Mathias Rust is another, more famous, unauthorized border-crosser. Thirty years ago, in May 1987, the then-18-year-old West German took off from Helsinki in his rented Cessna and due to various happenstances was allowed to not only enter the Soviet airspace unchallenged, but to fly all the way to Moscow and land next to the Red Square.
Much less known, and much more tragic, is the story of two Finnish teenage boys who, in 1946, set sail from Helsinki in their small boat. Their intention was to voyage to Stockholm to meet some relatives, but as a result of extremely bad luck and post-war Soviet paranoia ended up in a forced-labor camp in Siberia.
I was just researching Mathias Rust since he was mentioned in the Cessna 172 article[0] trending on HN right now.
Wikipedia says he stabbed a nurse shortly after his return, but was lacking details. A quick search turned up a couple news articles.[1][2] Notable excerpts include:
"According to police, Rust pulled an 18-year-old student nurse into a hospital changing room and, after locking the door behind them, attempted to kiss her.
When she resisted, she was stabbed twice in the stomach, police said."
He received only two and a half years in prison for that. The woman he stabbed nearly died. What the fuck.
"Mr. Rust had testified that he might have been drugged throughout his captivity in the Soviet Union, where he had been jailed for more than a year after landing a borrowed plane in Red Square in May 1987."
Having just read an article on the U.S.'s psychochemical warfare program[3] in the 1950s and 60s, and considering the Soviets had similar programs, I suppose it's possible he was drugged in a manner that had long-term effects. It'd make sense for the Soviets to render him violent in an attempt to destroy what amounted to a Western folk hero at the time.
That said, he was already out of his mind to attempt penetrating Soviet airspace in a Cessna 172, so an incident involving spontaneous violence isn't exactly surprising.
Either way, I found the whole thing extremely bizarre.
Rust was an introverted nerd, thats why he flew naively to Russia. It was just luck that he wasn't shot down. Strangely, his journey was though beneficial for Perestroika, as Gorbachev used the embarrassing incident to clean house and retire opponents in the military.
> He received only two and a half years in prison for that. The woman he stabbed nearly died. What the fuck.
I looked it up: At that time public opinion pivoted against him. His parents had sold his story to a magazine for a larger sum, which was seen as greedy and improper journalism, and he himself made very naive/weird statements in interviews (e.g. his claim about the russians drugging him). The media wanted him to be a hero and an attractive daredevil pilot, but he turned out to just be a boring weirdo. A socially inept and awkward 20 year old.
Regarding the knife attack he claimed that the girl rebuked his advances by calling him (I am paraphrasing the German here) "a loser, that he never will succeed and will ever be a loser, and the russia thing was just a stunt to make himself important". Rust said something snapped in him. A psychological examination saw this as triggering his neurosis. The court followed this and I guess judged the media stress as mitigating factor for his affect action.
(The girl denied saying that to him and indeed only survived because the stabbing was in a hospital.)
After prison Rust had an odd life. He was in Asia and abroad, he had two failed marriages there, he claimed to have been a professional Poker player and having won a small fortune with poker, which allowed him to be financially independent, but then he was caught trying to steal an expensive cashmere pullover in a store, something about check fraud, something about a Yoga school he wanted to open...
Rust enabled Gorbachev to enact the biggest military purge since Stalin, which helped bring the Cold War to an end. Wires which would have made his landing impossible had been taken down. I'm surprised conspiracy theorists have not claimed it was planned by the Soviet leadership.
This bizarre excerpt certainly piqued my curiosity:
>The boys decided to set up camp on a nearby island, but in the middle of the night they woke to a scream. It sounded like a woman’s cry.
“We were sure it was a maniac or something. You could hear cries from different directions.”
The boys decided to leave the island in the middle of the night.
Wish I knew what that was all about! Too bad we don't know what island they stopped on. Are there animals whose calls sound like a woman's screams?
Edit: Some Googling tells me they may have been hearing a group of red foxes.
Marinus van der Lubbe, the man who set the Reichstag fire, at one point tried to cross on foot from the Netherlands into the Soviet Union. He had a varied life story, full of bizarre ideas and aborted plans, that I stumbled on here: https://joepwritesthehistoryofberlin.wordpress.com/2013/06/0...
