Authored by Martin Cruz Smith in 1989 (ISBN 0-394-57819-8).
This was a riveting piece of fiction takes place on the frozen seas of the Bering Straight and points further north. Set just before the dissolution of the Soviet Union, it provides an unflattering vision of that country and Communism's economic quota system.
I heartily recommend it; it will cause me to read Gorky Park, subject of a feature-length movie and the prequel to this volume.
Monday, August 27, 2012
Wednesday, August 8, 2012
Book review: Unfamiliar Fishes
Authored by Sarah Vowell in 2011 (ISBN 978-1-59448-787-3).
When the United States invaded Iraq in 2003 some U.S. citizens were outraged: this is not who we are or what we stand for. On the contrary, persuades Ms. Vowell, invading Iraq was merely the latest in a string of American "interventions" since the late 19th century.
Vowell's unusual style weaves historical fact with present-day fact. Whereas typical historians leave research notes to page-bottom or end-notes this author presents them in the text, for example:
Before the arrival of missionaries there was no written Hawaiian language. The missionaries created one and endeavored to teach it to all Hawaiian children. They created a Hawaiian-language version of the Bible. They preached on Sundays in Hawaiian. Tolerant though they were of non-English languages, they fought hard against idolatry, scandalous dress (think loincloths), and bigamy. Over the years their presence and numbers grew. Because of their education and experience Hawaiian kings would include them in their government. Their power grew and their focus shifted from saving souls to Sunday-only Christianity and business pursuits. They became haole.
Power was nominally still in the hands of Hawaiians but the haole were paying the bulk of the taxes. They observed that more money could be made with a more right-thinking government in charge. Simultaneously the United States, under President Grover Cleveland, eyed Hawaii as a convenient Naval re-fueling station. Although he would not move against the native Hawaiian government, his successor William McKinley would, and in the midst of another imperialist exercise in Guam the United States annexed Hawaii "to protect her from subversive elements" (namely, Hawaiians).
The missionaries' and mercantilists' view of Hawaii and Hawaiians was laughably inaccurate and sadly racist. Yet the author is sympathetic to the missionaries' urge to do good. They really believed they were saving the Hawaiians from hell; they really did influence the ending of certain practices that were unfair to women and the poor.
It strikes me that these missionaries were the original tax-and-spend liberals, though from a parallel universe, if you will. Before the missionaries set foot on Hawaiian soil there were problems to be solved there, problems that likely would not be solved for some time. Similarly in 2012 the United States contains terrible inequalities. For reasons that can debated there are, within America's own borders, children and adults that do not eat enough nutrition, who are poorly educated and who have less access to medical care. Even the most conservative among us will admit that. The argument is really over what should be done. Tax-and-spend liberals urge government intervention while conservatives favor free-market solutions for on emotional and practical grounds. Emotionally they feel that they did not cause the problem and they are therefore not obligated to fix it. Practically, they observe that few government interventions succeed: the United States spends more than $2 trillion each year attempting to solve the problems described above, yet they remain unsolved. A liberal will say that current failure is no reason to give up, a conservative will counter ....
That debate need not be resolved here (as if I could). Rather, I see a familiar pattern: one group of people urging a government/legal solution to a perceived problem (heathenism). That group, though, seems to also benefit from the solution and the solution itself comes with a new set of (unintended) problems.
This book will take you less than a full day to read.
When the United States invaded Iraq in 2003 some U.S. citizens were outraged: this is not who we are or what we stand for. On the contrary, persuades Ms. Vowell, invading Iraq was merely the latest in a string of American "interventions" since the late 19th century.
Vowell's unusual style weaves historical fact with present-day fact. Whereas typical historians leave research notes to page-bottom or end-notes this author presents them in the text, for example:
When I was browsing through a box of papers belonging to Abner Wilcox, a Connecticut-born proselytizer on the island of Kauai, I found a memo he received in 1838 from the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions asking its missionaries scattered around the globe to send back to Boston items for a cabinet of curiosities they were assembling at headquarters, including "warlike weapons" because "these convey a vivid idea of the savageness of heathenism, and impress the beholder with the reality of dark places of the earth, which are full of the habitations of cruelty."and
I took a guided tour led by Mike Smola, the museum's affable tour coordinator. After hitting the highlights about the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions and discussing Henry Obookiah ...Before reading this book I understood only vaguely how Hawaii came to be the 50th United State. I thought it joined us before Alaska (though I now see it joined a few months after); I knew that white people settled there before settling in Colorado, even though more than 2000 miles of water separates it from California. I guess I thought that commercial interests drew Hawaii and the mainland closer and closer until joining made sense. There is a certain truth to that version, but the driving force was Christian missionary work originating from Boston.
Before the arrival of missionaries there was no written Hawaiian language. The missionaries created one and endeavored to teach it to all Hawaiian children. They created a Hawaiian-language version of the Bible. They preached on Sundays in Hawaiian. Tolerant though they were of non-English languages, they fought hard against idolatry, scandalous dress (think loincloths), and bigamy. Over the years their presence and numbers grew. Because of their education and experience Hawaiian kings would include them in their government. Their power grew and their focus shifted from saving souls to Sunday-only Christianity and business pursuits. They became haole.
Power was nominally still in the hands of Hawaiians but the haole were paying the bulk of the taxes. They observed that more money could be made with a more right-thinking government in charge. Simultaneously the United States, under President Grover Cleveland, eyed Hawaii as a convenient Naval re-fueling station. Although he would not move against the native Hawaiian government, his successor William McKinley would, and in the midst of another imperialist exercise in Guam the United States annexed Hawaii "to protect her from subversive elements" (namely, Hawaiians).
The missionaries' and mercantilists' view of Hawaii and Hawaiians was laughably inaccurate and sadly racist. Yet the author is sympathetic to the missionaries' urge to do good. They really believed they were saving the Hawaiians from hell; they really did influence the ending of certain practices that were unfair to women and the poor.
It strikes me that these missionaries were the original tax-and-spend liberals, though from a parallel universe, if you will. Before the missionaries set foot on Hawaiian soil there were problems to be solved there, problems that likely would not be solved for some time. Similarly in 2012 the United States contains terrible inequalities. For reasons that can debated there are, within America's own borders, children and adults that do not eat enough nutrition, who are poorly educated and who have less access to medical care. Even the most conservative among us will admit that. The argument is really over what should be done. Tax-and-spend liberals urge government intervention while conservatives favor free-market solutions for on emotional and practical grounds. Emotionally they feel that they did not cause the problem and they are therefore not obligated to fix it. Practically, they observe that few government interventions succeed: the United States spends more than $2 trillion each year attempting to solve the problems described above, yet they remain unsolved. A liberal will say that current failure is no reason to give up, a conservative will counter ....
That debate need not be resolved here (as if I could). Rather, I see a familiar pattern: one group of people urging a government/legal solution to a perceived problem (heathenism). That group, though, seems to also benefit from the solution and the solution itself comes with a new set of (unintended) problems.
This book will take you less than a full day to read.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
