James, better known as Jim

I had read "Huckleberry Finn" a few times, first as an adventure story, but later came to appreciate it as a master satire.  

For a few chapters "James" seems to parallel "Huckleberry Finn", but from the perspective of Jim.   Then there is a TWIST,  an intriguing "What if" tangent but I do not want to give any hints.  Percival has changed the timing of the story closer to the Civil War.

Twain had picked up both black and southerner dialects --"n****r" in the the original and in the spinoff Everett was even more vernacular such as "bullshit".  Jim speaks an educated form of English, but only to a few select slaves.  He is very careful not to speak that way in front of any whites.  We don't know how, but he also can write.  Whites are afraid of educated slaves.  The possession of a pencil can be life threatening.

There is a lot of religious skepticism.  Jim has little  faith in religion expressing that it seems to be a tool of the white slavers.  Two con men (also included in the Twain version) use religion as a tool to squeeze money out of gullible white people.

Percival Everett lays quite a lot on the minstrel movement including incorporating the real Daniel Decatur Emmett (who wrote the Dixie song) and his Virginia Minstrels as major characters.  Jim has a beautiful tenor voice just when Emmett's tenor has disappeared.  Here Jim can pretend to be a white putting on black face to entertain whites.  Jim is surprised to learn the minstrel movement is the white's way of mocking their slaves.  While with the minstrels Jim encounters another runaway slave who passes as a white.  Slaves developed a cakewalk to mock whites, but the minstrels misinterpreted and used it in their mockery routine.  

Stephen Foster was another song writer who developed a reputation using the black slave music style, but some claimed he went on to trying to humanize blacks by changing his lyrics over time.  Today we recognize the black influence on music.  Elvis Presley was fairly open about borrowing songs from blacks.  While attending the University of  Guelph I went to a coffee house that had the original singer, Big Mama Thornton for "You Ain't Nothing But a Hound Dog".

There is more violence revealed from the slave perspective including beatings, lashings, deaths, rapes and murders.  The reality contained more violence than Twain wanted to portray.

The last sentence of the book; "Just James"  reminds us this has been a black slave runaway perspective.  Hit me like 'Bond, James Bond".

As a student, Percival Everett played jazz and wrote term papers for other students to help pay his way.  Percival is an English professor at the University of Southern California.  His book, "Erasure"(2001) was adapted to the movie "American Fiction" (2023).

If you enjoy political and racial satire, you will love this book. 

We Were Eight Years in Power

Donald Trump is adamant--the Obama years were a "disaster."  Objectively that seems ridiculous, but for some people it masks a streak of racism in America.

Ta-Nehisi Coates articulates that racism is firmly established in America.  His title actually comes from an earlier time after the Civil War at the time of Reconstruction when in South Carolina, blacks for an 8 year term had real power and were able to accomplish some constructive things.  Their feats were dismissed, twisted and mocked.  Despite a lot of problems and maybe some justified criticisms Obama also accomplished a number of things in his eight years that made Americans better off, but the legacy is being deliberately destroyed.

The book contains essays that were first published in The Atlantic over an eight year period, but each is preceded by some more up to date personal context.  Coates is very introspective continuously trying to determine his own motives.  As with most of us his thought evolves.  The articles by themselves advance his thesis.

To those who believe the evils of slavery are history with no consequences you should read an earlier post on "The Half Has Never Been Told.  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2016/12/the-half-has-never-been-told.html  Coates brings up a wide range of statistics that prove his point, but he makes an honest effort to be balanced.

Coates points out that Americans love to tell the world about how important freedom is and how they are so great because of democracy, but in fact their freedom and economic growth was largely based on land stolen from natives and slave labour.  The Greeks also owed part of their democracy to slavery that allowed the elite to ponder the decisions of the day.  While Coates and other blacks contend the bigger problem is racism they have to contend with the notion that class might be a more critical problem.

Reparations are discussed, even trying to figure out an amount, but concedes nearly impossible to impose.  The established whites overlook how they accumulated their power.  Income is important, but accumulating wealth gives more choices.  One way of accumulating wealth has been through housing.  Blacks were deliberately obstructed in trying to build wealth in this manner.  Today affirmative action is attacked as if everyone really has the same opportunity.

Another way to advance oneself is through families.  The slaveholder mentality carried on even after the Civil War when whites found excuses to incarcerate blacks and turn them into cheap labour.  In more modern times blacks still easily run afoul of the law and are disproportionately incarcerated. This continues to force families to survive often with the breadwinner in jail or unable to get a viable job after release.  Coates points out how this aggravates an already difficult situation.

He feels Obama was in a very unique position to be the first black president.  He lived a life with loving white grandparents and was given opportunities to advance his education.  Obama felt it was not politic to criticize whites for past injustices, but to appeal to their better nature.  Do not be a threat.  Earlier in the book Coates talked about Bill Cosby who became a very popular tv star and perhaps encouraged more whites to accept blacks.  Of course Cosby's name is derided now, but by not being threatening he became very successful.  Later he became very critical of fellow blacks who he felt were not doing the right things.

Obama and Seth Myers joked at the expense of Donald Trump at the 2011 White House Correspondents dinner.   Some observers felt the humiliation is what motivated Trump to run for president and not merely replace Obama, but to destroy his legacy.  Too many whites found it difficult to accept that a black man could make a significant contribution to America.  Now the whole world suffers.

Coates ends his book with:  "I see the fight against sexism, racism, poverty and even war finding their union not in synomity, but in their ultimate goal--a world more humane."

To learn more about the author, Ta-Nihisi Coates check his website http://ta-nehisicoates.com

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

The Underground Railroad

We have all heard of the underground railroad, but weren't too sure what it really was.  My understanding is that it was really a network of volunteers guiding escaped slaves up north to freedom.  I once visited a black museum in Amherstburg, Ontario where they commemorated escaping over the river that separated Canada from The United States.

The book, which won a 2017 Pulitzer prize really uses the concept of an actual underground railroad as a vehicle to tell a story and make some points.  The railroad is dug out where whites cannot see and uses conductors.  This allows a series of stops and side stories.  Whites are aware of the underground railroad, but for some it is just a figure of speech.

One point in a short side story was about body snatchers in Boston.  Medical students are required to disect dead bodies which were in short supply.  One depicted body snatcher discovered that if he grabbed dead negro bodies there would be no fuss, unlike with some white bodies with loud self-righteous relatives.  A more relevant point was that the students realized that black bodies were the same as white bodies, thus attaining a sort of equality.  Some Africans were conscious that the whites had stolen land from the native Indians, but in this book at least there was almost no interaction.

At the African beginning and also during American transfer of slaves was that slavers were careful not to spread language facility by mixing different language speakers.  Slaves were not to be taught reading.

Whites range from cold hearted cruel owners detached from the reality of what they are doing to the guilt ridden to do-gooders to the fearful.  Slave catchers are a big part of the story as they get paid to retrieve escaped slaves.  For many it is just a job.

Many of the slaves are accepting of their fate and fearful of change.  One young black boy orphaned and fearful becomes a helper to a slave catcher.  Mulattoes also appeared in the story and although they were usually treated like slaves, they did enjoy some privileges that resulted in ambiguous relationships with other slaves.

There was real fear concerning what the slaves could do if they got free.  In fact education was a concern as a weapon against whites.  Abolitionists could be punished if circumstances allowed as they could precipitate a rebellion.

To many white Americans this is all history and they do not think of it much and certainly don't feel it is much of an excuse for poor behaviour today.   The Holocaust also fades in memory and we also need to remind ourselves the effects do indeed carry on, despite our loss of consciousness.

Earlier read "Underground Airlines" by Ben H. Winters  which was really an extension of earlier conditions with the adjustment that the Civil War never happened.  America evolved without the violent disruption.  The author was really suggesting that slavery could have survived if Lincoln failed to make it to the White House after his election.  Read more: http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2017/02/underground-airlines.html

The key link in both books was that de-humanizing of people was an outcome of ignorance and greed.  Once de-humanizing had progressed enough, cruelty was a tool to benefit other humans (investors).  As both books make plain as someone once said, for evil to prevail it only required many to stand by and watch.

"Underground Airlines"

This is a work with "alternative facts," but that it is why "Underground Airlines" is a work of fiction.  But more like Picasso's  "Art is the lie that tells the truth."  There are a lot of truths to be found in this narration with bits that illustrate current conditions.  As with time travel when one event is changed all the subsequent events are effected, but author Ben H. Winters likes to include familiar names to the changed circumstances.  Also it is a compelling mystery.

The Civil War never happened as Abe Lincoln was assassinated in Indianapolis on his way to his inauguration.  As a compromise back in 1861 the United States legalized slavery and required those not practicing slavery to respect it.  Four hard States (Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Carolina) actively used slavery to current times, but much of law enforcement, both white and black sympathized with abolition so the slavers hired people like the protagonist.  Victor, is actually partly black, but somehow got trapped in a job he despises, hunting down and returning runaways.

Canada is referred to as a safe haven, several times.  A place where the slave hunters did not have to be respected.  We Canadians can be a bit self-righteous, but underneath we have our prejudices, but are superficially relatively polite.

A football reference seemed to imply that black football players could be rented out.  James Brown was brought to the north as a slave band, but escaped to Canada.  Ironically sports and music were two of the first breakthroughs for blacks as whites slowly came to enjoy at least some talents of African Americans.  Yet we have generally used this appreciation as a stereotype that limited our ability to appreciate them as equal humans.

Racism is still strong in the north.  Flags with "1819" on them are explained as representing the year before 1820 when slavery was abolished in Indiana.  Similar to the Confederate flag that symbolizes the "good ole days."  The word "boy" is used as a slur.

Little bits of revised history are brought in spaced throughout the story.  Martin Luther King Jr. played a key role in abolition in Texas and then was killed.  Other protests occurred in Selma, Alabama.  The United States withdrew from the United Nations in 1973.

In 1927 a Clean Hands Act was passed in Massachusetts to make it illegal to possess, sell or consume any slave made products.  After a Supreme Court decision other states adopted their own version of the act.  But the slave manufacturers found a way to re label their products in another country and sell them back into the states as they were that much cheaper.

Recently read, "The Half Has Never Been Told" about the critical contribution of slavery to American capitalism.  I was surprised to learn that brutality, carefully calculated could dramatically boost the efficiency of slaves.  "Underground Airlines" suggests that science and technology would be used to improve the profitability of slave labour.  Check out:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2016/12/the-half-has-never-been-told.html

What makes mysteries so compelling is missing information or misinformation.  You never know the full story, until the end, if ever.  You are being teased and you can't help wanting to move forward, at least with a well written mystery.  Nobody, including the protagonist is quite what they appear to be and you are never sure what their motivations are.

The author Ben Winters has written 7 previous novels and has won awards for both mystery and science fiction.

I have since read the Pulitzer prize winner "The Underground Railroad" that confused me with a similar title.  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2017/05/the-underground-railroad.html

Homegoing

Yaa Gyasi has written a book partly based on her own background as an immigrant from Ghana.  She must have speculated at the different ways Africans arrived in America and opted to show two parallel lines that reflected different aspects of both living a colonial existence and a slave experience.

One of the characters, a teacher in the Gold Coast in an elaborate anecdote expresses a perspective of history, I suspect shared by the author.  History is stories told by the powerful.  We, the listeners should wonder and investigate about the missing stories.

Naively taking history as a young boy and watching the odd movie one got the idea that slaves were pulled at random from their natural habitat and shipped to America, a trip many did not survive.  Yaa demonstrates that the British, Dutch and other Europeans had many local accomplices.  One line picks up from local accomplices which required capturing other tribes further from the coast, often losers in tribal fights.  One British officer marries a local woman through her parents.  For him it is a second marriage while away from his native England.   A mulatto son is sent to England and after coming back helps the slavery business.  The author carries on with a series of vignettes illustrating different aspects of the evolving history illustrating to me how precarious any ancestral line really is.

"The Book of Negroes" by Lawrence Hill has a chapter devoted to natives being captured inland and walked several days to the coast.  I can imagine that it made more sense to have a business relationship with coastal tribes.  Hill carries on with a story of one individual who endures history through to the American Revolution and the emigration of British Empire Loyalists to Nova Scotia.

The other line starts out from the same location and involves a captured women who ends up in America.  The generations progress through history from pre Civil War until contemporary times.  One part that struck me was where southerners had forced a law by 1850 that required northerners to return runaway slaves.  Freed Africans (many really escapees) felt some tension after assuming they were safe.  Future generations were depicted under Jim Crow, moving north encountering racial discrimination.

Known as Gold Coast by British colonizers we become aware of different tribes, Fante, Assante, Twi, etc.  Eventually it become  independent as Ghana  As students in a European system (mine happened to be in Canada, but with only minor differences in other European tradition countries) we see a map of Africa with over 50 countries and assume they are homogenous entities.  Our own tribal backgrounds have amalgamated and we forget the literally thousands of years of shaping what we have become.  As the world becomes more globalized, tribalizing ebbs and flows and the shaping continues.

Shades of color is a role in both parallel stories.  The British officer with his 2nd wife eventually is able to use his mulatto son in the slave trade.  Others are not so fortunate.  When we get to America it turns out mulatto slaves are slightly more privileged and as we move beyond the Civil War we learn some are white enough to try to pass.  One character does succeed, but when whites see him in contact with darker people, turn against him.  There is a fear of getting caught.  Another character wants to be a singer, but is told she is too dark to be accepted in a particular Harlem club, implying that lighter skinned entertainment is accepted.  I once read a science fiction book by Robert J. Sawyer, "Hominids"  where apparently the Neanderthals have integrated to be be one universal color, but find themselves amongst modern humans with distinct races.

George Will, a noted conservative commentator is noted for saying any group that doesn't take responsibility for births shouldn't expect to succeed in life.  Yaa doesn't shy away from this and has one of her characters participate, generating 3 children with different mothers.  Immaturity and racial prejudice play a role.  She points out drugs are part of the culture and can become a vicious circle with blacks being jailed disproportionately.

"Half the Story Has Never been Told" by Edward E Baptist gives some much needed scholarly account of the role of slavery and the rise of American capitalism.  Read more:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2016/12/the-half-has-never-been-told.html

Nearing the end of the book a couple from Ghana with a young daughter emigrate to Hunstville, Alabama as the author's family did .  Fictional characters can be manipulated to cross paths for dramatic effect and the author carries forth this tradition which helps to close the circle.  Symbols from both sides, fire and water with deep meaning are confronted at the end.  In my sixty odd years I have been struck how we are all inter-related without being conscious of it.  I like poetic endings and hope the readers aren't put off with coincidences that are really part of life.  This is an enjoyable read, making one aware of how different aspects of our current world fell into place.

