I'm at a Cato talk by Philip Zimbardo, who has a new book out called The Lucifer Effect on the psychology of evil. He has just finished showing pictures of Abu Ghraib, which are horrifying. The really horrifying thing is that my first instinct is not to weep, but to laugh, in the same way that I wanted to laugh when I first learned about slavery. The idea of owning another human being is so fundamentally repellant that it sounds like a joke--no one could possibly really think that this is okay. Similarly, my brain refuses to believe at first that the photographs are real. I can't even imagine how you would think up the idea of forcing prisoners to get into a naked pyramid, much less actually execute it, so the photos feel like some sort of elaborate internet hoax, showcasing the wacky imagination of some crazy prankster.
Then the rational part of my brain says "No, really, American soldiers did this" and I feel physically sick.
This all sounds very morally superior. The point of Zimbardo's lecture, of course, is that even though I can't imagine even imagining these things, much less doing them, these things were nonetheless done. And probably done by ordinary people who did not, in their ordinary lives, evince any particular sociopathic tendencies. Zimbardo says that when we asked of Abu Ghraib "Who were the bad apples?" we were begging the question--assuming that the problem was the people and not the system. Or rather, the situation. If you give people a terrible amount of power over others, you need strong safeguards to keep that power from being abused.
We all sort of believe that we'd have been hiding Jews in our basement during the Holocaust. But of course we have never been afraid that our government would put us in a dungeon and rip our fingernails out while sending our families off to forced labor camps. Worse than that, most people probably didn't even go along because they were afraid. They went along because everyone around them seemed to think it was all right.
http://www.meat.org/
"Historically, man has expanded the reach of his ethical calculations, as ignorance and want have receded, first beyond family and tribe, later beyond religion, race, and nation. To bring other species more fully into the range of these decisions may seem unthinkable to moderate opinion now. One day, decades or centuries hence, it may seem no more than 'civilized' behavior requires."
-The Economist
"Worse than that, most people probably didn't even go along because they were afraid. They went along because everyone around them seemed to think it was all right."
Uh, no they didn't. I know people that lived in Germany during that time. Most didn't really know what was going on in those camps. The only thing they knew was that speaking out against them publicly would land them in one. I'd say that's a pretty damn good reason to be afraid.
"Worse than that, most people probably didn't even go along because they were afraid. They went along because everyone around them seemed to think it was all right."
MM,
are you speaking from personal experience?
Zimbardo's credibility is a bit difficult to assess after the Stanford Prison Experiment, given the lack of proper protocols and Zimbardo's own participation. The Milgram Experiments (with a volunteer acting as teacher apparently shocking a "student" for wrong answers) demonstrate the same behavior, though, of people doing horrible things with situational permission, in a much more rigorous way. Milgram's experiments were widely repeated around the world, with virtually always the same result: 2/3rds of the volunteers would administer shocks labeled "fatal" on the equipment, even if they were personally horrified at what they were doing. Some participants were in tears as they did so.
Do you think they would tell you the truth? Oh, yeh, we knew, we just didn't care...
Ha. Ha. Slavery is for people who don't have a trust fund. Losers. I wouldn't hide the Jews either, since Mummy and Daddy's co-op is restricted and property rights are the best ever!
Oh, but those horrid photos gave me a tummyache. I'll have to order vegan bicarbonate of soda on my new iPhone.
Horsefeathers. Long before there were camps, or even ghettos, people knew that pretty great evil was being done to Jews--their businesses and property taken, random assaults on the street made easy by the stars they were forced to wear, and so forth. They knew that the Jews were being taken off to concentration camps for the "crime" of being Jewish, and they sure as hell knew that they didn't want to go to those camps. They knew that the Jews never came out of the camps. Anyone who lived near a camp knew damn well what was going on, protestations to the contrary, since the crematoria were working day and night, and trainloads of people were going in without any corresponding supplies to feed and house those people. Anyone who worked for a company that employed slave labor knew what was going on, if for no other reason than the atrocious death rates of the workers.
Of course people who lived in Germany during that time said they had no idea what was going on. Who is going to say "Yes, I knew that the Jews were being brutalized and killed, but I just didn't care all that much." Probably, most people have convinced themselves that they didn't know. But if they didn't know, it was very probably an act of will not to.
"This all sounds very morally superior." Yes it does; and most people recoil at the idea that they would ever do anything so bad. But I think there is something to this idea of the general depravity of mankind, i.e original sin, if you will. And, under the right circumstances or upbringing or pressures (great and mild), we are probably quite capable of engaging in acts that would normally be considered despicable - even by us.
This has nothing to do with "personal experience." It is a recognition that the most depraved among us are still humans, in spite of their inhumanity, and there but for the grace of God, go I.
If you don't own a gun and are not willing to die using it in the defense of others there's a pretty good chance you wouldn't have been hiding jews in your basement.
I didn't say "no way", but I don't think it's a stretch to imagine a correlation between people who own and train with firearms for civil liberty security concerns/beliefs and being willing to defy authority to do what you feel is right -- to hell with the consequences.
Of course I am a gun nut who believe you have a responsibility to be own and practice with your firearms. I was suprised at a recent trip to Europe where I quizzed a military officer at the airport carrying a maching gun and found out that I target shoot more often than he does. (didn't just walk up to him and ask, we developed a repore as I was sitting around trying to clear up a business-customs issue)
" ...I can't even imagine how you would think up the idea of forcing prisoners to get into a naked pyramid, much less actually execute it,..."
If I recall correctly, weren't most of the Abu Ghraib ring-leaders former guards in U.S. state prisons? And, if so, doesn't that suggest the source of their ideas?
If we as a Nation, condone unspeakable brutality (e.g. prison rape) against our fellow Americans, why should we be expected to treat foreigners any better?
Fundamental Attribution Error
Megan-
The level of antipathy towards this very honest post is kinda weird for me. Apparently you are a polarizing figure.
Regardless, I agree with you that the reason fewer people didn't stand up to the Nazis is 1) out of fear 2) impotence against a vastly more powerful system and 3) we are capable of much better and worse than we know or give ourselves credit for.
I doubt the prison guards at Abu Ghrain were bad people but it was a pernicious system that created an accountability vacuum that a few bad people filled and inertia took care of the rest.
Thus, why it's so amazing and important the leaders and leadership are strong and moral because their leadership creates the systems and effect individual outcomes and inspire people towards their various results.
"If you don't own a gun and are not willing to die using it in the defense of others there's a pretty good chance you wouldn't have been hiding jews in your basement."
Really? Do you have any evidence of Germans harboring Jews being gun owners? Any stats to support such a statement? I think it less a stretch to imagine a correlation between people who own and train with firearms for civil liberty security concerns/beliefs and being willing to round up "others" and ship them away in cattle cars over trumped up nationalism.
I hosted some protestors who came to New York to protest the RNC and discussing what we were all willing to do made me realize I personally am a coward: I'd do anything to help, but only where I didn't think I personally would pay. My guests were willing to get arrested, but I wasn't; my guests were willing to get beaten up by the police, but I wouldn't. (And this is after we established that I had health insurance and they didn't, so I would be guaranteed medical care under our system and they wouldn't be.) Taught me something about my own courage.
However, later, discussing the RNC and Guantanamo with a Jewish acquaintance of mine who refuses to visit Germany, I was amazed to discover that she was perfectly willing to 1) leave the prisoners in Gitmo in there forever; 2) lock up the RNC protestors, and 3) deport all Muslims.
And she's of German Jewish ancestry, of all things.
So I suspect people who are willing to let the government do whatever to any particular ethnic group merely think what happens won't happen to them -- and don't care what happens to "others."
"I doubt the prison guards at Abu Ghraib were bad people but it was a pernicious system that created an accountability vacuum that a few bad people filled and inertia took care of the rest."
I disagre - at least a few of those guards were pretty bad people. Look, a bored soldier is a dangerous thing - basically teenagers with big guns, which is why it is the job of the NCOs to make sure that they are NEVER really bored. There was undoubtedly a leadership vacuum at Abu Ghraib (yet somehow the media turned the idiot general in charge into some sort of heroine/victim, since she was a woman, an accomplished whiner and willing to blame everything on McBushChenitler), but the people who stepped into that void were more than just stupid and a little cruel - they were vicious with some odd sexual issues. I'm frankly not too surprised to hear that some might be prison guards on civvie streets.
As a former NCO, I know that "single men in barricks don't grow into plaster saints",* but this went beyond bored troopies getting into trouble. Most of them were a REMFs, so I don;t think that they can blame the trauma of war. You might be able to make the argument that some of it was done to "impress" girls (if you consider Lyndie England to be a girl), but that's tangential at best.
* http://www.zeitcom.com/majgen/09kipling.html
Makes you sick?
Here's what should make you sick. Putting a reference to the Holocaust in the same blog as a pyramid of naked people. It was degrading, stupid and cruel. But comparing it to the Holocaust? Have you no shame?
Actually yes I do. It's called the Revolutionary War.
I'm suggesting that those who arm themselves out of concern for their own liberties by an invasive authority are naturally more inclined to fight for theirs and others rights.
It's not a stretch to imagine that those who do not believe in protecting themselves by their own means, but rather rely on the strength and authority of others will not be so bold in defending the weak, when they themselves are just as weak.
I didn't say you have to own a gun to help someone.
But I did say that those who own firearms out of a concern for their own and others liberties are more willing to excercise that right in defense of theirs and others liberties. Do I need to keep repeating it for it to sink in?
And freddie, since the idea of someone with a firearm protecting themselves and their loved ones and also complete strangers repulses you so much that you feel the need to sneer, here's an example directly relating to Holocaust:
http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?lang=en&ModuleId=10005441
I know it hurts to admit, but sometimes people with guns help others. Incidentally, outlawing people with guns does not seem to have the same affect.
OJohnf@11:11pm... way to miss the points. The Holocaust was one horror among many visited on many peoples, and any respectful analysis of evil or behavior can include it as an example or reference point.
"However, later, discussing the RNC and Guantanamo with a Jewish acquaintance of mine who refuses to visit Germany, I was amazed to discover that she was perfectly willing to 1) leave the prisoners in Gitmo in there forever; 2) lock up the RNC protestors, and 3) deport all Muslims."
TR: I hope you're not equating these to the Holocaust or anything. Admittedly number 3 comes close, but even that's debatable. If Gypsies or Jews had been merely deported or expelled from Germany I think the regime's reputation would be much different. Chief Powhatan, of Pocohontas fame, expelled clans and tribes he deemed "troublesome." (Granted the real Powhatan was a bit of a jerk, I learned this from a Cherokee, but not exactly proto-Fascist or Nazi)
Sam:
My grandfather did that.
I have sometimes been embarrassed to think that, if the time came, I would be completely unequipped to do the same.
sam,
Interesting that your link is not an example of gun owners in Germany harboring jews, as you stated previously "If you don't own a gun and are not willing to die using it in the defense of others there's a pretty good chance you wouldn't have been hiding jews in your basement".
All I said was that there is no evidence that gun owners in Germany were more likely to harbor Jews, which is what you claimed. So far you have failed to produce any evidence to back up said claim.
The converse is easily proven. Every member of the SS was a gun owner. Therefore, gun owners were more likely to round up jews and send them away.
As bad as what our soldiers did in Abu Ghraib, it doesn't compare with what the prior owners did. What makes us different from them? Naked pyramids vs murders and maiming. What I want to know is what have we done where we get vapors over naked pyramids, but don't dwell too much on drills through a hand.
Megan,
I think there's a kind of distance people put between themselves and the actions of their government. This is reasonable in a lot of cases, too, because they (we) usually have pretty limited power to change things.
At any rate, any American who wants to knows about horrible (but nowhere near Holocaust-level horrible) stuff our governments do or allow, such as our allowing the existence of widespread prison rape. We live someplace where there's no fear of being sent to a camp for protesting or speaking out against those things, where at most you might get tear gassed or whacked with a club during an unruly protest. Yet, this isn't much of a political issue. My guess is that looking at this situation gives some insight into why few Germans seem to have taken any action at all about the Holocaust, though of course the levels of horror here are wildly different.
Every member of the SS was a member of the government, not a "gun owner."
"What makes us different from them?"
TR: "We're the good guys." We're not supposed to be merely better than Saddam Hussein. We're supposed to have a standard. As US is currently leader of the free world we kind of have to have a standard.
Want to know what will turn those laughs into tears? Realization that what those soldiers were doing in Abu Ghraib was part of an interrogation policy approved by Donald Rumsfeld and his military cronies. Read "The Torture Team" by Philippe Sand to find out how torture was approved by Rumsfeld for Guantanamo, and how it migrated to Iraq.