Discussion on notes-on-preparing-e1-2
2 views
Skip to first unread message
gijung S
Sep 25, 2010, 10:57:33 PM9/25/10
to English 101, online section #3226
E1.2)
“It was the right call” was written in the Las Vegas Review Journal
editorial titled “Hiroshima bombing anniversary Truman made a tough
call – but the right one” dated August 6, 2005. The editorial argues
that more would have died because the blockade of food imports would
have continued and an invasion of mainland Japan would have been
necessary, because the Japanese were not willing to surrender. In
actuality, it was the wrong call. With the defeats in Iwo Jima and
Okinawa, the Japanese knew that the war was over because they had
spent all their resources on Iwo Jima and Okinawa. The Americans
needed to give the Japanese a way to bow out.
The editorial claims the “blockade of food import…” and the “…ongoing
firebombing” would have killed millions more Japanese. What is being
misunderstood is the importance of the defeats at Iwo Jima and
Okinawa. The Japanese realized that they were not superior. They
realized the enemy was just as courageous. They realized that their
advantages were not real advantages. The editorial also claims “Given
the level of fanatical resistance on Iwo Jima and Okinawa, planners
expected the deaths of hundreds of thousands more Americans and
Allies…”, but this is wrong because the reason for the fanatical
resistance is being misunderstood. The Japanese did not want their
enemy to land on the mainland of Japan. They fought hard because this
is where they wanted to stop the enemy advancement. Therefore, they
poured all their resources into these battles. Finally, the editorial
claims, “the Japanese had not surrendered despite repeated
ultimatums.” This is believable before the battles and maybe a few
days after the defeats in Iwo Jima and Okiniawa. After the Japanese
had some time to think, they may have been more open to surrender. It
is important to understand that Japanese found surrender to be
shameful. If surrender was not possible, something could have been
worked out where the Japanese could save face which is very important
in Japanese culture but really be surrender.
Daniel Jonah Goldhagen in “Worse than War”, asks a similar question
about whether or not the bombings at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were
necessary. Goldhagen even argues that President Truman committed
genocide by deciding to use the atomic bombs. Decisions should be
made with a lot of thought in mind. It is very important to take a
detailed look at every action to the point of making a decision, and
also equally important to look at the broader picture. The editorial
believes that the Japanese were fanatics that would never surrender,
and the defeats at Iwo Jima and Okinawa made no change in this
belief. Contrary to the editorial, Iwo Jima and Okinawa were not
battles that were going to continue to increase. The Japanese
viewed these battles as the last effort to stop the enemy from
invading the mainland. In addition, we need to take a step back and
realize the importance of the bombing of Pearl Harbor. The Japanese
sense of superiority was furthered by this win. At Iwo Jima and
Okinawa, the Japanese soldiers realized that the Americans were just
as strong soldiers. This broke an important Japanese myth. As a
result, the Japanese lost their sense of superiority in battle. They
would have been more likely to surrender given some time. Finally,
the Japanese culture needed to be understood. The Japanese soldier
was not trained to surrender. They were to kill themselves before
being captured by their enemies. Then, how is it possible to ask the
Japanese to surrender? What is important is to realize that the
Japanese needed a way out of the war. The Americans needed to give
them one to end it without having to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
“It was the right call” was written in the Las Vegas Review Journal
editorial titled “Hiroshima bombing anniversary Truman made a tough
call – but the right one” dated August 6, 2005. The editorial argues
that more would have died because the blockade of food imports would
have continued and an invasion of mainland Japan would have been
necessary, because the Japanese were not willing to surrender. In
actuality, it was the wrong call. With the defeats in Iwo Jima and
Okinawa, the Japanese knew that the war was over because they had
spent all their resources on Iwo Jima and Okinawa. The Americans
needed to give the Japanese a way to bow out.
The editorial claims the “blockade of food import…” and the “…ongoing
firebombing” would have killed millions more Japanese. What is being
misunderstood is the importance of the defeats at Iwo Jima and
Okinawa. The Japanese realized that they were not superior. They
realized the enemy was just as courageous. They realized that their
advantages were not real advantages. The editorial also claims “Given
the level of fanatical resistance on Iwo Jima and Okinawa, planners
expected the deaths of hundreds of thousands more Americans and
Allies…”, but this is wrong because the reason for the fanatical
resistance is being misunderstood. The Japanese did not want their
enemy to land on the mainland of Japan. They fought hard because this
is where they wanted to stop the enemy advancement. Therefore, they
poured all their resources into these battles. Finally, the editorial
claims, “the Japanese had not surrendered despite repeated
ultimatums.” This is believable before the battles and maybe a few
days after the defeats in Iwo Jima and Okiniawa. After the Japanese
had some time to think, they may have been more open to surrender. It
is important to understand that Japanese found surrender to be
shameful. If surrender was not possible, something could have been
worked out where the Japanese could save face which is very important
in Japanese culture but really be surrender.
Daniel Jonah Goldhagen in “Worse than War”, asks a similar question
about whether or not the bombings at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were
necessary. Goldhagen even argues that President Truman committed
genocide by deciding to use the atomic bombs. Decisions should be
made with a lot of thought in mind. It is very important to take a
detailed look at every action to the point of making a decision, and
also equally important to look at the broader picture. The editorial
believes that the Japanese were fanatics that would never surrender,
and the defeats at Iwo Jima and Okinawa made no change in this
belief. Contrary to the editorial, Iwo Jima and Okinawa were not
battles that were going to continue to increase. The Japanese
viewed these battles as the last effort to stop the enemy from
invading the mainland. In addition, we need to take a step back and
realize the importance of the bombing of Pearl Harbor. The Japanese
sense of superiority was furthered by this win. At Iwo Jima and
Okinawa, the Japanese soldiers realized that the Americans were just
as strong soldiers. This broke an important Japanese myth. As a
result, the Japanese lost their sense of superiority in battle. They
would have been more likely to surrender given some time. Finally,
the Japanese culture needed to be understood. The Japanese soldier
was not trained to surrender. They were to kill themselves before
being captured by their enemies. Then, how is it possible to ask the
Japanese to surrender? What is important is to realize that the
Japanese needed a way out of the war. The Americans needed to give
them one to end it without having to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Mark M
Sep 26, 2010, 12:56:37 AM9/26/10
to English 101, online section #3226
Mark M
e1.2
“The starting point for the understanding of war is the understanding
of human nature.” – S.L.A. Marshall, Men Against Fire
Chapter one of Goldhagen’s novel, “Worse Than War,” introduces former
President Harry Truman as a mass murderer and the Japanese as victims
of a crime against humanity. It is not until chapter two that
Goldhagen briefly touches on the atrocities the Japanese committed
against the world, namely against the Chinese. Goldhagen also
introduces his concept of Eliminationism: transformation, repression,
expulsion, prevention of reproduction, and extermination. Goldhagen’s
focus is primarily on the extermination aspect of the Eliminationism
umbrella. And understandably so, as his father is a holocaust
survivor, it is easy to see why he believes that Eliminationism is
worse than war and would take on such a quest to see that such
atrocities like Hitler’s “Final Solution” never happens again. It is
also plain to see why Goldhagen would consider Truman’s use of the
atomic bomb as an act of mass murder.
However, Goldhagen purposely fails to include the millions killed by
the Japanese during WW II. Failing to recognize that President
Truman’s utilization of the atomic bomb at Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a
legitimate course of action to end the brutal and ruthless killing by
the Japanese, not just against American service members, but against
Allied Forces as-well, is irresponsible as a scholar and “professional
intellectual.” The fact that China lost between 10 and 20 million of
her citizens and Japan lost approximately 2.5 million of her citizens
seems to be lost on the author and many other critics. I also find
myself wondering what specifically those quoted in his book were
opposed in regard to his use of the bomb. Eisenhower was opposed to
the timing of the dropping of the bomb, however, not the use of the
atomic bomb as a weapon. The same could be said for former Secretary
of War Stimson; the New York Times article date August 6, 1995 and
titled “Hiroshima, 50 Years Later,” the author claims Stimson viewed
the atomic bomb as a legitimate weapon in the post-WW II-U.S. v. USSR
saga.
In his book, Goldhagen quotes Truman’s Chief of Staff, Admiral Leahy,
“My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted
an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was
not taught to make wars in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by
destroying women and children.” I find it ironic that a Navy admiral,
whose career is based on the employment of the type of weapons that
are almost as indiscriminate in the havoc they wreak as the atomic
bomb, would state that wars could not be won by destroying women and
children. Does Admiral Leahy think a 2000 lb. shell is exacting in
whom it kills?
On page two of the Asahi Shimbun article, “65 years after Hiroshima,”
Takahashi states that he wants Obama to visit Hiroshima to see the
effects of the devastation that a nuclear bomb can cause and that such
a gesture would be a step forward toward non-proliferation. The
author of the article states the feeling must be shared by the 220,000
hibakusha (survivors) across Japan whose average age is 76. The
author, like Goldhagen, fails to mention the number of lives taken by
the Japanese. What would the survivors of Pearl Harbor, military or
civilian, say of what the Japanese did by attacking the U.S.? And
what of family members of the 10-20 million Chinese killed by the
Japanese during World War II. Non-victors generally like to portray
themselves as victims in an effort to gain sympathy and ease the agony
of defeat. I can understand where a Japanese survivor would feel like
the victim, but I cannot understand why Goldhagen would portray Japan
as the hapless victim.
Toward the end of chapter one the author asks, “What makes people
commit these atrocities?” And, “How one person in a given situation
can commit various atrocities while another person in a similar
situation does not.” Is it that people are inherently bad or evil?
Are the actions of the subordinates acting out of obedience or fear?
In his book, “On Killing,” LT. COL. Dave Grossman refers to the
experiment on obedience and aggression that was conducted at Yale
University by Stanley Milgram. The test subjects, described as mature
and poised, were able to inflict pain, through an electrical charge,
on complete strangers simply by being instructed to by a man in a lab
coat who appeared to be in a position of authority. Later in his book
Grossman discusses ‘group killing’ and explains that two main factors
contribute to the killing by people in groups: 1) a sense of
anonymity providing a de-facto diffusion of responsibility and 2)
accountability to ones comrades. However, I feel the latter to be
less the case in environments where members of the group are forced
into service and/or children are part of composition of the force,
like in various West African nations.
Freud believed that people were inherently bad. The author
asks the question of how one person in a given situation can commit
various atrocities while another person in a similar situation does
not. An argument can be made that people are inherently bad and as
they grow and mature they channel the negative thoughts into a
constructive nature. This theory is essentially what Freud was
talking about with the ‘Id’; the part of the sub-conscious that seeks
immediate gratification. An example in-line with the author’s theme
of killing; a child’s subconscious craves violence. As he matures,
the subconscious knows that violence and killing for killings sake are
illegal and the feelings are repressed in the subconscious. However
as he comes of age he enters the military as an infantryman. The
sole job of the infantry is to seek out and kill the “enemy.” The Id
(sub-conscious), guided by the Ego (conscious), is seeking
satisfaction in a way deemed appropriate, even honorable, in society.
However, what if the Id, in combination with external influences and
factors dominates the psyche of the person from childhood to
adulthood? If a child grows up in an environment of war and hate,
with little guidance, no guidance, or a misguided sense of right and
wrong, where it is kill or be killed, survival of the fittest, and
they’re the enemy?
The question of whether humans are inherently evil presents its-
self as if life were black and white and people are either good or
bad. Philip Zimbardo, PhD., infamous for his Stanford Prison study,
explains the fundamental attribution error as, “taking into account
ones personal traits without sufficiently considering the impact of
the situation,” (PBS, Discovering Psychology: The Power Of The
Situation with Philip Zimbardo, Ph.D.) It is imperative to take into
account the environment in which one is brought up.
These theories do not lend justification or absolve those who
commit mass murder, genocide, or other types of atrocities under
Goldhagen’s umbrella of eliminationism. However, they cannot be
discarded or discounted either. For the most part, atrocities of a
grand scale are generally committed by nations that are less developed
or are religiously fanatical in nature. It is imperative to
understand human drive and the separation of the leaders from the
followers, those forced into service and those who go willingly. They
cannot be judged under the same category that you would put Hitler,
Pinochet, Eichmann, or Milosevic.
In his documentary and in his New Republic article, Goldhagen
mentions the creation of a body or committee comprised of various
nations that would essentially police the world. Establishment of a
new international body? Dissolve the UN and replace one entity with
another of the same composition? What does Goldhagen truly expect
when the various nations have competing interest and some nations have
the same interest of ill intent. My questions are: specifically, what
nations would comprise this body? In China, Amnesty International
reports, “500,000 people are currently enduring punitive detention
without charge or trial.” Would the Chinese be extended a membership
invite and would they be subject to, or held to the binding
resolutions declared by this international body/ committee and/ or
allow for international military intervention? Iran’s opinion that
Israel should be, “wiped off the map,” or “ the regime in Jerusalem
should vanish from the pages of time.” Should this be considered a
threat where immediate military intervention, sanctions, or binding
resolutions are required?
It sounds like Goldhagen answered his own question as to whether
peace will ever be attainable. Wars have been fought for thousands of
years, as any anthropologist will tell you. But I do agree with
Goldhagen that the human species does maintain free agency. However,
Goldhagen should not discount mans overwhelming desire for self-
preservation.
e1.2
“The starting point for the understanding of war is the understanding
of human nature.” – S.L.A. Marshall, Men Against Fire
Chapter one of Goldhagen’s novel, “Worse Than War,” introduces former
President Harry Truman as a mass murderer and the Japanese as victims
of a crime against humanity. It is not until chapter two that
Goldhagen briefly touches on the atrocities the Japanese committed
against the world, namely against the Chinese. Goldhagen also
introduces his concept of Eliminationism: transformation, repression,
expulsion, prevention of reproduction, and extermination. Goldhagen’s
focus is primarily on the extermination aspect of the Eliminationism
umbrella. And understandably so, as his father is a holocaust
survivor, it is easy to see why he believes that Eliminationism is
worse than war and would take on such a quest to see that such
atrocities like Hitler’s “Final Solution” never happens again. It is
also plain to see why Goldhagen would consider Truman’s use of the
atomic bomb as an act of mass murder.
However, Goldhagen purposely fails to include the millions killed by
the Japanese during WW II. Failing to recognize that President
Truman’s utilization of the atomic bomb at Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a
legitimate course of action to end the brutal and ruthless killing by
the Japanese, not just against American service members, but against
Allied Forces as-well, is irresponsible as a scholar and “professional
intellectual.” The fact that China lost between 10 and 20 million of
her citizens and Japan lost approximately 2.5 million of her citizens
seems to be lost on the author and many other critics. I also find
myself wondering what specifically those quoted in his book were
opposed in regard to his use of the bomb. Eisenhower was opposed to
the timing of the dropping of the bomb, however, not the use of the
atomic bomb as a weapon. The same could be said for former Secretary
of War Stimson; the New York Times article date August 6, 1995 and
titled “Hiroshima, 50 Years Later,” the author claims Stimson viewed
the atomic bomb as a legitimate weapon in the post-WW II-U.S. v. USSR
saga.
In his book, Goldhagen quotes Truman’s Chief of Staff, Admiral Leahy,
“My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted
an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was
not taught to make wars in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by
destroying women and children.” I find it ironic that a Navy admiral,
whose career is based on the employment of the type of weapons that
are almost as indiscriminate in the havoc they wreak as the atomic
bomb, would state that wars could not be won by destroying women and
children. Does Admiral Leahy think a 2000 lb. shell is exacting in
whom it kills?
On page two of the Asahi Shimbun article, “65 years after Hiroshima,”
Takahashi states that he wants Obama to visit Hiroshima to see the
effects of the devastation that a nuclear bomb can cause and that such
a gesture would be a step forward toward non-proliferation. The
author of the article states the feeling must be shared by the 220,000
hibakusha (survivors) across Japan whose average age is 76. The
author, like Goldhagen, fails to mention the number of lives taken by
the Japanese. What would the survivors of Pearl Harbor, military or
civilian, say of what the Japanese did by attacking the U.S.? And
what of family members of the 10-20 million Chinese killed by the
Japanese during World War II. Non-victors generally like to portray
themselves as victims in an effort to gain sympathy and ease the agony
of defeat. I can understand where a Japanese survivor would feel like
the victim, but I cannot understand why Goldhagen would portray Japan
as the hapless victim.
Toward the end of chapter one the author asks, “What makes people
commit these atrocities?” And, “How one person in a given situation
can commit various atrocities while another person in a similar
situation does not.” Is it that people are inherently bad or evil?
Are the actions of the subordinates acting out of obedience or fear?
In his book, “On Killing,” LT. COL. Dave Grossman refers to the
experiment on obedience and aggression that was conducted at Yale
University by Stanley Milgram. The test subjects, described as mature
and poised, were able to inflict pain, through an electrical charge,
on complete strangers simply by being instructed to by a man in a lab
coat who appeared to be in a position of authority. Later in his book
Grossman discusses ‘group killing’ and explains that two main factors
contribute to the killing by people in groups: 1) a sense of
anonymity providing a de-facto diffusion of responsibility and 2)
accountability to ones comrades. However, I feel the latter to be
less the case in environments where members of the group are forced
into service and/or children are part of composition of the force,
like in various West African nations.
Freud believed that people were inherently bad. The author
asks the question of how one person in a given situation can commit
various atrocities while another person in a similar situation does
not. An argument can be made that people are inherently bad and as
they grow and mature they channel the negative thoughts into a
constructive nature. This theory is essentially what Freud was
talking about with the ‘Id’; the part of the sub-conscious that seeks
immediate gratification. An example in-line with the author’s theme
of killing; a child’s subconscious craves violence. As he matures,
the subconscious knows that violence and killing for killings sake are
illegal and the feelings are repressed in the subconscious. However
as he comes of age he enters the military as an infantryman. The
sole job of the infantry is to seek out and kill the “enemy.” The Id
(sub-conscious), guided by the Ego (conscious), is seeking
satisfaction in a way deemed appropriate, even honorable, in society.
However, what if the Id, in combination with external influences and
factors dominates the psyche of the person from childhood to
adulthood? If a child grows up in an environment of war and hate,
with little guidance, no guidance, or a misguided sense of right and
wrong, where it is kill or be killed, survival of the fittest, and
they’re the enemy?
The question of whether humans are inherently evil presents its-
self as if life were black and white and people are either good or
bad. Philip Zimbardo, PhD., infamous for his Stanford Prison study,
explains the fundamental attribution error as, “taking into account
ones personal traits without sufficiently considering the impact of
the situation,” (PBS, Discovering Psychology: The Power Of The
Situation with Philip Zimbardo, Ph.D.) It is imperative to take into
account the environment in which one is brought up.
These theories do not lend justification or absolve those who
commit mass murder, genocide, or other types of atrocities under
Goldhagen’s umbrella of eliminationism. However, they cannot be
discarded or discounted either. For the most part, atrocities of a
grand scale are generally committed by nations that are less developed
or are religiously fanatical in nature. It is imperative to
understand human drive and the separation of the leaders from the
followers, those forced into service and those who go willingly. They
cannot be judged under the same category that you would put Hitler,
Pinochet, Eichmann, or Milosevic.
In his documentary and in his New Republic article, Goldhagen
mentions the creation of a body or committee comprised of various
nations that would essentially police the world. Establishment of a
new international body? Dissolve the UN and replace one entity with
another of the same composition? What does Goldhagen truly expect
when the various nations have competing interest and some nations have
the same interest of ill intent. My questions are: specifically, what
nations would comprise this body? In China, Amnesty International
reports, “500,000 people are currently enduring punitive detention
without charge or trial.” Would the Chinese be extended a membership
invite and would they be subject to, or held to the binding
resolutions declared by this international body/ committee and/ or
allow for international military intervention? Iran’s opinion that
Israel should be, “wiped off the map,” or “ the regime in Jerusalem
should vanish from the pages of time.” Should this be considered a
threat where immediate military intervention, sanctions, or binding
resolutions are required?
It sounds like Goldhagen answered his own question as to whether
peace will ever be attainable. Wars have been fought for thousands of
years, as any anthropologist will tell you. But I do agree with
Goldhagen that the human species does maintain free agency. However,
Goldhagen should not discount mans overwhelming desire for self-
preservation.
Zita F
Sep 26, 2010, 2:59:54 AM9/26/10
to English 101, online section #3226
Zita Flores
September 25, 2010
Section 3226
Essay 1.2
Our world’s history is inundated with stories of hatred, violence,
and mass murders. We have read of many horrible acts that have been
committed for many different reasons. It is Goldhagen’s belief that
ordinary people are naturally violent species that make choices to
participate in heinous acts. He believes that these people use extreme
circumstances as an excuse to participate in vicious deeds such as
slaughtering innocent people. Additionally, he believes that even
under extreme circumstances, human beings are capable of doing
whatever they wish. If we are to compare the results of the atomic
bombs dropped in Japan, and that of the holocaust, we can agree that
both acts were wrong and evil; regardless of what the reasons were
behind it. Both events ended the lives of thousands of innocent
people. Both Truman and Hitler had a choice. They both chose to end
the lives of many civilians. In this case, I agree with Goldhagen in
that human beings are inherently violent species who make choices to
commit a wicked act just because they can.
In Worse than War, Goldhagen writes, “Truman knew that each would
kill tens of thousands of Japanese civilians who had no direct bearing
on any military operation, and who posed no immediate threat to
Americans.” To some extent, I can agree with the fact that Truman made
the decision to use the atomic bombs to end the war. But he also knew
that by using the atomic bombs, he would be able to gain the attention
of the entire world. In “Hiroshima: 50 Years later”, the author
states, “…Aug. 6, 1945. Most Americans rejoiced on learning that a
miraculous new weapon had been used against a fierce and fanatic
enemy.” Again we see how ordinary citizens are capable of accepting
violent acts as good because their leader said it was. It is wrong to
rejoice on an act that horrifically and cold-heartedly ended the lives
of many innocent civilians. If we look at the holocaust, we learn of
the many German citizens who gladly aided the Nazi’s. In an interview
with David Gergen, editor of “U.S. News and World”, Goldhagen says,
“And it's the voluntary--the volunteerism of the killing operations
which actually show that it wasn't that difficult to induce ordinary
Germans to kill Jews, to slaughter Jewish men, women, and children.”
He believes that ordinary German citizens willingly committed crimes
against the Jews, simply, because they knew they could. Those who
believed and agreed with Hitler chose to participate. Hitler, along
with the ordinary German citizens, used the war as an excuse to carry
out the annihilation's.
It is amazing what people will do when they know there will be no
consequences for their actions. It is true that many strict and
authoritative governments have the power to influence the actions of
many ordinary citizens. People by nature are violent; they all have
the tendency to participate in evil acts. There will always be
ordinary people who will be willing to go along with their ruler’s
beliefs and actions; people who, in the past, would have probably
believed that violent acts were wrong. Ordinary people do not have to
kill, they do not have to torture others, and they do not have to hate
a certain type of group just because their leader says they should.
People are given free will, and their will is to support and
participate in their government’s eliminationist acts. Goldhagen
writes, “Mass murder begins in the minds of men.” This is true; there
is always a selfish reason behind mass murder. Evil thoughts of
control and power seem to be the foundation for planning the
elimination of certain groups of people.
Works Cited:
Goldhagen, Daniel. Worse than War; Genocide, Eliminationism, and the
Ongoing Assault on Humanity. New York: Public Affairs 2009
Goldhagen, D., Gergen, D. U.S News and World Report; Essays and
Dialogues
Transcript: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/gergen/goldhagen.html
Hiroshima, 50 years later [editorial]. 1995, August 5. New York Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/1995/08/06/opinion/hiroshima-50-years-later.html?pagewanted=1
> ...
>
> read more »
September 25, 2010
Section 3226
Essay 1.2
Our world’s history is inundated with stories of hatred, violence,
and mass murders. We have read of many horrible acts that have been
committed for many different reasons. It is Goldhagen’s belief that
ordinary people are naturally violent species that make choices to
participate in heinous acts. He believes that these people use extreme
circumstances as an excuse to participate in vicious deeds such as
slaughtering innocent people. Additionally, he believes that even
under extreme circumstances, human beings are capable of doing
whatever they wish. If we are to compare the results of the atomic
bombs dropped in Japan, and that of the holocaust, we can agree that
both acts were wrong and evil; regardless of what the reasons were
behind it. Both events ended the lives of thousands of innocent
people. Both Truman and Hitler had a choice. They both chose to end
the lives of many civilians. In this case, I agree with Goldhagen in
that human beings are inherently violent species who make choices to
commit a wicked act just because they can.
In Worse than War, Goldhagen writes, “Truman knew that each would
kill tens of thousands of Japanese civilians who had no direct bearing
on any military operation, and who posed no immediate threat to
Americans.” To some extent, I can agree with the fact that Truman made
the decision to use the atomic bombs to end the war. But he also knew
that by using the atomic bombs, he would be able to gain the attention
of the entire world. In “Hiroshima: 50 Years later”, the author
states, “…Aug. 6, 1945. Most Americans rejoiced on learning that a
miraculous new weapon had been used against a fierce and fanatic
enemy.” Again we see how ordinary citizens are capable of accepting
violent acts as good because their leader said it was. It is wrong to
rejoice on an act that horrifically and cold-heartedly ended the lives
of many innocent civilians. If we look at the holocaust, we learn of
the many German citizens who gladly aided the Nazi’s. In an interview
with David Gergen, editor of “U.S. News and World”, Goldhagen says,
“And it's the voluntary--the volunteerism of the killing operations
which actually show that it wasn't that difficult to induce ordinary
Germans to kill Jews, to slaughter Jewish men, women, and children.”
He believes that ordinary German citizens willingly committed crimes
against the Jews, simply, because they knew they could. Those who
believed and agreed with Hitler chose to participate. Hitler, along
with the ordinary German citizens, used the war as an excuse to carry
out the annihilation's.
It is amazing what people will do when they know there will be no
consequences for their actions. It is true that many strict and
authoritative governments have the power to influence the actions of
many ordinary citizens. People by nature are violent; they all have
the tendency to participate in evil acts. There will always be
ordinary people who will be willing to go along with their ruler’s
beliefs and actions; people who, in the past, would have probably
believed that violent acts were wrong. Ordinary people do not have to
kill, they do not have to torture others, and they do not have to hate
a certain type of group just because their leader says they should.
People are given free will, and their will is to support and
participate in their government’s eliminationist acts. Goldhagen
writes, “Mass murder begins in the minds of men.” This is true; there
is always a selfish reason behind mass murder. Evil thoughts of
control and power seem to be the foundation for planning the
elimination of certain groups of people.
Works Cited:
Goldhagen, Daniel. Worse than War; Genocide, Eliminationism, and the
Ongoing Assault on Humanity. New York: Public Affairs 2009
Goldhagen, D., Gergen, D. U.S News and World Report; Essays and
Dialogues
Transcript: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/gergen/goldhagen.html
Hiroshima, 50 years later [editorial]. 1995, August 5. New York Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/1995/08/06/opinion/hiroshima-50-years-later.html?pagewanted=1
>
> read more »
Lucenda L
Sep 27, 2010, 2:00:44 AM9/27/10
to English 101, online section #3226
Lucenda L.
1.2
I believe that all humans have the capacity to be violent.
However, it doesn’t mean
that all human beings will commit overt violent acts. It is wrong to
believe that human genetics, and that all of humans interactions and
life experiences will lead humans to violent conflict and render peace
as being impractical. In Worse Than War Goldhagen discusses a key
ingredient that brings about mistrust, hatred, fear, then violence,
and that is preaching hate. It is a very important part of
transformation and recruitment. The perpetrators always preach about
the “enemy”, and the preconceived threats the enemy symbolizes. If
anything misfortunate happens, that could just be circumstances, it is
a great opportunity to seize upon and inflame more distrust against
the “enemy”. The enemy could be real or contrived in order to build
the distrust and hysteria needed to inflame the masses. The
perpetrators prey on the young to transform into soldiers dying for
the glory of the cause, or even greater glory dying for Allah, which
Goldhagen gave as an example. There is also the never-ending threat
of being labeled as being the enemy as well to keep those in line who
may have different views. In “Has Science Found A Way To End All
Wars?” by John Hogan, Frans de Waal a primatologist rejects the idea
that war stems from, “some sort of blind aggressive drive”. De Waal
further stated that primates and humans are very similar and would
abandon aggressive strategies that no longer serve their interests.
Biologist Robert Sapolsky witnessed normally aggressive baboons
grooming each other and less aggressive after an epidemic of
Tuberculosis killed the majority off the male baboon population. He
reported that conflict was reduced and that the phenomenon continued
as male adolescents joined the troop and adapted to their mores.
Goldhagen talks about the new threat, which he considers is Political
Islam, not to be confused with Islam. Goldhagen gives specific
examples of how Political Islam’s Agenda fits into the category of
Eliminationism. Political Islam rejects all non-Muslims and ties in
the Quran with all of its actions. It is a real threat. Although
there is much infighting the goal is essentially take back land they
believe is theirs and kill all infidels, specifically the West. The
Political Islam followers believe dying is glorifying Allah.
Human beings most certainly retain free will and responsibility
for their actions. However, in the case of extreme conditions or
circumstances it would be based on how far the person became
involved. I believe that your own deep morality will at some point
prevent you from crossing your own belief system. The best example
would be the fallen jet on 9/11 that the passengers took back which
averted the jet hitting the capital or other would be target. The
passengers knew they would be killed and took back the plane anyway
forcing it down in the ocean. Their actions were based on deep
conviction and moral values. There are documented cases of Stockholm
syndrome that could be loosely considered in this realm. I can see a
population being transformed into believers after a few random acts of
what they would consider kindness, i.e. water, food, etc. I am torn
and actually believe that unless you have some sort of extreme
coercion present, then you must be held accountable for your actions.
Golhagen believed that people should be held accountable for their
heinous actions. “In Worse Than War”, Goldberg stated that he that in
most cases the killing would take place in remote places without the
leaders being present, so it was the decision of the individual to
kill men, women, and children. Goldhagen further stated that it would
take someone very calculating and cold to look into a child’s eyes and
kill them.
I agree with Goldhagen that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagaski
should be evaluated without the patriotism. It deserves the same
scrutiny that other genocides and eliminationism events have
undergone. It was morally wrong. Why travel thousands of miles to
target civilians? There were many deaths months after and
deformations to offspring because of the radiation fallout. This was
not a shining part of our history. Many Americans were appalled
however they turned a blind eye so as not to be considered
unpatriotic, or communist. The fact that we as a leading civilized
country would target innocent women and children thousands of miles
away from any fighting is as bad as the Nazi campaign against the
Jews. No other country has used Nuclear Weapons ever since. We as a
world power have gone to great lengths to keep other countries from
developing nuclear weapons. I understand the caution with Political
Islam, however, I believe all countries should make their own choice.
Everyone knows that if a country fires nuclear missiles it is the end
for all. Every country with the technology has automatic missiles
that would be fired in retaliation. It would really be the end of
civilization. I don’t believe any country wants that.
Works Cited:
Goldhagen, Daniel. Worse than War; Genocide, Eliminationism, and the
Ongoing Assault on Humanity. New York: Public Affairs 2009
Goldhagen, D., Gergen, D. U.S News and World Report; Essays and
Dialogues
> Hiroshima, 50 years later [editorial]. 1995, August 5. New York Times.http://www.nytimes.com/1995/08/06/opinion/hiroshima-50-years-later.ht...
> ...
>
> read more »
1.2
I believe that all humans have the capacity to be violent.
However, it doesn’t mean
that all human beings will commit overt violent acts. It is wrong to
believe that human genetics, and that all of humans interactions and
life experiences will lead humans to violent conflict and render peace
as being impractical. In Worse Than War Goldhagen discusses a key
ingredient that brings about mistrust, hatred, fear, then violence,
and that is preaching hate. It is a very important part of
transformation and recruitment. The perpetrators always preach about
the “enemy”, and the preconceived threats the enemy symbolizes. If
anything misfortunate happens, that could just be circumstances, it is
a great opportunity to seize upon and inflame more distrust against
the “enemy”. The enemy could be real or contrived in order to build
the distrust and hysteria needed to inflame the masses. The
perpetrators prey on the young to transform into soldiers dying for
the glory of the cause, or even greater glory dying for Allah, which
Goldhagen gave as an example. There is also the never-ending threat
of being labeled as being the enemy as well to keep those in line who
may have different views. In “Has Science Found A Way To End All
Wars?” by John Hogan, Frans de Waal a primatologist rejects the idea
that war stems from, “some sort of blind aggressive drive”. De Waal
further stated that primates and humans are very similar and would
abandon aggressive strategies that no longer serve their interests.
Biologist Robert Sapolsky witnessed normally aggressive baboons
grooming each other and less aggressive after an epidemic of
Tuberculosis killed the majority off the male baboon population. He
reported that conflict was reduced and that the phenomenon continued
as male adolescents joined the troop and adapted to their mores.
Goldhagen talks about the new threat, which he considers is Political
Islam, not to be confused with Islam. Goldhagen gives specific
examples of how Political Islam’s Agenda fits into the category of
Eliminationism. Political Islam rejects all non-Muslims and ties in
the Quran with all of its actions. It is a real threat. Although
there is much infighting the goal is essentially take back land they
believe is theirs and kill all infidels, specifically the West. The
Political Islam followers believe dying is glorifying Allah.
Human beings most certainly retain free will and responsibility
for their actions. However, in the case of extreme conditions or
circumstances it would be based on how far the person became
involved. I believe that your own deep morality will at some point
prevent you from crossing your own belief system. The best example
would be the fallen jet on 9/11 that the passengers took back which
averted the jet hitting the capital or other would be target. The
passengers knew they would be killed and took back the plane anyway
forcing it down in the ocean. Their actions were based on deep
conviction and moral values. There are documented cases of Stockholm
syndrome that could be loosely considered in this realm. I can see a
population being transformed into believers after a few random acts of
what they would consider kindness, i.e. water, food, etc. I am torn
and actually believe that unless you have some sort of extreme
coercion present, then you must be held accountable for your actions.
Golhagen believed that people should be held accountable for their
heinous actions. “In Worse Than War”, Goldberg stated that he that in
most cases the killing would take place in remote places without the
leaders being present, so it was the decision of the individual to
kill men, women, and children. Goldhagen further stated that it would
take someone very calculating and cold to look into a child’s eyes and
kill them.
I agree with Goldhagen that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagaski
should be evaluated without the patriotism. It deserves the same
scrutiny that other genocides and eliminationism events have
undergone. It was morally wrong. Why travel thousands of miles to
target civilians? There were many deaths months after and
deformations to offspring because of the radiation fallout. This was
not a shining part of our history. Many Americans were appalled
however they turned a blind eye so as not to be considered
unpatriotic, or communist. The fact that we as a leading civilized
country would target innocent women and children thousands of miles
away from any fighting is as bad as the Nazi campaign against the
Jews. No other country has used Nuclear Weapons ever since. We as a
world power have gone to great lengths to keep other countries from
developing nuclear weapons. I understand the caution with Political
Islam, however, I believe all countries should make their own choice.
Everyone knows that if a country fires nuclear missiles it is the end
for all. Every country with the technology has automatic missiles
that would be fired in retaliation. It would really be the end of
civilization. I don’t believe any country wants that.
Works Cited:
Goldhagen, Daniel. Worse than War; Genocide, Eliminationism, and the
Ongoing Assault on Humanity. New York: Public Affairs 2009
Goldhagen, D., Gergen, D. U.S News and World Report; Essays and
Dialogues
Hiroshima, 50 years later [editorial]. 1995, August 5. New York
Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/1995/08/06/opinion/hiroshima-50-years-later.ht...
Times.
>
> read more »
Akhi Hamid
Oct 1, 2010, 10:52:27 PM10/1/10
to english-101-onl...@googlegroups.com
Dear Professor,
this is shazeda sharmin, I was wondering if you got my second essay and jorunla becasue i do not see it on the discussion board. :((
oc
Oct 7, 2010, 10:01:48 PM10/7/10
to English 101, online section #3226
Akhi Hamid
Sep 29, 8:09 am
Shazeda Sharmin
English 101
Essay 1.2
It is true that humans have the capacity to be violent;
even though, it does not mean that all human beings
will commit overt violent acts. It is wrong to
believe that human genetics, and that all of humans interactions and
life experiences will lead humans to violent conflict and render peace
as being impractical. In Worse Than War Goldhagen discusses a key
ingredient that brings about mistrust, hatred, fear, then violence,
and that is preaching hate. It is a very important part of the
transformation and recruitment. The perpetrators always preach about
the “enemy”, and the preconceived threats the enemy symbolizes. If
anything misfortunate happens, that could just be circumstances, it is
a great opportunity to seize upon and inflame more distrust against
the “enemy”. The enemy could be real or contrived in order to build
the distrust and hysteria needed to inflame the masses. The
perpetrators prey on the young to transform into soldiers dying for
the glory of the cause, or even greater glory dying for Allah, which
Goldhagen gave as an example. There is also the never-ending threat
of being labeled as being the enemy as well to keep those in line who
may have different views. In “Has Science Found A Way To End All
Wars?” John Hogan, Frans de Waal a primatologist rejects the idea
Sep 29, 8:09 am
Shazeda Sharmin
English 101
Essay 1.2
It is true that humans have the capacity to be violent;
even though, it does not mean that all human beings
will commit overt violent acts. It is wrong to
believe that human genetics, and that all of humans interactions and
life experiences will lead humans to violent conflict and render peace
as being impractical. In Worse Than War Goldhagen discusses a key
ingredient that brings about mistrust, hatred, fear, then violence,
transformation and recruitment. The perpetrators always preach about
the “enemy”, and the preconceived threats the enemy symbolizes. If
anything misfortunate happens, that could just be circumstances, it is
a great opportunity to seize upon and inflame more distrust against
the “enemy”. The enemy could be real or contrived in order to build
the distrust and hysteria needed to inflame the masses. The
perpetrators prey on the young to transform into soldiers dying for
the glory of the cause, or even greater glory dying for Allah, which
Goldhagen gave as an example. There is also the never-ending threat
of being labeled as being the enemy as well to keep those in line who
may have different views. In “Has Science Found A Way To End All
oc
Oct 7, 2010, 10:08:58 PM10/7/10
to English 101, online section #3226
Kareem A
Sep 26, 10:38 am
Kareem Ali
English 101
Essay 1.2
In the editorial from the Las Vegas Review-Journal the author states
“President Harry Truman could have continued the de facto submarine
blockade of food imports into the Japanese Islands, and the ongoing
firebombing of Japanese cities with B-29s, for months or years.
Millions more Japanese would have died.” I believe this is wrong I
think that if Truman had continued using blockades and continued
firebombing that it would have led to less deaths. I don’t think the
bombing would have continued much further because Hitler was soon to
be found and the war soon to end. However by dropping nuclear bombs
Truman ensured not just the immediate deaths of millions of Japanese
but also the ongoing deaths and deformations caused by nuclear
fallout.
The same author also states “The Japanese had not surrendered despite
repeated ultimatums. They had not surrendered despite losing many more
lives through "conventional" bombing than were lost at Hiroshima and
Nagasaki.” I don’t believe this is wrong so much as irrelevant. The
war was not dependent solely on the defeat of the Japanese army. It
was much more dependent on the defeat of the ideals of Hitler. Judging
by Hitler’s theory of supremacy through blood rights he would have
gladly put any non-Aryan through the same “cleansing” program he did
the Jews, so I think that sooner or later the very thin alliance that
the Axis powers held with Germany would have crumbled and Hitler would
have sought their destruction himself. I understand that the Japanese
were a credible threat but using nuclear weapons against them at the
time seems to me to be more an act of revenge than one of war.
The Las Vegas Review-Journal author also states “…today, because of
his decision, millions more Americans and Japanese -- including
children and grandchildren of soldiers and civilians who would have
died in the autumn war of 1945 -- are alive, and free.” This is
laughably illogical. If I understand this correct the author means to
say that because of a decision that killed millions of people, mostly
innocent and by causing a massive hysteria Truman saved lives? Not
only that but there’s also the issue that this was the only practical
use of nuclear energy at the time and I firmly believe that because of
Truman’s actions we have harmed our freedom by cutting out a very
useful and clean source of energy. I feel that the advancement of
nuclear energy has been slow and pathetic and thus it has not reach
the potential it would have if we had never used it as a destructive
force.
Johanna M
Sep 26, 7:11 pm
According to http://www.newstatesman.com/books/2010/02/genocide-goldhagen-mass
-
Genocide and other mass killings have many different reasons for
coming to fruition. There are many reasons why one can “justify”
genocide; it could be of religious obligation, leadership, location,
or nationalism, all are seen as controversial. Killing is killing, the
line between “good or bad” killing can easily be blurred by the
various reasons to why one or many would kill in the first place.
Author Daniel Goldhagen suggests that all mass murders are committed
because those whom commit the murder are simply evil. I disagree. I
believe that there are many more factors to why people would
“senselessly” kill so many individuals. In Goldhagens’ book, Worse
than War, he wonders how someone could so vehemently want to kill
another.
Goldhagen states, “ People make choices about how to act, even if
they do not choose the contexts in which they make them. People make
these choices according to their understanding of the social world and
their views of what is right and wrong”. People may possess the right
to make certain choices, but may deviate from what they truly believe
in order to perhaps save their own lives. Take for instance the mass
murders in Germany during Hitler’s rampage. There were individuals
that assisted or actually murder thousands of Jews out of pure
“hatred”. There were also individuals who might have committed the
same acts, but for different reasons; fear may have been one of them.
The fear that they might face the same fate had they not done what
they were told, no matter how wrong, cruel, or twisted it may have
been. When facing these odds, people resort to primal instincts, kill
or be killed. Saying that one is evil for committing these acts is
understandable, but attributing this kind of behavior toward all mass
killings is wrong. Leadership is another reason why one would do such
a thing. Strong nationalism or devotion toward a leader could drive
someone to become a puppet of sorts to carry out the wishes of their
commanding figure. President Truman may have been able to make the
Japanese surrender in another way. Who really knows what might have
happened if he hadn’t bombed Japan. The fact of the matter is, that
was what he felt would get the attention of the Japanese in order for
them to completely surrender.
Generalizing cases of genocide and other mass killings is not the
correct approach. Considering different possibilities as to why these
things happen would provide a broader scope as to why people do such
things. This understanding could help to remedy this so-called drive
to kill.
Lucenda L
Sep 26, 10:58 pm
Lucenda L.
1.2
I believe that all humans have the capacity to be violent.
However, it doesn’t mean
Sep 26, 10:38 am
Kareem Ali
English 101
Essay 1.2
In the editorial from the Las Vegas Review-Journal the author states
“President Harry Truman could have continued the de facto submarine
blockade of food imports into the Japanese Islands, and the ongoing
firebombing of Japanese cities with B-29s, for months or years.
Millions more Japanese would have died.” I believe this is wrong I
think that if Truman had continued using blockades and continued
firebombing that it would have led to less deaths. I don’t think the
bombing would have continued much further because Hitler was soon to
be found and the war soon to end. However by dropping nuclear bombs
Truman ensured not just the immediate deaths of millions of Japanese
but also the ongoing deaths and deformations caused by nuclear
fallout.
The same author also states “The Japanese had not surrendered despite
repeated ultimatums. They had not surrendered despite losing many more
lives through "conventional" bombing than were lost at Hiroshima and
Nagasaki.” I don’t believe this is wrong so much as irrelevant. The
war was not dependent solely on the defeat of the Japanese army. It
was much more dependent on the defeat of the ideals of Hitler. Judging
by Hitler’s theory of supremacy through blood rights he would have
gladly put any non-Aryan through the same “cleansing” program he did
the Jews, so I think that sooner or later the very thin alliance that
the Axis powers held with Germany would have crumbled and Hitler would
have sought their destruction himself. I understand that the Japanese
were a credible threat but using nuclear weapons against them at the
time seems to me to be more an act of revenge than one of war.
The Las Vegas Review-Journal author also states “…today, because of
his decision, millions more Americans and Japanese -- including
children and grandchildren of soldiers and civilians who would have
died in the autumn war of 1945 -- are alive, and free.” This is
laughably illogical. If I understand this correct the author means to
say that because of a decision that killed millions of people, mostly
innocent and by causing a massive hysteria Truman saved lives? Not
only that but there’s also the issue that this was the only practical
use of nuclear energy at the time and I firmly believe that because of
Truman’s actions we have harmed our freedom by cutting out a very
useful and clean source of energy. I feel that the advancement of
nuclear energy has been slow and pathetic and thus it has not reach
the potential it would have if we had never used it as a destructive
force.
Johanna M
Sep 26, 7:11 pm
According to http://www.newstatesman.com/books/2010/02/genocide-goldhagen-mass
-
Genocide and other mass killings have many different reasons for
coming to fruition. There are many reasons why one can “justify”
genocide; it could be of religious obligation, leadership, location,
or nationalism, all are seen as controversial. Killing is killing, the
line between “good or bad” killing can easily be blurred by the
various reasons to why one or many would kill in the first place.
Author Daniel Goldhagen suggests that all mass murders are committed
because those whom commit the murder are simply evil. I disagree. I
believe that there are many more factors to why people would
“senselessly” kill so many individuals. In Goldhagens’ book, Worse
than War, he wonders how someone could so vehemently want to kill
another.
Goldhagen states, “ People make choices about how to act, even if
they do not choose the contexts in which they make them. People make
these choices according to their understanding of the social world and
their views of what is right and wrong”. People may possess the right
to make certain choices, but may deviate from what they truly believe
in order to perhaps save their own lives. Take for instance the mass
murders in Germany during Hitler’s rampage. There were individuals
that assisted or actually murder thousands of Jews out of pure
“hatred”. There were also individuals who might have committed the
same acts, but for different reasons; fear may have been one of them.
The fear that they might face the same fate had they not done what
they were told, no matter how wrong, cruel, or twisted it may have
been. When facing these odds, people resort to primal instincts, kill
or be killed. Saying that one is evil for committing these acts is
understandable, but attributing this kind of behavior toward all mass
killings is wrong. Leadership is another reason why one would do such
a thing. Strong nationalism or devotion toward a leader could drive
someone to become a puppet of sorts to carry out the wishes of their
commanding figure. President Truman may have been able to make the
Japanese surrender in another way. Who really knows what might have
happened if he hadn’t bombed Japan. The fact of the matter is, that
was what he felt would get the attention of the Japanese in order for
them to completely surrender.
Generalizing cases of genocide and other mass killings is not the
correct approach. Considering different possibilities as to why these
things happen would provide a broader scope as to why people do such
things. This understanding could help to remedy this so-called drive
to kill.
Lucenda L
Sep 26, 10:58 pm
Lucenda L.
1.2
I believe that all humans have the capacity to be violent.
that all human beings will commit overt violent acts. It is wrong to
believe that human genetics, and that all of humans interactions and
life experiences will lead humans to violent conflict and render peace
as being impractical. In Worse Than War Goldhagen discusses a key
ingredient that brings about mistrust, hatred, fear, then violence,
and that is preaching hate. It is a very important part of
believe that human genetics, and that all of humans interactions and
life experiences will lead humans to violent conflict and render peace
as being impractical. In Worse Than War Goldhagen discusses a key
ingredient that brings about mistrust, hatred, fear, then violence,
and that is preaching hate. It is a very important part of
transformation and recruitment. The perpetrators always preach about
the “enemy”, and the preconceived threats the enemy symbolizes. If
anything misfortunate happens, that could just be circumstances, it is
a great opportunity to seize upon and inflame more distrust against
the “enemy”. The enemy could be real or contrived in order to build
the distrust and hysteria needed to inflame the masses. The
perpetrators prey on the young to transform into soldiers dying for
the glory of the cause, or even greater glory dying for Allah, which
Goldhagen gave as an example. There is also the never-ending threat
of being labeled as being the enemy as well to keep those in line who
may have different views. In “Has Science Found A Way To End All
Wars?” by John Hogan, Frans de Waal a primatologist rejects the idea
the “enemy”, and the preconceived threats the enemy symbolizes. If
anything misfortunate happens, that could just be circumstances, it is
a great opportunity to seize upon and inflame more distrust against
the “enemy”. The enemy could be real or contrived in order to build
the distrust and hysteria needed to inflame the masses. The
perpetrators prey on the young to transform into soldiers dying for
the glory of the cause, or even greater glory dying for Allah, which
Goldhagen gave as an example. There is also the never-ending threat
of being labeled as being the enemy as well to keep those in line who
may have different views. In “Has Science Found A Way To End All
civilization. I don’t believe any country wants that.
Works Cited:
Goldhagen, Daniel. Worse than War; Genocide, Eliminationism, and the
Ongoing Assault on Humanity. New York: Public Affairs 2009
Goldhagen, Daniel. Worse than War; Genocide, Eliminationism, and the
Ongoing Assault on Humanity. New York: Public Affairs 2009
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages