H.G. Well’s interesting message is that human beings may not be able to save themselves from a technologically superior foreign invasion, but established societies and culture are more enduring than technological superiority. Wells is suggesting an invasion by a technologically superior force does not eradicate a society but changes it.
Books of Interest Website: chetyarbrough.blog
“The War of the Worlds”
Author: H. G. Wells
Narration by: Christopher Hurt
H. G. Wells (1866-1946, English novelist, journalist, sociologist, and historian.)
“The War of the Worlds” is an odd book. Published in 1898 when the British Empire was near the height of its global power and prestige. It shakes the foundations of world hegemonic ambition. Listening to the book in the 21st century, it has relevance but in today’s hearing it seems too long and melodramatic. Giant fighting machines, heat rays, black smoke chemical weapons, city panic, and refugee flight are too familiar in today’s world. The shock value of a Martian invasion is lost. However, in the reality of a horrific war by Russia on the Ukrainian people, America’s bombing of Iran’s citizens, and Iran’s brutalization and torture of its people make “The War of the Worlds” as important and relevant today as when it was written.
H.G. Well’s Martian Invasion
Most of Wells’ book appears to say an invasion by technologically superior Martians will dominate the earth. What Wells shows is that technological superiority is not enough to conquer the world. As the British army and its weaponry fail to defeat the Martians, Earth’s natural pathogens and environment is shown to seriously challenge Martian’ survival. Technological superiority is not enough to win a war. A combination of nature’s pathogens and human resistance are challenges that suggest, despite technological superiority, singular societies ultimately prevail. History shows that eternal domination of an independent distinct society is unlikely to prevail. A distinct society may change from the influence of an invasion, but it does not disappear, it adapts. Glasnost is evidence of that truth when the former nations that were part of the U.S.S.R. reestablish themselves as independent societies that do not entirely abandon the influence of Russian domination. Native tribes that lived in what became the United States retain much of their social identity despite America’s English occupiers.
H.G. Well’s interesting message is that human beings may not be able to save themselves from a technologically superior foreign invasion, but established societies and culture are more enduring than technological superiority. Wells is suggesting an invasion by a technologically superior force does not eradicate a society but changes it.
Every human being has the potential of choosing their way of dealing with life. Whatever one’s role may be, the best one can hope for is to choose what makes them the best they can be.
Books of Interest Website: chetyarbrough.blog
“essentialism” (The Disciplined Pursuit of Less)
Author: Greg McKeown
Narration by: Greg McKeown
Greg McKeown (English author, public speaker, leadership and business strategist.)
McKeown earned an MBA from Stanford University after receiving a BA in communications and journalism at BYU. He reflects on the trials and tribulations of being a manager of events in the modern world where one is faced with psychological overload. Management is the skill of being who you are and getting things done through other people. McKeown explains how to become a more effective and productive manager. It begins with a clear understanding of what self-management is and what may get in the way of that accomplishment.
As a manager of someone else’s business, the job is simpler because the goals are determined by ownership but as a manager of one’s own time it is complicated by poor personal management skill. The idea of “essentialism” is in clearly understanding the goal to be achieved and to understand oneself well enough not to be distracted by what is to be achieved and how to organize and motivate the people who are to accomplish desired results. Once the goal is clearly understood, the end must be what ownership and oneself chooses. If the goal is to manufacture widgets, the steps of manufacturing are labor to produce a product, neither more nor less than what ownership directs. A good manager is not to focus on “more is better” but on the steps of manufacturing with an eye to trade-offs that are a consequence of labor organization and productivity.
The problem from a personal perspective is that company goals are easier to understand because they are determined by others.
Clearly understanding oneself is harder because of self-interest blind spots from being both the observer and observed; not to mention– knowing what actions are required to feel fulfilled as a human being.
The best choice in life is to be who you are, not who you wish to be.
As a manager of others to accomplish a goal, there are times when the response to a worker’s idea is no. This should never be meant to diminish the worker but to keep a worker’s eye on the goals of ownership. A good manager is respectful of a worker who offers ideas but always keeps the goal of ownership in the minds of workers to make it clear that a “no” is not to discourage a worker’s labor or idea for improvement. That which does not focus on achievement of the goal should be eliminated with a “no” but with praise and protection of those who are employed to accomplish ownership’ objectives. With clear understanding of the goal and those actions that benefit its accomplishment, a good manager offers focus to labor and reduces decision fatigue for both manager and worker.
Has capitalism lost its way in America?
There is room for criticism in McKeown’s book from the perspective of labor. As an individual working for a manager, one generally does not have the authority to decline meetings called by a manager. As a worker, one is hired to do a job or task, not to work on their own schedule, or to drop what they are doing at their own discretion. A good manager listens and learns from labor but always keeps in mind the goals of ownership. A good manager looks to labor as seeds for future managers by encouraging self-actualization and promotion but without sacrifice of ownership’s specified goals. Institutional realities cannot be ignored by laborers. McKeown implies everyone is a manager when in fact, from a business enterprise’s perspective, that is not true. Some who think they are managers, are not managers and it is important for a good manager to judge others based on achieving the goals of ownership. A good manager will rise from labor based on doing what they were hired to do, not what they think they are capable of doing. This is not to discourage labor’s advancement but to encourage it through performance in accordance with ownership goals.
Peter Drucker. (A consultant who clearly understood the role, importance, and value of competent managers.)
