EVIL’S PERSONIFICATION

One asks oneself, what leaders in the world today have remorse for the incarcerations, torture, and killings for which they are responsible? What remorse is there in Putin’s, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s, Prime Minister Netanyahu’s, and even our American President’s thoughts?

Books of Interest
 Website: chetyarbrough.blog

CONFRONTING EVIL (Assessing the Worst of the Worst)

Author: Bill O’Reilly, Josh Hammer

Narrated By: Robert Petkoff

Bill O’Reilly, American conservative commentator, journalist, author, and television host. Josh Hammer, American conservative commentator, attorney, co-author, and columnist.

History taken out of the context of its time often distorts the reality of the past.

“Confronting Evil” is an interesting if not nuanced history of the most notorious leaders in the world. They were responsible for the torture, incarceration, and death of millions. As is true of most if not all histories of famous and infamous leaders, historians and pundits choose facts that reinforce their view of world’ history. Even the best historian is influenced by the time in which they write and their choice of facts.

Nathan Bedford Forest (1821-1877, General in the Confederate States of America during the Civil War.)

One is appalled by the truth of Nathan Bedford Forest’s view of slavery during America’s Civil War. Forest directed the slaughter of people based on the color of their skin. Forest condoned the murder of all who believed in equality of human beings. Forest is considered a hero to some but with the passage of time and a growing belief in human equality, Forest is recognized as a despicable human being by those who know the history of his life and profession. The evidence of science and human accomplishment show that the color of one’s skin is no measure of intelligence or capability. Forest’s mistreatment of slaves and the wealth he created from trading in slaves is reported in this history. By many measures, Forest is shown as an evil person by O’Reilly and Hammer.

The rule of Genghis Kahn is said to have caused the death of 40 million people, an estimated 11% of the global population at his time in history.

Presumed image of Genghis Kahn (1162-1227, Founder and first Khan of the Mongol Empire.)

By some measures, Mao doubled that 40 million number with his “Great Leap Forward”, the “Cultural Revolution”, his labor camp creations, and political purges. Hitler is estimated to have caused the death of 17 million with his genocidal policies while casualties from WWII are estimated at 85 million. Hitler’s antisemitism is born of the same stupidity exhibited by Nathan Bedford Forest in America’s Civil War. The contribution of Jewish society to the world is incalculable.

Mao Zedong (1893-1976) Father of the Peoples Republic of China)

Mao’s great leap forward is estimated to have caused the death of 35 to 45 million citizens. The rule of Stalin is estimated to have caused the death of 20 to 60 million U.S.S.R.’ citizens. Stalin’s takeover of Poland, and the Baltics after WWII and his cruelty is remembered by survivors of his rule.

There are many other evil characters in “Confronting Evil”. In the mind of westerners, the current leaders of Iran and Russia are evil. The leader of Iran, Ruhollah Khomeini is estimated to have ordered deaths of Iranians that exceed 250,000 since his takeover in 1979. Though he has passed, the succession of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has carried on with tens of thousands who have died in Iran’s involvement with Hamas in Palestine, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and Lebanon. The predecessor of the religious leaders of Iran was Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi who reigned from 1941-1970. Pahlavi is estimated to have murdered 3,000 to 20,000 during his reign. These leaders ruled over an impoverished state but incomes per capita fell from $34,660 during the Shah’s reign to $3,150 under Khomeini’s rule. An irony is that income inequality hugely increased in Iran during Khomeini’s rule. Nuanced reality is that poverty and victimization of Iranians is more widely spread under Khomeini than under the former Shah. On an economic scale it appears Khomeini’s evil as a leader exceeds the Shah’s rule. Added to the economic difference is the religious zealotry of Khomeini which widened the gap of sexual inequality in Iran.

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

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei (Current leader of Iran.)

The authors address the illicit drug industry and the evil of Pablo Escobar in Columbia and “El Chapo” Guzmán in Mexico. Escobar was killed in 1993 when pursued by drug enforcement officers while Guzmán is serving a life sentence in the U.S. The drug industry continues to thrive despite the harm it is doing to America and the world. The leaders of the criminal drug industry care nothing for the consequence of their actions because of the wealth and power the illicit trade offers.

Pablo Escobar (now deceased) noted on the left with “El Chapo”(arrested and imprisoned in America) on the right.

The last two chapters of “Confronting Evil” offer a pithy definition of evil. Evil is defined as doing harm without remorse. One doubts any of the leaders noted by the authors have or had any remorse for the atrocities they have committed. Whether they rationalize their behavior for the good of their people, their religion, or their country—they are evil by O’Reilly and Hammer’s definition. One doubts any of the leaders noted in “Confronting Evil” are remorseful.

One asks oneself, what leaders in the world today have remorse for the incarcerations, torture, and killings for which they are responsible? What remorse is there in Putin’s, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s, Prime Minister Netanyahu’s, and even our American President’s thoughts?

GENDER INEQUALITY

“Betraying Big Brother” is not wrong about gender inequality but the author’s anger and personal choices cloud the author’s message. Gender inequality is real everywhere in the world. Education is a beginning, but practice is the end.

Books of Interest
 Website: chetyarbrough.blog

Betraying Big Brother (The Feminist Awakening in China)

AuthorLeta Hong Fincher

Narrated By: Emily Woo Zeller

Leta Hong Fincher (Author, American journalist, feminist and writer, first American to receive a Ph.D from Tsinghua University’s Department of Sociology in Bejing., graduated from Harvard with a BA and a master’s degree in East Asian Studies from Stanford.)

The education and experience of Leta Hong Fincher is somewhat betrayed by her anger in “Betraying Big Brother”. Misogyny is an international reality that defies the truth of human equality. This reviewer’s prejudice, like the author’s biases are suspect because of their respective life experiences. This book reviewer was raised by a single parent mother who worked to keep two sons with a roof over their head and food on the table. How women survive inequality is made of the same stuff as that which plagues minorities around the world. The difference is that women are not a minority.

She writes of being a 15-year-old girl who is physically and emotionally abused by two boys who are friends of an older male friend that takes her to a get together of young acquaintances. That event burns a memory into Fincher’s mind that sets her on a journey thru life. One reading/listening to “Betraying Big Brother” recognizes the truth of what the author writes is reinforced by her life experiences. Of course, that is true of all human beings, but anger diminishes the impact of what Fincher says and writes.

Leadership?

Whether living in a democracy or autocracy, sexual inequality is present. Gender discrimination is universal. America and China talk the talk but fail to walk the walk. Fincher writes of Mao’s saying that “women hold up half the sky” implying he believed in gender equality. Mao spoke of marriage reform and labor participation but patriarchal norms were adhered to with women workers not being paid the same as men nor offered similar positions of power.

Xi speaks of gender equality, but no women are on the 24-member Politburo.

Xi also speaks of gender equality, but no women are on the 24-member Politburo while pay and promotions lag behind men. Fincher writes of Big Brother censorship, surveillance, and detention of women in China. (One presumes that is also true of everyone in China.) Like Trump, Xi promotes women’s roles in domestic stability, and their childbearing responsibilities. America has yet to elect a woman as President. Equal pay for equal work is improving in America, but a gap still exists with lower starting salaries, performance evaluation biases, and fewer high-profile assignments or promotions.

“Betraying Big Brother” is not wrong about gender inequality but the author’s anger and personal choices cloud the author’s message. Gender inequality is real everywhere in the world. Education is a beginning, but practice is the end.

HOUSING

Didion reminds one of Yeats Poem to warn society of civilization’s collapse. Yeats wrote “The Second Coming” after WWI and the Spanish Flu. Seems similar to today’s political war and the Covid pandemic.

Books of Interest
 Website: chetyarbrough.blog

Slouching Toward Bethlehem 

AuthorJoan Didion

Narrated By: Diane Keaton

Joan Didion (Author, American writer and journalist, published in The Saturday Evening Post, National Review, Life, Esquire, and The New Yorker. She also wrote screenplays for “The Panic in Needle Park”, “A Star is Born”, and “Upclose and Personal” as well as receiving a National Book Critics Circle Award and a Pulitzer. 1934-2021.)

Diane Keaton (Actor, Academy Award winner, BAFTA recipient, two-time Golden Globe, and Tony Award winner. 1946-2025.)

Diane Keaton died yesterday.

Several years ago, I purchased “Slouching Toward Bethlehem” without reading it until Keaton had done an audiobook’ narration of it. “Slouching Toward Bethlehem” illustrates Didion’s skill as an essayist and writer while Keaton’s many acclaimed movies show how accomplished both women have been in their lives.

“Slouching Toward Bethlehem” is interesting because it offers an interpretation of why homelessness is so much more obvious in America than other countries.

Having lived in different areas of the United States, the appearance of homelessness in the big cities of America is disgraceful. Visiting the Baltics, Norway, Finland, China, and Japan in the last few years illustrates how badly America is handling homelessness. With the exception of Norway, per capita incomes in the United States are more than twice the incomes of the aforementioned countries. Norway’s per capita income is $87,925 while America’s is $82,769. China’s per capita income is $13,122 but walking through major Chinese cities, there are no people sleeping on the streets. The Baltics per capita incomes range from $22,000 to a little more than $30,000. There is poverty in all these countries, but their leaders and societies have found a way to keep their citizens housed. This is not to argue their poor are not faced with hardship but to show how poorly American society is treating its homeless.

There seems a generational divide in Didion’s “Slouching Toward Bethlehem”.

The beat generation of the 1960s for which Timothy Leary coined the phrase “Turn on, tune in, drop out” alluded to in Didion’s essays may offer a partial explanation. Many of us experimented with drugs in the 60s but there has to be more than that to explain what has happened to big cities in America. Part of the answer is the change in income for the middle-class. In the 1960s middle-class incomes were strong and broadly shared. In the 21st century, middle class incomes have stagnated. CEO’s income in the ’60s made 20 times middle class earners but in the 21st century the ratio rose to 300-1. The rich got richer and the middleclass got poorer. Power shifted from a voting middle class to a richer upper-class that accelerated income gaps that changed election results with an income class bias.

Housing costs accelerated to new highs in the 21st century. The 1960s price-to-income ratios were 2:1 while today they are 5:1 or higher. The effort during the Obama administration to weaken standards for home buyer qualification exacerbated the greed of mortgage companies which led to a near economic collapse of the finance industry. Instead of bailing out homebuyers that could not pay their mortgages, the Obama administration bailed out mortgage companies and their owners while endorsing eviction of buyers who could not afford their mortgage payments.

“Slouching Toward Bethlehem” writes of famous successful people like John Wayne, Howard Hughes, Joan Baez, and herself as symbols of the 1960s. She is effectively glorifying them and herself while showing how they mythologized success to a generation of young people who were turning on, tuning in, and dropping out. Image became more important than substance. Working to be great at acting, becoming wealthy by investing wisely, singing about peace, justice and non-violence to make money, and writing about societal dysfunction were money makers. Capitalizing on dysfunction of society did nothing to ameliorate it. John Wayne is only a symbol of justice in the movies and Howard Hughes inherited his wealth that allowed him to invest, sometimes unwisely and with poor personal management skills. He began investing in Las Vegas because management could be left to others. To be fair, Didion and Baez try to return something to society for their success but their efforts pale in comparison to America’s decline. Artists report facts of life but rarely offer solutions.

William Butler Yeats (1865-1939, Irish poet, dramatist, writer and literary critic.

W. B. Yeats Poem summarizes and exemplifies what Didion alludes to in her book.

Turning and turning in the widening gyre  
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;  
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;  
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,  
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere  
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;  
The best lack all conviction, while the worst  
Are full of passionate intensity.  

Surely some revelation is at hand;  
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.  
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out  
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi  
Troubles my sight: somewhere in sands of the desert  
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,  
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,  
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it  
Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.  

The darkness drops again; but now I know  
That twenty centuries of stony sleep  
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,  
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,  
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

Didion reminds one of Yeats Poem to warn society of civilization’s collapse. Yeats wrote “The Second Coming” after WWI and the Spanish Flu. Seems similar to today’s political war and the Covid pandemic.

THE WEST

Though Mahbubani’s book is quite provocative, it is short and interesting. “How the West Lost It” is certainly worth reading/listening to, but few Presidents of the United States have reversed the admittedly slow improvement of “equality of opportunity” in America.

Books of Interest
 Website: chetyarbrough.blog

How the West Lost It (A Provocation)

AuthorKishore Mahbubani

Narrated By: Jonathan Keeble

Kishore Mahbubani (Author, Singaporean diplomat and geopolitical consultant, former Fellow at Harvard University’s Center for International Relations, formally served as the United Nations Security Council President.)

Mr. Mahbubani’s short book suggests the highly provocative belief that the West’s dominance of the world is giving way to Asia, particularly China and India. To mitigate the West’s decline, Mahbubani argues–the West needs to develop a more “coherent and competitive global strategy”. Paul Kennedy of Yale University praises Mahbubani’s assessment. The public commentator Fareed Zakaria endorses Mahbubani’s belief, and Hilton Root of “The Independent Review” acknowledges Mahbubani’s inference that “the West’s overperformance was a historical aberration and the East’s rise reflects a rebalancing of history”. Despite Root’s measured support of Mahbubani’s book, his analysis is nuanced. Root argues the decline of the West is oversimplified and that Mahbubani underestimates the resilience of Western economies.

Mahbubani argues Great Britain’s Brexit and Trump’s re-election are reactions to the West’s economic decline.

Edwad Luce argues Western liberalism needs to be reinvented by investment in a technological revolution for all Americans, not just those who have benefited from the industrial revolution. However, China seems to have read the future better than the West by building up their reserves of rare metals needed for advanced computer chips. In contrast, President Trump chooses to antagonize allies as well as competitors with a foolish trade war.

Root believes the innovative capacity and adaptability of the West will make adjustments to remain competitive, if not the dominant economic power of the world. Trump’s trade war suggests otherwise. Trump’s attitude is to ignore the years of built-up trust with Western allies and attack the world with destructive economic tariffs meant to right wrongs that are figments of real-politic’ imagination. However, some believe Mahbubani discounts political freedom and the drive of both the West and East to improve citizens’ living standards. That seems somewhat plausible, but Trump is attacking Americas most highly regarded universities with specious concerns with what he considers overactive recruitment of immigrants and minorities. The truth is American education for immigrants aids the strength and influence of Democracy in the world.

Yale University (American education for immigrants aids the strength and influence of Democracy in the world.)

The long cultural, educational, and technological influence of the West may be diminished by some of today’s political leaders but the trend over the last 200 years is unlikely to be reversed by Trump’s misguided authoritarianism. Trump’s significant risks are partially mitigated by publicly ingrained western democratic values. Though democracy is messy, it has demonstrated long-term stability and innovation that equals or exceeds the worst of what Trump’s authoritarianism is doing to the American economy and its institutions. Three more years of Trump’s presidency will not erase America’s legacy or destroy its future.

Though Mahbubani’s book is quite provocative, it is short, impactful, and interesting. “How the West Lost It” is certainly worth reading/listening to, but few Presidents of the United States have reversed the admittedly slow improvement of “equality of opportunity” in America. Mahbubani argues for a more diplomatic American policy with rising nations in the East because he believes China will ultimately replace America as the leading economy in the world.

The interpretation of the Constitution has changed over the last 200 years, but it stands for continuity for America’s present and future.

The direction of American society remains true to the fundamental beliefs of liberty, equality, sovereignty, rule of law, separation of powers, federalism, checks and balances, and individual rights. Trump is challenging some of those rights, but balance of power and term limits will ultimately rescue America from his misbegotten domestic and international blunders. These rights have been challenged at different times in America’s history but never permanently reversed.

PREJUDICE

Unless or until our prejudices are eradicated, man’s inhumanity to man will continue. The truth is that “The World After Gaza” will be the same as “the world before Gaza” but with a different order of prejudice.

Books of Interest
 Website: chetyarbrough.blog

The World After Gaza (A History)

AuthorPakaj Mishra

Narrated By: Mikhail Sen

Pakaj Mishra (Author, Indian essayist. He wrote “Age of Anger” reviewed in this blog.)

As pointed out in a previous review of Mishra’s book “Age of Anger”, “…unless or until human beings see themselves as part of the same society, the world will end in the Armageddon of biblical imagination.”

Leadership prejudice.

Mishra is born in a prosperous Brahmin family that becomes poor after India’s land distribution in 1947 which was meant to reform feudal landholding practices in India. Undoubtedly, the harshness of that reform has some influence on Mishra’s expressed views in “The World After Gaza”. Mishra’s father has a Brahmin Hindu background which suggests his son is raised in an upper caste in Hindu society that falls into hard times.

“The World After Gaza” is categorized by Mishra as a history.

Mishra recalls the horrendous past of Germany’s holocaust where 6,000,000 Jews were murdered by Hitler’s followers. He infers that horrendous event is reminiscent of what Israel is doing to Palestinians in Gaza. His point is not to vilify Israel but to suggest societies are inherently prejudiced and inclined to discriminate against those who are not a part of their belief system. In essence, Mishra offers a view of history that corroborates Mark Twain’s belief that “History never repeats itself, but it does rhyme”.

Whether one agrees with Mishra’s view of Israel’s actions in Gaza or not, prejudice is an undeniable truth of human societies.

There are many Jews who are undoubtedly appalled by what is happening in Gaza but there are Israeli’ leaders who believe what they are doing is in the best interest of their country. One may associate Israel’s, America’s, or any country’s leadership as either right or wrong from a personal perspective, but the nature of humanity is what it is. Prejudice is an equal opportunity exploiter of human’ equality. Unless or until our prejudices are eradicated, man’s inhumanity to man will continue. The truth is that “The World After Gaza” will be the same as “the world before Gaza” but with a different order of prejudice.

BALANCE

It is ironic that Trump has suffered so much from America’s legal system and is unable to see NIMBY mentality and a return to the past will not “Make America Great”.

Books of Interest
 Website: chetyarbrough.blog

Breakneck (China’s Quest to Engineer the Future)

AuthorDan Wang

Narrated By:  Jonathan Yen

Feng Chen Wang aka Dan Wang (Author, Canadian technology analyst and writer, visiting scholar at Yale Law School.)

Dan Wang is a highly credible author of the 21st century economies of China and the United States. Mr. Wang’s mother and father were born in China when the one child policy was the law of the land. Mr. Wang was born in Canada in either 1991 or 1992. Though Mr. Wang may be an only child, his parents advised him that living in China was challenging because of its state control and family planning that restricted their human rights.

Dan Wang has lived in Canada, America, and China.

From 2017 to 2023 he worked as a technology analyst in Hong Kong, Beijing, and Shanghai. As a young man, Wang bicycled across China with young friends. Having been educated in Canada and the United States, growing up in Toronto and Ottawa and going to high school in Philadelphia, he has a broad understanding of the economies of all three nations. Of course, his specialty is technology which gives him a unique understanding of what is happening in America and China today. He graduated from the University of Rochester in 2014, studying philosophy and economics.

Trump’s apparent view of Xi.

After listening to Wang’s book, one begins to understand why President Trump’s perspective is that the world, with emphasis on China, has taken advantage of America’s economic wealth by eviscerating its industrial industries with less expensive product made in other countries. Wang presumes as a person who has an economics education that Adam Smith (the Father of Economics) and Donald Trump are right when they argue tariffs are justified in areas of national defense, or for retaliation. On the other hand, Adam Smith, noted “It is the maxim of every prudent master of a family, never to attempt to make at home what it will cost him more to make than to buy.”

Adam Smith (Father of Economic Theory)

Smith argued if another nation can provide the same product for less cost, a prudent buyer should buy the cheaper product and use money saved to produce a different product. Wang and Trump disagree with Smith because the revenue producer that America turns to is the service industry rather than product development. What is missed by Wang and Trump is that America is the third largest agricultural producer in the world with China and India being the largest. Of course, the difference is that America has 1/3rd the population of China and India, respectively. Lower population and high agricultural production in the United States hugely benefits its economy. More significantly, food, like water, is an essential need of life. The point is that non-food product production is not necessary for living life.

Loss of industrial production to China.

Wang’s and Trump’s argument is that America’s loss of industrial production has made it too dependent on other countries. They either infer or say Americans are forgetting how to manufacture product. They argue American industries are closing because of America’s inability to compete with other nations because of labor and material cost differences. History shows America fails to expand its industries because production of things is provided by other nations at a lower cost. And as Adam Smith noted, “It is the maxim of every prudent master of a family, never to attempt to make at home what it will cost him more to make than to buy.”

Wang decries America’s movement toward a service industry as the basis for economic growth.

America is the richest country in the world, but America has failed to eliminate poverty, house the homeless, feed the malnourished, and provide for the infrastructure needed to improve America lives. One may ask oneself-what is wrong with becoming a service industry nation? Why does America have to return to its past. As Adam Smith noted: “It is the maxim of every prudent master of a family, never to attempt to make at home what it will cost him more to make than to buy.” The future is about being healthy, being housed, fed, and clothed. It should not be about being the richest and fattest minority in the world, particularly when there is an inordinate gap between the rich and poor.

Wang argues America’s economy is diminished, not by reduced industrialization, but by its growth of legalism that reinforces nimby (not in my backyard) litigation.

Delays in public improvements in America are restrained by lawsuits that protect the rich and victimize the poor. An example is the long delays in mass transportation improvements which become more costly with every year that passes before completion. The delays are caused by litigation. When China can build rapid transit in 3 years while it takes 15 or more years in America, one wonders why. The huge investments China has made in massive infrastructure improvements have vastly improved their economy. In contrast, America wastes investment resources litigating mass transportation improvements in California, Washington, and other states by increasing costs from delays caused by litigation. It is like throwing the baby out with the bath water because the number of people who benefit from infrastructure improvement are largely discounted or ignored. Equally appalling is homelessness in America because of NIMBY’ objection to low-cost multifamily housing that could get the homeless off the street. Cost benefit analysis should prevail, not litigation based on interest group objection. In Wang’s terms, American infrastructure decisions should be based on science and engineering like, what he argues, China bases their infrastructure decisions upon.

The fundamental point is that America has lost sight of the importance of a balance between benefit to the public and individual rights. Equality of opportunity is split between the rich and poor with the middle class being too complacent while the rich reap unconscionable reward. Where are the Eisenhower-like Presidents who promoted an Interstate Highway System that created a 421,000-mile interstate highway system?

Trump is no Eisenhower because he wishes to return America to a past rather than look to its future. It is ironic that Trump has suffered so much from America’s legal system and is unable to see NIMBY mentality and a return to the past will not “Make America Great”. Wang’s book explains how China has succeeded in improving their economy while America’s economy is failing.

FARMLAND

Historically, collectivization of land has failed even when those who are part of the collective are better off than they were when they had no land.

Books of Interest
 Website: chetyarbrough.blog

Land Power (Who Has It, Who Doesn’t, and How that Determines the Fate of Societies)

Author: Michael Albertus

Narrated By: Braden Wright

Michael Albertus (Author, professor at the University of Chicago in the Department of Political Science.)

Michael Albertus develops a powerful argument for “Land Power”. Much of history and current events in relatively undeveloped countries are identified as proof of Albertus’s belief that “Land Power” is key not only to economic growth but to social improvement. He reflects on the history of Great Britain, France, and the United States while noting current affairs in developing countries like Peru, Columbia, and Bolivia support his argument.

The unfortunate truth of history is that indigenous populations, particularly in America and Great Britain, were displaced in order for “Land Power” to be the engine for economic prosperity and social change. In the case of America of course, it is the displacement of North American natives by English settlers who became Americans. In contrast Great Britain’s “Land Power” comes from a landed aristocracy and their subjugation of foreign cultures with autocratic control and rule of Asian and European countries. In France, Kings and an aristocratic government’s rejection by commoners in 1789 seem the motive force behind “Land Power” ascension.

For Peru, Columbia, and Bolivia Albertus infers examples of Britain, America, and France set a table for “Land Power” change by their governments. In my opinion, the age of technology has diminished “Land Power” importance in America, Great Britain, and France.

“Land Power” still carries weight in America, Great Britain, and France but in the tech age it seems the power of accumulated wealth has become more powerful than land. However, Albertus’s “Land Power” argument in regard to South American countries like Peru, Colombia, and Bolivia are compelling in regard to their economic and social improvement. Albertus notes private land ownership and recognition of women’s rights to own property, show that “Land Power” is a source of economic and social improvement in South America. He suggests countries like Mexico are being challenged by their failure to reform land ownership policies but today’s leaders in Peru, Columbia, and Bolivia have made significant land reform changes.

Albertus explains the major reform movement between 1969-1980 made by General Alvarado in Peru.

General Alvarado ordered nearly half of all private agricultural land be redistributed among Peruvian citizens. He dismantled large estates to empower peasant cooperatives. It has not been a perfect solution because it created an insurgent group called the Shining Path that pressed for a Maoist collective land reform for the redistributed Peruvian estates. Just as collective farms failed in China, they failed in Peru because common gains in collectives did not fairly reward performance. Collective farms distort the needs and results when a collective rather than a singular leader is responsible for performance of the collective. Nevertheless, the steps taken to dismantle half of private agricultural land, is considered by Albertus a step in the right direction because it incentivized many Peruvians who were living in poverty.

In Colombia, in 1966 through 1970 President Restrepo redistributed agricultural land to former agricultural laborers.

FARC (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia) is organized in 1964 to offer peasant self-defense for actions soon to be taken by President Restrepo to reduce land ownership inequality. Between 2010 and 2018, President Santos negotiated with FARC to settle disputes between former landowners, and new farmers that benefited from land redistribution. There is still conflict because of FARC’s false belief in collective farming which has been proven a failure in other countries, but President Santos and his successors have created a path, though no solution, for reform through the hope for understanding and compromise. Albertus infers land reform is a work in progress, not a perfect solution.

Land reform in Bolivia spans 1953 and the early 2000s.

Presidents Estenssoro (1952-1956) and Evo Morales (2006-2019) worked on land reform along the same lines as Peru and Colombia. Large estates were broken up in 1953 and redistributed to peasants. Morales clarifies indigenous land rights but formalized communal ownership of redistributed land. This is another example of a work in progress because collectivization may be a step in redistributed land, but it has not proven to be a long-range benefit to a country’s citizens. It becomes too divisive and unrewarding for optimum performance and fair rewards for those who excel.

One who read/listens to Albertus’s insight to land reform believes his story has merit but his history is too optimistic when a little additional research shows land reform is a losing proposition when not fully supported by institutions that had implemented change.

History shows land collectivization when large landowners lose their land is a fool’s errand because it fails to reward those who excel as part owners of redistributed land. Human nature gets in the way. Those who work harder than others expect to have proportionate reward. Collective farming disincentivizes personal high performance. Historically, collectivization of land has failed even when those who are part of the collective are better off than they were when they had no land.

UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE

Technology is a key to social need which has not been well served in the past or present and could become worse without pragmatic accommodation.

Books of Interest
 Website: chetyarbrough.blog

Daughters of the Baboo Grove (From Chian to America, a True Story of Abduction, Adoption, and Separated Twins)

Author: Barbara Demick

Narrated By: Joy Osmanski

Barbara Demick (Author, American journalist, former Beijing bureau chief for the Los Angeles Times.)

This is a brief and fascinating historical glimpse of a government policy gone awry. Like America’s mistaken policies on immigration, Barbara Demick’s story of China’s one-child policy traces the effects of government overreach. Demick tells the story of a rural Chinese family who births twin sisters during the time of China’s unjust enforcement of their one-child policy. One sister is abducted by Chinese government officials, and is adopted by a family in Texas. The ethics of an inhumane Chinese government policy and the perfidy of free enterprise are exposed in Demick’s true story of two children’s lives.

The territorial size of China in respect to continental America.

China’s one-child policy leads to a Chinese criminal enterprise to capitalize on kidnapping and selling children born to families that could not afford the fines for having more children than the law allows. Undoubtedly, most children born were cherished by their parents, but the hardship of life and human greed leads to unconscionable human trafficking. Kidnapping became a part of a legal and criminal enterprise in China. Government policy allowed bureaucrats and scofflaws to confiscate children from their parents and effectively deliver or sell children to orphanages or people wanting to adopt a child. Demick recounts stories of grieving parents and grandparents that cannot get their children back once they have been taken.

Child trafficking, broken families, loss of personal identity, human shame, and the immoral implication of other countries interest in adopting children are unintended consequences of a poorly thought out and implemented government policy.

Demick becomes interested in this story because of a message she receives from a stepbrother of an adopted Chinese sister that has a twin that lives in China. Because of Demick’s long experience in visiting and reporting on China, she had a network of people she could call. Using adoption records, Demick is able to find the Texas stepsister who had been kidnapped when she was 22 months old. She was trafficked to an orphanage in the Hunan Province of China. Years later, through messaging apps, the twins communicated with each other and shared their photographs. They eventually meet in China in 2019.

One is hesitant to argue a government policy is a unique act of China when every government makes policy decisions that have unintended consequences.

America’s policy decisions on immigration are a present-day fiasco that is as wrong as the one-child policy in China’s history. The one-child policy is eventually rejected by the Chinese’ government but Demick’s book shows how bad government policy has consequences that live on even when they are changed by future governments. America’s policy on immigration will be eventually reversed but its damage will live on.

Getting back to the story, Demick is instrumental in having the mother of Esther (aka E) and the twins meet in China.

One is hesitant to argue a government policy is a unique act of China when every government makes policy decisions that have unintended consequences. The twins are initially reticent but warm to each other in a way that bridges the cultural and language divide between the sisters. The two mothers see their respective roles in their daughter’s lives. E and her identical twin, Shuangjie, are reserved when they meet because of the cultural distance that was created by E’s adoption.

