An MLKjr -Arendt connection

On civil disobedience:
We can never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was "legal" and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was "illegal." It was "illegal" to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler's Germany. But I am sure that if I had lived in Germany during that time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers even though it was illegal. If I lived in a Communist country today where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I believe I would openly advocate disobeying these anti-religious laws ...

On just vs. unjust laws:
How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust.

Let us consider a more concrete example of just and unjust laws. An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself. This is difference made legal. By the same token, a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow and that it is willing to follow itself. This is sameness made legal.

On moderates:
I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice.

From Nina: "Forum"

I apologize for sending a mass email but we haven't come to a concrete decision about a discussion forum. So until we do I would like to be able to communicate to everyone in this format.

I don't say much in the seminar because I'm more of a listener and I process things slower. So I would like to be able to take part in conversations even if it's after the fact.

I heard Joy say that it feels good and it's a right to take vengeance. Having had a horrendous experience in my own life which put the perpetrator in jail nearly for life, I have never thought about vengeance. I have always wanted to go back face-to-face with that person much like the truth and reconciliation commission and have closure. And not feeling vengeance had baffled my mind.

In Beauvoir's reading I read, "In dying he slips out of the world; he shrugs off his punishment." I wondered if Beauvoir was against capital punishment yet she didn't sign the petition to let Brasillach off death row. I wonder what vengeance gives us. And it made me think of non-violent resisters who decide not to hurt the perpetrator for a moral high ground. I wonder how this and religion fits into the conversation. Doesn't religion guide us not to take vengeance? Or I could be wrong.

In regards to the appropriateness of neo-Nazis rallying in a predominantly Jewish neighborhood, I think that on the one hand, in a democracy, we don't have a right to suppress speech yet look at what hate speech has brought about.

Well, thanks for allowing me to contribute to the conversation.

From Bill: "Some things I thought of sharing based on today..."

This quote from Bobby Kennedy’s daybook:

The future does not belong to those who are content with today, apathetic toward common problems and their fellow man alike, timid and fearful in the face of new ideas and bold projects. Rather it will belong to those who can blend passion, reason, and courage in a personal commitment to the ideals and great enterprises of American society. It will belong to those who see that wisdom can only emerge from the clash of contending views, the passionate expression of deep and hostile beliefs. Plato said: “A life without criticism is a life not worth living.” 

The longish PPT (it is due for an overhaul—it’s a bit messy) I use for my AP unit on Social Theories of the 19th Century. It shows the context in which I bring the Buck v. Bell case into my classes, amusing personal connections via Irish racism myths and truths and my past as a skinhead—if you explore, look for a funny picture of me—and the current activity of neo-Nazis in Brazil. In terms of teaching, elements of the PPT may be useful in some classes. Feel free to curate and plunder.

Finally, in regard to humor: Hitler Takes The IB Higher Level Math Test...

 Enjoy!
—B.

P.S. I tried to send the ppt via email, but it was too large. Instead, I added it to a new folder in our shared NEH folder called “Participant Share-Alike.” I also added the Benedict Anderson chapter, an interview with Anderson and an example activity I do based on Anderson. Kathy, please feel free to evict me—I just thought I would take initiative.

 Looking forward to sharing-alike with all of you.

From June 25:

All,

I was reading some posts from the Arendt Center and came across this one, written by Roger Berkowitz in 2012. It's about education -- loving the world enough to lead students into the world, to care for the world, to refresh it.

 I found it lovely (for lack of a less redundant adjective), so wanted to share:

Link to blog post: http://www.hannaharendtcenter.org/?p=7983

 Quote from Arendt (The Crisis in Education): "Education is the point at which we decide whether we love the world enough to assume responsibility for it and by the same token save it from that ruin which, except for renewal, except for the coming of the new and young, would be inevitable."

See you all soon!
Suzie