Peter Drucker is often quoted in this book which is a tribute to McKeown’s management judgement. McKeown also mentions Warren Buffett and the principles that made him a multimillionaire. There is a great deal of good advice in “essentialism” for those who aspire to be managers. As McKeown notes, a manager can fail when he/she becomes overloaded with workplace expectations, poor labor management, ignorance of the digital age, poor organization design, or an organizational culture that demands too much from its employees. Every human being has the potential of choosing their way of dealing with life. Whatever one’s role may be, the best one can hope for is to choose what makes them the best they can be.
It is up to this generation to revise the checks and balances of American Democracy to assure the abuses of power by a President will not destroy the fundamental strengths of democracy.
Books of Interest Website: chetyarbrough.blog
Regime Change (Inside the Imperial Presidency of Donald Trump)
Author: Maggie Haberman, Jonathan Swan
Narration by: Robert Petkoff
Jonathan Swan (Australian and American investigative journalist at NYT, reporter who won the Emmy Award for Best Edited Interview for Axios.)Maggie Haberman (American journalist, political analyst for CNN, White House correspondent for the NYT, published a best seller, “Confidence Man: The Making of Donald Trump” in 2022.)
If only a small percentage of Swan’s and Haberman’s history is objective, Trump’s presidency shows the weaknesses of American democracy. America’s president supervises executive departments, directs cabinet secretaries, orders the firing of employees, sets executive branch priorities, and issues lawful orders to federal agencies. Every American President’s power to hire executive branch employees has the ability to create a managerial ruling class that concentrates wealth and power in a like-minded group with direct reports to the President. Trump, with the character traits of a martinet, allows no disagreement and demands loyalty above all. He hires a cadre of rich Americans to lead the executive branch with total loyalty to one person’s beliefs and actions.
President? Trump.
The President of the United States has direct power over military operations with the right to deploy military force at will. Trump demonstrates that power with the bombing and intended domination of Iran. Trump’s intent is to eliminate Iran’s leadership and its nuclear bomb ambitions; i.e., objectives that fail on many levels. Congress only has the power to declare war, fund the military, and regulate armed forces. Trump did not declare war. He legally uses the military to attack an independent nation; murder alleged drug traffickers without trial and institute an American immigrant deportation policy without either American congressional or judicial endorsement just because, as President of the United States, he can.
January 6, 2021, Trump’s patriots?
The President’s power to pardon leads to the release of hundreds of Americans who had been jailed for attacking the Capitol on January 6, 2021. Over two thousand rioters attacked Capitol Police, damaged the chambers of Congress, and threatened elected officials like the House Speaker and Trump’s chosen Vice President who would not endorse Trump’s belief that his reelection had been fraudulently stolen.
“Regime Change” is a difficult book to be objective about because of a personal distaste for Donald Trump. Much of what Swan and Haberman write reinforces a view of corruption by bullying of a President who is undoubtedly as controversial to some Americans as Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, and FDR were in their times. The difference is that Trump is a proven liar whose public statements are proven false by independent fact-checking organizations. An objective judge of Trump’s presidency will only be fairly revealed by historians in future years. Though “Regime Change” seems well documented, the emotion of current times and the rage of citizens who elected this scofflaw will refuse to believe the truth.
Trump’s cabinet updated April 2, 2026
With a second term control of Trump’s election, he handpicks executive department employees and cabinet secretaries principally based on loyalty. Trump proceeds to issue lawful orders to federal agencies as a part of his administrative power. The President’s power to create executive orders requires no legislative oversight. That power is only constrained by constitutional and statutory authority over which a President has no control. That constraint requires time to be enforced, and Trump chooses to do as he wishes until restrained by either congressional or judicial action, neither of which are happening because of time or Constitutional right.
Trump exposes structural weaknesses in American Democratic government.
It is up to this generation to revise the checks and balances of American Democracy to assure the abuses of power by a President will not destroy the fundamental strength of democracy.
There is an ongoing hybridization of American capitalism and Chinese communism. Is Trump’s authoritarianism becoming more like Xi’s communism or Xi’s authoritarianism becoming more like Trump’s capitalism? One wonders–are we growing closer together or farther apart?
Books of Interest Website: chetyarbrough.blog
House of Huawei (The Secret History of China’s Most Powerful Company)
Author: Eva Dou
Narration by: Nancy Wu
Eva Dou (Author, American journalist who reports on technology for The Washington Post.)
“House of Huawei” is a complex history of the growth and development of what became a Chinese multinational technology company that builds smartphones, laptops, smartwatches, and most importantly, telecom infrastructure for cloud services around the world. It is China’s version of Amazon that becomes a massive seller of tech equipment, internet use, and communication.
Ren Zhengfei (Chinese entrepreneur and engineer, founder of Huawei Technologies.)
There are many names of Huawei business leaders that are largely unknown to most Americans. Ren Zhengfei is the founder and most important person in Dou’s story. He is born in 1944 to schoolteacher parents during the Cultural Revolution. He served in the Chinese armies engineering corps that shaped his management style. He worked through famine, political purges, and the strict discipline of military service. He became the founder of Huawei in 1987.
Deng Xiaoping (China’s Chairman of the Central Advisory Commission of the Chinese Communist Party, 1982-1987)
The advance of Deng Xioping opens a capitalist door to the world for Huawei. Beginning in 1978 through 1989 Deng reforms the communist party and encourages a limited form of capitalism in China. When Xi takes over, Huawei becomes more directly subject to communist party oversight. As a company, Huawei is pulled closer to China’s government control. The Huawei network is classified as a national-security asset. Though Huawei may or may not have sought closer association with the CCP, it became entangled with state strategy.
Xi makes Huawei a national champion of innovation and semiconductor technology. It becomes a symbol of China’s technology ambitions while being a target of U.S. sanctions. Dou shows Huawei becomes a battleground for tech strategy between China and the Untied States
Sun Yafang (Chinese engineer and Chairwoman of Huawei, 1999-2018.)