E. appears more confident than Shuangjie who is more reserved and less assured.

However, Demick suggests they seem to mirror each other in subsequent meetings. One feels a mix of emotions listening to this audiobook version of “Daughter’s of the Bamboo Grove”. They have grown up in different environments but seem to have been raised in similar economic circumstances, though the two economies are vastly different in income per household, the two appear to be raised in similar economic classes.

Every person who reads/listens to “Daughter’s of the Bamboo Grove” can view the story from different perspectives.

There is the perspective of identical twins raised in different families, cultures, and histories. How are identical twins different when they are raised by different parents and in different cultures? Another perspective is that Xi and Trump have had dramatic effects on the societies their policies have created. The Twin’s meeting in 2019 is one year after my wife and I had visited China. Xi had become President after his predecessor began opening China’s economic opportunities. Two incidents on the trip when Xi had become President come to mind. The first is the feeling one has of being monitored everywhere and the internet restrictions when used to ask questions. The second was an incident in a crowded Chinese market when I was approached by a beefy citizen who raised his arms and seemed to be angrily talking to me in Chinese which I sadly did not understand. The distinct impression is that I was not welcome. This was a singular incident that did not repeat in our 21-day tour, but it seemed like an expression of hostility toward America.

This listener/reader thinks of the unintended consequences of Trump’s treatment of alleged illegal immigrants.

Trump’s immigration policy is similar to China’s earlier mistake with the one-child policy. America’s, China’s, and Japan’s economies are highly dependent on youth which is diminished in two fundamental ways. One is by public policy that restricts birth, and the other is immigration. Freedom of choice is a foundational belief in democracy while considered a threat in autocracy. In America today, it seems there is little difference between America, Japan, or China in regard to government policy that threatens the future. All have an aging population that can only be aided by younger generations. Even though manufacturing may become less labor intensive, public need in the service industry will grow. Technology is a key to social need which has not been well served in the past or present and could become worse without pragmatic accommodation.

THE PATRIOT

Benjamin Franklin was no saint. He was a pragmatic, diplomatic, and intelligent politician who believed in improving himself, being honest in his relations with others, and determinately set on leaving a legacy of diplomatic accomplishments that (unlike our current government leaders) was intent on truly making America great.

Books of Interest
 Website: chetyarbrough.blog

The Completed Biography of Benjamin Franklin

Author: Mark Skousen

Narrated By: Richard Ferrone

Mark Amdrew Skousen (Author, economic analyst for the CIA from 1972-1977, is considered a political conservative, a distant descendant of Benjamin Franklin.)

Though the history of Benjamin Franklin is “well plowed” ground, Mark Skousen assembles Franklin’s original papers on his intended biography to give a fascinating portrait of perhaps the greatest American patriot in our history. Franklin’s role in America’s independence from Great Britain is perfectly explained in Skousen’s review of Franklin’s intended autobiography. The many offices that Franklin assumed in pre- and post-revolutionary times are evidence of his patriotism and importance.

Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790, died at the age of 84.)

Franklin served as a member of the Continental Congress from 1775 to 1776. He was the President of Pennsylvania from 1785 to 1788. His diplomatic roles were as Commissioner to France from 1776-1778, Minister Plenipotentiary to France from 1779 to 1785, and Peace Commissioner who negotiated the Treaty of Paris ending the Revolutionary War and establishing American independence. These formal posts fail to mention his great role in representing America to the British throne while sailing to England before the revolution.

Thomas Penn (1702-1775)

It is ironic that Franklin became the President of Pennsylvania in 1785 when he had challenged the Penn family’s proprietary control over Pennsylvania territory given to the Penn family by the King of England.

The Penns refused to allow taxation of their estates in the colonies. Franklin met with Thomas Penn and wrote a paper saying the Penns prevented governors from using discretion in the management of the Pennsylvania colony, refused colonists right to raise funds, and would not accept taxation on their properties. Though Franklin did not legally represent the colonies, he galvanized opposition and created groundwork for colonial autonomy. He became known as the “defender of colonial rights”.

Franklin’s biography explains how he became widely known in England, France, and the colonies.

In 1773, two Massachusetts’s colonial government letters were published at the direction of Franklin that exposed British officials’ promotion of restrictions on the colonies’ liberties. Franklin had been appointed Postmaster General in America, authorized by England, but was discharged for having published those inflammatory letters. Franklin wrote several satires mocking British colonial policies. He opposed the Stamp Act while becoming a representative of Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Georgia, and New Jersey in London.

Benjamin Franklin’s experiment.

Despite Franklin’s opposition to England’s infringement on colonial rights, he was celebrated in England’s scientific community. He received the Copley Medal for his experiments with electricity and a fellowship in the Royal Society. William Strahan, one of England’s printers who was an MP, and the famous William Pitt sympathized with Franklin’s explanation of the colony’s grievances. On the other hand, growing anger from England’s parliamentarians required Franklin to escape arrest in England in 1775.

