Starting last year and going into this year, Republican Governors Ron DeSantis (Florida) and Greg Abbott (Texas) made headlines by sending Hispanic Immigrants to New York City, Chicago, Washington D.C. and various cities in California (Sacramento, Los Angeles). The point of these political stunts was to bring a spotlight to the current immigration polices and sanctuary cities. DeSantis and Abbott were essentially saying, “Hey you care so much about these people, take them, they are all yours.”

These stunts were new, drew tons of attention and criticisms. The thing is, this idea was not new. In the 1960s, America was awash in the Civil Rights Movement. One of the key tenants of the movement was the Freedom Riders. The Freedom Riders were a group of volunteers organized by the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) and the Nashville Student Movement. The volunteers protested segregated public buses in the South.

A group called the Citizens Council (aka the Ku Klux Klan) got fed up with the “progress” of the Civil Rights movement and wanted to portray a different view of the South than the one that was publicized in the press. Led by George Singlemann, they came up with the idea of the “Reverse Freedom Rides.” The plan was to bus African Americans from the South to big northern and western cities. The thinking was the busing would test the North and prove whether white northerners were sincere in their desire for racial equality. There was also another reason for the rides, to remove African Americans from the Southern states’ welfare rolls as they were viewed as a drain on state resources.

The first family chosen was the Boyd family. The Boyds comprised of Lewis and Dorothy Boyd and their 8 children. Citizens’ Council especially picked them for the trip because they had eight children and Lewis had been unemployed for three years. The Citizens Council promised them jobs and a big house to coax them to move. The trip was a forty-three-hour ride from New Orleans to New York City. When they arrived, there were no jobs or housing, but the press was there because the Citizens’ Council had tipped them off about the family and the trip. In all 200-300, African Americans made the “Reverse Freedom Ride” trips, with most landing in New York City, Chicago, Philadelphia and Los Angeles. 

Then President John Kennedy referred to the rides as “deplorable” and “A rather cheap exercise.” The New York Times referred to the rides as “A cheap trafficking in human misery on the part of Southern racists.” Then Massachusetts governor John Volpe feared his state would be overrun by “impoverished blacks” because of the rides and asked for federal legislation prohibiting the rides. The legislation never came about.

The Citizens Council failed to send thousands of African Americans to the North, but left a lasting political tactic. In 2023, replace African Americans with Hispanic immigrants and you have the “New Reverse Freedom Rides.” They still promise them housing and jobs in these new locations only to be met with the press when they arrive. 

We do not leave the new residents out in the cold, thanks to the acts of charitable groups, churches, and local governments. But it says something about our society that in 2023, human beings are still being used to score cheap political points. What’s the point? Segregation still ended even with the acts of the “Reverse Freedom Rides” and with the actions of Abbott and DeSantis, U.S. immigration policy hasn’t changed. But that doesn’t matter, what matters more is getting the publicity and getting their names out in the public because both men have eyes for higher office. The pursuit of power or ideology trumps the livelihood of a lowly poor African American southerner or Hispanic immigrant. Yet, very few of us care about these tactics. We either cheer them on or silently disapprove and go about our lives. What a society we live in.

The post Reverse Freedom Rides appeared first on Mistakes Were Made.

In the mid-80s, one couldn’t pass one retail block in London without seeing a Ratner affiliated store on it. The store catered to “working class” individuals by offering lower priced but still “quality” jewelry that they could afford. During this period, Ratner was on the level of a modern day Jeff Bezos or Elon Musk. He constantly had meetings with Margaret Thatcher (the than Prime Minister of the U.K.,) and was a regular at many high society events.

On April 23, 1991, Ratner was invited to be a guest speaker at the Institute of Directors. Over, 6000 business professionals and journalist attended the event. During his speech, he made the following comment:

“We also do cut-glass sherry decanters complete with six glasses on a silver-plated tray that your butler can serve you drinks on, all for 4.95 pounds. People say, “How can you sell this for such a low price?”, I say, “because it’s total crap.”

Ratner doubled down on this statement by also adding that one set of earrings they sell was “cheaper than a prawn sandwich from Marks and Spencer’s, but I have to say the sandwich will probably last longer than the earrings”. These statements did not go over well with the audience on hand. The very next day, Ratner appeared on a TV talk show to apologize and explain he was only joking about the “total crap” comments he made the prior day.

Ratner’s statements already did major damage. The media ran headlines with the statement in every newspaper and they were the subject of many news reports. Customers started staying away from the Ratner stores in droves. In a matter of days, the Ratners group’s stock value plummeted by 500 million pounds because of the remarks. Poor sales led to the closure of nearly 300 stores by the company. The corporate board dismissed Ratner from his family owned company in November 1992 over the fallout. The move did little to bring back customers, so the company had to pull the ultimate break in case of an emergency move, change its name. In September 1993, the Ratners Group changed its corporate name to the Signet Group.

The Signet Group is still around today and is the world’s largest retailer of diamond jewelry. Some companies under the Signet Group conglomerate are Jared, H.Samuel/Ernest Jones/Leslie Davis, Blue Nile, Zales, Kay Jewelers and James Allen.  

Ratner did what most consumers would want a CEO to do, tell the truth about the products it sells. The problem was the Ratners Group was in a value/illusion market. The consumers thought they were getting a valuable product at a discount price. Common sense should have told them there is no such thing as getting a valuable item at a bargain bin price unless the item was stolen, but as we know, common sense is not common. Ratner’s comments wiped away that illusion of value the consumers thought they were getting and replaced it with the cold hard reality of the “total crap” products they were actually getting.

J. C. Penney and its then CEO Ron Johnson pulled a similar business move in 2011. J. C. Penney’s retail strategy was to provide coupons continuously on items in its stores. Johnson took over, did away with the coupons and just offered the clothes at a permanent discounted rate without sales (they marked the clothes in similar price range as the coupon prices). The grandmothers and grandfathers who bought clothes for their grand kids at J. C. Penney were not happy with this change. Customers were addicted to the coupons, and the perceived value they were getting by buying the clothes on sale at a bargain rate. Sales dropped after the price change, even as low as 32% in the fourth quarter of 2012. The new CEO fired Johnson and reimplemented the coupon strategy, pleasing the grandmother and grandfather consumers again.

What’s the lesson from these stories? Though we like honest CEO’s if you are in the value/illusion market, you can not be as honest as Mr. Ratner was. Consumers in this market place gain happiness from getting a bargain, and if the CEO of the company dashes that illusion by revealing the reality of the actual quality of the product, they will flee in droves. They will go on to the next business who is selling the value/illusion mystique. In short, lie to your customers if you want to keep them as customers. Honesty only works in a religious or a judicial court room setting and even then you may not be getting the truth.

The post You cant handle the truth! appeared first on Mistakes Were Made.

Under Candler, Coca-Cola was only sold as concentrated syrup to soda fountains. Almost equivalent to how it’s sold today to fast-food restaurants. In other parts of the world, carbonated fruit drinks were sold in bottles, but these items had not yet caught on in the United States. 

Candler was against the idea of bottling Coke. He thought it was best served at soda fountains, fresh mixed on the spot (some people still feel this way). Candler’s nephew advised him that selling Coke in a bottle could increase the sales of Coke, but Candler was still not moved by the idea.

Joseph A. Biedenharn, a candy store owner, first put Coke in Hutchinson bottles (no semblance to the modern Coke bottle.) Hutchinson saw the sales boost he got from the bottles and sent a case to Candler, but Candler would not budge on his anti-bottling stance. 

Finally, in 1899, Candler relented to the pleas to bottle Coke and sold the bottling rights for Coke to Ben Thomas and Joseph Whitehead. Thomas and Whitehead received the rights to bottle Coke everywhere except Texas, Mississippi and New England in exchange for one dollar (they later added Texas and Mississippi to the deal.) Candler thought the idea of bottled Coke becoming a hit was so low that he sold it off for a dollar. Legend has it he may not have even collected that dollar. 

The contract also stipulated that a bottle of Coke could cost only 5 cents with no end date for the price. The price of a bottle of Coke remained 5 cents until 1959. The sale of Coke bottles took off. As of the 1960s, Coca-Cola had created more millionaires than any company before that because of its unique independent bottling system. 

The Coca-Cola company, eventually bought the Coca-Cola Bottling Company (Thomas’s company,) from Thomas heirs for $35 million in 1974 ($224 million in 2023.) In 1986, Coca-Cola paid the heirs of Whiteheads bottling partnerships $1.4 billion to acquire its bottling operations(8.9 billion in 2023.) 

Today, the Coca-Cola corporation is worth over 274 billion dollars. Coke has bought up most of the independent bottling companies since the infamous one dollar bottling contract. Candler would become a millionaire and future mayor of Atlanta, but his inability to listen to alternative viewpoints on how to best sell Coke cost him and his heirs a few billion dollars. 

The Coke bottle is a pop culture and business icon across the globe, but if it was left up to Candler, it would have never come to be. Candler came up with one life altering brilliant business decision but gave away another based on his inability to adjust his thinking and the inability to listen to others on the matter on the best way to sell Coca-Cola.

The post Catch Coke in a bottle appeared first on Mistakes Were Made.

All of the casinos in downtown Las Vegas and the Strip were segregated during this time. Blacks were only allowed in as the entertainment or to do low-level labor jobs. A group of white investors saw the need and financial benefit of an integrated hotel casino. The group brought in Joe Louis to have a small ownership percentage and be the official host of the casino (think of Jay-Z ownership era with the Brooklyn Nets.) Because Vegas was segregated with actions like redlining, the casino could only be built in one place, west Las Vegas, which was a great distance from the Strip or the Downtown area.

The casino was named Moulin Rouge after the famous dance cabaret in Paris, France. The casino opened on May 24, 1955 and became the first desegregated hotel casino in the U.S. The Moulin Rouge opened too much fanfare. In fact, it made the cover of Life magazine on June 20,1955. The casino was fully integrated from top to bottom, from black employees to black patrons. A- list Black celebrities like Lena Horne, Sammy Davis Jr, Louis Armstrong, Sarah Vaughan, Nat King Cole, Duke Ellington, Dorothy Dandridge, Harry Belafonte, Pearl Bailey, Lionel Hampton and Count Basie performed at the Moulin Rouge.

Black patrons and celebrities weren’t the only ones drawn to the Moulin Rouge. Famous A list white celebrities like George Burns, Judy Garland, Marlene Dietrich, Zsa Zsa Gabor, Jack Benny, Bob Hope, Milton Berle and Frank Sinatra either gambled or performed at the new hot spot. The showgirls at the big segregated casinos were leaving their shows immediately after they ended to head to the Moulin Rouge. The casino bosses got so mad at this act that they threatened to fire anyone they saw headed to the Moulin Rouge. This didn’t stop the showgirls, as they just hid on the way to the hottest spot in town. The Moulin Rouge was so hot, the management added a 2:30 am show to accommodate the crowds.

With such a happening place, you would expect the good times to roll on forever, right? To the shock of everyone, the doors of the Moulin Rouge were padlocked shut in October 1955. The casino lasted 6 months! What happened? No one knows for sure, but there are plenty of theories:

1. No Profits

The number one rule of business is when expenses exceed earnings, that business won’t last long. The Moulin Rouge had big over head expenses and not enough profits to offset them. No business could survive that cash flow system. This explanation seems hard to believe, given how many customers visited the casino. It’s only plausible if they ran it like a lot of now defunct businesses that were more concerned with the glitz instead of the financial books.

2. Skimming of profits

Many people believe the owners of the Moulin Rouge were skimming so much money from the casino that it couldn’t cover its bills and thus had to shut down. Crooked casino operators were the standard course in 1950s era Vegas, so this theory wouldn’t be surprising.

3. Mismanagement

This one goes hand in hand with theory 2, with all the embezzling of funds and lack of strong, adequate management. Many believe this is the number one reason the Moulin Rouge shut down so fast.

4. Mortgage problems

Many people believe competing casino owners pressured the banks who held the mortgage on Moulin Rouge to call in the mortgage loan early to eliminate the new integrated hot spot as it became a threat to its existing businesses.

5. Location

They could only build the Moulin Rouge in one location (west Las Vegas) because of segregation and redlining. Unfortunately, this location wasn’t near the Strip or Downtown, so it was a hike to get to and many potential white patrons didn’t enjoy visiting the black side of town to get to the casino. Current day Vegas has the infrastructure to support casinos not on the strip or downtown (i.e. Red Rocks or the Palms) but in the 1950s this infrastructure was not in place.

6. Over saturation

Vegas was becoming over saturated with casinos (is that possible?) The tourism levels weren’t at the levels they are at today. In fact, many of the segregated casinos like the Riviera, Dunes, New Frontier and the Royal Nevada also had financial troubles during this time. If some of the segregated casinos were struggling, it only makes sense that the one unsegregated one would also feel this pain, but only worst. Think of the phrase, “When white folks catch a cold, Black folks get pneumonia.”

7. Building Contractors

Another theory was that the building contractors who built the Moulin Rouge weren’t paid what they were owed for their labor and threatened the owners for the payments. The owners did what any unethical owners would do, closed the business and got the hell out of dodge. This theory correlates with theories number 2 and 3.

