If you were surrounded by people who expected you to SHOW hate towards innocent people that they hated themselves, would it be dangerous to not at least pretend to hate the same innocent people?
If it could get you killed to not show a hatred for a group everyone around you hates:
Would you A, teach your child to pretend to hate, but secretly respect the group (even though your children will see the group, the Jews for instance, be murdered because of the hate).
Or B, each your child to hate through and through even if you think it's the wrong thing to do, in an attempt to ensure your child doesn't "slip" up and show compassion for the ostracized group, thereby getting you and your child killed?
This is a similar question to the one you may have heard about the mother with a child who is forced to make a choice: Smother her child to prevent nearby soldiers from killing an entire village hiding in a basement, or do not kill the child and risk the cries of the baby alerting the sicko-psycho's.
DO NOT ANSWER THIS POLITICALLY CORRECTLY. ANSWER FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE, NOT SOMEONE ELSE'S.
Example of a bad reply: "Well you see, in that situation, people do this or that..."
Example of a good reply: "Well, I, personally(I....NOT SOMEONE ELSE), would do this or that..."
Interesting. You cut to the heart of the subject. Many people like to pretend they would be the heroes in any story, standing up against hate, etc. It's the "Schindler's List" phenomenon--people are supposed to identify with Schindler, think they would have secretly fought the power. Of course the opposite it true--most people go along with whatever evil(s) a society is perpetrating, and we ALL do it to some extent. We do it when we pretend that the evil is not evil, that it's not that bad, that it's normal, that everybody does it, that we are powerless against it, etc.
I knew a French woman who was different. She watched some film about the Nazis and said that she would also have closed her curtains and tried to ignore what was going on, in order to protect her own children from going to a concentration camp. But it's a rare person who can be so self-aware and honest.
Thank you, thank you...but please...set the proper example for other potential debaters and state what you personally would do...
Oh, well...that's my point. We can't answer honestly. Most of us claim we would do the right thing, or fight, but we wouldn't. For example, I think many things in our society are god-awful. Not Holocaust-level, but huge injustices, human rights violations. I fight these things in little or medium-big ways, but I don't devote all my time to the fight.
To answer your question, what I would do is move, like so many Jews, Gypsies, Gays, and Catholics did from Nazi Germany if they were prescient enough to see what was happening.
Thing is humans are able to dish up hate as love. They can make believe so much that they believe it is real. So to ask these questions off people whose reality is skewed in order to survive this upside down world of ours is probably not going to have answers that are based on reality.
Well...I understand that you are saying others will not answer honestly, but will you give an honest answer? If so.....what is your answer?
OK if you want me to be brutally honest Jory. I'm an individualist. I rarely follow others. I am sometimes guilty of stereotyping, but try and avoid doing that if I can. I also don't like your kind of questions. One or two are OK, but this is getting into overkill.
Well, regardless of whether the question makes you feel uncomfortable, wouldn't you agree that thinking about this kind of stuff may have helped prevent the holocaust? Do you think if people in Israel/Palestine thought about this kind of stuff, there would be less trouble along the Gaza Strip/West Bank? Would terrorism be as prevalent in Muslim countries/Ireland?
In the end, the question is a valid one, based on real world issues. The comfort of a question (or lack of) is irrelevant.
Why demand such honesty from people who reply when you have not yet declared your own personal response to the question?
I might be tempted to share mine if you go first as an OP with such strict rules.
I think this should be in Phil & Relig not Politics though, the same question could arise for people in an environment ruled by criminal gangs or remote tribes. It is a situation related to social interaction and survival of our offspring, not merely political.
Agreed. I will answer directly. I, Jory R. Ferrell would have fallen for NAZI propaganda had I been born and brainwashed in that culture during that time. However, having knowledge of how it works, and understanding that failing to question, and more importantly resist such ideologies and movements is what allows them to propagate, I would resist today. Maybe earlier in my life I could have been taught to stand out of the way, but after the things I have experienced and learned, I can say with confidence that I would resist. I would not teach my child to hate, just to try and protect them. In the end, you might view that as cruel and bad parenting, to not protect my own offspring to the best of my ability. However, by teaching my child to bow to power, I would be making them a slave. I do not want my child to live as a slave. Some people might say that is my choice, and that I shouldn't make it for my child, forcing them to believe something which could get them and myself killed, despite technically being the correct thing to do/think. But if we look at the core idea behind my situation, I think it's perfectly correct: By bowing to the Nazi's, and failing to resist, I knowingly let other people be murdered. If the situation was reversed, and I was in their position, I would instinctively feel the need to call them cowards, and hypocrites, just as the Jews did to those who sat back and let them be murdered. If I know the right thing to do, but I sit back and let the Nazi's have the control without resistance, I am partially at fault for what the Nazi's do. Raising my child to hate, or allow other people to get away with murder, allows the perpetuation of hate and murder, thereby possibly risking my child's future anyways.
Had I been born during those times, I can honestly say that I would have been more likely to try and ignore what was happening, teaching my child to do the same, just as the french woman Handfleisch mentioned.
But, considering the person I am right now, knowing what I know about how this kind of stuff works, I am obligated to not teach my child to go along with it. I would (and will) raise my child to resist.
BTW: This is definitely a political question. Politics is not just Washington D.C., Congress, or the British Parliament. Politics is the part of sociology that covers how groups create (or at least attempt to create) a stable society. Politics is the set of rules we use to deal with people from the level of interaction between two individuals, all the way up to nations. Politics is also a form of philosophy. Is the ideology behind communism a philosophy? Yes.
Nationalism, Communism, Democracy, Monarchism, etc, are all philosophies (and "science") about how to deal with large groups of people. So my question IS in a subset of the philosophy/sociology section.
Interesting answer Jory, of course none of us can 'know' how we would react to any given situation, just have a reasoned opinion based on experience of our own current and past choices.
I certainly agree that my perception of choices are influenced by my being born in the 1970's and not the 1920's or 30's. My own father had a very different consideration of obedience to authority and acceptance of rules by our system of government than I do. He would argue 'conform now and change the system through democratic process', while my take is 'pseudo-conform and ignore what I consider unjust restriction where I can, while trying to effect change'.
If I saw a despotic tyrannical path heading for the government of the UK I would actively campaign to prevent this. If the campaign was lost and suddenly imprisonment and/or death was on the cards for reasoned thinking then I would of course adapt to how dangerous it became.
On a smaller scale I have found myself defending the average Muslim in heated work/bar/pub discussions when someone is making them all out to be terrorists. This has been increasing over the years and with any bigotry I will point out how stupid it is whenever I see it - and yes, sometimes I see hatred towards me in the faces of those I disagree with.
Regarding protection of my son, I will do whatever it takes for him to live, thrive, and survive.
I am absolutely selfish as a parent. If I could only save one child in a dangerous situation I would choose my son first.
Some years ago my son got caught in a rough rip-current and was being dragged down by his friend who was a very weak swimmer. I swam out and seperated them, taking the friend off him and telling my son to swim close with me as I could save his friend, and I knew my son was an accomplished swimmer.
We had a horribly long swim across shore to get back, with 1-2 metre waves hitting us, and to be honest I considered at one point what I'd do if my son lost his strength and I was forced to make a horrible decision - I knew the answer immediately, I'd do everything I possibly could to save both but my son would ultimately win the prize before his friend, the son of my friend.
Selfish? Of course, but brutally honest, and not a lame sugar coated declaration of untested compassion.
One of my brothers was shocked one time, when I laughed comfortably with my sons mother about how we would both save our son before each other, but then my brother has no kids so his perspective will obviously be different.
The consideration of a Nazi style government and choices as parents in a future UK though?
It has too many variables for me to give any useful answer, but I can see myself choosing life for my son over the life of another. I would hate such a choice being forced on me though, and hopefully our society is more educated these days to ever see such a situation develop in my life here in the UK.
*Regarding forum placement and your OP, I've been wanting a People & Society/Sociology forum for a long time on Frihost.
Phil & Relig is dominated by the moral question a bit too much for me when sometimes I would prefer to discuss the social reasons and patterns of human behaviour, the psychology and such like.
Politics comes easily under my perceived 'social science' banner but I consider this OP question to be more of a general human behaviour issue which I feel lacks a proper home on the boards here.
I think the Faith forum stands alone nicely by itself. It is the place to discuss anything which is obviously deeply important to many people but is unsupported by any evidence.
My idea of a people/society/sociology umbrella would be a place I would want to discuss the processes of human behaviour, and of course faith could be a factor to be considered sometimes.
Declarations of faith or stated love of any alleged gods would only interest me as far as the effects such strong faiths have on different societies though.
Ah right. Got it Watersoul. Would the "Relationships" Sub-Forum fit into that as well?