Genocide or Not in Syria

According to the current definition of genocide, the conflict in Syria is not a genocide. This is because the intention is not to eliminate a certain ethnical or religious group, but rather the government's attempt to remain in power. If Political reasons where included in the definition of genocide, then the conflict would be genocide. Despite not being genocide, I believe the international community should get involved. I believe so because the government is killing many often unarmed civilians. Even if it isn't genocide, it is still mass murder, and is morally unacceptable.

Who's to blame for Rwanda?

The Rwandan genocide, like other genocides, is the responsibility of everyone who knew about it. The people directly committing the genocide are probably the guiltiest, because it was their idea. They were the ones who decided to eliminate countless innocents based on their prejudice, and actually went about killing them. However, the people who knew about it and did nothing are also partially to blame. This is because many countries who knew about it had the ability to stop the genocide or at least save more people, but chose not to in the interest of cost and the lives of their soldiers. Also, through inaction, they are almost encouraging more genocide because they prove the international community is unwilling to act and won't stop others from doing the same.

Assessing Responsibility WS

I think that the proper response of the individuals who simply complied with the Nazi rule should have been to instead of doing nothing, standing up for what they really think. The direct subordinates for example, could have refused orders to round up and execute the Jews. The proper response for the US should have been to not just fight the Nazis, but also take better care of the Jews who where in need of help. For any future genocides, I believe the international community should be more willing to help the victims, and give far more opposition towards countries committing it, such as through trade embargoes and other treaties to deprive them of the resources they need to commit the genocide. If that doesn't work, then countries should force the committing country to stop through force. 

Defiance: Day 3

I would have chosen C., The group starts to beat the scout, and then Tuvia stops them. I chose this one because I think that the others would not have stoped due to their own hatred, but Tuvia has a strong character and should not have let them beat the scout to death. This connects to my beleifes because just because someone is working for your enemy doesn't mean that they are your enemy. I don't think, because of their own risks, they should have let him go freely, but they should also not have killed him.

Defiance: Day 2

I think that 'all is fair in love and war'. I believe so because, at least in this case, war is often involves the survival of at least one of the parties participating, and therefore they should have every opportunity to defend themselves. I don't think that such actions should purposefully cause harm to civilians. For example, I would agree that they shouldn't have shot the milk man, but they should also have not stolen so much milk from one man so that he would not have gotten in too much trouble.

Defiance: Day 1

I do not think that they were justified in their actions. This is because, no matter what the circumstance, killing is still bad. I also do not believe that wartime should be an excuse to justify them either, because war itself is more or less just more killing. So, I don't believe their actions where justified.

Holocaust Exibit - Stage of Genocide

One of the stages of genocide I noticed while on the trip was polarization. This was present when it was discussed how the Jews and other minorities were loaded into trains and taken to separate parts of cities at first (the ghettos) and then to concentration camps. This demonstrated polarization because the Jews and other groups were separated from society so that the act of killing them was less recognized by the average German citizens.

Daily Life for Jews before/during the Holocaust

                Lodz is a city in Poland that sits about 75 miles southwest of Warsaw. It has been a home for Jews long before the Nazi invasion in 1939, and had the second largest Jewish population with over 160,000 Jews living in the city. Before the Nazis invaded, the community was fairly standard, with people going about their daily lives, going to school, getting produce from grocery stores, and so on. Lodz was occupied within a week of the Nazi occupation of Poland in 1939. In February of 1940, the Nazis established a ghetto in the northeastern part of the city, and forced most of the Jewish population to live there. The ghetto was then separated from the rest of Lodz with a barbed-wire fence, and the borders were guarded by special police units. Inside the fences, the people in the ghetto were forced to work in factories, and Lodz became a major producer for Germany throughout the war. The Jewish population was given very minimal food ration, and running water was very limited. Due to the harsh living conditions, over 20% of the population died before the end of the war.



                From looking at my own photo, it is evident that people back then had “normal” lives. This is because then, just like now, students went to school where they learned together in classes, and evidently took class photos every once in a while as well. Also, like some schools today, they seem to wear similar clothing, suggesting that they might have had a dress code as well. The photo I chose to share was of my Eighth grade class, and the picture of the Jewish class was also in the same range of ages. Also, both pictures show mixed gender in the class, meaning that back then women and men where presumably close to being equal, just like today.

Perseption of Genocide

My views on genocide haven't changed much, and the work in class has only served to strengthen my resolve. I simply cannot comprehend killing anyone, let alone thousands or more of innocent people. Studying the Armenian genocide has shown how little the people committing the genocide think of the people they are killing, and the ability to even consider a genocide is, to me, simply revolting.

Surviver Accounts

Edward Racoubian has old, white/grey hair with a receding hair line and mustache. He is old and has wrinkled white skin.  Based on the picture, I can assume he felt very uncomfortable about the story, as he looks sad in the picture do to a slightly opened mouth and eye brows going upward together. Also, he says that he had lost his entire family in the genocide, which would be saddening to anyone. I think that, though he survived, he would have had a hard time readjusting the society after such loss, as even now, many years later, he is still sadden by the events that took place, and he does not mention his life after he either escaped or was let go. Since he was most likely weakened by the experience, h would probably had faced challenges finding work and normality after the genocide ended.

Classification/Symbolization

If these are the first part of genocide, I believe it becomes a problem when some groups decide that they are Superior to another group, or that the other group threatens their way of life, and they decide that anyone that is a part of the group should be eliminated, so anyone who as that groups symbol is therefor believe to be of that group, and is also eliminated.

What causes Genocide?

I think genocide is caused by people thinking that the only way to live in peace is to eradicate anything differant than what they are.

Questions I have:
Why do people chose genocide over other forms of change?
What purpose does the killing of inocents serve?
Why do people willingly kill off innocent people simply because they were ordered to?
Do the people commiting gonocide occationally rise up against the one who started it?
What is the acctuall deffinition of genocide?