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. It's very true. People say that "actions speak louder than words," which can be extrapolated as meaning that we should act rather than think. Schools, which are supposed to be a place where we can become informed, are tolerated at best. Anyone's opinions are considered to be valid, no matter whether or not the person is fully educated. Now, I agree that anyone can have an opinion, but sometimes those opinions are just wrong or invalid (see the Klu Klux Klan's belief that anyone who's not Christian and white shouldn't have the same rights).
ReplyDeleteWe can excuse almost anything by saying, "oh, we didn't know." But what we don't realize is that knowledge is a responsibility, not just something you look up if you're bored and have free time.
I completely agree. Also, to extend on your thought, problems happen when people just assume they "know". They just assume that the minimal knowledge they have can be considered sufficient. Knowledge takes more effort than osmosis.
DeleteI agree. I think it's really interesting that you mention an uneducated opinion vs. an educated opinion. It makes sense to think everyone is entitled to an opinion, and it is fair to say some opinions may be wrong simply because they are uneducated, but at the same time, that can only encourage us to educate people more on issues because that is the only way to create factually based opinions.
DeleteBullet 3:
ReplyDeleteI agree with Porpora's statement about knowledge being a responsibility. He mentioned frequently in his book the act of indifference to global issues. People often go about doing tasks without a thought to what they may be effecting, because they are really just doing their duty. Even though many may not have known what they were doing to effect issues, they still should have taken responsibility for what part they played in aiding either the US or Germany in their genocide. Simply knowing what you are doing while you are doing something means you take responsibility. It's not always clear if you should take responsibility for something you did without the knowledge of what you were doing. However, that just urges people to be more inquisitive, so that they don't present an air of indifference to issues, but rather understand what they are doing and whether or not they want to continue.
4. I have a major issue with Porpora in HHH. There were far too many moments when a personal agenda against the United States seemed to show through. I find it too far of a stretch to speak so poorly of former President Reagan that he is essentially compared to the likes of Eichmann. What I find most ridiculous about Porpora's such assured assertions, is his lack of evidence when it came to U.S. involvement in Latin America. His argument was purely event based, supported by only accounts of what was happening in the Latin countries and Reagan speeches and quotes. Much of what happened diplomatically in the 60s and 70s was CIA driven and thus much is kept secret to this day. To put it simply: Porpora did not have all of the information. I am not saying that Porpora is necessarily entirelly wrong, I am saying I can hardly support everything he says because all of the facts are definitely not present.
ReplyDeleteI agree. He has the same problem that he mentions in bullet #3: he doesn't have all the facts, so his position is not as well based as it could be. And you're right: this doesn't make his opinion wrong, it just makes it less defendable.
DeleteI agree with Hope. Though I felt like Porpora was making valid points, I couldn't really see the evidence. Many people think Reagan did a good job as president, and Porpora took on a huge challenge in comparing him to Eichmann. While this book was definitely eye-opening, I don't know how much of it is factual.
DeleteI agree with what Hope is saying to a certain degree. Though I believe Porpora had some pretty good evidence, I felt like his writing was very biased. It is evident that he is trying extremely hard to make the comparison between US citizens during the 60s-70s and German citizens during Hitler's regime. Though I believe Reagan is somewhat at fault for the actions occurring in South America, I do not believe it is to the degree as Porpora described. In addition, Porpora completely "trashed" (for lack of a better word) Reagan's administration, which was involved in much more than Latin America.
DeleteI have to say I disagree with your willingness to absolve Reagan of the crimes of the CIA. The Iran-Contra scandal alone is evidence enough or Reagans willingness to aid terrorism in South America. The high stakes game of cloak and dagger played by the CIA during the cold war is one of the greatest atrocities in modern history, and this book only focuses on South America! just look at the middle east, where the US supported the Shah of IRan, who was not far from the Ghaddafis and Mubaraks we oppose today!
Delete3. I agree with Porpora's comment on knowledge and responsibility. People usually tend to do what they believe is 'good' before considering if going against that notion would produce a better result. For most people, it is easier to not think and abide by a standard than thinking on one's own.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what Diana said that people simply believe what is "good" before considering going against it. If most people believe something, an individual is, most of the time, not going to go against the majority. You are stripping away individuality for unity, which allowed Hitler to continue his genocide.
DeleteIts also what kept many of Hitler's followers from going against the Nazi regime, and in some ways its what kept America out of the war for a while. We didn't have the information to see what the enemy was really doing, and because of that, we didn't react to the rest of the world until far after we should have. If we did know more than we let on, than our doing nothing was ignorant in itself.
DeleteI agree with all of the comments -- it reminds me of "tyranny of the majority."
DeleteDoug Porpora argues that we allowed ourselves to become a party to genocide for two main reasons. The first is that we did not take the initiative to understand what was really going on. People did not see the genocide before them, so they did not pay much attention to it. People did not actively try to understand what was going on. The second reason is that even if people did know what was going on, they ignored it because it did not affect them.
ReplyDeleteI agree, but we must also remembered the fear involved with, for example, the Holocaust. Some people may have chosen to be ignorant because they either feared the truth or more importantly, feared the consequence of knowing the truth. Ignorance is often associated with hatred but sometimes it is drawn about by emotional weakness or survival instinct.
DeleteComment on Porpora’s assertion on page 197 (#3)
ReplyDeleteI have to disagree with this statement to a degree. If somebody does something in an act of ignorance because they are only acting on what knowledge they have, they could do serious damage in whatever they're doing. Knowledge is a responsibility, and it should be the responsibility of anybody in a position of power to ensure that they know the full story before acting at all, and it is their duty to inform those acting under them. so that they do not act in ignorance. It is true that it's very hard to blame somebody who acted without enough knowledge, especially if that individual believed they knew the whole story, but the supply of knowledge is what can prevent dangerous actions and prevent negative consequences.
I believe that Porpora is agreeing with you there. He basically says that people act in the way that he described, but that they should be treated as you discussed. He's simply describing the way people tend to act.
DeleteI think this was Porpora trying to explain the thought behind not taking on knowledge as a responsibility. For me, it seemed more like explaining a justification than his personal thoughts on knowledge as a responsibility.
Delete3. Some believe that possessing knowledge means having an obligation to take action. Whether this is in a negative or positive respect can seem irrelevant, which is what Porpora is asserting. Porpora is stating that people are ignorant of the consequences of their actions, and when one possesses knowledge they do not hesitate to act. I believe that people should be extremely conscious of their knowledge and whether or not to act on it. Especially in regards to the holocaust, information could be deadly. Although normally it is the right thing to do to share knowledge, in a time period such as the Holocaust, it could be a matter of life and death. Reporting someone that was hiding out or acting suspiciously could tear apart a family or ruin someone's life. That is why I think people should be more conscientious when possessing knowledge. The severity of an issue obviously influences the repercussions, and in many cases it will not be a report that can result in serious problems, but one should always be aware about whether sharing knowledge is really helping or hurting a person.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Kelly that people should consider the consequences of their knowledge before they act because there are not always positive repercussions.
Delete3) I agree with Porpora when he says that knowledge is a responsibility. When one has knowledge of a misconduct, as the case in Nazi Germany, they are responsible to act on it. However, according to Porpora, what occurred was a diffused responsibility. The Germans did not feel guilty for their lack of action because there were millions of others who also did not act. Each individual thought they were just one person, and therefore, could not make much of a difference. If one were to act on their knowledge, there would be negative consequences, as they would have faced punishment by the law. But, like Porpora said, their actions would not be blameworthy because they are at least attempting to do something. The worst possible thing would be if the people did nothing, which is one reason why the Holocaust happened.
ReplyDelete3. Porpora's assertion provides the justification often given for denying fault. It is easier to attempt to do "the right thing" than to understand the issue. People of course focus on actions, because the actions create the outcome of a situation. It is easier to put things in black and white and focus on who proves to be right in the end.
ReplyDeleteI agree that it's much easier to just focus in right and wrong in the end, and I think this is where many of the negative consequences of ignorance can stem from, because people choose not to look farther than what they already know or believe.
DeletePorpora correctly points out that societies are self interested - and Americans are no exception to the rule. In Chapter 6 he points to the fact that the Reagan Administration's transgressions in South America were ignored during periods of political prosperity. It is an unfortunate reality that those who are doing well, don't really care what else their leaders are doing. As for his point on "neighbors", he is absolutely correct, but I would take it a step further. Not only are American's uninterested in the plights of foreigners, but they fail to even learn the simplest elements of our neighbors cultures and lives. After all, we do belong to the same international community. This point actually ties in nicely with his quote from page197. I agree that it is a duty of every American to be informed. Information is the key to making the world a better place. Ideally we should all strive to become global citizens. (accidentally responded to more than one).
ReplyDeleteeconomic* prosperity
DeleteThe most literal definition of a neighbor is a person who lives near or next door to another person. However, what about the biblical definition? Many people tend to forget that the Bible instructs to "love thy neighbor as thyself." In Douglas Porpora's "How Holocausts Happen," he asserts "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." Personally, I see my neighbors everyday; the little girl comes over to play with my siblings, the entire family often comes over for barbecues during the summer, and we used to carpool to school everyday before I got my license. It is easy to care for your neighbors when they live immediately next door and you interact with them daily. As Porpora argues, however, most Americans do not exhibit neighborliness when it comes to people who do not live close by. Furthermore, this lack of neighborliness is not a new concept; many Germans, for example, sat back and did not do anything to stop Hitler although they knew what awful acts he was committing during the Holocaust. Although Porpora believes it takes a "radical commitment" to truly care about the well-being of humanity, it is something that is essential to save the world from events like the Holocaust.
ReplyDelete