> If you have been reading, then you'll note that, to use the case of
> desegregation in the South to test my point, the question in Zinn's
> article wouldn't refer to whether or not humans adjust their behavior
> to pre-existing changes in political, legal or economic conditions.
> Of course they do. But that's not the issue Zinn was addressing.
> Zinn was referring instead, to use that case, to the change of minds
> that *predated* and *accompanied* the political activism that
> redounded in changes in legislation, etc.
>
> In other words, Zinn was referring to the change in minds that *led*
> the changes, not to the change in minds that *trailed* the changes. I
> admit that I'm not an expert in the history of the U.S. But I'd bet
> 100 to 1 that those changes in legislation didn't happen accidentally,
> they didn't fall from the sky. There were people with certain
> mindsets advocating for those changes in the law, doing the political
> footwork to get them passed and enforced. Our minds can trail social
> change. But our minds can (and should, increasingly) also lead social
> change.
I read and understand your point; I just fundamentally disagree. Political activism in the South did not occur because anyone's mind was changed; it occurred because like-minded people got together and developed effective political strategies. I do agree that we should mindfully develop effective political strategies to foment social change. However, this has little to do with changing individual attitudes.
Miles