There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root.
-Henry David Thoreau
On Tuesday, April 24th I stopped by Keene State University to speak with Henry King, director of the Holocaust and Genocide Studies department. My visit was unannounced – motivated by my interest to share ideas that I thought overlooked by the program curriculum.
Despite the impromptu nature of my drop-in, King invited me to sit and for about ten minutes, we had a conversation. His colleague, department chair C. Paul Vincent, joined us about halfway through. It was a civil discussion but it was clear that we weren’t on the same page about some things – for example while I proffered that individuals have the same rights no matter where they’re born (and pointed-out that with that freedom comes personal responsibility – for more on this, check out the excellent 2-min video Chain of Obedience) King made mention of a “social covenant” that imparted rights as well as obligations.
Such an idea denotes that the individual is subservient to the majority. That doesn’t sync with me. After all groups don’t have rights, individuals have rights. A group of individuals doesn’t generate extra rights nor mitigate the rights of one individual.
Before we parted ways (King and Vincent were heading to lunch) I shared my contact information, we shook hands and said I’d be in touch via email.
For full disclosure, here’s the Holocaust and Genocide Studies overview:
The program in Holocaust and Genocide Studies is rooted in the conviction that the Holocaust was a cataclysmic episode in the course of Western history impacting culture, society, politics, ethics, science, and religion, and that there is no discipline in the academy un-touched by its shadow. In a world still tormented by mass murder and genocide, the program also rests on the moral imperative that learning from both the past and present may serve as a basis of hope for the future. The program combines historical background with an interdisciplinary exploration of both the Holocaust and other genocidal events through film, literature, philosophy, psychology, sociology, religious studies, women’s studies, and other offerings. With an understanding of such issues as prejudice, discrimination, and racism, students are equipped to analyze contemporary political situations, think critically about ethical responsibility, and respond actively to injustice.
While I have no doubt that those who major in Genocide Studies are more aware of Holocaust details than the average person on the street (mandatory classes review related literature and film and look at the incident from a sociological and philosophical angle), after my conversation with King and Vincent I still question whether students are ever exposed to the idea that government is at its core, based on violence.
To put it clearly: government is an association of individuals who claim the right to steal wealth from others within an arbitrary political boundary and who purport to have a “legitimate” right to use force to maintain their claimed monopoly of the provision of certain goods and services (which vary between governments – only underscoring its arbitrariness).
Let’s assume Genocide Studies departmental personnel and students all would vocally object to genocide. What then, is the best way to mitigate such events from occurring in the future? By continuing to look to self-proclaimed “leaders” for another one-size-fits-all “solution” or by being open-minded about other potential solutions and when necessary, shedding previously-held ideas for those that mesh with ones logic/conscience.
That’s why I stopped into Knight’s office – to have a conversation. I truly believe that were the idea of self-government broached in class, it would have positive, far-reaching, and sustaining implications aligned with the program’s mission.
One class, Comparative Genocide, lists as its purpose to “find essential similarities as well as differences, and to derive explanations for specific cases of genocide.” If those constructing the Genocide Studies program curriculum truly sought to impart on their students critical thinking why not introduce to them to a variety of ways to potentially mitigate such widespread, “legalized” slaughter? Why not start the argument where it begins?
Without the ready-made vehicle vehicle of government truly evil people (or good people responding to perverse incentives) wouldn’t have the ability to cause widespread destruction simply because they’d lack the financial resources and the blind allegiance. If theft or the initiation of force isn’t right for me or you to do then how can it become alright for someone else based on their place of employment? And why would any, totally uninvolved third party act as if they have the right to interject between the consensual actions others reach?
When the bad idea of double-standards isn’t questioned things like the Holocaust can happen. Also, by primarily focusing a single incident – the Holocaust – (admittedly horrific as it was) it may lead one to view it as an anomaly that couldn’t possibly happen again.
As already eluded to, on Wednesday April 25th I sent an email to King, Vincent, and Jim Waller (a colleague I was told touched-on some topics somewhat related to the points I brought-up):
Mr. Knight and Vincent,
I hope you’re doing well. I was the guy who stopped by your department yesterday before you two left for lunch.
I wanted to follow-up both to thank you two for your time and to inquire if either of of you, or perhaps Mr. Waller (whom I Cced on this email, per comments made yesterday) have the interest to meet to continue our conversation? Perhaps over coffee or a bite at the union or at somewhere on Main St.?
Again, the rationale for me reaching-out and having interest in sitting-down as proposed is to share ideas.
I’m not currently a KSC student, just someone from the community who has an interest in living in a more peaceful, prosperous world. Assuming we all agree that genocide is not a good thing, the question then becomes how it can best be mitigated. I’d advocate that it’s not through a top-down solution but by focusing on individual actions.
My review of Holocaust and Genocide Studies course listings has led me to conclude that such a perspective is not given adequate attention. I realize that such a statement is subjective so I welcome your feedback and ideally, an opportunity to continue our dialogue. Ideally individuals allow themselves to be presented with a lot of different views, so they can think critically and decide what resonates for themselves.
My schedule is pretty flexible so if you do have the time and interest to chat further let me know when you have time.
Take care,
-Pete
P.S. Here’s the Wiki link to “demoide,” which I mentioned yesterday: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide
I personally prefer not to use such terms as “government” or “state” as it only reinforces the legitimacy of that institution (which, since it is an artificial monopoly, is rife with perverse incentives) and reinforces the double standards some claim exist based on place of employment (which then allow phrases like “under color of law” or “color of law” or justifications like “I’m just doing my job” to act as excuses for the initiation of violence). In reality, “government” is just an association of individuals, who, like me or you, are responsible for their actions. A piece of paper or uniform doesn’t make an unjust action just. The more that idea is internalized the less acceptable institutionalized violence becomes and thus the less-likely it will occur.
Later that night I received a reply from Knight, and though I won’t share it here out of respect for his privacy, he essentially noted that the program curriculum listed online wasn’t exhaustive to everything communicated in classes and that one of his goals is to equip students with tools they need to assist their own learning and life journey. He also noted that my contact information had been added to their announcements and encouraged me to join them at future functions.
I’ll definitely try to do that. It’ll be interesting to see how this on-going conversation unfolds.
