Steve Harris
  • Home
  • About
  • Courses
  • Research
  • Other Sites
  • Contact
  • Condemned to Repeat It

Great Migration

6/13/2025

0 Comments

 
I recently read “The Warmth of Other Suns,” Isabel Wilkerson’s remarkable study of the “Great Migration” in which about six million Black Americans left the Deep South and moved North and West in the early and mid-20C. They moved to escape the horrific oppression of the “Jim Crow” era and build new lives for themselves and their progeny. It’s an impressive and moving historical study, combining rich personal stories with some overall sociological context.

Virtually every major US city was deeply affected by this demographic shift and the ubiquitous presence of Black culture (and White reactions) makes it all too easy to think that this has always been the case. Nonetheless, across the 20C and continuing today, US music, labor relations, housing patterns, and political issues and participants are all products of this relatively recent change. 

The US has always been a society with considerable racism. However, up through the Civil War, the peculiar institution of chattel slavery was its deepest expression and the principal focus of a modernity which claimed some moral foundation based on the dignity of the individual. It was (relatively) easy to oppose slavery and many who did and likely more of those who merely went along with abolition remained profoundly racist. There’s no small mythologizing of the Civil War as a moral struggle, but few in the North fought for treating Blacks as full citizens and social equals. 

Of course, abolition was hardly the end of the story. While the formalities of slavery were prohibited, the flourishing of Black freedom in the South (“Reconstruction”) was all too brief and both in terms of culture and economics, the status of almost all Blacks in the South returned to an appalling state. Whether in terms of lynchings, the economics of farm labor, or daily social relations, the lives of most Blacks were hardly better by 1900 than they had been in 1850.

Reading about the treatment of Blacks in the South at this time brought to mind the stories with which I had been more familiar as a historian of European imperialism in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. The conquest and exploitation of indigenous peoples across the 15-20C took place far away from the centers of power (the “metropoles”) in the “home” countries of those empires. While the US was an empire in this sense as well, we can also look at the treatment of Blacks in the South as an imperial project. Rather than leaving the exploited labor ‘in situ,’ we (via the Spanish, Portugues, British etc.) moved them to the work locations in Alabama, Georgia, etc. As a variant in the modes of the projection of power over another people (my definition of imperialism), this seems to fit. Certainly the treatment of the people involved and the motivations were well within the normal frames of imperialism.

All this was quite interesting to me at the “macro” level, and Wilkerson’s writing ensured my deeper understanding of some of the individual stories, but what drew me to the book was a personal, if indirect connection.

I grew up in an upper-middle class household in suburban Detroit in the 1960s. We had a series of household servants—maids and laundresses—throughout that time. They were all Black women. Anniebell Shepherd joined us in the mid-1960s and stayed working for my folks well into the 1990s. I have only fond memories of her warmth, attention, and cooking. At the time (as a child) her presence seemed unremarkable (most of my friends and family had Black household servants). I knew she had been born in the South and had come to Detroit well before I was born. 

I never asked her about her motivations and experiences. But later, I came to wonder how her story was part of this broader historical process in the US. I learned she was born in Mississippi in 1912 and moved to Detroit in the mid-1940s. Wilkerson’s book gave me context within which I could place Anniebell.

As the author describes it, the race-based discrimination of America in the North and West was widespread and endemic. It lacked, however, in most cases, the full extent of the physical abuse and legal structures characteristic of the South. Both WWI and WWII brought a sharp increase in the demand for labor and thus created opportunities for Blacks seeking to escape the awfulness of the South. But we should make no mistake: while Blacks were better off and this improvement in conditions was sufficient motivation for the challenges of leaving their homes and families, this attractiveness was only relative to what was left behind. It took the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s to launch another round of legal changes on the road to equality. And, in terms of culture, practice, and attitudes, a lot of work remains to be done (even before the current retrenchment).

I was unaware of all this of course as a child, with little understanding of the history and social practices manifest in our house or, more broadly, that gave rise to the Detroit (and other) race riots of the late 1960s. I didn’t think of myself as racist, nor my parents, nor their friends and families. This book has given me a powerful lesson about the limited scope of my awareness. Just as a fish doesn’t know that its water that they’re swimming in, neither did I appreciate much of blithe assumptions and comforts of upper middle class White life at that time; nor the implicit (even if not malevolent) racism of our situation. 

Decades later, I remain a work in progress in this regard. I have to tolerate the discomfort of pushing myself to see how I still act in ways which I find improper/wrong just because of my own history/socialization/laziness—and then change.

(btw, Juneteenth is next week; it’s a federal holiday and a commemoration of the Great Emancipation of the 1860s and a reminder that the legal formalities are often some distance from people’s daily lives.)

0 Comments

Rudderless

6/6/2025

0 Comments

 

When we look at Early Modern Europe, principally in the 17/18C, we can see the roots of many critical aspects of the modern world. Two of the most significant were the emergence of capitalism and the rise of the coherent, bureaucratic “State.” While each of these has many material/ on-the-ground components and practices, they also reflect the development of ideas and conceptions which have continued (and morphed) down to the 21C. In particular, they both represent means by which human activity could be organized outside of the previously existing moral structure of society. Indeed, each developed distinctive and self-perpetuating rationales for their claims to human attention and loyalty that were, more-or-less consciously, amoral. This untethering has allowed for each of these institutions to develop prodigiously, but there has been a considerable cost and only part of the bill has yet been paid.

As noted by Albert Hirschman (see “The Passions and the Interests”), a key part of the rationale of capitalism was that provided a means of social organization that broke away from the destructive sectarian conflicts of the 16/17C which followed the Protestant Reformation in Europe. Focusing on economic “interests” facilitated commerce, regardless of the beliefs (“passions”) of the merchants involved. The nominal rationality of those “interests” was also consistent with the mentality emerging out of the “scientific revolution” of the same period.

At the same time, the theorists of a distinctive, permanent “State” (even if not yet rooted in democratic nationalism), who also rejected religious-tinged morality as the basis of governmental action (Machiavelli is key here), were on a parallel path. The doctrine of “raison d’etat” enabled those in power to base their actions (both domestically and internationally) without regard to Christian compassion, but on the self-perpetuation of the State.

With some centuries of momentum behind them, both capitalism (profit) and the State seem to have acquired some degree of self-perpetuating rationalization; apologists for each claim that their continuation is an important goal in and of themselves, outweighing the costs of that preservation. We can see this in the rise of the national security state in many countries around the world, as well as the vast amount of intellectual and financial resources devoted to corporate profitability (and lower taxes!).

