Category: HISTORY

CARE ABOUT ME

Leadership that fails to understand and care for all citizens within its borders may last for some years but will ultimately fail. That is the point that is sorely missing in an earlier review of Ajami’s insightful history of the Middle East.

Audio-book Review
 By Chet Yarbrough

Blog: awalkingdelight)
 Website: chetyarbrough.blog

The Dream Palace of the Arabs

By: Fouad Ajami

Narrated by: Qarie Marshall

Fouad Ajami (Author, Lebanese American, professor and writer on Middle Eastern issues.

Fouad Ajami’s book should be listened to more than once, particularly by those who have little understanding of Middle East culture. Earlier, “The Dream Palace of the Arabs” is unsatisfactorily reviewed.

After re-listening to Ajami’s book, a major point missed in the first review is Ajami’s poignant and tragic examples of Arab despair in the Middle East.

That despair is not about freedom but about care for traditions of the Middle East’s ancient and diverse cultures. The monumental discovery of oil roiled religious and ethnic differences in the Middle East. Foreign and local self-interests interfered with the peripatetic freedom of Arab cultures. Adding to that loss of freedom, the discovery of oil changed the relationship between rulers and the ruled.

Just as America is made of many races, ethnicities, and religions, it is the responsibility of government leaders to care for all its people.

In the 21st century, the Middle East has established borders even though they may not be of their citizens own choosing. The responsibility of leaders in any country is to care for their citizens. Government leaders that have recognized borders are responsible for the care of everyone within their country. When leaders fail to care about all people within their borders, they risk civil war. America has, at times, failed to care for all its citizens in its young historical life. However, those failures have not, at least not yet, led to national dissolution.

Lebanon’s Golden Age 1950-1970

Lebanon became one of the first 21st century Middle Eastern countries to realize a diverse society can be peaceful and prosperous with leaders that know how to care for all citizens within its borders. It is known as Lebanon’s “Golden Age” which lasted from the 1950s to the mid 1970s when a civil war began. When Lebanon’s leaders lost sight of the necessity of care for everyone, including Maronite Christians, Suni and Shia Muslims, and Druze within their borders, peace and prosperity declined. The same loss of care for others by leadership is true in all countries of the world made of different races, cultures, and religions.

Ajami notes Sadat is assassinated because he was seduced by American influence. That influence displaced Sadat’s care for all Egyptian citizens.

This is only partly America’s fault. Ultimately, it is a respective nations leader’s decision on how to care for their own citizens. Ajami notes Saddam Husein is abandoned by his army when America invaded Iraq because he did not care for all his people. It is the same failure that may occur in Syria and Iran if their leaders fail to learn the importance of caring about all of their citizens, not just those who believe what their leaders’ believe.

Nizar Qabbani (Syrian diplomat, poet, writer and publisher, became Syria’s National Poet.)

What makes the principle of “care about me” is clearly implied in Nizar Qabbani’s poem quoted in Adami’s book.

“Children of the Stones”

They stunned the world

With only stones in their hands.

They lit the lanterns, and came like good omens

They resisted, exploded and were martyred

And we remained ..polar bears

Heavily armored against heat (feelings)

They fought for us until they were killed

And we sat in or cafes like spitting oysters

One of us looking for business

One.. a new million

One.. a fourth wife

And breasts polished by civilization

One looking in London for a lofty palace

One working as

One seeking vengeance in bars

One, looking for a throne, an army a position of authority

Alas, O generation of treacheries

O Generation of deals

O generation of rubbish

Abraham Lincoln saved America just as great leaders in the Middle East may or may not save their countries.

Leadership that fails to understand and care for all citizens within its borders may last for some years but will ultimately fail. That is the point that is sorely missing in an earlier review of Ajami’s insightful history of the Middle East.

LESSONS OF HISTORY

The question of whether the free world should support Ukraine in every way possible can be answered. The answer is yes because Putin like Hitler will not stop.

Audio-book Review
 By Chet Yarbrough

Blog: awalkingdelight)
 Website: chetyarbrough.blog

A History of France

By: John Julius Norwich

Narrated by: John Julius Norwich

John Julius Norwich (Author, English historian, travel writer, television personality, Royal Navy veteran with degrees in French and Russian from Oxford.)

John Norwich’s “A History of France” is an intimidating summary of a country that makes one understand how young and inexperienced America is in the history of nations.

France is recognized as a nation in 987 with its first King, Hugh Capet, born in 939-died in 996 at the age of 56 or 57. (King of the Franks from 987-996.)

The actual title King of France is not used until the crowning of Phillip II in 1190 (a descendant of Capet) who died in 1223 at the age of 57. Norwich’s “…History…” recounts the many Kings of France since Phillip II.

The longest serving King is Louis XIV (the Sun King) who ruled from 1643 to 1715 (a total of 72 years).

King Louis XIV moved the center of French government to the Palace of Versailles in 1682. He is the third of five Bourbon Kings of France. King Louis XIV is noted to have expanded France’s borders while centralizing power in France. Norwich notes Louis XIV’s wife, Maria Theresa of Austria, plays a significant role in France’s history. Theresa’s three major accomplishments are to create education for serfs, consolidate the French government’s financial system, and create a unified judicial code that became a foundation for Central European Laws.

The last Bourbon King of France is Louis XVI and his queen, Marie Antoinette, who are deposed and beheaded after the 1789 revolution.

