Genocide in different worlds!

In a recent small group discussion in class, I brought up the idea of entering another planet and attempting to interact with an alien-figure and accidentally killing them. Doctor Who addresses this as well, however in the world(s) of Doctor Who, most species (usually Daleks) are really, really trying to kill other species (usually humans). One of the constant ideas in Doctor Who is that genocide is the number one evil. It is the one act or event in any world that will turn the entire universe against you in an effort to make things right. 

In one episode (the second to last episode in the fourth season - Journey's End), The Doctor (main character, very important) is accidentally cloned with only one difference between himself and the clone: the clone is half Time Lord, half human. Being half human, Clone Doctor does not have the same firm moral standing against genocide (only in this particular case, which is the Daleks trying to destroy 27 different worlds and become the only remaining species in the universe - so it's one genocide over 27). However, because Clone Doctor commits genocide by destroying the Daleks, he is forced to live in a parellel universe for the rest of his half-human life. 

Even in a weird, british sci-fi television series, genocide is both present and still considered the "ultimate evil". It's interesting to me that a fictional series would present such a serious topic as genocide on such a level that all viewers are aware that it's happening, and that even though it is being used for the "greater good", it is still the worst thing imaginable. So why openly discuss something when it is only sad and makes the viewer sad? I think because it needs to be discussed and understood in order to prevent it (although I'm sure I will never in this lifetime see an alternative to genocide when it happens so frequently and so little attentino is paid to it).

Genocide in A Galaxy Far, Far Away

In Star Wars Episode IV, the planet Alderaan was destroyed by Grand Moff Tarkin of the Imperial Navy. This act, although intended to terrify other planets with Rebel sympathies, was a politically motivated genocide, not unlike both the Armenian genocide and Stalin’s political purges.

When Tarkin decided to “demonstrate the full power of this battle station,” meaning the Death Star, his intention was to stop would-be Rebels from joining the cause, and intimidate current Rebels to such a degree as to render them incapable of further resistance. Toward this end, he obliterated an innocent, civilized planet with a rich cultural history, despite his being fully aware that “Alderaan is peaceful! [They had] no weapons!” (Princess Leia, Episode IV). Much like the Ottoman Empire’s massacres of Armenian communities in 1915, the leadership of the Galactic Empire felt threatened by an (in their case legitimate) internal threat, and took drastic measures to assure the Empire’s continued survival.

By the looser definitions of genocide (Charny, Churchill, UN Resolution),  Tarkin’s actions (and those of the thousands of crewmen on the Death Star at the time) clearly constitute genocide. Despite his motive in the Destruction of the Alderaanians being the insertion of terror into Rebel hearts, he utterly and without a doubt annihilated a national group. Chalk and Jonassohn ([one sided mass killing in which a state intends to destroy a group]) would also declare these actions genocide. However, more convoluted or involved definitions are used, the question becomes murkier.

If Tarkin had blown Alderaan into “a meteor shower” (Han Solo, Episode IV) because he hated Alderaanians and their unique culture, no definitions of genocide would fail to bestow upon him the dishonorable title of ‘genocidist.’ However, Tarkin’s goal was entirely separate from the lives of his victims; if it had accomplished his goals equally well, he would have demolished Tatooine, Naboo or Bespin. When intent is taken broadly, as simply the desire to destroy a group, then the Alderaanian Genocide is undeniable. If intent were read narrowly, as destruction of a group for specific reasons unrelated to other practical goals (my new semi-definition), Alderaan might not qualify nearly so easily. However, just as in the case of the Armenian Genocide, although there is some murkiness in the precise reasoning or desires of the perpetrators, the overwhelming evidence of the event itself makes its genocidal nature clear.

Robert Delson

Genocidal Attitudes in US Political Parties

The United States is currently grappling with a very disturbing political landscape. In one of the most negative presidential elections of all time, divides between political parties have become increasingly apparent and the language that separates these groups has moved from negative to eerily familiar. In fact, the divide between liberals and conservatives in the United States today often exemplifies group thinking, discrimination and genocidal rhetoric.  

One of the hallmarks of genocidal attitudes is the appearance and division of groups. The political party system in the United States conveniently divides the country into two fairly distinct camps: Democrats and Republicans. These groups easily break up the country’s problems into black and white for the voting pleasures of the populace. It doesn’t matter that the majority of Americans actually reside somewhere in the gray area between liberal and conservative, as Gustav LeBon puts it “feelings can blur individual differences.” The party system also has the ability to sway opinions based on the fact that a voter may already identify with a group. In his book Killers of Conviction, James Waller says, “group dynamics can alter the thoughts, feelings and behaviors […] of individuals within a group.” Political parties have the ability to sway an opinion based on the mere fact that an individual identifies themselves as a member of the group. Of course, if the Democratic Party decided tomorrow to exterminate every member of an arbitrary minority, a Democrat would not necessarily agree, but subtle changes in ideology, such as opinions on new bills or political candidates can have a massive impact. If such changes were implemented subtly and with enough conviction (for example the Tea Party’s dehumanization of homosexuality) grave steps could be taken given enough time and perhaps more importantly, enough power.

That being said, political parties are not unique to the United States; genocidal rhetoric is not a sole consequence of their existence. What does make the United States unique is our tendency to view the opposite party as “other.” It begins with Michael Mann’s assertion that a democracy of “we the people,” immediately allows for the exclusion of an “other” group. Animosity towards the opposite group can lead to parties grouping the enemy into a wholly bad entity and the dehumanization of the opponent. For example, the conservative comparison of abortion to murder instantaneously demonizes those who are pro-choice. When one group demonizes another it makes it much easier to rationalize action against them. The idea of the welfare “parasite” meanwhile, often spouted by political pundits on Fox News, dehumanizes those who rely on welfare (and often vote Democrat) to something even lesser that an animal. Language like that calls to mind the Nazi pamphlet that proclaimed the “Jews as World Parasite”. Naturally the Democrats are certainly at fault here as well. Liberals, especially in the media, have a habit of demonizing Republicans as well. Often times they have painted Republicans as rich, out-of-touch and sometimes even of lesser intelligence. Even if either party is correct in their accusations, the fact that the group is attacked, rather than the individual, allows for the accusers to identify individuals based on singular beliefs.

Of course the use of familiar language and the divide between political parties does not mean that the United States will soon experience a genocide of epic proportions. Our country remains completely stratified in its competing interests and we continue to deal with class struggles to this day –two reasons Mann cited that kept democracies from descending to genocide. What we do need to realize is that our system cannot continue to move in this direction.  The two sides of the political spectrum must learn mutual respect and cooperation and leave the genocidal rhetoric behind.

The Obama Administration and the Armenian Genocide

In 2008, President Obama made it clear that he believed the Ottoman Empire had committed genocide against the Armenians in 1915, and one of his campaign promises was to officially recognize this. Four years later, as President, Obama has not yet referred to the acts against the Armenian community as genocide. Each April 24^th, he gives a speech on the atrocities that had occurred, but always stops shy of the word ‘genocide.’ Although he has stated that his personal beliefs have not changed, he will not officially say the 1915 acts were genocide.

Not only has President Obama not recognized the 1915 acts as genocide, but he has also put much effort into preventing the House from ruling it as genocide. Despite efforts from the Obama administration to prevent the House Foreign Affairs Committee from voting on the issue in 2010, the vote was still administered and resulted in a 23 to 22 outcome in favor of ruling the events as genocide. The members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee were clearly divided between their moral responsibility to condemn the acts as genocide and the importance of maintaining good relations with Turkey, an important NATO ally. The Obama administration also worked hard to prevent the resolution from going to the House, and succeeded.

Why is it important that the United States keep good relations with Turkey? Shouldn’t the United States be the one country that promotes freedom and holds other countries accountable for their actions? Ruling that the Ottoman Empire committed genocide would greatly alienate Turkey. Turkey is not only a key NATO partner, but also an important strategic partner for the United States’ access into the Middle East. Additionally, President Obama greatly supports efforts to open up the border between the Turkey and Armenia. Alienating Turkey by calling the 1915 acts as genocide may halt or reverse any progress made to normalize Turkish and Armenian relations. Whether these excuses justify undermining the truth of the 1915 events and the moral obligation to hold Turkey accountable is controversial.

In our class, far removed from the realities of the situation, it is easy to form opinions on what is morally right and wrong. Once these situations are brought into the real world, however, more than just moral obligations drive the decision-making process. When applying our morals in real world situations, lines get blurred and different priorities arise. As shown by President Obama, there can be a discontinuity between what one morally feels is right and how one acts.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/05/world/europe/05armenia.html?_r=1

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/04/on-armenian-remembrance-day-obama-again-avoids-the-word-genocide-despite-campaign-promise-to-contrary/ 

Genocide, Cognitive Estrangement, and V for Vendetta

Science fiction scholar Darko Suvin refers to the genre as that of “cognitive estrangement.” He suggests that placing readers in an unfamiliar universe or time period   forces them to examine their own world (Suvin, 374, 375). V for Vendetta estranges readers through its position in the near future, where, in the wake of a devastating international nuclear conflict, Britain’s fascist government commits genocide. It forces all non-whites, homosexuals, and socialists in Britain into concentration camps and kills them. Following Suvin’s model, readers can use the genocide in V for Vendetta to understand genocidal behaviors today.  

Moore and Lloyd explain several aspects of the British genocide in detail. First, they emphasize that the genocide occurs because the English want a scapegoat for the bleak and tumultuous world that they live in. When the protagonist, V, tortures Lewis Prothero, a former concentration camp commandant, Prothero repeats, “it was us or them!” (33). Prothero’s sentiment falls in line with a phenomenon described by Straub in which “[t]hreats or frustrations give rise to hostility and the desire to harm others,” a phenomenon that can lead to genocide (16). Using the cognitive estrangement model, this scene challenges readers to think about the way stressful conditions in their own time give rise to sadistic impulses.

Rummel cites power as a key factor in genocides, noting that, “the more power a government has…the more it will make war on others and murder its foreign and domestic subjects” (1, 2). Moore and Lloyd corroborate this. The fascist government of the novel comes to power and keeps it through unprotested violence. Through their ability to keep order, the government gains support, one character recalls that “everyone was cheering” when the fascist marched into London (28). Shortly thereafter, it begins the purges. By illustrating the way in which consent to a monolithic power can lead to genocide, Moore and Lloyd caution readers against supporting the former.

The cognitive estrangement that occurs in V for Vendetta ultimately serves as a reminder to readers of the banality of evil—the concentration camp doctor V executes even mentions Milgram’s experiment (73). By addressing genocide in a constructed universe, Moore and Lloyd emphasize how simply it can occur in our own.

 Works Cited

Moore Alan, and David Lloyd. V for Vendetta. New York: DC Comics, 2005. Graphic Novel.

Suvin, Darko. "On the Poetics of the Science Fiction Genre." College English, Vol. 34, No. 3      (December 1972). pp. 372-382. PDF. 

I have adhered to the Honor Code on this assignment.

Cultural Revolution in China

While most people  condemn Adolf Hitler  for claiming 12,000,000 people’s lives, it is stunning to see the number of lives taken away by Mao Zedong, the leader of communist party in China.  In Harry Wu's " CLASSICIDE- GENOCTOE IN COMMUNIST CHINA", the author thoroughly explores Cultural Revolution during Mao's regime.

            Influenced by Marxist-Leninist revolutionary theory, the communist revolution advocates the public ownership of property, the annihilation of the exploiting class, and the establishment of classless society in order to liberate all of humanity. The CCP (China communist party) carried out extermination programs to wipe out the exploiting class left over from the old regime. 

            The CCP employed a program of designating social status for each individual in the society, and this project was far more large-scale than the one carried out by the Germany to identify Jewish people. Civilians in the city were divided into  bourgeois class and  worker class. People in the bourgeois class were thrown into the “black file” The CCP confiscated their properties and lowered their working conditions to the lowest of the society. Also, the CCP forced the bourgeois class to “obey the teachings of the Party, thoroughly remold themselves” for the rest of their lives. Every individual in this group was severely humiliated.

            Landlords and rich peasants in the countryside were identified as “counter-revolutionary” and some were beaten to death. By the end of the Cultural Revolution, only 10 percent of the landlords and rich peasants survived. 

            People who annihilated the exploiting class were mostly ingenious residents. The government touted this ingenious campaign with great fanfare as a voluntary patriotic movement. As a result, many local organizations aimed at decimating the “counter-revolutionary” class arose and were urged by the government to make more revolution.

            Mao Zedong was responsible for 40,000,000 people’s lives, which were erased by the Cultural Revolution. The use of “class” rather than “race” during Cultural Revolution elicits the debate of whether Cultural Revolution should be called “genocide”. No matter what the method of classification is, the intent of either classicide or genocide is to exterminate every member of the group. Therefore, both are atrocities that cannot be condoned.

References:

http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hlh&AN=22450692&site=ehost-live&scope=site

http://necrometrics.com/20c5m.htm

The slogan on the pics is saying that we should exterminate the old regime

The red book the girl is holding is the famous "Red Bible". The purpose of the book was to instill Mao's concept+ brainwash everyone . People at that time were obliged to memorize the content.  

 The man in the picture is labeled as " counter revolutionary"

"Aguirre, the Wrath of God" and Genocide in Latin America

     Werner Herzog’s 1972 film Aguirre, The Wrath of God chronicles the course of an ill-fated scouting expedition sent by Gonzalo Pizarro to search for the mythical city of El Dorado. Although the film hardly presents itself as a history of colonial genocide in Latin America, the rafts upon which most of the films plot takes place function as a microcosm for the atrocities of a massive scale that would contribute to the destruction of native cultures in South and Central America.

                The Spanish conquistadors use Incan slave labor to accomplish much of their grunt work, although those slaves on the expedition are killed. When a curious Incan couple approaches the exploratory party’s raft, they express confusion at one of the Spaniard’s bibles and are tried and killed for blasphemy. This incident represents an instance of both physical and cultural genocide – the couple is killed because they are not Christian.

                Aguirre, the Wrath of God can be read largely as a character study of the titular character. In this capacity, it provides an unflinching look at a genocidal mindset. Although all of the Spaniards in the film are engaging in genocide on some level, none do so with Aguirre’s sadistic glee. Aguirre, played manically by Klaus Kinski, represents colonialism at its most malicious. He kills without regard, thinking only of his own power. He, like his fellow conquistadors, is confident in the racial superiority of his fellow Spaniard, even as his crew are slowly picked off by unseen Inca attackers. Ultimately, Aguirre, and, by extension, his imperialist mindset, is depicted as both dangerous and insane. The final line of the film, spoken by Aguirre, whose crew are completely dead and whose craft is now covered by a herd of small monkeys, perfectly represents his dangerous viewpoint: "I, the Wrath of God, will marry my own daughter and with her I will found the purest dynasty the world has ever seen. Together, we shall rule this entire continent. We shall endure. I am the Wrath of God!"


(Aside: if you'd like to watch this film, it is available in Mudd)

Could 'Illegal' Immigrants Be The Next Victims?

“America is for Americans! Go back to Mexico!”   These battle cries echo across the southwestern United States, where ‘real Americans’ are waging a political and rhetorical war on illegal immigration. Though immigration has always been controversial, economic downturn has intensified anti-immigrant sentiment in recent years. Most affected have been states along the US-Mexico border, where ‘illegals’ are seen as a direct threat to jobs and a drain on tax dollars. In these states, hostility towards Mexican-American immigrants has reached a boiling point. Could genocide be brewing in the American Southwest?

I believe that conflict between established and undocumented Americans in the southwestern United States has genocidal potential. Genocide is by no means inevitable, nor does it seem imminent; however, it would be a grave mistake to look the other way. After our readings on the causes of genocide, the situation in the American Southwest should alarm us. 

In the Southwest, many ‘real Americans’ see immigrants as a threat to their economic security. Especially in recent times of high unemployment, Americans resent having to compete with immigrants for jobs. The fact that many immigrants are paid ‘under the table’ too infuriates Americans, who complain that immigrants benefit from public services such as education, emergency room care, and law enforcement without paying their fair share of taxes. The legitimacy of these allegations is highly suspect. When it comes to analyzing genocidal potential, however, the veracity of the threat is unimportant. According to Levene, genocide requires only the perception of a threat to “the integrity of [a state’s] agenda” by an aggregate group. Alarmingly, the situation in the American Southwest fits this model. Illegal immigrants, or those thought to be illegal immigrants, are widely perceived as threatening to economic security in immigrant-heavy states. Levene argued that in situations such as these, it is possible that genocide can be rationalized as the ‘only way’ for a state to regain the power lost to the threatening group.

 
Armed with a motive, the American Southwest could move forward to perpetrate genocide if its people unify against immigrants, moving to eliminate the ‘threat’ of the ‘alien other’ in their community. Mann argued that “organic” groups – those whose individual and collective interests are aligned – have the potential to commit genocide through majoritarian tyranny. In the southwestern United States, the passage of recent anti-immigration legislation indicates the potential organicism of several states. For example, in 2010, the Arizona state legislature passed the country’s most aggressive anti-immigrant policy – known as SB 1070 – which, among other things, required Arizonans to prove on demand that they were legal residents of the state. Though SB 1070 was initially controversial, opinion polls reveal that nearly 60% of Americans support key provisions of the law, and several states have passed similar laws in recent years. In effect, SB 1070 and similar ‘show me your papers’ laws are, like the yellow stars of World War II, a means to establish who belongs and who does not, so that outsiders may be ‘dealt with.’

Will Arizona and the rest of the southwest choose to ‘deal with’ illegal immigrants through genocide? It seems they would be capable of it; in fact, they’ve arguably already begun. Subtle but insidious destruction of immigrant – specifically Latino – culture is already underway in parts of the southwest. Hispanic and Latino history is under attack in numerous states. In Texas, for example, the State Board of Education made dramatic revisions to the state’s mandatory history curriculum in 2010, erasing practically any reference to Hispanic leaders. Arizona went one step further; in 2011, the state legislature prohibited the teaching of Mexican American studies in a high school curriculum. Immigrants have also been banned from using their native languages. For example, this year, a student was expelled from a school in San Diego for speaking Spanish outside of Spanish class. In some areas, even churches have become unsafe. In 2011, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement conducted raids on Catholic churches in the Latino communities of Las Vegas and other areas, interrogating parishioners during mass and arresting dozens on suspicion of unauthorized immigration. Though it is impossible to know if or when these cultural attacks will escalate to full-fledged genocide, their significance cannot be overstated. Cultural destruction is often just the beginning; it has been said that the burning of books is merely a precursor to the burning of bodies.

The Southwestern United States has become an illegal immigration battleground in recent years. A perceived economic threat has led legislators in states like Texas and Arizona to enact laws to identify and exclude immigrants. Some states have gone even further, attacking the Hispanic and Latino culture that is so closely associated with immigrant communities. In short, the situation in the Southwest resembles what Levene and Mann described as a pre-genocidal society. As frightening as it may be, it seems clear that even the “land of the free and the home of the brave” is ripe with genocidal potential.

War and Genocide: No Hard Lines

My post concerns the relationship between war and genocide. Levene’s “types” of war are relevant: this somewhat odd little article sums them up nicely: article. Simply, I believe that Levene and to a greater degree we in our class have drawn a too hard line between war and genocide. Levene’s three types of war come one step closer to drawing war on the genocide spectrum, but his first type is naïve and merits closer inspection.  Levene calls it “the standard notion of war,” but it would more accurately be labeled “the gentleman’s wishful notion of war.”

There might be specific strategic goals that nations make war (in the first type) to achieve – a waterway, an industrial sector, particular natural resources – and at the end of most wars like these both parties come together to sort out the pieces. While the war is in full swing, however, each nation gets swept up in the goal of total elimination of the opposing nation, not merely the opposing state. The only way to ensure victory is to eliminate a people, or at least their identity as such. The article offers relations between Britain and Germany in WWII as a classic example of type one warfare, but those relations in fact stretch the assumptions of type one warfare as being far from genocide. 

The article states: “In genocide, the enemy is not a competitor that must be conquered. In the mind of the perpetrator, the enemy is a wholly alien “other” – the sinister force behind society’s ills – that must be utterly destroyed. In genocide the enemy is diabolical.”  To call the combat between Britain (and the US) and Germany during WWII simply a war of geopolitical competition between states, and to reserve for genocide the construction of a “diabolical” enemy, is to ignore the efforts of all parties involved to eliminate civilians (there is no reason to think that if any party involved had a button that would kill every citizen of the opposing nation, they would not have pressed it), and also the expectation among the allies, explored in Waller’s article on the “Mad Nazi theory,” that the architects of the German war effort and genocide were suffering from something almost classifiable as a mental disease. The occupation of Germany by the US and Soviet Union serves to challenge Levene’s claim that  “the states are enemies only for the duration of the war,” and points at something (ironically) not dissimilar to cultural genocide.

Portraying war as potentially much cleaner than genocide – something resulting from entirely different psychological mechanisms – and contained between two states in competition – is to deny the horror of war and gloss over, in retrospect, the role of war in the instigation, process, and results of the genocides in Germany and even the Ottoman empire. Could the Armenians have been the “supreme enemy” of the Ottomans if what sparked the genocidal flame was Armenians fighting for the Russians? Classifying war simply as genocide is to dilute the term unnecessarily and misleadingly, but to leave war off of the spectrum of crimes against humanity is merely an attempt to deny our susceptibility to the psychological mechanisms of genocide.

Genocidal Attitudes in America

The creation of an “other” and an enemy that threatens the united nationalist movement of a country has been a theme in the course thus far. These ideas have been prevalent in the arguments of scholars such as Naimark, Staub, and Mann. Mann in particular fleshes this out by arguing that democracy justifies genocide “in the name of the people.” 

In the United States, “we the people” unites those included in citizenship, but not those who aren’t citizens. Beyond lack of citizenship, some residents of the United States are undocumented. The right wing refers to these immigrants as “illegal immigrants” and insists upon their forced removal from the country, denial of any chance at citizenship, and the strong protection of the United States-Mexico border. Anyone who appears Mexican is treated as a criminal or suspicious, as displayed by Arizona’s immigration bill in 2010. 

In a Fox News article (link below), this attitude is shown through the call to veto a bill that would “compel local law enforcement” to release undocumented immigrants from prisons. It uses language such as “illegal immigrant gangster” and “rampant public safety threat” and tells a story of a murdered teen to demonize an ethnic group as the enemy of the United States while instilling fear. By rehashing the point that this could be dangerous, the article represents an agenda to unite all American citizens against all undocumented Mexican immigrants with no rationale but unfortunately an incredible amount of effectiveness. This news article is seen by thousands of people, who then tell their political allies. 

This heavy emphasis on deporting undocumented immigrants is eerily similar to the beginning of genocide in other places, such as Germany and the Ottoman Empire. Popular American political rhetoric reinforces these ideas, and in many areas of the country, it’s a risky political move to come out in support of immigrant populations. In America, we are seeing a movement that is difficult to distinguish from other administrations which have carried out genocide against an “enemy” population for a supposed benefit to society.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/19/father-murdered-teen-urges-gov-brown-to-veto-illegal-immigrant-bill/ 

US' Genocide in Vietnam

In light of our current topic of Turkey's denial of genocide, the actions of The United States in Vietnam have been a contentious issue for years, but they too have faded in and out of the world’s focus. Some scholars insist that the treatment of the Vietnamese by the American troops can be categorized as straightforward genocide. Others, taking a more political focus, argue that the killings that occurred were all part and parcel of the guerrilla warfare and that there were no orders to kill civilians. The middle ground makes the best argument: the US military definitely committed crimes against humanity, but the actions can not be classified as genocide due to lack of intention to exterminate the Vietnamese people.

            There can be no denying that the thousands of civilians killed in Vietnam were not simply byproducts of war – as the US government insists. The razing of crops and homes and sinking of civilian fishing boats directly impacted the nonmilitary members of the civilization and did not do much in the way of deterring the Viet Cong. It has been argued that the widespread use of poison gas, napalm, and Agent Orange were intended to impact the Vietnamese military, but the effects were again primarily on the civilians. The non-specific nature of these chemicals and how they were distributed (sprayed over large areas of land and over towns) negates the claim that the harm was meant for the soldiers – the soldiers were underground or in the jungles, not in the fields or homes of civilians. Undoubtedly the strongest example of the United States’ criminal actions comes in the form of the My Lai Massacre; over 400 unarmed civilians (mostly women, children, and the elderly) were slaughtered in South Vietnam in early 1968. These civilians posed no threat to the US soldiers and had no will or way to retaliate to the brutal attack.

            Despite all this damning evidence, the US should not be guilty of genocide (as the War Crimes Tribunal decided in 1967[1]). The reason the troops were there was political in nature; the US wanted to try to wipe out communism in the country – not wipe out the people. Things definitely got out of hand and the military’s focus wavered, but at no time did the United States order the unnecessary execution of civilians. By no means should the United States be let off the hook because the intention was not to exterminate the Vietnamese; there were multiple instances of crimes against humanity committed by the US during the war and guilt should be admitted.

           

---

[1] Historiography of Genocide, Chapter 1: “Defining Genocide”, p. 23-4. OnBlackboard. 

MANWOMAN

  The numerous groups who used the swastika before the Nazi Party adopted it are victims of cultural genocide. The perpetrator of this genocide is not the Nazi Party, for it had no intention to destroy any of the particular groups who had found powerful symbolism in the swastika. It joined these groups and entered a long symbolic tradition. But the Nazi Party incidentally became more notorious than any of the other groups of this tradition. It’s a tradition which by the way includes so may disparate groups[1] that it starts to seem like a large chunk of the northern hemisphere lost a part of its culture when it associated the scorn toward the Nazi Party with some scorn toward the swastika. The fervor with which the general public repudiates the swastika is an action of cultural genocide which these folks commit upon themselves. Lemkin’s ideas about genocide being a detraction from the general world culture apply here, but it seems like at some point I’ll stop differentiating any human action. Not that it matters.

  There’s one fellow who’s resisting the self-righteous disgust that the world at large has for the swastika. His name is ManWoman. He makes art, which in this case seems like a non-genocidal act. Here's his website. He resists the subaltern genocide enacted by the world’s Holocaust victims against the swastika. He does so not by engaging in a sub-subaltern genocide against those angry memories. He mostly paints I think.

  It’s not really sensible to equate burning books with killing people, so it’s even less sensible to equate some kind of internal hatred with killing people. But I’m engaging in cultural genocide all day and so is everyone else, if “cultural genocide” is a phrase that has any meaning. The internet puts us all inside of each other. We’re each equally supremely guilty before every single other person, like an infinitely hot and dense point.

---

[1] The swastika had been in popular use in ancient Greece, Iran, Ural, Armenia, Argentina, Australia, The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Ireland, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Iceland, India, Latvia, Norway, Poland, Russia, Sweden, The United States of America, by Hindus everywhere, by Freemasons, by Jews, by Navajo, Hopi, Apache, by Sami, etc. etc.

Arielle Edelman

Blog Post #1

The other night I watched a documentary film called Paradise Lost: The Child Murders at Robin Hood Hills. The film, made in the late nineties, is about the now famous West Memphis Three— Damien Echols, 18, Jesse Misskelley Jr., 17, and Jason Baldwin, 16, who were wrongfully convicted of murdering three young boys from their neighborhood in May of 1993. The film largely explores the way in which the cultural context of the case affected its outcome and exacerbated condemnation of the boys by townspeople. I would argue that the West Memphis Three case in a lot of ways mirrors the way in which authority-induced hysteria demonizes groups and justifies blame.

Paradise Lost mainly argues that Echols, Misskelley and Baldwin were social outcasts (they wore black, listened to Metallica, and read about Wicca) in their low-income conservative Christian community and thus were used as a scapegoat by a desperate police force struggling to find a perpetrator. This plays into several ideas presented by multiple authors we’ve read, but seems particularly aligned with the Staub reading regarding how stress and “difficult life conditions” often create a climate in which already disliked groups become hated and targeted groups. In the case of the West Memphis Three, the boys were obviously not persecuted for their ethnicity, but similar to cases of genocide, ethnic cleansing, and mass killings, their aggressors were mobilized by a powerful ideology (fundamentalist Christianity) that easily defined them as “others”. The case also bears similarities to ideas extracted from the Milgram experiment. For jurors in the courtroom and townspeople alike, the sensationalizing of the crime and extreme demonization of the suspects allowed them to overlook major gaps in the prosecution’s case and perpetuate wrongful accusations, all while feeling justified in doing so.