1976: NOVEMBER 2nd. : THE U.S PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

INTRODUCTION

The 1976 U.S Presidential Election, it could reasonably be said, was an election that had as its primary election aim for both candidates, the promise to restore stability, calm, and confidence to a USA that was low on those qualities, and low on morale, after the scandal plagued politics in the years since President Nixon won his second term landslide victory in the 1972 U.S Presidential Election. 🤔

BACKGROUND

President Nixon was under investigation pretty much from the start of his second term, for issues concerning the bugging of Democratic Party offices leading up to the 1972 election (recorded in history as 'The Watergate Scandal'), and also for revelations that he had arranged for the planting of recording devices in the White House (a scandal recorded in history as 'The White House Tapes').

Separate from the Nixon scandals, Vice President Spiro Agnew was investigated for financial irregularities, and forced to resign in 1973: to be replaced as VP by House of Representatives minority speaker Gerald Ford.

In August 1974, President Nixon was forced to resign when evidence confirming his involvement in the scandals that he was involved with closed in on him. VP Ford was appointed U.S President in place of Nixon.

This made President Gerald Ford the only U.S President in history to be in office without being elected as either U.S President or VP: which was seen as being a bad situation for U.S democracy.

Further adding to President Ford's insecurities, was his decision to pardon the former U.S President, Richard Nixon, for his alleged involvement in the above mentioned illegal surveillance scandals. Plus, it came to light via the 'Whte House Tapes' that Nixon had ordered one of his aides to instruct House Speaker Ford to hamper the House investigation in the 'The Watergate Scandal'.

(See articles in the 'Chronicles' historical recording of 1972 - 1976)

GOVERNOR JIMMY CARTER

Jimmy Carter was a Georgia peanut farmer. Early in his political career he had to overcome corrupt practices aimed against himself from within the Democratic Party in order to gain the Democratic Party nomination for the U.S Senate. In 1962 he successfully proved that fake voting papers had been added to the poll to elect the Democratic Party candidate: fake votes that favour his opponent.

A link to a YouTube video recounting the poll rigging events of 1962:
https://youtu.be/fBk-7Eg8nJk?si=qG7PlRxJCMXZjYB4

In 1971 Carter was elected Governor of Georgia, and retained the role until 1975, after which he announced his candidacy for the Democratic Party nomination for the 1976 U.S Presidential Election.

By 1976 the Republican Party was so frail and weakened by the scandals and corruption of the previous four years that a victory in the 1976 U.S Presidential Election was reckoned to be near on impossible for whichever candidate ran. Consequently, a very large field of 16 Democratic Party hopefuls declared as candidates: among them some high profile heavyweights.

Governor Carter was considered a lightweight, and very much an outsider; it is said that his candidacy was somewhat mocked by his more illustrious opponents. However, Carter's opponents reckoned without his intelligence, charm, charisma - and what became his trademark: his easy going, affable, winning smile: the combination of all of these qualities (not just the smile, it should be noted: the smile was a winner - but it just underpinned his likeable persona) proved a potent mix: Jimmy Carter came across as a man of the people - who happened to be in politics: as opposed to the accepted image of the political class: a politician first - who represented the 'ordinary people', but seemed somehow aloof from them. 🤔

Jimmy Carter won the Democratic Party nomination. 🙂

THE CAMPAIGN

It seemed to be realised on both sides - Republican Party and Democratic Party - that the USA needed a civilized Presidential Election campaign - with mutual respect for  both candidates and by both candidates. And so it proved to be.

President Ford and Governor Carter did not indulge in mud slinging against one another - and both talked up their willingness  to cooperate with each other after the election was over: irrespective of who won.

President Ford was presented as a decent living family man; and a U.S President who had taken over the job in the most difficult circumstances - and done a good job of stabilising the country.

Governor Carter played to his aforementioned calm intelligence, charm, charisma, and that 'man of the people' winning smile.

The media, however, did its job - and exposed the question marks against, and the weaknesses of, each candidate. It was obvious (from what is described above) that there was more material against President Ford than against the relatively low profile Governor Carter.

And Ford made a serious gaffe during the campaign: he made the claim that the USA's Cold War foe, the Soviet Union, did not exert tyrannical control over its Eastern European satellite states: like Poland, for example. The Carter campaign made much of that misguided statement - and so did the media. 😳

But it's good to reflect that there was good humour on both sides in the 1976 U.S Presidential campaign. At one point a tall monument in the form of a smiling peanut (🤣) was put up in Jimmy Carter's home town of Plains, Georgia...

...In response, the Republican Party campaign released a poster of a cartoon Republican Party elephant (the symbol of the Republican Party) grabbing the smiling peanut monument in its trunk, with the caption: 'Elephants Eat Peanuts'... 🤣

A nice - and welcome - bit of light-hearted back and forth humour in an election with so much at stake for a  USA that was so troubled at that time. 😏

The 1976 U.S Presidential Election - with the winning margin being 270 electoral collage votes collected from the total win state by state -  finished with a result of 297 to Governor Carter - and 240 won by President Ford: that was a relatively close race: not at all the easy Democratic Party victory that was presumed to be inevitable. 🤔

A link to the site 270 To Win description of the 1976 U.S Presidential Election result:
https://www.270towin.com/1976_Election/

CONCLUSION

The USA went into the 1976 Presidential Election low on morale and low in confidence - after a previous few years if political scandals and corruption at the highest level of government; and after damaging defeats in the Cold War... Since 1974, and the appointment of unelected Vice President Ford to be unelected President Ford, the USA was under what might be considered a 'caretaker' Presidency... But, under these circumstances Gerald Ford did a remarkable job (I think it's fair to opine?): he had to juggle with decisions based on those circumstances - and expediency and pragmatism - but in the end, by 1976 he'd managed to steady the ship (as the saying goes), and arrive at a U.S Presidential Election that was credible to the public - with confidence in the political system restored.

Georgia Governor Jimmy Carter had proven himself a steady, intelligent, man of integrity -and capable politician. He had overcome political corruption early in his political career; and he had overcome the sneering and contempt of high profile heavyweight politicians who dismissed him as a lightweight in the political arena.

The above background, along with his easy charm and charisma - and that trademark affable smile - made Jimmy Carter, (it might be suggested?) almost the alternative candidate: the antidote to the political class: a decent, honest man - who happened to be a politician - rather than a politician presenting the public image of a decent honest man... 🤔

The vote came down to two candidates that the public felt comfortable with - for different reasons on the one hand; and for the same reasons of basic decency and mutual respect on the other. 🤔

The victory went to the decent, honest man who happened to be a politician - over the politician who happened to be a decent man... 🤔 (M).

FURTHER READING/ VIEWING / LISTENING:

Please see articles in the 'Chronicles'year by year accounts albums 1972 - 1976. 🙂

A link to the Mr Beat YouTube video on the 1976:
https://youtu.be/4cvSBGJkfRo?si=guXyvEOIx1tVSbpm

A link to the Wikipedia page on the 1976 U.S Presidential Election:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_United_States_presidential_election

A link to the Wikipedia page on Governor Carter's 1976 election campaign:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Carter_1976_presidential_campaign

A link to the Gerald Ford Library page on the 1976 U.S Presidential Election:
https://www.fordlibrarymuseum.gov/museum/exhibits/1976election/afterward.html

A link to the Britannica article on the 1976 U.S Presidential Election:
https://www.britannica.com/event/United-States-presidential-election-of-1976

(The image used with this article's is the thumb nail from the YouTube video on the 1976 U.S Presidential Election that has a link in the article. My acknowledgment and thanks to that YouTube channel. 🙂) (M).

Textual content © Copyright MLM Arts 10. 12. 2024. Edited and re-posted: 13. 12. 2024

1976: DECEMBER 16th. : THE AUSTRALIAN ABORIGINAL LAND RIGHTS ACT

THE CULMINATION OF 1960s and 70s ABORIGINAL RIGHTS CAMPAIGNING

INTRODUCTION

The British colonised Australia from 1788, with the first British Empire Australian colony at Botany Bay.

From then until the 1960s the indigenous Aborigine peoples of Australia were treated badly: up to and including being considered sub-human.

In the late 1950s the British / European settlers began to sympathies with their Aborigine fellow countrymen, and campaign with them and for them for equal rights.

It was during the 1960s and 70s era that this righteous campaign by ordinary Australians - European settlers and Aborigines - began to achieve success. 🤔

THE ABORIGINAL RIGHTS CAMPAIGN DURING THE 1960s and 70s

The image posted with this article is of the 1963 Yirrkala Bark Petitions (see below): which protested the right of Aboriginal peoples to ownership of their traditional lands.

In 1976 land rights were finally granted to Australian Aboriginal peoples.

Quote from The National Museum of Australia website (from which I got this picture) article on the Australian Aboriginal Rights Act:

'In December 1976 the federal parliament passed the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. It was the first legislation in Australia that enabled First Nations peoples to claim land rights for Country where traditional ownership could be proven...'

The Act was the culmination of a campaign by the Australian Aboriginal community and their supporters that began in 1967: and that campaign was the result of anger provoked by the decision by the Australian Federal Government in 1963 to commandeer Aboriginal lands in the northeast of Australia for the purpose of mining. 😔

The 1963 campaign resulted in the compiling of the Yirrkala Bark Petitions; written in both the native Aboriginal language of Yolngu Matha and in English, the petition to the Australian Federal Government in Canberra, articulated the feelings of the indigenous peoples whose land was being misappropriated:

'The land in question has been hunting and food gathering land for the Yirrkala tribes from time immemorial; we were all born here...'

In 1967, after a decade of protest both by the native Aboriginal peoples of Australia and by the majority of European settlers in Australia (a campaign that predated the 1963 issues), a referendum was held in Australia asking the European settler population (which had all of the political control and rights) if Aborigines should be recognised as equal citizens with equal rights (in their own native land 🙄); the general widespread support for the Aboriginal peoples was reflected in the result, when over 90% of voters voted in favour. 🤓

That was a major step forward in establishing the rights and equality of an indigenous people that had up to the 1960s been treated appallingly by the British Government / Empire / Commonwealth authorities
that had, in effect, been the overlord authority in Australia.

(The preceding paragraph isn't a modern trend revisionist history 'bash the colonialist' statement: it's just a true account of the dreadful treatment of the Australian Aboriginal peoples... Which was another iniquity that was addressed and set on the path of fairness and justice by the popular social conscience of the generations of The Golden Era. 🤔)

CONCLUSION

On December 16th.,  1976, the Australian Federal Government passed the Aboriginal Land Rights. Quoting again from the National Museum of Australia article:

'...In December 1976 the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act was passed with historic bipartisan support. It was the first legislation that allowed for First Nations peoples to claim land title if traditional association could be proven.

Four land councils were established under the Act:

the Central Land Council, responsible for the southern half of the Northern Territory
the Northern Land Council, responsible for the northern half of the territory
the Tiwi Land Council, responsible for Bathurst and Melville Islands
the Anindilyakwa Land Council, responsible for Groote Eyland and Bickerton Island.

Currently, about 50 per cent of the Northern Territory and 85 per cent of its coastline is recognised as being owned by First Nations groups.'

The Act was another major step towards the fair and equal treatment of Australia's indigenous peoples; and another indication of how the 1960s and 70s was the era - peopled by the generations - that first and most effectively addressed the inequalities and injustices in modern society. 🤔 (M).

Here's a link to the Wikipedia page on the subject:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aboriginal_Land_Rights_Act_1976

A link to the National Museum of Australia article on the subject:
https://www.nma.gov.au/defining-moments/resources/aboriginal-land-rights-act

A link to the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Straight Island article on the subject:
https://aiatsis.gov.au/explore/land-rights

A link to the Digital Classroom educational presentation of the 1967 Aboriginal equality referendum:
https://digital-classroom.nma.gov.au/defining-moments/indigenous-referendum#:~:text=In%20May%201967%2C%20after%2010,treated%20as%20second%2Dclass%20citizens.

Textual content © Copyright MLM Arts 19. 10. 2024. Edited and re-posted: 18. 12. 2024

1976: JANUARY 5th. : ULSTER: 'THE KINGSMILL MASSACRE' 

As always, tragic events from the 'British - Irish Troubles' have a web of complexity that requires to be outlined for a fuller understanding of the events themselves. 

THE KIINGSMILL MASSACRE

On January 5th. 1976, in rural South Armagh, ten innocent civilian workmen from the Loyalist / Protestant community (who were actively not involved in the conflict in Northern Ireland), were murdered by Republican paramilitary operatives, when the minibus that was taking them home from work was stopped - and Republican paramilitaries posing as an official security checkpoint ordered the 12 men in the vehicle men to get out, and, after identifying the one Roman Catholic in the group and letting him leave, shot the remaining eleven me men with submachine guns: killing 10 of them and badly injuring one. 

Mr. Alan Black survived the shooting, despite being shot 18 times.

It was reported that the Roman Catholic who was allowed to leave, Mr. Richard Hughes, a workmate of victims, attempted to raise the alarm to try to help his workmates.

THE BACKGROUND

In February 1975, the Provisional Irish Republican Army (P-IRA) and the British Government (and the peace keeping and law enforcement agencies in Northern Ireland) agreed a ceasefire: not permanent, and with no specific time limit - and, it must be said, not complete or clearly defined: P-IRA activity continued on the UK mainland; the P-IRA and the Official IRA (O-IRA) engaged in an armed feud against one another in Northern Ireland; fringe Republican movement paramilitary groups carried out attacks against Loyalists in Northern Ireland - with the suspicion from the Northern Ireland security forces that they were in fact P-IRA groups operating under different names... 

It is suggested that the P-IRA believed that the truce brokered with the UK Labour Government was an indication that the UK Government was prepared to (or even preparing to) withdraw from Ulster.

On the other side of the conflict, it is suggested that Loyalist groups - and sections of the security forces, including some in the British Army, also believed (more accurately, feared) that a British withdrawal from Ulster may be on the agenda. Moreover, the Loyalist side also feared that the truce, which Included relaxed border controls and checks between Ulster and the Irish Republic, would be used by the P-IRA to re-equip and regroup - before launching another campaign.

Consequent to the Loyalist fears, paramilitary groups (in clandestine collusion with official security forces) launched horrific attacks against Republicans - in an attempt to provoke the P-IRA into break the truce.

The response from the Republican movement was reprisal attacks against the Loyalist community - under the names of Republican paramilitary groups that had been previously little known or unknown: the suspicion being that these were P-IRA operatives using different names.

On January 4th. 1976, Loyalist paramilitary groups carried out the murders of six Republican / Roman Catholic men in two separate incidents in County Armagh. Three members of the Reavy family were murdered in their own home; three members of the O'Dowd family were murdered, also in their own home.

A link to the Wikipedia page about the murders:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reavey_and_O%27Dowd_killings

THE EVENTS OF THE KIINGSMILL MASSACRE

On January 5th. 1976 the P-IRA - British Government truce was put under severe strain by a horrendous act of mass murder by a Republican paramilitary group calling itself the South Armagh Republican Action Force (SARAF): it was thought / believed that this group was just a front for the P-IRA: to enable them to carry out attacks during the truce, but deny responsibility. 

A minibus was carrying mill workers home from work at around 5.30pm., along a quiet, rural road. The vehicle was stopped by a group of armed men disguised as Northern Ireland security forces. The men in the minibus expected this security check - especially after the murders committed by Loyalist paramilitary groups the day before.

The occupants of the minibus were ordered out of vehicle and lined up. They only began to suspect a trap when one of the armed men asked which one of them was 'the Catholic' (indicating that the armed group knew in advance that one of the group was Roman Catholic). The men remained silent: fearing that this was another Loyalist paramilitary attack - and refusing to give up their workmate.

In spite of attempts by his workmates to dissuade him, the RC member of the group, Richard Hughes, stepped forward. He was told by the attackers to run down the road and not look back.

(It is recorded that Mr. Hughes flagged down the first car that came in view and got the driver to take him to the nearest police station to raise the alarm.)

The remaining workmen were massacred when the attackers opened fire with submachine guns. 

One man, Alan Black, though shot 18 times, survived, and lay bleeding and helpless among his slain workmates. 

Presently, a young couple came upon the scene. Mr. Black could hear them weeping and saying prayers. He called to them, weakly, and they administered what aid they could until help arrived; Mr. Black was taken to hospital - and survived the attack.

CONSEQUENCES OF THE KIINGSMILL MASSACRE

One almost immediate effect of The Kiingsmill Massacre was the ending of the P-IRA - British Government truce, on January 23rd., 1976.

Another, was that the British Government and the security forces declared Armagh, particularly South Armagh (which borders the Irish Republic), an area of particular danger and risk of paramilitary activity - and increased the numbers of British Army troops in the area.

Part of that escalation of British Army involvement was the very significant decision to deploy the British Army elite special forces - the Special Air Service (SAS) into Northern Ireland 'Troubles' for the first time.

Though not declared as such, this could be taken as an indication that for the first time since the current flare up if the 'British - Irish Troubles', in 1968, the British Government was taking this conflict seriously: as not just a civil disturbance that could be managed by a policing action: but rather, a serious conflict; war of attrition that threatened to be long haul - and required a full military response... 

CONCLUSION

The Kiingsmill Massacre was the latest of many horrific bloodbaths and murders of innocent civilians in the 'British - Irish Troubles'; but, like the Loyalist murder innocent members of the Republican community in 1975 - the Miami Showband Massacre - this atrocity particularly shocked and horrified people from all sides of the Irish community - on both sides of the Irish border - and much more than that, shocked and horrified people the world over. 

The victims were innocent civilians; non-combatants - just working men going back to their families after a hard day's work; they were Protestant and Roman Catholic; Loyalist and Republican - but that meant nothing to those men: they were just workmates. When the crisis arose, the Protestants attempted to protect their RC mate; and when he stepped forward, but was told to flee - he raised the alarm as soon as he could - to try to save his workmates... 

The sole survivor of the shooting, Mr. Alan Black, dedicated his life to peace and reconciliation between the Protestant / Loyalist and the Roman Catholic / Republican communities in Northern Ireland. In recent years he was awarded the MBE: one of the top British medals of recognition for services to the public good.

In 2005 a unit of the Police Service of Northern Ireland: the Historical Events Team (HET) was set up to investigate unresolved details concerning events during the 'British - Irish Troubles'; in 2011 the HET concluded that the perpetrators of the Kiingsmill Massacre were members of the P-IRA.

Between April and May 2024 a British Government held an inquest into the events of the 1976 Kiingsmill Massacre. The inquest was criticized in many quarters for its perceived lack of clarity and transparency.

FINAL CONCLUSION

The Kiingsmill Massacre is yet another example of the tangled web of complexity, subterfuge, deceit, deception, and bloody-minded scheming towards self interested ends - by the planners and perpetrators of conflicts on all sides... While the victims; the majority of ordinary working people who just want to get along and get on with life, and just want the violence to end - are the ones who suffer the most... 

(I found this image online. My acknowledgment and thanks to whoever posted it / owns it (identity unknown to me).) (M)

Further reading / viewing:

This is a link to a documentary about The Kiingsmill Massacre, made in 1986; it features interviews with people directly affected by the event, including Mr. Alan Black, the sole survivor. I must caution: the very is very distressing. 
https://youtu.be/IUmh1J05fu4?si=oQDQkQIrE9ZM_btH

A link to the Wikipedia page on The Kiingsmill Massacre:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingsmill_massacre

A link to the Wikipedia page on the Reavy and O'Dowd killings:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reavey_and_O%27Dowd_killings

A link to the invaluable Ulster University Conflict Archive on the Internet (CAIN) site chronology of events during the 1975 - 1976 P-IRA - UK Government truce:
https://cain.ulster.ac.uk/events/truce/chron.htm

A link to the Irish News newspaper article on the 2024 inquest into The Kiingsmill Massacre:
https://www.irishnews.com/.../there-was-a-smell-of-death.../

(For details of the 1975 - 1976 P-IRA - British Government truce, please see articles in the 'Chronicles' record of 1975: 'The Chronicles: 1975'.)

Textual content © Copyright MLM Arts 27. 10. 2024. Edited and re-posted: 28. 10. 2024

1976: AUGUST 10th. : NORTHERN IRELAND: MRS ANNE McGUIRE AND HER CHILDREN: THE MOST INNOCENT VICTIMS 😢

AUGUST 11th. : THE FOUNDING OF THE PEACE PEOPLE MOVEMENT ✌️

EPILOGUE: CONFLICT UNDERMINES - PEACE PERSEVERES

THE MCGUIRE FAMILY TRAGEDY

At around 2 pm on August 10th. 1976, in the mainly Republican Andersonstown district of Belfast, Northern Ireland, a vehicle carrying two members of the Provisional Irish Republican Army (P-IRA) - Danny Lennon and John Chillingworth -  drove at high speed through the streets - pursued by a British Army Land Rover. A soldier in the British Army vehicle opened fire on the P-IRA vehicle, killing the driver, Danny Lennon. The vehicle swerved out of control outside a school, and hit Mrs Anne McGuire and three of her four children. The three of the children that were hit by the car: Andrew - 6 weeks old; John - 2 years old; and Joanne - 8 years old, died as a result of the collision. The fourth child, Mark, escaped injury. Mrs. McGuire was seriously injured, but survived. 😢

(P-IRA member John Chillingworth was wounded by shots by British Army personnel, but survived; he was arrested at the scene of the incident.)

THE PEACE PEOPLE MOVEMENT

The heart-breaking tragedy of the events of August 10th. brought worldwide sympathy and sorrow. This was an incident that brought the throwaway description so casually used in times of conflict -  'collateral damage': expression of faux sorrow for innocent victims of conflicts - into sharp focus: these were not unnamed, unknown people - part a mass of innocent victims collectively clumped together as 'collateral damage': the McGuire family members were named and the tragedy consequently made personal for everyone: because this was just an ordinary family like anyone else's family: a mum, out with her small children - just walking down a very ordinary street... The McGuire family could have been any family group anywhere... And grief, empathy, and outrage against violent conflict was the reaction by people all over the world. Taking sides - blaming and counter-blaming - the whole conflict in Northern Ireland - meant absolutely nothing beside the heartbreaking deaths of innocent children, the injury to their mother, and the grief and loss felf by their family. 😢

The following day, August 11th. 1976, Mrs Betty Williams, who had witnessed the incident, was so deeply moved and distressed by the tragedy that she determined to launch a peace movement that would unite the people of Northern Ireland - Loyalist Protestant and Republican Roman Catholic - towards the cause of working to end the 'British - Irish Troubles'.

Mrs Williams was from a mixed family background: she had a Protestant father and a Roman Catholic mother. Her upbringing had always been one of acceptance of both communities.

Mrs Williams was soon joined by Mairead Corrigan, the sister of Mrs McGuire and aunt to the children who had been killed. This was the foundation of The Peace People movement in Northern Ireland.

The peace movement was lauded and supported around the world.

In 1976 Betty Williams and Mairead Corrigan won the Nobel Peace Prize.

EPILOGUE

What is also tragic about this series of events - hope, unity and cooperation coming from the most harrowing tragedy - is that in 1978 the high profile and internationally recognised Peace People movement formed by by Betty Williams and Mairead Corrigan in 1976, fell went into a decline when the two women stepped down as leaders. Their declared reason was that they wanted to give others a chance to lead the movement. But it is said that Internal bickering played a part in the decision - and, distressingly, it is said also said to have been due to deliberate undermining by both Loyalist and Republican groups that were intent on continuing the discord and conflict between the two communities.

(A LINK TO THE Nobel Prize site on Betty Williams:
https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/1976/williams/facts/#:~:text=The%20Northern%20Irish%20peace%20movement,by%20Catholic%20and%20Protestant%20extremists. )

However, the Peace People movement itself managed to survive and regroup and re-focus into a peace movement aimed at campaigning for peace worldwide. :)

(I found the images used in this graphic online: the funeral image from The Guardian newspaper site; the peace march from the Belfast Live news site; and the Peace People logo from the Peace People Facebook page. My acknowledgement and thanks to those sites. :) ) (M).

FURTHER READING / VIEWING / LISTENING

A link to a Thames TV interview with Betty Williams and Mairead Corrigan:
https://youtu.be/lbBCl8lJ8YM?feature=shared

A link to the Wikipedia page on the events:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_Andersonstown_incident#:~:text=The%20crash%20would%20kill%20Andrew,leg%20and%20pelvic%20injuries%20as

A link to the University of Ulster CAIN site record of 'The Troubles' during 1976:
https://cain.ulster.ac.uk/othelem/chron/ch76.htm

A link to the Time magazine 1980 article on the events:
https://time.com/archive/6700202/world-tragedy-of-a-broken-heart/

A link to the The Peace People website article on the events and the founding of The Peace People movement:
https://www.peacepeople.com/history/

A link to the BBC article on The Peace People movement:
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-37026119

Textual content © Copyright MLM Arts 19. 12. 2024. Edited and re-posted: 21. 12. 2024

1976: U.S PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION: THE GOOD HUMOURED SIDE TO CAMPAIGNING

I posted a 1976 U.S Presidential Election campaign article on here recently - about the bizarrely humourous giant 'Smiling Peanut' monument put up in Plains, Georgia in support of Democrat Party Governor of Georgia - and Georgia peanut farmer, Jimmy Carter's campaign for the U.S Presidency.

The 'Smiling Peanut' was, of course, a symbol of Governor Carter himself (nicknamed 'Peanuts', by some) - and in particular his charming, vote winning smile: an endearing image that Governor Carter presented - which was picked up on by political commentators - and Democrat Party PR promos... 

Here's a link to the posting:

https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1248110259927561

It was a fun, good humoured campaign stunt (and the monument is still there to this day - I gather it has become something if a tourist attraction )

It's good to see that there was room in the 1976 U.S Presidential campaign for a bit of light-hearted back and forth between the Democrat and Republican camp. This poster, 'Elephants Eat Peanuts', shows the symbol of the Republican Party (aka The Grand Old Party (GOP)) - an elephant, doing what elephants do - in the popular public image of elephants: eating peanuts: specifically, the Plains, Georgia giant 'Smiling Peanut'... LOL...! 

This was a cheeky bit of PR campaign promo back and forth - and, I think, politics was the better for it. 

I also recently posted a 1976 interview with the then still Governor Carter, by BBC respected music journalist, Bob Harris, in which Governor Carter concluded by saying (paraphrasing):

'No matter how the election turns out, I think that we [himself and President Ford] can keep a good personal relationship that we be good for the country...'

1976 was the last U.S Presidential Election of The Golden Era... Politics and changed after that... So did the world... 

(I found this image online. My acknowledgment and thanks to whoever posted it / owns it (identity unknown to me. ) (M).

Textual content © Copyright MLM Arts 09. 10. 2024

1976: OCTOBER 2nd. : U.S PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION: PRESIDENT FORD'S DEBATE GAFFE HANDS GOVERNOR CARTER A PROPAGANDA COUP.

DESCRIPTION OF THIS CARTOON

This 1976 political cartoon by Paul Conrad (which I downloaded from the Idaho University site: my acknowledgment and thanks to both) depicts the public reaction to a foreign policy statement made by President Ford during the second Presidential Election debate with Governor Jimmy Carter:

'...There is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe...'

THE DEBATE

During the October 2nd., 1976 second U.S Presidential campaign debate between Republican Party President Gerald Ford and Democrat Party Georgia Governor Jimmy Carter, President Ford made what is to this day recorded as one of the most astonishing gaffes in U.S Presidential debating history, by declaring:

"...There is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe..."

THE BACKGROUND CONTEXT

This was the peak of The Cold War:

The globally contested stand-off between the political and social ideologies of capitalist democracy in the West (led by the USA and its allies in Canada and Western Europe, in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) and the southern hemisphere equivalent: the Australia, New Zealand and the USA security agreement (ANZUS) military alliances, and communism in the East, led by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) / Soviet Union, and its military allies in Eastern Europe (the East European countries occupied by the USSR after the defeat of Nazi Germany at the end of World War IIin 1945): in the Warsaw Pact military alliance.

This conflict was fought out on battlefields in bloody and brutal wars in developing countries around the world - while the central protagonists wallowed in what they declared to be 'peace' - maintained by the stockpiling of nuclear weapons: Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), a policy that prevented them from going to war against each other directly.

It was widely accepted around the world, that the Warsaw Pact countries 'allied to' the USSR were uneasy bedfellows with their Soviet 'protectors'; the post-WWII treaties that granted the USSR and its communist political ideology influence (if not dominion) over the counties that it had liberated from Nazi Germany were agreed on diplomatic grounds - concessions that were considered properly due to a noble and courageous ally that had contributed greatly to the defeat of Nazi Germany.

But the peoples of the countries that were handed over to Soviet 'influence' had no say in the matter - and, it is widely believed, were not wholly - or perhaps not even substantially - favourable to the arrangement.

It's a long standing historical phenomenon that smaller nations that are subsumed into larger nations - or are reduced to vassal status by them -  retain a simmering resentment against their 'overlords' - and against the loss of sovereignty: especially if there has been a long history of conflict and ideological differences between the two countries involved.

So it was that the Warsaw Pact countries - with communist dictatorship governments effectively installed by the USSR, but with populations that harboured resentment towards that situation - operated in a climate of forced compliance with the wishes and policies of the Soviet Union.

THE REACTION TO PRESIDENT FORD'S

STATEMENT

For President Ford to make such a declaration of apparent denial of the above described situation was astonishing indeed... And came across as a niave understanding of Cold War political dynamics - and a betrayal of those in Eastern Europe who were reluctantly living under Soviet communist rule.

It was a gift to the Jimmy Carter campaign: up to then, Cold War politics had been played down during the Presidential Election campaign - the USA had too many internal issues to address at that time, after the 1974 resignation of President Nixon - but this remarkable gaffe by President Ford brought Cold War issues and foreign policy to the fore: Governor Carter's campaign team pounced on President Ford's statement and made a great deal of propaganda impact from it.

Historically, a deep rivalry, based on ideological and cultural division - and hostility - between Russia / the Russian Empire/ the USSR and Poland has existed for centuries. Soviet 'influence' / dominion over Poland - and its inclusion in The Warsaw Pact alliance' post-WWII - was never something that was placidly accepted by Poles.

(*perhaps the very fact of the pact being formed in the Polish capital, Warsaw, was either an attempt to placate the Polish people - or a calculated insult and assertion of Soviet dominion?)

It so happened that Governor Carter's key foreign policy advisor was Polish born Zbigniew Brzezinski: whom, it may be reasonably assumed, would have been particularly dismayed by President Ford's declaration; Mr  Brzezinski was instrumental in pushing the rhetoric that put more focus on the Cold War dynamics and foreign policy during Presidential Election campaign - in light of President Ford's apparent naivety on the subject.

It has been suggested in an article in the current affairs publication The Atlantic (see link below), that too much was made of President Ford's 'no Soviet domination...' statement, and that Democrat Party rhetoric misrepresented the statement: and that it should be understood as President Ford referring to the spirit of resistance to Soviet domination by the peoples of Eastern Europe...  But I don't think I buy that: in my opinion, if that was the case then his declaration should have been worded better - and that meaning made clear. 

CONCLUSION

The '...no Soviet domination...' declaration by President Ford cannot be said to be the factor that won the 1976  U S Presidential Election for Governor Carter: but, in what was a closer contest than could have been expected (given the issues that plagued the Republican Party in the years since the 1972 Presidential Election), it was a factor that swung public opinion somewhat in Governor Carter's favour... And President Ford, with enough stacked against him already, couldn't afford any mistakes that would give more ground to his Democrat Party opponent.

The ',... no Soviet domination...' declaration by President Ford during the 1976 Presidential Election debate is remembered as one of the most significant Presidential Election campaign gaffes of all-time: it is a sobering reminder of how public pronouncements and statements by politicians must be very carefully worded - because they can be very costly... And history never forgets...

Further reading:

The 1976 Presidential Campaign and “The Ultimate Polish Joke” Brian Trenor NC State University (Available as a PDF document on the site JMU Scholarly Commons.)

Here's a link to a YouTube clip of President Ford's debate declaration on Soviet domination of eastern Europe:

https://youtu.be/PfyL4uQVJLw?si=6hbMSTCGmfDO88Nu

Here's a link to the Indiana University site description of this cartoon:

https://collections.libraries.indiana.edu/.../items/show/321

Here's a link to the August 2nd. 2016 current affairs publication The Atlantic's article downplaying the impact of President Ford's gaffe:

https://youtu.be/PfyL4uQVJLw?si=6hbMSTCGmfDO88Nu

(M).

Textual content © Copyright MLM Arts 28. 09. 2024. Edited and re-posted: 30. 09. 2024

1976: OCTOBER 28th. : HERBLOCK CARTOON SHOWING PRESIDENT FORD STILL FOLLOWED BY THE WATERGATE SCANDAL DURING THE U.S PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION... 😳

The 1976 U.S  Presidential Election between sitting Republican Party U.S President Gerald Ford, and Democratic Party candidate, Georgia Governor Jimmy Carter, was a closer race than anticipated. Both candidates were seen as decent men, and they respected one another.

The race was closer than expected because President Ford had a number of obvious campaigning handicaps to overcome - some thought too many and too significant for him to seriously challenge the popular, charming and charismatic Governor Carter.

The scandals involving President Richard Nixon's administration, ever since Nixon's landslide second term election victory in 1972, involved Vice President Spiro Agnew having to resign in 1973 after being investigated for financial irregularities; and Nixon himself being forced to resign over the notorious 'Watergate scandal': the bugging of Democratic Party offices in 1972.

Gerald Ford was a leading Republican member in the House of Representatives before he was appointed Vice President in 1973 as a replacement for the ousted Spiro Agnew. When Nixon was forced to resign in 1974, unelected U.S VP Ford became the unelected President of the USA: the first (and only) time in history the U.S President was had not been elected as either U.S VP or U.S President. That circumstance weighed against President Ford going into the 1972 Presidential Election.

But added to that, as this cartoon depicts, was the role played by President Ford in blocking the enquiries into, and fallout caused by, the 'Watergate scandal': by  hindering The House of Representatives committee investigating the 'Watergate scandal' when he was minority leader of The House in 1972, and later, as U.S President, by his pardoning of former President Nixon - which let Nixon off the hook and allowed him to escape court proceedings and possible punishment.

The blocking of the 'Watergate scandal' investigations gets murky... It was during his time as minority leader of The House in 1972 that Ford was able to deny investigation committee chairman Wright Patman the right to subpoena witnesses.

1n 1973, as VP, Ford denied any memory of involvement in deliberately hampering the Watergate investigation... But later examination of 'The Nixon Tapes' (illegal recordings of Whitehouse conversations  that were authorised by President Nixon between 1971 and 1972), Nixon is heard ordering his aides to instruct Ford to block the investigation. 😳

Here's a link to the New York Times article in the subject:

https://www.nytimes.com/1976/10/17/archives/mr-ford-on-watergate.html

A link to the Ford Library account if Watergate:

https://www.fordlibrarymuseum.gov/exhibits/watergate-files#event-number-1154

When Gerald Ford became U.S President on August 9th. 1974, the USA was a country rocked by the exposure of political scandal and corruption - in the midst of The Cold War and what was seen as defeat in the Vietnam War; it was a USA low on morale and confidence. It could be reasonably argued that President Ford's first priority was to restore stability and some measure of confidence in the political system and the country's leadership - and not further dragging out the scandals that had so demoralised the USA would be advisable, and would allow the country to move on. In that way, President Ford's desire to 'put the issues behind us' may be considered reasonable...

On the other hand, Gerald Ford - as House minority leader, and as U.S Vice President - and now as U.S  President - was shown to have direct involvement - not in the scandals themselves, but in the attempts to impede investigation into them; and that, in turn, 'could have' (?) influenced his decision to pardon Richard Nixon - who could have implicated Ford in the blocking of the investigation...

The U.S media - at that time still relatively free and able to expose corruption in politics, may have been sympathetic towards President Ford's desire to 'put the issues behind us' for the sake of national morale; but during a U.S Presidential Election campaign, the media - or some within it - was bound to set that consideration aside and focus on what it considered to be legitimate concerns about the candidates. President Ford's involvement in the 'Watergate scandal' investigations was fair game... 🤔

(I found this political cartoon online. My acknowledgment and thanks to whoever posted it /  owns it (identity unknown to me) and if course to the cartoonist Herblock. 🙂) (M).

Textual content © Copyright MLM Arts 05. 12. 2024. Edited and re-posted:  06. 12. 2024

1976: JUNE 16th. : THE SOWETO (SOUTH AFRICA) UPRISING - AND MASSACRE. 😔

On June 16th. 1976 students and school pupils in the black - so-called -  'township' of Soweto - an underprivileged area of Johannesburg in the then Afrikaner (Dutch descendant white European), apartied regime, ruled South Africa - held a peaceful demonstration against the 1974 education law that obliged township schools to teach only in the Afrikaans (an adaptation of Dutch) or English language: and to therefore neglect their native Bantu language and culture.

The protest brought an extremely violent reaction from the South African security forces; and consequently, the peaceful protest turned to two days of rioting. It is estimated that some 176 Soweto youths were killed  and more than 1000 were injured by the South African security forces between June 16th. and June 18th. 1976.

A link to an article on the events on the South African History website:
https://www.sahistory.org.za/article/june-16-soweto-youth-uprising

A link to the Wikipedia page on these events:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soweto_uprising

BACKGROUND OVERVIEW

Apartied means, in Dutch / Afrikaans 'apartness': the political policy enforced by the South African Government meant that Bantu peoples and other non-white peoples living in South Africa must be segregated from the Afrikaner people and other people of white European ethnicity.

The history of conflict between the Dutch European settlers (Afrikaners; sometimes called Boers: Boer meaning 'farmer') and the native Bantu  peoples in South Africa - of which the Zulu was the majority in southern Africa - goes back to the earliest Dutch settlements in 1652.

As Dutch settlements in southern Africa grew in number, conflict with the Zulu Empire (the Zulus were also a conquering and colonising nation) escalated.

The relationship between the Afrikaners and the British became complex, from the time of the first British colony in The Cape of Good Hope (in the southern tip of Africa) in 1815, and the British annexing of the Natal region in 1843.

It is said by some that the Afrikaners requested British military assistance against the Zulus; but this is denied by others, who claim that the Afrikaners went along with the British incursions into South Africa - and getting ever closer and closer to Zululand - because they felt that it would deter a Zulu invasion of Afrikaner colonial land.

A link to the UK Parliament site article on the British Settler Colonies in South Africa:
https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/legislativescrutiny/parliament-and-empire/parliament-and-the-american-colonies-before-1765/the-settler-colonies-south-africa/

The result of this complex situation was a three way conflict: Afrikaners v. Zulus; British v. Zulus; and, when the British had defeated the Zulus in the war of 1879,  an Afrikaner v. British conflict - The Boer Wars: First Boer War 1880 - 1881; Second Boer War: 1899 - 1902.

The British won the First and Second Boer Wars - and made South Africa a British Empire territory in 1910. 

THE AFRIKANER APARTIED GOVERNMENT OF 1948.

After World War II, Britain embarked on a policy of dismantling the British Empire and transforming it into The British Commonwealth: a political and cultural association of nations under the titular leadership of a  common Head of State: the UK monarch.

In 1948 South Africa appointed an Afrikaner South African Government, which adopted the policy of apartied: segregation of native Bantu peoples and Afrikaners: with the Afrikaners being in control of the country.

This policy was resisted by the native Bantu peoples, and drew disdain from countries around the world. The British Government critised the South African Government's apartied policy, but did not expel South Africa from the British Commonwealth.

In October 5th. 1960, South Africa, irritated by Britain's criticism of apartied, held a referendum on becoming a republic and quitting the British Commonwealth. The vote was in favour; South Africa quit the British Commonwealth in March 1961.

APARTIED POLICIES IN EDUCATION

In 1974 the above mentioned education legislation was introduced in South Africa, which decreed that only Afrikans and English could be taught in Bantu schools.

The Bantu peoples were already marginalised an disempowered in their own land: not allowed to vote, take part in government, or mix with white Europeans / Afrikaners. This restriction on even being able to maintain and grow their native language and culture was another step too far by the Afrikaner Government in the oppression of the Bantu people.

The students of Soweto resisted, first by peaceful protest, and then, under the provocation of extreme violence from the South African security forces, by rioting. 😔

The riots were quelled by the uncompromising actions of the South African security forces. But the actions of the South African security forces caused outrage throughout the world, and the cause of the Bantu people and the call for an end to the South African apartied regime grew stronger.

CONCLUSION

The Soweto Uprising - and the extreme violent reaction by the South African security forces - served to bring the injustice of the South African Government and its apartied policy into the worldwide public eye - and greatly increased support for the native Bantu peoples -  and pressure for an end to apartied in South Africa.

It was still to be a long and violent road, however, as various governments around the developed world declined to take stronger action against the South African Government - for financial reasons, and for reasons of Cold War security. 😔

(The image that goes with this article is from the YouTube channel WION video about the Soweto Uprising. My acknowledgment and thanks to that YouTube channel. 🙂) (M).

Further reading / viewing / listening:

A link to the WOIN YouTube channel video on the Soweto Uprising:
https://images.app.goo.gl/URKUDjT7Bq8sqSrT8

A link to the British Parliament site on South African withdrawal from the British Commonwealth:
https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1961/mar/22/union-of-south-africa-withdrawal-from

A link to the South African History website article on the South African referendum:
https://www.sahistory.org.za/dated-event/south-africa-withdraws-commonwealth

A link to the history of apartied article in the South African History website:
https://www.sahistory.org.za/article/history-apartheid-south-africa

Textual content (this article) © Copyright MLM Arts 17. 12 . 2024. Edited and re-posted: 18. 12. 2024

CHRONICLING THE GOLDEN ERA:

Part XVIII: 1977

A downbeat year... 😔

1977 was a year of events that had ramifications for the near future over the following couple of years - and the more distant future... But not events that had a very dramatic impact on the immediate state of the world.

POLITICS

✓ In UK politics, the feeble Labour Party UK Government bobbed and weaved its way to limping on in power: after making a voting pact with the Liberal Party so as to survive a Vote Of No Confidence motion: put forward by the Conservative Party opposition.

✓ In the USA - U.S President Jimmy Carter was inaugurated, after his 1976 Presidential Election win: and immediately came under the kind of media scrutiny that he didn't have so much as a Democratic Party candidate the year before. Carter would show early on that he could learn do the political 'double shuffle dance' like any other political leader, as (like everyone else that gains significant political power) he was made aware of the nature of  'Realpolitik': decision making based on what is pragmatic and achievable: rather than what is idealistically desirable... 

President Carter asserted that human rights worldwide would form an important part of U.S foreign policy; he also started Strategic Arms Limitations Talks (SALT II) with the Soviet Union in March.

However, the Soviet Union took umbrage at U.S criticism of its human rights record - and SALT II stalled... And in July President Carter supported the U.S development of the neutron bomb...

✓ EGYPT - ISRAEL

Great news from the Middle East: President Sadat of Egypt announced that he would be willing to go to Israel to discuss peace. Israel responded with an invitation: and between November 19th. and 21st President Sadat was in Israel - including addressing the Israeli Parliament: The Knesset.

This was the start of a peace process that would culminate 8n the Camp David Peace Accords in 1978 (arranged and mediated by President Carter), and then the ratifying of the peace accords by both Egypt and Israel in 1979. 🙂

CONFLICT

✓ LIBYA - EGYPT WAR

This short lived war in July was the culmination of several months of dispute and discord between Libyan leader Colonel Muammar Gaddafi and Egyptian President Anwar Sadat.

Egypt won the war quite easily, and it's suggested (if not confirmed) that the dispute played some part in President Sadat's decision to open warmer diplomatic relations with erstwhile implacable enemy, Israel.

✓ MOSCOW BOMBINGS

The Soviet Union experienced terrorist attacks in 1977: with a series of bombs exploding in Moscow: tragically killing several innocent Muscovites.

No organisation claimed responsibility, but it is believed that Armenian separatist may have planted the bombs. In 1979 three men were arrested, tried, convicted, and executed for the attacks.

'THE BRITISH - IRISH TROUBLES'

'The British - Irish Troubles' continued into 1977 right from the 1st. of January: with the most tragic and horrendous act of terrorism: when a baby boy of 18 months old was killed by glass shards that resulted from the detonation of a bomb planted by the Provisional Irish Republican Army (P-IRA).

The P-IRA had issued a warning to security forces to evacuate the area around the bomb, but the time allowed was inadequate - and the baby and his mother were caught in the blast: the baby's mother was severely injured. 😢

No apology was issued by the P-IRA: perhaps realising that no apology could suffice for such an atrocity.

The P-IRA changed its strategy after the attack: bombing campaigns had sufficient warnings in order to minimise civilian casualties; and targeted assassinations were aimed against businessmen and other significant figures.

WOMEN'S LIBERATION: PROGRESS

The National Women's Conference, held in Houston, Texas, was the latest event to put women's rights in the USA high on the agenda.

t's main achievement was to bring the Equal Rights Amendment (to the U.S Constitution) back on the table for conclusive ratification: the ERA had been on the books of the U.S Congress since (astonishingly) 1923😲

In 1972 the ERA was given a timetable of 7 years (up to 1979) to be ratified. The National Women's Conference of 1977 resulted in that being extended to 1982. 😳

THE TENERIFE AIRPORT DISASTER 😔

On March 27th. 1877 two 747 (Jumbo Jets) (Dutch KLM Flight 4805, and USA Pan Am Flight 1736 collided on the runway at Spain's Tenerife Airport. 😢

The KLM aircraft was in the process of taking off, but due to communication failures it struck the Pam Am aircraft while it was on the runway.

There were 583 fatalities; 61 injuries; and 61 survivors. 😔

The Tenerife Airport Disaster was and still remains the worst aviation disaster in history. 😢

A link to the Wikipedia page on The Tenerife Airport Disaster:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenerife_airport_disaster

A link to the Aeronews YouTube channel video on The Tenerife Airport Disaster:
https://youtu.be/bnJrLYJZEeo?si=GPxCvWFIl0FQo4GN

✓ 1977: ANOTHER YEAR OF INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM 😔

The 1970s was the decade when terrorism as a means to protest - and attempt to achieve political and social goals - became commonplace. 1977 was another year that demonstrated that... 😔

In the above I have already described terrorist events in Northern Ireland, Moscow, Washington DC, and politically motivated violent actions akin to terrorism in London.

The following is a link to the Wikipedia page that lists terrorist activity around the world during 1977.  You'll see a list that includes many countries around the world besides the ones already described: Argentina, Spain, The Netherlands, France, etc., etc., etc... 😔

A link to the Wikipedia page List of terrorist incidents in 1977:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_1977

✓ AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL WINS THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE 🙂

Some very good news from 1977, was that Amnesty international - the charitable organization set up in 1961 to support and represent oppressed people - in particular political dissidents and prisoners - around the world, won The Nobel Peace Prize: for its recognition of human rights worldwide. 🙂

CULTURAL EVENTS

MOVIES

✓ Well, I'd say that the big event in movies from 1977 was the 'whacked out the ballpark' success of the relatively low budget sci-fi hokum movie, 'Star Wars: Episode III: A New to Hope': starring obscure actors in the lead roles: Mark Hammill as Luke Skywalker; Carrie Fisher, as Princess Leia; and Harrison Ford, as Han Solo... But with the gravity of the presence of British  acting grandees Alec Guinness, as wise old Jedi Knight Obi Wan Kenobi, and Peter Cushing, as the villainous Grand Moff Tarkin - in significant supporting roles. 😎

Star Wars became the most successful movie in movie history: and is now part of modern literary / cultural classical folklore: on a similar status as 'The Lord Of The Rings'. 😲

TV

I'd say that the most significant, classic TV event from 1977 was the miniseries 'Roots': an adaptation of the 1976  novel by Alex Haley - telling the history of an African American family: from the starting point of 1750, and the enslaving of West African youth Kunta Kinte - and his subsequent transpiration to the slave plantations of North America.

The saga traces the story of Kunta Kinte - who is forced to take the European name, Toby - and his descendants. It concludes at the end of the American Civil War (1861 - 1865) - and the emancipation of slaves in the USA.

The importance of the novel and the TV series 'Roots', was that for the first time the story of African slaves in North America was being told through the eyes and experiences of the Africans themselves. Audiences connected with, and empathised with the characters in the story: and, via this mainstream TV entertainment show, became better informed and educated about African American history.

There arose questions and controversies about the historical accuracy of some aspects of the 'Roots' story, but I don't dwell on that: drama always allows for that. What was important was an understanding of the lives and struggles of the ancestors of a section of American society that had to overcome persecution and disadvantages - and did so, to become, by the mid-1970s, a community that was now confident enough, and becoming accepted enough, to tell its story to the world in serious drama on primetime TV.

That shouldn't be waved aside as trivial: only around 15 years earlier, at the beginning of the 1960s, African Americans were still campaigning for basic civil rights: the Civil Rights'Movement was making news and making headway across the USA every year through the 1960s... By around 1974 the cause of civil rights for African Americans had advanced so far, that it was commented upon that it no longer made major news: African Americans were moving on to the next phase: quietly making the best of new freedoms and opportunities - and seamlessly mixing in as just part of American society. 🤔

'Roots' was a reflection of that new confidence and status: the story of African Americans was just as valid and worthy of telling, and just as fascinating as the histories of the rest of American society.

And it was, too: 'Roots' was 'must watch' TV. 😎

✓ SPORT

Renée Richards became the first trans woman athlete to be allowed to compete in a major sporting event: the U.S Open tennis tournament.

✓ MUSIC

COMMEMORATION

Firstly - let's pay homage to those that we lost:

Elvis Presley - The King of Rock and Roll. 😔

And the artist that went from King of the UK Folk Underground scene in the late 1960s (and headliner of the very first Glastonbury Festival in 1970), to inventor of Glam Rock - the genre that have my generation of new teens our own rebellion: our Beatles; our Elvis Presley: Marc Bolan - leader of Tyrannosaurus Rex - then T. Rex. 😔

THE MUSIC SCENE

New phenomena were on the rise: Disco - a dance genre that had been around for a couple of years or so,  made a huge glitzy, glamorous impression, with the movie 'Saturday Night Fever' and the music of The Bee Gees, Donna Summer, and Georgio Moroder - to name a few... 😎

Punk had its pinnacle year in its short time in the limelight, when The Sex Pistols released their only studio album - 'Nevemind The...' - and the single that took advantage of Establishment celebrations in 1977 - to mock those celebrations and so be at their Punkiet and most shocking and rude and vulgar and... blah-blah - all the things their image was based on: the single 'God Save The Queen' ... 😏

New Wave bands and artists were not do ostentatious about their rise in popularity: they mostly just released good records and played... But they'd be the ones that stood the test of time... 😎

THE 'OLD GUARD' RAISE THE BAR

Ha! But (what was by now) the established 'Old Guard' of bands and artists were up for the challenge... 😎

Jethro Tull went to the sound that always felt to be most comfortable for them: Trad. Folk based Folk Rock - with the album 'Songs From The Wood': which many Tull fans rate as the band's best album. 😎

Yes welcomed back Rick Wakeman on keyboards - and in fact all four other members: who'd all been on  solo album hiatus - and released the album 'Going For The One': a new, moderated, but not compromised, tight and coherent version of the Yes sound: an album that is in my personal all-time top 10 albums. 😎

Pink Floyd kept their consistent run 9f quality albums going, with the release of 'Animals'. 😎

Bowie pushed the experimental envelope again, with the album 'Low' - which first shocked, but long-term delighted his fan base.

The 4 man Genesis released a live album that matched the quality of the classic 5 man 'Genesis Live' (1973) - the double album 'Seconds Out'. 😎

Here's a link to the 'Chronicles' article 'The Music Of 1977':
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1Esdz7WMsd/

A CELEBRATION...  🙂

To round up this overview of 1977, let's celebrate a racy individual: an engine revving biker - a trucker - a qualified motor mechanic: who furthered the cause of women's equality by getting under the hoods of British Army trucks to fix them - and then drive them - as part of the home defence effort during World War II... 😎

I refer to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II: who - along with the rest of the UK - celebrated her Silver Jubilee: 25 years as Queen of the UK and Northern Ireland - during 1977.  🙂

God bless you, your majesty; and God rest you. 😌

ROUNDING UP...

1977:  A year of nothing very much happening that made an immediate impact... But things that happened that would have significant medium and long term impact... 

The political landscape was in the process of changing: that wouldn't become apparent until the following few years: but it would be long lasting... 🤔

Society was changing: little by little - and, I'd opine, not in positive ways: more and more aggression and selfishness was creeping in... That too would become more apparent in the next few years - and would be lasting... 😔

Music was changing: Disco and Punk would have another year or two in the spotlight - but New Wave bands would become respected, 'next generation Classic' bands and artists...

The 'Old Guard'...? They were already Classic - from 1977 onward they'd move - gradually (with an intermediate phase for of being sneered at through the 1980s - for some: especially Prog. Rock bands and artists) -  into the 'Iconic and Legendary' category... 😎

1977 was a doleful, tense, forewarning of things to come in the further future... 😳

1978 and 1979 would be better (as I recall) - I suppose a kind of last hoorah! - or a lull before the gathering storm... 

But that's for the 'Chronicles' of 1978 and 1979 - watch this space... 🙂

For more details in the events overviewed in this article - and other events from 1977, here's a link to the 'Chronicles' articles '1977 - Politics, The Cold War And Conflict':
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/16bwSb71TL/

And '1977: Protest, Activism, Satire, And Change':
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/16ZPcbRB2f/

(I found the various images used in the collage for this article online. My acknowledgment and thanks to the various people who posted them / own them. 🙂) (M).

Textual content © Copyright MLM Arts 14. 07. 2025. Edited and re-posted: 16. 07. 2025

1977 - February 6th.: QUEEN ELIZABETH II SILVER JUBILEE (Celebrating 25 years as Queen of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) 🙂

Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II became Queen of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (and of Her other Realms and Territories; Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith.) on February 6th., 1952.

February 6th. 1977 marked the beginning of Her Majesty's 25th. year as monarch: Her Silver Jubilee. It was celebrated across Great Britain and The British Commonwealth. 

BACKGROUND

The Princess Elizabeth, daughter of Prince George: the brother of King Edward VIII (reign: January 20th. 1936 - December 11th. 1936), became what could be described as the Queen of Great Britain and Northern Ireland - that was never planned to be... And perhaps, didn't really want to be... But, when the office was presented to her, Princess Elizabeth accepted the honour courageously - and carried out her duties and the status of the office as Queen of the most prestigious monarchy in the modern world with exemplary dignity and distinction. Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II was a great and noble monarch - during difficult times for the monarchy. 😌

(It's always been fashionable to condemn the British monarchy as archaic and undemocratic - blah-blah... But that's another issue - that needs deeper understanding and discussion than is usually offered...)

Let's have a celebratory look at the life and reign (up to 1977) of Queen Elizabeth II: for this posting about a special event in 1977. 😊

THE QUEEN THAT WASN'T PLANNED TO BE...

Princes Elizabeth was the niece of King Edward VIII: the monarch who's reign lasted less than 12 months during 1936. The popular story is that King Edward abdicated the throne because of his love for American divorcee Wallace Simpson. However, there is an underlying suspicion (especially in modern times) that he was very sympathetic towards Nazi Germany: at a time when the prospect of war between Nazi Germany and Great Britain was simmering.

King Edward VIII abducted while childless. His abdication meant that the monarchy passed to his brother, Prince George.

Edward's brother, Prince George became King George VI of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (and (what was to be the last) Emperor of India) on December 11th. 1936. He died on February 6th. 1952. King George had two daughters: Princess Elizabeth and her younger sister, Princess Margaret.

Princess Elizabeth became Queen Elizabeth II in February 6th., 1952.

PRINCESS ELIZABETH - WAR HEROINE, TRUCKER, BIKER, AND PROTO-FEMINIST... 😲

During World War II, the teenage Princess Elizabeth joined the British Army Auxiliary Corp and became a mechanic and truck driver. It could be said that she never saw frontline service, but all the same, she was seen to be part of the war effort... And, by all accounts,  the Princess Elizabeth was a good mechanic - and a good truck driver; she was also fond of riding motorbikes*... 😎

(*It's said that even in her later years, when driving around (or being driven around) in her Land Rover on her estates,  Queen Elizabeth's staff sometimes became dismayed by her insistence on getting under the hood of the vehicle to work on the engine at times... 😎)

On Victory in Europe (VE) Day in 1945, the story goes that Princess Elizabeth and her sister Margaret were as caught up in the public excitement and celebrations as any average person in Britain - and, rather than standing on the Buckingham Palace balcony, waving at the crowd, they dressed up in ordinary clothes, snuck out of the palace - and joined the celebrating crowds... 🤩 Gotta love that: it's the stuff of old storytelling... 🙂

QE II REIGN UP TO 1977

Queen Elizabeth II began her reign in February 6th. 1952. Between then and the Silver Jubilee year in 1977, Her Majesty led the UK and the Commonwealth as titular Head of State (very limited actual power: but always as a moral and ethical example and a figure above politics: whom the people could look to for guidance and reassurance) through the Cold War; the Korean War if the 1950s; the Suez Canal Crisis in the 1950s - and all other major conflicts and political events.

A favourite story for me, is the state visit to the UK by Soviet cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin - after he became the first human being in space in 1961.

Gagarin was invited to be guest of honour at a banquet at Buckingham Palace.

The story (told later by Gagarin, I think?) goes that:

Sitting at the right side of Queen Elizabeth, he was as bewildered as you or I would be by the vast array of cutlery before him. A little embarrassed, he whispered to Her Majesty that he didn't know what each utensil was for. Her Majesty whispered back that (paraphrasing) 'Don't worry; neither do I...' 😅

THE MONARCHY

The monarch in the UK no longer has much real power; but the King or the Queen represents continuity with the past and the traditions and the best of the values of the country. Political parties may come and go in government; ideologies and policies may come and go; Prime Ministers may come and go... And the effects of their rule will be good or bad - beneficial or damaging: usually a bit of both: always finishing up on the negative side - because they get voted out... 🙄 But the monarch remains - handing down the standard of what's expected from a British leader from one to the next: aa a symbol of what's expected from a political leader - and a curb on excesses of political ideology. 🤔

Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II carried that mantle that responsibility with great dignity, nobility, and respect. 😌

THE SILVER JUBILEE CELEBRATIONS

Her Majesty toured her realms: she even paid a visit to my little town - and yes, I stood in the crowd to see her (I've always been a naturally inclined historian - and this was history in the making), and yes, I did immediately think the clichéd though: 'Blimey - she's much smaller than I thought...' 😅

All over the UK there were commemorative items of all sorts with the Silver Jubilee logo on them. I seem to recall that every school kid got a Silver Jubilee mug. 😊

It was just kinda - nice... At time of politics and economic gloom in the UK, it was a celebration  of what Britain was traditionally - and a connection with the past -; and reassurance that their was a future beyond the present gloom. 🤔

Oh sure, there were the protestors and 'down with the monarchy!' crowd - but they got their fair say - and nobody denied them that... And Her Majesty carried on... 😏

And The Punk's - on the rise at the time: all anarchy and anger - couldn't let the celebration slip by without taking a pop: The Sex Pistols released their anarchic 'God Save The Queen' single... And that pleased the current wave of rebellious youth... And they got their say... And Her Majesty carried on... 😏

CONCLUSION

All in all, the 1977 Queen Elizabeth II Silver Jubilee celebrations represented what was going in in the UK at the time - and what the British monarchy - and especially the dignified reign of Queen Elizabeth II: so warmly and fondly embraced by the majority of the British population - was all about. 😊

Happy Silver Jubilee, your Majesty... 🙂

(I found this image online. My acknowledgment and thanks to whoever posted it / owns it (identity unknown to me). 🙂) (M).

Textual content: © Copyright MLM Arts 13. 03. 2025

1977: POLITICS, THE COLD WAR, AND CONFLICT

(✓ = More extensive articles on these subjects will appear in the 'Chronicles' section covering 1977)

1977: a year of events that were not (relatively speaking) major and world changing in themselves: but which had a carry forward effect that would impact the future...

1977 was another year that revealed the complexity - even the impossibility at times - of trying to disentangle what was protest from what was sheer conflict in the pursuit of change during the 1970s. 🙄

Terrorism was widespread: and 1977 showed that the Soviet Union was not immune to its violence. 😔

1977also gave another insight into the tangled web of intrigue that was - and is - international politics and war.

✓ 'THE BRITISH - IRISH 'TROUBLES'

January 1st. 1977 - and the Provisional Irish Republican Army (P-IRA) begin the new year with another act of violence: this one resulting in the death of a  15 month old boy: who was killed by a bomb blast while his family was being evacuated from the area. The advanced warning of the bomb that was issued to the security forces by the P-IRA did not allow adequate time for the evacuation of innocent bystanders. 😔

The heartbreaking death of --- shocked the world. Even P-IRA sympathisers were outraged by this tragedy. The P-IRA did not issue its usual response to civilian casualties of their activities: a pale apology, qualified by a justification for their violence - which steered the blame back onto the British authorities. I must assume that they realised that no such statement would suffice this time: and instead kept a low profile. 😔

What did transpire from the P-IRA during 1977 though, was a change of strategy. In the year ahead they launched bombing campaigns that were much more meticulously planned: which minimised civilian casualties. An example being a multiple bombing spree in Central London during the early morning of January 29th. - which caused a lot of damage and destination, but no civilian casualties.

Another P-IRA strategy development was targeted assassinations: including the murder of businessmen who were involved in bringing business and trade to Northern Ireland.

A link to the University of Ulster Conflict Archive on the Internet (CAIN) site record of 'The Troubles' incidents during 1977:
https://cain.ulster.ac.uk/othelem/chron/ch77.htm#:~:text=Thursday%2024%20March%201977,(1999%20to%202007).%5D

MOSCOW TERRORIST BOMBING

1977 showed the world that the Soviet Union was not immune to the escalation of terrorist violence as a means to protest. 😔

On January 8th. three bombs exploded in Moscow: killing 7 people and injuring 37 others. 😢

No person or organisation ever claimed responsibility for the bombings. However, around two years later, in 1979, three people - said to be Armenian nationalists (Armenia being one of the counties / satellite states that comprised the Russian dominant Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR / aka The Soviet Union)) were arrested by the Soviet Union's secret intelligence agency, the KGB, and were tried, convicted, and executed.

The trial was secretive; it is claimed by Soviet dissidents that the three were innocent.

A link to the Wikipedia page on the 1977 Moscow bomb attacks:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1977_Moscow_bombings
A link to the Modern Diplomacy site article Hidden History – 1977 Terrorist Attacks in Moscow:
https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2021/01/20/hidden-history-1977-terrorist-attacks-in-moscow/

✓ WASHINGTON DC: HANAFI SIEGE

BACKGROUND

In 1972 Hamaas Abdul Khaalis (formerly Ernest McGhee: a Jazz a Chicago drummer), a convert to Islam: fluctuating between the Nation of Islam (an American form of Islam with no linear connection to mainstream Islam, and wi8a differing theology from mainstream Islam), and Islam from the traditional Hanafi school of thought, was involved in a dispute with the Nation of Islam: which resulted in the murder of his wife and children.

OVERVIEW

Between March 9th. and March 11th., armed members of Khaalis's Hanafi sect seized control of three buildings in Washington DC: the District Building (the municipal offices for the city's administration), B'nai B'rith headquarters (B'nai B'rith: Sons Of The Covenant: an organisation set up to support the Jewish community), and Islamic Center of Washington: the centre for mainstream Sunni Islam in Washington DC. 149 hostages were taken.

The group demanded that the men convicted of the murdering members of Hamaas Abdul Khaalis's family should be handed over to them; and  that the Nation of Islam members who were convicted of murdering former prominent member of The National of Islam, Malcolm X in 1965 should also be handed over to them.

Furthermore, Khaalis demanded a fine of several hundred dollars for contempt of court, which he had been required to pay some years earlier, should be returned to him.

An additional demand was that a movie about the life of The Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), 'The Message', should not be shown in the USA.

Police officers and trained negotiators (and Muslim ambassadors from various countries) were sent to the buildings to attempt to end the siege: without anyone being harmed, preferably.

There was a a stand-off of around 48 hours. At one of the buildings seized, a reporter and a police officer were mortally wounded.

THE END OF THE SIEGE

It became clear that Khaalis's main motivation was his grief and sense of injustice at the murder of his family in 1973. It is recorded that he told a reporter:

*'...Get on the phone and call President Carter and some of those senators that never sent a call, a condolence message. Do you not realize when my family was wiped out [no] one said one word? Not one. Not even a preacher. Not even a minister. Not even a spiritual advisor. Not even a city council member...'

(*My thanks to Wikipedia.)

During the negotiations, the money that Khaalis's demanded was returned to him; and the Washington DC premier of the movie 'The Message' was cancelled. The convicted members of The Nation of Islam, of course, were not handed over to Khaalis.

The intervention of Muslim diplomats, who counselled Khaalis on proper conduct as a Muslim, read the Qur'an, and  appealed to Khaalis's conscience, was vital.

Khaalis prayed, and said that he'd been given guidance, and that he and his followers would surrender.

Khaalis and the other members of the Hanafi sect were convicted of the crimes committed during the seige, and received long prison sentences.

A link to the Wikipedia page on the Hanafi Siege:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1977_Washington,_D.C.,_attack_and_hostage_taking

A link to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial site article The Hanafi Siege: 40 Hours of Terror in the Nation’s Capital:
https://nleomf.org/historys-blotter-hanafi-siege/

A link to the educational site C-SPAN teaching response on the Hanafi Siege:
https://www.c-span.org/classroom/document/?20203

✓ LONDON, UK: THE BATTLE OF LEWISHAM

On August 13th. an intense street riot / battle took place between matchers representing right wing National Front political party and a crowd of anti-right wing demonstrators, in the SE London borough of Lewisham.

BACKGROUND

1976 had seen a resurfacing of racial tensions in the UK. Eric Clapton (struggling with drug and alcohol issues at the time) made provocative racist comments at a gig in Birmingham, UK, in July - including praise for right wing former Conservative Party MP Enoch Powell. And in the New Cross district of SE London, the fringe right wing political party, the National Front (NF), showed significantly improved polling numbers in a local election.

These circumstances prompted the emergence of the Rock Against Racism movement: by the new generation of British youth culture.

THE EVENTS: A BRIEF DESCRIPTION

On August 13th. a march of approximately 500 supporters of the NF stated a march from New Cross in SE London to Lewisham in SE London: a distance of around 12 miles.

At Lewisham the march was met by around 4000 - 5000 anti-racism protestors who had been attending an anti-racism rally held in Lewisham on the same day.

THE LEAD UP TO THE EVENT

'The Battle of Lewisham' story centres around the South East London districts of New Cross and Lewisham. Neither New Cross nor Lewisham had a particularly large percentage of ethnic minority residents at that time - though numbers were increasing.

In the weeks leading up to the 'Battle of Lewisham' on August 13th., there had been police operations against an alleged mugging and robbery gang of black people in Lewisham. This created racial tension in the area.

'THE BATTLE OF LEWISHAM'

On the morning of the 13th. of August, a rally was held in Ladywell Fields - a park situated between New Cross and Lewisham. The rally was addressed by the Mayor of Lewisham and the Anglican Bishop of Southwark (Southwark is a diocese of London that includes Lewisham). When the rally broke up, police directed the attendees away from the route of the NF march that was happening not far away.

However, members of the organisation known as the All Lewisham Campaign against Racism and Fascism (ALCARAF) found ways around the police crowd control arrangements, and reached the NF march at Lewisham.

Confrontation ensued: and quickly descended into a full scale riot: with around 5000 police officers attempting to contain the violence between the several hundred NF marchers and some 4000 ALCARAF protestors.

As well as having to use mounted police to attempt to control the rioting, the police also deployed officers equipped with riot shields: the first time that riot shields had been used on the British mainland: they had previously only been used in Northern Ireland.

The London Metropolitan Police was tested to the limit during 'The Battle of Lewisham' - and it is said that at one point the police completely lost control of the situation: bizarrely, the crowd even declared part of Lewisham an independent republic. 😳

The conflict raged on throughout the day. Eventually, the Metropolitan Police regained control, and the conflict was ended. 111 people had been injured and 214 arrests were made.

A link to the Wikipedia page on The Battle Of Lewisham:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Lewisham

A link to the Goldsmiths College, London site's article What Was 'The Battle Of Lewisham'?
https://www.gold.ac.uk/history/research/battle-of-lewisham/what-was-the-battle-of-lewisham/

A link to the Lewisham Music site's article The Battle of Lewisham: A symbol of resistance and the soundtrack of a community:
https://lewishammusic.org/battle-of-lewisham/

A link to the Institute Of Race Relations site's article Lewisham ’77: success or failure? :
https://irr.org.uk/article/lewisham-77-success-or-failure/

A link to the Wikipedia page on The National Front:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Front_(UK)

✓ LIBYA - EGYPT WAR (JULY 21st. - 24th.)

