Home » 12th Season (2024-2025) (Page 5)
Category Archives: 12th Season (2024-2025)
Wellness Support for Visual Impairment
By Matthew Lee, Class of 2027
Editor’s Note: Deliverable for Matthews Grant
Prior to high school, I volunteered at Our Space Our Place (OSOP), a non-profit organization which supported legally blind students One day, while volunteering at a rowing center in Brighton, Massachusetts, I asked a blind student what he saw as a visually impaired individual, to which he replied that he saw nothing. I followed by asking if he could see colors, to which he responded the same: he saw nothing. At that moment, I realized that he did not even know what colors look like. I felt terrible and decided to devote time to support the visually impaired community. Unfortunately, OSOP became inactive in December 2022. However, inspired by the mission of OSOP, my Co-Founder and I have decided to continue the organization under a new name, Together We See (TWS). Our mission is to advocate diversity, equity and inclusion for the visually impaired population. TWS provides a safe, focused, inclusive, and fun environment for students of all ages who are legally blind. Students participate in activities to improve their physical and mental health and gain skills for their daily life and future jobs.
To continue reading, click HERE for a full PDF version
Transpacific Scholars: A Journey Through the Boxer Indemnity Scholarship
By Daniel Guo, Class of 2024
Editor’s Note: The George Hill Burnett History Prize is given to commemorate the graduation in 1902 of a grandson of the founder. It is awarded on the basis of a special essay in American history.
Introduction
Over the past two decades, the number of Chinese students in the United States has seen a remarkable surge, growing from a modest original number of around 20,000 students in 1991 to an enormous student body of more than 300,000 in 2021.1 Since 2009, Chinese students have consistently represented the highest portion of international students, making up nearly a third of all international students in American colleges and universities.2 These Chinese students choose to pursue a wide range of subjects and academic disciplines such as engineering, English, and law in the many different educational institutions that the United States offers, including prestigious universities such as Harvard and Yale. However, due to recent geopolitical tensions between China and the United States, the drive for Chinese students to study in the United States has diminished, with many turning to other prestigious schools in the United Kingdom and Europe instead.3
This shift away from Chinese students in the United States is not just unique to the Chinese perspective: a Pew Research Center survey indicates that 55%, a majority of Americans surveyed, support limiting Chinese students studying in the United States. One in five Americans strongly supports limiting Chinese students in the United States. This situation is seemingly targeted specifically towards Chinese students, as the majority of Americans view international students favorably, with 80% of Americans expressing a positive opinion towards them.4
As the current educational relationship between Chinese students and America has become a focal point for geopolitical issues and debates, it is essential to revisit the history of these students in the United States—starting from the earliest Chinese Educational Mission to the eventual formation of the Boxer Indemnity Scholarship, which served as the earliest, complete educational mission of Chinese students in the United States. This paper analyzes the historical development of the Boxer Indemnity Scholarship, which ran from 1909-1929, examining how it transformed from a reparations payment into a significant educational exchange program, and assesses its long-term impact on Chinese development, including the Chinese military, government, and education.
The first section of the paper provides essential context to the history of Chinese educational missions in the United States. Before the Boxer Rebellion, the very first instance of Chinese students studying in the United States was the Chinese Educational Mission led by Yung Wing. However, concerns about the students losing their Chinese identities and becoming too American led to the premature termination of their mission.5 Shortly After, the Boxer Rebellion erupted, and following its suppression by the Eight-Nation Alliance, the Qing government was forced to pay all participating nations a series of indemnities. Considering these indemnities excessive, the United States decided to return the excess funds as an educational fund to promote friendship with China, thus giving rise to the Boxer Indemnity Scholarship.6
The following section of the paper goes into detail on the perspectives of the scholarship, focusing on the daily lives and personal opinions of students during their time studying in the United States. Aside from the purely educational and professional trajectories of these students, many of these students were involved in a series of extracurricular activities and organizations. 7 This section of the paper utilizes a set of New York Times articles as well as monthly Chinese student publications to provide a complete, primary source of both the Chinese and American perspectives on the Boxer Indemnity Scholarship. The final section of the paper analyzes the students who participated in the Boxer Indemnity Scholarship through a wide variety of sources and tools. Data analysis was conducted with ChatGPT using a book titled Who’s Who of American Returned Students, which contains records of the students who studied in the United States during this period, including both the Chinese Educational Mission and the Boxer Indemnity Scholarship.8 This section dives into an analysis of the students’ birthplaces, educational backgrounds, future career destinations, and occupations, as well as other important venues of information. By providing a comprehensive image of the students who benefited from the Boxer Indemnity Scholarship, this study can gain valuable insights and knowledge of its success or failure and how it relates to the current global landscape.
(more…)Ely Prize Speech
By Dylan Capodilupo, IV Form
Editor’s Note: The Ely Prize in Public Speaking, originally given by a member of the Class of 1892 in memory of his mother, is presented to the student who gave the best speech in the Global Seminar Public Speaking Competition.
Imagine waking up to the crisp air of a winter morning in the mountains, excited to see how much snow had fallen the night before, only to find rain pouring down instead of snow. Or picture spending your summer days on the shores of a beautiful coastal town, only to watch as the sea ocean slowly envelops the land you once cherished, and threatens the houses of its residents.
Climate change is a reality reshaping my childhood memories’ landscapes. Last year as summer arrived, I spent my summer in Chatham, just like every other summer I could remember, only to find it under siege by the relentless forces of erosion. Monomoy and Morris Island, two key pieces of land in Chatham are now succumbing to the sea. Homes along the coastline are reminders of nature’s power, standing inches from the water, and being threatened by the advance of the tide. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, erosion has taken between 30 and 45 feet of land every year from Monomoy and Morris island. Even navigating the waters of Stage Harbor became hazardous, as low tides started to expose the impact of winter storms, altering the very channels my family once sailed through safely. More often then not I found myself getting beached on random shoals, damaging my family’s boat and creating unsafe situations. How does climate change cause this, you may ask? More frequent storms and higher seas from unusual temperatures create more winds, waves, and floods, leading to coastal erosion.
Prior to witnessing these changes, I was among those who doubted the urgency of climate change. It seemed like a distant concern, something that wouldn’t affect me in my lifetime. However, seeing the direct impact on a place I hold dear shattered my denial. Climate change is not just a problem for future generations—it’s happening now, and it’s happening in the places we call home.
In the winter, Vermont is my favorite place to be, a haven where memories are made with my closest friends on the trails of Mount Snow, Killington, and Stowe. However, this past winter something was once again—off. Instead of snow, rain poured over half the ski trips I went on, not only shortening the ski season, but leaving bare patches on trails, unfavorable conditions, and dangerous elements like exposed tree stumps and rocks. A study from the University of Vermont reveals winter temperatures have increased 2.5 times faster than our average annual temperatures, and the number of days in Vermont without freezing has jumped by three weeks or 21 days since 1960. This firsthand experience forced me to confront the reality of rising temperatures and their effects on winter sports in the future.
Some may argue that these changes are simply part of natural cycles, not necessarily caused by human activity. For example, this winter was part of an El Niño weather pattern, meaning that the Pacific jet stream moves south and spreads further east, causing warmer and drier conditions in the North. While natural processes certainly can play a role, the overwhelming scientific consensus points to human-caused climate change as the reason behind these disruptions. However, we can encourage ourselves to take action. Believe me, though, I get it; Many of you do not care about climate change and a few might not even believe in it. But just look at the damage that has been done in 1 year alone. These places are all at risk, and it’s up to us to protect them. Whether it’s advocating for renewable energy, reducing our carbon footprint, or supporting New England climate change activists, each of us has a role to play. Together, we can build a more sustainable future for ourselves —a world where snow in winter and beaches in summer aren’t just memories of the past, but promises for the future.
Dylan Capodilupo is a IV Former. He wrote and delivered this speech in his III Form year.
The Inner Work of Changemaking
By Joya Xu, VI Form
Editor’s Note: This podcast examines the rebranding of racist brand logos during and after 2020–as well as certain aspects of St. Mark’s–through the lens of critical social justice concepts, including identity, culture, and socialization.
Student-Submitted Note: The prompt for this project was: How do socialization, identity, and self-knowledge influence the ways people experience injustice and choose to act in service of a more just world? Use concrete examples from your own experience or from a changemaker of your choice to apply what you’ve learned by analyzing real-world experiences through the lens of critical social justice.
Click HERE to listen to the podcast.
Joya Xu is a VI Form (Class of 2025). She created this podcast for her Social Justice class in her V Form year.
Citrus is Usually Sweet
By Erin Rasmussen, Class of 2024
Editor’s notes: Erin Rasmussen is the receiver of the Redmond Prize. The Redmond Prize for English Narrative, presented in memory of Henry S. Redmond, Class of 1923, is awarded to the student who, in the judgment of the English Department, has submitted an outstanding piece of narrative during this academic year.
“I don’t like oranges,” Louise screamed and screamed last night.
“But I thought they were your favorite?” Anya was desperate.
“No! They’re gross! No one else at school eats them! The peels got stuck in my fingernails again! It smells up the whole classroom! I need something else for lunch.”
Anya stared at the aisles of groceries, thinking about her poor Louise, who hadn’t had a tantrum in years. To think, her bright, happy, little warrior was crying about oranges. As Anya clonked around in her heels, her wrinkled suit draped over her cart’s handle, she forced herself to read every food label she could see. Otherwise, she feared the bags under her eyes would win this battle of wills. Deep breath, she thought. Just buy some apple slices and this will all be over.
The only problem was, Anya did not want to go home. She could not face the empty bedroom next to hers, slowly collecting dust. She could not face her daughter, distraught and heartbroken, yet trying desperately to be strong. Most of all, she could not face the bright, shining orange tree, ignorant and proud. How long before it realizes?
Once Anya made it to the fruit section, she simply stood in front of the apples, lifeless.
Why are there so many types of apples? Does Louise want HoneyCrisp, Granny Smith, Mickey Mouse’s “fruit crisps,” the 99 cent unmarked ones, Cosmic Crisp, store brand green apple slices, store brand red apple slices, …
With the oranges, Grandma would simply pick them off the tree and hand them straight to little Louise. Now Anya had to decide.
Anya could feel her mother staring her down. She used to brag about that orange tree like it was her own child. “See, who needs a supermarket when you have a beautiful garden right in your backyard? I grew that tree from a little seed you know.”
But none of that matters now. Just buy some apple slices and this will all be over.
When Anya made it home, she couldn’t help but smile as she saw her little Louise eagerly waiting by the door.
“Finally! What took so long mamma? I set the table just like you asked. It’s all ready. And I finished my homework. Well, most of it. I need your help with problem nine on my math homework. It’s like this guy buys twenty watermelons and tries to share them with his friends. I don’t get it. Oh and you won’t believe what happened at school today! So you know how Mrs. Henderson has been teaching us about division right?”
The pair walked upstairs to the kitchen, Anya too tired to respond to Louise, and Louise too energetic to notice she was the only one talking. Louise had only been alone for a few hours, but listening to her talk, you would think she’d been neglected for years. Not until Louise stopped her anxious chatter did Anya notice the table, beautifully set with three of Grandma’s flowery china plates, three knives, and three forks. Louise even remembered the embroidered napkins.
“Those napkins were a wedding present from my sister. We can’t forget to use them. You know how she gets about those things,” Grandma used to say.
As the two of them sat down for dinner, Louise finally noticed the grocery bag sitting on the empty plate next to her.
“Oh, that’s why you were late. You actually went to a grocery store? For apples.”
“I Know.”
The garden outside the window mocked them.
Louise stared down at her clean fingernails, quiet for the first time since her mother came home.
“Momma,” she took a deep breath in. Silence. “It wasn’t really about the oranges”
“I know, Sweetie”
Reason and Passion: Epistemological Love in Pride and Prejudice
By Ariel Cheng, VI form
Editor’s Note: The Coleman Prize in English is awarded to the student, who, in the judgment of the English Department, has submitted the most outstanding essay during the academic year.
In Pride and Prejudice, Austen synthesizes the Romantic and Enlightenment ideals of truth by arguing that love requires passion tempered by reason. Elizabeth Bennet, the novel’s protagonist, embodies the Enlightenment ideal of truth; a “rational creature”, she strives to judge other characters through careful thought and active deliberation (Austen 106). In stark contrast to this portrait of reason stands Fitzwilliam Darcy, a symbol of the Romantic ideal of truth. Unlike Elizabeth, Darcy judges others based on his feelings and intuitions. In the world that Austen crafts, no character is completely correct: neither perspective is sufficient for making accurate judgements. The Romantic passion of Darcy’s proposal is not enough for Elizabeth to change her mind; likewise, Elizabeth’s use of logical reasoning leads her to misjudge Darcy’s character. Indeed, the turning point of the novel occurs when both characters acknowledge the ideological perspective they have ignored – Elizabeth appreciates the Romantic ideal of truth after she visits Pemberley, and Darcy recognizes the importance of reason as he hands Elizabeth his letter. In this way, Austen presents love as a form of knowledge: to love another is to truthfully understand their character by exercising both passion and reason.
Before introducing either reason or passion as ways of arriving at truth, Austen justifies the necessity of following these approaches. Austen’s characters do not have ready access to the truth – instead, they make do with information transmitted through conversation, colored by social standing and perspective, transmuted by the biased worldviews of individuals. This social warping of reality – symbolized by free indirect discourse – gives rise to a struggle for truth that every character must resolve. This dilemma is so central to the novel that Austen introduces it from the very beginning. The first line of Pride and Prejudice reads: “It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife” (Austen 1). At first glance, the tone of this opening line reads like a statement of fact, confident almost to the point of arrogance; however, a closer examination reveals a surprising layer of nuance. Here, the author does not claim that the narrator’s statement is universally true, but that it is “universally acknowledged”; Austen is not making a brass ontological claim about what exists in reality, but an epistemological one about what is believed “in the minds of the surrounding families” (Austen 1). This blurring of lines between what exists in the minds of others (beliefs) and what exists in reality (ontological truth) is not an accidental imprecision, but a comment on the difficulty of knowing accurate information in Regency England. To access ontological reality, individuals must pierce this veil of constructed truth – represented by free indirect discourse – propped up by society through exercising reason, passion, or a combination of both.
Having set up this struggle for truth, Austen proposes a solution in the character of Elizabeth Bennet. This character represents the Enlightenment ideal of truth, serving as a symbol of reason and rationality. Seemingly free of social pressures, Elizabeth runs to Netherfield Park in a muddy dress when Jane is sick; she even rejects the proposals of both Darcy and Mr. Collins, a radical act for a woman at that time. In both of these pivotal scenes, Elizabeth’s blatant disregard for societal convention enables her to actively deliberate and reason. But for all of Elizabeth’s rationality, she still misjudges the characters of Darcy and Wickham. Austen points out that this failure is due to her refusal to acknowledge the Romantic idea of certain truths as transcendent and unknowable. In continuing to judge both Darcy and Wickham based on their first impressions, Elizabeth commits the same error as Laplace and Newton by thinking that humans act predictably. The social world, Austen contends, is not a clockwork universe that steadily ticks forward according to a consistent set of rules: individuals are unpredictable, flawed, and should not be judged through pure reason alone. Indeed, Elizabeth only starts judging Darcy accurately after she visits the Pemberley estate; overcome by the “natural beauty”, the passion she feels in this scene serves as a signal that Darcy is a good match for her (Austen 235). This new knowledge did not come from a cognitive source, but a deeper, emotional one. It is important to note here that Austen is not unequivocally advocating for the Romantic perspective, but rather a synthesis of the Romantic approach with the Enlightenment approach. Elizabeth starts to change her mind about Darcy after she reads his letter, a wholly rational act; however, to complete this process and confirm her conclusions, she also becomes a Romantic by trusting her emotions as a source of knowledge. Like Kant, Austen acknowledges that there are limits to what truths pure reason can deliver. To overcome these limitations, she argues that it is necessary to respect some truths as unknowable and fundamentally emotional in nature. In this way, the ultimate cause of Elizabeth’s attainment of truth is rooted in both Romantic and Enlightenment ideals.
