Why This 1967 Interview of Prof. A.J. Toynbee is Still Thought-Provoking

by Nomad

The observations of an esteemed historian from 1967 still hold true in our time.

More than a Historian

To call Professor Arnold J. Toynbee a historian is to fall short of the mark. He was called a " philosopher of history." 

His most famous work "The Study of History" is a staggering 12 volumes and took three decades to write. On a human scale, that's a lot of history right there.
Today, Toynbee is known mostly in academic circles but in his time, he was a widely read and discussed scholar in the 1940s and 1950s.
Sadly, for the anybody without a masters' degree, the work is not what most people would consider and "easy" read.

But that's not to say it is inaccessible. A later condensed version allows us mere mortals an opportunity to understand Toynbee's brilliance. Even then, there are moments when you look up from the book and wonder, what the heck did I just read?
(The Wikipedia version is perhaps the ultimate abridgment.)

To put it simply, Professor Toynbee studied what caused primitive societies to transform themselves into civilizations and the reasons why civilizations collapsed.

Toynbee's goal was to trace the development and decay of 19 world civilizations in the historical record, applying his model to each of these civilizations, detailing the stages through which they all pass: genesis, growth, time of troubles, universal state, and disintegration.

In a way, Toynbee turned a very wide angle lens on humanity. Toynbee, as dry as his works could often be, provided remarkable insight into where we are in the bigger picture. He also hinted at where we might be going.

Rebellion, Retrospect,and Regret: The 50th Anniversary of a Vietnam Peace March

by Nomad

Fifty years ago on this date, April 17, 1965, Washington saw one of the first and largest peace marches in its history. It was to become the first of many anti-war marches and demonstrations across the country.
Here's the story behind that history.

The planning for the anti-war march had been in the works since December 1964. Demonstrations against racial injustice had been remarkably successful in waking up the country and its leaders. Activists for peace were determined to inert similar pressures on Washington.
Up to that time, Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) was a little known student activist organization. However, as the America's involvement in the Vietnam War steadily grew, students and others in that age group suddenly faced the reality of the draft.
This was real and it was a matter of life and death.
As one source explains:

Even before they shipped out, those who were drafted had begun to see the horrors of the war, most notably on television. The growing presence of television in nearly every American household thus exacerbated divisions over the conflict and helped fuel the antiwar movement. What Americans watched on television each night shaped their perceptions of the Vietnam War, which came to be known as the “living room war.” For some young Americans, called on to fight but unable to vote until the age of 21, the situation was unacceptable.

The anti-war message was easy enough for a child to understand. America had no reason to be in Southeast Asia and the reason were equally simple: the war hurts the Vietnamese people, the war hurts the American people and the SDS was concerned for both Vietnamese and American people. Anybody who agreed with those three points was invited to join in on the march on Washington.
The book, The Sixties: Years of Hope, Days of Rage explains:

The official call, hoping to appeal to a broad opposition, maintained that the war was fundamentally a "civil war" as well as "losing," "self-defeating," "dangerous" "never declared by Congress" and "hideously immoral."

These objections, the establishment press immediately labeled "pro-Communist," unpatriotic and at the very best, misguided and naive.

Comparing Justice: Breivik, Manning and Calley

by Nomad

Let's take a look at three very different crimes and three very different forms of justice. What can we learn from the comparisons between a mass murderer, a whistleblowing soldier and a soldier that committed war crimes? How does justice reflect a society's values and what does it say about a nation's values?

How a nation hands down justice and who it punishes and how it punishes reveals a lot about its values and its people. In fact, I would say that it's a defining benchmark. Where the courts are corrupt is where civilization ends. And where it is justice prevails is where fairness and civilized society flourishes. The law of the jungle was not after all intended to be a model for humanity.

As George Washington reminds us:

The administration of justice is the firmest pillar of government.

With this idea in mind, I thought I'd explore three very different cases to examine how justice was administered and what could be learned about how values change from country to country and over time. 

Breivik in Norway

In the summer of 2011, Anders Behring Breivik conducted a carefully-planned attack on government buildings in Oslo, Norway, which killed eight. While police sifted through the rubble looking for clues, Breivik traveled to camp on the island of Utøya. There he systematically hunted down and murdered 69 victims, mostly teenagers.

According to his 2083: A European Declaration of Independence, Breivik's apparent motive for his acts of terrorism revolved around his far-right militant ideology which included hatred for Islam, feminism, and Zionism.

The tone of the national response to the painful events was set by the prime minister Jens Stoltenberg in his address at the memorial service in Oslo cathedral two days after the tragedy:

"We are still shocked by what has happened, but we will never give up our values," Stoltenberg said. "Our response is more democracy, more openness, and more humanity." Norway, he suggested, would not seek vengeance as America had done after the 9/11 attacks." We will answer hatred with love," he said.