The Kaiser's Holocaust

[Alan Tucker]

Tenuous stuff. Eugenics, Social Darwinism, ideas about racial degeneration were well embedded in various European societies before 1914. 'Yellow Peril' in Britain. Even Churchill had some ideas along these lines. The Nazis came to power advocating compulsory sterilisation of the hereditarily sick. The ground had been prepared by non-Nazi German doctors in the 1920s advocating voluntary sterilisation of those with hereditary defects. The German Doctors' Association pressed for a state law as it also fitted in with saving costs in asylums.

This is not a chain of causation of the Holocaust going back to GSWA.The authors of the book also make a 'connection' or 'chain' because the perpetrators wore brown shirts! The existence of the ideas of Fischer and others does not explain what made the Holocaust possible in wartime conditions.

[ddycher]

Harry

Bought and read the book.

Current discussions above aside I found it somewhat disjointed and difficult to follow. In my humble view it would have been a much more powerful statement if it had focused on the events in country specific to the Herero and Nama. Like you said a good reference to these events is missing. This the best I have come across. Do you have any other recommendations on the topic worth reading ?

Regards

Dave

[truthergw]

Tenuous stuff. Eugenics, Social Darwinism, ideas about racial degeneration were well embedded in various European societies before 1914. 'Yellow Peril' in Britain. Even Churchill had some ideas along these lines. The Nazis came to power advocating compulsory sterilisation of the hereditarily sick. The ground had been prepared by non-Nazi German doctors in the 1920s advocating voluntary sterilisation of those with hereditary defects. The German Doctors' Association pressed for a state law as it also fitted in with saving costs in asylums.

This is not a chain of causation of the Holocaust going back to GSWA.The authors of the book also make a 'connection' or 'chain' because the perpetrators wore brown shirts! The existence of the ideas of Fischer and others does not explain what made the Holocaust possible in wartime conditions.

Now you are pointing out a historical background where you denied one existed. Whether or not you choose to accept it, there is a vast amount of documentary evidence that the nazis were a product of German history. Hitler wrote at least part of Mein Kampf in prison where he was serving a sentence for being involved in the abortive putsch. That was organised by a gang of disgruntled ex-officers. To suggest that the nazi party has no historical roots is a palpable nonsense.

[Alan Tucker]

You are twisting what I said. I am trying to differentiate between the circumstances which made Nazism successful as a political movement, essentially the World Economic Depression, and what made the Holocaust possible, which is wartime conditions, and roots of the Nazi philosophy which are obviously deeper. There was nothing inevitable between what happened in GSWA and what happened in Poland in 1942 onwards. From all I have read the authors wrote a very good book about what happened in GSWA but got carried away or thought it would sell more by trying to link it to what happened many years later.

[phil andrade]

This story is grist to the mill for those who seek to refute the view that the Great War was a futile conflict. In this sense, it might be compared with Kramer's Dynamic of Destruction. It ties up nicely with the view that Germany was the principal culprit - both in causing the war, and in pursuing that war with unique harshness.

Phil (PJA)

[bushfighter]

Dave

Greetings

Thank you for respecting the thread for what it should be - a book review.

When the thread hijackers have exhausted their repartee and found another duelling ground on which to parade and pontificate, then we can return to books.

Harry

[Robert Dunlop]

Do you have any other recommendations on the topic worth reading ?

Dave, look out for Isabel Hull's book 'Absolute Destruction: Military Culture And the Practices of War in Imperial Germany'. She deals with the Herero massacre in some detail.

Robert

[Marilyne]

If I may just put my lawery nose in it ... please be carfeull, anyone, readers or writers, before you call something a GENOCIDE.

There is a clear definition of what a genocide is (Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide, 1948) and furthermore, the work of the ICC has clearly set out the principles and elements needed before being able to convinct somone for genocide. and I think those elements may be applied retrocactively to all previous situations.

too many people believe, once a certain number of dead is attained, you have a genocide on your hands, but there is more to that.

Traditionnally in international law, following the definition, only four situations have been clearly defined by the word Genocide and have been recognised as such in the sense that people have been punished for it: the Armenian genocide, the Holocaust, Rwanda and certain spheres of ex-Yugoslavia (see for that the decision in the ICJ case Serbia vs Bosnia Herzegowina and various cases before the ICT-Y)

As an example: a colleague asked merecently to help him with a work he has to do for his master in international relations and law. It was about the Guatemala "genocide". Until now, it is called a gegenocide by non-governmental organizations, the press (of course) and the victims. the first thing that has to happen now is for a prosecutor to come up with the necessary proof that the culprits have committed genocide, starting with the factor of intention.

More could be said, but this is not a lesson in international penal law, is it?

just be carefull of what words you use.

Marilyne

[ddycher]

Robert

Thanks. Will try to find a copy.

Regards

Dave

[Ken S.]

UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION (GENOCIDE)

HC Deb 19 October 1949 vol 468 cc532-3 532

13. Mr. Wyatt asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the United Kingdom has yet signed the United Nations convention on genocide; and when it is intended that this convention shall be ratified.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Ernest Bevin) No, Sir. The 533 exact implications of accession, from the point of view of United Kingdom law, are being studied.

Mr. Janner Would my right hon. Friend state whether he cannot consider this very important matter between now and United Nations Day next week, so that we might show our goodwill towards the United Nations and the adoption of this convention? This is a very horrible crime, and the convention has now been agreed to by all concerned in the United Nations.

Mr. Bevin I will look into it, but I cannot do it between now and next week. There are Departmental views concerning the application of this law which I must study.

Mr. Wyatt May I ask my right hon. Friend in what way United Kingdom laws conflict with the convention on race murder? I cannot think of any of our laws which permit race murder in this country.

Mr. Bevin I think it is the application of the law in relation to our practice, but I will give an answer later.

Mr. Eden Could not we find a word which better expresses our thought than this horrible word "genocide"?

Mr. Henry Strauss Could the right hon. Gentleman, who is himself innocent in this matter, say who invented this horribly illiterate word "genocide," and whether the United Nations proposes to continue to use it?

Mr. Bevin I am glad to hear someone in the House say that I am innocent of something.

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1949/oct/19/united-nations-convention-genocide#S5CV0468P0_19491019_HOC_67

[bushfighter]

Dave

Now that the thread-manglers have taken their jackboots away from here, try this book: (The Revolt of the Hereros)

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0520041135/ref=ox_sc_act_title_4

If you read it, let us know what you think

Harry

[ddycher]

Harry

I was able to access a copy via Google Books.

Bridgmans reckoning I thought was most telling. Unlike "The Holocaust" I got alot more from this on the guerilla war itself which was what I was looking for. Had struggled to understand when this conflict moved from a war against rebelious forces to a systematic attack on the people as a whole. Bridgman's account gives, again for me atleast, a better feel for this.

Given the strength of feeling on the fringe I'd rather not get drawn into a public debate for which I am frankly not qualified. However if you want to discuss offline pls PM me.

As for closure on the book review. Given a choice of the two for people interested in the events of the time Bridgman get my vote.

Regards

Dave

[John Gilinsky]

Sorry all but there are clear antecedents between the HOLOCAUSTS of 1939 to 1945 and the HOLOCAUSTS of 1914-1919(and for the Eastern Fronts at least till 1922 and probably later into even as late as 1924 for certain areas such as Asia Minor). One particular pertinent and highly relevant historical fact: Some German doctors and lawyers concerned with immediate post-war (1918 - 1920's) dramatically increased state expenditures on the disabled both mentally and physically directly attributable to the casualties sustained during the 1914-1918 war publicly and officially advocated for the elimination either through sterilzation or both passive and active euthanasia those deemed "unworthy of life." The Kaiser had openly publicly advocated in late 1915 that the innumerable Russian POWS be collected and sent into unoccupied rural Courland and left to perish for want of shelter, food and attendance.

John

[Ken S.]

I would be interested to know the source for this, although I really don't see how such an alleged remark could possibly constitute an "antecedent" to the Holocaust.

The Kaiser had openly publicly advocated in late 1915 that the innumerable Russian POWS be collected and sent into unoccupied rural Courland and left to perish for want of shelter, food and attendance.

John

[John Gilinsky]

Russians publicly identified and singled out as a major ethnic group and war time enemy of the state headed by a major European adversarial power's head of state, the Kaiser,for overt extermination and clear cut traditional war crime as well (hence the conflation and confusion in the history of war crimes etc...!)is clearly related to the HOLOCAUSTS of WW2 - Soviet POWS treatments from 1941 to 1945 with approximately 3 million perishing almost wholly due to palpable abuses as directly openly stated by the Kaiser in latter 1915 due to the wilful controlling power's withholding shelter, deliberate starvation, deliberate overwork, etc.... AND the traditional "breathing space" or "lebensraum" that was expounded in the 19th. century for Germany and which the Kaiser and Hitler in general espoused and acted upon as well (hence the violations of the Brest-Litovsk Peace Treaty when the Germans took as much of southern Russia as possible for foodstuffs(wheat especially but also livestock) and natural resource replenishment or sustenance for Germany (such as coal and oil). As a WWI participant, political demagogue and rhetorician and WWI combat veteran to say that Hitler was not aware of all of this is factually incorrect. To further claim that it did NOT influence him in his grandoise political plans and strategies including aspects of eastern front HOLOCAUSTS in particular in WW2 is nothing less than a denial of reasonable and probable cause and effect.

I regret that I do not have the specific contemporary public statements regarding the planned proposal to treat the WWI Russian POWS in such a manner but the German and European press including English language reported and commented on this to some extent at the time. The London and N.Y. Times and possibly Le Temps from Paris which are all digitized for the period should turn up the contemporary articles/quotes.

Danke

JG

[hazelclark]

At least one of the sources for this statement, is Hew Strachan's "The First World War".

H.C.

I would be interested to know the source for this, although I really don't see how such an alleged remark could possibly constitute an "antecedent" to the Holocaust.

[trajan]

I think what we have to take into account here and not forget is the 'popularity' of 'social darwinism' and 'eugenicism' in the 19th and 20th century - never mind the behaviour of the officials of 'poor little Belgium' in the Congo, see, eg., this critique of Beveridge, father of the NHS http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/feb/17/eugenics-skeleton-rattles-loudest-closet-left. With recent disclosures of UK behaviour in the colonies in the post WWII period, we should remember the adage 'People in glass houses...' The sole difference is that the Austrian corporal's minion's were in a position to implement their ideology.

Trajan

[truthergw]

I think what we have to take into account here and not forget is the 'popularity' of 'social darwinism' and 'eugenicism' in the 19th and 20th century - never mind the behaviour of the officials of 'poor little Belgium' in the Congo, see, eg., this critique of Beveridge, father of the NHS http://www.guardian....est-closet-left. With recent disclosures of UK behaviour in the colonies in the post WWII period, we should remember the adage 'People in glass houses...' The sole difference is that the Austrian corporal's minion's were in a position to implement their ideology.

Trajan

I strongly disagree. Hitler was elected. Tens of thousands flocked to the rallies. There was no lack of recruits for brownshirts and SS. There was never a mass movement in Britain for fascism. On the contrary, the riots in the East end of London were spontaneous rejection by the workers of a movement whose only enthusiasts were to be found amongst a few intelligentsia and a sprinkling of aristocrats. This nonsense of ' there but for the grace...' flies in the face of the facts. I have on my shelves about a dozen books which point to the Kaiser and his court being strongly anti semitic and some of his letters from the inter wars period are hair raising. His supporting telegrams to Hitler and the Nazis are well documented.

[salesie]

I think what we have to take into account here and not forget is the 'popularity' of 'social darwinism' and 'eugenicism' in the 19th and 20th century - never mind the behaviour of the officials of 'poor little Belgium' in the Congo, see, eg., this critique of Beveridge, father of the NHS http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/feb/17/eugenics-skeleton-rattles-loudest-closet-left. With recent disclosures of UK behaviour in the colonies in the post WWII period, we should remember the adage 'People in glass houses...' The sole difference is that the Austrian corporal's minion's were in a position to implement their ideology.

Trajan

You seem to accept this article at face value, seem to accept its "history" as fact - perhaps you could explain, therefore, why eugenics was never put into practice in Britain? Explain why, given the number of famous and powerful men and women the article claims were ardent evangelists/adherents of the "eugenic faith", Britain never even came close to adopting such policies?

Don't worry, my questions are rhetorical, I know that any cogent answer from you is impossible; because just a cursory glance at the history of Britain and the individual names mentioned will show the direct opposite to what this article claims. The article is just another pathetic attempt to mitigate/excuse the crimes of Germany in the first half of the twentieth century by the use of shallow and inaccurate moral equivalence - this article is nothing but intellectual excreta that only appeals to those of a certain mindset.

Cheers-salesie.

[Ken S.]

Well, I've done a bit of searching, and from what I believe that this alleged remark was made in early September 1914--not in late 1915--and that is was recorded by Admiral v. Müller but supposedly left out of "Regierte der Kaiser? Kriegstagebücher, Aufzeichnungen und Briefe des Chefs des Marinekabinetts Admiral Georg Alexander v. Müller 1914-1918" which was published in 1959. This "missing" statement was apparently discovered by John Roehl, who happily brought it to the attention of I. V. Hull, who cites it in "The Kaiser's Entourage". Since both of these historians' agendas are suspect, it still remains to be seen what the truth of the matter is here. Whatever the case, it appears that this alleged statement was a passing remark made in private and not "discovered" until much later. So evidently it wasn't "reported and commented ... to some extent at the time". If it was, then I'd still love to see some actual references.

It should also be kept in mind that prior to the war, it was already widely known that the Russians were notoriously brutal in dealing with conquered peoples and prisoners. In particular ethnic Germans had been subjected to much mistreatment and persecution after having been lured eastward in search of more land. By the time the remark had been made in early September, the Russians had obviously already swept through parts of East Prussia during which they had massacred a number of civilians. I'm not sure whether this early in the war there were reports of the mistreatment of German military prisoners, but certainly as the war progressed, the barbaric manner in which German and Austrian POWs were treated became widely known. I would not doubt it if the experiences of hundreds of thousands of returned POWs played a role in influencing how Soviet prisoners were dealt with during the next war. But to suggest that Kaiser Wilhelm's private statement was an "antecedent" to anything is a bit far-fetched.

At least one of the sources for this statement, is Hew Strachan's "The First World War".

H.C.

[John Gilinsky]

Colonial Roots - the direct interrelationships between: militarism, occupying authorities misconducts in conquered or subjugated lands whether border lands to one's one native land or distant colonies, abuses of military and/or occupying authorities, "white man's burden", deference to and indeed deification during the turn of the 19th into the 20th century (i.e. immediately preceeding 1914 or the outbreak of the war) of scientific progress including medical, professionalization power struggles and indeed successful advocacy including the medical profession as experts in what they asserted they were "expert" in amongst other factors or aspects of the pre-1914 European colonial and imperial origins of Nazism (the topic of the book under review) should be placed in context of the Kaiser's attributed quote which may indeed date from early in the war when masses of POWS were unexpectedly taked (Tannenburg of course but other engagements as well). A private head of state's comment repeated publicly in the media, at parties, in editorials, letters to the editor, published cartoons, sermons, propaganda tracts and the like is part of the public historical record at least how we can interpert the perceptions and misperceptions of how people thought and felt about issues at the time.

John

[Ken S.]

It's interesting to note that during the period of 1914 to 1918 at least, the fact that Kaiser Wilhelm was "strongly anti semitic [sic]" didn't seem at all to be an issue for the elected politicians of the United Kingdom. However, there was some concern expressed about the anti-Semitism existing in France and Russia. During the war there was a noted increase in domestic anti-Semitism as well (one can only wonder to what extent this would have spiraled out of control had the war ended differently); an example:

Why I chiefly object to this Bill is that it is based upon a very unfortunate and discreditable, although I must admit a growing, feeling of anti-Semite intolerance in this land. The speech of the Under-Secretary itself bore witness to the fact that it was an anti-Semite feeling which made it necessary to bring in this Bill. Of course, he himself is totally incapable of ungenerous feeling. He is a wide-minded, just man, and I entirely exonerate him from any ill-feeling in this matter. But he, like every other man in office, has to bow to the storm, and he has given way in bringing in this Bill, for which I do not think he cares very much himself. I think he wants to get the question out of the way and that he thinks this Bill will be the easiest method of shunting it on to a siding where it will be forgotten. If I thought so I would support him, but I should not be able to say sincerely all that I thought about the matter. But the speech of the hon. Member for Stepney bore witness to the fact that the first reason for this was to satisfy the feeling caused by these Jews in the East End. In other words, you have got to reckon with growing anti-Semitism in this country. Anti-Semitism, when it comes into a country, is a feeling which is very dangerous and very difficult to control and brings with it extraordinary evils and corruption in society. That it exists to-day there is no doubt. One has only to read the "Pall Mall Gazette"—I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy is not here—to see that it breathes every day a spirit of anti- Semitism. I have here another very strong anti-Semite paper, the "Globe"— a very bright and influential journal. I would like to call the attention of the hon. Member to the issue of the 26th of May, in which you have—

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1917/jun/08/military-service-conventions-with-allied#S5CV0094P0_19170608_HOC_177

I strongly disagree. Hitler was elected. Tens of thousands flocked to the rallies. There was no lack of recruits for brownshirts and SS. There was never a mass movement in Britain for fascism. On the contrary, the riots in the East end of London were spontaneous rejection by the workers of a movement whose only enthusiasts were to be found amongst a few intelligentsia and a sprinkling of aristocrats. This nonsense of ' there but for the grace...' flies in the face of the facts. I have on my shelves about a dozen books which point to the Kaiser and his court being strongly anti semitic and some of his letters from the inter wars period are hair raising. His supporting telegrams to Hitler and the Nazis are well documented.

[hazelclark]

I have never been a great fan of James Joyce, and I'm afraid your posts are as hard to understand for my limited intelligence as "Finnigan's Wake".

Hazel C.

Colonial Roots - the direct interrelationships between: militarism, occupying authorities misconducts in conquered or subjugated lands whether border lands to one's one native land or distant colonies, abuses of military and/or occupying authorities, "white man's burden", deference to and indeed deification during the turn of the 19th into the 20th century (i.e. immediately preceeding 1914 or the outbreak of the war) of scientific progress including medical, professionalization power struggles and indeed successful advocacy including the medical profession as experts in what they asserted they were "expert" in amongst other factors or aspects of the pre-1914 European colonial and imperial origins of Nazism (the topic of the book under review) should be placed in context of the Kaiser's attributed quote which may indeed date from early in the war when masses of POWS were unexpectedly taked (Tannenburg of course but other engagements as well). A private head of state's comment repeated publicly in the media, at parties, in editorials, letters to the editor, published cartoons, sermons, propaganda tracts and the like is part of the public historical record at least how we can interpert the perceptions and misperceptions of how people thought and felt about issues at the time.

John

[hazelclark]

Britain had a Constitutional Monarchy, and that monarchy was largely of European and in particular German descent. In fact they changed their names to try to distance themselves from their relatives across the Channel. The daughters and grand daughters of Queen Victoria were married into most of the European royal houses. The Kaiser was Queen Victoria's grandson, and they all spoke German. There were therefore close FAMILY ties, but their upbringing, personal influences and power, were very different. The British Monarchy, unlike the Kaiser, was answerable to Parliament. The Reichstag was answerable to the monarch, who was early on influenced by his militaristic grandfather, and after the death of his brother, by Bismarck. Later on,and for much of his life, he was manipulated by a close circle of "friends".

The parliamentary system in Britain, would never have sanctioned the kinds of behaviour which became prevalent in Germany and Eastern Europe, and by France in the latter stages of WW2. (Although they were not entirely blameless in some of the excesses in their colonies) Having said that. although there was overt anti-semitism in Britain, they did not have the problems of basic survival to the same extent as many of the European countries who for generations blamed the outsider for taking that which they felt to be theirs. Many Jews, particularly in eastern Europe, tended not to integrate and were therefore the "outsiders", regardless of the length of their tenure in a particular location. Anti semitism was not peculiar to any one country, nor the means of dealing with it. The Tzar for instance, another all powerful autocrat, conducted pogroms against the Jews in Russia and Poland. They were not however, by any means, the only race of people persecuted. There were many instances of brutality against others who were considered inferior by reason of ethnicity, state of health, whether mental or physical, or just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

A generation later, the German and eastern European nations had gone through a very difficult time, and Jews amongst others made convenient scapegoats. Jews in Germany, Austria and Poland had integrated themselves into the professions, industry and finance and had in many cases been very successful. They were then seen as being too successful compared with many ethnic Germans. Hitler was elected with an agenda that was not entirely hidden from the general populace, and when he had taken control of every aspect of German life, he had supreme power. I cannot explain how on earth disliking a particular race drives people to industrialised slaughter, but certainly the genesis of his "lebensraum' for the" true aryans" lay in the past of the German people. Even Bismarck, as well as the Kaiser, made reference to the requirement for more living space for Germany's growing population.

Hazel C.

P.S. Sorry, didn't mean to write a book and this is probably the wrong forum for this discussion.

H.C.

It's interesting to note that during the period of 1914 to 1918 at least, the fact that Kaiser Wilhelm was "strongly anti semitic [sic]" didn't seem at all to be an issue for the elected politicians of the United Kingdom. However, there was some concern expressed about the anti-Semitism existing in France and Russia. During the war there was a noted increase in domestic anti-Semitism as well (one can only wonder to what extent this would have spiraled out of control had the war ended differently); an example:

Why I chiefly object to this Bill is that it is based upon a very unfortunate and discreditable, although I must admit a growing, feeling of anti-Semite intolerance in this land. The speech of the Under-Secretary itself bore witness to the fact that it was an anti-Semite feeling which made it necessary to bring in this Bill. Of course, he himself is totally incapable of ungenerous feeling. He is a wide-minded, just man, and I entirely exonerate him from any ill-feeling in this matter. But he, like every other man in office, has to bow to the storm, and he has given way in bringing in this Bill, for which I do not think he cares very much himself. I think he wants to get the question out of the way and that he thinks this Bill will be the easiest method of shunting it on to a siding where it will be forgotten. If I thought so I would support him, but I should not be able to say sincerely all that I thought about the matter. But the speech of the hon. Member for Stepney bore witness to the fact that the first reason for this was to satisfy the feeling caused by these Jews in the East End. In other words, you have got to reckon with growing anti-Semitism in this country. Anti-Semitism, when it comes into a country, is a feeling which is very dangerous and very difficult to control and brings with it extraordinary evils and corruption in society. That it exists to-day there is no doubt. One has only to read the "Pall Mall Gazette"—I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy is not here—to see that it breathes every day a spirit of anti- Semitism. I have here another very strong anti-Semite paper, the "Globe"— a very bright and influential journal. I would like to call the attention of the hon. Member to the issue of the 26th of May, in which you have—

http://hansard.millb...9170608_HOC_177

[trajan]

... You seem to accept this article at face value, seem to accept its "history" as fact - perhaps you could explain, therefore, why eugenics was never put into practice in Britain? Explain why, given the number of famous and powerful men and women the article claims were ardent evangelists/adherents of the "eugenic faith", Britain never even came close to adopting such policies?

Salesie, you evidently did not fully absorb my comment. I did make the point that the difference was that the Austrian corporal and his minons WERE able to reach a position to implement their prejudices. Hazel (previous post) has explained why this was unlikely to have happened in Britain, the country from whence originated the saying 'How odd of God...'. Britain may not have come even close to implementing such policies - but only because in the 1930's, people like my father and those of his ilk fought against ant-semitism to the extent that it never became (entirely) publicly and politically acceptable.

My main gripe, though, is with those small-minded people who hold to this long-outdated belief that the Germans are - and always have been - somehow inherently and genetically genocidically minded and more racist than any other nationality (seemingly forgetting that it was a late 19th century Austrian politician, Lueger, who made ant-semitism politically repectable, and another Austrian, the corporal, who put his theories into the practice, with the active help - it has to said - of a operational staff at the camps who were often of non-Germanic origin). Anyone who has studied ancient or modern history will know that there are many other nationalities that fit the same particular bill. E.g., look at the history of England in the medieval period. If I recall correctly, the term holocaust was first used to describe the way that the Jews of York were persecuted to a fiery death in, I think, the early 13th century... So, if I found earlier and later examples of the people of York indulging in such genocidal behavior, would it be correct to say that all Yorkist's are inherently genocidal?

As I said, the difference is that the Austrian corporal and his minons WERE able to reach a position to implement their prejudices.

Trajan