In Kigali, at Monday’s commemoration ceremony to mark the 20th anniversary of the genocide in Rwanda, Ban Ki-moon said that:
“Our first duty must always be to protect people — to protect human beings in need and distress… We are sure to face other grave challenges to our common values. And we must meet them. We must not be left to utter the words “never again”, again and again”.
Well, here’s a disturbing trend I didn’t know about until this morning:
The so-called “quenelle” signal, popularized by notoriously anti-Semitic French comedian Dieudonné M’bala M’bala, allows these youngsters to openly flout the strict anti-hate speech laws in some parts of Europe.
Apparently, posting photos of oneself doing the “quenelle” is popular for Europeans teens, athletes, and even politicians.
In related news, today is the anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, where members of my family were murdered in 1944 and where the young man above is saluting their murderers.
When I was 10 years old and a smiling Dennis Rodman gave me his autograph after the players’ shoot-around before a Pistons game, I certainly never could have imagined he’d end up here, an irate (and possibly ill) man blathering incoherently from Pyongyang in response to questions about an American citizen who has been detained without charge in North Korea:
Defending the behavior of a genocidal regime is the strangest and lowest point in what has been a troubled, troubled life.
Thailand’s premier university has apologized for displaying a billboard that showed Adolf Hitler alongside Superman and other superheroes, saying Monday it was painted by ignorant students who didn’t realize Hitler’s image would offend anyone.
The billboard was up for two days before being removed Saturday in response to criticism. Online photographs showed graduating students in their robes, mimicking Hitler’s raised arm salute.
[…]The study of history in the Thai school system revolves primarily around the history of Thailand and its long line of kings. World history is glossed over, with little or no mention of the Holocaust.
Well, the phrase “ignorant students who didn’t realize Hitler’s image would offend anyone” certainly suggests that the educational system isn’t quite doing its job …
HT: Stefan Dolgert.
Nearly 60 years after his death, Aristides de Sousa Mendes, a diplomat who rescued tens of thousands of Jews during the Holocaust, is finally beginning to get his due in his home country of Portugal:
Mr. Sousa Mendes, Portugal’s consul in Bordeaux when Germany invaded France, provided about 30,000 people with Portuguese visas to escape Nazi persecution, according to the Sousa Mendes Foundation, which is run by descendants of the visa recipients. His status as one of the most important protectors of the Jewish people, if not the precise number of visas, has been confirmed by Yehuda Bauer, a Holocaust historian at the Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial.
He issued many of the visas personally and also persuaded some others on the Portuguese diplomatic staff stationed in France to do the same, against the orders of his own government, which was neutral but Fascist. When the government realized the scale of his disobedience, Mr. Sousa Mendes was recalled to Lisbon, tried and dismissed from the diplomatic service. Stripped of his pension rights, he died in poverty in 1954.
In the 1980s, Portugal rehabilitated Mr. Sousa Mendes’s name and apologized to his family, while the Portuguese Parliament posthumously promoted him to the rank of ambassador.
Still, Harry Oesterreicher, the treasurer of the Sousa Mendes Foundation, said that it was disappointing to see the limited recognition Mr. Sousa Mendes had received in Portugal and how his family mansion here had been allowed to fall into ruin. It was repossessed by creditors after his death.
The foundation is now hoping to turn the house into a museum of tolerance, with the Portuguese authorities pledging last month to make an initial contribution of about $400,000.
Spend some time with Jack Patterson this afternoon … if you’re looking to debate whether Nazis are actually bad guys who deserve punishment.
He begins by doubting the veracity of everyone reporting on the Nazi war criminal living in Minnesota. After three or four tweets about how the guy probably isn’t even a war criminal, he decides the guy was probably just a “small fry” and therefore not worth dealing with today. Much better to let him live out his life in peace, since being a war criminal isn’t a big deal — as long as you’re just a minor war criminal. This is especially true, he claims, because justice is just something the powerful say once they’ve won a war … rather than an actual thing we can talk about (like, for example, when we say that genocide is an injustice and punishing genocide is just).
From there, it’s a hop, skip, and jump to claiming that, really, everyone was committing atrocities back then and that we ought to concentrate our real efforts on dealing out justice not to Nazi war criminals of the past but — of course — to Jews who are committing atrocities against Palestinians today.
Well played, Jack. Well played.
Guatemala’s constitutional court has overturned a genocide conviction against former dictator José Efraín Ríos Montt, throwing out all proceedings against him since a dispute broke out in April over who should hear it.
Ríos Montt was found guilty on 10 May of overseeing the deliberate killings by the armed forces of at least 1,771 members of the Maya Ixil population during his 1982-83 rule. He was sentenced to 80 years in prison.
But the constitutional court said it had thrown out all proceedings in the case that took place after 19 April. It was then that the trial against Ríos Montt was suspended after a spat between judges over who should take the case.
Sebastian Elgueta, Amnesty International’s researcher on Guatemala outlines the serious and far-reaching problems raised by the constitutional court’s ruling:
"The legal basis for the ruling is unclear, and it is uncertain how the trial court can hit the reset button to get back to a point in mid-April. What is clear is that the Constitutional Court has just thrown up formidable obstacles to justice and accountability for a harrowing period in Guatemala’s recent history.
"With the sentence on 10 May, the trial court had sent a strong signal that crimes against thousands of Mayan victims would not be tolerated. The Constitutional Court has now questioned that message, putting the right to truth, justice and reparation at risk in Guatemala."
So … this happened over the weekend. And the backlash, not surprisingly, was intense.
Now I’m no fan of Justin Bieber, and I suspect that all the people who were horrified by what he wrote also are not, but I don’t see the need to be so outraged.
Anne Frank was a normal girl and she might very well have liked Justin Bieber if she was living now rather than in the 1930s. Lots of normal girls do. And Justin Bieber is a normal celebrity; he wants lots of people to like him. I’m not a celebrity in the least and I want lots of people to like me. I’d go so far as to say that I hope Anne Frank would have wanted to take some of my classes. We could even spin this around and say that Bieber was so impressed by what he learned about Anne Frank that he hoped she would like his music because he certainly liked what he now knew about her.
To go one step farther, I think it’s a great good that Bieber went to the Anne Frank House. He didn’t need to spend time there while he was on his tour and, I’d venture to guess, lots of celebrities don’t visit. If you’re young, rich, famous, and touring the world, there’s really nothing driving you to spend part of your day at the Anne Frank House. Having been there myself, I think it’s a place that as many people as possible should visit; it’s far more accessible than a concentration camp and I think it likely does a good deal more to bring home the extremity of the Holocaust by focusing on an individual than would, say, spending an afternoon at Buchenwald. And now a whole lot more people — all those “beliebers” out there — are learning about Anne Frank as well.
So, I’ll write something I never, ever thought I’d write:
Good job, Justin Bieber.
I’ve been encouraged to say a bit more about yesterday’s blog post concerning the Albany teacher whose students were required to write a persuasive argumentative essay from the perspective of someone living in the Third Reich about why Jews are evil and are responsible for the problems faced by Germany in the 1930s.
On the face of it, the assignment seemed so obviously problematic to me that I didn’t spend a great deal of time outlining the problem. This led a few people to comment that there’s something very valuable about being forced to think about an abhorrent position. Some claimed the value was that it made us more tolerant of unpopular opinions; some claimed it encouraged free thinking rather than repetition.
All of this would be true, I think, when we’re talking about making an argument that defends an unpopular or controversial position. I ask my students to write papers about Marx’s critique of Locke on property or Burke’s critique of the concept of universal natural rights. I think there’s real value in thinking critically about radical challenges to liberalism, especially insofar as finding ways to respond to or even integrate some of those challenging ideas can strengthen or improve the way that we think about our society and its goals.
I think there’s no value, however, in thinking critically about or defending a lie. And that’s the crux of this high school English assignment, which is — again — to write a persuasive argument about why Jews are evil and are responsible for a country’s problems. Those aren’t unpopular opinions; they’re just lies. And to teach young people that there are ways to persuasively defend lies is simple sophistry. It’s not an exercise in toleration or liberal education or anything else; it’s just a bad assignment that tried to be edgy or interesting and failed because it wasn’t thought out very carefully. The example was bad, certainly, but so was the pedagogy behind it, namely the whole notion that using propaganda tactics is a good way to teach persuasive writing.
To go one step farther, let me also add that these particular lies are incredibly pernicious ones; they are lies that led to genocide. And they are the sorts of lies that persist. In other words, you don’t have to travel very far to encounter people who hold this position (about Jews) or others like it (about other minority groups). It’s one thing to say we ought to allow people to believe and to even say all manner of things that we find unpleasant or wrong-headed; it’s quite another to say we ought to allow intolerance, hatred, and lies to be taught to our children in our schools. There’s no reason for us to tolerate that; it doesn’t make us better liberals to laud these sorts of mistaken exercises in the name of open-mindedness or free thinking.
Students in some Albany High School English classes were asked this week as part of a persuasive writing assignment to make an abhorrent argument: “You must argue that Jews are evil, and use solid rationale from government propaganda to convince me of your loyalty to the Third Reich!”
Students were asked to watch and read Nazi propaganda, then pretend their teacher was a Nazi government official who needed to be convinced of their loyalty. In five paragraphs, they were required to prove that Jews were the source of Germany’s problems.
The exercise was intended to challenge students to formulate a persuasive argument and was given to three classes, Albany Superintendent Marguerite Vanden Wyngaard said. She said the assignment should have been worded differently.
"I would apologize to our families," she said. "I don’t believe there was malice or intent to cause any insensitivities to our families of Jewish faith."
One-third of the students refused to complete the assignment, she said.
There’s so much to say about this:
First, there’s the assignment. Isn’t it possible to teach students how to make a persuasive argument without using such a ridiculously awful example? And if you can’t think of a way to do this, aren’t you just a terrible teacher or an anti-Semite?
Second, there’s the apology. “The assigment shoud have been worded differently.” You think so? Like, it shouldn’t have used any of the words it used.
Third, there’s the heroism. 1/3 of the students who received the assignment refused to complete it. I wish the number was 2/3, but given the riskiness of simply refusing to do an assignment in high school, I’m surprised the number was even this high. They should hold an assembly that celebrates the choice made by these students.