Interesting article. I've stood on the China side of a river between China and North Korea, more like a stream really, where I could almost throw a rock into North Korea. Still haven't worked up the courage to actually enter, though I understand if you don't do anything stupid it's pretty much safe to visit. This was up in Jilin Province, China, where Russia, China, and North Korea meet. I've been there a few times and must admit it still feels a bit surreal every time I'm there. I cant avoid recalling as a child during the Reagan era and "Red Dawn", I'd really considered that this place must be hell-on-earth, a communist axis-of-evil. But, it's a pretty cool place to visit.
I did that up by Heavenly Lake, which is about 1/3 in China and 2/3 in North Korea, back in 2001. The border was just a stone marker, a chain that ran to the cliffside, and a very young (although about the same age as I was at the time), very bored member of the Chinese armed police. Apparently the North Korean guards were about a half mile back, so if you were unlucky enough to stumble all the way out to them you were well and truly screwed.
I have a picture somewhere that a friend took when I jumped over the chain and turned around and smiled, two feet inside North Korea, before jumping back and smiling at the border guard, who pretty clearly just wanted to make sure no stupid American tourists got arrested by the Norks on his watch (apparently some European backpackers had tried to hike the perimeter of the lake not long before and spent a few months in a North Korean prison).
Just do a guided tour... I've been there with "Young Pioneer Tours" (YPT), and have a picture waving a DPRK flag and having a beer on the North Korean side of the DMZ.
Just don't do anything stupid, or you might be detained, like 22 yr old Otto Warmbier from Ohio, who was also there with YPT and allegedly stole a propaganda poster, and is now in North Korean labour camp.
Really stupid idea. Few years ago one guy thought the same thing. His plan was go over the stream, take a picture and return. Suddenly border guards turned up at the NK side and started yelling/pointing rifles at him. He was lucky to only have started crossing, otherwise he would have certainly be caught.
If you have US passport and get detained, they would hold you for few years as a bargaining chip for some potential deal.
I did that in Dandong, although I had spent the previous ten days in North Korea. As other commenters say, just go and be sure not to do anything stupid while you're there. It's well worth the visit.
to add to my comment, remember that the moment you step over the border you are at the mercy of a regime that can treat you however it likes. It doesn't matter whether Otto Warmbier actually stole that poster or not, since he's spending 15 years in DPRK prison anyway.
edit: I don't understand why this question was so poorly received. I didn't know what this was in reference to and now I know having been given proper information.
What you have to understand is that these videos are taken at checkpoints set up many miles from the border by Homeland Security. The point is that they can't detain you, even for a brief time, or search you or you car without probable cause, which they don't have (and you can always refuse to answer questions). However, there's no law against asking you to consent to a search, and if you do it's perfectly legal. In fact, they can ask in such a way that you assume that you have no choice, and that's still ok.
The videos (and there are tons of them) demonstrate over and over that if you refuse to answer questions and ask if you are being detained / are free to go, they will grudgingly admit that they can't stop you.
On the one hand, i love seeing people exercising their constitutional rights. On the other hand, the fact that there's a sort of secret handshake to get out of the situation when police are gaslighting you plays into the worst of the "sovereign citizen" conspiracy theories that if you write some magic words on your tax return you are exempt from paying taxes, and the like.
Here's one from Australia where some (drunk sounding) guys go through an alcohol test without stopping, which is illegal and with inevitable results. They thought they could use the 'am I under arrest?' strategy without understanding the situation at all.
That said, I can see how the border checkpoints that are nowhere near the border would be frustrating, and good on the locals for protecting their rights.
There are lots of things the police or federal law enforcement agents can't legally do but they do anyway. I'd rather not be the antagonist that pisses off the guy with a bad temper, mace, a taser, handcuffs, a gun, and the presumption of authority.
Hell yeah they do. Their powers begin and end with you crossing a border. Driving to the grocery store and they just happen to set up a check right outside? They can pound sand. You drove cross country and thy have a few questions? Ask if you're being detained and for what cause. Took a domestic flight from NYC to LA. Unless that flight had a stopover in Toronto you didn't cross a border.
From your own link:
> Border Patrol, nevertheless, cannot pull anyone over without "reasonable suspicion" of an immigration violation or crime (reasonable suspicion is more than just a "hunch"). Similarly, Border Patrol cannot search vehicles in the 100-mile zone without a warrant or "probable cause".
Unlike the airport that 100 mile zone is not a free for all. They can ask you questions. You are free to not answer them. You haven't violated any laws by not doing so. Unless you crossed a border very recently you can tell CBP to kick rocks.
> In practice, Border Patrol agents routinely ignore or misunderstand the limits of their legal authority in the course of individual stops, resulting in violations of the constitutional rights of innocent people. These problems are compounded by inadequate training for Border Patrol agents, a lack of oversight by CBP and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and the consistent failure of CBP to hold agents accountable for abuse. Thus, although the 100-mile border zone is not literally "Constitution free," the U.S. government frequently acts like it is.
Scream "AM I BEING DETAINED!" all you want, you might win a court case. You still got your butthole probed.
This video only shows successes but you're pretty much at the mercy of the cop. If they get pissed off they will brake your window, tase you, drag your limp body from the car and arrest you. You can fight the action in court if you'd like. (Good luck with that)
The cop dropping him on his face was horrible, but AFAIK everything up until that point was the correct course of action. The kid was refusing lawful orders. If a cop asks you to do something (which is what all the 'border' checkpoints show, often with clever wording), you can refuse. If a cop orders you to do something, you can't refuse.
Before someone comments about lawful orders, it's a complex topic and you're welcome to fight it in the Supreme Court, but in general I'm just going to obey police orders.
This is because what they're doing is just barely legal. Generally, the police need to have a reasonable suspicion that you've committed a crime in order to stop you.
Another well know case was three sailors from the UK, Canada, and New Zealand who accidentally sailed into Cambodian waters during the reign of Pol Pot. They ended up being burnt alive after months of torture at the infamous S-21 building.
> Explore, yes, by all means, just not near politically fraught international borders, even if you are a white man from America, with all the privilege in the world to marshal
I'm not an English native, can someone explain me what would be the meaning of the verb to marshal in that sentence, in the context of using of the word "privilege". I don't want to misinterpret the last point.
Marshal generally means something along the lines of "to wield". So in this case the author is saying that even though as a white American male he possesses many societal privileges (and may attempt to take advantage of them), they aren't enough to overcome the political barriers outlined.
It's a somewhat older word that basically means "to gather" or "to collect". A good surviving use of it is in a "marshalling yard", where a series of railway switches get used to sort and organize freight trains.
The word's original meaning comes from a military context. Both its literal and its figurative meaning here is synonymous to 'to muster'. It can be interpreted as both 'to summon up' and 'to draw upon'.
If one wanted to overthink this, one could say there is a "calculus of privilege" that depends upon context.
In many contexts (geographical and social contexts), being white, male and America adds up to maximum privilege.
But in other contexts, white and male usually add up to a positive -- but being American can subtract (which is why backpackers are returning to the habit of sewing the Canadian flag patch on their gear, even if they are from the US).
In the era of Trump, the attribute of being American has turned negative, in many places.
I suppose the bottom line is that if you are placing yourself in different contexts, don't assume that that calculus of privilege works the same way on the Russian border as it does in Virginia or Indiana.
And if you are a Sikh in the United States, that calculus, which was at best neutral, has now turned sharply negative, sad to say.
> In the era of Trump, the attribute of being American has turned negative, in many places.
This is a wild generalization that in the past nine months of traveling, I have not experienced once. In fact you may be surprised to hear I found more Trump supporters in Morocco, of all places, than I did detractors.
Regardless, even if someone hates trump, for most people it does not also follow that they hate all Americans.
I would lose immediate respect for someone sewing the flag of another country on their backpack; it's so presumptuous, arrogant, and self absorbed.
Your post also seems like a wild generalization, to be honest.
I spent some time living abroad in the Bush years, in a variety of places where Westerners almost never go. (I hate the beaten path...if I can see photos of it on Flickr, I don't need to go there myself. That should help you figure out where all I've been ;) )
Based on the anti-American sentiment I saw there, then, anti-American sentiment in many parts of the world would not at all surprise me now.
And I didn't sew any flag on my backpack, but I sure didn't tell people I was an American; I speak another language well enough (and with an indistinct accent) that I usually told people I was from a non-Western country entirely.
If for nothing else, the haggling. Just passing as a non-Westerner got my prices in North Africa cut by 90% every. single. time.
Don't mistake personal anecdata for fact. I've personally seen it happen recently to friends (and experienced it in the past the last time we had a president many outside the US hated). Not saying it's universally a constant (otherwise I'd fall in the same trap you did), but it definitely happens.
Amazing how an author can turn an interesting story sour so quickly. The "white privilege" thing doesn't even make sense here no matter how hard you try to make it fit.
He should have taken a bicycle. At least recently, that, apparently was (I think this loophole has been closed) legal "There, refugees face a new twist: Russian law bans foot traffic at the border and Norway fines drivers for carrying migrants across — meaning the only way to cross is by bicycle." (https://www.pri.org/stories/2015-11-03/why-some-refugees-are...)
I have a journalist friend who covered this. Refugees from places like Syria would be shuttled through several countries by bus and train, but also often long distances by taxi, to land up in Nikel, where they'd have to pay some exorbitant price for a bicycle so they could get across the border into Norway. The law of course caused a huge market for bicycles in Nikel.
I wouldn't be surprised if some enterprising individuals in Norway bought the bikes back at reduced prices and shipped them back to Russia so the process could begin again.
"Explore, yes, by all means, just not near politically fraught international borders, even if you are a white man from America, with all the privilege in the world to marshal."
I found this closing remark rather unnecessary, especially since it was the fact that he was American that got him into this mess.
Anyway, it is a fact that there are clear discriminations when it comes to traveling freely. I don't know if you have had a chance to become a non-american woman traveling to the U.S., but a lot of times the people at the consulate who approve your visa will start out from doubting you, and you have to go through troubles to prove that you are not a prostitute. I am not joking. This happens everyday, even for women who are legitimately visiting the U.S. to get a PhD, etc.
This means these people normally can't even imagine doing things like crossing the border illegally and get away with it. They have seen from past examples how harsh the society is to their kinds.
However sad this is, you can't really blame anyone for this because statistically speaking this happens a lot, and these people at the consulate were naturally trained to act that way over time. I have also seen a lot of illegal immigrants who came here naively thinking everything will work out, and just became illegal immigrants. They try to find a guy to marry so they can get out of the illegal status.
Also I cringe whenever I see the language "white male privilege" because this term itself assumes inherent superiority. A lot of liberal activists throw this language around without thinking, but this is completely missing the point. These racism, sexism, etc. exist all around the world and is not specific to a white country. If you go to another country where the majority is Asian or African or whatever, you no longer have "white male privilege", you are a second class citizen. The people from these cultures believe they are the most superior race/culture/etc. Which means the "White" from "white male privilege" is a made-up illusion for some of these Americans.
My point is, racism, sexism, etc. all exist and are very real. And they are contextual. I am not a social justice warrior but I do think people should know what's going on.
It's been always the case of real-politik at play. Some people can get a multi-year business visa on arrival even if their passport is revoked (Snowden et al).
Do not confuse the 1970s Soviet Union with present-day Russia. There are indeed some similarities, but your comparison has so many differences that the only actual conclusion is "very different stuff is very different".
I don't think the intel agencies have changed much, they still swap operatives as they see fit, it's an established routine. Case in fact: Chapman vs Skripal.
The point of the statement is explaining that only a white American male, raised in privilege and cosseted in the belief that nothing really bad ever happens to people like him, would be so oblivious as to the potential consequences of such an action. It is not that others would have been treated better or worse, but others would have been acutely aware of the dangers of such a risky action in the same way they were constantly made aware of the dangers of being not white or not male and taking such risky actions as speaking out or standing up for their rights in 1960s America.
Sometime privilege is not just in the outcome of your actions, but the range of consequences you can possibly imagine as a result of an action. Privilege is what led him to conclude that his plan was not suicidally stupid.
> only a white American male, raised in privilege and cosseted in the belief that nothing really bad ever happens to people like him, would be so oblivious as to the potential consequences of such an action
> Privilege is what led him to conclude that his plan was not suicidally stupid
I disagree with this completely. I think you're giving too much importance to something quite insignificant here, his race and background. What's with this profiling? "White male makes stupid decision, it's because of privilege." This needs to stop.
Disclaimer: I myself am not white, but I can see the unfairness of this bullshit association.
>I think you're giving too much importance to something quite insignificant here, his race and background.
It's not insignificant. People from non-privileged backgrounds know that things can happen to them if they cross some lines.
If it was a black man in the 60's (same era as Mott) he would know that he could be beaten up for just going to the wrong restaurant, or sitting at the wrong side of the bus, in his own home country.
Which means he would for that reason alone think thrice about crossing an international border of a cold war enemy illegally...
>It's not insignificant. People from non-privileged backgrounds know that things can happen to them if they cross some lines.
So do most "privileged people". The propensity to ignore borders has a lot more to do with your views of the countries and international politics than it has to do with privilege.
"Privilege" is an original-sin like concept concocted entirely by sheltered sociologists who don't understand how to do science. It was predictable that they would come up with such a Puritanical and moralizing concept.
On a larger note, the "privilege" concept appeals to people on the left with moralizer- and justice-oriented, self-righteous personalities, who are in other words the psychological equivalent to the zealous religious conservative right (who they would likely have belonged to, had they been born a few decades earlier, since personality traits always precede political ideology). It's not just rationally incorrect, but pretty cringeworthy.
No. That's a bizarre concept concocted by angry people on the Internet who have overdosed on Tumblr, attempted to derive a first-principles explanation for why people appear to believe strongly in the importance of otherkin rights, and arrived along the way at the notion that "privilege" means white people have done something intrinsically wrong just by being white.
Privilege as used in the real world (leaving out, perhaps, postmodern literature) is a simple, common-sense observation. Having privilege isn't wrong or evil; it's unavoidable.
The problem isn't people having privilege. Rather, the problems are:
* Just-world-fallacy beliefs in nonexistent level playing fields, where people experience benefits clearly attributable to some privilege and then claim that people who don't receive those benefits don't deserve them, when really they just lack the privilege.
* Knowingly and deliberately protecting some privilege, overtly denying benefits and recognition to those without it so that you can remain a member of an elite.
The way I know this is noncontroversial and common sense is that nerds have no trouble recognizing the concept when discussions turn to venture capitalists, to hedge fund financiers and banksters, to congresspeople, to prosecutors, to jocks in high school, or to abusive monopolies.
> No. That's a bizarre concept concocted by angry people on the Internet who have overdosed on Tumblr, attempted to derive a first-principles explanation for why people appear to believe strongly in the importance of otherkin rights, and arrived along the way at the notion that "privilege" means white people have done something intrinsically wrong just by being white.
You are making many assumptions on my beliefs, which are not true (Strawman!)
> Privilege as used in the real world (leaving out, perhaps, postmodern literature) is a simple, common-sense observation. Having privilege isn't wrong or evil; it's unavoidable.
Yet it's never used in the context of being grateful for the things one has going for them, but always used to discuss what others have received. "Privilege" is always tinged with negative connotations. It's always something that requires you to give away something else (going at the back of the BLM demonstration, for example, or "shutting up" and letting "less privileged" people speak). It's used to shame or guilt people into things. You could probably show scientifically in a lab setting that reminding men of their "privilege" would quickly lower their testosterone levels, make them more passive and submissive, and more self-effacing. This is a case of "raising waves where there is no wind". You're pretending that you're just making people "more aware" of themselves and the world, when it goes much beyond that, psychologically. Unfortunately, most people don't understand the psychology behind "privilege", and just focus on the fact that "privilege" superficially sounds "rational".
> where people experience benefits clearly attributable to some privilege
"Clear" is wrong. The world isn't black and white.
> and then claim that people who don't receive those benefits don't deserve them, when really they just lack the privilege.
"Privilege" is the mirror narrative of the "you only have what you deserve" crowd. It's another side to the same coin. Empathic listening is the solution to both. To the latter, I say: "not everything went their way, they're doing their best, always be generous to those in need" and to the former, I say: "don't assume that someone who has more than you didn't work to deserve it". That would be a psychologically-correct position.
> Knowingly and deliberately protecting some privilege, overtly denying benefits and recognition to those without it so that you can remain a member of an elite
You don't need this whole "privilege" narrative for that, only empathic listening to both sides (the one who feels wronged and the one who's accused) and reaching a conclusion yourself. Wanting to fit everything into a simpler ideology of "privilege" is dogmatic.
It's really mind-boggling how deeply the "privilege" narrative has been anchored in the minds of people who see themselves as rational, which is very insidious. A proper understanding of psychology can simply neutralize this "privilege" narrative, which is not based in empathy, or in a correct understanding of people, but in browbeating.
Had to make another comment, since I reached the length limit.
> to jocks in high school
Also keep in mind that seeing everything under the lens of "power" is deeply misguided. You might say that the jock is "privileged", but he might have had a poor, neglectful, abusive childhood (trauma, which changes your brain deeply), and have as a result developed a more charming personality because his subconscious felt that this was the only way in which he would be accepted and loved. Some of the most sociable people you know are so because of a "people-pleaser" tendency and a desire to "fit in", not because they're on top of things, or more mature. I know some people who are very charming, more than the average, and well-respected by our friends. Yet I also know some things about their (painful) past, and wouldn't wish it on anyone. Would they then become "less privileged"? Except psychological pathologies (low self-esteem, excessive fears, reality distortion, trust disorders, inability to bond) are simply hereditary. If you were raised by parents that had very low self-esteem, were often overwhelmed, and had intimacy issues (meaning emotional, not physical; inability to give or receive love), you'll grow up with these exact same traits, or you'll be similarly wounded but in a different way than your parents. In addition, if your parents were neglectful or abusive, they likely grew up in a neglectful or abusive household, because psychologically wounded, decided to marry with an equally-wounded mate (as we all unconsciously seek to reproduce the nurturance-level of our childhood relationships in all relationships) and you'll raise wounded children in a low-nurturance family of your own. Who's "privileged", and who's not? Since psychological wounds are hereditary, there's no one to "blame", or more deserving of empathy than others. Other example: someone who was abused as a child goes on, as an adult, to abuse children himself. Most would see him as a monster, but I disagree. Gerry Spence said (paraphrased): "nobody is evil enough that you can't become empathic towards them if you really know them". His abusiveness towards others is his own doing, but it's also inseparable from what he went through as a vulnerable young child.
You simply can't make assumptions about people and judge them on a one-dimensional scale, and you doing so is disrespectful to them because it removes their humanity. And again, it doesn't come from a position of empathy on your part, which would require the use of empathic listening, indiscriminately. Everyone has a story.
I repeat my point that the "privilege" narrative is psychologically-incorrect and made irrelevant (or worse) if one understands psychology, and people, properly. That's the most central point of my claims.
You seem to mistake me from some r/TumblerInAction regular, which is just not where I'm coming from (not least because I don't go to reddit).
Where you and I both live (Europe) white men may work hard but also have a much higher employment rate, so they actually have a greater chance of getting the job in the first place. The only justification they have to be frustrated is if they expected 'enjoy middle class life' to be the normal outcome of having a job, which is the essence of privilege. Privilege is not a US thing, but pointing it out is much easier because the inequality is much greater and class distinctions are much clearer in the US when you take race and gender into account.
> The only justification they have to be frustrated is if they expected 'enjoy middle class life' to be the normal outcome of having a job, which is the essence of privilege
That's very uncharitable and reductionist of you. Average people, no matter who they are, lead average, unfulfilled lives with unrealized dreams.
Not only are your facts wrong, as pointed out below, but reality is always more complex than that, and it's incredibly manipulative to present it like you did. Women go to university more than men, for example. You're absolutely not entitled to determined whether which of their frustrations are "justified" or not, and everybody is frustrated for a whole range of reasons all the time, not just economic reasons, but psychological, emotional, relationships, hobbies, and more. Why are white men suiciding so much? Is that a privilege?
You're not saying any of this out of empathy, as some in your cohort like to pretend. You're generalizing people by their race, essentializing them to their economic status, which dehumanizes both "privileged" and "unprivileged" completely. It's just a cheap ploy to frame yourself as righteous and "good" ("pointing it out"), and without question this fake social "science" is the biggest problem I have with the left.
> This statistic shows the unemployment rate as a percentage of the total workforce, by gender, in the United Kingdom (UK) from 2000 to 2016. The rate for women was consistently lower than that of men during this time period.
And yet among minorities in the UK the unemployment rate is almost twice as high (https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/jan/08/rising...) and while your selected chart shows a slightly higher unemployment rate for men than women (by 0.2%) it neglects a much lower labor force participation rate for women than for men (~8% lower according to OECD stats).
There are people who are very invested in pushing that narrative, but it's a complete fiction for all but the richest 1% of US white men. The reality is no different than you describe.
