THE FAT LADY STILL SINGS

As of this writing, (Nov.4, 2020, 1:52 pm) the US presidential election is undetermined. Votes are still being counted in several key states. Biden clings to a slim lead in the Electoral College, while Trump blusters about having already won and warns about fraud due to the high number of mail-in votes, which seem to tilt towards Biden. Important races in the US Senate, House and many state Governorships also hang in the balance. The world holds its breath.

Lessons can be learned from this.

First, we should never put any real faith in pre-election polling. As in 2016, it seemed as though the Democratic candidates would achieve a solid victory. This year, Democrats were musing out loud about a "blue wave" that has, obviously, not materialized. Despite the advances in analytics, polling doesn't give anything close to an accurate reading in how an election will actually turn out. Polling only finds out what contacted persons MIGHT do on election day, and does not prevent people from lying, playing deliberate games of misinformation, or changing their minds. Do not put any faith in polls.

Second, we must now acknowledge that the "Trump" phenomenon is real. It is no longer just a "one-off." Four years ago, many pundits tried to explain his win as a sign of disaffection and anger in the political system. It's obviously more than that. Those two conditions still exist, but "Trumpism", more of an attitude than a coherent political philosophy, is a genuine entity that thrives now because its supporters have become emboldened by electoral success. Even if Trump ends up losing the Electoral College, he can point to the popular vote and claim that he has widespread support in all states. This is an undeniable fact. And, because of that, the grievances and values of Trump's supporters must be listened to. They are not merely a bunch of "cranks" or racists, although those things are part of the Trump package.

Third, we must continue to put faith in democratic institutions. The vote is being counted slowly because the Elections Commission is dedicated to getting the result right. There is no evidence of widespread fraud as Trump claims. When the final results are counted, we will know who the next President will be, not because Trump claims he has won. Democracy is still alive in the United States, at least for the present.

Fourth, as much as we know that Trump has millions of supporters, we also know that there are millions of Americans who reject the attitudes and values of the Trumpists. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote four years ago, and it seems that Biden will do so again. While that does not get the Presidency for the Democrats, it does show the world that decent people live in the United States, and these people have no time for racism, xenophobia, homophobia, mysogeny, ultra capitalism, and anti-intellectualism. We must applaud and support these Americans as they struggle for their ideals and beliefs.

The results will not be known for a while yet. Keep calm. Keep the faith. America is either in labour, giving birth to a new identity. It is a difficult labour. Or it could be the republic's death throes. Time will tell.

