The African-American Struggles

 

February is Back History Month.

I am currently reading a book called “King: a Life” about Martin Luther King Jr. He was, of course, a great leader of the civil rights movement in the United States in the 1950s and 60s. It brought back some of the other books I have read about the African-American struggles, primarily in the 20^th century. It is a long and dark episode. King, for his part trying to end discrimination through peaceful protest, had his house bombed twice, was shot at, stabbed and eventually assassinated. His entire career lasted just 13 years; he died at the age of 38.

There are many examples of brutality against African-Americans during the 20^th century as shown in the following examples.

There was the destruction of the Black suburb of Tulsa, Oklahoma in 1922, just because it seemed successful by the standards of the day. Its attack was started by a single gunshot in downtown Tulsa by nobody knows who, but of course, blamed on a black man.

In the 1920s, the Ku Klux Klan was very powerful in Indiana and some surrounding states.  It’s target was again people of colour plus immigrants and Jews. It practically ruled Indiana when many of its state legislators and the Governor were members.

Just under 3,500 Black people were lynched in the US from the end of the Civil War to the 1960s.  The last lynching was recorded in 1968.

When I was military exchange with the US Navy, I spent the period 1974-75 in Charleston, South Carolina.  One Saturday night, there was a Klan demonstration near the edge of the city complete with a burning cross.  The next day, the local paper reported on the event by essentially making fun of it. But still, there were events to show that some things had not changed. A USN Chief Petty Officer was retiring and selling his house.  It was bought by a Black doctor.  When other protests did not deter the sale, the house was burned down.

 During the year there, my commanding officer was the first black admiral in the US Navy, Rear-admiral Samuel L. Gravely. He was a fine officer with a good sense of humour and a good leader. But even he had his problems. He did not take his family to Charleston, so he lived in the Bachelor Officers Quarters.  Each Sunday evening, he went out in civilian dress to a local church and usually brought back friends for coffee. For the first few weeks, he would be stopped at the main gate by the Marine guards and given a hard time. This was followed by a phone call by Sam to the command duty officer to get down to the main gate and “. . . tell this G.D. Marine who I am.”  After a couple of months, a large picture of Sam in uniform was posted at each position at the main gate. The Sunday night phone calls ended. He eventually was promoted to Vice-Admiral and retired after being a fleet commander. He proved he wasn’t a token choice. But that was the 1970’s when things like the Civil Rights Act had been enacted.

The civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s brought more oppression as southern whites violently reacted.  This soon spread to the northern states as more blacks moved north for work and to escape the oppression in the south.

Between 1964 and 1991 four civil rights acts were made law in the US. The first in 1964, aimed to end discrimination in schools, employment and public accommodation. The others basically reinforced the first. The result of all this was the virtual desegregation of the country.

The current President of the US, Donald Trump and his administration seem to be trying to reverse this. He has fired black employees including a number of coloured senior military officers.  He has set out to treat Hispanics much the same, including his efforts to deport a million people a year. His promotion of a depiction of Barack and Michelle Obama as apes is a fine example of his bias.

In Canada, we should not be smug about our attitudes. We have had our share of discriminatory actions.  Our treatment of Indigenous people shows that we have our own biases.

The Developer Strikes

 Sometimes it can be difficult trying to write a blog.  The first thing you have to do is find a topic.  Having tried many, you give most of them up because you don’t know what to do with them. So, you flounder around some more.

And then a topic becomes so obvious you have to pursue it. So, here is another blog about our favourite wanabe dictator and land developer, Mr. Trump. Not only are his ICE agents harassing people in different cities, most notably right now in Minneapolis, they are attacking them and in at least one case, killing a US citizen. ICE has been called Trump’s private militia.

If that isn’t enough, he has decided, in his land developer mind, to acquire Greenland.  He has threatened the country that does “own” Greenland, Denmark, and any European country that opposes his with another tariff war. He says it for national security reasons, but that argument is, at best, tenuous. Note that the US has military basing rights in Greenland and still has a major military base at Thule (now called Pituffik Space Bsae)  in north-western Greenland, currently housing a surveillance sensor system to detect missile activity coming over the pole. It has been there since the 1950s. There is no reason to believe that if it were diplomatically requested, additional US military bases would not be granted by the Danish government.  So much for the national security argument.

The other argument put forward is access to rare earth and critical minerals. But that is what international trade is for.  US companies should be able to get mineral rights and set up mining operations for export from Greenland to the US or any other country.  It is done all over the world.

What he probably wants is to be able to claim that the US is now the largest country in the world.  He probably sees it as a great place for a Trump hotel and maybe even a golf resort. Notice it is not most of the US population that wants this, it is President Trump and some of his cohorts.

