Discussion on weeks-3--4-research-and-journal
1 view
Skip to first unread message
oc
Sep 22, 2010, 9:01:38 PM9/22/10
to English 101, online section #3226
Mark M
Sep 21, 10:35 pm
To Consider: Goldhagen’s family background:
• Father is a holocaust survivor
• Has a personal interest
All numbers are approximate and taken from various on-line sites:
Wikipedia, navy.history.mil
I. To Refute/ Comment Against: Goldhagens claim of the number of
Japanese lives lost in Japan due to the bombings of Hiroshima and
Nagasaki:
a. Goldhagen claims that between 210,000 – 300,000 Japanese men,
women, and children were killed. Chapter 1, pgs. 3 & 5, Worse Than
War, Goldhagen, 2009
b. The Yasukuni Shrine in Japan lists a total of 2,325,128
military
deaths from 1937–1945. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#endnote_Japan
c. China government claims over 20 million men, women, and
children
alone, lost their lives in the Sino-Japanese War from 1939-1945. With
nearly 4 million deaths due to Japanese war crimes. (http://
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties)
d. New Zealand: 12,000
e. Australia: 39,000
f. United States: 100,000
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 that are or were opposed to the dropping of
the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki are actually opposed to.
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; in the New York Times
article dated August 6, 1995 and titled “Hiroshima, 50 Years Later,”
the author claims Stimson viewed the atomic bomb as a legitimate
weapon in the post-World War II-U.S. v. USSR saga. 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?
Comment Against: 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, fail 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 the 10-20 million Chinese killed by
the Japanese during World War II. Losers 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.
II. Psychological Argument: REQUIRES FURTHER ELABORATION
• Freud’s theory that people are inherently bad: Author asks
questions
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 energies or thoughts into a constructive
nature. This theory is essentially what Freud was talking about with
the ‘Id’. An example would be an adolescent child has subconscious
desires of wanting to be around and touch children in a manner that
society deems inappropriate. As he or she grows and matures those
subconscious thoughts are channeled in a constructive way that the
child grows up and becomes a doctor-specifically a pediatrician. The
Id is balanced by the Ego. Another example more in-line with the
author’s theme of killing; a child’s subconscious craves violence. As
he matures, the subconscious knows that killing for killings sake is
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
subconscious, guided by the Ego, is seeking satisfaction in a way
deemed appropriate, even honorable, in society. However, what if the
Id, in combination with external influences dominates the psyche of
the person from childhood to adulthood? If a child grows up with
little or no guidance, no sense of right or wrong (which could be
argued is subjective), and in an environment of kill or be killed,
survival of the fittest, and they’re the enemy?
• The author asks a good question towards the end of chapter one,
“What makes people commit these atrocities?” Psychologists the world
over have developed theories of human nature. Renowned psychologist
and scholar, Alfred Adler, best known for his theory on the
‘superiority/ inferiority complexes,’ wrote a book titled, “
Understanding Human Nature.” FURTHER ELABORATION REQUIRED
• These theories do not lend justification as to why people commit
mass murder, genocide, or manslaughter on a grand scale, but they
cannot be discarded or discounted either.
III. Opinion
• Establishment of a new international body? Dissolve the UN and
replace one entity with another:
• Change the name, but the players are the same. What change can
be
expected when the various nations have a competing interest?
• 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?
• Hindsight 20/20/ Monday Morning Quarterback Truman’s decision
• TO BE CONTINUED
Sep 21, 10:35 pm
To Consider: Goldhagen’s family background:
• Father is a holocaust survivor
• Has a personal interest
All numbers are approximate and taken from various on-line sites:
Wikipedia, navy.history.mil
I. To Refute/ Comment Against: Goldhagens claim of the number of
Japanese lives lost in Japan due to the bombings of Hiroshima and
Nagasaki:
a. Goldhagen claims that between 210,000 – 300,000 Japanese men,
women, and children were killed. Chapter 1, pgs. 3 & 5, Worse Than
War, Goldhagen, 2009
b. The Yasukuni Shrine in Japan lists a total of 2,325,128
military
deaths from 1937–1945. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#endnote_Japan
c. China government claims over 20 million men, women, and
children
alone, lost their lives in the Sino-Japanese War from 1939-1945. With
nearly 4 million deaths due to Japanese war crimes. (http://
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties)
d. New Zealand: 12,000
e. Australia: 39,000
f. United States: 100,000
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 that are or were opposed to the dropping of
the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki are actually opposed to.
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; in the New York Times
article dated August 6, 1995 and titled “Hiroshima, 50 Years Later,”
the author claims Stimson viewed the atomic bomb as a legitimate
weapon in the post-World War II-U.S. v. USSR saga. 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?
Comment Against: 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, fail 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 the 10-20 million Chinese killed by
the Japanese during World War II. Losers 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.
II. Psychological Argument: REQUIRES FURTHER ELABORATION
• Freud’s theory that people are inherently bad: Author asks
questions
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 energies or thoughts into a constructive
nature. This theory is essentially what Freud was talking about with
the ‘Id’. An example would be an adolescent child has subconscious
desires of wanting to be around and touch children in a manner that
society deems inappropriate. As he or she grows and matures those
subconscious thoughts are channeled in a constructive way that the
child grows up and becomes a doctor-specifically a pediatrician. The
Id is balanced by the Ego. Another example more in-line with the
author’s theme of killing; a child’s subconscious craves violence. As
he matures, the subconscious knows that killing for killings sake is
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
subconscious, guided by the Ego, is seeking satisfaction in a way
deemed appropriate, even honorable, in society. However, what if the
Id, in combination with external influences dominates the psyche of
the person from childhood to adulthood? If a child grows up with
little or no guidance, no sense of right or wrong (which could be
argued is subjective), and in an environment of kill or be killed,
survival of the fittest, and they’re the enemy?
• The author asks a good question towards the end of chapter one,
“What makes people commit these atrocities?” Psychologists the world
over have developed theories of human nature. Renowned psychologist
and scholar, Alfred Adler, best known for his theory on the
‘superiority/ inferiority complexes,’ wrote a book titled, “
Understanding Human Nature.” FURTHER ELABORATION REQUIRED
• These theories do not lend justification as to why people commit
mass murder, genocide, or manslaughter on a grand scale, but they
cannot be discarded or discounted either.
III. Opinion
• Establishment of a new international body? Dissolve the UN and
replace one entity with another:
• Change the name, but the players are the same. What change can
be
expected when the various nations have a competing interest?
• 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?
• Hindsight 20/20/ Monday Morning Quarterback Truman’s decision
• TO BE CONTINUED
Zita F
Sep 24, 2010, 2:46:15 AM9/24/10
to English 101, online section #3226
Gray, J. 2010, February 04. Worse than War: Genocide, Eliminationism
and the Ongoing Assault on Humanity. Apocalyptic theories about the
massacres of the past century obscure the root causes of conflict. New
Statesman, book review
Retrieved from http://www.newstatesman.com/books/2010/02/genocide-goldhagen-mass
a) One point I like about the website is the idea that we cannot lump
all the acts of mass killings into the same category. It is important
to analyze the argument behind the perpetrator’s decision, and we
should not assume that his or her actions were just evil. At first, I
believed that all mass killings were a result of pure evil. But after
research and further reading of Worse than War, I have come to the
conclusion that we simply cannot believe that every single mass
killing in history was carried out for the same reasons. Hitler and
Truman were two very different people. Hitler, without a doubt, was a
manipulative and evil man. He was able to convince many Germans that
the Jews were a threat to their society. The horrific murders occurred
within their own country, neighboring countries, and by their own
people. Truman’s reason behind the dropping of the atomic bombs over
Japan was to end the war. In Truman’s case, it was unfortunate that so
many innocent people had to die, but he had to take drastic measures
to accomplish what he believed was the only solution to end the war.
b) One point I don’t like about Goldhagen’s ideas from the website and
also in his book is the idea to replace the UN with "the United
Democratic Nations". Since I now believe and agree with the website
that there are different reasons behind mass killings; we cannot
establish a program that will punish all. By once again using the
example of Hitler and Truman, I can say that Hitler should have been
punished because his reasons were definitely evil and unjust. Truman
truly believed that the bombs would put an end to the war. I can
understand Goldhagen’s reason to want to create “the United Democratic
Nations’ because it is a horrible thing to have to live in a world
where brutal murders of many innocent people have taken place. But if
all mass killings were a result of pure evil, we would have an even
larger number of deaths.
c) I would like to learn more about Goldhagen’s intent to establish
the United Democratic Nations. I want to know and understand how he
plans to get leaders and countries to sign-on. Perhaps I do not have a
full understanding of his idea. How and when does Goldhagen plan to go
forward with his plan to create this new democratic nation? I would
also like to know what steps, if any, has Goldhagen taken to begin to
establish his plan. It would be interesting to find out if there are
any leaders that agree with him and are willing to be part of “the
United Democratic Nations”.
On Sep 22, 6:01 pm, oc <eng101l...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Mark M
> Sep 21, 10:35 pm
>
> To Consider: Goldhagen’s family background:
> • Father is a holocaust survivor
> • Has a personal interest
>
> All numbers are approximate and taken from various on-line sites:
> Wikipedia, navy.history.mil
>
> I. To Refute/ Comment Against: Goldhagens claim of the number of
> Japanese lives lost in Japan due to the bombings of Hiroshima and
> Nagasaki:
> a. Goldhagen claims that between 210,000 – 300,000 Japanese men,
> women, and children were killed. Chapter 1, pgs. 3 & 5, Worse Than
> War, Goldhagen, 2009
>
> b. The Yasukuni Shrine in Japan lists a total of 2,325,128
> military
> deaths from 1937–1945.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#endnote_Japan
and the Ongoing Assault on Humanity. Apocalyptic theories about the
massacres of the past century obscure the root causes of conflict. New
Statesman, book review
Retrieved from http://www.newstatesman.com/books/2010/02/genocide-goldhagen-mass
a) One point I like about the website is the idea that we cannot lump
all the acts of mass killings into the same category. It is important
to analyze the argument behind the perpetrator’s decision, and we
should not assume that his or her actions were just evil. At first, I
believed that all mass killings were a result of pure evil. But after
research and further reading of Worse than War, I have come to the
conclusion that we simply cannot believe that every single mass
killing in history was carried out for the same reasons. Hitler and
Truman were two very different people. Hitler, without a doubt, was a
manipulative and evil man. He was able to convince many Germans that
the Jews were a threat to their society. The horrific murders occurred
within their own country, neighboring countries, and by their own
people. Truman’s reason behind the dropping of the atomic bombs over
Japan was to end the war. In Truman’s case, it was unfortunate that so
many innocent people had to die, but he had to take drastic measures
to accomplish what he believed was the only solution to end the war.
b) One point I don’t like about Goldhagen’s ideas from the website and
also in his book is the idea to replace the UN with "the United
Democratic Nations". Since I now believe and agree with the website
that there are different reasons behind mass killings; we cannot
establish a program that will punish all. By once again using the
example of Hitler and Truman, I can say that Hitler should have been
punished because his reasons were definitely evil and unjust. Truman
truly believed that the bombs would put an end to the war. I can
understand Goldhagen’s reason to want to create “the United Democratic
Nations’ because it is a horrible thing to have to live in a world
where brutal murders of many innocent people have taken place. But if
all mass killings were a result of pure evil, we would have an even
larger number of deaths.
c) I would like to learn more about Goldhagen’s intent to establish
the United Democratic Nations. I want to know and understand how he
plans to get leaders and countries to sign-on. Perhaps I do not have a
full understanding of his idea. How and when does Goldhagen plan to go
forward with his plan to create this new democratic nation? I would
also like to know what steps, if any, has Goldhagen taken to begin to
establish his plan. It would be interesting to find out if there are
any leaders that agree with him and are willing to be part of “the
United Democratic Nations”.
On Sep 22, 6:01 pm, oc <eng101l...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Mark M
> Sep 21, 10:35 pm
>
> To Consider: Goldhagen’s family background:
> • Father is a holocaust survivor
> • Has a personal interest
>
> All numbers are approximate and taken from various on-line sites:
> Wikipedia, navy.history.mil
>
> I. To Refute/ Comment Against: Goldhagens claim of the number of
> Japanese lives lost in Japan due to the bombings of Hiroshima and
> Nagasaki:
> a. Goldhagen claims that between 210,000 – 300,000 Japanese men,
> women, and children were killed. Chapter 1, pgs. 3 & 5, Worse Than
> War, Goldhagen, 2009
>
> b. The Yasukuni Shrine in Japan lists a total of 2,325,128
> military
Anita T
Sep 24, 2010, 6:35:59 PM9/24/10
to English 101, online section #3226
Anita Tokatyan
9/24/2010
eng. 101
Weeks 3-4 journal/research
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/feb/06/worse-than-war-daniel-goldhagen
a) One point you like about the website or Goldhagen’s ideas, by
your
analysis of the website:
One point the article makes when discussing Goldhagen’s work is the
suggestion that people were “persuaded to butcher their neighbors”
because of politics. I agree with this point because I do think that
politics has an enormous influence on the actions military forces or
average people take. It’s a constant climb to the top for politicians
and sometimes that means that killing innocent people because of their
race, beliefs, etc., is necessary to eliminate any threats or
competition.
b) One point you don't like about the website or Goldhagen’s ideas,
by
your analysis of the website:
One point I didn’t agree with in the article was Goldhagen’s notion
that if one person decided not to kill then the murders would have
been stopped. Goldhagen suggests that it is easy to make the choice to
kill someone or not, yet, he fails to recognize the many strings that
are attached to a decision like that. If it were not a mass army
killing a harmless group of people, than yes, it may be easier to
decide against killing. However, considering the size of these
murderers and the opinion of the majority voicing these crimes, it is
easy said than done to go against a group so intimidating. Not
everyone has the type of courage that Goldhagen says they should have.
c) One point about the book or Goldhagen’s ideas that you don't
understand from the website and would like to check in the book or
research for more information on the topic:
What I didn’t understand from the article is all of the classification
Goldhagen wrote about. He prefers the use of “eliminationism” to
genocide, and tries to classify them into different categories,
stressing how different the two acts are. Then, he claims that the
solution to stop both crimes is the same, if not similar. How can you
have two different problems with the same solution? Would it really
matter which term you use to describe these murderous acts if the
solution is all the same, if not intertwined? I would like to
understand Goldhagen’s reasons for distinguishing the two and then
weave the two concepts together.
9/24/2010
eng. 101
Weeks 3-4 journal/research
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/feb/06/worse-than-war-daniel-goldhagen
a) One point you like about the website or Goldhagen’s ideas, by
your
analysis of the website:
One point the article makes when discussing Goldhagen’s work is the
suggestion that people were “persuaded to butcher their neighbors”
because of politics. I agree with this point because I do think that
politics has an enormous influence on the actions military forces or
average people take. It’s a constant climb to the top for politicians
and sometimes that means that killing innocent people because of their
race, beliefs, etc., is necessary to eliminate any threats or
competition.
b) One point you don't like about the website or Goldhagen’s ideas,
by
your analysis of the website:
One point I didn’t agree with in the article was Goldhagen’s notion
that if one person decided not to kill then the murders would have
been stopped. Goldhagen suggests that it is easy to make the choice to
kill someone or not, yet, he fails to recognize the many strings that
are attached to a decision like that. If it were not a mass army
killing a harmless group of people, than yes, it may be easier to
decide against killing. However, considering the size of these
murderers and the opinion of the majority voicing these crimes, it is
easy said than done to go against a group so intimidating. Not
everyone has the type of courage that Goldhagen says they should have.
c) One point about the book or Goldhagen’s ideas that you don't
understand from the website and would like to check in the book or
research for more information on the topic:
What I didn’t understand from the article is all of the classification
Goldhagen wrote about. He prefers the use of “eliminationism” to
genocide, and tries to classify them into different categories,
stressing how different the two acts are. Then, he claims that the
solution to stop both crimes is the same, if not similar. How can you
have two different problems with the same solution? Would it really
matter which term you use to describe these murderous acts if the
solution is all the same, if not intertwined? I would like to
understand Goldhagen’s reasons for distinguishing the two and then
weave the two concepts together.
Dave B
Sep 25, 2010, 7:20:52 PM9/25/10
to English 101, online section #3226
Rosenblatt, G. (2010, April 13). Preventing genocide is easier than
stopping it. The Jewish Week. Retrieved from
http://www.thejewishweek.com/editorial_opinion/gary_rosenblatt/preventing_genocide_easier_stopping_it
a) One idea from Goldhagen that strikes me as especially important is
that we must prevent genocide and eliminationism as opposed to
intervening once it has begun. Stopping the wheels of genocide from
turning is exponentially more difficult once they’ve started. The
physical law of inertia states that a body in motion will stay in
motion. If we as a country or world can intervene before the killing
camps have been built, millions of lives can be saved.
b) The whole thought of a person or nation-state wanting to eliminate
an entire culture, race or religion disgusts me. It pains me to think
of the many times throughout history where one group of people have
decided to murder another. Wholesale killing of civilians is the
worst crime we as a society can commit. War in general is a terrible
thing, and will hopefully be unnecessary one day, but targeting a
group for elimination and then following through is even worse.
c) I would like to learn more about Madeline Albright’s response to
the Rwandan killings in 1994. I am interested to learn what she knew
then and to contrast that with her statement that we didn’t know the
killings were happening. All too frequently we are told one thing
when the truth ends up being the opposite. Goldhagen believe she
lied. I tend to think his research is exhaustive, and he is probably
right. This is something I will be researching further.
stopping it. The Jewish Week. Retrieved from
http://www.thejewishweek.com/editorial_opinion/gary_rosenblatt/preventing_genocide_easier_stopping_it
a) One idea from Goldhagen that strikes me as especially important is
that we must prevent genocide and eliminationism as opposed to
intervening once it has begun. Stopping the wheels of genocide from
turning is exponentially more difficult once they’ve started. The
physical law of inertia states that a body in motion will stay in
motion. If we as a country or world can intervene before the killing
camps have been built, millions of lives can be saved.
b) The whole thought of a person or nation-state wanting to eliminate
an entire culture, race or religion disgusts me. It pains me to think
of the many times throughout history where one group of people have
decided to murder another. Wholesale killing of civilians is the
worst crime we as a society can commit. War in general is a terrible
thing, and will hopefully be unnecessary one day, but targeting a
group for elimination and then following through is even worse.
c) I would like to learn more about Madeline Albright’s response to
the Rwandan killings in 1994. I am interested to learn what she knew
then and to contrast that with her statement that we didn’t know the
killings were happening. All too frequently we are told one thing
when the truth ends up being the opposite. Goldhagen believe she
lied. I tend to think his research is exhaustive, and he is probably
right. This is something I will be researching further.
marie d
Sep 25, 2010, 9:08:52 PM9/25/10
to English 101, online section #3226
Essay 1.2
Marie Djeni
English 101
Section 3226
September 25, 2010
Research and Journal week 3-4
a) One thing I agree with Susie Linfield, is when she said “but
Goldhagen repeat it and other insights so many times that the reader
feels bludgeoned...” I too feel sometimes bored reading because of too
many repetitions. She makes a good point when she tries to
differentiate between war and genocide which is true, a war doesn’t
have to be ethnic cleansing or genocide while Goldhagen include both
together and mention them as murder, ELIMINATIONISM.
b) I don’t like when she says regard to victims of atrocities that she
would not” recommend” this book. She wants the reader to believe how
wrong is Goldhagen thinking. After all, they (U.N., NATO…) have done
to prevent and stop wars; nobody should come out with this kind of
ideology. One point she arguing is how good they have been in reacting
to the war, and they couldn’t do better. She even considered
Goldhaden “… like a doctor who thinks it doesn’t much matter whether
you have cancer or AIDS” but she does not give any better idea ,if
it is not just to criticize all Godhagen saying and how wrong and
inaccurate all his thesis are. On the Contrary to what she said, I
will recommend this book to anybody, mostly to victim because he does
understand the problem.
c) One point I don’t understand is that with all we know about war and
genocide
Why are them still going on? With all extensive study, research and
analysis that have been done about them, with all the stories, the
victims we have seen and heard how come is still going on? It seems
like people really don’t want peace in the world or at least not to
their neighbor. It is almost if they wanted them to happen for some
kind of reasons, with new weapons from Iran, the U.S, Russia and North
Korea tested or invented. With violence on TV and in video games which
is bad for our brain. Do people really hope in a world with no war?
Work cited:
D.J. Goldhagen “WORSE THAN WAR”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/1/12/31/AR2009123101247_2.html
Marie Djeni
English 101
Section 3226
September 25, 2010
Research and Journal week 3-4
a) One thing I agree with Susie Linfield, is when she said “but
Goldhagen repeat it and other insights so many times that the reader
feels bludgeoned...” I too feel sometimes bored reading because of too
many repetitions. She makes a good point when she tries to
differentiate between war and genocide which is true, a war doesn’t
have to be ethnic cleansing or genocide while Goldhagen include both
together and mention them as murder, ELIMINATIONISM.
b) I don’t like when she says regard to victims of atrocities that she
would not” recommend” this book. She wants the reader to believe how
wrong is Goldhagen thinking. After all, they (U.N., NATO…) have done
to prevent and stop wars; nobody should come out with this kind of
ideology. One point she arguing is how good they have been in reacting
to the war, and they couldn’t do better. She even considered
Goldhaden “… like a doctor who thinks it doesn’t much matter whether
you have cancer or AIDS” but she does not give any better idea ,if
it is not just to criticize all Godhagen saying and how wrong and
inaccurate all his thesis are. On the Contrary to what she said, I
will recommend this book to anybody, mostly to victim because he does
understand the problem.
c) One point I don’t understand is that with all we know about war and
genocide
Why are them still going on? With all extensive study, research and
analysis that have been done about them, with all the stories, the
victims we have seen and heard how come is still going on? It seems
like people really don’t want peace in the world or at least not to
their neighbor. It is almost if they wanted them to happen for some
kind of reasons, with new weapons from Iran, the U.S, Russia and North
Korea tested or invented. With violence on TV and in video games which
is bad for our brain. Do people really hope in a world with no war?
Work cited:
D.J. Goldhagen “WORSE THAN WAR”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/1/12/31/AR2009123101247_2.html
Dave B
Sep 25, 2010, 10:34:06 PM9/25/10
to English 101, online section #3226
For the most part I agree with your points about the difficulty of
disbanding the UN and creating a new organization of Democratic
nation. Difficult as it would be, it seems to me as the right thing
to do. One thing you wrote did strike me as odd, and somewhat
shocking:
On Sep 23, 11:46 pm, Zita F <mzblu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> if all mass killings were a result of pure evil, we would have an even
> larger number of deaths.
mass killings in general are pretty evil, bordering on it's purest
form. I don't understand what you mean when you say it would result in
more deaths if all these mass killings were pure evil. Do you mean if
the mass murderers were more evil they would kill more?
Brooke Griffin
Sep 25, 2010, 10:52:18 PM9/25/10
to English 101, online section #3226
i cant find the original post you are replying to here dave but i
think that they meant that if mass murders were caused just from a
person having an evil instinct, then there would be so many more.
genocides usually don't result from a simply "evil" person but from a
desire that they have to have more power or money or pressures from
other sources. it all stems not simply from a desire to merely kill
for the hell of it but to gain something from killing people. however
i don't really think there is such a thing as "pure evil" unless it is
the devil himself stomping around the earth. i think that very sick
twisted minds and greed are often mistaken to be "evil" but i agree
with you that if there is such a thing as pure evil, mass murders are
the closest thing to it. but it still comes from a desire to gain
something ...you know?
think that they meant that if mass murders were caused just from a
person having an evil instinct, then there would be so many more.
genocides usually don't result from a simply "evil" person but from a
desire that they have to have more power or money or pressures from
other sources. it all stems not simply from a desire to merely kill
for the hell of it but to gain something from killing people. however
i don't really think there is such a thing as "pure evil" unless it is
the devil himself stomping around the earth. i think that very sick
twisted minds and greed are often mistaken to be "evil" but i agree
with you that if there is such a thing as pure evil, mass murders are
the closest thing to it. but it still comes from a desire to gain
something ...you know?
Lucenda L
Sep 26, 2010, 7:35:06 PM9/26/10
to English 101, online section #3226
Brinkbaumer, K. & Doerry, M. (2009 October 9) “Mass slaughter is a
systemic problem of the modern world” Spiegel Online International
Retrieved September 26, 2010 from http://www/spiegal.de /international/
germany/
A) Spiegel Online International is a daily online news source
originating out of Germany. I chose to review this site because I
wanted to see if they would slant the interview or if they would
attack Goldhagen for his views. One point that I liked about the
Spiegel website is that it is a legitimate Online Daily International
News source.
I liked the fact that it was an extensive interview that was
completed in 4 parts. The Journalists that interviewed Goldhagen were
objective and asked legitimate questions. They even questioned
Goldhagen on what they thought was a contradiction. In one of his
earlier works Goldhagen referred to the Holocaust as the worst case of
genocide but in Worse Than War he sites Eliminationism as the worse
case of mass slaughtering. Goldhagen explains that Eliminationism is
a broader scale of genocide with five specific categories, which are
repression, expulsion, forced transformation, prevention of
reproduction, and in its extreme form exterminations. Goldhagen goes
on to explain that taking all forms of Eliminationism and all the
atrocities of the 21st century would qualify eliminationism as the
most horrific. I liked that Goldhagen continued give rational
objective answers to all questions and agreed when he thought the
interviewers comments and viewpoints were relevant.
B) The only thing I didn’t like about the site was that it was a lot
of reading. Each part of the four parts had four pages, which I
believe was a bit much for a news article or review. I also didn’t
like that although the Interviewers were for the most part objective
they seem to take offense to Goldhagen’s use of the phrase “the
Germans” instead of saying for example “the German perpetrators”. The
Journalists felt that it gave the impression of including all German
as perpetrators. Goldhagen explained that he used the same phrasing
towards the Americans in Viet Nam, which the Journalists were quick to
point out the difference being that in Viet Nam it was mainly American
Soldier’s there to fight, not people in general. Golhagen points out
that people generalize all the time, which, I thought was a weak
justification for Goldhagen. I believe his use of the German’s may
have been personalizing the whole experience for him being Jewish or
relating through his father’s experience as a Holocaust survivor.
C) Goldhagen’s Worse Than War and the site Spiegel Online speaks
about the U.N. and the International community having specific
guidelines in classifying an atrocity as being Genocide and if the
groups actions didn’t fit the criteria they would overlook the
atrocity. I will research this information to find out what the
guidelines are and if in fact, they would continue to turn a blind
eye. Also I would like to know how many times this has happened and
what was actually discussed in the United Nations.
systemic problem of the modern world” Spiegel Online International
Retrieved September 26, 2010 from http://www/spiegal.de /international/
germany/
A) Spiegel Online International is a daily online news source
originating out of Germany. I chose to review this site because I
wanted to see if they would slant the interview or if they would
attack Goldhagen for his views. One point that I liked about the
Spiegel website is that it is a legitimate Online Daily International
News source.
I liked the fact that it was an extensive interview that was
completed in 4 parts. The Journalists that interviewed Goldhagen were
objective and asked legitimate questions. They even questioned
Goldhagen on what they thought was a contradiction. In one of his
earlier works Goldhagen referred to the Holocaust as the worst case of
genocide but in Worse Than War he sites Eliminationism as the worse
case of mass slaughtering. Goldhagen explains that Eliminationism is
a broader scale of genocide with five specific categories, which are
repression, expulsion, forced transformation, prevention of
reproduction, and in its extreme form exterminations. Goldhagen goes
on to explain that taking all forms of Eliminationism and all the
atrocities of the 21st century would qualify eliminationism as the
most horrific. I liked that Goldhagen continued give rational
objective answers to all questions and agreed when he thought the
interviewers comments and viewpoints were relevant.
B) The only thing I didn’t like about the site was that it was a lot
of reading. Each part of the four parts had four pages, which I
believe was a bit much for a news article or review. I also didn’t
like that although the Interviewers were for the most part objective
they seem to take offense to Goldhagen’s use of the phrase “the
Germans” instead of saying for example “the German perpetrators”. The
Journalists felt that it gave the impression of including all German
as perpetrators. Goldhagen explained that he used the same phrasing
towards the Americans in Viet Nam, which the Journalists were quick to
point out the difference being that in Viet Nam it was mainly American
Soldier’s there to fight, not people in general. Golhagen points out
that people generalize all the time, which, I thought was a weak
justification for Goldhagen. I believe his use of the German’s may
have been personalizing the whole experience for him being Jewish or
relating through his father’s experience as a Holocaust survivor.
C) Goldhagen’s Worse Than War and the site Spiegel Online speaks
about the U.N. and the International community having specific
guidelines in classifying an atrocity as being Genocide and if the
groups actions didn’t fit the criteria they would overlook the
atrocity. I will research this information to find out what the
guidelines are and if in fact, they would continue to turn a blind
eye. Also I would like to know how many times this has happened and
what was actually discussed in the United Nations.
> Mark M
> Sep 21, 10:35 pm
>
> To Consider: Goldhagen’s family background:
> • Father is a holocaust survivor
> • Has a personal interest
>
> All numbers are approximate and taken from various on-line sites:
> Wikipedia, navy.history.mil
>
> I. To Refute/ Comment Against: Goldhagens claim of the number of
> Japanese lives lost in Japan due to the bombings of Hiroshima and
> Nagasaki:
> a. Goldhagen claims that between 210,000 – 300,000 Japanese men,
> women, and children were killed. Chapter 1, pgs. 3 & 5, Worse Than
> War, Goldhagen, 2009
>
> b. The Yasukuni Shrine in Japan lists a total of 2,325,128
> military
> deaths from 1937–1945.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#endnote_Japan
> Sep 21, 10:35 pm
>
> To Consider: Goldhagen’s family background:
> • Father is a holocaust survivor
> • Has a personal interest
>
> All numbers are approximate and taken from various on-line sites:
> Wikipedia, navy.history.mil
>
> I. To Refute/ Comment Against: Goldhagens claim of the number of
> Japanese lives lost in Japan due to the bombings of Hiroshima and
> Nagasaki:
> a. Goldhagen claims that between 210,000 – 300,000 Japanese men,
> women, and children were killed. Chapter 1, pgs. 3 & 5, Worse Than
> War, Goldhagen, 2009
>
> b. The Yasukuni Shrine in Japan lists a total of 2,325,128
> military
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages