lunes, 31 de marzo de 2025

La Ciencia Global en Peligro

Comunicado que expresa la protesta de la comunidad científica, de los USA, y del resto del mundo, ante la CENSURA BRUTAL que el gobierno de la superpotencia quiere imponer a toda investigación y comunicación científica, en especial en el campo social e histórico-cultural:

La ciencia global en peligro


=================

MANIFIESTO DE LAS ASOCIACIONES DE HISTORIADORES, DE USA Y DEL RESTO DEL MUNDO:
AHA–OAH Joint Statement on Federal Censorship of American History
Back to News
Home / AHA News & Announcements / AHA–OAH Joint Statement on Federal Censorship of American History
News Topic


Advocacy & Public Policy, Federal Government

The American Historical Association (AHA) and the Organization of American Historians (OAH) have released a joint statement condemning “recent efforts to censor historical content on federal government websites, at many public museums, and across a wide swath of government resources that include essential data.” “Our professional ethics require that ‘all historians believe in honoring the integrity of the historical record,’” the statement reads. “We expect our nation’s leadership to adhere to this same basic standard and we will continue to monitor, protest, and place in the historical record any censorship of American historical facts.”

To date, 35 organizations have signed on to the statement.

This is only one aspect of the AHA’s advocacy on behalf of historians employed by the federal government. Among other efforts, we are engaging with federal historians on how best to support them and their agencies, closely monitoring legislation and executive orders and tracking job losses for historians, and coordinating with partner organizations like the OAH on critical advocacy to support historians and history education at the federal and state levels.

March 13, 2025

Joint Statement on Federal Censorship of American History

The American Historical Association (AHA) and the Organization of American Historians (OAH) condemn recent efforts to censor historical content on federal government websites, at many public museums, and across a wide swath of government resources that include essential data. New policies that purge words, phrases, and content that some officials deem suspect on ideological grounds constitute a systemic campaign to distort, manipulate, and erase significant parts of the historical record. Recent directives insidiously prioritize narrow ideology over historical research, historical accuracy, and the actual experiences of Americans.

As the institution chartered by the US Congress for “the promotion of historical studies” and “in the interest of American history, and of history in America,” the American Historical Association must speak out when the nation’s leadership wreaks havoc with that history. So, too, must the OAH, as the organization committed to promoting “excellence in the scholarship, teaching, and presentation of American history.” It is bad enough to forget the past; it is even worse to intentionally deny the public access to what we remember, have documented, and have expended public resources to disseminate.

At this writing, the full range of historical distortions and deletions is yet to be discerned. Federal entities and institutions subject to federal oversight and funding are hastily implementing revisions to their resources in an attempt to comply with the “Dear Colleague” letter issued by the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights and executive orders such as “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.” These changes range from scrubbing words and acronyms from websites to papering over interpretive panels in museums. Some alterations, such as those related to topics like the Tuskegee Airmen and the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, have been hurriedly reversed in response to public outcry. Others remain. The scrubbing of words and acronyms from the Stonewall National Monument web page, for instance, distorts the site’s history by denying the roles of transgender and queer people in movements for rights and liberation. This distortion of history renders the past unrecognizable to the people who lived it and useless to those who seek to learn from the past.

It remains unclear whether federal agencies are preserving the original versions of these materials for future reference or research. Articles written by historians for the National Park Service, for example, have been altered, and in some instances deleted, because they examine history with references to gender or sexuality. These revisions were made without the authors’ knowledge or consent, and without public acknowledgment that the original articles had been revised. The AHA’s Statement on Standards of Professional Conduct is clear: “Honoring the historical record also means leaving a clear trail for subsequent historians to follow. Any changes to a primary source or published secondary work, whether digital or print, should be noted.”

Words matter. Precision matters. Context matters. Expertise matters. Democracy matters. We can neither deny what happened nor invent things that did not happen. Recent executive orders and other federal directives alter the public record in ways that are contrary to historical evidence. They result in deceitful narratives of the past that violate the professional standards of our discipline. When government entities, or scholars themselves, censor the use of particular words, they in effect censor historical evidence. Censorship and distortion erase people and institutions from history.

The AHA’s Statement on Standards of Professional Conduct makes clear that historians can neither misrepresent their sources nor omit evidence because it “runs counter” to their interpretations. The OAH and AHA condemn the rejection of these professional standards. Classifying collective historical scholarship as “toxic indoctrination” or “discriminatory equity ideology” dismisses the knowledge generated by the deep research of generations of historians. It violates the training, expertise, and purposes of historians as well as their responsibility to public audiences.

Our professional ethics require that “all historians believe in honoring the integrity of the historical record.” We expect our nation’s leadership to adhere to this same basic standard, and we will continue to monitor, protest, and place in the historical record any censorship of American historical facts.

The following organizations have signed on to this statement:

African Studies Association
American Academy of Religion
American Association for State and Local History
American Federation of Teachers
American Journalism Historians Association
American Society for Environmental History
American Studies Association
Asian & Pacific Islander Americans in Historic Preservation
Association for Spanish and Portuguese Historical Studies
Association for the Study of African American Life and History
Association of University Presses
College Art Association
Conference on Asian History
Education for All
French Colonial Historical Society
Historians for Peace and Democracy
H-Net Executive Council
Immigration and Ethnic History Society
Labor and Working-Class History Association
LGBTQ+ Historians Association
National Council for the Social Studies
National Council on Public History
Network of Concerned Historians
North American Conference on British Studies
Oral History Association
PEN America
Polish American Historical Association
Social Welfare History Group
Society for Historians of American Foreign Relations
Society for Historians of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era
Society for US Intellectual History
Society of Architectural Historians
Urban History Association
Western History Association
Western Society for French History
World History Association

martes, 18 de marzo de 2025

Por qué TRUMP y los neofascistas atacan a la enseñanza superior y el pensamiento académico...


Un análisis muy interesante, y que podríamos leer para reflexionar sobre él. Porque todo lo que amamos, BIBLIOTECAS, LIBRERÍAS, UNIVERSIDADES, INSTITUTOS, CENTROS ACADÉMICOS Y DE INVESTIGACIÓN, INCLUSO SITIOS WEB DEDICADOS AL CONOCIMIENTO... Todo esto, está ahora en peligro.

ELLOS QUIEREN ARRASARLOS, y destruir para siempre todo asomo de cultura ilustrada y científica y de pensamiento crítico. Como hicieron sus padres y abuelos, los franquistas, los estalinistas, los nazis, los racistas y autoritarios de todo tipo. Pero ahora a mucho mayor escala y de forma más destructiva, por su uso de la tecnología más avanzada.

Por eso vamos a intentar comprender por qué este bárbaro, TRUMP, y su cómplice MUSK, están tratando de destruir todo lo que huela a saber, pensamiento y ciencia y arte libres...

MARCH 18, 2025
Why Trump is Waging War on Academia
DAVID SCHULTZ

There are a multitude of reasons why Donald Trump and his supporters are waging war against colleges and universities.  But among the reasons is a simple one–historically conservative reactionary regimes hate intellectuals.

Trump and his supporters hate higher education for obvious reasons. Those with college degrees are not his supporters and voted against him in 2024.    Colleges are full of students and professors who vote for Democrats and they have visibly protested  against his policies or  embraced issues such as opposition to Israel’s war against the Palestinians,  support for transgender rights, or DEI in general.  One could argue that Trump’s populism is rooted in what historian Richard Hofstadter labeled “anti-intellectualism” in American life.  Americans generally hate smart people, labeling them as Alabama Governor did as “pointy-headed  intellectuals,” or  in the words of Vice-President Spiro Agnew who lumped them together with the media to call them “An effete core of impudent snobs.”

But there is something here and it is the traditional hatred of intellectuals by  reactionary regimes.  There is a story regarding the trial of Italian Marxist  intellectual  Antonio Gramsci who was part of the opposition party in the parliament to Benito Mussolini and the fascists.  Gramsci was  arrested and at his trial  the prosecution declared: “For twenty years we must stop this brain from functioning.”  Gramsci’s crime was providing the intellectual ideas to challenge the ruling power.  Despite his punishment. His Prison Notebooks were secretly written and disseminated.

Gramsci’s thesis was that the battle against fascism was in part an ideological fight for the hearts and minds of the people.  Battles for power may take place in parliament or in the streets but they are also fought in mass pop culture  as well as in universities and colleges to influence and counter  the propaganda of the ruling class and government.  Controlling intellectuals and what they think and say is part of how the fascists, the nazis, and other authoritarian and reactionary regimes maintain power.

Education and learning are about critical thinking.  It is about subjecting power and dogma to truth.  It is about questioning, challenging, and imagining alternative  realities or unmasking facades.  It  is as philosopher Immanuel Kant declared:  “Dare to Know.”  College is where one learns to reject authority for the sake of authority, to ask “Why not?” in response to “Why?”  It is to reject what is accepted as a matter of fact and suggest that what is traditionally accepted as truth may not be so.  If done right, a liberal arts education is inherently subversive and in the spirit of John Dewey, that task is not to produce the next generation  of  docile uneducated workers, but instead to foster the next generation of democratic citizens.  By its very nature, higher education should produce the antithesis of political passivity and blind obedience.

This is why every  authoritarian  regime seeks to control what people think.  It does that in its  school curriculum and via book bans.  But it also does that in terms of who is hired to teach and what they teach.  It is a battle over indoctrination.  Universities and intellectuals, for Gramsci, lead the charge to counter this battle for hearts and minds.  It should come as no surprise why Trump and many Republicans before him have hated higher education.  Arguing that there are more than two sexes, that gender roles are socially constructed, that perhaps capitalism exploits workers or that  the rich do  not deserve their fortunes, is not what  they want to hear.  Education is not to serve the interests of democracy, self-discovery, or personal enrichment, it is to teach subservience to the status quo.

Trump’s efforts to eliminate the Department of Education and crackdown on higher education may be intensely personal and vindictive.  But it is also part of a predictable agenda to control and eliminate the intellectual seeds of opposition.

David Schultz is a professor of political science at Hamline University. He is the author of Presidential Swing States:  Why Only Ten Matter.
https://www.counterpunch.org/2025/03/18/why-trump-is-waging-war-on-academia/

____________


Traducción (muy, muy imperfecta, contiene graves errores, que el lector descubrirá en seguida si compara a ambos textos) del chatbot chino DEEPSEEK (https://chat.deepseek.com/):

**18 DE MARZO DE 2025**
**Por qué Trump está librando una guerra contra la academia**  
**DAVID SCHULTZ**

Hay múltiples razones por las que Donald Trump y sus seguidores están librando una guerra contra los colegios y universidades. Pero entre estas razones hay una simple: históricamente, los regímenes reaccionarios y conservadores odian a los intelectuales.

Trump y sus seguidores odian la educación superior por razones obvias. Aquellos con títulos universitarios no son sus seguidores y votaron en contra de él en 2024. Los colegios y universidades están llenos de estudiantes y profesores que votan por los demócratas y que han protestado visiblemente contra sus políticas o han abrazado causas como la oposición a la guerra de Israel contra los palestinos, el apoyo a los derechos de las personas transgénero o la diversidad, equidad e inclusión (DEI) en general. Se podría argumentar que el populismo de Trump está arraigado en lo que el historiador Richard Hofstadter denominó "anti-intelectualismo" en la vida estadounidense. Los estadounidenses, en general, odian a las personas inteligentes, etiquetándolas como lo hizo el gobernador de Alabama como "intelectuales cabezas de huevo", o en palabras del vicepresidente Spiro Agnew, quien los agrupó con los medios de comunicación para llamarlos "un núcleo efímero [el texto original dice aferminados...] de snobs insolentes".

Pero hay algo más aquí, y es el odio tradicional de los regímenes reaccionarios hacia los intelectuales. Existe una historia sobre el juicio del intelectual marxista italiano Antonio Gramsci, quien formaba parte del partido de oposición en el parlamento contra Benito Mussolini y los fascistas. Gramsci fue arrestado, y en su juicio, la acusación declaró: "Durante veinte años debemos evitar que este cerebro funcione". El crimen de Gramsci fue proporcionar las ideas intelectuales para desafiar al poder gobernante. A pesar de su castigo, sus *Cuadernos de la cárcel* fueron escritos y difundidos en secreto.

La tesis de Gramsci era que la lucha contra el fascismo era, en parte, una batalla ideológica por los corazones y las mentes de las personas. Las batallas por el poder pueden tener lugar en el parlamento o en las calles, pero también se libran en la cultura popular masiva, así como en las universidades y colegios, para influir y contrarrestar la propaganda de la clase dominante y el gobierno. Controlar a los intelectuales y lo que piensan y dicen es parte de cómo los fascistas, los nazis y otros regímenes autoritarios y reaccionarios mantienen el poder.

La educación y el aprendizaje se tratan de pensamiento crítico. Se trata de someter el poder y el dogma a la verdad. Se trata de cuestionar, desafiar e imaginar realidades alternativas o desenmascarar fachadas. Es, como declaró el filósofo Immanuel Kant: "Atrévete a saber". La universidad es donde uno aprende a rechazar la autoridad por el simple hecho de ser autoridad, a preguntar "¿Por qué no?" en respuesta a "¿Por qué?". Es rechazar lo que se acepta como un hecho y sugerir que lo que tradicionalmente se acepta como verdad puede no serlo. Si se hace bien, una educación en artes liberales es inherentemente subversiva y, en el espíritu de John Dewey, su tarea no es producir la próxima generación de trabajadores dóciles y sin educación, sino fomentar la próxima generación de ciudadanos democráticos. Por su propia naturaleza, la educación superior debería producir lo contrario de la pasividad política y la obediencia ciega.

Es por eso que todos los regímenes autoritarios buscan controlar lo que la gente piensa. Lo hacen en su currículo escolar y mediante la prohibición de libros. Pero también lo hacen en términos de quién es contratado para enseñar y qué enseñan. Es una batalla por la indoctrinación. Las universidades y los intelectuales, para Gramsci, lideran la carga para contrarrestar esta batalla por los corazones y las mentes. No debería sorprender por qué Trump y muchos republicanos antes que él han odiado la educación superior. Argumentar que hay más de dos sexos, que los roles de género son construcciones sociales, que quizás el capitalismo explota a los trabajadores o que los ricos no merecen sus fortunas no es lo que quieren escuchar. La educación no está para servir a los intereses de la democracia, el autodescubrimiento o el enriquecimiento personal, sino para enseñar la sumisión al statu quo.

Los esfuerzos de Trump por eliminar el Departamento de Educación y reprimir la educación superior pueden ser intensamente personales y vindicativos. Pero también son parte de una agenda predecible para controlar y eliminar las semillas intelectuales de la oposición.

David Schultz es profesor de ciencias políticas en la Universidad Hamline. Es autor de *Presidential Swing States: Why Only Ten Matter*.


La historia de la humanidad no se repite. Simplemente se producen procesos similares a los del pasado, en algunos aspectos, porque las fuerzas sociales en lucha intentan conseguir objetivos similares. El de estos robots del nuevo autoritarismo (en los USA, en los partidos fascistas europeos, en Rusia o China...) es imponer su dominio totalitario, aplastando para siempre nuestra conciencia y nuestra capacidad de pensar y sobre todo de expresarnos, de comunicarnos. Y especialmente de investigar la realidad y proponer nuestros propios análisis. Ese poder es el que quieren quitarnos, y si pueden, para siempre.