This short conflict has a backstory that is another example of the tangled web of political and diplomatic wrangling and subterfuge that goes on behind the scenes in in international relations... 🙄

OVERVIEW

In 1969 a military coup in Libya brought Colonel Muammar Gaddafi to power as dictator. Gaddafi was very anti-West and pro-Arab unity.

In 1970 he was in negotiations with President Nasser of Egypt over the possibility of uniting Libya and Egypt as one country. It's said that President Nasser seemed cautiously interested, but before progress could be made he passed away in September 1970. Nasser was succeeded by President Anwar Sadat: who was more reserved towards Gaddafi's, unification proposals.

Libya assisted Egypt in the 1973 (October 6th. - 25th.) war with neighbouring Israel (referred to as history as The Yom Kippur War). The conflict ended in a stalemate ceasefire: negotiated by U.S diplomat Henry Kissinger. That conclusion to The Yom Kippur War eased Egypt and Israel towards the possibility of a lasting peace treaty.

A link to the Wikipedia page on the Yom Kippur War:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Kippur_War

DIPLOMATIC AND POLITICAL PLOTTING AND SUBTERFUGE

The Yom Kippur War ceasefire negotiations led President Sadat to cool off Egypt's political and military relationship with the Soviet Union - and become warmer towards the West in the world's Cold War dynamics. At the same time, Colonel Gaddafi was fostering a closer relationship with the Soviet Union. (The Soviet Union was also a major supporter of the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO)).

This diplomatic and political gulf widened in 1975, when Gaddafi survived an assassination attempt - and Egypt gave sanctuary to the operatives who attempted the assassination.

In 1976, it is reported that an attempted military coup d'etat against President Sadat was thwarted by Egyptian security.

There were border skirmishes between Libya and Egypt during 1976.

A link to the Libya Tribute article Martin Hannan: 'The forgotten 4-days war that almost ousted Gaddafi and changed the course of history':
https://en.minbarlibya.org/2017/07/21/the-forgotten-4-days-war-that-almost-ousted-gaddafi-and-changed-the-course-of-history/

THE LIBYA - EGYPT WAR (1977)

With relations between Egypt and Libya (and Sadat and Gaddafi) at an irreparable low, (quoting from the excellent Libya Tribune article (link above)):

'... 'Having declared that Libya was now a socialist republic in March, Gaddafi ordered more than 200,000 Egyptians to leave Libya by July 1, and also organised a “March on Cairo” by loyal Libyan citizens.

WHAT HAPPENED?

With tensions at breaking point, the March on Cairo reached the Egyptian border on July 20. Border guards stopped the Libyans and it is fairly certain that Libya actually started the fighting, and attacked the town of Sallum on Egypt’s Mediterranean coast with artillery tanks and jet fighter-bombers. They took some prisoners, but found themselves in a trap.

For it was the moment Sadat had been waiting for. Three entire divisions of the Egyptian army were located nearby and fierce fighting began. The Egyptian soldiers were mostly from who had fought Israel in the Yom Kippur war of 1973, while the Libyan cohorts had little fighting experience.

WHO WON?

As one report recorded (see link; Libyan Tribe article: above):

'...The Egyptian army and air force simply rolled over their opponents...'

AFTERMATH

It may be reasonably suggested that the Egypt - Libya War furthered President Sadat's resolve to seek a peaceful solution to Egypt's relationship with Israel.

Colonel Gaddafi fostered a closer relationship between Libya and the Soviet Union; he also actively supported paramilitary groups, such as The PLO and the Provisional Irish Republican Army (P-IRA), with finance and armaments.

In 1978 U.S President Jimmy Carter invited President Sadat of Egypt and Prime Minister Begin of Israel to peace talks at the U.S President's rural retreat, Camp David.

In the end, after all hope seemed lost, President Carter and his mediation team secured a spectacular success - and an agreement was reached.

In 1979, the Camp David Accords were formally ratified by the parliaments of both Egypt and Israel. The two countries have been on a peaceful footing ever since. 🙂

A link to the Wikipedia page on the Egyptian - Libyan War:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian%E2%80%93Libyan_War

A link to the History Class YouTube channel video on the Libya - Egypt war:
https://youtu.be/-KCFjxLJ2Dk?si=-HtSnCvewxjRX_Hd

THE ETHIOPIA - SOMALIA WAR (OGADEN WAR) July 13th. 1977 - March 23rd. 1978

A SKETCHED OVERVIEW

Another example of the tangled, unscrupulous politics and diplomacy of The Cold War... 🙄

Ogaden is a region with a majority Somali population, but fell under the administration of neighbouring Ethiopia. Both of these East African nations were what was referred to as Third World: underdeveloped economically and unstable politically; and suffering poverty and deprivation.

Somalia and Ethiopia contested ownership of Ogaden: while at the same time factions within both countries contended with each other for control.

The Soviet Union - always eager to support socialist groups and militias in Third World / developing countries, got involved in these power struggles.

As ever, there was more to the Soviet Union's willingness to assist in these struggles that just ideological empathy: Ethiopia and Somalia had a wealth of untapped natural resources - and offered access to the strategically important Red Sea and Indian Ocean.

In 1977 Somalia invaded Ethiopian Ogaden - much to the displeasure of the Soviet Union - which consequently supported Ethiopia: and sent some 1,500 military advisors (that's a lot of 'advice' it must be said... 🙄); the Soviet Union's ally, communist Cubs, sent 12,000 - 15,000 troops to support the Ethiopia forces.

Somalia cut ties with the Soviet Union - and consequently, the USA and China gave support to Somalia. 😳

The weight of support given to Ethiopia swung the war Ethiopia's way. The war concluded in March 23rd. 1978:

(The Cubans left a garrison in Ethiopia after the war ended.)

This tragic, squalid conflict between two impoverished countries - a side show to The Cold War that cost many thousands of lives and incalculable suffering - was fought while both Ethiopia and Somalia had civil wars going on within their respective countries.

The whole political, diplomatic, military, and social quagmire in Ethiopia and Somalia would persist for many years to come; any possibility of stability, growth, peace and prosperity for these counties was rendered virtually impossible by these internal conflicts and political and military interference from the world's powerful nations. 😔

A link to the Wikipedia page on the Ogden War':
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogaden_War

A link to the I'm Stuck - GCSE and A Level YouTube channel video on the Ogaden War:
https://youtu.be/CgKoRPKkfJw?si=WMc9K9JoGBkAIVPA

✓ THE USA: PRESIDENT CARTER ENTERS ARMS LIMITATION TALKS WITH THE USSR - THEN SUPPORTS FUNDING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE NEUTRON BOMB

Mixed messages between the newly inaugurated U.S President Jimmy Carter and Soviet President Brezhnev... 😳

In February 1977, shortly after his January inauguration ceremony, U.S President Carter declared that an important part of his foreign policy would be to establish a second round of Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT) with the Soviet Union.*

(*The first SALT talks - and agreement - took place in 1969.)

In March U.S Secretary of State Cyrus Vance was sent to the Soviet Union's capital in  Moscow to negotiate with President Brezhnev on SALT II.

The negotiations failed to reach an agreement, however, and at the end of March President Carter warned that he could accelerate the nuclear weapons race if the Soviet Union did not resume talks by May 1977.

Although there remained a willingness to negotiate from both sides,  talks did not resume until 1978.

A link to the paper Jimmy Carter and SALT II: The Path To Frustration. By Matthew M. Oyos. American Diplomacy Volume I, Number 2, 1996. From the site Columbia International Affairs Online:.
https://ciaotest.cc.columbia.edu/olj/ad/ad_v1_2/oym01.html#:~:text=Upon%20taking%20office%20in%20January,agreements%20with%20the%20Soviet%20Union.

A link to the March 31st. 1977 Hedrick Smith New York Times article: 'Carter Warns He May Add Arms...':
https://www.nytimes.com/1977/03/31/archives/carter-warns-he-may-add-arrns-if-moscow-balks-i ppn-further-talks.html

Meanwhile, the USA had developed the neutron bomb: a new device for use on the battlefield. During 1977 it was being debated whether or not to fund the development of the neutron bomb - and deploy it in Western Europe... 🤔

In July 1977, President Carter expressed his support for the funding, development, and deployment of the neutron bomb, in the lead up to a vote on the subject in the U.S Senate. The vote went in favour of neutron bomb.

In light of the state of play in the USA - USSR SALT II negotiations - and President Carter's warning to the USSR that he could escalate weapons development, it is perhaps understandable that he should present public support for the neutron bomb at that time...  🤔

In  September 1977, after several months of debate and campaigning for and against the development of the neutron bomb, the U.S Congress agreed with the decision made by the U.S Senate in July 1977 - and sanctioned the funding of the neutron bomb.

A link to the 'Chronicles' article on the U.S neutron bomb issue:
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1449426569795928&id=100041857974741

THE UK: THE ENFEEBLED LABOUR PARTY GOVERNMENT SURVIVES BY MAKING A PACT

BACKGROUND 

The 'Chronicles' recording of the years 1974 to 1979 will show the fragile, precarious state of the Labour Party UK Government throughout its period in office during those years.

Harold Wilson's Labour Party UK General Election victory, by a slender 3 seat majority, in October 1974 was always going to be an 'on the back foot' situation. This was exacerbated by internal in-fighting between the moderate faction (which held the main offices in the party), and the robustly active left-wing: led by political heavyweights Tony Benn and Michael Foot.

Meanwhile, the Conservative Party pulled out a public relations coup in 1975, with the progressive decision to elect Margret Thatcher as the first female leader of a UK political party. Moreover, Thatcher was a proclaimed right of centre politician: at a time when the even handed British electorate was already tried of excessive Trade Union Council (TUC) influence over the trade union supporting Labour Party and the UK Government.

In 1976, the experienced and politically skilled Prime Minister Harold Wilson resigned as PM (stating that that had been his intention since winning the election in 1974). That shook up whatever stability the Labour Party UK Government had; and it ramped up the Moderates vs. Left-Wing power struggle. This was another setback for the Labour Party UK Government.

Chancellor James Callaghan (a moderate) became PM 9n May 5th. 1976.

It is recorded in the UK Government website article 'Past Prime Ministers James Callaghan Labour 1976 to 1979', that:

'...Callaghan’s government lost its majority of seats in Parliament on his first day in office [05. 05. 1976]. This forced him to rely upon the support of the Liberal Party during 1977 to 1978,...'

A link to the UK Government website article on PM James Callaghan:
https://www.gov.uk/government/history/past-prime-ministers/james-callaghan

1976 - 1977

PM Callaghan's UK Government 'horse traded' with the Scottish National Party (SNP) (11 seats) and Welsh nationalists Plaid Cymru (3 seats): offering referendums on devolution for both nations: and that 'sweetener' more or less assured that those parties would support the UK Government in parliamentary votes: thereby covering the Labour Party's loss of a parliamentary majority

THE VOTE OF NO CONFIDENCE

However, the votes from the 14 Members of Parliament representing the two nationalist parties were not guaranteed. The Conservative Party opposition manoeuvred and schemed around this Labour Party UK Government vulnerability - looking for the right opportunity to force a Vote of No Confidence in the UK Government: which would force a UK General Election, if the government lost.

The Vote of No Confidence was called for March 23rd. 1977.

THE LIB - LAB PACT

On the very day that the Vote of No Confidence in the UK Government was called, Labour PM James Callaghan and Liberal Party leader David Steele announced a pact between the two parties: this was not a full-on coalition government agreement: it was a guarantee that the 13 Liberal Party parliamentary MPs would vote with the UK Labour Party Government. In exchange, the Liberal Party would be allowed influence into UK Government policy making.

It may be reasonably assumed that negotiations for the Lib - Lab Pact had been going on for some weeks or months in advance of the announcement: in anticipation of the Conservative Party calling for the Vote of No Confidence.

RESULT OF THE VOTE OF NO CONFIDENCE

With 13 Liberal Party MP votes now guaranteed, PM Callaghan' had out manoeuvred the Thatcher Consecutive Party opposition - and the Labour Party UK Government won this 1977 Vote of No Confidence.

CONSEQUENCES

The minority, internal discord riven, trade union wary Labour Party UK Government limped on in power... 😳

The Labour Party UK Government would be compelled to call a UK General Election by 1979 in any case, but it seemed to holding on in the hope that something like a political or economic miracle would happen that would turn its fortunes around.

That would Indeed have required nothing less than a miracle: under the circumstances at that time... 🙄

A link to the Wikipedia page on the Lib - Lab Pact:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lib%E2%80%93Lab_pact#:~:text=An%20agreement%20was%20negotiated%2C%20under,subsequent%20motion%20of%20no%20confidence.

A link to the Journal Of Liberal History site article: Joint Statement on the Lib-Lab Pact: Steel and Callaghan: (Source: The Times, Thursday March 24th 1977):
https://liberalhistory.org.uk/history/joint-statement-on-the-lib-lab-pact-steel-and-callaghan/

A link to the Labour Party supporting group Young Fabians' site article Lib-Lab Pact
The Politics of Necessity: Lessons from the 1977 Lib-Lab Pact - by Nathaneal Amos-Sansam
Posted on 09 November, 2017:
https://www.youngfabians.org.uk/the_politics_of_necessity_lessons_from_the_1977_lib_lab_pact

1977: ANOTHER YEAR OF INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM  😔

The 1970s was the decade when terrorism as a means to protest - and attempt to achieve political and social goals - became commonplace. 1977 was another year that demonstrated that... 😔

In the above I have already described terrorist events in Northern Ireland, Moscow, Washington DC, and politically motivated violent actions akin to terrorism in London.

The following is a link to the Wikipedia page that lists terrorist activity around the world during 1977.  You'll see a list that includes many countries around the world besides the ones already described: Argentina, Spain, The Netherlands, France, etc., etc., etc... 😔

ROUNDING UP...

I've described 1977 as a year of relativity non-major events - that would have more major effects on the future... 🤔

That seems a fair assessment. In the Middle East, events there began a move towards peaceful, normalised relations between Israel and its neighbours.

Strategic Arms Limitation Talks between the USA and the Soviet Union were brought back to the table - but wouldn't be agreed until 1979.

Policing methods in the UK were changed as a result of the events in Lewisham, London.

The seeds of the implosion of the UK Labour Party were sown - along with the seeds of right centre, economics and corporate interest based politics that would dominate UK politics right up to this date. 🤔

And terrorism extended its reach still further - and would continue to do so in the future... right up to this date... 😔

1977 was a relatively unremarkable year - on the surface of it... But a very significant year ilin terns of consequences... 🤔 (M).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_1977

(I found this image online. My acknowledgment and thanks to whoever posted it / owns it (identity unknown to me.🙂) (M).

Textual content © Copyright MLM Arts 05. 07. 2025. Edited and re-posted: 07. 07. 2025. Edited and re-posted: 13. 07. 2025   

1977: PROTEST, ACTIVISM, SATIRE, AND CHANGE

1977 was a year of some breakthroughs in political and social change towards peace and equality: changes that would have a greater effect on the future than they did at the time.

From around 1974 the successes and progress made by the Civil Rights Movement in the USA in its campaigns for greater equality and opportunity for African Americans and other ethnic minorities, saw that campaign shift to the next level: making best use of new opportunities - and building the future of African Americans.

The high profile equality campaigns during the 1970s became Women's Liberation, and Gay Liberation.

But the cause of a shockingly overlooked and poorly treated, vulnerable section of society was finally addressed in 1977: disabled and handicapped people. 🙂

CARTOONS AND SATIRE

As ever, satirical political cartoonists played their part in getting across social commentary, and curbing egos...

MAJOR EVENTS

ANWAR SADAT VISITS ISRAEL

Between 1976 and March 1977 diplomatic relations between Egypt and Libya had been fractured, culminating in the short war between the two countries in Match 1977, which Egypt won quite easily.

This conflict changed the dynamic in the Middle-East: with Egypt's President Sadat cooling Egypt's relationship with the Soviet Union (which had backed Arab countries in their war against Israel, and was the major supporter of the paramilitary / political activist Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO)), and more accessible to Israel's ally, and Soviet Union rival in the Cold War, the USA.

On November 9th. 1977 President Sadat addressed the Egyptian ruling authorities that he'd be willing to go to Israel to discuss peace in the Middle-East. The Egyptians - and more widely, the Arab world, thought that this was merely clever public relations by President Sadat, as the official standpoint from those nations was to deny that Israel had a right to exist as a legitimate country.

However, soon after President Sadat made his offer, Israeli Prime Minister Begin actually invited Sadat to speak at the Israeli Parliament in Jerusalem: the Knesset. President Sadat accepted the offer, and spent November 19 - 21 in Israel, discussing peace: a breakthrough that was assumed to be virtually impossible only months earlier.

These diplomatic moves by President Sadat and PM Begin paved the way for the lasting peace that was negotiated via U.S President. Carter at Camp David USA in 1978.

✓ A link to the 'Chronicles' article on the 1977 Libya - Egypt War:
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1468902361181682&id=100041857974741

A link to the Wikipedia page on President Sadat's visit to Israel:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_Sadat%27s_visit_to_Israel

A link to the Economic Cooperation Foundation site article Egyptian President Sadat Indicates Willingness to Speak at Knesset (1977):
https://ecf.org.il/issues/issue/7

A link to the AP Archive YouTube channel video '2 Dec 1977) RR7748A MIDDLE EAST SADAT'S VISIT TO ISRAEL':
https://youtu.be/Kf9YyCbomO0?si=ewhNFkWkkoCHR0Dw

U.S PRESIDENT CARTER MAKES HUMAN RIGHTS A KEY PART OF U.S FOREIGN POLICY

Democratic Party U.S  President Jimmy Carter was inaugurated on January 20th. 1977. He made it clear from the start of his presidency that U.S foreign policy would change: to quote the Office Of The Historian site article (linked below)

... 'He [President Carter] intended to infuse a new morality in American diplomacy, one grounded in the pursuit of human rights. Carter made this cause explicit in his January 20, 1977, inaugural address: “Because we are free, we can never be indifferent to the fate of freedom elsewhere. Our moral sense dictates a clear-cut preference for those societies which share with us an abiding respect for individual human rights.”...'

It was a laudable, noble policy declaration. However, it was something which, I suggest, brought President Carter some awareness of international 'Realpolitik' (the politics and diplomacy of pragmatism in international negotiations), when, in March 1977 he commenced Strategy Arms Limitations Talks (SALT II) with the Soviet Union - while simultaneously criticising the Soviet Union's record on human rights... SALT II stalled without agreement, as the Soviet Union reacted negatively towards U.S interference in its domestic politics.

A link to the Office Of The Historian site article 'Carter and Human Rights, 1977–1981':
https://history.state.gov/milestones/1977-1980/human-rights

A link to the New York Times article 'PRAVDA CAUTIONS U.S. ON RIGHTS CRITICISM'. By David K. Shipler. March 14, 1977:
https://www.nytimes.com/1977/03/14/archives/pravda-cautions-us-on-rights-criticism.html#:~:text=Occasionally%20the%20digitization%20process%20introduces,from%20joining%20the%20Carter%20criticisms.

SIGN 504 CAMPAIGN: RIGHTS FOR DISABLED PEOPLE IN THE USA

In 1977 the rights and equality of a disadvantaged and overlooked, vulnerable section of the community was still left largely ignored: the disabled / handicapped community. 😔

1977 did something to address that iniquity.

Section 504 of the U.S Rehabilitation Act of 1973 prohibited against people with disabilities. It was signed into lU.S aw by President Richard Nixon, but its implementation was side-lined and delayed. This finally resulted in: (quote from Google AI):

'In April 1977, a series of protests, including a 25-day sit-in at a federal building in San Francisco, led to the signing of Section 504 regulations by HEW Secretary Joseph Califano on April 28, 1977. These regulations, stemming from the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, aimed to prohibit discrimination against individuals with disabilities in programs and activities receiving federal funding. The protests were a crucial step in securing civil rights protections for people with disabilities and laid the groundwork for future legislation like the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).'

The Sign 504 protest was successful in finally achieving the implementing of the Section 504 legislation - and greater freedom and equality for people with disabilities. 🙂

A link to the Wikipedia page on the 504 Sit-In:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/504_Sit-in#:~:text=The%20504%20Sit%2Din%20was,legislation%20in%20the%20United%20States.

A link to the National Museum of American History site article 'Sitting-in for disability rights: The Section 504 protests of the 1970s'. By Andrew Grim, PhD student, American Studies:
https://americanhistory.si.edu/explore/stories/sitting-disability-rights-section-504-protests-1970s#:~:text=On%20April%2028%2C%201977%2C%20Califano,the%20University%20of%20Massachusetts%20Amherst.

A link to the National Parks Service site article '504 Protest: Disability, Community, and Civil Rights':
https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/504-protest-disability-community-and-civil-rights.htm#:~:text=In%20April%20of%201977%2C%20a,the%20Rehabilitation%20Act%20of%201973.

1977 NATIONAL WOMEN'S CONFERENCE

BACKGROUND

1975 was the United Nations 'International Women's Year'. In the USA (quote from the Wikipedia page on the 'National Women's Conference':

'In 1972, the United Nations proclaimed 1975 as International Women's Year.[7] In the spirit of that proclamation, U.S. President Gerald Ford issued Executive Order 11832, creating a National Commission on the Observance of International Women's Year "to promote equality between men and women." Jill Ruckelshaus would be appointed its first chairperson...'

Two years of events and initiatives followed, culminating in the National Women's Conferencein1977.

THE CONFERENCE

The National Women's Conference was an event that took place in Houston, Texas, USA  between November 18tth. - 21st., for the purpose of furthering women's liberation causes in the USA and around the world.

In 1997 Democratic Party President Jimmy Carter was inaugurated, after winning the November 1976 U.S Presidential Election against Republican President Ford. President Carter appointed his own choice of chairperson for the National Commission: Congresswoman Bella Abzug.

The Conference was addressed by women's rights activists from across the political divide: including former U.S First Lady, Betty Ford, and current First Lady , Rosalynn Carter.

The Congress robustly debated issues concerning women's rights and liberation: issues that had been gaining a high profile during the 1970s, and progressing the cause of sexual equality.

A key element of the debates was the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA') (an amendment to the U.S Constitution) that was proposed to the U.S Congress for ratifications in (astonishingly) 1923: the ERA called for an end to all discrimination against women: complete equality of opportunity.

A link to the Wikipedia page on the ERA:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Rights_Amendment

In 1972 (also astonishingly) Congress agreed to put a limit of 7 years on the time remaining to either ratify or discard the ERA. One of the achievements of the National Women's Conference was to have the time extended to 1982. Still more astonishing, is that to date the ERA has still not been ratified by the U.S Congress.

The National Women's Conference of 1977 is remembered as a significant historical event in the history of Women's Liberation.

A link to the Wikipedia page on the 1977 National Women's Conference:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1977_National_Women%27s_Conference

A link to East Texas History site articles on the National Women's Conference, 1977:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1977_National_Women%27s_Conference

A link to the Hezakya Newz and Films YouTube video on the !977 National Women's Conference:
https://youtu.be/_cPFO_zTa_M?si=ZV2781YCC0HAbBUC

✓ RENÉE RICHARDS BECOMES THE FIRST TRANS ATHLETE TO COMPETE IN A MAJOR SPORTS EVENT: U.S OPEN TENNIS

1977 saw the first ever transsexual sporting competitor permitted to take part in a major sporting event: when U.S trans woman tennis player Renée Richards (formerly Richard Raskind) won her legal challenge to be allowed to compete in the U.S Open tennis championships.

Renée was 43 years old when she entered the tournament. She lost in two straight sets the first round to recently crowned Wimbledon champion Virginia Wade

Ms. Richards went on to make it to doubles and mixed doubles semi finals in major tennis tournaments, partnered by Virginia Wade, and Romanian men's tennis legend Ille Nastase.

Renée Richards' inclusion in the tournament was ground-breaking - but controversial. Top women's players such as Chris Evert and Martina Navratilova, who gave their support to transsexual people in generally, nevertheless commented on being against having to compete against a trans woman.

A link to the site Tennis World September 1, 2023 article by Lorenzo Ciotti: 'Chris Evert recalls what it was like to deal with a transgender athlete':
https://www.tennisworldusa.org/tennis/news/Tennis_Stories/137087/chris-evert-recalls-what-it-was-like-to-deal-with-a-transgender-athlete/

An article in We Are Tennis, states that:

'....Years later, Richards vividly criticised the over-opening of tennis to transgender players in official competitions. “I was over 40 years old when I became a professional player. I couldn’t beat players like Chris Evert or Tracy Austin, who were just 20,” she said in Slate in 2012. “Having lived for the past 30 years, I know if I’d had surgery at the age of 22, and then at 24 went on the tour, no genetic woman in the world would have been able to come close to me. So, I’ve reconsidered my opinion."...'

https://wearetennis.bnpparibas/en/news-tennis/stories-commitment/6276-1977-richards-from-man-to-woman

Renée Richards' breakthrough for trans competitors in major events did not open the door to steady inclusion of other trans athletes in major competitions. The next trans athlete to compare in a major sporting event was  New Zealand weightlifter Laurel Hibbard, in the 2017 World Weightlifting Championships in Anaheim, California, USA. Hubbard won a silver medal; she was only around a couple of months short of her 50th. birthday.

In 2020 she became the first trans competitor at an Olympic Games: in Tokyo.

HARVEY MILK BECOMES THE FIRST OPENLY GAY MAN TO BE ELECTED TO PUBLIC OFFICE IN THE USA

In 1977 former U S Navy Lieutenant Harvey Milk became the first openly gay person to be elected to office in the USA: he was elected onto the San Francisco Board of Supervisors; he took up the office on January 8th. 1978.

The position was of relatively small importance in the grand scheme of national and international politics, but was a significant breakthrough in the still quite new gay rights campaigning.

Harvey Milk would become involved in disputes and controversies in the course of 1978 - including his support for 'Jonestown' cult leader Jim Jones;  on November 27th,. 1978 Harvey was murdered by political rival Dan White.

A link to the Wikipedia page on Harvey Milk:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvey_Milk

A link to the Britannica site page on Harvey Milk:
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Harvey-Milk

✓ AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL IS AWARDED THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE

Good news to wind up this section: Amnesty international - the organisation set up in 1961 for the protection and representation of oppressed people around the world - and in particular political dissidents and prisoners - was awarded the 1977 Nobel Peace Prize 'for worldwide respect for human rights'. 🙂

A link to the 'Chronicles' article on the 1977 Amnesty international Nobel Peace Prize:
https://m.facebook.com/100041857974741/posts/1977-october-10th-amnesty-international-ai-is-awarded-the-nobel-peace-prize-amne/1456796232392295/

POLITICAL CARTOONS AND SATIRE

✓ The cartoon top left refers to the UK Labour Party Government's pact with the Liberal Party: the Lib - Lab Pact: which ensured that the enfeebled UK Government would survive a Vote Of No Confidence motion brought by the Conservative Party opposition.

The cartoon appeared in the Conservative Party supporting Daily Mail, and has Liberal Party leader David Steele on TV saying 'What do we stand for?'; and Labour Party PM James Callaghan smirking: 'Anything I dish out!'

Top centre shows a cartoon by Valtman, shows PM Menachem Begin of Israel and President Anwar Sadat of Egypt - and the ancient legend of the  tangled Gordian Knot: and shows them promising to try to solve the untying of the knot (a metaphor for solving Middle East conflict) without using the sword.

Top right: is a Herblock cartoon, which cautions scepticism about the charming new U.S President - Jimmy Carter.

President Carter's charm was based on his famous big smile. The cartoon shows Jimmy Carter as the smiling Cheshire cat, from the Lewis Carroll novel 'Alice In Wonderland': which slowly vanished, until all that remained was his smile...

The cartoon wonders if all 9f President Carter's promises would slowly vanish... Until all this remained was his smile... 😏

Bottom left: shows a cartoon by Dutch - German cartoonist Fritz Behrendt; it depicts I.S President Carter and Soviet President Brezhnev distrusting each other - and hiding weaponry from each other - leading up to the Strategic Arms Limitations Talks (SALT II), which commenced in March 1977.

✓ Bottom right; the cover of New Times magazine article 'Learning To Love The Neutron Bomb', by Sam Anson (artist unknown to me). The image shows U.S President Jimmy Carter like a rodeo rider on the back of a neutron bomb: whooping it up... 😏

The article, from August 5th. 1977, supports President Carter's approval of the development of the neutron bomb.

BACKGROUND

In July 1977 President Carter announced his support for the development of the neutron bomb - and its eventual deployment in Western Europe: in advance of a vote on this subject in the U.S Congress.

Congress voted in favour - and the proposal was passed to the U.S Senate for a Vote in September. The Senate also approved the proposal.

On reflection, President Carter really had little choice but to approve the development of the neutron bomb in July: as the SALT II talks had stalled, and he had cautioned the Soviet Union that he would sanction weapons development if they did not return to negotiations by May 1977: the SALT II negotiations did not resume until 1978.

A link to the 'Chronicles' article on the New Times magazine cover and article:
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1449426569795928&id=100041857974741

ROUNDING UP...

1977 - a year of events that mostly had little immediate impact on humanity and the world - but would have greater impact on the near - and further - future.

This was another year that, for the study of History, retrospectively showed the complexities of events: complexities that were not do clearly obvious at the time: the 'horse trading'; the wrangling; the noble ideals that clashed with other noble ideals... And led to longer term consequences...

The big good news from 1977? Amnesty International's recognition by the Nobel Peace Prize - the finally the rights of a shockingly overlooked and poorly treated vulnerable minority are addressed: disabled and handicapped people. 😎

(I found the various images used in the collage for this article online. My acknowledgment and thanks to the various people who posted them / own them. 🙂) (M).

Textual content © Copyright MLM Arts 13. 07. 2025. Edited and re-posted: 16. 07. 2025

1978: POLITICS, THE COLD WAR, AND CONFLICT

INTRODUCTION

When the 'Chronicles' recording of the 1960s was completed in 2014 I came to realise that that was a much easier and more free flowing task than the chronicling of the 1970s was going to be.

The 'causes' that were campaigned for during the 1960s. were straight up challenges to Establishment convention: inequalities and prejudices; fears and conflicts that were plainly wrong and had been allowed to go unchallenged for far too long. But the success of the 1960s counter culture in setting change for the better on motion, led to a 1970s protest scene that became more bullish and insistent on more and more concessions... And that led into increasing violence and aggression in demands for change. 😔

Before long, the protest scene began to fragment: splitting and subdividing into separate factions: often mutually hostile towards one another. 😔

Before commencing the chronicling of the, 1970s, I had to write a segway article explaining the differences that developed between the two decades. 🤔

1978: THE YEAR WHEN THE BLURRED LINES  BETWEEN PROTEST AND CONFLICT BECAME THE 'NORM'...

UK

✓ THE WINTER OF DISCONTENT

A 1970s of political and social conflict and confrontation in the UK: in which the Trade Union Council (TUC) became more militant and left wing than ever before, in response to a 1970 elected Conservative Party UK Government that introduced policies that antagonised working class people; that resulted in a Labour Party UK Government in 1974 that had a wafer thin majority - and was mailable to TUC pressure, which culminated in the meltdown of TUC - UK Government relations in 1978.

The UK Government attempted to impose a wage increase cap of 5% on public sector workers: which it expected private sector employers and employees to comply with.

Between 22 September and 22 November 1978, the trade union membership at the privately owned Ford motor company went on strike for a much higher wage increase.

The trade union movement called a Day of Action (strikes and protests l) to be held on October 11th. in  protest against the 5% wage rise cap.

The attempts to impose a meagre wage rise cap on public sector employees was scuppered when the private Ford motor company awarded its workers a rise that was over three times the government cap. The trade unions called strikes and restricted working across a range of public service employment in an attempt to demand that the 5% wage rise restriction must be scrapped: in view of the precedent set by the Ford motor company.
Between November 1978 and the UK General Election of May 1979 the UK was grinding to a halt. In May 1979 UK journalist Larry Lamb coined the term 'The Winter Of Discontent' to describe this period.

A link to the 'Chronicles' article on 'The Winter Of Discontent':
https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1732187688186480

A link to the 'Chronicles' survey of opinions on 'The Winter Of Discontent':
https://www.facebook.com/share/19VLYN1NvC/

THE LABOUR PARTY UK GOVERNMENT WHEELS AND DEALS TO STAY IN POWER

The Labour Party UK Government was elected on a slender 3 seat majority in October 1974. By 1977 that majority was lost in by-elections. To retain power the Labour Party negotiated an agreement with the Liberal Party (the Lib - Lab Pact) which guaranteed that the 13 Liberal Party Members of Parliament would vote with the UK Government in the Houses of Parliament. The Liberal Party announced an end to the pact in July 1978; the pact formally ended in September 1978.

THE GOVERNMENT SURVIVES A VOTE OF NO CONFIDENCE

In May 1977 the Labour Party UK Government had also secured the informal support of the British loyalist Ulster Unionist Party MPs, by promising to review the number of Northern Ireland seats in the UK Parliament. This would be significant towards the end of 1978.

On July 31st. 1978 the Labour Party Government made seductive overtures towards the 11 Scottish National Party MPs by introducing The Scotland Act: which promised a referendum on a devolved parliament for Scotland.

On November 9th. 1978 the Conservative Party brought a Vote of No Confidence motion against the Labour UK Government. The Government won the vote and remained in power: thanks to it's wheeling and dealing with smaller parties.
In 1979 the SNP would come to rue it's trusting the Labour Government's promises... 😳

On November 28th. (after surviving a Vote of No Confidence in the UK Parliament), the UK Government passed a bill through Parliament that increased the number of Northern Ireland MPs from 12 to 17 (later increased to 18).

UK: PROTESTS AND VIOLENCE

THE BATTLE OF BRICK LANE

During the late 1970s racial tensions had been growing in the UK - particularly in London. The right wing, openly racist, National Front political party was high profile (though did not have popular support).

In 1976 extremely racist comments  made by guitarist Eric Clapton while he was going through an addiction crisis, and which he later deeply regretted and renounced, at the time sparked the emerging New Wave UK music artists to form the Rock Against Racism youth movement. (See the 'Chronicles' section on 1976.)

In 1977 London saw the notorious 'Battle Of Lewisham' between National Front demonstrators and anti-racist counter demonstrators. (See the 'Chronicles' section on 1977.)

1978 saw another high profile notorious flare up of racial tension in the east end of London. The build up had been the provocative action by the National Front in setting up their HQ close to Brick Lane in London's East End: by that time a very Asian neighbourhood.

On May 4th. Bangladeshi textile worker Altab Ali was murdered in Whitechapel - in London's east end. He was murdered by three teenagers, one of whom it is reported told police:

"If we saw a Paki [Pakistani: all people from India were commonly, colloquially referred to as 'Pakis' by many in the UK] we used to have a go at them," he remarked. "We would ask for money and beat them up. I've beaten up Pakis on at least five occasions."

(See this link to the BBC News article: 'Altab Ali: The racist murder that mobilised the East End':
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-36191020 )

On May 14th. around 10,000 Bangladeshis and anti-racist supporters marched from Brick Lane to Downing Street in protest.

'The Battle Of Brick Lane' protest was a major catalyst for anti-racist protests and movements in London and the rest of the UK.

A link to the Tower Hamlets Council YouTube channel video on The Battle Of Brick Lane':
https://youtu.be/VHTijCA-mrU?is=A12DD5wwRWLZ5Wdq

AUSTRALIA: PROTESTS AND VIOLENCE

RIOTS AT SYDNEY GAY MARDI GRAS PARADE

June 24th. 1978 saw Australia's first ever Gay Mardi Gras parade, in Sydney, New South Wales. It was staged as a peaceful event and doubled up as a protest for Gay and Lesbian rights.

The National Museum Of Australia article on the 1978 Mardi Gras event states:

'On 24 June 1978 a small group of gay and lesbian people, called the Gay Solidarity Group, organised a day of events in Sydney. They wanted to promote gay and lesbian culture and protest against the discrimination they experienced in their daily lives. Even though the daytime march and night-time street parade were peaceful, police responded with violence and arrests. This brought national attention and helped to make the parade an annual Sydney event.'

The all day Mardi Gras event had been granted official permission by the police in Sydney, which permitted the Mardi Gras to proceed from Sydney's Oxford St. to Hyde. At some point in the event the revellers strayed outside of the permitted route. That prompted the police to revoke permission, and to move in to break up the event. Violet confrontation ensued, mostly on the part of the police (by most accounts), and arrests were made.

A peaceful parade / demonstration descended into a violent confrontation.

The outcome of the confrontation was that charges against those arrested were dropped; and changes were made to the New South Wales concerning permits for public assembly.

A link to the National Museum Of Australia site article: 'A civil rights milestone 1978: First gay Mardi Gras march, Sydney':
https://digital-classroom.nma.gov.au/defining-moments/first-gay-mardi-gras

USA: PROTEST AND VIOLENCE

✓ THE JONESTOWN MASSACRE

For the USA in 1978 probably the biggest story  was 'The Jonestown Massacre': the conflict within the Jonestown cult community the South American British Commonwealth country  Gayana, in which American communal cult leader Jim Jones instructed his armed security team to attack a U.S delegation that had come to investigate the community out of concern for the majority population which was comprised of U.S citizens as the delegation attempted to leave in light aircraft from a nearby airfield.

Deaths and woundings of the members of the U.S delegation resulted. Jones then ordered his community members to commit mass suicide by drinking a poisoned fruit drink: resulting in hundreds of deaths. Jones himself was discovered shot to death in a building within the community: believed to have been suicide.

'The Jonestown Massacre' story is very complex: a tangled story of politics, ideological dogma, narcissistic ego, and manipulation.  😔

A link to the 'Chronicles' article on 'The Jonestown Massacre':
https://www.facebook.com/share/19VLYN1NvC/

✓ THE ASSASSINATION OF SAN FRANCISCO POLITICIANS HARVEY MILK AND MAYOR GEORGE MOSCONE

On January 8th 1977 Harvey Milk became the first openly gay candidate to be elected to office in the USA; he was elected to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.

In November 27th. 1978 Harvey Milk and San Francisco Mayor George Moscone were assassinated by Dan White.

White had resigned from his post on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors on November 10th., but soon after asked Mayor Moscone to reappoint him. His reappointment was opposed by Harvey Milk.

There are differing ideas about why Dan White resigned from the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, but it can reasonably be assumed that his failure to be reappointed can be linked to his decision to assassinate Mayor Moscone and Harvey Milk.

A link to the 'Chronicles' article: 1978: 'NOVEMBER 27th.:THE ASSASSINATION OF SAN FRANCISCO POLITICIANS HARVEY MILK AND MAYOR GEORGE MOSCONE':
https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1896400808431833

POLITICAL CONFLICTS

AFGHANISTAN

✓ THE 'SAUR REVOLUTION'

Between April 27th. and April 28th. 1978 communist elements in the Afghan military staged a successful coup d'état' against the government of autocratic dictator President Daoud.

President Daoud had himself come to power in military coup in 1973. He had at first cooperated with leftwing political parties in Afghanistan, but from late 1975 onwards he began a purge of leftist in the Afghan military and in politics.

The assassination of the leftwing PDPA party leader in April 1978 led to the sudden, violent, and quickly successful coup d'état'.

A link to the 'Chronicles' article: '1978: April 27th - 28th. The Communist 'Saur Revolution' In Afghanistan':
https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1896400808431833

A link to the Wikipedia page on 'The Saur Revolution':
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saur_Revolution

A link to the Study IQ Education YouTube channel video on The Saur Revolution,:
https://youtu.be/W4v-o6KY-1I?is=Pd4AR7PZwqu7QN1I

IRAN

THE QOM ANTI-SHAH PROTEST AND THE BLACK FRIDAY GOVERNMENT ATTACK ON PROTESTORS

On January 7th  Propaganda was employed by the Shah's government to undermine and discredit the protests' key figure, Ayatollah Khomeini. This resulted in the what is referred to as 'The Qom Protest', on January 7th.(quoting from the Wikipedia page on 'The Qom Protest'):

'The 1978 Qom protest (Persian: تظاهرات ۱۹ دی قم) was
a demonstration against the Pahlavi dynasty ignited by the "Iran and Red and Black Colonization" article published on 7 January 1978 in Ettela'at newspaper, one of the two publications with the largest circulation in Iran. The article insulted Khomeini,..'

It is said that the article was written by an Iranian Government agent, and that it accused Ayatollah Khomeini of being both a British spy and communist conspirator.

That same day, Islamic seminaries (training schools for student clerics) were closed. This caused another reaction against the Iranian Government, led by the students from the seminaries.

A link to the Wikipedia page on the 'Qom Protest':
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_Qom_protest

BLACK FRIDAY

On September 8th. 1978 an anti-Shah protest in the Iranian capital, Tehran, resulted in Iranian Government forces opening fire on the protestors. The protestors retaliated. It is estimated that 64 protestors and 30 members of the security forces were killed, and over 200 people were wounded in this conflict.

The Iranian Government declared martial law. The rule of The Shah was becoming increasingly untenable.

Ayatollah Khomeini was obliged to leave his refuge in Iraq in October 1978, taking refuge instead in Paris, France.

A link to the Wikipedia page on 'Black Friday (1978)':
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Friday_(1978)

SOCIAL AND POLITICAL CONFLICT

✓ ABORTION ISSUE: PRO LIFE v. PRO CHOICE

The history of the abortion issue is long and complex. I recommend reading the 'Chronicles' article on the subject: please see the link below:
A link to the 'Chronicles' article on Roe v. Wade and the history of abortion laws and policies:
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/18uGsxotNj/

In 1978 events brought protests from pro-life / anti-abortion and pro-choice pro-abortion campaign groups.

Legal cases in the UK and in the USA had effects on abortion laws in those countries that would carry through to the present day.

A link to the more in-depth 'Chronicles' article on 1978 abortion issues:
https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1874535703951677

A YEAR OF INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM

✓ THE 'BRITISH - IRISH 'TROUBLES''

1978 began with the Provisional Irish Republican Army (P-IRA) continuing its  1977 strategy of attacking what it considered to be legitimate targets, and thereby avoiding civilian casualties and the negative publicity that came from those.

January brought a boost to P-IRA public opinion, when the European Court of Human Rights concluded its enquiry into a 1971 case brought against the UK by the Irish Republic, by finding against the UK.

In February the P-IRA undid the positive public opinion they had achieved, by killing civilians in the fire bombing of the La Mon restaurant.

March brought the Republican prisoners 'Dirty Protest' in Northern Ireland prisons: an attempt to regain the political prisoner status that they had lost in 1976.

The P-IRA attempted to regain positive public opinion by returning to targeting 'legitimate targets' in Northern Ireland and in England.

The Loyalist Ulster Defence Association (UDA) formed a political advisory group, the Ulster Political Research Group (UPGR) to look at possible political solutions to 'The Troubles'.

A link to the 'Chronicles' article: 'The British - Irish Troubles' 1978':
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1LwKzmN23H/

ITALY: THE KIDNAPPING AND MURDER OF ALDO MORO

ON March 16th. 1978 the Italian left-wing terrorist group known as The Red Brigades (formed in 1970) kidnapped former PM Aldo Moro in Rome. The group demanded the release of several political prisoners in return for Aldo Moro's safe release.

It is speculated that the earlier negotiations in Italian politics to give left wing political parties more say in government was a motivating factor in the assassination of Aldo Moro: with blame blame being levelled at both left wing and right wing extremist groups.

The Italian Government and parliament was divided between negotiating with the terrorists - and taking a stern position of no negotiations, while security forces hunted for the Red Brigades operatives and their captive, in the hope of staging a rescue. The no negotiations faction won the decision.

On May 9th. 1978, The Red Brigades assassinated Aldo Moro. 😔

A link to the 'Chronicles' article on 'The Kidnapping And Murder Of Aldo Moro':
https://www.facebook.com/share/1C1h7cGeJq/

TERRORISM AROUND THE WORLD

The 1970s was the decade that brought the use of terrorism as a means to protest and potentially achieve aims to the fore internationally.

The 'British - Irish Troubles' was the main focus of terrorist/ paramilitary activity from the start of the 1970s, but as that decade unfolded terrorist groups and actions became widespread and quite commonplace across the world.

I think this tragic state of affairs is brought into sharp focus in a way that's almost satirical (if it wasn't so tragic) by an event at the Hilton Hotel in Sydney, Australia, in which a bomb killed two garbage disposal men and a police officer. 😢

No group claimed responsibility; no motive was ever established; and no-one was ever arrested for the attack.'

To quote from the Wikipedia page on Terrorism in 1978:

'...The perpetrators were never identified, but the hotel was hosting the first ever Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting which was the likely target.'

Three innocent people, just doing their jobs, were murdered for no known motive, by no known person or group: terrorist activity brought to its ultimate expression of pointless, murderous, destructiveness... 😔

The very fact that there is a Wikipedia site dedicated to listing worldwide act of terrorism year by year is another testimony to how terrorism had become so commonplace during the 1970s. Giving details of all of the acts of terrorism and all the terrorist groups in all the countries where they were / are based would be time and space prohibitive - such is their number: so I have provided link to the Wikipedia page mentioned above. 😔

A Link to the Wikipedia page on: 'List of terrorist incidents in 1978':
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_1978

ROUNDING UP...

1978 was a year when so many events occured that would go on to affect and shape the immediately and long-term future: some in good ways, others in bad ways, and some a matter of opinion either way. 🤔

It was also another 1970s year in which the blurred lines between what might be considered legitimate protest and what might be considered conflict became pretty much impossible to clearly define. 😔

This overview of article on politics, the Cold War, and conflict during 1978 picks out examples of the above...

