[ilds] the quartet & US politics

[James Gifford]

Hi Grove,

I agree completely, but they're all past tense. A coincidence over 40  
years?

James (the pneumonial)

Sent from my iPod
_________________
James Gifford
Fairleigh Dickinson University

On 2010-02-23, at 17:38, gkoger at mindspring.com wrote:

> Charles,
>
> I admit that I'm an agnostic as to whether greater self-knowledge  
> leads to a wiser politics. As for Durrell's books and characters,  
> however, I think I find more optimism than you do.
>
> Maybe I'm cheating to go to the various series' final passages, and  
> yet they buoy me up. At the end of the /Quartet/, Darley writes:  
> "And I felt as if the whole universe had given me a nudge!"
>
> At the end of the /Revolt/ Felix writes (says?): "There is some fine  
> black jazz playing and we have been dancing, dancing in complete  
> happiness and accord. And we will keep on this way, dancing and  
> dancing, even though Rome burn."
>
> At the end of the /Quintet/ Blanford thinks of describing the scene  
> in these terms: "'It was at this precise moment that reality prime  
> rushed to the aid of fiction and the totally unpredictable began to  
> take place!'"
>
> Yes, in each case I sense Doubt and Irony waiting in the wings, but  
> for me their presence doesn't dampen the spirit of the words.
>
> To take a slight detour, Leach's reference to "a sense of reality"  
> reminded me of the Graham Greene collection by that title, and then  
> thoughts about optimism and such reminded me of the ending of  
> Greene's /Brighton Rock/: "She walked rapidly in the thin June  
> sunlight towards the worst horror of all."
>
> When I compare Durrell's vision to that of a Greene (or a Beckett,  
> say) I find him pretty optimistic.
>
> Grove
>
> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Charles Sligh <Charles-Sligh at utc.edu>
>> Sent: Feb 23, 2010 6:28 PM
>> To: gkoger at mindspring.com, ilds at lists.uvic.ca
>> Subject: Re: [ilds] the quartet & US politics
>>
>> gkoger at mindspring.com wrote:
>>> Leach's observation doesn't strike me as unreasonable, although  
>>> referring to the "moral" of the /Quartet/ is unfortunate. Note  
>>> that he refers to "a sense of reality" rather than just "reality,"  
>>> which is a fairly nuanced way of putting it.
>>>
>>> For what it's worth, two of the writers for /Power Line/ are  
>>> fellows of the Claremont Institute, at whose 30th anniversary  
>>> dinner Dick Cheney is scheduled to speak.
>>>
>>> Grove
>>>
>>>
>> Thanks for that response, Grove.
>>
>> I hear something different in that "sense of reality" when I read  
>> that
>> phrase and sentence within the context of Leach's total speech.
>>
>> Read in that way, I hear Leach saying that if we just listened and
>> looked more--just like those characters in the /Quartet/--we just  
>> might
>> overcome our limited, local perspectives and achieve a global,
>> encompassing perspective and lead better lives.
>>
>> Is the /Quartet/ really that progressive and optimistic in its  
>> politics?
>>
>> In other words, I have a problem with Leach's optimism that some  
>> greater
>> political or personal enlightenment is actually achieved by means  
>> of the
>> /Quartet/'s perspectivism.
>>
>> I do agree that in reading the /Quartet/ we readers are reminded  
>> again
>> and again of the limitations and subjectivity of individual
>> perspectives. Yes, we humans are blind to so much.
>>
>> However, I do not find that characters in the /Quartet/ move from  
>> naive
>> viewpoints to skepticism to some sort of liberating and reforming
>> enlightenment. Instead, those characters who survive limp away into
>> exile, maimed and shaken and separated from old selves and old  
>> friends
>> and lovers.
>>
>> In other words, yes, the /Quartet/ shakes up our preconceptions and  
>> the
>> preconceptions of the characters. But, no, I do not think the book  
>> leads
>> the reader to any greater wisdom beyond a fuller knowledge of his  
>> or her
>> limits and unknowing.
>>
>> The /Quartet/ takes away far more than it gives. (That move to
>> "extinguishment" may be why Buddhism and the writings of Sade  
>> appealed
>> to Durrell.) Thus the move to a kind of quietist tone and position of
>> exile in the book's final movements.
>>
>> Without doubt there are political aspects to the /Quartet/. But I  
>> find
>> those political /plots/--the plots involving Nessim and Narouz and
>> Mountolive--to be the parts most steeped in irony, skepticism, and
>> bribes, betrayals, political assassinations, and gun-running.
>>
>> After all, at the book's close, a war is coming--actually, 70+  
>> years of war.
>>
>> Contra Leach, the /Quartet/ does not seem to me to be a "road map"  
>> to a
>> peace settlement.
>>
>> Such a reading forgets Ron the Parrot, who farts and curses while
>> reciting Koranic verse, and much else.
>>
>> And we forget Ron the Parrot at our peril.
>>
>> I will reprint Leach's whole address here below. I do find it
>> interesting because it helps me to articulate my own different  
>> reading.
>>
>> Charles
>>
>>>
>>> ***
>>>
>>>> http://www.neh.gov/whoweare/speeches/09292009.html
>>>
>>>> Speech by NEH Chairman Jim Leach
>>>>
>>>> “Bridging Cultures: NEH and the Muslim World”
>>>> Carnegie Corporation of New York
>>>> New York, New York
>>>> September 29, 2009
>>>> (As prepared for delivery)
>>>>
>>>> Good morning. It is an honor to be charged with opening the
>>>> discussion today on the challenges of civic engagement with Muslim
>>>> communities inside and outside the United States.
>>>>
>>>> First, let me begin by thanking our hosts—the Carnegie Corpora 
>>>> tion,
>>>> the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, and the Doris Duke Foundation for
>>>> Islamic Art—for gathering us together and, more consequentiall 
>>>> y, for
>>>> the leadership role they have played for decades on the topic at  
>>>> hand.
>>>>
>>>> In this context I want to stress a theme that might seem self- 
>>>> evident
>>>> but is seldom given the attention it deserves. To wit, relations
>>>> between countries are only in part a dialogue of one government  
>>>> with
>>>> another. Actually, it is businessmen and women, unelected people of
>>>> good will, be they artists, scholars or students, who are more
>>>> integral to defining the tone of relations between states than  
>>>> public
>>>> officials.
>>>>
>>>> Government is a part of culture, not vice-versa. Accordingly,
>>>> government-to-government relations are only one kind of  
>>>> diplomacy. In
>>>> the literature of political science, official interchanges are
>>>> sometimes referred to as track 1 diplomacy. Broadly speaking there
>>>> are two other kinds. Track 2 is diplomacy involving non-government
>>>> officials attempting to advance, often at the behest of a  
>>>> government,
>>>> policies consistent with the views of the government. A subset of
>>>> this track is free lance diplomacy: private citizens advancing
>>>> perspectives that, while perhaps well-intended, may be  
>>>> objectionable
>>>> to a government in power. The third track is cultural diplomacy,
>>>> which encompasses all private contacts and relationships—social,
>>>> professional, business, artistic, and educational—that take place
>>>> unrelated to specific political issues of the day. Cultural  
>>>> diplomacy
>>>> generally precedes and increasingly supersedes
>>>> government-to-government relations.
>>>>
>>>> Just as government is a part of culture and not vice-versa,  
>>>> cultural
>>>> relations are often more consequential than political ones. Public
>>>> officials and their views come and go; culture may evolve but it  
>>>> is a
>>>> weighty constant. If peoples of a country or set of countries  
>>>> don’t
>>>> like each other, don’t understand or respect another’s way of  
>>>> life,
>>>> fail to sense good will, or can’t see any common interests, th 
>>>> ere is
>>>> little chance for the development of constructive
>>>> government-to-government relations.
>>>>
>>>> If this premise has validity, the national interest suggests that
>>>> whatever the politics of the moment in nation-state relations,
>>>> citizen effort, consistent with law, should be undertaken to reach
>>>> out to those societies with which tension is highest. While such an
>>>> endeavor may be facilitated by government, it is  
>>>> disproportionately a
>>>> private-sector responsibility.
>>>>
>>>> At the turn of the last century, two controversial political
>>>> sociologists from Italy, Mosca and Pareto, attempted to update an
>>>> undertaking of Aristotle and chronicle the types of governments  
>>>> then
>>>> in existence. One of their observations that seems trite but  
>>>> carries
>>>> profound implications is that whatever kind of government is in
>>>> place, it is impressive how at key moments powerful elites are
>>>> empowered to make decisions of a kind that impact multitudes. Our
>>>> founders thought a lot about this democratic dilemma. In these  
>>>> trying
>>>> times, we are obligated to reflect anew on this problem.
>>>>
>>>> At the time of our founding, one of the principal concerns of our
>>>> first citizens was to limit the capacity of a single person—in 
>>>>  this
>>>> case a presidency shorn of kingly authority—to initiate war.  
>>>> Today
>>>> the challenge for citizens is to help make the need for government
>>>> officials to instigate war less likely.
>>>>
>>>> Democracy is no guarantee of good judgment of public officials, but
>>>> it is the best system to allow publics to insist on course
>>>> corrections. We all recognize that the last election produced a
>>>> candidate who prevailed in no small measure because he suggested  
>>>> that
>>>> new approaches were called for in international relations. That
>>>> doesn’t mean that if implemented these new approaches will prove
>>>> popular or effective. No-win situations abound. The bad news is  
>>>> that
>>>> some events may simply be beyond management and the actions of  
>>>> others
>>>> may be impervious to civil logic. The good news is that the  
>>>> President
>>>> has a mandate to rethink policies in place and appears to have  
>>>> chosen
>>>> first class professionals with open minds to advise him.
>>>>
>>>> In this circumstance there is an indispensible role for cultural
>>>> diplomacy to help create a social environment where disagreements
>>>> between peoples are more likely to be resolved in a civil way. As  
>>>> the
>>>> President suggested in one of the great humanist speeches of our
>>>> time, the development of cultural understanding requires that a  
>>>> young
>>>> person in Kansas be able to communicate with a young person in  
>>>> Cairo.
>>>>
>>>> Government-to-government relations implicitly reflect national  
>>>> power
>>>> contrasts whether or not military power is being asserted. But any
>>>> study of the human condition—the humanities—in any century, in 
>>>> cluding
>>>> the last one in which man experimented with the most coercive  
>>>> dogmas
>>>> of hate, finds that military power alone can not for long hold
>>>> populations in check or control the mind and soul of a people.
>>>>
>>>> People want to have a say in their own destinies. There is  
>>>> something
>>>> about the human condition that prefers governing decisions, even
>>>> seemingly irrational ones, to be made at socially cohesive  
>>>> levels. A
>>>> lot is written today about globalism, but this century is also  
>>>> about
>>>> localism. To adapt to a fast changing world, one must understand  
>>>> both
>>>> of these phenomena: the fact, as Tip O’Neill repeatedly noted, 
>>>>  that
>>>> all politics are local and the corollary, as we have learned again
>>>> with the financial crisis, that all local decisions are affected by
>>>> international events.
>>>>
>>>> Whether violence is an integral element of the human condition or a
>>>> learned response is a matter of conjecture. But non-violence is
>>>> almost certainly a practice that must be learned. And the most
>>>> effective form of social education is human contact. It is the
>>>> humanization rather than the demonization of individuals from
>>>> different cultures that is so critical if non-violent approaches to
>>>> problem solving are to be institutionalized. Without
>>>> humanization—hand shakes of understanding—there can be no trus 
>>>> t and
>>>> hence no family or national security.
>>>>
>>>> In a fundamental sense, the issue of the times is not simply
>>>> Muslim-Western discord; it is also the philosophical paradigm with
>>>> which our founders grappled. At issue was and somewhat surprisingly
>>>> remains the contrast with a state of nature, which Hobbes defined  
>>>> as
>>>> a jungle where life was “nasty, brutish and short,” and civil
>>>> society, which Locke described as a circumstance where rules  
>>>> governed
>>>> disputes and third party arbitration could be called upon. For
>>>> Hobbes, self-centered man could never escape the jungle because he
>>>> lacked the capacity to put himself in the shoes of others. For
>>>> Jefferson and his Lockean cohorts in Philadelphia, individuals were
>>>> not only born with rights no legitimate state could take away, but
>>>> with a rational nature capable of developing institutional
>>>> arrangements to advance common interests.
>>>>
>>>> For students of Western political theory, Hobbesian thought has for
>>>> long been considered to involve an interesting but abstract set of
>>>> propositions. But with the globalization for the first time in
>>>> history of anarchistic strategies, it is suddenly becoming clear  
>>>> that
>>>> not only have we not entirely escaped the jungle, but that the more
>>>> modern and centralized a society, the greater its vulnerability to
>>>> terrorist acts. In this circumstance, the case for a strong  
>>>> military
>>>> and expanded intelligence capacity is self-evident. But the only
>>>> long-term answer would appear also to require: a) a commitment to
>>>> advancing mutual understanding and the framework of law; and b) an
>>>> understanding that military intervention, even if employed by a
>>>> democratic power without a goal of Empire, can have unforeseen,
>>>> counter-productive consequences.
>>>>
>>>> In this setting I have suggested to the students I used to teach at
>>>> Princeton and Harvard that the most important geo-political tract  
>>>> of
>>>> the last century was that of a family of novels—the Alexandria
>>>> Quartet by the British author, Lawrence Durrell. Set between the
>>>> first and second world wars in the ancient library center,
>>>> Alexandria, Durrell wrote four books about the same set of events,
>>>> each a first-person perspective from the eyes of a different
>>>> participant. One wonders why read about the same events more than
>>>> once. It ends up that each story is profoundly different. The moral
>>>> is that to get a sense of reality, it is necessary to see things  
>>>> from
>>>> more than one pair of eyes. This may apply to interactions in a
>>>> community, a court room, or in international relations where what
>>>> America does may seem reasonable from our perspective but look very
>>>> different from the eyes of a European or African, a Middle  
>>>> Easterner
>>>> or an Asian.
>>>>
>>>> As everyone in this room knows, over the past several decades two
>>>> Harvard political theorists, Samuel Huntington and Joseph Nye, have
>>>> written about the dangers of a clash of civilizations and of the  
>>>> role
>>>> of “soft” (recently relabeled “smart”) power as contrasted 
>>>>  with
>>>> “hard” power in international relations. These are important
>>>> frameworks of thought, but I would add to such considerations the
>>>> contrasting model of realism vs. pseudo-realism in policy
>>>> development. Realists look to effect, not to bluster. But what  
>>>> should
>>>> a citizen think of ideological arguments advanced in recent years  
>>>> by
>>>> a small cohort of ideological insiders that arms control agreements
>>>> are to be avoided and diplomacy, particularly multi-lateral
>>>> diplomacy, is soft-headed? Should we not ask whether this is
>>>> pseudo-realism? What is more realistic and more consistent with the
>>>> American heritage than attempting to advance the rule of law?
>>>> Americans prefer to work in alliances. It is nonsense, realism
>>>> inverted, to press a foreign policy rooted in snubbing the concerns
>>>> of others.
>>>>
>>>> One of the myths of our time is that realism is principally about
>>>> might. Actually realism is about the human condition. Nations that
>>>> are ill-led, ill-fed, and ill-respected are breeding grounds for
>>>> radicalism.
>>>>
>>>> America at its best combines principle and idealism with Yankee
>>>> pragmatism. One without the other is a prescription for disaster.
>>>>
>>>> In this context, NEH is launching a “Bridging Cultures” initia 
>>>> tive.
>>>> The analogy to a “bridge” and use of the word as a verb is h 
>>>> ardly
>>>> novel. Nor is what we have in mind a radical departure from prior  
>>>> NEH
>>>> initiatives or the long-term efforts of many individuals and NGOs
>>>> represented in this room. Our effort is simply to burrow “in” 
>>>>  more
>>>> deeply at the domestic level and press “out” more broadly
>>>> internationally.
>>>>
>>>> Hence we plan, in partnership with our state humanities councils,  
>>>> to
>>>> hold colloquiums, large and small, throughout the country on the
>>>> issue of “hate speech and civility”; to commence what we inte 
>>>> nd to
>>>> label “academies” on American history and the Constitution; a 
>>>> nd to
>>>> hold conferences on the importance of Muslim contributions to
>>>> American society. We are also open to partnering with other
>>>> government departments and non-governmental organizations in any
>>>> number of ways.
>>>>
>>>> International violence, economic insecurity, and the chaotic nature
>>>> of accelerating change have produced a crisis of perspective as  
>>>> well
>>>> as values. Citizens of various philosophical persuasions are
>>>> reflecting increased disrespect for fellow citizens and thus for
>>>> modern day democratic governance.
>>>>
>>>> We have all followed the outburst of a congressman from South
>>>> Carolina during the President’s recent address to Congress. Less
>>>> noted, and vastly more significant, than the much publicized
>>>> congressional utterance is the fact that significant political
>>>> figures and many citizens have over the course of the last year
>>>> charged our current President with advancing policies that were
>>>> either “communist,” or “fascist” or both, and suggested  
>>>> that members
>>>> of his party in Congress should be investigated for “un-Amer 
>>>> ican”
>>>> activities. Several in public life have even toyed with history- 
>>>> blind
>>>> radicalism—the notion of “secession.”
>>>>
>>>> Words matter, for they reflect emotion as well as thought. The ones
>>>> cited above are politically and personally charged. In a legal  
>>>> sense
>>>> they are, of course, protected by free speech, but the question is
>>>> whether they nonetheless are part of a vocabulary of hate,
>>>> jeopardizing social cohesion and even public safety.
>>>>
>>>> In the public humanities we are fortunate to have a network of
>>>> humanities councils in every state and territorial jurisdiction.  
>>>> Each
>>>> is composed of independent humanities leaders with a sensitive  
>>>> sense
>>>> for what works in their areas. Most have already put outreach
>>>> programs in place that are truly impressive. Illinois, for  
>>>> instance,
>>>> has a strategy of reaching out to citizens in unexpected places  
>>>> in a
>>>> program they call “Café Society.” Meetings are held in coffee  
>>>> houses,
>>>> even barber shops. Oregon has a comparable program called “Thi 
>>>> nk and
>>>> Drink,” presumably involving places that don’t just serve co 
>>>> ffee.
>>>> Montana, for its part, is emphasizing what it calls “gracious” 
>>>>  dialogue.
>>>>
>>>> NEH is a kind of domestic State Department with state-wide  
>>>> embassies
>>>> and consulates. We are proud of the professional staff and  
>>>> appointed
>>>> board members who have proven so innovative.
>>>>
>>>> We are also proud of the scholarship we have supported in the past.
>>>> In recent years, for instance, utilizing a rigorous peer review
>>>> process in a manner similar to decision-making at the National
>>>> Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation, we have
>>>> funded nearly a hundred projects relating to the Islamic world.
>>>>
>>>> We have supported seminars for teachers on “The Arabic Novel in
>>>> Translation,” in which the works of the Nobel laureate Naguib  
>>>> Mahfouz
>>>> and Ibraham al-Kuni and other modern writers are explored, and
>>>> provided research for books on topics that initially seemed
>>>> abstractly academic but later turned out to be essential reading
>>>> material for American policymakers. For example, we supported the
>>>> publication of Before Taliban: Genealogies of the Afghan Jihad,  
>>>> which
>>>> was completed only weeks before 9/11. Its publication made  
>>>> Professor
>>>> David B. Edwards of Williams College a principal source of  
>>>> scholarly
>>>> knowledge when the United States went to war in 2001.
>>>>
>>>> To the degree all war has antecedents or analogies to prior
>>>> conflicts, the studies we have encouraged of the French colonial
>>>> experience in places as distant from each other as Algeria and
>>>> Indochina may also inform our decisions on war and its conduct in
>>>> Iraq and Afghanistan today.
>>>>
>>>> Of more cultural relevance, we have awarded research grants for the
>>>> study of the Maimonides Code in the medieval Islamic world; on the
>>>> history of cross-cultural trade under Islamic law; on the influence
>>>> of the story of Job on Jews, Christians, and Muslims in the Middle
>>>> Ages; and, more contemporaneously, we have shared the science of
>>>> museum preservation with Afghan and Iraqi curators. In addition,  
>>>> our
>>>> staff recognized the importance of the “Bactrian gold,” whic 
>>>> h was
>>>> hidden for twenty years in the basement of the presidential  
>>>> palace in
>>>> Kabul. We paid for the collection to be catalogued and helped it to
>>>> tour museums around the world to illuminate the national culture we
>>>> were attempting to protect on the battlefield.
>>>>
>>>> Because our support of these projects and many others like them is
>>>> based on peer reviewed scholarly criteria, they send an implicit
>>>> message to Muslims in our country and in other parts of the world
>>>> that we deeply value the contributions of their diverse and
>>>> fascinating cultures. Unfortunately our knowledge deficit is large.
>>>> The need to expand American understanding of Muslim history and
>>>> traditions has been extensively elucidated in the work of one of  
>>>> our
>>>> Carnegie hosts, Dr. Gregorian, who has been preaching for decades
>>>> about how woefully under-educated Americans are about the 1.2  
>>>> billion
>>>> Muslims with whom we share this globe.
>>>>
>>>> Much attention has properly been directed to the question of  
>>>> whether
>>>> we had valid information about alleged WMD development in Iraq. But
>>>> this kind of precise intelligence probing has allowed a glossing  
>>>> over
>>>> of how little policymakers knew about the culture of a country we  
>>>> had
>>>> been at war with a decade before and were giving serious
>>>> consideration to invading in the wake of 9/11; of how sparse our
>>>> knowledge was of the basic tenets of the Muslim faith; of how  
>>>> limited
>>>> our understanding of the differences between Sunnis and Shi’a  
>>>> and the
>>>> likely effects Western military intervention would have on the
>>>> historic tensions between and within various faith systems.
>>>>
>>>> At a cultural level it is also unfortunate how little respect we  
>>>> have
>>>> exhibited for Muslim history, particularly the Golden Age of Islam
>>>> which was coterminous with what are frequently referred to as the
>>>> Dark Ages in pre-Renaissance Europe. This was a time when Islamic
>>>> intellectual life was thriving in centers of learning like  
>>>> Cordoba in
>>>> Muslim-ruled Spain. Said to have had 70 libraries, with over  
>>>> 400,000
>>>> volumes, Cordoba was a center for scholars to translate the classic
>>>> world of antiquity into Arabic. Without Muslim intellectual
>>>> leadership, works of Aristotle and many others would likely have  
>>>> been
>>>> lost forever. Importantly, Muslim intellectuals worked in
>>>> collaboration with rather than isolation from Christian and Jewish
>>>> scholars.
>>>>
>>>> When Europe went Dark, Muslims led in “bridging cultures.”
>>>>
>>>> Our founders proved more prescient and more impressed with Muslim
>>>> history and culture than citizens today. Jefferson, for instance,
>>>> read widely in the area of comparative religion and was convinced
>>>> that what mattered most was not where faith systems differed but
>>>> where they conjoined. A century and a half later, presumably on the
>>>> assumption that in the field of ideas and enlightened thought no
>>>> country had ever received more foreign aid than the United States,
>>>> Congress authorized a series of marble relief portraits of law  
>>>> makers
>>>> through history to be placed on the walls of the House of
>>>> Representatives. Thus, in the people’s House are inspirational 
>>>>  wall
>>>> sculptures of Moses, Hammurabi, Maimonides, and Suleiman the
>>>> Magnificent, as well as such figures as Solon, Justinian, and  
>>>> Jefferson.
>>>>
>>>> Yet, exacerbated by the acts of a score of Muslim terrorists on  
>>>> 9/11,
>>>> poll after poll indicates that American attitudes toward Muslims  
>>>> are
>>>> exceptionally disrespectful.
>>>>
>>>> As a former Member of Congress, I was fortunate to represent the
>>>> oldest mosque in America in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. After 9/11 I often
>>>> met with the elders of the mosque and was impressed with how much
>>>> they understood about attitudes in every corner of the Muslim  
>>>> world.
>>>> Likewise, I am confident that Muslims outside the United States  
>>>> hear
>>>> regularly about social difficulties faced by Muslims in America. It
>>>> would therefore seem logical that a critical element in  
>>>> developing a
>>>> more sympathetic attitude toward America and our foreign policy
>>>> concerns in Muslim nations would be a neighborly commitment to see
>>>> that Muslim citizens are welcome in every American community.
>>>> Cultural diplomacy begins at home.
>>>>
>>>> Finally on a personal note, I chose as a Republican to endorse  
>>>> Barack
>>>> Obama for President because I was convinced that never in American
>>>> history was the case for a course change more compelling in
>>>> international relations and because I had become convinced that
>>>> seldom had a more natural humanist been chosen to represent his  
>>>> party
>>>> for national office. I had not intended to return to government  
>>>> and,
>>>> in fact, turned down several initial offers. But when I was called
>>>> about this job, I could not decline.
>>>>
>>>> No one should underestimate the importance of the public humanities
>>>> or the need to address the temper and the integrity of the  
>>>> political
>>>> dialogue. America cannot revive its infectious leadership until it
>>>> revives its sense of self and reaches out respectfully instead of
>>>> shunning, or, worse yet, name calling those with whom we differ.
>>>>
>>>> In the profoundest political observation of the last century,
>>>> Einstein noted that splitting the atom had changed everything  
>>>> except
>>>> our way of thinking. Now civilization is jeopardized both by  
>>>> weapons
>>>> of mass destruction and by the brutal acts of people armed with
>>>> machetes in deepest Africa and terrorists with suicide bombs in
>>>> Western societies. In this jungle of man-made weapons instead of
>>>> tigers, all the world’s peoples have no choice except to think
>>>> through the meaning of humanity itself.
>>>>
>>>> In this context, the President couldn’t have chosen wiser word 
>>>> s when
>>>> in Cairo he called for “a new beginning between the U.S. and M 
>>>> uslims
>>>> around the world” based on “mutual interest and mutual resp 
>>>> ect.”
>>>>
>>>> Governmental policy is shifting. We at NEH, like so many in the
>>>> non-profit community represented here, are prepared to re-center
>>>> attention and underpin a new Muslim-American relationship. This
>>>> President has articulated a call to action that none of us can  
>>>> ignore.
>>>> Thank you.
>>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> ********************************************
>> Charles L. Sligh
>> Assistant Professor
>> Department of English
>> University of Tennessee at Chattanooga
>> charles-sligh at utc.edu
>> ********************************************
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ILDS mailing list
>> ILDS at lists.uvic.ca
>> https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ILDS mailing list
> ILDS at lists.uvic.ca
> https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds