Jason, thank you for naming this tendency that is borne out of fear. It is good to remember, indeed, that all are imago dei.
I wonder, in retrospect, at what point would it have been appropriate - or if it would have been appropriate at all - to name the perpetrators of apartheid in SA, or those inflicting genocide in Rwanda and Germany? When does naming and articulating serve a purpose? Or does it? How do we know what that moment or line may be? Does it serve the perpetrators? My guess is it may serve the victims, so they do not feel invisible. And when is it appropriate today? What purpose might it serve?
Just thinking out loud here. Thanks for this article.
For those moments you name, I suspect naming the perpetrators establishes accountability and prevents revisionism. Silence can serve as denial. The Allies held the Nuremberg Trials and the Tokyo War Crimes Trials to prosecute and hold Nazi and Japanese leaders accountable for war crimes. Those international tribunals established important legal precedents for international criminal law by demonstrating that individuals, not just states, could be held responsible for atrocities.
Naming specific individuals or groups responsible also helps avoid collective blame against entire populations. And survivors and victims often insist that the truth is not complete until those responsible are clearly identified. The prophets, the martyrs, Bonhoeffer, Desmond Tutu et al—all at times named those responsible, even before tribunals did.
Jason, thank you for naming this tendency that is borne out of fear. It is good to remember, indeed, that all are imago dei.
I wonder, in retrospect, at what point would it have been appropriate - or if it would have been appropriate at all - to name the perpetrators of apartheid in SA, or those inflicting genocide in Rwanda and Germany? When does naming and articulating serve a purpose? Or does it? How do we know what that moment or line may be? Does it serve the perpetrators? My guess is it may serve the victims, so they do not feel invisible. And when is it appropriate today? What purpose might it serve?
Just thinking out loud here. Thanks for this article.
Hi Debbie.
For those moments you name, I suspect naming the perpetrators establishes accountability and prevents revisionism. Silence can serve as denial. The Allies held the Nuremberg Trials and the Tokyo War Crimes Trials to prosecute and hold Nazi and Japanese leaders accountable for war crimes. Those international tribunals established important legal precedents for international criminal law by demonstrating that individuals, not just states, could be held responsible for atrocities.
Naming specific individuals or groups responsible also helps avoid collective blame against entire populations. And survivors and victims often insist that the truth is not complete until those responsible are clearly identified. The prophets, the martyrs, Bonhoeffer, Desmond Tutu et al—all at times named those responsible, even before tribunals did.
What do you think? And thanks for reading.