The Writing Thread ... ressurected ...

[guyguy]

Colonial Policies in Africa

Professor John K. Fairbanks stated in 1971, “Excesses both of hope and fear, especially the American inclination to see good in certain nations or movements and evil in others, can lead us into unhappy conflicts. Our crusading zeal may have contributed much to the world, but it is time we saw the menace to peace that it also contains.” This statement was true of America’s foreign policy in Africa during the years 1945 to 1965.

European colonizers were once one of the world’s superpowers. They became involved in the internal affairs of most of the African nations and because of their meddling, earned the hate of many African people. The United States is today the world’s only superpower left and it is trying to influence events in Africa to suit its own purposes.

During the period from 1945 – 1965, America’s involvement in Africa had been sparse, almost non-existent, in its approach to foreign policy. Except for limited military involvement in the Congo (Zaire) during its civil war in the 1960s, the United States had fashioned its foreign policies on a nation-by-nation basis versus the entire continent as a single entity. The purpose of this type of policy had been to support countries that appeared anti-communist or of those that had strategic importance to America.

The low priority of South Africa in the United States’ strategic calculations had a direct bearing on its foreign policy. The ‘distinguishing characteristics” of U.S. aid operations even in the 1960s, according to Rupert Emerson, were that they “were held down to modest proportions, that the military element has been slight, and that as a general rule they were deliberately made supplemental to those of former colonial powers”. For Eisenhower the reactions to “the whole sorry mess” were “dismay and disgust.”

Historically, the African continent had been under colonial rule. The only exceptions were Ethiopia, which had its own Kingdom and Emperor – Haile Selassie, believed to have been the last of the direct line of King Solomon of the Bible – and Liberia, which was a US construct of freed American slaves that had returned to Africa.

Southern and Eastern Africa were controlled by Britain, most of West and Central Africa belonged to the French, the Congo was ruled by the Belgians, while Angola and Mozambique were in the hands of the Portuguese. Though Italy and Germany also colonized parts of Africa, their holdings were relatively miniscule compared to the other European nations since they were relatively latecomers to African colonization.

At the end of WWII and up until 1965, almost all of the African nations had gained their independence from their colonial masters. However, these newly independent nations had not been prepared, or taught, to govern by their former European masters. Instead, many European nations pursued various means of ensuring continued hostilities among and between the indigenous peoples and nations. Probably the most notable example of the time involved the Congo where civil war ensued upon the departure of the Belgians. Worse yet, was the role the United States played in the overthrow and subsequent murder of the Congo’s first Prime Minister, Patrice Lumumba.

The global balance of power that governed the Eisenhower Administration’s decisions for the Congo remained the premise of the Kennedy Administration’s actions. The recurrent crisis in the Republic of the Congo was one of the major problems of U.S. foreign policy in the first two years of the Presidency of John F. Kennedy, as it had been in the last 6 months of the Presidency of Dwight D. Eisenhower. For the next fourteen months after the Congo crisis in 1960, the threat of Soviet control of the Congo through the influence on Patrice Lumumba was a major concern for President Kennedy. With the formation of a moderate coalition government in August 1961 there was a short-lived end to the crisis. The outbreak of hostilities in the province of Katanga in September 1961 began a new phase to the dilemma in the Congo.

Patrice Lumumba was in favor of a central government and was against the division of the country along tribal or regional lines. He said his goal was to return to African values. Such ideas did not sit well with powerful outside interests, notably the United States; they didn't like the idea of an assertive Patrice Lumumba leading his country into the future. The view of Western power was that Mr. Lumumba was a dangerous figure who was about to take the newly independent Congo either into social chaos, or into an alliance with the Soviet Union. The Director of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency at the time, Allen Dulles, called the Congolese leader "An African Castro," and a "mad dog," who threatened the capitalist system.

The situation in the Congo had become so tenuous and twisted – the United States seemed to support one Congolese faction one day and oppose it the next – that many in Congress wondered if the Administration had any conception left of where basic United States interests lay. Secretary of State, Dean Rusk, reminded the Senate Committee that Eisenhower’s support of a UN presence in the Congo was primarily to keep the Soviets out. It was felt that the alternative to United Nations intervention would have been violence, chaos, and an opportunity for Soviet exploitation. The U.S. had to keep the Soviets out, but without becoming directly involved, if at all possible. The goal of the United States was to ensure a relatively stable authority in the Congo that was willing to, and capable of, resisting the Soviet Union. Although the United States military forces were not directly involved in the Congo unilaterally, the US played an essential role by providing financial and logistic support.

Senator John F. Kennedy had realized the importance of nationalism in Africa and its consequences for American foreign policy. His presidential ambitions lead him criticize the record of the Eisenhower administration and to promise that in a future Democratic administration, the United States would “no longer abstain in the United Nations from voting on colonial issues and would no longer seek to prevent subjugated peoples from being heard.”

In February 1961, the first important armed action against Portuguese colonial rule in Angola took place, with the assaults on the civil and military prisons of Luanda, its capital. A few days later, the Liberian delegation to the United Nations requested the inclusion of the situation in Angola on the agenda for the next Security Council meeting. This meant an important decision in Washington regarding Portugal and Portuguese colonialism had to be made.

In the early 1960’s the anti-colonial wave was reaching its peak. The situation in Africa had become a major issue in the context of the Cold War. The Soviet Union was paying close attention to Africa and trying to establish friendly relations. Kennedy, now President of the United States, created a task force that was to travel to Africa, and upon its return recommend a new policy for Africa. In its final report, the task force recommended “sweeping changes in America’s attitude towards Africa.” The United States should abandon “its traditional fence-sitting - arising from links with the colonial powers - in favor of support for African nationalism” the report further stated. Its major goals should be “complete ending of colonial rule” and the development of “stable African governments willing to pursue economic and social development and uphold basic civil rights.” At the same time the administration should avoid the division of Africa into “spheres on influences of the great powers.”

Where the Portuguese territories were concerned, the report was extremely critical of American policy. It deplored the “widespread impression that the United States supports colonialism in Angola, Mozambique and Portuguese Guinea.” Portuguese rule in these areas was considered intolerable. It further advised that the new administration, along with the British, should exert strong pressure on Portugal to achieve emancipation of her African territories. Furthermore, the United States should cease to accept Portugal’s refusal to report to the United Nations on its “non-self-governing territories.”

The Kennedy administration wanted a new approach to the Congo as part of a general reorientation of U.S. policy toward Africa (Foreign Relations). His administration thought that the Eisenhower Administration had been too focused on the colonial or former colonial powers. Kennedy wanted to improve U.S. relations with the new independent countries of Africa. Adlai Stevenson, Kennedy’s Ambassador to the United Nations, along with other appointees, agreed that U.S. policy should remain within the United Nations framework and it would be desirable to have a stable, legal Congolese government that did not include Lumumba, or Antoine Gizenga, who was Lumumba’s Deputy Prime Minister at the time. With approval of the Defense Department and the CIA, the Department of State prepared a policy proposal and sent it to Kennedy. The program was threefold:

First, it called for a new mandate for the United Nations. This mandate would give the UN the authority to bring under control all the principal military elements in the Congo which would neutralize the role of the military in Congo politics, increase UN efforts to prevent outside assistance from entering the Congo, and establish a training program for the Congolese Army.

Second, if a meeting of Congolese political leaders, that had been in progress, failed to establish a moderate cabinet government, the U.S. would support the establishment of a broadly-based government, including Lumumba supporters but not Lumumba himself. Only after the effective neutralization of Congolese military forces was under way, and a new government established, would all political prisoners, including Lumumba, be released.

Third, it called for seeking a greater U.N. role in providing administrative and technical assistance to the Congo as an additional safeguard against a Lumumba takeover.

President Kennedy sent messages to Prime Minister Nehru of India, Prime Minister Balewa of Nigeria, Ghanaian President Nkrumah, and French President Charles de Gaulle, to outline the plan and gain support of the new policy. However, support for the new policy was less than unanimous. Countries that had not been included in the planning process, such as France, Britain and Belgium, were skeptical of the possibility of neutralizing the Congolese Army and foresaw Lumumba’s return to power. President Joseph Kasavubu of the Republic of the Congo, saw the expanding UN role as an infringement of Congolese sovereignty. Dag Hammarskjöld, Secretary General of the UN, and Nehru were in agreement and considered the release of political prisoners including Lumumba a top priority. This priority was soon nullified with the death of Lumumba.

Although initially the United Stated had backed Lumumba and was part of the UN peacekeeping force during the Congolese Civil War, when Lumumba appeared to be embracing the Soviets, the United States became very concerned, and in an effort to prevent another Cuba, stepped in, through the CIA, and colluded with an army officer, Joseph Mobutu, to successfully overthrow and imprison Lumumba.

The CIA was aware of plans to move Lumumba from prison and hand him over to Katanga authorities where he would surely be killed. The official version of Lumumba’s death was that it was plotted and carried out by the Congolese. In 1999, the Belgian writer, Ludo De Witte, documented a strong case that Patrice Lumumba was murdered and disposed of with the help of Belgium and the United States.

With the news of Lumumba’s death came heightened anti-colonial and anti-Western reactions in the African capital. The Congo was in chaos in 1965 when Colonel Joseph Mobutu seized the government in a military coup that was backed by America. However, Mobutu would turn out to be worse than Lumumba. For thirty years, he raped and plundered his country, though still being supported by the United States, while millions of his people were either murdered or starved to death, or were denied amenities such as running water, electricity, or even basic medical care. President Mobutu became one of the richest people in the world by stealing mineral royalties paid to his country by the corporations that ran the mines. The United States and its allies propped up President Mobutu and his corrupt regime because he opposed communism and the Soviet Union, but he was the kind of person who would have supported the Soviets if they could have paid him more than the Americans. Today, Patrice Lumumba is revered as a genuine and honest revolutionary for many thousands of Africans who are trying to find a way out of the meddling from those outside of Africa.

Within the United Nations, Lumumba’s death lessened support for Kasavubu and Mobutu and increased Gizenga’s support. The arrest of Mobutu and Tshombe, sanctions against Belgium and the dismissal of Hammarskjöld were proposed by the Soviet Union. Ceylon, Liberia, and the United Arab Republic called for the UN to prevent civil war in the Congo by means of force if necessary. They also urged the withdrawal of all foreign military personal and political advisers not under the UN Command, and urged the convening of Parliament and reorganization of the Congolese armed forces with a view to ending their political role.

President Kennedy’s new policy was also tested on February 4, 1961 in Angola when several groups of armed Angolans assaulted civil and military prisons in Luanda while trying to free Angolan Nationalist leaders. These events continued the following day and then again on February 10th. On February 20th the Liberian delegation to the UN requested an urgent meeting of the UN Security Council “to deal with the crisis in Angola”. The Liberians believed the Security Council should take immediate action to prevent further deterioration and abuse of human rights and privileges in Angola. Portugal began action to deter this from happening. It first attempted political pressure of influencing the vote to not have the item included on the council’s agenda. Portugal further insisted that the Angola situation was a matter of “internal affairs” out of the jurisdiction of the Security Council since the country had still been its overseas province. The Portuguese Ambassador to the United States also approached several State Department officials requesting support in averting Security Council consideration of the Liberian request.

Ultimately, the United States did try to avoid discussion of Angola at the Security Council. They also hoped that the Liberians would be quieted by an assurance from the United States that it planned “to take steps in the near future designed to contribute to the improvement of this difficult situation.” The American government felt that the problem could be best solved through quiet channels rather than in a public debate. The United Nations, however, felt the item needed to be on the Security Council’s agenda. Upon the realization that Liberians would not back down on this issue, the United States conceded with an affirmative vote for placement on the agenda. Our message to Portugal was that the Administration was “deeply concerned over the deteriorating position of Portugal in the United Nations and in Africa.” The United States was hoping to talk openly and frankly with Portugal as an ally and to influence Portugal “to undertake major adjustments in her policies which as presently constituted seem to us headed for very serious trouble.” Ultimately, the United States did not desire a rift with their ally; they also didn’t want to be held accountable for actions taken by Portugal in Africa. Portugal was offended and warned that it was impossible to be an ally of Portugal in Europe and an enemy in Africa. This marked a turning point in the relationship between Portugal and the United States. The American Government formally informed Portugal that it had changed its policy in Africa and its policy towards Portugal’s colonialism.

On March 14th, a resolution was drafted recommending the introduction of reforms in Angola and requesting the appointment of a subcommittee to examine the situation in the territory. The United States voted in favor of the resolution. Out numbered by a single vote the resolution was defeated.

The events following the failed resolution were monstrous and fingers were pointed at the United States. In Angola, attacks broke out where Angolan natives attacked administrative posts, trading stores and plantations. The Portuguese press added to anti-United States sentiment with articles stressing the duplicity and unreliability of United States Policy. Anti-American sentiment came to a head on March 27th when a crowd of fifteen to twenty thousand Portuguese staged a hostile demonstration outside the American Embassy in Lisbon. Portugal contended that it was the same country that it had been during the war when relations were strong with the United States. It was the United States that had changed.

In the following years the United States would continue to vote in favor of resolutions concerning Portuguese colonialism. By mid-1962 the initial strong stance of the Kennedy administration would be replaced by one of complacency. American policy makers would soon realize the strategic importance of the U.S. army base located on the Portuguese islands of the Azores since World War II. The necessity of retaining the Azores at any cost forced a major “retreat” from the initial policies of the Administration toward Portuguese Africa.

In the 1950’s the United States considered Africa, south of the Sahara, of the least importance in the Third World. With reservation, Africa was assigned to the European sphere of influence. The United States did not introduce a single policy toward Africa for most of this decade. The Eisenhower administration was focused on utilizing African resources to strengthen Western Europe’s recovery. The United States didn’t support political independence in Africa. United States spokesmen openly admitted that they did not want direct responsibility for managing Africa’s affairs. It was felt that Europe colonial domain had the advantage of ensuring Africa’s stability and its integration into the broader United States-led world economy.

In 1952 American spokesmen considered Africans scarcely more than primitive savages that didn’t possess the intellect or skills to manage modern problems. America continued to pose as friends to both sides. It was felt that basic advantages were brought to the African territories by the colonial experience. The main concern was that removal of European control would lead to local and tribal conflicts, not so much exposing them to succumbing to Communism, as depriving the West of Africa’s great economic and strategic resources. America often counseled Europe as to its action in Africa so as to avoid “areas of disorder”. During this time what America wanted and needed most from Africa - its natural resources - it got.

Foreign policy in Africa remained unchanged for a very long time. Each change to policy was slow and deliberate. It was feared that change made too quickly would surely cause a vacuum into which Russia would move. It was America’s “excess of fear and the inclination to see evil in others” that governed our foreign policy in Africa from 1945-1965.

The effects of colonialism in Africa, and the granting of independence to unprepared rulers, can be seen today in the form of mass genocide, famine, underdevelopment, and death and starvation. The continued neglect of greater overt American involvement in Africa manifests itself in many regional and tribal wars, displacement of indigenous peoples, rampant spread of disease, and, as is currently occurring in Darfur, Sudan, the genocidal extermination of hundreds of thousands of men, women and children.

Indeed, “Excesses both of hope and fear, especially the American inclination to see good in certain nations or movements and evil in others, can lead us into unhappy conflicts” as evidenced recently in Mogadishu, Somalia. Furthermore, “our crusading zeal may have contributed much to the world, but it is time we saw the menace to peace that it also contains.” Our invasion of Iraq and preparation for war with Iran while unwaveringly supporting Israel’s every decision, whether deleterious or not, would be prime examples.

[guyguy]

Reflections on the US involvement in Operation Desert Storm

Operation Desert Storm was the resulting war against the Iraqi military, specifically, Saddam Hussein, by a coalition of worldwide forces, led by the United States, to eject him form Kuwait after he invaded and seized control of this tiny oil rich nation. Desert Storm, however, was the culmination of a series of events that started as early as 1988 when the United Nations managed to broker a ceasefire between Iraq and Iran who had been at war against each other for eight years.

It is interesting to note that a “ceasefire” was brokered rather than a peace agreement. The difference may seem subtle but the strategy had enormous implications. A ceasefire would ensure that Iraq and Iran be perpetually at war with each other. This meant that each side would be constantly “looking over its shoulders” in anticipation of a sudden or renewed attack. A peace agreement, on the other hand, would end hostilities altogether. However, it would divert their attention from each other and towards other Arab nations that were friends of, and of vital interest to the United States, and by extension, Western nations.

The end of the Iraq-Iran war left Saddam Hussein with a highly trained and combat hardened military of over a million men with nothing to do. This was dangerous, as a new strategic situation developed across entire the Persian Gulf region. Recognizing this, the United States tried to persuade Saddam into becoming a full-fledged member of the global “family.” Saddam had not been an enemy of the United States at the time and the Bush administration tried to reason with him that because of his great oil wealth, he could do much good for his country and also for his neighbours. Unfortunately, Saddam was not interested and couldn’t be persuaded.

Like the proverbial person who’s all dressed up but with no place to go, Saddam had to find a “dance” that he could attend and one where he would be the center of attention, or the “star.” Saddam found the perfect “venue” and in July of 1990, began amassing his troops in Southern Iraq along the Iraqi-Kuwaiti border. The eight-year war against Iran had left him in debt to the tune of 80 billion dollars without gaining anything tangible. If he were able to successfully invade and annex Kuwait, he’d control and additional one fifth of the world’s supply of oil.

Even though the Iraqi build-up continued, which brought increased concern to the Bush administration, the United States were assured by President Mubarak of Egypt, The President of Turkey, Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia, and even the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie, that Saddam was just “rattling his sabre” and that it was not likely that he would invade another Arab country. In retrospect, Saddam had been planning this invasion and annexation of Kuwait all along. He had demanded from the Emir of Kuwait 10 billion dollars as compensation for Kuwait reducing the price of their oil. Every dollar in reduction in the price of a barrel by the Kuwaitis cost Iraq one billion dollars annually, according to Saddam. Additionally, Saddam accused the Kuwaitis of stealing his oil from the Rumaila fields through slant drilling. Naturally, the Emir had balked at this demand and assertion and even had his army stand down – most of his military going on vacation.

The invasion of Kuwait began on August 2nd 1990 and within two days, Saddam’s forces, the majority of which was comprised of divisions of his elite Republican Guard, overran the country.

The main concern then was the immediate defense of Saudi Arabia. Surely, having been so successful in Kuwait, Saddam would train his gunsights on the Saudis next. Thus, the United States, which had already drawn up plans for the defense of Saudi Arabia and had consulted with Prince Bandar, was ready to deploy 100,000 troops immediately. Kuwait, having already been overrun and occupied by Iraq, would have to wait.

The key ingredient then was getting the approval of the Saudis to allow American troops onto their soil. If this were not forthcoming, then the only other option would be for the United States to mount a naval blockade or defend Saudi Arabia from other countries by air via Turkey, for example. Surprisingly, King Fahd of Saudi Arabia, after meeting with then Secretary of Defense, Dick Cheney, and a short conversation with his advisors, including Prince Bandar, gave the United States the go-ahead. This was a significant decision for the Saudis, with wide ranging political implications, to have, for the first time, American troops on Saudi soil. This deployment was called “Operation Desert Shield.”

As soon as Kuwait was invaded, the United States and Kuwait approached the United Nations’ Security Council requesting its condemnation of the invasion and a demand that Iraq immediately withdraw its forces and restore the legitimate Kuwaiti government. The result was the passage of resolution 660 – condemnation and demand for withdrawal. The shocked and now frightened Arab League passed its own resolution calling for an Arab solution to the invasion and non-intervention of foreign troops on August 3rd 1990. Three days later, the UN passed resolution 661 which placed economic sanctions on Iraq.

Along with these sanctions, President Bush wanted James Baker, the U.S. Ambassador to the UN, to meet with Tariq Aziz, Iraq’s Deputy Prime Minister, in order to try a diplomatic resolution of the invasion and to avoid an inevitable war. Furthermore, President Bush wanted to leave no stone unturned prior to an all out U.S. led war with Iraq. The meeting in Geneva, Switzerland, was unproductive. Saddam was not going to relent and was prepared to face the coalition forces. Deadlines had previously been set for Iraq’s unconditional withdrawal from Kuwait but they came and went with Saddam holding firm.

Interestingly, during the day of Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, President Bush had gone to Aspen, Colorado, where he met the Prime Minister of Britain, Margaret Thatcher. Both were scheduled to speak at a conference there. Mrs. Thatcher firmly believed that sanctions do not work, as she later said. However, she supported the UN and the United States when sanctions were imposed.

Mrs. Thatcher also recognized that, left unchecked, Saddam was likely to move against Saudi Arabia. Moreover, if he were successful he may very well continue his aggression to Bahrain, Dubai, and along the western side of the Persian Gulf, thus, controlling over 65% of the world’s supply of oil. The implications on the global economy would have been devastating as Saddam could blackmail every nation.

The UN sanctions against Iraq did not work, as predicted by Mrs. Thatcher. Diplomacy had failed too. Thus, the United States had no alternative than to declare war against Iraq and remove the Iraqis from Kuwait.

There were several reasons given to justify Desert Storm. The main one was that Iraq had violated Kuwaiti territory and ousted its sovereign government. However, as Margaret Thatcher stated during an interview on PBS’ Frontline show;

“That part is the oil center of the world. Oil is vital to the economy of the world. If you didn’t stop him [Saddam], and didn’t turn him back, he would have gone over the border to Saudi Arabia, over to Bahrain, over to Dubai and right down the west side of the Gulf and in fact could have got access and control of 65% of the world’s reserves…”

The reasons that the United States got involved in Desert Storm are many, such as; the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq, geopolitical stability and security within the region, and one may argue, even on moral grounds. However, the primary reason was, undoubtedly, the protection of the flow of the lifeblood of the world – oil.

[guyguy]

Reagan's role in returning America's global prestige

The return of America’s prestige and prominence on the world stage after a series of humiliations under President Carter is directly attributable to his successor, President Ronald Reagan. Fresh from and still reeling from the Watergate scandal and President Nixon’s resignation, American voters had lost trust in its political leaders, and, especially those who had belonged to the “Washington Establishment.” When an unknown, deeply religious and morally upstanding upstart appeared on the political scene, one who was far removed from Washington who preached peaceful global co-existence, the nation eagerly embraced him. Thus, Jimmy Carter was elected as the nation’s 39th President.

Carter started off his presidency by cutting the defense budget by more than 6 billion dollars. Furthermore, he decided to drastically reduce the size of the armed forces, relying instead on diplomacy to settle regional and global conflicts. This would not bode well for the United States as many nations that had previously been “contained” openly demonstrated their displeasure with America, its foreign policies, and in several instances, became overtly defiant. His dealings with the Soviet Union changed from one of containment, thus, emboldening the USSR to continue its sphere of influence. The final blow to America’s global dignity came about when the Shah of Iran was overthrown and radical Iranians held 52 Americans hostage for 444 days. The United States, now emasculated under President Carter, was unable to respond with its military might if needed, to secure the release of the hostages.

It was against this backdrop that Ronald Reagan was able to decisively defeat President Carter at the polls in November 1980. Reagan had an intense dislike of communism and openly stated his views. He vowed to defeat communism, in particular, the Soviet Union, which he termed the “Evil Empire” and restore the United States to its former glory. He believed in individual freedom and liberty, less government interference in businesses, and bluntly stated in his inauguration address - referring to the economic morass that had plagued the country under President Carter, - “Government is not the solution to our problems. Government is the problem.” He instituted domestic policies to stimulate the sagging economy that included wide ranging tax cuts at the expense of many social welfare programs.

Reagan’s first perceived “victory” came as he was delivering his inaugural address. Though brokered by President Carter, Iran released all of the hostages they had held captive. His first real victory came about when he fired 11,359 air-traffic controllers who had gone on strike and had defied his ultimatum of returning to work within 48 hours.

Instituting a foreign policy of “peace through strength,” President Reagan began to rebuild America’s military. His massive expenditure on America’s armamentarium and military research would force the Soviet Union to keep pace with the United States, which they tried. Unfortunately, the Soviet military spending was detrimental to their domestic policies and to their citizens themselves. This would later lead to their downfall, which manifested itself in the breakup of the Soviet Union, and the eventual end of the Cold War.

Two years into his presidency, Ronald Reagan encountered his first crisis in the Middle East when, on April 18th 1993, a Shiite Muslim terrorist bomber rammed a van, packed with explosives, into the U.S. Embassy in Beirut killing 63 people, of whom, 17 were Americans. On October 23rd 1983, a suicide bomber drove a truckload of explosives past the sentries that were on duty and into the Marine barracks in Beirut. The blast killed 241 troops that had been stationed as part of a multi-national peacekeeping force in Lebanon during its civil war that lasted from 1975 to 1990. This second blast was called a “despicable act” by President Reagan and stated that he would keep a U.S. military force in Lebanon. He gathered his national security team to plan an attack on the Sheik Abdullah barracks in Baalbek, Lebanon, that housed Iranian Revolutionary Guards, who, it was believed, were training Hezbollah terrorists, in retaliation for the bombings. However, the plan was not carried through since Casper Weinberger, then Defense Secretary, prevailed upon Reagan to abort the strikes as it would likely have caused damage to the relations between the U.S. and other Arab countries. Instead, President Reagan withdrew American troops completely from Lebanon by February 1984.

This concession by President Reagan was not to his liking and he saw this as an impediment to his vision that would once again make America “stand tall.” However, he would have ample opportunities to assert American, and specifically, his foreign policies, that would demonstrate to the world that he meant business. His “loss of face” in Lebanon would not be repeated, he promised himself.

Reagan’s first test of his resolve and rhetoric by the Soviet Union occurred on October 25th 1983 when US led troops landed on the small Caribbean island of Grenada. Maurice Bishop had led a coup d’état against Grenada’s government on March 13th 1979, and overthrew its Prime Minister, Eric Gairy. The Cuban and Soviet governments supported Bishop, a follower of Marxist-Leninist ideology. He began to increase the size of the country’s military – unnecessary for such a small island with no known enemies - and, with Cuba’s help, began construction of an unusually large international airport. Bishop claimed that the airport was being built so that large commercial aircraft carrying tourists from the United States and from European countries could land. Grenada, bishop claimed, was expanding its tourist industry since its main crops exports; nutmeg, bananas, cocoa, and sugarcane, had fallen.

Though this may have been true, and Grenada may indeed be a tourist’s paradise, President Reagan believed that the airport and other areas of the island were being developed to aid Cuba and the Soviet Union’s sphere of influence in the Caribbean. The airport would serve as a launching pad for Soviet military planes in transporting weapons into Central America. Furthermore, Reagan stated that the airport posed an additional threat to the security of the United States if it were to be used by the Soviets.

However, Bishop’s tenure as Grenada’s head of government was over when he was in turn deposed by Deputy Prime Minister, Bernard Coard on October 13th 1983. Cord, who had been a boyhood friend of Bishop, shared the same ideology, and was a member of the Communist Party of Great Britain while studying political economics there. Despite protests by the Grenadian population, Coard executed Bishop after seizing power. Concurrently, Paul Scoon, the Governor General of Grenada, was placed under house arrest by Coard. For a small Caribbean island of only 80+ thousand people that had always been peaceful, this was unacceptable and troubling, especially to Trinidad & Tobago, and Barbados, its wealthy neighbours to the south and to the north.

Barbados, Jamaica and the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS) requested the United States to intervene. The United States had already decided to take military action so this request was academic. Using the excuses that there had been two coup d’états, continued political instability, and the safety of American medical students who were studying at St. George’s University, Grenada, President Reagan authorized the invasion. Reagan sent in over 7000 troops, accompanied by 300 Caribbean islands’ troops.

Within a few days, the 1500 Grenadian soldiers and 600 Cuban military engineers were overrun. The Grenadians were no match for the superior American forces. However, President Reagan wanted to “show his mettle” so much so that he sent in an additional two battalions as reinforcements. Unfortunately, 19 US troops were killed and 116 suffered injuries.

Despite criticism from many in the international community, especially from Britain’s Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, and at home, President Reagan weathered the political storm. He had made his point to the Soviets. Détente was dead and a new cowboy was in town. America’s first war since Vietnam had been a smashing success!

As a side note; when it became apparent to the Soviets that Ronald Reagan would win the 1980 US Presidential elections, and having known little about him, they quickly studied all of his movies in great detail in an effort to understand the man with whom they would be dealing. As was much later revealed by the Soviets and through declassified KGB documents, the upright, straight-shooting, no-nonsense "cowboy" mentality that Reagan played in his movies frightened the Soviets. What further galvanized the Soviets' perception of Reagan was his stint as Govenor of California, overseeing one of the largest economies in the world, and his almost Puritan approach to politics.

In 1986, President Reagan faced another potentially crisis situation in the Middle East that involved Libya. Minor fighting between America and Libya had been taking place for several years over Libyan support of the terrorist group led by Abu Nidal that was responsible for the bombings at the airports of Rome and Vienna in December 1985. Furthermore, Libya claimed their territorial waters in the Gulf of Sidra extended beyond the 12 nautical mile limit that is internationally recognized. In March of that year, the United States sent a carrier task force that remained outside the 12-mile limit of Libya. This provocation led Libya to respond aggressively. On April 14th 1986, President Reagan ordered the U.S. military to attack Libyan targets with the intention of killing its leader, Muammar Gaddafi. The bombings lasted between ten and fifteen minutes and although Gaddafi escaped, his 15-month-old adopted daughter was killed and two of his sons were seriously injured. President Reagan used the rational that this was a “war on terror” to justify the bombings but the United States was soundly criticized by the international community, particularly the European nations, the Arab nations, and the Soviet Union. Only Britain, Australia and Israel supported the United States. It is interesting to note that although the government of France criticized the United States, over 60% of its population supported the American action.

After the bombing, Gaddafi kept a low profile on the world’s stage. However, he secretly continued to support terrorist groups with arms and money in the Arab world and even the Provisional Irish Republican Army. On December 21st 1988, Libyan terrorists were later found to have been responsible for the bombing of pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. Though the Libyans initially denied any involvement, in May 2002, the government formally accepted responsibility and offered 2.7 billion dollars in compensation to the families of the 270 that had been killed.

History will record that President Reagan succeeded in returning to America its pride and prestige on the global stage during his two consecutive terms in office. Through this, he was also responsible for initiating the dismantling of the Soviet Union and ending the Cold War. His Vice -President, and successor as President, George Bush, Sr., would complete Regan's mission to end European Communism. He would himself face crises, as in the Middle East, but would emerge victorious due to the foundation that had been laid by Reagan.

[Falcon]

is this for posting original work or can it be for critique as well?

[guyguy]

is this for posting original work or can it be for critique as well?

Well, the work is original and certainly open for CRITIQUE.

[Falcon]

I will explore some feelings about style and structure later.

In your Desert Storm article, there are a few statements that I believe are simply incorrect. The fact that Thatcher was the source of one of the statements gives credence to the view that the Conservatives have always been out of touch with external facts and sensibilities.

It has been known for a while now, that Dubai's oil reserves were finite, and relatively immediate in oil reserve time-lines. The fact that she refers to it as a country is all the more glaring considering the politics in and around 1990. That's just the one that I can refute with documented fact, as opposed to the others which I can only say are incorrect based on 'people I've spoken to who were there and who know'.

I thought you should have included details on financial aspects of Desert Storm and Desert Sheild. The various pay-offs are quite instructive.
What about the Arab troops' involvement in the fighting? That's also instructive.

[guyguy]

Falcon,
I am being serious on this thread ... no joking around, picong nor pongin' as we are wont to banter with each other on other Threads, okay? This is a learning exercise for me so your critique and input will be greatly appreciated and taken very seriously. Let's leave the joking around for other, more appropriate Threads, okay?

Let me state at the outset that my writing skills are limited, that my knowledge is also limited, and that I am apt to write what is on my mind. I just write whatever comes into my head versus writing a draft and revising it before posting. To that end, these writing exercises are designed to try and improve my writing skills. Therefore, whatever incorrect information you may find, whatever problem you may find with the style and structure, and whatever advice you may wish to offer, please feel free to comment - without malice. Just try to bear in mind that the style of the "American" way may be different from the "British" way so there may be structural and stylistic components that may collide.

I didn't include any financial aspects in that essay since I have none and due to laziness, did not research this component. In hindsight, your suggestion is valid. It may have lenghtened the essay but it probably would have provided a better or more comprehensive viewpoint.

Regarding Mrs. Thatcher's quote; that is something over which I have no control. However, I think that in the grand scheme of things, she may have assessed the situation in 1990 correctly. If you can provide some greater clarification and enlightenment, that would be just great.
Thanks
guyguy

[Falcon]

Dear GuyGuy,

I am somewhat confused at the first paragraph in which you seem to admonish me for something that hasn't happened and was probably not going to happen. Was there anything in my second reply that suggested ""joking around, picong nor pongin' " and warranted the 'okay's?

I take your point about styles on different sides of the Atlantic.

best regards
Falcon

[guyguy]

Dear GuyGuy,

I am somewhat confused at the first paragraph in which you seem to admonish me for something that hasn't happened and was probably not going to happen. Was there anything in my second reply that suggested ""joking around, picong nor pongin' " and warranted the 'okay's?

I take your point about styles on different sides of the Atlantic.

best regards
Falcon

My dear Falcon,
In no way did I mean to admonish you in my first paragraph. I was simply trying [unsuccessfully] to let you know that I'd like this Thread's critique to be kept on a serious note. Since you feel that I admonished you, please accept my apology. There was nothing in your reply that even remotely suggested that you were or would be joking around, piconing, or ponging in any of your critiques. I was, in a manner of speaking, trying to ensure that we laid the ground rules since I really look forward to your insight and to your help. Again, I am sorry if my reply came across differently.
Sincerely,
Guy

[guyguy]

Mi Familia/My Family ... The Movie

This movie traces the lives of three generations of Mexican-Americans. Beginning with a one-year journey from central Mexico to “the other side of the world,” Los Angeles, California, by a young Mexican boy in the 1920s, to the climax in the 1980s, we see the struggles, triumphs and tragedies of an “immigrant” family. Though the focus is on the Mexican-American, the story parallels the experiences of most immigrants, who arrive in the United States, whether legally or illegally, to try and make a better life for themselves and for their families.

José, the family patriarch, makes the long arduous journey not knowing anything about the place to which he is heading nor even its location, without any money. All he knows is that he has a “relative” in Los Angeles. This is not unlike many immigrants of today who endure tremendous hardships, with little or no money, and oftentimes, only a friend or relative whom they know, in an effort to get to the USA. As an immigrant myself, I can identify with José since I arrived in Philadelphia just before I turned seventeen years old to join my mother, with, literally, a crisp twenty-dollar bill in my pocket.

Arriving in Los Angeles, the scene in the movie shows José on a hilltop overlooking a panoramic view of the city – something so far removed from his little village in Mexico that he is stunned. I remember vividly overlooking New York City from my airplane’s window at the beginning of March 1971. I had never seen such tall buildings before except in the movies, and, as you can imagine, what is seen on screen cannot do justice to the actual item. Furthermore, I had never seen real snow and at first, I naively mistook it for froth along the shoreline. I would experience it, along with its unbelievable coldness when I landed.

We see that José is not lazy - as is stereotypically attributed to Mexicans, and by extension, to poor immigrants - but finds a menial job as a gardener far away from his humble abode in East Los Angeles, “across the bridge” in the wealthy section of West Los Angeles. The symbolism of that bridge that separates the “haves” and “have-nots” powerfully demonstrates the plight of the immigrant. We may be good enough to cut your lawn but at the end of the day, we must return to our place in society. Just as important is the industriousness of José who grows corn in his yard at home. I can identify with this cultural practice too, as we believe that the earth is there to help provide sustenance rather than be covered with well-manicured, useless grass. There are only four trees on my property that do not produce something edible. Every thing else produces fruit, from apples to plums to limes, and, if my wife didn’t object as strenuously as she does, those four trees would be replaced with something productive too.

The plight of the immigrant, nay, the non-Caucasian, is clearly demonstrated in the movie when La Migra injudiciously rounds up every Mexican-looking person and summarily deports them as deep into Mexico as possible. Caught up in this dragnet is José’s pregnant wife, Maria, who is a bona fide American citizen by birth. Regardless of Maria’s protestations that she is an American and pregnant, immigration refuses to pay any attention. Their only concern is to get rid of these undesirables – to send them back from whence they came. I can personally attest to this still happening today, as several of my friends have been summarily deported post 9/11, just because they are Muslims.

Of course, José is unaware of Maria’s deportation and is left to care for their two children. Though his spirit is broken, the trudges along in order to provide for his kids. Meanwhile, Maria is living in Mexico, a land with which she is unfamiliar, while maintaining her Catholic faith in “The Virgin” that she will one day be reunited with her family. Two years later, she embarks on the journey back to Los Angeles with her two-year old son Chucho. Confronted by a raging river, which she must cross, she pleads with the boatman to take her. However, we see an Owl in a tree during daylight prior to the crossing. The superstition here is that Owls are bad luck – the same being true in my country of birth. Naturally, the boat capsizes and Maria and Chucho almost drown. However, Chucho’s fate has been sealed – the river has claimed his soul as the superstition of the presence of the Owl tells us. He is dead and now living on borrowed time as revealed by the narrator later on in the movie.

As he grows up in East Los Angeles, we see that an identity crisis besets Chucho as a young man since he knows that he’s Mexican but desperately wants to be as American as apple pie – to get the brass ring, to live the American dream. To that end, he turns to making a fast buck by selling marijuana. When his father finds out from the police and confronts Chucho, we see the deep-seated self-hatred within Chucho surface as he tells his father that he doesn’t want to be like him, that he wants to make lots of money, and more importantly, that it is irrelevant just how he attains his goals. Many children of immigrants suffer from this type of identity crisis. Their parents’ cultural practices are diametrically opposed to the American way of life to which they are exposed outside the home. Confusion sets in and they cannot reconcile whether they are American or Mexican, for example. Chucho’s life of crime culminates in him being shot to death by the police in front of his much younger brother, Jimmy, after Chucho accidentally kills a rival gang leader. Chucho had always been Jimmy’s favourite older brother and his death would have a long-lasting negative effect on Jimmy’s life. Maria rationalizes Chucho’s death as having been predestined ever since his near drowning as a baby. The appearance of an Owl while Chucho is trying to escape from the police reminds us of the superstitions that immigrants bring with them to America.

Meanwhile, the other children are doing well. Toni, the eldest daughter reveals at her younger sister’s wedding, after having caught the bridal bouquet and throwing it back, that she has decided to become a nun. Irene, Toni’s younger sister, after getting married, opens a thriving restaurant along with her husband where they employ Paco, the oldest of the six children and an ex-Navy serviceman, who is pursuing his dream of becoming a writer. Memo, the youngest of the brothers is now a lawyer and it seems that he has succeeded in attaining the American dream.

Acculturation of Memo into the American lifestyle is complete when he decides to marry a stereotypical Caucasian American woman whom he met at UCLA Law School. When he brings his fiancé and her parents to meet his family at their home in the Barrio, a place these people had never been, now with its protective iron bars on the windows and doors, he is visibly uncomfortable. He is ashamed of his family and of his heritage and is so eager to impress and be accepted by his future in-laws that he sits alongside them on the couch while lying about his true name. Memo, he tells them is a type of pet name for William, the name he has adopted. This too is frequently true with the children of immigrants that are born and raised in America. Instead of celebrating their heritage, they deny its existence in an effort to be more “acceptable” or “accepted” by mainstream America.

Eventually, Toni falls in love with a priest with whom she had been doing missionary work in South America. They both leave their respective Orders and marry each other. When Toni breaks the news to her mother, Maria, it is devastating as it goes against everything that Maria holds dear and sacred about her faith and her Church.

But the crux of the movie centers on the deep hatred resident in Jimmy’s soul that pervades his life from the time of witnessing the unjustified murder of his beloved brother Chucho, at the hands of the Los Angeles police. He commits a petty crime and spends time in jail. Upon his release, he cannot decide what to do with his life. He is lost, and as the narrator, Paco, says, he’s carrying the burdens of the entire family on his shoulders, the ramifications of which allows the others to carry on without guilt. Jimmy needs redemption for the sins of the others, which he doesn’t understand.

Many immigrant families fall into this category whereby one member becomes the “sacrificial lamb” in order that the rest of the flock succeed. But redemption comes briefly to Jimmy when he is conned by his activist ex-nun sister to marry an illegal immigrant girl facing deportation to Salvador and certain death. This too is a regular occurrence in America. Many illegal immigrants pay huge sums of money to get married in order to avoid deportation. Whenever election time comes around, illegal immigration always becomes a key issue. The average American hears only the sound bites about the scourge that is illegal immigration. Rarely do they hear the ramifications that befall many of the people that are deported. That most of these people are arrested and jailed or executed is of no concern, but of concern is the misinformation that these illegals are a drain on the economy. A relatively recent study by a professor of economics at Stanford University, and presented to a US Senate sub-committee, under oath, shows incontrovertible proof that Mexican-Americans draw $6 billion annually from the US economy in government services, yet, they pump over $9 billion into the US economy - an annual net gain of $3 billion.

Eventually, Jimmy falls in love with his “wife,” and consummates the “marriage.” It is only at this time that Jimmy finds redemption as Isabel describes to Jimmy her lonely existence in America, how her father had been murdered before her eyes when she was a little girl and that no one understands her pain, of being a non-entity. The platonic love that Jimmy had developed for Isabel is now transformed into a very deep and caring love.

Jimmy has finally found someone with whom he can identify. He understands Isabel’s loneliness and hatred and sorrow as the tears stream down his face. This is by far the most touching and emotional scene in the movie and one with which many immigrants can identify. We are a non-entity. Our culture and our accents are the subjects of derision and ridicule. We are looked down upon because we are “different.” In short, we are pariahs. We know this, regardless of our profession, our education, our contribution to America; we know that when “push comes to shove” we will be on the receiving end. This is the plight of every immigrant and we live with this knowledge, either consiously or subconsciously, daily.

Isabel is now pregnant with a son and Jimmy’s life has new meaning and purpose. He finds a job, though menial; he is determined to “make good” for his family. When Isabel dies unexpectedly immediately after giving birth, Jimmy is devastated and resorts to a life of crime. He blames the poor healthcare for Isabel’s death. He is imprisoned once more as the anger returns. He is estranged from his son who now must be raised by Jimmy’s parents. Upon his release he eventually tries to create a relationship with his son who has developed behavioral problems. His son rejects him and tells Jimmy that he is not his father, that he hates him, and that he wants nothing to do with him - the circle has closed. Eventually, Jimmy reconnects with his son and forms a loving bond. Jimmy is finally redeemed!

The movie concludes with an empty house that had expanded over time as the size of the family increased except for Maria and José sitting at the dining-room table reminiscing about their life. They conclude that despite the hardships, the trials and tribulations, the good times and the bad times, in the end they had a good life. This is the goal of every immigrant’s dream in America, and probably everywhere else – just to have a good life.
Guy

[guyguy]

The Emperor's Club

I had never heard of this movie before so I quickly did a search on Google to find out more about it. 'Not another movie about teaching and teachers,' I thought. After all, I had seen the epitomy of "teaching" films - 'To Sir With Love' that was based on the true life adventures of E.R. Braithwaite [pronounced Braffit], from then British Guiana, now Guyana, and played by Sidney Poitier. Besides, being a child of the 60s, I loved Lulu and especially, the song, "To Sir With Love.". Moreover, I had seen "Dead Poet's Society," "Stand and Deliver," and other movies about students, teachers and school, so I wasn't looking forward to another of these movies, but my spouse persisted.

I finally got the movie from Blockbuster and settled in to watch "THE FILM." My expectations were miniscule at best, my conclusion was that it is one of the finest movies I've had the pleasure of watching, and, I am purchasing it to add to my collection of "classics."

So what did I get out of this movie? Saying "Lots" would be vague and an understatement and be a grave injustice to this brilliant masterpiece. Why this movie didn't win an Academy Award for Best Picture is beyond me.

Here we see a complex story that spans the gamut of human emotions, actions, inactions, and consequences. We start off by recognizing that there is a type of snobbishness in that the school itself is private - reserved for the well-to-do. And then, we meet the protagonist, Mr. Hundert, who states; "I am a teacher ..." whose specialty is Roman History that may be considered mundane and irrelevant in today's world. However, Mr. Hundert is quick to point out the relevance of the past in the modern era.

We see that Hundert is so obsessed with his chosen profession that he lives a virtually cloistered life. He may have known all of the Roman Emperors, and in chronoligical order too, but he remains stuck in a time-frame where technology has passed him by. He doesn't even know how to answer an multi-line modern telephone.

Suddenly, his relatively placid existence is disrupted by the antagonist, Sedgewick Bell - the name further galvanizes our perception of snobbishness. Sedgewick represents the rebelliousness that his peers, and we too, would like to be or to have been, but instead, stuck to the status quo. Instead of "crossing the line," Sedgewick's classmates, and many of us, chose/choose to "tow the line" or to not take chances. Not young Mr. Bell. He has pornographic magazines in his footlocker and that too is adorned with pictures and sayings of Lenin and Marx and Mao, and, he shares his magazines with his peers.

We also recognize the prim and proper Hundert, with his strict adherence to his idea of virtue, ethics, and morality, try to be the teacher that most teachers strive to be - to influence in a positive manner the minds and thought processes of their charges. Bell is intelligent but carefree and lacks discipline or ambition to excel. Hundert becomes the surrogate father, as is the case with many teachers - they become surrogate parents through necessity or because they really care. Hundert is desperate to change Bell's behaviour and draw out from him the great potential that he believes this young man possesses. To that end, he willingly compromises his long held sense of morality and ethics by changing a grade in order to accomplish his goal, even at the expense of a more deserving student. Hundert demonstrates that beneath it all, he, like us, is human too.

The movie is full of symbolism - from the Crest on the Blazers worn by the staff and pupils to the actual "crossing of the line" when Hundert draws a vertical line that changes Bell's grade. The consequences are far reaching and long lasting - for Hundert, Bell, and unsuspecting Martin, the deceived and deserving student. Hundert demonstrates this fallibility and believes that the end justifies the means, if the end results in the reformation of a rebellious pupil.

Teachers have been and always will be mankind's greatest asset. Without them, a surgeon cannot save a life, a scientist cannot develop the technology to venture beyond the galaxy, a mind cannot be coerced to expand. Without these dedicated men and women, along with all of their frailties, man's search for greater knowledge and understanding would cease to exist.

On a more personal note, it is incredulous to me that members of the most important profession in the United States of America are the least paid. They may be highly regarded and respected, but these accolades must be concomitant with equitable remuneration.

Like many people, I too am dedicated to my chosen profession. It isn't a profession per se, but a "calling." It is something that I take very seriously. Great teachers exhibit the same characteristic and there are many unsung heroes that are prime examples.

It is irrelevant to reiterate all of the reasons that have already been stated by prominent critics about this movie, particularly the teaching aspect, or, the methodologies employed by Hundert, or the willingness to give someone a chance, or even the result of cheating - plagiarism, for example. It is far better to have an original thought that may be mediocre than a brilliant line that is unoriginal.

What I find facinating and relevant is the power struggle between Hundert and Bell, the realization by Hundert of his transgression, and his eventual redemption. While a Lepoard CAN change his spots by moving from spot to spot, it is often impossible for man, due to circumstances beyond his control, to change his spots.

"The Emperor's Club" is a very deep and thought proviking movie. The only surprise is that it shows that the good guy did not really win in the end. I am delighted that I came across this movie and although one may think that it's just another movie, it is one well worth watching.

In conclusion, I believe that; “To inspire in others to learn and to think unconventionally, and then to engender within them the desire to share their knowledge with others, is the mark of a true teacher, and that guarantees his/her immortality.”

Guy

[guyguy]

Hinduism In The United States of America

What started out as an invitation to speak at the Parliament of Religion in 1893 on and about Hinduism by Swamis from India has today grown into a formidable community of almost 2.4 million practitioners. This essay will attempt to discuss, briefly, Hinduism in The United States of America, it’s role in the American landscape, both past and present, and what may lie ahead for the average American, Indo-American, and the American society at large.


What is this thing called Hinduism?
Unlike Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, Hinduism is not a religion but a way of life. There was no “founder” of Hinduism nor is there a specific “Holy Book” like the Bible, Qu’ran, or Torah, that defines Hinduism. Hinduism being a religion is a Western construct that was instituted by European visitors and invaders and conquerors of the sub-continent known today as India [originally known as Bharat] in an effort to comprehend and pigeonhole the rituals and practices of the inhabitants of the Indus Valley. The prevailing thought, advanced by the German Orientialist, Friedrich Max-Muller, and one of the founders of Indian studies, claimed that the Indus Valley, and by extension, India, was invaded by the ancient Aryans. This does not seem to be the case after all. Instead, recent archeological discoveries, reported as recently as July 2005 by the Russian newspaper Pravda, seems to contradict this theory. Instead, the opposite seems to be the case. Discoveries in India, Russia and Japan prove that the Aryans did not migrate from the Russian steppes but migrated to Russia from Armenia and Georgia whose forefathers had migrated from the Indus Valley. More archeological evidence that is coming to light is showing that India was the original home of the Aryans.

The Holy Books of the Hindu consist of the Vedas, of which there are four “chapters” that were passed down to successive generations through word of mouth and finally committed to paper thousands of years later. These “chapters” consist of The Rg-Veda, The Yagur-Veda, The Sama-Veda, and The Atharva-Veda. The Vedas may be equated to the Old Testament and the “chapters” may be equated to the Pentateuch – the first five books of the Bible. The word “Veda” means Knowledge and the Rg-Veda is the oldest and most sacred of the four.

The Vedas were orally revealed by Brahma (God) to certain sages or Holy Men, who passed them down in an oral tradition to successive generations. They were not written down since that was prohibited. Today, the written works are known as Sruti or shruti – “that which is heard.” Like the Torah of Judaism, the Vedas are the Law that contain the beliefs, concepts, and ceremonies of its adherents. It is believed that the actual writings of the Vedas occurred around 1200 B.C.

Of the four sections or “chapters”, Chapter One, The Samhitas, is the oldest portion and contains the mantras [a word or sound repeated to aid concentration in meditation] and hymns. Chapter Two, The Brahmanas, contain the ritualistic teachings, Chapter Three, The Aranyakas is devoted to meditation, and The Upanishads – the mystical and philosophical teachings.

The Vedas are scholarly works that are difficult for the average person to comprehend. To this end, The Puranas were “written to popularize the religion of the Vedas. They use simple language and easy-to-understand concepts that the masses are familiar with”. Three of the most famous epics contained in the Vedas that are easily recognized by most Westerners are the Mahabharata, the Ramayana, and the Bhagavad-Gita. The Bhagavad-Gita is believed to have been spoken by Lord Krishna to his disciple, Arjuna. Professor Edward C. Dimcock Jr. in his foreword to the “Bhagavad-Gita As It Is” states;

“The Bhagavad-gita is the best known and the most frequently translated of Vedic religious texts. Why it should be so appealing to the Western mind is an interesting question. It has drama, .... It has ambiguity, … indecision of Arjuna about the basic question; should he enter battle against and kill those who are friends and kinsmen? It has mystery … It has a properly complicated view of the ways of the religious life and treats of the paths of knowledge, works, discipline and faith and their inter-relationships ...”

So, as we can see in this abbreviated prelude, the Hindu does not rely on a specific book, like a Christian does with the Bible, to guide him in the activities of his daily life nor his beliefs, but on a series of Holy Books, the information contained therein spanning several thousands of years, predating any other Holy Scripture. Thus, the contention that Hinduism is not a religion in the Western context, but a way of life.

Hinduism’s Growth
The growth of Hinduism in America did not begin until the passage of the Luce-Celler Act of 1946 that granted naturalization rights to Indians, among others, living in the United States and re-establishing Indian immigration. In 1917, The Barred Zone Act had barred Indians from immigrating to the United States. In 1923, the US Supreme Court ruled that Indians were ineligible for citizenship. Still, a quota system had been established by the Luce-Celler Act and only 100 Indian immigrants per year were permitted into the United States. Though the majority were Hindu, many were followers of Islam. However, the explosive growth of Hinduism in America can be attributed to the reformation of the INS Act of 1965 which eliminated per-country quotas and instead instituted immigration eligibility on the basis of professional experience and education. Naturally, Indians, the majority being Hindu, who were wealthy, well educated, and had held professional positions in medicine, law, engineering, and education began to immigrate. In effect, only the crème de la crème of Indian society was allowed into America. Of course, the first Indian and Hindu to distinguish himself in America was Dhan Gopal Mukerji who, in 1928 won the prestigious Newbery Medal, thus becoming a “man of letters.”

But why did Indians immigrate to America? There are numerous reasons, among which are the fact that prior to its independence in1947, India had been a colony of the British Empire, Indians had interacted favourably with Americans in India and in England, Indians had fought alongside American servicemen during WWII, and, America held great promise for greater wealth and prosperity. Unfortunately, as they were to discover, Hindus were not welcomed with open arms in a Christian dominated country. In her book, Arranged Marriage, Chitra Banerjee Divakaruni tells the following anecdote;

In 1929, the prodigious poet Rabindranath Tagore, who had won the Nobel Prize in literature in 1913, was treated so humiliatingly by the U.S. immigration authorities in Los Angeles -- they demanded proof from the brown-skinned poet of being literate and having funds on hand to guarantee that he would not become a public charge in the U.S. -- that he promptly cancelled his lecture tour and returned to India. The tall, aristocratic, seventy-year-old Tagore, with flowing white beard and long locks, commented: "Jesus could not get into America because, first of all, he would not have the necessary money, and secondly, he would be an Asiatic".

Another of Divakaruni’s anecdotes describes the following;

“Dalip Singh Saund completed his Ph.D. degree in mathematics from U.C. Berkeley in 1927 and accepted a job to teach in the Los Angles school district. However, before he could meet his first class, the job offer was withdrawn by the school board because they ruled that the students would be too upset to be taught by a brown-skinned person. So much for the brown civilization that invented the numeral system 1,2,3, etc. (misnamed as the "arabic" numerals by the Europeans -- a fact acknowledged by Arab historians themselves), the decimal system, and many of the founding concepts of geometry as well as algebra. Frustrated from following his profession, Dalip Singh Saund turned to farming and, decades later, became the first Asian-American to be elected to the U.S. Congress”.

The perseverance of the Indian, and particularly of the Hindu, is such that their culture and way of life – Hinduism – would not allow any deterrence due to persecution and hardships, and so, they persevered in America. Eventually, Hinduism began to flourish through the development of various groups or “sects” that promoted “Self-help” practices such as yoga and meditation.

The spurt in Hinduism in America would get a jolt in 1966 from a most unlikely source – George Harrison of the music group The Beatles. Harrison’s spiritual quest began in his 20s which led him to the world of Eastern religions, particularly, Hinduism. Having traveled to India to study the Sitar with Ravi Shankar, he was introduced to Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. He gave up using LSD and took up meditation instead. Later, he and John Lennon, a fellow Beatle, met Swami Prabhupada, the founder of the global Hare Krishna Movement, at Tittenhurst Park, England. This introduction was to Harrison "like a door opened somewhere in my subconscious, maybe from a previous life".

Harrison would go on to record The Hare Krishna Mantra which was featured four times on England's most popular television program, Top of the Pops, after rising to the Top 10 throughout England, Europe, and parts of Asia. The popularity of The Beatles and the era of their popularity, the 1960s, drove many free-spirited Americans to emulate Harrison’s newly found religion. In quick succession, the Integral Yoga Institute, the Sri Chimoy Centre, and the Divine Light Mission popped up in America along with smaller Ashrams scattered throughout the land. Gurus and Yogis started invading America from India through sponsorship and endorsement of Hollywood celebrities. Mainstream America had finally found Hinduism even though the majority had no idea about the religion nor the culture from whence it came.

Hinduism in Academia
Academia was forced to take another and more serious look at the Hindu phenomenon and so, Colleges and Universities developed Comparative Religions curricula that included the study of Hinduism. After all, Ralph Waldo Emerson, poet, writer, Unitarian minister and lecturer at Harvard University, and Henry David Thoreau had been influenced by the Bhagavad-Gita during their lifetime. Much of their writings are rooted in the study of the Hindu texts.

Emerson wrote;

“I owed a magnificent day to the Bhagavad-Gita. It was the first of books, it was as if an empire spake to us, nothing small or unworthy, but large, serene, consistent, the voice of old intelligence which in another age and climate had pondered and thus disposed of the same questions that exercise us”.

Emerson eventually went on to found the Transcendentalists Movement in America.

Thoreau compared “the spiritual glories of life at pristine Walden Pond with the ancient traditions flowing in the most holy of Indian rivers: ‘The pure Walden water is mingled with the sacred water of the Ganges.”. Thoreau further stated;

“What extracts from the Veda I have read fall on me like the light of a higher and purer luminary, which describes a loftier course through a purer stratum”

Clearly, the intellectualism contained in the Vedas and Bhagavad-Gita was not lost on these two giants of American literature.

The greatest influx of Indians, and by extension, Hinduism, to America, began in 1995 with the boom in computer technology. The east and west coasts saw the greatest increase as New York/Boston and Silicon Valley became flooded with graduates from the Indian Institute of Technology due to an inadequate supply of American Computer Science Engineers. Soon, Hindu places of worship started moving from the bedroom to the Boardroom as more Hindu employees either scaled the management ceiling or ventured out on their own to start new companies. Thus, we have Amar Bose who started the Bose Corporation, Vinod Kosla, co-founder of Sun Microsystems, Sabeer Bhatia, co-founder of Hotmail, and of course, Deepak Chopra,M.D., founder of the Chopra Center.

Hindus and Medicine
Hindus in America have excelled in most fields but particularly in engineering and in the field of medicine. Few hospitals in America do not have several Indian physicians on their staff, most of whom are Hindu. However, their needs are “unusual” when it comes to their cultural practices and religious requirements as are those of the Hindu patient. In this regard, the Hindu patients’ medical needs require an understanding of their cultural background. Hindus are vegetarians and therefore, medical institutions must be able to cater to this type of clientele. Strict followers of Hinduism do not eat even eggs or any of its by-products. Furthermore, due to their religious dietary restrictions, their food cannot be cooked in the same utensils that are used for cooking meat.

Hindus are very much great believers in Ayurvedic Medicine6. This presents a major problem for the uninformed medical facility and its staff. Ayurvedic Medicine has been practiced for thousands of years and is believed to have been handed down by Brahma himself which is written in the Vedas. Of course, not all disease can be cured with herbs, plants, and metals, just as all disease cannot be cured by traditional Western medicine. However, one cannot discount out-of-hand remedies that have a proven track record that dates thousands of years.

On a personal note, I am aware of certain plants, herbs, and roots that cure many diseases or sickness. For example, in Trinidad, there is a plant called “Fever Grass,” that is boiled in salted water and drunk as a type of tea when one is suffering with … you guessed it …. a fever. I have used this potion successfully on many occasions during my childhood which was prepared and administered to me by my maternal grandmother. Just as effective is a poultice that she made consisting of marijuana leaves and hibiscus flowers added to other herbs that prevented infection from serious cuts that I incurred during my jaunts through the forests. Of course, the benefits of the water from young coconuts as a plasma substitute is well documented and had been in use as late as the 1940s.

Hindu patients require the same attention to their religious beliefs and practices as Orthodox Jews and Muslims. In these cases, it may be better to have the physician and nutritionist recommend a diet that can be brought to the patient from his/her home.

The ethnic diversity of the American landscape is constantly changing and as Hinduism grows in the United States, the medical fraternity will have to become educated about its practices. If we are to serve our patients according to the tenets of our various professional ethos, it is incumbent upon us to ensure that we become better educated so that we may carry out our duties without prejudice. The challenges are great but with appropriate preparation, I am confident that we in the healthcare profession can not only meet but exceed these challenges.

Conclusion
Hinduism is unlike any other religion. In a religious context, it certainly predates any of the world’s religions by thousands of years. There is no “founder” like other religions although it is the genesis of several, such as Buddhism, Sikhism, Jainism, and may have influenced even the Abrahamic religions since there are so many similarities. Regardless of whether it is a “religion” or “a way of life,” the growth of Hinduism in America will continue – not only through an immigrant population, but through conversion of American born non-Indians. Lastly, the long-term ramifications in the daily lives of the average American will surely be manifest as the Hindu community enters into the political, business, and professional arenas in greater numbers. It would be to our benefit to educate ourselves about this growing entity.

.

[guyguy]

A Case for Learning Spanish

Spanish is one of the most widely spoken languages in the world today. It is second only to English across the globe. The United States is rated fifth in the world in Spanish speaking countries and is eclipsed only by Mexico, Spain, Argentina and Colombia, respectively.

The United States Census Bureau data show that the fastest growing segment in the USA is that of the Spanish speaking population. It is, therefore, imperative that Americans learn to speak the language as early as possible.

Following are three reasons why learning to speak Spanish is rapidly becoming a necessity to the non-Spanish speaking American; there is greater interaction between both groups, non-Spanish speaking Americans are vacationing in Spanish speaking countries in greater numbers and finally, more business is being conducted with Spanish speakers than ever before in the history of the United States.

When Tom Cruise was dating Penélope Cruz the press and tabloids were tripping over themselves with admiration for the Spanish beauty. Salma Hayak, the Mexican movie star, receives the same endearing attention. We all laughed at the hilarious Cheech Marin in the movie “Up in Smoke” and learned the remarkable life story of the “Cinderella of Argentina,” Evita Peron. Interestingly, Cheech Marin, who is fluent in Spanish, was born in Los Angeles, California, whereas, Evita Peron was played by Madonna, a non-Spanish speaking American, in the movie “Evita.”

Interactions with Spanish speakers occur daily to many Americans. The people who cut our lawns, harvest our crops, wash our cars, cook and serve our food at restaurants, and even build our homes, are mostly Spanish speakers. This is the reality! The world is indeed a “Global Village” and Americans are interacting with Spanish speaking people in greater numbers. As these interactions increase, wouldn’t it be to our benefit if we were able to communicate with these people in their native tongue?

The number of Americans vacationing in Latin America and the Caribbean has increased dramatically during the past decade and exponentially since 9/11. Countries like The Dominican Republic and Costa Rica that were unknown just a few years ago have suddenly become the “hot” spots for American tourists. These countries, from their Customs and Immigration departments to their hotels and Resorts, cater to American visitors by teaching their staffs to speak English. Why then, are Americans so resistant to learning the Spanish language?

Fewer Americans are traveling to Europe because of fear of terrorism, the declining value of the US dollar, and the high prices. They are realizing that there is greater value for their money in the Caribbean and Latin America. The white sandy beaches, welcoming people and umbrella capped Piña Coladas have replaced the Louvre, Alpine Skiing and even the Sistine Chapel. Wouldn’t the American tourist gain an even greater understanding, appreciation, and be better educated about the peoples and cultures of these Spanish speaking countries?

American businesses have finally woken up to the Hispanic market. There are more advertisements that target the Spanish speaker, in Spanish, than ever before. From MacDonald’s to Nike, businesses have recognized the Spanish speaker commands a huge chunk of the almighty dollar, and they want it. Toyota spent millions of dollars on an advertisement featuring its Hybrid vehicle during this year’s Super Bowl. The driver of the car was a Latino whose accent was unmistakably Spanish.

Many television commercials on mainstream American television networks now feature an increasing number of Hispanics. In many States, dial the local utility company and one is presented with a choice of Spanish and English dialogue.

Since the signing of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), many American businesses have moved their manufacturing operations south of the US border. Conversely, American businesses, from Wal-Mart to the local greengrocer can import clothes, leather products, fruit and vegetables and other goods at very low costs. For example, mangoes, papaya, and even Habañero peppers are abundantly available at any Supermarket chain or greengrocer – products unavailable only a few years ago.

In order to conduct business with countries like Mexico, Venezuela, Argentina, Chile, Guatemala and even El Salvador, it is imperative to be able to speak and understand the Spanish language.

Over 30 million residents of the USA speak Spanish. However, there is an ongoing effort to restrict, and some say, to eliminate it from the USA. Even the United States Senate has jumped on the bandwagon when, on May 18, 2006, it voted to declare English as the national language of the United States. The most important argument is that if one lives in the USA, one should learn the language – English. This is a valid point. However, most of these people are migrant workers or are here illegally. After toiling in the fields all day for below the minimum wage, it’s very difficult to devote any time to taking a class to learn to speak English. Additionally, illegal immigrants are naturally afraid of being “found out” and deported. Trying to make English the national language is shortsighted and selfish and worse, hypocritical.

It is shortsighted because the number of Spanish speaking residents in the USA is expected to double over the next decade. They’re not going away folks so we’d better prepare ourselves for the inevitable changes in communication. Bilingualism is quickly becoming a necessity and future generations of Americans will be competing for jobs that require a working knowledge of the Spanish language.

It is selfish because it will deny critical government services to a large percentage of the population. Marginalizing many Spanish speaking people who do not speak English, either through their refusal or inability to learn, is regressive rather than progressive. Do we want to return to the days of the “Whites Only” signs or the inability of women to vote?

It is hypocritical because Americans themselves do not speak English but a bastardized form of English. Furthermore, many regional accents and dialects are so convoluted that even the Americanized form of the English language is difficult to understand – even among English speaking Americans. Ever tried to discern what a person from the heart of Cajun country is trying to say?

America is one of the greatest country on earth and boasts of being the land of the free and the home of the brave. She is synonymous with apple pie. Are we really free and brave when we not only refuse to embrace, but actively reject, over 10% of our population’s language?

Think about it while enjoying that slice of pie. After all, the apples were most likely picked by someone whose only language is Spanish.

[Mivo]

“Fever Grass,” that is boiled in salted water. I did not know this

Guy I not spamming eh.carry on

[guyguy]

“Fever Grass,” that is boiled in salted water. I did not know this

Guy I not spamming eh.carry on

Hi Mivo,
Constructive criticism of anything I write is most welcomed. Also, any commentary is appreciated too. If you like what I write, then say so and tell me why. If you don't, then say say too, and why. This will enable me to learn and hopefully, become better at writing. If you find inaccuracies, please point them out since I may be unaware of them.

I don't think you're spamming at all. And yes, my nanny used to boil "Fever Grass" in salt water which she administered to me whenever I had the cold and fever. Unsalted, the tea tasted very bitter and since sugar was a premium, salt was used instead to try and cut out the bitterness. It worked well but still tasted awful.
guyguy

[guyguy]

CRY FREEDOM

Throughout history there have been the oppressed and the oppressors and always have there been individuals who have led the oppressed to escape the yoke of oppression. Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt. Gandhi led the dismantling of British colonial rule in India and Martin Luther King, Jr., led the Civil Rights Movements in the United States of America. Always, the underlying cause célèbre has been to CRY FREEDOM! This rallying cry has been ably demonstrated in Sir Richard Attenborough’s movie, CRY FREEDOM, based on the book “Biko” and “Asking For Trouble” by Donald Woods. The screen adaptation tells the story of the anti-Apartheid movement in South Africa and in particular, one of its key architects, activist Steven Biko.

I had known of Steven Bantu Biko, of apartheid, and of his death in 1977. What I didn't know was that he had died from injuries suffered through a savage beating by the South African police. The official press release at that time was that he had died from a hunger strike.

Hitting closer to home, in a manner of speaking, I can relate my own experience with apartheid, and from the experiences of one of my nephew’s wife, a Black South African.

My personal experience occurred in January 1991 when my employer asked me to go to Cape Town, South Africa, to train the radiographers, physicians, and nurses at the University of Cape Town hospital – the same one where Dr. Christian Barnard performed the world’s first heart transplant - on the use of one of our X-ray machines which the hospital had purchased. I live in Los Angeles, California, and had never been to Africa so this was very exciting for me.

In preparation for my trip, my employer was asked to fax a copy of my credentials, letter of employment, guarantee of support while in South Africa, and, a photograph – for government and security purposes. The reason for the photograph, we were told, was to ensure that upon my arrival at the airport, a hospital representative would easily recognize me and take me to my hotel. We complied. A few days later, a facsimile arrived from the hospital requesting that another, more “suitable” person be sent to conduct the training. Perplexed, we requested an explanation. After a series of faxes, we finally concluded that because I am of East Indian descent, and that the people I would be training were all “white,” this was the reason.

Incensed, my employer refused their request and offered the hospital a full refund. They declined the refund, kept the machine, and as far as we were able to ascertain, learned to operate the machine from studying the Operator’s Manual. Ironically, I was the key contributor in writing the Operator’s Manual. Apartheid had affected me, a person living 10,000 miles away in America. Incredible!

One of my nephew’s wife, Livinia, was born in 1976 in an area called District Six in Cape Town, South Africa, where she lived for four years until her family was “relocated” to an area called Langa. Her father had been a minister at one of the Methodist churches for many years. According to her, District Six was a cosmopolitan area where races and denominations lived relatively harmoniously. There were a handful of “whites” living in this area but the population included Muslims, Christians, and Jews, and they all had their places of worship.

From his pulpit her father spoke out against the apartheid system and for that, was threatened with bodily harm by the security police on several occasions. On one occasion, he was about to be arrested but due to the intercession of several “white” members of his congregation, he was left alone. In 1980, the family was relocated from their home to Langa. Apparently, Langa was almost a destitute place and the living conditions were not what my nephew’s in-laws had experienced before. Therefore, the family fled to Canada via a circuitous route through Mozambique, Kenya, Australia, and finally, to Toronto, Canada. On two occasions I tried to elicit additional information from my nephew’s wife, but neither she nor her parents would give details other than to say that Cape Town is a very nice city, and that it reminded her of San Francisco, California.

It is against this backdrop that I bought the movie CRY FREEDOM and watched it twice. I could now visualize on the screen what little I had known of South Africa’s apartheid system, the life of one of the anti-apartheid activists, Steve Biko.

The movie opens with the wanton destruction of a shantytown where Blacks lived by the government’s security forces along with the killing and beating of many residents. What was reported in the South African news starkly contrasted with what actually occurred, as expected, since white South Africans controlled the news media.

Donald Woods was the editor of a South African Newspaper, The Daily Dispatch, who believed himself as being a liberal whose editorials sought to take a stand against apartheid. Unfortunately, without firsthand knowledge, Mr. Woods can see the problem only from the white perspective. This would eventually change after Woods met with Biko and learned of the true nature of apartheid from the Black perspective. Woods is not that liberal after all but instead, an apologetic who mistakenly believes that his editorials against apartheid is helping the Black South African in his quest for a better quality of life.

The movie is divided into two “sections” but the underlying theme – the cry for freedom – is always present. We see the struggles and hardships and banning of blacks and of the murder of Bantu Steven Biko at the hands of the South African police. We see the isolation of the blacks along with the squalor in which they are forced to live – the townships – and contrast these with freedom of movement, association, and speech, along with the mansions, perfectly manicured lawns and swimming pools, complete with their Black housekeepers and maintenance people of white South Africans. It is not until Donald Woods himself is banned by the South African government and his “perceived” rights have been stripped, that he truly understands “some” of the problems that the Blacks face daily.

This is not unlike the problems faced by Black Americans during the Civil Rights Movement. Like Biko and his Black Consciousness Movement that advocated equality without violence, so too did American Civil Rights Movement under Martin Luther King, Jr. In South Africa this form of separation was called Apartheid whereas, the same was called Segregation in America. The techniques employed by the South African government to subjugate the majority Black population was no different to many of the techniques used by white Americans, though not officially sanctioned by the government, but one can speculate, with tacit approval, to subjugate Black Americans.

We see the Blacks Only signs in the movie and remember the Negroes Only signs that adorned the walls of buildings in America. We see the destruction of Black Community Centers in South Africa and remember the destruction of gathering places, including places of worship, in America. The comparison is unmistakable and remarkable.

The second half of CRY FREEDOM deals primarily with Woods’ banning – he is unable to meet with more than one person at a time, is restricted to his home, his decision to write a book about his newfound understanding of apartheid, and his escape from South Africa to England where his manuscript is scheduled to be published. Along the way, he is helped by the most unlikely of people – Blacks – from South Africa, Lesotho, Botswana and from a couple of his white South African friends who share his views.

We also see the danger in which he has placed his wife and children and their restriction of movement too. We see that Woods’ wife, uninformed about the truly inhumane nature of apartheid at first and thinking of Biko as a racist, slowly come to the realization that she did not fully understand the system until she is personally affected. Isn’t this the case with many of us whereby we are unable to fully comprehend the other side until we are personally affected?

The movie concludes with the fortuitous and danger-filled escape from South Africa, first by Woods, and then by his wife and children, so that Woods can finally bring to the world, through his work, the real cause of Biko’s death – not through a hunger strike, as reported by the South African government, but his savage beating to death at the hands of the police, what was really happening in South Africa to the Black majority, and the real meaning of apartheid.

There are several poignant scenes in the movie but my favorite is Woods’ reflection as he and his family is flying across South Africa realizing that profound changes are about to take place in South Africa and that he may never be able to return home.

The closing credits state that more than 700 schoolchildren were killed and over 4000 wounded in the SOWETO [SOuth WEstern TOwnship] “Disturbances” that began on June 16th 1976. We now know that these “Disturbances” were actually peaceful demonstrations and the killings were whole-scale state-sanctioned mass murder.

Though the movie does not achieve the impact as Attenborough’s “Gandhi," it is nonetheless a very powerful film that manages to capture the evils of apartheid and in the grand scheme of things, man’s inhumanity to man. I am glad that I watched this movie as it was a great learning experience. You should too!
Guy

Quotes by Biko;

"In time, we shall be in a position to bestow on South Africa the greatest possible gift—a more human face."

"It is better to die for an idea that will live, than to live for an idea that will die."

"You and I are now in confrontation, but I see no Violence."

"The most potent weapon in the hands of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed."

"You are either alive and proud or you are dead, and when you are dead, you can't care anyway."

"Merely by describing yourself as black you have started on a road towards emancipation, you have committed yourself to fight against all forces that seek to use your blackness as a stamp that marks you out as a subservient being."

[IN-A-QUANDRY]

A Case for Learning Spanish

.

They would have to decide on which version of the spanish language to learn..mexican, cuban, boriqua etc.

[guyguy]

I believe Castillian is what they teach here in the schools. I unsure though but I suspect that if one learns Castillian, then communication with every Spanish speaker would be possible.

[KFCSpicy]

I am not on your level of intellect Guy but I would only hope that one day I can be as articulate and brave as you.

This has been a pleasure and a learning experience.

As I said I admire anyone with talent.

[guyguy]

I am not on your level of intellect Guy but I would only hope that one day I can be as articulate and brave as you.

This has been a pleasure and a learning experience.

As I said I admire anyone with talent.

What a wonderful compliment KFCSpicy! I'm flabbergasted and of course, incredibly appreciative. I don't think that I'm that articulate compared to many others on this forum, nor am I brave. I tend to write what I truly believe whether or not one agrees with me. I'm delighted that you've found my prose pleasurable to read and educational too. Thanks so much for the feedback.
Guy

[guyguy]

A Look at American Foreign Policy

Throughout its history, American foreign policy has been both paradoxical and quixotic. However, the common thread that runs through its fabric has always been the formulation of a comprehensive foreign policy. For more than half of it’s existence, the United States never had a defined foreign policy. The groundwork for this state of affairs was laid by President George Washington himself in his farewell address upon demitting office in 1796 when he stated;

“The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible.
… Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none; or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.”

Thus, American foreign policy was not viewed as something of vital interest to the young nation and instead, the United States focused its priorities “on the home front.” This would eventually change, as with any emerging world power. However, American foreign policy would develop, not deliberately nor purposefully, but through reactionary necessity.

Secure in the knowledge that its safety from foreign threats was relatively guaranteed through geographic location, along with friendly neighbors to its northern and southern borders, Americans were more interested in expanding its settlement of its Western land mass, increasing its wealth through trade and commerce, and relishing the fact that its Democratic government was unlike the aristocratic and monarchial types that were the norm in Europe.

The Munroe Doctrine of 1823 which stated; “The United States would not interfere in European wars or internal affairs, and expected Europe to stay out of American affairs” further cemented America’s “hands-off” policy with European political problems. Thus, American foreign policy became reactive rather than proactive. Even the advent of the First World War did not spur America into action. European societies had crumbled or were on the verge of crumbling yet, the United States paid very little attention other than to protect its interests in Europe.

President Woodrow Wilson, the son of a Presbyterian minister, held strong Judeo-Christian morals and values and despised war. A man of peace, he believed that American style democracy, morality, economic activity, and rational thinking were the best ways to settle conflict.
The Unification of Germany in 1871 created a serious threat to other European nations. Its expansionist policies, in an effort to control the European continent, would eventually lead to WWI. The fall of czarist Russia in 1917 further galvanized the German belief that it was unbeatable, and that Britain and France were no match to its military might.

The United States began to understand that a European continent under the control of Germany could pose a definite threat to American security. Still, the United States resisted entering the war. However, a fatal mistake by Germany - its submarines began attacking and disrupting American commercial ships bound for Europe, and by extension, its vital international commerce - forced the United States to declare war against Germany. The evolution of American foreign had begun to take shape. America could no longer remain neutral since its security had been threatened. Americans suddenly felt insecure. Geography and neutrality no longer seemed as buffers to an alien invasion. If German submarines could sink its merchant ships at will, Germany could just as easily land a military force on her shores. It had to reassess its foreign policy.

Till then, America had never had a standing army. However, with the declaration of war, Wilson marshaled the American population into a formidable military force. American industry immediately began churning out war materiel, the likes of which had never been seen before by either Americans or Europeans. With America joining Britain and France, Germany was inevitably crushed. Though slow in responding to Germany’s expansionism, America, nevertheless, emerged as the new world power.

One of the conditions of The Treaty of Versailles, signed at the conclusion of WWI, required Germany to pay huge sums of money to the allies for war reparations. Since most of Germany’s infrastructure and industrial output had been decimated by the war, it became increasingly difficult for them to meet their obligations since it further depleted German resources. Britain and France faced similar difficulties with their infrastructure and industry. Americans servicemen, on the other hand, returned home to a booming economy and increased prosperity.

Wilson attempted to construct an all-encompassing foreign policy through the creation of The League of Nations, of which there were 60+ signatories. The basic premise of this body would be the rapid arrest or elimination of future wars, that conflict among nations would be settled amicably within this body, and in essence, each nation would adhere to the biblical mandate of being “thy brother’s keeper.” Unfortunately, Wilson’s vision and hard work failed as the US Congress did not ratify the treaty – an oversight on Wilson’s part that required congressional ratification of any treaty. And so, American foreign policy was left to languish with the end of the war.

As Americans prospered, Europeans floundered. American banks were overflowing with wealth and the stock market was rising to unprecedented levels. Americans were investing heavily in the booming economy and banks were only too happy to lend money to anyone who wished to borrow. Americans were borrowing money to invest in the stock market.

Meanwhile, the tremendous cost of rebuilding incurred by European nations was debilitating and so, investment in the stock market from foreign war torn governments and its institutions began to dry up. Furthermore, these countries were unable to trade with the United States. They simply had no money and American foreign policy had not developed to a level that could implement any type of mechanism to assist these countries in their economic recovery. The insular, almost “isolationist” policy of the United States, coupled with domestic prosperity, ushered in the euphoric period known as “the roaring twenties.” But this was not to last.

Regardless of the abundance of any nation, it cannot sustain itself indefinitely without commerce with other nations. Trade is the lifeblood of a vibrant economic system and the United States found out this truism with the crash of the stock market in 1929. The Great Depression ensued, and although there is still debate today as to its cause, the fact that foreign countries could not afford to purchase American products in the 1920s, contributed greatly to the disaster. In hindsight, one can speculate that if the United States had in place a comprehensive foreign policy whereby helping all European countries to rebuild, the Great Depression might have been mitigated.

The election of Franklin Delano Roosevelt [FDR], as President of the United States was the catalyst that turned the American economy around. He instituted a plethora of economic measures to get the nation working again.

While FDR concentrated on the resuscitation of the United States, he neglected to implement a foreign policy that would aid in the resuscitation of the rest of the world. This would prove disastrous as the impoverished Germans began to support a little known fledgling Austrian artist, Adolf Hitler, who promised a better life for the German people. Concurrently, the Russian overthrow of the Czar ushered in the age of communism and eventually, the brutal dictator Josef Stalin. Italy saw the emergence of Benito Mussolini, a fascist.

Barely twenty years after “the war to end all wars,” a second world war erupted. While there are many major reasons that contributed to WWII, the lack of an effective American foreign policy played a significant role.

The United States had not learned the value of American foreign policy, or lack thereof, from WWI. It still maintained a “hands-off” policy by refusing to enter the war at an early stage. America was content to let the Europeans deal with Hitler and his Nazi party. He was not viewed as a threat to the United States to the extent that American businesses and prominently wealthy citizens were only too happy to conduct business with him.

Roosevelt, like Wilson, was not interested in war and sought peaceful methods to remedy the escalating German expansionism. Hitler sought and got a non-aggression agreement with Stalin and formed an alliance with Mussolini. These would prove to be disastrous fro Russia and Italy as Hitler eventually turned on both Stalin and Mussolini.

As Hitler conquered, invaded, and/or annexed neighboring countries, the United States still tried to maintain a neutral position. Although it supplied Britain with munitions and other commodities under various agreements, actual participation, which Britain desperately needed was not forthcoming. It would take another direct attack on America, like the one during WWI to jolt the United States into action.

The unprovoked attack on the American Naval Fleet, anchored at Pearl Harbor, on December 7, 1941 by Japan, even while negations between both countries were being conducted in Washington, DC, was the catalyst that finally forced America to join the war. The expansionism of Japan into China was of little concern to the United States. Asia held little interest for the United States so its foreign policies in relation to Asia, was non-existent. Additionally, America felt safe from attack by any Asian country because of the great expanse of the Pacific Ocean.

The sudden and surprise attack clearly demonstrated to the United States that she was not geographically secure, and so, America had to reassess and revamp its foreign policy. The declaration of war between the United States and Japan was the second time that America had been forced into war through a gross mistake by its aggressor.

America and Britain formed an alliance with Stalin in an effort to defeat Hitler. The Yalta Conference comprised the “Big Three” Allied leaders, FDR, Winston Churchill and Josef Stalin as the war was coming to a close and allied victory was assured. This meeting was held to discuss Europe’s post-war reorganization and rebuilding. At least, the United States had learned from WWI that it would be necessary to provide whatever help the European nations needed, including the defeated Germany, in order to rebuild.

Stalin had assured the Allies that the Soviets would provide military support against the Japanese – an assurance on which he reneged. Roosevelt trusted Stalin believing that he could woo Stalin to his way of thinking as politician to politician. However, Churchill did not trust Stalin, as did several of America’s greatest generals in the European war, of which, General George Patton was most vociferous. Patton felt that the Soviets were most vulnerable as the war was winding down and that America should march into Moscow while the marching was good.

During the Yalta Conference, the failed League of Nations, initiated by Wilson, would prove to be the precursor of a new world body, the United Nations [UN]. Much of what was contained in the original plan was adopted in this new proposal with minor modifications and one major change. The US Congress had refused to ratify Wilson’s plan because it feared that the United States government would be a subservient member. The UN’s plan differed in that the United States would hold a prominent and permanent position with veto power. It was ratified.

During the closing days of the war in Europe, the United States had still not formulated a comprehensive foreign policy, and though Roosevelt was congenial towards Stalin, some say he even admired Stalin, the feeling of admiration was not mutual. Stalin wanted to control Eurasia, he despised capitalism and democracy, and as history would later show, he was a ruthless dictator and a despot.

In an effort to devise a foreign policy towards post –WWII Europe, the United States turned to George Kennan for his assessment of the Soviet Union, and to help construct its foreign policy. Kennan had been a State Department official in Russia during and after WWII, speculation abound that he was an OSS spy, and so, he proposed a policy of “containment.” The United States would not allow the Soviets to expand their empire, but more specifically, Kennan stated that “industry was the key ingredient of power and the United States controlled most of the centers of industry.” There were five centers of industry of which the Soviets was the only one outside the other four Allied nations. “Containment meant confining the Soviet Union to that one.”

This policy was adopted by President Harry Truman, who succeeded FDR upon his death just months prior to the end of WWII. The Truman Doctrine, as it came to be known, was followed by succeeding US Presidents until the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.

Churchill did not trust Stalin and implored the Unites States to gradually withdraw its troops from Europe. He knew that Stalin would live up to the Yalta Agreements only if there was a US military presence in Europe. Unfortunately, Truman did not heed Churchill’s advice and rapidly removed US troops from Europe. Churchill took his plea directly to the American public in his speech in Missouri where he coined the term “Iron Curtain.” The troop removal emboldened Stalin to continue his expansion of the Soviet Empire.

Stalin had insisted on full control of Berlin but was rebuffed by the Americans. However, he maintained control of East Berlin. The oppressive Soviet regime forced many people who were living in East Berlin to flee to West Berlin.

The Soviets, in an effort to gain total control of Berlin, blockaded the city from access by the allied powers in June 1948, the genesis of which actually began in 1945. Stalin felt that this tactic would force the allies to abandon the city that had been divided into four zones or “sectors” – Russian, British, French and American. This “siege” would not work as Truman embarked on a massive airlift, whereby thousands of tons of food and other supplies were airlifted into West Berlin daily. The Americans kept this up to Stalin’s chagrin until he finally relented and removed the blockade a year later in May 1949.

Although the fighting in Europe had ceased in May 1945, hostility continued between the Soviet Union and the United States. This hostility lasted for over 45 years and would come to be known as The Cold War.

Nine days after President Truman dropped Atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan surrendered to the Americans on May 7th, 1945. The war in the Pacific had finally ended but the Atom bomb ushered in a new era of uncertainty and had changed the methodology of warfare forever. The United States was now faced with another reassessment of its foreign policies along with the development and implementation of new ones.

[guyguy]

The Medicine Men

The relationship between healthcare professionals and the religious beliefs of individuals under their care requires a delicate balance and sensitivity. In the United States, the separation of church and state provides absolute delineation, yet, when the life of an individual hangs in the balance, it becomes difficult for healthcare professionals to accede to the religious beliefs of the patient. To each group, medical and religious, the sanctity of life is unquestioned and so, a conundrum presents itself when the religious beliefs, and by extension, the rights, of the patient are expected to take precedence. Over the past several years, attempts have been made by the medical fraternity to embrace and to encourage the active participation and advice from the religious group to which a patient may belong in an effort to circumvent the religious dogma in order to save the patient’s life. For some patients, physicians have even sought the cooperation of unorthodox practitioners of medicine. Together, they form the group that I call The Medicine Men. This essay will attempt to explore the state of these actions in both medical and religious contexts.

A young man of seventeen arrives in the Emergency Room having been involved in a serious car accident. He is bleeding internally and requires surgery immediately in order to save his life. However, his religion forbids him from being transfused with any blood products, without which he will surely die. Though barely coherent, he makes his wishes known. His parents arrive at the hospital and they too concur. To complicate matters, the patient is a minor whose legal rights are superseded by those of his parents, who insist that he does not receive any blood transfusions.

A woman in her late thirties arrives in the Emergency Room with an ectopic pregnancy in her cervix during the third month of her first trimester. She and her husband have been trying for years to have children and finally, she becomes pregnant. However, this pregnancy must be terminated or else the fetus and/or the mother are likely to die. The chances of her becoming pregnant again is remote and even if she did, the likelihood of that child being born with some form of serious birth defect is great. To complicate matters, the physician, supported by many ancillary healthcare professionals taking care of the woman, refuse to take part in performing an abortion.

A man of sixty years of age is brought into the Emergency Room with a deep cut on his head that he suffered from falling after having had another seizure, from which he has suffered since childhood. He is stabilized and tests show that there is no type of intracerebral disease that is responsible for his seizures. He is told that he needs to take an anti-seizure medicine daily that will control his seizures. He refuses to comply since he has historically relied on his tribe’s medicine man to cure him of this malady. Furthermore, the medicine man has told him that this is a punishment from the Great Spirit because he has been bad and has neglected the Great Spirit. This explanation has been inculcated into this man’s psyche since childhood and he believes it without question. He decides to visit the medicine man upon his release from the hospital and pay the penance that has traditionally been exacted from him for his “transgressions.”

A forty-five year old, lucid electrical engineer is in the end stages of liver cancer that has metastasized throughout his body and especially to his lungs. He has great difficulty breathing and is in constant pain. The narcotics that he has been taking to alleviate his pain is no longer working and now, he is bed ridden, unable to care for himself, and heavily dependent on others to take care of his every need. Worse, he is financially bankrupt and is connected to a respirator. He wishes to have the respirator removed and begs his physician to give him a huge dose of drugs that will end his life immediately.

These are a few real-life examples that face physicians and other healthcare workers every day, and of which, I have first-hand knowledge. It examines the religious, moral, ethical, and legal aspects that confront not only the physician but also the patient. These patients are not atheists nor are they agnostics, but are deeply religious, with tremendous faith and belief in their respective Gods, and their religious leaders. How then do we, as individuals, as medical personnel, as religious leaders, and as a society at large, deal with these situations? What do we do that would be in the best interest of the patient and their loved ones while being sensitive to their religious beliefs while simultaneously satisfying our own values? How do we reconcile them, or can we? Can we find a middle ground, or is there one? What part do religious leaders, who clearly have a great deal of influence over their followers, play in these circumstances? Do they have any responsibility? What is their role, or do they have any at all? What price, if any, should those religious leaders pay, who claim to have healed a sick person when scientific evidence clearly shows that this did not occur? Should they, like physicians, be sued for malpractice, or should they be excused on the pretext that it was the will of God?

In Christianity, it is accepted that the great healer is God. In medicine, it is the physician. Native or indigenous peoples often rely on their own tribal healers who are called by various names such as shamans, voodoo priests or priestesses, or medicine men. Frequently, there is a collision between the two regarding which of these is better qualified to attend to the needs of the sick and dying. In modern society the physician most often takes precedence, but there are many cases where patients who can no longer be helped by medicine miraculously recover from certain death that they believe is the result of their faith in and prayers to their God.

A study conducted in January 2005 of physicians’ reactions to the dilemma when confronted with conflicts between religion and medicine found that they tried to persuade or negotiate with patients, while respecting their patients’ religious beliefs up to a point. Although most of the doctors were prepared to accept their patients’ decision, once the physicians felt that the religious belief could cause the patient overt harm, they responded with the following strategies:

• 1. They tried to convince the patient that their religious practices and beliefs was a complement to rather than a substitute for medical intervention.
  2. Physicians negotiated with the patient, within the framework of the patient’s religious beliefs, as something provided by God.
  3. Unsuccessful negotiations then resulted in appealing to the clergy or members of the patients’ family, friends or religious fraternity to intercede.

Failure of these would often result in the patient being referred to another physician.

It seems though, that prayer and religion, or religiosity, have a profound effect on various aspects of human life. A study published in 1998 that followed a group of patients for one year that had undergone Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery (CABG), found that 76% said that religion was either “pretty important” or “very important,” 54% attended religious services on a regular basis, and 68% prayed. The study showed that after controlling for post-CABG depression, social support, and a number of other illnesses, prayer was associated with less current psychosocial distress.

The surgeons had done their jobs by successfully attending to the physical needs of the patients, but psychosocial distress that oftentimes leads to depression and eventual recurrence of the disease was dramatically reduced through religion, prayer, and faith in God. These results were also corroborated in far off Israel, where members of several kibbutzim studied showed the decreased level of stress was strongly related to religious practice, private praying, and religious commitment.

Caregivers and family members of those suffering from dementia were found to suffer from grief and from stress themselves. Although some effort is made by physicians to address these people’s issues – drugs, sleeping aids, some counseling - more emphasis is placed on the patient than on the caregivers. However, a study published in 2006 showed that in bereaved caregivers, “only frequency of religious attendance was associated with fewer depressive symptoms and less complicated grief.”

The death of a loved one is an especially difficult time for the survivors. Psychotherapy and bereavement counseling play an important part in the consolation and mental recovery of these people. Historically, religion and its leaders have always played an important part in helping to console and offer a means of acceptance of the loss. Called Religious psychotherapy, this was also studied by scientists who concluded that “highly religious patients with grief and bereavement tend to improve faster when religious psychotherapy is added to the secular treatment regimen.”

It is clear that belief in God and adherence to religion play a major role in the well being of the sick and their loved ones, but, do these adherents receive enough support from their religious leaders? That was the purpose of a one-year study published in The Archives of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation. The researchers found that even though 74% of the patients reported that religious/spiritual needs were important, 45% felt that not enough attention was paid to their needs. Furthermore, 30% did not receive any pastoral visit even though they desired to see any member of the clergy. Moreover, 73% stated that none of the staff at the hospital discussed with them their religious or spiritual concerns. With such a large population of religious adherents and believers in God, it is imperative and there is great urgency that this issue is addressed.

So where do native medical practice fit into this? And, is there a place for native practitioners in the world of Western medicine? Known as ethnomedicine, an all-encompassing term that includes practices ranging from shamanism to herbal remedies to hypnosis, it is becoming more widely recognized and accepted by practitioners of Western medicine. Physicians are discovering that, like faith, prayer, and religious beliefs, ethnomedicine oftentimes produces positive outcomes that result in complete cures of diseases from deadly snakebites to cancer. Ethnomedicine has been practiced since before the time of Aristotle, who is considered the father of medicine. Though most ancient, and seemingly bizarre to the Western mind, these methods often result in effective cures.

A paper published in the Journal of Ethnopharmacology in 1982 describes the curative powers of shamanism with a patient who presented to the hospital after having been bitten by a snake in Colombia. The patient, a young man of the Guahibo tribe that inhabits the savannah region known as the Llanos, had been hunting when bitten by a montonosa, a snake that possesses a particularly deadly type of venom. Death is slow and painful and occurs within twenty-four hours. The patient arrived at a small field hospital, Las Gaviotas, where he was treated via conventional methods by the physician. However, his condition continued to rapidly deteriorate and death was imminent. A shaman, who had been nearby, asked the physician to perform his ritual for snakebites, which he did. Using a combination of tobacco smoke, chanting, and sprinkling water in which an extinguished cigarette had been soaked, over the patient’s extremities, the young man’s vital signs began to return to normal. Though this could be attributed to the drugs and intravenous fluids that had been administered, the patient had already been in a toxic state. The procedure lasted about a half hour and within four days. Not only did the patient survive, but he ultimately left the hospital and returned to his village a few days later.

Visits by native healers in some hospitals are being increasingly encouraged and there seems to be no conflict between shamanistic and modern medical practices. Every North American and South American Indian shaman asked about this matter agreed that there was no competition whatsoever but each compliments the other.

“In 1980 the American Medical Association revised its code of ethics and gave physicians permission to consult with, take referrals from,
and make referrals to practitioners without orthodox medical training. This move opened the way for physicians to initiate some degree
of cooperation with shamans, herbalists, spiritists, homeopaths, and other non-allopathic practitioners.”

We are all aware of many practices that have taken place over the centuries in an effort to heal the sick. The majority of modern pharmacological drugs have their roots in the many plants, trees, and even animals that have traditionally been a part of the armamentarium of the ethnomedical practitioner. Drugs such as insulin, aspirin, and even capsicum, derived from animals, tree bark, and Habañero peppers, respectively, are some of the more commonly known drugs. Interestingly, “native remedies” have been used for centuries by shamans or ethnomedical practitioners throughout the world. There are literally thousands of references where native methodologies, though gruesome to some, have been used in place of Western medicine. The ethnomedicines and the practices of their ethnomedical practitioners in India, China, the Amazon, and even those of Native Americans, have been clearly documented.

In the 21st century, the individual’s health and continued wellbeing depend on several factors. However, it is abundantly clear that the two most prominent in this quest are the practice of medicine that also encompasses ethnomedical methods, and the practice of religiosity. The questions I posed at the beginning of this essay are still being hotly debated and will continue well into the future. However, solutions are being found and traditional practices and beliefs are being changed or adapted to the modern era. As an example, until a couple of decades ago, Judaism did not allow burying of their dead who had tattoos in Jewish cemeteries. This posed a major problem after Hitler’s holocaust. During WWII, the Nazis forcibly tattooed the majority of Jews in Europe on their forearms with unique numbers for identification purposes. After much debate, the Judaic laws were eventually changed to allow these Jews to be buried alongside non-tattooed Jews.

To conclude, regarding the fate of the four examples I listed at the beginning of this essay, I am sorry to say that all five patients died, including the mother and the fetus. The mother's cervix ruptured and the she bagan to bleed internally while medical personnel debated about terminating the pregnancy and not realizing that the mother had been bleeding. Though death is rare in ectopic pregnancies, this unusual case also underscores the need for specific laws that address situations such as these. For various reasons, resolution of the moral, ethical and religious dilemma were impossible and thus, the main contributors to the deaths.

Every person whose mental faculties are intact, has the right to decide their own destiny. It is the duty of the doctor to clearly explain to the patient the pros and cons of any medical intervention, or non-intervention, in a non-threatening nor persuasive manner. It is the duty of the patient’s religious leaders, be they priests, Imams, ministers or shamans, to clearly explain the consequences of their action, or inaction, without undue pressure to follow their religious dogma. It is the responsibility of society at large to expeditiously resolve these questions for the benefit of mankind.

In essence, it is the responsibility of The Medicine Men to counsel wisely and guide appropriately. Only then can a patient make informed and rational decisions about processes that will impact their life and religious beliefs, and, by extension, their own fate.

[guyguy]

About Satire

Satire is a form of social commentary expressed through caricature-type drawings. The origin of satirical art began with DaVinci’s “The Grotesque Heads” wherein he disavowed “beauty” in favour of displaying the flaws in man in an exaggerated manner. These allegorical drawings were later enhanced by Dutch artists, such as Rembrandt, whose paintings concentrated on the social and political aspects of the seventeenth century. Satire is at once subversive and irreverent in nature but attempts to raise the consciousness of the lowest common denominator in society.

When the Engilsh artists put pen to paper – or paint to canvas – in the 18th Century, they elevated the quality of satirical art to a much higher level. Best known of the bunch is William Hogarth whose art reflected not only the British social climate at the time but also the political changes that had and were taking place in Europe.

In the 21st Century, satire is expressed via a variety of media – film, television, stand-up comedy, and in print. In the United States, no one is beyond ridicule. Satire, in the form of comedic expression can be seen in the daily “comics” section of every newspaper, in television shows such as the now defunct "In Living Color," and others hosted by people from John Stewart to Jay Leno and in the irreverent comedy of Chris Rock. The recent “conversion” of celebrity heiress Paris Hilton to Christianity after her brief incarceration has become fodder in the armamentarium of the modern-day satirist.

The similarities between modern-day satirists and those of the 18th century have not changed much. The message is the same! What has changed is the medium of its delivery.

[guyguy]

The Palestine – Israel Conflict and America’s Foreign Policy in the region.


The conflict between Israel and the Palestinians has been fraught with violence committed by both sides against each other. The current situation had its genesis when Israel declared itself to be an independent State on May 14th 1948. Prior to its declaration, there had been no such state that we know today as Israel. The fight by Jews to have their own homeland emanated from the attempted genocide by Hitler during WWII, and, the atrocities committed against Jews throughout Europe, including Stalin’s Russia.

Based on Biblical pronouncement, Jews believed that GOD had granted Palestine to them; therefore, they had a divine right to the land. The first time the name “Palestine” was used was around 70 AD, when the Romans committed genocide against the Jews, smashed the Temple in Jerusalem and declared that the land of Israel, also called Judea, would be no more. The Romans promised that it would now be known as Palestine.

Since Palestine had been a protectorate of the British at the end of WWII, the United States had no foreign policy in this part of the world. Moreover, the United States had not developed a foreign policy concerning the entire Middle East as a whole. I will attempt to examine the on-going conflict between the Palestinians and Israelis and the resulting foreign policies that the United States eventually adopted.



The world is bombarded almost daily with news reports of continuing violence between Israelis and Palestinians. Palestinian men and women strap bombs to themselves that they then detonate in crowded marketplaces and other areas where Israelis congregate. In retaliation, the Israeli government attacks areas of the Palestinian section where they believed the people directing these attacks reside. The Palestinians deploy more suicide bombers, and so, the cycle continues. This “eye for an eye” mentality serves only to escalate tensions and results in the death and injury of innocent civilians, and destruction of property.


To understand the current situation in the Middle East, it is imperative to trace its inhabitants as far back as history, whether factual, contrived, or both, will allow. For this, we have records that were passed down through generations by word-of-mouth, story telling, and in song and poetry that were finally committed to paper [papyrus & animal skins] many years, and even centuries after the actual events occurred. These records consist of The Talmud, The Torah, The Koran, and The Holy Bible. Bearing this in mind, one can easily recognize that discrepancies would exist among these books and even within them. However, the three books of the major religions on which the history is based, Judaism – The Torah, Islam – The Koran, and Christianity – The Holy Bible, all subscribe to a single person as their common religious beginnings – Abraham.

Though an in-depth study of their history is beyond the scope of this essay, suffice it to say that both Arab and Jew trace their lineage to Abraham and know him as the father of their respective “tribes” that began over 4000 years ago.

Today’s Middle East comprise of the Arabs, the Jews, and the Iranians – originally known as Persians. Until the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, there was no one known as Palestinians, no language called Palestinian, no culture specifically known as Palestinian, nor country known as Palestine.
Most Arabs descended from Abraham’s first-born illegitimate son Ishmael whose mother was Hagar, the servant of Abraham’s wife, Sarah. The Jews are descendents of Abraham’s second son, Isaac, by his wife, Sarah. And so, the Jews lay claim as the legitimate heirs of Abraham’s inheritance. Interestingly, the term Arab referred to the peoples who occupied the Arabian Peninsula long before the arrival of Ishmael and his tribe. Thus today’s Arabs who claim Abraham in their lineage and the Jews are blood relatives.


The Persians, on the other hand, belonged to a group known as Aryans who were cattle herders from the central regions of Asia. About 2000 years Before the Common Era [B.C.E.], one group began separating from other Aryans and finally settled in an area between the Caspian Sea and the Persian Gulf - today’s Iran or “land of the Aryans.” Here, they prospered and lived peacefully for over a thousand years but were conquered by the Medes around 600 B.C.E. Later, the Persian king, Cyrus, would organize an army and defeat the Medes, reclaiming the kingdom. Cyrus’ army would grow to tens of thousands of men and he developed a policy of expansionism. Though his Generals and chief officers were of Persian stock, his troops consisted of both Persians and conquered peoples. Cyrus’ empire extended from the Indus River all the way to Egypt. Hence, the absolute contempt that is felt by Iranians when referred to as Arabs and the continued efforts by the Iranians to become the sole leader of the entire Middle East Region.


In 1882, British forces occupied Egypt and took control of the Suez Canal. The Canal linked the Red Sea with the Mediterranean Sea and opened in 1869. The minority shareholders of the Suez Canal Company were the British. The Balfour Declaration of 1917 created Arab antagonism toward Israel. The document pledged the establishment of a “national home” for the Jewish people in Palestine while promising Arabs that the rights of non-Jews would be protected. To the Zionists, this was a promise to revert Palestine, which had become a British mandate after the fall of the Ottoman Empire during WWI, and which the Jews regarded as their rightful ancestral homeland, into a Jewish State.


The Arabs, on the other hand, were afraid that a Jewish State would deprive them of what they too considered to be their rightful homeland. And so, when the United Nations partitioned Palestine into two separate and independent states – one being Jewish and the other Arab – in 1947, the Arabs rejected this as an equitable solution to the situation. To this end, the Arab League, consisting of Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon and Jordan, invaded the new state of Israel in 1948. Known as the Arab-Israeli War. Israel defeated the superior forces of the Arab League; yet, the Arabs still refused to accept Israel as a new nation and pledged its total destruction.


The continued immigration of Jews from across Europe who were escaping Hitler’s genocide and Stalin’s persecution to Israel was viewed as a threat to the Arab population. In 1939, Britain had severely restricted Jewish immigration to Israel causing militant Jews to attack British forces and Arab resistance fighters. Interestingly, these “militant” Jews were branded by the British as being terrorists, chief among them being Menachem Begin, who would later become Israel’s Prime Minister in 1977.


The British mandate ended in 1948 and immediately, on May 14th 1948, Israel declared itself as an independent state. David Ben-Gurion, who was born in Poland, became Israel’s first Prime Minister. There began an exodus of Palestinians from Israel, both voluntary and forced, to neighbouring Arab countries. Accounts of the number of fleeing and/or expelled Palestinians vary but the official count by the United Nations [U.N.] puts the number at 711,000. This exodus would create unwanted problems for the countries to which they fled. Though many of the Palestinians became integrated into the Arab countries, the majority remained refugees.

Concurrently, the entire Jewish population that had resided in the West Bank and Gaza Strip fled to Israel fearing for their lives. Between 1948 and 1949, the population of Israel doubled and would increase over the ensuing years by over an additional half million. These additional Jews, like the Palestinians, had fled and/or been expelled from the surrounding Arab countries, also fearing for their safety. Another 300.000 or so fled to the United States, Canada and France.


The United States “officially” became involved in this region and subsequent conflicts when President Harry Truman recognized, within minutes, the declaration by Israel as an independent state – the first nation to recognize Israel. Even though no immediate help – military and/or financial – was forthcoming, the fact that the United States “recognized” Israel as a nation propelled other nations to do the same. The state of Israel was now an official reality in the Middle East and was admitted as a member of the U.N. on May 11, 1949. Under the auspices of the United Nations, in addition to other benefits, Israel would now enjoy its protection and the resolutions of regional conflicts.


President Truman’s decision to recognize Israel was against the advice of George Marshall, then Secretary of State, who believed that recognizing Israel would inevitably lead to conflict with future American aspirations in the Arab world. This would prove to be prophetic.


Hostilities between Israel and her neighbours continued. Meanwhile, the defeat of the Arab League in 1948, and particularly Egypt, which had been the leading Arab power, recognized the need to rearm before attacking Israel again. Thus, in 1955, Col. Gamal Abdel Nasser, Egypt’s leader, bought arms from Czechoslovakia, acting on behalf of the Soviet Union, that included MIG-15 fighter planes and tanks. When Nasser tightened the ring around Israel by forming a joint command with Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Yemen, he believed that he had the necessary military strength to crush Israel. Because of this, the United States retracted its offer to help Nasser build the Aswan High Dam. The angry Nasser threatened to nationalize the Suez Canal and to use the revenues collected from its use to finance the Dam.


The Israelis took the initiative by marching into Egypt, defeating the Egyptians, and taking control of the Canal. British and French forces intervened on behalf of Israel and sought control of the Canal.
In an effort to win Arab friendship and thwart Soviet expansionism in the Middle East, President Dwight Eisenhower sought to save Nasser at the expense of its allies. Worldwide condemnation of the invasion forced the British, French, and Israelis to withdraw their forces. Unfortunately, Eisenhower did not reap the benefits that he had expected. The Soviet Union threatened, “to crush the aggressors,” to exterminate Israel, and to attack Britain and France. They had nothing to lose, and instead, received the credit from the Arabs for saving Nasser.


This public relations coup by the Soviets was countered by Eisenhower’s urging of the U.S. Congress to pass legislation that would take any step necessary, including military force, to resist the expansion of communism in the Middle East. This region, Eisenhower declared, was of vital interest to the security of the United States. And so, in 1957, Congress passed legislation that came to be known as the Eisenhower Doctrine.


Ten years later, in 1967, Nasser would again provoke Israel when he blockaded the Gulf of Aqaba, Israel’s lifeline of its oil and supply of other goods. Furthermore, the Arabs had the support of the Soviets who had sent warships into the eastern Mediterranean. They reasoned that if the Arabs succeeded, the Soviets would wield great influence in the region, become the dominant power that controlled Middle Eastern oil, and weaken the nations of Europe. Thus, their expansionist policies would enable them to control Europe and the Middle East.


Once again, the Israelis preemptively struck and routed the Arab forces, defeating the Egyptians and reaching the Suez Canal within three days – two days ahead of their march in 1956. Additionally, they captured half of Jerusalem from Jordan, and the Golan Heights from Syria.

In her book, The Arab-Israeli Conflict, Kirsten Schulze states;

“From June 5-10, the third Arab-Israeli War, or "six day war" was fought. Israel launched a lightning attack against the Arab states on June 5. Nearly the entire Egyptian air force (304 planes) was caught while still on the ground and was destroyed by Israeli fighter jets. Israeli warplanes swept in over the north coast beneath Egyptian radar, then deliberately climbed into radar range before reaching Cairo allowing, it was hoped, just enough time for Egyptian pilots to scramble, get into the cockpits of their planes, but not have enough time to get off the ground. The objective was to destroy as many planes as possible on the ground with the pilots inside them. Indeed, superior Israeli air power made the difference in this war. In similar strikes, the Israeli warplanes destroyed 53 Syrian and 28 Jordanian planes”.

By the time the war was over, Israel controlled The Golan Heights, The West Bank, and the Gaza Strip. The Soviet ambition of Middle East dominance was destroyed while America maintained its imposing presence in the region.


In an effort to address the Palestinians, who had supported the Arabs during the wars against Israel, The Arab League formed the Palestine Liberation Organization [PLO] in 1964. Based mostly in Jordan, the PLO’s charter called for the replacement of Israel with a State of Palestine, the return of property seized and/or occupied by Israel, and compensation for loss. Amid internal turmoil, Yasser Arafat emerged as the Chairman of the PLO in 1969. His militant agenda centered on terrorist attacks on Israel and its total eradication. In addition to having to deal with their Arab neighbours, the Israelis had to deal with a new enemy that was bent on their destruction.

According to Joseph Farah in his tome Myths of the Middle East;

“Palestine has never existed -- before or since -- as an autonomous entity. It was ruled alternately by Rome, by Islamic and Christian crusaders, by the Ottoman Empire and, briefly, by the British after World War I. The British agreed to restore at least part of the land to the Jewish people as their homeland.
There is no language known as Palestinian. There is no distinct Palestinian culture. There has never been a land known as Palestine governed by Palestinians. Palestinians are Arabs, indistinguishable from Jordanians (another recent invention), Syrians, Lebanese, Iraqis, etc. Keep in mind that the Arabs control 99.9 percent of the Middle East lands. Israel represents one-tenth of 1 percent of the landmass.”

The reality of this new entity is as real as the Israeli state. And, the Israelis, the United States, and the world had to deal with them.


The United States has always had to walk a fine line when making policy that involves the Middle East. On the one hand, the U.S. fully backs Israel and its policies. On the other, the United States must maintain amicable relationships with the Arab nations lest they turn off the oil supply on which the West so heavily depends. This balancing act has led to accusations by Arabs and Palestinians that the United States condones the genocidal-type treatment of the Palestinians that live among and beside Israel. As a result, peaceful solutions offered by the United States are full of distrust. Even the Israelis place barriers and oftentimes, roadblocks to peaceful solutions, regardless of who is making the offer.


One of Israel’s main goal is for the Arab world to recognize its right to exist. In 1977, President Anwar al-Sadat of Egypt, who succeeded Nasser, visited Israel – an historic event. Addressing the Knesset [Parliament], he outlined the Arab demands for a peaceful resolution of the ongoing conflicts. Later, Israel’s Prime Minister, Menachem Begin, visited Ismaila, another historic event. However, no peace agreement could be reached.


Sensing an opportunity, Jimmy Carter, then President of the United States, invited both leaders to Washington in an effort to restore the peace initiative. After almost two weeks of negotiations, the Camp David Accords were approved by Israel and Egypt and in 1979, a peace agreement between both countries was signed. The other Arab nations rejected The Camp David Accords, did not sign the peace treaty, and isolated Egypt from the rest of the Arab world. Many Egyptians and others in the Middle East believed that Sadat had given away too much in return for very little. This treaty cost Sadat his life as he was assassinated on October 6th 1981.


In his most recent book, Palestine Peace Not Apartheid, former President Jimmy Carter lists an abbreviated historical chronology that have led to the current state of affairs in the Middle East. He also lays out three basic premises for a lasting peace in the Middle East;
1. Israel’s right to exist within recognized borders – and to live in peace – must be accepted by Palestinians and all other neighbors
2. The killing of noncombatants in Israel, Palestine, and Lebanon by bombs, missile attacks, assassinations, or other acts of violence cannot be condoned; and
3. Palestinians must live in peace and dignity in their own land as specified by international law unless modified by good-faith negotiations with Israel.


Former President Carter asserts in his book that despite what is reported in the American news media, the Israelis are also culpable for the continued problems between them and the Palestinians.

“Some [Palestinians] showed us the wreckage of their former homes, which had been demolished by bulldozers and dynamite, with claims by Israel that they had been too near Israeli settlements, on property needed by the Israeli government, or that some member of the family was a security threat.
In assessing these claims, the Israeli human rights organization B’Tselem explained that, on average, twelve innocent families lost their homes for every person accused of participating in attacks against Israelis, with almost half of the demolished homes never occupied by anyone suspected of involvement in any violent act against Israel, even throwing stones.”

Carter goes on to tell of the many atrocities committed against the Palestinians by the Israelis, so much so, that one cannot help but recognize distinct similarities in treatment meted out to the Jews by Hitler during the Holocaust. But, probably the most damning indictment against Israel by Carter is reserved for the construction of the wall that separates Israel and its Palestinian neighbors;

“There has been a determined and remarkable effective effort to isolate settlers from Palestinians, so that a Jewish family can commute from Jerusalem to their highly subsidized home deep in the West Bank on roads from which others are excluded, without ever coming into contact with any facet of Arab life…
… The future prospects for the West Bank are even more dismal. Especially troublesome is the huge dividing wall in populated areas and an impassable fence in rural areas.”

Even the current President of the United States, George W. Bush, commented; “I think the wall is a problem. It is very difficult to develop confidence between the Palestinians and the Israelis with a wall snaking through the West Bank.”

Carter concludes his book by stating;

“The bottom line is this: Peace will come to Israel and the Middle East only when the Israeli government is willing to comply with international law, with the Roadmap for peace, with official American policy, with the wishes of a majority of its own citizens – and honor its own previous commitments – by accepting its legal borders. All Arab neighbors must pledge to honor Israel’s right to live in peace under these conditions.”

He finally addresses American foreign policy in the Middle East by clearly stating;

“The United States is squandering international prestige and goodwill and intensifying global anti-American terrorism by unofficially condoning or abetting the Israeli confiscation and colonization of Palestinian territories.”

In conclusion, we know that the history of the Middle East is replete with violence and death and destruction. From to the days of Abraham and Sarah and Hagar - when Ishmael and his mother were forced to flee Sarah’s wrath and envy when she finally bore fruit in Isaac - to today’s persecution of the Palestinians and their reprisals against the Israelis, whom they see as an oppressor, violence is an ongoing occurence. The situation will continue unless the world is led by a strong United States with equitable foreign policies that affect the entire region.

The question then is; is the United States capable of asserting its power to create such a situation in the Middle East? After all, Presidents Reagan and Bush tore down a wall that had been expected to stand forever and gently dismantled a much more powerful government in the Soviet Union. Can we then not expect the same - an end to the The Palestine – Israel Conflict through an equitable American Foreign Policy in the region?

[guyguy]

A Snapshot Look At The Early Peoples Of Trinidad

Before its discovery by Columbus in 1498, the original inhabitants of Trinidad are thought to have been the Arawaks who lived in the South and had developed an agrarian society. However, the Caribs, who were nomadic and warlike, unlike the Arawaks, also inhabited the island but lived in the North. The Caribs are believed to have originated in the Amazon but it seems that they traversed the entire Caribbean chain via small vessels, all the way up to Puerto Rico.

The Arawaks and the Caribs were eventually enslaved by the Spanish in an effort “Christianize” these “savages” into the Catholic faith. Eventually, the majority died from this forced labour, disease, or left Trinidad. Although there are no known descendants of the Arawaks, there still remains a small enclave of people in the town of Arima who claim to be descended from the original Caribs.
Conditions for a sustained colony were unfavourable for the early Spanish settlers and Trinidad remained relatively unsupported by the Spanish government. Several attempts at settlement failed until a town, San Josef de Orun, which is present day St. Joseph, was established in 1592.

Neglected by Spain for over three hundred years, The Royal Cedula of Population, a document signed by the King of Spain in 1783, part of which was the granting land to Catholics of any nationality, eventually saw an influx of Catholic immigrants. Mainly French, many also came from Germany, Ireland, Scotland and England.

Lured by generous land grants of up to 3000 acres along with the exemption of taxes for the first ten years, the prospect of greater prosperity loomed large. The greatest number of initial immigrants were French planters from neighbouring French Caribbean colonies, Canada, and even Louisiana. With them, they brought their culture, customs, and language – a dialect of French called Patois – and, their slaves. They exerted great political power and influence in Spanish Trinidad up until the island was surrendered to the British in 1802.

The population in Trinidad is estimated to have been about one thousand in 1773, but by 1797, that figure had swelled to a little over 18,000. It is notable here that no slave in Trinidad arrived directly from Africa. All originated from outside the African continent. Many may have been born in Africa, but the slave route did not include the island of Trinidad. Additionally, slave ownership was small - about seven per owner, compared to other places such as Guiana, Jamaica and other Caribbean islands. Slaves in Trinidad came from the USA, specifically, Louisiana, from neighbouring Caribbean islands, and from South America. Former African slaves who had fought as part of the British armies during the American Revolution had been granted their freedom. These Freemen or free slaves were sent to British Trinidad and established communities named after the military companies in which they had served.

Now in the hands of the Crown after the cessation in 1802, Trinidad experienced another wave of immigrants; the British. These sugar plantation owners, along with their slaves, relocated to Trinidad from neighbouring Caribbean islands since those “estates” were rapidly declining in sustainability and profitability. Additionally, artisans, merchants, tradesmen and professionals, also immigrated to Trinidad from Britain, Scotland, Wales, and other British colonies to seek their fortunes.

The Portuguese did not immigrate to Trinidad en masse until the early nineteenth century but there had been Portuguese inhabitants, though small in number, since 1602. In 1834, a small group of twenty-five Portuguese immigrants arrived as indentured labourers. They had been recruited from the Madeira Island of Faial in the Azores. These people were destined for the sugar and cocoa plantations, however, many died due to disease while others returned home. When Portuguese immigration did begin in earnest in 1846, most came from the Madeira Islands rather than the Portuguese mainland. They too were indentured labourers, and like their predecessors, were also destined for the sugar and cocoa estates. Portuguese immigration continued until 1847 to work on the plantations, these later arrivals were not bound by any law to hire themselves as indentured labourers. Since work on the sugar and cocoa plantations was too difficult for them, many also died and most simply abandoned the estates to set up small shop-keeping businesses. A new set of culture, language and customs had been added to the island’s repertoire.

Little is known about the early German immigrants to Trinidad, but between 1839-40, there arrived about 900 French and German labourers. Statistics are difficult to find that tell just how many of those 900 immigrants were German. One can infer that, regardless of the actual number, these Germans added their own brand of culture, language and customs to the already diverse population. However, one German immigrant, who moved his family from Venezuela, helped to put Trinidad on the world’s map. Dr. Johann Siegert and his family originally lived in the Venezuelan town of Ciudad Bolívar, formerly named Angostura, where Dr. Siegert was Surgeon-General in Simon Bolívar’s army. Dr. Siegert tried to develop a concoction from native herbs and plants that would aid the appetite and digestion of Bolívar’s soldiers, which he did, and called it “Amargo Aromatico”, known today throughout the world as Angostura Bitters.

Other Germans arrived as part of Sir Ralph Abercromby’s English forces that captured Trinidad from the Spanish in 1797. However, of these Germans, only the Boehmler family remained and settled in Trinidad. Later, several German families immigrated to Trinidad and set up businesses as traders. These families rose to prominence relatively quickly and their wealth expanded rapidly. The Stollmeyers were one of those families and today’s “Stollmeyer’s Castle” is still in existence – evidence of the German stamp on the culture and society of the island.

The first Jews arrived in Trinidad in the late 1700s but were small in number. Most of their descendents are unaware of their Jewish heritage. In the late 1800s, more Jews arrived in Trinidad from Portugal. The majority of Jews arrived between 1936 and 1939 from Germany and Austria who were fleeing Hitler’s Holocaust. By 1939, there were approximately 600 Jews in Trinidad, peaking to 700 in the mid 1900s. Known as “The Calypso Shtetl” they established small businesses in Port of Spain and in San Fernando. With the outbreak of WWII, these Trinidadian Jews were now considered “enemy aliens” and were interned in a camp that was built at what is today’s Federation Park and Ellerslie Park – a black spot on Trinidad’s history. Finally, they were released in 1943 but were severely restricted in their daily lives. They were required to report to the nearest police station every day, restricted from riding bicycles or driving vehicles, and were placed under curfew from 8:00 pm to 6:00 am. Although many families left Trinidad due to this ill treatment, those who remained tried to restore their culture. To that end, they formed drama clubs – with performances in Yiddish and Hebrew, and even a football team. Their children were sent abroad to study but very few returned. Fearing for their safety, the dwindling Jewish population left en masse during Trinidad’s Black Power uprising in the early 1970s. “The Calypso Jews” were no more.

Though the Jewish contributions to Trinidadian society were minimal, those that they made were significant. Probably the most famous Jews in Trinidad were Sir Nathaniel Nathan who was the Chief Justice from 1900 to 1903, and the Stetchers, who had fled Europe during Hitler’s rise to power. Just as important, is the insignia of Trinidad’s police force - a hummingbird within The Star of David. Created by a British commander from Palestine, the hummingbird was later added as a local embellishment. It is interesting to note that Trinidad’s police service is unique in that it is the only one in the world that does not use the country’s Coat of Arms as its official symbol.

The nature of the European wars saw the arrival of Italians mainly from Corsica and Sardinia although some originated from the Italian mainland during the end of the 18th century. Many of these Italian family names, like Agostini, Cipriani and Salvatori are easily recognized today. More Italians arrived in the late 19th century. These were mainly skilled craftsmen and their imprint can be seen even today in the artwork on the ceiling of Trinidad’s Parliament, and marble work in the mansions surrounding the savannah in Port of Spain.

The haven that was Trinidad for immigrants seeking their fortune or escaping religious persecution and warfare in Europe and the Middle East was not lost on the Lebanese and Syrians. Greater Syria, as the region was known then, had been carved up by the European powers into Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Palestine and Jordan. Escaping religious persecution in their homeland, these Christian Arabs left for America via France. Since the ships from France to America made stops in Trinidad, the French Antilles, and Venezuela, many disembarked in Trinidad. Others were refused entry into the United States while still others had simply overslept on the boat and were dumped overboard in the harbor of Port of Spain.

The first arrivals were Lebanese men in 1902 and were quickly followed by Syrian men in 1906. Peddling cloth and other dry goods from door to door, mainly in the countryside, these Arabs slowly built up their community. They were astute at business and were generous with granting credit to the country folk. This endeared them to the poorer people and allowed this group of Arabs to slowly enrich themselves. They rarely married outside of their community though, and doggedly retained their Middle Eastern customs and culture. As their fortunes grew, they sent for family members from the Middle East along with requests for suitable spousal candidates. Eventually, the Syrian-Lebanese community became a major influence in business, in politics, and in the professions in Trinidad. They continue to promote and preserve their Arab culture today.
With the abolition of slavery and the full emancipation of the slaves, sugar production in Trinidad declined substantially and many plantation owners went out of business. Importation of labour from Europe and the Mediterranean proved futile in reviving the industry. Another source of cheap labour had to be found. The planters looked to China.

Although a small number of Chinese immigrants had settled in Trinidad as early as 1806, the bulk of Chinese indentured labourers arrived in 1853 and continued until 1866 when it finally ended. The Chinese were intolerant and ill-suited to the hot equatorial sun. Moreover, the grueling and labour-intensive conditions on the estates claimed many lives. Additionally, the Chinese government insisted on free passage back to China at the expiration of the contracts, which the planters claimed was prohibitively expensive.

Non-indentured Chinese continued to immigrate to Trinidad in small quantities but after the Chinese revolution in 1911, immigration increased greatly, continuing well into the late 1940s. By 1960, there were almost 9000 Chinese immigrants in Trinidad. The Chinese added another element to the culture and history of Trinidad. Most gravitated to the business sector and started small shops, restaurants and laundries. Food was their main forte and Trinidad’s Chinese food is unarguably the best in the world [personal opinion]. Even though they rarely ventured into politics, choosing instead to keep to themselves within their tightly knit community, it is interesting to note that the first Governor-General of Trinidad, Sir Solomon Hochoy, was Chinese. The ensuing years since they first arrived, Chinese culture and art have become part of the fabric of Trinidadian society. Other than Sir Solomon Hochoy, Trinidad’s Chinese community has produced many outstanding individuals in business, the professions, the arts, and even several prominent Carnival bandleaders.
The Chinese experiment of indentured labourers, like the others, failed miserably, and so, the British looked towards India as a last resort for cheap labour. The reduction in cheap sugar exports resonated throughout Europe. It was now up to the Indians to rescue the dying sugar industry that was, at the time, the economic lifeblood of Trinidad.

Prior to the Indians’ arrival in Trinidad, the island’s inhabitants, as previously described, consisted of people from England, Spain, Germany, China, France, Syria, Lebanon, Portugal, and of course, African slaves. The heterogeneous island was already multicultural and multiracial, influenced primarily by the European way of life. The Indians were to add to the existing heterogeneity then later, become a major force in creating a new culture and eventually, change the fabric of the society.