own papers. In the early Life Magazine profile, Hepburn admits to being a Bolshevik sympathizer. Her great-granddaughter has recently gifted a trove of papers by another of Hepburn's daughters, who had been a CIO organizer. Hopefully, these documents will shed more light.

[1] Connecticut Suffragists and the Case of Bessie Wakefield - Connecticut Digital Newspaper Project (ctdigitalnewspaperproject.org)

[2] Connecticut Women and World War I - Connecticut Digital Newspaper Project (ctdigitalnewspaperproject.org)

[3] When Attitudes toward World War Divided the Connecticut Woman Suffrage Movement - Connecticut Digital Newspaper Project (ctdigitalnewspaperproject.org)

What's Going on in Florida is What's Going on in the US

I watch a lot of YouTube content like this because while reviving dead theorists over and over can be interesting, applying radical analysis to what's going on RIGHT NOW is better. What does this "out of control" housing market in Florida mean for the working-class renter? Nothing good. I saw this phenomenon in the two years I lived in Tampa, 2016-2018, where my rent was hiked three times [third time I got out]; while my income remained stagnant. And there's no rent control law in Florida, so these increases can look like down payments. As the property manager over my studio apartment told me: "we can adjust the rent to the market rate of the neighborhood." The neighborhood was Seminole Heights, and just after I moved there in 2016 the blocks across my street were re-zoned for commercial spaces. Of course the first space to open in a remodeled home was a sushi restaurant. Then came a boutique bicycle shop. You get the picture.

The public housing complex about two miles from me was slated for destruction to build condos. This is happening all over the country and should be a national scandal. I talked to two of the dispossessed in the waiting room of my doctor's office one day, and they said they had been promised Section 8 vouchers, but they already knew - if you do not - how Section 8 has failed the working class and the poor. It is underfunded, by both Democratic and Republican administrations. And many landlords simply do not accept the program. The waiting lists are also outrageous.

But this rapid influx should be studied carefully. Where are these new Floridians coming from? What are their motivations to leave where they came from, and what political conclusions can be drawn from this? And the other question might be the only silver lining in this - because there will be no silver lining for workers and the poor: will this demographic shift also shift the political posture of Florida from a Red state?

And speaking of demographics. Included in how I research places I move to, I turn to the ever-reliable Grindr. That's right. The gay "dating" app. I want to see the mix of people who live in a given place. So Eureka, CA, is lily-fucking white. No go. When I moved to Tampa, there was a nice mix of Black, white, and Latin. That was 2016. I look at Grindr now for Tampa, and I might count one Black face on the feed. It's mostly white. Some Latin. Where did the Black men go?

And that's an persistent question we should be asking too. Remember in the late 80's when then vice president Dan Quayle came to visit San Francisco and as a precaution in this paranoid country, any Black man with an outstanding warrant or on parole was rounded up in the then-Black neighborhood of Bayview/Hunter's Point. Quayle had the nerve to sit on camera holding a Black child and asked "where are the men?" as an indictment of the Black family. (Footnote: like everyplace else, Bayview/Hunter's Point today is no longer a Black neighborhood, and the Black people have disappeared too].

So people disappearing from our cities is something else that should be a national scandal.

Why San Francisco's Burton Academic High School doesn't make the List and wasn't supposed to

I scoured the list for the high school where I taught and was later promoted to be a guidance counselor. Philip & Sala Burton Academic High School was not on the list. And only two San Francisco schools are listed, one is Lowell High School which only takes students based on high test scores. The second is a charter school. A note about San Francisco Unified School District. In the early 80's a Consent Decree resulting from an NAACP lawsuit against the district resulted in the creation of Martin Luther King, Jr., Middle School, Thurgood Marshall Academic High School, and Philip & Sala Burton. SFUSD had responded to the 1970's US Supreme Court mandate to integrate with reluctance and was failing Black and Brown students. When integration did happen, many white parents took their children out of school and created what must be the most private schools per square mile in the whole country. Remember, we are talking about San Francisco! 

The consent-decree high schools, like Burton and Marshall, were unique in that their graduation requirements were linked to the requirements to qualify for the University of California. This meant ensuring faculty, classes, and programs. The schools were placed in the southeast part of San Francisco, near the the city's highest concentration of Black residents.

The founding principal, Mrs. Fredna B Howell, a Black woman originally from Alabama, is the woman who kept an open social studies position unfilled because she insisted on finding a Black man. Mrs. Howell had that kind of clout, and the consent decree was her tool. When she promoted me to the counseling department, only one of us she chose had credentials.

