The Controversy of Joseph Ratzinger

Otherwise known as Pope Benedict XVI. In a recent celebrity/church gossip mashup, actress Susan Sarandon refers to the current Pope as a "nazi". Not exactly a light word to be throwing around, but its semi-truthfulness makes an interesting point. Yes, Pope Benedict XVI was once part of Hitler Youth - however, young Joseph and his family were all firmly anti-Nazi and the only reason he was put into a position where he could be called a Nazi was because of his seminary. Studying Catholicism and making his way to becoming who the world knows him now was the only thing that put him into that position.
While this fact about Pope Benny was surprising, it is not exactly incriminating with the background knowledge that any given person can receive by just doing a little research. But is it problematic that someone that the world looks up to as a religious leader was once loosely affiliated with a man and party that the rest of the world wish had never existed? In my personal opinion, no. I can't find this to be problematic because in the time of Nazi Germany, any person could be forced into becoming a member for any reason - including simply attending a certain type of school.
My understanding of the Nazi Party is that many members (although not the majority) were forced into membership rather than volunteering, and it is because of these people that I personally cannot hold hostility towards any person simply for their loose relationships until the full story of their past has been revealed. This may be a more naive/optimistic way of looking at things, but it is definitely better than being angry and aggressively pushing offensive terms on a potentially innocent person.

The Rape of Nanking

             

            The Nanking Massacre, known as the Rape of Nanking, was a mass murder occurred during the six-week period after Nanking surrendered to Japan in December 1937. The Flowers of War, a historical drama film, directed by Yimou Zhang, has its setting in this time period. In order to protect girls in the convent, 12 legendary prostitutes decided to garb themselves as the innocent girls and meet the cruel Japanese Soldiers on their behalf. Besides the unique storyline, the heroic, tragic romance between a Chinese prostitute and an American mortician and the artistic filming techniques definitely catch the audiences’ eyes.

The Rape of Nanking is the largest short-term mass extermination in history, during which 250,000 civilians are killed. The Chinese soldiers’ bodies were cremated or dumped into the Yangtze River. Children were killed in front of their parents. This required knowledge of what would be most painful for a human to witness. Family attachment and parental protectiveness were used to maximize psychological as well as physical pain. What’s worse, every woman available was raped regardless of age. The post-rape killing included mutilation, insertion of foreign objects into the vagina, disemboweling, and vivisection. Men were sodomized or forced to perform sexual acts with members of their own family.

The logic behind the sadistic behaviors exhibited by Japanese Soldiers is controversial.  The most popular explanation is the dehumanizing military training of the soldiers. Desensitization was part of Japanese military training. The training included exercises to numb men, and relinquish the human instinct against killing innocent people. Soldiers were taught how to cut off heads and bayonet living prisoners in training. Initially, recruits had revulsion to these practices.  Eventually, desensitization occurred and the soldiers became inured and atrocities became banal.

The intent of the prosecutor was genocidal.  Ethnocentrism, fuelled by the vision that Japan was the leader of the Great East Asia, was extreme in that era. Chinese were viewed as resisting that social order and hence are derogated as subhuman. In addition, during the massacre there were International Non-killing Zones where Americans and Europeans lived. Although the Rape of Nanking is often referred to as a massacre, the ideology of Chinese as an inferior race that needs to be exterminated and the selective killing during the massacre reveals the genocidal motives behind the bloody massacre.

Memorial for the Roma and Sinti Victims of the Holocaust

On October 24, 2012 Germany unveiled a new memorial for victims of the Holocaust -- this one, though, was not in honor of the Jews who perished. The memorial is dedicated to the 500,000 'Gypsies' that were slaughtered by the Nazis during the Holocaust. More specifically, the memorial is for the Roma and Sinti that were killed and only recently recognized as victims. These Roma and Sinti were put through many of the same horrible treatments as the Jews; they were subjected to forced sterilization, heavily discriminated against, and sent to labor and death camps. It took until 1982 (30 years after acknowledgement by Germany of its treatment towards the Jews) for Germany to recognize the Nazi party's persecution of the Sinti and Roma.


The memorial is very simple and not too large, but its design and message are still powerful. According to the creators, "Its still water is intended to evoke tears for the dead but also, in reflecting the beholder, inspire new generations to protect minorities from hate." It is situated in the heart of Berlin, near to the parliament building.


While the memorial is a long-needed recognition of the Sinti and Roma persecution in the past, it’s important to note that the current discrimination towards them has yet to be addressed; there are 12 million Roma in Europe today and the majority of them live below the poverty line and experience persecution and heavy discrimination by most European societies and governments. For example, Germany still wont’ grant asylum to refugee Roma from Serbia and Macedonia.


It’s great that there is finally a memorial for those who perished by the Nazis, but the memorial is not going to help the present-day victims. Saying sorry is important, and recognizing genocide is always good, but it doesn’t fix current issues; it’s too little, too late.



Read more: http://forward.com/articles/164898/memorial-to-forgotten-holocaust-opens-in-germany/#ixzz2AnT92kgE

SALEM WITCH TRIALS

     

     Greetings from fall break, everyone! Today, because it's almost Halloween and I like to consider myself a spooky person, I visited Salem, Massachusetts, and, because of the unshakable grip this class has over my day-to-day observations, I couldn't help but perceive certain genocidal characteristics present in the witch hunts that swept Essex county in 1692. In particular, I noted certain similarities to Stalin's genocides, although many important differences also exist. Both events targeted largely imaginary groups (kulaks and witches, respectively) that functioned as tailor-made scapegoats for the problems threatening their societies.

      Certain trends are readily apparent among those accused of witchcraft in the hysteria: most were women, and, at least initially, came from the margins of society. As the witch hunts continued, increasingly prominent members of society began to be accused, until finally the governor’s wife was accused and the governor shut down the courts that were running the witch trials. These courts accepted spectral evidence – supposed visions of the accused spirits perpetrating acts of witchcraft- as valid.

                In my view, the Salem witch trials exhibit certain prominent characteristics of other genocides we have discussed in this course, namely the attempted destruction of a group (“witches”) and the coordinated use of government structures (the courts) to achieve this end. Could the Salem witch hunts reasonably be considered genocide? The answer to this question inevitably results from definitional questions of genocide in a broader sense: can an event in which only 20 people lost their lives be considered genocide? Can imaginary groups constitute a victim group? I do not consider the Salem witch trials to be genocide, although not for either of the reasons mentioned above. Rather, I think the Salem witch trial was too short-lived a trend to constitute genocide. The witch hunts displayed a pre-genocidal mindset on the part of the perpetrators, but, because the suspicion of witchcraft fell upon those with the power to stop the trend, it failed to develop into a full-blown genocide. It would be absurd to group the Salem witch trials into the same category as Stalin’s genocides or the Holocaust, but the similarities between these events suggest just how ubiquitous the germ of genocide truly is. 

Different opinions of genocide

During a recent discussion amongst friends (because my friends are a group of the cheeriest people), one person brought up that they had met a former Nazi. In response, another member of the group stated that if they had ever met a former Nazi, they would "completely go off on them" (which I imagine means yell at them or be some type of aggressor). This got me wondering how many different people view the Nazi party, especially upon reading Browning and Goldhagen. I've come across two different responses, incredible anger, or an attempt to understand why. Through this class, I have become more sympathetic to the mindset of being forced into a situation where you have to kill or be killed. It makes me wonder what I would do in this situation - if I were given a root or reason to justify a certain group of people, and if I knew the "entire country" and my leader was on my side of the hatred, would I go along with constant acts of murder to the extent where it led to genocide? And what if I didn't agree and my life and family were threatened? Then would I agree to killing one or two people, if it meant I would be safe? I understand why many people would immediately assume that every member of the Nazi party wanted to kill every other person that wasn't of the Aryan race, and therefore nearly every person on the planet would have a grudge against them and would want to express their rage. However, what many people don't understand is the kind of situation that many of the Nazis were forced into in an effort to clear Germany (and Poland, and eventually all of Europe, etc) of every "minority". Again, I'm not defending or empathizing with the Nazi party, I am just trying to understand their situations.

Kill Baby Hitler?!

     

 

 Source Link: http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2012/10/would_you_kill_baby_hitler.html


 When I first glimpsed this question On Roger Eber's website, I immediately said yes. I wasn't proud of this quick response. An answer to this question represents many aspects of the person who answers it. Aspects such as: whether or not he / she holds morality up to a certain degree in their thinking; if they would prevent a horrible event even if it meant killing a baby; or if they would not commit this act, therefore allowing the Holocaust to occur. I should've been more patient with my answer and allowed myself time to reflect on what principles (if I truly have any) I shape my actions by. 

     When Roger Ebert posted this blog, many of his readers skimmed it and then directly applied their responses to the title question. Because of this and the actual point of the blog post, he renamed it "Did You choose Your Religion?" Though I disagree with Mr. Ebert on A LOT of his movie reviews, I thought this blog was quite insightful. He says how the success of his career is mostly credited to the kindness of people and good luck. He then equates that to the career of Hitler and how he seemed to rise by coincidence, chance if you will. He was in the right places at the right time with the right amount of determination. This is an interesting point, because he then goes in the topic of how much humans control their own destiny; if it is the environment that shapes them or vice-versa. When taking in these points throughout the blog, ask yourself: Would you kill baby Hitler?

WWII Reparations: The German-American Pseudo-Genocide

 The Holocaust instigated by the German Nazis during WWII was a tragedy that shook the World. Often a reference point for the study of genocides, and arguably a “uniquely unique” genocide in and of itself, the Holocaust forced the world to question group murders and suppression. The American homefront was incredibly sheltered and skirmish-free within this World War, which took the lives of approximately 60 million people. After the war our country prospered while counterparts in Eurasia took years recovering their national identities and economies. Yet on American soil an unrecognized movement towards cultural genocide against German-Americans took place during WWII, where citizens of German descent would be victims to undue political and cultural persecution from the Government as well as neighbors. I argue that the conflict does not reach genocide, but does approach it given the actions taken by the Federal government and communities. 

Shortly after the attack on Pearl Harbor the environment in the U.S. changed for German-Americans drastically. Neighbors treated them with distrust, and they were often turned away from their communities. Concurrently, the United States set in place a number of internment camps for citizens and aliens of German descent, made possible by a loose interpretation of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. These camps functioned much like the ghettos that Nazis forced Jews into before the final solution. 

Outside of camp-life, aspects of German culture that had been integrated into American culture were quickly suppressed. Just as the French fry recently debuted as “Liberty fries” in opposition to French politics, during the war the hamburger became the “liberty sandwich”, and sauerkraut was called “freedom cabbage” in order to further American Patriotism and eschew any link to the German enemy. Likewise, there was a movement to bar the performance of German classical music, and a parallel movement to get more Americans conducting orchestras instead of foreigners. Serge Koussevitzky, the conductor of the Boston Symphony Orchestra was suspended for refusing to change a concert program including Ludwig van Beethoven. This movement to bar and delegitimize German culture in America was an integral part to the American war-time propaganda machine.

            World War II, seen in the eyes of Americans through government propaganda, popular films and comic books, was depicted as “the Good War”. It was said to be the last war to “make sense”; Democracy vs. Fascism, Totalitarianism vs. the Four Freedoms, Good vs. Evil. But perhaps it shouldn’t be so black and white. The U.S. have never recognized or apologized for their internment of German-Americans, or their attempt to cripple German traditions and culture in the United States. While American actions against German-Americans might not constitute genocide, perhaps if the war had reached a more critical level, more actions would have been deemed necessary? Germany did not jump to the Final Solution. And though the number of Germans and German-American citizens only reached 1/10 the total of Japanese incarcerated in camps, they underwent the same struggle, and should also receive adequate recognition from the United States.

I have adhered to the Honor Code on this Assignment.
-Dan King

Anthropogenic Climate Change and Genocide

     Human-made climate change is one of the most pressing issues of the present. Increases in average global temperatures will stress worldwide production of foodstuffs, increase the severity of weather phenomena such as hurricanes and forest fires, and exacerbate conflicts in areas experiencing basic resource shortages. Global consumerism, which deifies the production and accumulation of energy-intensive products, is inherently incompatible with transitioning to post-fossil fuel societies, and plays a large part in driving climate change. In addition, cultural mores associated with mass consumerism contributes to people's complacency by attaching their perceived happiness with their material wealth. The projected rise in the global human population is also worrisome considering hundreds of millions of people a year now suffering from starvation will only grow. In spite of the fact that anthropogenic global warming has been an accepted scientific theory since the early 1970s, few significant steps have been taken by corporations, governments, and communities to avert long-term damage to the Earth's biosphere.

     Many scientists, journalists, historians, and politicians, amongst many other groups, have discussed why climate change occurs and why the global community has responded with idleness in the face of dire consequences. However, I have never heard of a movie, documentary, scientific article, interview, or any other medium which has discussed how global warming is related to genocidal acts. Despite the fact that global warming and genocide seem to be disparate ideas, I think that there are several commonalities between them which merit further examination. Many structural mechanisms which drive modern consumerism, such as international corporations, aggressive advertisement campaigns and lobbies, and economic hegemony through cultural imperialism, simultaneously contribute to genocidal acts and climate change. In a business environment where transnational companies are concerned almost exclusively with short-term profits, such corporations not only are unconcerned about environmental protection and the integrity of local cultural, religious, or ethnic peoples, but such positions are antithetical to making the largest possible profit. In order to remain competitive, access to natural resources, building factories, acquiring labor, and selling products has to be as cheap as possible. Since respecting indigenous populations and sustainably consuming natural resources is more expensive than typical practices, which include economically subjugating local groups and compromising their cultural values through the dissemination of consumerist culture, corporations will continue to use methods that will meet their bottom line.

     Through the use of mass advertisement campaigns, the social mores of local groups can be incrementally altered to mirror the values of external cultural groups. Interestingly, the combination of long-term economic instability through resource depletion and imposing foreign cultural mores upon local groups not only drives the global economy by increasing production of material goods, but it also forces those producing such products to consume within this larger international trading network. This process is remarkably similar to Raphael Lemkin's description of genocide: “Genocide has two phases: one, destruction of the national pattern of the oppressed group; the other, the imposition of the national pattern of the oppressor.” Moreover, shortages of food, water, and other essential natural resources, which will become more pronounced as climate change worsens, are a significant contributing factor to genocidal rhetoric and acts. Other stress conditions, such as economic stagnation and/or decline, monetary devaluation, wars, and mass migrations, will likely increase the employment of hateful speech and violent behaviors with greater frequency and in areas where they have not been prevalent in recent memory. The increasing severity of dangerous weather events attributed in recent years to climate change will also contribute to destabilizing communities, governments, and regions by making it more difficult to grow sufficient amounts of crops to feed everyone.

     Genocidal and anthropogenic climatic phenomena are very distinctive from one another. They are incredibly multidisciplinary, and as such are poorly defined and prone to misinterpretation. In spite of this, there are sufficient commonalities between these phenomena that I think they should be talked about and researched in the interest of creating a balanced discourse. Climate change has the very real potential to trigger future genocides. As such, if there are those who want to prevent such events from occurring, they need look no further than addressing human-caused global warming to discourage many of the factors which can lead to genocidal rhetoric and actions in the present and the future.

http://www.alternet.org/election-2012/noam-chomsky-fate-humanity-stake-why-are-romney-and-obama-too-cowardly-talk-about-what

http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/insidestory/2011/07/201172291544171908.html

http://www.alternet.org/environment/why-capitalism-not-population-our-greatest-environmental-threat

“Defining Genocide”, Ann Curthoys and John Docker

Western Europe and Muslims: Cultural Genocide?

    I wanted to write my blog post about anti-Islamic sentiments in Western Europe, particularly in France and Switzerland, and if there is a possibility that this culture of Islamophobia could classify Western Europe as a “pre-genocidal” society.  The term “pre genocidal” is, of course, a very tricky term to define, since you can really only call a society genocidal after the fact.  However, for the purposes of this blog post, I will assume that one can look at a certain set of criteria from other societies that became genocidal and use them to try to determine a basic “pre genocidal society.”
    All throughout Western Europe in the last decade or so, anti-Islamic attitudes have been on the rise.  Western Europe is facing extremely difficult economic times, and it is common in these situations to look for a scapegoat, particularly one that is more obviously different from the rest of the citizens, thus Muslims are more often being portrayed as radical and dangerous in the media and the news.  Some countries claim that they are passing laws to present more unified nations with more collective values, which is also a common practice that could lead to a form of genocide.  And in certain countries, laws have even been passed that ban certain aspects of Islamic culture.  Two countries in particular that have passed the harshest anti-Islamic policies into law are France and Switzerland.  France has officially banned both the burqa and the niqab, garments worn by Muslim women to show their devotion.  If French women are seen wearing these in public, they will be fined and could face possible jail time.  In Switzerland, the construction of minarets, the focal points of mosques that call Muslims to prayer, was banned.  I believe that these laws may be the beginning of cultural genocide.  Cultural genocide can be described as the culture of a group being destroyed to such an extent that the group ceases to exist.  With these laws being passed and the general Islamophobic attitude of Western Europe increasing, Muslim people are losing access to key aspects of their culture, particularly their religious traditions.  If this trend continues, it is easy to see how cultural genocide against Muslims could come to pass in Western Europe.
   

Still Charging Genocide Today?

We’ve discussed cultural genocide in the context of US discrimination and hatred toward undocumented immigrants, particularly hispanics, but we’ve hardly discussed genocidal attitudes toward other minorities. In “Defining Genocide,” we read about the 1951 We Charge Genocide petition in which Paul Robeson and the CRC claimed that the United States both had and continued to commit physical and cultural genocide against African Americans. The petition was largely ignored by the UN Genocide Convention and Lemkin, too, dismissed its case on the basis that, despite facing discrimination, African Americans were increasing in prosperity. Were Lemkin and the UN right to dismiss charges of genocide? Over 60 years later, African Americans still face discrimination and at times institutionalized oppression in this country.

Last month, a federal complaint was filed against the New York City Department of Education saying that “black and Hispanic students [are] disproportionately excluded from New York City’s most selective high schools because of a single-test admittance policy [that] is racially discriminatory.” Out of 165 selective high schools in the country, these eight are the only ones that adhere to a single-test admittance policy — a policy which has resulted in a disproportionately small number of African-American and Hispanic students admitted to these schools. While the test itself is not racist, its results expose deeper problems in the New York public education system. In a system where 70% of students are black and Hispanic, it doesn’t make sense that only 733 of these students were able to score high enough to get into a top school. I’ve been following this story closely, as I went to one of the eight schools, but thinking about it differently in light of our conversations about genocide.

This is not a question of whether the NYC school system is “pre-genocidal” — it obviously isn’t. But it’s a clear example of an institution inadvertently oppressing African Americans, and Mayor Bloomberg’s “life isn’t always fair” defense against the charges only serves to further that oppression. While this particular instance has not inspired violence or hateful rhetoric yet, it calls to mind larger debates on the issue of affirmative action which have historically been and continue to be very charged. If the city does make steps toward a more holistic admission process, and as a result of that, more black and Hispanic students are admitted to these elite schools causing fewer white and Asian students to get spaces, you’d best believe there will be some angry white parents on the Upper West Side.

All of this makes me think about the role that labels like “genocide” play in our society. When the UN refused to accept Paul Robeson’s charge of genocide, they effectively dismissed the African American struggle as trivial compared to events like the Holocaust. While it it is silly to play the what-if game, I can’t help but wonder, what if these complaints hadn’t been ignored? The demands African-Americans continue make would be much less ignored. The US was not held accountable for their discrimination against blacks, and in many ways are still not, particularly in the case of the mass incarceration of young black males. I don’t know if I think the UN should have affirmed Robeson’s charge, but I do know that if one chooses to see American actions against African-Americans as genocidal, then we are definitely still committing genocide to this day.

NY Times Article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/28/nyregion/specialized-high-school-admissions-test-is-racially-discriminatory-complaint-says.html

Gothamist Article about Bloomberg's response:

http://gothamist.com/2012/09/28/bloomberg_on_stuy_racist_test_life.php

A Genocide Against the Germans?

A recent article by R.M. Douglas examines the expulsion of between 12 and 14 million Germans from Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Yugoslavia, and Poland after the Second World War.  He argues that at least 500,000 of these refugees, predominantly women, children, and old people, died under horrid conditions purposefully created by the Allies.  Douglas argues that the Allies' policy of “reparations in kind” and the large number of Germans who died along the way implies ethnic cleansing.  Yet I believe that we must understand the perpetrators’ motivations before we label the Allies as bloodthirsty criminals.

To do this, we must operate within the context of World War II.  With the exception of Yugoslavia, the Red Army occupied each of the countries which expelled Germans, as well as the concentration camps Auschwitz I and Thereisenstadt.  Douglas forgets to mention that the western Allies also kept German concentration camps open because they faced immense logistical problems in returning millions of survivors to their homes throughout Europe.1  He does not clarify whether Sir John Coville referred to these camps or the Soviet-run slave labor camps.

Further, the Red Army implemented different policies when capturing occupied territories than the western Allies, as Stalin wanted to see to it that Germany would not start another war.  The expulsion of Germans from these lands can be seen as a continuation of this policy as Hitler had claimed that ethnic Germans in Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Poland needed to be incorporated into Germany proper at the beginning of the war in order to expand his empire.  The expulsion of ethnic Germans from other lands as brutally as possible would ensure that Germany neither want nor 'need' to expand its borders in the future.  Although this may be considered an ‘ethnic cleansing’ of sorts, the Soviets presumably saw it as revenge and 'future protection.'

While Douglas’s article brings up the important issue of addressing the integrity of Allied actions throughout World War II, it is essential to remember the historical context involved.  It seems unlikely that the Soviets would have treated ethnic Germans so viciously had Germany never invaded the Soviet Union, let alone killed 27 million Russians.  We can easily moralize over events that happened nearly 70 years ago, yet it is essential to take the entire situation into account before we label any group en masse as 'war criminals.'


1) See William Hitchcock’s The Bitter Road to Freedom: The Human Cost of Allied Victory in World War II Europe for more information.

Magneto

When I was around 8 years old, my family and I went to go see Bryan Singer’s X-men in theaters. I remember really enjoying because I was also a big fan of the Saturday morning cartoon. For years, I thought of it as a fun action movie. But then I watched it the opening scene years later and it gave the movie a depth that I had never realized that it had. 

 The main villain of the first X-men movie and the animated series was Magneto, also known Erik Lensherr, was a Holocaust survivor. Magneto was the first leader of the Brotherhood of Mutants, which was an extremist group, which was devoted to asserting Mutant superiority. When I was younger, I thought that Magneto was just your run of the mill evil guy who wanted to destroy the human race because that’s simply what bad guys do.  But taking into account what had happened to Magneto, I now understood why he felt the way he did.  Erik and his entire family were sentenced to die by their government because they were a hated and feared minority. With the Mutant Registration Act in the works, the attempt at mutant genocide could have been a possibility. Magneto didn’t want to see the same thing happen twice and this time he could make things different. Stan Lee, Magneto’s creator said of the character that he "did not think of Magneto as a bad guy. He just wanted to strike back at the people who were so bigoted and racist... he was trying to defend the mutants, and because society was not treating them fairly he was going to teach society a lesson. He was a danger of course... but I never thought of him as a villain”.

Animal Genocide?

Is it possible to commit genocide against a group of non-human animals? It has been brought to my attention that certain species of apes wage a kind of genocidal war against rival groups. Given certain conditions such as food shortages and a growing population one group will attack another, seeking their total destruction and the acquisition of more territory and thus food. Surviving members of the victim group are absorbed into the victors and the pattern of the victim group is destroyed. Does this constitute genocide?

Is it possible for humans to commit genocide on a non-human group? The case of the dodo bird, whose ill-suited acceptance of human presence and apparent stupidity earned it the contempt of sailors and the eventual demise of its species, might shed some light. Our class, scholars, and the U.N. convention all deemed, however, that the annihilation of a group was not necessary to classify an action as genocide. As in the case of aboriginals in Australia, the destruction of a way of life was adequate to legitimately charge genocide. It is in this framework that I would like to draw attention to the status of factory farm animals in contemporary society.

As humans, we are undoubtedly responsible for the destruction of the behavioral patterns of animal groups, through extinction and domestication. In the case of domestication, the new pattern serves the needs of a human group that wishes to build favorable conditions for its growth. 10 billion animals are killed for consumption every year in the U.S. alone. Does this constitute genocide?

Humans have certain attitudes towards animals hardwired into our moral brains, which automatically delimit the animal kingdom from consideration on similar moral grounds to other humans. After all, a chief tactic in making an ongoing genocide morally palatable to the populous of the aggressor group is the use of de-humanizing propaganda, relegating an internal group to the status of animals. But there are limits to what a normal person finds morally acceptable to do to even what they consider an inferior being. The unsavory methods of today’s factory farms undoubtedly fall outside that normal threshold in the minds of most who see them first hand, but I do not want to focus on the specifics of abuse. Instead I’d like to point to the tactics made by aggressor companies to make their actions seem more morally palatable to customers, and draw comparisons to genocidal states.

 As in genocides, euphemistic language is almost always used to refer to animals and the process of their slaughter, dismemberment and packaging. Beef is not called cow and pork is not called pig. Propaganda of a sort, showing cows in green pastures, next to the cornfields on farmer Joe’s land is ubiquitous. We are constantly inundated with inaccurate, anachronistic images about farming. Censorship of information concerning the welfare of factory farm animals: Utah, for instance, has passed a law criminalizing disseminating information about farming practices.

                  (2) A person is guilty of agricultural operation interference if the person, without

      consent from the owner of the operation, or the owner's agent, knowingly or                                                 intentionally records an image of, or sound from, the operation:

Also like many genocides discussed, a chain of diffusion of responsibility exists, from the workers “on the ground” in the slaughterhouse and factory farms, to the customers, who all have limited knowledge of the scope of the farming operations and their place within it. De-being-ization: instead of dehumanizing, I argue that we have begun to systematically and legally de-being-ize factory farm animals. Many large factory-farming companies have altered the natural genetics and life cycles of farm animals beyond recognition through genetic engineering and hormone usage. Farm animals are specifically exempted from coverage under morally concerned legislation about animal welfare, such as the federal Animal Welfare Act, and state domestic abuse and animal cruelty laws.

works cited:

http://le.utah.gov/~2012/bills/hbillint/hb0187.htm

http://awic.nal.usda.gov/farm-animals

http://www.aspca.org/Fight-Animal-Cruelty/Advocacy-Center/state-animal-cruelty-laws.aspx

Avatar: The Last Airbender - Genocide for Kids!

In my house, we’re huge friends of Avatar: The Last Airbender. When I told my housemate about this blog her response was: “you should write about Avatar!” Because Avatar, despite being an animated kids show, is premised on genocide. Aang, the protagonist of the series with the ability to control or “bend” all four elements and the duty to bring peace to the world, is the last of the Airbenders. Fire Lord Sozin, the villain of the series, is waging an expansionist war to rule over the entire Avatar world. Sozin knew that the person with the ability to stop him - the next Avatar - was going to be born into the Air Nation, so he slaughtered all of the Air Nomads. Only Aang survived.

It’s pretty heavy stuff, for a kids show. When Aang - who spent 100 years frozen in an iceberg - learns of the fate of his people, it’s absolutely heartbreaking. The Air Nomads are in some ways a “classic” victim group. The Fire Nation is militant, and has the most modern technology in the world. The Air Nomads were extremely spiritual and espoused a pacifist ideology. They lived in remote temples and were led by monks. While Fire Nation propaganda 100 years after the war said that the Fire Nation defeated the “Air Nation Army,” the Air Nomads had no army and were largely killed by ambush. In the Fire Nation’s quest to spread “peace” throughout the Avatar world, it was necessary to portray the Air Nomads as a defeated enemy, and not the victims of a one-sided massacre.

While Avatar is premised on one rather explicit case of genocide, the show also provides examples of subtler practices of cultural genocide caused by colonization. In the episode “Imprisoned,” the Aang Gang travels to a village in the Earth Kingdom under Fire Nation occupation. The occupying Fire Nation force extorts exorbitant taxes from the occupied village and forces the inhabitants to mine coal for the war effort. Importantly, they also arrested all known Earthbenders and outlawed bending - anyone found to be practicing Earthbending was arrested and taken to a Fire Nation ship, far away from any earth to bend. 

While not everyone in each nation is a bender, bending is essential to the national identity of each group - each nation is defined by their element. Bending is something spiritual and an essential defining characteristic of one’s identity. The ability to bend also represents a weapon, and Katara doesn’t understand why Haru doesn’t use his bending ability to liberate his town from the Fire Nation. Similar to the authors we read attempting to explain the lack of Jewish resistance during the Holocaust, the people of Haru’s village learned that resistance through Earthbending is futile, it only further rips their community apart as those who can bend are taken away. 

This suppression of culture, along with forced labor, is similar to other genocides we’ve studied, such as Latin America. One of my favorite things about Avatar is how - despite being geared towards kids - it doesn’t shy away from dealing with really complicated adult issues. Through its basic premise, A:tLA shows many different genocidal processes occurring in the context of an expansionary war. 

Here are some clips from “The Southern Air Temple” and “Imprisoned”

http://nicktoons.nick.com/videos/clip/avatar-extras-the-southern-air-temple-cart-d.html

In this clip, Aang returns to the Southern Air Temple (where he was raised) and discovers what happened to his people (about 2:30 in, and then skip to around 7:10 in unless you want to watch an Agni Kai between Zuko and Zhao.)

http://nicktoons.nick.com/videos/clip/imprisoned-cart-a.html

This clip shows introduces us to the occupied Earth Nation village and shows what living under Fire Nation occupation is like. 

Is the Term Genocide Useful?

            Robert A. Pape argues that the term genocide discourages countries from intervening in government sponsored massacres. Pape states that quickly stepping in to cease state-approved homocide is more useful than trying to prove a nation is committing genocide according to the definition and should therefore be stopped. He states that, if a political institution is on a killing spree, “a coalition of countries…should intervene to stop it, as long as they have a viable plan, with minimal risk of causalities for the interveners,” regardless of whether it can be defined as genocide. He uses the US aid during the war in Libya between Colonal Qaddafi and the rebels as an example. The United States entered with “the narrower objective of preventing a ‘humanitarian catastrophe’.” This low-risk intervention helped the rebels in defeating Qaddafi “and saved thousands of lives,” preventing it from becoming a UN-definited genocide. Pape concludes that trying to stop the massacres in Syria is not yet an option because a way to end it “without unacceptable loss of life is not yet available.”

            Although I agree that the international community is so focused on the definition of genocide that the term actually inhibits intervention in mass homocides, I also wonder if nations would intervene in crises in the first place if a term did not exist. Judging by what we have learned in class thus far, the focus on terminology detracts from the reality of mass murder because academics and country leaders do not want to blame or offend others. In essence, we forget about the horrors that we are talking about. I believe this is problematic because the individual’s connection to basic human rights motivates the intervention. On the other hand, I wonder if international intervention happens because we have vocabulary to discuss state-led massacres. Since coining the term genocide, countries as well as the UN are more aware of and talk about government-sponsored massacres. Citizens have participated in anti-genocidal activism in an attempt to stop mass killings.  Although the global community sometimes decides to intervene solely based on the definition of genocide, I question whether the international community would interrupt massacres at all had Lemkin not created the term.

            Furthermore, I do not support Pape’s use of the Libyan war as a prime example of successful intervention. Although it highlights the United States’ aid in the rebels’ success, I question why if the country decided to enter in the first place because Libya is rich with resources. Before the war, CNN reported that Libya produced 1.6 million barrels of oil a day, and, in 2011, IBM estimated that Libya had $8.69 billion in gold.  Was the United States invested in saving lives as well as trying to profit?

Bibliography

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/03/opinion/why-we-shouldnt-attack-syria-yet.html

http://www.un.org/en/holocaustremembrance/docs/paper5.shtml

http://money.cnn.com/2011/10/25/news/international/libya_oil/index.htm

http://www.ibtimes.com/how-much-gold-does-libya-have-302983

Gay Marriage Opposition: Cultural Genocide

Gay marriage is most often framed as a civil rights issue. But society denies gay people more than just civil rights by prohibiting same-sex marriage: it denies them a component of American cultural life. By banning gay marriage, civil society commits an act of cultural genocide against a minority within it.

A 2010 Pew Research/Time poll showed that over 60% of Americans want to get married. If asked whether they would get married after finding “the right person” the number increases. Given this research, it is safe to say that marriage holds an important place in American culture. Marriage is not just a right, it is a lifestyle that the majority of Americans aspire to.

Ironically, gay marriage opposition provides the best evidence that marriage is an essential part of American culture. People and organizations who oppose same-sex marriage refer to marriage as a “sacred institution”. The connotations of this term are not just religious, they are cultural. Advocates for marriage between one man and one woman frequently employ words like “family”, “American values”, and “institution” to explain their so-called defense of marriage. They correctly understand that marriage has a role in families and in society at large. Conservative columnist David Brooks, though a moderate by today’s standards, makes a very conservative case for gay marriage based on these priciples. (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/22/opinion/the-power-of-marriage.html)

Further evidence that marriage’s importance is cultural rather than religious lies in the “everything but” argument. Many Americans oppose same-sex marriage but do not view homosexuality as illegitimate or a moral wrong. To appear that they support gay rights, they support civil unions and policies that would give gay and lesbian couples some of the legal and economic benefits of marriage without granting them civil marriages. They recognize that gay rights pose no threat to religion, but neglect the status of marriage as a cultural institution.

Marriage is by no means necessary for a family or individual to be successful or happy. Nor is it a moral prerequisite for cohabitation or creating a family. However, marriage is an American cultural institution that the majority of Americans support, and desire in their own lives. If we accept this, then denying gay and lesbian couples the right to marry is not just a blatant civil rights abuse. It is robbing a minority population of the right to perform a cultural practice, and therefore is a form of cultural genocide.

Iran, Israel, and Incitement to Genocide

-->

The Convention on the Punishment and Prevention of the Crime of Genocide, on which many definitions of genocide are based, not only names genocide but also “direct and public incitement to commit genocide” as offenses punishable under international law. Human rights organizations have called for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President of the Islamic Republic of Iran, to be prosecuted at the International Court of Justice for incitement to genocide, but no action has been taken as of yet.

Since the Islamic revolution in Iran under Ayatollah Khomeini, Iranian leaders have publicly called for the destruction of Israel. In 2000, Khomeini said, in reference to Israel “this cancerous tumor of a state should be removed from the region.” Ahmadinejad has pledged to “wipe Israel off the map”, and “erase Israel from the pages of history,” and referred to Jews as “stinking corpses” who are “the root cause of insecurity and wars.” This language, which is disturbingly reminiscent of Hitler’s speeches leading up to the Holocaust and Mien Kampf, has prompted a number of resolutions from around the world condemning Iran’s behavior.

Iran’s threats, in combination with their denial of the Holocaust and their efforts to obtain nuclear weapons, may be signs of genocide in the making. This raises a number of questions for historians. Can we identify parallels between Iran and pre-genocidal Germany or Turkey? Is now the appropriate time to discuss and perhaps even implement deterrence or rescue operations? After the Rwandan genocide, a number of media people were convicted of incitement to genocide; can there be prosecution before the genocide occurs? How does the potential for a nuclear genocide raise the stakes? Is Ahmadinejad analogous to Hitler, and if so, will prosecuting him for incitement to genocide prevent an actual genocide, or will someone step up to take his place? 

If genocide is in fact unfolding before our eyes, it is crucial that we act. But free speech and state sovereignty are strong considerations, too. Genocide studies can help answer some of these questions and suggest feasible courses of action.

Sources:

http://www.genocidewatch.org/
www.genocidewatch.org/images/The_Genocide_Incitement_Act_of_2012.pdf
http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007839

A Threshold to Genocide?: Peter Pan's Destruction of the Lost Boys

Last week I asked a question in class before the blog discussion that probably could have taken an entire period to come to two dozen conclusions and zero definitive answers. As academia is wont to do. The question pondered if an extremely small group of people--like 5 or less--who held some unique ethnic or cultural identity were systematically eliminated by a government would that constitute genocide? More simply, is there a threshold of death to genocide?
Today in my English Tutorial class I was reminded of this question by the presentation of a classmate's project. It had nothing to do with genocide but in passing she mentioned that Peter Pan's Lost Boys don't share his eternal youth and are recycled over time. J.M. Barrie leaves it unclear where the "graduated" Lost Boys disappear to, opening the possibility that Peter systematically murders them when they reach a certain age.
Now, while there's no denying that such a suggestion is a little fucked up given how cute and innocent the Lost Boys are in the Disney edition, I promise there's some credence to it, provided we accept the theory of the older boys' demise. Peter Pan is in many ways a dictator while the Lost Boys are a cultural nation of displaced children. They obey Pan unquestioningly and go to remarkable lengths to please him, like attempting to murder the "Wendy-bird" on Tinkerbell's command. Pan forbids them to know anything that he doesn't, effectively controlling the flow of knowledge in this small society and maintaining his dominance. However, the one thing Peter can't control is the memories of their parents, and their expectation to grow up. This is the greatest imaginable subversion to the Pan dream, and one that Peter cannot tolerate. Assuming the disappearance of the Lost Boys is due to ideological murder, can we deem this genocide? I think we can. Sure, they are abnormally small in number but their murders are predicated on Peter Pan's defense of his ideal of eternal youth. Can we not see growing up as a form of cultural uniqueness--as something to be feared and destroyed? Or are the Lost Boys too few in number or too integral to the political system to be otherized. Are Pan's murders better connoted to Hitler's Holocaust or Stalin's political purges?

The Economy and the Rise of the Nazis

No one factor can explain the Holocaust and Hitler's ascendancy, but the economy can not be ignored. Economic crises provide the opportunity for new and/or radical groups to come to power, and Hitler came to power during one of the largest, the Great Depression. However, an economic crisis is not necessarily enough for a new regime to hold power; this requires continued popular support after taking over. An economic recovery can bolster a new regime's popularity and thus its efficacy, but a continuing economic decline can weaken the regime. Nazi Germany produced a strong recovery, and this may have strengthened the Nazi state.

As Staub explains, difficult life conditions can lead to frustration and often people cope by joining an ideological group. A period of mass unemployment and increased competition for scarce resources could create such difficult life conditions, and allow for the rise of new and/or radical groups. Indeed, in the current recession, some radical groups have gained more support than ever before. For instance, Greece's Coalition of the Radical Left more than quintupled their support from 2009 in the 2012 elections, in the midst of Greece's economic crisis.¹ The Nazis too likely benefited enormously from Germany's economic troubles. As explained in Apocalypse: The Rise of Hitler, the Nazi Party performed relatively poorly in the 1928 elections, but after the onset of the Great Depression, their vote share rapidly rose. The Great Depression certainly can't completely explain Hitler's rise; after all, the US was hit by the brunt of the Great Depression, and this simply brought a centrist party to power. Nevertheless, even in America, the Great Depression changed the political landscape. While laissez-faire Republicans had dominated since the Civil War, Roosevelt's victory brought America Keynesian economics and the welfare state. This change in political regimes may have required an economic recovery.

While Roosevelt enacted only limited Keynesian policies, unemployment did fall, and the public rewarded the Democrats with further gains in both 1934 and 1936; during this period, Roosevelt was able to implement two waves of New Deal legislation. However, when Roosevelt turned to austerity in 1937, the economy went back into recession, the Democrats lost big in the 1938 midterms, and the New Deal ground to a halt.² While in America, Keynesian policies were limited and recovery incomplete before the war, one country did institute massive deficit spending and restore full employment, Nazi Germany.³ If a strong economic recovery can provide a regime with greater popular support, Germany's rapid recovery could have strengthened the Nazi government and helped create the opening for the Nazis to engage in genocide.

Certainly this hypothesis is speculative; after all, the relation between economic recovery and political power in America may not translate well to a totalitarian state. On the other hand, the Nazis, like any other political party, were not immune to public pressure; as Friedlander reveals, the Nazis moved their death camps outside of Germany after the T4 killings sparked public opposition. However, as Kulka describes (Ordinary Men-Afterword), the German populace limited its opposition to Jewish persecution, and their indifference gave the Nazis the freedom to push through the Final Solution. The strong economic recovery could help explain this indifference. The German public may not have been happy with some of the extreme measures taken against the Jews, but if the Nazis were succeeding where the Weimer Republic failed, why fuss over the fate of the Jews?

Even if this hypothesis is correct, and the German economic recovery constituted one cause of the Holocaust, it is hardly a complete explanation. After all, the Nazis advanced the Final Solution as they began to lose the war rather than in a time of German triumph. In addition, the Nazis recruited collaborators from European countries which received no economic benefit from the Nazis' deficit spending. Nevertheless, the economy may be one piece of the explanation for why the Nazis came to power and then received support from the German people as they committed genocide.

1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_of_the_Radical_Left

2http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/06/opinion/06krugman.html

3http://gdc.gale.com/archivesunbound/archives-unbound-economy-and-war-in-the-third-reich-19331944-the/