Today in class we had Mr. Kamm come speak to H block about his work with the Dui Hua Foundation, of which he is the founder. Very simply put, the purpose of this non-governmental organisation (NGO) is to find names of political prisoners in China in open sources (newspapers, public government documents, government reports, etc.) and request that they be released. In the best cases, the prisoner is released, at the very least they are usually given better treatment. So far they have found 5,000 names and helped around 500 prisoners lessen their prison time. At first glance these numbers seem large, and they are, but compared to the huge numbers of political prisoners in China, they barely scratch the surface. So then the question comes up, is it worth it? Dui Hua isn't stopping China from arresting people, it is only helping individuals whose names it finds.
There is a Jewish quote (variations of which appear in many other religions) that Mr. Kamm mentioned in support of his work: "If you save one life, you save the world entire."
Some questions to connect this back to our genocide theme:
1) Do you agree with this quote?
2) Should one focus on saving individuals at the risk of a genocide continuing indefinitely or on stopping a genocide at the risk of individuals perishing in the meantime? While neither option is a 'good' one, is there a lesser evil to the two?
11 comments:
the following story is one that i found on the back of a goldfish bag (i'm paraphrasing it)... i thought it was relevant to the quote jordan wrote.
there was a little girl who was walking on the beach. she noticed that, on the rocks, there were thousands of stranded starfish. knowing that starfish cannot survive on land, she decided to try and save them. slowly, she peeled one off and threw it back into the ocean. she continued to do this, tirelessly picking up starfish and throwing them back into the sea.
then, a man approached her. he told her that there was no way she could save all of the starfish and that her efforts were in vain. he basically said her work was useless. she picked up a starfish and threw it into the sea. "well, i made a difference to that one." because of the little girl's efforts, lots of people came down to help throw starfish back in to the sea.
i totally agree with the quote. maybe our work to stop genocide may be useless, but i think that if we save one life, we've done something great.
i'm not so sure about the second question... (that one's a hard one.) perhaps it depends on who you are... if you're a person who has enough power to stop the genocide completely (such as a leader of a powerful nation) then i think it would be better to focus your efforts on stopping the genocide.
but if you're a regular person, then i think saving individuals is the way to go. all of those people who helped jews to hide from the nazis and escape made a big difference in the lives of the few they helped. i think that's something incredible right there. :)
-coe
While I'm going to leave the second question for someone braver, I did want to briefly comment on coe's anecdote that piggybacked on jordan's quote. I think what is the most important thing to note about the goldfish story is that, as we delve deeper in the evils of group dynamics, we shouldn't lose sight of the immense potential for good that groups can create. Speaking for myself, I've lost some of my previously held hope in humanity learning about the horrors of genocide, but I still think there is something to be said for the infectious growth for good that stems from a single individual's small step in the right direction.
call me a romantic...
Danielle, I agree with what you're saying...we can't generalize either way, saying that group dynamics are evil or are good; it depends on the group, its purpose, and the people leading it. I'm not in H Block but it seems as though the Dui Hua Foundation is an instance in which a group of people gathered together for a common purpose of heloping others, which is very inspiring.
In terms of that second question, I think that it is difficult to answer because before either an organization that saves individuals or stops genocide can be started, nobody knows which one will be more effective. An organization that works toward stopping a genocide, if it was successful, would probably save several lives at one time, as opposed to an organization helping individuals which would save less lives at a time, but over more time, and would be more likely to succeed in its individual goals. I think that all one can do to choose a type of organization is to make an educated guess as to what they think will make the most impact on the genocide. This sounds general and cliched, but I think that it's a judgment that everyone attempting to help end genocide has to make at some point.
I think that that quote and therefore the question is very relative. Saving an individual's life is the same thing as saving the world for that person... yet when you look at the big picture, unless under certain circumstances, the impact of one person has little to no effect on the others.
yet I can see the side that saving one person can create hope among those still suffering and perhaps can create strength in those who have little left. what do y'all think?
I love the starfish story because not only do I completely agree with it, but it brings back memories from the second semester of sophomore history where we discussed our own roles in history and whether or not we can make a difference. I think that for individuals with less power, it is perfectly reasonable to concentrate on changing one person's world at a time.
I kind of feel like the second question is a bit of a false dilemma. I don't think everyone has to concentrate their efforts into one or the other. I think people who have the power to "stop genocide" should attempt to do so, and people who can save individuals should attempt to do so. I think the only evil thing to do is to not do anything at all.
In response to Melanie, on an individual level we do have the choice between 'stopping' a genocide or saving individual lives, depending on which organizations we choose to donate to. If everyone concentrated their money and efforts on one type (saving lives or stopping genocide) that one type would be able to accomplish a lot. But there isn't one type, and in that, people have a choice. Is this better? Would more get done if everyone donated to one type (or even one organization) instead of spreading out resources among many?
In a less philosophical interpretation of the quote, if someone is able to legislate against genocide efectivyly, there is a significant hope that many other victims of genocide will see the same justice and thus be saved.
In response to Jordan's second (excellent) question, I think that the course that someone chooses to take is less important than the fact that they are taking a stand against genocide. Also, their decision depends of what they have the ability to do. An ex-pat who founded a NGO dedicated to listing the names of forgotten prisioners in China, for example, has the ability to help individuals in the genocide. Whereas a representative in Congress has the ability to ratify important international trade and policy bills that are critical in helping end genocide itself.
First of all i very much agree with the quote and with the story of the starfish. I think that both are relevant in the efforts to stop such horrific and daunting events such as genocide. In response to the questions that Jordan posed above, I cannot say that one is "better" or more effective than the other because I think that the line that divides them is hard to define. As much as this apparent choice is present when one chooses to donate to a cause such as genocide, I think that the more important choice lies in making the decision to donate, because regardless of ones motive (saving lives or stopping genocide) there is good being done, just as in the case of the starfish. As I have read multiple times in book "What is the What" by Dave Eggers, without donations in any shape or form there would be much less hope in any lives being saved.
Good questions Jordan. Good answers class. I'm going to try and another dimension to this powerful debate.
I strongly believe in the Jewish saying, but then think whether this is my realistic side or my idealistic side answering. I still don't know. But I do know that trying to answer this question brings up a important theme of numbers. Does a genocide have to fit a quota of deaths? Are many deaths worse than one death? These and other questions remind me of the saying: an eye for an eye. This has many interpretations and connetions to modern porblems. One of them being the death penalty. If a person kills another, can that person be killed? Is there (and this might sound barbaric and too simplistic) a balance when talking about life and death?
Sorry to try and answer questions with more questions, but such is the nature of these problems.
To think of deaths in terms of numbers, figure, to me seems inhumane. One life should be as important as many lives. I don't feel that a hierarchy of death can be expressed in a positive light.
Post a Comment