note: This is a long one. I pared it down twice and this is all I can cut without it losing its soul. Or me losing mine.
Suppose you were who you are at this very moment, but the moment was 1942. An Nazi SS officer holds a pistol to your head and demands to know where the Jews are hidden. You know where they are. If you tell him, you will live and they will die. If you do not tell him, they will live and you will die. He tells you he is going to count to three and then you will either tell him or he will shoot you.
One. Two. Three.
Most of us would like to think that we would stand up to evil and oppose it, but history suggests that we would not. There were many incidences of bravery against the Nazi pogroms but by and large people just went along with it, out of fear for their own lives, and because everyone else was going along with it, too. If you think you would stand opposed to the Nazis despite the weight of human history, perhaps I may be allowed to suggest that you think again.
I choose as an example of Evil, the Nazis, because most people in America have been brought up to think that the Nazis were the ultimate in Evil. Hitler is sometimes thought of as some sort of Uber Evil being, an Antichrist, and Evil Incarnate. Hitler is responsible for millions of deaths but so was Stalin. We were allies with Stalin. We supported him in World War Two. After the war was over Stalin staved to death millions of his own people.
History is full of civilizations that are no more. The Mongols destroyed the Tartars. The Romans destroyed the civilization of Carthage. The Incas, the Mayan Empire, the Celts, and many others are all gone. Yet no one ever vilifies the Romans, or the Spanish, or the British as The Ultimate Evil for what has happened in the past. Is it because it is in the past? Is it because they won their wars? They who win wars are the writers of history. But let’s move closer to home.
Columbus didn’t discover America. There were civilizations flourishing all across the continent. The Europeans moved into American and over a time period from 1492 until the late 1800’s systematically destroyed the native cultures to the point that they no longer existed. How was the west won? By murdering the people who already lived there. By starving them out, by burning their homes, by shooting them and by waging a nonstop military campaign that was designed to eliminate any opposition to the growth of the United States of America.
The difference between what happened here, in America, and what happened in Nazi Germany is a simple matter of marketing.
The Wild West has been sold as a time where brave cowboys tamed a savage land. They are true heroes, and what they did has its own clothing line, its own music, and its own film genre. Can you imagine Hitler and his storm troopers being held up in such a positive light? Can you imagine a film made that shows the Jews as evil people bent on savagery until the SS rides in to save the day? If Hitler would have won World War Two, I would be willing to bet that is exactly how it would have been sold to generations hence, and it would have been bought, too. It would have been willing and happily bought.
Take a break. Go get coffee. Think about the implications if I'm right.
The Holocaust itself has been sold as the Ultimate Evil in human activity. Six million Jews were murdered by the Nazis in a manner that shocks the sense, even today. The sheer efficiency, the unyielding inhumanity, the pure hatred poured into murdering six million people is stunning in its magnitude. But the Nazis also killed four million other people during the Holocaust. Those four million became a footnote, an aside, and in that, we missed our chance to call it what it was.
The Holocaust became a Jewish tragedy not one for all humans. “Never Again!” because the cry of the Jews, not for all humanity. We ascribed to the Holocaust the very ultimate of all evils. This, in assigning Ultimate Evil to the Nazis, and assigning the ultimate of evil done to someone as the Holocaust, assured that it would happen to someone else, somewhere else.
To digress a bit, I would like to address those who would undermine the Holocaust for purposes that do not seek to meld it back into the whole of humanity, as I do, but seek to discredit the event. For those who say it never happened I must demand an explanation for hundreds, perhaps thousands of American soldiers who saw it first hand. Not one of these soldiers has ever come forward saying that what they saw was not real. For those who say that it did not happen on the magnitude that has been reported I ask at what magnitude would it have to happen to be Evil? If only a million people were murdered, would it not be a Holocaust? At what point do we discard these people as not enough to merit that label? To say that it did not happen is to take a step in repeating the event, just as surely as saying that it happened to just one group of people.
Do you see that? Is that a point that I’ve made here? The Holocaust, or any horrible event in history didn’t happen to the Jews, or the Natives, or the Savages. It happened to us, it happened to people, and it happened to people just like you. To say that some event was caused by some other people against some other people is a matter of marketing. We gassed the Jews. We were gassed too. It’s humans, not Nazis, or Jews, or any other subdivision we create to name other humans, or ourselves.
What are you doing to stop the carnage in Dafur? Do you not see that they are people too? Are they less Jewish than the people in the ovens? Are the people killing them less Nazi than Hitler?
I told you that you would not oppose the Nazis. You aren’t opposing them right now and they are still all around us. The Jews are dying yet you do nothing to prevent it. History will swallow you up in the tide as it does all humans, and your inactions will not be noticed. By labeling anyone as the ultimate evil, the bar is raised as to who we will oppose. By labeling someone the ultimate in evil done to, we raise the bar as to who we will save.
The bar removed, leaves no one but humans, doing to humans, what we have always done.
Take Care,
Mike
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 125
If they were not, why would you be sorry to say that?
In what ways did the end result differ?
David, will you argue that intent was differenet when the end result was the same?
During the Holocaust, where was this god you speak of?
Thank you, Debbie.
I can understand different intent becoming the same horrible end, however this line of thought is self destructive.
You've called on us to do something about Darfur. Which is good. How do you propose that? Since killing 1 murderer is the same as killing 1 innocent?
There are few ways to change someone's mind. Talking (how many mass murderers can be talked out of it?) Violence (can't do that, since killing a murderer makes us one) Threaten (a good hybrid. However, to be successful with this, we have to show we're capable of violence, which will still end up with many dead, which we aren't since we're trying to prevent death of humans, therefor it cannot be done).
When is it okay to kill a human? If stopping a murderer makes me Hitler, why should I do it? And then who's going to take me down?
I expect this discussion to continue, and to resurface time and time again. Just wanted you to know that.
part of our brains out......it takes VERY little to INFLAME a human.....
People? Good! You've managed to lump us all together just as I wanted.
I don't aim to offend.
I can understand different intent becoming the same horrible end, however this line of thought is self destructive.
I like the irony of that statement, even if unintended.
I do, on occasion. This isn't one of them.
You've called on us to do something about Darfur. Which is good. How do you propose that? Since killing 1 murderer is the same as killing 1 innocent?
Already you've decided that killling is the only answer?
When is it okay to kill a human? If stopping a murderer makes me Hitler, why should I do it? And then who's going to take me down?
When you begin to look at history as a whole rather than bits and pieces you also begin to notice that humans are indeed condemn to repeat lessons unlearned.
Learn the lessons of the past, and you control the future.
I choose Darfur very carefully because in good truth, I haven't a damn clue as to what could be done. Military might? As you pointed out, who might we kill and not be condemend by someone else?
This mess in Darfur, what do you suggest, that would not require force?
Over a thousand different Native American tribal nations (many who warred with one another) were extinguished over a 400 year span. Also disease swept through their numbers (yes, yes, I know there were a handful of instances of smallpox infected blankets being handed out to them, but that was not policy, it was more opportunism, or perhaps even ignorance of germ theory,) so it is not a historically correct comparison.
I would respond at lenght were it not to detract from what I think is the purpose of your article. For here and now I will say simply what I believe..with them.
The hell it wasn't.
Likely.
We sat out what Stalin did, and we sat out Bosnia for too long.
My apologies.
They made a movie of it, but the wrong side won the war for their to be outrage, at least in time for some good to eventually come of it.
Marketing is everything.
It's the birthday of John Ross, born near Lookout Mountain, North Carolina (1790), who became acting Chief of the Cherokee Nation in 1827. He spent his early life trying to design a new government for the Cherokees, based on the U.S. government, with a constitution and three separate but equal branches and democratically elected leaders. He respected the American justice system so much that when the state of Georgia tried to force Cherokees off their land, John Ross chose not to go to war, but instead took Georgia to court. It was the first time that an Indian tribe had ever sued the U.S. over treaty rights, and the case went all the way to the Supreme Court. The case was decided in 1832, and Chief Justice John Marshall wrote in his opinion that the state of Georgia did not have jurisdiction over Cherokees and therefore could not force the Cherokees to leave their land. But President Andrew Jackson refused to enforce the decision. He said, "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it."
