Donne della Costituente – The Woman of the Constituent or Constitutional Assembly

  
A memorial plaque in Parco Sant'Agostino Bergamo commemorating the women of the Constitutional Assembly. And, a tree dedicated to Adele Bei, one of the members.

On June 2, 1946, Italians were called upon to choose between the Monarchy and the Republic and to elect their representatives to the Constituent Assembly. There were 21 women elected, out of a total of 556 deputies. None were from Bergamo.

To remember this event, 21 trees in Parco Sant’Agostino in Bergamo were named after the 21 women elected to the Constituent Assembly on 2 June 1946. Also, an informational plaque was placed at the entrances to the park. The recognition and gesture requested by the Women's Council on the 75th anniversary of the Constitution of the Italian Republic.

A word about the phrase donne costituente is read as “woman of the constituent assembly”. Some terminology:

• costituente – founding, constituent (adj); member (nm). Usually used to refer to those who worked on creating the constitution, as in the assemblea costituente (or constituent assembly in English).
• costituire – to establish or found; to constitute. Note this is not costruire – to build.
• costituzione – constitution, among other meanings. 

A note about the design. There are two colored ribbons weaving through the images, red and green. The ribbons seem to connect some of the women but not all. As far as we can tell, the red ribbon represents ‘approximately’ the Italian Communist Party and the green ribbon the Christian Democracy Party. Both parties no longer exist but were powerful forces at the time of the referendum on the monarchy. Perhaps a better way to think about it is that more than associating people, the ribbons are meant to call out (and was pointed out in the city hall web site): that they all were opposed to fascism.

• Italian: “Molto diverse tra loro per età, cultura, professione, provengono tutte da precedenti esperienze di impegno sociale e politico, caratterizzato dall'opposizione al fascismo; in molti casi sono state attive nella Resistenza.”
• English: Very different from each other in age, culture, profession, they all come from previous experiences of social and political commitment, characterized by opposition to fascism; in many cases they were active in the Resistance.

The 21 women are:

Adele Bei (Cantiano, 4 maggio 1904 - Roma, 15 ottobre 1976)
Bianca Bianchi (Vicchio di Mugello, 31 luglio 1914 - 9 luglio 2000)
Laura Bianchini (Castenedolo, 23 agosto 1903- Roma il 27 settembre 1983)
Elisabetta Conci (Trento, 23 marzo 1895 - Mollaro in Valle di Non, 1 novembre 1965)
Filomena Delli Castelli (Cittä Sant'Angelo, 28 settembre 1916 - 22 dicembre 2010)
Maria De Unterrichter (Ossana (Tn), 20 agosto 1902 - 27 dicembre 1975)
Maria Federici nata Anna Maria Agamben (Aquila, 19 settembre 1899 - 28 luglio 1984)

Nadia Gallico Spano (Tunisi, 2 giugno 1916 - Roma, 19 gennaio 2006)
Angela Gotelli (Albareto, 28 febbraio 1905 - 21 novembre 1996)
Angela Guidi (Roma 31 Ottobre 1896 - 11 lugiio 1991)
Nilde lotti (Reggio Emilia, 10 Aprile 1920 - Roma, 4 Dicembre 1999)
Teresa Mattei (Genova, 1 Febbraio 1921 - Usigliano, 12 Marzo 2013)
Lina Merlin (Pozzonovo, 15 Ottobre 1887 - Padova, 16 Agosto 1979)
Angiola Minella (Torino, 3 Febbraio 1920 - Genova, 12 Marzo 1988)

Rita Montagnana (Torino, 6 gennaio 1895 — Roma, 18 luglio 1979)
Maria Nicotra (Catania, 6 luglio 1913 — Padova, 14 luglio 2007)
Teresa Noce (Torino, 29 luglio 1900 — Bologna, 22 gennaio 1980)
Ottavia Penna (Caltagirone, 12 aprile 1907 — Caltagirone, 2 dicembre 1986)
Elettra Pollastrini (Rieti, 15 luglio 1908 - Rieti, 2 febbraio 1990)
Maria Maddalena Rossi (Codevilla, 29 settembre 1906 — Milano, 19 settembre 1995)
Vittoria Titomanlio (Barletta, 22 aprile 1899 — Napoli, 28 dicembre 1988)


   

A memorial plaque in Parco Sant'Agostino Bergamo commemorating the women of the Constitutional Assembly. And, a tree dedicated to Teresa Mattei, one of the members.

Progress: Myth, History, and Origin

Recently we read three books on the subject of progress that are lumped together in one idea stew – for better or worse - in the Travelmarx mind. Two of the books, The World As It Is: Dispatches on the Myth of Human Progress and A Short History of Progress deal with the notion of progress directly. The third book, The Grand Design, deals with progress of our cosmological knowledge.

The World As It Is: Dispatches on the Myth of Human Progress (2010) by journalist, author, and war correspondent Chris Hedges is perhaps the most depressing read of the three. Yes we love Hedges’ insightful analysis and comments and call to action (really revolt), but it’s hard to escape psychologically unbruised from his writing and he does have a habit of invoking (at least in our minds) Marvin the Paranoid Android and his lament about a “… terrible pain in all the diodes down my left side”. That said, this collection of dispatches is essential reading if you think everything is hunky dory and humanity is just humming along swimmingly. Take this opening sentence from the “Calling All Future Eaters” dispatch: “The human species during its brief time on Earth has exhibited a remarkable capacity to kill itself off.” The state of progress: it’s a myth.

A Short History of Progress (2004) by Ronald Wright is a book that deals with where we’ve come from, where we are, and were we are going. Wright starts out by invoking Paul Gauguin (1848-1903) and his 1897 painting titled “D’où Venons Nous? Que Sommes Nous? Où Allons Nous?” or “Where Do We Come From? What are We? Where are We Going?” Gauguin, a French artist, went to Tahiti and the South Seas to escape “everything that is artificial, conventional, customary.” [Noa Noa – Paul Gauguin, 1919 by Nicholas Brown] In A Short History of Progress, Wright is interested in shining light on the last question: “Where are we going?” by first answering the other two questions. The state of progress: in jeopardy if we don’t seriously change, “…Homo sapiens has the information to know itself for what it is: an Ice Age hunter only half-evolved towards intelligence; clever but seldom wise.”

The Grand Design (2010) by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow is a fairly accessible account of the design of the universe and how it came to be. The progress aspect here is our understanding of the universe’s beginning and end, or shall we say universes’. The first good thing we’ll say about the book is that, refreshingly, there isn’t subtitle on this book. The second good thing is that there are some simple explanations of concepts like model dependent reality or the double –slit experiment that in case you hadn’t seen explanations of them before might be worth it. But, other than that, this book reads like an extended essay that wasn’t exactly finished and overall feels disappointing. And, at times the writing is corny.

The Grand Design sets out to answer three questions. “Why is there something rather than nothing? Why do we exist? Why this particular set of laws and not some other?” In the process, the book gives a quick review of the state of progress in cosmology over the last few hundred years. The state of progress: according to the authors, we do not need to invoke divine beings to answer these questions.

Of interest to those watching the progress of media technology, the Grand Design was the first book read entirely digital and all of these were purchased and read on with the Kindle application on iPad. The process for making notes and using the notes is different in this medium. You make a note or highlight in the Kindle application and then you go the Amazon Kindle site and retrieve your notes. Cloud reading. We are still getting the hang of it so you could say that there is a lot more progress to be made.

Let's Evolve: Change We Can Believe In

Every politician promises change but it never seems to arrive. Well, there is change you can believe in: the change brought about by the process of natural selection, the key mechanism of evolution. The image is courtesy of Mike Rosulek. His take on the iconographic Obama poster has several versions all around the theme of evolution. Profits from use of the images benefit the National Center for Science Education (NSCE) - a great organization whose mission is to keep evolution a part of science education.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

It remains to be seen how this past Thursday’s Supreme Court ruling, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, on campaign financing will play out. However, we have a bad feeling about this nugget of conservative judicial activism that basically opens the floodgates of spending from corporations and unions in elections. Apparently, existing safeguards on spending by corporations was a restriction of their free speech. Hmm. In that light, it is interesting reading through Justice Steven’s dissenting opinion, in particular, what he had to say about corporations (page 88 of ruling):

“In the context of election to public office, the distinction between corporate and human speakers is significant. Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it. They cannot vote or run for office. Because they may be managed and controlled by nonresidents, their interests may conflict in fundamental respects with the interests of eligible voters.”

The case was brought before the court because of the nonprofit corporation Citizens United’s attempt to show Hillary the Movie in violation of the McCain-Feingold Act (which is now essentially null).

The Voting Buddy System

We filled out our absentee ballots Saturday night and Sunday morning using teamwork. It really took several hours to review all the information. There were 35 choices ranging from county charter amendments, judicial positions, regional transit issues, and local levies not to mention the biggies like president and governor. For each choice we both did research (internet) and argued different sides until we came to a conclusion where we agreed or disagreed but felt firm in our decisions. The hard choices for us in this election were Lieutenant Governor (what does this position really do?), Secretary of State, Attorney General, and Superintendent of Public Instruction. (For the latter one we called our neighbor a teacher and her first hand experience helped us decide.) For the judicial positions, this Web site was of use. For ballot measures, this site was useful if not a bit incomplete. This site had some concerncs about absentee ballots that are interesting.

The Rashomon Effect and The Election

Do you get those election emails that subtly or not-so subtly bash one candidate or party? Do you also get the person who “passes” customized email with a personalized message of “just passing these on as they come my way…” as if he or she couldn’t help but press send? Let me just say, we are not swing voters so these emails rarely speak to us. Secondly, facts compiled in these emails are rarely trustworthy, especially when it says at the bottom, “pass this along to as many people as you can!”. Thirdly, we are in our consonant bubble of belief – leave us alone!

One of the ideas we’ve tried to keep in the back of our minds this election season is that we are not that dissimilar from our fellow Americans; not as disimmilar as you would think watching the media. We keep this idea alive because otherwise communicating and reaching out would seem out of the question. (But, boy is it hard with the current cast of characters on the national stage.) Reaching out is especially important in politically split families. One family member sees a particular candidate’s potential election to the presidency as “we are going to hell in a hand basket” while another one sees it as hope. It’s the Rashomon effect applied to our views of plausible outcomes for the next four years for this country.

Swingers

Sour grapes you can say, but I’m tired of being ignored in the presidential election. Just because I don’t live in a “swing” state means I don't get my fair share of the campaigning attention I feel I deserve. Looking at the map included here (from Wikipedia) shows fairly dramatically how much attention and money is paid to swing states. The data is from the last 5 weeks of the 2004 election. The data comes from the site http://www.fairvote.org/presidential/?page=1677www.fairvote.org. On the map on the left each waving hand represents a visit from a presidential or vice-presidential candidate during the final five weeks of the election. On the map on the right, each dollar sign represents one million dollars spent on TV advertising by the campaigns during the same time period.

In per capita terms, the states receiving the most attention were Iowa, Ohio, and New Hampshire. In absolute time, the three states receiving the most attention were Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania. So there you are.

Phelps, Bigfoot, and Presidentialism

What do these three things have in common? Perhaps nothing really, but in my early-morning, crow-cawing-pierced, groggy Saturday morning mind they all united in a common theme: fascination with the “top dog” to the exclusion of everything else. I know, sour grapes in regards to Phelps and his medals, but it did not sit well with me the response and media coverage of his effort. It seemed so over-the-top to the exclusion of all other possible stories. Now a pending book. Then throw in another Bigfoot hoax. People just want to believe there is a “big guy”, a “top dog” out there waiting to be discovered. The "discovery" was complete with an official news conference put on by the two car salesmen who made the find. Psst, hey reporters, you know that Bigfoot doesn’t exist and besides (exclusion theme) we have so many other serious problems (war, poverty, etc.) to deal with? Finally, there is the vice president choice for the two presidential candidates. Does it matter? Not really according to many and it displays our endless fascination with the “top dog”. In an interesting piece called The Conquest of Presidentialism, presidentialism as defined by Vanderbilt professor Dana Nelson is: our paternalistic view that presidents are godlike saviors—and therefore democracy’s only important figures. In the same piece there is a reference to a quote by Alexis de Tocqueville (1805 – 1859), a French historian who made some astute observations about 19^th century American democracy that are still relevant today, which I’ll repeat here. The quote refers to our capability to select leaders. True or false?

“It is in vain to summon a people, which has been rendered so dependent on the central power, to choose from time to time the representatives of that power; this rare and brief exercise of their free choice, however important it may be, will not prevent them from gradually losing the faculties of thinking, feeling, and acting for themselves, and thus gradually falling below the level of humanity.” (Democracy in America, Volume 2)