The Power of Cooperation

Sorry for all of those not in the H block class, but this post pertains to today guest speaker, Professor Naomi Roht-Arriaza. She talked about the legal work behind declaring, proving and defining genocide and crimes against humanity. More importantly to my post, she explained the formation and structure of the International Criminal Court, and went over the pros and cons of it's existance and the courts limitations.
According to Professor Roht-Arriaza, there are 4 cases currently in session - political leaders in Uganda, Darfur, The Central African Republic, and The Democratic Republic of Congo. Of these 4 cases, only one of the offenders has been apprehended and jailed during the trial. Therefore most of the people on trial for these humanitarian crimes are still free and for the most part aren't fleeing/ hiding. This is because the court doesn't possess the power or have the physical ability to actually arrest the perpetrators and the court's memeber nations can't reasonably go into Darfur and "kidnap" a political figure. There in lies the problem, The ICC and UN along with most other multinational organizations lack the ability to enforce rulings, decisions and policies. If the UN were to attempt an invasion of Darfur to stop the genocide, whose troops would be sent in? America's? We probabaly wouldn't concent. China? No. The same response would occur for all UN member nations.
So my question is do you believe that these multinational organizations will ever be effective without a military and what do you propose these organizations should/can do about there lack of enforcement? Can the UN or ICC ever have a police/militant force?

Is Torture Ever Acceptable?

Since the beginning of the Global War on Terrorism, the capture and prosecution of terrorists has been a focal US goal. To nobody’s surprise, most of the apprehended suspects have been reluctant to tell US military officials any information they may know regarding the locations of other enemies of state or of possible future terror attacks. To get these men to talk, the CIA and US military have used practices branded as “torture”, by definitions in the Geneva Conference and in the US Congress’s interrogation guideline. The Bush administration first issued to military officials that any policy that may end up saving American lives can be used, except for those that directly caused “organ failure or death.” In 2004, the White House retracted these statements and declared that it will and only has approved interrogation methods that have obliged to Congresses’ strict and clear guideline to legal interrogation. However, last week, the New York Times uncovered two secret memos, sent by then Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez to US military officials and CIA leaders, designed to fudge their way around Congress's clear guidelines against torture. The memos approved the use of illegal techniques and said no CIA practices would violate the restrictions. The White House has dismissed allegations that it has supported the use of torture, even in light of the newly found documents.

My question to you guys is:
Is the use of torture against suspected terrorists EVER acceptable?

If you believe no, would you still say no even if there is a highly probable chance that the suspect has some sort of knowledge of an impending terrorist attack that could potentially kill hundreds or thousands of people?

If you believe yes, then wouldn’t this direct undermining of international torture regulations expose US soldiers to risk of torture if they are captured? Isn’t this a question of morals too?



http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/10/our-view-on-pri.html#more

White House Condemns Resolution Labeling Armenian Genocide

President Bush, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert Gates spoke against a House resolution that would officially call the killings of Armenians as "genocide".

In their comments they said that, "passage of the resolution would hurt relations with an important U.S. ally" and that "good relations with Turkey are vital because 70 percent of the air cargo intended for and 30 percent of the fuel consumed by the U.S. forces in Iraq flies through Turkey."

Condoleezza Rice said, "We recognize the feelings of those who want to express their concern and their disdain for what happened many years ago...But the passage of this resolution at this time would, indeed, be very problematic for everything that we're trying to do in the Middle East because we are very dependent on a good Turkish strategic ally to help with our efforts."

Representative Adam Schiff spoke out against the White House's response saying, "The United States has a compelling historical and moral reason to recognize the Armenian genocide, which cost a million and a half people their lives. But we also have a powerful contemporary reason as well. How can we take effective action against the genocide in Darfur if we lack the will to condemn genocide whenever and wherever it occurs?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here US economic interests conflict with perhaps our moral obligations. If we pass the resolution, we could hurt our relationship with Turkey. But if the US sides with Turkish denial of the genocide, aren't we just "continuing genocide" as one of our guest speakers said?
-What should the United States do?
-What is more important, our economic interests or moral obligations?
-Does the fact that Iraq is involved in the situation affect how you think about it? Should it?
-Do you think the US is being selfish in refusing to call it genocide?
-Do you agree with Schiff, that this sets the tone for how the US deals with genocide and especially the current situation in Darfur?

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/10/us.turkey.armenians/index.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/09/AR2007100902347.html?nav=rss_print/asection

Save one life, save the world

Today in class we had Mr. Kamm come speak to H block about his work with the Dui Hua Foundation, of which he is the founder. Very simply put, the purpose of this non-governmental organisation (NGO) is to find names of political prisoners in China in open sources (newspapers, public government documents, government reports, etc.) and request that they be released. In the best cases, the prisoner is released, at the very least they are usually given better treatment. So far they have found 5,000 names and helped around 500 prisoners lessen their prison time. At first glance these numbers seem large, and they are, but compared to the huge numbers of political prisoners in China, they barely scratch the surface. So then the question comes up, is it worth it? Dui Hua isn't stopping China from arresting people, it is only helping individuals whose names it finds.

There is a Jewish quote (variations of which appear in many other religions) that Mr. Kamm mentioned in support of his work: "If you save one life, you save the world entire."

Some questions to connect this back to our genocide theme:
1) Do you agree with this quote?
2) Should one focus on saving individuals at the risk of a genocide continuing indefinitely or on stopping a genocide at the risk of individuals perishing in the meantime? While neither option is a 'good' one, is there a lesser evil to the two?

Partick Desbois

Hey everyone!
so I just read an article that was in the NY Times on Saturday entitled "One Story at a Time, a Priest Reveals Ukrainian Jews' Fate".
It's about a French priest who has gone to the Ukraine and other parts of formally Soviet Union. He has interviewed Ukrainians who were forced to work for the Nazi's during Nazi occupation to hear their stories, and has uncovered mass graves that have been largely ignored or covered up over the past 60 years.
Over 1.5 million Jews were murdered in the Ukraine, but until now there it was not publicized to the same extent as in Germany or Poland.
"Over four years, Father Desbois has videotaped more than700 interviews with witnesses and bystanders and has identified more than 600 common graves of Jews, most of them previously unknown."
Why were these landmarks covered up and ignored by the country after other countries revealed their graves and gas chambers? Why didn't these witnesses tell their stories or reveal the graves before now? Would you qualify these people as bystanders? Are they as bad as David Cash? Would you qualify Father Desbois as an upstander (I would)?

Happy Columbus Day!

Because today is Columbus Day, I thought this would be a good time for discussion about Columbus and what we've learned about him in history thus far.

In elementary school (and, perhaps, middle school), as many of you probably know, Columbus is taught in a heroic sense... that is, he is viewed in a relatively good light. He discovered America, made a mistake and thought it was India, and basically is considered a hero because he was the "first one" to discover the "New World."

Then we get to the later grades (ie... world history sophomore year and US history junior year) and we start to learn about the details of Columbus' arrival. He brought over disease that killed the Native Americans, he cheated them, he killed them. Columbus is suddenly shown in a very different light.

My question is: from what we've learned about Columbus, can his actions here in America be considered "genocide?"

Also, consider this: President Andrew Jackson slaughtered many Native Americans (intentionally) during the War of 1812. Is this a genocide?

And... both Jackson and his successor, Martin Van Buren, forced many Native Americans out of their homes (Trail of Tears), causing the deaths of thousands. Is this genocide?

If these are considered genocide, can the US Government be held accountable today? How is this different from the Armenian Genocide and the Turkish Government?

Anyway, just some food for thought... Happy Columbus Day!

-coe

"Is your mutual fund funding genocide?" - Save Darfur Coalition Ad

In today's Chronicle on the front page of the Business section, there is an article called, "When Business and Politics Bang Heads: Save Darfur Coalition takes on Franklin Templeton."

Franklin Templeton is a huge, San Mateo based mutual fund company that is an affiliate of China National Petroleum Corp., the affiliate infamous for being the main source of revenue which enables the Sudanese government to continue the slaughtering and displacement of civilians in the Darfur region.

While the spokeswoman for the Save Darfur Coalition is quoted saying, "we tried to engage all of these companies privately [Franklin Templeton, JPMorgan, Fidelity Investments, Capital Group, Vanguard], " the Coalition has recently become more aggressive in their campaign to persuade divestment of the blood-stained stock. In response to these efforts, Franklin Templeton issued a statement saying that while they can appreciate the calls for divestment, they assert that "fostering economic and business development through investment in troubled regions can often help in achieving reform."

This disregard towards their participation in the killings prompted Save Darfur Coalition to release various billboards, internet/television ads to put a not-so-flattering spotlight on the investment firms.


What do you think of the ad?
Do you think these divestment campaigns are worth the time, effort, and resources of Darfur activists?
If you had stock in PetroChina, do you think it would be worth the divestment?

Obama refuses to wear an American Flag pin

Just in the news today, Obama, a front-runner candidate for the Democratic Party, voiced that the would not wear the American flag pin (that many politicians do) on the outside of his coat. Many politicians wear this because it shows their dedication to our country and their partriotic beliefs. However, Obama claims that this pin demonstrates "fake patriotism" that isn't "from the heart." He states: “I decided I won’t wear that pin on my chest. Instead, I’m going to try to tell the American people what I believe, what will make this country great, and hopefully that will be a testimony to my patriotism.”

A link to the full article is here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/05/us/politics/05obama.html

There has been much debate as to whether he is being unpatriotic or whether his views are unrealistic.
Do you agree or disagree with him?
Do you think that this will affect any future decisions made by voters during this election? How can something so minor like this affect something SO HUGE (the election)?

I think that Obama should just wear the pin to appease those who oppose him; it is such a simple thing to do. What is there to lose in wearing it?

Summary of Classes 9/28 to 10/4 (H block)

Much of this summary is identical as the other block which Melanie summarized. However, I’ll still give a small summary just for the H blockers as well as some notes I took down from the discussions that we had in class.

9/28: Students were asked to bring in their selected book for the book project. In the beginning of class, Ms Finn briefly told us about the dictatorship in Myanmar. One class member then went on (a small tangent) to discuss the word “dictator” and what it meant to him compared to what it meant to his parents. The term “American exceptionalism” then came up, which is used to describe the idea of Americans seeing themselves as different than everyone else. After the small discussion, we dispersed and reviewed several New York Times primary source articles, which were all about the Armenian Genocide. Something that was interesting to me was that the articles all seemed to be written as if it were in a very distant land that didn’t really pertain or connect with the American readers. Also, often the articles were a small column on the page, and were never accompanied with photographs. Lastly, we divided back into groups and each person shared what they had learned from the articles about “denial” from the websites we viewed a couple of classes previously.

10/2: Similarly to the other block, the first half of class was spent discusses the decision to remove the video clip from the blog. Many opinions were shared, and a common trend between everyone’s comments was that we were often torn between the “freedom of speech” concept as well as preserving the validity and respect of the class blog for outside viewers. The general consensus was that the decision to remove the video clip from the class blog was valid, however, what was more important was the discussions and comments from the students. The concepts of “intention” and whether our class and the class blog is always looking at all perspectives or not, or do we always have a biased slant on everything. Connections were made to whether postings of HATE.com clips, or a humor clip about 9/11 would be allowed to be on the blog or not. The largest gray zone in this discussion was finding the line between humor and “making fun” of such events as the Holocaust or 9/11, and in what circumstances is it appropriate? The last half of class was spent reading the “Never Again” reading, outside in the sunshine!

10/4: Today, we had a speaker named Naira, who was a descendant of a survivor of the Armenian Genocide. Her grandfather had barely escaped, since he had dressed up as a worker, and escaped in a stowaway cart. Her grandmother’s story was a bit different since she was a Protestant Iranian, and so when the soldiers came knocking at her door, she was sparred since she wasn’t a Catholic Christian. Naira grew up in an Armenian school in San Francisco, and described her experiences of singing songs about rebelling against the Young Turks. She also showed us a portion of a documentary film that she made using the interview transcripts of her grandfather when he was interviewed many years ago. Afterwards, she gave us a brief summary of the Armenian Genocide and background of the Armenians as a people, from 6th c. B.C. to April 24th, 1915, the national memorial day of the genocide, since it was the day when the Turks rounded up the most intelligent and influential leaders and artists, and killed them one by one all in one day. Since some of this information was review for us, the more interesting aspect of her presentation was her own personal additions from her grandfather’s story, to how the genocide has effected her and her entire family and culture. It was great to be able to have a more personal account to be able to see the effects of genocide in a more tangible light.

We are now continuing to read our selected books and prepare for the reading log due next Wednesday, Oct. 10th.

Good luck everyone and have a fabulous weekend!

10 Peacekeepers in Killed in DARFUR

If you can all click on this link...
http://action.savedarfur.org/campaign/savedarfur_auattacks/ixwg87u91eie8de?


...it will take you to a website where, if you look on the right hand side, you'll see a section called "Take Action on this Issue."

Then, after you fill in your name and stuff and click "Send This Message," which means you've basically signed an ePetition urging Bush and the UN-Secretary General Ban to get more peacekeepers in Darfur before any more killings occur.

*Also: In the top right corner, there's a box where you can sign up for updates. That way, you'll receive notice whenever there are new petitions to sign or other ways to get involved.

Thanks guys!

Rwandan Genocide and the Definition of Genocide

Hello,
Recently, the Rwandan genocide has been in the news again as Desire Munyaneza is being tried in Canada for genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. On Tuesday, (October 2nd) Senator Romeo Dallaire, who was a UN general in charge of the efforts to aid Rwanda, testified against Munyaneza, who was a leader in the Interahamwe militia. He was in charge of a series of roadblocks in Butare where killings occurred. The article can be found here.
The article states that one of the reasons for Dallaire's testimony is that "prosecutors must establish Munyaneza took part in a 'widespread or systematic attack' directed at a particular ethnic group to prove genocide and crimes against humanity, according to the untested 2000 Canadian war crimes law." Given the videos we have watched with Allan Ryan and Samantha Power on defining genocide, comment on this definition. How would a court establish "widespread," not necessarily in this case but in gneral? Also, should people be convicted of different crimes according to their level of inolvement in a genocide, or should genocide remain one crime that is quantified by counts of genocide? Or, as we talked about in regards to Lemkin's efforts, should intent be of more value than any other quantiying factor?

The Last Rotation in Summary

This past Rotation we covered issues of denial, media coverage of genocide, and we began to prepare for our debate.

9/28: We looked at newspaper articles from The New York TImes that covered the Armenian genocide and noted trends in the articles. We then split into groups to discuss the areas of denial that we covered and to read our letters to the editor about Ahmadinejad. Some class members also participated in petitioning for media coverage of Darfur in the San Francisco Chronicle.

10/2: Prior to this class meeting, Ms. Finn had removed the youtube video of "modern-day Hitler" rapping. We discussed issues of censorship and of appropriate material for our blog, keeping in mind that others besides our class see the blog, including speakers that come to our class who may be descendants of genocide victims. Some also expressed opinions and concerns, asserting that this blog is run by us and we should be able to control what is posted and removed.
We also read "Never Again?" to get background for our upcoming debate and to get more information about the Genocide Convention. Then we watched two short clips - one of Allan Ryan and one of Samantha Powers - and discussed the definition of genocide according to numbers.

10/4: Today we went over citation formatting. Afterwards, we discussed Senate committees and the process required to get a bill passed to be voted on by the House. Then we met in our separate option groups to prepare for our debate.

LINGERING QUESTIONS
1) How can genocide be detected in war time? How can war be used to cover genocide?
2) What is appropriate for the blog? When do we cross the line (such as in the Hitler video)?
3) Is humor ever appropriate when it comes to genocide?
3) When can we violate other countries' sovereignty? Does this put us in danger of having our sovereignty violated?
4) Should the definition of genocide be based on numbers?

Genocide and Evil?

Hey classmates,

As a result of our end-of-semester book project, I have started to look at the theoretical relation between genocide and evil, as well as the debate over whether evil actually exists or not. In researching this topic, I've found that there seems to be similar opinions about the existence and connection of evil in modern times.

A common thread that seems to link various writings about evil (from those who believe in it's existence) is that "evil", while it can't be defined, can be felt, and that something can be classified as being evil. In other words, no one can say what evil is, but everyone knows it when they see it. And one of the events that is thought to be most obviously evil is genocide.

However, a conflicting aspect in the debate on evil is the various persepectives that determine, to individual groups, whether an event is in fact evil or not. To different cultures, what may be seen as an abominable act by an outsider from a different culture, might be the norm in another. Furthermore, what may be considered an evil act by one civilization may be considered an act of survival by another nation. Or the element of memory might come into play as well: a nation's or people's aggression towards another nation or people might be considered a retaliatory act, a "getting-even-of", for an act that was committed against them long ago.

For further ideas on evil and it's defintion, as well as it's relation to society, you can go to the website http://www.ourcivilisation.com/moral/moral8.htm, or if you feel like reading, I recommend "Evil: An Investigation" by Lance Morrow. (It's a little heavy, but well written and thought provoking.)

Some questions I have for everyone are:
1)Do you believe that evil exists? If so, in what sense? (A religious sense, a moral sense, etc.)
2)What makes a person evil? Are they born that way, or is it a case of nature vs. nurture?
3)Can any one event be unanimously labeled evil by the global community, or do cultural differences create boundaries that forever divide opinions?

Questions for Speakers

Ms. Finn also announced last class the upcoming speakers that will be appearing in the next couple of classes. For the H blockers, we can get prepared for:
1. A speaker who is a descendant of a victim and a survivor of the Armenian Genocide and
2. Mr. Kamm (Rene Kamm’s dad) about foreign policy roughly (?) in relation to what we are learning and responsibility during genocides. [Rene, please correct me or add on if I am wrong]

Since there is much to look forward to in listening to our speakers, I thought it would be good to do a little prep before the speakers come.

Let this post be an open area for questions that we want to ask or things that we want to know more about. Then, when it comes the class when the speakers come, we will already have thought a little about what we’re trying to learn from the speaker, in addition to being a good listener.

Feel free to also add the biographies of either speakers.

Power of Photography

Hey class,
In studying the Armenian Genocide further in class, we came across an interesting idea in our last class (H block). Because the Turkish government had done such a good job at keeping all borders and ears closed about what they were doing during the years of, prior and after the genocide, it made it extremely difficult for any outside source or nation to get any knowledge about the situation. Therefore, journalists couldn’t report about the horrific stories, and governments couldn’t act towards aid. Nevertheless, this doesn’t justify anyone for not acting or doing anything.



Then there was a photographer named Armin T. Wegner, who very discretely took several photographs of the Armenian genocide, in particular, the chilling images of dead children who had starved to death. Today, this is some of the only photographic evidence that we still have of the genocide. In term, this eventually helped Armenia eventually become its own state.

It is partly because of these mere pixels on a page that give the rest of the world the blatant proof that was needed. It speaks a lot about the power that images and the media in general can have over history and in present society as well.

What if there were no photographs at all from the Armenian genocide? Would the term “Armenian genocide” still be recognized as a valid crime by some, or would there by less certainty and support?

In class, we also talked about the power of films about events such as the Holocaust and 911, and the type of power, negative or positive, that they can have on an individual, on a nation, and to the rest of the world. What other examples or thoughts do you have about the influence of the media on our perception of history, and how it affects the worldviews of yourself and an entire society?

The above two photographs are both copyrighted by Armin T. Wegner. Some of Wegner’s photographs can also be found on the Armeniapedia by Wikipedia: http://www.armeniapedia.org/index.php?title=Armenian_Genocide_Photos&printable=yes

Please take a look and give some responses.

President Bush is Asked to Speak at an Iranian College

As a response to Iranian President Ahmadinejad speaking at Columbia University, Iran's Ferdowsi University has asked President Bush to speak. Unfortunately, the invitation was declined due to various reasons, mostly having to do with freedom of expression and condemnations of Iran's foreign policy. While having seen America's reaction and rebuttals to President Ahmadinejad last week, it would have been interesting to see Ferdowsi College's reaction to Bush's statements.

Here is a link to the article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7024692.stm

Do you think President Bush should have accepted this invitation? Why?
What do you think Ferdowsi University's reactions would have been?
What was Ferdowsi University's motivation for inviting President Bush to speak?

Allan Ryan

In class today we watched a brief clip of a speech by Allan Ryan and his definition of genocide. He stated that there has to be killing on a large scale for it to be a genocide, with a specific number of people killed. This is a source of contention for many because, as Lemkin said, once a number of people have been killed, the genocide has already happened, and there cannot be preventitive measures taken. I was wondering if Ryan had a counterargumetn to that argument so I looked him up online and found this article.
click here

Ken Gewertz of the Harvard University Gazette states about Ryan's approach that, "Assigning strict parameters to the crime of genocide, to talk of numbers killed and other specific issues, may seem cold-blooded, but such definition is necessary to avoid the sort of prevarication that kept the United States and other nations from acting in the case of Rwanda." This article, and Ryan, make a strong case for assigning "strict parameters" to the concept of genocide. Based on the video from class and the article, do you agree or disagree with Ryan? Why? Do you think his ideas necessarily have to contradict Lemkin's? Why or why not?

Here are the links to the video, "Redefining Genocide" and another one, "Clarifying the Definition of Genocide" (also by Ryan)

Redefining Genocide

Clarifying the Definition of Genocide

Political Constituencies

In response to the video on the absence of certain forerunners in the republican presidential race I would like to ask a few questions. American politics is based almost completely in the concept of "identity," but not identity of thought. What does it mean to be "for" a group of people? I don't believe that someone can be a candidite that is "for" women, or "for" Christians. The very phrase is meaningless. How many different kinds of women are there? How many different kinds of Christians? Now you could be "for" socialism or universal health-care, but you can't be "for" someone simply because they have a slightly different anatomy than someone else. American politics would be far better, and Americans far smarter, if we stopped voting based on our (or the candidate's) appearance and started voting based on real vibrant political beliefs.

GOP leaders M.I.A.

Per Ms. Finn's request, here is a local news station's clip covering the "second tier" of Republican presidential candidates at the Morgan State debate. The clip, as well as the debate itself, focuses on the absence of GOP front-running candidates (all explained that they had scheduling and/or travel complications).

Why do you think these "big fish" did not feel pressed to schedule the Morgan State debate into their tours? Do you think that this reflects their commitment to the Latino and/or African American community? What would you have done if you were one of the front-runners in the Republican presidential election?

Irish Potato Famine a genocide?

I was just wondering what everyone's reactions are to the Irish potato famine. I felt like I should know more about it since my family emigrated to America during the famine, and I'd like to share it with the class. I personally wouldn't necessarily call the famine a genocide, but it definitely plays into what we've been talking about in class regarding upstanders, bystanders, and perpetrators. Obviously in this case you could say that England was a bystander, therefore contributing to the massive death toll in Ireland.

Here is a site claiming that the potato famine was an act of genocide. It has some pretty interesting claims that you should check out

http://www.nde.state.ne.us/ss/irish/irish_pf.html

And here's an overview of the famine

http://www.answers.com/topic/irish-potato-famine-1


How could the Irish potato famine be classified as a genocide?
How is the famine similar, in ways, to what is going on in Darfur?

In response to the conversation about humor and genocide (from Ms. Finn)

Hello class:

Thank you for such a lively and interesting blog. I want to encourge you to keep up the conversation and continue to look for meaningful thought provoking connections.

You will notice that I have removed the video that was posted over the weekend. I have saved the comments written in response to this video and these will be reposted. I have also kept the questions that went along with the video (which are definately worth considering). We will talk more in class about my decision to remove the video.

In the meantime, please consider the questions that we have been pondering about free speech vs. responsibility and the role that public forums (such as this blog) play in helping to memorialize and instruct others about genocide.

Best,
Ms. FInn

Reflection on Petitioning for SF Chronicle Coverage of the Genocide in Darfur

I know that a lot of people went to petition for more coverage of the genocide in Darfur by the San Francisco Chronicle today, and I had some interesting experiences that made me think about this class, so I thought I'd write a little about them and maybe some other people could, too? Jillian and I were going up to people sitting on benches; many of them were very nice and supportive. We met one man who told us "You do know that this isn't going to do anything, that this means nothing at all, and that they won't look at this, right? What you should really do is start a blog." We then got to tell them that our class had a blog about genocide and human behavior. It also made me wonder if this guy was right. If a newspaper isn't covering something, there's probably a reason. This made me question what that reason was. Maybe that's a very naive question and the answer is staring me in the face, but I can't seem to understand their motivation for not covering it, or at least not very much in proportion to the number of important occurrences taking place there. If anybody had asked about that I would not have been informed enough, but nobody did.
I think the scariest thing we encountered was a genial elderly woman reading a romance novel. We went up to her and started to give her the mini-talk about how despite the fact that there was a mass murder occurring, it was getting minimal coverage in the Chronicle. She asked a question, and we proceeded to give her more details about the genocide. Then she started laughing kindly, and said. "Oh. Well, I don't really care!" We knew that there are people who don't care about this in the world, but to be faced with it so bluntly was very shocking, and we didn't really know what to say. Part of me wanted to say "Well, you should, hundreds of thousands of people are being killed," but I knew that acting discourteously would not help anyone. I think what shocked me more than anything was the way that she was so friendly in this statement, as though it was just that she did not care about whether it would rain today. When I think about people who don't care about the genocide occurring, I don't tend to picture them as friendly or nice, and this woman showed me how universal this apathy could really be. It was a very frightening thought.

Response to Thom's Posting

This is in response to my comment on "Genocide and Humor." I referenced a scene in "The Producers," a Mel Brooks movie that uses comedy on a touchy subject. Was it successful or distasteful?

Humour and Genocide

What events in history are okay to laugh about?
What does it mean to laugh at history?
When we laugh at something does that mean we now have power over it?
It is okay to laugh at something like genocide?

I found this video on youtube. I won't tell you what to think about it but I want to hear your responses.

Armin Wegner - Ultimate Upstander

I thought I would follow-up on the story of Armin Wegner, the German writer/photographer and anti-genocide activist who dedicated his life to protesting both the Armenian genocide and the Holocaust. After documenting the horrific realities of the genocide in Armenia, Wegner was arrested by the Germans at the request of the Turkish Command. In their efforts to erase all evidence of the killings, German officials confiscated and destroyed most of Wegner's film, though he was able to smuggle a few images.

He then went on to be the only writer in Nazi Germany to publicly and forcefully protest Hitler's plan to exterminate the Jewish people. Shortly after writing a letter to Hitler, Wegner was arrested, tortured, and sent to a Nazi concentration camp. Before finally escaping to Italy, Wegner was imprisoned in seven different concentration camps.

Wegner's story an incredibly inspiring example of the extent to which select people are willing to go in the name of social justice and consciousness.

Adalian's "Armenian Genocide"

Happy Friday everyone!

Thanks Casey for a great “blog duty” the past rotation. Our genocide classes have been so enriching and thought-provoking these past few weeks, I always look forward to this class to get me through the rest of the week.

Our assignment last night was to read the first 8 pages of Rouben Paul Adalian’s “Armenian Genocide” summary from "A Century of Genocide," in order to give those of who are not as familiar with this less-publicized genocide a quick synopsis of the Whos, Hows, and Whys of this atrocity. One thing that surprised and interested me, among other things, was the earlier history on the early origins of this genocide. The Young Turks, described to be Enver, Talaat and Jemel, had the opportunity to reform and recreate the declining situation of their country because of their governmental positions and instruments of power. Adalian said that “…the Young Turks originally advocated a platform of constitutionalism, egalitarianism, and liberalism” (54). And then gradually, the Ottoman Empire became influenced and “brainwashed” by Germany, and soon, “by 1913, the advocates of liberalism had lost out to radicals in the party who promoted a program of forcible Turkification” (54), using German-made weapons and military education.

It is so fascinating to me that the evil Young Turk dictators started their reign with an intent on having a democracy, and became so easily swayed by the pressure of a greater European country. How would circumstances have been different if Germany had not stepped into the picture? Would the CUP still have made its plan to extinguish the entire Armenian race, using “deportation, execution and starvation”?

This also brings to mind whether or not other genocides or cruel acts by the government started out as good intentions? Why do countries feel the need to mimic the other (as the Turkish government mimicked the German government)? Can one prevent such cruel events from happening if these problems are addressed from the beginning? What current day events relate to this problem of minority and more powerful governments?

If there any other comments about the reading, I know I only focused on one aspect that stood out the most to me. Please respond to any part of the reading. Did the reading help clarify any confusions or misunderstandings about the beginning of the genocide? Are there still any other questions?

Looking forward to another good week!

Bystanders, upstanders, tasers: oh my!

Just to continue the dialogue about the roles of bystanders, upstanders, and perpetrators, I saw this clip on the news and then Associated Press about a University of Florida student, Andrew Meyer, who was asking some very provocative questions at a forum that featured John Kerry. He wound up being tasered and then arrested for resisting an officer and disturbing the peace, but hasn't yet been tried. The police are considering formally charging Meyer with resisting arrest with violence, which is a felony, and disturbing the peace and interfering with school administrative functions, a misdemeanor crime. There are numerous perspectives that we could address about this issue but one of my first reactions was to the fact that no one from the audience got up to help Meyer. Then again, is Meyer considered to be an upstander or a perpetrator? I wondered what Florida University had to say about the actions of the police in an academic setting; does tasering promote free speech and learning?
From the youtube.com site, there are links to some reputable (and some not) sites that have more background information on the situation.

Attacks on Aid Workers in Darfur

I just read this article from the UN News Service about the most recent attacks on humanitarian aid workers in Southern Darfur. (I would have posted it in links, but I'm not qutie sure how to do that.) According to the article, "attacks against the relief community have increased by 150 per cent in the past year". This was especially frightening to read not just because of the attacks themselves, but because such attacks might discourage organizations from sending further aid. What are people's thoughts on this?

http://allafrica.com/stories/200709271236.html

H Block Rotation Summary (sorry to be a bit repetitive)

Hello fellow H Blockers:

As my "blog rotation" is coming to an end I wanted to give you guys a quick synopsis of what we have done this past rotation:

We began the rotation with our guest speaker, Milton, who spoke to us about eugenics and race science and how the idea of race has come to be as a result of the past. He emphasized the role that thinking critically plays in his study of eugenics how we can learn a lot about ourselves through studying the events and ideas of the past. We discussed the three articles that we read in class, which all highlighted a specific aspect of eugenics and its origins (science, race improvement, and ranking according to race). Although our discussion ended somewhat abruptly we were able to uncover some deep ideas that left us asking more and more questions.

Our next class we discussed the idea of denial and related it to the very timely visit of Iranian President Ahmadinejad to Columbia University who is an active denier of the Holocaust and whose visit to the US brought about a great deal of controversy on whether or not he should be allowed to speak at the University. In the writing lab we explored different aspects/figures related to genocide denial and for homework wrote a "Letter to the Editor" regarding our stance (if we had one) one whether or not the President of Iran should be allowed to speak at Columbia. (Congrats to Leo who was published in the San Francisco Chronicle!)

In our most recent class we began our study of the Armenian genocide. After going over the basic facts of when and where the genocide took place we discussed in depth many questions that arose about the genocide itself to the Turkish government's denial of such an event. W also found ourselves trying to answer the question of "Why is it that so many people are familiar with the Holocaust and not the Armenian genocide?" Our discussion went down many paths from foreign policy to the idea of Euro-centrism.

I hope that this was not too lengthy for you guys...
Looking forward to many more exciting and engaging classes in the future!

F Block: Rotation Summary (9/19 - 9/26)

Hey F-Blockers,
I think it's fair to say this past rotation was pretty packed with activity. From guest speakers to debates to lots of questions, we explored controversial topics like genocide denial and freedom of speech. Hopefully, this short summary will refresh your memories and keep you thinking about it all as we move forward...

Thursday (9/20) - S.T.A.N.D. founder and recent Stanford alum, Nikki, came in to give us a bit more context and perspective on the current genocide in Darfur. He broke his presentation into three chunks: History, International Community's response, and Activism. Due to lack of time, the "activism" portion was extremely short and we didn't have any time to respond or ask questions.

Monday (9/24) - For homework, we read about and responded to an article on the Armenian Genocide. We were asked to think about how the Turks justified their actions against the Christian minority, as well as how the press responded or should have responded to all that was happening. Then, as the perfect reinforcement for these responses, we had a speaker, Roxanne, come in to give us further context for the Armenian genocide. Her presentation had a very palpable emotional component because her grandparents were Armenians who had been forced to escape the Turkish government's plot. After a moving introduction and lots of facts, Roxanne discussed the effect that denial had and still has on the survivors/witnesses of the genocide. She emphasized how much energy the Turkish government continues to put into erasing the Armenian genocide from history.

Wednesday (9/26) - Today we further discussed the idea of genocide denial, and the strategies the deniers use to bolster their standpoints ("Revisionist" history, logical fallacies, F.U.D.). We read an article from 2006 about a Holocaust denier convention that President Ahmadinejad held in Tehran. This was particularly interesting as it contributed to the close watch we've been conducting on the Iranian President's speech at Columbia. Then, we went to the writing lab and broke into four groups, each group taking on a specific task related to genocide denial. Our homework for Friday is to write a letter to the editor of either the SF Chronicle, the NY Times, or the Oakland Tribune giving our opinion on whether or not we think Mr. Ahmedinejad should have been invited to speak. Congratulations to Leo for having his letter published!

It's been a hectic and thought-provoking week, and I have confidence that as the semester continues, our conversations and ideas are only going to get more complex and interesting...

Ahmadinejad on the Holocaust at Columbia

This blog seems to have been following the news story of Ahmadinejad's visit to Columbia, and since we're focusing on Holocaust denial in class, I thought I'd post this segment from his talk at Columbia in which he talks about the Holocaust. Similarly to what Elias said a few posts ago, I am not posting this to lend any support to Ahmadinejad's statements, but to look at some of the statements he is making and how they follow or don't follow typical claims made by deniers.
The part that angered me the most, as I stated in an earlier comment, was the statement that the Holocaust has nothing to do with Iran, and the fact that this should change the way they viewed it. Or at least that's my interpretation of the statment, it's not a direct quote. He said something similar in his interview. What were your reactions to that?

A NOTE FROM MS. FINN

Hello.

At this point in the life of the blog, you should have your own log in name. Coe and Tal (as well as others who have logged in) know how to do this and can show you. You can also read the instructions on the side of the blog.

Please do not log in as "Ms. Finn" from this point on. I want it to be clear who is speaking and writing and I don't want your opinions confused with mine from the reader's perspective.

Keep up the active communication and discussion.

Happy blogging!

Ms. Finn

Free Speech (in France)

France recently moved to make the denial of the Armenian genocide a punishable offense under law. Of course this raises a plethora of questions. Although this happened a little while ago, its really pertinent to what we are discussing, so I want to know what you guys think. Here the link to an Article on it from the Herald tribune:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/10/12/news/france.php?page=1

Can passing such a law be considered just?

Can not passing such a law be considered just?


Could a law like this ever get passed in America?

A Denier

This is Thomas Mallon—

When our class was researching Holocaust denial the other day I stumbled upon somthing facinating and of acute historical significance to our class. One of the fist denier of the Holocaust was not a white supremisist, nor a Nazi sympathizer—he was a french resistance fighter that had spent the war helping jews escape from Nazi persecution. Yet this same man wrote a book essentially claiming that the gas chambers had not existed. Why? He was worried that anti-German sentiment would give strength to communists and that it could turn into another war, leading to a communist take-over of Europe. This is so interesting because our perception of what a "denier" is is utterly differant. This shows that there can be many motives for altering history, not just to spread hate, but sometimes in an effort for peace.

SO I want to ask this question: if erasing the Holocaust from history would prevent a war right here, right now, would it be justified?

Armenian Genocide Guest Speaker

Although it's not my blog week, I still really wanted to post this topic.
Our guest on the Armenian genocide, Roxanne, was very informative and engaging. What I really like about her was that she was able to add a personal story to her presentation. Because she had family who lived during the genocide, and since she's been back there since, her story seemed tangible and clear. What most surprised me was how she described the denial of the Turkish government. I know we're going to be talking about denial in class, so feel free to add to this once we study more about it.
So for F blockers....
Here are some questions:
-What were your first impressions of Roxanne's story?
-Since there wasn't enough time at the end of class, what questions would you have liked her to respond to?
-How did this presentation enhance or affect your perception of denial?
-How is hearing about a genocide from a person who has an experience that directly relates to it (Roxanne) different from hearing about a genocide from a person who is simply an activist to stop it (Nikki)?

And also one more thing that isn't directly related to the presentation, but I've been thinking about it for a while now:
(EVERYONE RESPOND!)
Why is it that when we study World War I that we don’t hear about the Armenian genocide? I don’t remember it even being mentioned in 10th or 11th grade history classes (although this may just be my inability to recollect something like this….). Why is it that the Holocaust is given so much more attention and is known around the world when a similar thing happened to the Armenian Christians? This question really confounded me because it made absolutely no sense. (answers anyone?)

I know this was part of a previous comment of mine like a week or two ago, but nobody responded and I still think that it's really interesting.

Rwanda Synopsis

I found this really terrifyingly detailed article on the Rwandan genocide, written by Samantha Powers. It's kind of long, but I felt like it was definitely worth the read.

In the course of a hundred days in 1994 the Hutu government of Rwanda and its extremist allies very nearly succeeded in exterminating the country's Tutsi minority. Using firearms, machetes, and a variety of garden implements, Hutu militiamen, soldiers, and ordinary citizens murdered some 800,000 Tutsi and politically moderate Hutu. It was the fastest, most efficient killing spree of the twentieth century.

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200109/power-genocide/1

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on the Holocaust

Since the Iranian president has been in the news, I thought it would be interesting to try and unpack his thoughts on the Holocaust and his reasoning for denying that it ever happened. I post this video to stimulate questions, not to give Mr. Ahmadinejad a platform to discuss his ideas. I am quite against his denial of what I believe is one of the most atrocious, horrific events in history and there is enough evidence to prove that it happened. But after watching this video I was struck at some of the points he makes and am interested in responses from others in both sections of the class.

Full CBS Interview with Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Race Science, Eugenics+ Guest Speaker

Hey guys, so after our guest speaker on Thursday (H Block) I thought that I would do a little bit of recapping of our class/discussion and see what your reactions were to what we learned and discussed during the class. Although our discussion ended somewhat abruptly, feel free to respond about your reactions, thoughts, or whatever you feel is missing from my brief summary.

Our guest speaker, Milton, came to talk to us about the subject of race science and eugenics and how they have influenced how we interpret the idea of race today. Milton began by addressing the importance of thinking critically when studying eugenics and answering the question of "How does the past frame the way we think of things today?" After some introduction to the subject of eugenics, we broke up into groups of three and each read one of three different articles pertaining to eugenics. Together the articles explored the science behind the study of eugenics, the idea of "race improvement", as well as the idea of ranking humans according to race. From these articles we learned that eugenics is basically the term used to describe "race betterment". In the late 1800's the idea of "race betterment" implied finding a way to breed Europeans with Europeans to create more of the "superior race " and slowly weed out the "lesser races (Africans, Asians, Native Americans)". From our short discussion of the articles we came up with questions such as "Can science be totally objective?", "What is normal?", and "What does the environment have to do with how the data is interpreted (i.e. homogeneity vs. heterogeneity)?" We were just scraping the surface of some of these questions when class ended so hopefully Milton will be able to come to our class again so that we can continue exploring these ideas!

Feel free to respond in any way but here are some questions you can use to guide your responses:

• How has our study of eugenics influenced your interpretation of race? Has it changed?
  
• How is the idea of eugenics related to genocide in general?
• Are any, if at all, of the key assumptions in eugenics valid or true? How so?
  
• What were your reactions to Milton and the study of eugenics?
  

We'd Invite Hitler to speak, says Columbia's Dean

This video relates to a discussion we had in class.

Would you provide a platform for Hitler, or a denier of the Holocaust to speak in public? Why or why not? If not, how is this any different from other forms of free speech?

What if that speaking event was paid for by taxes? What if that speech was instead a a debate with many sides of the issue presented?

White Supremacist websites in the Jena 6 Case

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/09/23/national/a050117D98.DTL&hw=jena&sn=001&sc=275

This is an article from the SF Chronicle on Sunday, September 23; it states that some white supremacist websites recently posted the addresses and phone numbers of the African American kids involved in the case. The FBI is investigating whether or not the site is breaking any laws.

I thought this was interesting because it relates directly to the HATE.COM film we watched in class, and it further proves that those websites do exist and they are very much active today.

After reading the article, think about these questions:
-Do you think an FBI investigation of these websites is enough? or do you agree with Rev. Jesse Jackson that these families need protection?
-What do you think should be done to the moderators of the website? Where does the line end between their right to free speech and the harassment of the families, seeing as they did not directly harm them?
Comment on any of these questions, or anything you have to say!

Democratic Debate (CNN + YouTube)

So sorry to be all over the place (please read the post below this one!), but I wanted post this video and see what you guys had to say about it.

The International Tracing Service

The International Tracing Service (ITS) clarifies the fates of millions of individuals. The archive, located in Bad Arolsen, Germany, contains over 50 million cards pertaining to 17.5 million civilians persecuted by the Nazis. The ITS collects its information from death books, transportation lists, and medical reports (among others) from over 50 concentration camps and prisons.

The 1955 Bonn Agreements set up a committee of 11 nations that manages the ITS through the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). These nations are France, Germany, Greece, Israel, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Poland, United Kingdom, United States.

Recently, these member states and the ICRC have decided to open the ITS's research to the public. Before this decision, you would have to write to the ITS and request information on a specific individual. Now, the archives will be available at the Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C. and Yad Vashem in Jerusalem (I'm uncertain where the other nations will house their copies of the archive.). More importantly, the archive is now open for historical analysis.

What impact does the ICRC's decision have? Genocide is the systemic destruction of a race, culture, or nation. Through historical analysis, is it possible to salvage that culture?

The ITS has only focused on the Holocaust in Nazi Germany. Should it create archives for other genocides? How pragmatic is it to create an archive for an ongoing genocide such as the one in Darfur?

Links:
The International Tracing Service
The History of the International Tracing Service
United States: International Tracing Service hands over copy of holocaust documents to Holocaust Memorial Museum

S.T.A.N.D. Speaker - Nikki

Hey - so I thought I would post about Nikki's presentation on Thursday. I wanted to give a quick summary/response, as well as hear from you guys with any initial reactions or thoughts.

Just to rehash a bit, the majority of what was discussed had to do with the historical/geographical/social context of Sudan. Nikki addressed the 20-year civil war over oil and territories between the Northern and Southern regions of Sudan that preceded the current genocide in Darfur, explaining how Darfurians felt that they're voice as a region was being excluded from the government in Sudan's capital, Khartoum. This sense of exclusion fueled the conflicts between the government and various rebel forces, when, in April of 2003, various Darfurian rebels attacked Sudanese officials at the government's airport at Al Fashir (in North Darfur). Since then, the two main rebel groups (The Sudanese Liberation Army and The Justice and Equality Movement) have continued to fight out against the government in response to decades of neglect, preventable drought, and various other forms of oppression.
It is this rebelliousness that prompted President Omar al-Bashir to increase arms and support to the Janjaweed militias. The Janjaweed have ruthlessly and harrowingly destroyed approximately 90% of the villages in the Darfur region, raping, slaughtering, burning, anyone and anything in their paths. Nikki described the rebels' "scorched earth policy," a tactic employed by the Sudanese government which attacks the civilian base to diminish thier morale and independence.

Ok, so there is a brief and I'm sure obscenely incomplete summary of the notes I took in class on Thursday. In terms of my own response to Nikki's presentation, I got the vibe that he was extremely discouraged (who can blame him, though...). I was really impressed with the growth of Students Taking Action Now: Darfur (S.T.A.N.D.), and I was disappointed that he only very breifly addressed how we, as students with crazy-busy lives, should help out. All in all, I thought he was informative and obviously compassionate about Darfur, and I'm really glad we got the opportunity to meet such a young and inspiring guy.
Please take a sec to answer one (a few, or all) of the questions below, and here is something to keep in mind that I am quoting from Nikki in regards to all that we're hearing about Darfur: "We don't have the luxury to feel overwhelmed."

Questions:
1. What did you think about Nikki's presentation? Did he leave you wondering about anything? What, if anything, do you wish he had addressed in more depth?
2. Does hearing about the genocide in Darfur from a young person like Nikki inspire you to get involved, or do you feel discouraged (for whatever reason)?
3. How much of the information given was new to you?
4. Since I can't make it to the SF Darfur Coalition's meeting on Sunday where they are going to brainstorm on possible Darfur-related events here in San Fran, I was wondering if we could get our own dialogue going on the best ways to mobilize LWHS's student body to take action...

http://ourpledge.org/ (website on Nikki's business card)

BBC vs. CNN in Jena Six

This is Thomas Mallon.

The first is the BBC.
The second is CNN

Please compare and respond.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtEqQHS31Ts



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMVoV6JMsdA&mode=related&search=

Holocaust Memorial Museum

Hi guys this this Casey.

While this may be a slight side note to what we have been learning about in class lately, I thought I should make a post given its relationship to what we have been reading about in the Samantha Powers book.

In Chapters 3 and 4 of the book, Powers discusses the history behind the Holocaust and the numerous struggles Lemkin faces in trying to give it international attention. We also learn about the coining of the term "genocide" and its impact on raising awareness about the horrific killings of Jews in Auschwitz.

After reading about the Holocaust in the Powers book I came across an article in the New York Times published on September 18th that highlighted the story of a collection of photographs from and anonymous source that had been donated to The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. The photos were of particular significance because they were photos taken prior to 1945, of which there are very few in existence. In the photographs, which had been found 60 years ago in Auschwitz, depicted in a scrapbook style the lives of the Auschwitz senior SS officers as maintained by one of the officers Karl Hocker. Instead of the images depicting the men performing their killings, they depicted the officers singing cheerily, lighting Christmas trees, and both the women and men relaxing on the porches of their houses. Also depicted in many of the photos is Josef Mengele, the camp doctor known for performing cruel medical experiments on the prisoners(these are among the first authenticated pictures of Mengele at Auschwitz). At the exhibit in the museum, the photos are placed next to other photos taken that same day, making the comparison of the comfortable lives of the officers and the horrific events that were occurring inside the camp at the very same time.

Here is the direct link to the article: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/19/arts/design/19photo.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

While this article was only about photos, they made me think about how the officers at Auschwitz could live their lives in such a happy manner, knowing that they have killed thousands of individuals each and every day. With this question in mind, I began to think about it in terms of the idea of "us" versus "they". The officers at the camp were able to identify themselves as the "us" while labeling the Jews and other prisoners as the "they"; the officers were able to create such a distinction between themselves and the Jews that the act of killing them had no visible impact on their personal lives, interactions, or morals. They had become so far removed and detached from the emotional aspect of killing another individual that the act itself did not strike them as morally wrong or unjust. Some questions to ponder:
- How did the Auschwitz officers create such a detached relationship between the "us" and the "they" in the camps?
- Were the actions of the officers motivated by true evil and lack of compassion, or was there an aspect of wanting to be accepted and identify with the "us"?
- Do you think that the officers had no emotional reaction to doing the mass killings or did they feel the pressure to mask those feelings for the sake of being part of the group?
- How does this idea of "us" versus "they" and group identity apply to other genocides that have occurred or are occurring today?

Race and the Impossible Questionnare

Recently through class and outside readings, I have felt my self losing a sense of what race really is. I used to think I knew how to describe race, but thinking back, I feel as if I had no clue. I still find myself unsure about how to think and talk about race. I decided to do a bit of research surrounding the topic of "what is race?" What I found was quite interesting. I came across a survey or questionnare that was made for students at the University of Texas. It consists of 3 parts, one of them being a series of statements about race that are to be rated in terms of agreement or disagreement. Each statement left me even more puzzled about what race was than I had been just moments before. Statements range from If someone lives amongst a group of people long enough, he/she can adopt their racial group to The concept of race is made up. I found this series of statements really challenging because as I became more and more confused about what race is, I thought about what stereotypes I had been determaining race on previously. I suggest you all take a look at the survey. Just focus on the section of race questions that can be found on the personal information. There is no need to submit the information because it's a very long survey, but take a few minutes to look at it. I guarantee that you will be more intrigued and confused than before you looked at it!
Survey: http://survey.psy.utexas.edu/aumer/racelong/racelong-survey.html

Some questions to think about after:
How has your opinion of race changed?
Where there any questions that left you completely puzzled?
Where there any questions you felt you could answer with 100% certainty?
What did the survey make you think about the way you have been thinking about race in the past?
Has this survey made you think differently about our society and how we judge race? What are those judgements based on?

Lick's Constitution Day

As many of us witnessed, the Lick-Wilmerding community introduced a new type of holiday to the campus on Monday, September 17th, which also happened to be the birthday of our nation’s Constitution. Sponsored by the History department and with the help of many Lick participants, the school-wide “Constitution Day” was an enthusiastic and fun (and slightly geeky) way of spending an ordinary Monday lunch period.

Yesterday in class, we had the opportunity to discuss the event and other sort of questions and ideas that students had about it. This short prompt turned into a long discussion about patriotism, and where definitions and connotations of this word came from. There was some discussion amongst our class whether this event was an act of patriotism and in turn, a way of celebrating what the government is doing right now (aka the Bush Administration and Iraq). People noted that often times, in largely left-winged communities, as we have also identified Lick as, the word “patriotism” tends to have a more negative connotation. Others commented that the twist in language in combination with the dynamic of the current government party largely influences what the public’s view of what it means to be “patriotic.”

We also discussed the question of “Who let the American flag become politically patriotic?” Some of the comments tended to link the flag to those who supported the war and those who didn’t, as well as its presence outside of people’s houses, in schools, and on the streets after 911 occurred. Lastly, when talking about the day in assembly last year when some students began singing the national anthem, there was some conflicting ideas about what it means when someone, especially at Lick, decides to stand up and sing or those who refuse to stand and don’t sing. One student noted that “the ability to sit down, that’s patriotic.”

So, after that lengthy summary, I also had a few thoughts and questions of my own:
1. Ms. Finn told us that the Constitution has the title as the only document of its kind in history that hasn’t been overthrown by its government, who has experienced a major revolution in its past. Do you think that this title has contributed to the fact that some of the biggest problems in this country have not been solved consistently throughout history, due to the stubbornness, pride, or even laziness (as Ms. Finn joked)?
2. What does it mean when groups of Lick students refer to America or the American government constantly as “they” in writing and in everyday language? Is there a reluctance towards associating oneself with a large group (can be anything—joining in putting up an American flag, singing the national anthem, practicing a religion…etc.) due to fear of conforming or losing one’s sense of independent voice and individuality?
3. Has this disagreement or undefined understanding of “patriotism” contributed to the increased polarity of our country, especially in times of war and political crisis? If it is factor, can it be altered or fixed?

Jena 6 and Discrimination

As you all may know either from Facebook, todays assembly, or through other resources, the Jena 6 situation has been dramatically downplayed by the media, similar to many other cases of discrimination. For those who are unaware of the Jena 6 situation (probably meaning you do not have a Facebook, you were not at assembly, or for any other reason) here is some background information:

In the small, rural Louisiana town of Jena in September 2006, a black student and some of their friends asked permission from school administrators to sit under the shade of a tree commonly reserved, by the white students, for the white students. School officials advised the black students to sit wherever they wanted and they did. The next day, three nooses, in the school colors, were hanging from the same tree. The Jena high school principal found that three white students were responsible and recommended expulsion. The superintendent of schools over-ruled the principal and gave the students a three day in-school suspension, saying that the nooses were “a youthful stunt” or "merely a prank." Black students decided to resist and organized a silent protest under the tree in disproval of the lenient treatment given to the noose-hanging white students. The principal reacted by bringing in the district attorney, Reed Walters, and 10 local police officers to an all-school assembly. The white students sat on one side of the hall and the black students on the other. It is reported that Walters told the students that he could "end their lives with a stoke of his pen." Many black students said he was looking at the them and only them. In November, as football season came to a close, the main school building was mysteriously burned to the ground. This traumatic event seemed to bring to the surface the boiling racial tensions in Jena.On a Friday night, Robert Bailey, a 17-year-old Black student and football player, was invited to a dance at a hall considered to be “white.” When he walked in, without warning he was punched in the face, beer bottles were thrown at him and a few white youths were found responsible. Only one of the white youth was arrested—he was ultimately given probation and asked to apologize.The night after that, a 22-year-old white man, along with two friends, pulled a shotgun on Bailey and two of his friends at a local gas station, in response to a scuttle between the two. The Black youths wrestled the gun from him to prevent him from using it. They took it home and hid it. They were arrested and charged with theft, and the man who owned the gun, however not with a perment, went free.The following Monday students returned to school. A white boy, Justin Barker, was taunting a group of black students, including Robert Baliey. He was verbally supporting the noose hanging. He was using racial slurs. A chaotic fray ensued. Barker was knocked down, punched, and kicked by a number of Black students. He was taken to the hospital for three hours. He had a concussion and minor bruising on his face. He was seen out at a social event later that evening.As a result of this incident, and their actions, six black Jena High School students were arrested and charged with attempted second degree murder. All six were expelled from school. The six charged were: 17-year-old Robert Bailey Junior whose bail was set at $138,000; 17-year-old Theo Shaw - bail $130,000; 18-year-old Carwin Jones--bail $100,000; 17-year-old Bryant Purvis--bail $70,000; 16 year old Mychal Bell, a sophomore in high school who was charged as an adult and for whom bail was set at $90,000; and a still unidentified minor.On the morning of the first trial, the District Attorney reduced the charges from attempted second degree murder to second degree aggravated battery and conspiracy. Aggravated battery in Louisiana law demands the attack be with a dangerous weapon. The prosecutor argued to the jury that the tennis shoes worn by Bell could be considered a dangerous weapon.When the pool of potential jurors was summoned, fifty people appeared, all white. The jury deliberated for less than three hours and found Mychal Bell guilty on the maximum possible charges of aggravated second degree battery and conspiracy. He faces up to a maximum of 22 years in prison.The rest of the Jena 6 await similar trials. Theodore Shaw is due to go on trial shortly. Mychal Bell is scheduled to be sentenced September 20th. Let's support him and the rest in order to help get them and others a fair and just sentencing for what they've done. Very few people have, even today, heard about this case. The trial was covered by the French newspaper Le Monde, and the BBC aired a documentary on the case. The London Observer reported on the Jena 6 story. These are the first that reported nationally and internationally. Since then many more have reported.

I recently, about two weeks ago, became aware of this issue and I was extremely appalled by it. Like Matty Grumbach said during the assembly (9/19), you would expect something like this in the days of the Civil Rights Movement but here it is, in 2007. This event brings us back to one of the course themes/ideas of "we" vs. "they" and the question "why do people discriminate?".

It worries me that if something at such a large scale like this is not even covered in the media (news, major headline in the newspaper, etc.) who knows how many issues have been hidden and/or ignored.

Questions to think about or respond to:

• Why do you think this issue has been so downplayed by the media?
• How do you think the situation should have been handled? Or do you feel the supervisor, court, etc. were just in their decision?
• If you felt threatened in some way, as the black high school students did, would you try to defend yourself? Would you handle it in the same manner? If not, what would you do? What if you were in their shoes?
• Many people are going to be wearing black tomorrow (Thursday) in protest of the courts previous decision and the upcoming decisions being made towards the 6 remaining students who have yet to be sentenced. Will you be wearing black as well? Why or why not? Do you think it will make a difference? [Any connections to Lemkin's argument???]
• What do you think can be a solution in fighting against discrimination?

Cults

This is Thomas Mallon. Hello.

I was working of my Portfolio thing and I sort of stumbled upon an interesting question. Why do human divisions exist? Why, for example, do we feel the need to separate ourselves from others? We define ourselves as individuals this way, and in my opinion, despite the downsides, separations between people is a good thing. But what i really want to is ask is why we as creatures have such a need to assert individuality; why are we dissatisfied with homogenaity? Is it natural, the way that birds will kill members of the flock that look different; or is it social or mental, a creation of the human mind to verify some element of the consiousness? Tell me.

David Cash

I don't think it's my week to post, but I really wanted there to be something about David Cash considering the magnitude of his particular story. After we learned about the ultimate bystander, I was kinda confused and pretty appalled, so I did a little research. I was disgusted to read about Cash and some remarks he made after the incident, including that the media attention helped him to "score with women" and that he would sell the movie rights to his story because, "I'm no idiot… I'll get my money out of this."

-Do you think Cash's social exclusion and the public shame is enough to punish him for choosing to not prevent the rape and murder of Sherrice Iverson?

-Do you think Good Samaritan laws should exist?

-Does Cash have the freedom and right to be a bystander in this incident?

-What can we do to prevent bystanders in not only crimes such as Sherrice Iverson's murder, but in genocide as well? How can the idea of being an upstander be promoted or more practiced?

-Do you think race had a role in this incident or the aftermath? Should it?

Here are a few articles I found:
http://www.inmotionmagazine.com/fikes.html
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4785
http://www.pub.umich.edu/daily/1998/sep/09-30-98/edit/edit5.html

Sudan, China, and the 2008 Olympics

This is Aaron Hui (H Block) I decided to post a youtube video (previous post) that focuses a little more on one of the places that our guest speaker stated was an obstacle in the fight against Genocide: China. The video talks about how the 2008 Olympic Games are related to China and the Darfur/Sudan Genocide. After watching the clip (which is about 2.30 minutes), do you agree with those such as Frank Wolf and Mia Farrow that by supporting the Olympics, one is supporting the Genocide in Darfur? Or should the Olympic games be unrelated to the Genocide? Here's an article from the SF Chronicle, which gives another side of the China/Darfur relationship, and how China has in fact tried to stop the Genocide: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/09/11/international/i161342D50.DTL&hw=darfur+sudan+china+olympics&sn=002&sc=864.
Another link from the WashingtonPost that talks about China's possible consequences with its relationship with Sudan: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/13/AR2006121302008.html.
What do you think about the relationship? Would you agree or disagree that China and the Olympics are or are not helping with the Genocide?

China, Sudan, and the Olympics

A Moral Dilemma

In H Block's Friday class, we were presented with information about the history of the conflict in Sudan, and what is being done to put an end to the mass violence. The speaker was an example of an 'upstander,' the opposite of a bystander, of someone who was taking actions based on her beliefs. The facts of the current situation in Darfur would be considered 'intolerable' by most people. As residents of the United States, we are not in constant danger of death or displacement, so in the literal sense, we can 'tolerate' the genocide in darfur, because it is not physically endangering to our persons. However, I feel it is safe to say that nobody I know would agree that the mass killing/displacement of innocent members of a society is a good thing.

So I have a few questions:

When and how does one decide to take action if s/he considers a situation 'intolerable'?

How does one decide the boundaries of responsibility? (i.e. helping a neighbor vs. a person in a different neighborhood vs. a person in a different country?)

On a more personal level, what factors would cause you to take action to help a cause that did not have a direct affect on your physical well-being? (Our speaker was motivated to take action on behalf of Darfur because of the loss and and sorrow her family experienced as Austrian Jews during WWII.

SF Bay Area Darfur Coalition event

This is Danielle (I am technologically challenged...)

So I am on the SF Bay Area Darfur Coalition's mailing list, and they're holding a "Dream for Darfur Planning Meeting" where they hope to formulate a couple of good ideas in regards to an SF Darfur event. They're interested in some event that would contribute to encouraging China to end their oil-oriented relationship with the Sudanese government.
The meeting is Sunday, September 23, from 1:00 - 3:00 pm, at the JCF Building (121 Steaurt Street btwn Mission and Howard).
I was thinking it may be cool to get together with a couple of you to check it out and see what we come up with, as well as to establish a relationship with the Coalition people.

Here is the direct link to the Darfur coalition's site: http://darfursf.org/content/?p=169

One of the many helpful resources offered on this site is a calendar where you can check out all the upcoming Darfur-related events in the Bay Area.

SF Bay Area Darfur Coalition--> Guest Speaker

This is Julia Borelli (im working on getting my own account)

I wanted to hear about everyones responses to the guest speaker we had today regarding the genocide in Darfur.

I have also thought of some question that I would be interesting to think about and discuss.

-Why do you think that the efforts made to better the situation have not made sigficant change?
-Why has the problem worsed over the last decade?
-Which group has been most effective in their efforts to help the situation?
-Why do you think the genocide in Darfur and Sudan as a whole have lasted so long?
-What do you believe to be possible outcomes of this issue? Do you see a way that it can be resolved?

These are some of the sights she listed, as well as other informational sights:

http://www.enoughproject.org/region/darfur/overview.php
This is a good site to keep you updated on exactly what's going on right now in Darfur, how people can help with the current situation as well as a history of the crisis.

http://www.darfursf.org/
This is the site for the coalition, it lists up coming events that are open to the public, it also has videos and news that show whats going on, and an online petition, that all of us can sign.

http://www.genocideintervention.net/
Genocide intervention is a broader site that sheds light on genocides that are occuring all over the globe, it does have a focus on darfur, It also allows you to sign up for STAND (the Student Anti-Genocide Coalition)

http://www.savedarfur.org/content?splash=yes
save darfur allows you to sign up to get daily emails with news from darfur, it also has information on the "Help Bring the Olympic Dream to Darfur" event, as well as a link to a blog.

The Value of Regret

This Is Thom.

We had an enlightening discussion regarding wheather or not "deniers" of genocide should be given equal time with "scholars." I want to shift this lens a bit though, and investigate the effect that time plays on potency. The modern world is very sensitive to our recent history. We, especilly Americans, do our best to portray history in the worst possible light, the reason being, I believe, that in some way the West believes that this will make up for what they did in the past. But at what point do we stop caring? For example: if I could stop the massacre of Christians in ancient Rome, but in exchange I would lose Virgil and the arch and the innuemerable other contributons the Roman Empire has made to Western civilization, I wouldn't. Its simply too far removed from my expierience. In the end the fate of thousands of people who lived thousands of years ago ceases to have any weight. I would choose one great person from the past over thousands of nameless, faceless, non-entities. How do other people think about this?
So my question is: is there a lime limit? Is it human to "stop caring?" Is it a moral implantation? If we had a differant moral system would we care more? If we were a culture based in orality? Is there a reason to care about human death at all? Why? Just topics for discussion.

Denial and/or Freedom of Speech

This is Elias as Ms. Finn and until Julia helps me with my lack of technology comprehension I will continue to be Ms Finn.

Firstly, I was really pumped about my Genocide class's (H Block) discussion about denial of the holocaust in particular and then of any truth in general. Listening to the varying opinions the major theme for me was that I was not able to formulate a nice, clear-cut opinion. I was pulled this way and that as new ideas were brought up and at the end of the discussion my brain was throughly cloudy. I only have questions and I'm quite interested to hear any and all responses. What forms the basis of our understanding, the concept of free-speech or hearing what we want to hear? Can we censor what we don't want to hear or does everything have to be heard? Does letting deniers speak give them opportunity to change minds? Who should win, "truth" or the "other"? Can one listen to a denier and yet still actively oppose their ideas? Does listening give their cause momentum? So many questions....

The other thing was that I was deeply and truly disturbed and frightened by the video Hate.com. I was so taken aback that I had to pause for several moments before I went on with my day. I was shocked that this video is not of "history," but of the now. this is now and we can not be withdraw by time from these events. More questions: How do those people form their ideas? Should they be allowed to post online, just as I am this very moment? Is their anyway to change their ideals? Should people try to change their ideas?

Quite a long post, but hopefully it is some food for thought.

Week 2 -

Since today is September 11, I thought it would be appropriate to consider the event that happened 6 years ago and the United State's reaction to our class discussions.

This year, in commemoration of September 11, there was a ceremony in New York. For details on the ceremony you can go to: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/12/nyregion/11service.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&hp

This ceremony consisted of many of the family members of the deceased and the community joining together to commemorate their loved ones. There they solemnly read the names of each person who died in the attack. Yet, according to the article, the ceremony was shorter this year and fewer people attended.

After September 11 I remember that there was a clear surge in patriotism. The biggest difference i remember seeing was on my ride to school the following few days and noticing all the new American flags on people's houses. But since then the US has been administrating a "war on terrorism."
Does an attack against a country usually unite it? Is this surge of patriotism truly a positive force? or does it, while uniting one country, alienate another? Also, since America is such a melting pot of different cultures have any one group of people been negatively impacted more by 9/11 than others?