what i got from the reading is a very interesting message. it seems to say that while we of course can hold blame over those who commited attrocities in the past, the blame itself is easy to mismanage. Why should a whole country take the blame for what a Facist military force did two generations ago? Of course the blame should remain on those who commited the acts, but for the whole nation to take the blame seems like the family of a murderer taking the blame for the murder, even if they did only find out at the trial. it is commendable, but is it right? it might help to assuage certain feelings, but i dont know how morally right it really is.
Take an example, if it turned out that dominican was funneling our tuition money in waterboarding at Guantanamo, would the students feel responsible, especially if we never knew? How far would the guilt run? would we try to disasociate ourselves from the school, or try to repair its tarnished image?
Commenting on Eugene's dilemma I believe that students have some responsibility. As representatives of the student body we must make sure that we are informed about what goes on around us. I highly doubt that if Dominican was funneling our money not even one student would have heard something. Secrets can only stay secrets temporarily, right? Students that know something about this situation should feel accountable to speak up. As responsible students we definitely should not try to run away from the situation, but rather repair the misleading image this might have caused. If we don't, then we are surrendering to the administration in charge. In a way it's as if we are supporting them.
ReplyDeleteArendt writes that, "no man however strong, can ever accomplish anything good or bad, without the help of others" (47). This not only applies to the example of Dominican funneling money, but to the Nazi crimes as well. I'm not saying that modern Germany should take the blame for it today, but two generations ago Germany failed at standing up for what was inhumane. Arendt supports this by claiming that "it is almost over looked that the true moral issue did not arise with the behavior of the Nazi but of those who only 'coordinated' themselves and did not act out of conviction" (54). I believe that the country as a whole had the responsibility of not letting Nazi criminals commit the crimes they did. If all of us were obedient to leaders with bad intentions, what would the world come to be? We have more power as individuals than we think we do.
I agree with Ana that Germans had a responsibility to take blame for allowing Nazi criminals to continue, however, I think that that blame should be extended outward to borders beyond Germany. Yes, eventually nations fought against the Nazis but in all honesty, do you think that the countries would have invaded if they hadn't been directly attacked or allies with countries that were attacked? Yes, countries could claim that they were not aware of what was going on, but once they were, if immediate action was not taken, then couldn't blame be placed on them as well?
ReplyDeleteThis goes back to Arendt's theory though that "There is no such thing as collective guilt or collective innocence; guilt and innocence make sense only if applied to individuals" (29). Thus, he claims that nations as a whole cannot be blamed, only the individuals of the nation. I agree with this is view in a certain sense, especially with what's been going on in the Middle East and the "War on Terror." All Muslims or people from that area are not terrorists and should not be blamed or punished for what a few radicals did that they had no knowledge of or supported it. By blaming a nation, race, religion, or collective group, without looking at individual participation, I think that people often make immoral judgments. In history it would be like blaming all African Americans for the violent acts of the Black Panthers or all whites for the acts of the KKK which is incredibly unfair, so why do people still persist in doing so? Can people make a true moral judgment on a collective group of people?
on the note that Laura left off on, what with blacks and whites being blames for what was done by the few, there are some instances even in that when perhpas blame on the whole might be neccesary in order to convey the lesson. Arendt said "If I obey the laws of the land, I actually support its constitution, as it becomes glaringly obvious in the case of revolutionsist and rebels who disobey because they have withdrawn this tacit consent" (47) this seems to say that In America, those who obeyed and declined to speak out against the Jim Crow laws were guilty as a whole, and in the example of Germany, those who did not speak out agaisnt nazism are guilty as well. In a way, this seems the better path when going towards something like remembrance and learning a lesson, because if we escape guilt by saying "it wasnt ME who did it," then there is no lesson learned at all, and if we had to learn all our lessons by being punished for our own actions, then huge tragedies would have to be repeated over and over again for the sake of experience.
ReplyDeleteTo further expand on Eugene's thoughts regarding learning from past atrocities, I think that Jacques Barzun had an excellent point regarding the importance of learning from history. "A sense of 'how things go' in history- how they come and go- also protects against the worst among machines: the bandwagon". Barzun, a historian and someone who lived through World War 1, was acutely aware of the crucial role of history in learning from mankind's mistakes. I think the bandwagon phenomenon, which he spoke of, played a large role in the rise of the Nazi party. It is the phenomenon of going along with the crowd, being swept up by a cause, doing whatever everyone else is doing, without really thinking for yourself. Arendt touches on this when she comments, "...We now know that moral norms and standards can be changed overnight, and that all that then will be left is the mere habit of holding fast to something. Much more reliable will be the doubters and skeptics...because they are used to examining things and to making up their own mind" (45). I was fascinated by her repeated theme of the danger of morals coming from outside yourself, whither it's the norms of your society, your religion, or your "Fuhrer". Ardent comments that for many Germans who did not fully believe in Hitler's ideology "it was enough that everything happened according to the 'will of the Fuhrer'" (43). She makes it clear that many upstanding citizens in German society went along with Hitler's murderous regime simply because they took all their moral cues from outside themselves. One of my favorite quotes illustrates this point. "It was as though morality, at the very moment of its total collapse within an old and highly civilized nation, stood revealed in the original meaning of the word, as a set of mores, of customs and manners, which could be exchanged for another set with no more trouble than it would take to change the table manners of a whole people" (43). As was dramatically shown in the example of Nazi Germany, nothing could be more dangerous than one's ethical code coming from outside one's self. As Ana pointed out, Hitler would not have gotten very far, if all the ordinary people had taken their own council and questioned his ideology.
ReplyDeletefrom sally:
ReplyDeleteCommenting on what Chrissy said, I had never thought of God as being the scapegoat, so to speak, for the masses. But in this context, it makes complete sense. People are always turning to pass the blame onto someone else, and when it comes to religion this seems like a likely idea. As Arendt says, "What I wish to point out, in addition to these considerations, is how deep-seated the fear of passing the judgment, of naming names, and of fixing the blame--especially, alas, upon people in power and high position" (21).
We are constantly looking for someone to blame. It is much easier for people to throw the blame onto the person in the higher position because that way they can play innocent to a tyranny. Rare is the case when people own up to their faults and admit they were wrong. Even then, would people still turn to a higher being as the reason to said person's actions?
in response to Eugene's post:
This "blindly following a strong leader" concept reminds me of my psychology class last semester. In it, they showed an experiment showing how much a person would harm another person just based on following orders from a scientist. About 60% of the volunteers actually went as far as giving an unseen subject an electric shock which was known to be lethal. A further percentage of those people went on to shock the "dead body" because the scientist told them to do so. The reason I mention this was because these studies were conducted to see why the Nazis blindly followed orders they knew to be wrong. It was simply because someone of a higher power was telling them to do so.
It didn't make what they did right, nor did it give them any justification.
I would also like to comment on what Ana said about having the power to think for ourselves. It's true; it doesn't matter who is telling us to do what, the ultimate decision lands on the individual.