Connect with us

New Social Compact

The riposte of Thomas Paine to Edmund Burke: “Rights of a Man”

Nargiz Hajiyeva

Published

on

This prominent masterpiece written by Thomas Paine played a pivotal role in the history of human being that embraced all aspects of rights of a man, following natural rights, intellectual rights, natural interests, and mainly the importance of human dignity.

Thomas Paine was an Anglo-American philosopher, political theorist, and activist who made a great contribution to the history of mankind with his eminent works; the Common Sense, the American Crisis, the Rights of a Man, the Age of Reason, and Agrarian Justice. The Rights of a Man as an influential pamphlet echoes its huge impacts on the present day. In fact, Thomas Paine noted all meaningful rights of a man in his pamphlet. At the start of the French revolution, the British politician Edmund Burke who was a supporter of the American Revolution condemned the French Revolution and advocated in his “Reflections on the Revolution in France” that the French Revolution had engendered the extremist movements and radicalism which caused an unprecedented destruction of a nation’s social groups (particularly, elites, aristocracy) and devolved the civic society of France into democratic dictatorship and barbarism. After the Edmund Burke’s argument, Thomas Paine highly criticized his pamphlet and gave his pro-revolutionary riposte to him and argued in his Rights of a Man, that the French Revolution was a successful beginning of a new era of human history with which a man would be able to apply new-fangled “Enlightenment” values to his society, and by starting with new era, men could secure peace through the adoption of the system of newly secure government based on their mutual rights. “The Rights of a Man” was composed of two main parts. The first part dedicated to U.S President G. Washington chiefly addresses to the most of E. Burke’s questions regarding the French Revolution. The second part subjects to the debate of the principles of government that advocates the Constitutional Republic that the French Revolution reached it. In this essay, Thomas Paine gives his exact arguments point by point on Burke’s questions and mainly criticizes the error points of Edmund Burke on French Revolution and countered that his pamphlet concerning the French Revolution was “odd case”. Unless, some criticism on the essay, it had given huge contribution to the universal human rights in today’s world.

The Rights of a Man is an important work for both past and present days. Today, it remains the one of the pivotal works regarding human rights. In fact, the essay embraces all aspects of natural interests, rights, and the significance of human self-esteem. Therefore, focusing on this topic gives large-scale insight to understand the meaning of human rights. This essay is one of the best-known masterpieces of Thomas Paine, which he declares that the French Revolution is the beginning of a new era for the “Enlightenment” principles and values in human society. It is the beginning of the establishment of newly rational governments based on the mutual understanding and rights of human society.

As I mentioned before that this prominent pro-revolutionary pamphlet dedicated to U.S President George Washington was written as a response to the Burke’s questions regarding his attack on the French Revolution. First and foremost, there were huge differences between the opinions of Burke and Paine. According to Burke, the French Revolution had caused much destruction within the French society and engendered the despotism and political havoc. He mainly focused on the traditional values and property rights. He also argued that there were not special rights belonged to people. All rights were defined by law and people had to act according to the Rules of Law. Furthermore, he mentioned that humans were shaped by institutions and communities and rejected the principles of radical individualism advocated by Thomas Paine. Upon the opinions of Burke regarding the French Revolution, Thomas Paine sparked its radical arguments as a response to Burke’s questions and answered his questions one by one with exact points in his essay. In the first part, His dedicated his work to U.S President George Washington with these words:

“Sir, I present you with a small treatise in defence of those principles of freedom which your exemplary virtue hath so eminently contributed to establish. That the rights of a man may become as universal as your benevolence can wish, and that you may enjoy the happiness of seeing the new world regenerate the old”

With this appeal, he argues that people now alive should not have to repeat their ancestors’ acts what they did, they have to try to regenerate the old one and replace it with a new one because traditional rights and heredity do will nothing on behalf of the people, and devolve them into repression. Secondly, Burke was in favour of traditional rights and property and argued that the revolution in France was misconceived because Louis XVI was a good King, but missed the chance. As a consequence, the revolution caused the extremist and barbaric movements within French society.

On the contrary, Paine argued that the traditional approach had caused the hostility and inequality between the French people, and he emphasized that if Burke accepted that men had rights based on traditional principles and referred to the antiquarian approach, why did not he go back to the far enough antique history?! – With this argument, Paine countered that even in the antique history the rights of a man had carried out the seeds of liberty, liberal projects, and democratic principles. He showed the Athens as an example to support his argument against Burke. Paine’s argument clears that democratic principles have to base on mutual understanding of rights and interests of social groups. Then Paine again turns to the Burke’s opinion and mention: If we are going to appeal to history, let’s go back to the much far beginning; the creation of a man by God. He argued that God created all human being equal and gave them equally natural values, principles, rights, and mainly natural dignity. God created male and female in the example of Adam and Eve. The natural rights of a man are the foundation of all his civil rights. Let me highlight the main parts of the essay, in his “Reflections on the Revolution in France”, Burke referred to the history of the British Constitution and argued that this constitution grounded on the “Rules of Law” over people in Britain and people tried to obey hereditary monarchs according to these Rules of Law. On the contrary, Paine replied to him by arguing that the English Monarchy began with the imposition of the hereditary monarchy by the military conquest of William in 1066. Therefore, the creation of British Monarchy was not established by the British Constitution, it was founded in military power and the sword was declared as a name of a sceptre. According to him, the monarchy had militaristic and tyrannical power. The hereditary government subjected to ignorance and the selfish use of a power of society only on behalf of monarchs, not of human society. Hence, he came to the conclusion that the English government was one of those which was created out of military conquest not out of human society and had nefarious impacts and pressures over people and forced the English to obey its Rules of Law. He argued that constitution of a country was not an act of its government, but the act of its people creating a constitution based on their common rights and interests.

Moreover, Paine mentions that man is naturally social because of the fact that he is in need to co-operate with other people in order to facilitate his needs. Society had long survived in spite of the absence of a proper government. The government could be legitimate only where people made a social contract to establish it. The social contract is based on liberal project and democratic principles. Hence, people having mutual rights and interests in order to provide their needs create a proper government that is based on a common sense of social groups and finally, democratic principles. These democratic principles should have to be provided within the human society through mutual understanding and equal rights. Representative government appertained to the rational use of power in common interests. On the other hand, he rejected believing in the national churches and mentioned that the close link between the church and the state led to the immense corruption of true religion in society that executed injury and persecution to social groups.

Thomas Paine did not like the heredity government or monarchy and called it ridiculous and despicable thing. Burke preferred to elites and aristocracy claimed that society could only be shaped by the institutions and communities, and grounded on the roles of elites and aristocracy, but Paine disagreed that the emergence of elites or aristocracy was a clear evidence of despotism and injustice that was kept up by family tyranny and hereditary government. It had a tendency in order to destruct the human species in society. At the same time, although he condemned the taxes, but preferred to the commerce and mentioned that people were in need of trade and commerce because of their interests and demands. Taxes were the means of keeping up the power of elites or aristocracy, in particular monarchy that plundered people within society. All hereditary government had its own nature oppression, but the representative government rested on the interests and rights of society and civilisation for its basis because it was a representative system of the whole people, and whole society.

In conclusion, I would like to state that the main centrality of Thomas Paine was natural rights that led to the formation of civil rights. Indeed, this masterpiece is the proved document of not only the natural dignity of a man, but also the whole human rights. In this essay, I observed that what differentiates Burke from Paine is Burke’s placing on social institutions and communities in order to preserve ordered liberty, but Paine mainly focuses on radical individualism based on equal principles. Therefore, the French Revolution far more disturbed Edmund Burke due to the elimination of institutions in French society. To be sure, Thomas Paine as a revolutionary internationalist who believed in the Age of Revolution was a prominent man of his period. He related reason and nature closely that could lead to the newly discovered Enlightenment process in Europe. He prophesied that Europe had to be transformed from a realm of inequity and despotism to a scene of representative democracy and liberal values.

His central point is that the Revolution in France had stemmed from not force, only from reason and creation of liberal democracy referred to the principles discovered in the Enlightenment. Thereby, the French Revolution was the beginning of a new era and the “Enlightenment process” in Europe, and the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of Citizens founded the main basis of human rights and bestowed its admonition to present day: “Men are born free and equal with respect to their rights”.

Ms. Nargiz Hajiyeva is an independent researcher from Azerbaijan. She is an honored graduate student of Vytautas Magnus University and Institute D'etudes de Politique de Grenoble, Sciences PO. She got a Bachelor degree with the distinction diploma at Baku State University from International Relations and Diplomacy programme. Her main research fields concern on international security and foreign policy issues, energy security, cultural and political history, global political economy and international public law. She worked as an independent researcher at Corvinus University of Budapest, Cold War History Research Center. She is a successful participator of International Student Essay Contest, Stimson Institute, titled “how to prevent the proliferation of the world's most dangerous weapons”, held by Harvard University, Harvard Kennedy School and an honored alumnus of European Academy of Diplomacy in Warsaw Poland. Between 2014 and 2015, she worked as a Chief Adviser and First Responsible Chairman in International and Legal Affairs at the Executive Power of Ganja. At that time, she was defined to the position of Chief Economist at the Heydar Aliyev Center. In 2017, Ms. Hajiyeva has worked as an independent diplomatic researcher at International Relations Institute of Prague under the Czech Ministry of Foreign Affairs in the Czech Republic. Currently, she is pursuing her doctoral studies in Political Sciences and International Relations programme in Istanbul, Turkey.

Continue Reading
Comments

New Social Compact

Multicultural Mecca

Jennifer Richmond

Published

on

Strength lies in differences, not in similarities. Stephen Covey

I remember him sitting after work in his olive-green Air Force flight suit at a high-top stool at our kitchen counter in Beavercreek, Ohio. My dadlooked down at me as I sobbed, trying to find ways to console me. You know, he said, Burma has tigers.

After coming home to tell us that he was taking the Air Force Attaché position in Rangoon, I thought my comfortable little world was crumbling. But hold up, tigers? Perhaps Burma wouldn’t be that bad after all.

As it turns out, it was the watershed event in my life.

In a country ruled by a military junta, what we were allowed to do and see was highly curated. At the time, I thought the constant presence of military guards meant we were special. VIPs. In a country that strictly limited tourism in the 1980s, we were special, but in hindsight, I know they were there, in part, to dictate our experience.

And even so, what we saw and experienced, was mind-blowing. But it wasn’t just the men who walked on coals or hung suspended with hooks in their flesh at the Hindu festivals – although those memories will forever be seared in my brain – literally and figuratively, it was the people. The day-to-day lives.

We had a Buddhist, Muslim, Christian and Hindu that intermingled in our house daily. The education I received in their presence was richer than any in the hallowed halls of academia.

In Burma (now called Myanmar), you quickly learn the squat. Even when stools and chairs were available most people would choose to squat. Gathered for an informal meal, you squat. Waiting for a bus, you squat. Taking a break to have a little conversation, you squat. I never really mastered the squat. Onebalmy day as our Hindu friendsquatted in the doorway trying to catch the elusive cool breeze, I went and playfully sat on his back. Given my awkwardness with the squat, I thought this arrangement preferable; I was just being a goofy kid.

That was the day I learned that in the East, and especially in Hinduism, body parts have a hierarchy. I cried all through the stern lecture on how I thoroughly disgraced my friend. Although I don’t remember the exact words, it pretty much came down to this – in what universe did you think it was ok to put your dirty bum anywhere near my heavenly head?

Ummm… I’m pretty sure that same fanny was dangerously close to my dad’snogginwhen he’d carry me on his shoulders. The idea of possible desecration was truly foreign.

These and many other similar lessons were my first real introduction to culture. It involved more tears (yes, I’m a big crier), but through all of these experiences, I became fascinated. Similar to Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz, I quickly realized I wasn’t in Kansas (or Ohio) any more.

I returned to the United States with a new love of culture and diversity. And, a new respect for America, which I had previously taken for granted.

In comparison to many other countries we are a Multicultural Mecca. From my perspective, this is what makes us exceptional.

Unlike other countries that are struggling with immigration and diversity, we have a unique advantage. We are, after all, a “settler nation”. As Peter Zeihan explained in a recent conversation, almost every other country in the world was a government created by a specific ethnicity. The United States, as a settler state, didn’t have a dominant clan. This is unique. Our identity is not rooted in a singular ethnicity.

However, between WWI and WWII our state became more centralized. It had to be. These wars shaped a national identity. National institutions proliferated and mediating institutions – family, religious organizations and labor unions – created cohesion, and homogeneity, despite our diverse histories. Solidarity became a national virtue.

The statism that existed during this time, while it provided more cohesion, dampened diversity and individuality. All of this began to unwind mid-century and really started to pick up steam in the 1970s, as the pendulum swung the opposite direction. In many ways the Cold War, and the fight against the communist collective, helped to progress the mantra of individualism.

Individualism also shaped our economy.There were waves of deregulation, labor unions declined, and big state corporations gave way to more flexible, smaller private companies.The mid-century labor unions and large state corporations lead to the growth of the middle class. Once these disappeared, income inequality emerged more predominately, even as basic social equalities and civil rights were energized.

Meanwhile, mediating institutions responsible for, in large part, social cohesion – family, community and religious organizations – were also on the decline as individualism gathered momentum. The internet age was introduced in this new environment, and ironically, with social connections and a national identity already in decay, it divided us into smaller more homogenous groups – what we today call echo chambers.

This increasing polarization has a grave impact on policy-making. As Yuval Levin notes,

administrative centralization often accompanies cultural and economic individualism. As the national government grows more centralized, and takes over the work preformed by mediating institutions – from families and communities to local governments and charities – individuals become increasingly atomized; and as individuals grow apart from one another, the need for centralized government provision seems to grow.

As all of this is happening, our immigration rates have been on the rise. Although illegal immigration has been in decline recently, despite the uptick in the past few months, we witnessed a new wave of immigration started in the 1970s, that mirrored pre-war immigration levels.

However, without the same national solidarity that defined mid-century America, these immigrants weren’t enveloped into a national identity. Individualism diminishedthe national identity of solidarity. Further, low-skilled immigrant labor has fallen into the growing income gap in a divide that has already affected American workers as income inequality becomes more pronounced.

While our current employment rate is strong, what is masked in these impressive numbers is the number of American men and women who are dropping out of the labor force at a surprising rate, most acutely among those without a college education.

If you’ve ever traveled to the beaches on the East Coast in the summer, you may have noted retail employees have a strange accent. Last year, I bought an ice-cream cone from a Russian student in Cape May, NJ. And,I’m currently working with Vietnamese students who want to come to the United States for hospitality internships. Foreign students are coming in on J-1 visas to provide relief to retailers and the hospitality industry that is often painfully understaffed, especially during peak times.

If you talk to anyone in the agriculture business, you know they are hurting. As I traveled around Texas and Colorado looking for a meat packing plant to export beef to China, the options were limited. Outside of the big players, many smaller packers have shut their doors. For the ones still in operation, the primary language is Spanish.

Add to all of this, our demographics are in decline.Americans aren’t having more babies, and the only reason that we aren’t suffering the same fate as the “graying” population in Japan, and even Russia and China, is immigration.

Economic growth needs a workforce. Both high and low skilled labor is in demand, but I’m only going to touch on low-skilled labor as this is what is fueling the current immigration debate in America.

Despite the need for immigration, there are several problems that our embattled Congress has yet to address.

First, it has been shown nationally that unauthorized immigration has had a small net positive impact on our economy, but this doesn’t always play out at the state and local levels.

As income inequality is already an existing phenomenon in the United States, with the disparity seen most clearly between those with an education and those without, low-skilled immigration causes concern.While the United States is in need of low-skilled labor, our current economic situation has bifurcated, with the lower echelons in more need of some sort of state or federal support just to hover at the poverty level.

Second, while we’re trying to figure out solutions to growing inequality and immigration, we also need to keep in mind that our economyis, yet again, rapidly changing. With the introduction of Artificial Intelligence (AI), a lot of jobs may soon become obsolete especially in low-skilled sectors such as retail. While we are not quite there yet, the trend is inevitable and will exacerbate income inequality as low-skilled labor is slowly pushed out of the market. This could have two related outcomes –the current demand for low-skilled labor diminishes, while those in these sectors are in increasing need for a social safety net.

Sadly, in this era of extreme polarization, hate and racism has taken the place of sane debate and policy-making. As David Brooks recently lamented in a New York Times piece, our administration is not populated with conservatives, but “anti-liberal trolls”.Similarly, the #resistance movement has become so entrenched as to make compromise or dialogue impossible. Just resist. It’s no longer about the people, it’s about winning at all costs.Too often, the pawns are innocent children – children inhumanely separated from their parents on the border, and children in the inner cities, on the brink of homelessness.

The Left is right to be concerned that part of the anti-immigration trend is a push-back from white America, as white America is soon to become a minority. A recent National Geographic issue on race illustrates, in less that two years, white children under 18 will no longer be the majority.

While it is right to resist racisttrends, we must not do so at the expense of understanding complex economic issues. The news cycle is constantly in search of the next topic we can use to beat each other over the heads. Meanwhile, as the mid-terms loom, our politicians are consumed with the next policy issue they can use to ensure re-election, at the expense of making a real difference.

The United States has the ability to harness its immigrant history and multiculturalism to a great global advantage, more so than perhaps any other country. However, in our individualistic society, we remain tigers locked in cages of our own construction, separated from competing realities that promote understanding and compromise.

While we need to address immediate emergency issues on the border, the discussion doesn’t stop there. We must agree on a flexible immigration policy that is constantly reviewed against our changing economic dynamics.A more robust guest-worker visa is perhaps a start – the number of visas evaluated each year depending on the economic climate, with adequate enforcement.Better education for both new immigrants and citizens in poverty-stricken areas that allows economic mobility and a growing middle-class. A new national identity that embraces diversity, but finds novel ways to generate social connection and cohesion amidst the reality of individualism.

Without these discussions, we fail to Make America Great (Again). While I think we should lock politicians in cages to fight it out until sanity and rationality is regained, it is incumbent on us ordinary citizens to join together in (diverse) community to model these necessary discussions in every day life. To #resist the insanity, and break the cages that have imprisoned our country and our lives.

To read more follow us at www.truthinbetween.com or on Medium at www.medium.com/truth-in-between, and on Twitter @truth_inbetween.

Continue Reading

New Social Compact

The Unreal, the Real and the Vaccine Scare

Dr. Arshad M. Khan

Published

on

In a few weeks time, school will resume in many countries, and quite a few parents now worry about the dangers of vaccination.  Are they real or false?  What are the facts?

First, a word on what we can believe to be real.  Some might remember Ripley’s Believe It or Not?  We are all fascinated by the odd, the unusual, even more so when science with its mundane explanations takes away the mysteries of life.  So it is that reasonable people begin to believe in the incredible.  We want to.

Take the case of chemtrails — a theory that trails left by jet airplanes high in the sky are chemical  sprays.  Why would anyone do that?  The reasons vary.  They want to change the climate, control our minds, lower life expectancy, reduce fertility or cause sterilization for population control, spread aluminum that causes Alzheimer’s but Monsanto profits from a GMO seed designed to grow with it, and so on.

The physics experts tell us it is relatively simple:  Jet engines exhaust water vapor which condenses in the cold of higher altitudes.  Called contrails (a contraction of condensation and trail), an acute observer will note they correspond to the number of engines on the airplane.  Numerous scientists, scientific bodies, the Environmental Protection Agency and independent journalists have investigated and debunked chemtrails without eradicating the idea.

The results of a nationally representative 1000-person poll published last October finds that only 32 percent believe chemtrails are ‘false’.  A good 25% percent are ‘unsure’ and 15 percent, think they are ‘somewhat false’.  The rest consider them somewhat true’ (19 percent) or ‘true’ (9 percent).  Note that just a one-third minority categorically rejects a complete hoax despite the efforts of scientists and government agencies.  Perhaps a natural skepticism of officialdom doesn’t help.  Of course, the blame rests squarely on some internet sites and social media (with its echo chambers) where chemtrail discussion, instead of debunking the idea, favors it and propagates conspiracy theory.

But there is another belief worse than chemtrails germinated by fake science.  It has led to actual harm.  For one reason or another, people known as anti-vaxxers (Trump among them) are refusing vaccinations for their children; thus an alarming global increase in measles — an illness that can cause hearing loss and, in rare cases, even death.

Developing countries have their own unique problems with vaccination.  Pakistan trying to eliminate polio has experienced deadly violence against vaccinators because Taliban leaders have proclaimed it a means of sterilizing Muslims.

But there are problems in developed countries also:  A survey in Australia showed one in three parents having concerns with vaccination.  In response, some health facilities are refusing to treat unvaccinated children.  Australia is not alone; the U.S. too has a vaccine dilemma and Europe is not exempt.

As preparation for the school year often requires vaccination shots, here is a brief review of what we know about vaccines, the origins of the anti-vaxxer movement and the available facts.

The prophet of anti-vaxers is Andrew Wakefield, whose origins are in the U.K.  He is a doctor, who was barred from practicing medicine there following his fake study connecting autism to the MMR vaccine, which protects against measles, mumps and rubella.  Several later studies have proven Wakefield dead wrong.

A refusal to vaccinate has been a key driver of recent measles cases in the US.  A disease once considered eliminated here has now returned, and in 2014, 667 cases were recorded, though numbers have declined since then.  Often the cause is a holiday trip contact and transmission to someone who has not been vaccinated; appalling to think about when the two-dose vaccination regimen renders 97 percent immunity.

For anti-vaxxers, there are two other troubling reasons:  Some believe the injection of attenuated, that is weakened, viruses can cause harm.  Then also there is anxiety about thimerosal in some vaccines as it carries traces of mercury.  But thimerosal has not been used in child vaccines for nearly two decades.  And while the MMR vaccine uses a combination of attenuated viruses, it has been in use without causing harm since 1971.  It has prevented an estimated 52 million cases of measles and over 5000 fatalities.

Belief and miracles have been a natural companion for humans.  About 2000 years ago, there was a miraculous virgin birth.  Now, some scholars contend it was all a translation error misinterpreting the word for ‘maiden’ as ‘virgin’.  Others argue that ‘maiden’ in the culture of the time automatically implied virginity because unmarried young women were expected to be chaste.  Who is correct?  Heaven knows!

Continue Reading

New Social Compact

Analysis of Alon Confino’s “A World Without Jews: Interpreting The Holocaust”

Nargiz Hajiyeva

Published

on

Following the period of moderate engagement with the Holocaust between 1945 and 1975, Holocaust perception from the mid-1970s to the present has been characterized by two simultaneous trends. The first trend is prominent in miscellaneous fields such as history, philosophy, the arts, and the literature has involved a strenuous attempt to acknowledge as well as realize the Holocaust and to cope with the difficulty of representing it. The second tendency might appear to stand in opposition to the intense discussion of the limits of Holocaust representation, is manifest in the massive cultural production of the Holocaust in history books, novels, comics, plays, films and other artistic vehicles.  In general, taking into consideration of Nazi policy towards Jewish, there are three overriding notions:

The Holocaust, according to Saul Friedlander, was determined by the centrality of ideological-cultural factors as the prime movers of Nazi policies in tandem with the Jewish issue, depending mainly on circumstances, institutional dynamics, and essentially… on the evolution of the war… The anti-Jewish drive became ever more extreme along with the radicalization of the regime’s goals and then with the extension of the war… The context of the war has been viewed as the breeding ground for the extermination and annihilation of Jews. Germans in occupied Eastern Europe… were living in a context in which the expulsion, even the extermination, of entire peoples was publicly discussed, a readiness to indulge in brutality and fanaticism was ubiquitously demanded, and the actions of individuals were legitimized by history and politics.

The war in general but especially the war on the Eastern Front, following the German invasion of the Soviet Union on 22 June 1941, was fought as a racial ideological struggle for life or death, whose prime enemies were the Bolsheviks and Jews. The barbarization of war on the Eastern Front, a cumulative result of the scale of the fighting, geographical conditions, and ideological indoctrination, led to killing and extermination. The notion of the radicalization of racial ideology has been important for capturing the contingency that ran through the making of the Holocaust. The radicalization is no longer understood as a realization of long-term plans or as inherent in the system, but rather as the outcome of plans for the deportation of the Jews that were always being revised and extended. Holocaust is squarely placed within the context of the regime’s overall racial ideology. The ‘current scholarly consensus, writes Herbert, is that those who organized and carried out the extermination were committed ideologies who wanted to build a better world through genocide. Was there a master plan on the part of Adolf Hitler to launch the Holocaust? Intentionalists argue there was such a plan, while functionalists argue there was not.

Did the initiative for the Holocaust come from above with orders from Adolf Hitler or from below within the ranks of the German bureaucracy? Although neither side disputes the reality of the Holocaust, nor is there a serious dispute over the premise that Hitler (as Führer) was personally responsible for encouraging the anti-Semitism that allowed the Holocaust to take place, intentionalists argue the initiative came from above, while functionalists contend it came from lower ranks within the bureaucracy. Christopher Browning coined the term ‘moderate functionalism’, in which the centrality of Hitler’s belief and the role was recognized, but without an original grand design to kill the Jews. Philippe Burrin’s notion of ‘conditional intentionalism’ recognized the centrality of evolving circumstance during the war but continued to emphasize Hitler’s intention to exterminate the Jews.

“Heimat” idea as a Nazi formula

The Nazis took the Heimat idea, radicalizing and using it for their ideological purposes. It can be argued that here is another example of the hegemony of race. It was perceived as essential to Germanness. The main point rather is that the Nazis identified their sentiment of nationhood, localness, and political legitimacy with the Heimat idea: the revolutionary idea of race was thus built on tradition, and the racialized Heimat idea fitted within the boundaries of the Heimat genre that existed before and after the Third Reich, as the Nazis articulated their Heimat in familiar, traditional rhetoric and images. It is not so much race that made sense of Heimat in the Third Reich, as the Heimat idea that gave meaning to racial sentiments, making them amenable, legitimate, and familiar. There are two main directions towards the Holocaust perception: local and central approach.

The local history of the Holocaust in the hamlets of Eastern Europe is possible once we rethink the interpretative framework of racial ideology, the radicalization of Nazi policy, and the context of war. The former one rearranges these categories in significant ways: it shifts the focus from the war conditions of the Wehrmacht soldiers to the communal relationships between Jews and eastern Europeans; from Nazi racial ideology to In Bartov’s words, ‘the obvious though long-underestimated fact that the Holocaust cannot be understood without tracing its imagery, fantasies, passions, and phobias, as well as practices and legislation, to medieval Europe and centuries of Christian anti-Jewish theology, incitement, and demagogy, from the radicalization of Nazi policies to the dynamic of social, political, economic, and cultural relationship on the local level.

According to the central approach, Germans, in the years following 1933, constructed a moral community based on anti-Semitic fantasies that made the persecution and extermination of the Jews possible by making them conceivable. At this historiographical juncture, we view the Holocaust as a problem of culture: the making of and believing in a moral community of fantasies. Third Reich was revolutionary but not as revolutionary as was argued by contemporaries and current historiography: it was a revolution based on continuities. It was a world made by a fusion of German and Nazi identities in a way that linked Germans in the Third Reich to pre-1933 traditions and forms of belief, and where the extermination of 1941 to 1945 was part of the symbolic universe of Germany between 1933 and 1941.

To sum up, ideology, in particular, racial ideology was a crucial point for Hitler’s Germany. In the case of radicalization of racial ideology, the main step was led to extermination and annihilation of Jews community within the context of war and the Nazi policy in order to reconstruct European society without Jews. Of course, the Holocaust is still a contemporary history. Survivors are still alive and their nightmare will never be over as long as they live. The attempt to exterminate the Jews is and will remain a moral signifier of Judeo-Christian civilization. In this way, we try to consider views of the Holocaust as a European occurrence, as part of a larger Nazi attempt to reorder European civilization, as linked to other Nazi persecutions and genocides, to colonial imagination and dreams of empire. Moreover, ‘cultural history, memories, methods, in particular ideologies in its contemporary sense’ has been a highly important component of Holocaust research from its earliest beginnings.

Continue Reading

Latest

Economy3 hours ago

Turkey’s financial crisis raises questions about China’s debt-driven development model

Financial injections by Qatar and possibly China may resolve Turkey’s immediate economic crisis, aggravated by a politics-driven trade war with...

Africa4 hours ago

Deep-Seated Corruption in Nigeria

One of the biggest problems in the African continent is corruption, but in Nigeria, corruption has gotten to a frightening...

Diplomacy24 hours ago

Kofi Annan: A Humane Diplomat

I was deeply shocked whenever I heard that Kofi Annan is no more. A noble peace laureate, a visionary leader,...

Economy1 day ago

3 trends that can stimulate small business growth

Small businesses are far more influential than most people may realize. That influence is felt well beyond Main Street. Small...

Terrorism1 day ago

Terrorists potentially target millions in makeshift biological weapons ‘laboratories’

Rapid advances in gene editing and so-called “DIY biological laboratories”which could be used by extremists, threaten to derail efforts to prevent...

Newsdesk1 day ago

UN mourns death of former Secretary-General Kofi Annan, ‘a guiding force for good’

The United Nations is mourning the death of former Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who passed away peacefully after a short illness,...

South Asia1 day ago

Pakistan at a crossroads as Imran Khan is sworn in

Criticism of Pakistan’s anti-money laundering and terrorism finance regime by the Asia Pacific Group on Money Laundering (APG) is likely...

Trending

Copyright © 2018 Modern Diplomacy