Publications
Partners
Hanah Arendt once wrote a controversial book titled Eichmann in Jerusalem; a case for the banality of evil. Eichmann was trialed for his evils during the Nazi campaign. As Arendt observed Eichmann during the trial she saw a man who committed all those atrocities unwittingly (largely due to the fact the Nazi campaign was nationalistic by nature and as a result he became embroiled in these vicious and unforgivable acts. However be as it may- his invariable involvement shouldn't be seen as a moral qualifier either.
Elsewhere, it is worth noting Hanah Arendt's career never quite recovered from her sympathetic view of a Anti-Semetic thug like Eichmann. But it can be said; Arendt saw this wholly different as rather the result of the banality of evil turning inwards and sprouting outwards with consumate veracity. This brings me to the question; can evil acts be perpertrated by men/women who unknowingly or unwittingly arent evil by nature but pretend or assimilate to being as a result of their surroundings? The argument proves true, but would obviously fall short drastically in the conventional sense. Remember we are all not born towards or against moral inclination and discernment. As a matter a fact- this is learned through time. So if we hold truth to this belief that all relative conscious actions/ inactions are a result of various social nuances and experiences we encounterr then a pertinent question arises- what makes and builds the man himself?
While in recent thought, well at least in the South African case study, we have experienced and some of us witnessed the harsh curvets of social injustice similarly instituted like those of the Nazi onslaught as a device to supermarcist power. Whereby, the ruling white minority propagated on one of histories greatest injustices also known as the Apartheid regime. But what simply began as on of the greatest racially divided countries of all time turned into a largely "peaceful transition to a democratic state" and to an extent a peace loving country. Well considering you permanent marker out the Boipatong massacre and various other surging violences during that trying time and the present. In full, the oppressed people of South Africa saw beyond justifiable retribution but rather envisioned a country of unity through diversity. In some corners the world over this was and is still regarded as the archetypal democratic-state. The Rainbow nation.
In truth, there's more to the farcade created by this outstanding piece of reconciliatory action. To some it was South Africa's first dose of its very own Stockholm Syndrome- when many more similar countries chose a completely different trajectory. When violence wasn't sought a level of sympathetic feel was given to the oppressor's as their postions of white privilege remained unabated,and continue to do so even in today's climate. However, it is important to not throw caution to the wind here, after all, South Africa's unique response to its own terrors had qualifiable ends in the very, very end. A rendition of Senzeni Na which translates to what have we done? would hit home this message with equal gusto.
It can be said South Africa's experience took a leaf from Arendt's tree of reasoning and like she gazed on during the trial behind her glassed box so did Mzansi, and like Arendt who knows the pain instiuted by her oppressors to her people alike; she and this country saw a different man entirely in the post-events of history. And as we became sympathetic to the other Others' can be seen as an eventual means towards a dose of Stockholm-ism, but we need not forget the terrors and brutalities of our past because our other Other's banality of evil brings absolutely no solace to the mind nor soul.
Twitter: @Nandnz