Despite Adam Smith’s championing of moral sentiments (often lost in the shadows of “The Wealth of Nations”), various resurgences of Christian/religious beliefs, and the claims for “social justice” (especially from the political left), the hoped-for constraints of morality on the acts of states and business enterprises have largely evaporated leaving these principal parts of human societies adrift. Relatively recent initiatives (i.e., late 20C), such as the promotion of “human rights” and democracy as the basis for international relations or “ESG” and “DEI” in the corporate world, notwithstanding. Indeed, the current repositioning of both US domestic and international policy under HWSNBN shows that this hard-nosed stance is very much alive, despite decades of the US claiming to “don” (sorry!) moral clothing globally.

More broadly, the stark evidence of economic and social inequality so visible both within individual societies and on an international/comparative basis, speaks volumes as to the tenuous place of moral arguments in our world. Maintenance (expansion?) of privilege and wealth seems to drive much domestic and international policy-making, both here and elsewhere. The aspiration—dating from the 17C—that America should be a shining city on a hill and an example for all finds no place in the current rhetoric.

The risks of this course have hardly gone unnoticed. There is a long line of cultural, religious, aesthetic, and social thinkers who have sought to warn the “West” of its moral peril. Many of these arguments have been rooted in the preservation of the past (conservatives), a disconnect with nature, or a disconnect with humanity (romantics). Actual policies and practices, too, have swung back and forth showing varying degrees of awareness of this challenge. Among the most notable is the critique that arose in the aftermath of the two “World Wars” of the 20C, particularly the rabid destructiveness of Nazi Germany. These arguments stressed that modernity has gone too far in its focus on untethered rationality.

Many philosophers have struggled to find a moral anchor for modernity, once Christianity was dethroned by schism, deism, and rationality; especially since non-Western belief systems have had limited purchase. Without an “author” (i.e. God), it’s difficult to have authority; and, given the vagaries of human nature, there seems to be little firm ground upon which to build an ethical edifice.

It is the human condition to struggle for meaning. Christian nationalists (an oxymoron!) inherently offer little of universal appeal, the Roman Church, too, is saddled with history and scandal, non-Western sources are too much on the defensive against modernity to spark a new formulation.  Musk-ean profit is simple and superficially attractive, as is national tribalism; but the former is out of reach for all but a few and the latter rings hollow and superficial in a well-melded and interconnected world.

I have asked in the past whether modernity was “worth it,” but I certainly don’t advocate returning to the 15C.  The resolution is not clear. If I’m looking for a response rooted in something other than morality, perhaps I’ll ask ChatGPT for the answer.

0 Comments

In Defense of the Nation

5/30/2025

1 Comment

 
As a historian, I am acutely aware of the development and impact of nationalism on European and world history. As part of the modernizing 19C, nationalism was a force for broadening of horizons and for a positive sense of personal identification with a community that extended beyond the traditional and parochial when those older modes were being increasingly overrun by deeper trade and communication with an integrating world. It was a step towards a more ecumenical (in multiple senses) perspective; even if not embracing the global cosmopolitanism of the most avant-garde of the era.

There is no doubt that the idea has been taken to extremes and was a frequent source of horrific acts taken by governments and populations over the past 200 years. Its fetishization at the international political level resulted in further instability, rigidity, and oppression of minorities across the 20C and 21C.

It’s no wonder that I’ve been rather cosmopolitan in my outlook, as a result of the education, resources, and information flows to which I’ve been a party most of my life. A streak of idealism, too—a touch of the “brotherhood of man”—has also encouraged me to see nationalism as a passing phase in human socio-political development; a way station en route to a global culture.

In taking this stance, I’ve come to realize, I have perhaps let my ideals get ahead of the realities of the world and one of my key learnings as a historian: the slow, almost glacial, pace of social change (a phenomenon which is not “inevitable, but certainly without much contrary historical evidence). In other words, just because I’d like folks to think “sensibly and go with the “tides of history,” doesn’t mean that they will rush to it: aspirations need to be in contact with the real world if they’re to come about.

I’ve been thinking about this recently in the context of immigration. An issue of global importance and impact which has spurred reaction and reactionaries into political power in many countries; not just here in our own “nation of immigrants.”

My belief in democracy holds that we must start with a cohesive community (i.e. “we the people”) combined with a respect for the views of the other members of that community. I then have to take seriously apparent fear held by many members of that community of being overrun/diluted/disrupted by “others”. At least if by “others,” I mean those who are not yet part of our community. This highlights the tension between the dream of human universality and the continued presence of countries/nations/states (most of whom are not very democratic) as the basis of how our societies are currently organized.

If, while we are working on toleration and inclusion, we wish to have functioning political societies—including (not cheap) social services—supported by the breadth of that society, then we can’t take an absolutist stand on the issue of who’s “in.” This, however, is not a defense of unbridled, simplistic tribalism.  That too is pretty deeply embedded in human culture (if not human nature). In its more common forms in democratic cultures, it manifests not just in racism and misogyny, but more benignly in sports team affiliations and language/dialect/accent signals. It can also turn ugly on a global scale, as articulated by Carl Schmitt’s “Concept of the Political.”

So, as an ameliorative measure (or muddle, as some might say), perhaps we can try to keep our country going as a functioning community; not with harsh absolute rules and xenophobia, but with some incremental steps towards allowing some others in under a regime which accommodates the evolution of our culture (the “melting pot”) and the security of knowing that we are controlling the pace of immigration. To some degree, this will be facilitated by the core economics of the labor market, accelerated by declining birth rates and extended lifespans. Those market drivers will, likely over time, ease cultural accommodation, toleration, and integration.

When I read Karl Marx’ comments on other flavors of socialism in the 19C, I had to laugh at his critiquing them as “utopian.” This was the same guy who talked about leaping towards a workers’ paradise and the withering away of the State without any real sense of how that particular nirvana was to emerge out of the heap of ordinary human affairs and existing power structures. It’s now wonder that Lenin’s attempt to short-circuit the process went awry.

We, too, have to maintain our sense of utopia, at least directionally, while allowing the normal processes of human social evolution to grind forward incrementally. The “nation” may be all we can handle at this point. And before we rush to grant non-citizens the vote, much less throw down borders and dissolve local/regional/national communities into a grand global continuum over the course of a few decades, we may be better off taking it slow. We can—I would argue that we have to—respect he views of our fellows (the basis of democracy), address their concerns at a world seemingly spinning much too fast, and still make progress.

