Hello everyone,
Last class we watched a video on the people of Le Chambon-sur-Lignon, a town in the south of France where approximately 5,000 Jews were hidden from the Nazis. The people of Le Chambon continued helping these people and displayed open resistance to the Nazis and Vichy France (France's govenrment when cooperating with the Nazis) even when Nazi soldiers were present. In this article and in the video, the inhabitants of Le Chambon were quoted as saying the following: "things had to be done and we happened to be there to do them. It was the most natural thing in the world to help these people." We also talked some in class about how group identity can be used to be upstanders as well as perpetrators. To what extent do you think the people of Le Chambon's group identity as Protestants and descendents of persecuted people (the Huguenots)influenced their decision to help as many people as they did?
It was also mentioned in class/in the movie that Nazi soldiers often looked the other way, even knowing that Jews were being hidden, because they were surrounded by upstanders choosing to be benevolent. Do you think that it is easier to be influenced toward helping others or toward harming others? Does the ease with which one can be influenced to change their actions toward being an upstander, bystander or perpetrator depend on other factors, such as the size of the group, the conviction of group members, etc? If this ease does change, to what extent should repsonsibility for actions taken during a genocide be altered to fit these changes, both legally and morally speaking?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I think there is a pretty big link between the fact the the people of Le Chambon descended from a persecuted people and their willingness to help. Because their families had suffered for so many years and because they now found a confortable home in this town, they probably saw that they could help the Jews who were in a similar situatioin.
Also, I think it is similarly easy to be influenced to do good as to do evil. Just as we saw the Nazi youth and how they followed to be part of a group, the people of Le Chambon became upstanders because slowly thats what the people around them were doing. This said, I don't think that should take away the responsibility of people to stand up on their own. Just because a whole group is doing evil, doesn't make it acceptable.
I do not think there is that much of a difference between being influenced to do something good and being influenced to do something bad. I think as long as one wants to be a part of a larger group cause, one will join in its actions and beliefs whether or not it involves being a perpetrator or a upstander. However, at the same time, it seems like there are less instances of positive peer pressure, or they are at least not publicized.
Do you think it's harder to find a large group gathered around a "good cause" or a large groups gathered around hatred? Why?
Melanie, I don’t agree that people are as likely to join a group promoting hatred as a group promoting good. While people like to conform to societal norms because it makes them feel comfortable, people are more likely to join a group gathered around a good cause. In the case of the Nazi youth, many joined this “bad” group because if they didn’t, there would be consequences. This group was more forced and before joining people didn’t really know all of the Nazi philosophy and what was going to be taught to them. Becoming a Nazi youth was the natural thing to do.
In terms of peer pressure, I personally never hear this word used in a positive context. As a high school student, I hear more about how peer pressure is bad and something that an individual shouldn’t succumb to. It’s nice to hear that peer pressure can also be used to promote something good, just like in the case of Le Chambon.
In response to Melanie’s question, I think that it’s easier to find large group supporting a good cause. At least in my life, I hear more about large groups trying to cure something bad. However, I think that the answer to this question also depends on an individual’s perspective. For example, there are many groups that support an end to the war in Iraq; some people might see this group as promoting a good cause, while others might see this a bad cause, or a lack of patriotism.
I agree with Aileen that it is more likely to succumb to group pressure to do something "good" rather than "bad". The one qualm I have about this idea is that different cultures define "good" and "bad" in fairly distinct ways.
In the holocaust, for example, members of the Nazi party felt to some extent that they were doing "good." In their eyes they had been taught that this was meant to protect germany. This is in no way justifying their actions, but simply raising the difference between good and bad.
Can bad actions be put in a good light and therefore lead to just as much conformity? Aren't all "bad" actions somehow put into a good light and that is why people conform to them in the first place?
To answer Tal's question, that was kind of what I meant by my response. I wasn't saying that people would PREFER to join a bad cause, I was just saying that individuals tend to conform and are willing to join organizations whether or not we consider them morally wrong. Thus, people are likely to join both types of causes as long as they feel a need to conform, and as Tal mentioned in one of her questions, an added plus is if they also may feel that the cause is a just one.
Post a Comment