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?