Posts tagged history
Célébrons ! bastille day, baguettes & vel’ d’Hiv
Jul 14th
Bastille Day
So. Today, July 14th, France celebrates its national holiday in commemoration of the storming of the Bastille prison. Oh. Everyone should also note that if you want anything done in France today forget it. I flew through De Gaulle airport one 14th only to find out about 50% of the workers didn’t show up that day. Needless to say there were some delays.
Anyway. Bastille Day commemorates the storming of the Bastille, which took place on 14 July 1789 and marked the beginning of the French Revolution marked the end of absolute monarchy, the birth of the sovereign Nation, and, eventually, the creation of the (First) Republic, in 1792.
The Bastille was a prison and a symbol of the absolute and arbitrary power of Louis the 16th’s Ancient Regime. By capturing this symbol, the people signaled that the king’s power was no longer absolute: power should be based on the Nation and be limited by a separation of powers.
Although the Bastille only held seven prisoners at the time of its capture, the storming of the prison was a symbol of liberty and the fight against oppression for all French citizens. The other symbol remains the French Tricolore flag. It symbolizes the Republic’s three ideals: Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity for all French citizens.
What English speakers call Bastille Day the French call le 14 juillet. If you want to wish French speaker a happy Bastille Day “Bonne Bastille !” is the simplest. But say Joyeux Quatorze Juillet ! and a Frenchman will smile.
“Une baguette de tradition, s’il vous plaît.”
Nothing beats a Parisian baguette which you can pick up at almost every corner in Paris as you walk. Oh. The “de tradition” part is important, because a traditional baguette tastes a whole lot better than a regular baguette. It’s usually slightly more expensive but worth it (a good baguette only costs around €1.20).
So. Ever wonder why the streets of Paris almost smell so nice (the fresh smell of bread and baking). An authentic baguette has a shelf life of only four hours so bakeries churn out fresh loaves throughout the day.
Oh, some other baguette protocols. If there’s a line, as there is at almost every boulangerie with excellent baguettes better have exact change ready (no fumbling at the counter or you can quickly uncover the surliness of the French). And say “Bonjour Madame/Monsieur” when it’s your turn, ask for your baguette (hesitating makes them move on to the next person in line) and put down the exact change when you get your baguette. With it, you are likely to hear the French word “Parfait!” and get a smile.
rue de Saintonge and Marais district and Vel’ d’Hiv
Famous for its 17th-century mansions, its Jewish heritage, a vibrant contemporary gay scene and edgy art galleries, the Marais district is also filled with quirky, unique boutiques specializing in the coolest fashion, the hottest design and the trendiest beauty products. The Marais is the labyrinth of streets stretching south from Boulevard du Temple in the 3rd arrondissement stretching into the 4th arrondissement. The Marais is interesting, sometimes not for the faint of heart and unlike walking the more touristy areas this Paris district is chockfull of a vivid mix of characters. Stroll its medieval lanes and you’ll rub shoulders with muscle-shirted gays and feather-boa transvestites and long-bearded rabbis and scruffy rock musicians and West African restaurateurs and Eastern European bakers.
Rue de Saintonge is in the 4th arrondissement near the center of the Marais (I think). This is one of my favorite neighborhoods as it is lively, eclectic and contains several of the oldest sections of the city as well as lots of trendy bars, shops, and restaurants. The rue des Rosiers is a centerpiece of Jewish lifestyle in Paris and the Ile St. Louis and the Ile de la Cité are the oldest parts of Paris.
A moment about rue de Saintonge
What makes this even more interesting is that I just finished reading a book called Sarah’s Key which centers its historical fiction story around an apartment on rue de Saintonge. The book’s back story revolves around a relatively unknown event during WW2 in occupied France involved with the Holocaust. An event, Vel’ d’Hiv, whose anniversary is on July 16th.
Vel’ d’Hiv (commonly called the Rafle du Vel’ d’Hiv – “Vel’ d’Hiv Police Roundup” – from the nickname for the Velodrome d’Hiver -”Winter Velodrome” cycle track) was a Nazi decreed raid in Paris on July 16 and 17, 1942, code named Operation Spring Breeze (Opération Vent printanier).
The roundup was one of several aimed at reducing the Jewish population in Occupied France. According to records 13,152 victims were arrested and held at the Vélodrome d’Hiver and the Drancy internment camp nearby, then shipped by rail to Auschwitz (of which almost 100% perished. The roundup, which was part of a continentwide plan to intern and kill Europe’s Jewish population, was a joint operation between the Germans and French leaders. The Vel’ d’Hiv roundup wasn’t the first. Nearly 4,000 Jewish men were arrested on 10 May 1941 and taken to Gare d’Austerlitz and then to internment camps and then to the “death” camps. Women and families followed in July 1942.
Roundups were conducted throughout France but public outrage was greatest in Paris because of the numbers involved in a concentrated area. The Roman Catholic church, which had not always been quick to condemn the Germans, even spoke out in protest. Public reaction obliged French leadership in occupied France to ask the Germans on 2 September not to demand more Jews.
The roundup accounted for more than a quarter of the 42,000 Jews sent from France to Auschwitz in 1942, of whom only 811 came home at the end of the war. I believe French Jews represented about 80,000 of the total 6 million Jewish people who died during the Holocaust.
Do I say this to diminish this event?
Nope.
I mention it to remind people that if you solely focus on 6 million you forget the smaller horrible events that took place in every country occupied by the Nazis during World War 2 that contributed to an incomprehensible number.
Everyone was accountable for the Holocaust. And it is very easy for us to suggest all those who did nothing to stop it should be shamed (and I believe all do feel it) but unless you were there, unless you know what it is like to be under the thumb of ferocious dictatorship it is simpler to just say “we were all accountable and a brave few knew how to have the courage to stand up.”
And while it may be easy to also focus on the complicity of the French police and government in this event (as well as any government in occupied Germany during this time) I will note to complete this particular section that 3,158 persons were awarded the Righteous among the Nations honor (of which 160 received a Legion of Honor).
- note: Righteous among the Nations (Chassidey Umot HaOlam, more literally: righteous men of the world’s nations, also translated as “Righteous Gentiles”) is an honorific used by the State of Israel to describe non-Jews who risked their lives during the Holocaust to save Jews from extermination by the Nazis.
The French, as do many countries, refer to the days of WW2 occupation and the holocaust as “their darkest hour.”
So.
On Bastille Day I would ask that they remember the few (of probably many) who were recognized for standing up to evil.
And on the 16th they remember that evil is difficult to face.
Célébrons ! Bastille Day.
a trip for Advertising & Marketing people
Jul 8th
(this is about the Duke antiquities library in Durham NC)
Okay. If you are in a marketing department or an ad agency or anything to do with the art and science of communication and consumer behavior and you can only afford to send your “brightest minds” on one getaway field trip over a two year span … this is your trip investment. I guarantee it will be the best investment you will ever make.
