Ordinary Folk

"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair..." 
~Charles Dickens, 1849. 

Over the course of the last twenty years or so, in what I can assume would be the summation of my 'adult' life, there has been a pattern of growing complacency tempered severely with outrage in regards to the world at large; disunity, terrorism, fear, apathy... a jumbled juxtaposition of life, often oxymoronic in its particulars. It seems that many believe that we are living in extraordinary times, that we consider social contentions and striking out as some novel idea simply because we are living it now. There is considerable arrogance in assuming that what we face as a nation or as part of a global community is unique to us because it's happening NOW... that we are somehow more educated, more philosophical, more tolerant, more broad minded than any previous generation. I've pondered quite a bit recently on what others have said about the adversities they faced. And here you go:

William Wilberforce (1759-1833) spent twenty years campaigning against the British slave trade, the story of hundreds of years of putrid conditions and the foulest of sins

against human beings. 

"To live our lives and miss that great purpose we were designed to accomplish is truly a sin. It is inconceivable that we could be bored in a world with so much wrong to tackle, so much ignorance to reach and so much misery we could alleviate."

"I am disturbed when I see the majority of so-called Christians having such little understanding of the real nature of the faith they profess. Faith is a subject of such importance that we should not ignore it because of the distractions or the hectic pace of our lives."

"I mean not to accuse any one, but to take the shame upon myself, in common, indeed, with the whole parliament of Great Britain, for having suffered this horrid trade to be carried on under their authority. We are all guilty—we ought all to plead guilty, and not to exculpate ourselves by throwing the blame on others; and I therefore deprecate every kind of reflection against the various descriptions of people who are more immediately involved in this wretched business."

"Is it not the great end of religion, and, in particular, the glory of Christianity, to extinguish the malignant passions; to curb the violence, to control the appetites, and to smooth the asperities of man; to make us compassionate and kind, and forgiving one to another; to make us good husbands, good fathers, good friends; and to render us active and useful in the discharge of the relative social and civil duties?"

Elie Wiesel (1928-2016), Nobel Laureate and Holocaust survivor. The way this history is bandied about these days as a means to an end in arguing both for and against whatever a party stands for, I'll leave it to Mr. Wiesel.

"The opposite of love is not hate, it's indifference. The opposite of beauty is not ugliness, it's indifference. The opposite of faith is not heresy, it's indifference. And the opposite of life is not death, but indifference between life and death."

"... if we forget, we are guilty, we are accomplices... We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented. Sometimes we must interfere... When human lives are endangered, when human dignity is in jeopardy, national borders and sensitivities become irrelevant. Wherever men or women are persecuted because of their race, religion, or political views, that place must- at that moment- become the center of the universe."

"My greatest disappointment is that I believe that those of us who went through the war and tried to write about it, about their experience, became messengers. We have given the message, and nothing changed."

Simon Wiesenthal (1908-2005), Holocaust survivor.

"For me the Holocaust was not only a Jewish tragedy, but also a human tragedy. After the war, when I saw that the Jews were talking only about the tragedy of six million Jews, I sent letters to Jewish organizations asking them to talk also about the millions of others who were persecuted with us together - many of them only because they helped Jews."

"Hatred can be nurtured anywhere, idealism can be perverted into sadism anywhere. If hatred and sadism combine with modern technology the inferno could erupt anew anywhere."

"The history of man is the history of crimes, and history can repeat. So information is a defence. Through this we can build, we must build, a defence against repetition."

"There were millions of such families anxious only for peace and quiet in their own little nests. These were the mounting blocks by which the criminals climbed to power and kept it."

"For your benefit, learn from our tragedy. It is not a written law that the next victims must be Jews. It can also be other people."

Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1908-1945), theologian and anti-Nazi dissident who lost his life for his beliefs and outspokenness.

"Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act."

"Christianity stands or falls with its revolutionary protest against violence, arbitrariness, and pride of power, and with its plea for the weak. Christians are doing too little to make these points clear... Christendom adjusts itself far too easily to the worship of power. Christians should give more offense, shock the world far more, than they are doing now."