Benjamin and William Franklin

To show how torn colonist’ families are about the colony’s declaration of independence, Franklin’s son, “Billy”, actually William Franklin, is noted in his father’s diary and writings to have chosen to take the British side of the conflict. William had served as the Royalist’s Governor of New Jersey. He was appointed with the help of his father’s influence in London. William refused to join the Patriot cause and was imprisoned from 1776 to 1778, and later, exiled to Britain where he lived until the end of his life. It appears Benjamin and William never reconciled and never saw each other again. Benjamin Franklin dies at the age of 84 in 1790 while his son Willaim passes at the age of 83 in 1813.

Symbol of the Colonys’ fight for independence.

Some interesting notes are in Franklin’s diary about symbols of the war of independence. In 1754, Franklin published the cartoon of a snake emblazoned with 13 skin segments with a message “Join or Die” It was originally designed for the French and Indian War but became a symbol of the colonies fight for independence from Britain. In contrast, Franklin opposed the eagle as a national emblem and preferred the turkey. To Franklin, the eagle was a bird of bad moral character while the turkey, in his opinion, represented “a more respectable bird”. This is a surprise to many who revere the eagle as America’s symbol of independence, strength, and elegance today.

Franklin is considered wealthy at the time of his death.

In today’s dollars, Franklin’s wealth may be estimated at 10 to 90 million dollars. He had created a printing empire with “The Pennsylvania Gazette” and “Poor Richard’s Almanack” and used his presses to print books, pamphlets, and even currency. He licensed lighting rods to minimize building destruction from lightning strikes and provided heat to colonist’s homes with the Franklin stoves. He had rental properties in Philadelphia and speculated on western land purchases. He received compensation for his diplomatic and government service as Postmaster General. Franklin showed himself to be frugal putting money aside to receive compounding interest on its principle. He preached and practiced the adage, “A penny saved is a penny earned”.

Deborah (Read) Franklin, Benjamin Franklin’s wife.

Benjamin Franklin notes his wife’s name is Deborah Read. She dies in 1774 at the age of 66 from a series of strokes. Her health declined as Franklin’s diplomatic service in England and France took him away from home. When she suffered from a series of strokes, his voyages to Europe kept him from returning immediately. He returned in 1775, and Franklin was buried beside her in 1790.

Franklin’s self-written biography shows him to be charming and flirtatious with an appreciation of women.

Franklin’s flirtations with Brillon and Helvétius connected Franklin to influential French society, helping him secure support for the American cause. Ms. Brillon is in her 30s while Franklin is in his 70s. Another French lady is Madam Helvétius is in her mid-60s. Franklin proposes marriage to which she declines. It seems there is more smoke than fire in regard to Franklin’s illicit liaisons in France. However, he does admit to some youthful indiscretions with women of challenged reputations when he is younger.

Benjamin Franklin was no saint. He was a pragmatic, diplomatic, and intelligent politician who believed in improving himself, being honest in his relations with others, and determinately set on leaving a legacy of diplomatic accomplishments that (unlike our current government leaders) was intent on truly making America great.

BRUTALITY

What is so troubling about Grandin’s history is what appears to be the nature of human beings whether royalist, capitalist, socialist, or communist.

Books of Interest
 Website: chetyarbrough.blog

America, América (A New History of the New World)

Author: Greg Grandin

Narrated By:  Holter Graham

Greg Grandin (Author, American historian, professor of history at Yale University.)

Before Professor Grandin, most Americans presumed the United States came from the traditions of the British empire. After reading/listening to America, América, one recognizes the powerful influence of the Spanish empire on the settlement of North America, the attitude of colonists toward minorities, the growth of slavery, and the deep entanglement of Spain in the broader Americas. America, América is a book that widens one’s understanding of the history of the United States.

When being reminded of the many atrocities of colonization and the decimated indigenous natives of the Americas, one is appalled by man’s inhumanity to man. Grandin begins his history of colonization with the Spanish empires’ expansion into the Americas long before the Mayflower expedition to America. Conquistadors set the table for the way what became Americans way to colonize the New England territory. Hernán Cortés and Francisco Pizarro led expeditions that decimated the Aztecs in Mexico and the Incas in Peru. Looking for wealth Spanish conquistadors murdered, raped, and pillaged Latin American native populations. The conquistadors exemplified what became the modus vivendi of British colonists in America. Indigenous peoples were forced to work for Spanish landlords, later supplemented by imported African slaves. The atrocities of Spain in the 16th century are repeated by English settlers in the 17th and later centuries. An estimated 80% of the indigenous people of the Americas perished from disease, forced labor, and ethnic cleansing by Spanish settlers–a grim reminder of American settlers did to indigenous natives in America.

What is so troubling about Grandin’s history is what appears to be the nature of human beings whether royalist, capitalist, socialist, or communist. America, América shows the founding of the United States is a repeat of Spain’s early colonization of the southern part of North America. The human race appears driven by the desire for money, power, and prestige in a system that begins with attack on indigenous peoples and repeats as a perceived advance of civilization. There is some truth in that perception but one realizes indigenous peoples are equally driven and commit human atrocities among themselves in pursuit of value, power, and, or prestige.

This book is returned before completion because of its length. Its history is enlightening but its length is too much for this dilettante.