Tag: HISTORY

AMERICA’S BEGINNING

History buffs will be fascinated by Atkinson’s history of America’s Revolution, but it is a bit too long for this non-historian.

Books of Interest
 Website: chetyarbrough.blog

The Fate of the Day (The War for America, Fort Ticonderoga to Charleston, 1777-1780)

Author: Rick Atkinson

Narration by: Grover Gardner, Rick Atkinson

Rick Atkinson (American author, journalist, and military historian.)

Atkinson is an accomplished writer who has won Pulitzer Prizes for both histories and journalism. “The Fate of the Day” is a well written book about America’s war of independence. It is highly entertaining because of Atkinson’s detailed descriptions of the times and the major combatants in the revolutionary war. It gives reader/listener’s a view of the rag-tag and multi-cultural colonial military and British leaders. “The Fate of the Day” illustrates the colonists’ successes and failures against a much better trained and experienced British military.

Sir Henry Clinton on the left and Lord George Germain on the right.

Atkinson offers a picture of Great Britain’s incompetence, arrogance, and misjudgment of the colonies fight for independence. Atkinson explains that Sir Henry Clinton, the Commander-in-Chief of the British Forces, though quite smart and considered a gifted strategist, fails to communicate clearly to his British field officers. Compounding that confusion is Lord Germain, the Secretary of State in England, to whom Clinton, Howe, and Cornwallis reported. Germain gave orders that were too far removed from the field of action. It caused many misunderstandings and confusion that diminished the effectiveness of British forces during the colonists’ battles for independence.

George Washington.

However, Atkinson also explains the faults of the Colonies’ leadership during the revolution. The stoic George Washington learned his role in the revolution on the job. He had no experience in the tactics of battle which led to misjudgments in the field. However, his skill in managing Congress, the states, and his fractious international officers offset his tactical mistakes. Washington instilled resilience, discipline, and courage in his subordinates. He held the army together despite poor military provisioning, erratic and meager pay, inadequate recruitment and training for war in an often-harsh environment.

Nathanael Greene (Major General in the Revolutionary War for America’s independence.)

Washington has some good field commanders reporting to him. Nathanael Greene is a self-taught militia officer who became a sophisticated strategist. He had a strategy to defeat British forces in the south with his troop mobility and attrition in fighting British superiority. Green avoids decisive battles with the British by evading superior forces and coordinating local militias to harass and ambush British forces. (A reminder of the Vietcong in America’s future war.) This causes the British to spread their forces to try and defend everywhere at once which only made them more vulnerable to attack. Atkinson gives the example of Greene’s retreats across North Carolina that make Cornwallis pursue Union soldiers over rough terrain which made Cornwallis outrun his supplies. By the time they reached Virginia, Cornwallis and his troops were overextended. Though Green did not win many battles, he effectively undermined British resolve to continue the fight.

Benedict Arnold (American-born British military officer who fought with distinction for the American Continental Army.)

In contrast to Greene, Atkinson profiles the infamous Benedict Arnold. It is a surprising contrast because Arnold betrayed the colonies by defecting to the British. Atkinson explains Arnold risked his life in defense of America’s drive for independence. He was heroic in that drive but felt unrecognized. Arnold led the surprise seizure of Fort Ticonderoga, the first major victory of the war. Atkinson notes Arnold led his troops on the assault of Quebec in 1775 which required a 300-mile march for which his men nearly starved; some dying on the march. Arnold led the assault and was shot in the leg. Even though wounded again in the leg at the Battle of Saratoga, he fought through 1777 when his tactical military actions compelled Burgoyne to surrender. Atkinson shows Arnold to be a smart, heroic commander but his emotions, the lack of recognition or promotion led him to defect to the British. The irony is that he is never trusted by either America or the British because of his defection.

America’s Revolutionary War.

Atkinson’s book is compelling because of the cinematic way he tells the story of America’s Revolutionary War. Picking details of heroes like Washington, and Greene which ranges from Washington’s trouble with his teeth to the clever strategy of guerilla war conducted by Greene to the bravery and defection of Arnold. Atkinson’s story helps one understand how human and creative early settlers of America were, not unlike the better American leaders of today.

Ben Franklin (America’s chief diplomat in Europe during the Revolution.)

Atkinson explains Ben Franklin is the colonists’ chief diplomat in Europe. Franklin’s charm as a a political operator who is willing to lie and flatter the French gave him celebrity and influence in the French court. He manages to create a French alliance that eventually supplied material and military power for support of the colonies against Great Britain. Of course, it helps that the French were vying for their own influence against the growing hegemony of England.

The Marquis de La Fayette (French miliary officer and politician who volunteered to serve in the Continental Army.)

Even before France began supporting the colonists, a young soldier named Lafayette joined the Revolution. The French aristocracy originally objects to the wealthy young aristocrat’s involvement. In response, Lafayette sales to America as a 19-year-old who believed in the colonists’ cause. His early experience as a soldier in France made him a general officer in the Continental army. He rode next to George Washington which gave weight to the Revolution’s global importance by internationalizing the war.

America’s independence.

History buffs will be fascinated by Atkinson’s history of America’s Revolution, but it is a bit too long for this non-historian.

ECONOMIC CRISES

Sorkin’s “1929” makes one think about 20th and 21st century American Presidents who may have set a table for a second economic crisis. As the Turkish proverb says “…fish stinks first at the head.”

