In my initial research on this figure, I kept finding links that referred to a quarter of all cowboys being black Americans, but not many actual sources. The Smithsonian has an article on the subject here.

I was able to find [another study](https://scholarscompass.vcu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1046&context=esr) which again makes the claim that about 25% of all cowboys were black, but in reading the study repeatedly references other material which the study acknowledges is frequently inaccurate or lacks verifiable information.

There is a BBC article on the subject which made the 25% claim, yet that article has been partially corrected to say "there is some consensus on this estimate in the case of Texas, this would not hold true in other areas".

What are the actual figures? Can they be reliably estimated at all? What about the overall racial makeup of the frontier and of the cowboys, specifically? Were there any asian cowboys, or native American cowboys?

From here:

Once Iranian “successful defiance” was terminated, and the “clear-eyed” Shah was safely installed in power, Iran became a pillar of U.S. control of the Middle East, along with Saudi Arabia and post-1967 Israel, which was closely allied with the Shah’s Iran, though not formally. Israel also had shared interests with Saudi Arabia, a relationship now becoming more overt as the Trump administration oversees an alliance of reactionary Middle East states as a base for U.S. power in the region.

Control of the strategically significant Middle East, with its huge and easily accessible oil reserves, has been a centerpiece of policy since the U.S. gained the position of global hegemon after World War II. The reasons are not obscure. The State Department recognized that Saudi Arabia is “a stupendous source of strategic power” and “one of the greatest material prizes in world history.” Eisenhower described it as the most “strategically important part of the world.” That control of Middle East oil yields “substantial control of the world” and “critical leverage” over industrial rivals has been understood by influential statesmen from Roosevelt adviser A. A. Berle to Zbigniew Brzezinski.

These principles hold quite independently of U.S. access to the region’s resources, which, in fact, has not been of primary concern. Through much of this period the U.S. was a major producer of fossil fuels, as it is again today. But the principles remain the same, and are reinforced by other factors, among them the insatiable demand of the oil dictatorships for military equipment and the Saudi agreement to support the dollar as global currency, affording the U.S. major advantages.

Middle East correspondent Tom Stevenson does not exaggerate when he writes that, “The U.S.’s inherited mastery of the Gulf has given it a degree of leverage over both rivals and allies probably unparalleled in the history of empire… It is difficult to overstate the role of the Gulf in the way the world is currently run.”

It is, then, understandable why successful defiance in the region cannot be tolerated.

I don't understand how this "control" works. I actually asked Noam what he meant by this here and I didn't get a clear answer (in my opinion) about how exactly this control manifests and how exactly it works in terms of concrete leverage:

Me: You say that the basis of all this insanity is the need to control Middle East oil. But Saudi Arabian oil goes to market and anyone can buy it. So in what sense is that control?

NC: But the US wants to have influence over where it goes. The US had exactly the same policies when it wasn't using a drop of Saudi Arabian oil, and it was the biggest producer in the world, in the 1950s. In fact, in the late '50s, as you may know, under Eisenhower, there was a decision made by the government not to use cheap Saudi oil, but instead to use expensive Texas oil, which meant emptying out the reserves in the United States, and enriching Texas oil-producers, at the same time undermining US security. That went on for 14 years.

Me: Right. But what I mean is, you often say that they have "veto power" or "hand on the spigot."

NC: That was George Kennan.

Me: Right. You often quote those remarks. But in what sense...

NC: If the United States has control--substantial control--over where oil goes, which it does, that is a threat to Japan and Europe, which would need the oil.

Me: Right, but does the US have control over that?

NC: Substantial control. I mean, Saudi Arabia relies very heavily on the United States. I mean, the $60 billion of arms that we send them is toys for the ruling elite. They can get something from France, but nothing like from the United States. In other respects too, being a client of the most powerful country in world history is different from being a client of France.

Me: I understand that the close relationship allows very lucrative military contracts. But what I don't understand is in what sense that entails control given that the dictators sell it to whoever buys it, you know.

NC: They don't. They can be limited by, and sometimes are, by what the US demands. And we have that threat over them. For example, if we didn't want them to do something, they'd have to listen. And Europe and Japan know that.

NC mentions this "leverage," but I want to know the concrete examples/manifestations/mechanisms of how that leverage is used.

Did we ever threaten to cut off Japan and thereby coerce Japan to do something, for example?

Did we ever use Gulf-control to coerce Europe, for example? To what end? In what exact way?

Or is the "leverage" rather some "background" thing that never gets used but always looms in the background?

However, inexplicably, I ended up sitting down just a few days ago and reading "The Book of American Negro Poetry" x James Weldon Johnson cover to cover!

I found myself entirely piqued on the struggles of early black americans leading up to the 1900s; and how those struggles became reflected in poetry and spirituals.

I'd love to learn more about black american history, and the culture(s?) that developed as time grew on.

Bonus: "Let America Be America Again" x Langston Hughes

Previous weeks!

Please Be Aware: We expect everyone to read the rules and guidelines of this thread. Mods will remove questions which we deem to be too involved for the theme in place here. We will remove answers which don't include a source. These removals will be without notice. Please follow the rules.

Some questions people have just don't require depth. This thread is a recurring feature intended to provide a space for those simple, straight forward questions that are otherwise unsuited for the format of the subreddit.

Here are the ground rules:

• Top Level Posts should be questions in their own right.

• Questions should be clear and specific in the information that they are asking for.

• Questions which ask about broader concepts may be removed at the discretion of the Mod Team and redirected to post as a standalone question.

• We realize that in some cases, users may pose questions that they don't realize are more complicated than they think. In these cases, we will suggest reposting as a stand-alone question.

• Answers MUST be properly sourced to respectable literature. Unlike regular questions in the sub where sources are only required upon request, the lack of a source will result in removal of the answer.

• Academic secondary sources are prefered. Tertiary sources are acceptable if they are of academic rigor (such as a book from the 'Oxford Companion' series, or a reference work from an academic press).

• The only rule being relaxed here is with regard to depth, insofar as the anticipated questions are ones which do not require it. All other rules of the subreddit are in force.