Creating A "Green" Future: The American Revolution, Consumer Action, and "Ecological Intelligence," Part 5 of 6

/

Part One --- Part Two --- Part Three Part Four --- Part Five --- Part Six

They understood that the empire’s power rested on the production and exchange of goods and material. And they also understood that the most valuable and powerful tool they held to oppose Parliament’s action was . . . the production and exchange of goods.

If they stopped buying, powerful people in England would feel the pain. And feel it fast.

That’s what happened. First the colonists organized “non-importation” movements, and then, when that was not enough to make Parliament heed them, they organized “non-consumption” movements.

As Breen put it in the introduction to his book, North American colonists “made goods speak to power in ways” that their rulers and leaders back in England had not anticipated. British North American colonists used their material culture --- their "stuff" --- to foment revolution. They understood that non-consumption was more powerful than guns, or, for that matter, words.

So, back to Goleman’s book. (I know. You were wondering if I was ever going to get to the point.) I think you can see now why I was a bit, um, amused by the Amazon criticism of Goleman’s book. Clearly, consumption and consumerism and consumer values can be powerful tools in fomenting change.

First, Goleman examines the Life Cycle Assessment --- how engineers, scientists, and researchers figure out what the true ecological cost of a good is, from inception to creation to consumption: What’s the ecological cost of the materials to make it? What’s the ecological cost of the vehicles used to transport those materials? Etc.

Goleman points out that at present, many goods are marketed with “greenwashing”: the manufacturers either mask the true ecological cost of the good, or they exaggerate it in an effort to woo consumers who want to go green. He argues that what’s needed in the marketplace is “radical transparency.” By that he means some method of labeling or otherwise providing full information about the “life cycle” of goods.

Most important, however, he argues that the information needs to be provided at the point of purchase itself. You can determine the true ecological cost of that apple from New Zealand while you’re still standing in the grocery store.

Next: Using information and goods to create revolution.

In the Kitchen: Heat, Humidity --- and Basil

/

Sometimes a girl doesn't wanna cook much, ya know? Especially this girl when she's been cranking away on her new book all day and both the temperature and the humidity begin with a nine. (Yes, we have AC --- but still . . . ) (Plus, those menopause hot flashes are waaaaaaay worse in the summer than in the winter.)

So here's what landed on our table tonight. Think of this as heat + humidity + tired +don't want to go to grocery store + it's summer:

Heated a  big pot of water for the pasta. In the frig I found some little "grape" tomatoes and quartered those. Minced a teensy bit of garlic.

Chopped a handful of fresh basil. Put all of it in a small bowl and drizzled just a bit of olive oil over it. Grated some parmesan.

Sliced a chicken breast horizontally; dressed it with some salt and pepper.

Cut up some watermelon and put it in a bowl.

While the pasta boiled (I used bucattini), I heated some olive oil in a pan and seared the chicken breasts. Moved that to our plates after it was cooked.

When the pasta was done, I saved out a bit of the water and then drained the pasta. Put it back in the pot and added the tomatoes, garlic, and basil, as well as a bit of olive oil and salt/pepper. Tossed it gently.

Dished the pasta on to our plates. Put the plates at our places, the watermelon on the table, along with a little bowl of extra parmesan.

Poured some white wine. Ate. Enjoyed. Happy.

Creating A "Green" Future: The American Revolution, Consumer Action, and "Ecological Intelligence," Part 4 of 6

/

Part One --- Part Two --- Part Three Part Four --- Part Five --- Part Six

North American colonists had access to a great deal of land and to an abundance of raw materials. As a result, they enjoyed an extraordinarily high standard of living (higher, in fact, than just about everyone else in the world except royalty).

Colonial exports, such as grain and timber, enabled them to buy and enjoy a huge array of consumer goods, nearly all of which were imported from England. (Even if the British didn’t actually manufacture the goods, Parliament made damn sure that the goods went through a British port before being shipped on to North America.)

Colonists wanted those goods. They enjoyed those goods. Having access to those goods made them feel like full citizens of a huge empire.

We think of our colonial ancestors as wanna-be Americans from the get-go. But almost until the last moment (ie, up until about 1760 or 1765), British colonists prided themselves on being British. On being part of the most powerful empire in the world. On being able to wear the same clothing and eat from the same kinds of plates as people back in England.

Moreover, they understood that the raw materials they exported to England helped make England great (again, basic but crucial materials like timber, ore, grain) The cycle of trade connected colonists to the mother country, and the colonists were, in turn, particularly aggressive in acquiring consumer goods.

Put another way, the colonists saw themselves as full partners in the imperial economy and the British nation. The operative word here is “partners.” Colonists assumed and expected to be treated as full citizens, with all the rights and responsibilities as any other citizen of the empire.

But starting in the 1760s, Parliament began imposing rules, regulations, and, yes, taxes on the colonists without their consent. Why Parliament did so isn’t important here.

What does matter is this: the colonists were angry (insulted, is more like it) and decided to resist. They could have used violence, but they opted to use something else: the marketplace itself.

Next time: Consumers, revolution, and going green

Daydreaming = Productivity (But You Knew That, Right?)

/

Quickie drive-by posting before I get back to the complexities of meat. The Wall Street Journal has a fascinating piece about new research into how we experience "aha!" moments of insight. (The article carries today's date, but it wasn't in today's print edition, so it may be in tomorrow's "paper.")

The reporter interviewed a number of neuroscientists and other researchers who are studying how the brain makes connections and solves "problems." The general drift is that

Taken together, these findings highlight a paradox of mental life. They remind us that much of our creative thought is the product of neurons and nerve chemistry outside our awareness and beyond our direct control.

Several points worth noting. First, one of the interviewees defines the "aha!" moment as including the usual suspects: Waking up with the solution to a problem that's been bugging you. Driving down the street thinking about "nothing" and suddenly solving a problem. Etc. But the "problem" can also be something you don't yet recognize as a problem, including

realizing that a friend of yours is not really a friend.

I'm glad to know that because I experienced precisely just that kind of moment a couple of years ago. There was no triggering "episode." Indeed, my flash of awareness came in the middle of an otherwise pleasant visit with a group of  friends. We were all just sitting around talking and suddenly, wham!, I realized that one of them was not only not a friend but was using me in a nearly malevolent way. (I know; I know. How could I NOT know such a thing?)

Anyway, the article also confirms what I've known for years: I do my best work when I'm not trying. Eg, when I'm walking, daydreaming, laying on the floor staring at the ceiling, thinking about "nothing."

All of my book ideas, for example, have come to me in flashes from nowhere. So. Enough from me. Go read the article!

Tip o' the mug to Jennifer Gilmore, via Twitter (@jenwgilmore). I loved Jennifer's first novel, Golden Country, and am looking forward to her next one, which I hope will be out soon.

Creating A "Green Future": The American Revolution, Consumer Action, and "Ecological Intelligence," Part 3 of 6

/

Part One --- Part Two --- Part Three Part Four --- Part Five --- Part Six

The argument about consumer goods and the American revolution has been shaped and researched by many scholars over the past twenty or so years.

But the historian most responsible for it is T. H. Breen. He articulated his argument first in a series of scholarly articles and then in his brilliant book The Marketplace of Revolution. His book is long, exceptionally well researched, and complex, but here’s the short version: (I’m simplifying his complex argument not because I think you’re stupid, but because I’m trying to be brief.)

The period from about 1600 to the 1800s marked what historians call a “consumer revolution.” (For more on this “revolution,” see, for example, the wikipedia article and this essay by Cary Carson, one of the most important scholars in the field.)

For the first time in history, large masses of people were able to afford (and could legally acquire) what we now think of as the basics of life: Chairs, tables, perhaps glass for a few windows. Porcelain dishes. More than one change of clothes. Leather shoes with pewter buckles. Meat every day. Tea and coffee. Sugar. Refined flour.

People living in the British empire, including the North American colonists, were particularly active participants in this social and cultural change. Indeed, the creation of the British empire rested in large part on the exchange of goods and raw materials.

This exchange functioned as the basic mechanism of British imperial development: England acquired property --- colonies --- all over the world, seeking ones that would provide enormous quantities of raw materials.

India, for example, provided tea and cotton. Asian colonies provided spices and silk. The West Indies provided sugar (and then molasses from which North Americans made rum). Africa provided slaves (which the British mostly traded to other countries). The North American colonies provide grain, timber, ore, and fish. (Yes, fish. Fishing was always one of the largest industries in British North America. The fish were caught, dried, and shipped to England or other colonies.)

The colonies provided these raw materials for manufacturers back in England, and then those same colonists, especially the ones in North America, bought and used the goods the manufacturers produced.

Next time: How consumer goods led to revolution