Blog 37 A Little Blob of Black History ...
In the streets of our town there are dozens of pickup trucks. By a rough count, 4 out of 10 are black. So I wonder, what's the big deal with black in 2016?
Most of the trucks are driven by men. Is that significant? Maybe it's the daily news that drives buyers to black. Draped caskets, it seems, day after day, and worse - on the streets of nations that are not at war
In the "war" zones - Syria, South Sudan, Yemen, just to start the list - there may be a shortage of caskets. Bring in more bulldozers.
What's the meaning of black in 2016. Any connection with 1916? my historical persona asks. It was certainly black then. Europe a witless killing stalemate. Weapons equal on both sides: rifles with bayonets and a man attached to each one; machine guns and cannons, equal on either side of no-man's-land.
In 1916, another war was raging in Ireland. The enemy was England. Ireland was finally subdivided in 1921; the South became an Independent republic. But the war between North and South continued. For the Irish, the period came to be referred to as "The Troubles". The most prominent Protestant cleric in Ulster (Northern Ireland) was preaching that "Ulster will fight, and Ulster will be right." You don't need to be too bright to note that that sounds illogical. "Ulster will be right. Therefore Ulster will fight." I'll grant that as logic. But put backward, the Rev. Ian Paisley's words are a marvellously appropriate symbol for the perverse insanity of that whole period in Irish history.
In the divided Irelands. Republicans continued killing Protestant Ulstermen, and women and children. And Ulstermen killed Catholic men, and women and children. And ranted and raved as they did so.
But they're not doing it anymore. How come?
Well, in short, one woman saw that nobody wins in a war. Let me say that again. Nobody wins in a war. There are only losses for humanity. So in 1976 one woman decided to do something to stop the killing.
One woman began organizing what came to be called the "March of Mothers" - a whole series of demonstrations by women, Catholic and Protestant, who said, in effect, Stop the Stupidity.
Now it has always seemed to me that the Marches of the Mothers were the turning-point in the "Troubles". Common sense re-asserting itself, from, maybe, where it ultimately resides, the common people, initiated by one sensible, brave, individual woman.
Fast forward again to 2016. But I'll save that for the next blog, tentatively titled Of Divided Families.
But let me conclude with some glad tidings - from Iceland. No, not Ireland, Iceland. though a lot of Irish folk have migrated to that cool island over the centuries since the first settlement.
It is today a marvellous place to visit, especially if you stretch for the nine-day tour of the whole island. Take in waterfalls, lots of 'em, and some more impressive than Niagara Falls (not just because they are not lined on both sides of the rivers with dense tourist traps.) They are located out in sparsely settled beautiful countryside, and you have to walk to get to see them. You can also bathe in hot springs, boat around among icebergs which have fallen off glaciers, watch cavorting whales (even more impressive are the life-size models in the Whale Museum in Reykjavik. And if it is not the time of year for the best display of northern lights, the modest entry fee to the Aurora museum will give you a spectacular very-wide wide-screen movie of them for as long as you want to watch.
If you book a bus tour with Guthmundur Jonasson Travel, try to get Bjorn ("Call me 'Erik'.") as on-board guide. He is something different - knowledgeable on geology, history, art, botany - and genuinely interested, flexible, and patiently careful to leave no one behind.
Or you could rent a small camper or car, please not black, and travel the same roads. Iceland drivers drive on the left side of the road. Usually.
Blog 36 Tipping Point
The practice of "tipping", or to use its more grandiloquent format, leaving a "gratuity", is it worth a blog comment? Well, you judge.
In Iceland (of recent soccer fame. Note they spell it "Island"), and in Australia and New Zealand I have encountered a resistance to tipping. An Australian friend put it to me this way. "Employers ought to be paying a decent regular wage. Tipping encourages them to pay lower wages.
In North America, however, some of the hotel chains, when quoting for a conference or wedding reception will include the phrase, ("Gratuity included," or even "15% gratuity included.")
I have two questions about that. First, what is the intended message
in that little tag?
"You won't have to worry about how much to tip."
Or "You won't have to worry that you will face hidden costs."
Or "You don't have to make a donation of satisfaction to our staff. We take care of everything for you"?
Or all of the above?
Second question. Does all (or any) of that 15% go to the employees who perform the actual customer service? There would certainly be a corporate cost to calculating and handing out the appropriate tip to each employee. So does the employer levy a "handling fee"? In a well-run company the chief accountant could easily calculate the approximate cost of that "service to their employees".
But then there is the less measurable question: does the employer decide what is the "appropriate" amount to be handed on to each employee?
Why do I not like the answers to these questions?
What does it matter how the employees are paid - all salary, or a mix of salary and tips, or all tips? I hear a company CFO saying, "It's the bottom line that counts for the employee. So what's your beef?"
Well, let me change disciplines and point to another factor at work here, a factor which would be hard to capture with econometrics.
Tipping has been, and still is,
a mark of class distinction.
Tipping says, I am richer. (and therefore better), than you. Or in a more modern phrase, "It sucks to be you." That message is conveyed in the act of tipping, no matter how philanthropic the intent of the tipper. ("Philanthropic," by the way, is a Greek-based word meaning something like "love of one's fellow man.")
So, to history. Many of the first English settlers in New Zealand and, especially, in Australia, had good reason to be resent class distinctions. English prison sentences supplied the first immigrant of many Australian families. Some at least of the new New Zealanders must have risked the long sea voyage and the hazards of their faraway destination because they wanted to escape being in the "sucks to be you" class in England.
These were people who knew what it was to be a member of the underclass in a rigidly stratified society. So their new home was to be a different kind of country. It was not by chance that Australia is credited with the invention of the secret ballot. Note, too, that in an Australian election, failure to vote has been illegal and carries a penalty.
And what about Iceland? That country got its independence in 1944. But it had been a part of the Kingdom of Denmark for a century, during the time when European colonialism operated on the principle that "Colonies exist to enrich the motherland."
Since independence, its small population has developed an extremely democratic society. Tipping - sign of class distinction - seems to have had no part in it.
Let me finish with a little anecdote from R. L. Stevenson's novel, Kidnapped. I summarize from memory:
A Scottish lord, who was without two shillings to spare was honoured for his military service by an audience with the King of England. The King also gave him a little bag of gold coins. As he left the palace the Scot threw the bag of money to the doorman, and strode on, head high. Pride? Yes. Or self-respect?
So here's a question for you, dear readers. How is the Scottish lord's act relevant to our topic of tipping?
