Memory and Legacy for Cambodia's Khmer Rouge

An article today in the SF Chronicle (Q&A About Cambodia Today) highlighted some interesting aspects of memory and legacy in the 1970s Khmer Rouge genocide. Andrew Ross, the Chronicle writer, visited Cambodia and wrote "For those who survived, witnessed the horrors and lost entire families, I was told, forgetting is more important than remembering"

He also observed that "there are those - the majority of Cambodians in 2007 were born after the Khmer Rouge - who, I was told, neither seek to know nor even believe what they are told." He is referring both to the children of victims and of perpetrators, though in the case of the Cambodian genocide, political groups were targeted rather than racial or religious ones so it is possible that a child could have both victims and perpetrators for relatives. According to a former U.S. ambassador to Cambodia, younger Cambodians ask "'why do you impose your pain on us?' They want to move on."

In H-block we had a very interesting discussion about the role of memory in society and identity. We had two conflicting arguments: one that focused on memory's positive role in preserving culture, establishing identity, and preventing, to some extent, horrible events such as genocide from being repeated. The other side focused more on the negative aspects: racism, prejudices, and negative classification and grouping.

My questions are:
1) Is memory a good thing? Does it help us survive and grant meaning to our lives, or does it leave us living in the past and prevent us from moving forward? What is the point of memory?
2) Why do you think many Cambodians today emphasize forgetting over remembering?
3) Many of the victims and descendants of victims of the Holocaust that were highlighted in class films and speakers talked about the importance of remembering, even if their memories were painful. Why, according to the article, is this not the case in Cambodia?
4) Anything else? The article was so pertinent to our class that it could not go unposted.

Gacaca courts in Rwanda

Hey everyone-
I know that this class is nearing its end, and that most of us are done with our don rags, but this article was just too perfect.

In the SF Chronicle Sunday paper, there is an article about the Gacaca courts in Rwanda that have been given the task of informally bringing justice to the hundreds of thousands accused of committing acts of genocide. Established in 2001, there still remain about 50,000 to be tried under Gacaca, and the Rwandan government wants to end the Gacaca system by the end of the month. With Rwanda's extreme overpopulation of the prison system (prisoners have an average of 17 inches of living space), and judges trying from 10-15 cases per day, the system is already swamped, and to finish in one month seems ridiculous. The article also brings up questions about the purpose and effectiveness of the courts. Because they are informal, there is no standard for punishment, and defendants can be sent to prison for flimsy reasons. Additionally, many claim that judges are susceptible to authorities. But others argue that the root of the Gacaca court is what matters- that what they are working towards is reconciliation between the two parties, not just establishing responsibility.

To spark some discussion-
-Do you think that the Gacaca courts' flaws are enough to bring them to a close? Or is the idea of informal justice worth more than the potential drawbacks?
-What should be done about the crowding of the prison system? Should justice be delayed to accommodate the huge number of criminals? Should prisoners be sent abroad?

Six Million Paper Clips

I don't know if many of you know this story, but it is simply amazing. Back in 1998 the small town of Whitwell, Tennessee began a project which included the collection of six million paper clips-- each one representing each Jew that was killed during the Holocaust. Whitwell is a very homogenous town consisting of an exclusively white an Christian population. The students at Whitwell Middle School had never really been exposed to the concept of diverstity and massacre. The school principal then decided that the students needed to learn about different experiences outside their sheltered town. Once two of the teachers started teaching about the Holocaust, the students were shocked and they wanted to know more. They wanted to know what the number six million actually means.To commemorate every killed Jew during the Holocaust, the school decided to embark on a project which entailed collecting six million paper clips. These students became so dedicated to the project, but it took so long that it spanned over many years. In the end, their project became known all around the world, even internationally. They collected a total of 29 milllion paperclips from people all around the world. Their project was so inspiring that they had thousands of people sending paperclips daily. The school was able to then track down a railcar that was used in the Holocaust. Eleven milllion paperclips (6 million for the Jews, 5 million for the gypsies, homosexuas, and other victims that were targeted) now rest in the this railcar outside Whitwell Middle School. This project changed the lives of many individuals and it shows how a simple idea, like collecting 6 million paperclips, can actually be carried out. Many participants claimed that this project changed their lives.

Here are some questions I have for you:
-First, how many of you knew about this?
-Does it surprise you that such a small community could make a project like this internationally known? What does this say about the power of the individual?
-Why are homogenous communities not always taught about a diversity of issues in school? How important is location to education?
-How is this project an example of memory and legacy?
-How do you think Holocaust survivors reacted to this project? Deniers?

I saw this movie about a week ago and it really helped me understand that many communities don't teach about global events such as the Holocaust. Since this population was all white Christian, they may not have felt the need to inform their kids about events such as the Holocaust that may have no personal relevance. Here in San Francisco and as a student at Lick, I have been exposed to the many world problems. Growing up in a city and having the ability to take a class like Genocide has really changed my world perspective. I encourage everyone to see this movie because it was really moving and made me think about my role as a student studying the Holocaust.

Here is the trailer:

The Nazi Hunter

A week ago, in the class on transitional justice, Ms. Finn mentioned in passing Simon Wiesenthal (AKA the Nazi Hunter). Wiesenthal was an Austrian-Jewish architectural engineer and author. He died at the age of 96 in 2005.

After surviving the Holocaust, he dedicated his life to capturing fugitive Nazis so that they could be tried for war crimes and crimes against humanity. His goal, he said, was not vengeance but ensuring that Nazi crimes "are brought to light so the new generation knows about them, so it should not happen again."

Among his most famous captures is that of Karl Silberbauer, the Gestapo officer who arrested Anne Frank. Silberbauer's testimony discredited revisionist claims that The Diary of Anne Frank was a forgery.

Wiesenthal claims to have been instrumental in the capture of Adolf Eichmann, however, the Israeli Mossad (who actually captured Eichmann) say that Wiesenthal was not. Former Mossad chief Iser Harel said that Wiesenthal, "not only 'had no role whatsoever' in Eichmann's apprehension, but in fact had endangered the entire Eichmann operation and aborted the planned capture of Auschwitz doctor Josef Mengele."

Wiesenthal was certainly an upstander. Bringing perpetrators to justice in itself is amazing and his reasons for doing so is especially noble. He helped keep the spotlight on a hideous past he said too much of the world was disposed to forget.

"To young people here, I am the last," he once said, "I'm the one who can still speak. After me, it's history."

Despite suffering through the Holocaust, he emphasized that he did his work for "justice, not vengeance." How do you interpret this?

He also states that he is "not a hater." What do you think he means by this? Do you see any similarities between this statement and that of Marian Marzynski (who does not hate Germany because hate is the belief that something can't change; that progress doesn't exist)?

---
(I found this quote by Wiesenthal particularly funny. Once in Germany, someone accused him of dining on Nazis for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. Wiesenthal replied, "You are mistaken. I don't eat pork.")

Summary: Second to last Rotation (11/27 - 12/3)

This rotation, we continued exploring the themes of justice and remembrance in the aftermath of genocide.

11/27: This class focused on the Nuremburg trials held after WWII. Some of the topics we discussed included Hannah Arendt’s reporting on Eichmann’s trial in Jerusalem and her thoughts on the “banality of evil.” We also talked about other ways of judging genocide, such as the Gacca in Rwanda and the TRC in South Africa, both of which force victims and perpetrators to interact. (The picture is Eichmann on trial)

11/29: We saw a video about a survivor of Dr. Mengele’s twin experiments who chose to forgive him. Check out Gaby’s post below for discussion about forgiveness.

12/3: First we discussed our homework readings and questions. Some ideas that came up: what a doctor should do if their oath to Hitler goes against their Hippocratic Oath, how much blame industrialists who used slave labor should have, and why some of those who worked in or with the Nazi regime were tried in domestic court systems and others were tried in international tribunals.

We then saw the video “A Jew Among Germans,” about Marian Marzynski’s journey back to Germany after surviving in the Warsaw ghettos, examining modern Germans attitudes towards the Holocaust. We’ll be watching more of it next class.

Patriotism Post-Genocide

Citizens in countries where genocide has occurred are often conflicted about showing patriotism due to the events that have happened in their country. An example of this is Germany, where it took over 60 years and a hosting a huge international event, the 2006 World Cup last summer, for many Germans to feel comfortable showing pride about being German. Most applauded this development, seeing it as a symbol of recovery for Germany.
Article link: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2006/07/12/EDGOBIPUQ21.DTL
Discussion questions and ideas:

Do you think it is appropriate now for Germans to show patriotism? How much time has to pass after genocide for people to start feeling proud of their country again? Does any time have to pass?

Do you think people would be as willing to use Germany’s flag as a patriotic symbol today if the modern German flag were still the symbol of the Nazi party, or if the Nazis had kept and marched under the modern German flag?

Do you personally ever feel reluctant about showing patriotism because of the United States’ actions? Why or why not?

What do you think Marian Marzynski, the Holocaust survivor in the film today, would think about Germans displaying patriotism in daily life? During the World Cup?

The Holocaust Memorial in Berlin

Today we watched the movie, "A Jew Among the Germans," in which Marian Marzynski, a Holocaust survivor travels back to Germany. At the time the were searching for a design for a Holocauast Memorial in Berlin, they held contests more than once beofore they could find a winning design that they felt was appropriate.

Why do you think the first winning design, in which the names of the 6 million Jewish people who were killed in the Holocaust would be carved in granite, caused controversy, and was ultimately not used?

This is a quote from a site that presents great pictures of the memorial:

"The 19,000 square-meter Memorial for the murdered Jews of Europe, which was opened to the public on May 12, 2005, consists of 2711 stones placed on sloping, uneven ground in an undulating wave-like pattern, giving visitors the feeling of insecurity as though the stones were on unstable ground.

Visitors can enter from all four sides, day or night, and wander on their own through the maze of stones, as though visiting a graveyard with nameless tombstones. The columns are sunk into the ground to various depths and at some places, they are higher than the heads of the visitors. There are no set paths or sign posts to guide viewers. The memorial was designed by architect Peter Eisenman to deliberately disorient visitors by having all the stones tilted slightly and paths that are not level."

--> What was the point, do you think, of giving the visitors a feeling of insecurity while viewing the memorial?

I was also interesting to know if anyone has been to the memorial in Berlin, and how the experience was.

Link: http://www.scrapbookpages.com/Berlin2002/JewishMemorial/index.html

Argentina and the CIA helping the Nazis?

After World War II, many Nazi leaders were brought to trial and punished for their crimes in war or crimes against humanity. Others, Joesf Mengele and Adolf Eichmann to name a few, escaped from persecution amidst the chaos in Europe during World War II’s conclusion. A popular destination for these fugitives was Argentina, were President Juan Perón, a pro-Axis Powers leader, and his government abided and protected the escaped Nazis. In 1958, the CIA learned the whereabouts of Adolf Eichmann, the Gestapo officer who oversaw the Final Solution, but decided not to pursue his arrest to protect important West German officials from possible revelations about their Nazi pasts. Not only did the CIA not pursue Eichmann’s arrest, they attempted to suppress the intelligence altogether. The CIA was determined to make sure Eichmann would not humiliate the West German government in the thick of the Cold War. Despite the CIA’s efforts, Israeli officials kidnapped, tried, and hanged Eichmann in 1962. Many other Nazi personal that fled to Argentina were found much later or even never found.

Should Argentinean government officials who protected and abided the Nazis escape trial be tried themselves in front of a world court? How severely should they be punished? What actual law did they break? How guilty is the CIA for suppressing the whereabouts of Eichmann to protect West Germany?

Link: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/06/07/cia_hid_top_nazis_location/

Forgiveness

Today in class we focused on the idea of forgiveness. We watched a video about a holocaust survivor who chose to forgive her tormentor, the infamous Dr. Mengele. I was reading an article about a survivor of the Rwandan genocide who also decided to forgive the perpetrators. She describes witnessing the murder of her siblings, but states “now we are all Rwandans” referring to the separation between the Hutus and Tutsis. She and many others are now campaigning for forgiveness, so they can attempt to rebuild the country.
Article:
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/03/15/1079199159803.html?from=storyrhs

Questions: Who has the right to forgive in cases of genocide? Victims? Bystanders? Courts?
What role does forgiveness play in terms of judgment and punishment? Why would anyone forgive?

"Vast Nazi Archive Opens to Public"

this is a really interesting article I found about a warehouse in Germany containing over 50 million documents which has just recently been opened to the public.

While many are relieved at the prospect of finally finding answers to their questions from such a haunting period in their lives, others believe this is something they have waited too long for.

Michael Probst, AP

Questions:
What do you think a development like this would mean to Holocaust survivors?
What kinds of obstacles would it present?
Do you think it would cause more harm than good?
What do you think people are hoping these documents will lead to?
Why do you think they have been kept locked up for so long?

Darfur in the SF Chronicle

I wanted to post the front page article form the "Insight" section of this past Sunday's San Francisco Chronicle. Since it was pretty hard to find amongst the post-Thanksgiving advertisements and coupons; some of you newspaper readers might have missed it. It provides basic information about the atrocities being committed, as well as the obstacles to peace efforts. Darfur has been of news lately in our blog as well as in the public domain and this is a good basis for a more educated understanding of a complex world problem.

ARTICLE URL: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/11/25/INGOTB4L1.DTL&hw=Darfur
+special+section&sn=001&sc=1000

There are also some great and striking pictures that appeared in the article, which as we have touched on a little might do such horrific events more justice than trying to express the "inexpressible" in words. You should check them out too.

A Few Thoughts On Justice

We've been talking a lot about Justice and Judgement recently, but what makes something a "crime?" There are numerous crimes that are considered so not because of the overt act, but because of the "victim's" perception of the act. For example, in some places it is legal to kill someone if they "want" to die, but illegal if they do not. But how accurate can justice be that is based on the victim's "feelings?" Can that be quantified? And does that mean that, if the overt act is irrelevent, whenever someone does something that someone doesn't like its a crime? Does anyone else see a problem with this? Does anyone have a better solution?

Has the Jury Reached A Verdict?

For serveral classes, we have been discussing the matter of responisiblity and the difference between a perpetrator and pawn. Yet only breifly have we discussed the jury - those who decide the fate and punishment of a perpetrator.
The Nuremberg trails were held to punish hundreds of high ranking Nazi officials involved in the Holocaust. Similar to the Versailles Treaty, the four allied powers (America, England, France, USSR) and winners of the war governed the trail without any neutral or axis influence (. Another case happened in South Africa where after a segregation law was dismantled, all those who felt vicimized by the law could tell their feelings and believes to the perpetrators of the legistlation. For participating, the perpetrators were given legal immunity, but as punishment had to listen and feel the emotion of thousands of victims (http://www.doj.gov.za/trc/legal/act9534.htm).
As you can see there are many ways to assemble a jury and jusdge a case. Ultimately, the jury is responsible for the outcome of the case, thus making the assembly process paramount in any trial. I'm curious to hear what you guys believe is the best solution to this problem... should it be the winners? the victims? switzerland? who should decide the fate of any war criminal?

Eichmann in Jerusalem

After learning about Hannah Arendt's book, Eichmann in Jerusalem, I searched for more info on the book, and found this site. It contains a review of the novel, and a general outline of Arendt's point. One paragraph that I found particularly interesting was this:

"Yet in documenting the results of Nazi efforts to rid other countries of Jews, she concludes that "under conditions of terror most people will comply but some people will not, just as the lesson of the countries to which the Final Solution was proposed is that ‘it could happen' in most places but it did not happen everywhere. Humanly speaking, no more is required, and no more can be reasonably asked, for this planet to remain a place fit for human habitation" (p. 233). We could take this as evidence that the only hope of preventing future catastrophes must lie in a morality that is inherent in human nature. On the other hand, Arendt considers Eichmann "terribly and terrifyingly normal" (p. 276). Eichmann in Jerusalem leaves us wondering not only if justice was achieved in Eichmann's case, but also whether the lessons Arendt believes the trial has taught will make a difference in the future."

Do you agree with her statement that it is only reasonable to ask some to resist in situations like Nazi Germany? Is acceptable that most will comply under conditions of terror? What can we reasonably expect of most human beings?

Also, can we "only hope" to prevent future catastrophes by placing our trust in "a morality that is inherent in human nature"? Why is there such a disconnect between this inherently human morality and Eichmann's terrifyingly normal presence and behavior?

CBS 5 Journalist Goes Inside Burma (Part I and II)

A CBS Journalist secretly visited Burma to cover these reports. There are two parts, together that are both 10 minutes. It's very interesting and worthwhile to check out in order to see what has been going on there and to learn a little bit more about Burma's current situation.

• http://cbs5.com/video/?id=28829@kpix.dayport.com (Part I)
• http://cbs5.com/video/?id=28865@kpix.dayport.com (Part II)

If this link doesn't work, go to www.cbs5.com and search for "Burma" or "Burma Video" the first two videos are the most recent.

Dr. Josef Mengele

Today in class we discussed responsibility. Who would be held responsible for war crimes and who would not. “The leaders of…” was the most common response. Ms. Finn pointed out a very controversial point, which is: should we hold a person accountable based on the numbers of deaths they’ve caused?
Could you hold a soldier accountable for the same war crimes as Eichmann?
Then she asked what types of “jobs” should be held accountable. The responses were again the leaders, of camps or parts of the Nazi government like the Hitler Youth.
I was researching Dr. Josef Mengele and I found this article.
Warning: semi-graphic
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A2875368
He performed extremely unethical and painful procedures on inmates. He also helped in the selection process of who went to the gas chambers after getting off the transport trains.

My question is should he also have been tried for war crimes? He said his work was in the name of science, and he was funded does that make him responsible or is that a form of taking orders?

He was also pursued by the Israeli secret service. Would it be “fair” to try him in an Israeli court instead of an international court? Should the victims pass the ultimate judgment?

Proximity to Genocide, "Us and Them," Hannah Arendt, "Good Samaritan" laws in relation to a Time Magazine article

The most recent issue of Time Magazine's cover reads, "What Makes Us Good/Evil." It discusses the difference between good and evil actions and why they are committed. This made me think about today's discussion about Hannah Arendt and her statement about the "banality of evil." This article states that "The notion of 'the other' is a tough one for Homo Sapiens. Sociobiology has been criticized as one of the most reductive of sciences, ascribing the behavior of all living things- humans included- as nothing more than an effort to get as many genes as possible into the next generation." Earlier the article had stated that there was "a time when the welfare of [one's] tribe was essential for your survival but the welfare of an opposing tribe was not - and might even be a threat." So, if sociobiologists are correct and this is all largely based on evolution (Are they? Is it? What do you think?), is the whole "us and them" mentality "banal"? Is a mentality able to be banal if the events that result form that mentality are far from banal? What do you think about Arendt's statement in general? Do you agree, disagree?
Another part of the article talked about proximity to someone in danger and how it relates to a person's perceived responsibility in helping that person. This question came up in class discussion today: Where is the line drawn for how close you have to be to a genocide in order to be held repsonsible for being a bystander? SHould bystanders in the US during the Holocaust (especially during the strict immigration policy) be held as responsible as bystanders in Germany? Why or why not? The article states that "Our species has a very conflicted sense of when we ought to help someone else and when we ought not, and the general rule is, Help those close to home and ignore those far away." So is that "general rule" human nature, wrong, both or neither?
One last thing the article talks about is a Good Samaritan Law in places like France which essentially makes it illegal to be a bystander to any event where another is in danger. The laws "require passerby to assist someone in peril." If David Cash had lived in France today he legally could have been convicted under this law. What do you think about this? Is this considered legislating morality? Is legislating morality ok? How can you tell which laws are legislating morality and which aren't?

(Also interesting is the morality quiz, a lot of these questions will be familiar from B&B but I thought it was still thought-provoking to see what percentage of people considered different options to be moral.)

Peace Keeping in Darfur

Reported in The New York Times today, the United Nations has attempted to restore a peacekeeping force in Darfur, but Sudan has thwarted their attempt. The U.N. force, which would consist of 26,000 members had the intention of replacing the 7,000 members of the African Union force. The African Union peacekeeping force has had very little success in stopping the genocide. Sudan is resisting U.N forces because they do not want "specialized troops from non-African militaries blocking support staff and material from the area through bureaucratic maneuvers, and withholding needed land and permissions for the assignment of helicopters." In addition, Sudan threatens to block the U.N. force's communications and restrict their planes from flying at night if/when they intervene. As the article states, this leaves the U.N. with a serious conundrum. A U.N official, Jean-Marie Geuhenno asked, "do we move ahead with the deployment of a force that will not make a difference, that will not have the capability to defend itself, and that carries the risk of humiliation of the Security Council and the United Nations, and tragic failure for the people of Darfur?"

here is the link to the full article: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/28/world/africa/28darfur.html?ref=world

Some questions:
-Since history shows that Sudan is incapable of instituting a successful peacekeeping force, what does the U.N. do? What is your response to Geuhenno's question?
-The U.N is typically known to be slow to respond to international crises. What is the international community's role even though Sudan refuses any international help?
-Relating back to the recently discussed theme of justice and judgement, who's fault will it be if the genocide continues? Sudan's for not supporting an international peacekeeping force or the U.N.'s for not intervening anyway? Who should be held responsible for something like this?
-I know this is speculation but after learning who was sent to court in Nuremburg in 1945 and discussing the reasons why, if there is a court case after this genocide ends, who do you think the defendants will be?

Genocide vs. Ethnic Cleansing

I subscribe the the magazine "The Week" which summarizes news stories from around the world. In an article about the French charity that recently "rescued" African children in Chad (which turned out not to be a rescue but more like a kidnapping), I came upon a paragraph which seemed to deny that the events in Darfur are "genocide."

Here is the paragraph:

There's a lager lesson in this affair, said Jean-Philippe Remy in France's Le Monde. In their zeal to save African babies, the aid workers apparently broke the law. But what "fired them with such self-righteousness" in the first place was the disinformation surrounding the crisis in Darfur. The Save Darfur campaign in the U.S. and its counterpart, Urgence Darfour, have adopted a thesis promoted by President Bush but "refuted by most experts": that Darfur is a scene of genocide. If you truly believe that evil Arab tribes are trying to exterminate black African tribes, then you probably would be inspired to break the law to save at least some of the children. The reality is more banal. Darfur is a scene of ethnic cleansing, not genocide. And it's simply not true that the world has ignored the situation. Darfur hosts "one of the biggest U.N. peacekeeping forces on the planet." In their zeal to free African children, charity workers have, regrettably, "freed themselves from the truth."

After hearing guest speakers talk about the reality of the events in Darfur, it was hard for me to comprehend how The Week could publish an article denying that the situation in Darfur is a genocide.

What is the difference between "genocide" and "ethnic cleansing" and why would the article categorize the Darfur situation as an example of ethnic cleansing?

The article states that most experts refute that Darfur is a scene of genocide. How are such vast numbers of experts being misled? Are we the ones being misled if the experts are right?

Summary of classes 11/13~11/23 (H block)

I hope you all had a wonderful Thanksgiving and are enjoying your break. But of course, you probably were also thinking about our class and responding on the blog! Here is a brief summary of our Genocide class from the past rotation:

11/14/07: Firstly, we learned about the term “occupy” in terms of an “Occupied Europe” or “Occupied France.” Then, we watched a documentary on “Le Chabon,” a town in France, primarily made up of Heugenaunt descendents, where the citizens rescued and housed 5,500 Jews who fled Germany during the Holocaust. Essentially, the town of Le Chabon was a “hub of resistance,” and an example of effective, non-violent resistance during genocide. We explored the “us-vs.-them” theme, as well as “obedience and conformity” theme. We discussed how this town united together to resist the Holocaust so that “everyone was involved” and people were singing resisters songs even in their Catholic churches. Some students brought up the idea whether there was an unconscious “obedience to resist” among the people of Le Chabon and if by saying “it was a normal thing to do,” and “everybody else was doing it,” others were conforming to their surroundings in order to “fit in.” Nonetheless, learning about Le Chabon served as a hopeful example of a successful resistance during the Holocaust.

11/15/07: For homework, we all read about Bystanders and Rescuers from the blue book, and reflected on the readings in a few response questions that addressed ignorance, the “illusion of not knowing,” “unimaginable horror,” self-sacrifice to believe, and heroes during genocide. We learned about a spectrum of bystanders who either consciously chose not to believe because of the magnitude and impossibilities of genocides, or acknowledged what was happening, and sacrificed their own reputation, nationally pride, family and own lives to defend the truth.

11/16/07: On our Generation’s Day, we were fortunate to have several very wise and eloquent grandparents who joined our class, and even added to the discussion. We watched a documentary called “Closed Doors,” which explored immigration laws and in particular, focused on one Jewish individual who struggled to get visas for his parents to immigrate to America during the Holocaust. Many students were surprised that there were specific laws in the American government that was meant to deliberately postpone visas for Jewish immigrants as long as possible (using lots of excessive requirements to get visas), so that they would essentially never be able to come, and instead be deported to France.

11/20/07: Students wrote an in-class essay on the role of “obedience and conformity” from 1914-1948, during genocide and in pre-genocidal societies. Good job everyone!

11/21~11/23 Thanksgiving break! No classes.

Last Questions to Consider:
How does obedience and conformity play a role in 21st century politics? In everyday life? At Lick?

Immigration is a huge topic in America, especially when it comes to electing presidents or government officials. What sort of advantages and disadvantages would America have if we acted in the same way as the government did towards the Jews (deliberately postponing visas and making unnecessary requirements) towards one or two specific groups? Is it a good or bad thing? If not, what kind of immigration policy should we adapt to improve the situation?

Do you think that disbelief and the “illusion of not knowing” applies to Darfur and other problems that we are facing now around the world? If we can’t force people to open their eyes, what are other ways of getting people active and tolerant? What can we students do individually to help?

What Causes a Genocide?

First. Congratulations on making it to Thanksgiving break. Second semester is so close, I can almost taste it. I don't know if anyone is going to check the blog over break, but since the event was somewhat timely I thought I would post nonetheless.

On Wednesday, November 21th's New York Times front page there was an article about a new Supreme Court case that the justices have just agreed to hear in the spring about the right to bear arms. Everyone should remember this controversial 2nd amendment to the United States Constitution. This is the first time the court will so clearly state if they believe everyday citizens have the constitutional right to keep and bear firearms.

The link to the article is here: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/21/us/21scotus.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

This got me thinking about how genocides are carried out and what enables them to actually happen. We have studied about the pre-genocidal societies (and some of us even wrote an essay about it) that can lead to willing participants as well as some of the psychological and social reasons for participating or standing against genocidal actions. But this current event got me thinking about the actual action of a genocide, or the many actions that make up a genocide. If a genocide is a premeditated act committed with the intent to destroy, in part or in whole, a group of people, what factors in a society physically let a person "destroy" another? I immediately thought of weapons, firearms being in that category, and the relative freedom that many people have to own a gun which could potentially take away another person's life.

And so my questions to you all are:
Can a genocide happen without weapons available?
What methods would perpetrators have to use if guns were not easily attainable?
If individuals, albeit many consider themselves part of a group, commit acts of genocide, should those people be allowed to have weapons that could lead to mass murder?

After some critical genocide thinking I hope you all have a happy turkey day!

"Emergency in Pakistan- Protests Continue- Nov 15th 2007"

This is a video of the protests that are taking place in Pakistan.

The 2007 Pakistani Presidential Elections

Hey guys, sorry I'm so late in posting this, but here it is. I've been following the turmoil over the Pakistani Presidential elections over the past few weeks, and the situations that have developed in the country apply to the themes of our class.

The cause of the recent unrest in Pakistan can be directly attriuted to the onflict over the Presidential election and the circumstances that preceeded it. General Musharraf (now President Musharraf, although technically elections won't take place until January 9th) began his campaign with a violent bang that set off a chain of further violence. Musharraf imposed military control over daily life, which meant that protesters, at first peaceably protesting, were forced to physically fight back against armed men under Musharraf's command. This violence has lead Musharraf to order the arrests and imprisonment of many ordinary citizens as well academics, politicians and justice officials (mainly judges and lawyers).

The extent of Musharraf's forced control over Pakistan extends to the point where he admits that his number one priority isn't to protect Pakistan's democracy. This agenda, however, was obvious from the start, when he first imposed a (puportedly unnecessary) state of emergency, suspended the Consitution (and the rights that it guaranteed the people), removed and put the Chief Justice under house arrest, and arrested and imprisoned all of his most active political opponents (including, during the elections, Benazir Bhutto, the current Prime Minister of Pakistan). He has imposed military rule over the Pakistani people, and removed five of the six justices of the supreme court, replacing them with his own judges. In effect, Musharraf has imposed a virtual dictatorship over the Pakistani public.

There are several questions I have in relation to these events that also connect to the themes that we discuss in class. The first is in relation to the subject of upstanders: what happens when the actions of an upstander, or a very large group of upstanders, fail to achieve the desired end? What is the next correct course of action? The second relates to ignorance: could this ever happen in the United States? And if it could, would it be able to happen in such a blatant way, or would it happen behind closed dorrs? Either way, do you think the American people would react so "loudly", as the Pakistani people have?

Amnesty International Articles on US Military/CIA related to class themes

Hello everyone,
So this goes back a little bit to the theme of "just following orders". In a blog discussion a while ago someone mentioned that it would be a good idea to train the military in human rights and what are human rights violations so that the soldiers will know when following orders is not ok. That made me wonder, "Do we have anything like that in place right now?" So I went to Amnesty International's website, and found this page, and it turns out that not only does the US military training courses "not include specific instruction in the human rights or humanitarian law obligations that soldiers must obey," but the US also "trains approximately 100,000 foreign police and soldiers from more than 150 countries each year," so all the lack of focus on human rights in military training is spread around the world. Do you think that this will make it easier for soldiers to use the "just following orders" justification?
That site linked to this page, which advocates that "The US government must improve oversight, transparency, and accountability of US training of foreign forces." Something I found interesting was the last paragraph on the CIA, which essentially says that during the Cold War the CIA was allowed to engage in "covert or semi-covert military operations," and the lack of transparency led to many human rights abuses. The Cold War was characterized by a fear of communism and communists (in the US), so this relates to the theme of fear of an "other" and how that can lead to certain groups of people being granted extended power, which in turn allows those people to commit crimes against humanity. Do you think the human rights abuses committed by the CIA during the Cold War would have been possible without that fear of communism? Are human rights abuses, including genocides, at all possible without some sort of fear being instilled in the general population of the country where they are being instigated?

OXFAM

Sorry guys, I know I'm a little late but I wanted to talk a bit about the OXFAM Hunger Banquet last week and how hunger can effect a community. We've learned about genocidal conditions and how exposure and famine/starvation are considered methods of mass execution so I was wondering if any of you would consider global hunger genocide.
I think that in specific areas, like a providence of a country, where there is a government or party that is intentionally inhibiting access to necessary food and/or water that that could be considered genocide. But it would be extremely difficult to make a case and punish someone for this crime.

In terms of the effects of hunger:
- Do you think that it is possible to eliminate global hunger?
-> if yes, is it possible to have capitalism and no hunger?
-> if no, why not? Is it because of specific individuals? Habitats? distribution?

- If it is a distribution problem, how could it be fixed? Would it have to bes based on socialism or communism?

Week Summary: Upstanders and Bystanders

11/14: Le Chambon
We watched a film on Le Chambon and were introduced to the concept of "conspiracy of goodness." The villagers of Le Chambon provided shelter for around 5,500 Jews and were even able to convince the Nazis who resided in or were passing through the area to ignore what was happening. We also were exposed to the importance of background and past experience in dealing with genocide. Because the villagers descended from a persecuted people and resistance was a part of their culture, they also were trained to be upstanders.

11/16: Bystanders and Resistors/America and the Holocaust
We discussed readings from the blue book and different individuals' reactions to the events of the Holocaust. We also learned through film about the United States' reaction to the Holocaust, especially the difficulties for Jews in being permitted to enter the United States. The film also discussed the struggle of many Jews in America to advocate for resistance from America.

Lingering Questions:
-Does one's historical background affect one's ability to respond to acts of genocide?
-What role can children play in resistance? Why do women and children seem to less suspected of being resistors?
-Can the American government be held responsible for a part of the Holocaust because it withheld information about it from its citizens?
-How did the forced movement of Jews into areas other than American set up other conflicts (ie in Palestine)?

Obama and the Future of Foreign Relations

This Wednesday, November 14th, Barack Obama was greeted by over 5,000 people from around the Bay Area in San Francisco. Some 20 Lick students attended, as part of an even scheduled by the Social Justice Club. Though I could not make it, the Sacramento Bee wrote that Obama issued a “passionate call to end the war in Iraq, stop U.S. practice of torture and advance racial equality and gay rights in America,” which was received with “thunderous cheers.” For the full article, please click here.

I was also told by a student who attended on Wednesday that Obama also spoke fervently about stopping the genocide in Darfur. Immediately, I went to his website, BarackObama.com, to learn more about his plans and stance on this issue, as well as the rest of his plans for presidency. As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the number one issue on his list is “Strengthening America Overseas,” and rebuilding America as a transparent and tolerant diplomatic government in foreign affairs. Along with ending the conflict in Congo and stopping nuclear terrorism, “stopping the genocide in Darfur” is also high on this list.
Quoting from BarackObama.com, “Senator Obama has been a leading voice in Washington urging the end of genocide in Sudan. He worked with Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) on the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act, a version of which was signed into law. Senator Obama has traveled to the United Nations to meet with Sudanese officials and visited refugee camps on the Chad-Sudan border to raise international awareness of the ongoing humanitarian disaster there. He also worked with Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) to secure $20 million for the African Union peacekeeping mission.
‘Two senators from opposite sides of the aisle have joined together to call for increased U.S. involvement in Darfur. They are Sam Brownback, Republican of Kansas, and Barack Obama, Democrat of Illinois.’-Gwen Ifill, Newshour with Jim Lehrer, PBS, February 16, 2006”

This is especially good news for those who continue to be in peril in Darfur as well as for the awareness of fellow Americans. However, as we know, the situation is extremely complex and protected, therefore it would be an ambitious task for any President to tackle.

One point that many other those opposed to Obama claim that though he presents ample “solutions” for some important issues such as Iraq, healthcare, and the environment, with no substantial amount of experience, it leaves room for doubt and mistakes, especially in a period in American history where mistakes and bad decisions are the last thing that our country needs. Some also say that Obama, in his campaign and speeches across the country, has spent too much time criticizing Bush and other candidates, and not quite enough explaining in more detail how he will accomplish all that he promises as president.

Therefore, I invite you to visit these sites, and read over some of the other platforms that other candidates are using in their campaigns for the 2008 elections. Afterwards, use this space as a forum, discussion or debate on your stance on the election, and in particular, what this election could mean for Darfur and other foreign issues that we have been discussing in this class.

And for those of you who did have the opportunity to see Obama this Wednesday, please share your experience as well.

Le Chambon-sur-Lignon and Doing "What is Natural"

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?

Khmer Rouge Justice

Last week two of the top officials of the Khmer Rouge, former minister Ieng Sary and his wife Ieng Thirith, were charged with war crimes and crimes against humanity by the Cambodia's UN-backed genocide tribunal. This brings the number of top officials arrested to four, and many more are still at large. Here is a link to the Chronicle story: Khmer Rouge Couple Formally Detained

The Khmer Rouge ruled Cambodia from 1975-79 and were responsible for roughly 1.7 million deaths from malnutrition, starvation, and murder. The government imposed very strict and unreasonably high grain taxes as part of their plan to increase Cambodia's productivity, though in reality the high quotas caused mass starvation and death among the rural Cambodian population. The Khmer Rouge is most well-known for its murdering and torturing of political dissidents in highly secret interrogation facilities such as S-21.

If you all will remember, the annihilation of certain political groups is not included under the legal definition of genocide, and it is for this reason that the leaders of the Khmer Rouge are not accused of committing genocide, but of crimes against humanity, even though it targeted a specific group. Many people consider their actions a genocide, though legally it is not.

Some questions:
1) Why are political groups not included under the UN's definition of genocide? Should they be? Or is the law already complete as it is?
2) Why are leaders of the Khmer Rouge being convicted 30 years after the fact while leaders of the Young Turks were never convicted?
3) Should the interrogators (aka torturers and murderers) of the secret prisons be convicted of crimes as well? Even if they would have been killed had they disobeyed their orders?

Naomi Wolf: "The End of America"

Hello everyone,
I was watching the Colbert Report a little while ago and this author named Naomi Wolf was being interviewed. I couldn't help but notice how applicable her statements were to our study of the Weimar Republic. Wolf has written a book called “The End of America: Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot," warning that American democracy is in danger in the same way democracy was endangered in the Weimar Republic. There's more information about her book here and there is also a video. It's almost an hour long, but it's very itneresting; there's also an anecdote at the beginning about her conversations with a Holocaust survivor who when discussing current American politics often says "this happened in Germany" in reference to the Weimar Republic. Wolf makes a list of ten actions that occur when dictatorships replace democratic governments, many of which are discussed in this article, where the use of torture and surveillance are both mentioned as part of the democracy-to-dictatorship process.

What are your thoughts on Wolf's opinion? Do you think America is in a similar state as the Weimar Republic before WWII in any respect? If so, why, and to what extent? If not, why not? Do you agree with the steps mentioned inthe second article as being indicative of a transfer away from democracy? If not, which steps do you think are not legitimate?
Do you have any other thoughts about Wolf's points that don't correspond to these questions?

Are Groups "Natural"?

During class I was interested in something Elias said—he said groups were a necessary thing for people, that we, in a sense, need them to function as people. I sort of did some philosophical research online, and I came up with an interesting question that philosophers like Spinoza considered. The question is: If two people, who had never seen a person before, suddenly met in the wilderness what would happen? Some people say that they would fight and try to kill one another in order to take each other's food, tools, whatever. Some people say they would sit down together and become good friends. And theres my favorite; some people say they would walk right past each other without even attempting to notice one another.

What do you think they'd do?

Week Summary: H Block

This week has been a informative and productive one. Our focus this week was on the Hitler Youth, and more widely, groups in general. We started the week off with a talk by Ralph, a survivor of the Nazi genocide who escaped Germany on the Kindertransport and lived the remainder of the war with a English-Jewish family who adopted him. We then watched a movie narrated by a man roughly the same age as Ralph who recounted his experiences in the Hitler Youth
He said that he had wanted to be a member of the Hitler Youth from a very young age, ever since he had seen them marching through his town; he had wanted to belong to something bigger than himself. He, and millions of others, had wanted to belong so badly that they had allowed themselves to become completely indoctrinated into the movement's ideology. The video raised some important questions: are youth more influencable than adults? Are the members of the Hitler Youth responsible for genocide? Can they be considered innocent?
We ended our week with a still on-going discussion about groups at lick. We talked about what factors go into forming a group, weather or not exclusion is always bad, and what might make someone want to join a group. We also discussed whether or not groups were a good or bad thing.
We even delved into the question of whether or not "human nature" exists. Is it natural for someone to want to belong to a group? Is that just a societal construction of human behavior It got interesting.

"Darfur Now"

hey guys,

The premiere of "Darfur Now" is tomorrow, November 9th, at the Landmark Embarcadero Theater. It is a documentary about what's happening in Darfur, and it follows the story of 6 people, including Don Cheadle (actor/activist), George Clooney, a chief prosecutor in the ICC, and a former Darfurian rebel, who have dedicated their lives to fighting the ongoing genocide.

Here is the trailer:


Two things:
1. I hope you all want to/do see it

2. If we can organize a group of 15+ people to go together, we can have a conference call with Don Cheadle at the end of the month. I don't know about anyone else, but I think Don Cheadle is amazing and would love to chat with him...
The only thing about that is that we would probably have to go relatively soon.

Anybody interested?

Ralph and Hitler Youth

On Monday, Ralph, a surviver of the Nazi Genocide came to talk to our class. He talked about Mr. Samuel, a middle-class Englishman who had saved his life through the kindertransport. Yesterday we saw a video of a man who had been a former Hitler-youth, and had been so fanatical that he had tried to continue fighting even after Germany had surrendered.
I personally consider Ralph to be a surviver, and do not consider the members of the Hitler youth to be perpetrators in the sense that we are defining them.
What do you think? Ralph considers himself a surviver, but he escaped while very young. Is there an age limit? An amount of suffering one has to undergo?
Although the Hitler youth were essentially brainwashed, is it a person's responsibility to think for themselves at some point? If you do consider him a perpetrator, would he have been more or less culpable had he known his actions were wrong, but had done them to survive?

Spectrum?

after watching the film on Hitler Youth, and discussing groups at lick and beyond, i thought i would ask a couple of follow up questions...

1. what exactly does it mean to have a "choiceless choice?" i know this is something that has come up a lot, but can anyone relate to being in such a position of a "rock and a hard place?"

2. when talking about how to categorize the Hitler Youth in terms of perpetrators, bystanders, or upstanders, we decided that there must be a spectrum of perpetrators. What does this spectrum look like to you? How would you factor in the fact that many of the Hitler Youth were a) vulnerable to the extensive and invasive Nazi propaganda, and b) facing a "choiceless choice?"

3. Groups at Lick: Did the open dialogue about the social groups in our class bring up anything for you that you didn't get the opportunity to share in-class? If so, what? Despite the slightly awkward/uncomfortable nature of the conversation, did you think it was productive and/or interesting?

Thoughts?

Suspending The Constitution: Pakistan

As we have discussed in class this past week, the rise of the Hitler and the Nazis all came about legally. Hitler was able to use the Weimar Constitution to suspend the Constitution and the rights of the people through Article 48, which gave him the power to seize all control if he believed the republic was in danger.

Within the past week, the president of Pakistan, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, abolished the Supreme Court and suspended the Constitution declaring a "state of emergency" in Pakistan. Musharraf, who is both the head of the military and the country which is against the Constitution of Pakistan, has abolished the Constitution in efforts to maintain his power in both.
Here is the address of the article: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/07/world/asia/07lawyers.html?_r=3&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Similar to what occurred in the Weimar Republic with Hitler and the Nazis, what is happening in Pakistan closely resembles the beginning stages of what Hitler did to rise to power as a dictator. Both president Gen. Pervez Musharraf and Hitler declared a "state of emergency" thus allowing them to suspend the Constitution and democracy.

Some questions to consider:
-Given what occurred in the Weimar Republic after Hitler rose to power, what is the danger in what is happening in Pakistan today?
-What measures could or should be taken to prevent the democracy of Pakistan from being abolished?
-As Arron mentioned in his earlier post on "neighbors", what role, if any, should other nations involve themselves in the situation? Will "help" be beneficial or non beneficial?
-What are the differences, if any, between what occurred in Germany and what is occurring in Pakistan today?
Feel free to respond to whatever else you may think of!

Aaron and Aileen's Week Summary!

Hey everyone, it's Aileen (F block) AND Aaron (H block). Double Threat...

Anyway, so here is an update about what we covered in class:

We learned about the different political parties that existed in the Weimar Republic in the early 1930s. They were KPD, SPD, Center, and the Nazis. After each group representing each political party presented their platforms, the undecided voters evaluated the benefits and disadvantages of electing each party, and they finally made a decision. In both classes, the SPD came out with the victory.

Next class, we explored the course theme of obedience related to Nazi Germany. We read a excerpt from a German professor who experienced life under of the Nazis. Because of the "small steps" the Nazis used, he wasn't aware of the damage these measures would cause in the long term. We also talked about military obedience, how age affects obedience, and when it is appropriate to disobey.

Yesterday, both classes covered different material:
F block: We uncovered the role of obedience in Hitler's Nazi Youth Movement. Hitler's Youth Movement was intended to get the young to follow Hitler's ideology. Hitler was able to persuade these young minds and turn them against the Jews. We then learned through film about one man's experience during Hitler's youth movement. He explains that he was unaware of what was actually going and that he was easily persuaded by Nazi propoganda. Nazi beliefs became his own conviction.
H block: Yesterday we had a visitor, Ralph Samuel, who was a survivor of the Holocaust. We learned that through the Kindertrasnport, he was able to survive the extremities of the genocide. Ralph stated that even though the US did not pass the Act in Congress to allow unaccompanied children into the US, Britain began a system to transport children into England, called the Kindertransport. By the time the Kinderstransport stopped in the September of 1939, 10,000 children were saved. Ralph was about 8 years old when he was flown to England to meet his new family. However, a few months later he was evacuated to the countryside where Mrs. Strachey took him and 7 other children to stay with her during the war. His purpose in talking to many different schools is to memorialize Mr. Epstein, the father who took him in, as well as the other 6 million Jews that died. The moral of his talk is that anyone can make a difference.

Have a good blog week!

in case you're interested...

hey -

so i think i posted a while back about a "Dream for Darfur" event that's happening in the bay area on November 18th, and now that it's already November 5 (6 more weeks until 2nd semester!!) I thought I would post a reminder:

What: SF Bay Area "Dream for Darfur" rally/Symbolic Torch Relay/Die-In -> an event hosted by Martina Knee of the SF Bay Area Darfur Coalition to protest China's fueling of the genocide in Darfur.

Who: U.S. Congresswoman Barbara Lee (CA-9) will be speaking, and I've included a link to her bio and every piece of news regarding her involvement in helping end the genocide in Darfur --> http://lee.house.gov/index.cfm

When: Sunday, Novemeber 18th, 10:00 - 11:00 AM.

Where: Frank H. Ogawa Plaza (City Hall) (Oakland, CA)

Broadway (between 14th & 15th Streets
Oakland, CA 94612

* REALLY COOL: "Olympic Dream for Darfur official events in the US are organized by the Save Darfur Coalition, STAND, and the Dream for Darfur. They feature a torch that started its journey in Chad, just across the border from Darfur, will continue to the sites of previous genocides, several cities in the US, and arrive at China's doorstep in December."

Here is the link where you can sign-up to attend this event:
http://www.savedarfur.org/page/event/detail/olympicdreamfordarfurofficialevent/4jv5j

Also, I've been in contact with Martina Knee (the organizer of the event) and she sent me tons of posters, flyers, postcards, etc., so if you want one, please just let me know and I'll give you one...or three.

Thanks guys!

Article in Chronicle by Guest Speaker Roxanne

Hey guys, I know it's not my blog week, but I noticed that Roxanne, the guest speaker who came to F Block to talk about the Armenian genocide, had an opinion article in the Insight section of the Chronicle today. She argues for the passing of the Armenian Genocide Resolution in Congress. Here's the link: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/11/04/INTDT2UPH.DTL

A point of hers which I found interesting:

"The United States has numerous military bases in the area - in Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, Jordan, Bulgaria, the United Arab Emirates and Afghanistan - from which we can operate.
The New York Times, Wall Street Journal and the Turkish Daily News have all quoted U.S. officials saying that if Turkey cut off our base or supply lines, it would not greatly affect our military operations. And, according to a recent article in Defense News, the Armenian genocide resolution wouldn't even "dent" U.S. arms sales to Turkey. Several years ago, when France passed a similar resolution, arms sales between France and Turkey were back to booming within months."

This flies in the face of the counterargument I've read often in other media that if Turkey were to stop allowing United States military to use their land and airspace, the military's mission would be hindered and it would put the US at risk.

What do you all think about this and the rest of Roxanne's argument?

Military Obedience: When is it acceptable to disobey orders?

A question that came up in class the other day was: When is it acceptable for American soldiers to disobey orders? The question came up in relation to our discussion about who is responsible for Genocide, in particular the Holocaust, where Hitler's most important men claimed that they had simply been following orders. This later came to be reffered to as the Nuremburg Defense. In response to this case study, we talked a bit about when soldiers should be responsible to disobey orders. In researching this question, I found one definition that really stood out to me. "When an order is so manifestly beyond the scope of the superior officer's authority and the order is so obviously and palpably unlawful as to admit of no reasonable doubt of its unlawfulness, there is actually a duty to disobey it." I have also seen many things that describe the disobedience as acceptable when a soldier feels International Law is being broken. Below is one of many websites discussing this topic. I suggest you all read this to get a better sense of what is going on.

http://news.pacificnews.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=7c3f05d0f48781bdded354b557bfffbe

In response to this article and to the topic in general, there are many questions still left unanswered. There is still the issue of morality, something that differes from person to person. Where one person may thing an action is morally incorrect, another person may be fine with it. So who defines what exactly is incorrect? And what should a soldier do if they think something is completely wrong and unlawful, but few of their fellow soldiers agree?

Also, many people consider the war in Iraq to be unlawful and to break International Law. Does this give soldiers the right to say they won't serve? Can soldiers go to Iraq and then at any time deside that what is going on is completely wrong, and leave? Who can generally define the what is "wrong"? When is it truly acceptable to disobey?

Darfur and French Non-Profit Organization

In response to what happened in Darfur about the French non-profit organization, here is more information from the NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/27/world/africa/27chad.html?em&ex=.
Based on the newspaper article, and continuing from our class discussion, here are some questions:
-Even though this was considered a crime, in regard to the genocide, and if in fact the parents had agreed with the French non-profit organization, should they have continued with the operations anyway?
-What makes a good neighbor, especially in terms of genocide and this situation, and when do you think neighbors (any kind-countries, people, etc.) should intervene, even though what they would be doing would be considered a crime in order to help others?
-What would be some factors that would cause neighbors not to react?

Psychology of Obedience

As we explore the topic of obedience in greater depth, I thought I would post about an oustanding experiment preformed by Stanley Milgram in the 1960s.

"In response to a newspaper ad offering $4.50 for one hour's work, an individual turns up to take part in a Psychology experiment investigating memory and learning. He is introduced to a stern looking experimenter in a white coat and a rather pleasant and friendly co-subject. The experimenter explains that the experiment will look into the role of punishment in learning, and that one will be the "teacher" and one will be the "learner." Lots are drawn to determine roles, and it is decided that the individual who answered the ad will become the "teacher."
Your co-subject is taken to a room where he is strapped in a chair to prevent movement and an electrode is placed on his arm. Next, the "teacher" is taken to an adjoining room which contains a generator. The "teacher" is instructed to read a list of two word pairs and ask the "learner" to read them back. If the "learner" gets the answer correct, then they move on to the next word. If the answer is incorrect, the "teacher" is supposed to shock the "learner" starting at 15 volts.The generator has 30 switches in 15 volt increments, each is labeled with a voltage ranging from 15 up to 450 volts. Each switch also has a rating, ranging from "slight shock" to "danger: severe shock". The final two switches are labeled "XXX". The "teacher" automatically is supposed to increase the shock each time the "learner" misses a word in the list. Although the "teacher" thought that he/she was administering shocks to the "learner", the "learner" is actually a student or an actor who is never actually harmed."
(The Milgram experiment, http://www.new-life.net/milgram.htm)
In the end, 65% of the "teachers" "shocked" participants up to 450 volts and none stopped before 300.

To get a sense of the actual experimental conditions, follow this link and it will take you to an audio recording of the experiment. http://learningat.ke7.org.uk/socialsciences/Psychology/PsyAudio/thirdguy.wav

While this experiment is morally incorrect, it showed a lot about how far people are willing to go to obey. The question is, why?

So to relate this back to genocide: Today in class Ms. Finn mentioned the Eichmann Trials. Eichmann was put on trial after the Holocaust for "crimes against humanity." While Eichmann did commit a crime, can it be said that he was 'just following orders'? As we know, many people in Nazi germany obeyed Hitler's commands, even if they didn't agree with them. My class (F Block) had a very interesting discussion around the idea of obedience and I wanted to open this up to anything lingering from today.
Some questions:
-What are your initial thoughts about Milgram's experiment? Do you find the results surprising?
-What do people fear if they resist and don't obey?
-Who is the most susceptible to obeying irrational demands? Why? (we touched on this briefly in class today)
-How can we teach people to not obey authority if what authority is promoting is sincerely wrong?

I know this is somewhat a broad topic, so anyone feel free to add anything and pose more questions!

shoah foundations

here are some follow up questions:

-Why do you think the work of the shoa foundation is important not just for the holocaust, but to help the overarching issue of genocide, hatred, and discrimination?

-What do you think are things that might be put in the guidelines for the interviewers and recorders of the interview? Why do you think these guidelines are important?

The shoa foundation

The shoah foundation is a visual history foundation. It was started in 1994 by Steven Speilberg, he decided to start the foundation soon after making the movie, "Schindler's List." The foundation feels that visual history is important because it allows viewers to really connect with the holocaust survivors and try to see things from their perspectives. Shoa in Hebrew means catastrophe, Steven Speilberg refers to the foundation as having a three act goal,

• Act One can be seen as a race against time to collect the testimony of remaining Holocaust survivors before it is too late.
• Act Two is the process of indexing and cataloguing the visual history testimonies the Foundation has collected.
• Act Three is the process of turning the survivors into educators.
  

At the moment they are working on act two, volunteers have recoded about 52,000 visual histories. Each one takes about two an a half hours to record. The recordings are of a variety of people from different countries who speak many different languages. The following are the different survivors that their archive hold recordings from.

• Homosexual survivors - These are persons who were persecuted by the Nazi regime based on their homosexuality or suspected homosexuality.

• Jehovah's Witness survivors - These are persons who were persecuted by the Nazi regime based on their religious affiliation with the Jehovah's Witness faith.

• Jewish survivors - These are persons who were persecuted by the Nazi regime based on their religious affiliation with Judaism.

• Political prisoner survivors - These are persons who were persecuted by the Nazi regime based on their political convictions and/or expression of those convictions.

• Sinti and Roma survivors - These are persons who were persecuted by the Nazi regime based on their affiliation with the Sinti and Roma cultural groups ("Gypsies").

• Eugenics policy survivors - These are persons who were persecuted by the Nazi regime based on eugenics laws and policies -- in an attempt to maintain a "pure" German race, the Nazis sterilized and killed people with mental and physical disabilities.

This link allows you to downloads the questionnaire that they use in the interviews along with guidelines for the interviewers, which are very important to the foundations,
http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/vhi/vhf-new/Pages/1-Access-Methodology.htm

The questionnaire is actually 40 pages long, the format and questions of the questionnaire was somewhat surprising to me.

If anyone looks at the questionnaire I would like to know what your thoughts on it are.

Photos vs. Words

Just a quick question of opinion: when reporting on or making crises (civil war or genocide, for example) known, is the use of pictures more powerful than words, and why?
(Photographer: Steve McCurry. Photograph of Sharbat Gula, 1985)

Basic Rights

So having recently discussed the idea of basic rights in a new democracy and when people are willing to stand up for these rights I thought this article was interesting.

The Road to a South African Driver's License

This article talks about how difficult it is to get a driver's license in South Africa. Fewer than 4 out of 10 people who applied for a license actually received one. In America I know that some people consider having a license to be a basic need. Trying to get a license is "so daunting that it set off riots this year"

Do you think that not being able to receive a license is violating a right?
What is considered a basic human right?
Does basic human rights vary from place to place?
What rights do you think people are willing to die to protect?

Summary of the Week 10/22-10/29

This week in class we began our look into Germany's Weimar Republic. Covernig the time between the end of World War I and the begining of Hitler's rule, the republic offers a glimpse of the troubles a fledgling demcracy may face. It also shows how Germany created an atmosphere which allowed someone like Hitler to come into power.
On monday the 22nd, before jumping into the subject, Ms. Finn made a presentation of the Chicago style of Citation. This is in preperation for our paper which is due in a couple of weeks as well as all future History courses we may take. We then met in pairs to answer questions about democracy such as how a new democracy should educate their citizens so they become capable members of the nation.
On wednesday the 24th, We first focused on our previous night's homework. The assignment was to right the introuductory and first body paragraphs to a possible essay about the Weimar Republic. During class, we met with a partner, and peer edited our work so that we could get a feel of the likely mistakes we would have for our future paper. Then, we met in groups of four where each group answered questions about a different document. The four documents were: a summary of the Versailles Treaty, part of the Weimar constitution, German news Reports during the beginning of the Weimar Republic, and a map showing German Territory losses caused by the treaty of Versailles.

On friday the 26th, we once again split up into fours, but this time to teach oneanother about the documents we looked at the previous class. Then, in those same groups of Four, we were each given a summary about one of the political parties during Weimar Republic. These included the the Socialist, Commmunist, Catholic, and Nazi party. After learning about our parties, each group had to make a presentation which explained their parties ideas and goals, and at the end two other students had to decide which group would be elected.

News on the fight to pass the Armenian genocide resolution

Earlier this week, the U.S. House of Representatives decided to delay the vote on the Armenian genocide resolution which we discussed in class last week. The main reason given as a justification for putting off the vote until a later date was due to the fear of crippling U.S.-Turkey relations. An article in the S.F. Chronicle noted that lawmakers believe the resolution will be supported by the majority of House at a more favorable time (when it will not affect important U.S.-Turkey relations). Condoleezza Rice told House panelists that passing the resolution now "would really damage our relations with a Democratic ally who is playing an extremely important strategic role in supporting our troops." California Democrat Adam Schiff, one of the primary sponsors of the resolution said that "we [the primary sponsors] want to make sure that when the measure is brought to the floor, we're confident the votes are there. I think the worse thing would be that you take it up and you're not successful, and Turkey argues that it's a denial of the genocide."

To see the full article from which this information was taken, visit:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/10/25/national/w135735D42.DTL&hw=genocide&sn=008&sc=576

What do you think the benefits and down-sides are to delaying the vote?

Do you agree or disagree with Schiff's worry that by delaying the vote or re-trying the vote at a bad time, there is a possibility of Turkey using the failure as a means of furthering denial of the genocide? Why or why not?

Is there a more appropriate time to continue the fight to pass the resolution? If so, when?

How real is our Democracy?

As we uncover the role of a democracy in class, I thought I would post about the American democracy, something that we can all relate to. Although America is stereotypically the ideal democracy, I find more and more that our country isn't "governed by the people"-- the definition that Ms. Finn gave us in class. I cannot say that we are all equal and that we all exercise complete freedom. As we know, we elect officials who we think are going to make right decisions, but we rarely have say in what actually happens in our political system. I know it seems impossible for everyone to have a say in everything, but then is this a true democracy?
Following is a letter to the editor from the New York Times (October 14, 2007) from a woman from MA who feels like her voice (and actually many others who agree with her) is not being heard and that she is not living in a society where justice and democracy are supposed to be prevalent.
"Thank you, Frank Rich, for calling attention to the troubling reality of American apathy that has allowed the Bush administration to violate our most cherished principles of justice, democracy and human rights.
Along with millions of other Americans, I have participated in a multitude of events protesting the policies of this administration, including a famously underreported march of half a million people in Washington right before the start of the Iraq war.
Along with my friends and family, I have written letters, signed petitions, contacted my Congressional representatives and actively campaigned at the grass-roots level. None of it has helped.
I am profoundly discouraged. What can we do? "

So my questions are:
Do you feel part of a truly democratic society here in the U.S.? If not, why not?
What are the advantages and disadvantages to the U.S.'s form of democracy? Does one outweigh the other?
Can you answer this woman's last question: "What can we (as individuals) do"?

Self-Deception and Equality in America

While discussing the question of "self-deception," in class, an interesting question came up: what exactly do we mean, or more precisely, did the Founders mean, when they wrote "all men are created equal?"

Obviously, not everyone is created equal - everyone has a different talent or skill. So then what exactly does "equality" mean?

Does equality mean equal rights under the law? What kinds of rights?

Does it mean equal opportunity... ie... "pursuit of happiness?"

Does it mean equal wealth?

Can equality be all of these things at once? Can it be something else?

Who determines what this "equality" is?

And... relating back to the original question - does this "equality" exist in America today? Do we tell ourselves that it does? Why?

Anyway, lots of questions, few answers, but I'd like to know what you guys think.

-coe

Genocide in Darfur & Apartheid in South Africa

In terms of student activism, the Apartheid of South Africa and the genocide in Darfur have a stiking number of similarities. The Apartheid is an interesting case study to look at because student protests and activism for divestment in South Africa really helped to end the racism and human rights abuses. Here is a brief overview of the Apartheid:

"Apartheid consisted of numerous laws that allowed the ruling white minority in South Africa to segregate, exploit and terrorize the vast majority: Africans, mostly, but also Asians and Coloureds - people of mixed race. In white-ruled South Africa, black people were denied basic human rights and political rights. Their labour was exploited, their lives segregated.
Under Apartheid, racist beliefs were enshrined in law and any criticism of the law was suppressed. Apartheid was racism made law. It was a system dictated in the minutest detail as to how and where the large black majority would live, work and die. This system of institutionalized racial discrimination defied the principles of the United Nations Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights."

Steve Biko is an especially good example of a student activist who was allegedly murdered by the apartheid regime of South Africa and since then revered as a martyr of the movement and a civil rights activist:
"Steven Biko was a noted anti-apartheid activist in South Africa in the 1960s and early 1970s. A student leader, he later founded the Black Consciousness Movement which would empower and mobilize much of the urban black population. Since his death in police custody, he has been called a martyr of the anti-apartheid movement. While living, his writings and activism attempted to empower blacks, and he was famous for his slogan "black is beautiful", which he described as meaning: "man, you are okay as you are, begin to look upon yourself as a human being". The ANC (African National Conference, governing party of South Africa) was very hostile to Biko and to Black Consciousness through the 70s to the mid 90s[Quotation from source requested on talk page to verify interpretation of source] but has now included Biko in the pantheon of struggle heroes, going so far to use his image for campaign posters in South Africa's first democratic elections, in 1994." Steve Biko (I know wikipedia is bad but this was a good summary)
Apartheid in South Africa
More Info

This relates to the situation in Darfur, which is actually much "worse" given that it is a genocide. My questions are:

• What are the factors that make student activism effective?
• Why was the divestment apartheid movement of the '80s seemingly more effective than that of the divesement movement for Darfur today?
• Is student activism the way that human rights causes should be solved and campaigned for in the first place? Is it up to the students to campaign for human rights or should the government and international community be doing more?
• The connects to our in class thingy about solving genocide, what is the most effective solution? Does student activism only take place because the international community and politicans are too slow?
  

Also I want to let everyone know about the DAY OF ACTION FOR DARFUR tomorrow, Wednesday October 24th.

Social Justice Club will be hosting a petition drive in the foyer all day, where you can come by and sign the global petition for Darfur and learn more about it as well.