What do free trade, public education, democracy, the historic novel, mass production, James Bond, self-help books, the division of labor and a cure for scurvy all have in common? If you follow their history back to the source, there you will find a Scotsman. Arthur Herman relates the story of the Scots from the 1500s to the early 1900s, carefully detailing exactly how a people, poorer than even the Plains Indians in what would soon be called the United States of America, managed to insinuate themselves and their ideas upon the dominant English culture, and from there upon the world.

Herman entitled his book, How the Scots Invented the Modern World: The True Story of How Western Europe’s Poorest Nation Created Our World & Everything in It, and lest you think that the title is said tongue in cheek, please know that Arthur Herman means every word of it. As I read through the preface I expected him to explain that the title was only a joke, a gimmick to catch the reader's attention. Instead, he reiterates the hubris of the title throughout the preface and ends his introduction with a phrase stolen from Christopher Wren's tomb, "For if you want a monument to the Scots, look around you."

Herman divides his book into two parts. The first half, "Epiphany," relates how religion and political circumstances lead to radical economic and political ideas sprouting from within Scotland. The second half, "Diaspora," details how Scots in England, India and America contributed revolutionary ideas and political clout to a vastly changing world.

The Scots were considered savages by the English. Their clannish ways and dauntless courage were reviled and feared by their neighbors. But in 1603, upon the death of Queen Elizabeth, the English turned to James VI of Scotland to be their new ruler. (James was the first cousin thrice removed of Elizabeth. In other words, James’s great grandmother, Margaret, was the sister of Henry VIII, who in turn was the father of Elizabeth.) Scotland and England were not united through this turn of events (that would come later under the reign of Queen Anne), but merely ruled by the same man. James (now not only called James VI of Scotland but also James I of England) moved himself and his court to London and proceeded to give far more attention to the needs of England than to those of Scotland. This was the beginning of the Scottish Diaspora as well as the first step in what would eventually lead Adam Smith to see the strengths of a laissez-faire private sector that enjoyed the peace and infrastructure of a strong government coupled with the freedom to develop and innovate provided by that same government as it focused on English problems and left the Scots mainly to fend for themselves.

The Scots, though ruled by a monarch, had, in the 1600s, one of the “single most democratic system[s] of church government in Europe.” The Presbyterian Church, or Kirk as the Scots called it, was ruled not with a topdown hierarchy like the Catholics or even the Anglicans. Rather, the congregants chose their leaders (elders and deacons). These church leaders, in turn, gathered together in a larger assembly called the Presbytery (encompassing a region that included several churches). And members of these Presbyteries could, in turn, attend the nationwide gathering, called General Assembly, which determined larger policies within the church. This was a radically different format for governance than anything religious or political taking place at the time. Rather than being ruled by money or power, the people, for the first time, had a say in a representative government (albeit a church government).

The ascension of James VI to the English throne as James I and the democratic government of the Scottish Kirk would be at the heart of all to follow as Arthur Herman goes on to explain how the world we see today is a direct result of the progeny of Scotland. Though I found the underlying history to be a bit of a slog (mostly because I was so utterly ignorant of Scottish history upon reading it that I had a hard time following along), by the latter half of the book I was astounded as Herman told of invention after invention that was brought into being by a Scotsman. My common mental refrain as I read was, “That too?! And that! No way. He must be making this up. It’s simply too phenomenal a record for such a small country!” And yet Herman provides sources for all of his scholarship and I soon came to see that the Scots have certainly not received their fair share in the annals of history. That is, until now.

To the Scots of the world, including my great grandfather, I salute you. Your legacy is both broad and deep and it’s about time that your story has been told.

------------------

Quotes from the book:

“It has been my lot to have found myself in many distant lands. I have never been in one without finding a Scotchman, and I never found a Scotchman who was not at the head of the poll.” -- Benjamin Disraeli

“The Scottish Enlightenment may have been less glamorous, but it was in many ways more robust and original. More important, it was at least as influential. in fact, if one were to draw up a list of the books that dominated the thinking of Europeans in the last quarter of the eighteenth century, the Scottish names stand out. Adam Smith’s A Theory of Moral Sentiments and Wealth of Nations. David Hume’s Treatise of Human Nature and Essays Political, Literary, and Moral. William Robertson’s History of Scotland and History of the Reign of Charles V. Adam Ferguson’s Essay on the History of Civil Society. John Millar’s The Origin of the Distinction of Ranks. Thomas Reid’s Inquiry into the Human Mind. And at the top of the page, Francis Hutcheson’s System of Moral Philosophy and Lord Kames’s Sketches of the History of Man.


"An exasperated Colonel Alan Cameron of the 79th Camerons passionately defended the féileadh-beag [a kilt] and its 'free congenial circulation of pure wholesome air (as an exhilarating native bracer) which has hitherto so peculiarly benefited the Highlander for activity, and all the other necessary qualities of a soldier, whether for hardship upon scanty fare, readiness in accoutring, or making forced marches &c., beside the exclusive advantage, when halted, of drenching his kilt & c., in the next brook, as well as washing his limbs, and drying both, as it were, by constant fanning, without injury to either, but on the contrary feeling clean and comfortable....' Cameron summed up the feelings of all the Highland regiments when he concluded: "I sincerely hope His Royal Highness will never acquiesce in so painful and degrading an idea (come from whatever quarter it may) as to strip us of our native garb... and stuff us in breeches."

“For as long as a hundred[of us] remain alive we are minded never a whit to bow beneath the yoke of English dominion. It is not for glory, riches or honours that we fight: it is for liberty alone, the liberty which no good man relinquishes but with his life.” -- from the Declaration of Arbroath

I recently finished listening to a class on tape, by the Teaching Company, called A History of England from the Tudors to the Stuarts, by Professor Robert Bucholz. At the same time (I alternated back and forth), I listened to another class on tape called The Renaissance, the Reformation, and the Rise of Nations, by Professor Andrew C. Fix. I found that the latter class was a wonderful foil to the former in addition to being a fascinating study in its own right.

Comparing Professor Fix with Professor Bucholz, something I tended to do rather frequently as I flipped back and forth between classes, I finally decided was like comparing apples to oranges. Both are similar in the sense that they've very knowledgeable about their subjects, but where Professor Bucholz is vibrant and excited about his subject material (I could imagine him bouncing on his toes at times in his excitement.) Professor Fix is laid back, philosophical and cogitative. (I imagined him in an overstuffed easy chair puffing on a pipe and waxing eloquent on the governmental systems during the Renaissance period.)

I have to admit that coming into this class, what I was not ignorant of I was mostly likely biased about. Anything I may have learned of these time periods in school was probably lost to me soon after (if it was ever truly "found" in the first place). And the only bits and pieces I had studied since my school days had entirely to do with the Reformation and were of course colored by the fact that the books and people I learned from were Protestants painting a mostly rosy picture of the world, post Catholic domination.

As someone who is interested in the Reformation, I was really pleased to discover the depth of context that studying the Renaissance gave to the religious changes that would later take place. I also appreciated looking at the three time periods in the context of each other as it gave me a better sense of the medieval world pushing it's way up through its medieval-ness and out into the beginnings of our modern times.

Despite the fact that we might think of the Renaissance as a cultural movement, the Reformation as a religious movement and the Rise of Nations as a political movement, Professor Fix is careful to contend with the cultural, religious and political movements throughout all three of these time periods. And despite the fact that he is covering some rather ugly situations within Christiandom, he is careful to set his own preferences and beliefs aside and present, as much as possible, the facts as best we know them, without coloring them with judgementalism or disgust. (Granted, this is pretty hard to do when discussing incidents such as the Anabaptist take-over of Münster in which anyone who didn't convert was killed, in which communism was forced upon the people and in which polygamy was introduced. In the end, all of the Anabaptists were executed.)

This class, as you might imagine, spanned an incredible breadth of time and geography. There were many times when I wish I could have stopped the lecture and asked Professor Fix to go into more detail on one point or another. But as it was, this was a 48 part class (which, I believe, is the longest any of the Teaching Company classes run). So I must content myself with the thought that at least now I have a broad overview of the topics and have a better sense of what areas I'd like to take another class in.

Listening to the History of England class at the same time that I was listening to this was an excellent example of what I'm talking about. While getting a sense of the macro-situation Europe wide, I could then focus in on how that was playing out more specifically in the micro-situation of England. I'd love to go back and zoom in on France and perhaps Spain as well, now. And I'm still not sure I fully comprehend that which was called the Holy Roman Empire. It seems that it was neither Holy nor Roman, nor do I have any sense of where it came from and only a minor understanding of where it went.

But all of these classes will have to wait for awhile. Though I always buy my classes when they're on sale, the prices still add up and I have two more classes to finish (one on the popes and another entitled the "Lost Christianities") before I'll allow myself to purchase any more. (In the meantime, I avidly read through the Teaching Company catalogs which are full of excerpts from classes.)

Though I don't think that Professor Fix's speaking style is as engaging via cassette tape as Professor Bucholz's was, I'd still highly recommend this class for it's excellent overview of philosophies and movements that have helped to shape our modern world.

If you’re the kind of person who has considered going back to school “just for fun” then you’ll understand my excitement when I tell you about some fantastic classes I’ve taken lately while running errands and folding laundry. The Teaching Company invites highly recommended professors in various fields of study to develop a specific lecture series which is then made available on cassette tape, CD, video tape and DVD.

I recently finished listening to the series, The History of England from the Tudors to the Stuarts, by Professor Robert Bucholz. Despite the fact that history was my most despised subject in junior and senior high (with the exception of AP History my junior year), this class was riveting. Bucholz is an engaging speaker, including delightful asides that add flavor and texture to his narratives. He is clearly excited by his subject matter and thrilled to be sharing it with others.

Though this class concerns the Tudors and the Stuarts, Bucholz backs up to 1377 when Edward III dies and is succeeded by his grandson, Richard II. The fighting between the Lancastrians and Yorkists (which later came to be referred to as the War of the Roses) made for not only political turmoil during that time period but confusing listening for me as the student. I played some of these early tapes twice to make sure I understood what was going on. (Bucholz even apologizes for the confusion, although the real problem was that there were really too many Richards, Edwards and Henrys for the countries own good.)

Finally Henry VII gained the upper hand and the history of England settled into a time line that was a bit easier to follow (with the exception later on of a few too many Marys. Honestly, these people needed some fresh “What to name your baby” books. They had an utter lack of imagination when it came to naming their children.)

Bucholz, of course, covers some rather notable monarchs in this class, such as Henry VIII, Queen Mary I, and Elizabeth I. (I have to be honest, before this class, these three, along with perhaps, Queen Victoria and Queen Elizabeth II, were the only kings or queens that I had even a glimmer of knowledge about.) I think it’s safe to say that these three notables carry a lot of baggage with them. For example, who doesn’t think “Bloody Mary” upon hearing of Mary I or think of Henry VIII lopping of the head of one wife in order to go marry another? Yet I believe that Bucholz did a great job of rounding out these well knowns, delving into the motives behind their actions (Henry VIII was worried about not leaving a male successor. The thought of Mary or Elizabeth being left as the heirs to the throne haunted him.) as well as comparing the monarchs so that the actions of one could be seen more clearly in light of the actions of the others. (Elizabeth killed just as many Catholics as Mary had killed Protestants, but Elizabeth was the one that got to write the history books on Mary and she found it convenient to add the adjective “bloody” to her sister’s name.)

Likewise, I think Bucholz covered the ridiculous amount of religious turmoil quite evenly, neither ridiculing nor exalting any of the factions, but simply explaining where they were coming from, what their goals were, and how utterly unsettling all of this religious change and upheaval was for a people who had quite comfortably been, well, whatever the king or queen had been at the time. The civil war and the time of Cromwell led to an amount of religious freedom that, in the end, the country simply couldn't tolerate. Even those who had led some of the changes realized it was all too much. Yet, as easy as it would be to look rather contemptuously upon much of the religious proceedings during these times, I felt that Bucholz remained well above the fray, relating the events clearly without soaking them first in his own prejudiced spin.

I listened to this tape series during the Autumn of 2006 and visited England in January 2007. It was exciting for someone to mention Warrick castle and the first thing that would pop into my mind wasn't "What castle?" but "Ah! Warrick, the King Maker!" The places we visited on our trip had more meaning since I could relate to them with some sense of historical context that I simply wouldn't have had otherwise.

I listened to this class on cassette tape and it worked well in that format. But I suspect that I missed out on several portraits of kings, queens, and other notables that would have been nice to see. Each box of tapes comes with a booklet filled with outlines of the lectures, but unfortunately, pictures are not included.

In the back of each booklet is a bibliography with the books and other resources sorted into categories such as "Essential Reading" and "Supplementary Reading" as well as by time period or location.

Other resources that I discovered in my study of English history:

A rockin' time line of Britain by the BBC
A family tree of the British monarchs on wikipedia

This was an excellent class and I highly recommend it. Not only is the time period that is covered fascinating, but as Professor Bucholz points out in his closing lecture, many of the struggles that the English went through during this time led directly to the philosophies and values that led to the founding of the United States of America soon after. And Professor Bucholz's enthusiasm for his subject matter is infectious. He's a delightful orator and I must confess that his fervor in his closing remarks were almost enough to make me climb upon a table and shout, "I'm proud to be English!" (despite the fact that I'm nothing of the sort, being far more Ukrainian than anything).

The following is reprinted from my previous website. I've reformatted it to fit into this multiply-sized space, I've updated it here and there, and I've fixed some misspellings).

Deciding to eat more whole grains is a big step for many people. But sometimes what is even more daunting is how to go about it. So below I have described a few of the things we have done.

The biggest step we have taken is to start grinding our own grain. We've made a few forays into the world of cooked wheat berries but I must admit that despite my best intentions, we don't eat them that way very often. So most of this page will have to do with grinding flour--how to get started and what to do with the stuff once you've got it.

My mom walked into my house a few days back and one of the first things out of her mouth was, "Will the kids go to Poudre High school?" I was a bit taken aback, not because she didn't say "Hi" first (I've never been one of those people that gets into all that "Hi. How are you?" stuff and my mom even less so.), but because my oldest is only in 2nd grade. It seemed a bit premature to be concerned about where he'll be going to high school just yet.

But it turns out that Newsweek has just published it's top 1,200 High Schools list and one of our local high schools was on it (It's number #310.) and my mom is all about awards and making it to important lists. So now she's hot for us to send our kids to this high school. Nevermind that it might be #20,000 in the list of high schools by the time our kids get there and nevermind that she didn't even look to see what the criteria was to get on the list and that she didn't even understand it when I explained it to her.

But, despite my mom's hullabaloo, I was interested to know what the criteria was and whether I agreed with it or not (as I generally take no stock at all in school testing, ranking, etc. seeing as I taught for four years at a "School of Excellence" that was absolutely horrid in terms of teaching anything academic. They had a nice dance troupe, though.)

So I looked up The Complete List: 1,200 Top U.S. Schools and took a gander. It turns out their criteria has to do with how many Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate tests are taken by students at the school (divided by the total number of seniors in the school). (So right away I understood why Poudre H.S. made it to the list as they're an IB school -- as is the elementary school that my kids attend, which means they most likely Will be funneled toward Poudre. My mom can sleep easy now.)

What I thought was interesting was that they didn't look at any and every high school out there, but only the ones that had an average SAT score of 1300 or less. (I know I saw this listed on one of the web pages over there, but I can't find it now. But they do have an article devoted to the elite schools that weren't included in the list of top high schools because they're students were above average.)

So I'm interested to know, what do you think makes a great high school? What was your high school like? (the good, the bad and the ugly)

What Makes a High School Great? -- another article over on Newsweek, if you're interested.

I found this site thanks to Stefko. He recently posted some songs from a recording session.

The is a site for unsigned bands/musicians to post their work. But you can also sign up as a "listener." (That's me.) You can then make your own "stations" -- I've only made a folk station so far. It's called "Barefoot Folk."

Although there's some pretty awful music on this site, there's also some really fantastic pieces. It's definitely worth checking out.

A new phrase became popular (in some Christian circles, at least) about a decade ago: "Jesus is the reason for the season." I started seeing this plastered across shopping bags (from Christian stores that were capitalizing on the commercialism of Christmas) and this year I've heard my daughters singing a song by that title that they apparently learned in Sunday School. But is Jesus really the reason for the season?

The holiday currently referred to as Christmas actually began long before the Christ was born for whom the mass is said. The winter solstice has long been a cause for celebration, not only because it marks the beginning of longer days, but it was also the time when many farm animals were slaughtered and their meat preserved for the winter (as it was far more cost effective to turn them into meat than to try to feed them through a long, hard winter).

In Scandinavia, the Norse celebrated Yule from the end of December until the beginning of January. The men would find the largest logs they could and, after hauling them back to the village, would set them ablaze. The citizens would then party for as long as the log burned, sometimes for as long as 12 days (hence the 12 days of Christmas).

In Germany, many believed that the god Oden would fly overhead at night determining who would prosper and who would perish in the coming year ("gonna find out who's naughty and nice").

The Romans celebrated for an entire month each winter, honoring the god Saturn in a festival called Saturnalia. During that time food and drink was plentiful, the poor were treated as royalty with the rich waiting on them, and gifts were given.

Many upper class Romans also celebrated the birth of Mithras, god of the unconquerable sun, on December 25th. This was often considered to be the most important holiday of the year. The emperor Constantine was said to be a follower of Mithra before his supposed conversion to Christianity.

There is no where in the Bible that states what day Jesus was born, nor that it should be celebrated by his followers. Though Jesus commanded his disciples to remember his death and resurrection (which takes place every Easter (Btw, Easter is the name of an Anglo-Saxon goddess.) as well as with every serving of communion), he never spoke of his birth as an item of note.

The first evidence of a Christian feast of the Nativity (which is what Christmas was called before it was called Christmas) is found in 200 AD in Egypt, and was celebrated in spring (at times in either March, April or May). In time, Christians were celebrating the Nativity on many different days, most on the same day as the feast of the Epiphany, January 6th. But in the 380's AD, Chrysostom gave a sermon in which he argued that December 25th was the most appropriate day for the celebration and apparently the church fathers agreed. Christmas wasn't called by that name until some time in the middle ages (some say as late as 1810) when Christ Mass was contracted.

In the early 17th century, the rise of Oliver Cromwell and the Puritans led to an abrupt about face concerning the celebration of the Nativity. Generally a time of raucous debauchery, the Puritans outlawed it entirely. The pilgrims brought this attitude with them when they came to the Americas and from 1659 to 1681, Christmas was outlawed in Boston. Even in other parts of the country, Christmas was seen as an English holiday and not celebrating Christmas was a sign of independence. Eventually that mindset eased and on June 26, 1870, Christmas was declared to be a national holiday.

Over the next 135 years, Christmas has continued to morph and change, keeping the gift giving it inherited from Saturnalia, as well as the holly and mistletoe from pagan fertility rituals, but adding on a distinctly American component as well -- Santa Claus as we know him today, a rolly polly man in fluffy red and white vestments. The Christmas that most Americans celebrate today is a well blended series of pagan rituals with a dab of "Christian meaning" tossed in.

That's certainly not to say that Christmas can't still be a meaningful time for Christians. Recognizing that God would be willing to take on human flesh for mankind's sake is definitely a cause for celebration. But at the same time, for Christians to get in a huff that some stores would hang signs saying "Happy Holidays" rather than "Merry Christmas" is akin to early Romans who might have complained that their celebration of Mithra was being co-opted by some odd group of monotheists (also referred to as atheists since they had no pantheon of gods).

So go out and find the largest log you can and throw it on the fire. Kill the fatted calf and pour the ale. Hang the mistletoe and string the evergreens about the house. Give gifts and make merry, for tomorrow is Saturnalia, Juvenalia, Yule, the birth of Mithra, the Feast of the Nativity, Christmas!!!

If you’re looking for a book that is “wicked and wonderful,” Jennifer Government is not it, despite the Washington Post Book World quote on the cover that says it is exactly that. If you ask me, Jennifer Government is more along the lines of “OK and worth a quick read.” Its an idea book and I think the ideas in it are worth talking about. But the story itself is predictable and a bit overdone.

The world of Jennifer Government is one in which corporations reign. People are known by their place of employment, bearing such names as John Nike, Billy NRA, and of course the title character, Jennifer Government. Kids attend schools that are run by McDonalds or Mattel or Pepsi and are named accordingly, such as Kate Mattel. Government has been shrunk to a nearly powerless entity that can only take action when someone in the private sector is willing to pay them to do so. And employees win or lose based not only on what value they bring to the company, but on their assertiveness in performance reviews and their attention to detail when signing contracts as well.

But those who are not assertive, or who may have a particularly bad string of luck, can quickly get eaten up and spit out by this system, as happens with several of the characters in the book. And that is essentially the heart of this story -- the naive who believe what they’re told without reading the fine print are not long for this world unless someone like Jennifer Government steps in to help them out. OK, maybe I’m oversimplifying what is already a pretty simple story (if not somewhat convoluted in how it plays out), but there you have it. We need government to protect innocent folk from the bad guys in corporations.

The author, Max Barry, or perhaps we should call him Max Random House to play a little on his theme, appears to be taking libertarianism to an extreme in order to make a point. What that point is, however, may be up for some debate. Is he against consumerism? Is he fed up with libertarians? Perhaps a little of both? Though he does make a few jabs at consumer naivety, it seems to me that he punches much more wickedly at both libertarianism and the out and out greed of corporate executes.

Jennifer Government takes on John Nike, a marketing VP who has devised a brilliant plan to sell the latest brand of Nike shoes. Unfortunately his clever strategy involves the killing of ten innocent Nike customers and the framing of a Nike employee, but in a world where the almighty dollar is god, anything goes -- or at least, that is what John Nike is out to prove. Jennifer Government, horrified at the evil of this corporate scheme, and bearing a personal grudge that becomes blatantly obvious long before the author unveils it with expectations of a shocked and surprised audience, hunts down John Nike even when she has to bend a few rules to do so. Corporate evil multiplies, the government is shown to be weaker than we could ever imagine, yada yada yada, and in the end, Jennifer wins out proving that a stable society depends on the strength of its government.

Nevermind the fact that governments can be corrupted too. Nevermind the fact that there’s more than just governments and corporations in the world. And nevermind the fact that its the people who do evil, whether in the government, in corporations, in religious organizations, etc. and that rearranging any of the above will not change that fact. None of these issues really seem to come into play in this story. Its a clear cut case of business = bad and government oversight/controls = good.

By taking such an extreme perspective in this story, I do think Barry will get a much more provacative response from his readers. I’m presuming that’s what he was shooting for -- a starting point for a reasoned discussion on corporate and government power. But based on the quotes on the back of the book, I fear the response instead might be to wholeheartedly clap him on the back and shout out, “good point! Down with big business. Power to the poor!” which would be missing the point entirely in my opinion.

This is definitely a good book for a book group. Unlike Gattaca, a great idea movie but with a storyline that was horridly boring to wade through, Jennifer Government’s storyline is really quite OK. It’s not wonderful, but neither is it horrifying slow and boring. So you don’t have to knock yourself out trying to get to the ideas worth discussing. In fact, the writing is rather simple and the chapters are incredibly short, making the story speed past.

So while I can’t say “this is a great story” and “this is a must read,” I do think that if you like discussing/thinking about politics and society, you’ll enjoy reading this book. (Well, if you don’t enjoy it, you’ll hate it, but you’ll enjoy ripping its ideas to shreds, so in the end you’ll enjoy it after all.)

About a year ago a woman at church mentioned that she likes to shop at Wal-Mart not just because it’s cheap but because she feels like she’s supporting a Christian business seeing as Sam Walton (the founder of Wal-Mart) was a Christian. I knew enough about Wal-Mart at the time that warning bells were sounding loud and clear in my head, but I didn’t really know enough about Sam to respond very well. So I decided then and there that I needed to do some research.

The barista at my favorite cafe suggested that I start with source material. Rather than reading what others say about Wal-Mart, perhaps I should start with what Sam himself has said. So that’s what I did. (Sometimes barista’s give great advice.) I read Sam Walton’s autobiography, Made in America: My Story -- an ironic title given that there was a huge controversy over Wal-Mart’s "Made in America" program and that the focus of the book is in many ways more on Wal-Mart than on Sam.

I came to the following conclusions as I read the book:

1) Sam Walton may have called himself a Christian, but the reality was that he bowed at the alter of Commerce. Though he paid God lip service (He loved to start out his stock holder meetings by singing the national anthem then praying.) he very clearly worshiped retail. (For more on this, please read my review of his autobiography.)

2) Sam Walton was a real people person. He could make the lowliest clerk, who was being overworked and underpaid, feel like she was one of the most important cogs in the great machine called Wal-Mart. This personality trait was probably one of the most important characteristics in terms of building an identity for Wal-Mart as a corporation.

3) Sam Walton was a man driven to be the best at whatever he did and he was willing to do whatever it took to make sure he wound up on top.

Having an opinion on Sam was a start. But Sam was not Wal-Mart, much as the two of them are intimately linked in the minds of many Americans even today. So I pulled two more books off the shelves of our local library:

1) How Wal-Mart is Destroying America and The World and What You Can Do About It by Bill Quinn, and
2) In Sam We Trust : The Untold Story of Sam Walton and Wal-Mart, the World's Most Powerful Retailer by Bob Ortega.

After glancing through Bill Quinn’s book, I immediately tossed it. The book may be entirely true for all I know, but it was written in a clearly biased manner and didn’t appear to me to have very good documentation. My goal was not to slam Wal-Mart just because I wanted to slam Wal-Mart. I wanted to approach my inquiry fairly and I wanted to base my conclusions on facts and figures, not emotion.

So then I turned to Bob Ortega’s book. I was pleasantly surprised not only by it’s impeccable documentation, but by his fairness and thoroughness as well. In many cases he talked directly with the people involved in Wal-Mart, from executives to workers. Though he may have had an agenda in writing the book (just as I had an agenda in doing my own research) I still feel that he tried his very best to fairly address the whole of Wal-Mart’s activities -- pointing out the smart business decisions as well as the ethically suspect ones.

The Content of Ortega’s Book

Over half of In Sam We Trust is the history of Wal-Mart, its predecessors or its competition. Ortega is seriously thorough in approaching this subject. As a person
who is not very interested in business dealings in general, I have to admit that I plodded through parts of this book. At the same time, I appreciated Ortega’s thoroughness because I knew that there was no way I would have investigated the topic so thoroughly on my own, and I’d rather read someone else’s synopsis than have to personally plod through the source material.

Ortega begins his book with a brief review of Sam Walton’s life, his personal history, and his activities that lead to the creation of Wal-Mart. Much of this was simply a synopsis of Sam’s autobiography, which I had just finished reading. But I was encouraged by the fact that Ortega came to many of the same conclusions that I did in reading Made in America. His impression of Sam’s spiritual life was identical to mine as was his reactions to Sam’s strengths as a people person and his drive to being the absolute best at whatever he put his hand to.

Ortega then backed up all the way to the mid-1800’s and briefly surveyed the history of retailing in America. He traced trends and innovations within, and the men and companies that drove, the retail industry. He pulled out threads that would later bear heavily upon the success of Wal-Mart. And he showed very clearly that many of Sam Walton’s winning ideas had come from other retailers who either failed to implement them well, or who had the ideas but were thwarted by their superiors within their respective corporations.

In Wal-Mart’s early days it had very little competition. The first store was opened in 1962, the same year that both Target and K-mart got their start. But Wal-Mart was located in rural areas of middle-America and grew very slowly at first, staying safely away from the competition which was based primarily in large urban areas to the east. But as retailers expanded their reach, they slowly began to encroach on each other’s territory. As Ortega gets to this part of his story, he stops to look extensively (considering this is a book on Wal-Mart) at the chief competition, K-mart.

K-mart, unlike Wal-Mart, had been slow to integrate computer technology which slowed not only its operations within stores, but which hampered its ability to track goods and restock efficiently. Sam Walton, on the other hand, liked to keep his finger on operations at all of his stores, something he could initially do by visiting each store regularly thanks to a beat up old airplane he purchased and flew himself. However, as his operations grew, he recognized that personal visits would no longer be feasible, so he invested heavily in computers and computer tracking. From Wal-Mart headquarters, Sam was able to track sales not only by store, but by product or even by sale type (cash/credit) in real time. (In fact, it is this detailed use of technology that enabled Wal-Mart, in 2004, to change direction on a dime as sales were slow the day after Thanksgiving. Within a day a new sales strategy was devised and within two days it had been fully implemented in all of Wal-Mart’s American stores.)

K-mart also had a policy of recruiting from within it’s own ranks. Executive positions were always filled from within. So problems within the company were often reinforced, rather than eradicated. Sam Walton, on the other hand, had a policy of hiring only the best in a given area. If it meant hiring someone straight from the competition, that’s what he would do. In fact, Sam regularly searched for employees (from managers to executives) among the competition. He not only ended up with a topnotch employee, but the competition ended up with one less. And he got the extra benefit of bringing in fresh ideas straight from these other retailers. Sam had no qualms about stealing ideas from others and was often found in the stores of other retailers with a mini-recorder in hand, even when the store had a posted policy against that very thing. (And he would get away with it as he explains in his autobiography.)

About two thirds of the way into the book, however, Ortega starts to look directly at some specific company practices such as union-busting, employee policies that were unfairly enforced, and contracts that Wal-Mart had with sweatshops -- most specifically with their Kathie Lee Gifford line of clothing -- and their subsequent policies regarding such sweatshop merchandise. He details how, after Sam Walton’s death, the upper management became even more obsessed with the bottom line and how, when Sam’s brother, Bud, spoke out in favor of the Wal-Mart employees during a stockholders meeting, the executives unambiguously ignored him. Sam Walton had been obsessive in making Wal-Mart a great retailing chain. The executives he left behind took up his mantle with strict orthodoxy.

The Dark Side of Wal-Mart

“You won't hear anything negative from most people. If Wal-Mart takes something the wrong way, it's like Saddam Hussein. You just don't want to piss them off.” -- Paul Kelly, founder of Silvermine Consulting Group, a company that helps businesses work more effectively with retailers

Wal-Mart clearly has a dark side and Bob Ortega was meticulous is going straight to the source as much as possible when documenting it. He contacted suppliers in Central America and Asia that do business with Wal-Mart. He poured through court documents and he met with former Wal-Mart employees to get their stories directly. He also met with organizers who were trying to stop Wal-Mart from moving into their communities and he documented the results for those municipalities that failed.

You really should read the book if you want to know more about Wal-Mart’s dark side, but I’ll summarize some of Ortega’s findings here.

Employee Relations:

Employee conditions were rough during Sam Walton’s time. In his autobiography he admits to paying his employees less than all other retailers. His autobiography also attests to the long hours managers were expected to put in (without overtime pay). But after Sam died, things only got worse. (Which is why Bud tried to stand up for the employees in that stockholder meeting I mentioned earlier in which he was stoutly ignored.)

Employees were fired or punished for issues that managers were allowed to get away with. Wal-Mart was found guilty on more than one occasion of racial discrimination. And, as Ortega said, “What’s more interesting about these cases is the behavior of higher-ups at Wal-Mart once they became aware of the situations--how they often ignored the complaints, how they often acted not to correct the problems, not to oust these troublesome managers and restore the aggrieved employees, but rather to cover up and defend fundamentally indefensible actions, to claim the workers were fired or had left for other reasons, claims that courts and commissions found time and again simply were not credible.”

Employees also tried to organize on several occasions and each time they were met with threats and direct punishments. When Wal-Mart’s butchers tried to organize, Wal-Mart responded by removing their positions from Wal-Mart entirely. Wal-Mart now has a central meat packing plant and they ship their meat across the US. When truckers tried to organize, they were met with threats from Sam Walton himself. (And recently (Fall 2004/Winter 2005) a Canadian Wal-Mart that did manage to organize, was shut down within a matter of months.)

Sweatshop Labor:

Ortega focused on a specific line of clothing that Wal-Mart developed to combat a popular line put out by K-mart. The Kathie Lee Gifford clothing line boasted that a percentage from each sale would “go toward helping AIDS and crack addicted children in New York.” (quote from Kathie Lee Gifford in testimony before The U.S. House Subcommittee On International Organizations And Human Rights) Unfortunately, a reporter trying to uncover labor abuses in clothing lines for another company, instead found children who were making clothes for the Kathie Lee Gifford line.

Ortega uses this example not simply to document that Wal-Mart was selling clothing made by children, but to highlight Wal-Mart’s response to the discovery. It is one thing to unknowingly purchase clothes made by children. It is another thing entirely to continue the practice once the situation has come to light. And worse yet, Wal-Mart failed to take a proactive or positive stance in dealing with the issue (something which other companies who were caught in the same position did manage to do.)

Ortega went so far as to contact U.S. Customs officials in Hong Kong who “confirmed in interviews for this book that, for more than two years, they repeatedly warned Wal-Mart buyers and visiting company executives about the quota-busting problems--even giving them documentary evidence--and were ignored. One customs inspector said that the third time he personally told Wal-Mart’s head buyer in Hong Kong about the problem, “he said to me, ‘I’ve told the people in Bentonville about this, and told them I share your concern. All they told me was not to worry about it, that we’re not the importer of record.’” In other words, Wal-Mart didn’t care if illegal practices were taking place in their supply chain as long as no one could pin anything on them.

Harry Wu, a human rights activist, approached Wal-Mart concerning their purchases of jeans made in China by prison labor. He asked, and was allowed, to speak at a stock holders meeting. After he spoke, there was no discussion and the issue was never addressed throughout the rest of the gathering. Ortega writes, “Leaving the meeting, a somber Wu (former Chinese political prisoner) told Harbrant and Fiedler that he hadn’t seen a meeting like that since the last Communist rally he’d been forced to attend in China.”

Deceit as standard corporate policy:

There were three examples of Wal-Mart behavior that particularly struck me as being deceitful. The first has to do with Wal-Mart’s response to municipalities that try to block a Wal-Mart from moving in. The second was in Wal-Mart’s response to a campaign against it that pointed out it’s “Buy American” program was largely a sham. And the third had to do with unscrupulous advertising techniques.

When a group formed that tried to block Wal-Mart from moving into their community, one of Wal-Mart’s responses was to pour money into an organization known as “National Grassroots” which would then purport to advocate for citizens who did want the Wal-Mart. However, “National Grassroots specialized in fighting grassroots efforts through what have come to be known as ‘AstroTurf’ operations: creating the appearance of grassroots support for a project, irrespective of whether any exists or not, and then cultivating local community leaders to come on board.”

In 1992, Dateline aired an investigation into Wal-Mart’s “Made in America” campaign. In addition to showing footage of children working in Bangladesh to make clothes for Wal-Mart, the show also included hidden camera footage of “Made in America” signs hung up over imported goods. Wal-Mart’s response was to “strongly encourage” their suppliers to run ads in support of Wal-Mart. Bob Ortega describes the corporation’s response this way, “To fight back in public, executives decided to draft others to defend Wal-Mart, in what would be made to look like a spontaneous outburst of support. Wal-Mart’s public relations people designed newspaper ads for the company’s vendors to sponsor, defending the Buy American program. Suppliers were given sample ads with phrases such as “Thanks, Wal-Mart” and “We Support Wal-Mart’s BUY AMERICA program” in huge print. Wal-Mart buyers were to ask vendors to use their own words, to make the ads seem their own. Wal-Mart “recommended” that vendors, depending on their size, either buy full-page ads in national newspapers such as USA Today (for $65,810) and the Wall Street Journal (for $110,629) or buy ads in local newspapers. Wal-Mart helpfully included a list of newspapers, phone numbers, and names of whom to contact, and what the rates for a full-page ad would be ($2,790 at the Biloxi Sun-Herald, for example). Vendors were supposed to say the ads were their idea and were warned not to run them before Wednesday morning, the day after the broadcast.”

Another investigative report found that Wal-Mart was mislabeling competitors prices on shelves, or comparing Wal-Mart prices to other store’s prices -- but for a larger sized version of the product (without indicating that the comparison was not for the same sized product). Many Wal-Mart stores also had a marketing ploy in which they would fill two shopping carts with items; one shopping cart held only items from Wal-Mart with a label indicating how much those items would cost in total and the other held similar items from a leading competitor with the competitor’s total cost shown. But the shopping carts were so heavily wrapped in cellophane that it was hard to see that the Wal-Mart products were often of smaller sized versions of the product than the competitors cart held or were products of a cheaper quality (a $5 wind up watch from Wal-Mart compared to a $15 battery operated watch from Target).

So What’s to Be Done?

As Ortega concludes his book, he points out that there’s really only one way to affect change in a company in which the bottom line is the be all and end all. The wallet of the American consumer can speak volumes to the Wal-Mart executives. It’s up to us to tell Wal-Mart that we don’t approve of their employment practices, their continuing push to squeeze every penny out of manufacturers (thereby pushing jobs overseas), and their deceitful business practices.

Ortega is by no means calling for an end to Wal-Mart. But he does want Wal-Mart to take responsibility for its actions (without having to first be dragged to court and forced to take responsibility as has been the historical path for this company). He wants Wal-Mart to use its size and clout to achieve some good (as McDonalds has done for the chicken industry and against genetically modified potatoes, and as the Gap has done for workers in third world countries).

I highly recommend that you read this book. It would be an excellent book for book groups -- a great springboard for discussion. And I suspect that even people well versed in the workings of Wal-Mart will find some eye-openers between these pages. Certainly not everything that Ortega says is negative. As I pointed out before, the author is very good at giving credit where credit is due and Sam Walton’s genius is clearly laid out as Ortega delineates the history of Wal-Mart. I really feel that this is the kind of book where people on both sides of the Wal-Mart debate can come together and start to sort through the issues, seek the truth, and find the higher ground.

When I had my first child I kept him mostly to myself. Others would offer to hold him but I'd refuse them, not so much because I wanted my little bundle to myself, but because it just seemed that he didn't want to go to anyone else -- for others he would fuss, for me he would settle right down in grand contentment. When my twin girls came along, I more than happily passed them off to others, not only because I was exhausted and needed a break, but because they were just as likely to cry, or not, for others as much as they would for me. They clearly didn't care who held them. Even as infants my kids made clear statements about their preferences and in so doing gave a peek into their personalities.

Lamentably, when others confronted me about my child rearing habits, I didn't have any outside sources to back up my theories about the differences in my children. Now, at last, I've found something that supports my hunches. It's a book called Nurture by Nature : Understand Your Child's Personality Type - And Become a Better Parent by Paul Tieger and Barbara Barron-Tieger. The book first helps parents to try to identify their children's personality types (as well as their own) and then describes expected behaviors, attitudes and needs of children by type.

Unfortunately young children can’t take personality tests themselves, so determining your child’s type is done through observation and comparison. My son's profile fits him so well that it seems like the authors had been watching him and had written down things about him that I had thought were unique to him alone. In the same way, the profile for my personality type fit me so well that it even described specific events that had happened to me as a child (such as sitting at the dinner table for hours after the meal because I refused to eat something). For my twin daughters, however, I'm less convinced of their type and have yet to find a profile that fits them as well as the ones for my son or myself. All the same, what I have discovered about the twins so far has already helped me to better encourage and discipline them.

Each personality profile describes not only over all characteristics of a specific type, but also how that personality will be manifested at various points in the child's life from infancy through adolescence. Though I haven't found the infant characteristics very accurate (at least for my kids), the preschool and school-age descriptions have, for the most part, been right on. The authors point out possible problem areas (such as the tantrums that my son threw in preschool), reasons for the problems (difficulties with transitions), and means of avoiding or dealing with the problems that will set the child at ease rather than demanding something of them that doesn’t fit their personality needs (like taking time in advance to prepare the child for upcoming transitions rather than forcing him to deal with them without warning).

My mother's philosophy in raising my sister and myself was fairness. Whatever I got, my sister got exactly the same thing or something comparable. But my sister and I aren't alike. As children we had very different strengths, weaknesses, and needs. Nature by Nurture helps parents to identify the differences in their children and raise them more fairly not by treating them the same, but by treating them more in line with their personality types.

I'd highly recommend the book. In fact, I found several copies online for under $4 dollars (though it looks like the price has since gone up) and bought extra copies to hand out to friends and teachers. I still have to see if it'll get me through the teenage years, but I have high hopes.

[this is another transfer from my old website. as i reread the post i could already hear Darryl's opinions in my ear. i considered pre-empting expected arguments and decided to leave it as is, instead.

this was originally posted fall/winter 2002.]

			(why i am) Pro-Choice I've been led to believe that those who support "family values," by definition, support families and the values that help those families to remain close knit and self supporting. That's why I'm so often surprised to find that those "family values" supporters shop at Walmart. Why do sooooooooo many christians in this nation, who claim to support family values, support giant government bureaucracies or giant unregulated corporations, and the government corporate welfare system (so much for "free-markets"), which undermine the true empowerment of families? The God of Unlimited Profit is very seductive and I believe has infested the gospel of many churches. Christians on the left usually err on the side of Big Government as saviour, and Christians on the right usually err on the side of Big Corporations as saviour. And the gospel is usually lost. -- Brett Lutz Now, I have to admit that I've shopped at Walmart before, and Home Depot and Target just to name a few. But that doesn't mean that I should have. Let me explain: By supporting Walmart (and many other chains), you are essentially encouraging homogeneity. As chains force out the local mom and pop stores and restaurants (and each other... note that Kmart isn't doing too well), we begin to lose the ability to choose where we'd like to shop. Once upon a time we could choose between several mom and pops as well as the chains. The chains, however, will soon reduce our choices only down to other chains (and in some places this has already happened) and eventually the chains will duke it out among themselves until there's only a few remaining to choose from. And what will your choices be then? If you don't like what they stock, then you're just out of luck because there will be no where else to go. (And I haven't found a mega-chain yet that special-orders items for customers.) Darwin believed that the fittest would survive. However, its easy to be "more fit" when you're unfair. Chains aren't only unfair to the mom and pop shops, but they're increasingly unfair to their consumers, their employees and the communities they're located in. And though Walmart makes an ideal icon to slam, even such well loved favorites as McDonalds are at fault. I doubt that, Sam Walton (Walmart), Ray Kroc (McDonalds), and Sebastian Kresge (Kmart) set out to wipe out choice. In fact, I suspect that they thought they were helping to bring about more choice. And initially, they were. But as these corporations saturate communities, they will eventually (and have already begun to) reduce our choices (for where to shop, what we can buy when we shop, and even for where we work). Unfair to Consumers Consumers are loosing their ability to choose. Not only does the increasing presence of chain stores reduce the number of shopping options for the average consumer as all of the mom and pop options are wiped out, but the stores themselves only carry a set offering of products and are generally not able to special order items. (Thank God for the internet!) "I have personally seen Wal-Mart and other discount stores completely shut down a small town in southern Indiana. Businesses which had been in operation for years were closed and the only opportunities for employment were minimum wage jobs. In addition, clothing and other items are of a low quality, not really quality for price." --anonymous in the San Diego area (from Lawmall) The sheer buying power of some of these behemoths can even affect availability of items. If a manufacturer is looking to put a new product on the market, they often need to have that product get picked up by one of the larger chains or they won't be able to sell enough to make a profit. So if Home Depot decides it doesn't like your new gizmo, then its likely that your new gizmo might not hit the market at all (and anyone who would have jumped at the chance to own that new gizmo is just out of luck). Likewise, if a chain store does decide to sell your little gizmo, they may make you sign a contract that forbids you from selling your gizmo to any other company or even directly to consumers. (So now anyone who isn't near a Walmart or Home Depot is the one out of luck.) Chains also reduce choice by making their product selection, their store layout, etc. all part of their branding. For the most part, when you walk into a new Meijers, or a Super K, or a Walmart, you can size up the layout (groceries on the right or groceries on the left?) and find the department that you want right away because you're already familiar with how that store lays out its products. (Actually, I've noticed that once you've got Meijers down pat, you can figure out Walmart pretty quickly, etc.) This is part of what makes these stores appealing. I know that when I'm traveling, its comforting to walk into a store and be able to find what I want pretty quickly without having to ask. But at the same time, this sameness lacks originality and creativity. I find it ironic that most Americans don't like "religion" because certain things are expected of them, and they'll have to learn the in's and out's of the "religion." Yet the big wigs at these chains have us fully trained to memorize the layout of their stores, to know their product selection, to accept their product selection, to purchase from their product selection, to believe their product selection is what they say it is (see PBS's article on Walmart stocking-or not stocking-American made products), and to sign up for the card that will give us "discounts" on all of these products (while giving away our personal information to those same corporate big wigs). "My experience with superstores - Home Depot, etc. - is that they have a broad range of products but lack depth. I find myself patronizing the niche retailers - the specialty bookstore, or 'Real Goods' catalog for products I want. My concern with superstores is that they ... define what's marketed without concern for origin of product (e.g. Chinese prison labor) or ecological consequences." --anonymous in the San Diego area (from Lawmall) In a similar vein, chains like McDonalds train us to expect hamburgers to taste a certain way (too much sodium, grain fed cows, white bun, grease). No matter what McDonalds you go to all across America, those hamburgers will taste identical. (That is, they will unless one of the employees has "doctored it up" somehow with something disgusting. See Fast Food Nation by Eric Schlosser.) We can't walk into a McDonalds in Colorado and see what a Colorado cow tastes like as opposed to a California cow. (And I'll bet some of you didn't even realize that cows fed on different foods tasted different! Well... they do.) Ditto the food-tasting-the-same argument with Starbucks, Burger King, Taco Bell, Pizza Hut, etc. They're selling a brand. Their goal is not to sell the best food in the region that the food is being sold in. Their goal is to make all their food taste the same so that you'll get used to it and want only that and then you're hooked on that branded taste (and the branded means of purchase and the branded special deals, etc.) and you'll buy more and more and make the corporate execs. wealthier and wealthier. Unfair to Employees "The lawsuit charges that Wal-Mart, the self-proclaimed fastest growing and largest private employer in the United States, has systematically avoided paying employees their full, earned wages. Wal-Mart provides perverse incentives for managers to lower overhead costs, the largest component of which is employee payroll, by offering financial compensation and bonuses."