Books of Interest
 Website: chetyarbrough.blog

1929 (Inside the Greatest Crash in Wall Street History–and How It Shattered a Nation)

Author: Andrew Ross Sorkin

Narration by: Andrew Ross Sorkin

Andrew Sorkin (American author, journalist, and columnist for The New York Times.)

“1929” is a history of the build-up to the stock market crash and the advent of the depression with opinions about how today’s economy compares and what should be done to keep it from happening again. Though Sorkin is not an economist, he has written an interesting history of the build-up to the 1929 depression.

Faltering economies.

There is a sense of danger being felt by some today when reading/listening to Sorkin’s history of the 1920s. Few seem to have a clear understanding of world market forces and whether we are heading for an economic catastrophe or a mere hiccup in the growth of the economy. Neither bankers, regulators, nor politicians in the 1920s (or for that matter now) seem to have a clue about the economy’s trouble and what can be done to ameliorate risks. Like 1929, today’s insiders, power brokers, and rich have more options to protect themselves than most of the world’s population.

Increasing homelessness in America.

In America, it seems those in power have no concern about the rising gap between rich and poor or the immense increase in homelessness. Without a plan by those in power, there seems little concern about reducing inequality, the common denominator for the wealth gap and homelessness. Sorkin’s book outlines the reality of 1929 that gives reader/listeners a feel of history that may repeat itself.

Sorkin’s history seems credible as he notes human nature does not change.

Today’s leaders are like yesterday’s leaders. Not because they are venal but, like most if not all human beings, leaders in power are concerned about themselves and what there is in life that serves their personal needs and wants. Of course, the difference is that leaders that are power brokers affect others that do not have the same influence or options to protect themselves. We all have blinders that keep us from seeing the world as it is because human nature is to ask what is in it for me, i.e., whatever “it” is. The 1920s had a merger bubble in manufacturing and communication that is fed by the industrial revolution. Today, we have a merger bubble with mega-corporations like Tesla, Apple, Amazon and others that are mega-corporations capitalizing on a new revolution coming with A.I., the equivalent of the Industrial Revolution. Some critics argue mega-corporations, like what happened with the oil industry could be broken up to increase competition which is the hallmark of improved production, cost reduction, and lower consumer prices.

Charles E. Mitchell (American banker, led the First Nation City Bank which became Citibank.)

What makes this history interesting is Sorkin’s identification of the most responsible power brokers who bore responsibility for the stock market crash. Charles Mitchell of Nation City Bank is identified as the central driver of the stock market bubble. Mitchell denied the reality of the financial systems fragility. His ambition and unfounded optimism magnified the systemic risk of the financial crises. He openly defied the Federal Reserve’s warning to curb margin lending that risked other people’s money and their financial stability. He continued to promote purchase of stocks on credit that were fueling the stock market bubble. Mitchell appears to have misled the public in order to increase his power and protect his personal wealth by creating the illusion of market stability and his bank’s profitability. Though Mitchell is not the sole villain, he became the most powerful banker in the nation while breaking the financial backs of many Americans. In general, it is the self-interest of those who listened to him that have responsibility for their financial collapse, but it is always hard to know who is lying to you. Part of the blame is the hesitation of the Federal Reserve Board to act because the people in charge could not agree but that was more a matter of omission than commission which Mitchell was charged with but not convicted. Of course, the political leaders of that time also failed but hindsight is a lot easier than foresight.

Artificial Intelligence is today’s equivalent of the Industrial Revolution of the twentieth century.

Similar to the corporate mergers and investment from growing industrialization of the 1920s, today’s mania is mega corporation’ investment in Artificial Intelligence. Sorkin notes the ease of trading stocks, expectations of crypto investments, and A.I. hype may well move the market beyond its value. He argues for stronger guardrails on speculative investments, more limits on margin lending, and transparency on high-risk investments. He cautions easier credit as seen this Christmas season with buying based on delayed payment incentives and increasing credit card availability, card balance increases, and more liberal repayment terms. In general, Sorkin wants to see more, and better government oversight and regulation of credit offers. He believes too many lenders are overly optimistic about the future with the gap between rich and poor widening and trending to get worse. That inequality threatens the success of capitalism as a driver for shared prosperity, and economic growth.

Herbert Hoover (President 1929-1933, though characterized as the primary villain for the depression, Sorkin identifies his role as one of omission rather than commission.)

The Presidents shown below carry some responsibility for where the American economy is today but that would be another book.

Clinton, the first Bush, the second Bush, Obama, Biden, Trump.

Sorkin’s “1929” makes one think about 20th and 21st century American Presidents who may have set a table for a second economic crisis. As the Turkish proverb says “…fish stinks first at the head.”

Orwell & A.I.

In the pre-A.I. age, democratic socialism is unachievable, but A.I. may resurrect its potential. However, as Orwell noted, the risk is a “Brave New World” rather than a hoped-for democratic socialism.

GEORGE ORWELL (Author, 1903-1950)

In Norm Chomsky’ ‘s and Nathan Schneider’s book, “On Anarchy”, George Orwell’s book “Homage to Catalonia” is called one of Chomsky’s favorite books. “On Anarchy” infers Orwell believed in anarchy because of his role in the war (1936-1939) against the Franco government. Though Orwell’s risk of life in Spain’s war is inconceivable to me, it seems prudent to listen to his story and point to the significant difference between what Chomsky and Schneider infer about Orwell’s belief in “…Anarchism” and what Orwell really wrote and believed. Though Orwell takes anarchism seriously as a political working-class movement, he believes it is impractical and that democratic socialism (with “1984” reservations) is what he believes could be the best form of government. The idea of abolishing all forms of coercive authority and hierarchy with a government anarchy is impractical because of the nature of human beings.

Francisco Franco with his soldiers in 1936.

Because of Orwell’s belief in democracy and equality he chooses to join the fight against Franco’s fascism. He joins the resistance at the age of 33 because of his belief in democratic socialism. He felt he needed to join the ideological struggle against Franco’s regime. It is a remarkable decision considering he is married, and relatively unknown. He is oddly driven by his moral belief in democracy and equality. Presumably, he entered the war to understand what it means to fight a war against a government he felt was immoral and totalitarian. Orwell served for approximately six months beginning in December 1936. He was shot in the throat and nearly died.

Anarchy and human nature.

It seems inconceivable that anarchism is a reasonable way of governing human nature. It is interesting to contrast what Orwell believes and what anarchists argue. This is particularly relevant in the 21st century because of the inevitable change in society that is occurring with artificial intelligence. A.I. has an immense potential for creating Orwell’s “Brave New World”. However, his writings reject the ideal of “Anarchy” espoused by Chomsky and Schneider because of its impracticality. Orwell shows that human nature contains both heroism and weakness tied to the material world. Even though human nature is basically decent, it is easily corrupted. That corruption makes humans hope and fear human decisions designed by consensus. It is not to say democratic socialism would be infallible, but it offers a structure for regulation of different governments at chosen intervals of time.

“The Laws of Human Nature” is a tour deforce of what one learns in life.

Human nature will not change. Human nature is a set of relatively stable psychological, biological, and social tendencies that are shared by all human beings. These tendencies shape how humans think, feel, and act even as culture and governance changes. Artificial intelligence will only intensify the strengths and weaknesses of human nature. The principles of anarchy in an A.I. world is frightening:

  • No centralized government, police, or standing armies.
  • Society organized through federations of communes, cooperatives, or councils.
  • Emphasis on direct democracy, mutual aid, and local autonomy.
  • Suspicion of any coercive authority — even democratic majorities.
  • Change often imagined as revolutionary, not incremental.

A more rational alternative to Anarchy is Democratic Socialism believed by Orwell and espoused by MLK.

  • The state remains, but becomes more egalitarian and accountable.
  • Markets may still exist, but are regulated or supplemented by public ownership.
  • Political parties and electoral competition are central.
  • Emphasis on universal programs: healthcare, education, housing, worker protections.
  • Change is gradual, through reforms, not revolution.

Differences of opinion.

There are obvious differences between Chomsky’s and Orwell’s beliefs. Both have social weaknesses. Human nature gets in the way of both forms of governance. Orwell seems to have recognized the weaknesses of his belief in democratic socialism in his writing of “Brave New World”. In contrast, Chomsky’s and Schneider’s pollyannish view of anarchy as “…a better form of government where power is decentralized and citizens can and should collectively manage their own affairs through direct democracy and cooperative organizations” is absurd. The difference is that Orwell foresees the dangers of his idea in “Brave New World” which anticipates something like A.I. that has the potential for society’s destruction. “On Anarchy” ignores the truth of human nature, “Brave New World” does not.

Franciso Franco (1936-1975, died in office.)

Orwell’s decision to join opposition to Franco’s dictatorship fails. Their right-wing beliefs in authoritarianism, anti-communism, and pro-Catholicism prevails. Spain’s 1930s opposition leaders (Manuel Azaña, Largo Caballero, and Juan Negrín) were pro-democracy with anti-fascist, socialists, communists, anarchists, trade unions, urban workers, and peasants who Orwell joined to support democratic socialism, not anarchy.

In the pre-A.I. age, democratic socialism is unachievable, but A.I. may resurrect its potential. However, as Orwell noted, the risk is a “Brave New World” rather than a hoped-for democratic socialism.

POLITICAL REPRESENTATION

Despite John Kennedy’s anti-liberal leaning and conservative populism, his autobiography will make one pay more attention to what he says as a Senator of the United States.

Books of Interest
 Website: chetyarbrough.blog

HOW TO TEST NEGATIVE FOR STUPID (And Why Washington Never Will)

Author: John Kennedy

Narration by: John Kennedy

Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana

“How to Test Negative for Stupid” is an excellent autobiography of Senator John Kennedy. Not the John Kennedy who became President of the United States but a southerner who represents the great state of Louisiana. Having worked and lived for a couple years in New Orleans, experience reminds me of the extraordinary people I met who were as friendly as any strangers I have met around the world. Celebrating a Mardi Gras, seeing Elizabeth Taylor in a local theatre performance, and listening to Al Hirt live at a local bar were experiences one could not forget.

In my mind, Louisiana is an unusual State for Kennedy to represent as a Senator because of its colorful and diverse history.

In the 17th century it was claimed by France but ceded to the Spanish in the 18th century after the Seven Years’ War. France never really left Louisiana with some settling in New Orleans which became a vital port and, at least in my mind, a cultural representative of the State.

Half the state is enslaved by 1860. It joins the Confederacy at the beginning of the Civil War. After the Civil War, Louisiana endures Reconstruction and military occupation, while endorsing Jim Crow Laws that represent legalized segregation. This history is not to vilify or disrespect John Kennedy, but to give some context to the complex society John Kennedy ably represents in Congress.

Louisiana Emancipation Proclamation in 1863 declares the Confederate states “forever free”.

John Kennedy shows himself to be a well-educated, intelligent academic, and honest forthright politician. He is an erudite representative of the Louisiana’ Republican Party. This autobiography is a pleasure to listen to with one great reservation which is his defense of Donald Trump. Trump, like Senator Kennedy, represents a diverse constituency but, to this voter, President Trump is a risk to the health and welfare of America.

Trump’s anti-immigration policies are being enforced in legally suspect ways that should be and are being challenged by the judiciary.

Kennedy is reluctant to criticize Trump because of his belief that when one is elected to office in the United States, the position should be respected because of the election process. The absurdity of that belief is that Kennedy writes of the dishonesty and crookedness of some Louisiana Governors that got away with their corruption like it was just part of life in Louisiana.

Unfair political campaigning.

Kennedy is right about the Democratic Party unfairly vilifying Trump with false stories about Russian interference with electoral process and false reports of sexual activity (the Steele report) in Russia for which he could be blackmailed. False accusations have always been a part of the American election process. Every election for President has had true and false accusations made by opposing parties. None of these accusations kept Trump from being elected.

Presidents of the U.S.

Trump will be our President for the next three years of his second term. He is not the first or last President to abuse the office of the Presidency. His conflicts of interest are in his bond buying spree in 2025, his links to cryptocurrency, his appointments of cabinet members and advisors that have corporate ties, his use of the Presidency for personal branding, his gifts received like a $400 million plane from Qatar as Air Force One, and his personal empire building while being President of the United States.

Trump is not the first President to be accused of conflicts of interest.

George Washington had vast land holdings as the western parts of America that were being acquired by the government. Jefferson supported agriculture while being a large plantation owner dependent on slave labor. Bill and Hilliary Clinton were invested in the Whitewater real estate collapse in Arkansas, meant to sell vacation homes to the public. It went bankrupt and cost taxpayers an estimated $73 million. George Bush’s ties to the oil industry and his V.P.s recommendation to use Cheney’s former employer, Halliburton, to contract for work in Iraq seem questionable.

Migration is the movement of people to new areas of the world for work, better living conditions, and safety. In that process the world economy and American industry are arguably strengthened, not damaged.

Trump’s unadjudicated arrests and deportation of alleged immigrants is appalling. Trump’s anti-immigration policies are being enforced in legally suspect ways that should be and are being challenged by the judiciary. He is not the only President to have instituted policies that are contrary to the interests of America’s citizens. Many opposed Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal with history vindicating many of those decisions as appropriate for the circumstances of that time. Like Roosevelt, Trump tests the limits of his authority. What is appalling about Trump’s supported policies are issues like denying subsidized health care for the poor while maintaining tax reduction for the rich. Of course, history will be the final arbiter of Trump’s presidency.

Despite disagreeing with Kennedy’s support of Trump, the story of John Kennedy’s life is entertaining and enlightening. One comes away with admiration for a person who speaks his mind and who acts in the interests of his constituency and the country with honesty about what he believes to be right or wrong.

Despite John Kennedy’s anti-liberal leaning and conservative populism, his autobiography will make one pay more attention to what he says as a Senator of the United States.

HARD TIMES

America’s next President needs to forcefully change the economic direction of America in the same way Timothy Egan shows Franklin Roosevelt and the Secretary of Agriculture, Henry Wallace, did during the Dust Bowl and Depression era.

Books of Interest
 Website: chetyarbrough.blog

THE WORST HARD TIME (The Untold
Story of Those Who Survived the Great American Dust Bowl)

Author: Timothy Egan

Narration by: Jacob York

Timothy Egan (Author, American journalist, former op-ed columnist for The New York Times, won the National Book Award in 2006 for “The Worst Hard Time”.)

Timothy Egan wrote an interesting history of America during the dust bowl years that resulted in the Great Depression that lasted from 1929 to the early 40s. “The Worst Hard Time” has concerning parallels to today’s economy. Timothy Egan notes the Dust Bowl is caused by climate change, water scarcity, and energy transition, i.e. all conditions of the year 2025.

Contrary to Trump’s belief that global warming is a cycle of nature, most scientists argue the earth is warming because of the world’s burning of fossil fuels.

Clean potable water is a growing threat to a rising world population.

American Oil Refineries.

Transition from fossil to renewable energy sources is being delayed by the Trump administration.

Agricultural markets dramatically rose and fell in the 1920s and 30s. Wealth and greed created by wheat farming blinded farmers to the harm they were doing to the Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas panhandle plains of middle America. With the scarification of soil and seasonal planting and harvesting of wheat, millions of acres of grass land were left barren between crop seasons.

Trump is a sad reminder of the political blindness of Herbert Hoover.

Herbert Hoover (31st President of the United States.)

Tariffs and anti-immigration policies were instituted by the Hoover administration as a response to declining prosperity caused by excessive wheat farming cultivation. This is reminiscent of President Trump’s response today with tariffs, militant immigration policies, and his rejection of science that warns of the impact of global warming.

Trump’s modus vivendi.

Artificial Intelligence in today’s economy has increased investment of billions of dollars in today’s money like that spent to grow and harvest wheat in the 1920s. Investment in farmland skyrocketed in the 1920s with farming as a way to increase wealth with cultivation of land that was nearly free in Nebraska, Oklahoma, and the Texas panhandle. Today, massive investments in A.I. are being made by wealthy tech company owners. Without pragmatic and careful implementation of A.I. to America’s economy, tech company’ investments may have the same consequence to its investors as the farming collapse had to the wheat farmers.

A.I. will become the engine of American economic improvement just as Industrial Revolution changed agricultural production.

Today, A.I., rather than industrialized agriculture, has become the great economic engine of America. Today’s massive investments are in A.I. rather than wheat harvesting. The collapse of wheat prices because of oversupply disrupted the American economy because workers were not needed. A.I. will have a similar impact on all industries which may lead to the next world-wide depression.

1933 Depression bread lines.

Trump’s idea of Making America Great Again is a twentieth century idea that may lead to economic collapse rather than economic prosperity. His tariff policies set a table for damaging the world economy in the same way they did when Hoover became President. America needs to embrace the inevitable decline of human manufacturing and focus on transitioning America to a service economy. America needs more doctors, nurses, social workers, educators, house builders, scientists, and ecologically minded politicians rather than investors and manufacturers of disposable conveniences. At the same time, regressive tax policies that penalize the poor and enrich the wealthy need to be changed. Tax revenue needs to be focused on America’s economic transition from a disposable manufacturing economy to service and ecological preservation industries.

The hope for GDP growth in America’s future depends on a change in economic direction.

America’s next President needs to forcefully change the economic direction of America in the same way Timothy Egan shows Franklin Roosevelt and the Secretary of Agriculture, Henry Wallace, did during the Dust Bowl and Depression era. The reversal of Trump’s mistakes will take more than one four-year-term for correction, but the next election needs to set a different course for the American economy.

SOCIETY

The broad theme of Flournoy’s story implies being an identifiable minority means navigating social discrimination, gender difference, and physical violence in America.

Books of Interest
 Website: chetyarbrough.blog

THE WILDERNESS (A Novel)

Author: Angela Flournoy

Narration by: Angela Flournoy & 2 more

Angela Flournoy (Author, American writer won the First Novelist Award for “The Turner House” in 2015 and was shortlisted for the National Book Award for fiction.)

As a white person, “The Wilderness” offers a glimpse of what it is like to be a Black American woman in the prime of her life in today’s America. Flournoy creates a story of five adult Black women in their twenties in the years from 2000 though 2022. She reflects on their irreverent and tumultuous lives that show how friendships grow and fall apart between young Black Americans who are underestimated and face societal inequality. The friendships of these five women are a kind of bulwark against the experience of living in America as a racial minority.

American life.

Everyone faces challenges living in America, but friendship seems less important to white Americans because they are a majority of the population with assumed privilege that depends less on friendship than on economic opportunity. White American economic opportunity is taken for granted. A white listener/reader’s interest may make Flournoy’s story less interesting because it is singularly based on a minority. One might make the mistake of returning Flournoy’s story, rather than sticking with it, because it is different from its reader/listener’s life. Flournoy offers a view of life seen through the eyes of a person who lives as a minority in a white majority.

Friendship of women.

Desiree’s, Danielle’s, Monique’s, Nakia’s, and January’s stories are of 5 twenty something, well educated, Black American women and their lives through 20 years of friendship. Their friendship is a bulwark against the harshness of American life. Friendship is characterized as it is, i.e. not as smooth and unchanging but on again, off again, and renewable based on common experiences of being Black in America. Flournoy shows how these five friends balance their ambitions and relationships in a society that often gets in the way of their drive for economic success and/or happiness. When faced with discrimination, their friendships becomes an island of consolation. This island is not necessarily peaceful because of their different lives and personal circumstances, but it is a refuge from American discrimination.

Added to American police discrimination toward minorities is gender violence which is a problem for both white and Black American women.

Violence is endemic in America, but racism and inequality underlie greater vulnerability for Black Americans. Too many assumptions are made by police who racially profile Black Americans without justification. That profiling leads to unjustified police brutality based on the color of one’s skin. Sexual relationships may seem “ok” to an outside observer, but Flournoy shows it sometimes hides the reality of physical or psychological abuse between mated partners. January’s story is an example of coercion, instability, and harm that can occur in an intimate relationship.

The depth and horror of discrimination in American history.

The broad theme of Flournoy’s story implies being an identifiable minority means navigating social discrimination, gender difference, and physical violence in America. Flournoy’s opinion is that friendship is the bulwark upon which Black women protect themselves. The reality of Flournoy’s story is that social discrimination, gender difference, and violence exist in every country of the world. The way people deal with discrimination, gender difference, and violence ranges from adaptation, reluctant acceptance, or revolt. Her point is important, but her story is too long.

CAPITALISM’S REFORM

Like abolition, women’s suffrage, labor, civil rights, LGBTQ, and MeToo movements of the distant and near past, capitalism’s reform is due.

Books of Interest
 Website: chetyarbrough.blog

SAVING CAPITALISM (For the Many, Not the Few)

Author: Robert B. Reich

Narration by: Robert B. Reich

Robert Reich (Author, American professor, lawyer and political commentator that worked in the Geral Ford and Jimmy Carter administrations, and served as th secretary of labor in Bill Clinton’s administration.)

Robert Reich, as an advisor to Presidents of the United States is recognized by Time Magazine as one of the Ten Best Cabinet Members of the 21st Century and by the Wall Street Journal as one of the most influential business thinkers in 2008. In “Saving Capitalism” Reich criticizes corporate America for unethical and unfair capitalist practices that make a mockery of capitalist equality.

U.S. Rising Income Disparity.

Economic class warfare in America is a time worn argument by many economists in the 20th and 21st century. Reich’s topical analysis has some truth, but his analysis of wealth and markets oversimplifies the complexity of American capitalism. One cannot deny the harm that capitalist greed has done to increase wealth of the rich and decrease wealth of the poor in America. The political system is rigged by the influence of wealth over political policy and economic equality.

American capitalism’s rigging begins at birth, carries through public education, and ends in low-income opportunities for the poor.

The power of wealth feeds American capitalist Democracy’s circle of life. Money of the wealthy is spent to birth and educate their children with the best medical care and schools in America. The corporations and super rich of America hire and fund lobbyists who promote corporate agendas to support government representatives’ campaigns for office. The aspiring representatives are people who owe their allegiance to corporations and the rich who helped get them elected. That circle is biased toward making the rich richer.

Equality of opportunity is rigged in ever-larger corporations that reap super profits and pay CEO’s millions of dollars per year while low wage earners are left to fend for themselves. Mega corporations should be broken up like the oil industry dismantling in 1911. Like Standard Oil, today’s conglomerates have too much power over consumer purchasing, advertising, social media, medical industries, and (most importantly) the election process of America. The rigging begins with healthy birthing of children of the rich, extending to less qualified schooling for the poor, and ending with low-wage family’s children having unequal economic opportunity.

One cannot deny that Reich’s book and this biased review are an ideological belief that distorts and oversimplifies reality, but it carries an element of truth that cannot be denied. How can one person be worth a potential trillion-dollar net worth for service as CEO of one company that makes electric cars. Corporations like Amazon, Google, Facebook, UnitedHealth Group, and Cencora control markets through their size to capture disproportionate shares of advertising, social media, retail sales, and medication industries without competition to moderate their power, and influence. Add billionaires like Elon Musk, Larry Ellison, Mark Zukerberg, Larry Page, Steve Ballmer, Warren Buffett, and Michael Dell and others of great wealth–one is inclined to believe American capitalism is rigged.

As brilliant as Musk shows himself to be, his fragile ego diminishes his genius.

There is an unfairness in criticizing the wealthy for their success in America. They are not wealthy because of luck but because of their innate abilities, risk taking, and hard work but influence should not come from the power of their wealth to change government policies that focus on enriching themselves. Just as the robber barons had their influence curbed by antitrust legislation, the same should be done today. The influence of lobbyists and their support should be more publicly disclosed. The federal government should play more of a financial role in improving public education. Cries of inequality should be exposed, critiqued, and adjudicated fairly.

Survival of global capitalism seems dependent on reducing the gap between billionaire/millionaire capitalists and the wage-earning public.

Capitalism remains the best economic system in the world, but it has its weaknesses. The best prescription for that weakness is equality of opportunity in the arena of employment competition. It begins with fair and equal access to medical care and access to a good education.

Like abolition, women’s suffrage, labor, civil rights, LGBTQ, and MeToo movements of the distant and near past, capitalism’s reform is due.

JUSTICE?

Putin has been indicted by the International Criminal Court for war crimes, unlawful deportation and transfer of Ukrainian children but has not yet faced trial. One suspects President Putin faces the same “slap of the hand” as Pinochet and will die of natural causes without being convicted for his crimes.

Books of Interest
 Website: chetyarbrough.blog

38 LONDRES STREET (on Impunity, Pinochet in England, and a Nazi in Patagonia)

Author: Phillip Sands

Narration by: Phillip Sands

Peter Sands (Author, Executive Director of the Global Fund to Fight Aids, Tuberculosis and Malaria, former CEO of Standard Chartered, known as a British Banker.)

Peter Sands book is interesting and a compelling history that would have been clearer if, at the beginning of his book, he had more precisely identified Augusto José Ramón Pinochet Ugarte’s atrocities in Chile. Those atrocities are detailed after one is nearly halfway through the book.

“38 Londres Street” is the address at which torture, illegal detentions and assassinations took place under the leadership of Pinochet. Sands explains 40,000 people were detained or tortured under Pinochet’s regime. 3,000 people were killed or disappeared during Pinochet’s reign. He ruled Chile for 17 years before being arrested in London when a Spanish judge issued a warrant for his arrest for genocide and terrorism. This was the first time a former head of state was charged for a crime by a universal jurisdiction.

Augusto Pinochet (born in 1915-died in 2006. As a military officer and politician, he instituted a military coup to become dictator of Chile from 1978 to 1990.)

Pinochet became Dictator of Chile when he overthrew President Salvador Allende in 1973.

Because of mining and trade interests in Chile by American and British corporations, along with distrust of Allende’s Socialist Party and Marxist beliefs, Allende was considered an enemy of America’s and Great Britain’s leadership. Allende was often labeled as a Communist because of nationalizing Chile’s copper mines, redistributing land, and increasing wages for less wealthy Chileans.

In truth, Allende rejected the idea of a one-party communist state while believing Chile should gradually become a Democracy. Both America and Great Britain supported Pinochet’s revolution because of their economic interest in trade with Chile and their opposition to his socialist beliefs. Declassified records show the CIA funded opposition parties to destabilize Allende’s government. Because Britain was a close ally of America and had economic interests in Chile, both Nixon and Edward Heath, the Prime Minister of Great Britain, supported Pinochet’s military junta. When Margaret Thatcher became Prime Minister, she also supported Pinochet’s government. In the atmosphere of the cold war, Pinochet’s rebellion seemed in the best interest of America’s and England’s leadership.

Walter Rauff was a Nazi commander during WWII who escaped justice for exterminating an estimated 100,000 people in gas vans. Rauff designed the vans for Hitler’s occupation of Poland, Russia, and Ukraine. The picture to the right is Rauff as he appeared in Chile as an employee of Pinochet’s government.

The reason for the Chilean coup is not what Phillip Sands is primarily interested in but, as an author and lawyer, he explains the significant change in jurisdictional law with Pinochet’s indictment. It set a precedent for a foreign country’s right to indict another country’s leadership that tortures, disappears, and kills its own citizens.

The most troubling part of his argument for the change in international law is that it seems ineffective when only viewed from the indictment of Pinochet. To find a leader chargeable for genocide is important, but Chile’s protection of death camp SS officers like Walther Rauff reminds one of Putin’s atrocities as President of Russia. Rauff was protected by Pinochet’ government despite his role in Nazi Germany. Sands notes that Rauff assisted Pinochet in Chile’s repressive activities at 38 Londres Street.

Rauff’s disguised ambulances used to gas Jewish citizens and others.

The last half of Sands’ book is about the extensive interviews and research he did on Rauff’s past life. Like Pinochet, Rauff escapes justice and dies of natural causes. However, Jewish Nazi hunters did track down Rauff with the intent of killing him. Sands explains they were unsuccessful despite having knocked on his door before being denied access by a woman who answered the knock.

Magistrate Baltasar Garzón (Former judge of Spain’s central criminal court that set the precedent for universal jurisdiction.)

The world owes Spain gratitude for embracing universal jurisdiction despite its failure to successfully hold Pinochet for his crimes against humanity. That precedent gives weight to the principle of international justice. Magistrate Baltasar Garzón used the Pinochet case to set the precedent that sovereignty does not shield perpetrators of torture and genocide to be free of indictment and its potential for punishment. Adolf Eichmann is brought to justice in 1961 and the survivors of the 2003 massacre in Bolivia were awarded $10 million in damages.

One’s thoughts go to Putin’s incarceration of Navalny, his ordered slaughter of Chechens and his aggressive war against Ukraine. Navalny exposed Putin’s corruption in state-owned companies owned by Kremlin elites, i.e. the same elites that support the war in Ukraine.

Will Putin escape the long arm of the law?

As a professor of international law, Sands gives listener/readers a view of the important precedent of universal jurisdiction with the successful arrest of Pinochet for crimes against humanity. The irony of Sands history of this precedent is that Pinochet is not convicted and returns to Chile in 2000. Pinochet dies in 2006 at age 91. Putin has been indicted by the International Criminal Court for war crimes, unlawful deportation and transfer of Ukrainian children but has not yet faced trial. One suspects President Putin faces the same “slap of the hand” as Pinochet and will die of natural causes without being convicted for his crimes.

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?

PARENTS

William Wilde, Jane Wilde, and John Stanislaus Joyce fit the description of “Mad, Bad, Dangerous to Know”. However, John Butler Yeats seems somewhat less dangerous while contributing to the life and intellectual development of W.B. Yeats.

Books of Interest
 Website: chetyarbrough.blog

Mad, Bad, Dangerous to Know

Author: Colm Tóibín’s

Narrated By: Colm Tóibín

Colm Tóibín (Author, Booker Prize winner in 2006, journalist, essayist and short story writer.)

“Mad, Bad, Dangerous to Know” as an audiobook is a bit difficult to understand because of Colm Tóibín’s Irish accent but as one adjusts to its cadence and inflexion, it offers interesting information about the families of Oscar Wilde, W.B. Yeats, and James Joyce.

William and Jane Wilde (Parents of Oscar Wilde.)

William Wilde, the father of Oscar, is an important figure in Victorian Ireland. He was a renowned eye-and-ear surgeon who aided the medical profession by compiling statistical information about diseases and mortality of medical treatments as a gauge for human health. His wife, Jane Wilde (pen name-Speranza) was a nationalist poet and political writer. Some characterized her as a radical in comparison to her establishment husband.

Jane Wilde’s husband is accused of sexual misconduct in the treatment of a young female patient in his practice. Mary Travers had accused Dr. Wilde of drugging and seducing her when seeking help for a medical problem. Dr. Wilde is indirectly drawn into court to settle a lawsuit filed by the female patient’s father because of a publicly exposed letter by Jane Wilde about Ms. Travers. The court finds that Dr. Wilde’s wife libeled Ms. Travers in a publicly exposed letter that criticizes her sexual assault claim. The court found Jane Wilde guilty of libel and awarded Travers a symbolic sum of 2 pounds for public humiliation.

In the 19th century, Eibhear Walshe writes a book about the trial brought against Jane Wilde for libelous comments about the sexual abuse of Ms. Travers.

Though Oscar’s father never faced criminal prosecution, his reputation and standing in the community declined. Despite the blow to Dr. Wilde’s reputation, Tóibín argues Ireland’s medical profession benefited from William Wilde’s statistical analysis of medical practice in 19th century Ireland. Nevertheless, the Travers’ trial infers gender discrimination was then and remains a serious problem in modern times.

The Travers’ trial reminds one of gender discrimination in modern times.

Oscar Wilde (1854-190o, the son of Dr. Wilde and Jane Wilde died at the age of 46, Oscar Wilde was an Irish author, poet, playwright who wrote “The Picture of Dorian Gray”. He became famous in London and around the world, convicted in 1895 for gross indecency for homosexual acts.)

John Butler Yeats (1839-1922, W.B. Yeat’s father.)

The next family examined by the author is John Butler Yeats. Little is said about J.B.’s mother but his father was an aspiring portrait artist. This is an equally interesting story. J.B. is characterized as an artist but with a gift of gab and an interesting philosophy of life. John Butler Yeats is identified as a procrastinator that often started painting a portrait but as often failed to finish it. He and his wife had four children, i.e. two girls and two boys. Each contributed to Irish cultural life. Jack, their first son, became one of Ireland’s most celebrated painters. He also illustrated books and wrote plays and novels. He painted in the expressionist style. Susan Mary Yeats was a leader in the Arts & Crafts movement in Ireland. She co-founded the Cuala Press that published works by W.B. and other writers. She helped revive Irish decorative arts but was overshadowed by the brothers. Elizabeth Yeats was a co-founder of the Cuala Press. A little research shows the children had some formal education but as Tóibín suggests, with the exception of W.B.’s formal training at the Metropolitan School of Art in Dublin, the other 3 children were largely self-trained in art, writing, and Irish crafts.

Tóibín shows W.B. had a somewhat rocky relationship with his father when he was younger, but it evolved into a respect for his father’s philosophical view of the world.

When his father lost his wife, he chose to move to New York. Tóibín explains John Butler Yeats was more than a portrait artist. Though he was undisciplined in completing his artistic works, he scraped by with the help of his children’s support. John Yeats had attended Trinty College in Dublin studying the Classics and Law. He used that education to write letters to his children and friends after he moved to New York. The author infers some of W.B.’s poetry is based on ideas gleaned from his father’s philosophical musings. Tóibín notes several books have been published that compiled many of W.B.’s letters.

Rosa Butt portrait painted by J. B. Yeats.

Tóibín characterizes John Butler Yeats as emotionally and financially unreliable but a deeply influential father in W.B.’s life. J.B. exposes W.B. Yeats to the aesthetic and intellectual currents of the time. Tóibín infers J.B. had an extramarital affair with Rosa Butt. Ms. Butt was an acquaintance J.B. made when he painted a portrait of her in his studio. J.B. wrote many letters to Ms. Butt that reflect on his emotional attachment. However, he never returns to Ireland despite many intimations that he would. John Butler Yeats dies on February 34, 1922, in New York City. He was 82 years old, living in a boarding house at 317 West 29th Street. As true to his habits in life, he is said to have died with an unfinished self-portrait beside his bed. He is buried in Chestertown Rural Cemetery in Chestertown, New York.

James Joyce, leaning on his mother, with his father at the right (John Stanislaus Joyce).

John Stanislaus Joyce (1849-1931, died at the age of 82

The final chapters of Tóibín’s book are about James Joyce’s family. His father is John Stanislaus Joyce. Tóibín suggests James had an ambivalent opinion of fathers and particularly his own father. John Joyce is characterized as an abusive, alcoholic husband, and incompetent manager of his inheritance. With ten children and a wife, John Joyce loses his inheritance and effectively drives his son away from Ireland. James is the oldest, born in 1882. Tóibín explains that his voice and personality are ever present in James Joyce’s famous characters in both “Ulysses” and “A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man“. Both books take a dim view of fatherhood while exemplifying an erudite father who projects a “man about town” image. However, Tóibín shows John Joyce to be an incompetent money manager and abusive family man.

James Joyce (1882-1941)

In “A Portrait…” Stephen’s biological father is depicted as charming but irresponsible. Like James Joyce’s father, his main character’s father is financially unstable and an emotionally distant, abusive parent. In “A Portrait…” Stephen Daedalus is alienated and chooses a life independent of the Catholic Church because he views it like a surrogate father that imposes moral and spiritual authority without justification.

In “Ulysses”, James Joyces’s main character argues paternity is a fiction while maternity is merely a biological function. At best, one sees James Joyce is ambivalent about his dad. James experiences episodes of camaraderie when socializing with his father as a drinker and as a tenor singing partner. Both are supporters of Parnell, the Irish nationalist leader who supported Home Rule and independence from England.

Tóibín suggests James Joyce’s feelings about his mother are marked by guilt, presumably for not protecting her from her abusive husband but also because of her belief in God and patriarchal authority. In reading Joyce’s works, particularly “A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man” and “Ulysses”, one can see James Joyce’s as a son of a loving, religious mother and abusive father who drank too much. James knew his mother loved him, but his father could not manage his or his family’s welfare.

May Murray Joyce (James Joyce’s mother, 1859-1903, died at the age of 44.)

William Wilde, Jane Wilde, and John Stanislaus Joyce fit the description of “Mad, Bad, Dangerous to Know”. However, John Butler Yeats seems somewhat less dangerous while contributing to the life and intellectual development of W.B. Yeats.