Not My Turn To Die (review)

not my turn to dieAs the former Yugoslavia broke into a multi-national civil war, it became clear that the Serbs intended to gain control over Bosnia and Herzegovina through a campaign of ethnic cleansing. In Not My Turn To Die, Savo Heleta, a thirteen year-old Serb living in Gorazde, recounts his family’s experience during the army’s siege on that predominately Muslim area.

Even though Heleta’s memoir doesn’t provide a direct testimony of the ethnic violence raging through other parts of the country, it does provide a unique look at the fallout from the conflict. As non-Serbs found themselves persecuted, the reverse was taking place in Gorazde, as the city turned itself into a xenophobic conclave of Muslim refugees, the ultimate outcome being a mirrored response to the Serbians.

Even though the Serbs of Gorazde weren’t the victims of genocide, the similarities are certainly there — Heleta’s family lived in constant fear, were often threatened, were interrogated and beaten, and even spent a short period confined to a building that was nothing short of a makeshift “ghetto.” And just as the Holocaust is riddled with small stories of witnesses lending a hand to aid their former Jewish neighbors, this too becomes the recurring theme of Not My Turn To Die.

While it would be easy to dismiss Heleta’s account as one Serbian’s attempt to downplay the violence against non-Serbs, it’s far better to take this book as it was intended, as a lesson in the blind brutality of war. In fact, what’s most striking about this memoir is its ability to demonstrate that violent events are often viewed through large, global terms, with too little emphasis placed on personal experiences and responsibility. The majority of any given group might take part in a pogrom for instance, but it’s the individual who chooses not to follow that produces an extraordinary result.

Security Council meets on Darfur

Today, the United Nations is holding a special session on peace and security in Sudan. The meeting will be chaired by Richard Williamson, U.S. Special Envoy to Sudan, and Mia Farrow, John Prendergast, and Niemat Ahmadi (Darfuri Liaison Officer to Save Darfur) are scheduled to address the council.

Jerry Fowler and John Prendergast released a report yesterday entitled: Keeping Our Word: Fulfilling the Mandate to Protect Civilians in Darfur. In it, they outline the steps UNAMID would need to take in order to protect civilian lives.

Rwanda empowers women to recover

Anthony Faiola recently spent time in Rwanda and discovered that women are restarting the country’s damaged coffee industry and in the process helping to provide much needed economic stability. He recently discussed his trip on NPR’s Tell Me More.

More than a decade ago, nearly a million people died in the Rwandan genocide. The violence claimed so many men’s lives that it left a gender imbalance that endures today. But that also provided the opportunity for many Rwandan women to take the reins of their country. Washington Post reporter Anthony Faiola discusses Rwanda’s new female leaders.

The most interesting part of Faiola’s message is that Rwanda has been successful because they have empowered women. In a society that used to live with rather traditional African roles, if they had remained unchanged by the genocide, they would likely be struggling with an even greater range of issues.

This is not to belittle the immense problems they are currently having, particularly with engrained prejudices, but clearly one of the biggest challenges in a post-genocide region is economic recovery. Without it, a country is far more likely to destabilize and fall back into violent patterns.

Why do people exhibit genocide apathy?

Paul Slovic, a University of Oregon psychology professor, recently recommended that the international community enact a formal process that would require nations to publicly address why they’re choosing not to act. His proposal is based on his NSF-funded study on psychic numbing, which showed that people may respond well to one person in need but become numb to larger numbers.

The problem, according to Slovic, is that moral intuition, guided by feelings and emotions, is not sufficient to motivate action when genocide is happening. Both moral intuition and moral reasoning, that is, logical argument and calculation, are needed to stimulate action.

“Our basic way of responding through moral intuition is a problem because it breaks down in the face of large scale atrocities,” says Slovic. “Our compassion, our empathy, our feeling about what we should do gives us a rush of immediate concern, but it doesn’t sustain us when large numbers of people are involved.”

The solution is to engage moral reasoning, a slower and more logical way of thinking about problems that challenge principles of right conduct, along with moral intuition.

For example, he argues that the U.S. government doesn’t leave it to the moral intuition of citizens to determine how much money they should pay in taxes for Social Security. Instead, moral reasoning leads to laws that require individuals to pay specific amounts for this program.

“Moral reasoning says all human lives are equally valuable,” says Slovic. “Given that, if a large number of lives are at risk, they should be proportionally more valuable than a single life. But if left to moral intuition, we would feel a certain amount of concern for the large number of lives at risk, but that feeling would not necessarily be enough to lead us to action.”

This is one of the most perplexing, and difficult to explain, components of genocide studies. Even though students have difficulty understanding how so many people would do nothing, the evidence consistently shows that the vast majority of people disengage themselves from any involvement in these acts; this is true for people on the ground, facing the genocide firsthand, as well as the international community.

In America, it’s often hard to rationalize how these acts are so passively viewed. Particularly when you consider that:

  1. they do receive a modicum of media coverage,
  2. are often addressed by public officials,
  3. questions frequently surface during press gaggles, and
  4. they’re continually highlighted by a host of non-profit groups

Slovic’s research would seem to help answer the question of how we, as a nation, develop apathy towards ongoing genocides, when we are in fact aware of them. Whether this sort of approach would help governments form a more cohesive (and decisive) policy in dealing with these crimes is difficult to say, but based on the premise, it would certainly be an interesting first step.

Book pulled from curriculum

Barbara Coloroso’s book Extraordinary Evil: A Brief History of Genocide was recently pulled from a Grade 11 curriculum proposal in Toronto, after protests from the Turkish-Canadian community arose over including the Armenian genocide.

But a committee struck to review the course decided in late April to remove the book because “a concern was raised regarding [its] appropriateness. … The Committee determined this was far from a scrupulous text and should not be on a History course although it might be included in a course on the social psychology of genocide because of her posited thesis that genocide is merely the extreme extension of bullying,” according to board documents.

Ironically, it would seem that Coloroso’s attempt to demonstrate how common, everyday behavior (such as bullying, intimidation, and discrimination) can so easily feed an act of genocide, is the message that the committee decides to criticize during their statement. Normally this is exactly the kind of example Holocaust educators attempt to use in order to draw parallels.

Strangely, the committee decided to use works by Bernard Lewis and Guenter Lewy in place of Extraordinary Evil. Both men are deniers of the Armenian genocide, which seems a curious way to present material for a course covering the genocide, as it would naturally suggest that the committee is hoping their students walk away disavowing the events of 1915.