8. Racism

Last but not least, good old-fashioned American Racism. A lot of white residents of Las Vegas and owners of the other segregated casinos weren’t too happy with the opening and the initial success of the Moulin Rouge. It was taking away performers, income and customers from the other casinos, and the casino was helping to elevate blacks to equal status and privilege in Vegas. The powers that be certainly couldn’t have that in 1950s America! Customers from the South who believed in good old-fashioned Jim Crow wouldn’t go near the Moulin Rouge. This theory also correlates with theory number 4. If you don’t think there weren’t secret meetings to discuss how to put the Moulin Rouge out of business, well then you just don’t know American history.

If I had to guess, I would say it was a combination of theories 2, 3, 5, 6 and 8 that lead to the Moulin Rouge’s premature demise. Two years later, the Moulin Rouge was reopened, but the new owner (Leo Fry) had different purposes for the reopening of the casino. Under Fry, the Moulin Rouge liquor license got revoked three times, for the unethical and despicable practice of charging black patrons more for drinks than the white patrons. Fry even admitted he did this to discourage the black patrons from visiting the Moulin Rouge.

Las Vegas was still very much segregated, even with the opening of the Moulin Rouge. Something had to be done to change this. In 1960, a meeting between the head of the local NAACP (Dr. James B. McMillan), the Las Vegas Mayor (Oran Gragson), Nevada governor (Grant Sawyer) and other prominent white business and community figures was held at the Moulin Rouge to discuss the possible desegregation of Las Vegas. An agreement was made, and the casinos became desegregated. Of course, some casinos like the Sal Sagev refused to oblige by the agreement, but most honored it.

The Moulin Rouge switched ownership hands many times and fell into decay after Fry’s ownership. In 1989, a black business woman named Sarann Knight-Preddy bought the decaying property. She could not secure local or federal funding to revitalize and upgrade the property, even after it was named a National Register of Historic Place in 1992. In 2003 a fire started by an arsonist, gutted the Moulin Rouge property. A later fire in 2009 finished what remained of the property. With the property becoming an eyesore and detriment to the neighborhood, the demolition of the Moulin Rouge was approved and occurred in phases from 2010 to 2017. All that remains of the hotel today is the neon sign that is on display in the Neon Museum in Las Vegas.

Today, a person of any race can walk into any casino in Las Vegas and gamble away their money, but this was not the case in the 1950s era of the city before the Moulin Rouge opened. What should be a standing shrine to the Civil Rights Movement, not only for what it stood for but also for the historic agreement that was struck there, is instead an empty plot of land in what is still sadly one of the worst areas in the Las Vegas Valley. 

Historians say the Moulin Rouge never stood a chance to succeed, given all the opposition to it from the beginning. Given its tumultuous history and the current status of the area, you can say that’s an accurate assessment. Still, in its short time, it helped bring progress to a city that was stuck in the past and needed a push forward.

The post Las Vegas is just like Mississippi appeared first on Mistakes Were Made.

DeBow’s Review (Debow’s) was a widely circulated magazine of “agricultural, commercial and industrial progress and resource,” in the South. The magazine was published from 1846 to 1880. Debow’s, “recommended the best practices for wringing profits from slaves.” Debow’s was named after its first editor, James Dunwoody Brownson Debow.

Debow’s introduced knowledgeable insight like this from its May 1860 issue about a slave’s diet, “Plums are excellent for hogs, but unfit for Negroes and children for they are sure to take them, skin, seed, pulp, and all… Finally, I repeat that the food for Negroes should be cooked either by the cook for the white family, or by some other woman.”

The magazine even provided insightful fashion tips like this for slaves, “Negroes should be well clothed, and that they should have woolen outer garments-at least in the winter season, while they should be made to wear them, and not allowed to change them until the warm weather.”

What about how to deal with slaves in rainy weather? Debow’s has you covered there as well, “If Negroes could be kept constantly engaged in active labor, they might work all day in the rain without the least risk, provided that they could put on dry clothing as soon as they ceased exercising.”

Debow’s even gave its “scientifically,” approved opinion about the difference between free black citizens and enslaved ones and its opinion of the black race. The magazine dropped such gems like, “free Negroes in the North are generally considered a nuisance, as they have been in every community on earth, just proportion as the race among which they lived was industrious, elevated or virtuous….their laziness, their viciousness, their licentiousness and improvidence, have soon disgusted their best friends, and made the several communities in which they dealt, anxious to be rid of them.”

“Nearly all travelers who have visited both the Northern and Southern States of America, are agreed that the condition of the free Negro in the North is worse than that of the slave in the South.”

“The fact is, the Negroes in the North display their inherent characteristics of laziness, determined ignorance, sensuality, vice, filth, and improvidence-traits which disgust all virtuous and industrious citizens; and to charge these traits upon southern slavery, shows a total misconception of the African character, which has been improved and elevated, as we have shown, by slavery in the South.”

Last but not least, this gem that talks about slaves but can be applied to today’s modern day capitalist system, “that country is most prosperous, most enlightened, and most progressive, where the poor are worked the hardest, and for the least wages or allowance…and where labor is cheapest,and the masses hardest worked, and worst paid, the nation is richest, most prosperous and progressive.”

Debow’s also advocated to resume the African slave trade and for Southern cession as the Civil War loomed.

The mere existence of Debow’s magazine shows the many moral faults in slave owners. They viewed slaves as non-human, so they needed a guide to tell them common sense ideas like slaves need wool clothes to work in the cold, or slaves need to change to dry, warm clothes after working in the rain. The magazine then reinforced many negative stereotypes about the black population to “show” the need for slavery.

That there was a magazine that gave tips on how to maximize productivity from slaves will shock many people and it shouldn’t. As I stated earlier, there is a magazine dedicated to porta-potties in 2023. It makes sense that in the 1800s, there was a magazine that not only gave “slavery productivity” tips but also promoted slavery and negative black stereotypes. 

During the Civil War (1864-1865), Debow’s was suspended but resumed operation in 1866, with a renewed focus on accepting President Andrew Johnson’s Reconstruction plan. Surprisingly, it wasn’t the end of slavery that was the demise of Debow’s. The magazine kept publishing until 1880, where it ceased due to increased publishing expenses. The magazine underwent many name changes after 1880 and was finally absorbed into the Agricultural Review and Industrial Monthly of New York in 1884.

The post The Wall Street Journal for slave owners appeared first on Mistakes Were Made.

This Amendment causes the most discourse among the original Bill of Rights laws. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court affirmed for the first time that the right to own guns belongs to individuals for self-defense in the home. When we think of the Second Amendment, this idea of an individual constitutional right to own guns is the first one that usually pops into one’s mind. What about the well-regulated militia part? Has there always been an emphasis on an individual rights to own guns?

The American political scientist Robert Spitzer wrote that every law journal article discussing the Second Amendment through 1959 “reflected the Second Amendment affects citizens only in connection with citizen service in a government organized and regulated militia.” Only beginning in 1960 did law journal articles begin to advocate an “individualist” view of gun ownership rights. What changed? The power and influence of the gun lobby, more specifically the National Rifle Association (NRA). When there is a sudden change in legal interpretation or a zoomed in focus on some obscure issue, you can thank special interest groups. A fine example of this is the sudden focus on Critical Race Theory before the 2021 election cycle.

Former Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren E. Burger wrote in 1990:

“The Constitution of the United States, in its Second Amendment, guarantees a “right of the people to keep and bear arms.” However, the meaning of this clause cannot be understood except by looking to the purpose, the setting and the objectives of the draftsmen… People of that day were apprehensive about the new “monster” national government presented to them, and this helps explain the language and purpose of the Second Amendment.”

Burger later added: “If I were writing the Bill of Rights now, there wouldn’t be any such thing as the Second Amendment… that a well regulated militia being necessary for the defense of the state, the peoples’ rights to bear arms. This has been the subject of one the greatest pieces of fraud – I repeat the word ‘fraud’ – on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”

When the U.S. government wanted to pass the Brady Bill in 1992, a bill that established background checks before purchasing guns, an opinion piece by six former American attorneys general, stated:

“For more than 200 years, the federal courts have unanimously determined that the Second Amendment concerns only the arming of the people in service to an organized state militia; it does not guarantee immediate access to guns for private purposes. The nation can no longer afford to let the gun lobby’s distortion of the Constitution cripple every reasonable attempt to implement an effective national policy toward guns and crime.”

There are even more probable dark and sinister reasons the Founding Fathers never intended for the Second Amendment to guarantee individual rights to own guns, that’s racism and slavery.

At the time the Bill of Rights was crafted, slavery was alive and kicking. The Haitian Slave Revolution was taking place and there was fear in the southern states that similar rebellions could happen in the U.S.

Patrick Henry argued at the Virginia Constitution Ratifying Convention of 1788, that the Constitution could keep states from suppressing a slave insurrection without Congressional approval. James Madison went back and revised the Second Amendment and tied in the militia part to ease these fears.

In 1776, Thomas Jefferson submitted a draft Constitution for Virginia that stated “no freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms within his own lands or tenements.” This draft was rejected. Why would this version be rejected if the intent of the Second Amendment was for people to own and operate guns? If Jefferson’s version would have become the Second Amendment, it would have guaranteed free black men the right to own and operate guns, an outcome that was not desired by the southern states at that time.

Today in the U.S. we’re afflicted with mass shooting after mass shooting. We receive a lot of poorly thought out alternative fixes, exquisite speeches and hallow promises from politicians about the need to change gun laws, with no follow through or change on the matter. Why? The NRA is too powerful. If a Republican even whispers that he/she wants to change gun laws, the NRA will run a well-funded opponent against them and beat them in a primary. Some Democrats hail from conservative areas or states and have to play nice with the NRA or risk facing the financial wrath of the NRA in an election against them, so they can’t vote for changes to the gun laws. The American public is left with the status quo, thoughts and prayers, but no changes.

There are a lot of historians that believe the other side that the Founding Fathers absolutely meant individual gun rights when the Second Amendment was written. This is the stance Anthony Scalia took in the majority opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller. The truth of the matter is we really don’t know the Founding Fathers intent behind the Second Amendment. 

They fed us this endless stream of propaganda that individual gun rights was always the intent behind the Second Amendment. In fact, the militia part is not even mentioned anymore. What we can say for sure is that American public knowledge and understanding of the Second Amendment remains heavily swayed by the powerful NRA propaganda machine. It’s not crazy to think that not only is our whole understanding of the Second Amendment wrong, but that it may not even be what the Founding Fathers intended when they drafted it.

The post Revisiting the Second Amendment appeared first on Mistakes Were Made.

After World War II, there were massive break throughs in chicken farming in the U.S. Because of these breakthroughs, the price of chicken dropped. An item that was considered a delicacy was now a staple food in American homes. The U.S. was producing so many chickens that it had to find foreign markets to sell the excess poultry too, they choose Europe. The U.S. exported inexpensive chicken, drastically and quickly dropped the price of chicken in Europe. Because of this price drop, chicken consumption rose by 23% in West Germany. U.S. took half of the imported European chicken market.

The Dutch accused the U.S. of dumping chickens at prices below cost of production. The French government banned U.S. chicken and raised concerns that chicken hormones could affect male virility. German farmers associations accused U.S. poultry firms of fattening chickens with arsenic. The next step was the individual countries and then the continent imposed tariffs on U.S. chicken. With the tariffs, the U.S. lost 25% of their European chicken sales. The losses were estimated at $26-28 million (over $210 million today). Something had to be done.

On December 4, 1963, President Lyndon Johnson imposed a 25% tax on foreign potato starch, dextrin, brandy and light trucks in response to the Europe chicken tariff. They added light trucks because U.S. auto makers were losing market shares to Volkswagen (VW) trucks, and Johnson cut a deal to get United Auto Workers (UAW) support on Civil Rights in exchange for the light trucks tax. Imported chicken, Civil Rights and light trucks, got to love politics right? The new tax became known as the Chicken Tax.

The tax immediately impacted light truck imports. West Germany imports of light trucks declined to $5.7 million, about one-third of the value imported in the previous year. Soon VW cargo vans and pickup trucks practically disappeared from the U.S. market. Other auto makers like Toyota, Datsun (now known as Nissan), Isuzu, and Mazda also had their sales affected by the tax. Most pulled their truck models out of the U.S. market all together.

The U.S. auto industry routinely lobbied to keep the tax, as it gave them a market free from outside competitors. The tax also had the added effect of reducing pressure on them to introduce vehicles that polluted less and that offered increased fuel economy. 

The tax rolled on, but had another side effect, it stopped the U.S. auto industry from having competition for over 40 years in the light truck market. While this sounds like a good thing, it’s not. Lack of competition leads to complacency and no progress or advancement in products. Think of Electronic Arts (EA), and their John Madden football video game. While it’s the best known and now only authentic NFL game on the market, the game hasn’t advanced or improved in years because of EA cutting a deal with the NFL to make it the exclusive user of NFL team and player likeness in the video game market. 

The U.S. auto industry kept on chugging along, making bigger and more air polluting vehicles like Hummers, Expedition and Excursions. Gas was cheap and U.S. consumers wanted the biggest vehicle they could afford or finance. The party came to an abrupt halt in 2008, when the recession hit. Gas prices sky rocketed, wages decreased and suddenly paying over $100 to fill your fuel tank was out of vogue.

U.S. auto makers got so accustomed to making bigger and bigger Trucks and SUVs that they didn’t know how to pivot to making smaller, more fuel-efficient and hybrid vehicles that consumers now wanted. Since the 1980s, the U.S. sedan market had been dominated by Asian and European automakers (Toyota, Honda, BMW, Audi, Mercedes Benz and Mazda) because it was truly a competitive and fair playing field market and the U.S. products weren’t up to par to their foreign counterparts. U.S. automakers didn’t care about this because they were making boat loads of profits on big trucks and SUVs. When the market winds changed and people wanted Prii instead of Expeditions, they couldn’t adapt and all three big U.S. automakers ended up filing bankruptcy and being bailed out by the U.S. government.

Today the chicken tax is still in place, though only on light trucks and not on the other products. The auto market has shifted to alternative fuel vehicles and once again the big three U.S. automakers are playing catch up. After the economy went back to normal, the big three U.S. auto companies once again went back to focusing on big SUV and Trucks. Meanwhile, new U.S. companies like Tesla sprouted up that focused on electric vehicles and foreign companies like Toyota continued making Prii. 

Now that electric cars are the future, GM, Ford and Chrysler have shifted to electric vehicle futures as well. The problem is that little niche company Tesla is now a world-wide phenomenon and the clear number one leader in the electric car market. To make matters worse, General Motors (GM) made the first commercially viable electric car in the 1990s called the EV1. They shelved the car due to pressure from the big oil industry, and now they are playing catch up once again. The story reminds me of Kodak and the digital camera.

If you wonder why there’s not as much competition in the U.S. truck market compared to sedans and SUV’s, blame UAW, Lyndon Johnson and chickens. 

The post The Side Effects of the Chicken Tax appeared first on Mistakes Were Made.

The thinking behind the Cotton Club was good. Robert Evans hoped the film would bring public attention to the Harlem Renaissance era of African American history. The movie got some bad news early on when Paramount pulled out of the movie in 1981. Then, the film was delayed because Robert Evans had to produce anti-drugs public service advertisements. These ads resulted from a Plea Bargain, Evans struck because of a drug conviction.

We move to 1983, where Evans asks Coppola and William Kennedy to rewrite Puzo’s script. Evans was initially planning to direct the movie, but then turned around and asked Coppola to direct it. Coppola and Evans had bad blood from their skirmishes during the Godfather movies production, but both were broke and needed each other. By the time of this decision, they had already committed $13 million dollars to the screenplay, its rewrite and the hiring of Coppola. 

Because of Paramount dropping the film, Evans had to secure outside funding for the movie. Evans got funding from a various cast of characters, from casino owners, Arab arms dealers and a Vaudeville promoter. Roy Radin (the Vaudeville promoter), ends up murdered. The killers later alleged that Karen Greenberger, an acquittance of Evans and Radin, had hired them. Greenberger brought Evans and Radin together to agree on financing for the film, and felt she deserved a percentage of the film’s profits. Radin thought otherwise, and Greenberger took street justice to settle the dispute. They later convicted Greenberger of second degree murder.

The initial budget of the film was between $20 -$47 million, but this figure would prove to be a myth more than a realistic goal. Evans tried to cast Al Pacino, Sylvester Stallone and Harrison Ford for the lead role, all passed on the part. Finally, Richard Gere agreed to play the part. Evans also tried to cast Richard Pryor in the movie. Pryor purposefully asked for more money than Evans could afford to pay, and he was out. 

Puzo was the original screenwriter, but was replaced by Kennedy. During filming of the movie, Kennedy estimates they made between 30 and 40 scripts. Five scripts were written during all nighter weekend writing session.

Finally, the movie production began, and the movie production cost $250,000 a day. Within several weeks of filming, the film was already over budget. Coppola walked off the set because of Evans cutting his pay, only returning when Evans agreed to his full pay. Twice during filming, there were payment delays or non-payment to staff causing filming shutdowns.

The film costs kept soaring, and the financial partners weren’t happy. The casino backers hired a noted gangster, Joseph Cusumano, to intimidate Evans into giving up his share of the partnership. Cusumano got credited as a line producer in the movie instead. The film budget was now at an estimated $67 million and filming wasn’t even half over. 

Coppola stated he felt pressure to cut down on the African American story line and scene time because the foreign distributors felt the story featured “too many black people, too much tap dancing and too long.” 

Finally, the film was released on December 14, 1984. It grossed $2.9 million on its opening weekend and came in fifth place behind Beverly Hills Cop, Dune, City Heat and 2010. The film was a commercial failure, grossing $26 million against $67 million costs. Orion Pictures stock took a drop after the release of the movie. 

Critics loved the movie, but the general audience didn’t. The behind-the-scenes drama was more appealing than the actual on scene product. Cotton Club took 5 years to make and ended up with a resounding dud.

In 2019, Coppola released a revised version of the film called The Cotton Club Encore. This version was 25 minutes longer and Coppola spent $500,000 of his own money to edit and restore the film. The Encore version got high approval and ratings from such publications as The Film Stage and Rolling Stone. 

Murder for hire, extortion, over spending, shady financiers, tenuous partnerships and racism. The behind the scenes of The Cotton Club movie, can be a movie in its on right. Too bad the audiences didn’t love the final product or didn’t get to see Coppola’s authentic version of the movie until 35 years later.

The post The Cotton Club Movie Fiasco appeared first on Mistakes Were Made.

Sincerely,

Marlon

The post 3 year anniversary appeared first on Mistakes Were Made.

This affiliation brought Robeson on the U.S. government’s radar. Robeson was summoned before the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary. They questioned him about his affiliation with the Communist Party, to which he refused to answer. In 1949, they forced Robeson to do more concerts overseas because his U. S performances kept being canceled at the behest of the F.B.I. While Robeson was in Europe, he spoke at the World Peace Council. The speech was reported as equating America with a fascist state. This speech made Robeson an enemy of America, in the eyes of the American public.

On June 20, 1949, Robeson spoke at the Paris Peace Congress. He stated, “We in America do not forget that it was on the backs of the white workers from Europe and on the backs of millions of Blacks that the wealth of America was built. And we are resolved to share it equally. We reject any hysterical raving that urges us to make war on anyone. Our will to fight for peace is strong. We shall not make war on anyone. We shall not make war on the Soviet Union. We oppose those who wish to build up imperialist Germany and to establish fascism in Greece. We wish peace with Franco’s Spain despite his fascism. We shall support peace and friendship among all nations, with Soviet Russia and the people’s Republics.” For this speech, they blacklisted Robeson in the mainstream U.S. press. Many Black papers also blacklisted him as well.

A riot ensued in Peekskill when anti-Robeson protests shut down a planned Robeson concert. Thirteen concert goers were seriously injured, Robeson was lynched in effigy and they set ablaze a cross during the riot. Klan membership rose in the area by 748 after the riot. NBC canceled Robeson’s appearance on Eleanor Roosevelt’s tv show.

Robeson had a meeting with the U.S. State Department. At the meeting, they denied his passport renewal and issued a “stop notice” at all ports. Robeson inquired why his passport was not being renewed and was told that, “his frequent criticism of the treatment of blacks in the United States should not be aired in foreign countries.” His international travels, which included all his theatre and singing tours of Europe, all came to a halt. They removed all of Robeson recordings and films from public distribution in the United States. 

During the 1950s, Robeson was essentially silenced and banished to stay in the United States. Robeson made a lot of friends during his travels and they would return that friendship during his exilement. In 1955, the British Trades Union Congress sent a personal letter to President letter to President Eisenhower requesting he intervene and grant Robeson a passport. Eisenhower didn’t move on the matter.

In 1958, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Kent v. Dulles, that the denial of a passport without due process amounted to a violation of constitutionally protected liberty under the 5th Amendment. Robeson was free to travel and work again, but the years of harassment and intimidation by the F.B.I., State Department and press left their effects on Robeson. Feeling the effects of paranoia, Robeson attempted suicide in 1961. In the same year, he collapsed from a panic attack. From 1963 to his death in 1976, Robeson remained mostly in seclusion.

Robeson helped bring Negro spirituals into the American mainstream. He was also among the first artists to refuse to play in front of segregated audiences.

Mistakes were made:

During the 1950s, the Red Scare era of U.S. politics entrapped a lot of popular artists like Orson Welles, Arthur Miller and Charlie Chaplin. It made them outcasts and pariahs to the American public. Anyone who was considered a communist or a communist sympathizer felt the wrath of the U.S. government. Paul Robeson had the double misfortune of being a communist sympathizer but also an advocate for equal rights, laws, and treatment for African Americans. These beliefs made him Public Enemy number 1 to the powers that be in the U.S., and they took away his livelihood and ruined his name.

When people say they want to get back to the good old days of America, they are usually referring to the 1950s era. Though that era made the U.S. a world power and saw a lot of economic growth, it also was an era where segregation was still legal. In this era, one could simply have their passport revoked and be travel banned for simply agreeing with an ideology, the U.S. was opposed too. We lost the last years of an American treasure because of the aftereffects of years of monitoring and manipulation by the U.S. Government. 

Robeson simply spoke the truth about what was going on in the U.S. regarding African Americans and was punished for speaking up. Today, many people don’t want these same truths being taught in the American school system to our children. When we withdraw Constitutional rights because of disagreements on ideology and truth telling, we all end up failing.

The post An ode to Paul Robeson appeared first on Mistakes Were Made.