Review: Leviathan: The History of Whaling in America by Eric Jay Dolin

Part Mark Kurlansky and John McPhee, -- authors I love -- Eric Dolan has written an absolutely fascinating book about whales and the history of the whaling industry. Much as those authors bring quotidian things and events to life.  It's also part literary criticism and biography.

 

The first whaling was done by settlers who copied the Indians dismantling of stranded pilot whales along the coast. This was succeeded by shore-based whaling as the value of whale oil became apparent leading to taxation and division of the spoils according to detailed rules.  What happened, for example, when a whale washed up on the beach attached to a harpoon?  Who "owned" the whale? This led to marking harpoons and lances, much as lobster fishermen do to buoys today, to help identify who might own a share.

 

Gradually, as the Indians, who had performed much of the labor connected to whaling, died off from diseases brought back by those same ships, and as the value of the product rose immensely, blacks were hired to work. The case of Prince Boston was to have profound implications nationally. He was an excellent boat steerer, and having returned from a voyage was due the princely sum of 28 pounds, a substantial amount.  His owner, Swain, claimed the money belonged to him and when Roach, the ship's owner, who despised slavery, insisted on paying Boston directly, Swain sued. He lost in all venues. In the Mass. Supreme Court, Boston was not only awarded the money but also given his freedom.

 

Whaling leveled racial animosity. Escaped slaves would often seek out berths on whaling vessels as a way to earn money (they got equal wages with their white counterparts) as well as escape the depredations of the slave catchers. Most Nantucket whaling captains wanted nothing to do with racial animosity and valued their black sailors.  There were exceptions. One Second Mate who became captain after the deaths of the Captain and his First Mate, decided he could make a lot of money by turning his ship into a slaver and sailed off to Africa where he obtained a load of slaves, a profitable voyage, indeed.  Whale ships were designed to have lots of room in the hold making them well-suited for such evil transactions.

 

The story behind Moby Dick is interesting.  Melville had signed on has a hand on a whale ship for a 1/175th share (the whole section on how they were paid and the pittance ordinary seamen earned is revealing.) During a GAM -- when two whale ships met in the ocean they would hang our for several days mingling crews and exchanging gossip -- Melville met a young man by the name of Chase who recounted his time on the Essex, a ship that was rammed by a large sperm whale and battered until it sank. The few crew members who survived did so by consuming their companions. (See my review of Nathaniel Philbrick's In the Heart of the Sea: The Tragedy of the Whaleship Essex.) Melville was so taken by the story he used it for, well, you know...  

 

The heyday of whaling was the 1850's before the discovery of coal gas and kerosene as alternative lighting options. The predations of the confederate raiders Shenandoah and Alabama which preyed almost exclusively on the whaling fleet -- they couldn't shoot back so it was easy pickings, destroyed many ships, but the great ice-in of 1871 and 1876, when with typical white man hubris they had ignored the warning of the Eskimos in the Arctic, not only destroyed many ships, but badly hurt the insurance industry which had to take the brunt of the losses. (The story of of 100 whale boat trek to open water is quite a story in itself.) The ever-increasing availability of oil and its refinements spelled doom for the whaling industry, which diminished to nothing by the end of the 19th century.

 

Wonderful read.

 

Review: In the Heart of the Sea: The Tragedy of the Whaleship Essex

 Everyone knows the story of Moby Dick, the great white whale chased by Captain Ahab, that succeeds in sinking Ahab’s ship. Apparently, Herman Melville based the story on a real event, although the sperm whale was not white, merely an enraged, but also seemingly cunning, bull sperm whale. It’s this story of the whale ship Essex, and of the grim events that faced the sailors who left Nantucket in 1820, that Philbrick tells of in rather horrifying detail .

The Essex’s Captain Pollard was on his first command and was only recently married when they sailed for the Pacific whaling grounds. The voyage did not get off to a good start when only a short while after their departure, he insisted on maintaining studding sails during a regular blow that resulted in a knockdown, the ship being blown over on its side by a strong gust of wind. That it ever righted itself was extraordinary and a testament to the seaworthiness of these vessels that were crewed usually by some twenty to thirty men. His crew was still quite green and the experience must have been unnerving, to say the least. Nantucket was populated by Quakers who never quite adjusted to the presence of offislanders, i.e., anyone not born on the island. They were also, despite their professed pacifistic nature, a rather savage lot. There was a “blood lust and pride that bound every mother, father and child in a clannish commitment to the hunt. . . . There was rumored to be a secret society of young women on the island whose members pledged to marry only men who had already killed a whale.” Be that as it may, they were not having much luck initially, but after a difficult passage around the Horn, they managed to find a pod of whales and begin filling the hold. Philbrick provides rich detail of the whaling industry and the lives of the men who crewed the ships.

The book is worth reading for just that minutiae alone. In any case, two of the eventual survivors recorded the events in detail, so Philbrick has some evidence to help ground his narrative. It appears this bull sperm whale, estimated to be 85 feet long, quite large, only two feet shorter than the ship itself, drove head-on into the ship. Initially the crew suspected it must have been an accident, but this guy lined himself up and headed back in for a second shot, this time staving in the planks by the forecastle, causing water to rush in below the waterline and the ship to begin sinking. They managed to save three whaleboats and a substantial amount of provisions and water. Regretfully, the captain was not a forceful man, for his plan to sail westward to the Marquesas Islands probably would have saved many lives. That coupled with his inadequate navigational skills, particularly as they related to finding one’s longitude, and the crew’s fear of suspected cannibalism on those islands – an ironic fear, given what was to follow – forced his decision to follow the first mate Chase’s advice to sail for the west coast of South America, several thousand miles farther than the Marquesas. Cannibalism was an accepted reality among shipwrecked sailors, and, in fact, most of those who survived long voyages at sea following a shipwreck often had a time convincing their rescuers that they had not indulged in the practice. 

Philbrick’s description of the eventual eating of one’s fellow crewmen – they even cast lots to see who would die and be eaten – would make Stephen King proud and bring new meaning to the word “gross.” Had the crew adopted the practice of another shipwrecked crew, they might have survived without having had to indulge in the practice. This other crew cut up a sailor who died from hunger and used his parts for bait, catching many sharks that provided enough sustenance to get them through the ordeal. The Essex survivors never caught any fish. The story of what happened to the survivors after their rescue is as interesting as the rest of the book.

Review: Veritas: A Harvard Professor, a Con Man and the Gospel of Jesus's Wife by Ariel Sabar

 

Veritas in Latin translates as "truth".  Sabar has written a detailed and fascinating book about how that was achieved in the case of a papyrus fragment that had a series of words that could be interpreted to suggest that Jesus was married (ala DaVinci Code -- a fun book, btw.). Sabar's story contains confirmation bias, hubris, amateur scholars v. professional scholars, and academic jealousies. Truths might take a while to get into the Ivory Tower but they do make it eventually.

 

The temptation to read a concept into something because it matches an agenda we already subscribe to is an overwhelming temptation. Karen King, esteemed professor in the Divinity School at Harvard, fell victim to a forged papyrus that could (! not necessarily) have suggested Jesus had a wife. (That it's much more likely he was gay, given his predilection for hanging out with guys, has been suspected in other quarters.)  Nevertheless, this scrap of papyrus was a dream come true for King who had argued the Church's position on women was all wrong.

 

The story is fascinating.  Two amateur Coptic scholars, one an atheist, when they had a chance to look at the fragment, realized the translation and wording was lifted verbatim from the Gospel of Thomas and the translation of the word for "my" most likely had a different meaning anyway. Other professional scholars also revealed doubts although their argument that the grammar was inappropriate for the time period didn't convince me.  All you have to do is watch television or listen to conversations on the street and you will quickly realize how perverted colloquial grammar can become. Words like notorious, infamous, and famous have all become synonymous, ruining any former subtleties, not to mention confusion of ran and run, nor the infamous "he gave it to you and I" which sends shivers down my Strunk and White. (If you don't know what Strunk and White is, then you're part of the problem.) Not to mention the total destruction of the past tense by the historical present.   End of rant.

 

Sabar had followed the story from the beginning and it was his article in the Atlantic that reopened the furor. He had taken the time to track down the origin of the fragment and doggedly sleuthed out the seller of the fragment, something King most assuredly should have done.

 

Along the way, Sabar discusses the history of our attitudes toward marriage and Augustine's obsession with sex as well as the non-canonical Gospels.  It all provides very appropriate context.  In the end I don't damn King as much as others have in the media. We ALL suffer from confirmation bias and her case is simply confirmation of how powerful it can be. (Puns intended.)

Review: American Oligarchs: The Kushners, the Trumps and the Marriage of Money and Power by Andrea Bernstein

I am no fan of the Trumps.  Nor do I approve of many of the financial shenanigans engaged by him, his company, and his family.  But the problem lies primarily with the loopholes created by legislators at the behest of the rich so they can avoid taxes and get richer all the while sucking at the public teat through government contracts. Trump himself has acknowledged publicly in one of the debates that he used money to purchase influence and garner favor. The Fact is that politicians love power and want to keep it.  To do that they need lots of money and people like Trump were there to fulfill their wishes.  At a price.  

 

"Consultants" hire themselves out to help get politicians elected.  Then get hired to work in the government they helped elect.  Then leave that government and create lobbying firms to sell the influence and connections they now possess thanks to their time in that government.

 

One of the advantages to owning a casino is how easy it is to launder money and get unregistered loans.  His father bailed him out when Trump was close to insolvency and unable to make a bond payment by walking into one of Trump's casinos in Atlantic City and purchasing $3.5 million worth of chips and then just walking out effectively giving his son a free loan. Clearly, following the refusal of American banks to loan him more money following a string of bankruptcies in which they lost millions, the Russian oligarchs stepped in to fill the void.

 

Given what Trump said during the debates, i.e., how he gave money to both parties in order to garner favor and influence, I should not have been surprised with the close political relationships between the Kushner family and the Democrats, especially Bill Clinton, but I certainly was with their connection to Benjamin Netanyahu. Perhaps the Jewish connection and appreciation for Israel stemmed from the horrific experience of their family under the Nazis. (The failure of Trump to denounce the anti-Semitism of his more radical followers is the more surprising given the Kushners' Jewishness and the conversion of Ivanka to Judaism.)

 

Trump benefited from the Bloomberg policy of seeking foreign investment for New York.  Bloomberg actively solicited money from overseas, proclaiming that the city needed them to help pay taxes and fund schools and police. The Trumps took advantage of this policy, and so did the Russians, who invested heavily in Trump projects, often buying condos and apartments in his buildings for millions of dollars in cash.  It was a marvelous way to laundry money and curry favor with the future president. More than 50% of these units were occupied less than two months out of the year. A less beneficial impact was a doubling of rental costs in the city.

 

Ultimately, this is a very depressing book. The clear lesson is that if you have money, you can flaunt the laws;  if you have money you inherited, you can create an image for yourself that may be completely at odds with who you are; that if you have money, the rules that apply to everyone else don't apply to you; and, if you have money, you can buy influence among politicians who then build loopholes for you to drive your trucks through. One wonders what the net effect of the Trump presidency will be. One danger will be, as a reviewer in the Washington Post noted, " cottage industry of Trump biographers and researchers has uncovered so many examples of deceptive, fraudulent and mean-spirited behavior by the president and his family that one succumbs to outrage fatigue."

 

Review: Bad Blood: Secrets and Lies in a Silicon Valley Startup by John Carreyrou

 Listened to this as an audio book and I found all sorts of excuses to do things so I could continue listening (my wife loved it because most of that work involved cleaning.) As almost everyone knows Elizabth Holmes had dropped out of Stanford so she could get rich.  She had an idea for a device that would revolutionize blood testing, a nifty idea.  Unfortunately it never worked but she insisted in public it did and fraudulently manipulated the data behind the scenes to prevent investors from recognizing that.  When VP Biden visited the Theranos lab in 2015 he was presented with rows of machines.  The Problem was they were all fake.

 She persuaded numerous well-known people to sit on the board and invest. As a young, attractive woman, perhaps that influenced the older men who jumped on board. (Henry Kissinger and George Schultz were among them. Ironically, Schultz, who got his grandson a job at Theranos, refused to believe him when the grandson reported the "place was rotten.") I don't know. Then again, I always wondered about John McCain's choice of Sarah Palin who seemed to offer little except a nice face. The media fell for it, too. Adoring profiles appeared in numerous magazines that did not do their homework. CEOs at Safeway and Walgreens were not immune to her spell.

 

I found this quote from the NY Times review particularly apt: "Swathed in her own reality distortion field, she dressed in black turtlenecks to emulate her idol Jobs and preached that the Theranos device was “the most important thing humanity has ever built.” Employees were discouraged from questioning this cultish orthodoxy by her “ruthlessness” and her “culture of fear.” Secrecy was obsessive. Labs and doors were equipped with fingerprint scanners.

 

The media was completely bamboozled and fawned all over her.  All sorts of evidence was there from employees who were quitting in droves, but they were never interviewed. The old geezers on the board had even been warned by relatives who worked at the company to no avail. The old guys were so enamored of this pretty thing with nice legs that they abandoned their fiduciary responsibility and really should have been held responsible for the disaster.  David Boies doesn't escape condemnation either.  The esteemed lawyer who charged $1000 per hour had a stake in the company, violating all sorts of ethical tenets, sued anyone who might say something negative about the company, harassing them with private detectives and threats.*

 

Holmes and her erstwhile boyfriend, ex COO of Theranos, Ramesh Balwani, are now under indictment facing decades of imprisonment if found guilty. As further evidence of her cold manipulative personality, detractors cite her becoming pregnant just before the trial was to begin (resulting in a postponement) as a calculated move to garner sympathy.  The story is not over and several podcasts (The Dropout and Bad Blood: the Final Chapter) are reporting on the trial.

 

Society functions well only when there exists a level of trust. We want (and need) to assume that people are not fooling us. It's OK to be moderately skeptical but actions like Holmes's raise the skepticism bar to an impossible level that will eventually stifle progress.

 

*see https://isb.idaho.gov/blog/theranos-and-the-tale-of-the-disappearing-board-of-directors/ for more.