Elie Wiesel- THE PERILS OF INDIFFERENCE- 1999
Holocaust survivor
and Nobel Laureate, Elie Wiesel, gave this impassioned speech in the East Room
of the White House on April 12, 1999, as part of the Millennium Lecture series,
hosted by President Bill Clinton and First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton.
In the summer of
1944, as a teenager in Hungary, Elie Wiesel, along with his father, mother and
sisters, were deported by the Nazis to Auschwitz extermination camp in occupied
Poland. Upon arrival there, Wiesel and his father were selected by SS Dr. Josef
Mengele for slave labor and wound up at the nearby Buna rubber factory.
Daily life included
starvation rations of soup and bread, brutal discipline, and a constant
struggle against overwhelming despair. At one point, young Wiesel received 25 lashes
of the whip for a minor infraction.
In January 1945, as
the Russian Army drew near, Wiesel and his father were hurriedly evacuated from
Auschwitz by a forced march to Gleiwitz and then via an open train car to
Buchenwald in Germany, where his father, mother, and a younger sister
eventually died.
Wiesel was liberated
by American troops in April 1945. After the war, he moved to Paris and became a
journalist then later settled in New York. Since 1976, he has been Andrew
Mellon Professor in the Humanities at Boston University. He has received
numerous awards and honors including the 1986 Nobel Peace Prize and the
Presidential Medal of Freedom. He was also the Founding Chair of the United
States Holocaust Memorial. Wiesel has written over 40 books including Night,
a harrowing chronicle of his Holocaust experience, first published in 1960.
At the White House
lecture, Wiesel was introduced by Hillary Clinton who stated, "It was more
than a year ago that I asked Elie if he would be willing to participate in these
Millennium Lectures...I never could have imagined that when the time finally
came for him to stand in this spot and to reflect on the past century and the
future to come, that we would be seeing children in Kosovo crowded into trains,
separated from families, separated from their homes, robbed of their
childhoods, their memories, their humanity."
|
Listen to the
entire speech
|
Mr. President, Mrs.
Clinton, members of Congress, Ambassador Holbrooke, Excellencies, friends:
Fifty-four years ago to the day, a young Jewish boy from a small town in the
Carpathian Mountains woke up, not far from Goethe's beloved Weimar, in a place
of eternal infamy called Buchenwald. He was finally free, but there was no joy
in his heart. He thought there never would be again.
Liberated a day
earlier by American soldiers, he remembers their rage at what they saw. And
even if he lives to be a very old man, he will always be grateful to them for
that rage, and also for their compassion. Though he did not understand their
language, their eyes told him what he needed to know -- that they, too, would
remember, and bear witness.
And now, I stand
before you, Mr. President -- Commander-in-Chief of the army that freed me, and
tens of thousands of others -- and I am filled with a profound and abiding
gratitude to the American people.
Gratitude is a word
that I cherish. Gratitude is what defines the humanity of the human being. And
I am grateful to you, Hillary -- or Mrs. Clinton -- for what you said, and for
what you are doing for children in the world, for the homeless, for the victims
of injustice, the victims of destiny and society. And I thank all of you for being
here.
We are on the
threshold of a new century, a new millennium. What will the legacy of this
vanishing century be? How will it be remembered in the new millennium? Surely
it will be judged, and judged severely, in both moral and metaphysical terms.
These failures have cast a dark shadow over humanity: two World Wars, countless
civil wars, the senseless chain of assassinations -- Gandhi, the Kennedys,
Martin Luther King, Sadat, Rabin -- bloodbaths in Cambodia and Nigeria, India
and Pakistan, Ireland and Rwanda, Eritrea and Ethiopia, Sarajevo and Kosovo;
the inhumanity in the gulag and the tragedy of Hiroshima. And, on a different
level, of course, Auschwitz and Treblinka. So much violence, so much
indifference.
What is indifference?
Etymologically, the word means "no difference." A strange and
unnatural state in which the lines blur between light and darkness, dusk and
dawn, crime and punishment, cruelty and compassion, good and evil.
What are its courses
and inescapable consequences? Is it a philosophy? Is there a philosophy of
indifference conceivable? Can one possibly view indifference as a virtue? Is it
necessary at times to practice it simply to keep one's sanity, live normally,
enjoy a fine meal and a glass of wine, as the world around us experiences
harrowing upheavals?
Of course,
indifference can be tempting -- more than that, seductive. It is so much easier
to look away from victims. It is so much easier to avoid such rude
interruptions to our work, our dreams, our hopes. It is, after all, awkward,
troublesome, to be involved in another person's pain and despair. Yet, for the
person who is indifferent, his or her neighbor are of no consequence. And,
therefore, their lives are meaningless. Their hidden or even visible anguish is
of no interest. Indifference reduces the other to an abstraction.
Over there, behind
the black gates of Auschwitz, the most tragic of all prisoners were the
"Muselmanner," as they were called. Wrapped in their torn blankets,
they would sit or lie on the ground, staring vacantly into space, unaware of
who or where they were, strangers to their surroundings. They no longer felt
pain, hunger, thirst. They feared nothing. They felt nothing. They were dead
and did not know it.
Rooted in our
tradition, some of us felt that to be abandoned by humanity then was not the
ultimate. We felt that to be abandoned by God was worse than to be punished by
Him. Better an unjust God than an indifferent one. For us to be ignored by God
was a harsher punishment than to be a victim of His anger. Man can live far
from God -- not outside God. God is wherever we are. Even in suffering? Even in
suffering.
In a way, to be
indifferent to that suffering is what makes the human being inhuman. Indifference,
after all, is more dangerous than anger and hatred. Anger can at times be
creative. One writes a great poem, a great symphony, one does something special
for the sake of humanity because one is angry at the injustice that one
witnesses. But indifference is never creative. Even hatred at times may elicit
a response. You fight it. You denounce it. You disarm it. Indifference elicits
no response. Indifference is not a response.
Indifference is not a
beginning, it is an end. And, therefore, indifference is always the friend of
the enemy, for it benefits the aggressor -- never his victim, whose pain is
magnified when he or she feels forgotten. The political prisoner in his cell,
the hungry children, the homeless refugees -- not to respond to their plight, not
to relieve their solitude by offering them a spark of hope is to exile them
from human memory. And in denying their humanity we betray our own.
Indifference, then,
is not only a sin, it is a punishment. And this is one of the most important
lessons of this outgoing century's wide-ranging experiments in good and evil.
In the place that I
come from, society was composed of three simple categories: the killers, the
victims, and the bystanders. During the darkest of times, inside the ghettoes
and death camps -- and I'm glad that Mrs. Clinton mentioned that we are now
commemorating that event, that period, that we are now in the Days of
Remembrance -- but then, we felt abandoned, forgotten. All of us did.
And our only
miserable consolation was that we believed that Auschwitz and Treblinka were
closely guarded secrets; that the leaders of the free world did not know what
was going on behind those black gates and barbed wire; that they had no
knowledge of the war against the Jews that Hitler's armies and their accomplices
waged as part of the war against the Allies.
If they knew, we
thought, surely those leaders would have moved heaven and earth to intervene.
They would have spoken out with great outrage and conviction. They would have
bombed the railways leading to Birkenau, just the railways, just once.
And now we knew, we
learned, we discovered that the Pentagon knew, the State Department knew. And
the illustrious occupant of the White House then, who was a great leader -- and
I say it with some anguish and pain, because, today is exactly 54 years marking
his death -- Franklin Delano Roosevelt died on April the 12th, 1945, so he is
very much present to me and to us.
No doubt, he was a
great leader. He mobilized the American people and the world, going into battle,
bringing hundreds and thousands of valiant and brave soldiers in America to
fight fascism, to fight dictatorship, to fight Hitler. And so many of the young
people fell in battle. And, nevertheless, his image in Jewish history -- I must
say it -- his image in Jewish history is flawed.
The depressing tale
of the St. Louis is a case in point. Sixty years ago, its human cargo -- maybe
1,000 Jews -- was turned back to Nazi Germany. And that happened after the
Kristallnacht, after the first state sponsored pogrom, with hundreds of Jewish
shops destroyed, synagogues burned, thousands of people put in concentration
camps. And that ship, which was already on the shores of the United States, was
sent back.
I don't understand.
Roosevelt was a good man, with a heart. He understood those who needed help.
Why didn't he allow these refugees to disembark? A thousand people -- in
America, a great country, the greatest democracy, the most generous of all new
nations in modern history. What happened? I don't understand. Why the
indifference, on the highest level, to the suffering of the victims?
But then, there were
human beings who were sensitive to our tragedy. Those non-Jews, those
Christians, that we called the "Righteous Gentiles," whose selfless
acts of heroism saved the honor of their faith. Why were they so few? Why was
there a greater effort to save SS murderers after the war than to save their
victims during the war?
Why did some of
America's largest corporations continue to do business with Hitler's Germany until
1942? It has been suggested, and it was documented, that the Wehrmacht could
not have conducted its invasion of France without oil obtained from American
sources. How is one to explain their indifference?
And yet, my friends,
good things have also happened in this traumatic century: the defeat of Nazism,
the collapse of communism, the rebirth of Israel on its ancestral soil, the
demise of apartheid, Israel's peace treaty with Egypt, the peace accord in
Ireland. And let us remember the meeting, filled with drama and emotion,
between Rabin and Arafat that you, Mr. President, convened in this very place.
I was here and I will never forget it.
And then, of course,
the joint decision of the United States and NATO to intervene in Kosovo and
save those victims, those refugees, those who were uprooted by a man whom I
believe that because of his crimes, should be charged with crimes against
humanity. But this time, the world was not silent. This time, we do respond.
This time, we intervene.
Does it mean that we
have learned from the past? Does it mean that society has changed? Has the
human being become less indifferent and more human? Have we really learned from
our experiences? Are we less insensitive to the plight of victims of ethnic
cleansing and other forms of injustices in places near and far? Is today's
justified intervention in Kosovo, led by you, Mr. President, a lasting warning
that never again will the deportation, the terrorization of children and their
parents be allowed anywhere in the world? Will it discourage other dictators in
other lands to do the same?
What about the
children? Oh, we see them on television, we read about them in the papers, and
we do so with a broken heart. Their fate is always the most tragic, inevitably.
When adults wage war, children perish. We see their faces, their eyes. Do we
hear their pleas? Do we feel their pain, their agony? Every minute one of them
dies of disease, violence, famine. Some of them -- so many of them -- could be
saved.
And so, once again, I
think of the young Jewish boy from the Carpathian Mountains. He has accompanied
the old man I have become throughout these years of quest and struggle. And
together we walk towards the new millennium, carried by profound fear and
extraordinary hope.
Elie Wiesel - April
12, 1999
“The Seven Social Sins are:
Wealth without work.
Pleasure without conscience.
Knowledge without character.
Commerce without morality.
Science without humanity.
Worship without sacrifice.
Politics without principle.
From a sermon given by Frederick Lewis Donaldson in Westminster Abbey, London, on March 20, 1925.”
― Frederick Lewis Donaldson
----------------
The Canada of political indifference – YEAR 2015
Millions and millions of voting age Canadians are disaffected
and completely fed up with the fact that all political forms of government –
once elected- refuse to work together for the common good of everyday
Canadians.... and it shows in all age groups and in all communities...
Many are switching from party 2 party and many are starting
not 2 care.... where is fresh, new and the ideal of political and humanity and
basic care of each and every Canadian first? What happened.... in the 60s and
70s we rose up and changed the world and worked our guts out 2 make the world
better and cared for each other along the way.
Even if our families did not agree with our political
choices way back in our day... we still broke the same bread... played cards and went 2 church and
loved our grandparents close... win, lose or draw... family and community and
bettering each other was the focus... now it all seems dirty and cruel and
spiteful and rather vicious.... what happened... all political parties have
shortcomings.... and some are too lazy.... like the Green party... why aren’t
they more action and less mouthpiece... in 2015 truly though the Green party
would be the big contender....
It is the first time going on 70s years that older voters
are aghast and truly disconnected... and youth – the mainspring... seem
invisible.... and wishful....
SO LET'S GET THINGS SHAKING.... AGAIN..example... from Ireland...
From Ireland...
Nine Good Reasons for Extending Voting Rights to 16 and 17 year olds
1.
Generate Greater Interest
Ensuring that young people can vote at 16 years of age will generate interest and a greater awareness of politics at an earlier age. Political awareness at a younger age may lead to more political involvement and a greater connection between young people’s involvement in a variety of political forums such as student councils and students’ union activism.
Ensuring that political interest is cultivated at an earlier age can only be a positive step. Such civic, social and political engagement is an integral part of an individual’s personal and social development. Like participation in extra-curricular activities outside the classroom such as youth organisations, sport or debating, the right to vote at 16 years of age will serve to empower younger people with the right to influence decisions that will affect their lives.
Since the introduction of vote at 16 in Austria, research conducted on voting behaviour of young voters aged 16 – 18 years of age revealed the following: Young people are interested in politics. Two thirds expressed interest in the election campaign. Turnout of the young people 16-18 years is comparable with the total national electorate. Young people of 16-18 years of age did not vote more radically than the adult population but voted in a similar way.
2. Promote Political Participation
Reducing the age of voter eligibility to 16 will serve as a kick-start in the promotion of politics to young people and young people’s participation, awareness and cognisance of political issues affecting them.
It is true that young people learn about democracy and active citizenship in school and in youth groups, however like learning to drive, the best way to learn is to actually put the theory into practice and get behind the wheel. Likewise giving young people the vote at 16 allows them to practice what they learn. Voter participation needs to be encouraged and supported. Lowering the voter age will serve to foster a greater political consciousness amongst young people.
The earlier we engage young people in democracy and politics the greater the chance that we will promote and sustain a lifelong interest and commitment to voting and participation in the democratic process.
At the moment there is a big problem with the voting registration system. In a survey we carried out last year, up to 30% of young people aged 18-25 were not registered to vote. This is partly due to the fact that at 18 the vast majority of young people are moving away from home to college, training or work and they fall through the administrative cracks. The vast majority of young people aged 16 are in school or training, so it would be very easy for local authorities to put young people on the register.
3. Why Not?
If a 16 year old can leave school, seek full-time employment, be liable for tax and obtain a licence to drive a tractor, why then can they not be entrusted with the civic responsibility of voting? The youth sections of the main political parties allow young people to join at either 15 or 16, therefore the political parties themselves recognise the capacity and importance of engaging young people as early as possible.
4. Mature Enough!
NYCI reject the argument that an electorate under the age of 18 years of age would not be mature enough to make informed decisions on voting. The current age of majority in the Republic of Ireland is 18 years of age. At 18 years of age, an individual can run for Local Government, marry, serve on jury duty and vote in local, general and European elections. However, there is not a considerable difference between an 18 year old and a 16 year old in terms of mental capacity for thought and development. An individual at 16 years of age is mature enough to inform themselves on issues affecting their lives and engage in the political system through the electoral system.
5. The Demographic Factor
Demographic trends reveal that Ireland like the rest of Europe is aging. These demographics have serious implications for the future political arena in Ireland. If greater measures (such as reducing the voter age to 16) are not implemented to actively engage young people in the political system at an earlier age, the consequences for democracy will be threatened by the emergence of a Government and political representatives elected by a minority who are unrepresentative. Such a situation would have profound implications for future generations and would result in the emergence of a State, which is not accountable to the majority of its citizens.
The ideal behind any democratic system of governance is to establish a Government, which is representative of the electorate. When a large section of the population does not or cannot take part in the democratic process, that process cannot claim to be fully representative.
6. Young people are informed
Unlike previous generations, young people are much more informed as they undertake courses at school such as the Civil, Social and Political Education course. Unlike previous generations who may only have had access to local and national media, young people today have access to the internet where they can get information and engage in discussions on issues and politics.
We welcome the announcement that Government is to introduce a new subject “Politics and Society” at Senior Cycle level. It is important that young people are taught about democracy and participation through courses like these. However the introduction of the right to vote alongside the introduction of this subject would excite and incentivise young people not only to learn about participation in the electoral system but also give them the right to experience it through voting.
7. Putting Youth Issues on to the Political Agenda
Lowering the voting age to 16 would help to engage young people with democracy and ensure their voice is heard. If the voting age was reduced to 16, more young people are likely to participate and engage in party politics. Political parties would benefit from younger recruits whose vibrancy and youth could greatly contribute to the formulation of policies, which reflect the views of a large section of society.
The involvement of more young people in Irish politics would serve to introduce innovative and fresh ideas to the policy-making table. It would also ensure issues affecting young people specifically would gain more prominence on the political arena because the people affected by those issues would be able to exercise their franchise to influence the policy-making process.
8. Why 16 rather than 17?
When the Constitutional Convention was asked to consider a reduction of the voting age to 17, they agreed with the submission and presentation of NYCI that it was preferable to extend the right to vote to 16 and 17 year olds. They agreed with our view that 16 is the age that young people gain many rights and responsibilities in society (for example, they can leave school, seek full-time employment and pay taxes). Moreover, at the age of 16 the majority of young people are in school, studying subjects such as Civic, Social and Political Education (CSPE), and not solely concentrating on the Leaving Certificate curriculum. We contend that the age of 16 is an optimum time to introduce young people to the electoral system.
9. Consistency with our European Counterparts…
There is a global and European momentum towards extending the right to vote to young people at 16 and 17 years old. In the Scottish referendum last year the right to vote was extended to 16 and 17 year olds with 75% of this age cohort voting. Given this success, the Scottish Government have decided to allow young people aged 16 and 17 to vote in the Scottish Parliamentary elections.
Austria has also lowered the voting age for all elections to 16. Seven of the 16 states in Germany have lowered the voting age and a region in Switzerland has introduced it. In Austria and Germany the voter turnout of young people aged 16 and 17 was equal to that of older age groups. Other countries such as the UK and Denmark are also considering such a move.
Vote at 16 has been introduced in the Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey.
Furthermore there are proposals by the EU Parliament to allow young people across the EU to vote in EU Parliamentary elections at the age of 16 and 17 years.
*Government publishes Consultation Paper and commences the process to establish an Independent Electoral Commission
http://www.environ.ie/en/LocalGovernment/Voting/News/MainBody,40112,en.htm
http://www.voteat16.ie/nine_reasons
Advocacy
We
have two inter-related strands to our work on advocacy. The first addresses
issues affecting young people and the second relates to the development of the
youth work sector.
For further information on any of these issues please contact Daniel Meister, Communications Officer at NYCI on 01-478 4122 or e-mail communications@nyci.ie.
---------------
-------------------
From Ireland...
Nine Good Reasons for Extending Voting Rights to 16 and 17 year olds
Ensuring that young people can vote at 16 years of age will generate interest and a greater awareness of politics at an earlier age. Political awareness at a younger age may lead to more political involvement and a greater connection between young people’s involvement in a variety of political forums such as student councils and students’ union activism.
Ensuring that political interest is cultivated at an earlier age can only be a positive step. Such civic, social and political engagement is an integral part of an individual’s personal and social development. Like participation in extra-curricular activities outside the classroom such as youth organisations, sport or debating, the right to vote at 16 years of age will serve to empower younger people with the right to influence decisions that will affect their lives.
Since the introduction of vote at 16 in Austria, research conducted on voting behaviour of young voters aged 16 – 18 years of age revealed the following: Young people are interested in politics. Two thirds expressed interest in the election campaign. Turnout of the young people 16-18 years is comparable with the total national electorate. Young people of 16-18 years of age did not vote more radically than the adult population but voted in a similar way.
2. Promote Political Participation
Reducing the age of voter eligibility to 16 will serve as a kick-start in the promotion of politics to young people and young people’s participation, awareness and cognisance of political issues affecting them.
It is true that young people learn about democracy and active citizenship in school and in youth groups, however like learning to drive, the best way to learn is to actually put the theory into practice and get behind the wheel. Likewise giving young people the vote at 16 allows them to practice what they learn. Voter participation needs to be encouraged and supported. Lowering the voter age will serve to foster a greater political consciousness amongst young people.
The earlier we engage young people in democracy and politics the greater the chance that we will promote and sustain a lifelong interest and commitment to voting and participation in the democratic process.
At the moment there is a big problem with the voting registration system. In a survey we carried out last year, up to 30% of young people aged 18-25 were not registered to vote. This is partly due to the fact that at 18 the vast majority of young people are moving away from home to college, training or work and they fall through the administrative cracks. The vast majority of young people aged 16 are in school or training, so it would be very easy for local authorities to put young people on the register.
3. Why Not?
If a 16 year old can leave school, seek full-time employment, be liable for tax and obtain a licence to drive a tractor, why then can they not be entrusted with the civic responsibility of voting? The youth sections of the main political parties allow young people to join at either 15 or 16, therefore the political parties themselves recognise the capacity and importance of engaging young people as early as possible.
4. Mature Enough!
NYCI reject the argument that an electorate under the age of 18 years of age would not be mature enough to make informed decisions on voting. The current age of majority in the Republic of Ireland is 18 years of age. At 18 years of age, an individual can run for Local Government, marry, serve on jury duty and vote in local, general and European elections. However, there is not a considerable difference between an 18 year old and a 16 year old in terms of mental capacity for thought and development. An individual at 16 years of age is mature enough to inform themselves on issues affecting their lives and engage in the political system through the electoral system.
5. The Demographic Factor
Demographic trends reveal that Ireland like the rest of Europe is aging. These demographics have serious implications for the future political arena in Ireland. If greater measures (such as reducing the voter age to 16) are not implemented to actively engage young people in the political system at an earlier age, the consequences for democracy will be threatened by the emergence of a Government and political representatives elected by a minority who are unrepresentative. Such a situation would have profound implications for future generations and would result in the emergence of a State, which is not accountable to the majority of its citizens.
The ideal behind any democratic system of governance is to establish a Government, which is representative of the electorate. When a large section of the population does not or cannot take part in the democratic process, that process cannot claim to be fully representative.
6. Young people are informed
Unlike previous generations, young people are much more informed as they undertake courses at school such as the Civil, Social and Political Education course. Unlike previous generations who may only have had access to local and national media, young people today have access to the internet where they can get information and engage in discussions on issues and politics.
We welcome the announcement that Government is to introduce a new subject “Politics and Society” at Senior Cycle level. It is important that young people are taught about democracy and participation through courses like these. However the introduction of the right to vote alongside the introduction of this subject would excite and incentivise young people not only to learn about participation in the electoral system but also give them the right to experience it through voting.
7. Putting Youth Issues on to the Political Agenda
Lowering the voting age to 16 would help to engage young people with democracy and ensure their voice is heard. If the voting age was reduced to 16, more young people are likely to participate and engage in party politics. Political parties would benefit from younger recruits whose vibrancy and youth could greatly contribute to the formulation of policies, which reflect the views of a large section of society.
The involvement of more young people in Irish politics would serve to introduce innovative and fresh ideas to the policy-making table. It would also ensure issues affecting young people specifically would gain more prominence on the political arena because the people affected by those issues would be able to exercise their franchise to influence the policy-making process.
8. Why 16 rather than 17?
When the Constitutional Convention was asked to consider a reduction of the voting age to 17, they agreed with the submission and presentation of NYCI that it was preferable to extend the right to vote to 16 and 17 year olds. They agreed with our view that 16 is the age that young people gain many rights and responsibilities in society (for example, they can leave school, seek full-time employment and pay taxes). Moreover, at the age of 16 the majority of young people are in school, studying subjects such as Civic, Social and Political Education (CSPE), and not solely concentrating on the Leaving Certificate curriculum. We contend that the age of 16 is an optimum time to introduce young people to the electoral system.
9. Consistency with our European Counterparts…
There is a global and European momentum towards extending the right to vote to young people at 16 and 17 years old. In the Scottish referendum last year the right to vote was extended to 16 and 17 year olds with 75% of this age cohort voting. Given this success, the Scottish Government have decided to allow young people aged 16 and 17 to vote in the Scottish Parliamentary elections.
Austria has also lowered the voting age for all elections to 16. Seven of the 16 states in Germany have lowered the voting age and a region in Switzerland has introduced it. In Austria and Germany the voter turnout of young people aged 16 and 17 was equal to that of older age groups. Other countries such as the UK and Denmark are also considering such a move.
Vote at 16 has been introduced in the Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey.
Furthermore there are proposals by the EU Parliament to allow young people across the EU to vote in EU Parliamentary elections at the age of 16 and 17 years.
*Government publishes Consultation Paper and commences the process to establish an Independent Electoral Commission
http://www.environ.ie/en/LocalGovernment/Voting/News/MainBody,40112,en.htm
Advocacy
2.
Youth Work
4.
Education
1.
Early School Leaving &
Educational Disadvantage
2.
Part Time Fees
5.
Health
1.
Medical Cards
2.
Mental Health Needs of Young
People
6.
Equality
10.
Global Justice
11.
International
12.
Interculturalism
Click
Here for our Guide
to the Legislative Process in IrelandFor further information on any of these issues please contact Daniel Meister, Communications Officer at NYCI on 01-478 4122 or e-mail communications@nyci.ie.
1.
PDF]
to educate and excite
students about their democratic rights and responsibilities. ... The ultimate goal of this
product is to encourage young people to become active citizens ....
backbenchers to vote with the Premier and Cabinet, especially on.
---------------
[PDF]
The study covers a total
of 151 elections held in 61 “democratic” .... different countries (every five years in Canada,
between seven and nine ... the people entitled to vote), or
may underestimate turnout (if the lists are artificially swollen by ..... On the other hand,
campaigns that are too short may not be able to arouse voter.
-----------------
Shopping for Votes
by Susan Delacourt and Building the Orange Wave by Brad ... an occupational category,
or people that do not always turnout to vote). ... their beliefs or communicating with
their supporters in ways that do not excite them.
-------------------
May could hold balance of power
After
Green Party leader Elizabeth May flamed out this spring at the annual
schmoozefest put on by the Parliamentary Press Gallery — she gave a profane and
vulgar speech which she later acknowledged was a misplaced attempt at
self-deprecating humour — the pundit class took out the knives. In the National
Post, John Ivison said […]
------------
Opposing senators
call for less political partisanship to save chamber
Two
senators from opposite sides of the red chamber have teamed up to offer a path
toward reforming the maligned institution without opening a constitutional
debate. Quebec Liberal Senator Paul Massicotte and Stephen Greene, a Conservative
senator representing Nova Scotia, say the red chamber needs to become less
politically partisan. The so-called chamber of sober […]
=========
Have posted many blogs... but frankly.... Canadians need more realistic workable and truly caring people running for offices at all political levels of governments - who believe in teamwork... period.... imho.
AND... THEN FIND THIS BEAUTY...u know as youth we covered debating starting (part of English) in Grade VII right through school.....
Project Descriptions - Strengthening Teamwork and Debating Skills among Youth
Association of Election Officials in Bosnia and Herzegovina (AEOBIH) in partnership with Czech NGO Agora CE, started implementation of the project entitled “Strengthening Teamwork and Debating Skills among Youth” in February 2013. This project will be implemented in cooperation with 16 secondary schools throughout BIH until the end of January 2014. It is implemented thanks to the funds of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), USA.
The aim of the project is to activate critical thinking among the young generation in Bosnia and Herzegovina and through that to arouse their interest in public matters and foster understanding and tolerance between different national groups. Thus they will be well prepared to take an active civic role. The project is based upon a time-tested methodology from an educational program of Czech NGO Agora CE. There are two main parts to this project. Part one includes educational workshops on communication skills for students of secondary schools and part two represents a debating competition where students can practice the skills they learned during the workshops through an attractive and informal way. Debates are focused on current social and political topics and the format is based upon advocating a given role which helps students to leave their usual patterns and bias in thinking.
YOUTH FOR YOUTH / FIRST TIME VOTER
April to June 2011
Association of Election Officials in Bosnia and Herzegovina (AEOBiH), implemented project „Youth for Youth / First Time Voter“ from April to June 2011 thanks to the funds of the Council of Europe. The main goal of this project was to motivate youth to actively participate in the elections and political life in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
During the project implementation, 10 000 booklets on the basic information about elections were printed and 80 workshops held in 43 schools in RS and Federation of BiH.
The project “First Time Voter” was well designed and needed. In Bosnia and Herzegovina there is a general problem of indifference towards political and social life of the country, especially among youth. One fact that supports this claim is the attitude of students towards elections, and statements like: “I won’t vote because I can’t change anything”, “All politicians are thieves and criminals”, “Every time same people on the election lists”, etc., and the appearances of political parties, especially during the election campaigns, where the youth population is very little mentioned or not mentioned at all. The reason for this lies in the fact that young people rarely go to the polls, and therefore they are not very important to the political parties. Because of this, we strongly believe that this project should continue in the future.
We believe that in the continuation of this project more attention should be dedicated in training the trainers, who are doubtless experts in this area, but, in some cases, they lack experience in dealing with children, and that is the reason why some workshops were reduced mainly to theoretical lecture of the theme which is the subject of the workshop. We believe that in continuation of this project there should be greater interaction with the students, giving them possibility to be fully engaged into the workshop. Therefore we believe that in the future bigger accent should be on the themes that motivate young people to engage themselves into the election process and social life, so they could see elections as a chance to improve society for themselves and their surroundings.
AND...
YOUTH FOR YOUTH / FIRST TIME VOTER
September to December 2011
Association of Election Officials in Bosnia and Herzegovina (AEOBiH), implemented project „Youth for Youth / First Time Voter“ in three phases: the first phase from July to Oktober 2010, the second from April to June 2011, and the third from September to December 2011 thanks to the funds of the Council of Europe. The main goal of this project was to motivate youth to actively participate in the elections and political life in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
During the project implementation, 30 000 booklets on the basic information about elections were printed and 2400 workshops held in 132 schools in RS and Federation of BiH. 7927 students participated in these workshops and 132 professors.
The project “First Time Voter” was well designed and needed. In Bosnia and Herzegovina there is a general problem of indifference towards political and social life of the country, especially among youth. One fact that supports this claim is the attitude of students towards elections, and statements like: “I won’t vote because I can’t change anything”, “All politicians are thieves and criminals”, “Every time same people on the election lists”, etc., and the appearances of political parties, especially during the election campaigns, where the youth population is very little mentioned or not mentioned at all. The reason for this lies in the fact that young people rarely go to the polls, and therefore they are not very important to the political parties. Because of this, we strongly believe that this project should continue in the future.
We believe that in the continuation of this project more attention should be dedicated in training the trainers, who are doubtless experts in this area, but, in some cases, they lack experience in dealing with children, and that is the reason why some workshops were reduced mainly to theoretical lecture of the theme which is the subject of the workshop. We believe that in continuation of this project there should be greater interaction with the students, giving them possibility to be fully engaged into the workshop. Therefore we believe that in the future bigger accent should be on the themes that motivate young people to engage themselves into the election process and social life, so they could see elections as a chance to improve society for themselves and their surroundings.
http://www.aeobih.com.ba/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=81&Itemid=85&lang=en&limitstart=4
-----------------
“Indifference and neglect often do much more damage than outright dislike.”
― J.K. Rowling, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix
------------------
Comments are incredible...
Why are Canada’s Political Parties so Uninspiring?
Part two of our federal election roundtable
This is part of two of our federal election roundtable discussion. Part one appears in the May/June 2015 issue of Briarpatch and is online here. If you appreciate the independent perspectives presented here, please subscribetoday.
What do you think of the range of political perspectives represented by Canada’s major political parties (Conservative, Liberal, NDP, Green)? Is it adequate?
Erica: Not at all. One of the projects we’re working on right now is providing a candidate and party information sheet, that shows how the stance on each policy lines up with Idle No More and struggles for Indigenous sovereignty. The Conservatives and Liberals are nearly indistinguishable, especially in terms of environmental policy, which I find funny, because Trudeau has a tattoo of the Earth inside a Haida raven on his shoulder. I guess love for canoeing and outdoorsiness doesn’t translate into recognizing the need for a harmonious relationship with the land.
As for the Green Party, few women that I’ve worked with from that party were speaking about Idle No More, and Elizabeth May stood up and claimed that white environmentalists face the same violence as Indigenous communities. So that’s not exactly the anti-colonial change that we need, either.
Hussan: If there were an anti-capitalist, anti-colonial party that was pushing forward a new nation to nation relationship with Indigenous communities, was redefining land as something we belong to and not something that belongs to us, a party that refused to participate or support the displacement of people in the Global South, and rejected white supremacy, patriarchy, and transphobia – it would be a good start. Especially if it restructured parliament so that elected representatives went back to their constituencies to present all the bills being discussed in parliament, seeking community input from their electorate – and then voted based on what their community members told them to.
But you know what, I couldn’t vote for it – along with at least two million residents of this country who are undocumented, or migrant workers, or students, or refugee claimants, or permanent residents that are also barred from voting.
I don’t think adding more parties to the roster will create the many worlds we dream of and need. It might be too early to tell, but I fear that is what the Syriza victory in Greece might teach us all again.
Derrick: I think we’re really suffering from the absence of even something like the New Politics Initiative, which was a network set up 15 years ago to challenge the NDP to refound as a party more oriented towards social movements. We don’t even have an organizational vehicle for this discussion, let alone a truly left party like those that exist for instance in Quebec, much of Europe, and throughout Latin America.
The other thing that’s happened to narrow the political discussion is that the old left-wing within the NDP’s parliamentary caucus has gone silent. This “message discipline” of a party that tries to portray itself as a “government in waiting” means we barely hear from someone like Libby Davies when Israel attacks Gaza, to give just one example.
Nora: No, not even close. While the NDP and Liberals seem to be fighting for the winner of “Most enlightened centrist party” the Conservatives are a runaway freight train (or oil pipeline?) toward totalitarianism.
If I have any advice for theNDP it’s that Canadians need an audacious, progressive party that isn’t bullied into moderating their policies by Stephen Harper. Offering people a progressive vision of Canada through enlightened social policies would go a long way to securing a victory for that party. Unfortunately, I don’t think NDP strategists are listening to the right voices. Or, they’re listening to the Right voices, not the ones of their own grassroots members who yearn for a progressive party that would make them proud again. These kinds of electoralist calculations feed this widespread cynicism.
Very few people seem to have strong faith in any of Canada’s political parties. Even campaign volunteers and longtime party members often privately admit to being uninspired. Why do you think that is?
Erica: Because more than we often acknowledge, in Canada, politics are about money and privilege.
As Hussan said, so many Canadians still view Canada as a nation without conflict – so it’s boring. I read someone’s tweet the other day, with a picture of Jennifer Lawrence’s character in The Hunger Games asking “Where is America’s real youth rebellion?” – an activist responded, “with the youth of color in Ferguson, and the immigrant youth on the border.” Similarly in Canada, the real action is at the grassroots level. If a politician wants to be relevant to us, you need to come to our communities, and not just for a photo-op.
Hussan: I don’t think it’s in our interest as social movements to turn people on to elections – but rather to channel their energy, and grow together with actions in our communities and in the streets. Actions that result both in immediate improvements in the lives of people, and that ground and build long term alternatives to these repressive and unsustainable ways of living.
Derrick: Parties treat members as mere donors; deliberations at the constituency level are ignored. It’s easy to get cynical about our prospects for change, but like others are saying, social movements have demonstrated their power to inspire and mobilize and force change onto parties and politicians.
Nora: Fully answering this question requires about a thousand words on neoliberalism and disenfranchisement as a deliberate project meant to cynically convince people that voting is a waste of their time. If you look for examples where parties inspire, though, you can see that this version of the truth could evaporate very quickly. Erica is right: the real action is at the grassroots level. If the NDP harnessed the energy, spirit, and demands of social movements, I think you’d see this cynicism vanish, at least for a period of time. But social movements have a huge role to play in inspiring people, and reminding them that even if a political party lets them down, the real power is outside elections and party politics, not inside.
What’s an issue that you feel doesn’t get discussed enough when the media covers elections?
Erica: From what I’ve seen, economic issues always get the most coverage. What that fails to do is acknowledge how interconnected economic issues are with issues of the environment, of labour, of war and abuses of human rights, of immigration and exploitation, of resource extraction and the violation of sovereignty.
Hussan: I agree with Erica entirely.
I imagine what would be useful is to have a debate about how decisions should be made and what those decisions should be, and not who should make the decisions and how they should be selected.
Derrick: I dream of an election campaign where all media outlets boycott the leaders’ jets and focus on profiling local voters and volunteers. And where local candidates speak their minds instead of repeating centralized talking points. I’d like to see a lot more public debates organized around issues and featuring local activists as well as politicians. I think independent media outlets have a big responsibility to help facilitate more meaningful public debate.
Nora: During elections, journalists don’t report enough on any issue outside of the frame of what party is making which promise. So while the most important issues are routinely ignored, even the issues that are reported on are driven by what the parties are offering and not analyses of those issues. For example, if the Conservatives are promising new jobs, the counter-balancing story tends to be about what the other parties are offering, rather than how, as a party, their record on creating good, stable jobs for Canadians is dismal. This means that parties can easily manipulate the news cycle and continuously change the channel on journalists and, rather than holding parties to account, they flow with the strategic calculations made by party strategists.
Mainstream news is deeply flawed; I have no confidence in any mainstream outlet to even do a decent job of covering a basic issue like education.
Comments (2)
https://briarpatchmagazine.com/articles/view/canada-is-uninspiring
--------------
Date of Award
Degree Type
Degree Name
Abstract
Recommended Citation
-------------------
--------------
Date of Award
1996
Degree Type
Dissertation
Degree Name
Doctor of Philosophy
Abstract
This thesis is about grassroots participation in Canadian
political parties.;The thesis identifies and examines tensions between two
views of public decision-making. Traditionally, Canadian politics have been
described as brokerage and consociational. Increasingly, however, voters are
rejecting these elite-dominated processes and demanding increased opportunity
for direct, effective participation. Some favoured methods of increased
participation, however, lack the collective processes traditionally believed
necessary to build consensus among Canada's strong regional and linguistic
cleavages. This thesis identifies the essential characteristics of these two
views, providing a framework for assessing the current practices of political
parties and popular reform proposals.;The thesis identifies parties as
institutions capable of offering both increased opportunities for effective
participation and for consensus-building. Several of the most important
activities engaged in by political parties are examined within this context: candidate
nomination, leadership selection, policy-making and election campaigning. Data
collected from a national mail survey of party activists is used to measure the
participatory opportunities currently available to party members, the
effectiveness of this participation and the attitudes of members towards the
participatory opportunities afforded them. Recent developments within parties,
aimed at increasing member participation, and popular reform proposals are also
examined. Consideration is given to the effect increased grassroots
participation may have on the parties' ability to accommodate divergent
interests.;The methodology employed in this study is largely empirical and
theoretical. It is empirical as it draws upon data resulting from the mail
survey, from party documents and from news reports of election campaigns and
party activities. It is theoretical in that it suggests a new framework for the
study of the tensions between two views of legitimate democratic
decision-making. Historical events are used to illustrate that existing
tensions are not new in Canadian politics and to assist in understanding and
evaluating reform proposals.;The thesis concludes that Canadian political
parties can become more participatory without jeopardizing their capacity to
broker consensus among regional and linguistic interests. Given that
elite-dominated processes are increasingly viewed by voters as being
illegitimate, more transparent, participatory processes may actually increase
voters' acceptance of arrived at accommodations.
Recommended Citation
Cross, William Paul, "Grassroots Participation In Canadian
Political Parties: An Examination Of Leadership Selection, Candidate
Nomination, Policy Development And Election Campaigning" (1996). Digitized Theses. Paper 2672.
http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/digitizedtheses/2672
http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/digitizedtheses/2672
All people are living histories – which is why History matters
Penelope J. Corfield
Historians are often asked: what is the use or relevance of studying History (the capital letter signalling the academic field of study)? Why on earth does it matter what happened long ago? The answer is that History is inescapable. It studies the past and the legacies of the past in the present. Far from being a 'dead' subject, it connects things through time and encourages its students to take a long view of such connections.
All people and peoples are living histories. To take a few obvious examples: communities speak languages that are inherited from the past. They live in societies with complex cultures, traditions and religions that have not been created on the spur of the moment. People use technologies that they have not themselves invented. And each individual is born with a personal variant of an inherited genetic template, known as the genome, which has evolved during the entire life-span of the human species.
So understanding the linkages between past and present is absolutely basic for a good understanding of the condition of being human. That, in a nutshell, is why History matters. It is not just 'useful', it is essential.
The study of the past is essential for 'rooting' people in time. And why should thatmatter? The answer is that people who feel themselves to be rootless live rootless lives, often causing a lot of damage to themselves and others in the process. Indeed, at the most extreme end of the out-of-history spectrum, those individuals with the distressing experience of complete memory loss cannot manage on their own at all. In fact, all people have a full historical context. But some, generally for reasons that are no fault of their own, grow up with a weak or troubled sense of their own placing, whether within their families or within the wider world. They lack a sense of roots. For others, by contrast, the inherited legacy may even be toopowerful and outright oppressive.
In all cases, understanding History is integral to a good understanding of the condition of being human. That allows people to build, and, as may well be necessary, also to change, upon a secure foundation. Neither of these options can be undertaken well without understanding the context and starting points. All living people live in the here-and-now but it took a long unfolding history to get everything to NOW. And that history is located in time-space, which holds this cosmos together, and which frames both the past and the present.
The discussion is amplified under the following headings:
- Answering two objections to History
- Noting two weak arguments in favour of studying History
- Celebrating the strong case for History
- The repentance of Henry Ford: History is not bunk
- Summary
Answering two objections to History
One common objection that historians encounter is the instant put-down that is derived from Henry Ford I, the impresario of the mass automobile. In 1916 he stated sweepingly: 'History is bunk'. Actually, Ford's original comment was not so well phrased and it was a journalist who boiled it down to three unforgettable words. Nonetheless, this is the phrasing that is attributed to Ford and it is this dictum that is often quoted by people wishing to express their scepticism about the subject.
Well, then, what is the use of History, if it is only bunk? This rousingly old-fashioned term, for those who have not come across it before, is derived from the Dutch bunkum, meaning rubbish or nonsense.
Inwardly groaning, historians deploy various tactics in response. One obvious reaction is to challenge the terms of the question, in order to make questioners think again about the implications of their terminology. To demand an accountant-style audit of the instant usefulness of every subject smacks of a very crude model of education indeed. It implies that people learn only very specific things, for very specific purposes. For example, a would-be voyager to France, intending to work in that country, can readily identify the utility of learning the French language. However, since no-one can travel back in time to live in an earlier era, it might appear – following the logic of 'immediate application' – that studying anything other than the present-day would be 'useless'.
But not so. The 'immediate utility' formula is a deeply flawed proposition. Humans do not just learn gobbets of information for an immediate task at hand. And, much more fundamentally, the past and the present are not separated off into separate time-ghettos. Thus the would-be travellers who learn the French language are also learning French history, since the language was not invented today but has evolved for centuries into the present. And the same point applies all round. The would-be travellers who learn French have not appeared out of the void but are themselves historical beings. Their own capacity to understand language has been nurtured in the past, and, if they remember and repeat what they are learning, they are helping to transmit (and, if needs be, to adapt) a living language from the past into the future.
Education is not 'just' concerned with teaching specific tasks but it entails forming and informing the whole person, for and through the experience of living through time.
Learning the French language is a valuable human enterprise, and not just for people who live in France or who intend to travel to France. Similarly, people learn about astronomy without journeying in space, about marine biology without deep-sea diving, about genetics without cloning an animal, about economics without running a bank, about History without journeying physically into the past, and so forth. The human mind can and does explore much wider terrain than does the human body (though in fact human minds and bodies do undoubtedly have an impressive track record in physical exploration too). Huge amounts of what people learn is drawn from the past that has not been forgotten. Furthermore, humans display great ingenuity in trying to recover information about lost languages and departed civilisations, so that everything possible can be retained within humanity's collective memory banks.
Very well, the critics then sniff; let's accept that History has a role. But the second criticism levelled at the subject is that it is basic and boring. In other words, if History is not meaningless bunk, it is nonetheless poor fare, consisting of soul-sapping lists of facts and dates.
Further weary sighs come from historians when they hear this criticism. It often comes from people who do not care much for the subject but who simultaneously complain that schoolchildren do not know key dates, usually drawn from their national history. Perhaps the critics who complain that History-is-so-boring had the misfortune to be taught by uninspired teachers who dictated 'teacher's notes' or who inculcated the subject as a compendium of data to be learned by heart. Such pedagogic styles are best outlawed, although the information that they intended to convey is far from irrelevant.
Facts and dates provide some of the basic building blocks of History as a field of study, but on their own they have limited meaning. Take a specific case. It would be impossible to comprehend 20th-century world history if given nothing but a list of key dates, supplemented by information about (say) population growth rates, economic resources and church attendance. And even if further evidence were provided, relating to (say) the size of armies, the cost of oil, and comparative literacy levels, this cornucopia of data would still not furnish nearly enough clues to reconstruct a century's worth of world experience.
On its own, information is not knowledge. That great truth cannot be repeated too often. Having access to abundant information, whether varnished or unvarnished, does not in itself mean that people can make sense of the data.
Charles Dickens long ago satirised the 'facts and nothing but the facts' school of thought. In his novel Hard Times,(1) he invented the hard-nosed businessman, Thomas Gradgrind, who believes that knowledge is sub-divided into nuggets of information. Children should then be given 'Facts' and taught to avoid 'Fancy' – or any form of independent thought and imagination. In the Dickens novel, the Gradgrindian system comes to grief, and so it does in real life, if attempts are ever made to found education upon this theory.
People need mental frameworks that are primed to understand and to assess the available data and – as often happens – to challenge and update both the frameworks and the details too. So the task of educationalists is to help their students to develop adaptable and critical minds, as well as to gain specific expertise in specific subjects.
Returning to the case of someone first trying to understand 20th-century world history, the notional list of key dates and facts would need to be framed by reading (say) Eric Hobsbawm's Age of Extremes: the Short Twentieth Century(2) or, better still, by contrasting this study with (say) Mark Mazower's Dark Continent(3) or Bernard Wasserstein's Barbarism and Civilization(4) on 20th-century Europe, and/or Alexander Woodside's Lost Modernities: China, Vietnam, Korea and the Hazards of World History(5) or Ramachandra Guha's India after Gandhi: the History of the World's Largest Democracy(6) – to name but a few recent overview studies.
Or, better again, students can examine critically the views and sources that underpin these historians' big arguments, as well as debate all of this material (facts and ideas) with others. Above all, History students expect to study for themselves some of the original sources from the past; and, for their own independent projects, they are asked to find new sources and new arguments or to think of new ways of re-evaluating known sources to generate new arguments.
Such educational processes are a long, long way from memorising lists of facts. It follows therefore that History students' understanding of the subject cannot be properly assessed by asking single questions that require yes/no responses or by offering multiple-choice questions that have to be answered by ticking boxes. Such exercises are memory tests but not ways of evaluating an understanding of History.
Noting two weak arguments in favour of studying History
Some arguments in favour of studying History also turn out, on close inspection, to be disappointingly weak. These do not need lengthy discussion but may be noted in passing.
For example, some people semi-concede the critics' case by saying things like:'Well, History is not obviously useful but its study provides a means of learning useful skills'. But that says absolutely nothing about the content of the subject. Of course, the ability to analyse a diverse array of often discrepant data, to provide a reasoned interpretation of the said data, and to give a reasoned critique of one's own and other people's interpretations are invaluable life- and work-skills. These are abilities that History as a field of study is particularly good at inculcating. Nevertheless, the possession of analytical and interpretative skills is not a quality that is exclusive to historians. The chief point about studying History is to study the subject for the invaluable in-depth analysis and the long-term perspective it confers upon the entire human experience – the component skills being an essential ingredient of the process but not the prime justification.
Meanwhile, another variant reply to 'What is the use of History?' is often given in the following form: 'History is not useful but it is still worthwhile as a humane subject of study'. That response says something but the first phrase is wrong and the conclusion is far too weak. It implies that understanding the past and the legacies of the past is an optional extra within the educational system, with cultural value for those who are interested but without any general relevance. Such reasoning was behind the recent and highly controversial decision in Britain to remove History from the required curriculum for schoolchildren aged 14–16.
Yet, viewing the subject as an optional extra, to add cultural gloss, seriously underrates the foundational role for human awareness that is derived from understanding the past and its legacies. Dropping History as a universal subject will only increase rootlessness among young people. The decision points entirely in the wrong direction. Instead, educationalists should be planning for more interesting and powerful ways of teaching the subject. Otherwise it risks becoming too fragmented, including too many miscellaneous skills sessions, thereby obscuring the big 'human story' and depriving children of a vital collective resource.
Celebrating the strong case for History
Much more can be said – not just in defence of History but in terms of its positive advocacy. The best response is the simplest, as noted right at the start of this conversation. When asked 'Why History?' the answer is that History is inescapable. Here it should be reiterated that the subject is being defined broadly. The word 'History' in English usage has many applications. It can refer to 'the past'; or 'the study of the past'; and/or sometimes 'the meaning(s) of the past'. In this discussion, History with a capital H means the academic field of study; and the subject of such study, the past, is huge. In practice, of course, people specialise. The past/present of the globe is studied by geographers and geologists; the biological past/present by biologists and zoologists; the astronomical past/present by astrophysicists; and so forth.
Among professional historians, the prime focus is upon the past/present of the human species, although there are some who are studying the history of climate and/or the environmental history of the globe. Indeed, the boundaries between the specialist academic subjects are never rigid. So from a historian's point of view, much of what is studied under the rubric of (for example) Anthropology or Politics or Sociology or Law can be regarded as specialist sub-sets of History, which takes as its remit the whole of the human experience, or any section of that experience.
Certainly, studying the past in depth while simultaneously reviewing the long-term past/present of the human species directs people's attention to the mixture of continuities and different forms of change in human history, including revolution as well as evolution. Legacies from the past are preserved but also adapted, as each generation transmits them to the following one. Sometimes, too, there are mighty upheavals, which also need to be navigated and comprehended. And there is loss. Not every tradition continues unbroken. But humans can and do learn also from information about vanished cultures – and from pathways that were not followed.
Understanding all this helps people to establish a secure footing or 'location' within the unfolding saga of time, which by definition includes both duration and change. The metaphor is not one of fixation, like dropping an anchor or trying to halt the flow of time. Instead, it is the ability to keep a firm footing within history's rollercoaster that is so important. Another way of putting it is to have secure roots that will allow for continuity but also for growth and change.
Nothing, indeed, can be more relevant to successful functioning in the here-and-now. The immediate moment, known as the synchronic, is always located within the long-term unfolding of time: the diachronic. And the converse is also true. The long term of history always contributes to the immediate moment. Hence my twin maxims, the synchronic is always in the diachronic. The present moment is always part of an unfolding long term, which needs to be understood. And vice versa. The diachronic is always in the synchronic: the long term, the past, always contributes to the immediate moment.
As living creatures, humans have an instinctive synchro-mesh, that gears people into the present moment. But, in addition to that, having a perspective upon longitudinal time, and history within that, is one of the strengths of the alert human consciousness. It may be defined as a parallel process of diachro-mesh, to coin a new term. On the strength of that experience, societies and individuals assess the long-term passage of events from past to present – and, in many cases, manage to measure time not just in terms of nanoseconds but also in terms of millennia. Humans are exceptional animals for their ability to think 'long' as well as 'immediate'; and those abilities need to be cultivated.
If educational systems do not provide a systematic grounding in the study of History, then people will glean some picture of the past and the role of themselves, their families, and their significant associations (which include everything from nations and religions to local clubs and neighbourhood networks) from a medley of other resources – from cultural traditions, from collective memories, from myths, rumours, songs, sagas, from political and religious teachings and customs, from their families, their friends, and from every form of human communication from gossip to the printing press and on to the web.
People do learn, in other words, from a miscellany of resources that are assimilated both consciously and unconsciously. But what is learned may be patchy or confused, leaving some feeling rootless; or it may be simplified and partisan, leaving others feeling embattled or embittered. A good educational system should help people to study History more formally, more systematically, more accurately, more critically and more longitudinally. By that means, people will have access to a great human resource, compiled over many generations, which is the collective set of studies of the past, and the human story within that.
Humans do not learn from the past, people sometimes say. An extraordinary remark! People certainly do not learn from the future. And the present is so fleeting that everything that is learned in the present has already passed into the past by the time it is consolidated. Of course humans learn from the past – and that is why it is studied. History is thus not just about things 'long ago and far away' – though it includes that – but it is about all that makes humanity human – up close and personal.
The repentance of Henry Ford: History is not bunk
Interestingly, Henry Ford's dictum that 'History is bunk' now itself forms part of human history. It has remained in circulation for 90 years since it was first coined. And it exemplifies a certain no-nonsense approach of the stereotypical go-ahead businessman, unwilling to be hide-bound by old ways. But Ford himself repented. He faced much derision for his apparent endorsement of know-nothingism. 'I did not say it [History] was bunk', he elaborated: 'It was bunk to me'. Some business leaders may perhaps affect contempt for what has gone before, but the wisest among them look to the past, to understand the foundations, as well as to the future, in order to build. Indeed, all leaders should reflect that arbitrary changes, imposed willy-nilly without any understanding of the historical context, generally fail. There are plenty of recent examples as well as long-ago case-histories to substantiate this observation. Politicians and generals in Iraq today – on all sides – should certainly take heed.
Model-T Ford 1908
After all, Ford's pioneering Model T motor-car did not arrive out of the blue in 1908. He had spent the previous 15 years testing a variety of horseless carriages. Furthermore, the Model T relied upon an advanced steel industry to supply the car's novel frame of light steel alloy, as well as the honed skills of the engineers who built the cars, and the savvy of the oil prospectors who refined petroleum for fuel, just as Ford's own novel design for electrical ignition drew upon the systematic study of electricity initiated in the 18th century, while the invention of the wheel was a human staple dating back some 5,000 years.
It took a lot of human history to create the automobile.
Ford Mustang 2007
And the process by no means halted with Henry Ford I. So the next invention that followed upon his innovations provided synchro-mesh gearing for these new motorised vehicles – and that change itself occurred within thediachro-mesh process of shared adaptations, major and minor, that were being developed, sustained, transmitted and revolutionised through time.
Later in life, Henry Ford himself became a keen collector of early American antique furniture, as well as of classic automobiles. In this way, he paid tribute both to his cultural ancestry and to the cumulative as well as revolutionary transformations in human transportation to which he had so notably contributed.
Moreover, for the Ford automobile company, there was a further twist in the tale. In his old age, the once-radical Henry Ford I turned into an out-of-touch despot. He failed to adapt with the changing industry and left his pioneering business almost bankrupt, to be saved only by new measures introduced by his grandson Henry Ford II. Time and history had the last laugh – outlasting even fast cars and scoffers at History.
Summary
Because humans are rooted in time, people do by one means or another pick up ideas about the past and its linkages with the present, even if these ideas are sketchy or uninformed or outright mythological. But it is best to gain access to the ideas and evidence of History as an integral part of normal education.
The broad span of human experience, viewed both in depth and longitudinally over time, is the subject of History as a field of study.
Therefore the true question is not: 'What is the use or relevance of History?' but rather: 'Given that all people are living histories, how can we all best learn about the long-unfolding human story in which all participate?'
- C. Dickens, Hard Times (London, 1854).
- E. Hobsbawm, Age of Extremes: the Short Twentieth Century (London, 1994).
- M. Mazower, Dark Continent: Europe's Twentieth Century (London, 1998).
- B. Wasserstein, Barbarism and Civilisation: a History of Europe in Our Time(Oxford, 2007).
- A. Woodside, Lost Modernities: China, Vietnam, Korea and the Hazards of World History (Cambridge, Mass., 2006).
- R. Guha, India after Gandhi: the History of the World's Largest Democracy(London, 2007).
Suggested further reading
H. Carr, What is History? (rev. edn., Basingstoke, 1986).
Drolet, The Postmodern Reader: Foundational Texts (London, 2003).
J. Evans, In Defence of History (London, 1997).
Gunn, History and Cultural Theory (Harlow, 2006).
Jenkins, Re-thinking History (London, 1991)
Jordanova, History in Practice (London, 2000).
The Routledge Companion to Historical Studies, ed. A. Munslow (London, 1999).
P. Thompson, The Poverty of Theory (London, 1978).
Tosh, The Pursuit of History: Aims, Methods and New Directions in the Study of Modern History (many edns., London, 1984–).
Penelope J. Corfield is professor of history at Royal Holloway, University of London. If quoting, please kindly acknowledge copyright: © Penelope J. Corfield 2008
http://www.history.ac.uk/makinghistory/resources/articles/why_history_matters.html
While I appreciate the frustration with parties and our current political system, with its rapidly eroding democracy, I believe that we have to work through both social movements and our political system. The major decisions about taxing and spending, new policies and programs, the response to current challenges, etc are made – for better or worse – by our elected governments. My latest book, Reviving Canadian Democracy, is an ambitious (foolhardy?) attempt to arouse Canadians (many of whom are not active in social movements or in the political process) and engage them in the fight to restore our democracy. To that end, everyone should be actively involved in the upcoming federal election, whatever else they may be doing to good effect through social movements and other efforts.
For some reason the website box above wouldn’t accept my website address, which is richardtindal.weebly.com.