The feeble Labour Party UK Government's desperate wheeling and dealing to remain in power would ultimately result in the wrecking of the Labour Party as an electable party for some 18 years. The Scottish National Party that fell for the UK Government trickery would also slide from a position of strength into long-term enfeeblement.

These circumstances would greatly benefit the UK Conservative Party: and change UK politics forever.

Protest against the rule of the Shah in Iran, and the dithering and uncertainty in the USA as to how to react to this challenge to its Middle East ally, would lead to the overthrow of the Shah - and an implacable enemy of the West in Iran.

Similar U.S dithering and uncertainty about how to react to the communist revolution in Afghanistan would lead to the destabilising of that country that would last until the present day: and a military and political nightmare for both the Soviet Union and the West.

Terrorism continued to be the favoured method of protest for those more inclined towards violence as a solution to grievances than to dialogue and channels of international politics and diplomacy.

The blurred lines definition between protest and conflict was highlighted again by the abortion issue.   The agreed lines of acceptable criteria for abortion that had been assured in the UK in 1967 and the USA in 1973, had been pushed further and further since then: resulting in greater resistance from those who are opposed to the practice in the name of protecting vulnerable life: which in turn increased the reaction of those who prioritised women's right to choose.

1978 was a very difficult year to research. It was grim, bleak, and brought into focus what wasn't immediately obvious at the time: that it was a year of events that portended significant changes in the future - that would dramatically reshape politics, economic, and the social paradigm around the world... 😳

Change for better - or for the worst - overall...? That's a matter of individual opinion... My own tuppence worth...? Overall, it was change for the worst: and we've been living with the consequences ever since... 😔

(I found the various pictures used in this collage online. My acknowledgement and thanks to the various people who own them / posted them (identity unknown to me). 🙂) (M).

Textual content: © Copyright MLM Arts 18. 10. 2026. Edited and re-posted: 19. 10. 2026. Edited and re-posted: 30. 10. 2026

1978: PROTEST, SATIRE, ACTIVISM, AND CHANGE

(✓ = Items that have more detailed articles in the 'Chroniclers' section on 1978)

From the start of my recording the 1970s it was clear that it was a decade when disputes, divisions, subdivisions, and 'causes' - and the methods employed to promote them - blurred the lines between what could be called protest and activism - and what was better described as confrontation and conflict...   😔

This sketched overview of the protest, activism, satire (and / or social commentary), and change (for the better) during 1978, I think manages to make that distinction: while at the same time indicating the blurring of the lines... 🤔

✓ EGYPT - ISRAEL PEACE AGREEMENT

President Sadat of Egypt and Prime Minister Menachem Begin of Israel agreed to meet at Camp David, the U.S President's country retreat in Maryland USA, for talks aimed at reaching a lasting peace between their two nations. The talks were arranged and mediated by U.S President Jimmy Carter.

Israel and Egypt had been implacable enemies since the creation of a homeland for the Jews in 1947; and other Arab countries hostile to Israel condemned President Sadat and opposed the peace talks. This made the likelihood of success very slim... But President Carter and his diplomatic team devised what is now called 'Shuttle Diplomacy': keeping the negotiators in separate rooms while terms from each of them were delivered by U.S  mediators. This brilliant strategy finally brought agreement: The Camp David Peace Accords.

President Sadat and Prime Minister Begin shared the 1978 Nobel Peace Prize for their successful efforts in securing peace. 🙂

A link to the 'Chronicles'article on the Camp David talks and 'Shuttle Diplomacy':

A link to the 'Chronicles' article on the 1978 Nobel Peace Prize:
https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1718788532859729

✓ HOPE FOR PEACE IN RHODESIA (ZIMBABWE)

Prime Minister Ian Smith of Rhodesia, along with moderate black African majority leaders Bishop Abel Muzorewa, Ndabaningi Sithole, and Chief Jeremiah Chirau, signed The Salisbury Agreement (aka The Internal Settlement) that paved the way for a gradual transfer of power in Rhodesia from Ian Smith's white minority government to black African majority rule.

PM Smith was brought to the bargaining position by international sanctions against Rhodesia, by the seemingly unwinnable bush war against black African extremist groups, and by the recent victory by black nationalist communist forces in Mozambique.

Some were skeptical about PM Smith's sincerity in agreeing the deal: suspecting that he may have been only buying time to regroup and re-equip to enable his regime to remain in power.

A link to the 'Chronicles' article on The Internal Settlement:
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1739340800804502&id=100041857974741

✓ MEDICAL SCIENCE: IVF BREAKTHROUGH

Louise Joy Brown became the world's first baby conceived using In Vitro Fertilization (IVF): a medical science breakthrough that helped couples who had difficulty in achieving pregnancy, by means of medical interventions.

A link to the 'Chronicles' article on the first IVF baby:
https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1723803035691612

NOVEMBER 27th. - USESCO ANTI RACISM AND PREJUDICE

On this date the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) made the 'Declaration on Race and Racial Prejudice', stating that (my thanks to Google AI):

'...all humans belong to a single species, born equal in dignity and rights. It proclaims that racism, apartheid, and racial prejudice violate human rights and threaten international peace...'

A link to the UNESCO site article 'Declaration on Race and Racial Prejudice':
https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/declaration-race-and-racial-prejudice

ANTI-NEUTRON BOMB PROTESTS

OVERVIEW

Neutron Bomb: a nuclear bomb that minimised the destructive blast radius, but maximised the killing capacity of the radiation that it released. It was developed as a (supposedly) theatre of war / battlefield weapon (as opposed to the current nuclear weapons, which were for the purpose of mass death and destruction). The Neutron Bomb was also another attempt to bring the use of nuclear weapons into the popular psyche as 'acceptable' military options.

DEVELOPMENT

In 1977 the USA proposed the development of the Neutron Bomb as a Cold War tactical military option for deployment in Western Europe as an effective response to any potential invasion by the communist forces of Eastern Europe's Warsaw Pact countries.

On July 12th., President Jimmy Carter endorsed the proposal as a possible military option; on July 13th. the U.S Senate voted in favour of the development of this weapon; on September 29th. the U.S Congress also voted in favour.

OPPOSITION

Initially there was little opposition in the USA to the development the Neutron Bomb. It's worth noting though, that the proposed deployment would be in Western Europe.

The Soviet Union (leader of communist Eastern Europe) obviously objected to the development and deployment of the Neutron Bomb - and gained a propaganda victory over the USA by claiming that this was war mongering and an escalation of the nuclear weapons race; and also that in attempted to make the unthinkable - use of nuclear weapons -acceptable.

But it was in Western Europe that opposition was greatest and most effective. In The Netherlands and in West Germany demonstrations were staged against the development and deployment of the Neutron Bomb.

In April 1978 President Carter announced that the USA would shelved plans to deploy the Neutron Bomb in Western Europe.

(Footnote: It's notable that this was a shelving - not abandoning; and that it only applied to deployment - not development. After Presidential Ronald Reagan was elected in 1980, he committed the USA to the deployment of the Neutron Bomb. 🥺)

A link to the 'Chronicles' article '1977: THE U.S CONGRESS AND SENATE APPROVE THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE NEUTRON BOMB':
https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1449426526462599

A link to the Politico site article 'Carter shelves production of neutron bombs, April 7, 1978', by Andrew Glass 04/07/2019 07:08 AM EDT:
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/07/this-day-in-politics-april-7-1257024

WOMEN'S LIBERATION

April 7th. - 13th. saw the tenth - and last - UK National Women's Liberation Conference take place at Ladywood School in Birmingham.

These conferences had been held every year in different locations across the UK since 1970 (in 1974 there were two: one in Wales and one in Scotland).

This final National Women's Liberation Conference in the UK was particularly focussed on campaigning against violence against women.

The 'Reclaim The Night' campaign that was first launched in 1977 as a series of night-time marches by women to declare their protest against being advised against venturing out at night, was again endorsed.*

(*Between 1975 and 1981 the UK police was hunting for one of the country's most notorious serial killers: known to the public (via media reporting) as 'The Yorkshire Ripper'; later apprehended and identified as Peter Sutcliffe. He was convicted of murdering 13 women and injuring 7 others; there were 2 more women suspected to have been injured by Sutcliffe, and one more woman suspected to have been one of his murder victims. That was the reason for increased warnings to UK women to be careful outdoors at this time.

A link to the Wikipedia page on Peter Sutcliffe:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Sutcliffe )

The conference also featured elements that may (I suggest) be examples of how  protest movements (of all kinds) were becoming (by 1978, HAD become) fragmented and agenda divergent: in ways that would affect society in the future  and right up to date.

For examples:

The abortion issue that was becoming increasingly high profile and divisive in society, was promoted as a Women's Liberation issue: rather than a separate societal issue in its own right.

Heated discussions were held on attitudes towards men: with a (at that point minority) 'Men Are The Enemy' faction promoting a hostile attitude towards men.

The (at this time majority) view: that men and women could and should work together to achieve equality in society, opposed the negative and devisive attitude towards men.

Here's a quote from the Google AI response to a search for the 'Men Are The Enemy' faction at the 1978 Women's Liberation Conference:

'At the 1978 UK Women's Liberation Movement (WLM) conference, revolutionary feminists introduced a controversial position that defined men as "the enemy". This marked a shift from earlier socialist-feminist goals, with some factions arguing for the total destruction of patriarchy without male involvement.'

A link to the Womensgrid Archive site article: 'Seven pillars of liberation':
https://www.womensgrid.org.uk/archive/2009/06/28/seven-pillars-of-liberation-wlm-conference-1978/

For a link to the Google AI overview of the 1978 WLM conference: Google Women's Liberation Conference 1978.

A link to the Wikipedia page on National Women's Liberation Conference:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Women%27s_Liberation_Conference

GAY LIBERATION

Throughout human history and the development of civilization, the power of symbolism to unify and bring about cohesion and coherence within communities has been significant and important. In 1978 Gay  artist Gilbert Baker developed an existing and recognisable image - the rainbow: already a Judeo - Christian symbol of peace and reconciliation - for use in the cause of advancing the social and legal rights of the the Gay community: a cause that had been developing throughout the 1960s: gradually diminishing the influence of the decree by medical science that just being homosexual is a mental illness; and the secular laws that made the practice of homosexuality a crime.

The Rainbow was adopted by the Gay community and Gay Liberation as a symbol of humanitarianism: essentially, that homosexuality was just another part of the human experience for some people; and a symbol that many things make up the human experience.

(Footnote: at that time there was no high profile emphasis on any connection between Christianity and the oppression of homosexuality: it was a matter of oppression by the medical science  (psychiatry) and secular law. There was no high profile objection to the use of the rainbow as a Gay symbol. It was in more recent years (the last couple of decades) that a coordinated, deliberate campaign to 'blame religion - particularly Christianity' - for all the world's woes that the controversy over the use of the rainbow symbol arose: along with the inaccurate ides that Christianity was the cause of the oppression of homosexuality.)

Quote from Google AI overview:

'...Baker assigned specific meanings to each stripe: hot pink (sex), red (life), orange (healing), yellow (sunlight), green (nature), turquoise (magic/art), indigo (serenity), and violet (spirit)...'

A link to the Wikipedia page on the Rainbow Flag:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow_flag_(LGBTQ)

'THE BRITISH - IRISH TROUBLES'

This is a relatively small demonstration of some kind of cooperation and normal relations between British Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic, but it's history making in its way...

On September 20th. 1978 The Republic of Ireland hosted Northern Ireland at Landsdown Road stadium in Dublin in the very first football match between the two parts of Ireland. It was a qualifier for the 1980 European Championship competition.

The attendance was around 50,000, with thousands of Northern Ireland fans included. The event was heavily policed, but passed off peacefully.

Apparently, behaviour amongst fans and players alike could be described as pointedly polite an non-inflammatory.

The match finished 0 - 0; the return match in November 1979 finished 1 -0 to Northern Ireland. That match too was relatively peaceful.

For aink to the Google AI overview of the 1978 Republic of Ireland v. Northern Ireland match: Google Republic of Ireland vs. Northern Ireland football match 1978.

POLITICAL CARTOONS

Top right: Felix Mussil cartoon: President Carter depicted as titling the balance towards peace between Egypt and Israel: against the 'weight' of opposition from Arab countries.

Middle right: Baltimore Sun newspaper cartoonist 'Flannery' cartoon:  President Carter depicted as performing a miracle satirically akin to parting the Red Sea in his efforts to bring about peace between Egypt and Israel.

A link to the 'Chronicles' article on the Camp David 'Shuttle Diplomacy':
https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1426771962061389

Bottom right: Voltmann cartoon from 1976: anticipating Rhodesia's PM Ian Smith as possibly insincere about his his declared amenability towards the proposal of  the transfer of power, which was later agreed in 1978 in The Internal Settlement.

✓ Top left: Jonestown. A poignant Etta Hulme social commentary cartoon with the searching caption 'The answers are not clear - but the questions are...'

A link to the 'Chronicles' article on 'The Jonestown Massacre':
https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1711990673539515

Middle left:  Tom Johnstone cartoon: UK PM James Callaghan depicted trying to persuade the newspapers to downgrade his government's poll popularity from 5.5% to 5%: a joke aimed at his insistence on 5% as the maximum wage rise for UK workers during 'The Winter Of Discontent'.

A link to the 'Chronicles' article on 'The Winter Of Discontent (Part 1):
https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1732187688186480

Bottom left: (Cartoonist unknown to me): A cartoon poster for San Francisco Pride 1978. The event event had a particular focus on employment rights for Gay people.

ROUNDING UP...

As the 1970s went along, it became more and more clear that it was going to be a very, very different decade from the 1960s: in many ways: including the nature of protest and the things being protested for...

Straightforward freedom, justice, and equality for all had been successfully campaigned for and set in motion during the 1960s...

But human nature being what it is (in some respects), instead of knowing when a campaign is won and it's time to consolidate and compromise: the tendancy is to keep pushing for more and more: the door has been opened; concessions given - now let's try to smash it down completely... 😔

...And as well, let's no longer campaign for general freedoms for all: let's subdivide into cliques and factions: most likely mutually hostile towards each other... 😔

And let's now have violence and division: animosity and downright hatred towards factions and elements of society that don't accord completely with our faction...

That sounds a lot like today's society to.me... Looking back, I can identify the seeds of it in the late 1970s... 😔

(I found the various images used in this collage online. My acknowledgement and thanks to whoever posted them / owns them (identity unknown to me: other than some of the cartoons). 🙂) (M).

Textual content © Copyright MLM Arts 12. 05. 2026. Edited and re-posted: 11. 10. 2026

HISTORICAL RESEARCH Q: WHAT DO UK FOLKS REMEMBER / HAVE OPINIONS ABOUT THE   1978 - 1979 'WINTER OF DISCONTENT'...?

'The Winter Of Discontent' between September 1978 and February 1979 was a period of widespread trade union action against austerity in the beleaguered and economically struggling UK.

Since the Labour Party regained office in1974,  with a slender 3 seat majority in the General Election over a Conservative Party Government that been in a four year battle against the UK trade unions over pay and conditions, it had tried to reduce rampant inflation - while attempting to placate its trade union allies.

In fairness, between 1975 and 1978 the trade unions, under the collective banner of the Trade Union Council (TUC) worked with the Labour Party UK Government on reducing inflation: by accepting moderate pay rises for its members.

But in July 1978 the UK Chancellor of the Exchequer, Dennis Healy, imposed a 5% maximum pay rise for public employees (a lot of British industry was publicly owned at that time). The Trade Union Council (TUC) rejected that offer.

In September 1978, workers at  the private vehicle manufacturer Ford, went on strike for a higher rate of pay rise than the 5% imposed upon public sector employees - and recommended for the private sector. Ford agreed, and ended the strike by granting a whopping 15% rise.

That sparked a wave of industrial action across the UK by public sector workers in all industries: a wave of disputes that lasted throughout the winter: concluding in February 1979...

The newspapers - by far mainly Conservative Party supporting - were full of stories of garbage piled high in the streets, hospital patients left waiting for treatment, and, when gravediggers in Liverpool went on strike in January 1979, the morbid and emotive report of the deceased being left unburied. 😔

In May the Labour Party UK Government called the General Election that it was obliged to call in 1979 in any case.

Margaret Thatcher's right of centre Conservation Party won that election - and UK politics and society was changed forever.

'The Winter Of Discontent' was a pivotal occurrence in the shaping of the UK's future.  (M).

Textual content: © Copyright MLM Arts 20. 03. 2025. Edited and re-posted: 21. 03. 2025   

Th1978: APRIL 27th. - 28th.: THE COMMUNIST 'SAUR REVOLUTION'* IN AFGHANISTAN

...An event that shaped the world's future - right up to the present day...

(*Saur is the second month in the Afghan calendar.)

AFGHANISTAN HISTORY: A BRIEF OVERVIEW

ANCIENT

The history of the territory in the northwest of the Indian subcontinent  (though not geographically a part of the Indian subcontinent) known today as Afghanistan (though the term Afghan was first coined in 982CE in the Arabic geography book Hudud Al-Alam; the name Afghanistan as applied to the country was not used until 1747 (see below)), dates, by accepted historical estimates, to around 7000 BCE. For thousands of years It was a land populated by various tribal groups, with different cultures and traditions. The main tribal group is the Pashtuns; the term 'Afghanistan' originally described only the lands ruled by this tribe.

Between 7000 BCE and the present day, this territory has been invaded and temporarily ruled by some of history's greatest empires: the Persian Empire of Darius The Great in the 6th. Century BCE; and Macedonian Alexander The Great between 330 and 327 BCE.

MEDIEVAL

Various smaller empires ruled in the territory up to the rise of Islam in the 7th. Century CE, when the gradual Islamic conquest of the territory began; it was completed in 870 CE by the Persian Sunni Muslim Sarrafids dynasty, which ruled until 1003 CE.

From that age until the 1700s CE the land was under the rule various Persian dynasties. It was in 1747 that a Pashtun ruler, Ahmad Shah Durrani, established Afghanistan as a distinct country, the Durrani Empire / aka The Kingdom of Afghanistan.

1700s

Between 1747 and the middle of the 20th. Century rule over Afghanistan shifted several times. During the 1800s the country became a buffer between British Empire administered India and the Russian Empire: both empires determined to keep each other out of Afghanistan: and Afghan rulers vying for political advantages from both, while trying to maintain independence.

20th. CENTURY

After the First World War (WWI) (1914 - 1918), the now communist (since the Russian Revolution of 1917) Russia / Soviet Union spent the years up to the end of the Second World War (WWII) (1939 - 1945): (quoting from (The Alpha History education site article 'Soviets In Afghanistan' quotes historian Larry P. Goodson):

'...“Soviet involvement in Afghanistan, particularly since World War II, had been clearly designed to bring Afghanistan under Soviet hegemony. The USSR had used several methods interactively. Prior to World War II the focus was on purely diplomatic initiatives and economic aid, but after the war  [WWII] the Soviets expanded their approach to include military assistance and political manipulation....'

This influence by the Soviet Union, brings the Afghanistan story up to the 1970s, as the Larry P. Goodson article continues:

'...By 1978 these methods had succeeded:  ...Afghanistan’s nascent communist party was running the country.. " .. '

In the post-WWII years Afghanistan was a constitutional monarchy. Politically the country continued to court assistance from both neighbouring Russia (the Soviet Union) and the West, as it had done during the 19th. Century.

However, the Soviet Union's above mentioned policy of more direct military and political intervention was bringing communism greater influence in the Afghanistan. The communist People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA) was formed in 1965, and gained seats the Afghan Parliament.

1973: THE END OF CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY

Afghanistan remained a constitutional monarchy until July 17th. 1973, when Army General Mohammad Daoud Khan led a bloodless coup d'etat and deposed his cousin, King Mohammad Zahir Shah and established a republic.

General  Daoud Khan allied with communists and socialists in the Afghan military, and with the PDPA in politics; but he was essentially an autocrat, and remained neutral in Cold War affairs.

During the early years of his rule, Muslims became concerned about their religious freedom, and cultural and traditionalist conservatives became anxious about the loss of Afghan identity and tradition.

By 1975 General (now President) Daoud Khan found it more practical to distance himself and his government from communist and socialist politics - and from the Soviet Union - and move, diplomatically and politically closer to the USA.

A link to the Alpha History education site article: 'Soviets In Afghanistan':
https://alphahistory.com/coldwar/soviets-in-afghanistan/

A link to the PBS site article: 'A historical timeline of Afghanistan'. Updated on Aug 30, 2021 — Published on May 4, 2011:
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/asia-jan-june11-timeline-afghanistan

A link to the Wikipedia page: 'Timeline of Afghan history':
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Afghan_history

A link to the Wikipedia page on the 'Durrani Empire':
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durrani_Empire

A link to the New Internationalist magazine website article: A brief history of Afghanistan
https://newint.org/features/2008/11/01/afghanistan-history

A link to the Wikipedia page: 'European influence in Afghanistan':
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_influence_in_Afghanistan

A link to the Wikipedia page on the '1973 Afghan coup d'état': 1973 Afghan coup d'état
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Afghan_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat 

THE AFGHAN 'SAUR REVOLUTION'

From late 1975 onwards President Daoud began a purge of communist and socialist Afghan military officers, and also the persecution of PDPA and other leftist political movements. This obviously alarmed left wingers in the country, but it was the assassination of PDPA leader Mir Akbar Khyber on April 17th. 1978 that stirred great outrage.

Mir Akbar Khyber's funeral was held on April 19th., massive anti-government demonstrations began on that day and lasted until April 26th. President Daoud responded by ordering a major crackdown on the protestors and on his left wing political opponents.  In April 27th. the remaining leftist officers in the Afghan military, led by Nur Muhammad Taraki and Hafizullah Amin, staged a coup d'état' against President Daoud: and quickly overthrew the Daoud government and killed President Daoud. The 'Saur Revolution' was completed by April 28th.

A link to the Association for Diplomatic Studies and Training site article: 'The Saur Revolution: Prelude to the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan':
https://adst.org/2016/04/the-saur-revolution-prelude-to-the-soviet-invasion-of-afghanistan/

A link to the Radio Free Europe Radio Liberty site article: 'Afghanistan Still Facing Aftershocks Of 1978 Communist Coup'. (By Rehmatullah Afghan and Abubakar Siddique. April 27, 2020 12:10 CET)
https://www.rferl.org/a/afghanistan-still-facing-aftershocks-of-1978-communist-coup/29924804.html

THE AFTERMATH OF THE 'SAUR REVOLUTION'

RURAL, TRIBAL, AND RELIGIOUS RESISTANCE TO THE 'SAUR REVOLUTION'

Afghanistan is a complex country: geographically, religiously, and demographically. It is not one society, but several: the urban, the rural, the regional, the majority Sunni Islamic, and the minority Shi'a Islamic, the tribal...

Political and economic changes and decision making by the urban ruling section of society may not even register directly with the other sections of society... But interference in religious, cultural and traditionalist life did impact rural, regional, tribal, and religious life of that section of Afghan society.