"We must finally stop appealing to theology to justify our reserved silence about what the state is doing -- for that is nothing but fear. 'Open your mouth for the one who is voiceless' -- for who in the church today still remembers that that is the least of the Bible's demands in times such as these?"

"We are not to simply bandage the wounds of victims beneath the wheels of injustice, we are to drive a spoke into the wheel itself."

Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965), former British Prime Minister.

"Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is always what it takes to sit down and listen."

"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last."

Martin Luther King, Jr. (1929-1968), minister and civil rights activist

"Nonviolence means avoiding not only the external and physical violence but also internal violence of spirit. You not only refuse to shoot a man, but you refuse to hate him."

“The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.”

"Nothing in the world is more dangerous that sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."

A couple more: Mr. Rogers and J.R.R Tolkien

              

American Thanksgiving

    It's nearly Thanksgiving Day and preparations are underway across the United States. Turkeys and pies are in demand, piled high in grocery stores. My own twenty pound bird is jammed in my fridge right now. Much has been made out of this day: the family gatherings, the gorging, the counting of endless blessings. In the midst of civil war, Abraham Lincoln made it an official federal day of thanksgiving, saying:

 "It has seemed to me fit and proper that they [innumerable blessings] should be solemnly, reverently and gratefully acknowledged as with one heart and one voice by the whole American people........And I recommend to them [that recognize and take part in this day] that while offering up the ascriptions justly due to Him for such singular deliverances and blessings, they do also, with humble penitence for our national perverseness and disobedience, commend to His tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife in which we are unavoidably engaged, and fervently implore the interposition of the Almighty Hand to heal the wounds of the nation and to restore it as soon as may be consistent with the Divine purposes to the full enjoyment of peace, harmony, tranquility and Union."

    The Thanksgiving tradition, as we all remember from the first days of school, is a long one, reaching back to the Pilgrims at Plymouth. My favorite float in the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade is the giant turkey that bobs his head and moves alongside the Pilgrims and their feast. It's such a warm, inviting scene; these people who left their homeland for far off shores, who struggled those first years, and then recognized their bounty of harvest and fell to their knees in prayer and thanksgiving to the Provider. What we tend to forget is why they left their homes in the first place, the widespread persecution they lived under as they sought the freedom to organize their lives and faith the way they saw fit and found in Scripture. The shore of Massachusetts was not their initial destination. They attempted to leave England for Holland but under great duress. "They were hunted and persecuted on every side, until their former afflictions were but fleabitings in comparison. Some were clapped into prison; others had their houses watched day and night, and escaped with difficulty; and most were obliged to fly, and leave their homes and means of livelihood," writes William Bradford in Of Plymouth Plantation. He continues, "For these reformers to be thus constrained to leave their native soil, their lands and livings, and all their friends, was a great sacrifice, and was wondered at by many. But to go into a country unknown to them, where they must learn a new language, and get their livings they knew not how, seemed an almost desperate adventure, and a misery worse than death........ But this was not all; for though it was made intolerable for them to stay, they were not allowed to go; the ports were shut against them, so that they had to seek secret means of conveyance, to bribe the captains of ships, and give extraordinary rates for their passages. Often they were betrayed, their goods intercepted, and thereby were put to great trouble and expense." Of Plymouth Plantation is worth the read as a reminder of where the Pilgrims came from and what they suffered in choosing to leave England and then Holland for passage to America.

    The United States has a long history of opening and closing its doors. From the beginning its reputation of being a free land, a haven for those who are desperate to leave their lands because of war, famine and freedom has offered hope to millions. I don't have an answer for the current Syrian refugee crisis. I'm not sure if we let them in; I'm not sure if we keep them out. I have seen both sides scream, spewing fear and hate and ignorance. I have not seen the mercy, the willingness to find a common ground. Lest you forget, we are a nation built on refugees, a glorious melting pot. Like any nation, we have expectations and historically have done well with the give and take of ideas and culture. Fear, however, is a funny thing. It keeps us from doing things that could be beneficial and it makes us do things that could be detrimental. No one, however, has ever suffered from too much mercy and grace. Love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness-- you know those things we are supposed to be known for? We've allowed them to be stomped under the feet of politics. Is Thanksgiving only for those who have known little suffering? Only for those that will stuff themselves into a tryptophanic stupor? Only for those with roofs over their heads and clothing on their backs? Only those who are third, fourth or fifth generation American? Only those that sought our shores from 1621 to 2001? The thought that being American is an exclusive condition is folly, negating our long history of refugees searching for security, basic needs and freedom. Whatever the Left or the Right is preaching right now, rise above it. There is a common ground. It lies neither on the one side nor the other, however they spin it. 

The New Colossus

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,

With conquering limbs astride from land to land;

Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand

A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame

Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name

Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand

Glows worldwide welcome; her mild eyes command

The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.

"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!' cries she

With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,

I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

~ Emma Lazarus, 1883

Comparative History and Other Exciting Titles

    What an age we live in: the flow of information that is accessible to millions and millions of people; the ability to search for information and form opinions. Social media have given us the power of the share/post function. We have a great responsibility laid upon us in the simple mouse click/swipe action. A responsibility to provide information that is complete and whole, requiring thought and possibly action from the readers that is beyond a few clicks or swipes. What do we do with this power? From my many years of observation it goes down like this: we read or watch something, feel empowered by the message and immediately repost with our two cents worth on why we agree with the post in the first place. More often than not, we repost things because we are outraged. Outraged at society. Outraged with government. Outraged with culture. Outraged with history. We read something that strikes a chord deep within our core values and we let the outrage carry us to share it with our friends. We assume our friends will agree and if they don't, we fall into a cesspool of indignation and provide them with all the reasons they need to change their values to fit the narrative of the post. The observation is that outrage begets more outrage and the mad typing of CAPITAL LETTERS and exclamation points. Calm yourselves. The keyboard can't handle the change you are trying to elicit. If the design of a post is to evoke righteous indignation, chances are more than good that there is information within the post that has been distorted, and it should be questioned immediately. My attitude towards these types of posts is blasé, but then there will be a barrage of posts in my newsfeed that ominously tell the reader to "Do your research!" or "Know your history!” Those I read. Those I always question.

     History is the study of the evolution of society, from the beginnings of a civilization, to its technological advancement, and its centralization and unification. It is the study of change; the pattern of betterment across the ages, where one generation strives to leave a better world to the next and so on. Historical methodology and comparative history are taught mostly in higher level history courses. Historical Methods is the first class a student majoring in history takes in college, right alongside all those basic classes. It teaches the student how to research empirically, how to analyze and use the evidences found from the research. The history degree is capped by a Senior Seminar in Comparative History, the culmination of how the student has learned to study history. To the history major, it’s the most beautiful thing. Many students, throughout their formal education, learn history as a series of events and dates that are central to one civilization. Each history class focuses on one group of people: American, English, ancient, classical, etc. The comparison of these civilizations through critical analysis is often left behind in favor of the memorization of facts. Ask anyone which subject they disliked most in school and it generally falls to history. It's 'boring' is the first answer, ‘tedious’ a close second. If the model for historical education is to know the facts to keep us from repeating history then more analytical and comparative history should be taught. If historical methodology and comparative history were utilized during our foundational years of education, the notion of "know your history" would be far more pertinent.

    Interest in history seemingly happens later in life, well past the stacks of thick books and time lines. As we age and become more aware of the events around us, we learn the value of history as a means of guidance. We know the answers lie in the past. We read a bit, are told quite a bit through media and other informational outlets and we take the histories we remember from formal education, plucking facts from all different histories, and we slap them together, hoping they give us the answers we seek. Robert Bain, in his piece entitled Building an Essential World History Tool: Teaching Comparative History for the book Teaching World History (the study of history also throws long and wordy titles out there to scare people off) writes of 'implicit' comparisons. Bain says "...implicit comparisons are often poor comparisons. Using little or no methodology, people allow surface similarity or difference to pass for analysis or evidence. Teachers often assume students can compare because everyone makes comparisons so often. Yet frequency of activity does not guarantee the quality.” Bain's writing is spot on and the article in its entirety is worth the time as it goes into detail on how the method should function (see link above).

