Crispin Sartwell’s “The Genocidal Killer in the Mirror”
Crispin Sartwell’s “The Genocidal Killer in the Mirror”
According to Crispin Sartwell, "We- and by this I mean you and I- are deeply evil." Sartwell reviews some of the conditions that impel ordinary human beings to commit genocide- including "deference to authority" and "response to social consensus.” We all know that genocide means systematic killing of all the people from a national, ethnic, or religious group, or an attempt to do this things but what leads one person to commit genocide? It is by choice with reasons. The one reason I think it’s because of Racism. But it’s not the only genocidal philosophy on earth – communism, Christianity and Islam has also killed millions of innocents. It is, however, obvious how racism leads to genocide. But how Crispin Sartwell made his points in his book “the genocidal killer in the mirror”? Genocidal killing exist in everyday life; it is being practiced in many forms and being practiced in many ways. Like for example, [1]the killings of ARMENIANS by the Ottoman state in 1915 [], the murderous reign of the from 1975 to 1979 [], the YUGOSLAV wars of the early 1990s [Misha Glenny and Anthony Oberschall], and RWANDA in 1994 []. Many Armenian nationalists now claim that Turks had long standing genocidal intentions against Armenians, and still do, while Turkish nationalists claim that the killings were part of a war over control over eastern Anatolia. Many who have commented on the killings in Cambodia deny that there was any ethnic element involved, and claim that to say there was in some lessens the responsibility of communism. Many Rwandan intellectuals, particularly among the Tutsi, assert that ethnicity had little to do with the genocide. As for Yugoslavia, we know that Serbian, Croatian, and Bosnian Muslim nationalists all claim that they were only defending themselves against the others. In all these cases, political leaders who are in charge of the state controlled armies and police forces initiated mass murders in order to hold on to power and to a further nationalist vision of what kind of state they wished to rule. In all these cases, those who are targeted for murder or expulsion were felt to be hereditary antagonistic to the project of the rulers, and a mortal danger to the ruler’s ambitions. In all these cases, political leaders convinced their followers that the danger applied to their entire group, so that a mass murder was the best, most viable solution.
Another example is [2]the methods of killing at the institutions varied. In some instances, children were simply starved to death, which was not considered ideal because it took too long (1995). However, starvation did allow these murders less chance of detection. Other methods included allowing children to die of exposure in the cold German winters by turning off all heat in the institution (1988). At several asylums, children perished after being administered chemical warfare agents. A more grisly approach involved a method reserved for children who were resistant to other poisons or, because of their disability, were unable to swallow the poison in pill form: fatal injections directly into the heart (1997). The most popular lethal drug was Luminal, a barbiturate, closely followed by morphine for children resistant to the Luminal. These were usually administered in pill or liquid form. The genius of this form of homicide was the normally expected availability of these medications in hospitals. Also, some poisons killed indirectly over short periods of time by precipitating fatal medical complications that were then reported as natural causes of death. Here is an eyewitness testimony to the actions of Hermann Pfanmuller, the physician in charge of the hospital at Eglfing-Haar:
“I took a conducted tour of the madhouse.... Pfanmuller led us into a children's ward. The ward made a clean and cared-for impression. In about fifteen beds there were as many children, all aged between about one and five years old.... Pfanmuller explained his intentions at some length.... "As a National Socialist, these creatures (he meant the aforementioned children) naturally only present to me a burden upon the healthy body of our nation. We don't kill with poison, injection etc., since that would only give the foreign press and certain gentlemen in Switzerland [the Red Cross] new hate-propaganda material. No: as you see, our method is much simpler and more natural." With these words, and assisted by a nurse who worked in this ward, he pulled one of the children out of bed. He displayed the child around like a dead hare, he pointed out, with a knowing look and a cynical grin, `This one will last another two or three days." The image of this fat, grinning man, with the whimpering skeleton in his fleshy hand, surrounded by other starving children, is still clear before my eyes. “
Disability as a genocidal marker was not reserved only for children. As a logical extension of the children's killing program, adults with disabilities were the next group targeted for disposal. The children's program had established the necessary prototypical bureaucratic processes and boasted a host of officials willing to be complicit in mass murder. In the summer of 1939, Hitler directed top-level officials to implement an adult euthanasia program, issuing a formal directive on his personal stationery that certain officials were "charged with responsibility to extend the powers of specific doctors in such a way that, after the most careful assessment of the condition, those suffering from illnesses deemed to be incurable may be granted a mercy death."
Crispin Sartwell’s the genocide killer in the mirror concludes that there is an evil side in each and every one of us. Understanding this terms is very hard like “we- and by this you and I- are deeply evil.” What makes an ordinary human being forced to commit genocide? Or is it the need to obey in an increasingly security- minded world, attempts to find a balance between absolute obedience and absolute disobedience? In “the Stanford Prison Experiment,” by Philip K. Zimbardo, discusses the results of his controversial experiment designed to examine the ability of individuals to resist authoritarian or obedient roles. Using the threat of world annihilation as a backdrop, Erich Fromm’s “Disobedience as a Psychological and Moral problem” distinguishes obedience that is destructive and disobedience that is necessary to preserve the survival of mankind.
Genocide appears to be a regular and widespread event in the history of civilization. The phrase "never again" or "not on our watch" is often used in relation to genocide has been contradicted up to the present day. Determining which historical events constitute genocide and which are merely criminal or inhuman behavior is not a clear-cut matter. Furthermore, in nearly every case where accusations of genocide have circulated, partisans of various sides have fiercely disputed the interpretation and details of the event, often to the point of promoting wildly different versions of the facts. An accusation of genocide is certainly not taken lightly and will almost always be controversial.
Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be the disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups.
Genocide, however, is never inevitable. It is always the result of choice. And surely lives are not interchangeable. Another argument is that genocides should be allowed to run their course: it is best to let the violence complete itself, reducing the chance for further violence and, hence, and any need for intervention.
