This post is a little belated, but I felt that it was worth sharing:
About two weeks ago I attended the official San Francisco Mayoral debate, and one of the questions was about how the candidates would deal with the violence in the Bayview/Hunters Point area. One cadidate, I believe it was Josh Wolf, stated that Gavin Newsom's lack of action against the violence was genocide. This brings up a few interesting questions- would this be considered genocide? And also, if it were considered genocide, who would be the pertetrator? That relates back to the questions of bystanders and perpetrators. If you did believe the murders to be genocide, would the perpetrators be the individuals who had committed the murders, or the Mayor for not doing enough to stop them, or both?
*Even if you don't believe this is a genocide, I'm still curious about your answers to the other questions*
Monday, October 22, 2007
Armenian Genocide Bill and US Polotics
First, I would like to retract a statement I made in class a few days ago. I guess this only applies to H block folk, unless there were people from other blocks spying in class who I did not see. I made an incorrect statement that I had not seen the Armenian Genocide bill debate on the front page of the New York Times. After rushing home to make sure my claim was correct I realized it was not. The bill debate has been on the front page numerous times over the past week or so. The stories seem to be on the right hand column and are not close to the main picture, which is what I usually look at first. My apologies...
But as I was looking in the NYT I read a very interesting article about former Representative Robert L. Livingston that appeared on Wed. Oct 17th. (This is the website: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/17/washington/17lobby.html?_r=1&oref=slogin)
In brief the article talks about this man who has become the main lobbyist for Turkey in blocking the many congressional attempts at a Armenian Genocide bill. He has received more than 12 million dollars for his work from the Turkish government.
Up until 1999 he was a Louisiana congressman and was elected House speaker in late 1998 only to leave office because having "extramarital" affairs during a time when a main news headline was the Clinton sex scandal. (In the spirit of citations I got this info from another NYT times article that can be found at: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A06E1DC173CF935A15751C0A96F9582
60&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/People/L/Livingston,%20Robert%20L.)
Anyway, on the topic of lobbyists. Some questions: Do you think it is okay to have so much money surrounding legislation? Are lobbyists good for the political system? For democracy? Should representatives be listening to lobbyists? Does any sum of money taint the democratic process?
Please respond to these or any other topics of your own.
But as I was looking in the NYT I read a very interesting article about former Representative Robert L. Livingston that appeared on Wed. Oct 17th. (This is the website: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/17/washington/17lobby.html?_r=1&oref=slogin)
In brief the article talks about this man who has become the main lobbyist for Turkey in blocking the many congressional attempts at a Armenian Genocide bill. He has received more than 12 million dollars for his work from the Turkish government.
Up until 1999 he was a Louisiana congressman and was elected House speaker in late 1998 only to leave office because having "extramarital" affairs during a time when a main news headline was the Clinton sex scandal. (In the spirit of citations I got this info from another NYT times article that can be found at: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A06E1DC173CF935A15751C0A96F9582
60&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/People/L/Livingston,%20Robert%20L.)
Anyway, on the topic of lobbyists. Some questions: Do you think it is okay to have so much money surrounding legislation? Are lobbyists good for the political system? For democracy? Should representatives be listening to lobbyists? Does any sum of money taint the democratic process?
Please respond to these or any other topics of your own.
Turkish Incursions Into Kurdistan
Yesterday 20 Turkish soldiers were either killed or captured by Kurdish rebels in south-eastern Turkey, prompting a response throughout the country and reinforcing Turkey's plan to attack northern Iraq. Because we had talked about possible ramifications of passing the Armenian Genocide bill I thought it was interesting that a Turkish invasion of Iraq is becoming an increasingly viable possibility. In the face of these new developments, and the immanent effect it could have on America's interests overseas, does anyone still think passing the bill was the "right" thing to do?
This is the link to the story http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071022/ap_on_re_mi_ea/turkey
This is the link to the story http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071022/ap_on_re_mi_ea/turkey
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Veterans Day Poster
Hi everyone,
Today Ms. Finn asked us whether or not she should put up a poster for Veteran's Day that depicted a flag waving among clouds witht he sun shining through it, and had the words "Veterans Day" on it. Given the current war, we debated whether or not puttin gup the poster would show support for the war, support for the troops, support for the country, or just support for all American soldiers who have fought in battle. Would not putting it up after having gotten it in the mail automatically show a lack of support? Since the decision was based on a genocide class majority rule vote and people might have had some lingering questions/comments, maybe we could bring them here. What do you think should have been done about the poster and why?
Today Ms. Finn asked us whether or not she should put up a poster for Veteran's Day that depicted a flag waving among clouds witht he sun shining through it, and had the words "Veterans Day" on it. Given the current war, we debated whether or not puttin gup the poster would show support for the war, support for the troops, support for the country, or just support for all American soldiers who have fought in battle. Would not putting it up after having gotten it in the mail automatically show a lack of support? Since the decision was based on a genocide class majority rule vote and people might have had some lingering questions/comments, maybe we could bring them here. What do you think should have been done about the poster and why?
Peter Singer.. Read More Before Making a Decision
Dear Class:
First, thanks to Thom for thinking about the issue of animal rights in relationship to the themes of the course and for following through on my suggestion to look into the ideas and writings of philosopher Peter Singer.
I have two responses that I feel need to be highlighted as postings rather than comments.
First, please dig a bit more into the writings of Singer. His views on animal rights are not presented quite accurately in the previous posting. While this link is to an editorial, it may be helpful. Peter Singer's own primary source writings on animal rights can be found on his website.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,3926371,00.html
Also, the reason that animal rights are not discussed in a history seminar on genocide is that we are looking at a specific legal definition (1948 UN convention) for our terminology as well as the other statues of international law. We are looking at the implications of what can be known about HUMAN identity, obligation, justice, etc. I believe that the conversation about animal rights/philosophy on the topic is interesting and compelling. Yet, I do not think that the topic falls within the scope and sequence of the course.
What do you think? (Please answer after review the scope and sequence that is presented in the syllabus).
First, thanks to Thom for thinking about the issue of animal rights in relationship to the themes of the course and for following through on my suggestion to look into the ideas and writings of philosopher Peter Singer.
I have two responses that I feel need to be highlighted as postings rather than comments.
First, please dig a bit more into the writings of Singer. His views on animal rights are not presented quite accurately in the previous posting. While this link is to an editorial, it may be helpful. Peter Singer's own primary source writings on animal rights can be found on his website.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,3926371,00.html
Also, the reason that animal rights are not discussed in a history seminar on genocide is that we are looking at a specific legal definition (1948 UN convention) for our terminology as well as the other statues of international law. We are looking at the implications of what can be known about HUMAN identity, obligation, justice, etc. I believe that the conversation about animal rights/philosophy on the topic is interesting and compelling. Yet, I do not think that the topic falls within the scope and sequence of the course.
What do you think? (Please answer after review the scope and sequence that is presented in the syllabus).
Animal Genocide
I brought up in class the other day the question of whether or not the mass killings of certain species of animals should be genocide; a notable example is Mao's annihilation of China's sparrows in order to create a scapegoat for failing crops. Ms. Finn told me to go look up the views of an Ethicist, Peter Singer, and see what he had to say.
Singer is a sort of Utilitarian—basically he says that whatever action causes the least suffering to the parties involved is the right one. Thus it could be unjust to kill someone that wants to live, but very just indeed to kill someone that wants to die. He then goes on to say that is the party involved has no preference, if the party cannot conceptualize life and death, existence and non-existence, and if they are killed in a painless fashion, then no harm has been done.
I considered his views, but I find them to be horribly erroneous. He assumes first of all that animals have no consciousness. To assume that consciousness appears only in humans has neither physical nor meta-physical proof to support it. Indeed I would say that an animal possession of consciousness is a rather straightforward observation. In his own words "only a person can have an int erst in living; a non-person cannot." Talk about ignorant tautologies. I am pretty sure that animals have interests in living; they possess fear, first of all. Anyone who has had a dog knows that they can love as well as a "person" can. But It's cowardly to attack meta-physical standpoints with physical counter examples.
The core of Singer's argument rests in is classification of "person" and "non-person." A person, by his definition, is one that has consciousness, or at least a high enough level of consciousness to descriminate between existence and not existence, while a "non-person" cannot.
Therefore I pose this question: If someone is in a coma, and it is known that they will wake-up and become a "person" again, in say, nine month's time, it it acceptable to kill them? Or like-wise, with an unborn child, if it is known that they will become a "person" can it be okay to kill them now, simply because they have not yet grasped the concept of existence? From what I've read of Singer's positions, he would say yes—but all of this is based of of a human definition of time! Singer himself says that one should not give pain unduly to animals because of "speciesism," or simply because the animal in question has fur or wings or is in some way biologically differ ant from humans. Yet the human consciousness serves the same purpose as the animal; to survive. Our superior intelligence, our consciousness, is simply another evolutionary survival method; our definition of time is another one of these evolutionary assets. Singer then uses the fact that we possess this more advanced state of evolution to justify the murder of other forms of life less evolved than ourselves. He says that if the animals do not feel pain then no crime has been commit ed, yet the animal in question is as alive as we, the only difference being a discrepancy in intelligence—we both wish to live, that is our biological purpose, we both have evolved in differant manners, yet by Singer's definition that alone does not justify murder. We, like the animals we kill, are also animals, built for survival. There is no difference between noticing the difference between existence and non-existence, and so struggling to survive, and not noticing the difference between existence and non-existence, and struggling to survive. It is the struggle that counts. The body wishes it, intelligence and the like are simply more limbs, claws, wings, that the body uses to sustain its existence. Therefore animals wish to survive as much as we do. And therefore, by Singer's definition, it is immoral to kill them.
Singer is a sort of Utilitarian—basically he says that whatever action causes the least suffering to the parties involved is the right one. Thus it could be unjust to kill someone that wants to live, but very just indeed to kill someone that wants to die. He then goes on to say that is the party involved has no preference, if the party cannot conceptualize life and death, existence and non-existence, and if they are killed in a painless fashion, then no harm has been done.
I considered his views, but I find them to be horribly erroneous. He assumes first of all that animals have no consciousness. To assume that consciousness appears only in humans has neither physical nor meta-physical proof to support it. Indeed I would say that an animal possession of consciousness is a rather straightforward observation. In his own words "only a person can have an int erst in living; a non-person cannot." Talk about ignorant tautologies. I am pretty sure that animals have interests in living; they possess fear, first of all. Anyone who has had a dog knows that they can love as well as a "person" can. But It's cowardly to attack meta-physical standpoints with physical counter examples.
The core of Singer's argument rests in is classification of "person" and "non-person." A person, by his definition, is one that has consciousness, or at least a high enough level of consciousness to descriminate between existence and not existence, while a "non-person" cannot.
Therefore I pose this question: If someone is in a coma, and it is known that they will wake-up and become a "person" again, in say, nine month's time, it it acceptable to kill them? Or like-wise, with an unborn child, if it is known that they will become a "person" can it be okay to kill them now, simply because they have not yet grasped the concept of existence? From what I've read of Singer's positions, he would say yes—but all of this is based of of a human definition of time! Singer himself says that one should not give pain unduly to animals because of "speciesism," or simply because the animal in question has fur or wings or is in some way biologically differ ant from humans. Yet the human consciousness serves the same purpose as the animal; to survive. Our superior intelligence, our consciousness, is simply another evolutionary survival method; our definition of time is another one of these evolutionary assets. Singer then uses the fact that we possess this more advanced state of evolution to justify the murder of other forms of life less evolved than ourselves. He says that if the animals do not feel pain then no crime has been commit ed, yet the animal in question is as alive as we, the only difference being a discrepancy in intelligence—we both wish to live, that is our biological purpose, we both have evolved in differant manners, yet by Singer's definition that alone does not justify murder. We, like the animals we kill, are also animals, built for survival. There is no difference between noticing the difference between existence and non-existence, and so struggling to survive, and not noticing the difference between existence and non-existence, and struggling to survive. It is the struggle that counts. The body wishes it, intelligence and the like are simply more limbs, claws, wings, that the body uses to sustain its existence. Therefore animals wish to survive as much as we do. And therefore, by Singer's definition, it is immoral to kill them.
Saturday, October 13, 2007
New York Times Article: Mr. Kamm's Third Way
Class: You may be interested in reading the article that Mr. Kamm mentioned that was featured in the NY Times. It is titled,
John Kamm's Third Way".
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B05E0D81F3EF930A35750C0A9649C8B63
John Kamm's Third Way".
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B05E0D81F3EF930A35750C0A9649C8B63
Rotation Summary; H Block (10/5-10/12)
The H block class had two guest speakers during this rotation; Mr. Kamm, founder of The Dui Hua Foundation, and Naomi Roht-Arriaza, a law professor at UC Hastings Law school. We also learned through film by watching part of Ararat, a 2002 film that tells a fictional story about the Armenian Genocide.
Mr. Kamm spoke about the advantages of improving human rights in China from a business standpoint. The Dui Hua Foundation researches the names of Chinese prisoners and asks about them, which is proven to improve their conditions while in prison and increase their chances of being let out early.
Professor Roht-Arriaza talked about the legal definition of genocide as well as the definitions of "crimes against humanity," "war crimes," and "aggression." She also talked about the legal difficulty of proving that a massacre is in fact genocide because it requires proof that the intent was to annihilate a specific racial, ethnic, religious or national group. She is currently working on a case to prove that the massacres in Guatemala of the Mayan people was a genocide. She also explained how the International Criminal Court (ICC) works, and how a case can be brought to trial under the ICC, as well as its effectiveness. (The United States refuses to become a party of the ICC.)
The film, Ararat, set in the present, depicts an Armenian family that decides to help out an Armenian director, Edward Saroyan, to make a Hollywood-style film about the genocide, from the fictionalised point of view of a genuine historical figure, Archile Gorky. Though we only got to watch the first half of the film, it was very interesting to see the effects of the genocide on a family almost 100 years later.
Click Here to Save Darfur
Any of you with profiles on Facebook or other social networking websites are probably familiar with groups that support stopping genocide. The largest I found is “For Every 1,000 People That Join This Group I Will Donate $1 to
The benefits of these kinds of groups are that it is a great way to reach a vast audience, since millions of people are members of social networking websites. Someone who stumbles across one of these groups may be the type of person that doesn’t usually watch the news, and therefore will not have known before about a genocide and inspire them to do something.
What makes me worry about this phenomenon is that I feel like it can make someone feel like they’re being an upstander without making any significant changes to their life or making any difference. The majority of Facebook groups I’m I’ve never really thought after. If people feel like they have changed the world by simply clicking their mouse, will they ever do anything else? I also feel that possibly, since people generally come on Facebook to talk to friends or look at pictures, it may create resentment or fatigue. When people just want to be carefree for a half an hour on Facebook, they are instead reminded of tragic world events. I think this may cause some people to not want to think about genocide at all.
Some other questions to consider
1) What are other benefits and drawbacks to groups that aim to raise awareness about genocide?
2) Do you believe these groups make a difference for people who join them, aid organizations, and victims of genocide?
3) Does widespread use of Facebook make stopping genocide seem less important? Tha is to say, does seeing a group about stopping genocide in between a group about Fergie and a group about the Disney "D" make it seem like a less worthy cause?
Please add anything else I haven’t thought of also.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
wow
Hey everybody!
Sorry, I don't really know how to post links so I'll just give you guys the address...
this is a mp3 file of Dan Robinson reporting on the a measure to acknowledge the Armenian genocide that is going to be put before the House for a vote.
http://www.voanews.com/mediaassets/english/2007_10/Audio/Mp3/LCR%20Robinson%20Congress%20Turkey%20Armenia%202342956%20101107%20tw.Mp3
and this is the link for the article
http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-10-11-voa71.cfm
Turkey has temorarily revoked its ambassador to the US, and is very upset with this measure, so some US poiticians would like to back off this issue due to the Iraq war.
Do you think this measure will pass? Do you think that this vote will put our troops in danger? Do you think that Turkey will stop allying itself with the US? Do you believe that this vote is long overdue?
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
China, the Olympics, and Dui Hua
Building on the posts about Dui Hua and China's upcoming Olympics, here is a link to Mr. Kamm's organization, Dui Hua, and its role in Chinese policy governing executions and political prisoners and the effect of the Olympics on all of this. The article appeared in Time magazine on June 11, 2007:
An Olympic Reprieve for China's Convicts
A previous post by Aaron Hui from early september (Sudan, China, and the 2008 Olympics) investigated the connection between China, the Olympics, and the genocide in Darfur. This article draws another connection, but this time between China, the Olympics, and human rights within China. Obviously, the Olympics is playing a big role in China's foreign relations.
Read the article, and say what you think!
Some questions to get the brain juices flowing:
1) Do you think that once the Olympics are over and the spotlight is off China, the execution numbers will rise again?
2) Mr. Kamm mentioned that his organization is using the Olympics, not morality, to convince the Chinese government to release prisoners and execute fewer people, but what can they use once the Olympics are over? In the meantime, using the Olympics as insentive is saving lives, but will all their work be for nothing once the Olympics are over (see question 1)?
3) Why is it that governments tend not to listen to reasons based on morality and common humanity, and instead respond to reasons based on economics, the Olympics, and foreign relations? Is this inevitable or a fault of the fundamental idea of government? Is it a fault at all - is it a good thing?
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
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
Monday, October 8, 2007
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)?
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
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
Saturday, October 6, 2007
"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?
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?
Friday, October 5, 2007
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?
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?
Thursday, October 4, 2007
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!
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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