If Elizabeth represents the thesis that truth can be reached through rationality, then Fitzwilliam Darcy represents the antithesis that truth can be reached through passion. Where Elizabeth favors logic and reason as epistemological instruments, Darcy uses his emotions to judge others; for example, without any concrete information or evidence, he separates Jane and Mr. Bingley based on an intuition that Jane was not truly in love. His over-reliance on subjective feelings as a source of knowledge even led to his initial misjudgment of Elizabeth. Unimpressed and unmoved by her physical beauty, he declares that she is “tolerable, but not handsome enough to tempt [him]” and refuses to dance with her (Austen 13). Indeed, it is only after he sees beyond Elizabeth’s physical appearance and comes to appreciate the “liveliness of [her] mind” that he falls in love with her (Austen 359). This act in itself is a partial capitulation to the Enlightenment mode of thought; however, an aesthetic appreciation of Elizabeth’s logic is different to applying logic as a tool for attaining truth. Indeed, Darcy continues to misjudge reality throughout Elizabeth’s time at Rosings. His attempts at reaching out to her – waiting for her on her favorite paths, visiting her with Colonel Fitzwilliam, his proposal of marriage – fail due to the inherent subjectivity of his approach to truth. The Romantic conception of truth proclaims that “you create your own version of the universe”; truth is thus inherently subjective, and a particular truth is inextricable from the individual for whom that fact is true (Berlin 121). Austen’s characterization of Darcy’s awkward attempts to connect with Elizabeth can thus be read as a critique targeting the impractical subjectivity for which Romantic truth advocates. To Darcy, it is unequivocally true that he is in love with Elizabeth; he does not think it is necessary to rationally justify these subjective feelings to Elizabeth, and thus is unable to see that she is annoyed by his attempts to connect until she angrily rejects his proposal. Darcy giving Elizabeth his letter represents his realization that objective truth is important, and that reason combined with emotion is necessary for reaching accurate beliefs. By explaining his reasons and justifications for his actions to Elizabeth, Darcy grounds his “version of the universe” in the objective frame of ontological reality; the process of deliberation involved in writing the letter also makes him realize that some of his past judgments (such as his view that Jane was not in love with Mr. Bingley) are too illogical and not based enough in reason. In this sense, Darcy’s ability to make accurate judgments by the end of the novel is also a synthesis of Romantic and Enlightenment ideals.
Throughout the novel, the epistemological journeys of Darcy and Elizabeth parallel the development of their romance – Darcy only acts on his love for Elizabeth after he hands her the letter (his first use of reason to reach truth), and Elizabeth only falls in love with Darcy after she visits Pemberley (her first use of passion to reach truth). Austen uses this characterization of Darcy and Elizabeth to argue that both reason and passion combined are necessary to reach truth. This synthesis of Romantic and Enlightenment ideals aside, Austen has a larger point to make: she reframes love as an epistemological activity. For Austen’s characters, love functionally acts as a form of knowledge because knowing someone’s character is a necessary – even sufficient – condition for romance. Darcy falls for Elizabeth as soon as he fully understands her intellectual character; likewise, Elizabeth starts feeling affection for Darcy after she comes to appreciate his kindness. In this way, Pride and Prejudice also reveals that sometimes, the search for ontological truth and the search for romantic love are one and the same.
Ariel Cheng is a VI Former. She wrote this essay in her V form year as part of an English assignment.
References
Austen, Jane. Pride and Prejudice. Penguin Classics, 2014.
Berlin, Isaiah. Roots of Romanticism. Princeton University Press, 2013.
Yellow Journalism
By Hannah Cha, VI Form
Editor’s note: Hannah Cha is the recipient of the Shen Prize of 2024. The Shen Prize is awarded to the winner of a public speaking contest among Advanced United States History students on the topic of democracy.
A renowned author Oscar Wilde once said, “In America, the president reigns for four years, but journalism governs forever and ever.” Journalism is often referred to as the fourth estate, possessing both the explicit capacity of advocacy and the implicit ability to frame political issues. While serving as a primary disseminator of raw information, opinionated journalism has also served as a source of falsehood and bias—also famously called, yellow journalism.
Yellow journalism is a style of sensationalist reporting, often containing a degree of exaggeration and lurid details to attract readers. The term originated from the fierce rivalry between the two newspaper publishers Joseph Pulitzer and William Randolph Hearst. Their overheated competition eventually led to an indistinguishable amount of misleading and exaggerated news, hindering the primary definition of democracy in the country. Historians note that unbiased political discourse, free from external influences, fosters public opinions crucial for achieving true democracy in America. Unfortunately, mass media in the late 19th century did not support this primary right.
During the height of their rivalry, Pulitzer and Hearst transformed journalism into their battleground where sensationalism reigned supreme. Not even two days after the explosion of the USS Maine in Havana Harbor, newspapers were dominated with headlines such as “Maine Explosion Caused by Bomb or Torpedo?” or “Spain Guilty!,” directly accusing Spain of the phenomenon. This inflammatory rhetoric not only fueled war sentiments but also exerted pressure on the political leaders to take decisive action against Spain, contributing to the Spanish-American War. In their pursuit of profit and influence, Pulitzer and Hearst blurred the lines of journalism and propaganda, leaving a lasting legacy of yellow journalism in the history of American media.
Regardless of the questions arising from the credibility of the newspapers, it was evident that these journals served as a huge media platform. A photo of the New York Journal Office proudly displays the newspaper’s circulation of over 1.3 million copies in a day. Beyond the initial roles of conveying information, newspapers in the era were powerful agents of societal impact, shaping the collective consciousness of a society.
The era of yellow journalism was characterized by sensationalism, moral degradation, and a disregard for factual accuracy. Drawing parallels to modern times, where media platforms are indispensable as sources of information, the relevance of combating misinformation is more critical than ever. Looking into the history of yellow journalism and its impact on the public serves as a reminder for both journalists and citizens to uphold ethical standards and prioritize integrity over the allure of sensationalism.
The Pink Persecution: Homosexuals in Nazi Germany and Post-War Society
By Lori Cui, VI Form
Editor’s Note: This research paper was written over the summer in a 10-week intensive program as part of the Gender, Women, and Sexuality Studies research cohort.
Introduction
Most people do not know that between 10,000 and 15,000 homosexual men died in Nazi concentration camps during World War II. Their stories are almost completely erased from history, and their voices silenced if they survived the deadly camps. During the Nazi regime, around 100,000 men were arrested for violating Paragraph 175, the German law that criminalized homosexuality. Despite having one of the highest mortality rates in concentration camps, homosexual men only received formal reparations from the German government in 2001 for their suffering, nearly six decades after the end of the war. By that time, many survivors had passed away or struggled to file for reparations formally. Researchers found that fewer than 10 survivors were alive to see the formal reparations in the 21st century. These prisoners wore pink triangle badges in the concentration camps to differentiate them. Researchers speculate that the prisoner badge was pink as a way to shame the men for their homosexuality, implying that they were feminine because of their sexual preference. Others hypothesize that it was because the word for pink in German was similar to the slang word for homosexual male prostitutes: Rosarote, also called pinks or rosies.
The rise of the Nazi regime caused the downfall of the flourishing LGBTQ+ scene in the Weimar Republic. Berlin, the capital of Germany, was globally renowned for its LGBTQ+ bars for lesbians, gay men, and other individuals curious to explore their sexuality or gender expression. Publications like Der Eigene (His Own Self), Die Freundin (The Girlfriend), and Frauenliebe (Women’s Love) helped LGBTQ+ communities stay connected through publishing ads for meet-ups and events. However, a month after Hitler (the head of the Nazi Party) was appointed chancellor of Germany, he outlawed all LGBTQ+ bars and organizations and jailed many organization directors. As the Nazis gained more power in the Reichstag, they conducted mass raids and arrests of homosexuals. This was justified through homophobic Nazi propaganda carefully orchestrated to paint homosexuals as “degenerates” and the malaise of the “purified Third Reich.”
With primary sources like survivor memoirs and books by researchers who studied the issue post-war, this paper aims to paint a fuller picture of Nazi homophobia and its repercussions. After World War II and “liberation” by the Allied Powers, homosexuals continued to face persecution and discrimination for their sexuality. The homophobic propaganda, “re-education,” and treatment of prisoners in concentration camps by the Nazis left a lasting bigoted legacy in the minds of the German and other European civilians. This naturalized the exclusion of survivors from receiving recognition and reparations and inhibited their ability to rejoin post-war society.
Historical Background
Paragraph 175, the German penal code in the constitution that specifically criminalized sex between two males, was adopted after Kaiser Wilhelm I of Prussia created Germany in 1871. However, the law was rarely enforced. Consenting adults seldom filed complaints and the growing sexual liberation movement in Germany in the early 1900s created a flourishing LGBTQ+ scene. Berlin was known as a “homosexual Eden” around the world, attracting international visitors to witness and enjoy sexual freedom. The acceptance of the Weimar Republic gradually declined as the Nazis rose in political power and promoted homophobic propaganda.
The Nazis labeled homosexuals, specifically homosexual men, as “degenerates” of the Third Reich because they could not produce offspring to increase the population of Germany. Most homosexuals were Aryan men, which the Nazis wanted to keep within the country to build a “master Aryan race” in which all citizens were blond and blue-eyed. However, their “race” did not protect them from being persecuted as homosexuals. For a decade, the Nazis tried to find a cure for homosexuality by using the fertility of Aryan men for reproduction. The Nazis spread homophobic propaganda in their newspapers to millions of readers, such as a conspiracy theory that homosexuality was a contagious disease that could spread to the younger generation. This justified the Nazi’s persecution as they were “containing” the disease.
Interestingly, one of the highest-ranking Nazi officials, who helped push the party to power, was a homosexual. Ernst Röhm was the head of the SA, or the Sturmabteilung, the Nazi paramilitary unit that used violence to suppress political opposition. Röhm was an early supporter of Hitler and one of his closest confidants. Röhm’s homosexuality was not hidden. Hitler knew about his friend’s sexuality and continually made excuses for him. Although the Nazis were homophobic, Hitler defended Röhm in the 1930s by saying that “[Röhm’s] private life cannot be an object of scrutiny unless it conflicts with basic principles of National Socialist ideology” and that an SA officer could only be held accountable for “not performing his official duties.” However, matters changed drastically when Röhm’s opponents within the party framed him for plotting to overthrow Hitler.
On June 28, 1935, the Night of the Long Knives, Hitler and the SS (Schutzwaffel), conducted a purge within the Nazi party. They arrested leaders of the SA and Röhm on false charges. Hitler would declare that Röhm’s sexuality was a part of the reason for his execution a few days later. He also called for a complete cleanse of homosexuality within the Nazi Party after the purge, calling for the expulsion of “ludicrous monkeys.” In Germany, many homosexuals had ignored the homophobic Nazis and their rise to power because they believed that Röhm’s position would protect them from persecution. After the Night of the Long Knives, however, Hitler justified purging homosexuality, an “undesirable trait” as the moral thing to do. One year after Röhm’s execution, the Nazis rewrote Paragraph 175 to be stricter, criminalizing homosexual “insinuations” and using gossip as evidence for someone’s homosexuality. From the loose wording of “criminally indecent” activities to specifying homosexual prostitution and a minimum three-year jail sentence for violating the penal code, the days of gay Berlin and Germany were over.
To better portray the homophobic policies of the Nazis and the post-war developments of the criminalization of homosexuality, Figures 1 and 2 show a timeline of events.
Figure 1: A Timeline of Events in Germany Relating to Homosexuals (1871-1940)
Figure 2: A Timeline of Events in Germany Relating to Homosexuals (1941-2001/modern-day)
(more…)
LEO 