Schindler's List

"I would like so much to reach out to you and touch you in your loneliness. What would it be like, I wonder? What would be wrong with that? I realize that you are not a person in the strictest sense of the word, but, um, maybe you're right about that too. Maybe what's wrong, it's not us, it's this...I mean, when they compare you to vermin, to rodents and to lice. I just, uh, you make a good point. You make a very good point. Is this the face of a rat? Are these the eyes of a rat? "Hath not a Jew eyes?" I feel for you Helen."


The above was a conversation between Goeth and well..himself. As Helen, his maid, stands helplessly and shaking with fear, he tells her what he feels about what it could be like being with her. Undoubtedly, Jews are vermin in his mind, but he finds in difficult to generalize that believe to Helen. His attraction for her has kept her alive thus long, but she is forbidden to wear the Star of David, as he wouldn't want anyone catching his admiration towards her. It appears that he is trying to reach out to her but in reality, he is simply satisfying his own needs. It was not help he was offering but rather, convincing himself that it was allowed to be attracted to a Jew. This monologue represents Goeth's inner conflict. He then turns the tables around and accuses her of coming on to him. He had almost given in to his impulse but suddenly loathes himself for his behavior and behaves aggressively towards her.


 I cannot help but wonder. If Jews were really considered vermin and so forth, how then, can one in the position of hate be attracted to such? It became evident to me that it was not a matter of disgust that could be rationalized logically. Because no human would ever be sexually attracted to a literal rat. In the vast extermination of Jews, methods that were used (the gas chambers, the camps, the ghettos) could really be applied to the extermination of literal rats. Goeth is an example of blind-hate, hate that is merely taught and a greed for power that further propels such illogical hatred. In my opinion, this inner conflict with his feelings for his maid is a product of confusion. Being brought up in an environment where you are constantly taught to despise, and further rewarded for it, and in the midst of all the loathe-expressive frenzy, he finds the enemy desirable. He acknowledges her positive attributes, but cannot accept such an attraction because it defies what he had been taught to believe.


In the movie, Inglorious Basterds, Col. Hans Landa provides his own distinctions between Germans and Jews: 


"Now if one were to determine what attribute the German people share with a beast, it would be the cunning and the predatory instinct of a hawk. But if one were to determine what attributes the Jews share with a beast, it would be that of a rat. If a rat were to walk in here right now as I;m talking, would you treat it to a saucer of your delicious milk?"


and proceeds by saying:


"You don't like them. You don't really know why you don't like them. All you know is you find them repulsive..."


Exactly my point on blind hate. Many despised Jews, but cannot even begin to provide concrete reasoning for such a strong emotion they possessed. It seemed to me that hate cultivated other negative and brash emotions and feelings such as disgust and repulsion. Why rats? Because rats are, to be fair, dirty creatures that carry diseases. They are unwanted because of their filth and their survival heavily depends on human wastes. Is that how Jews were once viewed? Filthy beasts who reaped the bounties of other human beings? Most importantly, can such hate ever see the light of logicality? Perhaps the exploration of some past theories or school of though might provide some insight on the issue.


"Who as inflicted this upon us? Who has made us Jews different from all other people? Who has allowed us to suffer so terribly up till now?" - Anne Frank


 The Ghost-people view:


Judeophobia was a term coined by Pinsker, and has been the deepest and longest hatred in human history. In Pinsker's eyes, Jews were "ghost people", as the world saw them in the ugliest image of walking corpses itself. Unity, structure, land, and flag were lacking in Jews thus they were regarded as a people who had ceased to exist, but lived with some sort of resemblance to what others called a life. The idea of "ghost people", according to Pinsker, is that the fear of ghosts are innate, and since that is so, we are asked to imagine the fear we ought to have for a dead nation that lives on. So where does this leave Jews? The fear is platonic, and abstract, and has led many nations to believe that Jews were responsible for real crimes. This terror for the Jewish community had marched its way into many generations. In his book, Judeophobia, by Gustavo Perednik, this Jewish ghost-fear has had its roots set deep in human race, what he calls heredity psychosis.


 Zionictic Approaches: The powerlessness theory


In the late 1940s, Judeophobia became past of society even when nothing was done to provoke it. Zionist thinkers formulated explanations, who saw Judeophobia as something that could be acquired by instinct toward the powerless Jews. The Jews during the Holocaust were truly powerless despite the Judeophobic myth; they were not able to save themselves from the Holocaust nor they were able to persuade Western government to destroy the concentration camps and their railroads. According to this view, if the Jews really had power as a group, and not just power from being an individual, that is, the power that came from being intermediaries of those who were in real position of power, they would have been able to interfere with the destruction of their people during World War 2. The reason these theories are called "Zionictic approaches" is because it aims to cure or to the very least, reduce the effects of Judeophobia. It aims to give power to Jews so they may defend themselves.


Sociological Theories:


These theories specify that certain roles in which Jews held in their society exposed them to special hatred. For illustration, in the Middle Ages, they were mostly moneylenders and served under authorities (kings and barons) as "serfs of the imperial leader". Part of the job scope included collecting taxes on the behalf of landlords from poor peasants. One explanation that could provide for Judeophobia is that it was mostly seen as hatred that is equivalent to grudges toward the wealthy attributed to the lower classes of society. Some economic explanations, like Pirenne's theory of the advent of modernity go the extent of extending Jews to the entire economic system, where they were considered the cause of capitalism. According to Gustavo Perednik in his book titled "Judeophobia-History and analysis of Antisemitism, Jew-Hate and anti- Zionism", Jews were very much hated in economic situations. Also, Jews were public faces of ruling elites. They held professions such as lawyers, doctors, teachers, psychologists and social workers, and thus appeared to posses power when in fact they really possessed such a power.

Gandhi

We all know who Gandhi was. From time to time, we all had to write biographies of great leaders as part of school assignments and most of us are all too familiar with this name. We may not have written about him, but surely, we had come across many articles and books written about this great man. Having had the opportunity to view a biographical piece on Gandhi provided insight and a more elaborate understanding and imagination of the duration in which he led his nation toward freedom.

"When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love has always won. There have been tyrants, and murderers, and for a time they can seem invincible, but in the end they always fall. Think of it. Always."

Produced and written by Richard Attenborough, Ben Kingsley portrayed Gandhi with such frankness and quirkiness, and intertwined it all with such a sharp intellect. Such a character is sure to move its audiences far more that one would think. Although the film was a long one, the turmoils that shook the roots of Gandhi's leadership, and how he resisted all that stood in his way made me more or less glue my eyes on the screen the whole time. I was somewhat drawn to this character. He always answered a question with another question, but made perfect sense each time. He was ordinary in an extraordinary way. He had enough wit and wisdom to knock out an entire parliament. And his punch lines were always spot on. But on a more serious note, I admired his determination and willingness to self-sacrifice for the greater good. Gandhi had a vision and saw it through till he held his last breath. Like every great leader, there are bound to be devout followers, and Gandhi's fared well in that department. If you think about it, It was amazing how his followers opted for the non-violence approach when faced with the English authorities, despite getting beaten for moving forward in their march. That demonstration illustrated the deep respect and believe they held in their leader. 

I also admired how Gandhi never segregated people by their status and ranks. Whatever his workers did, he did too, and led a lifestyle that only fulfilled his most basic of needs. As I mentioned above, there was something very ordinary about him. As a young attorney, he seemed naive and gullible, his ideas were ambitious, but they seemed far-fetched to many.  However, as years passed and with an undying spirit, his goals became more attainable and he gained recognition and respect that at one time, seemed impossible to achieve. That is where extraordinary came in. In my view, Gandhi was just a regular man, who happened to experience a regular racial attack. The difference between him and thousands of others is that he decided to make a change, and a change he made.

I loved his philosophy: The only way to fight back is to not. That is the ultimate method of vengeance and getting back what was wrongfully taken. I found it spectacular how he kept finding himself in prison throughout the years, and how he could never be detained for long because of his genius arguments and stands. When he went back to his roots and visited much of India for the first time, I felt that he too had grown as an individual, and India became more and more like family to him. Despite being a Hindu, he never took favor on his Hindu followers. On the contrary, he preached oneness and unity for all religions, namely the Hindus and Muslims of India. His aim was to unite all of India, to spread fairness and peace to all, and most importantly, to obtain freedom for his people. Devastatingly, after India gained independence, riots and war broke out between the two religions. I think Gandhi was deeply disappointed by the incidences that followed the decision of creating a Muslim nation (Pakistan), which led him to his second fasting. I cannot say that I completely agree with the entire concept; it appeared a little blackmail-ish to me the extent that he went through to get the people of India to quit fighting among themselves. I suppose Gandhi was at his wits end and that seemed like the only hope. However, it did work. The dying Gandhi was informed that the war had ended and the citizens had finally agreed to stop. But was Gandhi really going to keep fasting every time something went horribly wrong? I felt that the people should owe him enough to stop on their own. Unfortunately, diversity is not always easy to come to terms with. Gandhi may have changed the mindsets of majority, but not everybody will be in favor. Aggression and violence is a cancer and after all, the simplest and fastest way to express hatred and displeasure. Take Alexander the Great. He wasn't a leader who wanted love and power all for himself. His aim was to unite people of different races, religions and backgrounds (Persians, Indians, Greeks ect) in order to eliminate disparities and to create a variety of inter-marital populations who could exist side-by-side while being ruled under one king. In fact, he himself married a Persian King's daughter to set an example. Like Gandhi, Alexander never just blundered into war in a brutal manner. Instead, he used tact, diplomacy and strategy. He also led his men with true finesse as he ate, drank and starved with them, and never acted like he was above them. Unfortunately, the people of different races and religions still hated one another and Alexander's ideals fell short. Similar can be applied to the people who did not respond positively to Gandhi's philosophies and teachings.