“Cruelty is at the heart of genocide. The killers just don’t eradicate the targeted people, but brutalize them in ways that far exceed what is needed to kill them.” – Jonah Goldhagen A quote from the narrator of Genocide: Worst the War, that I find critical for the discussion regarding the politicizations of genocide. Choosing two examples—the Holocaust Memorial Museum and the National Museum of the American Indian— I examine how paramount the power of ‘naming’ is, examine how depoliticizing effectively allows unaccountability, and dissect the differences in narratives for each of the said groups.
The power of ‘naming’ is so vital when discussing both groups, (Native Americans and Jews) it shapes subconsciously the narrative in which we describe …show more content…
When something is depoliticize—remove its political momentum—its looses, in my opinion, it’s “officialness” in the eyes of the state and its citizens. One could argue that if the state doesn’t acknowledge their role, it truly doesn’t become a national issue that demands justice. We saw in the Holocaust museum who the actors were and the roles they played, so when WWII was over, the perpetrators were charged and convicted for their crimes. In the Native American museum we don’t make it forcefully apparent that Americans killed the indigenous people and took their land and have not rectified the wrongdoings we have committed. The United States does a good job of not taking accountability of our role in the treatment of Jews and Native Americans in both museums. In the Holocaust museum we justify our actions by stating, “we were an ocean away.” Even though we viewed the plight of the European Jews as a Europe problem, with open hostility that was enforced by propaganda. Even though we blamed our job scarcity as justification to not raise immigration quotas or fund refugee placement programs. We saw in the Native American museum, something I found grossly telling, were little place cards that read “Native Nations Viewpoint” and “United States viewpoint.” In my eyes, an effort to justify our ignorance of treaties, forced migration of the natives, and brutal massacres that took place. I can’t …show more content…
It was abundantly clear, however, that only one group—according to how each museum presented itself—went through what we refer to as genocide—Jews. In the Holocaust Museum we learn about the deliberate extermination of Jewish people by Nazi Germany in Western Europe. We understand the sinister mechanisms used to evoke a state of fear that allowed Hitler to peruse endeavors to destroy an entire race. We see the rigid time parameters in which the inhuman travesty occurs. In the Native American Museum, we learn about the culture of some of the indigenous people of the Americas. We get a basic understanding of the assimilation of Native Americans into the current American lifestyle. We even skim the surface (in certain exhibits) of the travesties that occurred through personal accounts by members of particular tribes. But by know means was the Native American museum as unmistakably clear of whom the perpetrators of their genocide were as the Holocaust museum. There was a clear victim (Jews) and a clear perpetrator (Nazi Germany). In the Native American museum we see a groups of several tribes’ populations get decimated over centuries but the focus is more so on superficial things like pottery, jewelry, and headdresses, making no clear declaration that Americans destroyed the indigenous people residing in
The power of ‘naming’ is so vital when discussing both groups, (Native Americans and Jews) it shapes subconsciously the narrative in which we describe …show more content…
When something is depoliticize—remove its political momentum—its looses, in my opinion, it’s “officialness” in the eyes of the state and its citizens. One could argue that if the state doesn’t acknowledge their role, it truly doesn’t become a national issue that demands justice. We saw in the Holocaust museum who the actors were and the roles they played, so when WWII was over, the perpetrators were charged and convicted for their crimes. In the Native American museum we don’t make it forcefully apparent that Americans killed the indigenous people and took their land and have not rectified the wrongdoings we have committed. The United States does a good job of not taking accountability of our role in the treatment of Jews and Native Americans in both museums. In the Holocaust museum we justify our actions by stating, “we were an ocean away.” Even though we viewed the plight of the European Jews as a Europe problem, with open hostility that was enforced by propaganda. Even though we blamed our job scarcity as justification to not raise immigration quotas or fund refugee placement programs. We saw in the Native American museum, something I found grossly telling, were little place cards that read “Native Nations Viewpoint” and “United States viewpoint.” In my eyes, an effort to justify our ignorance of treaties, forced migration of the natives, and brutal massacres that took place. I can’t …show more content…
It was abundantly clear, however, that only one group—according to how each museum presented itself—went through what we refer to as genocide—Jews. In the Holocaust Museum we learn about the deliberate extermination of Jewish people by Nazi Germany in Western Europe. We understand the sinister mechanisms used to evoke a state of fear that allowed Hitler to peruse endeavors to destroy an entire race. We see the rigid time parameters in which the inhuman travesty occurs. In the Native American Museum, we learn about the culture of some of the indigenous people of the Americas. We get a basic understanding of the assimilation of Native Americans into the current American lifestyle. We even skim the surface (in certain exhibits) of the travesties that occurred through personal accounts by members of particular tribes. But by know means was the Native American museum as unmistakably clear of whom the perpetrators of their genocide were as the Holocaust museum. There was a clear victim (Jews) and a clear perpetrator (Nazi Germany). In the Native American museum we see a groups of several tribes’ populations get decimated over centuries but the focus is more so on superficial things like pottery, jewelry, and headdresses, making no clear declaration that Americans destroyed the indigenous people residing in