Six years later, 15,000 Cherokees were forced out of their homes at gunpoint by American soldiers, gathered together in camps and then forced to walk to the new "Indian Territory" west of the Mississippi, an event that became known as The Trail of Tears. The camps had horrible hygienic conditions, and an epidemic of dysentery killed an estimated 8,000 Cherokees, including John Ross's wife.
A death is a death, no matter at who's hands or why. As you state we are all equal. We are all evil and good. We give life and we take life away. That is the human condition. I do like your point that what happens to one happens to all. I have always been deeply saddened by the holocaust and similar acts and although they did or do not happen to my people or me specifically, I still feel the pain inflicted, just not to the same degree as those directly affected.
Nice thought provoking article.
You have me thinking and no doubt I will come back to add more as that is how my brain works.
I gave my reasons in that post. You did not see fit to call them into question, although the window of opportunity is still there.
--This mess in Darfur, what do you suggest, that would not require force?--
Well, since you're the history master, certainly there must be some time in history where peaceful protests against mass murdering tyrants stopped genocide?
Violence stops nothing, so logically, non-violent resistance must have worked some time in history...
Do you have any examples I can look through before I magically fix Darfur?
How do we decide which "battle" to jump into?
Sometimes, such as Vietnam, we are not wanted, yet we are there to "try" and help solve their disputes.
Doesn't that make us a bit like an over protective mother or father that can't keep our nose out of the kids business? At times, making things worse. How do we decide who to help, when and why? Or do we just on policy help everyone even if they don't want it? Why should we be helping anyone else when we can't even help ourselves?
Just some of my thoughts.
Gahdi.
Violence stops nothing, so logically, non-violent resistance must have worked some time in history...
You misunderstand me. I've never said that violence is never the answer, what I am saying is that it is never the only answer. Rarely, is vioence the correct answer, but sometimes it is the only answer.
Confused yet?
Look at Pearl Harbor. we do not fight back they attack more places and we eventually are all killed.
So my whole point of killling human is just killing humans is totally blown, right?
But what if we could have stopped the attack before it happened?
Nothing I've written tonight is going to solve any problems, I just want to point out that we're usualy cloudied by what we are told is right andwrong and good and evil.
history master
Keep it civil David, you're making good points without that sort of thing.
No. Not to the knowledge of the "History master".
First, we shoot Dick Cheny.
I've met some native americans who thought this is a great country, and so do I.
I've met some native americans who thought we all had blood on our hands, and so do I.
Two
Three
I don't know what I would do. I'm not sure we know until we are faced in the moment.
I did face a loaded gun once. Stepped in front of a friend, and talked a confused, angry man down. It's not the same I know, as having someone tell you they will kill you if you didn't turn someone else over. It gives me a frame of reference though. We make choices. Maybe like Tonia said, sometimes our actions are based on a perceived reasonable chance of success, maybe sometimes it is based on what we can live with in ourselves.
Can we send him hunting?
Hmmm...do you think that would fix everything? lol
I'd say mostly we're like this.
I've read that. It's confounding, really.
The British were more economic tyrants, they weren't genocidal. He also suggested that the Jews should stop fighting and just march into the ovens heads held high.
--Rarely, is vioence the correct answer, but sometimes it is the only answer. --
So who decides if it is the correct answer? A dead human is a dead human. A killer is a killer. Winner writes the history textbooks. Who decides that killing man X is the correct way?
--Look at Pearl Harbor. we do not fight back they attack more places and we eventually are all killed.--
Didn't we drop nuclear weapons on civilian centers?
--First, we shoot Dick Cheny--
Bush seems a more likely candidate. But, that would make us as bad as an inhabitant of Darfur who's only killed one of his neighbours.
My apologies for the History Master, however it is worth a laugh.
The hell it wasn't.
(citation needed, Mr F.)
Now it WAS policy for the East Coast Native Americans to slaughter the other tribal slaves and white slaves they hauled off to the salt licks as soon as enough salt had been mined for trading.
Not a quick slaughter either. Oh but that is religion, so its ok.
(Let's ignore Tecumseh's speeches to his people, as well, asking them to reject to ways civilized peoples --his words--- found abhorrent.)
pick and choose pick and choose, is not debate nor even scholarly.
I like to think the same thing. I would hope that in a situation such as that, that I would do the right thing, even if the cost was my life.
I take great excpetion to that. Nothing I've ever written trivilizes the murder of six million people.
Now as far as Darfur is concerned, I've said for years that we need to be involved in ending that genocide
Yeah, but how?
It always seems that all is fair in war. "Collateral Damage" I believe they call it. Not to say that I agree, just stating what seems to be the case.
Genocidal might be a strong term for it but they were not opposed to killing Indians either.
He also suggested that the Jews should stop fighting and just march into the ovens heads held high.
Even as a History master I am unaware that he knew about the Holocaust.
So who decides if it is the correct answer?
You do. You get to decide. But I will ask you to explain why you decided.
Didn't we drop nuclear weapons on civilian centers?
would you have done that, David? Given the context of the war and the times, I sure as hell would have.
What does that make me?
My apologies for the History Master, however it is worth a laugh.
We'll need it before this is all done. It's getting weird. I cannot defend my position in all cases, and I'm at a lost to define when it's a good one and when it's not.
The myth supposes that British military commanders in the 1760's knew more about germ theory that the medical world.
The theory of spontaneous generation of disease was widely believed in the medical field until Louis Pasteur's experiment in 1859.
In 1876 Robert Koch was the first to discover that a bacterium can cause disease, in the case of anthrax.
The concept of viruses did not even occur until the late 19th century, and their existence wasn't documented until the 20th century.
Provided..under "policy"
Andrew Jackson, in fact.
Now it WAS policy for the East Coast Native Americans to slaughter the other tribal slaves and white slaves they hauled off to the salt licks as soon as enough salt had been mined for trading.
Non Sequitor.
Not a quick slaughter either. Oh but that is religion, so its ok.
I made a pretty good effort not to attack religion so far. But please, by all means, if you're going to go in that direaction, I'll follow.
(Let's ignore Tecumseh's speeches to his people, as well, asking them to reject to ways civilized peoples --his words--- found abhorrent.)
And who is to say who is civilized?
You have neatly managed to prove my point! By reducing one side as "civilized" and the other as not, you give excuse for the war, just as I said was done!
I have to get up at five am. I'll be back tomorrow.
A man who as a child lived through this in Germany remembers the day he found out what a Jew was. Bully boys (he though they were postmen because of the odd hats they had on) were kicking and stomping a shop keeper. About 40 people had gathered around. Someone in the crowd shouted Mein Gott Mein Gott (my God my God) stop it! The little boy saw one of the 'postmen' rush up behind that man and push him into the street where the bully-boys began to stomp him too, as one turned to the crowd and pointing his finger wagged it back and forth asking "Are there any other Jew lovers here?"
Nobody did anything, and about then his father made it through the crowd and dragged him away. As they drove down the road he asked "Poppa, what are Juden (Jews)?" His father backhanded him, and with his face pale as a ghost said "Don't ever say that word again."
Mike that's how it starts. Not with a pistol pointed at you.
What does that make me?--
--Do you see that? Is that a point that I've made here? The Holocaust, or any horrible event in history didn't happen to the Jews, or the Natives, or the Savages. It happened to us, it happened to people, and it happened to people just like you.--
--What are you doing to stop the carnage in Dafur? Do you not see that they are people too? Are they less Jewish than the people in the ovens? Are the people killing them less Nazi than Hitler?--
------------------------------------------
--Even as a History master I am unaware that he knew about the Holocaust.--
It was a weak argument but I had to try it. He didn't know it was the organized destruction of a race of people. He just thought that they were just killing certain Jews and stealing their property.
--So who decides if it is the correct answer?
You do. You get to decide. But I will ask you to explain why you decided.--
Guy with knife charges me in an ally at night. I shoot him dead. I am right, my life was in danger. I should not have been in that dark ally at night, maybe he was homeless and thought I was going to jack him. I am not right.
Guy in Darfur kills his neighbour and his neighbour's family. He is wrong.
His neighbour and his neighbours family had killed some of his family and wanted to finish the job. He is right.
Family B is getting revenge because Family A wounded their daughter in a drive by.
Family A was attempting to defend X from Y.
America drops Nuclear Weapons on Japan. They are wrong.
Japanese civilians were 100% commited to "Death Before Dishonour" and would have wrecked horribly damage upon any US forces landing on the Sacred Mainland. America is right.
Japanese civilians are innocents who have been brainwashed by the ultra nationalistic government to fight a war. America is wrong.
Japan was also genocidal, believing Japanese to be a superior race to all others. They would kill American citizens if they invaded. America is right.
Most of the strength given to the Japanese government is because of drastic measures taken due to lack of Oil which has been blockaded by the Americans. America is wrong.
America only blockaded because...
Japan only...
Blood for blood leads nowhere for who is right. Therefor we'll modernize a little. We'll go Torah law. Murder is wrong. However, what is murder?
Murder is the killing without need. I shoot some guy, murder. Some guy attacks me with a weapon, that's not murder.
So, lets say we tell the Darfur people, "stop killing each other."
The most likely response will be "make us."
Does Darfur pose a threat to us? Will we be murderers? Will we be justified?
I was a lucky one I never had a bone broken.Probably because I was an acrobat and in top form.I knew how to fall and was a very lucky 16 yr old.
I missed stonewall left to go back to fl. to have my daughter.But I was at a few march on Washington D.C. the last one in a wheelchair. I had a dear friend die in the Chicago riots....she was a peaceful demonstrator who didn't fight back but sang as long as she could.I fought back...with a silent smile ,yes It could have been me...I lived to tell of it.
go to D.C. to the holocaust museum /learning center....you can still smell the putrid flesh in the gas chamber that was brought to it.
Spend a few weeks' volunteering at the locating /reunion center reading /compiling sketchy information/cataloging names ....if you get lucky you will have a kind of reunion
by being able to till a relative that you got lucky....[horrid term for this] you can then sit in a room drinking coffee while telling of the camp there loved one was. at.Usually if you got this far you can tell what form of torture they went through...YES there are records more each day! lets say you have the records ...how to tell the survivor her mother had been used for experiments ..surgical experiments.water torture....used a mice ...
Now it isn't all bad..you could be one of the blessed that actually make a true reunion.Kasey was..they had 3 that year which was a good amount.there is no more overwhelming feeling. she brought a mother and child together that were living in the same state strangely..A friend of the mother got her to send all the information she had.
for over six months they were in the same camp.The last time she had seen her daughter she was being taken to the building no one ever left...as her leg had been broken in the rock yard.she thought there was no use looking for the dead....
there was some joy in seeing one another and thousands of horrible memories flooding their minds at the same time
I wouldn't want to be the last the horrors came for because I didn't help the first.
because that is what could happen you know.I didn't lift a hand when the Indians were taken on the trail of tears..or when the Jews were taken. when slaves were beat and humbled by seeing there daughters raped as the indians were.....do you want to be the last left when all you didn't speak up for instead spoke...THEY ARE IN THE ATTIC.....
sleep well
This was obviously something you've been cogitatin' about for a while. I honestly would like to think maybe there is a third choice... misdirection... it would at least buy our earstwhile informant a bit of time to devise a plan.
Whether it's over nine years or over three hundred and ninety nine years the systematic slaughter of those we deem to be deserving (i.e. different) is still genocide ... whatever you call it it is just plain WRONG!
Mike, you've really stirred up quite the hornet's nest with this article... keep up the
good work!
Glad you liked it, Kate.
Sure could use some coffee, though.
But I never made the smallpox statement, I think that was...someone else.
Damn, I have got to get some cofee in me.
I hear you.
Today is 1000 days without smoking. Gave it up on 8 Jan 2005. One thousand days ago.
It starts, James, with the idea, just an idea mind you, that some group of people are less so than another.
The wrong god, the wrong place, the wrong time, or that somehow they are less civilized.
Oneof the truly frightening and scary things about what happened in Germany was that the Jews were Germans. The spoke the smae language, went to the same schools, walked the same streets, lived in the same neighborhoods, worshipped the same god, and paid taxes like everyone else.
Seven years later six million of them were dead, along with four million other people.
That has to frighten you. No matter which side of the argument you fall on in this debate, the idea that a country can turn on its own people that quickly, with that much fury has got to make you want to have a gun or two around the house, just in case.
Yeah.
Thank you, Jules.
For everything.
Thank you.
Regardless of what God you believe in....what part of the statement do you NOT understand?
Humans are either "Cains" or "Abels".
Good always overcomes evil? Only if "good" is willing to get up off their dead asses.
Too much continues to go on in this world in the name of "progress" where less powerful people are having their homes and properties taken away in the name of "progress" and "eminent domain". The latter being what the Native Americans should impose on the people who STOLE their rightful land. Had there been treaties and cooperative treaties between the US forces and the Native Americans, we might have had a more pleasant existence in this country in the way of not wasting resources, maintaining the natural beauty of the land and a cooperative consitiuency that would be the envy of the world......but no...we had to ravage the very country we wanted....destroying the resources and beauty everywhere we go, arguing with 'tree huggers' and whale lovers on the basis of the 'economy', rather than to protect the resources that feed us.
People are either bullies or victims.
There are fewer bullies than victims.
The victims...sheep bound for slaughter...need to speak up against the bullies.
This requires neither guns nor death. It requires the desire to economically choke the bullies.
Japan...Hiroshima and Nagasaki are prime examples of one people nearly exterminating another people.
Those survivors swore they would beat us economically, because we were so much 'larger' than they.
Without so much as a single shot being fired, they have successfully overtaken and dominated our 'economy'.
Now, we face China's ever growing industrial revolution...our next economic threat.
...stay tuned for "the reast of the story"....
Mike, this is a better topic than I anticipated...I expected something like "hallowe'en stuf"
This is VERY worthwhile reading, and a VERY important issue.
So we should not have killed the Nazis?
It's a paradox that I find difficult.
If killing is wrong abut you kill to stop the killing, does that make it right?
If killing is wrong so you don't kill and even more people are killed is that right?
It's why the people who win wars write the history. It makes sure that the killers are right and the victims are wrong. That way we can repeat as necessary, like shampoo.
Mike, I believe that what some would consider an evil is sometimes necessary. Executing a serial killer or a Hitler is akin to putting down a dog with rabies to me. I'd bear the weight of having killed - an evil - because that's a personal sacrifice I needed to make in order to help others. A price is paid, but...
The greater good and all.
Civilization is built on centuries of trial and error. We are moving in the right direction when we are able to maintain peacful co-existence and answer the voice of reason in our hearts and respond to the cries of others. There is no perfect good or evil. The products of our actions are things we have to live with and judge as we are able.
Fright I,
I'm okay with that but...
The greater good and all.
whose greater good? Who decides?
That's why I raised it here, Patricia.
The very concept of "Evile." means that there is something else to blame things on other than us.
Thanks for refocusing me. I hadn't had a chance to address that issue!
what?
Rose was there just a second ago?
what happened to Rose????????
It was fine the way it was!!!!!!!!
I just checked and you are 100 even!
Tel me that story later, please.
If we are to create a better world, we need to wake up from the collective dream and illusion that THEY are the problem.
Mike, you have called us to an awakening. If we take the same energy used to point at others, we can use it to embrace all of who we are. We may need to forgive ourselves en masse. Perhaps then we could be kind and make constructive decisions. The depth of our pain surrounds us. I have no power to change other than myself.
In the name of being right, we point to others as being the evil ones to avoid seeing any aspect of evil in ourselves. In pointing to them, we separate ourselves as being the good ones while demeaning them as nonhuman.
I like that!
Congratulations are an order, that stuffs as addictive as caffeine.
Eric--Regardless of what God you believe in....what part of the statement do you NOT understand?--
Actually, a better translation is "thou shall not commit murder". Murder is not black and white as I've gone through in a previous post. It's just as mindlessly gray as everything else.
Mike--So we should not have killed the Nazis?
It's a paradox that I find difficult--
It must've been a heck of a night since we're apparently on the same side now
Rose--I agree: We must meet the enemy, understand he is us, and resolve to end violence.--
"The hostages will be killed!"
"Wait, can't we talk about this?"
"Decadent fool!" *bang*
Sheep take wolves= slaughter
The sheep don't like the sheep dogs because they have sharp teeth too, and so remove any defence as they march to the slaughter
We always were. I have never maintained that violence is never the answer, just that it is not always the answer, adn all too often it's the answer to the wrong question.
The paradox is that whoever decides that violence is the answer, and uses to to affect, gets to write how teh sotory came to be.
If someoen breaks into my house and I kill that person, and trust me, it's likely to happen just like that, then I get to tell my story to the cops and the dead guy? Well, he's not disagreeing.
Human history is a lot like that.
Personal human history is alot like that too, as Michael points out.
Agreed, but will you not agree that this is a slippery slope? First we get sheep dogs to chase off the wolves, then we hunt the wolves, and when do we stop pressing them towards extinction?
My point is when we market some group of people as Evil then we leave the path of wisdom.
Question: Was there a way out of WW2 and when was it too late?
Or I make the personal decision that anyone who cuts off people's heads with machetes for being gay or an infidel is Evil?
WWII- the failed assassination of Hitler has been thought capable to demoralize the Germans in the end game and force a better surrender... however it's all theory, there's no real concrete way of going back and knowing for certain- which of course is where the problem lies.
It's also been suggested that if Europe didn't stand idly by when Hitler annexed nearby countries prior to the declaration of war, he could have been stopped before he had gained too much strength, or opened the camps. Of course, I have no way to prove this, so make of it what you will.
Before I go I want to offer that non violence is not an answer to violence. It is a conscious life choice to take action without violence. Non violence is a commitment to effect change without hurting others or responding in kind to another's violence act.
It is not passive at all. As my Sensei pointed out years ago, the best strategy when facing overwhelming violence is to run away - fast. Thus it is very, very active. Running was one of the most important parts of our training. There are many, many ways to neutralize an attack without harming the attacker. There are times when standing our ground may prevent another from harm. I takes great discipline to stay without anger or wish to harm the other. I was never that advanced in my training so many years ago.
Removing ourselves is very effective. When someone wishes to engage us in an argument, it cannot happen if we walk away. But we must relinquish the need to be right while embracing the wish for no harm. Non violence is a lifestyle not an answer.
All of what you said has all the earmarks of a man afraid to be wrong, David.
I'm not asking for idle speculation, merely non idle speculation.
If Hitler had been killed in 1938 would his works have failed? If TR gone to war with Japan when they attacked a US ship in China during his term in office would Pearl harbor happened?
Unleash your mind!
It's history, you can rearrange it at your whim. God knows there have been so many otehrs who have done just that for purposes far worse than discussion!
I was in karate too.
When the allies removed themselves during Hitler's original conquests it did prove very effective. They didn't lose any troops- for a time.
To me, this is the essence of writing when our words spin off into the minds and hearts of our fellow writers.
Removing ourselves is very effective.
On a personal level, yes, but what do we do on larger issues?
Jimmy Carter refused to go to war with Iran in 1979.
Do you think that was the wrong answer?
Agreed!
Had they struck at him in 1936, before he was fully ready for the war, what do you think is the very worst that might have happened?
We're one species as far as I know. Everyone has varying degrees of the ability to condone and/or commit mass murder or any number of vile acts. You can assign a larger amount of responsibility to the people who committed the acts directly. They're still members of our species. I that sense we all bear responsibility. It's because we're human.
Is there any reason that anyone needs to trumpet his/her moral superiority to Idi Amin or whoever? Not to this frog. This is a clear cut case of it's not what you say but what you do.
Well said.
They're still members of our species. I that sense we all bear responsibility. It's because we're human.
Better yet.
Is there any reason that anyone needs to trumpet his/her moral superiority to Idi Amin or whoever?
So what to do with people like Big daddy Idi?
When people are an obvious danger to others they should be isolated. I don't care about the moral aspect. It's selfish. I don't want them to kill me.