GOVERNMENT – Page 23 – REVIEWS AND VIEWS OF LIFE

TIBET

Audio-book Review
By Chet Yarbrough

(Blog:awalkingdelight)
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

Eat the Buddha

By: Barbara Demick

Narrated by : Cassandra Campbell

Barbara Demick gives listeners a picture of Tibet with a darkness that rivals the narrative she creates for North Korea in “Nothing to Envy”.

“Eat the Buddha” is a reminder of China’s insistence on Tibet’s acceptance of Communist authority in the face of Buddhist and Tibetan ethnic and religious identity. Like the Uyghurs in mainland China, Tibetans practice a religion that conflicts with Communist atheism. Unlike Islamist Uyghurs, Buddhists eschew violence against oppressors.

Demick addresses self-immolation as an example of Tibetan protest which does not harm others but only one self. Well over 100 men and 28 women have set themselves aflame.

Self-immolation remains a form of protest that reaches the youth of Tibet in the suicide of Tsewang Norbu, a Tibetan pop star, who sets himself on fire in front of the Potala Palace on February 25th, 2022.

Tsewang Norbu (Tibetan pop star–self-immolation in front of the Potala Palace in Lhasa.)

Demick bases “Eat the Buddha” on living seven years in Beijing, with personal visits to Tibet. She interviews Tibetans and Chinese, including the Dalia Lama who is exiled in India.

Demick interviews many who consider Buddhist teaching a positive and integral part of their lives and culture.

Demick’s history of the treatment of Tibetan citizens under Maoist communism reminds one of America’s treatment of Indian tribes in America. Mao tries to erase Tibet’s nomadic culture by murdering Tibetan leaders and excommunicating the Dali Llama. Mao’s object is to thwart the influence of Buddhist religious belief and indoctrinate Tibetan citizens into the ways of Communism.

Mao era attack of Buddhism during the Cultural Revolution.

Demick tells the story of Maoist cadre’s eviction and eventual murder of a regional Tibetan King and his wife during the cultural revolution. The daughter of the former King is one of Demick’s many interviews. The irony of this daughter’s experience with Chinese culture offers both positive and negative memories of her early life in Tibet. She adapts to Chinese doctrine but eventually becomes an assistant to the exiled Dali Lama in India. She cannot abandon her Tibetan cultural beliefs.

Tibetan demonstration in 2020.

Mao, and today’s Chinese leaders, believe any ethnic self-identification, other than Communist party doctrine, conflicts with the State.

Like America’s treatment of Indians, China’s leaders use carrots and sticks to integrate Tibetans into Communist doctrine and Chinese culture.

Rather than accepting culture difference, both America and China suppress their ethnic minorities. However, the suppression is qualitatively different. The significant difference is that China sees minority ethnicity and religion as a direct threat to Communist ideals. In contrast, American history implies ethnicity and religious difference are an evolutionary characteristic, bending toward freedom and equality. That does not make American history less violent, but it suggests hope for something better than China’s expectation of ethnic and religious absorption by Communism.

Demick suggests Tibet is currently in the carrot stage of influence by the Chinese government. Having personally traveled to Tibet in 2019, much of what Demick describes about the modernization of Lhasa, the capitol of Tibet, is obvious.

The restoration of the Potala Palace by the Chinese government is astonishingly beautiful. It is the burial place of past Dalai Lamas. Though it is no longer a practicing Buddhist temple, it is a tacit acknowledgement by China of Tibetan culture.

The last chapters of Demick’s book acknowledge her extensive research. She notes Tibetans are better off now than they were during the Mao years. However, she explains Tibetans do not have the same economic opportunity as the ethnic Chinese. It is important to be Chinese and even more important to be a member of the Communist party. (Our guide in a trip to China and Tibet reinforces the value of being enrolled in the Communist party. Though he abjures the tragedy of Tiananmen Square, he has a slender hope to join the Communist Party because of the opportunity if would afford him and his family.)

Demick infers Tibetans face the same discrimination as American minorities (these pics are not of Tibetans but American Asians attacked by non-Asian Americans in 2021), and presumably the same discrimination felt by many women in the world.

In Demick’s interviews of the Dalai Lama, she finds he is optimistic about Tibet’s future and survival as a Buddhist haven. The Dalai Lama continues to negotiate with China’s leaders with hope of a return to Tibet. (He was exiled in the 1950s by Mao’s government. That exile remains in place.) His successor is to be chosen by the Gaden Phodrang Trust, an India-based group set up by the current Dalai Lama. However, the Chinese government says it will approve the Dalai Lama’s successor. The Buddhist belief is that the Dalai Lama must be a reincarnation of former Dali Lamas.

GADEN PHODRANG FOUNDATION OF THE DALAI LAMA

Demick writes of a Padme Dalai Lama in Tibet with a marginal explanation of their importance in Buddhism. The Padme Dalai Lama plays an important role in selecting the next Dalai Lama. The Padme Dalai Lama is second in the hierarchy of primary Dalai Lamas. A Padme Dalai Lama is identified (chosen) by a current Dalai Lama. The 14th Dalai Lama chose a 6 year old boy but he was taken by the Chinese government after his selection. Demick explains the Chinese government chose to select the next Tibetan Padme Dalai Lama despite the 14th Dalai Lama’s choice. No one with certainty knows of the Padme Dalai’s fate. Some suggest he is now a college graduate living an anonymous life. Theoretically, today there are two living Padme Dalai Lamas.

Today’s Dalai Lama is Tenzin Gyatso. He is the 14^th Dalai Lama. As of this writing, he is 86 years old.

Pictures of the 14th Dalai Lama are forbidden in China. Demick notes that a travel book in her carry on luggage is confiscated by a Chinese Airport inspector as she returns to the United States in 2o20. The confiscation is because the travel book had a picture of the Buddhist leader.

Demick draws an interesting picture of Tibet. It reveals both the truth and weakness of one historian’s view of China and Tibet. It is founded on the truth of what a number of Tibetans remember of the Mao’ years and the current relationship of China and Tibet. As is true of all books of history, China’s and Tibet’s past is not perfectly clear and the future, at best, becomes a cloudy past.

APPALLING SIMILARITY

Audio-book Review
By Chet Yarbrough

(Blog:awalkingdelight)
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

Vietnam (An Epic Tragedy, 1945-1975)

By: Max Hastings

Narrated by : Max Hastings, Peter Noble

Max Hastings (British author, journalist, editor, military historian.)

The parallel tragedies of Vietnam and Afghanistan are appallingly similar.

There is no perfect government, whether authoritarian or democratic. Anyone who has traveled outside the United States understands how great it is to be American. Though American wealth and freedom cannot be taken for granted, it is not an exportable commodity. Failures in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan do not suggest America should become an isolationist country. However, America must let independent nation-states manage themselves.

Thomas Jefferson’s slaves.

America’s human rights are far from perfect. More importantly, they are not an exportable commodity. Only through a country’s cultural acceptance can human rights be achieved by indigenous populations.

There is a difference between America’s role in WWI, WWII, the first Gulf War, and modern 20^th and 21^st century American military interventions.

Military intervention is folly when it is for any other purpose than preserving nation-state borders. Vietnam is a pre-historic nation and Afghanistan has been a nation since 1880. Their cultures have been formed over hundreds of years of experience.

All nation-state cultures are flawed. They are flawed in their own ways. Enforcement of human rights is determined by the culture in which they exist. Every country in the world violates human rights but human rights only change within existing cultures.

Enforcement of human rights stops at geographic borders. Political and financial influence are the only tools interventionists should use to influence a foreign nations’ adoption of human rights.

Despite Russia’s long history with Ukraine–military intervention in sovereign countries only leads to injury, death, destruction, and anarchy. Evidence for both Americans and Russians is in Vietnam and Afghanistan.

Those who argue that a foreign country harbors terrorist leaders is true but irrelevant. That the Taliban in Afghanistan harbored Al Qaeda is true but military invasion of a sovereign country does not make America or the world any safer. Al Qaeda operated in many countries, not just Afghanistan. Historians have shown Osama bin Laden proselytized for revolution and terrorism in African nations, Pakistan, and other middle eastern countries.

To cite Afghanistan as the country that harbors terrorist cells is a red herring to justify interventionist beliefs. Any number of countries are potential havens for terrorist cells. Some would argue military intervention only increases terrorist potential in the world.

Max Hastings’ history records intimate personal stories of participants in America’s failure in Vietnam. America’s fundamental mistake is the same mistake made in Iran, Iraq, and now Afghanistan. Military intervention by a foreign power does not give indigenous citizens true experience of the interventionist’s culture. Without cultural understanding on both sides of a military intervention, there is no prospect for peace. Further, it is unrealistic to believe a combatant will truly understand or care about another nation’s culture.

Heart rending accounts of America’s military intervention in Vietnam make one wonder how forgiveness could be given by either Vietnamese or Americans that served in the war.

Hastings explains Vietnamese and Afghanis have no choice to join or resist a culture they do not know. Neither could they become citizens of America. They did not have the interventionist’s cultural experience, or a foreign country’s willingness to allow unregulated immigration. Interventionist countries are always outsiders to the indigenous.

Hastings notes invaded countries’ citizens know the culture in which they live, and that culture is something they understand and can choose to join or resist.

Hastings recounts the tragic mistakes made by France in Vietnam and then shows similar mistakes made by America. Hastings shows how France and America have different cultures and motivations for military intervention, but they are equal failures. Like France’s and America’s failures in Vietnam, America repeats Russia’s failure in Afghanistan.

Hastings explains how North Vietnam soldiers were more committed to winning the war than South Vietnamese soldiers.

The North clearly understood what they were fighting for, the South knew only the idealism of America, a concept clouded by Vietnamese culture. Vietnamese could resist or join a North Vietnam culture because they were part of that culture. In contrast, they could not join American culture because it was not a part of their experience. They had no choice while North Vietnamese had communist indoctrination and an ideal that fit within their cultural inheritance. Those Vietnamese who fought communism had little understanding of American culture and were not likely to be offered citizenship.

Tragically, what is happening in Afghanistan threatens women’s human rights.

It is a threat that may be better understood with America’s intervention, but Afghan women’s alternative is only to resist or join the culture they know and understand. They can either resist or join the Taliban way of life. They cannot join the American way of life because it is not a part of Afghanistan, and they do not have America’s cultural experience.

Misogyny is a python that swallows its prey whole, crushes it, and smothers it to death.

This is a cruel irony. Misogyny exists in America but not in the same way as Afghanistan. The Taliban have won but it is a pyrrhic victory because human rights are universal, and resistance will grow. It is a resistance that an interventionist outsider cannot join for the same reason the resister is unable to join the outsider.

As Mark Twain said, if history does not repeat, it certainly rhymes. Change can only come from within. Military intervention only works when nation-state sovereignty is at stake.

George H. Bush, in the first Iraq war knew what is possible and correctly chose to stop America’s intervention in Iraq when Kuwaiti borders were secured. His son ignored his father’s example and America failed in Iraq.

Francis Fukuyama notes every society grows via its own cultural norms which suggests sovereignty should be inviolable. Only Iraqis, Iranians, and Afghanis can decide who they want to be. America can only lead by example and offer political and financial support to resisters of tyranny in other nation-states. Hastings marks the limits of outsiders’ military intervention. America can only lead by example and offer political and financial support to resisters of tyranny in other nation-states. The sole exception is when nation-state borders are violated by foreign nations. Even then, other nations must come to agreement on the inviolability of borders for a military intervention to be justified.

GOD’S RELEVANCE

Audio-book Review
By Chet Yarbrough

(Blog:awalkingdelight)
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

On Revolution

By: Hannah Arendt

Narrated by: Tavia Gilbert

Hannah Arendt (1906-1979, Author, Political Theorist, Phiosopher.)

Hannah Arendt’s “On Revolution” is a paean to religious belief. God’s relevance is at the heart of her detailed history of revolution.

Arendt is an ardent secularist. Arendt’s belief or non-belief in God has no relevance except as it relates to her understanding of revolution.

“On Revolution” compares the differences between ancient Greece and modern times. Arendt particularly contrasts America’s 1776 revolution with France’s 1789 revolution. She explains why one succeeded (within limits) and the other foundered. Her explanation offers insight to the failures of past, present, and future revolutions.

Humankind is endowed with the ability to reason. Use of reason may be distorted by false facts and mental limitation but thought and action conform to what one thinks they know and believe. Arendt notes social circumstance of the many, whether rich, poor, satiated, or hungry are proximate causes of revolution. Further, she notes success or failure of revolution is eminently impacted by a nation’s cultural history.

Arendt infers citizens become politically apathetic or active based on what they think they can control.

“On Revolution” explains how social discontent can lead citizens to rebel against their government. It might be because of a gap between rich and poor. It may be because of social or economic inequality. Revolution may come from factionalism where a particular group of citizens lack recognition. Arendt does not label all the reasons for revolution but human desire for money, power, prestige are proximate causes.

“On Revolution” explains how social discontent leads citizens to rebel against their government.

Arendt argues any success after a revolution depends on the institution of laws that supersede individual human desire. She amplifies the reasons for all revolutions’ success or failure. America’s short history as a colony with a remote King (burdened by parliament) contrasts with France’s history of a long line of King’s with divine right of rule. America is not burdened by a King who has God’s authority to rule.

Arendt suggests invoking God’s commandments (a superior being’s directions) allows human rule-of-law to be acceptable to America’s colonial citizens.

Arendt explains America makes arguments against rule by a King based on “taxation without representation” and the principal of citizen representation in government. In contrast, Arendt notes France’s history of a King’s divine right makes leadership acceptance from a mere citizen unacceptable.

The only philosophical backdrop for a French citizen’s authority is Rousseau’s philosophical belief in democracy, equality, liberty, and the common good of all citizens. This is not enough to convince France to accept man-made’ rule-of-law. There is no divine right given by God to a King or any French citizen. Arendt argues rejection of divine guidance is at the heart of France’s failure.

Arendt notes American revolutionaries emphasize the importance of families and citizen groups in cooperating and joining to reject rule by King George. Small groups of Americans congregate to create laws that supersede individual rights to accomplish their goal of independent sovereignty. This level of group cohesion is not cultivated in France. Arendt explains America is better prepared for revolution than France.

Maximilien Robespierre (1758-1794, French lawyer and statesman.)

Even if Robespierre wishes to, Arendt explains he is unable to institute laws that protect French citizens. Robespierre has no divine right. There is no foundation in France’s history for rule-of-law instituted by mere citizens. French history has little history of citizen cooperation and government opposition.

A fundamental point made by Arendt is that many revolutions appear to succeed because they capitalize on events that occur in the uncontrolled circumstances of revolution. It is not because of a belief in a cause fomented by a great leader but by an opportunist who takes advantage of events.

Arendt suggests success of Vladimir Lenin and the Bolsheviks in 1917 is not from forethought or planning but from a leader who let events determine how force could be used to take control of a country in turmoil.

Among her many observations Arendt offers a blueprint for a revolution’s success. Of course, success is not necessarily in the best interest of a country’s citizens. If citizen control is the only measure of success, Russia, China, North Korea, Pakistan, and Iran have had successful revolutions. Today’s example of revolution is Haiti. One wonders which route it will take in its revolution.

When impingement is great enough to increase economic disparity between rich and poor, the threat of revolution increases.

Arendt illustrates how America is nowhere near a perfect nation. Denying equal opportunity for all, disenfranchising citizens, and distrust of elected representatives are three concerns expressed in today’s media. Arendt notes the rising apathy of American voters. Arendt shows how God is as relevant today as when she wrote “On Revolution” in 1963.

Arendt explicitly warns America of its failure to maintain a role for citizens in government. She argues less time is committed to citizen involvement than existed at the time of the revolution. Arendt suggests direct citizen participation in American government is distorted by corporate and monied interests. Arendt argues growing lack of citizen participation works against American government stability, and longevity.

America’s history of Democracy has lasted for 3 hundred years. The Roman Empire lasted for over 14 hundred years. French monarchy lasted nearly the same number of years as the Roman Empire. The obvious question is how long will American Democracy last?

CENSORSHIP

Audio-book Review
By Chet Yarbrough

(Blog:awalkingdelight)
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

Dangerous Ideas (A Brief History of Censorship in the West, from the Ancients to Fake News

By: Eric Berkowitz

Narrated by: Tim Campbell

Eric Berkowitz (Author, human rights lawyer and journalist

Eric Berkowitz recounts the history of free speech and censorship. His history infers censorship is a misdirected waste of time. Berkowitz argues freedom of speech is unstoppable. Even in the most repressive governments in history, citizens have exercised freedom of speech.

Berkowitz recounts many who chose to exercise free speech that were exiled, tortured, dismembered, maimed, or murdered. However, these free speech martyrs insist on having their say. That seems Trump’s justification for suing Facebook and Twitter.

Pundits suggest Trump has no chance of winning his suit against Facebook and Twitter–Berkowitz’s presumed response would be “who cares?”

The fundamental point made many times in Berkowitz’s history is that censorship does not work because there is always someone who is willing pay any price to say what they think must be said. Berkowitz offers many historical examples of why free speech is a confusing and difficult problem.

Free speech can spread both truth and lie.

One of Berkowitz’s answers to the conundrum of free speech is that more freedom allows each listener to choose what they wish to believe. Problems arise when freedom of speech offers lies as truth and misleads the public.

White supremacism lies and Covid19 falsehoods have historically destroyed lives.

In every country of the world, free speech is unstoppable because it is controlled by the few, not the many.

Listening to Berkowitz’s history vivifies a trip to China in 2019. A guide, presumably at some risk to himself, took our small group into a private room to remind us of China’s response to the idea of free speech in Tiananmen Square .

Our guide reminded us of one protester who moved in front of a Chinese tank whenever it tried to change directions. The guide explained the “tank man” (who was never identified by name) was arrested, and never heard from again.

At the direction of President Deng Xiaoping, 300,000 troops were mobilized to stop a demonstration by Chinese students. China’s soldiers fired on college students and friends who were demonstrating their belief in free speech. An unknown number of Chinese citizens (some say hundreds, others say thousands) were murdered at the direction of government leaders. Our 2o19 Chinese guide was exercising his right of free speech by reminding us of what happened on June 4^th, 1989.

Government is the first seat of control for free speech. However, that first seat is diminished by singular economic interests, political interests groups, and fringe propagandists.

The rise of newspapers, radio, and television focused and expanded the principle of free speech. Economic interests influence these early platforms but with a more limited threat and benefit to society.

Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and the blogosphere have widened the principle of free speech and significantly increased potential public threat and benefit.

In the age of newspapers, radio, and television, government controls were explicitly legislated but in the internet age control is hidden in platform algorithms. Government may still have the first seat of control, but media moguls have usurped legislated government censorship.

Berkowitz offers no answers. He only reveals the complexity of freedom of speech. He suggests freedom of speech is an essential ingredient of a just society. However, at the heart of free speech is economic interest. Free speech is secretly used to distort truth and sometimes incite violence.

Whether it is a newspaper reporter told to revise an article that criticizes corporate advertisers or a discloser of government secrets there is societal threat. Even more pernicious is the Amazon, Facebook, or Twitter executive who orders a coder to increase customer clicks for corporations that pay more for advertising. And then there are the media trolls who distort the truth, lie, or incite violence to increase click count with no regard to consequence.

Freedom of speech is “…a riddle wrapped in an enigma” (a Winston Churchill quote about Stalinist Russia). Freedom of speech is a two-edged sword, a tool for truth building leaders and liars. Truth building offers peace; lies offer Russian Ukrainian wars.

AMERICAN DIPLOMACY

Audio-book Review
By Chet Yarbrough

(Blog:awalkingdelight)
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

America and Iran (A History, 1720 to the Present)

By: John Ghazvinian (Executive Director of the Middle East Center

at the University of Pennsylvania.)

Narrated by: Fred Sanders

John Ghazvinian (Author, historian and former journalist with a Doctorate from Oxford University.)

John Ghazvinian has written an important book to help one understand Iran and its relationship to America. It reminds one of how important respect for different cultures is for effective foreign policy. In the real politic of international relations, ignorance of nation-state’ cultures are a recipe for world conflagration.

Listening to Ghazvinian reminds one of how important well-informed diplomats and foreign service officers are for world peace.

Unlike George Kennan in his 1946 “long telegram” about Russia, American diplomats fail America and Iran.

As a diplomat, Kennan understood Russia because he spoke Russian and studied its history before offering a diplomatic opinion about how America should deal with the U.S.S.R. Kennan’s containment policy served America well despite Stalin’s horrendous treatment of the U.S.S.R.’s people.

Few, if any, American diplomats of importance before and after the 1979 revolution in Iran appear to have much understanding of Iranian language or its remarkable history. Ghazvinian notes the well-intentioned but inept handling by President Carter of the student takeover of the American embassy in Iran. He recounts the preening and then waffling treatment of Iran by every President of the United States before and after the 1979 revolution.

Zbigniew Brezezinski (U.S. National Security Advisor to President Carter 1977-1981.)

Ghazvinian recounts the hostility of the diplomat Zbigniew Brzezinski (President Carter’s National Security Advisor) toward Iran.

Recognizing 9/11 and its momentous impact on the American psyche, President George W. Bush’s administration exercises an obstinate, and Ghazvinian suggests, ignorant assessment of Iran, its history, nuclear ambition, and role in the Middle East. This second Bush administration is characterized as an abject diplomatic failure when it comes to dealing with the Islamic Republic of Iran.

George W. Bush (43rd President of the United States).

Ghazvinian’s book illustrates how America during the Shah years (prior to 1979) views Iran as a buffer against communism and an ATM cash machine for the American economy. Iran purchases billions of dollars of American weapons. American defense industry corporations reap huge rewards from business with Iran. Equally lucrative were American ancillary military training companies that were paid big money by an effete and highly privileged Iranian Shah.

The Shah of Iran is fascinated by American military hardware. In that infatuation, the Shah fails to serve the domestic needs of Iran’s citizens.

At direction of the Shah, vast oil resources are used to enrich the American economy rather than aid the social and economic growth of Iran’s citizens. America did not concern themselves with Iran’s people because it hugely benefited from Iran’s government purchases of military equipment.

Ghazavinian explains how American Presidents from Eisenhower to Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, (and after the Iranian revolution)—Reagan, H.W. Bush, and Clinton fail America in its diplomatic relationship with Iran.

None of the American Presidents effectively manage either Iran’s threat or potential real-politic’ benefit to world peace and prosperity.

In the 20^th century, Ghazavinian notes the closest any American President came to understanding Iran is H.W. Bush. However, American political opposition thwarts H.W.’s opportunity to mend broken trust.

In an overture to H.W., after the successful ejection of Hussein from Kuwait, the Islamic Republic’s President offers a peace proposal to America. Bush acknowledges the overture and wishes to capitalize on Iran’s written commitment to ameliorate Hezbollah opposition to the State of Israel and to reestablish diplomatic relations with America. However, Bush’s party leaders object, based on a belief that Iran is a terrorist state that cannot be trusted. Iran’s diplomatic opening is lost.

Ghazavinian notes Iran’s interest in improving diplomatic relations during H.W. Bush’s administration is partly related to America’s quick military defeat of Iraq.

Iran had fought the Iraqi army for over 20 years without defeating or removing Hussein. American forces removes Hussein and defeats his army in six weeks. The author infers fear of American invasion of Iran should not be overstated. However, Ghazavinian does imply America’s quick defeat of Iraq’s army sent a message to Iran. For the first time in history, Ghazavinian notes the Islamic Republic of Iran put its commitment to improve diplomatic ties with America in writing.

Even though America exacerbates Iran’s crisis, Ghazavinian suggests Iran is responsible for the situation in their own country. The author notes the last Shah of Iran fails to listen to his people. Iran’s wealth is spent on the latest American military equipment while most Iranians are poor, malnourished, and caught in a cycle of despair. Iran’s people are looking for a leader who will listen to their plight. They turn to an exiled religious leader.

Ruhollah Khomeini (1st Supreme Leader of Iran, 1979-1989)

The last Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, exiles Imam Ruhollah Khomeini to France where he becomes the voice of the people who have been ignored by their government.

Ghazavinian suggests Khomeini begins as a religious teacher but is seduced by the politics of government. The seduction comes from the student takeover of the American consulate in Iran. Khomeini initially views the takeover as inappropriate but begins to see the political value of American hostages in negotiating with America.

In Ghazavinian’s opinion, Khomeini abandons his religious teaching with the political decision to use American Embassy hostages as a lever for change. Prior to Khomeini’s political use of the Iranian student’s takeover, there was a separation between church and state. Now church and state became intertwined.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (President of Iran 2005-2013)

Ghazavinian notes the rise of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. This former mayor of Tehran exemplifies the melding of church and state in Iran’s governance. Interestingly, Ghazavinian creates a revisionist (less negative) history of Ahmadinejad. He may be showing a more accurate picture of this populist, poorly educated, President, or he may be gilding a fundamentalist ignoramus.

Ahmadinejad is best known by Americans as the fool who said the holocaust is a myth. Ghazavinian argues Ahmadinejad’s words were mis-translated. In any case, Ahmadinejad, in contrast to former Iranian Presidents, listens to the Iranian under-class. He increases wages and initially improves the lives of many Iranians. Ghazavinian notes the cost of those improvements caused inflation, diminishing the economic good but not the intent of this new President.

Ghazavinian suggests Ahmadinejad compares to George W. Bush in some sense. Like W. Bush, Ahmadinejad is viewed like the guy next door. His jokey way of dealing with people is like W. Bush’s. On the other hand, unlike Ahmadinejad, W. Bush is well educated and wealthy.

Ahmadinejad seems more like Trump (though not a billionaire) than George W. Bush. Ahmadinejad, like Trump, taps into the real needs of an underclass ignored by government.

Many Iranians approve of Ahmadinejad’s effort to raise the social and economic conditions of Iran’s underclass. The same might be said of many Americans who supported Trump’s stated intent but unrealized goal.

A reset of American relations with Iran is attempted in the Obama administration but Ghazavinian argues Obama reverts to the diplomatic mistakes of past American administrations.

Politics interferes with Obama’s initial attempt to renew relations with Iran. Obama shows a disdain for Benjamin Netanyahu’s jingoistic opposition to any American effort to repair diplomatic ties with Iran. However, in an election year Obama is painted into a corner that delays any improvement in Iranian diplomacy. It will be interesting to see how President Biden deals with Iran.

Ghazavinian fails to paint a complete picture of modern Iran. There is little explanation of the covert activity of Iran in middle east destabilization. The element of religious fanaticism and proselytization among some of the Ayatollah’s followers is not fully examined. Ghazavinian uses his final chapter in a vituperative and somewhat justified assessment of Israel without fully explaining what Iran’s agenda is in the Middle East.

The valuable substance of Ghazavinian’s history is in the immense importance of understanding any country’s culture. Before making decisions about what, where, why, and how to diplomatically engage another country, one must have some cultural understanding of both allies and opponents. It does not mean real-politic will not be used to get one’s way but that there needs to be a respectful understanding of why there is opposition. In that understanding, there is the chance of finding common ground to arrive at a mutual, if not amicable, agreement. Without cultural respect and understanding, chaotic unpredictability is unleashed.

EMPERORS

Audio-book Review
By Chet Yarbrough

(Blog:awalkingdelight)
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

From Yao to Mao (5000 Years of Chinese History)

By: Kenneth J. Hammond (Great Courses)

Lecturer-Professor Kenneth J. Hammond

Kenneth J. Hammond (Professor of History at New Mexico State University.)

In some ways, America’s 300 hundred years is a microcosm of Kenneth Hammond’s informative lectures on China’s 5,000-year history. Not to carry this idea too far, America has no emperors and is a mere baby in the history of the world. However, social struggles of China and America have striking similarities.

By SS – Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=62393600

The fabric of a nation’s society is woven by leaders and followers. Hammond recounts long stretches of China’s history that demonstrate social and political changes that predate and foretell America’s history. American presidents are unlikely to experience dynasty. However, there are similarities between American leaders and the reign of Chinese Emperors.

Yu the Great (2123 BC to 2025 BC–95 years of life.)

In 2070 BC, “Yu the Great” manages to organize China’s fragmented ethnic groups into a kingdom. Yu makes the first written record of an attempt to control nature. By introducing flood control, Yu improves the lives of millions of his followers in what becomes China’s Xia dynasty. This dynasty, with various emperors, lasts for over 400 years.

Yu is characterized as an “upright moral character”. Though the Xia dynasty is a hundreds years longer than the United States, Yu reminds one of George Washington’s brief role in America.

Both set the stage for all national leaders who have successes and failures in their journey through history. National leaders strive to form one nation from people of many different ethnicities and beliefs. Successful national leaders manage external and internal crises to unite disparate followers.

Hammond identifies 16 different China’ eras, from Yao to Mao. China’s leaders are not uniformly successful which can be equally said of Presidents of the United States. At times, leaders of nations are petty, greedy, self-righteous, and wrong but China became the most advanced, powerful, and rich country in the world at different times in their history.

Religion and society play parts in both China and America’s rise in the world.

Confucianism, Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam play parts in China’s successes, and failures. Hammond notes how Confucius belief reinforces importance of family in the success of nationhood. Buddhism, though imported from India, instills introspection, meditation, and abstinence into China’s leaders during tumultuous times. At times, Christianity and a burgeoning Islam threaten China’s future. Hammond recounts a claimed brother of Jesus who nearly overthrows a Chinese emperor but fails.

