The author of The Lifelong Activist, Hillary Rettig, sent me a lovely quote and a recommendation.
First, the quote:
Those who profess to favor freedom, yet depreciate agitation, are men who
want crops without plowing up the ground. They want rain without thunder and
lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters.
This struggle may be a moral one; or it may be a physical one; or it may be
both moral and physical; but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing
without a demand. It never did and it never will.Frederick Douglass, American Abolitionist, Letter to an associate, 1849
And now the recommendations:
Two great resources for anyone interested in the history and mechanisms of
social movements and social change. First, the movie Amazing Grace which
was recently released and may still be out in a few theaters. It’s the
story of the British abolitionists who waged a 30+ year battle to get
slavery outlawed – and won. Lots of people thought they were impolite, too,
but they got the job done. The movie is entertaining but serious – it also
shows the importance of perseverance during dark times.Another resource is Adam Hochschild’s terrific book Bury the Chains, which
came out a couple of years ago and tells the exact same story. Hochschild
is a wonderful writer and popular historian, and his book really fleshes out
the one in the movie. Moreover, he provides wonderful context and reason
for optimism:“At the end of the eighteenth century, well over three quarters of all
people alive were in some kind of bondage of one kind or another, not the
captivity of striped prison uniforms, but of various systems of slavery or
serfdoms…This world of bondage seemed all the more normal then, because
anyone looking back in time would have seen little but other slave systems.
The ancient Greeks had slaves; the Romans had an estimated two or three
million of them in Italy alone; the Incas and Aztecs had slaves; the sacred
texts of most major religions took slavery for granted. Slavery had existed
before money or written laws.“Looking back today, what is even more astonishing than the pervasiveness of
slavery in the late 1700s is how switfly it died. By the end of the
following century, slavery was, at least on paper, outlawed almost
everywhere. The antislavery movement had achieved its goal in little more
than one lifetime.”Humanists can best work against religiosity by studying history as you
suggest – by learning about how social movements win.
Thanks, Hillary!
One of my favorite daydreams is to go back in time to hear Douglass give a speech. A really wound-up speech.
Here’s another quote from the history of the women’s movement:
I once read that women were “given” the vote after 76 national campaigns, thousands of speeches, letters written, demonstrations, etc., [ironic italics original] (and in England disrupting public events, imprisonment, hunger strikes & forced feeding, and the occasional suicide of women throwing themselves in front of the horses at Ascot.)
Of course nothing changes because of people who were polite. Why is this an issue? Anyone who knows anything about history knows that in order to affect change you have be loud, you have to get in people’s faces, and you have to scream, “YOU ARE WRONG” at them. You’ll also have to take tons of shit and be persecuted and hated, but if you’re persistent things will change, and if you’re behind the right cause they’ll change for the better.
They will change for the better, when the group advocating for its own rights is either 1) very large and/or 2) very cohesive. Not quite a good description for atheists. But hell, now it’s the time to work on our “cohesiveness issue”, especially when things like this happen.
I suggest that there’s some cherrypicking of historical examples going on in this “debate” to support the notion that in-your-face, snarly, impolite yelling is the only way to effect change.
It seems to me that Gandhi, King, and Mandela would be three examples of cherrypicking from the “other approach” to illustrate that things are a bit more complex than they’re being portrayed.
I’ve got news for you. I eat vegetables that I don’t actually grow myself.
Likewise- I take advantage of civil rights that I didn’t personally fight for.
In return- I do some things that others would rather not do. That’s the basis of an economy and why I’ve got a job.
Not everyone has to be an activist. Not everyone is cut out to be a soldier. I’m glad that activists and soldiers exist, but I’m not one of them.
FWIW, Frederick Douglass, as a strong proponent of literacy, almost certainly wrote, “Those who profess to favor freedom, yet deprecate agitation…”
“Depreciate” does not carry the same connotation of disapproval.
Please explain to me how Gandhi, King and Mandela weren’t loud; how they didn’t get in people’s faces; and how they never claimed that the status quo was wrong.
Nope … that’s not what I said.
But beyond that, if any of them ever screeched in the manner displayed in these parts, I’d be interested in seeing some quotes. I think you’re asking me to “prove a negative” … for shame! :-)
Scott Belyea wrote:
It seems to me that Gandhi, King, and Mandela would be three examples of cherrypicking from the “other approach” to illustrate that things are a bit more complex than they’re being portrayed.
Well, all three of them spent significant time in prisons, in Mandela’s case over 28 years. Is that what this “other approach” requires in order to bring change? Most of us aren’t that heroic.
Gandhi being rude:
“It is my firm opinion that Europe does not represent the spirit of God or Christianity but the spirit of Satan. And Satan’s successes are the greatest when he appears with the name of God on his lips.”
“Mr. Gahdhi, what do you think of Western Civilization?”
“I think it would be a good idea!”
Ooh, yeah. Real polite.
Martin Luther King wasn’t rude because he existed in a social context in which his *very existance* was an incredible offense to polite society.
The issue isn’t necessarily about “rude” or “not rude,” its about whether you give offense. And considering that Martin Luther King was set upon by police dogs and eventually murdered, I’d say he gave a good bit of offense.
It’s probably worth noting that the end of slavery coincides with the beginning of the industrial revolution. It’s been suggested, in fact, that the horse collar had more to do with abolition than any political effort. Once a more economical alternative developed, the need to enslave or indenture human beings evaporated.
Um, I think you are forgetting that Mandela was a strong advocate for a (fully justified IMO) armed struggle that included bombings and armed resistance and that the ANC would, under current US rules, be considered a terrorist organisation (which shows how insane those rules are). That is what the Rivonia trials were (at least nominally) about. Madiba is a massively inspirational and transformative person, but he was in no way “polite” nor was he afraid to get his hands dirty when necessary.
I do agree with the spirit of the comparisons, but I’d strongly caution against tying the atheist “movement” as too closely analagous with these other movements. I don’t think that atheists currently have anywhere near the oppression of India under British rule, African-Americans, well, ever, or even women in the United States in the last hundred years.
Tying that idea with the Texas-bashing in the other thread, I know someone who is fond of stating that in Texas it used to be considered a legal defense for a man to shoot and kill his wife if he did it when he caught her in bed with another man. Crime of passion and all. Feminists fought against it as being unfair, and the Texas legislature remedied it by…wait for it…making it an ok defense for a woman to shoot her husband if found in bed with another woman, too.
Sounds too much like an urban legend to be true.
“Prove a negative?” Nope … that’s not what I was asking. ;-)
But if I may get philosophical for a moment, every negatve claim has an equivalent positive claim. You took a quote about needing to be loud, in your face, and tell people that they’re wrong in order to effect change, and held up three “counter-examples.” My request was that you defend your position. You asked for specific quotes.
As others have already supplied some quotes, I won’t bother. But let me point out that organizing huge protests, rallies, and srikes is itself being loud, in your face, and telling people that they’re wrong.
Patrick,
You’re just playing semantic games with the word “rude.” Rude is the opposite of polite. Under the right conditions, merely speaking out of turn is considered rude.
But what about wage slavery? Most of us are not ‘free’. When we go into work we shed many of our civil rights, including free speech.
Re #14: The horsecollar was invented some time in the 12th Century. I think you may have meant the steam engine.
Re #19: that’s right — horse collar coincides with the end of feudalism.
So what invention will coincide with/help along the end of the enslavement of human minds to religion? The interwebs, baby.
Re #16: It’s not the atheist that are being mightily oppressed but those who, unlike us, have not yet escaped the bonds of religion, etc. We are more like the freed slaves and activists in the underground railroad of our time.
The kiwis, aka the “sheep shaggers” or more internationally known as New Zealanders – were the first to grant women the vote.
When the Governor, Lord Glasgow, signed the Electoral Act into law on 19 September 1893, New Zealand became the first country in the world to grant women the right to vote in parliamentary elections. Although a number of other territories had enfranchised women before 1893, New Zealand can justly claim to be the first self-governing nation to grant the vote to all adult women.
http://www.elections.org.nz/study/history/votes-for-women.html
There are some who will take offense at what they think you’ve said, and others who will take offense at what you did say, no matter how you phrased it. Then there are those who will listen to what you have to say in order to find something they can take offense at. This last group are called, jerks.
Gerard van der Leun has a quote up on his comment page that says, in effect, you can’t avoid offending somebody, no matter how you phrase what you say.
To which I add the following: Say what you mean, mean what you say, and those who engage in gratuitous offense taking can go get bent.
(I’m rude. Do you have a point?)
And to add to the above, that may go towards explaining why they have less problem voting in a woman as Prime Minister.
Blargh.
Try This link instead.
Atheists seem to have their rights spelled out for them more explicitly than in the US.
Section 116 [Freedom of Religion, Secular State] – Australia
“The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.”
Actually, the United States Constitution, in Article VI has the same (possibly the template) clause,
“but no religious Test shall ever be required as a qualification to any Office or public trust under the United States.”
#s 14, 19, 20: I had thought that leather horse harnesses (as opposed to wooden collars) were responsible for ending a much earlier age of slavery, in ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt. (The point being that with the wooden collars, a horse or other beast couldn’t do much more work than the number of humans who could be fed on the same amount of grain as the horse.) Are you folks claiming that leather harnesses weren’t invented until the Middle Ages?
Note that modern slavery and near-slavery (at least in the US) focuses on things that can’t be done by machine: notably, picking the more fragile fruits and berries (migrant workers), housework (abused domestics), heavy-labor odd-jobs (day laborers), and sex (slave brothels). Of course, the victims are generally non-citizens who are in the country illegally and often don’t speak English. (Thus, little legal protection.)
While I’m waxing nostalgic for the unbelievable foresight the founders of the U.S.A. had, another small fact never allowed to be mentioned in polite American company, is that, aside from Article VI strictly prohibiting any public annunciation of faith as a prerequisite of office, the last paragraph of Article II, section 1 reads
“Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:-‘I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will, to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.'”
The asinine and (if I may be so bold) unconstitutional addition of “so help me god” to the oath is a slap in the face to the founders and any modern literate citizens.
I would hate to think that my posts may be rude, but the simple fact is that there are public locations that exist in the United States right now, where if I were to mention the Constitutional passages cited by me in previous posts, I am sure that I would be beaten, at the very least. Were I to admit to atheism, I am confident that I would be killed.
The new South ain’t all that new. Ask a darkie.
` And how does she say we can really make a difference? I’m assuming that part of this is getting people to like you, identify with you and take your side!
` Is that what history shows? Mua ha ha haaa!!! First, take over the public’s view of science vs. religion… tomorrow… the world!!
` BTW, I suddenly have in my head a song that I, as a struggling mad scientist, tend to be fond of:
Through meticulous analysis of history
I will find a way to make the people worship me.
By studying the conquerors of days gone by,
I’ll discover the mistakes that made them go awry….
Caligula was no boy scout,
He did things that we can’t even talk about.
The Romans knew he’d lost his head,
When he filled a vacant Senate seat with Mr. Ed….
` Okay I’m shutting up. I hope things are being done! I will do my part.
Dearest Frederick: “Those who profess to favor freedom, yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground”
Why, then, are “they” JUST MEN?
Perhaps a few sweating female framers…er….farmers might be willing to plow this disparate furrow as well?
I had thought that leather horse harnesses (as opposed to wooden collars) were responsible for ending a much earlier age of slavery, in ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt.
What age of slavery was that?
It’s my sorry duty to inform y’all that Distorta D’newsa has got another atheist bashing post.
http://newsbloggers.aol.com/bloggers/dinesh-dsouza/
This one puts forward the staggeringly original thesis that Atheists require faith not to believe in God.
Christian, I’m afraid that post is nowhere near as entertaining as his previous ones. Last night, there were already 300 comments, and most of them were Xtians arguing theology and the politics of which dead people get to go where. All I could think of while wading through the comments was that it sounded like a bunch of uber-geeks debating Kirk vs. Picard. However, it’s a good glimpse into what atheist activists are up against. People who will debate whether aborted fetuses are going to go to hell because they are inherently sinful, limbo because they’re good but weren’t baptized, or heaven because Jesus said some stuff about children, and be absolutely convinced that this is some kind of winnable debate probably need some roughing up.
tsiatko, if you truly give up your civil rights when you go in to work, then unless you happen to be a cop or a soldier, I would respectfully suggest that you’re in the wrong job.
Very well put, mel. I’ve never thought of it that way before.
If we have seen farther than others, it is because we took off our bloody blinders.
#34 Alison, things may be looking up, I think the pope just recently abolished limbo as being too restrictive on the unbaptised babes.
It’s a sad fact that at the time of Douglass’ writing, speech had not yet been enlightened enough to appreciate gender equality. Nor did it recognize the role that women were to play in abolition and temperance.
While this seems and odious exclusion of half the human race, the point behind the quote is a valid and earnest one made even more true by the suffragette movement.
Getting officeholders to drop “so help me God” would be a daunting task, considering George Washignton ad libbed it at his inauguration.
It’s my sorry duty to inform y’all that Distorta D’newsa has got another atheist bashing post.
And he solves the angels on a head of a pin problem!
And he believes in them!
My Deepak Dinesh mind meld experiment is working!
Hahahahahahaha!
All three were taken to task repeatedly by the Nisbets of their times. As I recall, somebody in another thread already quoted King’s lament about white moderates in the Letter from Birmingham Jail. It will repay re-reading.
That’s right. The Pope abolished limbo last year.
That’s right. The Pope abolished limbo last year.
re #27: not to be too much the stickler but you originally wrote “horse collars” not “leather horse harness” which is what caused the confusion.
re #36: thanks xebecs.
I’ve noticed that certain other scibloggers have taken exception to PZ’s use of past movements for inspiration. That’s right, not only are you out of bounds if you step out of the frame, you’re also not allowed to be inspired. Whatever. This is getting ridiculous.
How Dare the Pope try to abolish Limbo! Why, me and my army of tacky Jamaican Stereotypes will wage an unholy war for our right to Limbo Lower, Mon!
[/already tired joke]
A short while later, somebody put Limbo for sale on eBay. Wish I had the link.
The atheist wimps remind me of the Democratic wimps who are still too chickenshit to take Bush on when he’s below 30% in the polls and sinking.
Yes, brave Sir Robin turned about
And gallantly he chickened out.
Bravely taking to his feet
He beat a very brave retreat,
Bravest of the brave, Sir Robin!
I’ve noticed that certain other scibloggers have taken exception to PZ’s use of past movements for inspiration.
And he has a big fat “Neville Chamberlain Atheist” banner on his sight.
The “Neville Chamberlain Atheist” is deleting comments (“First, my apologies to anyone who’s responded to Larry’s comment. I deleted it, because I don’t want him dirtying up my blog.”) and he and others over there are referring to New Atheism as Meanie Atheism, Rude Atheism, and Nouveau Atheism.
I think a little mud wrestling is in order.
Adam Hochschild has written another excellent book called King Leopold’s Ghost, about what is now the Democratic Republic of the Congo. It’s a great companion to Heart of Darkness (Joseph Conrad), and is an excellent account of early activism. Unfortunately, it was a short-lived success, thanks to greed and the American government/economy (among other things).
The “Neville Chamberlain Atheist” is deleting comments (“First, my apologies to anyone who’s responded to Larry’s comment. I deleted it, because I don’t want him dirtying up my blog.”)
Yeah, classy. Most sciencebloggers would not treat even Dumbski or Egnor that way.
MLK also said that the US was the greatest purveyor of violence in the world. That’s pretty rude, if “inconvient truths” are regarded as such. I have certainly run into people who think stating them is.
DrYak: Actually, as I recall, the ANC was considered a terrorist organization.
Correction. MLK said the US government is such.
The “Neville Chamberlain Atheist” is deleting comments … referring to New Atheism as Meanie Atheism, Rude Atheism, and Nouveau Atheism … referring to Larry Moran’s comments as filth, etc.
I tell you, if this is where one must go to defend the framed message … then the framing sucks more than we initially thought.
Patrick writes: The issue isn’t necessarily about “rude” or “not rude,” its about whether you give offense.
I love this theme. A wise computer once said “A statement of fact cannot be insolent.” http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/
A good example would be an emotionally abusive husband who doesn’t think he is being abusive, because “it just words”. Well, it’s not what HE thinks that matters now, is it?
Abuse and rudeness is experienced by the receiver, not the perpetrator.
Reports from the Edge of Evolution. Or Something.
Renee Reeser Zelnick – April 23, 2007
“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.”
-Arthur Schopenhauer
I am amused and shocked @ what ire was raised, simply by stating I’m attending the SCIENCE & CONSCIOUSNESS conference in Sante Fe.
While the critics and skeptics may say what they will, I had a educationally entertaining and mind opening time hearing the presentations of Intentblog’s own Dr. David Simon-
Yes Janet, an MD!
(see previous entry thread)
and the exciting work of Dr. Gary Schwartz
Yes people, a PhD!
( again, see previous thread)-
Really I encourage anyone interesting in the debate of science vs. pseudo-science to check my previous post’s thread:
http://www.intentblog.com/archives/2007/04/greetings_from.html#more
DO we really create our own individual realities through our belief system?
Ask Plato.
I find it interesting how the materialist community is always so quick on the draw to criticize-
However, I find the state of modern medicine can best be summed up by the following model
A Brief History of Medicine:
2000 B.C.
“Here, eat this root!”
1000 A.D.
“That root is heathen. Here, say this prayer!”
1500 A.D.
“That prayer is superstition. Here, drink this potion!”
1940 A.D.
“That potion is snake oil. Here, swallow this pill!”
1985 A.D.
“This pill is ineffective, take this antibiotic!”
2000 A.D.
“That antibiotic doesn’t work anymore.
Here, eat this root!”
http://www.intentblog.com/archives/2007/04/reports_from_th.html#comments
Yes, but it’s neither defined nor determined by the receiver. Just because someone finds something offensive does not mean that the person who said/did it was being rude.
I read the post and have read others like it recently on this blog, but I’ll admit that I didn’t read most of the comments… but I’m gonna give my reaction.
I don’t understand why being rude the way King or any of these other examples makes P.Z. think that it’s a good plan to act the way he does. All this slander and crap that I see on this blog only hurts any sort of movement he thinks he’s going to inspire. I don’t even really understand what kind of movement he IS trying to inspire? He’s not trying to liberate slaves or end segregation or something, is he trying to get civil liberties for atheists or what? I don’t see any great mission. It’s one thing to stand up for science, that is a real and necessary fight… but what is this sacred quest that he is on?
#27,
The Middle Ages is when the first effective leather harness was invented. The horse collar being built the way it is to put weight on the horse’s shoulder, instead of its neck.
In effect, with the horse collar and similar harnesses a horse isn’t pulling on the wagon, the horse is pushing on the harness. It is the harness in turn that pulls the wagon.
Caledonian Argues: “Just because someone finds something offensive does not mean that the person who said/did it was being rude.”
Wrong Wrong Wrong. If you really believe what you wrote, you are probably a PRIME example of somebody who engages in abuse (knowingly or not). If ANY person feels abused by something YOU say or do, that is ABUSE. After the fact, we can discuss whether the person you abused is abnormally sensitive, but the abuse is REAL. Again, rudeness is in the eye of the BEHOLDER. There is no “truth” as to what is considered rude, only opinion.
Mel #19 : “We are more like the freed slaves and activists in the underground railroad of our time.”
I knew there was a reason it feels so right to try and “help” the naive/faithful. I am essentially a modern-day Harriet Tubman.
It seems to me, whether you agree with these tactics or not, that this whole thing is going to get a lot worse before it gets better. And it’s going to get a lot worse really soon.
cf wrote:
All this slander and crap that I see on this blog only hurts any sort of movement he thinks he’s going to inspire. I don’t even really understand what kind of movement he IS trying to inspire?
Slander? That’s a rather serious charge without any evidence, of course. What makes you think that PZ is trying to inspire a “movement”? You don’t seem to realize that a blog is for writing one’s opinions – what others make of them is out of the blogger’s control.
I really like the idea that we can learn how to be more effective by studying other effective social movements. I think I may have to pick up Hochschild’s book. Thanks for passing along this info.