     Information is only worth what we do with it. The interwebs have done their best to distort and misuse history for the purpose of propaganda. The word ‘propaganda’ elicits visions of posters from the World War I and II era, the "Buy War Bonds!" or "Loose lips sink ships!" or the plethora of print media put out that was anti-Allies, anti-Axis, anti-Communist, anti-Socialist, anti-Semitic, and anti-fill-in-the-blank. The basic definition of propaganda is ‘information that is designed to mislead or persuade’ (dictionary.com).  The bombardment of propaganda via social media is mind numbing and more often than not a fabrication of some vague history or ideology. Propaganda use words like "that person is socialist or fascist or both" and "our morally defunct society is doomed to collapse like Rome" or "our current President is the next Hitler, ready to take us into the next Reich." The reality is just nope. Bains quotes David Hacket Fisher (Historians’ Fallacies) about the “misuse of comparison as the fallacy of the appositive proof, a ‘complex form of empirical error, which consists in an attempt to establish the existence of a quality in A by contract with quality in B—and B is misrepresented or misunderstood.’ This misuse is an “invidious mistake.”  Though the real intention is on event A, Fisher explains, the ‘erroneous B is bootlegged’ into the discussion of evidence.” The purpose of history is to be aware, to see patterns, to be wary. History is readily abused when it does not fit the fixed narrative. Comparative history begs you to know more about the pattern, more about how things happened and why. A much deeper understanding of how Fascism and Socialism swept Europe and how Communism gripped Russia is needed before you can make the comparison with America. Comparatively, we have little in common with the patterns and histories of either. There are many surface similarities, but the deeper histories would calm people down enough to reject every idea that takes one or two similarities and rushes us to our doom. “One of the dangers of a generic comparative method is that it presupposes we know from the outset what the effective categories of comparison are. One of the strengths of the comparative method in history is that it questions that assumption. Historians recognize that comparative categories are both time and culture bound. Therefore, they understand that new insights, questions, and categories arise after initial comparison,” Bains writes. The comparative method requires you to bring all the information you can to the table, to trace the road a civilization took, decide how they compare with another civilization, and then realize, even after the conclusion, that there will always be things that make it similar (so tuck that into the wary corner of your mind) but then not (so tuck that into a corner that’s interested but not freaked out). And just know that at some point you will have to re-evaluate your findings if later on you find something that turns the pattern on its side. History is incredibly fluid; its broader conclusions make the pattern, it’s the individual details that can change. It seems like a form of madness, right?  It’s always changing, yet everyone wants to stick it to a rigid course to fit the current events. It’s not that simple.

    Each kernel of information about a society can rock the comparison of one society to another. The rise of Hitler was due in large part to his and other German experiences during World War I and the years following. The German experience through the years of 1912 (give or take, one of those ghastly frustrations in deciding how far back to go) to 1933 is quite unique to that society. The American experience of the same time period was vastly different. I would argue that the Treaty of Versailles caused a great deal more suffering to the German people in a post-war world than the suffering Americans faced once back on American soil later on in the early 1930s. This difference made a huge impact on German societal and governmental stability and/or instability, something the United States had no experience with in the early 20^th century, at least not on the level of an all-encompassing, revolutionary stab at a new kind of governmental rule. But that’s a post for another day.

        I hope with this blog to take some social media posts to task but to also shed light on the 'isms' that are bandied about and the deeper history that many feel is the pattern for current America. I love the study of comparative history, I love history books and prefer documentaries to most television (unless it’s Doctor Who, but you know, time travel, and “people assume that time is a strict progression from cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint—it’s more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly time-y wimey… stuff”). It seems fitting that I share my collection of thoughts on history. I have boxes full of research, notes and essays that could use an airing. What else can I do? I was a history major. It's like being an English major....... dun, dun, dun….

Atypical Historical Interests

    As per my usual, the majority of my reading consists of German history. For most European countries, Germany, as a unified state, is fairly young (their unification was accomplished in 1871 by the Prussian, Otto von Bismarck.), but their history is quite extraordinary (and does not always elicit positive memories). I came into this interest, at about the age of fourteen when I was studying about World War Two. There were two things about this period that stood out for me: 1) The internment of Japanese-Americans by the United States and 2) the Holocaust.  The second event (I hate using that word, but can't feel any better about it by the thesaurus suggestions of 'appearance or happening,' which shows the complexity of the subject.) drew me in quickly and my focus on the US internment camps waned.
    World War Two and the Third Reich are synonymous with the Holocaust when thinking of the European front. Most history covering this time period, dwell on the Jewish Holocaust and what "Germans" did under the Third Reich. I'm not one to just take history for granted and only take one portion of a history as a glossed over version of a national history. It is a very good thing (and the right thing) to forever remember what happened under Adolf Hitler, especially where the Jews are concerned. I'm a huge advocate for the works of Yad Vashem and the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. Their organizations have been very effective in keeping the history current, arming future generations with the knowledge of the events that allowed Hitler to come to power and the repercussions of his twelve year reign.
    That being said, as a sort of disclaimer, in all my studies, I have chosen to look beyond the obvious history surround the Third Reich, the endless biographies of Hitler and the well-researched history of the Holocaust itself that covers the Shoah (the specific Holocaust of the Jews, excluding the Roma, POWs, those with disablities, anti-Nazi activists, homosexuals, and Jehovah's Witnesses). The Jews were Hitler's priority and his hate was highly effective in permanently removing them from the 'Aryan State.' The Roma (or Romani; gypsies) have interested me a great deal. They are still considered an 'outsider' race in much of Europe.
    More recently, my interests have turned to the Germans who lived during the times preceding the Third Reich and what various roles were taken during that time period as well. It can be a difficult undertaking at best. I have found very little in the way of research of German daily life. The image of Hitler is so overreaching, there seems to be little available in trying to understand or see how a German family lived. And that was, by far, more than Hitler ever dreamed his regime could accomplish; to not see individual life outside the precepts of Nazism. By the end of the war, knowledge of the atrocities that had been committed became known to the public (yes, even to the German public; there is a reason the extermination camps were not in Germany, but in Poland. The camps within Germany were concentration camps, being geared for political prisoners, POWs, and as stops along the way to the extermination camps like the Auschwitz compound, Belzec and Chelmno. The camps within Germany eventually saw many of the same atrocities as the death camps, but that was not their primary purpose.).
    One thing I've found in scholarly research is that those who lived in Germany during this time period do not wish to remember that time (if you study this time period, the term 'collective guilt' crops up quite a bit). If it is discussed, it is in a cryptic, detached manner. Not all Germans were Nazis, not all Germans were guilty of committing the crimes, but many feel the guilt of association; the guilt of passive allegiance to the man that claimed to pull Germany back together as a nation after the devastation of the first world war and the Treaty of Versailles.
    I find that I can get 'wordy' as I think about this time period. This post was not even supposed to be about this. It was to be a post on a fantastic book I just completed this morning. I guess I have another post in the future about this book, which is good. I probably need to think about it a little more before I get 'wordy.' I guess my blog title is appropriate in this case. I'm rambling.

Days of Great Import

    Calendar days in my memory are a steady stream of happenings. Unlike many, I tend to remember dates further in the past than current times; like today, for example (which really is not the best one because many will be thinking of Pearl Harbor). I think of years and events in chronological order, but not an order that is precise enough to remember dates. I can vaguely recall, however, that I know someone (I still can't remember who) that has a birthday today. What's sad is, I'm pretty sure it's a birthday I should be remembering- like family. And yes, sometimes I forget what days my own children were born on. Eek. How is that possible?
    Dates on a calendar aren't really my thing. I get quite a bit of ribbing about this, especially if my love of history is known. How can someone who loves history and has a degree in it not know specific dates? I have no idea. I know the dates of holidays, some birthdays (obviously not all of them), and some historical dates like December 7, 1941. When I think of the day Pearl Harbor was struck, I immediately begin thinking about the historical events that preceded and the things that immediately took place afterward.
    My learned memories think of the world's history in a broad sense. What made Pearl Harbor such a pivotal moment in history? It was the catalyst that drew the United States into World War II. The United States had an adamant policy of isolation, choosing  to not be involved in events that took place beyond its borders. Interestingly enough, they had aided the Allies with armament and funds long before Pearl Harbor. For the first days following the US declaration of war against Japan, many still hoped to avoid involvement in Europe. Within days of Pearl Harbor (see I don't know the date), Germany and Italy, of the Tripartite Pact (or Axis Pact) of 1940 with Japan, declared war on the US, forcing American involvement.
    The 'official' beginning date for WWII is September 1, 1939 with Germany's invasion of Poland. Arguably that date should have been much earlier, say in 1934 when Hitler began outright violations of the Treaty of Versailles or more specifically with the Anschluss of Austria in March of 1938 and the occupation of the Sudetenland in late 1938, followed by the complete invasion of Czechoslavakia in March of 1939. These dates, while noted, did not hold sway with the United States during those years. It was not until after December 7, 1941 that the US advocated action. The United States entered a multi-front war and the rest, yes I will say it, is history. And that is my thought process on this day of infamy.

The following is a link to the attack scene from the movie Pearl Harbor. In my opinion, it's the longest 9 minutes, 46 seconds.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9RSzcKp6Ww&feature=related

Villains, Heroes or Bystanders?

    Years after a moment in time becomes history, those of us who know its story hold it in judgment, forcing this history into explainable categories. History is very rarely remembered fondly. It is the times of war, atrocities, destitution and destruction that are foremost in our minds. Baffled with the need to make it all right again, we seek to explain, justify and villify a certain part of the history. We apply a pattern to historical thought with three categories: 1) the Villain, 2) the Hero and 3) the Bystanders. These simple labels we place on historical events for our own peace of mind find themselves thrust on the people who lived in those times. We are determined to decide who falls into these categories. We feel exultant when we have succeeded in doing so. It makes all events and everyone who witnessed/participated in them acceptable, manageable in our minds.

     There were villains, there were heroes and there were bystanders. There had to be for the cycle of history; people with the abilities and the knowledge to change life completely and permanently for their own betterment and people who refused to follow suit. A large portion of these people fall yet another group. They are in between the villain and the hero. They are those who initially wanted the promised change only to later discover the villain at work, playing with their lives and dreams and they became caught up with basic survival.

    Once these categories are filled, we have our answers of ‘why’ or ‘how.’ The bad parts of history happened because of the Villains, until the Hero arrives to turn back to clock or to save society. The Bystanders are simply that. Those who allowed time and history to pass them by. It seems we are all geared for the experience of a happily ever after and we want histories to end on a good note. History cannot be glossed over in this fashion. Not everyone can be a villain and not everyone is a hero, and many times, there is no happy ending. The historical event may have ceased, but those who experienced it did not just pick up where life left off. The repercussions last a life time and effect the generations after. Our simple categories are a disservice to those who continue to come to grips with their pasts.

    We look upon the past and judge it with the standards we know and experience For those who have only known what it’s like to live in a democratic republic, it is unfathomable to understand how any other government could exist or for a society to choose something different from that. The governments of many European nations have fluctuated, many at a rapid pace. The 20^th century saw the most activity in the rise and fall of governments, particularly that of Germany. This week, November 8-12, marks the anniversary of several unfortunate events in German history.

    By the end of the 19^th century, Germany was on the fast track of industrialization and modernization. Germans harbored a deep-seated spirit of competition and envy with the British and French. While other nations were at the peak of their greatness, Germany had floundered. They desired an identity they could be proud of, one that reflected the achievement of Imperial greatness. A hero emerged in Otto von Bismarck. With his Prussian military abilities, he pushed Germany in the direction it most desired to go. The German spirit soared, exuberant in the achievement of the unification of its smaller kingdoms and the tangible desire to take a place among the nations. It became a thing of honor to be German.  They had the makings of a national identity.

    Heaving a deep sigh of satisfaction, the German breath was snuffed out in November 11, 1918. Their identity was now in the rubble of their great cities and lying dead in the trenches of foreign fields and unmarked graves. Destitution was now the common identity among Germans. Denied a place among nations, the German people let history decide their future, their thoughts on the more urgent needs of food, clothing and shelter and not on the doings of an obsolete government.  The individual became responsible for the care of their own families. Unemployment was rampant.  Kaiser Wilhelm II abdicated, leaving the nation to sue for peace with the Allies on its own. The fledgling Weimar Republic was the first attempt at democratic rule, but it appeared doomed even at the start because of the Treaty of Versailles. The first leaders of this new government later became known as the “November Criminals” because they accepted full responsibility for the war and reparations on behalf of the German people. Reeling with the loss of their nation and unable to put food on their own tables, Germans were made to bear the brunt of shame and they faced the prospect of war reparations. This was the beginning of the ‘stabbed in the back’ mantra and it also kindled a hatred of the Allies.

