HISTORY – Page 2 – REVIEWS AND VIEWS OF LIFE

RUSSIA’S LEADERS

To Mark Galeotti, Putin is a pragmatic ruler who reminds Russians of their history of Tsarist control and leadership. Time will tell whether Russia’s citizens become discontented with war, lost lives, and victims (some of which are Russian Ukrainians) who choose to live in Ukraine.

Books of Interest
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

A Short History of Russia (How the World’s Largest Country Invented Itself, from the Pagans to Putin)

Author: Mark Galeotti

Narration by: Mark Galeatti

Mark Galeotti (Author, British historian, writer, honorary professor at UCL’s School of East European Studies.)

“A Short History of Russia” notes that Russia has historically felt insecure about its identity as a part of the European community. Galeotti notes Russia has no natural borders and no single ethnic core. Reaching back in history, the author notes the royal history of Russia’s Tsars (men and women who have descended from royalty). The 1917 Russian revolution turned Russia’s monarchy into a communist autocracy that leads to the eventual ascension of Putin. Putin becomes leader of a reconstituted Russia that reminds one of Russia’s Tsars. Galeatti argues Putin’s Russia considers itself part of the European continent despite its Mongol history that profoundly reshaped Russia’s political culture.

Mongols are an East Asian ethnic group which originated in Mongolia and China.

Galeotti argues Russia has always aspired to be a major influence and power in Europe. Their history of centralized authority and territorial expansion is characteristic of Russia’s desire to be a dominant part of European culture. Despite Russia’s cultural intent to be part of Europe, it drives to have its own identity as a continental influencer rather than conforming culture. The rise of communism, and much later, Putin is founded on Russia’s history of hierarchal leadership and cultural belief.

Tsarist Russia.

Galeotti paints a picture of Tsarist Russia that becomes a model for the rise of autocratic communism. Russian Tsars emphasized centralized control of the country. The Tsars were suspicious of citizen influence or control of the country. They set the table for rule from above because of the lack of any civil organization. Russia had a cultural background for the creation of an autocratic state. The effect of that background set the table for Stalin and today’s Vladmir Putin. Stalin establishes his rule through the use of a secret service to assure loyalty to its leader, Joseph Stalin. Stalin uses that secret service to eliminate rivals to his power. In the interregnum between Stalin and Putin, Mikhail Gorbachev attempts to reform the communist party to an openness for change through his personal effort and a home-fore initiative from party leaders, workers, and managers. Gorbachev fails for many reasons; not the least of which is the terrorist and murderous experience of Stalin’s leadership. But, Gorbachov’s is also because of his failure to gain party support and the consequent departure of many states that chose to leave the U.S.S.R.

Mikhail Gorbachev (Pres. of the Soviet Union 1990-1991, General Secy. of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union from 1985 to 1991.)

Gorbachev takes control of the Russian government with the intent of restructuring weaknesses that had grown in the directionless vacuum created by the death of Stalin. Boris Yeltsin interferes with Gorbachev’s effort when he becomes President of the Russian Federation in 1991. Yelsin complicated Gorbachev’s reform by looking to a young KGB officer named Vladimir Putin to join the administration. Yeltsin’s alcoholism compounded growing disorganization of the Russian government. Gorbachev loses control of the communist party and the balance of personal interests between factions of the U.S.S.R., in part, because of Yeltsin’s interference and mismanagement.

Chernobyl nuclear disaster in Ukraine.

Chernobyl becomes a symbol of what is going wrong with centralized government control. Putin’s steely determination reminds Russians of a leader who could stabilize what remained of the Russian empire after the Baltic states and Ukraine left the Union. The ideas of perestroika and glasnost interfered with the U.S.S.R.’s imperialist system of government. However, public discontent with Gorbchev’s rule renewed public interest in Tsarist style control of government like that which is implied, if not recommended by former KBG agent, Vladimir Putin.

Boris Yeltsin (1931-2007, President of Russia 1990-1991.)

Galeotti believes Gorbachev’s perestroika and glasnost recommendations reveal deep structural weaknesses that are magnified by Boris Yeltsin’s incompetence. However, Galeotti argues Putin is not a master strategist nor a villain. Putin is characterized as an opportunist who takes control of Russia in ways that were experienced during Tsarist and later Stalinist rule. He reinstitutes personal networks of government control by rewarding those who comply with his rule while hollowing out leaders and institutions that interfere with his power. Putin makes himself a modern Tsar by governing with a circle of loyalists. Loyalty to Putin is the cornerstone of his governance. Putin manipulates the fragility of Russian bureaucracies meant to improve the lives of Russian citizens while endorsing the greed of the wealthy. Control and loyalty become more important than effectiveness or efficiency. Loyalty to Putin is the mark of value in his administration.

Putin clearly takes the side of autocratic rulers because of his belief in control of circumstances and belief in loyalty to those in charge.

Putin in Syria supports its dictator, Bashar al-Assad, who flees to Russia when deposed.

Bashar al-Assad (Rose to power in Syria in 2000 having inherited his position as Syria’s ruler from his father. As a fellow autocrat, he is fully supported by Putin.)

Galeotti notes Putin is not omnipotent but is a leader whom Russians are familiar with from past history. Centralization of power has been a hallmark of Russia’s growth with a desire for Russia to be identified as a powerful and important part of Europe. To the author, Putin is a pragmatic ruler who reminds Russians of their history of Tsarist control and leadership. Time will tell whether Russia’s citizens become discontented with Putin’s aggression, the Ukrainian war, war’s lost lives, and its victims (many of which are Russian Ukrainians).

WHO WINS?

The answer to “Has China Won” seems a “no” for the present but Mahbubani makes a credible argument for its continuing growth, prosperity, and success.

Books of Interest
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

Has China Won? (The Chinese Challenge to American Primacy)

Author: Kishore Mahbubani

Narration by: Aaron Abano. P.J Ochlan

Kishore Mahbubani (Author, Singaporean diplomat, and academic who is a permanent representative to the UN.)

“Has China Won” is a controversial political opinion that suggests America is grossly underestimating the growing strength of China that will continue to grow in influence and power in the world. Some may argue Mahbubani overstates China’s strengths and understates its weaknesses. Mahbubani does not deny America’s strengths, its resilience, and peaceful world strategy. However, his underlying inference is that peaceful socialist doctrine will replace democratic capitalism as the “sine quo non” of the future.

