Gentrification and Cultural Genocide

            Last semester, I took a seminar on the 1970s in the United States. During that seminar we read a book called The Invention of Brownstone Brooklyn: Gentrification and the Search for Authenticity in Postwar New York. When I was trying to think about something relevant to write concerning genocide, this book immediately came to mind because of Raphael Lemkin’s definition of cultural genocide, and how that can be equally as damaging as the physical genocide of a people.

            In gentrification, better well-off people begin moving into poorer areas, cleaning up houses, starting new businesses, and overall overhauling the image and state of the area to be “better” than it was. However, in this process, the poorer population that lives in those areas is often slowly pushed out to make more room for a wealthier population that will keep the place “nicer”.  In the process of gentrification, it is not uncommon for the poor population of a neighborhood to be completely pushed out of an area because of rising house prices, etc. because of the influence of their new, wealthier neighbors and what they have done to improve the houses, the streets, etc. Additionally, both in trying to reinvigorate the area and in sometimes literally pushing the residents out of the area, I think that in some ways Lemkin’s definition of cultural genocide can be applied.

            Obviously, looking at the gentrification of a neighborhood such as Brooklyn is not the same as looking at the dynamics of a whole country. However, I think it is relevant because gentrification is something that a lot of people generally see as positive or don’t think about either way (though I know some disagree), but I do not think that those people think about the culture that was there before the wealthier people arrived and what could be gained from preserving part or all of that culture that had been created.

            I see gentrification, and specifically the gentrification of Brooklyn beginning in the 1970s, as a microcosm of cultural genocide. One group (poorer persons) lived somewhere, and then another group (wealthier persons) moved in, wiped away anything they saw as unsavory and imposed what they thought a neighborhood should be like on top of that, effectively overpowering the culture that was there before and in many cases causing it to be lost entirely.

            One could possibly argue some kind of stance about what pushing the original residents out of gentrifying areas is, but I don’t think that it is ethnic cleansing or anything like that because the people moving in generally do not have the intention of pushing out the residents, but it ends up happening extremely often because when they improve houses and streets, they raise house values, which raises taxes, and makes it more difficult for the poor to stay. I would say that gentrification ‘cleanses’ the neighborhood of unsavory aspects, but really as a byproduct of what the new residents’ goals are – making an area better and more suitable for themselves.

Mass Incarceration as Genocide: Re-Framing the P.I.C.

   I missed class on Tuesday, February 14th in order to attend Confronting the Carceral State II: Activists, Scholars, and the Exonerated Speak - A Symposium. Within the discipline of African American studies, many recognize the trajectory of state violence against black people over the past several centuries as a singular, fluid genocide project. One specific mantra presented at the panel testifies to this idea: "mass incarceration + silence = genocide". In my experience, many Americans are unwilling or unable to recognize the truth of that statement, and how it informs our national legacy in the present and future.

   In Raphael Lemkin, Culture, and the Concept of Genocide, Dirk Moses reconciles misconceptions associated with genocide by exploring its taxonomy. Raphael Lemkin coined the term carefully and intentionally, writing in 1946 that genocide is, "the criminal intent to destroy or cripple permanantly a human group," (p.21) The important point here, is that, contrary to popular to belief, genocide is not synonymous with mass murder; although genocide and mass-murder have historically often accompanied each other, the terms are categorically different.  Military-style policing, mass-incarceration, and corporate media representations of crime/criminality coalesce in a genocide project disguised in racist appeals to law and order. Moses cites Lemkin, "Obviously throughout history we have witnessed the decline of nations and races. We will meet this phenomenon in the future too, but there is an entirely different situation when nations or races fade away after having exhausted their spiritual and physical energies, and there is a different contingency when they are murdered on the highway of world history. Dying of age or disease is a disaster but genocide is a crime," (p.28) The dark irony at work here is that mass incarceration - one of the largest scale crimes in U.S. history - operates under the pretense of justice itself. Conference panelist Dr. Khalil Muhammad calls this process the construction of crime.

   In a presentation entitled Occupied Blackness: Urban Policing and the Inevitability of Stop and Frisk, Muhammad discusses how, within the "pyramid of the prison industrial complex" every individual's imprisonment began with an individual police interaction; moreover, most stop-and-frisks are provoked not by crime, but by "bad attitude" on the part of the colonized. Muhammed's point is that in general, poor, black and brown people are being sent to prison not for breaking a law, but because incarceration is the law; once again this is entirely identity driven.

   Lieberman's piece, "Ethnic Cleansing Versus Genocide" simultaneously supports genocidal interpretations of the U.S. prison state, and introduces the geographical imperatives which define a pattern as ethnic cleansing. The configuration of the prison industrial complex displaces young men of color from their homes and communities, to spaces of grouped isolation. This speaks to elements of ethnic cleansing which go deeper than simplistic notions of genocide as extermination. In this context, Lieberman describes how ethnicity, "may also refer broadly to a group seen as possessing a different and distinct identity from others," (p.44) In this sense, American youth of color are marked with an inherent criminality which justifies (or at least explains) mass incarceration in the public's eye.

   President Ronald Reagan declared the war on drugs against American citizens recently enough that the first wave of people locked up are still alive, and getting older. As more and more generations pass through prison gates, hopefully the genocide taking place right now all over the U.S. will be popularly acknowledged for what it is.

Obedience & Basketball

            On February 24, 2010 in Carmel, Indiana John Williams, principal of Carmel High School, and Carmel Police Chief Michael Fogarty held a press conference to discuss an incident that occurred on a school bus following a Carmel High School basketball game. On the bus ride home from a game on January 22, an event categorized by most local media outlets as “bullying” or “hazing” occurred. The initial reaction by the student body, staff, sports teams and parents was a reflection of the deep roots of obedience in the high school’s sports mentality. The abuse, which was of a sexual nature, was targeted at a freshman on the third-string basketball team by three senior members of the varsity team.

            One CHS teacher, who preferred to remain anonymous, spoke out to the press to acknowledge the systematic character with which bullying was part of the athletic team atmosphere, “It’s creating an atmosphere of mistrust between the student body and the administration… This only came to light through back channels and when it did – if the rumors are anything close to true [the two students] don’t feel like they will be represented and protected.” This comment elucidates on the general atmosphere of secrecy concerning the situation. Not only were administrators hesitant to condemn the students who perpetrated the crimes, but also members of the basketball team were unwilling to discuss or express even general concern about the incident. 

Because there was limited information about the incident due to what served as an effective order of silence on basketball team members given by coaches, it was difficult to understand exactly what occurred on that school bus. In the broader perspective, though, this proved to be the less important issue. In the process of gathering information for the newspaper article I was writing about the incident for the HiLite, the Carmel High School newspaper, I understood just how important allegiance to the team was for members of the basketball team. Due to conditioning on the part of senior members of the team, even the victim’s peers were unwilling to discuss the events that occurred or condemn the actions of the three senior members of the team in defense of the victim throughout the police and media investigation into the event.

Only after all of the information regarding the incident was processed and the students responsible for the hazing were incarcerated and expelled from school were parents, team members and the administration willing to condemn the events that occurred. There is a clear parallel to be drawn between this incident and Stanley Milgram’s experiments on obedience and control. Because the students on the basketball team who refused to come to the defense of their teammate even when faced with a clear case of sexual and physical harassment had successfully convinced themselves that their moral responsibility had transferred to the team, and in particular the senior members of the team, they were able to order their commitment to the group above their own understanding of morality.

Arab Spring Not So Sunny?

            The instability of some of the “Arab Spring” countries in the Middle East shares some alarming characteristics with certain theories of genocide and ethnic cleaning we have discussed in class.  In particular, Weitz puts forward arguments that are relevant to the current political situation in countries such as Egypt, Libya and Syria.  For example, Weitz argued that revolutionary regimes that seized state power were more likely to look for extreme ways to maintain that power; the military junta that currently rules Egypt came into power because of the revolution, and has already suspended the constitution and only partially lifted the state of emergency in the country.  It remains to be seen whether they will actually step down following the parliamentary elections in June.  Furthermore, Weitz identified race as a primary aspect of many mass murders during the 20^th century, and as this report shows, the Libyan freedom fighters weren't immune to racial brutality as they fought to overthrow Gaddafi.

            When thinking about the current state of the “Arab Spring” countries, it is difficult to predict the direction the new regimes will head in because the majority of the new governments are still in a transitional phase.  However, some countries are already showing signs of extremism and similarities with the genocidal governments Weitz described, as mention above.  Even if Nazi Germany and Pol Pot’s Cambodia seem like products of 20^th century ideologies and historical factors that are irrelevant for the 2011-12 Middle East, one need only look back a little over a decade to find a much closer worst-case analogy.  In 1996, after having emerged victorious in the Afghan Civil War, the Taliban took advantage of an already unstable country by consolidating their power and imposing an incredibly strict interpretation of Sharia law.  For five years, they committed mass murder and de-humanized women, while imposing a totalitarian regime that ruled through terror. 

 

The conditions in Afghanistan that led to the rise of the Taliban were more akin to Germany after WWI than present day Egypt or Syria.  That being said, there are enough similarities between the situations in the Middle East, Taliban Afghanistan and the traits Weitz discusses in his article that the region warrants a sustained watch, and if need be pressure, by the international community rather than a “hope for the best” attitude.  I believe that this is the best way to avoid extreme governments and fulfill the democratic ideals that were at the heart of the revolutions.

China's Missing Girls

Since China instituted it's One Child Policy in 1979, an estimated 50 million women in China are conspicuously missing from the population.  By limiting the size of families in a strongly patriarchal society, the government, perhaps unintentionally, instituted a policy that has led to the one of the worse femicides in history.  But can what is happening in China be considered a genocide?

Lemkin limits the types of groups that can be the victim of genocide to national, ethnic, religious, and cultural identities.  Gender is notably absent from his definition.  Additionally, the people targeting women in China do not belong to any particular group.  They are not simply acting out orders or succumbing to the group mentality often seen in perpetrators of genocide, as noted by authors like Staub.  The events in China are not institutionalized or systematic, which goes against many authors conceptions of genocide being the tool of a government.  Some argue that the disparity in the birth rate is a result of female births merely going unreported, not female offspring being killed, which goes against notions of genocide as strictly the physical extermination of a group.  Thus, the events in China do not resemble genocide by many traditional definitions and applications.

Even so, the destruction of a group united by their identity undeniably resembles Lemkin's definitions of genocide.  The girls are targeted for their gender, an unchangeable aspect of their identity.  Unborn and newborn girls are deliberately killed while authorities look on passively.  Others girls are killed by neglect or displaced in orphanages.  Mass extermination by murder, neglect, or displacement all adhere to Lemkin's notion of genocide.  Furthermore, unreported girls face great difficulty in accessing state benefits like education, thus preventing them from participating in the national culture.  In this way the female culture is crippled or eliminated from the culture as a whole.  Culture as well as physical extermination are factors of Lemkin's definition.  In these ways, the methods used against women in China resemble those described by Lemkin in his definition genocide.

When discussing the case of girls in China, the media is quick to use terms like "gendercide", "femicide", and even "Holocaust", and yet they are extremely reluctant to use the word "genocide".  In fact, some articles note that concept of female infanticide as a type of genocide is often disputed.  This reluctance to define what is happening in China as a genocide perhaps stems from the complex and often contradictory nature of how we conceive of genocide.  Yet I would argue that, other than being excluded from Lemkin's list of group identities, the war on women in China strongly resembles Lemkin's original definition of what constitutes a genocide.

Hatred is Not a Foreign Concept: A Minnesota School District's "Neutrality Policy" and Its Devastating Consequences

Minnesota's Anoka-Hennepin School District has come under national scorn for its district-wide "neutrality policy". This sexual orientation curriculum policy, which it finally did away with on February 14th of this year, mandated that teachers remain neutral on issues regarding sexual orientation1. Although the District argues that this policy was intended to only apply to a school's curriculum, teachers contended that the policy’s wording was ambiguous and could easily be construed to apply beyond the classroom and into the hallways, preventing them from intervening in anti-gay bullying. In an interview with Rolling Stone, Jefferson Fietek, an art teacher at Anoka Middle School for the Arts, argued that, “LGBTQ students don’t feel safe at school [...] there's no one to stand up for them, because teachers are afraid of being fired,"2. An excerpt from the Rolling Stone article details a conversation that a girl, Brittany, had with her school’s administration following a bullying incident in which she had been called a “fat dyke”:

The school's principal, looking pained, had suggested Brittany prepare herself for the next round of teasing with snappy comebacks – "I can lose the weight, but you're stuck with your ugly face" – never acknowledging she had been called a "dyke." As though that part was OK. As though the fact that Brittany was bisexual made her fair game.3

Anti-gay bullying and the school staff’s seeming acceptance of it were followed by six student suicides within two years, all of whom had been gay or had been victims of anti-gay bullying4. Some students, represented by advocacy groups, are filing charges against the school, arguing that Anoka-Hennepin’s “neutrality policy” led to the death of these students5.

In reading about the above controversy, my mind went immediately to Stanley Milgram’s obedience studies and how the teachers in the Anoka-Hennepin School District demonstrated the power obedience can exert on individuals. As Mr. Fietek demonstrates above, there were at least a handful of teachers who opposed the policy and the bullying that was occurring, but the overwhelming pressures of complying with the District’s mandate (and ensuring one’s livelihood) outweighed their individual morality. Assuredly some of the teachers blamed the policy for their silence, “unable to realize their values in action[,] and found themselves continuing in the experiment [or in this case adhering to the policy] even though they disagreed with what they were doing,”6.

On a more systemic level, certain concepts found in the Ervin Staub article can also be seen at work in the “neutrality policy” case. Michele Bachmann was born and raised in this school district, and her conservative ideology is very much alive in her hometown. US politics is becoming incredibly polarized, with conservatives genuinely feeling threatened by an increasingly liberal polity. Tea Party slogans like “Take America Back” imply that there is a ‘they’ from which ‘we’ must take the country back, demonstrating the “us” vs. “them” thinking detailed by Staub7. This threat to their sense of self is demonstrated by a mother in the School District who supported the “neutrality policy”:

"We are at a crossroads. You either cave in to the demands of the homosexual activists, an action that will make our schools unsafe for all kids, or you stand firm and protect the children," Anderson said.

The inherent connotation that homosexuality poses a danger to our children shows not only a devaluation of those who are homosexual but a scapegoating of a weakening sense of identity on homosexuals, both of which are detailed by Staub8. It is unfortunate that the students are the ones caught in this ideological crossfire.

It is easy to criticize foreign governments and actors for their genocidal acts, but it is important to remember that anyone, regardless of nationality, can find themselves in a morally compromising situation. As Milgram repeatedly asserts, anyone can commit these crimes given our human propensity to obey authority. As demonstrated in the case with Minnesota's Anoka-Hennepin School District, it could be happening right at your local school.

I affirm I have adhered to the Honor Code in this assignment.


1  http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=146882552


2  http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/one-towns-war-on-gay-teens-20120202#ixzz1n4WMIOhc

3  Ibid.

4  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/14/minn-school-board-ends-po_n_1275843.html

5  Ibid.

6  Milgram, Stanely. “The Dilemma of Obedience.” 1975. Print. pp. 6

7  Staub, Ervin. “The origins of genocide and killing: core concepts.” 1989. Print. pp. 17

8  Ibid.

What My Lai Can Tell us About Theories of Group Violence

The massacre in the village of My Lai during the Vietnam War remains one of the blackest marks on the record of the American military.  Over the course of about four hours, the American GIs of the 1^st platoon, Charlie Company killed 504 Vietnamese noncombatants of all ages.  Three men, however, attempted to stop the killing.  Hugh Thompson, Jr., Glenn Andreotta, and Lawrence Colburn put themselves between advancing American soldiers and a bunker of Vietnamese civilians, later evacuating them to a South Vietnamese hospital.  In the actions of those soldiers who participated at My Lai we are able to see a clear illustration of many of the points Staub, Milgram, and others make about the nature of mass killing.  In addition, we can look to the varied American response to the actions of Thompson, Andreotta, and Colburn, as well as the Vietnam War in general, as evidence of Mann’s claims about stratified societies and the effect of stratification on the public discussion of war.

The actions of the soldiers of Charlie Company are cited in the epilogue of Stanley Milgram’s Obedience to Authority as a prime example of ordinary men transformed into heartless killers.  In essence, the army, by isolating cadets from potential competing authorities, establishing conformity among the men, and forcing them to accept the dominance and infallibility of military leadership, creates a monolithic society, as defined by Ervin Staub.  “In a monolithic society,” he says, ”there is limited variation in values and perspectives on life…strong authority or totalitarian rule enforces uniformity. The authorities have great power to define reality and shape the people’s perception of the victims.”

Monolithic societies, according to Staub, create an “us-them” mentality, a precondition for extraordinary violence.  In the case of American GIs in Vietnam this mentality was also promoted by differences in race and nationality.  We can link this to Eric Weitz’s “The Modernity of Genocide,” in which he highlights revolutionary movements and race as two factors that create a hospitable environment for mass killing.  It is sometimes forgotten that the Vietnam War was, in fact, a revolution-turned-civil war between North and South Vietnam, with the United States backing South Vietnam.  Although the American troops would not have seen themselves as revolutionaries per se, the conflict itself created “difficult life conditions” as referenced by Staub.  American forces in the field were almost constantly under attack.  Indeed, the night before the My Lai massacre one of Charlie Company’s men was killed by a Viet Cong land mine, and less than a month before My Lai the radio operator and friend of Second Lieutenant William Calley, who led the assault, was killed by a Viet Cong sniper.

            Charlie Company’s attack on My Lai, “justified” as retaliation for the death of their comrades, was also, as Weitz posits of many types of killings, quite ritualized.  The GIs entered an area (a house, or square where peopled had gathered), forced those people in that area to move to a different area (a bunker, well, or ditch) and then fired on them or dropped grenades in with them, and torched all remaining property.  Those Vietnamese who were not killed in a large group were often eviscerated with bayonets, killed while fleeing, or executed while begging for mercy.  These killings lost some of the set ritual of the others, but took on a whole new aspect of performance:  an American soldier encountering a Vietnamese villager killed him or her to show his comrades that he could, and to cement his presence in the group.  Thompson, Andreotta, and Colburn, by insinuating themselves into the situation and trying to stop the violence, interrupted the ritual killings and performances of their fellow GIs and were met with strong opposition from Second Lieutenant Calley, who ordered them away, an order which was refused.  Thompson proceeded to fly twenty Vietnamese civilians to safety in his helicopter as Andreotta and Colburn remained to protect those awaiting rescue. 

            Following the return of Charlie Company to the United States and the eventual revelation of what occurred at My Lai, the reaction of the public was quite mixed.  Few people would argue that Americans were unified in their support of the Vietnam War, and both those who were and those who weren’t were quite vocal and willing to act on their convictions.  “Baby killers” became a disparaging moniker for veterans following the infamous “And babies” interview on national television, and Second Lieutenant Calley was court marshaled and sentenced to life in prison for his part in the massacre.  On the other hand, Thompson received death threats, dead animals left on his doorstep, and calls from congressmen for his court marshaling for being un-patriotic.  Calley was also pardoned by the president two days after his sentencing and spent three years under house arrest and received, among other things, a Mercedes-Benz from a wealthy, anonymous supporter.

            All of these occurrences serve to illustrate some of what Mann says about stratified societies.  In a stratified society, rights have slowly been extended to all groups, generating a climate where conflicts of opinion between groups are legitimized, allowing (ideally) the free expression of political ideas and support.  If the United States had been an organic society, what’s to say that disagreements between hawks and doves wouldn’t have turned into open warfare on the home front as well?

            The events of My Lai, generalized as the assault of a defenseless “other” group by a monolithic society forged by a military and deposited in the middle of a hostile territory, shows us a prototypical example of many of the theories of group motives for mass killing.  The American response, both positive and negative, also shows us how stratification can prevent violent conflict among ourselves, and allows, if not facilitates, public discussion and expression.

Sources:

http://www.usna.edu/Ethics/publications/documents/ThompsonPg1-28_Final.pdf

http://www2.vcdh.virginia.edu/HIUS316/mbase/docs/mylai.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-485983/Found-The-monster-My-Lai-massacre.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTJgMmHZNYQ&feature=results_main&playnext=1&list=PL67E9354D52985F2A

http://books.google.com/books?id=R-QCAAAAMBAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q=thompson&f=false 

Libya in the wake of Qaddafi

Libya has been torn apart by the fighting surrounding the rebellion against Qaddafi, and though he is now gone, tensions are far from reduced and peace has been far from achieved. Reminiscent of the treatment of the Germans and Nazi supporters after the end of WWII, Libyans who supported Qaddafi, or even lived in areas where support of his regime was general, have now been driven out of their homes. They have been accused of crimes that many claim they did not commit, imprisoned awaiting a distant trial, and whole towns have been completely cleared of the previous residents.

Tarik Kafala of BBC news describes the situation in a town called Tawergha:

"For three months between early March and the middle of May, the forces of Muammar Gaddafi laid siege to Misrata. These forces were partly based in Tawergha, and the people of the town are accused of being complicit in the attempt to put down the uprising in the city. They are also accused of crimes including murder, rape and sexual torture. 

The fighters of Misrata eventually prevailed, breaking out of their battered city, and Misratan brigades made up part of the force that overran the capital Tripoli in August. They also captured and killed Gaddafi and one of his sons in late October, and put the corpses on display in their city. 

In the middle of August, between the end of the siege and the killing of Gaddafi, Misratan forces drove out everyone living in Tawergha, a town of 30,000 people. Human rights groups have described this as an act of revenge and collective punishment possibly amounting to a crime against humanity" (Kafala).

This vilification of all 30,000 members of a town when support of Qaddafi was known is a backlash against their perceived crimes. Unfortunately, it is difficult to know how widespread the crimes were, or even how severe. The people won't talk about specifics, especially concerning rape, as it is not a topic to be discussed in their society (Kafala, BBC). As Waller discusses, members of a group can be easily susceptible to group think, and if members of the town of Tawergha perceived the Misratans to be their enemies, it is not inconceivable to think that some of the members of the town may have participated in the alleged mistreatment or even torture of the Misratans. Those in support of the regime would have felt that their aide against the enemy was necessary in order to protect the government and vanquish the dissenters and rebels, and may not have seen their acts as atrocities, but merely state-mandated acts of war. As Stanley Milgram speaks about in analysis of his authority and obedience experiment, basic human decency can be easily suspended if one believes that authority mandates their actions, that they are aiding a higher purpose.

In Milgram's relatively simple experiment, members who had no relationship with the "authority" other than that they had volunteered to help in the experiment, were capable of doling out (as far as they knew, real) painful shocks to people while they begged the participants to stop. His findings are eye-opening because they explain how people who feel that their homes, families, livelihoods, and countries are threatened can act in seemingly inhuman ways.

Though the members of the town of Tawergha initially were the ones in a position of power, now that Qaddafi has been vanquished the members of the winning side are retaliating and, so they claim, working for justice. Again, this turning of the table is reminiscent of the situation after WWII. Now there are reports of torture, and many previous residents of Tawergha are imprisoned. Though war crimes naturally deserve punishment, many claim innocence, not even knowing if the crimes happen at all. The question must be asked, what is the correct way to deal with the situation? Violence returned with violence is a commonly recurring theme in history, but grouping members into broad segments of society is problematic. The members of Tawergha were "mostly descendants of black slaves", bringing race into the situation along with the nationalistic division lines. The city has been completely emptied out:

"Building after building is burnt and ransacked. The possessions of the people who lived here are scattered about, suggesting desperate flight. In places, the green flags of the former regime still flutter from some of the houses. 

Buildings show the scars of heavy bombardment, some are burnt out shells, some are just abandoned. The town is empty of humans, apart from a small number of Misratan militiamen preventing the return of the town's residents" (Kafala).

The town has effectively been "cleansed" (Kafala). As Staub hypothesizes, genocide and ethnic cleansing are brewed and born in nations and societies that suffer from poor conditions, especially as a result of warfare or political or ethnic strife. It is reasonable to say that the situation in Libya is currently dangerous because it is undergoing political change and, as illustrated by this example, tension between different areas who were on different sides during the rebellion. What can be done to prevent the devolving of areas into violence and retaliation, bordering ? The country will have to pick up the pieces, appropriately punish those it deems are deserving and rebuild, and promote the continuation of civilized practices, rather than striking back with violence. Hopefully the path to democracy will be as smooth as possible and further atrocity can be avoided.

Madeleine Harnois

source: Kafala, Tarik. "'Cleansed' Libyan town spills its terrible secrets". 12 December 2011. BBC copyright 2012. <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16051349>.

Hollywood and Ethnic Cleansing

    When people think about the movie Avatar, they tend to think about the glowing 3D flowers, the beautiful computer generated landscape.  Some connect Avatar to The Last of the Mohicans, noting similarities between the plots, and leave the comparisons at that.  Yet when considered more deeply, Avatar undoubtedly tells the story of ethnic cleansing in a narrative that gives surprising insight into mass media’s depictions of ethnic cleansing for the everyday individual.  Hollywood’s films only serve to perpetuate misconceptions about genocide and ethnic cleansing.
    The depiction of ethnic cleansing in Avatar occurs, literally, in a place far far away from the average viewer, on the planet of Pandora.  The obvious fictional nature of the narrative minimizes the ethnic cleansing's effect on the audience.  While the native Na’vi’s plight is obviously saddening, the audience reassures itself of the fictional nature of the story.  However, Hollywood produces movies that address real cases of ethic cleansing in equally removed ways.
    Hotel Rwanda addresses the Rwandan genocide that occurred between the Hutus and the Tutsi peoples of Rwanda.  While the film is emotionally touching, and feels more real than Avatar,  the idea of genocide remains un-relatable, as the film discusses a third world population with a first world audience.  With Hotel Rwanda audience members can easily dismiss the problems of genocides as being the issues of the “third world.”
    Similarly, Schindler’s List portrays the horrors of the Holocaust in Germany in the late 1930s and 1940s.  Although the Holocaust is undoubtedly more widely heard of than the Rwandan genocide, Schindler’s List remains remote because the atrocities were committed when most movie goers weren’t born.  Audience members likewise dismiss the reality as genocide as a historical problem.
    I do not mean to detract from the horror that was the Rwandan genocide and the Holocaust.  I am merely trying to point out that these movies preserve the perceived distance between the actual genocides and the people hearing about them.  Movies being made about genocides in different times or severely different places enhance the viewer’s perception of genocides being the problem of a different world.  Such movies augment the popular idea that genocide could never happen in “first” world countries, like the United States. 
    Similarly, all three movies perpetuate the myth of “evil” perpetrators.  In Avatar, the evil character is Colonel Quaritch,  in Hotel Rwanda, it is the army general, Augustin Bizimungu, in Schindler’s List, it is Amon Göth and Rudolf Höss.  The movies simplify  episodes of ethnic cleaning and genocides into the “evil” perpetrators and the innocent victims.  Yet our readings over the past three weeks categorically deny that genocides can be reduced into such simple parts.  Genocides are more than the “evil” dictator, or the masses of corpses.  They are a result of both cultural and individual pre-conditions and phenomenon that are not exclusive to third world countries or the past, but occur consistently in the present.

Breaking the Silence- Testimonials by IDF soldiers

“Breaking the Silence is an organization of veteran combatants who have served in the Israeli military since the start of the Second Intifada and have taken it upon themselves to expose the Israeli public to the reality of everyday life in the Occupied Territories. [They] endeavor to stimulate public debate about the price paid for a reality in which young soldiers face a civilian population on a daily basis, and are engaged in the control of that population’s everyday life.”(From organization website.) They document the “deterioration of moral standards” in the name of security.

Milgram, Waller, and Staub provide psychological factors that lead humans to commit crimes they normally would not. Many of the testimonials from Breaking the Silence offer first hand accounts for the theories of Milgram, Waller, and Staub. The following excerpts are taken from soldiers who served in Hebron—a Palestinian city in the West Bank with a Jewish settlement in its heart –between 2001 and 2004.

While comparing the soldiers’ testimonials to the theories in our readings helps illuminate several psychological factors that were mentioned, there are also many that are not evident in these testimonials. To name a few: the soldiers feel responsibility for their actions, even as they do it, so there is no effective diffusion of responsibility; the occupation started not in response for a motivation to protect the self concept and assumptions about the world as Staub suggests, but the identity crisis actually occurred after the actions were performed; the perpetrator does not blame the victim, but himself and the IDF; and in contrast to a breaking down of individuality, these soldiers describe high awareness of their individuality within the system. In the specific case of Israel, systematic factors like nationalism, a shared trauma, a mandatory conscription, and socialization of the young play a large role in perpetuating the occupation. However, it is important to remember that these soldiers are not engaged in systematic murder, but in maintaining an occupation.

This excerpt addresses Waller’s point that while ideology can play a significant role in making people act, their environment could be easily manipulated and cause them to commit immoral acts:                  

The thing about these stories is that they’re a matter of daily routine, and there are lots more like them. And these stories were an integral part of my daily routine over a six month period of active assignment which was total, your whole life. It’s eight-by-eight. No day and night. It’s constant. And even when you’re sleeping, it’s very likely they’ll call you up, and you really live these events. I knew that as a soldier there was no… I didn’t agree with all these things. It really hurt me inside. There were many incidents that hurt even more than these. And I told myself that… my justification for being there was that afterwards I would take action to change it. The most serious problem meanwhile is that as a soldier who has not been there for a month now, notice about myself that while two months ago that was all I thought about and I was burning up inside, that is, I really wanted to take action, I couldn’t live in that situation. It’s not that I was at my house surrounded by grass and neighborhoods with French streetlights and a car waiting outside… I was living in poverty, in my daily life… where people dig through the garbage, and there are mice everywhere, and rats, and it really bothered me. And now, much as I said it would go on burning inside me, I notice that gradually I’m starting to forget about it. (My emphasis) And if at first I couldn’t enjoy a show calmly, or be with a girl, I couldn’t relax because I kept saying, just a minute, there’s someone in the… post now, or someone needs to do eight hours of duty now and he has someone sick trying to get out of the Casaba to an ambulance and he has to detain him for an hour. So now I notice that it feels less urgent to me, like the rest of the people in the country, who, after all, don’t live this reality, and it’s really easy for them not to think about it and to detach themselves, but the problem is still there.

                  This excerpt addresses Milgram’s point that individuals would obey authority (in this case, the IDF,) even if they were consciously aware that their actions would be immoral.

I personally, sort of had this inner process, which made me kind of confront myself. I found myself in situations that I didn’t know how to cope with. It had me checking myself all time to see how I held on to my values, how low I could go, because once it becomes a routine, you reach a situation where you can’t control it, it’s your routine, it’s your day-to-day, you just get orders and you carry them out without giving them a second thought, it’s like, you’re at your post and you say to yourself, “Shit, today I don’t mind getting killed, like, today I… don’t mind getting killed, it’s my duty to be here and that’s what I’ll do.”

Q: Simply burns into your consciousness…

Yes, exactly, you just become like a robot, I don’t know how to explain it. There’s a stage where… either routine or fatigue when you no longer have the strength to be patient, you have no strength to… (My emphasis.) Someone comes and throws a remark which he shouldn’t like, “What do you want from me?” which is legitimate in his opinion, and even in my opinion, that person lives there, you know, it not… It’s a street where they’re allowed to pass, and a soldier comes and stops him and checks him and searches him and his kids are there and his family is there, and its humiliating for him, and there’s a stage when you just don’t care anymore, old man, not old man, you check them all.

This excerpt addresses Staub’s point that many of the members actually wanted to participate in the evil action, that actions tend to progress along a continuum of destruction, and Milgram’s observation of a narrowing of moral concerns during the action,

And I remember that I fired at car windshields, and one of the soldiers who was with me fired a rifle with a grenade launcher right into a shop, simply into a Palestinian shop, to blow up the shop. And all of this, for no good reason, I mean, deterrence and not one of us asked himself what he was doing in order to, actually, you know, by way of a response. I think… I remember myself that night, I really meant it when I said that it was me who fired at the streetlights, me who fired at the cars, because it was me, I mean, among all those soldiers, I was shooting. And I remember that not one of us, that night… all of us were happy that we got the opportunity to shoot at streetlights and cars, because there’s nothing so cool. Nothing like hearing a streetlight blow to bits after you’ve taken aim at it. And you know, I remember us doing it with such determination and with such a smile, and, I don’t know, I consider myself someone who actually did think of what he was doing during his army service, and tried to avoid doing such things, and, like, I remember where this reality managed to… how it managed to sweep me into doing those things without any… without conscience, without any thought, maybe, yes, afterwards, but what good is that. (My emphasis) Simply with a shit eating grin on my face.

This excerpt address Milgram’s point that while in battle, soldiers obey orders because disorganization during a war means threat to life, and the process he outlines a perpetrator goes through in considering disobedience.

 

It’s hard to say what I felt at that moment. On the one hand, I was stationed there, I didn’t choose to be there. On the other hand, I wanted to get the hell out of there. As an individual who considers himself a nice guy, a moral kind of guy... I said to myself, damn I’m really doing something here that I don’t believe in. I don’t believe in it 100%, and I’m putting myself in a position where someone wants to kill me because of it. The question is, where am I? Do I have no choice in the matter? In other words, should I refuse? Is refusal the answer? So there I was torn by the dilemma, pondering. I had lots of time eight by eight [eight hours on-duty eight hours off-duty] to think about it. The point is that I was faced with a crazy dilemma where I was torn between personal freedom and personal choice. Here lies the contradiction between the military, which is undemocratic and the state, which is supposed to be democratic. (My emphasis) When you see that you are doing things which in your own home could not possibly happen and must never be allowed to happen, this is where you cross a certain line. Okay, so here you’re in a different state. That is to say, everything you have known until now, all the rules by which you and your own family conduct your lives, all that does not seem to count here.

This excerpt addresses the idea of a diffusion of responsibility, nationalism, and the social consequences of disobedience.

As part of the house to house searches, there were lots of Border Police in the street. One of them overhears some guy insulting a sergeant from my unit. So they came and said, “No problem,” took the Palestinian and brought him back about 20 minutes later. He’s trembling in fear. They tell him, “Okay, now start singing ‘Carnival in the Nahal’ [name of an army unit].”

Q: How did you feel then?

I didn’t like it. It looked like everybody there thought it was funny, so okay, I just sat there and kept quiet. I won’t start fighting with my comrades. (My emphasis)”

Q: Why did you keep quiet?

I don’t know. Maybe it wasn’t important enough for me to say anything…  I don’t know. You just take a deep breath and keep doing what you’re doing. It’s the duty with which I’ve been entrusted. Right now I’m just a little cog in the wheel. I do my job and live from one furlough to the next, until my service is over. That’s how it was all the time

This final excerpt discusses the actions of the soldier as derived simply from having (il)legitimate power.

The crazy thing is that you stand there, an IDF soldier, okay? You’ve got a machine gun and it’s loaded and the safety catch is off. So what, are you an idiot? How dare you not listen to me? I can shoot you at any given moment. (My emphasis) I can split your head open with the butt of my gun and chances are my commander will give me a pat on the back and say: “That’s showing them. Finally you got it right.” Where do you get the nerve? How come you don’t understand? How come you don’t see the total control I have over you? Like, it’s crazy! I’m just a kid. I was born yesterday. I derive my power from my uniform and my machine gun, its what gives me the right to decide everything. And I do what I’m told to. That’s the power I have and I use it. I can be the most enlightened and considerate person in the world but when I say: “mamnu` tajawul, ruh `al beit” [there’s a curfew, go home] there is a period and four exclamation marks at the end of that sentence. It’s nonnegotiable. I don’t care if I’m 18 or 17 or 21. I’m a soldier. I’ve got a gun. and I’m from the IDF. I’ve got orders, and they better follow them. They’d better follow the orders I give them. I give the orders here. In fact, they’re civilians unrelated to me, and I’m giving them orders all the time… and they’ll follow them whether they like it or not. And if they don’t like it, if they make trouble, then I’ll force them to follow them. Why? Good question. A very good question. I really don’t know… just because. Because it’s shit. That’s what it is.

The complete testimonials: http://www.breakingthesilence.org.il/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Soldiers_Testimonies_from_Hebron_2001_2004_Eng.pdf

The Question of Justice

The articles we recently read in class under the topic of "the banality of evil" bring to mind critical questions about the way in which a post-genocidal nation is to administer justice.  Stanley Milgram argues that the innate human tendency of obedience towards authority is the key mechanism by which individuals become capable of genocidal action.  Ervin Staub and James Waller propose similar notions that inhuman atrocities cannot simply be attributed to the evil personalities of the perpetrators.  All three articles argue that genocidal killers are most often a typical cross-section of the human population.  In this sense, could we not all be capable of committing mass murder if particular circumstances came to light?
  The arguments of these authors illustrate a fundamental separation of an individual's conscience and an individual's actions.  The question of responsibility thereby becomes much more convoluted.  Can we charge a soldier with murder when he has been systematically trained to kill?  Do we hold the bureaucrats of the Nazi regime equally accountable for the Holocaust as the guards of Auschwitz?  Is a genocidal leader more criminal than the masses who carried out his orders?  All of these questions pose immense challenges for how states are to deliver justice to the perpetrators and victims of genocidal regimes.
Countries emerging from human rights atrocities have taken various approaches to dealing with the question of justice.  In post-apartheid South Africa, Archbishop Desmond Tutu headed the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.  Those facing charges did not have to admit they were sorry for their actions.  If the perpetrators of apartheid violence offered an honest confession, they would be acquitted of all crimes, including murder.  Furthermore, their confessions were often required to be in the presence of their victims' families.   Many South Africans criticized the Commission in that they did not see this approach to deliver any sort of justice.  What kind of justice did the Commission provide?  Tutu's belief behind the commission was centered primarily on the idea of forgiveness and moving forward as "the rainbow nation."  However, there was also an important underlying understanding that to prosecute only the direct perpetrators of violence would underscore the systematic nature of Apartheid.  Nearly every white South African citizen took part, directly or indirectly, in the injustices of Apartheid.
The example of South Africa's TRC is important to keep in mind as we begin to examine the genocidal and post-genocidal experiences of Europe.  The philosophy behind the TRC is grounded in the importance of recognizing the systematic nature of murderous regimes.  While the experience of genocide is felt immensely at the individual level for both perpetrator and victim, it is carried out by a vast and blurred network of many different people. 

Syria- Another International Intervention Dilemma

 On Feb. 4, Russia and China blocked a U.N. Security Council resolution to support an Arab League peace plan for Syria. Since the conflict between President Assad's forces and Syrian protestors against his regime began in March 2011, the U.N. estimates that more that 5,000 people have been killed—well over the 2,000 minimum generally used to define wars. With the death toll growing by the day, and calls from Arab and Western leaders alike for an end to the  government-led violence,
 one cannot help but note the resemblance between this debate over national sovereignty and the international discussion that normally surrounds a genocide.

In both cases, it is difficult for international leaders to decide whether to intervene as international intervention is rarely clear-cut or one-sided. Part of the dilemma revolves around labels; in the case of Syria, are the government's military strikes against protestors and their supports in Homs part of a civil war? If this is the case, as the Russian Foreign Minister Sergey V. Lavrov argues, intervention would be “taking sides in a civil war” and would thus violate an international understanding on national sovereignty that has existed since the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. However, if what is happening in Syria is a "massacre," as French Foreign Minister Alain Juppé has said, then the international community has the humanitarian motivation, if not the legal obligation, to intervene.

This debate on whether to intervene in Syria is remarkably similar to the discussion that has gone on before and after genocides like Rwanda. In fact, if R.J. Rummel's definition of democide as the "murder of any person or people by a government, including genocide, politicide, and mass murder" is accurate, then the fact that Syrian security forces have repeatedly killed protesting civilians means that Syria has already participated in democide, genocide's more inclusive cousin.

So why have Russia and China been so reluctant to intervene? Ignoring the argument over whether intervention would be taking sides in a civil war, Fred Weir, a correspondent for the Christian Science Monitor, explains that "The Kremlin has always reflexively opposed foreign intervention (unless the subject was a Soviet satellite country), which in the past was equated in ideological terms with Western colonialism and imperialism." Russian leaders now insist that NATO's intervention in Libya, which occurred under the auspices of Security Resolution 1973, was simply another one of the United States' foreign regime changes. Andrei Klimov, deputy chair of the State Duma's foreign affairs committee, argues that Russia's resistance to intercede in Syria is due to its beliefs on "law and noninterference," while Lavrov has gone so far to claim that "Russia's policy is not about asking someone to step down; regime change is not our profession .... the decision should be made by the Syrian people themselves."

While Russian officials may argue that their role in blocking the Syrian resolution was due to their respect for Syria's "constitutional government," there is more to this picture. If countries like Russia and China support international intervention in cases of government-directed assaults on civilians, then what is to prevent the international community from intervening when Russia and China assault their own citizens, as what happened in Russia in December when protesters took to the streets over violations of election fraud.