Future of Man(hattan)

I finished reading a remarkable book called Mannahatta: A natural history of New York City this week, a coffee table-style book about Manhattan island when first discovered by Henry Hudson in 1609. I picked it up because I wanted an innovative history of the city and had recently traveled there. I realized why so many call greatest city on the planet. What I enjoyed most were the people – the fact that there are so many characters, and fashion and social statements are created just because people see a combination that interests them and they go for it. The lack of self-consciousness about the city and her people is perhaps why the rest of the world has to take them seriously. Many of the people you see walking on the streets of New York, perhaps with an odd outfit or shoes that for now are out of style, nevertheless exude confidence (which is also true of the book, in fact). This is precisely the reason that they pull it off, and the reason that the rest of the less-confident consumer public follows their innovation. The noise and vibrancy of the peopled city is perhaps what makes numerous pages of facing maps from 1609 and 2009 so compelling: they exhibit contrast between the tranquility and cacophony of the two eras, yet of course the pages make no noise.

I have long believed that my “drop in the ocean” makes a difference in terms of conserving resources. The last chapter of the book supports the idea, and presages the sea change in our mindset regarding the environment. Thinking of Manhattan in 2409, when we will undoubtedly have a more ecological mindset, it put a face on the long view of the conservation movement. It's always so difficult to explain in conversations about changing our habits and being more conscious of how we eat, construct our buildings, use transportation, and create waste. We can see this consciousness blossoming today, as more people install solar panels atop their homes and buy hybrid vehicles, as state governments enact taxes on overly-dispensable plastic bags, and technologies such as lightbulbs and refrigerators are manufactured to operate more efficiently.

In writing about the Lenape, the people who lived on the island when it was Mannahatta, Sanderson wrote of their hospitality and ignorance of wealth as we know it. I had never recognized these well-known characteristics in the same way as when he wrote about it. Native Americans took stock in the wealth of the community and people around them, rather than what they owned or their savings in a bank account. Money does, for the most part, correspond with happiness in our society. Not owning things that we don’t need and being sure that we use the goods we keep–minimalism–is something that appeals to me, and a principle that does make us happier. An acquaintance from South America dropped me a line about dia del amigo, a holiday which is unfortunately overlooked in the States. As we think of it in relation to the social customs of the Lenape, perhaps our culture (and this writer, I admit) does not celebrate it because our culture doesn’t accommodate such simple things as good advice and lunchtime company because we’re too concerned with wealth and progress.

The great thing is, Sanderson doesn’t take anything away from the people of Manhattan (or humankind, for that matter) for fouling up the once-immaculate ecology of the island, but instead gives them credit for making it such an innovative and unique place. He leaves us with an understanding of the city as it once was, and how some of the natural elements once banished are returning, with an idea of the role of nature in the modern city. The author reminds us that the challenge to reintroduce nature to our modern surroundings will come as much by necessity as by desire. But, as the process continues over the next 400 years, we’ll return to an earth more enjoyable for all of us.

"Our ability to come together to stop or limit damage to the world's environment will be the greatest test of how far we came as a world community" – Margaret Thatcher

2093

We have but one life – it’s worth our while to enjoy the world around us. I found a beautiful metaphor which expresses this better than any: "this is water," an old fish told young ones. They of course didn't realize that they were in water at all, but it was the reality that they lived in. It is the same for human beings - we have to enjoy the water around us, and even move the water which surrounds us. Everyone deals with the same troubles, the same insecurities, and desires to have more.

My brother and his wife were recently blessed with something more incredible than they ever could have imagined. I reckon parenthood is something that takes you by surprise no matter what fabulous expectations you have for it. A thinking and acting human from scratch. Congrats to them! And for the rest of us, we now have another being in the world to enjoy – and see endless photos from his smitten parents.

Meanwhile, another man passed away last week. I was imagining how, to reach the age that he did - 113 - I would have to live until the year 2093! Imagine living until nearly the end of the next century, to see all of the technological, mechanical, and social developments that will come in that time. Henry is a the sign of new life here on earth, and the water around him hopefully he will enjoy more than the writer sometimes does. As I have written before, living positively and surrounding ourselves with good people is the only way that we might live to any ripe age. What type of racer will Henry be?

“Speaking of horses, I like to play them myself. But I like to see them work a little, see if they’re frontrunners or a come from behind. Find out what their whole card is, find out what makes them run.”
“Did you find out mine?”
“I think so.”
“Go ahead.”
“I’d say you don’t like to be rated, you like to get out in front, open up a lead, take a little breather on the back stretch, then come home free.”
-- The Big Sleep

A monkey and fish

As a member of the “developed world” hoping to help those working in the development South, I find the following adage quite apt. To be effective, we have to question whether one system is better than the other, what we’re really hoping to change, and how we should help. Things that appear superior are not necessarily so, and thinking relatively seems the only path to “improving” the plight of others.

“A monkey and a fish were caught in a great flood. The monkey sprang to safety in a tree. Looking down, he saw the fish swimming hard, head on into the current. At considerable risk, he moved out onto a branch and swung down to scoop the fish out of the flood. Great was his disappointment when he found out that the fish was not pleased to receive this technical assistance.” – Don Adams

Man and his War

One day after Independence Day weekend, Robert Strange McNamara passed away. Forty-two years earlier, he left the Defense Department of Lyndon Johnson. He lived a long life of 93 years and exactly one month. Obituaries focused on his role in the Vietnam “conflict” that tore this nation apart throughout the 1960s and early 70s, and remarked that three decades later – when he could first bring himself to speak or write on the subject – that he said the war was wrong. He and other Americans who waged the war had misunderstood the region and people they were fighting.

As Tim Weiner noted in his obituary in the New York Times, his role in this conflict and his loyalty to President Johnson will forever overshadow the good things that he did for the world. Paul Hendrickson wrote the most authoritative biography of the man, and got to the heart of the torment that McNamara felt after the Vietnam War. In what most call a retributive stint at the World Bank and later on the boards of many organizations working toward development of the third world, McNamara brought nations to the table that should have long been included in development dialogue. He continued to fight against nuclear arms and to redistribute wealth throughout the developing world. Certainly, McNamara was caught up in a war that was unwinnable – as he believed long before he could bring himself to resign – but I do believe that he kept on with the best of intentions and was only later able to demonstrate them at the World Bank and afterward.

Much of the rancor about McNamara is that he lived to an old age while so many died on his watch. But, he lived so many years because he was passionate about many things and had the same determination in his personal life. We archivists have joked that he likely rode his exercise bike – as he the day before his death. In the course of four days he would fly from Africa to India and then to Aspen for skiing, then to South America for a summit, then to Washington to start it over again.

War is a terrible thing. But if McNamara didn’t wage it, would someone have done so in his place? We must not forget that it was a nation at war rather than one man and it went on after his tenure. McNamara has remarked that despite the tremendous costs he would do it again; he said candidly that he did not live with regret, though many claim they could see it in his face.

While I lack the visceral reaction to the War that my parent’s generation does, I believe his legacy will prove to be something more. Perhaps he can demonstrate how much of the time we have a Secretary of Offense rather than a Secretary of Defense. That we wage the same Orwellian war in the that we always fight; indeed we are fighting now. To let him rest in peace, I recognize that despite ruining so many lives he made many better, and seemed to have the best of intentions at heart. His later correspondence, interviews, and work show the love that he had from others who knew him as a man rather only as the Secretary of Defense. As so many Americans stand over his grave to see that he stays in it – as Bob Dylan hoped to do – our forgiveness may be as important as his contrition.

"Ecological considerations have made us all more aware of the interdependencies of our world. We have come to see our planet as ‘spaceship earth’ [Barbara Ward]. But what we must not forget is that one-quarter of the passengers on that ship have luxurious first-class accommodations and the remaining three-quarters are traveling in steerage. That does not make for a happy ship – in space or anywhere else. All the less so when the steerage passengers realize that there are at hand the means to make the accommodations more reasonable for everyone."

-- Robert S McNamara, ca. 1984