The undertone of this (hopefully unintended) is that non-whites don't have to work hard or pay alimony. Atop of being non-white with all inconvenience it involves, that is.
Against the rules I'm creating a second throwaway, but I felt the need to clarify that the undertone was not intended.
Non-whites (mostly immigrants where I live) absolutely work hard and pay alimony, but getting into the social structures of their families (where male privileges do exist) would probably lead to a heated discussion.
Gender rights is a bit of a different topic, but I can point out that what you call "male privilege" is common still throughout most of (near exclusively white) Eastern and South-Eastern Europe. So let's not mix that with skin color: it is a cultural problem first and foremost, and yes, it's pandemic throughout the world.
As to the white privilege in Europe, it definitely exists. People change their names to "native sounding" just to land the job interviews; you never hear a slur on the street for being white. At the same time, in the better part of Europe this issue is acknowledged and there's an effort to counter it, mainly throughout education. Expecting it to disappear completely is unrealistic, but I'd say Europe is doing an honest effort.
What is weird is focusing on the incidental mention of these things in a story and turning out a tedious complaint about the plight of the white American male. How do you go from "a confidence characteristic of young, educated, American white men in the 1960s" to "They worshiped women and third-worlders almost as much as the left does today"? What does that even mean?
These people hate white American men. Since white women voted majority Trump, they're beginning to receive hate as well. Whether or not reality fits their narrative isn't really relevant. Leftists seem very intent on pushing the race war narrative as much as they are able to lately.
Yeah, let's concentrate on a single incident from the cold war 60 years ago, and forget the yearly deaths to this day on our side.
Because whataboutism.
And also they're mexican, and our side deemed it OK to kill them, so they would have their reasons.
(As I wrote before, invocation of whataboutism is the laziest intellectual excuse to put things in perspective and to be vigilant about all sides. It's "lalala" hands on the ears denial pretending to care).
Let's also not forget the sack of Baghdad in 1258. You're deliberately highjacking a thread that's about a specific story with something completely different. This isn't 'caring' or some unflinching exercise of intellectual rigour. It's just inane.
>You're deliberately highjacking a thread that's about a specific story with something completely different.
Where by "something completely different" you mean "with something of the exact same nature (people killed because of crossing a border) that still occurs often today"?
Conversations naturally expand to similar stories and greater lessons and perspective on things. Heck, a Rust announcement on HN will almost always expand to discussing type theory or static-vs-dynamic languages, Golang and C++ and same with everything else. That's what different threads are for.
What's inane is to artificially constrain a discussion, just to never break the echo chamber.
No, the proper analogy is to vent against Java multi threading complexity in a Go concurrency topic, which serves nothing but distraction to the discussion.
You're free to open a new thread about US immigration issues. In fact there're already plenty of ongoing threads exploring the bad side of the politics, society, economy in the US. Are you worried your new thread wouldn't pique the interest around here?
>To illustrate that, how about we talk about the brutal crackdown of illegal immigration in Russia:
Not sure what the point is though. Why shouldn't we talk about this (brutal crackdown of illegal immigration in Russia) in a subthread on this article?
It also seems totally relevant, e.g. to compare USSR-era border control to today's Russia, etc.
>Are you worried your new thread wouldn't pique the interest around here?
No, I'm worried about artificially limiting discussion to very narrow confines around a single particular topic.
Which doesn't even make sense. How much stuff can anybody here say about Mott's case in particular? And what's to say about it specifically that's not already in TFA?
It's the wider implications and issues around that that we all can contribute something to, and that's what makes conversation interesting.
Spies don't have the name "spy" on the forehead, but are people that serve their country obtaining information from another (preferably)with some excuse or alibi.
History tells us that anyone could be a spy, from sailors to tailors, including prostitutes.
I had family members in former Soviet Republics. Some of them risked their lives running away. That someone intelligent was so naive to not understand the danger is unconceivable for me. Norwegians knew for sure and told him.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathias_Rust
Much less known, and much more tragic, is the story of two Finnish teenage boys who, in 1946, set sail from Helsinki in their small boat. Their intention was to voyage to Stockholm to meet some relatives, but as a result of extremely bad luck and post-war Soviet paranoia ended up in a forced-labor camp in Siberia.
http://beaufortmagazine.fi/2014/08/seven-years-sailing/