The communist regime of Nur Muhammad Turaki attempted to implement secular communist uniformity upon a whole Afghan population. The result of this was (quoting from the Pung Media article: 'Tribal sociology and the central state in Afghanistan', by Mehmet Karakuş.):

'...[the communists took control] in 1978 through a bloody military coup. This coup, known as the ‘Saur Revolution’, established a Marxist-Leninist regime. The radical and secular reforms implemented by the central government in the villages sparked a massive wave of resistance amongst the devout rural population...'

This is a concise, but fairly accurate description of the reaction by rural and tribal Afghan communities against the restrictions and prohibitions on age old cultural and traditional lifestyles and beliefs that was imposed upon them by the communist central authority in the capital, Kabul. It can be of no surprise that tribal resistance to that dictatorial intrusion into their way of life was immediate and determined.

A link to the Pung Media article: Tribal sociology and the central state in Afghanistan (By Mehmet Karakuş. September 8, 2026)

REACTIONS FROM ORDINARY AFGHAN PEOPLE... 🤔

The Afghanistan Analysists Network site article 'An April Day that Changed Afghanistan. 2: Afghans remember the ‘Saur Revolution’' (By Kate Clark.
27 Apr 2018). is an excellent article for Afghan primary sources accounts of reactions to the 'Saur Revolution'. For example, to the question:

'What did you think about the coup at the time?'

A variety of answers include:

A schoolboy from Takhar:

'...[After arriving at school on the day of the communist takeover, and hearing radio broadcasts from the revolutionaries] The teachers told us to clap and then go into class. We didn’t learn anything that day. After only a few hours, we went home. My father asked why I’d come home early and I explained it all to him. “God bless us,” he said. “The future is not good.”

A schoolgirl from Kabul:

'...Since President Daud was well-liked by us all, we hated what was happening and also scared for our lives. President Daud had been famous for his achievements during the five years of his presidency. And on the other side, President Taraki, a man from rural Ghazni, was going to reside in the Presidential Palace. How sad...'

Alternative perspective:

Civil servant (and PDPA activist) from Kabul:

'I well remember the day of the Saur Revolution. I wrote two poems, one for the republican flag and this one, for Republican Day:

These are republican days, full of happiness
I cannot sleep because of happiness and delight
Everywhere, there is dance and music
What beautiful nights they are when you see others free
Young people are making efforts for the wellbeing of the country...'

A link to the Afghanistan Analysists Network site articles: 'An April Day that Changed Afghanistan. 2: Afghans remember the ‘Saur Revolution’'
By Kate Clark. 27 Apr 2018):
https://www.afghanistan-analysts.org/en/reports/context-culture/an-april-day-that-changed-afghanistan-2-afghans-remember-the-saur-revolution/

REACTION BY THE SOVIET UNION

Accepted accounts say that the Soviet Union did not plan or implement the 'Saur Revolution' as a covert operation in Afghanistan. Moscow, it is said, was surprised by the news of the sudden and successful Blues communist coup d'état' there.

However, what's less surprising is that once Moscow became aware of the establishment of a communist government in neighbouring Afghanistan, it quickly moved to support it, firstly by recognising the government led by Nur Muhammad Turaki as legitimate, and then with tangible aid: funds, equipment, and thousands of military and civilian advisors.

A link to the Afghanistan Analysts Network site article: 'An April Day That Changed Afghanistan 4: The evolution of the PDPA and its relations with the Soviet Union' (By Thomas Ruttig 3 May 2018):
https://www.afghanistan-analysts.org/en/reports/context-culture/an-april-day-that-changed-afghanistan-4-the-evolution-of-the-pdpa-and-its-relations-with-the-soviet-union/

REACTION BY THE USA

The New York Times had a headline and accompanying article on May 2nd. 1978 that declared:

'Afghan Coup Was Surprise to U.S'

And that was, by accepted accounts, the case.

The same New York Times article described how President Carter deplored the violence and loss of life caused by the coup, especially the killing of President Daoud, and that U.S citizens and property in Afghanistan were in no apparent danger.

The overall sense was that the USA had been caught wrong footed, unprepared, and in no position to actively reacts to the events in Afghanistan during or after the 'Saur Revolution'.

A cautious approach was taken in terms of politics and diplomacy.

A link to the New York Times article: 'Afghan Coup Was Surprise to U.S' (By Graham Hovey. May 2nd. 1978):
https://www.nytimes.com/1978/05/02/archives/afghan-coup-was-surprise-to-us-polices-not-yet-clear.html

ROUNDING UP...

This article about what could on the surface be seen as another of many coup d'état' revolutions during the Cold War era, is necessarily long: covering the background, the events themselves, and the reactions: both internal and international... That's because this turned out to be not just another of the many coup d'état' events in this history: the 'Saur Revolution' turned out to be an event that would shape events in the world and shake up the Soviet Union - and the West - in the immediate aftermath - and in the long-term: right up to the present day... 🤔

1978 was that kind of year: a year of events that would shape the immediate end long-term future: right up to the present day: the 'Saur Revolution' was one such event: a very significant one... 🤔

A link to the Wikipedia page on the 'Saur Revolution':
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saur_Revolution

A link to the Study IQ Education YouTube channel video on The Saur Revolution,:
https://youtu.be/W4v-o6KY-1I?is=Pd4AR7PZwqu7QN1I

(I found this picture online (and put the caption on top of it). My acknowledgement and thanks to whoever posted it / owns it (identity unknown to me). 🙂 (M).

Textual content © Copyright MLM Arts 15. 10. 2026. Edited and re-posted: 30. 10. 2026. Edited and re-posted: 31. 10. 2026. Edited and re-posted: 01. 11. 2026

1978: THE 'BRITISH - IRISH 'TROUBLES'

(✓ = Subject that has a separate article in 'Chronicles'.)

INTRODUCTION

1977 had begun very tragically in Northern Ireland, when a Provisional Irish Republican Army (P-IRA) bomb exploded in Belfast on January 1st. - killing a two year old boy. 😢

For the P-IRA it was a public relations disaster. Public opinion the in both Northern Ireland and in the Irish Republic - and around the world - turned against the Republican terrorists group.

This caused a big change in P-IRA strategy. Their terrorist activities would be much more carefully planned and carried out: bombings would give adequate advanced warnings so as to minimise any possibility of civilian casualties; and assassinations of specifically targeted individuals would become a key policy.

By the end of 1977 the P-IRA had recovered much of the public support that it had lost.

Events in early 1978 seemed, I can only surmise, to affect the P-IRA strategy makers for the worst, and to return them to an arrogant overconfidence in their standing with public opinion.

P-IRA STRATEGY THROUGH MOST OF 1978: TARGETED ASSASSINATION AND STRATEGIC BOMBING

During January 1978 the P-IRA continued its strategy of attacking what it considered to be legitimate targets: assassination of businessmen, businesses, members of the security forces, members of Loyalist paramilitary groups, and official buildings.

A link to the SFF Advocacy For Innocent Victims Facebook page article on the killing of off duty Ulster Defence Regiment corporal Cecil Grills:
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1BcEik4pEk/

A link to the Derry Journal article 'From the archive: Guildhall bombing attracts widespread condemation - January 1978' (published January 12th. 2018):
https://www.derryjournal.com/news/from-the-archive-guildhall-bombing-attracts-widespread-condemation-january-1978-715362

This strategy kept public opinion towards the P-IRA stable. On January 18th. the European Court of Human Rights concluded its enquiry into a a case brought against the UK by the Irish Republic in 1971 - and that gave the P-IRA a public opinion boost... 🤔

JANUARY 18th. - ECtHR JUDGEMENT AGAINST THE UK

On January 18th. 1978 The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) reached a judgment in a case brought by the Republic of Ireland against the UK (the first interstate case brought to the ECtHR) on December 16th. 1971, in which the Irish Republic accused the UK of inhuman treatment of Republican prisoners in Northern Ireland. The judgement found that the UK was guilty of inhuman treatment of the prisoners, but fell short of condemning the UK for the more serious offence of torture.

During the enquiry the UK had, in 1977, promised to cease using certain interrogation methods; and by so doing persuaded the ECtHR not to extend the judgment against the UK to one of being guilty of torture.

This ruling by the ECtHR restored the P-IRA and the Republican cause to the moral high ground in international public opinion.

A link to the Small Wars Journal site article: 'The Quantification of Pain: Ireland v United Kingdom (1978) and the Subjectivity of Torture' By Christopher Keith Johnson (04.04.2021):
https://smallwarsjournal.com/2021/04/04/quantification-pain-ireland-v-united-kingdom-1978-and-subjectivity-torture/

✓ FEBRUARY: THE LA MON FIREBOMBING

As I said above, I can only surmise about what prompted the P-IRA to commit yet another hideous taking of innocent civilian life in February 1978: and suggest that that organisation may have felt immune to public criticism after the ECtHR judgement in January.

At around 9.00pm. on February 17th. the P-IRA detotated a fire bomb laced with sugar (so as to have a similar effect to Napalm: clinging to surfaces, included skin) at the La Mon Hotel near Belfast. The hotel was busy at the time, holding social functions.  12 people died; 30 more suffered horrific injuries.

The effect of this atrocity worldwide was overwhelming sympathy and support for the victims of the bombing... And a public reaction against the P-IRA.

The restoration of international public support that the P-IRA had achieved by the ECtHR judgment in January hasd been undone by the La Mon bombing atrocity.

A link to the 'Chronicles' article on The Fire Bombing:
https://www.facebook.com/share/1DkXWGeHEe/

MARCH: REPUBLICAN PRISONERS' 'DIRTY PROTEST'

This is again surmising on my part, but I will suggest that that the protest strategy referred to as the 'Dirty Protest', that Republican prisoners in the Maze prison and Armagh women's prison embarked upon in March 1978, was adopted at least in part as a propaganda / public relations exercise in an attempt to regain positive international public opinion and sympathy.

The so-called 'Dirty Protest' involved prisoners remaining in their cells, wrapping themselves in their prison blankets, and refusing to wash or to properly dispose of their own human waste. The obvious result of this action was the gradually deterioration of hygiene - eventually to inhuman levels.

The reason given was that the British authorities had removed 'special status' (effectively the status of political prisoners, rather than criminals) from Republican prisoners; but this status had been removed around two years earlier, in 1976. The ECtHR ruling against the UK in January 1978 had conclusively settled the question of the treatment of Republican prisoners - without any reference to the 'special status' issue.

In June 1980 the European Commission of Human Rights heard a case brought by four of the Republican 'Dirty Protest' prisoners  against the British authorities. The ECHR rejected the prisoners case, in the grounds that they insanitary conditions that they were living in were self-inflicted.

While the 'Dirty Protest' went on it had only a moderate influence on public support for the republican cause. The media gave the protest minimal coverage, and there was a mix in public opinion of sympathy for people living in such barbaric conditions - but that was moderated by an awareness that these conditions were not British prison policy, but rather a choice made by the prisoners.

The 1980 ECHR ruling pretty much ended the publicity value of the 'Dirty Protest'; the P-IRA prisoners would soon after adopt more extreme methods of protest: hunger strike. 😔

A link to the Wikipedia page on The Dirty Protest:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_protest

A link to the Project Muse site article: “Inhuman Conditions Prevailing”: The Significance of the Dirty Protest in the Irish Republican Prison War, 1978–81
Rachel Oppenheimer, Éire-Ireland. Irish-American Cultural Institute Volume 49, Issues 1 & 2, Spring/Summer 2014:
https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/41/article/545320

P-IRA STRATEGY FROM MARCH TO DECEMBER 1978

The P-IRA focused on commercial and economic targets in Northern Ireland and in the UK for the remainder of 1978.

In December the P-IRA carried out a series of attacks against commercial properties in the UK: to cause maximum despair in the approach to the Christmas holiday. There were no fatalities, but 14 people were injured in the attacks.

A link to the Washington Post article Terrorist Explosions Injure 14 In 6 English Cities (December 17th. 1978):
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1978/12/18/terrorist-explosions-injure-14-in-6-english-cities/6b65d72f-194c-491c-ad22-e86d6691918f/

LOYALIST PARAMILITARY ACTIVITY 1978

During 1978 Loyalist paramilitary activity was less high profile than in previous years.

The Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF) had been banned since 1975. The Ulster Defence Association (UDA) remained a legitimate organisation.

Like the Republican paramilitaries, the Loyalist paramilitaries had smaller splinter groups that either were or were suspected of being associated with the main organisations. For example, The Red Hand Commandos were linked to the UVF, and the Ulster Freedom Fighters were linked to the UDA.

The main violence carried out by Loyalist paramilitaries in 1978 was a speight of abductions, torture, beatings and murders carried out against the Republican population.  😔

(Please see the link to the University of Ulster CAIN site in 1978, below.)

LOYALIST POLITICS 1978

It was Loyalist politics that was most significant during 1978. In January the UDA set up the admirably progressive Ulster Political Research Group (UPRG) as a body that would advise the UDA on a new and reasonably structured political way forward.

In 1979 the UPRG would produce the document 'Beyond The Religious Divide', which would propose a solution to 'The Troubles' that was based on mutual respect and equality for all citizens of Ulster as a state independent of both the UK and the Irish Republic.

A link to the Wikipedia page
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulster_Political_Research_Group

UNIVERSITY OF ULSTER CAIN SITE

I highly recommend the University of Ulster CAIN site (Conflict and Politics In Northern Ireland) for detailed information on 'The Troubles'. Below is a link to the CAIN information on 1978.

A link to the University of Ulster CAIN site (which gives detailed information on 'The Troubles') page: Chronology of the conflict: 1978:
https://cain.ulster.ac.uk/othelem/chron/ch78.htm

CONCLUSION

1978 was a year of political and legal wrangling and manoeuvring for the Republican and Loyalist sides in 'The Troubles': particularly the Republicans.

The P-IRA had recovered much of the public sympathy that it had lost after the January 1st. 1977 killing of a 2 years old child in Belfast. It had restructured it's strategy to absolutely minimise civilian casualties through the rest of 1977.

In January 1978 the P-IRA got a major PR boost when the ECtHR reprimanded the UK for its treatment of Republican prisoners.

Bewilderingly, the P-IRA returned to reckless terrorism and the taking of civilian life in a hideous fire bombing. ... And public opinion was again lost.

March saw the start of the P-IRA public relations driven 'Dirty Protest' by Republican prisoners. It had very little affect on public opinion.

The remainder of 1978 saw the P-IRA return to a strategy of targeting what it considered to be 'legitimate targets': presumably it hoped that this, along with the 'Dirty Protest' would repair its public opinion standing.

LOYALIST ACTIVITY

The Loyalist paramilitaries were lower profile during 1978. Their activities were, however, particularly brutal, in that they targeted random people from the Republican community, and tortured and murdered them.

Politically, the Loyalist UDA showed forward thinking initiative and a creditable attempt to seek a reasonable political solution to 'The Troubles', by setting up the UPRG to look at a possible cross community cooperation and independence.

1979

The activities of both the Republican and Loyalist camps during 1978 did nothing to reduce the violence or social division'The Troubles'.

1979 would see a laudable attempt by the UPRG to suggest a solution to 'The Troubles' that was an alternative to British Unionism or Irish Republicism.

The Republican paramilitaries would ramp up their targeted violence to significant effect. 😔

(I found the images used in this collage online (and turned them into this image for 'Chronicles'). My acknowledgement and thanks to whoever posted them / owns them (identity unknown to me). 🙂). (M).

Textual content © Copyright MLM Arts 10. 10. 2026. Edited and re-posted: 11. 10. 2026

1978: ABOTION ISSUES: PRO-LIFE - PRO-CHOICE

FOREWORD

1978 proved to be very much a pivotal year in the controversial and emotive issue of abortion rights. This article attempts an informative and impartial overview of the developments during that year. Those developments were the roots of how the abortion issue developed right up to this day.

INTRODUCTION

The history of the abortion issue is long and complex. I recommend reading the 'Chronicles' article on the subject:; please see the link below:

A link to the 'Chronicles' article on Roe v. Wade and the history of abortion laws and policies:
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/18uGsxotNj/

THREE PARTICULARLY RELEVANT POINTS

1. In modern history going back several centuries, abortion banning was never a religious matter; nor was the Law fully formally involved; the medical profession took no part in the pregnancy and delivery process.

It was  on the 1860s, when the medical profession took control of the pregnancy and delivery process, that the formal, clinically trained overseeing of pre-natal care and a ban on abortion was introduced by law. Abortion was only a legally available option if the mother's life was at risk.

2. From this time onward, illegal abortionists carried out abortions for women who were desperate and, for various reasons, could not cope with the prospect of birthing and raising a child. It is possible (though documented evidence is not available to me) that before the medical profession took charge, abortions were carried out by midwives after consultation with the mother - but these were recorded as still births, attested to by the midwives, and the law and the Church accepted that and dealt compassionately with the deceased child and the bereaved mother and family.

3. When abortion laws began to be eased (in the UK in 1967, and in the USA in 1973, for example), assurances were put in place that abortion would be rare, and would only be carried out under tight legal restrictions: most notably that abortion could not be carried out after the first three months of pregnancy, and had to have the approval of two doctors: unless the mother's life was at risk; but in the case of risk to the mother's life, abortion could be an option after the three months period.

PRO-LIFE PROTESTS

It was this removal of the protection of pre-born babies by the medical profession and the law that prompted groups to form that would protest in defence of the pre-born human beings (which is how they described conceived humans in the womb).

The majority of the protestors (but not all) had / have a  religious affiliation to one faith or another. However, their reason for protesting was / is not religious perse: it is the protection of the unprotected; the defence of human life; the recognition of the inherent value of human life: from conception:  considerations that happen to accord with their religious and humanitarian ethics.

PRO-CHOICE PROTESTS

At the same time that groups formed to campaign against abortion, pro-choice / pro-abortion movements campaigned for abortion laws to be retained and further extended: made available at several weeks past the three months period, and with less rigourous assessment of the mother's need for the procedure.. The ultimate aim was abortion on demand, with no medical reason required, at any point during a pregnancy.

Reasons highlighted were the risk to the mother's life by having to visit illegal abortionists; and the criminalising of desperate women who were driven to this extreme; the psychological damage to women who were made pregnant as a result of violent abuse; and women's freedom to pursue their own lifestyle choices unburdened by a pregnancy that was intentional and unplanned.

Moreover, the Pro-Choice movement promoted the status of the developing foetus (their preferred term) as not being fully or acceptably human - and therefore not deserving of human rights.

ABORTION CRITERIA BY 1978 (Some examples)

USA: First trimester (3 months of pregnancy): decisions on abortion were between the woman and her doctor. Second trimester: abortion was legal, but under strict medical supervision and criteria. Third trimester: abortion could be allowed if the woman's life was at risk or if the foetus / baby had abnormalities.

In USA up until 1976 abortion required the consent of the spouse of the woman involved, or the parent if the pregnancy involved an underage girl. That changed when the abortion providing organisation Planned Parenthood brought a court case in 1976.

The Planned Parenthood Missouri v. Danforth case was brought by two physicians representing Planned Parenthood against the State of Missouri, represented by Attorney General Danforth. The case claimed that Missouri abortion laws were unconditional. The Planned Parenthood claim was upheld.

This is a quote from the Arizona State University site article 'Planned Parenthood v. Danforth (1976)':

'On 1 July 1976, the US Supreme Court decided in the case Planned Parenthood v. Danforth that provisions of a Missouri law regulating abortion care were unconstitutional. That law, House Bill 1211, restricted abortion care by requiring written consent for each abortion procedure from the pregnant woman as well as written consent of the woman’s husband if she was married, or the written consent of her parents if she was unmarried and younger than eighteen...'

The law was changed in Missouri to disqualify the need for consent by the spouse, or consent from parents in the case of an underage pregnancy.

This ruling set a precedent that had on-going effects for abortion law in the USA.

A link to the Arizona State University article Planned Parenthood v. Danforth (1976). By: Carolina J. Abboud. Published: 2017-11-15:
https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/planned-parenthood-v-danforth-1976

A link to the Wikipedia page 'Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth':
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood_of_Central_Missouri_v._Danforth

UK: Abortion was legal up to 28 weeks of pregnancy (two trimesters), and required only verification of necessity by two doctors. The father of the foetus / baby was not involved in the decision.

In the case of underaged pregnancy, doctors decided whether or not the girl was mature and competent enough to make the decision without parental involvement. This situation was challenged in court in 1978 (see below).

For third trimester abortions, abortion could be allowed if the woman's life was at risk or if the foetus / baby had abnormalities.

USSR: Abortion had been made legal in 1955, but by the 1960s the USSR Government launched a public advisory campaign advising women against abortion, on the grounds that it could cause mental and physical health problems.

A link to the 'Chronicles' article on the USSR Government advice against abortion:
https://www.facebook.com/share/19cD6UynqG/

AN OVERALL BAN

In every country, a self inflicted abortion, or an abortion carried out by an unregistered, unqualified person (sometimes called a 'back street abortion')  was a criminal act. That would be challenged in 1978.

ACTIONS DURING 1978

In Italy, The Irish Republic, and Australia abortion / family planning clinics opened for the first. Pro-life protestors held demonstrations against them.

In the UK a bill to curtail abortion laws was presented before the UK Parliament by Conservative Party MP Sir Bernard Braine. Pro-Choice protestors demonstrated against it. The bill was defeated in Parliament.

Around the world various March for Life events were held by the Pro-Life movement.

In UK and in the USA there were legal cases brought by / or against individuals that brought about changes to abortion and contraception laws, or introduced points of reference for attorneys to cite in future abortion cases. These are described below.

CHANGES DURING 1978

1978 saw the use of what might be referred to as 'Lawfare' (the use of legal cases to create precedents that compel a change in the law) to bring about more liberal laws concerning abortion.

UK

MAY 19th. - PATON v. BPAS

William Paton challenged his estranged wife's decision to abort her pregnancy, by taking out an injunction against the procedure at the High Court. The pro abortion charity The British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS) became involved on behalf of the pregnant woman.

British 1967 abortion law made no provision for the rights of fathers to prevent the aborting of the child that they had conceived, so if successful the Paton v. BPAS case would have set a precedent.

In a heart-rending plea, it was reported in the Washington Post that Mr. Paton told reporters:

'..."I feel that the baby is half mine and I should have the right to say what happens to it," William Paton told reporters. "I want that baby more than anything on this earth."...'

Presiding Judge Sir George Baker dismissed the application for injunction, on the grounds that the 1967 Abortion Act did not provide for the rights of the father to seek an injunction.

A link to the Washington Post article: 'Father Opposes Abortion' (May 19, 1978):
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/national/1978/05/20/father-opposes-abortion/f4dfdd02-eb55-441d-b8a7-734622b06e4f/

A link to the vLex (legal research) site page 'Paton v British Pregnancy Advisory Service Trustees':
https://vlex.co.uk/vid/paton-v-british-pregnancy-804747053

JULY 27th. - MRS VICTORIA GILLICK GOES TO COURT IN DEFENCE OF PARENTS' RIGHTS TO INVOLVEMENT IN THEIR CHILDREN'S BEHAVIOUR

The Victoria Gillick case (July 27th. 1978): Mrs. Victoria Gillick went to court to challenge the right of a doctor to offer contraceptive advice to her under age daughter without the consent of the girl's parents.

