Podcasts about south african truth

"Dance Talk” ® with Joanne Carey and special guest film maker, Gabrielle Lansner In this episode of "Dance Talk” ® host Joanne Carey interviews choreographer and film maker, Gabrielle Lansner, who shares her unique journey from dance to filmmaking. Gabrielle discusses her early dance training, the influence of acting on her choreography, and her transition to creating dance films. She reflects on her creative process, the themes of loss in her work, and how the COVID-19 pandemic inspired her to explore new avenues in filmmaking. The conversation highlights the interconnectedness of dance, theater, and film, emphasizing the importance of storytelling through movement. In this conversation, Gabrielle Lansner discusses her creative journey during the COVID-19 pandemic, focusing on her film 'I Am Not Okay.' She shares insights into the challenges and processes of filmmaking, the themes of her work, and the emotional impact it aims to convey. Lansner also reflects on the recognition her film has received and her aspirations for educational outreach, emphasizing the importance of storytelling in the arts. Gabrielle Lansner is an award winning filmmaker, choreographer, and producer whose work is influenced by her background in choreography and performing.  Her films have screened at dozens of festivals worldwide and garnered multiple awards. For over 30 years, Lansner has explored artistic disciplines moving from pure dance works, to dance/theater, to film. She has always been interested in story and character: creating emotionally complex and layered works that delve into the heart and psyche. Since 1997, she has been the Artistic Director of gabrielle lansner & company, a critically acclaimed dance/theater company based in New York City. The works have been produced at The Peter Jay Sharp Theater, HERE, River to River Festival, P.S 122, The Joyce Soho, to name a few and have toured the US and Canada. The company has received support from The Dance Films Association, The Alvin & Louise Myerberg Foundation, The Harkness Foundation, The Puffin Foundation, Altria, Lower Manhattan Cultural Council and The Field. The company's varied explorations include delving into the lives of Holocaust victims in the literary works of Bertolt Brecht and Cynthia Ozick, exploring adolescent yearning in Carson McCullers' “The Member of the Wedding”, examining the nature of forgiveness in a work inspired by the South African Truth & Reconciliation Commission, and celebrating the life of pop icon Tina Turner in their original musical RIVER DEEP. TURNING HEADS, FROCKS IN FLIGHT, a site-specific dance performed at Battery Park City, was produced by Sitelines 2009/LMCC as part of the River to River Festival Her latest short film, I AM NOT OK is an experimental dance film inspired by the words of Tiffiney Davis, the Executive Director of the Red Hook Art Project, in Red Hook, Brooklyn. The film has screened extensively at film festivals around the world and won Best Experimental Film at the Reel Sisters of the Diaspora FF in NYC and Best Cinedance at the Minneapolis St. Paul Int'l FF in MN.  Lansner has also choreographed episodes of Law & Order: SVU, and Law & Order: Criminal Intent. She is a member of SAG, New York Women in Film and TV,  the Lincoln Center Directors Lab, is a former  Board Member  of the Dance Films Association/DFA, NYC  and was instrumental in developing PS 122 in NYC as a rehearsal and performance space. To learn more https://www.gabriellelansner.com/index  “Dance Talk” ® with Joanne Carey wherever you listen to your podcasts.  ⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠https://dancetalkwithjoannecarey.com/⁠⁠ Follow Joanne on Instagram @westfieldschoolofdance YOUTUBE:  ⁠https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4NldYaDOdGWsVd2378IyBw⁠ Tune in. Follow. Like us. And Share.   Please leave us review about our podcast!   “Dance Talk” ® with Joanne Carey "Where the Dance World Connects, the Conversations Inspire, and Where We Are Keeping Them Real."

Jeopardy! recaps from the week of October 2, 2023 - Wild Card spades. When we're not reading the dictionary, we like avoiding karaoke, putting googly eyes on avocados, and being perplexed by this tournament structure. Kyle gives us an overview of the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and truth and reconciliation commissions in general. Find us on Facebook (Potent Podables) and Twitter (@potentpodables1). Check out our Patreon (patreon.com/potentpodables). Email us at potentpodablescast@gmail.com. Continue to support social justice movements in your community and our country. www.communityjusticeexchange.org https://www.gofundme.com/c/act/stop-aapi-hate www.rescue.org  www.therebelsproject.org www.abortionfunds.org 

Shadowy agents from South Africa's Apartheid era are believed to have been involved in the assassination 37 years ago of Swedish Prime Minister Olaf Palme. That is the conclusion of former Swedish diplomat and businessman Jan Stocklassa whose investigation was sparked by the discovery of research done by Stieg Larsson, the late author of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. Stocklassa's findings are being aired in a documentary based on his book The Man Who Played with Fire - Stieg Larsson's Lost Files and The Hunt for an Assassin. BizNews interviewed both Stocklassa and veteran Swedish Police Authority officer Jan-Äke Kjellberg, who was seconded to the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

