HISTORY – Page 16 – REVIEWS AND VIEWS OF LIFE

GOVERNANCE

Machiavelli describes effective governance as brutal, manipulative, and amoral. St. Augustine infers good governance comes from belief in God and adhering to scripture.

Books of Interest
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

“On Grand Strategy”

By: John Lewis Gaddis

Narrated By: Mike Chamberlain

John Lewis Gaddis (Author, historian, political scientist, professor of Military and Naval History at Yale University.)

In a September 21, 2021 article in “The New York Times” Beverly Gage resigned as the course leader for “…Grand Strategy” (where Gaddis is a professor), “…saying the university failed to stand up for academic freedom…” She is noted to have said ‘I am not teaching “…Grand Strategy” the way Henry Kissinger would.’

Beverly Gage, in her resignation from Yale is noted to have said ‘I am not teaching “…Grand Strategy” the way Henry Kissinger would.’

The book author, John Lewis Gaddis, implies every accomplished political leader has a Grand Strategy. Historians can always criticize another’s study of political leaders or their place in history but having a strategy is a paramount requirement whether one is an American President or course leader at Yale. So here is a puzzle about the Gage’s resignation and her critical comment about Yale’s Grand Strategy for a teacher’s academic freedom.

One wonders what Ms. Gage meant in referring to Kissinger.

In any case, this is a review of John Lewis Gaddis’s book, “The Grand Strategy”. He begins with an animal analogy by suggesting good governance relies on being like a fox or a hedgehog when acting as a political leader. A fox characteristic is surreptitious and sly while the hedgehog is straightforward and aggressive. He argues governance that uses only one of these characteristics achieve singular objectives but balance between the two achieves the best results. The entire book is about the history of governments that have prospered or declined based on the presence or absence of balance.

In the beginning of “On Grand Strategy”, one becomes somewhat bored with Gaddis’s history of Athens’ and Sparta’s conflicts with Greece and its defeat of the Persian army (492 BCE and 449 BCE). However, mid-way through the book, one becomes engrossed in Gaddis’s evolutionary theory of nation-state’ governance.

In the Persian Army and its defeat by the Greeks and Spartans, Gaddis explains Xerxes neglected the common sense of moving his vast army across the Mediterranean, let alone feeding and supplying its needs. Xerxes was thinking like a hedgehog. Later, Gaddis explains Napoleon makes the same mistake as Xerxes by attacking Russia without considering the vast size of the country and logistic difficulties in feeding and supplying his army. Gaddis notes Tolstoy’s “War and Peace” chapters that explain how the battle of Borodino is a turning point in Napoleon’s hedgehog action.

Gaddis notes the need for political leaders to keep their eye on the prize. He gives the example of Civil War policies by Lincoln who sought end games for union of the States and emancipation.

When endorsing government policy or ordering military action, Gaddis suggests Lincoln was a leader who understood the need for common sense, i.e., always balancing what can be done with what could be done. Gaddis notes there are times when it appears Lincoln is contradicting himself when, in fact, he is being the fox rather than the hedgehog. For example, some argue Lincoln went back and forth on emancipation, but Gaddis infers he was being a fox because of the political heat surrounding the question and the government’s action.

SAINT AUGUSTINE (354-430, DIED AT AGE 75)

At this mid-point, Gaddis’s history becomes more interesting. He recalls the history of two important characters in modern theory of society, i.e. St. Augustine and Machiavelli. Of course, they lived centuries apart, but each represent critical beliefs that impact nation-state governance. In the 4th century, St. Augustine wrote two influential works, “Confessions” and “City of God” that outline why God was important to him and why everyone should become followers of Christianity to save themselves for the reward of eternity in heaven. Christianity begins to replace leadership beliefs based on the Great Caesars of civilization. Rome does lead the world for another 70 years, but Christianity and other religions redefine the relationship between citizens and their rulers. The centralization of Catholicism by Emperor Constantine in the 4th century diminished the power of secular governments. Life on earth became secondary to the possibility of eternal life in St. Augustine’s “City of God”.

Jumping to the 15th century, Machiavelli’s concept of “The Prince” exemplifies power of governance by secular leaders.

Machiavelli returns political leadership to life on earth in “The Prince”. It is not an abandonment of the “City of God” but a recognition of leadership as it is in this world. Machiavelli experiences the power of political leaders in this world by being imprisoned and tortured for alleged conspiracy to overthrow the Medici family in Italy. Machiavelli’s “The Prince” explains a political theory and leadership of rulers in the “city of man”. “The Prince” returns the idea of governance to the beneficence and cruelty of life here, i.e. not in heaven.

Queen Elizabeth I is Gaddis’ s next example of the changing nature of governance.

Contrary to her half-sister, Mary Queen of Scots who supported Catholicism, Elizabeth reestablished the Protestant Church of England. Elizabeth recognizes the fundamental importance of England’s citizens to her reign as Queen of England. Elizabeth practices the less punitive aspects of “The Prince” to build a foundation for love and respect from England’s protestant, if not Catholic, citizens. The city of God is replaced by the city of man in Elizabeth’s rule.

One can think of many examples that reinforce Gaddis’s theme in “The Grand Strategy” as practiced in America. The senior Bush carefully planned the ejection of Sadam Hussein from Kuwait by building international support for America’s action in the first Iraq war. America’s generals carefully planned the movement of a massive military force, including supply lines, to remove Iraqi forces from Kuwait. The senior Bush did not make Xerxes mistakes. In contrast John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and H. W. Bush’s son, failed to use common sense in America’s mistakes in Vietnam and Iraq. It took a sly fox in the Nixon administration to get America out of Vietnam. This is not to suggest any of these actions were wholly good or bad, but a reflection on the balance between using fox or hedgehog thought and actions to achieve common sense results.

Isaiah Berlin (1909-1997, Russian-British social and political theorist, philosopher, and historian of ideas.)

Gaddis takes reader/listeners through WWI and WWII from America’s perspective. On several occasions, Gaddis refers to Isaiah Berlin and his intellectual contributions to political theory and history. Berlin was born in Russia and educated in Great Britain. He spoke several languages and was particularly fluent in Russian, French, German, and Italian. He believed in individual freedom but explained conflicting values coexist and that there is no single universal truth in life. This reminds one of Machiavelli and makes one wonder if Berlin, who is alleged to have a strong sense of Jewish identify, was an atheist.

Gaddis suggests America has had a series of foxes and hedgehogs that have become American Presidents. Some have been intellectuals, others not. Considering President Wilson was a racist hedgehog while Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt were at times foxes and hedgehogs, America survived and prospered through three disastrous wars. Gaddis’s point is that America’s best Presidents have been both foxes and hedgehogs, while most have been one or the other. It may be that America survives because, with the brief exception of Franklin Roosevelt, none have served more than two terms. One President may be a hedgehog while the next President is a fox.

Machiavelli describes effective governance as brutal, manipulative, and amoral. St. Augustine infers good governance comes from belief in God. Gaddis’s history of governance explains why and how both qualities are evident and have served America well.

FRANTZ FANON

Frantz Fanon decried colonization and racism to promote individual dignity and family reconnection in his psychiatric practice

Books of Interest
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

“The Rebel’s Clinic” The Revolutionary Lives of Frantz Fanon

By: Adam Shatz

Narrated By: Terrence Kidd

Adam Shatz (Author, editor, professor at Bard College)

Adam Shatz introduces Frantz Fanon to listeners. Fanon was a Black Frenchman, born in the colony of Martinique, an island in the Lesser Antilles of the West Indies. Fanon may be classified in many ways but first and foremost one understands he would want to be known as a Frenchman, i.e., a Black individual of French heritage.

Frantz Fanon (1925-1961, graduated from the University of Lyon in France.)

Shatz tells the story of Fanon’s life. Fanon is educated as a psychiatrist who was influenced by Aimé Césaire, a leader of a movement titled Négritude. Négritude was a protest against French colonial rule and assimilation in the early to mid-twentieth century. Fanon lives life by asserting himself as a Black Frenchman with a sense of Black cultural pride.

After an affair with Michele Weyer in college, a daughter is born. The daughter becomes Mirelle Fanon Mendes-France.

Mirelle Fanon Mendes-France (Born in 1948 to Michele Weyer and Frantz Fanon.)

Fanon later marries Marie-Josephe Duble in 1952. Duble was an intellectual, a journalist, and liberation fighter who died in 1989. Fanon and Duble have a son named Olivier who is thought to be engaged with his father’s legacy. Weyer’s and Fanon’s daughter is a scholar and member of the Frantz Fanon Foundation who also works with a United Nations Working Group on African Descent.

Fanon marries a Marie-Josephe Duble. Duble, aka Josie, married Fanon in 1952.

Shatz explains how much more Fanon was than a psychiatrist. Some suggest Fanon was a Marxist because of his anti-colonial beliefs but Fanon’s philosophy extended far beyond Marxist belief in society as an economic class struggle. Fanon was equally concerned about sexism, racism, and colonialism. He embraced a form of humanism. Fannon believed in self-identification as an acculturation process. He considered himself a Black Frenchman, born on a French colonialist island in the West Indies. His life experience as a minority in a colonial country led him to become a practicing psychiatrist in Algeria.

In the 1950s, Algeria was largely populated by Muslim Arabs with a minority of European nationalities.

Arabs in Algeria were poorly treated at a hospital Fanon joined in 1953. He gradually improved their treatment by opening doors to their ethnic identify. Algeria began a fight for independence in 1954. The movement was for social democracy within an Islamic framework that would offer equal citizenship for all citizens of the country. Fanon did not align himself with any religion in what became a violent conflict between French colonization and those who identified themselves as Algerian.

Fanon conflated imperialism and colonialism with racism by institutionalizing control over another based on cultural and/or racial bias.

Shatz shows who Fanon became in the way he treated his patients in Algeria. Fanon argued mentally troubled patients needed to be reconnected to their families and community rather than institutionalized.

Fanon’s focus was on the psychological impact of human torture and the tit for tat revenge of French occupiers and the Algerian resistance.

Fanon was sympathetic to the Arab desire for freedom and independence for citizens of a country searching for its own identity. Shatz shows Fanon abhorred colonization and its social restrictions. Shatz infers he equally abhorred the revolution’s leaders and followers who tortured and murdered non-combatants, including children. What happened in Algeria reminds one of today’s daily slaughter of children and non-combatants in Ukraine and Gaza.

Algeria became an independent nation in 1962 with its own government, culture, and identity. Its ethnic and cultural identity remains the same today as then. It is considered a Muslim country with a majority being Sunni Muslims whose practices play a prominent role in their daily life.

Frantz Fanon dies at the age of 36 from leukemia in 1961, 7 years after the Algerian uprising.

An interesting point in the biography of Fanon is that he recognizes himself as Black in a country that does not commonly describe themselves as people of color but as Algerian Arabs, Berbers, or Europeans. Fanon grows to believe he is Algerian but identifies himself as Black. Black is a broader category of race that makes his story applicable to a wider world but magnifies real-world discrimination based on the color of one’s skin rather than the truth of equal humanness. Of course, as the author notes, the color of skin in Africa is predominantly black and became a frontier for colonization between 1884 and the 1960s.

AFRICA BECAME THE FRONTIER FOR COLONIZATION BETWEEN 1884 AND THE 1960s.

Shatz infers Fanon fought the good fight. He decried colonization and racism to promote individual dignity and family reconnection in his psychiatric practice. He wrote about and aided people who were different, underserved, and underrepresented. He wrote two books about his life experience to explain why colonialization and racism were culturally wrong and socially destructive. “Black Skin, White Masks” was published in 1952, and “The Wretched of the Earth” in 1961.

EUGENICS

On the one hand, genetic science may cure the incurable. On the other, genetic science may destroy civilization.

Books of Interest
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

“Why Fish Don’t Exist” A Story of Loss, Love, and the Hidden Order of Life

By: Lulu Miller

Narrated By: Lulu Miller

Louisa Elizabeth Miller (Author, Peabody Award-winning science reporter for NPR.)

Lulu Miller’s “Why Fish Don’t Exist” reveals the flaw in believing intelligence or position are measures of admirability. David Star Jordan is a founding president of Stanford University. He served from 1891 to 1913 after being the Indiana University president from 1884 to 1891. Jordan gained his academic qualification as a recognized ichthyologist (a zoologist who specializes in studying fish species).

David Starr Jordan (1851-1931, Scientist, founding president of Stanford University.)

Miller begins her memoir in admiration of Jordan but ends in vilification. Jane Stanford appointed Jordan as the first President of Stanford. Their collaboration laid the foundation for what became a research powerhouse for engineering, business, humanities, and sciences. Ms. Stanford’s relationship with Jordan is reported as less than harmonious because in the University’s beginnings there were financial difficulties and differences of opinion about faculty.

Jane Elizabeth Lathrop Stanford (1828-1905, American philanthropist and co-founder of Stanford University.)

Jane Stanford rejects an economics professor’s contract renewal because of his politics and his criticism of immigration. (Ms. Stanford’s and her husband’s wealth came from the railroad industry which was hugely benefited by immigration.) It is alleged that she pressured Jordan to refuse the professor’s contract renewal. Five faculty members resigned after the professor’s termination. Ms. Stanford had a reputation for requiring total devotion to her beliefs which, at times, conflicted with Jordan’s management of the University. More significantly, Ms. Stanford’s drive alienates and makes enemies of many people associated with the University.

Ms. Stanford dies in Hawaii in her 70s. The cause of death is attributed by authorities to be poisoning from strychnine.

What makes her death an ongoing mystery is that Jordan hires a medical investigator who argues Ms. Stanford died from natural causes, a heart attack, brought on by overeating. In much of America, Jordan’s hired investigators’ cause of death is accepted. That is, until a book is written by Richard White in the 21st century, that reaffirms the authority’s earlier opinion. Miller does not suggest Jordan had anything to do with Stanford’s murder, but Miller’s inference is that he initiated a cover-up.

In one sense, Miller is Jordan’s character assassin. In another, Miller reveals the dark side of science.

Jordan is shown to believe in eugenics that advocates selective breeding of the human race. Eugenics is a science meant to selectively breed human beings. Miller explains Jordan believes in forced sterilization (which surprisingly exists in the United States until 1981). Eugenics is the same belief held by Adolf Hitler when he tried to exterminate Jews and create an exclusive Nordic or Aryan race. Hitler established laws for forced sterilization, euthanasia, and selective human breeding.

Miller’s memoir of David Starr Jordan shows how science is a mixed blessing. Jordan’s remarkable work in zoology and his role as the first President of Stanford is tainted by his expressed belief in eugenics. The threat of eugenics is greater today than in the past. On the one hand, genetic science may cure the incurable. On the other, genetic science may destroy civilization.

DEATH WITH DIGNITY

Tisdale’s book is hard to listen to but worth one’s time and effort for understanding.

Books of Interest
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

“Advice for Future Corpses” And Those Who Love Them, A Practical Perspective on Death and Dying

By: Sallie Tisdale

Narrated By: Gabra Zackman

Sallie Tisdale (Author, essayist, who earned a nursing degree in 1983, born in 1957.)

The title of Sallie Tisdale’s book is off-putting but an apt description of her advice about “…Death and Dying”. Tisdale is a registered nurse who has written several books. Her experience makes her advice about death relevant and important. Those of a certain age or physical condition are shown how to prepare themselves for the inevitability of death.

The Japanese writer Haruki Murakami wrote “Death is not the opposite of life, but a part of it.”

Tisdale explains how a person can manage the inevitability of their death. To some, this seems a macabre thought, but nothing can be depended upon in life except its end. Why not manage that end with at least as much skill as one chooses to live? The reason people choose not to think about planning for death is because they are dealing with the everyday issues of living.

The irony is that Tisdale argues “planning for death” is an everyday issue.

Even if one knows they will eventually die, why care about it? Most lives are unplanned and seem out of our control anyway. How many plans for living are turned upside down by unforeseen events? Unforeseen events like Covid19, the rise of Hitler, WWII, the atomic bomb, and so on and so on. Yes, the occurrences of history change human plans. However, the difference is that death of the individual is a known inevitability. When one knows, their death is going to happen, why not have a plan?

Tisdale gives listeners the details of a plan for death.

Prepare Healthcare Directives

Decide to provide or not provide organ donation.
Explain burial or cremation wishes.
Maintain a financial inventory of accounts and assets.

Create a Will covering heirs and their inheritance. Review the plan based on life changes.

Having a will takes asset distribution out of the hands of a state court system. Health directives show your medical wishes and notes who has the right to make decisions for you in the event of incapacitation. A Health Care Directive stipulates whether extraordinary measures or comfort until death is to be administered. Written directives can explain how the body, after death, is to be cared for, i.e., is the body to be used for medical research, organ transplant, cremation, or burial. Time is of the essence when a person dies because living tissues and organs die soon after death of the person.

Beyond paperwork, Tisdale explains what is important to the dying when diagnosed as terminal.

To a family or caregiver, the hardest part is helping the dying cope with growing incapacity. When one is terminal, providing as much comfort as possible until death is of primary importance. The hardest part to the dying person is loss of control over one’s body. Listening to Tisdale’s real-life experience illustrate how American hospice and hospital care fails the terminally ill.

On the one hand, it is the fault of the dying for not having a clear plan for what is to be done in the event of a terminal diagnosis or illness, but Tisdale’s point is that neither hospice nor hospital’s services offer consistency in their care for the dying. Tisdale believes that once a person is diagnosed as terminal, the obligation of hospice’ and hospital’ care is to give comfort until death. However, institutions and doctors do not have the time nor inclination and American families do not have the money. Tisdale mentions Japanese elder care by noting the majority of those who are dying, die at home. The inference is that institutions are unlikely to provide the same care as the family of one who is dying.

Tisdale believes “Death with Dignity” laws passed in Oregon, Washinton, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, New Jersey, Vermont, and Washinton, D.C. are on the right side of history.

They emphasize the importance of comfort for the terminally ill. A “Death with Dignity” law allows doctors to prescribe lethal drugs to end a terminally ill person’s life as long as the injected drug is not administered by the doctor or institution for which he/she works.

Tisdale’s book is hard to listen to but worth one’s time and effort for understanding.

DEMOCRACY OR ELSE

“…saving America” will not come from “…ten easy steps” but from one vote at a time.

Books of Interest
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

“Democracy or Else” How to Save America in 10 Easy Steps

By: Jon Favreau, Jon Lovett, Tommy Vietor

Narrated By: Jon Favreau, Jon Lovett, Tommy Vietor

(Left to Right) Jon Favreau, Jon Lovett, Tommy Vietor

The suggestion that “Democracy or Else” comes from “…10 Easy Steps” on “How to Save America…” is an oversimplification of life and politics. Saving America takes hardened objective opinion, personal commitment, appreciation of the difficulty of being a political leader, and most importantly, the wisdom of Jesus Christ. Few, if any humans fit the bill. Voting is the only thing that everyone who believes in American Democratic leadership will agree upon in the author’s “…10 Easy Steps”. The steps are not easy. The authors appear to have committed some time and effort to fulfill some part of the 10 steps.

Many (not most) Americans may be willing to vote but working on a campaign for a candidate who wishes to be elected to public office will always be low on their list of commitments.

Human beings, let alone Americans, are an unruly lot. Making a living, waiting for a hand-out, hating or loving others, and experience of life come first in the minds of most, if not all, human beings. The nuts and bolts of what it takes to become an elected representative in Democracy are way down on the list of humans’ self-interest. American Democracy, like all known forms of government, have winners and losers. Democracy has the best odds for serving the self-interest of its citizens but remains far from the idealistic goals of the U.S. Constitution.

American Presidents have been good and bad throughout history. Only a few have earned the history of “good or great” for America. The checks and balances of American government, the ideals of the Constitution, capitalism, and expanded voting rights have saved American Democracy from tyranny. Anyone who has read this blog, knows there is an opinion about the next President’s election but “…saving America” will not come from “…ten easy steps” but from one vote at a time.

