Founding myths. A review too far. Lost subscribers
20220210
A country's founding myths tie it together. Ukraine has the Cossacks, fleeing their Polish overlords and settling on the open, unprotected steppe. The United States has the Pilgrims, my ancestors, fleeing religious persecution and setting up a colony in Massachusetts.
Children in both countries were traditionally taught to revere these heroic people. In Ukraine they still do. In America the story has turned 180°. Now it is the rapacious white people who came to dispossess the peace-loving Indians. They brought black slaves to work themselves to death making the slaveowners rich. There is no mention of who captured and sold the slaves in the first place, or the legal protections afforded to the slaves, or the English and Americans who eventually abolished world slavery. The founding myths of the United States have been thoroughly rewritten.
The old myths served us well. Marines proudly went to battle singing:
"From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli
We will fight our country's battles in the air on land and sea"
Though they may not have known what we were doing in the halls of Montezuma in the first place, these Marines fought well in the interests of the country. The present generation of Americans by and large does not believe in the nobility of its past. Not coincidentally, few seem interested in defending it.
Many of the most significant founding myths here in Ukraine date only from 2014, getting rid of Yanukovych and achieving a bit more economic freedom. This history unites and inspires the country. It helps that we have enjoyed peace and fairly significant economic growth in the intervening seven years.
I have written about the many things I enjoy about living here. I can speak my mind without too much worry. I'm not whatsoever in danger as I walk the streets. The police, who cannot tell me from the natives, have always been polite. Even when they were asking for bribes.
We are comfortably situated among the United States, the European Union and Russia, with China and Turkey taking an increasing interest in our affairs. We do not dance to any one country's tune.
I am not going to review the MH17 book that I have mentioned recently. It presents the other side of the story concerning the founding myths of the past two decades. Nothing shocking, but not something people on our side want to be widely read. The book has only three reviews on Amazon.
Per the author, the oligarchs are each looking out for their own interests. There is a good description of how these oligarchs, claimed to control about 90% of the economy, align themselves in different camps and have changed their allegiances frequently over the years. My take is that Ukraine's oligarchs are so busy squabbling among themselves, trying to sort out who gets to exploit what, that they cannot so readily use their money and media influence to control the everyday life of Ukrainians. As I have often expressed, oligarchs here are happy just to take our money without dictating what we have to think and say.
The United States, the European Union and Russia each have substantial interest in Ukrainian politics. They all meddle in our affairs, trying to steer things their way. Somehow, by the grace of God, it has worked out well for Ukraine since 2014. Ukraine's center of gravity shifted westward, away from the Russian-speaking East. Russia provided a common enemy against which to rally the population.
Ukraine has avoided being sucked into the European Union and NATO. France and Germany would be lukewarm at best about their entry – it would mean making dangerous guarantees to a not-so-useful, perhaps not-that-grateful ally. Ukraine is attracting foreign investment and expanding its trade ties without exposing itself to disastrous competition or via dangerous liaisons.
Fast forward to 2022. The United States has been trying for months to peddle the story that there is an eminent Russian invasion. France and Germany are not enthusiastic. They do not like the United States disrupting their trade relations, particularly on the subject of energy security through the North Stream gas line. They did not want to commit their military to fight in an American project.
United States has also been favoring Ukraine with money and armaments supposedly to prevent Russian aggression. The types of weaponry – antitank missiles, sniper weapons, antiaircraft – are effective against the Russian equipment being used by the People's Republics. Some observers claim they are being used to harass the breakaway republics.
Even though American involvement since 2014 seems to have worked out for the better, one must likewise consider that American involvement in Vietnam, Nicaragua, Chile, Venezuela, Libya, Syria and elsewhere has not benefited those people. America's involvement is in the interests of Americans, and that that usually no more than a fraction of America's elites – the neocons, the banks and the military-industrial complex.
I will recommend the book only to those who can afford to see Ukraine's founding myths challenged. It is useful for understanding what is going on today, but one also has to appreciate the value of the cohesion Ukraine has achieved on the basis of the commonly held views of our history.
Switching topics, to point out things that the news media failed to mention is like shooting fish in a rain barrel. Were you aware of the extent to which the Canadian opposition party, and even members of his own party have turned on Justin Trudeau? And how inept he appears? Keep on truckin', Canada!
I have lost a couple of subscribers over the past two weeks. Very politely put, "I find myself so at odds with your thinking on both public health and political issues that I would like you to remove me from your newsletter mailing list." She does not see me as I see myself. I flatter myself to be no more than a curious soul who is interested in seeing all aspects of a question. Like Joe Rogan, Glenn Greenwald or Matt Taibbi. Maybe I am flattering myself. I feel no need, in any case, to convince you one way or the other.
I still have half a book to read but feel no obligation to write a review. To the contrary, writing a review would be taken by many to be an endorsement of the ideas in the book. I will do no more than suggest that the ideas are well presented and may challenge your preconceptions. I will add that the book is extraordinarily well footnoted with a comprehensive bibliography. It could not be claimed that the author has not done his homework.
That's the news from Lake WeBeGone, where the men are strong, the women good-looking, and the children above average.