If I were Denmark, I would tell him they would sell the island . . . for one hundred trillion (that’s trillions, not billions) Euros. If he baulks at this price, then I would raise the price to one hundred and fifty trillion Euros. Insist on Euros, because to acquire that much money would depress the US dollar as he tries to acquire the Euros. Is it practical? Possibly not, but it would undoubtedly anger him. Then he would have to back off, or take more aggressive action. That would undoubtedly cause a major breach with the only allies he really has.

Life in a Snow globe

 

It’s snowing here. Certainly not an unusual thing in Canada in winter. This snowfall has big flakes that some people will tell you would indicate that it will not last long.  But the forecast calls for this storm to last for many hours and to deposit 10 – 15 centimeters.  Unlike some storms, there are no high winds or blizzard like conditions.  The snow falls gently. Looking out the window is like living in a snow globe.

Do you remember snow globes, or do you still have one? You know, the spherical things that show a serene winter scene and are full of clear viscous liquid and white flakes. When you shook the globe up, or turned it over briefly, the flakes would rise and then descend gracefully through the liquid. They always had a nostalgic look.

Nostalgia seems to permeate this holiday season.  It’s as if we are trying to grasp some ideal and hold on to it. Some may argue that this is a modern phenomenon called up by the troubling times we seem to be experiencing.  But it’s not. Nostalgia has been a part of the celebratory season for as long as I remember, and I’m in my eighties. And like it or not, times have always been challenging for those living it at the time. We reminisce about holidays past.  We think about those who have gone. We remember about our childhood, or of our younger years. This is not a bad thing. It is a reflection of who we are and how we got here. It could and should be positive. But there comes a time when the snow globe fades and the snow disappears and we have to reenter the current world. But hopefully we will do so with a more positive attitude, and we will continue to try and make the world a better place.

The Weariness of Christmas

 Are you stressed about Christmas yet? Are you weary of the whole experience? It would appear that you are not alone. You are probably stressed if you’re not ready for Christmas. You’re probably weary if you are ready.

I have a favourite Christmas decoration showing a woman with an armful of wrapped gifts, her hair standing up and a look of pure frustrated emotion on her face.  The caption – the ghost of Christmas stressed. I have a feeling that there are a number of you that can relate to that ornament.

The stress comes from trying to figure out all of the things you have to deal with this season. What should I get the kids for Christmas? What about my spouse? Brothers/sisters, parents, visitors, friends?  Would Bob really like or ever wear that Christmas sweater? Should I get my wife a new crockpot? And the list goes on.

And then there is entertaining. It’s your turn this year to host dinner on Christmas day.  At you sister’s house last year, she put on a great celebration; lots of good food, nice gifts for everyone, and the right wine.  Am I supposed to equal that, or even do better? We want to make the best Christmas ever.

Just thinking about this makes you stressed and weary.  And Christmas is only three weeks away.

Wife, “Have you done your Christmas shopping yet?”

Husband, in a panic, “Why? Is it Christmas Eve already?”

I know, I’ve used that before. But it does reflect what a number of people go through, particularly men. (Confession, I’ve been guilty of that myself. Thank goodness for the friendly jewelry store.)

The questions you have to ponder. When should I start my Christmas shopping? How many should I invite for dinner? How can I keep Cousin Jack from getting drunk? And so many more.

How about this for a question, Where does the celebration of Jesus’ birth fit in?

You aim for the greatest Christmas.  Or was it last year’s? Or when you were eight years old? Wrong on all counts.

The greatest Christmas came over two thousand years ago when a baby was born in a manger in Bethlehem in Judea.

Election Blues

 

“Whenever you have an efficient government you have a dictatorship.”

  - Harry S. Truman

We almost had another federal election.  The last one was just about six months ago. As usual, Andrew Coyne and many others have called for election reform. Their argument is that a majority government can be elected with about 40% of the votes and thus does not represent the true will of the people.

Our present system of the winning candidate being the one with the most votes come to us from the British parliamentary system and is still used there and in the United States.  The US system relies of the fact that there are only two parties of any consequence in that country.  A viable third party, as has sometimes been the case in the past, raises the same concerns there as here.  Is the system flawed?  Probably.  Can it be fixed? Possibly.

Ontario tried to introduce a different voting system in a referendum in 2007.  It was dubbed the MMP (mixed member proportional) system and would have had a proportional representation system for most of the members plus a group of 39 seats (“the gang of 39”) set aside for candidates to be nominated by the parties in proportion to their elected seats.  As I said at the time in a letter to the editor, my “concern is a conviction that the voters will never get to directly vote for party leaders or prospective cabinet members.”  It was a system that could only have been devised by a committee.  Fortunately, in my opinion, the electorate turned down the proposal.  But the attempt points out one of the problems with the various ideas that have been floated for electoral reform.  Each of the ones proposed so far have been a mish-mash of ideas like the MMP system above.  Each has seemed to try to address a number of factions while satisfying none.  All have also appeared to be designed by committee. 

Are there other options?  There are two methods of candidate election that are used extensively in other democratic nations and they are much more straightforward than any of the ones being discussed in Canada.

The first is straight proportional representation.  It is widely used in Europe.  There are, however, some downsides to this method.  They invariably result in minority governments which in turn bring about coalitions – a word that is somehow anathema to Canadians. Canadians tend to prefer majority governments.  Proportional representation also tends to open the door to new parties so that many represent very special interests.  This is not to say they are unworkable – they just take more effort to work out the necessary coalition dynamic that can rule effectively.  However, the major defect in my case is that the elected representatives could be drawn from a party list with no apparent concern for local representation.  The first seat goes to the party leader and so on down the party’s list.

The second alternative is the use of run-off elections.  In this case, when no candidate gets 50% of the vote for his/her riding, there is a run-off between the first two vote-getters.  This ensures that the winner gets over 50% of people’s first or second choice.  Of course it takes a bit more time with the run-off, usually held one or two weeks after the main election.  And we are an impatient lot who demand instant answers, so that wait might not be popular for some.  However, it is in my opinion, the best of the alternatives.  It is straightforward, fair and effective.  It can produce majority or minority governments, depending on the mood of the electorate.  Other supposedly similar schemes such as ranking preferences on the initial ballot with some sort of numerical scoring to select the winner can become confusing for many voters and could be open to question of the results.  The run-off format is clear and transparent.

So, in a country that is essentially a three party system, which method of selection of your governments would you like to live with? 

“Too bad the only people who know how to run the country are busy driving cabs and cutting hair.”
  - George Burns

Opinions

 

It’s probably fair to say that we all have opinions. Young or old, male or female, even children have opinions. We probably couldn’t manage throughout life without them. We have opinions on life, others, religion, politics and politicians, money, family, entertainment and entertainers, the Toronto Blue Jays or the Ottawa Red Blacks or the Vancouver Whitecaps, or other sports or teams, health care, the young or the old, taxes, food costs, tariffs, neighbours and friends, climate change, kinds and makes of vehicles, size of houses, rent versus buy, where you live or where you want to live, brands of products, travel, vacations, holidays, immigrants, aboriginal people, work and coworkers, east versus west, US politics, Donald Trump among other things. Opinions are yours and very personal.  Nobody else has your opinions.  You may hang onto them tenaciously.  In many ways they define you.

Opinions make you comfortable in your choices. They guide you in how you face life. They define you when you talk to others. “Do they agree with my opinion? (They probably don’t entirely)” “Do I really want to hear their opinion?” (Probably not unless it fully agrees with yours) But opinion must be tempered by feedback or facts. To be welded to an opinion that has been refuted by facts if folly.  You must be able to weigh your opinions constantly to see if they still make sense. Otherwise, you opinions can become destructive.

Opinions become destructive when they become rigid; you become opinionated. Being opinionated can be manifested by not being able to test your opinions.  You can also find yourself trying to push your opinion down everyone’s throat. Or when you are no longer able to adjust your opinions even when faced with overwhelming evidence that requires such an adjustment or significant change. Some people still believe that climate change is wrong or a hoax despite evidence that it is, in fact, having an impact on climate. The rigidity of an opinion becomes an obstruction to rational thinking.

Opinions become dangerous when they lead to conflict between individuals or groups. When the defense of an opinion becomes so heated that it leads to confrontation and violence. Defense of or vehemence against opinions become the source of vendettas, or in the worst-case war, civil (whatever that means in this context) or international.

You are welcome to your opinion, but please respect mine. Just be open to new information, and don’t let your opinions guide your emotions.

The New Diplomacy

 

The Ambassador of the United States to Canada, Peter Hoekstra, gave an expletive laden reprimand to a Canadian at a trade oriented gala the other day.  This is not the first time the Ambassador has given us a tongue lashing, but it is the first time, as a public speaker, he has used cuss words to . . . do what? To show he is some sort of tough guy? To try to emphasize his point? To become more like his boss, the President of the US? Remember the President and Vice-President ganging up on President Zelenskyy of Ukraine in public and on television?  Who knows?

Is this the new diplomacy?

Diplomacy used to be well thought out words and acceptable phrases. Diplomacy was a gentlemen’s and lady’s game. Diplomacy was telling someone or some country that you disagreed with them without hurting their feelings. In the extreme, it was telling some country that your country was now at war with them, without rancor. It was not saying, “We’re going to destroy your #!x0? %$@ country!” It has generally worked for centuries.

This new diplomacy will not sit well with traditional diplomats or countries. It will introduce belligerency into international affairs, particularly when it is practiced against so-called allies.

The response to Mr. Hoekstra, asking him to apologize is just not good enough.  If it was only him speaking, he needs to be reprimanded. If his own country will not reprimand him, it must be considered his country’s policy.  If it really is his country’s policy, then he should be expelled from his role in Canada, probably by withdrawing his credentials.

If this type of diatribe is to become the new diplomacy, I know a number ex-RCN Chiefs and Petty-Officers who would be great diplomats.