So much for the view from the US and other more-or-less mongrel nations. There are, however, a bunch of places where there is more-or-less ethnic homogeneity. Several grew up in central Europe amid the collapse of the Russian, Austro-Hungarian, and Turkish empires. Others arose out of domination of a particular ethic group as arbitrary lines were drawn in the aftermath of European empires in Asia and Africa. The challenge in those countries is the protection of minorities—both in terms of law/security and political power; i.e., the need for limits on majoritarianism. Particularly where the dominant group has a long history of being persecuted in larger, imperial contexts, there is a fine line between defensive ethno-nationalism and the exercise of newly-found power vis-à-vis even smaller minorities. Rwanda, Israel, and Bhutan (in decreasing order of barbarity) all come to mind in this regard.

1 Comment

Eager for Change

5/23/2025

0 Comments

 
Eager for Change

I’ve talked previously about the need to resist the current Trumpian chaos and lawlessness. I’ve also urged that some of the current Administration’s underlying concerns are valid and that there are some nuggets of useful policy amid the muck of its rhetoric and nihilistic actions. Going back to the “good old days” of 2024 is simplistic and bad policy, even if it were feasible. Except….

One characteristic of institutions is their resilience to change. That’s much praised by those who want to preserve the status quo (i.e., usually conservatives, but most Democrats and democrats today). Assuming we come out of the current chaos in 2029, that same institutional inertia will allow much of the damage to continue to harm individuals, the country, and the world for years to come. So, it’s worthwhile to think about how to roll things back as aggressively as possible.

Here's one (outside the box) idea of how to do it: The Emergency Action and Government Efficacy Restoration (EAGER) Act of 2029.

The basic idea is to get Congress (presumably Democratic-controlled) to suspend some of the usual rules so that the new Administration can repair things as promptly as possible while Congress considers new models and approaches to address the issues and problems (both long-standing and recently engendered). There are several aspects of the normal institutionalized process that will likely delay getting necessary remedies deployed to actually affect people’s lives. First, appointing the senior and mid-level executives to write and implement changes to policies and programs will take months. After all, hardly anyone will be left from these ranks. Senior folks need Senate confirmation and then they need to hire the mid-level folks. Second, the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”) requires lengthy rule-drafting processes and the prospect of multi-year litigation. Together, this means that few new policies could be in place much before 2031.

To remedy these concerns, the EAGER Act would authorize the appointment of interim officials without Senate confirmation and the expedited hiring of mid-level folks. Such officials would (a la “recess appointments”) be in office for no more than two years. For an added degree of comfort, the pool for such appointments could be limited to those who (for normally confirmable posts) had previously been confirmed by the Senate for some senior position or (for lower slots) previously held a comparable level Government position.

The Act would also authorize the implementation of regulations without normal APA processes, so long as they were interim (expired within 2-3 years) or were previously in place. Regulations enacted since 2025 could, similarly, be revoked. Accommodation would need to be made for the inevitable delays of reviewing legislation, although most of those concerns are actually statutory in nature and could, by law, be waived and much judicial review avoided.

There are those who will protest that the short-circuiting of traditional controls on Executive Branch actions is dangerous, unconstitutional, and demonstrative of the same disregard for the “rule of law” which has brought us to the present crisis. These are significant and real concerns. The EAGER Act can certainly be closely designed to minimize these and ensure constitutional compliance, as I have suggested. On the other hand, the continuation of the damage likely to occur while Congress takes its usual time to design and enact legislation, not to mention the processes of administrative implementation, seems to outweigh those concerns. Those who see the current situation as a uniquely dangerous time for this country should not shirk at drastic remedies, especially where (as here) they are carefully crafted and their exceptional nature is acknowledged.

In addition, EAGER supporters can expressly articulate that the nature of our government and political culture is built on trust, that they have trust in the incoming Administration, and that the recent undermining of that trust by HWSNBN should not poison the confidence Americans should have in their government. Indeed, beyond the substantive benefits of accelerating policy repair and change, this cultural commitment would help on its own terms. In contrast, layering on additional constraints—a predictable reaction to what has been going on lately—would merely extend the bureaucratic and overly legalistic mentality which has already made it difficult to resolve a wide range of our current policy problems.

All of these extraordinary steps could accelerate the process of damage control, demonstrate immediate responsiveness to public concerns (important from a political perspective), and set the stage for the development and deployment of new policies across a range of areas (listed in the recent posting) which the country sorely needs.

Along a similar line, a coherent and focused Democratic Congressional leadership (now there’s something to imagine!) might well avoid getting tied up in all the minutiae of the necessary substantive legislative changes by enacting—promptly and simply—a set of policy directions that would provide guidance to the executive branch and set the parameters of more detailed legislative actions to follow. This would have the benefit of demonstrating to both domestic and international audiences the reversal of direction (and style). New tax schedules, carbon markets, civil rights and due process, minimum wage and AI responses, parameters for health care and social support all could be sketched out to help the country reposition itself for the longer term task of creating a new era.

The damage caused by the current administration won’t be remedied within the term of the next one. As a country, we were already behind the curve in addressing the pressing problems of the age even before the last election. Dealing with them, with the damage repair, AND with the new set of emerging issues (e.g., AI’s impact on labor markets and education) will require more governmental genius than we have any right (or experience) to expect. By 2029, we will need (well-considered) extraordinary measures to have any shot at handling them. EAGER is one way to improve the odds.

0 Comments

Dueling AIs

5/23/2025

0 Comments

 
Duelling AIs

Yesterday, just as an exercise, I asked two AI programs (ChatGPT and Google Gemini) to summarize my “oeuvre” on a particular topic. ChatGPT 3.0 failed pretty miserably, even with a follow-up reference to my specific site. I then sent the same prompt to the new Google app and it aced it!

My wife then sent the prompt to her paid ChatGPT (4.0) app and it came back with a much better response, even if not as detailed and complex as the Google Gemini summary. She asked again and got a completely different response.

You can compare for yourself below.

Of course, I’m not plugging for anyone’s algorithm in particular. There’s clearly an arms race going on here. It’s good to see one way in which this technology is advancing.



Prompt:  drawing solely on the blog "condemned to repeat it", summarize the author's views on the nature and role of history in our society.

ChatGPT response:

The blog "Condemned to Repeat It" offers a critical perspective on the role of history in contemporary society, emphasizing the importance of historical awareness in preventing the recurrence of past injustices.

The Imperative of Historical Memory
Drawing from George Santayana's famous aphorism, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it," the blog underscores the necessity of remembering history to avoid repeating its mistakes. This sentiment is echoed in various posts that critique current societal issues by highlighting historical precedents.(Wikipedia)

Historical Patterns and Their Modern Implications
The blog examines how historical patterns, such as voter suppression and economic inequality, persist in modern times. For instance, it references conservative activist Paul Weyrich's statement, "I don't want everybody to vote… our leverage in the elections goes up as the voting populace goes down," to illustrate ongoing efforts to suppress voting rights. By drawing parallels between past and present, the blog argues that understanding these patterns is crucial for addressing contemporary challenges. (condemnedhistorian.blogspot.com)

The Role of History in Shaping Society
The blog posits that history is not merely a record of past events but a tool for shaping a more just and equitable society. It advocates for a collective memory that acknowledges past wrongs and uses that knowledge to inform present actions. This approach aims to prevent the repetition of historical injustices and promote societal progress.

In summary, "Condemned to Repeat It" views history as a vital resource for understanding and addressing current societal issues. By learning from the past, individuals and communities can work towards a more informed and equitable future.
****


Chat GPT (3.0) 2d response:
(revised prompt: rewrite the response limited to material at www.steveharris.net)

Based on the blog Condemned to Repeat It by Steven Harris, the author challenges the conventional wisdom encapsulated in George Santayana's adage, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." Harris explicitly states his disagreement with this quote, suggesting a more nuanced view of history's role in society.

Throughout his writings, Harris emphasizes the importance of critically engaging with history rather than accepting it at face value. He explores how historical narratives are often shaped by those in power, leading to a distorted understanding of past events. By examining topics such as entitlements, Brexit, and societal needs, Harris illustrates the complexities of historical interpretation and its impact on contemporary issues .(Steve Harris)

In summary, Harris advocates for a critical and reflective approach to history, recognizing that understanding the past requires more than mere recollection—it demands thoughtful analysis and a willingness to question established narratives.
***


Chat GPT (4.0) response:

"Steve Harris, in his blog Condemned to Repeat It, offers a nuanced perspective on the nature and role of history in society. Contrary to the widely cited adage by George Santayana, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it," Harris expresses skepticism about the deterministic view that history inevitably repeats itself.

Harris argues that while history is replete with patterns and recurring themes, it does not operate in a cyclical or predetermined manner. He emphasizes that understanding history requires more than just memorizing dates and events; it necessitates a critical examination of the contexts, motivations, and consequences surrounding historical occurrences.

In his writings, Harris underscores the importance of engaging with history to inform present and future decisions. He suggests that history should serve as a tool for reflection and learning, enabling society to recognize and address contemporary challenges with a deeper awareness of past experiences.

Ultimately, Harris advocates for a thoughtful and analytical approach to history, one that acknowledges its complexities and resists oversimplified interpretations. By doing so, he believes society can better navigate the present and shape a more informed future."
***


Chat GPT (4.0) 2d response:
Certainly! Based on the blog post "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" by Steve Harris, here is a detailed summary of the author's views on the nature and role of history in our society:blog.steveharris.uk

Steve Harris's Perspective on History

1. Skepticism Toward Historical Clichés

Harris critically examines the famous adage by George Santayana: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." He suggests that this saying is often invoked superficially, without a deep understanding of historical complexities. Harris implies that merely recalling historical facts does not necessarily prevent the recurrence of past mistakes.

2. The Importance of Institutional Memory

Through the anecdote of the Bromyard Folk Festival, where organizers reused a slippery dance floor that had previously caused accidents, Harris illustrates how a lack of institutional memory can lead to repeated errors. He points out that organizational turnover can result in the loss of valuable experiential knowledge, leading to the repetition of past mistakes.blog.steveharris.uk

3. The "New Broom" Phenomenon

Harris discusses the tendency of new leaders or decision-makers to disregard historical practices in favor of implementing novel ideas. This "new broom" approach can lead to the reintroduction of previously discarded methods, without understanding why they were abandoned in the first place. He emphasizes the importance of consulting with experienced individuals to gain insights into past decisions.blog.steveharris.uk

4. Mutual Responsibility in Knowledge Transfer

The author underscores that both new and seasoned members of an organization share the responsibility of preserving and transferring knowledge. While newcomers should seek out historical context, veterans should strive to communicate their experiences in engaging and accessible ways.

5. History as a Tool for Critical Thinking

Harris advocates for viewing history not as a prescriptive guide but as a means to foster critical thinking. He suggests that understanding the nuances and contexts of past events can inform better decision-making in the present, rather than relying on oversimplified lessons.

?? Conclusion

Steve Harris's blog post emphasizes that history should be engaged with thoughtfully and critically. Rather than serving as a straightforward manual to avoid past mistakes, history offers a complex tapestry of experiences that, when examined carefully, can provide valuable insights for contemporary society.

***

Google Gemini response:

Drawing solely on the "Condemned to Repeat It" blog, the author, Steve Harris, presents a nuanced and somewhat skeptical view of history's nature and role in society, particularly challenging the popular interpretation of Santayana's famous aphorism.

Here's a summary of his views:

On the Nature of History:
* Not a Simple Guide to Avoiding Mistakes: Harris explicitly states that the idea of history providing "lessons" to avoid past mistakes is "just isn't true." He argues that historical events are the result of a "complex stew of choice, chance and human agency," making direct repetition impossible and "cross-chronological historical comparisons rather frustrating and futile."
* Social Construction, Not Natural Progression: He challenges the notion of historical development as a "normal" or natural progression, suggesting that the idea of "moving forward" is a social construction. Good historians, according to Harris, recognize and deconstruct this to make history explicable.
* The Importance of Rigor and Evidence: Harris emphasizes the crucial role of evidence and clear referencing (e.g., footnotes) in historical writing. This "scientific rigour" is essential for supporting claims and allowing others to verify or dispute interpretations. Without it, he argues, "the work of holocaust deniers such as David Irving would be just as credible as those who offer alternative interpretations."1
* A Reflection of Culture and Identity: History is presented as fundamental to human culture, distinguishing us from other animals. He notes that being aware of our "place in time" and remembering collective pasts is a natural act, and those cut off from their past are often seen as lacking identity.
* A "Many-Headed Monster": The blog title itself, "What is history for? Or: Doing history/thinking historically - the many-headed monster," suggests a complex, multifaceted, and perhaps even challenging nature to history.
On the Role of History in Society:
* Challenging the "Condemned to Repeat It" Mantra: While the blog is titled "Condemned to Repeat It," Harris explicitly states, "I don't actually agree with Santayana's famous quote." He notes that the popular understanding of Santayana's quote, as a warning about repeating past societal errors, is a misinterpretation of Santayana's original philosophical principle about the incremental nature of knowledge and memory. Santayana, he argues, was discussing individual intellectual growth, not societal historical lessons.
* The Weight of the Past: Harris observes how history can "weigh heavily" on societies, citing the English as an example, who are "overly focused on the past" due to the sheer volume and presence of their history. This suggests a potential downside to an excessive or uncritical focus on the past.
* Beyond Simple Lessons: While he rejects the idea of history offering simple "lessons" to avoid repetition, the blog's existence implies an underlying belief in the value of historical understanding, even if it's not for predicting or preventing future events in a straightforward manner. The discussion of rigor and cultural identity suggests a role in intellectual development and self-understanding.
* Not a Crystal Ball: The author implies that history is not a tool for predicting the future or for simply avoiding "mistakes," because the complexities of human agency and chance prevent exact repetition.

In essence, Steve Harris views history not as a straightforward instructional manual for avoiding past errors, but as a complex, culturally embedded phenomenon that demands rigorous analysis and a critical understanding of its own interpretations. He emphasizes that while remembering the past is a fundamental human trait and essential for intellectual growth, it does not guarantee a deviation from similar patterns or "repetitions," which he attributes more to the nature of being alive.
***

0 Comments

This Sceptered Isle

5/16/2025

0 Comments

 
This Sceptered Isle

In Richard II (Act II, scene 1), the Bard waxes eloquent about his English homeland, using the above line as one paean. It’s a gushy, emotive, and resonant speech, oft-cited down the years; and one that seems profoundly out of date in the prosaic Britain of Charles III and Keir Starmer. In previous posts, I’ve talked at some length about Britain’s politics and its post-imperial epistemic deflation. Having visited here about ten times over the years, I have some sense of the place and my latest foray was full of surprises and historical echoes.

This time, we spent most of our trip in Cornwall, the proudly distinctive (in terms of culture and climate) southwestern corner of Britain. Lush landscapes, friendly people, and beautiful weather awaited us. Into the 20C, Cornwall was tied to the sea and small fishing ports dot the shoreline all around. Proximity to the Gulf Stream made fishing common work and made the land fecund. These days, fishing has faded and tourism is a major part of the economy. Part is based on the innumerable beaches, part on the unutterably charming port towns, art colonies in St. Ives, and a respectable smattering of ruins provide a nice mix for both domestic and international travelers.

One highlight was a day’s jaunt to Tintagel in the northwest corner of the county. The castle (now in ruins) dates from the 13C, built by a local prince on the site of the (then-recent) account by Geoffrey of Monmouth of the legend of King Arthur (mid-11C). Geoffrey’s account was already suspect by the 12C, but the prince invoked it anyway and built a traditional castle on a promontory which was actively occupied into the 15C, then effectively abandoned. For our own age which often seems fascinated with history and legend, it’s remarkable to think that this 13C noble was as much interested in leveraging a dubious mythos in an era with no prospect of tourism profits. In any event, it’s a dramatic site (and a good hike) with extensive ruins and stories that have accumulated over the centuries.

At the other end of the chronological spectrum, we stopped also at the Eden Project, a 21C botanical garden and environmental education center in the southeast of the county. There are many traditional gardens across Cornwall, but this was more about science than aesthetics.

Cornish place names increasingly gave way to English as we moved east. By the time we got to Bovey Castle in Devon’s Dartmoor National Park, we felt well back in the traditional English culture in a grand pile (originally a country house, built by the retailer W.H. Smith at the end of the 19C) on spectacular grounds; it was all quite “Downton Abbey-esque.” We didn’t participate in the archery, shooting, falconry (or even golf) on the property; opting instead for a genteel walk to a nearby village (highly picturesque) and a drive across the moors.

Thence to Salisbury, with its stunning cathedral (dating from the 13C) and its copy of Magna Carta. Also, lunch with an old English friend from high school who lives nearby.

The next day, nearby, we went to Stonehenge, on a cold and windy plain. A remarkable site, living up to the (considerable) hype. The great thing about pre-history is that the “we-don’t-know, but…” factor goes up by an order of magnitude. Indeed, a history of the theories about Stonehenge provides a fascinating window into the cultures that have tried to suss it out. Even now, much of the interpretation remains “contested.” One amazing fact is that the smaller (2-5 tons) “blue” stones of the inner circle were transported from Wales, about 150 miles away in the middle of the 3d millennium BC—quite an impressive engineering/transport project!

Finally, reaching London, our group went to a variety of places and events. One highlight for me was a visit to the Tower of London, famous for the Crown Jewels and the site of numerous famous imprisonments and executions over the centuries. I was there the week of the 80th anniversary of VE day, marked at the Tower by the replanting of 30,000 of the ceramic poppies originally placed there for the 100th anniversary of the commencement of WWI in 2014.  In addition, we stayed right near the British Library, where I had spent many hours doing research for my dissertation. This time, we checked out a second copy of the original Magna Carta (the other two are in Kew and Lincoln).

Magna Carta doesn’t stand so much in the history of democracy, per se. It’s much more about the struggle between the King and the nobles than the rights of ordinary folks, but the outcome of that struggle was the fundamental principle of limitations on monarchical power and the codification of various aspects of the rule of law.

My one theatre experience in London was “Dear England.” It’s nominally about football (soccer) and, in particular, the manager of the English national team during 2016-2024. It was pretty good.

As a historian, however, what struck me about the play and what it crystallized for me about the trip as a whole was how fixed the English are about their history. It weighs on them heavily. There’s a lot of it and they live right in the middle of it in a way quite differently from our US experience. Living up to that history—however polished/mythologized/sanitized—keeps the English overly focused on the past. As Nigel Farage has discovered, it’s fertile ground for his longer-term political angle, now expressed as “Make Britain Great Again.” This weight of the past is at the root of the struggle to get beyond the Empire, the reflexive “Little England” mentality of Brexit, the difficulty of fully integrating an increasingly diverse set of global cultures, and, in general, remembrance of past riches and glory.

The English are ahead of the pack in dealing with national decline and it’s not pretty. It’s also a useful example for the US, even as we enjoy the royal pageantry, the rural charm, the cute towns, and the castle ruins.

0 Comments

Carbon Rainbow

4/25/2025

0 Comments

 
I remain convinced that climate change is the greatest concern facing the world today, more dire than the threats to democracy or the rise of AI. Long-time readers are aware of my priority on tree-planting and other nature-based solutions (“NBS”) to the crisis. Even without the sharp reversals in policy and attitude by the current Administration, changing human behaviors and public policies (including mandatory comprehensive carbon markets) on a world-wide basis will only occur once the impact—storms, famine, heat waves—starts killing millions of people. Those focused on voluntary carbon markets are doing good work, but their scope is small and  (as we’ve seen lately in the US political contexts) voluntary corporate commitments to carbon are ephemeral and politically vulnerable.

It's a daunting prospect. Motivating people to take steps in the short-term that will only have the benefit of mitigating (not preventing) these disasters in decades to come is a challenge in any case. The many well-meaning people who “get” the climate crisis are trying to connect and energize broader swaths of the population to take steps to make a difference, but far more is needed. We need the marketing/advertising masters who have promoted our consumer culture to put their insights and inspiration to a more meaningful cause than selling dishwashing detergent or ginning up audiences for “The Real Housewives of South Podunk.” Again, I’m not talking about campaigns to change behavior (reducing power usage, recycling, etc.) or promoting legislation for carbon markets; I’m focused on means to work with nature to avoid the release of carbon or lock up more of it in the natural world around us. NBS can, by reasonably reliable estimates, handle about 1/3 of the world’s carbon problem over the next few decades and make a real difference in the world of the mid-21C.

We need to make carbon fun/engaging/interesting (or at least as fun as possible given the context). The story can’t just be scientific reports and tables of data. That’s not how you sell tortilla chips or athletic shoes and it won’t work with this tougher item. We need catchy phrases, punch lines, and (probably) some adorable creature/mascot.

As one trained in the law and in history, I claim no great skill set in this regard. However clever I might be at word-play and cultural allusions, I have no illusions about my “common touch.” But, since it’s “all hands on deck” for the climate crisis, here’s one way to think about carbon sequestration.

There is a wide range of environments in which nature can contribute to solving the carbon problem. I think of it as a “carbon rainbow.”  I got the idea from the “Blue Carbon” deals which the Nature Conservancy (and others) have done with an increasing list of small and less-developed countries in which commitments are made to preserve/extend/protect ocean and lake areas in return for a reduction/rescheduling of the country’s existing public debt load. Then I thought about the various other modes of reducing/storing carbon. The “green” leaves of trees, the “brown” of peat bogs, the “yellow” of grasslands, the “black” of coal/oil,

My initial engagement in this area was in planting trees. Several groups raised funds by offering to plant a tree for a fixed amount. I quickly noticed that the cost to plant in the US was much higher than overseas and, focused on getting the biggest carbon “bang for the buck,” I got involved with several groups in this regard. Some of them also worked with consumer-oriented businesses and offered to plant a tree if you bought a jar of their product or similar schticks. This model had the advantage of being consumer friendly—allowing ordinary folks to participate in the climate-solutions process. However, they had the disadvantage of mis-characterizing the nature of the climate solution. Trees involve much more than planting. They need to be sustained over decades and the “dollar-a-tree” model doesn’t really work. Most of these groups have moved to a less-specific model, raising funds for projects, but in less discrete bites.

So, there’s a gap. We need simple-to-understand programs to connect with ordinary folks at the “small bite” level. In the US, the “Arbor Day Foundation has been working this angle for decades, but needs a real ‘juice-up.’One idea in this regard is to adapt a program that was effective back in the 1960s: the UNICEF milk-carton program by which school kids would raise money for UNICEF by collecting small change in a small orange milk carton when we went around “trick-or-treating” at Halloween. In addition to its financial benefits, this program was quite effective at raising awareness of UNICEF with both children and adults and gave children the opportunity to participate directly in a public-service program. Today, with QR codes and “Go Fund Me” similar programs are digitized, but the underlying public awareness campaign is lacking.

As long as the solutions advanced are macro and distant from daily life and contact, it will remain easy to ignore them and let “somebody else” take care of them. We list saturated fat on all food items, why not their carbon cost as well.

Most of the effort in carbon markets has gone towards large corporations and mega, globe-spanning systems. Those would be great if there was a consensus for action by governments world-wide or even a massive upswelling of popular demand. But that is not the world we live in (even before the present retreat). In the meantime, ordinary folks need to be involved and given the opportunity to participate directly in saving the planet. I’m not sure what the right messaging is or how to combine scare tactics with some kumbaya sensibility. But there are experienced communications professionals out there who need to get us all together on this campaign.


0 Comments

Babies and Bath Water

4/18/2025

0 Comments

 
The recent flurry of lame-brained policy decisions coming out of Washington lately has given us so much to be angry about that it’s easy (and far too common) to stop thinking. If we can grit our teeth and hold on through what will likely be several more horrible years, there may be some use in imagining what a successor Administration (no, not JD Vance) might do in 2029. There is certainly a lot to reverse and repair, but not everything done by HWSNBN is horrible and amid the rubble, there’s much that can be (to coin a phrase) “built back better.”

Indeed, a positive and inspiring reframing by one or more leading democrats/progressives of what the new center left party would stand for must include a fair number of specifics that go beyond merely negating the recent GOP agenda. In addition to acknowledging that government has not been up to the challenges of the 21C, we need to articulate means of substantive improvement. These steps also need to be recast outside of the traditional/tiresome/outdated framework of progressives vs. moderates. This is a time for radical, but not utopian thinking. Limited resources (economic, environmental, and political) means that some “sacred” programs and institutions will need to change or be put on the shelf. Ditto for some constituencies (including many that scream loudly).

According to Buddhist teachings, extracting and focusing on what is true and meaningful amid the muck of the world is essential to karmic progress; captured well in the phrase “finding the jewel in the lotus.” Similar (if less profound work) lies ahead in the world of policy and politics. Trumpian bombast and malevolent MAGA/Musk-ites have produced more muck than previously conceived of, but there are still jewels to be found. We need to put our repulsion at the tactics aside and figure out how to do the important things better; not in the context of restoring the inadequate past, but in terms of facing up to the challenges of the future. Whether in terms of foreign policy or domestic administration, merely going back to business as usual won’t cut it. For all the initiatives of the Biden Administration, they were too caught up in inertia, constituency capture, and lack of vision to change the course of political culture in America. Kamala Harris didn’t have the runway, chutzpah, or vision to do so during her brief campaign. Whoever is next will have to do so.

There are several critiques of traditional US policy that underlie the current MAGA-tudes that are accurate:

* The US wastes a lot of foreign aid money.
* The US has let other “allies” get by with inadequate contributions to shared global security.
* Our domestic health policy is ineffective, overcomplicated, and way too costly.
* Our immigration policy is a hash.
* Our tax structure is a confused (and confusing) muddle.
* Our public debt levels are too high and lower interest rates would reduce the burden on the annual budget.
* We do a lousy job of educating young people for their lives as citizens and workers in the 21C.
* (your additions here)

Now, the test is whether you can agree with these points (or most of them) without falling into a rant over how the current Administration has gone about trashing things or pointing fingers in the usual “blame game.” Then, try to come up with effective solutions. The silver lining in the current mass of clouds is that it is actually easier to do so now that the previous structures/institutions are in rubble.

Winston Churchill (among others) said “never let a good crisis go to waste,” and after just a few months, we already have plenty of “good crises” to deal with. So, what to do? (Let’s imagine—just as a fantasy—that we have an Administration and a Congress willing to act promptly and boldly).

* Environmental protection, carbon markets, and real support for workers affected by the transition
* Radically simplified and progressive tax code
* Integrated medical/health security for all (Medicare, Medicaid, Veterans’ programs)
* Modern computer systems for government administration
* Rewrite the UN and NATO charters
* Treat foreign friends in a friendly way
* Put the culture wars (from both perspectives) off to the side for a while
* (your additions here)

FDR and the “hundred days” that kicked off the New Deal in 1933 is a good role model here; in part through the flood of innovative legislation, but more importantly in the sense of renewal and moral grounding that he sought to instill. He had the benefit of large Congressional majorities and widespread popular agreement that something quite different had to be done.

It’s a tall order and by no means clear that there’s the right person out there to pick up the flag. Congressional sclerosis remains a large impediment to innovation and action, but the lack of coherence in the GOP (especially in a post-Trumpian world) might augur well for surprising flexibility. (after all, the Dems aren’t in much better shape). One key will be to assure the varying pockets of anxiety and fear that their concerns are being met. Beyond the essential moral leadership and comforting, this means that many things—highly distasteful to some portions of the electorate—will need to be incorporated into the new program. It’s a democracy, after all, and that means it would be good to get more than a bare majority on board.

I suspect that the current widespread frustration with US politics and policies is one of the reasons why “cultural” issues have become such flash points, i.e., we’ve given up on substantive policy debates and public debate has been relegated to less central issues.

In returning to the central issues of why we have government, we have to avoid succumbing to fantasies of “if I were King.” It might be satisfying for a moment, but each citizen has the responsibility to be political, too. Compromise is necessary and trying to find the jewels in the current muck is a good start.

0 Comments

Revolutionary Era.3

4/11/2025

1 Comment

 
Having recently (March) completed my OLLI class on the history of revolutions and posted twice on the topic of Revolutionary Era (110824 and 010325), I wanted to address an angle omitted in the latter and which loomed ominously over my effort to focus on the history of revolutions in the course: “Are we having a revolution in the USA today?”

My regular readers will know better than to expect I will pin myself down to a clear and simple answer on this fraught topic.

The first point to be made is that it all depends on what you mean by “revolution.” For some, revolutions can only happen according to the historical/moral arc described by Karl Marx and since elaborated by Lenin and numerous others. Rooted in several aspects of the Great French Revolution (1789 and all that) and exemplified by Russia (1917), China (1949), and Cuba (1959), these sharp and dramatic events mark the assumption of power by the “people” and the construction of a socialist state for their benefit. However, scholars over the past 250 years have utilized dozens of specific definitions. I define a revolution as a conflict between two or more major domestic power groupings, leading to the forcible transfer of power over a state and resulting in significant changes in the nature or structure of the state and society. Such events need not, in my view, follow a Marxian path, or one leading to a democracy. They need not be sudden ruptures, nor is widespread violence required. Within this framework, there are a wide range of configurations of power groupings, ideas, and circumstances that have led to revolutions in the past and it’s easy to imagine more variants. I would include, for example, Iran (1979), England (1689), China (1912), among others.

There are many kinds of “big” political change that thus fall outside this definition, including protests and riots, coups d’etat, invasions, some civil wars, and foreign invasions. January 6, 2021 wasn’t a revolution (it failed). Nor would the winner of the pending civil war in Sudan (not likely to change the nature of the state and society),

Second, it is useful to distinguish between “revolutionary situations” and “revolutionary outcomes.” We obviously can’t have any sense of the “outcome” of the current political upheaval in the US; it is (as they say) “too early to tell.” We know historically that many revolutionary situations don’t produce revolutionary outcomes; the wave of uprisings in Europe in 1848 and the Arab Spring of 2011 are good examples. Generally, however, revolutionary situations are characterized by multiple contenders for control of the mechanisms of a state, each with significant support from domestic power centers, and marked by an unwillingness or inability on the part of the incumbent state/ruler to suppress the contenders.

The current situation resembles, both in terms of its style and its political vector, the situations in Italy (1922) and Germany (1933).  In both historical cases and in the US today, legal and constitutional processes were followed by which a leader was elected with a radical agenda. Historically, this was followed by that leader, using formally proper procedures, dismantling the constitutional structure of the state to a point that more extensive changes in both the constitution and laws could easily be made and, eventually, there were only marginal constraints on the power of a centralized, personality-driven state.

So, even if there are striking historical parallels, the question remains whether this counts as a revolution. In contrast to the classic examples, in Italy and Germany the violence utilized to assume control was incidental not determinative, although it was deployed as an instrument of control following the change in the state in order to ensure extensive changes in society. Similarly, the “losing” power centers had effectively surrendered prior to the broad social changes taking place. (As an aside, it’s worth noting that both Italy and Germany (as well as Japan) each underwent a modernizing “revolution from above” in the second half of the 19C.) If we can get past a rigid reliance on Marxist models of revolution, these examples fit the definition set out above.

More fundamentally, however, we can see that the definitional question doesn’t really matter (except to future historians). The impacts on our country and are world are already profound and long-lasting. Great damage has been done, not only to individuals harmed by the loss of rights, jobs, and subsidies, but to the stability of a world-view deeply embedded in our citizenry and the leaders and citizens around the world.

Now we have no way of knowing how this “revolution” will unfold or whether it will “stick.” The Great French Revolution went through half-a-dozen stages before it reverted to a monarchy under Napoleon. The Russian Revolution of 1905 looked successful—for a year or so—and then was rolled back. The uncertainty could as easily lead to a more authoritarian/populist state or anarchy for a while or a counter-revolution by progressives. Give me another decade and call me back then for an update.

