Three books but since one was tiny, “The Strange Library” by Haruki Murakami, and two might not count since I did not read all of them?? At first I thought the Murakami book might be a children’s book until I arrived at the end; it definitely is not a children’s book. This young boy goes to the library to check out books like he usually does and finds a different woman at the circulation desk. She gives him some odd instructions about where to find new books after he returns the books he has already borrowed. He has to walk through a sort of maze, meets some very strange people, and various unpleasant events occur. And the end is terribly sad. The book is short, with a fold up cover and illustrations of all sorts on every other page. The back cover is sort of like a mandala.
Then I tried to read “Yellowface” by R.F. Kuang but only managed to get half way and quit. This is highly unusual behavior for me because if I start a novel, I finish it no matter what. In this case, reading about a woman who steals a dead friend’s unpublished novel and makes it her own which becomes a best seller and then whines when she is attacked because she is white and the friend is Chinese and some question whether is she committing cultural appropriation and is this ok. There is also a lot about the intricacies and unfairness in the publishing industry with so much detail that I gave up. Do I feel guilty? A little.
The third book is “Cheating Death: The New Science of Living Longer and Better” by Dr. Rand McClain. I read most of this nonfiction book, picking and choosing the parts that seem most relevant to my own life and health. I highly recommend this book because it gives useful advice about supplements that can help with sleep, arthritis, diabetes, etc. instead of using some of the usual NSAIDs and some prescription drugs. However, he is not anti-many popular medicines like metformin, for example, so this is not an anti-prescription medicine book. There is a very informative chapter, “Bioidentical Hormone Replacement Therapy”, that details the pros and cons and suggests certain foods to eat, e.g. cruciferous vegetables, to counter some of the negative side effects. This book is useful in many ways. He also discusses some cutting edge therapies that are not available to most people but might be of interest to those searching for what is new and innovative regarding aging.
Rather than summarize or evaluate, I am going to provide some quotes from the book. I will say that if you want to understand the current state of affairs in the United States of America, this book provides excellent insights based on history.
From the Introduction:
“America began with a great paradox: the same men who came up with the radical idea of constructing a nation on the principle of equality also owned slaves, thought Indians were savages, and considered women inferior…it was a key figure of the new democratic republic…the ringing phrase ‘all men are created equal’ did not actually include everyone. In 1776, it seemed self-evident to leaders that not every person living in the British colonies were capable or worthy of self determination. In their mind, women, slaves, Indians, and paupers depended on the guidance of men like themselves…So long as these lesser people played no role in the body politic, everyone within it would be equal. The principle of equality depended on inequality. That central paradox–that freedom depended on racial, gender, and class inequality–shaped American history as the cultural, religious, and social patterns of the new nation grew around it.”
From The Triumph of Equality:
“The accomplishment of white male equality under the law was extraordinary…They argued that their new system made their new nation different from the Old World, which was split between a corrupt aristocracy and the lazy poor.”
“On March 4, 1858, prominent South Carolina slaveholder James Henry Hammond gave a speech in the Senate–to which he had been elected the year before despite the fact that he admitted two years earlier he had sexually assaulted his four young nieces…The greatest strength of the South was not its economy…but rather ‘the harmony of her political and social institutions.’ Every society had ‘a class to do the menial duties, to perform the drudgery of life’…the people who make up the ‘mudsill of society supporting that other class that leads progress, civilization, and refinement.’ The men in the latter group are wealthy and well connected…In the South whites had made an ‘inferior race into mudsills, dull but loyal people who are content to have their labor directed by their betters.”
“Now a national figure, Lincoln articulated a democratic vision for America, one that refuted the mudsill version of Senator Hammond…he explained that Hammond’s theory divided the world into permanent castes: capitalists driving the economy and workers stuck at the bottom.”
The West:
The last stand of the Alamo became the foundational event for western American history, offering a vision of self-sacrifice and heroism. It prompted the formation of the Republic of Texas, and inspired Texans under Sam Houston to defeat Santa Anna’s troops…In the retelling of what happened at the Alamo, what got lost was the reality that the defenders were rebelling against the Mexican government in Mexican territory, and that they were fighting to defend the right to enslave people. The myth also ignored the fact that many of the defenders were Mexican opponents of Santa Ana, and that some of the defenders–including Davy Crockett–surrendered.”
Cowboy Reconstruction:
After Lincoln’s death, Johnson wanted no part of Lincoln’s and the “Union’s democratic vision. To rebuild the South, Johnson turned not to the Army, or to the ex-slaves who had supported the Union, but to former Confederates. He offered pardons to all but 1500 Confederate leaders…states codified the racial violence that swept across the South in the summer of 1865. As employers cheated workers out of wages, gangs beat and raped African Americans into submissive behavior, and whites attacked their black neighbors, southern state legislatures created the Black Codes.”
The West and The South Join Forces:
“The resurgence of the South’s ideology came from the nation’s new bloc: the western states. Easterners had made the mistake of thinking the westerners would join their coalition, only to discover that due to their peculiar history and extractive economy , westerners had more in common with white antebellum southerners than with easterners. By the 1890s a few wealthy men dominated western society. Poor white men had little opportunity. people of color and women even less, and leaders worked to keep it that way. Still, as in the East before the Civil War, the myth of the individualist convinced Americans that the west was the land of opportunity…Theodore Roosevelt’s war record took the western ideal and put it on the national stage. By the end of the century, Americans embraced the cowboy image and vowed to spread it across the globe, putting into law that some people are better than others. Once again freedom was hierarchical.
“In the early part of the twentieth century, southern towns began to erect statues of Confederates, making them into western style heroes and individualists. The rewriting of the past created momentum for women’s suffrage…Rebecca Latimer Felton was a reformer who wanted educational and prison reform as well as women’s suffrage. She was also in favor of lynching her black neighbors who wanted equal rights…The Ku Klux Klan reformed and rebounded in the 1920s…Meanwhile in the West, immigrants and Indians were falling victim to a legal system that established castes. In Texas, officials were hardening a racial system that classified migrants across the Mexican border by race. In Arizona, a state law singled out ‘treason against the state’ as punishable by death aimed at Apache and Navahos who might fight the legal system ensnaring them. In Oklahoma…corrupt legislators arranged affairs to steal valuable land from Indians.
What a delightful, entertaining book! The title refers to her basement kitchen in Edinburgh, Scotland, where she lives when she is not wandering the globe. Each chapter highlights a certain place in her travels, in this case Ukraine, various countries in Central Asia, e.g. Uzbekistan, Russia, and the city of Istanbul, which she says is one of her favorite cities to visit especially in winter when tourists are gone. In one chapter, “Russian Railway Pies”, she and her husband ride the train from Moscow to the eastern shore of Russia–the Trans Siberian Railway journey. They did this in winter when the temperature in some places they stopped were as low as 50 below zero.
Each chapter contains her experiences in an individual country or city. She describes the places in detail, the people she meets, the food she eats. She also relates her feelings regarding these places, many of which she had previously visited, how they have changed over the years for better or worse–worse in the case of Russia, what they mean to her. In each chapter she always goes back to her kitchen, her dog, hiking the Scottish highlands, and her cooking, usually a recipe where she is trying to re-create a food she ate in one of these places she loves.
This is her most recent book, published in 2024. She also has a series of books about particular places where the entire book is dedicated to that particular place. Mostly, she has travelled in Central Asia, Russian, the Balkans, Turkey. I enjoyed this book so much, I plan to read another one about her other adventures. She is not just on these adventures for fun but also as a career so she knows many journalists, diplomats, officials in these places.
Piketty is Professor of Economics at the Ecole des hautes etudes en sciences sociales and Paris School of Economics. Sandel is a Professor of Government at Harvard University. This small book (119 pages) is the discussion between the two on the value of equality. In this discussion they debate what citizens and governments should do to narrow the economic gaps that separate people. This includes looking at the dangers of political instability and environmental issues. Rather than summarize their discussions, I am going to quote various parts:
“Mainstream politicians…have faith in the market because of a belief that markets deliver rising prosperity and yield Wall Street campaign contributions. A deeper reason…is that markets seem to offer a way of sparing us as democratic citizens from engaging in messy , contentious, and controversial debates about how to value goods and how to value the various contributions that people make to the economy and to the common good.”
“We live in pluralist societies. We disagree about the nature of the good life. We disagree about how to value goods.”
Because of the above, it is just easier to use the market and avoid the discourse as to what is worth more, the work of a teacher or a laborer or a hedge fund manager.
“Those on the left and those on the right may may well disagree about what counts as the dignity of work and how to promote it…many working people and many without university degrees feel that elites look down on them, don’t value the work they do…individual upward mobility is not an adequate answer to inequality.”
They discuss credentialing and note that the government spends billions more on higher education than technical education. They note that this form of credentialism is something that many see as an acceptable form of prejudice. A survey was done of prejudices in both Europe and the US:
“The group most disfavored by the respondents were the poorly educated.”
They discuss corporate tax rates and world wide efforts to have a world tax on multinational corporations:
“So, really, it’s a game between tax administrations in Washington, Paris, and Berlin to split some of the tax revenues that are now in tax havens among them, leaving aside the countries in the South.” –referring to the Southern Hemisphere where most of the poorest countries in the world exist. “Don’t companies have a patriotic duty to pay taxes and contribute to the common good in the country that makes their success possible?”
They view the success of far right groups and the election of Trump as more due to job losses in manufacturing than due to the inflow of migrants. They note an anti-immigrant view in places where there are even few immigrants and see it as related to the destruction of jobs:
“It’s not about immigration, but it’s about feeling looked down upon. It’s about recognition. It’s about dignity. Throughout this conversation, we’ve discussed three aspects of equality. One is economy, about the distribution of income and wealth. A second is political, about voice and power and participation. Then there is a third category, about ‘dignity,’ ‘status,’ ‘respect,’ ‘recognition,’ ‘honor,’ and ‘esteem.’ My hunch is that the third is the most powerful politically and maybe also morally. Any hope we have of reducing inequality in the first two dimensions, economically and politically, will depend on creating conditions for greater equality of recognition, honor, dignity,. and respect.”
Although the subtitle says “A Global Food Philosophy”, most of it is an analysis of actually how the world does eat, including some rather remote tribal people, rarities in this contemporary world. This how also includes an analysis of how food affects health in different parts of the world, noting that although contemporary recommendations push vegetables and the Mediterranean diet, some people have no access to vegetables and eat mainly meat and fat and remain healthy. In other cases, like the Masai, cattle provide everything in their diet. The reader gets a broad based view of the best and the worse of diets and food practices worldwide.
A substantial portion of this tome–it is nearly 400 pages long with notes and index of more than 50 pages, looks at industrialized nations and world food supply, including the monopoly large food producing corporations maintain over what is available at grocery stores. Food is big business. The different definitions of food processing is covered as well as the good and bad. He debunks some common beliefs about food and health and notes that while people go hungry in some parts of the world, there is a surplus of food in others.
After all the analyzing and discussions, the last chapter covers “A Global Food Philosophy”. This includes recommendations for what we can do to create a healthier and more equitable worldwide food system while also saving the environment. He lists seven principles one of which is that our food management should be compassionate toward animals if we are going to eat them.
This book was not quite what I expected. It is somewhat memoir in that she talks about her career as a journalist accompanied by photographers and such which is not really on your own, about her marriage and divorce, the new guy, and actually traveling on her own. However, a large part of it, which is quite fascinating, is the history of the solo women travelers in history starting with the nun Egeria, who wrote about her own travels throughout the Middle East in the years AD 381-384. Centuries later the book, “Itinerarium Eerie”, provides the details of her journeys and her “boundless curiosity”.
The book provides details of the adventures of many women who traveled solo: Emily Hahn, Nellie Bly, Martha Gellhorn–once married to Hemingway, Annie Londenberry, Gertrude Bell–the first woman to ride by camel across the Empty Quarter in Saudi Arabia, Helena Swanwick, Ethel Smyth, Jean Baret–the first woman to circumvent the globe, Isabelle Eberhardt, Elspeth Beard. I realized in reading this I had actually read about one of these women, Sarah Hobson, who rode all over Persia (Iran) on horseback disguised as a man and have read several books about Gertrude Bell. In the 1700s, Jeanne Barat sailed around the world on a scientific expedition disguised as a man. In 1983, Elspeth Beard circumvented the globe on a motorcycle to heal the trauma she had suffered. Others rode bicycles, some used various forms of navigation, but all defied the norms of their time. Many encountered all sort of dangers and nearly died.
Yes, the book does give women advice on how to travel safely alone, what to pack, etc. And toward the end she tells the reader how to find adventures nearby in the countryside or streets where you live, how to open the eyes and ears, all the senses, and notice your surroundings in new ways.
Imagine a society where everyone has shelter and love.
My 15th book of the year was “Imagination, A Manifesto”, Ruha Benjamin. After going over the history of racism, poverty, and misogyny in the US, the author, a professor at Princeton, details various ways individuals and groups can imagine and act toward creating a better world for all. She delineates the endless obstacles to attaining this better world but claims through collectively imagining detailed ways the world can be better, people can work together to attain such a world. She admits individuals rarely have the power to do this alone but working with others, we can make dramatic differences, but first we have to imagine what this better world will look like. We now are prisoners of hierarchies, exploitation, and frequent violence, but it does not have to be this way. The Appendix includes Discussion Prompts, Project Based Prompts, and Speculative Prompts to help readers get started imagining differently. She quotes Toni Morrison–“Dream a little before you think.”
The subtitle of this book is “The War of Brothers That Shattered an Empire and Made Medieval Europe”.
The empire to which they are referring is the empire created by Charlemagne which was at the height of its power in the early 800s. He had managed to combine the territories of almost all of what we now consider Europe except for the far north and southern Italy and Spain and Greece. He managed to do this through cooperation among the nobles and the elite and it held throughout his life. He helped the spread of Christianity throughout what was previously pagan areas, e.g. the Saxons. Then not long afterward chaos ensued.
This history book details what occurs when fissures develop in what was once a stable social and political network and the bloody consequences of disagreeing on facts and reality. What happened?
For some time after Charlemagne’s death one of his son’s was able to hold the empire together by deftly giving bits of power to various sons and relatives. Once he died, a chaotic blood bath arose. Fathers and sons, brothers, uncles, nephews, everyone was killing or maiming each other for power. If they felt it was too unChristian to kill you, they just blinded you and sent you off to a monastery. If that did not work, then they would declare a female relative to be a witch and we all know what happened to witches. Meanwhile while jockeying for power, all these men declared they were doing what they were doing in the name of Christianity. If one brother won a battle, then he declared himself to be a better Christian than the one that lost. Even monks and bishops and the Pope became involved.
Then came the Battle of Fontenoy in what is now a part of France. Brothers against another brother with each leading more than 10,000 troops and in some cases as many total as 100,000. Watching was a noble who also commanded a huge army, but mostly he decided to just watch. The end result was a total bloodbath with one side violating the then current rules of battle. Normally, battles before this did not include a huge amount of killings in spite of what we now see in movies. This battle left thousands dead for the wolves, vultures, and other scavengers to eat, and the nearby streams ran red with blood. None of the warring brothers were killed so their fighting continued but no one ever really won and the great Frankish Empire created by Charlemagne fell totally apart. Some claim this battle was the beginning of the separation of a lot of Europe into what we now call France and Germany. Currently there is a marker at the place where the battle occurred. Regardless, Europe was never the same again for many centuries.
Note: Many find the world a very violent place today. Currently, wars and revolutions of one kind or another are occurring in many places in the world. Generally speaking, however, we do not find fathers and sons and brothers killing each other for power. We are seeing the consequences of what was once a relatively unified populace disagreeing on the facts and reality. Will we too fall into a dark ages like Europe did?
I finished this book on New Year’s Eve, missing my goal of reading a book a week all this past year, but not by much. No excuses except one book I read was nearly 800 pages which took a bit longer.
This last book was full of surprising information. I had no idea that Teddy Roosevelt and Booker T. Washington were friends. This book is very detailed with loads of historical information about the lives of both of these men. Born worlds apart in terms of freedom, economics, and race, they both had a goal to further the status of Black people. In terms of his political future, Roosevelt made a big mistake when he invited Washington to the Whitehouse for a family dinner. Once this event became known, white people in the South were outraged. Jim Crow incidents, e.g. lynching, increased. Roosevelt felt he had to backtrack some to save himself and this included one his worst decisions in terms of racial equality. Meanwhile, they tried to hide their relationship more, did not visit each other as often, and Washington had to go to great lengths to appease some whites in the South to keep Tuskegee growing and flourishing. W.E.B. Du Bois viewed Washington negatively and thought he went too far to appease white people and did not do enough for his own race. Du Bois who had grown up free in the North did not understand Washington’s viewpoints and did not know what he did secretly to help Black people. If you are interested in the actual history of this period and how these three men affect the present, I highly recommend this book. There are 35 pages of references, notes, and documentation at the end of the books for those who want to read further on this topic and time period.
Johnson, a columnist for The Washington Post, notes that the US was founded on a set of ideals but for much of its history agreement on what those are ideals are has not existed. What are these ideals, who are they for? Today there is little agreement on much of this. There seems to be a lack of a common vision on what a democratic system is and should be and for whom. The essays in this book address these questions both today and from the origins of the country when only white men who owned land could vote. This book also discusses how different races in the country and the changing predominance of cultures affects the ideals people hold and the kind of country they envision for themselves.
As a Black man who is a retired Navy Commander, he also discusses his own experience, extensive research, and personal views. This short book is an excellent primer on how different races and cultures experience living in this country and their varying visions of the meaning of democracy.
writingontherim 