POMBO

I had the opportunity recently to read Jon Lee Anderson's excellent biography of Ernesto Che Guevara. The book is massive in its scope, extremely well researched and wonderfully written. Anderson spent years going through archival material in Cuba and elsewhere, looking at articles and scholarly papers on Che's life and career, as well as reading Che's personal papers and poems. Anderson also spent months in Cuba speaking to several people who lived through the years of the Cuban Revolution and who participated in the events and who personally knew Che. All of this research resulted in the definitive biography, in English, of this enigmatic man. One of the more interesting figures to emerge from Anderson's study is Harry Villegas, known more popularly as "Pombo". Pombo was born into agrarian simplicity in Cuba sometime around 1938 to 1940. His family are descendents of African slaves. As a young man, Pombo became fascinated in the growing revolutionary movement in Cuba and met up with Che and Fidel sometime around the battle of the Moncada Barracks. Pombo was not an "original" revolutionary, but grew more and more committed to the Revolution with passing time. Eventually, Pombo and Che became best friends and both served as best man at each other's wedding. More importantly, Pombo became Che's bodyguard, an essential position given the fact the the CIA had targetted both Che and Fidel for assassination, hoping to stop the Revolution in its earliest forms. Che spent much time with Pombo and his family and the bond between the two men grew firm. Anderson points out that Che, a fanatically driven man who put all his adult efforts and energies into a "revolutionary ideal", had no time to foster close friendships. That fact that Pombo and Che became friends speaks volumes as to the loyalty and devotion Pombo had for the famous guerilla commandante. The only time that Pombo did not accompany Che in a campaign was during Che's failed expedition to the Congo. Che's reasoning was that, as an Afro-Cuban, Pombo would not be distinguishable from the black Congolese. Che felt that the Congolese needed to know who the Cubans were, in order to benefit from the leadership, expertise and revolutionary knowledge of the Cuban Communists. Pombo and other Afro-Cubans would blend in too much and the Congolese would not be able to learn from them. One today would think that this logic is counter-intuitive, and that the Congolese would be more willing to learn from fellow Africans, but Che was firm in his strategy. Pombo must have been hurt by not being included in the campaign, but was spared any humiliation when the campaign failed miserably. Pombo accompanied Che on all other missions, both military and diplomatic. Through his association with Che, this simple Cuban farmer got to see much of the world and met several world leaders. He distinguished himself as an able commander, who led many of Che's columns in jungle warfare. Pombo was a member of Che's final campaign in Bolivia in 1967. He and Che and several other guerillas attempted to foment a Revolution among the peasants of Bolivia, but their efforts were fruitless and they were relentlessly persued by the Bolivian army, supported by the CIA. When the Bolivians closed in to what was left of Che's forces, Che insisted that Pombo and two others try to escape the noose that was being tightened on their positions. Pombo initially refused and insisted that he stay with Che; he then attempted to convince Che that it was possible for all of them to slip through the Bolivian positions. Che refused, insisting that the Revolution would only succeed if there were no surrenders, but he ordered Pombo to try to escape in order to get reinforcements for Che's guerillas. Pombo did get through, but it took him almost a year to get home, travelling around the world in secret, avoiding capture by the CIA several times. Pombo was one of the last Cubans to see Che alive, and his arrival back in Havanna confirmed Che's assassination at the hands of the CIA.

To assume that Pombo was merely a sidekick to Che, a type of "Sancho Panza" to Che's "Don Quixote" is a tempting analogy, but it is inaccurate. After Che's death, Pombo rose through the ranks of both the Cuban Communist Party and the Cuban army. He led the Cuban forces in the Angolan insurrection in the mid 1970's, achieving great military acclaim and fighting the anti-communist forces to a virtual draw. He published many books on the subject of revolutionary and guerilla warfare and has been considered one of the formost experts on that topic, second only to Che himself. When Pombo retired to private life in Havanna, he was accorded two high honours: he was made a "Commandante" of the Cuban forces, a rank only held by the elite; Fidel and Raul Castro, Che, and Camillo Cienfuegos. And, after his retirement, Pombo was declared a "Hero of the Revolution" by Fidel himself. That status is the highest anyone in Cuba can aspire to. Harry "Pombo" Villegas died in Havanna on December 29, 2019. His passing was noted in many obituaries around the world, but in Cuba, his passing was mourned by the nation. He was one of the last surviving members of the Cuban Revolution. And he is the enduring symbol of the good and loyal friend, a man who would be identified by many as a confidante of one of the most significant figures of the 20th century. The living links with history eventually all pass away. Only Raul and a handful of others remain of the "glory days" of Cuban independence. Eventually, they too will pass, leaving Cuba with a more tenuous hold on the very revolutionary ideals which, for half a century, defined them as a country. Pombo would hope those links will never die: time will tell. Rest in peace, Pombo.

I'M BACK BABY

After a significant time away, I'm happy to say that I'm back on this blog site. I have noticed some changes to the format, so I'll have to get used to them. But most importantly, I'm back. These past few months have been a challenge for all of us. We are slowly starting to emerge from the cocoon of pandemic isolation. I've actually been to a patio for lunch with a buddy of mine .... once. And we've had friends over to our back deck for socially distanced drinks .... 3 or 4 times. Not normal. We also have reconnected with our extended family and went to a cottage in late July for a holiday. It was lovely and we had a wonderful time in beautiful weather. Will we continue to emerge from the cocoon ? Will life ever get back to "normal" ? Or perhaps we'll create a new "normal" during these next few months. Or maybe the pandemic will come back, full force, in a "second wave". Time will tell. Anyway, it's good to be back. See you soon.

WARTS AND ALL ....

Time was, I had an absolute blind crush on Canada. Like most, I came to adore my northern land, confident in its goodness, superior morality, and Dudley Doright-like honesty. That was the myth we were raised on back in the halcyon days of the 60's. We were the children of Centennial Year, Expo, the Leafs winning the Stanley Cup most years.

We had just created our new flag. And we had a prime minister that was young, cool, stylish and brilliant. We were a young country, we were told, and the future would belong to us. We were not stodgy old England, or corrupt France, or violent America. We were the new kids and we were going to create great modern things. As Pierre Berton later called it, it was "The Last Good Year."

The mythology, as John Ralston Saul describes it, was in full force. We still had all the stereotypes and institutions that our ancestors created. We venerated these stereotypes and believed that they were unquestionably true.

The Mounties always got their man.

Maple syrup ran like liquid gold from tall and stately maple forests.

Our trains, mighty and unstoppable, criss-crossed the continent, taking those things we hewed or drew from the earth to markets around the world.

The winter brooded, dark and deep for half the year or more, toughening us and defining our solid if unspectacular nature.

These were simple concepts, and we could all believe in them because they were pleasant, easy, charming and precious to us.

We gave the world two of the toughest sports in the world, hockey and lacrosse. We knew, of course, that lacrosse was a gift of the Indigenous people, but they were "our" indigenous people, so that counted as "Canadian."

Those games were not wide-spread in the world, which made them more characteristic of us. Unknown, subtly violent, "manly" and carved from the forest and frozen ponds, anyone in foreign countries who knew of them knew that they were "Canadian" and best left to the semi-wild inhabitants of that northern land.

And there was the land itself, the biggest myth of all, one we could sink our teeth into. Western mountains, vast oceans of prairie grassland, the never ending forest, our own version of "old Europe" in North America, and the charm of Atlantic villages perched defiantly on the ocean's craggy shore. It was immense, unknowable, unfathomable. It staggered the imagination of those from the "old world" and exhausted their imaginations. And it was ours, all of it … owned by we few, we happy few, who had dominion over all the land and all it contained. It was the crowning glory to our lovely little myth.

We have all grown up since those halcyon days. The world has become old, cynical, and harsh. Myths die hard, but die they must. And new realities come forward with startling clarity. We now see our Parliament buildings, once the architectural symbol of our connection to glorious histories, as the home of partisan politicians and avaricious lobbyists who seek to line pockets instead of building a nation. We see our police in a new light, flawed and sometimes all too human, mostly good but occasionally horribly bad or ineffective. We see our huge and gorgeous land now scarred and dirty, old before its time and robbed of its youth and vigor. We see our countrymen and women now as strangers and aliens, with startlingly different ideas and goals. We have been rocked by scandal, horrendous crime, violence, inept leaders, and racism and bigotry that we never knew existed in our previously peaceable and lily-white kingdom. We have been shaken to the core by a pandemic that has tested our resolve and willingness to be kind to one another. And we have been found wanting.

 

Still, we try. We know now that we have committed many grievous errors towards the Indigenous people who first arrived in this land. We have so far to go to make things right, but we have started. We still have natural wonders to delight the soul. But we also know that we have to become better stewards of the land, and the air above us, and the water we need for life. We still create filth, but we now feel guilty of it and try to reduce our impact. We know that Canada has different faces among us and different beliefs and ways of life, and we are becoming more accepting of this truth, although some still resist and show intolerance. And we know that the future will not necessarily be bright and cheerful and happy, but it could be better despite the challenges if we begin to make sensible decisions. We have a long way to go. And the best thing we have is our people: all of us.

 

We are a great country, warts and all !

 

 

THE NEW SPARTA

It's a part of most kids' history education in Ontario. The grade 11 "Ancient and Medieval History" unit on classical Greece. And one of the most popular aspects of that unit was a survey of Sparta. The legends were attractive: a society based on values such as courage, fortitude, strength and sacrifice. The Battle of Thermopylae, the stand of "the 300" under the inspired leadership of Leonidas, defeat only through betrayal and deceit. The kids seemed to enjoy it and I certainly enjoyed teaching it.

The reality, of course, is much more nuanced and complicated than a unit in a high school history course. Sparta's reputation in the modern mind is unsullied. Sparta's reality in the study of serious history and scholarship is full of controversy and flaws. We know that, unlike contemporary Athens, classical Sparta was no democracy, nor was it a center of art, architecture, literature or philosophy. Spartans referred to themselves as "Laconians" and the modern word "laconic", meaning dull, inexpressive and even anti-intellectual is derived from this ancient term. There are no gleaming marble temples, columns, or statues left behind by the Spartans. No lyric or epic poetry. Only the legends of military endeavor.

Sparta was an oligarchy. The social structure of Spartan society is probably well known to most readers, so a only a brief summary will appear here. Like most societies, Sparta can be represented by a pyramid, showing the relatively small number of true citizens, the "Spartiates" at the top, and the enslaved "Helots" at the bottom. The helots were the largest component of Spartan society and were used to do most of the labour, certainly the menial jobs that always need to be done. Because they were enslaved and enjoyed few if any rights or freedoms, there was always the risk that the Spartiates could be overwhelmed by the sheer number of helots, should the slaves ever decide to throw off the yoke of servitude. Indeed, a helot uprising in the 5th century BC almost succeeded, which, the legends say, caused the Spartiates to create the intensely military-based society that ensured the survivability of the upper class, but also ensured the absence of all the characteristics of a truly "civilized" society discussed in the preceding paragraph. All true Spartan citizens dedicated themselves to the pursuit and education of martial arts, discipline and stoic adherence to a code of fortitude and service to the state that endures in our imaginations to this day.

In modern times, there are disturbing trends that indicate that a return to the Spartan ethos is not that far away. Recent events in the United States creates concerns that that country is heading in that direction. A direct comparison is often helpful, but we must also be aware that there are so many differences between the two societies under investigation. Having said that, the following items are offered for the reader's consideration.

Like most societies, ancient and modern, the social system in the US can be shown graphically as a pyramid structure. In the case of Sparta, as discussed above, it was necessary to have this structure because of the large number of slaves who did the majority of the work and the small number of citizens who controlled them. In the US, there is an economic oligarchy, small in number but rich in power and resources, who occupy the small upper echelon of the pyramid. Lower echelons denote the other economic classes: upper middle, lower middle, working, working poor and underclass. In this chart, the suggestion is that the lower middle class and working class are the vast majority of the American population. There could be some debate about actual numbers and even about nomenclature of these classes, but most people would agree that this a fairly accurate representation.

The pie chart on the right gives an approximate breakdown of the percentages of the membership in the economic classes in the American population. With only 3.6 % of the American population being in the upper class, there is a vast majority that do not control much of the wealth, power and resources of the country. The big difference, of course, is that there was no middle class in Spartan society. In the US, the middle and working classes enjoy some of the benefits of the prosperity of the country, and can exercise a vote in elections to hold some political power. In Sparta, the "inferiors" and "perioeci" had little power. In both cases, however, the upper class had little to fear from these middle groups. But the lower classes were and are a source of some interest. Thus, as in ancient Sparta, modern American society shows a society where power, wealth, influence and prestige is concentrated in a small number of people. Those at the top are, undoubtedly, concerned about the masses below them and what threat the masses pose to them.

Demographically, the lower classes in the United States, like that in Sparta, are increasingly made up of people who are ethnically different from the dominant or middle classes. In Sparta, the helots were largely made up of slaves who were captured in battle and came from other areas inside and outside of Greece. They were not true Spartiates. In the United States, the same ethnic situation arises. In the not far distant past, the population of the US was overwhelmingly white, with small pockets of Indigenous or African-American people on the periphery. Today, the white segment of the US population is still the largest, but segments of non-white people are growing. The chart on the left shows this. With an approximate 60-40 % split, white people in the US are realizing that it will not take long for the "ethnic" portions of the country to supplant them as the majority and perhaps even become larger segments of the population.

The potential "threat" to the upper echelons of the US population are perhaps shown in the chart to the left. A disproportionate amount of both the African-American and Hispanic populations live in poverty. That's not to say that all of those segments suffer economic hardship: but those who do suffer and are members of the working poor or poor tend to be black or brown and less so white. This is a problem that ought to receive attention, inasmuch as poverty itself is a problem. But when ethnicity is added to the mix, the potential for tension arise. White Americans tend to make up the bulk of the upper and middle classes in the United States and could possibly see the "other" ethnic segments of the population as threat. Recent events in the US, showing systemic racism and excessive use of force against minority persons, especially African-Americans, seems to indicate that white America is prepared to maintain their dominance by force, and are preparing to do so.

Spending on law enforcement in the United States is growing. The chart at left shows that approximately 4% of the Discretionary spending in the US budget went to law enforcement. Forbes Magazine reports that the amount is approximately $100 billion US on law enforcement, with a further $80 billion US on incarceration. Scenes on television and online of squads of heavily armed police, with body armour, Kevlar vests and helmets, shields, tear gas and rubber bullet launchers, automatic firearms and armoured cars create the atmosphere of a paramilitary army of occupation, ready to inflict maximum force to maintain the social status quo upon its citizens, mainly of lower social and economic classes.

The information is not completely conclusive as to the complete similarity of the modern US to ancient Sparta. But the trends are interesting to contemplate. Certainly, the increased use of paramilitary force to keep "the mob" in line sounds very much like the perceived need of the Spartiates to maintain a military superiority over the lower classes in order to prevent rebellion and overthrow, which would replace the old order with a new.

Just how far the US intends to go to crush dissent, prevent assembly of citizens seeking redress, and punish those who seek to re-distribute power remains to be seen. But heavily armed US police are looking more and more like the hoplites that became the pride of ancient Sparta.

COOL, MAN !

When I was a kid, I wanted desperately to be like a couple of the leading figures of the 60's and early 70's. Young kids are engaged in a struggle to establish an identity for themselves and often look to role models for guidance. Family members and friends are usually not good for this, for the simple reason that they are too familiar, too close and too readily available.

For me, I wanted to be just like John Lennon. Not just the John Lennon of the early iteration of the Beatles, but the John Lennon of the last few years of the band, when he set himself apart from the others as the rebel, the "bad boy" of the group. To be sure, all the Beatles were in some ways "cool" but Lennon was the acknowledged leader of the group and, thus, the most "cool." His style, his manner and, most of all, his music made him the object of my admiration. While Paul McCartney was writing lovely songs like "Hey Jude" and "Let It Be", and George Harrison was developing his art with "My Guitar Gently Weeps", Lennon was rocking his way through "Revolution" , "Dear Prudence" and "Happiness is a Warm Gun". These were songs that were edgy and ones that your parents were sure not to like, while they would hum along to the McCartney tunes.

Thus, the search for "cool" began when I was around 13 years old. What is "cool"? One could consult the dictionary and find a formal and somewhat stodgy definition that helps in the beginning of understanding of cool. Part of it is a certain rebelliousness: Lennon had that in droves. I wanted that.

But later, I discovered another guy that helped me define the term. Around age 16, I discovered the music and style of Cat Stevens. Now, this was a guy who I definitely wanted to emulate, mainly because a girl I liked back then was in love with him. I really liked the image of Cat. The beard, the long flowing hair, the dark mystery of him … and, of course, so much musical talent, although it was not really like Lennon's. There was not much edgy or rebellious about Stevens' music. But it was very introspective and philosophical, which was part of his "cool". As I grew older, I tried to mimic Stevens. I learned the guitar mainly because of him, I tried to grow a beard ( successfully, in my 20's ) and let my hair grow longer. But, while Stevens was dark and brooding, my beard was Celtic red and my hair was straight and somewhat thinner than his leonine main. Oh well, it was a good try.

My search for cool expanded beyond music in my later teens. I became a huge fan of Pierre Trudeau, our first and, really, only "cool" Prime Minister. There was a certain ice water in the man's veins. He was a coldly rational and pure intellectual man, which I admired. But there was also a steely toughness about him. My two favourite cool Trudeau moments were when he was accosted at the St Jean Baptiste parade in Montreal in 1968 , when objects were hurled at the reviewing stand where he was seated. His security detail wanted to get him out of there for fears of the growing Separatist and FLQ threats and mounting violence and agitation of that night. Trudeau refused to show fear or weakness and toughed it out, dodging bottles and rocks thrown at him and he chided his guards, telling them to leave if they wanted to, he was staying. Man, that's balls.

The second example of Trudeau cool was during the height of the October Crisis in 1970, when the FLQ kidnapped two people, murdering one of them. Trudeau called in the army through the War Measures Act and went eyeball to eyeball with the terrorists. But that wasn't the cool part. One day, Trudeau was confronted by a reporter on Parliament Hill, challenging the implementation of the War Measures Act. Trudeau stood his ground with the reporter, giving back to the man, and actually making the reporter look and sound stupid. When the reporter asked the PM just how far he'd go in this showdown with the terrorists, Trudeau famously replied, "Just watch me." That was badass.

In university, my search for a cool icon branched out, depending on what I was studying. When I was studying English lit, I looked to a whole raft of heros: Shakespeare, Marlowe, Chaucer, Byron, Cervantes … the list was endless, but the problem with these figures was that they were long-dead and there were only imprecise images of them. Only their words, their fantastic words, made them cool. But of more modern writers, Leonard Cohen was unmistakably cool. His poetry and music were terrific and, again, he was unbelievably popular with women. He wrote few novels, but one of them, "The Favourite Game" was, and still is, a novel I enjoy. The protagonist was a thinly-disguised Cohen : confidence bordering on arrogance, bravado, love of music, wine and women … it sounded like a recipe for success to me.

When I studied history, though, it was undoubtedly Ernesto "Che" Guevara as my cool icon. In my many visits to Cuba, I have become fascinated with the man, mainly because of the legend of this quixotic revolutionary, tilting at windmills and courageously beating against the stream. The truth of his life is somewhat less romantic, but no matter: after Corda's famous photograph of the idealistic revolutionary "commandante", gazing into a wondrous utopian future, Che's true life story didn't really alter my view of him. Like Cat Stevens, Che had the "look" that I wanted to emulate because women loved it. Only recently have I broadened my knowledge of the man: I still admire him, but I no longer idolize him. He had his faults, massive faults …. who doesn't ?

In more recent years, Barack Obama has held a fascination for me. I completely have a "bromance" going for the last good President. His sweeping intellect, his poetic speeches, his breadth of knowledge on so many diverse topics make him attractive. But, more than that, his class and elegance speaks volumes. While President, Obama had to endure some of the most outrageous slurs, attacks and charges against his character, his family, and his policies. And he fought back with intelligence, charm, wit, humour and patience. I don't know how he did it. If it were me, I'd be slinging the mud back at my detractors harder and with more fury than they hurled it at me. And, in the age of Trump, his voice and timing are appreciated more than ever. He doesn't go after Trump repeatedly or viciously, as Trump goes after him. Obama waits for the right moment, then unleashes the right words, delivered with grace and dignity, but clearly critical of the buffoon who currently holds the office of President. "Elegance" is the word that best defines Barack Obama.

And in my own family, I had a cool role model as well, although I didn't see him as often as I would've liked. My mom's younger brother, John Day, my Uncle Jack was always a cool guy to me. Good looking, good-humoured, a fine family man, stylish and suave: that was my Uncle Jack. He had an appreciation for nice cars ( Jaguars, mostly ), boats, good food and drink. And he was a genuinely nice guy, always with a smile and a good word. We lost Uncle Jack this past March, a very sad thing indeed. But I will always consider him one of the coolest guys I've had the pleasure of knowing.

So, after all that, how does one define "cool"? I guess the safe answer is that there is no one, single thing that sets a person off as cool. For me, it's a combination of all the things described above. A "cool" guy has to be smart, elegant but not showy, confident without arrogance, a slight swagger to him, rebellious but not dangerous or foolish, talented in many ways, appreciative of the good things in life but not overtly materialistic, quiet but able to converse intelligently on a variety of topics, willing to admit when he's wrong or does not have a certain knowledge, willing to learn new things, and, above all else, have charisma.

And the most important thing I've learned: you can't acquire cool, you have to be born with it.