blog assignment #17

Levi makes a couple interesting points about the topic of a “moral armature.” One of the first comments that pertains to this topic is the idea that the newcomers were the only ones who really even conceived fighting back. Other than these, there were only a few instances of rebellions, all of which had a consolidated group making the rebellion. The majority of the people in the camps broke down. They lost all will to resist and instead did anything and everything that they were told to do. What makes those who fought back different than those who obeyed? The answer is tied in with the fact that those who rebelled did not lose their self worth and identity. Levi, when talking about the “rookies,” mentions that they are the only ones who would conceive of fighting back because they did not lose their dignity yet. The camps were masterful in the process of dehumanization. They stripped people from their own identities. Once they lost this, they simply became robots, serving tasks without any desire to rebel. The moral armature that Levi suggests must incorporate the keeping of identity. If one refuses to allow outside sources to dictate one’s worth, it is easy to make decisions based on personal opinion---such as rebelling. But how does one keep this? What line of defense does one have in order to make sure that he or she does not become dehumanized? On page 58 there are a couple of occasions that suggest an answer. Once there was a rebellion of 400 Jews. The fact that the people came together to fight the enemy increased their chances of keeping identity and self worth. One can be dehumanized much easier if he or she sees oppression from every angle, even from fellow prisoners. When one unites with the others, it is likened to a herd of zebras in opposition to a lion. There is strength in numbers. It is for this reason that the SS tried so hard to make the prisoners turn against themselves.