    By 1920, the Weimar Republic no longer kept up with inflation, more concerned with staying afloat. The returning troops from the front were dismal. They had fought in trenches for four years to come home only to find the decimation of their families, towns and government. They had fought for the dream of a great German nation, but came home to the opposite. Lines were drawn by the younger generation, freely doling out their disdain of the past and bitter with the lack of a future. Hundreds of political parties sprang up, vying for recognition and claiming to be the answer to getting past the war years. The Weimar Republic barely functioned in a sea of party politics.

  Frustration and anger spilled out onto the streets by 1923 and violence became common, the people taking no notice. Slowly, however, the Republic was able to somewhat alleviate the economic stress of post war Germany. After ten long years, it appeared that Germany could bounce back. Whisperings of a promising future began to take the place of the political rants against the Republic. Prosperity became attainable.  Another sigh of satisfaction and then another blow to their efforts. October 29, 1929, Black Tuesday, sent its demobilizing effects around the world. The support of other nations that Germany had grudgingly depended on disappeared, signaling global economic failure. The younger Germans had been given a tantalizing taste of prosperity. The old bitterness returned, overshadowing the progress that had been made. Once again the parties drew tighter lines, rocking the Weimar Republic and escalating the violence.

  The previous generation was categorized. The villains were those who caused the downfall of the German nation: the November Criminals, the Allies, and those not of pure German blood. The heroes, of course, were the soldiers, true Germans who fought and sacrificed everything for the Fatherland. The Treaty of Versailles was considered the ultimate betrayal of Germany. Too many years of bitterness and living on the edge of desperation, the German population was presented with this ideology and the promises of employment and a return of a national identity. Germans felt the ideals of the Nazi Party offered them real unification and a real sense of identity. But more than that, the NSDAP promised real food on the table.

    The year of 1934 saw a surge in employment and the basic needs of the German people finally appeared to be met. Adolf Hitler had been the Führer of this new government, the Third Reich, for a year. Economic stabilization made Germans loathe to argue about Nazi fundamentals. Another sigh of relief was heaved, not as deep or as contented as the others, but there was still hope for the ‘German.’  Blind eyes were turned from the methods of the Nazi Party. Hadn’t they already witnessed that kind of daily violence in society for the last twenty years? Prosperity has a way of clouding the picture of political health. It soon became clear that any complaints from the people about Nazi activities could mean jail or death. Their sighs of relief became forced, deemed necessary by the Nazis and the total control of the German people. Fear replaced contentment; paranoia filled their stomachs and not the food the Führer had provided.

    The world struggles to this day to decipher who the villains are for those who lived in the Third Reich. Hitler, Goebbels, Goring, Himmler… these are obvious. The obvious heroes are the men and women involved in resistance, those who helped save the ‘untermensch,’ those who were considered ‘sub-human’ like Bonhoeffer and Schindler, and eventually the Allies. The question remains about the majority of Germans. Did belonging to the Party in name mark them as villains? Did watching their neighbors and Jews carted off to camps make them villains? If it is difficult to decipher what makes a villain, then how can they determine what makes a hero or simply a bystander? How can one dream again or feel good about contentment when so many suffered because of their activity or passivity?

    It’s an ever present, largely unspoken shame to realize many were bystanders. Now they wished to have had the foresight to see the direction in which they were headed. Indifference and passivity allow things to happen. There is no active role, just the hope that one day it will all end. That better times will come after the violence, after employment, after food is on the table, after the new government (Nazi government) stabilizes, after the war, after Hitler is gone… The false hopes mounted, but by the time most were moved to action, it was too late. Total control meant any sign of resistance was stamped out. It became necessary for the bystanders to take a part in the villainy, to ensure a collective responsibility for the government’s actions and to ensure the continuation of their own lives during the madness. Those who were bystanders saw the easier course was to deny that such events occurred or to have known they were taking place, but the world refuses to move on, demanding a daily accounting of how and why.  The need for a national identity has been replaced with a basic need to know who the villains, the heroes and the bystanders are. There are no concise descriptions for these labels. The collective sighs of the past brought promises that ended in eternal nightmares.

    The Third Reich was an event that demands our attention, willing us to consider what we are comfortable in accepting and to not place history in a nice, tidy box on a hidden shelf of the mind. For some the name “German” has inherently become evil. For others, it’s the term “Nazi.” The stigma persists. Both have contained elements of evil, but both had elements of profound good. Many, more than likely, upon reading this, will question the good that could have come out of the Third Reich. If the Third Reich had not produced positive aspects in the beginning, it would not hardly have been able to achieve its atrocities. Its first duty was to buy the people. It succeeded in a very short time, and gained momentum with the people.

    One of the more debatable matters among historians is how much Germans actually knew about the Jewish genocide known as the Holocaust. Most say they had to have known what was taking place beyond the gates inscribed “Arbeit Macht Frei.” For others, the conclusions point to a well-oiled propaganda machine that did its best to censor all information regarding camps and their occupants. What other reason than to say “Work makes you free” at the entrance? Yes, many had to have known, but in a totalitarian state built on fear and paranoia, there would be very few to speak out against the onslaught of genocide. Those that did were quickly silenced.

    When the government controls all sources of information, they can control most of what people know. For many, the personal demands on life far outweighed the need to keep up with vacillating scenes of government.  Like any of us, time passes without too much knowledge of current events. It’s feasible for some to have been unaware until the truth was staring them in the face and they were labeled guilty by association or passivity. So consider what can be learned from the history. When viewed objectively there is more to be learned than the far reaching stigmas. Be aware of the promises and be aware of what those promises can require of the future. Determine what motivates the promises. Do not be indifferent or ignorant of the choices your government makes. It’s important to know the histories to at least realize the mistakes and make sure that the pattern is not repeated. What would you choose to be? The villain, the hero or the bystander?

Judging others makes us blind, whereas love is illuminating. By judging others, we blind ourselves to our own evil and to the grace which others are just as entitled to as ourselves.
    Dietrich Bonhoeffer - The Cost of Discipleship (1937, 1948 in English)

Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.
    Dietrich Bonhoeffer

The Supposed Wave of the Future

    Nooks, Kindles, eBooks-- will be taking the place of printed books.At least that's what many people are saying these days, at least that's what Jeff Bezos, CEO of Amazon would have you believe. It's about the convenience, the cost, the technology. That's great and everything, but I beg to differ. There are plenty of people in the world who hold a book in their hands, the loved books with fine paper/leather/cloth covers and their various qualities of paper and texture held to the bindings. An eBook can only express itself by the words on the screen. A book with paper, ornate bindings and the pungent odors of ink will be absent from the complete package.
    For those who are true book lovers, this new wave of publishing has to be a terrible dream. On demand books that you can get in an instant take away from the thrill of holding a book in your hands. There will be no running your fingers along the spine, feeling the creases in the paperbacks from parts of the book that were especially favored, no tactile appreciation of the finer leather bound tomes. There will be no smelling the pages that seem to unlock more of the story. The paper, some thick and some thin depending on quality, begs the reader to see more than what's written. If it's an old book, you feel the essence of the previous owners. Who read this before? Who pored over the words, painstakingly looking for meaning? What caused that smudge on the print? A tear over the words, a drip of coffee, a quick moment found during a meal for the reader desperate to know what happens next? The musty odors ingrained in the paper speak just as loudly as the print.
    No matter the age of the book, there is a pleasing, comforting scent that can only be found in a book. Have you ever smelled your computer or laptop? It's weird, but I have. It doesn't exactly heighten my excitement for a book if it smells so plastic and factory produced. Reading a book is a sensual experience, requiring more than just the senses of sight and touch. Each edition, volume, size and look of a book are far beyond what a Kindle or Nook can promise. They said TV would replace radio, too.