EVERY HUMAN BEING
A
German Jewish emigrant:
'It dawned on me that if I looked into my own heart I could find
seeds of hatred there, too. I realised that they are there in every
human being. Arrogant thoughts, feelings of irritation, coldness,
anger, envy, even indifference - these are the roots of what
happened in Nazi Germany.'
Are there any other
emotions that can lead to hatred? What are they? What does
'hatred' mean? What is it like to feel it? What is it like to be
on the receiving end? Does hatred ever feel right and good? If so,
when? Does that mean it is right and good?
PREJUDICE
A Russian writer:
'What mattered about Vitya was that he was my trusted friend, not
that he was Jewish. My friend Khristik was Armenian, and Balbek was
a Nagay, and Lida was Ukrainian, and Magda was German.
'From what age do we develop this neanderthal dislike, irritation
and hostility towards people of a different tribe or faith or
origin? From childhood? From birth? I really want to know how it
comes to be there in a person at all.
I can say that for us in the children's home someone's
nationality was of no importance whatever. I can't remember a
single instance of anti-Semitism or racism among the children,
unless it came down from the young thugs, older than us, who
wintered in the orphanages and taught us the criminal's ideology -
which isn't human nature but comes from a different hideous world
of brutal oppression that was to swallow many of us.
Neither Nazism nor racism are present as original sin in children
who are just beginning life; they are born internationalists. It's
only later, within the family, at school. in the street, from peer
groups, that prejudice begins to break through, with its ability to
subvert any primal truth. And here nothing helps, neither
education, nor a profession, nor even belonging to an intellectual
élite.'
How do we become
prejudiced against people? Is the writer correct in saying it
can't be overcome once it's taken hold? Can it be held in check
by choosing not to let it dictate how one behaves?
NATIONALITY/IDENTITY
A
Croatian writer:
'I met a Turk who was working in Germany. He complained, "When
I'm in Germany, they see me as a Turk, but when I visit Turkey,
they don't think f me as one of them, they think of me as a
foreigner, a German. I always feel I have to choose between the
two, and I don't like it." 'Well, how do you feel/ Who do you
think you are?" I asked. 'I am both," he replied. It was only
others who had a problem with his identity. But in a culture of
nationalism, identity is made up of borders, territory and blood,
and one is forced to choose.'
What do you think of as
your nationality? Does it matter to you? Does other people's
nationality matter to you? Do you think someone can have
'identity' without bringing nationality into it?
NAME-CALLING
A Roma journalist:
'After the Second World War, the Roma in Kosovo were given
surnames of Turkish, Serbian and Albanian origin, many of them
derogatory: Delibalta ('Crazy Axe' in Turkish), Vragovic
('Devil's Children' in Serbian), Choulanjee (a rude word for
peasant Roma) or Karach (the Turkish equivalent of
'nigger').'
A Roma from the Czech Republic:
'Four of us went to a park to get some exercise. About twenty
skinheads started shouting, "Black pigs! We'll kill you!" '
A newspaper in 1998, on asylum seekers from Kosovo:
'Human sewage'.
Is it easy to call people
names? How powerful is it? What's it like on the receiving
end?
VIOLENCE
Two sides of a
story:
''The villagers came in the middle of the night. While we were
still in the house, the thugs threw rags soaked in petrol through
the windows. They were shouting that they didn't want any Romany
here, and that they were Hitler's followers, and that Hitler
killed Romany and that they were going to do the same.'
'We went to have a bit of excitement. To shout a bit at those
gypsies. It was quite exciting. We threw stones at them, and they
threw stones at us. I wanted to get into the house they were in. My
friend and I kicked the door in, and they smashed my head. We went
home - well, we went to the local. The next day the police came
after me. The house had burned down. At first I laughed. I didn't
care at all. But I stopped laughing when the police came for me,
But you know how it goes, I didn't feel sorry.'
'A bit of excitement.'
What is the real nature of this
excitement? What is the pleasure gained from shouting abuse? How
close can this kind of violence come to something much worse? How
close can threats come to being carried out?hat sort of attitude
makes it possible to abuse people without remorse?
COLLATERAL DAMAGE
War
reporter:
'In the 20th century, civilians have been the major victims of
war. Nameless millions, but they had their own names, their own
place on earth, until war swept over them, killing them, uprooting
them - real people with feelings common to everyone. Grief and pain
and fear and the loss of home are emotions that have no
nationality. Maybe hate has no nationality either; but I believe
hate comes from killing. The first deaths strengthen and feed it.
Until the killing starts, hate is an ugly idea, ugly words. War
gives hate power and deforms the killers: kill or be killed, kill
your own people, kill strangers - hate and killing become a
habit.
Leaders make wars. People must first be inflamed with fear and
hate, then organised and directed. There are always aggressor
leaders, and they are recognisable - but their followers are an
enigma. Why is it always so easy to rouse men to kill each
other?'
I
s it easy? If so,
why?
'Collateral damage' (the title of this module) is the term used
by the world's military to refer to civilian deaths. What is the
effect of using words like this to refer to events like
that?
LAW AND ORDER
A Muslim
political leader:
'Sharia laws can only be applied in a settled, well-fed,
successful country. When many people have nothing, you can't cut
off the hand of a hungry little thief. When war mutilates souls,
sweep aside moral norms, and devalues life, you can't punish with
execution.'
This man is speaking with
approval of law and order, and disapproval of war. It's true that
Sharia law traditionally includes punishments such as execution and
cutting off a hand. How 'settled' can a country be in which these
are the punishments? Is there a risk that violent punishment sows
the seeds of violent action? Is this the right way to keep people
from committing crimes?
OBEYING ORDERS
A
Tanzanian writer:
Armed policemen were ordered to open fire on the people outside the
mosque. From the videotape it's quite obvious that the aim was to
kill the Muslims. The police commanders are seen and heard ordering
their marksmen to take careful aim. In two cases the bullets only
wounded the intended victims, and the police ordered the marksmen
to shoot again. And they did, with unmistakable zest and
ruthlessness.
There is one brief scene in the tape that always moves me to tears.
The commander orders a young policeman to shoot. He shoots in the
air. The commander orders him to aim his gun at the crowd. The
young policeman is clearly torn between obeying his commander and
obeying his conscience. The commander repeats the order. The
policeman makes an attempt to obey his commander. He raises his
gun, he looks at the crowd, but his hands become weaker and weaker,
and the gun slowly falls to the ground.'
'I was only obeying
orders,' say many of the people responsible for atrocities in war
and genocide. What should we do when orders and conscience are in
conflict? What should we do about the arming of policemen? What
should we do about the commanders of armed men who order the
shooting of civilians?
NO CHOICE FOR
SOLDIERS
Soldiers fighting Turkish Kurds:
'Whether you actually take part in a conflict or not, you are a
part of it. You have to protect yourself. If you don't want to
harm them, people think you're on the other side. The toughest war
is the one you fight against being there at all: your civil war
against yourself.'
'I've seen all I want to know. If the state met the Kurds' needs
for their culture and language, and improved the conditions of
their lives, there'd be no need to have war at all. Who is the
enemy? Not the Kurds. The enemy is the ruling classes - who
else?'
What does being a soldier
let you in for? The soldier speaking was not a career sldier, he
was doing his (enforced) National Military Service: might that make
a difference to his attitude? These interviews were published and
their editor was arrested for 'insulting the
military'.
RESPONSIBILITY
An African American writer about prisoners:
'It's easy for folks who have enough to eat, homes, land, work,
to preach about forgiveness. But is it fair to preach it to people
living in hellholes, jobless, starving? Are they to forgive the fat
well-fed millions who voted for their starvation? Who voted for
war? Who voted for prisons? Who voted for a people's repression?
Who wish, in their heart of hearts, that those people had never
been born? Should the starving forgive the repression to come, the
genocide to come?'