The court decided against Mrs. Gillick on the grounds of preventing unwanted pregnancies and other problems associated with sexual activity.

Mrs. Gillick (and those who supported her) was distressed at the loss of the rights of parents to be responsible for the protection of, and the bringing up and instruction of their children.

The case set a precedent in laws concerning the sexual activity of children and the rights of parents to intervene and restrict that activity - including abortion.

A quote from the Guardian newspaper archive, 27 July 1978: 'Mother loses test case over pill':

'...Mr Justice Woolf said in the High Court that children under 16 were entitled to receive contraceptive advice without the knowledge or consent of their parents if the alternatives were unwanted pregnancies, abortions, and venereal diseases. It was possible that young girls who were refused the pill, unless parental consent was obtained, would go ahead with sexual relationships and risk the consequences, he said. After the hearing, Mrs GiIlick of Wisbech, Cambridgeshire said that the ruling made parents like themselves "second-class citizens" without the final say about vital matters. "I have been told I no longer have the right to protect my children – that right has been taken away from me by the state," she said. ...'

A link to the Guardian newspaper article 'From the archive, 27 July 1978: Mother loses test case over pill' (Penny Chorlton Sat 27 Jul 2013 00.05 BST):
https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2013/jul/27/archive-1978-gillick-mother-loses-case

USA: THE MARLA PITCHFORD CASE

Marla Pitchford became the first high profile case of a woman being brought to trial for the crime of self-inflicted abortion.

In the USA in 1978, a 22 year old student named Marla Pitchford discovered that she was over 20 weeks pregnant: into the second trimester. Accounts state that she and her fiance both decided on abortion. Ms. Pitchford attended an abortion facility on Kentucky, but was refused an abortion as she did not meet the strict criteria.

Ms. Pitchford's fiancé abandoned her. Shortly afterwards, distressingly, Ms. Pitchford used self-inflicted methods to induce an abortion. She suffered serious physical injury as a result and was admitted to hospital, where she admitted what she had done. The police were called, and Ms. Pitchford was arrested.

In August 1978 Marla Pitchford was before a grand jury - charged with manslaughter. Her attorney, Flora Templeton, succeeded in getting her acquitted on the grounds of temporary insanity.

The verdict did not change the law in Kentucky or in the USA, but it did serve as a point of reference or citation for attorneys in future similar cases.

A quote from the Progressive Magazine article

'In 1978, just five years after the Supreme Court enshrined abortion rights in federal law, Roe v. Wade was put to a dramatic test....

...Engaged to be married, Marla Pitchford discovered she was unexpectedly pregnant. When she told her fiancé, he insisted she get an abortion and drove her to clinics in Louisville, Kentucky and Nashville, Tennessee. Because she was twenty to twenty-four weeks pregnant, the clinics turned her down.

After a wild outburst and then abandonment by her fiancé, Pitchford grabbed the knitting needle from her sewing kit and plunged it into her body. A few days later, after she almost died of sepsis in a hospital, a nurse contacted the police. She was indicted for manslaughter and self-inducing an abortion after the first trimester...'

A link to The Progressive Magazine article 'The 1978 Abortion Trial That Foreshadowed Our Present-Day Dystopia' (by Katherine van Wormer The Latest August 19, 2022 9:00 AM):
https://progressive.org/latest/1978-abortion-trial-foreshadowed-present-day-vanWormer-081922/

CONCLUDING

1978 brought events in abortion campaign that would bring about changes in abortion law that have an impact today.

The pro / anti abortion protest issues began as high profile protests in 1967 in the UK, after the Abortion Act,and in 1973 in the USA after the Roe v. Wade trial made abortion a federal issue. (Apologies for not knowing the laws in other countries).

Since then, pro-life activists have been ceaselessly campaigning to reel back the provision of abortion; and pro-choice activists have been ceaselessly campaigning to extend the provision of abortion.

The issue is extremely controversial and contentious.

What I think is worth pointing out, impartially, is that, like all movements that campaign to change laws that concern life and death, abortion laws were introduced with assurances that abortion would be rare and only allowed under strict criteria. And like all laws of this kind, once granted, pressure from campaign groups results in those strict criteria being gradually relaxed - and provision for implementation  becomes more widespread... And the push for even freer access to abortion continues to be pressed.

Currently, in some parts of the world abortion is available right up to the full nine months of pregnancy: again, this comes with the promise of it only happening rarely and under extreme circumstances.

Some prominent Humanists are already pushing for abortion to be available after the birth of a child: even up to 2 years old.

Meanwhile, pro-life / anti-abortion activists campaign for abortion rights to be curtailed: returned to the provision criteria 'only in extreme circumstances'.

The campaigners are often religious, mostly Christian. Consequently, pro-choice activists effectively 'straw man' the issue by making it about interference by the Church. Abortion is not and never has been a Christian Church issue. The protestors happen to be mostly Christian, but only because protection of life accords with their ethical and humanitarian sensitivities: they'd most likely be pro-life whether they were Christian or not.

Cases like Marla Pitchford perhaps point to the continued need for access to abortion when the  women's material, emotional, and mental circumstances are considered...?

But perhaps the case of William Paton in the UK should lead to a consideration for the emotions and mental effect on the father in an abortion case: in the case when the child is knowingly conceived within a caring relationship, and the father deeply an sincerely wants to raise his child...?

NEUTRALITY

This article for this history site is solely for the purpose of reporting the information.

It may also prompt thoughtful discussion.

The question remains one of individual interpretation: of the law; of civil rights; of human rights; of how each person considers human life and the value of human life; and more... 😔 (M).

A link to the Google AI search on pro-choice and pro-life activities in 1978:
https://www.google.com/search?q=1978+abortion+protests&oq=1978+abortion+protests+&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIHCAEQIRiPAtIBCTEzNDc1ajBqNKgCAbACAQ&client=ms-android-motorola-rvo3&sourceid=chrome-mobile&source=chrome.ob&ie=UTF-8#lfId=ChxjMe

(I found these images online (and made the article picture from them). My acknowledgement and thanks to whoever posted them/ owns them (identity unknown to me)). (M).

Textual content: © Copyright MLM Arts 21. 09. 2026. Edited and re-posted: 23. 09. 2026

1978: FEBRUARY 17th. : THE LA MON HOTEL FIRE BOMBING 😔

This incident is recorded as the most horrific of all the violence of 'The British - Irish Troubles' during 1978. I is one of the most horrific events in all the history of 'The Troubles'. 😔

THE LA MON HOTEL FIRE BOMBING

On February 17th., 1978, at 9.00pm., an incendiary bomb (consisting of petrol mixed with sugar: the sugar giving the mixture the effect of clinging to the surfaces that it connected with), was detonated by operatives in the Provisional Irish Republican Army (P-IRA) outside a window of the premises of The La Mon Hotel (outside the crowded restaurant), in Gransha, County Down, Northern Ireland. 😔

The explosion and resultant fire caused 12 deaths: (7 women and 5 men) and more than 30 injuries: many of them the result of severe burns.

The 12 who died were civilians from the British Loyalist community. 😔

The hotel was bombed not as a military target, but as as part of the P-IRA strategy of undermining the economy of Northern Ireland: by targeting businesses, and by assassinating businessmen who brought business to the province. This, alongside the P-IRA attacks on security forces and the Loyalist community, was intended as an attempt to force the UK Government into withdrawal from Northern Ireland because of economic pressures.

THE AFTERMATH

The La Mon Hotel Bombing was a public relations and propaganda disaster for the P-IRA. It was condemned worldwide: including in the Irish Republic.

It is reported that even one (or possibly more than one) of the P-IRA operatives that took part in the incident was deeply emotionally affected by it.  A 12. 11. 2022 article by journalist Hugh Jordan, in the site Crime World (the digital rebrand of the Irish newspaper The Sunday World), is headlined:

'IRA bomber involved in La Mon Hotel atrocity says he is consumed with guilt'

The day after the attack, the P-IRA admitted responsibility for the bombing; and issued a statement regretting the loss of life and the injuries caused. They stated that they had attempted to phone an advanced warning to the hotel, but it proved to be inadequate to provide enough time to evacuate the premises.

After 'The La Mon Hotel Bombing' (and its adverse publicity), the P-IRA would, as a consequence,  alter its strategy: issuing instructions to its operatives that they must no longer target public buildings, like hotels and restaurants, or public transport.

ROUNDING UP... 😔

When atrocities happened during 'The Troubles': incidents that played very badly with public opinion,  those responsible for them would release apologies and regrets (which, when reading between the lines, tended to double-up as excuses)...

They always rang hollow with the public... 😔

So it was after 'The La Mon Hotel Bombing'. The P-IRA issued its regrets / excuses (insufficient time to evacuate the premises after an attempted warning...)

...But there is cause to ask legitimate questions: the very same regret / excuse was offered by the P-IRA after its previous public relations disaster incident: the killing of 15 month old baby Graeme Dougan, in a car bombing of a Loyalist area in Belfast - on January 1st. 1977: only a little over a year earlier... 😢

It is clear that no lessons were learned by the P-IRA... 😔

February 17th., 1978: the La Mon hotel bombing: the very same regrets / excuses... And the same hollow ring... 😔

And as well: if this was a strategy aimed at disrupting commerce and the economy in Northern Ireland, then why bomb the business during a peak time for its restaurant custom....? Why not when the restaurant was empty - during the early hours of the morning, for example...? That would have disrupted business - but minimised the risk of killing and injuring people.  🤔

These criticisms are not aimed only at the Republican paramilitaries: the Loyalist operated in the same way - and are equally culpable. But this article is about a particular horrific incident: carried out by the P-IRA. 😔

The P-IRA changed its strategy as a result of 'The La Mon Hotel Bombing', but the brutality, death, injury, and destruction committed on all sides during 'The Troubles' did not decline in the least while 'The Troubles' continued... 😔 (M).

A link to the Ancient Ireland And Beyond Facebook page article on the La Mon Hotel Bombing:
https://www.facebook.com/share/189UursEXn/

A link to the Troubles Pod Cast YouTube channel video on The La Mon Hotel Bombing:
https://youtu.be/pyqNEkftwLU?si=SOA16OglNSvV3YBD

A link to the Wikipedia page on The La Mon Hotel Bombing:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Mon_restaurant_bombing

A link to The Police Ombudsman (For Northern Ireland) report: ‘Earnest endeavour’ in RUC investigation of La Mon bombing compromised by acquittal of accused. Published Date: 11 December 2024:
https://www.policeombudsman.org/investigation-reports/historical-investigations/%E2%80%98earnest-endeavour%E2%80%99-in-ruc-investigation-of-la-mon-bombing-compromised-by-acquittal-of-accused

A link to the Crime World site article mentioned above (the site requires subscription to read the full article):
https://www.crimeworld.com/sundayworld/ira-bomber-involved-in-la-mon-hotel-atrocity-says-he-is-consumed-with-guilt/a/104130793.html

(The image used with this article is from the Facebook page 'Ancient Ireland And Beyond' article on the La Mon Hotel Bombing (see link above); I added the caption on top. My acknowledgement and thanks to that site. 😔) (M).

Textual content © Copyright MLM Arts 07. 07. 2026. Edited and re-posted: 18. 07. 2026

1978: MARCH 16th. - MAY 9th.: THE KIDNAPPING AND MURDER OF ITALY'S ALDO MORO

This act of terrorism is considered by some to be the worst and most damaging in Italy's history. It is another terrorist action that has a complicated and tangled story, involving political, economic, and social corruption. To quote journalist and historian Alistair Cooke:

'...So it's clear that however strongly the millions of the non-communist world believe the Red Brigades to be Marxist terrorists, the many more millions of the faithful in the communist countries have been led to believe that Mr Moro was kidnapped and murdered by right-wing extremists, by imperialists, by those vague, but awful, reactionaries, who could not bear the thought of having communists in the Italian government....'

A link to the BBC Radio 4  Alistair Cooke feature 'Letter From America' article: 'Murder Of Aldo Moro':
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/1vVzBDfPpTPVM50QgZ85lvN/murder-of-aldo-moro

ALDO MORO

Aldo Moro served as Christian Democratic Party (DC) Prime Minister of Italy between December 1963 and June 1968, and again between November 1974 and July 1976. He was one of Italy's longest serving post-World War II PM's.

PM Moro was a centre-left politician, and also a friend of Pope Paul VI (papacy: June 1963 - August 1978).

KIDNAPPING AND MURDER

On March 13th. 1978 the Christian Democratic Party formed a government in Italy, under PM Giullio Andrionetti.

After several years of violent turmoil in Italian politics, the Andrionetti government attempted to stabilise Italian politics and government by implementing the 'Histotic Compromise': an agreement (partly formulated by Aldo Moro) that brought the Italian Communist Party (Italian Partito Communista: PCI) into involvement in the Italian Government.

Quote from Google AI search:

'In 1978, Italy's "Historic Compromise" (Compromiso Storico) was a proposed political alliance between the ruling Christian Democracy (DC) party and the Italian Communist Party (PCI) aimed at bringing the Communists into the national government. The landmark agreement was championed by PCI leader Enrico Berlinguer and DC statesman Aldo Moro.'

OPPOSITION TO THE AGREEMENT

There was strong opposition to this Italian Government initiative, especially from extreme left wing factions of the Italian Communist Party, and also, it is suspected, from shadowy, powerful right wing groups.* A Vote of Confidence was called for March 16th., in order to endorse the government. Aldo Moro was still a prominent figure in Italian politics. He was tipped to return as Christian Democratic  Party leader, and predicted to win an Italian General Election that was predicted for later in 1978.

(*The formerly Free Mason group called Propaganda Due [Propaganda Two: P2]: see below).

ON March 16th. 1978 the Italian left-wing terrorist group known as The Red Brigades (formed in 1970) kidnapped former PM Aldo Moro in Rome. The group demanded the release of several political prisoners in return for Aldo Moro's safe release.

The Italian Government and parliament was divided between negotiating with the terrorists - and taking a stern position of no negotiations, while security forces hunted for the Red Brigades operatives and their captive, in the hope of staging a rescue. The no negotiations faction won the decision.

On May 9th. 1978, The Red Brigades assassinated Aldo Moro.

CONSEQUENCES OF THE MURDER OF ALDO MORO

The Italian Government's 'Historic Compromise' collapsed. Italian public opinion swung against left wing communist politics: thereby undermining any chance that a visionary and unifying policy such as the 'Historic Compromise' could ever be attempted again.

Public opinion was also solidified against any attempt to negotiate with the Red Brigades.

And, to quote Google AI:

'...Decades of Conspiracy and Distrust: The failure of state security forces to prevent the abduction or discover his location led to lingering suspicions. Decades of speculation regarding whether government officials or international intelligence services purposely allowed Moro to be sacrificed during Cold War geopolitics deeply impacted public trust in Italian political institutions.'

A SKETCHED OVERVIEW OF A TANGLE OF INTRIGUE

Propaganda Due:

Propaganda Due (founded in 1877) had been an official Masonic Lodge: registered with the Grand Lodge of Italy (founded in 1805).

In 1976 Propaganda Due had its charter from the Grand Lodge of Italy revoked: because of its extreme involvement in and identification with right wing politics.

Propaganda Due continued to function, however, as a clandestine anti-communist, anti-Marxist organisation: still exhibiting 'psuedo Masonic' pretentions, under the leadership of one Licio Gelli: a fascist since youth, and later discovered to be involved in terrorist activity.

This (since 1976) 'psuedo-Masonic' organisation was deeply opposed to the 'Histotic Compromise': recoiling at the very idea of communists being involved in the Italian Government. It was also in a position of significant influence: having members in significant positions in the Italian Government and the Italian security services.

It has been a matter for speculation in the time since the kidnap and murder of Aldo Moro as to whether or not members of P2 possibly leaked information to The Red Brigades concerning Mr Moro's movements and whereabouts; and that they may or may not have impeded the Italian security services' attempts to rescue Mr Moro. These speculations have never been proven to be accurate.

THE RED BRIGADES

The Red Brigades was an Italian communist terrorist group that was formed in 1970 and remained active until 1988.

Quoting from the Wikipedia page on The Red Brigades:

'...The Red Brigades were formed in August 1970.  Its founders were Renato Curcio and Margherita Cagol, who had met as students at the University of Trento and later married, and Alberto Franceschini. Franceschini's grandmother had been a leader of the peasant leagues, his father a worker and anti-fascist who had been deported to Auschwitz....'

A link to the Wikipedia page on The Red Brigades:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Brigades

ROUNDING UP...

1978 was, in my opinion, the bleakest, grimest year of the 1960s and 70s era. The optimism and unity of the protests for undeniably good and worthy causes that brought so much achievement and progress during the 1960s, quickly began to fragment into factionalism and division from the start the 1970s... 😔

Unified causes split into factions - which became mutually hostile. No success was ever enough. No time for compromise, conciliation, and consolidation was ever agreed upon... Every new side and faction continually wanted more and more... 😔

What's much worse, is that conflict, aggression, and violence increased exponentially - and, for the increasingly militant factions, became the accepted way to achieve aims. 😔

As the 1970s wore on, terrorist groups and acts of terrorism became common across the world.

And with that came an entangled web of intrigue, subterfuge, plotting, scheming, clandestine mixing and mingling of this organisation with that - and the strong suspicion that official security forces and / or members of governments or security forces in some countries were involved in collaborating with terrorist groups: if they shared the same desired outcomes.

The overview takeaway...? We - the out of the loop ordinary people in the streets - cannot know or even speculate about what's 'conspiracy theory' and what's accurate; who are the 'good guys' and who are the 'bad guys' - or what exactly is a 'good outcome' - and from whose perspective...? 

We're now deep into the 'Gaslighting age' - and the age of polemic division and social fragmentation;  but the foundations were being firmly put in place back in our era: especially the late 1970s.

The kidnap and murder of Italian moderate, I'll opine to say visionary, politician Aldo Moro is a high profile example of the tangled web of deceit and conspiracy that modern politics and society was in the process of becoming... 😔

FURTHER READING / VIEWING AND LISTENING

A link to the Historycapsules YouTube channel video 'The Aldo Moro Case: The Untold Truth Behind Italy's 55 Days of Terror':
https://youtu.be/fUwdClmk1ss?si=C-5B4T3BaRYAstNb

A link to the Time magazine archive site article: 'ITALY:  Most Barbarous Assassins' (May 22, 1978 5:00 AM GMT):
https://time.com/archive/6853620/italy-most-barbarous-assassins/

It a link to the Wikipedia page 'Kidnapping and murder of Aldo Moro':
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidnapping_and_murder_of_Aldo_Moro

A link to the Wikipedia page on Propagand Due:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_Due

A link to the Wikipedia page on Licio Gelli:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Licio_Gelli

(I found this image online. It is an image released by the Red Brigades during the kidnap of Aldo Moro. This altered version is by Lorenzo Folli; my acknowledgement and thanks to him, and to whoever posted/ owns this particular image (identity unknown to me).) (M).

Textual content © Copyright MLM Arts 23. 07. 2026. Edited and re-posted: 24. 07. 2026

1978: NOVEMBER 27th.:THE ASSASSINATION OF SAN FRANCISCO POLITICIANS HARVEY MILK AND MAYOR GEORGE MOSCONE

And the conviction of killer Dan White - and the consequences that followed... 

On January 8th 1977 Democratic Party politician Harvey Milk became the first openly gay candidate to be elected to office in the USA; he was elected to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.

On November 27th. 1978 Harvey Milk and Democratic Party San Francisco Mayor George Moscone were assassinated by Dan White: who had previously been a Democratic Party member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.

White had resigned from his post on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors on November 10th., but soon after asked Mayor Moscone to reappoint him. His reappointment was opposed by Harvey Milk.

There are a number of versions of the story of why Dan White resigned; why his reappointment was opposed; and why White assassinated Harvey Milk and Mayor Moscone: some suggest that White opposed Milk's proposed gay rights measures that were made law by Mayor Moscone on April 11th.; others say that White resigned for purely financial reasons. White's assassination of both Mayor Moscone and Harvey Milk can, however, be reasonably linked to his failure to be reappointed to the Board of Supervisors.

White was arrested and held in custody until his trial on May 21st. 1979. His trial and sentencing created more controversy.

He was found guilty only of 'involuntary manslaughter' and sentenced to just 7 years in prison.

His defence set a precedent: the now so-called 'Twinkie Defence' (Twinkies being a popular cake snack in the USA) successfully claimed that White's unhealthy high sugar diet had affected his mental state.

The leniency of his sentence caused outrage among the gay community, and resulted in 'The White Night Riots' on May 21st 1979.

A link to the Wikipedia page on 'Assassinations of George Moscone and Harvey Milk':
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassinations_of_George_Moscone_and_Harvey_Milk

A link to the EBSCO research site article 'White Murders Politicians Moscone and Milk' (by Shuman, R. Baird. Published in: 2022):
https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/social-sciences-and-humanities/white-murders-politicians-moscone-and-milk/

A link to the Famous Trials site article: 'The Trial of Dan White: The Diminished Capacity ("Twinkie") Defense'
https://www.famous-trials.com/danwhite/588-defense

A link to the Wikipedia page on the 'White Night Riots':
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Night_riots

ROUNDING UP...

The election in 1977 of Harvey Milk as the USA's first openly gay elected official was generally seen as a positive move in the general cause of greater freedom and equality; though it did bring resistance from people of a more conservative stand point: on both sides of the U.S political divide.

Harvey Milk courted controversy (in fairness, the controversies that he courted were in-keeping with his sincere opinions). The (it must be said, quite courageous) decision to run for election as an openly gay candidate, was one such controversial act; then in February 1978 he wrote a letter to President Carter, praising and acclaiming the now notorious self-styled 'Reverend' Jim Jones and his 'People's Temple' ideological cult community in Guyana, South America: which had come under scrutiny by U.S authorities. On November 18th. 1978 Jonestown was the scene of one of the worst and most tragic violent episodes in modern history.

A link to the 'Chronicles' article on 'The Jonestown Massacre':
https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1711990673539515

Dan White was a Democratic Party politician. He resigned from the San Francisco Board of Supervisors: some say because he had financial issues; some say because he was disillusioned by local politics in San Francisco: including the gay rights policies introduced by Harvey Milk and supported by Mayor Moscone.

White's failure to be granted his request for reinstatement to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors - partly due to Harvey Milk's objections, led to his killing of both Milk and Moscone... 😢

He was tried and convicted.

The consequences of his actions - and his detention, trial and conviction - were carried into 1979, and set precedents that would affect the future. These were more examples of how the grim and troubled year that was 1978 produced events that would affect the future: 1979 and beyond... 🤔

(I found this image online. My acknowledgement and thanks to whoever posted it / owns it (identity unknown to me), and of course to The San Francisco Examiner. 🙂) (M).

Textual content © Copyright MLM Arts 12. 10. 2026. Edited and re-posted: 15. 10. 2026