Mercedes-Benz Fashion Week; Cruise Bar hosts famous fashion event; MBFWA business wheels in motion

 

Cruise Bar Hosts Fashion Week...

 

When it comes to style the Cruise Bar and Restaurant is a perfect host partner for the prestigious Mercedes-Benz Australian Fashion Week.

 

For the first time in many years, Cruise Restaurant is open to the public everyday of fashion week for lunch and dinner.

 

Fashion Week is Sydney’s premier fashion and lifestyle event showcasing some of our most talented and contemporary designers.

 

The beautiful waterfront location of Cruise Bar in Circular Quay is an ideal location to enjoy gourmet food, decadent wines and delicious cocktails while enjoying the cultural surrounds that is Fashion week.

 

For more information visit their official website.

  

Mercedes-Benz Fashion Week: Business, fashion, beauty, deals and gossip...

 

Sydney will be enjoying a bevy of catwalk shows and party like events as Mercedes-Benz Fashion Week Australia commences tomorrow. But unlike the increasing number of fashion festivals across the country where people can buy tickets to events, MBFWA is invitation only.

 

Today was media registration day, which was quite an event in its own right.

 

Over five days, fashion designers show their latest collections to media reps, celebrities and retail buyers, and the response can be paramount to the bottom line.

 

This year happens to mark Mercedes-Benz’s return to Fashion Week as the title sponsor, which many media and fashion commentators have welcomed.

 

“The strong link between Mercedes-Benz and fashion was initiated in Australia with the launch of Mercedes-Benz Fashion Week in 1995, so it’s come full circle,” advised Mercedes-Benz senior manager of corporate communications David McCarthy.

 

The car maker’s Fashion Week events have spread around the world to places such as New York and Berlin, and to Swim Fashion Week in Miami.

 

The Mercedes-Benz’s sponsorship deal was not exactly a secret last year as Rosemount’s (wine) five-year run came to an end. The new deal is understood to be valued at $1 million over three years but McCarthy says the details are confidential.

 

MBFWA comes with a many change. A key change from the festival organisers is that IMG Fashion have reduced the price of on-site venue fees. A trend over the past few years.

 

This year, it set back exhibitors $14,250 to use the newly returned Tent at the Overseas Passenger Terminal as a catwalk venue, $6000 to be a part of Fashion Week but show off-site and between $3000 and $8000 to showcase collections at The Rocks Pop-Up suites.

 

Two of the festival’s biggest names, Josh Goot and Dion Lee, pulled out a fortnight before their respective shows. The designers who have fallen by the wayside in the lead-up to the five-day event have either opted to concentrate on upcoming overseas shows (Lee), to focus on getting collections out to coincide with northern hemisphere seasons (Goot) or have chosen to disregard Fashion Week from the get-go, with Fairfax Media pointing to Alex Perry as the example.

 

For Melbourne Business School associate professor of marketing Mark Ritson, having Australian designers drop out is a “tricky” scenario.

 

“On the one hand, you have to respect any Australian designer focused on building their reputation overseas,” he says. “We are perilously under-represented in Paris and Milan.

 

“But at the same time, a designer has to be careful of burning branding bridges back home. That said, if Goot or Lee make it in Europe they’ll be welcomed back home in 2013 with open arms.”

 

Fashion Week is serious business. Alongside Mercedes-Benz, sponsors that have signed on this year include DHL, EYE, HP, Maybelline NY, Redken, Shangri-La Hotel Sydney, Pentax, Keystone Hospitality and Getty Images.

 

The NSW government, Destination NSW and Austrade are also supporting the event.

 

In addition, designers are obtaining their own sponsorships. Jayson Brunsdon’s show, for instance, is being presented by Myer and sponsored by Qantas, Woolmark, TRESemme, MAC Cosmetics and Joh Bailey.

 

Couture designer Johanna Johnson is the virgin Australian designer to showcase her collection at the prestigious Mercedes-Benz Presents show, which has previously featured big fashion names such as Herve Leger by Max Azria, Carolina Herrera and Badgley Mischka.

 

“To do [the Presents show] during our first year back was a priority,” McCarthy says.

 

Johnson recently found international success, with Hollywood actresses Christina Hendricks and Maya Rudolph wearing her feminine creations on the red carpet.

 

The show will have the same feel – glamour, lots of hand-beading and detailed finishes.

 

“I hadn’t really considered doing it and was focusing more on overseas expansion this year,” Johnson says.

 

“But we’re having so much feedback from Australians wanting to know more now, it will be really good to showcase our luxury lifestyle line and red carpet ready-to-wear.”

 

She initially signed on to show in the smallest of the three catwalk venues, the Box, but had to move the show to the Tent (the biggest) as the number of outfits she wanted to parade expanded.

 

“It’s our debut show so we want it done as well as it possibly can be,” she says.

 

Australian accessories giant Oroton is launching its first ready-to-wear collection. But for creative director Ana Maria Escobar, the clothes are there to show off the accessories – be they handbags, jewellery or shoes.

 

“The biggest thing is when I walked into the stores, I saw they needed something soft to highlight the accessories,” she says.

 

Customers can expect “understated quality” from the new Oroton clothing range.

 

“To me, functionality is important,” Escobar says.

 

“So are the materials . . . it can be a simple singlet but made out of really beautiful silk or customised fabrics. There’s a tone of heritage as well.”

 

While Oroton views Fashion Week as important, Escobar says there is also “life beyond those 15 minutes on the catwalk”.

 

For the retailer, it’s about reminding people of the brand.

 

“We want to talk a little louder about the product we design,” she says. “Fashion Week gives us that space without having to scream.”

 

This year, a great spread of overseas buyers will be in attendance, many from online retailers such as Net-A-Porter, My Wardrobe, Shopbop, Moda Operandi and ASOS. Department store Harvey Nichols and Hong Kong-based Joyce will also have buyers present.

 

The retail picture in Australia is not particularly strong, and IBISWorld analysts are predicting growth for the local rag trade over the coming financial year will be flat at just 0.5 per cent.

 

IBISWorld general manager Karen Dobie says the high Australian dollar is a double-edged sword for retailers, as local vendors can buy overseas at a favourable rate, but increasingly tech-savvy competition is straining profit margins.

 

New to MBFWA: Dylan Cooper; Flowers for a Vagabond; Toi et Moi Sydney; By Johnny; Oroton; Watson x Watson; An Ode to No One; Jenny Kee; Aje; Roppa Pemmaraju; Bless’d Are The Meek and Nana Judy

 

Not present this year: Dion Lee; Josh Goot; Alex Perry; Arnsdorf; Morrison; Friend of Mine; Flannel; Karla Spetic; Lover; Therese Rawsthorne; Ms Couture; Rachel Gilbert; Little Joe Woman (voluntary administration); Nookie; Amber & Thomas; Marnie Skillings; Kate Sylvester; Shakuhachi; Bianca Spender; Dhini; Camilla & Marc; White Suede; Yeojin Bae; Lisa Blue; Limedrop; Stolen Girlfriends Club; Alistair Trung; Saint Augustine Academy (which shut up shop late last year)

 

Returning to the show: Romance Was Born; Camilla; Aurelio Costarella; Ksubi; Jayson Brunsdon; Akira

  

Camilla...

 

Since launching her label eight years ago, Camilla Franks continues to receive global recognition as an Australian designer who has a unique approach to creating colorful, playful and luxurious lifestyle fashion.

 

Her unique ready-to-wear and resort wear designs are becoming highly sought after products, capturing the attentions of celebrities and fashionistas alike. Camilla’s global fan club (which includes the likes of Beyonce Knowles, Miranda Kerr, Kate Hudson, Lily Allen and Gwen Stefani) reached new heights 2 years ago when the queen of television, Oprah Winfrey, glowed in one of her designs while taping her ‘down under’ series. The general public and the fashion world gushed and stock sold out overnight. Camilla is definitely a brand on the move.

 

So, how did Camilla Franks become one of Australia’s most iconic fashion designers? This iconic brand came to be whilst Camilla was exploring her passions for theatrical artistry. Here, she embraced her inner creative spirit to craft beautiful elaborate costumes for the various characters in her productions. It wasn’t long before the Australian fashion market caught eye of these imaginative, easy-to-wear designs and catapulted Camilla on this amazing journey.

 

Today, Camilla has evolved from beach and resort fashion into ready-to-wear clothes that cater to all her client’s needs. Globally, Camilla has begun weaving into the various fashion niches, resulting in a kaleidoscope of high-end editorial and extending an already growing customer database.

Over eight years, Camilla has produced nine collections: these include the highly anticipated 2011/12’s Spring Summer Collection, Labyrinth; which has received significant media attention and 2012’s Autumn Winter Collection Caravanserai, Camilla’s second winter season. The success of her brand is derived from Camilla’s philosophy that “all women have the right to look and feel beautiful no matter their age, colour, size or origin”, this is also a testament to the company’s popularity and growing awareness.

 

Camilla is a brand that celebrates women, self-expression, beauty and individuality. The signature ‘Camilla’ piece is a statement of brilliant colour, graphics and material rhythm. It is a celebration of shapes that can be tailored to individual styles and that follow global trends.

  

Mercedes-Benz Fashion Week Australia Announces Preliminary Line-up...

  

Mercedes-Benz Fashion Week Australia Announces Preliminary Line-upfor Spring/Summer 2012/13 Collections

 

Sydney, Australia (February 29, 2012) Mercedes-Benz Fashion Week Australia is excited to announce cult label Ksubi, celebrity favourite Camilla, Zimmermann, Lisa Ho, Toni Maticevski, Aurelio Costarella, Jayson Brunsdon, Ellery, and Carl Kapp will be amongst the line-up of designers showcasing their Spring/Summer 2012/13 Collections at Sydney’s Overseas Passenger Terminal, April 30 to May 4, 2012.

 

"MBFWA is a fantastic opportunity for emerging Australian designers to join already well established designers in showcasing their creations not just in venues that people expect but in venues and spaces that will reflect the diversity and vibrancy of the Australian fashion scene. The shows, presentations and locations demonstrate that MBFWA has a flavour and style that can more than hold its own around the world" says Gavin Allen, General Marketing, Mercedes-Benz Australia/Pacific.

 

A stand out on the 2012 schedule is expected to be Romance was Born. The label is showcasing their polished ready to wear collection combining art and wearable fashion in a sophisticated Spring Summer range. Johanna Johnson will also attract hype as she hosts an intimate salon show for her debut at MBFWA. Mixing old Hollywood charm and modern simplicity, Johnson is renowned for her recent Oscar’s role dressing starlets in her eponymous label.

 

Iconic Australian brand, Oroton will also debut on the runway at MBFWA for the first time demonstrating the brand is as skilled at creating Ready to Wear women’s wear as well as their well known luxury accessories.

 

Joining this incredible line up of iconic designers are Magdalena Velevska, Alice McCall, Lisa Maree, Gary Bigeni, Bec and Bridge, Miss Unkon, Bowie, Kooey Australia, Michael Lo Sordo, Kirrily Johnston and Talulah.

 

New talent showcasing for the first time, Watson x Watson are sure to excite international buyers and media with their collections, providing new ‘ones to watch’ for our global audience. Watson x Watson focus on everyday luxury and easy glamour, with a relaxed, sexy appeal that has become synonymous with Australian fashion.

 

Other newcomers joining the MBFWA family: We are Handsome, Aje, Elliot Ward Fear, Roopa Pemmaraju, Flowers for a Vagabond, Suboo, An Ode to No One and Project Runway Australia winner Dylan Cooper and alumni by Johnny. Designers involved in the 2012 New Generation, Fashion Design Studio and Raffles emerging talent shows will be announced shortly.

 

“We’re extremely excited by the response from designers and brands and are looking forward to showcasing the new seasons Spring Summer Collections in our world class facilities on site as well as sharing more of the city of Sydney’s wonderfully unique locations with our expanded off site program of shows and presentations’” says Jarrad Clark, Global Production Director, IMG Fashion.

 

Leveraging our global network, Mercedes-Benz Fashion Week Australia is introducing new showroom spaces, exciting venue upgrades and unique presentation spaces to ensure our line up of designers have innovative way to communicate their artistic vision for 2012.

 

For the first time on Australian soil, many designers will showcase their collections via a studio style presentation space known as The Box. Having established itself at MBFW in NY and Berlin, designers are redefining how they showcase their collections using this blank canvas. Australian designer Dion Lee recently used a presentation style space to showcase his collection at London Fashion Week and wowed crowds with his use of lighting to create drama and engagement around his collection without the confines of the runway.

 

2012 will also see the much anticipated return of The Tent. Synonymous with international fashion events, the sheer scale of The Tent showroom set on the Sydney harbour foreshore will create an incredible billboard for MBFWA and the Australian Fashion Industry for our attending local and international guests.

 

Key buyers will have the opportunity to get up close with designer collections during the week via a unique offering of Designer Showrooms via The Rocks Pop-Up Suites, utilising retail spaces within The Rocks historical precinct, designers will be able to house their collections off runway, and meet buyers and media in one on one appointments. It is here that designers are encouraged to create consumer offerings around the Fashion Week schedule to create more retail opportunities for our participating designer brands.

 

MBFWA hosts the world’s most influential buyers, media and industry players during the 5 day event and bring Sydney city to life with Fashion Week fever. With the support of our official partners, and showcasing designers, the 2012 season will be a standout year showcasing the creative energy and raw talent that Australia has to offer.

 

Title sponsor Mercedes-Benz is proudly supported by Government partners Destination NSW and Austrade, Maybelline New York, DHL, HP/Intel, Redken 5th Avenue NYC and EYE and as well as media outlet Getty Images. Mercedes-Benz Fashion Week Australia is an IMG event.

The Spring Summer 2012/13 Collections will take place April 30 to May 4, 2012, Press and Industry Registration opens March 1, 2012.

 

For more information please visit us online at mbfashionweek.com

Follow us on Twitter @MBFWA and on the Mercedes-Benz Fashion Week Facebook

 

Websites

 

Mercedes-Benz Fashion Week (Australia)

australia.mbfashionweek.com

 

IMG Worldwide

www.imgworld.com

 

Cruise Bar

www.cruisebar.com.au

 

Eva Rinaldi Photography Flickr

www.flickr.com/evarinaldiphotography

 

Eva Rinaldi Photography

www.evarinaldi.com

In memory of

FLORENCE ETHEL

Beloved wife of

FRANCIS A B JONES

Died 27th May 1946

 

And their son

MICHAEL FRANCIS RICHARD

JONES

Captain Royal Fusiliers

Born 8th September 1933

Died on Khinyang Chish

18th July 1962

 

Also in memory of

FRANCIS A B JONES

Died 29th Dec 1979

Aged 87

 

From The Himalayan Journal Volume 24 published 1963

 

Article Khinyang Chhish , 1962 by Dr J.P Horniblow

 

(selected extracts)

 

A strong reconnaissance, and an attempt on one of the two summits, of the Khinyang Chhish-Pumarikish massif was the object of this year's joint Pakistan-British Forces Karakoram Ex¬pedition. These two mountains are on the north side of the Hispar Glacier, at a point where the States of Nagar and Hunza and the Ladakh Agency meet. Little was known of the area, and such in¬formation as we had was derived from the map made by Mr. Eric Shipton on his 1939 survey of the Hispar-Biafo glacial regions ; correspondence with the late Mr. Wilfrid Noyce, whose ascent of Trivor in 1960 afforded a view of the north-west face of Khinyang (‘Chhish' means mountain); and the secretary of the 1959 Italian expedition to Kanjut Sar. Photographs, taken half a century ago by the Bullock Workmans, also assisted us in our reconnaissance of the southern slopes of both mountains. An aerial survey by the Pakistan Air Force on behalf of the expedition was unfortunately carried out too late to be of value to this year's party.

 

Difficulties beset us from the start. The expedition was planned under the joint leadership of Major E. J. E. Mills, a member of the successful Forces expedition to Rakaposhi in 1958, and Cap¬tain Jawed Akhter, of the Pakistan Army, who had scaled the East Peak of Malubiting in 1959 when he was a member of the British- Pakistan Forces expedition under Major H. R. A. Streather, and had followed this success by climbing Masherbrum with the 1960 American expedition. Unfortunately, Captain Akhter broke his leg playing football earlier in the year, and was not fit enough to join the party. Squadron Leader Shah Khan, of the Pakistan Air Force, another member of the Rakaposhi team, was nominated as his replacement, but he also had to call off through ill health at the last minute. A second P.A.F. officer also was prevented from coming.

 

So the party that finally collected at Rawalpindi on June 6 comprised Major Mills (Leader), Captain M. R. F. Jones, of the Royal Fusiliers, Captain A. Hasell, of the Royal Signals, and my¬self as medical officer. We formed the British contingent. Captain Saeed Durrani, Captain Khurshied Ahmed, and Lt. Nisar Ahmed, of the Pakistan Army, were its representatives. These three officers had been introduced to mountaineering by Major Mills when he attended the Quetta Staff College in I960, and were very enthusias¬tic. Durrani in particular showed a great natural ability for the sport. A late choice by the Pakistan Army was Captain Naqvi who, however, was very inexperienced. The last member of the party was Dr. Karl Stauffer, an American member of the Geological Sur¬vey of Pakistan, who originally intended to confine himself to a mineralogical survey of the Hispar region, but who became a climb¬ing member to strengthen the team in the absence of Jawed Akhter and Shah Khan. He had had considerable rock-climbing experience in America and Alaska. Apart from Mills, I was the only member with previous Himalayan experience, but Jones had led a success-ful expedition from his regiment to the Canadian Rockies in 1960, and Captain Hasell had led the Army Mountaineering Association summer meet in the Alps in 1961.

 

Jones, as expedition secretary, had performed his duties admir¬ably, and the party were ready to move off from Gilgit on June 12, having been flown there from Rawalpindi in a Pakistan Air Force Freighter. It was a great sorrow to us when we later learned that the crew of this aircraft had been killed in a flying accident near Rawalpindi in July.

 

Mills had planned to reconnoitre the mountain in advance of the main party, and accordingly he, Hasell, Khurshied, Durrani and myself left Gilgit for Nagar by jeep on the 12th. This track along the course of the Hunza river is terrifying at the best of times, and recent heavy rains had played havoc with some stretches, so that our journey took twice as long as usual, and it was an exhausted party that reached Nagar at 11 p.m. that evening, having forded several streams, rebuilt a bridge, and cleared a landslide en route, as well as having had to push our over-loaded jeeps up the steeper hills. The inhabitants of Nagar compare unfavourably with their Hunza and Balti neighbours, and regard a mountaineering expedi¬tion as a heaven-sent source of revenue. Mills had managed to re¬cruit six experienced Hunza porters while we were in Gilgit, but these were personae non gratae with the Wazir of Nagar, who proved extremely unco-operative until we were forced to dismiss them. Other porters were not forthcoming, and the loads they were to carry were reduced to 40 lb. The fact that we had chosen to arrive in the midst of the ten-day Muslim feast of Muharram was another handicap. Finally, we managed to collect thirty-five men to carry 60 lb. apiece, after the Mir himself intervened, but not before he had extracted a promise of ' baksheesh ' to be paid if they worked well.

 

The walk from Nagar to the village of Hispar, at the foot of the glacier, is remarkably unpleasant, up the forbidding gorge of the Hispar river, mostly trackless, and along sections of scree-slope that are as dangerous as any mountain. On our second night out, we were treated to the spectacle of an earth slide half a mile from our camp that covered the valley floor.

 

Two afternoons later we reached the foot of the south-west ridge of the mountain, and made a tem¬porary Base Camp for the reconnaissance. This was a pleasant meadow called Bitanmal above the lateral moraine. From it we could see what we named ‘Tent Peak' above us, which subsequently proved to be the penultimate peak on the south-west ridge.

 

Next morning, Mills and Durrani set off up the steep grass slope of the south-west ridge, whilst Hasell, Khurshied and myself con¬tinued up the side of the Hispar Glacier to study possible routes up the mountain from the Pumarikish and Jutmau Glaciers.

 

Mills was satisfied with what he saw, and he and Durrani des¬cended. They chose a Base Camp about two miles further up the glacier, at the foot of the south-south-west ridge, at an altitude of some 12,600 feet, another pleasant meadow, though lacking water in the immediate vicinity. From here, with the limited number of port¬ers at their disposal, they began to establish Camp I at nearly 16,000 feet on a southerly subsidiary ridge. This involved a three-hour climb up steep grass and rock to the mouth of a rocky nullah that de¬bouched into a snow basin on the east flank of the south-south- west ridge. The snow level by this time (last week in June) was at about 16,000 feet.

 

We returned to Base Camp, and on the evening of the 25th the main party arrived. They, too, had had their vicissitudes with port¬ers, and on one occasion, with the help of their few potential high- altitude porters, had formed a 6 thin red line ' to prevent their mutin¬ous coolies making off back to Nagar. However, little of value had been stolen, though a sack of ropes had been lost from a jeep, a fact that was to affect our plans later. Next day, whilst Jones struggled with the thankless task of paying off the porters, we erected a mess tent, and stacked it with the luxurious rations that Mills had obtained for us in England.

 

During the next few days, all hands were engaged in ferrying supplies up to Camp I. The weather remained persistently bad, and on July 1, the Camp I party, consisting of Hasell, Durrani, Stauffer and Khurshied, returned to Base Camp, as they could make no progress beyond the snow basin. Mills sent them back up again next day though, as the weather showed some signs of clearing, and on July 4 they managed to climb out of the snow basin on to the end of the south-east ridge where it turned westwards to join the south-south-west ridge near the Bull's Head. This involved a steep snow ascent on a slope prone to avalanches, and the four of them worked hard to fix ropes totalling a thousand feet.

 

On July 6, Mills, Jones, Nisar Ahmed and I passed through and established Camp II at about 18,000 feet on the lip of the snow basin. This was a knife-edge ridge, and tent platforms had to be dug. Over the other side, the ridge dropped vertically for about 3,000 feet on to the Pumarikish Glacier. Sleep in this camp was disturbed until one got used to the airiness of the site.

 

Now we were faced with our first serious problem. During the next seven days, whilst Hasell, Durrani, Khurshied, and Stauffer slogged up and down between Camps I and II with the porters, the other four tackled the Bull's Head. From Camp II we followed the south-east ridge upwards for some 500 feet to the top of the Bull's Head. At first, it seemed as if we were balked, for there was a sheer drop on the other side. It was impossible to by-pass the Bull's Head to the west, and the east face was vertical rock—interesting enough for a summer's afternoon in Wales but no route for a laden climber or porter. Eventually Mills decided to go straight on over the top. Breaking through the cornice, Jones and he descended a steep snow-face, then traversed on to the east rock-face. When they finally reappeared, Nisar Ahmed and myself were delighted to hear that they had found a difficult, but possible, route down to the Col on the south-south-west ridge leading across to the Ogre. It was a fine piece of route finding by Jones, sustained by the unquench¬able enthusiasm and caution of Mills. During the next five days, the party slowly descended this face, fixing corlene ropes as they went, and returning to Camp II each night. About 1,300 feet of fixed rope were used to descend this face whose vertical height must have been about 500 feet, and included two exposed traverses and a chim¬ney. The weather remained bad during this period.

 

On the 15th, Mills' party crossed the Bull's Head and climbed a steep snow-slope to the foot of the Ogre. There they found that, though the ascent of the south face of this rock tower offered no great difficulties, the far side was a narrow over¬hanging ridge that was surely unsafe. So they made a tent platform at the foot of the rock, as it was clear that it must be by-passed on its eastern flank. Despite its steepness and the rotten snow, it offered a chance, and so Hasell, Durrani, Stauffer and Nisar Ahmed moved through to the temporary site of Camp III, until they could find a route across the Ogre to the foot of the Snow Dome.

 

On the morning of July 18, after a night of heavy snow, Mills, Jones, Khurshied and I set out for Camp III with four high-altitude porters, all carrying 40-lb. loads.

 

Reaching Camp III, we lunched, and then went to the start of the Ogre traverse—or Nymph's Traverse, as Hasell named it. We were glad to find that he and his party had roped a route, which emerged, by a stroke of good fortune, at the one place on the Col between the Ogre and the Snow Dome that offered access on to the ridge. The traverse was some 400 yards, and at one stage involved going on all fours under the overhanging rock. We reached the Col shortly after 2 p.m. to find Stauffer and Durrani had levelled a tent platform on the west slope of the foot of the Snow Dome, and Hasell and Nisar Ahmed just descending the ridge of the Dome itself, happy to have found what Hasell described as a ‘football field' for a camp at the top, some 800 feet away.

 

Whilst, the six of us rested, Mills and Jones set off up the ridge in the footsteps of the other two. The steps were well on the west side of the ridge, which was the side of the prevailing wind, where the snow would normally be hard packed. The ridge was a single arete, with no cornice on its eastward aspect; and the angle of ascent could not have exceeded 35 making roping unnecessary. They had ascended some 200 feet by the time Khurshied and myself noticed them, and as they were laden, it was clear that Mills had decided to take supplies to the proposed Camp IV site. So Khurshied and myself shouldered our packs and set off in their footsteps. It was still snowing and visibility was poor, and we lost sight of them.

 

Suddenly, Khurshied shouted that he had seen something fall on the eastern side of the ridge, something yellow and moving at a terrific speed. This could only have been one of our bright yellow sleeping-mattresses which we normally carried tied on to our ruck¬sacks. I crawled to the edge, and saw two ice-axes lying in freshly fallen snow on to the slope below. One was buried up to its head, and the other, sixty feet below, lay on the surface. Khurshied and I turned and slowly made our way down to the tent platform. There were the few moments of utter disbelief that anything could be amiss. Then the mists lifted for a few moments, and above we could see the empty ridge, with a piece of snow, 200 feet long, 30 feet wide, and about 2 feet deep, bitten off about 400 feet above us. It had slipped down the eastern side of the ridge, but it liad taken with it the crest of the ridge and some of the top snow on the western side. Above and below the gap on its extreme west edge were the steps of the previous two climbers. Hasell and I descended to a point on the traverse where he was able to study the slope below the ridge. It fell clear over a cliff about 5,000 feet down on to the Pumarikish Glacier.

 

Hasell and Nisar Ahmed spent the night at the new tent platform, whilst the remainder of us returned sadly to Camp II. The snow grew heavier, in fact it was another seveiity-two hours before it stopped. The following morning, Durrani, Stauffer and Khurshied made their way round to the head of the Pumarikish Glacier, which they reached on the afternoon of July 20. There, in a snow basin at the foot of the ridge below the Ogre, filled with stones and debris from avalanches, they saw the strap of a pack sticking up through the snow. It proved to be Dick Jones'. Further search would have been hazardous and fruitless. They collected stones and laid them in a Cross near where they had found the pack. Meanwhile, the rest of the party brought down as much equipment as they could carry from beyond the Ogre to Camp II, and the survivors gathered in Base Camp on the night of July 20. The expedition was over.

 

www.himalayanclub.org/hj/24/14/khinyang-chhish-1962/

 

There is an obituary for Major “Jimmy” Mills in the same edition.

www.himalayanclub.org/hj/24/18/obituary-3/

 

Grand Canyon National Park, located in northwestern Arizona, is the 15th site in the United States to have been named as a national park. The park's central feature is the Grand Canyon, a gorge of the Colorado River, which is often considered one of the Wonders of the World. The park, which covers 1,217,262 acres (1,901.972 sq mi; 4,926.08 km2) of unincorporated area in Coconino and Mohave counties, received more than six million recreational visitors in 2017, which is the second highest count of all American national parks after Great Smoky Mountains National Park. The Grand Canyon was designated a World Heritage Site by UNESCO in 1979. The park celebrated its 100th anniversary on February 26, 2019.

 

The Grand Canyon became well known to Americans in the 1880s after railroads were built and pioneers developed infrastructure and early tourism. In 1903, President Theodore Roosevelt visited the site and said,

 

The Grand Canyon fills me with awe. It is beyond comparison—beyond description; absolutely unparalleled through-out the wide world ... Let this great wonder of nature remain as it now is. Do nothing to mar its grandeur, sublimity and loveliness. You cannot improve on it. But you can keep it for your children, your children's children, and all who come after you, as the one great sight which every American should see.

 

Despite Roosevelt's enthusiasm and strong interest in preserving land for public use, the Grand Canyon was not immediately designated as a national park. The first bill to establish Grand Canyon National Park was introduced in 1882 by then-Senator Benjamin Harrison, which would have established Grand Canyon as the third national park in the United States, after Yellowstone and Mackinac. Harrison unsuccessfully reintroduced his bill in 1883 and 1886; after his election to the presidency, he established the Grand Canyon Forest Reserve in 1893. Theodore Roosevelt created the Grand Canyon Game Preserve by proclamation on November 28, 1906, and the Grand Canyon National Monument on January 11, 1908. Further Senate bills to establish the site as a national park were introduced and defeated in 1910 and 1911, before the Grand Canyon National Park Act was finally signed by President Woodrow Wilson on February 26, 1919. The National Park Service, established in 1916, assumed administration of the park.

 

The creation of the park was an early success of the conservation movement. Its national park status may have helped thwart proposals to dam the Colorado River within its boundaries. (Later, the Glen Canyon Dam would be built upriver.) A second Grand Canyon National Monument to the west was proclaimed in 1932. In 1975, that monument and Marble Canyon National Monument, which was established in 1969 and followed the Colorado River northeast from the Grand Canyon to Lees Ferry, were made part of Grand Canyon National Park. In 1979, UNESCO declared the park a World Heritage Site. The 1987 the National Parks Overflights Act found that "Noise associated with aircraft overflights at the Grand Canyon National Park is causing a significant adverse effect on the natural quiet and experience of the park and current aircraft operations at the Grand Canyon National Park have raised serious concerns regarding public safety, including concerns regarding the safety of park users."

 

In 2010, Grand Canyon National Park was honored with its own coin under the America the Beautiful Quarters program. On February 26, 2019, the Grand Canyon National Park commemorated 100 years since its designation as a national park.

 

The Grand Canyon had been part of the National Park Service's Intermountain Region until 2018.[citation needed] Today, the Grand Canyon is a part of Region 8, also known as the Lower Colorado Basin.

 

The Grand Canyon, including its extensive system of tributary canyons, is valued for its combination of size, depth, and exposed layers of colorful rocks dating back to Precambrian times. The canyon itself was created by the incision of the Colorado River and its tributaries after the Colorado Plateau was uplifted, causing the Colorado River system to develop along its present path.

 

The primary public areas of the park are the South and North Rims, and adjacent areas of the canyon itself. The rest of the park is extremely rugged and remote, although many places are accessible by pack trail and backcountry roads. The South Rim is more accessible than the North Rim and accounts for 90% of park visitation.

 

The park headquarters are at Grand Canyon Village, not far from the South Entrance to the park, near one of the most popular viewpoints.

 

Most visitors to the park come to the South Rim, arriving on Arizona State Route 64. The highway enters the park through the South Entrance, near Tusayan, Arizona, and heads eastward, leaving the park through the East Entrance. Interstate 40 provides access to the area from the south. From the north, U.S. Route 89 connects Utah, Colorado, and the North Rim to the South Rim. Overall, some 30 miles of the South Rim are accessible by road.

 

The North Rim area of the park is located on the Kaibab Plateau and Walhalla Plateau, directly across the Grand Canyon from the principal visitor areas on the South Rim. The North Rim's principal visitor areas are centered around Bright Angel Point. The North Rim is higher in elevation than the South Rim, at over 8,000 feet (2,400 m) of elevation. Because it is so much higher than the South Rim, it is closed from December 1 through May 15 each year, due to the enhanced snowfall at elevation. Visitor services are closed or limited in scope after October 15. Driving time from the South Rim to the North Rim is about 4.5 hours, over 220 miles (350 km).

 

There are few roads on the North Rim, but there are some notable vehicle-accessible lookout points, including Point Imperial, Roosevelt Point, and Cape Royal. Mule rides are also available to a variety of places, including several thousand feet down into the canyon.

 

Many visitors to the North Rim choose to make use of the variety of hiking trails including the Widforss Trail, Uncle Jim's Trail, the Transept Trail, and the North Kaibab Trail. The North Kaibab Trail can be followed all the way down to the Colorado River, connecting across the river to the South Kaibab Trail and the Bright Angel Trail, which continue up to the South Rim of the Grand Canyon.

 

The Toroweap Overlook is located in the western part of the park on the North Rim. Access is via unpaved roads off Route 389 west of Fredonia, Arizona. The roads lead through Grand Canyon–Parashant National Monument and to the overlook.

 

A variety of activities at the South Rim cater to park visitors. A driving tour (35 miles (56 km)) along the South Rim is split into two segments. The western drive to Hermit's Point is eight miles (13 km) with several overlooks along the way, including Mohave Point, Hopi Point, and the Powell Memorial. From March to December, access to Hermit's Rest is restricted to the free shuttle provided by the Park Service. The eastern portion to Desert View is 25 miles (40 km), and is open to private vehicles year round.

 

Walking tours include the Rim Trail, which runs west from the Pipe Creek viewpoint for about eight miles (13 km) of paved road, followed by seven miles (11 km) unpaved to Hermit's Rest. Hikes can begin almost anywhere along this trail, and a shuttle can return hikers to their point of origin. Mather Point, the first view most people reach when entering from the south entrance, is a popular place to begin.

 

Private canyon flyovers are provided by helicopters and small airplanes out of Las Vegas, Phoenix, and Grand Canyon National Park Airport. Due to a crash in the 1990s, scenic flights are no longer allowed to fly within 1,500 feet (460 m) of the rim within the Grand Canyon National Park. Flights within the canyon are still available outside of park boundaries.

 

Arizona is a state in the Southwestern region of the United States. Arizona is part of the Four Corners region with Utah to the north, Colorado to the northeast, and New Mexico to the east; its other neighboring states are Nevada to the northwest, California to the west and the Mexican states of Sonora and Baja California to the south and southwest. It is the 6th-largest and the 14th-most-populous of the 50 states. Its capital and largest city is Phoenix.

 

Arizona is the 48th state and last of the contiguous states to be admitted to the Union, achieving statehood on February 14, 1912. Historically part of the territory of Alta California and Nuevo México in New Spain, it became part of independent Mexico in 1821. After being defeated in the Mexican–American War, Mexico ceded much of this territory to the United States in 1848, where the area became part of the territory of New Mexico. The southernmost portion of the state was acquired in 1853 through the Gadsden Purchase.

 

Southern Arizona is known for its desert climate, with very hot summers and mild winters. Northern Arizona features forests of pine, Douglas fir, and spruce trees; the Colorado Plateau; mountain ranges (such as the San Francisco Mountains); as well as large, deep canyons, with much more moderate summer temperatures and significant winter snowfalls. There are ski resorts in the areas of Flagstaff, Sunrise, and Tucson. In addition to the internationally known Grand Canyon National Park, which is one of the world's seven natural wonders, there are several national forests, national parks, and national monuments.

 

Arizona's population and economy have grown dramatically since the 1950s because of inward migration, and the state is now a major hub of the Sun Belt. Cities such as Phoenix and Tucson have developed large, sprawling suburban areas. Many large companies, such as PetSmart and Circle K, have headquarters in the state, and Arizona is home to major universities, including the University of Arizona and Arizona State University. The state is known for a history of conservative politicians such as Barry Goldwater and John McCain, though it has become a swing state since the 1990s.

 

Arizona is home to a diverse population. About one-quarter of the state is made up of Indian reservations that serve as the home of 27 federally recognized Native American tribes, including the Navajo Nation, the largest in the state and the United States, with more than 300,000 citizens. Since the 1980s, the proportion of Hispanics in the state's population has grown significantly owing to migration from Mexico. A substantial portion of the population are followers of the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

 

The history of Arizona encompasses the Paleo-Indian, Archaic, Post-Archaic, Spanish, Mexican, and American periods. About 10,000 to 12,000 years ago, Paleo-Indians settled in what is now Arizona. A few thousand years ago, the Ancestral Puebloan, the Hohokam, the Mogollon and the Sinagua cultures inhabited the state. However, all of these civilizations mysteriously disappeared from the region in the 15th and 16th centuries. Today, countless ancient ruins can be found in Arizona. Arizona was part of the state of Sonora, Mexico from 1822, but the settled population was small. In 1848, under the terms of the Mexican Cession the United States took possession of Arizona above the Gila River after the Mexican War, and became part of the Territory of New Mexico. By means of the Gadsden Purchase, the United States secured the northern part of the state of Sonora, which is now Arizona south of the Gila River in 1854.

 

In 1863, Arizona was split off from the Territory of New Mexico to form the Arizona Territory. The remoteness of the region was eased by the arrival of railroads in 1880. Arizona became a state in 1912 but was primarily rural with an economy based on cattle, cotton, citrus, and copper. Dramatic growth came after 1945, as retirees and young families who appreciated the warm weather and low costs emigrated from the Northeast and Midwest.

 

In the Mexican–American War, the garrison commander avoided conflict with Lieutenant Colonel Cooke and the Mormon Battalion, withdrawing while the Americans marched through the town on their way to California. In the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (1848), Mexico ceded to the U.S. the northern 70% of modern-day Arizona above the Sonora border along the Gila River. During the California Gold Rush, an upwards of 50,000 people traveled through on the Southern Emigrant Trail pioneered by Cooke, to reach the gold fields in 1849. The Pima Villages often sold fresh food and provided relief to distressed travelers among this throng and to others in subsequent years.

 

Paleo-Indians settled what is now Arizona around 10,000 to 12,000 years ago. According to most archaeologists, the Paleo-Indians initially followed herds of big game—megafauna such as mammoths, mastodons, and bison—into North America. The traveling groups also collected and utilized a wide variety of smaller game animals, fish, and a wide variety of plants. These people were likely characterized by highly mobile bands of approximately 20 or 50 members of an extended family, moving from place to place as resources were depleted and additional supplies needed. Paleoindian groups were efficient hunters and created and carried a variety of tools, some highly specialized, for hunting, butchering and hide processing. These paleolithic people utilized the environment that they lived in near water sources, including rivers, swamps and marshes, which had an abundance of fish, and drew birds and game animals. Big game, including bison, mammoths and ground sloths, also were attracted to these water sources. At the latest by 9500 BCE, bands of hunters wandered as far south as Arizona, where they found a desert grassland and hunted mule deer, antelope and other small mammals.

 

As populations of larger game began to diminish, possibly as a result of intense hunting and rapid environmental changes, Late Paleoindian groups would come to rely more on other facets of their subsistence pattern, including increased hunting of bison, mule deer and antelope. Nets and the atlatl to hunt water fowl, ducks, small animals and antelope. Hunting was especially important in winter and spring months when plant foods were scarce.

 

The Archaic time frame is defined culturally as a transition from a hunting/gathering lifestyle to one involving agriculture and permanent, if only seasonally occupied, settlements. In the Southwest, the Archaic is generally dated from 8000 years ago to approximately 1800 to 2000 years ago. During this time the people of the southwest developed a variety of subsistence strategies, all using their own specific techniques. The nutritive value of weed and grass seeds was discovered and flat rocks were used to grind flour to produce gruels and breads. This use of grinding slabs in about 7500 BCE marks the beginning of the Archaic tradition. Small bands of people traveled throughout the area, gathering plants such as cactus fruits, mesquite beans, acorns, and pine nuts and annually establishing camps at collection points.

 

Late in the Archaic Period, corn, probably introduced into the region from central Mexico, was planted near camps with permanent water access. Distinct types of corn have been identified in the more well-watered highlands and the desert areas, which may imply local mutation or successive introduction of differing species. Emerging domesticated crops also included beans and squash.

 

About 3,500 years ago, climate change led to changing patterns in water sources, leading to a dramatically decreased population. However, family-based groups took shelter in south facing caves and rock overhangs within canyon walls. Occasionally, these people lived in small semisedentary hamlets in open areas. Evidence of significant occupation has been found in the northern part of Arizona.

 

In the Post-Archaic period, the Ancestral Puebloan, the Hohokam, the Mogollon and Sinagua cultures inhabited what is now Arizona. These cultures built structures made out of stone. Some of the structures that these cultures built are called pueblos. Pueblos are monumental structures that housed dozens to thousands of people. In some Ancestral Puebloan towns and villages, Hohokam towns and villages, Mogollon towns and villages, and Sinagua towns and villages, the pueblo housed the entire town. Surrounding the pueblos were often farms where farmers would plant and harvest crops to feed the community. Sometimes, pueblos and other buildings were built in caves in cliffs.

 

The Ancestral Puebloans were an ancient Pre-Columbian Native American civilization that spanned the present-day Four Corners region of the United States, comprising southeastern Utah, northeastern Arizona, northwestern New Mexico, and southwestern Colorado. The Ancestral Puebloans are believed to have developed, at least in part, from the Oshara tradition, who developed from the Picosa culture.

 

They lived in a range of structures that included small family pit houses, larger structures to house clans, grand pueblos, and cliff-sited dwellings for defense. The Ancestral Puebloans possessed a complex network that stretched across the Colorado Plateau linking hundreds of communities and population centers. They held a distinct knowledge of celestial sciences that found form in their architecture. The kiva, a congregational space that was used chiefly for ceremonial purposes, was an integral part of this ancient people's community structure. Some of their most impressive structures were built in what is now Arizona.

 

Hohokam was a Pre-Columbian culture in the North American Southwest in what is now part of Arizona, United States, and Sonora, Mexico. Hohokam practiced a specific culture, sometimes referred to as Hohokam culture, which has been distinguished by archeologists. People who practiced the culture can be called Hohokam as well, but more often, they are distinguished as Hohokam people to avoid confusion.

 

Most archaeologists agree that the Hohokam culture existed between c. 300 and c. 1450 CE, but cultural precursors may have been in the area as early as 300 BC. Whether Hohokam culture was unified politically remains under controversy. Hohokam culture may have just given unrelated neighboring communities common ground to help them to work together to survive their harsh desert environment.

 

The Mogollon culture was an ancient Pre-Columbian culture of Native American peoples from Southern New Mexico and Arizona, Northern Sonora and Chihuahua, and Western Texas. The northern part of this region is Oasisamerica, while the southern span of the Mogollon culture is known as Aridoamerica.

 

The Mogollon culture was one of the major prehistoric Southwestern cultural divisions of the Southwestern United States and Northern Mexico. The culture flourished from c. 200 CE, to c. 1450 CE or 1540 CE, when the Spanish arrived.

 

The Sinagua culture was a Pre-Columbian culture that occupied a large area in central Arizona from the Little Colorado River, near Flagstaff, to the Verde River, near Sedona, including the Verde Valley, area around San Francisco Mountain, and significant portions of the Mogollon Rim country, between approximately 500 CE and 1425 CE. Besides ceremonial kivas, their pueblos had large "community rooms" and some featured ballcourts and walled courtyards, similar to those of the Hohokam culture. Since fully developed Sinagua sites emerged in central Arizona around 500 CE, it is believed they migrated from east-central Arizona, possibly emerging from the Mogollon culture.

 

The history of Arizona as recorded by Europeans began in 1539 with the first documented exploration of the area by Marcos de Niza, early work expanded the following year when Francisco Vásquez de Coronado entered the area as well.

 

The Spanish established a few missions in southern Arizona in the 1680s by Father Eusebio Francisco Kino along the Santa Cruz River, in what was then the Pimería Alta region of Sonora. The Spanish also established presidios in Tubac and Tucson in 1752 and 1775. The area north of the Gila River was governed by the Province of Las California under the Spanish until 1804, when the Californian portion of Arizona became part of Alta California under the Spanish and Mexican governments.

 

In 1849, the California Gold Rush led as many as 50,000 miners to travel across the region, leading to a boom in Arizona's population. In 1850, Arizona and New Mexico formed the New Mexico Territory.

 

In 1853, President Franklin Pierce sent James Gadsden to Mexico City to negotiate with Santa Anna, and the United States bought the remaining southern strip area of Arizona and New Mexico in the Gadsden Purchase. A treaty was signed in Mexico in December 1853, and then, with modifications, approved by the US Senate in June 1854, setting the southern boundary of Arizona and of New Mexico.

 

Before 1846 the Apache raiders expelled most Mexican ranchers. One result was that large herds of wild cattle roamed southeastern Arizona. By 1850, the herds were gone, killed by Apaches, American sportsmen, contract hunting for the towns of Fronteras and Santa Cruz, and roundups to sell to hungry Mexican War soldiers, and forty-niners en route to California.

 

During the Civil War, on March 16, 1861, citizens in southern New Mexico Territory around Mesilla (now in New Mexico) and Tucson invited take-over by the Confederacy. They especially wanted restoration of mail service. These secessionists hoped that a Confederate Territory of Arizona (CSA) would take control, but in March 1862, Union troops from California captured the Confederate Territory of Arizona and returned it to the New Mexico Territory.

 

The Battle of Picacho Pass, April 15, 1862, was a battle of the Civil War fought in the CSA and one of many battles to occur in Arizona during the war among three sides—Apaches, Confederates and Union forces. In 1863, the U.S. split up New Mexico along a north–south line to create the Arizona Territory. The first government officials to arrive established the territory capital in Prescott in 1864. The capital was later moved to Tucson, back to Prescott, and then to its final location in Phoenix in a series of controversial moves as different regions of the territory gained and lost political influence with the growth and development of the territory.

 

In the late 19th century the Army built a series of forts to encourage the Natives to stay in their territory and to act as a buffer from the settlers. The first was Fort Defiance. It was established on September 18, 1851, by Col. Edwin V. Sumner to create a military presence in Diné bikéyah (Navajo territory). Sumner broke up the fort at Santa Fe for this purpose, creating the first military post in what is now Arizona. He left Major Electus Backus in charge. Small skirmishes were common between raiding Navajo and counter raiding citizens. In April 1860 one thousand Navajo warriors under Manuelito attacked the fort and were beaten off.

 

The fort was abandoned at the start of the Civil War but was reoccupied in 1863 by Colonel Kit Carson and the 1st New Mexico Infantry. Carson was tasked by Brigadier-General James H. Carleton, Commander of the Federal District of New Mexico, to kill Navajo men, destroy crops, wells, houses and livestock. These tactics forced 9000 Navajos to take the Long Walk to a reservation at Bosque Redondo, New Mexico. The Bosque was a complete failure. In 1868 the Navajo signed another treaty and were allowed to go back to part of their former territory. The returning Navajo were restocked with sheep and other livestock. Fort Defiance was the agency for the new Navajo reservation until 1936; today it provides medical services to the region.

 

Fort Apache was built on the Fort Apache Indian Reservation by soldiers from the 1st Cavalry and 21st Infantry in 1870. Only one small battle took place, in September 1881, with three soldiers wounded. When the reservation Indians were granted U.S. citizenship in 1924, the fort was permanently closed down. Fort Huachuca, east of Tucson, was founded in 1877 as the base for operations against Apaches and raiders from Mexico. From 1913 to 1933 the fort was the base for the "Buffalo Soldiers" of the 10th Cavalry Regiment. During World War II, the fort expanded to 25,000 soldiers, mostly in segregated all-black units. Today the fort remains in operation and houses the U.S. Army Intelligence Center and the U.S. Army Network.

 

The Pueblos in Arizona were relatively peaceful through the Navajo and Apache Wars. However, in June 1891, the army had to bring in troops to stop Oraibi from preventing a school from being built on their mesa.

 

After the Civil War, Texans brought large-scale ranching to southern Arizona. They introduced their proven range methods to the new grass country. Texas rustlers also came, and brought lawlessness. Inexperienced ranchers brought poor management, resulting in overstocking, and introduced destructive diseases. Local cattleman organizations were formed to handle these problems. The Territory experienced a cattle boom in 1873–91, as the herds were expanded from 40,000 to 1.5 million head. However, the drought of 1891–93 killed off over half the cattle and produced severe overgrazing. Efforts to restore the rangeland between 1905 and 1934 had limited success, but ranching continued on a smaller scale.

 

Arizona's last major drought occurred during Dust Bowl years of 1933–34. This time Washington stepped in as the Agricultural Adjustment Administration spent $100 million to buy up the starving cattle. The Taylor Grazing Act placed federal and state agencies in control of livestock numbers on public lands. Most of the land in Arizona is owned by the federal government which leased grazing land to ranchers at low cost. Ranchers invested heavily in blooded stock and equipment. James Wilson states that after 1950, higher fees and restrictions in the name of land conservation caused a sizable reduction in available grazing land. The ranchers had installed three-fifths of the fences, dikes, diversion dams, cattleguards, and other improvements, but the new rules reduced the value of that investment. In the end, Wilson believes, sportsmen and environmentalists maintained a political advantage by denouncing the ranchers as political corrupted land-grabbers who exploited the publicly owned natural resources.

 

On February 23, 1883, United Verde Copper Company was incorporated under New York law. The small mining camp next to the mine was given a proper name, 'Jerome.' The town was named after the family which had invested a large amount of capital. In 1885 Lewis Williams opened a copper smelter in Bisbee and the copper boom began, as the nation turned to copper wires for electricity. The arrival of railroads in the 1880s made mining even more profitable, and national corporations bought control of the mines and invested in new equipment. Mining operations flourished in numerous boom towns, such as Bisbee, Jerome, Douglas, Ajo and Miami.

 

Arizona's "wild west" reputation was well deserved. Tombstone was a notorious mining town that flourished longer than most, from 1877 to 1929. Silver was discovered in 1877, and by 1881 the town had a population of over 10,000. Western story tellers and Hollywood film makers made as much money in Tombstone as anyone, thanks to the arrival of Wyatt Earp and his brothers in 1879. They bought shares in the Vizina mine, water rights, and gambling concessions, but Virgil, Morgan and Wyatt were soon appointed as federal and local marshals. They killed three outlaws in the Gunfight at the O.K. Corral, the most famous gunfight of the Old West.

 

In the aftermath, Virgil Earp was maimed in an ambush and Morgan Earp was assassinated while playing billiards. Walter Noble Burns's novel Tombstone (1927) made Earp famous. Hollywood celebrated Earp's Tombstone days with John Ford's My Darling Clementine (1946), John Sturges's Gunfight at the O.K. Corral (1957) and Hour of the Gun (1967), Frank Perry's Doc (1971), George Cosmatos's Tombstone (1993), and Lawrence Kasdan's Wyatt Earp (1994). They solidified Earp's modern reputation as the Old West's deadliest gunman.

 

Jennie Bauters (1862–1905) operated brothels in the Territory from 1896 to 1905. She was an astute businesswoman with an eye for real estate appreciation, and a way with the town fathers of Jerome regarding taxes and restrictive ordinances. She was not always sitting pretty; her brothels were burned in a series of major fires that swept the business district; her girls were often drug addicts. As respectability closed in on her, in 1903 she relocated to the mining camp of Acme. In 1905, she was murdered by a man who had posed as her husband.

 

By 1869 Americans were reading John Wesley Powell's reports of his explorations of the Colorado River. In 1901, the Santa Fe Railroad reached Grand Canyon's South Rim. With railroad, restaurant and hotel entrepreneur Fred Harvey leading the way, large-scale tourism began that has never abated. The Grand Canyon has become an iconic symbol of the West and the nation as a whole.

 

The Chinese came to Arizona with the construction of the Southern Pacific Railroad in 1880. Tucson was the main railroad center and soon had a Chinatown with laundries for the general population and a rich mix of restaurants, groceries, and services for the residents. Chinese and Mexican merchants and farmers transcended racial differences to form 'guanxi,' which were relations of friendship and trust. Chinese leased land from Mexicans, operated grocery stores, and aided compatriots attempting to enter the United States from Mexico after the Mexican Revolution in 1910. Chinese merchants helped supply General John Pershing's army in its expedition against Pancho Villa. Successful Chinese in Tucson led a viable community based on social integration, friendship, and kinship.

 

In February 1903, U.S. Senator Hamilton Kean spoke against Arizona's statehood. He said Mormons who fled from Idaho to Mexico would return to the U.S. and mix in the politics of Arizona.

 

In 1912, Arizona almost entered the Union as part of New Mexico in a Republican plan to keep control of the U.S. Senate. The plan, while accepted by most in New Mexico, was rejected by most Arizonans. Progressives in Arizona favored inclusion in the state constitution of the initiative, referendum, recall, direct election of senators, woman suffrage, and other reforms. Most of these proposals were included in the constitution that was rejected by Congress.

 

A new constitution was offered with the problematic provisions removed. Congress then voted to approve statehood, and President Taft signed the statehood bill on February 14, 1912. State residents promptly put the provisions back in. Hispanics had little voice or power. Only one of the 53 delegates at the constitutional convention was Hispanic, and he refused to sign. In 1912 women gained suffrage in the state, eight years before the country as a whole.

 

Arizona's first Congressman was Carl Hayden (1877–1972). He was the son of a Yankee merchant who had moved to Tempe because he needed dry heat for his bad lungs. Carl attended Stanford University and moved up the political ladder as town councilman, county treasurer, and Maricopa County sheriff, where he nabbed Arizona's last train robbers. He also started building a coalition to develop the state's water resources, a lifelong interest. A liberal Democrat his entire career, Hayden was elected to Congress in 1912 and moved to the Senate in 1926.

 

Reelection followed every six years as he advanced toward the chairmanship of the powerful Appropriations Committee, which he reached in 1955. His only difficult campaign came in 1962, at age 85, when he defeated a young conservative. He retired in 1968 after a record 56 years in Congress. His great achievement was his 41-year battle to enact the Central Arizona Project that would provide water for future growth.

 

The Great Depression of 1929–39 hit Arizona hard. At first local, state and private relief efforts focused on charity, especially by the Community Chest and Organized Charities programs. Federal money started arriving with the Federal Emergency Relief Committee in 1930. Different agencies promoted aid to the unemployed, tuberculosis patients, transients, and illegal immigrants. The money ran out by 1931 or 1932, and conditions were bad until New Deal relief operations began on a large scale in 1933.

 

Construction programs were important, especially the Hoover Dam (originally called Boulder Dam), begun by President Herbert Hoover. It is a concrete arch-gravity dam in the Black Canyon of the Colorado River, on the border with Nevada. It was constructed by the Federal Bureau of Reclamation between 1931 and 1936. It operationalized a schedule of water use set by the Colorado River Compact of 1922 that gave Arizona 19% of the river's water, with 25% to Nevada and the rest to California.

 

Construction of military bases in Arizona was a national priority because of the state's excellent flying weather and clear skies, large amounts of unoccupied land, good railroads, cheap labor, low taxes, and its proximity to California's aviation industry. Arizona was attractive to both the military and private firms and they stayed after the war.

 

Fort Huachuca became one of the largest nearly-all-black Army forts, with quarters for 1,300 officers and 24,000 enlisted soldiers. The 92nd and 93rd Infantry Divisions, composed of African-American troops, trained there.

 

During the war, Mexican-American community organizations were very active in patriotic efforts to support American troops abroad, and made efforts to support the war effort materially and to provide moral support for the American servicemen fighting the war, especially the Mexican-American servicemen from local communities. Some of the community projects were cooperative ventures in which members of both the Mexican-American and Anglo communities participated. Most efforts made in the Mexican-American community represented localized American home front activities that were separate from the activities of the Anglo community.

 

Mexican-American women organized to assist their servicemen and the war effort. An underlying goal of the Spanish-American Mothers and Wives Association was the reinforcement of the woman's role in Spanish-Mexican culture. The organization raised thousands of dollars, wrote letters, and joined in numerous celebrations of their culture and their support for Mexican-American servicemen. Membership reached over 300 during the war and eventually ended its existence in 1976.

 

Heavy government spending during World War II revitalized the Arizona economy, which was still based on copper mining, citrus and cotton crops and cattle ranching, with a growing tourist business.

 

Military installations peppered the state, such as Davis-Monthan Field in Tucson, the main training center for air force bomber pilots. Two relocation camps opened for Japanese and Japanese Americans brought in from the West Coast.

 

After World War II the population grew rapidly, increasing sevenfold between 1950 and 2000, from 700,000 to over 5 million. Most of the growth was in the Phoenix area, with Tucson a distant second. Urban growth doomed the state's citrus industry, as the groves were turned into housing developments.

 

The cost of water made growing cotton less profitable, and Arizona's production steadily declined. Manufacturing employment jumped from 49,000 in 1960 to 183,000 by 1985, with half the workers in well-paid positions. High-tech firms such as Motorola, Hughes Aircraft, Goodyear Aircraft, Honeywell, and IBM had offices in the Phoenix area. By 1959, Hughes Aircraft had built advanced missiles with 5,000 workers in Tucson.

 

Despite being a small state, Arizona produced several national leaders for both the Republican and Democratic parties. Two Republican Senators were presidential nominees: Barry Goldwater in 1964 and John McCain in 2008; both carried Arizona but lost the national election. Senator Ernest McFarland, a Democrat, was the Majority Leader of the U.S. Senate from 1951 to 1952, and Congressman John Rhodes was the Republican Minority Leader in the House from 1973 to 1981. Democrats Bruce Babbitt (Governor 1978–87) and Morris Udall (Congressman 1961–90) were contenders for their party's presidential nominations. In 1981 Sandra Day O'Connor became the first woman on the U.S. Supreme Court; she served until 2006.

 

Retirement communities

Warm winters and low cost of living attracted retirees from the so-called snowbelt, who moved permanently to Arizona after 1945, bringing their pensions, Social Security, and savings with them. Real estate entrepreneurs catered to them with new communities with amenities pitched to older people, and with few facilities for children. Typically they were gated communities with controlled access and had pools, recreation centers, and golf courses.

 

In 1954, two developers bought 320 acres (1.3 km2) of farmland near Phoenix and opened the nation's first planned community dedicated exclusively to retirees at Youngtown. In 1960, developer Del Webb, inspired by the amenities in Florida's trailer parks, added facilities for "active adults" in his new Sun City planned community near Phoenix. In 1962 Ross Cortese opened the first of his gated Leisure Worlds. Other developers copied the popular model, and by 2000 18% of the retirees in the state lived in such "lifestyle" communities.

 

The issues of the fragile natural environment, compounded by questions of water shortage and distribution, led to numerous debates. The debate crossed traditional lines, so that the leading conservative, Senator Barry Goldwater, was also keenly concerned. For example, Goldwater supported the controversial Colorado River Storage Project (CRSP). He wrote:

 

I feel very definitely that the [Nixon] administration is absolutely correct in cracking down on companies and corporations and municipalities that continue to pollute the nation's air and water. While I am a great believer in the free competitive enterprise system and all that it entails, I am an even stronger believer in the right of our people to live in a clean and pollution-free environment. To this end, it is my belief that when pollution is found, it should be halted at the source, even if this requires stringent government action against important segments of our national economy.

 

Water issues were central. Agriculture consumed 89% of the state's strictly limited water supply while generating only 3% of the state's income. The Groundwater Management Act of 1980, sponsored by Governor Bruce Babbitt, raised the price of water to farmers, while cities had to reach a "safe yield" so that the groundwater usage did not exceed natural replenishment. New housing developments had to prove they had enough water for the next hundred years. Desert foliage suitable for a dry region soon replaced grass.

 

Cotton acreage declined dramatically, freeing up land for suburban sprawl as well as releasing large amounts of water and ending the need for expensive specialized machinery. Cotton acreage plunged from 120,000 acres in 1997 to only 40,000 acres in 2005, even as the federal treasury gave the state's farmers over $678 million in cotton subsidies. Many farmers collect the subsidies but no longer grow cotton. About 80% of the state's cotton is exported to textile factories in China and (since the passage of NAFTA) to Mexico.

 

Super Bowl XXX was played in Tempe in 1996 and Super Bowl XLII was held in Glendale in 2008. Super Bowl XLIX was also held in Glendale in 2015.

 

Illegal immigration continued to be a prime concern within the state, and in April 2010, Arizona SB1070 was passed and signed into law by Governor Jan Brewer. The measure attracted national attention as the most thorough anti-illegal immigration measure in decades within the United States.

 

Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was shot in the head during a political event in Tucson on January 8, 2011. The shooting resulted in six deaths and several injuries. Giffords survived the attack and became an advocate for gun control.

 

On June 30, 2013, nineteen members of the Prescott Fire Department were killed fighting the Yarnell Hill Fire. The fatalities were members of the Granite Mountain Hotshots, a hotshot crew, of whom only one survived as he was working in another location.

 

Border crisis: by 2019 Arizona was one of the states most affected by the border crisis, with a high number of migrant crossings and detentions.

VALUING OUR VIKING VETS

Teacher example. My 2D Art class began doing value studies of backpacks

Mohonk Mountain House

1000 Mountain Rest Road

New Paltz, NY 12561

 

Each spring Mohonk’s gardeners move tens of thousands of bedding plants from the greenhouses into the fertilized soil of planting beds to create a patchwork quilt of color on the manicured lawns. Although the beds are permanent, each year the garden staff evaluates plants to plan for the next year’s designs.

 

-------------------

The Early Years.

 

On a beautiful fall day in 1869, Alfred Homans Smiley, with family and friends, took an excursion to Paltz Point (now known as Sky Top.) On this mountainside outside of New Paltz, they discovered 280 acres of rugged terrain, a lake, and a small tavern owned and operated by John F. Stokes. It was the kind of place Alfred's twin brother Albert Keith Smiley had always dreamed of for a summer retreat. Within weeks, Albert bought the property for $28,000 and with the help of Alfred began transforming and expanding the original tavern into Mohonk Mountain House. Albert's first guests were so enchanted with the natural surroundings and hospitality that they wanted to spend the entire "season" at Mohonk Mountain House.

 

Mohonk is a corruption of the Delaware Indian word Mogonck, which some believe to mean "lake in the sky."

 

This was a Quaker hotel upon opening, and temperance was observed. Dancing and public card playing was prohibited. Instead, the lodge offered nature walks, lectures, evening concerts, boating, fishing, bowling and a ten-minute prayer service every morning after breakfast.

 

The founder of Mohonk, Albert Smiley, was born in Kennebec Country, Maine with his identical twin brother Alfred, to Quaker parents with Scottish and English ancestors. The Smiley twins became ardent scholars, dedicated Quakers, and nature lovers, and graduated from Haverford College to become teachers and then principals at the Friends School in Providence, Rhode Island. Alfred later moved to Poughkeepsie, New York with the intention of farming - until he made his fortuitous outing to Paltz Point in 1869. Albert served as owner and host of the Mountain House and Alfred as on-site manager in the early years. After Alfred left to start his own Mountain Houses on Minnewaska Lake, the twins' half-brother David jointed Albert in the managing of Mohonk Mountain House.

 

David Smiley (1855-1930), the twins' half-brother and Philadelphia schoolteacher, joined Albert in 1881 as General Manager with his wife Effie. He made Mohonk almost self-sufficient in its ability to provide electrical and heating power, along with some fresh vegetables and meat. He was responsible for constructing several buildings and for road and trail designs.

 

From 1879 to 1910, the once small lakeside inn grew to its present architectural form. Albert Smiley gradually bought the surrounding land and farms to create a 7,500-acre estate. He said, "I have treated this property, the result of seventy-six purchases, as a landscape artist does his canvas, only my canvas covers seven square miles." With the help of architects, stonemasons, carpenters, gardeners, and local laborers, Albert and Alfred (and later Daniel Smiley) designed and constructed Mohonk Mountain House along with its gardens, gazebos, landscape, and more than 60 miles of carriage roads, trails, and paths.

 

During the decade of the 1870's, building improvements were a priority, and Mohonk was enlarged to include an addition housing the Dining Room and the Rock Building, a frame structure built on rock. In the 1880's and into the early 1900s, Daniel Smiley, with the help of noted architects Napoleon LeBrun and James E. Ware, fashioned the Mountain House into a Victorian and Edwardian architectural delight.

 

A wealth of activities and events make up Mohonk's history. As a mostly self-sufficient Mountain House well into the twentieth century, Mohonk had its own farms, dairies, sawmill carriages and driving roads, boys' school, icehouse and ice harvest, telegraph office, and powerhouse.

 

In Mohonk's earliest years, guests had to call for room service by using speaking tubes installed in the hallways. In 1883, an electric call bell system was installed in 165 guest rooms. Keep in mind electric lights were not introduced until ten years later in 1893.

 

The Bell Board, located in the Lake Lounge, registered signals from guest rooms requesting room service. It operated on its own low-voltage, battery powered electric supply system using "bell wire" to connect guest rooms with the Bell Board. Each room was provided with a little card that indicated how many times to push the 'bell Button' for each service provided: for example, two times for ice water, or three times to request a porter. The signal would activate a mechanical indicator on the board, alerting the bellman to which room was calling. After reviewing the type of request displayed in the round, wooden box on their desk, the bellman performed the task and pushed a button to learn the request from the board. Eventually telephones were installed in the guest rooms, and this bell system became obsolete.

 

The Architects.

 

The principal architects were Napoleon LeBrun who designed most of the frame section of the 1/8 mile long hotel and James Edward Ware who designed the towered stone section.

 

The present Mountain House consists of nine buildings built over a period of 31 years from 1879 to 1910.

 

In 1887-88 the Central Building was constructed with Napoleon LeBrun & Sons of New York City as its architects. Four years later the Grove Building, and the Kitchen and Dining Room Building was added with LeBrun in charge. LeBrun served as the architect for the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company Tower at One Madison Avenue in Manhattan. The tower was modeled after the Campanile in Venice, Italy.

 

The Stone Building was built in two sections and at great expense; the first section was completed in 1899, the second in 1902. Ware was known for his work in designing fireproof warehouses and the Osborne Apartment building in Manhattan.

 

The main dining hall, with its high ceiling and clerestory windows came into use in 1893. It was enlarged in 1910.

 

The architects LeBrun and Ware, along with input from the twins' half-brother Daniel, fashioned Mohonk Mountain House into a Victorian and Edwardian architectural marvel.

 

Lake Mohonk

 

Mohonk Lake's elevation is 1,245 feet above sea level, it is 534' at its widest and 2,119' long and covers 17 acres. At its deepest it is 61'. The lake has had 24' of sediment deposited since the last glacier.

 

Uplifted millions of years ago, the visible quartz rock was cracked and split along a fault line that runs through the lake. 20,000 years ago, a mile high glacier scooped out the lake basin, scraping down into the shale beneath. That shale now buffers the lake and keeps it neutral, supporting fish and aquatic life. Mohonk Lake is a "sky lake" meaning most of its water comes directly from the sky, and from a small 40-acre watershed. Mohonk Lake is often green from the millions of tiny green plankton. At times reflections from the sky may give the lake a blue or gray hue.

 

The Smiley Connection - Mohonk, NY - Redlands, California.

 

In 1879 President Hayes appointed Albert Keith Smiley to the board of Indian commissioners on which he served until his death. It was his interest in Indian affairs that brought him to California for the first time in 1889. He was chairman of a committee to select lands for the many Native California Indian tribes.

 

Redlands, California became the winter home of Albert K. Smiley and his identical twin Alfred. During the 1890's the twins bought 220 acres atop a ridge of hills overlooking the town of Redlands, and beyond it, the towering San Bernardino Mountains. The land was arid, but they built houses and a reservoir to store water that they piped over a distance of three miles to the ridge. Over the next five years, they constructed five miles of roadway, planted 1,200 varieties of shrubs, trees and flowers and created an orange grove. They name their property Canyon Crest Park and opened it to the public for free. The popular name for it became Smiley Heights.

 

In the first decade of the 20th century the park's fame spread nationally. Tourist companies and railroads featured the park in their brochures, national magazines published pictorial views, and lecturer showed lantern slides. Automobiles were not allowed. Tours were conducted in 9-passenger tallyhos. The Great Depression of 1929 caused the park to be closed to the public.

 

In 1896 Alfred H. Smiley laid out a summer resort known as Fredalba Park, (name derived from Alfred and Albert) near the summit of the mountain range north of Redlands, at an elevation of 5,500 feet. Fredalba had 107 acres of woodland in the San Bernardino Mountains. At that time many of Redlands' citizens spent summer months at this near-by resort, which is easy of access by good wagon road.

 

The brothers' philanthropy extended beyond their park and orchard. Albert also established, at his own expense, a downtown park that he landscaped. He then built on it a library that he presented to the city in 1898 for use by the public. It was named the Albert K. Smiley Public Library. In 1906 he provides funds for a new wing to the building. Alfred served as the head of the Library's Board of Directors until his death in 1903. He gave it liberal financial support, especially for the purchase of books. Both brothers were active in many other civic projects. To this day, the brothers are known as "patron saints of Redlands." Albert K. Smiley died on December 2, 1912, at his winter home in Redlands, California, aged eighty-four.

 

The Later Years.

 

Mohonk Mountain House has been managed and stewarded by the Smiley family since its inception in 1869. The family has preserved and fostered many of the values and ideals of Albert Smiley while guiding Mohonk toward the twenty-first century and ensuring its survival.

 

In 1973, the seven-story hotel, with 261 guestrooms and 138 working fireplaces was listed in the National Register of Historic Places and in 1986 was recognized as a National Historic Landmark.

 

Earlier in 1966 the family began conveying over 5,000 surrounding acres to the Mohonk Preserve (at that time called the Mohonk Trust) to be maintained as a nature preserve for recreation, education and research. In 1996, on the 125th anniversary of Mohonk Mountain House, the United Nations Environment Programme recognized the Mountain House and the Smiley family "for generations of dedicated leadership and commitment to the protection and enhancement of the environment and for their inestimable contribution to the cause of peace, justice, and sustainable human development."

 

In 1988 Mohonk Mountain House owners Smiley Brothers Inc., named Donald D. Woodworth (Cornell School of Hotel Administration '57) president. Before that, Mohonk president Bernard Gavin resigned in a cloud of mystery.

 

In 1990, fourth generation family member Bert Smiley, great-grandnephew of founder Albert K. Smiley, became president of Mohonk Mountain House. Bert Smiley earned a Ph.D. in economics at Princeton, and for several years was an economist in Washington. He returned home to Mohonk full-time in 1990.

 

Jacquelyn Appeldorn is the Mohonk Mountain House General Manager. Jackie has served in this position for 11 years and oversees a staff of up to 750 full-time and part-time employees. While in college she worked in the Mohonk Mountain House dining room.

 

Jim Palmeri was appointed Executive Chef at the Mohonk Mountain House in 2007. Chef Palmeri was most recently the executive chef for the Hyatt Regency Scottsdale Resort. He is a graduate of the Culinary School of Kendall College in Chicago.

 

The Spa at Mohonk, a $13 million, 30,000-square-foot addition, opened in 2005.

 

Photos and text compiled by Dick Johnson

November 2011

richardlloydjohnson@hotmail.com

 

Data Value Hub

“How can Artificial Intelligence enable growth for SMEs”? Looking forward to hearing presentation on this topic for local SME's. datavaluehub.com/about-us/

 

The Škoda Rapid Convertible

(cabriolet) was remarkable value for money when sold in the UK in the Mid-1980s. Converted for Škoda (UK) from standard cars by Ludgate Designs in Kent, the (now rare) convertible was considerably cheaper than other new soft-topped cars on the market. It was a good drive, too. Autocar described the car as "the poor man's Porsche", and they are now sought after vehicles. This - probably the best one surviving - was taking part in this years SALT Rally, and was snapped at the Three Swans Hotel, Market Harborough.

The SALT Rally 2012 (SALT SIX) was held around Market Harborough. The SALT Rallies are for vehicles built in the Cold War period, and the events tour Cold-War related venues. Most of the participating vehicles come from the Soviet Bloc, but there is no political element, implied or actual in the SALT ethos.

 

Visit the Communist Classic Cars Panorama!

  

Camera: Nikon F5

Lens: Nikkor 28-80mm zoom

Film: Kodak Ektar 100

Shiva, meaning "The Auspicious One"), also known as Mahadeva ("Great God"), is a popular Hindu deity. Shiva is regarded as one of the primary forms of God. He is the Supreme God within Shaivism, one of the three most influential denominations in contemporary Hinduism. He is one of the five primary forms of God in the Smarta tradition, and "the Destroyer" or "the Transformer" among the Trimurti, the Hindu Trinity of the primary aspects of the divine.

 

Shiva has many benevolent and fearsome forms. At the highest level Shiva is limitless, transcendent, unchanging and formless. In benevolent aspects, he is depicted as an omniscient Yogi who lives an ascetic life on Mount Kailash, as well as a householder with wife Parvati and his two children, Ganesha and Kartikeya and in fierce aspects, he is often depicted slaying demons. Shiva is also regarded as the patron god of yoga and arts.

 

The main iconographical attributes of Shiva are the third eye on his forehead, the snake Vasuki around his neck, the crescent moon adorning, the holy river Ganga flowing from his matted hair, the trishula as his weapon and the damaru as his instrument.

 

Shiva is usually worshiped in the aniconic form of Lingam. Temples of Lord Shiva are called shivalayam.

 

ETYMOLOGY & OTHER NAMES

The Sanskrit word Shiva (Devanagari: शिव, śiva) comes from Shri Rudram Chamakam of Taittiriya Samhita (TS 4.5, 4.7) of Krishna Yajurveda. The root word śi means auspicious. In simple English transliteration it is written either as Shiva or Siva. The adjective śiva, is used as an attributive epithet not particularly of Rudra, but of several other Vedic deities.

 

The other popular names associated with Shiva are Mahadev, Mahesh, Maheshwar, Shankar, Shambhu, Rudra, Har, Trilochan, Devendra (meaning Chief of the gods) and Trilokinath (meaning Lord of the three realms).

 

The Sanskrit word śaiva means "relating to the God Shiva", and this term is the Sanskrit name both for one of the principal sects of Hinduism and for a member of that sect. It is used as an adjective to characterize certain beliefs and practices, such as Shaivism. He is the oldest worshipped Lord of India.

 

The Tamil word Sivan, Tamil: சிவன் ("Fair Skinned") could have been derived from the word sivappu. The word 'sivappu' means "red" in Tamil language but while addressing a person's skin texture in Tamil the word 'Sivappu' is used for being Fair Skinned.

 

Adi Sankara, in his interpretation of the name Shiva, the 27th and 600th name of Vishnu sahasranama, the thousand names of Vishnu interprets Shiva to have multiple meanings: "The Pure One", or "the One who is not affected by three Gunas of Prakrti (Sattva, Rajas, and Tamas)" or "the One who purifies everyone by the very utterance of His name."Swami Chinmayananda, in his translation of Vishnu sahasranama, further elaborates on that verse: Shiva means "the One who is eternally pure" or "the One who can never have any contamination of the imperfection of Rajas and Tamas".

 

Shiva's role as the primary deity of Shaivism is reflected in his epithets Mahādeva ("Great God"; mahā "Great" and deva "god"), Maheśvara ("Great Lord"; mahā "great" and īśvara "lord"), and Parameśvara ("Supreme Lord").

 

There are at least eight different versions of the Shiva Sahasranama, devotional hymns (stotras) listing many names of Shiva. The version appearing in Book 13 (Anuśāsanaparvan) of the Mahabharata is considered the kernel of this tradition. Shiva also has Dasha-Sahasranamas (10,000 names) that are found in the Mahanyasa. The Shri Rudram Chamakam, also known as the Śatarudriya, is a devotional hymn to Shiva hailing him by many names.

 

The worship of Shiva is a pan-Hindu tradition, practiced widely across all of India, Nepal and Sri Lanka.

 

ASSIMILATION OF TRADITIONS

The figure of Shiva as we know him today was built up over time, with the ideas of many regional sects being amalgamated into a single figure. How the persona of Shiva converged as a composite deity is not well documented. According to Vijay Nath:

 

Visnu and Siva [...] began to absorb countless local cults and deities within their folds. The latter were either taken to represent the multiple facets of the same god or else were supposed to denote different forms and appellations by which the god came to be known and worshipped. [...] Siva became identified with countless local cults by the sheer suffixing of Isa or Isvara to the name of the local deity, e.g., Bhutesvara, Hatakesvara, Chandesvara."

 

Axel Michaels the Indologist suggests that Shaivism, like Vaishnavism, implies a unity which cannot be clearly found either in religious practice or in philosophical and esoteric doctrine. Furthermore, practice and doctrine must be kept separate.

 

An example of assimilation took place in Maharashtra, where a regional deity named Khandoba is a patron deity of farming and herding castes. The foremost center of worship of Khandoba in Maharashtra is in Jejuri. Khandoba has been assimilated as a form of Shiva himself, in which case he is worshipped in the form of a lingam. Khandoba's varied associations also include an identification with Surya and Karttikeya.

 

INDUS VALLEY ORIGINS

Many Indus valley seals show animals but one seal that has attracted attention shows a figure, either horned or wearing a horned headdress and possibly ithyphallic figure seated in a posture reminiscent of the Lotus position and surrounded by animals was named by early excavators of Mohenjo-daro Pashupati (lord of cattle), an epithet of the later Hindu gods Shiva and Rudra. Sir John Marshall and others have claimed that this figure is a prototype of Shiva and have described the figure as having three faces seated in a "yoga posture" with the knees out and feet joined.

 

This claim has been criticised, with some academics like Gavin Flood and John Keay characterizing them as unfounded. Writing in 1997 Doris Srinivasan said that "Not too many recent studies continue to call the seal's figure a 'Proto-Siva'", rejecting thereby Marshall's package of proto-Siva features, including that of three heads. She interprets what John Marshall interpreted as facial as not human but more bovine, possibly a divine buffalo-man. According to Iravatham Mahadevan symbols 47 and 48 of his Indus script glossary The Indus Script: Texts, Concordance and Tables (1977), representing seated human-like figures, could describe Hindu deity Murugan, popularly known as Shiva and Parvati's son.

 

INDO-EUROPEAN ORIGINS

Shiva's rise to a major position in the pantheon was facilitated by his identification with a host of Vedic deities, including Purusha, Rudra, Agni, Indra, Prajāpati, Vāyu, and others.

 

RUDRA

Shiva as we know him today shares many features with the Vedic god Rudra, and both Shiva and Rudra are viewed as the same personality in Hindu scriptures. The two names are used synonymously. Rudra, the god of the roaring storm, is usually portrayed in accordance with the element he represents as a fierce, destructive deity.

 

The oldest surviving text of Hinduism is the Rig Veda, which is dated to between 1700 and 1100 BCE based on linguistic and philological evidence. A god named Rudra is mentioned in the Rig Veda. The name Rudra is still used as a name for Shiva. In RV 2.33, he is described as the "Father of the Rudras", a group of storm gods. Furthermore, the Rudram, one of the most sacred hymns of Hinduism found both in the Rig and the Yajur Vedas and addressed to Rudra, invokes him as Shiva in several instances, but the term Shiva is used as an epithet for the gods Indra, Mitra and Agni many times. Since Shiva means pure, the epithet is possibly used to describe a quality of these gods rather than to identify any of them with the God Shiva.

 

The identification of Shiva with the older god Rudhra is not universally accepted, as Axel Michaels explains:

 

Rudra is called "The Archer" (Sanskrit: Śarva), and the arrow is an essential attribute of Rudra. This name appears in the Shiva Sahasranama, and R. K. Sharma notes that it is used as a name of Shiva often in later languages.

 

The word is derived from the Sanskrit root śarv-, which means "to injure" or "to kill", and Sharma uses that general sense in his interpretive translation of the name Śarva as "One who can kill the forces of darkness". The names Dhanvin ("Bowman") and Bāṇahasta ("Archer", literally "Armed with arrows in his hands") also refer to archery.

 

AGNI

Rudra and Agni have a close relationship. The identification between Agni and Rudra in the Vedic literature was an important factor in the process of Rudra's gradual development into the later character as Rudra-Shiva. The identification of Agni with Rudra is explicitly noted in the Nirukta, an important early text on etymology, which says, "Agni is also called Rudra." The interconnections between the two deities are complex, and according to Stella Kramrisch:

 

The fire myth of Rudra-Śiva plays on the whole gamut of fire, valuing all its potentialities and phases, from conflagration to illumination.

 

In the Śatarudrīya, some epithets of Rudra, such as Sasipañjara ("Of golden red hue as of flame") and Tivaṣīmati ("Flaming bright"), suggest a fusing of the two deities. Agni is said to be a bull, and Lord Shiva possesses a bull as his vehicle, Nandi. The horns of Agni, who is sometimes characterized as a bull, are mentioned. In medieval sculpture, both Agni and the form of Shiva known as Bhairava have flaming hair as a special feature.

 

INDRA

According to Wendy Doniger, the Puranic Shiva is a continuation of the Vedic Indra. Doniger gives several reasons for his hypothesis. Both are associated with mountains, rivers, male fertility, fierceness, fearlessness, warfare, transgression of established mores, the Aum sound, the Supreme Self. In the Rig Veda the term śiva is used to refer to Indra. (2.20.3, 6.45.17, and 8.93.3.) Indra, like Shiva, is likened to a bull. In the Rig Veda, Rudra is the father of the Maruts, but he is never associated with their warlike exploits as is Indra.

 

The Vedic beliefs and practices of the pre-classical era were closely related to the hypothesised Proto-Indo-European religion, and the Indo-Iranian religion. According to Anthony, the Old Indic religion probably emerged among Indo-European immigrants in the contact zone between the Zeravshan River (present-day Uzbekistan) and (present-day) Iran. It was "a syncretic mixture of old Central Asian and new Indo-European elements", which borrowed "distinctive religious beliefs and practices" from the Bactria–Margiana Culture. At least 383 non-Indo-European words were borrowed from this culture, including the god Indra and the ritual drink Soma. According to Anthony,

 

Many of the qualities of Indo-Iranian god of might/victory, Verethraghna, were transferred to the adopted god Indra, who became the central deity of the developing Old Indic culture. Indra was the subject of 250 hymns, a quarter of the Rig Veda. He was associated more than any other deity with Soma, a stimulant drug (perhaps derived from Ephedra) probably borrowed from the BMAC religion. His rise to prominence was a peculiar trait of the Old Indic speakers.

 

LATER VEDIC LITERATURE

Rudra's transformation from an ambiguously characterized deity to a supreme being began in the Shvetashvatara Upanishad (400-200 BCE), which founded the tradition of Rudra-Shiva worship. Here they are identified as the creators of the cosmos and liberators of souls from the birth-rebirth cycle. The period of 200 BCE to 100 CE also marks the beginning of the Shaiva tradition focused on the worship of Shiva, with references to Shaiva ascetics in Patanjali's Mahabhasya and in the Mahabharata.

 

Early historical paintings at the Bhimbetka rock shelters, depict Shiva dancing, Shiva's trident, and his mount Nandi but no other Vedic gods.

 

PURANIC LITERATURE

The Shiva Puranas, particularly the Shiva Purana and the Linga Purana, discuss the various forms of Shiva and the cosmology associated with him.

 

TANTRIC LITERATURE

The Tantras, composed between the 8th and 11th centuries, regard themselves as Sruti. Among these the Shaiva Agamas, are said to have been revealed by Shiva himself and are foundational texts for Shaiva Siddhanta.

 

POSITION WITHIN HINDUISM

 

SHAIVISM

Shaivism (Sanskrit: शैव पंथ, śaiva paṁtha) (Kannada: ಶೈವ ಪಂಥ) (Tamil: சைவ சமயம்) is the oldest of the four major sects of Hinduism, the others being Vaishnavism, Shaktism and Smartism. Followers of Shaivism, called "Shaivas", and also "Saivas" or "Saivites", revere Shiva as the Supreme Being. Shaivas believe that Shiva is All and in all, the creator, preserver, destroyer, revealer and concealer of all that is. The tantric Shaiva tradition consists of the Kapalikas, Kashmir Shaivism and Shaiva Siddhanta. The Shiva MahaPurana is one of the purāṇas, a genre of Hindu religious texts, dedicated to Shiva. Shaivism is widespread throughout India, Nepal, and Sri Lanka, mostly. Areas notable for the practice of Shaivism include parts of Southeast Asia, especially Malaysia, Singapore, and Indonesia.

 

PANCHAYATANA PUJA

Panchayatana puja is the system of worship ('puja') in the Smarta sampradaya of Hinduism. It is said to have been introduced by Adi Shankara, the 8th century CE Hindu philosopher. It consists of the worship of five deities: Shiva, Vishnu, Devi, Surya and Ganesha. Depending on the tradition followed by Smarta households, one of these deities is kept in the center and the other four surround it. Worship is offered to all the deities. The five are represented by small murtis, or by five kinds of stones, or by five marks drawn on the floor.

 

TRIMURTI

The Trimurti is a concept in Hinduism in which the cosmic functions of creation, maintenance, and destruction are personified by the forms of Brahmā the creator, Vishnu the maintainer or preserver and Śhiva the destroyer or transformer. These three deities have been called "the Hindu triad" or the "Great Trinity", often addressed as "Brahma-Vishnu-Maheshwara."

 

ICONOGRAPHY AND PROPERTIES

 

ATTRIBUTES

Shiva's form: Shiva has a trident in the right lower arm, and a crescent moon on his head. He is said to be fair like camphor or like an ice clad mountain. He wears five serpents and a garland of skulls as ornaments. Shiva is usually depicted facing the south. His trident, like almost all other forms in Hinduism, can be understood as the symbolism of the unity of three worlds that a human faces - his inside world, his immediate world, and the broader overall world. At the base of the trident, all three forks unite.

 

Third eye: (Trilochana) Shiva is often depicted with a third eye, with which he burned Desire (Kāma) to ashes, called "Tryambakam" (Sanskrit: त्र्यम्बकम् ), which occurs in many scriptural sources. In classical Sanskrit, the word ambaka denotes "an eye", and in the Mahabharata, Shiva is depicted as three-eyed, so this name is sometimes translated as "having three eyes". However, in Vedic Sanskrit, the word ambā or ambikā means "mother", and this early meaning of the word is the basis for the translation "three mothers". These three mother-goddesses who are collectively called the Ambikās. Other related translations have been based on the idea that the name actually refers to the oblations given to Rudra, which according to some traditions were shared with the goddess Ambikā. It has been mentioned that when Shiva loses his temper, his third eye opens which can destroy most things to ashes.

 

Crescent moon: (The epithets "Chandrasekhara/Chandramouli") - Shiva bears on his head the crescent moon. The epithet Candraśekhara (Sanskrit: चन्द्रशेखर "Having the moon as his crest" - candra = "moon"; śekhara = "crest, crown") refers to this feature. The placement of the moon on his head as a standard iconographic feature dates to the period when Rudra rose to prominence and became the major deity Rudra-Shiva. The origin of this linkage may be due to the identification of the moon with Soma, and there is a hymn in the Rig Veda where Soma and Rudra are jointly implored, and in later literature, Soma and Rudra came to be identified with one another, as were Soma and the moon. The crescent moon is shown on the side of the Lord's head as an ornament. The waxing and waning phenomenon of the moon symbolizes the time cycle through which creation evolves from the beginning to the end.

 

Ashes: (The epithet "Bhasmaanga Raaga") - Shiva smears his body with ashes (bhasma). The ashes are said to represent the end of all material existence. Some forms of Shiva, such as Bhairava, are associated with a very old Indian tradition of cremation-ground asceticism that was practiced by some groups who were outside the fold of brahmanic orthodoxy. These practices associated with cremation grounds are also mentioned in the Pali canon of Theravada Buddhism. One epithet for Shiva is "inhabitant of the cremation ground" (Sanskrit: śmaśānavāsin, also spelled Shmashanavasin), referring to this connection.

 

Matted hair: (The epithet "Jataajoota Dhari/Kapardina") - Shiva's distinctive hair style is noted in the epithets Jaṭin, "the one with matted hair", and Kapardin, "endowed with matted hair" or "wearing his hair wound in a braid in a shell-like (kaparda) fashion". A kaparda is a cowrie shell, or a braid of hair in the form of a shell, or, more generally, hair that is shaggy or curly. His hair is said to be like molten gold in color or being yellowish-white.

 

Blue throat: The epithet Nīlakaṇtha (Sanskrit नीलकण्ठ; nīla = "blue", kaṇtha = "throat"). Since Shiva drank the Halahala poison churned up from the Samudra Manthan to eliminate its destructive capacity. Shocked by his act, Goddess Parvati strangled his neck and hence managed to stop it in his neck itself and prevent it from spreading all over the universe, supposed to be in Shiva's stomach. However the poison was so potent that it changed the color of his neck to blue. (See Maha Shivaratri.)

 

Sacred Ganges: (The epithet "Gangadhara") Bearer of Ganga. Ganges river flows from the matted hair of Shiva. The Gaṅgā (Ganges), one of the major rivers of the country, is said to have made her abode in Shiva's hair. The flow of the Ganges also represents the nectar of immortality.

 

Tiger skin: (The epithet "Krittivasana").He is often shown seated upon a tiger skin, an honour reserved for the most accomplished of Hindu ascetics, the Brahmarishis.

 

Serpents: (The epithet "Nagendra Haara" or 'Vasoki"). Shiva is often shown garlanded with a snake.

 

Deer: His holding deer on one hand indicates that He has removed the Chanchalata of the mind (i.e., attained maturity and firmness in thought process). A deer jumps from one place to another swiftly, similar to the mind moving from one thought to another.

 

Trident: (Trishula): Shiva's particular weapon is the trident. His Trisul that is held in His right hand represents the three Gunas— Sattva, Rajas and Tamas. That is the emblem of sovereignty. He rules the world through these three Gunas. The Damaru in His left hand represents the Sabda Brahman. It represents OM from which all languages are formed. It is He who formed the Sanskrit language out of the Damaru sound.

 

Drum: A small drum shaped like an hourglass is known as a damaru (ḍamaru). This is one of the attributes of Shiva in his famous dancing representation known as Nataraja. A specific hand gesture (mudra) called ḍamaru-hasta (Sanskrit for "ḍamaru-hand") is used to hold the drum. This drum is particularly used as an emblem by members of the Kāpālika sect.

 

Axe: (Parashu):The parashu is the weapon of Lord Shiva who gave it to Parashurama, sixth Avatar of Vishnu, whose name means "Rama with the axe" and also taught him its mastery.

 

Nandī: (The epithet "Nandi Vaahana").Nandī, also known as Nandin, is the name of the bull that serves as Shiva's mount (Sanskrit: vāhana). Shiva's association with cattle is reflected in his name Paśupati, or Pashupati (Sanskrit: पशुपति), translated by Sharma as "lord of cattle" and by Kramrisch as "lord of animals", who notes that it is particularly used as an epithet of Rudra. Rishabha or the bull represents Dharma Devata. Lord Siva rides on the bull. Bull is his vehicle. This denotes that Lord Siva is the protector of Dharma, is an embodiment of Dharma or righteousness.

 

Gaṇa: The Gaṇas (Devanagari: गण) are attendants of Shiva and live in Kailash. They are often referred to as the bhutaganas, or ghostly hosts, on account of their nature. Generally benign, except when their lord is transgressed against, they are often invoked to intercede with the lord on behalf of the devotee. Ganesha was chosen as their leader by Shiva, hence Ganesha's title gaṇa-īśa or gaṇa-pati, "lord of the gaṇas".

 

Mount Kailāsa: Mount Kailash in the Himalayas is his traditional abode. In Hindu mythology, Mount Kailāsa is conceived as resembling a Linga, representing the center of the universe.

 

Varanasi: Varanasi (Benares) is considered to be the city specially loved by Shiva, and is one of the holiest places of pilgrimage in India. It is referred to, in religious contexts, as Kashi.

 

LINGAM

Apart from anthropomorphic images of Shiva, the worship of Shiva in the form of a lingam, or linga, is also important. These are depicted in various forms. One common form is the shape of a vertical rounded column. Shiva means auspiciousness, and linga means a sign or a symbol. Hence, the Shivalinga is regarded as a "symbol of the great God of the universe who is all-auspiciousness". Shiva also means "one in whom the whole creation sleeps after dissolution". Linga also means the same thing—a place where created objects get dissolved during the disintegration of the created universe. Since, according to Hinduism, it is the same god that creates, sustains and withdraws the universe, the Shivalinga represents symbolically God Himself. Some scholars, such as Monier Monier-Williams and Wendy Doniger, also view linga as a phallic symbol, although this interpretation is disputed by others, including Christopher Isherwood, Vivekananda, Swami Sivananda, and S.N. Balagangadhara.

 

JYOTIRLINGA

The worship of the Shiva-Linga originated from the famous hymn in the Atharva-Veda Samhitâ sung in praise of the Yupa-Stambha, the sacrificial post. In that hymn, a description is found of the beginningless and endless Stambha or Skambha, and it is shown that the said Skambha is put in place of the eternal Brahman. Just as the Yajna (sacrificial) fire, its smoke, ashes, and flames, the Soma plant, and the ox that used to carry on its back the wood for the Vedic sacrifice gave place to the conceptions of the brightness of Shiva's body, his tawny matted hair, his blue throat, and the riding on the bull of the Shiva, the Yupa-Skambha gave place in time to the Shiva-Linga. In the text Linga Purana, the same hymn is expanded in the shape of stories, meant to establish the glory of the great Stambha and the superiority of Shiva as Mahadeva.

 

The sacred of all Shiva linga is worshipped as Jyotir linga. Jyoti means Radiance, apart from relating Shiva linga as a phallus symbol, there are also arguments that Shiva linga means 'mark' or a 'sign'. Jyotirlinga means "The Radiant sign of The Almighty". The Jyotirlingas are mentioned in Shiva Purana.

 

SHAKTI

Shiva forms a Tantric couple with Shakti [Tamil : சக்தி ], the embodiment of energy, dynamism, and the motivating force behind all action and existence in the material universe. Shiva is her transcendent masculine aspect, providing the divine ground of all being. Shakti manifests in several female deities. Sati and Parvati are the main consorts of Shiva. She is also referred to as Uma, Durga (Parvata), Kali and Chandika. Kali is the manifestation of Shakti in her dreadful aspect. The name Kali comes from kāla, which means black, time, death, lord of death, Shiva. Since Shiva is called Kāla, the eternal time, Kālī, his consort, also means "Time" or "Death" (as in "time has come"). Various Shakta Hindu cosmologies, as well as Shākta Tantric beliefs, worship her as the ultimate reality or Brahman. She is also revered as Bhavatārini (literally "redeemer of the universe"). Kālī is represented as the consort of Lord Shiva, on whose body she is often seen standing or dancing. Shiva is the masculine force, the power of peace, while Shakti translates to power, and is considered as the feminine force. In the Vaishnava tradition, these realities are portrayed as Vishnu and Laxmi, or Radha and Krishna. These are differences in formulation rather than a fundamental difference in the principles. Both Shiva and Shakti have various forms. Shiva has forms like Yogi Raj (the common image of Himself meditating in the Himalayas), Rudra (a wrathful form) and Natarajar (Shiva's dance are the Lasya - the gentle form of dance, associated with the creation of the world, and the Tandava - the violent and dangerous dance, associated with the destruction of weary worldviews – weary perspectives and lifestyles).

 

THE FIVE MANTRAS

Five is a sacred number for Shiva. One of his most important mantras has five syllables (namaḥ śivāya).

 

Shiva's body is said to consist of five mantras, called the pañcabrahmans. As forms of God, each of these have their own names and distinct iconography:

 

Sadyojāta

Vāmadeva

Aghora

Tatpuruṣha

Īsāna

 

These are represented as the five faces of Shiva and are associated in various texts with the five elements, the five senses, the five organs of perception, and the five organs of action. Doctrinal differences and, possibly, errors in transmission, have resulted in some differences between texts in details of how these five forms are linked with various attributes. The overall meaning of these associations is summarized by Stella Kramrisch:

 

Through these transcendent categories, Śiva, the ultimate reality, becomes the efficient and material cause of all that exists.

 

According to the Pañcabrahma Upanishad:

 

One should know all things of the phenomenal world as of a fivefold character, for the reason that the eternal verity of Śiva is of the character of the fivefold Brahman. (Pañcabrahma Upanishad 31)

 

FORMES AND ROLES

According to Gavin Flood, "Shiva is a god of ambiguity and paradox," whose attributes include opposing themes.[168] The ambivalent nature of this deity is apparent in some of his names and the stories told about him.

 

DESTROYER AND BENEFACTOR

In the Yajurveda, two contrary sets of attributes for both malignant or terrific (Sanskrit: rudra) and benign or auspicious (Sanskrit: śiva) forms can be found, leading Chakravarti to conclude that "all the basic elements which created the complex Rudra-Śiva sect of later ages are to be found here". In the Mahabharata, Shiva is depicted as "the standard of invincibility, might, and terror", as well as a figure of honor, delight, and brilliance. The duality of Shiva's fearful and auspicious attributes appears in contrasted names.

 

The name Rudra (Sanskrit: रुद्र) reflects his fearsome aspects. According to traditional etymologies, the Sanskrit name Rudra is derived from the root rud-, which means "to cry, howl". Stella Kramrisch notes a different etymology connected with the adjectival form raudra, which means "wild, of rudra nature", and translates the name Rudra as "the wild one" or "the fierce god". R. K. Sharma follows this alternate etymology and translates the name as "terrible". Hara (Sanskrit: हर) is an important name that occurs three times in the Anushasanaparvan version of the Shiva sahasranama, where it is translated in different ways each time it occurs, following a commentorial tradition of not repeating an interpretation. Sharma translates the three as "one who captivates", "one who consolidates", and "one who destroys". Kramrisch translates it as "the ravisher". Another of Shiva's fearsome forms is as Kāla (Sanskrit: काल), "time", and as Mahākāla (Sanskrit: महाकाल), "great time", which ultimately destroys all things. Bhairava (Sanskrit: भैरव), "terrible" or "frightful", is a fierce form associated with annihilation.

 

In contrast, the name Śaṇkara (Sanskrit: शङ्कर), "beneficent" or "conferring happiness" reflects his benign form. This name was adopted by the great Vedanta philosopher Śaṇkara (c. 788 - 820 CE), who is also known as Shankaracharya. The name Śambhu (Sanskrit: शम्भु), "causing happiness", also reflects this benign aspect.

 

ASCETIC AND HOUSEHOLDER

He is depicted as both an ascetic yogi and as a householder, roles which have been traditionally mutually exclusive in Hindu society.[185] When depicted as a yogi, he may be shown sitting and meditating. His epithet Mahāyogi ("the great Yogi: Mahā = "great", Yogi = "one who practices Yoga") refers to his association with yoga. While Vedic religion was conceived mainly in terms of sacrifice, it was during the Epic period that the concepts of tapas, yoga, and asceticism became more important, and the depiction of Shiva as an ascetic sitting in philosophical isolation reflects these later concepts. Shiva is also depicted as a corpse below Goddess Kali, it represents that Shiva is a corpse without Shakti. He remains inert. While Shiva is the static form, Mahakali or Shakti is the dynamic aspect without whom Shiva is powerless.

 

As a family man and householder, he has a wife, Parvati and two sons, Ganesha and Kartikeya. His epithet Umāpati ("The husband of Umā") refers to this idea, and Sharma notes that two other variants of this name that mean the same thing, Umākānta and Umādhava, also appear in the sahasranama. Umā in epic literature is known by many names, including the benign Pārvatī. She is identified with Devi, the Divine Mother; Shakti (divine energy) as well as goddesses like Tripura Sundari, Durga, Kamakshi and Meenakshi. The consorts of Shiva are the source of his creative energy. They represent the dynamic extension of Shiva onto this universe. His son Ganesha is worshipped throughout India and Nepal as the Remover of Obstacles, Lord of Beginnings and Lord of Obstacles. Kartikeya is worshipped in Southern India (especially in Tamil Nadu, Kerala and Karnataka) by the names Subrahmanya, Subrahmanyan, Shanmughan, Swaminathan and Murugan, and in Northern India by the names Skanda, Kumara, or Karttikeya.

 

Some regional deities are also identified as Shiva's children. As one story goes, Shiva is enticed by the beauty and charm of Mohini, Vishnu's female avatar, and procreates with her. As a result of this union, Shasta - identified with regional deities Ayyappa and Ayyanar - is born. Shiva is also mentioned in some scriptures or folktales to have had daughters like the serpent-goddess Manasa and Ashokasundari. Even the demon Andhaka is sometimes considered a child of Shiva.

 

NATARAJA

he depiction of Shiva as Nataraja (Tamil: நடராஜா,Kannada: ನಟರಾಜ, Telugu: నటరాజు, Sanskrit: naṭarāja, "Lord of Dance") is popular. The names Nartaka ("dancer") and Nityanarta ("eternal dancer") appear in the Shiva Sahasranama. His association with dance and also with music is prominent in the Puranic period. In addition to the specific iconographic form known as Nataraja, various other types of dancing forms (Sanskrit: nṛtyamūrti) are found in all parts of India, with many well-defined varieties in Tamil Nadu in particular. The two most common forms of the dance are the Tandava, which later came to denote the powerful and masculine dance as Kala-Mahakala associated with the destruction of the world. When it requires the world or universe to be destroyed, Lord Śiva does it by the tāṇḍavanṛtya. and Lasya, which is graceful and delicate and expresses emotions on a gentle level and is considered the feminine dance attributed to the goddess Parvati. Lasya is regarded as the female counterpart of Tandava. The Tandava-Lasya dances are associated with the destruction-creation of the world.

 

DAKSHINAMURTHY

Dakshinamurthy, or Dakṣiṇāmūrti (Tamil:தட்சிணாமூர்த்தி, Telugu: దక్షిణామూర్తి, Sanskrit: दक्षिणामूर्ति), literally describes a form (mūrti) of Shiva facing south (dakṣiṇa). This form represents Shiva in his aspect as a teacher of yoga, music, and wisdom and giving exposition on the shastras. This iconographic form for depicting Shiva in Indian art is mostly from Tamil Nadu. Elements of this motif can include Shiva seated upon a deer-throne and surrounded by sages who are receiving his instruction.

 

ARDANARISHVARA

An iconographic representation of Shiva called (Ardhanārīśvara) shows him with one half of the body as male and the other half as female. According to Ellen Goldberg, the traditional Sanskrit name for this form (Ardhanārīśvara) is best translated as "the lord who is half woman", not as "half-man, half-woman". According to legend, Lord Shiva is pleased by the difficult austerites performed by the goddess Parvati, grants her the left half of his body. This form of Shiva is quite similar to the Yin-Yang philosophy of Eastern Asia, though Ardhanārīśvara appears to be more ancient.

 

TRIRUPANTAKA

Shiva is often depicted as an archer in the act of destroying the triple fortresses, Tripura, of the Asuras. Shiva's name Tripurantaka (Sanskrit: त्रिपुरान्तक, Tripurāntaka), "ender of Tripura", refers to this important story.[216] In this aspect, Shiva is depicted with four arms wielding a bow and arrow, but different from the Pinakapani murti. He holds an axe and a deer on the upper pair of his arms. In the lower pair of the arms, he holds a bow and an arrow respectively. After destroying Tripura, Tripurantaka Shiva smeared his forehead with three strokes of Ashes. This has become a prominent symbol of Shiva and is practiced even today by Shaivites.

 

OTHER FORMS, AVATARS IDENTIFICATIONS

Shiva, like some other Hindu deities, is said to have several incarnations, known as Avatars. Although Puranic scriptures contain occasional references to "ansh" avatars of Shiva, the idea is not universally accepted in Saivism. The Linga Purana speaks of twenty-eight forms of Shiva which are sometimes seen as avatars. According to the Svetasvatara Upanishad, he has four avatars.

 

In the Hanuman Chalisa, Hanuman is identified as the eleventh avatar of Shiva and this belief is universal. Hanuman is popularly known as “Rudraavtaar” “Rudra” being a name of “Shiva”. Rama– the Vishnu avatar is considered by some to be the eleventh avatar of Rudra (Shiva).

 

Other traditions regard the sage Durvasa, the sage Agastya, the philosopher Adi Shankara, as avatars of Shiva. Other forms of Shiva include Virabhadra and Sharabha.

 

FESTIVALS

Maha Shivratri is a festival celebrated every year on the 13th night or the 14th day of the new moon in the Shukla Paksha of the month of Maagha or Phalguna in the Hindu calendar. This festival is of utmost importance to the devotees of Lord Shiva. Mahashivaratri marks the night when Lord Shiva performed the 'Tandava' and it is the day that Lord Shiva was married to Parvati. The holiday is often celebrated with special prayers and rituals offered up to Shiva, notably the Abhishek. This ritual, practiced throughout the night, is often performed every three hours with water, milk, yogurt, and honey. Bel (aegle marmelos) leaves are often offered up to the Hindu god, as it is considered necessary for a successful life. The offering of the leaves are considered so important that it is believed that someone who offers them without any intentions will be rewarded greatly.

 

BEYOND HINDUISM

 

BUDDHISM

Shiva is mentioned in Buddhist Tantra. Shiva as Upaya and Shakti as Prajna. In cosmologies of buddhist tantra, Shiva is depicted as active, skillful, and more passive.

 

SIKHISM

The Japuji Sahib of the Guru Granth Sahib says, "The Guru is Shiva, the Guru is Vishnu and Brahma; the Guru is Paarvati and Lakhshmi." In the same chapter, it also says, "Shiva speaks, the Siddhas speak."

 

In Dasam Granth, Guru Gobind Singh have mentioned two avtars of Rudra: Dattatreya Avtar and Parasnath Avtar.

 

OTHERS

The worship of Lord Shiva became popular in Central Asia through the Hephthalite (White Hun) Dynasty, and Kushan Empire. Shaivism was also popular in Sogdiana and Eastern Turkestan as found from the wall painting from Penjikent on the river Zervashan. In this depiction, Shiva is portrayed with a sacred halo and a sacred thread ("Yajnopavita"). He is clad in tiger skin while his attendants are wearing Sodgian dress. In Eastern Turkestan in the Taklamakan Desert. There is a depiction of his four-legged seated cross-legged n a cushioned seat supported by two bulls. Another panel form Dandan-Uilip shows Shiva in His Trimurti form with His Shakti kneeling on her right thigh. It is also noted that Zoroastrian wind god Vayu-Vata took on the iconographic appearance of Shiva.

 

Kirant people, a Mongol tribe from Nepal, worship a form of Shiva as one of their major deity, identifying him as the lord of animals. It is also said that the physical form of Shiva as a yogi is derived from Kirants as it is mentioned in Mundhum that Shiva took human form as a child of Kirant. He is also said to give Kirants visions in form of a male deer.

 

In Indonesia, Shiva is also worshiped as Batara Guru. His other name is "Sang Hyang Jagadnata" (king of the universe) and "Sang Hyang Girinata" (king of mountains). In the ancient times, all kingdoms were located on top of mountains. When he was young, before receiving his authority of power, his name was Sang Hyang Manikmaya. He is first of the children who hatched from the eggs laid by Manuk Patiaraja, wife of god Mulajadi na Bolon. This avatar is also worshiped in Malaysia. Shiva's other form in Indonesian Hindu worship is "Maharaja Dewa" (Mahadeva). Both the forms are closely identified with the Sun in local forms of Hinduism or Kebatinan, and even in the genie lore of Muslims. Mostly Shiva is worshipped in the form of a lingam or the phallus.

 

WIKIPEDIA

United Nations Headquarters

New York, New York

 

10:18 A.M. EDT

 

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Mr. President, Mr. Secretary General, fellow delegates, ladies and gentlemen: Seventy years after the founding of the United Nations, it is worth reflecting on what, together, the members of this body have helped to achieve.

 

Out of the ashes of the Second World War, having witnessed the unthinkable power of the atomic age, the United States has worked with many nations in this Assembly to prevent a third world war -- by forging alliances with old adversaries; by supporting the steady emergence of strong democracies accountable to their people instead of any foreign power; and by building an international system that imposes a cost on those who choose conflict over cooperation, an order that recognizes the dignity and equal worth of all people.

 

That is the work of seven decades. That is the ideal that this body, at its best, has pursued. Of course, there have been too many times when, collectively, we have fallen short of these ideals. Over seven decades, terrible conflicts have claimed untold victims. But we have pressed forward, slowly, steadily, to make a system of international rules and norms that are better and stronger and more consistent.

 

It is this international order that has underwritten unparalleled advances in human liberty and prosperity. It is this collective endeavor that’s brought about diplomatic cooperation between the world’s major powers, and buttressed a global economy that has lifted more than a billion people from poverty. It is these international principles that helped constrain bigger countries from imposing our will on smaller ones, and advanced the emergence of democracy and development and individual liberty on every continent.

 

This progress is real. It can be documented in lives saved, and agreements forged, and diseases conquered, and in mouths fed. And yet, we come together today knowing that the march of human progress never travels in a straight line, that our work is far from complete; that dangerous currents risk pulling us back into a darker, more disordered world.

 

Today, we see the collapse of strongmen and fragile states breeding conflict, and driving innocent men, women and children across borders on an epic scale. Brutal networks of terror have stepped into the vacuum. Technologies that empower individuals are now also exploited by those who spread disinformation, or suppress dissent, or radicalize our youth. Global capital flows have powered growth and investment, but also increased risk of contagion, weakened the bargaining power of workers, and accelerated inequality.

 

How should we respond to these trends? There are those who argue that the ideals enshrined in the U.N. charter are unachievable or out of date -- a legacy of a postwar era not suited to our own. Effectively, they argue for a return to the rules that applied for most of human history and that pre-date this institution: the belief that power is a zero-sum game; that might makes right; that strong states must impose their will on weaker ones; that the rights of individuals don’t matter; and that in a time of rapid change, order must be imposed by force.

 

On this basis, we see some major powers assert themselves in ways that contravene international law. We see an erosion of the democratic principles and human rights that are fundamental to this institution’s mission; information is strictly controlled, the space for civil society restricted. We’re told that such retrenchment is required to beat back disorder; that it’s the only way to stamp out terrorism, or prevent foreign meddling. In accordance with this logic, we should support tyrants like Bashar al-Assad, who drops barrel bombs to massacre innocent children, because the alternative is surely worse.

 

The increasing skepticism of our international order can also be found in the most advanced democracies. We see greater polarization, more frequent gridlock; movements on the far right, and sometimes the left, that insist on stopping the trade that binds our fates to other nations, calling for the building of walls to keep out immigrants. Most ominously, we see the fears of ordinary people being exploited through appeals to sectarianism, or tribalism, or racism, or anti-Semitism; appeals to a glorious past before the body politic was infected by those who look different, or worship God differently; a politics of us versus them.

 

The United States is not immune from this. Even as our economy is growing and our troops have largely returned from Iraq and Afghanistan, we see in our debates about America’s role in the world a notion of strength that is defined by opposition to old enemies, perceived adversaries, a rising China, or a resurgent Russia; a revolutionary Iran, or an Islam that is incompatible with peace. We see an argument made that the only strength that matters for the United States is bellicose words and shows of military force; that cooperation and diplomacy will not work.

 

As President of the United States, I am mindful of the dangers that we face; they cross my desk every morning. I lead the strongest military that the world has ever known, and I will never hesitate to protect my country or our allies, unilaterally and by force where necessary.

 

But I stand before you today believing in my core that we, the nations of the world, cannot return to the old ways of conflict and coercion. We cannot look backwards. We live in an integrated world -- one in which we all have a stake in each other’s success. We cannot turn those forces of integration. No nation in this Assembly can insulate itself from the threat of terrorism, or the risk of financial contagion; the flow of migrants, or the danger of a warming planet. The disorder we see is not driven solely by competition between nations or any single ideology. And if we cannot work together more effectively, we will all suffer the consequences. That is true for the United States, as well.

 

No matter how powerful our military, how strong our economy, we understand the United States cannot solve the world’s problems alone. In Iraq, the United States learned the hard lesson that even hundreds of thousands of brave, effective troops, trillions of dollars from our Treasury, cannot by itself impose stability on a foreign land. Unless we work with other nations under the mantle of international norms and principles and law that offer legitimacy to our efforts, we will not succeed. And unless we work together to defeat the ideas that drive different communities in a country like Iraq into conflict, any order that our militaries can impose will be temporary.

 

Just as force alone cannot impose order internationally, I believe in my core that repression cannot forge the social cohesion for nations to succeed. The history of the last two decades proves that in today’s world, dictatorships are unstable. The strongmen of today become the spark of revolution tomorrow. You can jail your opponents, but you can’t imprison ideas. You can try to control access to information, but you cannot turn a lie into truth. It is not a conspiracy of U.S.-backed NGOs that expose corruption and raise the expectations of people around the globe; it’s technology, social media, and the irreducible desire of people everywhere to make their own choices about how they are governed.

 

Indeed, I believe that in today’s world, the measure of strength is no longer defined by the control of territory. Lasting prosperity does not come solely from the ability to access and extract raw materials. The strength of nations depends on the success of their people -- their knowledge, their innovation, their imagination, their creativity, their drive, their opportunity -- and that, in turn, depends upon individual rights and good governance and personal security. Internal repression and foreign aggression are both symptoms of the failure to provide this foundation.

 

A politics and solidarity that depend on demonizing others, that draws on religious sectarianism or narrow tribalism or jingoism may at times look like strength in the moment, but over time its weakness will be exposed. And history tells us that the dark forces unleashed by this type of politics surely makes all of us less secure. Our world has been there before. We gain nothing from going back.

 

Instead, I believe that we must go forward in pursuit of our ideals, not abandon them at this critical time. We must give expression to our best hopes, not our deepest fears. This institution was founded because men and women who came before us had the foresight to know that our nations are more secure when we uphold basic laws and basic norms, and pursue a path of cooperation over conflict. And strong nations, above all, have a responsibility to uphold this international order.

 

Let me give you a concrete example. After I took office, I made clear that one of the principal achievements of this body -- the nuclear non-proliferation regime -- was endangered by Iran’s violation of the NPT. On that basis, the Security Council tightened sanctions on the Iranian government, and many nations joined us to enforce them. Together, we showed that laws and agreements mean something.

 

But we also understood that the goal of sanctions was not simply to punish Iran. Our objective was to test whether Iran could change course, accept constraints, and allow the world to verify that its nuclear program will be peaceful. For two years, the United States and our partners -- including Russia, including China -- stuck together in complex negotiations. The result is a lasting, comprehensive deal that prevents Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, while allowing it to access peaceful energy. And if this deal is fully implemented, the prohibition on nuclear weapons is strengthened, a potential war is averted, our world is safer. That is the strength of the international system when it works the way it should.

 

That same fidelity to international order guides our responses to other challenges around the world. Consider Russia’s annexation of Crimea and further aggression in eastern Ukraine. America has few economic interests in Ukraine. We recognize the deep and complex history between Russia and Ukraine. But we cannot stand by when the sovereignty and territorial integrity of a nation is flagrantly violated. If that happens without consequence in Ukraine, it could happen to any nation gathered here today. That’s the basis of the sanctions that the United States and our partners impose on Russia. It's not a desire to return to a Cold War.

 

Now, within Russia, state-controlled media may describe these events as an example of a resurgent Russia -- a view shared, by the way, by a number of U.S. politicians and commentators who have always been deeply skeptical of Russia, and seem to be convinced a new Cold War is, in fact, upon us. And yet, look at the results. The Ukrainian people are more interested than ever in aligning with Europe instead of Russia. Sanctions have led to capital flight, a contracting economy, a fallen ruble, and the emigration of more educated Russians.

 

Imagine if, instead, Russia had engaged in true diplomacy, and worked with Ukraine and the international community to ensure its interests were protected. That would be better for Ukraine, but also better for Russia, and better for the world -- which is why we continue to press for this crisis to be resolved in a way that allows a sovereign and democratic Ukraine to determine its future and control its territory. Not because we want to isolate Russia -- we don't -- but because we want a strong Russia that’s invested in working with us to strengthen the international system as a whole.

 

Similarly, in the South China Sea, the United States makes no claim on territory there. We don't adjudicate claims. But like every nation gathered here, we have an interest in upholding the basic principles of freedom of navigation and the free flow of commerce, and in resolving disputes through international law, not the law of force. So we will defend these principles, while encouraging China and other claimants to resolve their differences peacefully.

 

I say this, recognizing that diplomacy is hard; that the outcomes are sometimes unsatisfying; that it's rarely politically popular. But I believe that leaders of large nations, in particular, have an obligation to take these risks -- precisely because we are strong enough to protect our interests if, and when, diplomacy fails.

 

I also believe that to move forward in this new era, we have to be strong enough to acknowledge when what you’re doing is not working. For 50 years, the United States pursued a Cuba policy that failed to improve the lives of the Cuban people. We changed that. We continue to have differences with the Cuban government. We will continue to stand up for human rights. But we address these issues through diplomatic relations, and increased commerce, and people-to-people ties. As these contacts yield progress, I’m confident that our Congress will inevitably lift an embargo that should not be in place anymore. (Applause.) Change won’t come overnight to Cuba, but I’m confident that openness, not coercion, will support the reforms and better the life the Cuban people deserve, just as I believe that Cuba will find its success if it pursues cooperation with other nations.

 

Now, if it’s in the interest of major powers to uphold international standards, it is even more true for the rest of the community of nations. Look around the world. From Singapore to Colombia to Senegal, the facts shows that nations succeed when they pursue an inclusive peace and prosperity within their borders, and work cooperatively with countries beyond their borders.

 

That path is now available to a nation like Iran, which, as of this moment, continues to deploy violent proxies to advance its interests. These efforts may appear to give Iran leverage in disputes with neighbors, but they fuel sectarian conflict that endangers the entire region, and isolates Iran from the promise of trade and commerce. The Iranian people have a proud history, and are filled with extraordinary potential. But chanting “Death to America” does not create jobs, or make Iran more secure. If Iran chose a different path, that would be good for the security of the region, good for the Iranian people, and good for the world.

 

Of course, around the globe, we will continue to be confronted with nations who reject these lessons of history, places where civil strife, border disputes, and sectarian wars bring about terrorist enclaves and humanitarian disasters. Where order has completely broken down, we must act, but we will be stronger when we act together.

 

In such efforts, the United States will always do our part. We will do so mindful of the lessons of the past -- not just the lessons of Iraq, but also the example of Libya, where we joined an international coalition under a U.N. mandate to prevent a slaughter. Even as we helped the Libyan people bring an end to the reign of a tyrant, our coalition could have and should have done more to fill a vacuum left behind. We’re grateful to the United Nations for its efforts to forge a unity government. We will help any legitimate Libyan government as it works to bring the country together. But we also have to recognize that we must work more effectively in the future, as an international community, to build capacity for states that are in distress, before they collapse.

 

And that’s why we should celebrate the fact that later today the United States will join with more than 50 countries to enlist new capabilities -- infantry, intelligence, helicopters, hospitals, and tens of thousands of troops -- to strengthen United Nations peacekeeping. (Applause.) These new capabilities can prevent mass killing, and ensure that peace agreements are more than words on paper. But we have to do it together. Together, we must strengthen our collective capacity to establish security where order has broken down, and to support those who seek a just and lasting peace.

 

Nowhere is our commitment to international order more tested than in Syria. When a dictator slaughters tens of thousands of his own people, that is not just a matter of one nation’s internal affairs -- it breeds human suffering on an order of magnitude that affects us all. Likewise, when a terrorist group beheads captives, slaughters the innocent and enslaves women, that’s not a single nation’s national security problem -- that is an assault on all humanity.

 

I’ve said before and I will repeat: There is no room for accommodating an apocalyptic cult like ISIL, and the United States makes no apologies for using our military, as part of a broad coalition, to go after them. We do so with a determination to ensure that there will never be a safe haven for terrorists who carry out these crimes. And we have demonstrated over more than a decade of relentless pursuit of al Qaeda, we will not be outlasted by extremists.

 

But while military power is necessary, it is not sufficient to resolve the situation in Syria. Lasting stability can only take hold when the people of Syria forge an agreement to live together peacefully. The United States is prepared to work with any nation, including Russia and Iran, to resolve the conflict. But we must recognize that there cannot be, after so much bloodshed, so much carnage, a return to the pre-war status quo.

  

Let’s remember how this started. Assad reacted to peaceful protests by escalating repression and killing that, in turn, created the environment for the current strife. And so Assad and his allies cannot simply pacify the broad majority of a population who have been brutalized by chemical weapons and indiscriminate bombing. Yes, realism dictates that compromise will be required to end the fighting and ultimately stamp out ISIL. But realism also requires a managed transition away from Assad and to a new leader, and an inclusive government that recognizes there must be an end to this chaos so that the Syrian people can begin to rebuild.

 

We know that ISIL -- which emerged out of the chaos of Iraq and Syria -- depends on perpetual war to survive. But we also know that they gain adherents because of a poisonous ideology. So part of our job, together, is to work to reject such extremism that infects too many of our young people. Part of that effort must be a continued rejection by Muslims of those who distort Islam to preach intolerance and promote violence, and it must also a rejection by non-Muslims of the ignorance that equates Islam with terror. (Applause.)

 

This work will take time. There are no easy answers to Syria. And there are no simple answers to the changes that are taking place in much of the Middle East and North Africa. But so many families need help right now; they don’t have time. And that’s why the United States is increasing the number of refugees who we welcome within our borders. That’s why we will continue to be the largest donor of assistance to support those refugees. And today we are launching new efforts to ensure that our people and our businesses, our universities and our NGOs can help as well -- because in the faces of suffering families, our nation of immigrants sees ourselves.

 

Of course, in the old ways of thinking, the plight of the powerless, the plight of refugees, the plight of the marginalized did not matter. They were on the periphery of the world’s concerns. Today, our concern for them is driven not just by conscience, but should also be drive by self-interest. For helping people who have been pushed to the margins of our world is not mere charity, it is a matter of collective security. And the purpose of this institution is not merely to avoid conflict, it is to galvanize the collective action that makes life better on this planet.

 

The commitments we’ve made to the Sustainable Development Goals speak to this truth. I believe that capitalism has been the greatest creator of wealth and opportunity that the world has ever known. But from big cities to rural villages around the world, we also know that prosperity is still cruelly out of reach for too many. As His Holiness Pope Francis reminds us, we are stronger when we value the least among these, and see them as equal in dignity to ourselves and our sons and our daughters.

 

We can roll back preventable disease and end the scourge of HIV/AIDS. We can stamp out pandemics that recognize no borders. That work may not be on television right now, but as we demonstrated in reversing the spread of Ebola, it can save more lives than anything else we can do.

 

Together, we can eradicate extreme poverty and erase barriers to opportunity. But this requires a sustained commitment to our people -- so farmers can feed more people; so entrepreneurs can start a business without paying a bribe; so young people have the skills they need to succeed in this modern, knowledge-based economy.

 

We can promote growth through trade that meets a higher standard. And that’s what we’re doing through the Trans-Pacific Partnership -- a trade agreement that encompasses nearly 40 percent of the global economy; an agreement that will open markets, while protecting the rights of workers and protecting the environment that enables development to be sustained.

 

We can roll back the pollution that we put in our skies, and help economies lift people out of poverty without condemning our children to the ravages of an ever-warming climate. The same ingenuity that produced the Industrial Age and the Computer Age allows us to harness the potential of clean energy. No country can escape the ravages of climate change. And there is no stronger sign of leadership than putting future generations first. The United States will work with every nation that is willing to do its part so that we can come together in Paris to decisively confront this challenge.

 

And finally, our vision for the future of this Assembly, my belief in moving forward rather than backwards, requires us to defend the democratic principles that allow societies to succeed. Let me start from a simple premise: Catastrophes, like what we are seeing in Syria, do not take place in countries where there is genuine democracy and respect for the universal values this institution is supposed to defend. (Applause.)

 

I recognize that democracy is going to take different forms in different parts of the world. The very idea of a people governing themselves depends upon government giving expression to their unique culture, their unique history, their unique experiences. But some universal truths are self-evident. No person wants to be imprisoned for peaceful worship. No woman should ever be abused with impunity, or a girl barred from going to school. The freedom to peacefully petition those in power without fear of arbitrary laws -- these are not ideas of one country or one culture. They are fundamental to human progress. They are a cornerstone of this institution.

 

I realize that in many parts of the world there is a different view -- a belief that strong leadership must tolerate no dissent. I hear it not only from America’s adversaries, but privately at least I also hear it from some of our friends. I disagree. I believe a government that suppresses peaceful dissent is not showing strength; it is showing weakness and it is showing fear. (Applause.) History shows that regimes who fear their own people will eventually crumble, but strong institutions built on the consent of the governed endure long after any one individual is gone.

 

That's why our strongest leaders -- from George Washington to Nelson Mandela -- have elevated the importance of building strong, democratic institutions over a thirst for perpetual power. Leaders who amend constitutions to stay in office only acknowledge that they failed to build a successful country for their people -- because none of us last forever. It tells us that power is something they cling to for its own sake, rather than for the betterment of those they purport to serve.

 

I understand democracy is frustrating. Democracy in the United States is certainly imperfect. At times, it can even be dysfunctional. But democracy -- the constant struggle to extend rights to more of our people, to give more people a voice -- is what allowed us to become the most powerful nation in the world. (Applause.)

 

It's not simply a matter of principle; it's not an abstraction. Democracy -- inclusive democracy -- makes countries stronger. When opposition parties can seek power peacefully through the ballot, a country draws upon new ideas. When a free media can inform the public, corruption and abuse are exposed and can be rooted out. When civil society thrives, communities can solve problems that governments cannot necessarily solve alone. When immigrants are welcomed, countries are more productive and more vibrant. When girls can go to school, and get a job, and pursue unlimited opportunity, that’s when a country realizes its full potential. (Applause.)

 

That is what I believe is America’s greatest strength. Not everybody in America agrees with me. That's part of democracy. I believe that the fact that you can walk the streets of this city right now and pass churches and synagogues and temples and mosques, where people worship freely; the fact that our nation of immigrants mirrors the diversity of the world -- you can find everybody from everywhere here in New York City -- (applause) -- the fact that, in this country, everybody can contribute, everybody can participate no matter who they are, or what they look like, or who they love -- that's what makes us strong.

 

And I believe that what is true for America is true for virtually all mature democracies. And that is no accident. We can be proud of our nations without defining ourselves in opposition to some other group. We can be patriotic without demonizing someone else. We can cherish our own identities -- our religion, our ethnicity, our traditions -- without putting others down. Our systems are premised on the notion that absolute power will corrupt, but that people -- ordinary people -- are fundamentally good; that they value family and friendship, faith and the dignity of hard work; and that with appropriate checks and balances, governments can reflect this goodness.

 

I believe that’s the future we must seek together. To believe in the dignity of every individual, to believe we can bridge our differences, and choose cooperation over conflict -- that is not weakness, that is strength. (Applause.) It is a practical necessity in this interconnected world.

 

And our people understand this. Think of the Liberian doctor who went door-to-door to search for Ebola cases, and to tell families what to do if they show symptoms. Think of the Iranian shopkeeper who said, after the nuclear deal, “God willing, now we’ll be able to offer many more goods at better prices.” Think of the Americans who lowered the flag over our embassy in Havana in 1961 -- the year I was born -- and returned this summer to raise that flag back up. (Applause.) One of these men said of the Cuban people, “We could do things for them, and they could do things for us. We loved them.” For 50 years, we ignored that fact.

 

Think of the families leaving everything they’ve known behind, risking barren deserts and stormy waters just to find shelter; just to save their children. One Syrian refugee who was greeted in Hamburg with warm greetings and shelter, said, “We feel there are still some people who love other people.”

 

The people of our United Nations are not as different as they are told. They can be made to fear; they can be taught to hate -- but they can also respond to hope. History is littered with the failure of false prophets and fallen empires who believed that might always makes right, and that will continue to be the case. You can count on that. But we are called upon to offer a different type of leadership -- leadership strong enough to recognize that nations share common interests and people share a common humanity, and, yes, there are certain ideas and principles that are universal.

 

That's what those who shaped the United Nations 70 years ago understood. Let us carry forward that faith into the future -- for it is the only way we can assure that future will be brighter for my children, and for yours.

 

Thank you very much. (Applause.)

 

END 11:00 A.M. EDT

Nestlé employees at Solon test the latest products to come off the Lean Cuisine production line.

Another first for me!

May 13, 2015 | The Role of Philanthropy in Shared Value, featuring FSG's Mark Kramer, Walmart Foundation's Kathleen McLaughlin, and Ford Foundation's Darren Walker.

Blogged here

by isleta lakes

Eco Fashion Week April 22, 2013 Three stylists with $500 each made three runway collections from outfits presented by Value Village. Photos by Sean Herd.

 

Watch VCAD videos www.youtube.com/VancouverVCAD

 

VCAD - Fashion Design Program

500 - 626 West Pender St.

Vancouver, BC

V6B 1V9

CANADA

1.800.356.8497

2008

Red pacer on paper

21cm x 27.9cm

Some of the values artists value. Croudsourced values, part of *For the Love of it*, Artquest, London 2013

   

One of the community wells in Kirehe, eastern Rwanda provided by our 2008 partnership with the Lutheran World Federation and Inter-Faith Action for Peace in Africa,to supply clean water to rural communities.

value

It's funny the value we put on objects. How they come to be of value in the first instance by means of market value and actual worth, or simply the value we place upon them ourselves.

 

My ring is valuable and it's worth a bit of spondulicks for sure and of course I value it's meaning. These pearls however are of no value in terms of monetary worth. But they were my Grans pearls. She treasured them and wore them for best. She never really had anything of any monetary value in her life but she never saw this as a bad thing - anything she ever had she gave away. Even down to sweets she won at bingo! They are all I have of hers and I often take them out and just hold them and remember her for a while. They used to smell of her perfume - but sadly over the years this has now gone.

 

So back to the value of these pearls. Nothing could replace them, nor the memories that they hold. So they are priceless. Plain and simple.

 

I guess what I am getting round to is that sometimes in life things happen that make us stop and put a true value on what's really important. It happens to us all I am sure and it puts thing all in perspective.

 

And yes I cried while writing this, I miss her.

 

Texture courtesy of: Paree

We went out for a Bruce Trail hike through the Short Hills Provincial Park South-West of St Catharines, Ontario the other day. This follows a very varied terrain between the top and bottom of the Niagara Escarpment in this area. The Trail was rerouted to the South a number of years ago and I had never covered this updated route. This was a good decision by the trail planners for the Bruce Trail Conservancy as this route is much more scenic. One of the features I had never seen before was the falls on Terrace Creek, seen here still showing some water falling, although not what I would expect in the early Spring when winter melt water would still be flowing. In a few weeks even this small flow will stop and only seepage will flow down the creek. None-the-less, a very nice spot for a break on a very hot-humid day. - JW

 

Date Taken: 2015-06-18

 

Tech Details:

 

Taken using a tripod-mounted Nikon D7100 fitted with a Nikkor 12-24mm lense set to 12mm, ISO100, Aperture priority mode, f/8.0, 1/10 sec. PP in free Open Source RAWTherapee from Nikon RAW/NEF source file: resize to 9000x6000 pixels, use camera white balance (camera was on Auto WB during image capture), enable Graduated Neutral Density/GND filter tool and adjust to reduce the exposure of the top left-of-centre bright area to be better balanced with the darker foreground areas, enable shadows-highlights tool and tone down highlights (i.e increase highlights setting value), enable noise reduction, save. PP in free Open Source GIMP: adjust tone curve to a classic 'S' shape to slightly darken darker areas and brighten the lighter areas while holding the mid-tones, decrease yellow channel saturation to decrease over-saturation of green leaves, duplicate visible result three times and label the layers (from top to bottom) – 'threshold', 'masked' and 'adjustment' and then use the threshold tool to isolate the mid-tones (values between 80 and 160) in the threshold layer, invert and then copy this to white-layer-mask on masked layer below (i.e allow mid tones to be transparent and show the layer below) and then make the threshold layer invisible, then use the tone curve tool to adjust the tonality of the adjustment layer until the mid-tones look right, (at this point the Photoshop 'luminosity' tool has been simulated), make new working layer from visible result, select the water areas and desaturate their blue channels substantially to get a more natural look, sharpen, save, scale image to 6000x4000 (my normal working size for images preparation for on-line use), add fine black and white frame, add bar and text on left, scale to 1800 wide for posting.

Page 31 of the Summer 1964 Lana Lobell catalog.

The value "61 degrees" doesn't mean anything unless a reference frame is specified. On compasses used for navigation, North is the primary axis and all angles are given as degrees clockwise from North. In math class, the + x axis is the primary axis and all angles are given as degrees counter-clockwise from x. Both are valid, as are any other reference axes. Usually we'll just use an angle inside one of our force triangles and know that we tell if something is positive or negative from the direction its going in the picture.

 

That said, sines and cosines work if you use the angle from the positive x-axis. I've shown this with this picture. When you do the angle like this the calculator will give you whether you're talking about something in this reference frame to the left/down (negative) or to the right/up (positive).

 

To make your life easier, use these greater than 90 degree angles in this lab, because they're what you're reading directly off the protractor. The math that comes next will do so. We use the internal angle to decide which trig function to use (using SOH-CAH-TOA) and then directly plug the angle from the protractor in.

 

I was going to gloss over this detail in class, but two 8th period students during the 2016-17 school year wanted a mathematical justification of this, so we stayed after school and came up with this picture

  

The Valley Fair Mall opened in 1955; supposedly as the first modern enclosed mall in the United States.

 

Originally, it was little more than a shopping center; with a handful of tenants "anchored" by W.T. Grant and a Krambo (later Kroger) food store. Most of these names were gone by the late 1970s, when the mall underwent a massive expansion and renovation that included the addition of a Kohl's department store/supermarket combo and Marcus cinema.

 

Due to competition from the newer Northland and Fox River malls and other myriad factors, Valley Fair began to slowly empty out in the 1980s and 1990s. After a brief stint as a "youth mall" under the ownership of Youth Futures (a "faith-based non-profit corporation"), the end came. All that's left now is the "Valley Value Cinema," the empty Kohl's building, and some piles of dirt.

 

More info on the Valley Fair Mall.

My students were using 10-longs and unit cubes to create numbers using a place value mat. This student created the number 15 using 1 ten and 5 ones (10 + 5 = 15)

Is this of any value?

This picture has light from outside of the underneath path of the stairs and shadow as well because of how the stairs cover the sky.

 

power box

Podium at the Values Voter Summit in Washington, DC.

 

Please attribute to Gage Skidmore if used elsewhere.

tnsr.org/2022/10/fixing-the-current-system-or-moving-towa...

 

Fixing the Current System or Moving Toward a Value-Based Globalization

Mathew Burrows, Robert A. Manning, Aaron L. Friedberg

 

In this issue’s correspondence section, Mathew Burrows and Robert Manning respond to Aaron Friedberg’s article on the future of globalization, published in Vol 5, Iss 1 of TNSR. Friedberg, in turn, offers his own rebuttal.

 

Taking Exception: The Problems with a “Partial Liberal” Order

Mathew Burrows and Robert A. Manning

 

Aaron Friedberg recently published an important, thought-provoking article in these pages that examines the evolution of the international economy over the last two centuries and possible scenarios for how the current era of globalization may fail or be reconstructed.¹ We commend the analysis of past phases of globalization but take issue with the likelihood and desirability of his proposed “value-based” free world trade bloc, which he calls “Globalization 2.5.” Friedberg dismisses the possibility of repairing and updating the current international system to reflect the redistribution of wealth and power from West to East and North to South. While he discusses a region-centric global economic order, his preferred outcome is a U.S.-led “partial liberal” order. However, such a framework would institutionalize a fragmented, conflict-prone world based more on power and less on rules.

 

The notion of a “democracies only” world order reflects the logic of the Biden administration’s “democracy vs. autocracy” strategy, but with respect to it fashioning a stable and prosperous world, it is a dubious proposition. For starters, China is the world’s largest trading power (its total export-imports were $4.2 trillion in 2021), the leading trade partner of U.S. allies and partners in Europe and Asia, and a major exporter of capital.² Moreover, the neutral response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine by most of the world — including democracies such as India, Brazil, Mexico, Indonesia, and Turkey — shows that these countries are more motivated by interests than by democratic values. Beyond fashioning legal and institutional frameworks for global trade and investment to operate in, the administration’s requirement now is to make sure that such trade and investment favor U.S. interests. The Biden administration, for example, wants to prevent any new trade regimes from hurting the middle class, even though there are inevitably going to be some losers when openings in trade are made.

 

The United States could do better by closing the skills-job opening gap and helping the American middle class compete by providing improved retraining and more life-long learning opportunities, as well as a stronger social safety net, including portable healthcare, universal daycare, and more generous unemployment insurance linked to retraining. Of course, trade politics include a significant amount of market intervention and managed trade — imposing quotas and voluntary export restraints, or putting in place tariffs when another’s trade practices are deemed to be unfair or in order to protect strategic industries — and demonstrate clear results from such measures.³ Yet, there seems to be an increasing temptation among foreign policy strategists to believe that China will either acquiesce to perpetual U.S. primacy or that it can simply be isolated from U.S.-led political and economic structures. This implies that the United States and its allies can redesign the world to please their preferences for democratic liberalism without regard for other countries. But when, over the past several centuries, has there been a stable world order absent the inclusion or a considered balance of the major economic and military powers, particularly China and Russia?

 

Technology, Economics, and Politics

 

To our minds, the proposal for a “partial liberal trading system,” is inconsistent with Friedberg’s elegant summary analysis of how periods of globalization over the past 200 years have come about and operated: namely that economics, in terms of market trends and other forces such as technology, has historically been the driver of globalization. Politics, on the other hand, may have established a favorable framework for globalization, but it has been unable to orchestrate it fully.

 

We take the point in Robert Gilpin’s prescient assessment, cited by Friedberg, regarding the reciprocal relationship between politics and economics, wherein economics redistributes wealth and power, which leads to political changes and reordered politico-economic relationships. But this model overstates the role of politics and underestimates the role of technology. Politics does create the framework in which economics operates, but within that framework — the enabling security structures and sets of rules and regulations — economics is driven by its own imperatives that redistribute wealth and power. In Britain in the 19th century and the United States in the 20th century, economic expansion led to the development of external markets for Western exports and imports of commodities and other essential goods. These economic exchanges helped America’s trading partners — including China — to grow and compete. Some forecasts anticipate that China will outgrow the United States as measured in market exchange terms by the early 2030s.⁴ China’s stunning ascendency since 1978 is testimony to how economic growth upsets power balances,⁵ in this case triggering a U.S. backlash and a corresponding shift of U.S. views of China that Friedberg ably chronicles.

 

Economics has also driven calls in the United States and, to a degree, other Western countries, for changing how globalization operates in order to better protect their interests. In a sense, having pressed liberalization on everyone else and then lost the agency to run the global economy after World War II, Washington wants to re-work who’s in and who’s out to ensure continued hegemony. Friedberg’s solution to the problems with the current trading system would be a “world in which the advanced industrial democracies of Europe, Asia, and the Western Hemisphere band together to form a free trade area and perhaps a full economic bloc.” This is wishful thinking. Such an alternative to the current global economy is unrealistic and would be disruptive, ultimately undermining U.S. and Western prosperity and potentially increasing the risk of great-power conflict — a risk that is already unacceptably high.

 

The historical cases that Friedberg supplies illustrate the importance of economics and technology over politics. This is strengthened if one considers the first cycle of economic globalization that took place more than two millennia ago under the Han dynasty, a case that Friedberg omitted: the Silk Road, which connected Asia and the Middle East to Europe with variations (e.g., Venice’s maritime empire) until roughly 1500.⁶ There were minimal rules in this system, and it was driven mainly by power, ambition, and the desire for profit. Friedberg’s “Globalization 1.0,” (1815–1914), facilitated as much by rapid technological change (the telegraph, railroads, steam engines) as by a post-Napoleonic political framework, was largely based on Britain’s and other Western countries’ comparative advantage and thirst for the raw materials that were provided by Europe’s colonies in Africa, Asia, Caribbean, and other regions. It was the politics of nationalism and anti-colonialism more than redistributed wealth that produced World War I, thus ending that period of globalization.

 

The post-World War II Bretton Woods system was a wildly successful partial-liberal order centered in the United States, Western Europe, and Japan. The crafters of this system were intent on learning from the mistakes of hyper-nationalism and protectionism that characterized the inter-war period. The system had a rules-based architecture that was open and mutually beneficial and that worked to no small degree because of relatively open U.S. markets and a hegemonic enforcer that underpinned the system. The self-imposed separation by the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact countries helped set its limits. As John Ruggie argues (which Friedberg cites), one reason for the post-Cold War resilience of the Bretton Woods system, current problems notwithstanding, is that even absent a hegemon, if there is a sense of common purpose and shared interests, a multilateral structure can still function.⁷ Bretton Woods partners felt they were receiving enough mutual benefit to sustain the system, regardless of whether a hegemon was involved. But as Europe and Japan rebuilt and became industrial competitors by the 1980s, the generosity of America’s relatively open markets became increasingly problematic for Americans who saw those whom they had defeated gaining economically on the United States. Washington struck back, as showcased in the 1980s U.S.-Japanese trade wars in which Japanese auto companies were pressured into investing their profits in building new factories in America.

 

As globalization took off at the end of the Cold War, the Bretton Woods trade and financial system, fueled by the IT revolution and global supply chains, expanded exponentially to former Warsaw Pact nations and to emerging economies like Brazil, India, and East Asia writ large, as well as China and even Russia itself. The result was a new global middle class, but also new vulnerabilities that manifested in financial crises in Latin America (most pronounced in the 1980s but episodic and ongoing in Argentina and several other countries), the 1998 Asian financial crisis, and eventually the meltdown of the whole system in the 2008 Western financial crisis.⁸ All of this affirms Gilpin’s point about trade redistributing wealth and, in turn, leading to changes in political fortunes, such as America’s relative decline. While it is still a work in progress, we have seen some change in the character and scope of globalization. Capital controls are one such shift, as well as a proliferation of regional and extra-regional trade arrangements. A polycentric world also faces unprecedented uncertainty about the future of the World Trade Organization’s (WTO) role as the arbiter of global trade, as the failure of the Doha Round of global trade liberalization underscored.⁹

 

At present, the Fourth Industrial Revolution and rapid digitization have shown that economics tends to race ahead of governance. This was illustrated by China’s unprecedented economic success in recent decades, outgrowing the political framework of the trading system, going from $150 billion in GDP in 1978 to $18 trillion in 2021 with an average 10 percent annual growth from 1978 to 2021.¹⁰ China’s gaming of the system led to a shattering of U.S. myths that economic reform leads to wider liberalization and a realization that China’s state-centric model was a different type of capitalism, something that President Donald Trump called out.¹¹

 

Repairing the Current System

 

Instead of proposing an improbable strategy for a return to a partial globalization centered on the “free world,” Friedberg may have done better to show that the current, flawed system of globalization can be repaired. This would preserve, if not boost, current benefits for the United States and the rest of the world. In Friedberg’s account of the breakdown of “Globalization 2.0,” China is largely at fault. Nobody denies that China has never fulfilled the promises it made to liberalize its internal market at the time of its 2001 accession to the WTO. Beijing is also, as Friedberg charges, engaged in rampant intellectual theft to help it become a tech giant, but this is not the most important factor in its rapid technological ascent. Missing in Friedberg’s analysis are U.S. causes for America’s disenchantment with globalization. As Adam Posen has argued in a recent Foreign Affairs article, the “United States has, on balance, been withdrawing from the international economy for the past two decades.”¹² The jobs lost to Chinese competition have, in fact, been relatively small — namely, two million jobs lost between 2000 and 2015 out of a workforce of 150 million, or roughly 130,000 workers a year.¹³

 

So why the public backlash against globalization and China? Part of the reason, Posen argues, concerns the “fetishization of manufacturing jobs.” The United States has been steadily losing manufacturing jobs, with many of the losses coming from electorally important states, giving the issue more prominence. But why shift all the blame onto China? While Beijing bears much of the blame, the United States has been woefully remiss in helping redundant workers find new employment through retraining. Policies encouraging U.S. offshore investment in global supply chains until very recently also contributed to the problem. According to a 2021 study by the American Enterprise Institute, U.S. “federal spending on worker training has fallen over the past few decades as a share of GDP.”¹⁴ U.S. states have traditionally played an important role in trade adjustment, but in the aggregate, there has also been a decline in trade funding assistance since the 1980s. Other advanced economies do much better in terms of funding both social safety nets and skills training: The United States is second to last in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s ranking of countries that provide public spending to support job readiness and matching skills to jobs.¹⁵ Fashioning a more robust social safety net and better equipping the workforce with the skills needed to advance in a rapidly changing 21st-century workplace might restore trust in freer trade.

 

It is not only on trade that the United States has turned against the rest of the world. Anti-immigrant feeling has also exploded, although there is little evidence that unskilled immigrants are going to take away highly paid jobs.¹⁶ In fact, the U.S. economy can’t run without immigrants. The turn inward and opposition to globalization is as much cultural and psychological as it is based on rational interests. Disregarding history and the distributive effects of trade, Americans always tended to assume that their country would be an outright winner of globalization.

 

European countries have been much less enamored with globalization, fearing that their industries would lose out. As Friedberg points out, globalization was sold in the mid-1990s by President Bill Clinton as the motor for achieving the “end of history.” But there was little understanding of how globalization leads to more — not less — strategic competition. One reason for this may be that America’s rise to become one of the great economic powers by the end of the 19th century came about because of Britain’s embrace of free trade and its support for globalization. A better appreciation at the outset of the challenges of economic competition might have pushed the United States toward a Sputnik-like “self-improvement” program, rendering it better prepared for the inevitable competition from China and other emerging markets.

 

Instead of throwing the globalization baby out with the bath water, America can still try to repair the flaws in globalization’s workings. What’s wrong with putting pressure on China by rounding up allies to force Beijing to mend its ways on IP theft and lack of market access or risk losing global markets? China’s growth remains dependent on trade, and China is the biggest trading partner of many U.S. allies.

 

Sacrificing Globalization 2.0 and trying to build a partial replacement anchored in the “free world” carries a number of risks. For starters, it is not a given that the United States can harmonize its views on trade and regulation with those of the European Union, which has been integrating its trade with Asia and Latin America. Globalization 2.0 has also been the vehicle for many developing countries to enrich themselves, reduce poverty, and build middle classes, which, over time, can bolster the chances of democratization and liberal market reforms. A partial liberal trade system that leaves out a good part of the world would increase the chances of conflict and make authoritarianism more likely, leaving the developing world more dependent on China.

 

In all of this, there needs to be a better understanding of the limits of America’s power to impose its will. It may have worked for Dean Acheson, but that time is long past. It is U.S. hubris and concern over America’s unreliability that has prompted Europe and much of Asia to hedge against the United States. Look at E.U. trade and investment deals with Japan, China, and other Asian and Latin American states,¹⁷ and consider Asia, with its new Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership accord,¹⁸ which does not include America. Though Friedberg minimizes the effort required to achieve consensus, he is right about the importance of mobilizing democracies and other like-minded states to forge a common position on trade issues, but that should not be an end in itself. Precisely because of the limits of U.S. agency, working with allies and partners makes sense in order to maximize America’s leverage to shape global rules and norms, but it should not be a substitute for global rules.

 

With only 18 percent of the world economy, is it not possible that China would alter its policies to sustain access to global markets,¹⁹ particularly now, as it faces unprecedented challenges due to a state-centric, investment-driven economic model that no longer works?²⁰ The same Chinese Communist Party of the Great Leap Forward disaster and the maniacal cultural revolution self-corrected by enacting Deng Xiaoping’s economic reforms. It is worth exhausting diplomacy to test this idea before concluding that there is no difference between China’s grandiose ambitions and what it is willing to accept. That’s where coordination among democracies and the like-minded can build leverage to test the proposition. Friedberg is too quick to eliminate any role for the United States and its partners working together to update global trade and tech rules, as well as the WTO. At present, however, the mutual demonization between China and the United States, and America’s assumption that China can’t change, render such an effort difficult.

 

Domestic Obstacles to a Value-Based Globalization

 

Friedberg also ignores the growing domestic obstacles when he calls for a return to a partial, value-based globalization. President Joe Biden may have eased Trump-era steel and aluminum sanctions against European allies, but he angered those allies with his Buy American rule, using federal procurement to support American manufacturing. Biden also dismayed America’s United States-Mexico-Canada-Agreement partners, when he proposed electric car subsidies for unionized U.S. carmakers,²¹ although it’s unclear how the subsidies will be implemented in the recently enacted Inflation Reduction Act. The episode has left a bad taste in the mouths of America’s closest trade partners, such as South Korea and Japan, who have been encouraged to build auto factories in the United States, and it reinforces the impression that the United States is becoming more protectionist, even with its allies.

 

Moreover, the Biden administration is so divided it is hard for it to make any move on trade. A recent Politico article describes the difficulty plaguing administration efforts to develop a trade strategy with Asian countries, despite the eagerness of America’s Asian allies and partners for the United States to take a more active role in trade.²² In one corner of the three-way administration division are the trade expansionists who want to tie Asian nations closer to the United States with trade deals. Then there’s the more labor-friendly faction, which wants to use tariffs and quotas to protect U.S. workers. The third camp worries that scrapping with China economically could undermine administration priorities to ease inflation and decrease supply chain bottlenecks. Even smaller trade deal ideas, such as a digital trade agreement, have met with opposition. A U.S. Trade Representative plan to launch a trade case against China’s use of industrial subsidies has also been dropped.

 

Then there’s Congress, which is increasingly anti-trade. Trumpist Republicans and progressive Democrats oppose any effort to resurrect the Trans-Pacific Partnership and would block America’s entry into the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership. Both parties are fighting the last war, blaming foreign trade as the main cause of the decline of union workers and the loss of manufacturing jobs, when technological change is a major driver of job gains and losses. The problem is more the mismatch of skills to labor, one reason why the United States has some 10 million unfilled jobs.²³

 

Administration paralysis in moving forward with any trade initiative combined with growing protectionism make it hard to envisage a “free world” free trade agreement being workable. While such an accord would seem to be in line with the administration’s anti-China and pro-democracy focus and popular with the growing anti-China congressional consensus, it would mean crafting a trade agreement that is larger than any of the administration’s smaller initiatives. Friedberg has rightly focused on the problems that China poses to the functioning of the world trading system. Yet, the current political disorder at home is as much the issue when it comes to remaking the global trading system. The fundamental problem with Friedberg’s advocacy for a free world trading system is that we cannot just wipe the slate clean and start anew.

 

Conclusion

 

There is much uncertainty about the future of the global trading system, and Friedberg nicely sketches possible alternative futures. The WTO’s role will almost certainly be diminished. There may be sector-specific global trade liberalization to come, but most likely no future global trade rounds. Trade liberalization has become more region-centric and trans-region centric, such as is the case with the U.S.-Japan Economic Partnership Agreement.²⁴ Nonetheless, because of its near universal membership (it covers 96 percent of global trade), and its role as the only over-arching dispute settlement mechanism, the WTO remains critical to maintaining a rules-based trade regime, although both aspects of the organization are in need of major reform if the WTO is to remain relevant.²⁵

 

Recent trends of regional trade clusters and the reorganization of supply chains suggest that the most probable scenario is one in which the WTO and U.N. standard-setting bodies create a loose global umbrella over regional accords. But continued trade and financial fragmentation cannot be dismissed. Protectionism — managed trade in key sectors like steel and aluminum — is on the rise. For the very reason that Friedberg highlights via Gilpin — that economics alters politics — we cannot rule out that today’s authoritarians could become tomorrow’s market-oriented democracies, as internal forces, such as growing middle classes, push for more political participation and liberalization over time.

 

Apart from the inertia of U.S. trade policy, market forces pose a strong obstacle to any effort to reorder trade along ideological lines that cuts out the world’s largest market and trading power. We are already seeing hints of a prospective mirror-image response to “democracies only” efforts in the February joint statement from Chinese leader Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin, promising closer affiliation between Russia’s Eurasian Economic Union and China’s Belt and Road Initiative.²⁶ Similarly, Beijing has proposed a new Global Security Initiative.²⁷

 

There is a complex network of trade and investment with China. U.S. corn and wheat farmers are attracted to the Chinese market, and shale producers welcome selling to the Chinese liquefied natural gas market. Boeing enjoys the Chinese commercial airline market, and Qualcomm and others like selling low-end chips for Chinese cellphones. None of this necessarily poses national security risks. A circumscribed, partial liberal trade order would defy market forces that benefit American businesses and consumers.

 

Strategic competition is leading to decoupling by both the United States and China where national security interests are deemed at risk, particularly in the tech sector. Fixing a global system that economics has overtaken, however problematic, still seems the most sensible strategy. Finally, with regard to the broader systemic consequences, it is worth recalling a recent cautionary note from Henry Kissinger: “Differences in ideology should not be the main issue of confrontation, unless we are prepared to make regime change the principal goal of our policy.”²⁸

   

Dr. Mathew Burrows serves as director of the Stimson Center’s Strategic Foresight Hub and is a distinguished fellow in the Reimagining Grand Strategy program and Red Cell project at the Stimson Center. He retired in 2013 from a 28-year career at the CIA, serving the last 10 years as counselor at the National Intelligence Council.

 

Robert A. Manning is a distinguished fellow in the Reimagining Grand Strategy program and the Red Cell project at the Stimson Center. He was a senior counselor to the undersecretary of state for global affairs from 2001 to 2004, a member of the U.S. Department of State policy planning staff from 2004 to 2008, and a member of the National Intelligence Council strategic futures group from 2008 to 2012. Follow him on Twitter @Rmanning4.

Collection: Icelandic and Faroese Photographs of Frederick W.W. Howell, Cornell University Library

 

Title: Ísafjörður. [Unidentified hotel or rooming house]

 

Date: ca. 1900

 

Place: Ísafjörður (Iceland : Town)

 

Medium: collodion print

 

Repository: Fiske Icelandic Collection, Rare & Manuscript Collections, Cornell University Library

 

Accession: 1923.4.75

 

URL: http://cidc.library.cornell.edu/howell/intro.asp

 

Persistent URI: http://hdl.handle.net/1813.001/62cm

 

There are no known U.S. copyright restrictions on this image. The digital file is owned by the Cornell Univeristy Library which is making it freely available with the request that, when possible, the Library be credited as its source.

   

We had some help with the geocoding from Web Services by Yahoo!

  

Value Education Workshop at Jalpaiguri and Coochbehar District of West Bengal in April 2017

Value Education Workshop at Jalpaiguri and Coochbehar District of West Bengal in April 2017