Monopolies

The strategy of most investment books is to leverage your resources to get more growth easier.  Whether one is conscious of it, pretty much all of us are looking for ways to get more benefits with less effort. 

I plead guilty.  Companies use their resources for the same thing.    Both companies and individuals have restrictions  Most of this history is based on the U.S.  Some of the trends are in Canada.  More directly we deal with many of the same companies.
 

An early example of misunderstood history comes from the Boston Tea Party of 1773.  We have been told that Boston citizens were outraged they were being taxed without representation.  The author gives another version.  The British East India Company had been given the right to transport tea to America without any taxes.  Independent businesses involved with tea were expected to pay taxes.  Thus the big British company would gain a big advantage over the little guy and virtually put them out of business.  By today's standards the Boston citizens dumped about one million dollars worth of tea which the British government demanded be repaid.  The Bostonions refused.

Thomas Jefferson was involved with both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution  At the time England was the only country that allowed protection for inventors.  Jefferson set a patent procedure up.  In effect inventions helped develop monopolies in that inventors after registering and describing their invention could sell to others.  Jefferson himself had been an inventor.  Check  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2017/06/thomas-jefferson-and-sally-hemings-make.html

A contrast to our western modern economy is provided by Richard Borsha Lee who spent two years studying the !Kung Bushmen in Botswana.  He learned the average Bushman spent a maximum of about 32 hours per week getting food.  With increasing automation it had been projected that the modern western man (or woman) would spend less and less time working and earn more money. 

Presidents like Republican, Theodore Roosevelt and Democrat, Franklin Roosevelt helped keep the middle class vibrant despite efforts to give the wealthy more power.  

In 1971, Lewis Powell wrote a confidential memo planning how the wealthy could gain more power and dominance.  His first priority was to penetrate the education system not only by favoring sympathetic staff and also at the textbook level to blunt progressive ideas.  Gaining control of the media was essential. He noted that the courts could have a strong influence and became a Supreme Court judge.  

A key element for conservatives in winning over the majority is to encourage distrust of the government

Ronald Reagan accelerated efforts to concentrate wealth.  Productivity was roughly linked to wage increases until Reagan's initiated changes.  Most famous for saying "Government is not the solution to our problem.  Government is the problem".   He was proud to break the Air Controllers Union and criticized unions in general.  He suspended the Fairness Act which had restrained misinformation.  Of course a reduction in taxes, especially for the wealthy.  He also championed de-regulations claiming they inhibited the economy, overlooking  the role they play in protecting consumers.  See  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2015/10/regulation-how-we-protect-ourselves.html

Fox News was considered an investment by deep conservatives.  Rupert Murdoch realized they would initially lose several hundred million dollars.  After five years they began to dominate news broadcasting, although eventually admitted they were an opinion network.  Criticizing the government, particularly Democrats is a major strategy.  Studies have shown that areas that have access to Fox do better for the Republicans than those areas that do not have access.

Donald Trump's again lowered taxes which not only dramatically increased the deficit, but also increased inequality.  De regulating was also very strong minimizing consumer protection.  He botched the Covid 19 pandemic for which many paid the ultimate price and also gave opportunities to big companies to take over small companies.   

Monopolies by concentrating wealth to a privileged minority increase inequality.  Some effects of inequality:  more teenage pregnancies, more crime, more obesity, lower rates of social and political engagement, more suicides, less empathy and altruism and ironically decreased worker productivity.

One concern of big business has been the cost of labor.  At one point some people were to take advantage of slave labor and legislated to protect the practice and fought a war to maintain it.  In modern times a few conservatives have advocated for private prisons and others in turn used prisoners as cheap labor, at a time when the U.S. seems to have a heavy percentage of prisoners a high percentage of which are minorities..

Governments have been accused of monopoly and it is true.  The author feels one kind of monopoly that is good--a natural monopoly.  Examples are water, electricity and sewer services.  The public services have proved to be more efficient and reliable than private companies.  One example used is from Pacific Gas and Electric at its failure to maintain power lines in California thereby contributing to a forest fire that killed people.  The underlying factor was the profit motive. 

Here in Canada I see signs of similar efforts to develop concentrated wealth.  Pierre Poilievre is noted for his slogan "Axe the Tax".  First it seems like an effort to stop an effort to deal with climate change which would benefit fossil fuel providers.  Second it amounts to the theme that the government cannot be trusted.  He has no solution to climate change which will cost more as time goes by..

What can be done?  Individuals have a vote and buying power that may seem inadequate, but do have a cumulative effect.  It is really the government that can make changes.  The majority should have voting leverage with taxes that are supposed to be progressive.  The author thinks the core problem is a relative lack of competition and suggests laws need to be modified to limit how big a company is allowed to get.  The voting system does make a difference.  I have blogged on proportional representation in Canada and elsewhere, but the American system could also be made to better reflect what the voters really want.  Check  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2023/10/your-vote-neednt-be-wasted.html

Corporations are run by investors, but there are other stakeholders that should be given a voice.  Workers are obvious even though unions do negotiate wages and working conditions, they don't have any voting power.  The community where the corporation is located has a big stake, but usually has little say in corporation decisions.

In reality one way or another there will be a breakup of the status quo, but it may not be nice.  Check http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2020/01/the-great-leveler-violence-and.html

This book is only 147 pages, but packs a lot more than should be summarized.  Well worth the reading.

The Next Civil War

A civil war is pretty serious business.  As Abraham Lincoln said, "A house divided cannot stand."Stephen Marcuse contends "The United States is near its end.  The question is how"?  His book explores the atmosphere and suggests a few scenarios that could burst out in a more active war

As I write this blog, a few months after the book was published there is news that quotes from an interview with Rupert Murdoch in which he admits that he believes there was no election fraud in 2020.  Furthermore we are hearing evidence that many of the Fox personalities off air also admitted there was no election fraud, but on air were promoting the big lie.  Apparently a good portion of Americans accept the lie and would vote for Trump all over again.

Do I think they are stupid?  Or are they too proud to admit they were wrong?  I believe the problem is they don't care--some are pleased Trump restricted immigration, or turned the tide against abortion, or pushed against blacks, gays and transgenders, or they dislike high taxes and onerous regulations.  That is a measure of a divided country.  The trends foreseen by Stephen Marche seem to be progressing.  A small part of his research is reflected in the following observations.

The level of violence, both rhetorically and physically has been increasing.  Groups are preparing for armed combat with training and weapons.  Domestic extremists killed 42 people in 2019.  Police brutality, one measure might be shootings, ranks much higher than other countries.

Disrespect for government authority.  Joseph Arpaio had been admonished for illegal immigrant raids, but continued until arrested and convicted, but pardoned by Trump.  Michael German, a former FBI undercover agent points out that white supremacy sympathies among police hurt domestic terrorism cases.  Killers like Dylan Roof and Kyle Rittenhouse are lauded as heroes.  Marche states "The greatest threat to the United States is not the hard right.  It is the general decline of legitimacy of the government that underlies the rise of the hard right."

Gun ownership is growing and already is well beyond any other nation.  That is through registered guns, but "ghost" guns (made from kits, 3-D printers) already account for 30% of seized guns.  Most owners claim bought for protection and for some that means from the government.

Alex Newhouse a researcher into extremist violence points out "...online radicalization starts with alienation... Social alienation comes with anger at their lot in life...the contrarian will often provide an explanation...for why they are feeling that way."  Population projections point that the United States will be a minority white nation by 2045.

The United States Constitution was a compromise.  The slave holding states were concerned the industrial north would outvote them on important issues.  Their white male propertied population was too small to compete with the north so they insisted upon counting their slaves as 3/5 of a person and combined with the electoral college it gave them parity with the north.  Those rules allowed Thomas Jefferson to defeat John Adams in the 1800 election.  The electoral college has given the south disproportionate power ever since with a notable exception during the Civil War.  After the Civil War, the south was able to institute Jim Crow which could only increase black resentments and southern resistance.  Five of the current Supreme Court justices were appointed by presidents who lost the popular vote.

A study in India focused on Hindu-Muslim conflicts.  "An increase in Muslim expenditures generates a large and significant future religious conflict.  An increase in Hindu expenditures has a negative or no effect.  The dominant culture, Hindu feels more impacted by a change in relative standing.  Whites in America also seem to feel most threatened by changes in the status quo. 

Inequality as it increases leads nations closer to war and revolution.  The Covid pandemic underlies the effects of inequality.  A comparison of nations with over 5 million population and an average of over $25,000 gross income reveals that the United States did the worst.  Not masking, not practicing social distancing and not vaccinating were political issues.  The world is inevitably going to provide other crises.  Inequality leads to a lack of co-operation needed to deal with global crises.

 Many politicians do not care about issues accept to use them for power.  Cater to and even inflame the mass prejudices.  Big money is needed to hide the desire for power.

Secession within a nation has been written into legislation for only two nations.  Canada recognizing Quebec represents a distinct ethnic population.  Also Britain recognizing a similar ethnic identity for Scotland.  Texas, essentially a one party state has generated a secession movement that prominent politicians cater to, but not quite endorse as they also have presidential ambitions.

The American people are capable of solving the big problems such as the electoral system, the legitimacy of their courts, police reform, even inequality and climate change.  The author contends "The United States, if it is to survive, requires a Constitutional Convention.  The loathing overtaking the country makes that possibility more remote every day."

The author and I are both Canadians, in other words, outsiders.  But like the whole world we will be affected how the American dilemma plays out.  Without America the world will not solve many crises such as climate change, pandemics, inequality, justice, etc.

Read the book for more scary details and citations.

Benjamin Franklin by Ken Burns

Benjamin Franklin is perhaps the most fascinating character in American history.  His accomplishments are overwhelming, but my interest is his thought process.  Ken Burns captures the essence in a four hour presentation which was shown on PBS stations and is available in DVD format.

He was done with school at age ten and had run away from home as a teen.  He became a very heavy reader.  As he matured he became an organizer and became interested in science.  At one point he became a postmaster and traveled to several states including southern ones.  From this experience he developed a feeling that the colonies should work closer with one another.

As a printer he started "Poor Richard's Almanac" which became very popular.  Partly because he included some sayings that became popular.  One example, "Early to bed, early to rise makes a man healthy, wealthy and rise."  He discussed the path to success analyzing the needed virtues and how to attain them.  He also developed a method for making difficult decisions that became known as the Benjamin Franklin method.

He was always a curious man. Electricity was fascinating and after many experiments he developed the concept of a lightning rod, which as saved many lives.  He also came up with the concept for a battery.  Another project for a relative was to invent a catheter improvement.  He also developed an improved wooden stove and would not accept a patent.  Later in life  he was taken with a musical performance with wine glasses and went on to invent the glass armonica which Mozart composed for.  At one time he was asked about the point of a man bearing balloon and replied "What good is a newborn baby?"

Prejudiced?  Like all humans he soaked in the beliefs of his environment--until he observed the unexpected and questioned them.  He owned slaves at one time and although he had joined anti slave groups for a long time he took it for granted they were incapable of serious discussion.  However when negro youngsters were sent to Philadelphia to learn to read, Franklin appreciated they had thinking ability.  

He also had a low opinion of the indigenous natives, but later was inspired by the Six Nations and their system of government.  He had been involved a little with the French and Indian War that resulted in the French losing territory that included Quebec City and parts of what later became American territory.  He also was involved with the negotiations and was very impressed with how the Six Nations handled themselves feeling that the American colonies should unite and have more power.

The War made the colonies more expensive than earlier thought and the British felt the settlers needed to help pay the extra costs. 

Benjamin Franklin went to London which he found very stimulating, socializing with such luminaries as Adam Smith and David Hume.  He admired the British Empire and wanted it to continue.  He campaigned for his son William and he was named to be governor of New Jersey.  After talking to Lord Howe as a Pennsylvania delegate he was offered state taxation but by this time was too late' he notion of taxation without representation had taken hold.

Maybe not surprising Benjamin Franklin was leaning the Loyalist way, but decided to be a "patriot."  He was the oldest at the Congressional meeting. He had tried to convince Canadians to side with American colonies. 

One of Franklin's contributions was to substitute he phrase "self evident" in place of "sacred" as Jefferson had originally written in the Declaration of Independence.  Part of the effort to separate the state from church.

The War of Independence was really a civil war with many families divided (including Franklin).  His son William remained loyalist.  Franklin was chosen to be envoy to France.  Seeking an alliance in France was very sociable, but he secured some treaties.   Also he met Voltaire, one month before his death.

After the American victory negotiations with England saw Franklin involved.  He dealt with tricky point of not including France in negotiations.  The Indigenous were disappointed with many leaving for Canada leaving a mark not far from where I live.  The Six Nations were granted land along the Grand River.  My two youngsters were born in Joseph Brant Hospital in Burlington.

At the 1787 Constitution conference Franklin was in committee to decide weight of states with different population.  Recognizing the north needed the south for the union he sought compromise.  Each state have 2 senators selected by state.  The House of Representatives membership was to be calculated with members of by population, but allowing blacks to be counted as 3/5 of non slaves.   He recognized faults and proposed agreement to be ratified by states.  He considered democracy an experiment that needed to be tinkered with.

He repaired relations with British friends, but not with son William.   On his 8th ocean crossing Franklin made scientific observations on trip back noting the influence of the Gulf stream.

He died in 1790, April 17th at age 84.  He attracted the largest Philadelphia crowd for his funeral with every church represented.   

A quote I carry with me "For having lived long, I have experienced many instances being obliged by better information or fuller consideration to change opinions, even on important subjects which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise."  Good advice.

My interest was started as a youngster when I was able to watch "Ben and Me" (1951).

A few years ago I was able to have a short Philadelphia visit and checked out Benjamin Franklin.   Check:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2015/07/philadelphia-brief-adventure.html

First Friends

The most powerful person in the world, the one who makes the most decisions that affect the most people can be lonely.  They need someone to trust who can help them unwind and be sounding boards.  They all have many political and government advisors, but really to share intimate thoughts it takes a special relationship.  We are all affected by these relationships that involve an unelected person.

 Thomas Jefferson is famed for the Declaration of Independence and the third President.  He is also now acknowledged to have fathered children with his mulatto servant, Sally Hemings.  His closest friend was James Madison, the two were Virginia slave owners who didn't agree very much at first.  Madison helped Jefferson through some difficulties and with his wife actually lived with Jefferson in the White House.  One of Sally Hemings' sons was named James Madison Hemmings while a son of Jefferson's legal daughter was named James Madison Randolph.  One of the pivotal events was the Louisiana Purchase which both had initially been against and would not have happened except for misfortune of Napoleon who had lost to a slave rebellion in Haiti.  Both men saw this might allow for more slave states.  These two were the only first friends to both be presidents.  Jefferson had been anti British (he had a French bias) and Madison carried some of that sentiment which was a factor causing the War of 1812. Check http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2017/06/thomas-jefferson-and-sally-hemings-make.html

Franklin Pierce was one of the least known Presidents, but his most trusted friend was the most famous, the author, Nathaniel Hawthorne.   Pierce was a poor student, but was smart enough to seek smarter friends such as Hawthorne when they attended the same school in New Hampshire.  Pierce became president, but really had no accomplishments as he preferred to defer to others.  Although a northerner he favored slavery as a way to keep the nation together.  One of his friends was Jefferson Davis who was the Secretary of War.  Pierce increased the tension between abolitionists and slave states leading to the Civil War.  Surprisingly Hawthorne, although more liberal, supported Pierce even writing an official campaign biography.

Abraham Lincoln once made a proposal to a store owner where he admitted that he might not be able to pay him back.  The counter proposal from Joshua Speed offered his bed to share which ended up lasting four years.  They went their separate ways, but kept contact.  Many years later Joshua was critical to keeping the slave state, Kansas with the Union.  Check http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2011/11/team-of-rivals-has-lessons-for-today.html 

Franklin Roosevelt liked to surround himself with powerful women.  He had had at least one affair and some have imputed that Daisy Suckley was one of his lovers.  However that seems unlikely.  They had known each other from youth and she turned out to be a great listener.  They didn't talk about politics very much although she knew military secrets and had met with national leaders like Winston Churchill.   She also befriended Lucy Mercer, and helped arrange liasons with Roosevelt.  Roosevelt and Suckey had literally written thousands of letters to each other.  She helped set up the first president library where their mutual correspondence was preserved.  The library reflected an interest Roosevelt had in the Oak Island treasure and was a useful research tool for other hunters.  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2021/04/oak-island-obsession.html

Harry Truman became president when Roosevelt died.  An honest man, best remembered for  "The Buck stops here."  He is also the man who ok'd the atomic bomb being dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  Another of his momentous decisions was to support the establishment of Israel. One notable dissenter was General George Marshall who felt it would jeopardize American oil supply and push the Arabs closer to the Russians.  Eddie Jacobsen had been a friend through a business partnership, time in army and and a long running poker group.  Truman had become upset with Zionist spokespeople and refused to talk to Chaim Weizman and it was decided that Jacobsen should intercede, but Truman resisted this until, Jacobsen at his own expense traveled to the White House.  Eventually he succeeded and the United States was the critical supporter of Israel.  Harry Truman was more appreciated after he left office;  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2016/12/truman-vs-today.html

John Kennedy and David Ormsby-Gore were an unlikely pair.  Ormsby-Gore was from English aristocracy and met Kennedy through his sister.  Kennedy spent time in England before the WWII.  Ormsby-Gore became intimate friend of Kennedy family including Jackie.  Kennedy relied on his friend n a number of issues.  Ormsby-Gore gave advice that was accepted to handle the Cuban missile crisis.

