Has the Jury Reached A Verdict?

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

Eichmann in Jerusalem

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Josef Mengele

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peace Keeping in Darfur

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

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

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

Genocide vs. Ethnic Cleansing

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

Here is the paragraph:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What Causes a Genocide?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The 2007 Pakistani Presidential Elections

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

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

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

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

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

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

OXFAM

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

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

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

Week Summary: Upstanders and Bystanders

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

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

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

Obama and the Future of Foreign Relations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello everyone,
Last class we watched a video on the people of Le Chambon-sur-Lignon, a town in the south of France where approximately 5,000 Jews were hidden from the Nazis. The people of Le Chambon continued helping these people and displayed open resistance to the Nazis and Vichy France (France's govenrment when cooperating with the Nazis) even when Nazi soldiers were present. In this article and in the video, the inhabitants of Le Chambon were quoted as saying the following: "things had to be done and we happened to be there to do them. It was the most natural thing in the world to help these people." We also talked some in class about how group identity can be used to be upstanders as well as perpetrators. To what extent do you think the people of Le Chambon's group identity as Protestants and descendents of persecuted people (the Huguenots)influenced their decision to help as many people as they did?
It was also mentioned in class/in the movie that Nazi soldiers often looked the other way, even knowing that Jews were being hidden, because they were surrounded by upstanders choosing to be benevolent. Do you think that it is easier to be influenced toward helping others or toward harming others? Does the ease with which one can be influenced to change their actions toward being an upstander, bystander or perpetrator depend on other factors, such as the size of the group, the conviction of group members, etc? If this ease does change, to what extent should repsonsibility for actions taken during a genocide be altered to fit these changes, both legally and morally speaking?

Khmer Rouge Justice

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

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

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

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

Naomi Wolf: "The End of America"

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

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

Are Groups "Natural"?

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

What do you think they'd do?

Week Summary: H Block

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