Visit the Duke Antiquities Library for their Advertising archives.
Duke antiquities library has the largest archive of advertising – non video – materials in the world.
No kidding. A university in North Carolina with the most advertising stuff.
It could also be called the graveyard of materials for the dead agencies. But it also has historical files from existing agencies (JWT being the largest contributor).
I am an advertising history lover. And I will always bleed Thompson blue (JWT’s old color … I think they are paprika, melon and periwinkle now … or something ..) and handling some of the ancient but well crafted simple advertisements and presentations and handbooks was awe inspiring in considering the art & science of communication. In addition you can see how advertising and communications impacted human behavior, and buying behavior, through education of new ideas and new ways of doing things. We often forget the positive role advertising has had on every day life and a trip here will quickly remind you of many of the positive things and thoughts communicated.
A visit to this place can show you how long we have been talking about the same things (make sure you see the 1950s ad talking about integrating the message throughout all aspects). There are agency house ads from the 1920’s talking about “differentiation,” “how much money to spend on marketing,” and even “advertising can only get you an invitation the sale has to be done by the person.” Oh. They also talk about packaging as a medium (1920’s), effective impressions versus soft branding (1950’s) and “saying one thing well in communication (1920’s). They just don’t use all the fancy words we use nowadays. Great stuff.
It can also be a place to help you think and not just revisit “old things”. Great work and thinking begets new great thinking and ideas. I cannot think of a better location for “thought fodder”.
A sample of what you can see is already in the Duke Libraries’ Digital Collections:
- Ad*Access (1911 to 1955)
Presents images and information on over 7,000 advertisements for products in the following categories:
-
- Beauty & Hygiene
- Radio
- Television
- Transportation
- World War II
You can search terms for ethnic groups, as well as other descriptors (women, children, etc.).
- adViews (1950s to 1980s)
Historic commercials for a wide range of products. This resource is organized by company name, and continues to have additions of new commercials.
- Emergence of Advertising in America (1850s to 1920s)
Provides access to over 11,000 images of advertisements and early advertising publications. Stereotypes of ethnicity and gender roles are found in many of the ads.
I won’t go into all the detail on all the material they have but the agencies alone are a ‘who’s who’:
- JWT archives, D’Arcy Masius Benton & Bowles, Wells Rich Greene, Warwick Baker & O’Neill, and Bates Worldwide.
And they have non agency material from outdoor advertising association and person collections and personal papers and … well … the list is too long to type.
The staff is awesome. Accommodating (they can set up any type of exhibit you want) to all and any requests. They can talk extensively about everything they have. They can dig up things you never knew existed (and you would be delighted they did uncover it).
And the location ain’t bad either. You are not only on a great campus in a neat area but the archives themselves is like stepping back into time in an old library with shelves of ancient books and manuscripts.
If you love history and you love communication you will love this visit.
I, personally, was like a kid in a candy store.
It’s a trip you have to make at least once in your lifetime if you are in the communications business.
generation jones part 2: debating with the joneses
Jun 29th
This whole generation Jones thing has got me in a tizzy. Mostly because I am having an interesting off-site debate/discussion/conversation with a couple of generation joneser “advocates” (who are quite passionate in their desire to make Generation Jones a household discussion item).
The bottom line issue is I am a skeptical joneser. Maybe because I am an advocate of Strauss & Howe (S&H) 4th Turning Generations but possibly because I am always a little skeptical when people want to take a big well thought out thought/concept and try to break it down into pieces and disassemble the greater thought (with little end value).
So. Here’s the deal (with my thoughts on thinking about generations and attitudes and generation Jones in particular).
Depending on what you want to do with generational nomenclatures (GenXers, GenJonesers, Boomers, Echo Boomers, etc.) they can serve great cultural and umbrella sociological dimensional type thinking but rarely can dig down into shopper or actional behavior. So. Depending on what you want to do with these nomenclatures you can end up investing a lot of energy trying to tear apart the fabric of what we have named a generation and gained not a lot of actionable ‘stuff’ at the end of the day (and I know I don’t have a lot of energy to waste myself).
What I like (and agree with S&H 4th Turnings): Their basic premise is causal.
In other words, generations respond to events created through cyclical reoccurrence due to lack of relevant experience to what they are facing at the moment. What this means is that a generation affected by a specific event will take actions to avoid a reoccurrence of that event but each ensuing generation starts evolving back into behavior patterns that will reinitiate that type of event (S&H refer to that main critical event as a Crisis). The following is a brief overview of S&H in case you aren’t familiar:
- According to Howe and Strauss, the marks between each generation are very clear and are based on their surveys of people born in these years. Each generation has a specific character called an archetype. The concept is that, for the most part, each generation is around 20 years and they follow each other in a specific pattern (Hero, Artist, Prophet, Nomad). This pattern has held true for the last 500 years of history with some year length variances. And the archetypes are overlaying the actual historical turnings: Crisis, High, Awakening, Unraveling. Once again these turnings have historically fit a pattern over the past 500 year of their study. If you accept their theory it allows you to extrapolate into the future based on the ages and attitudes of the generations.
Now. That may sound like a bunch of sociological gobbledygook but it is actionable.
While their extensive study suggests we are doomed to cyclical behavior it does permit us to understand why we do things we do (and as a marketer if you really invested energy in studying could be way ahead of the curve in new product innovations).
Most importantly it assists in understanding the overarching direction of our society. Their work also provides understanding what is happening in our society based on where we have been. Anyway. The following chart developed by a blogger (genXnation I think) does a nice job of showing S&H thinking:
Realistically it is this concept of the ‘turnings’ of Crisis, High, Awakening and Unraveling and the fact each of the turnings have overarching personalities (although that is not their word … I believe they call the collective persona as an Archetype) of Prophet, Nomad, Hero and Artist which represents the most important thinking.
So. While even Strauss & Howe (S&H) use generational nomenclatures (like Boomers, Silents, etc.) to assist them in the discussion the actual nomenclature is significantly less important than the underlying thinking.
Next. What I like about things like GenJones type generations: their basic premise is attitudinal.
While it would be a lot simpler to call each of the S&H archetype personalities a specific generation type (and we have attempted to do that in the past but everyone wants to try and slice and dice them to make some attitudinal adjustments based on birth date groupings) the reality is the early Artist archetype is going to assume some of the characteristics of the late birth Hero archetype (and so on) because it’s not like a light switch gets flipped on a specific date.
Therefore something like the GenJones generation which is firmly in an Unraveling turning (I am not sure anyone in the whole generational discussion is debating this) they are assuming some of the characteristics of Boomers and genXers (in fact the nice graph the GenJonesers provided me, and I included in the Generation jones Part 1, on the comparison of incoming freshman at UCLA, makes that point nicely).
In fact, if my memory serves me correctly one of these transition age groups was also identified with a nomenclature (I think they may have been called the Interbellum Generation – the group of people of the GI generation too young to fight in WWI but too old to fight in WWII … my grandfather was one of these).
Anyway. I guess the true point here is that there is a gradual shift from one generation to the next and not a specific point in time where everyone stops feeling one way and starts thinking another way. There is a period of time where the shift in generational attitude occurs. This certainly explains the “Generation Jones” people’s desire to call themselves a ‘generation’ (the following link shows to what extent you can actually take this “splitting the S&H generations” idea to with other theories that break the generations down even further).
Regardless. Another nifty chart from that GenX blogger shows the periods of transition between larger generations very well:
So this whole idea that there is a group of people between The Boomers (1943-1960) and Generation X (1961-1981) that has traits of both generations, but doesn’t feel it belongs to either, is certainly a viable idea. I just wouldn’t call it a “generation.” And I question whether there is any true value in trying to create a “generation” around this group. As noted earlier on the value of S&H generations study the opposite seems to be the fact here – I am unclear this new generation designation helps us understand the direction of our society. Breaking down the system into smaller parts may make some people feel they can identify with what is happening and how they act more clearly, but I am not sure if it helps predictive ability. I believe we could get to the exact same place without having to wade thru an additional generation.
Look. I do not doubt the idea resonates with people born during this time (like me). Shit. Why wouldn’t it? I get to be in my own club. How fun is that.
Ok. Before I leave this topic for the day I have seen a couple of things written about Generation Jones and Strauss & Howe that I wanted to address specifically:
(comment): while Strauss and Howe’s work has certainly added to our overall knowledge, their work over time has become less relevant. The main reason why their work has lost a lot of credibility among experts is their insistence on sticking with static generational length, rather than evolving with other experts who c
ontinually point out that generations are getting shorter.
- Sometimes these types of comments kind of drive me nuts. S&H didn’t add to overall knowledge they actually defined the overall concept. Therefore everyone is trying to edit the original idea. My good friend Luke Sullivan once suggested editing in this fashion as running the risk of building a Frankenstein. If people want to slice & dice the original great concept they should feel free to do so without disparaging the solid foundational concept. Experts can debate dates and names and stuff like that but that doesn’t mean the original experts lose credibility. Their overall turnings & archetypes (regardless of what nomenclature anyone wants to put on as labels) study is solid and credible.
(comment): when asked, people born 1954-1965 identify much more with this generation in-between, rather than with the surrounding generations –Boom & X –which are supposedly correct.
Generation Jones is catching on in such a big way because it’s true, and Jonesers clearly relate to it. It seems clear to me that within a short time from now, that Generation Jones will be clearly established. It already almost is, more or less. It has that feel of inevitability.
- Somebody shoot me now. Of course people relate to the idea. It gives them an opportunity to say they are different. Or unique. Or whatever word you want to attach to it. it will catch on because it is “buzzworthy.” And, unfortunately, in today’s world if it has a buzz factor it is certainly inevitable.
Anyway. With all the serious thoughtful stuff out of the way.
I like to claim to be part of the GenJones club. It makes me feel good. And it makes it easier for me to write about shit I did growing up as part of that generation. So. On with generation Jones (just don’t ask me to consider it a “real” generation … unless you want to debate it … THAT I would do in a second).
the jones generation part 1: i be one of the joneses
Jun 21st
Ok. I am a generations geek. I love to study cyclical generational behavior patterns and attitudes and why certain generations do something and other s do something else. Geeky? yes. Interesting? Well. To me it is.
So. I had a comment on a post I wrote where I reminisced about The Runaways and the writer suggested I was part of the Generation Jones (which I had never heard of and in my typical curious style immediately started researching what the hell this whole Jones thing was all about).
The Generation Jones website (yes, there is one) suggests that Generation Jones (originally penned by historian Jonathan Pontell) is the group of people born between 1954 and 1965 (this group of people represents about 25 percent of the population). The “Jones” symbolizes moderation between the “personality extremes of the Boomers’ idealism and the Xers’ cynicism.” Apparently they uncovered this ‘lost generation’ assuming it was passed over by society as the focus leapt from Boomer to Gen X’ers.
Well, as noted earlier, I am a generational guy.
And I imagine we could find niche generations within any larger generational turning if we looked hard enough. Heck. If anyone practiced long enough anyone could dance on the head of a pin if they desired to.
So. Narcissistically I loved the idea of talking about myself as within my own generation (admittedly they use words that appeal more to me then some of the Boomer words or GenX words). And, of course, I like anything centered on me.
But. I thought the whole idea of a Jones Generation, or Generation Jones, was kind of silly.
Then. Lo and behold The Economist came to the rescue of the Generation Jones concept. Buried in the 14 page special report on rebalancing the American economy (4/3-9 issue) they make a specific reference to the children of boomers borne in between 1955-1964.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm … I stopped and thought a little more about this Jones thing.
The point in The Economist is that most typical generations spending/saving behavior changes after they move out of the traditional home buying years (savings increase as a % of household income) yet the Baby Boomers during the specified period did not increase savings as a %. In fact they maintained an incredibly low (10% of disposable income) savings % during this period. So. The consumer boom I grew up in defied fundamental wisdom (The Economist refers to it as “the binge”) and it is this group I was borne into that is running face first into the traditional economic rules that are reasserting themselves.
Okay. That made me ponder this whole Generation Jones idea a little more.
The theory is that Generation Jones still wants to change the world but they are less ideological and more pragmatic. Pontell explains:
“. . . We are practical idealists, forged in the fires of social upheaval while too young to play a part . . . Our practical idealism was created by witnessing the often unrealistic idealism of the 1960s. And we weren’t engaged in that era’s ideological battles; we were children playing with toys while Boomers argued over issues. Our non-ideological pragmatism allows us to resolve intra-Boomer skirmishes and to bridge that volatile Boomer-GenXer divide. We can lead.”
In addition I read words like “Chaos reigned, and we kids (with decreasing parental and societal guidance) were too challenged in finding our individual identities to be very concerned with finding our collective one. Jonesers, like others, focused on “me”, not “we” in the Me Decade of the 70s.”
Well. Once again portions resonated. It was an odd time to be growing up.
Portions of us (this age group) were defined by the three D’s (my three D’s … I didn’t steal them from anyone)
- drinking age
- draft
- democracy anniversary.
I grew up as the drinking age shifted from 18 to 21.
I grew up as the draft was dissolved (but I knew kids who had a draft number).
I grew up and celebrated the 200th anniversary of United States democracy.
It was an odd time of personal responsibility and unrestricted versus restricted actions.
Sure. There are some other cultural aspects (they point out MTV, the birth & invention of the internet by “Jonesers”, political leadership) but I would argue any niche could find enough of those extraneous data points to justify a niche generation.
So. I looked at this poll these Jones people did.
A nationally representative sample of 500 U.S. adults born in 1961 (the year Obama was born) showed that today’s 47 year olds clearly feel not like Boomers or Gen Xers, but instead believe they belong to the heretofore lost generation in-between Boomers and Xers (Generation Jones).
ThirdAge, a popular website for mid-lifers, commissioned the poll, in conjunction with Obama’s Aug. 4, 2008 birthday. When respondents were asked which generation they believe they are a part of: 57% chose Generation Jones, while only 22% picked Baby Boomer, and only 21% said Generation X.
The underlying concept for the poll was that rather than focusing on expert opinion to determine the question of Obama’s generational identity, a very effective way of answering this question is to ask the actual people born in 1961 to self-identify their generation.
Question:
500 U.S. adults born in 1961 were asked:
“Do you consider yourself to be a member of the Baby Boom Generation,
Generation X, or a lost generation in-between (usually called Generation Jones)?”
Results:
22% chose: Baby Boom Generation
57% chose: Generation Jones
21% chose: Generation X
ThirdAge commissioned this polling of a nationally representative sample of 500 U.S. adults born in 1961, conducted July 31- August 1, 2008.
Here is where I struggle with the research (but I do admit I am intrigued with this whole Generation Jones thing).
Of course people checked the box on “a lost generation in between”. I could have predicted that. Given an opportunity for someone to self identify themselves as being “unique” (or distinct) the majority of people are going to run as fast as they can to stand in line for the “hey, I am part of a special group” and sign up. But. It is interesting research (I just hope they didn’t spend a whole bunch of money on it).
Now.
If you wanted a niche generation and you needed a spokesperson Generation Jones got very very lucky (or better said … fortunate?). Jonathan Pontell, who coined the term for this 53 million-member-strong generational segment, is a dynamic charismatic speaker. Compelling genuine and awesome at delivering factoids that sound appealing. For example, he describes this generation as stuck “between Woodstock and Lollapalooza.” Nice phrasing.
Also. They didn’t buy into or were too young to understand the Baby Boomer tantrums; yet they were a tad too old to join the Gen-Xers in the mosh pits. Pontell describes their heritage:
“So who are we? We are practical idealists, forged in the fires of social upheaval while too young to play a part. The name “Generation Jones” derives from a number of sources, including our historical anonymity, the ‘keeping up with the Joneses’ competition of our populous birth years, and sensibilities coupling the mainstream with ironic cool. But above all, the name borrows from the slang term ‘jonesin” that we as teens popularized to broadly convey any intense craving.”
Next. The Joneser website did an awesome job of collecting a specific factoid to showcase that the “Joneser collective personality is clearly separable from that of Boomers and Xers.”
“Admittedly, determining generations is complicated, an inexact science, with inevitable blur on the edges. Nonetheless, broad accurate generalizations emerge with careful analysis. The three generations differ in many ways. One major difference is that Boomers tend to be idealistic, Xers tend to be cynical, and Jonesers tend to be a balance of idealism and cynicism. Attitudinal research bears this out.
For example, UCLA has conducted a particularly extensive national poll of 350,000 college freshman annually since the mid-60s. Students are asked to rank in importance different goals in life. Look at the following contrast between the three generations on the two key goals reflecting idealism and cynicism:”
|
FRESHMEN RANKING GOAL AS “ESSENTIAL” OR “VERY IMPORTANT” |
|
GOAL |
1966 |
1977 |
1990 |
| developing a meaningful philosophy of life |
85% |
61% |
42% |
| being very well off financially |
44% |
60% |
76% |
Look. What I may be tempted to take away from this study is that of all the generations Generation Jones knew what they wanted the least (or was inherently a wishy washy generation) but suffice it to say this factoid doesn’t hurt the argument for a Generation Jones.
Anyway.
I admit I don’t like the Generation Jones name. I’d like to see a name that better reflects the history or something quintessential or self defining about our time.
Regardless, I like the idea of a generational identity that’s more squarely focused on me or maybe better said “what I perceive as my time.” It’s kind of fun. I like thinking I am part of this group of people:
Russell Crowe. Madonna. Barack. Nikolas Sarkozy. JK Rowling. Elle McPherson. Michael Stipe. Eddie Murphy. George Stephanopoulos. James Taylor. Tracey Ullman. Weird Al Yankovic. Suzanne Vega. Allison Janney. Ronnie Lott. Emma Thompson. Katie Couric. Sharon Stone. Michelle Pfeiffer. Ellen DeGeneres. Andie McDowell.
So. For now I will use Generation Jones to my benefit. Start feeling more special and maybe start calling personal posts that reflect growing up experiences a Generation Jones posts. And I will have some fun with it.
the glorious first of June
Jun 1st
So. To celebrate the 1st of June lets step back in history.
I love history. I imagine I couldn’t call myself a ‘history buff’ (I need to look up ‘buff’ because in my head it either means naked or short for buffalo … anyway ..) because those people can pull at random factoids on a whim with sources of diaries of those who were there translated from original Latin or something like that. Not me. I just like to know stuff.
Anyway.
The 1st of June. This date marks one of what are often considered the 4 naval battles that defined British sea dominance. This one is simply referred to as The Glorious 1st of June.
The other three:
- The Battle of the Saintes (known to the French as the Battle of Dominica) took place in 1782 and was a victory of a British fleet under Admiral Sir George Rodney over a French fleet under the Comte de Grasse forcing the French and Spanish to abandon a planned invasion of Jamaica.
The battle is named after the Saintes (or Saints), a group of islands between Guadeloupe and Dominica in the West Indies. The French fleet defeated here by the Royal Navy was the same French fleet that had blockaded the British Army during the Siege of Yorktown. The battle is sometimes credited with pioneering the tactic of “breaking the line”. (although for some reason Admiral Nelson seems to get credit for this maneuver at Trafalgar).
- Battle of the Nile where Nelson, having sailed back & forth across the Mediterranean finally found the French navy in Abukir Bay and attacked. What made this battle special was first the French navy was anchored in a line across the bay so this was not a running battle at sea but rather an attack on a defensive line and second the British navy sank or captured all but 4 French ships in probably one of the most complete victories in naval history.
- Trafalgar is where Admiral Nelson died and the British navy was victorious against larger odds of a combined Spanish/French fleet pretty much eliminating any major French naval threat during Napoleon period.
Interestingly (or at least to me) I recommended a book a long time ago called “The Billy Ruffian: the story of the Bellerophon” which was a 74-gun third rate ship of the line launched on 6 October 1786. She fought at three of these naval battles (basically getting leveled in two of them). She fought at the battle of The Glorious First of June in 1794, under the command of Captain William Johnstone Hope, where she lost 4 killed and 27 wounded. In 1798 she fought at the Battle of the Nile under Captain Henry D’Esterre Darby, who was wounded early in the action; she lost 49 killed and 148 wounded. She also fought at the Battle of Trafalgar in 1805, becoming one of the most famous British ships of the Napoleonic Wars.
Anyway.
The Glorious First of June (also known as the Third Battle of Ushant) of 1794 was the first and largest fleet action of the naval conflict between the Kingdom of Great Britain and the First French Republic during the French Revolutionary Wars. The British Channel Fleet under Admiral Lord Howe attempted to interdict the passage of a vitally important French grain convoy from the United States, which was protected by the French Atlantic Fleet, commanded by Vice-Admiral Louis Thomas Villaret de Joyeuse. The two battle fleets first made contact on 28 May, some 365 nautical miles (673 km) off Ushant, Brittany. In the opening engagement Howe disabled the three-decker ‘Révolutionnaire’, 110 guns. On 29 May he cut the French line to leeward and for the next two days the fleets maneuvered in fog and out of contact until Howe brought the French to full action on June 1. The two forces clashed in the Atlantic Ocean, some 400 nautical miles (741 km) west of the French island of Ushant on 1 June 1794.
The action was the culmination of a campaign that had criss-crossed the Bay of Biscay over the previous month in which both sides had captured numerous merchant ships and minor warships and had engaged in two partial, but inconclusive, fleet actions. During the battle, Howe defied naval convention by ordering his fleet to turn towards the French and for each of his vessels to rake and engage their immediate opponent. This unexpected order was not understood by all of his captains, and as a result his attack was more piecemeal than he intended. Nevertheless, his ships inflicted a severe tactical defeat on the French fleet. The main action was the duel between the opposing flagships ‘Queen Charlotte’ (Howe’s flagship with 100 guns) and the ‘Montagne’ (Villaret-Joyeuse’s flagship with 120 guns) and includes the sinking of the ‘Vengeur du Peuple’, 74 guns. In the aftermath of the battle both fleets were left shattered and in no condition for further combat, Howe and Villaret returning to their home ports. Despite losing seven of his ships of the line, Villaret had bought enough time for the French grain convoy to reach safety unimpeded by Howe’s fleet, securing a strategic success.
Odd trivia note.
The French ships in this battle were flying the early Revolutionary naval ensign which places the French tricolor in the upper quadrant of the former Bourbon white naval ensign. This pattern was only in use from 1790 to May 1794, when it was replaced by the standard modern tricolor (which we see today). Villaret-Joyeuse’s ships had sailed without the new pattern and the ‘Glorious First’ was the only major action in which the French fleet flew its three-quarter-white predecessor.
I know. I know. Who cares.
But it’s the 1st of June. What the heck. And I was tired of talking about the French Open.
happiness and freedom
May 31st
It seems appropriate on Memorial Day to continue the conversation on ‘freedom’ (because ultimately whether you want to debate it or not we are memorializing the efforts of the people who have put their lives on the line for ‘freedom of’ protection globally).
I imagine this is part two of “freedom of” if only because it follows up the burden of responsibility that comes along with having ‘freedom of’ by recognizing, that despite the burden of that responsibility, people who live in cultures with freedom tend to be happier people.
I do follow this thought with some facts (some research) but let me suggest subjectively that the concept doesn’t surprise me.
Mainly because I believe when people are involved I choices being made or decisions or even voicing opinions they feel more involved (and are proportionately happier). That doesn’t mean there is a massive risk of unhappiness if there is constant involvement in choice and decision by the ‘common people’ and constant rebuffed in final decision by “leader people.”
(and Americas current divisiveness and splinter vocal groups is an example of such)
But, in general, people are happier if they feel like their voice matters (and being able to vocalize or have freedom of choice is one way of ‘mattering’).
So. The research.
It figures that I find a piece of research and an awesome graph (with lots of little data points) and I cannot remember who did the research (so I apologize to that person/team).
By the way. I don’t want to suggest these findings refute past evidence that genetic factors play an important role in subjective well-being (that has been proven before).
However, these findings indicate genetic factors are only part of the story because happiness levels vary cross-culturally.
Since cultures are constructed by human beings (and therefore human nature), this suggests that the pursuit of happiness is not completely futile. Genes may play a crucial role, but beliefs and values also are important. The research findings also indicate that varying levels of well-being are closely linked with a society’s political institutions. In other words sharp declines in a society’s level of well-being can lead to the collapse of the social and political system and conversely high levels of well-being contribute to the survival and flourishing of the social and political system (it just so happens that democratic institutions flourish more often than collapse).
So. Through this research they have discovered (in their words … “we now know”) that a nation’s past communism, economic development, and freedom are closely related to well being, and that freedom has the highest correlation with well being suggests that it is the strongest factor.
And well being translates to happiness.
Hey. This is kind of like if A plus B = C then … well … okay … whatever.
So.
Just another reason to support freedom of.
We will be happier.
Just in case you need to have it spelled out … being happy is better than being sad.
Anyway.
If freedom contributes to happiness, well, you can’t beat that.
Up with freedom.
freedom of
May 25th
freedom of religion.
freedom of speech.
freedom of choice.
freedom of thought.
freedom of expression.
I believe “Freedom of” is a privilege. And I believe we forget that thought sometimes.
And even more so.
It is not freedom from responsibility.
We have an amazing country we live in (despite all its warts). All you have to do is travel a little and you can see the obvious differences and the sheer luxury of life we have versus many other places in the world. Our middle class society ain’t middle in other countries.
But that isn’t this post.
This is about freedom and responsibility … here … in the good ole US of A.
No. we don’t have it perfect yet. I am not sure we ever will. But the fact we have a country where there is hope for all aspects of freedom is pretty amazing. We have screwed some things up (and also fixed some of the screwups) and we forge on debating freedom boundaries but never debating eliminating it.
Freedom is scary to non-democratic (or derivatives of democracy) countries. We, here, are a plural society. We accept more than one idea. That is freedom. And that scares the crap out of a lot of other countries and their belief systems.
That insures freedom is a responsibility. Some may call it a burden. I would suggest a privilege.
So. A beautiful place to begin.
The American Constitution’s First Amendment is a ‘freedom of’ case study:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
Beautifully written. What this says is that Congress will make no law to curtail neither speech nor the ability to participate in the religion of your choice.
.
Ah. Let me begin with Freedom of speech (because I do snap at some people who I believe abuse his freedom).
Here is the challenge (beyond the fact most people like to talk rather than listen).
Just Because You Can doesn’t Mean You Should.
One of the responsibilities of living in a free society is having rights, but knowing when to use them. Saying abusive or inflammatory things just because one can is not responsible behavior. I fully believe in the freedom guaranteed by the First Amendment.
Voltaire had it right, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
So basically, I may disagree vehemently with what someone is saying. But I cannot disagree that they have the right to say it.
It is interesting. After I starting writing this there was a brief article in The Economist titled “the downside of freedom of speech.” The article talked about overly racist and anti-Semitic tirades disguised as ads aired on local radio. And legally there is nothing to stop them. But even the Economist pointed out the messaging is so wrong it becomes difficult to understand how we are not permitted to say “stop. that is just wrong.” (oh. we all know … if we say no there where do we stop?).
Anyway. So ‘freedom of’ can wander into a values discussion (which is murky territory).
I guess the point of this (at least this part of the post) is while I agree people have the right to say their point of view I also think that in the case of hateful rhetoric that the speaker should be held accountable for irresponsibility in expressing those views. That there is a responsibility in HOW you state your point of view.
I personally believe sensationalizing your point of view with the intent of shocking to be heard is insidious. I put it in the same category of shouting just so you can be louder than anyone else. Or naming a higher price simply so you can negotiate another price. I know they happen and I know I don’t like it.
Ok. As for freedom of religion? This is kind of “part 2” to what I suggested with the pledge of allegiance (reverting back to original pledge of allegiance and dropping ‘one nation under god).
I am not anti god and I do believe our founding fathers in general were some sort of Christian derivative in their thinking. However. In general I believe they were smart enough to understand what brought most people to America originally was freedom from religious persecution. Any religious persecution … there were no caveats like “well, as long as you are Christian.”
In fact, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams (in their respective legislative roles at the time) were very specific in the American war against Tripoli that it was not a war of religious ideology (United States supported a country’s right to pursue religious beliefs) but rather it was a war for freedom of trade:
“As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”
Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11, 4 Nov 1796.
I guess I imagine I believe that each country has a right to manage its own country in the way it seeks to govern it.
Here, the United States put a stake in the ground with the constitution and its forefather’s insightful thinking (it is an amazing document that stands the test of time). We believe in freedom of religion. We actually believe in freedom of choice (not just religion). As stated earlier we believe in freedom of ideas.
And, ultimately, I imagine with that comes a responsibility to stand up for human rights (when people are persecuted for their choices – religion included).
Oops. That means going someplace with soldiers and protecting those rights. Uh oh. Different post.
So. This responsibility thing I keep bringing up (tied to our ‘freedom of’ beliefs).
Why do I believe HOW we as a country live, eat and breathe ‘freedom of’ is important?
Well.
Because we are a role model.
That is our role in the world whether we like it or not.
We are a “freedom of” country.
The moment we absolve ourselves of that role is the moment we change what our forefathers had in mind for the country.
And believe it or not I think it is what sets us apart. “under god” is a choice America permits its citizens to make. Not dictate it as law (or criteria) to be a citizen. You can say anything you want and believe what you want. And it is not dictated as a law.
Like it or not.
Agree with it or not.
But “freedom of” is who we are as a country.
And “freedom of” is a privilege.
It is also a responsibility.
And, dammit, there are some times I am embarrassed with how we manage that responsibility.
And that role model thought assumes an even higher level of responsibility when you read this thought from the World Movement for Democracy:
“We believe that human beings aspire to freedom by their very nature, and that no single culture has a monopoly on democratic values. The tradition of democracy has been enriched by contributions from many cultures, and the development of democracy is open to peo
ple everywhere.”
So. Maybe the next time someone says “I have the freedom to say whatever I want” maybe they can stop, and think, and ponder whether it should really be said, or said that way, for someone out there in another country is listening, and listening closely, for they aspire and dream of having the same freedom.
A worthwhile trip: Kiev
May 16th
So. Having just sat through a session working on my mother’s tax returns (trickier this year because she sold a house and her sense of maniacal fear of an audit has exponentially increased in the past year) I started thinking about if I could take a vacation where would I go. It’s been a couple of years since I took a trip vacation so this was a good mental exercise. And having written about Paris (almost 
always my number one choice initially) around Christmas time I thought I would settle down and explain my typical second choice/option when thinking of going away. And yes. It may seem an unusual one. It’s Kiev in Ukraine.
Kyiv (also spelled Kiev) is the beautiful and interesting capital of the Ukraine. Sure. A Long flight but it’s worth it. My first trip to Kiev began auspiciously. Okay. Hilariously.
Despite the fact I had a couple people there I knew they hesitated to tell me a specific hotel but suggested choosing one of three (I have since stayed at Premiere Palace every time after the initial trip and I highly recommend although expensive). Anyway. Not really knowing where to stay, I chose one and it ended up part of my visit coincided with one of those “males seeking eastern European brides” conventions or whatever they call them. A bunch of goofy looking guys wandering around the lobby and into this ballroom place where hundreds of women and girls decked out in their best clothes trying to communicate with guys who just wanted to get in their pants. And I truly mean hundreds of girls and maybe 25 to 30 guys. I should have taken pictures.
What made it even more surreal were the “ladies of the night” hanging out in the bar day and night sipping tea and watching the comings and goings. Anyway. I had hired a translator (a delightful graduate student studying diplomatic studies at the university) who laughed her ass off at me, and my naiveté, when she came to meet me at the hotel the first time.
About the city itself. Founded more than 1,500 years ago, the city of Kyiv was destroyed in 1240 by Mongol-Tatar invaders. In pat history Ukraine was always a powerful force on the European scene because of its size, population and huge agricultural output but Ukraine’s fate in modern history for the most part, has been defined by foreign occupation (Russia most notably). Kyiv suffered severely during World War II, and many architectural and art treasures were destroyed. Earlier in the 1930′s the Soviet authorities (mainly under Stalin) systematically destroyed many churches and other places of worship. Even so, Kiev is one of the historically richest cities in Eastern Europe and many amazing churches and structures remain. If you’re into medieval onion domed Orthodox cathedrals, you find an endless choice to discover and explore. Don’t miss St. Vladimir’s Cathedral, St. Sophia’s Cathedral and St. Michael’s Golden-Domed Monastery as well as the amazing Cave Monastery and the awesome murals inside the Trinity Gate Church. If you have time for only one It must be the Ukrainian Baroque style St. Sofia’s Cathedral founded in the 11th century and rebuilt in the 17-18th centuries which is on top of a hill with a beautiful cobblestone pavilion.
Anyway. Kiev. It is located along the banks of the Dnipro River (actually split by the river in some sections) but the bulk of the city is one side (the hilly side). It has authentic Eastern European charm while yet in sections there is a Soviet flavor in the architecture and boulevards with dark stoic buildings. It is easily a walking city (although the hills can make it a good work out) and easy to explore. With its shining golden domed Orthodox churches and ancient monasteries and museums and underground shopping centers (because of the winters they have several full shopping centers built under the streets of the city which you can wander almost endlessly and never go outside) there are a variety of things to do and see. For those who want to seek out aspects from the Soviet era, such as the typical Stalinist colonnaded subway stations, massive bronze monuments, giant statues of Lenin and others, and elegant but thick sturdy dominant 20th century buildings, you won’t be disappointed in Kiev.
Getting around is very easy (although if you don’t read Cyrillic you are kind of screwed in reading street signs and stuff like that). The underground train (subway, metro, whatever) is efficient, extensive, and with some creative guessing, you will arrive at your destination (and the underground station is REALLY underground … like way underground … the escalators to the stations are often very steep and long). Some people suggest you avoid “taxis” (and I use this term loosely).
Well. They don’t have taxis. What you do is stand on the side of the street and stick your hand out and some normal everyday person (typically driving some car that has seen its better days) suddenly pulls over and you lean in tell them where you want to go and negotiate a price. Sometimes they are alone. Sometimes they have family. But they are always friendly. Frankly, even if you don’t negotiate a good price it just doesn’t cost much. You can hand over about 20 grivna (about 4 bucks) and get almost anywhere.
Plus. The whole “waving down a family car” thing is fun. Okay. The first time seems weird. The first time I was in Kiev I asked my translator what she wanted to do that she had never had an opportunity to do and she wanted to go bowling (go figure). The only bowling alley was outside the city. I say sure. She steps out. Waves her hand. A gray pre World War II Lada putters up the road and pulls over (I am pretty sure it still had the same clutch it originally came with). She starts arguing with the driver. Next thing I know we are in the back seat chatting away with the driver. Awesome experience (oh. She hated bowling). It is the way to get around the city. It is fun. You meet locals. You get to here whatever is playing on their radio.
Walking the alleys and boulevards in Kiev is very reminiscent of Russian cities such as Moscow and St. Petersburg (and unlike anywhere in the United States).
But. The absolute best is slowly strolling down Kiev’s main boulevard, Khreshchatyk Street, day or night. This broad avenue is lined with giant trees and huge forbidding Stalinist gray brick/concrete buildings. It is just “big.”
Khreshchatyk is often off-limits to vehicular traffic on weekends at which time it becomes the playground for local artists and street sellers of trinkets and clothing and whatever. Plus. It becomes a place for those who want to see and be seen. The boulevard closing on a weekend is worth the trip. Throughout the city there are narrow cobblestone walkways and you should head for the Andriivsky Descent which is this narrow winding street, one of the oldest in Kiev, and home to many art galleries, artists at work, street art markets, and cafes (very reminiscent of some narrow streets in say San Francisco but with incredible architecture and looming buildings on each side).
I got really lucky on my first trip. Between my translator (who brought me to the coolest nightclubs and introduced me to her college friends who called me “Leon” – from the movie Assassin – because of how much older I was from everyone in the g
roup and how I my translator and I interacted and the pizza places with awesome draft beer and pool tables) and my friends who already lived/worked there (who brought me to the English speaking bars – Canadian, Irish and British – and the rare coffee shops .. because most Ukrainians drink tea) I had an incredible first experience which set me up for future visits of being on my own if I needed to.
Oh. I know I am talking a lot about walking. So people always ask me about the weather. I have been there at Christmas time and they haven’t had snow yet (but it got a very crisp cold at night). I have been there in May and walked around in short sleeves. I have been there in July and it was warm. It won’t be as cold as you think (the city is further south in Europe than you think). Odessa in the south of Ukraine is a hot beach city. Go north of Kiev and you can freeze your ass off (just go ahead and visit St. Petersburg at Christmas and you will find that out pronto).
Okay. The people. I have never met a single rude or unfriendly person in my 6 or so visits. The language barrier is not well managed by older people who often may shrug you off rather than to make any effort to communicate but approach a young person and I can almost guarantee they will speak some English. In fact many want to practice it with you. The locals enjoy their lives whole heartedly. They are some of the most incredibly pleasant and helpful people, not to mention some of whom must be amongst the most beautiful people in the world (I admit I was surprised by how many taller thin red headed women there were). While household incomes are generally low the locals spend a great amount of money on their appearance and wear fashionable clothes. You will feel like you are I the middle of a fashion show walking down some of the main streets especially on the weekends on the main boulevard. The women dress in heels and dresses and look impeccable at all times. The men wear suits but it is the women who truly dress up. Oh. The women also have this truly charming habit of walking arm in arm wherever they go (and they laugh a lot). It is really charming.
There are rarely signs of poverty on the streets. Be prepared to see many people walking the streets with a bottle of beer in the hand or liquor (particularly Vodka). Awesome. Note. Best vodka I have EVER drank was Ukrainian and one of the least expensive vodkas I have ever purchased.
The locals speak Ukrainian or Russian (there are some differences). Your only hope of communication in English is with the younger generation. Most, if not all, of the street signs are in Cyrillic characters so it is helpful to learn some basics (or bring a pocket dictionary) before arriving.
As for the food. Several restaurants serve up traditional Ukrainian meals with typical Russian and Ukrainian dishes. But surprisingly there are not that many truly unique dishes. Their food is … well … food. But. Make sure not to miss the borsch (cold beet soup) and the varenyky dumplings with cabbage, potatoes or meat. But the best is the Vodka. Served chilled at meals it should be your friend. It is
inexpensive and better than any vodka you can buy in the states.
Getting there. You may be surprised to know that no visa is required for Americans (who stay for less than 90 days). Flights are long but easy. You can actually fly direct from Kennedy in NYC. But most flights connect thru De Gaulle (Paris) or Amsterdam. Keep in mind. Flying from Paris to Kiev is like flying from Los Angeles to New York City (about same distance). Not knowing that on my first trip I ignorantly thought as I caught my connecting flight “I am almost there”. Yeah. Not so fast.
It is a great city. And very very different from American cities as well as western European cities. If you are interested, Chernobyl (the nuclear reactor which exploded in April 1986) which is just over 100km north of Kyiv has a good museum in Kiev (sad, frightening and eye opening). I believe if you are adventuresome there are some approved trips out to Chernobyl.
Anyway. Kiev. My second favorite city in the world. Anyway. A great trip if you take it.
the truth in today’s world part 1
May 14th
This is kind of a rant and kind of an observation. The observation is that it is sometimes easy to get a much skewed perspective on what is happening in the world if you are not careful (I know I fall into this trap often). The rant is that people sometimes say non factual things as factual statements to stir up an opinion and that isn’t responsible. This is a continuation of some other posts I have written (remapping the Middle East, civilian count versus soldier count) and others upcoming (green energy conference in Delhi – a friend attended – the myth of Palestine and immigration). But. Here goes.
The following is an example of what I often read from people (and it does represent a lot of what I hear):
“Every generation has more worries and fears to face than the previous one. People today live with war and threats of war, more kids having babies, more violence and layoffs … it’s everywhere you turn and this only scratches the surface of a day in the life.”
“even when we’re facing crises that would have destroyed whole cultures as recently as a couple of hundred years ago.”
So. Let’s talk about some truth. Let’s discuss what is really happening in the world in relation to what we just read.
