About
Learn More about our progressive online community for the Granite State.

Create an account today (it's free and easy) and get started!
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Search




Advanced Search


The Masthead
Managing Editors
Dean Barker
Laura Clawson
Jennifer Daler

Contributing Writers
elwood
Mike Hoefer
susanthe
William Tucker

ActBlue Hampshire

The Roll, Etc.
Prog Blogs, Orgs & Alumni
Bank Slate
Betsy Devine
birch, finch, beech
Blue News Tribune (MA)
Democracy for NH
Live Free or Die
Mike Caulfield
Miscellany Blue
Granite State Progress
Seacoast for Change
Susan the Bruce
Tomorrow's Progressives

Politicos & Punditry
The Burt Cohen Show
John Gregg
Krauss
Landrigan
Lawson
Pindell
Primary Monitor
Primary Wire
Scala
Schoenberg
Spiliotes
Welch

Campaigns, Et Alia.
Paul Hodes
Carol Shea-Porter
Ann McLane Kuster
Katrina Swett
Jennifer Daler

ActBlue Hampshire
NHDP
DCCC
DSCC
DNC

National
Balloon Juice
billmon
Congress Matters
DailyKos
Digby
Hold Fast
Eschaton
FiveThirtyEight
MyDD
The Next Hurrah
Open Left
Senate Guru
Swing State Project
Talking Points Memo

50 State Blog Network
Alabama
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin

Justice Souter on the Importance of History

by: Dean Barker

Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 21:02:28 PM EDT


Justice Souter makes a rare public appearance, meditating on the difference in worldview between the Plessy and Brown courts as a way of highlighting the importance of the study of history (transcript and errors mine, h/t Primary Monitor):
And history teaches that, in place of cynicism, we can acknowledge the human limitations of those Plessy judges, and the humanity, ultimately, of the judicial institution. It teaches us to avoid the presumption of those who confuse the present with past.  

We need to learn these lessons.  Because where history's understanding is missing, cynicism will take its place. And because cynicism about one institution of government at one time may not remain contained to that institution, or confined to government simply at that time. And because governments that are not accorded legitimacy cannot govern.  

That's what's at stake. So we cannot dispense with the historical way of looking at the world in front of us, which is why we have to make it an article of faith that schools should teach from history books, and teachers should take the lead in developing a sense of history in every mind they can open.  

If the people coming of age do develop that faculty of taking the longer view, they will at least be in a position, some day, to understand how the consequences of the constitutional promises can change as the nation's past recedes; and as receding it leaves men and women able to perceive what an earlier generation could not so clearly see, or face so readily.  And they will not become cynical or discouraged without just cause.

Dean Barker :: Justice Souter on the Importance of History
Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
I think that what's often overlooked is that Plessy v. Ferguson (0.00 / 0)
was, like Rosa Parks challenge to segregation on the local transit system, a planned action.  Plessy was a middle class person who regularly commuted to New Orleans from the area north of Lake Pontchartrain and, with backing from his associates, decided to challenge blacks being relegated to unequal accommodations.  But, instead of focusing on the segregation, the case settled on the unequal part and "separate but equal" became the legal standard.

Then, when "separate but equal" was challenged in the Brown education case, separate was identified with unequal (in practice) and, this time, the solution was to declare the separation illegal.  The plaintiffs assumed, it turns out erroneously, that all parents share their interest in a high quality education for their children and that, if all children attend the same schools at public expense, it would all be good.  It never occurred to them that there are always more than two alternatives--that just as local public transit systems could simply be dismantled to avoid integration, the public schools could be degraded to the bare minimum (to keep the pupils pacified) while the segregationists set up an alternative system under the cover of religion.

We overlook that, for some people, segregation is an intrinsic good that's not necessarily, or even usually, connected to objective quality considerations.  Rather, segregation is perceived as good simply because it confers special status and affirms self-importance.  In this it is similar to the value of private property as an exclusionary mechanism ("stay off my lawn" syndrome).
We assume that people, being social creatures, want to be included by default.  But some, perhaps in reaction to having perceived themselves to be excluded unfairly, adopt the exclusionary mode for themselves (if you won't let me play, I'll take my marbles and go home).  So, we've got "gated communities" springing up all over the land in which people self-segregate themselves.  It's supposed to make them feel secure.



Connect with BH
     
Powered by: SoapBlox