Category Archives: Critical Pedagogy

The Humanist Manifestos: Secular Egalitarian Opposition to Profit Motive and its Social Ills Since the Great Depression

13 Thursday Apr 2017

Posted by in Anti-Capitalism, Critical Pedagogy, Education, Mindfulness, Philosophy, Science

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

LUMPENPROLETARIAT—In a recent interview, eminent sociologist Dr. Immanuel Wallerstein cited a relatively obscure theorist named Dr. Ilya Prigogine.  Who?  A cursory scan of Dr. Prigogine’s biography reveals him to be one of the Nobel laureate signatories to the most recent of the Humanist Manifestos published in 2003 by the American Humanist Association (AHA).  The Humanist Manifestos? What’s that?

You may have heard of the Communist Manifesto.  But you probably haven’t heard of the Humanist Manifesto, which stakes out a set of principles along slightly different lines.  (Although, those two manifestos do not appear to be necessarily incompatible.)  In the case of the latter, various humanists have endeavoured to formally articulate their particular ideals, or unifying principles, since the drafting of the original Humanist Manifesto in 1933, whose signatories included academic and civic leaders, such as Dr. John Dewey, the eminent American philosopher, psychologist, and educational reformer, whose ideas have been influential in education and social reform.  The establishment of unifying principles is always helpful for mutual understanding in any society, and especially for galvanising relevant political clout.  Since 1933, various variants have valiantly vied for voicing the vital virtues of humanism.  For example, consider this reasonable variant from 1980:

  1. Free Inquiry
  2. Separation of Church and State
  3. The Ideal of Freedom
  4. Ethics Based on Critical Intelligence
  5. Moral Education
  6. Religious Skepticism
  7. Reason
  8. Science and Technology
  9. Evolution
  10. Education

Messina

***

WIKIPEDIA—[accessed 19 APR 2017]  Humanist Manifesto is the title of three manifestos laying out a Humanist worldview.  They are the original Humanist Manifesto (1933, often referred to as Humanist Manifesto I), the Humanist Manifesto II (1973), and Humanism and Its Aspirations (2003, a.k.a. Humanist Manifesto III).  The Manifesto originally arose from religious Humanism, though secular Humanists also signed.

The central theme of all three manifestos is the elaboration of a philosophy and value system which does not necessarily include belief in any personal deity or “higher power”, although the three differ considerably in their tone, form, and ambition.  Each has been signed at its launch by various prominent members of academia and others who are in general agreement with its principles.

In addition, there is a similar document entitled A Secular Humanist Declaration published in 1980 by the Council for Secular Humanism.

Humanist Manifesto I

The first manifesto, entitled simply A Humanist Manifesto, was written in 1933 primarily by Dr. Roy Wood Sellars and Unitarian Minister Raymond Bragg and was published with 34 signatories including philosopher Dr. John Dewey.  Unlike the later ones, the first Manifesto talked of a new “religion”, and referred to Humanism as a religious movement to transcend and replace previous religions based on allegations of supernatural revelation.  The document outlines a fifteen-point belief system, which, in addition to a secular outlook, opposes “acquisitive and profit-motivated society” and outlines a worldwide egalitarian society based on voluntary mutual cooperation, language which was considerably softened by the Humanists’ board, owners of the document, twenty years later.

The title “A Humanist Manifesto”—rather than “The Humanist Manifesto”—was intentional, predictive of later Manifestos to follow, as indeed has been the case.  Unlike the creeds of major organised religions, the setting out of Humanist ideals in these Manifestos is an ongoing process.  Indeed, in some communities of Humanists the compilation of personal Manifestos is actively encouraged, and throughout the Humanist movement it is accepted that the Humanist Manifestos are not permanent or authoritative dogmas but are to be subject to ongoing critique.

Humanist Manifesto II

The second Manifesto was written in 1973 by Dr. Paul Kurtz and Minister Edwin H. Wilson, and was intended to update and replace the previous one.  It begins with a statement that the excesses of Nazism and World War II had made the first seem “far too optimistic” and indicated a more hardheaded and realistic approach in its seventeen-point statement, which was much longer and more elaborate than the previous version.  Nevertheless, much of the unbridled optimism of the first remained, with hopes stated that war would become obsolete and poverty would be eliminated.