Sun Yafang is a former chairwoman of Huawei. Her ties to Chinese intelligence services are viewed as a recurring controversy with Huawei’s involvement with America. Her relationship with China’s state power structure creates concern on the part of the U.S. with Huawei’s data collection as a part of Huawei’s practices in America.
Meng Wanzhou (aka Cathy Meng or Sabrina Meng, Deputy Chairwoman and CFO of Huawei.)
Ren’s daughter, Meng Wanzhou, becomes the Chief Financial Officer of Huawei. Wanzhou became known to the world when she is detained in Canada in 2018 at the request of the United States. Her arrest ironically leads to more familiarity with Huawei and its expansion in the world. The primary concern the author reveals is how dependent Huawei may be on the Chinese government for information about America’s technology services.
The fundamental concern of America, Germany, and Japan is Huawei’s use of data collection in their countries.
In the end, these countries decide to ban or restrict the use of Huawei’s equipment because of their ties to the Chinese Communist Party, government, and military. Beginning in 2019 the U.S. banned some of Huawei’s services and global chip supplies. By 2026, Huawei is banned from American federal networks, and telecom infrastructure services. Germany and Japan take similar actions between 2018 and 2026.
Dou explains Huawei’s history exposes deep contradictions with China’s government-directed economic growth.
The authoritarian and state-directed economic and political structure of China is a challenging contradiction to the idealism of communism. China’s communism is compelled to change ideologically from Marxism-Leninism to a state-directed form of capitalism. Huawei becomes a telecom giant euphemistically called socialism with Chinese characteristics. In truth, Huawei is structured to be more capitalist than communist with interventionist potential by the state if it conflicts with centralized control of the party.
Communist captitalism.
Dou explains how Party committees are created within Huawei’s management system. These committees exercise ideological control over Huawei’s executives. Huawei’s objectives are required to conform to national priorities. The development of 5G and telecom infrastructure becomes a national, not private asset of the company. This generates fear in the U.S. about security liabilities and foreign influence of China on U.S.’ and allied countries’ political and/or economic affairs. Dou notes China’s leadership insists on enforcing its security laws, data practices, and CCP’s rules of the road for Huawei’s operations.
Huawei discipline.
Dou notes that Xi’s anti-corruption campaign pressures Huawei to tighten internal governance. Executives of Huawei were disciplined for being too extravagant. The CCP organized ideological training for company employees to more fully align them with the Party. China’s government interference in Huawei’s management leads to U.S. sanctions and an arrest of Meng Wanzhou’s in Canada. The United States has effectively banned Huawei telecom and surveillance equipment. Federal agencies cannot use Huawei devices. American internet companies in the U.S. that receive federal funds must remove Huawei equipment. Though Huawei phones and laptops are not banned in the U.S., they are not sold by major U.S. carriers or retailers. The UK, Germany, France, Japan, Australia, and Canada have taken similar actions against Huawei services. Huawei product like laptops and mobile phones are not universally banned but many Western countries have barred telecom infrastructure because of national security concerns.
What is striking about Dou’s book is the history of Huawei shows both confluence and separation between Communism and Capitalism.
Both use the capitalist tools of competition, private enterprise, and global markets. Both are involved in the private sector and provide preferential treatment, political protection, and financing. Nationalism is a greater force than Marxism for both China and the U.S. American corporate discipline is similar to communist party discipline. Further, economic and political strategies of America and China have similarities. However, the two cultures conflict with each other over globalization and levels of interference or control of private companies. America leans toward transparency, partnership, open markets, and international trust. China opts for secrecy, political reliability, ideological conformity, and oversight to ensure national security. Furthermore, America thrives on risk-taking, experimentation, a free market and decentralized decision making while China emphasizes political correctness, Party control, ideological discipline, and insistence on corruption elimination.
In sum, it seems there is an ongoing hybridization of both American capitalism and Chinese communism. Is Trump’s authoritarianism becoming more like Xi’s communism or Xi’s authoritarianism becoming more like Trump’s capitalism? One wonders–are we growing closer together or farther apart?
“The Fire Next Time” signals a political and prophetic warning to America. The continued existence of Baldwin’s observations about racial inequality are compounded by the rising gap between rich and poor and gender inequality in the 21st century.
Books of Interest Website: chetyarbrough.blog
The Fire Next Time
Author: James Baldwin
Narration by: Lawrence Fishburne
JAMES BALDWIN (1924-1987 AMERICAN NOVELIST, SOCIAL CRITIC)
“The Fire Next Time” is written when James Baldwin is only 38 years old. He lives for 25 more years before his death in 1987. His book about life as a Black American is an emotional journey into the struggle of Black Americans that exposes the venality of white suppression and inequality in American history. The intensity of his writing is a brutal exposure of the consequence of discrimination that overwhelms a reader or listener. In many ways, his book is professorial but his view of life as a minority in white America is appalling.
Baldwin exposes the hypocrisy of American democracy, the moral bankruptcy of racial hierarchy, and the failure of American institutions to live up to the values expressed in the American Constitution. The founders argue “all men are created equal” while history shows human equality has never been achieved in America. Baldwin clearly explains America’s failures but is decidedly vague on how those failures can be corrected. He clearly disagrees with the Nation of Islam’s belief in Black self-determination through separation of the races but is ambiguous about organized movements to correct discrimination.
Racist rally in America.
Baldwin explains how white liberals are too complacent, conservatives too cruel, Black separatists to fatalistic, and American institutions too dishonest to forthrightly deal with human inequality. His foundational belief is that a fight for civil rights, and continued arguments for equality are essential requirements for America to achieve the goals that are stated and implied by the Constitution.
“The Fire Next Time” signals a warning to America.
“The Fire Next Time” signals a political and prophetic warning. The continued existence of Baldwin’s observations about racial inequality are compounded by the rising gap between rich and poor and gender inequality in the 21st century. If America refuses to confront inequality, there will be a national reckoning that will be violent and unavoidable.
The answer to “Has China Won” seems a “no” for the present but Mahbubani makes a credible argument for its continuing growth, prosperity, and success.
Books of Interest Website: chetyarbrough.blog
Has China Won? (The Chinese Challenge to American Primacy)
Author: Kishore Mahbubani
Narration by: Aaron Abano. P.J Ochlan
Kishore Mahbubani (Author, Singaporean diplomat, and academic who is a permanent representative to the UN.)
“Has China Won” is a controversial political opinion that suggests America is grossly underestimating the growing strength of China that will continue to grow in influence and power in the world. Some may argue Mahbubani overstates China’s strengths and understates its weaknesses. Mahbubani does not deny America’s strengths, its resilience, and peaceful world strategy. However, his underlying inference is that peaceful socialist doctrine will replace democratic capitalism as the “sine quo non” of the future.
There are three general categories of governance in the world. One is communist socialism, two is democratic capitalism, and three is authoritarian despotism. By the end of “Has China Won?”, one is inclined to believe China will grow to be a competitor to America as a socialist communist success just as America has become a democratic capitalist success. Authoritarian despotism will disappear as a system of governance as human education improves. China may surpass America as a superpower in the sense of population but not necessarily as a world influencer. Both systems have discriminatory flaws. China is neither better nor worse as a political entity than America; i.e. both are destined to compete for socio/political influence in the world. Socialist communism will likely grow to be equally influential as democratic capitalism for nation-state governments. Socialist communism is an ideological competitor; i.e., it is as likely to be adopted or rejected as democratic capitalism. In my personal opinion, socialist communism and democratic capitalist governance will survive in some form until their equal or superior is discovered.
American democratic capitalism has made its mistakes.
America cannot deny its international intervention mistakes. Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan are overreaches of America’s belief in democratic capitalism. America fails to understand deep-rooted cultural beliefs, the nationalism of other countries, and the appeal of socialist communist or authoritarian doctrine. In an effort to support national dissidents; America has invaded several countries and chose to abandon their citizens which allowed authoritarians to retake control of their countries. Vietnam remains a socialist communist country. Afghanistan returns to rule by the Taliban. Iraq is a weakened economic nation led by a fragile, technocratic, non-aligned political novice named Aliall-Zaldi.
America’s latest mistake is the bombing of Iran. (A water plant destruction.)
President Trump chooses to bomb Iran and expects Iranians to rally around American democratic capitalism when all that is accomplished is a hardening of authoritarian Iranian Leadership’ beliefs. Many Americans believe Iranian authoritarian leadership will fail. Whether socialist communism or democratic capitalism will replace authoritarianism may only be a matter of time. President Trump’s ham-fisted actions are unlikely to endear democratic capitalism to Iranian citizens. Iran’s future cannot be predicted in the short term, but Iranian authoritarianism seems likely to fail.
The answer to “Has China Won” seems a “no” for the present but Mahbubani makes a credible argument for its continuing growth, prosperity, and success. It depends on China’s history of long-term domestic stability and growing prosperity. Will Xi and his successors continue to improve the economic well-being of the millions of Chinese poor? Can China avoid military conflict with the U.S.? No one knows but many speculate. Will the U.S. finally understand China’s government and what it means to its people. Xi is not America’s enemy; neither is he an ally.
Like American capitalism, Chinese communism has its faults. One big difference is American capitalism offers a higher level of individual freedom with legal rights to defend oneself in a court of law (that is, of course, if you are not an immigrant).
Books of Interest Website: chetyarbrough.blog
Red Roulette (An Insider’s Story of Wealth, Power, and Vengeance in Today’s China.)
Author: Desmond Shum
Narration by: Tim Chiou
Desmond Shum (Author, born in Shanghai in 1968, former Hong Kong businessman who lives in the UK. with a son born in the U.S.)
“Red Roulette” is an amazing personal story of a former Chinese citizen who marries a successful Chinese woman, Whitney Duan. She is disappeared by the Xi government in 2017. Shum and Duan were married from 2004 to 2015. His wife’s fate is unknown to Shum as he writes this book. Amazingly, Ms. Duan calls Shum four years after she is disappeared by China to ask him to not publish his book. Shum believes this is the first public contact by Duan since her disappearance in 2017.
Ms. Duan had chosen to capitalize on a system of doing business in China the way it had been done for many years. That system is riven with a kind of societal corruption revealed in “Red Roulette” that has grown with communism in China.
Desmond Shum reveals surprises to many Americans about China’s culture. Despite a presumption of many non-Chinese, Shum explains power is personal, not institutional in China. One might presume that CCP’s control of wealth and power in China comes from the party and its leaders. However, wealth in China is only influenced by the communist government through a social network of beliefs. Shum explains personal relationships and connections are built on favors, gifts, and mutual obligations that are debts that carry the reality of power in China. This explains the title of the book “Red Roulette” in the sense that success in Chinese society is a game of chance based on bets placed on the value of favors, and gifts that CCP members believe have worth.
Debt for favors and gifts is in the eye of the beholder which makes fair payment a mysterious and chance driven calculation. Adding to that complexity is the power of a CCP leader to erase a citizen socially, legally, and economically. By erasure, Shum explains citizens may be detained, prevented from family contact, denied legal representation, arrested, impoverished, and isolated from any social contact. Shum explains his ex-wife, Whitney Duan, vanished for years with no charges, no trial, and no record of her disappearance.
Xi Jinping (Leader of the CCP in China.)
The CCP elite govern China through relationships among themselves, not by official meetings or party leadership orders that are necessarily based on definable communist dogma. Everything happens behind the scenes. Official meetings, if there are any, are strictly “for show”. Shum’s admits in his personal story that he and his ex-wife became wealthy through a corrupt relationship with Zhang Beili, one of the CCP apparatchiks and power brokers. One may argue the CCP is similar to the Congress of the United States. Wealthy capitalists, like CCP apparatchiks, game the stock market and society through political connection with elected government officials
Deng Xiaoping launched an initial shift away from Maoist central planning despite ordering the crackdown on Tiananmen Square in 1989.
As somewhat of a realist, one understands governance is based on leaders presumed power, wealth, and political influence. Shum argues China’s economic modernization and capitalism began with Deng Xiaoping who rose to power after Tiananmen with Hu Jintao continuing China’s economic boom. Shum argues today’s Xi is increasing control of the CCP and the economy with the traditions of Chinese society. In the author’s opinion, China is reinstituting a Mao-style autocracy that is spreading fear across the country.
In fairness to Shum’s assessment of China, there is evidence of America’s slip into autocracy in today’s economy.
Shum believes Xi Jinping’s CCP anti-corruption campaign is only a pretext for power consolidation. In Shum’s opinion, Xi’s targeted removal of CCP apparatchiks is not because of their corruption but because they rival his power over the party. Xi’s campaign on corruption increases fear among CCP members and influencers that reinforce traditions of China’s rule by personal relationship and connection. Xi’s goal is to increase personal loyalty to himself which is part and parcel of the history of Chinese social norms. Shum’s evidence of corruption is the increase in disappearances, secret detentions, arrests of businesspeople without charges, and insistence on what is characterized as party discipline.
Whitney Duan and Shum when they were married.
Whitney Duan’s disappearance is Shum’s primary example of Xi’s Chinese governance. Duan is characterized as ambitious, brilliant, and determined. Her rise to power in Chinas is from close relationships she develops with people who have influence in the communist party. She befriends Zhang Beili, the wife of the Vice Premier of the CCP, Wen Jiabao. Because of that association, Duan has privileged access to information about land deals and major real-estate projects in China. She uses that information to make deals with advanced knowledge that result in great economic wealth for her and her former husband. Shum marries Duan and they both capitalize on insider information they gain from Duan’s relationships. One presumes the marriage ends because of the stresses and political dangers involved in their common business interests.
The quality of Kafka’s story in “The Trial” is the human desire for freedom that is not extinguished even in the darkest times of a country’s repression. This is a hope one presumes for both China and America, but human nature gets in the way.
In 2017, two years after the author’s divorce, Whitney Duan disappears. There are no charges, no trial, no public disclosure, and she is unable to contact any of her family including the son she has with Shum. No one knows if she is dead or alive. The state refuses to say she has been detained. One presumes, she is arrested because of Xi Jinping’s anti-corruption campaign and his purge of some party members like Wen Jiabao. Interestingly, just before the book is to be published, Whitney Duan calls Shum to ask him not to publish. Obviously, she is alive.
One big difference between American capitalism and Chinese communism is a higher level of individual freedom with legal rights to defend oneself in a court of law (that is, of course, if you are not an immigrant). That is a significant difference between China and America. However, both countries are impacted by bad actors that game the system based on personal relationship and influence with political leaders.
On the one hand, this story reinforces belief that Xi is trying to reform the CCP. On the other, the methodology of autocracy offers no defense against the injustice of being condemned without trial.
One concludes Whitney Duan lost in the game of Chinese Roulette by being part of a relationship that gave her inside information from the CCP. Her disappearance is proof of the theme of Shun’s book about the importance of relationships and connections to gain power and financial success in Chinese society. Like American capitalism, Chinese communism has its faults.
Robert Frost wrote “In three words I can sum up everything I’ve learned about life: it goes on.” That is the essential truth of “The Vast Enterprise” about the Lewis and Clark Expedition.
Books of Interest Website: chetyarbrough.blog
The Vast Enterprise (A New History of Lewis & Clark)
Author: Craig Fehrman
Narration by: Jason Culp & 5 more
Craig Fehrman (Author, journalist, historian of Presidents and American history.)
Craig Fehrman writes an excellent history of the Lewis and Clark expedition. It entertains and informs reader/listeners of the lives of Meriwhether Lewis, William Clark, an enslaved man named York, and a tribal native named Sacagawea. From President Thomas Jefferson’s reasoning and his decision to create an expedition from Kentucky to the Pacific, one learns something new, old, and troubling about America.
Thomas Jeffereson (1743-1826, President of the U.S. 1801-1809.)
Thomas Jefferson is characterized as a shrewd, partisan, and forceful political operator who had a clear vision for the future of continental America. That prescient vision of America by Jefferson hides his blindness to the truth of human equality of Black men and women as inferior to white men. However, Fehrman notes Jefferson believes natives of this continent had the potential to be the equal of white Americans. Jefferson’s shrewdness and forceful opinion is illustrated by his understanding of the importance of trading posts as a way to expand control of land possessed by native inhabitants and held by Spanish and French interests. Lewis and Clark’s western expedition is, in Jefferson’s opinion, critical to America’s future land interests.
Meriwhether Lewis and William Clark (American Explorers.)
