The following information is used for educational purposes only.
Transcript:
The filmmaker Georges Méliès was first a magician.Now movies proved to be the ultimate medium for magic.With complete control of everything the audience can see,moviemakers had developed an arsenal of techniquesto further their deceptions.
Motion pictures are themselves an illusion of life,produced by the sequential projection of still frames,and they astonished the Lumière brothers' early audiences.Even today's sophisticated moviegoersstill lose themselves to the screen,and filmmakers leverage this separation from realityto great effect.Now imaginative people have been having fun with thisfor over 400 years.Giambattista della Porta, a Neapolitan scholarin the 16th century, examined and studied the natural worldand saw how it could be manipulated.Playing with the world, and our perception of it,really is the essence of visual effects.So digging deeper into thiswith the Science and Technology Councilof the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciencesreveals some truth behind the trickery.
Visual effects are based on the principles of all illusions:assumption, things are as we know them;presumption, things will behave as we expect;and context in reality,our knowledge of the world as we know it,such as scale.
Now a fourth factor really becomes an obsession,which is, never betray the illusion.And that last point has made visual effectsa constant quest for perfection.So from the hand-cranked jump cut early days of cinemato last Sunday's Oscar winner, what follows are some stepsand a few repeats in the evolution of visual effects.I hope you will enjoy.
Isabelle: "The filmmaker Georges Mélièswas one of the first to realize thatfilms had the powerto capture dreams."
(Music) ["'A Trip to the Moon' (1902)"]
["2011 Restoration of the Original Hand-Tinted Color"]
["'2001: A Space Odyssey' (1968)"]
["Academy Award Winner for Visual Effects"]
["'Avatar' (2009)"] First doctor: How are you feeling, Jake?
Jake: Hey guys.["Academy Award Winner for Visual Effects"]
Second doctor: Welcome to your new body, Jake. First doctor: Good.
Second doctor: We're gonna take this nice and easy, Jake. First doctor: Well, do you want to sit up? That's fine.
Second doctor: And good, just take it nice and slow, Jake.
Well, no truncal ataxia, that's good. First doctor: You feeling light-headed or dizzy at all?Oh, you're wiggling your toes.
["'Alice's Adventures in Wonderland' (1972)"]
Alice: What's happening to me?
["'Alice in Wonderland' (2010)"]
["Academy Award Nominee for Visual Effects"]
["'The Lost World' (1925)"]
["Stop Motion Animation"]
["'Jurassic Park' (1993)"] [Dinosaur roars]
["CG Animation"]
["Academy Award Winner for Visual Effects"]
["'The Smurfs' (2011)"]
["Autodesk Maya Software - Key Frame Animation"]
["'Rise of the Planet of the Apes' (2011)"]
Chimpanzee: No! ["Academy Award Nominee for Visual Effects"]
["'Metropolis' (1927)"]
(Music)
["'Blade Runner' (1982)"]
["Academy Award Nominee for Visual Effects"]
["'The Rains Came' (1939)"] Rama Safti: Well, it's all over.
Maharaja: Nothing to worry about, not a thing.
['Academy Award for Special Effects - (First Year of Category)"](Explosion)
["'2012' (2009)"] Governor: It seems to me that the worst is over.
["CG Destruction"]
["'Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King' (2003)"]
["Massive Software - Crowd Generation"]
["Academy Award Winner for Visual Effects"]
["'Ben Hur: A Tale of the Christ' (1925)"]
["Miniatures and Puppets Bring the Crowd to Life"]
["'Gladiator' (2000)"]
["CG Coliseum and Digital Crowds"]
["Academy Award Winner for Visual Effects"]
["'Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2' (2011)"]
["Academy Award Nominee for Visual Effects"]
["Produced in conjunction with the Academy's Science and Technology Council."]
(Applause)
["'It is today possible to realize the most impossible and improbable things.' — Georges Méliès"]
Don Levy: Thank you.
In this blog, teachers, students and all those who have some kind of interest in the English language will find useful, interesting, curious and funny things to be used in their classes or for their personal enjoyment.
Sunday, January 6, 2013
INTAFF/FIN-TED Talks-Adam Davidson:What we learned from teetering on the fiscal cliff
The following information is used for educational purposes only.
Transcript:
So a friend of mine who's a political scientist,he told me several months agoexactly what this month would be like.He said, you know, there's this fiscal cliff coming,it's going to come at the beginning of 2013.Both parties absolutely need to resolve it,but neither party wants to be seen as the first to resolve it.Neither party has any incentive to solve it a second before it's due,so he said, December, you're just going to see lots ofangry negotiations, negotiations breaking apart,reports of phone calls that aren't going well,people saying nothing's happening at all,and then sometime around Christmas or New Year's,we're going to hear, "Okay, they resolved everything."He told me that a few months ago. He said he's 98 percent positive they're going to resolve it,and I got an email from him today saying, all right,we're basically on track, but now I'm 80 percent positivethat they're going to resolve it.
And it made me think. I love studyingthese moments in American historywhen there was this frenzy of partisan anger,that the economy was on the verge of total collapse.
The most famous early battle was Alexander Hamiltonand Thomas Jefferson over what the dollar would beand how it would be backed up, with Alexander Hamiltonsaying, "We need a central bank, the First Bank of the United States,or else the dollar will have no value.This economy won't work,"and Thomas Jefferson saying, "The people won't trust that.They just fought off a king. They're not going to accept some central authority."This battle defined the first 150 years of the U.S. economy,and at every moment, different partisans saying,"Oh my God, the economy's about to collapse,"and the rest of us just going about, spending our buckson whatever it is we wanted to buy.
To give you a quick primer on where we are,a quick refresher on where we are.So the fiscal cliff, I was toldthat that's too partisan a thing to say,although I can't remember which party it's supporting or attacking.People say we should call it the fiscal slope,or we should call it an austerity crisis,but then other people say, no, that's even more partisan.So I just call it the self-imposed, self-destructivearbitrary deadline about resolving an inevitable problem.And this is what the inevitable problem looks like.So this is a projection of U.S. debt as a percentageof our overall economy, of GDP.The light blue dotted line representsthe Congressional Budget Office's best guessof what will happen if Congress really doesn't do anything,and as you can see, sometime around 2027,we reach Greek levels of debt,somewhere around 130 percent of GDP,which tells you that some time in the next 20 years,if Congress does absolutely nothing,we're going to hit a moment where the world's investors,the world's bond buyers, are going to say,"We don't trust America anymore. We're not going to lend them any money,except at really high interest rates."And at that moment our economy collapses.But remember, Greece is there today.We're there in 20 years. We have lots and lots of timeto avoid that crisis,and the fiscal cliff was just one more attemptat trying to force the two sides to resolve the crisis.
Here's another way to look at exactly the same problem.The dark blue line is how much the government spends.The light blue line is how much the government gets in.And as you can see, for most of recent history,except for a brief period, we have consistently spentmore than we take in. Thus the national debt.But as you can also see, projected going forward,the gap widens a bit and raises a bit,and this graph is only through 2021.It gets really, really ugly out towards 2030.
And this graph sort of sums up what the problem is.The Democrats, they say, well, this isn't a big deal.We can just raise taxes a bit and close that gap,especially if we raise taxes on the rich.The Republicans say, hey, no, no, we've got a better idea.Why don't we lower both lines?Why don't we lower government spending and lower government taxes,and then we'll be on an even more favorablelong-term deficit trajectory?And behind this powerful disagreement betweenhow to close that gap,there's the worst kind of cynical party politics,the worst kind of insider baseball, lobbying, all of that stuff,but there's also this powerfully interesting,respectful disagreement betweentwo fundamentally different economic philosophies.
And I like to think, when I picture how Republicanssee the economy, what I picture is just some amazinglywell-engineered machine, some perfect machine.Unfortunately, I picture it made in Germany or Japan,but this amazing machine that's constantly scouringevery bit of human endeavor and taking resources,money, labor, capital, machinery,away from the least productive parts and towards the more productive parts,and while this might cause temporary dislocation,what it does is it builds up the more productive areasand lets the less productive areas fade away and die,and as a result the whole system is so much more efficient,so much richer for everybody.And this view generally believes that there is a role for government,a small role, to set the rules so people aren't lyingand cheating and hurting each other,maybe, you know, have a police force and a fire departmentand an army, but to have a very limited reachinto the mechanisms of this machinery.
And when I picture how Democrats and Democratic-leaningeconomists picture this economy,most Democratic economists are, you know, they're capitalists,they believe, yes, that's a good system a lot of the time.It's good to let markets move resources to their more productive use.But that system has tons of problems.Wealth piles up in the wrong places.Wealth is ripped away from people who shouldn't be called unproductive.That's not going to create an equitable, fair society.That machine doesn't care about the environment,about racism, about all these issuesthat make this life worse for all of us,and so the government does have a role to take resourcesfrom more productive uses, or from richer sources,and give them to other sources.And when you think about the economy through these two different lenses,you understand why this crisis is so hard to solve,because the worse the crisis gets, the higher the stakes are,the more each side thinks they know the answerand the other side is just going to ruin everything.
And I can get really despairing. I've spent a lotof the last few years really depressed about this,until this year, I learned something thatI felt really excited about. I feel like it's really good news,and it's so shocking, I don't like saying it, because I thinkpeople won't believe me.But here's what I learned.The American people, taken as a whole,when it comes to these issues, to fiscal issues,are moderate, pragmatic centrists.And I know that's hard to believe, that the American peopleare moderate, pragmatic centrists.But let me explain what I'm thinking.
When you look at how the federal government spends money,so this is the battle right here,55 percent, more than half, is on Social Security,Medicare, Medicaid, a few other health programs,20 percent defense, 19 percent discretionary,and six percent interest.So when we're talking about cutting government spending,this is the pie we're talking about,and Americans overwhelmingly, and it doesn't matterwhat party they're in, overwhelmingly likethat big 55 percent chunk.They like Social Security. They like Medicare.They even like Medicaid, even though that goes to the poor and indigent,which you might think would have less support.And they do not want it fundamentally touched,although the American people are remarkably comfortable,and Democrats roughly equal to Republicans,with some minor tweaks to make the system more stable.
Social Security is fairly easy to fix.The rumors of its demise are always greatly exaggerated.So gradually raise Social Security retirement age,maybe only on people not yet born.Americans are about 50/50,whether they're Democrats or Republicans.
Reduce Medicare for very wealthy seniors,seniors who make a lot of money. Don't even eliminate it. Just reduce it.People generally are comfortable with it, Democrats and Republicans.
Raise medical health care contributions?Everyone hates that equally, but Republicansand Democrats hate that together.
And so what this tells me is, when you look atthe discussion of how to resolve our fiscal problems,we are not a nation that's powerfully divided on the major, major issue.We're comfortable with it needing some tweaks, but we want to keep it.We're not open to a discussion of eliminating it.
Now there is one issue that is hyper-partisan,and where there is one party that is just spend, spend, spend,we don't care, spend some more,and that of course is Republicanswhen it comes to military defense spending.They way outweigh Democrats.The vast majority want to protect military defense spending.That's 20 percent of the budget,and that presents a more difficult issue.I should also note that the [discretionary] spending,which is about 19 percent of the budget,that is Democratic and Republican issues,so you do have welfare, food stamps, other programsthat tend to be popular among Democrats,but you also have the farm bill and all sorts of Department of Interiorinducements for oil drilling and other things,which tend to be popular among Republicans.
Now when it comes to taxes, there is more disagreement.That's a more partisan area.You have Democrats overwhelmingly supportiveof raising the income tax on people who make 250,000 dollars a year,Republicans sort of against it, although if you break it out by income,Republicans who make less than 75,000 dollars a year like this idea.So basically Republicans who make more than 250,000 dollars a year don't want to be taxed.Raising taxes on investment income, you also seeabout two thirds of Democrats but only one third of Republicansare comfortable with that idea.
This brings up a really important point, which is thatwe tend in this country to talk about Democratsand Republicans and think there's this little groupover there called independents that's, what, two percent?If you add Democrats, you add Republicans,you've got the American people.But that is not the case at all.And it has not been the case for most of modern American history.Roughly a third of Americans say that they are Democrats.Around a quarter say that they are Republicans.A tiny little sliver call themselves libertarians, or socialists,or some other small third party,and the largest block, 40 percent, say they're independents.So most Americans are not partisan,and most of the people in the independent campfall somewhere in between, so even though we havetremendous overlap between the views on these fiscal issuesof Democrats and Republicans,we have even more overlap when you add in the independents.Now we get to fight about all sorts of other issues.We get to hate each other on gun controland abortion and the environment,but on these fiscal issues, these important fiscal issues,we just are not anywhere nearly as divided as people say.
And in fact, there's this other group of peoplewho are not as divided as people might think,and that group is economists.I talk to a lot of economists, and back in the '70sand '80s it was ugly being an economist.You were in what they called the saltwater camp,meaning Harvard, Princeton, MIT, Stanford, Berkeley,or you were in the freshwater camp, University of Chicago,University of Rochester.You were a free market capitalist economistor you were a Keynesian liberal economist,and these people didn't go to each other's weddings,they snubbed each other at conferences.It's still ugly to this day, but in my experience,it is really, really hard to find an economist under 40who still has that kind of way of seeing the world.The vast majority of economists -- it is so uncoolto call yourself an ideologue of either camp.The phrase that you want, if you're a graduate studentor a postdoc or you're a professor,a 38-year-old economics professor, is, "I'm an empiricist.I go by the data."And the data is very clear.None of these major theories have been completely successful.The 20th century, the last hundred years,is riddled with disastrous examplesof times that one school or the other tried to explainthe past or predict the futureand just did an awful, awful job,so the economics profession has acquired some degree of modesty.They still are an awfully arrogant group of people, I will assure you,but they're now arrogant about their impartiality,and they, too, see a tremendous range of potential outcomes.
And this nonpartisanship is something that exists,that has existed in secretin America for years and years and years.I've spent a lot of the fall talking to the three majororganizations that survey American political attitudes:Pew Research,the University of Chicago's National Opinion Research Center,and the most important but the least knownis the American National Election Studies groupthat is the world's longest, most respected poll of political attitudes.They've been doing it since 1948,and what they show consistently throughoutis that it's almost impossible to find Americanswho are consistent ideologically,who consistently support, "No we mustn't tax,and we must limit the size of government,"or, "No, we must encourage government to play a larger rolein redistribution and correcting the ills of capitalism."Those groups are very, very small.The vast majority of people, they pick and choose,they see compromise and they change over timewhen they hear a better argument or a worse argument.And that part of it has not changed.What has changed is how people respond to vague questions.If you ask people vague questions, like,"Do you think there should be more government or less government?""Do you think government should" — especially if you use loaded language --"Do you think the government should provide handouts?"Or, "Do you think the government should redistribute?"Then you can see radical partisan change.But when you get specific, when you actually askabout the actual taxing and spending issues under consideration,people are remarkably centrist,they're remarkably open to compromise.
So what we have, then, when you think about the fiscal cliff,don't think of it as the American people fundamentallycan't stand each other on these issuesand that we must be ripped apartinto two separate warring nations.Think of it as a tiny, tiny number of ancient economistsand misrepresentative ideologues have captured the process.And they've captured the process through familiar ways,through a primary system which encouragesthat small group of people's voices,because that small group of people,the people who answer all yeses or all noeson those ideological questions,they might be small but every one of them has a blog,every one of them has been on Fox or MSNBC in the last week.Every one of them becomes a louder and louder voice,but they don't represent us.They don't represent what our views are.
And that gets me back to the dollar,and it gets me back to reminding myself thatwe know this experience.We know what it's liketo have these people on TV, in Congress,yelling about how the end of the world is comingif we don't adopt their view completely,because it's happened about the dollarever since there's been a dollar.We had the battle between Jefferson and Hamilton.In 1913, we had this ugly battle over the Federal Reserve,when it was created, with vicious, angry argumentsover how it would be constituted,and a general agreement that the way it was constitutedwas the worst possible compromise,a compromise guaranteed to destroy this valuable thing,this dollar, but then everyone agreeing, okay,so long as we're on the gold standard, it should be okay.The Fed can't mess it up so badly.But then we got off the gold standard for individualsduring the Depression and we got off the gold standardas a source of international currency coordinationduring Richard Nixon's presidency.Each of those times, we were on the verge of complete collapse.And nothing happened at all.Throughout it all, the dollar has beenone of the most long-standing,stable, reasonable currencies,and we all use it every single day,no matter what the people screaming about tell us,no matter how scared we're supposed to be.
And this long-term fiscal picture that we're in right now,I think what is most maddening about it is,if Congress were simply ableto show not that they agree with each other,not that they're able to come up with the best possible compromise,but that they are able to just begin the processtowards compromise, we all instantly are better off.The fear is that the world is watching.The fear is that the longer we delay any solution,the more the world will look to the U.S.not as the bedrock of stability in the global economy,but as a place that can't resolve its own fights,and the longer we put that off, the more we make the world nervous,the higher interest rates are going to be,the quicker we're going to have to face a dayof horrible calamity.And so just the act of compromise itself,and sustained, real compromise,would give us even more time,would allow both sides even longer to spread out the painand reach even more compromise down the road.
So I'm in the media. I feel like my job to make this happenis to help foster the things that seem to lead to compromise,to not talk about this in those vague and scary termsthat do polarize us,but to just talk about it like what it is,not an existential crisis,not some battle between two fundamentally different religious views,but a math problem, a really solvable math problem,one where we're not all going to get what we wantand one where, you know, there's going to be a little pain to spread around.But the more we address it as a practical concern,the sooner we can resolve it,and the more time we have to resolve it, paradoxically.Thank you. (Applause)
Transcript:
So a friend of mine who's a political scientist,he told me several months agoexactly what this month would be like.He said, you know, there's this fiscal cliff coming,it's going to come at the beginning of 2013.Both parties absolutely need to resolve it,but neither party wants to be seen as the first to resolve it.Neither party has any incentive to solve it a second before it's due,so he said, December, you're just going to see lots ofangry negotiations, negotiations breaking apart,reports of phone calls that aren't going well,people saying nothing's happening at all,and then sometime around Christmas or New Year's,we're going to hear, "Okay, they resolved everything."He told me that a few months ago. He said he's 98 percent positive they're going to resolve it,and I got an email from him today saying, all right,we're basically on track, but now I'm 80 percent positivethat they're going to resolve it.
And it made me think. I love studyingthese moments in American historywhen there was this frenzy of partisan anger,that the economy was on the verge of total collapse.
The most famous early battle was Alexander Hamiltonand Thomas Jefferson over what the dollar would beand how it would be backed up, with Alexander Hamiltonsaying, "We need a central bank, the First Bank of the United States,or else the dollar will have no value.This economy won't work,"and Thomas Jefferson saying, "The people won't trust that.They just fought off a king. They're not going to accept some central authority."This battle defined the first 150 years of the U.S. economy,and at every moment, different partisans saying,"Oh my God, the economy's about to collapse,"and the rest of us just going about, spending our buckson whatever it is we wanted to buy.
To give you a quick primer on where we are,a quick refresher on where we are.So the fiscal cliff, I was toldthat that's too partisan a thing to say,although I can't remember which party it's supporting or attacking.People say we should call it the fiscal slope,or we should call it an austerity crisis,but then other people say, no, that's even more partisan.So I just call it the self-imposed, self-destructivearbitrary deadline about resolving an inevitable problem.And this is what the inevitable problem looks like.So this is a projection of U.S. debt as a percentageof our overall economy, of GDP.The light blue dotted line representsthe Congressional Budget Office's best guessof what will happen if Congress really doesn't do anything,and as you can see, sometime around 2027,we reach Greek levels of debt,somewhere around 130 percent of GDP,which tells you that some time in the next 20 years,if Congress does absolutely nothing,we're going to hit a moment where the world's investors,the world's bond buyers, are going to say,"We don't trust America anymore. We're not going to lend them any money,except at really high interest rates."And at that moment our economy collapses.But remember, Greece is there today.We're there in 20 years. We have lots and lots of timeto avoid that crisis,and the fiscal cliff was just one more attemptat trying to force the two sides to resolve the crisis.
Here's another way to look at exactly the same problem.The dark blue line is how much the government spends.The light blue line is how much the government gets in.And as you can see, for most of recent history,except for a brief period, we have consistently spentmore than we take in. Thus the national debt.But as you can also see, projected going forward,the gap widens a bit and raises a bit,and this graph is only through 2021.It gets really, really ugly out towards 2030.
And this graph sort of sums up what the problem is.The Democrats, they say, well, this isn't a big deal.We can just raise taxes a bit and close that gap,especially if we raise taxes on the rich.The Republicans say, hey, no, no, we've got a better idea.Why don't we lower both lines?Why don't we lower government spending and lower government taxes,and then we'll be on an even more favorablelong-term deficit trajectory?And behind this powerful disagreement betweenhow to close that gap,there's the worst kind of cynical party politics,the worst kind of insider baseball, lobbying, all of that stuff,but there's also this powerfully interesting,respectful disagreement betweentwo fundamentally different economic philosophies.
And I like to think, when I picture how Republicanssee the economy, what I picture is just some amazinglywell-engineered machine, some perfect machine.Unfortunately, I picture it made in Germany or Japan,but this amazing machine that's constantly scouringevery bit of human endeavor and taking resources,money, labor, capital, machinery,away from the least productive parts and towards the more productive parts,and while this might cause temporary dislocation,what it does is it builds up the more productive areasand lets the less productive areas fade away and die,and as a result the whole system is so much more efficient,so much richer for everybody.And this view generally believes that there is a role for government,a small role, to set the rules so people aren't lyingand cheating and hurting each other,maybe, you know, have a police force and a fire departmentand an army, but to have a very limited reachinto the mechanisms of this machinery.
And when I picture how Democrats and Democratic-leaningeconomists picture this economy,most Democratic economists are, you know, they're capitalists,they believe, yes, that's a good system a lot of the time.It's good to let markets move resources to their more productive use.But that system has tons of problems.Wealth piles up in the wrong places.Wealth is ripped away from people who shouldn't be called unproductive.That's not going to create an equitable, fair society.That machine doesn't care about the environment,about racism, about all these issuesthat make this life worse for all of us,and so the government does have a role to take resourcesfrom more productive uses, or from richer sources,and give them to other sources.And when you think about the economy through these two different lenses,you understand why this crisis is so hard to solve,because the worse the crisis gets, the higher the stakes are,the more each side thinks they know the answerand the other side is just going to ruin everything.
And I can get really despairing. I've spent a lotof the last few years really depressed about this,until this year, I learned something thatI felt really excited about. I feel like it's really good news,and it's so shocking, I don't like saying it, because I thinkpeople won't believe me.But here's what I learned.The American people, taken as a whole,when it comes to these issues, to fiscal issues,are moderate, pragmatic centrists.And I know that's hard to believe, that the American peopleare moderate, pragmatic centrists.But let me explain what I'm thinking.
When you look at how the federal government spends money,so this is the battle right here,55 percent, more than half, is on Social Security,Medicare, Medicaid, a few other health programs,20 percent defense, 19 percent discretionary,and six percent interest.So when we're talking about cutting government spending,this is the pie we're talking about,and Americans overwhelmingly, and it doesn't matterwhat party they're in, overwhelmingly likethat big 55 percent chunk.They like Social Security. They like Medicare.They even like Medicaid, even though that goes to the poor and indigent,which you might think would have less support.And they do not want it fundamentally touched,although the American people are remarkably comfortable,and Democrats roughly equal to Republicans,with some minor tweaks to make the system more stable.
Social Security is fairly easy to fix.The rumors of its demise are always greatly exaggerated.So gradually raise Social Security retirement age,maybe only on people not yet born.Americans are about 50/50,whether they're Democrats or Republicans.
Reduce Medicare for very wealthy seniors,seniors who make a lot of money. Don't even eliminate it. Just reduce it.People generally are comfortable with it, Democrats and Republicans.
Raise medical health care contributions?Everyone hates that equally, but Republicansand Democrats hate that together.
And so what this tells me is, when you look atthe discussion of how to resolve our fiscal problems,we are not a nation that's powerfully divided on the major, major issue.We're comfortable with it needing some tweaks, but we want to keep it.We're not open to a discussion of eliminating it.
Now there is one issue that is hyper-partisan,and where there is one party that is just spend, spend, spend,we don't care, spend some more,and that of course is Republicanswhen it comes to military defense spending.They way outweigh Democrats.The vast majority want to protect military defense spending.That's 20 percent of the budget,and that presents a more difficult issue.I should also note that the [discretionary] spending,which is about 19 percent of the budget,that is Democratic and Republican issues,so you do have welfare, food stamps, other programsthat tend to be popular among Democrats,but you also have the farm bill and all sorts of Department of Interiorinducements for oil drilling and other things,which tend to be popular among Republicans.
Now when it comes to taxes, there is more disagreement.That's a more partisan area.You have Democrats overwhelmingly supportiveof raising the income tax on people who make 250,000 dollars a year,Republicans sort of against it, although if you break it out by income,Republicans who make less than 75,000 dollars a year like this idea.So basically Republicans who make more than 250,000 dollars a year don't want to be taxed.Raising taxes on investment income, you also seeabout two thirds of Democrats but only one third of Republicansare comfortable with that idea.
This brings up a really important point, which is thatwe tend in this country to talk about Democratsand Republicans and think there's this little groupover there called independents that's, what, two percent?If you add Democrats, you add Republicans,you've got the American people.But that is not the case at all.And it has not been the case for most of modern American history.Roughly a third of Americans say that they are Democrats.Around a quarter say that they are Republicans.A tiny little sliver call themselves libertarians, or socialists,or some other small third party,and the largest block, 40 percent, say they're independents.So most Americans are not partisan,and most of the people in the independent campfall somewhere in between, so even though we havetremendous overlap between the views on these fiscal issuesof Democrats and Republicans,we have even more overlap when you add in the independents.Now we get to fight about all sorts of other issues.We get to hate each other on gun controland abortion and the environment,but on these fiscal issues, these important fiscal issues,we just are not anywhere nearly as divided as people say.
And in fact, there's this other group of peoplewho are not as divided as people might think,and that group is economists.I talk to a lot of economists, and back in the '70sand '80s it was ugly being an economist.You were in what they called the saltwater camp,meaning Harvard, Princeton, MIT, Stanford, Berkeley,or you were in the freshwater camp, University of Chicago,University of Rochester.You were a free market capitalist economistor you were a Keynesian liberal economist,and these people didn't go to each other's weddings,they snubbed each other at conferences.It's still ugly to this day, but in my experience,it is really, really hard to find an economist under 40who still has that kind of way of seeing the world.The vast majority of economists -- it is so uncoolto call yourself an ideologue of either camp.The phrase that you want, if you're a graduate studentor a postdoc or you're a professor,a 38-year-old economics professor, is, "I'm an empiricist.I go by the data."And the data is very clear.None of these major theories have been completely successful.The 20th century, the last hundred years,is riddled with disastrous examplesof times that one school or the other tried to explainthe past or predict the futureand just did an awful, awful job,so the economics profession has acquired some degree of modesty.They still are an awfully arrogant group of people, I will assure you,but they're now arrogant about their impartiality,and they, too, see a tremendous range of potential outcomes.
And this nonpartisanship is something that exists,that has existed in secretin America for years and years and years.I've spent a lot of the fall talking to the three majororganizations that survey American political attitudes:Pew Research,the University of Chicago's National Opinion Research Center,and the most important but the least knownis the American National Election Studies groupthat is the world's longest, most respected poll of political attitudes.They've been doing it since 1948,and what they show consistently throughoutis that it's almost impossible to find Americanswho are consistent ideologically,who consistently support, "No we mustn't tax,and we must limit the size of government,"or, "No, we must encourage government to play a larger rolein redistribution and correcting the ills of capitalism."Those groups are very, very small.The vast majority of people, they pick and choose,they see compromise and they change over timewhen they hear a better argument or a worse argument.And that part of it has not changed.What has changed is how people respond to vague questions.If you ask people vague questions, like,"Do you think there should be more government or less government?""Do you think government should" — especially if you use loaded language --"Do you think the government should provide handouts?"Or, "Do you think the government should redistribute?"Then you can see radical partisan change.But when you get specific, when you actually askabout the actual taxing and spending issues under consideration,people are remarkably centrist,they're remarkably open to compromise.
So what we have, then, when you think about the fiscal cliff,don't think of it as the American people fundamentallycan't stand each other on these issuesand that we must be ripped apartinto two separate warring nations.Think of it as a tiny, tiny number of ancient economistsand misrepresentative ideologues have captured the process.And they've captured the process through familiar ways,through a primary system which encouragesthat small group of people's voices,because that small group of people,the people who answer all yeses or all noeson those ideological questions,they might be small but every one of them has a blog,every one of them has been on Fox or MSNBC in the last week.Every one of them becomes a louder and louder voice,but they don't represent us.They don't represent what our views are.
And that gets me back to the dollar,and it gets me back to reminding myself thatwe know this experience.We know what it's liketo have these people on TV, in Congress,yelling about how the end of the world is comingif we don't adopt their view completely,because it's happened about the dollarever since there's been a dollar.We had the battle between Jefferson and Hamilton.In 1913, we had this ugly battle over the Federal Reserve,when it was created, with vicious, angry argumentsover how it would be constituted,and a general agreement that the way it was constitutedwas the worst possible compromise,a compromise guaranteed to destroy this valuable thing,this dollar, but then everyone agreeing, okay,so long as we're on the gold standard, it should be okay.The Fed can't mess it up so badly.But then we got off the gold standard for individualsduring the Depression and we got off the gold standardas a source of international currency coordinationduring Richard Nixon's presidency.Each of those times, we were on the verge of complete collapse.And nothing happened at all.Throughout it all, the dollar has beenone of the most long-standing,stable, reasonable currencies,and we all use it every single day,no matter what the people screaming about tell us,no matter how scared we're supposed to be.
And this long-term fiscal picture that we're in right now,I think what is most maddening about it is,if Congress were simply ableto show not that they agree with each other,not that they're able to come up with the best possible compromise,but that they are able to just begin the processtowards compromise, we all instantly are better off.The fear is that the world is watching.The fear is that the longer we delay any solution,the more the world will look to the U.S.not as the bedrock of stability in the global economy,but as a place that can't resolve its own fights,and the longer we put that off, the more we make the world nervous,the higher interest rates are going to be,the quicker we're going to have to face a dayof horrible calamity.And so just the act of compromise itself,and sustained, real compromise,would give us even more time,would allow both sides even longer to spread out the painand reach even more compromise down the road.
So I'm in the media. I feel like my job to make this happenis to help foster the things that seem to lead to compromise,to not talk about this in those vague and scary termsthat do polarize us,but to just talk about it like what it is,not an existential crisis,not some battle between two fundamentally different religious views,but a math problem, a really solvable math problem,one where we're not all going to get what we wantand one where, you know, there's going to be a little pain to spread around.But the more we address it as a practical concern,the sooner we can resolve it,and the more time we have to resolve it, paradoxically.Thank you. (Applause)
Saturday, January 5, 2013
INTAFF-Two U.S. Policymakers Take on U.S.-China Policy
The following information is used for educational purposes only.
Two U.S. Policymakers Take on U.S.-China Policy
by Elizabeth C. Economy
January 4, 2013
U.S. Secretary of Navy Ray Mabus inspects a guard of honour during a welcoming ceremony at the Chinese PLA Navy Headquarters in Beijing on November 27, 2012
(Jason Lee/Reuters)
One of the most enjoyable aspects of Dan Blumenthal and Phillip Swagel’s new book on U.S.-China relations, An Awkward Embrace, is its lack of nuance. The authors—both of whom have served in the U.S. government and now share an affiliation with the American Enterprise Institute—clearly define U.S. interests with regard to China and address directly the opportunities (great) and challenges (greater) that China presents to those interests. They are equally no-nonsense in their prescriptions for U.S. policy, which they see as necessarily proceeding on two separate economic and security tracks (given the relative greater opportunity for successful cooperation on the economic than on the security front). Most important, Blumenthal and Swagel accomplish what many analysts attempt and most fail—to provide a road-map for U.S. policymakers in managing the relationship with China.
Still, after finishing the book, I found myself with a number of additional questions for the authors. I reached out to Dan, and he graciously agreed to respond. What follows is our online exchange.
Liz: You argue that the United States has two key and enduring strategic objectives: preventing the “domination of Asia by a hostile power or coalition,” and “nurturing a prosperous, peaceful and free Asia.” What are the two or three most important steps the United States should take to achieve these goals?
Dan: First, the United States should do what it can to ensure the strength of its allies and the durability of its alliances. Second, the United States should continue to engage in intense diplomacy with China, particularly on clear mutual interests such as structural reform of both economies.
Liz: What does it mean for China to become a “responsible stakeholder?” How well is it doing? How, if at all, should we be accommodating Chinese interests in emerging international regimes, such as cybersecurity?
Dan: Then Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick defined what it means to be a responsible stakeholder very well in 2005. He defined it, though, in very American-terms, by outlining what it means to be a 21st century great power in a liberal order created by the West. The tough challenge for China is that great powers in the 21st century have been less respectful of sovereignty, intervening in the affairs of others for humanitarian reasons, or because of state failure that can lead to terror havens or proliferation problems. China seems to be more of a late 19th century or Cold War power—sovereignty is sacrosanct to them. But China is still deciding what kind of power it wants to be. The established powers have been very accommodating of China, pushing for its inclusion in most international institutions. But the fact is that China will not be included in every institution because at times its interests and values diverge from ours.
Liz: Are there issue areas where the United States and other countries need to become responsible stakeholders as well? Can we learn from China?
Dan: In terms of the great powers, America has concerns with how responsible or irresponsible Russia is. In terms of the grand strategic questions—in particular, how to exercise power in the 21st century—the United States is not all that concerned with the behavior of other great powers aside from China. The authoritarian nature of China’s system is what concerns us, as it increases the likelihood that China will be less respectful of international rules than would democracies.
We can learn from the Chinese people. The Chinese people are very entrepreneurial and have pulled themselves out of poverty to accomplish great things. There is much to learn from how the Chinese people achieved that.
Liz: You highlight three domestic issues that drive China’s behavior in the Asia Pacific: nationalism, regime insecurity, and a zero-sum view of international politics. What factors—internal or external—might lead to an evolution in Chinese thinking and behavior?
Dan: The three drivers of China’s competitive behavior—the book points to cooperative behavior as well—are nationalism, regime insecurity and a view of international politics as highly competitive. These domestic drivers are linked to one another. The Party is scared of its own people. It makes sense, then, that it is also suspicious of great powers such as the United States. For example, many Chinese leaders believe, no matter what we say, that we are trying to contain China’s rise. Nationalism is a useful shield against insecurity. When it wants to, the Party can co-opt much of the public by propagandizing that they are still victims of a rapacious and aggressive West led by the United States. Nationalism of this kind can serve as a great distraction from the manifold problems that Party should be insecure about. Finally, CCP politics is a high stakes game, with the losers often humiliated, or destroyed in some way. This brand of politics is externalized, at times, in China’s dealings with the world. The source China’s current views are inherent in the nature of its domestic political system. If the regime was bolstered by a firmer form of legitimacy than one based on its performance or righting of past wrongs, its perceptions of the world would change.
Liz: Do you think conflict between the United States and China is inevitable or is there important common ground yet to be found and exploited?
Dan: Nothing in international relations is pre-ordained. An opportunity for common ground is keep a watchful eye on the battles inside China for its soul—whether it is between private entrepreneurs and the state, or between brave reformists and the security forces. The U.S. has little influence over how that battle unfolds. But it can both keep its powder dry and seek opportunities to work with China, particularly during those times when the liberals and reformers gain the upper hand. We need intense and multidimensional diplomatic engagement with China. All great powers have an interest in persuading China that the world order is flexible enough to accommodate it should it play by the rules. But all powers will also prepare for other outcomes.
Liz: Many Chinese analysts are expressing their concern that the U.S. pivot or rebalancing is emboldening actors in the region, such as the Philippines, Vietnam, and Japan, to take provocative actions in territorial disputes. Is there any cause for such concern? What role should the United States play as these conflicts continue to develop?
Dan: I would put Japan in its own category—it is a very strong country with a very strong armed forces. It will stand up for itself. The more dangerous scenarios is what might ensue if Japan loses its confidence in the U.S. alliance. That could be very destabilizing. Japan is in a separate category for another reason: Chinese have been fed a steady diet of anti-Japanese education for quite a long time. In that sense, the Party has boxed itself in; it cannot ever be seen as backing down from Japan. The U.S. should show no split at all between itself and Japan, and it should encourage the Chinese to change its anti-Japan propaganda. If Japan feels secure in the alliance, it will be more constructive when it comes to disputes with China.
Vietnam also has a history of standing up for itself when it comes to China (and the United States), and it will continue to do so. The question for Washington is whether or not we want to influence that process. I think the answer is yes. We have a better chance to avoid conflict if our friends old and new do not feel that they are standing up to China by themselves.
The Philippines, frankly, is too weak to do any harm to China. We have an interest in the Philippines prospering as a democratic ally. We also have an interest in it being able to defend its own territory in accordance with hundreds of years of maritime international law.
All of these countries have experienced the horrors of war and imperialism. They want, as we do, an Asia that can grow and prosper without coercion and intimidation. Our job for the foreseeable future is to provide Asia with the breathing space to continue in that endeavor.
Source: www.blogs.cfr.org
Two U.S. Policymakers Take on U.S.-China Policy
by Elizabeth C. Economy
January 4, 2013
U.S. Secretary of Navy Ray Mabus inspects a guard of honour during a welcoming ceremony at the Chinese PLA Navy Headquarters in Beijing on November 27, 2012
(Jason Lee/Reuters)
One of the most enjoyable aspects of Dan Blumenthal and Phillip Swagel’s new book on U.S.-China relations, An Awkward Embrace, is its lack of nuance. The authors—both of whom have served in the U.S. government and now share an affiliation with the American Enterprise Institute—clearly define U.S. interests with regard to China and address directly the opportunities (great) and challenges (greater) that China presents to those interests. They are equally no-nonsense in their prescriptions for U.S. policy, which they see as necessarily proceeding on two separate economic and security tracks (given the relative greater opportunity for successful cooperation on the economic than on the security front). Most important, Blumenthal and Swagel accomplish what many analysts attempt and most fail—to provide a road-map for U.S. policymakers in managing the relationship with China.
Still, after finishing the book, I found myself with a number of additional questions for the authors. I reached out to Dan, and he graciously agreed to respond. What follows is our online exchange.
Liz: You argue that the United States has two key and enduring strategic objectives: preventing the “domination of Asia by a hostile power or coalition,” and “nurturing a prosperous, peaceful and free Asia.” What are the two or three most important steps the United States should take to achieve these goals?
Dan: First, the United States should do what it can to ensure the strength of its allies and the durability of its alliances. Second, the United States should continue to engage in intense diplomacy with China, particularly on clear mutual interests such as structural reform of both economies.
Liz: What does it mean for China to become a “responsible stakeholder?” How well is it doing? How, if at all, should we be accommodating Chinese interests in emerging international regimes, such as cybersecurity?
Dan: Then Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick defined what it means to be a responsible stakeholder very well in 2005. He defined it, though, in very American-terms, by outlining what it means to be a 21st century great power in a liberal order created by the West. The tough challenge for China is that great powers in the 21st century have been less respectful of sovereignty, intervening in the affairs of others for humanitarian reasons, or because of state failure that can lead to terror havens or proliferation problems. China seems to be more of a late 19th century or Cold War power—sovereignty is sacrosanct to them. But China is still deciding what kind of power it wants to be. The established powers have been very accommodating of China, pushing for its inclusion in most international institutions. But the fact is that China will not be included in every institution because at times its interests and values diverge from ours.
Liz: Are there issue areas where the United States and other countries need to become responsible stakeholders as well? Can we learn from China?
Dan: In terms of the great powers, America has concerns with how responsible or irresponsible Russia is. In terms of the grand strategic questions—in particular, how to exercise power in the 21st century—the United States is not all that concerned with the behavior of other great powers aside from China. The authoritarian nature of China’s system is what concerns us, as it increases the likelihood that China will be less respectful of international rules than would democracies.
We can learn from the Chinese people. The Chinese people are very entrepreneurial and have pulled themselves out of poverty to accomplish great things. There is much to learn from how the Chinese people achieved that.
Liz: You highlight three domestic issues that drive China’s behavior in the Asia Pacific: nationalism, regime insecurity, and a zero-sum view of international politics. What factors—internal or external—might lead to an evolution in Chinese thinking and behavior?
Dan: The three drivers of China’s competitive behavior—the book points to cooperative behavior as well—are nationalism, regime insecurity and a view of international politics as highly competitive. These domestic drivers are linked to one another. The Party is scared of its own people. It makes sense, then, that it is also suspicious of great powers such as the United States. For example, many Chinese leaders believe, no matter what we say, that we are trying to contain China’s rise. Nationalism is a useful shield against insecurity. When it wants to, the Party can co-opt much of the public by propagandizing that they are still victims of a rapacious and aggressive West led by the United States. Nationalism of this kind can serve as a great distraction from the manifold problems that Party should be insecure about. Finally, CCP politics is a high stakes game, with the losers often humiliated, or destroyed in some way. This brand of politics is externalized, at times, in China’s dealings with the world. The source China’s current views are inherent in the nature of its domestic political system. If the regime was bolstered by a firmer form of legitimacy than one based on its performance or righting of past wrongs, its perceptions of the world would change.
Liz: Do you think conflict between the United States and China is inevitable or is there important common ground yet to be found and exploited?
Dan: Nothing in international relations is pre-ordained. An opportunity for common ground is keep a watchful eye on the battles inside China for its soul—whether it is between private entrepreneurs and the state, or between brave reformists and the security forces. The U.S. has little influence over how that battle unfolds. But it can both keep its powder dry and seek opportunities to work with China, particularly during those times when the liberals and reformers gain the upper hand. We need intense and multidimensional diplomatic engagement with China. All great powers have an interest in persuading China that the world order is flexible enough to accommodate it should it play by the rules. But all powers will also prepare for other outcomes.
Liz: Many Chinese analysts are expressing their concern that the U.S. pivot or rebalancing is emboldening actors in the region, such as the Philippines, Vietnam, and Japan, to take provocative actions in territorial disputes. Is there any cause for such concern? What role should the United States play as these conflicts continue to develop?
Dan: I would put Japan in its own category—it is a very strong country with a very strong armed forces. It will stand up for itself. The more dangerous scenarios is what might ensue if Japan loses its confidence in the U.S. alliance. That could be very destabilizing. Japan is in a separate category for another reason: Chinese have been fed a steady diet of anti-Japanese education for quite a long time. In that sense, the Party has boxed itself in; it cannot ever be seen as backing down from Japan. The U.S. should show no split at all between itself and Japan, and it should encourage the Chinese to change its anti-Japan propaganda. If Japan feels secure in the alliance, it will be more constructive when it comes to disputes with China.
Vietnam also has a history of standing up for itself when it comes to China (and the United States), and it will continue to do so. The question for Washington is whether or not we want to influence that process. I think the answer is yes. We have a better chance to avoid conflict if our friends old and new do not feel that they are standing up to China by themselves.
The Philippines, frankly, is too weak to do any harm to China. We have an interest in the Philippines prospering as a democratic ally. We also have an interest in it being able to defend its own territory in accordance with hundreds of years of maritime international law.
All of these countries have experienced the horrors of war and imperialism. They want, as we do, an Asia that can grow and prosper without coercion and intimidation. Our job for the foreseeable future is to provide Asia with the breathing space to continue in that endeavor.
Source: www.blogs.cfr.org
Wednesday, January 2, 2013
The world’s most powerful people
The following information is used for educational purposes only.
The world’s most powerful people
By Ian BremmerWednesday, January 2, 2013
By Ian Bremmer
A few days ago, I took a quick, informal survey around Eurasia Group on power and global politics. The question: Who are the world's most powerful people? We're defining power as "a measure of an individual's ability to (singlehandedly) bring about change that significantly affects the lives and fortunes of large numbers of people."
Here's what we came up with:
1. Nobody -- In a G-Zero world, everyone is waiting for someone else to shoulder responsibility for the world's toughest and most dangerous challenges. The leaders you'll see named further down this list are preoccupied with local and regional problems and don't have the interest and leverage needed to take on a growing list of transnational problems.
2. Vladimir Putin -- In Russia's personalized system, this is still the person who counts. He isn't as popular as he used to be, and his country has no Soviet-scale clout or influence, but no one on the planet has consolidated more domestic and regional power than Putin.
3. Ben Bernanke -- The world's largest economy is still struggling to find its footing. To help, no one has more levers to pull and buttons to push. The world needs the U.S. economy back on its feet, and Bernanke has more direct influence than anyone else on when and how that happens.
4. Angela Merkel -- For the moment, her commitments are the glue that binds Europe. Merkel's ability to bankroll Europe's emergency funds, win concessions from the governments of cash-strapped peripherals, and maintain solid popularity at home continues to be a remarkable political and policy achievement.
5. Barack Obama -- Even at a time when Washington is focused almost entirely on Washington, the elected leader of the world's most powerful and influential country carries a lot of water. The Obama administration will watch the eurozone from the sidelines and keep commitments in the Middle East to a minimum, but America will continue to broaden and deepen security and commercial relationships in East Asia, and Obama's decisions on how far and how fast to move will be crucial.
6. Mario Draghi -- Europe's backstop. Europe's Central Bank has kept the continent's blood flowing at a crucial moment in its history, and his work is far from done.
7. Xi Jinping -- China's forward progress is the world's most important variable, and Xi Jinping is now the man behind the wheel. Over the next decade, economic and political reforms will be needed to keep China on track, and Xi will make some difficult (and profoundly important) decisions.
8 (tie). Ayatollah Khamenei -- The supreme spiritual and political authority in a country at the heart of a volatile region. Halfway through 2013, Ahmadinejad will give way to a new president, but it is still Khamenei who will decide how the international fight over Iran's nuclear program plays out -- and what the future holds for the Islamic Republic.
8 (tie). Christine Lagarde -- The world's fire marshal. Here is that rare leader whose contribution will be crucial in multiple regions at once. But nowhere will the IMF's work be more important than in keeping Europe on track.
10. King Abdullah Bin Abd al-Aziz -- King of a kingdom with a unique power to move markets. The Saudi monarch is not in the best of health, but the choices he makes in determining who lead the world's hydrocarbon powerhouse into the next generation will help shape the entire global economy for many years to come.
What do you think?
Ian Bremmer is president of Eurasia Group.
Source: www.blog.foreignpolicy.com
The world’s most powerful people
By Ian BremmerWednesday, January 2, 2013
By Ian Bremmer
A few days ago, I took a quick, informal survey around Eurasia Group on power and global politics. The question: Who are the world's most powerful people? We're defining power as "a measure of an individual's ability to (singlehandedly) bring about change that significantly affects the lives and fortunes of large numbers of people."
Here's what we came up with:
1. Nobody -- In a G-Zero world, everyone is waiting for someone else to shoulder responsibility for the world's toughest and most dangerous challenges. The leaders you'll see named further down this list are preoccupied with local and regional problems and don't have the interest and leverage needed to take on a growing list of transnational problems.
2. Vladimir Putin -- In Russia's personalized system, this is still the person who counts. He isn't as popular as he used to be, and his country has no Soviet-scale clout or influence, but no one on the planet has consolidated more domestic and regional power than Putin.
3. Ben Bernanke -- The world's largest economy is still struggling to find its footing. To help, no one has more levers to pull and buttons to push. The world needs the U.S. economy back on its feet, and Bernanke has more direct influence than anyone else on when and how that happens.
4. Angela Merkel -- For the moment, her commitments are the glue that binds Europe. Merkel's ability to bankroll Europe's emergency funds, win concessions from the governments of cash-strapped peripherals, and maintain solid popularity at home continues to be a remarkable political and policy achievement.
5. Barack Obama -- Even at a time when Washington is focused almost entirely on Washington, the elected leader of the world's most powerful and influential country carries a lot of water. The Obama administration will watch the eurozone from the sidelines and keep commitments in the Middle East to a minimum, but America will continue to broaden and deepen security and commercial relationships in East Asia, and Obama's decisions on how far and how fast to move will be crucial.
6. Mario Draghi -- Europe's backstop. Europe's Central Bank has kept the continent's blood flowing at a crucial moment in its history, and his work is far from done.
7. Xi Jinping -- China's forward progress is the world's most important variable, and Xi Jinping is now the man behind the wheel. Over the next decade, economic and political reforms will be needed to keep China on track, and Xi will make some difficult (and profoundly important) decisions.
8 (tie). Ayatollah Khamenei -- The supreme spiritual and political authority in a country at the heart of a volatile region. Halfway through 2013, Ahmadinejad will give way to a new president, but it is still Khamenei who will decide how the international fight over Iran's nuclear program plays out -- and what the future holds for the Islamic Republic.
8 (tie). Christine Lagarde -- The world's fire marshal. Here is that rare leader whose contribution will be crucial in multiple regions at once. But nowhere will the IMF's work be more important than in keeping Europe on track.
10. King Abdullah Bin Abd al-Aziz -- King of a kingdom with a unique power to move markets. The Saudi monarch is not in the best of health, but the choices he makes in determining who lead the world's hydrocarbon powerhouse into the next generation will help shape the entire global economy for many years to come.
What do you think?
Ian Bremmer is president of Eurasia Group.
Source: www.blog.foreignpolicy.com
Why did Facebook censor this photograph?
The following information is used for educational purposes only.
Why did Facebook censor this photograph?
By Sulome AndersonWednesday, November 14, 2012
The Uprising of Women in the Arab World is not pleased with Facebook.
The group, which advocates for women's rights in the Middle East, issued a press statement on Nov. 7 claiming that Facebook, once hailed as the catalyst of the Arab Spring, was purposefully targeting the organization through censorship. After a member posted a controversial photograph to the group's Facebook page on Oct. 25, group leaders say, the social networking giant reacted by blocking the image and suspending the account of the administrator who posted it for 24 hours.
"The photograph was part of a campaign which asks the members of our Facebook page to post pictures of themselves holding banners that explain why they support The Uprising of Women in the Arab World," Diala Haider, one of the organization's administrators, explained in an interview. "Women from all the Arab countries participated and expressed their demands and outrage at social discrimination and the ways in which women have been marginalized in the public sphere."
This particular photograph was posted by Dana Bakdounes, a young woman from Syria. In it, Bakdounes is pictured with her hair uncovered, holding her passport, which has a photo of her wearing a hijab. She also holds a sign which reads: "I am with the uprising of women in the Arab world because for 20 years I was not allowed to feel the wind in my hair and on my body."
Haider says that after the first time Bakdounes' photo was removed by Facebook, supporters of The Uprising of Women in the Arab World responded by posting the image to their own Facebook pages and on Twitter. Convinced that the removal of the photograph had been an error on the part of Facebook, one of the administrators, Yalda Younes, reposted the image to the original page. Facebook then allegedly removed the photograph again and suspended her account for seven days. The group filled out a feedback request stating that Facebook's actions were a violation of free speech, and on Oct. 31 the block on Bakdounes' photo was removed. But just a week later, after the organization posted a status update on Facebook asking its supporters to follow the group on Twitter and use the hashtag #DanaWind for solidarity, Haider says Facebook suspended all five of the administrators' accounts and sent them an official notice warning that their accounts could be deleted if they violated Facebook community rules again.
"We've had a lot of religious fanatics and extremists who use offensive and insulting language in reaction to our efforts," says Haider. "They call us infidels for supporting the freedom of women to choose things like whether to wear a veil or not. We've come under attack, but that was expected.... The real surprise was Facebook's reaction to the page."
In a statement posted on Reddit on Nov. 13 and confirmed to Foreign Policy as official by a Facebook spokesman, Facebook explained that the incident was simply an error:
"We made a mistake," the statement reads. "In this case, we mistakenly blocked images from The Uprising of Women in the Arab World Page, and worked to rectify the mistake as soon as we were notified.... To be clear, the images of the woman were not in violation of our terms. Instead, a mistake was made in the process of responding to a report on controversial content.... What made this situation worse is that we made multiple mistakes over a number of days, and it took time to rectify each of these missteps."
Incidents such as the removal of Bakdounes' photo raise questions about Facebook's content moderation system, which has come under fire in recent months. In February, Amine Derkaoui, a Moroccan employee of oDesk, one of the outsourcing firms that Facebook used to moderate its content at the time, leaked internal documents to Gawker detailing the social media site's content guidelines. According to the documents, while "camel toes" and breastfeeding mothers are off limits, "Crushed heads, limbs etc are OK as long as no insides are showing." Facebook terminated its partnership with oDesk in May.
An incident similar to the removal of Bakdounes' photo occurred in April 2011 when a photograph of gay men kissing was removed (and subsequently reposted by Facebook with an apology for its "error"). The site has also been criticized for blocking the New Yorker's Facebook page after the magazine posted a cartoon that depicted female nipples. In October, a group of Navy SEALS claimed that Facebook was censoring an anti-Obama meme when it took down the image and provided no explanation for its removal until after the story was reported -- at which point Facebook issued statements to news outlets apologizing for its mistake.
These episodes begin to make more sense when you factor in the system that, at least until May, Facebook used to moderate its content. Derkaoui told Gawker that he was part of a team of 50 people from across the globe -- many from poor countries -- who moderated Facebook's content from home for as little as $1 an hour. He did not return requests for comment, and Facebook has been tightlipped about which companies it now uses to moderate content, failing to respond to emailed questions sent by Foreign Policy.
Vaughn Hester, who works at Crowdflower, a San Francisco-based crowdsourcing firm that also tasks employees from around the world with moderating content, told The Daily Beast in September that "asking moderators to flag photos that are ‘offensive' can result in very different attitudes in terms of what constitutes offensive content versus permissible content." Given what seems to be the inherent subjectivity of the content moderation industry, as well as the vast cultural and religious differences between employees from different countries, it seems possible that a photograph like Bakdounes', which Americans might not find offensive in the least, could have upset a moderator from another country.
Panagiotis Ipeirotis, an associate professor in the Operations and Management Sciences department at New York University's Stern School of Business, says that there are many ways to identify and eliminate biases in the content moderation industry.
"You might, for example, compare different moderators' work against each other," says Ipeirotis. "So, if you're worried about cultural biases, you can take five moderators from different regions and get blended input on an image."
Ipeirotis says he is unfamiliar with Facebook's content moderation policy, but maintains that the content moderation systems of different companies are only as efficient as the standards they implement.
Haider says that while she understands that mistakes are made, it's important that Facebook take incidents like this seriously because arbitrary acts of censorship aren't compatible with the site's role as a forum for free speech.
"It's only normal that Facebook, which has penetrated the whole globe, hires employees from all over the world with various religious and cultural backgrounds," she says. "This becomes problematic only when those employees favor their cultural and religious biases over Facebook's policy of respecting freedom of expression. This is why Facebook should take serious measures regarding such mistakes. We trusted that Facebook would be a supporter of freedom of expression and the uprising; we have faced the opposite by feeling that Facebook is assisting extremists and misogynists to put us in a corner.... It is disappointing, to say the least."
Facebook outlines some of its guidelines for acceptable content on its community standards page while maintaining that it attempts to balance the need for a safe online environment with its commitment to freedom of speech.
"Facebook gives people around the world the power to publish their own stories, see the world through the eyes of many other people, and connect and share wherever they go," the page reads. "The conversation that happens on Facebook -- and the opinions expressed here -- mirror the diversity of the people using Facebook. To balance the needs and interests of a global population, Facebook protects expression that meets the community standards."
Despite the removal of Bakdounes' photograph, The Uprising of Women in the Arab World's Facebook page has over 66,000 likes, and Haider acknowledges the important role that social media sites such as Facebook have played in mobilizing activist groups such as hers.
"We wanted a forum that can provide a free space for women and men from around the Arab world to meet and voice their concerns and propositions for a better reality for women within the transforming Arab societies," she says. "In this sense, Facebook helps break the borders and helps in sharing real experiences and awareness with the least possible costs."
Source: www.blog.foreignpolicy.com
Why did Facebook censor this photograph?
By Sulome AndersonWednesday, November 14, 2012
The Uprising of Women in the Arab World is not pleased with Facebook.
The group, which advocates for women's rights in the Middle East, issued a press statement on Nov. 7 claiming that Facebook, once hailed as the catalyst of the Arab Spring, was purposefully targeting the organization through censorship. After a member posted a controversial photograph to the group's Facebook page on Oct. 25, group leaders say, the social networking giant reacted by blocking the image and suspending the account of the administrator who posted it for 24 hours.
"The photograph was part of a campaign which asks the members of our Facebook page to post pictures of themselves holding banners that explain why they support The Uprising of Women in the Arab World," Diala Haider, one of the organization's administrators, explained in an interview. "Women from all the Arab countries participated and expressed their demands and outrage at social discrimination and the ways in which women have been marginalized in the public sphere."
This particular photograph was posted by Dana Bakdounes, a young woman from Syria. In it, Bakdounes is pictured with her hair uncovered, holding her passport, which has a photo of her wearing a hijab. She also holds a sign which reads: "I am with the uprising of women in the Arab world because for 20 years I was not allowed to feel the wind in my hair and on my body."
Haider says that after the first time Bakdounes' photo was removed by Facebook, supporters of The Uprising of Women in the Arab World responded by posting the image to their own Facebook pages and on Twitter. Convinced that the removal of the photograph had been an error on the part of Facebook, one of the administrators, Yalda Younes, reposted the image to the original page. Facebook then allegedly removed the photograph again and suspended her account for seven days. The group filled out a feedback request stating that Facebook's actions were a violation of free speech, and on Oct. 31 the block on Bakdounes' photo was removed. But just a week later, after the organization posted a status update on Facebook asking its supporters to follow the group on Twitter and use the hashtag #DanaWind for solidarity, Haider says Facebook suspended all five of the administrators' accounts and sent them an official notice warning that their accounts could be deleted if they violated Facebook community rules again.
"We've had a lot of religious fanatics and extremists who use offensive and insulting language in reaction to our efforts," says Haider. "They call us infidels for supporting the freedom of women to choose things like whether to wear a veil or not. We've come under attack, but that was expected.... The real surprise was Facebook's reaction to the page."
In a statement posted on Reddit on Nov. 13 and confirmed to Foreign Policy as official by a Facebook spokesman, Facebook explained that the incident was simply an error:
"We made a mistake," the statement reads. "In this case, we mistakenly blocked images from The Uprising of Women in the Arab World Page, and worked to rectify the mistake as soon as we were notified.... To be clear, the images of the woman were not in violation of our terms. Instead, a mistake was made in the process of responding to a report on controversial content.... What made this situation worse is that we made multiple mistakes over a number of days, and it took time to rectify each of these missteps."
Incidents such as the removal of Bakdounes' photo raise questions about Facebook's content moderation system, which has come under fire in recent months. In February, Amine Derkaoui, a Moroccan employee of oDesk, one of the outsourcing firms that Facebook used to moderate its content at the time, leaked internal documents to Gawker detailing the social media site's content guidelines. According to the documents, while "camel toes" and breastfeeding mothers are off limits, "Crushed heads, limbs etc are OK as long as no insides are showing." Facebook terminated its partnership with oDesk in May.
An incident similar to the removal of Bakdounes' photo occurred in April 2011 when a photograph of gay men kissing was removed (and subsequently reposted by Facebook with an apology for its "error"). The site has also been criticized for blocking the New Yorker's Facebook page after the magazine posted a cartoon that depicted female nipples. In October, a group of Navy SEALS claimed that Facebook was censoring an anti-Obama meme when it took down the image and provided no explanation for its removal until after the story was reported -- at which point Facebook issued statements to news outlets apologizing for its mistake.
These episodes begin to make more sense when you factor in the system that, at least until May, Facebook used to moderate its content. Derkaoui told Gawker that he was part of a team of 50 people from across the globe -- many from poor countries -- who moderated Facebook's content from home for as little as $1 an hour. He did not return requests for comment, and Facebook has been tightlipped about which companies it now uses to moderate content, failing to respond to emailed questions sent by Foreign Policy.
Vaughn Hester, who works at Crowdflower, a San Francisco-based crowdsourcing firm that also tasks employees from around the world with moderating content, told The Daily Beast in September that "asking moderators to flag photos that are ‘offensive' can result in very different attitudes in terms of what constitutes offensive content versus permissible content." Given what seems to be the inherent subjectivity of the content moderation industry, as well as the vast cultural and religious differences between employees from different countries, it seems possible that a photograph like Bakdounes', which Americans might not find offensive in the least, could have upset a moderator from another country.
Panagiotis Ipeirotis, an associate professor in the Operations and Management Sciences department at New York University's Stern School of Business, says that there are many ways to identify and eliminate biases in the content moderation industry.
"You might, for example, compare different moderators' work against each other," says Ipeirotis. "So, if you're worried about cultural biases, you can take five moderators from different regions and get blended input on an image."
Ipeirotis says he is unfamiliar with Facebook's content moderation policy, but maintains that the content moderation systems of different companies are only as efficient as the standards they implement.
Haider says that while she understands that mistakes are made, it's important that Facebook take incidents like this seriously because arbitrary acts of censorship aren't compatible with the site's role as a forum for free speech.
"It's only normal that Facebook, which has penetrated the whole globe, hires employees from all over the world with various religious and cultural backgrounds," she says. "This becomes problematic only when those employees favor their cultural and religious biases over Facebook's policy of respecting freedom of expression. This is why Facebook should take serious measures regarding such mistakes. We trusted that Facebook would be a supporter of freedom of expression and the uprising; we have faced the opposite by feeling that Facebook is assisting extremists and misogynists to put us in a corner.... It is disappointing, to say the least."
Facebook outlines some of its guidelines for acceptable content on its community standards page while maintaining that it attempts to balance the need for a safe online environment with its commitment to freedom of speech.
"Facebook gives people around the world the power to publish their own stories, see the world through the eyes of many other people, and connect and share wherever they go," the page reads. "The conversation that happens on Facebook -- and the opinions expressed here -- mirror the diversity of the people using Facebook. To balance the needs and interests of a global population, Facebook protects expression that meets the community standards."
Despite the removal of Bakdounes' photograph, The Uprising of Women in the Arab World's Facebook page has over 66,000 likes, and Haider acknowledges the important role that social media sites such as Facebook have played in mobilizing activist groups such as hers.
"We wanted a forum that can provide a free space for women and men from around the Arab world to meet and voice their concerns and propositions for a better reality for women within the transforming Arab societies," she says. "In this sense, Facebook helps break the borders and helps in sharing real experiences and awareness with the least possible costs."
Source: www.blog.foreignpolicy.com
Tuesday, January 1, 2013
The Emancipation of Abe Lincoln
The following information is used for educational purposes only.
December 31, 2012
The Emancipation of Abe Lincoln
By ERIC FONER
ONE hundred and fifty years ago, on Jan. 1, 1863, Abraham Lincoln presided over the annual White House New Year’s reception. Late that afternoon, he retired to his study to sign the Emancipation Proclamation. When he took up his pen, his hand was shaking from exhaustion. Briefly, he paused — “I do not want it to appear as if I hesitated,” he remarked. Then Lincoln affixed a firm signature to the document.
Like all great historical transformations, emancipation was a process, not a single event. It arose from many causes and was the work of many individuals. It began at the outset of the Civil War, when slaves sought refuge behind Union lines. It did not end until December 1865, with the ratification of the 13th Amendment, which irrevocably abolished slavery throughout the nation.
But the Emancipation Proclamation was the crucial turning point in this story. In a sense, it embodied a double emancipation: for the slaves, since it ensured that if the Union emerged victorious, slavery would perish, and for Lincoln himself, for whom it marked the abandonment of his previous assumptions about how to abolish slavery and the role blacks would play in post-emancipation American life.
There is no reason to doubt the sincerity of Lincoln’s statement in 1864 that he had always believed slavery to be wrong. During the first two years of the Civil War, despite insisting that the conflict’s aim was preservation of the Union, he devoted considerable energy to a plan for ending slavery inherited from prewar years. Emancipation would be undertaken by state governments, with national financing. It would be gradual, owners would receive monetary compensation and emancipated slaves would be encouraged to find a homeland outside the United States — this last idea known as “colonization.”
Lincoln’s plan sought to win the cooperation of slave holders in ending slavery. As early as November 1861, he proposed it to political leaders in Delaware, one of the four border states (along with Kentucky, Maryland and Missouri) that remained in the Union. Delaware had only 1,800 slaves; the institution was peripheral to the state’s economy. But Lincoln found that even there, slave holders did not wish to surrender their human property. Nonetheless, for most of 1862, he avidly promoted his plan to the border states and any Confederates who might be interested.
Lincoln also took his proposal to black Americans. In August 1862, he met with a group of black leaders from Washington. He seemed to blame the presence of blacks in America for the conflict: “but for your race among us there could not be war.” He issued a powerful indictment of slavery — “the greatest wrong inflicted on any people” — but added that, because of racism, blacks would never achieve equality in America. “It is better for us both, therefore, to be separated,” he said. But most blacks refused to contemplate emigration from the land of their birth.
In the summer of 1862, a combination of events propelled Lincoln in a new direction. Slavery was disintegrating in parts of the South as thousands of slaves ran away to Union lines. With the war a stalemate, more Northerners found themselves agreeing with the abolitionists, who had insisted from the outset that slavery must become a target. Enthusiasm for enlistment was waning in the North. The Army had long refused to accept black volunteers, but the reservoir of black manpower could no longer be ignored. In response, Congress moved ahead of Lincoln, abolishing slavery in the District of Columbia, authorizing the president to enroll blacks in the Army and freeing the slaves of pro-Confederate owners in areas under military control. Lincoln signed all these measures that summer.
The hallmark of Lincoln’s greatness was his combination of bedrock principle with open-mindedness and capacity for growth. That summer, with his preferred approach going nowhere, he moved in the direction of immediate emancipation. He first proposed this to his cabinet on July 22, but Secretary of State William H. Seward persuaded him to wait for a military victory, lest it seem an act of desperation.
Soon after the Union victory at Antietam in September, Lincoln issued the Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, a warning to the Confederacy that if it did not lay down its arms by Jan. 1, he would declare the slaves “forever free.”
Lincoln did not immediately abandon his earlier plan. His annual message to Congress, released on Dec. 1, 1862, devoted a long passage to gradual, compensated abolition and colonization. But in the same document, without mentioning the impending proclamation, he indicated that a new approach was imperative: “The dogmas of the quiet past, are inadequate to the stormy present,” he wrote. “We must disenthrall our selves, and then we shall save our country.” Lincoln included himself in that “we.” On Jan. 1, he proclaimed the freedom of the vast majority of the nation’s slaves.
The Emancipation Proclamation is perhaps the most misunderstood of the documents that have shaped American history. Contrary to legend, Lincoln did not free the nearly four million slaves with a stroke of his pen. It had no bearing on slaves in the four border states, since they were not in rebellion. It also exempted certain parts of the Confederacy occupied by the Union. All told, it left perhaps 750,000 slaves in bondage. But the remaining 3.1 million, it declared, “are, and henceforward shall be free.”
The proclamation did not end slavery in the United States on the day it was issued. Indeed, it could not even be enforced in most of the areas where it applied, which were under Confederate control. But it ensured the eventual death of slavery — assuming the Union won the war. Were the Confederacy to emerge victorious, slavery, in one form or another, would undoubtedly have lasted a long time.
A military order, whose constitutional legitimacy rested on the president’s war powers, the proclamation often disappoints those who read it. It is dull and legalistic; it contains no soaring language enunciating the rights of man. Only at the last minute, at the urging of Treasury Secretary Salmon P. Chase, an abolitionist, did Lincoln add a conclusion declaring the proclamation an “act of justice.”
Nonetheless, the proclamation marked a dramatic transformation in the nature of the Civil War and in Lincoln’s own approach to the problem of slavery. No longer did he seek the consent of slave holders. The proclamation was immediate, not gradual, contained no mention of compensation for owners, and made no reference to colonization.
In it, Lincoln addressed blacks directly, not as property subject to the will of others but as men and women whose loyalty the Union must earn. For the first time, he welcomed black soldiers into the Union Army; over the next two years some 200,000 black men would serve in the Army and Navy, playing a critical role in achieving Union victory. And Lincoln urged freed slaves to go to work for “reasonable wages” — in the United States. He never again mentioned colonization in public.
Having made the decision, Lincoln did not look back. In 1864, with casualties mounting, there was talk of a compromise peace. Some urged Lincoln to rescind the proclamation, in which case, they believed, the South could be persuaded to return to the Union. Lincoln refused. Were he to do so, he told one visitor, “I should be damned in time and eternity.”
Wartime emancipation may have settled the fate of slavery, but it opened another vexing question: the role of former slaves in American life. Colonization had allowed its proponents to talk about abolition without having to confront this issue; after all, the black population would be gone. After Jan. 1, 1863, Lincoln for the first time began to think seriously of the United States as a biracial society.
While not burdened with the visceral racism of many of his white contemporaries, Lincoln shared some of their prejudices. He had long seen blacks as an alien people who been unjustly uprooted from their homeland and were entitled to freedom, but were not an intrinsic part of American society. During his Senate campaign in Illinois, in 1858, he had insisted that blacks should enjoy the same natural rights as whites (life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness), but he opposed granting them legal equality or the right to vote.
By the end of his life, Lincoln’s outlook had changed dramatically. In his last public address, delivered in April 1865, he said that in reconstructing Louisiana, and by implication other Southern states, he would “prefer” that limited black suffrage be implemented. He singled out the “very intelligent” (educated free blacks) and “those who serve our cause as soldiers” as most worthy. Though hardly an unambiguous embrace of equality, this was the first time an American president had endorsed any political rights for blacks.
And then there was his magnificent second inaugural address of March 4, 1865, in which Lincoln ruminated on the deep meaning of the war. He now identified the institution of slavery — not the presence of blacks, as in 1862 — as its fundamental cause. The war, he said, might well be a divine punishment for the evil of slavery. And God might will it to continue until all the wealth the slaves had created had been destroyed, and “until every drop of blood drawn with the lash, shall be paid by another drawn by the sword.” Lincoln was reminding Americans that violence did not begin with the firing on Fort Sumter, S.C., in April 1861. What he called “this terrible war” had been preceded by 250 years of the terrible violence of slavery.
In essence, Lincoln asked the nation to confront unblinkingly the legacy of slavery. What were the requirements of justice in the face of this reality? What would be necessary to enable former slaves and their descendants to enjoy fully the pursuit of happiness? Lincoln did not live to provide an answer. A century and a half later, we have yet to do so.
Eric Foner is a professor of history at Columbia and the author, most recently, of “The Fiery Trial: Abraham Lincoln and American Slavery.”
Source: www.nytimes.com
December 31, 2012
The Emancipation of Abe Lincoln
By ERIC FONER
ONE hundred and fifty years ago, on Jan. 1, 1863, Abraham Lincoln presided over the annual White House New Year’s reception. Late that afternoon, he retired to his study to sign the Emancipation Proclamation. When he took up his pen, his hand was shaking from exhaustion. Briefly, he paused — “I do not want it to appear as if I hesitated,” he remarked. Then Lincoln affixed a firm signature to the document.
Like all great historical transformations, emancipation was a process, not a single event. It arose from many causes and was the work of many individuals. It began at the outset of the Civil War, when slaves sought refuge behind Union lines. It did not end until December 1865, with the ratification of the 13th Amendment, which irrevocably abolished slavery throughout the nation.
But the Emancipation Proclamation was the crucial turning point in this story. In a sense, it embodied a double emancipation: for the slaves, since it ensured that if the Union emerged victorious, slavery would perish, and for Lincoln himself, for whom it marked the abandonment of his previous assumptions about how to abolish slavery and the role blacks would play in post-emancipation American life.
There is no reason to doubt the sincerity of Lincoln’s statement in 1864 that he had always believed slavery to be wrong. During the first two years of the Civil War, despite insisting that the conflict’s aim was preservation of the Union, he devoted considerable energy to a plan for ending slavery inherited from prewar years. Emancipation would be undertaken by state governments, with national financing. It would be gradual, owners would receive monetary compensation and emancipated slaves would be encouraged to find a homeland outside the United States — this last idea known as “colonization.”
Lincoln’s plan sought to win the cooperation of slave holders in ending slavery. As early as November 1861, he proposed it to political leaders in Delaware, one of the four border states (along with Kentucky, Maryland and Missouri) that remained in the Union. Delaware had only 1,800 slaves; the institution was peripheral to the state’s economy. But Lincoln found that even there, slave holders did not wish to surrender their human property. Nonetheless, for most of 1862, he avidly promoted his plan to the border states and any Confederates who might be interested.
Lincoln also took his proposal to black Americans. In August 1862, he met with a group of black leaders from Washington. He seemed to blame the presence of blacks in America for the conflict: “but for your race among us there could not be war.” He issued a powerful indictment of slavery — “the greatest wrong inflicted on any people” — but added that, because of racism, blacks would never achieve equality in America. “It is better for us both, therefore, to be separated,” he said. But most blacks refused to contemplate emigration from the land of their birth.
In the summer of 1862, a combination of events propelled Lincoln in a new direction. Slavery was disintegrating in parts of the South as thousands of slaves ran away to Union lines. With the war a stalemate, more Northerners found themselves agreeing with the abolitionists, who had insisted from the outset that slavery must become a target. Enthusiasm for enlistment was waning in the North. The Army had long refused to accept black volunteers, but the reservoir of black manpower could no longer be ignored. In response, Congress moved ahead of Lincoln, abolishing slavery in the District of Columbia, authorizing the president to enroll blacks in the Army and freeing the slaves of pro-Confederate owners in areas under military control. Lincoln signed all these measures that summer.
The hallmark of Lincoln’s greatness was his combination of bedrock principle with open-mindedness and capacity for growth. That summer, with his preferred approach going nowhere, he moved in the direction of immediate emancipation. He first proposed this to his cabinet on July 22, but Secretary of State William H. Seward persuaded him to wait for a military victory, lest it seem an act of desperation.
Soon after the Union victory at Antietam in September, Lincoln issued the Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, a warning to the Confederacy that if it did not lay down its arms by Jan. 1, he would declare the slaves “forever free.”
Lincoln did not immediately abandon his earlier plan. His annual message to Congress, released on Dec. 1, 1862, devoted a long passage to gradual, compensated abolition and colonization. But in the same document, without mentioning the impending proclamation, he indicated that a new approach was imperative: “The dogmas of the quiet past, are inadequate to the stormy present,” he wrote. “We must disenthrall our selves, and then we shall save our country.” Lincoln included himself in that “we.” On Jan. 1, he proclaimed the freedom of the vast majority of the nation’s slaves.
The Emancipation Proclamation is perhaps the most misunderstood of the documents that have shaped American history. Contrary to legend, Lincoln did not free the nearly four million slaves with a stroke of his pen. It had no bearing on slaves in the four border states, since they were not in rebellion. It also exempted certain parts of the Confederacy occupied by the Union. All told, it left perhaps 750,000 slaves in bondage. But the remaining 3.1 million, it declared, “are, and henceforward shall be free.”
The proclamation did not end slavery in the United States on the day it was issued. Indeed, it could not even be enforced in most of the areas where it applied, which were under Confederate control. But it ensured the eventual death of slavery — assuming the Union won the war. Were the Confederacy to emerge victorious, slavery, in one form or another, would undoubtedly have lasted a long time.
A military order, whose constitutional legitimacy rested on the president’s war powers, the proclamation often disappoints those who read it. It is dull and legalistic; it contains no soaring language enunciating the rights of man. Only at the last minute, at the urging of Treasury Secretary Salmon P. Chase, an abolitionist, did Lincoln add a conclusion declaring the proclamation an “act of justice.”
Nonetheless, the proclamation marked a dramatic transformation in the nature of the Civil War and in Lincoln’s own approach to the problem of slavery. No longer did he seek the consent of slave holders. The proclamation was immediate, not gradual, contained no mention of compensation for owners, and made no reference to colonization.
In it, Lincoln addressed blacks directly, not as property subject to the will of others but as men and women whose loyalty the Union must earn. For the first time, he welcomed black soldiers into the Union Army; over the next two years some 200,000 black men would serve in the Army and Navy, playing a critical role in achieving Union victory. And Lincoln urged freed slaves to go to work for “reasonable wages” — in the United States. He never again mentioned colonization in public.
Having made the decision, Lincoln did not look back. In 1864, with casualties mounting, there was talk of a compromise peace. Some urged Lincoln to rescind the proclamation, in which case, they believed, the South could be persuaded to return to the Union. Lincoln refused. Were he to do so, he told one visitor, “I should be damned in time and eternity.”
Wartime emancipation may have settled the fate of slavery, but it opened another vexing question: the role of former slaves in American life. Colonization had allowed its proponents to talk about abolition without having to confront this issue; after all, the black population would be gone. After Jan. 1, 1863, Lincoln for the first time began to think seriously of the United States as a biracial society.
While not burdened with the visceral racism of many of his white contemporaries, Lincoln shared some of their prejudices. He had long seen blacks as an alien people who been unjustly uprooted from their homeland and were entitled to freedom, but were not an intrinsic part of American society. During his Senate campaign in Illinois, in 1858, he had insisted that blacks should enjoy the same natural rights as whites (life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness), but he opposed granting them legal equality or the right to vote.
By the end of his life, Lincoln’s outlook had changed dramatically. In his last public address, delivered in April 1865, he said that in reconstructing Louisiana, and by implication other Southern states, he would “prefer” that limited black suffrage be implemented. He singled out the “very intelligent” (educated free blacks) and “those who serve our cause as soldiers” as most worthy. Though hardly an unambiguous embrace of equality, this was the first time an American president had endorsed any political rights for blacks.
And then there was his magnificent second inaugural address of March 4, 1865, in which Lincoln ruminated on the deep meaning of the war. He now identified the institution of slavery — not the presence of blacks, as in 1862 — as its fundamental cause. The war, he said, might well be a divine punishment for the evil of slavery. And God might will it to continue until all the wealth the slaves had created had been destroyed, and “until every drop of blood drawn with the lash, shall be paid by another drawn by the sword.” Lincoln was reminding Americans that violence did not begin with the firing on Fort Sumter, S.C., in April 1861. What he called “this terrible war” had been preceded by 250 years of the terrible violence of slavery.
In essence, Lincoln asked the nation to confront unblinkingly the legacy of slavery. What were the requirements of justice in the face of this reality? What would be necessary to enable former slaves and their descendants to enjoy fully the pursuit of happiness? Lincoln did not live to provide an answer. A century and a half later, we have yet to do so.
Eric Foner is a professor of history at Columbia and the author, most recently, of “The Fiery Trial: Abraham Lincoln and American Slavery.”
Source: www.nytimes.com
How Many Slaves Work for You?
The following information is used for educational purposes only.
December 31, 2012
How Many Slaves Work for You?
By LOUIS P. MASUR
THE Emancipation Proclamation, signed 150 years ago today, was a revolutionary achievement, and widely recognized as such at the time. Abraham Lincoln himself declared, “If my name goes into history it will be for this act, and my whole soul is in it.”
On New Year’s Eve, 1862, “watch-night” services in auditoriums, churches, camps and cabins united thousands, free as well as enslaved, who sang, prayed and counted down to midnight. At a gathering of runaway slaves in Washington, a man named Thornton wept: “Tomorrow my child is to be sold never more.”
The Day of Jubilee, as Jan. 1, 1863 was called, arrived at last and celebrations of deliverance and freedom commenced. “We are all liberated by this proclamation,” Frederick Douglass observed. “The white man is liberated, the black man is liberated.” The Fourth of July “was great,” he proclaimed, “but the First of January, when we consider it in all its relations and bearings, even greater.”
Yet the day never took hold as Emancipation Day, an occasion to commemorate freedom for all Americans. Nearly three years would pass before the ratification of the 13th Amendment officially abolished slavery. All too quickly, the joy of emancipation succumbed to the reality of a circumscribed freedom in which blacks found themselves the victims of economic injustice and racial discrimination.
Settling on a single day to celebrate emancipation was further complicated by the variety of dates on which actual freedom, or word of it, came to the slaves: for example, slavery ended on April 16, 1862 in Washington, but it didn’t come to Virginia until April 3, 1865; word of the war’s end and emancipation didn’t reach Texas until June 19, 1865, a day celebrated as “Juneteenth.” Some areas marked Feb. 1, 1865, when Lincoln signed the joint resolution approving the 13th Amendment. As a result, local traditions took the place of a nationwide anniversary.
But those local traditions don’t preclude a national observation. Indeed, today’s sesquicentennial of the Emancipation Proclamation provides an opportunity to observe Jan. 1 as a day of emancipation and to rededicate ourselves to freedom. In 1963, standing before the Lincoln Memorial, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. labeled the Proclamation a “beacon light of hope” to African-Americans and used the centennial to call for a renewed commitment to civil rights in America. Fifty years later, we might consider what a new Emancipation Proclamation would look like, one written for our times.
It would, above all, focus American and international attention on the millions of people still held in servitude. In September, the Frederick Douglass Family Foundation, an organization devoted to securing personal freedom and rights for all individuals, began a project called 100 Days to Freedom. Students in schools across the country were invited to craft a New Proclamation of Freedom, which the foundation hopes will be signed by President Obama on Jan. 11, which is recognized worldwide as Human Trafficking Awareness Day.
In the United States, thousands are held against their will; minors, especially, are the victims of ruthless exploitation. While other countries are worse offenders, the United States, according to State Department reports, serves as both a source and a destination for the trafficking of children.
In a speech delivered in September at the Clinton Global Initiative, President Obama declared that the time had come to call human trafficking by its rightful name: modern slavery. “The bitter truth is that trafficking also goes on right here, in the United States,” he declared. “It’s the migrant worker unable to pay off the debt to his trafficker. The man, lured here with the promise of a job, his documents then taken, and forced to work endless hours in a kitchen. The teenage girl, beaten, forced to walk the streets. This should not be happening in the United States of America.”
That same month the president signed an executive order that stated the United States would “lead by example” and take steps to ensure that federal contracts are not awarded to companies or nations implicated in trafficking. “We’re making clear that American tax dollars must never, ever be used to support the trafficking of human beings,” he said.
Still, the invisibility of modern slavery makes it all the more pernicious and difficult to eradicate. The organization Slavery Footprint asks on its Web site, “How many slaves work for you?” A survey poses a series of seemingly innocuous questions such as what do you eat, what do you wear, what medicine do you take, and what electronics do you use? Upon completion, a number is revealed: I discovered that 60 slaves work for me — cutting the tropical wood for my furniture, harvesting the Central Asian cotton in my shirts or mining the African precious metals used in my electronics.
One way to reduce our complicity and attack human trafficking is to participate in Made in a Free World, a platform started by Slavery Footprint to show companies how to eliminate forced labor from their supply chains. A smartphone app also allows consumers to identify items made by forced labor and send letters to the manufacturers, demanding that they investigate the origins of the raw materials used in their products.
At his speech condemning human trafficking, President Obama referred to Lincoln and the Emancipation Proclamation as having “brought a new day — that ‘all persons held as slaves’ would thenceforth be forever free. We wrote that promise into our Constitution. We spent decades struggling to make it real.”
Today we should celebrate the extraordinary moment in the nation’s history when slavery yielded to freedom. But the work must continue. For those who insist they would have been abolitionists during the Civil War, now is the chance to become one.
Louis P. Masur is a professor of American studies and history at Rutgers University and the author of “Lincoln’s Hundred Days: The Emancipation Proclamation and the War for the Union.”
Source: www.nytimes.com
December 31, 2012
How Many Slaves Work for You?
By LOUIS P. MASUR
THE Emancipation Proclamation, signed 150 years ago today, was a revolutionary achievement, and widely recognized as such at the time. Abraham Lincoln himself declared, “If my name goes into history it will be for this act, and my whole soul is in it.”
On New Year’s Eve, 1862, “watch-night” services in auditoriums, churches, camps and cabins united thousands, free as well as enslaved, who sang, prayed and counted down to midnight. At a gathering of runaway slaves in Washington, a man named Thornton wept: “Tomorrow my child is to be sold never more.”
The Day of Jubilee, as Jan. 1, 1863 was called, arrived at last and celebrations of deliverance and freedom commenced. “We are all liberated by this proclamation,” Frederick Douglass observed. “The white man is liberated, the black man is liberated.” The Fourth of July “was great,” he proclaimed, “but the First of January, when we consider it in all its relations and bearings, even greater.”
Yet the day never took hold as Emancipation Day, an occasion to commemorate freedom for all Americans. Nearly three years would pass before the ratification of the 13th Amendment officially abolished slavery. All too quickly, the joy of emancipation succumbed to the reality of a circumscribed freedom in which blacks found themselves the victims of economic injustice and racial discrimination.
Settling on a single day to celebrate emancipation was further complicated by the variety of dates on which actual freedom, or word of it, came to the slaves: for example, slavery ended on April 16, 1862 in Washington, but it didn’t come to Virginia until April 3, 1865; word of the war’s end and emancipation didn’t reach Texas until June 19, 1865, a day celebrated as “Juneteenth.” Some areas marked Feb. 1, 1865, when Lincoln signed the joint resolution approving the 13th Amendment. As a result, local traditions took the place of a nationwide anniversary.
But those local traditions don’t preclude a national observation. Indeed, today’s sesquicentennial of the Emancipation Proclamation provides an opportunity to observe Jan. 1 as a day of emancipation and to rededicate ourselves to freedom. In 1963, standing before the Lincoln Memorial, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. labeled the Proclamation a “beacon light of hope” to African-Americans and used the centennial to call for a renewed commitment to civil rights in America. Fifty years later, we might consider what a new Emancipation Proclamation would look like, one written for our times.
It would, above all, focus American and international attention on the millions of people still held in servitude. In September, the Frederick Douglass Family Foundation, an organization devoted to securing personal freedom and rights for all individuals, began a project called 100 Days to Freedom. Students in schools across the country were invited to craft a New Proclamation of Freedom, which the foundation hopes will be signed by President Obama on Jan. 11, which is recognized worldwide as Human Trafficking Awareness Day.
In the United States, thousands are held against their will; minors, especially, are the victims of ruthless exploitation. While other countries are worse offenders, the United States, according to State Department reports, serves as both a source and a destination for the trafficking of children.
In a speech delivered in September at the Clinton Global Initiative, President Obama declared that the time had come to call human trafficking by its rightful name: modern slavery. “The bitter truth is that trafficking also goes on right here, in the United States,” he declared. “It’s the migrant worker unable to pay off the debt to his trafficker. The man, lured here with the promise of a job, his documents then taken, and forced to work endless hours in a kitchen. The teenage girl, beaten, forced to walk the streets. This should not be happening in the United States of America.”
That same month the president signed an executive order that stated the United States would “lead by example” and take steps to ensure that federal contracts are not awarded to companies or nations implicated in trafficking. “We’re making clear that American tax dollars must never, ever be used to support the trafficking of human beings,” he said.
Still, the invisibility of modern slavery makes it all the more pernicious and difficult to eradicate. The organization Slavery Footprint asks on its Web site, “How many slaves work for you?” A survey poses a series of seemingly innocuous questions such as what do you eat, what do you wear, what medicine do you take, and what electronics do you use? Upon completion, a number is revealed: I discovered that 60 slaves work for me — cutting the tropical wood for my furniture, harvesting the Central Asian cotton in my shirts or mining the African precious metals used in my electronics.
One way to reduce our complicity and attack human trafficking is to participate in Made in a Free World, a platform started by Slavery Footprint to show companies how to eliminate forced labor from their supply chains. A smartphone app also allows consumers to identify items made by forced labor and send letters to the manufacturers, demanding that they investigate the origins of the raw materials used in their products.
At his speech condemning human trafficking, President Obama referred to Lincoln and the Emancipation Proclamation as having “brought a new day — that ‘all persons held as slaves’ would thenceforth be forever free. We wrote that promise into our Constitution. We spent decades struggling to make it real.”
Today we should celebrate the extraordinary moment in the nation’s history when slavery yielded to freedom. But the work must continue. For those who insist they would have been abolitionists during the Civil War, now is the chance to become one.
Louis P. Masur is a professor of American studies and history at Rutgers University and the author of “Lincoln’s Hundred Days: The Emancipation Proclamation and the War for the Union.”
Source: www.nytimes.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
The following information is used for educational purposes only. Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) and the next generation Alex Cu...
-
The following information is used for educational purposes only. We the Future | September 2018 Michael Green: The global goals we´ve ...
-
The following information is used for educational purposes only. Aprender un nuevo idioma es bueno para el cerebro Los investigadores desc...