Color shades still play a role in society.  My interest in Bollywood led me to realize that attitudes towards skin colour are still ingrained.  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2013/08/bollywood-and-skin-colour.html

RATIONALIZING TRUMP'S VICTORY

Using words of Mr Trump himself, his election  to me is a "disaster" and "a catastrophe," but there is not much short of an armed rebellion that can be done.  A few days ago on Facebook I read a post that defended the electoral college that allowed Trump to win the election, even though Hilary Clinton actually won the popular vote by a number approaching one million and expected to go higher.

Every voting system helps determine a political strategy.  Here in Canada we are wrestling with a new system that could be either ranked or proportional.  Both are superior to the electoral college.

Some of the arguments made on the electoral system had some sense, but the more I think on it there are serious problems with the electoral college.  Whenever the number of voters is barely over 50% the election itself lacks credibility and it would be unfair to say anyone has a mandate.  The reasons people chose not to vote are many:  suppression, inconvenience, apathy, poor choices, distrust and I would add the feeling that your vote doesn't make any difference.

A voice on the radio pointed out that the electoral college can negate two million votes.  That means a lot of upset people who made the effort to vote.  The politicians knew the rules and one of them played them better, but the losers were the voters.  The way the electoral college works many votes are wasted meaning they have no impact on the final results.  If your party gets 0.5% less than the winner, by definition in most states your vote doesn't count and the other party gets all the electoral votes.  For many that would be a reason where the odds are further apart to not bother.

One of the arguments was that politicians would ignore the small population centres and to some extent that is true, but right now they ignore the states that have a tradition of voting one party consistently.  But if each vote is equal politicians will go anywhere where they feel they can make a difference.

Another argument was that the founders, those who negotiated the original Constitution did not favor a pure majority.  That is true.  What I understand is that at the time many of the politicians were slave holders and were very concerned that they could be out voted by the industrial north.  Many of the early presidents were slave holders including George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.  Also bear in mind that only propertied males of a certain age were eligible to vote.  There are people who think that was a better arrangement, but most of us would disagree and have been successful in expanding the number of voters.

It is true that rural residents do have a different set of priorities that should be respected.  I have lived in a rural area at a young age, but have spent most of my life in urban centres and each has influenced my thinking.  The rural voice is much needed and it doesn't mean much if they don't have some power, but neither should they dominate the majority of the population.  An earlier blog on this issue:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2014/10/the-rural-urban-divide.html

Since the twentieth century only two elections have been decided by the electoral college when the popularity vote was different.  In both cases the Democrats lost.  I think most Americans would agree that George Bush was not a successful president and I would venture that most Americans (and most of the rest of the world) do not feel good about the Trump presidency.

There have been Supreme Court judges who felt that their job is to determine the original founder's intention before they rule on new laws.  It appears that more judges who think that way are apt to be appointed.

Any Constitution is prone to flaws because they are made by humans with vested interests.  One flaw that draws attention is the practice of gerrymandering.  In Canada the task of deciding voting district boundaries is formally non partisan.  In America that task is given to partisans.

In elections since 2010 with one exception the Republicans have been able to win more House of Representatives seats with fewer votes than have the Democrats   Since 2012 they have been able to obstruct which is ironic.  Many of the things they obstructed are what voters complained that the Democrats didn't do.  Ironically (or perhaps not) the Republicans did win the majority of House votes and retained the majority of seats in 2016.

Voting systems can be very complicated, but I believe an important question is why didn't more people vote.  A winning politician has more credibility when they can claim they represent all the people.  A country benefits when every voter feels their vote counted.

GLOBALIZATION SCARES MANY PEOPLE

This post is inspired by the Brexit vote, but the concerns are truly global and have been accelerating over several centuries. Hard to say exactly when globalization started, but really once humans overcame their distrust enough to trade goods with strangers there developed a rise in our standard of living.  Long distance trading was significant well before the time of Christ

Trade brought more choice in food, clothing, utensils.  Most people did not directly take part in this and were mostly marginally benefited  As trade stepped up more people benefited.  Marco Polo was an interesting example.  He, his father and uncle risked their lives and fortune traveling to China.  Trade had been going on over the centuries within and between Asia, Europe and Africa, but for most people we saw only the products brought back.  Ideas were also traveling, but the average person was unaware.

People were moving as well.  Slavery was often the result of wars with many unwilling people forced to travel to strange places to labor for others.  Much of America's early wealth was the result of slave labor forcibly shipped from Africa and dehumanized.  Traders sometimes found themselves living far from their homes and some adapted quite well.  Other ordinary citizens moved for safety or financial reasons, but often bringing new skills and ideas to safe havens.

The United Kingdom is a blend of Scandinavians, Germans and French among others.  Other races left tiny footprints in the British Isles.  People went where they could get a job and other countries often reached out for skilled workers and mercenaries.  The British Empire, desiring tea grew opium to trade with China who didn"t want any British goods, resulting in Opium Wars.

North and South America were devoid of any humans until people crossed at Alaska--others speculate that Polynesians crossed the Pacific.  Eventually Europeans landed in America and started to exploit its resources..

We in the west overlook that Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey have taken several million refugees and have suffered much more than ourselves.

Admittedly immigrants do put downward pressure on wages.  It seems some downtrodden people are willing to work as hard for a bicycle as we would work for a car.  It is not their fault, but as time goes by future generations adopt native attitudes.  Inequality is even more extreme taken on a global scale.

Communications have been increasingly global from pigeons to cables under the oceans and now increasingly wireless.  Language is less of a barrier.  We certainly have better opportunities to learn about people on the other side of the world, and so do they.  Eventually knowledge will prevail, but many barriers have to be overcome.

Free trade rules are set up by those in power for their benefit.  They want new markets, cheap parts and labor.  They don't want any regulations restricting their business practices.  As a small investor there are funds set up in all sorts of foreign countries.  I have invested a small amount in an India fund that I feel confident their hard work and ingenuity will make me seem smarter than I really am.

Multi national companies are reaching out to markets in other countries, setting up manufacturing and even management  Corporations are for profit, meaning reducing costs and increasing revenues.  That means whenever possible they will have labor done in the cheapest areas with the least restrictions on processes.  Taxation often dictates where they operate.

Globalization is viewed by many as manipulation from elite people for selfish ends.  Those who make the rules almost always take their own interests to account.  The best hope is they take a long range view.  Balance is in everyone best interest.

Causes of immigration are always the same:  fear and greed.  We overlook our involvement--we in the West drive climate change, we voted for leaders that saw violence and deception as the way to solve problems.

Does the average person get any benefit?  Well in some cases people who did not have work now do, but unfortunately others lose their jobs or take a hit in wages and job security.  In a cultural sense most people would admit they enjoy many things that come from other cultures, although many might not be aware--pizza, tacos and increasingly sushi are eaten everywhere.  Movies and music and books are enjoyed across borders.  Overall poverty and hunger are being reduced.

All of humanity share future concerns.  Inequality, climate change/pollution, automation, (nuclear) war are all to be feared.  But there are opportunities.  Automation can free up humans from boring, demanding manual labor.  The air, water and soils can boost our health instead of degrading it.  Climate change is a tough one demanding international co-operation if it is be controlled.  Inequality makes it difficult for greater understanding and co-operation for all humans.

Any change to the plans of the elites will be resisted and they are skilled and powerful at manipulation

Some people think the biggest hope is the inter-net.  The elites are still trying to control it, but for the most part more people communicate across borders every day.  Information is power.  Education is also power and there are efforts to control it.

While capital is truly globalized, labor is not.  In many countries unions have declined under political pressure.  The working class in many cases were complicit in this.  For instance in the United States the pro business party has attracted many votes for single issue social concerns such as abortion, gay rights, gun rights but are really more interested in benefiting the elites.  Voter education is key, but very difficult.

Germany is an example of a country that works with unions and it is part of their success.  Employees are stake holders in a company and often have a longer relationship than investors.

Climate change in many ways  has already impacted us, but not to average consciousness.  A big part  of that, drought created pressures in the Mid-East that have fueled conflict.  This can increase stresses elsewhere--forest fires, floods.  Israel right now is making it difficult for Palestinians to get water.

International trade agreements will not win the support of the working class if they do not participate.  This is true of any strategic plan  At a minimum I would like to see a credible representative of environmental concerns and of labor have veto power.

When we work together we are all stronger.  Freedom is not given so much as it is taken.

"This Changes Everything "deserves major attention

Naomi Klein has earned a reputation for tilting her lance at the establishment.  She attracts a lot of sympathy for her stands, although other people think she is naive.  Mostly the average person is unconcerned about her issues.  Bad mistake as she in my opinion is pretty good at pinpointing problems we all need to be concerned about.  Inequality, climate change, pollution, too much corporate power.

In "This Changes Everything" she sees climate change as an opportunity to change the establishment as well as a serious crisis demanding a global co-operative effort.  She discovers that some conservatives are more concerned about the threat to their idea of a free market.  They want no regulations or be forced to share their profits.  Some also feel insulated from the bad effects of climate change and others feel they can adjust.

They are right to fear that forces that want to protect the environment are dangerous to the status quo.  Naomi sees that wealth (and power) will have to be redistributed to solve the problems that affect all humanity.  One concern she has is to somehow deal with campaign finance laws that allow the wealthy to promote their interests at the expense of everyone else.

The need to harmonize with natural forces is given credence with a wide variety of examples of how vested interests have abused their power to maximize their wealth.  Technology in extracting energy and other natural resources may seem innovative, but to Naomi they seem like desperation from fossil fuel addicts.

Trade agreements work against local buying which is one strategy to reduce environmental stress. They represent the needs and wants or corporate interests at the expense of ordinary citizens.  Infinite growth is seen as the core of the free market.   Trade agreements often restrict renewable energy efforts in various ways

The Green movement has been infiltrated by fossil fuel interests.   She gives examples of Richard Branson, Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, and T Boone Pickens who have all used environmental rhetoric, but have according to Naomi perverted the claims.  They are interested in looking for replacements, but not in root causes.

Geo engineering is favored by many who do not want to change their life style.  Some have used volcanic activity as proof how we can cool down the earth, however Naomi points out they overlook the bad effects of the same volcanic activity.  Other schemes share a great risk of the unknown repercussions.

Time is changing.  Many of the older generation feel buying green and changing a few habits are all they can do.  Young people are more activist and do not rely on buying eco friendly products or donating to green causes as they get right out and protest specific projects.  They are being joined by others who are finding that as extraction and transportation projects spread they impinge on their life style and more importantly their health.

Indigenous groups, most of whom are a lot more attuned to nature have had their legal rights recognized.  White middle class environmentalists are realizing that combating entrenched corporations requires not just money, but legalities.  Aboriginal people are often trapped in their poverty and feel inadequate to use their full legal rights to protect their land.  Alliances are developing, but there are counter pressures.

"The Shock Doctrine" an earlier book which I bought tells how political ideologues impose their ideas on the masses when a catastrophe occurs.  Naomi is suggesting these opportunities can also allow changes from the grass roots up instead of the top down.   Social movements have been more successful in human rights than addressing economic issues, but there is hope (in need of organizing).  Slavery was abolished in Britain, but one of the prices was reparations to the slave owners.

During the writing of this book Naomi made a concentrated effort to become pregnant and finally succeeded to her goal of motherhood.  Along the way her awareness sharpened with regard to fertility.  Species do not necessarily become extinct because of killing, but often because of issues of fertility.  Researching the Gulf Oil Spill she realized the greatest damage was not to mature animals, but those at the embryonic stage.  Her research uncovered many connections between chemical pollution and infertility, birth defects and miscarriages.

The problem will not be solved by those at the top who have vested interests in the status quo, but can only be the result of resistance from the bottom.  Those whose wealth depends upon not finding a solution will have to be dealt with and they will not co-operate unless under great pressure.  A lot of angles are covered in "This Changes Everything" and it also attempts to explain the counter arguments which in all fairness are losing their credibility.  This book sums up the most serious concerns of our time very well--everyone should read it.

CAPITAL IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY: EXPLAINS INEQUALITY

"Capital in the Twenty-first Century" by Thomas Piketty was in the news enough to get my attention.  It is not the sort of a book to read when you are tired or sipping wine.  It requires alertness to fully appreciate its value.  I was not able to devote my best attention to it, but feel it is truly monumental.  There has been some criticism, but most of it seemed very self serving by those who thought the status quo was very comfortable for them.  As I finished this book I watched "Inequality for All" that had a brief reference to Thomas Piketty and reinforced the material.

One of this book's advantages over other economic classics is that Piketty had access to much more information.  His focus was on inequality.  Piketty was able to detect patterns and of course exceptions that actually illustrate economic forces.  He believes before statistics were kept that capital income (such as land rents and investments) almost always grew faster than national economic growth.  The only exceptions occurred because of major events such as wars, revolutions and Depressions.  At some point inequality will incite rebellion.  Attitudes change, but history is too often forgotten.

He uses many equations that help you understand his argument.  One key one that any reader should understand simply means the rate of return on capital is greater than the rate of national growth.  Very seldom has that rule not been true and by itself helps explain how the rich constantly get richer. at the expense of common workers.

Slavery (i.e. treating some humans as capital) contributed a great deal of wealth to southern plantation owners.  The fact that it was dehumanizing was consciously overlooked.  The role of labour is too often diminished.

Europe before 1914 was more unequal than the United States, but they both reduced inequality as a result of the shocks between 1914-1945 and progressive taxation.  After the World War II equality actually increased, but by 1980 (when Reagan was elected) started to change to a more normal status.

Inheritance is a key factor in concentrating wealth.  Many start as entrepreneurs with smart thinking and hard work, but eventually they or their heirs become rentiers, i.e. using capital to generate the majority of their income.

Some politicians dismiss inequality discussions as just envy.  The people who deserve to enjoy the riches of life got there on merit and those others just weren't smart enough or worked hard enough.  Meritocracy is an ideal, but sadly the reality leaves much to be desired.  Many of us believe that theft, luck, timing all played key roles in many fortunes.  And what merit justifies the next generations living lives of luxury with little contribution to society?  Robert Reich in his film and many columns points out just how rich the rich are, something the masses are unaware of the extent.

One of Piketty's key recommendations is a Global annual progressive tax on capital, to be sure is more an idea.  Most people would not be required  to pay anything and the top rate would be something like 5%.  Requires a lot of global co-operation.  For a few decades nations have been competing to lower their rates and individuals and companies have been taking advantage.

Another contention from the author is that wealthy people should be helping to pay down the deficit by paying more taxes instead of enriching themselves by loaning money in the form of government bonds.




Piketty and Reich are not against capitalism or innovation or entrepreneurship.  We need incentives to encourage innovation, and hard work. Education has traditionally been the key to improving individuals as well as society, yet many rich people resent taxes going to improving schools or want to control what  and how it is taught.  Health care is another area where the rich begrudge the poor getting "free" care.  Much infrastructure seems unnecessary unless profit can be made directly.  Ironically many things that benefit most people also benefit those with more money.

I believe Piketty's work deserves more consideration. Reich makes too much sense for the main stream media.  Their messages are not endorsed by the 1%, but are critical to understand if civilization is to survive.

WHY NATIONS FAIL

Many of us wonder why some nations thrive and others do not.  Often we just feel that our winning culture is just superior.  Some of us liberal minded people look for explanations in geography.  Jared Diamond in "Guns, Germs and Steel" analyzed the occurrence of plants and domesticable animals to determine what areas had the best opportunities for growth.  Daron Acemoglu and James A Robinson (who has co-written with Jared) say this does not go far enough to explain modern differences in prosperity.  More on Jared Diamond http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2013/06/jared-diamond-expanding-our.html

The authors contention is that success is based not on geography but on whether the power of a society is extractive or inclusive.  I understand them to mean by extractive the elites at the top extract as much as possible from the masses.  Inclusive refers to more people having some power.

One area where this makes a difference is with innovation.  The authors explain that innovation most often requires creative destruction, meaning that the old established way of doing things is done away with while livelihoods and political power have to adjust to new ways of doing things in order to survive.

In an extractive society those with power see innovation as a threat to their power.  To maintain their power it is necessary to resist any innovation even if they recognize it might benefit the society as a whole.  Examples given include the printing press and railroads amongst countless other innovations that have been resisted.  Some powerful people stay that way by adapting to new opportunities.

A later blog dealt with innovation disrupting established industry:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2013/03/the-innovators-dilemma.html

Reading the book it seems like most of history evolved with extractive societies.  The clever elite would arrange society to give themselves the most power which they used to get the most wealth. Slavery occurred in ancient civilizations including Egyptian, Greek and Roman.  Feudalism was less harsh, but was designed to make sure labour was for the benefit of the elite.

The Glorious Revolution of 1688 overthrew one English monarch, James II and replaced him with William III, but more importantly brought also the ascendency of the Parliament over monarchy.   Industrial Revolution in England was possible because power was dispersed over a wider class of people.  It depended upon innovators and entrepreneurs having opportunities and incentives.  Earlier the Magna Carta gave power to some aristocrats that loosened up the power structure a little.  The Black Death plague upsetting population also helped to shift power.  The trans-Atlantic trade when it came to England (not so much Spain and Portugal) also gave some leverage for some merchants to gain power.

The French Revolution represented a huge overturning of power.  It went through violence, dictatorship, even monarchs but the ideals spread with help of Napoleon.  Western Europe was liberated and those liberated from an extractive system were very resistant to going back.

A vicious circle refers to the situation where someone has power over everyone else and they are not willing to give it up.  The only way to overcome this is someone else with power overcomes them. Their motivation is almost always selfish, but if it is not selfish at the beginning they normally get corrupted.  The victims, ie. ordinary people have no incentives to work harder or offer ideas and usually no power that can be leveraged.

A good example of an extractive society is the system in southern United States prior to 1865. Slavery did not start in America, but was imported from Africa where slavery had a long history. Southern whites with enough resources soon learned they could increase their wealth immensely by controlling African slaves.  Slaves had no motive to improve efficiencies and innovation dried up. Slaves were freed because of the anger of northerners who had developed a more industrial society. But the Civil War did not end the oppression of the Africans as whites soon enacted what have come to be known as Jim Crow laws.  Finally they were done away with, but only after concerted efforts of both black activists and northerners.  As more people were part of an inclusive society, innovations occurred more frequently and wages improved for all.

A virtuous circle can be when somehow a lesser person is able to gain some power and over time extends that power to a wider base of people.  The person at the top has some dependency on this new power base or they most often would not allow it.  There is strength in numbers and as more individuals realize that they can gain in power.

Australia demonstrates how an inclusive society can develop.  Originally the pioneers were convicts whose personal rights were very restricted.  As time went on the administrators found it very impractical to not gradually increase their liberties.  They became entrepreneurial and innovative and mixed in with subsequent immigrants.

Another example of how an inclusive society developed was Botswana, in the middle of African colonial powers was able to get some relief from British authorities after a visit to England by some chiefs.  At the time they were one of the poorest nations in Africa, but because they developed an inclusive society they became one of the richer ones.  Fortunately for them diamonds were not discovered until after independence.

Still another example comes from Brazil.  They had suffered dictatorships, but in 1978 Lula was able to organize factory workers and have them empowered.  Brazil is now known as one of the developing nations to watch.