Many of the proposals in the document, such as opposition to racism and weapons of mass destruction and support of strong human rights, are fairly uncontroversial; and its prescriptions, that divorce and birth control should be legal and that technology can improve life, are widely accepted today in much of the Western world.  Furthermore, its proposal of an international court has since been implemented.  However, in addition to its rejection of supernaturalism, various controversial stances are strongly supported, notably the right to abortion.

Initially published with a small number of signatures, the document was circulated and gained thousands more, and indeed the AHA website encourages visitors to add their own name.  A provision at the end noted that signators do “not necessarily endors[e] every detail” of the document.

Among the oft-quoted lines from this 1973 Manifesto are, “No deity will save us; we must save ourselves,” and “We are responsible for what we are and for what we will be,” both of which may present difficulties for members of certain Christian, Jewish, and Muslim sects, or other believers in doctrines of submission to the will of an all-powerful God.

Expanding upon the role the public education establishment should play to bring about the goals described in the Humanist Manifesto II, John Dunphy wrote:

I am convinced that the battle for humankind’s future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers that correctly perceive their role as proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being…  The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and new—the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism, resplendent with the promise of a world in which the never-realized Christian ideal of ‘love thy neighbor’ will finally be achieved.”

Humanist Manifesto III

Humanism and Its Aspirations, subtitled Humanist Manifesto III, a successor to the Humanist Manifesto of 1933, was published in 2003 by the AHA, and was written by committee.  Signatories included 21 Nobel laureates.  The new document is the successor to the previous ones, and the name “Humanist Manifesto” is the property of the American Humanist Association.

The newest manifesto is deliberately much shorter, listing seven primary themes, which echo those from its predecessors:

  • Knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis.  (See empiricism.)
  • Humans are an integral part of nature, the result of evolutionary change, an unguided process.
  • Ethical values are derived from human need and interest as tested by experience.  (See ethical naturalism.)
  • Life’s fulfillment emerges from individual participation in the service of humane ideals.
  • Humans are social by nature and find meaning in relationships.
  • Working to benefit society maximizes individual happiness.
  • Respect for differing yet humane views in an open, secular, democratic, environmentally sustainable society

Other Manifestos for Humanism

Aside from the official Humanist Manifestos of the American Humanist Association, there have been other similar documents.  “Humanist Manifesto” is a trademark of the AHA.  Formulation of new statements in emulation of the three Humanist Manifestos is encouraged, and examples follow.

A Secular Humanist Declaration

In 1980, the Council for Secular Humanism, founded by Dr. Paul Kurtz, which is typically more detailed in its discussions regarding the function of Humanism than the AHA, published what is in effect its manifesto, entitled A Secular Humanist Declaration. It has as its main points:

  1. Free Inquiry
  2. Separation of Church and State
  3. The Ideal of Freedom
  4. Ethics Based on Critical Intelligence
  5. Moral Education
  6. Religious Skepticism
  7. Reason
  8. Science and Technology
  9. Evolution
  10. Education

A Secular Humanist Declaration was an argument for and statement of support for democratic secular humanism.  The document was issued in 1980 by the Council for Democratic and Secular Humanism (“CODESH”), now the Council for Secular Humanism (“CSH”).  Compiled by Paul Kurtz, it is largely a restatement of the content of the American Humanist Association‘s 1973 Humanist Manifesto II, of which he was co-author with Edwin H. Wilson.  Both Wilson and Kurtz had served as editors of The Humanist, from which Kurtz departed in 1979 and thereafter set about establishing his own movement and his own periodical.  His Secular Humanist Declaration was the starting point for these enterprises.

Humanist Manifesto 2000

Humanist Manifesto 2000: A Call for New Planetary Humanism is a book by Dr. Paul Kurtz published in 2000.  It differs from the other three in that it is a full-length book rather than essay-length, and was published not by the American Humanist Association but by the Council for Secular Humanism.  In it, Dr. Kurtz argues for many of the points already formulated in Humanist Manifesto 2, of which he had been co-author in 1973.

Amsterdam Declaration

The Amsterdam Declaration 2002 is a statement of the fundamental principles of modern humanism passed unanimously by the General Assembly of the International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU) at the 50th anniversary World Humanist Congress in 2002.  According to the IHEU, the declaration “is the official statement of World Humanism.”

It is officially supported by all member organisations of the IHEU including:

A complete list of signatories can be found on the IHEU page (see references).

This declaration makes exclusive use of capitalized Humanist and Humanism, which is consistent with IHEU’s general practice and recommendations for promoting a unified Humanist identity.  To further promote Humanist identity, these words are also free of any adjectives, as recommended by prominent members of IHEU.  Such usage is not universal among IHEU member organizations, though most of them do observe these conventions.

[snip]

Learn more at WIKIPEDIA.

***

[19 APR 2017]

[Last modified at 16:20 PST on 20 APR 2017]

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Dr. Susan Engel On the Origins and Nature of Human Curiosity

27 Monday Mar 2017

Posted by in Critical Pedagogy, Education, Pyschology & Psychiatry, Science

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

LUMPENPROLETARIAT—On today’s edition of free speech radio’s Against the Grain, co-host Sasha Lilley spoke with developmental psychologist Dr. Susan Engel., a Senior Lecturer in Psychology at Williams College in Williamstown, Massachusetts.  This excellent interview deserves our full attention, whether we are parents, educators, or simply lifelong learners.  Dr. Engel provides powerful insights into the origins and nature of curiosity.  It turns out curiosity is a powerful catalyst for learning.  Yet, educational institutions have largely discouraged excessive inquisitiveness and questioning in the classroom.  Free thinking, it also turns out, has been viewed as dangerous by state educational institutions.  Why has curiosity not been studied much in the field of psychology?  For various reasons, but primarily because it’s dangerous.  Listen (and/or download) here. [1]

Messina

***

AGAINST THE GRAIN—[27 MAR 2017]  [CART: kpfa event]  [Station identification by Erica Bridgeman(sp?)]

[Against the Grain theme music]

“Today on Against the Grain:  Evidence shows that, the more curious we are, the better we learn and the happier we feel.  And, yet, much of our schooling discourages curiosity.  And our curiosity shrinks with time for complex reasons.  I’m Sasha Lilley.  I’ll speak with developmental psychologist Susan Engel about what drives and inhibits our curiosity.  That’s after these [KPFA] News Headlines.”  (c. 1:26)

[News Headlines omitted by scribe]  (c. 5:42)

SASHA LILLEY:  “From the studios of KPFA in Berkeley, California, this is Against the Grain on Pacifica Radio.  I’m Sasha Lilley.

“Curiosity is a universal impulse.  But what isn’t universal is how curious we remain, as we go from ravenously inquisitive infants and small children to adolescents and adulthood.  And, yet, curiosity is fundamental to how much we learn and how happy we are.

“Developmental psychologist Susan Engel turned her attention to the question of curiosity, which up to very recently has been a very neglected field of study.  In The Hungry Mind: The Origins of Curiosity in Childhood, which was ten years in the making and was published by Harvard University Press two years ago, she explored what fuels curiosity and what diminishes the drive to understand the world.

“Engel teaches in the Department of Psychology at Williams College and is the author of many books.

“Susan, it’s good to have you back.  Obviously, infants and toddlers are enormously curious about the world.  They’re impelled to explore everything, that they can.  How does curiosity appear to diminish during life?”  (c. 6:59)

DR. SUSAN ENGEL:  “Well, I think it, both, appears to diminish and, to some extent, it does diminish.  I don’t think that’s all just appearance.  Let me just say that to begin with.

“You know; babies are born with this enormously powerful tool, which is their ability to detect novelty.  And, at the same time—I mean—that implies, then—in fact it is—an equal capacity for identifying patterns, whatever is the same as, or familiar to, whatever they’ve experienced.  So, they recognise their mother, or their primary caregiver’s voice almost immediately, and his or her face.  And they quickly sort of have a scheme for that, a schema.

“Then, they notice when the voice is different, or when they hear a new voice, or when they see a different face.  And that ability to, both, identify patterns and recognise what’s familiar and, particularly, what’s unfamiliar is the mechanism, that powers this enormous amount of learning that happens in the first few years of life because they’re quickly getting these schemas or scripts or whatever you wanna call them, these sort of frameworks, that guide them through the day and tell them:  You know this. You know this. Oh, yes, that’s a face. That’s an animal. Oh, that’s breakfast. Oh, this is what happens at breakfast.  (c. 8:22)

“What they do is, if something unusual happens, so suddenly instead of eggs you put a big piece of chocolate cake on their high chair, you know, or someone they’ve never seen walks in the door, they do what any really good investigator does.  They stop.  They look for a long time.  They show all these quote-unquote ‘symptoms’ of interest and attention.  Their breathing changes.  Their voice and their skin changes.  They’re attentive.  And why are they attentive?  They’re trying to figure out whatever’s unknown, which is an incredibly adaptive mechanism because it means you’re learning the world around you all the time.

“So, that explains—that’s only part one of my answer—that explains omnivorous, ubiquitous, devouring hunger for new information, that little kids seem to show.

“And, so, we think—I mean psychologists think—there’s an inevitable diminishing of that because less and less of everyday life is filled with surprise.  You know?  After a while, you sort of know what people look like and what animals are and what trucks do and different routes to daycare, for instance.  So, daily life becomes a little more predictable and familiar.  And you’re not in a—you know how babies seem like they’re in a constant state of surprise?  Well, they are, um, because there’s so much to absorb and study.  As you get older, you don’t have to study everything all time time because lots of it is familiar to you.  So, in that sense, curiosity diminishes ‘cos there’s just not so much to be learned all the time every day.  (c. 10:02)

“At the same time, as we get older, we also develop interests.  So, even by the age of two or three, one kid can’t get enough of mud puddles.  And another kid can’t get enough of dinosaurs or bugs or trucks or any number of things.  It might be something more unusual like music, sounds.  As they get these specific interests, they sort of hone their curiosity antennae in on these specific domains.  So, curiosity gets a little less omnivorous and all-pervasive; and it gets a little narrower and deeper.

“That explains the kind of overall, if not diminishing, kind of narrowing of curiosity.  And, you know, by the time we’re older, or by the time we’re eight or ten or even grown-up, not everybody’s curious about everything.  I mean nobody’s curious about everything.”  (c. 11:02)

SASHA LILLEY:  “So—”

DR. SUSAN ENGEL:  “That said, it’s also the case that, um, some ways in which curiosity seems to diminish in the first—let’s say—eight years of life seems to be less inevitable, less a part of a sort of developing organism and more having to do with how various kinds of exploration are responded to by adults, more by the environment.”

SASHA LILLEY:  “Right.  So, on the one hand, there is a trajectory, you are saying, we all follow, which is just: As the world becomes more familiar to us, we’re not probing every single thing.”

DR. SUSAN ENGEL:  “M-hm.”

SASHA LILLEY:  “On the other hand, that might be more social and may vary from person to person, depending on their experience.

“So, focusing on that second part, what sort of things appear to affect curiosity, as children move, especially, through the elementary school years?”

DR. SUSAN ENGEL:  “Yeah.  So, there are a couple of things.  And some of them actually sort of predate school per se.  So, there’s an increasing body of work showing that, actually, a sense of security is very important to exploration.  So, kids, who feel secure—and the original sort of, like, paradigm for that is secure attachment—kids, who feel constantly attached to a caregiver, we know are much more likely to explore their environment.  And, actually, some research shows that kids, who have a secure sense of connection or attachment to a caregiver at [age] two, actually, when brought into a lab at age four and offered a chance to explore a novel toy or an object, they approach the object more quickly and they explore it more thoroughly.  So, it does seem that, actually, that early sense of security has a long-term impact on children’s curiosity or exploration.  So, that’s one thing.  (c. 12:58)

“I mean I have come to think—and we can talk about this more later, if you want—that, actually, as kids get older, it’s not just the original, primary attachment security, that matters, but a sense of security in any given environment.  And I think that’s really important for thinking about kids at school because kids, who are scared all the time at school, whether it’s being scared of the overall place or the neighbourhood or even of their teacher are just less likely to explore.  And people are too nervous.  When people are too inhibited by fear, they feel less curious. [2]  ”

[snip]

[snip]  (c. 59:59)

Learn more at AGAINST THE GRAIN.

***

“Another Brick in the Wall” (1979) by Pink Floyd

***

[1]  Terrestrial radio transmission.

Summary from kpfa.org archive page:

Evidence shows that the more curious we are, the better we learn and the happier we feel.  And yet much of our schooling discourages curiosity and our curiosity shrinks with time, for complex reasons.  Developmental psychologist Susan Engel reflects upon what drives — and inhibits — curiosity.

Resources:

Susan Engel, The Hungry Mind: The Origins of Curiosity in Childhood Harvard University Press, 2015

[2]  Dr. Engel noted how fear can diminish our curiosity and hinder our learning.  Indeed, we know that fear and stress releases hormones, which can be toxic when sustained and recurring.  And fear and stress actually diminishes the capacity of the human prefrontal cortex.  See Dr. Robert Sapolsky for excellent research on this topic.

***

[Image of Dr. Susan Engel by source, used via fair use/creative commons.]

[30 MAR 2017]

[Last modified at 06:06 PST on 3 APR 2017]

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Arkansas Bill (HB 1834) Intends To Ban History Books By Dr. Howard Zinn From Schools

03 Friday Mar 2017

Posted by in Anti-Imperialism, Anti-Totalitarianism, Critical Pedagogy, Education, Freedom of Speech, History, Political Science

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

LUMPENPROLETARIAT—In George Orwell‘s dystopian novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four, the protagonist Winston Smith lives in constant fear of the Thought Police.  In a terrifying possible future, totalitarianism has vanquished the human spirit and all traces of independent thought.  Too often, this is what it feels like in most American schools.  Indeed, academic freedom has been under attack as educators, such as Dr. Norman Finkelstein and Ward Churchill can testify, among many other educators with little or no press coverage, who have faced punitive measures for attempting to do their work in a free-thinking, critical, and principled way.

In the latest assault on freedom of speech and academic freedom, reported by Democracy Now! (and other news outlets), legislators in Arkansas are considering a bill, Arkansas House Bill 1834, intended to censor one of the most celebrated American historians, Dr. Howard Zinn.  The Arkansas House Committee on Education will consider the absurd and unconstitutional bill.

Messina

***

ARKANSAS TIMES—[2 MAR 2017]   Bill introduced to ban Howard Zinn books from Arkansas public schools

Max Brantley

The deadline for new legislation is fast approaching and it can’t come too soon.  Just in from Sen. Rep. Kim Hendren: Legislation to prohibit any publicly supported schools (you, too, charters)  from including in curriculum or course materials any books or other material authored by Howard Zinn.

(Actually, anything Zinn wrote before 1959 is not covered.)

Zinn, who died in 2010, was a Ph.D. historian, social activist and more who wrote the best-selling “A People’s History of the United States.”  A version for young readers came out in 2007.

His New York Times obituary probably gives you a taste of the danger Kim Hendren sees in Howard Zinn:

Proudly, unabashedly radical, with a mop of white hair and bushy eyebrows and an impish smile, Mr. Zinn, who retired from the history faculty at Boston University two decades ago, delighted in debating ideological foes, not the least his own college president, and in lancing what he considered platitudes, not the least that American history was a heroic march toward democracy.

Almost an oddity at first, with a printing of just 4,000 in 1980, “A People’s History of the United States” has sold nearly two million copies. To describe it as a revisionist account is to risk understatement. A conventional historical account held no allure; he concentrated on what he saw as the genocidal depredations of Christopher Columbus, the blood lust of Theodore Roosevelt and the racial failings of Abraham Lincoln. He also shined an insistent light on the revolutionary struggles of impoverished farmers, feminists, laborers and resisters of slavery and war.

Such stories are more often recounted in textbooks today; they were not at the time.

“Our nation had gone through an awful lot — the Vietnam War, civil rights, Watergate — yet the textbooks offered the same fundamental nationalist glorification of country,” Mr. Zinn recalled in a recent interview with The New York Times. “I got the sense that people were hungry for a different, more honest take.”

[snip]

Learn more at ARKANSAS TIMES.

***

ZINN EDUCATION PROJECT—[2 MAR 2017]   Arkansas Bill Attempts to Ban Books by Howard Zinn in Schools

As reported in the Arkansas Times, pending legislation would prohibit any publicly supported schools in Arkansas “from including in its curriculum or course materials any books or other material authored by or concerning Howard Zinn.”  The bill, submitted by Representative Kim Hendren (R), can be read in full here.

This is not the first attempt to ban books by Howard Zinn in public schools.  In 2010, Governor Mitch Daniels tried a similar move in Indiana.  In 2011, A People’s History of the United States was removed from schools in Tucson, Arizona, as part of the ban on Mexican American Studies.

The Zinn Education Project defends the right of teachers in Arkansas to use materials by and about Howard Zinn.  To date, there are more than 250 teachers in Arkansas who have signed up to access people’s history lessons from the Zinn Education Project website.  One of those high school teachers and her U.S. history students tweeted their opposition to the HB 1834.

Learn more at ZINN EDUCATION PROJECT.

***

DEMOCRACY NOW!—[3 MAR 2017]  Arkansas Bill Would Ban Howard Zinn Writings from Schools

And a bill before the Arkansas state legislature would prohibit publicly funded schools from teaching the works of late legendary historian Howard Zinn.  In 1980, Howard Zinn published his classic book, A People’s History of the United States, which would go on to sell more than a million copies.  The Arkansas bill is not the first attempt to censor Howard Zinn’s works.  Indiana’s governor attempted a similar measure in 2010; and, in 2011, Arizona lawmakers removed A People’s History from schools in Tucson as part of the ban on Mexican American Studies.

Learn more at DEMOCRACY NOW!.

***

HUFFINGTON POST—[5 MAR 2017]  Arkansas Lawmaker Introduces Bill Banning Howard Zinn Books

Rebecca Shapiro

A bill introduced in the Arkansas state legislature aims to bar public schools in the state from assigning books by the late author and historian Howard Zinn, the Arkansas Times reported last week.

Republican state Rep. Kim Hendren brought forth HB1834, a one-page bill that would halt the use of any book or other material authored by Zinn between the years of 1959 and 2010 in public schools and open-enrollment public charter schools. With these parameters, Zinn’s bestselling 1980 book, “A People’s History of the United States,” would be banned. The collection is a groundbreaking and controversial work that analyzed American history from the perspective of the poor and marginalized, or as Zinn put it, “the people who have been overlooked in the traditional history books.”

When the work was released, it was considered radical even for liberal historians.

“It’s not an unbiased account; so what?” Zinn told The New York Times. “If you look at history from the perspective of the slaughtered and mutilated, it’s a different story.”

More than 2 million copies of the book have been sold, and historians continue to evaluate the work’s claims, merits and accuracy. Zinn, who was a professor at Boston University, died in 2010.

Three years before Zinn’s death, his publisher released a young people’s version of the 1980 text. It also served as a companion volume to “The People Speak,” the 2009 film adaptation of Zinn’s works.

A 2009 college tour promoting the film featured performances by A-listers reading archival letters that the historian had included in his books.

The People Speak (2009, trailer)

The bill targeting Zinn’s work is not unprecedented. In 2013, the Associated Press obtained a series of emails sent by former Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels (R), in which he attempted to remove the historian’s work from classrooms across the state. Daniels, who was in office from 2005 to 2013, is now the president of Purdue University.

According to local CBS news station KTHV, the Arkansas state bill will go before the House committee on education this week. In response, the Zinn Education Project, an organization that promotes the teaching of Zinn’s work in middle and high school classrooms, will offer free copies of the tome to Arkansas teachers.

“Democracy is in dissent,” Zinn said in 2009. “Democracy is in resistance. Democracy doesn’t come from the top, it comes from the bottom.”

Learn more at HUFFINGTON POST.

***

“Governments Lie: Howard Zinn On Class Warfare, Immigration, Justice, Film and History” published on YouTube (18 NOV 2013) [1] by Film Archives

[Transcript (of segments) of televised broadcast by Messina for Zinn Education Project and Lumpenproletariat]

[Dr. Howard Zinn lecture (~30 minutes)]

[Audience Question & Answer session (~30 minutes)]

[snip]  (c. 41:21)

UNIDENTIFIED AUDIENCE MEMBER:  “My question has to do with your—tonight you brought up civil disobedience and the lack, I guess, of it now.  And, um, what makes me curious is: Why is that?  And I just wanted—there’s people, like, um, Aaron Russo, who’s a filmmaker, who’s got a movie out, America: Freedom to Fascism.  And they’re calling for, big people like that, are calling for civil disobedience.  But I think there’s a lack of civil disobedience because of things, like the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act.  People are scared to, you know, do that stuff as they weren’t back in the ’60s.  (c. 42:09)

“So, is there a connection between, you know, that and the lack of people doing that kind of stuff today?

“And, also, uh, the Truth Movement for 9/11: Is there a Project for the New American Century—I’m sure you’re familiar with that—and, uh, I’m wondering if they had a plan?  And do you think there was this plan before 9/11 happened, and a connection?  You have any feelings on the 9/11 Truth Movement?”  (c. 42:49)

DR. HOWARD ZINN:  “You all know about the 9/11 Truth Movement?”

AUDIENCE:  [collective silence]

DR. HOWARD ZINN:  “No.  [clears throat]

“It’s, it’s thought that people—tell me, if I’m misrepresenting—which I do—but our people very often repeat the questions, that they want to hear, not the questions, that were actually asked.

“So, but the 9/11 Truth Movement, I think, is a movement, which is very suspicious of what happened on 9/11, suspicious of the official story.  And they think that maybe there’s another story, and maybe the administration is hiding something serious.  Well, I don’t—frankly, I don’t know.  I’m—no, I don’t know those secrets.  I swear I don’t. [smiling innocently]”

AUDIENCE:  [laughter]

DR. HOWARD ZINN:  “You see?  And, uh, I’ll just say this about 9/11.  The administration has used 9/11, has used it to scare people and to do what it wanted.  What it wanted was to move troops into the Middle East, where the oil is.  He wanted to set up military bases in the Middle East.  And it’s used 9/11 as a wonderful opportunity.  It wasn’t going to do anything about terrorism.  It’s very obvious now. (c. 44:21)

[snip]  (c. 45:03)

UNIDENTIFIED AUDIENCE MEMBER:  “The last speaker mentioned the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act.”

DR. HOWARD ZINN:  “Yes.”

UNIDENTIFIED AUDIENCE MEMBER:  “In the past couple weeks the Bush administration has fired ten or more top attorneys in the Justice Department.  And, under a secret provision of the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act, has been replacing them without congressional approval and with, basically, no oversight.

“So, my question about that is:  You mentioned that we should bring people to account, bring people to justice through impeachments and such things.  What happens, if, or when, the legal system is no longer responsive or refuses to take action or is filled with figure heads, that will not act?  What can we do, then, if the actual institutions no longer deliver that justice, that is necessary and needed?”  (c. 45:44)

DR. HOWARD ZINN:  “That’s—that’s a really important question because it represents reality.  That is the reality is that the system of justice, there’s no longer—if it ever was really—something you can turn to to be sure that the justice system would protect you and protect your rights.  Now, this has only rarely been true in America.  The, uh, justice system has been like other parts of the government and, generally, beholden to powerful interests—now, worse than ever.  Now, the Bush administration has taken a total hold of the system of justice.  And it’s using all the federal court appointees on the district court level and the appeals court level—it has the Supreme Court in its hands, partly with the collaboration of the Democratic Party, which caves in, instead of fighting the Republican nominees.

“And, so, yes, what do you do when you can’t depend on a system of justice to redress your grievances?  That’s where civil disobedience comes in. [smiling delightedly]  That’s where popular action comes in.  That’s where you go over the heads of the courts and do an appeal to your elected representatives, since the people in the Justice Department are not elected, are not beholden to anybody.  They often have lifetime jobs.  Your representatives have, at least, some commitment to representing their constituencies.  And that’s why putting pressure on your representatives to begin holding impeachment hearings and to demand cutting off funding for the war and bringing the troops back as fast as possible, I think, that’s a way of bypassing a recalcitrant and reactionary justice system.”  (c. 47:35)

***

[1]  “Governments Lie: Howard Zinn On Class Warfare, Immigration, Justice, Film and History” by Film Archives is a video recording of a Book TV (C-SPAN 2) broadcast dated 18 JAN 2007, which consists of a lecture given by Dr. Howard Zinn at Brandeis University (Waltham, Massachussetts) to promote his book, A Power Governments Cannot Suppress (DEC 2016).

***

[3 MAR 2017]

[Last modified at 22:12 PST on 8 MAR 2017]

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save