Under the Clinton Justice Department, the consent decree was deemed "satisfied," and it was withdrawn. With that, the obligation of the SFUSD to fund the school's founding mission and Mrs. Howell's clout came to an end. The school dipped into disarray. Imagine emptying half of the fuel tank on a plane in mid flight. As intended, this was the pretext for the anti-public school/anti-teachers union mob to force the district into accepting more charter schools, thus diverting resources for schools like Burton and Marshall, creating more intended disarray. And as I was by then ending my teacher education program and not credentialed, Mrs. Howell could not put who she wanted in positions she wanted. My days were ended.

The reign was over. For Mrs. Howell. For me. But especially for the Black kids who had been availed of programs sorely needed. And this is the story of public education in the United States, especially where it pertains to Black and Brown and poor students.

CDE. CHRIS HANI MEMORIAL ESSAY: Why the US needs a communist party ... and why it does not have one

I compose these thoughts barely a day after the US National Labor Relations Board [NLRB] declared a resounding defeat for the Retail, Warehouse, Department Store Union [RWDSU] election in Bessemer, Alabama, and a victory for Amazon, whose CEO is one of the wealthiest people on the planet. While the union has vowed to challenge illegal acts taken by Amazon and seek overturning the election, I cannot help connecting this defeat to similar ones in Mississippi with Nissan, and in Tennessee with Volkswagen. I do not doubt those corporations resorted to all kinds of maneuvers to turn the vote in their favor, but this does not mean the labor movement in general or the unions in particular should not do some deep reflection of where it gained and where is fell short, pick up its arsenal of weapons, sharpen ones too long in disuse, and continue the fight for the working class and its ascendancy to power.

Reflect on, say, some of the failures of that most valiant labor union, the Congress of Industrial Organizations [CIO], and its push to organize the Deep South in the 1940's. The monumental campaign was dubbed "Operation Dixie." Had the CIO's organizing campaign to unionize sharecroppers and dock workers and farm labor, it would have made the US look very different today, brought an end to Jim Crow at least 20 years early, and possibly altered the militarist direction of US foreign policy.

 And given the high saturation of Black workers in the South - as today - it would have changed the face of Black America.

But Operation Dixie failed, and it nearly bankrupted the CIO. Without a doubt, the viciousness with which segregationist white elites responded to the CIO was unequal. To the white elites, this particular union had two particular sins: the power of a militant union steeped in Communist Party organizers and the policy of integration, which was integral to the CPUSA's stance since its beginning. 

The CIO, unlike other antique-minded unions who were either indifferent to white racism or afraid of alienating their own white rank and file, organized workers across racial lines, and they did this in the North, in the West, and in what was then the Territory of Hawaii. So the CIO's entrance into the Bible Belt was perceived as a double threat to white Southerners, and it had to be stopped at all costs.

As we know, the Operation Dixie did fail.

But among the factors that contributed to the CIO defeat came from blind spots of the organizers themselves who failed to appreciate the traumatizing effect Jim Crow politics had on many Black workers. 

In the case of New Orleans, LA, at the time, Black workers had been afforded the exclusive jobs at the ports of that Gulf of Mexico city. These were grueling jobs with low pay, but to a Black man in Jim Crow Dixie, it was a job nonetheless. "The new CIO affiliate promised democratic unionism, the replacement of the notoriously corrupt 'shape-up' with 'the hiring hall method of dispatching men without discrimination and the 'equalization of earnings.'" [1] Added to the resistance put up by white segregationists, these Black workers themselves put up resistance to the prospect of a CIO victory. Such a victory, they reasoned, might undercut their own employment under an integrated workforce and leave many of them with the double jeopardy of being Black and working class poor.

"ILWU organizers in the Gulf had to test their egalitarian creed in a new and alien environment where Black workers predominated numerically on the docks but the ideology of white supremacy and the reality of racial separation remained pervasive." [ibid]

What could the CIO then, or the UAW and RWDSU today, have done differently to address the special concerns of Black, Southern workers?

I ask the question in that way because I take all these unions in good faith. Their respective records prove their antiracist credentials. But is this enough? Is it enough to be antiracist?

I'll return to this.

***

The challenges confronting us from the right remain enormous, pervasive, and escalating.

Arguably the US being a settler-colonial nation-state the political tendency would always be toward the right leaning as the white settlers were paranoid of indigenous and African rebellion against their peculiar spread of civilization. This paranoia is writ large in the nation-state's founding documents, which have over the years been expanded, but never corrected.

This has been the perfect fertile ground in which a right-wing orthodoxy would prevail in this country.

The right-leaning tendency of the US project only worsened after such events like the Haitian Revolution, John Brown's insurrection, Wounded Knee, the Bolshevik Revolution, etc., not to diminish in any way the more local insurrections staged by what scholar John Ogbu calls the "involuntary immigrants" - Africans and the indigenous populations - upon whom settler-colonialism landed with a heavy thud. [2]

While Ogbu's focus was mostly on academic outcomes and cultural disengagement, his delineation of the broader Black diaspora and so-called "Hispanic"/"Latino" in native-born US Blacks and Chicanos on the one hand from continental Africans and other South Americans on the other should be useful tools for labor and community organizers to understanding how settler-colonialism impacts us in very different ways.

Settler-colonialism has always had to, as the cop will claim, "fearing for its life."

This has meant that the right-leaning tendency of this nation-state has always shifted the leftwing off its center, where a certain consensus is made and certain facts agreed to - like for example, the discourse that the country was founded on imperfect freedom and evolving towards perfecting such. Nonsense just like that, which we hear from left and from right.

Or the framing of the colonialist revolution from Britain's George III as in any way a "workers rebellion."

I would argue many of the incessant splits, irreconcilable differences, distortions, divorces, purges, and expulsions from within the left arise from this tension of being on the left and having to deal with this right-leaning tendency. How to negotiate an energy that is there, like a poltergeist? You cannot ignore it. What do you do with it?

But the right-leaning character of this country, coming as it does from the roots and from its origins means this energy can always reshape the left if cadres are not diligent and vigilant against it.

Any left-leaning political organization or party that aspires to be on the left and be relevant to the left can easily become so entangled within the right wing of this country - given that the right wing is virtually the air we breath and the ground we stand on.

This caution includes unions like UAW and RWDSU, and all the others. Because what befell the CIO is the same force that bolstered the opposing American Federation of Labor and later the combined AFL-CIO. Some called it Anticommunism, but it is much simpler than that. It's as simple as John Jay's admonishment in the Federalist Papers that "the people who own the country should run the country."

This means curbing any worker power over the means of production or civic life. This was equated with communism.

And to ensure the AFL [by 1955, the merged AFL-CIO] would remain staunchly anticommunist, the CIA and other federal agencies later, massaged the direction of the union in particular and the labor movement in general with funding. [3] Probably informants and plants too, I have no doubt.

This solidified the role of the US's largest labor federation on the side of the right-leaning tendency. This means a lot of what it pronounces from podium and pulpit is performative. This means even its internal structures must be shielded from rank-and-file members. 

The leadership of the West Virginia teachers union did not want a strike. Strikes are illegal in West Virginia, but the teachers forced the issue and forced their leadership on the train, because the train was about to leave without them.

Such displays are unfortunately very rare.

The concession to right-leaning thought has made unruly rebels and delinquents out of those who want to exercise the muscle of working class power, shuttered the activity of unions locals into Rotary Club meetings, and diverted the energies of leadership towards finding tactical ways to keep itself away from the mass of workers: and this should make the leadership of these organizations apostates.

When the so-called grassroots groups become supporters or provide justification for bourgeois candidates like Obama, or Clinton, or Biden, and do so out of the expediency that the US electoral system was created by paranoid white settlers wanting to create a nation-state owned and run by its class, these grassroots play a dangerous game - that is to say, by design US elections are less free, less open, and not democratic - these grassroots groups go through an "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" moment where they are cocooned into bourgeois mouthpieces. If there are criticisms, they are vagaries; because they cannot give the game away and say a plague on both their parties. Such a declaration would mean the grassroots organizations would actually have to declare radical alternatives and do some radical organizing of the masses who need radical solutions.

For the record, I do not know, but would never be surprised to learn, that the reason these leftist parties and grassroots organizations are so facile to their purpose is the same reason the AFL-CIO is not. I do not know if CIA, USAID, or National Endowment for Democracy funds are massaging their backs as well, but it would not be a surprise.

***

By talking all around and not on the topic of the headline, I hoped to lay out the field why communist parties traditionally emerged to to seize the neglected left space, mobilize the working class, and reach across racial and ethnic lines to create a force to be reckoned with. 

This is the minimum any communist party should be doing, and if it is not it is not a communist party. Armed struggle or no armed struggle; going into exile; working underground seem to be to depend on the conditions of the time and place. But even a group of French intellectuals having coffee at a Parisian café should be bringing the same sharp analyses of what is going on as the South African miner. There cannot be a rhetorical accommodation to bourgeois power in France while those workers are being frontally assaulted by that same state power.

This tone deafness does not suit a communist party.

Just so, US Vice -President Kamala Harris' political background should never, ever warrant her being praised in any capacity by a comrade in a partisan newspaper. Let's review the low lights of this woman's career: she was maneuvered into a local District Attorney race to unseat a comrade. Upon winning that seat, she went after protesters and poor women. She dragged her feet to keep Black men incarcerated who should not have been.

She has not a root, not a finger, not a toe in any of the movements that aspire our social and political goals. The comrade she unseated in that San Francisco race not only himself has deep roots, but so did his mother and father.

Further, while the working class has sustained body blow after body blow at least since the administration of Jimmy Carter, in modern times, Black, Brown, and Indigenous workers have fallen exponentially farther. 

Recall by Obama's second administration it was widely reported the "disappearance" of 1.5 million Black male workers.

Given the right-leaning consensus of a settler-colonial state, it's to be expected that the state intelligentsia and state media apparatus will gloss over, obfuscate, misdirect, or reframe the meaning of these disappearances to uphold the medieval concept of "the king can do no wrong." Further, the traumatizing and politicizing impact this might have on the broader Black community or workers will never even be mentioned by these state parrots.

It is an apostasy for a communist party, hiding behind some quotes of Marx, to raise their fists ostensibly for the working class, to leave us Black workers to live on more "trickle-down" theories that what will benefit the broader working class [which has not benefitted by the way] will lift up Black workers.

This tone deafness is why those Black New Orleans workers opposed the CIO and Operation Dixie.

***

In place of taking up the radical left baton, not only on behalf of Black workers, but on behalf of the many children sunk into poverty, the rising numbers of homeless caused by state sectors accommodation to the housing industry, on behalf not just on just wages but the equally important social investment - in place of all these things, too many on the left who attained leadership positions sound more like endowed researchers in anthropology speaking on parts of the animal kingdom rather than organizers mobilizing workers into a force to be reckoned with.

And why? Simply, it must be reasoned at this point these leaders do not want to mobilize this force to threaten the state power they are so tethered to at the waist. 

One has to wonder how many are leftover informants and state-police plants.

This is why I say their antiracism is not enough, and their cries for "justice" pathetic. 

The best hope we have at this juncture, which has been long coming - I do not mean to suggest this crisis is new and of the 21st century - is a vanguard movement of the working class, for the working class, lead by the working class. And it must be socialist in its core and communist in its aspiration. If it cannot appreciate the predicament of women workers, or Black and Brown workers; if it cannot appreciate the colonial status of such captured peoples as Hawaiians, Chamorros, or Puerto Ricans and how this status is integral to the what the US is and integral to the dire situation of those colonial peoples, then this vanguard will amount to nothing.

This is why the United States sorely needs a communist party, and while it may have one in name, it has none in substance. That is why the historical reports featured in its party newspaper can't shine a candle on what it's doing today. The contrast between past and present respectively fills you with awe but then deflates and demoralizes.

Cde. Chris Hani, in whose name and spirit I pen these thoughts, was head of the South African Communist Party until his assassination in 1993. He had previously been overwhelmingly elected to the Executive Committee of the African National Congress, and before that had been chief of staff of the anti-apartheid armed struggle.

Like many of his comrades, he felt betrayed and alarmed when the armed struggle was call off without proper consultation of the alliance. He argued it was too soon to lay down the weapons.

The best hope of the left - that vanguard party needing to be reborn - has similarly laid down its weapons too soon and ceded too much ground to the rightward backwardness of settler-colonialism. In doing so it has rendered itself meaningless to the working class broadly, but also to the sectors hardest hit and in most need of radical mass struggle. This is not an easy, but rather a painful, wrenching announcement. Because our lives and our well being are at stake.

Footnotes

[1] Bruce Nelson, "Class and Race in the Crescent City: The ILWU from San Francisco to New Orleans," THE CIO'S LEFT-LED UNIONS, Steve Rosswurm, editor [Rutgers]

[2] John U Ogbu and Herbert Simmons, "Voluntary and Involuntary Minorities: A Cultural-Ecological Theory of School Performance with Some Implications for Education," [Univ. of California]

[3] Kim Scipes, "The AFL-CIO, NED, Solidarity Center & US Labor Imperialism" and "The AFL-CIO's Secret War against Developing Country Workers:  Solidarity or Sabotage," laborvideo interview conducted by Steve Zeltzer