First. I am not going to suggesting there aren’t issues globally. But I may suggest they are not exactly what we believe they are or to the extremes we perceive (on some things). Frankly it is easier to be an alarmist today than at any time in history. Once again it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t care. It just means it is tougher today to isolate the real issues from non real issues than ever before.
Second. With the intent to simplify I may be too simple in some things I am sharing. I apologize. There are degrees of everything. I am trying to communicate the core factoid.
Third. Some perceptions and some truths:
- Islamic terrorism is a large persistent problem that actually involves a very small group of fanatics (but that small number creates an exponentially larger fear and unrest number).
The reality. Since 9-11 the al Qaeda has not been able to mount a single major attack anywhere. Despite all the airport color codes and media related city threats and self made videos they have been able to do nothing. (But it sure feels like they are doing a lot)
Let me stick with Islam for a second.
- The perception is that Islam is solely a warrior religion and Muslims are attacking our daily lives.
Fact. There are more moderate Muslims in the world (who do not believe in aggression and war) than there are fundamentalists (who are the supporters of aggressive tactics). Indonesia is an excellent example of a “democratic Islamic” country where moderates rule and it is a way of life. The Koran does not condone killing and certainly does not condone suicide deaths. It was actually a Muslim nation in a war against another Muslim country that renewed the concept of jihad. Oh, and “Muslim” is so broad a term it often becomes useless other than to sensationalize what may only be a small segment of the larger group.
- Violence (or war). As noted above in the editorial italics there is a perception we have more war or threat of war than ever before.
Fact. We are in an extraordinarily calm period in world history. At no time have the odds of one of us dying from some organized group violence been lower. Major countries are just not involving themselves in sheer numbers like the past. Now. I am not trying to diminish atrocities simply thru numbers because even the few are atrocious. But. In terms of sheer numbers (activity or people) we are at a low point in violence.
Say what? (you say about these facts)
So why are some perceptions out of whack?
Never before have we had 24/7 access to images and words heightening each event, each bomb (or bomb threat), each storm (or storm threat), becomes the HUGEST EVENT OF ALL TIME. It feels like disaster 24/7 thru media. Unfortunately it does not reflect what is really happening in the grand scheme of things (some people call this seeing the trees and missing the forest).
Ok. Next.
How about Middle East?
- The Muslim geography is in a state of unrest. Iraq. Israel and Palestine all crumbling and fighting before our eyes.
Fact. Lebanon, Dubai, Egypt, Turkey and Saudi Arabia are all booming economies. Thriving countries (some even more so than US). And, oh by the way, several border Iraq. It is a relatively stable region with possibly less divisiveness then we are seeing in our own country with regard to some key issues.
- We Americans are feeling uncomfortable, maybe better said, uneasy not only with what is happening in our own country but globally. Everything feels unstable. Why is that so? Here are some reasons:
- Surprising success of Developing countries. Ok. Maybe I should refer to them as traditionally referred to as developing (or third world) countries. They are currently outpacing economic growth of developing countries.
Their business models (a unique hybrid of government and private) are often proving to be nimbler and offering the same quality. Than existing business models (and it’s not just cheap labor).
- Decentralized global communities. Americans find comfort in centralization. Sure. We enjoy state autonomy but find comfort in the bigness of the greater good of USA. Decentralization is scary. It feels unorganized. It feels. Well. Not big. And a lot of the world is reverting back to the quite successful smaller nation state model (a fragmented economy with smaller nations with predatory instincts).
- Our Global attitude.
The 2007 Pew Global Attitude survey reflected massive shifts in positive attitudes with regard to democracy open markets and free trade globally (and particularly in nontraditional democratic comfortable countries).
Yet. USA ranked dead last in support for free trade.
Same study.
- Attitudes toward foreign companies. Even countries with traditional suspicion of western companies (think ex colonies of England USA Belgium France etc) were quite positive with regard to the impact of foreign company involvement. USA was in the bottom five showing little to no interest in foreign companies involved in American economy.
So. The general population believes we should be received positively but do not want to receive.
- Our superiority complex is being challenged.
Small thing. But. America is the only country to issue annual report cards on every country in the world. And yet other countries are challenging America’s role globally.
Lastly.
- Poverty. Yes. America is in a recession (see word depression if I was allowed to call it that). But globally economies are on the rise. Our failing is we always seem to focus on prosperity versus poverty (meaning we like to see how high is high versus whether the lowest is rising).
Globally poverty is being addressed. Ok. Poverty still exists and in a number of countries (think about 50 or so with India at the head of the list) it is extraordinary and needs to be fixed. But. Globally the poor are being absorbed into productive and growing economies. The following number seems surreal to Americans but it is a common global standard. One dollar a day. In 1981 the global poverty population living on a dollar a day was 40 percent. In 2004 it was down to 18 percent. By 2015 it is projected to be 12 percent. The world is not becoming affluent but it is becoming less poverty stricken (that is a good thing).
So. There
are some truths globally. Lastly I wanted to comment on “facing crisis that would have destroyed cultures as recently as a couple hundred years ago.” (I am going to ignore the more kids having kids and totally ignore “each generation has more fears than the one before” … yikes … if I had told that to my grandfather I may have been decked).
The comment is simply not true.
The world has faced larger crises and survived. America itself has faced larger crises and survived. History is cyclical and we inevitably innovate which simply increases our ability to manage crisis (unfortunately innovation sometimes also exacerbate the level of crises).
In the end our perspective is being driven by a couple of things that are difficult to solve.
Ours is the first generation of Americans that thinks it can demand perfection in war (zero casualties or think ‘less than 5’ and win).
Our present leisure, wealth, and high technology fool us into thinking that we are superhuman and should always be able to overcome both human and natural disasters (either by foreseeing it or having every plan of action to resolve it on hand).
Accordingly, we become frustrated that we cannot master every obstacle (and often seek to blame). Then, without any benchmarks of comparison from the past, we despair that our actions are failed because they are not perfect. That may be the most important truth I could communicate in this post.
changing the world
May 11th
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed people can change the world. For, indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.
Margaret Mead
I posted this quote maybe in the first two days I started this whole enlightened conflict site thing. As I have been thinking a lot lately about why I write some of the things I write about on my site I thought about this quote again.
I believe this quote is a great reminder for everyone.
Remember that however little your voice may sound among the thunder of the majority there is hope … if you are in the right. The two words that stand out for me are thoughtful and committed.
I believe that people who are really smart and really thoughtful with regard to what they think and do are few as it is. I believe I read it once as “sloppy thinking.” Ignorance is devastating to any idea. Poor words are devastating to an idea.
It pays to be thoughtful and less flippant particularly if it truly is a good idea.
Oh, and committed. So few seem to be committed to doing “what is the right thing to do” (versus what maybe everyone else is suggesting be done). It is truly the ‘path less chosen.’
Anyway. It’s easy to lose sight of the fact that anyone can change the world – even if it is only the small part of the big world that you can control.
