“We crushed their necks with wood. We hung them. We strangled them with wire. We cut off their heads. We ran them over with cars. We were allowed to do it,” (Adi Zulkadry - Fellow Executioner in 1965).
Amidst the tumultuous state of Indonesia’s (socio)political climate during the mid-1960s, there was an outbreak of anti-communist sentiment that made itself evident in the form of a purge, carried out by a paramilitary group by the name of Pancasila Youth, and later coined as the ‘Indonesian mass killings’ or ‘Indonesian genocide’, which resulted in an estimated 1 million killed. At the heart of it all was radical right-wing ‘gangster’ Anwar Congo, star of the film The Act of Killing, was one of the leaders and head executioners of one of the …show more content…
In this particular case, although some may claim that because Anwar Congo and the other perpetrators had done atrocious deeds and therefore are ‘sociopathic monsters’, Congo’s decisions and actions cannot be as easily simplified nor classified as such. However, this is not to say that his actions are ‘excusable’, because they are not, but his motives were not necessarily that typical of ‘radical’ evil. As Josh Oppenheimer himself said, Anwar Congo is no exceptional fiend—he is as human as anyone else is. He “chose to kill in a moment of exorbitant selfishness, a suspension of their regard for others, a suspension of their empathy […] I refuse to comfort myself with the moral lie that these men have done something monstrous, and consequently are monsters, and therefore I am not like them,” (Josh Oppenheimer on the Indonesian Genocide). Congo’s motives as that expected of ‘radical evil’—he acted upon orders, expectations, and the accepted norm. As such, a separation must be made between Anwar Congo and his actions. His actions: inexcusable, and undoubtedly ‘evil’. On the other hand, there lies Congo and his motives: a greyer area that falls in the scope of ‘banal
Amidst the tumultuous state of Indonesia’s (socio)political climate during the mid-1960s, there was an outbreak of anti-communist sentiment that made itself evident in the form of a purge, carried out by a paramilitary group by the name of Pancasila Youth, and later coined as the ‘Indonesian mass killings’ or ‘Indonesian genocide’, which resulted in an estimated 1 million killed. At the heart of it all was radical right-wing ‘gangster’ Anwar Congo, star of the film The Act of Killing, was one of the leaders and head executioners of one of the …show more content…
In this particular case, although some may claim that because Anwar Congo and the other perpetrators had done atrocious deeds and therefore are ‘sociopathic monsters’, Congo’s decisions and actions cannot be as easily simplified nor classified as such. However, this is not to say that his actions are ‘excusable’, because they are not, but his motives were not necessarily that typical of ‘radical’ evil. As Josh Oppenheimer himself said, Anwar Congo is no exceptional fiend—he is as human as anyone else is. He “chose to kill in a moment of exorbitant selfishness, a suspension of their regard for others, a suspension of their empathy […] I refuse to comfort myself with the moral lie that these men have done something monstrous, and consequently are monsters, and therefore I am not like them,” (Josh Oppenheimer on the Indonesian Genocide). Congo’s motives as that expected of ‘radical evil’—he acted upon orders, expectations, and the accepted norm. As such, a separation must be made between Anwar Congo and his actions. His actions: inexcusable, and undoubtedly ‘evil’. On the other hand, there lies Congo and his motives: a greyer area that falls in the scope of ‘banal