Directions:
1. Write your response to at least ONE of the 4 bullet pointed queries below and,
2. Respond to TWO posts by your classmates.
2. Respond to TWO posts by your classmates.
- What does Doug Porpora argue are the primary ways/reasons we allowed ourselves to become a party to genocide (as discussed in Chapter 6)?
- Define “neighbor.” Having done that, what is your response to Porpora’s assertion on p. 181?
- It takes a positive morality of radical commitment to one’s neighbor to extend the concept of neighbor to those one does not see face to face, to extend the responsibilities of neighborliness to suffering peasants in a remote country. It takes such a radical commitment to neighborliness to care about the effects of political decisions on our neighbors everywhere. That, however, is a commitment that is largely unknown in mainstream American Christendom.
- Comment on Porpora’s assertion on page 197 that:
- Most people are not used to considering knowledge a responsibility. When it comes to responsibility, we tend to focus on our actions, not on what is inside our heads. We tend to assume that if we act in good faith, that is, if we act on whatever knowledge we have with the best of intentions then what we do is not really blameworthy, even if it has negative consequences.
- What, if anything, do you take issue with Porpora about in his book? Explain your reasoning fully.
3.
ReplyDeleteThis reminds me a lot of MKA's character standards, with "informed," and with the law, which you've got to obey whether or not you know it (i.e. if you kill someone and say you didn't know that's not ok, it's still not ok).
I think it's a pretty standard argument to say that you're responsible to stay on top of things, and that ignorance is no excuse. At the same time, if someone goes off to live in the mountains in Canada and doesn't know about a genocide, I don't really think he's being irresponsible, or immoral, because he doesn't go help out. I guess that's an extreme situation, but still, I don't know where you draw the line.
So I guess the point is that you've got to be smart, and stupid actions wreathed in good intentions are still stupid (the road to hell is paved with good intentions, that sort of thing). So be smart.
I agree with the point you made that if a person goes off to the mountains and isn't aware of the genocide occurring, it doesn't put them directly at fault.
DeleteI don't know where the line should be drawn, but the first step to stopping the genocide is awareness-- if we can get citizens to stop being indifferent to the situation, then strides can be made in terms of stopping the genocide. It's a tough line to draw.
Hallie, Maybe increasing awareness will require some sort of change within the government and how people can participate in the government, instead of just encouraging people to care.
DeleteIn some ways I agree with both Devon and Hallie on the Canadian hermit example, but the argument could me made that as a citizen of a democratic nation, it is his/her responsibility and duty to stay informed and contribute in directing his country in the right direction.
DeleteThere is a psychological motivation in coding the moral right and wrong - in one case there is a universal morality that involves other people and then there is a morality that society sets. There is a motivation to prevent breaches of the former in which one party harms another, this is something that is naturally implanted in our psyches and does not require being "informed." And thus we can condemn those who claim some kind of ignorance about genocide.
DeleteOne of the issues that I have with this book is that Porpora condemns the United States for supporting business rights over equality in developing nations. This emphasizes Tocqueville's conflict between equality and liberty as it concerns international interference. I can see how is contradictory to act as a humanitarian nation selectively, but the United States is not obligated to favor another nation's equality over its own economic gains.
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree with Jordan's point of view, I think that there are moral implications which sometimes reflect poorly upon our country when extending our business rights. The prospects of monetary gains/economic expansion are particularly important to a superpower such as the US, however we cannot favor developed allies over underdeveloped allies. While to some extent the US did manipulate the lack of coverage in these countries, the actions were not kept a secret.
DeleteI like that you connected this to Tocqueville, I never made that connection. I agree with what you say about the contradiction of being a selective humanitarian nation, but at the same time, if the U.S. doesn't support equality in these countries, the genocide will continue to gain strength. It's a decision that the United States needs to make, but I don't think they're prepared to put equality over business, so I'm guessing that the genocide will continue.
