Podcasts about bull connor

A version of this essay has been published by Open Magazine at https://openthemagazine.com/columns/shadow-warrior/I have been thinking about the ongoing vilification of Hindus in the media/social media for some time, e.g. the Economist magazine's bizarre choice of Bangladesh as its country of the year while Bangladeshis are genociding Hindus. The simplest way I could account for it is as the very opposite of Milan Kundera's acclaimed novel The Unbearable Lightness of Being. There is some karma at play here, and it is very heavy.The nation of immigrants, or to be more precise, its Deep State, is apparently turning against some of its most successful immigrants: law-abiding, tax-paying, docile ones. Irony, while others go on murderous sprees. In an insightful article in Open magazine, Amit Majmudar explains Why They Hate Us.There has been an astonishing outpouring of pure hatred against Indians in general, and Hindus in particular, on the Internet in the wake of Sriram Krishnan's seemingly accurate statement that country caps on H1-B visas are counterproductive. But this was merely a spike: for at least a year, Hindus have been vilified and name-called as “pajeets” and “street-shi**ers” on the net.It is intriguing that in 2024, both Jews and Hindus have been targeted: Jews by the extreme left on Gaza, and Hindus by both the extreme left and the extreme right, on what is, basically, a non-issue. H1-B is a very minor issue compared to, say, the wars and the US national debt.In fact, the H1-B brouhaha may well turn out to be a medium-term plus for India if it compels young Indians to seek employment at home. It will of course be a minus for the million-plus Indian-origin individuals who are in line for Green Cards, given the per-country cap of 9800 per year: mathematically, it will take them over a century to gain permanent residence.From the host country's point of view too, it is necessary to distinguish between generally desirable immigrants who contribute to the national wealth, as opposed to others who are a net burden on the exchequer, as I wrote recently.On reflection I attribute the withering assault on Hindus to four things: racism, religious bigotry, economics and geo-economics, and narrative-building.Presumably, all this had something to do with British colonial propaganda, which painted India as an utterly horrifying and pestilential country. Motivated and prejudiced imperialists ranging from James Mill to Winston Churchill were considered truthful historians. And it continues. I mentioned above the Economist magazine's baffling decision to certify Bangladesh's Islamist reign of terror.In another instance, in the Financial Times, a British chess correspondent (a nonagenarian named Leonard Barden), was underwhelmed by D Gukesh's staggering feat of becoming world champion at a teenager, and seemed to suggest that a) Gukesh won because his opponent Ding Liren of China was ill, b) Gukesh would have lost to either of two Americans, Caruana and Nakamura (both immigrants to the US, incidentally) if they had been in the fray. Barden, who probably remembers imperial times, also seemed to think poorly of the emerging Indian challenge in chess. These Anglosphere prejudices affect Americans.I also have some personal experience of American racism, as someone who went to the US on a student visa, got his Green Card and stayed on for twenty years before returning to India. A factor in my return was alienation, and the feeling of being an unwanted outsider, engendered by casual racism, even though on the face of it, I had a great life: good job in Silicon Valley, nice house, dream car. Obama's and Biden's regimes did nothing to change that feeling. Trump's second coming may not either.RacismIn general, I find Americans to be very nice people, gregarious, friendly and thoughtful: I had a number of good friends when I lived there. But I also think that racism is inbuilt into the culture (after all, it has not been that long since Brown v. Board of Education, Bull Connor, Jim Crow, George Wallace; and earlier the Asian Exclusion Act).There have been many acts of discrimination and racism against Hindus (although the term “Hindoo” [sic] included Sikhs and Muslims as well). See, e.g., the serious anti-Indian riots in Bellingham, WA in 1907 when “500 working class white men violently expelled Hindoo migrants from the city”. (both images courtesy @Hindoohistory on Twitter).Another remarkable story was the saga of Bhagat Singh Dhind, a Sikh, who was granted US citizenship three times, only to have it be taken away twice. The first time, in 1913, it was because, although ‘Hindoos' are Caucasians, they are not white. The second time, because the Supreme Court ruled in 1923 (US v Bhagat Singh Thind) that it would retrospectively cancel the citizenship of some 77 naturalized ‘Hindoos' based on the 1917 Immigration Act.The “Barred Zone” provision in that 1917 Act denied citizenship to Indians and Southeast Asians by making a large swathe of territory in Asia verboten. Curiously, Japanese, Koreans and some Chinese were exempt. Iranians, some Afghans (and some Baloch, if you look at the map closely) were deemed white. So far as I know, that is still the working definition of “white” in the US. (source: qz.com)There were real human costs: there is the sad story of Vaishno Das Bagai, a San Francisco businessman, who was rendered stateless after denaturalization, and seeing no way out (he was a Ghadar Party activist against British rule in India) committed suicide.Anyway, Dhind, evidently a persistent fellow, got his citizenship a third time because he had served in the US Army in World War I. Third time lucky: his citizenship was not revoked again.After the Luce-Celler Act of 1946, 100 Indians and 100 Filipinos a year were allowed to immigrate to the US, with the prospect of future naturalization as US citizens. Race based limitations were replaced with a quota system by the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act (aka McCarran-Walter Act), but it still retained significant caps based on national origin; that Act also introduced the H-1 category for skilled immigrants.As a result of all this, the number of Indian immigrants to the US (e.g. nurses) started going up. The general euphoria surrounding the Civil Rights Movement also conferred a certain respect upon Gandhi, because Martin Luther King reportedly was inspired by his non-violent techniques of protest.But that did not mean US blacks made common cause with Indians, because often unofficial ‘minority quotas' were achieved by bringing in Indians and Chinese, which in effect meant blacks did not get the jobs they legitimately spilled their blood for.I was one of those who went through the ‘labor certification' process in the 1980s, when it was relatively easy to get a Green Card because there were very few Indians applying. The trickle became a flood after the Y2K issue when a lot of Indians arrived on H1-Bs.I personally experienced mild forms of public racism, for instance from Latinos in New Jersey calling me a ‘dot-head', to an unseen voice shouting “No Indians wanted here” when I was being shown apartments in NJ. This was around the time Navroze Mody was beaten to death in Hoboken, NJ by ‘Dotbusters'.Later, there were whites asking if I were leaving the country when I walked out of a mall with a suitcase in Fremont, California. When I said yes, they expressed their approval.Religious bigotryThe death of former US President Jimmy Carter at the age of 100 is a reminder of the power of fundamentalist Christians in the US. He was a faithful member of the Baptist Church, and in his eulogies, he was praised as a simple and decent man who upheld his Christian beliefs.But the impression of Baptists, and American evangelists in general, in India is vastly different. They were implicated in the story of the fervid young American man who attempted to evangelize the famously hostile tribals of North Sentinel Island. They promptly shot him dead with arrows for his pains.The result of Christian conversion in India has often been negative, contrary to pious platitudes. It has created severe fissures in society, turning family members against each other. The net result of conversion has been to create separatism.Verrier Elwin, a missionary, converted large numbers of people in the Northeast of India, and the result has been calls for a separate Christian nation in that area. Sheikh Hasina, before being deposed, claimed that there were plans afoot for a Christian “Zo” nation, for Zo/Kuki/Mizo/Naga converted tribals, to be carved out of India and Bangladesh.There are precedents, of course: the Christian nations of South Sudan (from Sudan) and East Timor (from Indonesia).The Indian state of Manipur which has seen a lot of conversion recently, is also troubled, with armed Kuki Christian terrorists killing Hindu Meiteis. .The bottom line is that the very precepts of Abrahamisms, of an exclusive god (or god-equivalent), an in-group out-group dichotomy, and the demonization of non-believers as the Other, are antithetical to the Hindu spirit of inclusivity and tolerance.Hindumisia or Hindu hatred is rampant in the West, and increasingly on the Internet. The evolution of this hostility can be seen in a taxonomy of monotheistic religions:* paleo-Abrahamisms: Zoroastrianism, Judaism* meso-Abrahamisms: Christian, Islamic religions* neo-Abrahamisms: Communism, Fascism, Nazism, DMK-ism, Ambedkarism, and so onThe arrival of Christians in India was far from peaceful; the historical record shows that the Jesuit Francis Xavier was proud of his idol-breaking. Claude Buchanan made up lurid tales about his alleged encounters with Hindu practices; William Bentinck and his alleged abolition of sati were lionized far beyond reason, because sati was a very isolated practice.The continued deprecation of Hindus by Christians can be seen vividly in Kerala, where Christians are considerably more prosperous than Hindus (data from C I Issac, himself a Christian and a historian). Here's an American of Kerala Christian descent hating on Hindus, perhaps unaware that “Thomas in India” is pure fiction, and that Francis Xavier, the patron saint of Christians in India, was a fanatic and a bigot. ‘Syrian' Christians of Kerala who claim (without proof) to be ‘upper caste' converts discriminate harshly against ‘lower-caste' converts to this day. Hardly all ‘children of god'.Incidentally, there may be other, political, considerations here. This woman is apparently married into the family of Sydney Blumenthal, which is part of the Clinton entourage, i.e. Democrat royalty. Tablet magazine discussed the ‘permission structure' used by Democrats, especially Obama, to manufacture consent. Hindus may be getting ‘punished' for supporting Trump.I personally experienced Christian bigotry against Hindus at age 10 in Kerala. My classmate Philip (a local Malayali) told me casually: “All your gods are our devils”. Reflexively, I told him, “Your gods are our devils, too”, although no Hindu had ever told me Christian gods were devils.Others have told me identical stories from places like Hyderabad. This meme likely came from Francis Xavier himself. It may well be taught to impressionable children as an article of faith in church catechism.Francis Xavier invited the Inquisition to Goa, and many, if not most, of the victims were Hindus. Here's an account from Empire of the Soul by Paul William Roberts:“The palace in which these holy terrorists ensconced themselves was known locally as Vadlem Gor – the Big House. It became a symbol of fear… People in the street often heard screams of agony piercing the night… Children were flogged and slowly dismembered in front of their parents, whose eyelids had been sliced off to make sure they missed nothing. Extremities were amputated carefully, so that a person would remain conscious even when all that remained was a torso and head. Male genitalia were removed and burned in front of wives, breasts hacked off and vaginas penetrated by swords while husbands were forced to watch”.Below is a tweet by another American presumably suffused with Christian compassion. I am reminded of a Kerala Christian woman repeatedly trying to convert a Scheduled Caste friend, using similar memes denigrating Kali. Finally, my friend got fed up and asked her: “You worship the mutilated corpse of a dead Arab stuck on a stick. And that's better?”. Her jaw dropped, and she blubbered: “But… but, that's a metaphor”. My friend retorted: “Then realize that Kali is a metaphor too”. Not much self-awareness on the part of the would-be converter.Therefore, the religion factor, of Hindus being the ultimate Other, cannot be overstated. There is basically no way to reconcile the Hindu world view with the Christian. Dharma is incompatible with Abrahamisms/Semitisms. And no, it's not Jimmy Carter who's relevant, it's Francis Xavier.Economics and Geo-economicsThere is a serious issue with the engineering community in the US, which has nothing to do with the H1-B program. Engineers have been unable to unite, create a cartel, keep their numbers low and value to the consumer high, and bargain to keep salaries high. This is a signal failure on the part of the US engineers, and blaming others isn't going to solve the problem.Consider, in contrast, doctors (and to a lesser extent, nurses). They keep their numbers very low, successfully portray their contribution to society as very high, and keep out foreign doctors as much as possible: the result is that their salaries are astronomical (a recent Medscape survey suggests that the top-earning specialty, Orthopedics, earns an average of $568,000 a year. And that's the average).In contrast, according to Forbes in 2023 the highest-paid engineering specialty, Petroleum Engineering, earned only $145,000, and in fact wages had actually declined. Even much-ballyhooed software engineers ($103,000 ) and AI engineers ($128,000) make very little. And lest you think H1-B depresses wages, there are almost no H1-B petroleum engineers. The bottom line is that engineering is not a high-income occupation in the US. Why? No syndicate.How about nurses? According to a report, Nurse Anesthetists make an average of $214,000.And there are plenty of Indian-origin doctors and nurses in the US. Why does this not create a hue-and-cry? The answer is two-fold: one, the scarcity value, and two, those in medicine have created a narrative, and the public has bought it, that their services are so valuable that the nation must spend 20% of its GDP on what is, by objective measures, pretty poor outcomes in health: ranking tenth out of 10 in high-income countries, at very high cost.There have been grumbles about the helplessness of American engineers for years: I remember forty years ago some guy whose name I forget constantly complaining in the IEEE's email groups about immigrant engineers enabling employers to lower the salaries they pay.In addition, engineers regularly go through boom-and-bust cycles. They have no leverage. I remember after a boom period in the 1970s, unemployed aerospace engineers were driving taxis. If there is another ‘AI winter', then we'll find unemployed AI engineers on the street as well, despite massive demand right now.It is true that there may be subtle intricacies, too. The US companies that contract out their positions to H1-B engineers may well be paying prevailing wages, say $60 an hour. But there are middlemen: big IT services companies who take on the contracts, and provide ‘body-shopping' services. They may well be severely underpaying the actual engineers at only, say, $35 an hour, in a bizarre revivification of ‘indentured labor', i.e. wage slavery. It is difficult for those on H1–Bs to change employers, so they are stuck.There is a larger geo-economic angle as well. The US likes being the top dog in GDP, as it has been since 1945. Unfortunately, through the fecklessness of all Presidents from Nixon onwards, they have somehow allowed China to ascend to a strong #2 position. At this point, I suspect the Deep State has concluded that it would be impossible to dislodge China, given its manufacturing clout.I wrote a year ago that a condominium with China may well be the best Plan B for the US. Let us consider what has happened to the other countries that were at the top of the economic pyramid: Germany and Japan.The 1985 Plaza Accord whereby the US dollar was depreciated led to a Lost Decade for Japan, which has turned into a Lost Four Decades; that country which was booming in the 1980s lost, and never regained its momentum.Germany was doing pretty well until the Ukraine War and the arrival of the Electric Vehicle boom. But at this point, it has more or less lost its machine tools business, its automobile business; add its social and political views, and its future looks grim.If this is what has happened to #3 and #4, we can expect that an aspiring #3, namely India, will face a concerted effort to ruin it. It is in the interests of both the US and China to suppress a potential competitor, especially when there is the tiresome mantra of “India is the fastest growing large economy in the world”.The Bangladesh coup, which benefits both the US and China by creating a massive new war front on India's East, is therefore possibly the result of a tacit collusion between the Deep State and the CCP. Similarly, the sudden spike in anti-Hindu rhetoric and this H1-B hoo-haa may well be financed by Xinhua, and it clearly benefits the Democrats, as it has driven a wedge between Christian fundamentalist MAGA types and other Trump supporters. It also puts the Indian-origin and/or Hindu members of Trump's team on notice: they better self-censor.Even immigrant Elon Musk, not to mention Vivek Ramaswamy, Kash Patel, Jay Bhattacharyya, and the non-Indian Hindu Tulsi Gabbard, are all in the firing line of the Deep State. Even though the IEEE has been moaning about depressed engineering salaries for half a century, it is curious that this became a cause celebre just days before Trump's accession to the Presidency.Narrative-buildingThere was a sobering incident in New York's subways on December 22nd, when a woman, now identified as 61 year old Debrina Kawam, was set on fire by an illegal immigrant, Sebastian Zapeta, from Guatemala, who had been deported earlier but came back to the US. I saw a video purportedly of her burning to death, shockingly without screaming, rolling on the ground to douse the flames, or anything else. She just stood and burned, as Zapeta fanned the flames.A New York City subway policeman walked by. The people who were busy capturing the footage on their smartphones did not intervene or help. It reminded me of Kitty Genovese, a 28 year old woman who was raped and stabbed to death on March 13, 1964, in full view of onlookers in the apartment block where she lived in Queens, New York. Nobody bothered to intervene as she died, screaming.It is really odd when people refuse to get involved in helping a dying person. There's something morally wrong here, and it should have been worth exploring in the very articulate media.Yes, Debrina Kawam's baffling story got widespread airplay immediately after it happened, but it died surprisingly quickly. Here's the Google Trends index of interest in that story.The big new story was H1-B, which shot up and displaced the subway murder story. Note the respective timelines: the Google Trends below is about H1-B. It is hard to believe this was an organic shift. It was “manufacturing consent” with placement aforethought.I wrote recently about how narratives are created out of thin air with the intent of manufacturing consent. The abrupt U-turn on Sheikh Hasina was one of the examples. Now the neat and abrupt switch from the NYC subway burning-alive also points to something that is deliberately planted to divert attention away from inconvenient questions.Let us now see how the H1-B narrative survives the New Orleans story of the son of immigrants, ex-soldier, and ISIS member driving a truck and ploughing into a New Year crowd, killing many. Of course, the narrative will carefully not say anything rude about the religion of the alleged perpetrator, because there will be… consequences.ConclusionThe furious drama and narrative about H1-B will subside soon; ironically, it may well be to the benefit of the Indian nation if this kind of propaganda reduces the attractiveness of the US for talented would-be Indian immigrants, who might stay on at home and build innovative companies. Canada and Britain have already ceased to be desired destinations.However, the underlying issues of racism, religious bigotry, economic warfare and astroturfed narrative are real and will not go away. These are danger signals about “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” for Indian migrants to the US, and that's a sad start to 2025.3450 words, Jan 2, 2025Here's the AI-generated podcast from NotebookLM by Google: This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit rajeevsrinivasan.substack.com/subscribe

Here's an AI-generated podcast based on this essay (courtesy Google's NotebookLM): always entertaining and appealing. Full disclosure: Parts of this essay were also written by AI, and edited.The entire sorry spat with the Canadians, the tit-for-tat expulsions of diplomats and a virtual breakdown of ties leads to a good question. Are the Americans behind it (and if so why?), because for all practical purposes, Canada takes the lead from its Five Eyes friends and mentors? Several commentators have suggested that this is so. Trudeau is not a serious politician, as he demonstrated in this photograph in blackface acting allegedly as an “Indian potentate”.But the Deep State is deadly serious. They have meddled in country after country, leading to the utter misery of their populations. I can, off the top of my head, count several: Salvador Allende's Chile, Patrice Lumumba's Congo, Saddam Hussein's Iraq, Muammar Ghaddafi's Libya, Bashar Assad's Syria, not to mention Sihanouk's Cambodia. We have to make a distinction between the US public in general and the Deep State. The nation as a whole still believes in the noble ideals of the American Revolution, and American individuals are among the most engaging in the world; however, the Deep State is self-aggrandizing, and now poses a potent danger to the US itself as well as others. Alas, it is taking its eye off its real foe, China, with what probably will be disastrous consequences.  The Khalistani threat is a significant concern for India because it appears that the Deep State is applying pressure through proxies. Since it likes to stick to simple playbooks, we have some recent and nerve-racking precedents: Ukraine https://www.firstpost.com/opinion/trudeau-is-us-deep-states-zelensky-2-0-why-india-should-fight-canadas-diplomatic-war-with-all-its-might-13827294.html) and Bangladesh https://rajeevsrinivasan.substack.com/p/ep-134-the-geo-political-fallout.So what exactly is in store for India after the new POTUS is chosen, which is just two weeks away? US betting markets are suggesting that Donald Trump will win, but it's likely that Kamala Harris will emerge as POTUS. I was among the few in India who predicted a Trump win in 2016; admittedly I predicted a Trump win in 2020, and I do believe there were um… irregularities. I think in 2024 Trump would win if it were a fair fight, but it is not.But I fear the vote will be rigged and lopsided, partly because of the vast numbers of illegal aliens who will be, or already have been, allowed to vote (by mail). Every day, I hear of strange practices in swing states, as in this tweet. There is room for a lot of irregularities.On the other hand, the Indian-American voter (“desi”), apparently, will continue to vote for the Democratic Party, with some reason: there is racism in the Republican rank and file; but then let us remember that anti-black racism in the US South had Democratic roots: George Wallace and Bull Connor and “Jim Crow”. The Republicans had their “Southern Strategy” too, to inflame racial tensions. The racism Indian-Americans, particularly Hindus, face today is more subtle, but I doubt that the indentured labor and Green Card hell will get any better with Kamala Harris as President. I suspect 100+ year waits for a Green Card will continue. A Harris presidency could introduce several challenges for India across various domains, including economics, foreign policy, terrorism, and military affairs. It is appropriate to consider historical contexts, especially the stances of previous Democratic administrations and notable figures. In particular, Bill Clinton, Madeleine Albright and Robin Raphel come to mind: they were especially offensive to India and India's interests. The Biden Amendment, and Bill Clinton/Hillary Clinton's efforts delayed India's cryogenic rocket engine and thus its space program by 19 years. https://www.rediff.com/news/column/who-killed-the-isros-cryogenic-engine/20131118.htmOne of the most vivid historical examples is that of Japan's economy. After a dream run in the 1960s and 1970s, when they seriously threatened American supremacy in trade based on their high-quality and low-priced products, the Japanese were felled by the Plaza Accord of 1985, which forced the yen to appreciate significantly against the dollar.The net result was that Japanese products lost their competitive pricing edge. Furthermore, it led to an interest rate cut by the Japanese central bank, which created an enormous asset bubble. The bursting of that bubble led to a Lost Decade in the 1990s, and the nation has not yet recovered from that shock. One could say that the reserve currency status of the dollar was used to bludgeon the Japanese economy to death.Having observed this closely, China took special care to do two things: one, to infiltrate the US establishment, and two, to lull them into a false sense of security. Captains of industry were perfectly happy, with their short-term personal incentives, to move production to China for increased profits. Wall Street was quite willing to finance China, too. Politicians were willing to suspend disbelief, and to pursue the fantasy that a prosperous China would be somehow like America, only with East Asian features. Wrong. China is a threat now. But the Deep State learned from that mistake: they will not let another competitor thrive. The possible economic rise of India is something that will be opposed tooth and nail. In the background there is the possible collapse of the US dollar as the reserve currency (i.e. dedollarization), because of ballooning US debt and falling competitiveness, and the emergence of mechanisms other than Bretton Woods and the SWIFT network (e.g. the proposed blockchain-based, decentralized BRICS currency called UNIT).Besides, the Deep State has a clear goal for India: be a supine supplier of raw materials, including people; and a market for American goods, in particular weapons. Ideally India will be ruled by the Congress party, which, through incompetence or intent, steadily impoverished India: see how nominal per capita income collapsed under that regime until the reforms of 1991 (data from tradingeconomics and macrotrends). The massive devaluations along the way also hurt the GDP statistics, with only modest gains in trade. Another future that the Deep State has in mind for India could well be balkanization: just like the Soviet Union was unraveled, it may assiduously pursue the unwinding of the Indian State through secession, “sub-national diplomacy” and so forth. The value of India as a hedge against a rampaging China does not seem to occur to Democrats; in this context Trump in his presidency was much more positive towards India.Chances are that a Harris presidency will cost India dear,  in all sorts of ways:Foreign Policy Challenges1. Kashmir, Khalistan and Regional Dynamics: Harris has previously expressed support for Kashmiri separatism and criticized India's actions in the region. This stance could complicate U.S.-India relations, especially if she seeks to engage with groups advocating Kashmiri secession. The persistent support for Khalistan, including its poster boy Gurpatwant Singh Pannun who keeps warning of blowing up Indian planes, shows the Democrats have invested in this policy.2. Alignment with Anti-India Elements: Her connections with leftist factions within the Democratic Party, which have historically taken a hard stance against India, may result in policies that are less favorable to Indian interests. The influence of figures like Pramila Jayapal could further strain relations.3. Balancing Act with China: While the U.S. aims to counter Chinese influence in Asia, Harris's approach may involve a nuanced engagement with China that could leave India feeling sidelined in strategic discussions. Barack Obama, if you remember, unilaterally ceded to China the task of overseeing the so-called “South Asia”. Harris may well be content with a condominium arrangement with China: see https://www.firstpost.com/opinion/shadow-warrior-a-us-china-condominium-dividing-up-the-world-between-themselves-12464262.html 4. Foreign Policy Independence: An India that acts in its own national interests is anathema to many in the US establishment. The clear Indian message that the Ukraine war and perhaps even the Gaza war are unfortunate events, but that they are peripheral to Indian interests, did not sit well with the Biden administration. In a sense, just as Biden pushed Russia into China's arms, he may well be doing the same with India: the recently announced patrolling agreement between India and China may also be a signal to the Harris camp.Terrorism and Security Concerns1. Counterterrorism Cooperation: A shift towards prioritizing “human rights” may affect U.S.-India counterterrorism cooperation, as can already be seen in the case of Khalistanis. If Harris's administration emphasizes civil liberties over security measures, it could limit joint operations aimed at combating terrorism emanating especially from Pakistan..2. Support for Separatist Movements and Secession: Increased U.S. support for groups that advocate for self-determination in regions like Kashmir might embolden separatist movements within India (see Sonam Wangchuk in Ladakh, and the alleged Christian Zo nation that Sheikh Hasina said the US wanted to carve out of India, Bangladesh and Myanmar), posing a significant internal security challenge.Military Affairs1. Defense Collaborations: Although military ties have strengthened under previous administrations, a Harris presidency might introduce hesitancy in defense collaborations due to her potential focus on alleged human rights issues within India's military operations. This is a double-edged sword because it could also induce more self-reliance, as well as defense exports, by India. 2. Historical Precedents: The historical context of U.S. military interventions in South Asia, such as the deployment of the Seventh Fleet during the Bangladesh Liberation War in 1971, raises concerns about how a Harris administration might respond to regional conflicts involving India. 3. Strategic Partnerships: Any perceived shift in U.S. commitment to India as a strategic partner could embolden adversarial nations like China and Pakistan, thereby destabilizing the region further. This, at a time when China is vastly outspending all its neighbors in Asia in its military budget (data from CSIS).Economic Implications1. Increased Scrutiny on “Human Rights”: Harris's administration may adopt a more critical stance towards India's human rights record, particularly concerning alleged violations of minority rights and alleged mistreatment of dissent, although there is reason to believe this is mostly a convenient stick to beat India with rather than a real concern: we see how the real human rights violations of Hindus in Bangladesh raise no alarms. This scrutiny could have economic repercussions, such as reduced foreign investment from companies concerned about reputational risks associated with human rights violations, and possible sanctions based on the likes of the USCIRF's (US Council on International Religious Freedom) report.2. Shift in Trade Policies: Historical Democratic administrations have often prioritized labor rights and environmental standards in trade agreements. If Harris follows this trend, India might face stricter trade conditions that could hinder its export-driven sectors.3. Focus on Domestic Issues: Harris's potential prioritization of domestic issues over international relations may lead to a diminished focus on strengthening economic ties with India, which could stall ongoing initiatives aimed at boosting bilateral trade and investment.Social Issues1.  Anti-Hindu feeling: There has been a demonstrable increase in antipathy shown towards Hindus in the US, with a number of incidents of desecration of Hindu temples, especially by Khalistanis, as well as economic crimes such as robberies of jewelry shops. The temperature online as well as in legacy media has also risen, with offensive memes being bandied about. A notable example was the New York Times' cartoon when India did its Mars landing. And you don't get more Democrat-leaning than the New York Times.In summary, while Kamala Harris's presidency may not drastically alter the trajectory of U.S.-India relations established under previous administrations, given a convergence of major geo-political interests, it could introduce significant challenges stemming from her focus on so-called “human rights” and alignment with anti-India factions within her party. These factors could negatively influence economic ties, foreign policy dynamics, counterterrorism efforts, and military collaborations between the two nations. Four more years of tension: revival of terrorist attacks in Kashmir, the chances of CAA-like riots regarding the Waqf issue, economic warfare, a slow genocide of Hindus in Bangladesh. It's enough to make one nostalgic for the Trump era: yes, he talked about tariffs and Harley-Davidson, but he didn't go to war, and he identified China as enemy number one. 2000 words, 23 October 2024 This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit rajeevsrinivasan.substack.com/subscribe

Whooping. Spanking. Beating. Whatever you want to call it, corporal punishment was a central part of Lee's upbringing. Growing up, he was made to believe that it was a Black custom but as an adult he began wondering if it ended up doing more harm than good. In this episode, Lee speaks with Dr. Andrew Garner, a pediatrician who has studied the effects of corporal punishment on children, and how the nervous system is altered by it. Later, Lee speaks with Geoff Ward, a Professor of African and African American Studies at Washington University in St. Louis, to discuss how corporal punishment has extended beyond the home, and into schools.TranscriptWe wanted to give a heads up that this episode includes talk of abuse, and acts of violence. You can find resources on our website, WhatHappenedInAlabama.org - listener discretion is advised.Hi - this is Lee Hawkins and we're about to dive into episode seven of What Happened in Alabama. This conversation is about corporal punishment in homes and schools. Beating, spanking, whooping, whatever you call it, that's what we'll be talking about. This is very personal to me because it's how I and so many of my peers were raised. We were taught that it was not only normal, but necessary. Today we're going to get into the short and long-term effects of corporal punishment on the physical, mental, and emotional development and well-being of children, often following them into adulthood. It's a heavy and important topic But you'll get a lot more out of it if you go back and listen to the prologue - that'll give you some context for the series and this episode. Do that, and then join us back here. Thank you so much. In February 2019, I had my final interview with my dad for this project. We talked for over 3 hrs. I had a deadline to hit, and because I had so many interviews already recorded I did one final interview with him, just to get specific questions answered without having to go back through all that tape. He did the final interview – and he answered some extremely difficult questions, with compassion, regret, and especially grace.Lee: And so how did you get into the whooping thing? Like you beating us with your belt? What made.. Like, where did you get that from?Lee Sr: That I can't say. I don't know, man. It was just a, some kind of a stress that I had, evidently. Lee Sr: it's hard to say how this shit went man.Asking my dad directly about this I realized that families often repeat certain patterns and cycles from generation to generation, without understanding why or where they come from. That four year process of interviewing my father about his upbringing in 1950-era Jim Crow Alabama shined a powerful light on why I was raised the way I was. But while I had gained a better understanding of some of the historical factors that shaped my upbringing, I still needed to understand the forces that prevented my father from breaking the cycle of belt whipping when we were kids. Lee: But what were the stresses that you were going through? Lee Sr: Things that I had seen my mom had to go through with people and shit and that was hard to push it. And so when I thought you guys did something, that was when I would, you know, get out of control like I did man, because that is out of control. I don't give a fuck how you put it. It was validating to hear Dad declare that hitting children with belts was wrong, and something that he profoundly regretted, and was genuinely sorry for, because I struggled for my whole life to understand the sentiment that Black children – especially – need to be beaten, even as I accepted it. I didn't need much more than to hear my dad acknowledge that no, we didn't deserve it – Black kids or not. Lee Sr: If it was up to me and the way I feel about things, I would've never done nothing like that. But I don't know how I got out of control like that. Something was back there in my life that did that and I know it.My mom told me that there were nights that my dad came to bed and cried after those interviews. Though I never saw those tears, it doesn't surprise me. Revisiting painful memories that led my father to try to whip us into perfection out of deep love and concern was obviously excruciating for him. Despite my belief in “honor thy mother and father” and occasionally unnecessary guilt, I didn't feel obligated to shield him from the pain he caused my sister Tiffany and me at times. I accepted that the burden of his actions was not mine to carry. Expecting a victim to accept the blame for a perpetrator's actions, fearing that a grown man might cry, just isn't fair.I was determined to lead my dad down the path to finally put these generational demons to rest, for both of us and for future generations of our family. If he cried, he cried. When I heard that dad cried, I saw it as a sign of empathy but not a reason to quit researching. As children, I wept, and Tiffany wept, through the hundreds of belt whippings we received. In fact, our mother would tell us: “Stop crying or I'll give you something to really cry about.” I now realize that perpetrators rarely recognize the extent of a victim's pain because they aren't the ones being beaten.My father's tears didn't change the reality of what they had done to us. His crying may have meant he finally grasped that his childhood impacted mine more profoundly than my parents had ever acknowledged. Our pain stung so much more than the feeling of a belt to the behind.Social justice activists talk so often about how violence impacts Black bodies, but my research, and my memories of my own childhood, have shown me that violence–including within the Black family and community– can also have potentially devastating effects on Black minds—especially the minds of children.With my mental health journalism training, I now understand why I was always on edge, like my parents. They feared the world, and I feared them. Sometimes I'd go to bed fully clothed, with three layers of clothing on for extra padding, preparing for the possibility of being pulled out of bed for a forgotten chore. This made me high-strung and hard to stay calm. Around age eight, I started blinking excessively when nervous. One Sunday in the choir stand, I couldn't stop blinking. After church, one of my Dad's friends mentioned it, "I think Lee Lee's got some kind of nervous tic." Dad dismissed it as teasing, ranting to my mom about it the whole ride home.But his friend was right. My nervous system was firing like crazy. Though I excelled in spelling and reading, I struggled in math that year. My parents thought I was clowning in class and believed more beatings would improve my scores. They'd yell, "You're being the class clown for all those white friends of yours." They didn't realize I needed extra help from a teacher or tutor. Instead of focusing on math, I'd sit at my desk and worry about the belt whipping I could get for writing down a wrong answer, which made me blink even more.Neither my father nor I connected my nervousness to the beatings. We saw the belt as temporary pain. But it hijacked my entire system. As an adult, I've dealt with stress, but nothing compares to the constant stress I carried as a child. I don't know how I never developed an ulcer. Imagine an adult experiencing the unpredictability of being overpowered and whipped several times a month, then having to perform at their best the next day. That's what I went through… as an eight-year-old.What broke my heart as a child was that my mother told me that she gave my teacher permission to hit me if she wanted to. My teacher never did, but she clearly knew I was getting the belt at home. That trend of many schools failing to protect students from violence, or even exacting violence themselves, impacted me in so many ways. One clear way was the reality that my Dad rarely if ever got hit by his parents, but he did get hit plenty of times at school, which, I believed normalized the idea of child beating in his mind at a young age.And today, Alabama is one of seventeen states that still allow corporal punishment in K-12 public schools, with the schools mostly striking Black children and those with disabilities. In 2019, the Southern Poverty Law Center and the UCLA Center for Civil Rights Remedies reported that Black boys are nearly twice as likely to be hit compared to white boys, and Black girls are struck at over three times the rate of white girls. This, all despite the fact that Black students behave similarly to white ones. Today, hitting school children is legal and most prevalent in states where enslavement was legal. Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, and Texas represent over 70% of all corporal punishment in U.S. public schools, according to the SPLC. Children at some schools are hit nearly twice a month. Notably, during the 2015–16 school year, one Mississippi school reported 871 instances affecting 57 students, averaging 15 times per student. Another school in the same state noted 60 instances for just four students, also averaging 15 times per student. A few years back, before my dad died, my Dad and his sister, Aunt Toopie, talked about the beatings they received at school while growing up in Jim Crow AlabamaLee: Did they whoop the kids in school, was it a strict thing?Lee Sr: Yeah, we got our ass kicked every time we were late, I know that. Aunt Toopie: And stand in the corner.Lee Sr: And when you did something in class you got your ass kicked.Aunt Toopie: They had belts in school in them days.Lee Sr: They had that board of education. If I was late for school, you'd go right to the principal's office, and he'd tell your ass up about three times with that paddle, with holes in it. That paddle was a piece of oak wood, and it had varnish on it and it had holes. They had drills holes in it. It was custom made. It said board of education and he'd have you bend over and man, that thing, them holes in that thing, would leave little dots on your ass.” Being hit at school burned a permanent memory in my dad's brain - he normalized it when he became a father, handing down the Alabama-born anxiety to another generation, to me. After the conversation with my dad where he apologized for whipping my sisters and me, I tried to have a similar one with my mom. But it went very differently. "We didn't beat you,” she said. “We spanked you."I was disappointed to hear her deny how severely she and my dad beat my sister Tiffany and me. But I also understood why she would say what she did. There's almost a collective agreement in society that so-called spanking is supposedly lighter than a beating…kinder and gentler and never abusive or harmful. It's much easier to stomach the narrative that there are acceptable forms of violence to use against children; even though that same violence would never be acceptable to use against an adult. Which is why I give my dad so much credit for being honest and not trying to minimize what they did.My dad finally understood the full spectrum of damage the American whip had caused generations of our family. We often think the worst of corporal punishment are the welts and physical pain. But through my own experience and my research, I know the real pain is from the belt's access to the victim's mind. My parents didn't know these beatings and the mental stress of having to constantly look out for danger all around me, made it harder for me to focus, triggering my nervous system into fight or flight, causing bouts of anxiety that followed me into adulthood. This led me to find experts on the effects of corporal punishment on the body and mind.Dr. Garner: The thing that separates kids from adults is they're still under construction. Their brain, their physiology is still under development. And so what happens in childhood doesn't stay in childhood. That's Doctor Andrew Garner. He's a primary care pediatrician in Ohio who has studied the effect of corporal punishment on children. I wanted to talk to Dr. Garner to understand the physiological changes that occur in children when they are hit. Whether you hit them with your hand, a belt, a paddle, regardless of how hard or how often you hit them, it's all corporal punishment. I'm someone who refuses to get nostalgic about the beatings of my childhood. I would never high-five my friends and say I needed it, I loved it, or credit it as the reason I stayed out of trouble or became a productive citizen. It's not funny to me, mainly because it took me years to rewire my system. But I don't want to unfairly judge people either, especially those who don't have the information. Once I delved into history, I gained a deeper and clearer understanding of why so many people I've known—especially Black and white people from the South—have often celebrated and even laughed fondly about the use of corporal punishment. Many have no idea that, when we really look closely at America's historical foundation, hitting children is akin to setting up a system of white supremacy or a mini plantation in their living room. Later in this episode, I speak with Professor Geoff Ward, a Professor of African and African American Studies at Washington University in St. Louis, to discuss how corporal punishment has extended beyond the home into schools across the South, mainly the states and counties where slavery was legal and lynching was most prevalent. We talk about the institutionalized use of corporal punishment and how deeply ingrained it is in our history. But for now, let's get back to Dr. Garner.The conversation mentions violence and abuse against children, sensitive listeners please take care. [break]Lee: I think there are many people who believe, well, if I just hit the kid a few times on the butt with my hand, that's a spanking. If I hit a kid with a belt that's a beating, or if I don't if I hit a kid with a belt, but I don't hit them hard..as hard as the guy up the street who's hitting his kid with the extension cord, then that's not a beating. Dr. Garner: That's all violence. Right. So, you know, corporal punishment is a negative consequence, for unwanted behavior. But that negative consequence is the use of force and is intended to cause pain or discomfort. So that's violence. So, you know, whether or not you're trying to split hairs between, a spanking or a beating, it's still the use of violence to coerce, and control and modify another person's behavior. And we know that in order to continue changing that behavior, the violence needs to escalate over time. So it's a slippery slope. I can recognize this slippery slope in my own life. My parents started out with a few hits when I was little and over the years it escalated to something much more serious, to the point where getting hit with a leather belt for five minutes was normalized. In fact, their punishment increased to slaps across the face and attacks that were even more severe. And this was from two parents, who, like most of the parents we knew, felt like, if they truly loved their children, they needed to kick it into high gear and show us that life wasn't going to be fair and that nobody was coming to save us, especially because we were Black. I can see how this happens. Dr. Garner: You may think that in the short term, you're doing a good service to your child because you're trying to teach them something. But in the long run, we know the outcomes are worse. There's clear data, you know, increased risk of child abuse, because you have to eventually increase the negative stimuli to try and change the behavior. Part of the problem with corporal punishment, it's a double whammy. In addition to the anticipation, like you're saying what bad thing is going to happen to me? There's also the loss of safety, because one of the things that the the one of the ways that we buffer adversity is through relationships. And now there's, there can be a loss of trust, in the, in the relationship. And that to me is really interesting that, it's not just the, the, the fear of the pain as you were talking about. It's also the loss of trust that when is this going to happen. Where when am I safe? When am I safe? Lee: Well, never. I was never really 100% safe in my home or outside in the world. Never. There was never a time that I felt safe. And I also feel like my parents did that by design. I don't think they wanted me to ever feel safe, because I don't think they believed that a Black person in America is ever safe. So I believe that they wanted me to feel the hyper vigilance and the hyper cautiousness that they, in the generations before them, felt because they didn't believe enough in the system of America. Another thing is that when you said you have to increase the punishment if you're going to use this system, that's exactly what happened to me. And I know my dad. I know that he…lost control and did not know what he was doing. And I think at that time he got to a point where he realized, what have I done? What have I become? Dr. Garner: I think where we break down sometimes is trying to decide what's more important, you know, is it the connection or is it the structure? Well, they're both important. You need to have connection. So kids trust the instruction you're giving them. But the way I think about it is it's a lot easier to teach a kid what they should do than to keep from doing something you don't want them to do. Lee: But it's also forcing us to understand that children are multiple times smaller than adults. And so we if we apply some empathy here, we have to understand that even if you're hitting a child once or twice, you're still multiple times larger than the child, and the child may not have a bruise. Or the bruise may go away. But it's really this person who's supposed to be taking care of me, who is the only thing in this world I love, and this person who is providing meals and food and shelter for me is hitting me. Oh, he's going to hit me again. But for some reason, children have a different standing in society. They're the most vulnerable in the society, but they have the least protection. Dr. Garner: Yeah. It's crazy. The thing that separates kids from adults is they're still under construction. We know if there is significant adversity, and there aren't opportunities to turn off the body's stress response that can result in a thing called toxic stress. Right. So toxic stress is this inability to turn off the stress response. And it can literally change who we are at the behavioral, at the cellular, even at the molecular levels. We know that adversity can sort of become biologically embedded and and changing the way our genomes work. Lee: And this is just even with just hitting a child once or twice occasionally. Right? Dr. Garner: Absolutely. I mean, that's the point, is that we have to understand the way brains develop. Brain development is an experience driven event. It's the experiences that happen that drive brain development. And so the question is, what are those experiences in childhood, are they adverse in the sense that they're leading to expectancies of bad things and always being on edge, or are they nurturing to the extent that people get me? I have agency and things are going to be positive in the future. So those early experiences are truly foundational and they can influence the way we see ourselves and the way we see other people and the way we see our future.For me, belt whipping taught me not to ever trust anyone, including and especially my parents. I loved them, but I never fully trusted them and rarely confided in them. And that turned me into an adult who simply refused to trust another human being. Despite the active social life I've always had, my childhood groomed me to be a rugged individualist, putting all my trust in God and myself. I never put even an ounce of faith in the idea that another person would not be capable of betraying or letting me down. And in relationships with girlfriends -– especially if they wronged me in any way – I developed the very unfortunate ability to be able to walk away from them and never look back and never miss them. And I often wanted to be able to be vulnerable and feel some level of paralysis or regret, but I always could just keep going.The beatings also made me perfectionistic. My mantra became, “if you want something done right, do as much as you can by yourself, because most people will almost always fall short and disappoint.”At a very young age, I just adopted the posture that I was on my own, and that I should not count on anyone or expect anyone to come up with a net and try to catch me if I fell. And also I also believed that you should always keep people out of your personal business, because in most cases, they'll take your plans, your confiding in them about your most vulnerable feelings or moments, or the smallest mistakes and weaponize them to try and hurt you. And that's how my father was. And yes, he came from a family of Jim Crow survivors and had family members murdered, but I believe a lot of this view of the world I've seen in my family, especially in my case, came from being beaten as children. These beatings – and yes, I have finally given myself permission to call them abuse – just wreaked havoc on my capacity to receive love without skepticism. Even now, I mean, speaking this, I'm wondering if this revelation will somehow be used against me by somebody down the line. But at least I can recognize it now. My new mantra is, “I'm free and I'm safe.” And to be fair, I'm a lot better than I used to be, and I can't say that the skepticism hasn't helped me a great deal – especially in the media business – but I wouldn't wish that level of steel-heartedness on anyone. I asked Dr. Garner to break down what happens to a child's nervous system when they get hit or know there's a possibility they're about to get hit. He said there are three biological pathways. Dr. Garner: The most simplest and the most evolutionarily, primitive is freeze, right? So you may see that the deer in the headlights type thing. Right. And so the first temptation is to freeze, if I be small and don't move, maybe the threat will go away.The second, which you might recognize, is fight or flight. Dr. Garner: And that's where you have a release of all kinds of biological mediators. Cortisol and epinephrine, that basically make your blood pressure high, make you ready to fight or run away. Those hormones are very useful in the short term. So if you see a bear, you can run away fast. But if that if that stress response isn't turned off through the presence of safe, stable, nurturing relationships and that constant bathing in those physiologic mediators of stress is there that results in changes. Changes at the molecular level, changes at the cellular level changes the behavior that really can change who we are. And we call that toxic stress. The third response is to affiliate, that means our ability to collaborate with others, to seek help when there's a threat. It's part of the reason humans have existed so long as a species. But Tiffany and I didn't have that support. There was no escaping the belt. Dr. Garner: Where are my friends? Who's going to help me through this? The problem is, for a young child, the friend is the person who's beating you. So you've really sort of lost that that ability to turn off the stress response from an affiliate response. You're really stuck in flight or flight, and if you're constantly bed with those hormones, again, that's going to lead to a child who's going to be more defiant, more aggressive. Not be able to think things through, not be able to think about the broad perspective because you're. Constantly in fight or flight mode. You're constantly in survival mode instead of relational mode. Lee: Right? Yeah. And if you can think about this to bring some empathy in here for people to understand, if you were hitting a dog and a dog who depends on you for everything, is experiencing this toxicity in this toxic environment, you can actually see a lot of times when dogs are abused because you'll go to pet them and they kind of squirm. Sometimes they might bark, sometimes they might even try to bite you. And that's because they've been abused. Children are the same, right? I mean, children can have some of the same effects that we see, in dogs, that we empathize with. Children who are treated the same way in their home. Can have that same impact. Dr. Garner: But here's the good news. And this is the really fascinates me, is that the more we learn about the biology of adversity, the more we learn about toxic stress and how adverse experiences become biologically embedded and really affect life course trajectories. That same biology underlies how positive experiences get embedded. Right? And that that is the good news, right? So adversity is not destiny in any way, shape or form. In the last few years, there's been a really interesting thing called biobehavioral synchrony, which is a big phrase, but what it means is in those moments of magical connection that you have with another being in particularly between parent and child, there's literally an alignment of the brain waves of the autonomic functions of hormone levels and behavior. Right. And so we sort of know this intuitively that emotions can be contagious. Right? So, if a child's crying, the sibling mates are crying and specters may join an angry mob so it can go in the negative way, but can also go in a positive way, in a sense that engaged and trusted caregivers, they literally have the ability to hack in remotely and turn off the child stress response. Dr. Garner explained that you can see this in action if you look up the still face experiment on Youtube. It's a famous psychological study that was first conducted in 1975 by the psychologist Edward Tronick. Dr. Garner: Basically they take a young child about a year old, and usually it's a mother, and they bring him into the laboratory and they have three two minute blocks. The first two minute block is engaging, so they're just playing back and forth. It literally they call it serve and return - the baby coos the mom responds. And it's really this biobehavioral synchrony. You can literally see it happening for you. And then they tell the mom to turn away and then turn back and to not engage for two minutes. And if you watch the video it is viscerally painful because the child noticed there's a rupture in the synchrony and does everything they can to try and get back engaged, everything they can to get back engaged. And then they tell their mom to turn back again, and now to start to repair. And it's palpable. The children's relief immediately. Oh, we're back again. You're back again? I'm safe. You got me. The important thing is, is there repair, right? And the most recent evidence suggests that it's the latency to repair that's associated with secure attachments and distress tolerance, that ability to say the goodness is coming. We're going to get back together again. It's really, really important. And so, again, that's great news for parents. We're not going to be perfect. We're all going to make mistakes as parents. We can't always be perfectly engaged. The important thing is it's all about repair. It's the ability to come back and become back engaged and basically be saying that, child, your perspective is important to me. The relationship's important to me. And it's way more important for me to be kind than right. Lee: Yeah. And I think that that's one of the challenges for me as part of people from the African-American community who had my experience. For me, knowing that my parents loved me and knowing that that love could be shown, but then the next minute I could be being beaten with the belt. And then they're loving me again. And then I'm beaten with the bel,t going back and forth. I do wonder…I do believe that there were there were some kind of protection outcomes that came from the love that was shown, but the unpredictability of it was, was very difficult because the relationship to violence was weird. Like it because violence was almost framed as love. Dr. Garner: Yeah. That's one of the one of the big paradoxes, I think, of corporal punishment is that having been a victim of corporal punishment, that increases your risk of being a victim of other physical violence down the line, which is sort of counterintuitive. But I think it gets at what you were saying there is that leads to what those expectations of what love are.And throughout my research, I found disturbing instances where enslavers used Bible verses to justify corporal punishment and enslavement. This deeply troubled me as both a Christian and a Black man. I've often heard the phrase "Spare the rod, spoil the child," which, contrary to widespread belief, isn't even in the Bible. And even still, this metaphorical use emphasizes guidance and care rather than punishment. Dr Garner's wife is a Methodist pastor, and I talked to him about how people have often manipulated and weaponized scriptures and proverbs to justify and advance slavery, whipping, and their own agendas. As a result, generations of people have come to believe that it is moral, righteous, and holy to beat children. Dr. Garner: I think it's very upsetting when, these scriptures are being used in a way to propagate violence, when clearly that is not what Christ's intention was. He said, bring the children to me. Bring the children to me. Right. He didn't say, bring them to me so I can whip them. Right. Said, be like a child. Be be like a child. Be empathic. Be full of wonder. Right. And somehow we sort of lost that. So, discipline, you know, comes from the Latin word to teach. Right? So it doesn't mean to punish. Right. And of course there are multiple types of punishment, which actually runs the spectrum right from, a loss of privileges, right. So, you know, if you, you lose your driver's license, if you speed too much, right, to possible incarceration and then all the way to physical harm and even even death. Right? So punishment is the, are those negative consequences. They're imposed for undesired behavior. But punishment is only one form of discipline. And the more we know about it, the more we know it's actually not as effective in the long term and actually can cause potential harm. Lee: And what I love about this research that you've done in everything that you're sharing with us today, is that you're showing that a child's brain is being wired as we go, right, that we're creating the future adult every day when we're working with that child. What do stress toxins do to the body in terms of health? Dr. Garner: Toxic stress, which can be precipitated by any number of different forms of adversity, is associated with basically all of the leading causes of death. Right? So if you want to look at, asthma, you want to look at cancer, do you want to look at suicide and mental health issues. You want to look at obesity. You want to look at substance abuse. Right. So I mean, there's no doubt that, when we are programmed to expect adversity, that we're going to find ways to try and cope. And so if you think about it, you know, people overeat and abuse substances and, are promiscuous for a reason. In the short term, they turn off the stress response. But in the long term, the worse health outcomes down the line. Right. And so, yeah, I mean, I think your point, though, that the brain is, is being made over time is really important, and so are the relationships. And so one way I think to try and frame all of this is affect regulation, how we handle our emotions. Because if you have an angry parent who's spanking a child, the message to the child is when you get angry, it's okay to hit right. And so, that's not what we really want for our kids in the long run. We actually want them, to learn that it's okay to have strong emotions. It's okay to be angry. It's okay to be frustrated. But when you have those emotions, what can we do with them? How can we channel them? Dr. Garner has worked with parents and treated children as a Primary Care Pediatrician for more than two decades. He co-authored the book "Thinking Developmentally: Nurturing Wellness in Childhood to Promote Lifelong Health" and the American Academy of Pediatrics' Policy Statement on Preventing Childhood Toxic Stress and Promoting Relational Health. As a speaker, he focuses on early brain and child development, preventing childhood toxic stress, and promoting early relational health, and he considers himself to be an advocate for all children and their families. Lee: And what do you tell parents when they bring their children in to be treated about corporal punishment? Dr. Garner: One, to heal any wounds that they've had as a parent? Because we've talked before, parents tend to parent the way they were parented. So, I'm going to want to know, what the stressors are in their life with, what the stressors were when they were kids. What a good question often is, what, did your parents do that you want to make sure you do for your kids? But then also, what are the things your parents did that you want to make sure you never do for your kids? As kids get older, I'm going to help them understand, that it's really not the behavior you want to focus on. That a child's behavior is always telling us there's something they need or something they want. And what we need to do is trying to interpret it and help them figure out a better way to have that behavior met. And so this starts really early, you know, with temper tantrums in 3 or 4 year olds. It's really not about the behavior. It's the emotion that's driving the behavior. And if we can help parents understand that, then we can help parents help their child say, look, you're allowed to be angry. You're allowed to be frustrated, allowed to be disappointed. But when that happens, we're not going to yell and scream. We're going to do the things that bring us joy. We're going to try and, spend some time doing some Legos or some coloring, teach them how to cope instead of just saying stop. The problem with, with corporal punishment and all punishments is it's basically saying, don't do this, don't do this, don't do this. And then the child, then in, in sort of in their own mind, thinks there's something wrong with me. Because I feel this way and the message needs to be, you're allowed to feel that way, but when you feel that way, do this instead. If the parent is able to say, I'm so sorry I lost it, I'm so sorry I used those harsh words. I'm so sorry I was demeaning. I'm going to try better and we're going to work together to build this relationship. Then that's what those kids are going to do someday, right? I mean, I tell kids that empathy is a superpower. It is an absolute superpower. Not everyone has it, but we can teach it. And when you have it that allows you to repair, that allows you to have relationships. After speaking with Dr. Garner I want to believe that if more well-meaning parents knew hitting their children can also harm their brains and emotional health as opposed to just being temporarily painful, fewer would do it. However, in a country where hitting children is part of a centuries-long pattern of violence, and amid a system that offers the smallest people the least protection, I understand why many believe hitting children is beneficial, especially for Black children.But now that I'm out of that situation, I do view it as abuse and a legacy of my country's legal system and culture, and the enslavement and torture of my people. And it's not just in the home - in 17 states across the U.S. corporal punishment is legal in public schools. Most of these states allow educators to hit students three times in the rear with a long wooden board. And in all states except for just a few, corporal punishment is allowed in private schools.To help me understand it more I reached out to Professor Geoff Ward at Washington University in St Louis. He's a historical sociologist and the director of the Washington Slavery Project. Some of his work connects the dots between the history of lynching in southern states with the modern usage of corporal punishment in schools today. I've had a couple conversations with Professor Ward, the first time was about 2020. I spoke to him again more recently to learn more about the logic of racial violence, how it intersects with our judicial system and how we can break the cycles of racial violence. Lee: You know, before when we talked, we talked a lot about racialized social control. Can you give us a definition, to hold on to here? Prof. Ward: I think a good place to start would be is to recognize that we live in a racialized social system, a society where rewards are allocated along racial lines, where meaning is constructed along racial lines, things like, you know, reliability or, beauty, or intelligence, morality, are riddled with racial logic because we live in a society where race has sort of been infused in the way we relate to and understand each other, the way the society has been organized. And in that context, social control becomes racialized. And social control generally describes the definition and enforcement of norms. And social control can be informal, you know, a sideways glance or a disapproving look. But we also have systems of formal control. And that brings in the State. And our regulatory systems, our courts, our criminal legal system and so forth that are part of the system of social control. And, you know, all of that complex is racialized.I remember reading Professor Ward's work and being shocked by his citation of a 1901 Alabama constitutional debate over the legality of whipping prisoners, in which a county official remarked that “everybody knows the character of a Negro and knows that there is no punishment in the world that can take the place of the lash with him.” And he noted, that juvenile court records from 1930s-era North Carolina reveal that court-ordered whippings were reserved almost exclusively for Black boys and girls, given “widespread feelings among white county juvenile court judges that whipping is the most effective way of handling delinquent Negros."Another court official noted a common diversionary practice of “sendingdelinquent Black boys downstairs with a big police officer to have themflogged” prior to release.Prof. Ward: So this was a an example we, we used from the historical record in the article I mentioned where we examined how histories of racist violence, particularly lynching, relate to patterns of corporal punishment in contemporary public schools. Where we found that, that net of other factors, every additional lynching in the history of a county increased significantly the odds that a child would be corporally punished in a school in that county. This was after accounting for things like how, the funding of the school, the racial makeup of the school, whether it's urban or rural, how experienced the teachers are, how religiously conservative the residents of the county are, and so forth. And in that article, we used the story you're referring to to provide some context for how this relationship could come to exist. How is it that contemporary schools, likelihood of using violent strategies of school discipline has anything to do with the history of slavery or lynching in in that county? What is the story there? What are the mechanisms that connect the past to the present? And we cited that example because it speaks to the racial logic of corporal punishment, the idea that African-Americans are not fully human, are not sentient beings, can cannot be, influenced through, you know, appeals to things like morality or decency or logic, you know, white supremacism historically asserted that that Black people could not think deeply about anything. And so you and so this what this judge is saying in this case and we found numerous examples of this, judges, legislators, you know, rationalizing corporal punishment. And was saying that, you have to appeal, you have to reach, you have to address African-Americans through pain. Lee: Yeah. Prof. Ward: Because, because the you can't reach them through the brain. Lee: Yes. And and what I love about your research is that you've really just blown the doors off of this and shown that the public record is full of governmental rationalizations of violence against Blacks, even after emancipation. you show that African-Americans have always been framed as warranting more violent control strategies. And this is deeply rooted in the idea that we are not fully human. Is that something that you just have seen all through your research? Prof. Ward: Well, yeah, it is, I know it has to also be said that that, you know, racialized social systems are contested. You know, this this idea, this attempt to dehumanize African Americans, never actually fully succeeded. It resulted in a tremendous amount of oppression and pain and violence and death and so forth. But, simultaneously, you know, my research is also showing that Black communities and their allies are countering these measures. But even with respect to the juvenile justice system in my book, ‘The Black Child-Savers' is mostly about how generations of Black women organized, beginning in the 1890s, to dismantle this Jim Crow juvenile justice system. And, they were fundamentally motivated by their own recognition that Black children and people were, in fact, fully human and fully capable of realizing the benefits of a more enlightened approach to social control. One that focused on, on child welfare and development. You know, the system that was being developed for white kids, who were not being subject as much to this, yeah, this brutality. And so they did create, you know, other kinds of institutions and practices that also have to be kept in mind as we think about the sort of how this history unfolded. Lee: You talk about the connection between corporal punishment and the history of lynching, which is really an incredible contribution to this body of work. Lee: Are you still seeing the trend in which, historical areas where lynching was the most prevalent tend to correspond to the amount of corporal punishment that's being done in a particular school district? Prof. Ward: There certainly have been study after study showing that that that histories, area histories of lynching and other racialized violence, predict contemporary patterns of of conflict and violence and inequality. Things like, Black victim homicide rates today and, patterns of vote suppression and white supremacist mobilization, you know, and, white political conservativism, things like Black infant mortality or racially disparate infant mortality, differences in heart disease. I mean, all kinds of contemporary outcomes have been shown by social scientists to be associated with histories of racial violence in, in specific areas. So I would I would imagine that, you know, that that the relationships we saw with respect to corporal punishment in schools, have not suddenly gone away. Understanding how governmental institutions have historically ensured that Black children are subjected to corporal punishment, including in schools, helps me see why my parents feared they had to use violence to protect me. They were conditioned by a system of legal white supremacy to equate violence with love. Like agents of the state, they and generations of Black parents saw violence as a necessity, convinced that nonviolent reasoning wouldn't work with a Black boy.As a result, while my parents were opposed to police violence, they turned our living room into a whipping station, becoming indirect agents of the very police brutality our people protested. Each generation in my family had a hypervisible white police officer who symbolized the need to beat Black children. For my father's generation, it was Birmingham's white supremacist "Commissioner of Public Safety" Bull Connor. In my generation, it was the officers who brutalized Rodney King, and epithet using Officer Mark Fuhrman from the O.J. Simpson trial. For Millennials and Gen Z, it's Derek Chauvin, who murdered George Floyd. It felt as if my parents unconsciously partnered with America's most racist police elements to enforce violence and keep their Black son in line.As I delved deeper, I saw similar patterns among some Black educators and religious leaders. Despite the disproportionate use of corporal punishment against Black children, many administrators and school board members advocated for its use. Legendary psychiatry professor Alvin Pouissaint once told me he once traveled to the South to lobby for the repeal of corporal punishment, only to find that Black educators and leaders were some of its most vocal proponents. One of the school board members who once adamantly advocated for corporal punishment in Mississippi was also a prominent pastor in the Black church. He was one of the many people I'd studied who used the Bible to justify their pro corporal punishment stance Prof. Ward: I think one of the issues here, which relates to what we're talking about in terms of Black religious leaders, is there's an issue here of a kind of sovereignty where local community figures in a context of generally diminished power, economic power, political power, are holding on to a form of power that they do have, which is in the home, through the church, and saying, look, don't, let this, you know, social research fool you. And don't listen to these people who aren't from here and don't know our ways and aren't part of our church. We know what works, we've been whipped and we're fine, and listen to me, and I think there is a fair amount of, you know, manipulation on this issue that is about really about power. About holding on to power, holding onto power in community context, but also asserting power, as you mentioned, in the context of the home. In a society where, you know, there is so much humiliation and alienation, and and refusal of influence on things like, policy and practice and so forth. We commemorated Doctor Martin Luther King Junior, and I was part of an event at my university where we specifically focused on his theme - beloved community. And, our conversation is making me think about, you know, some of the basic, you know, fundamental, tenets of this concept of beloved community, which include that we are stuck in a society marked by, you know, a chain of violence, you know, where we're just in this situation where violence is seemingly a constant. It's almost how we communicate. He talked about how our society is organized by fear and resentment and that fear, you know, the politics of fear and resentment... We for good reason often in that in that context, think about, you know, white reactionary politics. But but our conversation today is also about how fear and resentment contribute to other communities and, and their politics and that are, that are part of this larger chain of violence. If we're ever going to realize this idea of a beloved community, you know, that is a community organized by mutual understanding and universal goodwill. And King, King stressed that to get there, we'd have to reckon with these realities of how our politics of difference breed violence, breed fear and resentment. We'd have to get to a place of mutual understanding and goodwill and, and, you know, for example, to see our to see how, we have common interests in an issue like corporal punishment, whether it affects us directly or not, we have interest in creating a society where we aren't, reifying a culture of violence starting in the high chair, or assuming that there is also going to be an electric chair. How do we get to that place where we collectively disavow, violence as a means of social organization? Lee: Geoff Ward, thank you so much. This has been powerful. And we'll keep the dialog going. But thank you for the wonderful work that you're doing. Fabulous. Keep up the good work. Prof. Ward: Thank you. Lee, it's great to talk to you again. Lee: All right, brother.For years, I had an inner voice that told me, "My parents hate me." So much around us in America, from Black comedians who entertain and electrify crowds with their jokes about beating Black kids, tells us that there is often great contempt for Black children – that they hold the lowest standing in society and therefore should be violently punished with impunity. It takes a countercultural, conscious Black parent to see that every Black child deserves life, liberty, happiness, and positive reinforcement every day.These interviews helped me understand that the first step towards breaking this toxic belief—that violence with Black children is a necessity—is recognizing that they possess bodily integrity and innate intelligence and are neither superhuman nor subhuman, even if the broader society doesn't always see them in that light. We must be careful about internalizing the historical belief that Black children are built differently than white children and can endure more pain. The reams of science proving that corporal punishment has harmful long-term effects apply to them too. I believe that my parents and others unconsciously internalized these classically American beliefs about Black children. We have experienced every facet of America, from its deepest injustices to its greatest achievements. Because of that, it is easy to embrace the prevailing philosophies of this country that we played a heavy hand in building—we are deeply interwoven with its history and its belief system. But those who continue to advocate violence against Black children in homes and schools must reject those racist beliefs and instead embrace a new paradigm that sees and nurtures the full potential and worth of our children.There's a gospel song that says, “He saw the best in me when everyone else around could only see the worst in me.” We need more Black parents and communities to take the lead in seeing the best in our children. I hope that, armed with information about the generational and ongoing cycle of governmentally codified violence against our children, combined with the ever-evolving neuroscience showing that even the anticipation of being beaten can trigger the brain in ways that lead to anxiety in adulthood, more parents—Black and of all races—and school administrators will make a conscious decision to retire the hand, tree branch, belt, and wooden boards of the slavery and Jim Crow eras. We need to breathe life and affirmation into all children, ensuring they grow up with the support and validation they need to thrive, both at home and in society.If corporal punishment was designed to protect Black children, did it really help when it came to growing up in a predominantly white neighborhood? Black kids and the American Dream - that's the next episode of What Happened In Alabama…CREDITSWhat Happened In Alabama is a production of American Public Media. It's written, produced and hosted by me, Lee Hawkins.Our executive producer is Erica Kraus. Our senior producer is Kyana Moghadam.Our story editor is Martina Abrahams Ilunga. Our lead writer is Jessica Kariisa.Our producers are Marcel Malekebu and Jessica Kariisa. This episode was sound designed and mixed by Marcel Malekebu. Our technical director is Derek Ramirez. Our soundtrack was composed by Ronen Lando. Our fact checker is Erika Janik.And Nick Ryan is our director of operations.Special thanks to the O'Brien Fellowship for Public Service Journalism at Marquette University; Dave Umhoefer, John Leuzzi, Andrew Amouzou and Ziyang Fu. And also thanks to our producer in Alabama, Cody Short. The executives in charge at APM are Joanne Griffith and Chandra Kavati.You can follow us on our website, whathappenedinalabama.org or on Instagram at APM Studios.Thank you for listening.

Christianity, for too many people today, means “saving souls for Jesus” while often despising those same souls until they have the decency and good sense to become more like you. But start living like Jesus—challenging the systems that keep only a handful fat and happy, hanging out with people who've been forced to live in the shadows to avoid being trampled by the religious folks who otherwise have contempt for them—and the wrath of the self-righteous will fall on you like Bull Connor's billy club. Subscribe to us on iTunes! Sermon text: web | doc

Cette semaine dans Du crime à mes oreilles, Alex et Philippe sont réunis pour une nouvelle Ballades meurtrières!Dans cet épisode, Alex et Philippe vous parlent de la chanson Racists de la formation Anti-Flag! Alex vous parlera des lois Jim Crow et Philippe se penchera sur Bull Connor!Bonne écoute! Liens :dubruitamesoreilles.comDiscord :https://discord.gg/JXnfFqVG

Mary Bush, Freeman Hrabowski, and Condoleezza Rice grew up and were classmates together in segregated Birmingham, Alabama, in the late 1950s and early '60s. We reunited them for a conversation in Birmingham's Westminster Presbyterian Church, where Rice's father was pastor during that period. The three lifelong friends recount what life was like for Blacks in Jim Crow Alabama and the deep bonds that formed in the Black community at the time in order to support one another and to give the children a good education. They also recall the events they saw—and in some cases participated in—during the spring, summer, and fall of 1963, when Birmingham was racked with racial violence, witnessed marches and protests led by Dr. Martin Luther King, and was shocked by the bombing of the 16th Street Baptist Church. The latter event resulted in the deaths of four little girls, whom all three knew. The show concludes with a visit to a statue of Martin Luther King Jr. erected in Kelly Ingram Park—where in 1963 Birmingham's commissioner for public safety Bull Connor ordered that fire hoses and attack dogs be used on protestors. There, Condoleezza Rice discusses Dr. King's legacy and his impact on her life.

In a lesser-known part of his March on Washington speech, Martin Luther King Jr. proclaimed, “We can never be satisfied as long as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality.” Many people, upon hearing this, might assume that King was simply referring to the violence wreaked by the police department in Birmingham, Alabama, and its commissioner, Bull Connor, during the Southern Christian Leadership Conference's desegregation campaign. But King understood that police brutality like segregation wasn't just a Southern problem. Sixty years later police brutality and racial injustice are still a problem in the black community, join the co-host Chiefs on Thursday at 6 PM CST. For a Martin Luther King Jr. Special podcast with their guests Garland Pruitt Oklahoma City Chapter President with the NAACP and Larry Hicks with the Little Rock, Arkansas NAACP. They discuss Reflections on MLK's fight to stop police brutality and racial injustice in the United States. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/youandthelaw/support

If you are anything like me, you like to think of the Civil Rights movement of the 1950s & 60s as a movement that helped our country achieve, maybe not the entire dream that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. described, but at least something that was closer to that dream, something that showed we were on the right path toward fulfilling that dream. After all, didn't the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act get passed and implemented by the government? Haven't we seen great strides in the implementation of fair housing and lending? Hasn't segregation been relegated to the dark corners of our past? Unfortunately, this is a mythology that many of us would like to hold on to. The assassination of Dr. King in 1968 should have been enough to disabuse us of that mythology. And yet that mythology persists. In more recent years, it has been perforated and torn time and again by the abuse and murder of Black citizens by police and white supremecists: Rodney King, Trayvon Martin, Philando Castille, Breonna Taylor, George Floyd, Walter Scott, Eric Garner, Michael Brown, Oscar Grant, Tamir Rice and so many more.These names represent our collective failure to realize King's dream of justice, equality and equity. Perhaps, if nothing else, these names help those of us in the white community to understand just how frayed and fractured that mythology of progress really is. And there is no place that I can think of that reveals the stark contrast between our hopes and their unfulfilled promise than the city of Birmingham, Alabama.  My guest today is Clay Cornelius, the owner and guide of Red Clay Tours in Birmingham, AL. How do we get to know cities that we visit? How do we get the lay of the land and find out what really happened there? Of course, we can visit monuments and historical sites, but that doesn't begin to fill in the canvas of a city. Clay is the sort of guide that will fill in that canvas with stories and historical detail that you can't get anywhere else. And that detail is especially important for a city as famous and infamous as Birmingham, Alabama. Birmingham, as we know, played a huge role in the era of the civil rights struggle. It was the place of confrontation with Bull Connor, of tragedy with the bombing of the 16th Street Baptist Church and the deaths of four Black children. It was where Dr. King was jailed and wrote one of his most extraordinary writings, Letter from a Birmingham Jail. As I mentioned on a previous episode, I was part of a wonderful civil rights pilgrimage with a group from Westminster Presbyterian Church here in Olympia, WA. And Clay was our guide when we were in Birmingham and as you will hear, he is a fount of knowledge about Birmingham and its history.Books Mentioned in this episode:“Carry Me Home” by Diane McWhorter  “But for Birmingham: The Local and National Movements in the Civil Rights Struggle” by Glenn Eskew “A More Beautiful and Terrible History” by Jeanne Theoharris

Jen is joined by Pulitzer Prize winning author Diane McWhorter to discuss the civil rights movement in the South that arose to defeat the fascistic alliance between industrialists, the wealthy, and their enforcers in the Klan.  They lay out how Black activists, labor unions, and their allies put aside their differences to overcome them and make civil rights a national issue.  During the conversation, they look at the internal dynamics of the civil rights movement, the role of Martin Luther King Jr., and the nefarious actions of government, Bull Connor, and law enforcement.  Perhaps most importantly, what will it take to honor and advance the legacy of those who fought so hard for freedom and equality? This Week's Guest: Diane McWhorter: Website | Pulitzer.org | Author Get More From Jennifer Rubin: Twitter | WaPo | Author of “Resistance: How Women Saved Democracy From Donald Trump”

“Honesty and love”…foundational words that came to me during my junior year in college in 1963 and '64.  Years marked by JFK's assassination… by George Wallace declaring “segregation forever”… by the reawakening of the women's movement (Betty Friedan)…by MLK's arrest in Birmingham –“Parading without a permit”…  by the cruel tactics of Bull Connor… by the Supreme Court ruled that state mandated Bible reading in schools was unconstitutional….by an attack on American journalists in South Vietnam…by our entrance into the war in Viet Nam after North Vietnamese torpedo boats attacked a US destroyer ship in the Gulf of Tonkin…  by MLK's “I have a dream” speech and his letter from the Birmingham Jail, by the bombing at 16th St. Baptist Church in Birmingham killing four young children, by a mock election to protest systematic disenfranchisement of blacks in Mississippi, by the killing Lee Harvey Oswald by Jack Ruby, …by Nelson Mandela sentenced to life in prison….by President Johnson signing the Civil Rights Act.  A tumultuous both deeply troubling and hope-filled time in so many ways, affecting so many lives… “Honesty and love”…   One day in my sophomore year while working in the chemistry lab (pursuing a major in chemistry), it came to me that this was not to be my profession.  My grades were fine, though calculus was a struggle.  But my really difficult, deeper struggle was about discerning what God was calling me to be and do with my life.  My father, grandfather, and great grandfather were all pastors.  I was determined not just to follow in their footsteps. This past week my brother, Jim, and I drove to Dubuque, Iowa to visit folks at Wartburg Seminary where my dad, grandpa, and great grandpa had all studied to become pastors.   Jim and I, together with Phylis and Jim's wife, Livvy, were supporting a new program intended to equip men and women especially in Latinx faith communities to become pastors through study and practice in their home place, honoring each person's learning pace and style (rather than having to move themselves and their families to the seminary, to try to conform to a more traditional educational model).  We've been giving gifts for this new initiative to honor the memory of our forebears who set high bars for commitment and diligence and often, creativity in their ministries.  We wanted to see how this new way of forming leaders for the mission of the church was progressing.   At 20+ years old in those early ‘60's, I couldn't see myself measuring up to the gifts and contributions of my forebears.  But now realizing that being a chemist was probably not the best path for my future, I started to pray:  Okay, God, I haven't experienced a clear call from you to follow in my family's footsteps, but [in the words of the anthem the choir sang last Sunday] I'll take “one step” toward becoming a pastor.  I'll continue to pursue a degree in chemistry (just in case) but also take classes like Greek and world religions to prepare for seminary.   At least bless me, God, by clearly closing the door to this path if this is not what you want for me to be and do.    And now some 60 years later, while more than once I have struggled with doubts and feelings of inadequacy for this calling, I realize that God never shut the door.  To paraphrase the words of the psalmist, God heard me.  God did not reject my prayer.  God did not withhold unfailing love for me.  God did not leave me alone.  And in the language of the Gospel, Jesus did not leave me orphaned.  I was never not God's child, never not a member of God's family, never not with Jesus and the Holy Spirit at my side Surely the times we live in now are no less tumultuous than in 1963.  All I knew then and more fully know now was that, is that, honesty and love are all that matters.  Now I can say more confidently from whence that honesty and love comes.  Jesus said, “If you love me, you will keep my commandments.  And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate, to be with you forever.  This is the Spirit of truth [honesty]…I will not leave you orphaned; I am coming to you…because I live, you also will live.” This is the gospel, the good news I proclaim to you this morning.  In what ever ways you struggle, in what ever ways you worry about what's happening in our world, however befuddled and discouraged you may be by the plethora of lies and hate, Jesus, risen from the dead, asks only that we love him and that we love one another.   Jesus, risen from the dead, promises to plant in our hearts the Spirit of truth.  Through this Holy Spirit Jesus will never not walk with us, never not stand up with us and for us.  Then, living lives of God-given honesty and love, whether as a chemist or a pastor, a teacher or a line worker, whether single or married, whether working full time or semi-retired, whether a mother or father, daughter or son, we can live boldly and humbly and reverently and gently and graciously in this world too often filled with broken promises, with fear, harshness and ill will. For to us, through Jesus' suffering and death and resurrection, is given the Spirit of truth and of love.  One day we will all be judged by this One who died for us, who daily forgives all our sins, forgives all our deceptions, forgives all our failures to love as we ought.  We will be judged by the One who raises us up every day to try again to be honest and loving. On that day that One who judges us will also stand with us and for us. This judge is the One who heard our cries, listened to our prayers, and never, never stopped loving us. Amen.

Thank you for listening to Will Wright Catholic. This post is public so feel free to share it.IntroductionWith Martin Luther King day approaching, it struck me that a great number of Americans have no idea who Martin Luther King Jr. was or what he did. They are barely familiar with his most famous speech: “I Have a Dream.” And each third Monday of January, most of us take the day off work for the federal holiday, but we do not take time to appreciate the contributions of this great man. So, in a small way, I would like to respond to that vacancy of attention. This short article will look at the life of Dr. King and his role in the Civil Rights Movement. There are many things that I have had to leave out for time's sake. But may this serve as a primer for further study. I believe that we still have more to learn from Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.Who was Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.?Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was born Michael King Jr. on January 15, 1929 in Atlanta, GA. He was an American Baptist minister and one of the foremost leaders of the Civil Rights Movement of the late 1950s and the 1960s. As an African American, Dr. King fought for the rights of people of color through nonviolence and civil disobedience. In this regard, he had been inspired both by our Lord Jesus Christ and the example of Mahatma Gandhi. As a Baptist minister, King was steeped in the written word of God. As a young man, he earned a Bachelor of Divinity degree in 1951 from Crozer Theological Seminary in Upland, Pennsylvania. He then went on to pursue doctoral studies in systematic theology at Boston University. He received his Ph.D. degree on June 5, 1955. His dissertation was entitled: A Comparison of the Conceptions of God in the Thinking of Paul Tillich and Henry Nelson Wieman. Before completing his studies, he married Coretta Scott on June 18, 1953 and they became the parents of four children. King was made pastor of the Dexter Avenue Baptist Church in Montgomery, Alabama at the age of 25 in 1954. In December 1959, he moved back to his home city of Atlanta and served as co-pastor of Ebenezer Baptist Church alongside his father, until his death. Sadly, Martin Luther King Jr. was shot and killed while staying at a motel in Memphis, Tennessee on April 4, 1968. The Civil Rights MovementThe Civil Rights Movement began in large measure with the Supreme Court Case Brown v Board of Education in 1954. This ruled that racial segregation in public schools was unconstitutional. This overturned the horrendous Plessy v Ferguson (1896) case which allowed Jim Crow laws that mandated separate public facilities for whites and blacks. Beginning with schools, desegregation quickly spread to other public facilities as well. On December 1, 1955, African American Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on a public bus to a white passenger. She was arrested and a sustained bus boycott in Montgomery, Alabama began. The protest began on December 5 with the young local preacher, Martin Luther King, Jr. leading - the boycott continued for more than a year. The Supreme Court upheld a lower court's ruling that segregated seating was unconstitutional.In 1957 the Little Rock Nine attempted to attend the central high school whose population had been entirely white. It took an escort of U.S. soldiers to allow these young men to attend school. The Greensboro Four, in 1960, took part in a sit-in at the all-white lunch counter at a F.W. Woolworth department store. The sit-in grew and replacements were brought in to replace those taken off to jail. On November 14, 1960, six-year-old Ruby Bridges was escorted to her first day at the previously all-white William Frantz Elementary school in New Orleans by four armed federal marshals. Many parents marched in to remove their children from the school to protest desegregation. She continued going to school, being escorted, and endured threats. Her teacher, Barbara Henry, continued to teach her (alone in the classroom).Beginning on May 4, 1961, a group of seven African American and six whites boarded two buses bound for New Orleans. Along the way, the riders tested the Supreme Court ruling of Boynton v Virginia (1960) which extended an earlier ruling banning segregated interstate bus travel to include bus terminals and restrooms. In South Carolina, the bus had a tire slashed, it was firebombed, and the Freedom Riders were beaten. A second group of 10 replaced them until they were arrested or beaten, then another group would take their place. On May 29, U.S. Attorney general Robert F. Kennedy ordered the Interstate Commerce Commission to enforce bans on segregation more strictly. This took effect in September 1961.The Birmingham DemonstrationsThe Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) and Martin Luther King, Jr. launched a campaign in Birmingham, AL to undermine the city's system of racial segregation. The campaign included sit-ins, economic boycotts, mass protests, and marches on City Hall. The demonstrations faced challenges: indifferent African Americans, adversarial white and black leaders, and a hostile commissioner of public safety - Eugene “Bull” Connor. Dr. King was arrested on April 12 for violating an anti-protest injunction and he was placed in solitary confinement. The demonstrations continued for a month, then the Children's Crusade was launched. On May 2, 1963, school-aged volunteers skipped school and began to march - the local jails were quickly filled. Bull Connor ordered the police and fire department to set high-pressure water hoses and attack dogs on the youth.The violent tactics on peaceful demonstrators caused outrage locally and gained national media attention.President John F. Kennedy proposed a civil rights bill on June 11. The Birmingham campaign was eventually negotiated to an agreement locally but tensions were high. A bomb on September 15 at 16th Street Baptist Church killed four African American girls and injured others. The country was in the midst of the war in Vietnam while determining at home what sort of nation we might be.The 1963 March on WashingtonOn August 28, the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom took place to protest civil rights abuses and employment discrimination. A crowd of 250,000 people peacefully gathered on the National Mall in Washington, D.C. to listen to speeches, most notably by Martin Luther King, Jr. This is where Dr. King delivered his “I Have a Dream Speech.”The Civil Rights Act of 1964On July 2, 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act into law - a stronger version of legislation that President Kennedy proposed before his assassination. The act authorized the federal government to prevent racial discrimination in employment, voting, and the use of public facilities.1965: Assassination of Malcolm XOn February 21, 1965, Malcolm X was assassinated while lecturing at the Audubon Ballroom in Harlem, NY. He was a brilliant speaker and demanded that the civil rights movement move beyond civil rights to human rights. He thought that the solution to racial problems was in orthodox Islam. His ideas contributed to the development of the black nationalist ideology and the Black Power movement. 1965: Selma-Montgomery MarchOn March 7, 1965, Dr. King organized a march from Selma, AL to Montgomery, AL, to call for a federal voting rights law that provided legal support for disenfranchised African Americans in the South. State troopers sent marchers back with violence and tear gas; television cameras recorded the incident. On March 9, King tried again - more than 2,000 marchers encountered a barricade of state troopers at Pettus Bridge. King had his followers kneel in prayer and then they unexpectedly turned back. President Johnson introduced voting rights legislation on March 15, then on March 21, King once again set out from Selma. This time, Alabama National Guardsmen, federal marshals, and FBI agents assisted and King arrived in Montgomery on March 25. The Voting Rights Act was signed into law on August 6. This law suspended literacy tests, provided for federal approval of proposed changes to voting laws or procedures, and directed the attorney general of the U.S. to challenge the use of poll taxes for state and local elections.1965: Watts RiotsSeries of violent confrontations between the city police and residence of Watts and other black neighborhoods in L.A. - beginning on August 11, 1965. A white police officer arrested an African American man, Marquette Frye, on suspicion of driving while intoxicated - he likely resisted arrest and the police possibly used excessive force. Violence, fires, and looting broke out over the next six days. The result was 34 deaths, 1,000 injuries, and $40 million in property damage. The McCone Commission later investigated the cause of the riots and concluded that they were the result of economic challenges including poor housing, schools, and job prospects.1966: Black Panther Party FoundedAfter Malcom X was assassinated, Huey P. Newton and Bobby Seale founded the Black Panther Party in Oakland, CA to protect black neighborhoods from what they saw as police brutality. The group launched community programs providing tuberculosis testing, legal aid, transportation assistance, and free shoes. They believed that civil rights reforms did not do enough. The Black Panther Party was socialist and, therefore, the target of the F.B.I.'s counterintelligence program - they were accused of being a communist organization and an enemy of the U.S. government. In December 1969, police tried to annihilate the group at their Southern California headquarters and in Illinois. The Party's operations continued, less actively, into the 1970s.1967: Loving v VirginiaOn June 12, 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court declared the Virginia statutes prohibiting interracial marriage unconstitutional. Richard Loving, a white man, and Mildred Jeter, who was mixed black and Native American, left Virginia to be married and then return to the state (this was against the law). Their one year prison sentence was suspended on the condition that they leave Virginia and not return for at least 25 years. They filed their suit in 1963 and it took four years to get to the Supreme Court - their conviction was reversed. Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote for a unanimous court that freedom to marry was a basic civil right. This ruling invalidated laws against interracial marriage in Virginia and 15 other states. 1967: Detroit RiotSeries of violent confrontations between African American neighborhoods and police beginning on July 23, 1967 after a raid at an illegal drinking club - 82 African Americans, and others, were arrested. Nearby residents protested and began to vandalize property, loot businesses, and start fires for five days. Police set up blockades but the violence spread - result was 43 deaths, hundreds of injuries, more than 7,000 arrests, and 1,000 burned buildings. President Johnson appointed the National Advisory Committee on Civil Disorders - they concluded that racism, discrimination, and poverty were some of the causes of the violence.1968: Assassination of Martin Luther King Jr.While standing on the second-floor balcony of the Lorraine Motel in Memphis, TN, Martin Luther King, Jr. was killed by a sniper - April 4, 1968. He was staying at the hotel after leading a nonviolent demonstration in support of striking sanitation workers. His murder set off riots in hundreds of cities across the country. Congress passed the Fair Housing act in King's honor on April 11. The Fair Housing Act made it unlawful for sellers, landlords, and financial institutions to refuse to rent, sell, or provide financing based on factors other than an individual's finances. The Civil Rights Movement, after King's death, seemed to be shifting away from the nonviolent tactics and interracial cooperation that had brought about a number of policy changes. Nonetheless, his legacy remains.What is Martin Luther King Jr.'s Legacy?The legacy of Martin Luther King Jr. focuses on his ideas on nonviolence, civil disobedience, and peaceful noncooperation. Dr. King had his faults: plagiarism and adultery were accusations levied against him with considerable evidence. But all of us fall short of the glory of God. What I am concerned about is his impact on the country. What was the legacy of his ideas and actions?Two lines, in particular, of Dr. King's fantastic “I Have a Dream Speech” in Washington, D.C. are more than noteworthy. In a portion of the speech, which seemed to be ad-libbed rather than scripted, Dr. King said, “I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.” This, I think, reveals the heart of the man. Dr. King marched hand in hand with those of any race and religion. Here he is invoking the long past of American slavery which still haunted the nation under the guise of Jim Crow. Where some, like Malcolm X, were threatening or perpetrating violence, Dr. King was speaking of brotherhood and sharing a common meal. Nothing could be more Christian than this. Second, he said the beautiful words that ought to echo down the halls of humanity until we come to our final reward. He says, “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” Racism is a scourge from the depths of hell. To judge another based on their skin color is reprehensible. I would be remiss to say that this extends also to those progressives today who insist on advancing identity and race politics. Dr. King would certainly be opposed to such racist nonsense. In his Letter from the Birmingham Jail, written during his incarceration, he begins by outlining the four steps to nonviolent campaign: “1) collection of the facts to determine whether injustices are alive; 2) negotiation; 3) self-purification [note: how often is this forgotten!]; and 4) direct action.” He saw the heinous reality of the treatment of blacks, especially in the South. And he answered with measured, reasonable action. Much of the rest of the letter then builds off of these four steps. However, Dr. King challenges us, even decades later, in his letter. He speaks of those who are a stumbling block to justice. He mentions, of course, the Ku Klux Klan but then lambasts the “white moderate who is more devoted to ‘order' than to justice.” He goes on to say, “Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.” The words of Dr. King would have certainly ruffled feathers back then, but I am certain that many conservatives today would bristle at hearing this challenge. Yet, what Dr. King is saying what Jesus says to us: “Because you are lukewarm, neither hot nor cold, I will spew you from My mouth.” We have to choose a side. There can be no moderation when it comes to toleration of the sin of true racism. This brings us back to his legacy. We must act when there is injustice. But how should we act? Should we act out with rioting and violence? Certainly, Dr. King would bellow a resounding “no!” Instead, we are to gather the facts, negotiate, allow God to purify our own hearts, and then act directly. May we have the strength, in God's grace, to do so whenever we are convicted by justice to do so.Thanks for reading Will Wright Catholic! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit willwrightcatholic.substack.com

Shelia P. Moses has a brand new book, this time about a young Black boy who joins the Civil Rights Movement in Birmingham, Alabama in 1963. She tells Joe Madison about the real history you will find in "We Were The Fire."Buy the book today: https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/678399/we-were-the-fire-by-shelia-p-moses/

This episode features Chapter 3 “Bull Connors Birmingham” of MLKs, seminal 1964 book, Why We Can't Wait, as read by Bill McKinney. Kings book outlines why a revolution was necessary and could not wait as well as how he believed it should look. Almost 60 years later we still face the shortcomings of the promised freedom of Emancipation and the need to continue to not wait patiently for change to occur. “In Connor's Birmingham, the silent password was fear. It was a fear not only on the part of the black oppressed, but also in the hearts of the white oppressors. Guilt was a part of their fear. There was also the dread of change, that all too prevalent fear which hounds those whose attitudes have been hardened by the long winter of reaction. Many were apprehensive of social ostracism. Certainly Birmingham had its white moderates who disapproved of Bull Connor's tactics. Certainly Birmingham had its decent white citizens who privately deplored the maltreatment of Negroes. But they remained publicly silent. It was a silence born offear—fear of social, political and economic reprisals. The ultimate tragedy of Birmingham was not the brutality of the bad people, but the silence of the good people.”