RUSSIAN SOCIETY

Alcohol consumption in Russia and a penchant for autocratic government are long-standing societal truths.

Books of Interest
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

“Dead Souls”

By: Nikolai Gogol

Translated By: Richad Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky

Nikolai Gogol (1809-1852, Ukranian novelist born in the Russian Empire, short story writer, and playwright.)

“Dead Souls” is not an enjoyable listening experience. Partly, because it is not a completed book. However, it is an insightful examination of a Russian culture in decline. It is an incomplete novel with its main character, Pavel Ivanovich Chichikov, who uses his looks, intelligence, and guile to appear prosperous in a society of rich and poor.

Agriculture is the economic foundation of society in mid-19th century Russia. The industrial revolution is at its beginning.

As a clerk in the government, Chichikov is familiar with government policy of charging a tax for deceased peasants that are owned but have died on Russian’ landowners’ farms. Social position is associated with land and peasant worker’ ownership, i.e., the more land and peasants one owned, the higher a Russian aristocrat is esteemed. Chichikov has no land but has earned and saved enough money through his work with the government to come up with a scheme to improve his status in society. His idea is to travel the country, buy dead souls, and purchase a farm to show society he is an aristocrat of substance. By buying peasant souls and land he creates an image of wealth and aristocracy. His plan is to buy land with the money he has saved over years of work as a clerk. He assumes his position in society will be secured by land ownership and owned peasant’ souls.

Chichikov’s false image is assumed to be true in a high society soiree.

Chichikov clownishly approaches the daughter of a regional governor because of her beauty. His attention is noticed by some of the wags at the social event. Similar to today’s social media, word spread about Chichikov’s bizarre purchase of dead souls. Rumors about Chichikov proliferate like Alex Jones spread of lies in the 2022 Uvalde school children murders.

Various stories about Chichikov’s history spread from people who were at the governor’s soiree.

Many reasons were given for Chichikov’s purchase of “Dead Souls”. One who was at the dance alleges the purchases were to show Chichikov’s intent to kidnap the daughter of the governor. Chichikov hears of these ludicrous accusations and flees the small town in which the ball had been held. In fleeing, Gogol’s story provides more examples of Chichikov’s nature and reasoning with the objective of showing the dysfunction of Russian society and its aristocratic governance.

Chichikov meets with a successful Russian farmer who capitalizes on what is known of agricultural science of that time and uses that knowledge as an aristocratic owner of many peasants who worked his land.

Chichikov persuades this prosperous farmer to lend him 10,000 rubles to finance the purchase of a failing nearby farm. However, Chichikov’s deceptions catch up with him. He is arrested and judged by a Prince of Russia who plans to make an example of him. The story obscurely ends with the prince inferring a way out of the mess Chichikov’s lies engendered. The story is never finished. Reader/listeners never learn the fate of Chichikov. The high praise of the book rests with its exposure of the societal faults of mid-ninetieth century Russia.

Every national society has strengths and weaknesses. America is as vulnerable to lies and misrepresentation as Gogol shows of Russia. The best one gets from “Dead Souls” is a vague understanding of Russian society. Alcohol consumption in Russia and a penchant for autocratic government are long-standing societal truths.

DARWIN’S THEORY

To Carl Woese, Darwin’s theory of evolution was, at the least, horribly misleading.

Books of Interest
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

“The Tangled Tree” A Radical New History of Life

By: David Quammen

Narrated By: Jacques Roy

David Quammen (Author, Yale University graduate, Rhodes scholar, fiction and non-fiction nature and science writer and historian.)

Quammen’s history of the discovery of a new form of life is interesting and enlightening. Archaea cells are not discovered until 1977 at the University of Illinois. Archaea are neither animal nor vegetable but resemble bacteria, a single-celled prokaryote. Archaea are prokaryotic (without a nucleus), like bacteria. There seem to be two differences between Archaea and bacteria. Archaea often thrive in extreme environments by using ether-linked lipids while bacteria only use ester-linked lipids. The difference has to do with how these prokaryotes bond to lipid molecules.

Archaea are believed to have set a boundary for evolutionary diversity in earth’s early extreme environment.

Archaea are believed to have played a role in the transition and adaptations that allowed life to change and flourish. The suggestion is that archaea were instrumental in creating a “The Tangled Tree” of life. Archaea, like bacteria, are everywhere in the soils and water of earth. Through chemical processes, they moderate global carbon and nutrients that exist in the world’s ecosystem. Some suggest life would have evolved without archaea but their role in earth’s early existence seems especially relevant because of early earth’s extreme environments.

Carl Woese (1928-2012, American microbiologist and biophysicist.)

Quammen introduces Carl Woese, the evolutionary biologist who revealed archaea as a third form of life. Woese challenges Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution because this third domain of life, alongside bacteria and eukaryotes, fundamentally changed representation of life as a branching tree. Archaea are similar to bacteria in that they are procaryotic (singular cells with no nucleus). However, archaea have cell wall differences. Archaea cannot perform photosynthesis, they reproduce by fission, and interact with DNA and RNA differently. What is discovered about archaea is that like bacteria, they can transfer genetic information horizontally, i.e. directly affecting the evolutionary characteristics of species.

The idea of descendent inheritance is not overturned but hugely expanded with archaea becoming a part of the process of evolution.

Archaea, like a bacterium can infect living things but as a genetic cell, archaea can initiate inheritance. To stretch one’s imagination, archaea might be transmitted between a human and a pet like a bacterium but with the potential of inheritable characteristics. Like learned behavior, the inference is there is a possible exchange of archaea cells between humans and pets that may change behavior of one or the other. The inference is that a pet dog may exhibit the behavior of its owner, not only because of learned behavior, but because of archaea transfer.

The idea of horizontal gene transfer (HGT) by archaea tangles the tree of life in ways that make natural selection a lottery as well as a parental inheritance.

Quammen touches on discovery of CRISPR (clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats) which is a powerful technology that allows precise gene editing of an organism. As science discovers the genetic origin of disease and animal kingdom vulnerability, gene editing has the potential of saving or destroying life.

Quammen turns back to the age-old question about the beginning of life on earth. What came first and how did eukaryotes evolve into sentient beings? A suggestion made by some and recalled by the author is Loki’s Castle, a hydrothermal vent in the mid-Atlantic Ocean. Here, a thermophile, which is an archaeon, may have been life’s trigger that began evolution.

To Carl Woese, Darwin’s theory of evolution was, at the least, horribly misleading. Today, Darwin’s “Origin of Species” remains a seminal work of evolutionary science. Darwin’s work was based on observations during the voyage of the Beagle in the 1830s. Admittedly, natural selection from a common ancestor was not the whole story but it opened the door for further investigation and scientific proof.

CHARLES DARWIN (1809-1882) FOUNDER OF THE THEORY OF THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES.

Woese and other biologists owe much to Darwin’s early observation and theory of evolution. Science begins with theory and evolves with proof, demonstrated by repeatable experimental results. Darwin gave the world the theory. Biologists have been working on the proof ever since.

TRAGEDY’S LESSON

The sharpened point of Slade’s story is that, like the sinking of the Edmund Fitzgerald and El Faro, it takes great tragedy before change takes place.

Books of Interest
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

“Into the Raging Sea” Thirty-Three Mariners, One Megastorm, and the Sinking of the El Faro

By: Rachel Slade

Narrated By: Erin Bennett

Rachel Slade (Author, winner of the Maine Literary Award for non-fiction.)

Rachel Slade begins her book with the last words of a mariner calling for help from a sinking ship in the grip of a Hurricane. The ship is the El Faro. The author writes her story based on the El Faro’s written log during a severe storm somewhere between Florida and Puerto Rico. The storm was Hurricane Joaquin, a category 4 Hurricane that had recorded wave heights of 10 meters (over 32 feet). Winds ranged from 130 to 156 mph with rough seas, roiled by rogue waves. Rogue waves are twice the size of surrounding waves and appear unexpectedly.

Slade methodically sets a table for the El Faro on a “…Raging Sea”.

Slade writes about a mariner’s desperate call for help. In its beginning, the story lags but the author offers cultural insight to the life of merchant marines, the equipment they operate, and the business of international trade. Her story explains how important and dangerous the life of a merchant marine can be, why it is important, and how mariners are dependent on equipment they use, their shipmates’ qualifications, and business owners’ drive for success.

Every person makes decisions about what they are going to do to make their way in life.

Becoming a merchant marine, like every decision in life, is based on personal circumstances, ambitions, and choices. Slade describes the El Faro mariners as adventurous and interested in seeing the world and being paid for what they do. Some are educated, others not, but all learn what they need to do to be part of a mariners’ crew.

There are schools for mariners at all levels of education but like any job, one can start at the bottom as a laborer that learns by doing. What the story of the El Faro shows is that like in any chosen job in life, some become expert at what they do, others try and fail, try again or move on. What Slade infers is that the El Faro sinks because of its crew but also because of others, both on and off the sea. As John Donne wrote in 1624, “no man (or woman) is an island”–emphasizing the interconnectedness of society.

The owners of the El Faro were in the business of internation trade to make money.

The crew of the El Faro wanted to be paid but to some it was adventure and/or escape from a humdrum of life. Undoubtedly, mariners were motivated for different reasons. Some wished to see the world, be recognized for good work, wished to crew on bigger and better vessels, or be promoted to higher position. Motivation and ambition are different for everyone. What is lost to history are details. Slade tries to reveal some of the details about the El Faro’ crew, its owners, the ship, and the business of international trade. Why did the El Faro sink? Who and what was lost? What is it like to be in a hurricane at sea? Is somewhat at fault?

Slade’s story gains momentum as sinking of the El Faro seems imminent.

The aftermath is a careful and detailed explanation of rescues at sea, why the El Faro sank, what rescue efforts were made, how families of the lost were affected, and what changes were demanded in the industry. The loss of 33 mariners, the entire crew of the El Faro, is a horrible tragedy for the families who lost their loved ones. The causes of the tragedy range from crew mistakes to ship design to corporate malfeasance. The common thread is human nature.

What this review suggests is that the fundamental issue in every form of government and society is balance between public and private good.

One will draw their own conclusions from Slade’s history of the loss of the El Faro. In a capitalist society, balance is dependent on prudent regulation. Prudence is meant to mean the use of human reason to balance the needs of the public with private interests. That balance is complicated by human nature that drives private interests to focus on money, power, and prestige rather than public need.

Slade shows regulation of international trade often conflicts with private interests that object to regulation and improvements in ship design.

Conflict between public good and private interest is not a new discovery. Neither is the sinking of the El Faro. The sinking of the Edmund Fitzgerald in 1975 led to changes in international shipping. Business owners were required to provide survival suits for mariners in their employ, depth finders, positioning systems, improved ship design, and inspections by the Coast Guard became mandatory. These were regulations that increased costs of shipping that rippled through the economy and initially penalized private interests. The public benefits because mariners are safer, and families are less threatened by loss. The public also suffers because transported goods become more expensive. Balance eventually occurs as private interests are compelled to pay more for labor which is part of the public.

Capitalism works because it is a process that balances public need with private interests. Capitalism’s weakness is that the process takes time to balance public needs with private interests.

The sharpened point of Slade’s story is that, like the sinking of the Edmund Fitzgerald and El Faro, it takes great tragedy before change takes place.

KKK

American Democracy is a work in progress and remains at risk of failure.

Books of Interest
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

“A Fever in the Heartland”

By: Timothy Egan

Narrated By: Timothy Egan

Timothy Egan (American Author, journalist, former columnist for the New York Times, won the National Book Award, the Carnegie Medal, and a Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting.)

Timothy Egan’s “A Fever in the Heartland” is about the Ku Klux Klan and its growth in Indiana, the American Midwest, and Oregon in the early 1920s. Soon after the Civil War and death of Abraham Lincoln, a group of former Confederate veterans formed a social club in Pulaski, Tennessee.

The Ku Klux Klan grew into an underground movement that peaked in the 1920s with white American membership estimated at over 4 million.

Egan’s history is about the rise and fall of David Curtis “Steve” Stephenson who became the Grand Dragon of the Indiana Klan in 1923. Stephenson endorsed and promoted public hate toward immigrants and minorities. He became a proven liar who lied about his past and his actions as a leader. Egan’s history of Stephenson is an American political’ warning. Egan shows how character and honesty are as important in today’s politics as they were in the 1920s.

Egan’s choice of David Curtis Stephenson as a KKK’ leader illustrates how “A Fever in the Heartland” can grow to threaten American Democracy.

Stephenson is a man who smoothly lies his way to the top of a weak KKK’ chapter in Indiana by pandering to anti-immigration and anti-minority sentiments in the country. (The same sentiment seen in today’s America.) Stephenson became a rich man by recruiting the public into the KKK with a $10 fee for a white hooded garment ($4 for the garment, with $6 in his pocket) for membership to an exclusive group of American white men who would terrorize and murder non-whites, non-protestants, and immigrants. The KKK used secrecy to hide membership in this exclusive white American group.

The KKK hid their private reputations while (as an organization) publicly funding American celebrations and charities to feed its membership.

With membership dues and a persuasive personality, Stephenson (within 3 years) became a powerful and influential KKK’ leader. Stephenson convinced members of the KKK to become elected officials to gain control of government and public offices in Indiana. KKK’ members subsidized and promoted the election of like-minded white Americans. With control of government agencies, public services like the police and judiciary, the KKK controlled much of what happened in the State of Indiana. The wealth and influence of Indiana’s KKK planned a Presidential run in the late 1920s. The Indiana leader of the Republican Party was a member of the KKK and kowtowed to Stephenson as Grand Dragon of Indiana’s KKK.

Egan explains Stephenson was a persuasive carpetbagger who moved to Indiana from Texas while inferring he was an Indianan to become the Grand Dragon of Indiana’s KKK’ chapter.

Stephenson lied about his education and past but with success in increasing membership, he gained support of the National KKK’ organization. The truth of his background is that he abandoned his first wife and child when he left the lone star state. He was remarried to a second wife who leaves him. Stephenson beat his second wife who returned only to be beaten a second time when she attempted reconciliation. Egan noted Stephenson was a heavy drinker and abusive molester of women who worked for him. Stephenson was ultimately convicted of second-degree murder of Madge Oberholtzer, who was the creator and manager of a lending library.

Madge Oberholtzer (Stephenson is ultimately convicted of second-degree murder of Madge Oberholtzer for brutalization and rape.)

In the middle of the night, with the help of fellow Klansman, Madge Oberholtzer was kidnapped by Klansman working for Stephenson to take a train to Chicago. On the train, Stephenson rips Oberholtzer’ clothes off and rapes her. He used his teeth to bite her breast and parts of her body.

After being returned to Indianapolis, Overholtzer went to a drug store to buy bichloride of mercury, a slow acting poison. She chose to take the poison to end her life.

The taller man in this picture is Ephraim Inman, the defense attorney for Stephenson. He is standing next to Will Remy the prosecuting attorney, dubbed the “boy prosecutor” who successfully convicted Stephenson for 2nd degree murder.

Will Remy told the crowded courtroom that Stephenson “destroyed Madge’s body, tried to destroy her soul” and over the course of the trial tried to “befoul her character.” Overholtzer’s left breast and a bleeding right cheek were bitten by Stephenson when she was raped. Remy argues Stepheson’s teeth were a murder weapon. Attorney Asa Smith, a Overholtzer-family’ friend prepared a dying declaration for Madge Oberholzer that was placed into evidence. Judge Sparks admitted the declaration and allowed Remy to read it to the jurors. (Sparks was not a Klansman.)

Stephenson considered himself, not only above the law, but as the law in Indiana. (That is a familiar refrain in the 21st century.) Stephenson was convicted for second degree murder. It was second degree murder because the cause of death was Madge Oberholzer’s decision to take her own life.

The Klan still exists in America.

James Alex Fields Jr. plowed into a crowd of demonstrators in Charlottsville, Va in 2017. He killed one of the protestors.

Fields admitted to being a member of the KKK. Though the Klan remained a political power in Indiana for some years after Stephenson’s trial and conviction, its Indiana’ power and influence was diminished. The national position of the Klan has declined in America as is believed in modern times, but it still exists.

Speaking about the white nationalist groups rallying against the removal of a Confederate statue, former President Trump said, “You had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides.”

As Egan’s history of Grand Dragon Stephenson illustrates, American Democracy is a work in progress and remains at risk of failure. Honesty of elected officials and “there being no person or elected official above the law” remain important for America to remain a Democracy.

BIODIVERSITY

Human population growth is slowing, and awareness of biodiversity is improving but is the trajectory of global warming outpacing human action?

Books of Interest
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

“Biology: The Science of Life“

Author: Great Book Series

Narrated By: Professor Stephen Nowicki

Stephen Nowicki, Ph.D. (Bass Fellow and Professor of Biology @ Duke University, Associate Chair of the Dept. of Biology and Neuroscience.)

This is a dauting series of lectures with a theory of the beginning of life. It addresses living things in general but more specifically what is known about human life. Not surprisingly, it is immensely complicated.

There may have been an Adam and Eve in history, but Science infers any garden of Eden had to have been long after the beginning of life on earth.

Nowicki explains how Stanley Miller conducted an experiment in 1952 that simulated conditions of the early days of earth’s formation. Methane, ammonia, hydrogen, and water were present in those early days. These ingredients were used in a controlled environment, with the help of energy (primordial lightening), to combine into amino acid compounds that are essential to life. These basic chemicals were present in the early days of earth. These amino acid compounds are the building blocks of life.

With amino acids, it became possible for DNA and RNA formation. DNA and RNA are shown to synthesize proteins leading to cellular process and organic development.

From these early beginnings, a natural selection process is initialized, i.e. evolution began which led to complex organisms like viruses, bacteria, animals, and eventually humans. Nowicki goes on to explain the complex biology of science. This is a point at which understanding by a lay reader/listener becomes difficult and only partially comprehensible. He begins with a detailed discussion of genetics, the study of genes, their discovery and function.

With the help of Rosalind Franklin (lower right), Watson (lower left) and Crick came up with the double helix model made of deoxyribose sugar that alternates with phosphate group strands.

The most famous pioneers of genetics are James Watson and Francis Crick. The genetic model they created reveals the backbone (organizational structure) of genes. With addition of nucleotides (adenine, thymine, guanine, and cytosine) to the gene backbone, genetic instructions are encoded by single strands of RNA into double strands of DNA. RNA’s single strands direct ribosomes that prevent mutation and maintain genetic integrity.

Nowicki jumps back in history to explain Darwin’s theory and proof of evolution. In addition, he recounts Gregory Mendel’s discovery of genetic inheritance. (Though Darwin and Mendel were contemporaries, it is not believed they ever met.) Mendel found, in breeding pea plants, that pea plants inherited certain traits of their parent plants with first generation plants having one color flower while second generation had 1/3rd to 2/3rd color differences that experimentally suggest inheritability of appearance. Mendel had no knowledge of genetics but was aware of Darwin’s writing. Ironically, Mendel discovered that inheritance had distinct genetic units of dominant and recessive characteristics explained how second-generation pea plants had mixed colors. This inheritable element of a gene became known as an “allele”, a word coined by British geneticist William Bateson in the early 1900s.

A listener/reader is only 1/4 of the way through Nowicki’s lectures at this point. Many of the remaining lectures delve into the details of gene function that will be interesting to biology students but only confuse and tire a dilettante.

To this reviewer, the two most enlightening features of Nowicki’s lectures are his views on the origin of human life and the ecological loss of biodiversity that threatens human existence. Nowicki challenges religious belief in the origin of life with a convincing argument for nature’s creation of human existence. His last lecture addresses global warming, reduced biodiversity, and the consequences of a loss of earth’s laboratory of medicinal cures for human ailments.

Nowicki leaves listener/readers with belief in humanity’s and earth’s environmental correction but with reservation. Human population growth is slowing, and awareness of biodiversity is improving but is the trajectory of global warming outpacing human action?

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: