Saturday, August 18, 2007

Welcome To Genocide and Human Behavior


Genocide and Human Behavior:
Facing History and Ourselves


When confronted with the horror of genocide, a natural response for many is the question, “ How are such events possible?” This course is an attempt to investigate the hows and whys of genocide and human behavior in the 20th century. At it’s core, the course is a study in human behavior and interpretations and understandings of “human nature”, group membership, and obligation. Issues of personal and group identity and obligation are critical to understanding both the potential causes and subsequent responses to genocide.

Despite international promises of “never again”, genocide has been a consistent fixture in modern world history. The great philosopher Isaiah Berlin called the 20th century, “The most terrible century in Western history.” This course will focus on historical and modern case studies of genocide. There is a certain power that arises in us from knowing something well. It is not possible in a semester long course to “do it all”. Thus, this course values depth over breadth.

The particular historical case studies that we will in the course include:
• Armenian genocide
• Definitions of Genocide: The case of R. Lempkin
• Eugenics in America and the changing notion of race
• Weimar Republic- Learning from the Fragility of Democracy
• The Rise of the Nazi’s
• Genocide under Nazi Occupation
• Post War Genocide: Never Again? (Cambodia, Rwanda, Sudan)

Students will explore the ways that conformity, obedience, opportunism, and terror affect individual and group responses during times of genocide. The essential questions of study for this course include: What factors influence the choices of perpetrators, rescuers, resisters, and bystanders in times of genocide or collective violence? What does resistance mean during a time of genocide—a time of diminished choices?

Through the study of the history of modern genocide, we will explore the intersection of judgment, memory, and legacy. Students will wrestle with questions of justice and judgment including: Who should decide guilt and responsibility for crimes against humanity? How can and should individuals and nations acknowledge histories of collective violence and genocide? What are the consequences of refusing to confront the past?





Learning Goals and Objectives:

In addition to the course content and essential questions, students will further develop and strengthen their habits of mind and historical thinking. In particular, students will be asked to:

• Looking for evidence- The habit of asking, “How do we know what we claim to know?”
• Point of view- The habit of asking, “Who is speaking? What perspective does this person have?”
• Connections and pattern- The habit of asking, “What are the causes? What are the effects? Where are the similarities between historical events and modern events and ways of thinking?”
• Supposition- The habit of asking, “How might things have turned out differently?”
• Determining importance- This is the habit of asking, “Who cares?”


Content goals:

By the end of the semester, students should be able to:

• Articulate and understand the ways in which personal and group identity and obligation impact the causes of and responses to genocide
• Recognize and analyze the positions of bystander, perpetrator, and resister in times of genocide
• Read, review, and teach a historical text on the topic of genocide
• Grapple with the issues of judgment and memory. Understand the role of memorials and museums in preserving legacies of genocide.
• Identify the origins of and the legal distinction for the word “genocide”
• Understand the Weimar Republic in Germany and how it can serve as a useful point of comparison for periods of instability leading to genocide elsewhere.
• Identity and analyze the “tools” and organizations for preventing genocide or bringing justice to perpetrators (UN, ICC, etc)
• Recognize the role that the media, government propaganda, and the arts have played in the promotion, cessation, and prevention of genocides.
• Closely monitor and critique current world events that share themes with those of the course (in particular the events of Sudan and the Congo)

15 comments:

Coe said...

hey ms. finn. just checking to see if this works. :)

not sure how to put pics up yet, but will get to that... hopefully.

-coe

Coe said...

not sure if i should post this here... let me know if its in the wrong place.

anyway, i know it's a bit early for me to post for my week, but i was reading the homework on religion and came up with a relative current(ish)event...

Last Christmas, there were certain areas in California that banned Christmas from stores, and Christmas trees had to be called "Holiday Trees." However, other religious symbols (such as the Menorah for Chanukah) were untouched.

The same goes for the Easter Bunny just this past Easter. Some areas wanted the name to be changed from "Easter Bunny" to "Spring Bunny." Why is it that Christian symbols are targeted?

i can't find a link to any actual articles, but i remember seeing this controversial subject on TV. i'll post a link if i find it. let me know what you all think! :)

-coe

Coe said...

wow, never mind... the name actually WAS changed from the "Easter Bunny" to the "Spring Bunny." here's the link to the article if any of you are interested...

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/03/02/BAGHQOE71I1.DTL

hopefully it works... ^_^;;

-coe

Tal said...

I know that last year there was also the issue about whether stores should post signs saying "Merry Christmas" or whether they need to be changed to read "Happy Holidays." I hadn't heard about the "Holiday Trees." But I know that "hanukkah bushes" do exist.
Does the exact name you give something really matter that much if it serves the same purpose?

also... hopefully this'll work... click here to go to the article.

Coe said...

the link doesn't work... but how do you make the link text anyway? (geez, i'm so not tech savvy)

that is a good point... "holiday trees" and "Christmas trees" are the same thing. what i was really asking was... why did they want to take out the "Christmas" part of it? they didn't take out any other religious indicators... (if that makes sense)

-coe

Aileen said...

Hey it's Aileen. I'm just seeing if my account works :)

And in response to this discussion:
Who is "they"? are these people religious? if so, what religion do they practice? maybe they do not want christianity (which is already dominant) to spread.

Melanie said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Melanie said...

To answer Aileen, I think that "they" are people who are worried about matters of tolerance and about making others feel left out and unrepresented. "They" want to make sure that holidays like Christmas and Easter can be celebrated by all without religious associations. However, I sense a contradiction with this reasoning because while attempting to include those who are non-religious, this name-chaning might perhaps alienate the religious and reduce the meaning of those holidays for them.
This, I think, poses the question of, is it possible to be tolerant of everyone and is it possible for everyone to be included? If not, then how is it decided who is excluded?

Michael Bannett said...

Just testing to see if this works.

I also found a semi-recent article (8/2/07) giving a brief account and update on the situation in Darfur. The author of the article has an optimistic outlook on the situation. Here's the link:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/08/02/EDC3RB8A51.DTL&hw=genocide&sn=012&sc=153

-Michael

Melissa said...

Hi! How can we make it so we are all posting on the blog and not as comments?

well anyways over the summer Amnesty launched this new site, Eyes on Darfur. It's really helpful because it's informative, and there's satellite images and lots of pictures so it helps to see what Sudan is actually like and to see some real concrete evidence.

eyesondarfur.org

If you go to "satellite evidence" and then click on a specific area/village,you can click the before and after shots and see how the landscape and structures have changed. It's really incredible to see the real damage like this.

Coe said...

to respond to melanie's post...

i agree - how is it decided who is excluded? to take out the words associated with christianity may seem like tolerance at first, but to christians, it certainly isn't.

i think there's a way to include everyone by incorporating all of the different religions. i mean, instead of changing the name from "christmas tree" to "holiday tree," we could include a "chanukah bush." (like tal mentioned) almost all of the religions have their own symbol(s) for the holidays, and if they could all be accepted equally, that would be a form of tolerance and acceptance. there has to be some sort of happy medium in there somewhere...

i believe (though i'm not sure) that the reason the name change occured was because there were people who were offended by the word "christmas." then i ask the question... if "christmas" is offending, why isn't "chanukah" (or, for that matter, other words like "kwanza") offending?

-coe

ps: @ michael and melissa: thankies for the links! :)

Aaron Huang said...

It's interesting to see how you guys thought of people's growing tolerance towards Christian symbols.

For me, I thought of tolerance in the context of acceptance. Some people are compelled to change their personality in order to feel accepted by others. The fact is, peer pressure can bring about a negative impact towards individuality. Negative peer pressure creates the risk of changing our views and opinions. People's unwillingness to be more tolerant towards other's opinions refutes what our very own democratic government stands for.

Here's a question that I just thought up:
Is the ability to accept people's views (tolerance) something you are born with or something you learn over time?

-Aaron

Aaron Huang said...

I found an interesting picture. Here's the link:

http://submoon.freeshell.org/pix/valium/aadc/img2.png

-Aaron

Leo W.C. said...

If this ban is in regards to privately owned businesses, I don't think that the government has a right to ban the use of the word Christmas. I also think in today's society, Christmas has become less of a religious celebration for ma and more of an opportunity to give and receive gifts. On the other, I'm sure there are many people of non-Christian faith who see "Merry Christmas" on store fronts and wonder why they don't also have something celebrating the other holidays. I think too much of religion is base on the we vs. them idea which ensures that an environment of tolerance will be nearly unattainable.

Can there be a world where there are multiple religions but no conflicts?

Coe said...

I'm going to make a new post that will focus on the topic of our week... (8/30 - 9/5 or something)

So... comment more on that one!

-coe

and thankies to everyone who has discussed the topic and added info! :)