Pie in the Sky

Pie in the Sky by Remy Lai

A family of two boys and a mother move to Australia where the mother works in a bakery. The father had previously been a baker, but he died in an accident before the family moved. The older boy struggles to learn English, while the younger child has made more progress. Both decide to secretly make the cakes their dad used to make. The older boy feels that this will help solve his problems and feels dedicated to making all the cakes the old store used to sell. They need to use some subterfuge to make sure their mother does not find out. There are a few conflicts and eventually the older boy learns that the other kids at school are not making fun of him and he starts to become friends. He also gets closer to his family and adapts to life in Australia.

Question 7

Question 7 by Richard Flanagan

This seems to be mostly a history book, but written in novel form to be "flexible". The narrator's father was in a Japanese internment camp. The Japanese at the time were keen on fighting to the death. However, the atomic bomb helped to kill their resolve and dad was free. He later had an awkward meeting with the jailor that involved a hug photo op. This pivots to a few related topics. There was H.G. Wells and his life and affairs and his use of "atom bomb". There are German scientists and their research into the bomb. They stopped because it would take "too long" and Germany expected to be fully victorious by 1943. It also jumps to life in Tasmania. It was once a cruel prison colony that lead to killing of many of the aboriginal population, something that would later be termed genocide. There is also talk of World War II movies and how they are more a projecting of the creator's thoughts than actual experiences. Life of father and family is also brought in. It interestingly jumps from topic to topic to give something of a coherent story.

Oceanic Mythology: The Myths of Polynesia, Micronesia, Melanesia, Australia

Oceanic Mythology: The Myths of Polynesia, Micronesia, Melanesia, Australia by Roslyn Poignant

This book explores myths of Polynesia, Micronesia, Melanesia and Australia. It includes a large number of pictures and photos and seems to be geared towards a popular audience. However, the text is very dry and academic. Rather than a telling of myths, it is an anthropological study of the mythology of the cultures with some details of the myths tied in. The photos may somewhat relate to the myths, but often just tangentially. Some common features for the myths are explored. It is a pretty dry book. 

Many of the societies were decimated before their culture was documented. How much of these stories had already tied in the encounters with the Europeans? Is it most often those in the least desirable areas that are still around? Are these representative? How were these part of worship versus stories like our super hero stories? It is difficult to tell today.

The Lost Flowers of Alice Hart

The Lost Flowers of Alice Hart by Holly Ringland

Alice lives in Australia. An accident takes the lives of Alice's parents when she is a young child. She goes off to live with her flower farmer grandparents. She tells stories to herself, falls for a Bulgarian, runs away and makes up a story of her life like she would like it. There are some cruel things that happen. The book can be slow moving and it is easy to get lost.

Upheaval: Turning Points for Nations in Crisis

First the bad: Upheaval is an academic book pitched at a popular audience. The narrative can be very long and detailed for a popular book. (But at the same time lacking in details for an academic book.) The audiobook narration further emphasizes the dryness. The author from the outset states that it is not a comprehensive analysis, but just a focused view of case studies of modern upheaval in a few countries that he is familiar with.
With the bad out of the way, the book has a nice story to tell. Countries and people got through periods of significant "stress". Sometimes this comes from the outside. Other times it is purely internal. It may happen in response to a single event, or it may be something that happens gradually over time. Using a "crisis framework", he analyzes the different ways that they react.
Finland shares a very long border with Russia and has a language and culture very different from the Russian and Scandinavian neighbors. When attacked by Russia, Finland did not give in, but fought back against overwhelming odds. This allowed them to remain independent (even as other Baltic States were subsumed by Russia.) After the war, Russia demanded reparations and trials of Finnish leaders for "war crimes". Finland acknowledged their week position relative to Russia and complied. (By charging the leaders with war crimes, they were also able to dictate the "punishment") The reparations paid to Russia were a sacrifice that benefited the country by forcing industrialization. Finland was further able to maintain good relations with Russia and western Europe by self censoring. They willingly sacrificed some democratic principals in order to maintain freedom and democracy. This seemed an anathema to many in the west, but it served Finland quite well.
Other countries did not have such a positive experience. Chile was one of the most stable democracies in South America. However, democratically elected Allende moved too far to the left for his military, thus setting the position for a coup and the rise of Pinochet. He stayed in power longer than expected and killed a large number of leftests. However, he still allowed for a peaceful transition, even though only a narrow majority voted to not extend his term. The new government allowed for Chile for all Chileans and kept many of Pinochet's positive reforms. The country had to go through the challenging experience to realize that compromise is the best policy.
Similarly Indonesia found itself ripe for a dictator after the leader became too involved with external affairs at the expense of internal needs. Unlike Finland, Indonesia had very little national identity, and needed to foster one. Corruption was a big problem and needed to be reined in.
Australia had a national identity tied up in England. Despite being in a totally different part of the world, Australians thought of themselves as British. Only after the fall of Singapore in World War II, did Australia realize they had to depend on themselves more. They gradually moved away from the "white Australia" to a more cosmopolitan, independent country. (They there was a shock of policy changes that were carried out at the start of one government.)
Japan had change thrust upon them. After Perry sailed in, Japan was no longer isolated. The leaders realized they could not compete with the western powers, so they spent time trying to learn what they could from them. They picked and chose to adopt the best policies. They realistically knew what they were capable of. However, by World War 2, they had built up a significant military and the new "young guns" lacked they global insight of their elders. Thus, they went on a multi-front war that would be difficult to win, and ended up being defeated. Today, Japan still has some trouble with introspection. History courses treat Japan as a "victim" in World War 2 (due to the nuclear bombs) without regarding that they were the aggressor. This has lead to weaknesses in relationships with its neighbors. (Germany, on the other hand, has apologized profusely and done much to prevent the Nazi past from resurfacing.) Japan also faces on oncoming demographic crisis with a very low birth rates and almost no immigration.
Countries and individuals got through many crises in their lifetime. Being honest in the approach to them can be the difference between a positive growth experience and a long struggle.

The Old Way

What would happen if you spent your youth living with a society of primitive hunter-gatherers? Elizabeth Marshall Thomas found herself infatuated with their society and found it a recent-history utopia. The African Bushman seemed to be peace loving people who just wanted to go about their normal life. They didn't have many of the problems of modern society, nor any of the half-baked (and inconsistently enforced solutions.)

The first part of the book is an interesting analysis of the hunter-gatherers and how many of how man evolved. Men could run down big game, often using their endurance as a benefit. Simple weapons would come later. Lions and men would generally mind their own business. (Hyenas, however, would be willing to jump on the feeble.) The society was regularly on the move, and did not have time for many of the "trappings of society" (or their problems.)

Alas, the infatuation with the way of life seems to go overboard. Luckily, at the conclusion, the author acknowledges that the way of life does not exist anymore. The hunter gatherers have had huge problems adjusting to modern life and have been extremely susceptible to alcohol. The "old way" that she saw in her youth was likely not scalable to a larger society. With a small group of people, isolated in a life-or-death environment, the rule of law is fairly simple. You must share to survive. You can't worry yourself about stupid things. Once in greater contact and a part of society, this breaks down. For agriculturalists, property rights are extremely important. Managing herds is much different than hunting wild animals. Adapting to the new society is a huge challenge, especially when others all around are in a more advanced state. Living the "old way" in the modern world becomes impossible.

Now the Bushman are left as an underclass and a museum piece in their own land. Fences and regulations drove them from their life style. Few of those remaining want to return. (It is hard work after all.) Progress has led us to lose many of the cultures and ways of living in favor of our new "mono-culture". We have "diversity" but only within a limited range. Life is now the "new way".