Both Meriwhether Lewis and William Clark are characterized as relatively educated colonial citizens suited for an expedition from Kentucky to the Pacific. Though both leaders for the expedition were heroic, their personalities, leadership styles, and temperaments were quite different. Lewis is characterized as brilliant but an inwardly volatile man, while Clark is a steady, self-confident manager of people. Lewis is the visionary who works in the Jefferson’ administration as secretary to the President while Clark is former military officer who gets things done with people who report to him. Lewis clearly understood Jefferson’s objective in exploring the west, its diplomatic purpose, and geopolitical importance. Clark’s frontier experience, military discipline, and surveying skill served Lewis’s understanding of Jefferson’s objectives.
Lewis & Clark Expedition
Both Lewis and Clark understood they were not only entering a wilderness but a continent full of other nations which made them effective negotiators and intermediaries with native tribes. Lewis’s intellectual understanding of Jefferson’s objectives is complimented by Clark’s skill in managing native tribe relationships. With the help of a Black slave owned by Clark and a native Shoshone woman married to a French trader, this former military man manages to gain the aid of the Lakota, Shoshone, and other tribes to save the Lewis and Clark expedition from failure.
Image of York (Slave owned by William Clark.)
The history of York (Clark’s owned slave) in the expedition is interesting. What the author, York, and enlisted members of the expedition show is that Lewis and Clark were dependent on their crew for the success of the mission. Men like York provide the labor and skill needed to complete the journey. As a young adult, York shows the value of all human beings to the success of the expedition while being a slave. The sad fact is that York is never released from his bondage to Clark. Despite York’s alleged inferiority, Clark relies on him for his field abilities and reminds reader/listeners of the importance of other cultures and ethnicities that make America. Fehrman infers York is a symbolic bridge between ethnic worlds; i.e. not just the Black and White world but the native and English American world. York is an example the difference of human beings in America; i.e., from people of color to native tribes in a dominant white culture. Fehrman’s story infers human difference reinforces belief that native tribes (Black, white, or other) could co-exist though not be treated as equal human beings. This is no stretch of a reader/listener’s imagination based on America’s history of Indian/American wars and slavery. There is one native American that travels with Lewis and Clark. She is Sacagawea, the only woman on the expedition. Her story reflects on America’s view of women as property despite their contribution to life and their contribution to social and economic society.
Image of Sacagawea on the Lewis and Clark Expedition.
Fehrman suggests Sacagawea is a full participant in the expedition. To Fehrman she represents a symbol of Native nations. Sacagawea and York became part of the diplomatic fabric of the journey demonstrating the truth of human equality. Sacagawea became pregnant from her husband, Toussaint Charbonneau, a French-Canadian trapper. Her baby is born on the expedition. Charbonneau had two native wives, the first of which did not accompany them on the expedition. Sacagawea had been kidnapped by the Hidatsa tribe in a war with the Shoshone when she is 12. Charbonneau is 20 years older than Sacagawea. Sacagawea is 13 when she is forced to marry Charbonneau by the Hidatsa. The tribe had traded goods with Charbonneau. Sacagawea and Charbonneau are reluctantly hired by Lewis and Clark for the expedition. Both act as interpreters on the expedition but Fehrman argues Sacagawea represents more than being a translator because of her heritage and knowledge of the territory through which they will travel. Sacagawea’s Shoshone tribal heritage had diplomatic value beyond mere language interpretation. On the other hand, Charbonneau seems more a liability than asset to Lewis and Clark.
Shoshone Tribe in western America.
Fehrman shows the expeditionary Americans were not dominant actors in their relationships with native tribes. In the wilderness, they acted more as guests or supplicants in their dealings with various tribes. They recognized they were outsiders that needed political alliances with native tribes because they had meager knowledge of the territory and customs of indigenous tribes who controlled the river lands they explored. Their need for food, horses, guides, and knowledge of the land depends on their relationships with indigenous tribes. Without tribal help and guidance, they would have no protection or chance of safe passage. Native tribes provide horses and information that kept them on their course to the west and saved them from starvation and death. It is a combination of Jefferson’s somewhat arrogant plan for the country’s consolidation for the expeditionary force to be dependent upon indigenous tribes who are repeatedly deprived of their land in America’s growth as a nation. It is the explorer’s humbleness and humility that allows Lewis and Clark to succeed in growing an American continent that historically suppresses indigenous land ownership and use.
Most Shoshone Tribes appear more southwestern than northwestern.
Indigenous tribes were politically naive in their aid to American explorers. Without tribal’ naivete, the early days of America’s influence and growth as a singular nation would have failed. One presumes, the continent would have remained a land of tribal ownership and internecine conflicts over land and natural resources. In the early years of American government, it is humbleness, humility, and the growth of trade between natives and early Americans that transform a land of native tribal presence into a singular nation among nations. In Fehrman’s opinion the prime mover of that accomplishment began with Thomas Jefferson and “The Vast Enterprise” of explorers like Lewis and Clark.
The last chapters of Fehrman’s book leave listener/readers with notes about Lewis, Clark, York, and Sacagawea that are sad to read or hear. Lewis becomes an alcoholic and commits suicide. Clark refuses to give York his freedom. York dies from cholera while Clark lives a life of success and power. Clark becomes governor of -Missouri Territory and Superintendent of Indian Affairs. Sacagawea is leaves her French husband and dies at Fort Manuel in 1812.
Robert Frost (1874-1963.)
Robert Frost wrote “In three words I can sum up everything I’ve learned about life: it goes on.” That is the essential truth of “The Vast Enterprise”.
To this book reviewer, the flaw in American democracy is the rising gap between rich and poor. Dychtwald implies the flaw in China is its reliance on a singular leader’s actions to improve the daily lives of its citizens.
Books of Interest Website: chetyarbrough.blog
Young China (How the Restless Generation Will Change Their Country and the World)
Author: Zak Dychtwald
Narration by: Zak Dychtwald
Zak Dychtwald (Author, public speaker, fluent Mandarin speaker, world traveler, graduate of Columbia University who moved to China and spent 4 years interviewing local Chinese.)
“Young China” is a fascinating comparison of a world traveler’s perception of the difference between young Americans and Chinese youths. A reservation one has in listening to Dychtwald’s explanation of Chinese youth is whether a 4-year immersion in a foreign culture constitutes a society’s truth or just a topical view of an intelligent observer who gravitates to students of similar ambition.
America’s Achilles heel.
Not knowing the author’s life experience, one assumes he has not lived the life of most American college students of his generation. As a graduate of Columbia, his decision to learn Mandarin Chinese, and choice to travel to China for a four year stay suggests he is not a typical American youth. Further, as the meaning of the saying “Birds of a feather flock together”, one presumes his choice of interviewees is not likely to be typical Chinese college students but those who excel in intelligence and academic pursuit.
Contrast of lives in China.
The main Chinese youths whom the author interviews and becomes acquainted with are Ben, Vivian, Chen, Liu, and Mei. Ben–who is a striver who has a rural background. Vivian is a young professional woman who speaks English and comes from the middle class. Chen is a university student who embraces nationalist beliefs of young Chinese. Liu is a young teenager who experiences the meritocratic pressure of academic achievement in China. And finally, Mei is a young Chinese college student dealing with job aspirations, dating, marriage pressure, and career ambitions.
Education is the great strength of China.
In some sense, these characters have American student similarities. One can find similar Americans in each of the broad categories of these five Chinese students. However, Dychtwald sees Chinese students as “dreamers and strivers” while his experience is that American students are skeptical about the value of education and their future. Dychtwald finds Chinese college students take their performance on college exams more seriously than American college students. High academic achievement is a critical goal to a Chinese student while to an American graduating with a degree is the primary goal and finding a career is more important than achieving high scores on college exams. Chinese youths see themselves as a part of a national achievement for China while Americans see themselves as cogs in a capitalist machine that may or may not turn into successful careers.
College is a pressure cooker for Chinese students while it’s more of a cultural experience and stage of life for most American students.
Finally, Dychtwald notes Chinese students are globally curious, Western influenced, while being confident in the superiority of their own country. In contrast, American students care less about other countries, know few languages beyond English, and see their country as just one of many cultures in the world. Dychwald is an outlier in that he does not view China as a threat to American hegemony, but a country focusing on improving the lives of their citizens.
The risks of singular leadership.
Admittedly, this review is a narrow interpretation of Dychtwald’s fascinating book. Only an extraordinary intellect would move to China after graduating from college and learn fluent Mandarin during a 4 year stay in China. It makes we who are old wish we had the privilege of Dychtwald’s intelligence to live life over again.
To this book reviewer, the flaw in American democracy is the rising gap between rich and poor. Dychtwald implies the flaw in China is its reliance on a singular leader’s actions to improve the daily lives of its citizens. America has the advantage of 4-year democratic change in leadership while China is dependent on an authoritarian’s health and judgement as a singular leader.
A reader/listener of “Battleground Ukraine” infers Putin will fail because of Russia’s flagging economy and weakening military. The Ukraine war may go on for many more months, but its economic devastation and human deaths will end with Ukraine as a sovereign country, and presumably, a Russia with a different President.
Books of Interest Website: chetyarbrough.blog
Battleground Ukraine (From Independence to the War with Russia)
Author: Adrian Karatnycky
Narration by: Daniel Henning
Adrian Karatnycky (Author, Ukrainian American political analyst.)
“Battleground Ukraine” is an important history of the transition of Ukraine from being part of the U.S.S.R. to an independent nation-state. The author offers a chronological political history of Ukraine’s drive for independence after glasnost. Karatnycky outlines the achievements and setbacks of three decades and six leadership changes in Ukraine’s Government. He shows nation-building is no easy task for a country that is split between desire for independence and a history of Soviet Union domination.
In researching the qualification of Adrian Karatnycky, one finds he is considered a leading analyst who has written about Ukraine in publications like Foreign Policy, The Wall Street Journal, Foreign Affairs, The Atlantic, and National Review.
Adrian Karatnycky is characterized as a Ukrainian American political analyst, and a democracy advocate for Ukraine. He is a managing partner of a consulting firm representing clients with interests in Ukraine. He co-founded a cultural initiative to promote positive relations between Ukrainians and Jews and has studied Russian Ukrainian’ relations, written a number of articles about Ukrainian human rights, political freedoms, and its development as a civil society. He understands and speaks English and Ukrainian, and presumably Russian.
Leonid Kraychuk (1991-1994, First President of Ukraine)
His book is informative but complicated because of unfamiliarity with most of the six leaders of Ukraine after its separation from the U.S.S.R. The first president of independent Ukraine is Leonid Kravchuk (1991-1994). Kravchuk presided over the breakup and helped establish the independent nation of Ukraine. According to this history, Kravchuk seems reluctant to create a decisive break with the Soviet-era experience. The authoritarian habits of administration led to the blossoming of oligarchic networks in Ukraine that resemble the oligarchs who control the Russian economy under Putin today. The growth of Ukraine as a relatively free capitalist country is sidelined by Kravchuk’s rule. Nevertheless, Kravchuk’s administration appears to have accomplished the break from the U.S.S.R. without civil war.
Leonid Kuchma (1994-2004, Second President of Ukraine.)
The second leader of Ukraine is Leonid Kuchma (1994-2004). The author notes Kuchma accepted the growth and corruption of oligarchs in Ukraine. In some sense, the economy stabilized under Kuchma’s rule while improving ties with Russia and even the West. However, authoritarianism is reinforced by a cadre of oligarchs that corrupt Ukrainian society and enrich themselves while reinforcing attachment to Russia.
Viktor Yushchenko (2005-2010, Third President of Ukraine.)
The third leader is Viktor Yushchenko (2005-2010). In 2004, the Orange Revolution begins in Ukraine with nationwide protests, civil disobedience, and political mobilization against oligarchic rule in Ukraine. Kuchma is replaced by Yushchenko as a result of a Ukrainian Supreme Court ruling that demands a new vote. That vote results in the election of Yushchenko. Yushchenko is characterized by Karatnycky as a pro-Western democrat. He allows Ukraine media to remain free by not repressing its citizens. However, Yushchenko is characterized as a political failure who, at best, creates space for the growth of democracy in Ukraine. Though Crimea is not lost during Yushchenko’s rule because he resisted Russian military expansion, he fails to move his country toward democracy.
Crimea’s annexation by Russia in March 2014.
Russia had a base in Crimea but its role in the invasion and confiscation of Crimean territory expanded with the next Ukrainian President’s administration. At worst, Yushchenko’s political ineptness and weak governance paved the way for a more kleptocratic Ukrainian President named Viktor Yanukovych (2010-2014). As Yushchenko leaves office, Russia lays plans for the invasion of Donbas in 2014.
Viktor Yanukovych (2010-2014, Fourth President of Ukraine.)
Karatnycky views Yanukovych as the latest pro-Russian ruler of Ukraine. Yanukovych uses his position as President to enrich his family and allow Russian intelligence service to infiltrate the Ukrainian government. In the author’s opinion, Yanukovych opened the door to Russian aggression which led Russia to surreptitiously invade Donbas and annex Crimea. Karatnycky infers Putin launches the Donbas incursion as a result of a power vacuum created by Yanukovych who flees Kyiv on February 22, 2014. Crimea is annexed by Russia on February 23, 2014. The Donbas incursion begins in April 2014.
Ukrainian corruption during the Yanukovych presidency.
By a slim margin of 3.5% Yanukovych won the Ukrainian presidency in 2010. He escapes to Russia in February 2014 after ordering a violent crackdown on Ukrainian protesters. Karatnycky’s assessment of Yanukovych is highly negative. He argues Yanukovych centralized Presidential power, weakened independent institutions, persecuted political opponents, and drew the government closer to Putin’s Russia. He defeated Uylia Tymoshenko, a pro-Western leader, who is imprisoned in 2011 during the Orange Revolution in Ukraine. Yanukovych remains in Russia today and is convicted in absentia for treason in aiding Russia during his term in office.
Petro Poroshenko (2014-2019, Fifth President of Ukraine.)
After Russia’s incursion in Donbas, Ukraine elects Petro Poroshenko (2014-2019). Karatnycky suggests Poroshenko recognizes Ukraine’s military has to be rebuilt because of Yanukovych’s neglect. Poroshenko turns to the West for support in the battles occurring in Donbas. His appeal is answered with U.S. and EU backing that secures sanctions against Russia. Ukraine increases NATO cooperation to make Ukraine a frontline for democracy. As a delaying tactic, in Karatnycky’s opinion, ceasefires were agreed to by Poroshenko in order to give Ukraine more time to rebuild its military. In the author’s opinion, Porshenko did not break Ukraine’s oligarchic power, but he secured Western support of Ukraine and rebuilt the army which strengthens Ukraine’s national identity. Karatnycky characterizes Poroshenko’s rule as a true beginning transition of Ukraine from authoritarian to democratic government. However, Kartnycky notes the judicial system and established oligarch’ influence continues to obstruct democratic ideals. Further, Russia’s Donbas battles with Ukraine continue through his administration.
Russia’s Donbas battles with Ukraine continue through Poroshenko’s administration.
Finally, we get to the election of Volodymry Zelensky in 2019. Karatnycky sees Zelensky as a pre-war and wartime President. Zelensky’s successful election is shocking considering the author’s assessment of Poroshenko’s successes in transitioning Ukraine to a world recognized democratic rather than authoritarian government. Zelensky, a comic actor, soundly defeats Poroshenko in the election of 2019. Zelensky appears completely out of his element in becoming President of Ukraine. He struggles with political reform and shows an ineptitude in dealing with political infighting. Karatnycky describes Zelensky as “…well-intentioned but inexperienced naïve in his first two years as President. However, as Russia chooses to invade Ukraine, the wartime Zelensky becomes a unifying national leader. His experience as an actor/comedian makes him a master communicator. Zelensky becomes a wartime decision maker that gathers Western support for the defense of his country. Zelensky overcomes his political shortcomings in the face of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Zelensky manages to unite Ukraine against a much larger enemy despite the economic stagnation of the Ukrainian economy.
Volodymry Zelensky (President of Ukraine 2019-?)
It Karatnycky’s opinion, Ukraine will survive Russia’s invasion and will remain a sovereign country. A reader/listener of “Battleground Ukraine” infers Putin will fail because of Russia’s flagging economy and weakening military. The Ukraine war may go on for many more months, but its economic devastation and human deaths will end with Ukraine as a sovereign country, and presumably, a Russia with a different President.
