After years, no, decades, of wondering why all American voters don’t think and act the same way I do, I finally found something approaching an answer. We are NOT all alike. Imagine that. I’ve understood for a long time the whole “diversity” theme and how we are all different flowers in the bouquet or vegetables in the stew, etc. But the analysis by Colin Woodard in a new book called American Nations is really enlightening.

I am definitely a Yankee, by birth and by temperament and worldview. But there are many more Americans who are NOT. Thus my never ending frustration with political points of view on everything from the value of public education to protection of the planet to peaceful solutions to problems, and the dignity of every human being. In fact, the Seven Principles of Unitarian Universalism read just like the description by Woodard of the Yankee mindset. That’s partly because Unitarians were instrumental in molding the political views of many in the Northeast. That’s where women’s suffrage was born as well as the anti-slavery movement.

From what I understand, William Greenleaf Eliot and his family moved to the St. Louis area in the decades before the American Civil War hoping to bring Yankee enlightenment and problem solving to the Midwest. They created some cornerstone institutions which continue today such as Washington University, but they were not able to avert a Civil War.   I think I understand better now why many in southern parts of the U.S. still value their Confederate traditions. Our priorities and values go all the way back to the culture that created us. Missouri was divided during the Civil War, and Woodard divides it between “Midlands” and “Greater Appalachia” on his map.  

I look forward to reading the entire book soon. I’m not sure if knowing all this about our past cultures and value systems will motivate me even more to help change public views and elect progressives, or if it will give me the reason to finally quit politics altogether.

The post American disunity: I’m finally beginning to understand it appeared first on Occasional Planet.

The device you are reading this on, whether you are a Mac or PC fan, is very likely helping to fuel the ongoing civil war in the Congo. Most of the electronic devices we take for granted use a substance called Columbite-Tantalite, which is commonly shortened to coltan. The great thing about coltan is that this plain looking metallic powder can hold large capacitive charges when refined. This makes coltan a vital ingredient in everything from cell phones to video games. In fact, coltan is credited as being the key component in the current digital revolution, with even the Department of Defense relying on this mineral for the majority of its smart bombs, jet engines and electronic gear crucial to modern warfare.

The lion’s share of coltan is currently being mined in the eastern part of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DR Congo) which is experiencing what some refer to as “Africa’s First World War”. The current conflict has been going on since the 1990s and is actually a source of profit to a number of multinational  corporations,  which profit from the warfare. Experts estimate that coltan from the DR Congo accounts  for between 64% and 84% of the world supply.  Income from the trade in DR Congo’s precious metals is used to fuel the war, with both sides using the income to buy weapons, employ more soldiers, etc.

There is little desire to end the trade in minerals. Many companies stand to lose a fortune, and the miners are desperate for income, with the average Congolese income currently $750 a year.  Miners work naked in open pits to bring minerals to the surface, where they are panned in much the same manner used by California’s Gold Rush miners. Miners provide their own flashlights with batteries, of questionable worth. working deep in the earth with no protection.  Frequently, they are robbed by local army, rebels and police forces.

The civil war is technically over, with the different parties having agreed to a common government that would take control. Unsurprisingly, there have been problems with the various groups complying. This situation is aggravated by the interference of Rwanda and Uganda, which support various ethnic groups. Crimes committed during the war are truly horrific, with the use of rape as a war tactic and even cannibalism of indigenous Pygmies who are seen as “subhuman” by many. The belief exists among some that eating the flesh of a Pygmy grants magical powers.

The civil war is also severely impacting local populations of mountain gorillas, one of the more endangered mammals on the planet. The gorillas are slaughtered for their meat, which is referred to as “bush meat”.

There have been efforts to curb some of effects of buying coltran, including registering local smelters and “bag and tag” at the mines themselves. The difficulty with these programs is that corruption is rampant among local officials (thus police robbing miners), making it nearly impossible to be whether compliance programs are substantive convenient fictions.

To give a reference to the scale of the problem, when Sony first introduced the Playstation in 2000, the cost of coltan jumped from $49 per pound to $275 per pound, fueling a rush to dig more of the substance out of the ground.

Corporations involved in the electronics business (Microsoft, Dell, Apple, Sony, etc.) complain that it is nearly impossible to figure out which is “blood” coltan and which is not. Activists in Europe did attempt a boycott of cell phones using coltan from the DR Congo. But these efforts so far not caught on or had much impact.

With so many disturbing features to this story, we should also consider that many of the coltan miners are also minors.  The implication is clear: Children of wealthy (by African standards) children receive Xboxes, mp3 players and other electronic gadgets to entertain themselves with, devices that only exist because children in poverty are sent down into hellish mine pits at risk of their lives and health. How many western children would still be asking for the latest ipod, ipad or video game if they knew what torture had been inflicted on children in another part of the world?

The trade in “blood diamonds” has been greatly reduced as a result of a public awareness campaign that educated the general public on how the stones had been obtained. Women (and men) of developed nations began to feel guilty about flaunting their precious stones when they could not be sure how they had been obtained. If a move to boycott coltan derived devices were to mean that laptops doubled in price, would the general public be “up” for that? The other option is to pretend to ourselves that we have never read this (or any other article on the subject) article and clack away happily so we can continue to write articles like this one. The ubiquity of electronic devices means that none of us is superior, none are blameless, and no one gets to preach to those too ill-informed to know better than to support a blood soaked industry. Personally, I wrote this on a laptop, with a cell phone in one pocket and an mp3 player in another, while my flat screen TV was on in the background. So the guilt includes me.

The post Your laptop [and mine] are fueling DR Congo’s civil war appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon said it about the soldiers they commanded in Vietnam. The two presidents did not want any fallen soldier in Southeast Asia to die in vain.

Over the past decade of American involvement in Iraq, Afghanistan, and a variety of other Muslim countries, Presidents Bush and Obama have similarly said that every fallen soldier was valiantly serving his or her nation and had not died in vain.

It may not be politically correct to ask it, but when does a soldier die in vain? I will not pretend to have a definitive answer but some situations are rather clear.

1. If a soldier dies following the conclusion of a war, that certainly is in vain. It has happened repeatedly in American history, perhaps most egregiously following the War of 1812 and the Civil War.

2. It could be argued that if a soldier dies due to friendly fire, it would be in vain. We must keep in mind that frequently there are uncertainties in alleged cases of friendly fire.

But the focus of the assertion that “we do not want those who have fought so valiantly to have died in vain” is that the United States should not bring a war to an expeditious end because it would devalue the sacrifice of the soldiers who, to use Lincoln’s term in the Gettysburg Address, “gave the last full measure of devotion.” Lincoln went on to say, “that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain.”

Lincoln gave his speech as two regions of the United States struggled to define what America meant. Our experiment with democracy had unfinished business, namely whether it was the states or the federal government who had primary powers in this unique system of federalism.

When the Civil War came to an end, it meant that the fighting ended, but the issues were not settled. They continue to this very day.

Did the more than 600,000 soldiers who died in America’s Civil War die in vain? Some would argue that all deaths in war are in vain because there are better ways to settle disputes. In the case of the Civil War, it’s doubtful that any leader could have done more than Abraham Lincoln to search for peaceful ways to avoid the bloodshed. When the first shots were fired at Ft. Sumter, SC on April 12, 1861, the rules of engagement had been set and they included bloodshed.

While many opposed the war as it was being fought, the prevailing views on each side were that it should be fought to a fitting conclusion. Only when the Confederate armies were either defeated or surrounded, did General Robert E. Lee sue for surrender. Did those who fought for the Union and the Confederacy die in vain? The prevailing sentiment on each side was that every soldier who died did so in support of an important cause in which he believed.

To justify the deaths of the Civil War, we have to conclude two things. First, the outcome with the union remaining intact was a worthwhile resolution. Second, as a nation, we had learned lessons that would prevent us from repeating the mistakes that lead to and perpetuated the war. With varying degrees of certainty, most people would probably agree with these conclusions.

The current question is whether U.S. soldiers in combat in Afghanistan and Iraq are dying in vain. It is helpful to look at the two questions we posed regarding the American Civil War and adapt them to Afghanistan.

First, is the outcome of war likely to be what the United States wants? This is difficult to answer, because of the lack of clarity of the American mission. However, few people assert that even if American soldiers remain until 2014, the Taliban will not be a political force in Afghanistan and that pockets of al Qaeda will not remain.

Second, will we have learned to not repeat the mistakes that plunged us into a prolonged war in Afghanistan? The answer to that lies in the future history of our country.

What we do know is that in Vietnam more than 58,000 American men and women died, presumably to keep territory from falling into the hands of the Communists. Two years after the last American soldier left, all of Vietnam was under Communist rule. So the mission of preventing the spread of Communism into South Vietnam did not succeed.

The second question would be did we learn lessons that would protect us from repeating our mistakes? Regrettably, it seems that American involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan would provide evidence that we did not learn that lesson. We appear to be fighting for causes that we cannot win. The problem is, as Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon experienced in Vietnam, no American president wants to be the first to preside over a war that the United States loses.

Here are two possible solutions to the problem. First, let’s acknowledge that we lost the war in Vietnam. By any reasonable standard of measurement, we did. If we accept that, however painful it might be, then President Obama need not worry about being the first president to lose a war.

If President Obama were to pull American troops out of Afghanistan and Iraq as quickly as possible, then we could better answer the questions about whether American soldiers had died in vain.

First, we could say that the 58,000 American soldiers who died in Vietnam did not do so in vain. They fought valiantly, but provided us with evidence that the United States cannot win every war that it enters. As for those who have lost their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan, the same can be true. The Vietnam lesson has not been thoroughly learned, but perhaps the similarity of the outcomes in Iraq and Afghanistan to Vietnam is a necessary reminder for us to learn the lesson to not fight wars that we cannot win. If we learn that lesson now, then those who have fought and died for their country did so for a reason, though not necessarily the reason that they thought had been put in harm’s way. They died so that we could finally learn the lesson to neither enter nor remain in wars that are fruitless.

It can be argued that every soldier who dies in Afghanistan and Iraq from here on out may die in vain because he or she should not have been there. Once the time to have learned the lesson passes, then there is no purpose in the death of soldiers.

These are questions that must be addressed by President Barack Obama, by the United States Congress which has the power to cut off the funding for the wars, and by the American people who can tell their leaders that they will no longer accept America at war under unwinnable circumstances.

It is certainly my hope, and I think that of many others, that no soldier has died in vain. But anyone who might die as a result of any delay in getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan ASAP, may die in vain. It’s a terrible thing to say, and perhaps not true. However, it is something to talk about.

The post When do soldiers die “in vain?” appeared first on Occasional Planet.

A recent article in the Washington Post pointed out a “myth” about the Civil War that relates to why middle and low income people in contemporary America have acquiesced to the continued tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans.

In an op-ed piece on January 9, 2011 entitled “Five myths about why the South Seceded,” James W. Loewen states that one of the five myths was the belief that, since most white Southerners didn’t own slaves, they wouldn’t secede for slavery.”  He states that there were:

“factors [that] caused most Southern whites, including those who were not slave-owners, to defend slavery. First, Americans are wondrous optimists, looking to the upper class and expecting to join it someday. In 1860, many subsistence farmers aspired to become large slave-owners. So poor white Southerners supported slavery then, just as many low-income people support the extension of George W. Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy now.”

Without attribution to anyone, it has been said that if you tell a lie enough times people will  eventually believe it.  Similarly, when a myth based on falsehood is perpetuated, people can come to accept it as truth.

Perhaps there was a time when Americans correctly saw their society as upwardly mobile.  However, that is not true now.  We are falling back into an economic abyss similar to those of the gilded age and 1929.

Have you ever heard someone say, “If I can lose 75 pounds anyone can?”   The words are intended to be encouragement to someone else; in reality they are self-aggrandizement, because the speaker wants us to believe that no one else’s weight loss challenge could be greater than his or hers.

Funny how television is now rife with programs about “get rich quick” schemes and the glory of weight loss competition.   If these programs are of any interest, it is only because getting rich quickly or losing pounds by the dozen rarely happen, but we want to believe that it can happen for us.

In America’s 21^st century, the odds of a middle or lower income person becoming a millionaire are about as slim as they were for a slave to gain his or her freedom in the ante-bellum South.  But many Americans are not very wise at handicapping odds.  If they were, they wouldn’t go to the casinos, where the only guaranteed winner is the house.

It’s not that Americans are incapable of resenting wealthy people who want even more.  In 1994, when millionaire baseball players and billionaire owners could not reach a working agreement, fans sad a pox on both your houses.  The average salary of a player in 1994 was $1.2 million.  Fans justifiably asked how could anyone be unsatisfied with making over a million dollars to play a kids game; a game that I would play for free.  And sweet resentment was reserved for the owners who pleaded poor, when making more money than ever.  If you don’t remember the strike, just wait until a month after the Super Bowl when it is quite feasible that there will be a work stoppage in the NFL.  You’ll notice it when there’s no April draft of college players.

If there is a labor stoppage in March, today’s heroes, such as Payton Manning or Adrian Peterson, are likely to become the targets of our ire.  But the damage done to the average American by professional athletes or even their “owners” is miniscule compared to the Wall Street barons who have bought a few hundred politicians in order to keep their marginal tax rate at 36% rather than 39.6%.

Part of Republican framing involves displacement; convincing people to demonize the wrong party.  When insurance companies are making out like bandits, Republicans call it a government takeover, and many Americans believe it.

So if an NFL strike happens, let’s use it as an opportunity to try to educate the American people that however the labor dispute is resolved, it will have little or no impact on them. Conversely, rescinding the Bush tax giveaways to the wealthy would raise nearly a trillion dollars over a decade.  As former Republican Senator Everett Dirksen of Illinois once said, “a billion here, a billion there; pretty soon we’re talking real money.”  Progressives need to convince more Americans that zeros do mean something, especially when they are strung at the end of an already large number.

Back to the Civil War.  Think of how many individuals in gray lost their lives to defend a system that was of no economic gain to them.  Similarly, how many of today’s middle and lower income individuals are undermining their real economic self-interests in order to satisfy their economic fantasies.

We need to try to teach Americans a little placement rather than displacement.  This will not be an easy task, but opportunities to come along when it’s easier to make the point.  If the NFL has a work stoppage, seize the moment!

The post The Civil War, the NFL, the haves and the have-nots appeared first on Occasional Planet.

2011 is the 150^th anniversary of the start of the Civil War, an era in which St. Louis had grandiose ideas for itself. A just-published book, The Great Heart of the Republic, looks at the role St. Louis played in the cultural conflicts of those tumultuous times. And, if you read between the lines, there are lessons—and conflicts—that still apply today, as St. Louis continues its quest for recognition, redemption and advancement in the constellation of American cities

Historian Adam Arenson’s account of St. Louis’ late-19^th Century civic struggles flows more like a novel than what one might expect from such a deeply researched, academic investigation. His straightforward writing style pulls you along, immersing you in the political wrangling of the times and introducing you to information that explodes some of St. Louis’ favorite historical myths.

It all starts with the Great Fire of 1849. Rather than a tragedy for the city, it was, in Arenson’s account, the spark that—as the city was rebuilt—transformed a French fur-trading hub into a potential commercial powerhouse on the doorstep of the vast Western territories.

It’s  Arenson’s focus on that Western connection that sets apart his view of St. Louis and the Civil War. He shows us a St. Louis—and an America—that were not just in conflict over slavery vs. abolition, but also in contention over the future of everything west of the Mississippi. In Arenson’s view, that third aspect of the cultural civil war is often overlooked.

Arenson’s book is absorbing and refreshingly short—an easily digestible 222 pages, not counting the extensive and fascinating bibliography. If understanding history is a way to help us avoid repeating it, the book offers more than just a new and intriguing prism through which to view St. Louis’ past: It’s also a guidebook to the future. Here are a few civic-development lessons that I took away from The Great Heart of the Republic:

Transform a crisis into an opportunity

The Great Fire of 1849 could have wiped St. Louis off the map, but it didn’t, because city leaders and citizens didn’t let that happen. I certainly don’t wish for a similar disaster to spur St. Louis into action. But somewhere in Arenson’s dramatic account of the fire, I think there’s a metaphor. Is it that much of a stretch to say that the City of St. Louis is in an existential crisis in 2011? The public schools are failing. Downtown is devolving into a hollowed-out core, as businesses go elsewhere. We can view the situation as hopeless, or we can see it as an opportunity for sweeping innovation and rebirth, as city leaders did in 1849. The parallels aren’t perfect, I know. But the lesson is there, and to move forward St. Louis needs to…

Think creatively

One of the surprises [for me] in Arenson’s book is the fascinating story of how several prominent local citizens tried to get the Capital of the United States moved to St. Louis in the 1870s. Apparently, people in the late 19^th Century were not afraid to propose “crackpot” ideas and be taken seriously. In those heady times of the emerging industrial revolution and Manifest Destiny mania, people thought anything was possible. The leaders of the “capital removal” project made some excellent arguments, earned a measure of credibility, and got national attention. Okay, so ultimately, they failed. But the effort showed creativity and the willingness to take a risk. Lesson taken: Contemporary St. Louisans need to take a self-esteem pill and think bigger. The effort to win the hosting contest for the 2012 Democratic convention is a positive example [even if the convention itself will inevitably be a meaningless exercise in political theatre.]. But I digress.

Some of the teachable moments in Arenson’s book derive from bad decisions. One of the worst, with implications still felt in St. Louis, came from politicians’ inability [or unwillingness] to…

Imagine

If you haven’t heard of the Great Divorce of 1876, you haven’t lived in St. Louis—or at least not for very long. In The Great Heart of the Republic, Arenson shows how and why, in 1876, St. Louis civic leaders circled the wagons around the known world of the existing city and seceded from the perceived burdens of supporting farmers and their cows and pigs and cornfields in the rest of what was then St. Louis County. Many also viewed the notion of Forest Park, at the western end of the city, as a waste of money and developable land. Their lack of imagination is particularly stunning because of the ultimate irony of closing off the city from neighboring tracts of land: At the same time that city leaders were touting St. Louis as the gateway to the vast Western territories that stretched to California—and looking for ways to exploit those possibilities and the accompanying riches—they turned their backs on their own western frontier!

The reversal of fortune resulting from their decision has been dramatic, as St. Louis County has prospered, while the City [which became its own county in the divorce] has suffered. Understandably, city leaders probably couldn’t have predicted the impact that cars would have on life in a metropolitan area. But the lesson endures. And as St. Louis movers and shakers kick around—for the umpteenth time in the 20^th and 21st Centuries—the concept of rejoining the suburbs with the city, some imaginative, big-picture, non-parochial ideas could be very helpful in shaping a better future.  [Two of which are not, in my opinion, represented by billionaire Rex Sinquefield’s selfish, ideological, unfair plans to eliminate the City earnings tax and to replace Missouri’s state income tax with a flat sales tax.]

Just read it

I’m fairly sure that Arenson didn’t write his book as a cautionary tale for contemporary metropolitan leaders. And there’s much more in it than I’m talking about here. Some of what he documents may surprise people who learned their St. Louis history from conventional sources. Even some Civil War aficionados may find something new to ponder. Without spoiling the story, I’ll simply mention that in Arenson’s view—contrary to local lore—the Eads Bridge over the Mississippi was not the most important bridge in St. Louis’ railroad and economic history. That story is a dramatic highlight in the book. But it’s a story that I recommend you read for yourself.

The post Can St. Louis get its groove back? appeared first on Occasional Planet.