One of the things I got out of this book was a reflection on our current situation.  The tendency of elites to concentrate their power and their disdain for the common man is easily detectable in modern politics. How does inequality develop?  Those who have power are motivated to increase their power. They feel they are special, an exception to the rules.  A few have insight and can appreciate that "we are all in this together," but others feel they are deserving of a better deal than those others.  Why should they pay extra taxes so lazier people don't have to work.  Maintaining an inclusive nation requires vigilance.  The book recounts leaders who recognized that some innovations would raise standard of living for the masses, but felt threatened and when possible prevented innovations.

Modernization is not enough to succeed.  China has modernized, but has not developed an inclusive society and the authors predict unless it does they will decline.  A key word is empowerment.  When people have the power to make a difference  most of them will use that power to make things better for themselves.  Others will recognize there is strength in numbers.

I do recommend this book as it does give a very useful perspective for what we as individuals need to encourage.  Read more about the book and a current blog by the authors at http://whynationsfail.com/

"FAIRNESS AND FREEDOM" Book Review

When my son, Michael recently moved to New Zealand to try his luck at getting a job this book got my attention.  In some ways it is one of the more profound books I have read.  Profound might be interpreted to mean they supplied me with notions that support my already established beliefs.  Perhaps so, but  not enough people have really thought out the issues of fairness and freedom.

New Zealand and United States are both open societies with much in common.  The American author uses a comparative study of the two to analyze what he sees as a significant difference.  In United States freedom is the underlying philosophy, while in New Zealand it is fairness.  Fairness sounds namby pamby to those who feel individual freedoms are the highest value of all, but freedom, not really understood can be perceived as selfish and short sighted.  Your freedom should end somewhere away from my nose and vice versa, but freedom lovers don't always appreciate that aspect of it.

Each concept has its faults, after all human nature is not conducive to restraints of any kind.  Envy, resentment, vengefulness, pride, fear and above all selfishness are normal human traits.  Harnessing those traits is a hard task if one wants to optimize civilization.

They were both English speaking colonies.  The United States gained its independence after a bloody war whereas New Zealand took a longer more legislative transition.  Americans fought the original inhabitants, known as Indians and pretty much subdued them.  The New Zealanders fought the Maoris who were more united, at least in language.   The Maoris managed to find a more decisive role in their society.

Land seemed endless in America, whereas there was a definite limit to New Zealand.  Land reform helped to stabilize affairs in New Zealand in 1891.  There was a much higher percentage of owner occupied land in New Zealand.  New Zealand abolished provinces in 1876 whereas United States is really a union of states with federal oversight.

From the beginning Americans felt the need for personal liberty, although they justified slavery. Over time the New Zealanders developed a concern for fairness although they abused the Maoris.

In 1920 New Zealand put restrictions on gun ownership.  Americans are very vocal about their gun rights under the Second Amendment.  Violent crime and imprisonment are much more common in America.

In 1893 New Zealand became the first nation to enfranchise women.  Women were better represented in the New Zealand Parliament than in most of the world.  In 1936 New Zealand was the first nation to broadcast Parliament.

United States adopted an electoral college in order to assure the smaller states they would have disproportionate influence, but often distorts what the majority of Americans actually want.  New Zealand adopted a proportionate voting system that many people (including myself) believe is more fair and better reflects what New Zealanders want.

After World War II,  New Zealand fought against the United Nations Security Council having vetoes wishing to give more power to the General Assembly.  They always seem to fight for peaceful negotiations.  Ronald Reagan was infuriated with their refusal to accept nuclear battleships on their ports.

After a lot of historical details of both nations the author summarized his thoughts on the two title traits. Freedom can be interpreted in many ways, but essentially refers to no or minimal restrictions on what a person can do.  In reality one person's unrestricted freedom runs up against another person's freedom.  One of the best examples deals with slavery.  Slave owners were adamant that they had the right to own other humans whose freedom obviously meant nothing.  Any law is a restriction on someone's freedom, but is often to protect others.

Tea baggers seem to resent taxes, and claim that the American Revolution was fought against taxation.  In fact the actual Revolutionaries were against taxation without representation.  After the Revolution taxes were increased as it was realized money was needed to maintain a free and strong republic.

Fairness is a restraint on freedom.  One person's unlimited freedom has to cut into the freedom of another.  How do we determine what is free and fair?  The author has a good perspective well worth examining.

Rich people in the United States sometimes are heard to say that poor people are just envious of successful people.   In New Zealand and other countries envy has been a problem.  Equal opportunities do not lead to the same outcomes.  There is envy that some people with talent or who work harder achieve more.  There are many people who feel entitled, some because of wealth and others because they want to receive more than they give.  Fairness would include people rising to the top of their talent and effort.

Democracy and freedom come with responsibility.  Part of the responsibility is to vote and not claim ignorance or claim choices are fraudulent.  Americans actually have a very low voting record and yet one party seems to think there are too many people voting.  Part of the responsibility is to recognize no one got their level of success without support from a wider community.  The next generation deserves as much support as our generation was given.

By the way my son did get a job teaching and seems very pleased with living in Auckland.