Communist socialism or democratic capitalism, a peoples’ choice.

There are three general categories of governance in the world. One is communist socialism, two is democratic capitalism, and three is authoritarian despotism. By the end of “Has China Won?”, one is inclined to believe China will grow to be a competitor to America as a socialist communist success just as America has become a democratic capitalist success. Authoritarian despotism will disappear as a system of governance as human education improves. China may surpass America as a superpower in the sense of population but not necessarily as a world influencer. Both systems have discriminatory flaws. China is neither better nor worse as a political entity than America; i.e. both are destined to compete for socio/political influence in the world. Socialist communism will likely grow to be equally influential as democratic capitalism for nation-state governments. Socialist communism is an ideological competitor; i.e., it is as likely to be adopted or rejected as democratic capitalism. In my personal opinion, socialist communism and democratic capitalist governance will survive in some form until their equal or superior is discovered.

American democratic capitalism has made its mistakes.

America cannot deny its international intervention mistakes. Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan are overreaches of America’s belief in democratic capitalism. America fails to understand deep-rooted cultural beliefs, the nationalism of other countries, and the appeal of socialist communist or authoritarian doctrine. In an effort to support national dissidents; America has invaded several countries and chose to abandon their citizens which allowed authoritarians to retake control of their countries. Vietnam remains a socialist communist country. Afghanistan returns to rule by the Taliban. Iraq is a weakened economic nation led by a fragile, technocratic, non-aligned political novice named Aliall-Zaldi.

America’s latest mistake is the bombing of Iran. (A water plant destruction.)

President Trump chooses to bomb Iran and expects Iranians to rally around American democratic capitalism when all that is accomplished is a hardening of authoritarian Iranian Leadership’ beliefs. Many Americans believe Iranian authoritarian leadership will fail. Whether socialist communism or democratic capitalism will replace authoritarianism may only be a matter of time. President Trump’s ham-fisted actions are unlikely to endear democratic capitalism to Iranian citizens. Iran’s future cannot be predicted in the short term, but Iranian authoritarianism seems likely to fail.

What is happening in China is remarkable. China’s transition from Maoist communism to capitalist communism is a caterpillar turning into a butterfly; i.e. China has grown wings but it still lives in a world constrained by its environment.

The answer to “Has China Won” seems a “no” for the present but Mahbubani makes a credible argument for its continuing growth, prosperity, and success. It depends on China’s history of long-term domestic stability and growing prosperity. Will Xi and his successors continue to improve the economic well-being of the millions of Chinese poor? Can China avoid military conflict with the U.S.? No one knows but many speculate. Will the U.S. finally understand China’s government and what it means to its people. Xi is not America’s enemy; neither is he an ally.

A HONG KONG LIFE

Like American capitalism, Chinese communism has its faults. One big difference is American capitalism offers a higher level of individual freedom with legal rights to defend oneself in a court of law (that is, of course, if you are not an immigrant).

Books of Interest
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

Red Roulette (An Insider’s Story of Wealth, Power, and Vengeance in Today’s China.)

Author: Desmond Shum

Narration by: Tim Chiou

Desmond Shum (Author, born in Shanghai in 1968, former Hong Kong businessman who lives in the UK. with a son born in the U.S.)

“Red Roulette” is an amazing personal story of a former Chinese citizen who marries a successful Chinese woman, Whitney Duan. She is disappeared by the Xi government in 2017. Shum and Duan were married from 2004 to 2015. His wife’s fate is unknown to Shum as he writes this book. Amazingly, Ms. Duan calls Shum four years after she is disappeared by China to ask him to not publish his book. Shum believes this is the first public contact by Duan since her disappearance in 2017.

Ms. Duan had chosen to capitalize on a system of doing business in China the way it had been done for many years. That system is riven with a kind of societal corruption revealed in “Red Roulette” that has grown with communism in China.

Women simply want an equal opportunity to succeed in pursuit of money, power, and prestige, i.e. all the secular objectives men take for granted.

Desmond Shum reveals surprises to many Americans about China’s culture. Despite a presumption of many non-Chinese, Shum explains power is personal, not institutional in China. One might presume that CCP’s control of wealth and power in China comes from the party and its leaders. However, wealth in China is only influenced by the communist government through a social network of beliefs. Shum explains personal relationships and connections are built on favors, gifts, and mutual obligations that are debts that carry the reality of power in China. This explains the title of the book “Red Roulette” in the sense that success in Chinese society is a game of chance based on bets placed on the value of favors, and gifts that CCP members believe have worth.

Debt for favors and gifts is in the eye of the beholder which makes fair payment a mysterious and chance driven calculation. Adding to that complexity is the power of a CCP leader to erase a citizen socially, legally, and economically. By erasure, Shum explains citizens may be detained, prevented from family contact, denied legal representation, arrested, impoverished, and isolated from any social contact. Shum explains his ex-wife, Whitney Duan, vanished for years with no charges, no trial, and no record of her disappearance.

Xi Jinping (Leader of the CCP in China.)

The CCP elite govern China through relationships among themselves, not by official meetings or party leadership orders that are necessarily based on definable communist dogma. Everything happens behind the scenes. Official meetings, if there are any, are strictly “for show”. Shum’s admits in his personal story that he and his ex-wife became wealthy through a corrupt relationship with Zhang Beili, one of the CCP apparatchiks and power brokers. One may argue the CCP is similar to the Congress of the United States. Wealthy capitalists, like CCP apparatchiks, game the stock market and society through political connection with elected government officials

Deng Xiaoping launched an initial shift away from Maoist central planning despite ordering the crackdown on Tiananmen Square in 1989.

As somewhat of a realist, one understands governance is based on leaders presumed power, wealth, and political influence. Shum argues China’s economic modernization and capitalism began with Deng Xiaoping who rose to power after Tiananmen with Hu Jintao continuing China’s economic boom. Shum argues today’s Xi is increasing control of the CCP and the economy with the traditions of Chinese society. In the author’s opinion, China is reinstituting a Mao-style autocracy that is spreading fear across the country.

