WEEK 15 ASSIGNMENT DANIKA LI 1

1) What struck you while reading and looking at these two articles? What insights
can you draw from this?

The first thing that struck me in the first article was how important that sense of

self was in determining behaviors during the Holocaust. Even under similar

sociodemographic situations, and when placed under similar pressures, the way a

sense of self was molded after that led to drastically similar outcomes. Of the

analyses, the one regarding the Nazi perpetrators and the bystanders surprised me

the most. In particular, it shocked me that Nazis viewed themselves and their people

as being personally victimized by the Jews. More specifically, I always understood

that the Jews were blamed for many of the bad things that happened to Germany

after the war, but the idea of Nazis victimizing themselves seems to place them at a

lower power level than the Jews, and portrays them more as a cornered animal

lashing out. This is in contrast to the Nazi sympathizer, who seems to view Germany

as much more powerful, and asserting its familial bloodline as a community of

Aryans, as opposed to reacting to perceived injustices.

Secondly, the view of the bystanders surprised me because I knew about a lot of

willful ignorance during the Holocaust, as well as a sense of hopelessness, but the

low-self esteem aspect of her interviews shocked me. Not only did they view

themselves as being helpless in the face of the horror of the Holocaust, but this was

attributed more to personal incapabilities as opposed to the overwhelming capacity

of the Nazi party.

Lastly, the second article was very interesting to me in that each individual had a

very self-fulfilling reason for why they chose to forgive the perpetrator. This falls

very much in line with what the beginning of the article said, stating that forgiveness
WEEK 15 ASSIGNMENT DANIKA LI 2

can often stem from survival as opposed to benevolence. Many of the forgivers

stated that by forgiving, they could personally be freed from a burden and could live

without fear, as opposed to forgiveness out of benevolence and a desire for the

perpetrator to be relieved of their guilt.

2) Why don't attitudes supportive of political violence necessarily lead to behavior

contributing to political violence?

Although APV and BPV may be enabled by similar factors, there are different

motivators behind each. In order for APV to translate into BPV, not only do the

motivators and enablers behind APV need to be present, but the motivators behind

BPV must be felt as well. Therefore, someone who feels the motivators of political

repression and personal poverty may support the goals of a violent regime, but may

not personally experience the motivators behind BPV such as being offered material

incitements, be subject to pressures from the regime, or have a desire for status or

revenge or excitement. This is what leads to the free-rider problem, as motivators

may support the regime and enjoy the benefits, but dont want to take the personal

psychological or physical risks of engaging in violent behavior. Similarly, individuals

that enjoy the motivators of BPV may not care about the political goals and

therefore dont have the APV motivators, and are simply pursuing violence out of a

desire for personal incentive or excitement.

3) And finally, please suggest an essay question for the last exam. Focus on
readings and topics from Week Nine through this week.

Explain why the logic of correlating radicalist religious views to an increase in

violence may be seen as incorrect. Instead of radical religion, what other motivators
WEEK 15 ASSIGNMENT DANIKA LI 3

or factors can more plausibly be attributed to higher levels of violence committed by

a terrorist group?