Wow. After reading finishing the Last Days of Hitler and then reading The Lucifer Effect on blackboard there are so many thoughts running through my mind. Throughout the blackboard reading I kept coming back to different things we talked about in class throughout this semester. I thought the piece tied in well with a lot of topics we have covered. For example, systems of power, structural forces, Hitler, propaganda, and perception were all brought up.

As I continued to read the article I kept thinking in my head, “Oh I could write my blog about this! Or this! Or this!” Finally, what really hit home was the awful description of the “mass murder century” we live in. He points out all of the different tyrannies and notes the millions of people that have died or are currently suffering. Those perpetrating such evil are seen as the dehumanized enemy or “other.” This makes it okay for those looking to aid in such terrible situations find abusing terrorists to be “fun and games.” The American military took so much pride in their torturous actions at the Abu Ghraib Prison that they videotaped it. And these actions are justified based on the terrible things that the prisoners had done. I am all for justice being served, but this cycle of evil will never stop.  Genocides, bombings, rapes, and even the small minute sins created by ordinary people will continue to happen so long as we continue to stay fascinated by the evil we so very much fear.

The lecture by Nan Keohane was extremely relevant to current leadership topics, especially the one discussed in one of my other leadership classes yesterday morning! In Leadership 102, we discussed the stereotypes based on expectations and leaders. Regarding the Case of Gender we learned that good leadership involves leaders with certain characteristics. Often these characteristics are confident, assertive, independent and decisive roles. These are considered manly traits.  Women are often stereotyped as the complete opposite. Their communal traits are kind, helpful and sympathetic. Thus, women are often not successful in leadership positions because they don’t carry, or so the stereotypes say, the traits of a leader.

Now, how does this relate to Nan Keohane? Well, Nan Keohane pointed out the Princeton undergrad study, which revealed that female students were not interested in holding formal positions of power and leadership. What we later learned in leadership class was the stereotype threat theory. When individuals feel that they might be judged in terms of a negative stereotype or that they might do something that would confirm that stereotype, inadvertently act in line with that specific stereotype. This thoroughly supports much of what Nan Keohane talked about. Women are often found not interested in taking on high impact leader positions because of the stereotypes. Women are not expected to be good at being leaders and they fall in line with the expectations. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Other empirical data also supports the stereotype threat and Nan’s definitions of leadership. Some studies show how stereotypes can cause those included to underperform or take a back seat role. For example, one study we learned about talked about exposing participants to TV commercials that were either geared towards a gender stereotype or not geared to a gender. After watching these commercials participants were asked to take on a leadership position. The stereotypical ads undermined females’ leadership aspirations on an upcoming task. Although there are women highly confident in leadership abilities and there are women who respond positively to stereotypes with Nan Keohane being a prime example, they are still in the minority. Hopefully two of Nan’s three future leadership possibilities will come true and the stereotype threat theory can be nixed!

Hugh Trevor-Roper’s introduction interestingly set the tone for the book. He spoke the truth when he wrote that human testimonies can be worthless. After reading about how many different assumptions turned into statements and facts regarding Hitler’s death I came back to the common theme of many of our lectures: What is the truth and how do we know?
In the beginning of this course we learned about fallacious reasoning. Then we learned about the deception of statistics. Ever since those lectures I find myself questioning everything I read. Take for example our most recent discussions on Henrietta Lacks. Is Skloot’s novel an exaggerated attempt to make money or is there truth behind what she wrote? We take for granted the words of others. Sometimes we put too much faith in what we learn from others and sometimes we let the words of others in one ear and out the other.
Roper clearly states that the last days of Hitler are fuzzy. They are clouded with the testimonies of others, but Roper argues that despite the falsely illogical statements his research stands alone as the strongest and most valid. His story throws out a lot of the past testimonies made and fills in a lot of the blanks with a factual story. Although he says his story may vary and differ when reading it against other testimonies, he clearly states at the end of it that the Russians (strongest support he could ask for) have accepted the truths regarding Hitler’s last days. I am interested to read and investigate the validity of the rest of Roper’s testimony in The Last Days of Hitler!

Having already read Skloot’s The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks , the chapter we had to read on moral arguments put the book in a different light. All of the social issues addressed whether it be race, gender, or economic status were based off of moral arguments. A lot of the problems with Henrietta’s situation involved rights that she as an equal human had. These rights that Skloot and most of the society now argue for state that someone is morally obligated to do something or is morally obligated to let someone do something. However, throughout history there has been much controversy because some people do not see eye to eye on moral statements and arguments. It was very interesting that the article could put a name to such different views on the idea of morality. For example, the non-cognitivists believe that there are no moral statements that are true or false. They believe in right and wrong but when there is moral disagreement it is because of different emotions.  On the other hand there are cognitivists, who believe that there are moral statements that are true or false. This allows for moral arguments to be discussed. After reading this I connected religion with cognitivists way of thinking and science (factual basis) with non-cognitivists way of thinking.

The Henrietta Lacks family, specifically the grandchildren of Henrietta Lacks, struck me with curiosity. The grandchildren’s ability to relay the issues of Henrietta Lacks’ situation did not do Rebecca Skloot or the novel justice. It was unfortunate that David Lacks could not attend because the grandchildren’s knowledge of the book and their grandmother was unimpressive. I found it interesting that they did not form a relationship with Rebecca Skloot. What was even more shocking was that they learned most about their grandmother by reading the book. If I were Henrietta Lacks’ grandchildren I would ask my parents about her. Kim mentioned that her Uncle Lawrence, the oldest, was the most emotional when talking about Henrietta. He was the one who witnessed the severity of the situation, a poor african american woman dealing with cancer. Kim and David had to have been curious when they saw how emotional their uncle and family members were over Henrietta’s lifestory. They had to have been curious when their family stopped engaging in conversations with reporters. And when they had been informed that a book was going to be written on her, how could they have not want to have been involved with Rebecca?Throughout the process of gathering evidence I would want to learn as much as possible about Skloot’s new findings and discoveries. Lastly, Rebecca Skloot’s novel put a heavy emphasis on the exploitation of Henrietta. The bitterness that the book gives off towards the Hopkins hospital seemed stronger than Kim and David Jr.’s. The book addresses so many social issues and the hospital (dominant culture) always seems to be in the wrong. So, it struck me as curious that the grandchildren, whose knowledge of their grandmother’s life story was based off the novel, did not reveal any ill feelings towards the those involved in spreading HeLa cells without the Lacks’ knowing or approval.