Just Be Happy. Go Consume Something.
Als die Nazis die Kommunisten holten,
habe ich geschwiegen;
ich war ja kein Kommunist.
Als sie die Sozialdemokraten einsperrten,
habe ich geschwiegen;
ich war ja kein Sozialdemokrat.
Als sie die Gewerkschafter holten,
habe ich nicht protestiert;
ich war ja kein Gewerkschafter.
Als sie mich holten,
gab es keinen mehr, der protestieren konnte.
September 29th, 2006 at 9:25 am
Ich bin nicht sicher, daß die Regierung der Vereinigten Staaten wie Nazi Deutschland in den dreißiger Jahren geworden ist, aber wir müssen definitiv aufmerksam bleiben.
September 29th, 2006 at 9:47 am
I think we’re closer than most people realize.
September 29th, 2006 at 10:35 am
If I understand, you are implying many Americans have their head in the consumerism sand while “evil” is growing in our nation.
I lived in Germany for 6 years until this past July … sorry, I’m missing the connection. I needed a little translation help with the poem but from what I got from it, there was a lot more going on in Germany than the point of the poem.
Certainly we need to be alert to some of these issues but there’s a lot more to it than this implies.
Having read your bio I expected you to have a better understanding of the differing cultures. Things were (and still are) VERY different between German culture and US.
September 29th, 2006 at 10:41 am
I’m not actually making a direct connection between German culture in the 30s and what is going on now.
But from a political standpoint, I don’t see how any American could not see that by eliminating the rights of the accused we are undoing one of the most important features of the Constitution. And fear is what got us to this point. And that is definitely a pattern repeated throughout history.
That said, there is actually a surprising amount of philosophical similarity, although Erik is the expert here, between between the Romantic imaginings of pre-war Germans and the underlying worldview of the neo-”conservatives.”
September 29th, 2006 at 6:34 pm
May I add an obligatory link to a description of Godwin’s Law?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin’s_law
September 29th, 2006 at 10:21 pm
I knew that was coming.
It’s funny how “laws” like this that derive from people’s dissatisfaction with the way conversations go actually do try to discredit valid observations from history.
But even without our invocation of Godwin’s law, I don’t think it’s possible to not see the danger of the legislation that occured this week.
October 1st, 2006 at 5:44 pm
I’m actually going to say something I don’t know if I even want to say: I think invoking comparisons to the Nazis, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc. is a bad idea.
First of all, it trivializes what actually happened in these societies. Pacifist that I am, I would pick up a weapon and likely die defending —I dunno…liberty, I guess— before allowing police to break in to a neighbors house and flush out any socio-ethnic “unwanteds” hiding there. I think there are many, many more steps that need to happen socially before we get to that point. And I’m speaking from the second most conservative state in the US (Utah, apparently, is first).
Secondly, while I think it is absolutely true that the current executive-legistlative-judicial power(s) have vastly overstepped their Constitutional bounds they haven’t done so in a way that makes recourse to armed intimidation, ghettoizing any people group who speaks out against their actions, etc. FDR even did this in WWII and we didn’t think of him as mirroring Hitler. So, though people do have their heads in the proverbial sands much of the time, there is a much greater degree of latitude for criticism of leaders within our present America than there was in other despotic regimes.
(There are other points, but I’ll cut to the chase.) Hyberbole like this (even if well intended) ends up harming the cause—which is, I think anyway, to ensure the same kinds of rights and privileges to “all men,” who, after all, are “created equal.” Rhetoric (not meant pejoritively) like “this is unConstitutional,” “this is evil,” this is unAmerican,” “this should get us tried for war-crimes at The Hague” and other such statements are much less likely to get nothing but eye-rolling from moderates/independents.
And it’s this group—the fence-sitters who, like myself, are swayed by the appearance of justice and basic fidelity to the underlying historical principles of our country rather than overblown comments from either extreme—who will ultimately determine whether these policies have a long life or not. For the sake of the undecided, we should keep dialogue as on the issues as possible. Emotional, sure; passionately argued, definitely. But rational, logical, following from proper premises, etc.
Ray, you’re actually much better at this than I am, so I’m looking to you to dig up the bullshit that gets thrown around by both sides such that we reach the best conclusion. It’s clear that in this case the best conclusion would be to restore habeas corpus, etc., as soon as possible and/or remove those from office who are allowing our military and government to perpetrate crimes against our own Constitution. I don’t want people to have an excuse to ignore that fact just because our dialogue gets sloppy in the heat of the moment.
October 1st, 2006 at 8:55 pm
Haaa. Erik - I actually do agree with you. I personally don’t like shrill comparisons to the regimes you mentioned, pretty much for the reasons that you mentioned.
Thank you, also, for reminding me of one of the reasons that I write in the first place, which is to sift through the BS and tease out what seems to be the truth.
I’ll admit that it’s becoming increasingly difficult for me to separate my emotions from any sort of analysis that I’m capable of. Looking back at my own response to things over the last six months or so, I find myself becoming more opinionated, more pissed off, and less patient with those who somehow seem not to see “it.” I’ve been told in the past that my ability to do that was one of my key assets, and it’s an asset that I’ve probably given up on in an attempt to get people’s attention.
People’s attention need to be gotten. I don’t really know the right way to get it. So what you’ve seen here over the last few months is my raw response to what’s going on.
What that means seems to be a loss in my credibility as a writer and thinker. I still don’t know how to merge the two - passion and cerebral vigor - into a formula that actually achieves what I’m after. What I’ll continue to write here is my attempt.
Your point is well-taken. To be honest, as is probably apparent, I’ve been hit pretty hard by things that are going on. Your point, however, that hyperbole and sloppy arguments do more harm than good is one that I fundamentally agree with, and one of which I needed to be reminded. Thanks.
October 3rd, 2006 at 7:57 am
I dunno either.
I was hoping your dispassionate, journalistic style would help me come to grips with everything.
I caught the tail end of one of Jay Leno’s guests last night and he said a lot of really good things. I think the best thing he said, however, is that we’re not powerless. That we’re in a democracy and that there are lots of avenues to affect change. Heck, this blog might be one of those avenues, given how many people read it and respect your opinions/insights/rants.
As long as there’s some manner of uptake of criticism, we’re doing better than any totalitarian regime.
October 3rd, 2006 at 8:57 am
I also think you write because your heart is troubled and for the first time in a long time you are allowing it to speak thru your blog. Keep posting.
p
October 4th, 2006 at 7:25 pm
The other day, at the College, I was doing a presentation on Sudan…it was a crowded theatre, and I kept thinking about what I could say to them to get them to care. I said very little, and then I read this poem out loud.
Bear
October 5th, 2006 at 7:19 am
Thanks, Bear.