New York Times on the Web Forums
Science
Science in the News
What do you think about the stories in this week's Science news?
(1421 previous messages)
rshowalter - 07:26am Aug 29, 2000 EDT (#1422 of 1427)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.eduErica Goode's IDEAS AND TRENDS piece Hey, What if Contestants Give Each Other Shocks? deals with issues of concern to most people I know, and shows a case where scientific information can give evidence on an issue about humanity, and one particularly troubling. During WWII, what did the Germans know, and when did they know it? Who was a responsible actor, and in what sense can these words be used? These are questions of fact, and scientific evidence can shed light on them, along with other evidence. I believe that debates on the "who knew?" question, especially, can be focused by consideration of the Milgram and others. The picture published on Sunday, of a Stanford undergraduate, served a purpose, too. Even today, people deny crucial aspects of the holocaust in part for intellectual reasons. What they know of it seems not to fit what they "know" about what human beings do.
People should know more about what human beings can do. In Angier's Ideas and Trends piece of July 9 2000, she shows very strong analogies between human mob behavior and animal group behavior. Are people dangerous like other animals? Yes, in every way. Only much more so. Natalie Angier makes the point in that article that to understand is NOT to condone. Understanding can inform emotions, and focus our ideas of praise and blame so that they work better. That is, of course, a special concern with respect to human behavior.
In dialog with Germans, since 1945, issues of "diminished association," "extenuation", and diminished responsibility have been repeatedly raised. That continues. A primal purpose of a trial is prior to punishment. A trial is supposed to determine, clearly, what actually happened. The "trail of the Germans" has never focused at the level of what was objectively known, and done, by members of the German population. Eichman, before he died, is said to have been amused at this. I feel differently, but see his reason. The thing people MOST want to pin on the Germans - what actually happened, hasn't been "made to stick" on a basis that fits comfortably within human heads. Goode's article did a service, making it easier to see and imagine something of what happened. The experiments she outlined give evidence to questions of what happened, and help focus the notion of responsibility.
The Milgram experiments, and related experiments, cannot have surprised professional military officers of Roman times, or of any competent force in the last two centuries. They illustrated how easy the making of soldiers is, and how much "role playing" determines action, under the usual circumstances where people don't have spare attention to think about meta issues like morality. But they were illustrations of common knowledge very widely distributed within human culture, and used routinely in the training and organization of groups at all levels.
rshowalter - 07:27am Aug 29, 2000 EDT (#1423 of 1427)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.eduI feel these experiments make much more sense, and fit as evidence against the Nazis more clearly, if one is clear about what "common knowledge" of military training is, and has long been, throughout Western culture. It is not all about human freedom, or independence, or courage. It is carefully, thoughtfully adapted to people who are, to put it gently, "a little lower than the angels."
The idea of "military science" is sensible - there are patterns the military had "down to a science." Populations with competent militaries know everything they have to in order to support what is done. This goes for Americans, and goes, emphatically, for the German military (all of it) the German bureacracies (all of them) and the German people (just about everybody) during the Nazi era.
Other training programs that work for people have similarities to the military, and must, because of the animals we are.
After I read Goode's article, I felt drawn to a poem by Rudyard Kipling, a man who may have portrayed military doings with more technical and emotional intelligence than any other poet ever has. Kipling believes in responsiblility. But on certain fundamentals, he is clear, and not distracted by the sentiment that coexists with the facts. I hesitated to post " The 'Eathen it for a day, because it is long. But it is a gripping read, with Goode's article set beside it.
rshowalter - 07:56am Aug 29, 2000 EDT (#1424 of 1427)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.eduTHE 'EATHEN by Rudyard Kipling
The 'eathen in 'is blindness bows down to wood an' stone; 'E don't obey no orders unless they is 'is own; 'E keeps 'is side-arms awful: 'e leaves 'em all about, An' then comes up the Regiment an' pokes the 'eathen out.
All along o' dirtiness, all along o' mess, All along o' doin' things rather-more-or-less, All along of abby-nay, kul, and hazar-ho, (Not now, tomorrow, wait a bit) Mind you keep your rifle 'an yourself jus' so!
The young recruit is 'aughty - 'e draf's from Gawd knows where; They bid 'im show 'is stockin's an lay 'is matress square; 'E calls it blooming nonsense - 'e doesn't know no more -- An' then up comes 'is Company an' kicks 'im round the floor !
The young recruit is 'ammered - 'e takes it very hard; 'E 'angs 'is 'ead an' mutters - 'e sulks about the yard: 'E talks o' "cruel tyrants" which 'e'll swing for by-an'-by, An' the others 'ears and mocks 'im, and the boy goes oerf to cry.
The young recruit is silly - 'e thinks o' suicide 'E's lost 'is gutter-devil; 'e 'asn't got his pride; But day by day they kicks him, which 'elps 'im on a bit, Till 'e finds 'isself one mornin' with a full and proper kit.
Gettin' clear o' dirtiness, gettin' done with mess, Gettin' shut of doin' things rather-more-or-less, Not so fond of abby-nay, kul, and hazar-ho, i Learns to keep 'is rifle 'an 'isself jus' so!
rshowalter - 08:00am Aug 29, 2000 EDT (#1425 of 1427)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.eduThe young recruit is 'appy - 'e throws a chest to suit; You see 'im grow mustaches, you 'ear 'im slap 'is boot. 'E learns to drop the "bloodies" from every word he slings, An 'e shows an 'ealthy brisket when 'e strips for bars and rings.
The cruel-tyrant-sergeants they watch 'im 'arf a year; They watch 'im with 'is comrades, they watch 'im with 'is beer; They watch 'im with the women at the regimental dance, And the cruel-tyrant-sergeants send 'is name along for "Lance."
An' now 'e's 'arf o' nothin', and all a private yet, 'Is room they up an' rags 'im to see what they will get. They rags 'im low an' cunnin', each dirty trick they can, But 'e learns to seat 'is temper, and 'e learns to sweat 'is man.
An', last. a Colour-Sergeant, as such to be obeyed, 'E schools 'is men at cricket, 'e tells 'em on parade; They see's im quick an 'andy, uncommon set an' smart, An' so 'e talks to orficers which have the corps at 'eart.
'E learns to do 'is watchin' without it showin' plain; 'E learns to save a dummy, an' shove 'im straight again; 'E learns to check a ranker that's buyin' leave to shirk; An 'e learns to make men like 'im, so they'll learn to like their work.
An' when it comes to marchin', he'll see their socks are right, An' when it comes to action 'e shows 'em how to sight. 'E knows their ways of thinkin' and just what's on their mind; 'E knows when they are takin' on an' when they've fell be'ind.
rshowalter - 08:01am Aug 29, 2000 EDT (#1426 of 1427)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu'E knows each talkin' corp'ral taht leads a squad astray; 'E feels 'is innards 'eavin', 'is bowels givin' way; 'E sees the blue-white faces all tryin 'ard to grin, An' 'e stands an' waits an' suffers till it's time to cap' em in.
An' now the hugly bullets come peckin' through the dust, An' no one wants to face them, but every beggar must; So like a man in irons, which isn't glad to go, They moves 'em off by companies uncommon stiff an' slow.
Of all 'is five years schoolin' they don't remember much Excep' the not retreating, the step an' keepin' touch. It looks like teachin' wasted when they duck an' spread and hop - But if 'e 'andn't learned 'em they'd be all about the shop.
An now it's "Oo goes backward?" an' now it's "Ooo comes on?" An' now it's "Get the doolies," an' now the Captain's gone; An now it's bloody murder, but all the while they 'ear 'Is voice, the same as barrick-drill, a-shepherdin' the rear.
'E's just as sick as they are, 'is 'eart is like to split, But 'e works 'em, works 'em, works 'em till he feels 'em take the bit, The rest is 'oldin steady till the watchful bugles play, An' he lifts 'em, lifts 'em, lifts 'em lifts 'em through the charge that wins the day.
The 'Eathen in his blindness bows down to wood and stone; 'E don't obey no orders unless they is 'is own. The 'eathen in 'is blindness must end where 'e began, But the backbone of the army is the Non-commissioned Man!
Keep away from dirtiness - keep away from mess, Don't get into doin' things rather-more-or-less! Let's ha' done with abby-nay, kul, and hazar-ho; Mind you keep your rifle and yourself jus' so!
rshowalter - 08:03am Aug 29, 2000 EDT (#1427 of 1427)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.eduMilitary education, and much professional education, including scientific education, is a primate business done carefully and skillfully by primates, in coordinated groups, who know what they are doing.
I feel the experiments Goode discusses make more sense, and fit as evidence against the Nazis more clearly, if one knows what military training is. It is not all about human freedom, or all about independence, or all about courage. It is carefully, thoughtfully adapted to people who are, to put it gently, "a little lower than the angels."
Military training patterns are administered by people who know just what they're doing, and think about it carefully and in detail. They must do so to act as effectively as they do. Populations with competent militaries know everything they have to know in order to support what is done. This goes emphatically for the German military (all of it) the German bureacracies (all of them) and the German people (just about everybody) during the Nazi era.
The ignorance defense so many Germans claim, in the fuzzy way in which they claim it, makes no logical or emotional sense to me. To the degree that people were responsible members of German society during this time, they needed to know enough for the complex cooperation, and focused and mutual coercion, that they actually showed. (That is, everybody had to know practically everything, except for details of execution.)
Scientific evidence, combined with other evidence and persuasive work, may in the future help establish this truth, which has been, somehow, too weak, on a firmer basis than has been done so far.
With more detailed information, it is easier to believe that the Germans could have done what they did. So far, the Holocaust doesn't fit easily in people's heads. The problem is usually expressed at the level of emotion, but intellectual and evidential work, including scientific work, may have a role to play. I think Goode's article was a fine public service.
Enter your response, then click the POST MY MESSAGE button below.
You cannot rewrite history, but you will have 30 minutes to make any changes or fixes after you post a message. Just click on the Edit button which follows your message after you post it.
Home | Site Index | Site Search | Forums | Archives | Marketplace
Quick News | Page One Plus | International | National/N.Y. | Business | Technology | Science | Sports | Weather | Editorial | Op-Ed | Arts | Automobiles | Books | Diversions |Job Market | Real Estate | TravelCopyright 2000 The New York Times Company
