Dead authors may give understanding of life that offers a “…Tranquil Mind” but change in belief by renowned living authors explain why some feel they live in an age of anxiety.
Breaking Bread with the Dead (A Reader’s Guide to a Tranquil Mind.)
By: Alan Jacobs
Narrated by: P.J. Ochlan
Alan Jacobs (Author, distinguished professor of the humanities at Baylor University, considered a Christian conservative by the media.)
Alan Jacobs offers an example of why book’ reader/listeners are “Breaking Bread with the Dead”. A personal reason for reading/listening to books is to acquire understanding of an author’s opinion. Of course, perceptions may be incorrect, but a book writer’s intended meaning, at the very least, makes a reader/listener think. Jacobs gives many examples of what past authors made him think. He explains how and why dead writers are a “…Guide to a Tranquil Mind”.
In a short book, Jacobs notes knowledge of the past gives context and perspective to the present.
Dead authors add the dimension of a past that is either very like the present or very different. When a dead author’s beliefs are more like the present, it makes one think there may be something universal about their belief. At the least, a dead author’s beliefs help one understand the difference between the past and the present. Both circumstances offer what Jacobs suggests are a “…Guide to a Tranquil Mind”. Belief either remains the same or modern life makes past beliefs unique to their time.
Renowned dead authors, or for that matter, insightful living authors make one realize how much they do not know.
Dead authors may give understanding of life that offers a “…Tranquil Mind” but change in belief by renowned living authors explain why some feel they live in an age of anxiety. In either case, it pays to seek understanding from both dead and living writers.
Walter Russell Mead (American Author, Professor of Foreign Affairs and Humanities at Bard College, taught American foreign policy at Yale.)
Walter Russell Mead hardens the consequence of race and creed in the history of the modern world. Mead offers a biblically influenced history of human progress in “The Arc of a Covenant”. One cannot diminish the value of human diversity, but Mead implies millions who were murdered, maimed, or imprisoned in history have paid a price for human progress. Mead suggests the greatest price paid is by Jews who were largely abandoned by Franklin Roosevelt’s America and imprisoned, gassed, and murdered in WWII.
Despite America’s decisive role in WWII, largely orchestrated by Franklin Roosevelt, Mead suggests President Truman’s actions to end the war and gain the peace shine as brightly as the social programs created by his predecessor.
As is widely known, the Ark of the Covenant carried two stone tablets that were given to Moses by God that contain the Ten Commandments.
Mead implies these commandments were adhered to by Truman more than any President before or after his presidency. He notes that despite Truman’s lack of a college degree and inexperience as a politician, he utilized the universal values of the ten commandments to guide America out of war into a peace meant to reinforce the “…Covenant” given to Moses by God. It is clear from Mead’s history, that Truman did not do it alone, but he led the effort with the support of his predecessors, direct reports, and successors.
As the 33rd President, Truman re-engaged the U.S. in internationalist foreign policy, adopted Kennan’s recommendation of containment of U.S.S.R. during the Cold War, passed the Truman Doctrine that helped eliminate the communist threat in Greece and Turkey, responded to the Berlin Wall crises with the Berlin Airlift, and passed the $13 billion dollar Marshall Plan to aid Western European recovery after WWII. Truman also ended racial segregation in the Armed Services, and established the NSC, the CIA, and the NSA.
In America, Henry Cabot Lodge and evangelist, William Blackstone, were two predecessors to Truman that martialed American opinion to support the Balfour proposition of Englishman Arthur Balfour who recommended support for a Jewish homeland in Palestine. To an evangelist, one presumes the motivation is biblical belief in the prophecy of Armageddon that is to occur in the Middle east with the return of Jesus Christ to save believers in the faith. Lodge supports Zionism (a 19th century plan for a Jewish homeland in Palestine) as the Chairman of the Senate Republican Conference from 1918 to 1924.
In 1946, Palestinians refuse to agree to a separate Jewish homeland in their country. They would only agree based on a one state solution where Jews would be a minority in a Palestinian controlled state. The consequence of that refusal is to diminish the territorial control of the Palestinian people.
Mead notes the British walked a fine line between their need for oil from the Middle East and their effort to fulfill the promise of the Balfour agreement.
The conflict between Jews and Palestinians is initially controlled by the British military when the Jewish settlements first came to Israel. In the end, the British need for oil is greater than their continuing act as arbitrator for the Palestinian/Jewish conflicts.
The British decide to turn the conflict over to the United Nations which was formed in 1945 as a replacement for the League of Nations.
Though this body is meant to resolve international conflicts, it has five permanent members that have veto powers over its policies. They are China, France, Russia, the UK, and the US. Russia for a short time supports an independent Jewish State but becomes a notorious abuser and murderer of Russian Jews during the Stalinist years.
By a slim margin, with Stalin’s real-politic support, a UN resolution is passed to create a Jewish state in Palestine.
Stalin’s goal is to drive a wedge between Western powers like the UK and the US by supporting the resolution. The UK needs Arab oil even at the expense of the Balfour plan and the UN resolution. In enforcing the partition, Mead notes Truman is caught between the jaws of Cerberus guarding what is the hell between Arab states and a boundary line for Israel.
Mead explains Eleanor Roosevelt is a major force in politics of the U.S., particularly after the death of President Roosevelt.
She supports the UN resolution and expects the American government to enforce its implementation. In 1948, Mead notes Truman plans to enforce the UN resolution with the American military, if necessary, which is not popular with some American leaders and U.S. voters.
Mead illustrates how America aided Israel in its early formation, but notes Israel grew strong on its own. After the end of the Cold War, the world enters a Cold Peace. Mead drops a cultural bomb on his readers by noting America’s role as western world savior morphs into western world goat. Mead infers that transmogrification is the base upon which Donald Trump is elected. He suggests the fall of the U.S.S.R. seemingly created a bed of roses but turned into a crown of thorns.
Mead suggests America in in a post-cold-war era. America’s left-wing support of Israel is now Right-wing support.
Deregulated growth of the economy is a causal factor in the widening gap between rich and poor. 9/11 destroyed America’s self-confidence by suggesting America cannot protect itself, let alone spread democratic values in the world. American power emulates authoritarian government with slogans like “Make America Great” with an underlying disregard for foreign relations and world peace. Mead suggests there is a growing loss of faith in American government.
It is sad to think how vilified and unfair history has been to such a small ethnic minority.
What seems glaringly obvious in Mead’s “too long” story is the immense contribution Jews have made to the United States. As a small minority, their contribution to the world outstrips any ethnic group in this dilatant’s flawed memory. Mead gives some perspective to that realization.
Gender and Our Brains (How New Neuroscience Explodesthe Myths of the Male and Female Minds.)
By: Gina Rippon
Narrated by: Hannah Curtis
Gina Rippon (British Author, neurobiologist, received a PhD in physiological psychology, professor at Aston Brain Centre, Aston University in Birmingham, England.)
Gina Rippon develops an argument, reinforced by literature but indeterminant by science, that there is little intellectual or social difference between the sexes. Like white dominance of the western world, Rippon implies difference between the sexes has been institutionalized and biased by society.
Though Rippon does not reach back to fossil evidence of human beings, one might make a case for the beginning of biased human socialization in the discovery of homo habilis males and females that lived 2.4 to 1.4 million years ago in Eastern and Southern Africa. Ironically, “homo habilis” is Latin for “handy man”.
The vary choice of identification of the oldest known fossil is a reminder of the influence of socialization and gender discrimination by the actions and definitions of science researchers. ((Hardly a surprise when only 38% of the population of Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics’ (STEM) bachelor’s degrees are held by women.)) Conceivably, in the beginning of history men dominated women because of inherent physical strength and a division of labor that set sexual bias for generations to come.
In “Gender and Our Brains”, Rippon is raising the chicken and egg paradox for the origin of male and female identity.
Is one born with a gender identity like a chicken or is one born as an egg with a chicken’ identity determined by socialization?
Having been raised by a mother with the only consistent father figure in the family being an older brother, this reviewer’s belief is as clouded as the conclusions reached by Rippon. There is as much evidence for being born as a chicken as an egg in the history of science and sociology. The conclusion one may draw from “Gender and Our Brains” is “let people choose to be whom and what they desire to be”.
Society should neither condemn nor deny a person’s sexual preference. Just as racial and ethnic minorities should not be discriminated against, neither should those who choose a sexual identity.
Societal acceptance and equality of opportunity should be the same for all. There is no justification for denial of equal rights and opportunities based on what one becomes as an individual whether one’s life is an inherent or learned difference. The only reason sexual identity is a controversial question is because societies lean toward a “we/them” mentality. Why should one care whether one identifies as male or female if they make a positive contribution to society. America is founded on the principles of equal treatment and opportunity for all, not just a white, largely male, majority.
Rippon’s conclusion is that human beings may or may not have a sexual identity when they are born. Science experiments and studies give no distinct answer to inherent sexual identity.
If sexual identity is inherent (which is neither proven or unproven by science), socialization is shown to influence sexual identities maturation and how men and women behave toward each other. Rippon argues if sexual identity is partly determined by socialization, then socialization is where equality of the sexes should and can be reinforced.
Rippon makes a convincing argument that there is minimal difference between men and women except in their role in human reproduction.
Many literary stories believe in the equality of the sexes. Rippon’s fundamental point is that all humans are born equal whether male, female, or other. Her inference is that the world needs to get over discrimination and promote equal rights and opportunity for all because any natural origin of sexual identity remains a scientifically indeterminant puzzle.
Evan S. Connell (American Novelist, 1924-2o13., died at age 88.)
Evan Connell captures a woman’s middle-class life in the twentieth century. “Mrs. Bridges” is a story of a twentieth century woman whose life begins in the middle-class and rises to the upper middle-class. She marries, has three children (one boy and two girls) with a husband who becomes a highly successful lawyer. Her son is characterized as moderately intelligent with two sisters, one sister characterized as smart and haughty and another quiet and reserved. The story is set in middle America.
In 1959, “Mrs. Bridge” received the National Book Award in fiction. The novel became a moderately successful movie, “Mr. and Mrs. Bridge”, starring Paul Newman and Joanne Woodward.
“Mrs. Bridge” will resonate with many women’s and men’s aspiration in America. It is a reminder of what it is like to be an American in a world ruled by white men, i.e., not women or people of color. “Mrs. Bridge” is a wife slowly becoming aware of an evolving society that is far from the ideals of equality of opportunity outlined by the 1868′ 14th Amendment.
The Bridge’s smart and haughty daughter graduates from high school, chooses not to attend college, and decides to move from the Midwest to New York. She moves to Greenwich Village and finds a job as a manager’s assistant while living a bohemian life that mystifies her mother.
The son chooses to go to college and appears on his way to becoming an engineer with a fascination for measurement and construction. He seems to have a plan to achieve his father’s success. However, he rebels in a different and similar way to his sister by dating girls who do not reflect the staid relationship of his parents. On the one hand, the son strives to emulate his father, on the other, he rejects the privileges of wealthy upper-class existence in white America.
The youngest daughter takes a different route to adulthood. She is the quiet one who never challenges her mother or father.
She turns to religion. Ironically, she abandons her religious obsession, marries a plumber’s son who drops out of college to take over his uncle’s business with the ambition of becoming a financial success like his new wife’s father. That goal is unrevealed in Connell’s story, but he shows their marriage is rocky, presumably because of their societal upbringing. The husband unjustifiably strikes his wife. He apologizes but Connell infers the reason for their conflicts is because of the different economic circumstances in which they were raised. The Bridge’s young daughter is accustomed to having housework done by servants while the plumber’s son is self-reliant and an ambitious doer. The story infers they stay together but it is an untold exploration of their remaining lives.
Nearing the end of this family’s story, Connell illustrates the growing boredom in Mrs. Bridges’ life.
The children grow away from her. She feels a sense of loss of purpose in life. Housework is now entirely done by servants. The children no longer listen to her or seek her advice. Her husband is consumed by his work. No one seems to need or care about her. The only solace seems to be in wealthy women friends who are experiencing a similar ennui. One of these upper-class women commits suicide. Mrs. Bridges suggests to her husband that she should see a psychiatrist for her growing depression. Her husband suggests that is nonsense and the idea is dropped.
The life of the Bridges family is disrupted by WWII. The son chooses to leave the university and enlist in the Army. The implication is that life goes on for the family as it had before, but the experience of war is only reinforcing the dynamics of their family’s socialization.
Self-interest permeates human life. In a capitalist culture, self-interest is measured by wealth.
One suspects some who have lived this twentieth century life see themselves in Connell’s story of the Bridges family. In socialist culture, self-interest is measured by power. In a communist culture, self-interest is a combination of wealth and power as evidenced by Russia’s and China’s rule in the 21st century.
The value of Connell’s “Mrs. Bridge” is in its dissection of American society, and not just of its time but of today.
Its story implies American wealth should not be a measure of human value. The gap between rich and poor is a measure of how far America is from the intent of the Constitution’s statement “all men are created equal”. Connell’s story infers the statement in the American Constitution should have been “all people are created equal”, not just men. In being created equal, the 14th Amendment stipulates all citizens are to have equal rights in pursuit of life, liberty, and property.
Connell masterfully shows the strength and weakness of American society. Its strength lies in freedom to exploit human self-interest. Its weakness is in believing wealth is a measure of human value.
There must be no discrimination in society based on sex, race, religion, or ethnicity for equality of opportunity to evolve. That is aspirational in America, but whether equal opportunity can ever be achieved is problematic based on the nature of human beings.
War is only a destroyer, not a builder of society. Samet implies the truth of war will continue to be distorted by both victors and losers who tell the tale.
Looking for the Good War: American Amnesia and the Violent Pursuit of Happiness
By: Elizabeth D. Samet
Narrated by: Suzanne Toren
Elizabeth D. Samet (Author, Professor of English at West Point.)
Elizabeth Samet’s “Looking for the Good War” tells a hard truth about war. Samet’s history of war is like the refrain from the Temptations’ song:
War, huh yeah What is it good for? Absolutely nothing, oh hoh, oh War huh yeah What is it good for? Absolutely nothing, say it again y’all
THE FEAR OF WAR IN VIETNAM
As a professor at West Point, it seems incongruous for Samet to write this book. On the other hand, who would better understand a career for future military officers than a West Point’ professor? The command structure of the military requires soldiers do what they are ordered to do. In that doing, they may lose their minds, their lives, or their physical health. Samet raises the hard truth of every war, i.e., a soldier’s duty is to follow orders and when necessary, kill or be killed.
Samet questions stories, films, and images that glorify war.
Samet implies, once war is declared, its causes and consequences become fictionalized tales.
Once a country is compelled to defend itself in war, like Ukraine, Samet infers a “…Good War…” becomes fiction.
Truth of war becomes distorted by memory, and human bias that is memorialized by the visual arts and literature. The support for Samet’s view of war is in art and media representations of its history. From Picasso’s Guernica that illustrates the real horror of war to movies like Sands of Iwo Jima, war’s reality is distorted. Art and literature tell different truths.
Samet often refers to Shakespeare’s plays and his many observations about war, i.e., about its perpetrators and victims. From Julius Caesar to Richard III, to Henry IV, to Henry V, to Henry VIII, Samet quotes Shakespeare’s lines like
“Cry havoc’ and loose the dogs of war, That this foul deed shall smell above the earth With carrion men, groaning for burial.”
Samet argues Tom Brokaw, and Robert Rodat (screenwriter for “Saving Private Ryan”) glorify the winning side of WWII by choosing narratives that distort the true nature of war.
Samet is not alone in her opinion about the history of war distorting truth. American author and television writer, Rebecca Serle says the same. To Serle and Samet, history is a personalized perception, a truth imprinted on the minds of combatants. This personalized truth is an interpretation of what one experiences. War’s events are interpreted by the understanding of those who choose to write, paint, or film war’s events. War’s events become interpretations of interpretations. Samet implies a “…Good War…” is oxymoronic, a contradiction of words because there are no good wars.
American author and television writer, Rebecca Serle, wrote “History, memory is by definition fiction. Once an event is no longer present, but remembered, it is narrative. And we can choose the narratives we tell–about our own lives, our own stories, our own relationships.”
Samet is arguing no war is a good war because war is inherently bad for the mental and physical existence of human life. She argues narratives of America’s Civil War are prime examples of the distortion of truth about a “…Good War…” in the same sense as Brokaw’s WWII narrative. Samet coldly notes America’s idealization of rebel opposition to union and civil rights falls into the same category as the idealization of America’s role in WWII. There were singular brave actions in both wars, but those stories of bravery distort the reality of death and destruction, murder of human beings, an aftermath of coping with loss or permanent injury of loved ones, and the consequence of destroyed homes and economies of warring nations. Both WWII and America’s civil war solved nothing. Discrimination has not disappeared. Mass killings still occur. The only difference is in the organization, execution, and volume of deaths and injuries. There is no “…Good War…”
Samet explains neither WWII or the American Civil war were examples of a “…Good War…”. That statement shocks the senses.
Just as America did not save the world for democracy in WWII, America’s Civil War did not erase institutional racism. Racism hardened after America’s civil war and continues to this day.
Axis powers chose to wage war just as Allied powers chose to defend themselves. The story told by victors tends to view war by focusing on heroic events of conflict rather than war’s atrocity and aftermath. The story told by losers is one of blame for miscreant leaders who misled their countries into war. Both stories are fictions to justify new leader’s perceptions of reality. More importantly, Samet clearly explains how memory distorts the truth of what is accomplished by waging war.
Samet is simply writing about the fundamental truth–war is hell for all human beings, whether victors or losers.
The upside-down world of George Orwell notes “War is peace, Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.” This is the world of which Samet writes. Samet explains what Orwell satirizes. War is hell. “Equal rights” are an unaccomplished ideal. Ignorance of war’s truth is compounded by distorted memories of the past.
As seen in Ukraine, Myanmar, Ethiopia, and Sudan–wars continue to roil the world. War is only a destroyer, not a builder of society. Samet implies the truth of war will continue to be distorted by both victors and losers who tell the tale.
Between Two Kingdoms (A Memoir of a Life Interrupted)
By: Suleika Jaouad
Narrated by: Suleika Jaouad
Suleika Jaouad (American author, and motivational speaker.)
Suleika Jaouad offers a guide to veterans of life. Jaouad’s book goes on a little too long, but its message resonates with some who feel challenged by the life they live. “Between Two Kingdoms” is about living and dying. Whether one is a child or adult living through war or peace, Jaouad offers a guide for survival.
Every person faces challenges in their life.
Jaouad contracts leukemia, a frequently fatal cancer that affects the production and function of blood cells. Jaouad recognizes her challenge is a combat between the kingdoms of living and dying. Like any veteran of life, Jaouad’s experience affects her life, even after diagnosis of remission. Jaouad’s recovery from cancer will resonate with the old and young, veterans of war, and every person of any age coping with memories of their experience.
Whether one is in their childhood, twenties, middle age, or seventies, they are living between two kingdoms, i.e., the kingdom of living and the kingdom of dying.
Jaouad’s story is highly personal. The first chapters reflect on a twenty something young woman just beginning her independent life. She has the personal experiences of many young adults making their way in life. Her sexual relationships and personal achievements are similar to many people of her age. What strikes a listener about her self-understanding is its universal applicability. The only difference is in what triggers that self-understanding. Triggers come from the circumstances of life. The trigger may be cancer, the experience of war, the loss of a loved one, a psychological trauma, or physical injury.
Jaouad explains how she psychologically and emotionally copes with her cancer.
In that explanation, a guide is offered to every person who struggles with unexpected traumas in their life. Trauma takes many forms that Jaouad explains may be both physical and mental. She shows the physical consequence of leukemia but also the mental consequence of dealing with it, dying from it, and (in her case) recovering from it. It is in the dealing part that a listener will find the most value.
Jaouad is helped by America’s medical system but a great deal of her ability to cope is based on others’ help.
She is supported by her mother and father, an intimate boyfriend, and patients in the hospital in which she is treated. The boyfriend, also in his twenties, sticks with her through the first years of treatment. The hardship of treatment overwhelms the boyfriend’s capacity to deal with what Jaouad is going through. The relationship breaks down and the boyfriend leaves. As Jaouad begins recovery, after remission, she meets a jazz musician who becomes quite famous. The former boyfriend returns to try and mend their relationship but fails.
Before Jaouad marries, she chooses to see America by traveling with a small dog and lecturing on what she has learned from her leukemia ordeal.
Jaouad has always aspired to be a writer and has kept a diary of her life. She became a professional writer and lecturer.
Jaouad eventually marries the jazz musician. Jon Batiste, former band leader and musician on Stephen Colbert’s late night TV show.
“Between Two Kingdoms” is an enlightening story of Jaouad’s very personal life. Every generation may find something in her book that may help them cope with their lives.
Essential Physics (A Scientist’s Guide to Life’s Biggest Questions)
By: Sabine Hossenfelder
Narrated by: Gina Daniels
Sabine Hossenfelder (Author, German theoretical physicist, science communicator.)
Sabine Hossenfelder creates unease in listeners who struggle with understanding a world determined by the science of physics. Her first chapter is about the mystery of time. Time is an illusion created by one’s mind. Your time is not my time because our perspectives are influenced by how fast we are moving. If we are in the same room, or one of us is on a train and the other is at the station, the difference is so infinitesimally small, times’ relativity is not comprehended. However, in spacetime with the effect of gravity on radio signals and rocket guidance, time’s relativity becomes navigationally critical.
Hossenfelder notes Einstein explains time is relative and not a constant force of nature because time and space are linked in a way that infers “now” has no meaning.
One can understand the words just written but remain confused about what is called spacetime and its meaning for the past, present, and future. Hossenfelder notes the importance of this physics truth in explaining how travel in space at high velocities cannot be planned for arrivals at specific locations without understanding time’s relativity. Here is where Hossenfelder excels as a science writer. One may not understand the physics of time, but its practical application in space flight and science experiment proves its truth.
One may not understand the physics of time, but its practical application in space flight and science experiment proves its truth.
Hossenfelder, when asking questions of scientists, often asks if they believe in God. Hossenfelder notes most of the scientists she interviews are agnostic but wants to better understand where a scientist’s point of view differs from her own. The inference one draws from Hossenfelder’s question is that God may or may not exist. Her agnosticism implies today’s science neither proves nor disproves His/Her or Its existence.
Hossenfelder’s point is there is no way for science to test or measure the existence of God.
There are a number of interesting thoughts expressed in “Essential Physics”. Hossenfelder believes free will is limited, if not nonexistent, because of the laws of physics. The puzzle of that belief is that present understanding of quantum mechanics is that physics outcomes are probabilistic, not pre-determined actions and their consequences. One may believe there is an undiscovered law of physics that explains “everything about everything” as argued by Einstein. If that undiscovered law of physics is found, then life may arguably be a matter of causes and consequences. On the other hand, what about the person who chooses to do something contrary to what their conscious mind tells them to do? This is a circular argument. The circular argument is that a contrary decision may be a part of a person’s nature which infers their decision remains pre-determined. It is difficult to accept the belief that our lives are predetermined even if Einstein is right and there is an undiscovered physics law that makes quantum physics predictable.
The details of evolution show random modifications of species have determined the makeup of life on Earth.
Hossenfelder discounts belief in a universe made for humans by a superior being. As she notes, evolution suggests otherwise. “The Origin of Species” postulated by Darwin has been supported by science since its publication in 1859.
The science community has tested chemical interactions of the early chemical elements of earth to show prokaryotes and eukaryotes of cellular life can be created from chance chemical and heat interactions.
Hossenfelder raises the question of whether the cosmos has consciousness. She speculates on the origin of the universe as a creation of a superior being or the evolution of a universe from something like the “Big Bang”. Her opinion leans toward the “Big Bang” and evolutionary physics by noting scientific experiments that demonstrate how nature, rather than God, created the Universe.
In writing about consciousness, the author notes the similarity between interstellar atmospheric strings that resemble neuronal connections of the human brain.
“Essential Physics” may help some get closer to understanding the current state of science’s explanation of life, but one may choose to be skeptical because sciences’ pursuit of understanding life remains a work-in-progress. Physics study to date offers no answer to the meaning or destination of life. The truth remains in an “uncanny valley”, a psychological concept of human unease, most recently compounded by genetics discoveries, computer animations, and A.I. influence on life.
Narrated by: Cherise Boothe, Karole Foreman, Myura Lucretia Taylor
Kaitlyn Greenidge (American novelist.)
Kaitlyn Greenidge’s “We Love You…” is an ironic tale about love and discrimination that blurs the line between science research, social truth, and exploitation. The story of Greenidge’s book does not cross the same line as the Tuskegee Experiments in 1932 and 1972 but it shows how it could happen. One may argue Greenidge defines the line to explain the ethical purpose of scientific research, but she also clearly illustrates how emotional entanglement influences human behavior which interferes with ethical purpose.
The Tuskegee Experiments were on 400 Black Americans who were purposely not treated for syphilis. Like test animals, these American patients were studied for the consequences of syphilis infection. None were given penicillin injections that could cure their infection.
“We Love You…” is somewhat difficult to follow because it goes back and forth in history with too many characters. If taken in order of history, the story begins with a white British anthropologist who is interested in studying “Negro” culture in the 1920s.
This well-educated white Anthropologist travels to a Black American community to observe the behavior of Black children being schooled by a Black teacher. The students object to the intrusive interruption by the anthropologist who asks questions and draws images of the children. The teacher asks the anthropologist to stop interviewing and making pencil drawings of the students. As a substitute for his interviews and drawings, the anthropologist asks the teacher to allow him to sketch her. In return, he would no long bother the students. She hesitatingly agrees. That agreement leads to increasingly intimate drawings of the teacher without her clothes. The teacher falls in love with the anthropologist while the anthropologist only sees her as a subject of study. The intimacy of the drawings alludes to the impropriety of the Tuskegee experiment.
The story jumps back to present time with the same research institute that the 1920’s anthropologist had joined. A Black family is employed by the institute to raise a chimpanzee and teach it to communicate by using signing like that used by the deaf.
One presumes the reason this particular Black family is chosen is because they use sign language to communicate with each other. Signing may be a more utilitarian and productive method for communication between chimpanzees and humans.
The father and mother of the family come to the institute for different reasons.
Though the father, Charlie, is a teacher, their income and housing will be better because housing is provided at no cost, and Charlie can teach at a local school. Improved income seems the primary motivation of the father while the mother is interested in the idea of caring for an additional child-like animal. Their two children are not happy about relocation to the institute. The repugnant nature of the story is that race, rather than communication with the simian world, might be the unstated purpose of the research.
“We Love You, Charlie Freeman” takes many twists and turns that diminish its impact on a listener.
One might argue the story is about how love grows between humans and animals and between humans and other humans. The story is also about the impropriety of scientific research that is not clearly spelled out to those who are part of the research and what use will be made of the results. Impropriety was introduced earlier with the anthropologist who visited the school to draw pictures of children. That study evolved into a study of the genitalia of a Black woman. The author alludes to love of the anthropologist and how it developed in the Black teacher as a one-sided obsession.
Greenidge’s story addresses three types of love. There is family love, human to animal love, and human to human love.
Loves similarities, differences, and causes for break-up are illustrated. A woman loves a man who does not love her but exploits what she has to offer. A woman loves a woman but moves on to love another woman just as many of both sexes do. A married couple falls out of love with their mate. A spouse chooses to love an idea more than a person.
To this listener, there are too many fragmentary ideas in Greenidge’s story that fail to move one to a singular appreciation of her creativity.
The Rise and Fall of the Neoliberal Order (America and the World in the Free Market Era)
By: Gary Gerstle
Narrated by: Keith Sellon-Wright
Gary Gerstle (Author, Professor of American History and Fellow in History at Sidney Sussex College, University of Cambridge.)
Gary Gerstle’s history of the “…Neoliberal Order” is tiresome to listen to but gives weight to American belief and practice of freedom regardless of political affiliation or interest group association. Gerstle’s history is tiresome because of its labeling, not because of its historical accuracy. Whether one is a conservative, liberal, or neoliberal is superfluous.
Americans pride themselves on being beacons of freedom when in truth they are opinionated advocates of self-interest hiding behind political labels.
Gerstle’s history shows every President of the United States has been elected by the prevailing sentiment of the time. (To date, Presidents of the United States have always been men because of humanity’s history of misogyny.) The common thread of America’s leaders is their belief in freedom. In America, that freedom is limited by “rule of law” created by two branches of a popularly elected legislature. Sadly, as shown by Gerstle’s history, America’s “rule of law” has historically victimized the powerless and poor.
Belief in freedom has justified slavery, led to a civil war, given America the emancipation proclamation, voting rights for women, and created vituperative media manipulators like Rush Limbaugh, trolls like Alex Jones, and media conglomerates like Fox News.
The difficulty of American democracy is in knowing where to draw the line between freedom and rule of law that regulates excesses and treats all citizens equally. Guilt finally rose to the level for the emancipation proclamation to free slaves, and voting rights for women in 1920, but Black Americans and women are still seeking equal rights.
Gerstle accurately reveals America’s adaptation to the will of an ethnic majority to circumstances of different eras, whether it is enrichment of the rich, preparation for war, recovery from economic depression, or adjustment to the threat of global warming.
The strength of America democracy is its flexibility in dealing with societal change, with the caveat that government tends to protect the status quo.
Communal self-interest changes with the circumstances of its time. Self-interest is immutable in one sense and highly fungible in another. The power of money influences elections and government policy that aids the moneyed, often at the expense of the powerless and poor. Communal self-interest is reenforced by the right to vote but the economic advantage of government policy goes to the rich and middle class because that is where the money is that supports election campaigns.
Gerstle notes that in the 21st century, particularly with the ubiquity of media, the challenge for the public is to know the difference between propaganda, lies, and truth.
Gerstle infers history shows America takes the course of moneyed interests in elections whether it is one or the other of the three challenges to the public. Sadly, propaganda and lies are often believed by the public to be truth.
Gerstle recalls how the flood gate of media technology opens and its flood takes hold of America during the second term of the Clinton administration. Clinton chose to eliminate the Glass-Steagall Act that was designed in 1933 to prevent another Depression.
Clinton recognizes the world is at the precipice of the tech revolution. During the industrial revolution, banks were steered away from volatile equity markets by the Glass-Steagall Act. Clinton, with the help of Republicans like Newt Gingrich, wanted to loosen the chains of investment banks so the technology revolution could blossom. Neither Democratic nor Republic Presidents reversed that decision after the Clinton presidency.
In part, one might argue the near banking collapse in 2008 could have been avoided if the Glass-Stegall Act had been left in force.
Worse, in the 2008 financial debacle, stockholders in at risk banks were bailed out by the Obama government while overstretched homeowners were left with mortgages they could not pay. The rich were bailed out while the poor were bankrupted.
The three banks that failed in May and March of 2023 are arguably a consequence of the volatile investments made in technology companies, a second threat to the banking industry in the 21st century.
The choice of the government in 2023 is to replace depositors’ funds in excess of FDIC limits to avoid the loss of their businesses from the profligate investments by these three banks. The difference between the 2008 bailout and the 2023 government response is bank’ stockholders were not bailed out by the government while other banks took over their portfolios.
Gerstle’s history clearly shows American Democracy’s failures are non-partisan. Both Republican and Democratic leaders fail the poor and powerless populations of America.
That failure is not because of a failure of democracy but because of poorly regulated capitalism. Karl Marx explained democracy is a first step toward communism. One can disagree with that conclusion by noting self-interest is a part of life that makes the ideal of communism unattainable. What is attainable is a democracy that improves public education and mandates business legislation that ensures and enforces social equality and equal opportunity.
American Democracy needs to erase lobbyist, industry, and individual financial donors’ influence on government political campaigns.
Democracy is a work in progress, but it is the best form of government known today. Capitalism is the engine of economic growth that works in all forms of government. In today’s world, capitalism offers the greatest opportunity for humanity in any form of government, but particularly in Democracy.
In the 21st century, it seems democracy is evolving to meld the best of socialism with the self-interest of capitalism.
Democracy struggles with the principles of regulated freedom. Gerstle’s history shows democratic freedom, limited by rule of law, remains at the heart of what can truly make America Great. What gets in the way is the greed of moneyed interests that elect leaders who become dependent on a minority of American society.
Gerstle’s recounts the history of the second Bush’s administration’s misguided and disastrous invasion of Iraq.
The bloody toll of America’s invasion and failed reconstruction of Iraq illustrates the hubris of American belief that democratic freedom works for all nations of the world.
The invasion and reconstruction of Iraq is shown to be an American failure by any measure of societal improvement.
Gerstle shows the election of Donald Trump is a triumph of the disaster of believing American Democratic elections are in the best interest of its citizens. Trump’s administration mocks the ideals of American Democratic government and freedom. Rule of law is a joke to Trump as evidenced by the many indictments and denials of America’s former President. Gerstle notes how unprepared Trump was to become President of the United States.
By any measure, Trump is shown by Gerstle to have damaged America’s image in the world.
Gerstle’s history shows Democracy needs to be regulated by rule of law. Self-interest is unlikely to disappear from human nature which puts all societies at risk. Any form of government can become autocratic but taking the influence of money out of elections leaves hope that citizens of Democratic nations will have a chance to live well, and in peace.
Louise Erdrich (American novelist and poet, member of the Chippewa Indians, a tribe of Ojibwe people.)
This is a review of a third novel of Louise Erdrich’s books. The three that are reviewed are about native American experience in the U.S.
Louise Erdrich who wrote “The Round House”, “The Night Watchman” and this book, “The Sentence”, grew up in Wahpeton, North Dakota. Erdrich’s parents, a Chippewa mother and German father, taught at the “Bureau of Indian Affairs” in Wahpeton. She is a member of the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians. (Erdrich’s husband was a professor and writer who was the first director of “Native American Studies” at Dartmouth. He died at the age of 52.)
Erdrich begins “The Sentence” with a bizarre story of an addled brained addict, (the heroine of the story) who is convinced by her roommate to pick up a dead body from a friend’s house.
The addict agrees to do it in return for $26,000 lottery win that had recently been received by her friend. At first, one thinks the dead body is really just a pet, but it is actually a human that was once the boyfriend of the lottery winner. Further, we find this seems to have occurred on an Indian reservation which introduces an element of understandability because of the complication of reservation law versus America’s national government law.
The heroine rents a refrigerated van, picks up the body, and the next thing we find is she is arrested on a cocaine drug running charge. The corpse had bags of cocaine taped to its armpits. The heroine is convicted and sentenced by the federal government to a long prison sentence for breaking a federal law for drug running. The sentence is shortened from 60 years when her arresting reservation officer gets witnesses to recant their testimony. The former accused drug runner is released and marries the reservation lawman who arrested her for the alleged crime.
Finally, “The Sentence” begins to settle down to a somewhat normal life story. The now married couple adopts a young Indian girl who rebels against her mother’s care and attention. This seems a rather common case of mother/daughter relationships that either mends itself in maturity or remains ambivalent for the remainder of their lives.
The adopted daughter appears at her mother’s doorstep unannounced, with a baby carriage her mother presumes is loaded with some inane material items she brought with her.
What the mother finds is that it is a weeks old baby recently born from the daughter’s union with a man her mother has not met. The mother is thrilled to see her new grandson but asks too many questions about the father and disrupts the tentative truce between mother and daughter. The daughter withdraws to a bedroom, slams the door, and the mother realizes what she perceives to be her fault for asking about the baby’s father and his responsibilities.
However, the now grandmother is ecstatic about her new grandson and regrets having angered her daughter, presumably for fear of losing a future relationship with the baby.
Not too much new here from anyone who came from a broken home. Erdrich’s story begins to lag at this point because this seems like a common story of many American families. Then, Erdrich begins to refine her story.
Erdrich turns to events of America’s 21st century world and the story reclaims a listener’s interest. A bookstore in which the heroine works after her release from prison is in Minnesota, the home of George Floyd’s senseless murder by the Minneapolis police.
The heroine’s husband, as a former reservation police officer, offers a whiff of irony to the story. As a police officer, he had looked at crime on a scale of threat to others rather than transgression of a written law. He gauged his action in arrest based on a scale of threat to others rather than violation of the letter of law.
Erdrich’s story encompasses Covid19. It is becoming a clear and present danger to the characters in her story. Businesses are beginning to suffer from the reality of a worldwide lock down. Bookstores are identified as essential services, but customers are reluctant to visit because of fear of public contact. The government offers loans to essential businesses that may be forgiven if they choose to weather the growing pandemic.
Erdrich brings these events to the small world of one family. This family is every family with all the good and bad things that happen in life, but Erdrich implies bad things are more common in native American societies. The daughter is an alcoholic with an innocent baby born with an absent father. The daughter chooses to be in a pornographic movie to live a life she is able to afford. She expresses personal shame in a confession to her mother, a fact of her life of quiet desperation.
A layer of mysticism is added by the author that seems superfluous except that it is a reflection of native American’ belief in a spirit world.
The bookstore in which the heroine works is being haunted by the spirit of the woman who owned the bookstore, a woman that played an important role in the early life of the heroine. The haunting of the bookstore is related to the history of the deceased owner’s life. The bookstore owner lived a life dedicated to helping native Americans, believing she was born as an American Indian. Edrich recounts the discovery of a book by her husband that reveals a secret about the bookstore owner’s life. That secret becomes the focus of the story.
The storeowner’s spirit haunts the bookstore because of a book’s mysterious content.
The spirit will presumably continue to haunt the store as long as the book is missing. The heroine, without knowing the contents of the book, buries it in the hope that the storeowner’s spirit will leave the bookstore. Hiding the book doesn’t work. The storeowner continues to haunt the store and plans to possess the heroine’s body. The storeowner’s desire for possession of the heroine’s body is part of the mystery of the buried book.
The finale of Erdrich’s story is about life and death, love of family, reconciliation between mothers and daughters, and the fate of a storeowner’s spirit. The attraction of Edrich’s books is to know something more about native American culture. In a larger sense, “The Sentence” is about the broad meaning of poverty and discrimination in America and those who suffer from it. To appreciate much of what Erdrich offers in “The Sentence”, a listener needs to be patient.
REVIEWS AND VIEWS OF LIFE 