One thing about ringing a bell is that is can never be unrung. As it cannot be unrung, it can also never be unheard. Its clear and clarion tone, once generated and once heard, will be forever remembered by all reached by its distinctive clang. This concept may be relatively easy to understand but I never ceased to be amazed when someone, anyone, either dismisses it outright or demonstrates no comprehension of it. Those who do not or refuse to remember the past are doomed to repeat it. Deliberately demonstrating any belief that a well documented idea has been forgotten by enough people familiar with it can be reinvented into an acceptable norm or worse, twisted into some sort of virtue, will not end well for the promoters of it. For so many alive today, the concept of a World War waged over the essence of ideals imposed by force of arms which were inconsistent with American humanitarian values may be an abstract concept. Rest assured though that there are still enough people alive who were actual combatants in or victims of that conflagration. Granted, many of that generation are no longer living but their children and grandchildren carry quiet witness of the toll it took on many of those survivors. When those who know the sound of that certain bell they cannot mistake, do not expect them to take the insult lightly.
A few months ago I wrote a post entitled in which I explained,
<<” Recorded history is littered with the flotsam of individuals and nations who either surrendered or traded their humanity for monetary profit, social advancement, personal gain or to even scores for wrongs that were too often more perceived than actual. The proceedings at Nuremburg following the fall of Nazi Germany was a needed exercise in adjudicating criminal liability for such individuals.” >>
Once more we find ourselves in the midst of irony in what can only be described as a historical oddity. It is well known that Nazism and all its associated symbology is illegal in the nation of Germany. In the USA, whereas Nazism is not in and of itself an outlawed ideology, symbols associated with it are recognized as conveying hatred or hate speech. Such emblems of intolerance are of course not protected as free speech as delineated by the First Amendment. When someone draws a swastika and scrawls any sort of epithet beside it, the bell it rings clangs loud and clear from the abyss of hate from which it emanates.
“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Evelyn Beatrice Hall (1868 – 1956); pen name S. G. Tallentyre. (Often mis-attributed to Voltaire.)
“White planet only, gas the rest”. (Swastika optional)
The problem with allowing villainous cretins to get away with unlimited free speech, is that it encourages them to believe that they they have to right to get away with anything. Including being villainous, and being cretins…
Anytime you give away carte blanc approval in advance, you are sooner or later certain to regret it. If someone somewhere had seen fit to throw Mein Kampf on the rubbish heap back in 1935, it would have saved a whole lot of people a whole lot of trouble & grief.
Rule of thumb: when somebody proclaims they want to start eliminating people who are different from themselves, it’s not a good idea to ‘defend them to the death’… they may well take you up on it.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.” François-Marie Arouet (Voltaire), 1694 – 1778.
This morning, I was engaged in a study/discussion with a group of friends who were considering/contemplating how to “make peace in times of conflict”, and we were reminded of Nelson Madela’s example, which began with communication-real listening, true reflection and restatement of ideas from either/all sides of a problem-and, with that, the acknowledgement of our desires for simple and quick answers/reasons that motivate the incredibly diverse human population. We found no brllliant solutions or answers, for we had time constraints, but I have been trying to imagine open dialogue-no interruptions or shouts, basic speaking or writing and listening or reading or whatever-between people…you have given me another equally valuable lesson here, Stan, in observing patience and withholding reflexive, knee-jerk responses to an emotionally volatile situation until more facts are known. Peace (which has been on my mind lately) is not a simple not particularly immediate solution to human conflicts. How much more could we have learned in The Nuremberg trials about the motivations, influences, goals of accused had we had the luxury of time and trust-trust that an accused “criminal” would be heard and not subject to trial and execution, perhaps not openly intimidated into fleeing and hiding? I’m at the TCCL this afternoon, seeking some more information regarding the events of what is called “Holy Week”, which culminated in a resurrection, but not before a hasty “trial”, punishment and crucifixion. Somehow, similarities “ring” for me, and, while I would never imply that this simplifies life, it certainly has given me more information and desire to learn more. Thank you, Stan, for your thought-provoking essay.