Whether events are shaped by the "Hand of God" or are just random permutations of the possible is a matter of speculation. A tornado strikes in Missouri and lives are transformed. Being that my Mother's family was situated in Missouri for multiple generations leads me to reflect.
By 1900, my Mother's grandparents Dan Igo, Emma Fisher, Robert Woods, and Mary Helen White were starting families in Missouri. Their ancestors a few generations before had left France, Germany, Ireland, and England, because of religious and political conflict. Few seem attracted for economic benefits, the present day motivation, North America being a site for refuge or banishment.
Lewis Igou probably didn't expect to leave Normandy, France, for Massachusetts and Maryland, but when Louis XIV rescinded the Edict of Nantes in 1685 and targeted French Huguenots for persecution, he and his family immigrated first to England in 1687 and then to America in 1688.
German Baron Johann Adam Fischer von Fischerbach probably had other plans for his son Adam, but when Adam injudiciously killed the King's deer, he was sent off from Silesia to Philadelphia for his safety in 1742.
If the English Parliament had treated the Scots-Irish better, instead of imposing test acts, refusing to recognize their Presbyterian religion, and discounting their service to the King, Michael Woods and his family might not have immigrated to Pennsylvania in 1724, and carried their animosity towards the English into the American Revolution a few years later.
Mary Helen White's ancestor Walter Powers was shipped to Massachusetts from Ireland at age 14 (1654) to be indentured to his future father-in-law Ralph Shepard, himself recently arrived from London in 1635, being an English Dissenter, at odds with the Church of England. Another of her ancestors, James Murray, a Scot who participated in Argyll's Rebellion, was banished from Scotland and transported to the "Plantations" in 1685.
These families, arriving first at Boston, Philadelphia, and Baltimore, soon migrated to Virginia, North Carolina, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee. By the early 1800's, they were in Missouri. Was this according to a grand plan? Or circumstance?
Thursday, May 26, 2011
Thursday, May 19, 2011
The Tea Party is Coming
Recently, I've considered writing about how I first came to Canada, my motivations, and how I felt after I came here. It happened a long time ago. Most of the issues are now forgotten history.
Then I run into a member of the Tea Party on the internet. All the "Love or Leave It" meanness returns. But then it's just tribalism. Us against them. It exists everywhere.
I have at times been in a Facebook group, "Americans in Canada". I thought it might be interesting to share histories with other Americans who came to Canada. Unfortunately, the conversation tends to be from young women who married Canadians, moved to Canada, and are homesick. What can I say? It's a form of grieving. Hang in there. The posts tend either to consist of what they miss from the U. S. or their sensitivity to Anti-Americanism they find in Canada.
Anti-Americanism? I have to think, "Have I experienced that here?" Well, maybe. I've always just laughed it off. It's perplexed me more than offended. And I've never really believed it, seeing all the travel and vacationing that Canadians do in the U. S. It doesn't begin to compare with all the racial remarks that Canadians make about other groups that have immigrated to Canada. But if you're young and alone and been raised in the U. S. culture of seeing your history as heroic and virtuous, rather than self-interested, casual remarks can injure.
But the Tea Party is something else. Yesterday, I followed the remarks of a Tea Party member (self-described) from Michigan, who was immigrating to Alberta to be with her Canadian husband. She claimed to know everything about Canada. After all, she had grown up in Detroit, able to see Canada.
She began by informing me that in the Winter Olympics, Canadian athletes had been shamefully subsidized by their government, being, I guess, some form of hired guns. American athletes, on the other hand, performed out of "love for their country", without government assistance.
She informed me that the U. S. was a republic, where people voted for individuals to represent them. Canada, on the other hand, had a parliamentary system, which was sinisterly "European" and foreign, and you had to vote for the "party", not the individual.
She knew that Canada was "socialist" and that the NDP was very dangerous and "Marxist". I said I thought she was probably referring to Canada's single payer health care system, but she said there were many other things besides health care, although she didn't identify any. I tried to help her by pointing out that Canada was so far "left", that it had run surplus budgets twelve years in a row (1997-2008). She countered with the observation that the United States was "broke", and that's where Canadian policies like government-paid health care had gotten them.
To sum up, she was happy to see that Stephen Harper had won the election, and she knew that many little "tea parties" were sprouting up in Canada to help save it. That certainly made my day.
Then I run into a member of the Tea Party on the internet. All the "Love or Leave It" meanness returns. But then it's just tribalism. Us against them. It exists everywhere.
I have at times been in a Facebook group, "Americans in Canada". I thought it might be interesting to share histories with other Americans who came to Canada. Unfortunately, the conversation tends to be from young women who married Canadians, moved to Canada, and are homesick. What can I say? It's a form of grieving. Hang in there. The posts tend either to consist of what they miss from the U. S. or their sensitivity to Anti-Americanism they find in Canada.
Anti-Americanism? I have to think, "Have I experienced that here?" Well, maybe. I've always just laughed it off. It's perplexed me more than offended. And I've never really believed it, seeing all the travel and vacationing that Canadians do in the U. S. It doesn't begin to compare with all the racial remarks that Canadians make about other groups that have immigrated to Canada. But if you're young and alone and been raised in the U. S. culture of seeing your history as heroic and virtuous, rather than self-interested, casual remarks can injure.
But the Tea Party is something else. Yesterday, I followed the remarks of a Tea Party member (self-described) from Michigan, who was immigrating to Alberta to be with her Canadian husband. She claimed to know everything about Canada. After all, she had grown up in Detroit, able to see Canada.
She began by informing me that in the Winter Olympics, Canadian athletes had been shamefully subsidized by their government, being, I guess, some form of hired guns. American athletes, on the other hand, performed out of "love for their country", without government assistance.
She informed me that the U. S. was a republic, where people voted for individuals to represent them. Canada, on the other hand, had a parliamentary system, which was sinisterly "European" and foreign, and you had to vote for the "party", not the individual.
She knew that Canada was "socialist" and that the NDP was very dangerous and "Marxist". I said I thought she was probably referring to Canada's single payer health care system, but she said there were many other things besides health care, although she didn't identify any. I tried to help her by pointing out that Canada was so far "left", that it had run surplus budgets twelve years in a row (1997-2008). She countered with the observation that the United States was "broke", and that's where Canadian policies like government-paid health care had gotten them.
To sum up, she was happy to see that Stephen Harper had won the election, and she knew that many little "tea parties" were sprouting up in Canada to help save it. That certainly made my day.
Saturday, May 7, 2011
All Culture is Conditioning
It occurs to me that I may not ever have an original thought. Whenever I think I've stumbled upon something: "All culture is conditioning"; "All politics is tribal"; "All English (excepting immigrants) are descended from King Edward I", I test it on Google, and there it is. On the one hand, it confirms what I've been thinking; on the other, my idea is probably not as insightful as I had imagined.
As I watched the wedding of Prince William and Catherine, I thought, "Well, there's goes my cousin!" A bit of self-indulgence, because almost every other person with English roots can claim the same thing (even if quite distant). In fact, on the same basis, I can also claim a relationship with George Washington, George Bush, and Barack Obama. After all, inter-relationship over time is what makes races. It also creates the tribe and informs the biases.
Along with "All culture is conditioning", is my corollary, "All beliefs are tied to the ego". This is why it is so difficult to resolve disagreements, especially if there has been an investment in social approval or self-esteem. People aren't particularly receptive to ideas which conflict with attitudes developed over time, selectively re-inforced, and tied to their social group. Extended to politics, it means one tribe against another. Forget objective evidence. We are attracted to ideas which make us feel good. Dominance is one of them.
I notice on social networking, the intensity by which posters vie for attention, attack each other, protect their imagined turf. Liberals hook up with other Liberals and attack Conservatives; Conservatives hook up with other Conservatives and attack Liberals. They re-inforce each other. Extreme statements get tested for validation (or just to attract attention). Finding common ground with the enemy is disloyalty to the tribe. Desertion or banishment would be a psychological "no-man's land".
Two weeks ago, we celebrated Easter, the holiest of Christian holidays. Most North Americans claim to be Christians, so you would think this might be an important spiritual event. From what I could see on social networks, Easter is the celebration of chocolate, colored eggs, eating, and, of course, more shopping. "Love your neighbour?"; "Forgive your enemy?" Not quite. Not when there's a good attack to get in on.
It seems a long time, since "Change came to America". But human beings didn't evolve through large-scale cooperation. They evolved through tribal warfare. Selection of the fittest. Survival against threat: physical, psychological, and emotional. It's hard-coded in our genes.
As I watched the wedding of Prince William and Catherine, I thought, "Well, there's goes my cousin!" A bit of self-indulgence, because almost every other person with English roots can claim the same thing (even if quite distant). In fact, on the same basis, I can also claim a relationship with George Washington, George Bush, and Barack Obama. After all, inter-relationship over time is what makes races. It also creates the tribe and informs the biases.
Along with "All culture is conditioning", is my corollary, "All beliefs are tied to the ego". This is why it is so difficult to resolve disagreements, especially if there has been an investment in social approval or self-esteem. People aren't particularly receptive to ideas which conflict with attitudes developed over time, selectively re-inforced, and tied to their social group. Extended to politics, it means one tribe against another. Forget objective evidence. We are attracted to ideas which make us feel good. Dominance is one of them.
I notice on social networking, the intensity by which posters vie for attention, attack each other, protect their imagined turf. Liberals hook up with other Liberals and attack Conservatives; Conservatives hook up with other Conservatives and attack Liberals. They re-inforce each other. Extreme statements get tested for validation (or just to attract attention). Finding common ground with the enemy is disloyalty to the tribe. Desertion or banishment would be a psychological "no-man's land".
Two weeks ago, we celebrated Easter, the holiest of Christian holidays. Most North Americans claim to be Christians, so you would think this might be an important spiritual event. From what I could see on social networks, Easter is the celebration of chocolate, colored eggs, eating, and, of course, more shopping. "Love your neighbour?"; "Forgive your enemy?" Not quite. Not when there's a good attack to get in on.
It seems a long time, since "Change came to America". But human beings didn't evolve through large-scale cooperation. They evolved through tribal warfare. Selection of the fittest. Survival against threat: physical, psychological, and emotional. It's hard-coded in our genes.
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Good Business Decisions
I spent some time this week discussing the subject of "Good Business Decisions" on the internet. A more accurate description would be, "How to Justify Running Out on Your Debts". In reality, well-run businesses don't do this, but that's not the point.
Three years ago, the U. S. created a housing "bubble", through speculation, lack of regulation, and easy credit. When the economic downturn occurred, many found that they could no longer afford their mortgage payments, and their lenders foreclosed. The surplus of houses on the market and the changed outlook drove prices down. Many others found that the market value of their home had fallen below the amount still owing on their mortgage. Their home equity had disappeared or gone "negative".
While many were forced out of their homes, others adopted a plan of "strategic default", by which they walked away from their home and mortgage obligations, because they no longer saw it as a good investment. This practice they suggested was a "Good Business Decision".
Maybe yes and maybe no. If you default on your mortgage, you may it difficult to get financing in the future. If you leave at the bottom of the market, you may not be participating in an eventual market recovery. Housing markets have corrected in the past (notably in the 1980's), and then recovered substantially.
More than a response to market conditions, I wonder about the attitude being expressed. If it serves my interest, regardless of the impact on others, then it is a "Good Business Decision". That I entered into an agreement to pay is unimportant, if the agreement is no longer beneficial to me. After all, I had expected the property to increase in value, not decline.
One woman was particularly incensed that her friend had purchased property in 1996, sold it in 2005, "tripling" his investment, and was later able to pay cash for a new home, while her home had fallen in value, leaving her "underwater". Considering how unfair all this was, she was contemplating a default. However, I imagine her attitude would have been different, if she had followed her friend's course and enriched herself.
What I heard from others was that the banks had caused the problem (forget that the buyers had sought the financing), were responsible for their loss, and therefore they were morally justified to default. And wise to be making "A Good Business Decision". On the other hand, I was branded one of "you people", "brainwashed by bank propaganda", for saying that I "give credit" to those who honor their agreements.
The reality is that we live in a market economy, not always well-regulated, where prices are determined by supply and demand, psychology, fear, and greed. A lot of people participate in creating the fluctuations. A lot feel that they are just swept along by them. The rationale that we use to justify our response is frequently self-serving. Regardless of our original motivation, it may become, "the bad guys have done this to me".
Three years ago, the U. S. created a housing "bubble", through speculation, lack of regulation, and easy credit. When the economic downturn occurred, many found that they could no longer afford their mortgage payments, and their lenders foreclosed. The surplus of houses on the market and the changed outlook drove prices down. Many others found that the market value of their home had fallen below the amount still owing on their mortgage. Their home equity had disappeared or gone "negative".
While many were forced out of their homes, others adopted a plan of "strategic default", by which they walked away from their home and mortgage obligations, because they no longer saw it as a good investment. This practice they suggested was a "Good Business Decision".
Maybe yes and maybe no. If you default on your mortgage, you may it difficult to get financing in the future. If you leave at the bottom of the market, you may not be participating in an eventual market recovery. Housing markets have corrected in the past (notably in the 1980's), and then recovered substantially.
More than a response to market conditions, I wonder about the attitude being expressed. If it serves my interest, regardless of the impact on others, then it is a "Good Business Decision". That I entered into an agreement to pay is unimportant, if the agreement is no longer beneficial to me. After all, I had expected the property to increase in value, not decline.
One woman was particularly incensed that her friend had purchased property in 1996, sold it in 2005, "tripling" his investment, and was later able to pay cash for a new home, while her home had fallen in value, leaving her "underwater". Considering how unfair all this was, she was contemplating a default. However, I imagine her attitude would have been different, if she had followed her friend's course and enriched herself.
What I heard from others was that the banks had caused the problem (forget that the buyers had sought the financing), were responsible for their loss, and therefore they were morally justified to default. And wise to be making "A Good Business Decision". On the other hand, I was branded one of "you people", "brainwashed by bank propaganda", for saying that I "give credit" to those who honor their agreements.
The reality is that we live in a market economy, not always well-regulated, where prices are determined by supply and demand, psychology, fear, and greed. A lot of people participate in creating the fluctuations. A lot feel that they are just swept along by them. The rationale that we use to justify our response is frequently self-serving. Regardless of our original motivation, it may become, "the bad guys have done this to me".
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
War of the Rebellion
150 years ago today, southern rebels attacked Fort Sumter, Charleston Harbor, South Carolina, and began the American War of the Rebellion (known more often today as the Civil War). It lasted four years and was the greatest tragedy in American history.
President Lincoln, who had sworn to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States", did just that, and the rebels were eventually suppressed. My ancestors, living in border states, where the loyalties were most divided, struggled through the period.
Three of my Mother's ggrandfathers, Lewis Igo (1832-1918), William Woods (1833-1914), and Robert White (1844-1938), served the Union side, either in the Missouri Militia or the Volunteer Cavalry. My Dad's grandfather, William Lee Rhodes (1840-1902) from Maryland, served the southern Army of Northern Virginia, under General Early (and Robert E. Lee). His father, George Rhodes, was held briefly as a political prisoner at Fort McHenry, Maryland, in the fall of 1862.
My gggrandmother, Nancy Powers White, whose father had been a Missouri State Senator and quite prosperous, saw her farm destroyed by Union forces, and was left destitute with her sisters (her parents having died shortly before the War). Her uncle, Justus Franklin Powers, a doctor and former state legislator, was imprisoned for assisting southern soldiers. Her second cousin, Union Lieutenant Colonel Melzar "Fighting Melz" Richards, was fatally wounded at Amelia Springs, Virginia, on April 5, 1865 (four days before the end of the War) and died at the Union hospital at Citypoint, Virginia, on April 13.
Snowden Morris, a first cousin of my gggrandmother, Susan Tevis Igo, brought his family north to Cooper County, Missouri, at the start of the War, and spent 3 1/2 years serving the rebel cause, before finally surrendering May 26, 1865, (being paroled June 7).
After the War, some of the families continued on their farms; others relocated. The 13th Amendment, in effect December 18, 1865, made slavery, the other major issue along with the preservation of the Union, illegal. (Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation issued January 1, 1863, had declared slaves in the rebelling territory free, but did not include slaves in territory not in rebellion, such as the border states, West Virginia, Tennessee, parts of Louisiana, and Texas.)
President Lincoln, who had sworn to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States", did just that, and the rebels were eventually suppressed. My ancestors, living in border states, where the loyalties were most divided, struggled through the period.
 |
| William Lee Rhodes |
 |
| Robert Macklin White |
Snowden Morris, a first cousin of my gggrandmother, Susan Tevis Igo, brought his family north to Cooper County, Missouri, at the start of the War, and spent 3 1/2 years serving the rebel cause, before finally surrendering May 26, 1865, (being paroled June 7).
After the War, some of the families continued on their farms; others relocated. The 13th Amendment, in effect December 18, 1865, made slavery, the other major issue along with the preservation of the Union, illegal. (Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation issued January 1, 1863, had declared slaves in the rebelling territory free, but did not include slaves in territory not in rebellion, such as the border states, West Virginia, Tennessee, parts of Louisiana, and Texas.)
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Women's Work; Men's Work
Because of their labour practices, I don't shop at Wal-Mart, although their prices are probably the lowest. They currently have a class action wage/gender discrimination suit pending against them in the U. S and are strongly anti-union. This has made me think about practices at other stores at which I shop.
I do my grocery shopping at Save-On-Foods, which is convenient, customer-oriented, and unionized. However, the work tends to be organized by gender. The cashiers are almost all female, as are the price checkers; the produce, packaged products, and frozen food/dairy/bread clerks are male; managers and assistant managers are male. Only the bakery and meat departments seem equally divided.
Some of the work, such as stocking canned goods, may involve a bit more strength. Boxes of produce are heavy, but usually they are put on carts and rolled around. The division seems to be cultural.
Many of the cashiers are either part-time or have very flexible hours. I suspect the first, which would keep Save-On from paying benefits. Some of the cashiers during the week are full-time. The busiest time is on the weekends, but very few of the weekend staff work during the week, and must be all part-time.
I'd be curious to know the difference in rates between the cashiers and stock clerks. The cashiers should be paid more, because they have to handle customers (some can be rude), process cash, recognize all products, learn new prices, bag groceries, load carts, and, of course, keep moving. Those who find this too stressing don't last. Stocking shelves is far more relaxed.
I asked Tyler, who bags groceries when the lines start to get long, why they didn't let him cashier. He said it was because of the classification. I've occasionally seen young women being trained as cashiers. It takes a few days to become knowledgeable and comfortable with the customers. There is a customer-friendly patter that they are expected to follow: "How are you, today?"; "Did you find everything?"; "Have a nice day." It seems like men could master this as well as women.
Whether the practices are economic (reduced wages and benefits for part-timers); or cultural (women's work; men's work); or both, I'm not sure. It seems that there are still a lot of gender barriers to break down.
I do my grocery shopping at Save-On-Foods, which is convenient, customer-oriented, and unionized. However, the work tends to be organized by gender. The cashiers are almost all female, as are the price checkers; the produce, packaged products, and frozen food/dairy/bread clerks are male; managers and assistant managers are male. Only the bakery and meat departments seem equally divided.
Some of the work, such as stocking canned goods, may involve a bit more strength. Boxes of produce are heavy, but usually they are put on carts and rolled around. The division seems to be cultural.
Many of the cashiers are either part-time or have very flexible hours. I suspect the first, which would keep Save-On from paying benefits. Some of the cashiers during the week are full-time. The busiest time is on the weekends, but very few of the weekend staff work during the week, and must be all part-time.
I'd be curious to know the difference in rates between the cashiers and stock clerks. The cashiers should be paid more, because they have to handle customers (some can be rude), process cash, recognize all products, learn new prices, bag groceries, load carts, and, of course, keep moving. Those who find this too stressing don't last. Stocking shelves is far more relaxed.
I asked Tyler, who bags groceries when the lines start to get long, why they didn't let him cashier. He said it was because of the classification. I've occasionally seen young women being trained as cashiers. It takes a few days to become knowledgeable and comfortable with the customers. There is a customer-friendly patter that they are expected to follow: "How are you, today?"; "Did you find everything?"; "Have a nice day." It seems like men could master this as well as women.
Whether the practices are economic (reduced wages and benefits for part-timers); or cultural (women's work; men's work); or both, I'm not sure. It seems that there are still a lot of gender barriers to break down.
Monday, March 28, 2011
Surrey Rally
I attended a federal election kick-off rally for Jack Layton and the New Democratic Party at the Sheraton Guildford yesterday. My constituency, Surrey North, is a swing riding, which has elected both NDP and Conservative MPs in the past. The local MLAs for Surrey-Fleetwood, Surrey-Whalley, and Surrey-Green Timbers are NDP. The federal Liberals are a non-factor, always placing third.
The turnout for the rally filled the room, but it was not overflow. At 9:30 am Sunday morning, it largely attracted long-time NDP members, officials, and candidates. It was also an event at which I didn't feel particularly old, seeing almost a complete absence of young people.
The two local candidates spoke briefly (the Sheraton Guildford sits on the dividing line between the ridings of Surrey North and Fleetwood-Port Kells), and then Jack came in. He was limping badly and using a crutch, the result of a stress fracture suffered recently. He says that he's able to campaign, but I wondered if he'll hold up. I can't see him doing much main-streeting.
Jack's speech was a pep talk, promising better pensions, more doctors and health services, assistance to families, more affordability, and an attempt to link the Conservatives with the unpopular Harmonized Sales Tax, which caused the BC Premier to resign last fall. He urged everyone to get out and work for the NDP candidates.
As Jack was speaking, his speech was also displayed on three large tele-prompters, allowing him to see it, regardless of the direction in which he faced. This gave the impression of speaking spontaneously, but I could read the words before he said them. Obviously, this technique serves well for people watching at home, but it seemed somewhat artificial for a rally.
Also missing was any literature spelling out details of the NDP program. Hopefully, this will develop as the campaign progresses. Speaking generally about improving services or reducing living costs makes the NDP sound similar to the other parties. They need specific proposals. He didn't mention the environment, alternative energy sources, job training, youth issues, or the cost of housing. Of course, you can only do so much in a short speech.
I shook Jack's hand and wished him good luck. I noticed the NDP were ahead of the other parties with their signs, already staking out good locations. Voting is May 2.
The turnout for the rally filled the room, but it was not overflow. At 9:30 am Sunday morning, it largely attracted long-time NDP members, officials, and candidates. It was also an event at which I didn't feel particularly old, seeing almost a complete absence of young people. The two local candidates spoke briefly (the Sheraton Guildford sits on the dividing line between the ridings of Surrey North and Fleetwood-Port Kells), and then Jack came in. He was limping badly and using a crutch, the result of a stress fracture suffered recently. He says that he's able to campaign, but I wondered if he'll hold up. I can't see him doing much main-streeting.
Jack's speech was a pep talk, promising better pensions, more doctors and health services, assistance to families, more affordability, and an attempt to link the Conservatives with the unpopular Harmonized Sales Tax, which caused the BC Premier to resign last fall. He urged everyone to get out and work for the NDP candidates.
As Jack was speaking, his speech was also displayed on three large tele-prompters, allowing him to see it, regardless of the direction in which he faced. This gave the impression of speaking spontaneously, but I could read the words before he said them. Obviously, this technique serves well for people watching at home, but it seemed somewhat artificial for a rally.
Also missing was any literature spelling out details of the NDP program. Hopefully, this will develop as the campaign progresses. Speaking generally about improving services or reducing living costs makes the NDP sound similar to the other parties. They need specific proposals. He didn't mention the environment, alternative energy sources, job training, youth issues, or the cost of housing. Of course, you can only do so much in a short speech.
I shook Jack's hand and wished him good luck. I noticed the NDP were ahead of the other parties with their signs, already staking out good locations. Voting is May 2.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)