Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Silence in Elie Wiesel's Speech
In Elie Weisel's Nobel peace prize speech, Weisel explains the effects of silence and not telling everyone the history. He believes that silence helps the perpetrator, not the victim. "Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim". He continues by saying how "silence encourages the tormentor, not the tormented". However in Peter Balakian's Black Dog of Fate, there are many examples of how silence is the way many of Armenians went. Peter's grandmother, as well as many others in Balakian's family, had a very hard time talking about the horrors of the Armenian Genocide. When comparing the two, I feel being loud and talking to someone is the best option. For example, if a kid is being bullied by another kid in his class, the only thing that will make him stop is saying something to someone. That kid bullying the other kid wants the bullied to be silent. Nothing will change if nothing is said. In my opinion, it is better to be loud about something as awful as the Holocaust or just as simple as someone being bullied by another child.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Yeah, and it's telling that it's the Armenian Genocide that's the "forgotten" one. I suppose the main difference was that the Jews were oppressed by a thoroughly defeated power (Germany,) and the Armenians were oppressed by one that was only partially defeated (Turkey.) The Turks killed or displaced an additional 1-2 million Armenians after WWI had ended, and the traditional timeframe for genocide elapsed, during the so-called Turkish War of Independence.
ReplyDeleteSadly, it all comes down to politics. The Allies circa 1945 wanted to further justify their war, so (rightly) they turned to the evils of the Nazi regime as a reason for WWII. They made sure the world would never forget what happened to the European Jews. The Allies circa 1918, by contrast, just wanted the nightmare of the first world war to be over, so that they could return to the prewar world and forget that the mess ever happened. As a result, the fallout from the end of war treaties (Versailles, Sevres, etc.) went practically unnoticed. Major wars, that I had never never heard of until I bothered to look them up earlier this year, took place in Russia, Poland, and pretty much the entirety of the former Ottoman Empire. History is written by the victors and taught when it's convenient.
@ Baylor: I believe that Allied soldiers seeing the camps with their own eyes made the largest difference. Like you said, there was no real advance into the heart of Turkey by Allied soldiers in the First World War. In addition, the slaughter was carried out over hundreds of miles of marching, rather than camps. It was also much less organized. Testimonies from SS Guards and more photographic evidence also legitimized and publicized the Holocaust. I think these factors did more than the politics of justification to make the Holocaust the most famous case of genocide, along wiht a very vocal community of survivors.
ReplyDeleteAlthough this may be true, that being "loud" is the most efficient way of dealing with problems, it may not be the easiest. When you have something traumatic happen in your life, talking about it is not always the option most Holocaust survivors, or any survivors for that matter, wish to take. To use your example, the victim being bullied may not go to a teacher because the bully has scared them into silence. I do agree with you on the idea that “Nothing will change if nothing is said.” However, I feel like this is a moment when actions speak louder than words. Imagine if you had to go through the same experiences as Wiesel or Peter’s grandmother, how easy would it be for you, or anyone, to talk about it? I know that I personally would have an extremely hard time.
ReplyDelete