DeleteI actually agree with you on this point, Jordan. I remember last year during MUSH, i wondered why the United States finds itself responsible of policing the entire world and fixing all examples of immorality. Personally, I don't think this should be the case. It may not be the most moral point of view, but there is really only so much you can do for every country where you have business or other relationships.
Delete(Bullet point one)
ReplyDeletePorpora says that one of the main reasons that Americans allowed the government to support a genocide is the fact that we have very little to almost no knowledge on the subject. Porpora says that "According to a poll taken in June 1988, most Americans had no idea whether we were supporting the government of El Salvador and opposing the government of Nicaragua or whether it was the other way around" (148). No one knew what was happening, so no one knew to protest it. He also says that the fact that the U.S. is a democracy puts us at a disadvantage. He says that the wealthy essentially have more of a say than the less-wealthy, and the two-party system allows us (the less wealthy) to choose between "the lesser of two evils" (151). This, Porpora says, "allowed the Reagan administration free rein to pursue its genocidal policies in Central America" (152). Basically, the indifference of the citizens of the U.S. to political issues is the main reason why we become part of a genocide.
This indifference could also be attributed, not only to the structure of the government, but also to less privileged members of society in feeling at a disadvantage in general.
DeleteThats a really interesting observation. It kind of plays into todays society how many people don't know the difference between Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan or, don't know about the conflict in Syria. If the general public does not understand a certain situation how cna they expect the government to take care of a situation.
DeleteAmericans are considered an majorly ignorant nation, this ignorance is enabled by the governments lack of shared knowledge. The government can twist phrases and words to seem as if their motives are for the best. It is only after the fact (like El Salvador) that the United State population becomes aware of the injustice headed by our own government.
DeleteI agree with your comment Liz. The nation is ignorant to many things that our government has their hands in. But our ignorance is not by choice, there is very little communication between us and our government when it comes to genocide or civil wars that could lead to genocide. That isn't to say that Americans are ignorant to where a genocides or potential genocides exist, but we are sometimes ignorant to what our government's position is on them.
DeletePorpora argues that the US has become a party to genocide in a couple of ways. Porpora points out that there is an apparent lack of knowledge/informed citizens. This general indifference to specific knowledge about politics and government actions is pointed out by Porpora as one reason, although not the most important, why the US government has become a party to genocide.
ReplyDeletePorpora points out that this indifference has been partly brought about by the democratic structure of the US. Porpora doesn't bash democracy, he just points out that because the voting system is easily corrupted b factors like privilege. This indifference could be caused by the fact that people might feel robbed of their right to have a meaningful vote in the government. Although he mentions other factors these are the two that I find the most interesting because disinterest of American people in politics is a prevalent topic today.
A neighbor is a person who shares a certain connection to yourself. So a certain neighbor of mine would share similar interests or beliefs. They would also share certain traits since we would come from the same location. There is also a certain amount of trust or respect that must be acknowledged to have a neighbor.
ReplyDeletePorpora is saying that we need to acknowledge that we have neighbors even though we think that we don't and that we need to allow our thought and ideas to form including the acknowledgement of those neighbors. We must also trust that our neighbors will look to our benefit when formulating their ideas that are meant to benefit themselves. So on a smaller scale, on my street, I can't form an idea that will infringe on rights that my neighbor has.
I agree with you that you and your neighbor can share interests, but I don't agree that a neighbor is as close as you are describing them to be. I think that people know that they have neighbor, but they don't know or don't recognize their commitment to help them in a dire situation.
DeleteWhat, if anything, do you take issue with Porpora about in his book? Explain your reasoning fully.
ReplyDeleteI took great issue with Porpora's "nit-picking" attitude over a moot point regarding the United Nation's definition of genocide. He asserts that "according to the UN definition, mass murder by itself is not genocide."(121). Porpora stretches further to claim that the lack of the word "political" among genocide-targeted groups (the list includes racial, religious, and national) allows countries such as the United States to justify being a party to genocide. This claim is not only farfetched, but severely nonsensical. If the word "political" appeared in the UN definition, any act of war for any reason could be considered "genocide". In fact, any group of homicides committed during wartime could be considered genocidal. Thus, the reasoning behind altering this definition is not only inconsiderate, but unjustified.
Wow, that is interesting, its strange to think that the Civil War could be considered a genocide against its own people.
DeleteThere is a clear definite difference between a war and systematic prosecution of a specific group. War is a fight between consenting groups. A war is over when one side surrenders or both parties agree to a treaty. A genocide is one-sided and malicious. The victims of genocide have no right to surrender, the victims are not able to communicate with their persecutors.
DeleteThe idea of knowledge as a responsibility, proposed by Porpora, is in my opinion an extremely valuable, yet relatively new idea. He asserts that citizens must make an effort to seek knowledge themselves, rather than wait for it to come to them. This means everybody would be held accountable for not just their actions, but their consequences as well, since there can be no claim of ignorance. The tendency to not do so is understandable since historically, knowledge was generally a privilege for the elite; the commoners could only use and act on what information was given to them. In modern times however, with information readily accessible, it is the citizens duty to think for themselves. In combination with good intentions, this is the best possible way of preventing a future genocide.
ReplyDeleteIn a perfect world, Porpora's assertion of knowledge as responsibility is a spectacular idea. If everyone is perfectly informed, completely up to date, and fully politically correct, there would be no reason for bias. However, people respond to incentives. If there is an incentive to destroy a population, the people will take advantage of it. In fact, these murderers would see quickly that cutting off information is a good idea, therefore making full knowledge of all events physically impossible.
DeleteI believe Propora's assertion is one that is not only accurate but extremely sad. I think most people live their lives with this kind of attitude. They believe that, by acting responsibly and nobly based on their own knowledge, they are doing the best they can and that is all they are responsible for. The problem with this kind of worldview, as Propora mentions immediately before where the quote appears, is that it allows people to deny themselves of the responsibility of being witnesses. In the United States during WWII, we, as a country, claimed that we had no reason to feel guilty because we did not know of the atrocities taking place overseas and therefore we did not have any responsibility to the victims but to empathize. I think one of the greatest sources of hope for mankind is the fact that we no longer have any excuse to claim "we didn't know" and to take this myopic view of our own actions which makes no demands for personal responsibility. With the internet and other technological advances, we as individuals are forced to exit our own insular bubbles and take responsibility for our thoughts, actions, and worldviews.
ReplyDelete#3
ReplyDeletePorpora's assertion of what people are responsible for based on knowledge is a debate that I have heard in many classes. Knowledge and information, while it is key to solving an issue, it is not solitary in why the problem needs to be resolved. In the Holocaust many people attempted to banish themselves from any form of blame by claiming they were unaware. To be unaware is not an excuse. To be unaware is to be ignorant. As Devon mentioned in her post, this is very reminiscent of the MKA handbook, or even to legislation. The absence of knowledge regarding an infraction to the law is no excuse to be exempt from the discipline. An illegality is an illegality despite any intentions, good or bad. Propora's assertion in How Holocausts Happen is a just and typical response to this topic.
2.
ReplyDeleteTo me the definition of a neighbor is someone to whom you show kindliness and helpfulness towards. A neighbor is not necessarily someone who lives in close proximity to you, it can be the relationship you have with a person that is more than an acquaintance, but more distant that a friend.
Porpora's assertion states that when two people don't see eye to eye on an argument or an opinion, it takes a huge part of ones morale and commitment to said neighbor if he is in a dilemma. Porpora is saying that it is hard for a person to help their neighbor in a tough situation when "political decisions" or differences are involved. His point is that when people see differently on a subject and one of the two persons happens to be in trouble, it is difficult for the other party to step in and give assistance.
I agree that there are certain situations in American culture where two neighbors can be in a debacle, where they struggle between their moral and ethical commitment. It does take an extreme amount of commitment to your neighbor to over look your differences in order to give them aid.