Reflection on Rise and Kill First: The Secret History of Israel’s Targeted Assassinations by Ronen Bergman

This is a very comprehensive and exciting history of secret Israeli spying, assassination, and special forces missions. Anybody who likes James Bond will find this book just as interesting and for me, even better because it’s the real thing. It’s also a book about the broader conflict between Israel and its enemies. One big theme in this book is how violence begets violence. It seems like a constant cycle where an Arab attack provokes an Israeli response or an Israeli attack provokes an Arab response. The situations of drawdown and cooling seem less often the result of talking and more so that one side has gotten a solid victory, giving it the confidence to bargain with the losing side, which is desperate for reprieve. There were also some incredibly clever and interesting spy operations in this book. One involved poisoning a man’s toothpaste so that he would slowly rub the poison into his gums and mouth over the course of months. Another was to get into the PLO’s furniture supplier to plant listening devices in a lamp and a chair.

               When the call was made for Jews to return to Israel, Herzl’s call for Zionism was not very successful in Western Europe, where Jews were better integrated and prosperous. Rather, it had a bigger impact on poor and working-class Jews in Eastern Europe, who were the victims of many pogroms. The first Israeli military organizations were illegal terrorist groups, beginning with Bar Giora, which turned into HaShomer (The Guardian), and into Haganah (Defense). There was also the Irgun, led by future Prime Minister Menachem Begin, who opposed the moderate political leader David Ben-Gurion. They eventually formed an agreement and decided to work together. Irgun members who did not want to join forces split off to become Lehi, also known as the Stern Gang. Irgun was famous for the bombing of the King David Hotel, in which (despite warning the hotel staff in advance) 91 people were killed and 45 were wounded. By 1948, Irgun was completely brought under the control of the new Israeli state and these organizations combined to form the Israeli Defense Forces (the army), Mossad (the foreign spies), and Shin Bet (the FBI equivalent).

               The Palestinian opposition to the new Jewish state was initially nonexistent. Rather, it was Arab opposition, as there was not much Palestinian identity and certainly no call for an independent Palestine except for by the United Nations. While Israel was attacked by all its neighbors early on, the first organization of Palestinians would not be founded until October 10, 1959. Yasser Arafat and Abu Jihad founded Fatah, based on the principles that “armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine,” and that “Claims of historical or religious ties of Jews with Palestine are incompatible with the facts of history… Nor do Jews constitute a single nation with an identity of its own.”

               The Israeli invasions of Lebanon in the 70’s and 80’s that led to an occupation of southern Lebanon until 2000 and another war in 2006 seem like Israel’s greatest failure. It seems like Ariel Sharon lied to and manipulated Menachem Begin while they were Defense Minister and Prime Minister, respectively. The failure sent Begin into a shock and Sharon insisted on occupying Beirut. Lebanon had a huge demoralizing influence on Israelis and it also led to a culture of extrajudicial killings in the military and a general disdain for the rule of law. Israeli allies, the Christian “Phalange” were brutal, murdering hundreds, if not thousands of Palestinian civilian refugees in a refugee camp. It seems that Israel did not actively support the massacre, but certainly knew about it and did nothing to stop it. Begin went into a severe depression during the war and was basically unable to execute his role as Prime Minister. Instead of informing the people, the cabinet allowed Sharon to run things de facto in Begin’s name, unconstitutionally.

Israel has a strong tradition of dissent in its armed forces. To kill three senior PLO officials, objected some Israeli spies, was not their job- they argued that they did not want to become assassins. They were allowed to bring these arguments to the Chief of Staff of the Army Elazar, who convinced them otherwise. In another case, when Sharon desperately wanted to assassinate Yasser Arafat, he ordered Israeli fighters to shoot down civilian aircraft that would have led to the deaths of innocents, not one, not twice, but five times. All five times people down the chain of command found a way to resist or directly refused the order. They have the right to do so based on a 1956 Israeli Supreme Court ruling in which Judge Benjamin Halevy wrote that, “the distinguishing mark of a manifestly illegal order is that above such an order should fly, like a black flag, a warning saying: ‘Prohibited!’ Not merely formally illegal, not covered up or partially covered… but an illegality that stabs the eye and infuriates the heart…” While this definitely leaves room for interpretation, it also provides the justification for refusing illegal orders.

               Israel didn’t see the First Intifada coming. Shin Bet, Mossad, and the IDF were so focused on pinpoint assassinations of PLO leaders that they forgot about the “swelling rage” of the Palestinians, who, until the Intifada, had not been a major force against Israel. During the First and Second Intifadas, Hamas would adopt a tactic from Hezbollah, who had gotten it from Iran. The suicide bombing. The idea of suicide bombing as a type of martyrdom and not suicide was created by the Ayatollah Khomeini, who “explained to hist supporters that the highest sanction in the hands of the states was the power to execute its citizens. Take this sanction away, by changing death to desired reward, and the state becomes powerless.” It’s a huge advantage to positively want to die and that made it very, very difficult for Israel to fight back. The Ayatollah and the Iranian Revolution also had a huge influence on the rest of the Muslim world by aggressively moving Islam back into the public sphere. In Palestine and across the Middle East, preachers became more and more political throughout the 80s and 90s, eventually resulting in radical Islamic terrorism, which seems to be a stronger force than Arab Nationalism was, or at least has more staying power. I think that it’s important to understand Hamas and Fatah in this context. Fatah was born out of Arab Nationalism in 1959 while Hamas was born out of Radical Islamism (I know there’s a lot of butchering of specific terms going on here but let me off the hook idk what to call it) in 1987.

               Israel made a huge mistake when they deported Hamas leaders to Lebanon in 1989. This only led to the establishment of ties and an alliance between Hezbollah (supported by Iran) and Hamas. It was the best thing that ever happened to them. When the 400 Hamas leaders returned, they were stronger than ever. In 1993, the aforementioned adoption of suicide bombing would come about, and in a dramatic change, Hamas seemed to worship death and prefer it to surviving. This made them nearly invincible, since killing them only made them happier. The Israelis finally found the answer by creating the Joint War Room (JWR), which combined all intelligence into one central command. While before, enemies had been geographically divided, now they were primarily within the occupied territories and information needed to be shared more within the Israeli forces, rather than dealt with by a smaller, local command.

               Lately I feel pessimistic about peace between Palestinians and Israelis. It seems like pauses in the fighting only happen when one side defeats the other (temporarily) and attempts at dialogue are seen as signs of weakness. For example, Bergman writes of the Israeli retreat from Lebanon that, “there were many Palestinians who saw the retreat from Lebanon as proof that guerrilla tactics and terrorism could defeat the strongest military and intelligence forces in the Middle East, and they began contemplating the possibility of applying these methods to their own area. While the First Intifada ended with peace negotiations, they then failed. The Second Intifada didn’t end with peace, but with the deaths of the leaders of Hamas and Fatah (At least Yassin, of Hamas, being killed by Israel) and Israeli withdrawal and closing of the Gaza Strip. Hamas later gained control of Gaza due to massive assistance from Iran. It is also disturbing to see how over time the Israelis continue to skirt their own rules and seem to have gotten worse about it in the last several decades. The occupations of Lebanon and Palestine have caused serious problems in the defense establishment due to their legal vagueness and grey area. The fundamental takeaway I got was that tactical successes are no substitute for strategic successes. A strong military cannot do what strong diplomacy can and Israel has suffered from a very weak diplomatic corps. With everything based in the armed forces, they can win lots of battles, but they will not win the war.

Miscellaneous Facts:

• I saw the name Folke Bernadotte in this book and recognized the last name. Bernadotte had been one of Napoleon’s chief marshals during those wars and so I looked it up. As I remembered, the older Bernadotte had become the King of Sweden and, as it would happen, his descendant, mentioned in this book, would become an attempted peacemaker in Palestine and be successfully assassinated by the Stern Gang.
• Until the 1960s, it was illegal to mention the existence of Shin Bet in public on the orders of Ben-Gurion.
• Israel at one point tried to copy the Soviet Union and raise orphans to be spies as they had no familial attachments, but soon found it immoral when they did not want to force the young man they’d recruited to become a spy when he really just wanted a “girlfriend, a civilian career, and a good salary.”
• The Labor Party (Avodah) ruled Israel from 1948-77 until it was defeated by the right-wing Likud, led by Menachem Begin. Likud currently runs Israel under the leadership of Benjamin Netanyahu.
• The biggest financial blow in PLO history came when Arafat himself supported the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990, causing all the Arab states to cut off aid to the PLO.
• Germany would not permit the Israelis into the country to handle the 1972 Munich hostage crisis that would end in the deaths of all Israeli hostages. They only allowed senior Israeli officials to observe.
• This isn’t really a fact, but I came away very impressed by Hezbollah’s toughness. They beat Israel in two wars and are still around in Lebanon today. They seem like the most durable enemy of Israel.
• I learned about a horrific terrorist attack perpetrated by American Jew, Baruch Goldstein, who shot over a hundred Muslim worshippers at the Cave of the Patriarchs in 1994, killing 29.

Reflection on Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind by Yuval Noah Harari

               Now here’s a cool book. It’s all about the evolution and development of humankind over the years and how we transformed not just biologically, but how we transformed into the social, political and economic creatures we are today, while, in turn, transforming the world around us to be as we would prefer it. He has a really great writing style and a knack for getting to the heart of complicated issues.

               Some interesting dates in the spread of humanity outside Africa are the time when Homo Sapiens left Africa for the first time, 70,000 years ago; when Sapiens reached Europe and East Asia 45,000 years ago; the period from 70-30,000 years ago when Sapiens invented boats, lamps, bows and arrows, and needles. That period, from 70-30,000 years ago is considered a cognitive revolution in the history of humanity. From this point on, human societies started to fracture apart, creating different cultures in far-flung regions of the world, and getting cut off from each other by long distances and difficult terrain. Shortly thereafter, about 15,000 years ago, humans independently began to domesticate animals, starting with the dog and being followed by horses, wheat, pigs, chickens, and many other animals and plants. In these early years of the spread of Sapiens, many animal species went extinct, especially the largest that needed more space and had no natural predators before Sapiens. Of the 24 Australian animals that weighed 50 kg or more, 23 went extinct. Humans crossed the Bering Strait into the Americas in 12,000 BCE and arrived at the southern tip of South America in 10,000 BCE. 2,000 years is a very, very quick time considering it took 25,000 to reach from Africa to Europe and East Asia.

               The second section of the book covers the Agricultural Revolution, the author pointing out that 90% of all the calories that feed humanity come from plants that our ancestors domesticated between 9500 and 3500 BCE. Harari calls the Agricultural Revolution “history’s greatest fraud,” because, while our lives certainly benefit for it, it was definitely worse for the early agriculturalists than nomadism had been. People fed porridge developed weaker immune systems and dependence on a single source of food made risk of drought much more severe. Even in good years, a granary would attract thieves, forcing people to defend their surpluses. With more children, producing more food didn’t really help people that much, as there were then even more mouths to feed, so people became less well-nourished. All this agriculture only happened on a small amount of Earth’s territory. Only 2% of the Earth’s land surface was being used for agriculture by 1400 CE. The agricultural revolution ended in a system where men controlled women and men were in turn controlled by more influential men. The author asks us, as if it is ironic, “How did it happen that in the one species whose success depends above all on cooperation, individuals who are supposedly less cooperative (men) control individuals who are supposedly more cooperative (women)?” I would say that a female tendency to cooperate is exactly why this is happening. If the people you wish to subjugate do not cooperate well, they will be unruly and difficult to manage; if they do cooperate, things will go much more smoothly for you.

               The next section talks about the three forces that united people after the Agricultural Revolution, which are money, empire, and religion. One combination of empire and religion mentioned is the Mandate of Heaven, which I learned to see in a new light. I had always thought the Mandate of Heaven was a sort of obvious thing where of course the person who wins the war will claim to be “ordained by God” or whatever. However, I realized that’s not the significance. The significance is that to gain the Mandate of Heaven, you have to take over ALL of China! You can’t split China up! That’s a really important cultural and historical belief. So long as you believe that the region cannot be split, people will try to rule the entire thing, without secession. That is responsible in a big way for the existence of a modern Chinese supermassive state that is considered to be ethnically homogeneous. Since no two rulers could hold the Mandate simultaneously, claimants to the throne were forced to conquer all of China, uniting it until the modern era.  

               Later in the book, Harari discusses the cause of the takeover of the world by Europe, which for so long had been a backwater. It comes down to, for him, science and capitalism. He writes, “The Scientific Revolution has not been a revolution of knowledge. It has been above all a revolution of ignorance. The great discovery that launched the Scientific Revolution was the discovery that humans do not know the answers to their most important questions.” That is critical in allowing European takeover. Europeans were the first to realize that just like slaves, gold, or later oil, knowledge is a resource. Knowledge is actually probably more powerful than all three of those combined.

               One criticism I have of Harari is how clearly sheltered and neoliberally European he is. He seems to really not consider that anyone outside of the educated classes of the rich countries will be reading. For example, he writes, “No one speaks about exterminating lower races or inferior people, but many contemplate using our increasing knowledge of human biology to create superhumans.” What? Are you kidding me? Lots of people definitely talk about that stuff and take action on it. They are members of the KKK, Hamas, and tons of other evil groups that still definitely exist. However, Harari also points out that myths of racial superiority are complete nonsense. For example, Africans brought as slaves to the Americas were not brought because they were inferior. On the contrary, they were brought to the Americas because they had immunities to tropical diseases, making them genetically superior to their European masters. He’s correct, but it feels like he’s not living in the real world when he just acts as if people don’t still want to exterminate one another.

               Toward the end, Harari discusses happiness, and our difficulties in achieving it. I wrote this, which kind of sums up what he talked about:

How many people do you know who are as happy as the level you want to achieve in your own life? Do you know 25 people who are at that level of happiness? 10? 3? Even 1? I often find myself trying to improve my own life so that I can be happier. I want to work out so that I can be stronger and have a better-looking body. I want to have a good job and win the acclaim of my peers. I want to eat the best food and try all the best things before I die, visiting the most interesting places in the world too, because why not? Romantic consumerism tells me that I absolutely should do all those things, but who is programming the agenda of romantic consumerism? Can any of these things keep me at a high-level of happiness? Nobody I know is happy all the time, yet we’re constantly trying to get happier and do things that make us happy. This is definitely achievable in the short-term. If I buy a new shirt that I look good in, I’m definitely happy the first few times I wear it. But how happy am I by the 15^th time? I’m basically back to the normal level where I was at before the shirt.

               What would happen if everybody decided to stop trying to be so happy? The Buddha says that desire or craving is the route of all suffering and that’s a thought that’s gotten even more relevant with time. So who is programming the romantic consumerism that tells me that I need to be happier? It’s advertisements and mass media that show me people who are more beautiful than me, richer than me, smarter than me, and have more friends than me. Am I supposed to be able to achieve all these things? No. I can never become the most beautiful, richest, smartest, and friendliest person in the world. Even if I could miraculously achieve one of those things, I would certainly not achieve them all in one short lifetime. Instead, so long a I keep wanting to be very happy in the long-term, I will almost certainly be unhappy.

               This is because long-term happiness doesn’t function like the short-term. While buying a shirt provides short-term happiness, long-term happiness is really something different. It’s more like satisfaction- not the burst of joy that comes from a positive life event but the steady satisfaction that comes from living a life at or above my expectations. If I set my expectations too high, I will be guaranteed to live a life relentlessly pursuing an emotional state that, due to the very fact that I pursue it so much, is impossible to achieve. But how do I set my expectations to a point that is low and reasonable enough to allow me long-term satisfaction while high enough to keep me moving along in life and improving myself and the lives of others?

Conclusion

While flawed, this is a really good book to read for anyone interested in a vast array of subjects from biology to history to psychology to economics. It covers the most important issues that address humanity and at the end moves to our future challenges that will face us. At one point he writes, “So why study history? Unlike physics or economics, history is not a means for making accurate predictions. We study history not to know the future but to widen our horizons, to understand that our present situation is neither natural nor inevitable, and that we consequently have many more possibilities before us than we imagine.”

Miscellaneous Facts:

• More Christians were killed at the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre on August 23^rd, 1572 than in the entire history of the Roman Empire.
• Britain’s disastrous economic policy in India caused the Great Bengal Famine between 1769 and 1773, killing 10 million Bengalis, a third of the province’s population.

Reflection on Mission to Mars: My Vision for Space Exploration by Buzz Aldrin with Leonard David

               In this book, you will learn about Buzz Aldrin’s trip to the moon, but more importantly his plans for the future of space travel. He has done a lot of thinking about this. Aldrin says we shouldn’t go back to the moon. He would like it to become an international waypoint on the way to Mars, which he sees as the real prize. He identifies two goals in the future of space travel: a continuously expanding human presence in space and global leadership (by America) in space. As for the moon, he says we should “establish some form of Lunar Economic Development Authority” to share the moon with international partners and lend them a hand in reaching it. He says we should strike deals to let our private sector send robots to the moon while we help other governments like India and China get to the moon in exchange for them giving an American a seat on their lander.

               His big plan is deep-space (beyond the moon) cyclers, that would go between Earth and Mars, using gravity from their orbits to satisfy most of their propulsion needs. Reusability is huge. For most of the history of space travel, rockets are disposable, meaning that huge costs get spent and are useless after one trip. The big challenge for the future is to build space ships that can be used over and over again, like any commercial airliner, which doesn’t throw out the jet when it arrives at its destination. The cycler would pass by Earth and never land. Instead, another ship would taxi the astronauts up to the ship, where they would ride to Mars and then taxi down to the red planet in a journey that should take about 6 months.

               There are a few technologies we need to develop. On is aerocapture, the technique to reduce your velocity as you reach a planet by using the atmosphere as a brake. This creates friction, slowing down the spacecraft. Radiation protection is needed to protect human life on long-duration missions. Life support for the long-haul is critical to provide travelers with air, water, and food over time. We also need redundant systems just in case of failure. Inflatable structures are useful as well, as they can be quickly assembled in place on Mars and stored easily during transport. Landing systems are important to ensure not only that we land safely, but also in the place we choose to. Buzz also wants to put telescopes on the far side of the moon and eventually mars that would be able to pick up sounds and images that are too sensitive to be heard or seen on Earth due to all the activity on our planet.

               It’s important to remember that in the long-term, Mars isn’t just for human exploration or human settlement. We should, therefore, design the infrastructure we build there for human settlement so that we are ready when the time comes. Aldrin hopes that the president will announce on the 50^th anniversary of the moon landing in July 2019 a plan to go to Mars. I hope this happens too. It would be an amazing accomplishment and I’m sure that America could achieve the goal. There are a lot of interesting things to think about in terms of what kind of government should be established, who should be allowed to go to the planet, what types of institutions they would need at varying sizes of population and so on. I’d be tempted to go.

Here's a cool picture of what the view would be like from Mars' moon Deimos, where we may land a preliminary base before landing humans on Mars.

Miscellaneous Facts:

• Since 1961, 600 people from 38 countries have gone into Earth orbit, 24 have traveled below low Earth orbit, and 12 have walked on the surface of the moon.
• Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin spent just 2.5 hours walking on the moon and in total humans have only walked 22 hours on the moon’s surface.
• It takes three days to get to the moon from Earth.
• The best near-term opportunities to travel to Mars are in 2033 and 2035.

Reflection on Prisoners of Geography: Ten Maps That Tell You Everything You Need to Know About Global Politics by Tim Marshall

               Now here’s a book that every single IR freshman in America should read. It lays out the major long-term geopolitical conflicts that are mostly unavoidable due to the shape of the land and sea and the borders of countries. It has chapters on Russia, China, the USA, Japan and Korea, India and Pakistan, the Middle East, and the Arctic, among others.

               The author several times talks about the importance of having certain ethnic groups in one’s geographical borders. This is more demography than geography, but it is absolutely crucial for Russia that it has ethnic Russians living in Poland, Moldova, Latvia, Lithuania, and Ukraine. These ethnic Russians are likely to support Russia in foreign affairs and put pressure on these countries and regions to support Russia. China has the same thing going on in Malaysia, Singapore, and the Philippines. When they wanted to take over Tibet in the 1950’s, the Communist Party of China built roads and sent Han Chinese into Tibet to unify it not only political, but economically and ethnically with the Chinese state. This, of course, has nothing to do with Communism and everything to do with geography. After all, Tibet is known as “China’s water tower” because it has the source of the Yellow, Yangtze, and Mekong Rivers. China will never give it up. Marshall tells us that Stalin drew the borders of Tajikistan and other central Asian states to purposefully mix ethnicities, making the states less coherent and more vulnerable to Russian interference.  

The Russian-Chinese relationship was especially interesting to me. Russia needs China as it finds iself increasingly isolated byt European states and surrounded by NATO in the west. However, in the east, the author points out that China will likely end up controlling parts of Siberia due to Russia’s declining birth rate and the immigration of Chinese citizens to the north. Massive economic deals with China have kept Russia afloat, but soon it will find that China poses an even bigger threat to Russian structural integrity that European unity ever could.

               The advantages of the United States in foreign affairs are tremendous. They primarily come from the massive size of the country, the good land, the two coasts on the world’s biggest oceans, and the type of people who immigrated there. Think about this: The Homestead Act of 1862 was very important. It allowed you to farm 160 acres of federally owned land for just five years and then it was yours. This created a huge incentive for hard-working immigrants to go to the United States instead of Latin America. After all, “why go to Latin America and be a serf, when you could go the USA and be a free land-owning man?” The USA was able to fill its land with people and give them equity in law and economy, with the exception of non-whites. After World War 2, the United States’ power grew greatly when they gained British naval bases in exchange for American destroyers. Almost every British naval base in the Western Hemisphere was given to the United States.

               One new term I learned was “GIUK,” standing for Germany, Iceland, United Kingdom and referring to the naval gaps through which Russia would need to break through to reach the Atlantic Ocean. It is absolutely critical that NATO control that area to make sure that Russia stays a land power only and does not develop sea power. Scottish independence would certainly cause problems for this.

               The author discusses Africa and Latin America in broad strokes, mainly in terms of disadvantages. Africa confronts the problem that its many rivers do not flow into each other as the Ohio and others flow into the Mississippi in North America. In addition, waterfalls obstruct river traffic and a lack of natural harbors obstructs sea traffic. Latin America faces the obstacles of the Amazon rainforest and the Andes mountains, which cause very big gaps in the flow of people, goods, and information. Almost all major Latin American cities are on the coastline, with the exception of major Colombian cities.

               Reading this book, I got to the Middle East chapter and the Israel section made me much more conservative. The author writes that, “The West Bank is almost seven times the size of Gaza but is landlocked. Much of it comprises a mountain ridge which runs north to south. From a military perspective, this gives whoever commands the high ground control of the coastal plain on the western side of the ridge, and of the Jordan Rift Valley to its east. Leaving to one side the ideology of Jewish settlers, who claim the biblical right to live in what they call Judea and Samaria, from a military perspective the Israeli view is that a non-Israeli force cannot be allowed to control these heights, as heavy weapons could be fired onto the coastal plain where 70 per cent of Israel’s population lives. The plain also includes its most important road systems, many of its successful high-tech companies, the international airport and most of its heavy industry.” There it is right there. A two-state solution cannot work because Israel absolutely must, to survive, keep heavy weapons that Arab nations would surely provide to Palestine out of the West Bank. Interestingly, the same issue is at play with North Korea and South Korea, in that NK has so many heavy weapons just north of the DMZ that they would rain hellfire on Seoul in the case of war, such that, even though South Korea could wipe out those positions in a matter of days, the cost would be tremendous to civilians.

               In conclusion, this book is great and has lots of info packed into very few (just over 200) pages. If you read it, you’ll get a lot more information I didn’t mention about Chinese attempts to build a canal through Nicaragua, preparations for trade and war in the Arctic, and the conflict between India and Pakistan. Top-notch book.

Miscellaneous Facts:

• If Tibet declares independence from China and calls itself a sovereign state, American treaties to not bind the USA to come to its rescue and China would assuredly conquer it.
• Marshall explains that Egypt could never have been a major naval force because, in spite of the fact that the Nile can feed millions of people, it is in a desert and there aren’t enough trees to find wood for ships. This made Egypt dependent on far away Lebanon cedar.
• Angola is the second greatest supplier of oil to China after Saudi Arabia.
• There has only ever been one official census in Lebanon because demographic issues are so sensitive there. This is because the political system was fundamentally based on the majority Christian population which is by now definitely a minority. That census was taken in 1932.

Here’s a map I liked:

Reflexionando sobre Nación y Sociedad en la Historia del Perú por Peter F. Klaren, Traducción de Javier Flores

Me rendí con este libro. Me gustó al principio pero me aburría más cuando llegó al siglo veinte, que no me interesaba tanto. Aquí está lo que había escrito.

¿Cómo eran las sociedades y naciones indígenas de Perú?            

Las primeras personas llegaron a Perú 11.000 años a.C., y empezaron a poblar la costa pacífica. Empezaron a pescar en el mar y algunos ríos, cultivar tubérculos y otros vegetales y también cazar camélidos, como llamas. 800 a.C, surgió por primera vez un cetro cultural norte de Ancash, en Chavín de Huántar, ahora conocido como “Chavín”. No era un imperio sino un centro religioso, situado en la Cordillera Blanca en una ruta de la costa al bosque amazónico. Su templo principal tenía canales subterráneos donde la gente podían escuchar el rugido de las aguas mientras rezaban al llamado “Dios Sonriente”. Desde Chavín se difundieron prácticas e innovaciones “metalúrgicas y textiles junto con el culto religioso”. Se fragmentaría 500 años después, pero otras culturas la reemplazarían. Una fue la cultura Moche, que alcanzó su apogeo 400 d.C., que construyó muchos canales de riego y usaban guano para fertilizar sus campos. Aunque no sabían de la rueda o el arado, apoyaron una población muy grande. También había la cultura Nazca, que floreció a lo largo de la costa del sur de Perú entre 100 a.C y 600 d.C. Hoy la Nazca es famosa para sus cerámicas y las líneas que dibujaban en la tierra.

Perú se ha desarrollado de una manera única entre las naciones, no solo horizontalmente, sino verticalmente, como los climas diferentes en las distintas alturas de los Andes estimulaba el uso de cultivos diferentes y resultaron en diferencias de cultura y política también. Al principio, las sociedades indígenas más desarrolladas eran las de la costa, como Chavín, Moche y Nazca, donde el transporte y cultivación eran más fáciles. Sin embargo, los Inca, el imperio más grande de las Américas, nació en las montañas, donde la dificultad de moverse había resultado en tribus y facciones más fracturados. No obstante, esas dificultades resultaron a ser los motivos por crear un imperio tan impresionante. Debido a enfrentar las dificultades de formar un imperio en las montañas, cuando ya se había hecho, era fácil conquistar la costa, que nunca necesitaba formar burocracias tan complejas para unirse.

En el siglo V d.C, las culturas de la sierra andina empezaban a ser más fuertes que las culturas costeñas. Había dos sociedades andinas con grandes centros urbanos, Tiahuanaco, cerca al lago Titicaca, y Huari, cerca de la actual ciudad de Ayacucho. En Tiahuanaco, el poder se conservaba en medios religiosos y económicos, pero aún se desconoce si el intercambio comercial era de una red entre las regiones o un sistema de colonias. Huari existía a una altura un poco menos que la de Tiahuanaco, enfocándose en las cuencas que usaban para riego. Su producción principal era de maíz, que se comía y que se bebía en chicha. Las dos sociedades aumentaban entre 500 y 1000 pero entre 1000 y 1450 empezaron sus declives y fragmentación. Los pedazos de esta fragmentación se recogiera el imperio inca.

Los incas no tenían pictografías ni jeroglíficos como los aztecas y los mayas. Tenían quipus, cuerdas con nudos que marcaban información numérica, pero sin lengua escrita, la gran mayoría de la información que tenemos sobre ellos viene de españoles o descendientes incas que escribían muchos años después de los eventos de la conquista, y generalmente no sabían tanto sobre la época antes.

El imperio inca comenzaba de Cuzco, una ciudad en la región del lago Titicaca, creciendo entre los años 1200 a 1400. El ritmo de conquista aumentó bajo el rey Pachacútec Inca Yupanqui, gobernando entre 1438 y 1471 y también durante el reinado de su hijo, Túpac Inca Yupanqui, gobernando entre 1471 y 1493. En 1493 los incas controlaban una tercera parte del continente suramericano. La clave de la conquista incaica era el “mitimae”. El mitimae era un tipo de colonización que practicaban los incas sobre pueblos derrotados, deportando una parte a otra parte del imperio y reemplazándola con colonias leales. Ellas servían como guarniciones militares y funcionarios del gobierno central para convertir la gente en súbitos leales. Desarrollaron en los mitimaes un sistema económico autárquico en los “archipiélagos verticales” de la sierra. En la costa a bajo nivel producían algodón, maíz y pescado; en las laderas orientales de los Andes productos tropicales como frutas, y otros en los valles entre las montañas.

¿Cuáles rasgos únicos tiene la independización de Perú?

               Cómo casi todas las colonias de España, las reformas borbónicas, que exigían más impuestos de la gente americana, aumentaban el nivel de sentimiento en contra de la corona. Sin embargo, Perú quedó una de las colonias más leales a su rey. Muchos historiadores han considerado la pregunta de por qué Perú era tan tarde en independizarse de España. Voy a discutir tres teorías explicativas.

               Primero, la clase de élites en Perú, compuesta de criollos y peninsulares, había unido solo 30 años antes de que España fue invadida por Napoleón para defenderse contra la amenaza de la Gran Rebelión de Túpac Amaru II. Con la memoria de la rebelión de indígenas y esclavos muy fresca en la memora de ellos, no tenían muchas ganas de volver a guerra cuando la última había costado casi diez por ciento de la población. Además, esa experiencia forjó una alianza fuerte entre los blancos criollos y peninsulares, y los lazos no se rompieron muy fáciles. Segundo, según a Timothy Anna, solo una tercera parte de la élite limeña tenía fortunas verdaderas, resultando que los demás y entonces la mayoría dependía en cargos públicos. Una revolución significara la pérdida de sus fuentes de ingresos. Y tercero, un tercio de la población de Lima estaba conformado de esclavos negros, temiendo a las elites blancas, a quienes les daba miedo la idea de luchar contra la corona y posiblemente una rebelión de esclavos. De hecho, el ejercito de José de San Martín estaba compuesto en su mayoría por esclavos libertos.

¿Cuáles son las diferencias y similitudes entre los booms de plata y de guano en Perú?

De pronto puedo discutir el conflicto entre liberalismo y proteccionismo, también la confederación Peru-Bolivia

Pagina 233 leyendo, Pagina 175 notando 23:23 In GOT

Datos misceláneos:

• Las dos guerras más grandes de la historia tras la conquista española, la guerra de Independencia de 1824 y la guerra del Pacífico de 1879 fueron impuestas de afuera, y no buscadas por los mismos peruanos.
• Se atribuye en parte la Revolución Industrial a la papa andina, la cual estabilizó la población de las islas británicas a niveles más altos para lar la provisión de mano para las fábricas de Manchester y otros sitios.
• En los siglos XVI y XVII, la mayoría de la plata del mundo se producía en Perú y México y se consumía en China.
• En España y sus colonias, se exigía una prueba de la pureza de sangre para “los candidatos a cargos públicos y a quienes postulaban a la universidad, y a su vez era un requisito para ejercer profesiones tales como el derecho.”
• En el Perú de 1800, la expectativa de vida al nacer era apenas treinta años.
• “Para finales del siglo XVII sólo había cinco mil alumnos en las escuelas primarias, la mayoría de los cuales pertenecía a la aristocracia. La educación no era generalmente accesible a los sectores medios o plebeyos de la población, en tanto que la mayoría de los libros eran importaos y se acumulaban principalmente en bibliotecas privadas o eclesiásticas antes que públicas…”
• “La Grán Rebelión de Túpac Amaru II costó más de cien mil vidas en una población total de 1,2 millones” en los años 1781-2.

Reflection on Our Towns: A 100,000-Mile Journey into the Heart of America by James Fallows and Deborah Fallows

               This is a book for people who love America and want to hear that it will get better. Obviously, I really liked it. A married couple (the authors) fly in a small Cirrus plane around the country, visiting small towns that don’t get much coverage in the media. Often, when these towns are in the press, it’s not good. Instead, the Fallows look for what’s going right in these towns and cities, trying to find the formula for American towns to achieve success.

               Small towns in America face a key disadvantage. By the nature of being small towns, they do not have a lot of people. As we move away from a manufacturing economy, when the greatest resource to be used came from the ground or was crafted in a factory, we are entering a service economy, where the best resource is another human being, ideally well-educated and with top-notch skills. That means that people want to start businesses where the other people are. However, small towns, write the Fallows, often have advantages in lower costs of living and a high quality of life. Their best route to success is often to make living in their town really nice. This was especially true in towns like Bend, Oregon and Burlington, Vermont, which try to preserve the beautiful nature around them.

               A major theme of the book is something that I’ve thought about nonstop in Colombia. The government is an extremely powerful force of social betterment through the provision of public goods. In Colombia, it’s hit me especially with the lack of consistent water, the common power outages, and the poor road condition. In the book, they highlighted that the pillars of small towns are the schools, libraries, and public spaces. They cite Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) projects that have reinvigorated dying towns. In Riverside, California, locals mention that the city’s ownership of its utilities- water, electricity, and sewage- gave it the chance to control its own fiscal destiny. They discuss how libraries “offer citizenship classes, English-language classes, and programs on car-seat safety, self-defense, parenting…, and fighting forest fires.” This is cool stuff that we should have more of.

I liked in particular one small section where they talk about “the question” that people ask you in different towns. In the Low Country of South Carolina, it’s “Which bend [of the river]?” In other more socially conservative areas, it’s “Where do you go to church?” In racially diverse cities like Philadelphia and Boston, it’s “What are you?” In New Orleans, where everybody seems to know everybody else, it’s “Who’s your mama?” I thought this was an interesting concept. The authors write that it’s our way of sizing people up and finding out who they are in relation to us on the social hierarchy. As you might expect, in New York and DC, the question is “What do you do (for a living)?”

I wrote in my notes that “This book is so obviously written by white people who read the news too much.” That is to say that it has exactly the racial awareness you would expect from two middle-aged white people who live in Washington, DC. They write, “Redlands has always had it easy… with a better-educated, richer, and whiter population than the other two cities…” I found that to be a pretty disgusting sentence in the way that it so sterilely addresses racism. Instead of pointing out that the problem is racists, it makes it seems that the place is better off just be nature of being whiter, not that the racial homogeneity makes racism less impactful. The authors are not outward racists, but people who’ve been trained their whole lives to imagine that race doesn’t even exist, and if it does, only exists for “minorities.” There’s another point in the book where they write, “The school administrators told me that their students today ‘don’t see color,’ which speaks to the mature integration of races within Dodge City.” In fact, claiming to “not see color” is a sign of a white person’s (it’s almost always a white person) racial IMmaturity. In “Why Are All the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria?” by Beverly Daniel Tatum, Ph.D., Tatum specifically addresses the idea of race-blindness, pointing out that it is just fine to see that there are differences in peoples’ skin color, but that white people are uncomfortable with this, and would rather just not discuss it. While this is better than outward racism, it leaves lots of questions unanswered and just pushes things under the surface rather than solving any racial tensions. In addition, black teenagers often need to seek out the company of other black teenagers due to their shared experience of racism that their non-black friends won’t be able to understand. They also make heavy use of the word “millennial,” which I found annoying.

At the end of the book, the Fallows give us the recipe for success. It is made up of ten- and one-half rules that tend to be followed in successful cities. They are (and I’m quoting):

1.      People work together on practical local possibilities, rather than allowing bitter disagreements about national politics to keep them apart.

2.      You can pick out the local patriots.

3.      The phrase “public-private partnership” refers to something real.

4.      People know the civil story.

5.      They have downtowns.

6.      They are near a research university.

7.      They have, and care about, a community college.

8.      They have distinctive, innovative schools.

9.      They make themselves open.

10.   They have big plans.

For the details about these rules you’ll have to read the book. There is a semi-rule they also give us though: successful towns and cities have their own craft breweries. This is certainly correlation and not causation, but as they write, “A town that has them also has a certain kind of entrepreneur, and a critical mass of young (except for me) customers. It sounds like a joke, but it explains a lot.”

               To sum up, this is a really interesting book and also a well-written story. While it isn’t perfect, it has a really great perspective on the United States. The authors definitely do justice to their subject matter. I found it extremely easy to read and it made me want to travel the country.

Miscellaneous Facts:

• The Bay of Fundy in Maine has some of the strongest tidal forces on Earth, sucking in and pushing out more water than exists in all the world’s rivers combined.
• There are very few natural lakes in Texas, and most bodies of water are from dam-building projects since the 19^th century.
• The Big Island of Hawaii is a relocation spot for the federal witness protection program.
• After WWII, Oregon’s economy was nearly 25% forestry while today it’s just 2%. That’s a decline you don’t hear nearly as much about as the coal country.
• Of 5,000 airports in the USA, only about 600 have control towers. When pilots fly into those that don’t, they use their radios to warn and coordinate with other pilots.

P.S.

This is a random thought, but they mention when visiting Eastport, Maine that a Civil War veterans hall is a point of local pride. This makes sense, as it honors the sacrifice of American veterans. However, is it so inappropriate to honor the dead Confederate soldiers. They fought for a terrible cause that tried to break up the country and keep slavery, the greatest evil perpetrated in America and maybe anywhere, however, most of them were not consciously doing so. They probably signed up because everyone else in town did when Union soldiers appeared, since the Union invaded the Confederacy first. I think Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis and other leaders don’t deserve anything, but states from the Confederacy should be able to recognize their foot soldiers who died along with the slaves who were freed. It would be a shame if only northerners could have remembrances of their Civil War dead.

Reflection on Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows: An Introduction to Carnism by Melanie Joy, Ph.D.

               This is a book that advocates for people to become vegetarians due primarily to the suffering of animals in slaughterhouses, the hypocrisy of owning pets while eating other animals, and additionally for the asserted health benefits. I found it interesting in some parts, preachy in others, and largely unconvincing. There are good points that are made about the needless suffering of animals and the monopolies that exist in American food production, but I didn’t feel like I was the book’s intended audience.

               The book introduces a concept called “carnism.” While we call people who are vegetarians by their label, the book makes a good point in noticing that we should have a similar one for those who eat meat. It makes sense not to call them omnivores because omnivore, herbivore, and carnivore refer to biological restraints, not ideological eating habits, like vegetarianism. Another good point in the book is about the American food industry. She points out that in the 1980s, government legislation put the burden of oversight onto the plants that produce food themselves. So now, rather than federal inspectors, the plants’ own employees are responsible for closer inspections. Federal inspectors have also lost the power to stop the slaughter and packaging line; as the author writes, “for a federal inspector’s complaint to be seriously considered, the company itself must agree that there is a problem.” I also thought that the author made a good point about criticism of vegans and vegetarians, stating, “They are stereotyped as hippies, eating disordered, and sometimes antihuman. They are called hypocrites if they wear leather, purists or extremists if they don’t.”

               On the other hand, there a lot of things in this book I thought were stupid or cringe-worthy. For example, there was a line that said, “we can safely say our democracy has become a meatocracy.” I thought that was not something anyone would say, safely or not. This is a book intended for people who are not really “fully actualized” in their meat eating. I think that as someone who doesn’t feel any guilt in eating animals and animal products, she failed to appeal to me, except for with arguments about bad treatment and monopolies in factory farms. For example, Joy makes a big point about how people wouldn’t eat dogs, but I think I would eat a dog if offered to me. She also makes gratuitous allusions to slavery, the Holocaust and other horrific events in human history without acknowledging that most people see a fundamental difference between humans and animals.

               I think the question is not, “can they suffer?” but rather “are they alive?” Plants and animals that we consume deserve our respect and proper treatment in how we handle them as a society from the time they come into existence until they enter our mouths. It is not wrong to eat plants or animals, but it is wrong to disrespect them. We should not waste food and we should not mistreat the animals that feed us. Meat eaters should embrace parts of animals we would not normally eat. If they’re delicious parts like heart or liver, we should just eat them straight up. Other parts that aren’t so popular should be ground up in sausages and the McDonald’s pink slime. It seems like more government intervention is necessary, however, to improve the treatment of the animals we eat. To eat them is not wrong, but to allow them to go to waste is.

Reflection on Deng Xiaoping and the Transformation of China by Ezra F. Vogel

               Modern China is largely the creation of the will of two men. The first is Mao Zedong, who is very well known in the West and famous for winning the Chinese Civil War, resisting Japanese occupation, forging the Chinese Communist Party as the ruling class of the country, failing in the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution, and succeeding in becoming worshipped as a hero by many modern Chinese. The second man, however, is not as well known in America. Deng Xiaoping fought alongside Mao and ruled alongside him for several years before coming into power himself. Yet he may have had a more lasting impact. While Mao’s successors were out of power within five years, Deng’s stayed in power and his reforms have been longer lasting than many of Mao’s. Deng ought to be known for opening China to the world, ending the Cultural Revolution, Rebuilding Chinese industry and science, maintaining the strength of the Communist Party for generations to follow, managing the migration of hundreds of millions of Chinese people from farms to cities, failing to prevent the excesses of the Tiananmen Square Massacre, and successfully passing off leadership to a generation of reformers who would allow market-based solutions to bring China into the 21^st century. Deng had built on Mao’s accomplishments, especially the unified country thanks to victory in the civil war, the strong tuling party structure, and the somewhat modern industry.

               Deng was a gradualist in his approach. Several times in his career and as leader of China he would go forward three steps and then go back one or two. He followed the political winds, knowing when to push and knowing when to allow things to slow down. He cleverly pushed for economic reforms before political reforms, perhaps being responsible for China avoiding the collapse that came to the Soviet Union in 1991 among other Communist countries.

How Deng Came to Power

               Deng rose and fell several times in his career, the final time before his rise to the Premier was from 1973-75 when Mao all but named him successor and made him the director of day-to-day operations of the country. However, he strayed too much from Mao’s opinions on policy, was criticized, and removed from power, back under house arrest just like during the Cultural Revolution. After Mao’s death in 1976, he would be back. Shortly before Mao died, he would realize how much of a failure the Cultural Revolution was. He fired Zhou Enlai from office earlier, a long-time friend of Deng’s and an attempted reformer. When Zhou died, the party tried to avoid any major memorials or outpourings of emotions since he was no longer in good standing, however, the people of Beijing thought otherwise, and millions demonstrated to show support to the deceased Zhou and place wreaths at his grave. When Mao died, he named an otherwise weak politician, Hua Guofeng as his successor. He was able to maintain his position for a few years, but besides Mao (who was dead), Hua lacked much genuine support among the leadership. Within a few years, he was out and Deng was on top again, this time to stay.

Deng’s Leadership Style

               “If Mao were like an emperor above the clouds, reading history and novels and issuing edicts, Deng was more like a commanding general, checking carefully to see that his battle plans were properly staffed and implemented,” writes Vogel. Deng read massive amounts of information each day and was obviously at an extremely high level of intelligence. Like other Chinese leaders, he expected that his subordinates would take the blame for his failures and that he would get the credit for success. He advocated for a philosophy of focusing on long term goals first and then determining the solutions to short term problems. This was so that the guiding philosophy would make all things coherent. Unlike Mao, Deng wanted to uncover unpleasant truths. He wasn’t interested in who came from a “better class background,” or so much the ideological purity of his movement. Rather, he was interested in results and promoting people of worth. He liked to use folksy sayings to explain his policies. To explain that the ideological arguments didn’t matter as much as the economic results, he would say, “it doesn’t matter if the cat is black or white as long as it catches the mouse.” To brush away the criticism that the reforms would cause inequality in China he said, “some people can get rich first.” To illustrate the experimentation he was doing with economic liberalization, he said that he was, “groping for stones while crossing the river.” Deng did not give so much orders as he did explanations. He found it easier than giving direct instructions.

The Changes Deng Made in China

               Thanks to increasing trade with the world through large ships in the Pacific, there was a rush of people to the coasts, where better jobs could be found under the new Deng regime, especially in Guangdong and Fujian. By the late 1980’s, people were rushing to all the major cities throughout China and Hong Kong businessmen started to speak more Mandarin than Cantonese. In fact, throughout China language started to become more and more standardized as people began to interact at a national level.

               There was a revolution in farming in China under Deng. Under Mao, peasant families were forced into collective agriculture groups and could not keep their surpluses, giving them no incentive to produce more food, keeping those prices high. Deng, however, allowed them to create “household units,” meaning that your family could produce and/or sell something without government interference. The northern areas did not change so much, as they still needed collective groups of peasants to be able to afford large tractors that are necessary in that climate, but southern areas quickly adapted to Deng’s liberalization.

               While Russia changed its economic system rapidly on the advice of some experts. Deng was much more cautious and gradual and it paid off. He needed to build institutions “with structures, rules, laws, and trained personnel adapted to the local culture and local conditions.” It led to the creation of large businesses outside of the state, though still under the careful watch of the Communist Party. Often, when people more conservative in the party wanted to restrict growth out of fear that it would get out of control, Deng was able to point to successes to counter them. So if a business got to big and an official wanted to cut it down to size, Deng would use their logic against them, as, after all, it must have been a very successful business to grow that big. As the leader of the Party, the government, and the army, Deng just kept plowing ahead.

Tiananmen Square, 1989

               Perhaps because the 1976 demonstrators were later deemed to be patriotic by Deng, the 1989 demonstrators in Tiananmen Square expected the same. They would not get the same rehabilitation. While the 1976 demonstrators were supporters of reform, Zhou Enlai, and Deng. The 1989 protestors were against Deng. They were protesting due to the rapidly inflating economy, and that many were losing the economic security once provided by government jobs. Ironically, many of them were university students, only able to attend thanks to Deng’s changes. They were upset that the government still used political officers to assign them their jobs instead of letting them choose what jobs to apply for. The political officers were especially hated because they often abused their power of assignment. While prices had been stable for 30 years, inflation skyrocketed to 30% between 1987-88. Many people had benefitted from the old system and found themselves now falling behind the new entrepreneurs that thrived in Deng’s China. Deng had also somewhat lost touch with this people. At this point a very old man with few contacts outside the party leadership, he depended on his family to tell him the mood f the people, but even they had become insulated.

               There was a major debate over how to respond to the protests, which went from April to June. Li Peng advocated for a very hard line and severity. Zhoa Ziyang felt like the protestors were not bad and just needed to be reasoned with. Deng sided with Li Peng and when some suggested that Westerners would heavily criticize the action (as there was a large media presence due to the visit of Mikhail Gorbachev), Deng said, “Westerners would forget,” a big miscalculation.

               50,000 troops were sent in but were surprisingly stopped by the protesters who barricaded roads into Beijing. They were only able to eventually enter by walking in wearing plainclothes, riding bicycles as if they were relaxed, and putting on other disguises, sneaking in using small groups rather than large divisions of soldiers. The soldiers shot at hotel windows where they knew there were reporters to keep them away from recording the events. Deng said the following about how they should approach the situation: “First, we should observe the situation coolly. Second, we should hold our ground. Third, we should act calmly. Don’t be impatient. It is no good to be impatient. We should be calm, calm, and again calm, and quietly immerse ourselves in practical work to accomplish something—something for China.” It’s as good a summary as any of how Deng approached problems. When he was criticized by the United States, he said, “… we have to see what kind of actions the United States will take.” Essentially, actions speak louder than words.

Conclusion

               Deng deserves much more recognition as an extremely successful ruler of China. He was not foolhardy or cruel like Mao and he had just as clear a long-term vision. Deng’s vision actually worked though. While Mao’s successors were pushed out shortly after his death, Deng’s successors continue to rule China over twenty years after his.  While Mao had considered one’s redness (their political commitment to Communism) as the most important thing, Deng preferred to gauge their merit. Deng presided over the change of the country from a rural to an urban society, the biggest transformation in Chinese politics since Han unification in 221 BCE. Businessmen are flocking to a country where few rules stop them from doing as they please, yet government officials are happy to help them out. I interpreted Deng as an incredibly savvy and smart leader who, through the force of his will, was hugely successful in transforming China. This book is an amazing window into the transformation of “revolutionary” China into the modern China that is today’s rising power. Deng was present for and directing that transformation, making his biography a perfect historical vantage point.

Miscellaneous Facts:

• The “Long March,” the Communist retreat from the Guomindang led by Chiang Kai-Shek, took one year as the Communists travelled 6,000 miles west, starting with 86,000 troops and ending with 10,000. Chiang was forced to negotiate and allow a ceasefire when he was kidnapped by the warlord Zhang Xueling.
• In 1973, thanks to the Cultural Revolution filling universities with unqualified children from good class backgrounds (poor farmers and soldiers), when a US delegation visited Peking University, they concluded that its level of teaching was of a U.S. Junior Technical College.
• In 1965, Malaysia was worried about having too much influence from ethnically Chinese people, so they kicked out Singapore, which was 75% ethnic Chinese, and gave it independence.
• After 2,200 years of history of relations between China and Japan, Deng was the first Chinese leader to go to Japan.
• In 1980, there were 3.5 million TVs in China and by 1985, there were over 40 million.

Reflexionando en Breve Historia de la Revolución Mexicana por Felipe Ávila y Pedro Salmerón

               De leer este libro sobre la Revolución Mexicana, gané una apreciación más fuerte de la suerte que tenemos en Estados Unidos de vivir en un país que tuvo una revolución tan estable por comparación. La revolución que tuvo México sería como uno en que fue asesinado George Washington y en que no había una rebelión sola contra los ingleses sino varias. Ávila y Salmerón nos muestran una revolución maderista, una zapatista, una villista y otra constitucionalista. La revolución llegó abrumadoramente de las clases campesinas, quienes en 1910 conformaron 73% de la población. Aunque no muestran ejemplos, los autores dicen que en México había más “revueltas campesinas entre 1760 y 1910 que ninguna otra región del hemisferio occidental.” Entonces ellos estaban preparados para la más grande, cuál llegó en 1911.

Resumen de los Acontecimientos

               Con varias décadas de regir sobre México, el régimen de Porfirio Diaz, conocido como “El Porfiriato” llegaba a ser muy alejado del pueblo. Había una crisis de las tierras. Los campesinos fueron forzados de sus antiguas tierras y quedaron trabajando en propiedades arrendadas. El general Diaz abolió las Leyes de Reforma, que habían prohibido “la posesión de bienes por las corporaciones religiosas, impedían el establecimiento de órdenes monásticas y limitaban la educación religiosa en las escuelas.” Esto catalizó una renovación del liberalismo mexicano en contra de leyes laicas que ayudó en formar el Partido Liberal Mexicano en contra de su regimen. En el comienzo del siglo, el coahuilense Francisco Madero empezaba a interesarse en la política. Escribía libros y artículos en favor de democracia en México, afirmando que México se había debilitado bajo de Diaz, quien, irónicamente, originalmente tenía como lema “No reelección.” Madero era el primer político moderno de México con la formación de su nuevo partido, el partido antirreeleccionista, cual era “el primer partido político de ciudadanos, formulado con base en principios y no en personalidades.” Él se postuló como candidato para la presidencia, pero fue arrestado. Después de la elección fraudulenta, Madero se escapó de la cárcel y dirigió una revolución y en solo seis meses había entrado a la Ciudad de México triunfante, pero solo era el comienzo.

               Madero era moderado y trataba de poner en su gabinete gente del antiguo régimen y mantenía el mismo ejercito del Porfiriato. Es decir que la revolución inicialmente no era tan radical. Ni tocó la idea de reforma de tierras que llegaría a ser el tema central. Se abrió una fractura entre Madero y muchos grupos revolucionarios que querían seguir con la revolución y que no tenían fe en los mismos que habían trabajado para Porfirio Diaz manejando el país. En lugar de eliminar al ejercito federal, Madero eliminó al ejercito revolucionario. Había un acuerdo de desarme para un grupo de rebeldes del sur todavía casi desconocidos y dirigidos para un hombre que se llamaba Emiliano Zapata, quien se convertiría en uno de los líderes más importantes. No obstante, se rompió el acuerdo por los nuevos maderistas quienes eras los antiguos porfiristas y Zapata volvió a la guerra. Mientras el proyecto de Madero era resolver problemas sociales paulatinamente, Zapata y muchos de los campesinos querían acabar con el latifundio ya. Nunca se podían tolerar para mucho tiempo.

               Sería Madero que partió de la escena revolucionario y el mundo primero. En 1913, con la aprobación del embajador Henry Lane Wilson (quien no obtuvo aprobación de su propio gobierno), Victoriano Huerta, el comandante de las fuerzas armadas, con Félix Diaz, el sobrino de Porfirio Diaz, y el caudillo Bernardo Reyes sitió a la capital para diez días (“El decenio trágico”). Prometió seguridad para Madero si se rendiera, pero cuando se rindió, Huerta lo traicionó, asesinándolo. Huerta y sus aliados trataban de imponer nuevamente el régimen del Porfiriato, sino sin Porfirio Diaz y con Huerta encima. Huerta enfrentaría tres fuerzas contra el: el constitucionalismo, dirigido por Venustiano Carranza, el villismo, dirigido por Pancho Villa y el zapatismo, dirigido por Emiliano Zapata. El gobierno de Estados Unidos, cuando se enteró el presidente Woodrow Wilson lo que había pasado, no reconoció a Huerta y no le otorgó préstamos, esperando para ver si era capaz de controlar el país.

No era capaz. Enfrentando a tres caudillos y tres ejércitos, el ejercito federal no se podía ganar. El 15 de julio de 1914, Huerta se resignó y dejó el país para exilio, con la suerte de no haber compartido el destino de su víctima, Madero. Con su caída se disolvió todo el régimen que existía de la constitución de 1857 y el estado mexicano dejo de existir. Los norteños que se combinaron en el partido constitucionalista bajo de Venustiano Carranza fueron los primero llegar a la capital y tomarla. Pero tomar la capital fue el peor momento para el movimiento. A tomarla, los grupos que apoyaban a Carranza empezaban a fracturarse mientras tenían el otro enemigo a su lado, Emiliano Zapata. Los zapatistas no veían ningún cambio. El enemigo estaba en la capital, solo que ya tuviera otro nombre. Sin embargo, los zapatistas quedaban como nada más que una fuerza regional, sin ganas de conquistar el país entero.

Emiliano Zapata fue electo como representante de su pueblo en 1909 y “encabezó la lucha legal por sus tierras originales, sin éxito.” Él había visto en su pueblo un fenómeno que estaba pasando por todo el largo y ancho de México. Las haciendas fueron avanzando, comprando tierras y dejando los aparceros y finqueros sin nada. Las tierras que habían sido suyas ya se arrendaban. Al momento de revolución, casi no quedaban tierras libres. El zapatismo fue conformado de la tradición no olvidada de la posesión original de las tierras con el desplazamiento de los campesinos arrendatarios. Los zapatistas crearon el Plan de Ayala, publicado el 15 de diciembre de 1911, un texto que convirtió el zapatismo en el movimiento agrario más serio e importante del país por sus demandas para apropiación de tierras por el gobierno para entregárselas a los campesinos. Amplió su influencia y la influencia de la demanda para restitución de tierras más allá que las fronteras del ejército de Zapata. Aunque su ejército no ganaba muchas batallas, el zapatismo ganó su influencia por sus ideas que captaron el país y todos los campesinos pobres. Entonces el primer conflicto más grande para los zapatistas era el de la tierra, pero se siguió por conflictos entre el ejército y el pueblo que defendía. Recaudando fondos para la guerra, el ejército necesitaba azúcar y otros cultivos que se podían vender. Sin embargo, los campesinos consideraban azúcar, que sembraban las haciendas, un símbolo de su opresión. En lugar de eso, cultivaban maíz y otros cultivos para la subsistencia. Por esta falta de recursos, muchos soldados zapatistas se acudían al bandidaje para alcanzar sus necesidades.  

Pancho Villa era el caudillo más exitoso, tácticamente, en la lucha contra los federales de Diaz y de Huerta. Ganando fama en el occidente y noroeste del país, Villa lanzó su propio proyecto para arreglar la situación. Los autores dicen que era una forma de “maderismo popular y radicalizado.” Apoyó el federalismo, redistribución de propiedad raíz y la restauración de “orden constitucional.” Con Villa, Zapata y Carranza había tres caudillos controlando el país. Carranza decidió enviar una especie de diplómate a Villa, intentando formar una convención constitucional. Sin embargo, cuando Villa aceptó, Carranza se cambió de mente. Esto pasó dos veces, dando rabia a Villa. No obstante, en el fin se formó una asamblea y los villistas invitaron a los zapatistas. El caudillo Álvaro Obregón, quien era subordinado de Carranza, tuvo éxito en expulsar todos civiles de la Convención con la lógica de que solo los soldados habían luchado en la Revolución y por eso solo los soldados merecían representación. Sin embargo, los zapatistas enviaron muchos “soldados” que nunca lucharon sino tenían un oficio, pero eran mejor caracterizados como intelectuales. Los villistas y los zapatistas pronto se aliaron para oponer los carrancistas, quienes eran más. Trataron de sacar Carranza de poder como Jefe Supremo, pero él dijo que lo aceptaría solo si Villa y Zapata entregaran sus poderes antes. Zapata negó y solo Villa aceptó la decisión, pero por la negación de Carranza y Zapata nunca se hizo.

Con el fracaso de la Convención, comenzó una guerra civil entre las fuerzas de Carranza y los aliados de Villa y Zapata. Sin embargo, en lugar de concentrar sus fuerzas y atacar el base de carrancismo en Veracruz, Villa y Zapata dispersaron sus fuerzas y Carranza ganó la guerra civil. El ejército de Villa, que parecía invencible contra los federales, se encontró vencido por el ejercito revolucionario de Carranza, tan motivado como los villistas.

Después de ganar, Carranza siguió una política de redistribución de tierras mucha más conservadora y moderada. Emergió una división en las fuerzas triunfantes, específicamente entre Carranza y Obregón. Carranza tenía la idea de crear un estado nacional fuerte, centralizado, presidencialista y capitalista. Obregón, al otro lado, miraba más al porvenir, con un estado corporativo y populista y no basado en la fuerza de armas sino la legitimidad del apoyo del pueblo. Esencialmente, Carranza representaba una vuelta parcial a lo que apoyaba Madero mientras Obregón representaba el zapatismo o villismo ya destruido de una forma bastante más moderado. En 1920, Carranza no se declaró por la presidencia y Obregón sí. Obregón prometió más protecciones para trabajadores y que creara un departamento de labor. Interviniendo en la elección, Carranza orquestó un complot para acusar a Obregón de fomentar una rebelión. Era mentira, pero se convirtió en verdad porque se robó la elección de la gente. Obregón ganó la elección y el proceso de consolidar poder acabar con la revolución empezó después de nueve años de lucha.

Conclusión

               La Revolución Mexicana es notable por su violencia y caos. Ningunos de los lideres de la revolución lograron gobernar el país, sino que Álvaro Obregón lo ganó en una última revuelta contra su ex-jefe Carranza. Era peculiar en que los caudillos no solo eran hombres fuertes, sino representantes de sus soldados. Los soldados, cuando murió un jefe, reunían en asamblea para elegir un reemplazo. El libro da tres ejemplos de este fenómeno. Esta fuerza de la necesidad de buscar legitimidad de a bajo resultó en un México en el siglo XX que usaba la política de masas y la movilización de la lucha callejera. Los sindicatos, grupos estudiantiles y grupos de campesinos se convirtieron en los actores políticos gracias a una devolución de poder a ellos.

               Pero más que todo la diferencia en México era del control de la tierra y el subsuelo. Los autores nos dicen que “los recursos del subsuelo representaban más del 60% de las exportaciones en 1910, y un porcentaje aún mayor en 1920.” En cambio de durante el Porfiriato, el gobierno mexicano llegaría a ser el dueño del subsuelo y su petróleo hasta hoy. Aún más importante, en los decenios que seguían a la revolución, se entregó a los campesinos “más de cien millones de hectáreas, … más de la mitad del territorio nacional.” La revolución marcó el fin de una generación de hacendados y desigualdad y el comienzo de un estado más igual.

Reflection on The Worldly Philosophers: The Lives, Times, and Ideas of the Great Economic Thinkers by Robert L. Heilbroner

               This is a book that will save you a lot of time. Instead of reading dry, boring economics books, you can read Heilbroner’s summary of the best of the best, telling you about the lives of the most important economists, their greatest works, and their significance to the modern-day study of economics. It’s written very well, and I found it easy to read. He likes to describe the economists’ theories and discoveries in the context of their lives and has great details about who these men were. The book covers Adam Smith, Thomas Malthus, David Ricardo, “the utopian socialists,” Karl Marx, the “Victorian economists,” Thorstein Veblen, John Maynard Keynes, and Joseph Schumpeter.

               Heilbroner begins by telling us about the world before modern economics. For example, “there was no such thing as land in the sense of freely salable, rent-producing property.” He writes that since all land was under the feudal system, estates, manors, and principalities owned by dukes, barons and such, people did not freely sell land. These vassals saw their land as their birthright and never sold it, rather going to war to get more. To sell it would be like the governor of Massachusetts selling land to New Hampshire. Capitalism didn’t yet exist. While people certainly bought and sold things, it wasn’t done freely. It was all controlled from the top. For example, in 16^th century England they banned “workshops” that had hundreds of looms at the complaint of the guilds. Innovations were squashed. In France in 1666 they ruled that any new innovations in cloth weaving had to be approved by the oldest merchants and weavers of the guild, guaranteeing failure almost always.

               The first economist discussed is Adam Smith, who did not “invent” capitalism, but described the processes of the (capitalistic) British economy that had emerged by the late 18^th century. One of his greatest insights was seeing that not nature, but labor was the source of value. Gold is not the source of value, getting it out of the ground and shaping it is. Smith saw the division of labor into specializations as a process that would only have positive economic effects for 200 years, meaning it should already be over. Perhaps it is ending as western economies slow down. He advocated for the government to protect society against the value of others, administer courts of justice, and maintain public works that no individual or small number of individuals would find profitable to maintain. Other than those things, he felt that government should just get out of the way and avoid messing up the economy.

               The book then turns to a friendly rivalry among two British economists, Thomas Malthus and David Ricardo. While they were always friends, they argued about anything. For example, Malthus identified that it can be possible for producers to produce too much of a good, causing a “glut,” which Ricardo and most of the mainstream thought was ridiculous. Today, we call that “glut” a recession and it certainly happens. Ricardo is responsible for turning economics into a science by making it abstract, taking what Adam Smith had written about English economy and making it universal, discovering rules that underlay it. Malthus is famous today for identifying the problem of increasing population, which, until he put it forward, had always been considered to be a very good thing. The book then goes into talking about the utopian socialists, who weren’t that interesting to me except as a prelude to the real socialists, like Karl Marx.

               Marx was the best critic of the failures of the industrial revolution, which lay in what he considered an excess of capitalism. Capitalists, essentially businessmen with access to capital, A.K.A. lots of money, used their control of the job market to pay people little and give them bad conditions. Who could blame him? He lived in a brutal time full of worker abuses, child labor, and lots of death and maiming on the job where you might work 70 hours a week. Due to historical forces, people lost the land they lived on and moved to cities, where the only thing they had to sell was their labor. He predicted that these intense social conditions would cause the end of capitalism, and in some places, like the Soviet Union, it did. However, in others, like Europe and the United States, we responded with reforms to help workers while maintaining the benefits of capitalism.

               Heilbroner moves on to discuss several Victorian-era economists. These eonomists tended to be much more optimistic about economic systems contemporarily in place. I found it to be a less interesting chapter. However, I was interested in how he talked about the expansion of imperialism, which was seen as a way to help domestic markets. To keep their workers employed in workshops, imperializing countries needed to produce lots of goods. However, they couldn’t sell them to themselves forever because you only need so many of these things. As a result, it was better to sell them to developing countries cheaply, offloading goods for profits there while simultaneously making them dependent on you for those goods since prices are too low to develop their own industries. I guess that’s their problem though, right? Thanks to the empire, between 1870 and 1914 one half of English savings were invested abroad and the interest from foreign investments was one tenth of national income.

               Then the book has a chapter on Thorstein Veblen, who made a lot of sociological and anthropological observations about the economy. For example, some goods people want to buy because of their high price, not their low price, as they advertise a certain level of wealth. He connected this back to earlier human times, when “savage” humans would admire the war-like members of their society who tool what they wanted. He argued that the same happened in the modern day. Instead of rising up, he thought the proletariat would rather become like the bourgeoisie and emulate them. He argued that capitalists were not the drivers of the economic machine but its saboteurs, seeking to sneak away with the profits from it, weakening the economic “machine.”

               The last two chapters of the book are fantastic and the penultimate is about John Maynard Keynes. He made his name criticizing the Treaty of Versailles that ended World War One and became even more famous for arguing for government intervention to end the Great Depression. It had been thought that any recession or recession would right itself as it would be caused by too much saving and eventually those savings would get spent. However, Keynes realized that when it was bad enough there would be no savings left for the vast majority of people to spend and pump back into the economy. Therefore, he advocated for “priming the pump,” that the government would start the spending and then people would find work, earning more money to spend, restarting the economy. The trouble was not turning the “faucet of spending” on, but rather turning it off to manage the inflation that would come afterwards. He wanted governments to manage the economy but today it remains unclear if that is possible.

               The final chapter discusses the Austrian economist Joseph Schumpeter, another one of the best chapters of the book. He argued that an economy in equilibrium was not the end state, but rather he conceived of it as the start. He imagined everything circulating and being traded without any profits. Like a river, the economy would find the path of least resistance and become more and more efficient until there were not profits, which were inefficiencies in the system of trade. However, profits could be created by the introduction of an obstacle in the river’s path, a new invention or innovation. Therefore, the source of profits in an economy was not the capitalist nor was it the worker but the inventor. Calling these people entrepreneurs, Schumpeter argued that they introduced true advances into the economy but rarely benefitted greatly as everyone starts to copy them quickly, gradually reducing the profits to be gained and returning the economy to an equilibrium until another innovation would come about. Schumpeter predicted that in the long term, capitalism would not last due not to economic reasons but sociological reasons. He thought it was not that the proletarians would rise up however, but because innovation would become institutionalized and bureaucratized, with the system becoming almost too rational until it dies, lacking those romantic entrepreneurs.

               To end, Heilbroner writes three changes brought about by capitalism. The first is that it legitimated the gain of wealth not just by Kings but by everyone who can manage to do it in society. Next, it allowed “the encouragements and discouragements of the market” to determine what should be produced rather than being commanded by a man or woman. And last, it is the “first society to place its overall guidance under two authorities, one public, one private, each with its own powers and its boundaries to power. In sum, great introduction to economic thought. I am a big fan and would recommend it to newcomers to economics who have taken a few classes but want to know more like I did.

Miscellaneous Facts:

• With the share Queen Elizabeth received as a stockholder in Sir Francis Drake’s voyage of the Golden Hynd, she paid off all of England’s foreign debts, balanced the budget, and invested abroad enough at compound interest to account for all of Britain’s overseas wealth in 1930. Wow.
• In 1813, wheat was selling one bushel for twice the wages of a workingman in a week in England. I may have underestimated Napoleon’s continental system when I read it last.