In fairness to Shum’s assessment of China, there is evidence of America’s slip into autocracy in today’s economy.

Zuboff’s scholarly examination of American internet mavens concludes “…Surveillance Capitalism” will lead to Orwell’s “1984” or B.F. Skinner’s “Beyond Freedom and Dignity”.

Shum believes Xi Jinping’s CCP anti-corruption campaign is only a pretext for power consolidation. In Shum’s opinion, Xi’s targeted removal of CCP apparatchiks is not because of their corruption but because they rival his power over the party. Xi’s campaign on corruption increases fear among CCP members and influencers that reinforce traditions of China’s rule by personal relationship and connection. Xi’s goal is to increase personal loyalty to himself which is part and parcel of the history of Chinese social norms. Shum’s evidence of corruption is the increase in disappearances, secret detentions, arrests of businesspeople without charges, and insistence on what is characterized as party discipline.

Whitney Duan and Shum when they were married.

Whitney Duan’s disappearance is Shum’s primary example of Xi’s Chinese governance. Duan is characterized as ambitious, brilliant, and determined. Her rise to power in Chinas is from close relationships she develops with people who have influence in the communist party. She befriends Zhang Beili, the wife of the Vice Premier of the CCP, Wen Jiabao. Because of that association, Duan has privileged access to information about land deals and major real-estate projects in China. She uses that information to make deals with advanced knowledge that result in great economic wealth for her and her former husband. Shum marries Duan and they both capitalize on insider information they gain from Duan’s relationships. One presumes the marriage ends because of the stresses and political dangers involved in their common business interests.

The quality of Kafka’s story in “The Trial” is the human desire for freedom that is not extinguished even in the darkest times of a country’s repression. This is a hope one presumes for both China and America, but human nature gets in the way.

In 2017, two years after the author’s divorce, Whitney Duan disappears. There are no charges, no trial, no public disclosure, and she is unable to contact any of her family including the son she has with Shum. No one knows if she is dead or alive. The state refuses to say she has been detained. One presumes, she is arrested because of Xi Jinping’s anti-corruption campaign and his purge of some party members like Wen Jiabao. Interestingly, just before the book is to be published, Whitney Duan calls Shum to ask him not to publish. Obviously, she is alive.

One big difference between American capitalism and Chinese communism is a higher level of individual freedom with legal rights to defend oneself in a court of law (that is, of course, if you are not an immigrant). That is a significant difference between China and America. However, both countries are impacted by bad actors that game the system based on personal relationship and influence with political leaders.

On the one hand, this story reinforces belief that Xi is trying to reform the CCP. On the other, the methodology of autocracy offers no defense against the injustice of being condemned without trial.

One concludes Whitney Duan lost in the game of Chinese Roulette by being part of a relationship that gave her inside information from the CCP. Her disappearance is proof of the theme of Shun’s book about the importance of relationships and connections to gain power and financial success in Chinese society. Like American capitalism, Chinese communism has its faults.

ETHNICTY

Roth shows acculturation is both an opportunity and danger in “The Plot Against America”.

Books of Interest
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

The Plot Against America

Author: Philip Roth

Narration by: Ron Silver

PHILLIP ROTH (WINNER OF THE PULITZER PRIZE FOR FICTION, MAN BOOKER INTERNATIONAL PRIZE AND MORE)

Roth’s “The Human Stain”, and “The Plot Against America” are troubling fictional stories of American society. Roth’s imagination seems somewhat out of control in “The Plot…” but his point is that American democracy, like all forms of government, is flawed by the nature of human beings. Popular election is no guarantee of government probity because the public is as easily led by lies as the truth; i.e., something we see in today’s American government. “The Plot Against America” creates a fictional story of the advance of a racist to the Presidency of the United States at the time of Hitler’s government putsch in Germany.

Charles Lindbergh (Famous aviator who expressed suspicion of Jews and is characterized as a supporter of Hitler.)

America had several famous supporters of Hitler’s ascension in Germany; i.e., not only Charles Lindbergh, but Henry Ford, Father Charles Coughlin, and Jospph P. Kennedy Sr., to name a few. Lindbergh believes in white supremacy but excludes those of Jewish ethnicity because he believes Jews are not a part of the American or Western racial community. He believes Jews are a separate people with separate loyalties. This conforms to Hitler’s view of German society as superior to all others. Added to Lindbergh’s racism is his belief that communism threatens individual liberty, a foundational democratic belief. Lindbergh is vociferously anti-communist even though Russia is led by white rulers. Lindbergh believes centralized state control, state suppression of dissent, and forced conformity are anti-American. This is an ironic view because Hitler insists on state control, suppression of dissent, and a forced conformity; i.e., beliefs Lindbergh infers he abhors.

Roth writes a story suggesting Lindbergh run against Franklin Roosevelt for President. Lindbergh wins in this fictional story. In truth, Lindbergh never runs for President. History actually shows the Republican party approaches Lindbergh in the late 1930s to run against Roosevelt because of his celebrity, anti-war message, and isolationist beliefs. However, Lindbergh turns the Republicans down.

There are many reasons why American Democracy continues to prosper despite elections of inept and unethical political leaders.

Wendell Lewis Wilkie becomes the nominee for President by the Republicans in 1940. (1892-1944, an American lawyer.)

Wendell Willkie is the Republican Party’s choice for President. What makes Roth’s story interesting is his concern for loss of Jewish ethnic identity from the influence of Americanization. Two fundamental points are made in the title of the book. There is the obvious “…Plot Against America” with Lindbergh as an America candidate for President who supports Hitler. A less obvious point is Roth’s more subtle “…Plot…” by American society to diminish ethnicity. In Roth’s story, Lindbergh is elected as President of the United States.

Human acculturation is a fact of life in any form of government.

Drawing the line between cultural disintegration and acculturation is different in an autocracy than in a democracy. A perfect democracy allows ethnicity to flourish within the boundaries of common societal norms while an autocracy demands conformity to specific societal norms that, in some autocratic countries, become demands. Roth’s point in “The Plot Against America” is that ethnic identity is a fundamental right of human beings that should not be denied by any government. This is not to say that ethnic identity is not influenced by society, but that ethnicity should only be a natural, not governmentally enforced influence. Roth’s story shows a fine line that is crossed by America in influencing Jewish culture to become less ethnic. He tells the story of a government endorsed program to offer Jewish children the opportunity to become laborers on American farms. That experience leads to a Jewish child’s exposure to eating pork which is explicitly forbidden by the Torah because it is considered unclean. Roth shows “old world” ethnic’ cautions are sometimes abandoned because of life experiences that diminsh ethnic taboos.

Discrimination based on ethnicity, race, or sex diminishes democracy.

Roth shows acculturation is both an opportunity and danger in “The Plot Against America”. One may read into Roth’s story that he regrets the Americanization of Jewish ethnicity. To the extent that the discipline of education may be harmed by acculturation, one is inclined to agree with Roth. On the other hand, ethnic identification has led to unequal opportunity based on ethnicity, race, or sex which should have nothing to do with innate capability.

DEMOCRACY’S STRENGTH

History has shown the greatness of both parties of American government. One takes pride in the fact that American democracy corrects the errors of incompetent Presidents.

Books of Interest
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

The Fourth Turning is Here (What the Seasons of History Tell Us About How and When This Crisis Will End)

Author: Neil Howe

Narration by: Neil Howe

Neil Howe (American author, historian, economist, and consultant.)

Neil Howe argues the United States is in the middle of a crisis. He views political polarization is as great today as it was during the American Revolution, the Civil War, and the Great Depression. He suggests society has broken into two “mega-identities” that is evident in the news of the day. He sees a red and blue American society with a distinct part of society being rural/suburban, evangelical or traditionalist, nationalist, anti-elite, and distrustful of institutions. The other side is urban/metropolitan, secular and pluralist, cosmopolitan, and pro-institution with a trust in expertise. (In fairness to the author, this reviewer did not listen to Howe’s entire book.)

Generational beliefs.

Howe goes on to suggest there is a generational quality to these two camps. Boomers are those born between 1943 and 1960 (my generation). Generation X born from 1961-1981, Millennials (1982-2004), and Generation Z (2005-to the present). The problem with this broad categorization of Americans is that one can see themselves in each generations view of American government and society. Americans are both Red and Blue, believe strongly in the equality of human beings, are skeptical of absolutes, and believe in common good and the importance of government. Americans are relatively free human beings who will ultimately make the right decision to preserve the health and well-being of democratic society.

Is immigration an American crisis or a discouraged opportunity?

Howe argues today’s America is at a once-in-a-century crisis. He suggests American governance has become too polarized and that institutions of government are decaying in ways that are diminishing the economic prosperity and influence of democracy in the world. Polarization is not new to America. One who has reached a Boomer’s age remembers political polarization from the excesses of America during Vietnam. The mistakes and lies of the Johnson administration are not unlike the lies of Donald Trump. Democrat’s support of Johnson’s Great Society created too many programs like urban renewal and anti-poverty that remind one of Republican’s support of Trump’s overzealous deregulation of environmental protection, finance of projects to aggrandize his reputation, and welfare policies that penalize the poor. Both Johnson and Trump show poor management of their major policy initiatives. The social and political consequence of their mismanagement has damaged America’s economy and influence in the world. Both Johnson and Trump represent what can go wrong in a democracy but is eventually corrected by elections of future leaders founded on the principles of the Constitution.

There are differences and similarities between Johnson and Trump. The obvious difference is the parties to which they belong. Johnson creates bureaucratic sprawl and economic waste by expanding government services while Trump creates bureaucratic ineptitude through fragmentation from arbitrary firing of government employees. Both Presidents believe they are benefiting American society while they made decisions that damaged the economy and diminished the value of democratic governance. The extent of their damage during these two Presidents did and will take time to repair but the structure of America’s government assures democracy’s recovery.

History has shown the greatness of both parties of American government.

Lincoln is elected to take the giant step needed to put America back on the path of human equality and opportunity. Franklin Roosevelt saved America from economic collapse. Just as Lincoln is not survived by a President who reinforces equality of Americans, the same will likely be true for the next President after Trump. But, as Martin Luther King said, “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice”. One takes pride in the fact that American democracy corrects the errors of incompetent Presidents.

LEWIS & CLARK’S AMERICA

Robert Frost wrote “In three words I can sum up everything I’ve learned about life: it goes on.” That is the essential truth of “The Vast Enterprise” about the Lewis and Clark Expedition.

Books of Interest
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

The Vast Enterprise (A New History of Lewis & Clark)

Author: Craig Fehrman

Narration by: Jason Culp & 5 more

Craig Fehrman (Author, journalist, historian of Presidents and American history.)

Craig Fehrman writes an excellent history of the Lewis and Clark expedition. It entertains and informs reader/listeners of the lives of Meriwhether Lewis, William Clark, an enslaved man named York, and a tribal native named Sacagawea. From President Thomas Jefferson’s reasoning and his decision to create an expedition from Kentucky to the Pacific, one learns something new, old, and troubling about America.

Thomas Jeffereson (1743-1826, President of the U.S. 1801-1809.)

Thomas Jefferson is characterized as a shrewd, partisan, and forceful political operator who had a clear vision for the future of continental America. That prescient vision of America by Jefferson hides his blindness to the truth of human equality of Black men and women as inferior to white men. However, Fehrman notes Jefferson believes natives of this continent had the potential to be the equal of white Americans. Jefferson’s shrewdness and forceful opinion is illustrated by his understanding of the importance of trading posts as a way to expand control of land possessed by native inhabitants and held by Spanish and French interests. Lewis and Clark’s western expedition is, in Jefferson’s opinion, critical to America’s future land interests.

Meriwhether Lewis and William Clark (American Explorers.)

Both Meriwhether Lewis and William Clark are characterized as relatively educated colonial citizens suited for an expedition from Kentucky to the Pacific. Though both leaders for the expedition were heroic, their personalities, leadership styles, and temperaments were quite different. Lewis is characterized as brilliant but an inwardly volatile man, while Clark is a steady, self-confident manager of people. Lewis is the visionary who works in the Jefferson’ administration as secretary to the President while Clark is former military officer who gets things done with people who report to him. Lewis clearly understood Jefferson’s objective in exploring the west, its diplomatic purpose, and geopolitical importance. Clark’s frontier experience, military discipline, and surveying skill served Lewis’s understanding of Jefferson’s objectives.

Lewis & Clark Expedition

Both Lewis and Clark understood they were not only entering a wilderness but a continent full of other nations which made them effective negotiators and intermediaries with native tribes. Lewis’s intellectual understanding of Jefferson’s objectives is complimented by Clark’s skill in managing native tribe relationships. With the help of a Black slave owned by Clark and a native Shoshone woman married to a French trader, this former military man manages to gain the aid of the Lakota, Shoshone, and other tribes to save the Lewis and Clark expedition from failure.

Image of York (Slave owned by William Clark.)

The history of York (Clark’s owned slave) in the expedition is interesting. What the author, York, and enlisted members of the expedition show is that Lewis and Clark were dependent on their crew for the success of the mission. Men like York provide the labor and skill needed to complete the journey. As a young adult, York shows the value of all human beings to the success of the expedition while being a slave. The sad fact is that York is never released from his bondage to Clark. Despite York’s alleged inferiority, Clark relies on him for his field abilities and reminds reader/listeners of the importance of other cultures and ethnicities that make America. Fehrman infers York is a symbolic bridge between ethnic worlds; i.e. not just the Black and White world but the native and English American world. York is an example the difference of human beings in America; i.e., from people of color to native tribes in a dominant white culture. Fehrman’s story infers human difference reinforces belief that native tribes (Black, white, or other) could co-exist though not be treated as equal human beings. This is no stretch of a reader/listener’s imagination based on America’s history of Indian/American wars and slavery. There is one native American that travels with Lewis and Clark. She is Sacagawea, the only woman on the expedition. Her story reflects on America’s view of women as property despite their contribution to life and their contribution to social and economic society.

Image of Sacagawea on the Lewis and Clark Expedition.

Fehrman suggests Sacagawea is a full participant in the expedition. To Fehrman she represents a symbol of Native nations. Sacagawea and York became part of the diplomatic fabric of the journey demonstrating the truth of human equality. Sacagawea became pregnant from her husband, Toussaint Charbonneau, a French-Canadian trapper. Her baby is born on the expedition. Charbonneau had two native wives, the first of which did not accompany them on the expedition. Sacagawea had been kidnapped by the Hidatsa tribe in a war with the Shoshone when she is 12. Charbonneau is 20 years older than Sacagawea. Sacagawea is 13 when she is forced to marry Charbonneau by the Hidatsa. The tribe had traded goods with Charbonneau. Sacagawea and Charbonneau are reluctantly hired by Lewis and Clark for the expedition. Both act as interpreters on the expedition but Fehrman argues Sacagawea represents more than being a translator because of her heritage and knowledge of the territory through which they will travel. Sacagawea’s Shoshone tribal heritage had diplomatic value beyond mere language interpretation. On the other hand, Charbonneau seems more a liability than asset to Lewis and Clark.

Shoshone Tribe in western America.

Fehrman shows the expeditionary Americans were not dominant actors in their relationships with native tribes. In the wilderness, they acted more as guests or supplicants in their dealings with various tribes. They recognized they were outsiders that needed political alliances with native tribes because they had meager knowledge of the territory and customs of indigenous tribes who controlled the river lands they explored. Their need for food, horses, guides, and knowledge of the land depends on their relationships with indigenous tribes. Without tribal help and guidance, they would have no protection or chance of safe passage. Native tribes provide horses and information that kept them on their course to the west and saved them from starvation and death. It is a combination of Jefferson’s somewhat arrogant plan for the country’s consolidation for the expeditionary force to be dependent upon indigenous tribes who are repeatedly deprived of their land in America’s growth as a nation. It is the explorer’s humbleness and humility that allows Lewis and Clark to succeed in growing an American continent that historically suppresses indigenous land ownership and use.

Most Shoshone Tribes appear more southwestern than northwestern.

Indigenous tribes were politically naive in their aid to American explorers. Without tribal’ naivete, the early days of America’s influence and growth as a singular nation would have failed. One presumes, the continent would have remained a land of tribal ownership and internecine conflicts over land and natural resources. In the early years of American government, it is humbleness, humility, and the growth of trade between natives and early Americans that transform a land of native tribal presence into a singular nation among nations. In Fehrman’s opinion the prime mover of that accomplishment began with Thomas Jefferson and “The Vast Enterprise” of explorers like Lewis and Clark.

The last chapters of Fehrman’s book leave listener/readers with notes about Lewis, Clark, York, and Sacagawea that are sad to read or hear. Lewis becomes an alcoholic and commits suicide. Clark refuses to give York his freedom. York dies from cholera while Clark lives a life of success and power. Clark becomes governor of -Missouri Territory and Superintendent of Indian Affairs. Sacagawea is leaves her French husband and dies at Fort Manuel in 1812.

Robert Frost (1874-1963.)

Robert Frost wrote “In three words I can sum up everything I’ve learned about life: it goes on.” That is the essential truth of “The Vast Enterprise”.

Chinese and American Youth

Books of Interest
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

Young China (How the Restless Generation Will Change Their Country and the World)

Author: Zak Dychtwald

Narration by: Zak Dychtwald

Zak Dychtwald (Author, public speaker, fluent Mandarin speaker, world traveler, graduate of Columbia University who moved to China and spent 4 years interviewing local Chinese.)

“Young China” is a fascinating comparison of a world traveler’s perception of the difference between young Americans and Chinese youths. A reservation one has in listening to Dychtwald’s explanation of Chinese youth is whether a 4-year immersion in a foreign culture constitutes a society’s truth or just a topical view of an intelligent observer who gravitates to students of similar ambition.

America’s Achilles heel.

Not knowing the author’s life experience, one assumes he has not lived the life of most American college students of his generation. As a graduate of Columbia, his decision to learn Mandarin Chinese, and choice to travel to China for a four year stay suggests he is not a typical American youth. Further, as the meaning of the saying “Birds of a feather flock together”, one presumes his choice of interviewees is not likely to be typical Chinese college students but those who excel in intelligence and academic pursuit.

Contrast of lives in China.

The main Chinese youths whom the author interviews and becomes acquainted with are Ben, Vivian, Chen, Liu, and Mei. Ben–who is a striver who has a rural background. Vivian is a young professional woman who speaks English and comes from the middle class. Chen is a university student who embraces nationalist beliefs of young Chinese. Liu is a young teenager who experiences the meritocratic pressure of academic achievement in China. And finally, Mei is a young Chinese college student dealing with job aspirations, dating, marriage pressure, and career ambitions.

Education is the great strength of China.

In some sense, these characters have American student similarities. One can find similar Americans in each of the broad categories of these five Chinese students. However, Dychtwald sees Chinese students as “dreamers and strivers” while his experience is that American students are skeptical about the value of education and their future. Dychtwald finds Chinese college students take their performance on college exams more seriously than American college students. High academic achievement is a critical goal to a Chinese student while to an American graduating with a degree is the primary goal and finding a career is more important than achieving high scores on college exams. Chinese youths see themselves as a part of a national achievement for China while Americans see themselves as cogs in a capitalist machine that may or may not turn into successful careers.

College is a pressure cooker for Chinese students while it’s more of a cultural experience and stage of life for most American students.

Finally, Dychtwald notes Chinese students are globally curious, Western influenced, while being confident in the superiority of their own country. In contrast, American students care less about other countries, know few languages beyond English, and see their country as just one of many cultures in the world. Dychwald is an outlier in that he does not view China as a threat to American hegemony, but a country focusing on improving the lives of their citizens.

The risks of singular leadership.

Admittedly, this review is a narrow interpretation of Dychtwald’s fascinating book. Only an extraordinary intellect would move to China after graduating from college and learn fluent Mandarin during a 4 year stay in China. It makes we who are old wish we had the privilege of Dychtwald’s intelligence to live life over again.

To this book reviewer, the flaw in American democracy is the rising gap between rich and poor. Dychtwald implies the flaw in China is its reliance on a singular leader’s actions to improve the daily lives of its citizens. America has the advantage of 4-year democratic change in leadership while China is dependent on an authoritarian’s health and judgement as a singular leader.

THE MIDDLE WAY

As every American, particularly white people of conscience know, ethnic minorities are faced with hardship, violence, and social discrimination until ruling majorities realize that all human beings are entitled to equality of opportunity in the society in which they live.

Books of Interest
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

Voice for the Voiceless (Over Seven Decades of Struggle with China for My Land and My People.)

Author: Dalai Lama

Narration by: Edoardo Ballerini

Dalai Lama (Author, born in 1935 is presently 91 years old. He is the spirtual head of Tibetan Buddhism.)

“Voice for the Voiceless” is the wish of every minority in the world. State supremacy over the individual in communism sharply contrasts with democracy in degrees of un-freedom revealed by what a citizen can be and do. Competition and descent, suppression of minority voices, control of information, collective identity, and human rights are insisted upon by communist leadership according to “Voice of the Voiceless” by the Dalai Lama.

American government checks and balances.

In a democratic government, there are multiple societally expressed interests like legal protection for dissent, creation of non-government organizations, guarantee of free speech, and institutional checks and balance on the power of its leaders. It is not that America or any democracy is perfect in its makeup but in the China that the Dalai Lama describes, communism is designed to prevent any form of opposition to its leadership. In the Dalai Lama’s view, no compassion exists in China’s government.

The infamous and unidentified “tank man” who stood in the way of the Tiananmen Square crackdown.

The most prominent historical evidence of a lack of government compassion is shown by the Tiananmen Square massacre during the Deng administration. The Dalai Lama’s opinion is reinforced by a Chinese guide who closes the doors of a private meeting room in which several Americans are informed of China’s reaction to the Tiananmen massacre. Chinese students and citizens who demonstrated at Tiananmen Square were asking for communist party reform, a reasonable level of leadership accountability, and elimination of corrupt Chinese government leaders.

In today’s China, President Xi consistently supports authoritarian rulers’ right to rule without interference from outside interests.

The Dalai Lama writes “Voice for the Voiceless” to challenge China’s political system which denies rule of Tibet by the Dalai Lama as its head of state. His demand reminds one of histories of displacement of native tribal leaders in America in the 17th and 18th centuries. Recognizing the fates of proud native leaders in America, the Dalai Lama (who has been exiled to India since the 1950s) is asking the communist government to allow him to be the leader of his “tribe” in Tibet. In America, more than two hundred years passed before genuine recognition and opportunity were seriously offered America’s natives. It has taken nearly 200 years for America to offer equal opportunity for tribal natives to pursue their interests as recognized ethnic minorities. What the Dali Lama wishes for Tibetan people in China is in many ways the experience of minorities in a democracy, let alone a communist autocracy.

Mary Annette Pember offers a firsthand, intergenerational perspective of America’s effort to assimilate native inhabitants of America.

Natives of America grew together as common ancestors that could choose life in a system of government that came to understand the importance of tribal self-determination. Natives of America had land rights, and a concept of cultural difference; accompanied by jurisdictional authority to pursue economic development as a distinct ethnic minority. The Dalai Lama clearly shows Tibetan people have a similar ethnic origin and desire for freedom and self-determination. Only time and ethnic solidarity offer hope for them to realize their goals.

Barbara Demick gives listeners a picture of Tibet with a darkness that rivals the narrative she creates for North Korea in “Nothing to Envy”.

Communist China is not America. However, the Dalai Lama appears to want a level of independence to protect a Tibetan way of life for Buddhists to preserve their cultural identity and language without violent resistance by the Chinese system of government. This is a reminder of native American’s struggle in democratic America. The Dalai Lama seems only to wish for human and religious freedom, not nation-state hegemonic control. He notes Tibetans have no institutional power, no representation in the Chinese government, and no legal way to challenge state’ government policies.

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

The Dali Lama’s book surprisingly notes the initial relationship with Chinese communism that proposed a “Seventeen-Point Agreement” which offered a framework for Tibet to have the recognition requested by the Tibetan culture. However, the tenor of the “…Agreement” is violated with Tibet being occupied by Mao’s government. Mao orders his administration to keep the Dalai Lama from fleeing and pressured Tibetan leaders to negotiate subservience to the Chinese Communist Party. Mao’s goal is to unify Tibet with China, not provide Tibetan autonomy within the structure of Chinese suzerainty. There was to be no self-determination of Tibetans, no interest in preserving Tibetan institutions, no role for the Dalai Lama, and no Tibetan’ autonomy. Mao demanded integration, not reconciliation.

The book “Being Peace” is a layman’s introduction to Buddhist belief.

As the Dalai Lama grew to understand what Mao and future leaders of the CCP really wanted, he chose to leave Tibet in the late 1950s. He exiled himself to India, the origin of Buddhism’s creation. Buddhism teaches liberation from suffering through compassion, wisdom, and meditation. These were not a part of the Communist ideals of Mao or his successors. The core belief of communism is that truth comes from the party whereas Buddhist believe truth is from inner realization. Every Buddhist is a sentient being that has compassion for individual suffering while a CCP member subordinates their feelings to the needs of the state and national unity. All religions are a potential threat to state control which is the basis and practice of communism and, to a lesser extent, all forms of government.

The Potala Palace in Lhasa, Tibet is the historic residence of the Dalai Lamas.

The Dalai Lama represents a threat to communism because he is a global moral figure, a symbol of Tibetan identity, and a spiritual authority independent of the state. Buddhist belief in inner freedom, compassion, and spiritual autonomy directly conflict with the ideals of communism because of its belief in the collective rather than the individual. An interesting irony in that communism is a form of government that endorses a collective concept. Of course, a communist collective is external to one’s inner self while Buddhism believes a collective is formed through an inner understanding of the self. China insists on centralized government authority, conformity to its edicts, and personal identification with the state’s government. One’s heart goes out to the Tibetan people and the discrimination they are suffering. Only time offers hope for their future.

COLD WAR ORIGINS

Hannah Lucinda Smith’s “Hinterlands” is an eye opener for the uniformed but it’s a bit of a slog for non-historians to absorb.

Books of Interest
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

Hinterlands (The New Cold War Brewing at the Peripheries of the West.)

Author: Hannah Lucinda Smith

Narration by: Hannah Lucinda Smith

Hannah Lucinda Smith (Author, British journalist based in Istanbul, Turkey. Published in The Times, The Atlantic, Foreign Policy, and wrote “Erdogan Rising”, presumably about the President of Turkey.

Smith has written a complicated book about what she calls “a new cold war”. It is complicated because most people’s knowledge of some of the territories she writes about like Transnistria, Respublika Srpska, and Nagorno-Karabakh are not known by the general public. Of course, she would not have titled her book “Hinterlands” if it only addresses major nations or organizations like Russia, Turkey, China, the EU, NATO, or the U.S.

Today’s conflicts between Russia/Ukraine and America/Iran may turn into world conflagrations. The same might be said of the following countries that make up Smith’s “Hinterlands”. “Hinterlands” is a reminder that there are other conflicts, less well known, that have the same disastrous potential. Smith identifies six low-visibility conflicts that may rise to the level of the Russia/Ukraine and American/Iran wars or worse. They are as follows:

Nagorno‑Karbala

Nagorno-Karabakh became an independent nation between Azerbaijan and Armenia which is just south of Russia, north of Iran, and between Armenia and Azerbaijan.

Russia, Turkey, and Iran have dogs in Nagorno-Karabakh’s fight. Nagorno-Karabakh is mostly populated by ethnic Armenians who declared independence which is settled by a war that ended in 1994. The conflict is fed by interference from Russia, Turkey, and Iran that have their own agendas for the people who live in this territory. Russia plays the role of peacekeeper while ironically supplying arms to its citizens. Turkey is an ally of Azerbaijan that reluctantly allowed Nagorno/Karabakh’s independence. The author notes Iran has interest in the territory’s independence because of an Azeri ethnic population in Iran that is larger than the Armenian population in Nagorno Karabakh. Nagorno Karbakh’s independence creates a kind of jealousy about its ethnic independence versus a larger Azeri minority in the adjacent country of Iran. Of course, this is confusing because it seems more a concern for Iran’s leadership than Nagorno Karabakh’s independence from Azerbaijan. The threat seems that Iran may worry more about an independence drive by Azeri’s in Iranian territory because of the example set by the Azeri’ Armenians in Azerbaijan.

Respublika Srpska (Northern part of Bosnia and Herzegovina.)

Bosnia (Respublika Srpska)

Having traveled to the former Yugoslavia, the ravages of its dismantling may be seen in pockmarked buildings from battles that occurred during Yugoslavia’s dismantling. As Smith notes, there is a Serbian majority inside Bosnia. It identifies itself as Respublika Srpska (RS). This faction wants independence from Bosnia, but the Bosnia constitution forbids it. Russia supports the RS desire for independence. According to Smith, Russia is simply pursuing its desire to see the weakening of Western Institutions which RS’ independence would engender. The RS leader Milorad Dodik is pushing for a referendum for independence. The U.S. pushes for constitutional reform which in one sense puts U.S. on the fence rather than being for or against independence. Serbia supports RS ambitions. The EU is not unified in an opinion either for or against independence. Turkey supports Bosnia’s RS’ desire because of their Muslim religion and Erdojan’s hope for Putin’s continued economic support of Turkey. This seems resolvable but it has the makings for a hot war if independence is denied by Bosnia’s government. If independence is achieved, the concern will be for the minorities that choose to remain in a newly independent Serbian country. (As noted, this is an example of Smith’s complicated history.)

Kosovo.

Kosovo

The fight for independence is always a potential flashpoint for unrest that can widen into war between internal as well as outside nation-state interference. Outside interference can be based on economic, religious, or strategic interests of outside nation-state powers. Russia, Turkey, and Iran as immediate neighbors may call on any of these reasons to interfere and spark a wider confrontation and consequence in their region of interest.

Transnistria

Transnistria is a little-known de facto breakaway from Moldova that is not recognized by the international community.

Smith explains Transnistria is a region that broke away from Moldova when the USSR collapsed. Smith notes Russia protects its independence as a Russian client territory. She notes Russian troops are stationed in Transnistria while its existence is subsidized by the Russian government. It is a strategic foothold for Russia in their plan to takeover Ukraine. It is a conflict zone that remains a part of the nation of Moldova, under the control of Putin with Transnistria’s own government made up of a president, parliament, and military. It is a potential flashpoint in the Russian/Ukraine war.

Crimea / broader Ukraine conflict

Crimea annexation by Russia from the nation-state of Ukraine.

Crimea remains un unresolved border problem in Smith’s view of Soviet occupation. When the USSR dissolved, Crimea became a part of an independent Ukraine. Smith notes Russia has made immense financial investments in Crimea to lure its citizens to become a part of Putin’s Russia. Obviously, Crimea is a potential conflict in the making because of its former existence as a part of Ukraine. One wonders how Russian influence will affect Crimea’s interest in being a part of Russia or Ukraine in the future.

Turkey–Kurdish regions (Syria/Iraq)

There is concern about the influence of a Kurdish separatist movement that might spread from Syria and Iraq to Turkey.

Turkey has already created a military footprint in Syria and Iraq. Turkey has had several violent conflicts with the PKK, a Kurdish militant group that is classified as a terrorist organization that has caused thousands of deaths and conducted military operations in southeastern Turkey beginning in 2015 and continuing through 2016. That terrorism began long before the election of Erdogan. The Kurds seek their own nation-state, which was proposed back in 1920, after WWI. However, the disparate beliefs of Kurd’ factions make nation building and independence a tough objective to achieve. They allege a wish for autonomy, local democracy, pluralism, and decentralized governance whether living in Syria, Iraq, or Turkey. Of course, they are not the only ethnic group in each of these countries and the PKK’s objectives conflict with existing territorial governments. For various reasons ranging from different Kurdish beliefs to the existence of existing governments, the Kurds remain stateless and a threat to Syria’s, Iraq’s, and Turkey’s governments.

In the end reward is destroyed by the selfishness of each against the other.

Hannah Lucinda Smith’s “Hinterlands” is an eye opener for the uniformed but it’s a bit of a slog for non-historians to absorb.

WEALTH IN AMERICA

American democracy is like a giant ship at sea. It takes time to turn a giant ship impeded by brief storms until the return of calmer seas. America is weathering a Trumpian storm today but there is reason to believe there is another Lincolnesque or Rooseveltian leader in America’s future.

Books of Interest
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

Country of Lords (Neo-Aristocrats, Social Darwinists, Tech Utopians, and the Long Fight against Equality in America.)

Author: Kim Phillips-Fein

Narration by: Sarah Welborn

Kim Phillips-Fein (Author, American historian, Professor of History at Columbia University.)

Kim Phillips-Fein argues the widening gap between the ultra-rich and everyone else in America is because of American culture’s anti-egalitarian beliefs and tradition. Beginning with the Founding Fathers of America; i.e., John Adams, Alexander Hamiliton, and Thomas Jefferson, Phillips-Fein’s argues these 3 men set the table for America to become anti-egalitarian. In part, she has a point because these three were elitists with university educations. However, she neglects to mention that George Washington was largely self-educated and seems unlikely to have been anti-egalitarian. However, despite Washington’s limited education and his role as a military leader, he is unlikely to have disagreed with Adams, Hamilton, or Jefferson.

As the author points out Adams, Hamilton, and Jefferson believed in a “natural aristocracy” that would improve society. Of course, this idea comes from white American Founders that gave little weight to non-white races, believed in slavery, and white male superiority. Phillips-Fein explains these foundational beliefs held great influence in American society. The growth of industry labor biases is magnified by intellectual distortions of Darwinian evolution. The author goes on to explain influential Americans like Willam Sumner (an influential American social theorist in the 19th century) opposed welfare because of belief in Darwin’s discovery of natural selection and the concept of “survival of the fittest”. American economic growth and the rise of personal white male wealth diminish the status of laborers, women, and non-white Americans.

Andrew Carnegie (Scottish American, industrialist, and philanthropist 1835-1919.)

Andrew Carnegie (a steel magnate who created America’s first billion-dollar corporation) writes an essay titled “The Gospel of Wealth” in 1889 which argues the rich should rule because their wealth came from their natural superiority. Henry Ford creates his fortune in the automobile industry with a rigid hierarchy based on paternalistic control of workers’ labor and domestic lives. The outgrowth of industrial success in America leads authors like Madison Grant to racialize society with a belief that the white race is biologically superior. People like Charles Davenport (an American biologist who died in 1944) espoused a eugenics movement with a belief that poverty and crime are based on heredity which reinforces illogical beliefs of leaders like Adolph Hitler.

One may ask oneself how good a job has individual wealth done in setting standards for society? Are authoritarian multi-millionaires like Vladimir Putin, and Donald Trump benefiting or diminishing the modern world?

The author explains distortions of science and the advance of IQ testing have led to the rise of technocrats and corporate hierarchies based on preferential promotion and ascension of mostly white American men. Corporations grew to become quasi-governments that reinforced anti-egalitarianism. A meritocracy grows with sociologically biased IQ testing as a way to reinforce inequality based on cognitive difference rather than experience, proven, and/or innate ability.

Consequence of inequality of opportunity. Octavia Butler (a highly regarded American writer who died in 2006) shows an evolution of cities into silos of cultural difference rather than communities of common interest.

The irony of Phillips-Fein’s history of American thinkers and elites is that because people are not equal, they should not have equal opportunities. She notes people like John Adams believed too much egalitarianism is dangerous because it would empower the wrong people; i.e. presumably poorly educated Americans (ironically people like George Washington). The growth of racism and belief in eugenics by people like Lothrop Stoddard (a Harvard educated historian who died in 1950) argue that equal opportunity is foolish because laborers and particularly non-whites are less educated and equal to people who have acquired great wealth. The effects of that belief reinforce the false belief that wealth is a measure of human worth. That false belief becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy that creates a perennial underclass that is denied an equal opportunity to improve their lives.

Charles Darwin (1809-1882) FOUNDER OF THE THEORY OF THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES.

After this depressing history, Phillips-Fein suggests anti-egalitarianism in not a permanent, unchangeable characteristic of American democracy. Social Darwinism is collapsing as its distortions of evolution are better understood. The proof of Jewish contribution to society will never offset the horror of Adolph Hitler’s holocaust but few rational human beings can fail to see how important Jewish culture has been to science and the advance of civilization. The movements of abolitionists, labor, civil rights, feminists, immigrant and disability rights in the 20th and 21st centuries encourage egalitarian beliefs.

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: