We will discuss Samantha Power’s A Problem from Hell at our meeting on Wednesday, March 20, 2013, at 4:15p.m. in the GAHS library. Please post questions, comments, concerns, criticism, and the like on this blog prior to, during, or after our meeting (before March 27th if you want grade-replacement credit). All questions and responses should indicate an active reading of the text and function to move the conversation forward. (Note: surface-level or obvious questions and responses will not count as participation for grade replacement.)
Those of you unable to attend due to scheduling conflicts may participate in the discussion below by posting a discussion question and offering a detailed response, or by responding to two questions already posted. The note above applies here as well, so heed it!
One of the biggest questions I was left with after reading it was why there was no European intervention into the Bosnia genocide. While I understand that the book takes a particularly American-centric approach to each genocide, I think of all the genocides in the 20th century, the Bosnian one was most “ready” in a sense for action in the place of American inaction: a genocide was occurring on the same continent that gave the world the word “genocide,” and in a similar manner. RE: concentration camps & religious genocide. Or maybe I’m just overlooking the control the United States has over its NATO allies?
Reading this book, I was not too surprised by how America tends to ignore, or not fully discover the different genocides. After all, we have a history of genocides in our past (Indians?), and our favorite discoverer Christopher Columbus sure set the bar with his conquests. And then we don’t learn about this background until we reach an AP level course in history. We don’t even consider what we did here, at home, where it matters most. So is the fact that we aren’t the most open about genocides really such a surprise? America usually only acts in its own interests, as it has through most wars with its isolationism, and the genocides haven’t posed a direct link to our country so there is no pressing need to intervene. We don’t always look into the shadows that America’s torch of freedom casts, maybe it’s for fear that we won’t see the ideal world that we try to imagine is out there. Either way, we don’t act.
Power had a malignant tone towards America. Labeling presidents as cowards or one who buries their heads in the sand when in fact they have gone out of their way to help those they are not obligated to. During the WWI out problem was with the Japanese for bombing pearl harbor not the Germans, Italians, Hungarians or the Bulgarians, but we still got beyond past that point and were the one who ended that war. I was also reminded of the recent wars from the previous decade when I read about this because we are still in war today even though having eliminated Osama Bin Laden, to help other countries with their war on terror. Even though Power made the point of the longevity of the waiting period until America would get involved they did just that. Get involved and helped when they could have ignored it. Power is a blinded hippie who believe that america is superman. Even Power agreed that over the last century, the United States has made some improvements in its responses to genocide,but right when I thought her wacky Woodstock days of blaming America for not fixing every little everything was over she wrecks it by over powering her previous statement by underscoring how greatly overshadowed the progressive is by the U.S. toleration of atrocities and violence when they had full knowledge of what was happening. No entity in the universe could have stopped every single genocide. As intense as my previous statement was it reiterates the long known you cant save them all.
One of Power’s major claims was that America was slow to react to the genocide in other countries. Is it american’s job to police other countries? Why or Why not?
Response: America has as a part of the United Nation has some ethical or moral responsibility to get involved, but no more then the other 193 members. Especially the countries that Power’s mentioned had genocide and are part of the United Nations. It would right of America to help, but they cannot be blamed for putting their problems in place of others.
Should America intervene in neutral affairs, even if they are as repulsive as the act of genocide?
America, founded on democratic principles, and who have increasingly tried to assert these values on other nations, seems like a natural proponent of genocidal intervention, self-determination, and nationalism. Example by example, Samantha Powers cites numerous times when America hesitated to act when ethnic cleansing occurred, whether it was the Holocaust or the lesser known Kosovo War. And, Powers adds that the US was fully aware and capable to intervene in such times. Therefore it is obvious that they should have intervened. But, this is where Powers is wrong. Yes, the US had the intelligence and power to stop some of the stated genocides. And yes, the President, House, and Senate all most likely agreed that genocide is wrong. However, this does not mean they are obliged to act. The only reason people see the need for America to act, is because they are a “great power,” and have proved it in previous times of intervention – WWI and WWII. Yet, a strong sense of isolationism and pacifism radiates from American tradition. Consequently, it is no surprise that the US would not intervene in such issues. Even so, this still is not the major reason the US resists such intervention. It is solely due to the fact that the US has little to gain or fight for, much like what Jonathan previously noted. To attain the high level of power and influence the US has (or had), they simply cannot go around helping every crisis in need. It takes time, money, and troops, to do these extra acts of diplomacy (this is what the EU, NATO, and UN are for). America must prioritize their own needs first. After all, this is why we elected the government officials in question; to better our nation. When the government armed Israel during the Yom Kippur War, it was solely to disable the hostile Middle-Eastern allies of the Soviet Union. As the conflict eventually lead to the 1973 Oil Crisis and the Arab Embargo by OPEC, the US gained more justification for their actions, since they were directly targeted by the act. Obviously, the US acts for its own interests, and not for peace making actions to combat genocides. And this is not to say that I, or the government, support genocides. No true American does. It goes against everything this nation stands for. But at the end of the day, it’s just politics, and just like old school Machiavellian ideology, the “end justifies the means.” The “end,” in this case, is the state and welfare of this country. And it’s the cruel truth that no one wants to accept.
I meant to call her Power, not Powers
“A Problem From Hell” portrays the history of genocide in the United States and the world. Starting with the greatest act of genocide in the world’s history (The Holocaust) and continuing through the timeline, I found that the book went into such great detail that I would often become either confused or bored out of my mind. Once the author moved on from the Holocaust, I found it increasingly more difficult to follow along, since I knew so little about the subjects. Power did go into some of the affairs taking place in Iraq, which I was able to relate with slightly, having some previous understanding of the topic, but other than that, I would find myself having to go re-read some pages in order to keep up with the overall meaning.
I did, however, find something very intriguing earlier in the book that I think about whenever the Holocaust is brought up in my history class. Before Raphael Lemkin, the word “genocide” did not exist. There was no real way to classify the horrors Hitler was responsible for. I also found it troubling with just how hesitant our country was when it came to helping the world with such a complicated problem, since the mere classification of genocide possessed so many variables itself. Obviously, nothing as momentous as the Holocaust will take place right under our noses any time soon, but the battle for Lemkin was not easy.
Question:
If Raphael Lemkin were to have lived an extra 20 years beyond his death, would he have continued to make progress in the fight against genocide, or had he done about all he could?
My response:
By the time Lemkin left the world, it seemed as though the United States government was getting a bit tired of his constant talks of genocide. He may have been able to make a little more progress on the classification of genocide, but it was time for a different approach, such as the one William Proxmire offered. I think it was getting hard for someone not directly part of the government to make any more change than Lemkin already had. He introduced the term “genocide” and influenced the government to create ways to classify it. It would have taken more than 20 years to make any other significant differences…it’s like comparing it to MLK. Once he died, and civil rights were earned, time is all that is left to heal the wounds injustice left behind.
I don’t think Power was criticizing the United States for the time spent to respond to a genocide, but more about the lack of attention the United States gave when they occurred. In the Cambodia genocide, neither President Ford nor President Carter even considered sending troops to Asia. Also, in the Rwanda genocide, the US received many warnings about it and almost did nothing to try to stop it. That just shows how the United States turned away from the genocides that were occurring in different countries. Also after the Holocaust occurred, there was a genocide convention where the US leaders all promised to never let another genocide happen again. Therefore it was our duty to help other countries and make sure that the genocides did not happen again. However, the US continues to break this promise as we ignores these genocides.
sorry this was supposed to be replying to tiller’s comment
At one point in the book Power states, “America’s nonresponse to the Turkish horrors established patterns that would be repeated.” This made me think that if America is considered a world power, a land of opportunity, and symbol of freedom that other cultures and nations turn to for help, how is it that the United States stays a world power when we don’t help those in need who turn to us?
I was wondering the same thing when I was reading, why are we (the U.S.) such a world power even still today when we don’t always aid other countries when needed (Turkey) and right now our economy isn’t that great. I really struggled with this question for awhile but then I realized just because the U.S. is seen as a world power does not mean we have to be in charge of everyone else’s problems on top of our own. Even though I believe we should have probably responded to the Turkish horrors because we knew about them and we should’ve tried to help out simply because it would have been helpful and set a good example of countries helping out other countries. The U.S. is not here to babysit. We, as a country, are a world power because we have establish our military as powerful even going back to the time when Roosevelt was president he paraded the Great White Fleet (U.S. Navy) around the world to prove its power. We are also a world power because we are a larger nation. With more people it is easier to be in control. I think those are the reasons America is considered a world power even though the U.S. does not always jump to the aid of other countries such as Power’s example with Turkey.
I believe that the answer to your question is in the definition of a world power. When it comes to a world power, do they really have to help other countries? Or does it simply mean having a big army and strong nation? The United States is definitely a world power due to the fact that we have a rather strong economy and nation, inclduing our armed forces. We have the capability of taking over many countries while also protecting ours. But, just because we have the power doesn’t mean we have to use it. We don’t have to help those in need, even when they turn to us. It would simply be impossible to help every country that is in need. And let’s be completely honest here, how often does the United States get involved in other’s countries affairs unless we feel threatened or have something to gain by it? Does this make us not a world power anymore? No. It simply makes us one of the more selfish world powers.
This was one of the main questions that popped into my mind when I read this book. I was really somewhat confused by the stance that America takes. Although we participate in so many foreign affairs and have our hand in almost everything, why do we sit back and watch such terrible things happen? I understand what Julia is saying when she says that we don’t have to be involved with every other country and every other thing that happens in the world just because we are a world power. However, I think other countries look up to us and rely on us for help sometimes. If a country is struggling to the point where they are putting their own citizens through a genocide, they obviously need the help of an outside person. The question you posed at the end of the United States staying a world power, I don’t think really pertains to us helping other countries. I think the reason we are a world power is because the amount of power we have and the potential we have. I do not believe that our involvement with foreign affairs effects the title of a world power.
Question: Is is alright for Power to to question the pace that the United has when responding to a genocide in another country?
No it is not alright to question the pace that the United States moves at to help in genocidal situations. Power talks about how the United States has been slow to responding to genocides, but that isn’t necessarily a bad thing. It is hard for a country to get involved with what is happening to other countries. We do not want to overextend into other territory and mess up relationships with countries. As in chapter two when she talks about the effort to get Americans to help with the Nazis in Germany, it is our decision onto whether or not we help. The United States should not be held accountable for any non-help we give in an allotted amount of time because it is our choice on if and when we ill help with a genocide in another country.
I feel like no one can criticize the US for moving slow to stop a genocide. Yes, we should be concerned with the well-being of other countries, but deciding to help at all is our choice. We are not required to get involved with other countries in this way, and it should be our decision when the time is right to help them out. Sometimes getting involved too early is not a good option because it could have a ripple effect, and both countries could come out of the situation as losers…
I believe that Powers has every single right to question how quickly the United States gets involved in other countries. As a world power, our foreign policy fluctuates more than anything else. When it comes to our economy such as oil or other resources we will gladly and quickly get involved with other countries because it relates to ours. But then when it comes to other countries just having a hard time, all we do is turn our back and act like nothing is happening. At some points we’re completely isolated but others we act like we own the world. If we truly will turn our backs on countries going through genocide, then we can’t later ask them to scratch our back then. Powers had every right to question how quickly (rather slowly) it takes us to get involved because it means nothing until it personally threatens us, or if it has potential for us to grow. It’s a selfish regard in America that could truly come back to harm us.
Although Power has the right to question the pace at which the US responds to foreign problems, I feel that it is unnecessary to question officials who look out for the well being of our country and are obviously doing what is safe and right for us. Although other countries may be in harm, American officials are given the task to protect our country at all costs, and not so much others. If we can come to the aid of another country while not threatening to damage the well being of the United States, that’s a great opportunity and we should take every step to make sure we can do everything we can to help. However, it is not our responsibility to go out on a limb and help another country if it means putting ourselves in danger as well. That is why the US doesn’t take immediate action; they must evaluate and measure the possible outcomes. As harsh as it may seem, it is what’s necessary to provide American citizens safety at all times.
I don’t think the United States really had a choice when it came down to it. Power is a big factor in every country across the world, and I think it brings a noticeable advantage when competing against other countries. The United States has always been that country to step in to help out, but I think in a case such as genocide it’s more important to really analyze the situation first. Power shouldn’t be a main reason to hold back, but if the United States want to intervene they need to do it a smart way. If the United States failed to stop the genocide then no progress would be made at all.
When reading this, i felt not suprise, but anger. This book was never a suprise, when considering America’s foreign policy, we are NOT the protectors of justice. From history it is easy to see that America acts in America’s own interest, and obviously not preventing Pol Pot from brutally murdering 1/4 of the country. But the real question is how this relates to modern day America. Did America invade Pakistan and Iraq for “defending justice? or was there an ulterior motive. This is only food for thought. Americas short 250 year life as a country has unfortunatly been one of bloodshed and war, our country is one who invades and conquerors. We can only educate ourselves, to see through propaganda that blinds many from the truth.
I also find myself wondering as to the truth of the information that we, as Americans, are presented. In regards to the invasion of Pakistan and Iraq, the information that we know is somewhat suspect. This brings up other questions. Was the intention of the war in Iraq to destroy “weapons of mass destruction” or was it result of greed for oil. The character of America is quite suspect. America was founded by individuals escaping religious persecution. America has failed to help those who struggle, such as in genocides based on religion, and America has thoroughly diverted from its libertarian roots. Homosexual marriage in America is being persecuted by religion. Religion, the founding ideals which this country were formed, is now wielded as a tool to prevent the happiness of Americans in the name of “sanctity.” I felt no surprise when reading the detailed accounts of American failure, only shame. For I know that America is not what it seems, there are many things that America has facilitated, done, or failed to do that I am not proud of.
Do you guys mean the invasion of Afghanistan? To my knowledge, the US has not invaded Pakistan.
I definitely agree with you Kyle. It is easy to see that American has no interest of getting involved in world affairs that don’t have interest of benefit for them. I think this is wrong in someway that we aren’t getting involved in genocides and trying to put them to a stop because they are so inhumane and just awful, but I also agree that America does a good job of choosing and picking which battles to get involved with. America is not going to fight or get involved in something where there is not personal gain for the country. America loves to promote democracy and keep democracy throughout the world but it can’t get involved in every situation like these
One of the quotes in the book that really caught my attention in the very beginning was when Powers wrote “The United States had never in its history intervened to stop genocide and had in fact rarely even made a point of condemning it as it occurred.” It really hit me about how true this was. When I think of genocide, I automatically begin to think of the holocaust. The simple fact that this was going on for so long without any foreign powers intervening in it was astonishing to me. I do understand how Hitler kept it quiet, but the United States had to know something was going on in Europe. We simply stood by and let it happen because we didn’t want to get involved. We waited until it was a threat (Pearl Harbor) to our own country before we decided we should do something about it. She says the US “rarely makes a point of condemning it. Once again, I agree with her in this. We all know the holocaust was bad, but we didn’t make much of an effort to stop it before it was too late. We used the war as an excuse to go over there and just happen to find the mass murder of millions of people? I certainly don’t buy it. I also think that the country can’t even begin to understand the wrong doing of the Holocaust and they certainly did underrate the importance of this, and many other genocides. What do you think? Does America rarely show the wrong doing of genocides? Do we rarely try to stop the genocides?
I never even thought of the fact that the US didn’t even try to intervene in the Holocaust until it was too late. I agree in the fact that the US just acts in the interest of the US, and didnt even respond to the foreign threats until we were directly threatened. An example of this was the more recent genocide in Rwanda. President at the time, Clinton, basically decided to ignore these killings, just to avoid getting involved. I don’t think the US tries hard enough to stop the genocides around the world.
Based on the past genocides, America definitely has not shown interest in stopping genocides. In all the genocides, the US refused to send any forces to fight the opposing force and none of the US policy makers did anything to prevent the crime from happening. I believe America rarely show the wrong doing of genocides. America barely made the Cambodian genocide even known. America could have shown the wrong doings of genocides by joining the International Crime Court, however, America opposed it. I believe America likes to remain neutral where they are not risking/gaining anything.
I personally agree with Jonathan that in many cases when it comes to foreign policy the U.S. acts on it’s own interest. We are only looking to get involved in messy foreign affairs if we can get something else out of it. However, from what I’ve always learned the Holocaust was very tricky because I agree that the U.S. (and many other countries) knew something of it but Hitler was very wise and smart when it came to how much other people knew. I do think this was easier to keep a secret to the extent of how bad things were back then because there was no Internet, smart phones, and all the other technology we have today. If I wanted to know how things in are in Cairo, Egypt today I could just google it but back then there was no google. It took more time to hear about things and then get involved in them. So therefore I think when we finally sent armed forces to Europe (for the war) and saw how bad the Holocaust was that’s when we decided it was up to us to get involved. Yes, the response may have been late but at least we responded so that it did not just keep going forever.
I really don’t know how I feel about this. I think that the US is very slow at responding to inccidents of genocide and this is not the way it should be. I think that as a big nation we should be setting examples for other counties to follow and show that these actions are not to be tolerated. I believe that the United Sates need to think more about morales than about politics when hearing about genocide throughout the world. The only thing that I don’t agree with is the fact the the Holocaust was underrated. I think that this is one of the most known genocides and that other genocides were much more underrated.
America defiantly seems to take the easy way out when it comes to getting involved, but didn’t that decision helpe us in the long run? I know America probably could have shortened the length of the Holocaust if we would have stepped in, but I believe we were only doing what was best for our nation. America remains neutral for most of World War II simply because we wanted nothing to do with it. Not to mention the costs and other variables it involves to go to war. We don’t have much history with trying to stop genocides, but it is ironic how we have been learning about them since elementary school. I think it would be great for America to save everyone yet again, but realistically it can’t be done.
The United States has rarely stepped in to stop genocides, and when we have intervened, like in the Holocaust, it was much too late. I feel that we all need to take a second and realize the danger and severity of genocides and the people who initiate them. If we were to send troops to stop genocides that we have nothing to do with, just because it’s morally right to put an end to things, we would risk the lives of our troops who fight for OUR country and therefore our military strength. If we had nothing to lose, I feel that this would be a different story; but if people are out to kill others and we send our troops there, that’s really only asking for trouble even if we are a dominant force. Although it seems wrong to say, but I feel like the fact that it’s morally right for the other side may be blinding to the tolls that such a strong decision would have on the United States as a whole.
I agree with Jonathan. When I was reading this book, I was somewhat surprised at the lack of involvement of the United States with other countries. Throughout the book, I learned about many different genocides that have occured that the United States have known about yet not done anything about. I don’t understand how we can expect other countries to help us when we are in need if we can not help any other country when their citizens are being murdered by the millions. In response to your question about America not showing the wrong doing of genocides, I completely agree. I feel as if the history classes we take throughout middle school and high school touch very little on genocides throughout the world. When the genocides are taught, if they are taught, are not taught with an abundance of information. Usually only the cold hard facts are taught, America’s involvement is never talked about. It’s almost secretive and sneaky in a way. I think America is so worried about benefitting themselves, that they will only participate in foreign affairs if they get something out of it.
I definitely agree with you, Jonathan. If we look into our history, as Powers points out, we really don’t intervene with the Bosnian or Armenian genocides, however once the United States is threatened we jump right in. I think the US Government just tries to push the issue aside and pretend it isn’t there (unless it is an immediate threat to our country) because they don’t want the people to know that horrors like this still exist.
Throughout history, the United States has often found themselves being the monitor of oversea conflict, international conflict, and world affairs. Why then, do American policymakers and figureheads sit idly by as genocide happens. There are many examples of the lack of action on part of the United States. For example, in 1915, the Turkish government attempted to eradicate Armenians in their country. The world knew the intentions of Mehmet Talaat, the Turkish interior minister, would attempt to eradicate Christian Armenians. Months later, the massacre began, first with the execution of over 250 Armenian intellectuals in Constantinople. Eventually, a survivor, Soghoman Tehlirian, took the problem into his own hands, assassinating Mehmet. Then, Raphael Lemkin, as he attempted to come to the defense of Soghoman, was faced with opposition at the hands of the polish government. Lemkin wanted a law that made the destruction of racial, ethnic, or religious groups illegal. Why did people have to come to the defense of humanity, and where were the policy makers and world leaders?
I think that the government, especially in the United States, tries to sort out which issues are necessary to be involved in and which aren’t – and I think that Power writes about how that system of ours is flawed. She is stating how we should always come to the defense of humanity, and usually we are just too slow to act on it. The government tries not to get their hands dirty with foreign affairs, and Power writes about many people, like Lemkin, who disagree with this policy – however after the holocaust the U.S changed their policies quite a bit.
I agree with what you are saying Garrett that the US has definitely been a monitor of overseas conflict but has never gotten involved, but I think this is a good thing that has happened throughout history. Why would we want to send all of our troops over to Turkey to start something with them that might escalade into something more. Then, that would put the United States in a bad position while fighting a useless war over a conflict that doesn’t even involve them. Look, genocide is very inhumane and we need to do something to stop it but I believe that world leaders and policy makes did the right thing by staying out of it and not escalating into something more. If the US would ahve gotten involved, I believe all the alliances would have kicked in and started another world war