How do we find our way back to recognizing, to remembering our shared humanity? It will take the efforts of many. It will take courage. It will take faith. It will take many approaches from many directions. You'll find many of those approaches in episodes of Co-creating Peace, including this one. I know you will enjoy “Ubuntu Works”, Episode #113. Joining me again is Eric Sirotkin, my guest in Episode #99 “The Lawyer as Peacemaker”, & Episode #108 “Truth & Reconciliation – a Path to Forgiveness”. With him is Raphael Masesa from Capetown South Africa. Together, they bring us understandings about a way of seeing and a way of being, known as ubuntu.Highlights of our conversation include:Defining ubuntuUnderstanding how ubuntu manifests itself in everyday lifeLearning how ubuntu relates to indigenous law and peacemakingHow active listening, dialogue (Episodes #93 & #94), Compassionate Listening (Episodes #95 & #96), and other ways of practicing deep listening and empathy can help build ubuntu in our lives.Eric Sirotkin mixes his experience as a lawyer, film producer, author and peacemaker, to contribute to the movement from the age of separation toward the era of ubuntu. Eric contributed to the dialogue on the new Constitution in South Africa, was a UN-sponsored election observer at President Mandela's election, and coordinated an International Monitoring Project of the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission. It was through this experience that he learned about the wisdom of ubuntu and has integrated it into his work in North and South Korea and all areas of his life. Eric is the founder of The Ubuntuworks Project, which collaborates with organizations and individuals on research and strategies to move us locally and globally toward an era of ubuntu. To learn more about UbuntuWorks Project, visit: ubuntuworks.org.  Donate to the UbuntuWorks Project here. Raphael Chisubo Masesa has been teaching Indigenous law and Integrative law, among others at the University of the Western Cape and the IIE Varsity College for more than 15 years. He is a Board member of UbuntuWorks Project. Learn more about Raphael Chisubo Masesa at: linkedin.com/in/chisubo Special note: Beginning in April, Co-creating Peace will go to a twice-monthly schedule, airing on the 2nd and 4th weekends of each month. There are some exciting episodes coming up, rich with new guests, tools and understandings to help you co-create peace! I hope you will join me on the 2nd and 4th weekend of every month. Contact Kathleen Oweegon at: oweegon@bridgesofpeace.com to share your ideas and feedback for this show. You can receive a free 30-minute communication coaching session by being a guest on Co-creating Peace to talk about your communication challenges and receive Kathleen's suggestions on the air. Visit BridgesofPeace.com to learn more about Kathleen and her work.

                                  Ambassador André Haspels talks about why you should "Savor unique experiences"; the benefits of "Being modest" why you should "Make others look good" and more. Hosted by Siebe Van Der Zee About André Haspels André Haspels is the ambassador of the Kingdom of the Netherlands to the United States based in Washington, D.C.. Haspels grew up in Uithoorn in the province of Noord-Holland. His father was a flower trader who imported flowers from all over the word, including ferns from Florida. Since he was a young boy, Haspels has always seen flowers, and that's how he learned about agriculture and trade. Haspels studied politics at the Vrije Universiteit of Amsterdam. In 1987, he joined the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, where he served in many capacities. In 1997, he became head of the Political Department at the embassy in South Africa (Pretoria), where he was involved in the cooperation between the two nations, among others in the setup of the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission. He later served as ambassador in Vietnam and South Africa and most recently as director general of political affairs in the Hague. Joined the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 1987 and followed its diplomatic service training program. Held the following posts: 1988 – 1990     Policy officer, Political and Economic Affairs Section at the embassy in Colombo, Sri Lanka. Writing political reports, maintaining contacts, focus on economy and trade. 1990 – 1992     Press secretary to Minister for European Affairs Piet Dankert, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, The Hague 1992 – 1994     Seconded National Expert (SNE) at the European Commission in Brussels, DG 23 (business policy/SMEs). Preparing and implementing partnership programmes for European small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) focused on cooperation within the EU and with SMEs in non-member states (e.g. EuroMed partnership). 1994 – 1996     Secondment to the office of the Committee on International Policy/European Affairs at the House of Representatives. Responsible for setting up a monitoring system for new Committee proposals and promoting knowledge and understanding within the Permanent Committee on EU Affairs. 1997 – 2000     Head of the Political Affairs Section at the embassy in Pretoria, South Africa. Responsible for drawing up political reports, maintaining networks and coordinating political partnership programmes (e.g. democratisation projects, Truth and Reconciliation Commission).        2000 – 2005     Head of the External Affairs Division of the European Integration Department (DIE), Ministry of Foreign Affairs. EU external relations (enlargement, association agreements, European development cooperation). Also involved in 2004 Dutch EU Presidency in an implementing role (preparing events, including a ministerial meeting). 2005 – 2008     Ambassador in Hanoi, Vietnam. Bilateral ties between Vietnam and the Netherlands, and embassy management. 2008 – 2009     Director of the Sub‑Saharan Africa Department. Bilateral Africa policy (on politics, security, development cooperation and economic affairs), setting the department's course. 2009 – 2011     Deputy Director-General for International Cooperation (Plv-DGIS). Setting the Directorate-General's course, policy adviser to the Minister for Development Cooperation, deputy member of the Ministry's Senior Management Board. Jointly responsible for staff-related and financial matters within the Directorate-General. 2011 – 2014     Ambassador in Pretoria, South Africa. Bilateral ties between South Africa and the Netherlands (also accredited to Namibia, Swaziland, Lesotho and Botswana). 2014 – 2016     Deputy Director-General for Political Affairs (Plv-DGPZ), helping set the Directorate-General's course, policy adviser to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, deputy member of the Ministry's Senior Management Board. 2016-2019  Director-General for Political Affairs (DGPZ), setting the Directorate-General's course, policy adviser to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, member of the Ministry's Senior Management Board. 2019-present   Ambassador in the United States of America. Bilateral ties between the United States and the Netherlands.   Episode Notes Set achievable goals 07:56 Be modest 10:57 Make others look good ("make them shine") 13:48 Give people trust and space 15:31 Be accountable to yourself and to others 19:11 The circle of close family is highly important 23:34 “Never stop learning” 27:39 Try to enjoy 30:53 Savor unique experiences 35:11 Know yourself 40:23

Wilhelm Verwoerd, Former researcher with the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission and now a researcher in historical trauma and transformation at Stellenbosch University

Are you a woman interested in politics? Check out the latest podcast episode with special guest Tiffany Gardner from ReflectUS. Tiffany's bio reads Tiffany Gardner brings over a decade of extensive international experience in human rights advocacy and domestic public interest. She has worked on women's rights, human rights and grassroots organizing throughout Africa, Southeast Asia, and the United States. She worked with the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission, the United Nations International Law Commission and Human Rights Watch and recently was the co-founder and director of the One World Exchange Program for under-represented U.S. college students and organized international solidarity coalitions. She is a former Mergers & Acquisitions associate at the New York law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP. She received a B.A. from Yale University, a J.D. from New York University School of Law and a LL.M. in human rights law from Columbia University Law School. She is a member of the Council on Foreign Affairs. Don't forget to ⭕️Subscribe Now⭕️ Every Sunday night at 10 PM CST Bombshell1111 Podcast" Therapy 4 Women of Color"” focuses on mental health and personal development. The podcast will share everything from resources, financial literacy, mental health awareness, have professional guests who are experts in specific careers, and more. Thank you for your support! Bombshell1111 --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/lekeya/support

The South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission's first-ever partial event hearing took place at the Regina Mundi Catholic Church in Soweto in mid-July 1996. The focus was the twentieth anniversary of the June 16 Soweto uprising – the day thousands of black children revolted against the apartheid system of Bantu Education and Afrikaans as the medium of instruction. All hell broke out when the police unleashed their dogs, tear gas and bullets on students armed with stones, knives and fire. The official cost a week later: more than a thousand injuries, 900 arrests and 140 corpses – the first being that of teenager Hector Peterson. He became the innocent symbol in the turning point of the liberation struggle for democracy. Credits: Angie Kapelianis, Manana Makhanya and Danny Booysen. Transcript: http://www.sabctruth.co.za/sabctruth/slicesright.htm#you From the series South Africa's Human Spirit. Available wherever you find your podcasts.  © SABC 2020. No unauthorised use, copying, adaptation or reproduction permitted without prior written consent of the SABC.

Anne van Mourik and Thijs Bouwknegt interview historian Kylie Thomas and journalist Michael Schmidt, discussing forced disappearances under Apartheid South Africa. Michael is the author of Death Flight: Apartheid's secret doctrine of disappearance, which investigates and tells the history of Apartheid’s chilling tactic of throwing people, dead or alive, from airplanes so that their remains cannot be found. A Truth and Reconciliation Commission on human rights violations during the Apartheid years was established in 1995. Kylie Thomas researches and writes about the 2017 reopening of the Apartheid cases. Who exactly were the people who were targeted for ‘disappearance’? And how come cases of activists who were imprisoned, tortured and murdered, are only now being reinvestigated and reopened? Websites mentioned in the episode: Foundation for Human Rights Unfinished Business of the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission: https://unfinishedtrc.co.za Images courtesy of the Ahmed Timol Family Trust: https://www.ahmedtimol.co.za/ ​ Music: Alastair Douglas

Dr Gerard Drennan Ph.D. is a Consultant Clinical Psychologist and Psychoanalytic Psychotherapist, who holds the post of Head of Psychology & Psychotherapy in the Behavioural & Developmental Psychiatric Operational Directorate of the South London & Maudsley Mental Health Foundation Trust. He is also an Honorary Lecturer at the Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience at Kings College London.Gerard qualified as a clinical psychologist in Cape Town.His doctoral research examined the practical and political role of language and interpreters in mental health practice in post-colonial, institutional settings.This research ran concurrently with the work of South African Truth and Reconciliation and was touched, as all South Africans were, by the restorative aspirations of that nation-building endeavour.Gerard has held clinical and leadership roles in forensic and offender mental health settings in London and Sussex for the past 20 years. This included a leadership role in developing the Millfield Unit, part of the Personality Disorder and DSPD project. He has published on the implementation of recovery-oriented practice and, since training in restorative justice conferencing in 2012, has worked and written on the place of restorative justice practices in mental health settings.

This week's podcast explores some of the wider themes exemplified by the Black Lives Matter protest through the lens of transitional justice. Transitional justice is a phrase used to describe how societies once torn apart by conflicts of many sorts, can deal with past legacies and move forward, whether through truth commissions, national apologies, compensation, monuments or a range of other mechanisms of accountability and redress. In this podcast we explore what lessons, if any, can be drawn from the experiences of transition in other societies that have been riddled with injustices be it apartheid in South Africa, or under repressive dictatorships across the globe.  We also explore, in the context of protest, the points at which it ever becomes acceptable to break the law. Richard Hermer QC, Murray Hunt and Helen Mountfield QC are joined by one of the most prominent thinkers on transitional justice, Paul Van Zyl.  Paul is the former Executive Secretary of the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission where he served between 1995 and 1998 before moving to the US where in 2001 he co-founded the International Centre for Transitional Justice, a not for profit organisation working in over 40 countries that have experienced human rights abuses under repressive regimes in order to help secure accountability for crimes and also put in place structures for peaceful co-existence.  Paul has crossed the Atlantic again in recent years, to found the Conduit Club in London.

Protests and marches inspired by the death of George Floyd continue across the U.S. and beyond, while in Minneapolis, mourners gather at his memorial service. President Trump has called for tough action against the protesters, encouraging the deployment of active-duty military officers to quell domestic protests. Christiane Amanpour is joined by former U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, retired Rear Admiral John Kirby and former Commander of U.S. Forces in Afghanistan, General John Allen, to dissect the impact that these domestic deployments are having on military morale, and the role of the military in American democracy. Then, as America wrestles with deep-seated racism and police brutality, what lessons can be learnt from South Africa’s experience after apartheid and the idea of restorative justice? Christiane speaks to former Executive Secretary of the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission, Paul van Zyl, and Executive Director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, Vincent Warren. And our Michel Martin discusses ANTIFA, the anti-fascist group that President Trump is blaming for this week’s violence, with Mark Bray, lecturer and author of "Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook".  

Sonali Chakravarti, Associate Professor of Political Science at Wesleyan University, has written a thoughtful analysis of the role of the jury in American democracy, with specific attention to the way that the jury experience can provide the structure for more substantive civic engagement. Part of the impetus for this study comes out of the more recent controversial decisions made by juries in a variety of high-profile cases in the United States. The research also evolved out of Chakravarti’s earlier work on the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission and how citizens were incorporated into the process of transitional justice and engagement in democratic spaces. In Radical Enfranchisement in the Jury Room and Public Life (University of Chicago Press, 2020), Chakravarti argues that the jury room is an important democratic space that is generally ignored as an opportunity to engage citizens in active participation in and with the law. Because we generally are not trained or taught about the actual process we will encounter as jurors, outside of popular culture renderings, we rarely enter into the process with knowledge about either the law itself, or the role that juries can play in their decisions, not only with regard to the case in front of them but also in regard to the legitimacy of the laws themselves. Chakravarti follows up on Alexis de Tocqueville’s praise of the American jury system, while pushing beyond Tocqueville’s admiration to suggest that the jurors themselves can be radically enfranchised as citizens on the jury. Jurors can be better prepared to serve and thus can more fully engage this democratic space if they had more education about the process itself and their capacities inside the jury room. Chakravarti charts both the history of the jury process in the United States, and the various ways that juries have changed how they operate and behave within the parameters of the legal system. This is a fascinating examination of an often obscured but important democratic space. Lilly J. Goren is professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, WI. She is co-editor of the award winning book, Women and the White House: Gender, Popular Culture, and Presidential Politics (University Press of Kentucky, 2012), as well as co-editor of Mad Men and Politics: Nostalgia and the Remaking of Modern America (Bloomsbury Academic, 2015). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Sonali Chakravarti, Associate Professor of Political Science at Wesleyan University, has written a thoughtful analysis of the role of the jury in American democracy, with specific attention to the way that the jury experience can provide the structure for more substantive civic engagement. Part of the impetus for this study comes out of the more recent controversial decisions made by juries in a variety of high-profile cases in the United States. The research also evolved out of Chakravarti’s earlier work on the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission and how citizens were incorporated into the process of transitional justice and engagement in democratic spaces. In Radical Enfranchisement in the Jury Room and Public Life (University of Chicago Press, 2020), Chakravarti argues that the jury room is an important democratic space that is generally ignored as an opportunity to engage citizens in active participation in and with the law. Because we generally are not trained or taught about the actual process we will encounter as jurors, outside of popular culture renderings, we rarely enter into the process with knowledge about either the law itself, or the role that juries can play in their decisions, not only with regard to the case in front of them but also in regard to the legitimacy of the laws themselves. Chakravarti follows up on Alexis de Tocqueville’s praise of the American jury system, while pushing beyond Tocqueville’s admiration to suggest that the jurors themselves can be radically enfranchised as citizens on the jury. Jurors can be better prepared to serve and thus can more fully engage this democratic space if they had more education about the process itself and their capacities inside the jury room. Chakravarti charts both the history of the jury process in the United States, and the various ways that juries have changed how they operate and behave within the parameters of the legal system. This is a fascinating examination of an often obscured but important democratic space. Lilly J. Goren is professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, WI. She is co-editor of the award winning book, Women and the White House: Gender, Popular Culture, and Presidential Politics (University Press of Kentucky, 2012), as well as co-editor of Mad Men and Politics: Nostalgia and the Remaking of Modern America (Bloomsbury Academic, 2015). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Sonali Chakravarti, Associate Professor of Political Science at Wesleyan University, has written a thoughtful analysis of the role of the jury in American democracy, with specific attention to the way that the jury experience can provide the structure for more substantive civic engagement. Part of the impetus for this study comes out of the more recent controversial decisions made by juries in a variety of high-profile cases in the United States. The research also evolved out of Chakravarti’s earlier work on the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission and how citizens were incorporated into the process of transitional justice and engagement in democratic spaces. In Radical Enfranchisement in the Jury Room and Public Life (University of Chicago Press, 2020), Chakravarti argues that the jury room is an important democratic space that is generally ignored as an opportunity to engage citizens in active participation in and with the law. Because we generally are not trained or taught about the actual process we will encounter as jurors, outside of popular culture renderings, we rarely enter into the process with knowledge about either the law itself, or the role that juries can play in their decisions, not only with regard to the case in front of them but also in regard to the legitimacy of the laws themselves. Chakravarti follows up on Alexis de Tocqueville’s praise of the American jury system, while pushing beyond Tocqueville’s admiration to suggest that the jurors themselves can be radically enfranchised as citizens on the jury. Jurors can be better prepared to serve and thus can more fully engage this democratic space if they had more education about the process itself and their capacities inside the jury room. Chakravarti charts both the history of the jury process in the United States, and the various ways that juries have changed how they operate and behave within the parameters of the legal system. This is a fascinating examination of an often obscured but important democratic space. Lilly J. Goren is professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, WI. She is co-editor of the award winning book, Women and the White House: Gender, Popular Culture, and Presidential Politics (University Press of Kentucky, 2012), as well as co-editor of Mad Men and Politics: Nostalgia and the Remaking of Modern America (Bloomsbury Academic, 2015). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Sonali Chakravarti, Associate Professor of Political Science at Wesleyan University, has written a thoughtful analysis of the role of the jury in American democracy, with specific attention to the way that the jury experience can provide the structure for more substantive civic engagement. Part of the impetus for this study comes out of the more recent controversial decisions made by juries in a variety of high-profile cases in the United States. The research also evolved out of Chakravarti’s earlier work on the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission and how citizens were incorporated into the process of transitional justice and engagement in democratic spaces. In Radical Enfranchisement in the Jury Room and Public Life (University of Chicago Press, 2020), Chakravarti argues that the jury room is an important democratic space that is generally ignored as an opportunity to engage citizens in active participation in and with the law. Because we generally are not trained or taught about the actual process we will encounter as jurors, outside of popular culture renderings, we rarely enter into the process with knowledge about either the law itself, or the role that juries can play in their decisions, not only with regard to the case in front of them but also in regard to the legitimacy of the laws themselves. Chakravarti follows up on Alexis de Tocqueville’s praise of the American jury system, while pushing beyond Tocqueville’s admiration to suggest that the jurors themselves can be radically enfranchised as citizens on the jury. Jurors can be better prepared to serve and thus can more fully engage this democratic space if they had more education about the process itself and their capacities inside the jury room. Chakravarti charts both the history of the jury process in the United States, and the various ways that juries have changed how they operate and behave within the parameters of the legal system. This is a fascinating examination of an often obscured but important democratic space. Lilly J. Goren is professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, WI. She is co-editor of the award winning book, Women and the White House: Gender, Popular Culture, and Presidential Politics (University Press of Kentucky, 2012), as well as co-editor of Mad Men and Politics: Nostalgia and the Remaking of Modern America (Bloomsbury Academic, 2015). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Reverend Rob Hardies explains the three things we must all go through before we can truly forgive. The title draws upon a prayer from Desmond Tutu during the South African Truth and Reconciliation Process in the 1990s. And in Part II Jean Botham speaks in court and forgives Amber Guyger for shooting his brother. If […]

The second of two Everding Lectures presented by Dr. Tinyiko Maluleke, Professor of Theology at the University of Pretoria, South Africa. There is overwhelming evidence that when Desmond Tutu accepted the role of chairperson of the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission, it was for him much more than the acceptance of a presidential appointment. He saw it as an opportunity to ritualize, exemplify and advocate the power of forgiveness and reconciliation in the building of nation and community. Above all, he probably saw it as a culmination of a lifetime of preaching and modeling of forgiveness. Racial forgiveness and harmony occupy a particularly special place in Tutu's thinking. This lecture will explore the sources and main tenets of Desmond Tutu's theology of forgiveness. Of particular interest will be the implications of Tutu's theology for race and gender relations in South Africa and the USA today.

November 30, 2010 The relatively peaceful transition from apartheid to the beginning of democracy in 1994 was greeted around the world as the beginning of a new era in African politics. Professor Charles Villa-Vicencio, former national research director of the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission, offered an assessment of the positive momentum and the challenges facing his native South Africa sixteen years later. Assessing the tendency among some rulers of new democracies to resort to the authoritarian tendencies of the governments they have replaced, the question was asked as to what extent South Africa's current rulers have consolidated and advanced the gains introduced by the Mandela administration. Special attention was given to the current political divisions within the ANC government and the economic challenges facing the country.

It is 20 years since the South African Truth and Reconciliation held its first hearing into the gross violation of human rights under apartheid. The TRC was brought into being by an Act of Parliament in 1995, and was an essential component in the transition to democracy. It positioned itself between two extremes: the prosecutorial path of retributive justice evidenced in the Nuremberg trials of Nazi leaders on the one hand; and the blanket amnesties handed out in the wake of the Chilean dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet on the other. There, victims of gross human rights violations testified in secret. In South Africa, on the other hand, all the hearings, both for victims of apartheid and of perpetrators, were in public. The names of victims of apartheid are recorded in one volume of the TRC report. It is a list that goes on for 50 pages in small print. More than 21,000 people gave statements to the TRC. Nearly 7,000 applied for amnesty but few met the strict conditions laid down by the law: full disclosure, proportionality, and proof that the offence was politically motivated among them. In the end, fewer than 900 were granted amnesty. For the first time, some of the grim stories of the suffering under apartheid were not only told but widely publicized. For this series Journalist Pippa Green spoke to 13 of the former commissioners to find out how far we are as a country along the road of reconciliation today 20 years after the first hearing. Jeanne Michel edited and produced this series. Find the entire series of interviews online at http://www.702.co.za/features/139/trc

It is 20 years since the South African Truth and Reconciliation held its first hearing into the gross violation of human rights under apartheid. The TRC was brought into being by an Act of Parliament in 1995, and was an essential component in the transition to democracy. It positioned itself between two extremes: the prosecutorial path of retributive justice evidenced in the Nuremberg trials of Nazi leaders on the one hand; and the blanket amnesties handed out in the wake of the Chilean dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet on the other. There, victims of gross human rights violations testified in secret. In South Africa, on the other hand, all the hearings, both for victims of apartheid and of perpetrators, were in public. The names of victims of apartheid are recorded in one volume of the TRC report. It is a list that goes on for 50 pages in small print. More than 21,000 people gave statements to the TRC. Nearly 7,000 applied for amnesty but few met the strict conditions laid down by the law: full disclosure, proportionality, and proof that the offence was politically motivated among them. In the end, fewer than 900 were granted amnesty. For the first time, some of the grim stories of the suffering under apartheid were not only told but widely publicized. For this series Journalist Pippa Green spoke to 13 of the former commissioners to find out how far we are as a country along the road of reconciliation today 20 years after the first hearing. Jeanne Michel edited and produced this series. Find the entire series of interviews online at http://www.702.co.za/features/139/trc

It is 20 years since the South African Truth and Reconciliation held its first hearing into the gross violation of human rights under apartheid. The TRC was brought into being by an Act of Parliament in 1995, and was an essential component in the transition to democracy. It positioned itself between two extremes: the prosecutorial path of retributive justice evidenced in the Nuremberg trials of Nazi leaders on the one hand; and the blanket amnesties handed out in the wake of the Chilean dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet on the other. There, victims of gross human rights violations testified in secret. In South Africa, on the other hand, all the hearings, both for victims of apartheid and of perpetrators, were in public. The names of victims of apartheid are recorded in one volume of the TRC report. It is a list that goes on for 50 pages in small print. More than 21,000 people gave statements to the TRC. Nearly 7,000 applied for amnesty but few met the strict conditions laid down by the law: full disclosure, proportionality, and proof that the offence was politically motivated among them. In the end, fewer than 900 were granted amnesty. For the first time, some of the grim stories of the suffering under apartheid were not only told but widely publicized. For this series Journalist Pippa Green spoke to 13 of the former commissioners to find out how far we are as a country along the road of reconciliation today 20 years after the first hearing. Jeanne Michel edited and produced this series. Find the entire series of interviews online at http://www.702.co.za/features/139/trc

It is 20 years since the South African Truth and Reconciliation held its first hearing into the gross violation of human rights under apartheid. The TRC was brought into being by an Act of Parliament in 1995, and was an essential component in the transition to democracy. It positioned itself between two extremes: the prosecutorial path of retributive justice evidenced in the Nuremberg trials of Nazi leaders on the one hand; and the blanket amnesties handed out in the wake of the Chilean dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet on the other. There, victims of gross human rights violations testified in secret. In South Africa, on the other hand, all the hearings, both for victims of apartheid and of perpetrators, were in public. The names of victims of apartheid are recorded in one volume of the TRC report. It is a list that goes on for 50 pages in small print. More than 21,000 people gave statements to the TRC. Nearly 7,000 applied for amnesty but few met the strict conditions laid down by the law: full disclosure, proportionality, and proof that the offence was politically motivated among them. In the end, fewer than 900 were granted amnesty. For the first time, some of the grim stories of the suffering under apartheid were not only told but widely publicized. For this series Journalist Pippa Green spoke to 13 of the former commissioners to find out how far we are as a country along the road of reconciliation today 20 years after the first hearing. Jeanne Michel edited and produced this series. Find the entire series of interviews online at http://www.702.co.za/features/139/trc

It is 20 years since the South African Truth and Reconciliation held its first hearing into the gross violation of human rights under apartheid. The TRC was brought into being by an Act of Parliament in 1995, and was an essential component in the transition to democracy. It positioned itself between two extremes: the prosecutorial path of retributive justice evidenced in the Nuremberg trials of Nazi leaders on the one hand; and the blanket amnesties handed out in the wake of the Chilean dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet on the other. There, victims of gross human rights violations testified in secret. In South Africa, on the other hand, all the hearings, both for victims of apartheid and of perpetrators, were in public. The names of victims of apartheid are recorded in one volume of the TRC report. It is a list that goes on for 50 pages in small print. More than 21,000 people gave statements to the TRC. Nearly 7,000 applied for amnesty but few met the strict conditions laid down by the law: full disclosure, proportionality, and proof that the offence was politically motivated among them. In the end, fewer than 900 were granted amnesty. For the first time, some of the grim stories of the suffering under apartheid were not only told but widely publicized. For this series Journalist Pippa Green spoke to 13 of the former commissioners to find out how far we are as a country along the road of reconciliation today 20 years after the first hearing. Jeanne Michel edited and produced this series. Find the entire series of interviews online at http://www.702.co.za/features/139/trc

It is 20 years since the South African Truth and Reconciliation held its first hearing into the gross violation of human rights under apartheid. The TRC was brought into being by an Act of Parliament in 1995, and was an essential component in the transition to democracy. It positioned itself between two extremes: the prosecutorial path of retributive justice evidenced in the Nuremberg trials of Nazi leaders on the one hand; and the blanket amnesties handed out in the wake of the Chilean dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet on the other. There, victims of gross human rights violations testified in secret. In South Africa, on the other hand, all the hearings, both for victims of apartheid and of perpetrators, were in public. The names of victims of apartheid are recorded in one volume of the TRC report. It is a list that goes on for 50 pages in small print. More than 21,000 people gave statements to the TRC. Nearly 7,000 applied for amnesty but few met the strict conditions laid down by the law: full disclosure, proportionality, and proof that the offence was politically motivated among them. In the end, fewer than 900 were granted amnesty. For the first time, some of the grim stories of the suffering under apartheid were not only told but widely publicized. For this series Journalist Pippa Green spoke to 13 of the former commissioners to find out how far we are as a country along the road of reconciliation today 20 years after the first hearing. Jeanne Michel edited and produced this series. Find the entire series of interviews online at http://www.702.co.za/features/139/trc

It is 20 years since the South African Truth and Reconciliation held its first hearing into the gross violation of human rights under apartheid. The TRC was brought into being by an Act of Parliament in 1995, and was an essential component in the transition to democracy. It positioned itself between two extremes: the prosecutorial path of retributive justice evidenced in the Nuremberg trials of Nazi leaders on the one hand; and the blanket amnesties handed out in the wake of the Chilean dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet on the other. There, victims of gross human rights violations testified in secret. In South Africa, on the other hand, all the hearings, both for victims of apartheid and of perpetrators, were in public. The names of victims of apartheid are recorded in one volume of the TRC report. It is a list that goes on for 50 pages in small print. More than 21,000 people gave statements to the TRC. Nearly 7,000 applied for amnesty but few met the strict conditions laid down by the law: full disclosure, proportionality, and proof that the offence was politically motivated among them. In the end, fewer than 900 were granted amnesty. For the first time, some of the grim stories of the suffering under apartheid were not only told but widely publicized. For this series Journalist Pippa Green spoke to 13 of the former commissioners to find out how far we are as a country along the road of reconciliation today 20 years after the first hearing. Jeanne Michel edited and produced this series. Find the entire series of interviews online at http://www.702.co.za/features/139/trc

It is 20 years since the South African Truth and Reconciliation held its first hearing into the gross violation of human rights under apartheid. The TRC was brought into being by an Act of Parliament in 1995, and was an essential component in the transition to democracy. It positioned itself between two extremes: the prosecutorial path of retributive justice evidenced in the Nuremberg trials of Nazi leaders on the one hand; and the blanket amnesties handed out in the wake of the Chilean dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet on the other. There, victims of gross human rights violations testified in secret. In South Africa, on the other hand, all the hearings, both for victims of apartheid and of perpetrators, were in public. The names of victims of apartheid are recorded in one volume of the TRC report. It is a list that goes on for 50 pages in small print. More than 21,000 people gave statements to the TRC. Nearly 7,000 applied for amnesty but few met the strict conditions laid down by the law: full disclosure, proportionality, and proof that the offence was politically motivated among them. In the end, fewer than 900 were granted amnesty. For the first time, some of the grim stories of the suffering under apartheid were not only told but widely publicized. For this series Journalist Pippa Green spoke to 13 of the former commissioners to find out how far we are as a country along the road of reconciliation today 20 years after the first hearing. Jeanne Michel edited and produced this series. Find the entire series of interviews online at http://www.702.co.za/features/139/trc

It is 20 years since the South African Truth and Reconciliation held its first hearing into the gross violation of human rights under apartheid. The TRC was brought into being by an Act of Parliament in 1995, and was an essential component in the transition to democracy. It positioned itself between two extremes: the prosecutorial path of retributive justice evidenced in the Nuremberg trials of Nazi leaders on the one hand; and the blanket amnesties handed out in the wake of the Chilean dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet on the other. There, victims of gross human rights violations testified in secret. In South Africa, on the other hand, all the hearings, both for victims of apartheid and of perpetrators, were in public. The names of victims of apartheid are recorded in one volume of the TRC report. It is a list that goes on for 50 pages in small print. More than 21,000 people gave statements to the TRC. Nearly 7,000 applied for amnesty but few met the strict conditions laid down by the law: full disclosure, proportionality, and proof that the offence was politically motivated among them. In the end, fewer than 900 were granted amnesty. For the first time, some of the grim stories of the suffering under apartheid were not only told but widely publicized. For this series Journalist Pippa Green spoke to 13 of the former commissioners to find out how far we are as a country along the road of reconciliation today 20 years after the first hearing. Jeanne Michel edited and produced this series. Find the entire series of interviews online at http://www.702.co.za/features/139/trc

It is 20 years since the South African Truth and Reconciliation held its first hearing into the gross violation of human rights under apartheid. The TRC was brought into being by an Act of Parliament in 1995, and was an essential component in the transition to democracy. It positioned itself between two extremes: the prosecutorial path of retributive justice evidenced in the Nuremberg trials of Nazi leaders on the one hand; and the blanket amnesties handed out in the wake of the Chilean dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet on the other. There, victims of gross human rights violations testified in secret. In South Africa, on the other hand, all the hearings, both for victims of apartheid and of perpetrators, were in public. The names of victims of apartheid are recorded in one volume of the TRC report. It is a list that goes on for 50 pages in small print. More than 21,000 people gave statements to the TRC. Nearly 7,000 applied for amnesty but few met the strict conditions laid down by the law: full disclosure, proportionality, and proof that the offence was politically motivated among them. In the end, fewer than 900 were granted amnesty. For the first time, some of the grim stories of the suffering under apartheid were not only told but widely publicized. For this series Journalist Pippa Green spoke to 13 of the former commissioners to find out how far we are as a country along the road of reconciliation today 20 years after the first hearing. Jeanne Michel edited and produced this series. Find the entire series of interviews online at http://www.702.co.za/features/139/trc

It is 20 years since the South African Truth and Reconciliation held its first hearing into the gross violation of human rights under apartheid. The TRC was brought into being by an Act of Parliament in 1995, and was an essential component in the transition to democracy. It positioned itself between two extremes: the prosecutorial path of retributive justice evidenced in the Nuremberg trials of Nazi leaders on the one hand; and the blanket amnesties handed out in the wake of the Chilean dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet on the other. There, victims of gross human rights violations testified in secret. In South Africa, on the other hand, all the hearings, both for victims of apartheid and of perpetrators, were in public. The names of victims of apartheid are recorded in one volume of the TRC report. It is a list that goes on for 50 pages in small print. More than 21,000 people gave statements to the TRC. Nearly 7,000 applied for amnesty but few met the strict conditions laid down by the law: full disclosure, proportionality, and proof that the offence was politically motivated among them. In the end, fewer than 900 were granted amnesty. For the first time, some of the grim stories of the suffering under apartheid were not only told but widely publicized. For this series Journalist Pippa Green spoke to 13 of the former commissioners to find out how far we are as a country along the road of reconciliation today 20 years after the first hearing. Jeanne Michel edited and produced this series. Find the entire series of interviews online at http://www.702.co.za/features/139/trc

It is 20 years since the South African Truth and Reconciliation held its first hearing into the gross violation of human rights under apartheid. The TRC was brought into being by an Act of Parliament in 1995, and was an essential component in the transition to democracy. It positioned itself between two extremes: the prosecutorial path of retributive justice evidenced in the Nuremberg trials of Nazi leaders on the one hand; and the blanket amnesties handed out in the wake of the Chilean dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet on the other. There, victims of gross human rights violations testified in secret. In South Africa, on the other hand, all the hearings, both for victims of apartheid and of perpetrators, were in public. The names of victims of apartheid are recorded in one volume of the TRC report. It is a list that goes on for 50 pages in small print. More than 21,000 people gave statements to the TRC. Nearly 7,000 applied for amnesty but few met the strict conditions laid down by the law: full disclosure, proportionality, and proof that the offence was politically motivated among them. In the end, fewer than 900 were granted amnesty. For the first time, some of the grim stories of the suffering under apartheid were not only told but widely publicized. For this series Journalist Pippa Green spoke to 13 of the former commissioners to find out how far we are as a country along the road of reconciliation today 20 years after the first hearing. Jeanne Michel edited and produced this series. Find the entire series of interviews online at http://www.702.co.za/features/139/trc

It is 20 years since the South African Truth and Reconciliation held its first hearing into the gross violation of human rights under apartheid. The TRC was brought into being by an Act of Parliament in 1995, and was an essential component in the transition to democracy. It positioned itself between two extremes: the prosecutorial path of retributive justice evidenced in the Nuremberg trials of Nazi leaders on the one hand; and the blanket amnesties handed out in the wake of the Chilean dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet on the other. There, victims of gross human rights violations testified in secret. In South Africa, on the other hand, all the hearings, both for victims of apartheid and of perpetrators, were in public. The names of victims of apartheid are recorded in one volume of the TRC report. It is a list that goes on for 50 pages in small print. More than 21,000 people gave statements to the TRC. Nearly 7,000 applied for amnesty but few met the strict conditions laid down by the law: full disclosure, proportionality, and proof that the offence was politically motivated among them. In the end, fewer than 900 were granted amnesty. For the first time, some of the grim stories of the suffering under apartheid were not only told but widely publicized. For this series Journalist Pippa Green spoke to 13 of the former commissioners to find out how far we are as a country along the road of reconciliation today 20 years after the first hearing. Jeanne Michel edited and produced this series. Find the entire series of interviews online at http://www.702.co.za/features/139/trc

Piet Meiring, Emeritus Professor of Theology and Missiology at the University of Pretoria, and a former member of the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission chaired by Desmond Tutu, speaks about the role of faith and theology in the post-apartheid reconciliation process, and offers insights from the South African experience. 16 April 2015

Piet Meiring, Emeritus Professor of Theology and Missiology at the University of Pretoria, and a former member of the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission chaired by Desmond Tutu, speaks about the role of faith and theology in the post-apartheid reconciliation process, and offers insights from the South African experience. 16 April 2015

Piet Meiring, Emeritus Professor of Theology and Missiology at the University of Pretoria, and a former member of the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission chaired by Desmond Tutu, speaks about the role of faith and theology in the post-apartheid reconciliation process, and offers insights from the South African experience. 16 April 2015

Restorative Justice programs often bring offenders, victims, family members and other stakeholders in the society together to work through what happened, to identify the harm done and together to work out appropriate punishment and possible restitution. There have been examples of restorative justice style practices throughout history. As you’ll hear from some of our guests, many cite the talking circle model practiced by First Nation and Native American Communities as an inspiration for today’s restorative justice programs. Maybe the most well-known application of restorative justice practices in recent history has been the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission assembled in the mid- 1990’s in the aftermath of the abolition of apartheid. Although there were critics of the commission – which granted amnesty to about 1 in 10 offenders who went through the process, generally the TRC was thought of as successful in promoting honesty and healing in the country. But parts of the restorative justice practices have drawn criticism. Some say it trivializes crime, doesn’t reduce recidivism, and doesn’t do as much to restore and repair as it claims. Even those working in the field of Restorative Justice admit that it’s a work in progress, but as an addendum to what they see as a largely flawed criminal justice system, the practitioners of restorative justice are confident that it’s a model worth exploring. We explore two programs on today’s show, one that works with youth in Oakland, CA and one that for some years has been employed in Taos County in New Mexico.

Restorative Justice programs often bring offenders, victims, family members and other stakeholders in the society together to work through what happened, to identify the harm done and together to work out appropriate punishment and possible restitution. There have been examples of restorative justice style practices throughout history. As you'll hear from some of our guests, many cite the talking circle model practiced by First Nation and Native American Communities as an inspiration for today's restorative justice programs. Maybe the most well-known application of restorative justice practices in recent history has been the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission assembled in the mid- 1990's in the aftermath of the abolition of apartheid. Although there were critics of the commission – which granted amnesty to about 1 in 10 offenders who went through the process, generally the TRC was thought of as successful in promoting honesty and healing in the country. But parts of the restorative justice practices have drawn criticism. Some say it trivializes crime, doesn't reduce recidivism, and doesn't do as much to restore and repair as it claims. Even those working in the field of Restorative Justice admit that it's a work in progress, but as an addendum to what they see as a largely flawed criminal justice system, the practitioners of restorative justice are confident that it's a model worth exploring. We explore two programs on today's show, one that works with youth in Oakland, CA and one that for some years has been employed in Taos County in New Mexico.

Bill Moyers sat down with Archbishop Tutu in 1999 discussing his chairmanship of the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission.