All my work this semester
24 views
Skip to first unread message
Diana K
May 25, 2010, 1:56:52 AM5/25/10
to English 101, spring 2010 online sections #0143 and #3226
For some reason a lot of my work was missing in the groups discussion,
Thanks God I saved everything!
Here is my work through the semester:
Journals:
Discussion on week-1-research-and-journal
Week (1) Research & Journal
English 101, Spring 2010 online, Section #0143
Student: Diana K
3a) Is war, specifically the increase of intentional attacks on
civilians, the greatest problem in the world today?
3.
3a. Yes. The increase of intentional attacks on civilians is the
greatest problem in the world today, and we need to get involved,
because if we won't stop the attacks today, they will hit us back in
the future. As we have witnessed during the entire twentieth
century,
many governments learned that through fear and terror, they gain
power. “Thanks” to modernization, and human curiosity, new weapon
technology is available for everyone. Education is another cause for
the increase of intentional attacks on civilians. Governments in
countries where genocide is a “way of life” encourage violence
through
education in the reason of earning more followers and supporters.
Powerful governments like the United States should get involved in
order to stop the genocide from it's origins in favor of it's own
civilians.
3b) Are war, violence and attacks on civilians inevitable
components
of life and human nature?
3b. No. War violence and attacks on civilians are not
components of human nature, since they are not done in the purpose of
protection and survival. They are the result of human mind and not
human biological instinct. Unfortunately, with the beginning of
society; money, religion and political power became the main reason
for wars between humans. According to a Discover article, “Has
science found a way to end all wars?” humans tend to be aggressive
in
their nature. Therefore, the solution to end wars in the world is in
everyone of us.
3c) If military attacks on civilians can be controlled, should
the
people of the world work to stop them?
3c. Yes. According to Goldhagen, “We should do away with
the United Nations and replace it with a powerful international
institution carrying out many of its current duties and functions but
not suffering its disqualifying deformities.” We can choose leaders
who will be politically involved in preventing mass murder. Those
politicians will operate together and will make new set of rules.
They will assemble one force whose purpose will be to hunt and punish
eliminationist political and military leaders. This kind of
organization will have the power and ability to succeed and save
human
lives. Moreover, it will prevent the formation of hostile groups in
the future.
(Reply to someone)
“Well, I think that the economic crises is because people don't
appreciate the resources they have been given. What do you prefer -
to be poor or dead? I don't have an answer for that question.
I'll
think about it...
What do you think? I can find at least 50 things that USA could
save
money on... and make more jobs with this money for the poor. Let's
start with electricity, gas and other resources that America spend
without thinking. The problem is also in the priorities.
Unfortunately, instead of investing money on education the U.S spend
more money on war for fuel in Iraq. Who do you think dies there for
the money that the American government makes? - American young
soldiers. Sad, but true.
Anyway, the economy is important, and human life in Africa is not
less
important in my opinion. When ever there will be a government (in
any country) that will care about life more than money, such
government will make sure that economy will be good as well. Today,
the opposite is true.”
Discussion on weeks-2--4-research-and-journal
Diana K
February 25, 2010
English 101
Section 0143
Professor O'Connell
Goldhagen's First Chapter
In order to understand Goldhagens views and theories, it is
necessary
to learn about his motives and background. In a little research
about
him, I learned that his enthusiasm about mass murder, probably comes
from his family. Goldhagen was born in America in 1959. He
graduated
from Harvard University where his father was a professor.
Goldhagen's
father, Erich Goldhagen survived the Holocaust and inspired his son
to
investigate the subject deeply. He had a great impact on his son's
curiosity about the Holocaust. In the first chapter of his book,
Worse Than War, Goldhagen is trying to clarify to his readers the
word
eliminationism, and gives an outstanding example of two different and
yet so similar history's most shocking mass murder acts. One example
is Hitler's crimes during World War II, with emphasize on the Jewish
Holocaust. The other example is Truman's Atomic attack on Nagasaki
and Hiroshima.
In both events, the victims were innocent people. Yet, while
the
Holocaust was defined by the world as Hitler's crimes against
humanity, and was recognized as horrible, unnecessary mass murder,
Truman's acts were defined only as “necessary” military measures.
Goldhagen argues that both cases should be evaluated as mass murder.
His main point in the first chapter, is to refute the excuses of many
people who are trying to explain why both cases are different, and by
that, to make his readers understand that there is no justification
to
mass murder. The first chapter in Goldhagen's book, called
“clarifying the issue.” Therefore, it's obvious that Goldhagen sees
an issue in the world's different responses to two similar cases.
His
main question is: how can anyone ignore the fact that innocent people
slain in brutality, and no one takes responsibility for those acts,
and no one is punished?
Further, Goldhagen raises more questions that hint the readers of
what
he is going to discuss in the next few chapters. Some of those
questions will examine genocide and its origins, which according to
Goldhagen covers only one aspect of eliminationism.
3. a) One point I like about the website is that it gives a lot of
information about Daniel Goldhagen and his books. I learned from the
website about his other books: Hitler's Willing Executioners:
Ordinary
Germans and the Holocaust and A Moral Reckoning: The Role of the
Catholic Church in the Holocaust and Its Unfulfilled Duty of Repair.
Moreover, the website publishes interviews with many interesting book
authors and journalists. Among those interviews I found Goldhagen's
interview which helped me to be more familiar with his personality
and
his background. I find Goldhagen as a very interesting men, because
he brought up many issues that the whole world debate about.
Further,
thanks to his stable positions about the discussed subjects, he is
not
afraid of his critics. Another aspect I like about Goldhagen, is the
way he brings up history again, and remind everyone what mistakes
might be avoided in the future. He present a terrifying facts about
what could be done in favor of saving lives, and what was done in
reality; according to Goldhagen, not enough. In this interview
Goldhagen discusses how the church should have been involved in the
Holocaust. The power of the church could save many lives, and avoid
some of the world's biggest mistakes. The church was ignorant, just
like most of the world.
b) One point I don't like about Goldhagens ideas is that he repeat
them in his books and he derive all his ideas only from concentrating
on the Holocaust. Moreover, his opinions might offend people or
make
the wrong impression on his readers, as well as to create unpleasant
tension between groups of people. For example, his book title: A
Moral Reckoning: The Role of the Catholic Church in the Holocaust and
Its Unfulfilled Duty of Repair, might cause tension between Jews and
Christians.
c) I would like to research more Goldhagen's opinion about the world
terrorism which develops side by side with progressive technology and
penetrate through education. Moreover, I'm curious to know how
serious we should refer to the latest threats of Iran to eliminate
Israel from the earth by nuclear weapon ? And why no one is taking
Iranian threats as substantial? A threat to Israel is indirect
threat
to the U.S. It seems that history is about to repeat itself and no
one is doing anything about it. Another subject I would like to
research more information about, is the military use of children in
the war, especially in Africa and Afghanistan.
Work Cited
Goldhagen, J. D. (2009). Worse Than War: Genocide, Eliminationism
and
the Ongoing Assault On Humanity (pp. 3-32). New York, PublicAffairs.
Rothenberg, J. (2003, January). The Guilt of the Church. Retrieved
from http://www.theatlantic.com/unbound/interviews/int2003-01-31.htm
Discussion on weeks-5--7-journal
Diana K
English 101
Section #0143
Professor O'Connell
Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas (for herself, Mr. Honda, Mr. Lewis
of Georgia, Mr. Mcgovern, Mr. Capuano, Mr. Hinchey, Ms. Bordallo, and
Mr. Murphy of Connecticut). January 13, 2009. H. CON. RES. 20 -
Expressing the sense of Congress that the global use of child
soldiers
is unacceptable and that the international community should find
remedies to end this practice.
a. What I like about this bill is that it brings up a problem that
exist outside of the United States. Child soldiers recruited as
“fighters” in many countries all over the world, where they are
forced
to kill, rape, abuse and to be abused by others. In this bill,
finding
a solution to end the use of children as soldiers appears not from a
political interest, but from the acknowledgment of importance of
human
lives and rights. Moreover, I like this bill because it sees the
urge
in seeking a solution for halting the phenomenon of children
participation in an armed conflicts.
b. What I don't like about this bill, is that there is not enough
explanation on the question, “why is it important to rise the age of
children who can participate in armed conflicts?” Further, there is
no
specification on effective actions that should be taken to eliminate
the phenomenon.
c. What I don't understand about this bill, is that so many
international rules and laws were set up to stop the organization of
child armed forces, but non of them had really succeeded in
eliminating the problem. Why The House Of Representatives doesn't
seek to find a more effective solution to the problem? And why no
serious action was taken toward a satisfying solution?
Discussion on essay 1.3
“I got so mad when I read the article in Los Angeles Times magazine,
"Targeted for Death." If Israel would kill Osama Bin Laden in
wherever, everybody was happy and no one would have cared even if it
happened in the white house, even without the permission of the
president. But when Israel get's its target in Dubai, without asking
their government "can we kill this terrorist here?" it's considered
"illigal." When Mahmoud Mabhouh murdered 11 innocent athletes in
Munich (Germany) he didn't ask for any consent. Therefore, Israel
has
the right to protect its citizens, even by targeted murder anywhere
in
the world.”
Discussion on weeks-8-9-research-and-journal
Diana Kovinsky
English 101
Section #0143
Professor O'Connell
Bill: H.CON.RES. 104
April 29, 2009
Resolution: Supporting the goals and ideals of National Sexual Assault
Awareness and Prevention Month.
This bill is important because many women around the world suffered
sexual assault, and they cannot talk to anyone about it. It is
crucial to spread the awareness of sexual violence in order to
encourage the prevention of such crimes in the future. In many
primitive cultures or dictatorship countries, women being raped on a
regular basis. They have got no one to complain to, because they
might be accused of gaining disrespect for their family. Further,
such complaint might put their life in danger. This bill suggest
that “aggressive prosecution can incarcerate rapists and therefore
prevent them from committing further crimes.” In his book, Goldhagen
doesn't discuss about the ways that could solve the problem of rape in
specific. He just mentions rape as part of eliminationist ideology,
and gives the readers few examples of the ways women were raped.
According to this bill 1 out of 6 women in the United States have been
raped or attempted rape; A statistic that really frightens me.
Another terrifying statistic mentioned in this bill is that “44% of
sexual assault victims are under the age of 18.”
Although today many measures are taken in order to avoid sexual
assaults, it is probably not enough to stop them. I think that few
years in jail is a too “soft” punishment for a rapist, and greater
means should be taken in consideration.
Discussion on weeks-10-11-research-and-journal
Diana Kovinsky
English 101
Section #0143
Professor O'Connell
Sights of War
Although Goldhagen discusses all aspects of crimes against
innocent
people, he doesn't mention the people who have to go and fight
eliminationist leaders and terrorists. Most of those people are also
innocent young soldiers, who didn't ask to be involved in any kind of
war, but were forced to participate and had no choice but to protect
themselves and their families. Israel is one of the countries where
war on terrorism continues 24 hour a day. Since the population of
Israel is very small and the country itself very small, every Israeli
citizen without distinguishing male or female, forced to serve the
army when their 18. They are ordinary young people who wish to
party, have friends, gain education, get married and have peaceful
lives. Yet, some of them might never experience those pleasures due
to ruthless terrorist minds, who work around the clock in order to
find new ways to strike Israel by killing or kidnapping soldiers.
For
them, the younger – the better. War have the worst effects on people
who participate in it, and a great example to that would be the the
graphic movie Walts and Bashir. Ari Folman's Walts an Bashir, is a
story of hidden human nightmares. It is not a usual war movie where
the fighting sides are clearly defined. All the characters involved,
and who is wrong or wright is not the main point. The main focus is
the non-understandable effects of war that can exist long time after
the physical fight is over. In June 1982, the Israeli army invaded
South Lebanon after Israel’s northern towns had been bombarded for
years from the Lebanese territory. The movie is a graphic journey of
the director Ari Folman back to his involvement in the 1982 Israeli
war with Lebanon. In the beginning of the movie, Folman's friend
tells him about a nightmare he sees every night. He is being chased
by 26 fearsome dogs who are trying to kill him. He believes that his
nightmare associated with the war. After sharing his nightmare with
Folman, he surprised that Folman can't recall any memories of his
part
in the war. Folman is disturbed by his loss of memories and he
decide to talk to some old friends who served with him at the time of
the war, in hope that they would help him to remember. Moreover,
Folman is trying to recall if the Sabra and Shatila massacre really
happened when he was there. The massacre took place in Lebanon by
Christians against Muslims but was blamed on Israel and caused
escalation in International view of the world on Israel. After that
war, Israel suffered “Intifada” (Arabic word which means “shaking
off”), in which many Israelis found their death. The film is in a
graphic format because some of Folmans' friends didn't want their
identities to be exposed. This movie is a brilliant way to show how
war effects the lives of the those who participate in it. Many young
man and women all over the world suffer psychological post traumatic
disorders and nightmares associated with sights of war and killing.
The treatment is almost impossible, and many times the nightmares
never end. A very interesting thing Folmans friend tells him about
memory: “A human mechanism prevents us from entering dark places,
memory takes us where we need to go.” Forgetting is one of many ways
to deal with war trauma. Unfortunately today, many soldiers in the
world are under the age of 18. Their sights will hunt them after the
war is over. Fighting terrorism and eliminating wars should be the
main purpose of the world today in order to save lives of innocent
people, and memories of innocent young soldiers who didn't want to
participate in war, but had no choice but to fight to protect their
families. That is the reason why Israeli Defense force called
“Defense force” and not “Fight force.” Their only purpose is to
defend innocent people from suffering suicide bombers in buses and
public areas, as well as defend teenagers from being killed by
suicide bombers in disco clubs and schools, and defending the borders
of a small country surrounded by terrorists. Although a large part
of the world views Israel as enemy, the morality of the young people
in the Israeli army doesn't let them to murder innocent people, but
only to defend them.
Discussion on weeks-12-14-research-and-journal
I chose Titus and Tamora to represent a metaphor for some of today’s
events.
Titus represents the United States. Titus was fighting Rome’s
enemies; wars through which he gained respect and honor for his
country. Yet, at some point Titus got tired and couldn’t continue.
He felt that he is incapable of leading his country further. He is
just like the United States which considered for the last 50 years as
one of the world’s most powerful and progressive country. The United
States was so influential that it took part in many of the world’s
conflicts. Eventually, today the United States probably got
exhausted
just like Titus. After many years of economic and political
prosperity, the country hit and escalation point. There are no more
heroic triumphs, and even the politicians are not as good and
effective as the ones who were before them.
Temora represent the enemies of the United States. She is the queen
of Goths. Temora holds a pro-war approach with brutality and
barbarism. Her ruthlessness reminds me the terrorists who kill
innocent people in revenge for political views. Temora is a great
metaphor for the genocide in the world today.
Essays:
Essay 1.1
Diana K
Section 0143
Professor Ed O’Connell
The Answer to War is “We”
Thousands of innocent people all over the world are being killed in a
matter of weeks or even days. They don't deserve to die, they haven't
done anything bad to anyone, and their worst crime is their inability
to protect themselves or to fight back. the writer of the book Worse
Than War, Daniel Jonah Goldhagen points out that awareness of the
genocide in our world today will increase our urge to fight
eliminitionist ideology and save life in the future. In contrast,
James Traub, a contributing writer for The Times Magazine claims that
there are more important subjects that we and our politicians need to
deal with, than saving lives in other countries. I disagree with
Traub, because even though he is concerned with other important things
that are going on in the world today, he chooses to ignore or maybe
misunderstand the value of human life.
Traub claims that “public opinion will not be rallied through an
earnest accounting of national interest, but through an appeal to
conscience.” Therefore, he says that people who are not politically
effective, don't have any influence on the subject of getting involved
in other country's problems. This statement is wrong because although
“regular” people are not the “big” decision makers, they are
definitely the ones who choose them. If a leader decides to be passive
about mass murder in the world he can be easily replaced by citizens
right to vote. Such leader might bring a disaster on his own country
by ignoring the world terrorism and mass murder which rises fast on a
daily basis. Moreover, according to Goldhagen, “Mass murder and
elimination are thus politics not in a superficial sense, but at their
core, because they are purposeful, calculated acts of leaders meant to
achieve political goals.” Violent tactics of politicians, were proven
by history many times to be the biggest pointless disasters of human
acts. Goldhagen is trying to open the worlds eyes through his book,
before more innocent lives will be taken by cruel leaders who care
only for power.
Traub also claims that eliminitionist violence is not the greatest
threat these days, and he makes his point by a sarcastic question to
Goldhagen's argument: “Intense moralism carries risks of its own,
however, including hyperbole. Is eliminationist violence really the
greatest threat of our time?” Traub's approach to the subject is too
arrogant. Like many people in the world he is not directly effected by
the mass murder in distant places such as Africa. Therefore, he finds
it easier to ignore or suppress facts such as mass murder. Similar to
the way that many countries acted during the Jewish Holocaust in the
Second World War. It took almost six years until the United States got
involved. Six years of over 6 Million dead innocent people. According
to Goldhagen we shall not let history repeat. Human life needs to be
in the center of attention, and dictatorship in other countries should
be treated from it's roots. He claims that today's mass murder is
worse than in the biggest wars of the twentieth century, and that more
people died in the past ten years than in any war.
Furthermore, According to Traub, “even Al Qaeda, with its ideology of
mass murder, has not been able to marshal the resources of a state to
attain its ultimate goals.” The question that rises from this
statement is: does Traub waits to see Al Qaeda attain it's ultimate
goals? Since one of their goals is to kill innocent people all over
the world, including in the U.S, in order to aim more power, shouldn't
we act immediately to stop them? Or should we wait for another
September 11 to remind us how painful it is to loose our beloved ones?
If Traub doesn't see Al Qaeda as an immediate threat on our lives,
it's obvious he considers eliminitionist ideology as less significant
than other subjects. What might be more frightening is the fact that
some of our politicians share some of Traub's believes. Goldhagen is
right when he says that we should understand eliminitionist ideology
better in order to deal with it.
Unfortunately, modernization brought with it modern hate, modern
killing machines and leaders who enjoy grater power while eliminating
groups of innocent people. In my opinion, the increase of intentional
attacks on civilians is the greatest problem in the world today, and
it should get more attention. I agree with Goldhagen, that we need a
new Union who will chase and scare dictators in order to avoid mass
murder to repeat over and over in human history. Since our world
became too materialistic, people forgot the values of helping and
caring for others. War will always exist, just as it did before,
because people will always want more than what they have. Thus, the
only way to change it will be through education. Although education
will not eliminate war totally, it might help people understand better
that war is pointless. Furthermore, education in countries where there
are leaders who hold eliminitionist ideology, should be under
supervision in order to prevent generations of mass murderers and
dictators. In addition, we all should examine our priorities. Money is
a great way to obtain almost everything that we want, but is money
more important than life? I ask myself a question that I find hard to
answer: What is better, to be poor or to be dead?
Eventually, the world is facing many great issues and many divided
opinions, which in one way or another create wars. It is true when
Goldhagen says that the answer is within every one of us.
Realistically, war will never end, because there will always be people
who are radical in their beliefs, people who would do anything (even
kill) to prove they are right and people who will step on other people
because mother nature made us competitive. Yet, mother nature didn't
create money, and didn't create weapons, but we did, and we should
deal with the consequences. Meanwhile, thousands of people all over
the world are killed every day, and if we won't do anything about it,
it will get back to us like a boomerang.
Essay 1.2
Diana K
English 101
Section 0143
Professor O'Connell
Ticking Bomb Not in the “Right Hands”
Many years have passed since the United States dropped a nuclear bomb
on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. A bomb that killed thousands of innocent
children, women and men. Even though the bombings in Japan are far in
the past, the question over the necessity in using such weapon is in
debate today. According to the article, “Hiroshima: Nuclear weapons,
then and now” from The Wall Street Journal, the nuclear bombings,
“were salvation for Japan.” In a similar publication by The New York
Times, it said that “Most Americans rejoiced on learning that a
miraculous new weapon had been used against a fierce and fanatic
enemy.” Some people today claim that it was the only way for the U.S
to defend itself, others like Goldhagen, call it a mass murder that
could have been prevented. On one thing I agree with the editor of
The Wall Street Journal, if Hitler or Stalin had the nuclear weapon at
that time, the history of the twentieth century could have been even
worse.
The New York Times magazine emphasizes that the bombs were used
against “fierce and fanatic enemy,” but who was that enemy? It is
obvious that the bombs didn't just kill soldiers, it definitely killed
an enormous number of innocent citizens, who were not part of the
war. What ever killed them was not the purpose of protection, but a
bureaucracy of leaders and they will to gain power. Especially at the
time of world war II, when the development of the atomic bomb only
succeeded in the United States, Truman, just as many other leaders in
the world, really wanted to explore it's power. It just happened to
be that the most comfortable target for the United states to
experiment the new weapon was Japan, the war's guinea pig. Goldhagen
is not interested in the explanations, because the explanations will
not change the fact that the murder was done, but he want the world to
acknowledge that it was a mass murder no matter what. According to
Goldhagen, Truman should be in the same list as Hitler, Pol Pot,
Stalin and other fearful leaders who committed mass murder.
I agree with the Editor of the article in The Wall Street Journal,
when he says that there are some countries that exist thanks to
possession of a nuclear weapon. Yet, this doesn't mean that every
country today can use a nuclear weapon in defense. Today's biggest
threat of nuclear attack comes straight from Iran. While nuclear
weapon is being developed in the hands of a dictator and terrorist
supporter, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the entire world is not doing enough
to stop him. Maybe it's because no one is taking the threat seriously
enough in order to deal with it. In his book, Goldhagen mention the
nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki not only to bring up a
debate over the necessity of using the atom bomb, but also to remind
the world that a threat of nuclear weapon, is right above our heads,
and it's preventible.
According to The Wall Street Journal, “Nuclear weapons are often said
to pose a unique threat to humanity, and in the wrong hands they do.”
My question is, are there any “right” hands for a nuclear weapon or
any weapon at all? And who is considered to be qualified to hold such
“treasure” and use it? All the explanations on the reason of mass
murder of innocent people in Japan sound ironic to me. One must not
forget that weapon, any weapon, was made only for one purpose – to
kill. No weapon in the world can do anything but killing. In my
opinion, no country in the world should hold a powerful and
destructive weapon such as the atomic bomb, because eventually
terrorists will also want a “piece of the cake”. Actually, today some
terrorist groups are trying to get their hands on a nuclear weapon,
and when they will succeed the whole world will be like a big atom
party. So the decision on the usage of nuclear weapon has to be made
quickly, before the “wrong hands” will make mass murder much easier.
In conclusion, the debate over the usage of nuclear weapon in
Hiroshima and Nagasaki will probably remain unanswered. Further,
finding answers will not change the history of Japan, but it might
effect greatly our history of the future. What might be answered, is
how do we prevent history from repeating itself, especially in the
middle east, where the threat is higher than ever? Therefore, I
believe that we need to concentrate more on trying to save our planet,
and the people that live on it, than on finding more ways to destroy
it. Especially, before the bomb will be ticking again, and maybe not
in the right hands.
Essay 1.3
Diana kovinsky
English 101
Professor O’Connell
Morally Targeted
Genocide is one of the greatest issues the world is facing today.
While the world is searching for an ethical solution to genocide,
thousands of innocent people all over the world being murdered every
day. Daniel Jonah Goldhagen, the writer of the book Worse Than War,
suggest that eliminationist leaders should be targeted and killed. His
views on the subject developed an international debate. In a interview
for an online magazine, Spiegel Online International, Goldhagen was
challenged with the criticism of his ideas, but his positions stayed
clear and determined. The main question that rises from the debate on
Goldhagens ideas is: “is it moral to target and kill those who
constitute a threat to humans?” In an interview Goldhagen gave to an
online magazine Qantara; Dialogue with the Islamic World, the answer
is yes. “There is a higher moral law, and that is to prevent the
murder of innocent children.”
Only three weeks passed since the Israeli secret services caught and
killed a wanted target in Dubai. Mahmoud Mabhouh, was an Israeli
target for 38 years, because he was responsible for the death of
eleven Israeli athletes and officials during the summer Olympics in
Munich. An article from the Los Angeles Times, “Targeted for Death”
brings up opinions of lawyers and professors on the way the Israeli
secret services operated in the prosecution. Just like in any
political issue, Some people agree with the operation and others
disagree with the way it was held. Although the operation went not as
the Israelis expected, but the result was satisfying. The way Israel
operated, is exactly how Goldhagen suggested that every strong country
should operate to eliminate crime against humanity. Once it will be
done to one leader, another one won't even try to “Dice with death.”
In the interview for the magazine, Spiegel Online International,
Goldhagen was asked, “What should the international community do?” (to
prevent genocide in the world). According to Goldhagen, the strong
nations of the world need to immediately get involved in the
prevention of genocide, and not just stand and look from far away,
with sadness for the life of others. In his book, Goldhagen suggest
that the strongest countries in the world should make a program, such
as the one that was held in 1984 and lead to successful elimination of
major terrorists. Such program will work to prevent “more massive
eliminationist assault, with many more masterminds and high-level
participants, it must also go beyond the anti-terrorist program by
covering a much wider range of people and not only seeking their
arrest, but also authorizing their killing. Goldhagens idea might be
the only way to fight back terror. Since terrorists don't obey the
laws of war, and they don't recognize the international court of
justice as a court – they don't play the game by the rules. The world
should not act out of consideration of morality with them, but out of
the thought that there is no punishment bad enough for loosing too
many innocent lives.
In his book, Goldhagen warn his readers of the dangers of political
Islam because he believe that: “Political Islam is the appropriate
term to describe political movements that are grounded in an
understanding of Islam and seek to assert control, often totalitarian
control over their societies and other societies which they think
should be Islamic. These movements often use violence and often with a
genocidal or eliminationist attempt.” Political Islam is the worlds
20th century “Hitler,” who is in favor of power by any mean, and
murder is the most favorable. Moreover, political Islam is mainly
responsible for promoting war in the middle east. Thus, morality is
not a way those extreme Islamic groups understand, and that is exactly
how they should be treated. Eliminating dangerous Islamic leaders,
might save thousand lives all over the world and maybe open a door for
peace in the middle east.
In conclusion, the world isn't doing enough to prevent mass murder.
The way eliminationist groups are treated today make them even
stronger, and make us more frightened. Therefore the tactics that
being used toward them should change, in order to become more useful.
Targeting eliminationist leaders and others who constitute a threat to
human lives was proven effective in the past 30 years. The answer to
the question of morality in this case is yes; it is moral to kill
those who kill innocent people for power, economy and religious views.
It's definitely immoral for strong countries to ignore such
eliminationists and give them a “free hand” to prosecute innocent
people. Hopefully, Goldhagens call for the world to get involved in
saving lives, will become the main target of each leader of a strong
country.
Essay 1. Bonus
Diana Kovinsky
English 101
Section #0143
Professor O'Connell
Fixing Educational Approach
Mass media is doing its best in order to expose us to some of
the
most horrifying, and violent actions taken against humans around the
world. The background is real, the people are real, and the murders
are real as well. Today, many people still believe that the world
should try a peaceful approach toward those who commit crimes against
humanity. The “Truth and Reconciliation Committee” of Sierra Leone
is
one of them. Although even children were used as human shield and
weapon, suffered brutality and murdered, they believe that violence
is
not the answer to violence. Others, like Goldhagen, the writer of
the
book Worse Than War, claims that there is no peaceful way to deal
with
violent groups, since all the peaceful ways had failed in the past.
Goldhagen suggest that those who are responsible for murders of
innocent people, needs to be targeted and killed. Since the world
have tried almost everything to eliminate violent leaders, and pretty
much failed, there is an urgent need to resolve the issue, because
the
number of the victims is growing rapidly each day.
Although it sounds terribly wrong, children were used and
still are,
as soldiers in some of the worlds greatest crimes against humanity.
Since children are easy to manipulate and they are powerless, many
hostile groups use them as killing machines against their own people.
In Sierra Leone, that was exactly the case. “We were made to loot
properties and burn houses. Many of us were forced to kill or rape
our own family members, in order to ruin our moral sense and destroy
our identity and our family ties.” The TRC (Truth and Reconciliation
Committee) supports a peaceful way of dealing with conflicts instead
of launching wars. Their solution found in education. Today, the
children of Sierra Leone being educated against war as a primary
solution, and that is their way to deal with the scars of war on
their
bodies. Education is the greatest power someone can poses, but
unfortunately some use it as way to gain greater power. Atomic
weapons and bombs, were made by well educated people, for the use of
the uneducated people. Goldhagens approach to the subject make
sense. Since the people who declare war on humanity and commit
crimes
against it don't recognize laws as fair game, they probably won't
care
about getting arrested, locked in jail, etc. The only solution then,
is to use their own weapon against them. If they will be targeted
for
death, they will lose power and effect on others. After treating in
such manner with the first couple eliminationist leaders, others
won't
even try to repeat their crimes.
According to another article, “How to Stop Terrorism” by John
Dear in
the Common dreams magazine, “We cannot fight terrorism by becoming
terrorists.” John Dear, a religious catholic peace activist,
suggest
a peaceful approach to deal with terrorism, which is to eliminate the
violent trigger in every one of us. He blames the United States for
the world terror, but he forgets that terrorists turn not only
against
the powerful U.S, but also against groups of innocent people in their
own countries. In his article, John Dear, doesn't take in
consideration all those leaders who kill for power, and he suggest us
to support the UN, which until now operated poorly slow in preventing
mass murder. Moreover, the peaceful approach doesn't seem to be
important enough for mass murder executors, and it seems that
terrorists have their own set of rules for war. Therefore a peaceful
road to eliminate mass murder will not lead us anywhere. In his
book,
Goldhagen suggest that the world will replace the UN with a more
effective organization, which will understand the urge of the problem
and will really fight against eliminationist leaders.
A peaceful way is usually the best way, but in the situation
the
world is facing today, and the amount of people loosing their lives,
peaceful way is useless. The world have tried few methods such as
the
UN and NATO, but that didn't seem to be the fastest solution.
Therefore, violence is probably needed in this case. History proves
my point, and when I look back at Hitler or Stalin, it is obvious
that
they didn't understand the peaceful way. They surrendered only by
death and defeat, and when that happened it was already too late.
Goldhagen gives a reasonable solution that might prevent
eliminationist leaders from appearing in the future. “Automatically
apply to those perpetrating wars against humanity so all those
considering mass murder and elimination know they will become
targets.”
Terrorism today, is the world's main eliminationist issue.
When
people murder children in cold blood, there is no moral thought
behind
those acts. Those who believe they have the right to decide who
shall
live and who shall not, have no place among peaceful societies. I
partially blame the U.S for not preventing mass murder, but mostly I
blame mothers who send their sons with explosives on them, to die and
kill for ideology. That is how they were educated, and that is
exactly the approach we need to fix.
Work Cited
Goldhagen, J. D. (2009). Worse Than War: Genocide,
Eliminationism
and the Ongoing Assault On Humanity (pp. 3-32). New York,
PublicAffairs.
Truth and Reconciliation Commission Report For the Children of
Sierra
Leone, “Child friendly version”, 2004 /TRCCF9SeptFINAL.pdf
Dear, J. July 10, 2005, Common Dreams. org: “How To Stop
Terrorism,”
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0710-23.htm
Essay 2 – half done draft
War brings with it many types of cruelty. When looking back in
history, its noticed that perpetrators used different methods to
eliminate groups of people they didn't want among them. Some people
were shot, some were cut, hanged, burned or drowned, while others were
horribly tortured until they gave up their last breath. When torture
discussed in history, it usually talks about men, women and children
as one. Yet, it ignores the fact that there was a very specific kind
of torture, which was mostly preserved for women and children – rape.
During wars, rape was not only an sexual impulse of men, but a way to
gain pleasure through victims suffrage. In Shakespeare's written
tragedy, Titus Andronicus, rape used as tactic of revenge and torture,
which I will discuss later in my essay. Not until lately, the
phenomenon of raping was identified as a crime against humanity.
Today, many innocent women and children around the world being raped,
humiliated and killed by eliminationist groups. They don't have any
way to protect themselves or escape the cruel destiny. In order to be
more familiar with the issue and solve it, it's very important to
understand few aspects: why does perpetrators rape their victims? How
they rape them? And what can we do to stop them?
In order to understand the reasons, why perpetrators rape
their
victims it is important to learn what does the word rape represent.
Rape is a violent act of forcing someone toward an unwanted sexual
intercourse. Usually when rape cases brought up in the media, they
related to male sexual instincts that might have got out of control.
This isn't the same case when exploring war crimes against humanity.
In a war, the victims can be individuals or groups, women, children or
both. In many cases, after the victim was raped, he or she being
tortured or murdered with cruelty. In Shakespeare's tragedy Titus
Andriconus, the sons of Tamora, Chiron and Demetrius seek for
revenge. They had been advised to rape the daughter of their enemy
(Titus), Lavinia. They catch her, and rape her with brutality while
she is begging them to stop. After they've done, they violently cut
of her tongue and hands, so that she wont be able to tell their
crimes. This is an example of rape and torture, described through the
writings of a great poet in history. The first question needed to be
clarified is, why do people commit such horrible crime against other
people? There are probably many explanations to why perpetrators use
such method to eliminate groups.
First, women and children make an easy target, because when they are
captured by ruthless perpetrators they are weak and helpless. Second,
rape as a war crime, is a way to express power and possession over a
certain group. And third, the perpetrators gain pleasure at a sight
of physical and emotional torture of their victims. In the book Worse
Than War, by Daniel Goldhagen, the reasons described by victims of
rape as: “As in Franz Kafkas' colony, they seek to inscribe on their
victims bodies and souls their own conception of them as degraded,
worthless, or hated, to be used, maimed, discarded at the perpetrators
pleasure.” A crime such as rape was meant to destroy human's
personality and perception of himself as well as the world around
him. The scars of the crime will follow the victims for the rest of
their lives with fear, shame and insecurity. “The rapes were meant to
humiliate Muslim women, to insult them, to destroy their persons and
to cause shock... These women were raped not because it was the male
instinct. They were raped because it was the goal of the war.”
Essay 2 – Final draft
Diana Kovinsky
English 101
Section #0143
Professor O’Connell
April 22, 2010
Shakespeare’s Silent Audience
In Shakespeare's tragedy, Titus Andriconus, the sons of Tamora: Chiron
and Demetrius seek for revenge. They had been advised to rape the
daughter of their enemy (Titus), Lavinia. They catch her, and rape her
with brutality while she is begging them to stop. After they've done,
they violently cut of her tongue and hands, so that she won’t be able
to tell their crimes. When looking back on history, it’s noticed that
perpetrators used different methods to eliminate groups of people they
didn't want among them. Some people were shot; some were cut, hanged,
burned or drowned, while others were horribly tortured until they gave
up their last breath. Only one aspect was usually a taboo when war
crimes were discussed, and that would be rape. In order to be more
familiar with the issue and solve it, it is crucial to understand few
aspects: What does rape crime symbolize? Why do perpetrators rape
their victims? And what can we do to stop the raping?
According to an article by diplomatic correspondent, Barnaby Mason in
BBC News: “Rape: A crime against humanity”, rape wasn’t considered
crime against humanity, until three Bosnians Serbs were accused of
systematic sexual violence against Muslim women during the Bosnian
war. This classification of the term rape was due to the decision of
the International court in Europe. Although rape considered crime
against humanity, women and children in Darfur, Afghanistan, Pakistan
and many other places in the world are being raped systematically
every day due to the world’s antipathy and ignorance toward the
issue.
Rape is a violent act of forcing someone toward an unwanted sexual
intercourse. Many times and especially during war, the raped victim
were tortured or murdered with cruelty. In some way “war rape”
symbolized ownership and triumph of the perpetrator over the victim.
The reasons for rape are clear. Rape as a war crime, is a way to
express power and possession over a certain group. In the book Worse
Than War, by Daniel Goldhagen, rappers described by victims as people
who “seek to inscribe on their victims bodies and souls their own
conception of them as degraded, worthless, or hated, to be used,
maimed, discarded at the perpetrators pleasure.” A crime such as rape
was meant to destroy human's personality and perception of himself as
well as the world around him.
Rape was used as a tool of terror in order to make people leave their
homes and never want to come back. According to Goldhagen’s book,
during the Bosnian war “rapes were meant to humiliate Muslim women, to
insult them, to destroy their persons and to cause shock... These
women were raped not because it was the male instinct. They were raped
because it was the goal of the war.” Rape crimes in history wore many
different forms. Some women and children were kept in “rape camps,”
others were locked in rooms or enslaved by the perpetrators and many
others were gang raped. Many of the rape victims committed suicides or
had babies at a very early age. Diseases spread quickly through rape,
especially HIV virus which became pandemic. The different ways to
rape were according to the perpetrators conception of the victim. The
age of the victims varied from only few menthes to at least 85
years. Rape might also be a way of reducing birth rate in the
“unwanted” group or ethnicity due to shame and fear. Even today there
are places in the world where rape considered as something that the
victim should to be ashamed of. Many women cannot share their painful
stories with anyone because the result might be devastated or even
deadly.
Although the decision to judge war rape crimes, as crimes
against
humanity was made pretty late in human history, it’s not too late.
Many women and children around the globe being raped systematically as
part of eliminationist plan. Those crimes continue due to corrupted
enforcement of the international law. We, the strong societies such
as the United States can help prevent such crimes by scarring
eliminationist leaders and by educating young men, women and soldiers
all over the world about the outcomes of rape crimes. One of the
latest congressional bills passed in the congress of the United
States, S. RES. 345: “Deploring the rape and assault of women in
Guinea and the killing of political protesters,” reported that
government security forces “killed at least 157 demonstrators, after
opening fire on the crowd, and brutalized and raped dozens of women
openly in public.” According to Human Rights Watch, these crimes were
part of a “premeditated massacre” in which the “level, frequency, and
brutality of sexual violence that took place at and after the protests
strongly suggests that it was part of a systematic attempt to
terrorize and humiliate the opposition, not just random acts by rogue
soldiers.” The bill suggests the following resolution to the issue:
to catch and prosecute all the responsible participants in the Guinea
massacre. Further is urges president Barack Obama to cooperate with
the European Union and the African Union to consider an appropriate
punishment for the officials and leaders who took part in the violent
assault. Although the bill was passed in November 9, 2009 in congress
with thirteen cosponsors, no action was recorded so far. By the time
someone will act according to this bill, thousands of people will
become victims of sexual abuse or murder. We can help educate people
around the world about rape and its outcomes, in order to avoid rape
crimes in the future. We can also promote women rights around the
world, especially where rape considered as a shame and blamed on the
victim.
Furthermore, those who commit those horrible crimes need to be
punished and scared in a way that they and those who come after them,
won’t even think of repeating their crimes.
In Shakespeare’s play we are the “silent audience.” Lavinia, who was
brutally raped, was screaming in pain, calling for help. She
represents all those victims that were, and still being raped and
tortured every day. They call for help, but it seems to them that no
one can hear them. Crimes against them are being committed for years
now, without intervention and without any help from us. We are the
once who let her tongue and hands to be cut off. We are just like
audience, who know about the crimes, but we’re just watching it from
far away. Some of us probably wonder, when is this going to end, and
who can put an end to those crimes? The irony is that the answer is
in each one of us. Maybe we won’t be able to save Lavinia, but we can
definitely save thousand or maybe million women and children from
sexual assaults.
Work Cited
Goldhagen, D. J. (2009). Worse Than War. Genocide, Eliminationism,
and the Ongoing Assault
on Humanity, 179, 451-461.
The Library of Congress. S. RES. 345:Deploring the rape and assault of
women in Guinea and
the killing of Political protesters. Retrieved from
http://thomas.loc.gov/
Mason, B. (2001). BBC News. Rape: A crime against humanity. Retrieved
from
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1184763.stm
Iliopoulos, K. CRIMS OF WAR PROJECT. Guinea Massacre a Crime against
Humanity.
Retrieved from http://www.crimesofwar.org/onnews/news-guinea.html
Shakespeare, W. and R. McDonald (ed.). 2000. Titus Andronicus. New
York: Pelican
Shakespeare.
Short Story:
A Call for Help
The last time I saw my older sister was when a young man in uniform
took her somewhere. That was five years ago. I never had a chance to
say goodbye. I still go from village to village, country to country
in hope that I might find her, or at least hear from someone about
here fait. My name is Afi, I’m 11 years old and I’m from Chad
(Sudan). I don’t know the exact date when it happened, but it was 5
years ago. Yet, the memories hunt me every night. It all happened
suddenly. I saw my father shot in all parts of his body by a little
boy – a soldier of the Darfur militia troops. He was not more than
12 or 13 years old. When he was shot, my mother run out of the house
screaming and crying in pain. She wanted to come closer to him, to
touch him, but another soldier who was there punched her in the
stomach. She fell to the ground folding in pain, holding her stomach
with one hand, and reaching dad with the other. I was seating on the
floor, crying and shaking with fear. I couldn’t move, but more than
that, I couldn’t understand what was going on. While approaching to
me, the older soldier commanded my mother to get up on her feet. He
grabbed my shaking hand and pushed me out of the house. I remember
him very clear because he had a big scar on his chin, closer to the
left ear. I run to my mother, and helped her to get up. The soldier
shouted something at us and pointed toward a group of women, and girls
who were standing on the side of the road. When we stood up with the
group, I learned that there were at least 9 more men with guns and
uniform. Three of them were probably younger than 16 years. I
recognized all the women and girls in the little group. Yet, many
women from our village were missing and I assumed they managed to
escape, or they were shot just like my father. I remember noticing
one of the men in the uniform looking at me and smiling. He had dark
and kind eyes, dark hair and tattoo on the upper part of the right
hand; close to his fingers and to where he was holding the gun. The
armed men took us to the school where my sister used to study. I
hoped to see her there, but that never happened. It was afternoon,
the sky was dark blue and I was very hungry. Why are we going to the
school? Where are my friends with whom I played that very same
morning in the field, around the village? What happened to them?
What would happen to me and my mom? Those were the questions in my
mind on that terrifying way to school. I was very innocent, because I
really believed that the men would let us go. What I didn’t
understand was, that it was just the beginning of my worst nightmare.
The soldier with the scar approached us, and pulled one women out of
the group. She was crying and looking at us while he took her
somewhere, where I couldn’t see her anymore. She was screaming for
help, and after couple of moments she was silent. All the women
around me were crying, some of them were begging the soldiers to let
them go, but the soldiers ignored them. Two boys were following every
movement we made with guns ready to shoot. Suddenly, the man who was
smiling to me before, came up to me and took my hand. My mother fell
on her knees, held me tight and begged the man to let me go. I hugged
her and cried, and scram, I didn’t want her to leave me alone, but he
pulled me away from her. I couldn’t do much, I was terrified. The
man bought me to one of the classes. It was a small class, with
windows that were higher than me, many chairs and one table at the
front. He sat me on the table and gave me a piece of cloth to clean
my face. He smiled at me, and went out of the class just for a couple
of minutes. He came back with a bowl of cherries. I was hungry and
scared of him, so I did everything he told me to do; I ate. What
happened after, I want to forget. From that day, the class became my
house for 4 years of abuse. I was sexually abused and beaten by more
than 20 or 30 men. Sometimes there were few men at the same time.
They gave me drugs and called me names. I hated them, and most
important I hated myself. For a time, I blamed my mother for leaving
me alone. But, I wondered what happened to her and why isn’t she
coming to take me home.
I was released a year ago by the Sudan Liberation movement with six
other women from my village. When I was released, I felt alive again
for the first time. Yet, my memories remind me that something within
me died that day – my childhood. Today, we are (me and the other
women who were saved) part of the International Amnesty organization:
Eyes on Darfur. I go around the world, searching for refugees from
Darfur who can tell their story and testify in the International
court. My propose is to spread awareness of the genocide in my
country and lead the International Criminal court to the conclusion
that crimes in Darfur, are crimes against humanity. Sudan needs to be
at the peak of attention, and lives can be saved if the world will
send troops to help fight the guerilla troops.
My name is Afi, I am 11 years old and I lost all my family in one
afternoon at the dinner table. I know today that only few months
after we were captured, my mother died from internal bleeding in her
stomach. Most of the women, who were kept at the school, were
brutally raped and murdered. I’m still searching for my sister.
Every piece of information is important and every story has a soul
behind it. Please, this is a call for help!
Essay 3 – Half done draft
Books had always been representations of the reality. Although
Shakespeare’s tragedy Titus Andronicus is not dealing with a specific
issue, it does consist of many conflicts which can be metaphorically
linked with some of today’s concerns. One of the biggest concerns in
the world today is the rising terrorism. Groups of Islamic people
joined together to terrorize many countries in the world, among them
the U.S. and Israel. Titus and Tamora are two interesting and
opposite characters that can be metaphorically linked to today’s war
on terrorism. Titus was fighting Rome’s enemies; wars through which
he gained respect and honor for his country. He represents the
powerful United States that got involved in war against terrorism;
especially on Al-Qaeda. Tamora represents Al-Qaeda, the enemies of
the United States. She is the queen of Goths. Tamora holds a pro-
war
approach with brutality and barbarism. Her ruthlessness reminds me
the terrorists who kill innocent people in revenge for political
views. In this essay I will explore, how terrorism begin in the U.S?
Explore examples of it, and suggest a solution to end it.
Thanks God I saved everything!
Here is my work through the semester:
Journals:
Discussion on week-1-research-and-journal
Week (1) Research & Journal
English 101, Spring 2010 online, Section #0143
Student: Diana K
3a) Is war, specifically the increase of intentional attacks on
civilians, the greatest problem in the world today?
3.
3a. Yes. The increase of intentional attacks on civilians is the
greatest problem in the world today, and we need to get involved,
because if we won't stop the attacks today, they will hit us back in
the future. As we have witnessed during the entire twentieth
century,
many governments learned that through fear and terror, they gain
power. “Thanks” to modernization, and human curiosity, new weapon
technology is available for everyone. Education is another cause for
the increase of intentional attacks on civilians. Governments in
countries where genocide is a “way of life” encourage violence
through
education in the reason of earning more followers and supporters.
Powerful governments like the United States should get involved in
order to stop the genocide from it's origins in favor of it's own
civilians.
3b) Are war, violence and attacks on civilians inevitable
components
of life and human nature?
3b. No. War violence and attacks on civilians are not
components of human nature, since they are not done in the purpose of
protection and survival. They are the result of human mind and not
human biological instinct. Unfortunately, with the beginning of
society; money, religion and political power became the main reason
for wars between humans. According to a Discover article, “Has
science found a way to end all wars?” humans tend to be aggressive
in
their nature. Therefore, the solution to end wars in the world is in
everyone of us.
3c) If military attacks on civilians can be controlled, should
the
people of the world work to stop them?
3c. Yes. According to Goldhagen, “We should do away with
the United Nations and replace it with a powerful international
institution carrying out many of its current duties and functions but
not suffering its disqualifying deformities.” We can choose leaders
who will be politically involved in preventing mass murder. Those
politicians will operate together and will make new set of rules.
They will assemble one force whose purpose will be to hunt and punish
eliminationist political and military leaders. This kind of
organization will have the power and ability to succeed and save
human
lives. Moreover, it will prevent the formation of hostile groups in
the future.
(Reply to someone)
“Well, I think that the economic crises is because people don't
appreciate the resources they have been given. What do you prefer -
to be poor or dead? I don't have an answer for that question.
I'll
think about it...
What do you think? I can find at least 50 things that USA could
save
money on... and make more jobs with this money for the poor. Let's
start with electricity, gas and other resources that America spend
without thinking. The problem is also in the priorities.
Unfortunately, instead of investing money on education the U.S spend
more money on war for fuel in Iraq. Who do you think dies there for
the money that the American government makes? - American young
soldiers. Sad, but true.
Anyway, the economy is important, and human life in Africa is not
less
important in my opinion. When ever there will be a government (in
any country) that will care about life more than money, such
government will make sure that economy will be good as well. Today,
the opposite is true.”
Discussion on weeks-2--4-research-and-journal
Diana K
February 25, 2010
English 101
Section 0143
Professor O'Connell
Goldhagen's First Chapter
In order to understand Goldhagens views and theories, it is
necessary
to learn about his motives and background. In a little research
about
him, I learned that his enthusiasm about mass murder, probably comes
from his family. Goldhagen was born in America in 1959. He
graduated
from Harvard University where his father was a professor.
Goldhagen's
father, Erich Goldhagen survived the Holocaust and inspired his son
to
investigate the subject deeply. He had a great impact on his son's
curiosity about the Holocaust. In the first chapter of his book,
Worse Than War, Goldhagen is trying to clarify to his readers the
word
eliminationism, and gives an outstanding example of two different and
yet so similar history's most shocking mass murder acts. One example
is Hitler's crimes during World War II, with emphasize on the Jewish
Holocaust. The other example is Truman's Atomic attack on Nagasaki
and Hiroshima.
In both events, the victims were innocent people. Yet, while
the
Holocaust was defined by the world as Hitler's crimes against
humanity, and was recognized as horrible, unnecessary mass murder,
Truman's acts were defined only as “necessary” military measures.
Goldhagen argues that both cases should be evaluated as mass murder.
His main point in the first chapter, is to refute the excuses of many
people who are trying to explain why both cases are different, and by
that, to make his readers understand that there is no justification
to
mass murder. The first chapter in Goldhagen's book, called
“clarifying the issue.” Therefore, it's obvious that Goldhagen sees
an issue in the world's different responses to two similar cases.
His
main question is: how can anyone ignore the fact that innocent people
slain in brutality, and no one takes responsibility for those acts,
and no one is punished?
Further, Goldhagen raises more questions that hint the readers of
what
he is going to discuss in the next few chapters. Some of those
questions will examine genocide and its origins, which according to
Goldhagen covers only one aspect of eliminationism.
3. a) One point I like about the website is that it gives a lot of
information about Daniel Goldhagen and his books. I learned from the
website about his other books: Hitler's Willing Executioners:
Ordinary
Germans and the Holocaust and A Moral Reckoning: The Role of the
Catholic Church in the Holocaust and Its Unfulfilled Duty of Repair.
Moreover, the website publishes interviews with many interesting book
authors and journalists. Among those interviews I found Goldhagen's
interview which helped me to be more familiar with his personality
and
his background. I find Goldhagen as a very interesting men, because
he brought up many issues that the whole world debate about.
Further,
thanks to his stable positions about the discussed subjects, he is
not
afraid of his critics. Another aspect I like about Goldhagen, is the
way he brings up history again, and remind everyone what mistakes
might be avoided in the future. He present a terrifying facts about
what could be done in favor of saving lives, and what was done in
reality; according to Goldhagen, not enough. In this interview
Goldhagen discusses how the church should have been involved in the
Holocaust. The power of the church could save many lives, and avoid
some of the world's biggest mistakes. The church was ignorant, just
like most of the world.
b) One point I don't like about Goldhagens ideas is that he repeat
them in his books and he derive all his ideas only from concentrating
on the Holocaust. Moreover, his opinions might offend people or
make
the wrong impression on his readers, as well as to create unpleasant
tension between groups of people. For example, his book title: A
Moral Reckoning: The Role of the Catholic Church in the Holocaust and
Its Unfulfilled Duty of Repair, might cause tension between Jews and
Christians.
c) I would like to research more Goldhagen's opinion about the world
terrorism which develops side by side with progressive technology and
penetrate through education. Moreover, I'm curious to know how
serious we should refer to the latest threats of Iran to eliminate
Israel from the earth by nuclear weapon ? And why no one is taking
Iranian threats as substantial? A threat to Israel is indirect
threat
to the U.S. It seems that history is about to repeat itself and no
one is doing anything about it. Another subject I would like to
research more information about, is the military use of children in
the war, especially in Africa and Afghanistan.
Work Cited
Goldhagen, J. D. (2009). Worse Than War: Genocide, Eliminationism
and
the Ongoing Assault On Humanity (pp. 3-32). New York, PublicAffairs.
Rothenberg, J. (2003, January). The Guilt of the Church. Retrieved
from http://www.theatlantic.com/unbound/interviews/int2003-01-31.htm
Discussion on weeks-5--7-journal
Diana K
English 101
Section #0143
Professor O'Connell
Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas (for herself, Mr. Honda, Mr. Lewis
of Georgia, Mr. Mcgovern, Mr. Capuano, Mr. Hinchey, Ms. Bordallo, and
Mr. Murphy of Connecticut). January 13, 2009. H. CON. RES. 20 -
Expressing the sense of Congress that the global use of child
soldiers
is unacceptable and that the international community should find
remedies to end this practice.
a. What I like about this bill is that it brings up a problem that
exist outside of the United States. Child soldiers recruited as
“fighters” in many countries all over the world, where they are
forced
to kill, rape, abuse and to be abused by others. In this bill,
finding
a solution to end the use of children as soldiers appears not from a
political interest, but from the acknowledgment of importance of
human
lives and rights. Moreover, I like this bill because it sees the
urge
in seeking a solution for halting the phenomenon of children
participation in an armed conflicts.
b. What I don't like about this bill, is that there is not enough
explanation on the question, “why is it important to rise the age of
children who can participate in armed conflicts?” Further, there is
no
specification on effective actions that should be taken to eliminate
the phenomenon.
c. What I don't understand about this bill, is that so many
international rules and laws were set up to stop the organization of
child armed forces, but non of them had really succeeded in
eliminating the problem. Why The House Of Representatives doesn't
seek to find a more effective solution to the problem? And why no
serious action was taken toward a satisfying solution?
Discussion on essay 1.3
“I got so mad when I read the article in Los Angeles Times magazine,
"Targeted for Death." If Israel would kill Osama Bin Laden in
wherever, everybody was happy and no one would have cared even if it
happened in the white house, even without the permission of the
president. But when Israel get's its target in Dubai, without asking
their government "can we kill this terrorist here?" it's considered
"illigal." When Mahmoud Mabhouh murdered 11 innocent athletes in
Munich (Germany) he didn't ask for any consent. Therefore, Israel
has
the right to protect its citizens, even by targeted murder anywhere
in
the world.”
Discussion on weeks-8-9-research-and-journal
Diana Kovinsky
English 101
Section #0143
Professor O'Connell
Bill: H.CON.RES. 104
April 29, 2009
Resolution: Supporting the goals and ideals of National Sexual Assault
Awareness and Prevention Month.
This bill is important because many women around the world suffered
sexual assault, and they cannot talk to anyone about it. It is
crucial to spread the awareness of sexual violence in order to
encourage the prevention of such crimes in the future. In many
primitive cultures or dictatorship countries, women being raped on a
regular basis. They have got no one to complain to, because they
might be accused of gaining disrespect for their family. Further,
such complaint might put their life in danger. This bill suggest
that “aggressive prosecution can incarcerate rapists and therefore
prevent them from committing further crimes.” In his book, Goldhagen
doesn't discuss about the ways that could solve the problem of rape in
specific. He just mentions rape as part of eliminationist ideology,
and gives the readers few examples of the ways women were raped.
According to this bill 1 out of 6 women in the United States have been
raped or attempted rape; A statistic that really frightens me.
Another terrifying statistic mentioned in this bill is that “44% of
sexual assault victims are under the age of 18.”
Although today many measures are taken in order to avoid sexual
assaults, it is probably not enough to stop them. I think that few
years in jail is a too “soft” punishment for a rapist, and greater
means should be taken in consideration.
Discussion on weeks-10-11-research-and-journal
Diana Kovinsky
English 101
Section #0143
Professor O'Connell
Sights of War
Although Goldhagen discusses all aspects of crimes against
innocent
people, he doesn't mention the people who have to go and fight
eliminationist leaders and terrorists. Most of those people are also
innocent young soldiers, who didn't ask to be involved in any kind of
war, but were forced to participate and had no choice but to protect
themselves and their families. Israel is one of the countries where
war on terrorism continues 24 hour a day. Since the population of
Israel is very small and the country itself very small, every Israeli
citizen without distinguishing male or female, forced to serve the
army when their 18. They are ordinary young people who wish to
party, have friends, gain education, get married and have peaceful
lives. Yet, some of them might never experience those pleasures due
to ruthless terrorist minds, who work around the clock in order to
find new ways to strike Israel by killing or kidnapping soldiers.
For
them, the younger – the better. War have the worst effects on people
who participate in it, and a great example to that would be the the
graphic movie Walts and Bashir. Ari Folman's Walts an Bashir, is a
story of hidden human nightmares. It is not a usual war movie where
the fighting sides are clearly defined. All the characters involved,
and who is wrong or wright is not the main point. The main focus is
the non-understandable effects of war that can exist long time after
the physical fight is over. In June 1982, the Israeli army invaded
South Lebanon after Israel’s northern towns had been bombarded for
years from the Lebanese territory. The movie is a graphic journey of
the director Ari Folman back to his involvement in the 1982 Israeli
war with Lebanon. In the beginning of the movie, Folman's friend
tells him about a nightmare he sees every night. He is being chased
by 26 fearsome dogs who are trying to kill him. He believes that his
nightmare associated with the war. After sharing his nightmare with
Folman, he surprised that Folman can't recall any memories of his
part
in the war. Folman is disturbed by his loss of memories and he
decide to talk to some old friends who served with him at the time of
the war, in hope that they would help him to remember. Moreover,
Folman is trying to recall if the Sabra and Shatila massacre really
happened when he was there. The massacre took place in Lebanon by
Christians against Muslims but was blamed on Israel and caused
escalation in International view of the world on Israel. After that
war, Israel suffered “Intifada” (Arabic word which means “shaking
off”), in which many Israelis found their death. The film is in a
graphic format because some of Folmans' friends didn't want their
identities to be exposed. This movie is a brilliant way to show how
war effects the lives of the those who participate in it. Many young
man and women all over the world suffer psychological post traumatic
disorders and nightmares associated with sights of war and killing.
The treatment is almost impossible, and many times the nightmares
never end. A very interesting thing Folmans friend tells him about
memory: “A human mechanism prevents us from entering dark places,
memory takes us where we need to go.” Forgetting is one of many ways
to deal with war trauma. Unfortunately today, many soldiers in the
world are under the age of 18. Their sights will hunt them after the
war is over. Fighting terrorism and eliminating wars should be the
main purpose of the world today in order to save lives of innocent
people, and memories of innocent young soldiers who didn't want to
participate in war, but had no choice but to fight to protect their
families. That is the reason why Israeli Defense force called
“Defense force” and not “Fight force.” Their only purpose is to
defend innocent people from suffering suicide bombers in buses and
public areas, as well as defend teenagers from being killed by
suicide bombers in disco clubs and schools, and defending the borders
of a small country surrounded by terrorists. Although a large part
of the world views Israel as enemy, the morality of the young people
in the Israeli army doesn't let them to murder innocent people, but
only to defend them.
Discussion on weeks-12-14-research-and-journal
I chose Titus and Tamora to represent a metaphor for some of today’s
events.
Titus represents the United States. Titus was fighting Rome’s
enemies; wars through which he gained respect and honor for his
country. Yet, at some point Titus got tired and couldn’t continue.
He felt that he is incapable of leading his country further. He is
just like the United States which considered for the last 50 years as
one of the world’s most powerful and progressive country. The United
States was so influential that it took part in many of the world’s
conflicts. Eventually, today the United States probably got
exhausted
just like Titus. After many years of economic and political
prosperity, the country hit and escalation point. There are no more
heroic triumphs, and even the politicians are not as good and
effective as the ones who were before them.
Temora represent the enemies of the United States. She is the queen
of Goths. Temora holds a pro-war approach with brutality and
barbarism. Her ruthlessness reminds me the terrorists who kill
innocent people in revenge for political views. Temora is a great
metaphor for the genocide in the world today.
Essays:
Essay 1.1
Diana K
Section 0143
Professor Ed O’Connell
The Answer to War is “We”
Thousands of innocent people all over the world are being killed in a
matter of weeks or even days. They don't deserve to die, they haven't
done anything bad to anyone, and their worst crime is their inability
to protect themselves or to fight back. the writer of the book Worse
Than War, Daniel Jonah Goldhagen points out that awareness of the
genocide in our world today will increase our urge to fight
eliminitionist ideology and save life in the future. In contrast,
James Traub, a contributing writer for The Times Magazine claims that
there are more important subjects that we and our politicians need to
deal with, than saving lives in other countries. I disagree with
Traub, because even though he is concerned with other important things
that are going on in the world today, he chooses to ignore or maybe
misunderstand the value of human life.
Traub claims that “public opinion will not be rallied through an
earnest accounting of national interest, but through an appeal to
conscience.” Therefore, he says that people who are not politically
effective, don't have any influence on the subject of getting involved
in other country's problems. This statement is wrong because although
“regular” people are not the “big” decision makers, they are
definitely the ones who choose them. If a leader decides to be passive
about mass murder in the world he can be easily replaced by citizens
right to vote. Such leader might bring a disaster on his own country
by ignoring the world terrorism and mass murder which rises fast on a
daily basis. Moreover, according to Goldhagen, “Mass murder and
elimination are thus politics not in a superficial sense, but at their
core, because they are purposeful, calculated acts of leaders meant to
achieve political goals.” Violent tactics of politicians, were proven
by history many times to be the biggest pointless disasters of human
acts. Goldhagen is trying to open the worlds eyes through his book,
before more innocent lives will be taken by cruel leaders who care
only for power.
Traub also claims that eliminitionist violence is not the greatest
threat these days, and he makes his point by a sarcastic question to
Goldhagen's argument: “Intense moralism carries risks of its own,
however, including hyperbole. Is eliminationist violence really the
greatest threat of our time?” Traub's approach to the subject is too
arrogant. Like many people in the world he is not directly effected by
the mass murder in distant places such as Africa. Therefore, he finds
it easier to ignore or suppress facts such as mass murder. Similar to
the way that many countries acted during the Jewish Holocaust in the
Second World War. It took almost six years until the United States got
involved. Six years of over 6 Million dead innocent people. According
to Goldhagen we shall not let history repeat. Human life needs to be
in the center of attention, and dictatorship in other countries should
be treated from it's roots. He claims that today's mass murder is
worse than in the biggest wars of the twentieth century, and that more
people died in the past ten years than in any war.
Furthermore, According to Traub, “even Al Qaeda, with its ideology of
mass murder, has not been able to marshal the resources of a state to
attain its ultimate goals.” The question that rises from this
statement is: does Traub waits to see Al Qaeda attain it's ultimate
goals? Since one of their goals is to kill innocent people all over
the world, including in the U.S, in order to aim more power, shouldn't
we act immediately to stop them? Or should we wait for another
September 11 to remind us how painful it is to loose our beloved ones?
If Traub doesn't see Al Qaeda as an immediate threat on our lives,
it's obvious he considers eliminitionist ideology as less significant
than other subjects. What might be more frightening is the fact that
some of our politicians share some of Traub's believes. Goldhagen is
right when he says that we should understand eliminitionist ideology
better in order to deal with it.
Unfortunately, modernization brought with it modern hate, modern
killing machines and leaders who enjoy grater power while eliminating
groups of innocent people. In my opinion, the increase of intentional
attacks on civilians is the greatest problem in the world today, and
it should get more attention. I agree with Goldhagen, that we need a
new Union who will chase and scare dictators in order to avoid mass
murder to repeat over and over in human history. Since our world
became too materialistic, people forgot the values of helping and
caring for others. War will always exist, just as it did before,
because people will always want more than what they have. Thus, the
only way to change it will be through education. Although education
will not eliminate war totally, it might help people understand better
that war is pointless. Furthermore, education in countries where there
are leaders who hold eliminitionist ideology, should be under
supervision in order to prevent generations of mass murderers and
dictators. In addition, we all should examine our priorities. Money is
a great way to obtain almost everything that we want, but is money
more important than life? I ask myself a question that I find hard to
answer: What is better, to be poor or to be dead?
Eventually, the world is facing many great issues and many divided
opinions, which in one way or another create wars. It is true when
Goldhagen says that the answer is within every one of us.
Realistically, war will never end, because there will always be people
who are radical in their beliefs, people who would do anything (even
kill) to prove they are right and people who will step on other people
because mother nature made us competitive. Yet, mother nature didn't
create money, and didn't create weapons, but we did, and we should
deal with the consequences. Meanwhile, thousands of people all over
the world are killed every day, and if we won't do anything about it,
it will get back to us like a boomerang.
Essay 1.2
Diana K
English 101
Section 0143
Professor O'Connell
Ticking Bomb Not in the “Right Hands”
Many years have passed since the United States dropped a nuclear bomb
on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. A bomb that killed thousands of innocent
children, women and men. Even though the bombings in Japan are far in
the past, the question over the necessity in using such weapon is in
debate today. According to the article, “Hiroshima: Nuclear weapons,
then and now” from The Wall Street Journal, the nuclear bombings,
“were salvation for Japan.” In a similar publication by The New York
Times, it said that “Most Americans rejoiced on learning that a
miraculous new weapon had been used against a fierce and fanatic
enemy.” Some people today claim that it was the only way for the U.S
to defend itself, others like Goldhagen, call it a mass murder that
could have been prevented. On one thing I agree with the editor of
The Wall Street Journal, if Hitler or Stalin had the nuclear weapon at
that time, the history of the twentieth century could have been even
worse.
The New York Times magazine emphasizes that the bombs were used
against “fierce and fanatic enemy,” but who was that enemy? It is
obvious that the bombs didn't just kill soldiers, it definitely killed
an enormous number of innocent citizens, who were not part of the
war. What ever killed them was not the purpose of protection, but a
bureaucracy of leaders and they will to gain power. Especially at the
time of world war II, when the development of the atomic bomb only
succeeded in the United States, Truman, just as many other leaders in
the world, really wanted to explore it's power. It just happened to
be that the most comfortable target for the United states to
experiment the new weapon was Japan, the war's guinea pig. Goldhagen
is not interested in the explanations, because the explanations will
not change the fact that the murder was done, but he want the world to
acknowledge that it was a mass murder no matter what. According to
Goldhagen, Truman should be in the same list as Hitler, Pol Pot,
Stalin and other fearful leaders who committed mass murder.
I agree with the Editor of the article in The Wall Street Journal,
when he says that there are some countries that exist thanks to
possession of a nuclear weapon. Yet, this doesn't mean that every
country today can use a nuclear weapon in defense. Today's biggest
threat of nuclear attack comes straight from Iran. While nuclear
weapon is being developed in the hands of a dictator and terrorist
supporter, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the entire world is not doing enough
to stop him. Maybe it's because no one is taking the threat seriously
enough in order to deal with it. In his book, Goldhagen mention the
nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki not only to bring up a
debate over the necessity of using the atom bomb, but also to remind
the world that a threat of nuclear weapon, is right above our heads,
and it's preventible.
According to The Wall Street Journal, “Nuclear weapons are often said
to pose a unique threat to humanity, and in the wrong hands they do.”
My question is, are there any “right” hands for a nuclear weapon or
any weapon at all? And who is considered to be qualified to hold such
“treasure” and use it? All the explanations on the reason of mass
murder of innocent people in Japan sound ironic to me. One must not
forget that weapon, any weapon, was made only for one purpose – to
kill. No weapon in the world can do anything but killing. In my
opinion, no country in the world should hold a powerful and
destructive weapon such as the atomic bomb, because eventually
terrorists will also want a “piece of the cake”. Actually, today some
terrorist groups are trying to get their hands on a nuclear weapon,
and when they will succeed the whole world will be like a big atom
party. So the decision on the usage of nuclear weapon has to be made
quickly, before the “wrong hands” will make mass murder much easier.
In conclusion, the debate over the usage of nuclear weapon in
Hiroshima and Nagasaki will probably remain unanswered. Further,
finding answers will not change the history of Japan, but it might
effect greatly our history of the future. What might be answered, is
how do we prevent history from repeating itself, especially in the
middle east, where the threat is higher than ever? Therefore, I
believe that we need to concentrate more on trying to save our planet,
and the people that live on it, than on finding more ways to destroy
it. Especially, before the bomb will be ticking again, and maybe not
in the right hands.
Essay 1.3
Diana kovinsky
English 101
Professor O’Connell
Morally Targeted
Genocide is one of the greatest issues the world is facing today.
While the world is searching for an ethical solution to genocide,
thousands of innocent people all over the world being murdered every
day. Daniel Jonah Goldhagen, the writer of the book Worse Than War,
suggest that eliminationist leaders should be targeted and killed. His
views on the subject developed an international debate. In a interview
for an online magazine, Spiegel Online International, Goldhagen was
challenged with the criticism of his ideas, but his positions stayed
clear and determined. The main question that rises from the debate on
Goldhagens ideas is: “is it moral to target and kill those who
constitute a threat to humans?” In an interview Goldhagen gave to an
online magazine Qantara; Dialogue with the Islamic World, the answer
is yes. “There is a higher moral law, and that is to prevent the
murder of innocent children.”
Only three weeks passed since the Israeli secret services caught and
killed a wanted target in Dubai. Mahmoud Mabhouh, was an Israeli
target for 38 years, because he was responsible for the death of
eleven Israeli athletes and officials during the summer Olympics in
Munich. An article from the Los Angeles Times, “Targeted for Death”
brings up opinions of lawyers and professors on the way the Israeli
secret services operated in the prosecution. Just like in any
political issue, Some people agree with the operation and others
disagree with the way it was held. Although the operation went not as
the Israelis expected, but the result was satisfying. The way Israel
operated, is exactly how Goldhagen suggested that every strong country
should operate to eliminate crime against humanity. Once it will be
done to one leader, another one won't even try to “Dice with death.”
In the interview for the magazine, Spiegel Online International,
Goldhagen was asked, “What should the international community do?” (to
prevent genocide in the world). According to Goldhagen, the strong
nations of the world need to immediately get involved in the
prevention of genocide, and not just stand and look from far away,
with sadness for the life of others. In his book, Goldhagen suggest
that the strongest countries in the world should make a program, such
as the one that was held in 1984 and lead to successful elimination of
major terrorists. Such program will work to prevent “more massive
eliminationist assault, with many more masterminds and high-level
participants, it must also go beyond the anti-terrorist program by
covering a much wider range of people and not only seeking their
arrest, but also authorizing their killing. Goldhagens idea might be
the only way to fight back terror. Since terrorists don't obey the
laws of war, and they don't recognize the international court of
justice as a court – they don't play the game by the rules. The world
should not act out of consideration of morality with them, but out of
the thought that there is no punishment bad enough for loosing too
many innocent lives.
In his book, Goldhagen warn his readers of the dangers of political
Islam because he believe that: “Political Islam is the appropriate
term to describe political movements that are grounded in an
understanding of Islam and seek to assert control, often totalitarian
control over their societies and other societies which they think
should be Islamic. These movements often use violence and often with a
genocidal or eliminationist attempt.” Political Islam is the worlds
20th century “Hitler,” who is in favor of power by any mean, and
murder is the most favorable. Moreover, political Islam is mainly
responsible for promoting war in the middle east. Thus, morality is
not a way those extreme Islamic groups understand, and that is exactly
how they should be treated. Eliminating dangerous Islamic leaders,
might save thousand lives all over the world and maybe open a door for
peace in the middle east.
In conclusion, the world isn't doing enough to prevent mass murder.
The way eliminationist groups are treated today make them even
stronger, and make us more frightened. Therefore the tactics that
being used toward them should change, in order to become more useful.
Targeting eliminationist leaders and others who constitute a threat to
human lives was proven effective in the past 30 years. The answer to
the question of morality in this case is yes; it is moral to kill
those who kill innocent people for power, economy and religious views.
It's definitely immoral for strong countries to ignore such
eliminationists and give them a “free hand” to prosecute innocent
people. Hopefully, Goldhagens call for the world to get involved in
saving lives, will become the main target of each leader of a strong
country.
Essay 1. Bonus
Diana Kovinsky
English 101
Section #0143
Professor O'Connell
Fixing Educational Approach
Mass media is doing its best in order to expose us to some of
the
most horrifying, and violent actions taken against humans around the
world. The background is real, the people are real, and the murders
are real as well. Today, many people still believe that the world
should try a peaceful approach toward those who commit crimes against
humanity. The “Truth and Reconciliation Committee” of Sierra Leone
is
one of them. Although even children were used as human shield and
weapon, suffered brutality and murdered, they believe that violence
is
not the answer to violence. Others, like Goldhagen, the writer of
the
book Worse Than War, claims that there is no peaceful way to deal
with
violent groups, since all the peaceful ways had failed in the past.
Goldhagen suggest that those who are responsible for murders of
innocent people, needs to be targeted and killed. Since the world
have tried almost everything to eliminate violent leaders, and pretty
much failed, there is an urgent need to resolve the issue, because
the
number of the victims is growing rapidly each day.
Although it sounds terribly wrong, children were used and
still are,
as soldiers in some of the worlds greatest crimes against humanity.
Since children are easy to manipulate and they are powerless, many
hostile groups use them as killing machines against their own people.
In Sierra Leone, that was exactly the case. “We were made to loot
properties and burn houses. Many of us were forced to kill or rape
our own family members, in order to ruin our moral sense and destroy
our identity and our family ties.” The TRC (Truth and Reconciliation
Committee) supports a peaceful way of dealing with conflicts instead
of launching wars. Their solution found in education. Today, the
children of Sierra Leone being educated against war as a primary
solution, and that is their way to deal with the scars of war on
their
bodies. Education is the greatest power someone can poses, but
unfortunately some use it as way to gain greater power. Atomic
weapons and bombs, were made by well educated people, for the use of
the uneducated people. Goldhagens approach to the subject make
sense. Since the people who declare war on humanity and commit
crimes
against it don't recognize laws as fair game, they probably won't
care
about getting arrested, locked in jail, etc. The only solution then,
is to use their own weapon against them. If they will be targeted
for
death, they will lose power and effect on others. After treating in
such manner with the first couple eliminationist leaders, others
won't
even try to repeat their crimes.
According to another article, “How to Stop Terrorism” by John
Dear in
the Common dreams magazine, “We cannot fight terrorism by becoming
terrorists.” John Dear, a religious catholic peace activist,
suggest
a peaceful approach to deal with terrorism, which is to eliminate the
violent trigger in every one of us. He blames the United States for
the world terror, but he forgets that terrorists turn not only
against
the powerful U.S, but also against groups of innocent people in their
own countries. In his article, John Dear, doesn't take in
consideration all those leaders who kill for power, and he suggest us
to support the UN, which until now operated poorly slow in preventing
mass murder. Moreover, the peaceful approach doesn't seem to be
important enough for mass murder executors, and it seems that
terrorists have their own set of rules for war. Therefore a peaceful
road to eliminate mass murder will not lead us anywhere. In his
book,
Goldhagen suggest that the world will replace the UN with a more
effective organization, which will understand the urge of the problem
and will really fight against eliminationist leaders.
A peaceful way is usually the best way, but in the situation
the
world is facing today, and the amount of people loosing their lives,
peaceful way is useless. The world have tried few methods such as
the
UN and NATO, but that didn't seem to be the fastest solution.
Therefore, violence is probably needed in this case. History proves
my point, and when I look back at Hitler or Stalin, it is obvious
that
they didn't understand the peaceful way. They surrendered only by
death and defeat, and when that happened it was already too late.
Goldhagen gives a reasonable solution that might prevent
eliminationist leaders from appearing in the future. “Automatically
apply to those perpetrating wars against humanity so all those
considering mass murder and elimination know they will become
targets.”
Terrorism today, is the world's main eliminationist issue.
When
people murder children in cold blood, there is no moral thought
behind
those acts. Those who believe they have the right to decide who
shall
live and who shall not, have no place among peaceful societies. I
partially blame the U.S for not preventing mass murder, but mostly I
blame mothers who send their sons with explosives on them, to die and
kill for ideology. That is how they were educated, and that is
exactly the approach we need to fix.
Work Cited
Goldhagen, J. D. (2009). Worse Than War: Genocide,
Eliminationism
and the Ongoing Assault On Humanity (pp. 3-32). New York,
PublicAffairs.
Truth and Reconciliation Commission Report For the Children of
Sierra
Leone, “Child friendly version”, 2004 /TRCCF9SeptFINAL.pdf
Dear, J. July 10, 2005, Common Dreams. org: “How To Stop
Terrorism,”
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0710-23.htm
Essay 2 – half done draft
War brings with it many types of cruelty. When looking back in
history, its noticed that perpetrators used different methods to
eliminate groups of people they didn't want among them. Some people
were shot, some were cut, hanged, burned or drowned, while others were
horribly tortured until they gave up their last breath. When torture
discussed in history, it usually talks about men, women and children
as one. Yet, it ignores the fact that there was a very specific kind
of torture, which was mostly preserved for women and children – rape.
During wars, rape was not only an sexual impulse of men, but a way to
gain pleasure through victims suffrage. In Shakespeare's written
tragedy, Titus Andronicus, rape used as tactic of revenge and torture,
which I will discuss later in my essay. Not until lately, the
phenomenon of raping was identified as a crime against humanity.
Today, many innocent women and children around the world being raped,
humiliated and killed by eliminationist groups. They don't have any
way to protect themselves or escape the cruel destiny. In order to be
more familiar with the issue and solve it, it's very important to
understand few aspects: why does perpetrators rape their victims? How
they rape them? And what can we do to stop them?
In order to understand the reasons, why perpetrators rape
their
victims it is important to learn what does the word rape represent.
Rape is a violent act of forcing someone toward an unwanted sexual
intercourse. Usually when rape cases brought up in the media, they
related to male sexual instincts that might have got out of control.
This isn't the same case when exploring war crimes against humanity.
In a war, the victims can be individuals or groups, women, children or
both. In many cases, after the victim was raped, he or she being
tortured or murdered with cruelty. In Shakespeare's tragedy Titus
Andriconus, the sons of Tamora, Chiron and Demetrius seek for
revenge. They had been advised to rape the daughter of their enemy
(Titus), Lavinia. They catch her, and rape her with brutality while
she is begging them to stop. After they've done, they violently cut
of her tongue and hands, so that she wont be able to tell their
crimes. This is an example of rape and torture, described through the
writings of a great poet in history. The first question needed to be
clarified is, why do people commit such horrible crime against other
people? There are probably many explanations to why perpetrators use
such method to eliminate groups.
First, women and children make an easy target, because when they are
captured by ruthless perpetrators they are weak and helpless. Second,
rape as a war crime, is a way to express power and possession over a
certain group. And third, the perpetrators gain pleasure at a sight
of physical and emotional torture of their victims. In the book Worse
Than War, by Daniel Goldhagen, the reasons described by victims of
rape as: “As in Franz Kafkas' colony, they seek to inscribe on their
victims bodies and souls their own conception of them as degraded,
worthless, or hated, to be used, maimed, discarded at the perpetrators
pleasure.” A crime such as rape was meant to destroy human's
personality and perception of himself as well as the world around
him. The scars of the crime will follow the victims for the rest of
their lives with fear, shame and insecurity. “The rapes were meant to
humiliate Muslim women, to insult them, to destroy their persons and
to cause shock... These women were raped not because it was the male
instinct. They were raped because it was the goal of the war.”
Essay 2 – Final draft
Diana Kovinsky
English 101
Section #0143
Professor O’Connell
April 22, 2010
Shakespeare’s Silent Audience
In Shakespeare's tragedy, Titus Andriconus, the sons of Tamora: Chiron
and Demetrius seek for revenge. They had been advised to rape the
daughter of their enemy (Titus), Lavinia. They catch her, and rape her
with brutality while she is begging them to stop. After they've done,
they violently cut of her tongue and hands, so that she won’t be able
to tell their crimes. When looking back on history, it’s noticed that
perpetrators used different methods to eliminate groups of people they
didn't want among them. Some people were shot; some were cut, hanged,
burned or drowned, while others were horribly tortured until they gave
up their last breath. Only one aspect was usually a taboo when war
crimes were discussed, and that would be rape. In order to be more
familiar with the issue and solve it, it is crucial to understand few
aspects: What does rape crime symbolize? Why do perpetrators rape
their victims? And what can we do to stop the raping?
According to an article by diplomatic correspondent, Barnaby Mason in
BBC News: “Rape: A crime against humanity”, rape wasn’t considered
crime against humanity, until three Bosnians Serbs were accused of
systematic sexual violence against Muslim women during the Bosnian
war. This classification of the term rape was due to the decision of
the International court in Europe. Although rape considered crime
against humanity, women and children in Darfur, Afghanistan, Pakistan
and many other places in the world are being raped systematically
every day due to the world’s antipathy and ignorance toward the
issue.
Rape is a violent act of forcing someone toward an unwanted sexual
intercourse. Many times and especially during war, the raped victim
were tortured or murdered with cruelty. In some way “war rape”
symbolized ownership and triumph of the perpetrator over the victim.
The reasons for rape are clear. Rape as a war crime, is a way to
express power and possession over a certain group. In the book Worse
Than War, by Daniel Goldhagen, rappers described by victims as people
who “seek to inscribe on their victims bodies and souls their own
conception of them as degraded, worthless, or hated, to be used,
maimed, discarded at the perpetrators pleasure.” A crime such as rape
was meant to destroy human's personality and perception of himself as
well as the world around him.
Rape was used as a tool of terror in order to make people leave their
homes and never want to come back. According to Goldhagen’s book,
during the Bosnian war “rapes were meant to humiliate Muslim women, to
insult them, to destroy their persons and to cause shock... These
women were raped not because it was the male instinct. They were raped
because it was the goal of the war.” Rape crimes in history wore many
different forms. Some women and children were kept in “rape camps,”
others were locked in rooms or enslaved by the perpetrators and many
others were gang raped. Many of the rape victims committed suicides or
had babies at a very early age. Diseases spread quickly through rape,
especially HIV virus which became pandemic. The different ways to
rape were according to the perpetrators conception of the victim. The
age of the victims varied from only few menthes to at least 85
years. Rape might also be a way of reducing birth rate in the
“unwanted” group or ethnicity due to shame and fear. Even today there
are places in the world where rape considered as something that the
victim should to be ashamed of. Many women cannot share their painful
stories with anyone because the result might be devastated or even
deadly.
Although the decision to judge war rape crimes, as crimes
against
humanity was made pretty late in human history, it’s not too late.
Many women and children around the globe being raped systematically as
part of eliminationist plan. Those crimes continue due to corrupted
enforcement of the international law. We, the strong societies such
as the United States can help prevent such crimes by scarring
eliminationist leaders and by educating young men, women and soldiers
all over the world about the outcomes of rape crimes. One of the
latest congressional bills passed in the congress of the United
States, S. RES. 345: “Deploring the rape and assault of women in
Guinea and the killing of political protesters,” reported that
government security forces “killed at least 157 demonstrators, after
opening fire on the crowd, and brutalized and raped dozens of women
openly in public.” According to Human Rights Watch, these crimes were
part of a “premeditated massacre” in which the “level, frequency, and
brutality of sexual violence that took place at and after the protests
strongly suggests that it was part of a systematic attempt to
terrorize and humiliate the opposition, not just random acts by rogue
soldiers.” The bill suggests the following resolution to the issue:
to catch and prosecute all the responsible participants in the Guinea
massacre. Further is urges president Barack Obama to cooperate with
the European Union and the African Union to consider an appropriate
punishment for the officials and leaders who took part in the violent
assault. Although the bill was passed in November 9, 2009 in congress
with thirteen cosponsors, no action was recorded so far. By the time
someone will act according to this bill, thousands of people will
become victims of sexual abuse or murder. We can help educate people
around the world about rape and its outcomes, in order to avoid rape
crimes in the future. We can also promote women rights around the
world, especially where rape considered as a shame and blamed on the
victim.
Furthermore, those who commit those horrible crimes need to be
punished and scared in a way that they and those who come after them,
won’t even think of repeating their crimes.
In Shakespeare’s play we are the “silent audience.” Lavinia, who was
brutally raped, was screaming in pain, calling for help. She
represents all those victims that were, and still being raped and
tortured every day. They call for help, but it seems to them that no
one can hear them. Crimes against them are being committed for years
now, without intervention and without any help from us. We are the
once who let her tongue and hands to be cut off. We are just like
audience, who know about the crimes, but we’re just watching it from
far away. Some of us probably wonder, when is this going to end, and
who can put an end to those crimes? The irony is that the answer is
in each one of us. Maybe we won’t be able to save Lavinia, but we can
definitely save thousand or maybe million women and children from
sexual assaults.
Work Cited
Goldhagen, D. J. (2009). Worse Than War. Genocide, Eliminationism,
and the Ongoing Assault
on Humanity, 179, 451-461.
The Library of Congress. S. RES. 345:Deploring the rape and assault of
women in Guinea and
the killing of Political protesters. Retrieved from
http://thomas.loc.gov/
Mason, B. (2001). BBC News. Rape: A crime against humanity. Retrieved
from
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1184763.stm
Iliopoulos, K. CRIMS OF WAR PROJECT. Guinea Massacre a Crime against
Humanity.
Retrieved from http://www.crimesofwar.org/onnews/news-guinea.html
Shakespeare, W. and R. McDonald (ed.). 2000. Titus Andronicus. New
York: Pelican
Shakespeare.
Short Story:
A Call for Help
The last time I saw my older sister was when a young man in uniform
took her somewhere. That was five years ago. I never had a chance to
say goodbye. I still go from village to village, country to country
in hope that I might find her, or at least hear from someone about
here fait. My name is Afi, I’m 11 years old and I’m from Chad
(Sudan). I don’t know the exact date when it happened, but it was 5
years ago. Yet, the memories hunt me every night. It all happened
suddenly. I saw my father shot in all parts of his body by a little
boy – a soldier of the Darfur militia troops. He was not more than
12 or 13 years old. When he was shot, my mother run out of the house
screaming and crying in pain. She wanted to come closer to him, to
touch him, but another soldier who was there punched her in the
stomach. She fell to the ground folding in pain, holding her stomach
with one hand, and reaching dad with the other. I was seating on the
floor, crying and shaking with fear. I couldn’t move, but more than
that, I couldn’t understand what was going on. While approaching to
me, the older soldier commanded my mother to get up on her feet. He
grabbed my shaking hand and pushed me out of the house. I remember
him very clear because he had a big scar on his chin, closer to the
left ear. I run to my mother, and helped her to get up. The soldier
shouted something at us and pointed toward a group of women, and girls
who were standing on the side of the road. When we stood up with the
group, I learned that there were at least 9 more men with guns and
uniform. Three of them were probably younger than 16 years. I
recognized all the women and girls in the little group. Yet, many
women from our village were missing and I assumed they managed to
escape, or they were shot just like my father. I remember noticing
one of the men in the uniform looking at me and smiling. He had dark
and kind eyes, dark hair and tattoo on the upper part of the right
hand; close to his fingers and to where he was holding the gun. The
armed men took us to the school where my sister used to study. I
hoped to see her there, but that never happened. It was afternoon,
the sky was dark blue and I was very hungry. Why are we going to the
school? Where are my friends with whom I played that very same
morning in the field, around the village? What happened to them?
What would happen to me and my mom? Those were the questions in my
mind on that terrifying way to school. I was very innocent, because I
really believed that the men would let us go. What I didn’t
understand was, that it was just the beginning of my worst nightmare.
The soldier with the scar approached us, and pulled one women out of
the group. She was crying and looking at us while he took her
somewhere, where I couldn’t see her anymore. She was screaming for
help, and after couple of moments she was silent. All the women
around me were crying, some of them were begging the soldiers to let
them go, but the soldiers ignored them. Two boys were following every
movement we made with guns ready to shoot. Suddenly, the man who was
smiling to me before, came up to me and took my hand. My mother fell
on her knees, held me tight and begged the man to let me go. I hugged
her and cried, and scram, I didn’t want her to leave me alone, but he
pulled me away from her. I couldn’t do much, I was terrified. The
man bought me to one of the classes. It was a small class, with
windows that were higher than me, many chairs and one table at the
front. He sat me on the table and gave me a piece of cloth to clean
my face. He smiled at me, and went out of the class just for a couple
of minutes. He came back with a bowl of cherries. I was hungry and
scared of him, so I did everything he told me to do; I ate. What
happened after, I want to forget. From that day, the class became my
house for 4 years of abuse. I was sexually abused and beaten by more
than 20 or 30 men. Sometimes there were few men at the same time.
They gave me drugs and called me names. I hated them, and most
important I hated myself. For a time, I blamed my mother for leaving
me alone. But, I wondered what happened to her and why isn’t she
coming to take me home.
I was released a year ago by the Sudan Liberation movement with six
other women from my village. When I was released, I felt alive again
for the first time. Yet, my memories remind me that something within
me died that day – my childhood. Today, we are (me and the other
women who were saved) part of the International Amnesty organization:
Eyes on Darfur. I go around the world, searching for refugees from
Darfur who can tell their story and testify in the International
court. My propose is to spread awareness of the genocide in my
country and lead the International Criminal court to the conclusion
that crimes in Darfur, are crimes against humanity. Sudan needs to be
at the peak of attention, and lives can be saved if the world will
send troops to help fight the guerilla troops.
My name is Afi, I am 11 years old and I lost all my family in one
afternoon at the dinner table. I know today that only few months
after we were captured, my mother died from internal bleeding in her
stomach. Most of the women, who were kept at the school, were
brutally raped and murdered. I’m still searching for my sister.
Every piece of information is important and every story has a soul
behind it. Please, this is a call for help!
Essay 3 – Half done draft
Books had always been representations of the reality. Although
Shakespeare’s tragedy Titus Andronicus is not dealing with a specific
issue, it does consist of many conflicts which can be metaphorically
linked with some of today’s concerns. One of the biggest concerns in
the world today is the rising terrorism. Groups of Islamic people
joined together to terrorize many countries in the world, among them
the U.S. and Israel. Titus and Tamora are two interesting and
opposite characters that can be metaphorically linked to today’s war
on terrorism. Titus was fighting Rome’s enemies; wars through which
he gained respect and honor for his country. He represents the
powerful United States that got involved in war against terrorism;
especially on Al-Qaeda. Tamora represents Al-Qaeda, the enemies of
the United States. She is the queen of Goths. Tamora holds a pro-
war
approach with brutality and barbarism. Her ruthlessness reminds me
the terrorists who kill innocent people in revenge for political
views. In this essay I will explore, how terrorism begin in the U.S?
Explore examples of it, and suggest a solution to end it.
Meagan Judkins
May 28, 2010, 6:30:45 PM5/28/10
to english-101-spring-2010-on...@googlegroups.com
Meagan Judkins
English #3226
Professor O’Connell
Journal Weeks 15-16
Collected Works
May 28th, 2010
I have first listed all of my journal entries by earliest to most recent date, followed by the essays. The only copy i cannot retrieve is that of my essay 2 - half done paper. But the completed essay 2 is listed.
Meagan Judkins
February 18, 2010
GOLDHAGEN; WORSE THAN WAR
Week (1) Research & Journal
English 101, Spring 2010 online, Section #3226
A) My response to the question, “is war, specifically the increase of initial attacks on civilians, the greatest problem in the world today?”, was initially no, of course it isn’t the greatest problem we as human beings face today. In my opinion, climate change, pollution, deforestation, waste and things of this nature are far more worrisome and should, in my opinion, be on the forefront of our minds. After all, not only is war or genocide not possible without resources to enforce, one could imagine that as we deplete our natural resources, people will become more desperate and more likely to harm others in order to protect their own basic needs. It is inevitable that conflict will and does arise over basic elements we need to survive, water, food, shelter. If we as earthlings do not conserve, then to me, war, genocide and mass murder is our inescapable future.
I have posted a link below to a PDF entitled:
WATER AND VIOLENT CONFLICT
Development Assistance Committee or DAC
“Mainstreaming Conflict Prevention”
http://www.globalpolicy.org/images/pdfs/052605waterconflict.pdf
“Access to water, and its allocation and use, are critical concerns that can drive conflict”.
This article is fascinating to me, not only in its clear outline of the possibilities of violence when water becomes scarce, but also in its offering of solutions to “international actors” as they call them. I suggest reading this link. It is very interesting.
Going back to the original question posed here, is war, or even elminationism the greatest problem in our world today? Again, my feeling is no, it is not our greatest problem. However, one cannot deny the intense passion in Goldhagen’s writings. He believes wholeheartedly that yes, we as human beings must find a way to stop this terror, I would even say he is trying to delve deep in the conscience of the reader, evoke guilt. It made me wonder; perhaps this passion comes from a man who has seen the actuality of elminationism, from the beginning to the end. Perhaps when you ask the above question to someone like me, who at this moment is comfortable in her tempered room, toes nestled up in a shag carpet, sure, war or elminationism is not the greatest problem in our world today. But ask a Rwandan Tutsi woman my age in 1994 this same question, I bet her answer will be the complete opposite of what I have written. This is a very sensitive subject, and at the very least I respect Goldhagen for taking on such an intense crusade.
B) Even after reading the Discover Magazine article “Has Science Found a Way to End All Wars” I don’t feel like I have a strong opinion on whether or not violence and attacks on civilians is an inevitable component of life/human nature. I would have to do more research. However, going back to my point in section A) of this journal entry, I do believe absolutely that situations can and will be exacerbated to the point of violence when humans are pushed to the brink of starvation, thirst or when other vital needs are being threatened. Perhaps we can lesson the cases of war, genocide and eliminationism by sharing the wealth so to speak. Or perhaps we can be more involved in the distribution of resources in less structured countries around the world.
C) This is a tough question, because again, they can be many reasons why we should intervene in the actions of other countries; as technology grows our world becomes smaller. It is apparent that what one area of the world does, affects us all. The borders are becoming less and less defined. I believe we are approaching a time that will require the entire planet to work together. But it is difficult to say when and how more developed nations should intervene when there are acts of violence and genocide. In a perfect world we would always intervene, do what is right. But I don’t think this is realistic, it is possible, but seemingly unrealistic. Goldhagen recognizes that the world is slow to respond and policies as they are now are simply not working. He suggests we enforce a worldwide policy or implement a “deterrence”; knowledge of this policy would be spread to all corners of the globe, making it known that if you, a political leader or otherwise, engage in any type of mass murder or beginning stages of genocide (moving people out of their homes, terrorizing or preventing reproduction), then you will be held accountable, by either a million dollar bounty on the head of the political and/or military leaders or with a threat of destruction of their country’s military capability. I quote Goldhagen “The Obama administration, like earlier Democratic and Republican administrations, offers such bounties for terrorists who kill a few dozen or a few thousand people. How can we justify not doing the same when the lives of millions are at stake?”. This is a very interesting point. I do support Goldhagen’s idea of creating a system of prevention, as opposed to our continue system or reaction that is often: too little, too late.
Meagan Judkins
English 101
2/28/2010
Weeks 2-4 research and journal
Professor O’Connell
Website Review:
A.)One thing I like about Goldhagen’s approach in Worse Than War is how he concludes that there are many ways elminationism can take place, it is not just the act of murder. Transformation or elminationist transformation is when a group is forced to give up everything that makes them unique; culture, society, traditions and sometimes language. The difference between the two being; with transformation often there is education or society rebuilding to better fit the mold of the perpetrators, the elminationist approach is far more destructive and is focused on suppressing rather than rebuilding. Repression often entails enslavement, or keeping of a people. This can range from violence or harassment to murder or ownership of another human being or group of people. Expulsion is when a group is forcibly moved form their homes or land, or keeping them in camps. Removing them from the society. Prevention of reproduction, the least frequently used and often is not demonstrated solely, consists of sterilizing a group of people, or preventing them from giving birth and passing along the undesired genes. Rape is often found in this type of elminationist act. Extermination is the final way in elminationism can take place. This is the mass slaughtering of a group of people. An example of extermination would be Hitler’s mass murdering of the Jews. Although Goldhagen concludes most of genocide can fit into one, some or all of these categories, what I appreciate is Goldhagen’s unanswered proposition, is elminationism on a “continuum of increasing violence, related to the others but qualitatively different?” I believe that all of these ways of acting out hatred are on a continuum, they are all linked, they are all horrific and they all are as threatening to life as the next. I respect Goldhagen for his ability to blur the lines on mass murders, they are all equally as worrisome as the next and cannot be dismissed depending on the amounts of deaths or on the way they were executed. As John Gray states in my review of a website “Each has a distinctive pathology, but Goldhagen is determined to view mass killings of every kind as instances of a single evil.”
B.) As stated above, Goldhagen is determined to lump all mass murders together, very lightly explaining the moral or reasoning behind the mass murders motives. Simply, they resulted in terror and death of a people; therefore we should not accept one over the other. John Gray disagrees with this belief, especially how Goldhagen puts Truman with the likes of Hitler or Pol Pot, “Seemingly aware of this absurdity, Goldhagen distinguishes between how mass murder is defined and how it is explained and morally evaluated. As he sees it, these distinctions do nothing to alter the crime”. I don’t appreciate Goldhagen's intensity on this matter, I understand the point he is trying to make, but I feel like the way he presents it can be offensive to people, thereby thwarting his own plan to make believers of the public. Human begins can be overly sensitive and will dismiss new ideals if they are presented with too much hyperbole. To the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Truman was a killer. He killed their families, destroyed their homes and disrupted their way of life. Whatever reasons Truman had, good or bad, innocent people died at his hand and just because he can be looked upon in this country as a hero, it can not be denied that he is in fact, by definition, a murderer. Ultimately I agree with Goldhagen’s point, I just feel his approach will only turn people off from hearing his opinions and proposals.
C.)As quoted in the book review by John Gray:
“In Hitler's Willing Executioners (1996), Goldhagen argued that Germans were largely active supporters of Nazi "eliminationism" - an ideology that justified the extermination of minorities, above all Jews, as necessary and right. Goldhagen's claim that many, if not most Germans enthusiastically endorsed Hitler's genocidal policies was predictably controversial and brought him worldwide recognition. His argument that Germany had nurtured a uniquely virulent, "eliminationist" type of anti-Semitism over generations has been forcefully disputed by historians for conflating the hatreds of the interwar era with German culture as a whole (and for neglecting eliminationist anti-Semitism in other countries). But Goldhagen, who rarely refers to other scholars except to dismiss them, is unfazed by these objections. Instead, he has upped the stakes and extended his analysis to cover virtually every kind of mass killing perpetrated in recent times.”
This quote and Goldhagen’s many pages on the subject has me curious to further investigate the psychology of the masses in situations of genocide. Why do people allow, support and even act with their murderous leaders? Are humans built to kill? Are we lemmings? Or are we just cowards? I know we touched upon this in the first journal, but in the first chapter of Worse Than War, Goldhagen skims through the many possibilities of why humans stand idly by as people are slaughtered. He jumps to get to the point that what is important is that we don’t “depersonalize” or dehumanize” the perpetrators. I understand his point in this, but as I said in my last journal entry, there can not be an easy implementation of genocide without the support of the society. I am curious to delve further into studies that have answers as to why (although we are progressing as a species so rapidly) we still brutally murder one another, if not by our actual hands, then by our lack of intervention. Perhaps most humans are simply ignorant? Fearful?
Work Cited:
Goldhagen, J. D. (2009). Worse Than War: Genocide, Eliminationism and
the Ongoing Assault On Humanity (Chapter 1)
http://www.newstatesman.com/books/2010/02/genocide-goldhagen-mass
Worse Than War: Genocide, Eliminationism and the Ongoing Assault on Humanity by Daniel Jonah Goldhagen; Reviewed by John Gray - 04 February 2010
Meagan Judkins
English 101 #3226
Professor O'Connell
Weeks 5-7
Research & Journal
March 28, 2010
H.RES.241
Title: Commending the International Criminal Court for issuing a
warrant for the arrest of Omar Hassan Ahmad al-Bashir, President of
the Republic of the Sudan, for war crimes and crimes against humanity,
and expressing the hope that this will be a significant step in the
long road towards achieving peace and stability in the Darfur region.
Sponsor: Rep Hastings, Alcee L. [FL-23] (introduced 3/12/2009)
Cosponsors (28)
A. I like a lot of things about this bill. The point I will focus on
hopefully shows that the UN and ICC have evolved since the publishing
of “Worse than War”. As Goldhagen points out in Chp 10. page 525, “The
language we use to describe eliminationist onslaughts should be
descriptively accurate. We should avoid euphemisms and obfuscating
locutions such as “ethnic cleansing”. His point being that “we should
use genocide”. This bill to me is very direct, to the point and does
not seem to be sugar coating the situation in Sudan. Genocide is used
to describe the horrible crimes of Al-Bashir and the bill is littered
with descriptive wording, that again, paints the correct picture;
“crimes against humanity”, “campaign of violence”, “needless
violence”, “brutal murder, rape, torture, and unconscionable
oppression”. I also like that the bill “encourages President Barack
Obama to appoint a full-time envoy to the region to engage in
diplomatic efforts.”
B. What I don’t like about this bill is it seems a little premature to
begin “commending” the ICC. I feel like, as Goldhagen points out many
times in “Worse than War”, it is not enough to simply issue a warrant.
The issuing of a warrant, to me, should be apart of the first steps
taken to stop the genocide, therefore not worthy of any type of
celebration. I am also concerned that the issuing of the warrant
without any immediate following action could have actually created
more harm. As quoted in the bill “President al-Bashir's immediate
response to the arrest warrant was to expel humanitarian aid agencies
from the region, further threatening the lives of over 1,100,000
million people who are at grave risk of starvation and disease”
C. What I don’t understand about this bill is, why would the ICC
issue a warrant without an immediate and direct plan of action
following? I understand that is a step in the right direction, but it
is simply not enough to express hope “that the arrest warrant and
subsequent efforts, which must be accompanied by other actions and aid
from the international community, will play a significant role in
achieving and maintaining stability and peace in the region”. What is
the next plan of action after all of this commending, condemning and
applause?
Meagan Judkins
Research Journal Weeks 8-9
April 10, 2010
#3226
H.J.RES.46
Title: To acknowledge a long history of official depredations and
ill-conceived policies by the United States Government regarding Indian tribes
and offer an apology to all Native Peoples on behalf of the United
States.
Sponsor: Rep
Boren, Dan [OK-2] (introduced 4/30/2009)
What I like about this bill is not only does it seek to bring some justice to the treatment of Native Americans, but it also recognizes just how much help was given to the Europeans when they arrived, suggesting in some ways that our stay here may not have been possible, or at the very least far more difficult without the aid of the Native Americans.
What I don’t like about bill is that I fear a simple apology is not enough for retribution. What else can we offer or do in order to not only admit our guilt, but offer in some way action to make up for our fault? Maybe there isn’t anything we can do? The damage has been done?
I choose this bill because what I am trying to prove in my essay is that the treatment of the Native Americans by the hand of the first settlers was in fact an act of genocide. That the killings, expulsion and neglect were not an accident or circumstance. The horrors the Native Americans experienced could have been avoided. I think this bill with its call for admittance of guilt gives me all the fodder I need for my essay.
Meagan Judkins
Journal 10-11
4/20/2010
Professor O’Connell
The feeble young minds of children are first introduced to the story of Pocahontas and John Smith in this Disney adaptation. of the encounter of the Native Americans and the white settlers. I won’t go on a rant about the sexist nature of Disney or even hyper inaccuracy of the film. I will only say that if we ignore our past, we are doomed to repeat it. I am obviously not suggesting we throw violence and war down the throats of our children, I am only suggesting that we as a society must own up to our past, the actions of our forefathers. If we cannot bring justice to those injustices committed, then we can, at the very least, re-account our history in a truthful manner, thereby bringing respect to those who were treated unfairly while also regaining the dignity we’ve lost.
I asked a Native American friend of mine if there was any film, book, etc that he felt truly gave real and fair account of the life of the Native American. Although this short story does not tie in directly with Goldhagen’s points towards the treatment or suggested genocide of the Native Americans, I do feel it paints a clear picture of the aftermath. Victor is a young man on a reservation. He has heard word that his father has been found dead in his trailer. With no car, no way to cremate his father and no money, he must go to the tribal council for help. “Who does have money on a reservation, except the cigarette and fireworks salespeople?” the narrator asks. The council can offer no solution but $100. Victor is met with an old friend. Thomas Builds-The-Fire. His old friend offers to help him on his journey. Youth centered drinking, poverty and the bleakness of day to day life is felt in this short story.
“Pocahontas” Walt Disney Pictures. 1995
"This Is What It Means To Say Phoenix, Arizona"
by
Sherman Alexie
First published in Esquire In 1994 - Anthologized in Best
American Short Stories of 1994.
Meagan Judkins
Journal weeks 12-14
Professor O’Connell
May 14th, 2010
The removal of Lavinia’s hands and tongue to ensure the silence against her attackers (Tamora's sons Chiron and Demetrius) correlates to the use of mutilation and amputation as an act of control, as seen in Sierra Leone. Lavinia suggested the story of Philomela, in which a mute victim “wrote” the name of her attackers, to her Father Titus and her uncle Marcus. Marcus then gives Lavinia a stick so that she may write out the name of her attackers. In Sierra Leone people’s hands were amputated by rebels who (although all of the amputations could not be confirmed for this reason) told their victims “they were cutting off their hands as punishment for using their hands in the 1996 vote”. Although not directly same, this correlation shows the use of violence to silence a person, because although Lavinia’s amputation was used to silence her after the fact and amputations in Africa were as punishment for making their voice heard, both are acts of violence to instill fear and silence.
References:
Shakespeare, William. “Titus Andronicus.” (Pelican Shakespeare Series)
Retrieved May 12th, 2010: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/sierraleone/1394199/Sierra-Leone-war-amputees-learn-to-vote-with-their-feet.html
Meagan Judkins
February 18th, 2010
English 101 #3226
E1.1
Goldhagen v. Traub
I feel as though both men are in basic agreement. Genocide is a horrific and sadly a common occurrence in our world today. Both men agree that something must be done in order to stop, and more importantly, prevent these mass murders. I have to side with Goldhagen for this report however; after my readings I understand what Goldhagen is trying to accomplish, I feel that Traub is playing devil’s advocate in his review of Goldhagen’s approach to this crusade. Traub offers much support to Goldhagen, but he also takes a more negative approach and offers no real alternative to Goldhagen’s suggestions for change.
Ultimately, although I understand Traub’s distaste for Goldhagen’s extremely passionate and dramatic ideals towards ending elminationism, I feel that Goldhagen has taken this stance because after years and numerous accounts of violence and genocide, nothing is really changing. Perhaps Goldhagen’s intensity is a strategic plan to demand attention to this issue. Traub, throughout his review, agrees with Goldhagen “We place the Holocaust outside of history”, Traub goes on to say “Goldhagen embeds it (Holocaust) in the larger, recurring pattern of genocidal killing”. But Traub then questions Goldhagen’s “wake-up call” in which Goldhagen, quite bluntly, accuses the followers of these murderous leaders to be anything but “automatons”, “who, exactly, has been lulling us to sleep with denials of human agency?” Traub questions. To me this is not the point Goldhagen is trying to make. I feel as though Goldhagen is trying to get to the meat of the problem, show every dark corner. I see nothing wrong with flailing this information in order to gain international attention. After all, as Goldhagen and Traub both point out, the organizations designed to help, according to Goldhagen, “have accomplished little”, Traub in his review is quoted as saying, because of lack of national interest, states “routinely facilitate mass murder by rationalizing a passive response.” Traub later, in regards to Goldhagen’s approach, warns that “intense moralism carries risks” such as one’s ideas being written off as “hyperbole”. I understand his point in saying this, however, again, to me Goldhagen is a man who sees and more importantly feels the intense urgency of this situation. He is using hyperbole to gain attention. Traub then offers, in defense of the United Nations, the fact that the UN adopted the “responsibility to protect” principle. But as Goldhagen has pointed out time and time again, these “principles” or “policies” are not working. “Special tribunals and the ICC, all necessary and good, have been too late, too slow and too partial to be effective.”
I think what we must remember is the subject at hand. It is easy to become removed from this situation, especially when you are not faced with the results of this evil first hand. I think Goldhagen offers many great and plausible solutions to preventing genocide, including a worldwide understanding and implementation of punishment. He recognizes people’s concerns “these measures are too costly—referring to money, not lives. But compared to the cost of allowing mass elimination to take place, these steps would actually be relatively inexpensive.” I agree with Goldhagen, to take initial steps in order to prevent genocide must be less costly than having to deploy troops in order to stop an already active operation. Not to mention, prevention saves lives. The following declaration by 55 Governments was announced at the Closing Ceremony of the Stockholm International Forum: "Preventing Genocide; Threats and Responsibilities”
http://www.preventgenocide.org/prevent/conferences/StockholmDeclaration28Jan2004.htm
One of the declarations can be quoted as saying:
#4. We are committed to supporting research into the possibilities of preventing genocide, mass murder and ethnic cleansing.
It is recognized in our world the horror of genocide and the urgent need for us to come together and find a solution. I applaud Goldhagen for his efforts, and I agree wholeheartedly the answer is in the prevention, not in the correction. To wait until the wheels of mass murder are in motion is to allow far too many people to come into harm.
. “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure” – Benjamin Franklin.
Meagan Judkins
March 3, 2010
#3226 E.2
Professor O’Connell
Goldhagen vs. NY Times’ “Hiroshima, 50 Years Later”
Up until this point I have, for argument’s sake mostly, tried to understand and defend Goldhagen’s point of view and ideals. I respect his crusade and for the most part I understand where he is coming from, or rather the point he is trying to get across. In my last journal entry I defend his approach to Truman, his claim that Truman should be lumped together with the likes of Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot. But after reading The New York Times’ “Hiroshima, 50 Years Later” I feel as though my opinions have swayed a bit. The point Goldhagen is innocently trying to get across when labeling Truman a murderer is that mass murder is just that, murder (no matter the moral reasoning behind the action). I, however, feel as though his words are off putting and unfair (although in his defense, he does state “Truman would have gladly had history take another course). In the New York Times article Truman and the situation at hand were described in a far more reality based sense and because things in this life are rarely black and white, I believe Goldhagen stands to be questioned in this area.
Goldhagen plainly and repeatedly states that Truman is a “mass murderer” and should be openly labeled as such. He does not compare the decision Truman had to make to other mass murder situations of our time, but rather puts “Truman and his deeds into the same broad categories of Hitler and the Holocaust, Stalin and the gulag, Pol Pot, Mao Saddam Hussein, and Slobodan Milosevic”. Of course the point Goldhagen is trying to make is that we must be careful to makes excuses for a mass murder, this is dangerous terrority, but that being said, his approach seems a bit ridiculous and unfair to me. There were many components involved to making the decision to drop the bomb on Hiroshima. One cannot dismiss such a huge decision as easily as Goldhagen does. Many factors need to be considered. I appreciate what I read in the article “One can imagine the clamor for his (Truman) skin political skin if tens of thousands of allied soldiers had died, in battle or in Japanese camps, because the bomb was never used, or used too late.” Goldhagen claims “as Truman knew, the slaughter was not necessary to end the war soon.” But again, even if Truman’s main objective, for example, was only to demonstrate American power to the Soviets, then it can be argued that the bomb saved future lives. If Goldhagen believes what he says on page 8 “Truman’s (mass murder) was accidental, owing to a confluence of circumstances that he would have preferred never came about”, then Goldhagen must consider Truman’s decision, although horrific, a necessary one.
I believe that Truman and his administration choose to drop the bomb in order to stop the war, save lives and to make a point. I choose to believe that this was not an act of hatred or racism, or even a ploy show America’s strength in an unnecessary way. According to the article “Those in the inner circle generally saw the bomb as just another weapon.” Continuing that “Hanson Baldwin” a New York Time’s correspondent “was among the few to grasp how truly lethal the weapon was”. In a time of war, each moment matters, lives are lost or people are injured every minute. I believe they made what they thought was the right decision. Although many factors came into play after the bomb had been dropped, should we have dropped an “advanced warning” bomb in an uninhabited area instead, or perhaps modify America’s unconditional surrender policy first before dropping the bomb or most interesting to me, drop only the one bomb on Hiroshima. Maybe two bombs were too much?
Meagan Judkins
English 101 #3226
Professor E. O’Connell
E 1.3
March 19, 2010
I feel it extraordinarily dangerous for Goldhagen to claim, as he does in his interview with Michael Hesse, that “anyone who has the chance to kill those who commit mass murder should do just that”. This type of thinking can create madness and potentially more killings. I suppose if there were situation wherein an individual was in a room with the likes of Hitler, had a weapon and knew full well the entire western world was after him, it could be considered a duty to make a citizen’s arrest or in an extreme situation use violence to detain the person in question. However, to encourage the seeking out of such individuals by a regular citizen seems terribly absurd and quite dangerous, especially if there was a reward involved. Who is to say, without a judge, that an execution is fair? Encouraging people to play God seems so risky. The consequences seem obvious to me; this type of action could potentially cause intense retaliation on the individual or their family, negative foreign relations and/or mistaken killings in the name of prevention of genocide.
I completely understand what Goldhagen is trying to convey, but unfortunately I feel as though the only real option here is to continue to get his message to as many supporters as possible, continue to probe the United Nations for more call to action and hope that The International Court of Justice can improve its policies and reaction times. He should continue to try to get the media’s attention, as he writes (situation where the media gave world wide attention) “Bosnia shows the media’s immense power to spur action” (pg. 520). I agree fully with Goldhagen’s proposals found in the Spiefel interview “We must create an international environment where those leaders that might contemplate eliminationist assaults would think, it’s probably not a good idea because I’ll either lose power or could lose my life”. We should implement a much stronger international “police force” if you will or rather a much broader international understanding of consequences. We should definitely strive to stop genocide before it even happens, as opposed to always trying to stop what has already begun. To make it a worldwide known fact that if you act in any way with eliminationism, associated with anyone who does or support any type of genocide or the like, then you are subject to punishment, be it, a fine, imprisonment, or even death.
Chapter 10 of Goldhagen’s “Worse Than War” is a “Prologue to the Future” in which Goldhagen, in great detail, pins political Islam as being the biggest threat of eliminationism to the 21st century. He gives countless examples of the radical nature of these groups, each as chilling as the next “Osama Bin Laden explained to a reporter: “We love death, The U.S. loves life. That is the big difference between us.” One quote from two Hamas genocide bombers’ video testament: “We are a nation that drinks blood, and we know that there is no blood better than the blood of the Jews.” Goldhagen continues to site instances were political Islam not only bragged about its willingness and want to bring death and destruction, but even where political Islam has been successful. Yet in the interview “Deterrence as the only option” Michael Hesse asks Goldhagen, “Are you optimistic that genocides can be prevented?” Goldhagen replies “Yes, I am.” Yes, we have overcome imperialism, Nazi Germany and have even moved past slavery. But I have to wonder, how do you fight something when the biggest threat you can give is death, to a group of people who not only do not fear death, but as quoted above, “love death”? What can we as a world do together to stop these types of radical groups from implementing not only genocide but worldwide destruction and mass murder? Because as Goldhagen makes clear at the end of chapter 10, “In twenty to thirty years, certainly in fifty, the technology and know-how for developing such weaponry (nuclear missiles/bombs etc) will be widely if not generally available.” Will the same preventative steps Goldhagen suggests towards eliminating genocide from even forming hold any real weight against political Islam? Or will an all out war be the only answer?
Work cited:
Hesse, M. (2009, February
12). Qantara.de, Deterrence As the Only Option: Interview with Daniel J.
Goldhagen
Retrieved March 8, 2010, from http://www.qantara.de/webcom/show_article.php/_c-476/_nr-1263/i.html
Spiegel.de. Spiegel.de, 10 Aug. 2009. Web. 18 Mar. 2010. http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,653938,00.html
Goldhagen, D.J. Worse Than War. 2009.
Meagan Judkins
#3226 English 101
Professor O’Connell
April 23, 2010
Essay 2
Native Americans & Genocide
The ever sensitive topic on the Native American genocide is brought up in chp. 3 of Goldhagen’s “Worse Than War”. This topic is important for a variety of reasons, one being that throughout this book Goldhagen lists off various instances of genocide, none of which are questionable, they were genocide. Even Goldhagen’s claim that Truman should be labeled a mass murderer rings, in some way, true. In chp. 3 Goldhagen reveals and reminds us of the seedy past the United States would rather forget. I realized, for reason of society or otherwise, I without much thought assume genocide to be a thing of other nations, not my “just” America. It did not occur to me just how much one can be blinded by their own society. My realization helped to better understand Goldhagen’s purpose.
We as societies, as human beings, can be trained to overlook certain truths, become de-sensitized or to forget certain events completely. The view on the treatment of the Native Americans by my European ancestors isn’t quite as black and white when compared to, for example, the Holocaust. There are many factors involved in the expulsion and deaths of the Native Americans in the early stages of this county. These arguments help better prove Goldhagen’s point; the mass killing of one society by another is horrific, in many cases avoidable, and most importantly can not be justified. If we as a species can not properly identify genocide and its dark associates then we will continue to suffer its consequences. Not only the poor and weak, but all of us are at risk of genocide. To quote Elie Wiesel, “The danger lies in forgetting. Forgetting, however, will not effect only the dead. Should it triumph, the ashes of yesterday will cover our hopes for tomorrow.” In this quote Elie Wiesel explains simply the need to remember, respect and evolve from our past.
In Goldhagen’s attempt to explain “why they (genocides) begin” he suggests that one of the reasons is “nation building”. He uses this to explain what happened with the Native Americans. Although in “Were American Indians the Victims of Genocide?” Guenter Lewy feels that it is not fair to deem the history of the United States in regard to the treatment of the Native Americans as genocide. Guenter argues that “The sad fate of America's Indians represents not a crime but a tragedy, involving an irreconcilable collision of cultures and values.” Guenter’s point is that most of the death and suffering came unintentionally from the Europeans. It was an act of fate, not genocide. It can, however, be argued that there was a portion of that death that was induced by hate, greed and revenge. In God, Greed, and Genocide: The Holocaust Through the Centuries, Grenke quotes Chalk and Jonassohn with regards to the Cherokee Trail of Tears that "an act like the Cherokee deportation would almost certainly be considered an act of genocide today.” As stated in the first paragraph of this essay, whether or not the fate of the Native American was genocide or not is still an ongoing debate.
Something to consider when forming your opinion on this topic is Goldhagen’s view on the many types of genocide, or eliminationist assaults. According to Goldhagen, genocide is not just the mass murder of a people. In chapters 1 and 2 of “Worse than War” we revisit Goldhagen’s explanation of expulsion. When a group is forcibly moved from their homes or land. We then remember The Indian Removal Act of 1830 which eventually led to the Trail of Tears. The Trail of Tears was the relocation of 17,000 Cherokee Indians to reservations in Oklahoma. There were those who stood against the removal of the Native Americans, a more famous name being Davy Crockett. His political career was never the same after in 1830 he openly opposed the Indian Removal Act. But in the end the bill was passed. The Native Americans suffered from exposure, disease, and starvation while en route to their destinations, and many died, including 4,000 of the 17,000 relocated. Goldhagen mentions these “death marches” on page 104, this too is a form of genocide, no matter the intention.
Whether defined as genocide or not, there are those in this country that believe the treatment and fate of the Native American was horrific and deserves retribution. Put forth by Rep Dan Boren, a congressional bill that aims to not only acknowledge fully the negative treatment of the Native Americans at the hand of the European settlers and admit to the “ill-conceived policies by the United States” but to also apologize “to all Native Peoples on behalf of the United States”. This bill, with its 27 cosponsors, represents to me the fact that the demise of the Native American is no doubt directly correlated with the arrival of the European Settlers. I am not sure if the passing of this bill will bring peace to the ancestors of the Native Americans, I only hope that it can be a step in the right direction, a step toward admittance and with that the hope that we as a nation move forward.
No matter why the deaths of the Native Americans occurred, whether it was intentional, accidental, with malice or good intentions, the question to ask is, would the Native Americans have died off at such an alarming rate had the European settlers never come to America. The answer is no. Goldhagen makes a strong case in “Worse than War” on the side of the Native American. I for one agree with him. We cannot let good intentions be the reason we do not define an act as genocide. We must be aware that genocide can take many forms, not just mass murder. We as a nation, as a species, must define these acts and do all we can to stop them.
Works cited:
Glauner, Lindsay. "The US and the Crime of Genocide against Native Americans"
http://academic.udayton.edu/race/06hrights/GeoRegions/NorthAmerica/UnitedStates02.htm
Goldhagen, D. J. (2009). “Worse than war: Genocide, Eliminationism, and
the Ongoing Assault on Humanity.” New
York: Public Affairs.
Grenke, Arthur. “God, Greed, and Genocide: The Holocaust through the Centuries” New Academia Publishing, LLC (July 20, 2005)
Lewy, Guenter. “Were American Indians the Victims of Genocide?” November 11, 2004. http://hnn.us/articles/7302.html
http://ngeorgia.com/history/nghisttt.html
http://www.liberalslikechrist.org/AmericanHolocaust/amholocaust-6.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_of_Tears
Rep
Boren, Dan [OK-2] (introduced 4/30/2009) H.J.RES.46 Title:
To acknowledge a long history of official depredations and ill-conceived
policies by the United States Government regarding Indian tribes and offer an
apology to all Native Peoples on behalf of the United States.
************
Meagan Judkins
English 101 #3226
Professor O’Connell
April 23, 2010
Short Story
Oklahoma
I remember being confused most of the time. I remember feeling out of place. But mostly I remember feelings of nervousness. My mother always seemed to be shouting at my father. Her claims rang true to me. Why had we come here? I knew that things were bad in back in England, but bad enough for us to flee? To leave Grandma and Grandpa? “This land will bring us freedom! This land represents a new life! How can you not see that?” my father shouted. He seemed increasingly tense with every passing day. This made me nervous. There was so much I didn’t understand. I remember the savages were often ill. I asked my father once, “Why do we recover yet they perish?” My father, in his stoic way, replied “It is divine intervention.” It did not occur to me in my tender age just how frightening this statement was. I remember there was a time when I was allowed to play with the other savage children my own age. Although we weren’t able to speak much to each other, I quickly learned that words were unnecessary when exploring my new lush surroundings. I liked the way of the Indians. They seemed wise, even the children. Sometimes the men would intimidate me. They had hard faces and although they seemed to interact positively with men like my father, they also seemed ready to pounce at the slightest misstep. It was the late summer of 1838 when I heard that the Indians would be moved west to a place called Oklahoma. Oklahoma! Oklahoma! I liked the way the word Oklahoma sounded. “Ooook-la-HOME-A!” I would dance and sing to the word, it made me giggle. I was still so naïve. That word, that place was representative of death, there was evil brewing around me. Anger, hatred, racism and fear, cold, empty fear swirled around our village. I could sense it. I knew my father was a harsh man, I knew he was quick to anger. As the days, weeks, months passed my mother learned to hold her tongue. This was a fight she could not win, but never one to be beaten into full submission, my mother managed to make her opinions understood by me, if only in her glance. I was chasing a chicken through the backyard one early fall morning, I stopped suddenly when I caught my mother handing a basket to one of the native women. Silently I watched. The young mother’s child was clung to her side; I could see the grooves of skin between its tiny little hands. I then noticed the mother’s tight grip on her child. It made me feel anxious. My mother hugged the women softly and then dropped her head as if in defeat. They had a moment of silence. You cannot fully comprehend all of the experiences of your life, everything you have witnessed, unless you really try. The question I ask myself to this day, and to my deathbed will be; what could I have done? If I had screamed, if I had shouted, if I had refused to eat, could I have made a difference? Although I was only a child, the memories I have burn brightly from what I had witnessed. I do not remember sounds or smells. I only remember feelings and faces. It frightened me to the core to see grown men in such sorrow, to see women cry out agony, all of them preparing for the unknown; most likely certain death. Yet the terror and realization of death in the native’s eyes was not the most unnerving part. What truly frightened me was the absolute empathy in my father’s nature. I watched him as he blankly stared beyond the truth. His action was no action. I learned a lesson that day, if you could have done something to stop injustice, yet you stood idly by, then you are as guilty as the executioner. I wanted to go with the savages, I envisioned running along with the tribe, getting in line, walking forever to Oklahoma. I suddenly no longer felt safe in the house of my father. He became a monster in my eyes. But something inside of me knew I had to stay. Some of the villagers came out from their homes and watched, I backed up slowly from my position in the front yard reaching for my mother. She solemnly walked towards me. I grabbed her hand and pressed myself against her, shielding myself from the reality. I could feel her breathing. It was shallow. Her heart was beating fast, but her face was motionless. After several moments she took in a deep breath and suddenly shifted her weight, as if just waking from a trance. She stared straight ahead and said quietly but with importance, “This is not truth my child, this is not the way. Those who stood here today as witnesses will suffer the greatest of suffering there is, guilt. My God have mercy on our souls.”
Meagan Judkins
English 101 #3226
Essay 3 – HALF DONE
May 7th, 2010
Professor O’Connell
The conflict now happening in Uganda, Sierra Leone, Sudan and The Republic of Congo metaphorically and literally shares ties between Shakespeare’s “Titus Andronicus”. Throughout the 20th century the people of Africa have suffered greatly the costs of The enslavement of an opposing force or outfit compares to Tomara being held with her three sons by the Romans after the fall of the Gloths. This is explicitly mentioned when Saturnicus chooses the enslaved Tamora to be his wife: "Behold, I choose thee, Tamora, for my bride"
Human Trafficking:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6497799.stm
"In 2007, Greek law enforcement authorities identified a female sex trafficking victim from Sudan. The terrorist rebel organization, Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA), continues to harbor small numbers of Sudanese and Ugandan children in the southern part of the country for use as cooks, porters, and combatants; some of these children are also trafficked across borders into Uganda or the Democratic Republic of the Congo."
The second is the enslavement of children, often with the intent to use them in combat as child soldiers. Titus clearly offers Tamora's children to Saturnicus as a "gift":
"The wide world's emporer, do i consecrate my sword, my chariot, and my prisoners, presents well worthy Rome's imperious lord."
http://gvnet.com/humantrafficking/Congo.htm
"President Kabila of the Democratic Republic of Congo has used child soldiers to support his military since 1996. As the rebel leader of the Alliance of Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Congo (ADFL), he recruited thousands of young child soldiers, known as "Kadogo," or "the little ones," to support his military campaign against the Mobutu government. Despite pledges from the Congolese government to demobilize children from the FAC since the end of the 1996-1997 war and the establishment of several fledgling demobilization programs, the Kabila government has continued to recruit children as young as seven years old for military service. While no reliable statistics were available regarding the number of child soldiers, the total number is likely to be at least several thousand."
Third being the use of rape, torture and manipulation as acts of control, violence and revenge during a time of conflict. Tomara clearly wills her two sons to rape and then mutilate Lavina, Titius’ daughter as an act of revenge.
"So should i rob my sweet sons of their fee, no, left them satisfy their lust on thee."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2008/may/09/women.congo
"In eastern Congo, the prevalence and intensity of rape and other sexual violence is described as the worst in the world.[106] Since fighting broke out in 1998 tens of thousands of women and girls have been raped in the Democratic Republic of Congo.[107] It is estimated that there are as many as 200,000 surviving rape victims living in the Democratic Republic of the Congo today.[108][109] War rape in the Democratic Republic of Congo has frequently been described as a "weapon of war" by commentators. Louise Nzigire, a local social worker, states that “this violence was designed to exterminate the population.” Nzigire observes that rape has been a "cheap, simple weapon for all parties in the war, more easily obtainable than bullets or bombs."[40]
And the literal, the removal of Lavina’s hands and tongue so that she could not accuse her rapists:
"But when you have the honey you desire, let not this wasp outlive us both to sting."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/17/nigeria-violence-12-chris_n_502977.html
Tie Goldhagen’s examples of other forms of genocide other than actual murder.
Sandy B
Jun 2, 2010, 8:01:04 PM6/2/10
to English 101, spring 2010 online sections #0143 and #3226
Journal 15-16-"Collected Works"
Journal 1
3a. Is war, specifically the increase of intentional attacks on
There are few leaders whom get the power from the people by
brainwashing them when they are in difficult situations. As MoniqueC
said, “Thousands of people are loosing their jobs, homes and having
lots of financial problems,” these types of people are easy to
brainwash because they are in difficult moments. They are searching
for hope or for better changes. In situations like this it’s when
people search for the government help. Most of the time, the
government finds a great solution by invade to another country or to
start a war.
3b. Are war violence and attacks on civilians inevitable components
of life of human nature, or can warfare be limited or even
eliminated?
Everyone wants utopia, but it's impossible when everyone likes to boss
each other around. Violence and attacks it’s part of the human life
because humans are never satisfies.
3c. If military attacks on civilians can be controlled, should the
should be more control on corrupted military.
D (i) (optional) New York Times review of Worse than War Discover
Magazine Article dated 10/18/09
Journal 2-4
GOLDHAGEN; WORSE THAN WAR Chapter 1 & Articles
Week (2-4) Research & Journal English 101, Spring 2010 online,
Section #3226
Student: Sandy Bonilla
Most of the rhetorical questions that Goldhagen asked in chapter 1,
Worse Than War (WTW) were mostly about the WWII nuclear weapons and
the two atomic bombs dropped in Japan. On page four from WTW second
paragraph Goldhagen asked a rhetorical question, “What if Adolf Hitler
had dropped a nuclear bomb on British or American City?” It was
possible that Adolf Hitler could have dropped a nuclear bomb on
British or American City, but he couldn’t. During WWII Germany had
many advanced new weapons than any other countries around the world,
plus with their advanced weapons The Nazi or Hitler was taking all
over the world. If Hitler or The Nazi had these advanced weapons
better than any other countries around the world, then they could have
come up with a nuclear weapon before the American military. This
rhetorical question made me do a little research on the atomic bomb.
According to Ernest Gill in Hamburg and Doug-long site articles
online both discuss about Hitler having an atomic bomb, and why he
couldn’t drop it. The two articles online explains Goldhagen
rhetorical question.
Sources Online:
Gill, Ernest. “Hitler Won Atomic Bomb Race, But Couldn’t Drop It.” The
Sydney
Morning Herald. 5 March 2005. http://www.fpp.co.uk/Hitler/docs/atombomb/Ruegen.html.
Long, Dough. “Albert Einstein and The Atomic Bomb.” Who's Who and
What'd They
Do?. 25 July 2005. http://www.doug-long.com/einstein.htm.
3a) One point that I like about Ernest Gill article that he explains
in his research about why Hitler couldn’t drop a nuclear bomb on
American or British. Most of his sources come from book Hitler’s Bomb
by Rainer Karisch, from Mark Walker a US historian and Third Reich’s
atomic weapons expert, and from interviews from nuclear weapon
experts. The second part of this point Dough Long answers the other
half rhetorical question from Goldhagen that America already knew that
Germany was working on the atomic bomb. So President Roosevelt had an
“urgent to built an atomic bomb” before Germany could drop one.
3b) One point I dislike about these two articles that I can’t decide
on which these articles I should be focusing more on. Both of them
made really good statements in Goldhagen question.
3c) Goldhagen asked so many rhetorical questions without answering
most of them. All the questions he asked in chapter one had their own
different ideas. I decided to focus more in one specific rhetorical
question. So I decided to choose about the atomic bomb because it was
more interesting for me to do research on it.
Journal 5-7
Sandy Bonilla
Weeks (5-7) Research & Journal English 101, Spring 2010 online,
Section #3226
03/28/2010
Fairness
On chapter 10 from Worse Than War Goldhagen concentrate on a specific
religion the 'Islam', also he describe the religion as exterminators
because their religion requires them to follow duties of genocide
toward their world societies.
"By creating powerful eliminationist views and powerful
eliminationist discourse now central to Political Islamic policies,
societies, and cultures"(Goldhagen 492).
In the September 11, 2001 the twin towers one of the seven world
wonders and 3,497 people died in one day. The whole world were
witnesses of the attack through the news media. The terrorisms were
Arabs Islamic men that sacrifice themselves to eliminated Americans
because their religion advisors asked them to do it for "Allah" (God).
Similar to Hitler ideology with the 14-words slogan, ""We must secure
the existence of our people and a future for white children" said
David Lane (www.adl.org).
Another thought that I found interesting that Goldhagen said,
"They hate Jews" (Goldhagen 499).
It sounds silly because he's trying to accused them of how evil they
are, but also he doesn't say that Jewish ALSO hates Arabs or
Palestine. The whole world are being witnesses of the war in Israel.
Most of the countries around the word it's getting tired about it. So
he should say both of them hate each other, or else he's saying this
because he's Jewish. It's understandable if he's on his people side,
but then it's genocide too.
Reference
"14 (words)." Hate on Display. http://www.adl.org/hate_symbols/numbers_14words.asp
"How many people died in the September 11 2001 attacks." Answer.com.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_people_died_in_the_September_11_2001_attacks
Journal 8-9
Sandy Bonilla
Professor E. O’Connell
English 101 Section #3226
April 2, 2010
H.R.2815
Title: Anti-Gang Enforcement Act of 2009
Sponsor: Rep Rooney, Thomas J. [FL-16] (introduced 6/10/2009
Latest Major Action: 7/23/2009 Referred to House subcommittee. Status:
Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland
Security.
“Directs the U.S. Sentencing Commission to amend its sentencing
guidelines to provide an enhancement for crimes committed in
furtherance or in aid of criminal street gangs.”
A) One thing, I do like about this bill that it’s related to what
Goldhagen says in how a small group of people that share the same
anger and the way they feel powerful then they come across their
limits until they use violence against their “enemies” as people from
different culture or race or religion. After a group commits a
violence in one area, it will rapidity continue to use more violence
in different areas. This is the way Nazi begin as a small political
party, then it turn a military of swastika with advance firearms
weapon taking over the world in just one moment.
B) One thing, I do not like about this bill that they are taking
forever to take actions on in gang crimes. Also I’m trying to compared
the present issue with the past history events conflicts that
Goldhagen mentions in chapter 10 and 3.
C) What I don’t understand of this bill that what type of aid
beside
security in the community what else would they provide to criminals
that are already members of gangs. Also I would like to know if this
bill refers to any street gang criminals including Neo-Nazis or any
other foreign gang that are in USA.
Reference:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d111:9:./temp/~bdKThK:@@@L&summ2=m&|/bss/d111query.html|.
Journal 10-11
Sandy Bonilla
Weeks (10-11) Research & Journal English 101, Section #3226
4/16
Film Legion 2010
The film "Legion" 2010 it's a great film because its compare the
human kind behaviors with the film characters. The Legion it's about
an Archangel Michael who comes from Heaven to the planet Earth to save
the last human baby kind from Earth. The film it's interesting and
controversial toward Christianity, political leaders, wars, and
humans. In the film, God sends his angels to eliminated the human kind
because he have lost "faith" on them. Same goes with what David
Goldhagen says about powerful corrupted political leaders send their
military forces to eliminated a specific group of people because they
are on their ways. Also I see Michael as a rebel or the person who
goes against the laws or his government.
The Legion has been criticized for bad camera angles, but most for
displaying the Christianity religion into a bad image. The fact that
God it's portrait in the film as the evil character or the bad guy
it's not acceptable for the people. People should be more critical
thinkers because the film it's not the problem but the point of views
that the film shows it's not acceptable for the people. It's not good
for leaders to make their people think because they will turn against
them. Then sometimes people don't like to hear the truth or think
about their problems from their society. When it's too late, it's too
late and there is no turning back.
Journal 12-14
Sandy Bonilla
Weeks (12-14) Research & Journal English 101, Section #3226
4/30
Consequences Metaphors
Tamora and Lavinia are two women that resembles as metaphor to the
women of the 21th Century.
Lavinia it's a young woman or a teenager girl that runs away for
love, and then she becomes the victim of her father (Titus) mistakes.
This character resembles so much to the young life's of the teenager
girls from high school and college. Also between their teen life in
high school and college girls experience their first time in love.
Furthermore, it's in the age of teenager girls that they need a lot of
support from their parents or guardian. In the Shakespeare's play
Titus Andronicus her father (Titus) gets furious with Lavinia because
she ran away and betrayed him with his plans that he arrange her a
marriage with a man she didn't love or knew. This case happens a lot
in families, especially in traditional, or financial, or religion
family. If Lavinia would had let her father knew who she really loved
and wanted to be, he would have stop her from running away. So the
moral of this metaphor is the trust between the parents and their
children.
Tamora it's a great metaphor of women who makes men life miserable,
then those miserable men accuse other women such as Lavinia that they
are all the same as "evil women." Like there are good fruits to eat,
also there are poisons fruit that must not be eaten. Same goes with
herbs, meat, and even human skills. Tamora it's an evil woman because
she decides to be evil. People always change, so they can be evil or
good. Tamora becomes evil because she wants revenge like any ordinary
person or leaders, or Kill Bill film. Tamora have many metaphor that
reflects our American societies, but more on women role and her
revenge. She's more like karma.
E 1.1
Sandy Bonilla
Professor E. O’Connell E1.1/English 101, Class #3226 02/19/2010
The Contradiction Of Daniel Goldhagen
In “Worse than War”, Daniel Goldhagen’s argues how people don’t have
any idea that the biggest issue that exists in this world is genocide.
Goldhagen has used past historical events several times to explain
what genocide is. On the other hand, James Traub makes a review about
what Daniel Goldhagen’s argues in “Worse than War”. Traub disagrees
with Goldhagen that how he describes genocides in the incorrect way to
the readers. Also Traub disagrees that Goldhagen’s had repeat a
million of times that genocide is very bad. Goldhagen should leave
the past alone and focus more about how to deal the genocide that is
happening at this moment.
Goldhagen should rephrase his thoughts about what is “genocide”
because he contradicts himself in indentifying “genocide”. Goldhagen
identify genocide as “the desire to eliminate peoples or
groups” (Daniel Goldhagen 14), but he’s telling the reader to
eliminate the “genocide” which is another group of people too. He
should rephrase “the desire to eliminate people or groups”, to “the
desire to eliminate ethnic people or nation”. Obviously, most readers
will know for sure what’s genocide, but the way Goldhagen explains it,
readers will get the bad idea that genocide means to eliminate a group
of people.
At the beginning of chapter one, Goldhagen accuses Harry Truman of
mass murderer for giving the order to drop two nuclear bombs on Japan
the first one on Hiroshima and the second one on Nagasaki as
retaliation for Japans brutal attack on Pearl Harbor Also Harry Truman
seems to not know that the U.S. military was building nuclear bombs
when he wasn’t the president until Franklin D. Roosevelt’s died. Even
if Franklin D. Roosevelt’s hasn’t died the atomic bombs were going to
be drop on Japan because they were our enemies and they attacked us
during the Pearl Harbor. Goldhagen’s forgot to mention that in the
WWII the Japanese military raped and murdered Chinese women and men
during their invasion in China. Goldhagen’s should not put the past
history (WWII) as an example of genocide because it’s complicated to
indentify genocide between groups of people that wanted to eliminate
each other.
Personally, I do think genocide is bad but I don’t think we can never
get rid off genocide. We can control to keep genocide as low
percentage, again it’s impossible when people aren’t satisfies in many
ways. Goldhagen’s makes good arguments about what’s genocide and about
were the world is leading with genocide, but there are minor phrases
he says that makes it go against him. I think he shouldn’t focus about
the past history because it’s in the past and for some people the
American history makes them feel patriotism.
E 1.2
Sandy Bonilla
Professor E. O’Connell E1.2/Goldhagen versus Editorials
English 101, Class #3226 March 5, 2010
Misjudging Truman
On July 1945, US president Harry Truman gave orders to drop two
nuclear bombs on the largest cities in Japan Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
The atomic bombs killed over 100,000 people in Hiroshima and more than
200,000 people in Nagasaki. By the end of the year, Japan surrendered
after they had lost thousands of its people. After 65 years, the
Americans and others around the world have considered Truman as a
hero. Goldhange does not approve that the ex-president Truman should
be recognized as a hero, more like a mass murderer. He destroyed the
lives of many Japanese in a cruel and unfair way. Goldhange discussed
in Worse Than War in the first chapter that there were many different
ways to defeated Japan in WWII, but in the way that Truman did he did
not have any remorse. Goldhange is not the only person who argues
about the decision that Truman made about the atomic bombs, also
editorial of the New York Times discusses the same argument but he
describe the positives and negatives sides of Truman decision.
Since in the beginning of chapter one Goldhange accuses President
Harry Truman of mass murder by giving the order of the atomic bombs,
but Goldhange seems not to understand that in 1945 the majorities of
the countries around the world were in fear to be invaded by Hitler
and Japan. Goldhange asked the readers a rhetorical question, “What if
Adolf Hitler had dropped a nuclear bomb on a British or American
city?” but he doesn’t claims his own question through the chapter one.
The editorial “Hiroshima, 50 years later” claims, “The U.S. made this
concession after Hiroshima, opening the way to peace,” but Truman was
trying to do the best to end the war with the atomic bombs and bring
peace to the world. The editorial “Hiroshima, 50 years later” claims,
“(the) Secretary of War Henry Stimson” gave the advice and pushed
Truman to make the decision to use the atomic bombs on Japan. Truman
couldn’t refuse to not use the atomic bombs because they plan to use
the atomic bombs on Germany or Japan it was already decided before
President Franklin Roosevelt died.
Truman didn’t have any choice but to let the atomic bombs get drop on
Japan because everybody were desperate to seek the peace. Japan could
have surrender before getting attacked by the atomic bombs, but their
bushido (the way of the samurai) didn’t let them surrender.
Personally, I admire the Japanese that they kept their Japanese code
with pride. Sadly, they were attacked brutally by the atomic bombs. In
other hand, I don’t accused Truman of a mass murder because he didn’t
have other option to bring to an end to the WWII. Plus he had pressure
from everyone around the world to end the war; everybody had hope in
him except the Germans Nazi and the Japanese. Goldhange misjudge
Truman as a mass murder, again Truman didn’t had another option the
atomic bombs were built before he became president. Either way, the
atomic bombs were going to be use if Truman wasn’t president and
Roosevelt hadn’t died.
References:
Editorial Staff, New York Times (1995, August 5). Opinion: Hiroshima,
50 Years
Later. Retrieved March 1, 2010 from
http://www.nytimes.com/1995/08/06/opinion/hiroshima-50-years-later.html?pagewanted=1.
Goldhagen, Daniel. (2009). Worse than war. NY: Public Affairs.
http://www.cfo.doe.gov/me70/manhattan/nagasaki.htm
E 1.3
Sandy Bonilla
English 101 # 3226
Professor Ed O’Connell
March 19, 2010
The Four International Principles of Law
Goldhagen propose to the United Nations four international principles
of law to eliminate “mass slaughter and bankrupt” in the humanity
world. Four international principles of law that could bring peace to
all the countries around the world, according to him these four
principles of law that are: “1. Automatically apply…mass murder and
elimination, 2. Target people wanted for such offenses, 3.
Substantially expand…wanted people, and 4. Pay the substantial rewards
not only for inf. leading to the arrest…also for killing them
all” (Goldhagen 578-579) will decreased or eliminate “mass slaughter
and bankrupt.” In chapter eleventh from “Worse Than War” (WTW), he
conclude all the “revelations” that he proof through his entire new
book about what “people” don’t know of mass slaughter in the third
world. Also he explains his rhetorical questions with a solution “the
four international principles of law” to eliminate the “mass
slaughter”. SPIEGEL publishes the article, “Mass Slaughter Is a
Systemic Problem of the Modern World” which is about an interview with
Daniel Jonah Goldhagen of his new book and the four principles of law.
SPIEGEL seems to disagree with Goldhagen solutions because they sound
“a bit naïve.” Goldhagen’s four principles of law do sound naïve and
ignorant. He mentions in WTW that “War produces war” (534), but he’s
contradicting himself.
There aren’t any problems of Goldhagen being against on “mass
slaughter,” but his solutions are completely silly. Goldhagen claims,
“Mass murder and eliminations politics are humanity’s human scourge,
more devastating than natural disasters, more murderous and worse than
war” (519), of course, they are the worse and monstrous in the human
kind. In the other hand, SPIEGEL asked him, “What should the
international community do?” and Goldhagen responded him, “President
Barack Obama…should create a no-fly zone over Darfur; he should bomb
Sudanese military installations until there is a total cessation of
activities” (Spiegel.de). Isn’t he contradicting himself? He mentions
before that “War produces war,” but he said in SPIEGEL interview that
Obama should “bomb” Sudanese. If Obama bomb Sudanese like Truman did
in Japan, then Goldhagen will identify him as mass murder, too.
Goldhagen continued answering SPIEGEL questions, “This may sound
radical, but it is a far more effective, less-costly and, believe or
not, likely solution that sending in a UN or some other rapid reaction
force” (Spiegel.de), but this is wrong because it’s another genocide
of human kind. This time it’s not about eliminating a race, nor ethnic
but getting rid off murders. The families of these murders would like
to have a war if this happens. So Goldhagen lead his solutions to
another problem.
There are more practical ways to fight against mass murders than
eliminating them because this problem isn’t something that can be
change from the morning to night. Mass murders have being around for
decades and generations, so the UN troops or Goldhagen four principles
of law can’t change a problem in one day. Furthermore, as Goldhagen
mention before in WTW that mass slaughter exist in all over the world,
and in secret places that many people might not know. The US media
can’t broadcast images of mass slaughter because parents will complain
of bloody images that will traumatize children. Another though I
dislike about Goldhagen that he says a lot in his book WTW “The
people” or “The Germans”, as SPIEGEL said, “’The’ before ‘Germans,’
you transform an entire people into perpetrators” (Spiegel.de).
Goldhagen have this habit of using “The” before pronouns or nouns.
What makes me wonder the most that Goldhagen judged the history events
from almost all the countries around the world as mass murders, but he
didn’t mention of the country Israel of being mass murders. Every
single day “The” Israelis military are killing Palestine’s or “rebels”
in Israel. They are eliminating a group of people and “The” people of
US and Europeans and other countries know about it, so I doubt he is
the only person who doesn’t know about this mass slaughter in Israel.
Work cited:
with Daniel Jonah Goldhagen. Speigel Online International.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,653938,00.html.
Essay 2
Sandy Bonilla Professor Ed O’Connell English 101 # 3226 Essay #2
and Story Friday, April 23, 2010
Inner Violence
“Do you believe that a street gang isn’t serious issue to put
interest as Nazi? A street gang cannot be distinguishing from a
group of Nazi” (Sandy Bonilla).
Daniel Goldhagen discuss in his book Worse Than War many conflicts
that have “lead mass slaughter” (Goldhagen 59) in the last decades of
wars. In chapter 3, he introduced three different conflicts from the
American past history that have lead USA to be influenced in the
“mass slaughter.” In the US history, “American Revolution” and the
“National Building” (59-61) have been for the Americans the best
glorious history events because it’s part of their American
patriotism. Until Goldhagen point out the other part of these history
events that these events have been involve with “mass slaughter” by
eliminating the “Tories, Southerners, and the Native Americans” (62).
After US gained his independency, they expelled away the “Tories”
from the America land or they had to become “Loyal Americans.” The
south slavery lead the American Revolution war between the
Northerners vs. the Southerners that killed many African-Americans
and American soldiers. Then the “Tories” and the “Loyal American”
eliminated most of the Native Americans population in order to get
land and gold which they didn’t care about Native Americans life.
These US history events managed to eliminate sort of group of people
by their differences in race, in culture, and in religion. The same
thought happen with “The Germans” formed the “Holocaust” to
eliminated the Jewish. Now the American society it’s facing with
criminal organizations known as “Street Gangs” that related to
homicides, drug trades, and recruitment of persons. “Street Gangs”
are groups of people that attack any other different groups by their
neighborhood, race, culture, and other stereotype which lead to “Mass
slaughter.” People don’t think it isn’t a big deal, but the numbers
of “Street Gangs” are increasing rapidly because in America the human
population and diversities are increasing rapidly too. The Nazi or
Neo-Nazi was formed first with a minor group from about “20 workers
from Munich's railway shops” (wikipidia) “On 5 January 1919” they
were anger Germans that grew quickly from 20 workers to just the
general members “nearly 7 million people by 1933’s” (wikipidia) to
almost control the whole universe. By 1934, “88.09 % of the German
voters endorsed in yesterday's plebiscite Chancellor
Hitler's” (Frederick T. Birchall) that’s how much power he hold on
his hand to control his Nazi members, and attack their enemies.
“Street Gangs” are minor groups of anger teenagers that are
increasingly by controlling their own neighborhood. The “Anti-Gang
Enforcement Act of 2009” have been introduced since June 10, 2009 to
amends this bill to “predicate gang crime” and “Project Safe
Neighborhoods programs” (Thomas Library). The Nazi was only
one large group that almost dominated the entire world then they got
stop, but street gangs there are numbers of them around the world
it’s impossible to stop. In 2006, the United State Department of
Justice “estimates 30,000 gangs, with 800,00 members, impacting 2,500
communities across the United States” (dosomething.org). The number
of gangs continues to rise rapidly especially in school areas. As
Goldhagen says, “individual– centered...located mass murder in the
psychological mechanism of the individual that impel people to
slaughter others” (Goldhagen 65) like many street gangs started
because of their personal anger issues and wanted to get power by
mass slaughtering other members from different street gang and
reserving neighborhoods as their territory. No matter how
many decades have passed the bad habits haven't change. As Goldhagen
mention before that "individual-centered" it's one of the issues that
form groups of mad people to target the weaker ones, or take their
anger on their opposite race or religion. Street gangs it's one of
those issues about a group of people that holds power to make other
people fear them. Most of the time, this human disorder behavior of
committing crimes doesn't affect them, but the ones that are around
them.
Reference:
Betty M. Chemers is Director of OJJDP’s Research and Program
Development Division. James H. Burch is Program Manager in the
Special Emphasis Division. http://www.dosomething.org/tipsandtools/11-facts-about-gangs.
Frederick T. Birchall, New York Times (19th August, 1934).
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERnazi.htm.
Goldhagen, D.J. Worse Than War. 2009. (59-65).
H.R.2815. “Anti-Gang Enforcement Act of 2009.” Rep Rooney, Thomas J.
[FL-16] (introduced 6/10/2009).
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d111:9:./temp/~bdKThK:@@@L&su.../bss/d111query.html|.
Nazi Party From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party#Origins_and_early_existence:_....
========================================= Story
The Girl in her Middle School Uniform
From the winter of December to the spring of May, I have travel
from corner to corner in the streets of Los Angeles. Everyday it’s
the same old same routine to find food around the trashcans, when I
can. Sometimes the residents scare me away with a broomstick, or
racket, or any thing that can be used as a weapon to just keep me
away from their trashcans. I cannot get myself a job because there
isn’t any job for someone with four legs. Nor I cannot be a home pet
because I’m too old to be a pet and nobody wants me. There are two
enemies that I must keep myself alert from: the bullies’ students,
and the veterinarian pet control. I came from Ontario, Canada, to
Los Angeles, California, and always the same old same like always.
Except today morning I noticed I wasn’t the only one that was
getting bulled, a girl in her middle school uniform was getting chase
by an angry mob. The angry mob looks so angry that she must
have done something really bad, but she doesn’t seem to be the type
of a problematic person to mess with them. I decided to follow her
along with the angry mob to check how far this girl would get from
the angry mob. It didn’t took her a while to stop running after she
had reached to a dead end, also they stop at the same time she stop
running. A middle- aged man from the mob got closed to her and asked
her, “Didn’t I tell ya to not bring them to my hood?”
She stood silent for a moment and replied, “But I don’t ride.”
The man faced his mob laughing, then turn to her saying, “Yo biotch,
yo think I’m stupid? We have seen ya with the “Crips*”
She replies him, “No, that’s my friend, but I’m not part from them.”
He slaps her and she stares at him.
“What?” he asks her. “I’m sorry, say it one more time.” She just
covers her cheek where he slapped her, and stares at him with terror.
“What? What yo starting at? Huh... Do yo gotta problem with my
face?”
She stood in silence.
“Yeah, I tho so, byotch. Yo think yo can fool me? Didn’t ya tell ya
to not to hang out with them?”
“Yes,” she replied.
“An’ yo didn’t obey my orders. Do yo know what happens when someone
doesn’t listen to what I say?”
She decided to keep herself in the silence, but her eyes couldn’t
hold her tears from her eyes. He just stares at her from head to
toes.
“Do yo think with tears I’ll let ya go?” He laughs, and so the rest
of the members from his mob laugh.
“First, yo gotta gimme something, so what do yo have?” He asks.
She replies, “I don’t have any money with me today.”
He just stares at her and grabs her bag checking her belongings. He
finds her iPod touch and throws her backpack at her.
“I’ll take this for now,” he says. She just stares at him wanting to
do something, but she couldn’t.
“What’s in my hood belongs to me. Since you live here, now yo goin to
do what I tell ya to do. Now, do I make myself clear?”
“Yes.”
The man walks away from the girl and leads his gang members to the
way out of the dead end. The girl couldn’t do much, but obey his
orders only. She hasn’t done anything wrong, but she was attacked
and harassed by a group of people with power to hurt the weak ones.
In the end, I realized human have more bullies than I do. Also many
students from gang street members are currently attacking people from
their neighborhood to fear their strength. Similar idea goes with
the country Germany which some of them didn’t have any choice to
join Hitler political party, “Nazi” party.
_____________________________________________________________
*Crips: A majority of the Crips and Bloods in Los Angeles are
African American with the exceptions of a Samoan Crip gangs active in
Long Beach, a Samoan Blood gang active in Carson, an Inglewood Crip
gang with mostly members of Tongan descent, and a mixed Samoan/black
gang active in Compton. With the exception of these four gangs, Crips
and Blood gangs are predominately African American.
Alex Alonso, PhD Candidate. “Black Street Gangs in Los Angeles: A
History “http://www.streetgangs.com/history/hist01.html
Essay 3
Sandy Bonilla
English 101 #3226
Professor
Essay 3 O’Connell
May 28, 2010
Hopeless Conclusion
The Holocaust is not the only bizarre genocide that has happened in
the world’s history or in the recent decades. In the 21st Century
there have being many secret wars that are currently active. Many
people around the world don’t have any idea that these secret wars
could be happening in their own country. Genocide doesn’t necessarily
means to eliminate a group of people or an ethic by killing them, also
when the people agrees to participate in a genocide plan or by
expulsing a specific group of people or an ethic for benefits its also
genocide. Daniel Goldhagen is the writer of the book Worse Than War
and the narrator of Worse Than War documentary. He doesn’t only write
books but fight against genocide and pursues the United Nation Allies
Leaders to start some action to stop genocide from happening. Also the
characters from Shakespeare’s play Titus Andronicus, it’s an example
of the ordinary people in the societies that make the choices to
participate in genocide plans for benefit and revenge. Goldhagen
reveals the readers and viewers how corrupt leaders like Tamora and
Titus can drive ordinary people (or victims) like the Goths and the
children of Titus to kill their friends or neighbors, and how can
genocide be avoided by punishing these corrupt leaders or enemies and
not to let it happen in our neighborhood.
People depend on the government when they are in need or in the moment
of crises, like when Hitler motivated his German people in those days
of economic depression and days of hunger. People’s behavior can be
changed in desperate moments when they need something, and they are
more likely to go against their neighbors if an idol like Hitler tells
them to slaughter their neighbors for better economics and food. In
December 10, 2008 Courtney Yager from CNN wrote about and interviewed
Nusreta Sivac a suvivor of the concentration camp in Bosnia:
“Nusreta Sivac watch ordinary people become killers while
imprisoned...she was shocked to see people she knew running the camp.
‘They acted as if they had never seen me before...It was difficult for
to understand how people could turn into beasts overnight” (Yager
CNN.Com).
The werewolf is a man that when he sees the full moon in the middle of
the night, he turns to an unstoppable beast. Ordinary people can
change their good behavior to beastie and unstoppable like the Nazis
did. Also in many countries like the Revolution of Republic of China,
Soviet Union, Guatemala, Rwanda, French Revolution, and the American
civil wars.
“Leaders choose to initiate the killing. Ordinary people make
conscious choice to participate, and those with the power to prevent
or stop it choose to do nothing” (Daniel Goldhagen Worse Than War
Documentary).
During the Rwanda genocide the UN troops stop the terrorist from
attacking the Tsusist people after 8,000 thousands of them have been
murder. On May 26, 2010 three judges of the court signed a document of
the lack of cooperation that the UN Security Council doesn’t follow
the appropriate actions to take control of the war crime in Sudan.
"’The Republic of Sudan is failing to comply with its cooperation
obligations ... in relation to the enforcement of warrants of arrest’
issued in April 2007 for former government minister Ahmed Haroun and
militia leader Ali Kosheib” (AFP google.com).
Since 2003, the UN Security Council has been assigned to investigate
the Sudan secret war in Darfur. Then in March 2009, the UN Security
Council place the arrests warrant for the President Omar al-Bashir but
he refused the arrest warrant.
“Ms le Fraper said it was the first time the ICC had formally asked
the Security Council to take action against a member country for
failing to implement arrest warrants against its citizens “ (Editor
Martin Plaut BBC News Online).
The UN Security Council Prosecutor to appear at the UN meeting for
June 11 to explain why did they failed to arrest the criminal
President Omar al-Bashir. For seven years, someone decides to take
some action to stop the genocide in Darfur. For seven years, many
families have been murder and slaughter painfully by the military
corrupted of their President Omar al-Bashir.
“Since the conflict in Darfur began in 2003, some 2.7 million people
have fled their homes and the UN says about 300,000 more have
died” (BBC News Online).
All the leaders of the UN Security Council knew this secret war was
active since 2003 until today and it continue to mass murder the
people of Darfur. The UN who has the power might be able to stop this
genocide war, until the people from Darfur have been eliminated or
much worse. Many people who are fighting against genocide and
demanding the UN Security Council to do something are people like
Goldhagen. Goldhagen it’s trying to open people eyes to realize what’s
going on outside their homes, their neighborhood, and their country.
In the famous play of Shakespeare Titus Andronicus Tamora Queen of
the Goths beg Titus Andronicus who mass slaughter her people (The
Goths) beg for the life of her son mercy.
“These are their brethren whom your Goths beheld...
Religiously they ask a sacrifice.
To this your son is marked, and die he must”
(Titus: Titus Andronicus Act 1.1 125-127 pg. 8).
Titus is the “Great Leader” of the Roman Empire whom has returned to
his homeland as hero for winning a war by eliminating The Goths, plus
he gave the order to murder the son of the Queen of the Goths Tamora.
Titus can be compared to any other corrupted leaders that have
committed genocide in the world’s history. Tamora as any victim from
the genocide wars or the victims of Rwanda the Esperance Nyuraguria
begged to not kill their families. Except the women of Esperance
Nyuraguria did not looked for revenge after the war of Rwanda, they
looked for justice and peace. In the other hand, Tamora as a leader of
The Goths decides to take revenge on Titus by the same way as Titus
murdered her son and her people.
“’Tis present death I beg...where never man’s eye may behold my body.
Do this, and be charitable murderer.” Said Lavinia. Tamora replies to
her, “So, should I rob my sweet sons of their fee. No, Let them
satisfice their lust on thee” (Lavinia and Tamora: Titus Andronicus
Act II.3 143-180 pg 38).
Rape it’s the worse crime than any other crime or than any way of
murdering someone. Tamora does much worse than Titus crime. Revenge
can bring anyone worse consequences than someone who have done wrong
suffered at their hands. Most women fear to be raped and to be
discriminated by the ordinary people. There are many new laws in USA
that protect and help women who are sexually abused, but many won’t
speak because they few to be judged and rejected by ordinary people.
No human kind has the right to eliminated or wipe out other humans
kind or any living creature. Many wars of genocide are currently
active. For example, the wars in Israel, in Dahfur, in France, in UK,
in Spain, and in USA (Arizona) are powerful countries that are
expelling or eliminating people by their ethic, and religion. These
countries have the same issues or excuse that are eliminating a
specific group of people for being “illegal immigrants”, but in
reality, mass murder and expelling them it’s another way to
participate in genocide. The UN should think for solutions not for
more problems, revenge, and mass murder.
Reference:
Edited McDonald, Russ. Titus Andronicus. The Pelican Shakespeare. New
York; 2000: 38.
“Court asks UN to help catch Sudan war crime suspects.” Google News,
2010. http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jj_kcwTIN-va6f6HOWLW-nvsiThg.
Goldhagen, D. J. (2009). Worse than war: Genocide, eliminationism, and
the ongoing assault on humanity. New York: Public Affairs.
JTN Productions PBS International. "Worse Than War" Film.
http://goldhagen.com/worse-than-war-the-film.
Plaut, Martin editor. “ICC refers Sudan war crimes cases to UN.” BBC
News Online, 2010. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/africa/10167800.stm.
Yager, Courtney. "They killed their neighbors: genocide's foot
soldiers". CNN Online. 2008. http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/11/25/sbm.perpetrators/
Journal 1
GOLDHAGEN; WORSE THAN WAR
Week (1) Research & Journal English 101, Spring 2010 online, Section
#3226
Student: Sandy Bonilla
Week (1) Research & Journal English 101, Spring 2010 online, Section
#3226
3a. Is war, specifically the increase of intentional attacks on
civilians, the greatest problem in the world today?
Not really, the ones who lead their country to war are the problem.
There are few leaders whom get the power from the people by
brainwashing them when they are in difficult situations. As MoniqueC
said, “Thousands of people are loosing their jobs, homes and having
lots of financial problems,” these types of people are easy to
brainwash because they are in difficult moments. They are searching
for hope or for better changes. In situations like this it’s when
people search for the government help. Most of the time, the
government finds a great solution by invade to another country or to
start a war.
3b. Are war violence and attacks on civilians inevitable components
of life of human nature, or can warfare be limited or even
eliminated?
Everyone wants utopia, but it's impossible when everyone likes to boss
each other around. Violence and attacks it’s part of the human life
because humans are never satisfies.
3c. If military attacks on civilians can be controlled, should the
people of the world work to stop them?
Military shouldn’t attack the civilians but protect them. There
should be more control on corrupted military.
D (i) (optional) New York Times review of Worse than War Discover
Magazine Article dated 10/18/09
Journal 2-4
GOLDHAGEN; WORSE THAN WAR Chapter 1 & Articles
Week (2-4) Research & Journal English 101, Spring 2010 online,
Section #3226
Student: Sandy Bonilla
Most of the rhetorical questions that Goldhagen asked in chapter 1,
Worse Than War (WTW) were mostly about the WWII nuclear weapons and
the two atomic bombs dropped in Japan. On page four from WTW second
paragraph Goldhagen asked a rhetorical question, “What if Adolf Hitler
had dropped a nuclear bomb on British or American City?” It was
possible that Adolf Hitler could have dropped a nuclear bomb on
British or American City, but he couldn’t. During WWII Germany had
many advanced new weapons than any other countries around the world,
plus with their advanced weapons The Nazi or Hitler was taking all
over the world. If Hitler or The Nazi had these advanced weapons
better than any other countries around the world, then they could have
come up with a nuclear weapon before the American military. This
rhetorical question made me do a little research on the atomic bomb.
According to Ernest Gill in Hamburg and Doug-long site articles
online both discuss about Hitler having an atomic bomb, and why he
couldn’t drop it. The two articles online explains Goldhagen
rhetorical question.
Sources Online:
Gill, Ernest. “Hitler Won Atomic Bomb Race, But Couldn’t Drop It.” The
Sydney
Morning Herald. 5 March 2005. http://www.fpp.co.uk/Hitler/docs/atombomb/Ruegen.html.
Long, Dough. “Albert Einstein and The Atomic Bomb.” Who's Who and
What'd They
Do?. 25 July 2005. http://www.doug-long.com/einstein.htm.
3a) One point that I like about Ernest Gill article that he explains
in his research about why Hitler couldn’t drop a nuclear bomb on
American or British. Most of his sources come from book Hitler’s Bomb
by Rainer Karisch, from Mark Walker a US historian and Third Reich’s
atomic weapons expert, and from interviews from nuclear weapon
experts. The second part of this point Dough Long answers the other
half rhetorical question from Goldhagen that America already knew that
Germany was working on the atomic bomb. So President Roosevelt had an
“urgent to built an atomic bomb” before Germany could drop one.
3b) One point I dislike about these two articles that I can’t decide
on which these articles I should be focusing more on. Both of them
made really good statements in Goldhagen question.
3c) Goldhagen asked so many rhetorical questions without answering
most of them. All the questions he asked in chapter one had their own
different ideas. I decided to focus more in one specific rhetorical
question. So I decided to choose about the atomic bomb because it was
more interesting for me to do research on it.
Journal 5-7
Sandy Bonilla
Weeks (5-7) Research & Journal English 101, Spring 2010 online,
Section #3226
03/28/2010
Fairness
On chapter 10 from Worse Than War Goldhagen concentrate on a specific
religion the 'Islam', also he describe the religion as exterminators
because their religion requires them to follow duties of genocide
toward their world societies.
"By creating powerful eliminationist views and powerful
eliminationist discourse now central to Political Islamic policies,
societies, and cultures"(Goldhagen 492).
In the September 11, 2001 the twin towers one of the seven world
wonders and 3,497 people died in one day. The whole world were
witnesses of the attack through the news media. The terrorisms were
Arabs Islamic men that sacrifice themselves to eliminated Americans
because their religion advisors asked them to do it for "Allah" (God).
Similar to Hitler ideology with the 14-words slogan, ""We must secure
the existence of our people and a future for white children" said
David Lane (www.adl.org).
Another thought that I found interesting that Goldhagen said,
"They hate Jews" (Goldhagen 499).
It sounds silly because he's trying to accused them of how evil they
are, but also he doesn't say that Jewish ALSO hates Arabs or
Palestine. The whole world are being witnesses of the war in Israel.
Most of the countries around the word it's getting tired about it. So
he should say both of them hate each other, or else he's saying this
because he's Jewish. It's understandable if he's on his people side,
but then it's genocide too.
Reference
"14 (words)." Hate on Display. http://www.adl.org/hate_symbols/numbers_14words.asp
"How many people died in the September 11 2001 attacks." Answer.com.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_people_died_in_the_September_11_2001_attacks
Journal 8-9
Sandy Bonilla
Professor E. O’Connell
English 101 Section #3226
April 2, 2010
H.R.2815
Title: Anti-Gang Enforcement Act of 2009
Sponsor: Rep Rooney, Thomas J. [FL-16] (introduced 6/10/2009
Latest Major Action: 7/23/2009 Referred to House subcommittee. Status:
Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland
Security.
“Directs the U.S. Sentencing Commission to amend its sentencing
guidelines to provide an enhancement for crimes committed in
furtherance or in aid of criminal street gangs.”
A) One thing, I do like about this bill that it’s related to what
Goldhagen says in how a small group of people that share the same
anger and the way they feel powerful then they come across their
limits until they use violence against their “enemies” as people from
different culture or race or religion. After a group commits a
violence in one area, it will rapidity continue to use more violence
in different areas. This is the way Nazi begin as a small political
party, then it turn a military of swastika with advance firearms
weapon taking over the world in just one moment.
B) One thing, I do not like about this bill that they are taking
forever to take actions on in gang crimes. Also I’m trying to compared
the present issue with the past history events conflicts that
Goldhagen mentions in chapter 10 and 3.
C) What I don’t understand of this bill that what type of aid
beside
security in the community what else would they provide to criminals
that are already members of gangs. Also I would like to know if this
bill refers to any street gang criminals including Neo-Nazis or any
other foreign gang that are in USA.
Reference:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d111:9:./temp/~bdKThK:@@@L&summ2=m&|/bss/d111query.html|.
Journal 10-11
Sandy Bonilla
Weeks (10-11) Research & Journal English 101, Section #3226
4/16
Film Legion 2010
The film "Legion" 2010 it's a great film because its compare the
human kind behaviors with the film characters. The Legion it's about
an Archangel Michael who comes from Heaven to the planet Earth to save
the last human baby kind from Earth. The film it's interesting and
controversial toward Christianity, political leaders, wars, and
humans. In the film, God sends his angels to eliminated the human kind
because he have lost "faith" on them. Same goes with what David
Goldhagen says about powerful corrupted political leaders send their
military forces to eliminated a specific group of people because they
are on their ways. Also I see Michael as a rebel or the person who
goes against the laws or his government.
The Legion has been criticized for bad camera angles, but most for
displaying the Christianity religion into a bad image. The fact that
God it's portrait in the film as the evil character or the bad guy
it's not acceptable for the people. People should be more critical
thinkers because the film it's not the problem but the point of views
that the film shows it's not acceptable for the people. It's not good
for leaders to make their people think because they will turn against
them. Then sometimes people don't like to hear the truth or think
about their problems from their society. When it's too late, it's too
late and there is no turning back.
Journal 12-14
Sandy Bonilla
Weeks (12-14) Research & Journal English 101, Section #3226
4/30
Consequences Metaphors
Tamora and Lavinia are two women that resembles as metaphor to the
women of the 21th Century.
Lavinia it's a young woman or a teenager girl that runs away for
love, and then she becomes the victim of her father (Titus) mistakes.
This character resembles so much to the young life's of the teenager
girls from high school and college. Also between their teen life in
high school and college girls experience their first time in love.
Furthermore, it's in the age of teenager girls that they need a lot of
support from their parents or guardian. In the Shakespeare's play
Titus Andronicus her father (Titus) gets furious with Lavinia because
she ran away and betrayed him with his plans that he arrange her a
marriage with a man she didn't love or knew. This case happens a lot
in families, especially in traditional, or financial, or religion
family. If Lavinia would had let her father knew who she really loved
and wanted to be, he would have stop her from running away. So the
moral of this metaphor is the trust between the parents and their
children.
Tamora it's a great metaphor of women who makes men life miserable,
then those miserable men accuse other women such as Lavinia that they
are all the same as "evil women." Like there are good fruits to eat,
also there are poisons fruit that must not be eaten. Same goes with
herbs, meat, and even human skills. Tamora it's an evil woman because
she decides to be evil. People always change, so they can be evil or
good. Tamora becomes evil because she wants revenge like any ordinary
person or leaders, or Kill Bill film. Tamora have many metaphor that
reflects our American societies, but more on women role and her
revenge. She's more like karma.
E 1.1
Sandy Bonilla
Professor E. O’Connell E1.1/English 101, Class #3226 02/19/2010
The Contradiction Of Daniel Goldhagen
In “Worse than War”, Daniel Goldhagen’s argues how people don’t have
any idea that the biggest issue that exists in this world is genocide.
Goldhagen has used past historical events several times to explain
what genocide is. On the other hand, James Traub makes a review about
what Daniel Goldhagen’s argues in “Worse than War”. Traub disagrees
with Goldhagen that how he describes genocides in the incorrect way to
the readers. Also Traub disagrees that Goldhagen’s had repeat a
million of times that genocide is very bad. Goldhagen should leave
the past alone and focus more about how to deal the genocide that is
happening at this moment.
Goldhagen should rephrase his thoughts about what is “genocide”
because he contradicts himself in indentifying “genocide”. Goldhagen
identify genocide as “the desire to eliminate peoples or
groups” (Daniel Goldhagen 14), but he’s telling the reader to
eliminate the “genocide” which is another group of people too. He
should rephrase “the desire to eliminate people or groups”, to “the
desire to eliminate ethnic people or nation”. Obviously, most readers
will know for sure what’s genocide, but the way Goldhagen explains it,
readers will get the bad idea that genocide means to eliminate a group
of people.
At the beginning of chapter one, Goldhagen accuses Harry Truman of
mass murderer for giving the order to drop two nuclear bombs on Japan
the first one on Hiroshima and the second one on Nagasaki as
retaliation for Japans brutal attack on Pearl Harbor Also Harry Truman
seems to not know that the U.S. military was building nuclear bombs
when he wasn’t the president until Franklin D. Roosevelt’s died. Even
if Franklin D. Roosevelt’s hasn’t died the atomic bombs were going to
be drop on Japan because they were our enemies and they attacked us
during the Pearl Harbor. Goldhagen’s forgot to mention that in the
WWII the Japanese military raped and murdered Chinese women and men
during their invasion in China. Goldhagen’s should not put the past
history (WWII) as an example of genocide because it’s complicated to
indentify genocide between groups of people that wanted to eliminate
each other.
Personally, I do think genocide is bad but I don’t think we can never
get rid off genocide. We can control to keep genocide as low
percentage, again it’s impossible when people aren’t satisfies in many
ways. Goldhagen’s makes good arguments about what’s genocide and about
were the world is leading with genocide, but there are minor phrases
he says that makes it go against him. I think he shouldn’t focus about
the past history because it’s in the past and for some people the
American history makes them feel patriotism.
E 1.2
Sandy Bonilla
Professor E. O’Connell E1.2/Goldhagen versus Editorials
English 101, Class #3226 March 5, 2010
Misjudging Truman
On July 1945, US president Harry Truman gave orders to drop two
nuclear bombs on the largest cities in Japan Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
The atomic bombs killed over 100,000 people in Hiroshima and more than
200,000 people in Nagasaki. By the end of the year, Japan surrendered
after they had lost thousands of its people. After 65 years, the
Americans and others around the world have considered Truman as a
hero. Goldhange does not approve that the ex-president Truman should
be recognized as a hero, more like a mass murderer. He destroyed the
lives of many Japanese in a cruel and unfair way. Goldhange discussed
in Worse Than War in the first chapter that there were many different
ways to defeated Japan in WWII, but in the way that Truman did he did
not have any remorse. Goldhange is not the only person who argues
about the decision that Truman made about the atomic bombs, also
editorial of the New York Times discusses the same argument but he
describe the positives and negatives sides of Truman decision.
Since in the beginning of chapter one Goldhange accuses President
Harry Truman of mass murder by giving the order of the atomic bombs,
but Goldhange seems not to understand that in 1945 the majorities of
the countries around the world were in fear to be invaded by Hitler
and Japan. Goldhange asked the readers a rhetorical question, “What if
Adolf Hitler had dropped a nuclear bomb on a British or American
city?” but he doesn’t claims his own question through the chapter one.
The editorial “Hiroshima, 50 years later” claims, “The U.S. made this
concession after Hiroshima, opening the way to peace,” but Truman was
trying to do the best to end the war with the atomic bombs and bring
peace to the world. The editorial “Hiroshima, 50 years later” claims,
“(the) Secretary of War Henry Stimson” gave the advice and pushed
Truman to make the decision to use the atomic bombs on Japan. Truman
couldn’t refuse to not use the atomic bombs because they plan to use
the atomic bombs on Germany or Japan it was already decided before
President Franklin Roosevelt died.
Truman didn’t have any choice but to let the atomic bombs get drop on
Japan because everybody were desperate to seek the peace. Japan could
have surrender before getting attacked by the atomic bombs, but their
bushido (the way of the samurai) didn’t let them surrender.
Personally, I admire the Japanese that they kept their Japanese code
with pride. Sadly, they were attacked brutally by the atomic bombs. In
other hand, I don’t accused Truman of a mass murder because he didn’t
have other option to bring to an end to the WWII. Plus he had pressure
from everyone around the world to end the war; everybody had hope in
him except the Germans Nazi and the Japanese. Goldhange misjudge
Truman as a mass murder, again Truman didn’t had another option the
atomic bombs were built before he became president. Either way, the
atomic bombs were going to be use if Truman wasn’t president and
Roosevelt hadn’t died.
References:
Editorial Staff, New York Times (1995, August 5). Opinion: Hiroshima,
50 Years
Later. Retrieved March 1, 2010 from
http://www.nytimes.com/1995/08/06/opinion/hiroshima-50-years-later.html?pagewanted=1.
Goldhagen, Daniel. (2009). Worse than war. NY: Public Affairs.
http://www.cfo.doe.gov/me70/manhattan/nagasaki.htm
E 1.3
Sandy Bonilla
English 101 # 3226
Professor Ed O’Connell
March 19, 2010
The Four International Principles of Law
Goldhagen propose to the United Nations four international principles
of law to eliminate “mass slaughter and bankrupt” in the humanity
world. Four international principles of law that could bring peace to
all the countries around the world, according to him these four
principles of law that are: “1. Automatically apply…mass murder and
elimination, 2. Target people wanted for such offenses, 3.
Substantially expand…wanted people, and 4. Pay the substantial rewards
not only for inf. leading to the arrest…also for killing them
all” (Goldhagen 578-579) will decreased or eliminate “mass slaughter
and bankrupt.” In chapter eleventh from “Worse Than War” (WTW), he
conclude all the “revelations” that he proof through his entire new
book about what “people” don’t know of mass slaughter in the third
world. Also he explains his rhetorical questions with a solution “the
four international principles of law” to eliminate the “mass
slaughter”. SPIEGEL publishes the article, “Mass Slaughter Is a
Systemic Problem of the Modern World” which is about an interview with
Daniel Jonah Goldhagen of his new book and the four principles of law.
SPIEGEL seems to disagree with Goldhagen solutions because they sound
“a bit naïve.” Goldhagen’s four principles of law do sound naïve and
ignorant. He mentions in WTW that “War produces war” (534), but he’s
contradicting himself.
There aren’t any problems of Goldhagen being against on “mass
slaughter,” but his solutions are completely silly. Goldhagen claims,
“Mass murder and eliminations politics are humanity’s human scourge,
more devastating than natural disasters, more murderous and worse than
war” (519), of course, they are the worse and monstrous in the human
kind. In the other hand, SPIEGEL asked him, “What should the
international community do?” and Goldhagen responded him, “President
Barack Obama…should create a no-fly zone over Darfur; he should bomb
Sudanese military installations until there is a total cessation of
activities” (Spiegel.de). Isn’t he contradicting himself? He mentions
before that “War produces war,” but he said in SPIEGEL interview that
Obama should “bomb” Sudanese. If Obama bomb Sudanese like Truman did
in Japan, then Goldhagen will identify him as mass murder, too.
Goldhagen continued answering SPIEGEL questions, “This may sound
radical, but it is a far more effective, less-costly and, believe or
not, likely solution that sending in a UN or some other rapid reaction
force” (Spiegel.de), but this is wrong because it’s another genocide
of human kind. This time it’s not about eliminating a race, nor ethnic
but getting rid off murders. The families of these murders would like
to have a war if this happens. So Goldhagen lead his solutions to
another problem.
There are more practical ways to fight against mass murders than
eliminating them because this problem isn’t something that can be
change from the morning to night. Mass murders have being around for
decades and generations, so the UN troops or Goldhagen four principles
of law can’t change a problem in one day. Furthermore, as Goldhagen
mention before in WTW that mass slaughter exist in all over the world,
and in secret places that many people might not know. The US media
can’t broadcast images of mass slaughter because parents will complain
of bloody images that will traumatize children. Another though I
dislike about Goldhagen that he says a lot in his book WTW “The
people” or “The Germans”, as SPIEGEL said, “’The’ before ‘Germans,’
you transform an entire people into perpetrators” (Spiegel.de).
Goldhagen have this habit of using “The” before pronouns or nouns.
What makes me wonder the most that Goldhagen judged the history events
from almost all the countries around the world as mass murders, but he
didn’t mention of the country Israel of being mass murders. Every
single day “The” Israelis military are killing Palestine’s or “rebels”
in Israel. They are eliminating a group of people and “The” people of
US and Europeans and other countries know about it, so I doubt he is
the only person who doesn’t know about this mass slaughter in Israel.
Work cited:
Goldhagen, D.J. Worse Than War. 2009.
Brinkbäumer, K. and M. Doerry. 2009, October 8. Spiefel interview
with Daniel Jonah Goldhagen. Speigel Online International.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,653938,00.html.
Essay 2
Sandy Bonilla Professor Ed O’Connell English 101 # 3226 Essay #2
and Story Friday, April 23, 2010
Inner Violence
“Do you believe that a street gang isn’t serious issue to put
interest as Nazi? A street gang cannot be distinguishing from a
group of Nazi” (Sandy Bonilla).
Daniel Goldhagen discuss in his book Worse Than War many conflicts
that have “lead mass slaughter” (Goldhagen 59) in the last decades of
wars. In chapter 3, he introduced three different conflicts from the
American past history that have lead USA to be influenced in the
“mass slaughter.” In the US history, “American Revolution” and the
“National Building” (59-61) have been for the Americans the best
glorious history events because it’s part of their American
patriotism. Until Goldhagen point out the other part of these history
events that these events have been involve with “mass slaughter” by
eliminating the “Tories, Southerners, and the Native Americans” (62).
After US gained his independency, they expelled away the “Tories”
from the America land or they had to become “Loyal Americans.” The
south slavery lead the American Revolution war between the
Northerners vs. the Southerners that killed many African-Americans
and American soldiers. Then the “Tories” and the “Loyal American”
eliminated most of the Native Americans population in order to get
land and gold which they didn’t care about Native Americans life.
These US history events managed to eliminate sort of group of people
by their differences in race, in culture, and in religion. The same
thought happen with “The Germans” formed the “Holocaust” to
eliminated the Jewish. Now the American society it’s facing with
criminal organizations known as “Street Gangs” that related to
homicides, drug trades, and recruitment of persons. “Street Gangs”
are groups of people that attack any other different groups by their
neighborhood, race, culture, and other stereotype which lead to “Mass
slaughter.” People don’t think it isn’t a big deal, but the numbers
of “Street Gangs” are increasing rapidly because in America the human
population and diversities are increasing rapidly too. The Nazi or
Neo-Nazi was formed first with a minor group from about “20 workers
from Munich's railway shops” (wikipidia) “On 5 January 1919” they
were anger Germans that grew quickly from 20 workers to just the
general members “nearly 7 million people by 1933’s” (wikipidia) to
almost control the whole universe. By 1934, “88.09 % of the German
voters endorsed in yesterday's plebiscite Chancellor
Hitler's” (Frederick T. Birchall) that’s how much power he hold on
his hand to control his Nazi members, and attack their enemies.
“Street Gangs” are minor groups of anger teenagers that are
increasingly by controlling their own neighborhood. The “Anti-Gang
Enforcement Act of 2009” have been introduced since June 10, 2009 to
amends this bill to “predicate gang crime” and “Project Safe
Neighborhoods programs” (Thomas Library). The Nazi was only
one large group that almost dominated the entire world then they got
stop, but street gangs there are numbers of them around the world
it’s impossible to stop. In 2006, the United State Department of
Justice “estimates 30,000 gangs, with 800,00 members, impacting 2,500
communities across the United States” (dosomething.org). The number
of gangs continues to rise rapidly especially in school areas. As
Goldhagen says, “individual– centered...located mass murder in the
psychological mechanism of the individual that impel people to
slaughter others” (Goldhagen 65) like many street gangs started
because of their personal anger issues and wanted to get power by
mass slaughtering other members from different street gang and
reserving neighborhoods as their territory. No matter how
many decades have passed the bad habits haven't change. As Goldhagen
mention before that "individual-centered" it's one of the issues that
form groups of mad people to target the weaker ones, or take their
anger on their opposite race or religion. Street gangs it's one of
those issues about a group of people that holds power to make other
people fear them. Most of the time, this human disorder behavior of
committing crimes doesn't affect them, but the ones that are around
them.
Reference:
Betty M. Chemers is Director of OJJDP’s Research and Program
Development Division. James H. Burch is Program Manager in the
Special Emphasis Division. http://www.dosomething.org/tipsandtools/11-facts-about-gangs.
Frederick T. Birchall, New York Times (19th August, 1934).
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERnazi.htm.
Goldhagen, D.J. Worse Than War. 2009. (59-65).
H.R.2815. “Anti-Gang Enforcement Act of 2009.” Rep Rooney, Thomas J.
[FL-16] (introduced 6/10/2009).
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d111:9:./temp/~bdKThK:@@@L&su.../bss/d111query.html|.
Nazi Party From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party#Origins_and_early_existence:_....
========================================= Story
The Girl in her Middle School Uniform
From the winter of December to the spring of May, I have travel
from corner to corner in the streets of Los Angeles. Everyday it’s
the same old same routine to find food around the trashcans, when I
can. Sometimes the residents scare me away with a broomstick, or
racket, or any thing that can be used as a weapon to just keep me
away from their trashcans. I cannot get myself a job because there
isn’t any job for someone with four legs. Nor I cannot be a home pet
because I’m too old to be a pet and nobody wants me. There are two
enemies that I must keep myself alert from: the bullies’ students,
and the veterinarian pet control. I came from Ontario, Canada, to
Los Angeles, California, and always the same old same like always.
Except today morning I noticed I wasn’t the only one that was
getting bulled, a girl in her middle school uniform was getting chase
by an angry mob. The angry mob looks so angry that she must
have done something really bad, but she doesn’t seem to be the type
of a problematic person to mess with them. I decided to follow her
along with the angry mob to check how far this girl would get from
the angry mob. It didn’t took her a while to stop running after she
had reached to a dead end, also they stop at the same time she stop
running. A middle- aged man from the mob got closed to her and asked
her, “Didn’t I tell ya to not bring them to my hood?”
She stood silent for a moment and replied, “But I don’t ride.”
The man faced his mob laughing, then turn to her saying, “Yo biotch,
yo think I’m stupid? We have seen ya with the “Crips*”
She replies him, “No, that’s my friend, but I’m not part from them.”
He slaps her and she stares at him.
“What?” he asks her. “I’m sorry, say it one more time.” She just
covers her cheek where he slapped her, and stares at him with terror.
“What? What yo starting at? Huh... Do yo gotta problem with my
face?”
She stood in silence.
“Yeah, I tho so, byotch. Yo think yo can fool me? Didn’t ya tell ya
to not to hang out with them?”
“Yes,” she replied.
“An’ yo didn’t obey my orders. Do yo know what happens when someone
doesn’t listen to what I say?”
She decided to keep herself in the silence, but her eyes couldn’t
hold her tears from her eyes. He just stares at her from head to
toes.
“Do yo think with tears I’ll let ya go?” He laughs, and so the rest
of the members from his mob laugh.
“First, yo gotta gimme something, so what do yo have?” He asks.
She replies, “I don’t have any money with me today.”
He just stares at her and grabs her bag checking her belongings. He
finds her iPod touch and throws her backpack at her.
“I’ll take this for now,” he says. She just stares at him wanting to
do something, but she couldn’t.
“What’s in my hood belongs to me. Since you live here, now yo goin to
do what I tell ya to do. Now, do I make myself clear?”
“Yes.”
The man walks away from the girl and leads his gang members to the
way out of the dead end. The girl couldn’t do much, but obey his
orders only. She hasn’t done anything wrong, but she was attacked
and harassed by a group of people with power to hurt the weak ones.
In the end, I realized human have more bullies than I do. Also many
students from gang street members are currently attacking people from
their neighborhood to fear their strength. Similar idea goes with
the country Germany which some of them didn’t have any choice to
join Hitler political party, “Nazi” party.
_____________________________________________________________
*Crips: A majority of the Crips and Bloods in Los Angeles are
African American with the exceptions of a Samoan Crip gangs active in
Long Beach, a Samoan Blood gang active in Carson, an Inglewood Crip
gang with mostly members of Tongan descent, and a mixed Samoan/black
gang active in Compton. With the exception of these four gangs, Crips
and Blood gangs are predominately African American.
Alex Alonso, PhD Candidate. “Black Street Gangs in Los Angeles: A
History “http://www.streetgangs.com/history/hist01.html
Essay 3
Sandy Bonilla
English 101 #3226
Professor
Essay 3 O’Connell
May 28, 2010
Hopeless Conclusion
The Holocaust is not the only bizarre genocide that has happened in
the world’s history or in the recent decades. In the 21st Century
there have being many secret wars that are currently active. Many
people around the world don’t have any idea that these secret wars
could be happening in their own country. Genocide doesn’t necessarily
means to eliminate a group of people or an ethic by killing them, also
when the people agrees to participate in a genocide plan or by
expulsing a specific group of people or an ethic for benefits its also
genocide. Daniel Goldhagen is the writer of the book Worse Than War
and the narrator of Worse Than War documentary. He doesn’t only write
books but fight against genocide and pursues the United Nation Allies
Leaders to start some action to stop genocide from happening. Also the
characters from Shakespeare’s play Titus Andronicus, it’s an example
of the ordinary people in the societies that make the choices to
participate in genocide plans for benefit and revenge. Goldhagen
reveals the readers and viewers how corrupt leaders like Tamora and
Titus can drive ordinary people (or victims) like the Goths and the
children of Titus to kill their friends or neighbors, and how can
genocide be avoided by punishing these corrupt leaders or enemies and
not to let it happen in our neighborhood.
People depend on the government when they are in need or in the moment
of crises, like when Hitler motivated his German people in those days
of economic depression and days of hunger. People’s behavior can be
changed in desperate moments when they need something, and they are
more likely to go against their neighbors if an idol like Hitler tells
them to slaughter their neighbors for better economics and food. In
December 10, 2008 Courtney Yager from CNN wrote about and interviewed
Nusreta Sivac a suvivor of the concentration camp in Bosnia:
“Nusreta Sivac watch ordinary people become killers while
imprisoned...she was shocked to see people she knew running the camp.
‘They acted as if they had never seen me before...It was difficult for
to understand how people could turn into beasts overnight” (Yager
CNN.Com).
The werewolf is a man that when he sees the full moon in the middle of
the night, he turns to an unstoppable beast. Ordinary people can
change their good behavior to beastie and unstoppable like the Nazis
did. Also in many countries like the Revolution of Republic of China,
Soviet Union, Guatemala, Rwanda, French Revolution, and the American
civil wars.
“Leaders choose to initiate the killing. Ordinary people make
conscious choice to participate, and those with the power to prevent
or stop it choose to do nothing” (Daniel Goldhagen Worse Than War
Documentary).
During the Rwanda genocide the UN troops stop the terrorist from
attacking the Tsusist people after 8,000 thousands of them have been
murder. On May 26, 2010 three judges of the court signed a document of
the lack of cooperation that the UN Security Council doesn’t follow
the appropriate actions to take control of the war crime in Sudan.
"’The Republic of Sudan is failing to comply with its cooperation
obligations ... in relation to the enforcement of warrants of arrest’
issued in April 2007 for former government minister Ahmed Haroun and
militia leader Ali Kosheib” (AFP google.com).
Since 2003, the UN Security Council has been assigned to investigate
the Sudan secret war in Darfur. Then in March 2009, the UN Security
Council place the arrests warrant for the President Omar al-Bashir but
he refused the arrest warrant.
“Ms le Fraper said it was the first time the ICC had formally asked
the Security Council to take action against a member country for
failing to implement arrest warrants against its citizens “ (Editor
Martin Plaut BBC News Online).
The UN Security Council Prosecutor to appear at the UN meeting for
June 11 to explain why did they failed to arrest the criminal
President Omar al-Bashir. For seven years, someone decides to take
some action to stop the genocide in Darfur. For seven years, many
families have been murder and slaughter painfully by the military
corrupted of their President Omar al-Bashir.
“Since the conflict in Darfur began in 2003, some 2.7 million people
have fled their homes and the UN says about 300,000 more have
died” (BBC News Online).
All the leaders of the UN Security Council knew this secret war was
active since 2003 until today and it continue to mass murder the
people of Darfur. The UN who has the power might be able to stop this
genocide war, until the people from Darfur have been eliminated or
much worse. Many people who are fighting against genocide and
demanding the UN Security Council to do something are people like
Goldhagen. Goldhagen it’s trying to open people eyes to realize what’s
going on outside their homes, their neighborhood, and their country.
In the famous play of Shakespeare Titus Andronicus Tamora Queen of
the Goths beg Titus Andronicus who mass slaughter her people (The
Goths) beg for the life of her son mercy.
“These are their brethren whom your Goths beheld...
Religiously they ask a sacrifice.
To this your son is marked, and die he must”
(Titus: Titus Andronicus Act 1.1 125-127 pg. 8).
Titus is the “Great Leader” of the Roman Empire whom has returned to
his homeland as hero for winning a war by eliminating The Goths, plus
he gave the order to murder the son of the Queen of the Goths Tamora.
Titus can be compared to any other corrupted leaders that have
committed genocide in the world’s history. Tamora as any victim from
the genocide wars or the victims of Rwanda the Esperance Nyuraguria
begged to not kill their families. Except the women of Esperance
Nyuraguria did not looked for revenge after the war of Rwanda, they
looked for justice and peace. In the other hand, Tamora as a leader of
The Goths decides to take revenge on Titus by the same way as Titus
murdered her son and her people.
“’Tis present death I beg...where never man’s eye may behold my body.
Do this, and be charitable murderer.” Said Lavinia. Tamora replies to
her, “So, should I rob my sweet sons of their fee. No, Let them
satisfice their lust on thee” (Lavinia and Tamora: Titus Andronicus
Act II.3 143-180 pg 38).
Rape it’s the worse crime than any other crime or than any way of
murdering someone. Tamora does much worse than Titus crime. Revenge
can bring anyone worse consequences than someone who have done wrong
suffered at their hands. Most women fear to be raped and to be
discriminated by the ordinary people. There are many new laws in USA
that protect and help women who are sexually abused, but many won’t
speak because they few to be judged and rejected by ordinary people.
No human kind has the right to eliminated or wipe out other humans
kind or any living creature. Many wars of genocide are currently
active. For example, the wars in Israel, in Dahfur, in France, in UK,
in Spain, and in USA (Arizona) are powerful countries that are
expelling or eliminating people by their ethic, and religion. These
countries have the same issues or excuse that are eliminating a
specific group of people for being “illegal immigrants”, but in
reality, mass murder and expelling them it’s another way to
participate in genocide. The UN should think for solutions not for
more problems, revenge, and mass murder.
Reference:
Edited McDonald, Russ. Titus Andronicus. The Pelican Shakespeare. New
York; 2000: 38.
“Court asks UN to help catch Sudan war crime suspects.” Google News,
2010. http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jj_kcwTIN-va6f6HOWLW-nvsiThg.
Goldhagen, D. J. (2009). Worse than war: Genocide, eliminationism, and
the ongoing assault on humanity. New York: Public Affairs.
JTN Productions PBS International. "Worse Than War" Film.
http://goldhagen.com/worse-than-war-the-film.
Plaut, Martin editor. “ICC refers Sudan war crimes cases to UN.” BBC
News Online, 2010. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/africa/10167800.stm.
Yager, Courtney. "They killed their neighbors: genocide's foot
soldiers". CNN Online. 2008. http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/11/25/sbm.perpetrators/
Ryota F
Jun 3, 2010, 12:09:35 PM6/3/10
to English 101, spring 2010 online sections #0143 and #3226
GOLDHAGEN; WORSE THAN WAR
Week (1) Research & Journal
English 101, Spring 2010 online, Section #3226
Student Ryota Fujii
Week (1) Research & Journal
English 101, Spring 2010 online, Section #3226
a) is war, specifically the increase of intentional attacks on
civilians, the greatest problem in the world today?
No really. It may seem like to some people that war is the greatest
problem in
the world today, but I don't think that it is the greatest problem.
I
think that this worse depression is the greatest problem today. Many
people feel like irritable and selfish if they don't have job or
house. How do we eat if we have money. However, we're feel like grate
temper if there is good economy. I think that it's not possible to
occur the war if economy is great.
b) are war violence and attacks on civilians inevitable components of
life or human nature, or can warfare be limited or even eliminated?
Everyone wants peace the world, but I don't think that we can be
inevitable from war or violence attack during our live. Although
civilians cannot fight, attackers want to use new weapons or nuclear.
It's selfish act.
c) if military attacks on civilians can be controlled, should the
people of the world work to stop them?
That must be great if military attacks on civilians can be
controlled.
So,
of course, people of the world should work to stop them. We're going
to follow the leader so, we must choose the great leader for our
country.
Ryota Fujii
English 101
Professor Ed O’Connell
2/19/2010
An Argument against Traub’s Argument
In “Patterns of Genocide,” Traub writes a review of Worse
than War written by Daniel Jonah Goldhagen. Traub disagrees with
Goldhagen’s argument on the need for a systematic analysis and
prevention of eliminationism. In contrast to Goldhagen who argues that
mass murders should be understood as an ism to be analyzed in
political, ideological, and moral terms, Traub seems to believe that
the problem can be viewed as a structural feature of the modern world
and that changing definitions of the national interest and viewing the
problem in terms of the national interest will solve the problem.
Traub also criticizes Goldhagen’s “intense moralism,” suggesting that
Goldhagen is exaggerating the seriousness and scope of the problem,
including the threat Al Qaeda poses. Finally, Traub disagrees with
Goldhagen on the effectiveness of the United Nations. Traub’s opinion
is wrong because viewing the problem of mass murders in terms of the
national interests has led to passive responses of the international
community, Al Qaeda is an actual threat, and the United Nations has
been ineffective. To solve the problem of mass murders, we must view
this problem as a moral issue, take the threat of “political Islam”
including Al Qaeda seriously, and establish an international
organization of democracies whose purpose is to prevent, stop and
punish mass murders.
Traub claims that structuralists “abhor atrocities” and
would prevent or stop them by “new definition of the national
interest” which would lead to “changes in policy designed to single
out those perpetrators of mass violence,” but that is wrong because
most Americans would not buy the idea that intervening in poor
countries with no strategic importance is our national interest. Traub
also claims that “even Al Qaeda…has not been able…to attain its
ultimate goals” to diminish Goldhagen’s sense of urgency, but that is
also wrong because just because Al Qaeda has not achieved its goal of
mass murdering Americans since the terrorist attacks on 9/11 it does
not mean that it cannot in the future. Finally, Traub also claims that
the United Nations has made advances in 2005 agreeing that “the
international community must step in when states fail to act” to their
people from mass murders, but that’s wrong also because the reality is
that it has done nothing.
My alternate opinion that to solve the problem of mass murders, we
must view this problem as a moral issue is more correct because as
people’s response to the Haiti earthquake shows, people want to help
innocent people. My alternate opinion that we must take the threat of
Al Qaeda seriously is also more correct because as the terrorist
attacks of 9/11 and the subsequent attempts to mass murder Americans
by the group demonstrate, it is clear that the organization is driven
by an ism and its goal is to mass-murder or eliminate Americans.
Finally, my alternate opinion that we must establish an international
organization of democracies whose purpose is to prevent, stop and
punish mass murders is correct and is supported by Goldhagen who
argues in his article, “Ending Our Age of Suffering,” that “[t]he 60-
year-old U.N. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime
of Genocide has proven itself almost useless, and the United Nations,
as the international community’s lead institution, has been a foot-
dragging disaster, doing more to enable eliminationist leaders than to
stop them.” Goldhagen argues for a “robust anti-eliminationist system”
that “would contain three substantial and interrelated components:
prevention, intervention, and punishment.”
weeks 2--4 research & journal
I. (2010, February 6). Worse than war: Genocide, eliminationism and
the ongoing assault on humanity by Daniel Jonah Goldhagen: Ian Pindar
welcomes a powerful study of man’s inhumanity to man. The Guardian.
Retrieved from http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/feb/06/worse-than-war-daniel-goldhagen
a) One point I like about the website is that Pindar summarizes
Goldhagen’s book nicely and include both strengths and shortcomings.
For example, the author criticizes that the book is “overlong and
repetitive, and, having explained in great depth the overwhelming
nature of the problem, it is perhaps inevitable that Goldhagen’s
solutions seem inadequate.” However, he also states that “for all its
faults, Worse Than War is a powerful and affecting study of man’s in
humanity to man (and woman and child).” I had the same impression
about this book so far, and I think that Pindar is fair in his
analysis and review of the book.
b) One point I don’t like about this website is that Pindar fails to
mention what Goldhagen discusses in Chapter one. Goldhagen argues that
President Truman was a mass murderer for having ordered atomic bombs
dropped over two cities in Japan. I thought I was an interesting
argument, but felt that although his idea was compelling in the
beginning, it was not strong as he states toward the end that “While
these monsters’ mass murdering was an organic expression of their long-
standing racist or ideological views and political aspirations,
Truman’s was accidental, owing to a confluence of circumstances that
he would have preferred never came about” (p. 7). I thought he was
contradicting himself. In the beginning, he was stating that Truman is
the same as other “monsters” such as Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot, but
towards the end, he basically said Truman was different. I was
surprised that Pindar did not discuss the point.
C) One point about the book that I don’t understand from the website
and would like to check in the book for more information is the topic
of Israel. Pindar states that “Goldhagen also has one significant
blind spot….it is disingenuous of him not to mention its treatment of
the Palestinian Arabs.” I have not read about that in the book, so I
want to read about it and find out if Pindar is right about that.
Ryota Fujii
English 101
Professor Ed O’Connell
3/5/2010
An Argument against the Use of the Atomic Bombs
After almost 65 years later, President Truman’s decision
to drop the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of World
War II is still a topic of debate. People continue to write about the
controversial topic, expressing their views on whether the use of the
atomic bombs was necessary. Two editorials entitled “Hiroshima Bombing
Anniversary: Truman Made a Tough Call – But the Right One” and
“Hiroshima: Nuclear Weapons, Then and Now” represent the main
arguments in support of the use of the atomic bombs. The first
editorial basically argues that Truman made the right decision because
the use of the atomic bombs saved millions of lives, both American
lives and Japanese lives. The second editorial agrees with the first
editorial but adds that the use of the atomic bombs is justified also
because it helped prevent Soviet expansionism. As a person who grew up
in Japan and visited both Hiroshima and Nagasaki to learn about the
horrific impact of the atomic bombs, I have a strong opinion on this
issue, and I strongly disagree with these editorials. Their opinions
are wrong because saving Japanese lives was never really the reason
for the use of the atomic bombs, preventing Soviet expansionism is not
a justification for killing innocent civilians with horrific weapons,
and the Japanese would have surrendered if the United States had used
a different approach. The use of the atomic bombs was unnecessary and
the United States should not have dropped the Atomic Bombs on Japan.
The editorial “Hiroshima Bombing Anniversary” claims,
“Truman used what he had, and 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,” but that is wrong because saving Japanese
lives was never really the goal of the decision. The editorial
“Hiroshima: Nuclear Weapons” also claims, “America’s nuclear arsenal
helped thwart Soviet expansionism,” but that’s also wrong because one
cannot justify killing so many innocent civilians with nuclear weapons
in order to show a rival country who was the boss. Finally, the
editorial “Hiroshima Bombing Anniversary” claims, “The Japanese had
not surrendered despite repeated ultimatums,” suggesting that it was
Japan’s fault, but that’s wrong because the United States failed to
consider Japanese cultural values, such as the importance of not
losing face.
The use of the atomic bombs was unnecessary and the United States
should not have dropped the Atomic Bombs on Japan. My alternate
opinion is more correct because the United States could have told
Japan about the successful test of an atomic bomb and showed the
devastating effects of such a bomb, which could have persuaded Japan
to surrender. My alternate opinion is additionally more correct
because if the United States had respected Japanese cultural values
and allowed it to surrender with a minimum loss of face Japan might
have surrendered before the United States dropped the bombs. My
alternate opinion is also supported by Goldhagen. In his book, Worse
Than War, he points out the problem of definition and states that by
definition Truman’s decision to use the atomic bombs to kill more than
a quarter million people is “mass murder” (6).
Ryota Fujii
English 101
Professor Ed O’Connell
Weeks 5-7 research & journal
Nelson, Sen. B. 2009, September 24. S. 1704 World War II War Crimes
Accountability Act of 2009: A bill to hold the surviving Nazi war
criminals accountable for the war crimes, genocide, and crimes against
humanity they committed during World War II, by encouraging foreign
governments to more efficiently prosecute and extradite wanted
criminals.
a) One thing I like about this bill is that like Goldhagen suggests in
his book that this bill seeks to hold the war criminals accountable
for the war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity they
committed during World War II. Doing so might deter other dictators
from trying to eliminate a group of people whom they find undesirable
and/or threatening.
b) One thing I don’t like about this bill is that it came almost too
late. Surviving Nazi war criminals are becoming increasingly rare, and
they are so old. While it is important to hold the war criminals
accountable for genocide and other crimes, it is probably more
effective and efficient to go after recent war criminals.
c) One thing I don’t understand is how this bill enables the Office of
Special Investigations (OSI) of the Department of Justice to identify
and prosecute those wanted World War II criminals now after over 60
years. The words “by encouraging foreign government” sound very vague
and do not tell us exactly how this bill will help bring wanted
criminals to justice.
Ryota Fujii
English 101
Professor Ed O’Connell
3/19/2010
An Argument against Those who Oppose Goldhagen’s Anti-Eliminationist
Program
In his book, Worse than War, Daniel Jonah Goldhagen
proposes an anti-mass murder and elimination monetary prevention
program, which consists of four elements. Goldhagen argues that the
program must do the following: (1) automatically apply; (2) target
people wanted for such offenses; (3) expand the program’s universe of
people automatically deemed culpable; and (4) pay the substantial
rewards…for killing them (578). His proposal, especially the last
element, is controversial. In fact, Hesse who interviewed Goldhagen
seems to think that killing the culpable should be left to UN troops.
Philip Alston, U.N. special rapporteur on extrajudicial killings, also
argues that targeted killings are against international law (Miller).
Vicki Divoll, former CIA lawyer who teaches U.S. government and
Constitution at the Naval Academy, also disagrees with targeted
killings unless the United States’ survival is at stake (Miller).
Their opinions are wrong because the U.N.’s response is slow and
ineffective, international law does not protect victims, and the
United States should view this problem of eliminationism as a moral
issue. To end eliminationist assaults, targeted killings should be
allowed and rewarded.
Hesse asks Goldhagen, “Wouldn’t that be better left to UN
troops?,” suggesting that killing of mass murderers should not be left
to any country or any individuals who have access to them, but that is
wrong because the United Nations has been so ineffective in finding
and killing perpetrators. Philip Alston also claims, “There is no
legal justification for the cold-blooded murder of a man who, if
alleged to have committed crimes, could have been arrested and
charged” (Miller), but that is also wrong because he fails to
recognize the difficulty of arresting and charging many of the mass
murderers. Finally, Vicki Divoll also claims, “Our moral code and
policy pronouncements once reflected an understanding that such
treacherous killing was not how a great nation should defend itself –
unless, like Israel, its very survival is at stake” (Miller), but that
is also wrong because his opinion reflects only the national interests
and such attitude is the very reason why the international community
has responded to eliminationist assaults so slowly and so
ineffectively.
The idea that to end eliminationist assaults targeted
killings should be allowed and rewarded is more correct on the topic
because, if a country or somebody who finds out that a dictator or a
political leader is about to launch an eliminationist assault but does
nothing, that dictator or political leader can kill hundreds of
thousands of people. This alternate opinion is also more correct on
the topic because mass murderers keep occurring despite the existence
of the United Nations, international law and the establishment of the
International Criminal Court in 2002. It is time to try something
different to solve this problem. Finally, the idea that targeted
killings should be allowed and rewarded is strongly supported by Worse
than War’s author Daniel Jonah Goldhagen who claims that “in working
to prevent the much more massive eliminationist assaults…it must also
go beyond the antiterrorist program by…not only seeking their arrest
but also authorizing their killing” (578). In the interview with
Hesse, Goldhagen also states that “[a]ny country that can prevent
another from committing mass murder should have the right to intervene
in the killing. And anyone who has the chance to kill those who commit
mass murder should do just that.”
Works Cited
Goldhagen, D.J. Worse Than War. 2009.
with Daniel J. Goldhagen.
Quantara: dialog with the Islamic world.
http://www.qantara.de/webcom/show_article.php/_c-476/_nr-1263/i.html
Miller, M. 2010, February 21. Targeted for death. Los Angeles Times.
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/feb/21/opinion/la-oe-miller-web21-2010feb21
Brinkbäumer, K. and M. Doerry. 2009, October 8. Spiefel interview with
Daniel Jonah Goldhagen. Speigel Online International.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,653938,00.html
English 101
Professor Ed O’Connell
4/2/2010
Explaining Eliminationist Assaults
In his book Worse than war Daniel Goldhagen (2009) deals with the
issue of eliminationism. He explains why eliminationist assaults begin
and suggests what we can do to stop eliminationist assaults. He argues
that, although eliminationist beliefs have been universally held by
people throughout history, eliminationist assaults are not inevitable
unless political leaders decide to act on such beliefs. Goldhagen
denies popular explanations that focus on globalization, social
structures, ethnic conflict or human nature. Among numerous conflicts
and eliminationist assaults Goldhagen discusses in his book, the
Holocaust is probably the most well known eliminationist assault in
history. He argues that eliminationist anti-Semitism among Germans was
very strong “but lay dormant until Hitler and the state he led
initiated, organized, and oversaw the Jews’ mass murder” (p. 21).
Accordingly, he proposes that in order to stop eliminationist
assaults, an elimination prevention program that allows targeted
killings be implemented. His views are controversial and many disagree
with his views. The Montreal Institute for Genocide and Human Rights
Studies (2009), for example, offers structural explanations for
eliminationist assaults. However, a review of various information and
opinion suggests that there is enough support for Goldhagen’s views
also. For instance, Fowler (2004), when addressing to Annual
Conference of the Association of Holocaust Organizations, indicated
that eliminationist assaults are not inevitable. A Congressional bill,
S. 1704 World War II War Crimes Accountability Act of 2009 proposed by
Sen. Nelson is also consistent with Goldhagen’s view that individuals
choose to commit eliminationist assaults and thus should be held
accountable for their actions. Finally, Michael Walzer, author of Just
and unjust wars also supports Goldhagen’s view that targeted killings
can be justified (Miller, 2010).
First, in explaining eliminationism, Goldhagen argues that popular
explanations that focus on structural or historical factors such as
globalization, social structures, ethnic conflict or human nature do
not adequately explain why eliminationist assaults begin. One such
explanation is presented by the Montreal Institute for Genocide and
Human Rights Studies (2009). Its report entitled Mobilizing the will
to intervene: Leadership & action to prevent mass atrocities states
that “[t]he combined impact of poverty and inequality, rapid
demographic growth, nationalism, and climate change drives deadly
violence and threatens international peace and security” (viii).
Goldhagen acknowledges that these underlying structural factors such
as nationalism and ethnic conflict “can motivate people to annihilate
others” (p. 67). However, he correctly asserts that they cannot
explain why some ethnic conflicts lead to eliminationist assaults
while others do not. Also, he argues that the structural explanations
cannot explain the timing of “the various phases of the German’s
eliminationist program against the Jews” (p. 67). As Goldhagen argues,
therefore, the Montreal Institute for Genocide and Human Rights
Studies must recognize that structural factors do not inevitably lead
to eliminationist assaults.
In contrast to the Montreal Institute for Genocide and Human Rights
Studies, Fowler (2004), in his address to Annual Conference of the
Association of Holocaust Organizations, indicates that eliminationist
assaults are not inevitable, supporting Goldhagen’s view. In his
speech, Fowler disagrees with Cynthia Ozick, a writer who warns what
has happened once will happen again. Fowler states that the writer
“goes too far, giving to the darkness an inevitability that renders us
powerless, stripping from us for all time any choice.” Goldhagen also
emphasizes individual choices in his book and states that in the case
of the Holocaust, Hitler and the state he led decided to mobilize and
organize those who held anti-Semitic sentiments into a program of
killing.
A Congressional bill, S. 1704 World War II War Crimes Accountability
Act of 2009 proposed by Sen. Nelson is also consistent with
Goldhagen’s view that individuals choose to commit eliminationist
assaults and thus should be held accountable for their actions. This
bill holds “the surviving Nazi war criminals accountable for the war
crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity they committed during
World War II, by encouraging foreign governments to more efficiently
prosecute and extradite wanted criminals.” The idea behind this bill
is that eliminationist assaults such as the Holocaust do not happen
without certain individuals who have “full capacity to do otherwise”
deciding “to slaughter other human beings by the thousands, hundreds
or thousands, or millions” (Goldhagen, p. 69). This bill, therefore,
supports Goldhagen’s argument.
Finally, Michael Walzer, author of Just and unjust wars also supports
Goldhagen’s view that targeted killings can be justified (Miller,
2010). Goldhagen argues that “[t]here is no mass murder or elimination
I know that could not have been avoided had one person or a few people
decided to do otherwise, which they easily could have done” (p. 73).
Based on this view, one of his solution to this problem is to
implement a program that would allow targeted killings and “pay the
substantial rewards…for killing” perpetrators (p. 578). This idea is
controversial, but Walzer (2010) agrees with Goldhagen and states that
these killings “can be justified when the target is a legitimate enemy
who is actively engaged in planning or organizing or carrying out
criminal or terrorist activities” (Miller, 2010).
In conclusion, Goldhagen’s views on why eliminationist assaults begin
and what we can do to stop eliminationist assaults are controversial.
However, a review of various information and opinion suggests that
there is enough support for Goldhagen’s views. The case of the
Holocaust illustrates that eliminationist assaults cannot be solely
explained by structural or historical factors, and since political
leaders and the states they lead are responsible for mass murders, we
need laws and programs that hold these individuals accountable and
allow targeted killings of those perpetrators.
References
Fowler, J. (2004). Education about the Holocaust: How does it help
build a better world? Annual
Conference of the Association of Holocaust Organizations. Retrieved
March 31, 2010,
from http://www.holocaust-trc.org/edu_holocaust.htm
Goldhagen, D. J. (2009). Worse than war: Genocide, eliminationism, and
the ongoing assault on
humanity. New York: Public Affairs.
Retrieved March 31, 2010,
from http://articles.latimes.com/2010/feb/21/opinion/la-oe-miller-web21-2010feb21
Montreal Institute for Genocide and Human Rights Studies (2009).
Mobilizing the will to
Intervene: Leadership & action to prevent mass atrocities. Retrieved
March 31, 2010, from http://migs.concordia.ca/W2I/documents/ENG_MIGS_finalW2IAugust09.pdf
Nelson, Sen. B. (2009). S. 1704 World War II War Crimes Accountability
Act of 2009.
Ryota Fujii
English 101
Professor Ed O’Connell
Weeks 8-9 research & journal
I have already worked on the draft of Essay 2 and used a
bill – S. 1704 World War II War Crimes Accountability Act of 2009.
This is a bill to hold the surviving Nazi war criminals accountable
for the war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity they
committed during World War II, by encouraging foreign governments to
more efficiently prosecute and extradite wanted criminals.
For the essay 2 topic, I have chosen the Holocaust because
it is probably the most known eliminationist assault in history. This
bill helps understand the topic and proper course of action to avoid
similar future situations. This bill is important because it seeks to
hold the war criminals accountable for the war crimes, genocide and
crimes against humanity they committed during World War II. Doing so
might deter other dictators from trying to eliminate a group of people
whom they find undesirable and/or threatening.
Goldhagen’s analysis in understanding the situation is very useful and
this bill is consistent with his ideas. According to Goldhagen,
eliminationist beliefs have been universally held by people throughout
history. In fact, eliminationist anti-Semitism among Germans was very
strong for many years. However, he says, eliminationist assaults are
not inevitable because as the case of the Holocaust shows it does not
happen unless political leaders (such as Hitler) decide to act on
eliminationist beliefs and initiate, organize and oversee
eliminationist assaults. The belief behind this bill is also that
eliminationist assaults are caused by individuals and they must be
held accountable for their actions. By pursuing these criminals who
participated in the Holocaust which is now over 65 years ago, this
bill might deter individuals from acting on their eliminationist
beliefs and has a potential for avoiding similar future situations.
Ryota Fujii
English 101
Professor Ed O’Connell
Weeks 10-11 research & journal
The Hans Blix character from the movie Team America: World
Police represents wrong approach to international terrorism and
eliminationist assaults.
Although Hans Blix, who was the head of the United Nations Monitoring,
Verification and Inspection Commission from 2000 to 2003, is a real
person, the movie is a satirical fiction. The Blix appears in a scene
with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il. In this scene, Kim Jong Il is
in his palace and waiting for Blix to visit him. There is an aquarium,
which houses some sharks. Soldier/translator announces that Hans Blix
from the United Nations has arrived. Blix says, “Mr. Il, I was
supposed to be allowed to insect your palace today, and your guards
won’t let me in to certain areas.” In response, Kim says, “Hans Hans
Hans, we’ve been through this a dozen times! I don’t have any weapons
of mass destruction, okay Hans?” Blix replies, “Then let me look
around so I can ease the UN’s collective mind.” When Kim gets angry,
Blix says, “I’m sorry but the UN must be firm with you! Let me see
your whole palace, or else!” Kim asks, “Or else, what?” Blix answers,
“Or else we will be very, very angry with you, and we will write you a
letter telling you how angry we are.” The conversation between the two
reflects the UN’s ineffective approach to international terrorism.
After Kim looks at Blix in smug disbelief, he says to Blix, “Okay,
I’ll show you, Hans. You ready? Stand a little to your left. [Blix
steps to his left] A little more. [Blix steps to his left again,
landing on a wooden circle] Good. [pulls back on an ornament that
turned out to be a lever. The circle drops away under Blix and he goes
down into an abyss screaming. He comes up on the other side of the
aquarium window, rising up in the water] There you go. Hans Blix! How
do you like that, you fucking cocksucker?! [a shark has found Blix and
tears into him] Do you have any idea how fucking busy I am, Hans
Blix?! Well fuck you! You want inspections?! … Do you think I’m some
pretty arms dearer?! I’m planning the attack!” As Goldhagen points
out, since the UN is ineffective and does almost nothing, Kim has no
fear or respect for the institution and Mr. Blix who represents the
institution. The ineffectiveness of the United Nation portrayed in
this movie can be applied to the Holocaust and other eliminationist
assaults as well. In order to prevent eliminationist assaults, we
cannot rely on the institution like the UN.
Gary, a fictional character in the same movie, Team
America: World Police, represents correct approach to international
terrorism and eliminationist assaults. Again, this movie is a comedy,
so this character makes numerous mistakes and behaves in ridiculous
ways. However, Gary as a member of Team America, is committed to
stopping terrorists before they act on their plans. When Team America
learns of a planned attack, Gary goes to kill perpetrators. Although
his actions lead to retaliations, his and Team America’s approach is
consistent with Goldhagen’s idea that individuals, including the
surviving Nazi war criminals, choose to commit eliminationist assaults
and thus should be held accountable for their actions, and that target
killings can be justified when the target is actively engaged in
planning and carrying out terrorist activities. This approach, while
not perfect, is better than the approach of Blix representing the
United Nation.
References
Goldhagen, D. J. (2009). Worse than war: Genocide, eliminationism, and
the ongoing assault on
humanity. New York: Public Affairs.
Picture]. United States.
Response to Patrick D's weeks 10-11 research & journal
I liked the second paragraph where you discussed the movie
“Schindler’s List.” I agree that the character Oskar Schindler
represents ideas that are consistent with Goldhagen’s argument that
individuals choose to commit eliminationist assaults and that
individuals like Schindler can act to stop them. The movie and the
character’s actions illustrate that institutions like the United
Nation could not have done what Schindler did and that those who are
inside the organization or those who have access to the perpetrators
could do something to stop or prevent terrorism and eliminationist
assaults. It indirectly supports Goldhagen’s suggestion that those who
kill eliminationist leaders should be rewarded and the international
community should encourage those individual initiatives and actions.
Ryota Fujii
English 101
Professor Ed O’Connell
4/23/2010
Short story
Lessons Not Learned
When Ms. Good was a senior in high school, she saw the World Trader
Centers collapse on CNN. Since she was a young girl, she had always
been interested in world affairs and wanted to pursue a career in
politics, but on that horrible, fateful day, she decided that she
would become the president of the United States. As a Jewish American
girl whose ancestors were Holocaust victims, Ms. Good wanted to make
sure that her descendants would never experience eliminationist
assaults and/or terrorist attacks. She was a brilliant student and
went to Harvard and majored in Political Science. She took many
classes in International Relations, History, and Psychology to
understand the reasons behind eliminationist assaults and terrorist
attacks that do not cease to exist despite numerous efforts made by
the Unites States and the international community. After graduating
from college, Ms. Good went to Harvard Law School and studied
International Laws. She was elected Senator in California and became
a member of the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. In 2020, she
finally realized her dream by becoming the first female and Jewish
president of the United States. Since the 9.11 terrorist attacks, the
world had experienced many more terrorist attacks and witnessed
several eliminationist assaults, so when she ran her campaign on the
promise of world peace, people were excited. Despite the undertones of
violence dominating much of human history, people still did not want
to believe that human beings are fundamentally aggressive and evil.
People around the world were now watching Ms. Good.
Soon after Ms. Good became president, she received an intelligence
report that a Third-World dictator is behaving aggressively toward the
country’s ethnic and religious minorities and is also planning some
kind of attack on the United States. Ms. Good was alarmed and quickly
gathered a team of advisors including her foreign policy staff and
renowned mental-health professionals to interpret the dictator’s
behavior. Ms. Good invited the mental-health professionals because by
studying psychology in college, she believed strongly that leaders
have a major impact on foreign and domestic policy-making. She
understood of course that a decision maker’s policy choices and
actions are often shaped by the nature of the international system and/
or by forces in state and society such as ethnic conflicts, but she
believed that individuals have significant influence on the policies
and actions ultimately chosen. By doing research on the Holocaust and
Hitler, she was convinced that it is important to study the personal
attributes, such as personality, temperament, background, beliefs and
goals of dictators and leaders.
After some discussion, the group of mental-health professionals told
Ms. President that the root of the dictator’s behavior stems from his
mental instability and that she should immediately organize the
overthrow of the leader. The suggestion that this dictator is
irrational and possibly psychotic sounded plausible to her. After all,
why would any political leader risk war or international incidents in
an era of nuclear weapons? Ms. Good decided that the overthrow of this
dictator was necessary, but how? She knew the answer but stopped
herself by saying it first to avoid appear too radical as the
president of the most powerful country in the world. To her relief,
one of his foreign staff members, Mr. Goldhagen, said, “We should just
send somebody or use locals to kill him.” She liked the idea, but
before she said anything, another staff member, Mr. UN said, “That’s
too risky. We know how most people feel about targeted killings and we
need to follow laws.” Other foreign policy staff members agreed. Mrs.
Pose said, “We should just signal a credible commitment to use force
in retaliation for any aggressive actions.” Mr. PR said, “We should
stick to the use of aid or sanctions. Any military actions including
targeted killings at this point are too risky. The public will not buy
that.” Ms. Good felt helpless. She wanted to become president to take
on the issues of eliminationist assaults and terrorist attacks, but
here she was surrounded by experts on psychology and foreign affairs,
yet she was not able to do anything decisive.
Three days later, Ms. Good received a briefing on the dictator and
found out that at least 10,000 of the country’s ethnic and religious
minorities had been killed. She again gathered those experts and
asked, “Why can’t we just go ahead and kill that son of a bitch? Are
we still going to talk about sanctions and angry letters? Give me a
break! He is killing innocent people at this right moment and we are
not doing anything to save these people!” In response, Mr. PR said,
“Ms. President, we cannot do anything decisive until we get a clear
picture.”
The next day, Ms. Good heard a report on CNN that at least 100,000 of
the country’s minorities had been killed and it was the worst
eliminationist assault in recent history.
Ryota Fujii
English 101
Professor Ed O’Connell
Weeks 12-14 research & journal
The current conflict I have chosen as the topic for Essay 3 is
Political Islam, especially Iran.
By reading Worse than War, I believe that the correct course of
action, especially dealing with Political Islam is to implement the
anti-mass murder and elimination monetary prevention program that
Goldhagen (2009) outlines in his book. He states that “in working to
prevent the much more massive eliminationist assaults,” the program
must cover “a much wider range of people and not only seeking their
arrest but also authorizing their killing” (p. 579). He also states
that the program must “automatically apply to those perpetrating wars
against humanity so all those considering mass murder and elimination
know they will become target” (p. 578).
Titus from Titus Andronicus is miserable after his sons have been
sentenced to death, Lucius has been banished for trying to help his
brothers escape, and Lavinia has been raped, but he cannot just sit
down and cry. It would be great if he could forgive and forget, but he
must fight until the end especially if he is dealing with a character
like Aaron who says, “…nothing grieves me heartily indeed/But that I
cannot do ten thousand more” (p. 89).
Goldhagen is right. The Political Islamists are extremely dangerous
and want to destroy the West. Like Titus, the United States and its
allies in Europe must be ready to use force when practical. Seeking
revenge does not make us, but it is necessary when dealing with
enemies whose goal is to destroy us.
The incorrect course of action is to continue with the status quo and
not to implement the program proposed by Goldhagen. Fernholz (2010)
states that during his campaign Obama “pledged to discard discredited
notions about the causes of terrorism such as the belief that it was
primarily and ideological struggle based on religion and hate” (p.
21). “His administration would use so-called smart-power ideas about
development and engagement to reduce threats while deploying military
force responsibly and as a last resort. Development would alleviate
the poverty and despair that led people to violence; engagement would
remove the state support of extremist groups and build productive
alliances” (p. 21).
This approach is like that of Lavinia in Titus Andronicus. She tries
to reason with her enemies who are trying to rape her saying, “O, let
me teach thee for my father’s sake,/That gave thee life when well he
might have slain thee,/Be not obdurate, open thy deaf ears” (p. 37).
She also begs, “O, keep me from their worse than killing lust,/ And
tumble me in to some loathsome pit,/Where never man’s eye may behold
my body,/ Do this, and be a charitable murderer” (p. 38). Despite her
desperate plea, she is raped and mutilated.
References
Fernholz, T. (2010, March). The ultimate test case. The American
Prospect, 21(2), 21-25.
Goldhagen, D. J. (2009). Worse than war: Genocide, eliminationism, and
the ongoing assault on
humanity. New York: Public Affairs.
The Correct and Incorrect Courses of Action against Political Islam
Ryota Fujii
English 101
Professor Ed O’Connell
May 7, 2010
The Correct and Incorrect Courses of Action against Political Islam
Political Islam is “a powerful transnational movement, with its
adherents governing counties and vying for power in others, and with
enormous political influence throughout the Middle East and the
Islamic world,” writes Goldhagen (2009) in his book, Worse Than War
(p. 490). According to Goldhagen, it is the most dangerous
eliminationist political movement we face today. In fact, several of
its leaders and adherents have already committed mass murdered and
practiced eliminationist politics, or openly threatened to do so in
countries like Iran – whose nuclear program, the Untied States and its
allies suspect, is “geared toward producing weapons” (Dareini, 2010).
Goldhagen states that “[l]ittle is more chilling, and more indicative
of this death culture’s power and reach, than Political Islamists’
broadcasts and podcasts of music videos directed at children,
depicting children happily explaining that they want to die for Allah
by killing Islam’s enemies” (p. 495). Therefore, it is critical that
the United States and its allies take the correct course of action to
deal with the threat. Interestingly, an analysis of two characters,
Titus and Lavinia, from Shakespeare’s play, Titus Andronicus, offers
insight into the current threat the United States and its allies face.
A careful analysis of these characters reveals that the actions taken
by Titus represent a better course of action, while the actions of
Lavinia represent a worse course of action on the threat, and this
realization makes it clear that Goldhagen’s recommendations for
preventing future eliminationism are correct.
By reading Worse than War, I believe that the correct course of
action, especially dealing with Political Islam is to implement the
anti-mass murder and elimination monetary prevention program that
Goldhagen (2009) outlines in his book. He states that “in working to
prevent the much more massive eliminationist assaults,” the program
must cover “a much wider range of people and not only seeking their
arrest but also authorizing their killing” (p. 579). He also states
that the program must “automatically apply to those perpetrating wars
against humanity so all those considering mass murder and elimination
know they will become target” (p. 578).
The actions taken by Titus from Titus Andronicus represents the
correct course of action and are consistent with Goldhagen’s ideas on
how to deal with the enemies who are ready to die for Allah by killing
Islam’s enemies. In this play, Titus is miserable after his sons have
been sentenced to death, Lucius has been banished for trying to help
his brothers escape, and Lavinia has been raped. He expresses his
agony as follows:
It was my dear, and he that wounded her
Hath hurt me more than had he killed me dead;
For now I stand as one upon a rock,
Environed with a wilderness of sea,
Who marks the waxing tide grow wave by wave,
Expecting ever when some envious surge
Will in his brinish bowels swallow him… (p. 49)
Although he is in tremendous pain, he cannot just sit down and cry. It
would be great if he could forgive and forget, but he must fight until
the end especially if he is dealing with a character like Aaron who
says, “…nothing grieves me heartily indeed/But that I cannot do ten
thousand more” (p. 89).
Goldhagen is right. The Political Islamists are extremely dangerous
and want to destroy the West. Like Titus, the United States and its
allies in Europe must be ready to use force when practical. Seeking
revenge does not make us happy, but it is necessary when dealing with
enemies whose goal is to destroy us.
The incorrect course of action is to continue with the status quo and
not to implement the program proposed by Goldhagen. Fernholz (2010)
states that during his campaign Obama “pledged to discard discredited
notions about the causes of terrorism such as the belief that it was
primarily and ideological struggle based on religion and hate” (p.
21). “His administration would use so-called smart-power ideas about
development and engagement to reduce threats while deploying military
force responsibly and as a last resort. Development would alleviate
the poverty and despair that led people to violence; engagement would
remove the state support of extremist groups and build productive
alliances” (p. 21).
This approach is like that of Lavinia in Titus Andronicus. She tries
to reason with her enemies who are trying to rape her. She states:
O, let me teach thee for my father’s sake,
That gave thee life when well he might have slain thee,
Be not obdurate, open thy deaf ears (p. 37).
She also begs,
O, keep me from their worse than killing lust,
And tumble me in to some loathsome pit,
Where never man’s eye may behold my body,
Do this, and be a charitable murderer (p. 38).
In this play, despite her desperate plea, she is raped and mutilated,
demonstrating that trying to reason with the enemies that are ready to
destroy us does not work. In fact, Iranian President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad recently stated that President Obama’s recent push for a
fourth round of sanctions against Iran is “no problem” (Ferran &
Trachtenberg, 2010). Ahmadinejad says, “Any measure [Obama] takes will
be proportionately confronted by a position that Iran will take… we
will act the same way as we have been doing so far against
hostilities. Don’t worry about us, we know how to defend ourselves. We
will not accept something that’s forced upon us…Therefore let’s put it
aside. This is not something that by threatening Iran or putting
pressure on Iran, will force Iran to change its positions. This is not
something that will work. Its time has passed” (Ferran & Trachtenberg,
2010). In the past, “Obama’s attempts to emphasize diplomacy over
confrontation in dealing with Iran…have failed to persuade Tehran to
open its nuclear installations to international controls” as well
(McGreal, 2010).
In conclusion, it is clear that the United States and its allies must
take the threat that Political Islam poses seriously and take the
correct course of action to prevent future eliminationism. An analysis
of two characters, Titus and Lavinia, from Shakespeare’s Titus
Andronicus, suggests that the action taken by Lavinia did not work in
the face of merciless enemies, demonstrating that the type of actions
she took would not work against Political Islam leaders. The actions
taken by Titus are the result of agony and anger. They are vengeful
actions. However, they represent a better course of action or the only
course of action that one can take in the face of enemies like
Political Islam. This realization makes it clear that Goldhagen’s
recommendations for preventing future eliminationism are the only
choice the United States and its allies have, and they should
implement the program recommended by him immediately to prevent future
eliminationist assaults.
References
Dareini, A. A. (2010, April 11). Iran says new U.S. policy a nuclear
threat.
ABC News/International. Retrieved May 6, 2010, from
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=10343908
Fernholz, T. (2010, March). The ultimate test case. The American
Prospect,
21(2), 21-25.
Ferran, L., & Trachtenberg, T. (2010, May 5). Ahmadinejad defiant in
face of
U.N. sanctions, Israeli military. ABC GMA. Retrieved May 6, 2010,
from
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/iran-president-mahmoud-ahmadinejad-
defiant-face-sanctions-israeli/story?id=10556122
Goldhagen, D. J. (2009). Worse than war: Genocide, eliminationism,
and the ongoing assault on humanity. New York: Public Affairs.
McGreal, C (2010, January 31). US raises stakes on Iran by sending in
and the ongoing assault on humanity. New York: Public Affairs.
ships
and missiles. Guardian.co.uk. Retrieved May 6, 2010, from
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/31/iran-nuclear-us-missiles-gulf
Shakespeare, W. (2000). Titus Andronicus. New York: Penguin.
The Correct and Incorrect Courses of Action against Political Islam
Ryota Fujii
English 101
Professor Ed O’Connell
May 28, 2010
The Correct and Incorrect Courses of Action against Political Islam
Political Islam is “a powerful transnational movement, with its
adherents governing counties and vying for power in others, and with
enormous political influence throughout the Middle East and the
Islamic world,” writes Goldhagen (2009) in his book, Worse Than War
(p. 490). According to Goldhagen, it is the most dangerous
eliminationist political movement we face today. In fact, several of
its leaders and adherents have already committed mass murder and
practiced eliminationist politics, or openly threatened to do so in
countries like Iran – whose nuclear program, the United States and its
allies suspect, is “geared toward producing weapons” (Dareini, 2010).
Goldhagen states that “[l]ittle is more chilling, and more indicative
of this death culture’s power and reach, than Political Islamists’
broadcasts and podcasts of music videos directed at children,
depicting children happily explaining that they want to die for Allah
by killing Islam’s enemies” (p. 495). Therefore, it is critical that
the United States and its allies take the correct course of action to
deal with the threat. Interestingly, an analysis of two characters,
Titus and Lavinia, from Shakespeare’s play, Titus Andronicus, offers
insight into the current threat the United States and its allies face.
A careful analysis of these characters reveals that the actions taken
by Titus represent a better course of action, while the actions of
Lavinia represent a worse course of action on the threat, and this
realization makes it clear that Goldhagen’s recommendations for
preventing future eliminationism are correct.
Worse than War suggests the correct course of action, especially
dealing with Political Islam, is to implement the anti-mass murder and
elimination monetary prevention program that Goldhagen (2009)
outlines. He states that “in working to prevent the much more massive
eliminationist assaults,” the program must cover “a much wider range
of people and not only seeking their arrest but also authorizing their
killing” (p. 579). He also states that the program must
“automatically apply to those perpetrating wars against humanity so
all those considering mass murder and elimination know they will
become target” (p. 578).
The actions taken by Titus from Titus Andronicus represent the correct
course of action and are consistent with Goldhagen’s ideas on how to
deal with the enemies who are ready to die for Allah by killing
Islam’s enemies. In this play, Titus is a Roman general who fought
wars against the Goths. He is engaged in a cycle of revenge with the
Queen of the Goths, Tamora, and as a result, he is miserable. What has
made him most miserable is the fact that his daughter Lavinia has been
raped and mutilated by the enemy. In Act III, 1., one of Titus’ sons
Marcus brings Lavinia and tells his father to “prepare thy aged eyes
to weep,/Or if not so, thy noble heart to break” (p. 48). Titus
expresses his agony by saying, “It was my dear, and he that wounded
her/Hath hurt me more than had he killed me dead” (p. 49). Although he
is in tremendous pain, he cannot just sit down and cry. It would be
great if he could forgive and forget, but he must fight until the end
especially if he is dealing with a character like Aaron who says, “…
nothing grieves me heartily indeed/But that I cannot do ten thousand
more” (p. 89). In fact, Titus has his revenge. He catches Tamora’s
sons Chiron and Demetrius who raped Lavinia and cut out her tongue and
hands, and kills them by cutting their throats. Then, he has their
mother eat them at the banquet.
Although the actions of Titus are extremely brutal and unrealistic in
today’s society, they still help illustrate that Goldhagen is right.
The Political Islamists are extremely dangerous and want to destroy
the West. Like Titus, the United States and its allies in Europe must
be ready to use force when practical and prevent them from causing
mass murder. Seeking revenge does not make us happy, but it is
necessary when dealing with enemies whose goal is to destroy us.
The incorrect course of action is to continue with the status quo and
not to implement the program proposed by Goldhagen. Fernholz (2010)
states that during his campaign Obama “pledged to discard discredited
notions about the causes of terrorism such as the belief that it was
primarily and ideological struggle based on religion and hate” (p.
21). Unfortunately, Obama’s idea is not consistent with Goldhagen’s
ideas and underestimates the degree of hatred and desire to destroy
the west harbored by the Political Islamists. According to Fernholz
(2010), the Obama “administration would use so-called smart-power
ideas about development and engagement to reduce threats while
deploying military force responsibly and as a last resort” (p. 21).
What the Obama administration is hoping to do is to “alleviate the
poverty and despair that led people to violence” through “development”
and “remove the state support of extremist groups and build productive
alliances” through “engagement” (p. 21). While these measures might be
effective to some extent, they are not aggressive and effective enough
toward the Political Islamists whose goal is to commit mass murder at
any cost.
In fact, one can argue that the Obama administration’s approach is
like that of Lavinia in Titus Andronicus. Instead of confronting and
fighting the enemy, Lavinia tries to plead with her enemies who are
trying to rape her. At first, she tries to remind Tamora that her
father saved her life by saying, “O, let me teach thee for my father’s
sake,/That gave thee life when well he might have slain thee,/Be not
obdurate, open thy deaf ears” (p. 37). Her statement suggests that she
expects her enemy to consider what’s fair, just like how the Obama
administration expects the Political Islamists to stop hating the
United States if it helped “alleviate the poverty and despair” for
them. Lavinia also begs Tamora to kill her instead. She say, “O, keep
me from their worse than killing lust,/And tumble me in to some
loathsome pit,/Where never man’s eye may behold my body,/Do this, and
be a charitable murderer” (p. 38). However, despite her desperate
plea, she is raped and mutilated, demonstrating that trying to reason
with the enemies that are ready to destroy us does not work.
In fact, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad recently stated that
President Obama’s recent push for a fourth round of sanctions against
Iran is “no problem” (Ferran & Trachtenberg, 2010). Ahmadinejad says,
“Any measure [Obama] takes will be proportionately confronted by a
position that Iran will take… we will act the same way as we have been
doing so far against hostilities,” suggesting, just like Titus and
Tamora, Ahmadinejad is ready to take revenge on the United States.
Ahmadinejad’s defiance is demonstrated when he says, “Don’t worry
about us, we know how to defend ourselves. We will not accept
something that’s forced upon us” (Ferran & Trachtenberg, 2010). His
remarks reflect the attitudes and beliefs of the Political Islamists
that Goldhagen describes in his book. The United States and its allies
need to realize that diplomacy without implementing the anti-mass
murder and elimination monetary prevention program that Goldhagen
outlines can lead to massive eliminationist assaults in the near
future. As a matter of fact, in the past, “Obama’s attempts to
emphasize diplomacy over confrontation in dealing with Iran…have
failed to persuade Tehran to open its nuclear installations to
international controls” as well (McGreal, 2010). It is time that the
international community implemented the program that covers a wider
range of people like Ahmadinejad and authorizing their killing if they
are plotting mass murder.
In conclusion, it is clear that the United States and its allies must
take the threat that Political Islam poses seriously and take the
correct course of action to prevent future eliminationism. An analysis
of two characters, Titus and Lavinia, from Shakespeare’s Titus
Andronicus, suggests that the action taken by Lavinia did not work in
the face of merciless enemies. The type of actions she took would also
not work against Political Islam leaders. The actions taken by Titus
are the result of agony and anger, and they are vengeful actions;
however, they represent not only a better course of action but perhaps
the only course of action that one can take in the face of enemies
like Political Islam. This realization makes it clear that Goldhagen’s
recommendations for preventing future eliminationism are the only
choice the United States and its allies have, and they should
implement the program recommended by him immediately to prevent future
eliminationist assaults.
References
Dareini, A. A. (2010, April 11). Iran says new U.S. policy a nuclear
threat.
ABC News/International. Retrieved May 6, 2010, from
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=10343908
Fernholz, T. (2010, March). The ultimate test case. The American
Prospect,
21(2), 21-25.
Ferran, L., & Trachtenberg, T. (2010, May 5). Ahmadinejad defiant in
face of
U.N. sanctions, Israeli military. ABC GMA. Retrieved May 6, 2010,
from
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/iran-president-mahmoud-ahmadinejad-
defiant-face-sanctions-israeli/story?id=10556122
Goldhagen, D. J. (2009). Worse than war: Genocide, eliminationism,
and the ongoing assault on humanity. New York: Public Affairs.
McGreal, C (2010, January 31). US raises stakes on Iran by sending in
and the ongoing assault on humanity. New York: Public Affairs.
ships
and missiles. Guardian.co.uk. Retrieved May 6, 2010, from
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/31/iran-nuclear-us-missiles-gulf
Shakespeare, W. (2000). Titus Andronicus. New York: Penguin.
Ryota Fujii
English 101
Professor O’Connell
The Best Course of Action against Kony and the LRA
Joseph Kony and his Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) have been implicated
in a variety of brutalities and crimes against humanities. This is an
important issue and raises a question: What is the best course of
action for the international community concerning Kony and the LRA? In
an interview with Kiggundu (2010), Luis Moreno Ocampo, the Prosecutor
of the International Criminal Court (ICC), makes a statement that is
contrary to what Goldhagen (2009) believes regarding the best course
of action the international community should take against perpetrators
like Kony. Unlike Goldhagen who supports targeted killing, Ocampo
believes that arrest and trial are the appropriate approach. Ocampo
also seems to disagree with Goldhagen’s criticism of the ICC and
suggests that the ICC has been successful in many areas and should
continue to be in charge of punishing perpetrators. Feingold’s bill
that supports a broad based disarmament effort is also at odds with
Goldhagen’s opinion on how to deal with perpetrators like the LRA. The
ideas expressed by Ocampo and Feingold are wrong because arresting and
charging perpetrators is extremely difficult, the ICC is ineffective
in delivering justice to victims, and trying to fix structural factors
will not eradicate crimes against humanities. The best course of
action for the international community concerning Kony and the LRA is
to offer substantial rewards not only for information leading to the
arrest or conviction of Kony and the LRA members but also for killing
them.
Ocampo suggests that arrest and trial are the best course of action by
saying, “We need to arrest Joseph Kony. I would like to put him on
trial to explain why he was abducting children” (Kiggundu, 2010), but
that is wrong because he is not realistic about the difficulty of
arresting and charging perpetrators. A lot of people have been killed
by the LRA while the ICC was trying unsuccessfully to arrest Kony.
Ocampo also suggests that the ICC is effective by saying, “the Rome
Statute is in motion and we are carrying out investigation in many
parts of the world” (Kiggundu, 2010), but that is also wrong because
the United States has not even ratified the ICC, and there are many
rules that prevent the ICC from working effectively such as a rule
that says the ICC can only investigate “crimes committed after July
2002” (Ocampo qtd in Kiggundu, 2010). Finally, Feingold’s bill
includes the $10 million dollar per year support for a variety of
disarmament and recovery efforts, but that is wrong because trying to
fix structural factors will not eradicate crimes against humanities.
As Goldhagen states, although structural factors such as poverty can
influence people, they cannot explain why eliminationist assaults
begin.
The best course of action for the international community concerning
Kony and the LRA is to offer substantial rewards not only for
information leading to the arrest or conviction of Kony and the LRA
members but also for killing them. As Goldhagen states, the best
course of action is not to use the ICC because it uses “law
enforcement and criminal justice’s cumbersome and enormously difficult
standards of criminal trial proof” (p. 578). Goldhagen states that
this extremely high standard of criminal trial proof “has led the
court’s prosecutor to take five years even to get to recommending an
arrest warrant for al-Bashir, all the while – with every passing day –
the Sudanese regime slaughtered and eliminated people, totaling
millions (p. 578). It is clear that the ICC is ineffective in
delivering justice to victims and incompetent in preventing or
deterring eliminationist assaults. It is time that the international
community adopted a program recommended by Goldhagen that would allow
targeted killing of al-Bashir, Kony and LRA members who committed
crimes against humanity.
References
Feingold, Sen. R. 2009, May 19. S1067: Lord’s Resistance Army
disarmament and Northern Uganda recovery act. US Senate.
http://thomas.loc.gov/
Goldhagen, D. J. (2009). Worse than war: Genocide, eliminationism,
and the ongoing assault on humanity. New York: Public Affairs.
Kiggundu, E. (2010, May 30). I am waiting for evidence on Bugandu
and the ongoing assault on humanity. New York: Public Affairs.
killings,
says ICC chief. The Observer.
http://www.observer.ug/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8706:i-am-waiting-for-evidence-on-buganda-killings-says-icc-chief&catid=34:news&Itemid=59
>
> Long, Dough. “Albert Einstein and The Atomic Bomb.” Who's Who and
> What'd They
> Do?. 25 July 2005.http://www.doug-long.com/einstein.htm.
> Long, Dough. “Albert Einstein and The Atomic Bomb.” Who's Who and
> What'd They
>
> "How many people died in the September 11 2001 attacks." Answer.com.http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_people_died_in_the_September_11_20...
>
> read more »
Message has been deleted
William W
Jun 3, 2010, 10:54:11 PM6/3/10
to English 101, spring 2010 online sections #0143 and #3226
William Wang
Week 1: February 12, 2010 Journal
I'll go first!
a) Is war, specifically the increase of intentional attacks on
civilians, the greatest problem in the world today? Probably not.
b) Are war violence and attacks on civilians inevitable components of
c) If military attacks on civilians can be controlled, should the
people of the world work to stop them? Sure!
d) Optional - for those ready for more? Skip.
i) Read the New York Times review of Worse than War. Done.
ii) Has Science Found a Way to End All Wars? I will summarize John
Horgan's article in Discover Magazine with an algebraic expression:
More sex and more women in office equals less wars. To be more
specific:
Let X = the number of women in government Let Y = the number of men
sexually active Let Z = a quantitative representation of peace
X + Y = Z
If X goes up, Z goes up. If Y goes up, Z goes up. If X and Y go up,
Z goes up by a factor of 2.
The Tolstoy Theorem states that if there are less wars, then there is
more peace.
Therefore, by using the Counterbalance Postulate, we can conclude
that if there is more peace, then there is less war and that would
help to cancel out Eliminationism.
Week 1: February 12, 2010 Journal Replies
In response to Rosemarie J’s entry...
I bet you're getting an A!
In response to Melinda S’s comment...
Thank you for commenting about my theory as being "interesting". I
also agree with your last remark that "moral problem which we may
never find a definitive solution" because it just reinforces my
belief
that math sucks.
Week 2: February 19, 2010 Notes on preparing for E1.1
These were my original notes preparing for the essay:
Paragraph 1 thesis statement: Eliminationism is not the greatest
problem in the world today.
Paragraph 2 author's point: Goldhagen says that eliminationism is,
“the desire to eliminate peoples or groups” on page 14 of the
author’s book Worse than War.
Paragraph 3 student's point: Wang says that eliminationism is not
even a word according to Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictonary 11th
Edition.
notes subject to change...
Week 2: February 19, 2010 Essay 1.1
Goldhagen says genocide is worse than war and he goes on that
eliminationism is the root of genocide. In his theory, if we can
eliminate eliminationism, we could prevent genocide. And if we
prevent genocide, which is worse than war, then the worst case
scenario our world can ever face then, is war (which is not so bad).
Goldhagen continues by explaining the mentality of people, whose
political ideologies ask three questions: “What is the political
problem? Who or what is the problem’s source? What is the political
solution?” and answers them all with eliminationism or violence,
which he does not agree with. Third, Goldhagen defines the main
problem being society as a whole, having a moral issue, failing to
understand why mass murdering is wrong.
Traub, going against Goldhagen, says that in order to stop
eliminationism, states would have to “abandon the logic of national
interest and reshape the global architecture around the goal of
ending eliminatioinism”. Traub also pokes fun at Goldhagen by
calling his book “Worse than War” by a new name; “Everyone’s Willing
Executioners” describing it as being very similar to Goldhagen’s
previous literary work “Hitler’s Willing Executioners” which went
into the political ideology of German Nazis. Traub says that the
problem is not a moral issue because society does recognize the
dangers and the risks taken with mass violence and “abhors atrocities
every bit as much as Goldhagen does” but does what is necessary
because the ends justify the means.
In my opinion, I say that the economy is worse than genocide. My
argument is supported by everyday conversations between friends and
families and coworkers every time the word “economy” is used in a
sentence when not pertaining to rental cars. I will even go as far
as writing my own book and calling it, “Worse than Eliminationism:
Economy, Salmon and Honeybees Disappearing and the Continuing Insult
to Fashion” (a soon to be #1 New York Times Bestseller!) just to make
my point. Eliminationism is in our blood. We live in a capitalist
economy and we grow up with a capitalist mindset. For example, if I
spend X amount of dollars today, I will then have saved X amount of
dollars tomorrow. In other words, if I invested in a timely manner,
then I will be rewarded in the near future. We carry this kind of
thinking into politics. If we kill 10,000 people in order to (insert
national interest here), we will then have saved the lives of 10
million people because of (insert moral judgement and reasoning
here). We allow tragic events to happen for the sake of a greater
good. In short, the ends justify the means.
Week 3: February 26, 2010 Journal
source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/31/AR2009123101247.html
What I like about this website is that the reviewer acknowledges that
Daniel Goldhagen's heart is filled with good intent but his book,
Worse than War does not have enough muscle to do the casualties of
war, massacre, and genocide justice. "But even victims... deserve
books that are clearly argued and clearly written. 'Worse than War'
is not that book". Ouch. I agree with the reviewer because when I am
reading the book, I feel empathy towards the author's sympathy towards
those who suffered but at the same time, I am asking myself, "How many
more pages do I have to read in order to finish this assignment?"
One point that I do not like about the book so far is that when
Goldhagen is 'clarifying the issue' in the first two chapters, he is
taking it literally. Instead of defining what eliminationism is, he
is including everything that eliminationism can be. All the bad
incidents and events like the Americans bombing the Japanese in World
War II and the Armenian Genocide in World War I, although different,
fall under Goldhagen's definition of eliminationism. It's like asking
the same questions over and over again but with a different reason for
each. Can you repeat the question? I didn't hear you. Can you
repeat the question? I didn't listen. Can you repeat the question, I
didn't follow. All querism!
One thing I do not understand from the website is an excerpt from the
book which reads, "But while each individual account is apt and
explanatory, still, in sum they coalesce into the sometimes looser and
sometimes firmer patterns seen here about which we can say and explain
a great deal but which often still defy general, casual
explanations." I would like to check in the book what this paragraph
pertains to. Perhaps there are some context clues in the passages
that would give me a hint as to decipher what the author is trying to
say.
Week 4: March 5, 2010 Essay 1.2
President Harry Truman made an easy call; the wrong one by dropping
two atomic bombs on Japan. I write this as my thesis statement as a
refutation to the editorial entitled: Hiroshima Bombing Anniversary:
Truman made a tough call -- but the right one. Truman’s actions fall
under the shade of extermination, a sub-category of Goldhagen’s
eliminationism umbrella. It is human nature to choose the easier
option and try to justify their choice rather than to make a difficult
decision and do the right thing.
This article tries to reason the bombings by saying “millions more
Japanese would have died” with U.S. Navy submarines blockading food
shipments to the Japanese islands and U.S. Army Air Force B-29’s
bombing Japanese cities. Although that may be true, it is the
principle of the matter. It is not right to kill 200,000 innocent
civilians to save the lives of 1,000,000 armed soldiers. The article
Hiroshima: Then and Now says that, “the bombings were salvation for
Japan” (in regards to Japan’s government) and that is wrong because it
was damnation for 200,000 Japanese civilians. What good is a
government... if you do not have any citizens to protect because they
are all dead? Also, in the article, Hiroshima, 50 Years Later, it
states that, “it is right and proper that the debate over Hiroshima
should continue” and that is incorrect because it is wrong and dumb to
continue this argument.
My alternative opinion about saving millions of lives with the
sacrifice of 200,000 is correct because although they are going with
the “ends justify the means” mentality, a philosophy which I believe
in, but they are practicing it incorrectly and unethically by
involving innocent people. It is like saying, “I am going to commit
suicide right now because it would save me years of suffering from
depression.” Sure, the frame of mind is there, but the moral and
ethics are missing. My alternative thought on saving Japan is correct
because having a government is useless without people. The idiomatic
expression, “Too many chiefs, not enough Indians” would apply here as
there would be no Indians because the population of this tribe is
zero. Finally, the debate over Hiroshima should be resolved and
become a lesson in our history books that we, the United States, were
wrong so that our children would not make the same mistakes as our
fathers.
Week 5: March 12, 2010: Journal
Casey, Jr. Sen. Bob, 2009, July 16. S1464: to establish the transfer
of any nuclear weapon, device, material, or technology to terrorists
as a crime against humanity. US Senate.
a) One thing, I do like about this bill is that it addresses
Goldhagen's concern about nuclear weapons being widely available (as
mentioned in Chapter 10). It defines smuggling nuclear weapons,
materials and technology a criminal offense. It also answers
Goldhagen's challenge for all moral beings and model citizens to,
"take simple and effective steps to prevent future wars against
humanity".
b) One thing, I do not like about this bill is that it is also known
as the "Nuclear Trafficking Prevention Act". A better name would be
the "Nuclear Trafficking Enforcement Act" as it would put more of an
emphasis in actively stopping nuclear trafficking rather than trying
to casually prevent it.
c) One thing, I do not understand about this bill is that it does not
mention the word, "eliminationism" at all. However, it was tagged
with "terrorism", "war crimes", "genocide", and "crimes against
humanity". My guess is that using the word "eliminationism" would
decrease the formality of language used in this document but in the
end, it doesn't even matter.
Week 5: March 12, 2010: Journal Reply
Rosemarie J claims that, "the Prof didn't post any instruction on
what
he wanted..." but that is wrong because Professor O'Connell did make
a
post on Wednesday, March 10th, 2010. Also, Ryota F rationalized
that,
"the syllabus says that [it's] due today... so, I did it just in
case"
but that is also wrong because not everyone got a syllabus from the
Professor on Monday, February 8th, 2010. I feel that posting my
journal notes for weeks 5 - 7 this Friday, March 19, 2010 as well as
my e1.3 is a good idea. My alternate opinion about when this
assignment is due is most correct because this is the 6th week and it
falls directly in between weeks 5 and 7, which makes sense. It is
similar to choosing "2" when asked to pick a number between "1" and
"3". My refutation is also supported by the fact that there have
only
been three posts to the discussion thread. Numbers don't lie.
Note: This was probably my favorite reply to another student’s entry.
I really enjoyed firing her up. She obviously has no sense of humor.
Week 6: March 19, 2010 Essay 1.3
The legality and legitimacy of targeted killings is an engrossing
issue for military and human rights lawyers. In the Los Angeles Times
article, “Targeted for Death”, Philip Alston, a U.N. special
rapporteur on extrajudicial killings, said, “Political murders of this
type undermine the fabric of international law as well as stoke the
fires of conflict” with regards to the slaying of Mahmoud Mabhouh on
January 19, 2010. His opinion is wrong because political
assassinations actually help to strengthen the moral fiber of every
ethical human being here on earth. My statement is supported by Amos
Guiora, a Professor of Law, who says, “I have long advocated person-
specific operational counter-terrorism as a means to protect the state
and to protect innocent lives”.
In the Qantara.de (online magazine) article, “Deterrence as the Only
Prevention for Genocide”, author Michael Hesse asks our beloved
author, Daniel Goldhagen, “Does international law not represent a
moral problem for you here?” pertaining to Goldhagen’s plan for a
“fully robust anti-eliminationist regime” to kill those politically
responsible for genocide. His question is wrong because he tries to
insinuate that Goldhagen is a murderer himself, seeking to destroy
life, satisfying his own thirst for blood and justifying it by
fighting fire with fire. Hesse tries to put Goldhagen at the same
level as James Kopp, a “pro-life” member who murdered an abortion
doctor on October 23, 1998. Again, Goldhagen has the moral fiber and
the intelligence to do the right thing “to prevent future wars against
humanity”.
Political assassination is an idea, a concept, if you will, that has
been popularized of late by movies like, “The Bourne Supremacy” with
Matt Damon and TV shows like “24” with Kiefer Sutherland. Sure,
murder is wrong but sometimes we have to permit or even persist that
tragic events happen for the sake of the greater good. The ends
justifies the means. This opinion, in contrast to those in the
paragraphs above, is more correct because it understands a little
about how the world works. In this case, to kill one individual in
order to save a number of innocent people is in alignment with our
never-ending journey and relentless quest for world peace.
Week 6: March 19, 2010 Essay 1.3 Comments
In response to Ryota F’s entry...
Hey Ryota!
I think you should post your essay in our Section #0143 group.
Unless, of course, our professor has asked you specifically to post
it here to serve as a fine example for both groups to see what an A-
quality essay looks like. =)
Regards,
William
Week 7: March 26, 2010 Bonus Essay
Author Daniel Goldhagen declares that the U.N. (United Nations) is
ineffective at preventing genocide and therefore supports an
international system of killing genocidal agents. While the U.N.
being ineffective in preventing genocide may be true, an international
system of killing these architects of genocide would only “treat” the
problem, not prevent it. That is, creating an “authoritative
international watchdog organization... to identify mass murder and
eliminations” would intervene and prevent such genocides from
occurring but the problem of the possibility of genocide still
exists. In order to “cure” this ailment of society, we must then
strike to the heart of the matter and that is the people themselves.
This is supported by a wise woman who is a resident of Sierra Leone
who said, “They may learn to forgive each other. When all has been
told, we will work together to repair the wrong and to build a just
and fair future. Together we will create a vision for a peaceful
Sierra Leone.”
Writer Daniel Goldhagen also wrote in his book that, “mass murder
begins in the minds of men”. This is supported by the fact that
children were forced to fight for a cause that they did not even
understand. They were “beaten, amputated, used as sex slaves”,
“forced to loot properties and burn houses”, “forced to kill or rape
mention is that mass murder can end in the minds of children. This is
supported by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and their belief
that “the reconciliation process in Sierra Leone demonstrates how
children, as active partners in the process, can help break the cycle
of violence and re-establish confidence in the rule of law.” This non-
violent approach to solving the problem is an answer that everyone
that is interested in a world of peace should know.
Professor Goldhagen also says that “an anti-mass murder and
elimination monetary prevention program would prevent mass-murders
from developing, intervene mass-murders from happening and punish mass-
murderers from committing crimes against humanity. That sounds
reasonable and all but in this case, the Truth and Reconciliation
Commission has a better plan with four steps. One, disarmament: To
disarm all children of weapons of human destruction. Two,
demobilization: To transfer those registered as child soldiers to
civilian care or interim care centers. Three, Family tracing and
reunification: To reunite children with families and communities.
Four, reintegration: To educate and provide for skills training to
help these victims find a place in society. Less blood shed and more
peace provided. Everyone wins.
This leads to my alternative in using both violent and non-violent
means when necessary. There are those who argue for or against
violence to solve problems but I think that we should implement the
best plan of action depending on the job. Whatever is the best course
of action in a particular case, that is the method that we should go
about in dealing with the situation. Be flexible, able to adapt to
the environment. That is what makes us human. Our ability to adapt.
There is more than one way to solve our many problems and so we should
engage in these matters accordingly.
Week 8: April 2, 2010 Essay 2 Half Done
Intro/Problem
According to Daniel Goldhagen, mass murder and eliminationism begin
because man is a greedy species in nature. If man wants something,
then man will find a way to get it. Even if that way is by means of
mass murdering and genocide of entire groups of people. Man does not
discriminate on who to discriminate when it comes to achieving their
goals.
Explanation of Problem
Man, in order for him to get what he wants, is willing to go to
extreme measures. These include the Goldhagen’s 5 Pillars of
Eliminationism which are: transformation, repression, expulsion,
prevention of reproduction and extermination.
Solution to Problem
What we as a society can do is stand up for what we believe in and
speak our minds. If the people cannot take care of themselves, then
we need to take care of them. If the U.N. (United Nations) cannot
take care of the situation, then we need a private military company to
handle the problem.
Alternative Solution/Personal Opinion
My personal opinion is that we need to be flexible in our methods of
solving problems and the direction of our course of actions. Like
Bruce Lee once said, “Be like water.”
Week 9: April 9, 2010 Journal
Bill: H. CON. RES. 97
Title: Support of the President of the United States (short). Calling
on the President to support United Nations Security Council referrals
of situations involving genocide, war crimes, and crimes against
humanity to the International Criminal Court, to cooperate with
investigations and prosecutions conducted by the International
Criminal Court, and participate as an observer at meetings of the
Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute (long).
Sponsor: Kennedy, Patrick J. (Democrat)
Latest Major Action: 4/2/2009 Referred to House committee.
Status: Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
The thing I like about this bill is that it helps me understand the
other side of the story. From Daniel Goldhagen’s point of view, we
got to take a look from his eyes in how the United Nations is
ineffective in preventing genocide. Here, we get to see how complex
such a task can be and can better relate to Goldhagen’s complaint.
What I do not like is how conservative or “weak” the United States
sound in the resolution of the bill. The words, “support”,
“cooperate”, “exercise” and “invoke” are used to describe the action
the United States would take. I would have preferred stronger and
bolder words such as “enforce”, “collaborate”, “exert” and
“instigate”.
What I don’t understand is why in the resolution, did they write that
the United States would not support this bill if it was not in the
national interest of the United States? Does this mean that we are an
exception to this rule? Is this a way of covering their own ass if
the United States should decide to commit a crime against humanity?
The forced internment of Japanese Americans in 1942 comes to mind.
Looks like we could very well break the law again all in the name of
national security. In other words, someone’s political interest.
Reference:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.CON.RES.97:
Week 10: April 16, 2010 Journal
Cypher, from the movie The Matrix, takes an incorrect course of action
by making a deal with the artificial intelligence program Agent
Smith. Agent Smith is part of what they call the Matrix. The Matrix
is the computer generated reality that the machines have built in
order to control and enslave humans. This would no doubt be
considered a crime against humanity. Therefore, when Cypher strikes a
deal, he is actually negotiating with terrorists and betraying
mankind. Sitting around, wasting time and being ineffective at
handling architects of genocide is like lending a helping hand to
these terrorists. Let me remind you that the United States does not
negotiate with terrorists!
Maverick, from the movie Top Gun, takes a correct course of action by
performing a split S in an aerial combat training scenario. The
instructors at the Naval Fighter Weapons School feel that that was a
bad choice and that it was the last thing he should do. However, upon
questioning Maverick’s motives, he replied with, “You don’t have time
to think up there. If you think, you’re dead.” This mentality aligns
with my own belief that you have to be flexible and be able to adapt
to your environment in order to survive. If terrorists come up with
new ways to destroy our way of life, then we must be like water and
drown these terrorists and wash away their evil hands!
Works Cited:
Wachowski, Andy & Larry (Lana). The Matrix (1999).
Scott, Tony. Top Gun (1986).
Week 10: Journal Response
In response to Patrick D’s entry...
The US Army in the movie Avatar was a great example, Patrick!
Week 11: April 23, 2010 Essay 2 Final Draft
According to Daniel Goldhagen, mass murder and eliminationism begins
in the minds of men. When men come together to form a group with
common interests, be it a political party, an ethnic community, a
racial group, a labor union or even a fan club for a particular sports
team, this is good. The problem starts when these groups become
fanatical in spreading their beliefs with other people who may or may
not share the same ideals. They start to get aggressive in order to
have their way, that is, if the opposition to their goal does not want
to budge or give way. The Federal government may cut funding to a
State government if the State government does not enforce the rules
set forth by the Federal government; the Nazis desiring to rid the
world of impure, tainted Aryans like the Jews by extermination; the
White Southerners who wanted to continue to enslave the Black race;
the trade union of Air Traffic Controllers who went on strike,
threatening the safety of thousands of innocent passengers traveling
by plane; and the San Francisco Giants fan who shot a Los Angeles
Dodgers fan in a dispute between their team loyalties. If man wants
to control territory or rule by their own accord, then man will find a
way. Even if that way is by means of mass murdering and genocide of
entire groups of people. Man does not discriminate on who to
discriminate when it comes to getting what they want.
The problem becomes magnified or increases exponentially when the
means of mass murder become easier with the advancement in today’s
technology. Add to that the relative ease by which nuclear weapons
are developed and obtained, being widely available and, “Houston, we
have a problem.” Goldhagen’s concern is addressed by Congress having
recently passing a bill “to establish the transfer of any nuclear
weapon, device, material, or technology as a crime against humanity”.
This is a formal document that lets the crimininals of our world know
that what they are doing is wrong, as if they did not already know
that what they were doing was a crime. And if that wasn’t enough, let
us add insult to injury when these architects of genocide think that
they can get away with their crimes because they know that the U.N.
(United Nations), who are supposed to be protecting our communities
and working for world peace, are effectively ineffective at stopping
them.
Our Team: America last year has even passed a bill that “support UN
Security Council referrals of situations involving genocide, war
crimes, and crimes against humanity to the International Criminal
Court...” Even then, the bill is quite conservative in the language
being used with words such as “support”, “exercise”, and “invoke”
which all sound very weak. Stronger and bolder words like “enforce”,
“exert”, and “instigate” would be more effective in striking fear into
the hearts of these lawless men. Another way to make a difference in
our world, is to follow Goldhagen’s advice in creating an authorative
international watchdog organization... to identify mass murders and
eliminationisms”. This would be a private military company so as to
prevent any conflicts of interest one nation might have with one
another while eliminating the threat in a given country’s territory.
Also, the name of the organization should sound intimidating, like
that of the private military security firm “Blackwater” who are the
largest of the three private security contractors of the US State
Department. I would call it “Holywater” or “Redwood”. Commercials
for Holywater would run with the tagline: “Got crimes against
humanity? Just add Holywater” and for Redwood, “Make like a tree and
leave!” It’s all marketing.
We, as a responsible society, have too be flexible in our methods of
solving the world’s problems because the terrorists, those who
threaten our freedom, get more and more creative each and every day.
If we can adapt to our “environment”, that is, the increased traffic
of terrorists and the manufacturers of WMDs or Weapons of Mass
Destruction, the world is ours. The radical and reactionary groups
who are in favor of violence cannot scare us or “phase” us (for lack
of a better term). We must be able to adapt, overcome and achieve.
We must be able to never give up and never surrender! We must be able
to believe that we can fly. We must be able to believe in magic.
Goldhagen challenges us as moral human beings and model citizens to do
the right thing. I believe that we are up to the challenge and so, we
must be. Like Bruce Lee once said, “Be like water.”
Works Cited
Goldhagen, D.J. 2009. Worse Than War: Genocide, Eliminationism, and
the Ongoing Assault on Humanity (pages 14-18)
Casey, Jr. Sen. Bob, 2009, July 16. S1464: to establish the transfer
of any nuclear weapon, device, material, or technology to terrorists
as a crime against humanity. US Senate.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:S.1464:
Kennedy, Patrick, 2009, April 2. H.CON.RES.97: to support United
Nations Security Council referrals of situations involving genoicide,
war crimes and crimes against humanity to the International Criminal
Court...
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.CON.RES.97:
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=1619711
Week 11: April 23, 2010 Short Story
It is the year 2021. McDonald’s has taken control of the entire
cattle industry in the United States. All the cows are owned by
several dummy corporations so as to avoid government antitrust laws.
The few remaining burger joints left in the United States are subject
to being charged grossly inflated prices for ground beef. They are
threatened by the McDonald’s Corporation to either continue to pay
for the expensive, raw material for their hamburger meat or sell
their life-long business. The latter is the usual case for these
poor fast food establishments. The following is an account of recent
events...
“This isn’t right.” said Thomas. “It’s going to be okay, honey. We
just have to stick with it. It’ll work out.” said his wife,
Jennifer.
Tom and Jenn own a fast food restaurant that mainly serves hamburgers
and french fries. It is a well known landmark in their community.
“The price of meat just keeps going up! We won’t be able to survive
in the long term.” Tom sighs. Jenn walks over to Tom and gives him
a hug. Tears form from both pairs of eyes as they hold each other
dearly.
A tall, dark and handsome man walks into T & J Burgers. There are no
other customers. Only the husband and wife can be seen behind the
counter. Tom and Jenn quickly wipe their eyes. Tom walks towards
the kitchen.
“Hello! What can I get for you today?” asks Jenn in a cheerful
manner despite her red face.
The young man quickly glances left and right and asks, “Are you the
owner of this restaurant?”
“Yes, my husband and I own this restaurant.” replied Jenn.
“And we ain’t sellin!” exclaimed Tom.
The young man takes off his cool pair of Oakley sunglasses and slides
it into the breast pocket of his navy pin-stripe suit.
“What I am about to tell you is highly confidential. Congress has
passed a bill stating that McDonald’s cannot own more than five
restaurants per square mile. There are currently seven McDonald’s in
this vicinity and they are planning to build three more, one of which
will be right here where we are standing.”
“F*ck you, asshole!” said Tom.
“The USDA has been ineffective in regulating the law.” said the young
man, grimly.
“You can say that again.” commented Tom.
“My name is Alex. I represent a group of business owners who, like
you, are threatened by McDonald’s. We are men and women who want to
cook, sell and eat our hamburgers free from persecution.”
“Holy sh*t. You guys sound like the Rebel Alliance.” Tom said in
amazement.
“This isn’t Star Wars, honey. This is real life!” Jenn said.
“The name of our alliance is HolyCow. Our mission: to restore cattle
to the free market. We would like you to join us in our cause.”
Tom and Jenn look at each other and Tom answers, “What can we do to
help?”
All of a sudden a rocket breaks through the window and whizzes by the
three of them but makes a direct hit to the kitchen. The explosion
knocks all of them down.
Tom gets up on his feet and helps his wife up. Alex extends his hand
towards the couple and says, “Come with me if you want to live.” Tom
grabs Alex’s hand and they rush to the side entrance.
The bluetooth headset of the perpetrator who fired the rocket with a
bazooka asked, “Is the target eliminated?” The perpetrator replied,
“No, they ran outside.”
“Don’t let them get away!” said the bluetooth device. “Copy that.”
replied the bazooka bearer.
Alex leads Tom and Jenn to his car, a white Subaru Impreza WRX. Tom
sits on the passenger side and Jenn sits on the rear passenger’s
side. Everyone fastened their seat belts and as Alex starts the car,
bullets are bouncing off the bullet-proof windows.
“Nice car.” says Tom. “The beauty of all-wheel drive.” says Alex
with a smile as they peel away.
In the background, a black BMW 535i pursues them.
“What the USDA has failed to do, we will accomplish by our own
means.”
“They just tried to kill us!” said Tom.
“McDonald’s feels that their burgers are superior to everyone else’s.
Obviously, that is wrong but that is not going to stop them from
trying to convince every other American citizen otherwise. The term
for that is transformation. Another way that McDonald’s has taken
control of our freedom is by forcing us to leave and be deported
outside the U.S. Why do think there’s an In-N-Out in Japan and
France?”
“No wonder!” exclaimed Jenn. The Subaru weaves in and out of traffic
while being chased by the persistent BMW. Tires screech just like
how they do in an exciting chase scene of a high-budget Hollywood
movie.
“That’s called expulsion. And then we have extermination.”
“I’ve been reading the newspaper and I did happen to catch several
unexplained deaths of restaurant owners lately.” said Tom.
“Now you’re starting to get it.” said Alex. “We, at HolyCow, can
make a difference. Not only must we ban McDonald’s and their
ridiculously tempting french fries, but we must destroy the
Corporation itself by any means necessary. Are you guys willing to
do that?”
Tom replies, “Yes, we are”.
Jenn said, “How can we choose not to?”
The intersection ahead gets blocked by two other BMW 535i’s. All
four doors open from both cars and men in black suits step out from
every door. The Subaru stops. The Bimmer that was pursuing them
stops in back of them. There is no escape route. Guns are drawn
from the agents. The driver from earlier steps out of his car and
holds a gun in one hand and a blow horn in the other.
“All your cows are belong to us!” said the bazooka bandit.
“What are we gonna do?” asked Jenn.
“Just enjoy the show.” said Alex. Alex grabs his Apple iPhone 3GS
and makes a call.
“Red 5, this is Skywalker. Can you send these guys a message?”
“Roger that. Message has been sent.”
Two rockets from an Apache Longbow helicopter hit two Bimmers in
front, knocking out most of the armed agents with the big
explosions.
“Message has been delivered.” said Red 5.
“Package confirmed. Thank you!” said Alex.
“You’re welcome.” said Red 5.
Week 12: April 30, 2010 Journal
The Darfur Conflict in Sudan is the current conflict of interest to me
and my typing fingers. Titus Andronicus reminds me of General Dominic
Dim Deng, who is a national war hero to his people. Saturninus
reminds me of General Omar al-Bashir, who overthrew the Sudanese
goverment. Titus’ followers remind me of the Sudan People’s
Liberation Army/Movement. Rome’s religious duty to sacrifice others
reminds me of the Sudan government and their Janjaweed militia that is
guilty of genocide. The Goths remind me of the United States, who
like to get into everyone’s business.
References
Goldhagen, Daniel Jonah. “Worse than War: Genocide, Eliminationism,
and the Ongoing Assault on Humanity.” New York: PublicAffairs, 2009
Shakespeare, William. “Titus Andronicus.” United States: Penguin
Classics, 2000
Week 12: April 30, 2010 Journal replies
In reply to Rosemarie J’s 4 consecutive entries...
Rosemarie J:
Professor O'Connell:
Could you please post the instructions for the Week 12 Research &
Journal that is due this Friday 4/30/10.
Thank you
Rosemarie J:
Professor O'Connell:
Could you please be specific as to what you require.
Since Research & Journal 12 is now combined with 13/14 is this all
due (deadline) on Friday 5/14/10 (per your syllabus)?
I take it that this Friday 4/30/10 we have no assignment to turn in
since you are now combining the above. Is this correct? I'm curious
since Friday is now only 4 days away and to make a deadline we would
need enough lead time.
Rosemarie J:
Professor O'Connell:
I just went to your posting for Weeks 12-14 and it says the page does
not exist!
Please check your site.
Rosemarie J:
nglish 101, spring 2010 online sections #0143 and #3226
Home
Pages
Discussions
Files
About this group Edit my membership Sponsored links GMC Acadia
Overstock GMC Dealers Are Overstocked. Get Special Internet Prices &
Save! GMC.AutoDiscountGroup.com Buy Nexus One by Google Sleek,
Speedy, Smart & Easy To Use. $179 w/ Plan - Exclusively Online!
www.google.com/phone Ca Court Filing Services Fast, easy & done
right. California legal research & filing services. RapidLegal.com/
CaCourtFilingService
Group info Members: 43 Group categories: Schools and Universities
More group info »
weeks-1214-research-and-journal-plus-outlines-of-acts-scenes-and-
arguments-of-titus-andronicus
The page you navigated to does not exist.
William W: (rolls eyes)
Note: I did not actually post this reply because I did not want to
start drama in your online course, Professor O’Connell.
Week 13: May 7, 2010 Essay 3 Half Done
Tony Stark has been called, “the most famous mass murderer in the
history of America” by Afghan terrorists. In William Shakespeare’s
Titus Andronicus, Titus Andronicus would be called, “the most famous
mass murderer in the history of the Goths” because he spent in his
lifetime ten whole years campaigning, waging war and doing battle
against the Goths. But even with the success of claiming victory over
the Goths, he is still a victim of the very basics of human nature.
In this case, the desire for revenge. Titus feels betrayed by the
Emperor Saturninus because Titus cut off his own hand in exchange for
the lives of Martius and Quintus which the Emperor did not make good
on his word (even though this was all just a ploy cleverly devised by
Aaron). This injustice fuels Titus’ madness so much that he orders
his brother Lucius to flee from Rome and go raise an army to be
“revenged on Rome and Saturnine”. Revenge in this context means
“murder” and “murder” means “extermination”. Extermination is the
fifth act of “eliminationism” according to Daniel Goldhagen.
aaron, the moor. black power. mass murderer. political
assassination. secret agent. double agent. triple cross.
sudanese nomadic conflicts = current conflict
titus kills his son mutius because he has shown disloyalty to Rome.
general. honor. loyalty. revenge. violence. power. strength.
worse course of action = saturninus, explain
better course of action = titus, explain
“The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he
didn’t exist”.
Goldhagen, Daniel J. Worse Than War (2009) page 18
Favreau, Jon. Iron Man (2008)
Singer, Bryan. The Usual Suspects (1995)
Shakespeare, William. Titus Andronicus (~1590)
Week 14: May 14, 2010 Nothing Due
Week 15: May 21, 2010 Collecting, Organizing, Uploading All Work
Week 16: May 28, 2010 Essay 3 Final Draft
In William Shakespeare’s play “Titus Andronicus”, the characters Titus
and Tamora set the stage for a bloody tale of justice and revenge and
its vicisous and harmonious cycle. In spite of being considered by
many to be Shakespeare’s worst play, we, as responsible playgoers
cannot ignore that the new 2010 production is every bit as engrossing
as the original one. It includes all of the killings, torture,
destruction and rape (AIU, 2008) you have come to expect from the mind
that brought you Romeo and Juliet, Hamlet and Macbeth. “Titus
Andronicus” or “A Current Conflict” is now playing at the World Stage
in Darfur, Sudan.
“All the world’s a stage, and all the men and women merely
players...” (Shakespeare, ~1600) and that quote could not be more
fitting as Titus is played collectively by the Sudan Liberation Army
and Tamora played by Omar al-Bashir. In the original story, the cycle
of revenge begins with Titus killing Tamora’s firstborn as a sacrifice
dedicated to his sons who died from the war against the Goths. This
provokes Tamora to get her own revenge. Later, she is able to make
good on her vow by giving her two sons, Chiron and Demetrius
permission to rape Titus’s daughter Lavinia. Titus vows for revenge
once again and devises a plan to kill his daughter’s rapists. Not
only is he successful in doing so, but he adds icing to the cake by
baking a pie made out of their own flesh and has Tamora enjoy it
unknowingly until just right before he kills her himself. Saturninus
then kills Titus out of justice for murdering an Empress of the Roman
Empire. Lucius then kills Saturninus to avenge his father and gets
the last laugh or in this case, the last kill. In this modern-day
adaption, revenge still means “murder” and “murder” still means
“extermination” and which by the way is the fifth act of
“eliminationism” according to author Daniel Goldhagen in his work
“Worse than War” (Goldhagen, 2009, p. 18).
We can see the same story unfold before our very own eyes as Omar al-
Bashir having recently signed a cease-fire agreement with a rebel
group, the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) and declaring that the
war in Darfur was over only to then attack a different rebel group,
the Sudan Liberation Army (SLA) (TCSM, 2010). Omar Bashir is to blame
for the war crimes and crimes against humanity that have been going on
(BBC, 2010). This is very similar to Tamora getting married to the
Emperor Saturninus and swearing complete loyalty to Rome only then to
stab everyone in the back by attempting to murder Titus and all his
sons, all of whom are prominent citizens and distinguished members of
Rome. If we can learn anything from reading the book about this
wicked witch of the Goths or watching the play with Omar al-Bashir, is
that this is the wrong course of action to take. Too much drama.
Titus, who is completely loyal to Rome, starts to have a change of
heart when he sees that the government that he fought for so long and
hard for in those 10 years have become corrupt with the induction of
Queen Tamora as Empress Tamora. His resolve now is to be loyal only
to himself. He must now find and gather his men to strategize and
formulate a plan in order to increase his chances of success rather
than going in and attacking blindly. This is like the founding
members of the Sudan Liberation Army (SLA) first coming together with
a common goal and sharing a common bond before forming together
because they realized that something was wrong and they could not help
but to stand up for what they believed in and fight for their cause.
After regrouping and coming up with a strategy, they started to attack
Darfur. It went okay. If they had not planned anything prior to the
assault, the casualties of their campaign would have been
significantly greater. This is an example of the right course of
action. To think before you act. To rationalize and assess the
situation to determine if the end result will be of a desirable
outcome before you even make a move.
However, sometimes we, who are only human beings, are very capable of
making mistakes, can think for too long and miss out on an that
perfect opportunity that may present itself in only a short time
window. Take for example what Lucius Andronicus did in the last act.
He quickly thought on his feet and took action into his own hands,
eliminating the threat that was Saturninus. This quickly turned
around a government that was corrupt and restored it to its former
glory. Lucius did not sit around to watch what would unfold next, he
was the one that turned the page to the next part of the story. He
did not waste any time going off in a monologue or grieving for his
murdered father, or vowing revenge to the Emperor Saturninus someday.
He did what was right and necessary and quite promptly. And it was
for the better. This, then, would be considered a better course of
action.
That is why Goldhagen emphasizes on how ineffective the United Nations
(UN) is in dealing with crime and reiterates that fact every few
chapters. The United Nations (UN) is too Titus-like. He asserts
that, “an authoritative international watchdog organization should be
created to identify mass murder and eliminations wherever they are
practiced” (Goldhagen, 2009, p. 570) and that would save thousands of
lives. Lucius is that ideal watchdog organization that Goldhagen is
talking about. The tenacity to never give up and never surrender. To
be able to deliver results consistently in a tight situation. That is
how you would save the day.
The rest of the cast include the Marcus Andronicus played by the
International Criminal Court. Wise, albeit slow to action. The
unknown number of poor women and girls who get abducted, raped and
abused play Lavinia. The morally incorrect rapists play Chiron and
Demetrius. The other sons of Titus, Quintus and Martius are played by
the Justice and Equality Movement. The Empire of Rome is now set in
the Government of Sudan. Then we have Aaron the Moor played by the
Janjawid. And last, but not least, we have the Goths played by the
United States. No country really likes them, but whenever they need
military aid, the United States of America is always there to protect
Her Allies.
And if we forget to make progress towards a better tomorrow, we can
always look at our congressional bills to remind us. H.CON.RES.159
tells us that we acknowledged the fact the crime of genocide was being
commited in Darfur, Sudan. Basically, it reminds Americans that we
called it. In H.RES.241, we are reminded that we shouldn’t fight each
other but rather to focus on the real enemy; men like Omar Hassan al-
Bashir. He’s the bad guy. Finally, we can also look at H.RES.1019.
This one gives us hope that the beginning of peace can be achieved...
by signing a paper.
In conclusion, we have taken an inside look at the play, “A Current
Conflict”, which has only been open to the public for a few years and
is doing okay judging by the number of tickets sold. We got a brief
synopsis of the themes and we also got to take a look at the wrong and
right course of actions as well as an alternative for a better course
of action if possible. Also, we have a great resource at www.thomas.loc.gov.
We humans are able to adapt and adjust to different situations in our
environment and that is part of what makes us so great and unique.
Our ability to adapt. Hopefully, we can use our talents to help stop
crimes against humanity and make the right choices in life.
Works Cited
Goldhagen, Daniel J. (2009) Worse Than War: Genocide, Eliminationism,
and the Ongoing Assault on Humanity (pp. 18, 570). New York:
PublicAffairs
Shakespeare, William. (~1600) As You Like It
Shakespeare, William. (~1590) Titus Andronicus
Amnesty International USA. (2008) Darfur History. Retrieved from
May 7, 2010, from
http://www.amnestyusa.org/darfur/darfur-history/page.do?id=1351103
BBC News. (2010) Q&A: Sudan’s Darfur Conflict. Retrieved from May 7,
2010, from
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3496731.stm
The Christian Science Monitor. (2010) Darfur conflict flares after
Sudan President Bashir declares war over. Retrieved from May 27,
2010, from
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/terrorism-security/2010/0225/Darfur-conflict-flares-after-Sudan-President-Bashir-declares-war-over
H.CON.RES.159
Recognizing the fifth anniversary of the declaration by the United
States Congress of genocide in Darfur, Sudan.
Representative Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c111:3:./temp/~c1110yp6wd::
H.RES.241
Sudan for war crimes and crimes against humanity, expressing the hope
that this will be a significant step in the long road towards
H.RES.1019
Recognizing the fifth anniversary of the signing of the Comprehensive
Peace Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Sudan and
the Sudan’s People’s Liberation Movement/Army and calling for urgent
and aggressive actions to establish peace in all regions of Sudan.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c111:5:./temp/~c111uw9Hxe::
Week 17: June 4, 2010 Final Exam
William Wang
In current events, Joseph Kony and his “ragtag group of rebels” the
LRA (Lord’s Resistance Army) have waged a 20+ year war against the
Ugandan government. He is wanted by the International Criminal Court
for war crimes (BBC, 2005) including the kidnapping of “more than
30,000 children in the last ten years alone” (CNN, 2006). We need to
stop Joseph Kony from continuing to commit crimes against humanity.
However, according to Luis Moreno Ocampo, the Prosecutor of the ICC,
“we do not need a war; we do not need to kill anymore LRA members. We
just need to arrest him and put him on trial to have him explain why
he was abducting children” (Observer, 2010). There is, of course, a
better COA (course of action). We need to offer top dollar for this
man’s head just like author Daniel Jonah Goldhagen has suggested in
his book Worse Than War, when he wrote, “$10 million dollars for
killing or delivering the perpetrating regime’s leader or top
leaders” (Goldhagen, 2009).
Attempting to arrest Kony is laughable. In 2005, the International
Criminal Court (ICC) issued its first indictments which charged him
with “33 counts of crimes against humanity and war crimes committed
since July 2002” when the ICC came into effect (Global, 2005). It is
now 2010 and we have not been able to arrest him yet. In other words,
it took three years to file paper work to charge this man and another
five years of trying to take him into custody. In fewer words, the
U.N. (United Nations) is slow and ineffective. This supports
Goldhagen’s work when he said that, “the U.N. (United Nations) is
ineffective at preventing genocide and therefore supports an
international system of killing genocidal agents” (Goldhagen, 2009).
It also clearly refutes Ocampo’s decision to have him arrested and
tried because that is dumb.
The best course of action (COA) then is to offer a reward or a bounty
for the head of or death of, Joseph Kony. Just like how they did it
in the Wild West. “That’s how Dad did it, that’s how America does it,
and its worked out pretty well so far” (Iron Man, 2008). The money
from the bill that United States President Barack Obama signed could
be used for said bounty. Goldhagen’s suggestion of offering a bounty
would allow for any person or group to quickly and effectively
eliminate this problem in northern Uganda. If citizens are worried
that too much of their tax dollars would be spent on this issue, then
perhaps Goldhagen’s other suggestion that an “authorative
international watchdog organization” (Goldhagen, 2009) that would
handle the trifecta of prevention, intervention, and punishment would
be a better option. This group would handle the situation at quickly
and effectively as well, not to mention that they would operate at
probably a fraction of the cost outlined in the new bill. In
conclusion, we need to stop wasting our time talking and start killing
people who need to die.
Works Cited
BBC News (2005) Profile Joesph Kony. Retrieved on June 3, 2010 from
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4320858.stm
CNN.com (2006) Anderson Cooper 360° Blog. Retrieved on June 3, 2010
from:
http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/anderson.cooper.360/blog/2006/02/old-horrors-young-victims.html
Global Policy Forum (2005) Warrant of Arrest for Joseph Kony
(September 27, 2005). Retrieved on June 3, 2010 from:
http://www.globalpolicy.org/international-justice/rogues-gallery/joseph-kony.html
The Observer (2010) I am waiting for evidence on Buganda Killings,
says ICC Chief. Retrieved on June 3, 2010 from:
http://www.observer.ug/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8706:i-am-waiting-for-evidence-on-buganda-killings-says-icc-chief&catid=34:news&Itemid=59
Goldhagen, Daniel J. (2009) Worse Than War: Genocide, Eliminationism,
English 101 Section 0143
Professor O’Connell
06.05.2010 A Complete Collection of Works by William Wang
Professor O’Connell
Week 1: February 12, 2010 Journal
I'll go first!
a) Is war, specifically the increase of intentional attacks on
civilians, the greatest problem in the world today? Probably not.
b) Are war violence and attacks on civilians inevitable components of
life or human nature, or can warfare be limited or even eliminated?
Inevitable.
c) If military attacks on civilians can be controlled, should the
people of the world work to stop them? Sure!
d) Optional - for those ready for more? Skip.
i) Read the New York Times review of Worse than War. Done.
ii) Has Science Found a Way to End All Wars? I will summarize John
Horgan's article in Discover Magazine with an algebraic expression:
More sex and more women in office equals less wars. To be more
specific:
Let X = the number of women in government Let Y = the number of men
sexually active Let Z = a quantitative representation of peace
X + Y = Z
If X goes up, Z goes up. If Y goes up, Z goes up. If X and Y go up,
Z goes up by a factor of 2.
The Tolstoy Theorem states that if there are less wars, then there is
more peace.
Therefore, by using the Counterbalance Postulate, we can conclude
that if there is more peace, then there is less war and that would
help to cancel out Eliminationism.
Week 1: February 12, 2010 Journal Replies
In response to Rosemarie J’s entry...
I bet you're getting an A!
In response to Melinda S’s comment...
Thank you for commenting about my theory as being "interesting". I
also agree with your last remark that "moral problem which we may
never find a definitive solution" because it just reinforces my
belief
that math sucks.
Week 2: February 19, 2010 Notes on preparing for E1.1
These were my original notes preparing for the essay:
Paragraph 1 thesis statement: Eliminationism is not the greatest
problem in the world today.
Paragraph 2 author's point: Goldhagen says that eliminationism is,
“the desire to eliminate peoples or groups” on page 14 of the
author’s book Worse than War.
Paragraph 3 student's point: Wang says that eliminationism is not
even a word according to Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictonary 11th
Edition.
notes subject to change...
Week 2: February 19, 2010 Essay 1.1
Goldhagen says genocide is worse than war and he goes on that
eliminationism is the root of genocide. In his theory, if we can
eliminate eliminationism, we could prevent genocide. And if we
prevent genocide, which is worse than war, then the worst case
scenario our world can ever face then, is war (which is not so bad).
Goldhagen continues by explaining the mentality of people, whose
political ideologies ask three questions: “What is the political
problem? Who or what is the problem’s source? What is the political
solution?” and answers them all with eliminationism or violence,
which he does not agree with. Third, Goldhagen defines the main
problem being society as a whole, having a moral issue, failing to
understand why mass murdering is wrong.
Traub, going against Goldhagen, says that in order to stop
eliminationism, states would have to “abandon the logic of national
interest and reshape the global architecture around the goal of
ending eliminatioinism”. Traub also pokes fun at Goldhagen by
calling his book “Worse than War” by a new name; “Everyone’s Willing
Executioners” describing it as being very similar to Goldhagen’s
previous literary work “Hitler’s Willing Executioners” which went
into the political ideology of German Nazis. Traub says that the
problem is not a moral issue because society does recognize the
dangers and the risks taken with mass violence and “abhors atrocities
every bit as much as Goldhagen does” but does what is necessary
because the ends justify the means.
In my opinion, I say that the economy is worse than genocide. My
argument is supported by everyday conversations between friends and
families and coworkers every time the word “economy” is used in a
sentence when not pertaining to rental cars. I will even go as far
as writing my own book and calling it, “Worse than Eliminationism:
Economy, Salmon and Honeybees Disappearing and the Continuing Insult
to Fashion” (a soon to be #1 New York Times Bestseller!) just to make
my point. Eliminationism is in our blood. We live in a capitalist
economy and we grow up with a capitalist mindset. For example, if I
spend X amount of dollars today, I will then have saved X amount of
dollars tomorrow. In other words, if I invested in a timely manner,
then I will be rewarded in the near future. We carry this kind of
thinking into politics. If we kill 10,000 people in order to (insert
national interest here), we will then have saved the lives of 10
million people because of (insert moral judgement and reasoning
here). We allow tragic events to happen for the sake of a greater
good. In short, the ends justify the means.
Week 3: February 26, 2010 Journal
source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/31/AR2009123101247.html
What I like about this website is that the reviewer acknowledges that
Daniel Goldhagen's heart is filled with good intent but his book,
Worse than War does not have enough muscle to do the casualties of
war, massacre, and genocide justice. "But even victims... deserve
books that are clearly argued and clearly written. 'Worse than War'
is not that book". Ouch. I agree with the reviewer because when I am
reading the book, I feel empathy towards the author's sympathy towards
those who suffered but at the same time, I am asking myself, "How many
more pages do I have to read in order to finish this assignment?"
One point that I do not like about the book so far is that when
Goldhagen is 'clarifying the issue' in the first two chapters, he is
taking it literally. Instead of defining what eliminationism is, he
is including everything that eliminationism can be. All the bad
incidents and events like the Americans bombing the Japanese in World
War II and the Armenian Genocide in World War I, although different,
fall under Goldhagen's definition of eliminationism. It's like asking
the same questions over and over again but with a different reason for
each. Can you repeat the question? I didn't hear you. Can you
repeat the question? I didn't listen. Can you repeat the question, I
didn't follow. All querism!
One thing I do not understand from the website is an excerpt from the
book which reads, "But while each individual account is apt and
explanatory, still, in sum they coalesce into the sometimes looser and
sometimes firmer patterns seen here about which we can say and explain
a great deal but which often still defy general, casual
explanations." I would like to check in the book what this paragraph
pertains to. Perhaps there are some context clues in the passages
that would give me a hint as to decipher what the author is trying to
say.
Week 4: March 5, 2010 Essay 1.2
President Harry Truman made an easy call; the wrong one by dropping
two atomic bombs on Japan. I write this as my thesis statement as a
refutation to the editorial entitled: Hiroshima Bombing Anniversary:
Truman made a tough call -- but the right one. Truman’s actions fall
under the shade of extermination, a sub-category of Goldhagen’s
eliminationism umbrella. It is human nature to choose the easier
option and try to justify their choice rather than to make a difficult
decision and do the right thing.
This article tries to reason the bombings by saying “millions more
Japanese would have died” with U.S. Navy submarines blockading food
shipments to the Japanese islands and U.S. Army Air Force B-29’s
bombing Japanese cities. Although that may be true, it is the
principle of the matter. It is not right to kill 200,000 innocent
civilians to save the lives of 1,000,000 armed soldiers. The article
Hiroshima: Then and Now says that, “the bombings were salvation for
Japan” (in regards to Japan’s government) and that is wrong because it
was damnation for 200,000 Japanese civilians. What good is a
government... if you do not have any citizens to protect because they
are all dead? Also, in the article, Hiroshima, 50 Years Later, it
states that, “it is right and proper that the debate over Hiroshima
should continue” and that is incorrect because it is wrong and dumb to
continue this argument.
My alternative opinion about saving millions of lives with the
sacrifice of 200,000 is correct because although they are going with
the “ends justify the means” mentality, a philosophy which I believe
in, but they are practicing it incorrectly and unethically by
involving innocent people. It is like saying, “I am going to commit
suicide right now because it would save me years of suffering from
depression.” Sure, the frame of mind is there, but the moral and
ethics are missing. My alternative thought on saving Japan is correct
because having a government is useless without people. The idiomatic
expression, “Too many chiefs, not enough Indians” would apply here as
there would be no Indians because the population of this tribe is
zero. Finally, the debate over Hiroshima should be resolved and
become a lesson in our history books that we, the United States, were
wrong so that our children would not make the same mistakes as our
fathers.
Week 5: March 12, 2010: Journal
Casey, Jr. Sen. Bob, 2009, July 16. S1464: to establish the transfer
of any nuclear weapon, device, material, or technology to terrorists
as a crime against humanity. US Senate.
a) One thing, I do like about this bill is that it addresses
Goldhagen's concern about nuclear weapons being widely available (as
mentioned in Chapter 10). It defines smuggling nuclear weapons,
materials and technology a criminal offense. It also answers
Goldhagen's challenge for all moral beings and model citizens to,
"take simple and effective steps to prevent future wars against
humanity".
b) One thing, I do not like about this bill is that it is also known
as the "Nuclear Trafficking Prevention Act". A better name would be
the "Nuclear Trafficking Enforcement Act" as it would put more of an
emphasis in actively stopping nuclear trafficking rather than trying
to casually prevent it.
c) One thing, I do not understand about this bill is that it does not
mention the word, "eliminationism" at all. However, it was tagged
with "terrorism", "war crimes", "genocide", and "crimes against
humanity". My guess is that using the word "eliminationism" would
decrease the formality of language used in this document but in the
end, it doesn't even matter.
Week 5: March 12, 2010: Journal Reply
Rosemarie J claims that, "the Prof didn't post any instruction on
what
he wanted..." but that is wrong because Professor O'Connell did make
a
post on Wednesday, March 10th, 2010. Also, Ryota F rationalized
that,
"the syllabus says that [it's] due today... so, I did it just in
case"
but that is also wrong because not everyone got a syllabus from the
Professor on Monday, February 8th, 2010. I feel that posting my
journal notes for weeks 5 - 7 this Friday, March 19, 2010 as well as
my e1.3 is a good idea. My alternate opinion about when this
assignment is due is most correct because this is the 6th week and it
falls directly in between weeks 5 and 7, which makes sense. It is
similar to choosing "2" when asked to pick a number between "1" and
"3". My refutation is also supported by the fact that there have
only
been three posts to the discussion thread. Numbers don't lie.
Note: This was probably my favorite reply to another student’s entry.
I really enjoyed firing her up. She obviously has no sense of humor.
Week 6: March 19, 2010 Essay 1.3
The legality and legitimacy of targeted killings is an engrossing
issue for military and human rights lawyers. In the Los Angeles Times
article, “Targeted for Death”, Philip Alston, a U.N. special
rapporteur on extrajudicial killings, said, “Political murders of this
type undermine the fabric of international law as well as stoke the
fires of conflict” with regards to the slaying of Mahmoud Mabhouh on
January 19, 2010. His opinion is wrong because political
assassinations actually help to strengthen the moral fiber of every
ethical human being here on earth. My statement is supported by Amos
Guiora, a Professor of Law, who says, “I have long advocated person-
specific operational counter-terrorism as a means to protect the state
and to protect innocent lives”.
In the Qantara.de (online magazine) article, “Deterrence as the Only
Prevention for Genocide”, author Michael Hesse asks our beloved
author, Daniel Goldhagen, “Does international law not represent a
moral problem for you here?” pertaining to Goldhagen’s plan for a
“fully robust anti-eliminationist regime” to kill those politically
responsible for genocide. His question is wrong because he tries to
insinuate that Goldhagen is a murderer himself, seeking to destroy
life, satisfying his own thirst for blood and justifying it by
fighting fire with fire. Hesse tries to put Goldhagen at the same
level as James Kopp, a “pro-life” member who murdered an abortion
doctor on October 23, 1998. Again, Goldhagen has the moral fiber and
the intelligence to do the right thing “to prevent future wars against
humanity”.
Political assassination is an idea, a concept, if you will, that has
been popularized of late by movies like, “The Bourne Supremacy” with
Matt Damon and TV shows like “24” with Kiefer Sutherland. Sure,
murder is wrong but sometimes we have to permit or even persist that
tragic events happen for the sake of the greater good. The ends
justifies the means. This opinion, in contrast to those in the
paragraphs above, is more correct because it understands a little
about how the world works. In this case, to kill one individual in
order to save a number of innocent people is in alignment with our
never-ending journey and relentless quest for world peace.
Week 6: March 19, 2010 Essay 1.3 Comments
In response to Ryota F’s entry...
Hey Ryota!
I think you should post your essay in our Section #0143 group.
Unless, of course, our professor has asked you specifically to post
it here to serve as a fine example for both groups to see what an A-
quality essay looks like. =)
Regards,
William
Week 7: March 26, 2010 Bonus Essay
Author Daniel Goldhagen declares that the U.N. (United Nations) is
ineffective at preventing genocide and therefore supports an
international system of killing genocidal agents. While the U.N.
being ineffective in preventing genocide may be true, an international
system of killing these architects of genocide would only “treat” the
problem, not prevent it. That is, creating an “authoritative
international watchdog organization... to identify mass murder and
eliminations” would intervene and prevent such genocides from
occurring but the problem of the possibility of genocide still
exists. In order to “cure” this ailment of society, we must then
strike to the heart of the matter and that is the people themselves.
This is supported by a wise woman who is a resident of Sierra Leone
who said, “They may learn to forgive each other. When all has been
told, we will work together to repair the wrong and to build a just
and fair future. Together we will create a vision for a peaceful
Sierra Leone.”
Writer Daniel Goldhagen also wrote in his book that, “mass murder
begins in the minds of men”. This is supported by the fact that
children were forced to fight for a cause that they did not even
understand. They were “beaten, amputated, used as sex slaves”,
“forced to loot properties and burn houses”, “forced to kill or rape
our own family members, in order to ruin our moral sense and destroy
our identity and our family ties”. However, what Goldhagen does not
mention is that mass murder can end in the minds of children. This is
supported by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and their belief
that “the reconciliation process in Sierra Leone demonstrates how
children, as active partners in the process, can help break the cycle
of violence and re-establish confidence in the rule of law.” This non-
violent approach to solving the problem is an answer that everyone
that is interested in a world of peace should know.
Professor Goldhagen also says that “an anti-mass murder and
elimination monetary prevention program would prevent mass-murders
from developing, intervene mass-murders from happening and punish mass-
murderers from committing crimes against humanity. That sounds
reasonable and all but in this case, the Truth and Reconciliation
Commission has a better plan with four steps. One, disarmament: To
disarm all children of weapons of human destruction. Two,
demobilization: To transfer those registered as child soldiers to
civilian care or interim care centers. Three, Family tracing and
reunification: To reunite children with families and communities.
Four, reintegration: To educate and provide for skills training to
help these victims find a place in society. Less blood shed and more
peace provided. Everyone wins.
This leads to my alternative in using both violent and non-violent
means when necessary. There are those who argue for or against
violence to solve problems but I think that we should implement the
best plan of action depending on the job. Whatever is the best course
of action in a particular case, that is the method that we should go
about in dealing with the situation. Be flexible, able to adapt to
the environment. That is what makes us human. Our ability to adapt.
There is more than one way to solve our many problems and so we should
engage in these matters accordingly.
Week 8: April 2, 2010 Essay 2 Half Done
Intro/Problem
According to Daniel Goldhagen, mass murder and eliminationism begin
because man is a greedy species in nature. If man wants something,
then man will find a way to get it. Even if that way is by means of
mass murdering and genocide of entire groups of people. Man does not
discriminate on who to discriminate when it comes to achieving their
goals.
Explanation of Problem
Man, in order for him to get what he wants, is willing to go to
extreme measures. These include the Goldhagen’s 5 Pillars of
Eliminationism which are: transformation, repression, expulsion,
prevention of reproduction and extermination.
Solution to Problem
What we as a society can do is stand up for what we believe in and
speak our minds. If the people cannot take care of themselves, then
we need to take care of them. If the U.N. (United Nations) cannot
take care of the situation, then we need a private military company to
handle the problem.
Alternative Solution/Personal Opinion
My personal opinion is that we need to be flexible in our methods of
solving problems and the direction of our course of actions. Like
Bruce Lee once said, “Be like water.”
Week 9: April 9, 2010 Journal
Bill: H. CON. RES. 97
Title: Support of the President of the United States (short). Calling
on the President to support United Nations Security Council referrals
of situations involving genocide, war crimes, and crimes against
humanity to the International Criminal Court, to cooperate with
investigations and prosecutions conducted by the International
Criminal Court, and participate as an observer at meetings of the
Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute (long).
Sponsor: Kennedy, Patrick J. (Democrat)
Latest Major Action: 4/2/2009 Referred to House committee.
Status: Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
The thing I like about this bill is that it helps me understand the
other side of the story. From Daniel Goldhagen’s point of view, we
got to take a look from his eyes in how the United Nations is
ineffective in preventing genocide. Here, we get to see how complex
such a task can be and can better relate to Goldhagen’s complaint.
What I do not like is how conservative or “weak” the United States
sound in the resolution of the bill. The words, “support”,
“cooperate”, “exercise” and “invoke” are used to describe the action
the United States would take. I would have preferred stronger and
bolder words such as “enforce”, “collaborate”, “exert” and
“instigate”.
What I don’t understand is why in the resolution, did they write that
the United States would not support this bill if it was not in the
national interest of the United States? Does this mean that we are an
exception to this rule? Is this a way of covering their own ass if
the United States should decide to commit a crime against humanity?
The forced internment of Japanese Americans in 1942 comes to mind.
Looks like we could very well break the law again all in the name of
national security. In other words, someone’s political interest.
Reference:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.CON.RES.97:
Week 10: April 16, 2010 Journal
Cypher, from the movie The Matrix, takes an incorrect course of action
by making a deal with the artificial intelligence program Agent
Smith. Agent Smith is part of what they call the Matrix. The Matrix
is the computer generated reality that the machines have built in
order to control and enslave humans. This would no doubt be
considered a crime against humanity. Therefore, when Cypher strikes a
deal, he is actually negotiating with terrorists and betraying
mankind. Sitting around, wasting time and being ineffective at
handling architects of genocide is like lending a helping hand to
these terrorists. Let me remind you that the United States does not
negotiate with terrorists!
Maverick, from the movie Top Gun, takes a correct course of action by
performing a split S in an aerial combat training scenario. The
instructors at the Naval Fighter Weapons School feel that that was a
bad choice and that it was the last thing he should do. However, upon
questioning Maverick’s motives, he replied with, “You don’t have time
to think up there. If you think, you’re dead.” This mentality aligns
with my own belief that you have to be flexible and be able to adapt
to your environment in order to survive. If terrorists come up with
new ways to destroy our way of life, then we must be like water and
drown these terrorists and wash away their evil hands!
Works Cited:
Wachowski, Andy & Larry (Lana). The Matrix (1999).
Scott, Tony. Top Gun (1986).
Week 10: Journal Response
In response to Patrick D’s entry...
The US Army in the movie Avatar was a great example, Patrick!
Week 11: April 23, 2010 Essay 2 Final Draft
According to Daniel Goldhagen, mass murder and eliminationism begins
in the minds of men. When men come together to form a group with
common interests, be it a political party, an ethnic community, a
racial group, a labor union or even a fan club for a particular sports
team, this is good. The problem starts when these groups become
fanatical in spreading their beliefs with other people who may or may
not share the same ideals. They start to get aggressive in order to
have their way, that is, if the opposition to their goal does not want
to budge or give way. The Federal government may cut funding to a
State government if the State government does not enforce the rules
set forth by the Federal government; the Nazis desiring to rid the
world of impure, tainted Aryans like the Jews by extermination; the
White Southerners who wanted to continue to enslave the Black race;
the trade union of Air Traffic Controllers who went on strike,
threatening the safety of thousands of innocent passengers traveling
by plane; and the San Francisco Giants fan who shot a Los Angeles
Dodgers fan in a dispute between their team loyalties. If man wants
to control territory or rule by their own accord, then man will find a
way. Even if that way is by means of mass murdering and genocide of
entire groups of people. Man does not discriminate on who to
discriminate when it comes to getting what they want.
The problem becomes magnified or increases exponentially when the
means of mass murder become easier with the advancement in today’s
technology. Add to that the relative ease by which nuclear weapons
are developed and obtained, being widely available and, “Houston, we
have a problem.” Goldhagen’s concern is addressed by Congress having
recently passing a bill “to establish the transfer of any nuclear
weapon, device, material, or technology as a crime against humanity”.
This is a formal document that lets the crimininals of our world know
that what they are doing is wrong, as if they did not already know
that what they were doing was a crime. And if that wasn’t enough, let
us add insult to injury when these architects of genocide think that
they can get away with their crimes because they know that the U.N.
(United Nations), who are supposed to be protecting our communities
and working for world peace, are effectively ineffective at stopping
them.
Our Team: America last year has even passed a bill that “support UN
Security Council referrals of situations involving genocide, war
crimes, and crimes against humanity to the International Criminal
Court...” Even then, the bill is quite conservative in the language
being used with words such as “support”, “exercise”, and “invoke”
which all sound very weak. Stronger and bolder words like “enforce”,
“exert”, and “instigate” would be more effective in striking fear into
the hearts of these lawless men. Another way to make a difference in
our world, is to follow Goldhagen’s advice in creating an authorative
international watchdog organization... to identify mass murders and
eliminationisms”. This would be a private military company so as to
prevent any conflicts of interest one nation might have with one
another while eliminating the threat in a given country’s territory.
Also, the name of the organization should sound intimidating, like
that of the private military security firm “Blackwater” who are the
largest of the three private security contractors of the US State
Department. I would call it “Holywater” or “Redwood”. Commercials
for Holywater would run with the tagline: “Got crimes against
humanity? Just add Holywater” and for Redwood, “Make like a tree and
leave!” It’s all marketing.
We, as a responsible society, have too be flexible in our methods of
solving the world’s problems because the terrorists, those who
threaten our freedom, get more and more creative each and every day.
If we can adapt to our “environment”, that is, the increased traffic
of terrorists and the manufacturers of WMDs or Weapons of Mass
Destruction, the world is ours. The radical and reactionary groups
who are in favor of violence cannot scare us or “phase” us (for lack
of a better term). We must be able to adapt, overcome and achieve.
We must be able to never give up and never surrender! We must be able
to believe that we can fly. We must be able to believe in magic.
Goldhagen challenges us as moral human beings and model citizens to do
the right thing. I believe that we are up to the challenge and so, we
must be. Like Bruce Lee once said, “Be like water.”
Works Cited
Goldhagen, D.J. 2009. Worse Than War: Genocide, Eliminationism, and
the Ongoing Assault on Humanity (pages 14-18)
Casey, Jr. Sen. Bob, 2009, July 16. S1464: to establish the transfer
of any nuclear weapon, device, material, or technology to terrorists
as a crime against humanity. US Senate.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:S.1464:
Kennedy, Patrick, 2009, April 2. H.CON.RES.97: to support United
Nations Security Council referrals of situations involving genoicide,
war crimes and crimes against humanity to the International Criminal
Court...
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.CON.RES.97:
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=1619711
Week 11: April 23, 2010 Short Story
It is the year 2021. McDonald’s has taken control of the entire
cattle industry in the United States. All the cows are owned by
several dummy corporations so as to avoid government antitrust laws.
The few remaining burger joints left in the United States are subject
to being charged grossly inflated prices for ground beef. They are
threatened by the McDonald’s Corporation to either continue to pay
for the expensive, raw material for their hamburger meat or sell
their life-long business. The latter is the usual case for these
poor fast food establishments. The following is an account of recent
events...
“This isn’t right.” said Thomas. “It’s going to be okay, honey. We
just have to stick with it. It’ll work out.” said his wife,
Jennifer.
Tom and Jenn own a fast food restaurant that mainly serves hamburgers
and french fries. It is a well known landmark in their community.
“The price of meat just keeps going up! We won’t be able to survive
in the long term.” Tom sighs. Jenn walks over to Tom and gives him
a hug. Tears form from both pairs of eyes as they hold each other
dearly.
A tall, dark and handsome man walks into T & J Burgers. There are no
other customers. Only the husband and wife can be seen behind the
counter. Tom and Jenn quickly wipe their eyes. Tom walks towards
the kitchen.
“Hello! What can I get for you today?” asks Jenn in a cheerful
manner despite her red face.
The young man quickly glances left and right and asks, “Are you the
owner of this restaurant?”
“Yes, my husband and I own this restaurant.” replied Jenn.
“And we ain’t sellin!” exclaimed Tom.
The young man takes off his cool pair of Oakley sunglasses and slides
it into the breast pocket of his navy pin-stripe suit.
“What I am about to tell you is highly confidential. Congress has
passed a bill stating that McDonald’s cannot own more than five
restaurants per square mile. There are currently seven McDonald’s in
this vicinity and they are planning to build three more, one of which
will be right here where we are standing.”
“F*ck you, asshole!” said Tom.
“The USDA has been ineffective in regulating the law.” said the young
man, grimly.
“You can say that again.” commented Tom.
“My name is Alex. I represent a group of business owners who, like
you, are threatened by McDonald’s. We are men and women who want to
cook, sell and eat our hamburgers free from persecution.”
“Holy sh*t. You guys sound like the Rebel Alliance.” Tom said in
amazement.
“This isn’t Star Wars, honey. This is real life!” Jenn said.
“The name of our alliance is HolyCow. Our mission: to restore cattle
to the free market. We would like you to join us in our cause.”
Tom and Jenn look at each other and Tom answers, “What can we do to
help?”
All of a sudden a rocket breaks through the window and whizzes by the
three of them but makes a direct hit to the kitchen. The explosion
knocks all of them down.
Tom gets up on his feet and helps his wife up. Alex extends his hand
towards the couple and says, “Come with me if you want to live.” Tom
grabs Alex’s hand and they rush to the side entrance.
The bluetooth headset of the perpetrator who fired the rocket with a
bazooka asked, “Is the target eliminated?” The perpetrator replied,
“No, they ran outside.”
“Don’t let them get away!” said the bluetooth device. “Copy that.”
replied the bazooka bearer.
Alex leads Tom and Jenn to his car, a white Subaru Impreza WRX. Tom
sits on the passenger side and Jenn sits on the rear passenger’s
side. Everyone fastened their seat belts and as Alex starts the car,
bullets are bouncing off the bullet-proof windows.
“Nice car.” says Tom. “The beauty of all-wheel drive.” says Alex
with a smile as they peel away.
In the background, a black BMW 535i pursues them.
“What the USDA has failed to do, we will accomplish by our own
means.”
“They just tried to kill us!” said Tom.
“McDonald’s feels that their burgers are superior to everyone else’s.
Obviously, that is wrong but that is not going to stop them from
trying to convince every other American citizen otherwise. The term
for that is transformation. Another way that McDonald’s has taken
control of our freedom is by forcing us to leave and be deported
outside the U.S. Why do think there’s an In-N-Out in Japan and
France?”
“No wonder!” exclaimed Jenn. The Subaru weaves in and out of traffic
while being chased by the persistent BMW. Tires screech just like
how they do in an exciting chase scene of a high-budget Hollywood
movie.
“That’s called expulsion. And then we have extermination.”
“I’ve been reading the newspaper and I did happen to catch several
unexplained deaths of restaurant owners lately.” said Tom.
“Now you’re starting to get it.” said Alex. “We, at HolyCow, can
make a difference. Not only must we ban McDonald’s and their
ridiculously tempting french fries, but we must destroy the
Corporation itself by any means necessary. Are you guys willing to
do that?”
Tom replies, “Yes, we are”.
Jenn said, “How can we choose not to?”
The intersection ahead gets blocked by two other BMW 535i’s. All
four doors open from both cars and men in black suits step out from
every door. The Subaru stops. The Bimmer that was pursuing them
stops in back of them. There is no escape route. Guns are drawn
from the agents. The driver from earlier steps out of his car and
holds a gun in one hand and a blow horn in the other.
“All your cows are belong to us!” said the bazooka bandit.
“What are we gonna do?” asked Jenn.
“Just enjoy the show.” said Alex. Alex grabs his Apple iPhone 3GS
and makes a call.
“Red 5, this is Skywalker. Can you send these guys a message?”
“Roger that. Message has been sent.”
Two rockets from an Apache Longbow helicopter hit two Bimmers in
front, knocking out most of the armed agents with the big
explosions.
“Message has been delivered.” said Red 5.
“Package confirmed. Thank you!” said Alex.
“You’re welcome.” said Red 5.
Week 12: April 30, 2010 Journal
The Darfur Conflict in Sudan is the current conflict of interest to me
and my typing fingers. Titus Andronicus reminds me of General Dominic
Dim Deng, who is a national war hero to his people. Saturninus
reminds me of General Omar al-Bashir, who overthrew the Sudanese
goverment. Titus’ followers remind me of the Sudan People’s
Liberation Army/Movement. Rome’s religious duty to sacrifice others
reminds me of the Sudan government and their Janjaweed militia that is
guilty of genocide. The Goths remind me of the United States, who
like to get into everyone’s business.
References
Goldhagen, Daniel Jonah. “Worse than War: Genocide, Eliminationism,
and the Ongoing Assault on Humanity.” New York: PublicAffairs, 2009
Shakespeare, William. “Titus Andronicus.” United States: Penguin
Classics, 2000
Week 12: April 30, 2010 Journal replies
In reply to Rosemarie J’s 4 consecutive entries...
Rosemarie J:
Professor O'Connell:
Could you please post the instructions for the Week 12 Research &
Journal that is due this Friday 4/30/10.
Thank you
Rosemarie J:
Professor O'Connell:
Could you please be specific as to what you require.
Since Research & Journal 12 is now combined with 13/14 is this all
due (deadline) on Friday 5/14/10 (per your syllabus)?
I take it that this Friday 4/30/10 we have no assignment to turn in
since you are now combining the above. Is this correct? I'm curious
since Friday is now only 4 days away and to make a deadline we would
need enough lead time.
Rosemarie J:
Professor O'Connell:
I just went to your posting for Weeks 12-14 and it says the page does
not exist!
Please check your site.
Rosemarie J:
nglish 101, spring 2010 online sections #0143 and #3226
Home
Pages
Discussions
Files
About this group Edit my membership Sponsored links GMC Acadia
Overstock GMC Dealers Are Overstocked. Get Special Internet Prices &
Save! GMC.AutoDiscountGroup.com Buy Nexus One by Google Sleek,
Speedy, Smart & Easy To Use. $179 w/ Plan - Exclusively Online!
www.google.com/phone Ca Court Filing Services Fast, easy & done
right. California legal research & filing services. RapidLegal.com/
CaCourtFilingService
Group info Members: 43 Group categories: Schools and Universities
More group info »
weeks-1214-research-and-journal-plus-outlines-of-acts-scenes-and-
arguments-of-titus-andronicus
The page you navigated to does not exist.
William W: (rolls eyes)
Note: I did not actually post this reply because I did not want to
start drama in your online course, Professor O’Connell.
Week 13: May 7, 2010 Essay 3 Half Done
Tony Stark has been called, “the most famous mass murderer in the
history of America” by Afghan terrorists. In William Shakespeare’s
Titus Andronicus, Titus Andronicus would be called, “the most famous
mass murderer in the history of the Goths” because he spent in his
lifetime ten whole years campaigning, waging war and doing battle
against the Goths. But even with the success of claiming victory over
the Goths, he is still a victim of the very basics of human nature.
In this case, the desire for revenge. Titus feels betrayed by the
Emperor Saturninus because Titus cut off his own hand in exchange for
the lives of Martius and Quintus which the Emperor did not make good
on his word (even though this was all just a ploy cleverly devised by
Aaron). This injustice fuels Titus’ madness so much that he orders
his brother Lucius to flee from Rome and go raise an army to be
“revenged on Rome and Saturnine”. Revenge in this context means
“murder” and “murder” means “extermination”. Extermination is the
fifth act of “eliminationism” according to Daniel Goldhagen.
aaron, the moor. black power. mass murderer. political
assassination. secret agent. double agent. triple cross.
sudanese nomadic conflicts = current conflict
titus kills his son mutius because he has shown disloyalty to Rome.
general. honor. loyalty. revenge. violence. power. strength.
worse course of action = saturninus, explain
better course of action = titus, explain
“The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he
didn’t exist”.
Goldhagen, Daniel J. Worse Than War (2009) page 18
Favreau, Jon. Iron Man (2008)
Singer, Bryan. The Usual Suspects (1995)
Shakespeare, William. Titus Andronicus (~1590)
Week 14: May 14, 2010 Nothing Due
Week 15: May 21, 2010 Collecting, Organizing, Uploading All Work
Week 16: May 28, 2010 Essay 3 Final Draft
In William Shakespeare’s play “Titus Andronicus”, the characters Titus
and Tamora set the stage for a bloody tale of justice and revenge and
its vicisous and harmonious cycle. In spite of being considered by
many to be Shakespeare’s worst play, we, as responsible playgoers
cannot ignore that the new 2010 production is every bit as engrossing
as the original one. It includes all of the killings, torture,
destruction and rape (AIU, 2008) you have come to expect from the mind
that brought you Romeo and Juliet, Hamlet and Macbeth. “Titus
Andronicus” or “A Current Conflict” is now playing at the World Stage
in Darfur, Sudan.
“All the world’s a stage, and all the men and women merely
players...” (Shakespeare, ~1600) and that quote could not be more
fitting as Titus is played collectively by the Sudan Liberation Army
and Tamora played by Omar al-Bashir. In the original story, the cycle
of revenge begins with Titus killing Tamora’s firstborn as a sacrifice
dedicated to his sons who died from the war against the Goths. This
provokes Tamora to get her own revenge. Later, she is able to make
good on her vow by giving her two sons, Chiron and Demetrius
permission to rape Titus’s daughter Lavinia. Titus vows for revenge
once again and devises a plan to kill his daughter’s rapists. Not
only is he successful in doing so, but he adds icing to the cake by
baking a pie made out of their own flesh and has Tamora enjoy it
unknowingly until just right before he kills her himself. Saturninus
then kills Titus out of justice for murdering an Empress of the Roman
Empire. Lucius then kills Saturninus to avenge his father and gets
the last laugh or in this case, the last kill. In this modern-day
adaption, revenge still means “murder” and “murder” still means
“extermination” and which by the way is the fifth act of
“eliminationism” according to author Daniel Goldhagen in his work
“Worse than War” (Goldhagen, 2009, p. 18).
We can see the same story unfold before our very own eyes as Omar al-
Bashir having recently signed a cease-fire agreement with a rebel
group, the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) and declaring that the
war in Darfur was over only to then attack a different rebel group,
the Sudan Liberation Army (SLA) (TCSM, 2010). Omar Bashir is to blame
for the war crimes and crimes against humanity that have been going on
(BBC, 2010). This is very similar to Tamora getting married to the
Emperor Saturninus and swearing complete loyalty to Rome only then to
stab everyone in the back by attempting to murder Titus and all his
sons, all of whom are prominent citizens and distinguished members of
Rome. If we can learn anything from reading the book about this
wicked witch of the Goths or watching the play with Omar al-Bashir, is
that this is the wrong course of action to take. Too much drama.
Titus, who is completely loyal to Rome, starts to have a change of
heart when he sees that the government that he fought for so long and
hard for in those 10 years have become corrupt with the induction of
Queen Tamora as Empress Tamora. His resolve now is to be loyal only
to himself. He must now find and gather his men to strategize and
formulate a plan in order to increase his chances of success rather
than going in and attacking blindly. This is like the founding
members of the Sudan Liberation Army (SLA) first coming together with
a common goal and sharing a common bond before forming together
because they realized that something was wrong and they could not help
but to stand up for what they believed in and fight for their cause.
After regrouping and coming up with a strategy, they started to attack
Darfur. It went okay. If they had not planned anything prior to the
assault, the casualties of their campaign would have been
significantly greater. This is an example of the right course of
action. To think before you act. To rationalize and assess the
situation to determine if the end result will be of a desirable
outcome before you even make a move.
However, sometimes we, who are only human beings, are very capable of
making mistakes, can think for too long and miss out on an that
perfect opportunity that may present itself in only a short time
window. Take for example what Lucius Andronicus did in the last act.
He quickly thought on his feet and took action into his own hands,
eliminating the threat that was Saturninus. This quickly turned
around a government that was corrupt and restored it to its former
glory. Lucius did not sit around to watch what would unfold next, he
was the one that turned the page to the next part of the story. He
did not waste any time going off in a monologue or grieving for his
murdered father, or vowing revenge to the Emperor Saturninus someday.
He did what was right and necessary and quite promptly. And it was
for the better. This, then, would be considered a better course of
action.
That is why Goldhagen emphasizes on how ineffective the United Nations
(UN) is in dealing with crime and reiterates that fact every few
chapters. The United Nations (UN) is too Titus-like. He asserts
that, “an authoritative international watchdog organization should be
created to identify mass murder and eliminations wherever they are
practiced” (Goldhagen, 2009, p. 570) and that would save thousands of
lives. Lucius is that ideal watchdog organization that Goldhagen is
talking about. The tenacity to never give up and never surrender. To
be able to deliver results consistently in a tight situation. That is
how you would save the day.
The rest of the cast include the Marcus Andronicus played by the
International Criminal Court. Wise, albeit slow to action. The
unknown number of poor women and girls who get abducted, raped and
abused play Lavinia. The morally incorrect rapists play Chiron and
Demetrius. The other sons of Titus, Quintus and Martius are played by
the Justice and Equality Movement. The Empire of Rome is now set in
the Government of Sudan. Then we have Aaron the Moor played by the
Janjawid. And last, but not least, we have the Goths played by the
United States. No country really likes them, but whenever they need
military aid, the United States of America is always there to protect
Her Allies.
And if we forget to make progress towards a better tomorrow, we can
always look at our congressional bills to remind us. H.CON.RES.159
tells us that we acknowledged the fact the crime of genocide was being
commited in Darfur, Sudan. Basically, it reminds Americans that we
called it. In H.RES.241, we are reminded that we shouldn’t fight each
other but rather to focus on the real enemy; men like Omar Hassan al-
Bashir. He’s the bad guy. Finally, we can also look at H.RES.1019.
This one gives us hope that the beginning of peace can be achieved...
by signing a paper.
In conclusion, we have taken an inside look at the play, “A Current
Conflict”, which has only been open to the public for a few years and
is doing okay judging by the number of tickets sold. We got a brief
synopsis of the themes and we also got to take a look at the wrong and
right course of actions as well as an alternative for a better course
of action if possible. Also, we have a great resource at www.thomas.loc.gov.
We humans are able to adapt and adjust to different situations in our
environment and that is part of what makes us so great and unique.
Our ability to adapt. Hopefully, we can use our talents to help stop
crimes against humanity and make the right choices in life.
Works Cited
Goldhagen, Daniel J. (2009) Worse Than War: Genocide, Eliminationism,
and the Ongoing Assault on Humanity (pp. 18, 570). New York:
PublicAffairs
Shakespeare, William. (~1600) As You Like It
Shakespeare, William. (~1590) Titus Andronicus
Amnesty International USA. (2008) Darfur History. Retrieved from
May 7, 2010, from
http://www.amnestyusa.org/darfur/darfur-history/page.do?id=1351103
BBC News. (2010) Q&A: Sudan’s Darfur Conflict. Retrieved from May 7,
2010, from
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3496731.stm
The Christian Science Monitor. (2010) Darfur conflict flares after
Sudan President Bashir declares war over. Retrieved from May 27,
2010, from
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/terrorism-security/2010/0225/Darfur-conflict-flares-after-Sudan-President-Bashir-declares-war-over
H.CON.RES.159
Recognizing the fifth anniversary of the declaration by the United
States Congress of genocide in Darfur, Sudan.
Representative Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c111:3:./temp/~c1110yp6wd::
H.RES.241
Commending the International Criminal Court for issuing a warrant for
the arrest of Omar Hassan al-Bashir, President of the Republic of the
Sudan for war crimes and crimes against humanity, expressing the hope
that this will be a significant step in the long road towards
achieving peace and stability in the Darfur region.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.RES.241:
H.RES.1019
Recognizing the fifth anniversary of the signing of the Comprehensive
Peace Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Sudan and
the Sudan’s People’s Liberation Movement/Army and calling for urgent
and aggressive actions to establish peace in all regions of Sudan.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c111:5:./temp/~c111uw9Hxe::
Week 17: June 4, 2010 Final Exam
William Wang
English 101 Section 0143
Professor O’Connell
06.05.2010 Final Exam
Professor O’Connell
In current events, Joseph Kony and his “ragtag group of rebels” the
LRA (Lord’s Resistance Army) have waged a 20+ year war against the
Ugandan government. He is wanted by the International Criminal Court
for war crimes (BBC, 2005) including the kidnapping of “more than
30,000 children in the last ten years alone” (CNN, 2006). We need to
stop Joseph Kony from continuing to commit crimes against humanity.
However, according to Luis Moreno Ocampo, the Prosecutor of the ICC,
“we do not need a war; we do not need to kill anymore LRA members. We
just need to arrest him and put him on trial to have him explain why
he was abducting children” (Observer, 2010). There is, of course, a
better COA (course of action). We need to offer top dollar for this
man’s head just like author Daniel Jonah Goldhagen has suggested in
his book Worse Than War, when he wrote, “$10 million dollars for
killing or delivering the perpetrating regime’s leader or top
leaders” (Goldhagen, 2009).
Attempting to arrest Kony is laughable. In 2005, the International
Criminal Court (ICC) issued its first indictments which charged him
with “33 counts of crimes against humanity and war crimes committed
since July 2002” when the ICC came into effect (Global, 2005). It is
now 2010 and we have not been able to arrest him yet. In other words,
it took three years to file paper work to charge this man and another
five years of trying to take him into custody. In fewer words, the
U.N. (United Nations) is slow and ineffective. This supports
Goldhagen’s work when he said that, “the U.N. (United Nations) is
ineffective at preventing genocide and therefore supports an
international system of killing genocidal agents” (Goldhagen, 2009).
It also clearly refutes Ocampo’s decision to have him arrested and
tried because that is dumb.
The best course of action (COA) then is to offer a reward or a bounty
for the head of or death of, Joseph Kony. Just like how they did it
in the Wild West. “That’s how Dad did it, that’s how America does it,
and its worked out pretty well so far” (Iron Man, 2008). The money
from the bill that United States President Barack Obama signed could
be used for said bounty. Goldhagen’s suggestion of offering a bounty
would allow for any person or group to quickly and effectively
eliminate this problem in northern Uganda. If citizens are worried
that too much of their tax dollars would be spent on this issue, then
perhaps Goldhagen’s other suggestion that an “authorative
international watchdog organization” (Goldhagen, 2009) that would
handle the trifecta of prevention, intervention, and punishment would
be a better option. This group would handle the situation at quickly
and effectively as well, not to mention that they would operate at
probably a fraction of the cost outlined in the new bill. In
conclusion, we need to stop wasting our time talking and start killing
people who need to die.
Works Cited
BBC News (2005) Profile Joesph Kony. Retrieved on June 3, 2010 from
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4320858.stm
CNN.com (2006) Anderson Cooper 360° Blog. Retrieved on June 3, 2010
from:
http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/anderson.cooper.360/blog/2006/02/old-horrors-young-victims.html
Global Policy Forum (2005) Warrant of Arrest for Joseph Kony
(September 27, 2005). Retrieved on June 3, 2010 from:
http://www.globalpolicy.org/international-justice/rogues-gallery/joseph-kony.html
The Observer (2010) I am waiting for evidence on Buganda Killings,
says ICC Chief. Retrieved on June 3, 2010 from:
http://www.observer.ug/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8706:i-am-waiting-for-evidence-on-buganda-killings-says-icc-chief&catid=34:news&Itemid=59
Goldhagen, Daniel J. (2009) Worse Than War: Genocide, Eliminationism,
and the Ongoing Assault on Humanity. New York: PublicAffairs
Favreau, Jon. Iron Man (2008). California: Paramount PicturesDiana K
Jun 4, 2010, 7:57:35 PM6/4/10
to English 101, spring 2010 online sections #0143 and #3226
For some reason a lot of my work was missing in the groups discussion,
Thanks God I saved everything!
Here is my work through the semester:
Journals:
Discussion on week-1-research-and-journal
Thanks God I saved everything!
Here is my work through the semester:
Journals:
Discussion on week-1-research-and-journal
Week (1) Research & Journal
English 101, Spring 2010 online, Section #0143
Student: Diana K
3a) Is war, specifically the increase of intentional attacks on
Student: Diana K
civilians, the greatest problem in the world today?
3.
3a. Yes. The increase of intentional attacks on civilians is the
greatest problem in the world today, and we need to get involved,
because if we won't stop the attacks today, they will hit us back in
the future. As we have witnessed during the entire twentieth
century,
many governments learned that through fear and terror, they gain
power. “Thanks” to modernization, and human curiosity, new weapon
technology is available for everyone. Education is another cause for
the increase of intentional attacks on civilians. Governments in
countries where genocide is a “way of life” encourage violence
through
education in the reason of earning more followers and supporters.
Powerful governments like the United States should get involved in
order to stop the genocide from it's origins in favor of it's own
civilians.
3b) Are war, violence and attacks on civilians inevitable
3a. Yes. The increase of intentional attacks on civilians is the
greatest problem in the world today, and we need to get involved,
because if we won't stop the attacks today, they will hit us back in
the future. As we have witnessed during the entire twentieth
century,
many governments learned that through fear and terror, they gain
power. “Thanks” to modernization, and human curiosity, new weapon
technology is available for everyone. Education is another cause for
the increase of intentional attacks on civilians. Governments in
countries where genocide is a “way of life” encourage violence
through
education in the reason of earning more followers and supporters.
Powerful governments like the United States should get involved in
order to stop the genocide from it's origins in favor of it's own
civilians.
components
of life and human nature?
3b. No. War violence and attacks on civilians are not
components of human nature, since they are not done in the purpose of
protection and survival. They are the result of human mind and not
human biological instinct. Unfortunately, with the beginning of
society; money, religion and political power became the main reason
for wars between humans. According to a Discover article, “Has
science found a way to end all wars?” humans tend to be aggressive
in
their nature. Therefore, the solution to end wars in the world is in
everyone of us.
3c) If military attacks on civilians can be controlled, should
3b. No. War violence and attacks on civilians are not
components of human nature, since they are not done in the purpose of
protection and survival. They are the result of human mind and not
human biological instinct. Unfortunately, with the beginning of
society; money, religion and political power became the main reason
for wars between humans. According to a Discover article, “Has
science found a way to end all wars?” humans tend to be aggressive
in
their nature. Therefore, the solution to end wars in the world is in
everyone of us.
the
people of the world work to stop them?
people of the world work to stop them?
English 101
Section 0143
Professor O'Connell
Section 0143
Professor O'Connell
and
Work Cited
Goldhagen, J. D. (2009). Worse Than War: Genocide, Eliminationism
and
Goldhagen, J. D. (2009). Worse Than War: Genocide, Eliminationism
and
English 101
Section 0143
Professor O'Connell
Section 0143
Professor O'Connell
Ticking Bomb Not in the “Right Hands”
Many years have passed since the United States dropped a
nuclear bomb
English 101
Professor O’Connell
Professor O’Connell
the
book Worse Than War, claims that there is no peaceful way to deal
with
violent groups, since all the peaceful ways had failed in the past.
Goldhagen suggest that those who are responsible for murders of
innocent people, needs to be targeted and killed. Since the world
have tried almost everything to eliminate violent leaders, and pretty
much failed, there is an urgent need to resolve the issue, because
the
number of the victims is growing rapidly each day.
Although it sounds terribly wrong, children were used and
still are,
as soldiers in some of the worlds greatest crimes against humanity.
Since children are easy to manipulate and they are powerless, many
hostile groups use them as killing machines against their own people.
In Sierra Leone, that was exactly the case. “We were made to loot
properties and burn houses. Many of us were forced to kill or rape
with
violent groups, since all the peaceful ways had failed in the past.
Goldhagen suggest that those who are responsible for murders of
innocent people, needs to be targeted and killed. Since the world
have tried almost everything to eliminate violent leaders, and pretty
much failed, there is an urgent need to resolve the issue, because
the
number of the victims is growing rapidly each day.
Although it sounds terribly wrong, children were used and
still are,
as soldiers in some of the worlds greatest crimes against humanity.
Since children are easy to manipulate and they are powerless, many
hostile groups use them as killing machines against their own people.
In Sierra Leone, that was exactly the case. “We were made to loot
our own family members, in order to ruin our moral sense and destroy
apply to those perpetrating wars against humanity so all those
considering mass murder and elimination know they will become
considering mass murder and elimination know they will become
targets.”
Terrorism today, is the world's main eliminationist issue.
When
people murder children in cold blood, there is no moral thought
behind
those acts. Those who believe they have the right to decide who
shall
live and who shall not, have no place among peaceful societies. I
partially blame the U.S for not preventing mass murder, but mostly I
blame mothers who send their sons with explosives on them, to die and
kill for ideology. That is how they were educated, and that is
exactly the approach we need to fix.
Terrorism today, is the world's main eliminationist issue.
When
people murder children in cold blood, there is no moral thought
behind
those acts. Those who believe they have the right to decide who
shall
live and who shall not, have no place among peaceful societies. I
partially blame the U.S for not preventing mass murder, but mostly I
blame mothers who send their sons with explosives on them, to die and
kill for ideology. That is how they were educated, and that is
exactly the approach we need to fix.
Work Cited
Goldhagen, J. D. (2009). Worse Than War: Genocide,
Eliminationism
Goldhagen, J. D. (2009). Worse Than War: Genocide,
Eliminationism
and the Ongoing Assault
Diana Kovinsky
English 101
Section #0143
Titus – Tamora Conflict of the Middle East
Books had always been representations of the reality. Although
Shakespeare’s tragedy Titus Andronicus is not dealing with a specific
issue, it does consist of many conflicts which can be metaphorically
linked with some of today’s concerns. One of the biggest concerns in
gave rise to the growing terrorism in the Middle East, and many
countries around the globe. The Israeli – Palestinian conflict had
effected many countries, and among them the United States. Today,
Israel and the U.S work together, in order to eliminate the rising
terrorism that threatens piece and security in the world. Titus and
Tamora are two interesting and opposite characters that can be
metaphorically linked to the Israeli – Palestinian conflict and the
war against terrorism. Titus was fighting Rome’s enemies; wars
through which he gained respect and honor for his country. He
represents Israel, a small country that fights so many years for its
existents. Tamora represents Palestinian terroristic groups, joined
together in order to try and “erase” Israel from the map. She is the
queen of Goths who holds a pro-war approach with brutality and
barbarism. Her ruthlessness reminds me the terrorists who kill
innocent people in revenge for political and religious views. In this
essay I will explore, how the Israeli-Palestinian conflict begin? How
Israel responds to it, and suggest some solutions to end it.
In ancient times the home of Jews - Judea, was concurred by Romans and
named Palestine. Some years after, it was concurred by Arabs who
ruled there for thousand years. In 1917 due to Balfour’s
Declaration , the Arabs resented that the Jews are coming to take
their land. Led by Grand Mufti Hajj Amin El Husseini, they rioted and
later revolted, creating a history of enmity between Jews and Arabs in
Palestine. Therefore, Britain stopped Jewish immigration to
Palestine. Following the Holocaust, in which 6 million Jews were
killed by the Nazis, pressure on Britain increased to allow Jewish
immigration to Palestine. In 1947, the UN divided the land into Arab
and Jewish states. The Arabs did not accept the partition and war
broke out. The Jews won a decisive victory, expanded their state and
created several thousand Palestinian refugees. The Arab states
refused to recognize Israel or make peace with it. Wars broke out in
1956, 1967, 1973 and 1982, and there were many terror raids and
Israeli reprisals. Each side believes different versions of the same
history. Each side believes that the other side is responsible for
the conflict, therefore the war continues even today.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict reminds Titus’ ongoing war with
Tamora, including deaths, revenge and hatred. In the beginning of
the tragedy Titus seeks revenge for two of his sons who died in the
last war, so he decides to kill one of Tamora’s sons. “I give him
you, the noblest that survives, the eldest son of this distressed
queen.” (Titus Andronicus)
This scene is just like the beginning of building a Jewish country on
the Palestinian land. With the growth of Israel, another growth was
happening simultaneously - terrorism. According to an article in The
Israel Ministry of Foreign affairs web site, “Which Came First-
Terrorism or Occupation - Major Arab Terrorist Attacks against
Israelis Prior to the 1967 Six-Day War ,” The first Arab sponsored
terrorist attack on Jews occurred in 1920, long before the
establishment of Israel. Since then the death toll from Arab
terrorism continues even today. Politically motivated Islamic
violent groups such as Hamas, Jihad, Fatah and Al Qaeda determined to
eliminate Israel and its supporters. The united States in this case
represent Marcus, who supports Titus in his war against Tamora.
After the scene where Titus kills Tamora’s son, Tamora becomes
the
biggest enemy of the Andronicus Family. Tamora and her lover Aaron
seek for revenge, so Aaron advises Tamora’s sons, Chiron and Demetrius
to rape Titus’s daughter Lavinia. “There speak, and strike, brave
boys, and take your turns; There serve your lusts, shadowed from
heaven's eye, And revel in Lavinia's treasury.” Chiron and Demetrius
are just like two terrorists sent to suicide bombing in a place full
of innocent citizens. They catch Lavinia and brutally rape her while
she is begging them to stop. After they've done, they violently cut
of her tongue and hands, so that she won’t be able to tell their
crimes.
Israel, a small but a very powerful country, exist due to its strong
army and thanks to the military and sanitary help of the United
States. The IDF (Israeli defense force) is one of the most powerful
armies in the world today. The IDF consist of men and women who are
determined to protect their land, friends and family. It is very
important to notice that the name of the Israeli army contains the
word “defense” and not the word “attack” or “fight”. The State of
Israel constitutes a most serious terrorist aggression. In response
to the attacks on its territory, Israel is exercising its right to
self-defense, as would any other country will do. “On July 12, 2006
eight IDF soldiers were killed and two kidnapped on the border with
Lebanon, in an attack by the Hezbollah terror organization. The
remains of Sgt.-Maj. (res.) Ehud Goldwasser and 1st Sgt.(res.) Eldad
Regev, abducted in the attack on the IDF patrol jeep, were returned to
Israel on July 16, 2008.” In response, the IDF immediately carried
out over 100 air attacks in Lebanon, targeting mainly Hezbollah
bases. A vehicle, in with two Hezbollah terrorists was targeted and
bombed in the evening. A number of bridges and roads in Lebanon were
also attacked, in order to prevent Hezbollah from transferring the
abducted soldiers. Furthermore, the Israel Air Force targeted
Hezbollah batteries of rockets aimed at Israel, stationed along the
northern border. This is one example of Israel response to terrorism
within its border.
Another good example would be targeted killing. According to the
article “The Logic of Israel's Targeted Killing” from “The Middle East
Quarterly” magazine, Israel has the full right to defend itself from
terrorists, even through targeted killings of dangerous personas. The
writer of the article, Gal Luft, argues against critics (Mostly
American) who claim that targeted killing is an illegal revenge. He
writes, “I would like to see how the Americans would react if a car
packed with explosives blew up in the middle of Manhattan.” Today,
the subject of targeted killing is debated all over the world.
Israel’s response to terrorism can be metaphorically linked to the way
Titus kills Chiron and Demetrius. Titus slain their throats and bakes
them for Tamoras Dinner. Titus teaches Tamora her lesson in the most
devastating way, just like Israel exploded buildings, Airports and
bridges in Lebanon. This also reminds targeted killing, because by
killing a terrorist in his own house, car, or during his vacation, the
Israelis send a clear message to all the other terrorists; “you mess
with us – we’ll get you where ever you are.”
In the book Worse Than War, by Daniel Goldhagen, he writes: “Political
Islam is today’s most dangerous eliminationist political movement.”
He adds and writes, “This willingness to die (suicide bombing), and to
encourage others to martyr themselves for Allah, is a regular
glorified feature of Islamic societies and political movements, of
media, sermons, and textbooks, and of political Islamists’ slaughter
of their enemies or mobilizing others to do so.” He names this
chapter, “The New Threats,” and gives the reader a long list of some
of the recent Islamic activities in the world, including terrorism
against Israel and the U.S. Goldhagen passes a clear message of
warning from the increasing terrorism. He gives the reader the
feeling as if he asks; if there will be an end to it? And who will
stop it?
In Shakespeare’s book, Titus Andronicus, the end was bitter.
Everybody died tragically, in horrible ways. But it doesn’t have to
be the same in reality. According to a recent congressional bill of
the House of Representatives, of the United States, it was suggested
to condemn Hamas for its recent attacks on Israel. The bill states
that: “The House of Representatives:
1. Places the responsibility for this conflict solely on Hamas;
2. places the responsibility to stop using Gaza's territory as a
launching pad for terrorist attack solely on Hamas;
3. recognizes that there are many innocent Palestinian civilians
who
reject the terrorism of Hamas and who want nothing more than peace and
stability;
4. completely understands and strongly supports the right of the
sovereign Government of Israel in its efforts to defend its borders,
protect its people, and bring an end to the constant attacks
promulgated by Hamas;
5. emphasizes the friendship between the United States and the
nation
of Israel;
6. Urges the United Nations and our European allies to support
Israel
in its self-defense against all terrorist organizations, including
Hamas.”
Goldhagen in his book argues that condemning is not enough to stop
terrorism. He suggests that morality is not the language of
terrorism, and that the problem should be approached from the basics.
Therefore he suggests to target and scare leaders who support
terrorism, so that the followers won’t even dare to talk about
elimination ideas or ideologies.
Although I find Goldhagen’s ideas as the best and maybe the
only way
to fight terrorism, many others will disagree with me. I thought of
many ways and options to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as
well as many ways to fight terrorism. Yet, I always seem to get to
the same solution. There is no peaceful way to deal with ruthless
murderers, who look a child in the eyes right before they kill him.
So many innocent people died in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, just
like in the tragedy Titus Andronicus. Indeed, tragedy is probably the
best way to describe it. Both sides are right and at the same time,
both sides are wrong. The only ones, who benefit from the conflict,
are the Islamic terrorist groups, which plan their next attack, while
the world is concentrated on the Titus-Tamora conflict of the Middle
East. “It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished
unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets.”
~Voltaire, War
Work cited
Articles:
Benin J., Hajjar L. “Palestine, Israel and the Arab-Israeli Conflict,
A Primer.” Middle East Research And Information Project.
Luft. G. (2003). “The Logic of Israel's Targeted Killing.” The Middle
East Quarterly. 3-13 Retrieved from: http://www.meforum.org/
Prof. Yaar E., Prof. Hermann T. (2007) “Just another Forgotten Peace
Summit.” Haarez.com.
The Library of Congress. (2009). H. RES. 37: “Condemning Hamas for the
recent attacks against Israel.” Retrieved from http://thomas.loc.gov/
Books:
Goldhagen, D. J. (2009). Worse Than War. Genocide, Eliminationism,
and the Ongoing Assault
On Humanity, 490-506.
Shakespeare, W. and R. McDonald (ed.). 2000. Titus Andronicus. New
York: Pelican
Shakespeare.
I have some end-notes in my work that for some reason doesn't appear
York: Pelican
Shakespeare.
here :( It looks better work on the paper than online.
MG
Jun 4, 2010, 11:28:03 PM6/4/10
to English 101, spring 2010 online sections #0143 and #3226
Mariz Girgis
Proffesor Ed O’Connell
English 101
19 February 2010
Genocide vs War
Genocide has become increasingly more problematic than war. For the
past hundreds of years of our history bloody wars resulting from
genocide have plagued our world. World War one and two are the most
famous wars of our American history. War is the systematic fighting
between nations, but genocide is the systematic destruction of a
certain group of people and is mostly based on race or religion.
Although, both are awful (because genocide is the destruction of a
group of people and war is the destruction of humanilty), one would
prefer that we take a bigger look at genocide because the goal in
genocide is to kill a whole group on people and have no survivors. In
war people are being killed, but in the end there are survivors.
Daniel Jonah Goldhagen says to prevent genocide is to understand "
What it is. What they are. How they begin. How and why they end. Why
they unfold as they do. Why victims are chosen. Why the killers kill.
And, most of all, what we can do to stop them. (Goldhagen) " I
disagree with this because genocide is known as the destruction of a
group of people based on race or religion. So, I think there is no
point in thinking about its every aspect because it is known plainly
that genocide is aimed at a certain religion or race because of
extremist thought. Specific victims are chosen because they are from a
certain race or religion the killer (ex. Hitler) dislikes, etc. I
think the most important aspect we should look closer at is how and
what can we do to stop these barbarous crimes. I do agree with
Goldhagen in that genocide is worse than war. In the New York Times
article published by James Traub it says that " States must not only
abandon the logic of national interest, but also reshape the global
architecture around the goal of ending eliminationism. (Traub)" I am
total agreement with this opinion because if states that when people
all around the world put their hands in together, we could stop
eliminationism, because one hand alone can't succeeded in eliminating
genocide .
I think Daniel Jonah Goldhagen's argument is better than James
Taraub's argument. I would think that Daniel Jonah Goldhagen's
argument is better than James Taraub's argument because he gives more
information and explanation on genocide. He tries to find the reasons
and causes behind the problem so he could find a solution . James
Taraub's argument is not bad, but it's not as strong in details and
information as Goldhagen's argument.
Mariz Girgis
Professor O'Connell
English 101
5 March 2010
Violent acts are now in our everyday lives. But is killing an
act we do willingly, intentionally, or by force? Are we as humans
incapable of attaining peace because of something in our biology? Or
is it certain conditions that turn us to merciless monsters? Is the
act of Truman the same as the act of Hitler? What makes genocide
happen? Daniel Jonah Goldhagen the author of the book "Worse than War"
argues about how genocide, elimination, annihilation are inhumane,
extremely wrong, and evil. In his book he claims "eliminationists are
not born as killers, but follow some paths that cause them in the end
to kill (Goldhagen 92)." Therefore, with that statement stated,
Goldhagen therefore states that killing is not a result of biology but
of circumstances, certain thoughts, pressures, etc. Humans are not
killing machines and they are not biologically born killers, but they
are sometimes forced or triggered in some circumstances to kill. It's
true some kill willingly, but it does not mean that in their genes
they are born killers. Sometimes, people are forced to kill such as in
wars. People in war do not kill because intentionally they want to
kill, but they are forced to kill their enemies or else they will be
killed.
Human beings have free will in any decision or any act they take
part of, even under extreme conditions. Goldhagen claims that “even in
the killing of Jews by the German Nazis, no German perpetrator was
punished in any way for refusing to kill a Jew ( Goldhagen 149)."
Therefore, humans do have the free will to refuse to kill even under
extreme circumstances and conditions. Goldhagen also claims that
“social psychological pressure causes people to kill other ( Goldhagen
154)." Even under social psychological pressure humans have the free
will to choose if they want to slaughter others. It is the people’s
own weakened consciences and lack of thinking in the matters of right
and wrong that causes them to commit these horrific and unspeakable
acts. If social psychological pressure is one cause that moves people
to kill others than lots of people should be killing. Some people are
not easily affected by pressure like others, but it's the person
himself/herself that give themselves the opportunity to be easily
affected by pressure. It is by there own will rather.
It was said that "the Japanese had not surrendered despite
repeated ultimatums and they did not surrender even when they are
losing many lives (reviewjournal.com)." But Goldhagen claims that "the
Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender ( Goldhagen
201)." Goldhagen is right because at the time of Truman, people were
blinded by racism. However, Truman said that the easiest way to end
the war is to bomb the Japanese rather than have to invade the
Japanese homeland. All in all, wars, genocide, elimination, all
violent acts will be difficult to defeat, but if people join hands in
the name of God, then one day, through faith all hate will be
defeated.
Mariz Girgis
Professor O'Connell
English 101
18 March 2010
The Israeli government did nothing wrong when they decided to go
to Dubai and kill Hamas terrorist Mahmoud Mabhouh. That's even if
they were the ones who were in charge of the slaying of Mahmoud
Mabhouh. Just because the Israelis are known for killing or getting
back at their enemies according to their detractors that is, it does
not mean they were responsible of the slaying of Mahmoud Mabhouh.
Even
if they were in charge, they did not commit a crime because Mahmoud
Mabhouh was known to have committed several barbarous acts against
Israel. For example, he abducted two Israeli soldiers and killed
them.
How so? It was because he was cold hearted racist person that hated
everybody who is not from the same country or religion. This travesty
is genocide. In the left wing bias media however, the Los Angeles
Times keeps targeting Israeli's for the killing of Mahmoud Mabhouh as
an act of terror. If they were a proponent of keeping the region safe
and secure from ethnic and religious targeted terrorism, the media
should back them up. If the "Israeli government" or the "Israeli's
Mossad spy agency" was truly in charge of the killing of this
terrorist then the Israeli's did the world a favor by protecting them
further from terrorists that ravage the world of peace-seeking
people.
Golhagen believes or claims that perpetrators like Mahmoud Mabhouh
are thinking in terms of war. These people want to make war against
humanity. Goldhagen claims that "if they are making war, the rules of
war apply (spiegel.de)." He also claims that, "we should encourage
those who can to kill them (spiegel.de)." According to Goldhagen the
Israeli government did the right thing because by removing the threat
of Mahmoud Mabhouh, they were saving innocent people from being
brutally murdered in large numbers. In this manner the Israeli
government acted in self defense. The LA Times states that "there is
they must think about what if Mahmoud Mabhouh was never caught? What
would the further consequences be? And if was just simply caught and
arrested, should he be kept alive for the sake of political
correctness while the blood from murdering innocent people remains on
him?
The removal of Mahmoud Mabhouh, just like many other terrorists
and elminationists who have threatened our society, was certainly
justified. Even though it is not any human being's decision to decide
who lives or who doesn't, these elminationists must have to be dealt
with, sometimes their deaths might be the only way for them to truly
no longer be a threat. So, if someone has to be killed then it should
be people like Mahmoud Mabhouh and his other elminationists buddies.
It's not fair for them to kill innocent people because of the way
they
look, where they come from, or what religion they are. Terrorists,
elminationists, etc must be stopped to protect Truth, Justice, and
Freedom. Nobody wants to kill anybody, but in war, the enemy often
leaves us with no other choice.
Works Cited
Articles.latimes.com. Los Angeles Times, Winter 2009. Web. 18 Mar.
2010. <http://articles.latimes.com/2010/feb/21/opinion/la-oe-miller-
web21-2010feb21>.
Mariz Girgis
Professor O'Connell
English 101
26 March 2010
After watching Ishmael Beah speak, one’s opinion has strongly
changed from thinking that all individuals involved in genocide
should
be annihilated.In his book, Goldhagen states that the United Nations
as it is structured presently, is of very little use when it comes to
the issue of the solution to genocide. The Truth and Reconciliation
Commission Report is much more humanitarian and gentle in its
approach
but is still not very effective.
Middle ground is where true and effective solutions can come forth.
Take for example the question of whether or not the problem of
political Islam is as great a threat as Goldhagen proposes it to be.
Is political islam a true threat that should be addressed in the most
serious manner? The answer is an overwhelming yes.
It is Noam Chomsky who needs a political wake up call. The issue
behind the Middle East Conflict is not the west as one tends to
think.
Here is how extremist religion comes into play with politics in the
Middle East. The majority of everyday people in the Middle East are
poverty stricken. Unemployment is high and political power runs in
the
hands of corrupt governments that keep their people from uprising
against them by brainwashing them with radical Islamic ideas (through
the media, schools, mosques, etc). Why? Merely because these
governments want their people occupied with ideas other than that of
actually seeking freedom and a just government.
A society where children are nursed ideas that the West is the
greatest of infidels and radical Islam should rule in order to attain
more pleasant lives, breeds terrorists. Instead of triggering their
anger at their unfair governments, these people trigger their anger
at
the “infidels”.
Now imagine a society like this in almost every Middle Eastern
country. That is millions of angry people that think the West should
be destroyed.
We must bring back our attention though to the main question that
lurks in our minds regarding genocide: How do we deal with genocide?
Individuals like Ishael Beah shed light on the fact that not
everyone involved in genocide is a psychopathic, conscienceless
monster. One must understand that the victims are sometimes the
perpetrators of the heinous
acts themselves. Sure they may have pulled the trigger or stabbed the
knife, but that does not tell us what forced them to. Ishmael was a
child who had no one left in his life. His need as a child for a
family made him meddle with people who took advantage of his fear and
hopelessness.
When dealing with genocide, one must listen to both the TRC and
Goldhagen. It is people behind the hateful ideologies and extreme
political agendas that should be annihilated. Innocent people like
Beah should be spared because they are indeed victims themselves.
Self
defense , justice, and mercy is the way to protect innocents from
being slaughtered while at the same time standing up against those
who
crave the blood of millions of innocent people.
Works cited
Bordersmedia.com. Ishmael Beah, 2008. Web. 25 Mar. 2010. <<http://
www.bordersmedia.com/liveat01/beah>>.
Unicef.org. Unicef.org, 2004. Web. 25 Mar. 2010. <<http://
www.unicef.org/infobycountry/files/TRCCF9SeptFINAL.pdf>>.
Chomsky.info. Islamica Magazine, April & May 2007. Web. 25 Mar. 2010.
<http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/200704--.htm>.
Mariz Girgis
Professor O'Connell
English 101
2 March 2010
At the time of President Truman people were very racist. Was dropping
two atomic bombs on Japan an act of racism or was it the truly the
only way to stop the war faster? It was said that dropping two atomic
bombs into Japan during the war was the right decision President
Harry
S. Truman did (reviewjournal.com). In the book Worse than war by
Goldhagen, the author claims that "the Japanese were already defeated
and ready to surrender (201)." Is mass slaughtering in any condition
a right solution to take just to stop war faster? Mass slaughter
should never and can never be excused because it goes against
humanity
and the rights of innocent lives to life.
In the year 1945 on August 6th President Harry Truman decided to
drop two atomic bombs on the city of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He
dropped one bomb called the "Little Boy" on Hiroshima and after a few
days President Truman decided to drop another atomic bomb called "Fat
Man" on the city of Nagasaki (worldwar2database.com). According to
Goldhagen,eighty-five percent Americans were for the bombing of
innocents because the people being bombed were simply Japanese (201).
In both cities, thousands of innocent people died because of the
decision President Truman did. About seventy five-thousand people
died
in Hiroshima and seventy-thousand people in Nagaski. Mass slaughter
can never be excused under the label of "combating" an enemy. If
there
is even one single innocent life (and let alone not thousands) it is
not but combat but murder plain and simple. The times of Truman were
clearly racist times. It was a time of when blacks and whites were
segregated because of race.
Genocide, elimination, dictators have surrounded us all over
the world throughout history, even going back to when the Egyptians
enslaved the Hebrews in ancient civilization. In today’s world with
mass weaponry and where conflicts are on a worldwide scale, is it
safe
for us and our children to live and be raised in a world where a
person can not live in freedom and personal responsibility. No, we
are
in a world where ethnic cleansers and dictators rise, where humans
are
being killed or slaughtered just for the way they look, where they
come from, what their religion is?, Is it a world full of war? Is it
humane for a person to kill an innocent child just because their
family is from a different race? Is the only way to keep our
children safe and this world safe from violence, genocide,
elimination, and dictators is to get back at our enemy and kill/
slaughter them? Is murder the solution?
In an interview with Worse than war book writer Daniel J.
Goldhagen, the author claims that in his point of view killing the
perpetrators is the only solution to keep this world safe from
violence and genocide. Some people might think or will think that
this
humane and that it is murder. But come to think of it, that seems to
be the only solution to stop genocide. These murderers kill large
amount of innocent people without any conscience. Why? Just because
they dislike the way they look, where they come from, what their
religion is? So, is it fair for people like that to live in the world
while the innocent people get killed and people who are still alive
live in fear that they could be next victims? Should our children be
raised in a world where look matters and there is no freedom. Should
they live in a world where genocide rises and haunt them forever. No,
they should not! Then if the only way to keep this world safe from
these horrific elimationist is to kill them, so let it be. It's
better
to kill a person like Osama Bin Laden for example, then for some one
like Osama Bin Laden kill a huge amount of innocent people.
Eliminating one person like that from the world is not killing, but
saving.
The Congressional bill H.CON.RES.7 backs up what has been said in the
previous paragraphs on top. One Agrees one-hundred percent with the
Congressional bill H.CON.RES.7 because it fights for universal
freedom
and human rights. It fights for the respect of other races, creeds,
and colors (thomas.loc.gov). It fights against intolerance and
prejudice (thomas.loc.gov). All in all, slaughtering a large amount
of
innocent lives no matter what the cause; is extremely inhumane.
References
Worldwar2database.com. Worldwar2database.com, 2007. Web. 3 Apr. 2010.
<http://www.worldwar2database.com/html/atombomb.htm>.
Reviewjournal.com. Las Vegas Review-Journal, 6 Aug. 2005. Web. 3 Apr.
2010. <http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2005/Aug-06-Sat-2005/
opinion/2794069.html>.
Nytimes.com. New York Times, 6 Aug. 1995. Web. 3 Apr. 2010. <<http://
www.nytimes.com/1995/08/06/opinion/hiroshima-50-years-later.html?page...>>.
Thomas.loc.gov. The Library of Congress, 2009. Web. 3 Apr. 2010.
<http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d111:1:./temp/
~bdVts9:@@@L&summ2=m&|/bss/111search.html|>.
Spiegel.de. Spiegel, 10 Aug. 2009. Web. 3 Apr. 2010. <<http://
www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,653938,00.html>>.
Mariz Girgis
Professor O'Connell
English 101
23 April 2010
When one ponders about the question of whether or not
President Harry Truman’s Atomic bomb had racist motives behind it,
one
must take into account the society and circumstances of the
situation.
One must take a fair stand and weigh all the evidence in order to
understand if hatred and prejudice fueled an already inflamed
situation eventually leading to a horrific historical tragedy. With
the above mentioned, research into the subject has lead to an
understanding that racism had indeed a great hand the atomic bombing
of Japan. One will and cannot sugarcoat history and with that being
said one must admit at the time when President Truman was president
was in office society was indeed very racist. The 1940’s was a time
where ethnic segregation was a norm. It was a time when racial
stereotyping was embraced and some ethnicities were held up higher
than others (ex. Rosa Park). Was dropping two atomic bombs on Japan
an
act of racism or was it the truly the only way to stop the war
faster?
(reviewjournalwebsite). It was said that dropping two atomic bombs
into Japan during the war was the right decision President Harry S.
Truman did In the book Worse than War by Goldhagen, the author claims
that "the Japanese were already defeated and ready to
surrender" (201). Mass slaughter should never and can never be
excused because it goes against humanity and the rights of the
innocent to life.
On August 6th 1945 by President Harry Truman’s order, the US
dropped two atomic bombs on the city of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. One
bomb called "Little Boy" on Hiroshima and after a few days President
Truman decided to drop another atomic bomb called "Fat Man" on the
city of Nagasaki (worldwar2database website). According to Goldhagen,
85% Americans were for the bombing of innocents because the people
being bombed were simply Japanese (201). In both cities, thousands of
innocent people died because of President Truman’s decision. About
seventy five-thousand people died in Hiroshima and seventy-thousand
people in Nagaski. Mass slaughter can never be excused under the
label
of "combating" an enemy. If there is even one single innocent life
(let alone thousands) it is not but combat but murder plain and
simple. The times of Truman were clearly racist times. It was a time
of when blacks and whites were segregated because of race.
Genocide, elimination, dictators have surrounded us all over
the world throughout history, even going back to when the Egyptians
enslaved the Hebrews in ancient civilization. In today’s world with
mass weaponry and where conflicts are on a worldwide scale, is it
safe
for us and our children to live and be raised in a world where a
person can not live in freedom and personal responsibility. No, we
are
in a world where ethnic cleansers and dictators rise, where humans
are
being killed or slaughtered just for the way they look, where they
come from, their religion? It is a world full of war. Is it humane
for a person to kill an innocent child just because their family is
from a different race? Is the only way to keep our children safe and
this world safe from violence, genocide, elimination, and dictators
is to get back at our enemy and kill/slaughter them? Is murder the
solution? The answer is an obvious and obsolete no. It seems like
that
was the case though in 1945. The biggest damning evidence of this is
in the book Worse than War. The book states that Japan had already
been defeated militarily and had already surrendered (Goldhagen).
There was absolutely no excuse to further unneeded causalities
especially the helpless. The only reason one can think of that people
would want the bombing of an already broken people is racism. Maybe
though the war against Japan had some legitimacy for it. Maybe it was
to protect people. But one cannot help though when thinking about
genocide what should be done to people with blatant and obvious
intentions of killing the innocent on a whim. Examples of people like
this are Osama Bin Laden, Adolf Hitler, and Hamas. These people flat
out preach and encourage the murder of innocents.
In an interview Worse than War book Daniel J. Goldhagen, the author
claims that in his point of view killing the perpetrators is the only
solution to keep this world safe from violence and genocide. Some
people might think or will think this humane or that it is murder.
That seems to be the only solution to stop genocide. These murderers
kill large amount of innocent people without any consci ence. Why?
Just because they dislike the way they look, where they come from,
what their religion is? So, is it fair for people like that to live
in the world while the innocent people get killed and people who are
still alive live in fear that they could be next victims? Should our
children be raised in a world where look matters and there is no
freedom. Should they live in a world where genocide rises and haunt
them forever. No, they should not! Then if the only way to keep this
world safe from these horrific eliminationists is to kill them, so
let
it be. It's better to kill a person like Osama Bin Laden for example,
then for some one like Osama Bin Laden to kill a huge amount of
innocent people. Eliminating one person like that from the world is
not killing, but saving thousands of lives instead.
Congressional bill H.CON.RES.7 confirms what has been said previously
in this writing. One should agree completely with what H.CON.RES.7
intends because it champions universal freedom and human rights. It
acknowledges the respect of other races, creeds, and colors
(thomas.loc.gov), and takes a stand against intolerance and
prejudice.
All in all, the slaughtering of innocent lives no matter what the
cause is extremely inhumane.
References
Worldwar2database.com. Worldwar2database.com, 2007. Web. 3 Apr. 2010.
<http://www.worldwar2database.com/html/atombomb.htm>.
Reviewjournal.com. Las Vegas Review-Journal, 6 Aug.2005.Web.3 Apr.
2010
<http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2005/Aug-06-Sat-2005/opinion/
2794069.html>
Nytimes.com. New York Times, 6 Aug. 1995. Web.3 Apr. 2010
<http://www.nytimes.com/1995/08/06/opinion/hiroshima-50-years-
later.html?pagewanted=1
Thomas.loc.gov. Rep Jackson-Lee, Sheila, 1 July 2009. Web. 3 Apr.
2010. <http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d111:2:./temp/
~bdRxzn::|/bss/111search.html|>.
Spiegel.de. Spiegel, 10 Agu.2009. Web. 3 Apr. 2010
<http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,653938,00.html
Short Story by Mariz Girgis
Professor O’Connell
English 101
23 April 2010
It was seven o'clock in the morning in Hiroshima when I
heard a loud boom and felt as if the world was shaking under my feet.
Smoke filled my house right away. I was playing with my baby brother
Ben when all of a sudden I heard the loud sound and heard my mother
screaming and running to my bed room while carrying my younger sister
Lee. Mother was pushing us out the room as fast as she could. It was
the first time in my whole entire life I saw this kind of fear in my
mother’s eyes. But with all that screaming, fear, and panicking
mother
still had the strength to calm my siblings and I down. Going down the
stairs of our apartment building people were yelling and screaming. I
thought it was the end of the world. Other people were lying down on
the stairs breathless. I was in shock.
I remember crying my eyes out. Some of these same people were our
neighbors and friends. We had celebrated events together. We had gone
to schools and jobs together. We were almost family. I remember
running down the stairs ahead of my mother, but I felt as if my whole
body was frozen like an ice berg. I cannot fathom how I was ahead of
her. It was as if my whole body was paralyzed in shock and fear. I
couldn’t even move a finger, I couldn’t even blink. Yet I kept
moving.
Everything happened so fast. It happened in the blink of an eye. The
screams were getting louder and louder as we approached the street.
The yelling was as if we were in a tunnel. As I furthered myself from
the echoes of screaming people I was only approached with more
screaming as we went from street to street. I was so terrified, fear
took over my body. There were hundreds of bodies on the ground. Dead
bodies of women, men, even children filled the streets of Hiroshima!
It was shocking to see the kinds of mutilations some of the bodies
had
suffered. I couldn’t stop crying. I remember seeing this one woman
holding her half naked son. He was soaked in blood. He was just
drenched in blood. The woman held her lifeless son in her arms. She
was crying and screaming “help!” She was wailing so bitterly.” Please
someone help!,” she cried. “ My son is bleeding! My son is dead!”
The tears on her face were like pouring rain drops.
The most difficult experience of my life was walking through
the streets of Hiroshima that day. The stench of death was
everywhere.
The sight of misery and despair filled Hiroshima. Searching the
streets on Hiroshima for my father was very heart wrenching. I was so
terrified. Where was my daddy? Was there hope he’d come back home
today? I couldn’t help but remember how he kissed me before going to
work. It was the last time we had a normal day. I couldn’t help think
of every memory we had together. I remembered how he held me. I
remembered how he took us to school every morning. I remembered the
way my siblings and I always ran to him when he came home from work
asking if he brought us any candy. I remembered how he would recite
the Lord’s prayer with us right before we slept every night. I missed
my daddy so much at that moment. I wanted so much to hold him and
tell
him how much I loved him. Hours and hours of walking and searching
had
gone by. We were so tired and weary. We couldn’t stop searching
though. My father was out there. How could we stop? What if he was
hurt? What if he needed us? We sure needed him.
We went to my father’s work place. He wasn’t there. We were
told by one of his co-workers that he had gone to do repairs at a
client’s house when the bomb hit. I was horrified. Could my father
have been on the street when the bomb hit? Some of his co worker’s
survived because they were in the building and the building had
miraculously held up. I was angry. How could they send my father out
like that? Why especially today of all days?! I started screaming and
crying. My mother kept questioning about which client and which
street
he had gone through.It took a while to get an answer we could rely
on.
One of the workers brought out the list of repair addresses for that
day.
About an hour later and what seemed to be ages of searching, we
found him. What we found though was unbearable. My heart sank. My
life
had crumbled before my eyes. There he was. My father’s breathless
dead
body on the ground. Never in my life would I have imagined to see my
father in this heart breaking condition. It was horrific. It was
inhumane I was stabbed with horror, pain, and shock. His arm was torn
off, his whole body was full of scars, and half his cloths were burnt
off. He was drenched in blood and my family was drenched in misery.
My
daddy was dead. I would never get to tell him I loved him when he
comes back home because he was never coming back home. My mom,
sister,
and toddler brother were screaming and so was I. Our world was torn
apart. Tears were running down my face. It took years for us to try
and live without my father being there everyday and everytime I would
cry because I missed my father so much my mother would wipe away my
tears and try and comfort me when I knew she herself needed comfort.
No matter how much she would try to wipe away my tears though, she
was
never able to wipe the stain of pain that still exists in my heart to
this very day.
Mariz Girgis
Even in our seemingly civilized world today humans still use
violence as a resort to avenge against specific people to help
relieve
grievance. What is an even catastrophic and sad truth is that there
are still those who carry hateful feelings and evil intentions
against
their fellow man because of things like ethnicity, culture, religion,
gender, etc. These hateful and bitter individuals feel if it is their
priority, right, or even duty to inflict pain and evil against a
specific person (or people). And if these people who are attacked
strike back in self defense, the racist offenders feel the need for
revenge. To them, revenge is the only way to eliminate sufferings.
Even though the hatred in their heart remains the same, at least they
feel that they fulfilled with their revenge.
Even though individuals like Hitler are not around (with the exact
prejudice, and racisms ), there are still those who have similar
racist and prejudice minds except their hatred is targeted because of
other reasonings. An example of two countries that are in a continual
war with each other is the Israeli – Palestinian conflict.
Unfortunately the Hamas run government will not accept peace at any
price because it’s idealogy is fueled by hatred and prejudice against
Jews. And although it seams like vengeance fills Israel’s actions
sometimes it is just that: vengance. Israel’s attacks are usually
done
in response to terror offenses done by Hamas Israel’s whole existence
is not based on trying to wipe out a whole culture or people. That
does not however mean that revenge is right morally or ethically.
Revenge is a theme in both the Israeli Hamas Conflict today and in
Shakespeare’s Titus Andronicus novel. The stories of Titus and Tamora
and the Hamas have something very significant in common: revenge
against an enemy. In Shakespeare’s novel Titus Andronicus most of the
characters wanted revenge from against each other. The two characters
that caught ones attention were Titus and Tamora. Their characters
have an abundance of similarities to the Israeli Hamas Conflict.
Tamora's revenge on Titus is so similar to the Israeli's government
revenge on the founder of Hamas Mahmoud Mabhouh. Titus’s character is
similar Mahmoud Mabhouh and the Israeli government is similar to
Tamora’s character. In Shakespeare’s story Titus Andronicus Titus
felt a tremendous religious duty to sacrifice Tamora’s eldest son
Alarbus so he can avenge his sons who died in the war. As a mother of
course, Tamora begged Titus not to kill her son, but Titus refused.
Tamora could not sleep until her son’s revenge was taken. Doing that,
Tamora took her son's revenge by killing the son of the late emperor
of Rome Bassianus and made both her sons rape Titus's daughter
Lavinia. Following that, Tamora then framed both Titus's sons Martius
and Quintus in the killing of the emperor son Bassianus. This part of
the story is so similar to the Israeli Hamas conflict. It is very
similar to the avenging of the Israelis in 1972. In 1972 a group of
Palestinian terrorist group killed 11 Israeli athletes and coaches at
the Munich Olympics in a barbaric and brutal way. They killed the
athletes with no conscience and no heart. Some say that the Israeli
government is known for getting back at their enemies (latimes.com).
As revenge for the 11 Israeli athletes and coaches that were killed
by
Mahmoud Mabhouh, the Israeli decided to go to Dubai and kill Hamas
terrorist Mahmoud Mabhouh.
The only difference between the Israeli Hamas conflict and
Shakespeare’s story Titus Andronicus is that the Israeli Hamas
conflict is considered genocide and elimination. Mahmoud Mabhouh
wants
to terrorize , slaughter, and kill people just because he is filled
with prejudice against this group of people. He does it because he
hates where this group of people are from. He dislikes these people
because of who they were born to be. He despises them because they
are
Jews. Individuals like People like Mahmoud Mabhouh are born thinking
that without a doubt it is morally and ethically right to slaughter
Jews. Mahmoud Mabhouh in this manner is at war against humanity.
Golhagen’s analysis claims that elimnationists like Mahmoud Mabhouh
are thinking in terms of war. Goldhagen claims that "if they are
making war, the rules of war apply (spiegel.de)." Shakespeare’s story
Titus Andronicus is not considered genocide and/or elimination. It is
not considered genocide or elimination because Titus did not want to
kill a group of people because he hates their religion, culture,
race,
or where they came from. He killed Tamora’s son because he thought it
was a religious duty to sacrifice Tamora’s eldest son Alarbus so he
can avenge his sons who died in the war. Titus’s anger is fueled by
personal issues (losing a loved one). Titus is at war against the
person who killed his son. He is not at war with a whole nation or
race. What Titus did is not considered genocide, elimination, or even
war because genocide is the destruction of a group of people and war
is the destruction of humanity. It is blatantly clear that Titus did
neither of these. If both Titus and what the Hamas founder Mohamed
Mabouh actions were brought forth to be judged in a court room, one
believes that they would both be sentenced very differently. Take for
example what Goldhagen states about Truman and Hitler. Goldhagen
claims that if Truman and Hitler were judged in a courtroom both
Truman and Hitler would be judged differently because what Hitler did
is different from what Truman did (Worse than War pg 8). In his book
Goldhagen claims that, Hitler killed Jews because he had an unfounded
delusional belief that Jews were the source of evil. Truman
slaughtered the Japanese because he thought that if he struck them
with the atomic bomb they would surrender and the war would end
faster
and more effeciently (pg 8). By this standard of judgement, Hamas
founder Mahmoud Mabhouh and Titus have very different motives behind
killing. Mahmoud Mabhouh killed because he is filled with prejudice
against this group of people and Titus killed because he wanted to
avenge his sons who died in the war.
Goldhagen’s analysis on recommendations for preventing future
eliminationism states that "we should encourage those who can to kill
them (spiegel.de)." He claims that if someone has the courage to kill
people like Hamas founder Mahmoud Mabhouh than we should encourage
them more to do it. One agrees with Goldhagen because the killing of
mass slaughterers saves the world from cold hearted killers who would
slaughter and murder a large number of innocent human beings. If
someone has the courage to kill people like Mahmoud Mabhouh then that
person is saving many innocent people from being brutally murdered in
large numbers. It is true that us as human beings have no right to
say
who should die and who should live, but when it comes to people like
Mahmoud Mabhouh one believes he and people like him should be
sentenced to death. It seems like a justified judgment that people
like Mahmoud Mabhouh should get what is coming to them as a result of
their actions. Removing terrorists and elminationists in this world
who are like Mahmoud Mabhouh (who have threatened, terrorized and put
society under suffering) is certainly justified. In the Los Angeles
times article they claim that is was “wrong for the Israeli
government
to go to a different country that is not theirs and kill Mahmoud
Mabhouh (articles.latimes.com).” The LA time’s point of view is that
“the killing of a murderer is not right because if that murderer was
caught, they could have been arrested and brought to justice
(articles.latimes.com).” It is true that the killing of a murderer is
not right because if that murderer was caught, they could have been
arrested and brought to justice; but what if this murderer was never
caught? The world will just be left with a nonstop murderer, who will
kill in large numbers with no mercy. Also, why should a cold hearted
murderer be arrested and be kept alive for the sake of political
reasons when the blood of many innocents remain on his or her hands?
One agrees one hundred percent with Goldhagen’s analysis and if the
only way to protect the world from people like Mahmoud Mabhouh is for
them to be killed then that is what should be done.
Works cited
Articles.latimes.com. Los Angeles Times, Winter 2009. Web. 6 May.
2010. <http://articles.latimes.com/2010/feb/21/opinion/la-oe-miller-
web21-2010feb21>.
Spiegel.de. Spiegel.de, 10 Aug. 2009. Web. 6 May. 2010. <<http://
www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,653938,00.html>>.
Goldhagen, Daniel Jonah. Worse Than War. 1st Ed. New York: Public
Affairs, 2009. Print.
Mariz Girgis
Even in our seemingly civilized world today humans still use
violence , to take revenges against specific people to help relieve
grievance. What is an even more sad and catastrophic truth is that
there are still those who carry hateful feelings and evil intentions
against their fellow man because of things like ethnicity, culture,
religion, or gender. These hateful and bitter individuals feel if it
is their priority, right, or even duty to inflict pain and evil
against a specific person (or people). If these people who are
attacked strike back in self defense, the racist offenders feel the
need for revenge. To them, revenge is the only way to eliminate
suffering.
Even though individuals like Hitler are not around (with the exact
prejudice, and racisms ), there are still those who have similar
racist and prejudiced minds, except their hatred is targeted because
of other reasons. An example of two peoples that are in a continual
war with each other are the Israelis – Palestinians . Unfortunately,
the Hamas - run government will not accept peace at any price because
its idealogy is fueled by hatred and prejudice against Jews. Although
it may seem as if vengeance fills Israel’s actions, sometimes it is
just that ; vengeance. Israel’s attacks are usually done in response
to terror offenses done by Hamas. Israel’s whole existence is not
based on trying to wipe out a whole culture or people. That does not,
however, mean that revenge is right morally or ethically. After all,
if the only defense to an offense is an equally heinous act, what
makes the offended person better than the offender? Revenge comes
from
equal bitterness.
Revenge is a theme in both the Israeli Hamas Conflict today and
in Shakespeare’s play Titus Andronicus . The stories of Titus and
Tamora and the Hamas have something very significant in common:
revenge against an enemy. In Shakespeare’s Titus Andronicus most of
the characters want revenge against each other. The two characters
Titus and Tamora , share an abundance of similarities with the
Israeli
-Hamas Conflict. Tamora's revenge on Titus is so similar to the
Israeli's government revenge on the founder of Hamas: Mahmoud
Mabhouh. Titus’s character is similar to Mahmoud Mabhouh, and the
Israeli government is similar to Tamora’s character. In Shakespeare’s
story Titus Andronicus , Titus felt a tremendous religious duty to
sacrifice Tamora’s eldest son Alarbus so he can avenge his sons who
died in the war. As a mother, of course, Tamora begged Titus not to
kill her son, but Titus refused. Tamora could not sleep until her
son’s revenge was taken. Tamora took revenge for her son by killing
the son of the late emperor of Rome, Bassianus. She also made both
her
sons rape Titus's daughter Lavinia. Following that, Tamora then
framed
Titus's sons Martius and Quintus for the killing of the emperor son
Bassianus. This part of the story is so similar to the Israeli Hamas
conflict. It is very similar to the avenging of the Israelis in 1972.
In 1972, a group of Palestinian terrorist group killed 11 Israeli
athletes and coaches at the Munich Olympics in a barbaric and brutal
way. They killed the athletes with no conscience and no heart. Some
say that the Israeli government is known for getting back at their
enemies (articles.latimes.com). As revenge for the 11 Israeli
athletes and coaches that were killed by Mahmoud Mabhouh, the Israeli
decided to go to Dubai and kill Hamas terrorist Mahmoud Mabhouh.
The only difference between the Israeli Hamas conflict and
Shakespeare’s story Titus Andronicus is that the Israeli Hamas
conflict is considered genocide and elimination. Mahmoud Mabhouh
wants
to terrorize , slaughter, and kill people because he is filled with
prejudice against this group of people. He does it because he hates
where this group of people are from. He dislikes these people because
of who they were born to be. He despises them because they are Jews.
Individuals like People like Mahmoud Mabhouh are born thinking that
without a doubt it is morally and ethically right to slaughter Jews.
Mahmoud Mabhouh in this manner is at war against humanity. Golhagen’s
analysis claims that elimnationists like Mahmoud Mabhouh are thinking
in terms of war (spiegel.de). Goldhagen claims "if they are making
war, the rules of war apply (spiegel.de)." Shakespeare’s story Titus
Andronicus is not considered genocide and/or elimination. Titus did
not want to kill a group of people because he hated their religion,
culture, race, or where they came from. He killed Tamora’s son
because
he thought it was a religious duty to sacrifice Tamora’s eldest son
Alarbus, so he could avenge his sons who died in the war. Titus’s
anger is fueled by personal issues (losing a loved one). Titus is at
war against the person who killed his son. He is not at war with a
whole nation or race. What Titus did is not considered genocide,
elimination, or even war because genocide is the destruction of a
group of people and war is the destruction of humanity. It is
blatantly clear that Titus did neither of these. If both Titus, and
Hamas founder Mohamed Mabouh, actions were brought forth to be
judged in a court room, they would likely be sentenced very
differently. Take for example what Goldhagen states about Truman and
Hitler. Goldhagen claims that if Truman and Hitler were judged in a
courtroom, both Truman and Hitler would be judged differently because
what Hitler did is different from what Truman did (Worse than War pg
8). In his book Goldhagen , claims that, Hitler killed Jews because
he had an unfounded delusional belief that Jews were the source of
evil. Truman slaughtered the Japanese because he thought that if he
struck them with the atomic bomb they would surrender, and the war
would end faster and more effeciently (pg 8). By this standard of
judgement, Hamas founder Mahmoud Mabhouh and Titus have very
different
motives behind killing.
Goldhagen’s analysis on recommendations for preventing future
eliminationism states that "we should encourage those who can to kill
them (spiegel.de)." He claims that if someone has the courage to kill
people like Hamas founder Mahmoud Mabhouh, then we should encourage
them more to do it. Goldhagen is correct because the killing of mass
slaughterers saves the world from cold hearted killers who would
slaughter and murder large numbers of innocent human beings. If
someone has the courage to kill people like Mahmoud Mabhouh, then
that person will be saving many innocent people from being brutally
murdered in large numbers. It true that we as human beings have no
right to say who should die and who should live, but when it comes to
people like Mahmoud Mabhouh, he and people like him should be
sentenced to death. It is just that people like Mahmoud Mabhouh
should
get what is coming to them as a result of their actions. Removing
terrorists and elminationists like Mahmoud Mabhouh (who have
threatened, terrorized and put society under suffering ) is certainly
justified. In the Los Angeles Times claims that it was “wrong for the
Israeli government to go to a different country that is not theirs
and
kill Mahmoud Mabhouh (articles.latimes.com).” The LA times point of
view is that “the killing of a murderer is not right because if that
murderer was caught, they could have been arrested and brought to
justice (articles.latimes.com).” It is true that the killing of a
murderer is not right because if that murderer was caught, they could
have been arrested and brought to justice; but what if this murderer
was never caught? If the a man like Mahmoud Mabhouh was not killed,
there is no doubt that the world would still have yet another mass
murderer on the loose. What makes individuals like Mahmoud Mabhouh
even more threatening is that they encourage others to kill. They
indirectly breed more terrorists. Killing a mass murderer is
considered self defense. No court in the world would say that self
defense is a crime. If people like Mahmoud Mabhouh are not dealt
with,
then the world will just be left with a nonstop murderer, who will
kill in large numbers with no mercy. Also, why should a cold hearted
murderer be arrested and be kept alive for the sake of political
reasons when the blood of many innocents remain on his or her hands?
One agrees one hundred percent with Goldhagen’s analysis and if the
only way to protect the world from people like Mahmoud Mabhouh is for
them to be killed then that is what should be done.
It is easy for the Los Angeles Times to say that killing Mahmoud
Mabhouh is wrong for the sake of political correctness because those
who wrote the article have no clue what it is like to be Israel.
Israel is attacked regularly by suicide bombers. Israel has to deal
with terrorists on a daily basis. It has no choice but to kill a
terrorist who threatens its people whether these people are men,
women, or children.
works cited
Miller, Marjorie. "Targeted for Death - Los Angeles Times." Featured
Articles From The Los Angeles Times. 21 Feb. 2010. Web. 6 May 2010.
<http://articles.latimes.com/2010/feb/21/opinion/la-oe-miller-
web21-2010feb21>.
Alston, Philip. "Targeted for Death - Los Angeles Times." Featured
Articles From The Los Angeles Times. 21 Feb. 2010. Web. 6 May 2010.
<http://articles.latimes.com/2010/feb/21/opinion/la-oe-miller-
web21-2010feb21>.
SPIEGEL. "SPIEGEL Interview with Daniel Jonah Goldhagen: 'Mass
Slaughter Is a Systemic Problem of the Modern World' - SPIEGEL ONLINE
- News - International." SPIEGEL ONLINE - Nachrichten. 10 Aug. 2009.
Web. 6 May 2010. <http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/
0,1518,653938,00.html>.
Mariz Girgis
English 101 section 3226
Title: Denouncing the practices of female genital mutilation,
domestic
violence, "honor" killings, acid burnings, dowry deaths, and other
gender- based persecutions, expressing the sense of Congress that
participation, protection, recognition, and equality of women is
crucial to achieving a just, moral and peaceful society, and for
other
purposes. 1/7/2009
a) One thing I like about this bill is that it presents women. It
fights for the rights of women. How women should be treated equally.
How they have the right of ownership of property, education, etc.
Women should not be treated as slaves just based on gender. It mainly
protects women from violence and violation. I also like how the bill
relates to what Goldhagen said in that it helps prevent mass cruelty,
injustices, and even murder against multitudes of women around the
world.
b) I respect this bill so much that I really do not see anything I do
not like about it. If anything, I only wish it was more powerful in
that it speaks of more specifics in how the protection of women will
go about.
c) Again, the only thing that remains very vague about this bill is
how Directs the President and donor countries will go about promoting
such rights especially in developing nations that often times have
stuburn governments.
Worksited
Denouncing the practices of female genital mutilation, domestic
violence, "honor" killings, acid burnings, dowry deaths, and other
gender- based persecutions, expressing the sense of Congress that
participation, protection, recognition, and equality of women is
crucial to achieving a just, moral and peaceful society, and for
other
purposes. The Library of Congress”. Accessed March 18, 2010
<http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d111:3:./temp/~bd29yY::|/
bss/
111search.html|>
Mariz Girgis
April 9, 2010
I chose the congressional bill H.CON.RES.7 because this bill fights
for universal freedom and human rights. It fights against intolerance
and prejudice against other races and creeds. I chose to write about
the decsion President Truman did when he ordered to drop two atomic
bombs on Japan. I chose to write about this conflict because this was
the first nuclear bomb to be ever dropped on any country. I think
this
conflict was probably the most known mass slaughter that happened in
history. The times of Truman were known to be racist times and the
people being bombed were simply Japanese. That's why I chose the
congressional bill H.CON.RES.7 because it's against intolerance and
prejudice against other races and creeds. Goldhagen would agree on
this bill it takes a step towards peace. The bill's essance goes
against genocide. The bill does not however provide Goldhagen's
proposals about the solutions to genocide.
Mariz Girgis
Weeks 12-14 Research
Professor O'Connell
English 101
29 April 2010
Tamora's revenge on Titus reminds me of the Israeli's government
revenge on the founder of Hamas Mahmoud Mabhouh. For example, Titus
felt this religious duty to sacrifice Tamora’s eldest son Alarbus so
he can avenge his sons who died in the war. As a mother of course,
Tamora begged Titus not to kill her son, but Titus refused. Doing
that, Tamora took her son's revenge by killed the son of the late
emperor of Rome Bassianus and made both her sons rape Titus's
daughter
Lavinia. She also framed both Titus's son in the killing of
Bassianus.
This occurrence in the story is very similar to the avenging of
Israelis in 1972 when a Palestinian terrorist group killed 11 Israeli
athletes and coaches at the Munich Olympics in a barbaric and brutal
way. The Israeli government is known for getting back at their
enemies
and so as revenge they killed Mabhouh. So in this story, Titus
reminds
me of Mabhouh and the Israeli government reminds me of Tamora.
Works Cited
Articles.latimes.com. Los Angeles Times, Winter 2009. Web. 18 Mar.
2010. <http://articles.latimes.com/2010/feb/21/opinion/la-oe-miller-
web21-2010feb21>.
Proffesor Ed O’Connell
English 101
19 February 2010
Genocide vs War
Genocide has become increasingly more problematic than war. For the
past hundreds of years of our history bloody wars resulting from
genocide have plagued our world. World War one and two are the most
famous wars of our American history. War is the systematic fighting
between nations, but genocide is the systematic destruction of a
certain group of people and is mostly based on race or religion.
Although, both are awful (because genocide is the destruction of a
group of people and war is the destruction of humanilty), one would
prefer that we take a bigger look at genocide because the goal in
genocide is to kill a whole group on people and have no survivors. In
war people are being killed, but in the end there are survivors.
Daniel Jonah Goldhagen says to prevent genocide is to understand "
What it is. What they are. How they begin. How and why they end. Why
they unfold as they do. Why victims are chosen. Why the killers kill.
And, most of all, what we can do to stop them. (Goldhagen) " I
disagree with this because genocide is known as the destruction of a
group of people based on race or religion. So, I think there is no
point in thinking about its every aspect because it is known plainly
that genocide is aimed at a certain religion or race because of
extremist thought. Specific victims are chosen because they are from a
certain race or religion the killer (ex. Hitler) dislikes, etc. I
think the most important aspect we should look closer at is how and
what can we do to stop these barbarous crimes. I do agree with
Goldhagen in that genocide is worse than war. In the New York Times
article published by James Traub it says that " States must not only
abandon the logic of national interest, but also reshape the global
architecture around the goal of ending eliminationism. (Traub)" I am
total agreement with this opinion because if states that when people
all around the world put their hands in together, we could stop
eliminationism, because one hand alone can't succeeded in eliminating
genocide .
I think Daniel Jonah Goldhagen's argument is better than James
Taraub's argument. I would think that Daniel Jonah Goldhagen's
argument is better than James Taraub's argument because he gives more
information and explanation on genocide. He tries to find the reasons
and causes behind the problem so he could find a solution . James
Taraub's argument is not bad, but it's not as strong in details and
information as Goldhagen's argument.
Mariz Girgis
Professor O'Connell
English 101
5 March 2010
Violent acts are now in our everyday lives. But is killing an
act we do willingly, intentionally, or by force? Are we as humans
incapable of attaining peace because of something in our biology? Or
is it certain conditions that turn us to merciless monsters? Is the
act of Truman the same as the act of Hitler? What makes genocide
happen? Daniel Jonah Goldhagen the author of the book "Worse than War"
argues about how genocide, elimination, annihilation are inhumane,
extremely wrong, and evil. In his book he claims "eliminationists are
not born as killers, but follow some paths that cause them in the end
to kill (Goldhagen 92)." Therefore, with that statement stated,
Goldhagen therefore states that killing is not a result of biology but
of circumstances, certain thoughts, pressures, etc. Humans are not
killing machines and they are not biologically born killers, but they
are sometimes forced or triggered in some circumstances to kill. It's
true some kill willingly, but it does not mean that in their genes
they are born killers. Sometimes, people are forced to kill such as in
wars. People in war do not kill because intentionally they want to
kill, but they are forced to kill their enemies or else they will be
killed.
Human beings have free will in any decision or any act they take
part of, even under extreme conditions. Goldhagen claims that “even in
the killing of Jews by the German Nazis, no German perpetrator was
punished in any way for refusing to kill a Jew ( Goldhagen 149)."
Therefore, humans do have the free will to refuse to kill even under
extreme circumstances and conditions. Goldhagen also claims that
“social psychological pressure causes people to kill other ( Goldhagen
154)." Even under social psychological pressure humans have the free
will to choose if they want to slaughter others. It is the people’s
own weakened consciences and lack of thinking in the matters of right
and wrong that causes them to commit these horrific and unspeakable
acts. If social psychological pressure is one cause that moves people
to kill others than lots of people should be killing. Some people are
not easily affected by pressure like others, but it's the person
himself/herself that give themselves the opportunity to be easily
affected by pressure. It is by there own will rather.
It was said that "the Japanese had not surrendered despite
repeated ultimatums and they did not surrender even when they are
losing many lives (reviewjournal.com)." But Goldhagen claims that "the
Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender ( Goldhagen
201)." Goldhagen is right because at the time of Truman, people were
blinded by racism. However, Truman said that the easiest way to end
the war is to bomb the Japanese rather than have to invade the
Japanese homeland. All in all, wars, genocide, elimination, all
violent acts will be difficult to defeat, but if people join hands in
the name of God, then one day, through faith all hate will be
defeated.
Mariz Girgis
Professor O'Connell
English 101
18 March 2010
The Israeli government did nothing wrong when they decided to go
to Dubai and kill Hamas terrorist Mahmoud Mabhouh. That's even if
they were the ones who were in charge of the slaying of Mahmoud
Mabhouh. Just because the Israelis are known for killing or getting
back at their enemies according to their detractors that is, it does
not mean they were responsible of the slaying of Mahmoud Mabhouh.
Even
if they were in charge, they did not commit a crime because Mahmoud
Mabhouh was known to have committed several barbarous acts against
Israel. For example, he abducted two Israeli soldiers and killed
them.
How so? It was because he was cold hearted racist person that hated
everybody who is not from the same country or religion. This travesty
is genocide. In the left wing bias media however, the Los Angeles
Times keeps targeting Israeli's for the killing of Mahmoud Mabhouh as
an act of terror. If they were a proponent of keeping the region safe
and secure from ethnic and religious targeted terrorism, the media
should back them up. If the "Israeli government" or the "Israeli's
Mossad spy agency" was truly in charge of the killing of this
terrorist then the Israeli's did the world a favor by protecting them
further from terrorists that ravage the world of peace-seeking
people.
Golhagen believes or claims that perpetrators like Mahmoud Mabhouh
are thinking in terms of war. These people want to make war against
humanity. Goldhagen claims that "if they are making war, the rules of
war apply (spiegel.de)." He also claims that, "we should encourage
those who can to kill them (spiegel.de)." According to Goldhagen the
Israeli government did the right thing because by removing the threat
of Mahmoud Mabhouh, they were saving innocent people from being
brutally murdered in large numbers. In this manner the Israeli
government acted in self defense. The LA Times states that "there is
no legal justification for the cold-blooded murder of a man who, if
alleged to have committed crimes, could have been arrested and
charged
(articles.latimes.com)." If one was to agree with their opinion, then
alleged to have committed crimes, could have been arrested and
charged
they must think about what if Mahmoud Mabhouh was never caught? What
would the further consequences be? And if was just simply caught and
arrested, should he be kept alive for the sake of political
correctness while the blood from murdering innocent people remains on
him?
The removal of Mahmoud Mabhouh, just like many other terrorists
and elminationists who have threatened our society, was certainly
justified. Even though it is not any human being's decision to decide
who lives or who doesn't, these elminationists must have to be dealt
with, sometimes their deaths might be the only way for them to truly
no longer be a threat. So, if someone has to be killed then it should
be people like Mahmoud Mabhouh and his other elminationists buddies.
It's not fair for them to kill innocent people because of the way
they
look, where they come from, or what religion they are. Terrorists,
elminationists, etc must be stopped to protect Truth, Justice, and
Freedom. Nobody wants to kill anybody, but in war, the enemy often
leaves us with no other choice.
Works Cited
Articles.latimes.com. Los Angeles Times, Winter 2009. Web. 18 Mar.
2010. <http://articles.latimes.com/2010/feb/21/opinion/la-oe-miller-
web21-2010feb21>.
Spiegel.de. Spiegel.de, 10 Aug. 2009. Web. 18 Mar. 2010. <<http://
www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,653938,00.html>>.
Mariz Girgis
Professor O'Connell
English 101
26 March 2010
After watching Ishmael Beah speak, one’s opinion has strongly
changed from thinking that all individuals involved in genocide
should
be annihilated.In his book, Goldhagen states that the United Nations
as it is structured presently, is of very little use when it comes to
the issue of the solution to genocide. The Truth and Reconciliation
Commission Report is much more humanitarian and gentle in its
approach
but is still not very effective.
Middle ground is where true and effective solutions can come forth.
Take for example the question of whether or not the problem of
political Islam is as great a threat as Goldhagen proposes it to be.
Is political islam a true threat that should be addressed in the most
serious manner? The answer is an overwhelming yes.
It is Noam Chomsky who needs a political wake up call. The issue
behind the Middle East Conflict is not the west as one tends to
think.
Here is how extremist religion comes into play with politics in the
Middle East. The majority of everyday people in the Middle East are
poverty stricken. Unemployment is high and political power runs in
the
hands of corrupt governments that keep their people from uprising
against them by brainwashing them with radical Islamic ideas (through
the media, schools, mosques, etc). Why? Merely because these
governments want their people occupied with ideas other than that of
actually seeking freedom and a just government.
A society where children are nursed ideas that the West is the
greatest of infidels and radical Islam should rule in order to attain
more pleasant lives, breeds terrorists. Instead of triggering their
anger at their unfair governments, these people trigger their anger
at
the “infidels”.
Now imagine a society like this in almost every Middle Eastern
country. That is millions of angry people that think the West should
be destroyed.
We must bring back our attention though to the main question that
lurks in our minds regarding genocide: How do we deal with genocide?
Individuals like Ishael Beah shed light on the fact that not
everyone involved in genocide is a psychopathic, conscienceless
monster. One must understand that the victims are sometimes the
perpetrators of the heinous
acts themselves. Sure they may have pulled the trigger or stabbed the
knife, but that does not tell us what forced them to. Ishmael was a
child who had no one left in his life. His need as a child for a
family made him meddle with people who took advantage of his fear and
hopelessness.
When dealing with genocide, one must listen to both the TRC and
Goldhagen. It is people behind the hateful ideologies and extreme
political agendas that should be annihilated. Innocent people like
Beah should be spared because they are indeed victims themselves.
Self
defense , justice, and mercy is the way to protect innocents from
being slaughtered while at the same time standing up against those
who
crave the blood of millions of innocent people.
Works cited
Bordersmedia.com. Ishmael Beah, 2008. Web. 25 Mar. 2010. <<http://
www.bordersmedia.com/liveat01/beah>>.
Unicef.org. Unicef.org, 2004. Web. 25 Mar. 2010. <<http://
www.unicef.org/infobycountry/files/TRCCF9SeptFINAL.pdf>>.
Chomsky.info. Islamica Magazine, April & May 2007. Web. 25 Mar. 2010.
<http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/200704--.htm>.
Mariz Girgis
Professor O'Connell
English 101
2 March 2010
At the time of President Truman people were very racist. Was dropping
two atomic bombs on Japan an act of racism or was it the truly the
only way to stop the war faster? It was said that dropping two atomic
bombs into Japan during the war was the right decision President
Harry
S. Truman did (reviewjournal.com). In the book Worse than war by
Goldhagen, the author claims that "the Japanese were already defeated
and ready to surrender (201)." Is mass slaughtering in any condition
a right solution to take just to stop war faster? Mass slaughter
should never and can never be excused because it goes against
humanity
and the rights of innocent lives to life.
In the year 1945 on August 6th President Harry Truman decided to
drop two atomic bombs on the city of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He
dropped one bomb called the "Little Boy" on Hiroshima and after a few
days President Truman decided to drop another atomic bomb called "Fat
Man" on the city of Nagasaki (worldwar2database.com). According to
Goldhagen,eighty-five percent Americans were for the bombing of
innocents because the people being bombed were simply Japanese (201).
In both cities, thousands of innocent people died because of the
decision President Truman did. About seventy five-thousand people
died
in Hiroshima and seventy-thousand people in Nagaski. Mass slaughter
can never be excused under the label of "combating" an enemy. If
there
is even one single innocent life (and let alone not thousands) it is
not but combat but murder plain and simple. The times of Truman were
clearly racist times. It was a time of when blacks and whites were
segregated because of race.
Genocide, elimination, dictators have surrounded us all over
the world throughout history, even going back to when the Egyptians
enslaved the Hebrews in ancient civilization. In today’s world with
mass weaponry and where conflicts are on a worldwide scale, is it
safe
for us and our children to live and be raised in a world where a
person can not live in freedom and personal responsibility. No, we
are
in a world where ethnic cleansers and dictators rise, where humans
are
being killed or slaughtered just for the way they look, where they
come from, what their religion is?, Is it a world full of war? Is it
humane for a person to kill an innocent child just because their
family is from a different race? Is the only way to keep our
children safe and this world safe from violence, genocide,
elimination, and dictators is to get back at our enemy and kill/
slaughter them? Is murder the solution?
In an interview with Worse than war book writer Daniel J.
Goldhagen, the author claims that in his point of view killing the
perpetrators is the only solution to keep this world safe from
violence and genocide. Some people might think or will think that
this
humane and that it is murder. But come to think of it, that seems to
be the only solution to stop genocide. These murderers kill large
amount of innocent people without any conscience. Why? Just because
they dislike the way they look, where they come from, what their
religion is? So, is it fair for people like that to live in the world
while the innocent people get killed and people who are still alive
live in fear that they could be next victims? Should our children be
raised in a world where look matters and there is no freedom. Should
they live in a world where genocide rises and haunt them forever. No,
they should not! Then if the only way to keep this world safe from
these horrific elimationist is to kill them, so let it be. It's
better
to kill a person like Osama Bin Laden for example, then for some one
like Osama Bin Laden kill a huge amount of innocent people.
Eliminating one person like that from the world is not killing, but
saving.
The Congressional bill H.CON.RES.7 backs up what has been said in the
previous paragraphs on top. One Agrees one-hundred percent with the
Congressional bill H.CON.RES.7 because it fights for universal
freedom
and human rights. It fights for the respect of other races, creeds,
and colors (thomas.loc.gov). It fights against intolerance and
prejudice (thomas.loc.gov). All in all, slaughtering a large amount
of
innocent lives no matter what the cause; is extremely inhumane.
References
Worldwar2database.com. Worldwar2database.com, 2007. Web. 3 Apr. 2010.
<http://www.worldwar2database.com/html/atombomb.htm>.
Reviewjournal.com. Las Vegas Review-Journal, 6 Aug. 2005. Web. 3 Apr.
2010. <http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2005/Aug-06-Sat-2005/
opinion/2794069.html>.
Nytimes.com. New York Times, 6 Aug. 1995. Web. 3 Apr. 2010. <<http://
www.nytimes.com/1995/08/06/opinion/hiroshima-50-years-later.html?page...>>.
Thomas.loc.gov. The Library of Congress, 2009. Web. 3 Apr. 2010.
<http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d111:1:./temp/
~bdVts9:@@@L&summ2=m&|/bss/111search.html|>.
Spiegel.de. Spiegel, 10 Aug. 2009. Web. 3 Apr. 2010. <<http://
www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,653938,00.html>>.
Mariz Girgis
Professor O'Connell
English 101
23 April 2010
When one ponders about the question of whether or not
President Harry Truman’s Atomic bomb had racist motives behind it,
one
must take into account the society and circumstances of the
situation.
One must take a fair stand and weigh all the evidence in order to
understand if hatred and prejudice fueled an already inflamed
situation eventually leading to a horrific historical tragedy. With
the above mentioned, research into the subject has lead to an
understanding that racism had indeed a great hand the atomic bombing
of Japan. One will and cannot sugarcoat history and with that being
said one must admit at the time when President Truman was president
was in office society was indeed very racist. The 1940’s was a time
where ethnic segregation was a norm. It was a time when racial
stereotyping was embraced and some ethnicities were held up higher
than others (ex. Rosa Park). Was dropping two atomic bombs on Japan
an
act of racism or was it the truly the only way to stop the war
faster?
(reviewjournalwebsite). It was said that dropping two atomic bombs
into Japan during the war was the right decision President Harry S.
Truman did In the book Worse than War by Goldhagen, the author claims
that "the Japanese were already defeated and ready to
surrender" (201). Mass slaughter should never and can never be
excused because it goes against humanity and the rights of the
innocent to life.
On August 6th 1945 by President Harry Truman’s order, the US
dropped two atomic bombs on the city of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. One
bomb called "Little Boy" on Hiroshima and after a few days President
Truman decided to drop another atomic bomb called "Fat Man" on the
city of Nagasaki (worldwar2database website). According to Goldhagen,
85% Americans were for the bombing of innocents because the people
being bombed were simply Japanese (201). In both cities, thousands of
innocent people died because of President Truman’s decision. About
seventy five-thousand people died in Hiroshima and seventy-thousand
people in Nagaski. Mass slaughter can never be excused under the
label
of "combating" an enemy. If there is even one single innocent life
(let alone thousands) it is not but combat but murder plain and
simple. The times of Truman were clearly racist times. It was a time
of when blacks and whites were segregated because of race.
Genocide, elimination, dictators have surrounded us all over
the world throughout history, even going back to when the Egyptians
enslaved the Hebrews in ancient civilization. In today’s world with
mass weaponry and where conflicts are on a worldwide scale, is it
safe
for us and our children to live and be raised in a world where a
person can not live in freedom and personal responsibility. No, we
are
in a world where ethnic cleansers and dictators rise, where humans
are
being killed or slaughtered just for the way they look, where they
come from, their religion? It is a world full of war. Is it humane
for a person to kill an innocent child just because their family is
from a different race? Is the only way to keep our children safe and
this world safe from violence, genocide, elimination, and dictators
is to get back at our enemy and kill/slaughter them? Is murder the
solution? The answer is an obvious and obsolete no. It seems like
that
was the case though in 1945. The biggest damning evidence of this is
in the book Worse than War. The book states that Japan had already
been defeated militarily and had already surrendered (Goldhagen).
There was absolutely no excuse to further unneeded causalities
especially the helpless. The only reason one can think of that people
would want the bombing of an already broken people is racism. Maybe
though the war against Japan had some legitimacy for it. Maybe it was
to protect people. But one cannot help though when thinking about
genocide what should be done to people with blatant and obvious
intentions of killing the innocent on a whim. Examples of people like
this are Osama Bin Laden, Adolf Hitler, and Hamas. These people flat
out preach and encourage the murder of innocents.
In an interview Worse than War book Daniel J. Goldhagen, the author
claims that in his point of view killing the perpetrators is the only
solution to keep this world safe from violence and genocide. Some
people might think or will think this humane or that it is murder.
That seems to be the only solution to stop genocide. These murderers
kill large amount of innocent people without any consci ence. Why?
Just because they dislike the way they look, where they come from,
what their religion is? So, is it fair for people like that to live
in the world while the innocent people get killed and people who are
still alive live in fear that they could be next victims? Should our
children be raised in a world where look matters and there is no
freedom. Should they live in a world where genocide rises and haunt
them forever. No, they should not! Then if the only way to keep this
world safe from these horrific eliminationists is to kill them, so
let
it be. It's better to kill a person like Osama Bin Laden for example,
then for some one like Osama Bin Laden to kill a huge amount of
innocent people. Eliminating one person like that from the world is
not killing, but saving thousands of lives instead.
Congressional bill H.CON.RES.7 confirms what has been said previously
in this writing. One should agree completely with what H.CON.RES.7
intends because it champions universal freedom and human rights. It
acknowledges the respect of other races, creeds, and colors
(thomas.loc.gov), and takes a stand against intolerance and
prejudice.
All in all, the slaughtering of innocent lives no matter what the
cause is extremely inhumane.
References
Worldwar2database.com. Worldwar2database.com, 2007. Web. 3 Apr. 2010.
<http://www.worldwar2database.com/html/atombomb.htm>.
Reviewjournal.com. Las Vegas Review-Journal, 6 Aug.2005.Web.3 Apr.
2010
<http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2005/Aug-06-Sat-2005/opinion/
2794069.html>
Nytimes.com. New York Times, 6 Aug. 1995. Web.3 Apr. 2010
<http://www.nytimes.com/1995/08/06/opinion/hiroshima-50-years-
later.html?pagewanted=1
Thomas.loc.gov. Rep Jackson-Lee, Sheila, 1 July 2009. Web. 3 Apr.
2010. <http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d111:2:./temp/
~bdRxzn::|/bss/111search.html|>.
Spiegel.de. Spiegel, 10 Agu.2009. Web. 3 Apr. 2010
<http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,653938,00.html
Short Story by Mariz Girgis
Professor O’Connell
English 101
23 April 2010
It was seven o'clock in the morning in Hiroshima when I
heard a loud boom and felt as if the world was shaking under my feet.
Smoke filled my house right away. I was playing with my baby brother
Ben when all of a sudden I heard the loud sound and heard my mother
screaming and running to my bed room while carrying my younger sister
Lee. Mother was pushing us out the room as fast as she could. It was
the first time in my whole entire life I saw this kind of fear in my
mother’s eyes. But with all that screaming, fear, and panicking
mother
still had the strength to calm my siblings and I down. Going down the
stairs of our apartment building people were yelling and screaming. I
thought it was the end of the world. Other people were lying down on
the stairs breathless. I was in shock.
I remember crying my eyes out. Some of these same people were our
neighbors and friends. We had celebrated events together. We had gone
to schools and jobs together. We were almost family. I remember
running down the stairs ahead of my mother, but I felt as if my whole
body was frozen like an ice berg. I cannot fathom how I was ahead of
her. It was as if my whole body was paralyzed in shock and fear. I
couldn’t even move a finger, I couldn’t even blink. Yet I kept
moving.
Everything happened so fast. It happened in the blink of an eye. The
screams were getting louder and louder as we approached the street.
The yelling was as if we were in a tunnel. As I furthered myself from
the echoes of screaming people I was only approached with more
screaming as we went from street to street. I was so terrified, fear
took over my body. There were hundreds of bodies on the ground. Dead
bodies of women, men, even children filled the streets of Hiroshima!
It was shocking to see the kinds of mutilations some of the bodies
had
suffered. I couldn’t stop crying. I remember seeing this one woman
holding her half naked son. He was soaked in blood. He was just
drenched in blood. The woman held her lifeless son in her arms. She
was crying and screaming “help!” She was wailing so bitterly.” Please
someone help!,” she cried. “ My son is bleeding! My son is dead!”
The tears on her face were like pouring rain drops.
The most difficult experience of my life was walking through
the streets of Hiroshima that day. The stench of death was
everywhere.
The sight of misery and despair filled Hiroshima. Searching the
streets on Hiroshima for my father was very heart wrenching. I was so
terrified. Where was my daddy? Was there hope he’d come back home
today? I couldn’t help but remember how he kissed me before going to
work. It was the last time we had a normal day. I couldn’t help think
of every memory we had together. I remembered how he held me. I
remembered how he took us to school every morning. I remembered the
way my siblings and I always ran to him when he came home from work
asking if he brought us any candy. I remembered how he would recite
the Lord’s prayer with us right before we slept every night. I missed
my daddy so much at that moment. I wanted so much to hold him and
tell
him how much I loved him. Hours and hours of walking and searching
had
gone by. We were so tired and weary. We couldn’t stop searching
though. My father was out there. How could we stop? What if he was
hurt? What if he needed us? We sure needed him.
We went to my father’s work place. He wasn’t there. We were
told by one of his co-workers that he had gone to do repairs at a
client’s house when the bomb hit. I was horrified. Could my father
have been on the street when the bomb hit? Some of his co worker’s
survived because they were in the building and the building had
miraculously held up. I was angry. How could they send my father out
like that? Why especially today of all days?! I started screaming and
crying. My mother kept questioning about which client and which
street
he had gone through.It took a while to get an answer we could rely
on.
One of the workers brought out the list of repair addresses for that
day.
About an hour later and what seemed to be ages of searching, we
found him. What we found though was unbearable. My heart sank. My
life
had crumbled before my eyes. There he was. My father’s breathless
dead
body on the ground. Never in my life would I have imagined to see my
father in this heart breaking condition. It was horrific. It was
inhumane I was stabbed with horror, pain, and shock. His arm was torn
off, his whole body was full of scars, and half his cloths were burnt
off. He was drenched in blood and my family was drenched in misery.
My
daddy was dead. I would never get to tell him I loved him when he
comes back home because he was never coming back home. My mom,
sister,
and toddler brother were screaming and so was I. Our world was torn
apart. Tears were running down my face. It took years for us to try
and live without my father being there everyday and everytime I would
cry because I missed my father so much my mother would wipe away my
tears and try and comfort me when I knew she herself needed comfort.
No matter how much she would try to wipe away my tears though, she
was
never able to wipe the stain of pain that still exists in my heart to
this very day.
Mariz Girgis
English 101
Professor O’Connell
7 May 2010
Professor O’Connell
Even in our seemingly civilized world today humans still use
violence as a resort to avenge against specific people to help
relieve
grievance. What is an even catastrophic and sad truth is that there
are still those who carry hateful feelings and evil intentions
against
their fellow man because of things like ethnicity, culture, religion,
gender, etc. These hateful and bitter individuals feel if it is their
priority, right, or even duty to inflict pain and evil against a
specific person (or people). And if these people who are attacked
strike back in self defense, the racist offenders feel the need for
revenge. To them, revenge is the only way to eliminate sufferings.
Even though the hatred in their heart remains the same, at least they
feel that they fulfilled with their revenge.
Even though individuals like Hitler are not around (with the exact
prejudice, and racisms ), there are still those who have similar
racist and prejudice minds except their hatred is targeted because of
other reasonings. An example of two countries that are in a continual
war with each other is the Israeli – Palestinian conflict.
Unfortunately the Hamas run government will not accept peace at any
price because it’s idealogy is fueled by hatred and prejudice against
Jews. And although it seams like vengeance fills Israel’s actions
sometimes it is just that: vengance. Israel’s attacks are usually
done
in response to terror offenses done by Hamas Israel’s whole existence
is not based on trying to wipe out a whole culture or people. That
does not however mean that revenge is right morally or ethically.
Revenge is a theme in both the Israeli Hamas Conflict today and in
Shakespeare’s Titus Andronicus novel. The stories of Titus and Tamora
and the Hamas have something very significant in common: revenge
against an enemy. In Shakespeare’s novel Titus Andronicus most of the
characters wanted revenge from against each other. The two characters
that caught ones attention were Titus and Tamora. Their characters
have an abundance of similarities to the Israeli Hamas Conflict.
Tamora's revenge on Titus is so similar to the Israeli's government
revenge on the founder of Hamas Mahmoud Mabhouh. Titus’s character is
similar Mahmoud Mabhouh and the Israeli government is similar to
Tamora’s character. In Shakespeare’s story Titus Andronicus Titus
felt a tremendous religious duty to sacrifice Tamora’s eldest son
Alarbus so he can avenge his sons who died in the war. As a mother of
course, Tamora begged Titus not to kill her son, but Titus refused.
Tamora could not sleep until her son’s revenge was taken. Doing that,
Tamora took her son's revenge by killing the son of the late emperor
of Rome Bassianus and made both her sons rape Titus's daughter
Lavinia. Following that, Tamora then framed both Titus's sons Martius
and Quintus in the killing of the emperor son Bassianus. This part of
the story is so similar to the Israeli Hamas conflict. It is very
similar to the avenging of the Israelis in 1972. In 1972 a group of
Palestinian terrorist group killed 11 Israeli athletes and coaches at
the Munich Olympics in a barbaric and brutal way. They killed the
athletes with no conscience and no heart. Some say that the Israeli
government is known for getting back at their enemies (latimes.com).
As revenge for the 11 Israeli athletes and coaches that were killed
by
Mahmoud Mabhouh, the Israeli decided to go to Dubai and kill Hamas
terrorist Mahmoud Mabhouh.
The only difference between the Israeli Hamas conflict and
Shakespeare’s story Titus Andronicus is that the Israeli Hamas
conflict is considered genocide and elimination. Mahmoud Mabhouh
wants
to terrorize , slaughter, and kill people just because he is filled
with prejudice against this group of people. He does it because he
hates where this group of people are from. He dislikes these people
because of who they were born to be. He despises them because they
are
Jews. Individuals like People like Mahmoud Mabhouh are born thinking
that without a doubt it is morally and ethically right to slaughter
Jews. Mahmoud Mabhouh in this manner is at war against humanity.
Golhagen’s analysis claims that elimnationists like Mahmoud Mabhouh
are thinking in terms of war. Goldhagen claims that "if they are
making war, the rules of war apply (spiegel.de)." Shakespeare’s story
Titus Andronicus is not considered genocide and/or elimination. It is
not considered genocide or elimination because Titus did not want to
kill a group of people because he hates their religion, culture,
race,
or where they came from. He killed Tamora’s son because he thought it
was a religious duty to sacrifice Tamora’s eldest son Alarbus so he
can avenge his sons who died in the war. Titus’s anger is fueled by
personal issues (losing a loved one). Titus is at war against the
person who killed his son. He is not at war with a whole nation or
race. What Titus did is not considered genocide, elimination, or even
war because genocide is the destruction of a group of people and war
is the destruction of humanity. It is blatantly clear that Titus did
neither of these. If both Titus and what the Hamas founder Mohamed
Mabouh actions were brought forth to be judged in a court room, one
believes that they would both be sentenced very differently. Take for
example what Goldhagen states about Truman and Hitler. Goldhagen
claims that if Truman and Hitler were judged in a courtroom both
Truman and Hitler would be judged differently because what Hitler did
is different from what Truman did (Worse than War pg 8). In his book
Goldhagen claims that, Hitler killed Jews because he had an unfounded
delusional belief that Jews were the source of evil. Truman
slaughtered the Japanese because he thought that if he struck them
with the atomic bomb they would surrender and the war would end
faster
and more effeciently (pg 8). By this standard of judgement, Hamas
founder Mahmoud Mabhouh and Titus have very different motives behind
killing. Mahmoud Mabhouh killed because he is filled with prejudice
against this group of people and Titus killed because he wanted to
avenge his sons who died in the war.
Goldhagen’s analysis on recommendations for preventing future
eliminationism states that "we should encourage those who can to kill
them (spiegel.de)." He claims that if someone has the courage to kill
people like Hamas founder Mahmoud Mabhouh than we should encourage
them more to do it. One agrees with Goldhagen because the killing of
mass slaughterers saves the world from cold hearted killers who would
slaughter and murder a large number of innocent human beings. If
someone has the courage to kill people like Mahmoud Mabhouh then that
person is saving many innocent people from being brutally murdered in
large numbers. It is true that us as human beings have no right to
say
who should die and who should live, but when it comes to people like
Mahmoud Mabhouh one believes he and people like him should be
sentenced to death. It seems like a justified judgment that people
like Mahmoud Mabhouh should get what is coming to them as a result of
their actions. Removing terrorists and elminationists in this world
who are like Mahmoud Mabhouh (who have threatened, terrorized and put
society under suffering) is certainly justified. In the Los Angeles
times article they claim that is was “wrong for the Israeli
government
to go to a different country that is not theirs and kill Mahmoud
Mabhouh (articles.latimes.com).” The LA time’s point of view is that
“the killing of a murderer is not right because if that murderer was
caught, they could have been arrested and brought to justice
(articles.latimes.com).” It is true that the killing of a murderer is
not right because if that murderer was caught, they could have been
arrested and brought to justice; but what if this murderer was never
caught? The world will just be left with a nonstop murderer, who will
kill in large numbers with no mercy. Also, why should a cold hearted
murderer be arrested and be kept alive for the sake of political
reasons when the blood of many innocents remain on his or her hands?
One agrees one hundred percent with Goldhagen’s analysis and if the
only way to protect the world from people like Mahmoud Mabhouh is for
them to be killed then that is what should be done.
Works cited
Articles.latimes.com. Los Angeles Times, Winter 2009. Web. 6 May.
2010. <http://articles.latimes.com/2010/feb/21/opinion/la-oe-miller-
web21-2010feb21>.
Spiegel.de. Spiegel.de, 10 Aug. 2009. Web. 6 May. 2010. <<http://
www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,653938,00.html>>.
Goldhagen, Daniel Jonah. Worse Than War. 1st Ed. New York: Public
Affairs, 2009. Print.
Mariz Girgis
English 101
Professor O’Connell
28 May 2010
Professor O’Connell
Even in our seemingly civilized world today humans still use
violence , to take revenges against specific people to help relieve
grievance. What is an even more sad and catastrophic truth is that
there are still those who carry hateful feelings and evil intentions
against their fellow man because of things like ethnicity, culture,
religion, or gender. These hateful and bitter individuals feel if it
is their priority, right, or even duty to inflict pain and evil
against a specific person (or people). If these people who are
attacked strike back in self defense, the racist offenders feel the
need for revenge. To them, revenge is the only way to eliminate
suffering.
Even though individuals like Hitler are not around (with the exact
prejudice, and racisms ), there are still those who have similar
racist and prejudiced minds, except their hatred is targeted because
of other reasons. An example of two peoples that are in a continual
war with each other are the Israelis – Palestinians . Unfortunately,
the Hamas - run government will not accept peace at any price because
its idealogy is fueled by hatred and prejudice against Jews. Although
it may seem as if vengeance fills Israel’s actions, sometimes it is
just that ; vengeance. Israel’s attacks are usually done in response
to terror offenses done by Hamas. Israel’s whole existence is not
based on trying to wipe out a whole culture or people. That does not,
however, mean that revenge is right morally or ethically. After all,
if the only defense to an offense is an equally heinous act, what
makes the offended person better than the offender? Revenge comes
from
equal bitterness.
Revenge is a theme in both the Israeli Hamas Conflict today and
in Shakespeare’s play Titus Andronicus . The stories of Titus and
Tamora and the Hamas have something very significant in common:
revenge against an enemy. In Shakespeare’s Titus Andronicus most of
the characters want revenge against each other. The two characters
Titus and Tamora , share an abundance of similarities with the
Israeli
-Hamas Conflict. Tamora's revenge on Titus is so similar to the
Israeli's government revenge on the founder of Hamas: Mahmoud
Mabhouh. Titus’s character is similar to Mahmoud Mabhouh, and the
Israeli government is similar to Tamora’s character. In Shakespeare’s
story Titus Andronicus , Titus felt a tremendous religious duty to
sacrifice Tamora’s eldest son Alarbus so he can avenge his sons who
died in the war. As a mother, of course, Tamora begged Titus not to
kill her son, but Titus refused. Tamora could not sleep until her
son’s revenge was taken. Tamora took revenge for her son by killing
the son of the late emperor of Rome, Bassianus. She also made both
her
sons rape Titus's daughter Lavinia. Following that, Tamora then
framed
Titus's sons Martius and Quintus for the killing of the emperor son
Bassianus. This part of the story is so similar to the Israeli Hamas
conflict. It is very similar to the avenging of the Israelis in 1972.
In 1972, a group of Palestinian terrorist group killed 11 Israeli
athletes and coaches at the Munich Olympics in a barbaric and brutal
way. They killed the athletes with no conscience and no heart. Some
say that the Israeli government is known for getting back at their
enemies (articles.latimes.com). As revenge for the 11 Israeli
athletes and coaches that were killed by Mahmoud Mabhouh, the Israeli
decided to go to Dubai and kill Hamas terrorist Mahmoud Mabhouh.
The only difference between the Israeli Hamas conflict and
Shakespeare’s story Titus Andronicus is that the Israeli Hamas
conflict is considered genocide and elimination. Mahmoud Mabhouh
wants
to terrorize , slaughter, and kill people because he is filled with
prejudice against this group of people. He does it because he hates
where this group of people are from. He dislikes these people because
of who they were born to be. He despises them because they are Jews.
Individuals like People like Mahmoud Mabhouh are born thinking that
without a doubt it is morally and ethically right to slaughter Jews.
Mahmoud Mabhouh in this manner is at war against humanity. Golhagen’s
analysis claims that elimnationists like Mahmoud Mabhouh are thinking
in terms of war (spiegel.de). Goldhagen claims "if they are making
war, the rules of war apply (spiegel.de)." Shakespeare’s story Titus
Andronicus is not considered genocide and/or elimination. Titus did
not want to kill a group of people because he hated their religion,
culture, race, or where they came from. He killed Tamora’s son
because
he thought it was a religious duty to sacrifice Tamora’s eldest son
Alarbus, so he could avenge his sons who died in the war. Titus’s
anger is fueled by personal issues (losing a loved one). Titus is at
war against the person who killed his son. He is not at war with a
whole nation or race. What Titus did is not considered genocide,
elimination, or even war because genocide is the destruction of a
group of people and war is the destruction of humanity. It is
blatantly clear that Titus did neither of these. If both Titus, and
Hamas founder Mohamed Mabouh, actions were brought forth to be
judged in a court room, they would likely be sentenced very
differently. Take for example what Goldhagen states about Truman and
Hitler. Goldhagen claims that if Truman and Hitler were judged in a
courtroom, both Truman and Hitler would be judged differently because
what Hitler did is different from what Truman did (Worse than War pg
8). In his book Goldhagen , claims that, Hitler killed Jews because
he had an unfounded delusional belief that Jews were the source of
evil. Truman slaughtered the Japanese because he thought that if he
struck them with the atomic bomb they would surrender, and the war
would end faster and more effeciently (pg 8). By this standard of
judgement, Hamas founder Mahmoud Mabhouh and Titus have very
different
motives behind killing.
Goldhagen’s analysis on recommendations for preventing future
eliminationism states that "we should encourage those who can to kill
them (spiegel.de)." He claims that if someone has the courage to kill
people like Hamas founder Mahmoud Mabhouh, then we should encourage
them more to do it. Goldhagen is correct because the killing of mass
slaughterers saves the world from cold hearted killers who would
slaughter and murder large numbers of innocent human beings. If
someone has the courage to kill people like Mahmoud Mabhouh, then
that person will be saving many innocent people from being brutally
murdered in large numbers. It true that we as human beings have no
right to say who should die and who should live, but when it comes to
people like Mahmoud Mabhouh, he and people like him should be
sentenced to death. It is just that people like Mahmoud Mabhouh
should
get what is coming to them as a result of their actions. Removing
terrorists and elminationists like Mahmoud Mabhouh (who have
threatened, terrorized and put society under suffering ) is certainly
justified. In the Los Angeles Times claims that it was “wrong for the
Israeli government to go to a different country that is not theirs
and
kill Mahmoud Mabhouh (articles.latimes.com).” The LA times point of
view is that “the killing of a murderer is not right because if that
murderer was caught, they could have been arrested and brought to
justice (articles.latimes.com).” It is true that the killing of a
murderer is not right because if that murderer was caught, they could
have been arrested and brought to justice; but what if this murderer
was never caught? If the a man like Mahmoud Mabhouh was not killed,
there is no doubt that the world would still have yet another mass
murderer on the loose. What makes individuals like Mahmoud Mabhouh
even more threatening is that they encourage others to kill. They
indirectly breed more terrorists. Killing a mass murderer is
considered self defense. No court in the world would say that self
defense is a crime. If people like Mahmoud Mabhouh are not dealt
with,
then the world will just be left with a nonstop murderer, who will
kill in large numbers with no mercy. Also, why should a cold hearted
murderer be arrested and be kept alive for the sake of political
reasons when the blood of many innocents remain on his or her hands?
One agrees one hundred percent with Goldhagen’s analysis and if the
only way to protect the world from people like Mahmoud Mabhouh is for
them to be killed then that is what should be done.
It is easy for the Los Angeles Times to say that killing Mahmoud
Mabhouh is wrong for the sake of political correctness because those
who wrote the article have no clue what it is like to be Israel.
Israel is attacked regularly by suicide bombers. Israel has to deal
with terrorists on a daily basis. It has no choice but to kill a
terrorist who threatens its people whether these people are men,
women, or children.
works cited
Miller, Marjorie. "Targeted for Death - Los Angeles Times." Featured
Articles From The Los Angeles Times. 21 Feb. 2010. Web. 6 May 2010.
<http://articles.latimes.com/2010/feb/21/opinion/la-oe-miller-
web21-2010feb21>.
Alston, Philip. "Targeted for Death - Los Angeles Times." Featured
Articles From The Los Angeles Times. 21 Feb. 2010. Web. 6 May 2010.
<http://articles.latimes.com/2010/feb/21/opinion/la-oe-miller-
web21-2010feb21>.
SPIEGEL. "SPIEGEL Interview with Daniel Jonah Goldhagen: 'Mass
Slaughter Is a Systemic Problem of the Modern World' - SPIEGEL ONLINE
- News - International." SPIEGEL ONLINE - Nachrichten. 10 Aug. 2009.
Web. 6 May 2010. <http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/
0,1518,653938,00.html>.
Mariz Girgis
English 101 section 3226
Professor O'Connell
Weeks 5-7 Research & Journal
Rep Jackson-Lee, Sheila H.J.RES.10
Weeks 5-7 Research & Journal
Title: Denouncing the practices of female genital mutilation,
domestic
violence, "honor" killings, acid burnings, dowry deaths, and other
gender- based persecutions, expressing the sense of Congress that
participation, protection, recognition, and equality of women is
crucial to achieving a just, moral and peaceful society, and for
other
purposes. 1/7/2009
a) One thing I like about this bill is that it presents women. It
fights for the rights of women. How women should be treated equally.
How they have the right of ownership of property, education, etc.
Women should not be treated as slaves just based on gender. It mainly
protects women from violence and violation. I also like how the bill
relates to what Goldhagen said in that it helps prevent mass cruelty,
injustices, and even murder against multitudes of women around the
world.
b) I respect this bill so much that I really do not see anything I do
not like about it. If anything, I only wish it was more powerful in
that it speaks of more specifics in how the protection of women will
go about.
c) Again, the only thing that remains very vague about this bill is
how Directs the President and donor countries will go about promoting
such rights especially in developing nations that often times have
stuburn governments.
Worksited
Denouncing the practices of female genital mutilation, domestic
violence, "honor" killings, acid burnings, dowry deaths, and other
gender- based persecutions, expressing the sense of Congress that
participation, protection, recognition, and equality of women is
crucial to achieving a just, moral and peaceful society, and for
other
purposes. The Library of Congress”. Accessed March 18, 2010
<http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d111:3:./temp/~bd29yY::|/
bss/
111search.html|>
Mariz Girgis
Professor E. O’Connell
English 101 Section #3226
Journal/Research Week 8-9
English 101 Section #3226
April 9, 2010
I chose the congressional bill H.CON.RES.7 because this bill fights
for universal freedom and human rights. It fights against intolerance
and prejudice against other races and creeds. I chose to write about
the decsion President Truman did when he ordered to drop two atomic
bombs on Japan. I chose to write about this conflict because this was
the first nuclear bomb to be ever dropped on any country. I think
this
conflict was probably the most known mass slaughter that happened in
history. The times of Truman were known to be racist times and the
people being bombed were simply Japanese. That's why I chose the
congressional bill H.CON.RES.7 because it's against intolerance and
prejudice against other races and creeds. Goldhagen would agree on
this bill it takes a step towards peace. The bill's essance goes
against genocide. The bill does not however provide Goldhagen's
proposals about the solutions to genocide.
Mariz Girgis
Weeks 12-14 Research
Professor O'Connell
English 101
29 April 2010
Tamora's revenge on Titus reminds me of the Israeli's government
revenge on the founder of Hamas Mahmoud Mabhouh. For example, Titus
felt this religious duty to sacrifice Tamora’s eldest son Alarbus so
he can avenge his sons who died in the war. As a mother of course,
Tamora begged Titus not to kill her son, but Titus refused. Doing
that, Tamora took her son's revenge by killed the son of the late
emperor of Rome Bassianus and made both her sons rape Titus's
daughter
Lavinia. She also framed both Titus's son in the killing of
Bassianus.
This occurrence in the story is very similar to the avenging of
Israelis in 1972 when a Palestinian terrorist group killed 11 Israeli
athletes and coaches at the Munich Olympics in a barbaric and brutal
way. The Israeli government is known for getting back at their
enemies
and so as revenge they killed Mabhouh. So in this story, Titus
reminds
me of Mabhouh and the Israeli government reminds me of Tamora.
Works Cited
Articles.latimes.com. Los Angeles Times, Winter 2009. Web. 18 Mar.
2010. <http://articles.latimes.com/2010/feb/21/opinion/la-oe-miller-
web21-2010feb21>.
Meagan Judkins
Jun 5, 2010, 3:35:52 PM6/5/10
to English 101, spring 2010 online sections #0143 and #3226
Meagan Judkins
English #3226
Professor O’Connell
Journal Weeks 15-16
Collected Works
June 5, 2010
English #3226
Professor O’Connell
Journal Weeks 15-16
Collected Works
************************************************************************
Meagan Judkins
February 18, 2010
GOLDHAGEN; WORSE THAN WAR
February 18, 2010
GOLDHAGEN; WORSE THAN WAR
Week (1) Research & Journal
murderous leaders? Are humans built to kill? Are we lemmings? Or
are we just cowards? I know we touched upon this in the first
journal, but in the first chapter of Worse Than War, Goldhagen skims
through the many possibilities of why humans stand idly by as people
are slaughtered. He jumps to get to the point that what is important
is that we don’t “depersonalize” or dehumanize” the perpetrators. I
understand his point in this, but as I said in my last journal entry,
there can not be an easy implementation of genocide without the
support of the society. I am curious to delve further into studies
that have answers as to why (although we are progressing as a species
so rapidly) we still brutally murder one another, if not by our actual
hands, then by our lack of intervention. Perhaps most humans are
simply ignorant? Fearful?
are we just cowards? I know we touched upon this in the first
journal, but in the first chapter of Worse Than War, Goldhagen skims
through the many possibilities of why humans stand idly by as people
are slaughtered. He jumps to get to the point that what is important
is that we don’t “depersonalize” or dehumanize” the perpetrators. I
understand his point in this, but as I said in my last journal entry,
there can not be an easy implementation of genocide without the
support of the society. I am curious to delve further into studies
that have answers as to why (although we are progressing as a species
so rapidly) we still brutally murder one another, if not by our actual
hands, then by our lack of intervention. Perhaps most humans are
simply ignorant? Fearful?
Work Cited:
Goldhagen, J. D. (2009). Worse Than War: Genocide, Eliminationism
and
the Ongoing Assault On Humanity (Chapter 1)
Goldhagen, J. D. (2009). Worse Than War: Genocide, Eliminationism
and
http://www.newstatesman.com/books/2010/02/genocide-goldhagen-mass
Worse Than War: Genocide, Eliminationism and the Ongoing Assault on
Humanity by Daniel Jonah Goldhagen; Reviewed by John Gray - 04
February 2010
Meagan Judkins
English 101 #3226
Humanity by Daniel Jonah Goldhagen; Reviewed by John Gray - 04
February 2010
Meagan Judkins
English 101 #3226
Professor O'Connell
Weeks 5-7 Research & Journal
March 28, 2010
Weeks 5-7 Research & Journal
H.RES.241
Title: Commending the International Criminal Court for issuing a
warrant for the arrest of Omar Hassan Ahmad al-Bashir, President of
the Republic of the Sudan, for war crimes and crimes against humanity,
and expressing the hope that this will be a significant step in the
long road towards achieving peace and stability in the Darfur region.
Sponsor: Rep Hastings, Alcee L. [FL-23] (introduced 3/12/2009)
Cosponsors (28)
A. I like a lot of things about this bill. The point I will focus on
Cosponsors (28)
hopefully shows that the UN and ICC have evolved since the publishing
of “Worse than War”. As Goldhagen points out in Chp 10. page 525, “The
language we use to describe eliminationist onslaughts should be
descriptively accurate. We should avoid euphemisms and obfuscating
locutions such as “ethnic cleansing”. His point being that “we should
use genocide”. This bill to me is very direct, to the point and does
not seem to be sugar coating the situation in Sudan. Genocide is used
to describe the horrible crimes of Al-Bashir and the bill is littered
with descriptive wording, that again, paints the correct picture;
“crimes against humanity”, “campaign of violence”, “needless
violence”, “brutal murder, rape, torture, and unconscionable
oppression”. I also like that the bill “encourages President Barack
Obama to appoint a full-time envoy to the region to engage in
diplomatic efforts.”
B. What I don’t like about this bill is it seems a little premature to
begin “commending” the ICC. I feel like, as Goldhagen points out many
times in “Worse than War”, it is not enough to simply issue a warrant.
The issuing of a warrant, to me, should be apart of the first steps
taken to stop the genocide, therefore not worthy of any type of
celebration. I am also concerned that the issuing of the warrant
of “Worse than War”. As Goldhagen points out in Chp 10. page 525, “The
language we use to describe eliminationist onslaughts should be
descriptively accurate. We should avoid euphemisms and obfuscating
locutions such as “ethnic cleansing”. His point being that “we should
use genocide”. This bill to me is very direct, to the point and does
not seem to be sugar coating the situation in Sudan. Genocide is used
to describe the horrible crimes of Al-Bashir and the bill is littered
with descriptive wording, that again, paints the correct picture;
“crimes against humanity”, “campaign of violence”, “needless
violence”, “brutal murder, rape, torture, and unconscionable
oppression”. I also like that the bill “encourages President Barack
Obama to appoint a full-time envoy to the region to engage in
diplomatic efforts.”
B. What I don’t like about this bill is it seems a little premature to
begin “commending” the ICC. I feel like, as Goldhagen points out many
times in “Worse than War”, it is not enough to simply issue a warrant.
The issuing of a warrant, to me, should be apart of the first steps
taken to stop the genocide, therefore not worthy of any type of
and war down the throats of our children, I am only suggesting that we
as a society must own up to our past, the actions of our forefathers.
If we cannot bring justice to those injustices committed, then we can,
at the very least, re-account our history in a truthful manner,
thereby bringing respect to those who were treated unfairly while also
regaining the dignity we’ve lost.
I asked a Native American friend of mine if there was any film, book,
etc that he felt truly gave real and fair account of the life of the
Native American. Although this short story does not tie in directly
with Goldhagen’s points towards the treatment or suggested genocide of
the Native Americans, I do feel it paints a clear picture of the
aftermath. Victor is a young man on a reservation. He has heard word
as a society must own up to our past, the actions of our forefathers.
If we cannot bring justice to those injustices committed, then we can,
at the very least, re-account our history in a truthful manner,
thereby bringing respect to those who were treated unfairly while also
regaining the dignity we’ve lost.
I asked a Native American friend of mine if there was any film, book,
etc that he felt truly gave real and fair account of the life of the
Native American. Although this short story does not tie in directly
with Goldhagen’s points towards the treatment or suggested genocide of
the Native Americans, I do feel it paints a clear picture of the
Professor O’Connell
Goldhagen vs. NY Times’ “Hiroshima, 50 Years Later”
Up until this point I have, for argument’s sake mostly, tried to
understand and defend Goldhagen’s point of view and ideals. I respect
his crusade and for the most part I understand where he is coming
from, or rather the point he is trying to get across. In my last
journal entry I defend his approach to Truman, his claim that Truman
should be lumped together with the likes of Hitler, Stalin and Pol
Pot. But after reading The New York Times’ “Hiroshima, 50 Years
Later” I feel as though my opinioned has swayed a bit. The point
Goldhagen vs. NY Times’ “Hiroshima, 50 Years Later”
Up until this point I have, for argument’s sake mostly, tried to
understand and defend Goldhagen’s point of view and ideals. I respect
his crusade and for the most part I understand where he is coming
from, or rather the point he is trying to get across. In my last
journal entry I defend his approach to Truman, his claim that Truman
should be lumped together with the likes of Hitler, Stalin and Pol
Pot. But after reading The New York Times’ “Hiroshima, 50 Years
Goldhagen is innocently trying to get across when labeling Truman a
murderer is that mass murder is just that, murder (no matter the moral
reasoning behind the action). I, however, feel as though his words
are off putting and unfair (although in his defense, he does state
“Truman would have gladly had history take another course). In the
murderer is that mass murder is just that, murder (no matter the moral
reasoning behind the action). I, however, feel as though his words
are off putting and unfair (although in his defense, he does state
New York Times article Truman and the situation at hand were described
in a far more reality based sense and because things in this life are
rarely black and white, I believe Goldhagen stands to be questioned in
this area.
Goldhagen plainly and repeatedly states that Truman is a “mass
murderer” and should be openly labeled as such. He does not compare
the decision Truman had to make to other mass murder situations of our
time, but rather puts “Truman and his deeds into the same broad
categories of Hitler and the Holocaust, Stalin and the gulag, Pol Pot,
Mao Saddam Hussein, and Slobodan Milosevic”. Of course the point
Goldhagen is trying to make is that we must be careful to makes
excuses for a mass murder, this is dangerous terrority, but that being
said, his approach seems a bit ridiculous and unfair to me. There
were many compenents involved to making the decision to drop the bomb
in a far more reality based sense and because things in this life are
rarely black and white, I believe Goldhagen stands to be questioned in
this area.
Goldhagen plainly and repeatedly states that Truman is a “mass
murderer” and should be openly labeled as such. He does not compare
the decision Truman had to make to other mass murder situations of our
time, but rather puts “Truman and his deeds into the same broad
categories of Hitler and the Holocaust, Stalin and the gulag, Pol Pot,
Mao Saddam Hussein, and Slobodan Milosevic”. Of course the point
Goldhagen is trying to make is that we must be careful to makes
excuses for a mass murder, this is dangerous terrority, but that being
said, his approach seems a bit ridiculous and unfair to me. There
on Hiroshima. One cannot dismiss such a huge decision as easily as
Goldhagen does. Many factors need to be considered. I appreciate
what I read in the article “One can imagine the clamor for his
(Truman) skin political skin if tens of thousands of allied soldiers
had died, in battle or in Japanese camps, because the bomb was never
used, or used too late.” Goldhagen claims “as Truman knew, the
slaughter was not necessary to end the war soon.” But again, even if
Truman’s main objective, for example, was only to demonstrate American
power to the Soviets, then it can be argued that the bomb saved future
lives. If Goldhagen believes what he says on page 8 “Truman’s (mass
murder) was accidental, owing to a confluence of circumstances that he
would have preferred never came about”, then Goldhagen must consider
Truman’s decision, although horrific, a necessary one.
I believe that Truman and his administration choose to drop the bomb
in order to stop the war, save lives and to make a point. I choose to
believe that this was not an act of hatred or racism, or even a ploy
show America’s strength in an unnecessary way. According to the
article “Those in the inner circle generally saw the bomb as just
another weapon.” Continueing that “Hanson Baldwin” a New York Time’s
Goldhagen does. Many factors need to be considered. I appreciate
what I read in the article “One can imagine the clamor for his
(Truman) skin political skin if tens of thousands of allied soldiers
had died, in battle or in Japanese camps, because the bomb was never
used, or used too late.” Goldhagen claims “as Truman knew, the
slaughter was not necessary to end the war soon.” But again, even if
Truman’s main objective, for example, was only to demonstrate American
power to the Soviets, then it can be argued that the bomb saved future
lives. If Goldhagen believes what he says on page 8 “Truman’s (mass
murder) was accidental, owing to a confluence of circumstances that he
would have preferred never came about”, then Goldhagen must consider
Truman’s decision, although horrific, a necessary one.
I believe that Truman and his administration choose to drop the bomb
in order to stop the war, save lives and to make a point. I choose to
believe that this was not an act of hatred or racism, or even a ploy
show America’s strength in an unnecessary way. According to the
article “Those in the inner circle generally saw the bomb as just
corresspondant “was amoung the few to grasp how truly lethal the
weapon was”. In a time of war, each moment matters, lives are lost or
people are injured every minute. I believe they made what they
we as a world do together to stop these types of radical groups from
implementing not only genocide but worldwide destruction and mass
murder? Because as Goldhagen makes clear at the end of chapter 10,
“In twenty to thirty years, certainly in fifty, the technology and
know-how for developing such weaponry (nuclear missiles/bombs etc)
will be widely if not generally available.” Will the same
preventative steps Goldhagen suggests towards eliminating genocide
from even forming hold any real weight against political Islam? Or
will an all out war be the only answer?
Work cited:
Hesse, M. (2009, February 12). Qantara.de, Deterrence As the Only
Option: Interview with Daniel J. Goldhagen
Retrieved March 8, 2010, from http://www.qantara.de/webcom/show_article.php/_c-476/_nr-1263/i.html
implementing not only genocide but worldwide destruction and mass
murder? Because as Goldhagen makes clear at the end of chapter 10,
“In twenty to thirty years, certainly in fifty, the technology and
know-how for developing such weaponry (nuclear missiles/bombs etc)
will be widely if not generally available.” Will the same
preventative steps Goldhagen suggests towards eliminating genocide
from even forming hold any real weight against political Islam? Or
will an all out war be the only answer?
Work cited:
Hesse, M. (2009, February 12). Qantara.de, Deterrence As the Only
Option: Interview with Daniel J. Goldhagen
Retrieved March 8, 2010, from http://www.qantara.de/webcom/show_article.php/_c-476/_nr-1263/i.html
Spiegel.de. Spiegel.de, 10 Aug. 2009. Web. 18 Mar. 2010.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,653938,00.html
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,653938,00.html
Goldhagen, D.J. Worse Than War. 2009.
Meagan Judkins
#3226 English 101
Professor O’Connell
April 23, 2010
Essay 2
Essay 2
death that was induced by hate, greed and revenge. In God, Greed, and
Genocide: The Holocaust Through the Centuries, Grenke quotes Chalk and
Jonassohn with regards to the Cherokee Trail of Tears that "an act
like the Cherokee deportation would almost certainly be considered an
act of genocide today.” As stated in the first paragraph of this
Genocide: The Holocaust Through the Centuries, Grenke quotes Chalk and
Jonassohn with regards to the Cherokee Trail of Tears that "an act
like the Cherokee deportation would almost certainly be considered an
the side of the Native American. I for one agree with him. We cannot
let good intentions be the reason we do not define an act as
genocide. We must be aware that genocide can take many forms, not
just mass murder. We as a nation, as a species, must define these
acts and do all we can to stop them.
Works cited:
Glauner, Lindsay. "The US and the Crime of Genocide against Native
Americans"
http://academic.udayton.edu/race/06hrights/GeoRegions/NorthAmerica/UnitedStates02.htm
Goldhagen, D. J. (2009). “Worse than war: Genocide, Eliminationism,
let good intentions be the reason we do not define an act as
genocide. We must be aware that genocide can take many forms, not
just mass murder. We as a nation, as a species, must define these
acts and do all we can to stop them.
Works cited:
Glauner, Lindsay. "The US and the Crime of Genocide against Native
Americans"
http://academic.udayton.edu/race/06hrights/GeoRegions/NorthAmerica/UnitedStates02.htm
and
the Ongoing Assault on Humanity.” New York: Public Affairs.
Grenke, Arthur. “God, Greed, and Genocide: The Holocaust through the
Centuries” New Academia Publishing, LLC (July 20, 2005)
Lewy, Guenter. “Were American Indians the Victims of Genocide?”
November 11, 2004. http://hnn.us/articles/7302.html
http://ngeorgia.com/history/nghisttt.html
http://www.liberalslikechrist.org/AmericanHolocaust/amholocaust-6.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_of_Tears
Rep Boren, Dan [OK-2] (introduced 4/30/2009) H.J.RES.46 Title: To
acknowledge a long history of official depredations and ill-conceived
policies by the United States Government regarding Indian tribes and
offer an apology to all Native Peoples on behalf of the United
States.
************
Meagan Judkins
English 101 #3226
Professor O’Connell
Grenke, Arthur. “God, Greed, and Genocide: The Holocaust through the
Centuries” New Academia Publishing, LLC (July 20, 2005)
Lewy, Guenter. “Were American Indians the Victims of Genocide?”
November 11, 2004. http://hnn.us/articles/7302.html
http://ngeorgia.com/history/nghisttt.html
http://www.liberalslikechrist.org/AmericanHolocaust/amholocaust-6.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_of_Tears
Rep Boren, Dan [OK-2] (introduced 4/30/2009) H.J.RES.46 Title: To
acknowledge a long history of official depredations and ill-conceived
policies by the United States Government regarding Indian tribes and
offer an apology to all Native Peoples on behalf of the United
States.
************
Meagan Judkins
English 101 #3226
Professor O’Connell
April 23, 2010
Short Story
Short Story
Meagan Judkins
English 101 section #3226
Essay 3
May 28th, 2010
Professor O’Connell
The conflict now happening in Sierra Leone, Sudan and The Republic of
Congo metaphorically and literally shares ties with Shakespeare’s
“Titus Andronicus”. In Goldhagen’s “Worse Than War” war crimes are
highlighted throughout; the Khmer Rouge implemented death marches in
Cambodia, starvation in the Warsaw Ghetto camp and the Soviet gulag’s
inhumanity and enormous death rates. There are many outcomes for the
victims of war. Tied together is the enslavement of an opposing force
or outfit, as well as the enslavement of an opposing force’s youth.
This compares to Tomara being held with her three sons by the Romans
after the fall of the Gloths. This is explicitly mentioned when
Saturnicus chooses the enslaved Tamora to be his wife:
"Behold, I choose thee, Tamora, for my bride".
Saturnicus chooses the enslaved Tamora to be his wife:
In the article “Human trafficking & Modern-day Salvery” it states
that The Democratic Republic of the Congo is often a destination for
men, women and children who have been trafficked from their homeland
with the full intention of using them for forced labor and sexual
exploitation. Related is the enslavement of children with the intent
to use them in combat as child soldiers. Titus clearly offers Tamora's
children to Saturnicus as a "gift",
"The wide world's emperor,
do I consecrate my sword,
my chariot, and my prisoners,
presents well worthy Rome's imperious lord.".
According to Ann O’Neil in the report entitled, “Stolen Kids Turned
into Terrifying Killers” children are kidnapped, some after witnessing
the murder of their families, and are given drugs, weapons and militia
training. Known as “Kadogo” or “the little ones” these children, some
as young as 6, if not trained especially to torture and kill, are used
for slave labor. According to a report by the Coalition to Stop the
Use of Child Soldiers, about a third of the world's child soldiers are
in Africa. If ever, and certainly rarely, these children are returned
to their families, the emotional damage is more than not,
irreversible. There is no exact number known of the amount of child
soldiers currently being held in Africa, although the number is
thought to be at least several thousand. Enslavement is a most
terrifying fate, but there are fates just as horrific. After savagely
pillaging a village, guerrilla rebels often use rape, torture and
mutilation as acts of control. Gratuitous violence and revenge are
generally present during a time of conflict; this seems especially
true in Africa. In “Titus Andronicus” Tomara clearly wills her two
sons to rape and then mutilate Lavinia, Titus’ daughter, as an act of
revenge.
"So should I rob my sweet sons of their fee,
no, left them satisfy their lust on thee."
Filmmaker Lisa F. Jackson was once a victim of rape herself.
Propelling her own suffering and experience with not only the violent
act, but also accepting the sad truth that her perpetrators had never
and most likely would never be caught, made her relate to the rape
victims in The Republic of Congo. She traveled to Africa armed with a
video camera determined to give a voice to the silenced women and
girls of the war-torn area of Africa. What she found is nothing less
than heinous. Victims ranging in age, some as young as 4, tell of
their experiences; he was cut “into three parts, the head, the chest,
and the bottom part. Then they raped me and abandoned me there. I
passed out next to my husband’s legs.” In an article by The Guardian,
Kira Cochrane interviews Lisa Jackson on her latest documentary
entitled “The Greatest Silence: Rape in the Congo”. Lisa echoes her
experiences interviewing not only victims, but also the unapologetic
attackers; “It’s hard to keep a record. We stayed too long in the
bush, and that induced us to rape. For an approximate number, maybe
25.” Lisa found that ironically the women she interviewed were
wrought with guilt and shame; however, the men who attacked them
showed no signs remorse.
Rape is so prevalent that one tends to forget just how permanently
damaging it can be psychologically, emotionally and physically. Only
murder is worse than rape, and even rape can be considered murder in
that rape is “murder of the mind.” Rape is considered a “weapon of
war”. It breaks families and people. Leaves the victim immobile and
terrified, it causes silence. Often the women and young girls are
raped in front of their families, their fathers, their husbands. The
men are left helpless. This fear tactic is incredibly strong, and
more importantly to the attackers, “more easily obtainable than
bullets or bombs.” According to the article, there are an estimate
200,000 survivors of rape living in the Republic of Congo today.
Of the examples I have correlated from “Titus Andronicus” to the
genocidal events in Africa, the most literal is the removal of
Lavinia’s hands and tongue to ensure the silence against her
attackers, Tamora's son’s Chiron and Demetrius:
"But when you have the honey you desire,
let not this wasp outlive us both to sting."
control, as seen in Sierra Leone. Lavinia suggested the story of
Philomela to her Father Titus and her uncle Marcus, in which a mute
victim “wrote” the name of her attackers. Marcus then gives Lavinia a
stick so that she may write out the name of her own perpetrators. In
Sierra Leone people’s hands were amputated by rebels who (although all
of the amputations could not be confirmed for this reason) told their
victims “they were cutting off their hands as punishment for using
of the amputations could not be confirmed for this reason) told their
their hands in the 1996 vote”. Although not directly the same, this
correlation shows the use of violence to silence a person, because
although Lavinia’s amputation was used to silence her after the fact
and amputations in Africa were as punishment for making their voice
heard, both are acts of violence to instill fear and silence. In
although Lavinia’s amputation was used to silence her after the fact
and amputations in Africa were as punishment for making their voice
Africa the removal of the hands or tongues by the rebels has befallen
so many victims it is almost tragic to say that the act has lost its
shock value. Reasons of punishment, example and torture all can be
attributed to the act. Made famous by the movie “Blood Diamond” we
learn that if a person or in some cases a child, is unable to produce
goods or is accused of stealing they will lose their hand or arm at
the elbow. As mentioned earlier, often this kind of mutilation is
often political. In an article by Roland Bankole Marke entitled, “No
Compassion for Sierra Leone’s Amputees” Mamsu Thoronka tells of the
removal of her hands in 1999, “I attempted to take refuge in a
building to escape the vengeance of the rebels.” but “they found me. I
begged for mercy asking them to respect God” they responded “point to
God” and then began to hack at her right hand, after successfully
removing her left. The rebels then said to Mamsu “get another hand
from President Kabba, who has several hands to spare.” Tamba Ngaujah
who once served in the Republic Sierra Leone Military Forces is now
living on the streets after being kicked out by military officials
from the Wilberforce barracks where he lived in military quarters. His
hands were removed by rebels and thus left him useless and a burden to
the outfit he once served. Unlike Tamba, Mamsu has been fortunate in
benefiting from outside resources brought in by foreign countries. A
Norwegian charity has helped in offering her and her children
housing. Unfortunately it is not only the government who shames
amputees by disregarding them, discrimination of amputees is rampant
in Sierra Leone, socially amputees are looked down upon. Mamsu’s
children are mocked at school, “your mother is a half-person.” Mamsu
expresses her emotional pain in correctly stating, “It is so
demeaning” especially because “I’m a victim of mere circumstance.” .
In a paper entitled “Disability as Embodied Memory? Questions of
Identity for the Amputees of Sierra Leone.” Maria Berghs explores how
the Sierra Leone government tried in the early 90’s to contain and
then exploit the amputee identity. Establishing camps, the government
then tried to create a “genderless visual metaphor” to receive
monetary aid from foreign donors. Creating camps and hiding these
victims in order that they could again, gain donations but also
control the way the international public viewed the severity of the
civil war. But with the aid of foreign N.G.O’s and religious
organizations, the amputee victims were able to reject being used.
Through an online presence and the media, they told their stories,
lobbied for personal aid through other governments and “demanded
compensation and rehabilitation from those who had caused their
injuries.” Much like Lavinia was silenced, she overcomes her
limitations and uses a stick to relay to her father Titus the names of
her attackers:
“Marcus:
This sandy plot is plain; guide, if thou canst,
this after me. I have writ my name
Without the help of any hand at all.
Cursed be that heart that forced us to this shift!
Write though, good niece, and here display at last
What God will have discovered for revenge.
Heaven guide thy pen to print thy sorrows plain,
That we may know the traitors and the truth.
She takes the staff in her mouth, and guides it
wih her stumps and writes.
O, do you read, my lord, what she hath writ?
Perhaps the most frightening aspect of the violence in Africa is that
there are more times than not, no real reason for these war crimes.
Political reasons, issues of land and resources are a huge factor, but
unlike Hitler’s Nazi Germany, there is not necessarily one ultimate
goal. On page 331 in “Worse Than War”, Goldhagen describes
“demonizing” of a people to explain the motivation for genocide.
However in the case of Africa it seems most of the victims are
brutalized to make a statement or for personal relief. Often the
victims of these eliminationtist assaults are victimized by their own
countrymen. “Killing in a manner inflicting maximal suffering” a
quote from Goldhagen can be used to describe the horrific fate of
those victims in war-torn Africa. The answer to Africa’s problems is
not an easy one. Multiple organizations throughout the years have
tried to calm the blinding violence and appalling brutalization. But
as the years pass, the situation has proven itself a problem that
requires an answer not easy to give. Just as “Titus Andronicus” ends
in a murderous bloodbath with no real victor, thus does the conflict
in Africa continue. Only the victims “lucky” enough to be left alive
know the true terrifying nature of humans and that of our powerful and
truly horrific capabilities.
References:
"Africa Recovery, United Nations". Vol.15 #3, October 2001, page 10.
(Part of Special Feature: Protecting Africa's Children) Retrieved on
May 26th, 2010 from: http://www.un.org/ecosocdev/geninfo/afrec/vol15no3/153chil2.htm
bbc.co.uk “UN Highlights Human Trafficking” Retrieved May 19th, 2010
from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6497799.stm
Butcher, Tim. “Sierra Leone War Amputees Learn to Vote with their
Feet”. Retrieved May12th, 2010 from:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/sierraleone/1394199/Sierra-Leone-war-amputees-learn-to-vote-with-their-feet.html
Cochrane, Kira. “The Victim’s Witness”. Retrieved May 22nd, 2010 from:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2008/may/09/women.congo
Goldhagen, D.J. (2009). Worse Than War
United States: Public Affairs, a member of the Perseus Books Group
Marke, Roland Bankole. “Harvest of Hate – Stories and Essays: Fuel for
the Soul. Publish America, 2006.
O’Neil, Ann. “Stolen Kids Turned into Terrifying Killers” Posted
February 12th, 2007. Retrieved May 21st, 2010 from:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/africa/02/12/child.soldiers/index.html
Shakespeare, William. “Titus Andronicus.” (Pelican Shakespeare Series)
Meagan Judkins
English #3226
FINAL
June 5, 2010
Perhaps one of the most difficult aspects regarding the solutions that
Goldhagen offers in "Worse Than War" is that they require human
beings, who are basically unaffected, show great benevolence and
compassion. Especially when it comes to matters of money and
resources, most people are simply to far away from the problems to
care, in other words, out of sight equates to out of mind. I
completely admire Goldhagen for his tenacious fight for the unheard
victims of genocide. I unfortunately fear that Goldhagen’s only hope
is to work directly with outfits such as the ICC and the United
Nations as opposed to berating them, that and what he is already
doing, which is trying tirelessly to inform the public. Of the
solutions he offers, the one that stands to me to make the most sense,
is offering a bounty for anyone engaging in genocidal actions, this
allows for the assumption that the people supporting a murderous
leader are more concerned with money than they are with loyalty. This
is most likely going to be true. I think that if it becomes a broad
worldwide known fact that if you engage in any kind of genocide you
will be brought to justice by either imprisonment or death, the amount
of money actually spent fulfilling cash rewards would become overtime,
less and less of an issue. These violent acts would become less
frequent. As it stands now, a man like Joseph Kony feels safe in his
terrorist actions, because, what punishment is there? None.
I know that people often want to focus on their own countries; people
again, are safe in their blindness, what they do not understand or
know to be true cannot make them feel guilty. But this world is a
small place and we must ban together as a species to ensure, if only
because of compassion and moral obligation, that genocide is not
happening in our world. We as Americans believe that a person is
allowed the right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This
does not need to be only an American dream. I believe as stated by
Luis Moreno Ocampo, a current ICC judge, we must arrest Joseph Kony.
Not because I feel mercy, but because I feel that we should make an
example out of him, create a highly publicized case. Let his capture
be the starting point of this change in the United Nations and ICC.
If we cannot easily locate him for arrest, offer a reward of 10
million dollars for his capture. Let every newspaper write on this
bounty, make it know to the world his evil doings, and that we as a
species are making a stand.
Warrants and arrest are pointless if they aren’t issued and carried
out immediately. To put out a warrant and then wait a year is
ridiculous. These people in power who are instigating violence need
to know that they will be brought to justice, and swiftly. I disagree
with Goldhagen in saying that we should offer the public rewards for
the murder of a leader engaging in genocidal acts. I do believe that
when after searching, issuing warrants, and publicizing the wanted
person proves to be unsuccessful then more extreme measures can be
taken. But in my opinion a life spent in a prison is far worse than
the ease of death. Not to mention, suggesting murder by civilians is
dangerous. This can create chaos and more violence. The bill put
forward by the Obama administration is excellent, extremely charitable
and most importantly, it is necessary. If we decide to involve
ourselves enough to take Kony out of power, then we must think of the
mess he will leave behind. I fully support this bill. Obviously the
answer to removing an evil foreign power is not easy; however, we must
do something. This is our moral responsibility and I fully support
taking a strong stand in finding a solution.
References:
Kiggundu, Edris. Sunday 30 May 2010. “I am waiting for evidence on
Buganda Killings says ICC Chief”
Feingold, Sen. R. 2009, May 19. S1067: Lord’s Resistance Army
disarmament and Northern Uganda recovery act. US Senate
Goldhagen, D. J. (2009). Worse than war: Genocide, Eliminationism,
disarmament and Northern Uganda recovery act. US Senate
and the Ongoing Assault on Humanity. New York: Public Affairs. 91.
http://www.nndb.com/people/398/000022332. Retrieved June 4th, 2010
>
> Mariz Girgis
> Professor O'Connell
> English 101
> 26 March 2010
> After watching Ishmael Beah speak, one’s opinion has strongly
> changed from thinking that all individuals involved in genocide
> should
> be annihilated.In his book, Goldhagen states that the United Nations
> as it is structured presently, is of very little use when it comes to
> the issue of the solution to genocide. The Truth and Reconciliation
> Commission Report is much more humanitarian and gentle in its
> approach
> but is still not very effective.
> Middle ground is where true and effective solutions can come forth.
> Take for example the question of whether or not the ...
> Mariz Girgis
> Professor O'Connell
> English 101
> 26 March 2010
> After watching Ishmael Beah speak, one’s opinion has strongly
> changed from thinking that all individuals involved in genocide
> should
> be annihilated.In his book, Goldhagen states that the United Nations
> as it is structured presently, is of very little use when it comes to
> the issue of the solution to genocide. The Truth and Reconciliation
> Commission Report is much more humanitarian and gentle in its
> approach
> but is still not very effective.
> Middle ground is where true and effective solutions can come forth.
>
> read more »
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages