HawkeyeTen

HawkeyeTen t1_je68e2x wrote

Never forget Queen Elizabeth's father, King George VI, actually practiced with Tommy Guns and other weaponry in World War II. He was ready to fight alongside the British army if the Nazis landed on the Isles and tried to take London. No matter what you may think of that family in recent years, that father-daughter duo was something else.

27

HawkeyeTen t1_j5yofpj wrote

What makes the stewardess standards back then look even more insane is when you look at what the US MILITARY required of their servicewomen of the 50s and 60s. Even THEY didn't have stuff like these height restrictions (or at least ones that restrictive) and allowed the ladies to marry and keep serving in the vast majority of cases.

2

HawkeyeTen t1_j5ynxrz wrote

Funny thing is, I've always felt that the title "stewardess" was actually more glamorous and empowering for these ladies. "Flight attendant" to me almost gives images of being a servant, while the other gives the idea of them enforcing the rules and being in charge to an extent. Same thing for the men with the title "steward".

8

HawkeyeTen t1_j5fq27k wrote

You think she was insane? Look up 1940s-60s war correspondent Marguerite Higgins. During the Korean War, she actually got in a landing craft with Marines during their landings at Inchon. Remarkably the "crazy camera lady" survived, and went on to cover the rest of the conflict and later worked in Vietnam too.

3

HawkeyeTen t1_j49rk9r wrote

Interestingly though, there WERE concerns in President James K. Polk's administration about how Europeans and others might view the end result of the Mexican-American War in 1848. It's part of the reason the captured lands (California, Arizona, Nevada, etc.) were technically purchased from Mexico rather than simply snatched and annexed. I'm not sure why they feared the Europeans would be angry about it a ton, unless: 1. It would in their view upset the balance of power in the world or 2. It would make America look like a hypocrite for practicing methods similar to European empires against fellow "New World" countries. It unquestionably helped lower anger and tensions between the US and Mexico though after the war though (since the lands technically were not stolen).

2

HawkeyeTen t1_j49q58x wrote

The Congo Free State is a definite example of a case where even European empires were disgusted by abuse of conquered peoples. Beyond George Washington Williams, Joseph Conrad and Mark Twain, legendary British author Sir Arthur Conan Doyle wrote an account of the atrocities in his work The Crime of The Congo, calling them some of the worst abuses he had ever heard being committed on human beings up to that time. The only reason the Congo evils were forgotten by many is due to World War I. Until 1914, Belgium was MASSIVELY tarnished in image (since it was THEIR king after all who had overseen this), and from reports I've read some abuses continued for a year or more after the Belgian government took over in 1908. It is sad though that discussion on the treatment of ruled peoples under imperialism (and how other nations should respond) didn't start a whole lot until this debacle, with the Ottoman atrocities of Greeks among others in the 19th Century possibly being one exception.

3