The Power of Symbolism

The Power of Symbols

The dictionary tells us that a symbol signifies, or is understood to represent an idea, object, or relationship. Symbols permit us to go beyond what is known or seen by creating linkages between concepts and experiences. All communication is achieved through symbols.

My good friend Alonzo L. Gaskill’s book Sacred Symbols suggests that symbols are metaphors. There are many types of symbols. Statuary is currently in the headlines. Its symbolism can be seen in action daily.

A metaphor is a figure of speech that refers to one thing by mentioning another. The word traces its origins to Greek … to transfer, or to carry over. Metaphors help us communicate concepts, relationships, ideas, and history. A visual metaphor uses images to create a link between different ideas. You can say that metaphors are a form of speech.

Controversy Not New

Controversy over the use of statuary goes back thousands of years. The Bible recalls the ire of Moses when he came down from the mountain to find his people worshiping statues of golden cows.

The Eastern Orthodox Church ordered the destruction of all statues after the split from Rome because it believed that it mimicked pagan practices. The Church embraced the use of icons instead.

Protestants after the Reformation stopped adorning their churches with statues of the divine and disciples to avoid semblances of idolatry.  The Roman Catholic Church continued to permit the veneration of Christ, Mary, the disciples, and the saints represented in statuary. What would Rome be without the great works of Michelangelo, Bernini, and others?

Symbols in Action

Not all statues are created equal. Some communicate valor, sacrifice, discovery, and inclusion while others evoke emotions of scorn, subjugation, and exclusiveness. Best examples of the former, in addition to the 9/11 Memorial in NYC, are:

·      The Statue of Liberty as welcoming immigrants seeking a better life.

·      The Vietnam Memorial as a monument to those who gave their lives.

·      Martin Luther King as the consummate force for racial quality.

·      President Lincoln who set the slaves free.

Best examples of those statues that generate controversy are:

A statue to Christopher Columbus might celebrate the landing of Europeans in the Americas in 1492 to some. To Native Americans, it is a reminder that his arrival brought many diseases to the new world.

When the Spanish colonies, one by one, began to peel away from Spanish rule toward independence, many Spaniards would demonstrate their anger about losing control of one colony after another by pelting Columbus’ statues with eggs, rotten tomatoes, and other indignities.

The statue of Father Junipero Serra along Highway 280 in California celebrates the role he played in converting Native Americans to Catholicism during the Spanish conquest of California. There are 23 Missions in California that commemorate that journey. To Native Americans, Serra is not a saint but the personification of evil. Many Natives were forced to convert, and thousands died resisting.

President Thomas Jefferson is venerated as one of the founding fathers of the Republic. He is credited the authorship of the Declaration of Independence. He was a strong proponent of democracy, republicanism, and individual rights. To many, he is the icon of individual liberty, democracy, and republicanism.

As a plantation owner, Jefferson owned hundreds of slaves. After the death of his wife, he had a relationship with his slave Sally Hemings. African Americans point out with disdain the discrepancy between his ownership of slaves and his liberal political views.

Robert E. Lee was a brilliant military general. A graduate of the U.S. Military Academy, he served honorably for 32 years in the U.S. Army and distinguished himself during the Mexican-American War.

When Virginia voted to secede from the Union, Lee led the Confederate Army into battle. After the war, he supported reconstruction, but he opposed freeing the slaves. Many southerners venerate him as a hero of the war and a postwar icon of the “Lost Cause of the Confederacy.” His popularity rose in the North, the Barracks at West Point for example were named after him. His statue to many is a symbol of Southern honor and national reconciliation. To African Americans he was a defender of slavery and oppression.

Iraqi Sunnis, for the stability, prominence, and riches brought to their country, celebrated Sadaam Hussein. Statues were erected throughout the country to celebrate him and his accomplishments. Fast forward to the Iraqi War of 2003. After he was ignominiously toppled from power, angry Iraqis from the Shia majority tore down his statues everywhere.

Implications

Some people are heroes to some, and devils to others, depending on the depiction or meaning with which they are associated. There is no reconciliation in sight between the opposing symbols. Many refuse to let go of their own symbols, decrying what they see as tyrannical methods by the opposition. Others clamor for a complete do away of any symbols they find offensive.  

Some folks decry the tearing down of symbols they venerate as the ultimate re-writing of history and the perceived erasure of their traditions or way of life. Others judge the past through the contemporary lens of what is right or wrong with history.

A Lesson from China

At the urging of Mao Zedong, the Chinese started the Cultural Revolution in the mid 1960’s. It would go on for about 10 years.  The goal of the revolution was to do away with (1) old customs, (2) old culture, (3) old habits, and (4) old ideas.

Red guards, mostly young people, forced suspected representatives of the old ideology to undergo re-education, jailing, violence, expulsion, and public humiliation.  The undertaking was done away eventually because of its negative effects on the public and the economy.

There are similarities with what is going on today in America. There is widespread support amongst the young mostly to erase any symbols that might offend some. It does not end there. Some go as far as advocating the imposition of left-wing thought as the dominant ideology. Some commit to fight racism, class distinction, gender disparity, capitalism, and perceived social injustices, with violent means, if necessary.

Extreme practitioners on both sides, such as the Black Bloc, Neo-Nazis, Black Lives Matter,  White Supremacists, Antifa, and other anarchists, resort to violence and property destruction to get their point across. They often wear masks to hide their identity; they come armed for combat, and they are not interested in dialog.  They do not want to hear the opposing views and their ideology. Their mind is made up: they are right, and everyone else is wrong. Speech they do not agree with is hate speech and must be obscured or prevented.

Reconciliation?

People are locked into their views and are not open to a balanced dialog. Each faction sees the other as evil, and evil see, evil does. The self-righteousness of both camps makes it tough to give in to the other. Constant demonization of one another is hardly the antidote we are looking for.

We are engaged in a win-lose game, except that it is not a game, our future as a nation is at stake. With an even split in the electorate, the ultimate outcome appears to be lose-lose. Some folks, I guess, do not mind losing as long as the other side keeps them company. Both sides are frozen, some in hate, others in fear. Some folks suggest that one type of hate is worse than another. I suggest that hate is hate regardless who initiates it, although I sympathize with those who reject fascism, Nazism, or totalitarianism, whether from the right or the left. In the 20^th century, millions of human beings suffered and were murdered combating this scourge. Suggesting that we go back is incendiary talk.

Here we are in the 21^st century debating hate. Hello! I thought we had moved forward, perhaps we have not!

WORKFORCE FREEDOM OF SPEECH -- IMPACT ON TEAM PROBLEM SOLVING

Yesterday’s Headline

Google fired James Damore, the author of the internal memo espousing his non-conforming views of diversity.  Google’s CEO is reported to have said that Damore’s piece advanced harmful stereotypical views about the female gender. Damore will surely sue Google for wrongful termination.

Google and other high tech companies are being scrutinized by the EEOC for potential discrimination in hiring and pay equity. The news media has feasted recently on accusations of sexism and the macho culture of Silicon Valley.

My Initial Reactions

It is about time that we bring human resources policies to 21^st century standards.  No one can with a straight face justify policies that permit one employee performing similar work to be paid less than another because of gender nor can anyone with a clear conscience accept the notion that people should be denied jobs, promotions, and other benefits because of their gender, race, sexual orientation, national origin, handicap or age.

As a former Chief Human Resources Officer (CHRO) of a publically traded multinational company, it was my professional priority to combat discrimination and other remnants of a not-too-illustrious employee relations’ legacy. I discovered, however, that there is a difference between what senior executives espouse versus what they actually practice. Bias is so ingrained in most folks that we can be either oblivious to its consequences or blind to its existence.

Reality Testing

In the waning years of my career, I saw the emergence of well-crafted policies and narrative to convince employees and the public of the inclusion in the corporate credo affirmative action and diversity. These statements adorn many lobbies and conference rooms.

Departments to combat violations from the espoused policies have been created with powers to “police” and bring to “justice” those in management and in the employee population who do not adhere to the company’s talking points.

One of the unanswered questions is who checks on the cultural or diversity police? As the power of the police increases, in the eye of the general population, so does the likelihood that non-conformance goes underground, and that what folks would not say in public would be said in whispers or in code. Net-net, a good management intention morphs into a de-facto secret police.

Informers start to come forth to accuse managers of unsubstantiated discriminatory practices based on flimsy or concocted critical incidents. Employees could be labeled as fitting or not fitting the company culture thus silently dooming their future and hurting their tenure. Afraid to being labeled misogynists, racists, homophobes, xenophobes, or worse, some managers might take decisions that are not in the best interest of the corporation. This is not to deny or discount that there are real cases of discrimination!

Ultimately, the resulting lack of candor becomes corrosive as trust takes its toll, openness disappears, and the Teflon façade that masks an unhealthy work environment begins to fall apart. Sooner or later, the thin veneer will give way and the whole system starts crashing down like the paper house it may become.

Back to the Headline

I do not agree with what James Damore wrote in his infamous memo. However, I rise to defend his right to say it. An organization to be successful in the long run must cultivate and reward candor. When candor is shortchanged, stuff can go on in an organization that is undesirable or even illegal.

We laud the whistleblower about going public with wrongdoings, but we get rid of those whose ideas dissent from ours.  James Damore is entitled to the benefit of the doubt. We cannot ascribe to him motives or intent other than his interest in starting a dialog.   His right to speak without repercussions must be respected. The notion that speech with which we do not agree is to be shut off is, in my view, foolhardy.

Like the culture or diversity police before, speech police is not the antidote we need to combat stereotyping and discrimination. Let’s hear all opinions! Some will be laughable, others perhaps scary, but let’s air them out. Preventing people from speaking is akin to muzzling them, raising the likelihood that our civil discourse gets diminished.

We do not need to purge out those colleagues with different ideas. It defeats, in my view, the very notion that diversity is more than skin color or gender. Diversity of ideas is crucial to effective team problem solving and decision-making and must be protected.

We live in a divided nation. What is happening at Google mirrors what is going on in our society. You have those who are in and those who are out, those who have power and those who don’t, and somewhere in between.

Google’s Challenge

The CEO of Google missed a great opportunity of turning a lemon into great lemonade … How? By using the ruckus the memo created to defend Google’s commitment to candor. He has announced a town meeting with all employees. I don’t know what he might say, but I suspect he will not defend free speech. I hope I am wrong!

Great leaders get in front; they do not lead from behind!

SPECULATION ON PUTIN'S MOTIVE

In its July 31, 2017 issue Time has a detailed description of Russia’s meddling in the U.S. elections, and President Obama’s plan to respond to and limit the damage.  Massimo Calabresi, an accomplished reporter, provides an in-depth and clear description of the surrounding events.

Speculation

The dictionary defines speculation as forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence. Since the election debacle, Democrats and Republicans have engaged in it ad nauseam.

Let me join the fray. I want to speculate, without evidence, of course, that the real winner of the 2016 Presidential election is Vladimir Putin, the President of Russia. You might be thinking how. Let me elaborate…

O.K., step back, relax, and watch the conjecture as it unfolds. Remove your political blinders and put your hat of speculator on. Hard to do, yes, but try. You have nothing to lose and much to gain: increased clarity and perhaps more objectivity. Escape your political paradigm and discover what might be going on under our noses without realization on our part.

How do you do that? Imagine that you are sitting in an arena and watching the drama unfolding under your eyes. Look at the actors’, imagine their motives, examine their style, and speculate on their actions.

If Putin’s goal was to cast doubt on our democratic process, he surely has done that. If Putin’s goal was to harden the divisions in America between Republican and Democrat constituencies, he has done that. If Putin’s goal was to engage the White house and Congress in a time absorbing charade, he has done that.  If Putin’s goal was to undermine our democracy, he seems to have succeeded.

Why the Animus?

The Obama administration got involved in the last Russian Presidential elections siding with those opposing Putin. It has been reported that the State Department donated $ 400,000 to the party opposing Putin’s candidacy. The so-called reset of the Russia-USA relationship went awry from the start as Clinton alienated Putin and his associates. How? By working behind the scenes to oust the Kremlin-friendly President of Ukraine.

Putin might have concluded that the USA and the European Union’s goal was to contain Russia and diminish its traditional sphere of influence, to surround it with former satellite nations now converted to NATO membership, and to relegate Russia to second tier world power.  

Lets not forget that the collapse of the Soviet Union left deep wounds and scars amongst the ruling class of that era. Many saw it as a deliberate humiliation imposed on their country by the U.S. and its allies.

I speculate that these factors triggered opportunistic actions by Putin and his associates. First, he took advantage of events distracting the Obama Administration by annexing Crimea, and second, by stoking irredentist aspirations of the large Russian-speaking community living in neighboring countries.

Immediate rejection and condemnation of the Crimean annexation by the West overlooked important factors. Most inhabitants of the Crimean peninsula are ethnic Russians; and, Crimea had been an integral part of Russia for centuries. It was Khrushchev, an ethnic Ukrainian, who arbitrarily assigned Crimea to Ukraine. The Russian fleet is based there. It was odd that its main naval base resided not in their country but in a country wanting to join NATO.

The Russians followed the Crimean annexation with encouragement to rebels in the eastern and most industrialized part of Ukraine to secede. An attempt perhaps to create a buffer zone separating Russia from the encroaching NATO.

There is a lot of evidence that Russia did try to meddle and mess around in our elections, raising questions about the transparencies of our elections, and providing fodder to conspiracy and collusion theories. All the intelligence services are unanimous about it, and so are the intelligence services of our major allies. What is at issue is the implications of the Russian cyber invasion, and the damage it created to our civil discourse and faith in our institutions.

The Loser

Clearly, in the short term, the U.S. has been victimized.  Its role in the world has been diminished by revelations that Russia was capable to compromise its elections.

Questions were raised in people’s mind whether Trump’s election is legitimate, even though the instrusion did not change any votes.  As a result, the U.S. has a diminished president.  Some people have concluded that Putin has something on Trump, and that Trump is doing Putin’s bidding.

Congress has been sucked into a variety of investigations that distract it from taking actions on priority issues such as healthcare, tax code reform, and infrastructure investments.

The DNC has been exposed to ridicule for its quixotic shenanigans and infighting. Wholesale changes followed in an attempt to clean the slate of staffers favoring one of the other presidential candidates. Democrats are angry with Putin, and some blame him for Clinton’s loss, including Clinton herself. Their get-tough-on-Russia has reached hysterical proportions.

The Republicans have found themselves embroiled in a narrative casting suspicion on the character of key actors. Many of its elected officials have been mercifully pilloried and ridiculed by the “heroic” press.  Democrats have coopted them in enacting legislation to punish Russia where it hurts the most, its economy.

Mainstream media, in its self-assumed heroic role, has often found itself ahead of events, having to double back and retract premature  “Breaking News” or half-baked scoops.  Rather than reporting the news, many in the media flooded the airwaves and the newsprint with negative news about Trump and his administration. The imbalance in the reporting has alienated many viewers, thus reducing its viewership.

The Winner

The clear winner in the short terms is Putin. He has emerged from the situation with more gravitas, as someone with which we must deal. He seems emboldened enough to rattle his sword and impress the world that without Russia major problems such as ISL and North Korea cannot be solved. He has managed, with his “divide and conquer” strategy, to pit American against American.

In the long run, it will be a Pyrrhic victory for Putin. He has energized Americans against Russia and his regime. An energized America is someone to be reckoned with, as the cold war should have taught Putin. America has the power and resources to do Russia substantial harm, where it hurts most, its economy.

What Next?

The wisest thing to do is to let the Special Counsel do his investigative job. Congress should return to its important role of enacting laws that benefit the life of every American.  The Democrats must return to the role of the loyal opposition.

President Trump needs to stop sending his daily twits. He needs to take on a thicker skin and ignore criticism hurled at him by an adversarial press. He needs to remain focused on the agenda that got him elected.

The press must focus on reporting, not making the news, not speculating as to people’s motives and loyalties. A clearer separation between opinion and facts needs to be established. Reporters must act in a way that gains the confidence and support of the consumer. Otherwise, readership and viewership will continue to decline, thus dooming the very existence of the press, as we know it.

Financial Advice We Can All Use

About a week ago I ran into an article that caught my eye. The article talked about seven signs that you are headed toward a financial blind alley. It also advanced a few ideas on how to get out of the bind.

We live in a materialistic world where success is often measured in financial terms or by the number of “toys” we purchase or lease. The pressure to keep up with others encourages going into debt.

The Temptations Are Many

You are led to believe that if you don’t buy a home you might be falling behind your peers. On the surface, there is nothing wrong with buying a house. We all need a place to live so we might as well buy a house. The government encourages us to buy a home by permitting to deduct the mortgage interest and real estate taxes from our gross income, those reducing our tax bill. Lenders encourage us to buy a home by offering access to low interest rates and low down payments.  Lenders expect you to buy umbrella insurance to protect your home (and their asset).

Successful people are notoriously incapable to manage their finances. Often they do not have a budget. They do not pay attention to the interest they pay with their credit cards. They spend more than their cashflow permits, and they forget to set aside a fund for the rainy days. To keep up with their peers, they will buy a second home, a boat, or RV – three notorious cash eaters. 

Seven Signals of Trouble

1.    You have more than 3 credit cards. Why? So that you can spend more, and possibly juggle the monthly minimums.

2.    At least one credit card is maxed out. You have to use another card to make your purchases.

3.    You are not able to pay more than the minimum. As a result, you accumulate exorbitant credit card interest.

4.    You have no idea how much interest you are being charged each month by your credit card companies.

5.    You spend more than your income. This is an issue when it happens month after month with no end in sight.

6.    You do not have a rainy day fund that covers 6-9 months of your living expenses if you are ill or unemployed.

7.    Your mortgage payment exceeds 25% of your income. Many folks are house poor because mortgages are beyond their limits.

When more than one of these signals is at play, the red light should go off in our heads prompting us to leap into action.

Other signals that you might be in serious trouble can be insidious. For example, you and your partner avoid talking about your financial problems, or you have arguments about money, or there is finger pointing as to responsibility for the debacle.

What Can We Do?

The article that I referenced earlier gave a number of suggestions. Here are the key ones:

1.    List all your debts including amount, interest, and minimum payment.

2.    List your income for the month including wages, interest received, dividends, and other cash payments you might be receiving.

3.    Cut ruthlessly. Use money you save to reduce other debts.

4.    Explore ways for you to increase your income. Second job? If partner is not working, should partner get a job?

5.    Adopt the rule that if you are not able to pay for a purchase at the end of the month, you do not buy.

6.    Reduce the number of credit cards to 3.

7.    Write a plan. Focus on debts with the highest interest rate or start from the bottom with the smallest debt and work you way up.

8.    See if you can consolidate your debts. There are reputable companies that can help you do that.

9.    Do the math. If your debts are more than 50%, consider declaring bankruptcy after consulting your CPA and tax attorney.

Early victories can be motivating. Track your progress bi-weekly so that you might spot trends and opportunities. Read Beverly Harzog book The Debt Escape Plan for further ideas.

You can never get enough of what you don’t need because what you don’t need will not satisfy you.

This saying applies to money, luxury, and dessert.

What’s the Payoff?

To start off, peace of mind!

You don’t have to stay up at night wondering how are you going to meet your obligations. Secondly, and possibly, more importantly, improved relationship with your partner and family members.

Remember, you are a failure if you ignore the problem, not for creating it in the first place. We all make mistakes. Let’s correct them and learn from them.