Beyond all this, I take the underlying meaning of the question of whether we’re having a revolution as less a question than as an expression of anxiety. By whatever definition, we’re not used to having revolutions in the US and, while we like to strut in the revolutionary mantle of Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, and Washington et al., we’re really a pretty conservative culture. We have a hard time getting our heads around the idea that WE are susceptible to a revolution. Those who pose the question are asking for reassurance that whatever this is, it will turn out well.

On that score, I have no idea (only hope). Those who would be counter-revolutionaries would be well advised to get into gear. This is not a time for burying one’s head in the sand. The boys of 1776 recognized that they were “all in.” They pledged “their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor.” They meant it. We’re glad they did and that it turned out pretty well.

1 Comment

Cuba Libre

4/4/2025

0 Comments

 
I got back last month from a week-long jaunt to Cuba. It’s long been on my bucket list and as a warming winter break, not too far away, with some historical and cultural interest, it fit the bill (besides, who knows if the current administration will cut it off completely soon).

I traveled with a group tour for the first time in about 20 years, which provided structure, a (very) friendly group for interaction, and support (and ease of logistics). Road Scholar did a good job on the ground (although their air travel group dropped the ball on my arrangements).

Cuba was colonized by Spain for 400 years and then either formally or effectively under the thumb of the US for 60 until 1959. We’ve been at war with them since (occasionally hot, but mostly cold); marked by embargoes and isolation. Until the Soviet Union collapsed 35 years ago, a lot of support came from Moscow, but since then, Cuba has struggled pretty much on its own.

Any traveler (particularly for only a week and not speaking the language) can only dip their toe in the water of the local culture. Narratives are shaped by itinerary and guides (and preconceptions). This expedition was certainly no exception. It wasn’t a problem, but it was good to bear in mind. Road Scholar set this up as a culturally focused trip, including a cooking class, a couple of dance performances, a visit to Hemmingway’s house and fishing village, a tobacco farm, time with the famous old American cars of the 1950s, all on top of the usual sightseeing, both in Havana and the countryside. A couple of quite good lectures on the history of Cuban music and architecture also provided good grounding.

The lack of economic development, principally due to the impact of 60+ years of US economic boycott and sanctions, is a central fact of Cuban life. We imposed this mode of economic warfare at the height of the Cold War (immediately after the Cuban Missile Crisis). Since then, with some relaxation under the Obama Administration, we continue to pretend that the global struggle against Communism is still underway. Cuba clearly has a socialist economy, but we avidly trade with every other erstwhile (or continuing) Communist country. We’ve gotten over the “loss” of China (1949-1972), the loss to Vietnam (1954-1991), not to mention Russia (1917-1933 and occasional and limited sanctions since then thru to the Putin era). Why pick on Cuba? Could it be that the exiles in Miami who lost their property in Cuba as a result of the 1959 Revolution are stuck in the past? Could it be that there’s no clear major domestic US beneficiary of normal economic relations to lobby for change? It’s a minor issue for us; it’s been devastating for the Cuban people.

It's a curious corner of global imperial history that those who leverage the formal and informal structures of power to their own advantage—aligning with either the imperial power or a local regime of exploitation—are often the most vehement about the loss of that power. The ex-Battista-ites (i.e., those aligned with the regime overthrown by Castro in 1959) now in South Florida are of a piece with the pieds-noir (the French who lived in Algeria and violently opposed that country’s independence) or the Brits in residence in Kenya or Rhodesia. They all stood in opposition to history’s wave of decolonization in the mid-20C. The others have faded away. But not the Cubans.

It's hard to believe that a deal cannot be struck to provide a face-saving compensation plan to those whose families’ property was confiscated by the revolutionary state in the 1960s. More complex situations—post-Holocaust, post-Soviet, or even what we took from the Brits during the Revolutionary War—have pretty much been resolved through payments, claims processing, or a gentle consignment to the mists of “ancient history.” It’s more than time to move on. There is energy and opportunity all across Cuba (although less now, since about a million people have left and gone elsewhere in the Western Hemisphere for new opportunities.

The impact of the sanctions is quite evident in Havana, a city rich in history—empire, slavery, sugar—and home to about 2M of Cuba’s 10M people. Fine colonial architecture and a few modern buildings (built either by the Russians or, more recently non-US investors) sit cheek-by-jowl with crumbling concrete. It’s a vibrant place with plenty of sites for a few days of touristing. We were well fed (one goes only to the burgeoning private restaurants and avoids the overpriced and poor quality state-run stores and eateries).  Our group was supplied with drinks at all meals—the usual range of tropical favorites—which one could get with or without “Vitamin R” (one of the many local rums). I partook regularly. Rum is my normal summer drink, so I was glad to get the chance to “taste local.” I still have (unopened) a bottle of Bacardi which my grandparents brought back from Cuba in the 1950s. Bacardi decamped to the US and Puerto Rico and has spearheaded the US sanctions regime against Cuba since.

Castro installed a “communist” regime, banning private industry, but that has long been relaxed in many sectors. Both in the capital and the countryside, small private businesses have been allowed for a couple of decades and are impressive. Road Scholar goes out of its way to feature success stories in multiple sectors. Private businesses are unconstrained by the formal currency conversion rate and US dollars are widely accepted (the de facto rate is about three times that of the formal rate, making many cash transactions (US credit cards are not allowed) a pretty good deal. Cubans have a long history of resilience—whether vis-à-vis the Spanish, local oligarchies, American sanctions, or the loss of Russian subsidies 30+ years ago, or the current nonsense of US foreign policy. They scrounge and scramble. There’s an appealing spirit and an informal motto that “nothing is impossible.” They deserve a chance to build on that spirit.

0 Comments
<<Previous

    Condemned to Repeat It --
    Musings on history, society, and the world.

    I don't actually agree with Santayana's famous quote, but this is my contribution to my version of it: "Anyone who hears Santayana's quote is condemned to repeat it."

    Archives

    June 2025
    May 2025
    April 2025
    March 2025
    February 2025
    January 2025
    December 2024
    November 2024
    October 2024
    September 2024
    August 2024
    July 2024
    June 2024
    May 2024
    April 2024
    March 2024
    February 2024
    January 2024
    December 2023
    November 2023
    October 2023
    September 2023
    August 2023
    July 2023
    June 2023
    May 2023
    April 2023
    March 2023
    February 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020

      Sign up for alerts when there's a new post

      Enter your email address and click 'subscribe.'
    Subscribe

    RSS Feed

Proudly powered by Weebly