Discussion on notes-on-preparing-e1-1-post-here-by-9-11

[Anita T]

Anita Tokatyan
Eng. 101
sect. 3226
September 11, 2010


E1.1

In his novel Worse than War, Goldhagen examines the nature and
extent of genocide, or in his terms, eliminationism. Although
Goldhagen’s argument that a systemic analysis and prevention of
eliminationism is desperately needed in the world today, Traub’s view
that eliminationism is a moral problem rather than a political one is
more reasonable. Traub states that “our understanding of unspeakable
acts is limited…to the irreducible moral fact of evil, and …the
dynamics of mob psychology—of mass lunacy” (Traub). The nature of
good and evil is in us all, and the notion that one person can lead a
large group of soldiers to attack innocent civilians is disturbing to
the world. In contrast to Traub’s opinion, Goldhagen feels that the
motives that govern political leaders to do such heinous acts does not
depend on the nature of their morals, but rather, the nature of their
politics. He states that the politics of eliminationism root in the
attempt to “maintain or further power” (Goldhagen). Even though
Goldhagen’s argument is correct to an extent, Traub’s opinion is more
accurate because political mindset, in addition to morals, governs the
decisions of political leaders, financial cost is not always a
shortcoming to genocide strategies, and the decisions that lead to
acts of genocide are at times for personal gain.

Goldhagen claims that the first step to preventing eliminationism is
to “change the mindset of political leaders” (Goldhagen), but that is
wrong because their mindset is not the only part that governs their
decisions, morals, or absence of them, affects the decisions they
make. Moral is not something that can be thrust upon individual
leaders of different nations. Moral is learned and gained to each
individual on their own through their experiences, beliefs, or
teachings and gives them conscience on their actions and thoughts. It
is unreasonable to assume that such a part of life could be forced
onto someone unwillingly, if it were even possible at all. “To admit
of motives is to reduce the moral to the psychological, and thus to
the comprehensible, and thus perhaps to the acceptable” (Traub).If
such an act as murder can slide past someone’s moral, it is lead to be
understood by their mind as an acceptable act. This “mass lunacy”
ensues when a majority follows these crazy actions. Goldhagen also
claims that by “making the price of eliminationism so
costly” (Goldhagen), leaders will back out of the attacks on
civilians, but that is also wrong because to people with power money
is not an issue, nothing can be too costly. Political leaders can be
lead to paths that corrupt them with greed. Whether it’s greed for
money or power, their will to “achieve any of many
aspirations” (Goldhagen) subjects them to loose sight of their morals.
Goldhagen also claims that “Eliminationist politics…is a politics of
purposive acts to achieve political outcomes” (Traub), however, this
too is wrong because eliminationism is an act of personal gain, not
just “ultimate ends and…desired power redistribution” (Traub). As
Traub mentions in his article, each atrocity resembles one another,
and all root from the different ideologies of leaders. In the end, all
promise the outcome of a “purified world”, a world of course that is a
utopia in their eyes (Traub).

In order to achieve Goldhagen’s goal of ending the nature of war, it
is more correct to try change the perspective of political leaders as
well as their political mindset. It would be very beneficial to have
leaders act on the country’s benefit rather than their own. Although
many democracies exist in countries all over the world today, it does
not mean that democracy is a perfect system. It is up to these
democratic countries to help change and support countries with
traditional governments, and leaders who have a definite political
agenda based on their politics. Also, if one variable changes in
politics, others can, and will, too. If the cost for a political
leader to execute one method of genocide rises, they can simply change
their tactics or strategies, or possibly find even more terrible ways
to be cruel to their people that are inexpensive. Although a perfect
world of peace does not exist, it is important that organizations,
such as the United Nations, continue their ongoing debates about world
peace. Einstein put it best when he said that “in the case of war, to
describe the psychosis that may then exist as an illness does not
bring us one single step closer to solving the problem of wars”.
Discovering the nature of war and finding a solution to war are two
factors that would help lead mankind to perfection. However, since
perfection does not exist and man is flawed, the most reasonable
actions we can take are to alter political mindsets and focus on
nonviolent actions to negotiate peace. That way, innocent lives will
be spared and political leaders can walk the path that leads them away
from corruption of power.

Works cited

Goldhagen, Daniel. "Ending Our Age of Suffering." The New Republic. 10
Oct. 2009. Web. 3 Sept. 2010. http://www.tnr.com/print/article/world/ending-our-age-suffering

TRAUB, JAMES. "The New York Times Log In." The New York Times -
Breaking News, World News & Multimedia. 5 Oct. 2009. Web. 3 Sept.
2010. <http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/18/books/review/Traub-t.html?
_r=1>.

[Sylvia C]

Sylvia Carvajal
Eng. 101
Sect. 3226
September 11, 2010

Essay 1.1

The term genocide and eliminationalism is a very touchy subject with
many opinions. Daniel Jonah Goldhagen argues that these killings are
for worst then war itself. However we define the problem, it always
has the same results, massive amounts of death. Why are people dying,
who are in charge of these elimination movements, and when will it
end? Systematic analysis is already achieved; the problem that exists
is the means to prevent it, in opposed to waiting to intervene on the
leader s who initiates the slaughter. James Traub points out that
there is clearly no political preparation for any nation to approach
this problem, but this is where he is wrong.

Traub states “So far, the United Nations has done virtually nothing to
put these fine principles into action. Until it does, those few states
that are committed to preventing mass murder may have to act without
international approval.” The United Nations was very slow at
administering an arrest warrant for Al Bashir, but it was still
granted. Traub also claims “And by lumping together largely
peaceful groups like the Muslim Brotherhood with Al Qaeda, Goldhagen
turns political Islam into an eliminationist bogy. Moreover, even Al
Qaeda, with its ideology of mass murder, has not been able to marshal
the resources of a state to attain its ultimate goals.” This is not
always true because, a leader or group will always go to any extent to
remain powerful even if they are in poverty. “They will pursue
eliminationist policies only if they believe these policies will
succeed at enhancing their own power or furthering cherished goals--
that is, only if they believe the benefits to themselves will outweigh
the costs. And, more often than not, from Indonesia to Ethiopia to
Guatemala to Iraq to Sudan, that is exactly what eliminationist
policies have done.” (Goldhagen) Traub also claims, “We must
transform the world in order to solve this unspeakable problem where
he proposes unworkable solutions.” Goldhagen’s solutions are quite
simple; it’s just the full cooperation of the states and nations.
Traub is wrong because Goldhagen offers a simple proposal “To buttress
the deterrent force of such threats, these and other political,
diplomatic, and military measures should be communicated to all world
leaders and their high-level subordinates by every available means the
moment they assume office, democratically or not. Handbooks should be
distributed by every major international and regional association (the
U.N., NATO, the WTO, the African Union, etc.), spelling out these and
other anti-eliminationist measures. Every political leader, cabinet
member, and high-ranking military and police official ought to be put
on notice: Should you decide to participate in eliminationist assaults
or serve eliminationist regimes, this is what awaits
you.” (Goldhagen)

Traub must first of all realize that eliminationism is a political and
a moral problem. Politicians influence their followers to carry out
their orders. Military personnel and small groups follow their
leaders in order to capture the upper hand in society. Regardless of
cost, people are still targeted for death. Bill Clinton stated
( Serbs + Bosnians) “Until these folks get tired of killing each
other, bad things will continue to happen.” At this point
elimination will continue to exist until countries, nations, and
states all come together to seek the benefits of the safety for their
people, this should be their first priority, rather than their own
power and wealth. Goldhagen’s idea of a handbook at this point is the
only solution for keeping violence and death very minimal. It seems
that we are in a phase where there is so much immaturity, ignorance,
and lunatic logic that portrays our species. Using a handbook is one
option at this time in order to compose peace in our society.


Works Cited:

Goldhagen, Daniel. "Ending Our Age of Suffering." The New Republic.
10
Oct. 2009. Web. 3 Sept. 2010. http://www.tnr.com/print/article/world/ending-our-age-suffering

TRAUB, JAMES. "The New York Times Log In." The New York Times -

Breaking News, World News & Multimedia.1 5 Oct. 2009. Web. 3 Sept.

2010. <http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/18/books/review/Traub-t.html?
_r=1>.

> Oct. 2009. Web. 3 Sept. 2010.http://www.tnr.com/print/article/world/ending-our-age-suffering

[oc]

Mark M
Sep 11, 10:18 am

In his book “Worse than War” Daniel Goldhagen attempts to give an
explanation to genocide; it is a cold, calculating measure taken by
people fully cognizant of their actions. His thesis is that genocide
cannot be blamed on external factors and cannot be blamed on internal
drives. Goldhagen’s preface and introduction is lacking because it is
subjective, overly opinionated, and filled with “what-ifs.” From the
opening salvo of the first chapter regarding Truman’s use of the
atomic bomb on Japan, Goldhagen does not include previous studies,
other than in generalities or refute any previous scholars’ work. He
in-fact goes on a hyperbole rage calling Truman a mass murderer and
his dropping of the bomb “whole sale extermination.” While he brings
up a valid point that people make choices according to their
understanding of the social world, what is right and wrong, and that
personal agency allows us to say yes or no to a given situation, it is
not as simple as saying yes and no. Delving into the realm of
psychological theories without providing any refutation and counter-
argument, which challenge the author, is not only wrong, it is
irresponsible.
The first sentence of chapter one immediately calls former President
Harry S. Truman a mass murderer. “HARRY TRUMAN, THE THIRTY-THIRD
president of the United States was a mass murder.” This statement is
clearly subjective. The author is referring to Truman ordering the
dropping of two atomic bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Goldhagen
then quotes former Commander of the Allied Powers-Europe and later
President Dwight D. Eisenhower as having stated, “Japan was already
defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and
secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking
world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought,
no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives.” The quote
from Eisenhower is from his memoirs when he was President of the
United States, some years after WWII, and not of the time when he was
Commander of Allied Forces-Europe. Goldagen ascertains that acts of
genocide perpetrated by anyone are not merely based on external
influence or the intrinsic nature of man to kill. He says that two
“widespread notions” of mass murder must be rejected: “that people’s
actions are determined by external forces;
that they have little or no say over how they act; that free will is
an illusion.” And, “that internal drives impel people to commit mass
murder.” Both of these statements completely refute the work of Urie
Bronfenbrenner and Sigmund Freud, two well-known psychologists.
Goldhagen’s first notion, that external forces hold no bearing
towards a person’s action(s), must be rejected. Bronfenbrenner, former
Harvard Alumni and Professor Emeritus at Cornell University, has an
Ecological Systems Theory, which is taught in our colleges and
universities today. His theory states that two out of the five
environmental parts to an individual’s development are based purely on
external stimuli: the microsystem, which involves parents, school,
neighborhood, and is the most direct influence on the individual; and
the mesosystem, the effects of what home has on school and school on
the next major influence. This theory directly refutes Goldhagen’s
opinion that it must not be considered. Goldhagen’s second claim that
internal drives impel people to commit mass murder as a faulty notion
directly contradicts Freud’s theory on personality of the Id, the Ego,
and the Superego. The Id is the raw, unorganized, inborn part of the
personality and operates according to the pleasure principal.
According to Freud, the Id does what it wants when unchecked. It is
the unconscious so often used in conversation,
i.e. “the Freudian Slip.” The Ego serves as a check or the balance
between the Id and the Superego, and the Superego is your conscience,
your right and wrong gauge and constantly strives for perfection, even
when perfection is not attainable.
Goldhagen’s inclusion of Eisenhower’s statement to Secretary of War,
Stimson should not have been included in his text. For that matter,
the whole of chapter 1, section 1 should have been excluded. It is
entirely subjective with inclusions of not less than five ‘what-ifs’
in the same section. The facts are that the America and Japan were
actively engaged in a war until the bombs were dropped. After which
the fighting ceased and a declaration of surrender was presented to
the U.S. from the Japanese. We could play the ‘what-if’ game all day,
but the facts will never change.
His article in The New Republic, Ending Our Age of Suffering,
fails to take into account world opinion when it is world opinion by
which the nations are being judged. In suggesting that the U.S. take
the lead in military action against an eliminationists’ regime, it
sets the stage for negative world opinion that the U.S. is attempting
to impose American hegemony. I know for a fact that China has said
this of America in the past. Who sets the gauge or the line of what is
to be deemed an internal
issue and a probable international issue requiring intervention?
Regardless of how many nations were to subscribe to the policing of
each other, there will always be those that will not stand-by while
its sovereignty is invaded. Albert Einstein, a true professional
intellectual, said, “The quest of international security involves the
unconditional surrender by every nation, in a certain measure, of its
liberty of action—its sovereignty that is to say—and it is clear
beyond all doubt that no other road can lead to such security.” It is
ironic that the author would suggest or imply that more bloodshed is
required to end the blood being shed. Kill those who kill. It is
audacious of the author to even suggest offering financial incentives
to bring perpetrators to justice. The author suggests the taking of
powers away from creditable military organizations and legitimate
military action and placing it into the hands of mercenaries, thus
creating 2nd and 3rd order effects leading to the establishment of a
new conflict.

[oc]

gi jung. S
Sep 11, 5:05 pm

1)Daniel Jonah Goldhagen argues that genocide should be examined
around an understanding of policial, ideological and moral terms.
James Traub does not agree that this is not important but argues that
both sides of the argument should be heard. Traub writes that
structualists also want to prevent genocide. They just look at
genocide differently What Traub does in his essay is to take a more
balanced approach. He agrees with Goldhagen that there are many forms
of eliminationism and that genocide may result. Traub disagrees that
the U.N. is useless. Instead, Traub shows what progress has been made
and should be pushed to continue to make more progress.

2) Daniel Jonah Goldhagen believes that eliminationism is the biggest
problem in the world today. He feels that we should look out for
signs of eliminationism whether it be transformation, repression,
sterilization, expulsion or genocide and take quick action to remove
leaders who use any form. Goldhagen's view is wrong because even
though a leader uses some forms of eliminationism, this does not mean
that it will lead to genocide.

Goldhagen claims, "Whenever we see these large-scale violent assaults,
such as expulsions or incarcerations mixed together with killing...and
respond to them with all the vigor that we ought to aply to
genocides", but what about a nation's right to choose? What authority
would be used to go into another country. Goldhagen also claims, "The
60-year-old U.N. convetion on the Prevention and Punishment of the
Crime of Genocide has proven itself almost useless..", but that's also
wrong to give up on the U.N. because we have no other worldwide
organization available to come to agreement on how to take action.
Goldhagen also claims that leaders "...will pursue eliminationist
policies only if they believe these policies will succeeed at
enhancing their own power...", but this is wrong as well because some
leaders have other reasons. For example, some will pursue these
policies because it is their own idealogy.

A more practical approach is to first understand the forms of
eliminationism. Once there is acceptance that these forms may result
in genocide, then proper plans can be put into place to reduce the
likelihood of genocide. Once there is agreement on how to address the
threat of genocide, then there can be rules set in place to determine
when action will be taken. Goldhagen seems to want to just forget
about getting agreement and just taking action. This is a big
problem. For example, if the United States took this kind of stand,
the rest of the world could claim that the United States is being
imperialistic. We should have the U.N. finish what it has started to
develop. James Traub writes in "Patterns of Genocide", "Nor does
Goldhagen fully acknowledge, the advances...that the existing
international system has made."

[Brooke Griffin]

Brooke Griffin

Eng. 101
Sect. 3226
September 11, 2010


Essay 1.1

In his heartfelt and passionately opinionated book, Worse than War,
Goldhagen strongly proclaims that the biggest problem that humanity
faces today, is the grueling issue of genocide. I feel that it is
extremely bold to pin-point one problem among hundreds, that the world
faces today and regard it as the most crucial. It is an extremely
important problem and it does need to be addressed. However, I feel
that James Traub, in his article, Patterns of Genocide, makes a better
argument; “Our policy, rather, should be founded on the recognition
that genocidal eliminationism, which Goldhagen argues has killed more
people in recent generations than war itself, is the supreme moral
problem of our time.” Genocide is not the absolute worst problem
humanity faces today, in a world ridden with cancer, Abuse,
poverty...In a world where war will never cease to be a dilemma, and
there exist people who will forever seek ultimate power. It is
rather, the most morally threatening problem that humanity as a whole,
has ever known, and of course, when the patterns of genocide arise, I
do feel that it is our responsibility as a species to protect one
another.

Goldhagen argues “Since the beginning of the twentieth century, mass
murderers have killed more, perhaps many more, than 100 million
people--a much greater number than have died as a consequence of
conventional military operations.” However, if Goldhagen is most
concerned with numbers, he might be interested to read the article
released in April of 2003 by the World Heath Organization, which
presented shocking statistics on cancer related deaths. They
reported, “In the 20th century, approximately 100 million people died
world-wide from tobacco-associated diseases.” That is only numbers
from the 20th century alone, and only the cancer fatalities resulting
from tobacco use. Suffering first-hand experience, of losing more than
one loved one to cancer, it seems to me that everything is subjective
and everyone has different priorities. Believe me, if I was capable of
ending the battle so many people have with cancer, I would in a
heartbeat. I think it is possible. I do not however think that one
day, as disheartening as it sounds, there will ever be complete world
peace. It is human nature to battle for what we believe to be right.
We can take steps toward educating and monitoring world leaders and
their followers, but we cannot take away their desire for power.
Goldhagen smartly states it himself, “Geonocide is always the decision
of one leader or a small group of leaders.” It only takes one
brilliantly twisted man to brain-wash thousands of followers. It only
takes one idea to create and up-rawer. But somehow, Goldhagen
optimistically believes that it is possibly to change the minds of
political leaders. He plots, “Prevention works in two ways. First,
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.” While the first idea seems so utterly unrealistic, he may
just have a good idea brewing in the latter. We cannot expect to
miraculously change the minds of people. Especially, people in great
power. We may however, create an obstacle so that the decision to
resort to eliminationism can not be carried out without bearing
extreme financial burden. He devises, “…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.” I think most people would immediately be on
board with this plan.

This is finally on the right track. Rather than trying to change the
minds of the leaders, we must make it financially impossible for
genocide to be the best or even one of the options they can resort to.
When it comes down to it, money is really the biggest prize most
leaders are striving for. To make genocide a major financial burden is
probably one of the smartest things that can be done and this is
definitely the path we need to stay on to make eliminating
eliminationism, a reality. And while measures like these can be taken,
we can focus on the other problems the world faces today as well. It
is actually irresponsible to focus solely on one problem. Instead, we
need to take the initiative necessary to deal with preventing
genocide, but at the same time, focus also on poverty, on obesity, on
domestic violence and hundreds of other issues that need our
attention. It isn’t good parenting to focus only on one child just as
it isn’t proper for humanity to focus all of our attention on one big
problem. Instead, we must equally spread our funds and attention. That
being said, I think that with the proper means and determination, we
can at least lessen the threat of another possible genocide. I truly
believe that it is our moral obligation and duty to look out for one
another. Animals have this quality. I came across a video online where
one dog was lying in the middle of a freeway after being hit by a car,
and a fellow dog proceeded to dodge through traffic, and pull the
injured canine out of harms way (not by using his teeth mind you, but
literally wrapping his front paws around the hurt dog’s body and
dragging him off the road.) It is not about eliminating a problem or
making everything perfect. It is about having the courage to do the
right thing and not fear being hit by a car. It is after all, a moral
problem, not an equation. There is no formula to fix a sick mind, but
there are examples and messages one heart can send to another.
Goldhagen deeply displays a mutual feeling in his October, 2009
article, Ending Our Age of Suffering with such a simple message, “Just
as it only takes one or a few political leaders to decide to slaughter
or expel millions, so too can a few political leaders, a few moral men
and women, go a long way toward ending such practices.” I truly
believe with enough brave hearts, and awakened consciences, we can
stir the souls of the world. And that, I believe, is the biggest task
humanity faces.



Works cited:

Traub, J. 2009, October 15. Patterns of genocide. New York Times
Sunday Book Review.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/18/books/review/Traub-t.html


Goldhagen, D. 2009, October 10. Ending Our Age of Suffering. The New
Republic.
http://www.tnr.com/print/article/world/ending-our-age-suffering

WHO, 2003, April 3. Global cancer rates could increase by 50% to 15
million by 2020. World Health Organization.
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2003/pr27/en/

[Dave B]

e1.1: Goldhagen v. Traub 

In his article, Patterns of Genocide (2009), Traub states that
genocide and its precursors can be eliminated through existing laws
and organizations and by appealing to society’s collective
conscience. Traub is misguided in his belief that the United Nations’
current programs can effectively eliminate what Goldhagen (2009) terms
“eliminationism”. Additionally, Traub is also off mark in his opinion
that Goldhagen’s suggested remedies for genocide are politically
irrelevant. Finally, Traub’s view that enhanced societal awareness of
genocide’s moral reprehensibility would serve to prevent mass killings
is far short of an actual solution. Goldhagen’s analysis of
eliminationism and exterminationism logically leads to a simple
solution: make the cost of mass murder for political gain outweigh its
benefits.

Traub’s viewpoint that to eliminate genocide “...public opinion will
not be rallied through an earnest accounting of national interest, but
through an appeal to conscience...” fails to take into account the
fact that mass killings are not initiated by the general public, but
by those in power. The leaders that perpetrate these acts do so for
political gain. The desire to attain more power is stronger than the
moral implications that result. Furthermore, Traub states that
Goldhagen’s ideas sound “...like just the kind of absolutist
formulation that condemns academic theorists to political
irrelevance.” Radical ideas are frequently dismissed, yet can be
relevant solutions to problems that plague the world. Finally, Traub
is wrong in his opinion that the United Nations is on the path to
eliminating genocide through progress “that the existing international
system has made.” Traub is quick to note that “the United Nations has
done virtually nothing to put these fine principles into action.”

To prevent the eliminationism that precedes genocide, we must create
strong disincentives for the leaders that perpetrate these acts.
Heads of state put the wheels of genocide into motion. They do so
because they can increase their popularity with the masses by
targeting and removing minorities from their countries. The executors
of genocide face few repercussions. The simple solution to is to make
the cost of committing genocide and eliminationism so extreme that no
leader would use it to achieve their goals. Violence and war are
almost always avoided when other solutions are less costly. Making
the political cost of genocide greater than the benefits would
eliminate it. Goldhagen provides a series of pragmatic solutions to
the problems of genocide: prevent it in the first place by creating
substantial penalties for enactors of eliminationism; educate the
world’s leaders of these penalties; instantly criminalize and place
multi-million dollar bounties on the heads of state who are practicing
eliminationism, as we do now with terrorists; and proactively enforce
these laws and penalties even to the point of bombing military
complexes of eliminationist countries and arresting or killing their
leaders. Goldhagen’s solutions may seem like an extreme cure for the
disease of genocide, but they are more effective than standing by and
doing nothing.


Reference List:

Traub, J. (2009, October 15). Patterns of genocide [Review of the book
Worse than war]. The New York Times. Retrieved from
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/18/books/review/Traub-t.html

Goldhagen, D. J. (2009, October 10). Ending our age of suffering. The
New Republic. Retrieved from http://www.tnr.com/article/world/ending-our-age-suffering

Horgan, J. (2008, March 13). Has science found a way to end all wars?
Discover Magazine. Retrieved from http://discovermagazine.com/2008/apr/13-science-says-war-is-over-now

[Linda H]

Goldhagen verses Traub: A Refutation of Traub, e1.1
Linda Hayashi
English 101, Section 3226, Fall 2010

“Patterns of Genocide” by James Traub contains subtle distinctions,
avuncular nods and even a shiny distraction that take to task Daniel
Jonah Goldhagen’s plan to stop genocide in “Worse Than War.” With over
618,000 books on the subject in Google Books alone, it appears that
evil attracts scrutiny, accumulating in verbose heaps next to the 100
million corpses. By arguing a few of Traub’s comments, it becomes
evident that Goldhagen’s invocation of the categorical imperative
identifies eliminationism as a supreme moral problem and a basis of
contention for Traub. Goldhagen stands on pure practical reason and is
surrounded by consequentialists. Due to the Kantian precise maxims,
many slip into a compromised moral morass. Policy is a utilitarian
function. Considering that Traub’s “The Freedom Agenda: Why America
Must Spread Democracy (Just Not the Way George Bush Did)” chronicles
Wilsonian naiveté and hypocrisy, it stands as a contrast to
Goldhagen’s manifesto. Traub presents what has been and Goldhagen puts
forth what should be. In order to depart from the moral basis debate,
others act outside of academia or nation-states. Human rights NGOs are
attempting prevention of “our age’s greatest scourge” without parsing
maxims.

Traub mentions “structuralists,” is this sleight of hand so as not to
notice something later? Structural features pertain to function,
purpose or behaviors. “-Ism” pertains to a specific practice, system,
philosophy, doctrine, characteristic or condition. “Structural
accounts lead to structural solutions: new definitions of the national
interest recognizing the dangers of permitting unchecked mass violence
even half a world away, leading in turn to changes in policy designed
to single out those perpetrators of mass violence.” Okay, so
perpetrators of mass violence were off the hook before the changes?
Good thing those structural solutions occurred. Traub cites a
“structuralist” study, “Mobilizing the Will to Intervene” crediting it
to “leading Canadian and American figures” but is published by the
United States Institute of Peace, J. Robinson West (1) is their
Chairman of the Board of Directors. “Poverty and inequality,
population growth and the ‘youth bulge,’ ethnic nationalism and
climate change” as the chief “drivers of deadly violence” could be
accepted as contributing factors or, considering the source, an open
invitation to industrialists to get cozy. Goldhagen’s scorn of
“national interest” is due as they are comparable to concessions, they
create subjective considerations or bargaining chips that allow “the
ends justifying the means” consequences. The prevention of carnage is
the right moral action in and of itself. The predatory foreign
interests in the Congo’s minerals and oil, compromised prevention or
intervention and allowed procrastination during the seven-month
killing spree in Rwanda is the wrong thing. Eventually global
economics may justify the means of inaction by using
consequentialists’ algebra, even after factoring in the cost of human
life. Academic theorists with “absolutist formulations” condemned to
“political irrelevance” occur because they cease to influence policy
or public discourse, is not a sufficient argument against moral
certitude. Traub may be expressing a genuine concern for Goldhagen’s
tenure and future, because it sounds like the warnings a child gets
when they decide to remove the training wheels from their bicycle.
Traub may also be alluding to Noam Chomsky, who also asserted
categorical imperatives, rendered him irrelevant to policy makers.
Political systems want a docile and irrelevant public. Policies also
can become irrelevant. The archaic U.S. image as the world’s policeman
fell into “political irrelevance” until getting re-shuffled into the
musical deck chairs to include others as international coalitions.
“Intense moralism” is usually prevalent in calls to action, it incites
responsibly, but Goldhagen is using reason-based morals. Once again
Traub is pointing at Goldhagen’s moral basis, unwavering could be seen
as “intense.” The “greatest threat of our time” seems to be Traub’s
own hyperbolic paraphrasing. Goldhagen’s own descriptors are
“intractable, greatest scourge, systemic feature, widespread.” Traub’s
nuance here may be inaccurate.

As an alternative to moral basis debates, are popular discourse and
NGOs motivated by their own independent inclinations. Human
intervention attempts compassion at best, at worst it provides
propaganda. The Free Tibet movement that benefitted from “public
opinion” and “appeal to conscience” at least introduced the topic of
Olympic boycott. The Fellowship, the American evangelical movement is
the root of anti-gay persecutions in Uganda. By influencing local
legislation towards potential “proto-eliminationist” culture, they
exemplify the ugliness of judgment. Helsinki Watch, now known as Human
Rights Watch is receiving $100 million from George Soros who said,
“I’m afraid the United States has lost the moral high ground under the
Bush administration, but the principles that Human Rights Watch
promotes have not lost their universal applicability . . . So to be
more effective, I think the organization has to be seen as more
international, less an American organization.” This has the potential
for “Ending Our Age of Suffering.”

1. J. Robinson West is the chairman and founder of PFC Energy.  He has
advised chief executives of leading international oil and gas
companies and national oil companies on corporate strategy, portfolio
management, acquisitions, divestitures, and investor relations. 
Before founding PFC in 1984, Robin served in the Reagan Administration
as assistant secretary of the Interior for Policy, Budget and
Administration (1981-83), with responsibility for U.S. offshore oil
policy.  Robin conceived and implemented the five-year Outer
Continental Shelf (OCS) Leasing Schedule and managed the $14 billion
per year OCS policy, the largest non-financial auction in the world at
that time.  Between 1977 and 1980, he was a first vice president at
Blyth, Eastman, Dillon & Co., Inc., an investment banking firm and was
also a member of the firm’s operating committee.  Prior to that, he
served in the Ford Administration as the deputy assistant secretary of
defense for International Economic Affairs (1976-77) and on the White
House staff (1974-76).  In 1976, he received the Secretary of Defense
Medal for Outstanding Civilian Service.  West is a member of the
Secretary of Energy Advisory Board, the National Petroleum Council,
and the Council on Foreign Relations.  He is president of the Wyeth
Endowment for American Art.  He has served as a trustee of the $3
billion Trans-Alaska Pipeline Liability Fund, as a member of the Chief
of Naval Operations Executive Advisory Panel, the Industry Policy
Advisory Committee on Multilateral Trade Negotiations of the U.S.
Trade Representative, and on the National Advisory Committee on
Handicapped Children. West was a presidential representative to the
Yemen Arab Republic in 1987 and was appointed by the president to the
National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere in 1977. West
received a B.A. degree from the University of North Carolina at Chapel
Hill and a J.D. from Temple University.  West is married to Eileen
Shields West, a journalist, and has four children, and resides in
Washington, D.C. (http://www.usip.org/specialists/j-robinson-west)
This exhaustive bio doesn’t offer what the J stands for.

References
Bass, Gary J. (2008). Despot Watch. The New York Times Sunday Book
Review. October 11. Retrieved from: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/12/books/review/Bass-t.html

Dumbaugh, Kerry. (2008). Tibet: Problems, Prospects and U.S. Policy.
Congressional Research Service. (p. 28). April 10.

Gaylor, Laura. (2009). The Third Side and Africa: Civil Society’s
Influence in Burundi, Sudan and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
(pp. 38–43).

Goldhagen, Daniel Jonah. (2009). Ending Our Age of Suffering. The New
Republic. October 10. Retrieved from: http://www.tnr.com/print/article/world/ending-our-age-suffering

Kant, Immanuel. (2008). Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of
Morals. (Thomas Kingswell Abbott, Trans.) (pp. 73–74). New York, NY:
Cosimo, Inc. (original work published 1873).

Sharlet, Jeff. (2010). Straight Man’s Burden: The American Roots of
Uganda’s Anti-Gay Persecutions. Harper’s. (p. 37). September.

Strom, Stephanie. (2010). Soros to Donate $100 Million to Rights
Group. The New York Times. Retrieved from: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/07/business/07gift.html

Traub, James. (2009). Patterns of Genocide. The New York Times Sunday
Book Review. October 15. Retrieved from: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/18/books/review/Traub-t.html

Traub, James. (2008). The Freedom Agenda: Why America Must Spread
Democracy (Just Not The Way George Bush Did). (p. 4). New York, NY:
Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Waxman, Matthew C. (2009) Intervention to Stop Genocide and Mass
Atrocities. Council Special Report No. 49. (p. 23). New York, NY:
Council on Foreign Relations.

[LizaG]

In The New Republic article, "Ending Our Age of Suffering," Daniel
Goldenhagen states that eliminationism is the biggest problem in our
world today. He states that government leaders are using
eliminationist tactics to gain power. If a new group comes into the
country and poses a threat to current government, they are eliminated.
These leaders can stop these attacks from occuring, but they chose not
to because they will most likely benefit from the attacks.
Goldenhagen feels that the United States and other democratic
countries should take control of the situation and develop a plan to
end genocide. Although Goldenhagen makes good points, he is not
correct in stating that eliminationism is the biggest problem in the
world today, that it is the most important problem that needs to be
solved now. People die everyday, not from war or eliminationist
attacks, but from lack of proper diet, the spread of disease, and the
crimes that are commited on a day to day basis. He states that the
people of the world should come together and stop eliminationism, when
in fact, we should come together to help provide quiality of life for
everyone.


Goldenhagen states that the US and other democratic countries should
develop a "Rewards for Justice" program and offer a reward to someone
who helps to capture a governemnt leader who is guilty of mass
genocide. That idea wouldn't work, if it were that simple to get
democratic countries to set aside money for something, why not set
that money aside to feed the families that go to bed hungry every
night? Poverty is one of the biggest problems facing the world today.
Just like goverments have the power to start and stop eliminationist
attacks, they have the power to feed the hungry and provide medical
care to the sick. They chose not to help the needy because they will
not benefit from doing so.

> Sunday Book Review.http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/18/books/review/Traub-t.html

>
> Goldhagen, D. 2009, October 10. Ending Our Age of Suffering. The New

> Republic.http://www.tnr.com/print/article/world/ending-our-age-suffering

[Zita F]

Zita Flores

Eng. 101
sect. 3226
September 11, 2010

E. 1.1

Mass slaughter has existed in our world for centuries; it is a
horrible and vicious act. In Worse than War, Goldhagen states that
genocide is by far worse than war because it has killed more people
than military operations. He believes that the governments, along with
the people of the world, have done little or nothing to prevent these
monstrous events. He believes that, “We must approach the phenomenon
with the willingness to think it through systematically and from the
beginning” (Goldhagen 8). Additionally, he proposes to create an
organization that would be committed to putting an end to genocide.
James Traub, who reviewed Worse than War, seems to generally agree
with Goldhagen but believes that he is proposing solutions that are
virtually unworkable. In his review, Traub writes, “He does not pause
to contemplate how very few takers such an organization would have.” I
agree with Traub, I highly doubt that many governments will be
interested in his proposition. While I understanding Goldhagen’s
purpose and heart, I believe that for the majority, power is more
important than innocent lives; it is all about selfish gain. No group
with authority will try to put an end to eliminatiosm.

Goldhagen believes that the motive behind eliminatiosm is pure evil.
He states that the main purpose politicians have for mass slaughter is
power. He writes, “…they are still interested in power. They will

pursue eliminationist policies only if they believe these policies

will succeed at enhancing their own power or furthering cherished

goals--that is, only if they believe the benefits to themselves will
outweigh the costs.” I believe that this is true; essentially it all
comes down to control and authority. But this is also the reason as to
why not much will be done to end genocide. Political leaders will
always be in constant battle to be more powerful than the others. They
will never stop to think of the innocent people that will be killed.
For them, mass slaughters promise an opportunity to control the
masses.

In Worse than War, Goldhagen writes, “Any serious investigation of
mass murder must reject two wide-spread notions...: That peoples

actions are determined by external forces; that they have little or no

say over how they act; that free will is an illusion” (Goldhagen 9).
He goes on to say, “Taking seriously people’s agency, understanding of
the social world, and moral values is essential, and so too is
understanding how they come to hold their views” (Goldhagen 12).
Goldhagen makes it clear that genocide is made possible by a set of
choices made by ordinary people. The government, not the people, makes
the choice for mass slaughter. Leaders know how to charm their people,
thus making it easy to convince them of their wicked plans. External
forces have a lot to do with people’s actions. People tend to do as
they are told out of respect or fear; especially if they are directed
to do so by their political leaders. In many countries, there is no
such thing as free will. In fear of getting killed themselves, moral
values go out the window. We should stop blaming the people, and start
looking at the true persecutors; the countries political leaders.

Goldhagen believes that “a strong anti-eliminationist system would
contain three substantial and interrelated components: prevention,
intervention, and punishment ” (Goldhagen, New Republic). It is nearly
impossible to prevent these things from happening. Country leaders
will always have the same mindset as those from the past; leaders will
do what benefits them. Like Traub, I don’t believe any country and/or
leader will be eagerly jumping to sign his proposal. In general,
people agree that the mass slaughters that have occurred and continue
to occur around the world are wrong and should stop. Unfortunately,
there is not much that we can do. Ultimately, it is in the hands of
the government. We can protest all we want, boycott as much as we can,
but the decision is not ours. Traub writes, “So far, the United

Nations has done virtually nothing to put these fine principles into

action. Until it does, those few states that are committed to
preventing mass murder may have to act without international

approval.” Traub states this in regards to the principle known as the
“responsibility to protect” which was adopted by the United Nations.
This means that when states fail to act, the international community
must step in to protect the people. This is something that is yet to
happen. We cannot transform the world, or the people in it. This world
is governed by evil, and it will never get better.

Reference:

Traub, J. 2009, October 15. Patterns of genocide. New York Times
Sunday Book Review.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/18/books/review/Traub-t.html

Goldhagen, D 2009, October 10. Ending Our Age of Suffering. The New
Republic.
http://www.tnr.com/print/article/world/ending-our-age-suffering

Goldhagen, Daniel. Worse than War; Genocide, Eliminationism, and the
Ongoing Assault on Humanity. New York: Public Affairs 2009

[Sandra O]

Sandra Ortega
English 101 (Section #3226)
September 10, 2010

The belief that warfare and attacks on innocent civilians is the
biggest problem the world is facing today is controversial. In his
2009 novel, “Worse than War”, Daniel Jonah Goldhagen strongly believes
that “the problem of genocidal killing is worse than war. Until now,
the world’s peoples and governments have done little to prevent or
stop mass murdering” (Goldhagen, Preface). In other words, Goldhagen
rightly believes that war and the intentional attacks on civilians is
indeed the biggest problem the world has to deal with first. Since
this topic is controversial, there are many other readers that will
wrongly refute his beliefs. One of the readers, James Traub, published
his opinion in 2009 in an article named, “Patterns of Genocide.”
Readers can believe he is wrong because he believes that Goldhagen’s
solution of improving and reshaping the principle of the United
Nations is going to be a failure. He also disagrees with Goldhagen’s
belief that the national interest should be concentrated on preventing
mass murders and that there needs to be something done by the United
Nations General Assembly. Although some readers may think that Traub
has made some valid points, the world’s main focus should be to stop
and prevent mass murders.
In his review, Traub refutes Goldhagen’s ideas to a solution or
prevention of mass murder. Traub claims that “He [Goldhagen] would
dissolve the United Nations and establish in its place an organization
of democracies dedicated to staging interventions. He does not pause

to contemplate how very few takers such an organization would

have” (Traub). Traub is wrong because through education and awareness
of the moral problem of mass murders, followers of the principle can
be gained. Traub also claims that the United Nations General Assembly
has made advances and “adopted a principle…which stipulates that
states have an obligation to safeguard their peoples from mass
atrocities” (Traub). Traub is also wrong because as he further states,
the United Nations have done nothing to put the plan into action.
Traub then continues on to try and refute that the national interests
should not be solely concentrated on the “moral problem of our time.”
He believes that if this would be the case, then “public opinion will
not be rallied through and earnest accounting of national interest,
but through an appeal to conscience” (Traub). To some extent Traub
makes a reasonable point to write that public opinion may appeal to
the moral problem if they believe other issues need to be dealt with
as well. However, if attacks on civilians are stopped and prevented,
then the national interest can be directed to other important issues.
Although Traub has made valid points in his refute to Goldhagen’s
novel, there should be actions taken to stop and prevent mass murders.
There should be more information given to leaders and the public on
mass murders that have occurred in the past and are occurring today.
Though not everyone will agree with Goldhagen, the people who do may
help make a difference. With the public being aware of the death toll
resulting from these attacks, national interests can be directed
towards preventing future attacks. According to Thane Rosenbaum’s 2009
review on the novel “Worse than War,” she agrees with Goldhagen as she
states that “leaders must be made aware that genocide is no longer a
political option without consequences… that resorting to genocide will
not enhance their power but rather end it.” In other words, giving
leaders consequences if they decide to commit mass murders will
actually prevent violent attacks on innocent civilians.

Works Cited

Traub, J. 2009, October 15. Patterns of genocide. New York Times
Sunday Book Review.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/18/books/review/Traub-t.html

Goldhagen, Daniel. Worse than War; Genocide, Eliminationism, and the
Ongoing Assault on Humanity. New York: Public Affairs 2009

Rosenbaum, Thane. 2009, November 19. Worse than War. The Huffington
Post.

> Sunday Book Review.http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/18/books/review/Traub-t.html

>
> Goldhagen, D 2009, October 10. Ending Our Age of Suffering. The New

> Republic.http://www.tnr.com/print/article/world/ending-our-age-suffering

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[oc]

Fidelina Escobar
English 101
Instructor: Ed O'Connell
Section # 0459
Daniel Jonah Goldhagen said genocide is worst than war. It is
poorly understood and it is regularly decried, yet little is done to
prevent it and he goes to eliminate elimination.Golhagen said we can
prevent genocide and he mentioned that there are two ways that could
work. First changing the mindset of leaders and creating conditions
that make elimination utterly unworkable removes it from the toolkit
of political leaders, so that pursuing such politics does occur to
them. Even when their leaders and dominant groups are not undertaking
elimination assaults, precisely because they are always at least
implicitly threatened by the groups and people they are repressing,
they are at any moment nit that far away from ramping up their
repressive measure to eliminate levels of violence. 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 elimination politics so
costly that the leaders will not opt for it. We could teach them and
the world the opposite and if we do so, we could rapidly end or
greatly reduce the threat posted by elimination. In the other hand
there is Traub's article says is elimination violence really the
greatest threat of our daily life? Traub’s assumption that a
systematic analysis would instead help with acceptance is flawed
considering a better understanding of and atrocious act would actually
stir up more outrage and therefore a more active role in trying to
stop future acts from occurring. Traub says that to stop elimination
we have to abandon the logic of national interest and reshape the
global architecture around the goal of ending elimination.
In my opinion war is the answer of many factors we face in
this society. I believe that the economy and lack of education are our
biggest problem in the world. For example, the economy is one of the
biggest issues that we face as a consequence of war because leaders
and government are spending the money to support war leading the
country to a poor economy. Another issue is the lack of education
because we are not having enough funding to go to the schools and many
schools are closing down for periods of time. If we were to have
enough money to have them open there would be less genocide in the
world because many people would be in school learning or getting
acknowledgment instead of being in the streets causing problems.
Also, violence and attacks on civilians is an inevitable
component of life or human nature. War violence and attacks on
civilians are inevitable components of life and human nature and it
can be decreased. I believe this because it is in our human nature to
always fight for either power or to be greater than other or etc. I
think it can be decreased by maybe all of us putting a little bit of
our selves to try to change the way we are or think to try to be
better people. By doing so we can decrease the genocide and then maybe
then we'll be on our way to at least limiting warfare. But if we don't
try at all to fix any of it we will not be able to have peace in the
world.
Even though, the war has always existed for years it’s not
easy to think that the military can be controlled. In my opinion many
people can try to control the military but that won’t stop the
genocide from going on because we each have to put it in ourselves to
try to change. The military is mainly controlled by government and
they mainly just want power so they basically fight for it which means
it’s hard to reduce genocide when we have the government always
fighting for greater power. If the government can stop and think about
humans and not just about power we will reduce genocide. I believe
that government is helping cause the war and in it there are no
winners. There is only a high death toll on both sides and it's
generally the general public that gets the worst of it. War is
terrifying to those that have to fight in it as well as those that
have to live through it as far as the general population goes, and can
cause a high rate of trauma and, at times, even suicide. To try to fix
genocide we would also have to restart over rethink every aspect. We
would have to ask ourselves like Goldhagen says in his article of “how
everything began, how they are, and how or why they would end?”

[oc]

Patriciac
Sep 11, 10:18 pm
Saturday September 11, 2010
English 101
Professor: Ed O’conell
Antonia Beatriz Cerna
ELIMINATION BY DECISION
Many people wonder why the moral problems in our society today such as
mass murder, can even be allowed. No matter where the place may be,
genocide is still being practiced. With more time that passes the
number of victims gets higher. We have only so much power to provide
safety for the nation we call home. Goldhagen suggests that as long as
people don’t stop making others suffer, this will never end. This type
of violence is the result of different problems that we are not in
control of. “Eliminationism is initiated by one political leader or
small group of leaders, who at a specific moment make a discrete
decision to expel, kill, or otherwise eliminate the targeted people.”
That is true because the political leaders have the power to do
whatever they want like abuse, kill people, etc. “Political and social
conflicts among groups exist in all humans societies”. These political
and social conflicts exist in all countries because the politicians
don’t respect the rules, but they want the people do so. This leads
the civilians to build groups to confront this kind of problem and to
stop corruption in the government. “Genocide, Eliminationism, and the
Ongoing Assault on Humanity are worse than war.” I agree that it’s
worse than war because this phenomenon continues to happen all over
the world.

All this is are politicians with power to do whatever they want with
the people, the nation, and the money, they live with their own
interest to live life happy and they do not care about the other
people around them. All this includes abuse, corruption, massacre,
torture. Just like the war in El Salvador, there were lot civilians
dead when they had nothing to do with it. The war in El Salvador began
when the government abused its power in different forms and that’s why
the people fought against it. The saddest thing is that the victims
were the poor people because the people who were in the power filled
their pockets with money and left to another country. The politicians
who have power control every part of the country and the way it is
governed.

Eliminationism is worse than war because this continues to happen all
over the war especially in poor countries. Civilians from 3rd world
countries such as Indonesia, Cambodia, Bosnia and Rwanda are afraid to
confront corruption from the law and that’s why massacres, slavery,
and abuse is being seeing and allowed. In addition the Genocide is
another phenomenon worse than war. Also wars are wrong and bad because
in the war innocent people die, I am sure to say that because I lived
through the civil war in my country El Salvador, where I saw bodies
burnt bodies with out head, hanged bodies, or even all the body parts
spread on the floor.

[oc]

Shazeda Sharmin
English 101
Essay 1.1
*War*
A) War is one of the most tragic and terrible events a person can
experience. War produces irreversible effects on human psyche and
deprives a person of a chance to restore his/ her system of values.
Those who have gone through a war never return to normal life. Of
course, War is a problem, but in Goldhagen’s novel he also talked
about more importantly about Eliminations. Some government are
supporting war a lot but they are less caring about their population.
They should understand that war is one of the most tragic and terrible
events, and it can never bring happiness, but death. War produces
irreversible effects on human psyche and deprives a person of a chance
to restore his/her system of values.

B) The biggest problem in the world today is hatred but not war.
Hatred comes before war. Because of it we don’t feel bad to Kill each
other or lower them. Hate is the greatest problem, and stronger than
anything. It can do anything very easily. Politician hate each other
and that’s why they are making decision very fast, and easily to
destroy others. For example, no matter if I hate my neighbor I will
always talk bad about him and try to do something bad which will hurt
him a lot. We the human like more when we have a company while doing
bad things. We appreciate their company a lot. This can be use as an
example of eliminationism that Daniel Jonah Goldhagen wrote in “Worse
than War”: transformation, repression, expulsion, prevention of
reproduction, and extermination. This is why hatred is the start of
the problem that starts eliminationism. I believe that People or
government should me eliminate by themselves if they use their emotion
More than their logic, and do not think about people’s goods who they
work for. Any citizen should have right to tell the government to stop
any war that affect them and a government has to listen to them
because they work for us. In Goldhagen’s novel “Ending our age of
Suffering” he talked about war and he mentioned that what happen in
Rwandan genocide, and many death. We do not want to see the same
picture again.

B) I also believe that Daniel Jonah Goldhagen believes that
eliminationism needs to be stopped. As I mentioned before that the
most important problem is hatred . Politic are teaching to hate each
other and destroy. We are the only one who can take action against it
and return peace in the world like before. Murdering people cannot
bring peace and never did. Military attacks on civilians can be
controlled if the world work together to stop attacks on civilians.
Even though, war will never stop completely because we need war to
control some specific things in the country. On the other hand, all
war cannot bring happiness.
For example, there are many wars in India, Iraq, and Afghanistan that
didn’t bring any solution but destroy both of the countries, and
destroy American rich economy, and that country. It also killed many
innocent people. We do feel sorry but we are not doing much to stop
these wars because of one thing which is “hatred.” The United States
fought about civilian casualties, and then there would be no nothing
to see what the United States is doing from what the Taliban and Al
Qaeda are doing. American wanted to stop the Al- Qaeda terrorist
because they destroy twin tower, and killed almost three thousands
innocent people. Now, American went to kill many more innocent people
in Iraq and take their goods from their country. Their hatred is going
more far from they started the war with them.

[Antonio S]

Antonio Sanchez
English 101 Section #3226
September 11, 2010

There are many issues that need to be dealt with before
warfare and attack on civilians becomes an issue in need of grave
attention. Warfare although not morally correct, warfare is a part of
human nature. In the novel, “Worse than War” published in 2009 and
written by Daniel Jonah Goldhagen, the main problem going on the world
today is warfare and the use of violence on civilians. Goldhagen
states that “the problem of genocidal killing is worse than war.”
Readers can strongly disagree with this statement. There are many
other issues going on in the world that need more attention than
warfare. In disagreement to Goldhagen’s novel, James Traub published
his review in 2009 named “Patterns of Genocide.” In this article,
Traub disagrees with most of Goldhagen’s thoughts, opinions, and
suggestions about violent attacks on noncombatants during war. He
rightly believes that Goldhagen’s opinions of the United Nations and
his ideas of solving the world’s “biggest” problem with intense
moralism are wrong. Traub believes that although we should recognize
that murder is going on in the world today, it should not be our only
focus. Ignoring other issues going on in the world to stop
eliminationism will only make other issues worse.

In his novel, Goldhagen claims that the “United Nations is the most
glaring offender” of mass murders occurring in the world today, but
that is wrong because Traub states that the United Nations General
Assembly has actually set a principle that says “states have an
obligation to safeguard their peoples from mass atrocities, and that
the international community must step in when states fail to act.”
Something is being by the United Nations General Assembly about
stopping mass atrocities from occurring. Goldhagen also claims to
solve the problem of mass murders by saying that, “a new, more
accurate, more powerful, anti-eliminationist and pro-human discourse
about mass murder must develop.” Goldhagen is also wrong because, as
Traub states, this discourse will have very few leaders supporting it.
Traub supports his own claim by stating that “lumping together largely

peaceful groups like the Muslim Brotherhood with Al Qaeda, Goldhagen

turns political Islam into an elimination bogy.” Goldhagen also claims
that in order to solve the problem we must go “beyond descriptive and
analytical accuracy, we must adopt the language of moral
responsibility and a realistic, defensible notion of judgement based
on what actually moves people to kill.” Traub rightly argues against
this by stating that an “absolutist formulation” and “intense
moralism” will actually cause “public opinion [to] not be rallied
through an earnest accounting of national interest, but through an
appeal to conscience.”

Although Goldhagen and Traub make good arguments of their opinions
and suggestions, Traub makes valid points by using common sense and
being realistic. National interests should not be only based on what
is morally correct or incorrect. Although Goldhagen makes a right idea
of being more aware of the mass murders that have occurred in the past
and are still happening today, there are many other issues that
national interest needs to pay attention to as well. The correct way
to go about the whole situation would be to apply Goldhagen’s idea of
spreading awareness, while using Traub’s idea of concentration on
other issues as well by not basing them on what is morally correct or
incorrect.

Works Cited

Traub, J. 2009, October 15. Patterns of genocide. New York Times
Sunday Book Review.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/18/books/review/Traub-t.html

Goldhagen, Daniel. Worse than War; Genocide, Eliminationism, and the
Ongoing Assault on Humanity. New York: Public Affairs 2009

[Narine A.]

Akopyan Narine

English 101
Instructor: Ed O'Connell

essay 1.1


In his book Goldhagen rises several problems of mass murder, for
example what we call genocide or how it happens, but I am interesting
in other thing. Both Goldhagen and Troub try to understand motives of
people and causes why genocides, wars and other murders occur in
contemporary world, that is motives of big mass of people to do that
they do or did. The question can be even wider: why people kill other
people? I don't think they can ever achieve their goal because this
problem is as old as the World itself and many scientists,
philosophers, writers and religious figures searched for answers of
this question during human history and only few of them were so lucky
to slightly puzzle out this mystery. Goldhager thinks that wars and
genocides are result of back-alley politics' decisions to make more
money and power, as it were, to fish in troubled water. I don't want
to say he is wrong or something else, I just want to notice that it is
only half of the truth and I am going to explain it later. Other idea
that rancour just lie dormant in society (before politics power simply
wakes it up) and root of this hate is in misunderstanding other
nations. I also think that this is only half of truth. People often
don't understand each other but this is not a reason for killing.

Why I think that leaders power is not enough to trigger of war? Many
people think that leaders make a crowd, that is makes other people to
fulfil their fantasies. NO! Crowd as affects leader as a leader
influences crowd and it is hard to say which of them influences more.
They are interlocking like brain and body. Just put the leader away of
a crowd and new leader appears soon, may be worse than previous.
Displace the leader to another circumstances and who will listen and
follow him? A leader in our case merely expresses alter ego of public
and exploits weaknesses of people to control them. Untill people will
see the root of their problem in entire world not in theirself the
problem will exist. Misunderstanding is also not strong reason for
killing. Children sometimes don't understand their parents, parents
sometimes don't understand their children, we don't understand our
neighbours, politics, even ourselves. Is this the reason to eliminate
them physically? Of course not. It is needed something strong to
overcome psycological and sociological barrier - prohibition against
murder and other damnification his like - strong emotions or strong
logical justification which wash off film of civilisation and
education and release ancient instincts.

I would like to look for roots of war in biological past and social
present of humankind. I'm not scientist and didn't make wide resouses
of this problem. All I going to say is only my subjective opinion and
assumption of typical biology and zoopsycology enthusiast. Each
problem is complex. One reason explaining whole problem exists only in
mathematical models even then not always. And if many theories
explaining something occur it is tell-tale sign that they likely
describe different sides of one appearance. That is why I want to see
a system not isolated interpretation. I also prone to think that
agression to representatives of own genus is normal (although not good
in our case) biologically as Konrad Lorenz talks about it and only
humans try to liquidate this holdover because competition in animal
world is too high and those who are too kind may lose values to
survive. Of course in human sociaty food, water, territory and money
don't always play significant role in wishing to hate or remove
somebody (I mean other person), people have their own world veiw and
don't like than something or somebody destroys it. These reasons may
be as a gunpowder and if somebody who can play role of match appears
there is usually only one step to flame.

References:

1. Daniel Jonah Goldhagen "Ending Our Age of Suffering
A plan to stop genocide."
The New Republic October 10, 2009

2. James Troub "Patterns of Genocide". The New-York times. 5 Oct. 2009

3. Konrad Lorenz "On aggression."

4 Daniel Johan Goldhagen "Worse than war" (chapters I and II)

[Johanna M]

Johanna M.
Eng. 101
e/1/1

What is genocide? This specific term refers to violent
crimes committed against groups with the intent to destroy the
existence of the group. Daniel Jonah Goldhagen mentions that there is
a lot of killing going on and there hasn’t been anything to prevent it
yet it’s poorly understood. Whatever the problem is, there is always a
numerous amount of death. For example, the war that we have going on
with Iraq. Do they know exactly why they are fighting and killing
innocent people? What are they going to get from all those deaths
occurring? Is that going to help the problem or is it just going to
make it worse? What if there isn’t a solution or even a problem? Maybe
they are just invading their property just to invade and killing the
innocent ones or they just didn’t know who to blame so they went with
Iraq. Which is known, that they caused the disaster of 9 eleven. Why
do different genocides produce different results?

Genocide occurs when a leader or a small group of leaders
make a decision to embark upon off elimination of assault. James Traub
mentions that there isn’t any political preparation for any nation to
solve this problems and this is where he is mistaken. Traub claims,
“United Nations General Assembly adopted the principle known as the
responsibility to protect, which stipulates that states have an

obligation to safeguard their peoples from mass atrocities, and that

the international community must step in when states fail to act,” but
that’s wrong because the United states isn’t going to help any country
if they don’t get anything out of it. Moreover, are they really
helping the country by invading Iraq or they are just making the
problem even worst? How would the U.S let the community step in if
they don’t ask us for our opinion about what they plan to do; and if
they do plan to invade another country can they at least warn us so
in the future we are prepared to what’s going to happen?

Traub also claims, “The United Nations has done virtually
nothing to put these fine principles into action,” but that’s also
wrong because the U.S did everything they could to find Osama Bin
Laden. They wanted to capture him and kill him for all the atrocities
that he has caused not only in the U.S. but in other countries as
well. Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda were allies but once the 911
occurred they both blamed on another. Traub also claims, “Goldhagen
rarely identifies his intellectual adversaries,” but that’s wrong too
because why would Goldhagen mention his enemy? What if he doesn’t
have one. He is just informing us about what is going on and if we
should do something about it and how we should react with this type of
situation. Should the US get more involved or should they not? If they
were to get invovlved , will that bring us more problems or do we have
a solution to stop this mass murders from killing people?

Students opinion is always useful on the topic because once
they read the topic they will have a more logic sence on what they are
going to read. “ Ending Our Age of Suffering, A plan to stop
genocide,” this topic gives us an idea that in the future we plan to
end all this genocide going on. We can help to prevent this by not
making the same mistakes that other countries did and probably have a
more sense of logic on what genocide actually means. If we want this
in our country or not, we need to have a more discussion on what this
is about. Goldhagen as other people in this country as well, want this
war to end; but it’s not going to happen until someone is defeated.
What we can do is prevent another one from occurring. On the article
of “The New Republic” written by Daniel Jonah Goldhagen on October 10,
2009 he also mentioned a statement that Bill Clinton said. Bill
Clinton said, “Until these folks get tired of killing each other, bad
things will continue to happen.” In my opinion this is sort of true
because if they continue to kill one another, everyone is going to
face bad things in their life without solving their problems. If they
continue, each one of them will find different ways to destroys ones
lives. All this haterd and killing will continue until the nation puts
a stop to it and finds a solution that will fit both countries at war.
If Traub doesn’t know that eliminationism consist of the political and
moral problems, he should make more research on this data. This
country tries its best by not alerting their people on what’s going
on because they don’t want to make a big deal of an issue that can be
solved easily without having people terrified on what’s going to
happen. Goldhagen want to reduce all the killing of the innocent
families and other people as well. As I mentioned before, genocide
refers to violent crimes committed against groups with the intention
to destroy the existence of the group. This can be prevented in so may
ways. You can prevent this by being informed and when you are
informed try to contact the media to express your view about the
importance of public attention to the story and communicate with the
government so that they can help the civilians that might get affected
by the crisis. You can also engage with the community and let them
know what’s going on and if they have an idea of how this can be
prevented.

Goldhagen, Daniel. "Ending Our Age of Suffering." The New Republic.
10
Oct. 2009. Web. 3 Sept. 2010. http://www.tnr.com/print/article/world/ending-our-age-suffering

TRAUB, JAMES. "The New York Times Log In." The New York Times -
Breaking News, World News & Multimedia. 5 Oct. 2009. Web. 3 Sept.
2010. <http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/18/books/review/Traub-t.html?
_r=1>.

Pbs,April 14 http://www.pbs.org/wnet/worse-than-war/the-film/watch-worse-than-war/24/

[oc]

Johanna M
Sep 13, 2:20 am

Johanna M.

truebecause if they continue to kill one another, everyone is going to

face bad things in their life without solving their problems. If they
continue, each one of them will find different ways to destroys ones
lives. All this haterd and killing will continue until the nation puts
a stop to it and finds a solution that will fit both countries at war.
If Traub doesn’t know that eliminationism consist of the political and
moral problems, he should make more research on this data. This
country tries its best by not alerting their people on what’s going
on because they don’t want to make a big deal of an issue that can be
solved easily without having people terrified on what’s going to
happen. Goldhagen want to reduce all the killing of the innocent
families and other people as well. As I mentioned before, genocide
refers to violent crimes committed against groups with the intention
to destroy the existence of the group. This can be prevented in so may
ways. You can prevent this by being informed and when you are
informed try to contact the media to express your view about the
importance of public attention to the story and communicate with the
government so that they can help the civilians that might get affected
by the crisis. You can also engage with the community and let them
know what’s going on and if they have an idea of how this can be
prevented.

Goldhagen, Daniel. "Ending Our Age of Suffering." The New Republic.
10
Oct. 2009. Web. 3 Sept. 2010. http://www.tnr.com/print/article/world/ending-our-age-suffering

TRAUB, JAMES. "The New York Times Log In." The New York Times -
Breaking News, World News & Multimedia. 5 Oct. 2009. Web. 3 Sept.
2010. <http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/18/books/review/Traub-t.html?
_r=1>.

Pbs,April 14 http://www.pbs.org/wnet/worse-than-war/the-film/watch-worse-than-war/24/

[oc]

MarleneL
Sun, Sep 12 2010 10:23 pm

Marlene Lobos
English 101
(e1.1)

A Cancer That Humanity Come With It

After reading the article Ending Our Age O Suffering by Daniel
Jonah Goldhagen, published at The New York Times on October 10, 2010,
I could not title this essay with another name. In order to get a
better idea about what the book “Worse than War” was about, I needed
to get much information as possible. The article gives precise
information about what really means Eliminationism in the twenty first
century. He cites countries that have been victims of this cancer that
humanity comes with it. Political polices contemplates the concept of
genocide, but complete separation of elimination. And here is when
Goldhagen
exposes the lack of interest or very little care that democratic
nations pay to it. Genocide exposes the massive killing of
determinate group of people, but never with the intention of erase
that raze from earth of a determinate place or country. Goldhagen
opened a very painful, but really transcendental true about this
actual problem. He questioned what the developed countries had done to
prevent this “unnatural” behavior. It is ethical to countries who
claimed to be democratic allow this massacres continuing erasing
civilians, innocents women, kids from the earth without any punishment
and consequences?

I had the opportunity to relate to this topic, since I am from
Guatemala. Even thogh, I was not victim directly of those massacres, I
realize why my country is one of the most human rights violator in the
world. I remember one massacre that happened when I was little. There
was a manifestation in front of the government palace about an
irrational increment of sales taxes. I may say that were around 1,500
people, and all were civilians, local merchants. This happened during
Rios Mont dictatorship, the military let them protest for a few
moments, when suddenly the started the shooting against them without
any previous warning. I remember watched the people falling death
immediately, blood was everywhere. I was a around five or six years
old. But like Goldhagen explains on his book, this are events that
world knows and are aware of them. Once again the question mark is,
what are we doing to prevent massive killing happened again. I was
really impress with the interviews that Goldhagen made on his
documentary, specifically with one man that killed Tutsis in Rwanda,
he said that he did not see the human being on his victims. How can
we understand the cold killing of a pregnant woman, a baby, a kid
whose begging for his life, and not feel any compassion it all.
In one of the Goldhagen interviews, he asked a Germany soldier
what’s mean lunatic for him. His answer refers to mentally handicap
person. From that perspective, we may justify all the massive killing
in the world. But the scary part of this problematic is that the
leaders of those cruelty and massacre death were not mentally ill. And
what is most scary that their followers either were lunatics. Now the
most interesting part for me, is that as human beings, we cannot give
something that not have inside of us. Otherwise how can we explain the
huge amount of people believed and did what this killer leaders
proposed them to do. My only response to that is that is like cancer
inside of human being nature, that may be developed or not. Once this
poison is activated in our mind, naturally reduces our human feelings
to animal reactions. Well this is my point of view, but not pretending
to justified the fact about these horrible massacres. I know that the
author is aware of this problematic in society. But the real point in
his book beside that provided a history review is to look for a
realsolution and prevention of these horrendous activities. Well as
far as I understood he is proposing a creation of an institution rule
by democratic nations that prevent and punished this leaders and
countries of extermination of people. Is this problem part of the
United States international affair agenda? Apparently not. Since they
have delegated this issue to a UN, but they have fail and getting
something done about it. Like my country Guatemala, why the United
States never done something about it. I am pretty sure they knew what
was happening. Maybe they did not do nothing because was not a
principal interest to do it. For example, why the US government is so
worried about reconstruct Iraq? Their necessities are pretty much the
same as other countries that need international help. Guatemala was
one of them at that time, but the big difference is that we did not
have anything to offer in order to be (helped). In other words we
could not offer something really valuable to them, as Iraq has black
gold. I may sound radical on my opinion. Let’s review what had Rwanda
that could be interesting for the world? Probably nothing since it is
a third kind country and what can thing about Chile.

Second one, Goldhagen exposes that actual dictatorships are
potentially dangerous of exterminate people. We can see in this days
dictator like Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, Fidel Castro in Cuba, and how
about North Korea. Well is it true that US cannot force any policy
with internal conflicts of each country, because that will be a lack
of respect or their freedom. Also the author referrers create some
kind of international fines that provokes consequences in their
internal conflicts. In some way that these potencial killers hold
themselves of getting a massacre against innocent people, and set a
precedent to the entire world. Finally this problem is all around the
world, but we know very little about it, or simply we don’t care
because not affect of daily activities. If we hear about them, we may
feel sorry for them, but it’s completely different be part of it. We
are suffering the death of many soldiers in Iraq; we cannot even image
how those people were killed. Nobody with the power of doing something
did it. They were limited to give their condolences to their
survivors; we must learn from our past and prevent something similar
in the future.

[marie d]

Marie Djeni
English 101
Sect 3226
September 16, 2010


War is the result of two parties disagreeing, but mostly
from one party which try to enforce his/her power and want people to
succumb to their demands. Goldhagen, in his book (WORSE THAN WAR)
impel us to how the rule of anarchy causes destruction among the lives
of innocent civilians. Some of their method is implemented in the
forms of religion, culture, and race. These are method that goes far
beyond murder, war, genocide but, a kind of political strategy he
called: ELIMINATIONISM. Our world is facing numerous crises that
include: the climate change, rumors of war and moral character among
people their culture and faith, and economic crises. Goldhagen in the
preface of his book states” we can persist in our malign neglect that
consists of failing to face the problem...” I don’t totally agree with
him because more could be done to react to the war, but not to call it
neglect. Some countries have try to bring peace and stabilities to
conflicting nation, but I personally believed there are much that
could be done in order to prevent these crisis even before it
happened. The United Nation always waits for protest and reactions
from diverse nations in order to take action in war raging countries.
In contrast to Traub, who reacted to the (WORSE THAN WAR), I
personally think that people who were murdered didn’t affect him in
first person, he try to generalized the problem and doubt the urgency
asking himself “..How could we, ordinary folk who cherish life,
descend to such madness? “. Such a (powerful) leader like Hitler with
his stupid ideology, who people of his time and country admired and
were blinded by his thought; was normal in his mind(no scientist ever
found any abnormality in his brain), knew what he was doing, and what
he wanted, planned and calculated all those killing. When he knew he
had lost, he killed himself because of his strong ego.

Mass murder are caused today by some leader who wants power and
wealth more than what they already have and even ready to cause more
killing by any means to achieve their goals. Traub go on to argue ”
In 2005 the United Nation adopted the principle known as the
responsibility to protect which stipulates that states have an
obligation to safeguard their people from mass atrocities, and the
international community must step in when states fail to act.” does
the United Nation knows what is going on in Sud Sudan right now?
Definitely more than many of us! And he admit it himself “so far the
united states have done virtually nothing to put this fine principle
in action.” Meaning that with the atrocities still going on in Darfur
the U.N. is not doing anything, as if to say the people lives have no
values. And since 2005 how many war have been going on in the world?
( Ivory Coast and Congo) These countries in war get isolated from
foreign countries which even make the situation worse like what
happened in Rwanda. When people hear about war in TV they feel sorry,
change the channel and keep enjoying their meal.

Traub in most of his arguments was very wrong because, he try to
stay superficial to the problem and think that people killing
themselves in other parts of the world is not our problem. He believes
that the United Nations, the European Union, and the African Union
should always be the ones to address the issue. He is totally wrong
but if nothing is done and every year there are killing, raped and
coup d’état? What should we people of the world do? We should work
together harder, to stop it and react against all our organization
which are suppose to stop and prevent them! Such new organization as
the globalization what we thought was going to alleviate it, is making
things even worst; where rich country get richer and poor even
worst. We should take war as a stupid act where no one comes out
victorious. There are bigger issue that the world is facing nowadays,
perhaps taking action against genocides and wars is a must in sight
of just talking, analyzing it, compare them and have unlimited
political debate about them.
Work cited:

Daniel Goldhagen: novel WORSE THAN WAR

[Jimmy G]

Jimmy Garcia
English 101
Essay 1.1

Traub vs Goldhagen

In the preface of Goldhagens book Worse Than War he states “Hundreds
of millions of people are at risk of becoming the victims of genocide
and related violence.” He then goes on to list some of the world’s
poorer countries. Goldhagen believes that genocide is worse than war,
that it is our duty as a more powerful country to step in and take
action when events such as genocide occur and that we need to get rid
of the United Nations. I strongly disagree with him. I think there are
other things out there that are more harmful to us, in terms of the
world, then just genocide. With more education around the world,
especially in countries prone to genocide, I’m sure genocide will
subside.

Goldhagen’s whole book and point of view about genocide is that it is
worse than war. I have to say that, as much as it hurts me to think
that genocide includes innocent civilians getting killed, I don’t
believe it’s the worst thing. Millions of people are starving and
dying of un-curable diseases. Our planet is also suffering. We are
polluting it so much that if we continue war or anything else will no
longer be relevant. In Goldhagens documentary about his book, Worse
than War, he states that a solution for ending genocide and saving
millions of lives that we as a more powerful country should intervene
and if necessary use force. I don’t think he is properly thinking
things through. If we were to do that, that might cause even more
problems. Leaders of genocide could use us invading, using force as a
driving factor in starting war with our country. Lastly, Goldhagen
believes that we should get rid of The United Nations because they
aren’t doing a good job of preventing genocide. Getting rid of The
United Nations is a terrible idea. They do so much good for our world.
They help fight hunger, improve health and education and help protect
our environment.

Genocide is not the worse thing plaguing humanity today. Things far
worse then genocide affect millions of lives. My solution for
eliminating genocide is simple; educate. Educate the poorer countries
so that they know what else is out there in the world. Give them
choices. One who also agrees that genocide isn’t the worst thing is
James Traub. In his book review, “Patterns of genocide”, Traub also
states that genocide is not the worse thing we have to face in today’s
society. Countless other things are of greater importance and to say
one is more important then another is absolutely wrong.

Works Cited

Traub, J. 2009, October 15. Patterns of genocide. New York Times
Sunday Book Review.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/18/books/review/Traub-t.html

Goldhagen, Daniel. Worse than War; Genocide, Eliminationism, and the
Ongoing Assault on Humanity. New York: Public Affairs 2009

Goldhagen, Daniel. Worse than War. PBS Documentary.
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/worse-than-war/the-film/watch-worse-than-war/24/

http://www.un.org/geninfo/faq/briefingpapers/help.pdf

[Lucenda L]

E1.1

James Traubs’s book review on Goldhagen’s “Worse Than War” states
that Goldhagen’s theory on Eliminationism is “absolutist moralism”,
and that intense moralism carries risks of its own including
hyperbole. Traub’s review has a strong tone
which one could consider as hyperbole in its condemnation of the
theory of Eliminationism being one of the greatest problems of our
time. This is wrong because it ultimately condemns a raw awareness to
unspeakable atrocities that have been going on in countries for many
years and enlightens the public to the many forms of elminationism,
which helps to enlighten the reader and hopefully morally spur them
into action.


Traub states that we place the Holocaust outside of history and
that Goldhagen embeds the atrocity in the larger reoccurring theme of
genocidal killing. Traub gives the impression that the Holocaust
should be separate and this is wrong as Goldhagen points out while
discussing Hannah Arendt’s work, Adolf Eichmann didn’t do all the
killing himself each person is responsible for their own deeds, which
makes them culpable as well. This broadens the depth and scope of the
ideology. It wasn’t just a few with the Nazi belief it was thousands
of people who helped to carry out all five forms of eliminationsm, and
although the Holocaust was in fact genocide, it is actually part of
the larger phenomenon of eliminationism. Traub would have us believe
as he states that structural accounts lead to structural solutions:
new definitions of the national interest recognize the dangers of
permitting mass violence and that the knowledge leads to policy
changes designed to single out the perpetrators. As we have seen in
the media and by actual survivors of atrocities, i.e. Darfur, it has
not changed the outcome much. The killings continue seemingly
unchecked and hundreds, thousands continue to die. Traub questions
the necessity for analyzing and understanding eliminationism in
political, ideological and moral terms which is wrong and as Goldhagen
points out by understanding the political and ideological terms of a
group we will understand morally the underlying implications of the
groups agenda. Because society has advanced the underlying
implications of a groups agenda may not be plainly seen. For example
a simple drought or famine to a region may be seen as an act of
nature, but by looking at the leaders agenda in a Country we may see
that there is a solution that the leaders are purposely not utilizing
for their own selfish gain, thereby sacrificing hundreds, or possibly
thousands of innocent men, women and children.

I agree with Goldhagen’s view that eliminationism is one of the
biggest problems of
our time because man’s self centered greed and ongoing struggle for
power has always caused groups to commit unconscionable acts against
their perceived enemies. In “The Einstein-Freud Correspondence”,
Freud agreed with Einstein “men have an active instinct for hatred and
destruction, amenable to such stimulations (war fever) and that he was
in the process of studying its manifestations. Freud goes on to say
that man has a destructive instinct and that the stimulation of these
destructive impulses by appeals to idealism and the erotic instinct
naturally facilitate their release. This power struggle has caused
groups to go to any lengths to achieve their goals including using
parts or all of the five forms of eliminationism. In John Horgans
challenger of the urban myth of inevitable aggression, states that
environmental conditioning may be the cause of aggression as he
observed males grooming each other conforming to the changed norm of
the group because a TB outbreak caused the majority of the male
population to die. Thus, as Frans de Waal points out primates and
especially humans are “very calculating” and will abandon aggressive
strategies that no longer serve their interests. I believe this would
follow with humans and as Goldhagen points out humanity as a whole
must help in stopping these atrocities. If the United Nations and all
countries would unite in stopping these leaders and countries that
continue to use any form of eliminationism, I believe the practice
would stop. There are many ways to get these groups to cease their
activities. Stop world trade with them, humanitarian aid efforts, and
ongoing mass media attention to those suffering are just a few
solutions. I believe that Goldhagen has given the reader a great
deal to ponder by breaking down the forms of eliminationism. Again, I
didn’t really think of droughts or famines as a calculated act to
starve out a people or group, nor did I think of expulsion as
eliminationism, however, having read his definition and reviewing
history and recent events in other countries, I now see this as a
calculated effort of a few extremists forcing mass populations to move
out of the region or to force encampment of a people. I believe that
the probable favorite at this time would be repression, Goldhagen
gives the readers great examples such as Apartheid, the American
South, and how the ongoing threat of violence which exists today in
many countries against political groups, workers, ethnic groups,
religious groups and more. These are not elusive threats; these
examples are real events occurring in our world today. I believe that
Goldhagen has taken a centuries old problem and humanized it for the
modern man. After reading the initial readings, I am no longer
uninformed and will scrutinize world events closely looking for a sign
of eliminationism.


Freud, S. & Einstein, A. (1931-1932) Why War? The einstein-freud
correspondance
Goldhagen, D. J. (2009) Worse than war New York Public Affairs

New Republic. Retrieved from http://www.tnr.com/article/world/ending-our-age-suffering
Horgan, J. (2008, March 13). Has science found a way to end all wars?
Discover Magazine. Retrieved from http://discovermagazine.com/2008/apr/13-science-says-war-is-over-now

Traub, J. (2009, October 15). Patterns of genocide [Review of the
book

Worse than war]. The New York Times. Retrieved from
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/18/books/review/Traub-t.html
“Has Science Found a Way to End All Wars”, De Waal acknowledges that
we (humans) and all primates have a tendency to be hostile toward non
group members, however Biologist Robert Sapolsky a leading