Comparison Essay- Holocaust and Anti-Semitism As a field of study, history is open to different interpretations of the same events. Historians will no doubt see and understand the same event, or similar events differently. The Holocaust is one such event; Omer Bartov and James Glass each wrote different articles trying to explain the motives behind the anti-Semitism prevalent in Europe during World War Two (WWII) and the Holocaust which occurred as a direct result of that anti-Semitism. Each historian takes a different approach in explaining the same complex issue. Bartov's article, Enemies, Making Victims: Germans, Jews, and the Holocaust, focuses on long-term causes and effects of the anti-Semitism, using mostly secondary sources.
Irwin and Cressey, put forward the Importation models. IT claims that aggression is brought into the institution, because of the characteristics of the individuals. These aggressive and violent traits are imported in to the institution, and this is why it is it is evident rather than the environment. The model is supported by research by Kane and Janus; they found that inmates who had greater periods of unemployment, lower levels of education and a more serious criminal record were more likely to be aggressive in prison. This supports the importation model, as it shows that the aggressive individuals imported these characteristic into the institution due to their background there more likely to be aggressive.
Durkheim expands on this saying we are aware of these boundaries following social reactions to deviance. This is a strength to Durkheim's theory as people are able to know the boundaries in their shared norms and values, possibly limiting crime. However, it doesn’t explain why some people commit crimes and others do not. He also speaks of how crime creates social integration as it bonds people together against criminals. Like the item says, 'functionalist sociologists focus on how far individuals accept the norms and values of society.'
Values and attitudes) with them, which influence their adaptation to the prison environment. They believe that interpersonal violence that occurs within a prison isn’t because of the institute itself; however, it’s the individuals’ characteristics. For example, younger inmates have a harder time adapting to the prison and have more confrontation with other inmates. They believe that violence is a good way of resolving conflict. As well as this, Black inmates have also been associated with interpersonal violence more than white inmates have.
Genocide is the systematical destruction of a being by another being from the same specie. Most likely, genocide happens to the weak or poor civilization attacked by a most powerful (“Voices In…” n.pag). Is the case of Sudan where the Arabic community, with significant support from the government, kills weak and powerless black Christians (“Voices In…” n.pag). The word genocide was created during the Second World War (“Voices In…” n.pag). Genocide is defined as the massive killing of a civilization by another civilization for different reasons which can include ethnical, religious or political differences (“What Is Genocide” n.pag).
Socials 11: Defining Genocide The term genocide refers to the destruction of an ethnic group, accomplished by various mean of mass killing. The objective of a genocide is to destroy the culture, language, religion, national feelings as well as political and social values of the race. One could say, a genocide’s aim is to wipe the very existence of a group of people off the planet, as well as their values. Genocide stems from hatred in the heart, it is a denial of other people’s rights to life. A genocide can occur in a variety of ways.
“The Nazi policy of Jewish emigration failed due to the few Jews who wanted to leave Germany 1933 to 1939.” How far do you agree? Jewish emigration is one aspect of Nazism which has a divided success. One can question its achievements by looking at long term consequences such as global sympathy and the inability to deport Jews. However it is also possible to note the immediate benefits to German society and the Nazi Regime, such as financial and power gaining achievement. On one hand, the failures of emigration initiated with the growing sympathy for Jews both abroad and nationally.
- Literature Review (3,720) ‘To what extent was Hannah Arendt correct in saying that human beings are conditioned to be evil by authority?’ Exploring the dispute between dispositional evil and conditioned/situational evil Eichmann and the Banality of Evil Stephen Whitfield addresses Hannah Arendt’s thesis on evil. Whitfield argues that perpetrators of evil during the Holocaust did so through three factors; thoughtlessness, distance and the nature of bureaucracy. Whitfield notes that an aspect of bureaucracy causes the wrongdoers to become engrossed with the logistical side of genocide, presenting a barrier between action and consequence. Alluding to Arendt’s illustration of Eichmann, Whitfield reinforces the idea of Eichmann lacking the staple traits of evil such as hatred, aggressiveness and virulent anti-Semitism apparent in the higher echelons of Nazism. In other words, both authors emphasize Eichmann’s normality, epitomising a diligent, acquiescent worker who perhaps absolved his heinous crimes through a duty to the state, the conditioning factor here being compliance to those giving orders and fulfilling one’s task to the utmost of one’s ability.
He states “So far as I can tell, nothing follows about whether we should fear death” (Feldman 141). Throughout his argument, he does not touch on whether we should “fear” anything. He instead targets A4 intending to disprove Epicurus’ notion of the word “bad”. He does this with the intention to prove that death while might not be an object of fear, is still something bad and evil. His own argument can be broken down: P1: Something is extrinsically bad for a person if and only if he or she would have been intrinsically better off if it had not taken place.
In this term it is a matter of survival going to mere basics of humanity. Within the confines of murder comes genocide. Genocide unlike murder is purposely geared toward a specific type of human, whether it is based on sex, race religion or whatever the acting party is aiming for. In my opinion this is a far worse act than murder, because it targets the whole of the group, specifies to wipe them out. “Genocide targets individuals as members of a group, seeking to destroy a race, a culture, a linguistic or ethnic identity, even a class as the soviets did in the