Bill Clinton and Vernon Jordan  saw each other as equals.  Jordan saw Bill Clinton as a force for the future and when Clinton was discouraged after a Arkansas defeat helped to keep in politics.   In more fortunate times which he helped bring about he guided both Clintons to adjust to Washington.  Got involved with Monica Lewinsky, getting her a job and helped keep the Clinton marriage alive.  When Hilary decided to run for president he supported her, but when Barrack Obama won he supported his fellow black man with advice

Friendship is vital to all humans.  Often there is not enough friendship in the world.  Leaders are sometimes pictured as above the masses, but in truth they need true friends as much as any and we as citizens benefit when their friendships are constructive, but not when their friendships are destructive it can be disastrous.

Is it human to be a hypocrite?

 There are few things worse than to be called a hypocrite.  Basically it means you claim to believe something, but in reality betray your beliefs and practice doing something else.  But deep down inside many of us acknowledge the conflict between what we feel and what we express.  We are all influenced by how other people react.  We all have secrets, but are concerned for appearance.  We probably all bend the rules a little and some bend the rules a lot more.  

Partly we all like to believe we are in the right and that our intentions are not only in our best interests, but also honorable.  Mostly it is human nature to avoid conflicts with people we have to deal with.  And being weak humans we often find it difficult to live up to high standards.  There may be more to it than false bravado.  Every one of us alive plays different roles in life and they are often in conflict.For instance you can be a man, an employee, a father, a husband, a hockey fan, a voter, a member of a religious group, a New Yorker, a native of your location,  Sooner or later we all get caught in a conflict of roles.  Roles are often in conflict.

Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings.  Thomas would be considered a liberal by many modern people and wrote the Declaration of Independence spouting about freedom and the pursuit of happiness.  He was also a slave holder and although a kindly one it now seems indisputable that he fathered some children with his slave.  We don't know if it was even a loving relationship as he was careful to avoid public knowledge.  Read more:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2017/06/thomas-jefferson-and-sally-hemings-make.html

At the time of Bill Clinton's impeachment campaign one of the persecutors was Newt Gingrich who we later learned at the same time was engaged in adulterous behavior.  Many people would have said that such a person shouldn't be pointing fingers, but he was doing so in a very vociferous manner.  Others felt it was nobody's business, but not Newt.  He felt it was unacceptable for a leader to be so immoral, but really it was political maneuvering.  More recently Donald Trump and Rudy Giuliani two divorced adulterous men feel compelled to criticize Hilary Clinton for her marital problems.

Trump himself identified voter targets and decided how best to seduce them.  Evangelicals, the poorly educated, racists.  In some cases he would laugh at their stupidities.

Republicans for the most part have an economic agenda on the idea that anyone has the right to make as much money as possible and to keep it.  Freedom somehow seems to allow the exploitation of other people.  Although most people would like to make more money too many would realize they are being left out.  In order to gain power those seeking it for their economic agenda have to offer something to satisfy the majority.  Most powerful people with notable exceptions are educated and reasonably intelligent realizing they have to win over people less educated and intelligent.  I will let others point out the hypocrisy of liberals which they also share.
 
Dichotomies can be hard on us.  Being a parent and also being an active social person presents conflicts. You don't want your children to have your bad habits, but you aren't willing to give them all up, at least not forever.  Many smoking moms and dads will try to hide their habit from prying eyes.  Sooner or later it usually fails.  

One unfortunate historical reality was with closeted gay people.  For most of history it was natural for them to hide their sexual preference, but some went further.  To distract possible accusers they criticized, sometimes viciously, other gay people or tried to blackmail them.  Perhaps an extreme, but illustrates all conflicts.  Read more on  Barney Frank http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2015/07/barney-frank-has-interesting-book-out.html

The anti abortion protesters hit our consciousness with the sacredness of life.  Many of the same are opposed to contraception, sex education, parental leave and other abortion reducing measures leaving me to feel a big part of their motivation is against promiscuity and recreational sex.  Many of the same people support gun rights in the face of all too frequent school shootings. 

We all tend to be hypocrites on small matters.  Perhaps we should be tolerant of other hypocrites on small matters, but there is a limit.  Sometimes when our own hypocrisy is pointed out we reflect and more rarely change our behavior.

A Self righteous view of enlightenment

Egerton Ryerson was in recent news, not commending him for his significant contributions to Ontario's education.  Like most I was upset about the discovery of 215 young bodies at a Kamloops residential school.  I would agree that he did have something to do with that.  He felt education was very important and felt his enlightened views required assimilation of those who lacked his viewpoint. 

 Like many of my readers I like to think I am enlightened.  Unlike most of my blogs I am deliberately using the first person pronoun as this is intended as a confession.  Usually I feel free to be critical of those who do not share my enlightened views and feel superior to most  of those who preceded me, because frankly they were not as enlightened as I am.  If you were so inclined I believe you could find a similar personal history.  But I have learned life is an ongoing education.

The concept of temporal centrism is something most of us are guilty of.  We feel that all history has been a buildup to our current more important times and what happens today is a foundation for the future.  We also tend to think of some people as heroes or saints and others as evil when in reality all humans contain elements of good and not so good.  We have progressed by harnessing the good and are held back by the not so good

As a youngster I recognized my parents knew lots of things I didn't, but as I reached adolescence I thought they missed the boat on all kinds of things.  When I went to university (the first of my family to do so) I knew I was more enlightened than my family.  Reaching the time to earn my own living I realized that the world was full of people who didn't recognize my true worth.  I like to think I truly am enlightened and deplore the amount of ignorance that surrounds me. 

Every now and then I feel forced to do some self examination; maybe retirement gives me the inclination and opportunity to do so.

Most of my life I have been totally unconscious of white privilege.  I didn't struggle to get fed, clothed or sheltered.  The opportunities to nurture myself were taken for granted.  My parents encouraged me to read through bedtime stories and buying books, even including an encyclopedia.   I had some good teachers in school and was encouraged to apply to university (not something I thought about for many years) and at that time government policies made it easy to borrow money.  University was in many ways mind opening.  I met students and teachers from literally around the world from all sorts of background.

After formal education I got another sort of education in the work world which seemed rough at times, but I was protected from the worst obstacles that less fortunate people dealt with.  I married and had kids and that involved another sort of education.  

At one point I felt compelled to study my family tree and that of my wife.  On my side most of my ancestors were of British stock which enabled a relatively easy passage for the opportunities offered in North America.  I was surprised to learn that some were very religious.  Some were Pilgrims and others Puritans.  One even came over on Fortune, the boat after the Mayflower which appealed a little to my vanity until I read the elite had been chosen for the first voyage while the "riff raff" came over a year later.  Another group were in Massachusetts and had a religious dispute and left in the middle of the night to go through a forest to reach the Springfield area and set up their own church.  Some were involved in the American Revolution and a few left for British North America.  Still another branch were Mennonites that originally had fled Europe and later feared being forced into American militia and left for the Markham area of Ontario.  Still another branch had been among the Scots settled in Ireland to help control Catholic Irish.  Other branches came to North America relatively recent (within the last two centuries) and I was disconcerted to learn two branches contained members of the Orange Lodge.  Another ancestor was a Methodist circuit rider,  In short there was a lot of self righteous believers in my past.

On my wife's side her ancestors were Italian and Ukrainian making the transition to North America more difficult and found themselves trying to fit into an established English speaking culture.  They overcame all sorts of obstacles and achieved a variety of successes.  I came to appreciate there was more than my mostly British background and expanded my range of enjoyable activities. 

Going back further I am sure some of my ancestors assumed the world was flat and only concerned themselves with their immediate neighborhood.  As time went by they gradually became more sophisticated and eventually led to the world I live in.  

My father inherited a coal business from his father that became untenable, but provided a foundation.  His true love was driving and working from a delivery van for a drug store he progressed to a bus driver and eventually got his own trucking business.  I got used to him away from home on the road for 14 hour runs and resented him for occasionally forcing me on some of his trips (but absorbed some of the new adventures).  Now I look back and see an intelligent man, frustrated in many ways with his own insecurities but also one who with my mother tried to steer me in the right direction.  I remember him explaining that he was an agnostic, which meant that unlike atheists who felt they knew the truth he was open minded.  I adopted this posture.

Over the course of my life I had many interesting experiences, but recognize that I was very fortunate not only in having the opportunities (not all of which I recognized or took advantage of), but also had been encouraged to take advantage of many of them.  

Long before retirement I came to think of myself as enlightened.  If I wasn't as successful in the work world as some of my friends and relatives I could be smug in my open minded enlightenment.  Only I realized I wasn't as open minded or enlightened as I thought.  Some of the books I read, entertainment I enjoyed and people I talked to pointed out I really was ignorant and limited in my vision.  On such occasions I congratulated myself for learning something new and felt a little more enlightened.

A few links to illustrate some of my self righteous enlightenment:

    although I lived in a rural area for two of my adolescent years I didn't fully appreciate it;                http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2020/10/what-about-those-hicks.html

    I thought as an enlightened progressive I was above looking down on people.    http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2013/02/the-righteous-mind.html

     I seldom thought gay people were human, but check the 4th paragraph: http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2015/05/sex-in-classroom.html

    a book explains how even whites are hurt by racism in their desire to hurt:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2019/06/dying-of-whiteness.html

That is some of the baggage I bring to the state of the world.  Egerton Ryerson is not the first commended person to have an unsavory connections revealed.  In school I vaguely remembered hearing he was an early and successful advocate for education.  Before my time an institute was named after him and more recently upgraded to a university from which I met at least one graduate. One thing I learned in university was how prejudice started with basically the core being pride in your own group meaning other groups had to be inferior in some way.  As I perceive it now, Ryerson felt non believers would be better off if they assimilated to our (his) beliefs.  To some degree most of us are like that.  For instance if we have come to appreciate the nuances of golfing we feel others are missing something--if we understand progressive politics to be ideal we frown on those who are opposed.  A recognition that education is important is surely commendable while we can still deplore mindless assimilation that deprives humans of basic freedom.  

John A MacDonald helped found Canada and as a proud citizen I find it easy to admire his intelligence and persistence to make it happen.  That he drank too much might be understandable considering the frustrations he must have endured.  That he made some underhanded deals and discriminated against the Metis and others is not something we can be comfortable with.

A good example of someone who is admired, but had a deplorable side is Thomas Jefferson.  His words for the Declaration of Independence are beautiful and he did numerous good deeds.  We have always known he was a slave owner, if relatively enlightened.   We also know he fathered children with one of his slaves.  For more on this:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2017/06/thomas-jefferson-and-sally-hemings-make.html

A personal hero of mine has been Mohandas Gandhi who from an early age I thought as strong, intelligent, courageous, tolerant and incredibly disciplined.  I have since learned that he could be petty and abusive to his own family.  Still he did things that set new standards for humans.  He is still someone I admire, but realize he had his share of human frailties.  Illustrating how an odd personal coincidence at an impressionable age set up a lifelong attachment to a "saint" who really was a remarkable human with faults check out:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2012/08/gandhi-life-long-fascination.html

The point is not that we all have flaws, but that we are all products of our times.  It is very likely that our descendants and those that follow us (assuming we don't screw things up too much) will look upon us as unenlightened about the really important issues.  Some already feel meat eaters are hurting everyone.  I can deplore Egerton Ryerson, John A MacDonald and Thomas Jefferson for their flaws, but also recognize they rose above many others to accomplish positive achievements that we all benefit from.  Let them who are without sin throw the first stone.

The photo is of our two cats, Oscar and Izzy confronting my daughter's dog, Lexie.  They couldn't figure out what to make of the other.

The Heartbeat of Wounded Knee

 Not to be confused with "Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee" by Dee Brown. "The Heartbeat of Wounded Knee" actually covers indigenous history from well before Christopher Columbus  up to about 2018 although more focused since 1890.  Treur prefers to use the term "Indian" intsead of native, aboriginal or indigenous, but also frequently uses the specific tribal name, often in more than one form.

David Treuer, born on a Minnesota reservation went on to earn a PH.D. in anthropology and teach literature and creative writing he offers some perceptive insights.  Indians were not as backward or as noble as they have been depicted.  They were however beaten down.  David's father was Jewish and had survived the Holocaust.  His mother was Ojibwe, had trained as a nurse and became a lawyer.

Indians were in North America thousands of years before European discovery.  They were many tribes with many languages.  They fought among themselves and formed alliances.  They had in fact developed agriculture and we have adapted much of it such as corn, squash, etc.  After they caught on that there were different European "tribes" they were able to play one against the other, until the American Revolution.

A big game changer was the horse.   Introduced by the Spanish, the Indians stole horses and mastered riding.  This increased their mobility  (hunting, trading, etc.) and also their ability to resist the colonizers.   Read more:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2016/05/north-american-indians-domesticate-horse.html

The Louisiana Purchase in 1803 allowed Thomas Jefferson to shift Indians to the west.  Some, such as the Seminoles in Florida refused to go.

Treuer covering the Pacfic northwest as part of a survey of Indian tribes across the United States.  Reminded me of university project that I confess was confusing to me at the time.  I was to focus on potlatch used by several tribes in the area.  It seemed insane that various tribal leaders would compete by giving out more items than the others.  I now see that as similar to rich men today proving who is more important by how much they can spend.  The other part that confused me was that the government made potlatches illegal despite the Indians wanting to keep them.  Before and since then I had been interested in the Haida, particularly their art.  It was thrilling when the government decided to put some contemporary Haida art on our $20 bill.  Stephen  Harper in an effort to boost Canada's military image took off the Haida art from the $20 bill and replaced it with Royal Canadian Mounted Police.  The photo to the left is of the original Haida artifact constructed under Bill Reid that was used for the bill.  My wife and I like many others thought a great location (Vancouver Airport) for photos.

Indians were relocated for convenience of settlers, but in one instance the Osage tribe were clever enough to retain mineral rights and when oil was discovered in their section of Oklahoma they became the richest people per capita in America, but they were undermined.  Read more http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2018/01/killers-of-flower-moon-bit-of-history.html

Ely Parker, a Seneca Indian and educated as an engineer attempted to organize the Iroquois confederacy for the Union Side for the American Civil War, but was rejected as not being American.  Ulysses S Grant vouched for him.  Ironically Ely helped to draft the articles of surrender that ended the Civil War.  When Grant became president there were some friendlier political policies.

Part of the friendlier government was strategies to help assimilate Indians.  One of the outcomes was boarding schools where young children were separated from their parents and forced to speak English and learn history from the American perspective.  Similar strategies were enacted in Canada with similar sad results.  Eventually boarding schools were abolished on both sides of the border, but still the results linger.

A law was established that Indians could not be taxed on their reservations.  Seminoles in Florida were perhaps the first to test this in 1976 by selling cigarettes, but later moved into gambling, first with bingo and later with casinos.  Many tribes jumped on the bandwagon.  A perhaps unexpected offshoot of this was that many tribal leaders wanting to keep more the profits ruled that some people were not really Indians and were excluded.  The author points out that blood had been imposed against Indians when it suited the government.  The bottom line is that it is human nature to want to concentrate wealth in as few hands as possible.  The author discussed that it really is more than just blood that should define Indians and other factors include language and culture.

He covers the Standing Rock protests that ended in failure.  In the end it is an American problem that includes Indians.  Naomi Klein suggested that environmental groups should align themselves with indigenous groups that not only share common goals, but have different tools to enact change.

They survived by first resisting, but in the end settled in by fighting for the Americans in the many wars (including the American Revolution for some tribes).  AIM (American Indian Movement) looked at the Black Panthers as a model as they made things happen and opted for violence, but also boosted education.  There are now opportunities to learn tribal languages and Indian history.  Indians are adapting.

There are many events depicted and different perspectives including many from his own life.  I would like to close with a quote used by the author from John Adams in a letter to Thomas Jefferson in 1816; "Power always thinks it has great Soul and Vast Views beyond the Comprehension of the Weak."

The Death of Truth by Michiko Kakutani

Donald Trump has created an industry for writers and book sellers. To most people I respect it is a great mystery why so many people admire him.  Michiko Kakutani is another who offers some more thoughts on the subject.

Michiko alluded to "Identity" a book Francis Fukyama felt compelled to write after his-earlier book "The End of History" had to be updated as Trump had set back the progressive path that had been supposedly set in motion for civilization.
Some thoughts on Fukuyama's latest book (it is very good as well)  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2019/03/identity-new-force-in-modern-politics.html

The 2008 crash didn't hurt banks, but thousands lost jobs, while others suffered wage cuts and inequality increased.  The people's anger has been diverted with scapegoats such as Mexicans, Muslims, minorities socialistic thinking.  The role of de-regulations is ignored.  The coming issue of increasing automation and artificial intelligence is not brought up.  The 1% are steadily increasing their control while the masses are stirred up truly "fake news."

Gaining power has become ruthless with the first casualty, truth.   Lee Atwater, a Republican operative partially responsible for Ronald Reagan's success once said,  "perception is reality"   Among many other things Ronald Reagan deregulated media resulting in greater concentration of the message senders.  He also did away with service requirements and a fairness policy.  Broadcasters did what was intended, focusing on profits.  News became part of the entertainment package and changed to become part of the profit effort partly through sensationalism and partly through segmenting profitable niches.  Newt Gingrich quoted "As a political candidate I'll go with how people feel and I'll let you go with the theoretician."

Tom Nicholls:  If citizens do not bother to gain basic literacy in the issues that affect their lives they abdicate control over those issues whether they like it or not.  And when voters lose control over these important discussions they risk the hi-jacking of their democracy.

Michiko made some observations after reading "Amusing ourselves to death" by Neil Postman.  Postman discussed the approaches of George Orwell to Aldous Huxley with respect to the predicted future dystopia.  George Orwell visualized a tightening of information through censorship, but also blatant distortion of reality  and most of us cynical future observers have adopted this viewpoint.  Huxley on the other had visualized a drug infused atmosphere where the pursuit of pleasure obscured awareness of reality.  Postman favored this likelihood.  Both scenarios assume the power at the top was immune from the truth. Postman was writing about the insidious role of television, but his observations are even more relevant today.  Read my take on his book:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2018/05/amusing-ourselves-to-death.html

One of Trump's heroes, Vladimir Putin is a master of lying. or maybe it is just a manifestation  of power.  Putin lies, denies and then brags about it.  Ukraine was a good example of how a powerful man can lie  One of Trump's methods from Robert A Heinlein, "  You can sway a thousand men by appealing to their prejudices quicker than you can convince one man by logic."
 
One way to distort truth is the use of false equivalences.  If a fact points to a foul deed it is quickly pointed out that both sides are guilty so it is no big deal.  Science is belittled at every opportunity because all too often it suggests a change in policy is required.

Thomas Jefferson opined that men need to be governed by truth and reason.  A necessary requirement was a free press.  Tyrants seek to stifle a free press.

There are a few hopeful blimps the author notes.   The Parkland students  campaigning for greater gun control have forced a small retreat by established advocates for more gun freedoms.  They supposedly are too naive, but thank goodness they have persisted.

Last two sentences from the author:  "Without truth, democracy is hobbled.  The founders recognized this and those seeking democracy survival must recognize it to-day."

THE STATUE ISSUE

Donald Trump's motives may not be pure (they're not), but he raised an issue that makes me pause for a moment.  It is obvious that statues of Confederate warriors have raised emotions with terrible racial implications.  The removal of some of them has become a point of contention for white racist groups to rally against as a way of asserting their sick beliefs.  On the other hand there are others who think they should all be pulverized.

Perhaps some of us can reduce the issue to a personal level.  In my case I was dismayed to learn that some of my ancestors (on both my mother and father's side) were members of the Orange Lodge.  I imagine they did some good things, but what bothers me is that they were very anti-Catholic.  A few generations later I see Catholics as people first, some of whom are relatives and others are friends.  In Hamilton I am reminded of them almost every weekend when I walk by what used to be an Orange Lodge.  Ironically when their membership ran out of money a group of Catholic Portuguese  took over the building.  When I walk by I feel a small tinge of shame and recognize that hatred is potentially in all of us.

An historical benefactor of the city of Hamilton, Sir Allan McNab was a key person in putting down the Rebellion of 1837.  In theory I sided with the rebels who did in time force changes in the government, but it cannot be denied Sir Allan McNab accomplished a lot of good things.  If you are in the area have a look at Dundurn Castle (I drive by almost every day).

ISIS members demolished some ancient temples that had been standing for over 3,000 years. Westerners believe that proves how barbaric Islamic terrorists  (and by extension all Muslims) are. The radical Islamists felt they were blasphemous.  Many others thought they were beautiful and historical.

Trump suggested that after the Confederate general statues were dismantled that the public would then move on to George Washington and Thomas Jefferson who were both slave owners.  One key difference is that the Confederate generals killed to help break up the country while the founding fathers helped to establish the country.

Thomas Jefferson has been a key figure in two blogs that partially explain his situation.   Edward E Baptist relates just how critical slavery was to the United States and the role played by Thomas Jefferson amongst others; http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2016/12/the-half-has-never-been-told.html  In a fictional account, Stephen O'Connor speculates, using some historic evidence on Jefferson's relationship with a mulatto slave, Sally Hemmings:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2017/06/thomas-jefferson-and-sally-hemings-make.html

Robert E. Lee after surrendering for the Confederacy had been asked to endorse a statue of himself. He refused saying he felt it would retard the healing process the nation had to undergo.  Isn't that a concern?  Many of the statues were built in the twentieth century as blacks were asserting their rights more effectively and have become a slap to modern blacks.

Many otherwise good people have a blemish on their reputation.  Are we to judge them for their sins or look at the whole person and realize that we are all human and subject to a wide range of faults?

What to do?  History should not be ignored as that causes another set of problems.  But when an offensive statue is placed  in a prominent location those in charge have to decide how to go forth.  Do they want to be known for being offensive to local citizens and visitors?   In some cases a logical place might be a museum where we can be reminded of our past follies.  Racists may well focus on the symbolism of their distorted beliefs, but the rest of us can say that artifact is historical.  What about the empty space left behind?  Sometimes that says a lot, but sooner or later someone will be inspired for something else.

The photo is of the building that used to belong to the Orange Lodge, but now belongs to the Vasco Da Gama football club.  I believe that is King William on his horse fighting the Irish Catholics.

THOMAS JEFFERSON AND SALLY HEMINGS MAKE FOR AN INTERESTING TOPIC

Thomas Jefferson is revered for many things--the writer of the Declaration of Independence, the third president, accepted the Louisiana Purchase. and above all was thought to be a great liberal thinker.  There is one blemish on his record that now is hard to deny.  He likely had a sexual relationship with Sally Hemings, a mulatto slave and fathered some children by her.  Almost over-whelming circumstantial facts plus some DNA evidence point to the likelihood of the relationship.  For many this is proof of hypocrisy.

Historical fiction has a dilemma.  Some things are known and cannot be ignored, but lots of things are not known that would help us to understand better.  There is virtually no records of their actual relationship nor even what Sally looked like so really everything is speculation.  A Picasso quote exemplifies the role of fiction, "Art is the lie that shows us the truth."

Stephen O'Connor couldn't resist and wrote "Thomas Jefferson Dreams of Sally Hemings," a fanciful speculation.  Was Jefferson a hypocrite?  History records much that demonstrates Jefferson was enlightened and sympathetic to blacks, but was very much constrained by the culture of the times.  When Jefferson was ambassador to France he took over or had sent some of his slaves and he paid them as they were technically free as France did not allow slavery.  When it came time to return they had the option to stay.  Supposedly Sally bargained for her unborn child to be free when turned 21.  Of course they all had family and friends back in Virginia and in reality were treated relatively well.

With over 600 pages it is intimidating to many of us, but it is easy to read as it is broken down in small segments.  It zips back and forth in time and gives a perspective from different angles.  How did the relationship get started?  what effect did it have?  how does Jefferson's personality align with cultural reality?  A curious world is anxious to fill in the many gaps

The author uses different tools including actual letters and records.  Over a range of chapters O'Connor has Jefferson watching a movie sometimes in the company of James Madison and his wife.  Long dead people express their feelings.  In reality we never can know the internal thinking process of actual historical people.  The reader is free to doubt the motivations, but they are interesting.

From my reading Jefferson is a very conflicted man, but also practical.  Not without stereotypical beliefs he advocated equality and took steps to reduce slavery.  His slaves were well treated by standards of the day even getting some trained in trade skills.  He seemed to be concerned what females wanted.  Above all he really was a Renaissance man who enjoyed philosophical discussions and took an interest in a wide variety of activities.  He also enjoyed inventing things, one of which is surprisingly a swivel chair.

He felt that for democracy to survive it required public education and freedom of the press.  He founded the University of Virginia doing the initial architecture and unlike most other universities it was centered on the library rather than a church.

Sex is obviously a driver for the reader.  The author stretches it out.  Thomas Jefferson had never had sex with a virgin  (his wife was a widow and he is said to have visited prostitutes) and Sally is portrayed as a naive 16 year old, thirty years his junior.  The author originally supposed the first sexual encounter was rape, but his research hinted that it might not have been.  In O'Connor's telling, their relationship develops as he tries to teach her to read and have philosophical discussions.  His first attempts result in rejection and fear and his supposed sense of decency creates a wrestling match inside his head.  Eventually they are regular sex partners and she gets pregnant while in France.

Sally is often portrayed as a loving partner, but also one who resented the inequality.  Although given a lot of "freedom", she was not really free.  In reality she probably could pass as a white, in fact her children did.  She realized she was a half sister to Thomas Jefferson's children by his wife and was related to other whites through her mother. but was not given their range of choices

Most of the writing is concerned with the time before Jefferson became president with emphasis on France and Monticello.  In Paris he was very close to Lafayette.  He distrusted both John Adams and Alexander Hamilton and liked James Madison, but the reader is not offered too many political insights.

The book itself is not proof that an intimate relationship existed between the two.  The author accepts that such a relationship was very likely and fills in some of the gaps.  One would like to think their relationship was more than sexual, but there is very little concrete evidence.

For an idea of role of black slaves in the American economy and culture plus two interesting references to Thomas Jefferson:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2016/12/the-half-has-never-been-told.html

WHITE TRASH

America likes to promote itself as a classless society but with upward mobility.  Nancy Isenberg paints a different picture. Her premise is that from the beginning Americans have had a class system and uses "white trash" to illustrate.

The English were pleased to have a place to send vagrants and others.  The poor were seen as lazy.  North America was conceived as a vast vacant land, overlooking the fact that there was a large indigenous population.  Pocohontas, by marrying an English noble was seen by many as granting land to Europeans.  Many of them were purged by unintentional diseases, but as time went on by violence.

Tobacco was a product that required a lot of labour and after trying to work with natives, the European investors felt that black slaves would be more profitable.  Benjamin Franklin felt that black slaves made the English more idle and impotent.  William Byrd by 1726 declared that the poor whites in the south despised labour.

Voting in the early days was restricted to property owners.  Many of the poor white might have been called squatters and of course were not qualified to vote, but perhaps more importantly were seen as lower class.

Jefferson, a slave holder was a key person in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.  It seems likely that he fathered some children with a mulato servant, although it is conceded it might have been one of his male siblings.

Andrew Jackson, war hero, Indian fighter, slave holder was considered by many to be of a lower class because of his temper and habits.  As President he ignored the Supreme Court and pushed for a removal of Cherokees.

The Civil War had consequences for social classes.  Large slaveholders naturally looked down upon non slave holders, but needed to convince the poor to help fight their cause.  They lied about northern wages, suggested the way to move up in class was to save and buy a slave.  As long as the blacks were beneath them, the poor were not at the bottom.  Many poor non slave holders felt they were being asked to fight a rich man's war.  A slaveholder with 20 or more slaves could be draft exempt while wealthier officers were able to get furlongs more easily.  By 1864 the south faced a manpower shortage and some advocated putting slaves into uniform to fight, but others felt that would elevate blacks and would cause another set of problems.

After the Civil War, freed blacks were in an economic dilemma and many ended up working for their old masters.  Chain gangs were hired to do much work and blacks were easily imprisoned for this purpose.  Poor whites were able to feel superior (but also a bit threatened).

When integration started in earnest, it was the poor whites who resisted the most.  The author provides an example from Little Rock of a particular white woman who verbally lashed out at young black students entering a formerly all white school.

Hillbilly, redneck and cracker are terms used to insult people.  The movie "Deliverance" (which I remember as a very scary movie) depicted lower class whites that were physically repulsive and violent.

On the other hand Elvis Presley helped launch a cultural revolution.  He  came from a very poor Mississippi family.  He took a lot of black music and brought it to the white world where especially teens were very excited while their elders were bewildered.  One of the things Elvis did for his mother was to buy her a chicken coop at Graceland.  Obviously broke down barriers, but still many people looked down on him and where he came from.

Lyndon Johnson was the son of a sharecropper and became a teacher.  As President probably more responsible than any other politician for the legal advancement of civil rights since the Civil War.  "If you can convince the lowest of white men he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket."  He advocated for better education in the Appalachia region.  A smart man he used his background to gain votes and to understand the lower classes of the south.  Still many thought of him as crude.

Bill Clinton was yet another President from a poor southern background.  Raised by a single mother he overcame lots of obstacles to get an Oxford and Yale education that helped him to gain a political career.  He described himself as a Bubba, another derogatory southern term, but appealing to much of his audience.  He encountered lots of vile opposition often aimed at his mother who had several marriages and suffered addiction problems.

The author contends that politicians are able to convince large numbers of people to vote against their self interest by using class strategies.  Both parties carve the population into a wide range of classes and try to determine how best to build coalitions that will help them win an election.  The electoral college was designed to get acceptance of the smaller states.

The author points out that social mobility is greased by connections and class based knowledge.  The children of celebrities get a head start.  Another interesting observation is that dating services are designed to match compatible people which means to the author, class comfort.  Another ironic observation is that Europeans have more social mobility than Americans.  An eye-opening good read.