Discussion on e1-1-post-here-by-2-19
Keith P.
eliminationism the number 1 concern in our lives? Daniel J. Goldhagen
would like us to believe so. His argument is that humans do not
utilize enough resources to prevent genocide and eliminationism. In
his book entitled “Worse than War”, Goldhagen presents us with many
comparisons of past mass murders to prove his theory of where our
importance in life should lie. Goldhagen does not, however, note that
we as humans are doing everything in our power to try to prevent these
massacres from happening. He also fails to realize that everyone who
lives today places major emphasis on other things they believe is
important. To add to this, he also fails to acknowledge any other
troubles that humans are currently experiencing. I believe a general
knowledge of the subject of eliminationism is necessary to keep one’s
mind in the know, but we all need to know that we have many different
ways of understanding life’s troubles, and all Goldhagen is trying to
do is provide a “scare tactic” to prove his point. We should all look
at different methods to learn about life and not just concentrate on
one major importance.
One of Goldhagen’s major points of view is presented on the preface of
“Worse than War”. He practically states that we as humans can either
refuse to realize that we have a dire problem on our hands, or we can
actually move forward and place strength into our efforts in
preventing these mass murders/genocide. The problem with this
statement is that people of today are already investing more than they
can into resolving these troubles. Let’s take an excerpt from Traub’s
article Patterns of Genocide-“Goldhagen’s moral and political account
impels him, by contrast, to scorn the very idea of the “national
interest” as the chief object of foreign policy”. This is proof that
Goldhagen’s theory is already disproving itself. Goldhagen also
contradicts himself in saying that “not all people have the general
capacity to kill”, and yet goes on to follow that with establishing
that there is a such thing as human nature, and that people are in
control of how they act, regardless of the situation. Any scientist
would be able to tell you that there are many mysteries of the human
brain that not even they can perfectly explain without fail;
therefore, Goldhagen should not assume that any human can be entirely
blamed for their actions, so to speak. Finally, Goldhagen ends
Chapter 1 of his book with this statement: “All this is predicated
upon an accurate view of our age’s mass slaughters”. Are we to
believe that he actually has the right view upon genocidal matters?
Another look at Traub’s review of Worse than War will expand upon the
answer: “Intense moralism carries risks of its own, however, including
hyperbole. Is eliminationist violence really the greatest threat of
our time? Goldhagen acknowledges… but then insists that since
dictatorships are by their very nature “proto-¬eliminationist,” the
potential for mass violence remains almost limitless.” This means
that Goldhagen has allowed anyone to read what he’s writing about to
laugh at it, or him. Perhaps Goldhagen will have changed his tone
within more of his book, but he has already set himself up for a major
biased argument.
If a person really wishes to understand the many methods to observe
what is really important to humans regarding life, we have many tools
besides books available to us. The Internet, for example, portrays a
major part of observing today’s obstacles. While there will always be
war, let us not forget the economy which, without it, would make war
literally impossible. The ongoing fight to cure diseases is yet
another major obstacle that has yet to be fully accomplished. In
fact, since humans are constantly fighting for a better world, we
should keep all of life’s concerns in our head. A general knowledge
and research is best suited for observing these things because if we
wish to live our lives as happily as possible, we should not strain
ourselves with that which has the ability to dampen or sadden our
life. We should also strive to keep positive in our lives. This may
sound like the same idea aforementioned, but there is a great
difference between positivity and knowledge. The extension of
happiness in life should make a person remember about their past,
present, and future. The many paths of happiness can also include
learning new languages, or finding true love. Can anyone find love
while being stressed on a major topic of life, such as war or
poverty? This is why I suggest a general knowledge of such topics and
a general knowledge only. Finally, we all wish to be free of these
pains, these troubles, do we not? We do not require a need to quote
someone or something; any average person wants the perfect life-that
is, the perfect life of tranquility and peace. This means we must
always fight for the better of ourselves, and then for others. If one
lacks the ability to assert themselves, then one lacks the ability to
provide for anyone. Our current president, Barack Obama, is learning
this as we exist here in the United States. If we take a look at
America’s past presidents, we’ll notice the different impacts upon
America, both positive and negative. This is a reminder, just upon
the last statement, that we as humans must always fight for the better
of the nation, and ultimately, the world. As you can see, we don’t
just need a book on things “Worse than War”; we need a book that
covers ALL of life’s problems. Since a book covering the necessary
topics would most likely be an infinite amount of pages, we need only
keep certain points in our minds and we need not be scared of every
negative thing that happens to us-they are inevitable.
