Or; Change and where to find it.
Wow time sure does fly. It's been what, half a year? Again, I must apologize. I do not want to create more digital pollution by creating a nothing site that is sitting empty and abandoned. At least not entirely.
It's just that I've been busy. Of course. I had to deal with the burdens of work and all the misery that comes with it. It's safe to say that if jobs all bring this sort of discomfort and exhaustion, I'm skeptical as to the enjoyment of the rest of my adult life.
Besides suffering, I've been doing a bit of reading and reflecting. Not on myself; I believe I've reflected on myself well enough. No, I've been reading a few texts on ideologues. I've raised as I've grown that the best way to understand yourself and the world is to read books, and it seems that genre doesn't matter much. For me, intent in trying to understand the complexities of the world, reading on the lives of people who've lived objectively more meaningful lives than mine has been quite useful. For example, I'm simultaneously reading a biography and a memoir, ‘One Day in December: Celia Sánchez and the Cuban Revolution’ and ‘Inside the Third Reich’ respectively. The biography is by Nancy Stout, the memoirs by Albert Speer. I have not finished either text, so I will not give a review quite yet, but I do want to use them in an analysis I've been wanting to do on the morals of being a bystander. I believe both Celia and Albert have well enough historical relevance to be used as answers to the question.
What does it mean to be a bystander? To not interact? If I were to ask Celia Sánchez, the answer would most likely be acting a coward. That standing by a revolution as it takes place is not simply being apolitical, but a statement on one's character. While remaining unaffiliated between two stances may keep one's options free, it certainly does not help those toiling for change.
Celia would say we have a duty to actively strive for the betterment of humanity, without the pretense of fame, or compensation, or recognition after our acts. Celia herself did not desire any recognition at all, insisting her name be kept from any records or newspapers. That is certainly one of the reasons as to why she is relatively unknown, even among Cubans and those claiming to be left wing.
However we can't ignore the context differentials between an individual now and in revolutionary Cuba, specifically Celia Sánchez. Unlike the majority of Cubans, Celia was from a comparatively well off family. Her father was a physician, and her family had tenure in their province. She had aligned herself with already established revolutionaries in Che Guevara and Fidel Castro. The majority of people today do not have such ‘luxuries’ of economic advantage or well known allies, so it's almost ignorant to question the inaction of people today. There may be many people, maybe some even greater than Celia, that are truly unable to launch their revolutionary careers simply due to the fact of infeasibility. Celia, as a rural girl, did not do much aside from her acting aide to the revolution. She did not go to University as a protest against a specific teacher that insulted her handwriting. Though this is not to diminish her accomplishments as the flower of the revolution, it's simply a neutral analysis of the circumstances that allowed for Celia to flourish as she did.
Now, if I were to ask Albert Speer the same question, I would undoubtedly get a vastly different answer. Albert, as Minister of Architecture, and later of War Production and Armaments, for the NSDAP naturally would view personal responsibility in a more protectionist way. After the fall of Berlin, Albert was imprisoned in Spandau, in which he found the time and composure to write his memoirs. His public image since the war has been one of both repentance and absolvance of blame. Albert holds the stance of personal guilt, but no responsibility, direct or otherwise. He claims no knowledge of the crimes against humanity perpetrated by the NSDAP.
He viewed himself as a bystander of the Party. It is easy to jump to the conclusion that he was simply lying, however, holistic outlooks on history are important to fully understand it. In his memoirs, he describes Adolf Hitler as a fairly closed off individual, even to those in his inner circle. To the rest of the world, the crimes of the Party were not revealed until after the war, after the Soviets had liberated Berlin. It may not be entirely impossible that Albert Speer truly did not know of the true nature of the NSDAP. I will personally take this stance.
He viewed himself as a bystander of the Party. It is easy to jump to the conclusion that he was simply lying, however, holistic outlooks on history are important to fully understand it. In his memoirs, he describes Adolf Hitler as a fairly closed off individual, even to those in his inner circle. To the rest of the world, the crimes of the Party were not revealed until after the war, after the Soviets had liberated Berlin. It may not be entirely impossible that Albert Speer truly did not know of the true nature of the NSDAP. I will personally take this stance.
Albert Speer was a bystander, though not an innocent one. Albert Speer did not directly take part in the extermination of the Jews, and was not present at the Wannsee Conference. However, it seems he could not have done anything different. Is it feasible to suggest he had done something? How can one oppose an event they have no knowledge is happening. Regardless, being unaware of the law does not excuse your crimes under it. Just as Himmler and Dönitz and Goebbels and Heydrich, in the eyes of international law, a Nazi is a Nazi is a Nazi, regardless of role or proximity to the death. The argument of “just following orders” that many captured SS and Wehrmacht soldiers use is nullified. Albert Speer may show remorse for the crimes of his associates, and to an unknowable extent his own, but his guilt does not absolve him. Apologizing does not wipe his record. Being a bystander is not a neutral position vis a vis a fascist regime. This is more than guilt by association; it's the fact that being indifferent to oppression is only a step away from supporting it.
As with anything else you may find on the interwebs, dear reader, do not take this as moral advice. I am simply a person who was raised to be an intellectual, so I'm trying to make intellectual arguments. Until a real intellectual shows up and bursts my bubble (tulips) I'll stay in my seat at the smart table. Let me reiterate as well, I am in no way undermining the accomplishments of Celia Sánchez, nor glorifying the actions (or rather inaction) of Albert Speer; I only want to challenge myself and maybe others to think critically on those undeniably more historically influentially than we. In my search for truth I must question those before me, as history is not a closed book. I suppose in that way I am a historical revisionist.
I still have no clear absolute answer to my question of bystander morality, but I suppose one's morals should form naturally, and not through study, no matter how badly I'd want it to be so. But I did get a sweet comparative analysis out of it, the writer in me would appreciate that at the very least. I believe this is a decent spot to stop the count. Hopefully, I leave you with something of value, or at least a new perspective and food for thought.
Thank you, reader.