The Uyghurs, a largely Muslim Chinese minority, join Genghis Khan to establish the Mongol Empire. This empire rises at the end of the Song Dynasty that leads China for several generations. The Islamic faith is adopted by descendants of Genghis. It plays a role in China’s history. Fundamental religious and societal conflicts are equally evident in America’s short history.

In Hammond’s last lecture, he reviews China’s pragmatist movement. Deng Xiao Ping, in modern China, introduces capitalism into Maoist communism. Private property (though restricted by government limits) encourages accumulation of private wealth.

Entrepreneurial vigor is unleashed in China.

Hammond chooses not to mention Xi but conflicts between Maoist communism and Deng’s capitalist introduction are renewed. Xi reinforces the importance of the communist party at the expense of capitalism. One might argue Xi’s political moves are to combat the temptation of greed.

However, human nature ensures greed will play into communist party bureaucracy just as it does in capitalism. Capitalism and communism have a common failing—the desire for power which comes from entrepreneurial wealth as well as bureaucratic privilege.

One gathers from Hammond’s history of China that there remains no perfect form of governance. Every country’s leadership deals with the failings of human nature.

All these conflicts are evident in America’s 300 years—they are played out in China’s history. China has managed to remain a nation state for 5,000 years. Presumably, America can do the same.

There are no pat answers that can abate the rise and fall of China or America. Rome is no longer Rome, but Italy is still Italy. The same may be said of America if one uses China’s history as a guide.

FREEDOM OF THE PRESS

Audio-book Review
By Chet Yarbrough

(Blog:awalkingdelight)
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

Reporter (A Memoir)

By: Seymour M. Hersh

Narrated by: Arthur Morey

Semour M. Hersh (Author, investigative journalist, Pulitzer Prize winner)

“Reporter” reveals why freedom of the press is both feared and revered. Seymour Hersh is an investigative reporter. After listening to “Reporter”, one realizes Hersh is among the best journalists of the 20^th and 21^st century. To many newspaper readers (embarrassingly including this reader) Hersh is not well known. Hersh’s reporting uncovered the My Lai massacre early in his career and followed that with revelations about the clandestine bombing of Cambodia, CIA exposure of domestic spying, and a still controversial contention that Obama lied to the American people about the Abbottabad raid that leads to the death of Osama bin Laden.

Hersh’s reporting uncovered the My Lai massacre early in his career.

The tenor of “Reporter” is personal to Hersh as one suspects all his reporting has been throughout his career. His tenacity in confirming facts before writing a story lets one know Hersh is relentless. When one is interviewed by Hersh, one suspects there is fear of being misunderstood or misquoted. “Reporter” alludes to that fear in anecdotes of his search for facts.

The NYT’s paper on 10.11.21 writes about a difference of opinion about how news should be covered.

Hersh shows no fear or favor but his pursuit of facts gives no value to reasons for misleading public perception of events. This is not criticism of the duties of an investigative reporter, but facts do not always speak for themselves.

One knows America’s government has mislead the public many times in its history. Whether that misleading is justified or not is not the concern of reporters like Seymour Hersh. To Hersh, all that matters is–facts speak for themselves. Therein lies the fear of freedom of the press.

The problem with thinking that facts speak for themselves is that all the facts revealed are never all the facts.

The many books that have been written about historic figures is ample evidence of the problem. With the principle of facts speak for themselves there would be no revisionist history. History is re-written in every generation. One wonders what the perception of Vladimir Putin will be after the events of his Ukranian war.

This is not to denigrate the great work reporters like Hersh provide to Americans. Without freedom of the press America would not be America.

Even though all the facts are never known, those that are known should be revealed in real time. How else can freedom be preserved? Hersh, like all good investigative reporters, is not always on the right side of history. Not because his facts are wrong, but that they fail to tell the whole story.

One presumes Russian historians will view Putin differently than western or Ukrainian historians. Hero or villain? –to most Ukrainians, one suspects the latter rather than the former. To Russia’s residents, Putin’s Ukrainian war may be either or both.

Every human being is trapped in their own world of experience and genetic predisposition. Facts are by nature pieced into our personal experience and predisposition. Facts do not change but they are influenced by one’s perception of reality.

Many consider Henry Kissinger to have been one of the most highly regarded Secretary of States in the 20^th century. Hersh uncovers facts which suggest that is wrong. Hersh’s facts are compelling. They show Kissinger lies and distorts the truth.

Kissinger flatly denies spying on government employees while Hersh reveals facts that clearly show Kissinger lied. To Hersh, much of the secret opening of China to America happens as a result of an Arab go-between, not Kissinger’s diplomatic skill.

The covert bombing of Cambodia during the Vietnam war is a policy soundly supported, if not initiated, by Kissinger. Hersh’s facts speak for themselves, but one doubts they tell the whole story. The whole story is left to historians. Though it may seem a contradiction, investigative reporter’s revelations in real time are good for American government. Only with transparency, can government become better.

Secret American bombing of Cambodia.

A most interesting chapter of Hersh’s book is an episode to expose the bad deeds of Gulf and Western Oil in the 70s.

His investigation is toned down and effectively stopped by his employer’s lawyers because of fear of its repercussion. Hersh concludes it is imprudent to expose seamy activities of corporate America because of potential negative economic consequence to publishers. Hersh does not back off from private industry investigations but he only refers to one other effort to expose corporate shenanigans. “Reporter” primarily focuses on government employee and policy miss-directions and lies.

Though Hersh is a Democrat, he shows no favor. Hersh notes that facts show President Obama distorted the truth in the hunt and killing of Osama bin Landen.

Hersh dutifully reveals evidence that strongly suggests Pakistan cooperated in the plot to capture or kill bin Laden. Facts suggest bin Laden was not buried at sea but his bullet-ridden remains were dropped from a helicopter into the sea. Those may be the facts but do they explain the whole truth?

“Reporter” is a memoir of a great newsman who is justifiably proud of his contribution to freedom of the press. America needs driven reporters like Seymour Hersh even though print and media news can never reveal all the facts in real time.

There is good reason to both fear and revere freedom of the press. Fear comes from truthful as well as false reporting of facts. Freedom is dependent on good reporting by reputable reporters.

LIBERTARIANISM

Audio-book Review
By Chet Yarbrough

(Blog:awalkingdelight)
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

The Inevitable (Understanding the 12 Technological Forces That Will Shape Our Future)

By: Kevin Kelly

Narrated by George Newbern

Kevin Kelly (Author, co-founding executive of Wired magazine).

Kevin Kelly’s book is a Libertarian’s guide to minimalist government. Kelly paints a clear picture of today’s internet of things and the direction in which it seems to be heading. If sharing replaces ownership, American Democracy must change or die.

Kelly implies the evolution of technology will make all but defense of country the sole purpose of government. This is a Libertarian dream. What Kelly glosses over is the disinformation system of a sharing economy that misleads the public and foments anarchy.

Kelly argues block chain technology decentralizes the last bastion of government oversight by producing value (bit coin) based on an algorithm. Kelly infers there is no need for a Federal Reserve, or a bureaucracy to assure value of exchange, if currency is based on a mathematical formula.

Without the oversight of government, which includes bureaucratic regulations, a sharing economy diminishes the role of checks and balances. Kelly correctly outlines what is happening in this technological world, but his extrapolation is frightening.

In Kelly’s vision of a sharing economy, democracy is at risk of anarchy like that seen on January 6, 2021.

The public puts its head in the sand if they ignore Kelly’s view of the 12 technological forces in play today.

He describes flowing, screening, accessing, sharing, filtering, remixing, tracking, and questioning as the twelve technological forces that make the public codependent. His observations reflect the “now” that presages a future.

The terror in Kelly’s observation is that human nature is not going to change in a sharing economy where nothing is owned but only shared. Humans will game the system either by raiding the block chain vault or manipulating code to enrich their lives at the expense of others.

Without a degree of centralized oversight (government), anarchy replaces equal rights and rule of law.

Any realization of codependence is anathema to the tradition of America. Human beings do not interpret the truth of facts in the same way. Each has their own view of the world and their place in it.

There will always be climate deniers, tree huggers, gun lovers and gun haters.

Kelly acknowledges there is need for some oversight of a sharing economy but implies the inclusion of everyone’s expression or belief will result in balanced self-governance and companionable A.I. for societal improvement. One may have a difference of opinion based on the events of January 6, 2021. That event’s aftermath will offer further clues to American Democracy’s future.

Decentralization by the internet of things and A.I. dependence may be as “…Inevitable” as Kevin Kelly suggests. The question today has to do with what can be done to allay its negative consequences. Libertarianism is not the answer.

INDIAN INVISIBILITY

Audio-book Review
By Chet Yarbrough

(Blog:awalkingdelight)
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

The Night Watchman

By: Louise Erdrich

Narrated by Louise Erdrich

Louise Erdrich (Author, National Book Award winner plus other honorifics.)

(Louise Erdrich grew up in Wahpeton, North Dakota. Erdrich’s parents, a Chippewa mother and German father, taught at the “Bureau of Indian Affairs” in Wahpeton. She is a member of the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians and her husband was the director of “Native American Studies” at Dartmouth.)

Like Ellison’s “…Invisible Man”, Louise Erdrich offers “The Night Watchman” to show how invisible native Indians are in America.

Indian reservation hospital in Acoma Pueblo, NM

The headline in the 1/4/21 “New York Times” National page is “Indian Country Loses a Hospital at a Crucial Moment–Tribe Members Feel Abandoned as the U.S. Turns a New Mexico Facility Into a Clinic”–today’s example of Indian invisibility.

“The Night Watchman” is not Erdrich’s first attempt at explaining Indian’ invisibility. She also wrote the best seller “The Round House”. Both reveal the ignorance and unfairness of Indian reservation life and American government attempts to subsume Indian culture.

Erdrich notes “The Night Watchman” is a true story with names changed to hide American political shamefulness and abhorrent treatment of a young Indian woman.

Erdrich offers a distinctive picture of Indian reservation life and reminds one of American power’s ill treatment of Indian people.

America’s history of violating contractual agreements with Indian tribes is well documented. A part of Erdrich’s story shows how those contractual agreements are broken.

(This is a photo copy of a Senate Agreement with Crow Indians for Sale of Their Reservation in Montana-1891)

An elected official submits a bill to a state legislature suggesting native Indians have achieved equality before the law and that they have become Americans who should not be restricted to reservations (a euphemism for break-up of Indian culture and land confiscation). The submitted bill gives no value to the tradition and history of Indian culture. The bill might offer compensation to a tribe for the taking of the land, but at an unspecified price.

The people of the reservation are legally notified of the prospective legislative bill. People on the reservation are offered a public hearing to discuss the bill.

There is no offer of financial help for traveling to the hearing or for legal defense of Indian contractual rights to the reservation land.

In Erdrich’s story, effort to organize and pay for travel and legal expense is left to reservation people who have no money to spare. What money they have is to survive, to have a roof over their head, and food on the table.

“The Night Watchman” is a story of big government against “invisible” Indians.

The bill is created by a Mormon legislator in the state whose family settled in the area in the 19^th century. He argues reservation land was a temporary holding until Indians were integrated into American culture. The legislator reasons the day for full integration into American culture had come. He reasoned job availability, education, and welfare of tribal populations had reached the same level available to all Americans. It is the same lie offered to women and minorities in the history of the world.

Erdrich’s story begins with vignettes of Indian life on the reservation. This is somewhat confusing but gains momentum as her characters are fully developed. The night watchman is an Indian named Thomas Wahhashk. He works off the reservation at an industrial plant.

Patrice Paranteau is an Indian who works at the same plant as Thomas. She has a sister named Vera who has left the reservation to live in the city. Vera disappears. The disappearance of Vera is one of the drivers of Erdrich’s story. What happens to Vera is unconscionable. She is kidnapped and held in a ship’s hold to be abused by its sailors. Patrice goes to the city to find Vera but only finds Vera’s baby who appears abandoned.

There is a burgeoning love story threaded into Erdrich’s story that reflects the striving of Patrice to become an equal partner in life. Patrice chooses her own path to become an independent woman in a world defined by government and men.

Erdrich’s story reminds one of Ellison’s invisible Black who identifies with a personal culture while wanting to be treated as an equal in American culture.

Minorities do not wish to lose their identity but to be equal participants in a wider culture. It should not be difficult to be a Black, Hispanic, Asian, Indian, or other American and enjoy the benefits of democracy’s freedom.

Erdrich combines the theme of cultural identity with a story of human relationship, hardship, success, and failure. Erdrich offers a glimpse of how hard it is to be an Indian in a culture dominated by a largely white culture.

Erdrich, like Ellison, shows how multiculturalism is denied by a country that purports to believe in equality of opportunity for all.

Like Ralph Ellison pictures what it is like to be Black in America, Louise Erdrich tries to write what it is like to be Indian in America.

LIBERTARIANISM 1

Audio-book Review
By Chet Yarbrough

(Blog:awalkingdelight)
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

All It Takes Is Guts (A Minority View)

By: Walter E. Williams

Narrated by Peter Kjenaas

Walter E. Williams (1936-2020, Economist, essayist, political pundit)

Walter E. Williams addresses the conflict between what he perceives as “reality” and “darkness” in essays on Libertarianism. Williams essays were written in the 1980s, but they resonate with Libertarians today.

Gary Earl Johnson (Born 1953, Libertarian).

The focus of Libertarians’ is on individual freedom and objection to any coercion by government to compel actions of an individual for the good of society. They generally endorse individual liberty and private property. They defend civil liberties like equal rights for all; some argue for decriminalization of drugs, and open borders. They oppose most military interventions.

To some, Williams is a hero of democratic, capitalist freedom. To others, Williams is a nihilist like Kurtz in “The Heart of Darkness” who implies there is little difference between most government representatives (“civilized” people in Kurtz’s world) and savages. Williams argues that government regulation distorts the American constitution’s explicit guarantee of freedom.

Williams consistently argues that any government tax collections promoting the general welfare of Americans is stealing from one American to give to another. He suggests individual liberty and defense are the only Constitutionally mandated requirements of American government. To Williams and many Libertarians, taxes should only be collected for those two fundamental purposes.

However, in 1937 the Supreme Court defined “the welfare clause” of the Constitution as a right of the federal government to legislate welfare for American citizens.

Benjamin N. Cardozo (1870- 1938, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, Wrote 7-2 majority opinion on the welfare clause of the Constitution.)

Williams joins an elite cadre of educated Black Americans that have achieved success in America. Like avid abolitionist Frederick Douglas, fellow economist Thomas Sowell, and Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, Williams is a convert to Libertarianism. They feel they have the right to their Libertarian arguments because of their achievement. They infer their success is available to anyone who exercises their right to freedom of choice.

Libertarian Americans believe American government should not legislate or promote equality based on race, ethnicity, or any measure of human difference. Government should only legislate or promote based on public defense and individual freedom.

Williams argues public education, food stamps, care for the homeless or disabled should not be paid by government because it denies individual freedom of choice and reinforces perpetual economic dependence. Williams’ argument is based on the belief that American economic prosperity and common good come from capitalists’ freedom to choose.

Libertarians argue for no government legislation that provides help to the unemployed, homeless, and indigent. They suggest legislation that supports such service should be abolished. Libertarians believe that “individual freedom of choice” made America the richest country in the world. Libertarians believe any infringement on individual rights diminishes America’s competitive spirit, innovation, and economic opportunity.

To a Libertarian, a rising economic tide raises all boats.

Williams implies the poor are poor because of their choices; not because of their genetic makeup, economic circumstance, or discrimination. Williams and other Libertarians argue that choices made by government to help others diminishes freedom and steals money from tax-paying citizens.

One must ask oneself, what would have happened to America without President Roosevelt’s government intervention in the depression? What would have happened without George Bush’s decision to bail out America in 2007? What would have happened without Barack Obama’s rescue of General Motors, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac in his first term in office? What would have happened if the federal government had responded more forcefully when the pandemic infected America?

What would have happened if President Trump had managed the beginning of Covid19 better?

Some are pleased by William’s argument; others are appalled. The “some” that are pleased are those who have overcome life’s challenges. The “some” that are appalled suggest genetic circumstance is a matter of luck and birth.

Drive for equality of opportunity and treatment is affected by genetics and how one is raised. Genetics, family love, and life’s challenges are affected by economic well-being, homelessness, education, and health that can be positively influenced by good government.

Overcoming adversity is the sine non quo of Williams’ argument. Williams aptly observes the waste that is inherit in America’s legislative system. Pork barrel negotiations between the Senate and House of Representatives create legislation that reminds one of blind men touching an elephant. Each describes a different image–a tree trunk, a hose, a feather duster; with none realizing it is an elephant.

Omnibus Congressional legislation regularly stretches to more than 1,000 pages which few elected representatives fully read or understand.

This is a part of a Libertarian’s objection to use of tax dollars for the common good. It often benefits the few rather than the many, and inevitably has unintended consequence.

One might agree with the legislative’ waste argument of a Libertarian, but legislation that serves the homeless, the hapless, the ill, and the hungry throws out valuable help when circumstances are beyond their control.

The Covid19 pandemic is an example of circumstances beyond individual human control.

America is the richest country in the world. Capitalist democracy is messy, but freedom is only part of America’s history of economic prosperity. We are free but freedom has always been qualified.

American legislators are humans trying to represent disparate interests. We are a nation of laws that have unintended consequence, but laws change as our system of checks and balances recognizes their failures.

Democracy is a constant work in progress; not a means to an end.

Every American who survives and prospers from American democracy deserves their success, but each has an obligation to help those who are failing. Democracy is too complicated for a singular person or company to provide for health, education, and welfare of a nation.

Williams essays leave out good government as an essential ingredient of success for any Democracy. Taxes are the obligation of every American to insure that success. There should be no homeless, uneducated, or hungry citizens in America, the richest nation in the world.

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: