When East meets West: Personal connections to the Panama and Suez Canals

Presented to the Club by Michael A. Shirley on May 24, 2010



I suppose most of us old gentlemen, with apologies to the younger among us, can recall an event or two as Jack did in his paper a few weeks ago and on reflection realize that they were connected to momentous events in the course of history. In my case I have two whose significance I did not recognize at the time and certainly did not see how they were related to each other. I guess as children we all remember stories our father told us which never really registered. Well, one in particular comes to my mind.



My dear father, born in Kingston, Jamaica in 1895, had lost his father at the age of five to tuberculosis and his mother a few years later, and was brought up by his grandmother. She was a remarkable woman, called in Jamaica a “drogher woman,” i.e. a trader of goods overseas who travels in a ship called a drogher.



She would frequently go from Kingston to Colon, the Caribbean port in Panama, to sell beer, tobacco, toothpaste, shoes, etc. to the Jamaican labourers who were contracted to build the Canal for the French company in the 1880s. A connection between the Atlantic Ocean and the Caribbean Sea and the Pacific Ocean was seen by all to be an excellent undertaking so obviating a long journey round the southern tip of South America.



Well, my father’s story was of going with his grandmother on one of these trips when he was 14 years of age in 1909, 100 years ago last year, and encountering a tremendous storm which necessitated sending everyone below decks. The ship or “drogher” arrived 24 hours late and he remembered every citizen in Colon lining the harbour to welcome them because they were sure all had perished.



Why were there so many Jamaicans in Colon? Well, at the end of the 19th century, white men didn’t dig holes in the ground! So eager Jamaicans were recruited. Why was it a French company? Well, if you wanted a canal dug there was only one man in the world you wanted to do it, a Frenchman named Ferdinand De Lesseps. He was the King! Through tremendous persistence, diplomacy, coercion and vision he had completed the Suez Canal in1869. The stage was set for another triumph. A French one? No, unfortunately not! But I shall return later to explain why not.



At this juncture I shall recall the second episode in which I was involved and which was a turning point in the world’s history, not that I recognized it at the time. In 1956 I was an undergraduate at Cambridge — England, not Massachusetts. Every long vacation, May to October, I was determined to travel far and wide and adventurously, partly out of curiosity and partly to outdo my undergraduate colleagues. A third of the atlas was not painted pink, i.e. British, for nothing. A good Indian friend of mine at high school and Cambridge had a father who was an agricultural adviser to the Sudanese Government. He would fly to Khartoum and I with another Indian friend would join him, flying cheaply by charter flight to Paris, hitchhiking to Marseilles, crossing the Mediterranean on a boat, sleeping on deck and travelling up the Nile on an Egyptian train from Alexandria. All plans set, all systems at go and excitement and anticipation overflowing, we had not reckoned with Colonel Nasser. He, Egypt’s ruler, nationalized the Canal. My worried mother, resisting all our assertions that we would circumvent all Egyptian nationalistic hostility, called the Foreign Office who advised against our trip. At last Egypt was master of its own canal.



That same canal that DeLesseps had built with European vision, pragmatism and will and mostly Egyptian labour and some money, mostly borrowed, which had left the government in considerable debt, was built and run by the Suez Canal Company, a French company, but whose major if not largest shareholder was British, which was ironic considering the British had never been in favour of building the Canal, had put every obstacle in the way of DeLesseps they could and had in Lord Palmerston the most formidable opponent.



The 19th century was a time when the Industrial Revolution took off particularly in England but followed by Germany and further behind by France and Italy. Mankind was on the verge of conquering the world. Nature would be harnessed for the betterment of all. Disease and ignorance would be no more. Empires were built and trading goods and manufactures became the foundation of wealth and power. The remnants of European influence in that century and into the 20th are to be seen today, the French in North and West Africa and Lebanon, the Dutch in Indonesia and the British all over the world. Germany as a result of the loss of World War I had lost their two colonies in Africa, Tanganyika (now Tanzania) and South-west Africa (now Namibia). The Spanish had never been able to mount enough military or financial power to maintain their once formidable influence in Latin America. Italy’s dalliance with colonialism had provided them with Abyssinia (now Ethiopia) and Libya. It is remarkable to look back and see how the European nations had carved up the world and imperiously set out to outdo each other. Naturally competition was intense, especially between France and Great Britain. The latter’s great strength resided in the Navy. She had come to colonial acquisitions rather late, the Netherlands, France and Spain had started earlier. Acquiring and co-opting Dutch financial expertise at the beginning of the 18th century and building a large and powerful navy, she ruled the waves.



On the other hand France had concentrated on the Mediterranean and particularly Egypt from the days when Napoleon Buonaparte in 1798 landed in Alexandria. He brought with him not just an army but a team of scholars charged with studying the country so that the French could make maximal use of its resources. Into this environment stepped De Lesseps, not immediately but 50 years later after other Frenchmen had tossed the idea of a canal about.



Those other Frenchmen were a couple named Prosper Enfantin and Henri de Saint Simeon. The latter led a group of followers called the Saint-Simonians. They believed in progress but even more they believed that the world had been sundered. Male stood apart from female, religion from science and East was cut off from West. In this duality, said Prosper Enfantin, all suffered. The West was advancing but until it was united with the East, its growth would be stunted. The only way to overcome this division and wounds was to remove the physical bridge that separated them, the land bridge of the Isthmus of Suez, all 100 miles of it. Once the canal pierced the sands and the seas were connected, the energies of East and West would flow together. The world would be made whole and civilization would blossom.



You can imagine that they were considered rather crackpots and barely escaped prison in France and needed the French consul’s protection in Egypt. De Lesseps protected them in the 1830s but 20 years later appropriated their ambition and moved on. But of course to move on required the East’s assent, acquiescence, even collaboration. And here he struck lucky, for in Muhammad Said Pasha, the ruler of Egypt, he found a willing partner.



Said was the son of Muhammad Ali, an Albanian mercenary who rose to power in Egypt in the wake of Napoleon’s defeat. Muhammad Ali was the viceroy of the Ottoman Empire, which had spread across continents into Europe, Persia and the Middle East from its inception in Turkey in 1299. Various states enjoyed different forms of autonomy. Egypt was very autonomous and the viceroy only ceremoniously recognized the Pasha in Constantinople. This state of affairs had come about because Muhammad Ali had gained seniority in the Ottoman Empire in Albania and Kosovo and in 1801, the Albanian commander of the Ottoman army was sent to re-occupy Egypt following the brief Napoleonic occupation, a campaign undertaken to advance France’s trade interests and undermine Britain’s access to India. He was second in command under his cousin.



The French withdrawal left a power vacuum in the Ottoman province. Marmaluke power had been weakened, but not destroyed, and Ottoman forces clashed with the Marmalukes for power. The Marmaluke dynasty had ruled Egypt for 600 years but under Ottoman tutelage. During this period of anarchy Muhammad Ali used his Albanian troops to play both sides, gaining power and prestige for himself. As the conflict drew on, the local populace grew weary of the power struggle and a group of prominent Egyptians demanded that he be installed as the new viceroy. He disposed of the Marmalukes by inviting them all to a ceremonial banquet and murdering every one of them there. Muhammad Ali was convinced of European superiority and Eastern backwardness and the necessity for a modernization of Egypt which he immediately set about and which was carried on by Said, his son.



One of De Lesseps’ tasks was to obtain the consent of Said to build the canal and yet acknowledge the need for permission from the Pasha in Constantinople too. He was a member of the French Diplomatic Service as his father and uncle had been before him so he had lived in several European countries being more of a citizen of nineteenth century Western Europe than of any one country. He spoke several languages. He was a member of what came to be known as “the establishment” and had access to wealth and power but his family was never in the upper tier. Whereas so many of his contemporaries were romantics and dreamers De Lesseps from the voluminous papers, correspondence and autobiographies comes across as a man of tremendous energy and ambition never in doubt. He was a Romantic in action but not in heart. He was confident to the point of arrogance. He sought fame because he thought he deserved it and he was tireless in the pursuit of it.



For most of the 1830s he lived in Cairo at a time when Muhammad Ali was challenging the Pasha, the ruler of the Ottoman Empire, even to the extent of sending an army to topple him and being on the verge of defeating him until the British interfered to send him packing. Turkey for most of the 19th century was “the sick man of Europe” used by the British to fight the Russians in the Crimean War but responsible for much of the instability in its Empire as European powers circled to take advantage. De Lesseps, now the consul, and the French were welcome in Egypt. De Lesseps capitalized on this and, after Said became viceroy, cultivated a close relationship with him feeding him dreams of power and influence through a constructed Suez Canal.



That mission accomplished, over the next few years he was constantly in action. He travelled to Great Britain to attend scores of town meetings to try to persuade the public and business leaders to look favourably on a canal and especially to counteract the British politicians fierce antagonism. And over time he achieved much, particularly when Lord Palmerston left the scene.



Several trips were made to Constantinople to try to pry the Turks away from the British, Moscow to keep the Russians on board and numerous sorties to impress bankers for the eventual raising of money. De Lesseps had one “rabbit up his sleeve.” His cousin had married Napoleon III. Eugenie was Empress of France. She was a tireless supporter of the canal, and given that the Emperor was pretty gung-ho for the glory of France and himself, he didn’t need too much encouragement.



In October 1858, 11 years before the opening of the Canal, De Lesseps sent two letters, one to the members of the press throughout Europe, the other to accredited agents of the Suez Canal Company. Four hundred thousand shares were to be offered at 500 francs each. In addition to the money, subscribers were contributing to the progress of mankind and the onward march of progress. The response was good but not overwhelming. However the stage was set to begin work on the canal.



I shan’t go into details of the construction — suffice it to say that crucially it was almost entirely at sea level, in contrast to the Panama Canal, but more of that at a later date. (I’ve handed a map around.) It entailed excavation of 100 miles, fairly straightforward but of a magnitude never attempted before.



Two or three chief engineers were appointed in the ten years of construction and new enormous machines were built. It was just as well that this mechanization occurred. because the Company ran into immense difficulties with Egyptian labour which had to be brought in from some big distances at great cost and which dried up as a result of the liberal outcry prevalent at that time. Anti-slavery was the “toast” of the era. Perhaps the most noteworthy feature was the early digging of the Sweet Water Canal which brought fresh water from the Nile that was used to irrigate large tracts of land, which became a source of conflict between the Egyptian Government and the Suez Canal Company.



On a windswept day in April 1858 the symbolic strike with a pickaxe was struck at Port Said. If they had seen into the future, De Lesseps would have pushed a button and listened to the roar of an excavating machine. With work under way, De Lesseps’ job was to continue pressure on the British, the Ottomans, Said and the Emperor. In November 1869, the Canal was opened at a great, congratulatory ceremony with all the significant personages of Europe present. It was paid for by the khedive, a new title for the viceroy indicating a diplomatic balance between Ottomans and Egypt, and just as well because the Company was out of money. In fact it had run out of money before the canal was finished and with the carrot of an important and prestigious Egypt dangled in front of him, Said’s successor had bought more shares and with these and other big public works had put Egypt in deep debt.



In 1863 Said, depressed and ill, died — to be succeeded by his nephew, Ismail. (In the Ottoman Empire the oldest surviving male succeeded to the title.) Ismail was the son of a military man, fought against the Ottomans in Syria and had gone to a military academy in France but he was not a military man. In contrast to Said he was deliberate and reserved. He was very much at home with the aristocracy in Europe. On his return to Egypt he avoided the court and built large and prosperous estates in the Nile delta. Again like many rulers of his generation he was an ardent nationalist and modernizer. He loved Egypt and wanted it to be powerful. He admired Europe and wanted to emulate it. Sadly, this required loans which put a huge strain on the budget, which was very reliant on cotton, whose price yoyoed about (not least because of the end of the American Civil War), and on top of that there was the onerous burden of paying for the 177,692 shares in the Suez Canal Company. He tried all sorts of maneuvers to reduce the Company’s influence, such as taking over the cost of the extension of the Sweet Water Canal to Suez but relieving them of their ownership of the irrigated lands it served and confirmed the obligations of his government to pay for the shares that Said had purchased. And further, he abolished the corvee, the Egyptian system for providing cheap labour.



Ferdinand De Lesseps had come too far to allow Ismail and his advisors to endanger his life’s passion. He believed the renewed opposition had one source: Great Britain. But now he was in a stronger position than he had been since the last time the British attacked. He was the head of a large company that was enmeshed in French society. The Canal was part of public life and its fate was intimately bound with French honour. After months of argument, threatened lawsuits and even the issuance of challenges to duels, De Lesseps emerged the winner because the Emperor Napoleon to whom all had appealed finally ruled that the Canal would be finished.



And so it was! Unfortunately for Ismail and Egypt the band did not go on playing. He went deeper into debt. In 1873 alone he borrowed more than 30 million British pounds, which was double the cost of the entire Suez Canal. He admittedly was completing expensive public works projects which were modernizing Egypt and increasing state revenues, but at a tremendous budgetary cost. By the mid 1870s, creditors were becoming worried. They had lent money on exorbitant terms and the interest burden was crushing. In 1875 European bankers decided he was on the brink of insolvency. They turned to his one attractive asset: the shares in the Suez Canal Company.



At first Ismail was considering selling them to French bankers. On hearing that news Disraeli, Britain’s Prime Minister, having already investigated the possibility of purchasing them, jumped at the opportunity to exclude the French. The British had come to rely on the Canal after their original opposition and were competing in a global chess game with the French in their imperial designs. With the help of the Rothchilds a loan was raised and a brilliant coup had been achieved. Britain owned 44 percent of the Company shares and was the largest shareholder. The French were not amused. Of course more debt payments became due and with no more shares to sell and no way to pay the interest due, he was forced to accept a joint Anglo-Egyptian Commission to oversee the country’s finances. His government in effect was placed in receivership and he had lost the ability to determine his own state budget.



Ismail’s rule was a lost cause. He had lost his legitimacy and his ministers turned against him. He went into exile to be replaced by his son, Tawfiq. The naked exercise of European power aroused Egyptian nationalism. Under Said and Ismail the old Turkish ruling class had been forced to share power with native Egyptians, a process occurring across Europe as the electorate was expanded. When Arabic speaking ministers and army officers made a bid for prominence they were rebuffed. Tawfiq appealed for help from the French and British but only the British sent troops, followed by a fleet which bombarded Alexandria in the summer of 1882 after an anti-European riot. They also seized control of the canal. De Lesseps denounced the seizure as a violation of the canal’s neutrality but British troops had in fact occupied the whole country. The Suez Canal had become the lifeline of the British Empire, and it was several years later an International Commission declared that the Canal should never be closed to ships of any nation by any nation, and in the interim the British established a protectorate over Egypt. No nation was going to be allowed to threaten the British Empire and after World War I she ruled Egypt more or less directly.



I think most people in this room remember or heard of the nationalization and seizure of the Canal in 1956. The original 15 percent of annual profits of the Suez Canal Company which Egypt had been issued were ceded back to it in a debt settlement. The sum ran into the millions of dollars. Grievances such as this and the wave of nationalism that was sweeping the world gave the impetus to Colonel Nasser to depose the last khedive, King Farouk, and send him into exile in 1952 and then strike out at the European powers who were in a period of decline following World War II. You remember how the British, French and Israelis colluded in an invasion and occupation of the Canal and then were humiliatingly told to withdraw by the Americans. End of story! The Egyptians now possessed their own canal.



The significances were these: One, most Brits, the government and the outside world had seen a major shift in world power. The arrogance of British imperialism was displayed when we were assured the Egyptians could not run the canal themselves without British and French pilots and administration. They were swiftly proved wrong. At the same time Russia had announced her arrival as a world power by contracting to build the Aswan Dam on the Nile snatching it away from The World Bank, a Western institution.



I think the other present day significance, looking back, is that a similar shift in world power is occurring right now with the emergence of China and the other BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India) and as Britain had to make huge adjustments to the new world order so do we now.

So you see the denial of my trip to Khartoum in the Sudan was brought about by an act which marked a major turning point in history rather than a personal vendetta by Col. Nasser against me.



I believe we can learn another lesson from this event. Europeans and now Americans do not fully realize the resentment and anger caused by the occupation of countries by their armies. Foreign troops in a country are an insult. Repeatedly one hears Afghans and Pakistanis venting their anger at our incursions and bombings. Perhaps we are learning at last but I doubt it.



Finally, I set out to include some of the history of the Panama Canal which included our hero De Lesseps at about the time the Suez Canal opened but I’ve run out of time and space and it looks like you’ll have to wait until May 2012. Please be patient and understanding. Thank you.



Photo: 1880s Suez Canal ferry photo by P. Perdis, via Flickr Creative Commons posting by blaques jacques.

Read More

The Bard's Berkshire connection

Presented to the Club by Michael A. Shirley in April, 1999

It is quite remarkable that today we use in everyday language so many of those quotations which were written 400 years ago and are taken from plays performed not only in English-speaking countries but literally in almost every country in the world. Our love, respect, wonder and admiration for William Shakespeare know no bounds.

In a humble way I would like to show you how my tenuous connection with him in England has now coincidentally extended to the Berkshires. I hope, nay I pray that you will find it interesting and that for those of you who have never studied the Elizabethan period Shakespeare’s plays with their difficult but beautiful verse will mean more to you. After all, an entree to Shakespeare opens up a world that one can dream about all one’s life. “Such stuff that dreams are made of.”

You are warned, though, that I find the social conditions that existed at this time are what really interests me so I’ll pass some of them on to you. My history at school was of the dates of kings and queens and other such static information. Little social history was taught, although in fairness the emphasis has shifted in modern times.

A little over two years ago I received an e-mail from a most surprised young lady at Shakespeare & Co. She had ventured onto the internet to look for the alumni of a school in South London called Dulwich College, and found my name with an address on the same street as the company she worked for.

Why, and why surprised? She, Mary Guzzy, is in charge of a project to build a replica of the Rose Theatre and its surrounding village, one of the new theatres built in London in the late 16th century, where Shakespeare’s new plays were performed. So “you could have knocked her over with a feather” (not a Shakespearean quote, I hasten to add) when she made this surprising discovery.

Why this Dulwich College? Well, the school was founded by Edward Alleyn, one of the most successful of Shakespeare’s actors. He was married to the daughter of a gentleman called Phillip Henslowe, an entrepreneur, who built and ran the Rose Theatre. His diaries and all the plans of the theatre reside in the archives at Dulwich College. We will see how Edward Alleyn, an actor, celebrated in a profession which took advantage of the prosperous times of Elizabeth's reign, managed to make enough money to found a school for twelve poor scholars, originally called “Alleyn’s College of God’s Gift at Dulwich.”

In the space of a few years on the North and South banks of the Thames in London several theatres were built. One should say purpose-built theatres, because there is evidence of plays being put on in arenas or pits where bear and bull baiting went on and in the courtyards of inns, all open to the air of course.

The first was built in 1576 by James Burbage and his brother-in-law John Brayne, and was just called “The Theatre.” Another called The Curtain was built close by the next year, 1577. The Theatre was situated North of the river at Cripplegate. It is this theatre that in 1599 was dismantled and moved to the South Bank or Bankside to become the Globe Theatre of which there is now a replica which is the centre of a thriving Shakespearean “industry” where education, an exhibition and performances are the hallmarks. (I can only urge you to visit and attend one of the plays when you are in London. )

Besides these “public theatres” which were considered noisome and rowdy there were smaller indoor ones considered “private” because higher fees were charged. The original actors here were choir boys (from St. Paul’s, the Chapel Royal at Windsor) who had begun acting out religious parables but turned to the performance of secular drama. We will see how religion was central to much tension and strife in Elizabethan England. But I am running ahead of myself.

The Rose was built in 1587 by Philip Henslowe, as I told you. It was the fourth such purpose-built theatre to be built in London and the first on Bankside. Now, Henslowe was an Elizabethan with an eye for making money and one of the first to see the financial potential of the new drama that was rapidly developing in London’s nascent playhouses from 1576 onwards. He was no player, or playwright, but his business success became joined with that of the Rose, as did his private life. In 1592 his stepdaughter married the celebrated actor Edward Alleyn.

There is evidence that the Rose was first built with the general entertainments in
mind, particularly animal baiting and traditional forms of drama, and that the new drama which demanded a fixed stage, tiring house (where actors changed their costumes) and frons scenae (performing area) came as a later modification.

I should point out that that this is disputed by some. The first five years of the Rose was a period of frantic development and change, first when a fixed stage was introduced and ending when it became a full version of a purpose-built playhouse after the extensive modifications of 1592. In one building we find the impressions left from this seminal period in the evolution of English drama. The Rose was a crucible of theatre development.

As an aside, to give you an idea that the theatre was not suited at first to the performances of theatrical plays I’ll read to you this amusing if rather chilling account found in Henslowe’s records at Dulwich:

You shall understand of some accidental news here in this town, though myself no witness thereof, yet I may be bold to verify if for an assured truth. My Lord Admiral, his men and players having a devise in their play to tie one of their fellows to a post as to shoot him to death, having borrowed their callyvers [guns] one of the players’ hands swerved, his piece being charged with bullet, missed the fellow he aimed at and killed a child, and a woman great with child forthwith, and hurt another man in the head very sore. How they will answer it I do not study, unless their profession were better, but in Christianity I am very sorry for the chance, but God, his judgements, are not to be searched or enquired of at man’s hands. And yet I find by this an old proverb verified: "There never comes more hurt than comes from fooling."

History has taught us that the Elizabethan Age was a golden age. England enjoyed prosperity and a certain stability. Land values and employment increased. Ships explored foreign lands. Foreign armies and navies, particularly the Spanish, were defeated. Elizabeth matured into a wise, diplomatic, shrewd and popular queen. It is only recently that it has been realised that the momentous events and changes that occurred in the 16th century caused turmoil in the religious and political lives of her citizens, only three million at this time.

After all, in the space of less than a century medieval Catholicism was replaced by modern Protestantism accompanied by the more extreme Puritanism. The link with Rome had begun in 597 with the conversion to Christianity by the mission of St. Augustine. It had been strong ever since. Henry VIII in his dispute with the Pope over his desire to divorce Catherine of Aragon and marry Ann Boleyn in the 1530s solved it by declaring himself the supreme head of the Church of England in place of the Pope. He meant to establish that he was the ultimate authority in his own kingdom.

It is quite likely that he was happy for change to stop there, but for two things. First, in 1536 he had financial problems and these led him to seize the lands, buildings and treasures of the monasteries. Second, there was an influx of new Protestant ideas from the German states, where Martin Luther had defied the Pope and emperor and become a national hero. One’s relation to God was a matter of personal conscience and initiative not determined by the doctrines and superstitious goings-on of the Catholic Church. The ordinary folk was imprisoned by them.

So the dissolution of the monasteries and the Protestant Reformation that followed brought about a fundamental shift in the power structure in England, the rise of a new landed class whose well-being was dependent on the new regime (Henry VIII had sold much of the land of the dissolved monasteries to them) and a state religion. Out of the religious strife, class conflict and eventual civil war the secular Britain as we know it today would evolve.

However, at the level of the village, town and in the countryside when Henry died in 1547, not much had changed. The Church was part Catholic and part Protestant with such new features as a new prayerbook. Edward, Henry’s son from his third marriage, then attempted to speed up the change — his determined, pious, singleminded personality egged on by a group of politically motivated advisors. Religious statues, screens and paintings were to be removed from churches, chapels and cathedrals. This destruction was cut short by his early death still in his teens in 1553. His half-sister, Mary, daughter of Catherine of Aragon and an ardent Catholic, set about reversing the trend. Her five years saw the burning of many Protestants all over the country. She earned the nickname of “Bloody Mary.”

The country was see-sawing between the religions, and now entered the new queen, Elizabeth. She was a convinced Protestant but no zealot. She set out to return the country to the path her father had begun. She surrounded herself with wise, moderate and astute men and could look forward to the smooth establishment of a country-wide Protestant Church. She achieved this, but not smoothly.

From our point of view, her achievement allowed the wondrous Renaissance of English literature and the theatre evidenced by our playhouses, the plays of Shakespeare, Marlowe and Jonson and eventually snuffed out by the Civil War of 1642. And within this achievement lived William Shakespeare. He was truly a man of his times witnessing all the momentous events around him.

Much evidence has been accumulating that his family were being caught up in these religious tensions. In 1563, a few months before William’s birth John, his father, previously a farmer, then a glover and now the Treasurer of Stratford responsible for the town accounts, was supervising the covering up and desecration of the religious images and painting in the churches. The records show that from being a relatively prominent and wealthy citizen he lost much of this almost certainly because of his Catholic faith and was lucky not to have lost his life in the frequent purges that Elizabeth’s regime resorted to as papist plots increased.

A century later a most extraordinary discovery was made in the attic of John Shakespeare’s house — a will requesting that he be buried essentially in a Catholic funeral. The goings-on around him were the fodder for his plays. He is said to have invented the concept of personality; he skillfully balanced the conflicting opinions around him; and he was the witness to the rise of European nations to challenge the ancient Asian civilizations — and yet he was born early enough to know the great medieval traditions of Christian England and Europe. He was successful enough in his time to restore his family’s fortunes so that he bought property that allowed his family to live comfortably in Stratford.

The public was demanding more and more plays. Shakespeare, Marlowe and Ben Jonson among others were providing them. The competition must have been fierce, as new theatres such as The Swan were going up. Henslowe responded as we have seen by modifying and modernising the Rose. Later in 1600 he and Alleyn built the Fortune Theatre and another, the Hope was also built. Two to three thousand people attended each play, paying a penny in the pit, another in the gallery and another for private rooms.

The acting companies were busy, very busy. The most successful of them like the King’s Men and Admiral’s Men included as many as 20 plays in their repertoire. Shakespeare belonged to the Chamberlain’s Men which later became the King’s Men that performed at the Globe Theatre. Indeed he and about five other actors had invested in, it as Burbage had difficulty in raising enough money, when they moved from The Theatre and built the Globe. That move was mainly necessary because it had proved most difficult to get a new lease because of the objections of residents to the noise and exceedingly bad company attracted to that theatre.

Shakespeare of course had written plays to be performed by his company and it is most likely that in his later years he became more of a theatre manager, even collaborating with others on some of them. Rehearsing in the mornings and performing in the afternoons must have meant a punishing pace but the public’s main entertainment in this late Elizabethan era was the theatre.

It boggles the mind how actors remembered all their lines, but education at the time concentrated on learning by rote. Printed copies were scarce not only because of the current printing methods but to prevent theft. Actors received only copies of their own lines. And then there were tours of the country which were conducted at least twice a year. The only breaks were enforced closures of the theatres by the authorities because of outbreaks of the plague. There was one of 18 months from the spring of 1602 until November 1603. Descriptions of the urban conditions on Bankside and in London make it quite plain that disease was rife. Open sewers running into the River Thames abounded so that rats which spread the plague must have infested the place. The stench apparently was appalling and the ground was frequently waterlogged.

From the diagrams of the City of London at this time you can see that most of the habitation existed on the North side of The Thames. Here is where the City authorities’ writ ran, not on the South side. Permits had to be obtained for performances of plays, often denied because they thought theatres were dens of iniquity frequented by lewd and lascivious folks, let alone a fear of the doubtful political intent and its effect on the populace.

It was not an accident that Bankside on the South bank was the site of numerous brothels, inns, bear and bull baiting arenas and eventually theatres. It was out of the City authorities’ jurisdiction. Interestingly, the land was owned by the Church and administered by the Bishop of Winchester. We will see how Edward Alleyn, the founder of Dulwich College, took advantage of this situation.

Another phenomenon I find interesting is the continual discovery of more documents that throw light on these Shakespearean times. England’s public records are more complete than those of most European countries. She has not been invaded or ravaged by foreign armies. As records are being scoured and then further references found to all sorts of events and material, a more complete picture is evolving. For instance now that it is known that the acting companies toured the countryside, town records have been examined for where their performances took place and which gentry patronised them. Much recent information has surfaced about Shakespeare’s life in London and in later years back in Stratford-on-Avon.

Some scholars are having a crack at identifying the boy who is the object of his first 17 sonnets. Interpretation of course has fixed on a homosexual relationship, but it is quite possible that having lost his only son about the time that they were written in the late 1590s, he was in a crisis-time of his life. He had described this as “being a hell of a time”

Speculation is rife about who “The Dark Lady” is. She is the object of very many of his later sonnets. Diaries have been found of an astrologer-cum-healer called Forman who treated many of Shakespeare’s circle. A lady who fits the bill is a woman descended from a Venetian family that arrived in England in the early part of the century. Their name was Bassano, and it was a Jewish family. The intrigue of the sonnets is that Shakespeare used the young man to be a messenger to the Dark Lady, a common practice of those times, but he ended up sleeping with her. Forman’s diaries are full of news, comment and scandal of these times.

In the first decade of the 17th century when he had gained success and fame he lodged with a Huguenot family in Cheapside on the North side of London. Maps of the area show the pubs, inns, brothels, houses, etc. and it can be appreciated that he was in daily contact with the common people of London. He only returned to Stratford about once a year although his wife and children continued living there.

Illustration: the planned reconstruction of the Rose Theatre at Shakespeare & Co., Lenox, Massachusetts

Read More

Is the glass half-empty or half-full?

Presented to the Club by Michael A. Shirley in April, 2001. (Readers should note that this paper was written and presented prior to the events of 9/11 and the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.)

After our last “fun” musical evening I thought long about continuing in the same vein. I entertained the idea of presenting this paper in mime. But I thought you might have a problem with my “broken English.” Perhaps I should present it in song. I would not sully the rarified air of High Street, Pittsfield.

Seriously however, one of the pluses of our Monday Club meetings is the sheer “fun-ness” of them. I got to thinking about a remark Jack [Spencer] made to me about my having a different perspective from the other members. I certainly get much enjoyment from hearing your points of view on all sorts of matters. Further I detect marked differences in approach between Americans and the British and Europeans. This is a generalisation but it is always clear to me personally that my English friends tend to see serious difficulties, unpleasant consequences and pessimistic outcomes in many of the world’s affairs. Americans generally see the bright side of things and search for solutions. So there is the basis for my title, “Is the glass half empty or half full?” Of course there must be many reasons for this ranging from the age of the societies to their respective philosophies, pioneering or not, and to their differing economic circumstances among others.

I don’t intend to pursue these reasons but I do intend to have a little fun giving you my optimistic (thanks to America!) views and hopefully provoke some new thoughts. Bear with me.

As we took stock of the 20th century just over a year ago we realized that the past decade had been a very surprisingly positive one. Liberty — political, economic and personal — has become a widespread fact for the first time. FDR’s four freedoms — from fear and from want, of belief and of expression — are possessed by more people. more securely, than ever before. There is no challenge to the one world superpower, the United States, leading since 1945.

In business and trade this relatively peaceful world finds itself in the middle of two technological revolutions that promise on the whole beneficial changes to life, work and the intimate side of our affairs driven by computers and various forms of genetic engineering.

Too optimistic a view? A privileged, pampered, immigrant intentionally ignorant of the poverty and privations of millions of people on this earth?

Not really. I believe there is a good chance that a significant dent will be made in these depressing aspects of the modern world as I hope to explain.

Two impressive things stand out from the first 90 years of the last century, terror is no longer rife in large parts of the world, large-scale war is not ongoing or imminent, democracy is increasing and above all more and more people are interacting with each other across borders both economically and culturally. The second thing is how few people in the prosperous part of the world are as optimistic. Perhaps they are unable to step aside and recognize the good things amongst the daily worries and competition of their lives. Or they know that it has been a hard fight, no gift from heaven and liable to be reversed by purveyors of dogma, ideology and certainty.

The major issue today that threatens to overwhelm us is our population. The world’s people numbered 1 billion in 1900, today 6 billion. One-third of all people who have lived on this earth are alive today. The increase has been staggering in no small part to our very successful public health measures and to a lesser degree medical, lowering infant and maternal mortality to very low levels and raising life expectancy to an unimagined extent. Predictions in the1980s put the likely total in 2010 to be 12 billion. However since then fertility rates in many populations not only of prosperous nations have been dropping so much so that a total population of 10 billion in 2010 predicted in 1994 had been decreased to 9 in 1998. There is likelihood that fertility rates will drop further. That’s still a hell of a lot of people! (Note: This was written in 2001. As of mid-2009, the estimated world population for mid-2010 was 6.8 billion. — Editor)

There is no question that it is difficult to avoid a “half empty” (no pun intended) view of these statistics. And yet let us consider the enormous numbers of people who are living substantially better today than 50 years ago. I refer not only to Europeans and Japanese but to all those millions in East Asia, for example in Thailand, Taiwan, Korea and Malaysia. And let us not forget China and India. China with 1.3 billions has enjoyed 7-10 percent growth for over 10 years. Their economy will be the same size as that of the U. S. by 2015-20. Admittedly each individual’s share will be much less than an American’s but the catching up will be well underway. Who would have imagined 40 years ago when Mao Tse Tung was dispersing millions into the countryside onto inefficient communes that today China would have a robust and growing capitalist economy (a $60 billion trade surplus with the U. S.) and some companies like Kodak and Coca Cola are the largest players in their respective markets? It is true that the government is run by the Communist party but its involvement in the economy is diminishing quite rapidly. It genuinely sees this as a priority with its imminent admission into the WTO and its agreements on human rights. And most importantly a middle class is emerging which will demand political, economic and human rights. The environment will be one of its main concerns too. I will return to this later.

Now India, a country I love and find fascinating: I grew up in a post-war Great Britain dying to throw off its class structure and pursue a socialist utopia. It took 30 years for the country to realise you cannot keep cutting the cake into smaller and smaller equal parts if it cannot grow. Well, you can, but the nation becomes impoverished. India embraced socialism with a passion. For good reasons in the social field but disastrous in the economic one. Only in the last 10 years has India lowered its protective trade barriers, welcomed foreign investment and begun to take its proper place in the world. Frankly, when I mix with my affluent Indian friends I realise that if I lived there I would not want things to change. Cheap labour, family firms serving large protected markets, friends who invest your money with a 25 percent return and oodles of obsequious, respectful servants who truly know their place. India is beginning to stir. Witness its IT and programming wizards who live in Bangalore and send their work nightly to Silicon Valley companies and the enormous success of the its community here. The population is now over 1 billion. 225 million Indians enjoy an annual income of twice the American average of $40,000, an enormous absolute amount of money. The other 775 million are the problem but change is under away.

I mentioned earlier the increasing interaction of people across borders both economically and culturally. Globalisation informs almost anyone in the world where he or she can earn more than in their village, town or city. Significant numbers are no longer deterred by distance, border police, discrimination or any other barrier you can think of. We are used to illegal immigrants here but increasingly “fortress” Europe is being invaded by East Europeans, North Africans, people from the Middle East and even further afield. Note the recent suffocation of over 50 Chinese in a truck which crossed the English Channel. Such poor immigrants will work for less than the minimum wage, do work that the locals won’t and send valuable money home. I believe that as fertility rates drop in the developed world and there are not enough young workers to fund the elderly’s pensions immigrants will be more welcomed. I further believe that if we allowed much freer movement of workers we would see them acquire and develop their skills, return to their countries with money to invest and set up businesses there. So, many immigrants wish to return but are deterred by a fear of not being able to move back to the developed country when they want.

Globalisation culturally is having an important effect in reducing prejudice. With rather more sensitive antennae than most I can detect quantum changes in racial attitudes most hearteningly amongst the young. White Aryan resistance is testimony to that. There are, I believe, 25,000 Chinese (from China) students in this country. During my trip to India last year invariably on meeting an educated Indian speaking English of course I would discover he or she had a relative in the States most often working in ‘high tech.”

Let me return to our exploding population. It is certainly challenging our resources. And yet all of us elderly gentlemen have lived long enough to see dire predictions proved wrong. Ages ago a Rome club predicted we would run out of energy sources, acid rain would destroy all of our forests, etc., etc. The side of the equation we tend to ignore is technology. Challenge has allowed more sophisticated geological methods to find oil, more efficient ways to extract it and now no longer extravagant promising new ways to obtain non-fossil energy.

Water is extremely scarce in many areas. ”Half empty” practitioners see wars being fought over it. Certainly it is potentially a serious problem but conservation measures like “drip” irrigation techniques in Israel and toilets using a 1 1/2 gallon water flush instead of a 5 gallon one (this has transformed New York City’s water situation) have hardly been used in most thirsty areas of the world. There is a realization that local communities have to be involved in the solutions to the problems.

So seeing that whether we like it or not the billions of poor people are with us and aspiring to the same standard of living that the rich enjoy already where do we go from here? I believe the great majority of poor people are going to reach that goal. We are beginning to identify those conditions that seem to be necessary for the economic advancement of poor nations. So often in analysis of why they have not lowered the gap with the rich countries economists come up with answers such as they don’t have skills, history stands in the way, they have too little capital, their culture is not entrepreneurial. In fact these are just detailed ways of saying that poor countries are poor. More helpful studies such as “Economic Freedom of the World” first published in 1996 by 11 economic think tanks around the world are suggesting that most of the explanations lie in the way poor countries are governed rather than in their natural disadvantages or in the unfair treatment by the rich although I think the last factor is a significant one.

Economic freedom means the ability to do what you want with whatever property you have legally acquired, as long as your actions do not violate other people’s rights to do the same. Goods and services arrive because of property rights and the incentives to create and use them. The conclusion is abundantly clear: the freer the economy, the higher the growth and the richer the people. Countries that have maintained a fairly free economy for many years did especially well.

This is not to say that a laissez-faire approach is advocated. Rather, the study indicates that economic freedom is a broad concept which requires a great deal from government. It must set a clear and predictable regulatory economic climate. That means protecting property rights, enforcing the law, avoiding inflation and, very importantly, not grabbing all the money for itself or nationalising enterprises. Other important attributes are an independent judiciary, the absence of protective tariffs and the presence of an investment climate which encourages the education of children and training of workers besides building factories and clearing land for farms.

As I contemplate what I have written and delivered I realise that I am sounding rather earnest. But then I should. We have to use our accumulated knowledge to help reduce the misery in the developing world. The billions of poor people have to be given the opportunity to enjoy the things that we do. Ah, you’ll say “that will destroy the world’s environment.” But when you consider that since 1900 the world’s population has more than trebled the world ought to be a pretty disgusting, smelly polluted place. And yet the air over Manchester, London and Pittsburgh is cleaner now than 100 years ago. The same goes for water. Why? The reasons have to do with prices, technological innovation, social change and, in democracies, government regulation in response to popular pressure. That is why today’s environmental problems in the poor countries ought, in principle, to be solvable. The worst pollution does occur in poor countries. But it reflects a lack of democracy more than an excess of economic growth. That said it has been heartening to see recent exposures of corruption in the Philippines, Indonesia and India. The emerging middle classes will demand higher standards of behaviour.

Before finishing I would like to put in a plea that this country and the other rich ones exercise enlightened self interest with the accent on enlightened. For instance the two areas in which poor countries should be allowed to trade freely with the rich ones are agriculture and textiles. In the last round of trade negotiations they were given implicit promises that that would occur in return for recognition of intellectual property rights. The rich countries have never delivered. Certainly there are powerful lobbies to resist this but we have to find the political will. Just as the U. S. practiced enlightened self-interest by the implementation of the Marshall Plan after World War II to the eventual enrichment of all parties the same principles must be applied in trade between rich and poor nations.

Finally I, like you, naturally wonder whether all this anticipated prosperity will deliver happiness. Now, there’s a hot potato! It seems to me that one of the inherent necessities of capitalism is to induce envy. Keeping up with the Joneses stimulates growth! However, successful capitalism does give us choices, even the choice to choose unhappiness.

And with that please pass me my half full glass of wine. I thank you for your attention.

Read More

Don't cry for me, Argentina: an exploration of our South American neighbor

Presented to the Club in 2008 by Michael A. Shirley



Jean, my wife, and I have been going to Argentina for the last four years. We spend two months there in our winter. I’ve traveled and worked in a number of countries in my life so to keep going back to the same country four times should mean that it is an interesting place and has something to offer. This evening I should like to share that with you by appealing to the tourist in you as well as the economist, historian, sociologist, politician and observer of world trends. I hope you will be entertained.



Firstly Argentina is on our doorstep. Well not geographically but developmentally. Although in our hemisphere and eight hours by plane from Miami, it was inhabited by indigenous Indian tribes and discovered by Europeans about the same time as North America so we have much in common. But while we have advanced to become the major super power Argentina has spectacularly prospered, being ranked at the end of World War II as the fourth richest nation in the world only to fall back amongst the pack through one economic crisis after another, the last of which in 2001, the largest default the world has ever known, has in this era of globalization led me and many foreigners to explore this fascinating country.



Argentina is the second largest country of South America after Brazil and the eighth largest country in the world. Argentina is a plain, rising from the Atlantic to the Chilean border and the towering Andes peaks. Aconcagua (22,834 ft.) is the highest peak in the world outside Asia. Argentina is also bordered by Bolivia and Paraguay on the north, and by Uruguay and Brazil on the east. The northern area is the swampy and partly wooded Gran Chaco, bordering on Bolivia and Paraguay. South of that are the rolling, fertile Pampas, which are rich in agriculture and sheep- and cattle-grazing and support most of the population. Next southward is Patagonia, a region of cool, arid steppes with some wooded and fertile sections.



Who were here when the first Europeans arrived? There were Indian tribes about whose history is little known. The main group in the North were the Guarani tribes.The traditional range of the Guaraní people is between the Uruguay River and lower Paraguay River in what is now Paraguay, the Corrientes and Entre Rios Provinces of Argentina, southern Brazil and parts of Uruguay and Bolivia. They are still there today but European colonization has reduced their dominance which has been diluted by intermarriage resulting in the term, mestizos. However the language is widely spoken across their traditional homelands most notably in those areas bordering Paraguay where it is used amongst all classes and ethnic groups as a symbol of national distinctiveness, and is an official language.



The other noteworthy tribe is the Mapuche who live mainly in Chile but have in the past spilled into Southern Argentina. They have fought against Spanish incursions for 300 years & have resisted Spanish & Chilean expansion in recent times but the European has proved unstoppable so that their lands have shrunk under pressure from mining & agricultural companies. Encouragingly today their language thrives and with a new found pride they are fighting for their rights in the courts with more success in Chile than Argentina. Little is known of their pre-Columbian history except they successfully resisted many attempts by the Inca Empire to subjugate them, despite their lack of state organization. And as an aside interestingly enough an analysis of their chickens’ DNA link them to Polynesians.



Back to Argentina, actually Buenos Aires for the foundation of that settlement was a key historical event in the future development of the country and that also affected Uruguay and Chile, Latin America’s Southern Cone. The main Spanish foothold, wealth and administration was centered in High Peru around the middle of the 16th century when they defeated the Inca Empire. The famous Potosi silver mines were “the stuff of their dreams”. In short, the conquest and population streams developed by the Spaniards left from three different places: Higher Perú, Chile and Asunción del Paraguay. From Higher Peru, the cities of Santiago del Estero (1553), Tucumán (1565), Córdoba (1573), Salta (1582), Catamarca (1583), La Rioja (1591) and Jujuy (1593) were founded. The stream leaving from Chile founded the cities of Mendoza (1561), San Juan (1562) and San Luis (1594). And the one leaving from Asunción del Paraguay, founded Santa Fe (1573), Buenos Aires (1580) and Corrientes (1588). The Indian resistance prevented these streams from settling down in the South.



The first settlement in 1536 which Pedro de Mendoza founded when he sailed up the Rio Plata never really established itself because of the relentless Indian attacks. It wasn’t until 1580 that Juan de Garay managed to establish a permanent settlement. Yet the city was unable to take advantage of its wonderful situation, on the magnificent estuary of the Rio Plata and with easy access to the Atlantic Ocean. In the Spanish Empire it was believed that wealth primarily consisted of gold and silver and Buenos Aires had neither. Before 1610 it was little more than a village with roughly 500 inhabitants, castaways in a double sea, the Pampas which they dared not explore because they knew little beyond the outskirts of the city and the Rio Plata which flowed into the Atlantic.



The Spanish commercial system in the mid-sixteenth century relied on fleets or convoys escorted by warships which sailed twice a year from Spain to avoid the pirates and British. They traveled between Cadiz mainly and the isthmus of Panama, where they would unload their goods to be transported to Panama City on the Pacific coast, reloaded on to ships for a port near Lima and distributed through Peru. The port of Buenos Aires was neglected and registered ships, the only ones allowed, were scarce.



Buenos Aires turned to the nearest ready source of wealth, viz. Brazil, which under the Portuguese was a rich colony but not allowed to trade with the city so smuggling became the main activity. To provide barter and money to obtain smuggled goods a bizarre practice sprang up, a practice which was a precursor of future Argentina’s major industry. Livestock in the countryside around Buenos Aires had been reproducing on an extraodinary scale so groups called vaquerias were set up to slaughter the unclaimed cattle nicking their Achilles tendons & slitting their throats just to obtain their hides leaving the rest of their bodies to the wild dogs & rats which plagued the Pampas. However the vaquerias were important because they gradually began to establish political boundaries.



Of course the issue that must be running through your minds at this stage is the comparison between North and South America. Both Britain and Spain were desperate to hang on to their colonies. In 1776 Britain was losing its grip and the game was almost up. Spain meanwhile was not faced with such determined or organized opposition but she needed to find a more effective way to administer the enormous area under her jurisdiction. That same year the Viceroyalty of the Rio Plata was formed which placed a vast area including Alto Peru, Lima, several well established cities like Cordoba, Mendoza (previously ruled from Santiago in Chile) and Ascuncion, the first city to be founded in what was to become Paraquay. This catapulted Buenos Aires into major prominence but set the scene for the subsequent endless battles, literally, very often, with other cities and jurisdictions.



The formation of the Viceroyalty of the Rio Plata marked the beginning of a prosperous period. Trade expanded enormously with ships arriving from Europe and North America, including whalers. Porteno, the name given to Buenos Aires, trading houses sprung up. Immigration increased mostly from Spain but also Italy, France and other countries.



This period did not last long enough as conflicts between neighboring cities, thoughts of independence from Spain, the French Revolution, turmoil in the monarchies of Europe brought on by Napoleon and English invasions interrupted this prosperity.



In 1806 the English from a base on the other bank of the Rio Plata, now part of Uruguay, mounted an invasion of Buenos Aires only to be repulsed. They returned the following year but with the same result. Oh, Calamity of Calamities, said the English and probably many Argentines too in later years! (Please forgive the jingoism!)



There were repercussions and sequelae. The city gained in prestige, it’s administrative structures suffering no damage and managing to retain the respect of the provinces. Its military reputation soared. The Spanish regiment stationed there was really not interested in fighting so an army of locals was recruited especially before the second assault. The English were not novices but fighting men of note especially in their battles with Napoleon. The people’s courage and enthusiasm won the day. And finally the Spanish King’s Representative had been overthrown, an unprecedented event in Spanish imperial history. That Representative, by name Raphael de Sobramente, had followed to the letter instructions which ordered the Viceroy in the event of a foreign invasion to safeguard royal funds along with those of private individuals and to flee which is precisely what he did.



The year 1810 resembled those years leading up to the establishment of the North American constitution. The May Revolution saw various sectors of society with different ideas for the fate of Argentina come together. Some wanted independence from Spain, others, particularly loyalists especially in the provinces advocated a “wait and see” approach while all debated a new concept, that people could choose their own rulers. The old idea that power lies in the crown because it is legitimately given by God was complicated by the fact that the crown had been snatched from the rightful king. This was all revolutionary stuff. Meanwhile criollo (those born in South America not Spain) power was increasing in the legal and military arenas. Military corps were formed depending on their origins, Galicians, Catalans, Arribenos (citizens from the north), mestizos, Blacks. In general over the next 70 years Argentina was evolving to its present shape. The major problem was the relationship between the progressive more sophisticated Buenos Aires and the outlying provinces which were often run for periods by caudillos (little dictators) while at other times by citizens’ councils. The conflicts and civil wars of the years before 1860 were appalling. Leaders were overthrown or assassinated. Prominent men tried to introduce a constitution to unite the areas into a nation. Interminable arguments centered around whether Buenos Aires should be given the capital, much resisted by those Portenos who wished it to remain the capital of Buenos Aires Province. They did not want to see it given up to the nation. Along the way Argentina formally declared independence in 1816.



Suffice it to say that in these years leading up to the end of the 19th century Argentine society was becoming recognizable as we know it today and the significant events occurring in the rest of the world were coming to bear on that society.



The period from 1880 to 1910 was called the Belle Epoque, characterized by peace in Europe( the last war being the Franco-Prussian War of 1870), France resuming its prominent position, Britain becoming the dominant world power and Germany not yet in a position to put the fear of God into rest of Europe. I might add that from a Latin American perspective the United States was seen to be pursuing an aggressive imperialist policy with its occupation of Cuba, the Phillipines and Puerto Rico and encroaching on Pan-American affairs.



Unlimited progress, the elimination of nationalist movements, the lessening importance of religious ideologies, free capital movement and widespread immigration were all cause for reasonable optimism. Argentina went from a country with fairly promising prospects and valuable natural resources but lacking a capital city or a State apparatus, a country in which a third was occupied by Indians and which had no currency of its own and no importance in world markets, to the most advanced in South America with a significant degree of importance in the world’s investment, production and consumption. It boasted an extensive railroad network. Its education system was admirable and it possessed a sizable middle class giving it a stability it had not previously known. The rather conservative regimes of this period relied on the principles of immigration, education and peace. Immigration was not discriminatory. An emphasis was placed on primary education and a deliberate effort was made to avoid wars with neighbors.



The country took advantage of the technology of the time. Just as barbed wire transformed the Mid West so too it did the same in the vast Pampas, defining property limits and lots for pasture, and with delineating cattle from crops. The Australian wind-pump made water available everywhere and steam seed drills and combined harvesters made an appearance. The other key invention that changed the face of the Argentinian countryside was cold storage. The first refrigerated ship left for Europe in 1879 and soon the demand for tasty, fattier beef spurred crossbreeding of cattle.



In 1910 Argentina was talked about in El Dorado terms. In a very favorable environment a transplant of European civilization had been achieved (Buenos Aires was called the “Paris of Latin America”). And yet the transformation to an orderly, just democratic society did not go smoothly just as you might point out it did not in Europe either. An outstanding problem with Argentinian public life still evident today is the politics of the pact, agreement and alliance. Politics is more about personalities than policies. Yes, this has its uses in avoiding conflicts and confrontations but it did give rise to an illusory and deeply immoral electoral system. Great store was placed in the adoption of an Election Law in 1912 which enfranchised men.



I can’t bore you with the details of Argentinian life until 1943 when the name Peron becomes familiar but I can give you an overview of events and trends. Until 1930 parliamentary politics reigned with identifiable parties, Conservatives and Radicals, but elections were rigged, electoral fraud was rife and the concept of a loyal opposition did not exist. Besides the worldwide Depression hit Argentina as it did everywhere else. The Government announced that they would protect their sources of wealth in order to tackle the crisis and reconstruct the economy. As it happened this wealth belonged to the men in government, the big cattle breeders and farm owners, the people involved in the international meat trade and this was of pivotal importance in overcoming the crisis. The poorer peoples’ suffering was of a lower priority. There was a good side. Rural unemployed moved to the cities and founded small businesses, workshops, textile mills, etc. In 1930 the convoluted politics gave rise to an Army intervention, the first time a national constitutional government had been overthrown. The Army allowed conservative interests to rule, to pursue further accumulation of their riches and ignore the common good. No one seems to remember the date of this military coup and there exists a vague unease and a feeling that it was a despicable moment in Argentinian history.



However the Army was back in 1943. The soil was fertile for some sort of totalitarianism. Its success in Europe may have been blunted in the War but many Argentinians looked forward to the defeat of England and America especially because of its dependence on the former. They saw a way to become the dominant player in Latin America. Democracy did not have a good name because of vote rigging and electoral fraud. A silent workforce had grown up employed in factories and workshops around the cities enjoying high salaries, special status and full employment, a rare state of affairs in Argentina. It backed a national ideology with no political party to represent it but was prevalent in the military and upper classes. It wanted to defend national industry, reduce its dependence on Britain and feel more in control of its own affairs. Besides General Franco’s successes in Spain were an inspiration. With confusion reigning in the political arena and an army clique without a clear idea of what it wanted thrust into the limelight the country appeared leaderless. Great pressure was being applied to abandon their neutrality in the War but the army clung to it as a matter of principle (and it might be added as a matter of sympathy for the Axis). Finally in March, 1945 towards the end of the War they were forced to declare war on Germany and Japan, a prerequisite to join the UN.



The Army’s stock was very low. But there was one thing they could salvage: Juan Peron’s record at the Department of Labor. He had assiduously courted the unions, raising wages, making plans to increase workers’ rights and most importantly organizing unassigned workers into new unions. However his power base was a threat to all the authorities including the US. But despite this, arrest and detention he emerged to win a close election in June, 1946.



His ascent may or may not have filled a void but here was something new. His political language was different, no party agenda other than “social action”, that the State should play a stronger role in the economy, the underprivileged should be helped and while no one quite knew what his totalitarian views were he was helped by often being seen with his wife, Evita, a radio actress and a household name of whom he was very proud. Besides the other side the Democrats were discredited.



What did Peronism mean in the nine years that Juan Peron ruled? It was nationalistic, statist & autarkist, i.e. patriotic, the State to control the economy & the country to be self-sufficient. Argentina’s considerable monetary reserves were whittled away by 1951 retiring a not very big foreign debt, nationalizing foreign companies and vastly increasing the number of civil servants. The country could be self-sufficient right after the war but as nations picked up their economies that became unsustainable, competition for exports increased, investment in nationalized utilities companies lagged and inflation priced their goods out of markets.



He became increasingly dictatorial buying up all the radio stations, starting government newspapers and harassing the opposition even with imprisonment. Evita, an extraordinary woman and the theatrical author of my title, assisted him ably by establishing contact between the government and the workers’ movement through the unions, by leading the Peronista Women's Party (women were newly enfranchised) and by her fanatical oratory which gave her a certain mysticism. She also ran a very visible social welfare program.



Peron altered the constitution and won a second term in 1951. Why Peron should have gone under in September, 1955 remains a bit of a mystery. His power base was enormous, he controlled the mass media and still won elections and addressed huge crowds. His bankrupting economic policies were being reversed to quite good effect.



However, irrationally egged on by subordinates he began attacking the Catholic Church quite viciously, after Evita’s death it became well-known that he began keeping the company of girls from a secondary school and had an affair with a 14 year-old girl whom he installed in the presidential residence. The public still loved him but they lost respect. A General in Cordoba with no real support began a revolt. Even though the Armed Forces were divided no one stepped forward to defend him not even his own supporters. He resigned and fled to Paraguay. Remarkably the most discredited man in Argentina he returned to power 18 years later.



With time dwindling and your patience possibly becoming exhausted I’ll bring you up to date quickly. My excuse is that Argentina may not be a major player in the world but it is in Latin America which is on our doorstep and is currently becoming an area of concern to the US, witness the populist Presidents in Venezuela, Bolivia and Equador. After Peron a cruel military dictatorship took control in 1976 mostly to counteract a growing group of terrorist leftists called Monteneros. Opponents were tortured in prisons around the nation, executed( a favorite way was throwing them out of airplanes) and life became stifling. The junta miscalculated by invading the Malvinas or Falkland Islands and the British launched a counter attack which partly because of tacit American help won the day. This loss sealed the military regime’s fate. They ignominiously were thrown out.



The recent history consists of vain attempts to get the economy right. In the 1990s to prevent a repeat of the murderous inflation they had experienced the peso was pegged to the US dollar, one for one. It worked for a few years but resurgent inflation unbalanced the strategem so imports priced in dollars became increasingly cheap and exports dear. In 2001 the government devalued the peso by 66 percent devastating the poor and middle classes. One day you had $90,000 or 270,000 pesos in the bank the next 90,000 pesos or $30,000. The government defaulted on its debts. You cannot imagine what a devastating effect this has had on living standards, morale and esteem.



In the last seven years a family, the Kirshners from the Southern Province of Santa Cruz has taken control of the government and overseen fast economic growth, 7-9 percent a year by holding the peso’s value down against the dollar and taking advantage of the record world prices of meat, wheat, soya beans and sunflower seeds. To rein in inflation, again now running officially at 8 percent but unofficially at 20 percent the government has slapped taxes and quotas on exports provoking farmers to protest massively by blocking roads and holding back produce. The finance minister resigned last week. Argentina looks headed for another crisis. “But don’t cry for me, Argentina we’ve seen it all before”. I should point out that the Kirshners and allies all belong to the Peronista Party which still dominates political life in the Federal Capital and most of the provinces making the eternal struggle between a centralist government and autonomous provinces easier to manage. One still does not see much meaningful discussion of policies. It’s still personalities being supported or recruited with their power bases.



I like to dwell on the comparison between the evolution of the countries in North and South America. Was the absence of an overriding port or city in North America a factor? Buenos Aires so dominated Argentina that provinces could not display real independence to negotiate as equals. Was an Anglo Saxon heritage a factor? Spanish colonies have not exactly developed into successful democracies. And yet today’s Spain is undoubtedly one. Discussions I love!



Four years ago I happened to land in this interesting country. In many ways it is a European country, not South American especially Buenos Aires. It is cheap even in these days of a devalued dollar. A two-bedroom apartment costs $2000 or less for the month. A meal in one of the many excellent restaurants never costs more than $35 and that includes the most heavenly steaks (from cattle eating grass on the Pampas), a bottle of superior wine and tip.



The Portenos and Argentinians in the Provinces are friendly, welcoming and keen to show off their magnificent country. Perhaps they are a little fascist but they are wonderful soccer players, currently No. 1 in the world and I watch cricket at old British clubs. Their tennis players rank with the world’s best.



Buenos Aires is a fine city with superb art and cultural museums, leafy parks and plane trees lining every street. The summers, our winters, are warm, sunny and inviting. Then there is Antartica and its glaciers, the Andes, Mendoza where Jean and I go for two weeks to taste the Malbecs and this year we went to the Northwest where there is more of an indigenous Indian culture. We have not yet seen the Iguazu Falls which apparently outshine Niagara.



I have not mentioned such fascinating subjects as the Anglo-Argentinian community (in 1900 300,000 English lived in Argentina), the Jewish community ( large and influential), the Blacks (disgracefully and deliberately rubbed out) and finally the Indians (denied their rightful place).



I would urge you to follow the country’s progress. It is and will be important in our hemisphere and I can bet a visit will be an adventure well rewarded.

Read More