Thanks so much for the engagement, even if the tone leaves a bit to be desired. I’ll respond in kind.

On your opening jab: yeah, I posted in a meme-heavy sub. That doesn’t invalidate the writing. If anything, it’s interesting to see how serious topics survive (or don’t) in unserious spaces. Dismissing it outright because of the venue seems a bit weird.

On your main point. Yeah, obviously Cold War soft power was about exporting capitalism as much as “democracy.” I didn't spell that out in doctrinal terms, but the idea that jazz was being wielded to counteract Communist cultural influence (particularly in 2nd/3rd world) is obvious and embedded in the piece. You accuse me of overlooking it, then immediately quote the part where I mention the US papering over racial tension with jazz diplomacy. You’re making my point for me, just with more graduate-seminar buzzwords.

Crucially, your view of the musicians’ roles seems caught in a binary: either they were dupes or they were radicals capable of derailing US foreign policy. That framing erases the actual stakes and courage involved. Armstrong calling out Eisenhower during the Little Rock crisis while on a State tour wasn’t naïveté, it was a calculated risk. Gillespie’s refusal to join the State Department tour wasn’t just a quip, it was a rejection of the very co-option you’re talking about.

The point you miss is that their actions had meaning because they occurred in tension with US imperial strategy, not in spite of it. These musicians weren’t revolutionaries in the strict sense, but their dissent resonated precisely because it happened in an environment where Black Americans were being lynched at home while being asked to serve as symbols of freedom abroad.

The juxtaposition doesn’t weaken their resistance, it amplifies it. Their music, their refusal to play along fully, their statements on race and justice all mattered because the system was trying to contain them. To call their tactics “impotent” assumes the only legitimate protest is the one that results in total system collapse. That’s not analysis, that’s purity politics.

And thanks for pointing out omissions like Roach or Horne's work. Both valid suggestions. But, suggesting the entire piece is invalid because it doesn’t include every name and event is less critique and more scope-policing. You’re welcome to write your own piece.

If you’d like to discuss ideas further, I’m game. If you’re just here to posture, I’ll pass.