The brutality of the revolution is exemplified by factions called Royalists, Jacobins, and Montagnards. The Royalists supported monarchy and the Catholic Church. The Jacobins founded the 1789 Nation Constituent Assembly that wished to moderate authoritarianism, offer equal rights to French citizens with government intervention to insure social change. The Montagnards campaigned for the needs of the working and poorer classes of French society.

The 1789 revolution eventually led to the rise of Napoleon Bonaparte who through ascension and a series of military conquests reestablishes a French monarchy under his rule.

Charles-Louis Napoleon Bonaparte becomes the first president of France which is recognized as a Republic. However, though France is a Republic between 1848 and 1852, Charles reestablishes the monarchy in 1852 until he is deposed in absentia in 1870.

A new faction is formed called the Bonapartists. This faction roiled France throughout the 19th and into the early 20th century.

As the nephew of Napoleon, King Charles oversaw the modernization of the French economy. However, reestablishing the monarchy and his failure in the Franco/Prussian war led to a famine that permanently turned the French against monarchal rule.

Seven French revolutions finally ends France’s monarchy. However, each revolution precipitated chaos, and declarations of war from other monarchies. The final death of French monarchy did not occur until liberation after WWII.

Norwich explains there were actually seven revolutions before France becomes a permanent republic.

The first is the 1789 revolution which is most widely known by Americans. The irony of that revolution’s importance is France’s considerable support of America’s revolution in 1776. The newly established French government did not have a leadership group that could create a republic that could manage the monumental inequities of its long-established French culture. The repression of the poor created by centuries of royal leadership entailed too much animosity to avoid the Reign of Terror that caused the execution of thousands of French citizens. As many as 40,000 people were said to have been killed. It would take six more revolutions to create the lasting Republic of France.

  • The French Revolution (1789-1799)
  • The Napoleonic Era (1799-1815)
  • The July Revolution (1830), a 3 day uprising that overthrew King Charles X because he tried to restore absolutism and censor the press.
  • The February Revolution (1848), based triggered by economic hardship, discontent, and social unrest.
  • The Second Empire (1852-1870), a coup against Napoleon III despite the improvements made to France, he poorly manages and loses the Franco-Prussian War of 1870.
  • The Third Republic (1870-1940) did establish a parliamentary democracy but is tarnished by antisemitism, and WWI that killed millions of French soldiers.
  • The Vichy Regime that collaborated with Nazi Germany led to the 7th and final revolution against monarchy and for a Republic.

The collaboration of France’s Vichy Regime and Chamberlain’s appeasement agreement with Hitler’s Germany are lessons for today’s handling of Russia and the invasion of Ukraine.

The world did not fully respond to Hitler with force when Germany invaded Poland. Hitler, like Stalin and Putin, presumed the world would not respond to Germany’s taking of a sovereign country.

Whether Putin directs the murder of any opposition to his rule is not a question that can be answered but the imprisonment of Navalny and the death of Yevgeny Prigozhin is reminiscent of Hitler’s lies to the world.

The question of whether the free world should support Ukraine in every way possible can be answered. The answer is yes because Putin like Hitler will not stop.

WAR IS HELL

War is hell by any definition, but it gave philosophers focus for understanding the meaning of life. Sadly, that understanding did not change the future course of history.

Audio-book Review
 By Chet Yarbrough

Blog: awalkingdelight
 Website: chetyarbrough.blog

Time of the Magicians: Wittgenstein, Benjamin, Cassirer, Heidegger, and the Decade that Reinvented Philosophy

By: Wolfram Eilenberger, Shaun Whiteside

Narrated by: undisclosed.

Wolfram Eilenberger (German Author, award winning writer and philosopher.)

“Time of the Magicians” is particularly interesting because it tells the stories of four philosophers after WWI when Hitler is beginning his rise to power. Philosophers will undoubtably get more out of this book, but life experiences of these four men make it more interesting to the general public. The primary focus of “Time of the Magicians” is on Ludwig Wittgenstein and Martin Heidegger.

Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951, Austrian-British philosopher of logic, mathematics, mind, and language, died at age 62.)

Martin Heidegger (1889-1976, German philosopher of phenomenology, existentialism, and hermeneutics, died at age 86)

Three of the four men who live in “Time of the Magicians” have a Jewish background. The two most famous philosophers are Ludwig Wittgenstein and Martin Heidegger. Heidegger supports Hitler, chooses to join the Nazi Party, and refuses to write or say anything about the Holocaust after the war. The other three philosophers leave their home countries before Hitler becomes Chancellor. Wittgenstein, as a world traveler, becomes a student of Bertrand Russell in 1911 at Cambridge. Walter Benjamin and Ernst Cassirer travel a good deal while choosing to leave Germany in 1933.

One of many interesting points in “Time of the Magicians” is that Hannah Arendt was a student of Martin Heidegger’s at the University of Marburg in Germany.

Despite Heidegger’s antisemitism, at 35 he has an affair with the 18-year-old Arendt who came from a Jewish/Catholic household. This is in the early 1920s, before Hitler’s rise, but it reflects the intellectual compartmentalization of life and human weakness that exists when it comes to sex. (At the time of the affair, Heidegger was married to Elfride Petri in 1917 and remained married until his death in 1976.)

Aside from sexual transgressions noted in “Time of the Magicians”, the biographies of these four men are about their philosophical beliefs. WWI like all wars affects people in different ways. Some, like Wittgenstein, and Cassirer join the military and fight for their countries, while others like Benjamin look for ways to avoid conscription. Heidegger didn’t join the military but served the Nazis as an academic.

Walter Benjamin (1892-1940, German Jewish essayist, philosopher, and cultural critic, commits suicide at age 48)

Joining or avoiding military service may come from good and bad motives. Wittgenstein and Cassirer fought for the Central Powers for reasons undisclosed. “Time of the Magicians” suggests Wittgenstein fought valiantly for the Central Powers and became a P.O.W. in Italy. While in prison, Wittgenstein began writing his most famous book on philosophy, “Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus”. However, the Central Powers lost to the Allied Powers (the U.K., France, and Russia) in WWI.

Heidegger supported Hitler through the end of World War II. One might conclude joining a war is a bad idea in any circumstance. As some authors have noted, there are no “good” wars. In any case, wars had a great deal to do with the philosophes of these four men.

Ernst Alfred Cassierer (1874-1945, German Jewish philosopher of phenomenology, and culture, died at age 70.)

The experience of war undoubtedly affected all four philosopher’s beliefs. Wittgenstein came from a wealthy industrial family. Wittgenstein is heir to a multi-million-dollar industrial empire. After the war, he chooses to give any fortune he might inherit to his mother, sisters, and brothers. He refuses his wealth and becomes employed in a small town in Austria where he teaches grade school. Wittgenstein refuses any financial help from his family or fellow philosophers. He is mired in poverty that remains his condition until his return to Cambridge.

Wittgenstein is characterized as a martinet but committed teacher of his young students.

His poverty and isolation seem surreal considering his education and family background. He actually has an engineering degree from the Technical University of Berlin which he received in 1908. His commitment to his young students forms a background to his belief in science with the dissection of animals and his focus on human language.

Today, we take dictionaries for granted, but they were nearly non-existent in Germany after WWI. Wittgenstein begins collecting words used by his students in class to create a dictionary that he intends to have published for schools in his area. The idea is nixed by the school administration.

Wittgenstein leaves the grade school he is teaching after an incident that involves a student who feints after being struck by Wittgenstein. This martial treatment of students is not particularly uncommon, but the parent of the student is a wealthy matron who complains to the school. The school does not discharge Wittgenstein, but he chooses to leave in the middle of the night and abandon his teaching career.

Wittgenstein’s “Tractatus…” is published in 1921 without compensation to its author.

The purpose of the book is to explain the relationship between language and reality. At the same time, it is an attempt to show the limits of science. It is characterized as a difficult book to understand but becomes highly regarded at Cambridge University in England and becomes the basis for Wittgenstein’s return to England where he is called the “God” of philosophy. This is an interesting appellation but equally interesting is the appellation given to Heidegger as the “King” of philosophy. Obviously, both men were highly regarded at Cambridge in the 1920s, but in quite different ways.

THE HELL OF THE UKRAINE WAR 2022-2023

“Time of the Magians” is a fascinating glimpse into the lives of storied philosophers and the impact on their understanding of life which appears based on their experience in the “Great War”. War is hell by any definition, but it gave philosophers focus for understanding the meaning of life. Sadly, that understanding did not change the future course of history.

TRANQUILITY/ANXIETY

Dead authors may give understanding of life that offers a “…Tranquil Mind” but change in belief by renowned living authors explain why some feel they live in an age of anxiety.

Audio-book Review
 By Chet Yarbrough

Blog: awalkingdelight)
 Website: chetyarbrough.blog

Breaking Bread with the Dead (A Reader’s Guide to a Tranquil Mind.)

By: Alan Jacobs

Narrated by: P.J. Ochlan

Alan Jacobs (Author, distinguished professor of the humanities at Baylor University, considered a Christian conservative by the media.)

Alan Jacobs offers an example of why book’ reader/listeners are “Breaking Bread with the Dead”. A personal reason for reading/listening to books is to acquire understanding of an author’s opinion. Of course, perceptions may be incorrect, but a book writer’s intended meaning, at the very least, makes a reader/listener think. Jacobs gives many examples of what past authors made him think. He explains how and why dead writers are a “…Guide to a Tranquil Mind”.

In a short book, Jacobs notes knowledge of the past gives context and perspective to the present.

Dead authors add the dimension of a past that is either very like the present or very different. When a dead author’s beliefs are more like the present, it makes one think there may be something universal about their belief. At the least, a dead author’s beliefs help one understand the difference between the past and the present. Both circumstances offer what Jacobs suggests are a “…Guide to a Tranquil Mind”. Belief either remains the same or modern life makes past beliefs unique to their time.

Renowned dead authors, or for that matter, insightful living authors make one realize how much they do not know.

Dead authors may give understanding of life that offers a “…Tranquil Mind” but change in belief by renowned living authors explain why some feel they live in an age of anxiety. In either case, it pays to seek understanding from both dead and living writers.

U.S. AND ISRAEL

What seems glaringly obvious in Mead’s “too long” story is the immense contribution Jews have made to the United States.

Audio-book Review
 By Chet Yarbrough

Blog: awalkingdelight)
 Website: chetyarbrough.blog

The Arc of a Covenant

By: Walter Russell Mead

Narrated by: Josh Bloomberg

Walter Russell Mead (American Author, Professor of Foreign Affairs and Humanities at Bard College, taught American foreign policy at Yale.)

Walter Russell Mead hardens the consequence of race and creed in the history of the modern world. Mead offers a biblically influenced history of human progress in “The Arc of a Covenant”. One cannot diminish the value of human diversity, but Mead implies millions who were murdered, maimed, or imprisoned in history have paid a price for human progress. Mead suggests the greatest price paid is by Jews who were largely abandoned by Franklin Roosevelt’s America and imprisoned, gassed, and murdered in WWII.

Despite America’s decisive role in WWII, largely orchestrated by Franklin Roosevelt, Mead suggests President Truman’s actions to end the war and gain the peace shine as brightly as the social programs created by his predecessor.

As is widely known, the Ark of the Covenant carried two stone tablets that were given to Moses by God that contain the Ten Commandments.

Mead implies these commandments were adhered to by Truman more than any President before or after his presidency. He notes that despite Truman’s lack of a college degree and inexperience as a politician, he utilized the universal values of the ten commandments to guide America out of war into a peace meant to reinforce the “…Covenant” given to Moses by God. It is clear from Mead’s history, that Truman did not do it alone, but he led the effort with the support of his predecessors, direct reports, and successors.

As the 33rd President, Truman re-engaged the U.S. in internationalist foreign policy, adopted Kennan’s recommendation of containment of U.S.S.R. during the Cold War, passed the Truman Doctrine that helped eliminate the communist threat in Greece and Turkey, responded to the Berlin Wall crises with the Berlin Airlift, and passed the $13 billion dollar Marshall Plan to aid Western European recovery after WWII. Truman also ended racial segregation in the Armed Services, and established the NSC, the CIA, and the NSA.

In America, Henry Cabot Lodge and evangelist, William Blackstone, were two predecessors to Truman that martialed American opinion to support the Balfour proposition of Englishman Arthur Balfour who recommended support for a Jewish homeland in Palestine. To an evangelist, one presumes the motivation is biblical belief in the prophecy of Armageddon that is to occur in the Middle east with the return of Jesus Christ to save believers in the faith. Lodge supports Zionism (a 19th century plan for a Jewish homeland in Palestine) as the Chairman of the Senate Republican Conference from 1918 to 1924.

In 1946, Palestinians refuse to agree to a separate Jewish homeland in their country. They would only agree based on a one state solution where Jews would be a minority in a Palestinian controlled state. The consequence of that refusal is to diminish the territorial control of the Palestinian people.

Mead notes the British walked a fine line between their need for oil from the Middle East and their effort to fulfill the promise of the Balfour agreement.

The conflict between Jews and Palestinians is initially controlled by the British military when the Jewish settlements first came to Israel. In the end, the British need for oil is greater than their continuing act as arbitrator for the Palestinian/Jewish conflicts.

The British decide to turn the conflict over to the United Nations which was formed in 1945 as a replacement for the League of Nations.

Though this body is meant to resolve international conflicts, it has five permanent members that have veto powers over its policies. They are China, France, Russia, the UK, and the US. Russia for a short time supports an independent Jewish State but becomes a notorious abuser and murderer of Russian Jews during the Stalinist years.

By a slim margin, with Stalin’s real-politic support, a UN resolution is passed to create a Jewish state in Palestine.

Stalin’s goal is to drive a wedge between Western powers like the UK and the US by supporting the resolution. The UK needs Arab oil even at the expense of the Balfour plan and the UN resolution. In enforcing the partition, Mead notes Truman is caught between the jaws of Cerberus guarding what is the hell between Arab states and a boundary line for Israel.

Mead explains Eleanor Roosevelt is a major force in politics of the U.S., particularly after the death of President Roosevelt.

She supports the UN resolution and expects the American government to enforce its implementation. In 1948, Mead notes Truman plans to enforce the UN resolution with the American military, if necessary, which is not popular with some American leaders and U.S. voters.

Mead illustrates how America aided Israel in its early formation, but notes Israel grew strong on its own. After the end of the Cold War, the world enters a Cold Peace. Mead drops a cultural bomb on his readers by noting America’s role as western world savior morphs into western world goat. Mead infers that transmogrification is the base upon which Donald Trump is elected. He suggests the fall of the U.S.S.R. seemingly created a bed of roses but turned into a crown of thorns.

Mead suggests America in in a post-cold-war era. America’s left-wing support of Israel is now Right-wing support.

Deregulated growth of the economy is a causal factor in the widening gap between rich and poor. 9/11 destroyed America’s self-confidence by suggesting America cannot protect itself, let alone spread democratic values in the world. American power emulates authoritarian government with slogans like “Make America Great” with an underlying disregard for foreign relations and world peace. Mead suggests there is a growing loss of faith in American government.

It is sad to think how vilified and unfair history has been to such a small ethnic minority.

What seems glaringly obvious in Mead’s “too long” story is the immense contribution Jews have made to the United States. As a small minority, their contribution to the world outstrips any ethnic group in this dilatant’s flawed memory. Mead gives some perspective to that realization.

SOCIAL BRAIN

Is one born with a gender identity like a chicken or is one born as an egg with a chicken’ identity determined by socialization?

Audio-book Review
 By Chet Yarbrough

Blog: awalkingdelight)
 Website: chetyarbrough.blog

Gender and Our Brains (How New Neuroscience Explodes the Myths of the Male and Female Minds.)

By: Gina Rippon

Narrated by: Hannah Curtis

Gina Rippon (British Author, neurobiologist, received a PhD in physiological psychology, professor at Aston Brain Centre, Aston University in Birmingham, England.)

Gina Rippon develops an argument, reinforced by literature but indeterminant by science, that there is little intellectual or social difference between the sexes. Like white dominance of the western world, Rippon implies difference between the sexes has been institutionalized and biased by society.

Though Rippon does not reach back to fossil evidence of human beings, one might make a case for the beginning of biased human socialization in the discovery of homo habilis males and females that lived 2.4 to 1.4 million years ago in Eastern and Southern Africa. Ironically, “homo habilis” is Latin for “handy man”.

The vary choice of identification of the oldest known fossil is a reminder of the influence of socialization and gender discrimination by the actions and definitions of science researchers. ((Hardly a surprise when only 38% of the population of Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics’ (STEM) bachelor’s degrees are held by women.)) Conceivably, in the beginning of history men dominated women because of inherent physical strength and a division of labor that set sexual bias for generations to come.

In “Gender and Our Brains”, Rippon is raising the chicken and egg paradox for the origin of male and female identity.

Is one born with a gender identity like a chicken or is one born as an egg with a chicken’ identity determined by socialization?

Having been raised by a mother with the only consistent father figure in the family being an older brother, this reviewer’s belief is as clouded as the conclusions reached by Rippon. There is as much evidence for being born as a chicken as an egg in the history of science and sociology. The conclusion one may draw from “Gender and Our Brains” is “let people choose to be whom and what they desire to be”.

Society should neither condemn nor deny a person’s sexual preference. Just as racial and ethnic minorities should not be discriminated against, neither should those who choose a sexual identity.

Societal acceptance and equality of opportunity should be the same for all. There is no justification for denial of equal rights and opportunities based on what one becomes as an individual whether one’s life is an inherent or learned difference. The only reason sexual identity is a controversial question is because societies lean toward a “we/them” mentality. Why should one care whether one identifies as male or female if they make a positive contribution to society. America is founded on the principles of equal treatment and opportunity for all, not just a white, largely male, majority.

Rippon’s conclusion is that human beings may or may not have a sexual identity when they are born. Science experiments and studies give no distinct answer to inherent sexual identity.

If sexual identity is inherent (which is neither proven or unproven by science), socialization is shown to influence sexual identities maturation and how men and women behave toward each other. Rippon argues if sexual identity is partly determined by socialization, then socialization is where equality of the sexes should and can be reinforced.

Rippon makes a convincing argument that there is minimal difference between men and women except in their role in human reproduction.

Many literary stories believe in the equality of the sexes. Rippon’s fundamental point is that all humans are born equal whether male, female, or other. Her inference is that the world needs to get over discrimination and promote equal rights and opportunity for all because any natural origin of sexual identity remains a scientifically indeterminant puzzle.

WARS TRUTH

War is only a destroyer, not a builder of society. Samet implies the truth of war will continue to be distorted by both victors and losers who tell the tale.

Audio-book Review
 By Chet Yarbrough

Blog: awalkingdelight)
 Website: chetyarbrough.blog

Looking for the Good War: American Amnesia and the Violent Pursuit of Happiness

By: Elizabeth D. Samet

Narrated by: Suzanne Toren

Elizabeth D. Samet (Author, Professor of English at West Point.)

Elizabeth Samet’s “Looking for the Good War” tells a hard truth about war. Samet’s history of war is like the refrain from the Temptations’ song:

War, huh yeah
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing, oh hoh, oh
War huh yeah
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing, say it again y’all

THE FEAR OF WAR IN VIETNAM

As a professor at West Point, it seems incongruous for Samet to write this book. On the other hand, who would better understand a career for future military officers than a West Point’ professor? The command structure of the military requires soldiers do what they are ordered to do. In that doing, they may lose their minds, their lives, or their physical health. Samet raises the hard truth of every war, i.e., a soldier’s duty is to follow orders and when necessary, kill or be killed.

Samet questions stories, films, and images that glorify war.

Samet implies, once war is declared, its causes and consequences become fictionalized tales.

Once a country is compelled to defend itself in war, like Ukraine, Samet infers a “…Good War…” becomes fiction.

Truth of war becomes distorted by memory, and human bias that is memorialized by the visual arts and literature. The support for Samet’s view of war is in art and media representations of its history. From Picasso’s Guernica that illustrates the real horror of war to movies like Sands of Iwo Jima, war’s reality is distorted. Art and literature tell different truths.

Samet often refers to Shakespeare’s plays and his many observations about war, i.e., about its perpetrators and victims. From Julius Caesar to Richard III, to Henry IV, to Henry V, to Henry VIII, Samet quotes Shakespeare’s lines like

“Cry havoc’ and loose the dogs of war, That this foul deed shall smell above the earth With carrion men, groaning for burial.”

Samet argues Tom Brokaw, and Robert Rodat (screenwriter for “Saving Private Ryan”) glorify the winning side of WWII by choosing narratives that distort the true nature of war.

Samet is not alone in her opinion about the history of war distorting truth. American author and television writer, Rebecca Serle says the same. To Serle and Samet, history is a personalized perception, a truth imprinted on the minds of combatants. This personalized truth is an interpretation of what one experiences. War’s events are interpreted by the understanding of those who choose to write, paint, or film war’s events. War’s events become interpretations of interpretations. Samet implies a “…Good War…” is oxymoronic, a contradiction of words because there are no good wars.

American author and television writer, Rebecca Serle, wrote “History, memory is by definition fiction. Once an event is no longer present, but remembered, it is narrative. And we can choose the narratives we tell–about our own lives, our own stories, our own relationships.”

Samet is arguing no war is a good war because war is inherently bad for the mental and physical existence of human life. She argues narratives of America’s Civil War are prime examples of the distortion of truth about a “…Good War…” in the same sense as Brokaw’s WWII narrative. Samet coldly notes America’s idealization of rebel opposition to union and civil rights falls into the same category as the idealization of America’s role in WWII. There were singular brave actions in both wars, but those stories of bravery distort the reality of death and destruction, murder of human beings, an aftermath of coping with loss or permanent injury of loved ones, and the consequence of destroyed homes and economies of warring nations. Both WWII and America’s civil war solved nothing. Discrimination has not disappeared. Mass killings still occur. The only difference is in the organization, execution, and volume of deaths and injuries. There is no “…Good War…”

Samet explains neither WWII or the American Civil war were examples of a “…Good War…”. That statement shocks the senses.

Just as America did not save the world for democracy in WWII, America’s Civil War did not erase institutional racism. Racism hardened after America’s civil war and continues to this day.

Axis powers chose to wage war just as Allied powers chose to defend themselves. The story told by victors tends to view war by focusing on heroic events of conflict rather than war’s atrocity and aftermath. The story told by losers is one of blame for miscreant leaders who misled their countries into war. Both stories are fictions to justify new leader’s perceptions of reality. More importantly, Samet clearly explains how memory distorts the truth of what is accomplished by waging war.

Samet is simply writing about the fundamental truth–war is hell for all human beings, whether victors or losers.

The upside-down world of George Orwell notes “War is peace, Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.” This is the world of which Samet writes. Samet explains what Orwell satirizes. War is hell. “Equal rights” are an unaccomplished ideal. Ignorance of war’s truth is compounded by distorted memories of the past.

As seen in Ukraine, Myanmar, Ethiopia, and Sudan–wars continue to roil the world. War is only a destroyer, not a builder of society. Samet implies the truth of war will continue to be distorted by both victors and losers who tell the tale.

DEFINING FREEDOM

Audio-book Review
 By Chet Yarbrough

Blog: awalkingdelight)
 Website: chetyarbrough.blog

The Rise and Fall of the Neoliberal Order (America and the World in the Free Market Era)

By: Gary Gerstle

Narrated by: Keith Sellon-Wright

Gary Gerstle (Author, Professor of American History and Fellow in History at Sidney Sussex College, University of Cambridge.)

Gary Gerstle’s history of the “…Neoliberal Order” is tiresome to listen to but gives weight to American belief and practice of freedom regardless of political affiliation or interest group association. Gerstle’s history is tiresome because of its labeling, not because of its historical accuracy. Whether one is a conservative, liberal, or neoliberal is superfluous.

Americans pride themselves on being beacons of freedom when in truth they are opinionated advocates of self-interest hiding behind political labels.

Gerstle’s history shows every President of the United States has been elected by the prevailing sentiment of the time. (To date, Presidents of the United States have always been men because of humanity’s history of misogyny.) The common thread of America’s leaders is their belief in freedom. In America, that freedom is limited by “rule of law” created by two branches of a popularly elected legislature. Sadly, as shown by Gerstle’s history, America’s “rule of law” has historically victimized the powerless and poor.

Belief in freedom has justified slavery, led to a civil war, given America the emancipation proclamation, voting rights for women, and created vituperative media manipulators like Rush Limbaugh, trolls like Alex Jones, and media conglomerates like Fox News.

The difficulty of American democracy is in knowing where to draw the line between freedom and rule of law that regulates excesses and treats all citizens equally. Guilt finally rose to the level for the emancipation proclamation to free slaves, and voting rights for women in 1920, but Black Americans and women are still seeking equal rights.

Gerstle accurately reveals America’s adaptation to the will of an ethnic majority to circumstances of different eras, whether it is enrichment of the rich, preparation for war, recovery from economic depression, or adjustment to the threat of global warming.

The strength of America democracy is its flexibility in dealing with societal change, with the caveat that government tends to protect the status quo.

Communal self-interest changes with the circumstances of its time. Self-interest is immutable in one sense and highly fungible in another. The power of money influences elections and government policy that aids the moneyed, often at the expense of the powerless and poor. Communal self-interest is reenforced by the right to vote but the economic advantage of government policy goes to the rich and middle class because that is where the money is that supports election campaigns.

Gerstle notes that in the 21st century, particularly with the ubiquity of media, the challenge for the public is to know the difference between propaganda, lies, and truth.

Gerstle infers history shows America takes the course of moneyed interests in elections whether it is one or the other of the three challenges to the public. Sadly, propaganda and lies are often believed by the public to be truth.

Gerstle recalls how the flood gate of media technology opens and its flood takes hold of America during the second term of the Clinton administration. Clinton chose to eliminate the Glass-Steagall Act that was designed in 1933 to prevent another Depression.

Clinton recognizes the world is at the precipice of the tech revolution. During the industrial revolution, banks were steered away from volatile equity markets by the Glass-Steagall Act. Clinton, with the help of Republicans like Newt Gingrich, wanted to loosen the chains of investment banks so the technology revolution could blossom. Neither Democratic nor Republic Presidents reversed that decision after the Clinton presidency.

In part, one might argue the near banking collapse in 2008 could have been avoided if the Glass-Stegall Act had been left in force.

Worse, in the 2008 financial debacle, stockholders in at risk banks were bailed out by the Obama government while overstretched homeowners were left with mortgages they could not pay. The rich were bailed out while the poor were bankrupted.

The three banks that failed in May and March of 2023 are arguably a consequence of the volatile investments made in technology companies, a second threat to the banking industry in the 21st century.

The choice of the government in 2023 is to replace depositors’ funds in excess of FDIC limits to avoid the loss of their businesses from the profligate investments by these three banks. The difference between the 2008 bailout and the 2023 government response is bank’ stockholders were not bailed out by the government while other banks took over their portfolios.

Gerstle’s history clearly shows American Democracy’s failures are non-partisan. Both Republican and Democratic leaders fail the poor and powerless populations of America.

That failure is not because of a failure of democracy but because of poorly regulated capitalism. Karl Marx explained democracy is a first step toward communism. One can disagree with that conclusion by noting self-interest is a part of life that makes the ideal of communism unattainable. What is attainable is a democracy that improves public education and mandates business legislation that ensures and enforces social equality and equal opportunity.

American Democracy needs to erase lobbyist, industry, and individual financial donors’ influence on government political campaigns.

Democracy is a work in progress, but it is the best form of government known today. Capitalism is the engine of economic growth that works in all forms of government. In today’s world, capitalism offers the greatest opportunity for humanity in any form of government, but particularly in Democracy.

In the 21st century, it seems democracy is evolving to meld the best of socialism with the self-interest of capitalism.

Democracy struggles with the principles of regulated freedom. Gerstle’s history shows democratic freedom, limited by rule of law, remains at the heart of what can truly make America Great. What gets in the way is the greed of moneyed interests that elect leaders who become dependent on a minority of American society.

Gerstle’s recounts the history of the second Bush’s administration’s misguided and disastrous invasion of Iraq.

The bloody toll of America’s invasion and failed reconstruction of Iraq illustrates the hubris of American belief that democratic freedom works for all nations of the world.

The invasion and reconstruction of Iraq is shown to be an American failure by any measure of societal improvement.

Gerstle shows the election of Donald Trump is a triumph of the disaster of believing American Democratic elections are in the best interest of its citizens. Trump’s administration mocks the ideals of American Democratic government and freedom. Rule of law is a joke to Trump as evidenced by the many indictments and denials of America’s former President. Gerstle notes how unprepared Trump was to become President of the United States.

By any measure, Trump is shown by Gerstle to have damaged America’s image in the world.

Gerstle’s history shows Democracy needs to be regulated by rule of law. Self-interest is unlikely to disappear from human nature which puts all societies at risk. Any form of government can become autocratic but taking the influence of money out of elections leaves hope that citizens of Democratic nations will have a chance to live well, and in peace.

POLITICAL EVOLUTION

The evolution of political governance offers a kernel of hope for world peace.

Audio-book Review
 By Chet Yarbrough

Blog: awalkingdelight)
 Website: chetyarbrough.blog

The Long Game: China’s Grand Strategy to Displace American Order

By: Rush Doshi

Narrated by: Kyle Tait

Rush Doshi (Author, founding director of the Brookings China Strategy Initiative and a fellow in Brookings Foreign Policy, fellow at Yale’s Paul Tsai China Center.

Rush Doshi’s review of China’s history in “The Long Game” is enlightening. One cannot deny the truth and logic of Doshi’s explanation of China’s commitment and success in returning to international prominence. Doshi’s proficiency in Mandarin Chinese and his thorough review of China’s history give credibility and gravitas to his assessment.

Doshi explains China’s socialist belief is grounded in Leninist communist theory. Lenin believed in the Marxist principles of history and society that show materialism leads to human exploitation.

As the Marxist/Leninist argument goes, exploitation (materialist self-interest) will alienate the majority of society which will revolt against a capitalist ruling class. The belief is that a different form of leadership will rise from the ashes of a revolution that will more fairly distribute the riches of life. In China’s history, Mao is the leader of that revolution. The key to Mao’s, and now President Xi’s belief, is top-down leadership by an enlightened ruling class will raise China’s role in the world. Doshi infers President Xi and his 20th century predecessors believe a communist party’s domination will be the basis upon which a fair distribution of life’s riches can be achieved.

Doshi implies the fundamental conflict between China and the U.S. is political.

China believes in Leninist communism. America believes in democracy. The irony is that human self-interest defeats the idealist intent of both political beliefs. Top-down management of a communist party is potentially as damaging to the public as a democratically elected representative government because of self-interest. No communist or democratic government in the history of the world has resisted the lure of money, power, and prestige that accompanies political leadership. This is not to diminish the relevance and importance of Doshi’s book but to disabuse listeners of an undeserved idealization of any form of government.

Doshi gives a clear explanation of why China is suspicious and wary of American power and influence in the world.

Doshi identifies a trifecta of world events in the twentieth century that influence China/American relations; making it unlikely they will ever become allies. The trifecta is the Tiananmen Square massacre, the collapse of the U.S.S.R., and the invasion of Iraq.

Tiananmen Square is widely condemned by the western world and nowhere more loudly than by the American public.

Deng Xiaoping was the Chairman of the Central Military Commission at the time. A secret mission by Brent Scowcroft, President George H.W. Bush’s National Security Advisor, made an effort to calm China/American relations but Doshi explains it failed. China objected to America’s interference and public rebuke of China in their response to the Tiananmen square demonstration.

The second blow to America’s relationship with China is the collapse of the U.S.S.R.

Doshi notes that China and America secretly cooperated in America’s U.S.S.R.’ containment policy that was recommended by American diplomat George Kennan in 1947. When the U.S.S.R. collapsed in 1991, China reassessed their relationship with America. Without a common enemy, China perceived America’s intent is to be hegemon of the world, not just the West. Doshi explains, China’s view of America becomes an imminent threat to its sphere of influence.

With President George W. Bush’s defeat of Saddam Hussein’s army in less than a month and a half, China recognizes how far they were from being the hegemon they wished to be. Doshi suggests this became the third blow of the trifecta that China perceived as an imminent threat to China’s position as hegemon of Asia, if not sole hegemon, of the world.

The irony of Doshi’s history is that no form of government has been found that fairly mitigates self-interest inherent in human beings.

Just as American leaders who have put their personal interest above the interests of their country, Chinese communist leaders have been found to be corrupt and more concerned about themselves than the lives of their country’s people. Both China and America have a history of discrimination and unfair treatment of their citizens.

History has many examples of the graft and corruption that exists in both communist and democratic forms of government.

China’s history and society is unique and much older than America’s. However, each country is struggling with their governments to be better stewards of their citizens. What all national governments of the world forget is that we live on one space ship. Without better international relations, the ship is headed for oblivion. Governments can continue to argue and fight over who is captaining the ship but no government seems to know how to steer.

Sadly, Doshi ends his scholarly work with details of how America can use the same methods as China to block its hegemonic ambition. Perceived self-interest, once again, chooses opposition over cooperation to achieve comity, not peace.

The evolution of political governance offers a kernel of hope for world peace. Until a form of government equitably manages human self-interest, periodic wars and social unrest will continue. Neither China nor America have found an answer. The answer is neither “Big Brother” nor unregulated freedom.

FOSSIL FUELS

Audio-book Review
 By Chet Yarbrough

Blog: awalkingdelight)
 Website: chetyarbrough.blog

Windfall (How the New Energy Abundance Upends Global Politics and Strengthens American Power.)

By: Meghan L. O’Sullivan

Narrated by: Eliza Foss

Meghan L. O’Sullivan (Author, Harvard professor, Former deputy national security adviser on Iraq and Afghanistan, worked in the George Bush administration.)

Meghan O’Sullivan offers an intelligent but flawed view of today’s world. It is true that energy is critical for economic growth and improved human life. It is also true that energy need and development cause international conflicts in the post-industrial world. O’Sullivan does a masterful job explaining the role of energy, noting its cost while explaining fossil fuels are at a turning point in history.

Fossil fuel prices fluctuated dramatically in the 20th century but O’Sullivan suggests the trend in the 21st century, despite the rise between 2000 and 2008, will trend downward for three reasons.

One is the recognition of energy’s environmental consequence and conservationists’ political response; two, energy’s extraction is becoming less costly for most fossil fuels. And three, technological advancement offers alternative sources of energy.

What O’Sullivan correctly notes is that energy will remain a driving force behind international relations.

However, her argument is flawed by suggesting governmental restrictions on discovery and growth of fossil fuels should be weakened. Even in the few years since publication of O’Sullivan’s book, the science of fossil fuel pollution is showing accelerating global warming with potential for a “no-return” human’ consequence. Global warming seems self-evident. That evidence does not change O’Sullivan’s insight to the outsize role energy plays in the real-politic world of today, yesterday, and tomorrow.

O’Sullivan loses a bet with a colleague that Russia would challenge world peace within five years of 2013. She was right, but it took a couple years longer for Russia’s re-invasion of Ukraine.

O’Sullivan correctly foretold Putin’s kleptocratic government’s intent to re-establish Russia’s place in the world by using its fossil fuel abundance to lure Europe and Asia with their need for energy. Putin’s drive to offer oil and/or gas pipelines to Germany, China, and Turkiye are meant to assuage their opposition to Ukraine’s invasion. Though China is somewhat supportive of Putin, it has little to do with its energy need but more to do with China’s opposition to U.S. involvement in their sphere of influence. In response to the Ukraine invasion, Germany found alternative sources for Putin’s pipelined energy with imported LNG (liquified natural gas). To some extent, Putin’s energy ploy worked. China, India, and Turkiye continue to buy oil from Russia despite its invasion of Ukraine. Their national interests outweigh their concern about Russia’s invasion, just as Putin undoubtedly calculated.

Energy’s role in the modern world is well documented by O’Sullivan. She notes the history and future of energy and how it will continue to roil international relations.

The cost of energy influences world leaders to exploit the environment despite its harm to society.

Exxon Valdez Oil Spill.

Coal continues to be burned for energy around the world because it is the least expensive.

Malaysia coal fire plant.

Technological innovation is decreasing natural gas costs which, though less environmental damaging than oil or coal, is becoming more widely used. Natural gas remains a pollutant. It is estimated to be 50-60 percent less polluting than coal and 20-30 percent less polluting than oil. (A caveat to the less pollution from natural gas is that it is being used in newer and more efficient energy producing facilities.) This argument does not change O’Sullivan’s flawed argument that restrictions should be removed, weakened, or moderated for further fossil fuel technological development and extraction.

Weather around the world, forest fires, and northern arctic warming are dramatic 21st century proof of continuing global warming. Science and nature tells us the world is warming. That warming is, at the least, greater because of fossil fuel use.

O’Sullivan remains correct in noting how energy is key to peace in the world. The vast natural gas find by Israel, called the Leviathan Reservoir, makes Israel’s influence in the Middle East much greater. Israelis use their natural gas’ find to improve their relationship with Middle East powers. On the other hand, it seems to give license to Israel to repress dislocated Palestinians as irreconcilable enemies.

Energy is both a weapon and tool of peace.

Where O’Sullivan’s book is less convincing is in its inference that the energy industry should be given free rein to continue developing fossil fuels. Even if energy is critical to the sovereign right of every country in the world, degradation of today’s environment makes fools of us all.