Cunning of History
 

Been a while since I've posted in here, but here goes nothing.

So for my Introduction to Political Science course we're currently reading "The Cunning of History" by Richard Rubenstein. Which is to say, we had to read it over the week and begin discussing it tomorrow. I'm curious if anyone here has read it and, even if they haven't, thoughts on it.

The basic premise of the book is as such:
Basically, Rubenstein explores the Nazi extermination of Jews through a purely unemotional scope. He discusses how these events were brought on by Western society, specifically the major ideals of capitalism and bureaucracy, as well as various events of the past several hundred years that have led to it (slavery, World War I, etc.). His final point (and I will admit I have around 10 pages left to read) seems to be that this is something we should be HORRIBLY concerned about because it can easily happen again. In fact it could be far easier now because of new technology, specifically computers. But weapons/tech advances was not what made the Nazi experience so horrific... it was their ability to completely turn off emotions and dehumanize even the mass-murder of people (dehumanization being one of the key goals of bureacracy).

So...

Discuss.

The scariest thing about the Holocaust is that people still try to justify, rationalize. or downright ignore it. There are large groups of people convinced that it never happened.

I haven't read this book, but he (the author) makes a good point. Don't think that because the first Holocaust happened in Germany, that it means it can't happen somewhere else, even in America. It sounds far fetched, but who knows what could happen in the next few decades. Think of the groups we've patially dehumanized already: homosexuals, Middle-Easterners (Terrorists are completely dehumanized) , religous fanatics, foreigners, transexxuals and the like, so on and so forth.

I dunno. We need to remember the first one so it doesn't happen again.

Both of you have good points. But I'd like to say that genocide doesn't necessarily a Western-based phenomenon. Remember what Japan did in Manchuria. That doesn't get talked about much, though the Chinese have never forgotten.

I know the sentiment still exists. I hear it on campus, about many groups, and not jokingly. But I doubt something of that scale can happen again without it being noticed. We're too far into the information age; it will get out, and those responsible will have hell to pay. I don't see how computers would make it easier, can you explain what you meant?

jokingly: how is bureaucracy an ideal?!


Edit: on terrorists, it's true people are quick to use that term nowadays. But personally I think those that chose to violently disrupt the rest of global society have forfeited our respect and consideration

Genocide occurs more often than people think. Just think about what's going on in Darfur, Sudan, right now as you read this: people are being slaughtered. It's not that people don't think it's wrong -- people do. It's not that we don't know it's happening -- we know. The problem is that we won't DO anything about it.

people who check the international news know. I doubt the general public is aware of the true scale of that mess. Sad.
But it still fits with my point: only in relatively undeveloped areas is it likely to happen.
Shame on us.

Rubenstein discusses this in his book. He says that he's not saying that genocide ONLY happens in Western culture but he's saying that genocide has NEVER happened on the scale of what the Nazis did except that once. That once he says was enabled by Western society and the ideals we put forth through our society, religions, etc. I really recommend reading the book for a far better explanation than I can give.

When I mentioned the 'ideal' of bureacracy I meant the ideals that bureacracies put forth, not it AS an ideal. Sorry for the confusing wording.

I think it takes it happening in a Western society to get the world's attention. IF it happens in the East, or Africa, nobody cares. If it happens in Germany, everyone stands up and shouts. It's kind of...disgusting, actually.

I think there's something else, besides scale, that is particular to our post-industrial civilisation in the western part of the holocaust. On the eastern front, if I rememember correctly, genocide was commited in its most common (and somewhat universal) form, thanks to the "no-limit" context of that portion of the World War. Simple slaughter, nobody objects (or even can).

In Western Europe, the task was made more complex by the more "sensitive" context, so that to "turn off emotions and dehumanize even the mass-murder of people (dehumanization being one of the key goals of bureacracy)" became necessary (since strife didn't automatically cause it), as well as the grand scale use of organization to carry it out as quietly and efficiently as possible (the movie Wansee is very striking on that point).

Europe by that time benefitted from part of the things that would later make the "information age", but these advances helped the holocaust more than they prevented it. Could the hindrance the information age outweight the use our greater bureaucratic capabilities (computers are great for logistics, which is one of the things I suppose would be key in performing something like that in our kind of societies) can be put to for highly organized genocide?

I was thinking more that anyone with access to a computer can put information out to the rest of the world. As long as they get the attention of an online news source.
I would think that, the larger the organization/ more complex the human side of the logistics, the more possibility of the news getting out.
Stll, you're right, knowing is different than acting. Unfortunately.

On scale...what about Stalin's purges? I don't have the numbers on that, don't know if anybody does, but I know they're still trying to locate all of the graves.

BTW: yay!!!! somebody(s) finally deigned to respond to me in forum!!!

I suppose it's a matter of receptiveness vs how much information can actually get out, since, like you point out, the age of digital information make the earth's distances kind of meaningless. In the holocaust's case, I think it's part low receptivity (people are either indifferent, favorable or scared, or a mic of the three) and part secrecy. People knew Jews were being moved about, I think, but they didn't really know what was on the end of the line themselves, and weren't interested in imagining the worst (for the reasons above).

But I know relatively little on the subject.