Mom Dukes is the MVP Welcome to The Side Jawn, the place where we talk about sports, culture and life. I am your host Dennis Holmes along side of my co-host Sharon the Chocolate Girrrrrrrrrrrrrrl! Say it right Dennis! Sharon says good morning, says a bit and asks how Dennis is doing/back to Dennis. Dennis: Thank you for joining us this morning. Got a great show for you today. But first we've got some headlines we're gonna touch on. What's going on Sharon Well, back on 5/02/63 more than 700 Black children peacefully protested racial segregation in Birmingham, Alabama, as part of the Children's Crusade launched by MLK Jr and SCLC, beginning a movement that sparked widely-publicized police brutality that shocked the nation and spurred major civil rights advances.Though hundreds were assaulted, arrested, and transported to jail in school buses and paddy wagons, the children refused to relent their peaceful demonstration.The next day the policy commish Bull Connor ordered officers to spray them with fire hoses, hit them with batons and turn policy dogs on them. The US Department of Justice got involved. Finally by 5/10/22, Birmingham was desegregated. But the school districk announced the kids would be suspended or expelled. It took federal court to reverse that. Well 5/4 this week marked the 57th anniversary of Willie Mays breaking the home run record with his 512th home run. He was playing for the San Francisco Giants at the time (boo). One of the greatest to ever do it, Willie Mays. Here recently did you hear about JJ Reddick shutting down Mad Dog on First Take? Beautiful. Sent the clown back to the circus. Dennis We're going to do a tribute to moms. Talk about our moms. Something wonderful about them, something unusual about them, what kind of personality, are they famous for something. Talk about something you wondered about your mom when you were little and it makes sense now that you're an adult. TV Moms You sent Movie Moms You sent Sports Moms You sent Question: who sits in the front seat - mom or wife/girlfriend? LOL You sent Favorite Mama song You sent Fighting - yo mama! Have you ever? Dennis - ask Sharon for final thoughts Sharon gives thoughts, sends back to Dennis to close out. --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/dennis-holmes/support

Our guest this week is longtime Barrelhouse poetry editor Dan Brady, whose most recent book, Subtexts, uses some interesting constraints to create erasures and layerings of language. His pick for us was another book of poems created through an innovative process: White Bull, by Elizabeth Hughey. The poems in Hughey's book are all assembled from the words of Bull Connor, Birmingham, Alabama's famous segregationist public safety commissioner. If you like the podcast, and would like more of it in your life, you can subscribe to our Patreon--$5 gets you access to our entire catalog of bonus episodes, plus two new bonus episodes every month: https://www.patreon.com/BookFight  

In her new book of poetry, "White Bull," Elizabeth Hughey turns to an unlikely source: the language of notorious Birmingham police commissioner Eugene "Bull" Connor. Words are just building blocks. Tools. The same common language was used by Martin Luther King Jr. to liberate people as was used by Connor to enforce segregation and inspire violence. For a decade, Hughey sifted through his speeches, his private letters, even his receipts, to create a database of text from which she built something radically different. Turning the words of hatred into a language of poetry. This week on the Reckon Interview, she discusses what inspired her to take on this project and what she hopes readers gain from it. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. - Letter From Birmingham Jail - Episode 3 - The Radiant Stars Of Love And Brotherhood   I'm Christy Shriver and we're here to discuss books that have changed the world and have changed us.    And I am Garry Shriver, and this is the How to Love Lit Podcast.  This is our third episode in this series discussing Dr. King's leadership in the Civil Rights Movement most specifically in his iconic and historically important Letter From Birmingham Jail.  Next episode, we will extend our discussion of King to the origins of his story.  In Dr. King's speech to American from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial he said this,    In a sense we have come to our Nation's Capital to cash a check. When the architects of our great republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir.  This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the inalienable rights of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  This promissory note was again revisited during the days of Abraham Lincoln with the Emancipation Proclamation and then the Gettysburg address in 1863.  Next week, we will discuss this great address which Dr. King recalls occurred 100 years before his days in that Birmingham jail.       As we look back through the lens of history, we can see that lot happened very quickly after those 8 days in the Birmingham jail until Dr. King would make those very remarks on the steps of the Lincoln memorial.  It was in August of that summer that he would stand, “in the symbolic shadow” to use his words, of president Lincoln and open the eyes of the millions watching the address that he had a dream- a dream that would become the dream of the millions to hear or read his words. This same year would also propel him in December to be recognized most significantly across the Atlantic in Oslo, Norway.  On Dec. 4, 1964, Dr. King stood in front of the largest crowds to ever jam into the festival Hall of Oslo University.  Hundreds of students who could not get into the hall waited outside shouting “Freedom Now!” And “We Shall Overcome” as they watched him arrived with his wife Coretta to receive the Nobel Peace Prize.  As he began his acceptance speech, something you can still watch today if you go to the Nobel Prize website, he can be heard audibly choking up as he uttered the words “the tortuous road which has led from Montgomery, Alabama to Oslo.       It WAS tortuous- it led through, among other places- Atlanta, Georgia; Selma and Birmingham, Alabama.  Today we will finish reading paragraphs 27-50, or the second half of the letter, but before we do, we need to tell the story of the amazing events that were to happen after Dr. King gets out of jail.  Remember, after 8 days both Rev. Abernathy and Dr. King wee bailed out.  Immediately after being released, Dr. King assembled his team and made the extremely controversial decision to enlist even more teenagers and children- up to this point they had included students, but now they were going to recruit even more.  Of course, this caused protests from every corner of the political spectrum.  To some it seemed cruel and unnecessary.  Many, both white as well as African-American accused King of “using” children.  In his book, Why We can't Wait, King  recalls one incident of a child, eight years old, who marched alongside his mother.  A policeman looked down at the child and asked him, mockingly, “What do you want?” to which the child unable to even pronounce the letter r responded, “F-ee-dom”.  If this moment wasn't for the future- for the children, from Dr. King's perspective- then what was even the point.  The day would be called D-Day, of course borrowing the language used by the fathers of the movement from their days in World War 2 not even twenty years before.    Except, instead of descending on the banks of Normandy, D-Day in this case meant “ditch” day- as in Ditch School day.  The date would be May 2.  The numbers vary from source to source, but around 4000 children did just that.  They ditched school, demonstrated and over a fourth of them, or around 1000, ended up in jail.     Yes, and they next day more joined their ranks.  It wasn't long before 2500 children were jailed.  These students would demonstrate in schools.  They walked defiantly into  libraries they were not legally allowed to enter and sat in them.  They marched without a permit, and they also got arrested.   Per Connor's direct orders, they were hosed down with massive fire hoses.  It got ridiculous in scope.  Students were singing “Freedom” as the force of the water knocked them to the ground.  The police literally rented school buses to haul the children to jail.  But undeterred, the non-violent campaign continued until it worked. On May 4, there were newspapers all over the country and even across the world with pictures of men and children laying on the ground and policemen bending over them with clubs.       Oh, and it was going to get worse. Bull Connor very famously ordered out police dogs along with the fire hoses to attack the marchers.  Bull Connor pressed and pressed until even his own police force could not stand to enforce his vicious policies sometimes refusing to turn the waterhoses onto the crowds of marchers.      Bull Connor, along with the world all the way to the Soviet Union could feel the reality that the days of the segregated world were over.  By May 8, a moratorium had been issued in Birmingham. Birmingham would begin the process of de-segregation.  The more the leadership of Birmingham submitted to the “tension”- to use the word King uses in his letter, and were willing to negotiate, the more dangerous things got for Dr. King and the other leaders.  A bomb was planted near the Gaston Motel  the day after the integration plan was announced.  This motel had been the center of operations for Project C as well as where Dr. King was staying.  His brother's home the Rev. A.D. King was bombed, but the determination of the African American community in Birmingham only increased.  Segregation was dying; everyone knew this.  The question was, what kind of damage would be caused on its way out the door.      Well, we know the answer to that question.  On September 15, 1963, five young girls were in the basement of the church before Sunday morning services excitedly talking about Youth Day because they were going to be a part of the services.  A bomb went off.  Addie Mae Collins, Denise McNair, Carole Robertson and Cynthia Wesley were killed.  Addie's sister, Sarah survived but lost her right eye.  Dr. King would send a telegram to Governor Wallace stating and I quote, “The blood of our little children is on your hands.”  It would not be until 2002 that the last of the four bombers would be convicted for his part in this brutal murder.    By the time of the September bombings, Dr. King's letter had circulated across the country.  The march on Washington had already occurred on August 28 and astounded the world with the sheer volume of people who showed up to hear Dr. King speak.  Dr. King looked out across that crowd, and as he recalls, knew the world was changing because he was not looking at only African-American faces.  There were faces of every color God has created.  He was looking at American faces.  With Abraham Lincoln behind him,  Dr. King spoke to the world of a dream where he envisioned a world where he famously said, and I quote “my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”    It was a vision most of America was willing and ready  to embrace, but those who were to oppose would do so violently to the end.  As we think about the lengths those that opposed him were willing to go, it is more amazing than ever that he insisted on a path of loving his enemies.  It's also amazing that HE is the one who was considered an extremist.  Let's jump back into the letter where we left off last episode.   Let's begin reading paragraphs 27-30.    Read paragraphs 27-30    Remember, he is addressing clergymen who directly accused him of being too extreme.  In these paragraphs he cautions his accusers against calling him extreme.  His path is the middle way and his way is rejected, blood would definitely run in the street.      True, so on the one hand, he will say, I'm definitely the one on moderate path here.  But on the flip side he does want to reiterate, that even if he really were an extremist, that wouldn't really be a bad thing.  Extremism, at times is not only very American, but also Christian.  To support this claim he cites the names of all kinds of American and Christian heroes who had been exactly that in their day-extreme.  Christy, read that famous paragraph 31 full of allusion after allusion to the heroes of Christian and American history.  We will skip paragraphs 32-35 for time's sake, but in those paragraphs, he extends the list of heroes beyond just the past, but into the present moment, citing name after name and honoring the white activist after white activist who not only supported the movement in the South, but had been jailed for it.       These men and women, not the ministers writing him, were on the spiritual and moral high ground.  He then, takes off his hat as historian, and puts back on his hat as a preacher.  With the authority of a doctor in theology who knows his Bible but who is also a doer of the word not just a speaker of it,  he chastises the white minister for their lack of political involvement.   Again this is an area of where many Christians simply do not agree.  Where is the role of the church when it comes to politics.  Many ministers agree that church and state should be totally separate. Dr. King completely disagrees with this view.  Let's read his view on the topic of if a Christian minister should engage in politics.    Paragraphs 37-42    And although Dr. King's perspective is entirely understandable; it's also understandable why many and perhaps the majority of Christian ministers today are extremely hesitant to get involved in politics and in fact take a firm stand that it is not their role to do so- for many reasons, and many reasons that are historical.  What is the role that religion should play in politics?  The American position has always been that church and state are separate.  That God does not have a political party and the church should never tell a person how to vote or engage politically.  In other words, the traditional American position is that an American should be able to be a Christian democrat or a Christian Republican or a Christian socialist or a Christian libertarian.   You can be a Christian and engage in any number of ways politically.    So true, but having said that, and the point Dr. King is harping on is that one's faith should absolutely inform one's politics.  Perhaps the church should not tell you exactly what candidate you should vote for, but for a practicing Christian and a practicing, faith defines morality.   It provides definitions for what is right and wrong, and what is good and evil.  Of course, there is There is always room for disagreement- and there is no end to the different denominations and sects of the respective faiths- but there are also commonalities that ground all Jewish and Christian faiths- and it is to these shared common values that Dr. King points.  On some things, there is no room for disagreement.  Dr. King  reminds these ministers that they share with him the value of human life as given by a Holy God, the nobility of the human soul, and the God-given gift of free choice.  These things are not debated between the African-American and white Christian churches.  The heritage of America itself is grounded on the idea that it is the will of God that all men live in freedom and equality- for King these values are embedded in the Christian gospel.  Let's read his religious argument in direct reference to the church and its posture in the face of politics.  That would be paragraphs 42-44.    Paragraphs 42-44    His hope IS the church- that is clear- it's not in the state- I love that he finishes- the grand finale- so to speak- outraged by the outlandish idea that in the face of so much unsolicited police violence, the clergyman actually commended Bull Connor's police force.  Let's read paragraphs 45-46    Paragraphs 45-46    I find it interesting here that he absolutely contradicts the moral relativism of many political leaders and the natural order of politicians as exposed to the world by Nicolo Machiavelli in the 15th century.  Machiavelli suggested that in politics morality is relative; that the ends justifies the means.  Every student of political science studies this in their first political science class.    Heck, most high level high school students will study the same thing either in history or English class.      And yet, Dr. King takes Machiavelli to task.  He says to use moral means for immoral ends is wrong.   He also quotes TS Eliot by saying to do the right deed for the wrong reason is treason.  Which by the way, people are always using that quote of Eliot's, where does it come from.    It comes from Murder in the Cathedral which is a play about the assassination of Archbishop Thomas Becket ironically.      The final paragraphs of his letter look to the future.  He speaks of James Meredith.  Garry, before we read these final paragraphs, tell us who is that is?    In the fall of 1962, the year before the Birmingham marches, James Meredith tried to enroll in the University of Mississippi.  Around here we call it “ole Miss”.  It's just an hour south of Memphis.  James Meredith was not a teenager.  He had served honorably in the air force in Japan.  He was married.  Because of his admission, riots broke out.  Hundreds were wounded, two died.  Eventually 31,000 national guardsmen were called out to enforce the order that Meredith be admitted into the university.   The armed forces would occupy university town of Oxford for ten months.  The end of the story for Meredith is good.  He eventually graduated from Columbia University with a law degree and enjoyed an important law career.  But at the time of this letter, again, that future was not certain.  Dr. King was a visionary, and we see that at the end of this letter, and we will see it again in the Dream speech.  He could see an integrated world, and through the power of his voice, his will and his rhetoric, so can the rest of us.  Christy, let's read to the end.    Paragraphs 47-50    Dr. King's righteous indignation surfaces here at the end.  We can see his disappointment, but we can also see that he does not despair.  And what is more miraculous, he still believes in forgiveness.  The final sentence of this letter speaks of the radiant stars of love and brotherhood.      The Civil Rights Act of 1964 would be one year away.  It was the nation's premier civil rights legislation. The Act outlawed discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.  It required equal access to public places and employment, and enforced desegregation of schools and guaranteed the right to vote.    Of course,  it did not end discrimination.  Dr. King knew that only love and forgiveness could do that, but it did open the door to further progress.      And may his words continue to speak…words of love, brotherhood, and forgiveness…as we pointed out that he said from the beginning of his career at age 26 and those early bitter days in Montgomery.  In that regard his message never changed…brotherhood and healing starts with anger but ends with love.  Wow.      Thank you for listening.  We do have one more episode in this journey through American political discourse.  Next week we will visit the battlefield of Gettysburg with President Lincoln and the context of the Gettysburg address.  After that we will change directions completely and explore the mysteries of Agatha Christie- she is always a lot of fun.  As always, please feel welcome to connect with us however you communicate: email, Instagram, fb, twitter or Linked in.  If you enjoyed this episode, give us a five star rating on your podcast app, and most importantly, share an episode with a friend.  It is through word of mouth that we grow.  Thank you for your support.    Peace out 

Martin Luther King Jr. - Letter From Birmingham Jail - Episode 2 - There Are Just And There Are Unjust Laws   Hi, I'm Christy Shriver and we're here to discuss books that have changed the world and have changed us.    I'm Garry Shriver and this is the How to Love Lit Podcast.  This is our second week discussing Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and the letter that some consider today to be one of the most significant political documents to emerge from the American continent in the last 300 years, ranking with the founding documents, the Gettysburg Address and the Emancipation Proclamation.  Last week, we spoke a little, although very briefly, about Dr. King's growing up years.  We focused on his rise to political prominence through his political activism in Montgomery with the MIA and Rosa Parks as they led a community to boycott public bussing system for 381 days protesting the unfair bussing practices in Montgomery.   These efforts resulted in legislation that would begin the process of unraveling a 100 years of Jim Crow laws across, not just Birmingham, but the entire South.      We also discussed Project C, C, btw, stands for Confrontation.  Project C was the name given to the program that was designed to combine economic pressure with large scale direct action protest in order to undermine the very rigid system of segregation in place in the Southern city of Birmingham, Alabama.  The project was multi-faceted and by that I mean, it had various moving parts.  It consisted of strategic sit-ins, mass meetings, economic boycotts, and of course “parading” primarily without a permit because no permits would be given.      Yes, and one significant component of this project was planned for Good Friday, April 12 1963.  It would be on this auspicious day that two political and spiritual leaders, Reverend Ralph Abernathy and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., would step out in faith in front of the Sixth Avenue Zion Hill Church to march down those prohibited streets.  And, leading by example, proving that they would never ask anyone to do something they would not do themselves, they walked into what they knew would be a guaranteed confrontation with Bull Connor's tightly controlled police force.  As they marched, they were met by a police barricade, so they changed directions and marched a different way; however, it wasn't long until they got to a second barricade.  At this one, Commissioner Eugene “Bull” Conner's clear orders could be heard and I quote, “Stop them…Don't let them go any further!”   They were arrested, and let me add, this was not the first time these two were arrested, nor would it be the last.     Dr. King and Ralph Abernathy, according to Abernathy's own words were closer than blood brothers.   There was a deep trust between these two men.  If you remember, they had been leaning on each other since those early days in Montgomery, Alabama where Abernathy was pastor of Montgomery's First Baptist Church.  This support would continue even after Dr. King's assassination where Abernathy would follow through with the support of Memphis' sanitation workers that had brought Dr. King to Memphis on the day he was murdered.  Abernathy and King eventually would be jailed together a total of 17 times. Both they and their families would be targets of multiple assassination attempts.      As we think about these two men leading this march on April 12, it's also important to highlight the many different people- both men and women- who were also involved in this campaign that changed the world.  One man who would make history in ways he did not anticipate quite the way it happened was Dr. Clarence Jones.    Oh yes, Dr. Jones.  Dr. Jones is not a native Southerner.  His parents were domestic workers in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and although they worked for some of the most affluent people in the United States, the community was an anomaly and had been integrating voluntarily even during Jones early years. Jones attended Catholic boarding school and then became a notable graduate of two prestigious universities: Columbia University and Boston University where he received his law degree.  Dr. King asked him to come to Alabama to be a member of his legal team in 1960, from there they not only worked together but also became personal friends.  After Dr. King was arrested on Good Friday, Jones, as his lawyer, was permitted to see him on that next day.    What is interesting to me, is that for Jones, in that initial meeting in that solitary confinement cell, helping Dr. King get out was not first and foremost on his mind.  He felt they had a even greater problem.  Very controversially, Dr. King had encouraged children to join the movement and there had been many children who had followed Dr. King, most of them were from lower-income families.  Those children were not behind bars, and their parents were yelling at him demanding that Jones get the money to bail out their children.  In later interviews, Jones would say that the parents of those kids were waiting outside the jail asking, “What are you doing to get our kids out?”  When Jones went to visit King, this was his concern.  He wanted a list of names and telephones of people to call who had money to get this bail thing figured out.  But King had something else on his mind.  When Jones entered the cell, King said, “Have you seen this?”  He was livid.  A full page ad had been taking out in the Birmingham Herald calling him an outsider, lecturing him, demanding that he be patient.  Jones remembers that Dr. King pulled out his copy of the newspaper and there was writing all over it, on every scrap of blank space between the ads.  He had continued writing on any scrap piece of paper in that jail cell, paper towels, napkinds, anything.  King gave these scraps of paper to Jones and Jones smuggled them out in his pocket, under his shirt, anywhere.      Yes, and over the next five days twice a day, Jones would bring more paper to Dr. King.  King would write and Jones would smuggle them out under his shirt.  Remember, this is before 9/11 when everyone was patted down.  Dr. Jones was not patted down. He would take the scraps of paper to Wyatt Teel Walker, King's chief of Staff, and a woman by the name of Willie Pearl Mackey was given the talk to put it all together.       What about the children, what did King and Jones decide to do about that?     It's actually an interesting part of the story and would likely be more famous if it hadn't been overshadowed by the letter itself, but Jones was able to raise money to get those children out of jail.  The famous actor Harry Belafonte got involved.  He called Nelson Rockefeller's speechwriter, a man by the name of Hugh Morrow, who was a supporter when he found out about what was happening in Birmingham.  That Saturday, Jones flew to New York City, and even though it was Saturday, he met Morrow and Rockefeller at Chase Manhattan Bank, and walked out with $100,000, enough to bail out every one of those children.     Wow- well Jones wasn't the only one who had no idea how important the letter King was composing would become.  Neither Mackey nor Walker did either even as they stumbled through the very challenging task of putting the pieces of handwritten paper together, apparently reading Dr. King's handwriting, in the best of circumstances, wasn't that easy to do.  But in this he had been writing furiously, basically in the dark, relying on his encyclopedic memory, quoting Shakespeare, the Bible, Dr. Augustine, Voltaire and many other philosophers and theologians. Some of it was on newspaper, plain paper, paper towels all kinds of different scraps that had to be pieced together.  And Mackey, who claimed all her life to not being a “fantastic typist” typed it up and prepared the manuscript for public circulation.  If you look at the original version which today resides in the library of Samford University in Birmingham, Alabama you will see that the typed copy concludes with the initials MLK:WM noting the letter's author and woman who typed it, the amazing Willie Pearl Mackey- her personal story  is amazing in its own right as she had been fighting segregation herself from her early days in Atlanta, Georgia where, and this is just one example, she quit her job at a hospital in protest because they refused to treat an African-American gentleman who had suffered a heart attack because it was a whites only hospital.    And again- I think highlighting all the people who contributed- like Jones, and Mackey and Walker is important to understand.  When events happen in history, the perception is often they were accidental or caused by the stars or something, but that is never the case.  And in this case, thousands of children, men and women took great personal risks, and they did it honorably for a long time before things changed.  So, as we get into the letter, last episode we finished by reading the first three paragraphs.  I did want to point out that the version I read, the one most commonly found in textbooks today, has been abridged from the original, not necessarily to revise the content, but just to make it more manageable for students.  Today we will read from the original, as preserved in the papers of Dr. George Bagley, Dr. Bagley as a white pastor was the Executive Secretary of the Alabama Baptist Convention and a likely recipient of this original version, although it's not totally certain how he received his copy. This original version is 21 pages long as typed by Mrs. Mackey.  It was released originally to the media in May following King's arrest on that good Friday in April.  It wasn't officially published until June in the large-scale publication Christian Century, a magazine out of Chicago.      So, let's jump back into the letter.  If you are a student, I would encourage you to pause the podcast for just and second and number the paragraphs so you can follow along and reference the exact text we are quoting from.  There are fifty paragraphs in this unabridged version and we will reference the specific quotes by paragraph.  Last episode we read paragraphs 1-3; I hope you can recognize the anger, and the sarcasm embedded in the language.     Read paragraph 1-4    Of course, Dr. King did not see  these men as being of “genuine good will” or if they were, they were  some of  the most mis-informed or willingly blind ministers in the great state of Alabama.  Either way, as professed religious leaders in their communities- bold enough to take a public stand against racial integration- they were about to get a lesson in history as well as Judeo-Christian theology.  Starting with Dr. King assuming the role of apostle, subtly or not so subtly comparing himself to the greatest of all Christian apostles, the apostle Paul who penned the majority of the New Testament, the Sacred Text of all Christian faiths.  In the introduction of his response, he  compares his response in Birmingham to the apostle Paul's famous response to the call for help in the Bible from the people of Macedonia.  In this famous Biblical text, the Apostle Paul had a vision from God, and in this God-given vision, he receives the commission from God, and I quote Acts 16:9 here,  “During the night Paul had a vision of a man of Macedonia standing and begging him, ‘Come over to Macedonia and help us'”.       No, and this wouldn't be the last allusion to the Bible, Dr. King would make, but it informs the reader that Dr. King's authority will not be coming just from himself, but his arguments would be founded upon the words and principles of the Sacred Text they shared in common.      True, and another great strategy Dr King uses, is not only does he use words and principles form the Holy Bible, Dr. King, very successfully and quickly, starting here at the beginning of the letter, uses the ministers own hypocritical words against them.  These men were quick to demand that Dr. King and his followers live by a set of rules that they themselves very conveniently did not apply to themselves.  This will be called out over and over and over again.     Starting in the very next paragraph he quotes these ministers before challenging their words.  They have accused him of meddling in the affairs of others- somewhere where he was not invited to come- which is ironic considering most Christian denominations see evangelism or proselytizing as part of their mandate.  He confronts the hypocrisy of calling him an outsider directly.  He boldly states that whatever happens in Birmingham affects everyone.  He famously claims, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere” and that “whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly” he says anyone living inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds.    Well, the “outsider” accusation is addressed pretty quickly and decidedly in the first four paragraphs, and he is ready to move on to the second complaint, the one claiming that HE is the one in Birmingham stirring things up.  Let's read, paragraphs 5-8.    Paragraphs 5-8    He confronts the power structures here directly and highlights the intentionality of what is being done in the face of ongoing violence.  Well before he arrived there was a long history of injustice and the turning of the blind eye by the “city fathers”. I love that he uses that term to refer to the men running the city- it highlights the role they should have played in protecting their citizens.  A good father would never turn a blind eye to his child being abused.  The inference is that  negligence occurring on a broad scale in this city is no different than dead-beat dad who abandons his children and allows other men to hurt them.     He is then ready to open the movement's playbook and describe the thinking and process behind what these men are belittling.  He again quotes the letter from the ministers.  In their letter they asked for negotiation, to which he responds, the purpose of direct action IS negotiation.  He explains the paradox that the only way to have negotiation is to create a tension so great that the power structures are ready to negotiate instead of just ignore.      He compares the tension they are creating in Birmingham to the positive tensions of the mind referenced by Socrates.  When we pick up the reading again in paragraph 11- paragraph 14 as Dr. King describes the purpose of the direct action campaign as well as paint a picture of the degrading experiences of  Jim Crow laws experienced by millions of African-American citizens of the South. Christy, read those paragraphs for us.    Paragraphs 11-15    He starts by comparing the election of Mayor Albert Boutwell to the return of Jesus Christ.  It totally highlights the ridiculousness of those who have hope that a segregationist mayor will bring justice to African-American citizens.    For those who don't understand the Biblical allusion, let's break it down.    So the New Testament of the Christian Bible ends with the book of Revelation, and in this book, there is a vivid description of the end of the world.  Even if you aren't a Christian, you are likely familiar with a lot of the imagery because it shows up in lots of dystopian movies- this is where we see things like the famous number 666, or the reference to the anti-Christ or the mark of the Beast.  The book describes a planet earth that has gone out of control through totalitarian controllers leveraging every available technology to control human behavior.  It's a very dark book, but at the end of it, according to Revelation, Jesus  returns to earth as a ruler, he destroys the totalitarian dominance and leads humanity to a period of divine peace.  What Dr. King sarcastically says here, is do you honestly think Albert Boutwell is Jesus and ushering in Christ's reign on earth- the man is a segregationist, exactly like Bull Conner.  He is not coming to bring divine peace.  Instead Boutwell is a part of the existing power structure that is reigning in terror.  He then begins to vividly describe the realities of a segregated world for African Americans, highlighting the psychological trauma it creates specifically in children.  How it builds, by its very essence, resentment, fear, under confidence, and ultimately rage.      It's very hard to read these paragraphs without feeling sadness and anger.  After describing the experiences of being denied admission into white only locations, or being made to sleep in a car,  he juxtaposes two kinds of laws and the differences in breaking an unjust law versus enforcing an unjust law.     Read paragraph 15     In paragraph 15  he says, “You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws.  …..”  Of course this is something they were all familiar with, but he goes on to school them on the difference between a just law and an unjust law citing St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, Jewish philosopher Martin Buber, and Lutheran philosopher Paul Tillich.  Let me remind us that he is citing all these men and their works from memory.   He reminds us of something all of these men know, if you are a person who accepts the idea of a higher law given by God to man, and that God's law is above man's civil law is subject to the laws of God and when these two things class, it is not only man's right to stand up to an unjust law, but as a leader and teacher of God's law, these men have a divine responsibility to not only know the difference between these two things, but always be on the side of higher law.  He says, “I can urge men to obey the 1954 decision of the Supreme Court, for it is morally right; and I can urge them to disobey segregation ordinances, for they are morally wrong.”    And of course, in case you don't understand the reference, the 1954 decision of the Supreme Court that he is referring to is Brown versus Board of Education where the Federal Government determined that segregated schools were illegal.  A law, which of course, George Wallace defied with his “segregation forever” line.  But I want to go back to his theological argument because this something every government student needs to be aware of, in the judeo-Christian tradition, laws must uplift the human condition.  The terms Martin Buber employs are difficult for us to understand like an I-thou relationship versus an I-it relationship, but the idea is something most of us feel intuitively.  Laws must apply equally to everyone; what applies to me should apply to you- because under God were are the same- created worthy of respect, and if there is a law that applies itself differently to different groups of people for whatever stated reason, this is an unholy or an unjust law.  Under this theological premise, every Jim Crow law by definition is ungodly and unjust.       Well, it is difficult to follow the deductive reasoning, he is tracing and applying thousands of years of theological thinking to modern day situations.  He explains the nuances of the moral complexities in paragraphs 19-22 by giving examples, examples his minister colleagues would be very familiar with.  Let's read those paragraphs together.    Read paragraphs 19-22    Shadrach, Meshach and Abedego are references to some of the earliest examples in the Jewish and Christian sacred text when in the book of Daniel in the Bible, they were put in fiery furnace for not praying to King Nebuchadnezzar, and for which God himself appeared in the fire with them and kept them from getting burned.  Of course, he references the early Christian martyrs who were thrown into the Roman Colosseum but closer to their present moment, he references that everything Adolph Hitler did was absolutely legal as was all the persecution of Christians that was going on at that very moment in Communist Russia.  For those who aren't familiar with what happened, Stalin rounded of Christians in the middle of the night and they were never seen again.  He took their children, put them in orphanages and subsequently raised by the state to have all the proper views and beliefs.     We have to keep in mind that for us reading this letter in 21st  century, Stalin's communist regime and Hitler's Nazi one are a long time ago and part of history.  But when Dr. King was writing, he was referring to things that had happened during the lifetimes of the people who were reading the letters.  Things, that they not only knew about, but had participated in.  It was they themselves, their brothers and fathers, many of whom had died, who had gone to Europe to fight Hitler's injustices.  It was their Jewish friends and literal family members who had fled here from across the ocean who had been victims to the gravest expression of man's inhumanity to man- the legal racism of the Nazi regime.   It was their Christian brothers and sisters with the same exact beliefs that they had, who were being thrown into prison and slaughtered under the heavy authoritarianism of Soviet communism and legally enforced atheism.  There is NO way any of these Christian or Jewish ministers could defend the idea they had just proposed- the idea that a Christian should ALWAYS obey the law because government by its definition is Godly and infallible.  There is no way they could defend the idea that according to Judeo-Christian values treating people differently and claiming that certain laws or rules apply to some but not to others  is a defensible position by Christian and Jewish ethical and moral standards and their lives and actions in other places on earth was proof they knew better.        We will end today by reading and discussion paragraphs 23-26.  In these paragraphs King references the use of the sanctimonious term “moderate”.  Of course, King was accused of being a radical extremist, and as such, by definition everything he does it wrong.   He'll revisit the accusation of being an extremist  in paragraph 31, but he is first going to address the term “moderate” because that term sounds like something we should all strive for.  After all, that word is positive if you are a “moderate drinker” or “moderate eater” or “moderate exerciser”.      And on the other end of the spectrum, of course, in most things, being extreme is not that great.  You don't want to be an extreme drinker, or eater or sometimes even extreme exercise is too much.  In most political discourse, for example, most of us shy away from being labeled extreme right or extreme left.  But, Dr. King is going to hone in on how these terms, moderate and extreme are labels that people use for other things.  And as such, it is not good  to be a “moderate” if that word is not really being used to mean “moderate” but could be replaced with the word “apathetic”.  Truth be told, by most objective standards, Dr. King, very much, was a moderate.  His methodologies were controversial for that very reason.  There were many civil rights activists that were promoting violence and other extreme courses of action, and he will speak to all of that.   But this term “white moderate” as King explains was often  a cop out term used to disguise apathy to the plight of the African-American in the face of obvious and brutal oppression.  Let's read paragraphs 23-25.    Paragraphs 23-25    On an aside, for those of us who appreciate beautiful rhetoric for the sake of the artful craftmanship of the words and sentences in and of themselves, there is a lot to appreciate in this entire speech.  In fact, if you cross-reference Dr. King's letter with the glossary  from my old AP Language and Composition textbook, you will see that King uses every single rhetorical device and strategy in the glossary.  His craftmanship is diverse and colorful both in his word choice as well as his sentence structure.   But just here, look how he builds his rhetorical climax through the repetition of the phrase I had hoped, I had hoped, notice how he creates beautiful paragraphs by explaining the difference between a positive peace and a negative peace, notice how he creates a vivid simile comparing segregation to a boil that cannot be healed unless it is exposed to light- and even light itself is an archetypal symbol of truth that dates over 6000 years to the beginning pieces of human discourse- and those examples are the ones from paragraph 24.    I like to see you get excited about things like parallelism and similes.    It does come across as nerdy, but it's really brilliant and I think it's worth pointing out that this piece is remarkable not just for WHAT King says, but by HOW he expresses himself..it's done with extreme craftmanship.    True,  I wanted to highlight where we see both the craftmanship of the language intersects with the depth of the ideas- here he compares  the idea of negative peace and the idea of positive peace- because we don't think like that.  What the heck is negative peace- that is an oxymoron.   But he will correctly make the argument that all peace isn't the same and peace in and of itself isn't the goal and in fact, has never been the goal.  What we want is positive peace where everyone is treated with dignity and respect by the authorities, for sure, but also by each other.  Violence will occur inevitably when there is a transgression of this dignity and respect.  It doesn't matter if it is between two people,  or one people against another people, but also by an outside force oppressing everyone.  That is what Bull Connor was enforcing in Birmingham, even among the white population.  Bull Connor was so committed to segregation that if a white citizen resisted Jim Crow by taking down the “Whites Only” sign on his own private property, he would be cited and fined by the city.  If you are a white person and complied, you wouldn't have a problem but you also wouldn't have peace.  King does not encourage negative peace- negative peace may look like peace but it is when everyone is being subjugated, oppressed, and silenced.  For King that is not the goal.  He will also claim that when you have negative peace, the power structures can enforce this negative peace for a while, but eventually tension will build below the surface and violence will emerge.      And positive change without violence is King's goal.    Yes, furthermore, he also going to reference this terrible practice that people in power tend to do and that is to blame the victim when they do things that violate their own stated rules or principles.  These series of rhetorical questions highlight what today we often call gas-lighting.  It is this idea that as a person in power, I do something to create  a no win scenario for you, so that no matter what your reaction is in the face of my obvious unfairness or cruelty, I will blame you for the result of whatever happens.  Everything will always be YOUR fault.      And he again uses example after example of this happening, ultimately landing on the example of Jesus Christ.  Because as every Christian knows, Jesus was falsely blamed and ultimately crucified for making statements that were not acceptable by the political structures of his day.  He was accused of inciting violence.  The authorities claimed it was his fault that he was crucified because his devotion to God made people jealous.  It was his fault that he made people want to crucify him.  It's this twisted way people have of blaming victims for the violence on themselves.    Well, it is, and of course, in paragraph 26 he quotes a letter he received from a white gentleman in Texas, claiming that African-Americans just needed to wait, that change takes time.  King's response to this man is succinct but not without controversy. King claims that time does not heal wounds.  Time is neutral, it is what we do with that time that will heal or not heal.  Let's finish today by reading this paragraph.     Paragraph 26    The beautiful imagery of describing racial injustice as quicksand, and building a picture of we as people pulling people out of it unto the solid rock of human dignity, of course, draws from the Biblical parables of Jesus Christ as he commands his followers to build their lives on the rock.  And although, the exigence of the moment, requires Dr. King to rely heavily on the Sacred Text of Christianity and Judaism, his logical explanations appeal to men and women of all faith traditions as well as the many with no faith tradition.      Next week, we will finish the letter as well as discuss what happened in Birmingham when Dr. King was bailed out by local millionaire, the African-American businessman AG Gaston for $5000.      We will also revisit, the controversial practice, Dr. King had of encouraging children to protest along side their older brothers and sisters.      Yes, and we will see, that it was this controversial decision to put the lives of children on the line, and allow Bull Connor to publicly unleash violence on these little ones, that led to complete outrage and dissembling of the apathetic or “moderate whites” from around the United States, around the globe and even in Soviet Russia.    So, as always, thank you for listening to our discussion today on paragraphs 1-26 of the Dr. King's Letter from Bham Jail.”  Next week we will finish the letter.  If you enjoyed the discussion, please give us a five star rating on your podcast app, also, please reach out to us on any of our social media platforms- fb, insta, twitter, linked in or our website www.howtolovelitpodcast.com.  Don't forget, on the website, you will also find teaching supports if you are an instructor.    Peace out.     

How secure and reliable are elections in the United States?   The Left and Right are both replete with voices warning of the dire consequences of the “other side” getting their way.  And nowhere is this more evident than with concerns about the legitimacy of elections.  Whether it's the Right's concerns with voter fraud and election theft or the Left's apprehensions about voter suppression and disenfranchisement, Americans are growing increasingly concerned that their votes don't, or won't, or eventually will not count.   What's more, the leaders of each party, Donald Trump and Joe Biden, have used increasingly alarmist language in claiming our democratic institutions have been undermined.  Trump continues to assert that the 2020 election was “stolen” and that it was a “fraud on the American people”.  Meanwhile, Biden has warned that those who do not share his views on election reform are interested in instituting “Jim Crow 2.0” and that they are akin to the likes of George Wallace, Bull Connor, and Jefferson Davis.   In this episode Saving Elephants host Josh Lewis takes a deep dive into the various allegations made by Trump and Biden and offers some thoughts on whether Americans can have faith in their democratic institutions.  

Martin Luther King Jr. - Letter From Birmingham Jail - Episode 1 - Dr. King Reaches Out Of His Jail Cell To Touch The Heart Of A Nation!   I'm Christy Shriver and we're here to discuss books that have changed the world and have changed us.    I'm Garry Shriver and this is the How to Love Lit Podcast.  Today we are going to start a three part series on a man who changed the landscape of political protesting- demonstrating that positive change can occur without massive loss of life.  He won the Nobel Peace Prize when he was 35 years old, at the time he was the youngest to ever receive the award.  His life became synonymous with civil disobedience- taking it farther than Thoreau ever dreamed possible. He radically and controversially claimed the role of a Christian political resister was not only the role to resist injustice.  This was not enough, to be successful one must accompany resistance with love- loving the persecutor- a claim that would be put to the test over and over and for which he would be martyred.  On Jan 20, 1986, the US Federal Government proclaimed a national holiday commemorating his life and message. Today over 955 (that number is likely small), but there are at least 955 major street, boulevards and thoroughfares that carry his name not only across the United States but across the world.  If you haven't figured it out yet, we are talking about the life, literature and legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.  Specifically, the iconic letter that moved a nation from apathy to change, the “Letter from Birmingham Jail.” It was written on April 16, 1963 and famously addressed to “My Dear Fellow Clergyman.”      Indeed, and yet, so many students or really people, who hear that name know so little about the movement itself.  Growing up first in our nation's capital, Washington DC and then Brazil, I'd heard of Dr. King.  I knew he stood for non-violence, but I ignorantly thought he literally just walked around preaching and protesting, carrying signs, singing and marching.  I had NO idea how calculated the entire Civil Rights moment was.  I had no idea the amount of strategy and genius that went into the planning and execution of one of the most effective non-violent movements in the world- or even how many years it was in the making.  I just thought, Dr. King got up one day and just started protesting.      Well, I think most people don't, even people of good faith who try to mimic some of his basic strategies.  It's really difficult to wrap our minds around the complexity involved, not to mention the sheer power of King's personal rhetorical charisma that carried the movement from a few thousand African-American Christian protesters in Montgomery, Alabama to 250,000 people of all ethnicities and faith and the steps of the Lincoln Memorial.  The changes in legislation and the implementation of laws that had been allowed to be ignored for a century were a direct result of this movement we are discussing over the next few episodes.     So, let's get started beginning with some terminology that we hear  when it comes to Civil Rights, words that many of us who aren't originally from the South may not be familiar with- for example what are Jim Crow laws.  Who was Jim Crow and what are his laws?    Sure.  Jim Crow was not a real person.   He was a character created by a famous white comedian in the 1850s.    This white comedian painted his face black with charcoal and called himself Jim Crow and did comedy- it's what today we call black face and, of course, is derogatory and highly offensive.  That term later was adopted to refer to the laws that went into effect starting in the 1880s-these laws, of course, are also derogatory and highly offensive- so the term remains appropriate.  They refer to legislation that specifically targeted African-Americans to keep them from upward social mobility and fully participating in American life with the rest of the mostly white population.  Let me remind you that all of this occurred AFTER the end of the Civil War and after the Union troops left the South where they had been forcing Southern cities to integrate against their will under the direction of President Ulysses Grant- this period has been called Reconstruction.  After 1877 Reconstruction ended partly because the North was exhausted from trying to enforce the rights guaranteed by the 14th and 15th amendments. The north abandoned the South and the south will remain a third world part of the country for decades to come.  Jim Crow laws stayed in effect literally all the way until success of the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s.     Let me give you an example, in 1891, 25 years after the Civil War,Georgia became the first Southern state to pass a Jim Crow law.  The Georgia legislature passed a law that railroads had to provide equal but separate accommodations for black and white passengers.  In other words, the African Americans would not be allowed to sit with the white Americans.  After this first attempt at dividing the races was allowed- there soon were others- there began to be black and white bathrooms, black and white water fountains, hospitals, schools, swimming pools, prisons, barber shops, parks, movie theaters, sports arenas, telephone booths, lunch counters, libraries even graveyards.  In his letter Dr. King refers to these signs as “nagging”- that of course is an understatement.  They were degrading and psychologically damaging.  Racism in the United States during the Jim Crow period was worse than in any other period of history, including today.  There was a famous case, Plessy versus Ferguson in 1896- five years after that first sign in Georgia- that created a legal precedent saying that these laws were okay- The courts said that if the facilities were equal then it was not illegal for people to be separated by race.  This was a blow to African-Americans as well as the railroad industry actually, which didn't want to segregate their railcars.  It was an enormous financial burden- beyond being offensive and unnecessary- they now had to provide two of everything.  But Jim Crow laws went on for years, and of course the facilities were never equal, but even if they had been, the message was still derogatory, and the entire system obviously unjust which caused many advocates of social equality both African-American as well as white to continue to mobilize and advocate for change.  During WW2, President Harry Truman desegregated the US military in 1947,  which was a huge advance in Civil Rights.  Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier in professional sports in 1947, but it wasn't until 1954 that there would be another landmark ruling of the Supreme Court that would address this issue.  In 1954, in a case known as Brown versus Topeka Board of Education,  lawyers Richard Ellis and Michael Birzer successfully argued that things were separate but not equal, and in fact, the facilities for black children in schools were always inferior.  In a unanimous decision, the court agreed saying that separate learning facilities were by their very definition unequal and this had a detrimental effect on minority children because it is interpreted as a sign of inferiority.  This was a big deal.  The legal precedent had been set.  This was the finally justice in the courts, but now, how does that play out in classrooms across the country.  Who is going to force almost half the schools in the United States to integrate students of both races?  And when would they be required to make this happen?  In every state in the South, Segregation was actually the law- a school couldn't have been integrated even if they had wanted to.  Central High School in Little Rock Arkansas was the first southern school to even attempt integration in 1957. So, The short answer is -not immediately.    Well, and as Dr. King pointed out in his letter, entire African nations were being decolonized faster than American students were being allowed to integrate in local schools.      And it is here that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. rise to national recognition emerges.  At the young age of 26, he is newly married and has recently moved  to accept a job as the pastor of the Dexter Street Baptist Church in the southern town of Montgomery, Alabama.  It would be here that he would meet another seemingly inconspicuous woman but powerful woman by the name of Rosa Parks.  Together, they were about to change their world.     So as we set this up, let's introduce Dr. King's life before entering the political scene in 1956- and let's try to keep the dates straight- that's kind of hard for those of us for whom numbers don't come naturally.  So, Dr. King was born in 1929 in an upper-middle class African-American family in Atlanta, Georgia.  One interesting detail was that his birth name was Michael.     That's right, his father later changed his name to Martin Luther, perhaps because of a trip he made to Germany to study the great theologian who also changed the political landscape of his day during the ProtestantReformation, but that is still slightly speculative.       His father was a very popular Baptist pastor, the pastor of the successful and well-established Ebenezer Baptist Church.  King was privileged to have received a high level of education- likely one of the most educated Southern African-Americans at this time period.  He attended the very elite Morehouse College there in Atl,  and then Crozer Theological Seminary in Chester, Pennsylvania and finally Boston University.  So, you can see, he had the opportunity to ignore the plight of the majority of African-Americans.  He had job offers at various universities in prestigious locations.  Another important point to notice is that while in Boston he met a rising star vocalist by the name of Coretta Scott, and he fell in love with her.  They got married in 1955.  It wasn't long after that, he took the pastorate in the much smaller town of Montgomery, Alabama and moved their with Coretta and their baby, _______.  Dexter Avenue Baptist Church, btw, is located just a stone's throw from the state capitol building in Montgomery- the heart of state government.  Then, on December 1, 1955, something happened that changed Dr. King's life forever as well as the entire world.  A woman by the name of Rosa Parks was arrested for not giving up her seat to a white gentleman on a bus.  She had entered the bus through the front door instead of the back door, as required by those Jim Crow laws.      This hadn't been an accident, the practice of forcing women to give up their seats had been going on for years, and several women protested to no avail, but for the highly and morally reputable Rosa Parks, it would be different.  The national spot light was heading her way- but it wasn't accidental.  This was a highly intentional and strategic play.      Let me go back and say, Dr. King had personal experience with being forced to stand against his will on a bus. When he was in high school, he won a speaking contest in a town 90 miles outside of Atlanta.  He and the teacher who went with him to the contest were riding on a bus back to Atlanta, super excited when white passenger got on.  The white bus driver ordered King and his teacher to give up their seats, and cursed them. King wanted to stay seated, but his teacher urged him to obey the law. They had to stand in the aisle for the 90 miles back home.  King stated later that that was the angriest he had ever felt in his life. If you can imagine.  So, of course he could understand emotionally as well as cognitively what was happening every day in buses in Montgomery, Alabama as well as across the South.   But what do you do?  That's the question.  Later on in Dr. King's life, someone asked him that very question- how do you manage your anger.   I want to quote King here, "A destructive passion is harnessed by directing that same passion into constructive channels."  And that's what he did in this case.   Yes- next very next day, after Park's arrest, on December 2 ministers, including a man by the name of Rev. Ralph Abernathy who would be the one to go to jail with Dr. King, met at King's church to organize and publicize a bus boycott.  Relying in part on Dr. King's eloquence, they mobilized the African-American community almost in full.  On December 5, 90 percent of Montgomery's African-American citizens stayed off the buses.  Dr. King was also elected as the president of the Montgomery Improvement Association or the MIA- the organization spearheading the boycott.  According to Rosa Parks, the reason they chose King to be the president of the MIA was because he was so new to Montgomery, no one knew him.  He had no friends but also no enemies.      The evening that Dr. King spoke at Holt Street Baptist Church,  this is what he said. “I want it to be known that we're going to work with grim and bold determination to gain justice on the buses in this city. And we are not wrong.… If we are wrong, the Supreme Court of this nation is wrong. If we are wrong, the Constitution of the United States is wrong. If we are wrong, God Almighty is wrong”.    And what is striking is that when you see what they were demanding, these demands are not crazy, they are not even unrealistic or difficult to implement.  They wanted courteous treatment by bus operators, first come first serve seating on public buses, and they wanted African-American bus drivers to be hired to work the routes that were in areas where mostly African-Americans were living.  The demands were not met, and the boycott went on for 13 months- now think about that, even in the South, that is a lot of walking in a lot of bad weather for a long time.  And this came at a huge personal cost to the thousands of African-Americans who were working or studying all over Birmingham but living across town in the segregated section for African Americans.  Large complex carpool systems were created of over 300 cars to support the boycotters.  People with cars offered rides to the walkers.  The city government resisting, going so far as to punish African-American taxi drivers for offering rides at reduced rates.  80 leaders of the boycott were jailed under an old law from the twenties for  “conspiracy that interfered with lawful business.”  King himself was tried, convicted and ordered to pay $500 or serve 386 days in jail.  King's house was bombed while he was at church.  On the day of the bombing, King rushed home to see that Coretta and his baby were okay.  This would not be the last big test on his ability to remain non-violent, but it was an important moment in his public career.  Many people were outraged that someone had cowardly tried to murder the family of their leader, and they showed up on his porch with weapons ready to defend King and go after the assailant.  King, although still personally affected, famously and calmly stood on his front porch and told everyone to go home.  The mandate of Jesus was to love their enemies.    So, when he talks about loving your enemies in his letter, he's. not just saying these things.  He lived this idea and practiced it risking his own life, the life of his wife and the lives of his children.  He  believed  so deeply in the life of Jesus Christ in the power of redemptive love through Jesus Christ that he put his life on the line.  A point I want to make because it is something that I have thought about and he speaks to is what to do with the anger.  How do you avoid the inevitable hate that has to emerge in your heart?  I don't care who you are or what your religious faith is- the hate and rage and anger are justifiable and unavoidable.  Of course, I'm not the first person to have this question and Dr. King spoke about that many many times later on during his life.  I'm not sure he had a working theory at the age of 26.  But by the time he was writing books, he did have an articulate vision on how this could work.  For Dr. King, anger was a part of a process.   It IS part of the process.  He said you  have anger then forgiveness then redemption then love.  That was the order.  It is what he believed and that is what he practiced to the best of his ability- although, and he speaks to this honestly in his biographical work, he struggled with anger his whole life.    Well, the Montgomery Boycott as well as King's trial got national new coverage.  A man by the name of Glenn Smiley visited Montgomery and offered King advice and training on Gandhian techniques of nonviolence.  These two men discussed how to apply Ghandian techniques to American race relations.      King later said, ““Christ showed us the way, and Gandhi in India showed it could work”.  King and his team would combine Ghandhi's methods with Christian ethics to create a model for challenging segregation all over the South.    So, follow the chronology- On June 5th, 1956, remember, Parks was arrested on Dec 1st, but by the beginning of June, the federal district court ruled that bus segregation was unconstitutional.  That's HUGE but not the last word- in the United States, people have a right to go up the chain to the next court to see if a different court will overrule the first one.  Since this was a possibility, The boycott could not nor did not end until December 20, 1956 when the case made its all through the appeal process all the way to the final court- the Supreme Court- when the decision was NOT overturn- then the boycott ended.   The boycott lasted for a total of 381 days, if you can imagine.     And here's a fun side- note- The day after it ended- Ralph Abernathy, Ed Nixon and Glenn Smiley- now let me add that Glenn Smiley is white- but these three men  got on an integrated bus together- for the very first time- how satisfying would that have been.      King famously had this to say about the boycott: “We came to see that, in the long run, it is more honorable to walk in dignity than ride in humiliation. So … we decided to substitute tired feet for tired souls, and walk the streets of Montgomery”.      You can already see that metaphorical language that he's so famous for in both his speaking and writing.      True and speaking of writing, he wrote up his experiences from Montgomery in a book called Stride to Freedom and in 1958, set out on a book tour across the United States.  He wasn't as famous obviously as he would eventually become, but he was a well-known figure.  On September 20, 1958, a 42 year old apparently deranged African-American woman plunged a letter-opener into his chest.      So, Dr. King's methods were not always well-received by either side.     No- Non-violence is controversial because it's obviously unfair.  Why do I have to practice non-violence when the opposing side is not?  It's a fair question and one which King spent his lifetime discussing.  Non-violence is paradoxical – it doesn't seem like it would work.  Its power lies in its ability to contrast so sharply with violence that you strip away any pretense that the violence is justified. It's also very slow.  You have to have a tremendous amount of patience, trust, and stubbornness.       And King was moving forward- but he was absolutely fed up with the pace of the federal court system.   Remember, the courts mandated that schools be integrated in 1954, but still, here they were in 1963, nine years after Brown vs. Board of Education, and only 9% of African-American students were attending integrated schools.      1963 was going to be the year.  1963 was the 100 year anniversary of the Emancipation Proclamation- the day Lincoln pronounced that slaves were no longer slaves- for Dr. King, Rosa Parks, Fred Abernathy and the thousands of others willing to put their lives on the line- 100 years was enough time- and the chosen place for this confrontation of forces and will would be Birmingham, Alabama.  Garry, why Birmingham?  This was not a coincidence.  This movement was not spontaneous; it did not just blow up.  It was planned and as Julius Caesar would tell you - selecting the location for the confrontation is key to success. is     Well, Dr. King tells us in his writings.  The whole thing was highly orchestrated.  Birmingham was the largest industrial city of the South.  It had been a symbol of bloodshed in the past when African-American trade unions tried to form there.  Because it was an industrial city, the financial interests and the political interests were intertwined.  Birmingham was one of the most segregated cities in the United States- the entire city was an expression of Jim Crow- from hospitals to schools to parks to jobs to everything.  Brutality towards African-Americans was an undisputed reality headed up by a man who prided on keeping African Americans, to use his words, “in their place.”  His name was Eugene, but this man, the Commissioner of Public Safety went by the nick Name, Bull- Mr. Bull Connor.  Under his reign or leadership depending on how you view his leadership, between 1957-1963 there had been 17 unsolved bombings of African-American churches and homes of Civil Rights leaders.  Bull Connor was so radical that one time a white United States Senator visited Birmingham to give a give a speech and was arrested because he walked through the door marked, “Colored.”  This guy was ruthless, and he ruled both African-Americans and whites alike with fear.  He was accompanied and supported by a segregationist governor- Governor George Wallace who is famous for saying at his inauguration, “Segregation now; segregation tomorrow; segregation forever!”     Goodness, history likely does not shine favorably on these remarks.      No, nor on any of these defenders of segregation, of which Bull Connor was one of the most publicly vicious, but I will say, Bull Connor played a very important role in disrupting segregation because he played the part of the villain so well and so predictably.  He was the perfect foil.  After it was all over, JFK famously told MLK at the White House following the signing of the Birmingham agreement, “Our judgement of Bull Connor should not be too harsh, after all, in his way, he has done a good deal for civil-rights legislation this year.” Connor was the absolute perfect foil for nonviolent protest.     Meaning, he was so terrible, it became morally obvious to any fool who was right and who was wrong.      Exactly, and after it was all said and done, President Kennedy could say that, but in April of 1963, that was not so obvious.  Bull was on a rampage; he was in control; and he was winning. On the third of April in 1963, segregationist Albert Boutwell became the new mayor of Birmingham.  Mr. Boutwell was a likeable person; he was not like Bull Connor so some people thought he was the better choice.  They were even glad he had won, but in the words of Fred Shuttlesworth, he was nothing but a “dignified Bull Connor.”      Now, you're starting to throw out some names that will show up in the letter.      Yes, Reverend Fred Shuttlesworth was one of the local leaders of the Civil Rights Movement in Alabama.  Remember, he had been involved in Montgomery.  He had organized an organization called the Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights, otherwise known as the ACHR.  Now, this becomes important because as we're going to read in a minute, Dr. King is accused of being an outsider and meddling into somebody else's business and starting trouble.  To which he is going to respond that he was invited to come, and Reverend Shuttlesworth is one of the local leaders who had invited him.  All of this becomes very important in understanding the context of the letter.  So, at this time, the ACHR was holding weekly meeting in churches all over Birmingham.  At these meetings they were mobilizing African-Americans to boycott business that displayed jim crow signs, or refused to hire African American workers except as janitorial staff.  As a result, many stores and businessess around town were losing as much as 40% of their business.  Shuttlesworth, became a problem for the status quo, and as a result, he had been jailed, his home AND his church both had been bombed.    In the now famous room 30 of the Gaston hotel, Abernathy and King among others launched what they called “Project C”. The goal was to pressure Birmingham businesses to integrate and remove those horrible Jim Crow signs that said “White Only” or “Colored”.  The intense boycotts and demonstrations were to start on the first week of March and would continue all until April 14, which was Easter and the Easter season is a big season for shopping, especially for clothes.       What is interesting to me, and something I think is lost on a lot of students, is that they didn't just go around and drum up angry people to hold up signs and such, they required them to participate in workshops and daily evening meetings.    Everything that happened in these weekly and later nightly meetings was intentional.   Everything had a purpose.  They would start the mass meetings by singing old negro spirituals they called freedom songs.  These songs were adaptations from the same negro spirituals slaves had sung 100 years previously.  These songs were old and inspirational, they had been transformed from songs of sorrow song by one's great-grandparents to becoming battle hymns.      Singing together is psychologically bonding under any circumstances, but the power of the history of the music as well as the spirituality of the songs is difficult to explain in words.      Every single volunteer was required to sign a commitment card where they would pledge their body and soul to nonviolence in the face of violence.  This was explained in full.  They developed ten commandments.  The first commandment was to daily meditate on the teachings of Jesus Christ.  The 8th was to refrain from violence of fist, tongue or heart.       Yes, the idea was the prepare every person psychologically to expect and withstand abuse.  When they started to march, when they entered a restaurant labled whites only in a to sit-in, when they were arrested, they needed to be prepared to do what they had been trained to do- resist peacefully.  It is counter-intuitive to human nature.  On April 6th, they marched orderly two by two without banners or singing.  Bull Connor, right on cue, emerged and arrested 42 marchers for “parading without a permit”.    And this became the pattern.  After ten days, between 400-500 people were sitting in jail.  Dr. King and Ralph Abernathy decided that on Good Friday, they would lead the demonstration and submit to being arrested, as they most assuredly would be.  They left their church and walked with around 50 others – they had been denied a permit to march, so they were guilty of parading without a permit.  Of course, that day when Dr. King and Rev. Abernathy began walking down the street in Birmingham, Alabama, many bystanders lined the streets.  The marchers began to sing. The bystanders joined in the singing and sometimes burst into applause.  As if on cue, Bull Connor emerged, his officers grabbed Dr. King and Rev. Abernathy by the back of their shirts and hauled them off to jail.  Dr. King was held in solitary confinement for over 24 hours.  Not even a lawyer was allowed to visit with him.  He was not allowed to telephone his wife.  Several violations of civil liberties all at once.    Coretta, by Monday, stressed out of her mind, placed a call to President Kennendy.  It wasn't but a few minutes from her trying to contact the president that his brother Robert Kennedy, who was at that time the Attorney General of the United States,  called her back promising to intervene.  The president called himself a few hours later.  He called the officials in Birmingham, and amazingly the conditions of Dr. King's imprisonment changed significantly.      He was in jail for eight days, and it was during that time, that a public letter was written to him and signed by 8 leading clergyman in Alabama.     Again, these men have their names signed on the wrong side of history and this has to be embarrassing at this point.  But, oh well, they wrote a public letter- and on the surface this letter sounds so reasonable.  It is another example of someone saying something cruel in the nicest way possible.  It is accusatory- in a polite way- and it enrages Dr. King.   We started the podcast today talking about what do you do when you are enraged- really righteously enraged- this is what Dr. King did- he channeled this energy to become this laser-sharp rhetorical monster and it became uncontainable.  Let's read the public letter written by these fellow clergymen, and then let's begin Dr. King's response that changed the world.        What are some of the things we need to highlight- first of all- what are their main points  King is an outsider= he's come from the outside to agitate    They acknowledge that they understand why he might feel impatience, but they are encouraging him to let the system work and not incite unrest.  They should trust the courts.      They go so far as to commend the police- remember that is Bull Connor.    Yes- and this is to a man who's family has been targeted to be murdered and arrested unfairly.      Exactly, before we read his response- let's look at who signed it.      Read the names and where they are from    When Dr. King responds to these ministers- he makes it a point to cite a theologian from each of these specific religious traditions, and may I point out that he does it from memory since he is in a jail cell.    Next week, we will analyze and discuss how he systematically demolishes the specious arguments and challenges on principles of Judeo-Christian faith the inconsistencies in the words and lives of “My Dear fellow clergyman”.    Okay, we have a lot to look forward to.  I hope you have enjoyed this discussion on the background of this important piece of American literature and history.  As always, thank you flr listening, if you feel so inspired, please give us a five star rating on your podcast app.  Connect with us on social media be it fb, insta, twitter or linked in.  Also, if you are an educator, check out our instructional materails on our website. Howtolovelitpodcast.com    Peace Out         

On January 11, 2022 United States President Joe Biden offered a speech in Atlanta, Georgia which has received much attention in the weeks since.   In addition to referring to the recent movement within conservative states to restrict voting rights as ‘Jim Crow 2.0' the most controversial quote from his speech made additional and very direct reference to our recent Civil Rights and Voting Rights history.  He asked US elected officials, How do want to be remembered? ‘At consequential moments in history, they present a choice: Do you want be on the side of Dr, King or George Wallace?  Do you want to be on the side of John Lewis or Bull Connor? Do you want to be on the side of Abraham Lincoln or Jefferson Davis?'  Read the complete speech by President Joe Biden The reaction from conservative leadership was immediate.  The next day, Senator Mitch McConnell said during his reaction, ‘I did not recognize the man at the podium yesterday. ... The president's rant, rant, yesterday was incoherent, incorrect and beneath his office," So stated McConnell from the Senate floor. See Senator McConnell's reaction on the Senate Floor We're asking what we think are several key questions this hour.  Those who've seen video of both President Biden's speech and Senator McConnell's reaction understand that the President's remarks weren't literally a ‘rant'.  Is McConnell counting on Americans not to access the literal speech? What's the history in this country of reactionary rhetoric to manipulate voters?  Turns out there is a rich history of such misleading, going back to the decades before the Civil War.  We ask whether it's appropriate for the President to reference civil rights history in his speech?  Scott says yes and it is an excellent use of historical reference at a time when many Americans are attempting to turn bak the clock on minorities and working class people. Bruce feels that voting rights are not under threat in this country and that to say so is to mislead our neighbors to unnecessary conclusions.  We discussed with each other where our perspectives have been cultivated and where we think this country is headed into the 2022 mid-terms.  We also celebrate two new article series with M the Media Project, the movie premiere of our good friend Dennis Wirth and we discuss Bruce's possible run for the State Senate.   All in this hour of On The Rocks Politica.

Is it the last March for Life this year? And comparing Republicans to Democrats like Bull Connor and George Wallace, a personal hero of President Biden? Really? Remember when Trump risked the support of his voters by trying to get Democrats to sign off on his wall, including amnesty? When has Biden done anything like that? --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app

This week Lucretia really takes it to Steve for his advanced case of DMLAS (Deficient Meat Loaf Awareness Syndrome—and we’re not talking the baked dish here), which surely must make the next edition of the DSM. But from there we quickly pivot to a recap and demolition of the highlights of this week’s news, starting with Biden’s disastrous press conference, but moving quickly to the heart of the matter—that Biden’s errors stem from the luminous lightweights he listens to that have appealed to his narcissism. (Yes, we’re pointing at you, Jon Meacham! Meacham is reported to be the person who wrote Biden’s appalling lines about how everyone who doesn’t agree with him is Bull Connor.) From there we make what we can of the momentous decision of M&Ms to go woke, to Weber grills for their meat loaf apology, and some reflections on the wider meaning of Jordan Peterson’s resignation from the University of Toronto. In between you’ll get some dish (but not meat loaf!) on NPR, some advice on proper apology form from Monty Python, and custom bumper music at both ends from Meat Loaf. Plus two teasers about two upcoming podcasts featuring illustrious guests. Pour yourself a double and settle in for an especially fast-paced episode.

Mary Katharine and Vic unpack Biden's lengthly press conference, from 95 (or is it 98?) percent of schools reopening to Russia's 'minor incursion' in the Ukraine. In coronavirus news, Prime Minister Boris Johnson ends masking in schools and vaccine passports, a Los Angeles charter school quarantines unvaccinated students, and NPR wrongly reports a mask fight between Supreme Court justices. Times 00:12 - Segment: Welcome to the Show  06:56 - Segment: The News You Need to Know 07:04 - President Joe Biden claims that 95 percent—then 98 percent—of schools are open 10:06 - Segment: You Love to Hear It 10:19 - Biden completes a long press conference and answers questions  11:20 - Biden says if Russia launches a “minor incursion” into the Ukraine, it may not prompt a U.S. response 14:26 - Biden pressed on calling opponents to his voting rights bill “Bull Connor” 17:15 - 2022 election integrity depends on voting rights bill, Biden says—and Vice President Harris attempts a cleanup  24:20 - Prime Minister Boris Johnson ends masking in schools and vaccine passports 30:44 - Los Angeles charter school quarantines unvaccinated students  34:21 - Biden administration launches coronavirus test kit service  36:25 - NPR wrongly reports a mask scuffle in the Supreme Court between Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Neil Gorsuch 42:50 - Super Bowl halftime lineup announced 

Darrell Castle talks about the first year of President Biden's term from the perspective of Mr. Biden's first press conference of the new year. Transcription / Notes JOE BIDEN'S GREATEST ASSET Hello this is Darrell Castle with today's Castle Report. This is Friday the 21st day of January in this the year of our Lord 2022. This is a great opportunity to review one year of Joe Biden since this is exactly one year and one day since his inauguration and coincidently this week was his first press conference of the new year. I confess I did not watch the Presser live as I was at work, but I did see the replay and it left me a little depressed that the President appears to be delusional. That is if he actually believes what he said he believes. What about his first year? Did he have any successes that we can talk about? The question of what is his greatest asset, is an easy one to answer because his greatest asset for the last year and even for the year of his campaign has been that he is not Donald Trump.  That's not an asset for the 74 million Trump voters, obviously, but for all those in the extreme left of the Democrat base it is an asset. The harder question to answer is whether it is still an asset. My answer based mostly on gut feeling or instinct is no it is not. Joe is doing well though in his eyes at least as he expressed in last Wednesday's press conference. Everything is just fine according to the President. Everything's changing. It's getting better the president said. If you take a look at what we've been able to do, we made enormous progress. If you don't see it that way its probably because there are a lot of things you just don't understand. The polls confirm that the American people overwhelming agree with his policies and all those polls that show otherwise, well he doesn't believe them. I won't call those answers delusional because politicians commonly are so narcissistic, they simply cannot come to grips with their own failure, but the polls this morning are dangerously close to the 20's. The president believes he has made enormous progress, but he failed miserably to achieve his chief goal which was to heal the divisions caused by four years of Donald Trump and unify the country. The real Joe Biden keeps getting in the way of unity. The one that compares Republicans who disagree with his voting rights bill with Bull Connor. The one who repeatedly lies about being arrested at a civil rights march with Martin Luther King when he was normally on the other side of those issues. He doesn't see soaring crime rates and soaring inflation as problems of his making or problems needing attention. Joe just wants to help working people. He is not Bernie Sanders he said I'm a mainstream Democrat. Everything he said seems to have two effects with each one scarier than the one before. Is he really the mainstream of the Democrat Party? If so, it spells future disaster for them because despite what the President believes or says he believes, less than one third actually approve of his performance so far. Most people can see that the enormous progress he bragged about includes the worst inflation in 40 years. Every time someone goes to the grocery store or gas station, they see his progress. Each trip families give up one more item they used to enjoy because its not there and if it was they couldn't afford it. The supply chain disruption issues it seems, were easy to cause but very difficult to fix and there is no progress in sight enormous or slight. What about the enormous progress he made in Afghanistan? I mean, we can all see that can't we? We are out of there and I will give him that but the way he handled those left behind was so callas the old Joe Biden was evident. He was exposed as the not so grandfatherly, cold, and incompetent that he apparently is. The people left behind to the military's disapproval, are still there apparently under the tinder mercies of the Taliban. What about the almost one hundred billion dollar...

Biden appeared to lose his composure during a press conference Wednesday "You campaigned, and you ran on a return to civility. And I know that you dispute the characterization that you called folks who would oppose those voting bills as being Bull Connor or George Wallace. But you said that there would be sort of in the same camp?," Philip Wegmann, reporter for RealClearNews, asked. Website: www.waynedupree.com

Almost a year after being run out of Slate for possession of an unpopular opinion, journalist and podcaster Mike Pesca joins the Fifth for his first post-controversy conversation about why how it all went down, when banal opinions became "harassment," and what we can expect from the The Gist 2.0. Is Kmele being prioritized for Covid treatment? Because, ya know...Mike Pesca gets pushed out of Slate (for referencing, but not saying, a magic word)Bull Connor's boss, SteveA "harassment-worthy" opinionWas anyone brave and did they call bullshit? Ummm...N-words and Mohammad cartoonsInsert $5 for more podcastKmele's Kovid fogThe roughest period of Mike's life, everThe new, new journalismHating Joe RoganYou don't have the truth, journalists. But you can get thereThe Gist's approchal Moynihan likes The Gist. Except that one episode...The media is atomized. Or maybe balkanized Coleman is a good rapperDon't catastrophize the normal See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Today on the Zeoli Show, Rich discussed the 2-hour press conference by President Joe Biden at the 1-year mark of his Presidency. The scaring thing is how not phased the President appeared to be at the threat of a Russian invasion into Ukraine. Claiming if it is "small incursion" well then it's just no big deal. This just gives Putin a bigger opportunity to do whatever he wants and can get away with it.  Biden is a danger and doesn't seem to realize it.  6:03-NEWS 6:07-Impending snow storm in the area  6:10- After hoarding millions of n95 masks, the Government is now giving them out for free  6:25-Supermarket coming that has no checkout  6:39-President Biden believes it will be only a "minor incursion" between Russia and Ukraine  6:42-Marty the robot at Giant 6:53-Marty has been found wearing a mask  7:03-NEWS 7:07-Biden goes on the attack of Republicans, falsely claiming they're the ones blocking his agenda  7:12-NCAA will determine eligibility of transgender athletes on a sport by sport basis.  7:30-What kind of message was Biden sending yesterday  7:38-All left wing pundits were harping on the 2-hour marathon Biden did, meaning he's mentally fit to do the job.  7:45- CUT SHEET | Bernie Sanders calls out Manchin and Sinema on the Senate floor | West Virginia news reporter gets hit by a car live on TV 8:04-Biden's plans for year 2 as President 8:07-Biden already questions the results of the next election if his voting rights act isn't passed  8:13-Biden says he never compared people opposed to his voting bill to Bull Connor or George Wallace...he did 8:20-NEWS 8:27-The Build Back Better plan would add $3 trillion to the deficit not reduce it  8:36-The vaccine's effectiveness against the Omicron variant remains in question but that still shouldn't concern people.  8:42-Breaking news in Philadelphia, city councilman Bobby Henon is resigning amid his bribery trial. 8:45-Howard Stern doesn't want the unvaccinated to be treated at hospitals  9:01-NEWS 9:08-Did 2 transgender athletes collude together during their recent competitions?  9:43- CUT SHEET | Biden-COVID isn't going to go away | NBC's Kristen Welker grills Biden | Joy Reid still goes with fake story of "maskgate" in the Supreme Court | Senator Cory Booker thinks it's harder to voter as an African-American than a white person in America 9;55-Final Thoughts Photo by: Chip Somodevilla / Staff

Recently Biden gave a speech in Atlanta where he called anyone disagreeing with his voting rights bill a racist. Biden has consistently labeled anyone disagreeing with him as being a racist or white nationalist. However, a closer look at his record reveals Biden has cozied up to known segregationists like Bull Connor and George Wallace. With all of this being known, it is now time to grade Resident Biden's first year in office...

Live from the no panic zone—I'm Steve Gruber—I am America's Voice— I am Fierce and Fearless— I am here to tell the truth—I mean lets be honest—somebody has to—And—I'm the guy—   Here are three big Things you need to know right now—   ONE— Could a Republican Governor in a reliable Blue State—be the big dark horse candidate for the GOP to capture the US Senate—Yeah maybe—and its Maryland—shocking!   TWO— In a remarkable sea change—the nation has shifted away from Democrats—to Republicans in just the past 90 days in a way—we have never seen before—that according to Gallup—   THREE— The Great Collapse of President Joe Biden—as we are ready to mark—the very bad—awful—terrible—lousy first year in office—with a failed agenda—the Democrat Party at war—and the Socialists demanding compliance to everything they demand—   But the failures—are so many—that hope is fading—and so the left is desperately trying to ram through a so-called voting rights bill—that would actually destroy integrity by using a federal take over of elections at the state level—and usher in a Constitutional Crisis—like we have never witnessed in this country—and it is all powered by the overwhelming pursuit of absolute power—which is what the Democrats want—   They want Covid rules to be forever—they want bureaucrats and un-elected health department workers to be able to order the citizens around—and do it with the authority to arrest them is they do not comply—   But right now—we are winning and the left is flailing and failing—it is truly a disgraceful display—like that of petulant children—who apparently didn't hear how poorly received Joe Biden's vitriolic speech was received by America last week—when he called anyone that doesn't agree with the radical election takeover and horrible bigots like Bull Connor and George Wallace—   Well I have news for the left—we will stand up and we will be heard—and we will not let them steal the country by destroying our institutions—like elections we can actually trust—  

This week, Eric Kohn, Sam Gregg, and Stephen Barrows discuss the “the big quit,” as more than 20 million Americans quit their jobs in the second half of 2021. With more than 10.5 million job openings right now, what does this pandemic-induced change in the labor market mean for workers and employers going forward? Next, they look at President Joe Biden's speech in Atlanta, Ga., on voting rights, comparing anyone not in agreement with him to being on the side of George Wallace, Bull Connor, and Jefferson Davis. So much for turning down the temperature on political rhetoric. Finally, they examine the incident at Congregation Beth Israel synagogue in Colleyville, Texas. Why is it so hard for some to identify anti-Semitism as anti-Semitism? Subscribe to our podcasts The Great Resignation: Why more Americans are quitting their jobs than ever before | 60 Minutes Remarks by President Biden on Protecting the Right to Vote | The White House About That Speech … | The Dispatch Jewish leaders react to FBI statement on Texas synagogue hostage-taker: 'The FBI got it wrong' | Fox News Why do some people hate the Jews? | Acton Line See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

On America's Roundtable, co-hosts Natasha Srdoc and Joel Anand Samy are joined by Ambassador Kenneth Blackwell, former Mayor of Cincinnati, State Treasurer and Secretary of State of Ohio, and U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Human Rights Council. Ambassador Blackwell responds to President Biden's and Vice President Harris's speech in Atlanta this past week and will share details about the written statement that he co-authored with Dr. Alveda King, the niece of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. In this weekend's program on America's Roundtable, Ambassador Ken Blackwell will also highlight Dr. Martin King Luther's legacy and what he would have stated about Critical Race Theory (CRT). Brief excerpts from the piece written by Ambassador Ken Blackwell and Dr. Alveda King (https://americafirstpolicy.com/latest/20220111-electionintegrity) published by America First Policy Institute: "We were deeply involved in the wars that started and ended the Civil Rights movement in this country. The President and Vice President's misguided insistence on the ignorant, false claim that America is somehow stuck in the 1960s is disgusting, dangerous, and an affront to all the sacrifices and great successes this country's brave Civil Rights pioneers made. In fact, it is grotesquely offensive to compare segregated lunch counters, attack dogs, firehoses, and Bull Connor, to showing a photo ID to vote. Simply proving you are who you say you are to cast a ballot is fundamental to election security. Period. Eighty-five percent of Americans agree and want photo identification requirements for voters. President Biden and Vice President Harris claim they want to defend the Constitution but then ignore our founding document's clear language that gives state legislatures the rights and responsibilities to decide how they conduct elections. Do you really think the same inept federal government that left Americans stranded in Afghanistan, completely botched the COVID response, cannot secure our border, and raised the costs of food and gas is the same government that should run your elections? This Administration's insulting publicity stunt seeks to divide this nation on racial lines when what we need is leadership that respects the human dignity of all. The Freedom to Cheat Act is a plague on this country and no amount Biden and Harris' blatant lies, half-truths and hyperbole will change that." Ken Blackwell served as the mayor of Cincinnati, Ohio, and was also elected to serve as the Treasurer and Secretary of State for the State of Ohio. Blackwell also currently serves as a Senior Fellow for Human Rights and Constitutional Governance at the Family Research Council, Chairman of America First Policy Institute's (AFPI) Center for Election Integrity and Executive Advisory Board Member of International Leaders Summit. He serves on the Board of Directors for the Near East News Agency, and the Institute for Pension Fund Integrity. Blackwell was formerly the United States Ambassador to the United Nations Human Rights Commission. After receiving both his Bachelor's and Master's degree from Xavier University, Blackwell became a professor there for many years. He enjoys Hermeneutics, hunting, and traveling the world with his wife of 53 years. https://ileaderssummit.org/services/americas-roundtable-radio/ https://ileaderssummit.org/ | https://jerusalemleaderssummit.com/ America's Roundtable on Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/americas-roundtable/id1518878472 Twitter: @ileaderssummit @NatashaSrdoc @JoelAnandUSA America's Roundtable is co-hosted by Natasha Srdoc and Joel Anand Samy, co-founders of International Leaders Summit and the Jerusalem Leaders Summit. America's Roundtable from Washington D.C. informs, educates, empowers and challenges the listening audience about the importance to restore, strengthen, and protect our freedoms, the rule of law, and free markets. America's Roundtable advances the ideas of freedom, the significance of freedom of speech, limited government, and the application of free market principles to solve problems. America's Roundtable presents in-depth analysis of current events and public policy issues while applying America's founding principles. America's Roundtable radio program - a strategic initiative of International Leaders Summit, focuses on America's economy, healthcare reform, rule of law, security and trade, and its strategic partnership with rule of law nations around the world. The radio program features high-ranking US administration officials, cabinet members, members of Congress, state government officials, distinguished diplomats, business and media leaders and influential thinkers from around the world. America's Roundtable is aired by Lanser Broadcasting Corporation on 96.5 FM and 98.9 FM, covering Michigan's major market and the upper Midwest, SuperTalk Mississippi Media's 12 radio stations and 50 affiliates reaching every county in Mississippi and also heard in parts of the neighboring states, including Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana and Tennessee, and through podcast on Apple Podcasts and other key online platforms.

Eric Kohn, Sam Gregg, and Stephen Barrows discuss the “the big quit,” as more than 20 million Americans quit their jobs in the second half of 2021. With more than 10.5 million job openings right now, what does this pandemic-induced change in the labor market mean for workers and employers going forward? Next, they look at President Joe Biden's speech in Atlanta, Ga., on voting rights, comparing anyone not in agreement with him to being on the side of George Wallace, Bull Connor, and Jefferson Davis. So much for turning down the temperature on political rhetoric. Finally, they examine the incident at Congregation Beth Israel synagogue in Colleyville, Texas. Why is it so hard for some to identify anti-Semitism as anti-Semitism? Subscribe to our podcasts The Great Resignation: Why more Americans are quitting their jobs than ever before | 60 Minutes Remarks by President Biden on Protecting the Right to Vote | The White House About That Speech … | The Dispatch Jewish leaders react to FBI statement on Texas synagogue hostage-taker: ‘The FBI got it wrong' | Fox News Why do some people hate the Jews? | Acton Line See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

A.B. Stoddard and Ben Parker join the group to discuss Biden's kamikaze voting rights push and Putin's threats to Ukraine. Highlights/Lowlights: https://morningshots.thebulwark.com/p/joe-biden-needs-four-sister-souljah https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-long-term-care-challenge https://twitter.com/KevinMKruse/status/1481709822051500039?s=20 https://reason.com/2022/01/12/the-u-s-immigration-system-needs-to-do-more-to-help-uyghurs/ https://jabberwocking.com/why-is-president-biden-staking-so-much-on-passing-new-voter-laws/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/01/democrats-botched-public-school-covid-policy/621183/ https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/01/11/oakland-lefty-my-whole-life-school-closures-triggered-an-identity-crisis-526860 Special Guests: A.B. Stoddard, Ben Parker, Bill Galston, Damon Linker, and Linda Chavez.

0:00 -Sad Little Man 14:24 - Dan & Amy ask listeners what they would questions they would have for Fauci and Wolensky at the yesterday's senate hearing 33:18 - Dan & Amy respond to Biden's speech at Atlanta University pushing federalization of elections: Jefferson Davis or Lincoln, MLK or Bull Connor? 52:22 - Dan & Amy turn their attention to the Senate Judiciary hearing on 1/6 and ask “who is Ray Epps?” 01:04:52 - Editor at Large of the Wall Street Journal, Gerard Baker:  Biden Has Met the Enemy, and He Is Us. Follow Mr. Baker on twitter - @gerardtbaker 01:24:24 - Economist Stephen Moore tells Fed Chair Powell “I told you so”.  Follow Steve on twitter - @StephenMoore 01:37:16 -Saralyn Mark, MD, American Medical Women's Association's COVID-19 lead and a former Senior Medical and Policy advisor to the White House, the Department of Health and Human Services and NASA: This year in COVID, expect a long, cold winter and a hopeful spring 01:55:37 - Thomas W. Smith fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a contributing editor of City Journal, and the author, Heather MacDonald, discusses blue city crime,  Insurrections and Double Standards. Check out Heather's most recent books The War on Cops and The Diversity Delusion See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

After a brief discussion about outgoing Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam commenting on his blackface yearbook photo, Jim & Greg welcome polls showing just 40 percent of Michigan voters are ready to re-elect Gov. Gretchen Whitmer. They also grimace as year-on-year inflation is the worst in almost 40 years. And they hammer President Biden for saying anyone not supporting the Dems' plan on elections reform is the equivalent of George Wallace, Bull Connor, and Jefferson Davis.Please visit our great sponsors:Nutrafolhttps://nutrafol.comUse promo code MARTINI to save $15 on your first month's subscription. Shipping is free on every orderMy Pillow https://www.mypillow.comNo supply chain issues with My Pillow! Shop now with confidence. Use code MARTINI at check out.

3 mai 1963. Birmingham. Alabama. Charles Moore et Bill Hudson, deux photographes travaillant respectivement pour le magasine Life et le New York Times descendent de leurs avions à l'aéroport international de Birmingham Shuttleworth.   Ils vont marquer l'histoire des Etats-Unis, grace à leurs clichés de la "Campagne de Birmingham". Un tournant dans la lutte pour les droits civiques. Episode 17/11. Un podcast Radio Gatine

Over the course of 2017, Doug Jones went from a respected Alabama attorney and empty nester to one of the most well-known US Senators in the country. In this conversation, we talk growing up in the shadow of segregation and George Wallace, starting to see those walls come down as he's in high school, learning under his mentor Senator Howell Heflin, his time as US Attorney seeking justice against the Klan for the 1963 bombing of a Black church in Birmingham, the upset win and political hurricane in his 2017 special election, and memories of 3 influential years in the US Senate.IN THIS EPISODE…Sen Jones talks growing up in the segregated South and then seeing the world change before his eyes…He remembers the toxic legacy of Governor George Wallace…He remembers his time as an aide for his mentor, the iconic Alabama Senator (Judge) Howell Heflin…His memories of the Senate Judiciary Committee of the late 1970s…The twists-and-turns that lead to the opportunity to become US Attorney in 1997…US Attorney Jones helps deliver justice decades-later in the cold case of the KKK bombing of the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham…He talks his aborted race against Jeff Sessions in 2002…Why he decided to run for Senate 15 years later in 2017…Inside the 2017 Senate race when the entire political universe turns its eyes toward Doug Jones…The role Republican Senator Richard Shelby played in the 2017 race…Senator Jones talks the historic Black voter turnout in 2017…What surprised him about the Senate when he's sworn in…What he's most proud of from his tenure in the Senate…Senator Jones talks his No vote on the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearings…He weighs in on the current debates in the US Senate…AND Lamar Alexander, Jim Allen, Arent Fox, Bill Baxley, Birch Bayh, Joe Biden, Amelia Boynton, Brown vs the Board of Education, Build Back Better, Center for American Progress, the Civil Rights Trail, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Thad Cochran, Susan Collins, Bull Connor, constitutional compasses, John Culver, Joe Donnelly, Dwight Eisenhower, the Equal Justice Initiative, Medgar Evers, Christine Blasey Ford, Cory Gardner, Gold Star widows, Chuck Grassley, HBCUs, Claude Harris, Kamala Harris, Chris Hastings, Orrin Hatch, Heidi Heitkamp, Mike House, human infrastructure, the International Association of Culinary Professionals, Johnny Isakson, Mick Jagger, Kelly Ingram Park, Caroline Kennedy, JFK, Ted Kennedy, Kay Ivey, John Lewis, MLK, Paul Laxalt, Pat Leahy, John McCain, Claire McCaskill, Chris McNair, Howard Metzenbaum, Walter Mondale, money from heaven, the only game in town, Mike Pence, Giles Perkins, Janet Reno, Right Side of History PAC, Rosa Parks, Alan Simpson, Tina Smith, John Sparkman, Frank Stitt, Jon Tester, Strom Thurmond, Joe Trippi, Doug Turner, unprofessional demeanors, US Steel, Hosea Williams, the Women's March, a Yoda doll….& more!

The problem of the rule of law is inescapable in any society - and even more especially in the context of economic development. Policies that promote prosperity cannot be devoid of considerations for the rights of people who make up the society and the economy, regardless of all technocratic pretensions otherwise. Adam Smith himself stated that economic prosperity thus requires ''a tolerable administration of justice''. Some readers might already start objecting to my treatment of the rule of law as merely an ''instrumental variable'' of a more desirous economic end-state, whereas the more familiar treatment is that of a society governed by the rule of law as an end-state in itself. There are merits to such quibbles, but there is also plenty of evidence in modern history that the rule of law is an essential cog in the wheel of prosperity.WHAT IS ''RULE OF LAW''?''Rule of law'' is the generally accepted description for how well a political system conforms to formal rules - rather than functioning through the whims of the most powerful social or political agents. For a society to be described as one functioning under rule of law - there must be rules and those rules must be equally applied to everyone in the society. Let us call this Letter of the Law. These rules are usually expressed through the constitution of a country and enforced through the courts. But simply having rules and enforcing them does not suffice in the making of the rule of law - and it is an incomplete (however accurate) conception of it. Some rules can be drafted in bad faith or with the express purpose of protecting the interest of the political elites responsible for governance. This is why many scholars have argued that the rule of law can only be said to exist in a state that functions under rules designed to protect the civil liberties (individual rights, freedom of speech, freedom of association, etc.) of the people living within its territory. Let us call this the Character or Spirit of the Law. The character of the law understood as the fulfilment of constitutionally-guaranteed civil liberties is the most common standard by which governance is judged to conform or deviate from the rule of law. For example, countries that routinely violate the rights of citizens in whatever form cannot be said to be governed by the rule of law, even if it has a written constitution. Consideration of the character of the law is the context to understanding the work of my guest on this episode, Paul Gowder.He is a professor of law at NorthWestern university with a broad research interest and expertise. Paul departs from this common derivation of the character of the law as rooted in liberty - and argued that for the rule of law to be broadly applicable in different societies (not dependent on the political institutions and ethical ideals of any specific society) with varying cultures and traditions of governance, it must be rooted in Equality. To understand Paul's argument, I will briefly state two important aspects that set the tone for our conversation - this should not be taken as an exhaustive summary of his work and I encourage you to check out his website and book. The first is that the rule of law as a principle regulates the actions of the state (government), and it is not to be conflated with other rules that regulate the actions of citizens. This is such an important point because one of the most egregious expressions of the law is when a government uses it to oppress citizens. Secondly, Paul outlines three components of the rule of law based on equality as 1) regularity - the government can only use coercion when it is acting in ''good faith'' and under ''reasonable interpretation'' of rules that already exist and are specific to the circumstances. 2) publicity - the law has to be accessible to everyone without barriers (''officials have a responsibility to explain their application of the law, ...failure to do so commits hubris and terror against the public"). 3) generality - the law must be equally applicable to all. Putting all these elements together gives us a rule of law regime where everyone is equal before the law, and the state does not wantonly abuse citizens or single out particular groups for systematic abuse.I enjoyed this conversation very much, and I want to thank Paul for talking to me. Thank you guys too for always listening, and for the other ways you support this project.TRANSCRIPTTobi; I greatly enjoyed your work on the rule of law. I've read your papers, I've read your book, and I like it very much. I think it's a great public service if I can say that because for a lot of time, I am interested in economic development and that is mostly the issue that this podcast talks about. And what you see in that particular conversation is there hasn't really been that much compatibility between the question of the rule of law or the laws that should regulate the actions of the state, and its strategy for economic development. Most of the time, you often see even some justification, I should say, to trample on rights in as much as you get development, you get high-income growth for it. And what I found in your work is, this does not have to be so. So what was your eureka moment in coming up with your concept, we are going to unpack a lot of the details very soon, but what motivated you to write this work or to embark on this project?Paul; Yeah, I think for me, part of the issue that really drives a lot of how I think about the rule of law and you know, reasons behind some of this work is really a difference between the way that those of us who think about human freedom and human equality, right? I think of it as philosophers, right. So they're philosophers and philosophers think about the ability of people to live autonomous lives, to sort of stand tall against their government, to live lives of respect, and freedom and equality. And that's one conversation. And so we see people, like, you know, Ronald Dworkin, thinking about what the rule of law can deliver to human beings in that sense. And then, you know, there's this entire development community, you know, the World Bank, lots of the US foreign policy, all of the rest of those groups of people and groups of ideas, talk about the rule of law a lot and work to measure the rule of law and invest immense amounts of money in promoting what they call the rule of law across the world. But mostly, it seems to be protecting property rights for multinational investment. And I mean, that makes some kind of sense, if you think that what the rule of law is for is economic development, is increasing the GDP of a country and integrating it into favourable international networks of trade. But if you think that it's about human flourishing, then you get a completely different idea of what the rule of law can be, and should be. And so this sort of really striking disjuncture between the two conversations has driven a lot of my work, especially recently, and especially reflecting even on the United States, I think that we can see how domestic rule of law struggles - which we absolutely have, I mean, look at the Trump administration, frankly, as revolving around this conflict between focusing on economics and focusing on human rights and human wellbeing.Tobi; It's interesting the polarization you're talking about. And one way that I also see it play out is [that] analyst or other stakeholders who participate in the process of nation-building in Africa, in Nigeria… a lot of us that care about development and would like to see our countries grow and develop and become rich, are often at opposite ends with other people in the civil society who are advocating for human rights, who are advocating for gender equality, who are advocating for so many other social justice issues. And it always seems like there's no meeting ground, you know, between those set of views, and I believe it does not have to be so. So one thing I'm going to draw you into quite early is one of the distinctions you made in so many of your papers and even your book is the difference between the conception of the rule of law that you are proposing versus the generally accepted notion of the rule of law based on individual liberty in the classical liberal tradition. I also think that's part of the problem, because talking about individual liberty comes with this heavy ideological connotation, and giving so many things that have happened in Africa with colonialism and so many other things, nobody wants any of that, you know. So you are proposing a conception of the rule of law that is based on equality. Tell me, how does that contrast with this popularly accepted notion of the rule of law [which is] based on individual liberty?Paul; So I think the way to think about it is to start with the notion of the long term stability of a rule of law system. And so here is one thing that I propose as a fact about legal orders. Ultimately, any kind of stable legal order that can control the powerful, that is, that can say to a top-level political leader, or a powerful multinational corporation, or whomever, no, you can't do this, this violates the law and make that statement stick depends on widespread collective mobilization, if only as a threat, right. And so it's kind of an analytic proposition about the nature of power, right? If you've got a top-level political leader who's in command of an army, and they want to do something illegal, it's going to require very broad-based opposition, and hence very broad-based commitment to the idea of leaders that follow the law in order to prevent the person in charge of an army from just casually violating it whenever they want. Okay, accept that as true, what follows from that? Well, what follows from that is that the legal system has to actually be compatible with the basic interests of all. And what that tends to mean and I think this is true, both historically, and theoretically, is leaving aside the philosophical conceptual difference between liberty and equality, which I'm not sure is really all that important. Like I think, ultimately, liberty and equality as moral ideas tend to blur together when you really unpack them. But practically speaking, any stable legal order that can control the powerful has to be compatible with the interests of a broad-based group of the human beings who participate in that legal order. And what that entails is favouring a way of thinking about the rule of law that focuses on being able to recruit the interests of even the worst off. In other words, one that's focused on equality, one that's focused on protecting the interests of the less powerful rather than a laissez-faire libertarian conception of the rule of law that tends to be historically speaking, compatible with substantial amounts of economic inequality, hyper-focus on ideas - like property rights, that support the long-standing interests of those who happen to be at the top of the economy, often against the interests of those that happened to be at the bottom of the economy, right. That's simply not a legal order that is sustainable in the long run. Lately, I've been thinking a lot about the way that this has played out in [the] United States history, in particular. I might have a book that's coming out in December that focuses on a historical account of the development of the rule of law, particularly in the United States. I mean, it's my own country. And so at some point, I had to get talked into writing that book. And we can see that in our history right at the get-go, you know, in the United States, at the very beginning, the rule of law dialogue tended to be focused on protecting the interests of wealthy elite property holders. And this actually played a major part, for example, in the United States' most grievous struggle, namely the struggle over slavery, because slaveholders really relied on this conception of the Rule of Law focusing on individual freedom and property rights to insist on a right to keep holding slaves against the more egalitarian idea that “hey, wait a minute, the enslaved have a right to be participants in the legal system as well.” And so we can see these two different conceptions of legality breaking the United States and breaking the idea of legal order in the United States right at the get-go. And we see this in country after country after country. You know, another example is Pinochet's Chile, which was the victim of [the] United States' economics focused rule of law promotion efforts that favoured the interests of property holders under this libertarian conception over the interests of ordinary citizens, democracy and mass interests. In other words, over the egalitarian conception, and again, you know, devolved into authoritarianism and chaos.Tobi; Yeah, nice bit of history there, but dialling all the way, if you'll indulge me... dialling all the way to the present, or maybe the recent past, of course; where I see another relevance and tension is development, and its geopolitical significance and the modernization projects that a lot of developed countries have done in so many poor and violent nations, you know, around the world. I mean, at the time when Africa decolonized, you know, a lot of the countries gravitated towards the communist bloc, socialism [and] that process was shunted, failed, you know, there was a wave of military coups all over the continent, and it was a really dark period.But what you see is that a lot of these countries, Nigeria, for example, democratized in 1999, a lot of other countries either before then or after followed suit. And what you see is, almost all of them go for American-style federal system, and American-style constitutional democracy, you know. And how that tradition evolved... I mean, there's a lot you can explain and unpack here... how that tradition evolved, we are told is the law has a responsibility to treat people as individuals. But you also find that these are societies where group identities are very, very strong, you know, and what you get are constitutions that are weakly enforced, impractical, and a society that is perpetually in struggle. I mean, you have a constitution, you have rules, and you have a government that openly disregards them, because the constitutional tradition is so divorced from how a lot of our societies evolve. And what I see you doing in your work is that if we divorce the rule of law from the ideal society, you know [like] some societies that we look up to, then we can come up with a set of practical propositions that the rule of law should fulfil, so walk me through how you resolve these tensions and your propositions?Paul; Well, so it's exactly what you just said, right? I mean, we have to focus on actual existing societies and the actual way that people organize their lives, right. And so here's the issue is, just like I said a minute ago, the rule of law fundamentally depends on people. And when I say people, I don't just mean elites. I don't just mean the wealthy, I don't just mean the people in charge of armies, and the people in charge of courthouses, right? Like the rule of law depends, number one, on people acting collectively to hold the powerful to the law. And number two, on people using the institutions that we say are associated with the rule of law. And so just as you describe, one sort of really common failure condition for international rule of law development efforts - and I don't think that this is a matter of sort of recipient countries admiring countries like the US, I think this is a matter of international organizations and countries like the US having in their heads a model of what the law looks like and sort of pressing it on recipient countries.But you know, when you build institutions that don't really resemble how the people in a country actually organize their social, political and legal lives, you shouldn't be surprised when nobody uses them. You shouldn't be surprised when they're ineffective. But I mean, I think that it's been fairly compared to a kind of second-generation colonialism in that sense where countries like the US and like Germany, attempt to export their legal institutions to other countries, without attending to the ways that the people in those countries already have social and legal resources to run their lives. And so I'll give you an example that's interesting from Afghanistan. So in Afghanistan, sort of post the 2000s invasion, and so forth, some researchers, mostly affiliated with the Carnegie Institution, found that the really effective rule of law innovations, the really effective interventions were ones that relied on existing social groups and existing structures of traditional authority. And so, you know, you could build a courthouse and like, ask a formal centralized state to do something, maybe it would work, maybe it wouldn't, maybe people would use it, maybe they wouldn't. But if you took local community leaders, local religious leaders, gave them training, and how to use the social capital they already have to help do things like adjudicate disputes, well, those would actually be effective, because they fit into the existing social organization that already exists. So I'll give you another example. I have a student who... I had… I just graduated an S.J.D student from Uganda who wrote a dissertation on corruption in Uganda. And one of the things that he advocated for I think, really sensibly was, “ okay, we've got this centralized government, but we've also got all of these traditional kingdoms, and the traditional kingdoms, they're actually a lot more legitimate in the sociological sense than the centralized government.People trust the traditional kingdoms, people rely on the traditional kingdoms for services, for integrating themselves into their society. And so one useful way of thinking about anti-corruption reforms is to try and empower the traditional kingdoms that already have legitimacy so that they can check the centralized government. And so that kind of work, I think, is where we have real potential to do global rule of law development without just creating carbon copies of the United States. Tobi; The process you describe, I will say, as promising as it may sound, what I want to ask you is how then do you ensure that a lot of these traditional institutions that can be empowered to provide reasonable checks to the power of the central government also fulfil the conditions of equality in their relation to the general public? Because even historically, a lot of these institutions are quite hierarchical...Paul; Oh, yeah... and I think in particular, women's rights are a big problem.Tobi; Yeah, yeah and there's a lot of abuses that go on locally, even within those communities, you know. We have traditional monarchies who exercise blanket rights over land ownership, over people's wives, over so many things, you know, so how then does this condition of equality transmit across the system?Paul; Yeah, no, I think that's the really hard question. I tell you right now that part of the answer is that those are not end-state processes. By this I mean that any realistic conception of how we can actually build effective rule of law institutions, but also genuinely incorporate everyone's interests in a society is going to accept that there's going to be a kind of dynamic tension between institutions.You know, sometimes we're going to have to use the centralized state to check traditional institutions. Sometimes we're going to have to use traditional institutions to check the centralized state. Elinor Ostrom, Nobel Prize-winning political scientist and her sort of the Bloomington School of Political Economy, emphasized for many years this idea that they called Polycentrism. That is the idea that multiple, overlapping governance organizations that are sort of forced to negotiate with one another, and forced to learn from one another, and really integrate with one another in this sort of complex tension-filled kind of way, actually turns out to be a really effective method of achieving what we might call good governance. And part of the reason is because they give a lot of different people, in different levels of [the] organization, ways to challenge one another, ways to demand inclusion in this decision, and let somebody else handle that decision, and participate jointly in this other decision. And so I think that neither the centralized state alone, nor traditional institutions alone is going to be able to achieve these goals. But I think efforts to integrate them have some promise. And India has done a lot of work, you know, sort of mixed record of success, perhaps, but has done a lot of work in these lines. I think, for example, of many of the ways that India has tried to promote the growth of Panchayats, of local councils in decision making, including in law enforcement, but at the same time, has tried to do things like promote an even mandate, the inclusion of women, the inclusion of Scheduled Castes, you know, the inclusion of the traditionally subordinated in these decision making processes. And as I said, they haven't had complete success. But it's an example of a way that the centralized state can both support traditional institutions while pushing those institutions to be more egalitarian.Tobi; Let's delve into the three conditions that you identified in your work, which any rule of law state should fulfil. And that is regularity, publicity, and generality. Kindly unpack those three for me.Paul; Absolutely. So regularity is...we can think of it as just the basic rule of law idea, right? Like the government obeys the law. And so if you think about this notion of regularity, it's... do we have a situation where the powerful are actually bound by legal rules? Or do we have a situation where, you know, they just do whatever they want? And so I'd say that, you know, there's no state that even counts as a rule of law state in the basic level without satisfying that condition, at least to some reasonable degree. The idea of publicity really draws on a lot of what I've already been saying about the recruitment of broad participation in the law. That is, when I say publicity, what I mean is that in addition to just officials being bound by the law, ordinary people have to be able to make use of the law in at least two senses. One, they have to be able to make use of the law to defend themselves. I call this the individualistic side of publicity, right? Like if some police officer wants to lock you up, the decision on whether or not you violated the law has to respond to your advocacy, and your ability to defend yourself in some sense. And then there's also the collective side of this idea of publicity, which is that the community as a whole has to be able to collectively enforce the boundaries of the legal system. And you know, we'd talk a lot more about that, I think that's really the most important idea. And then the third idea of generality is really the heart of the egalitarian idea that we've been talking about, which is that the law has to actually treat people as equals. And one thing that I think is really important about the way that I think about these three principles is that they're actually really tightly integrated. By tightly integrated, I mean you're only going to get in real-world states, regularity (that is, officials bound by the law) if you have publicity (that is, if you have people who aren't officials who actually can participate in the legal system and can hold officials to the law). We need the people to hold the officials in line. You're only going to get publicity if you have generality. That is, the people are only going to be motivated to use the legal system and to defend the legal system if the legal system actually treats them as equals. And so you really need publicity to have stable regularity, you really need generality to have stable publicity.Tobi; Speaking of regularity, when you say what constrains the coercive power of the state is when it is authorised by good faith and reasonable interpretation of pre-existing reasonably specific rules. That sounds very specific. And it's also Scalonian in a way, but a lot of people might quibble a bit about what is reasonable, you know, it sounds vague, right? So how would you condition or define reasonable in this sense, and I know you talked about hubris when you were talking about publicity. But is there a minimum level of responsibility for reasonability on the part of the citizen in relation to a state?Paul; That's, in a lot of ways, the really hard philosophical question, because one of the things that we know about law is that it is inherently filled with disagreement, right? Like our experience of the legal system and of every state that actually has something like the rule of law is that people radically disagree about the legal propriety of actions of the government. And so in some sense, this idea of reasonableness is kind of a cop-out. But it's a cop-out that is absolutely necessary, because there's no, you know, what [Thomas] Nagel called a view from nowhere. There's no view from nowhere from which we can evaluate whether or not on a day to day basis, officials are actually complying with the law in some kind of correct sense. But again, I think, you know, as you said, to some extent, that implies that some of the responsibility for evaluating this reasonableness criterion falls down to day to day politics, falls down to the judgment of ordinary citizens. Like, my conception of the rule of law is kind of sneakily a deeply democratic conception, because it recognizes given the existence of uncertainty as to what the law actually requires of officials both on a case by case basis. And, broadly speaking, the only way that we're ever going to be able to say, Well, you know, officials are more or less operating within a reasonable conception of what their legal responsibilities are, is if we empower the public at large to make these judgments. If we have institutions like here in the US, our jury trials, if we have an underlying backstop of civil society and politics, that is actively scrutinizing and questioning official action.Tobi; So speaking of publicity, which is my favorite...I have to say...Paul; Mine too. You could probably tell. Tobi; Because I think that therein lies the power of the state to get away with abusive use of its legitimacy, or its power, so to speak. When you say that officials have a responsibility to explain their application of the law, and a failure to do so commits hubris and terror against the public. So those two situations - hubris and terror, can you explain those to me a bit?Paul; Yeah. So these are really, sort of, moral philosophy ideas at heart, particularly hubris. The idea is there's a big difference, even if I have authority over you, between my exercising that authority in the form of commands and my exercising that authority in the form of a conversation that appeals to your reasoning capacity, right. So these days, I'm thinking about it in part with reference to... I'm going to go very philosophical with you here... but in reference to Kant's humanity formulation of the categorical imperative, sorry. But that is a sense in which if I'm making decisions about your conduct, and your life and, you know, affecting your fundamental interests, that when I express the reasons to you for those decisions, and when I genuinely listen to the reasons that you offer, and genuinely take those into account in my decision making process, I'm showing a kind of respect for you, which is consistent with the idea of a society of equals.As opposed to just hi, I'm wiser than you, and so my decision is, you know, you go this way, you violated the law, right? Are we a military commander? Or are we a judge? Both the military commander and the judge exercise authority, but they do so in very different ways. One is hierarchical, the other I would contend is not.Tobi; Still talking about publicity here, and why I love it so much is one important, should I say… a distinction you made quite early in your book is that the rule of law regulates the action of the state, in relation to its citizens.Paul; Yes.Tobi; Often and I would count myself among people who have been confused by that point as saying that the rule of law regulates the action of the society in general. I have never thought to make that distinction. And it's important because often you see that maybe when dealing with civil disobedience, or some kind of action that the government finds disruptive to its interests, or its preferences, the rule of law is often invoked as a way for governments to use sometimes without discretion, its enforcement powers, you know.So please explain further this distinction between the rule of law regulating the state-citizen relation versus the general law and order in the society. I mean, you get this from Trump, you get this from so many other people who say, Oh, we are a law and order society, I'm a rule of law candidate.Paul; Oh, yeah.Tobi; You cannot do this, you cannot do that. We cannot encourage the breakdown of law and order in the society. So, explain this difference to me.Paul; Absolutely, then this is probably the most controversial part of my account of the rule of law. I think everybody disagrees with this. I sort of want to start by talking about how I got to this view. And I think I really got to this view by reflecting on the civil rights movement in the United States in particular, right. Because, you know, what we would so often see, just as you say about all of these other contexts, is we would see officials, we would see judges - I mean, there are, you know, Supreme Court cases where supreme court justices that are normally relatively liberal and sympathetic, like, you know, Justice Hugo Black scolding Martin Luther King for engaging in civil disobedience on the idea that it threatens the rule of law. It turns out, and this is something that I go into in the book that's coming out in December... it turns out that King actually had a sophisticated theory of when it was appropriate to engage in civil disobedience and when it wasn't. But for me, reflecting on that conflict in particular, and reflecting on the fact that the same people who were scolding peaceful lunch-counter-sit-ins for threatening the rule of law and, you know, causing society to descend into chaos and undermining property rights and all the rest of that nonsense, were also standing by and watching as southern governors sent police in to beat and gas and fire hose and set dogs on peaceful protests in this sort of completely new set of like, totally unbounded explosions of state violence. And so it seems to me sort of intuitively, like these can't be the same problem, right, like ordinary citizens, doing sit-ins, even if they're illegal, even if we might have some reason to criticize them, it can't be the same reason that we have to criticize Bull Connor for having the cops beat people. And part of the reason that that's the case, and this is what I call the Hobbesian property in the introduction to the rule of law in the real world...part of the reason is just the reality of what states are, right? Like, protesters don't have tanks and police dogs, and fire hoses, right? Protesters typically don't have armies. If they do, then we're in a civil war situation, not a rule of law situation, the state does have all of those things. And so one of the features of the state that makes it the most appropriate site for this talk about the rule of law is this the state has, I mean, most modern states have, at least on a case by case basis, overwhelming power. And so we have distinct moral reasons to control overwhelming power than we do to control a little bit of legal disobedience, right, like overwhelming power is overwhelming. It's something that has a different moral importance for its control. Then the second idea is at the same time what I call the [...] property... is the state makes claims about its use of power, right? Like ordinary people, when they obey the law or violate the law, they don't necessarily do so with reference to a set of ideas that they're propagating about their relationship to other people. Whereas when modern states send troops in to beat people up, in a way what they're doing is they're saying that they're doing so in all of our names, right, particularly, but not exclusively in democratic governments. There's a way in which the state represents itself as acting on behalf of the political community at large. And so it makes sense to have a distinctive normative principle to regulate that kind of power.Tobi; I know you sort of sidestepped this in the book, and maybe it doesn't really fit with your overall argument. But I'm going to push you on that topic a bit. So how does the rule of law state as a matter of institutional design then handles... I know you said that there are separate principles that can be developed for guiding citizen actions, you know...Paul; Yes. Tobi; I mean, let's be clear that you are not saying that people are free to act however they want.Paul; I'm not advocating anarchy.Tobi; Exactly. So how does the rule of law state then handle citizens disagreements or conflicting interests around issues of social order? And I'll give you an example. I mentioned right at the beginning of our conversation what happened in Nigeria in October 2020. There's a unit of the police force that was created to handle violent crimes. Needless to say that they went way beyond their remit and became a very notoriously abusive unit of the police force. Picking up people randomly, lock them up, extort them for money. And there was a situation where a young man was murdered, and his car stolen by this same unit of the police force and young people all over the country, from Lagos to Port Harcourt to Abuja, everywhere, felt we've had enough, right, and everybody came out in protest. It was very, very peaceful, I'd say, until other interests, you know, infiltrated that action. Paul; Right. Tobi; But what I noticed quite early in that process was that even within the spirits of that protests, there were disagreements between citizens - protesters blocking roads, you know, versus people who feel well, your protest should not stop me from going to work, you know, and so many other actions by the protesters that other people with, maybe not conflicting interests, but who have other opinions about strategy or process feel well, this is not right. This is not how to do this. This is not how you do this, you know, and I see that that sort of provided the loophole, I should say, for the government to then move in and take a ruthlessly violent action. You know, there was a popular tollgate in Lagos in the richest neighbourhood in Lagos that was blocked for 10 days by the protesters. And I mean, after this, the army basically moved in and shot people to death. Today, you still see people who would say, Oh, well, that's tragic. But should these people have been blocking other people from going about their daily business? So how does the rule of law regulate issues of social order vis-a-vis conflict of interest?Paul; So I think this is actually a point in favour of my stark distinction between state action and social action as appropriate for thinking about the rule of law. Because when you say that the state used...what I still fundamentally think of as like minor civil disobedience...so, like blocking some roads, big deal! Protesters block roads all the time, right, like protesters have blocked roads throughout human history, you know, like, sometimes it goes big, right? Like they love blocking roads in the French Revolution. But oftentimes, it's just blocking... so I blocked roads.I participated in, you know, some protests in the early 2000s. I participated in blocking roads in DC, right, like, fundamentally "big deal!" is the answer that the state ought to give. And so by saying to each other and to the government, when we talk about the rule of law, we mean, the state's power has to be controlled by the law, I think that gives us a language to say... even though people are engaging in illegal things, the state still has to follow legal process in dealing with it, right.The state still has to use only the level of force allowed by the law to arrest people. The state can't just send in the army to shoot people. And the principle that we appeal to is this principle of the rule of law. Yeah, maintaining the distinction between lawbreaking by ordinary people and law-breaking by the state helps us understand why the state shouldn't be allowed to just send in troops whenever people engage in a little bit of minor lawbreaking and protests.Tobi; So how does the law... I mean, we are entering a bit of a different territory, how does the law in your conception handles what... well, maybe these are fancy definitions, but what some people will call extraordinary circumstances. Like protests with political interests? Maybe protesters that are funded and motivated to unseat an incumbent government? Or in terrorism, you know, where you often have situations where there are no laws on paper to deal with these sort of extraordinary situations, you know, and they can be extremely violent, they can be extremely strange, they're usually things that so many societies are not equipped to handle. So how should the rule of law regulate the action of the state in such extraordinary circumstances?Paul; Yeah, so this is the deep problem of the rule of law, you know, this is why people still read Carl Schmitt, right, because Carl Schmitt's whole account of executive power basically is, hey, wait a minute emergencies happen, and when emergencies happen, liberal legal ideas like the rule of law dropout, and so fundamentally, you just have like raw sovereignty. And that means that the state just kind of does what it must. Right. So here's what I feel about Schmitt. One is, maybe sometimes that's true, right? And again, I think about the US context, because I'm an American and you know, I have my own history, right? And so in the US context, I think, again, about, Abraham Lincoln and the Civil War, right.Like Abraham Lincoln broke all kinds of laws in the Civil War. Like today, we'd call some of the things that he did basically assuming dictatorial power in some respects. I mean, he did that in the greatest emergency that the country had ever faced and has ever faced since then. And he did it in a civil war. And sometimes that happens, and I think practically speaking, legal institutions have a habit of not standing in the way in truly dire situations like that. But, and here's why I want to push back against Carl Schmitt... but what a legal order can then do is after the emergency has passed...number one, the legal order can be a source of pressure for demanding and accounting of when the emergency has passed, right. And so again, I think of the United States War on Terror, you know, we still have people in United States' custody imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay.September 11 2001, was almost 20 years ago. It's actually 20 years ago and a month, and we still have people locked up in Guantanamo Bay. That's insane. That's completely unjustifiable. And one of the jobs of the legal system is to pressure the executive to say, okay, buddy, is the emergency over yet? No, really, we think that the emergency is over yet. I want reasons, right, publicity again, I want an explanation from you of why you think the emergency is still ongoing. And the legal system can force the executive to be accountable for the claim that the emergency is still ongoing. That's number one. Number two is that law tends to be really good at retroactively, sort of, retrofitting things into legal order, right. And so again, I think about the Civil War. You know, after the US Civil War, lots of civil wars, sorry. American-centric person trying to fight against it. But after the US Civil War, you know, the courts took a pause. And then we have a lot of cases where they took a lot of the things that Lincoln did, they said, okay, some of them at least were illegal, some of them were legal, but only under very specific circumstances. And so they actually built legal doctrine that took into account the emergency that Lincoln faced, and then later wars, such as in the Second World War, the courts took the lessons from the experience in the American Civil War, and used that to impose more constraints. So to bring it about that the emergency actions that Franklin Roosevelt took in the Second World War weren't completely sui generis, sort of like right acts of sovereignty, but were regulated by legal rules created during the Civil War, and after the Civil War. And again, they weren't perfect, right? You know, during the Second World War, the United States interned Japanese Americans, you know, again, sort of completely lawless, completely unjustifiable, but you know, it's an ongoing process. The point is that the legal system is always... the law is always reactive in emergencies. But the reactive character of the law can nonetheless be used as a way to control and channel sovereign power, even in these sort of Schmittian emergency situations.Tobi; So two related questions, your work is interdisciplinary, because you try to blend a lot of social science into legal philosophy. But speaking of legal order and your primary profession, I mean.. for the sake of the audience parties into a lot of other cool stuff, I'm going to be putting up his website in the show notes. But speaking of legal order, and the legal profession, why is so much of the legal profession fascinated with what I would say the rule by law, as opposed to the rule of law. A lot of what you get from lawyers, even some law professors in some situations is [that] the law is the law, and you have to obey it. And even if you are going to question it, however unjustified it may seem, you still have to follow some processes that maybe for ordinary citizens are not so accessible or extremely costly, you know, which I think violate regularity, right, the way you talk about it retrospective legislation, and so many other things. So why is the legal profession so fascinated with the law, as opposed to justification for the law?Paul; Yeah, I think that question kind of answers itself, right. It's unfortunate... I mean, it's sort of natural but it's unfortunate that the people who most influence our dialogue about the way that we, you know, live in [the] society together with a state, namely by organizing ourselves with law happen to be people who are the specialists who find it easiest, right? And so I think the simple answer is right on this one, at least in countries like the United States, I'm not sure how true this is in other countries. But in the United States, the domination of legal discourse by lawyers necessarily means that the sort of real practical, real-world ways in which ordinary people find interacting with anything legal to be difficult, oppressive, or both just aren't in view, right? This is hard for them to understand.But I think in the US, one of the distortions that we've had is that we have an extremely hierarchical legal profession, right. So we have very elite law schools, and those very elite law schools - one of which I teach at - tend to predominantly produce lawyers who primarily work for wealthy corporations and sort of secondarily work for the government. Those lawyers tend to be the ones that end up at the top of the judiciary, that end up in influential positions in academia, that end up, you know, in Congress. The lawyers that, you know, see poor people, see people of subordinated minority groups and see the very different kinds of interactions with the legal system that people who are worse off have, that see the way that the law presents itself, not as a thing that you can use autonomously to structure your own life. But as a kind of external imposition, that sort of shows up and occasionally inflicts harm on you. Those lawyers aren't the ones who end up in our corridors of power. And it's very unfortunate, it's a consequence of the hierarchical nature of, at least in the US, our legal profession. And I suspect it's similar in these other countries as well.Tobi; In your opinion, what's the... dare I say the sacrosanct and objective - those are rigid conditions sorry - expression of the rule of law? The current general conception of the rule accedes to the primacy of the Constitution, right. I've often found that problematic because in some countries you find constitutional provisions that are egregious, and in other cases, you find lawyers going into court to challenge certain actions that they deem unjust, or that are truly unjust on the basis of the same constitution. Right. So what do you think is the most practical expression of the rule of law? Is it written laws? Is it the opinion of the judges? Is it how officials hold themselves accountable? What's the answer?Paul; So I think I'm gonna like sort of twist this a little bit and interpret that question is like, how do you know the extent to which the rule of law exists in a particular place? And my answer is, can ordinary people look officials in the eye, right, you know... if you're walking down the street, and you see a police officer, you know, are you afraid? Or can you walk past them and confidently know you're doing nothing wrong so there's nothing really effectively but they can do to you, right? If you're called in to deal with some kind of bureaucratic problem, like the tax office, can you trust that you exist in a relationship of respect? You know, can you trust that when you show them, actually here are my receipts, I really did have that expense, that that's going to be taken seriously? You know, if people, everybody, feels like they can stand tall, and look government officials in the eye, then to that extent, I think that the rule of law exists in a society.Tobi; Final question, what's the coolest idea you're working on right now?Paul; Oh, gosh. So like I said, I've got two books under contract right now. The first book is a history/theoretical constitutional law account of the development and existing state of the rule of law in the United States. The second book, which I'm more excited about, because it's the one that I plan to write this year, but it's also a lot harder, is I'm trying to take some of the governance design ideas that we see from the notion of rule of law development, and others such as governance development things and apply them to Private Internet platforms, right? Like, basically to Facebook. Um, I was actually involved in some of the work, not at a super high level, but I was involved in some of the work in designing or doing the research for designing Facebook's oversight board. And I'm kind of trying to expand on some of those ideas and think about, you know, if we really believe that private companies, especially in these internet platforms are doing governance right now, can we take lessons from how the rest of the world and how actual governments and actual states have developed techniques of governing behaviour in highly networked, large scale super-diverse environments and use those lessons in the private context? Maybe we can maybe we can't I'm not sure yet. Hopefully, by the time I finish the book, I'll know.Tobi; That's interesting. And I'll ask you this, a similar, I'll say a related situation is currently happening in Nigeria right now, where the President's Twitter handle or username, tweeted something that sounded like a thinly veiled threat to a particular ethnic group. And lots of people who disagreed with that tweet reported the tweet, and Twitter ended up deleting the tweet in question, which high-level officials in Nigeria found extremely offensive, and going as far as to assert their sovereign rights over Twitter and say, well, it may be your platform, but it is our country and we are banning you. How would you adjudicate such a situation? I mean, there's the question of banning Donald Trump from the platform and so many other things that have come up.Paul; Yeah, I mean, it's hard, right? So there are no easy answers to these kinds of problems. I think, ultimately, what we have to do is we have to build more legitimate ways to make these decisions. I mean, here are two things that we cannot do, right?Number one is we can't just let government officials, especially when, you know, as with the Donald Trump example, and so many others, the government officials are the ones who are engaging in the terrible conduct make these decisions. Number two is we also just can't let a bunch of people sitting in the Bay Area in California make those decisions. Like, ultimately, this is on, you know, property in some abstracted sense of like the shareholders of these companies. But we cannot simply allow a bunch of people in San Francisco, in Menlo Park, and you know, Cupertino and Mountain View, and all of those other little tech industry cities that have no understanding of local context to make the final decisions here. And so what we need to do is we need to build more robust institutions to include both global and local and affected countries, grassroots participation, in making these decisions. And I'm trying to sort of sketch out what the design for those might look like. But, you know, talk to me in about a year. And hopefully, I'll have a book for you that will actually have a sketch.Tobi; You bet I'm going to hold you to that. So, a year from now. So still on the question of ideas, because the show is about ideas. What's the one idea you'd like to see spread everywhere?Paul; Oh, gosh, you should have warned me in advance... that... I'm going to go back to what I said at the very beginning about the rule of law. Like I think that the rule of law depends on people, right? Like there is no such thing as the rule of law without a society and a legal system that genuinely is equal and advantageous to ordinary people enough to be the kind of thing that people actually support. Like ordinary people... if you cannot recruit the support of ordinary people for your legal political and social system, you cannot have the rule of law. That's true whether you're a developing country, that's true whether you're the United States, right. Like I think, you know, part of the reason that we got Donald Trump in the United States, I think, is because our legal system and with it our economy, and all the rest are so unequal in this country, that ordinary voters in the United States didn't see any reason to preserve it. Right and so when this lunatic and I mean, I'm just going to be quite frank here and say Donald Trump is a complete lunatic, right... when this lunatic is running for office who shows total disregard for existing institutions, like complete willingness to casually break the law. An electorate that actually was full of people who felt (themselves) treated respectfully and protected and supported by our legal and political institutions would have sent that guy packing in a heartbeat. But because the American people don't have that experience right now, I think that's what made us vulnerable to somebody like Donald Trump.Tobi; Thank you so much, Paul. It's been so fascinating talking to you.Paul; Thank you. This has been a lot of fun. Yeah, I'm happy to come back in a year when I've got the platform thing done.Tobi; Yeah, I'm so looking forward to that. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.ideasuntrapped.com/subscribe

''Rule of law'' is the generally accepted description for how well a political system conforms to formal rules - rather than functioning through the whims of the most powerful social or political agents. For a society to be described as one functioning under rule of law - there must be rules and those rules must be equally applied to everyone in the society. Let us call this Letter of the Law. These rules are usually expressed through the constitution of a country and enforced through the courts. But simply having rules and enforcing them does not suffice in the making of the rule of law - and it is an incomplete (however accurate) conception of it. Some rules can be drafted in bad faith or with the express purpose of protecting the interest of the political elites responsible for governance. This is why many scholars have argued that the rule of law can only be said to exist in a state that functions under rules designed to protect the civil liberties (individual rights, freedom of speech, freedom of association, etc.) of the people living within its territory. Let us call this the Character or Spirit of the Law. The character of the law understood as the fulfilment of constitutionally-guaranteed civil liberties is the most common standard by which governance is judged to conform or deviate from the rule of law. For example, countries that routinely violate the rights of citizens in whatever form cannot be said to be governed by the rule of law, even if it has a written constitution. Consideration of the character of the law is the context to understanding the work of my guest on this episode, Paul Gowder.He is a professor of law at NorthWestern university with a broad research interest and expertise. Paul departs from this common derivation of the character of the law as rooted in liberty - and argued that for the rule of law to be broadly applicable in different societies (not dependent on the political institutions and ethical ideals of any specific society) with varying cultures and traditions of governance, it must be rooted in Equality. To understand Paul's argument, I will briefly state two important aspects that set the tone for our conversation - this should not be taken as an exhaustive summary of his work and I encourage you to check out his website and book. The first is that the rule of law as a principle regulates the actions of the state (government), and it is not to be conflated with other rules that regulate the actions of citizens. This is such an important point because one of the most egregious expressions of the law is when a government uses it to oppress citizens. Secondly, Paul outlines three components of the rule of law based on equality as 1) regularity - the government can only use coercion when it is acting in ''good faith'' and under ''reasonable interpretation'' of rules that already exist and are specific to the circumstances. 2) publicity - the law has to be accessible to everyone without barriers (''officials have a responsibility to explain their application of the law, ...failure to do so commits hubris and terror against the public"). 3) generality - the law must be equally applicable to all. Putting all these elements together gives us a rule of law regime where everyone is equal before the law, and the state does not wantonly abuse citizens or single out particular groups for systematic abuse.I enjoyed this conversation very much, and I want to thank Paul for talking to me. Thank you guys too for always listening, and for the other ways you support this project.TRANSCRIPTTobi; I greatly enjoyed your work on the rule of law. I've read your papers, I've read your book, and I like it very much. I think it's a great public service if I can say that because for a lot of time, I am interested in economic development and that is mostly the issue that this podcast talks about. And what you see in that particular conversation is there hasn't really been that much compatibility between the question of the rule of law or the laws that should regulate the actions of the state, and its strategy for economic development. Most of the time, you often see even some justification, I should say, to trample on rights in as much as you get development, you get high-income growth for it. And what I found in your work is, this does not have to be so. So what was your eureka moment in coming up with your concept, we are going to unpack a lot of the details very soon, but what motivated you to write this work or to embark on this project?Paul; Yeah, I think for me, part of the issue that really drives a lot of how I think about the rule of law and you know, reasons behind some of this work is really a difference between the way that those of us who think about human freedom and human equality, right? I think of it as philosophers, right. So they're philosophers and philosophers think about the ability of people to live autonomous lives, to sort of stand tall against their government, to live lives of respect, and freedom and equality. And that's one conversation. And so we see people, like, you know, Ronald Dworkin, thinking about what the rule of law can deliver to human beings in that sense. And then, you know, there's this entire development community, you know, the World Bank, lots of the US foreign policy, all of the rest of those groups of people and groups of ideas, talk about the rule of law a lot and work to measure the rule of law and invest immense amounts of money in promoting what they call the rule of law across the world. But mostly, it seems to be protecting property rights for multinational investment. And I mean, that makes some kind of sense, if you think that what the rule of law is for is economic development, is increasing the GDP of a country and integrating it into favourable international networks of trade. But if you think that it's about human flourishing, then you get a completely different idea of what the rule of law can be, and should be. And so this sort of really striking disjuncture between the two conversations has driven a lot of my work, especially recently, and especially reflecting even on the United States, I think that we can see how domestic rule of law struggles - which we absolutely have, I mean, look at the Trump administration, frankly, as revolving around this conflict between focusing on economics and focusing on human rights and human wellbeing.Tobi; It's interesting the polarization you're talking about. And one way that I also see it play out is [that] analyst or other stakeholders who participate in the process of nation-building in Africa, in Nigeria… a lot of us that care about development and would like to see our countries grow and develop and become rich, are often at opposite ends with other people in the civil society who are advocating for human rights, who are advocating for gender equality, who are advocating for so many other social justice issues. And it always seems like there's no meeting ground, you know, between those set of views, and I believe it does not have to be so. So one thing I'm going to draw you into quite early is one of the distinctions you made in so many of your papers and even your book is the difference between the conception of the rule of law that you are proposing versus the generally accepted notion of the rule of law based on individual liberty in the classical liberal tradition. I also think that's part of the problem, because talking about individual liberty comes with this heavy ideological connotation, and giving so many things that have happened in Africa with colonialism and so many other things, nobody wants any of that, you know. So you are proposing a conception of the rule of law that is based on equality. Tell me, how does that contrast with this popularly accepted notion of the rule of law [which is] based on individual liberty?Paul; So I think the way to think about it is to start with the notion of the long term stability of a rule of law system. And so here is one thing that I propose as a fact about legal orders. Ultimately, any kind of stable legal order that can control the powerful, that is, that can say to a top-level political leader, or a powerful multinational corporation, or whomever, no, you can't do this, this violates the law and make that statement stick depends on widespread collective mobilization, if only as a threat, right. And so it's kind of an analytic proposition about the nature of power, right? If you've got a top-level political leader who's in command of an army, and they want to do something illegal, it's going to require very broad-based opposition, and hence very broad-based commitment to the idea of leaders that follow the law in order to prevent the person in charge of an army from just casually violating it whenever they want. Okay, accept that as true, what follows from that? Well, what follows from that is that the legal system has to actually be compatible with the basic interests of all. And what that tends to mean and I think this is true, both historically, and theoretically, is leaving aside the philosophical conceptual difference between liberty and equality, which I'm not sure is really all that important. Like I think, ultimately, liberty and equality as moral ideas tend to blur together when you really unpack them. But practically speaking, any stable legal order that can control the powerful has to be compatible with the interests of a broad-based group of the human beings who participate in that legal order. And what that entails is favouring a way of thinking about the rule of law that focuses on being able to recruit the interests of even the worst off. In other words, one that's focused on equality, one that's focused on protecting the interests of the less powerful rather than a laissez-faire libertarian conception of the rule of law that tends to be historically speaking, compatible with substantial amounts of economic inequality, hyper-focus on ideas - like property rights, that support the long-standing interests of those who happen to be at the top of the economy, often against the interests of those that happened to be at the bottom of the economy, right. That's simply not a legal order that is sustainable in the long run. Lately, I've been thinking a lot about the way that this has played out in [the] United States history, in particular. I might have a book that's coming out in December that focuses on a historical account of the development of the rule of law, particularly in the United States. I mean, it's my own country. And so at some point, I had to get talked into writing that book. And we can see that in our history right at the get-go, you know, in the United States, at the very beginning, the rule of law dialogue tended to be focused on protecting the interests of wealthy elite property holders. And this actually played a major part, for example, in the United States' most grievous struggle, namely the struggle over slavery, because slaveholders really relied on this conception of the Rule of Law focusing on individual freedom and property rights to insist on a right to keep holding slaves against the more egalitarian idea that “hey, wait a minute, the enslaved have a right to be participants in the legal system as well.” And so we can see these two different conceptions of legality breaking the United States and breaking the idea of legal order in the United States right at the get-go. And we see this in country after country after country. You know, another example is Pinochet's Chile, which was the victim of [the] United States' economics focused rule of law promotion efforts that favoured the interests of property holders under this libertarian conception over the interests of ordinary citizens, democracy and mass interests. In other words, over the egalitarian conception, and again, you know, devolved into authoritarianism and chaos.Tobi; Yeah, nice bit of history there, but dialling all the way, if you'll indulge me... dialling all the way to the present, or maybe the recent past, of course; where I see another relevance and tension is development, and its geopolitical significance and the modernization projects that a lot of developed countries have done in so many poor and violent nations, you know, around the world. I mean, at the time when Africa decolonized, you know, a lot of the countries gravitated towards the communist bloc, socialism [and] that process was shunted, failed, you know, there was a wave of military coups all over the continent, and it was a really dark period.But what you see is that a lot of these countries, Nigeria, for example, democratized in 1999, a lot of other countries either before then or after followed suit. And what you see is, almost all of them go for American-style federal system, and American-style constitutional democracy, you know. And how that tradition evolved... I mean, there's a lot you can explain and unpack here... how that tradition evolved, we are told is the law has a responsibility to treat people as individuals. But you also find that these are societies where group identities are very, very strong, you know, and what you get are constitutions that are weakly enforced, impractical, and a society that is perpetually in struggle. I mean, you have a constitution, you have rules, and you have a government that openly disregards them, because the constitutional tradition is so divorced from how a lot of our societies evolve. And what I see you doing in your work is that if we divorce the rule of law from the ideal society, you know [like] some societies that we look up to, then we can come up with a set of practical propositions that the rule of law should fulfil, so walk me through how you resolve these tensions and your propositions?Paul; Well, so it's exactly what you just said, right? I mean, we have to focus on actual existing societies and the actual way that people organize their lives, right. And so here's the issue is, just like I said a minute ago, the rule of law fundamentally depends on people. And when I say people, I don't just mean elites. I don't just mean the wealthy, I don't just mean the people in charge of armies, and the people in charge of courthouses, right? Like the rule of law depends, number one, on people acting collectively to hold the powerful to the law. And number two, on people using the institutions that we say are associated with the rule of law. And so just as you describe, one sort of really common failure condition for international rule of law development efforts - and I don't think that this is a matter of sort of recipient countries admiring countries like the US, I think this is a matter of international organizations and countries like the US having in their heads a model of what the law looks like and sort of pressing it on recipient countries.But you know, when you build institutions that don't really resemble how the people in a country actually organize their social, political and legal lives, you shouldn't be surprised when nobody uses them. You shouldn't be surprised when they're ineffective. But I mean, I think that it's been fairly compared to a kind of second-generation colonialism in that sense where countries like the US and like Germany, attempt to export their legal institutions to other countries, without attending to the ways that the people in those countries already have social and legal resources to run their lives. And so I'll give you an example that's interesting from Afghanistan. So in Afghanistan, sort of post the 2000s invasion, and so forth, some researchers, mostly affiliated with the Carnegie Institution, found that the really effective rule of law innovations, the really effective interventions were ones that relied on existing social groups and existing structures of traditional authority. And so, you know, you could build a courthouse and like, ask a formal centralized state to do something, maybe it would work, maybe it wouldn't, maybe people would use it, maybe they wouldn't. But if you took local community leaders, local religious leaders, gave them training, and how to use the social capital they already have to help do things like adjudicate disputes, well, those would actually be effective, because they fit into the existing social organization that already exists. So I'll give you another example. I have a student who... I had… I just graduated an S.J.D student from Uganda who wrote a dissertation on corruption in Uganda. And one of the things that he advocated for I think, really sensibly was, “ okay, we've got this centralized government, but we've also got all of these traditional kingdoms, and the traditional kingdoms, they're actually a lot more legitimate in the sociological sense than the centralized government.People trust the traditional kingdoms, people rely on the traditional kingdoms for services, for integrating themselves into their society. And so one useful way of thinking about anti-corruption reforms is to try and empower the traditional kingdoms that already have legitimacy so that they can check the centralized government. And so that kind of work, I think, is where we have real potential to do global rule of law development without just creating carbon copies of the United States. Tobi; The process you describe, I will say, as promising as it may sound, what I want to ask you is how then do you ensure that a lot of these traditional institutions that can be empowered to provide reasonable checks to the power of the central government also fulfil the conditions of equality in their relation to the general public? Because even historically, a lot of these institutions are quite hierarchical...Paul; Oh, yeah... and I think in particular, women's rights are a big problem.Tobi; Yeah, yeah and there's a lot of abuses that go on locally, even within those communities, you know. We have traditional monarchies who exercise blanket rights over land ownership, over people's wives, over so many things, you know, so how then does this condition of equality transmit across the system?Paul; Yeah, no, I think that's the really hard question. I tell you right now that part of the answer is that those are not end-state processes. By this I mean that any realistic conception of how we can actually build effective rule of law institutions, but also genuinely incorporate everyone's interests in a society is going to accept that there's going to be a kind of dynamic tension between institutions.You know, sometimes we're going to have to use the centralized state to check traditional institutions. Sometimes we're going to have to use traditional institutions to check the centralized state. Elinor Ostrom, Nobel Prize-winning political scientist and her sort of the Bloomington School of Political Economy, emphasized for many years this idea that they called Polycentrism. That is the idea that multiple, overlapping governance organizations that are sort of forced to negotiate with one another, and forced to learn from one another, and really integrate with one another in this sort of complex tension-filled kind of way, actually turns out to be a really effective method of achieving what we might call good governance. And part of the reason is because they give a lot of different people, in different levels of [the] organization, ways to challenge one another, ways to demand inclusion in this decision, and let somebody else handle that decision, and participate jointly in this other decision. And so I think that neither the centralized state alone, nor traditional institutions alone is going to be able to achieve these goals. But I think efforts to integrate them have some promise. And India has done a lot of work, you know, sort of mixed record of success, perhaps, but has done a lot of work in these lines. I think, for example, of many of the ways that India has tried to promote the growth of Panchayats, of local councils in decision making, including in law enforcement, but at the same time, has tried to do things like promote an even mandate, the inclusion of women, the inclusion of Scheduled Castes, you know, the inclusion of the traditionally subordinated in these decision making processes. And as I said, they haven't had complete success. But it's an example of a way that the centralized state can both support traditional institutions while pushing those institutions to be more egalitarian.Tobi; Let's delve into the three conditions that you identified in your work, which any rule of law state should fulfil. And that is regularity, publicity, and generality. Kindly unpack those three for me.Paul; Absolutely. So regularity is...we can think of it as just the basic rule of law idea, right? Like the government obeys the law. And so if you think about this notion of regularity, it's... do we have a situation where the powerful are actually bound by legal rules? Or do we have a situation where, you know, they just do whatever they want? And so I'd say that, you know, there's no state that even counts as a rule of law state in the basic level without satisfying that condition, at least to some reasonable degree. The idea of publicity really draws on a lot of what I've already been saying about the recruitment of broad participation in the law. That is, when I say publicity, what I mean is that in addition to just officials being bound by the law, ordinary people have to be able to make use of the law in at least two senses. One, they have to be able to make use of the law to defend themselves. I call this the individualistic side of publicity, right? Like if some police officer wants to lock you up, the decision on whether or not you violated the law has to respond to your advocacy, and your ability to defend yourself in some sense. And then there's also the collective side of this idea of publicity, which is that the community as a whole has to be able to collectively enforce the boundaries of the legal system. And you know, we'd talk a lot more about that, I think that's really the most important idea. And then the third idea of generality is really the heart of the egalitarian idea that we've been talking about, which is that the law has to actually treat people as equals. And one thing that I think is really important about the way that I think about these three principles is that they're actually really tightly integrated. By tightly integrated, I mean you're only going to get in real-world states, regularity (that is, officials bound by the law) if you have publicity (that is, if you have people who aren't officials who actually can participate in the legal system and can hold officials to the law). We need the people to hold the officials in line. You're only going to get publicity if you have generality. That is, the people are only going to be motivated to use the legal system and to defend the legal system if the legal system actually treats them as equals. And so you really need publicity to have stable regularity, you really need generality to have stable publicity.Tobi; Speaking of regularity, when you say what constrains the coercive power of the state is when it is authorised by good faith and reasonable interpretation of pre-existing reasonably specific rules. That sounds very specific. And it's also Scalonian in a way, but a lot of people might quibble a bit about what is reasonable, you know, it sounds vague, right? So how would you condition or define reasonable in this sense, and I know you talked about hubris when you were talking about publicity. But is there a minimum level of responsibility for reasonability on the part of the citizen in relation to a state?Paul; That's, in a lot of ways, the really hard philosophical question, because one of the things that we know about law is that it is inherently filled with disagreement, right? Like our experience of the legal system and of every state that actually has something like the rule of law is that people radically disagree about the legal propriety of actions of the government. And so in some sense, this idea of reasonableness is kind of a cop-out. But it's a cop-out that is absolutely necessary, because there's no, you know, what [Thomas] Nagel called a view from nowhere. There's no view from nowhere from which we can evaluate whether or not on a day to day basis, officials are actually complying with the law in some kind of correct sense. But again, I think, you know, as you said, to some extent, that implies that some of the responsibility for evaluating this reasonableness criterion falls down to day to day politics, falls down to the judgment of ordinary citizens. Like, my conception of the rule of law is kind of sneakily a deeply democratic conception, because it recognizes given the existence of uncertainty as to what the law actually requires of officials both on a case by case basis. And, broadly speaking, the only way that we're ever going to be able to say, Well, you know, officials are more or less operating within a reasonable conception of what their legal responsibilities are, is if we empower the public at large to make these judgments. If we have institutions like here in the US, our jury trials, if we have an underlying backstop of civil society and politics, that is actively scrutinizing and questioning official action.Tobi; So speaking of publicity, which is my favorite...I have to say...Paul; Mine too. You could probably tell. Tobi; Because I think that therein lies the power of the state to get away with abusive use of its legitimacy, or its power, so to speak. When you say that officials have a responsibility to explain their application of the law, and a failure to do so commits hubris and terror against the public. So those two situations - hubris and terror, can you explain those to me a bit?Paul; Yeah. So these are really, sort of, moral philosophy ideas at heart, particularly hubris. The idea is there's a big difference, even if I have authority over you, between my exercising that authority in the form of commands and my exercising that authority in the form of a conversation that appeals to your reasoning capacity, right. So these days, I'm thinking about it in part with reference to... I'm going to go very philosophical with you here... but in reference to Kant's humanity formulation of the categorical imperative, sorry. But that is a sense in which if I'm making decisions about your conduct, and your life and, you know, affecting your fundamental interests, that when I express the reasons to you for those decisions, and when I genuinely listen to the reasons that you offer, and genuinely take those into account in my decision making process, I'm showing a kind of respect for you, which is consistent with the idea of a society of equals.As opposed to just hi, I'm wiser than you, and so my decision is, you know, you go this way, you violated the law, right? Are we a military commander? Or are we a judge? Both the military commander and the judge exercise authority, but they do so in very different ways. One is hierarchical, the other I would contend is not.Tobi; Still talking about publicity here, and why I love it so much is one important, should I say… a distinction you made quite early in your book is that the rule of law regulates the action of the state, in relation to its citizens.Paul; Yes.Tobi; Often and I would count myself among people who have been confused by that point as saying that the rule of law regulates the action of the society in general. I have never thought to make that distinction. And it's important because often you see that maybe when dealing with civil disobedience, or some kind of action that the government finds disruptive to its interests, or its preferences, the rule of law is often invoked as a way for governments to use sometimes without discretion, its enforcement powers, you know.So please explain further this distinction between the rule of law regulating the state-citizen relation versus the general law and order in the society. I mean, you get this from Trump, you get this from so many other people who say, Oh, we are a law and order society, I'm a rule of law candidate.Paul; Oh, yeah.Tobi; You cannot do this, you cannot do that. We cannot encourage the breakdown of law and order in the society. So, explain this difference to me.Paul; Absolutely, then this is probably the most controversial part of my account of the rule of law. I think everybody disagrees with this. I sort of want to start by talking about how I got to this view. And I think I really got to this view by reflecting on the civil rights movement in the United States in particular, right. Because, you know, what we would so often see, just as you say about all of these other contexts, is we would see officials, we would see judges - I mean, there are, you know, Supreme Court cases where supreme court justices that are normally relatively liberal and sympathetic, like, you know, Justice Hugo Black scolding Martin Luther King for engaging in civil disobedience on the idea that it threatens the rule of law. It turns out, and this is something that I go into in the book that's coming out in December... it turns out that King actually had a sophisticated theory of when it was appropriate to engage in civil disobedience and when it wasn't. But for me, reflecting on that conflict in particular, and reflecting on the fact that the same people who were scolding peaceful lunch-counter-sit-ins for threatening the rule of law and, you know, causing society to descend into chaos and undermining property rights and all the rest of that nonsense, were also standing by and watching as southern governors sent police in to beat and gas and fire hose and set dogs on peaceful protests in this sort of completely new set of like, totally unbounded explosions of state violence. And so it seems to me sort of intuitively, like these can't be the same problem, right, like ordinary citizens, doing sit-ins, even if they're illegal, even if we might have some reason to criticize them, it can't be the same reason that we have to criticize Bull Connor for having the cops beat people. And part of the reason that that's the case, and this is what I call the Hobbesian property in the introduction to the rule of law in the real world...part of the reason is just the reality of what states are, right? Like, protesters don't have tanks and police dogs, and fire hoses, right? Protesters typically don't have armies. If they do, then we're in a civil war situation, not a rule of law situation, the state does have all of those things. And so one of the features of the state that makes it the most appropriate site for this talk about the rule of law is this the state has, I mean, most modern states have, at least on a case by case basis, overwhelming power. And so we have distinct moral reasons to control overwhelming power than we do to control a little bit of legal disobedience, right, like overwhelming power is overwhelming. It's something that has a different moral importance for its control. Then the second idea is at the same time what I call the [...] property... is the state makes claims about its use of power, right? Like ordinary people, when they obey the law or violate the law, they don't necessarily do so with reference to a set of ideas that they're propagating about their relationship to other people. Whereas when modern states send troops in to beat people up, in a way what they're doing is they're saying that they're doing so in all of our names, right, particularly, but not exclusively in democratic governments. There's a way in which the state represents itself as acting on behalf of the political community at large. And so it makes sense to have a distinctive normative principle to regulate that kind of power.Tobi; I know you sort of sidestepped this in the book, and maybe it doesn't really fit with your overall argument. But I'm going to push you on that topic a bit. So how does the rule of law state as a matter of institutional design then handles... I know you said that there are separate principles that can be developed for guiding citizen actions, you know...Paul; Yes. Tobi; I mean, let's be clear that you are not saying that people are free to act however they want.Paul; I'm not advocating anarchy.Tobi; Exactly. So how does the rule of law state then handle citizens disagreements or conflicting interests around issues of social order? And I'll give you an example. I mentioned right at the beginning of our conversation what happened in Nigeria in October 2020. There's a unit of the police force that was created to handle violent crimes. Needless to say that they went way beyond their remit and became a very notoriously abusive unit of the police force. Picking up people randomly, lock them up, extort them for money. And there was a situation where a young man was murdered, and his car stolen by this same unit of the police force and young people all over the country, from Lagos to Port Harcourt to Abuja, everywhere, felt we've had enough, right, and everybody came out in protest. It was very, very peaceful, I'd say, until other interests, you know, infiltrated that action. Paul; Right. Tobi; But what I noticed quite early in that process was that even within the spirits of that protests, there were disagreements between citizens - protesters blocking roads, you know, versus people who feel well, your protest should not stop me from going to work, you know, and so many other actions by the protesters that other people with, maybe not conflicting interests, but who have other opinions about strategy or process feel well, this is not right. This is not how to do this. This is not how you do this, you know, and I see that that sort of provided the loophole, I should say, for the government to then move in and take a ruthlessly violent action. You know, there was a popular tollgate in Lagos in the richest neighbourhood in Lagos that was blocked for 10 days by the protesters. And I mean, after this, the army basically moved in and shot people to death. Today, you still see people who would say, Oh, well, that's tragic. But should these people have been blocking other people from going about their daily business? So how does the rule of law regulate issues of social order vis-a-vis conflict of interest?Paul; So I think this is actually a point in favour of my stark distinction between state action and social action as appropriate for thinking about the rule of law. Because when you say that the state used...what I still fundamentally think of as like minor civil disobedience...so, like blocking some roads, big deal! Protesters block roads all the time, right, like protesters have blocked roads throughout human history, you know, like, sometimes it goes big, right? Like they love blocking roads in the French Revolution. But oftentimes, it's just blocking... so I blocked roads.I participated in, you know, some protests in the early 2000s. I participated in blocking roads in DC, right, like, fundamentally "big deal!" is the answer that the state ought to give. And so by saying to each other and to the government, when we talk about the rule of law, we mean, the state's power has to be controlled by the law, I think that gives us a language to say... even though people are engaging in illegal things, the state still has to follow legal process in dealing with it, right.The state still has to use only the level of force allowed by the law to arrest people. The state can't just send in the army to shoot people. And the principle that we appeal to is this principle of the rule of law. Yeah, maintaining the distinction between lawbreaking by ordinary people and law-breaking by the state helps us understand why the state shouldn't be allowed to just send in troops whenever people engage in a little bit of minor lawbreaking and protests.Tobi; So how does the law... I mean, we are entering a bit of a different territory, how does the law in your conception handles what... well, maybe these are fancy definitions, but what some people will call extraordinary circumstances. Like protests with political interests? Maybe protesters that are funded and motivated to unseat an incumbent government? Or in terrorism, you know, where you often have situations where there are no laws on paper to deal with these sort of extraordinary situations, you know, and they can be extremely violent, they can be extremely strange, they're usually things that so many societies are not equipped to handle. So how should the rule of law regulate the action of the state in such extraordinary circumstances?Paul; Yeah, so this is the deep problem of the rule of law, you know, this is why people still read Carl Schmitt, right, because Carl Schmitt's whole account of executive power basically is, hey, wait a minute emergencies happen, and when emergencies happen, liberal legal ideas like the rule of law dropout, and so fundamentally, you just have like raw sovereignty. And that means that the state just kind of does what it must. Right. So here's what I feel about Schmitt. One is, maybe sometimes that's true, right? And again, I think about the US context, because I'm an American and you know, I have my own history, right? And so in the US context, I think, again, about, Abraham Lincoln and the Civil War, right.Like Abraham Lincoln broke all kinds of laws in the Civil War. Like today, we'd call some of the things that he did basically assuming dictatorial power in some respects. I mean, he did that in the greatest emergency that the country had ever faced and has ever faced since then. And he did it in a civil war. And sometimes that happens, and I think practically speaking, legal institutions have a habit of not standing in the way in truly dire situations like that. But, and here's why I want to push back against Carl Schmitt... but what a legal order can then do is after the emergency has passed...number one, the legal order can be a source of pressure for demanding and accounting of when the emergency has passed, right. And so again, I think of the United States War on Terror, you know, we still have people in United States' custody imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay.September 11 2001, was almost 20 years ago. It's actually 20 years ago and a month, and we still have people locked up in Guantanamo Bay. That's insane. That's completely unjustifiable. And one of the jobs of the legal system is to pressure the executive to say, okay, buddy, is the emergency over yet? No, really, we think that the emergency is over yet. I want reasons, right, publicity again, I want an explanation from you of why you think the emergency is still ongoing. And the legal system can force the executive to be accountable for the claim that the emergency is still ongoing. That's number one. Number two is that law tends to be really good at retroactively, sort of, retrofitting things into legal order, right. And so again, I think about the Civil War. You know, after the US Civil War, lots of civil wars, sorry. American-centric person trying to fight against it. But after the US Civil War, you know, the courts took a pause. And then we have a lot of cases where they took a lot of the things that Lincoln did, they said, okay, some of them at least were illegal, some of them were legal, but only under very specific circumstances. And so they actually built legal doctrine that took into account the emergency that Lincoln faced, and then later wars, such as in the Second World War, the courts took the lessons from the experience in the American Civil War, and used that to impose more constraints. So to bring it about that the emergency actions that Franklin Roosevelt took in the Second World War weren't completely sui generis, sort of like right acts of sovereignty, but were regulated by legal rules created during the Civil War, and after the Civil War. And again, they weren't perfect, right? You know, during the Second World War, the United States interned Japanese Americans, you know, again, sort of completely lawless, completely unjustifiable, but you know, it's an ongoing process. The point is that the legal system is always... the law is always reactive in emergencies. But the reactive character of the law can nonetheless be used as a way to control and channel sovereign power, even in these sort of Schmittian emergency situations.Tobi; So two related questions, your work is interdisciplinary, because you try to blend a lot of social science into legal philosophy. But speaking of legal order and your primary profession, I mean.. for the sake of the audience parties into a lot of other cool stuff, I'm going to be putting up his website in the show notes. But speaking of legal order, and the legal profession, why is so much of the legal profession fascinated with what I would say the rule by law, as opposed to the rule of law. A lot of what you get from lawyers, even some law professors in some situations is [that] the law is the law, and you have to obey it. And even if you are going to question it, however unjustified it may seem, you still have to follow some processes that maybe for ordinary citizens are not so accessible or extremely costly, you know, which I think violate regularity, right, the way you talk about it retrospective legislation, and so many other things. So why is the legal profession so fascinated with the law, as opposed to justification for the law?Paul; Yeah, I think that question kind of answers itself, right. It's unfortunate... I mean, it's sort of natural but it's unfortunate that the people who most influence our dialogue about the way that we, you know, live in [the] society together with a state, namely by organizing ourselves with law happen to be people who are the specialists who find it easiest, right? And so I think the simple answer is right on this one, at least in countries like the United States, I'm not sure how true this is in other countries. But in the United States, the domination of legal discourse by lawyers necessarily means that the sort of real practical, real-world ways in which ordinary people find interacting with anything legal to be difficult, oppressive, or both just aren't in view, right? This is hard for them to understand.But I think in the US, one of the distortions that we've had is that we have an extremely hierarchical legal profession, right. So we have very elite law schools, and those very elite law schools - one of which I teach at - tend to predominantly produce lawyers who primarily work for wealthy corporations and sort of secondarily work for the government. Those lawyers tend to be the ones that end up at the top of the judiciary, that end up in influential positions in academia, that end up, you know, in Congress. The lawyers that, you know, see poor people, see people of subordinated minority groups and see the very different kinds of interactions with the legal system that people who are worse off have, that see the way that the law presents itself, not as a thing that you can use autonomously to structure your own life. But as a kind of external imposition, that sort of shows up and occasionally inflicts harm on you. Those lawyers aren't the ones who end up in our corridors of power. And it's very unfortunate, it's a consequence of the hierarchical nature of, at least in the US, our legal profession. And I suspect it's similar in these other countries as well.Tobi; In your opinion, what's the... dare I say the sacrosanct and objective - those are rigid conditions sorry - expression of the rule of law? The current general conception of the rule accedes to the primacy of the Constitution, right. I've often found that problematic because in some countries you find constitutional provisions that are egregious, and in other cases, you find lawyers going into court to challenge certain actions that they deem unjust, or that are truly unjust on the basis of the same constitution. Right. So what do you think is the most practical expression of the rule of law? Is it written laws? Is it the opinion of the judges? Is it how officials hold themselves accountable? What's the answer?Paul; So I think I'm gonna like sort of twist this a little bit and interpret that question is like, how do you know the extent to which the rule of law exists in a particular place? And my answer is, can ordinary people look officials in the eye, right, you know... if you're walking down the street, and you see a police officer, you know, are you afraid? Or can you walk past them and confidently know you're doing nothing wrong so there's nothing really effectively but they can do to you, right? If you're called in to deal with some kind of bureaucratic problem, like the tax office, can you trust that you exist in a relationship of respect? You know, can you trust that when you show them, actually here are my receipts, I really did have that expense, that that's going to be taken seriously? You know, if people, everybody, feels like they can stand tall, and look government officials in the eye, then to that extent, I think that the rule of law exists in a society.Tobi; Final question, what's the coolest idea you're working on right now?Paul; Oh, gosh. So like I said, I've got two books under contract right now. The first book is a history/theoretical constitutional law account of the development and existing state of the rule of law in the United States. The second book, which I'm more excited about, because it's the one that I plan to write this year, but it's also a lot harder, is I'm trying to take some of the governance design ideas that we see from the notion of rule of law development, and others such as governance development things and apply them to Private Internet platforms, right? Like, basically to Facebook. Um, I was actually involved in some of the work, not at a super high level, but I was involved in some of the work in designing or doing the research for designing Facebook's oversight board. And I'm kind of trying to expand on some of those ideas and think about, you know, if we really believe that private companies, especially in these internet platforms are doing governance right now, can we take lessons from how the rest of the world and how actual governments and actual states have developed techniques of governing behaviour in highly networked, large scale super-diverse environments and use those lessons in the private context? Maybe we can maybe we can't I'm not sure yet. Hopefully, by the time I finish the book, I'll know.Tobi; That's interesting. And I'll ask you this, a similar, I'll say a related situation is currently happening in Nigeria right now, where the President's Twitter handle or username, tweeted something that sounded like a thinly veiled threat to a particular ethnic group. And lots of people who disagreed with that tweet reported the tweet, and Twitter ended up deleting the tweet in question, which high-level officials in Nigeria found extremely offensive, and going as far as to assert their sovereign rights over Twitter and say, well, it may be your platform, but it is our country and we are banning you. How would you adjudicate such a situation? I mean, there's the question of banning Donald Trump from the platform and so many other things that have come up.Paul; Yeah, I mean, it's hard, right? So there are no easy answers to these kinds of problems. I think, ultimately, what we have to do is we have to build more legitimate ways to make these decisions. I mean, here are two things that we cannot do, right?Number one is we can't just let government officials, especially when, you know, as with the Donald Trump example, and so many others, the government officials are the ones who are engaging in the terrible conduct make these decisions. Number two is we also just can't let a bunch of people sitting in the Bay Area in California make those decisions. Like, ultimately, this is on, you know, property in some abstracted sense of like the shareholders of these companies. But we cannot simply allow a bunch of people in San Francisco, in Menlo Park, and you know, Cupertino and Mountain View, and all of those other little tech industry cities that have no understanding of local context to make the final decisions here. And so what we need to do is we need to build more robust institutions to include both global and local and affected countries, grassroots participation, in making these decisions. And I'm trying to sort of sketch out what the design for those might look like. But, you know, talk to me in about a year. And hopefully, I'll have a book for you that will actually have a sketch.Tobi; You bet I'm going to hold you to that. So, a year from now. So still on the question of ideas, because the show is about ideas. What's the one idea you'd like to see spread everywhere?Paul; Oh, gosh, you should have warned me in advance... that... I'm going to go back to what I said at the very beginning about the rule of law. Like I think that the rule of law depends on people, right? Like there is no such thing as the rule of law without a society and a legal system that genuinely is equal and advantageous to ordinary people enough to be the kind of thing that people actually support. Like ordinary people... if you cannot recruit the support of ordinary people for your legal political and social system, you cannot have the rule of law. That's true whether you're a developing country, that's true whether you're the United States, right. Like I think, you know, part of the reason that we got Donald Trump in the United States, I think, is because our legal system and with it our economy, and all the rest are so unequal in this country, that ordinary voters in the United States didn't see any reason to preserve it. Right and so when this lunatic and I mean, I'm just going to be quite frank here and say Donald Trump is a complete lunatic, right... when this lunatic is running for office who shows total disregard for existing institutions, like complete willingness to casually break the law. An electorate that actually was full of people who felt (themselves) treated respectfully and protected and supported by our legal and political institutions would have sent that guy packing in a heartbeat. But because the American people don't have that experience right now, I think that's what made us vulnerable to somebody like Donald Trump.Tobi; Thank you so much, Paul. It's been so fascinating talking to you.Paul; Thank you. This has been a lot of fun. Yeah, I'm happy to come back in a year when I've got the platform thing done.Tobi; Yeah, I'm so looking forward to that. This is a public episode. Get access to private episodes at www.ideasuntrapped.com/subscribe

Big thank you to Ken Sagoes for calling into my show for an interview! Ken Sagoes discussed playing his famous role as Kincaid in A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors and A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master, seeing Robert Englund for the first time in the Freddy Krueger makeup, and what he learned most from working with Robert. He talked about Laurence Fishburne teaching him how to be a physical actor on the set of Dream Warriors, if there could be a remake of Dream Warriors, and his time as a staff writer for Paramount Pictures. He got into his time starting out as a security guard at Universal Pictures, studying under Marlon Brando and Edmund J. Cambridge, and his conversations with legends such as Alfred Hitchcock and Vincent Price. He won numerous awards for his short film Mc Henry Trial - Don't Judge a Kid By Their Hoodie that released in 2020. He is currently working on an important short film called The Secret Weapon that addresses the deplorable actions of Bull Connor and is raising money for it. His non-profit organization called the Giving Back Corporation gives money to students for school and books. You can donate to his short film and non-profit corporation through his website: https://www.thesagoescompany.com/. Follow me on Instagram and Twitter: @thereelmax. Website: https://maxcoughlan.com/index.html. Website live show streaming link: https://maxcoughlan.com/sports-and-hip-hop-with-dj-mad-max-live-stream.html. MAD MAX Radio on Live 365: https://live365.com/station/MAD-MAX-Radio-a15096. Subscribe to my YouTube channel Sports and Hip Hop with DJ Mad Max: https://m.youtube.com/channel/UCE0107atIPV-mVm0M3UJyPg.  Ken Sagoes on "Sports and Hip-Hop with DJ Mad Max" visual on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CsTr4P3he5M. 

Police brutality is alive and well in the US--STILL. Apparently removing Trump from office didn't bring about police accountability AT ALL. Here in Woodson Terrace, Missouri we have video of white police officers using a K9 attack dog on a black man accused of trespassing. The video was so reminiscent of Bull Connor and other Klan members sicking dogs on black citizens, that it received enough media attention to trigger an FBI investigation of that police department.  Besides talking about the facts of the case, Jeanine will discuss the original 1989 Supreme Court Case known as Graham v. Connor, which granted police, not only a license to brutalize, but a--license to kill. Jeanine will also question a democratically controlled Congress and a Democratic president too cowardly to revoke the damage done by the Graham standard.  Though the Graham standard disproportionally hurts communities of color--granting police a license to kill hurts us all. It sets the stage for a police state.  Jeanine will also feature the Political Heros, Zeros, or Villains this week as well.  Come join us at 6pm Eastern or anytime using the archived collection!  

Maud Maron is the picture of a passionate progressive. She was a Planned Parenthood escort; a research assistant for a Black Panther leader; a Bernie voter; a public school parent; and, most significantly, a public defender who worked for many years at Legal Aid. But fellow progressives, including her colleagues at Legal Aid, now insist that Maud is racist, that she supports segregation, that she is, despite all appearances to the contrary, a modern version of Bull Connor. How did this happen? Why is Maron being lied about so flagrantly? And why did she recently decide to sue Legal Aid, the institution to which she dedicated her career? You've probably never heard of Maud Maron. But I think you will be shocked by her story -- and inspired by her decision to stand up to a tsunami of lies.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This is the second of two episodes on the infamous villain of the civil rights movement, Bull Connor, with guest Chip Nicholson. We also talk about Martin Luther King's Letter from a Birmingham Jail, and Chip's shocking experiences growing up in Alabama. Learn more about the Letter from a Birmingham Jail: https://www.litcharts.com/lit/letter-from-birmingham-jail/summary --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/villainsofhistory/support

 John made his West End Debut at the age of 12 in Lionel Bart's ‘Oliver' at the Albery Theatre. His theatre credits include: Bull Connor in King The Musical (Hackney Empire, 2018), Lionel Bart in The Story of Bart (Tour 2018 & Mirth, Maud & Marvel -2017 & The Hippodrome 2014), Barry Bronze in Rehab - A New Musical (The Union Theatre – 2017), Uncle Ernie in The Who's Tommy (Greenwich Theatre), Principal Singer in Rhythm of Life (The St. James Theatre, Studio), Fogg in Sweeney Todd (ENO), Ed Kleban in A Class Act (The Landor Theatre) for which he was nominated for Best Male Performance at the Offie Awards and Broadwayworld.com 2013/14, Tateh in Ragtime (The Landor Theatre), Charles Guiteau in Sondheim's Assassins (The Union Theatre) for which he was nominated for Best Male Performance at the Offie Awards 2010, Greta in Martin Sherman's Bent (The Landor Theatre), Maisie in Diamond (The Kings Head Theatre), Dr. Thomas Parker in Batboy the Musical (Shaftesbury Theatre), Ragtime (Piccadilly Theatre), Original Cast Member of Andrew Lloyd Webber's Aspect of Love (Prince of Wales Theatre), Hey, Mr Producer (Lyceum Theatre), Feuilly in Les Miserables (Palace Theatre). Red Bishop & Gran/Wolf in The Boy Who Fell into a Book-Written & Directed by Alan Ayckbourn (The Stephen Joseph Theatre), Wilbur Turnblad in Hairspray (Curve Theatre, Leicester - 2014), Amos Hart in Chicago (The Plenary Hall, Kuala Lumpur), Skimbleshanks in Cats (Larnaca Municipal Amphitheatre, Cyprus), David in Company (Derby Playhouse), Koko in The Mikado and Njegus in The Merry Widow (both for Opera Della Luna), Harry in Flora The Red Menace and Snoopy in Snoopy The Musical (both at The Cambridge Arts Theatre), Cliff in In The Midnight Hour (York Theatre Royal), Che in Evita (Opera House, Manchester), and Tobias Ragg in Sondheim's Sweeney Todd (Watermill Theatre, Newbury). In film he has appeared as Convict 5 in Les Miserables – The Movie (2012) Directed by Tom Hooper, Kenny Star in The Catch (Primley Road Productions 2013), and Do Not Disturb – Shut Eye (2017).  and TV includes Taboo (BBC-2016) The Bill (ITV), The Purple People Eater (Dramarama Series-ITV) Pebble Mill at One (BBC1), The 1987 Royal Variety Show (ITV), and Wednesday at Eight (Thames TV) John has also performed his own Cabaret shows on the QE2 and in some of the most prestigious cabaret venues all over the world, including London, New York, San Francisco, Las Vegas, Washington D.C, Chicago, Sydney, Venice, Switzerland, and Denmark. His panto credits include: Dame Nanny Fanny in Robin Hood (Queens Theatre, Hornchurch) 2019/20, Dame Dotty in Jack & The Beanstalk (Queens Theatre, Hornchurch) 2018/19, King Rat in Dick Whittington (The Marlowe Theatre, Canterbury) Winner of Best Pantomime Villain of the Year – 2016/17, Sarah the Cook in Dick Whittington (Ferneham Hall), King Rat in Dick Whittington (Lyceum Theatre, Sheffield), Widow Twankey in Aladdin (Milton Keynes Theatre), Dandini in Cinderella (Capitol Theatre, Horsham), Ugly Sister in Cinderella (Churchill Theatre, Bromley), Ugly Sister in Cinderella (Richmond Theatre), Snowman in Jack & The Beanstalk (Hackney Empire), Josh the Jester in Sleeping Beauty (The Paul Robeson Theatre), Jack in Jack & The Beanstalk (Greenwich Theatre), Dame ‘Debut' Christabel Crusoe in Robinson Crusoe (Corn Exchange, Newbury), Buttons in Cinderella (Corn Exchange, Newbury), Aladdin in Aladdin (Eden Court Theatre, Inverness), Slap in Mother Goose (Horsham Arts Centre), and Peter Pan in Peter Pan (Hawth Theatre, Crawley).

Bull Connor was a real "piece of work" during the Civil Rights Era, and by that I mean he was awful. Guest, Chip Nicholson, and I dive in to the life of Bull Connor and discuss the Civil Right Era and how it relates to the movements today in Part 1 of this two part episode. More about slavery in the cobalt mines. --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/villainsofhistory/support

Protest began to swell in Birmingham began to swell the night Bonita Carter was killed, and it grew larger and larger in the days that followed. Black people, who had marched for voting power and integrated water fountains and lunch counters a decade and a half before, took to the streets to condemn police violence from a department built by Bull Connor. The killing of Bonita Carter seemed to be the last straw, especially when the mayor, a progressive named David Vann who had helped push Connor out in the ’60s, hesitated to discipline the police officer who shot her. The killing demanded change. What was it about her that seemed to mobilize a city?Show Notes:Guests: Solomon Crenshaw, Nathaniel Bagley, TK Thorne, Richard Mauk, Richard Arrington, Jr.Creator: John ArchibaldHosts: John Archibald & Roy S. JohnsonExecutive Producer: John HammontreeProducer & Audio Engineer: Alexander RicheyProducers: Amy Yurkanin and Marsha OglesbyScore: Thad Saajid, Austin Motlow, David Marsh, and Danny Ray Wilkerson, Jr. Additional music contributed by Jeremy Smith.Music: "Hard to Stay Cool," by Cedric Burnside; Single Lock RecordsVoice Acting: Nigel Thomas, Sheikilya Thomas, Alexander Richey, Barnett Wright and John Hammontree See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

In this episode, Holy Cross professor Stephanie Yuhl reconnects with friend and former student Meg Griffiths '04.  They reminisce about Meg's days on campus, and reflect upon the many ways that the Holy Cross Mission and its pursuit of social justice is evident throughout Meg's life and career. Interview originally recorded on July 31, 2020.  Due to the ongoing effects of the pandemic, all interviews in season 2 are recorded remotely. --- Meg: I think people who come to the dialogue table… they come because they’re in touch with something that means a lot to them, and they care enough to show up and listen and try to muddle through with people who they know occupy different positions.  And to me, that’s a sign of hope in and of itself: that people are willing to come to the table. And that they have a shared commitment to making some kind of change, making their community better, making space for more voices and rehumanizing the “other.” Maura: Welcome to Mission-Driven, where we speak with alumni who are leveraging their Holy Cross education to make a meaningful difference in the world around them. I’m your host, Maura Sweeney ‘07, Director of Alumni Career Development at Holy Cross.  I’m delighted to welcome you to today’s show. Maura: In this episode we hear from Meg Griffiths from the class of 2004.  Meg can be described as an educator, space maker, practitioner of dialogue, crafter of questions, and human can opener.  Ever since graduating from Holy Cross, Meg has pursued mission-focused work. After starting her career with the Jesuit Volunteers Corps in New Orleans, her journey has evolved to include work in the nonprofit sector and higher education. Today, she works for Essential Partners, an organization who partners with communities and organizations around the globe, equipping them to navigate the values, beliefs and identities that are essential to them.  Her work showcases the importance of dialogue and connection in order to build trust and support mutual understanding among diverse groups of people.  Stephanie Yuhl, Professor of History, Gender, Sexuality, & Women's Studies, and Peace and Conflict Studies, reconnects with Meg to speak about her life and career.  Their conversation is filled with mutual admiration and respect, stemming from Meg’s time as a student at Holy Cross.  The importance of living the Holy Cross Mission is interwoven throughout the conversation. Despite coming to Holy Cross not knowing what a Jesuit was, Meg has lived a life devoted to the Jesuit values of social justice ever since. Stephanie: Hi, Megan, it's Stephanie. Meg: Hi, Stephanie. It's Meg. Stephanie: How are you doing Meg? I'm so excited that we get this chance to spend some time together and to talk about interesting things related to you and Holy Cross. I have to say, whenever I think of students that to me, have really lived out the mission, you see the T-shirts at Holy Cross that say Live the Mission, and I think that certain people actually really do that and you're always at the top of the list of that, so thanks for sharing your time with us today. Meg: Thank you, Stephanie. When I think about my Holy Cross experience, you are one of the people that regularly comes to mind. So, this is a pure joy to have some Zoom time with you these days in this weird, strange time we're in. Stephanie: It is and hopefully the listeners won't be bored with our mutual admiration society that we're having. Let's get started and let's talk about Holy Cross and you and then, we'll move into your life and career. Tell me why did you choose Holy Cross? What was it about the school that attracted you and how did you move through Holy Cross during your time there? Meg: Yeah. So, I was looking at colleges in the late '90s but before I actually stumbled into Holy Cross, this glossy, beautiful materials that came my way in the old school snail mail, my sister was looking at colleges and she's a couple years older than me. We are very different people in all kinds of ways. My parents had taken my sister to do a New England college tour and Julie came home, very uninterested in Holy Cross and my mom said to me, "Megan, I found the perfect college for you, because your sister is not interested." So, it was sort of planted in the back of my head, before I actively started looking at colleges and I just loved it when I stepped on campus. Meg: I think a lot of Holy Cross students say this, they have this experience of sort of feeling something when they come to campus. My mom said she could read it all over my face, but it really sort of met a lot of what I was looking for in a school at the time, which is a small liberal arts Catholic school. I didn't know what a Jesuit was yet but I was Catholic educated my whole life and that felt familiar in a good way and in a challenging way. Yeah, I landed here in 2000 as a wee freshman, and took me a little while to find my sort of academic home and you, Stephanie, were a big part of that. I meandered through all of my distribution requirements and learned that I wasn't a disciplinary thinker but a multi-disciplinary thinker. Meg: Got a chance to design my own American Studies major before that was a thing on campus, and you Stephanie, were wise enough really, to say yes to being my advisor for that- Stephanie: It was wise because then we got to be friends, and you did your senior thesis on Child's Play, which I think is really interesting and I think it reveals a lot about you and the way that your brain works. Can you talk about that a little bit, explain what that thesis was about, if you can recall? Meg: Yes, I can recall. I can recall sitting in the library at a giant table every Friday writing it, my senior year. I was really interested in gender. I was also a women's studies concentrator before it was women and gender studies and then, material culture, and so, I studied how doll play and child rearing manuals sort of told a story about gender and the role of women in early America and how girls were socialized to grow up to be mothers and caretakers, through the use of dolls and doll play. So, it's really interesting, kind of nerdy but lovely research. It was sort of the bringing together of all of the disciplines of my American Studies major and my interest in sort of gender, and culture. Stephanie: Yeah, and also, I think creativity, right? The idea of looking at something and you see something extensible in that, a doll but then, being able to read and interpret more deeply into it and try to think about what are the influences and impacts that this artifact could have? I think that that is in a lot of ways really connected to some of the work that you do about seeing things one way and then trying to shift one's angle of vision to see it another way to unpack its power. So, it might look like doll play, but I think it was really indicative of future trajectories, perhaps. Meg: I love that. Stephanie: So you mentioned that you didn't even know what a Jesuit was and then, your biography really kind of spent a lot of time in that Jesuit social justice space. So, can you talk a little bit about ... and that's what we would stay around mission, right, around how you're formation at Holy Cross, what are the sort of the things that you think are part of your Jesuit education at Holy Cross, and then we can talk about how you then put those into action after graduation? Meg: Yeah, I love that you brought up the Live the Mission T-shirts, because I was an orientation leader who wore that T-shirt many summer and I'm a little bit of a mission statement nerd, because I just love the way that institutions and communities and even people can take an opportunity to name explicitly what they're about and what they aspire to be. So, I think they're both aspirational and descriptive. The Holy Cross mission, I stepped into it in a variety of ways. I mean, my experience as a student is that you can't go to Holy Cross and not be steeped in mission, but I understand other people have different experiences of that. Meg: For me, I saw it everywhere I looked, and I sought it out also. So, I got involved in the chaplains office, pretty early on in retreats, and in singing in liturgical choir, and sort of embracing the social justice mission of Jesuit education and formation through Pax Christi, and going to the School of the Americas protest and participating in the Mexico Immersion Program and SPUD. Really, seeing the ways that a faith doing justice was a huge part of the college's larger mission and I also just ... I think, part of what I loved about specifically, the Holy Cross mission statement was that it was full of questions and when we talk about what I do now, this might become even more clear to people but I'm sort of all about questions. Meg: I love the ways in which a question can invite us into, again, aspiration and also possibility, and deep personal reflection at an institutional level, sort of organizational reflection on again, who we want to be and how we want to be in the world. The Holy Cross mission statement asks these super powerful questions like what is the moral character of teaching and learning and what are our obligations to one another? What's our special responsibility to the world's poor and powerless? How do we find meaning in life and history? Meg: These are what I have always called the big important questions and I love the way that my academic experience sort of mirrored that more spiritual formation in wading into those big questions and finding the nuance and complexity that comes through sustained engagement with those kinds of questions. There's no simple answers to be found here and I love that. Even though I'm someone who really likes clarity and planning and a clear path, there's a big part of me that also knows, we need to wrestle with the complexity and the gray areas of what it means to be human. So, those are the parts of the mission statement and the way that the mission was lived in my experience that really captivated my imagination. Stephanie: That's awesome and that notion of patience and ambiguity, which is also in the mission is a wonderful thing and it's hard for type A organizers, like yourself and myself, sometimes to sit in that space but I think that that's really probably where we're most human, right? Particularly today in our really Balkanized political discourse, it's important to try to find these spaces of more nuanced. So, let's talk about that a little bit, so you come to the college, you find your way, you figure, you learn what a Jesuit might be, you live the mission, wear a T-shirt and then you graduate, right? With this thesis in Child's Play where everyone is banging on your door to hire you to do something with Child's Play because they don't know that Child's Play is not a play, it's very serious. Meg: I think that was the subtitle of my thesis. Stephanie: It was. This is no joke. I think it's serious- Meg: Something about seriousness of ... Yeah, anyways, yes. Stephanie: Exactly. So, tell me a little bit about ... I know right after college, you joined the Jesuit Volunteer Corps, right? Meg: Mm-hmm (affirmative). Stephanie: And went to New Orleans. Meg: Yeah. Stephanie: Tell me a little bit about that decision and how this question driven impulse that you have, played out in that space. The kind of work you did there, and how maybe your sense of your own personal mission started to shift a little bit in that time. Meg: Yeah, so I served in New Orleans in 2004 to 2005. I served at a domestic violence shelter. We had a transitional shelter and an emergency shelter. My work there involved being a part of the life of the shelter, of the residential life of our clients and guests. I dropped into a culture that could not have been more different than my suburban New Jersey Catholic upbringing, although New Orleans is very Catholic, but sort of my sheltered, very white suburban, middle class upbringing. For me, that was a transformative year in terms of coming to see the lived realities of some of the things that I had studied at Holy Cross. So, I took great courses, like social ethics with Professor Mary Hobgood, and liberation theology with Jim Nickoloff. Meg: I had studied ... and also in my local volunteering over the four years that I was in Worcester, obviously, coming face to face with the realities of injustice and poverty and violence, and sort of had this sort of charity orientation. Definitely, Holy Cross moved me into a conceptualization of justice as a really important aim, more so than charity. They go together but really, that more of my activism sort of bloomed as a Holy Cross student. It was entirely different to move to a city I've never lived in before, worked in a shelter, live in intentional community with six other humans, doing all kinds of work in the city, and tried to live in some shape of solidarity, which is not really possible in some ways, because I was bringing all my privilege and my social network of support with me. Meg: I remember feeling like I saw a different side of the world for the first time, that I really was face to face with three dimensional humans, who were experiencing these things that were really sort of more theoretical in my head at the time, oppression and discrimination, and violence, and classism, and sexism, and heterosexism and all the isms. Yet, New Orleans is this amazing, cultural, rich, historic place that is so much an example of finding joy and having resilience in the face of so many difficulties. Of course, I left New Orleans, three weeks before Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast, and never was that clear, that sense of resilience and hope and richness of community than when I returned to New Orleans, about 10 months after Katrina hit to move back. Stephanie: Let's talk a little bit about that, because that was a really interesting ... an interesting move for you, I think. They joke that JVC graduates are ruined for life, right? That sort of tagline and I think a lot of our students would find it interesting and helpful, frankly, who also choose this path of service as a postgraduate moment. After that, sometimes they feel a little stuck about what next, right? Because you've just had this really intense experience, an experience in which hopefully, you've made some kind of impact but really, mostly it has an impact on the server, as we know, around that quest around justice and charity models, right? Stephanie: You opted to come back to New Orleans, right, to go back to New Orleans and the listeners might not know this, but Megan, Meg Griffiths was a member of the CIA and I think you should explain that, because I think it will surprise people that you are a CIA member. Do you want to explain that Megan and what called you back to New Orleans? Meg: Yeah. Yeah. So, I had moved up to Milwaukee. I was serving at Marquette University, an internship in their university ministry office, so that's where I went when I left and that's where I was when Katrina hit. I didn't have a television in my apartment. I was living in a residence hall. I just come off of a year of simple living. I do not bring a lot with me to Milwaukee. As the news of Katrina was sort of coming up to Milwaukee, I was really not as in tune with what was happening as I would have been if I had a television and sort of made a point to be following the news. Simpler times back then. I quickly started checking in with some people who I knew who were in New Orleans, and it became clear that it was being taken increasingly seriously, as Katrina was approaching. Meg: So, I think that the fact that I had been a resident of that city three weeks before Katrina hit, I mean, I just ... it felt like home still, as much as a place you've lived for 11 months, can feel like home but- Stephanie: Very intense 11 months, so that makes it more home, right? Meg: Yes, and I just ... the only way I could explain it is I felt like I was having the experience that my heart was still in New Orleans and was breaking for this beloved city and its beautiful humans. So, I made my way down several times that year when I was serving at Marquette. I brought students, I went down and met up with other JVs and at the end of my internship, I didn't really have a plan as to what was next. My supervisor at the time, at Marquette who is Jocelyn, she was the liturgist there, she decided she was taking a leave of absence and going to move to post Katrina New Orleans because she felt so called to do so. Meg: I remember so clearly that she asked me straight out, "If I do this, will you come with me?" Without even thinking, I said yes. That is a moment where I felt so deeply certain about the word yes, that I didn't even have time to think before it came out of my mouth. Then, I was like, "Oh, no, I just said, Yes. I think I have to do this." Stephanie: Wait a minute the overthinker didn't overthink this. She just responded. That's great. Meg: Yeah. Stephanie: That's a pure yes. Meg: Yeah. Yeah. I mean, it felt like a call. I mean, it was a direct invitation- Stephanie: It was an invitation, literally. Yeah. Meg: So I said yes, not knowing what it meant or how we would pay for anything or what we would do. Another person joined us, a recent alum of Marquette, my dear friend, Stacy now. So, the three of us moved to New Orleans, rented a house started calling ourselves contemplatives in action, i.e. CIA. Stephanie: I love it. Meg: So, we built this fledgling nonprofit to help people ... to help receive short term volunteers into the city. So, our Jesuit high schools and colleges and parishes, and so many others but in particular, we had a connection to this larger Jesuit family, and people wanted to come to New Orleans and help rebuild and stand with the people of New Orleans and accompany people in their moment of pain, and hear their stories and bear witness. So, we created an opportunity that made it easier for people to find their way to do that work by helping place volunteers and connect them with local nonprofits and local community leaders and with the spiritual and religious and cultural history of the city of New Orleans. Meg: It was really hard work. I mean, physically hard labor but also emotionally hard work. I remember, Stacy, my colleague and co-conspirator in the CIA, say, "I came to New Orleans, to lighten other people's burdens and what I didn't realize was that I would wind up carrying them, with them." That's how we help lighten other people's burdens. Stephanie: Right, accompany them. Meg: Yeah, and that weight of living in what was, for many years after I was there, still a city in distress and in disarray, is emotionally difficult to show up every day and be present to that and to be able to leave was a huge privilege. That wasn't my life. It wasn't my community. It wasn't my home. It wasn't my school, that was destroyed and yet it felt like a part of me. I also knew that there was a limit to how much capacity I had to continue to show up. So, I made a commitment of a year of doing that work in community and then, stepped out of that work and into the next thing. Stephanie: Right, and that's, I think, really ... I just want to thank you for sharing that. I think it's really important for people to know that, you can step up and step in and accompany and do your very best and sometimes it feels like failure to step away, but stepping away is also stepping towards something else. It's not always stepping away from. This notion of sharing the suffering and sharing the stress, and sharing the work is something that very few single people can do, right? It's something that many people need to step in and come in and go. So, I think that idea that you were there, you went away and you came back, I mean, that's that kind of push, pull relationship. Stephanie: I think it's important for people, particularly younger folks who might be listening, to recognize that one, you make a commitment to something and you follow through on your commitment and then, it's okay to also make a different commitment. That's also part of the development and you're not abandoning people, you're not quitting. Meg: I mean, for me, it was about how can I find a different way to support this work. So, I think, also like, especially right now, in our world, when there's so much work needed, and so many people joining in the long struggle for racial justice, for the first time, finding your place in the work can be really hard and I think we sometimes ... I'll speak for myself, I think I sometimes think that there's only one way to show up, to be part of the work and the truth is, there are many ways and we are as different, in terms of our gifts and our assets, and our limitations, as you can get in humans. So, noticing what you can do, what serves the work, what sustains you and the work. Meg: Then, being okay with pivoting, when you realize that that's no longer the role that you can play or want to play or is helpful to play. So for me, I moved to Providence, which is where I live now after New Orleans and I took a job in higher ed setting and one of the first things I did was asked if I could start a program to bring students to New Orleans. So, I continued my relationship and my work and in some ways, built a much more sustainable way. My advocacy continues like super- Stephanie: Particularly you singularly doing the work. Meg: Yeah. Stephanie: Something that amplifies and continues. Yeah, the sustainability question. Meg: Yeah. So, I mean, not right now because nobody's going anywhere but up until last January, students were still going on the NOLA immersion trip from my previous institution. I built that program in 2009. It ran for 10 years, and it will come back I hope, when travel is a thing again, because the work in New Orleans also continues. The immediate response and rebuilding was ongoing for many, many years and yet, there's still ongoing work that we can do. Stephanie: Yeah, and I think that's really interesting, Meg to hear you talk about how you can best serve because sometimes we do have these default notions that it needs to look a certain way. I would connect this with the spiritual exercises, right? That idea of you have to find your way, right? Discern your way, not the way that the culture might tell you is the way or what does service look like, what does a simple life have to look like? We bring a lot of baggage to that and the hard work of reflecting on what is my path and being okay with that even if it looks a little counter-cultural, if it looks like someone's leading something or pivoting. Stephanie: I think that has a lot to do with letting go of ego. Did you think that had to do at all with ego, the idea of who you thought you were in that moment and then, recognizing there's another way of using your skills and gifts toward a larger end? Meg: Yeah, I don't know that I would put that language around it at the time but certainly looking back ... I mean, I did have a lot of moments of asking myself, like what am I here for? Am I here for the right reasons? Am I the right person to be doing this work? I mean, the answer wound up always being yes or enough of a not no, to stay. I think there are moments where in my own development and sort of self-actualization we might say in the fancy words, where I would look at people that I admired and try to be more like them. I think it was actually another of my Holy Cross mentors, Kristine Goodwin, who at one point, used this frame of sort of holy envy. Meg: That when we see people who live out values that we share in a particular way, we can have some jealousy around it almost, that like, we want to be as good, quote, unquote, as they are. I think there have been a lot of people in my life that have served as beacons or sort of examples. The challenge is to always stay rooted and figuring out how I can live out my own values in my own way. One of the things that I care really deeply about and how I show up in the world, is with a sense of integrity. For me, that means living in alignment with my values and who I am and who I've been called to be. So that there's an integrated self in that way of the word integrity, that what I say I'm about, I'm about or at least I'm trying real hard to be about it. Meg: The same with the mission statements being both descriptive and aspirational. I think my values are things that I hold dear, and I want to live out and I also have to aspire to because I won't do it perfectly, and I won't always get it right. Stephanie: Well, of course and I love that phrase holy envy, I have to say the reason I went to graduate school was because of holy envy. One of my professors at Georgetown, I wanted his life. I thought it was just remarkable what he was able to do and the impact he had on me as a young person. We're very, very different. Went to really different fields and different personalities. We're still friends and that's right, you find your ... you might have the catalyst, the inspiration. Then, as you emerge and you grow, you find your way, hopefully in it. That back and forth between achieved ... hitting the mark on values and aspiring to living that, I think that's really interesting. Stephanie: Tell me then about how in your life, if you can ... and you have a really rich professional biography, educational biography, activist biography, and we don't have time to go into all of them. So, I want to give you the opportunity to highlight if you can, either a moment or a choice or a career path, that for you, really puts this values in action, where that integrated self has found firm ground, and what kind of ... and how you manifest that in your work. Meg: I'll leave it to you, Stephanie, to ask the big old questions. Stephanie: Sorry, but you got to give me a good one example. I'm just wondering, is it your current work now? Is it navigating higher ed? Is it your work, which I'd love to talk about at one point with the LGBTQ alumni network at Holy Cross, which to me has been so important, so we can get to that unless you want to talk about it now. So, it's really up to you. I mean, I think ... like I said, the beginning of our conversation, you are a person, remarkably. I mean, I admire you so much, Meg. When you talk about being catalyzed by people, and you put me in that list, I need to share with you that one of the great things about teaching at Holy Cross is being catalyzed by your students. I mean, I put you in my list. It's true, though. It is true though and you know that and I would throw your wife Heather in there as well. Stephanie: I mean, you the two of you really live what ... from the outside and someone on the inside feels very real. A real life where you don't run away from the hard stuff and you try to stay true to your moral compass. We need more of that in the world, frankly and so I'm glad you're in it. So, having said that, what's a way that you think that that's succeeded for you? Obviously, never 100% but what do you think what's been a moment where you've been able to make those choices and live the way you seek to live? Meg: Well, thank you for that kind offering. When I think about how I've had to navigate and negotiate what it means to live out my values, I mean, I think what has been the ... one of the pivotal sort of negotiations has been around identity. So, you mentioned my beloved wife, Heather. She's a Holy Cross alum as well. Stephanie: And a former student. Meg: Yes. Although Stephanie can take no credit for the matchmaking directly but- Stephanie: Much to my chagrin. I had each of you in class and yet you didn't even know each other as undergrads, which just breaks my heart. See, fate happens, right? Meg: That's right. Yeah, so I mean, I ... So when I was an undergrad, I didn't believe myself to be anything other than straight. When I started to come to know myself, as at first, not straight, and then later claiming various identities over time, but then, partial to queer, because of its sort of umbrellaness of many things. When I was an undergrad, I imagined myself working in Catholic higher ed for the rest of my life, ideally, Jesuit higher ed. I wanted to ... I'm obsessed with mission and mission statements. I wanted to be the person on a Jesuit campus who helped the community live out their mission, of course. Stephanie: You pointed at it, you'd be fantastic. Meg: I was born and raised Catholic. In many ways, my Catholic faith was nourished in college, which is often, I think, not the case for what happens in terms of spiritual development of many young people but Holy Cross was a place that nourished my spirituality, and gave me an intellectual and theological frame for holding complexity, as I was sort of mentioning earlier. So, I took classes like sexual justice and feminist theology and liberation theology, that helped me make sense of a world in which multiple things can be true at the same time, both in the world and inside of a human. So, when I came to know myself as a queer Catholic, that was a lot to take in. Meg: Also, I felt really prepared in some ways to hold those identities at the same time. There is internal tension there, that is never going to be resolved and it's taught me a lot about embracing paradox or seeming paradox. I think that that process of negotiating my identity and trying to live out my values as a faithful person, and my identity as someone who falls outside of the church's teachings about what is right, quote, unquote, I think is what was part of the path of getting me into the work that I do now, which is the work of helping people hold tensions and manage internal conflict, and sit across from someone else who holds a drastically different opinion, idea, ideology, set of identities, and see them as human still, not in spite of but because of what they bring in terms of their humanity. Stephanie: We're listening to them and taking seriously in. Meg: Yeah, absolutely. Stephanie: This seems to me a good segue to talk about the kind of ... what it is that you do? Sometimes people talk about the language of bringing people to the table and having people, and it is sounds wonderful, but it's hard to understand what that actually looks like and I think about my own struggle right now, given our current climate and as an American historian, and the ways in which history is being bandied about and weaponized, frankly, and I feel like I know certain things. I know certain things to be true and you're telling me correctly, that multiple things can be true at the same time. Talking about how does a community respond to what's going on right now and to me, let's just use the example of Black Lives Matter, to me, this seems like it's not an ambiguous at all, right? Stephanie: You're either stand with Martin Luther King Jr. or you stand with Bull Connor and his dogs and hoses. To me, it feels like that kind of choice. How in the work you do, which I think is so important, because I feel myself getting more and more entrenched and frustrated, how would you bring someone like that to the table with someone who had a different feeling? What are some of the things ... this is very much mission. I mean, how do you do that and I want to ask you another question, what do you call yourself? I mean, I know your title is associate, but are you a teacher? Are you a mentor? Are you a space maker? What do you go? So, those would be ... I want to know more about how this actually works, largely, because I feel like this is a free consultation. Stephanie: I don't need to pay you for your expertise because I feel like I need this. I need this in family conversations, Twitter ... my goodness, the text threads, I need Meg Griffiths and your skillset. So, how do you do that work and what do you call yourself? Meg: Well, first of all, we all need a little Meg Griffiths. I mean- Stephanie: True and we need Meg Griffin's baked goods. The whole other story of your community making baking space but we do need a lot of Meg Griffiths, not just a little. So, how do you do that when we're in this moment, it's hard enough anyways, particularly, this reactive moment we're in right now. Meg: Well, let me start with, who I work with and for and what we do, and then, I'd love to talk about what I call myself and how we're responding to this moment. So, I work with an organization called Essential Partners. We were founded over 30 years ago by family therapists in Cambridge, Massachusetts. These were a group of mostly women who looked at the public debates around, say, abortion that were happening in the 90s and could clearly see patterns of dysfunction in these quote, unquote, conversations on public television between the pro life and pro choice sides of the issue. They said to themselves, "You know, these are patterns we see in family therapy sessions. We are familiar with this dysfunction and what these systems produce. These communication systems. These power dynamics, et cetera." Meg: So, they went to work and started playing around with an approach to dialogue that would begin to bring their tools to the public conversation. So we were founded as Public Conversations Project, about 30 years ago. We had a name change about five years ago to Essential Partners. So, what we've done over the last 30 years is fine tune, adapt, iterate, and evolve an approach to conversation around polarizing issues. So, what we do is we come into communities, organizations, schools, faith communities, nonprofits, anyone who wants us, and they usually call because they're stuck. They're stuck or they've gotten bad news because they got a climate study back that said, things aren't looking so hot or because they've had some sort of acute conflict come up in their community. Meg: They say, we need help. We don't know what to do. We don't know how to get out of these stuck patterns that were in. Stephanie: Even where to start, right? That kind of news is just so shattering if it's not your experience of the institution, but you know that some of your colleagues it is their experience. Meg: Right, right. Stephanie: Even that moment of recognition is huge. Meg: Yeah, that cognitive dissonance of, well, I love this place and this place feels like home and community and family to me, what are you telling the other people don't feel that way? Yeah, and other people are like, "Thank you for putting the data in front of people, because we've been telling you this for a really long time or we haven't been able to say it out loud because of fear of consequences, of naming our experience. So, I mean, we do a lot of different things but we usually start by listening and trying to get a sense of what the real ... what hasn't worked in the past. What people's hopes and concerns are. If they can imagine a preferred future, what would it look like for them and their community? Meg: Then, we do all kinds of things. So, yes, my title is associate. I talk about my work as being a practitioner of dialogue and of facilitation. I am a trainer, I am an educator, I am in accompanier. This work feels like the Venn diagram of everything I've done. It feels like the middle of ministry, which I have a history in working in ministry, education, I've done teaching of various kinds, and still work for justice because I think this is about helping everyone in the community feel heard, valued, understood and understand that they have dignity, and that their community sees them as having the same dignity as everyone else. Meg: So, we work with people to build skills, to try on new ways of speaking and listening and structuring conversation. We build people's capacity to lead and participate in dialogue and we also work with faculty to help them bring dialogue in their classrooms. We bring coaching and consulting support to organizations and leaders. We just try to ... I mean, when it comes down to it, what I think this work is about is helping people see what's possible, because when we're stuck and all we have are bad examples of destructive communication about hard topics, we have lost our sense that anything else is possible. We can't even imagine that I could sit across the table from someone who disagrees with me, and feel heard and understood by that person. Meg: Be able to hear and understand what their experience and how they've come to their beliefs has been. That's what we do. Stephanie: It's such important work. I mean, it is a real crisis, I have to tell you and I feel like in a differently trained way than you, I tried to do that in my classroom and yet, in personal life, things get more complicated and it's really easy to fight or flight, that you either fight the fight and sometimes it doesn't always have to be a fight. It can be a combination but everything feels like a fight these days or flight, which is just shut down. I'm just not going to deal with you. I'm not going to engage and there's a certain amount of ... there's a lot of disservice and violence in that, of negating someone entirely and yet, engaging when another person doesn't have the same skill set, and where my skill set might be really out of training, because of the world we're living in, can be a really, really hard thing. Stephanie: It also seems like it's a hard thing for someone like me, I would say, who's very outcome oriented, right? When I directed Montserrat, one of my colleagues said, "Okay, we need to process these program goals and outcomes all around assessment," right? I said, "Well, we did that, didn't we." She said, "No, we need to have more meetings and more conversation." I'm like, " Ugh, process." So, I discovered, I'm kind of a closet autocrat, that I ... the illusion of democracy but I really just, let's get it done, right? So, I've learned as an adult to slow down and listen and embrace process more. My teenage children might not agree with that but at least in the professionals space, I tried to do that. Stephanie: It's been a challenge for me, and I know that you also are a person who's outcome oriented, action oriented, but you're also a process person. So, what advice would you give us today, who are all having these conversations in our lives, professionally or personally, around this idea of process itself being worthwhile and not just thinking about the win or the outcome? Meg: Yeah. That is- Stephanie: Consultation, free consultation, but it's true and this is mission, right? This is exactly ... when you talk about your Venn diagram, again, I think you're very lucky and I think you've also been really intentional about creating that diagram. Some of it might be luck, but a lot of it is choices and most of us don't necessarily have as integrated of a Venn diagrams as I think you've been able to construct. So, what do you think? How can we do this better? What would you say to folks that want the outcome that weight with the process. Meg: So I mean, my thing is ... I often say this to clients who are like, we got to get to the business. We got, blah, blah, blah. I'm like, "Y'all, this is the work. The process is the work because if we're stuck in destructive patterns, we got to rebuild a different kind of pattern. We have to examine the processes that are getting us stuck and every process is designed to get exactly what it gets." So, if you're going to try and like, be different together, you have to have a different process. For me, I think about naming that with people up front, because we are so outcomes focused, right? People call us because there's a problem, an acute problems. Sometimes a very public problem, sometimes a lawsuit kind of problem. Stephanie: Right. Meg: They want to fix things and I think- Stephanie: Make it go away. Make it go away. Fix it and move on. Meg: Yes and hopefully, people when they call us, they're not trying to just check a box, they're actually trying to change the culture of their organization or their campus and build some new skills so that they don't need to keep bringing us in all the time if they can start to build their capacity to change and shift things themselves. Stephanie: I was thinking that it sounds like the kind of work people and organizations should do before the acute crisis. In other words, you should build your skill set before the crisis, because what I talked to you about was this idea of how do you bring people who are so outcome oriented, think of the process is the work because ... And also how do you do it when it's asymmetrical? Let's say you have the skills of process, but the person on the other end doesn't have the skills? How do you leapfrog them? Meg: Yeah, and so, one of the things that we do organizationally is we have a couple of certain organizational norms and principles. One is, we say, connect before content. So every time we're doing anything, a client call, a workshop, a dialogue, we build the time in to connect as humans before we get down to business. We do that really simply, we might ask a question like, what are you bringing with you into this conversation that it would be helpful for other people to know about as we prepare to like land in this conversation, or tell me about how your morning has been, right? It doesn't have to be so fancy and what we do in every engagement is we try to model a different kind of process. Meg: Bring people into that so that they can see what shifts. So, I'll say, I actually have done some work at Holy Cross, I worked with the chaplains' office with Marybeth Kearns-Barrett, who was trained by us when we were still Public Conversations Project back in the late '90s, as an early adopter of dialogue and we were able to work together to re-imagine the freshmen retreat and I trained a bunch of Holy Cross faculty and students and staff in our facilitation model to prepare to lead that retreat last fall. Marybeth, she took this idea of a connecting question into other work that she was doing on campus, and that she heard from someone who participated in that conversation, that it was the most seen and understood, that community member has ever felt on this campus. Meg: Because they were able to show up and tell a different side of who they are in that space. Because in our work lives, we're often put in boxes of ... and we introduce ourselves, name, rank and serial number, how long we've been here where, all these things that can actually serve to disconnect us rather than connect us because it can highlight our differences or different levels of power and status. When we ask a connecting question that actually invites story or experience, a little bit more of our humanity into the room, and we suddenly see each other in a new way, in a more three dimensional way. The same is true in a deeply divisive polarizing dialogue. Meg: That what we do is we invite people to share a story about something that would help other people understand how they came to their position on an issue. We don't ask people to state their positions. That's a destructive pattern of communication. We know what that looks like when it plays out when all you do is bring a position to the conversation. When you can bring a story, a piece of who you are and then when you can share the values that are underneath that story, you start to get a more complex picture and then, you ask people actually, where have you experienced internal tension on this issue? That is a completely different conversation. Meg: There are infinite, more possibilities for how that conversation can unfold and if we stick to our typical pro and con, or and against position conversations, Stephanie: That's really, really helpful to think about, and it makes me ... I don't think I did this in the class I taught with you but I do this political autobiography assignment that actually, Margaret Post back when she was directing the CBL and Donelan Center really helped me shape and she also does a lot of this kind of service work and scholarship. It's the same thing, I asked my first years to write a political autobiography without any guidance, just like who are you? What do you believe? It's very much a position statement, pro, con and then, through a series of interviews with peers and different reflective exercises and the readings and of course, over the course of the semester or year, if I'm teaching at Montserrat, they rewrite various points of it. Stephanie: It's so interesting, because slowly as trust is built and confidence, and a sense of community, they feel able to share, exactly what we're saying, when you said a piece of themselves. It makes that position so much more legible, and it makes it legible to the peer and the various peers that are reading those autobiographies or having the interviews. I always try to put people that I've ... have a sense of might be oppositional in the conversation, because it's easy to be oppositional on paper but when you're sitting at Cool Beans with a cup of coffee, and I say go to breakfast, have coffee, sit on the hovel, suddenly, I understand Meg, even if I might disagree with her. Stephanie: Suddenly she's going to understand me differently and 201, the students that comment, they love the assignment and again, it's built on the shoulders of other people and their help to me. They comment that, that experience of being with a peer talking about serious value driven questions, and needing to listen because they have to reproduce the conversation, each of them and then reflect on it, as part of the assignment, was the high point, right? That's just like a teeny little bit of what sounds like what you're doing though, that adults need to do that, right? So, these are these young people information and it's underneath this academic umbrella. Stephanie: Then, it's like, okay, your credential, if you've got your BS or your BA go out into the world, you're fully formed now and clearly, we still need that. I need that reminder, in my own life. It's funny, I feel like I can facilitate that a little bit with my students because of my position as professor and they have to do what I say, but am I doing it in my own life in the spaces that that needs doing? Meg: Well, I love that and that is so beautiful, Stephanie because I mean, when we talk about how to bring this work into the classroom, we have a particular approach. It's highly structured and it's structured because we know that that helps people feel safe enough to contribute. There's a sense of certainty about what to expect. They know that there's a container for the conversation to happen inside of and it can hold a lot. The container can hold a lot of emotion, a lot of disagreement, all of those things but you don't have to bring a 90-minute structured dialogue into your classroom, to create the kind of dialogic spirit that you have clearly demonstrated, right? Meg: It can be as simple as helping students, and then also to your point, bringing this out into the world, in our families, in whatever, right? Helping them to ask questions that will invite that deeper experience, that is behind their belief. It's about following our curiosity instead of listening to debate or persuade, right? The intentionality that we bring to our listening and to our asking of questions, we know has a powerful impact on what we hear and how a person responds. So, we come with a genuine curious question. We're going to get a really different response from our interlocutor or conversation partner than if we come with a question that's actually just a suggestion with an inflection point at the end of the sentence, don't you think it would be better if you just did this? Stephanie: Do you mean my mom voice? Yes, I know that, I've heard that once or twice. I always say I'm a better professor than I am a parent. I'm so much more generous and open ended with my students than with my own children. Meg: My God, please. Heather is like, that doesn't sound like a curious question. Stephanie: There's no fun in it. Yeah, I'm not talking ... That is great, I love that she says that. Look, bring your work to home. Usually, it's like your work at the work place and you're like, "Okay, bring it into this conversation." That is too funny. Well, I would like to write my congressional representative, Jim McGovern and suggest that he bring essential partners to Congress, because I think exactly what you're talking about is what we need and we need it frankly on local and state government levels, as well as institutionally what you're talking about, because I really think we are in a crisis and unfortunately, I don't believe that playing to just ... I mean, leadership matters and the tone is set from above in many ways, I believe in a ground up model too. Stephanie: I don't think that necessarily just notions of who's in charge is going to magically change how we have trained ourselves over decades frankly, really, it's not over a few years as a country but over decades to not listen and to not understand because people are angry and frustrated and then shut down. So, it sounds like if you were to describe yourself beyond, you need a new title. The associate does not encapsulate it. It's teacher, it's curiosity generator, it's ... you're a human can opener. You're a maker of space for these things to happen. We need a more- Meg: Crafter of questions and- Stephanie: Crafter of questions, that sounds like Hogwarts. The Crafter of questions and potions. Well, this is such a pleasure and I have to say I'm so glad you do this work, Meg, because we really so desperately need it. It must feel wonderful to do work that you really believe and see, as needed and effective. That's really awesome, so thank you for that. I'm going to shift gears and do you want to say one more thing? Go ahead. Meg: I just want to add, I think sometimes dialogue gets a bad rep because there are so many urgent issues that need action and attention. So, I just want to say that dialogue is a tool, and our approach has, at its heart, a purpose of building and supporting mutual understanding, and it is not going to solve all the world's problems but what it is really good at is building trust, building understanding and building social cohesion in communities that have been sort of torn or harmed in terms of their sense of community, and it can lay a really strong foundation for action, for a community coming to know and understand where its shared values and shared hopes are and then, moving toward that. Stephanie: Again, this is a ... it's a really helpful precondition. A really necessary precondition but I appreciate you saying that because I think, again, as historian of the ... and I think about Martin Luther King Jr. in Alabama, Birmingham and the City Council saying, "Just wait, don't do this now, wait. This isn't the time," and he wrote his piece why we can't wait and the letter from the Birmingham Jail. So, there does come a time when dialogue shuts down, because it's not really dialogue. It's not dialogue of ... sort of you're talking about, which is people on various positions and I'm saying sides because we don't want to be binary, occupying various spaces in the conversation, who are equally equipped to have a true dialogue, as opposed to not equipped. Stephanie: If people refuse to be equipped, and they insist on being equipped or failed to be equipped, then, of course, I understand why it breaks down and people have to act, because you're right, action toward justice is what the process is hopefully leading toward. Meg: Yeah and people have to ... I think people who come to the dialogue table, they come because they're in touch with something that means a lot to them, and they care enough to show up and listen and try to muddle through with people who they know, occupy different positions and to me, that's a sign of hope in and of itself, if people are willing to come to the table and that they have a shared commitment to making some kind of change, making their community better, making space for more voices and re-humanizing the quote, unquote, other and that ... again, process is an outcome. Stephanie: It were, you say, yeah. Meg: The outcome of that is increased trust, increase connection, increased resilience of listening and social cohesion that, as you said, can be a precondition for greater change in terms of structural change or organizational change, or societal- Stephanie: Yeah, absolutely and even an opportunity for decreasing certain kinds of behaviors, right, is also ... plus its increasing capacity, but not just dismissing a person because you think you know their whole bio or of course, that's how they're going to react and I'm sure that in your work, you come up against certain parties in various institutions, when they hear your plan, say, "Well, I'm not going to do that, right. That's not for me." That must be really frustrating because the idea is to build that trust so that, people who need it, who's all of us, that's the other piece, it's not just certain parties need to hear all, all the parties need to hear. Stephanie: I think that that's a really inclusive model. Awesome. That's great work. It's so needed, I want you to come to my house in my next Thanksgiving dinner, Meg and we'll have a consultation. All right, so let's shift gears, because we don't have too much time left, although I could do this all day long. I wish I could. I'm going to do something called speed round for fun. Meg: Okay. Stephanie: My gosh, what is it? Okay, and I'm going to ask you a series of questions and I just want you to answer in whatever way you want. Okay? They're really, really heavy questions. These are heavy questions that are going to shape the future of the world, ready? Favorite vacation spot? Meg: Wellfleet. The Cape. Stephanie: Beautiful. Favorite baked good that you make yourself? Meg: Homemade no knead bread. Stephanie: Favorite dessert that's a dessert, baked good. Of course. It's so funny that I say baked good, I'm immediately thinking chocolate and you say bread. So, favorite dessert, dessert not just bread. Meg: It's the Italian in me. Stephanie: I know. Right. Meg: I don't actually make a lot of desserts but I buy the most delicious brownie from The Vegan. I know, it sounds unbelievable. The Vegan bakery down the street has amazing fudgy chocolatey brownies. Stephanie: Delicious. All right, then that sounds perfect. I like that. My mother was a baker like that. She was like, I don't really bake, but I go to Paris Pastry Bakery and I buy the best stuff in pink boxes. What is one of your favorite places in Worcester, because you also lived here for a while after graduation, what's one of your favorite places in Worcester? Meg: Can I say your house? Stephanie: Yes, you're so sweet. Thank you. More importantly, what's your favorite restaurant in Providence, your current home? Meg: We have a weekly standing Friday night dinner at the Vegetarian Place down the street. It's Garden Grill and we miss them terribly while they were shut down and now, we get takeout usually on Friday night. Stephanie: Nice. Garden Grill in Providence. Excellent. Do you make New Year's resolutions or is it every day resolutions? Meg: I don't usually make a New Year's resolution. I try to reflect on the previous year, around that time of year. I don't really make resolutions. Stephanie: That's good. I think you live resolutions every day. Resolutions are outcome oriented. They're not process oriented anyway, right? Meg: Yeah. Yeah. Stephanie: Maybe what we should make are New Year's process commitments. We need to change that to ... change your title and change that tradition. All right, what about ... real quick back to Holy Cross, what was your favorite dorm that you lived in? Meg: I was the first class to move into what was simply called the apartments, my senior year, now Williams Hall. I was the senior resident director. The first ever in the senior apartments. Stephanie: Did you get a room with a good view of downtown? Meg: I was in the basement, so not the perfect view, but close to the nice balcony- Stephanie: They do. Meg: Yeah. Stephanie: That overlooked Worcester. What about if it's possible back in the early 2000s, your favorite food at Kimball? Meg: Gosh. Stephanie: It's gotten so good. Meg: Probably, froyo with cereal on top. Stephanie: Yeah, I think that's probably still, because that constant open machine of the froyo, yeah. What kind of cereal? Meg: Cinnamon toast crunch or something with sugar- Stephanie: There you go. Excellent and then, what's the best part about being a Holy Cross graduate? What's the best part about being part of this community and I'm going to add, what is something you would like to see more in this community of people? Meg: Well, one of the best things about being an alum is that I got to build the LGBTQ alumni network and meet a bunch of really fabulous and I mean fabulous in all the ways, LGBTQ alums and be part of creating a space where some of our alums who had never stepped foot on campus since they graduated, and had felt really disconnected from the college could reconnect. So, we have a network of hundreds of alums from across many decades and more than a handful of people have made it known to us that they have not had a relationship with the college until this group was founded and recognized and the college was so supportive when we approached them a number of years ago. Meg: Really, the request and encouragement of students at the time from the Abigail Allies now Pride group who wanted to see alums be recognized and organized so that they could see themselves in the alumni community, and that they could have support from alums. So that work has been really meaningful and my colleague, Phil Dardeno, from the class of 2002, has really held that work and steered the ship for the last few years. Stephanie: Wonderfully so and I can attest how important that group is for students. This model of, of being able to move through this place and be true to oneself and have a community that matters, that's wonderful. What would you like to see more from your alum group or from ... what do you what do you hope Holy Cross graduates can bring to the world right now? Meg: Gosh. Stephanie: It's a diverse group of people, so it's so hard. Meg: I know. Stephanie: A hard ask. Meg: Holy Cross alums are doing amazing things in the world and I love how we have Dr. Anthony Fauci out there representing some of what it means to be a Holy Cross alum right now and I'd love to see more storytelling and more ways to bring alums back together. I think the affinity spaces is the future of alumni development and alumni community because I imagine I'm not alone in this. My relationships and connection as a student spanned all four ... well, more than four, graduating classes because I was involved in so much. The idea of coming back for reunion is like, lovely and also, those are not all my people. I missed the people that I saw and had relationships with, that were years ahead and below me. Meg: I would love more opportunities for alumni to gather and now, that must be virtual. Also, for the college to tell the story of more alumni who might be not as famous as Dr. Fauci is and doing really amazing and important work in the world and that's why I love this podcast, but also, I think to amplify and elevate voices of alums who are doing ... who are living their mission and the colleges and then, have opportunities to like hang out together and learn from each other and like rub off on one another a little bit. Stephanie: Exactly, and then, that's that sustainability thing, right, that it fires in sustainable and relationships. That's awesome, Meg. I am so grateful for you, taking the time today to share your story with us and also to share your wisdom around process and relational exchange and hope. Whenever I speak with you, I always leave with a great sense of admiration, love but also such a sense of hope. You're a person who makes things possible and I thank you for that because sometimes this world feels like that ... possibilities feel, they're shutting down. They're literally shut down with isolation, right? It's just really revivifying to spend time with you and I appreciate how well you live the mission. Do you still have your T-shirt, we should have had you wear it. Stephanie: Maybe you have to find an old picture of you in the T-shirt to send ... to post with the podcast, of moving people into the apartments, right? Meg: I'll have to ask Brenda Hounsell-Sullivan, if she has an old orientation photo of me with the Live the Mission. Stephanie: I'm sure she does. I'm so grateful. Thank you so much. I will hopefully come down to Providence and grab some Garden Grill with you and Heather, and my husband Tony soon and keep up all the wonderful work you do. Thank you for being part of the Holy Cross story, Meg. Meg: Thank you for being one of my beacons along the way, Stephanie. Maura: That’s our show!  I hope you enjoyed hearing about just one of the many ways that Holy Cross alumni have been inspired by the mission to be people for and with others.   A special thanks to today’s guests, and everyone at Holy Cross who has contributed to making this podcast a reality. If you, or someone you know, would like to be featured on this podcast, please send us an email at alumnicareers@holycross.edu.  If you like what you hear, then please leave us a review. This podcast is brought to you by the Office of Alumni Relations at The College of the Holy Cross.  You can subscribe for future episodes wherever you find your podcasts. I’m you’re host, Maura Sweeney, and this is Mission-Driven. In the words of St. Ignatius of Loyola, now go forth, and set the world on fire. --- Theme music composed by Scott Holmes, courtesy of freemusicarchive.org.

Reckon Radio presents: “Unjustifiable,” an investigative series from Pulitzer-prize winning columnist John Archibald and Roy S. Johnson examining an overlooked moment of civil rights history in the heart of the South. The story begins in 1979, when a police officer with a history of complaints shot and killed a 20-year-old Black woman named Bonita Carter. Her death would forever change the course of Birmingham, Alabama.The legacy of Bull Connor’s police department looms large over Birmingham. Even today, black and white images of dogs and firehoses used against Birmingham children and foot soldiers are touchstones for protestors demanding police reform. What was it about the death of Carter that motivated Birmingham to change, 16 years after Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. penned a letter from a Birmingham jail and four decades before Black Lives Matter. In a six episode series, “Unjustifiable” tells the story of Carter, the protests that erupted and the change demanded, resulting in the election of the city’s first Black mayor.Archibald and Johnson also examine a century of police killings in Birmingham that had been ruled “justifiable.” They’ve identified 500 people killed by police in Jefferson County in the 20th century. What was it about Bonita Carter? She came to represent them all.“Unjustifiable,” is produced by the award-winning team behind the Reckon Interview and Greek Gods. It features original music recorded in Muscle Shoals, Alabama, at Single Lock Records.Creator: John ArchibaldHosts: John Archibald & Roy S. JohnsonExecutive Producer: John HammontreeProducer & Audio Engineer: Alexander RicheyProducer: Amy Yurkanin See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Hillary and Tina cover former Washington House Representative Matt Shea and Birmingham Commission of Public Safety, Bull Connor. For show notes and links to our sources, please click here (https://themuckpodcast.fireside.fm/articles/ep43notes).

After the carnage in Birmingham and the bus bombing in Anniston, Rip Patton and the Nashville students set out to continue the Freedom Rides. Hear how their journey finds them in the crosshairs of Bull Connor and the Alabama Klan, and ultimately in a Mississippi maximum security prison. Rip talks to poet Destiny Birdsong about how the legacy of that activism points the way for current protest, and then Destiny transforms Rip’s spellbinding history in poetry.  Versify is a production of Nashville Public Radio and The Porch — Nashville’s nonprofit literary center. Editing for this episode came from WPLN’s Mack Linebaugh with additional editing by Anita Bugg. The episode was written, hosted, and produced by Joshua Moore. Today’s story and poem were recorded by Joshua Moore at Nashville Public Radio.  The music is by Blue Dot Session.  The show is distributed by P-R-X. 

"who does that guy think he is, Bull Connor?" if you're not caught up, listen to part i first. localtrancemedia.com/podcasts 100r.org/stfob

Dr. Freeman Hrabowski is the President of the University of Maryland Baltimore County – a college that made history during this year’s March Madness by being the first #16 seed to knock off a top-ranked #1 team in the history of the NCAA men’s basketball tournament. We talk about what it’s like to truly be a Cinderella story – including the bright light it brings to shine on UMBC’s stellar academic record and unique approach to higher education, especially in STEM subjects and for minority students; their dedication to civic engagement on campus; and why the school calls itself “The House of Grit.” We also get a deeper understanding of the impact that Martin Luther King, Jr.’s teachings and engagement had on the life of young Birmingham Alabaman, Freeman Hrabowski. As a participant in King’s Children’s March in 1963 which sponsored noble acts of non-violent protest that brought the city of Birmingham to its knees, Hrabowski was spat on and jailed by Bull Connor and visited by Martin Luther King at the tender age of 12. Join us this hour to discuss these topics and more – like the importance of curiosity, asking beautiful questions, and using critical thinking while also embracing a beginner’s mind at everything we do to find our pathways to success.

With just a week left in office, President Barack Obama signed a proclamation declaring the Birmingham, Alabama Civil Rights District a national monument. Birmingham played a pivotal role in the civil rights movement in America in the 1950s and ‘60s. Prominent figures like Rev. Fred Shuttlesworth and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. were both active in the community, and the city long ago captured the hearts and imaginations of the nation. On this week's episode, I talk with Barry McNealy, education and programming consultant of the Birmingham Civil Rights Institute. We talk about the events that took place in the city, and what led Obama to make his proclamation. Birmingham and Civil Rights Barry told me about how just by growing up in Birmingham, the civil rights struggle is a part of life. His aunt was a “foot soldier,” as he put it, and he had high school and college teachers who were involved in the movement. That's how interwoven the civil rights fight was in Birmingham. And much of it centers on the Civil Rights Monument, where the 16th Street Baptist Church lies, as well as Kelly Ingram Park, infamous as the site where Birmingham public safety commissioner Bull Connor ordered demonstrators be cleared via firehose. And, of course, there's the A.G. Gaston Motel, which Revs. Shuttlesworth and King used as a headquarters. The 16th Street Baptist Church The 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham was the site of the notorious bombing by the Ku Klux Klan in 1963, but the church's roots go back to almost the time of the founding of the city. Birmingham was established in 1870, and the church's congregation came together just a couple years after that. Luminaries flocked to the church: W.E.B. DuBois spoke there, opera singer Marian Anderson performed there. And this was before the civil rights movement took off. The church became known as “everybody's church,” with both the first high school and the first bank open to African-Americans growing out of the church. Shuttlesworth, King and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference As Barry told me, the importance of Birmingham to the civil rights movement was both planned and the result of happenstance. The Rev. Fred Shuttlesworth was a key figure in the struggle. When the State of Alabama banned the NAACP from functioning in the state after the Montgomery bus boycott, the reverend created a new organization to stand in its place called the Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights. The Movement took up both the NAACP's legal challenges against the state and the nonviolent actions of the bus boycott in 1957. Then, Shuttlesworth and King would work together to create the famous Southern Christian Leadership Conference. From the 1950s to now Barry shares so many fascinating stories of this tumultuous time in American history, from the work of civil rights heroes like Dr. King, to the racist actions taken by “mule” politicians like Bull Connor. If you've never been to Birmingham, Alabama, I highly recommend a visit to the Birmingham Civil Rights Institute. Like so much of history, it's wonderful to read about, but it's on the streets where it happened where it really comes alive. The Civil Rights movement started in the 1950s, became a worldwide phenomenon in the 1960s, and in many ways continues to this day. Thanks so much to Barry McNealy of the Birmingham Civil Rights Institute for talking with me today. Outline of This Episode [2:47] How Barry became involved [6:09] How the 16th Street Baptist Church rose to prominence [8:49] How Birmingham became so important to the movement [14:22] Bull Connor [20:04] 1963 [24:57] The bombing of the 16th Street Baptist Church [33:09] The problems with how Birmingham has been taught [39:00] The aftermath of the bombing [41:03] Birmingham and the continuing civil rights movement [44:24] Doug Jones's story [54:32] Visiting Birmingham Resources Mentioned The Birmingham Civil Rights Institute Connect With Stephanie stephanie@historyfangirl.com https://historyfangirl.com Support Stephanie on Patreon Featuring the song “Places Unseen” by Lee Rosevere. More info and photographs for this episode at: https://historyfangirl.com/birmingham-civil-rights-movement/

Two stories about growing up in the Civil Rights era, including one man's experience of the bombing of the 16th Street Baptist Church and one woman's confrontation with the infamous Bull Connor.Learn more about Rickey Powell: Rickey on the BhamwikiLearn more about Catherine Burks-Brooks: Catherine on the Bhamwiki | "Freedom Riders" a Production of PBS' American ExperienceLearn more about Chris Kinsley: Chris' Twitter | Chris' Instagram | Chris' FacebookGet tickets and info for our next live event: Hell Hath No Fury: Stories from WomanhoodRate and Review: iTunesSubscribe to Episodes: iTunes | AndroidFollow Us: Facebook | Twitter | Instagram

Happy Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Day! Today, I want us to take some time to reflect on what Dr. King really stood for. The American education system and the media only focus on the I Have a Dream speech given on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, but that message was not the entirety of Dr. King's message. The speech we will hear today and which is transcribed below was actually the last that Martin Luther King Jr. delivered in his life. It was given in Tennessee, supporting the Memphis Sanitation Workers' Strike the day before his assassination. The audience is much different from the millions who were listening to I Have a Dream in 1963, and the message is much more specific and directed to the Black Community as well. I hope this touches, motivates, and invigorates your spirit as deeply as it did mine. Thank you for sharing this moment with me. God bless. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. - Memphis, TN - April 3, 1968 [Text transcribed directly from audio] Thank you very kindly, my friends. As I listened to Ralph Abernathy and his eloquent and generous introduction and then thought about myself, I wondered who he was talking about. It's always good to have your closest friend and associate to say something good about you. And Ralph Abernathy is the best friend that I have in the world. I'm delighted to see each of you here tonight in spite of a storm warning. You reveal that you are determined to go on anyhow. Something is happening in Memphis; something is happening in our world. And you know, if I were standing at the beginning of time, with the possibility of taking a kind of general and panoramic view of the whole of human history up to now, and the Almighty said to me, "Martin Luther King, which age would you like to live in?" I would take my mental flight by Egypt and I would watch God's children in their magnificent trek from the dark dungeons of Egypt through, or rather across the Red Sea, through the wilderness on toward the promised land. And in spite of its magnificence, I wouldn't stop there. I would move on by Greece and take my mind to Mount Olympus. And I would see Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, Euripides and Aristophanes assembled around the Parthenon. And I would watch them around the Parthenon as they discussed the great and eternal issues of reality. But I wouldn't stop there. I would go on, even to the great heyday of the Roman Empire. And I would see developments around there, through various emperors and leaders. But I wouldn't stop there. I would even come up to the day of the Renaissance, and get a quick picture of all that the Renaissance did for the cultural and aesthetic life of man. But I wouldn't stop there. I would even go by the way that the man for whom I am named had his habitat. And I would watch Martin Luther as he tacked his Ninety-five Theses on the door at the Church of Wittenberg. But I wouldn't stop there. I would come on up even to 1863, and watch a vacillating President by the name of Abraham Lincoln finally come to the conclusion that he had to sign the Emancipation Proclamation. But I wouldn't stop there. I would even come up to the early thirties, and see a man grappling with the problems of the bankruptcy of his nation. And come with an eloquent cry that We Have Nothing to Fear but "Fear Itself." But I wouldn't stop there. Strangely enough, I would turn to the Almighty, and say, "If you allow me to live just a few years in the second half of the 20th century, I will be happy." Now that's a strange statement to make, because the world is all messed up. The nation is sick. Trouble is in the land; confusion all around. That's a strange statement. But I know, somehow, that only when it is dark enough can you see the stars. And I see God working in this period of the twentieth century in a way that men, in some strange way, are responding. Something is happening in our world. The masses of people are rising up. And wherever they are assembled today, whether they are in Johannesburg, South Africa; Nairobi, Kenya; Accra, Ghana; New York City; Atlanta, Georgia; Jackson, Mississippi; or Memphis, Tennessee -- the cry is always the same: "We want to be free." And another reason that I'm happy to live in this period is that we have been forced to a point where we are going to have to grapple with the problems that men have been trying to grapple with through history, but the demands didn't force them to do it. Survival demands that we grapple with them. Men, for years now, have been talking about war and peace. But now, no longer can they just talk about it. It is no longer a choice between violence and nonviolence in this world; it's nonviolence or nonexistence. That is where we are today. And also in the human rights revolution, if something isn't done, and done in a hurry, to bring the colored peoples of the world out of their long years of poverty, their long years of hurt and neglect, the whole world is doomed. Now, I'm just happy that God has allowed me to live in this period to see what is unfolding. And I'm happy that He's allowed me to be in Memphis. I can remember -- I can remember when Negroes were just going around as Ralph has said, so often, scratching where they didn't itch, and laughing when they were not tickled. But that day is all over. We mean business now, and we are determined to gain our rightful place in God's world. And that's all this whole thing is about. We aren't engaged in any negative protest and in any negative arguments with anybody. We are saying that we are determined to be men. We are determined to be people. We are saying -- We are saying that we are God's children. And that we are God's children, we don't have to live like we are forced to live. Now, what does all of this mean in this great period of history? It means that we've got to stay together. We've got to stay together and maintain unity. You know, whenever Pharaoh wanted to prolong the period of slavery in Egypt, he had a favorite, favorite formula for doing it. What was that? He kept the slaves fighting among themselves. But whenever the slaves get together, something happens in Pharaoh's court, and he cannot hold the slaves in slavery. When the slaves get together, that's the beginning of getting out of slavery. Now let us maintain unity. Secondly, let us keep the issues where they are. The issue is injustice. The issue is the refusal of Memphis to be fair and honest in its dealings with its public servants, who happen to be sanitation workers. Now, we've got to keep attention on that. That's always the problem with a little violence. You know what happened the other day, and the press dealt only with the window-breaking. I read the articles. They very seldom got around to mentioning the fact that one thousand, three hundred sanitation workers are on strike, and that Memphis is not being fair to them, and that Mayor Loeb is in dire need of a doctor. They didn't get around to that. Now we're going to march again, and we've got to march again, in order to put the issue where it is supposed to be -- and force everybody to see that there are thirteen hundred of God's children here suffering, sometimes going hungry, going through dark and dreary nights wondering how this thing is going to come out. That's the issue. And we've got to say to the nation: We know how it's coming out. For when people get caught up with that which is right and they are willing to sacrifice for it, there is no stopping point short of victory. We aren't going to let any mace stop us. We are masters in our nonviolent movement in disarming police forces; they don't know what to do. I've seen them so often. I remember in Birmingham, Alabama, when we were in that majestic struggle there, we would move out of the 16th Street Baptist Church day after day; by the hundreds we would move out. And Bull Connor would tell them to send the dogs forth, and they did come; but we just went before the dogs singing, "Ain't gonna let nobody turn me around." Bull Connor next would say, "Turn the fire hoses on." And as I said to you the other night, Bull Connor didn't know history. He knew a kind of physics that somehow didn't relate to the transphysics that we knew about. And that was the fact that there was a certain kind of fire that no water could put out. And we went before the fire hoses; we had known water. If we were Baptist or some other denominations, we had been immersed. If we were Methodist, and some others, we had been sprinkled, but we knew water. That couldn't stop us. And we just went on before the dogs and we would look at them; and we'd go on before the water hoses and we would look at it, and we'd just go on singing "Over my head I see freedom in the air." And then we would be thrown in the paddy wagons, and sometimes we were stacked in there like sardines in a can. And they would throw us in, and old Bull would say, "Take 'em off," and they did; and we would just go in the paddy wagon singing, "We Shall Overcome." And every now and then we'd get in jail, and we'd see the jailers looking through the windows being moved by our prayers, and being moved by our words and our songs. And there was a power there which Bull Connor couldn't adjust to; and so we ended up transforming Bull into a steer, and we won our struggle in Birmingham. Now we've got to go on in Memphis just like that. I call upon you to be with us when we go out Monday. Now about injunctions: We have an injunction and we're going into court tomorrow morning to fight this illegal, unconstitutional injunction. All we say to America is, "Be true to what you said on paper." If I lived in China or even Russia, or any totalitarian country, maybe I could understand some of these illegal injunctions. Maybe I could understand the denial of certain basic First Amendment privileges, because they hadn't committed themselves to that over there. But somewhere I read of the freedom of assembly. Somewhere I read of the freedom of speech. Somewhere I read of the freedom of press. Somewhere I read that the greatness of America is the right to protest for right. And so just as I say, we aren't going to let dogs or water hoses turn us around, we aren't going to let any injunction turn us around. We are going on. We need all of you. And you know what's beautiful to me is to see all of these Ministers of the Gospel. It's a marvelous picture. Who is it that is supposed to articulate the longings and aspirations of the people more than the preacher? Somehow the preacher must have a kind of fire shut up in his bones. And whenever injustice is around he tell it. Somehow the preacher must be an Amos, and saith, "When God speaks who can but prophesy?" Again with Amos, "Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream." Somehow the preacher must say with Jesus, "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me," and he's anointed me to deal with the problems of the poor." And I want to commend the preachers, under the leadership of these noble men: James Lawson, one who has been in this struggle for many years; he's been to jail for struggling; he's been kicked out of Vanderbilt University for this struggle, but he's still going on, fighting for the rights of his people. Reverend Ralph Jackson, Billy Kiles; I could just go right on down the list, but time will not permit. But I want to thank all of them. And I want you to thank them, because so often, preachers aren't concerned about anything but themselves. And I'm always happy to see a relevant ministry. It's all right to talk about "long white robes over yonder," in all of its symbolism. But ultimately people want some suits and dresses and shoes to wear down here! It's all right to talk about "streets flowing with milk and honey," but God has commanded us to be concerned about the slums down here, and his children who can't eat three square meals a day. It's all right to talk about the new Jerusalem, but one day, God's preacher must talk about the new New York, the new Atlanta, the new Philadelphia, the new Los Angeles, the new Memphis, Tennessee. This is what we have to do. Now the other thing we'll have to do is this: Always anchor our external direct action with the power of economic withdrawal. Now, we are poor people. Individually, we are poor when you compare us with white society in America. We are poor. Never stop and forget that collectively -- that means all of us together -- collectively we are richer than all the nations in the world, with the exception of nine. Did you ever think about that? After you leave the United States, Soviet Russia, Great Britain, West Germany, France, and I could name the others, the American Negro collectively is richer than most nations of the world. We have an annual income of more than thirty billion dollars a year, which is more than all of the exports of the United States, and more than the national budget of Canada. Did you know that? That's power right there, if we know how to pool it. We don't have to argue with anybody. We don't have to curse and go around acting bad with our words. We don't need any bricks and bottles. We don't need any Molotov cocktails. We just need to go around to these stores, and to these massive industries in our country, and say, "God sent us by here, to say to you that you're not treating his children right. And we've come by here to ask you to make the first item on your agenda fair treatment, where God's children are concerned. Now, if you are not prepared to do that, we do have an agenda that we must follow. And our agenda calls for withdrawing economic support from you." And so, as a result of this, we are asking you tonight, to go out and tell your neighbors not to buy Coca-Cola in Memphis. Go by and tell them not to buy Sealtest milk. Tell them not to buy -- what is the other bread? -- Wonder Bread. And what is the other bread company, Jesse? Tell them not to buy Hart's bread. As Jesse Jackson has said, up to now, only the garbage men have been feeling pain; now we must kind of redistribute the pain. We are choosing these companies because they haven't been fair in their hiring policies; and we are choosing them because they can begin the process of saying they are going to support the needs and the rights of these men who are on strike. And then they can move on town -- downtown and tell Mayor Loeb to do what is right. But not only that, we've got to strengthen black institutions. I call upon you to take your money out of the banks downtown and deposit your money in Tri-State Bank. We want a "bank-in" movement in Memphis. Go by the savings and loan association. I'm not asking you something that we don't do ourselves at SCLC. Judge Hooks and others will tell you that we have an account here in the savings and loan association from the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. We are telling you to follow what we are doing. Put your money there. You have six or seven black insurance companies here in the city of Memphis. Take out your insurance there. We want to have an "insurance-in." Now these are some practical things that we can do. We begin the process of building a greater economic base. And at the same time, we are putting pressure where it really hurts. I ask you to follow through here. Now, let me say as I move to my conclusion that we've got to give ourselves to this struggle until the end. Nothing would be more tragic than to stop at this point in Memphis. We've got to see it through. And when we have our march, you need to be there. If it means leaving work, if it means leaving school -- be there. Be concerned about your brother. You may not be on strike. But either we go up together, or we go down together. Let us develop a kind of dangerous unselfishness. One day a man came to Jesus, and he wanted to raise some questions about some vital matters of life. At points he wanted to trick Jesus, and show him that he knew a little more than Jesus knew and throw him off base.... Now that question could have easily ended up in a philosophical and theological debate. But Jesus immediately pulled that question from mid-air, and placed it on a dangerous curve between Jerusalem and Jericho. And he talked about a certain man, who fell among thieves. You remember that a Levite and a priest passed by on the other side. They didn't stop to help him. And finally a man of another race came by. He got down from his beast, decided not to be compassionate by proxy. But he got down with him, administered first aid, and helped the man in need. Jesus ended up saying, this was the good man, this was the great man, because he had the capacity to project the "I" into the "thou," and to be concerned about his brother. Now you know, we use our imagination a great deal to try to determine why the priest and the Levite didn't stop. At times we say they were busy going to a church meeting, an ecclesiastical gathering, and they had to get on down to Jerusalem so they wouldn't be late for their meeting. At other times we would speculate that there was a religious law that "One who was engaged in religious ceremonials was not to touch a human body twenty-four hours before the ceremony." And every now and then we begin to wonder whether maybe they were not going down to Jerusalem -- or down to Jericho, rather to organize a "Jericho Road Improvement Association." That's a possibility. Maybe they felt that it was better to deal with the problem from the causal root, rather than to get bogged down with an individual effect. But I'm going to tell you what my imagination tells me. It's possible that those men were afraid. You see, the Jericho road is a dangerous road. I remember when Mrs. King and I were first in Jerusalem. We rented a car and drove from Jerusalem down to Jericho. And as soon as we got on that road, I said to my wife, "I can see why Jesus used this as the setting for his parable." It's a winding, meandering road. It's really conducive for ambushing. You start out in Jerusalem, which is about 1200 miles -- or rather 1200 feet above sea level. And by the time you get down to Jericho, fifteen or twenty minutes later, you're about 2200 feet below sea level. That's a dangerous road. In the days of Jesus it came to be known as the "Bloody Pass." And you know, it's possible that the priest and the Levite looked over that man on the ground and wondered if the robbers were still around. Or it's possible that they felt that the man on the ground was merely faking. And he was acting like he had been robbed and hurt, in order to seize them over there, lure them there for quick and easy seizure. And so the first question that the priest asked -- the first question that the Levite asked was, "If I stop to help this man, what will happen to me?" But then the Good Samaritan came by. And he reversed the question: "If I do not stop to help this man, what will happen to him?" That's the question before you tonight. Not, "If I stop to help the sanitation workers, what will happen to my job. Not, "If I stop to help the sanitation workers what will happen to all of the hours that I usually spend in my office every day and every week as a pastor?" The question is not, "If I stop to help this man in need, what will happen to me?" The question is, "If I do not stop to help the sanitation workers, what will happen to them?" That's the question. Let us rise up tonight with a greater readiness. Let us stand with a greater determination. And let us move on in these powerful days, these days of challenge to make America what it ought to be. We have an opportunity to make America a better nation. And I want to thank God, once more, for allowing me to be here with you. You know, several years ago, I was in New York City autographing the first book that I had written. And while sitting there autographing books, a demented black woman came up. The only question I heard from her was, "Are you Martin Luther King?" And I was looking down writing, and I said, "Yes." And the next minute I felt something beating on my chest. Before I knew it I had been stabbed by this demented woman. I was rushed to Harlem Hospital. It was a dark Saturday afternoon. And that blade had gone through, and the X-rays revealed that the tip of the blade was on the edge of my aorta, the main artery. And once that's punctured, your drowned in your own blood -- that's the end of you. It came out in the New York Times the next morning, that if I had merely sneezed, I would have died. Well, about four days later, they allowed me, after the operation, after my chest had been opened, and the blade had been taken out, to move around in the wheel chair in the hospital. They allowed me to read some of the mail that came in, and from all over the states and the world, kind letters came in. I read a few, but one of them I will never forget. I had received one from the President and the Vice-President. I've forgotten what those telegrams said. I'd received a visit and a letter from the Governor of New York, but I've forgotten what that letter said. But there was another letter that came from a little girl, a young girl who was a student at the White Plains High School. And I looked at that letter, and I'll never forget it. It said simply, "Dear Dr. King, I am a ninth-grade student at the White Plains High School." And she said, "While it should not matter, I would like to mention that I'm a white girl. I read in the paper of your misfortune, and of your suffering. And I read that if you had sneezed, you would have died. And I'm simply writing you to say that I'm so happy that you didn't sneeze." And I want to say tonight -- I want to say tonight that I too am happy that I didn't sneeze. Because if I had sneezed, I wouldn't have been around here in 1960, when students all over the South started sitting-in at lunch counters. And I knew that as they were sitting in, they were really standing up for the best in the American dream, and taking the whole nation back to those great wells of democracy which were dug deep by the Founding Fathers in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. If I had sneezed, I wouldn't have been around here in 1961, when we decided to take a ride for freedom and ended segregation in inter-state travel. If I had sneezed, I wouldn't have been around here in 1962, when Negroes in Albany, Georgia, decided to straighten their backs up. And whenever men and women straighten their backs up, they are going somewhere, because a man can't ride your back unless it is bent. If I had sneezed -- If I had sneezed I wouldn't have been here in 1963, when the black people of Birmingham, Alabama, aroused the conscience of this nation, and brought into being the Civil Rights Bill. If I had sneezed, I wouldn't have had a chance later that year, in August, to try to tell America about a dream that I had had. If I had sneezed, I wouldn't have been down in Selma, Alabama, to see the great Movement there. If I had sneezed, I wouldn't have been in Memphis to see a community rally around those brothers and sisters who are suffering. I'm so happy that I didn't sneeze. And they were telling me --. Now, it doesn't matter, now. It really doesn't matter what happens now. I left Atlanta this morning, and as we got started on the plane, there were six of us. The pilot said over the public address system, "We are sorry for the delay, but we have Dr. Martin Luther King on the plane. And to be sure that all of the bags were checked, and to be sure that nothing would be wrong with on the plane, we had to check out everything carefully. And we've had the plane protected and guarded all night." And then I got into Memphis. And some began to say the threats, or talk about the threats that were out. What would happen to me from some of our sick white brothers? Well, I don't know what will happen now. We've got some difficult days ahead. But it really doesn't matter with me now, because I've been to the mountaintop. And I don't mind. Like anybody, I would like to live a long life. Longevity has its place. But I'm not concerned about that now. I just want to do God's will. And He's allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I've looked over. And I've seen the Promised Land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people, will get to the promised land! And so I'm happy, tonight. I'm not worried about anything. I'm not fearing any man! Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord!!

Two stories about growing up in the Civil Rights era, including one man's experience of the bombing of the 16th Street Baptist Church and one woman's confrontation with the infamous Bull Connor.Learn more about Rickey Powell: Rickey on the BhamwikiLearn more about Catherine Burks-Brooks: Catherine on the Bhamwiki | "Freedom Riders" a Production of PBS' American ExperienceLearn more about Chris Kinsley: Chris' Twitter | Chris' Instagram | Chris' FacebookGet tickets and info for our next live event: Rites of Passage: Coming of Age StoriesRate and Review: iTunesSubscribe to Episodes: iTunes | AndroidFollow Us: Facebook | Twitter | Instagram

Do you recognize the names of Emmett Till, Melba Patillo, Gloria Ray, David Richmond or Ruby Bridges?   Perhaps you recognize some but not others. Perhaps none.   That’s okay. They weren’t seeking fame or fortune. They just wanted to get an education, vote or just eat at a cafeteria lunch counter. You might not know their names but they made a difference for all of us. In this podcast show, you’re gonna here EXACTLY what they did.   Hi, I’m Robin Lofton, the Chief In-house Historian and host of this great and groundbreaking show that can inspire YOU and your FAMILY with true stories, real experiences, practical lessons, cultural traditions, and fun celebrations—all inspired by African American history. I find history to BE inspirational, instructional and entertaining. And African American history fits the bill in all of these ways. Personally, I hate boring stuff. So boring stuff is not allowed at rememberinghistory.com or at this Wiki history podcast show.   This was planned as the third and final podcast in our series on civil rights and the civil rights movement. But the rememberinghistory.com team decided that a change was necessary: This show about student activists has been divided into TWO parts. Why? Because this is a FASCINATING topic (you’re gonna here some great stores) and we wanted to make it practical too. So we’ve added a section on ways that young people and students TODAY can also help to make changes and have an impact in their communities, the country and world. So, that’s what we’ll discuss in part II of the series.   In the previous podcast shows, we discussed lessons we can STILL learn from Martin Luther King. If you haven’t heard that show, I really encourage you to do so because there were great lessons—yes, we can still learn from Dr. King and it stirred up a lot of interesting discussion. Spoiler alert: The first lesson was called “be maladjusted.” People really had a lot to say about that and I’m sure that you will too. The other podcast show was about voting rights in America. Yes, there is still a lot of discrimination in voting—in deciding how districts will be formed, in the voter registration process, even directly at the polling stations. And we presented specific and doable ways to fight discrimination in voting. The types of voter discrimination actions were shocking but it was also an empowering show. So be sure to listen so that you are ready to fight for your right to vote. And, of course, we made great animated videos to summarize the issues and entertain you as well. You can find them at rememberinghistory.com and on our YouTube channel. Remember, we don’t “do boring” here so prepare to be entertained AND learn a little something useful.   Today’s show refocuses on the people in history: a very special group of people who participated—and gave special momentum—to the civil rights movement. Young people and students. I planned to focus on college students. Yes, they did a lot. But as I thought about it more, I remembered that high school students and even elementary school students played an important part in the movement. So, we gonna include them in this discussion too. You see, even a CHIEF inhouse historian can change her mind and learn something new.   This is a particularly important show. Often, young people feel they can’t make a difference that they can’t have an impact and that decisions are being made only by the adults. This show will prove that this is simply not true. And I hope that it will convince young people and students that they do have a voice and an important role to play in protecting civil rights or in any cause that they’re passionate about. That’s important to remember. While these shows focus on civil rights, there are many causes that need and deserve attention and action. But protecting civil rights is an urgent focus right now—perhaps now more than in any time since the civil rights movement of the 1960s. And this show will suggest some ways in which they can get involved in protecting the civil rights—of people of color, of the economically disadvantaged, of refugees and immigrants and frankly of any group under attack or suffering injustice. Remember those famous words of Dr. Martin Luther King: “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”   Well, let’s get to the show, “The Youth and Students in the Civil Rights Movement”*           Is it strange of think of young people and students focused, committing and working for civil rights? If you find it hard to imagine that children were brave enough, that high school students were focused enough and that college students were concerned enough to work together for civil rights, then it’s time to grab a chair and get comfortable. Perhaps even grab your kids to listen with you. This is history at its finest! This is the story of young people from elementary school—the youngest was only 7 years old!—through the college who showed commitment and courage under fire. And the “fires” that they faced were real and deadly—beatings, dog attacks, imprisonment, threats, and yes murder as well. Yet these young people stood up for their rights to equality and justice—and they stood up for your rights too. In one youth-led movement in 1963, Martin Luther King told the students who had been jailed (in Birmingham, Alabama) : “What you do this day will impact children who have not yet been born.” Wow. Sooo true. And these kids DID forge a path for us. Stay tuned—remember in Part II, we will present ways that young people can continue to be involved in social activism and have an impact on kids that are not yet born.   *[Applause break here]   Many of the young people involved in the Civil Rights Movement actively joined and participated in the meetings, marches, demonstrations and other nonviolent activities to draw attention to their cause. Others became involuntary victims of the racist and oppressive culture of segregation. However, both groups—whether actively participating or involuntarily drawn in-- made an invaluable contribution to the cause.                         We are gonna begin today’s journey by discussing a name whom I hope is familiar. Very familiar. Sadly familiar. But don’t worry if it’s not because we’re learning here together. The name: Emmett Till.   Personally, I don’t remember the first time that I heard the name of Emmett Till. I must have been too young. But he was a name that was always deeply embedded in me—not the details of his horrific claim to fame. But the feeling his fate stirred up: sadness, anger, disbelief, fear. I’m sure that all of these feelings came from my parents and I picked them up as an impressionable child. But his name is a part of my life story. Why? Because ALL Black children could have been young Emmett. Actually, I know that there were other Emmetts but HIS terrible experience changed everything. I’m jumping ahead of myself. Let’s hear the story.   In the summer of 1955, Emmett was just like any other 14-year old Black kid. Just finished the 7th grade at his Chicago school. High-spirited. Fun-loving. Growing into manhood. Polite. Looking forward to a great summer. Adored by his mother. Emmett was especially excited because he would spend the summer with his cousins in Mississippi. Emmett had never visited the segregated south so his mother counseled him about how to behave around white people.   The rest of the story has become a sad legend. Emmett enjoyed his first few days in Tallahatchie County, Mississippi. Worked in the cotton fields during the day and played with his cousins in the evening. On his third day there, he went to a grocery store with his cousins and that’s when the trouble started. There is no clear account of what happened but Emmett might have whistled at the wife (who was white) who owned the store. A few nights later, her husband and brother-in-law went to house of Emmett’s uncle in the dead of night mind you, snatched Emmett out of bed and drove off with him into the night. Three days later, Emmett’s horribly mutilated body was discovered in a river. I won’t go into details, but young Emmett had been tortured, beaten and shot in the head. Witnesses recounted hearing a young boy screaming and calling for help from a barn. He was mutilated beyond recognition.         His grieving but brave mother firmly decided on an open casket at his funeral in Chicago. Thousands of mourners filed past the casket. Jet Magazine and several other Black publications printed the graphic photos of Emmett’s body. I have seen the horrific almost gruesome pictures and I will never forget them. Several of older friends actually went to Emmett’s funeral and viewed his body. I can see the pain and sadness still in their eyes—from 1955.   The murderers of Emmett Till were quickly tried and acquitted. I think that it took only an hour. Is that scenario familiar today? One of the killers even gave an interview to LOOK Magazine detailing how they killed Emmett.   Many people say that the murder of Emmett Till sparked the modern Civil Rights Movement. It brought light to the brutality and regularity of lynching in the south, the effects of segregation and the vulnerability of Black lives. Emmett Till could have been any Black man, woman or child in the Jim Crow south. African Americans demanded justice for Emmett. And young Black children and students were especially outraged and fearful because Emmett was only 14 years old so they connected with this movement perhaps feeling that their lives hung in the balance. The Civil Rights Movement was on—and young people were a committed and focused part of it. Emmett was not a voluntary student-activist but his name will be remembered as someone who started a movement.   The first real student-involved movement (that we’ll discuss) took place in 1957, just two years after the lynching of Emmett Till.   It involved 9 brave African Americans kids attempting to attend a white high school in Little Rock, Arkansas. These kids became known as the Little Rock Nine. Let’s back up just a bit to 1954.   The United States was in chaos. (More was to come, of course, but most people didn’t know that.) Interesting thing about history—it’s not the story of people living in the present. It’s the story of people living in the present, THEIR present. So, in 1954, many people didn’t know or didn’t accept that change prompted by the civil rights movement was looming in their future. Hmm…gotta think about that one. Anyway, in 1954, the landmark case of Brown v. Board of Education had just been decided by the Supreme Court. The decision that desegregated public schools.   Remember that’s where we got the “separate but equal is inherently unequal” quote and that THIS violated the 14th Amendment. So, segregated schools were declared illegal and ordered to integrate “with all deliberate speed.” (another great quote). But many school districts especially in the southern states refused to accept this decision. They fought back. Some just ignored the decision and dared the federal government to try to enforce it. Others closed down schools rather than integrate them. Let’s jump from the immediate aftermath of the Brown case back to the summer of 1957, Little Rock Arkansas.   The NAACP (Arkansas Branch) was determined to integrate the high schools, beginning in Little Rock, the state’s capital. Daisy Bates, president of the Arkansas Branch of the NAACP recruited nine high school students whom she believed possessed the strength and determination to face the RESISTANCE to integration. During that summer, the students participated in intensive counseling sessions on what to expect and how to respond to the reaction from the white community--students AND parents.   Just before school opened in September, Arkansas Governor Oval Faubus ordered the National Guard to bar the African American students from entering the state’s schools. He claimed that it was for “their own protection” (quote. Don’t we hear that one a lot today?) The next day, a federal court judge issued a counter-ruling that desegregation would proceed.   As the nine Black students attempted to enter the school, a huge crowd of angry white students and adults as well as the Arkansas National Guard (ordered by the Governor) barred the students’ from entering. White protesters threatened the students, screamed racial slurs and spit on them. They were not able to enter the school that day.   Days later, the students tried to enter the school again with a police escort. However, more than a thousand white protesters appeared and again blocked the students’ from entering the building. President Eisenhower finally sent federal troops to enforce the integration order. Army troops actually had to escort the students to their first day of class.       But that wasn’t the end of the story. Protests against integration continued. The 101st Airborne Division stayed at the school to protect the students for an entire year. The nine kids faced verbal and physical abuse. One student had acid thrown in her face. Another was pushed down the stairs. The threats were constant and real. Both teachers AND students were hostile. But the kids survived and even thrived at their high school. All graduated and held distinguished careers. However, they only stayed at Little Rock Central High School for a year. The school board voted by 3 to 1 to close the school rather than officially integrate (of course, they cited budget cuts as the reason for the school closure.) But the brave high school students had stood up for their rights in a hostile and dangerous situation. Just imagine having to be escorted to school by federal guards. Imagine parents shouting ugly remarks at you. Imagine being spat upon, pushed around or down stairs, ignored by teachers and facing a large hostile crowd in the school cafeteria. This was definitely courage under fire and these kids deserve to be recognized and respected for their great achievement. And I want to say their names because they should become a familiar part of African American history:   Elizabeth Eckford Ernest Green Thelma Mothershed Melba Patillo Minnijean Brown Gloria Ray Terrence Roberts Jefferson Thomas Carlotta Walls   [Break for applause.]   By the way, during this podcast, you have heard and will continue to hear about people, places, events and issues. You will HEAR about them, but I completely understand if you want to actually SEE them, too. We got that covered on the Wiki History Podcast Page on Facebook. You will find pictures, animated videos and a community of history lovers. There is also a place for comments, which I hope that you will leave for us because we really appreciate them AND we do respond. Of course, we welcome all questions too.   Moving on…1960 was a BIG year for student activism. It’s really hard to know where to begin.   But I’ll adopt a “ladies first” position here—especially for this little lady named Ruby Bridges.   Ruby wanted to attend William Frantz Elementary School, which was an all-white school based in New Orleans. (I know what you’re thinking: you can’t have an all-white school because the Brown v. Board of Education case declared them illegal. Well, just like in Little Rock, the school boards were NOT going to give up their segregated lifestyle and institutions willingly. So the fight continued.) And little Ruby Bridges wanted to attend this school in her neighborhood school and for which she had passed a rigorous entry test. (This test had ACTUALLY been designed to screen out Black students and had been successful until Ruby.) So, she was excited to attend the kindergarten. Yes, that’s right little Miss Ruby Bridges was seven years old. She had to be escorted to school every day by 4 U.S. Marshals. She spent her first day in the principal’s office and watched as white parents removed their kids from school. A compromise was reached in which white students would return to school and Ruby would be isolated in a classroom on a floor separated from the other students. Only one teacher (Barbara Henry who was from Boston) agreed to teach her. For the remainder of the year, Mrs. Henry and Ruby would sit side-by-side going over lessons in the classroom. At recess, Ruby would stay in the classroom and play games or do calisthenics. At lunch, Ruby would eat alone in the classroom. Outside the school, the parents continued to protest against Ruby. One woman threatened to poison her every day. Another put a black baby doll in a coffin and left it at the school. Ruby said that scared her more than anything! Her father lost his job. Her mother was banned from shopping at the local grocery store.   This behavior seriously affected Ruby—as it would affect any 7-year old child. She began having nightmares. Stopped eating and started to have crying fits. She received counseling and gradually settled into a normal routine with the help of her teacher, Mrs. Henry. By the second year, Ruby started making friends and attending classes with the other students. Ruby attended integrated schools all the way through high school and went on to business school. (Interestingly, Ruby was reunited with Mrs. Henry on the Oprah Winfrey show.) That must have been an emotional reunion! Teachers really do make a difference. But it was Ruby’s strength and determination that helped her to succeed. Still--no one does it alone.   Remember to look for the pictures of Ruby Bridges and Barbara Henry on the Wiki History Podcast page on Face book. I’m really moved by two pictures of 7-year old Ruby marching into school escorted by 4 US Marshals. One is a real-life picture. The second is what has become an iconic portrait made by Norman Rockwell called “The Problem we all live with.”   We’re still in 1960 and now we have the Greensboro Four and their protest is marked as the beginning of student activism during the civil rights movement.   The group known as the Greensboro four was attending the North Carolina A & T State University. They were dedicated students who were fans of Mahatma Gandhi, believed in nonviolence and spent their evening studying and discussing current events. Like many other young people, they had been and still were deeply affected by the murder of Emmett Till 5 years earlier. They had also been very impressed and moved by the Freedom Rides in the Deep South led by the Congress of Racial Equality (or CORE). They acknowledged some progress but also recognized and refused to be distracted into thinking that this progress was good enough. Most businesses were privately owned and therefore not subject to federal law that banned segregation. They decided to take action.   On February 1, 1960 at 4:30pm, all four students walked into a Woolworth in Greensboro, North Carolina. Wearing their Sunday best, they sat at the whites-only lunch counter and requested service. They were denied. They continued to request service in a polite way but they were continuously denied by store manager. They were told to leave but they refused. Police were called but they didn’t arrest the students because they had not been violent or disorderly. Media arrived. Crowds developed. The students stayed at the lunch counter for the entire day until the store closed. Woolworth issued a statement to the press that it would continue to “abide by local custom”, meaning that it would continue to practice segregation.   The Greensboro Four went back the next day. More students joined the sit-in, this time from the Bennett College, which was an all-women’s college in Greensboro. Each day more students joined the protest—and it spread to other southern cities like Richmond and Nashville. By February 5th, hundreds of students joined in the lunch counter sit-ins. It paralyzed all business at the counter. The student protesters were verbally abused and threatened by white customers. THIS sit-in launched a nationwide movement at segregated lunch counters across the country. It also sparked a movement on college campuses that brought ATTENTION to the civil rights situation in the United States. The sit-in protests in Greensboro and other cities received lots of attention from the media and eventually the government. By the end of the year, many restaurants, lunch counters and privately-owned business had desegregated their facilities without any court action or marshals. And, yes, Woolworth in Greensboro also desegregated its lunch counters. Sit-ins were one of the most effective kinds of protests during the Civil Rights Movement. And it started with four intelligent, ambitious and civic-minded African American students and grew to more than 70,000 people protesting throughout the country. The protest ended on March 25th—lasting 5 months, 3 weeks and 3 days.   I absolutely love this story; it is SO inspirational on many different levels. The close friendship among the students. Their motivation, discipline and courage. Their education and reliance on a philosophy of non-violence and civil disobedience. The quick growth of the protests among college students who seemed ripe and ready to show their discontent and ability to fight for their rights. I could go on and on about this but I think that you see the same picture.* And because these students deserve our respect and have earned their place in history, I want to mention their names:   Ezell Blair, Jr. David Richmond Franklin McCain Joseph McNeil   *[Applause track here]       This story shows how a small but determined group can create a big and lasting change. As a follow up, although their protests were successful and many people praised them, both Black and White, all of the Greensboro Four had to leave the city because of harassment and death threats. They had been labeled as troublemakers so the local white population made life difficult and dangerous for the men to continue living there. Today there are several statues and remembrances of the protests initiated by the Greensboro Four. The February One statue of the four student-activists is located on the campus of North Carolina A & T State University. It is really moving. And you can find the original four lunch counter seats at the International Civil Rights Center and Museum in Greensboro. I also have pictures on the Wiki History Podcast Facebook page. I strongly encourage you to see them. I’m sure that you’ll be moved too.   Our last group of student-activists (in Part I) took the fight for civil rights to another level—the international level. They forged a CONNECTION with the civil rights movement in the United States and the anti-colonial movement that was sweeping across the continent of Africa. But I’m jumping ahead of myself; I’m just so excited to talk about this group. The group’s name: The Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (or SNCC). Let’s start at the beginning.   Still--in 1960.   In April, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) sponsored a conference on student leadership and nonviolent resistance. This conference was partially initiated by the sit-ins in Greensboro and other cities. 300 students attended that conference. These students (who acted as delegates and observers) witnessed the formation of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee. SNCC was born!   The members of SNCC joined the Freedom Riders that were sponsored by CORE (remember, Congress of Racial Equality). The Freedom Riders would take people all over the southern states to test the public facilities at the bus stations. However, the Freedom Riders started facing VERY intense attacks and violence. Buses were burned. People were assaulted with baseball bats, bombs and other weapons. Because of these attacks, in 1961, CORE suspended its Freedom Rides. SNCC decided to start running its own Freedom Rides. A SNCC member said, “There was so much at stake, we could NOT allow the segregationists to stop us. We HAD to continue that Freedom Ride EVEN if we were killed in the process.” So SNCC started making its own Freedom rides into the southern states.After numerous members of SNCC were beaten, tortured and imprisoned on false charges during the Freedom Rides, the government was forced to intervene and repeal the segregation laws that regulated interstate public transportation. SNCC had won—but at a great cost.   But the students wanted more. Their next campaign was for voting rights, which they started in 1963. Their slogan “one man, one vote” became the cornerstone of SNCC’s programs. SNCC demanded universal suffrage in the United States, continuing to parallel the efforts in the U.S. with the efforts taking place within the anti-colonial struggle in Africa. These were some serious students!   SNCC continued its sit-in protests and also met with the Oginga Odinga, the president of the newly independent government of Kenya. The racist image of the United States that SNCC’s work showed to the world was a sharp contrast to the picture of democracy painted by the politicians in Washington. And this became a problem.   In 1964, SNCC embarked on its most challenging effort with the Mississippi Summer Project. SNCC joined with other civil rights organizations in the state. (Like the SCLC and church organizations.) The coalition mobilized nearly a thousand volunteers from northern universities to travel to Mississippi to organize an independent Freedom Democratic Party and to register thousands of African Americans to vote. This was the famous Freedom Summer. The white protesters (including Klan members, law enforcement, policians and members of citizen’s councils) responded to SNCC’s civil rights activities with murder, beatings and imprisonment. If you’re wondering, this WAS summer that Cheney, Goodman and Schwerner kidnapped and killed were killed by police and the ku klux klan. More young lives cut short for trying to register Black voters. Unfortunately, the Freedom Democratic Party was never seated at the National Democratic Convention in 1964 and universal suffrage wouldn’t be guaranteed until the passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965, but the work by SNCC brought many more people into the movement for political and economic equality.   Because SNCC had gained a high level of prominence from its consistent work and many successes, the student organization was invited to send a delegation to tour several independent countries in Africa during the fall of 1964. They visited the Republic of Guinea and received a special invitation to meet President Sekou Toure. One of SNCC’s leading members, John Lewis also visited Kenya, Zambia and other African countries. After this important trip, SNCC created an international affairs section, which made a powerful presentation before the United Nations Committee on Decolonization. The role of SNCC during this period illustrated the interconnectedness of the African American struggle for equality and the struggle for independence by the colonized countries on the African continent. Independence, equality, and civil rights were now expanded beyond U.S. borders into an international movement on two continents! Wow. That is huge! Students took the struggle to a new level—as only young people can do!   But SNCC never lost sight of its commitment and work in the cities, small towns and rural areas of the south, working with farmers and young activists on a daily basis to fight for civil rights.   SNCC was a strong and sophisticated organization. It took political activism to a new level while always staying true to its vision. And its members bravely put themselves in harm’s way to demand the right to vote and to demand equality in housing and education. They even faced the issue of police brutality together with its close ally, The Black Panthers. (Did you know that the Black Panthers’ full name was the Black Panthers for Self-Defense?) I just have to give a big shout out to the Black Panthers (who were made up mostly of young people and students) for their efforts in the civil rights movement and for Black empowerment. Everyone had a role. But I want to mention just a few names from the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee:   Ella Baker Marion Barry John Lewis Kwame Ture Julian Bond   [Applause here.]*   Julian Bond, who was a former founding member of SNCC and eventually served in the Georgia Senate and House of Representatives, remarked, "a final SNCC legacy is the destruction of the psychological shackles which had kept black southerners in physical and mental servitude; SNCC helped break those chains forever. It demonstrated that ordinary women and men, young and old, could perform extraordinary tasks."   This wise statement applies to all of these student and youth activists. And we’ll definitely see this in the next group of young people. Then in Part II, you will learn ways that YOU can make a positive difference in your own town, country or even the world. And, yes, it IS possible!   We’re gonna go back in time and back down south to Birmingham, Alabama, 1963. There was no Civil Rights Act. No Voting Rights Act. Segregation was still the law in many states in the south and whites fiercely defended this way of life in Alabama. Dr. Martin Luther King, the SCLC, SNCC and other civil rights organizations and churches are DETERMINED to release the racist grip that the Ku Klux Klan, law enforcement, white politicians and citizens’ councils hold on the city. In Dr. King’s words, it was a true symbol of “hard-core resistance to integration.” [pause]* May 1963. Birmingham, Alabama is “ground zero” in the fight for civil rights.   Civil rights leaders needed to take a stronger and more radical approach to their nonviolent protests. So, they decided to request the help and participation of students. They approached high school students and college students to volunteer in a march. And the students stepped up the plate. The students were trained in the tactics of non-violent resistance. Thus began the famous, never-to-be forgotten Children’s Crusade.   On May 2, 1963, 800 Black students skipped school and gathered at the 16th street Baptist Church, awaiting for instructions. They marched 10 miles to downtown on a mission to meet with Birmingham Mayor about segregation. As the students approached city hall, singing songs of freedom, they were corralled by police and arrested. Hundreds were put into paddy wagons and taken to jail.   But that wasn’t the end.   The march would eventually include 3,000 children.   The next day, May 3rd, the march resumed. But this time it was NOT met with a peaceful response. Police were waiting for them with clubs, water cannons and police dogs. The Birmingham Public Safety Commissioner—the infamous Bull Connor--ordered the men to immediately attack the students. They released the dogs and sprayed the students with the water cannons. The scene turned from a peaceful and quiet march of students singing along their way to city hall into a violent scene of terror with kids scattering and screaming as they were beaten and attacked by dogs.   The media captured the violent attack against the unarmed youngsters. Videos were shown around the country, actually the world. White-owned businesses and the white residents of Birmingham were criticized and ostracized by people across the country. On May 10, city leaders agreed to desegregate businesses and public facilities. It also captured the attention and sympathy of the President Kennedy who felt then compelled to public support federal Civil Rights legislation, leading to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Oh, yeah, and Martin Luther King negotiated having Bull Connor removed from public office!   The Children’s Crusade was an essential part of the Civil Rights Movement. Not just because it happened in what was called the “most racist city in the South.” But also because the children were so determined and focused. They were prepared to face violence. Many of the adults didn’t want to face arrest and imprisonment so they refused to participate. (Please understand that I’m not making any judgments about them.) But the kids were simply fed up and refused to back down. Many of them were arrested multiple times, had been beaten on numerous occasions and faced expulsion from school. Yet they kept coming back in greater and greater numbers. Why would they do that? Here are the words of one of the high school student activists:         Jessie Shepherd, then 16, was soaking wet (from the fire hoses) when she was loaded up in a paddy wagon. “I was told not to participate,” says Shepherd, now a retired clinical diet technician. “But I was tired of the injustice.”     “I couldn’t understand why there had to be a colored fountain and a white fountain,” says Shepherd. “Why couldn’t I drink out the fountain that other little kids drank out of? As I got older, I understood that’s just the way it was, because my skin was black, and we were treated differently because of that.” So she marched.   And that march changed the nation.   As we end Part I of this podcast show on student-activism in the civil rights movement, I would ask that if you participated as a student-activist in this march or any of the numerous other marches, sit-ins, Freedom Rides or any other protests, please contact rememberinghistory.com and tell your experience. We want to hear YOUR story. Please add your story and experiences on the comment page. Or you can send me a personal email message to robin@rememberinghistory.com. And please tell your story to YOUR children, your nieces, nephews and other children that you. They NEED to know that young people and students CAN make a difference. That they HAVE power and influence. And knowing YOUR experience and knowing African American history (no matter about yours or the child’s cultural background) shows proof of the power that young people hold in their hands.   On that high note, we will turn to present ways that YOU can get involved, ways that YOU can help. I hope you’ve seen that everyone can contribute. And that everyone has reserves of strength and courage that they probably never knew existed…until they are called to show it. That’s exactly what the young people and students did during the Civil Rights movement. And the young people and students TODAY also have the strength and courage to make a positive impact in the lives of their families, communities, the country and even the world. And, as 2017 begins, it IS clear that strength and courage as well as integrity, passion and vision are going to be needed. As Dr. King remarked, what they do now will impact children who have not yet been born. Please join us in Part II to start making an impact. We have reached the end of this podcast show. Are you feeling inspired? I really am! And I hope that you too.   Please remember to look at the Wiki History Podcast page on Facebook so you can actually SEE these brave kids and for really candid scenes of their experiences. I have deliberately decided NOT to put the mutilated picture of Emmett Till on the page but you can find a picture of him as a promising and eager young man who was the apple of this mother’s eye. You will also see other scenes from Money, Mississippi. And definitely don’t miss the picture of Ruby Bridges being escorted into school surrounded by federal marshals. It’s all there on the Wiki History Facebook page.   Also, if you enjoyed this show, please let others know about it. They might like it, find it inspirational too. We are growing a community of historians of all ages, backgrounds and interests. Everyone is welcome. Let’s change the way people think about history—one good friend at a time.   And we have a special announcement and offer to make to all Wiki History podcast listeners in the next show. Especially for Black History month.   So,come back soon to Remembering History where we ARE remembering history and we’re making it. Every day!                                             At the end of the show: Finally, I just want to remind you that 2017, the Wiki History podcast show is dedicated to the National Museum of African American History & Culture. Located in Washington, DC, the National Museum of African American History & Culture opened in 2016. This kind of museum was long overdue but it finally happened and it is a place that everyone should visit and explore. Museums are a great way to bring history to life and to keep it alive for future generations. Wiki History is honored to be a part of this important process. For every person that listens to this podcast show, rememberinghistory.com will donate $1 to the National Museum of African American History & Culture.   And we have a special announcement and offer to make to all Wiki History podcast listeners.   Come back soon to Remembering History where we ARE remembering history and we’re making it. Every day!   Bye for now!           ************************************************************   But what TO do? How can YOU have a positive impact?   Recognize that there are major problems and challenges around the world. Some problems that existed and led to the Civil Rights Movement STILL exist. Problems like discrimination in voting, education, job and housing still exist. Police violence, poverty and cultural and religious intolerance STILL exist. There are more than * refugees around the world. The environment is under threat. I don’t want to even try to list all the problems on a worldwide scale, but I just recognize that the world is a far from perfect place. There’s a lot that you can do to have an impact. But awareness is the first step.   Get your education. Learn history. The rememberinghistory.com team is committed to keeping history alive and spreading the word so that we can avoid the mistakes of the past, learn the lessons of great people from the past. The world needs more people with education and insight. This doesn’t only mean an “academic” education. Learn a trade. Develop a skill. Read a lot. Okay, these were 2 good ways to prepare yourself to save the world. Now, let’s look at some specific things that you can do.   Do you have a cell phone? Well, you can use it to document racist behavior, threatening behavior or anything that is unacceptable. The camera on your phone can save a life. Remember, the world would never have known about the police beating of Rodney King. You can also use your phone to call for assistance from family, friends or the police. Trayvon Martin used his phone to report that he was being followed. Your phone can be a powerful tool.                                                         After the first discussion:   Also, if you enjoy this show, please let others know about it. They might like it, find it inspirational too. Let’s change the way people think about history—one good friend at a time.     At the end of the show: Finally, I just want to remind you that 2017, the Wiki History podcast show is dedicated to the National Museum of African American History & Culture. Located in Washington, DC, the National Museum of African American History & Culture opened in 2016. This kind of museum was long overdue but it finally happened and it is a place that everyone should visit and explore. Museums are a great way to bring history to life and to keep it alive for future generations. Wiki History is honored to be a part of this important process. For every person that listens to this podcast show, rememberinghistory.com will donate $1 to the National Museum of African American History & Culture.   And we have a special announcement and offer to make to all Wiki History podcast listeners.   Come back soon to Remembering History where we ARE remembering history and we’re making it. Every day!   Bye for now!    

It’s been a month since the election, so you’ve probably seen the exit poll statistic that 81 percent of white evangelicals voted for Trump. (Some polls have disputed this number.) For Christians appalled and morally enraged by Trump’s remarks on race throughout the campaign, this apparent reality feels like “betrayal.” Although many white evangelical Trump voters (51%) said their vote was primarily against Clinton rather than for Trump, many of their fellow evangelicals don’t see this calculus as justified. Last week in The New York Times, Shane Claiborne and Tony Campolo wrote, “Evangelicalism was closely associated with the campaign of Donald J. Trump, and more than 80 percent of white evangelicals voted for the president-elect. This, despite large numbers of African American, Latino, Asian, young, and female evangelicals who were fiercely opposed to the racism, sexism, and xenophobia of Mr. Trump’s campaign.” So. Are white evangelical Trump supporters racist? “When we limit [racism] to strictly individual terms, we fail to see how people are using it,” says Wheaton College assistant professor of communication Theon Hill. “If we’re talking about racism in the context of this election, it may not always be that this person is or is not a Bull Connor descendent. It may be that this person is participating in a racist structure, intentionally or unintentionally.” Hill joined assistant editor Morgan Lee and editor-in-chief Mark Galli this week to discuss what he means by calling someone a racist, when believers should “try a little tenderness,” versus cleansing the temple, and why the church has a particular call to address racism in its ranks.

A woman has a personal encounter with the notorious Bull Connor during one of the Freedom Rides in 1961. To learn more about Catherine Burks-Brooks and the Freedom Rides visit www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperi…erine-burks-brooks/.

Timothy George talks with Bill Nunnelley about the life and legacy of the infamous Bull Connor.

Timothy George talks with Bill Nunnelley about the life and legacy of the infamous Bull Connor.