I’m writing these entries the night before I post them - the only time I have to write is in the evenings after the sessions - which means that you’re getting this stuff a day behind. Today (well, today as you know it - tomorrow for me) is our last day - a half day for us. We’ve got programming until about noon, then a goodbye luncheon, then we’re on the road. I should be home by dinnertime.
I can’t wait to hug my family.
Friday was another interesting day. We started the morning with a study in comparative genocide; we had a lecturer speak about the atrocities in Rwanda, then we talked about how complicated the definition of genocide really is. Does the definition need to be expanded to named groups, or does everyone get included? How do we prove “intent”? What constitutes a genocide? Do the deaths have to exceed a certain number before we can call the atrocity a genocide?
After this weighty morning, we had lunch, then retired to the center that the foundation maintains on campus. We spent some time talking about the ways we’ve been thinking about bringing this material into our classrooms (and into our lives), and then Tom delivered a presentation of the crisis - oh, for crying out loud, the genocide - in Darfur. I have some pretty serious conversations to have with Mr. Chili when we get home.
We were sprung a little early for some decompression time before dinner, after which we went to the temple to attend Friday night services. While I can’t say that I’ve had a lot of experience in Schul (the word O’Mama taught me for the temple/synagogue), but I’ve watched as O’Mama put together Boo’s bat mitzvah and paid attention during the service. That, combined with the studying I’ve been doing about Judaism, makes me pretty comfortable in that environment, so it was a good experience.
I still have a lot of thinking to do about this whole adventure, so you may have to put up with me for a little while longer while I process the enormity of this work I’ve agreed to do. I’m thinking about the ways that this impacts me, both as a teacher and as a human being - and as a parent - and how I can most effectively use the lessons I’ve brought back with me to make my part of the world a better, safer place.
“How do we prove “intent”?”
If there was a massacre with hundreds or even thousands of innocent lives lost, the “intent” is pretty clear. This is definitely not accidental killing.
Keep on deconstructing, my friend; I can only imagine the vast fodder for rich discussion and inspiration for the next steps you’ll take - I am so looking forward to the decompression you do after this experience.
The fact that you’re not done processing is probably a good thing; if it was easily processed, on this topic, I might guess it wasn’t that full of information. Not that it’s easy, but it’s certainly a necessary part of the … I first thought “experience,” but that’s too something. A part of the class.
Take your time, learn what you need to learn so that you can use that knowledge how you’re meant to.
I think my mind would be about to explode if I couldn’t let some of that flow out. You are amazingly controlled at just not babbling every thing that is coming to your head.
Leafless, I’m not even HINTING at an argument with you on this point; however, it’s been pointed out to me that, when we’re talking about LEGAL issues - which is what the UN is concerned about in its attempt to clearly define what genocide is - the idea of intent becomes problematic.
I actually struggle with this in terms of my own work with GLBTQ issues. I’ve had some pretty passionate debates with my colleagues in this area about the idea of hate crimes legislation. Can we prove that someone who murders a queer person did so because that person was queer? Does it matter? When we’re talking about genocide, the issue becomes even trickier. The argument can be made, for example, that because the Nazis were also exterminating queers and gypsies and communists, that the Shoah wasn’t quite a “genocide” because we can’t prove the intent to destroy a culture. How can there be the intent to wipe out the Jews if we’re also killing all these other people, too? How can we prove what’s in someone’s mind when they commit a crime? How do we legislate thought?
My essential problem with the UN’s definition of genocide is that it’s a decidedly “after the fact” document. I likened it, in my contribution to the discussion we had that day, to a someone trying to get a restraining order against someone else. These things aren’t issued until the victim can PROVE a danger; I can’t, for example, get a restraining order against my parents that keeps them from my children because, as yet, my parent’s haven’t demonstrated that they’re a danger to my girls. I KNOW they are, and that it’s likely only a matter of time before something happens, but the fact remains that I can’t take any steps to prevent it. The same is true with the UN definition of genocide - the body SAYS it’s “for the prevention and punishment,” but, to date, there’s been absolutely zero prevention associated with the document. Genocide is happening TODAY, and we’re too busy arguing semantics to do anything meaningful about it.
In the Holocaust workshop I attended in April, we had the same kind of semantics discussion. I still haven’t quite sorted it all out in my mind.
I wonder whether, in terms of common usage not United Nations “legalities,” whether the term “genocide” is going to be slung around by whoever wants to make some point. Like “epidemic,” and “recession,” and many others. It is all too easy to make the Word the point and not the underlying factual matter being discussed. (Sort of like my ongoing carping that the Media makes “telling the story” the Story, and not the story itself.
There are certainly definitional problems. Murder on a vast scale is no doubt an unspeakable crime. Who defines the “geno” which is suffering the “cide?” It is such a sad and grim matter to contemplate, and so terribly complicated on the world stage to do anything about it.