Sandy B
English 101 Section #3226
Feb. 19, 2010
The Contradiction Of Daniel Goldhagen
In “Worse than War”, Daniel Goldhagen argues how people don’t have
any idea that the biggest issue that exists in this world is genocide.
Goldhagen has used past historical events several times to explain
what genocide is. On the other hand, James Traub makes a review about
what Daniel Goldhagen’s argues in “Worse than War”. Traub disagrees
with Goldhagen that how he describes genocides in the incorrect way to
the readers. Also Traub disagrees that Goldhagen had repeat a million
of times that genocide is very bad. Goldhagen should leave the past
alone and focus more about how to deal the genocide that is happening
at this moment.
Goldhagen should rephrase his thoughts about what is “genocide”
because he contradicts himself in identifying “genocide”. Goldhagen
identify genocide as “the desire to eliminate peoples or
groups” (Daniel Goldhagen 14), but he’s telling the reader to
eliminate the “genocide” which is another group of people too. He
should rephrase “the desire to eliminate people or groups”, to “the
desire to eliminate ethnic people or nation”. Obviously, most readers
will know for sure what’s genocide, but the way Goldhagen explains it,
readers will get the bad idea that genocide means to eliminate a group
of people.
At the beginning of chapter one, Goldhagen accuses Harry Truman of
mass murderer for giving the order to drop two nuclear bombs on Japan
the first one on Hiroshima and the second one on Nagasaki as
retaliation for Japans brutal attack on Pearl Harbor Also Harry Truman
seems to not know that the U.S. military was building nuclear bombs
when he wasn’t the president until Franklin D. Roosevelt’s died. Even
if Franklin D. Roosevelt’s hasn’t died the atomic bombs were going to
be drop on Japan because they were our enemies and they attacked us
during the Pearl Harbor. Goldhagen forgot to mention that in the WWII
the Japanese military raped and murdered Chinese women and men during
their invasion in China. Goldhagen should not put the past history
(WWII) as an example of genocide because it’s complicated to identify
genocide between groups of people that wanted to eliminate each
other.
Personally, I do think genocide is bad but I don’t think we can never
get rid off genocide. We can control to keep genocide as low
percentage, again it’s impossible when people aren’t satisfies in many
ways. Goldhagen makes good arguments about what’s genocide and about
were the world is leading with genocide, but there are minor phrases
he says that makes it go against him. I think he shouldn’t focus about
the past history because it’s in the past and for some people the
American history makes them feel patriotism.
eliz medrano
English 101 / #3226
February 19th, 2010
Essay # 1
Word Count: 937
Analyzing Eliminationism
In his Ending “Our Age of Suffering” article Goldhagen discusses the
misconceived ideas society has about what genocide is and that this is
just one of many manifestations of a larger phenomena he chooses to
call eliminationism. He, further aims to provide clarity about the
subject by naming specific eliminationist practices such as
transformation, repression, expulsion, prevention of reproduction and
extermination of groups perceived as undesirable as a means to
eliminating them. Goldhangen calls society to come out and stop these
behaviors and proposes his three step program to eradicate
eliminationism; firstly by preventing, second by exercising
intervention and finally punishment.
In this review of his own book “Worse Than War,” however Goldhangen
fails completely to talk directly, or at all, about race and racism as
a central aspect continually used and which ignites eliminationist
patterns. Furthermore, in talking about eliminationist policies and
programs and eradicating these we can and should include projects
created and developed by the United States. In other words, many times
it appears easier to study and look at the neighbors’ dysfunction
while ignoring one’s own lack of order. For instance, Goldhagen
avoids a discussion about the U.S. as a major contributor to world
unrest and unfair policies that lead countries to apply eliminationist
policies. Examples are abundant, NAFTA, 1994 Operation Gate Keeper,
privatization of education, land, water, pollution, the war on
terrorism and others. These are in fact samples of eliminationist
thought and action. These also represent enormous investments to
ensure the preservation of power of the few, and that is mainly the
U.S. as an empire operating above the world’s countries by impacting
and maintaining most populations trapped in long-term substandard,
situations. People may not be killed blank point, but their lives are
certainly impacted by limited opportunities. Further, Goldhangen’s
view of the U.S. government or president as a leader who could execute
rule and order in foreign countries that still choose to implement
eliminationist policies is not at all a solution. People of color
here, in this country—blacks, natives, immigrant communities, the poor
mainly represented among these, in vast numbers are subjected to
eliminationism everyday already given their color, status, etc. Some
ways in which these people are systematically categorized and
eliminated are because of lack of opportunities to grow such as no
education opportunities, scarce adequate affordable and safe housing,
salaries that do not pay well or enough at minimum to cover their
needs, but abundant prison space and financing for it as well as army
programs that are largely set for recruitment of young people of color
and are presented as the only means to ever progress. This latter
system emphasizes the importance this country gives to war and the
investment allocated to it. Given the conditions for these groups
here it is hard to believe that the U.S. can play an exemplary role at
fixing others’ problems. Leading by example should be the first
proposal here. Also, before proposing that the UN should and could
play a role as a body that enforces vigorous anti-eliminationist
policy, we need to make sure that this is a body that has no strings
attached to any certain group, government and that it truly seeks the
welfare and fairness of all nations and that it has representation
from all nations and that also has an understanding of all of them.
Conversely, it is more feasible, as Traub points out in “Patterns of
Genocide”, for stable autocracies to not have or become
eliminationists. That is because when the needs of the people are
equally taken care of, respected and accounted for there is no need to
seek power or obtain it in ways that are harmful to others. In this
agreement one can also argue that not only dictatorships are prone or
exempted from applying eliminationist policies. So-called democracies
do exercise eliminationism, too. Both on their people and on other
countries’ peoples. So, thinking of dictatorships as the main forms
of government that are at risk of eliminationism is wrong. Looking at
the agenda of a state that one is talking about is needed for further
understand and to avoid categorizing it unfairly.
Both Goldenhagen and Traub also discuss that while the UN has been
inefficient at the task of ensuring states protect their citizens and
others inhabiting countries and that these states should be called to
attend to and participate in order to ensure proper and effective
implementation of any entity identified to operate in the eradication
of practices that harm people in anyway. This is to say that it is all
of our responsibility, activity or inactivity that also impacts
whether or not people are protected and safe.
Now, while agreeing with the prevention piece of Goldhangen’s three
point program to eliminate eliminationist policies, we must look at
the root cause of the eliminationist practice first. Again, one can
pose the race issue as one continuous matter that civilizations have
utilized and persist on using to oppress others believed less with the
goal of maintaining absolute control of people, land and resources. In
order to prevent there first need to be a program that teaches all
peoples about equality, respect and tolerance and non-violent
communication skills. This should be taught in schools, by the media,
in music and art just to name a few. Intervention then should be
exercised in a non-violent way and finally and ideally having no real
need for punishment. If there is intervention and punishment is like
spinning the same wheel, but with other name. Goldenhagen’s three
point program seems very similar to what he is trying to avoid, mass
killings and suffering.
Laura C.
Laura Cortes
English 101 Section 3226
Professor O’Connell
War can be described as the end result of two or more disagreeing
parties resorting to violence in order to resolve a disagreement.
Natural to war is the large amount deaths, whether it be that of a
soldier, civilian or any other casualty. Although not always the case,
many times civilian deaths are the product of mass murders known as
genocides committed by one side in an attempt to gain the upper hand.
But, is genocide really the most terrible thing that can happen within
a war? Or is the simple act of war itself horrifying all on its own?
For author Daniel Goldhagen, there is nothing in this world worse than
genocide or as he refers to it “eliminationism”. He points out that
genocide or eliminationism is the “most murderous variant” and that it
a “widespread problem” around the world. Even though genocide can be a
terrible result of war, it is hardly the biggest problem the world
faces today. Not even wars themselves can be classified as the biggest
problems in the world. In fact the problem we should be focusing on
aside from genocide, is the lack of efforts from all world leaders to
prevent mass murders from occurring during a war in the first place.
Even though Goldhagen makes an excellent point about the horrors of
genocide his approach to convincing his audience lacks in many ways.
For example, he tends to make the same argument and use the same set
of examples it just about every single paragraph. Yes, the examples
used are undoubtedly a good way to present his ideas but they don’t
completely convey how genocide has become this massive problem as he
makes it seem. We all understand that genocide is wrong and
unnecessary, but what is the point of reinforcing something any person
with common sense knows? In the second paragraph of his article he
starts off by arguing “Perhaps we fail to prevent genocides not
because they can't be stopped, and not just because we lack the will
to stop them, but because we have misunderstood their nature”, he
immediately admits that making such a statement is bold but somehow
after much study he has gained a better understanding of what genocide
truly is. What has he possibly learned in all his years that makes the
definition of genocide significantly different than what everyone
understands it to be? It is almost as though Goldhagen’s view on
genocide has become so black and white he feels as though the entire
world has no basic understanding of how cruel and inhumane the act of
mass murder is. But on the contrary, just about any civilized human
being comprehends and lives with the frustration of knowing our
governments do next to nothing to stop this horrifying act from being
repeated over and over. As for governments themselves, Goldhagen
believes that genocide has become a type of tactic for leaders to gain
complete control and use that power to change an entire nation to his
liking, “it is a form of politics. Like war, eliminationism is the
extension of politics by other means. Political leaders use
eliminationist measures to maintain or further power, socially and
politically transform a country”. This again is partially true, we
have seen it in historical figures such as Hitler. But then again,
Hitler was not a normal person by any means. He truly believed that an
entire group of people was somehow an evil that needed to be
destroyed. Not all mass murders are ordered by government leaders and
even when they are it doesn’t always result in that person gaining all
the power. Goldhagen takes a handful of historical examples of known
genocides and basically makes the conclusion that genocide can occur
at any given moment because the issue hasn’t been faced head on and
resolved already.
There is no doubt that genocide, mass murder or eliminationism,
however you want to call it, is a terrible way to win a war or attempt
to gain power. Even with that said, we can’t take this grotesque act
and make it the world’s biggest problem. Stopping it from happening is
of course something world leaders should take seriously instead of
washing their hands every time it happens. Still, there are a
multitude of problems the world is currently facing today that easily
takes mass murder off the top of the list. Instead of trying to force
people to realize how much worse than war genocide is, perhaps taking
action and doing something about it is the way to go.
Jiwon Nam
English 101 #3226
E.1.1
2/19/2010
“Worse than War” by Daniel J. Goldhagen guides us to another
perspective of genocide on how, why, and what we can do about it. On
the other hand, “Patterns of Genocide” by James Traub directly
contradicts its idea about how genocide should to be treated. I stand
against Traub’s opinions for I believe that understanding genocide is
the key to prevent further genocides, raising awareness of genocide
with public opinion will make future changes, and changing the laws
and not acting by it can’t be called advances. Advances should be made
in International Criminal Court (ICC) so the court could act out for
the benefits of the weak populaces as the plaintiffs.
Traub comprehends the search for fundamental reasoning of genocide as
exculpations and claims, “ To admit of motives is to reduce the moral
to the psychological, and thus to the comprehensible, and thus perhaps
to the acceptable.” But to be able to influence and prevent such
atrocities, we have to be able to describe and explain the observable
facts of genocide which is far from justifying the act of elimination.
Traul also quotes, “But if the ultimate goal is to ensure that we
never again stand by in the face of a Rwanda-style genocide, public
opinion will not be rallied through an earnest accounting of national
interest, but through an appeal to conscience.” I disagree with the
opinion that genocide was resulted by lack of conscience than lack of
public opinion. Appealing to people emotionally and by good means
might seem to bring temporary solution and peace. On the other hand,
if we try and raise the awareness of the situation to raise the public
opinion, it will allow us to appeal to the national interest in form
of new law or treaty. Traub argues, “Nor does Goldhagen fully
acknowledge the advances, however tentative, that the existing
international system has made,” but that’s wrong because Goldhagen is
fully aware of the changes in law that were made. However, what
meaning does it get to have if there are no changes in action?
The prevention, intervention, and punishment will be able to make the
eliminationists to think twice before inflicting harm, but as
Goldhagen has mentioned, until the events are defined to be genocides,
it is hard for the international community to act out. So why don’t we
change a structural part of the ICC for the needs of the people under
elimination? The international community can expand its radar to those
people placed on the downside part of structural pyramid and focus the
tribunals for the benefit of them. Allowing populaces to be the
plaintiffs and the dictators as the accused when their own country is
unable to defend its own people will be a practical way to restrict
the patterns of genocide. Genocide can be an act of assault that is
violating the international criminal law as it is threatening the
wellbeing of human race itself (Korean criminal law institute, “The
Study of International Criminal Law System”, 2008 May 14).
Lizbeth H
of a resolution for such catastrophe? Goldhagen argues that in order
to solve and put an end to genocide, society must first understand
genocide then attempt to prevent, intervene, and punish. Genocides
have been occurring for many years, and there are many theories as to
why they occur, so society has tried to understand. But Goldhagen
fails to realize the reality of such tragedy-- society can attempt to
solve such problems, but rebels will always exist striving for power.
He also fails to realize that although society has tried to understand
such horrendous acts, the fear upon people will hold them back from
attempting to resolve much. Although he has good intentions, he has to
be practical about the situation. Society can attempt to prevent
eliminationist but how can you truly influence or stop every single
eliminationist? Even with psychology as the base for resolving the
problems… not everyone will follow through on maintaining peace. How
does he expect for people to intervene such attacks? World leaders can
send their best troops, but ultimately a war will begin which will
result in many more deaths. Punishment can result in different ways.
Its true that other followers may fear the punishment, but a new
target can be created by punishing their people. Instead of trying to
prevent such acts by trying to persuade eliminationist of otherwise,
people who are being targeted can be evacuated from areas and
relocated into a safer place. An alternative to intervening would then
be the following step after relocating the targets, to isolate the
eliminationist and imprison them for their crimes. As far as
punishing… the punishment should take in prison. A life sentence
should be enforced for their horrendous crimes not to set an example,
but to provide justice.
Goldhagen claims, “changing the mindset of leaders and creating
conditions that make eliminationism utterly unworkable removes it from
the toolkit of political leaders so that pursuing such politics does
not even occur to them,” but that’s wrong because people will believe
what they want to believe, you can try to persuade someone, but at
times faith is stronger than a convincing speech. Goldhagen also
claims, “Whenever we see these large-scale violent assaults, such as
expulsions or incarcerations mixed together with killing, we should
immediately recognize them as being eliminationist assaults (which
could also expand into much larger-scale killing) and respond to them
with all the vigor that we ought to apply to genocides,” but that’s
also wrong because although a horrible event is taking place, but by
stepping in there’s a risk of starting a small war-- a war none the
less. Goldagen also claims, “The leaders of a few democracies, or even
just the president of the United States, could institute bounties and
guarantee the application of force,” but that’s wrong too because, by
capturing their followers or leaders of eliminationists groups, the
world leaders risk creating a target for their own people.
Rather than attempting to prevent events from occurring by trying to
convince the eliminationist that it’s wrong, removing the targeted
people from harms way should be the first approach and is more
practical because by evacuating and relocating the targets into a much
safer area the chance of more people murdered is greatly reduced.
Instead of trying to intervene attacks if the first approach was
applied the eliminationist have been isolated, this is a more useful
approach because the importance of putting genocides to a halt is
saving the lives of those with targets on the backs. By isolating the
eliminationist, they will not have targets within reach to attack,
brutalize, rape, and, or murder. Punishment should result in a life
sentence for the partakers in the genocides, the punishment is also
supported by Matt Kelley in “Justice in Rwanda, 15 Years After
Genocide” (April 2009) because by prosecuting those guilty of such
crimes, it helps the survivors cope with such tragedy. In those dark
times, the best way to start an healing process is to clean the mess
that was left behind, and that includes those guilty for the
genocides.
Lizbeth H
Scott Z
Scott Zimmer 1
Mr. O Connell
English 101 - 3226
Feb 21, 2010
Essay e1.1
James Traub’s review of Daniel Goldhagen’s 2009 book Worse than War
seeks to question some of the views and solutions put forth by
Goldhagen. This book covers the epidemic of genocidal eliminationism
and brings up proposed and somewhat radical solutions to this scourge.
It aims to put eliminationism of any kind as a criminal violation and
to be dealt with as such. Traub questions Goldhagen’s view of
eliminationist violence as the greatest threat of our time. He states
that this view is the “kind of absolutist formulation that condemns
academic theorists to political irrelevance…” He views the solutions
Goldhagen gives as too absolute and simplistic and that the correct
approach would be more open and inclusive of the current solutions
being put in place now. This opinion is wrong because as progressive
and radical as Goldhagen’s view is, it would be very workable. And
while Goldhagen’s view of eliminationist violence as the single
biggest threat of our time could be argued, his view of it as the
biggest threat against human rights, in terms of actual murders,
cannot. Goldhagen leaves us at the end of his book with solutions
that if put in would scare many of the perpetrators of genocide and
lead to a lessening of the atrocity.
Traub does not disagree with everything Goldhagen has to offer. In
fact he upholds the book on merit of its intent and how it reveals in
depth something many people don’t know. He praises the book for
delivering a wake up call. However he brings into play the argument of
the conservative system versus Goldhagen’s progressive approach. He
says: “ …the structuralists abhor atrocities every bit as much as
Goldhagen does, and fully share his determination to stop them, but
they would do so differently… Structural accounts lead to structural
solutions…leading in turn to changes in policy designed to single out
those perpetrators of mass violence.” This assumption is faulty as the
structure that has been in place to prevent these atrocities has not
done so effectively and has not shown signs of working towards an
effective solution. This would be the U.N., NATO, etc. These
organizations exist as part of the structure that has been delegated
the task of controlling and preventing these genocides. They have done
nothing to greatly terminate these atrocities. We cannot assume that
they will in the future make changes that will single out those
perpetrators of violence and obstruct them somehow. What is needed is
a change in the structure. Traub then claims,“ Goldhagen’s sense of
urgency causes him to demand a revolution in human affairs… He would
dissolve the United Nations and establish in its place an organization
of democracies dedicated to staging interventions.” Goldhagen does
have a sense of urgency, and that is due to the sheer magnitude of the
atrocity and the fact it is still occurring right now. He does not
call for the disbandment of the United Nations. He calls for the
United Nations taking these actions and implementing them or someone
else implementing them outside the bureaucracy of the United Nations.
These actions do not necessarily apply to genocides alone, but would
take it a step back to the eliminationism that causes it.
What it takes is urgency of action to bring a stop to genocide, but
also an awareness of the underlying causes. Goldhagen views genocide
as a byproduct of eliminationism. He says “ Whenever we see these
large scale violent assaults, such as expulsions or incarcerations
mixed together with killing, we should immediately recognize them as
being eliminationist assaults and respond to them with all the vigor
that we ought to apply to genocides.” What he wants to get across is
that the first steps must be implemented that herald genocide. And
based on awareness of these factors effective action can be taken to
cut it in the bud so it does not grow out of the atrocity it is into
an enormous one, that results in thousands upon thousands of deaths.
And this would be recognizing eliminationism and it’s telltale signs.
He then offers an analysis: “ A robust anti-eliminationist system
would contain three substantial and interrelated components:
prevention, intervention, and punishment. Currently, there is no
prevention regime.” This can be seen as the main factor to be
missing. We do have intervention, however slow, and some punishment if
at all. However the means to prevent it have not been considered
practical by the organizations such as NATO, United Nations, etc.
Goldhagen gives possible solutions of prevention. He says that
prevention can be accomplished by radically altering the cost-benefit
ratio of political leaders who would decide to enact eliminationist
techniques. More specifically he states as solutions “ If leaders knew
that initiating eliminationist assaults would turn them into permanent
outlaws… and if they understood that they would be relentlessly hunted
down until they were brought to justice, their cost-benefit
calculations would radically alter.” If we labeled such political
leaders outlaws and let them be subject to the same rules and
penalties. This would allow bounties to be placed on them. If there
were multi million dollar bounties placed on these now international
criminals then they would reconsider. Other solutions he offers to
disturb the cost ratio would be air bombing the military units of
transgressing nations. The solutions could be many but they would work
if considered within the context of whether they accomplished
prevention, intervention and punishment and sought to actually
accomplish these and not be bogged down in bureaucratic quagmire.
Raul O
Ochoa
1
Mr. O Connell
English 101 - 3226
Essay e1.1
Genocide has been one of the most horrific atrocities human
civilizations have witnessed and experienced. While Goldhagen makes
this very clear in his article, "Ending Our Age of Suffering",attempts
to develop ways to reduce if not, completely abolish this practice,
Traub disagrees on the methods Goldhagen uses to inform and advice the
public of such horrors.Traub feels that Goldhagen's views will lead to
"absolutist formulations that condemn academic theorists to political
irrevelance.That is to say that such an issue will shift politicians
to work on poicies that are irrevelant to world order.Quite the
contrary, exposing such serious issues can greatly contribute to the
elimination of such practices. That is why I feel that goldhagen makes
the better argument because the only way we can solve a problem of
such magnitude is to hit it at its root. The severity of this problem
allows goldhagen to be justified when he brings this issue to public
interest even though many might see it as extreme.
When men, women and children are brutalized, tortured and killed, it
should be a global issue that needs to be adressed to the fullest
extent. Traub questions whether such an issue is "really the greatest
threat of our time?" It's disturbing to know that such acts are being
questioned in that manner since millions of lives have been lost in
past decades and nothing was done about it. Traub also states that "
intense moralism carries risk of its own, however including
hyperbole." It's not right to state that such strong feelings are an
exageration that can pose a threat because it is the very will to make
change that can yield positive outcomes when the intentions are for
the better of humanity.It is understandable that traub feels as such
since he probably never lost a person dear to him to such violence. I
agree that their are world issues such as poverty, hunger and
crumbling economies that also need immediate attention but the
slaughter of innocent people should also be top priority. Many fail to
see that such world issue are interrelated and that reaching the root
of the problem is necessary to stop the killings of millions.A good
start, is too publicize such problems to the world in a manner that
will compell people to request changes to be done. Although, Traub
mentions the fact that "homogeneous autocracies pose little imminent
threat of atrocities today," it is still not a reason to overlook the
fact that such threats are possible and can occur in the distant
future.
Personally, i am compelled by Goldhagen's views on genocide and i feel
he brings up good points when he talks about inconsistencies our world
leaders share when it comes to dealing with this issue.I agree that
the U.N should step up its policies when it comes to combating
eliminationism. It should not take the massacre of hundreds of
thousands to take action against the perpetrators. Goldhagen's three
anti elimination components can be successfully executed if
governments worked together to enforce them but until that happens
many can possibly suffer the consequences in the near or distant
future. I do not feel that Goldhagen's point of view can lead to
hyperbole because this issue should be exposed for what it is by any
means necessary, even if it means saving the lives of our future
generations to come.
patrick d
Es1.1
#3226
Repost ( last posted 2/19 )
Daniel Goldhagen’s “Worse than War” gives the readers a view of
genocide and its patterns of occurrence in the world. He considers
genocide, an event that cause destruction of lives worse than any war,
cites considerable factors that lead people to this incident. He
relates the nature of this event and compare the similarities of the
different genocides in the world. This text will look further into
the details of Goldhagen’s position, that genocide itself, is worse
than war.
To better understand genocide, I look how academics view this word.
In an
excerpt from the 1948 United Nations’ Convention on the Prevention an
Punishment of Crime, genocide means the “ act with the intent to
destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or
religious group”. ( Prevent Genocide ) It also entails two aspects to
consider it a genocide, both mental and physical intent. This acts
include the “killing members of the group, causing serious bodily or
mental harm, deliberately inflicting conditions of life that will
bring about its physical destruction or whole in part, imposing
measures intended to prevent births, and forcibly transferring
children of the group to another group”. ( Prevent Genocide ) The
records of genocide dated since the biblical ages to the Roman empire
including recent mass killings of the Jewish, Cambodian, Nigerian,
Armenian and Rwandans. ( New World )
Goldhagen believes that the nature of the problem, is not genocide
but eliminationism. He cites that the conflicts arising from political
and social issues bring about the formation of a “majority or powerful
minority group” that seeks to destroy the other is the contributing
factor to acts of depletion of the unfavored group. He illustrated
what the Turks and Germans did to the Armenians and Jews, as well as
the Sudanese and Serbs to its victims.
I agree to Goldhagen’s claim of eliminationism, since we live in the
world in which the fittest survives. Since the beginning of time,
man’s intent to live in the realms of distinction and power, have
brought to the destruction of the other. The story of Cain and Abel,
for example, gives me the insight that to gain more favor, the other
should die, and Cain intently did so for personal motives. A
reflection of such intent act to kill and eliminate the imagined
opponent results to death, and for others at present, in groups of
many.
Goldhagen continues that eliminitionism’s roots are political in
nature and not the widespread belief of hatred and prejudice. He
mentioned that political leaders’ hungry nature for power succumb to
eliminationism to further enhance this. He goes on further that “
from Indonesia to Ethiopia to Gutatemala to Iraq to Sudan”,
elimination policies benefit this leaders. And so, he proposes two
ways to prevent such heinous acts. “First, changing the mindset of
leaders and creating conditions that make eliminationism utterly
unworkable”, through democratic institutions. “Second, and far more
immediately effective and doable, is radically altering the cost-
benefit calculus of political leaders and the immediate subordinates
upon whom they rely, to make the price of eliminationist politics so
costly that leaders will not opt for it.” ( Goldhagen ) I see his
point of altering their minds to democratic ideas, in a sense that
such government, would limit a leader’s political powers for there are
different branches that would legislate its government, however, would
the imperative of change be readily welcomed by these leaders.
Undoubtedly so, unless another hundredfold lives are slaughtered
again. But then again not. The 1986 People Power in the Philippines
toppled the a dictatorship that oppressed and killed political
opponents. A peaceful revolution , without the use of arms and
weaponry, thousands of people rallied for democratic change. “ To say
the world took notice, or was inspired, is a colossal understatement.
Manila's People Power revolution changed the world as we knew it. A
year later, South Koreans took to the streets to force out their
dictator. The following year was Pakistan's turn. In Tiananmen Square
and Rangoon, People Power was brutally suppressed; not so in
Bangladesh, Nepal and Indonesia.” ( Time Asia ) Therefore, I move to
say that, Goldhagen may be right in this sense. It contradicts his
claim, though, that organizations like the United Nations has not
materialize to move leaders of out of eliminationism. This
illustration of peaceful revolution by the people, though, supported
by neighboring countries, can prove that in unison, can move even the
ruthless of dictators out of power.