30 April 2018

The New Yorker: How American Racism Influenced Hitler

Why do these books pile up in such unreadable numbers? This may seem a perverse question. The Holocaust is the greatest crime in history, one that people remain desperate to understand. Germany’s plunge from the heights of civilization to the depths of barbarism is an everlasting shock. Still, these swastika covers trade all too frankly on Hitler’s undeniable flair for graphic design. (The Nazi flag was apparently his creation—finalized after “innumerable attempts,” according to “Mein Kampf.”) Susan Sontag, in her 1975 essay “Fascinating Fascism,” declared that the appeal of Nazi iconography had become erotic, not only in S&M circles but also in the wider culture. It was, Sontag wrote, a “response to an oppressive freedom of choice in sex (and, possibly, in other matters), to an unbearable degree of individuality.” Neo-Nazi movements have almost certainly fed on the perpetuation of Hitler’s negative mystique.

Americans have an especially insatiable appetite for Nazi-themed books, films, television shows, documentaries, video games, and comic books. Stories of the Second World War console us with memories of the days before Vietnam, Cambodia, and Iraq, when the United States was the world’s good-hearted superpower, riding to the rescue of a Europe paralyzed by totalitarianism and appeasement. Yet an eerie continuity became visible in the postwar years, as German scientists were imported to America and began working for their former enemies; the resulting technologies of mass destruction exceeded Hitler’s darkest imaginings. The Nazis idolized many aspects of American society: the cult of sport, Hollywood production values, the mythology of the frontier. From boyhood on, Hitler devoured the Westerns of the popular German novelist Karl May. In 1928, Hitler remarked, approvingly, that white settlers in America had “gunned down the millions of redskins to a few hundred thousand.” When he spoke of Lebensraum, the German drive for “living space” in Eastern Europe, he often had America in mind. [...]

The Nazis were not wrong to cite American precedents. Enslavement of African-Americans was written into the U.S. Constitution. Thomas Jefferson spoke of the need to “eliminate” or “extirpate” Native Americans. In 1856, an Oregonian settler wrote, “Extermination, however unchristianlike it may appear, seems to be the only resort left for the protection of life and property.” General Philip Sheridan spoke of “annihilation, obliteration, and complete destruction.” To be sure, others promoted more peaceful—albeit still repressive—policies. The historian Edward B. Westermann, in “Hitler’s Ostkrieg and the Indian Wars” (Oklahoma), concludes that, because federal policy never officially mandated the “physical annihilation of the Native populations on racial grounds or characteristics,” this was not a genocide on the order of the Shoah. The fact remains that between 1500 and 1900 the Native population of U.S. territories dropped from many millions to around two hundred thousand. [...]

American eugenicists made no secret of their racist objectives, and their views were prevalent enough that F. Scott Fitzgerald featured them in “The Great Gatsby.” (The cloddish Tom Buchanan, having evidently read Lothrop Stoddard’s 1920 tract “The Rising Tide of Color Against White World-Supremacy,” says, “The idea is if we don’t look out the white race will be—will be utterly submerged.”) California’s sterilization program directly inspired the Nazi sterilization law of 1934. There are also sinister, if mostly coincidental, similarities between American and German technologies of death. In 1924, the first execution by gas chamber took place, in Nevada. In a history of the American gas chamber, Scott Christianson states that the fumigating agent Zyklon-B, which was licensed to American Cyanamid by the German company I. G. Farben, was considered as a lethal agent but found to be impractical. Zyklon-B was, however, used to disinfect immigrants as they crossed the border at El Paso—a practice that did not go unnoticed by Gerhard Peters, the chemist who supplied a modified version of Zyklon-B to Auschwitz. Later, American gas chambers were outfitted with a chute down which poison pellets were dropped. Earl Liston, the inventor of the device, explained, “Pulling a lever to kill a man is hard work. Pouring acid down a tube is easier on the nerves, more like watering flowers.” Much the same method was introduced at Auschwitz, to relieve stress on S.S. guards.

Aeon: Against marriage

So marriage is not singled out by commitment, or permanence, or children, or love. It is also not distinguished by religion: some marriages are religious; but many aren’t. The real distinction between marriage and unmarried partnership is the role of the state. Marriage is a form of relationship recognised and regulated by the state. [...]

In a marriage regime, the legal rights and duties that are given to married people are given to them just because they are married, and not because they are engaging in relationship practices that create vulnerability or are unique to marriage. [...]

The legal rights and duties of marriage have also been profoundly gender-unequal in many countries. English law recognised the possibility of marital rape only in 1991; before then, husbands coercing their wives into sex had committed no crime. Married women in various times and places have had no legal rights to their own children, no rights to own property independently of their husbands, no rights to resist marital violence, no rights to divorce.

Parents may be permitted to authorise their children’s marriage, which typically means forcing young girls to marry older men and thus to submit to sexual abuse and rape. Child marriage of this sort happens not only in parts of the world where arranged marriage is common, such as India, Africa and the Middle East, but also in countries where the dominant form of marriage is romantic. For example, children as young as 10 have been married in the United States in recent years, under laws that allow children to be married if they have parental consent, or a judge’s approval, or are pregnant – even if they are under the age of sexual consent and therefore are pregnant as the result of statutory rape. [...]

State-recognised marriage means treating married couples differently from unmarried couples in stable, permanent, monogamous sexual relationships. It means treating people in sexual relationships differently from those in non-sexual or caring relationships. It means treating those in couples differently from those who are single or polyamorous. It expresses the official view that sexual partnership is both the ultimate goal and the assumed norm. It expresses the assumption that central relationship practices – parenting, cohabitation, financial dependence, migration, care, next-of-kinship, inheritance, sex – are bundled together into one dominant relationship. And so it denies people rights that they need in relation to one practice unless they also engage in all the others and sanctify that arrangement via the state.

Al Jazeera: Why is the pope not apologising to Canada's indigenous people?

The crimes perpetrated at those largely Catholic-run "residential schools" have been documented by a Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), which describes in exhaustive detail how indigenous child after child after child was kidnapped, stuffed into a tiny suit or dress and paraded like a play doll, beaten, fondled, raped, tortured in homemade electric chairs, discarded, abandoned, killed and, ultimately, buried often in unmarked, mass graves.

In December 2015, the TRC tabled its findings. One of the report's 94 "calls to action" was a plea to the pope to visit Canada promptly and apologise for the degradations and depravity visited upon so many children, for so many years by so many Catholic "teachers" who faithfully served the "supreme teacher".

The pope's response to "call to action" number 58: silence. During an audience with the pope last year, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, another teacher, implored the supreme teacher to "consider the gesture". The pope's response: silence. [...]

Pope Francis will, I suspect, rebuff Kind Hearted Eagle Women's request even though decency and the historical record demand it. In doing so, the Pope will confirm that he is devoted, above all, to the institution he leads.

Al Jazeera: Saakashvili on Putin, Europe's weak leaders and a return to power

Saakashvili dismisses accusations that he was heavy-handed in suppressing opposition during this second term as Georgian president, pointing instead to progress that was made under his government.

"Georgia was a failed country. You cannot make a failed country through Scandinavian methods, overnight, something like Sweden or Norway".

"My reforms survived my presidency ... most of it is still there, so from that standpoint: public services, absence of corruption, safety, I left a good legacy and a legacy that is still intact."

Asked about an EU report's claim that he was responsible for Georgia's 2008 war with Russia due to his "penchant for acting in the heat of the moment", Saakashvili says: "There is only one choice when your country gets attacked by a hundred times bigger neighbour: either to surrender or to fight. And we chose not to surrender."

The Guardian: Abolish all bank holidays, Corbyn: and let workers choose their time off

Jeremy Corbyn used St George’s Day yesterday to reiterate Labour’s manifesto commitment to create four new bank holidays, corresponding to the four patron saint days across the UK. The Labour leader argues that Britain has fewer public holidays – just eight – than almost all other EU countries. On this he is right: Finland leads the way with 15, and the average is just over 12. But what looks like a worker-supporting vote-winner is actually wonky policy that will benefit few. [...]

It’s important to realise how public holidays fit into annual leave rights more generally. At present almost all workers and employees are entitled to 5.6 weeks of paid time off a year. There is no statutory right to take time off on public holidays, or to be paid extra or get time off in lieu if you do work them. Many workers will have a contractual right to paid public holidays, but frequently this eats into their overall statutory right to annual leave, reducing the time they can choose to take off. Many employers, particularly smaller- to medium-sized ones in the private sector, comply with the right to time off by providing four weeks of paid holiday at times to be agreed, plus the eight statutory public holidays. [...]

This policy also ignores those workers who do not have the right to take public holidays off, and for whom public holidays are associated with longer hours and more demanding work. For those working in lower-wage jobs in the service economy, in pubs, restaurants and shops for example, public holidays are not holidays at all, but times when they are forced to work additional hours. Similarly, for anyone working precariously in the so-called gig economy, for example for Uber or Deliveroo, or on a zero-hours contract used by many pubs and restaurants, saying no to public holiday work is not an option. The only way to make public holidays meaningful for lower-paid service workers would be to force all shops, cinemas, bars and so on to close for the day.