Nobility

In 1895, Alfred Nobel's will provided for the annual presentation of five prizes for signal achievements in specific fields. Nobel was a scientist, and the majority of the prizes were in scientific fields – Chemistry, Physics, and Physiology and Medicine. A fourth was to be given for literature.

There was also a fifth prize which was awarded in Norway rather than Nobel's home country of Sweden where the others were presented. Whether in Sweden or Norway, however, the ceremony is held in the presence of the King. These are noble prizes and merit the honorable supervision of nobility. Why he decided on the second venue is uncertain, but the prizes awarded by the Norwegian committee are usually the most prominent, and they have certainly caused the most controversy that the award has received. (A sixth prize, in Economic Sciences, was added in 1968 but it was funded by a Swedish bank and, although awarded at the same time and equated with them, it is not actually a “Nobel Prize.”) Although there is disagreement over the relative merits of their accomplishments, there is rarely any question about the worthiness of the ultimate winner of an award in one of the scientific fields. And while the literature prize recipients may be more subjectively chosen, the laureates are almost invariably meritorious and well chosen (although James Joyce was passed over for an award).

Would that the same could be said of the Peace Prize. There has been much criticism of the committee choosing the winners, as well as extensive second guessing of some of the recipients. In part this probably results from the public being better able to understand the issues involved than it might be in regard to, for example, physics. But the level of consternation that some of the awards have engendered reflects the fact that personal biases and politics have played a significant role in some of the choices. The awarding of a Peace Prize to Yassir Arafat is enough to make one wonder what the aim of the committee was, and honoring Henry Kissinger, for ending a war that was still going on, was, at best, premature. Many, however, considered it a mockery. Tom Lehrer, who wrote satirical songs in the latter half of the twentieth century, is reported to have said “Political satire became obsolete when Henry Kissinger 'was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.'”

Another questionable award took place in 2009 when the Norwegian Nobel Committee awarded the Peace Prize to a President who had been in office for less than a year. It was for his “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.” During his term, in the quest for peace as he sees it, he has angered our friends, lost the respect of our enemies, and diminished our nation's prestige. And in his entire term the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize he has not brought our nation a single day when we were not at war. The award was a victory of political bias over reality and common sense. It didn't reflect any accomplishments because there were none. It was merely a slap at the President's predecessor. Skoal.

I raise these points now because of the death last week of Elie Wiesel, 1986 winner of the award. [This essay is being written on July 7^th, 2016.] Notwithstanding the slanders of pro-Palestinians, Wiesel was one of the first to speak out about the horrors of the Holocaust, and one of the most vocal advocates of action to deal with other atrocities in whatever countries they occurred.

In his presentation speech, Egil Aarvik, Chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, spoke of the terrible period of the Nazi crimes which Wiesel and millions of others had endured, and then said

… The duty and responsibility which Elie Wiesel preaches are not primarily concerned with the fear of the terrors of the past repeating themselves. It is much more an engagement directed at preventing the possible victory of evil forces in the future. The creative force in this process is not hate and revenge, but rather a longing for freedom, a love of life and a respect for human dignity. Or as Elie Wiesel has said himself: "I will conquer our murderers by attempting to reconstruct what they destroyed." … It is in recognition of this particular human spirit's victory over the powers of death and degradation, and as a support to the rebellion of good against the evil in the world, that the Norwegian Nobel Committee today presents the Nobel Peace Prize to Elie Wiesel. We do this on behalf of millions — from all peoples and races. We do it in deep reverence for the memory of the dead, but also with the deep felt hope that the prize will be a small contribution which will forward the cause which is the greatest of all humanity's concerns — the cause of peace.

And in his acceptance speech Wiesel said

… Words of gratitude. First to our common Creator. This is what the Jewish tradition commands us to do. At special occasions, one is duty-bound to recite the following prayer: "Barukh … shehekhyanu vekiymanu vehigianu lazman hazeh" — "Blessed be Thou for having sustained us until this day." … Do I have the right to represent the multitudes who have perished? Do I have the right to accept this great honor on their behalf? I do not. No one may speak for the dead, no one may interpret their mutilated dreams and visions. And yet, I sense their presence. I always do — and at this moment more than ever. The presence of my parents, that of my little sister. The presence of my teachers, my friends, my companions … This honor belongs to all the survivors and their children and, through us to the Jewish people with whose destiny I have always identified. … [Having suffered myself] I swore never to be silent whenever [and] wherever human beings endure suffering and humiliation. … Our lives no longer belong to us alone; they belong to all those who need us desperately.

This time they got it right.

"The Book Thief"

I feel as if I've been manipulated. No. I have been manipulated. But that's all right. That's what movies are supposed to do.

In this case I'm referring to “The Book Thief,” which I saw last night. It's the story of Liesel, a young German girl during the Second World War – probably the daughter of a Communist woman – who is taken to live with another family. During the film we watch her developing a love of books and reading,ⁱ and we see the the struggles over the years of her new family, presumably typical of those living under the Nazis, especially as they involved their efforts to protect a Jew, Max, whom they hid in the basement.ⁱⁱ

Depicted in the production were three types of Germans – most prominently the good but fearful Germans,ⁱⁱⁱ like Liesel and her adoptive parents, who were willing to take risks for the downtrodden; the large number of loyal and patriotic citizens hypnotized into submission by Hitler and his advocates; and those who were evil. The last group included such individuals as a child named Franz who was both stupid and a bully. The narrator of the film is Death, himself.^iv

All in all, I came away from the movie with the clear impression that the Germans were a good people who were manipulated by the few who were evil. They lived in fear; the remained silent if they had any reservations, and they cooperated with their rulers only so they wouldn't stand out.^v I get no sense of the true horrors of the Holocaust, even though Kristallnacht is shown along with Max's plight and, momentarily, that of a Jewish store owner. Were there mass killings of Jews, Gypsies, and homosexuals? Did the Nazis experiment on people and eliminate the weak? Presumably everyone knows about that, but it is barely hinted at in “The Book Thief.” Even “Death,” who makes his product almost attractive since it will come to all of us (in this movie it will be in the form of billowing clouds in a beautiful blue sky) sees no need to mention any of the millions murdered by the Third Reich. Indeed, there is no need to bring up the Third Reich at all.

I wound up with the feeling that the Germans were really a good people who were suffering under an intolerant regime, and they were making the best of it. That's at variance with everything I've learned up to this time – especially in the work of Daniel Goldhagen – that there was a strong component of antisemitism in the “cultured” and “advanced” German society, and the scapegoating of the Jews, and other “inferior” people, was acceptable to the German People, and to many others, and was widely accepted and acted on by them. But perhaps that was the manipulation, and the version I viewed last night was closer to the truth.

In any event, “The Book Thief” was a “feel good” movie that restored my faith in the basic humanity of the German People. It may have been fiction, but it was a fine movie. How can puffy clouds in a blue sky be bad?

I        Encouraged and assisted by her new “poppa.”

ii       Max was another co-conspirator in her new-found reading program.

iii      And this group includes Frau Heinrich, the wife of a Nazi official, who befriends Liesel and lets her read some of the books in the family library. At times Liesel “borrows” some of those books for reading at home.

iv       Death seems to have taken a liking of Liesel who is depicted as brave, honest, and faithful. (She's a real Boy Scout.) So Death lets her live until the age of ninety.

v        There is a scene in which Liesel, and friend named Rudi, yell out their hatred of Hitler when they are in an isolated area and won't be heard. Even so, that hatred seems to be based on how the Nazis have affected their own lives and was not in any way related to any greater evil which they perpetrated.

It Goes Without Saying

 

I don't like homosexuals.

Don't get me wrong. I don't dislike them either. The whole thing is none of my business and frankly, I'm not especially interested. And all of my views of homosexuality are irrelevant – whatever they are. I'm free to express them. The Constitution says so. However no one cares, so why bother.

But there's one thing I have to say, and I don't care if no one is interested. It has to do with members of that cause. I'm against their perversion. No. Once again it's not what you think. It has nothing to do with their choices for companionship. Rather it's their ongoing attack on the English language and on our culture. I have no problem with homosexual unions nor with their being accorded the same economic and insurance benefits as marriage. In fact I support such policies. But I take issue with the hijacking of the word “marriage.” The insistence that homosexual unions be called marriages will, in effect, take away a perfectly good word from our language – one that indicates a particular relationship of a man and a woman. (Over time we have lost the idea of “common-law marriage,” and “partner” now has a totally different meaning from what it used to have.) Nothing but political points is gained by blurring the meaning of the word, and the insistence that this word be used seems to me to be contrary to what was originally demanded.

Following the Stonewall Riot of 1969, homosexuals were encouraged to “come out of the closet.” And they did so. More power to them. They demanded that they be permitted to be who they were, and to be accepted as such; that their sexual orientation was no one's business but their own.ⁱ Differences between people were irrelevant. In fact, differences should be encouraged. So far, so good. That was fine for their community and it certainly did not represent a threat to anyone else.

But soon there were demands on others. They forced much of the rest of society into the closet. One of their demands related to languageⁱⁱ Although there was a long history of “gay” having sexual connotations (though this was a secondary understanding of the word), these connotations were usually heterosexual. In the mid and late twentieth century, however, the term, which was generally understood as “happy” and “carefree,” came to be related, through their efforts, to homosexuals, because “homosexual” was considered too clinical and pejorative, and because, up until 1969, homosexuality itself was a crime in England. Homosexual men, considering themselves happy and carefree, preferred the term “gay,” though women continued to label themselves, and be labeled by others, as Lesbians.ⁱⁱⁱ In any event, the term “gay” was lost in its previous sense, and there is no good substitute.

Perhaps this is all “a phase we're going through.” I hope so. I hope that in time labeling will disappear. In the meantime, however, our language^iv will be impoverished as it has been by other groups. Notwithstanding my views of equality, I regret the changes in our language that have come about with Black Power and the feminist movement. “Holocaust” and “ghetto” used to have specific meanings and connotations which are now buried in history. And the reinvention and removal of gender^v from much of our language – like the substitution of “their” for “his” or “her” and the neutering of other terms – leaves us with such monstrosities as “To each their own” and “chairperson.”

I know that language changes over time, but I'd be happier if it were enlarged, not diminished by change. And it is being diminished in terms of descriptive words as time goes by.

I agree with the view that we should enlarge our view of others as our brothers and sisters. We should welcome everyone irrespective of his or her practice, as long as others aren't detrimental to us. But by welcoming them, by widening our community, we should not be diminishing our language. We should be enlarging it as well. Our union should be one that allows our language to flower along with our population.

Next episode: “Out At Home” – Baseball and the world in which we live.

i    They demanded that there be no discrimination against them.  Fair enough, but, of course, discrimination should not be permitted against any citizen or, for that matter, against anyone anywhere.  Statutes outlawing such biases were passed even though they, and similar laws, should not be necessary.  (When you pass a law forbidding discrimination against some groups it is logical to assume that intolerance displayed against groups not specifically named is perfectly legitimate.  But that idea deserves its own essay, so I'll have no more to say about it here.) Indeed, “hate laws,” – or, more accurately, anti-hate laws – seem to me to be silly and “un-American.”  I suspect I wouldn't care, if someone killed me, that he uttered a slur before doing so.  I'd still be dead.  And the same is true for theft, assault, or whatever.  What we need more than additional laws is the enforcement of the ones already on the books.

     Not only that, I'm offended by the stricture on name-calling. I oppose such insults of course, but I don't think there should be laws against them. It seems to me that the First Amendment makes such behavior legal, however reprehensible it may be.  When I was growing up we were taught that “ … words will never hurt you.”  They do, but it was accepted that name-calling was usual, and part of life.  If any action is to be taken against it, that should be educational.

ii  Another was the interpolation and explosion of homosexuality in popular culture.  Nowadays there is a homosexual or a reference to homosexuality in many, if not most, plays and television programs.

iii  Presumably they had a different self-image.  (By the way, some other terms are used as well.)

iv  American English.  But it's probably like that in other languages as well. I can't imagine that Americans are the only ones foolish enough to place political before correctness and to value sensitivity over sense and fads over facts. But I could be wrong.  Perhaps we are the only ones dumb enough to hoodwink ourselves.

v “Gender” – from genus, meaning “kind” or “type” – properly refers to differences of characteristics and was largely related to language and, in some tongues, the assignment of “male” or “female” characteristics to certain nouns.  Only more recently has it come to mean “sex” or, often, a self-assigned “nature” – how we feel about ourselves, and what should have been. We treat ourselves like words, but treat words, themselves, badly.