WASHINGTON, April 13 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Following is a transcriptof remarks made by President Clinton, First Lady Hillary RodhamClinton and others April 12 at the Seventh Millennium Evening:
7:37 P.M. EDT
MRS. CLINTON: Welcome to the East Room and the White House for our7th Millennium Evening, "The Perils of Indifference: Lessons LearnedFrom a Violent Century.
We're honored to have so many members of Congress, ambassadors,religious leaders, historians, human rights activists, and so manyother concerned citizens for what I know will be an unforgettableevening.
Before we begin, I would like to thank our sponsors, the NationalEndowment for the Humanities, and Sun Microsystems. Sun is helpingus to bring this event to millions of people around the world viasatellite and the Internet. And I also want to thank Pioneer NewMedia for donating these screens, and the Library of Congress and theUnited States Holocaust Museum for lending us the extraordinarydisplays in the Grand Foyer.
And I especially want to thank our guests of honor, Elie, Marionand Elisha Wiesel. When my husband and I look back at our years inthe White House, one of the highlights are the times that we've beenable and been privileged to spend with Elie and Marion. We alwaysfeel enriched by our experience.
We didn't know them before, except through his writings. But forthose of us who have ever read those writings, especially "Night," wecan never forget the description of the horrors inflicted on him as ayoung boy -- a boy of great religious convictions who tells us hisGod was murdered. A boy of 14 who is forced to ask, "Was I awake?How could it be possible for them to burn children and for the worldto remain silent?"
It was more than a year ago that I asked Elie if he would bewilling to participate in these Millennium Lectures that we had notyet even started, but which we were planning. I never could haveimagined that when the time finally came for him to stand in thisspot and to reflect on the past century and the future to come, thatwe would be seeing children in Kosovo crowded into trains, separatedfrom families, separated from their homes, robbed of theirchildhoods, their memories, their humanity. It is something thatcauses all of us to pause and to reflect, as we will this evening,how could this be happening once again at the end of this century.
On any day in the last 40 years it would have been a tremendoushonor to hear this man speak at the White House about the need neverto give in to silence or to resign ourselves to indifference. Butthere would not have been a more important day than now, here, on theeve of the Days of Remembrance and in the midst of the crimes againsthumanity being perpetrated in Kosovo. When I invited him here Iexplained that we were planning a series of Millennium Eveningsdesigned to mark this specific turning point in history by honoringthe past and imagining the future. And in many ways, our previousevenings have been celebrations of that past -- the founding idealsof our republic, jazz music, poetry and scientific discovery thathave defined us as individuals and America as a nation. Buthonoring our past and learning from it means looking not just at ournoblest achievements, but at our greatest failings; not just at whatmakes us proud, but at those darkest impulses that have marred thiscentury. We know that the Nazis were able to pursue their crimesagainst humanity precisely because they were able to limit the circleof those defined as humans. The mentally ill, the infirm, gypsies,Jews -- all were identified as lives unworthy of life. And thisprocess of dehumanizing comes from the darkest regions of the humansoul, where people first withdraw understanding, then empathy, andfinally personhood. Now, this phenomenon of indifference, thishuman capacity for evil we know too well is not unique to that timeand place in Nazi Germany. Many of us in this room have personalexperiences that are much more recent and fresh, about what it meansto face that evil and that indifference today. I can remembersitting in a room in Tuzla, shortly after the Dayton Peace Accords,talking to a group of Bosnians. They were Serbs and Croats andMuslims, although I could not tell the difference. They explainedhow men and boys were put into camps and executed; how women wereraped; how children were turned into orphans. One of the people Iwas talking to said, you know, when it started in my village, I wentto one of my neighbors and I asked, we've known each other; we'vebeen at each other's weddings, we've attended the funerals of ourloved ones together. Why is this happening? And the response shewas given from that old friend was, well, we read in the newspaperthat if we didn't do this to you, you would do it to us. It was themessage of hatred that Milosevic and his allies were communicating inorder to turn Bosnia into a killing field. What are we to dotoday, when leaders hijack holy traditions, even history; not to liftpeople closer to God or their own human potential, but to push themfurther apart? What do we do about those who try to constrict thecircle of human dignity by convincing us that our differences -- raceand religion, gender, ethnicity and tribal origin -- are moreimportant than our common humanity? If this violent century teachesus anything, it is that whenever the dignity of one is threatened,the dignity of all is threatened as well; and none can or shouldremain silent. Imagine how different life would be today for thepeople of Kosovo and in so many other troubled parts of our world ifthe evil that was allowed to run free had been stopped by those whostood up and broke the silence, that indifference did not in any wayparalyze those who could have taken action. In 1999, it isn'tenough to refuse to commit crimes of hatred, stereotyping oneanother, going along with the crowd. It isn't enough to look deepinto our own hearts and say we find them free of hatred. We have todo more. Every time we let a religious or racial slur gounchallenged or an indignity go unanswered, we are making a choice tobe indifferent, a choice to constrict the circle of human dignity; achoice, I believe, to ignore history at our children's peril.When Elie Wiesel accepted the Nobel Peace Prize, he remembered askinghis father how the world could have remained silent. And heimagined what that same young boy would ask him today. Tell me:What have you done with my future? What have you done with yourlife? And I tell him, Elie says, that I have tried to keep memoryalive, that I havetried to fight those who would forget. You have done that. Youhave taught us never to forget. You have made sure that we alwayslisten to the victims of indifference, hatred and evil. You havebeen among those in our world to whom we look to for conscience.You have been the voice of the voiceless -- from Soviet Jewry to thepeople of South Africa under apartheid, to the people of Yugoslaviatoday. You have been a teacher. When that young boy asks ElieWiesel what he has done with his future, we can point to numerousawards and honors, including, of course, the Nobel Peace Prize andthe Presidential Medal of Freedom, or we can hold up the more than 40books or the service as the Founding Chair of the United StatesHolocaust Memorial. But that is not his real legacy. His reallegacy is what he has given to us and how he continues to prod eachof us to understand the peril of indifference. When he was forcedto leave his home more than 50 years ago, he went into the backyardand buried the watch he had received on the occasion of his barmitzvah. In 1997, he went back to that spot. He took the samenumber of child-size paces he had taken as a boy. He dug into theground with his fingernails -- and the watch was still there. Thatmust have been a bittersweet moment. The watch had lasted all thoseyears; but his family, his village, the life he had known, so manyfriends and relatives were gone. But just as that watch was stillthere, Elie Wiesel is still on watch -- on watch for us -- to help uskeep our memories alive despite the passage of time, for teaching usthe lessons that transcend time, about the perils of indifference.It is my great honor to introduce a friend, a teacher, a voice forjustice and freedom, Elie Wiesel. (Applause.) MR. WIESEL: Mr.President, Mrs. Clinton, members of Congress, Ambassador Holbrooke,Excellencies, friends: Fifty-four years ago to the day, a youngJewish boy from a small town in the Carpathian Mountains woke up, notfar from Goethe's beloved Weimar, in a place of eternal infamy calledBuchenwald. He was finally free, but there was no joy in his heart.He thought there never would be again. Liberated a day earlier byAmerican soldiers, he remembers their rage at what they saw. Andeven if he lives to be a very old man, he will always be grateful tothem for that rage, and also for their compassion. Though he didnot understand their language, their eyes told him what he needed toknow -- that they, too, would remember, and bear witness. Andnow, I stand before you, Mr. President -- Commander-in-Chief of thearmy that freed me, and tens of thousands of others -- and I amfilled with a profound and abiding gratitude to the American people.Gratitude is a word that I cherish. Gratitude is what defines thehumanity of the human being. And I am grateful to you, Hillary --or Mrs. Clinton -- for what you said, and for what you are doing forchildren in the world, for the homeless, for the victims ofinjustice, the victims of destiny and society. And I thank all ofyou for being here. We are on the threshold of a new century, anew millennium. What will the legacy of this vanishing century be?How will it be remembered in the new millennium? Surely it will bejudged, and judged severely, in both moral and metaphysical terms.These failures have cast a dark shadow over humanity: two World Wars,countless civil wars, the senseless chain of assassinations --Gandhi, the Kennedys, Martin Luther King, Sadat, Rabin -- bloodbathsin Cambodia and Nigeria, India and Pakistan, Ireland and Rwanda,Eritrea and Ethiopia, Sarajevo and Kosovo; the inhumanity in thegulag and the tragedy of Hiroshima. And, on a different level, ofcourse, Auschwitz and Treblinka. So much violence, so muchindifference. What is indifference? Etymologically, the wordmeans "no difference." A strange and unnatural state in which thelines blur between light and darkness, dusk and dawn, crime andpunishment, cruelty and compassion, good and evil. What are itscourses and inescapable consequences? Is it a philosophy? Isthere a philosophy of indifference conceivable? Can one possiblyview indifference as a virtue? Is it necessary at times to practiceit simply to keep one's sanity, live normally, enjoy a fine meal anda glass of wine, as the world around us experiences harrowingupheavals? Of course, indifference can be tempting -- more thanthat, seductive. It is so much easier to look away from victims.It is so much easier to avoid such rude interruptions to our work,our dreams, our hopes. It is, after all, awkward, troublesome, tobe involved in another person's pain and despair. Yet, for theperson who is indifferent, his or her neighbor are of no consequence. And, therefore, their lives are meaningless. Their hidden or evenvisible anguish is of no interest. Indifference reduces the otherto an abstraction. Over there, behind the black gates ofAuschwitz, the most tragic of all prisoners were the "Muselmanner,"as they were called. Wrapped in their torn blankets, they would sitor lie on the ground, staring vacantly into space, unaware of who orwhere they were, strangers to their surroundings. They no longerfelt pain, hunger, thirst. They feared nothing. They feltnothing. They were dead and did not know it. Rooted in ourtradition, some of us felt that to be abandoned by humanity then wasnot the ultimate. We felt that to be abandoned by God was worsethan to be punished by Him. Better an unjust God than an indifferentone. For us to be ignored by God was a harsher punishment than tobe a victim of His anger. Man can live far from God -- not outsideGod. God is wherever we are. Even in suffering? Even insuffering. In a way, to be indifferent to that suffering is whatmakes the human being inhuman. Indifference, after all, is moredangerous than anger and hatred. Anger can at times be creative.One writes a great poem, a great symphony, have done somethingspecial for the sake of humanity because one is angry at theinjustice that one witnesses. But indifference is never creative.Even hatred at times may elicit a response. You fight it. Youdenounce it. You disarm it. Indifference elicits no response.Indifference is not a response. Indifference is not a beginning, itis an end. And, therefore, indifference is always the friend of theenemy, for it benefits the aggressor -- never his victim, whose painis magnified when he or she feels forgotten. The political prisonerin his cell, the hungry children, the homeless refugees -- not torespond to their plight, not to relieve their solitude by offeringthem a spark of hope is to exile them from human memory. And indenying their humanity we betray our own. Indifference, then, isnot only a sin, it is a punishment. And this is one of the mostimportant lessons of this outgoing century's wide-ranging experimentsin good and evil. In the place that I come from, society wascomposed of three simple categories: the killers, the victims, andthe bystanders. During the darkest of times, inside the ghettoesand death camps -- and I'm glad that Mrs. Clinton mentioned that weare now commemorating that event, that period, that we are now in theDays of Remembrance -- but then, we felt abandoned, forgotten. Allof us did. And our only miserable consolation was that webelieved that Auschwitz and Treblinka were closely guarded secrets;that the leaders of the free world did not know what was going onbehind those black gates and barbed wire; that they had no knowledgeof the war against the Jews that Hitler's armies and theiraccomplices waged as part of the war against the Allies. If theyknew, we thought, surely those leaders would have moved heaven andearth to intervene. They would have spoken out with great outrageand conviction. They would have bombed the railways leading toBirkenau, just the railways, just once. And now we knew, we learned,we discovered that the Pentagon knew, the State Department knew.And the illustrious occupant of the White House then, who was a greatleader -- and I say it with some anguish and pain, because, today isexactly 54 years marking his death -- Franklin Delano Roosevelt diedon April the 12th, 1945, so he is very much present to me and to us.
No doubt, he was a great leader. He mobilized the Americanpeople and the world, going into battle, bringing hundreds andthousands of valiant and brave soldiers in America to fight fascism,to fight dictatorship, to fight Hitler. And so many of the youngpeople fell in battle. And, nevertheless, his image in Jewishhistory -- I must say it -- his image in Jewish history is flawed. The depressing tale of the St. Louis is a case in point. Sixtyyears ago, its human cargo -- maybe 1,000 Jews -- was turned back toNazi Germany. And that happened after the Kristallnacht, after thefirst state sponsored pogrom, with hundreds of Jewish shopsdestroyed, synagogues burned, thousands of people put inconcentration camps. And that ship, which was already on the shoresof the United States, was sent back. I don't understand.Roosevelt was a good man, with a heart. He understood those whoneeded help. Why didn't he allow these refugees to disembark? Athousand people -- in America, a great country, the greatestdemocracy, the most generous of all new nations in modern history.What happened? I don't understand. Why the indifference, on thehighest level, to the suffering of the victims? But then, therewere human beings who were sensitive to our tragedy. Thosenon-Jews, those Christians, that we called the "Righteous Gentiles,"whose selfless acts of heroism saved the honor of their faith. Whywere they so few? Why was there a greater effort to save SSmurderers after the war than to save their victims during the war? Why did some of America's largest corporations continue to dobusiness with Hitler's Germany until 1942? It has been suggested,and it was documented, that the Wehrmacht could not have conductedits invasion of France without oil obtained from American sources.How is one to explain their indifference? And yet, my friends,good things have also happened in this traumatic century: the defeatof Nazism, the collapse of communism, the rebirth of Israel on itsancestral soil, the demise of apartheid, Israel's peace treaty withEgypt, the peace accord in Ireland. And let us remember themeeting, filled with drama and emotion, between Rabin and Arafat thatyou, Mr. President, convened in this very place. I was here and Iwill never forget it. And then, of course, the joint decision of the United States andNATO to intervene in Kosovo and save those victims, those refugees,those who were uprooted by a man whom I believe that because of hiscrimes, should be charged with crimes against humanity. But thistime, the world was not silent. This time, we do respond. Thistime, we intervene. Does it mean that we have learned from thepast? Does it mean that society has changed? Has the human beingbecome less indifferent and more human? Have we really learned fromour experiences? Are we less insensitive to the plight of victimsof ethnic cleansing and other forms of injustices in places near andfar? Is today's justified intervention in Kosovo, led by you, Mr.President, a lasting warning that never again will the deportation,the terrorization of children and their parents be allowed anywherein the world? Will it discourage other dictators in other lands todo the same? What about the children? Oh, we see them ontelevision, we read about them in the papers, and we do so with abroken heart. Their fate is always the most tragic, inevitably.When adults wage war, children perish. We see their faces, theireyes. Do we hear their pleas? Do we feel their pain, their agony?Every minute one of them dies of disease, violence, famine. Some ofthem -- so many of them -- could be saved. And so, once again, Ithink of the young Jewish boy from the Carpathian Mountains. He hasaccompanied the old man I have become throughout these years of questand struggle. And together we walk towards the new millennium,carried by profound fear and extraordinary hope. (Applause.) Iconclude on that. THE PRESIDENT: Ladies and gentlemen, we haveall been moved by one more profound example of Elie Wiesel's lifetimeof bearing witness. Before we open the floor for questions, andespecially because of the current events in Kosovo, I would like toask you to think about what he has just said, in terms of what itmeans to the United States, in particular, and to the world in whichwe would like our children to live in the new century. How do weavoid indifference to human suffering? How do we muster both thewisdom and the strength to know when to act and whether there arecircumstances in which we should not? Why are we in Kosovo? Thehistory of our country for quite a long while had been dominated by aprinciple of non-intervention in the affairs of other nations.Indeed, for most of our history we have worn that principle as abadge of honor, for our founders knew intervention as a fundamentallydestructive force. George Washington warned us against those"entangling alliances." The 20th century, with its two worldwars, the Cold War, Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm, Panama, Lebanon,Grenada, Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo -- it changed all that; forgood or ill, it changed all that. Our steadily increasinginvolvement in the rest of the world, not for territorial gain, butfor peace and freedom and security, is a fact of recent history.In the Cold War, it might be argued that on occasion we made a wrongjudgment, because we saw the world through communist andnon-communist lenses. But no one doubts that we never soughtterritorial advantage. No one doubts that when we did get involved,we were doing what at least we thought was right for humanity.Now, at the end of the 20th century, it seems to me we face a greatbattle of the forces of integration against the forces ofdisintegration; of globalism versus tribalism; of oppression againstempowerment. And this phenomenal explosion of technology might bethe servant of either side, or both.
The central irony of our time, it seems to me, is this: Most of ushave this vision of a 21st century world with the triumph of peaceand prosperity and personal freedom; with the respect for theintegrity of ethnic, racial and religious minorities; within aframework of shared values, shared power, shared plenty; makingcommon cause against disease and environmental degradation acrossnational lines, against terror, organized crime, weapons of massdestruction. This vision, ironically, is threatened by the oldestdemon of human society -- our vulnerability to hatred of the other. In the face of that, we cannot be indifferent, at home or abroad.That is why we are in Kosovo. We first have to set an example, asbest we can -- standing against hate crimes against racial minoritiesor gays; standing for respect, for diversity. Second, we have toact responsibly, recognizing this unique and, if history is anyguide, fleeting position the United States now enjoys, of remarkablemilitary, political and economic influence. We have to do what wecan to protect the circle of humanity against those who would divideit by dehumanizing the other. Lord knows we have had enough of thatin this century, and Elie talked about it. I think it is well topoint out that Henry Luce coined the term, "The American Century,"way back in 1941. A lot of terrible things have happened sincethen, but a lot of good things have happened as well. And we shouldbe grateful that, for most of the time since, our nation has had boththe power and the willingness to stand up against the horrors of thecentury. Not every time, not every place, not even always withsuccess; but we've done enough go 3/8)#=y that America has made apositive difference. From our successes and from our failures, weknow there are hard questions that have to be asked when you movebeyond the values and the principles to the murky circumstances ofdaily life. We can't, perhaps, intervene everywhere, but we mustalways be alive to the possibility of preventing death andoppression, and forging and strengthening institutions and alliancesto make a good outcome more likely. Elie has said that Kosovo isnot the Holocaust, but that the distinction should not deter us fromdoing what is right. I agree on both counts. When we see peopleforced from their homes at gunpoint, loaded onto train cars, theiridentity papers confiscated, their very presence blotted from thehistorical record, it is only natural that we would think of theevents which Elie has chronicled tonight in his own life. We mustalways remain awake to the warning signs of evil. And now, we knowthat it is possible to act before it is too late. The efforts ofHolocaust survivors to make us remember and help us understand,therefore, have not been in vain. The people who fought thosebattles and lived those tragedies, however, will not be aroundforever. More than a thousand World War II veterans pass away everyday. But they can live on in our determination to preserve whatthey gave us and to stand against the modern incarnations of the evilthey defeated. Some say -- and perhaps there will be somediscussion about it tonight -- that evil is an active presence,always seeking new opportunities to manifest itself. As a boygrowing up in my Baptist church I heard quite a lot of sermons aboutthat. Other theologians, like Nieburh, Martin Luther King, arguedthat evil was more the absence of something -- a lack of knowledge, afailure of will, a poverty of the imagination, or a condition ofindifference. None of this answers any of the difficult questionsthat a Kosovo, a Bosnia, a Rwanda present. But Kosovo is at thedoorstep or the underbelly of NATO and its wide number of allies.We have military assets and allies willing to do their part.President Milosevic clearly has established a pattern of perfidy,earlier in Bosnia and elsewhere. And so we act. I would saythere are two caveats that we ought to observe. First of all, anymilitary action, any subsequent peacekeeping force, cannot causeancient grudges and freshly opened wounds to heal overnight. But wecan make it more likely that people will resolve their differences byforce of argument rather than force of arms -- and in so doing, learnto live together. That is what Rumania and Hungary have donerecently, with their differences. It is what many Bosnian Croats,Serbs and Muslims are struggling to do every day. Second, weshould not fall victimto the easy tendency to demonize the Serbian people. They were ourallies in World War II; they have their own legitimate concerns.Any international force going into Kosovo to maintain the peace mustbe dedicated also to protecting the Serbian minority from those whomay wish to take their vengeance. But we cannot be indifferent tothe fact that the Serbian leader has defined destiny as a license tokill. Destiny, instead, is what people make for themselves, with adecent respect for the legitimate interests and rights of others.In his first lecture here, the first Millennium Lecture, thedistinguished historian, Bernard Bailyn, argued how much we are stillshaped by the ideals of our Founding Fathers, and by their realism --their deeply practical understanding of human nature; theirunderstanding of the possibility of evil. They understood difficultmoral judgments. They understood that to be indifferent is to benumb. They knew, too, that our people would never be immune tothose who seek power by playing on our own hatreds and fears, andthat we had more to learn about the true meaning of liberty, equalityand the pursuit of happiness. Here in this house we have tried toadvance those ideals with our initiative against hate crime, the raceinitiative, AmeriCorps, the stand against the hatred that brought usOklahoma City and paramilitary groups, the efforts to forge peace forNorthern Ireland to the Middle East. But our challenge now, andthe world's, is to harmonize diversity and integration, to build arichly-textured fabric of civilization that will make the most ofGod's various gifts, and that will resist those who would tear thatfabric apart by appealing to the dark recesses that often seem tolurk in even the strongest souls. To succeed, we must heed thewisdom of our founders about power and ambition. We must have thecompassion and determination of Abraham Lincoln to always give birthto new freedom. We must have the vision of President Roosevelt, whoproclaimed four freedoms for all human beings, and invited the UnitedStates to defend them at home and around the world. Now, we closeout this chapter of our history determined not to turn away from thehorrors we leave behind, but to act on their lessons with principleand purpose. If that is what we are, in fact, doing, Kosovo couldbe a very good place to begin a new century. Thank you very much.(Applause.) We have hundreds of questions -- I know. Ellen, doyou want to describe what we're going to do? MS. LOVELL: Well, Ithink, Mr. President, you have a question for Mr. Wiesel. And thenI'm going to begin the questioning from the room and Mrs. Clintonwill take the questions from the Internet. THE PRESIDENT: I wouldlike to ask you a question about what you think the impact of themodern media and sort of instantaneous news coverage will be. It isobvious to me that we built a consensus in the United States andthroughout Europe for action in Bosnia in no small measure because ofwhat people saw was going on there. It is obvious to me that thesupport in the United States and Europe for our actions in Kosovohave increased because of what people see going on. And I think Iworry about two things, and I just would like to hear your thoughtson it. Number one, is there a chance that people will become inuredto this level of human suffering by constant exposure to it? Andnumber two, is there a chance that even though people's interest inhumanity can be quickened, almost overnight, that we're so used tohaving a new story every day, that we may not have the patience topay the price of time to deal with this and other challenges? A lotof these things require weeks and months, indeed years, of effort.And that seems to be inconsistent with, kind of, rapid-fire new newswe are used to seeing. MR. WIESEL: Mr. President, usually, inthis room, people ask you questions. (Laughter.) THE PRESIDENT:That's why I like this. (Laughter.) MR. WIESEL: What you said iscorrect. The numbness is a danger. I remember during the VietnamWar, the first time we saw on television, live, the war in Vietnam --usually, of course, the networks broadcasted during dinner. So westopped eating. How can you eat when people kill each other andpeople die? After two weeks, people went on eating. They werenumb. And it's a danger. But, nevertheless, I don't see thealternative. Except I hope that in the next millennium, the nextcentury, those who are responsible for the TV programs, for the newsprograms, will find enough talent, enough fervor, enough imagination,to present the news in such a way that the news will appeal to all ofus day after day. I do not see an alternative. We must know whatis happening. And today we can know it instantly. If theAmerican people now are behind you, it is because they see it ontelevision and they see it in newspapers. They see the images.They see the pictures of children on the trains, as you said -- inthe planes. So how can they remain indifferent? And, therefore, Iam -- the risks are there, but I have faith that we shall overcomethe risks. But we must know. MS. LOVELL: I'd like to call onMarcus Applebaum. Marcus is a junior at Laurel High School in PrinceGeorge's County. And he and the other students who are here with himtake part in a program coordinated by Lynn Williams of the U.S.Holocaust Memorial Museum. And the program is called, "Bringing theLessons Home." Marcus. MR. APPLEBAUM: I need help to know whatdo I say to my grandmother. She's a survivor who's having a lot oftrouble understanding what's going on with -- I met a group of Germanstudents in the museum over the summer. And I believe it'simportant for us to come together and talk about what has happened inour history. So they've been invited to my house to come and staywith me for the summer. And my grandmother is having a hard timeunderstanding this. And I would like to know -- I love mygrandmother very much, but I'd like to know how I can help her tounderstand, to help forgive. MR. WIESEL: Forgive whom? Not yourfriends; they are young. I don't believe in collective guilt.Only the guilty are guilty. Even the children of killers are notkillers; they are children. By definition, a child is innocentunless that child does something terrible. And, therefore, I willspeak to your grandmother and say, look, don't see in them Germans;they are children. And I am sure that your grandmother, after awhile, will understand. MS. LOVELL: Mrs. Clinton, let's go to theInternet. MRS. CLINTON: This is from Justin Kiefer in Lufton,Indiana. And it's for Elie Wiesel: Some people worry that the worldwill forget the Holocaust when all of the survivors die. Do youalso worry about this, or do you feel that the world will never beable to forget the Holocaust? MR. WIESEL: Oh, I am worried. Iam worried what will happen when the last survivor will be around.I would not like to be that survivor. The burden of knowledge, theburden of memory, the weight on his or her shoulder will be so heavythat I worry over the possibility of that person losing his or hersanity. Now, it's true that what every survivor can say no oneelse can. The witness which is ours is unique. All the otherpeople, the historians and the novelists and the journalists -- alltogether, I don't think they have -- they have the will, they havethe desire, but to say something that the survivor can say, no, theycannot. So what will happen 20 years from now? I believe thisis the most documented tragedy in recorded history. Never beforehas a tragedy elicited so much witness from the killers, from thevictims and even from the bystanders -- millions of pieces here inthe museum what you have, all other museums, archives in thethousands, in the millions. So anyone who will want to know will atleast know where to turn. And here and there, I believe thatsomehow truth has a tremendous force. Sometimes it takes centuries,but it emerges, it surfaces. And then, the world will remember.MS. LOVELL: Chief Joyce Dugan, of the Eastern Band Cherokee Nation,is here. CHIEF DUGAN: Good evening, Mr. Wiesel, President andMrs. Clinton. I am Joyce Dugan, principal Chief of the Eastern Bandof the Cherokee Nation, located in North Carolina. While Indiannations in this country did not suffer a Holocaust of the magnitudethat your people did, we did suffer a holocaust in a sense, when we,too, endured the forced removal from our homelands. We endured aLong March across thousands of miles, under armed guard, in extremeweather conditions, losing many of our people. None of us wantsto dwell on those past mistakes, those that even happened in thiscountry, for if we dwell on them, the memory will eat at our soulsand destroy us. However, we must remember them so, hopefully, wecan prevent such acts from being repeated, even in this country.Unfortunately, throughout this world there are those in power whocontinue to make the same mistakes over and over in their treatmentof others, because of their culture, their race, religion, theirpolitical beliefs. Even more unfortunate, as was mentioned earlier,is that it has become commonplace throughout this world, and we have,indeed, become indifferent and tend to view it as someone else'sproblem. Myquestion to you is, what must we do as a nation and what can we do asindividuals to overcome this indifference so that we don't have toresort to military action, to awaken awareness and to instillcompassion? MR. WIESEL: Thank you. A few years ago at BostonUniversity I had a course on the suffering of minorities and Ibrought some Native Americans to my class, and we spent hours justdiscussing with them. I wanted to know mainly what happened to theiranger. After all, they're entitled to their anger. We came hereand we simply displaced them, we took over their land. Where istheir anger? And after the discussion course was over I said tothem and I said to myself, suffering, my dear lady, does not conferany privilege. It all depends what we do with it. And in truth,your community has shown us a way, many ways, that was -- even ifthere was anger, there was not hatred. What we should do is listento one another. I love to listen to your communities' tales,legends, myths. They are so beautiful. There is so much beauty inyour past. Let's listen to it. And when we listen, we are notindifferent. MRS. CLINTON: I think that's a really interestingquestion, though, because at the first Millennium Lecture that thePresident referred to, Bernard Bailyn made a point of saying that toooften, we overlook, we ignore, we turn our backs on pieces of historythat are discomforting, that are painful -- whether it is the storyof Native Americans, the story of slavery, the story of immigrantstruggles -- at least when I was growing up, those were not hottopics in the teaching of American history. And as a result, acertain sense of truth was conveyed that wasn't a complete storyabout America. So I think that Elie's point's a very good oneboth on a personal level, in terms of listening to one another andhearing about one's experience, but it has to go beyond that into amuch more socially aware sense of how we all have to do more toconvey the truths and the histories of each other, and particularlyin a diverse country such as ours. But it would be the same in acountry such as Yugoslavia, where there are different truths, all ofwhich make up the history of the people sharing that land, and to tryto create some acceptance of, some awareness of each other's storyand some respect for the suffering that each person and the person'spast might bring. THE PRESIDENT: I'd just like to say one thingspecifically, Chief. First of all I'm glad you're here, and I'm gladyou're here for this. I think that Hillary and I have spent moretime on Native American issues, and with Native American leaders,than any previous administration, at least that I know anythingabout. And, with all respect, one of the things that I think iskilling us in this country -- still, is a big problem -- is aphenomenal amount of ignorance on the part not just ofschoolchildren, but of people in very important positions ofdecision-making, about the real, factual history of the NativeAmericans in the United States. And you can almost find no onewho understands the difference in any one tribe or another. And youcan almost find no one who understands that, yes, a few tribes arewealthy because of gaming, because of the sovereignty relationship,but also the poorest Americans are still in Native Americancommunities. And I think this disempowerment, this stripping ofautonomy and self-respect and self-reliance, and the ability to dothings that started over a century ago, still, in subtle ways,continues today. And from my perspective, I've been terriblyimpressed with a lot of the elected leaders of the tribes all acrossthe country. And I think that we really have a huge job to do tonot have kind of a benign neglect -- or not benign, a malign neglect-- under the guise of preserving this sovereignty relationship. Weneed to recognize what we did, and what is still there that's alegacy of the past, so that we can give the children of the NativeAmerican tribes all over this country the future they deserve. Ithink it's a huge issue, and I still think ignorance is bearing downon us something fierce. And I thank you for being here.
MS. LOVELL: Well, this next question really relates to what youjust said. MRS. CLINTON: This is from James Mott in Ilion, NewYork, and it's also for Mr. Wiesel: I have taught about the Holocaustfor many years as part of my English curriculum. I was wonderingwhat advice could you give American teens today to help themunderstand that racism, prejudice and ethnic cleansing are all wrong,but things that are still too prevalent today. MR. WIESEL: Oh,it's enough to listen to a witness -- that is why the witnesses arehere -- to tell them, look, that is not the right way; that hatred isnot only destructive, it's auto-destructive, it is self-destructive.Hatred brings what? More hatred. There is nothing good in it.And the main lesson really is look at the consequences. It beganwith words. It ended in a hell. So tell your -- children shouldknow that. It begins with words, but look how it ended. MS.LOVELL: Odette Nyiramilimo is here from Rwanda. She's a physicianpracticing in Kigali and she is a survivor of the Rwandan massacres.Dr. Nyiramilimo, I know you have a story to tell and a question toask. DR. NYIRAMILIMO: Thank you, Mr. Wiesel, for sharing yourexperience with us this evening. Thank you, Mr. President and Mrs.Clinton, for hosting this evening today. As you heard, I'm a Tutsisurvivor of the monstrous genocide in Rwanda. I have experiencedfirsthand the real value of not being indifferent to human injusticeand atrocity. My family and I were trying to flee Kigali. Wetook our car, but to avoid road blocks we had to abandon it and go byfoot towards the border of Burundi. But we did not make it. A mobattacked us in a swamp. They killed my sister and many others. Wetried to hide everywhere we could, and by chance, we managed to leavethat swamp and retreat back to our home in Kigali. Now, when Ilook back, one man, a soldier, decided our fate. He came to ourhouse where we were simply waiting to be killed. He asked for ouridentity papers. My husband showed his false Hutu identity, andmyself -- I had destroyed my Tutsi identity cards, but I lied that Ihad lost it in the market the day before. Then he looked to us anddecided to help us. He took us, one by one, to the safety of ahotel in town. And my family, my husband and my children, wesurvived like that. Much later, I had the chance to go back andthank that man. Then, I asked him: Why did you help us? Didn't youknow that we were Tutsis? And he said: Yes, I knew you were Tutsi. But I looked at you trembling and looked at your children and thefear into their eyes, then how couldn't I help you? Ultimately,my husband, my children and I were the survivors. But unlike thesurvivors of the Jewish Holocaust, who could go and have -- to othercountries, Rwandan survivors are remaining in country, living withtheir killers, day after day. Now, my question is this, Mr.Wiesel: How can governments and individuals around the world who, bytheir indifference in 1994, allowed the genocide to happen in mycountry, now could do to show that they are not still indifferent toour fate?
MR. WIESEL: Madam, I wish I had an answer. I don't. Why are weso involved, so nobly, in Kosovo? Why were we not in Rwanda? I am- - as you know, Mr. President, I am not in high councils of yourgovernment, so I don't know the real reason. Maybe Mr. Berger knowsmore, surely more than I. But one thing I can't understand. I knowone thing -- we could have prevented that massacre. Why didn't we?I don't know. Maybe that because we didn't then, we're doing itnow. It's also possible. THE PRESIDENT: I think we could haveprevented a significant amount of it. You know, it takes -- thething about the Rwanda massacre that was so stunning is it was donemostly with very primitive weapons, not modern mass killinginstruments; and, yet, it happened in a matter of just a few weeks,as you know. And I want to give time for others to ask theirquestions, but let me say I have thought about this a great deal --more than you might imagine. And we went to Kigali when we were inAfrica and we talked to a number of survivors, including a woman whowoke up to find her husband and six children all hatcheted to death,hacked to death. And she, by a miracle, lived and was devotingherself to the work of helping people like you put your lives backtogether. One of the things that made it, I think, more likelythat we would act in Kosovo, and eventually in Bosnia, is that we hada mechanism through which we could act, where people could jointogether in a hurry ,with NATO. And one of the things that we aretrying to do is to work with other African countries now on somethingcalled the Africa Crisis Response Initiative, where we send Americansoldiers to work with African countries to develop the ability towork with other militaries to try to head these kinds of things offand to do it in a hurry. I can only tell you that I will do mybest to make sure that nothing like this happens again in Africa. Ido not think the United States can take the position that we onlycare about these sorts of things if they happen in Europe. I don'tfeel that way.And I think that we will, next time, be far more likely to have themeans to act in Africa than we had last time in a quicker way.MS. LOVELL: This question is for Mr. Wiesel, but it really could befor all of you. MRS. CLINTON: This is from William A. Hackney, inTombul, Texas: Who determines exactly what human rights are? Isthere a list? (Laughter.) Are human rights different in variouslocales? And that's a very good question because, oftentimes, onthe news or in speeches, people refer to human rights, but many, manypeople around the world don't know that there is a UniversalDeclaration of Human Rights that was adopted by the United Nationsthat was very heavily influenced by Eleanor Roosevelt. It was avery important statement by all of the nations of the world aboutwhat human rights are. So that is one short answer, that there issomething we call the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Butperhaps the President and Mr. Wiesel would like to be more specificabout that. MR. WIESEL: Human rights today have become a secularreligion. And I applaud it. I think it's one of the mostbeautiful things that's happen today, except, if we think about it,Mr. President, it gives us, I think, a kind of duty to think about,to reflect on it. Why? Why are there so many organizations forhuman rights today? There are 2,000, more. The best of them --among the best is IRC, of which I'm a member, and -- Committee andAmnesty. There are good organizations. Now, in the '30s, maybethere were 10, not more. Why are there so many today? One ofthe reasons, it is sad to say, it is because individuals lost theirfaith, their confidence in government. And they say, sincegovernments don't do it, we shall do it. And therefore, you have somany NGOs and so many private people, especially young people, whojoin these organizations. They say, we shall work. And whereveryou go, you find them. I went to Cambodia, I found the IRC. I wentwith them. Wherever you go, you find these organizations, and theyare great. Now, what is human rights? Human rights, really, again,as the First Lady said, there is a Universal Declaration of HumanRights, and we've just celebrated the anniversary in Paris; I wasthere. It's very simple. The other is not my enemy. The other ismy ally, my kin, my friend. And whatever happens to that otherinvolves me. The worst thing is, I have no right to stand bywhenever the other is being humiliated. Humiliation is probably theworst that can happen.
One is humiliated because of poverty, because of disease, becauseof injustice, helplessness. You mention AIDS, the disabled. Wecannot save everybody. We can't even help everybody. But we cantry to begin somewhere -- anywhere. And the first task is toprevent the humiliator from being humiliated. THE PRESIDENT: Letme just say - - there was another part to that question. The youngman asked a very good question. The only thing I would say is youshould get a copy of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Youshould read it. You will find that it also says, in addition towhat Mr. Wiesel says, that all people should have certain rightsagainst government. They should have the right to speak their mind. They should have the right to dissent. They should have the rightto organize. They should have the right to chart their own course.
And then the last question you ask is a very important one. Hesaid, is human rights, are they different from country to country.And the truth is that to some extent they are, but that's not becausepeople can use their own culture or religion as an excuse to represswomen and young girls, for example, the way the Taliban does inAfghanistan. It's because countries should be free to go beyond thebaseline definition if they choose. For example, we have anAmericans with Disabilities Act, which we believe is sort of afurther manifestation of the basic human rights. So we don't want --when you say they're the same in all countries -- no, countriesnormally, when they have more wealth or more advanced democracy, findnew ways to manifest those rights. And to that extent, they can bedifferent from country to country. Countries do have differentreligious and cultural institutions, but the whole purpose of theUniversal Declaration of Human Rights was so that no country couldget away with oppressing the basic humanity of any person on thegrounds that they were somehow different from some other country.That's the most important point to be made. That's why there neededto be a Universal Declaration. MS. LOVELL: Judy Cato, MarylandCommissioner on Aging, and better known to her senior residents asmanager of Counsel House, and I know you have some concerns aboutindifference in our domestic lives. COMMISSIONER CATO: Mr.President, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Wiesel, ladies and gentlemen, there areno words to describe how excited and honored I am to be here with ourPresident and First Lady, both of whom I adore. Mr. Wiesel, inkeeping with your lecture on indifference, I am very concerned aboutthe families of our elderly being indifferent and in denial about theneeds of our elderly. They put them in clean, safe housing likeCounsel House, and forget them. Studies show thatintergenerational involvement is beneficial for all generations.But every day, I see the elderly I work with wait and wait and waitto see their children and their grandchildren, only to bedisappointed. The elderly then become very lonely and depressed.They feel useless and begin to withdraw within themselves. Asmedical research and science cause us to live longer, we must beconcerned that our elderly population will continue to increase.Indifference and denial has a negative effect on our personal andfamily lives. Mr. Wiesel, how do you think we can overcome thisincreasing family problem? MRS. CLINTON: It's very important as weget older that we address this issue. (Laughter.) MR. WIESEL:Where I come from we used to respect old people. I had agrandfather, a grandmother -- for me, they were so important. I waslooking forward twice a year to see them when they came during theholidays. And it was a celebration for me, literally -- I was soexcited. Although they lived seven kilometers away from my town,but I saw them only twice a year, I was so excited -- more than whenI go to Paris today by Concorde. Believe me, it was so special.Today, what is happening? Science is making progress. Medicaltechnology is making tremendous progress. People live longer. Butthe moment they live longer, we throw them away. At best, we sendthem to Florida. At best. (Laughter.) We don't want to see them.I would have kept my grandfather in my home all year long. Whatshould we do? I think we should teach our children to respect theelderly. But I would -- if I had power what I would do, I wouldorganize in every community that children in kindergarten, almost,once a month they should go to old-age homes, with little taperecorders and speak to them, and ask them to tell a story, sing oursongs. It's good for both -- the children because they will learnsomething about the future, and the old people because they will givetheir past to the young people. What you need is imagination, and,of course, some measure of compassion. MRS. CLINTON: Thisquestion is from Mary Jane Halliard, in Orlando, Florida, and it'salso for Mr. Wiesel: I just finished reading 'Night,' the first bookin your trilogy. My granddaughter is 12 years old and in the sixthgrade. She is very bright, and for extra credit her teacher hasrecommended that she read 'Night.' I do think everyone should readit, but not at such a tender age. I've had nightmares about it, andI'm 62. How you survived and didn't go crazy is a miracle. Atwhat age do you think a child should read your trilogy? MR.WIESEL: There is no age, really. I don't know how old Chelsea waswhen she read -- she was 12, probably when she told you, when -- shewas the one who actually told you to read me. (Laughter.) It'sreally the parents, or the teacher must decide, and, actually, thechild, herself or himself, must decide. We must be guided by thechildren. We should not impose reading, any reading about theHolocaust, on children. We should not do it. It must come fromthe child. At one point the child will say, tell me about it, whathappened, and why did it happen? And then we should be ready withthe book, other books, and answers. But not before that.Otherwise, it's counterproductive. The child will resent it, and whymake a child resent such reading? MS. LOVELL: I'd like to recognizeAzizah al-Hibri, who's a Professor of Law at the University ofRichmond. She's also the founder and President of Qura'ma,(spelling) Muslim Women Lawyers for Human Rights. PROFESSORAL-HIBRI: Thank you, Mr. Wiesel, for your insightful discussion onthe nature and consequences of indifference. In Kosovo, our countryhas chosen to stand up for its ideals, and for the human rights ofindividuals not even its own. It did so, thanks to the courageousleadership of our President, who refused to look away, even though hehas just been through a very difficult year. I thank you, Mr.President, for your courage. And I thank Mrs. Clinton for youractive interest in relief efforts. Aspersons of faith, Mr. Wiesel, Mr. President and Mrs. Clinton, youmust share my frustration at the fact that so many of the atrocitiesin this world have been committed in the name of religion. All threeAbrahamic religions -- Islam, Christianity and Judaism -- teach love,kindness and compassion. But each has used -- each has been used asa tool of oppression and suffering. Both Muslims and Jews believethat saving a single life is like saving the life of a whole people.Christians believe in loving one's enemy. Yet, until the recentevents in Kosovo, the world has exhibited profound indifference toMuslim suffering, especially the suffering of women and children invarious parts of the world. Given this shameful record, onecannot but wonder, where are our Abrahamic principles being practicedin the world today? More importantly, how can we help our childrendevelop a peaceful and caring world view that better approximates thevalues of our faiths? MR. WIESEL: Before answering -- Ellen, howmany minutes do we have? MS. LOVELL: We have time. MR.WIESEL: We have time? Okay. All right. What you said, ofcourse, is correct, but some religions did less than others.Forgive me, but the Jewish religion is a religion, and because ofmaybe social and political and historic circumstances, we didn't havethe power for 2,000 years even to impose our religion on others, orto speak on behalf of our religion and -- we didn't do that. Wecouldn't, and maybe we wouldn't. Now, in general, the problemwith religion is when it becomes fanatic. As everything else,nationalism may be good, patriotism may be good, but if it goesbeyond, then it becomes fanaticism. And fanaticism produces exactlywhat you said -- killing, violence, hatred -- because then, theperson who believes in God believes that only he or she has God'sear; that only he or she has the right to speak in God's name; thatonly he or she knows what God wants, only he or she has the powerand, therefore, the right to impose his or her belief on others. Inother words, that fanatic person wants to be the jailer of all of us. They would like us to be their prisoners. They actually would likeGod to become their prisoner. Therefore, I believe one of themost important duties that we have today is to fight fanaticism.The real threat hanging on the 21st century, Mr. President andHillary, is fanaticism. Imagine fanaticism combined with power, whatit would do, what it does already in certain countries, as youmentioned -- the Taliban or the Iranians. Imagine with nuclearpower, bacteriological power. So we must fight fanaticism. Howdoes one do that? I know only word. I am a teacher. I believewhatever the answer is, education is its major component. THEPRESIDENT: I would like to just offer a couple of observations, if Imight. First of all, I think one of the most hopeful signs I haveseen to deal with this whole issue of religious fanaticism in thelast few years is the enormous support of Jews in America andthroughout the world for the Muslim populations of Bosnia and Kosovo. I think it doesn't answer all the questions of what should be thedetails of the resolution between the Israelis and the Palestinians,it doesn't solve all the problems, but everybody should see that thisis a good thing. I think that the American Jewish community wasmaybe the most ardent community, earliest, for the United Statesstepping forward in Kosovo. And I think we have to see that as agood thing. Secondly, I think this whole question of thetreatment of women and children by the Taliban has aroused a vocalopposition among members of the Muslim community around the world whofeel that they can say this and not be betraying their faith. Ithink this is a good thing. Now, I would just like to make twoother points, one of which is to agree with Elie on this one point.I agree on education, but education for what? There are a lot ofgeniuses that are tyrants. What is it that we're going to educate. I believe that every good Jew, every good Christian and every goodMuslim, if you believe that love is the central value of thereligion, you have to ask yourself, why is that? The reason is, weare not God, we might be wrong. Every one of us -- I might be wrongabout what I've been advocating here tonight. It's only when yourecognize the possibility that you might be wrong or, to use thelanguage of St. Paul, that we see through the glass darkly, that weknow only in part, that you can give the other person some elbowroom. And somehow, one or two central scriptural tenets fromJudaism, from Islam, from the Koran and from Christianity, need to beput in one little place and need to be propagated throughout theworld -- to preach a little humility, if you please. Otherwise,we'll never get there. The second point I wanted to make is this:A lot of these people that are saying this in the name of religion,they're kidding. They know perfectly well that religion has nothingto do with it. It's about power and control, and they'remanipulating other people. And when it is, if it's someone whopractices our faith, we've got to have the guts to stand up and saythat. And it's hard, but we have to. MRS. CLINTON: I just wouldfollow up on that, because I think that the point about standing upand speaking out when you believe your faith or your religion isbeing misappropriated, misused, is critical. Because if one looksat the central tenants of the great monotheistic religions, there'sso much similarity in, as you were pointing out, the role of faith inour lives, the meaning of love, our relationship with God and ourrelationship with one another and the duties that our faith imposesupon us. And what happens too often is what we've been talkingabout tonight in more of a political context, also in religion --that when it is time to stand up, we often say, well, they're alittle extreme, but I don't want to be mistaken as someone who mightbe undercutting the faith, so I won't speak up against those fanaticChristians or those fanatic Jews or those fanatic Muslims, becausethen, they might turn and say that I'm not a good Christian or a goodJew or a good Muslim. And I think there is a really importantopportunity in this next century for people of faith -- particularlyJews, Christians and Muslims -- to come together in more of analliance that does speak out against fanaticism wherever one findsit. It is very hard to find support in the Scriptures, the OldTestament, the New Testament or in the Koran that support many of themisuses of power that are used against people of the same or similarreligion. Yet, we often don't hear that in a united voice. And oneof the efforts that Bill and I have been trying to make over the lastsix and a half years is to reach out in our own country and reach outaround the world to people of good faith who recognize and accept theperils of indifference and who are willing to stand againstintolerance and speak out, as much as they are able. So it's avery critical point you raise and it will be increasingly importantin the years to come. And I think there's a real opportunity ofthese three great faiths to form a more united front on behalf ofthis stand against fanaticism. THE PRESIDENT: I would like tomake one more point which I think is very important in the dealingsbetween the West and the Islamic countries, generally -- and I willuse Iran as an example. It may be that the Iranian people havebeen taught to hate or distrust the United States or the West on thegrounds that we are infidels and outside the faith. And, therefore,it is easy for us to be angry and to respond in kind. I think it isimportant to recognize, however, that Iran, because of its enormousgeopolitical importance over time, has been the subject of quite alot of abuse from various Western nations. And I think sometimesit's quite important to tell people, look, you have a right to beangry at something my country or my culture or others that aregenerally allied with us today did to you 50 or 60 or 100 or 150years ago. But that is different from saying that I am outside thefaith, and you are God's chosen. So sometimes people will listento you if you tell them, you're right, but your underlying reason iswrong. So we have to find some way to get dialogue -- and goinginto total denial when you're in a conversation with somebody who'sbeen your adversary, in a country like Iran that is often worriedabout its independence and its integrity, is not exactly the way tobegin. So I think while we speak out against religious intolerance, wehave to listen for possible ways we can give people the legitimacy ofsome of their fears, or some of their angers, or some of theirhistoric grievances, and then say they rest on other grounds; now,can we build a common future? I think that's very important.Sometimes I think we in the United States, and Western culturegenerally, we hate to do that. But we're going to have to if wewant to have an ultimate accommodation. MRS. CLINTON: But I wouldalso add -- this is something we talk about a lot -- THEPRESIDENT: You can tell we're obsessed with this. (Laughter.)MRS. CLINTON: -- is this whole issue of history, and that's somethingthat we've touched on, but haven't directly addressed. You know,occasionally,when Bill and I are either entertaining people from other countrieshere, or traveling abroad, we'll get together at the end of the dayand trade notes and stories about what occurred. And we're oftenstruck by how different the conversation is with people from othercountries and cultures. I remember asking the wife of a presidentfrom a country I won't name how things were in her capital. And shestarted the conversation by talking about the Crusades. (Laughter.)And half an hour later we were in the 18th century. (Laughter.) Andit is very hard for Americans -- we are often accused of not havingany respect for our own history and not knowing it very well, and sobeing almost too present- or future-oriented. It's very hard for usto understand the grip that history has on people. So thedifficult challenge -- and Bill is saying we've got to understandwhere people are coming from, but we also have to somehow think ofhow we can create conditions in which people can be freed from thegrip of history in a way that allows them to build a better presentand a better future. After a certain point you can only be draggeddown if you are constantly relitigating or reliving or refighting thepast. And so how do we move forward on that front, as well? MR.WIESEL: We forgot one point. A sense of humor. (Laughter.) Thebest answer to fanaticism is a sense of humor. The fanatic doesn'thave a sense of humor. (Laughter.) MS. LOVELL: I'm going torecognize Ativa Desusa (phonetic.) He's a student at the Universityof Maryland. He moved here from Trinidad at age 10 and he's beenpart of the "Bringing the Lessons Home" program for four years.MR. DESUSA (phonetic:) Thank you. Good evening, Mr. President, Mrs.Clinton and Mr. Wiesel. My question this afternoon is -- because Iam from Trinidad and I've been here since I was 10 years old, so it'smost of my life now, I've had the opportunity to experience thiscountry, one, as an immigrant and, two, as an African American maleliving here. And my question is: Given the influx of immigrantsinto this country in recent history and, as we can see, coming inover the next few years where basically America's minority will soonbecome its majority, can we achieve a global society in both socialand economic terms? And, if so, how do we, one, as the leaders, andtwo, the youth, get there? MR. WIESEL: I listen to you and -- Icame here, I was older than you, but I came as a refugee, as astateless person, and here I am. I think of themes for novelists, mylife is for a novel. Can you imagine coming from where I come fromand be here in the White House with the President of the UnitedStates, when some 50-odd years ago, I couldn't get a visa anywhere --and 60 years ago, I belonged to those who were not even consideredhuman beings. But here I am. When I think about it, I'm alwaysfilled with wonder, a sense of wonder -- gratitude, also, to thisnation, to the humanity it represents. I think what we shouldteach -- again, teaching -- our people is to accept the stranger whois no longer the stranger, and see in him or her the messenger, withso many stories, with lessons, with memories, with all kinds ofexperiences that are not ours. But we receive them, and make themours. It's a matter of communication, which means education. Icome back to it again and again -- we must educate. I don't knowany other way. Educate, to begin educating from kindergarten, andthen in elementary school, and then the colleges, and then the media. The media, I think, often, too often, forget that their task also isto educate the reader, or the viewer. It's education. Nothingelse can substitute education. THE PRESIDENT: I would just make two points. I think, first ofall, I think given the fact that we're living in an age ofglobalization, where, whether we like it or not, more and more of oureconomic and cultural and other contacts will cross national lines,it is, in fact, a very good thing that sometime in the next centurythere will be no single majority racial group. But I should alsotell you that before, we had large numbers of African Americanscoming who were not here -- direct descendants from slaves, butothers coming, like you did, from the Caribbean. And before we hadlarge numbers of Hispanics, a hundred years ago, Irish immigrants tothis country were treated as if they were of a different racialgroup. So we've always had these tensions. But I think if wecan learn to live together across our racial and religious lines, ina way that not just respects, but actually celebrates our diversity,that does it within the framework, as I said, of a common fabric ofshared values and shared opportunity, I think that will be quite agood thing for the 21st century. I think it will make Americastronger, not weaker. So I look forward to that. The secondthing I want to say is I think that to get there we're going to haveto more broadly find a way to have more economic and educationalbalance in the share of wealth, in the share of knowledge, across allof our racial and ethnic groups. There is no easy way to achievethat. But I am convinced that -- and I see your colleague, Mr.Silver, out here, who's thought about this a great deal in his life-- I'm convinced that lowering standards for people who come frompoor backgrounds is not the answer. I think we should raisestandards and invest more resources in helping people achieve them.And then I think we need to provide the incentives in everyneighborhood, in every Native American reservation, in every ruralarea, that made the economy work elsewhere. It will never beperfectly done, but we can do a much, much better job of it. Andunless we do a much better job educationally and economically, thenwe won't have all the benefits from our racial diversity that wecould otherwise enjoy. MRS. CLINTON: I also think that, inaddition to the educational and economic challenges that we have toaddress as a society, which are the really critical ways that we willenable people to live together peacefully and in prosperity in thefuture, there are some things individuals can do. And oftentimes inconversations like these, some people think, well, I don't run aschool, I don't even have kids in school; I have my own work to do; Ican't worry about how we try to upgrade opportunities for others; sothere's really nothing for me to do. And, in fact, I think there isa lot for individuals to do. One of the consequences of thePresident's race initiative is that we were reminded once again howoften people just don't spend time with others who are unlikethemselves in any meaningful way. We actually went around and didsome discussions with people and we would ask: How many of you haveever had a meal in the home of someone of a different race? Andthere would be very few hands that went up. We would say: How manyof you have ever worked on a common community project with somebodyof a different race? How many have ever visited a house of worshipof somebody from a different religion? So there are many waysthat, on an individual basis, we can do more to break down thebarriers of indifference and otherness. And they're not big things,they don't grab headlines. But I remember being so struck by thewoman who used to be my chief of staff, named Maggie Williams, who isan African American woman, who, in the process of talking about thisone day, said how she remembered when her mother, who was a teacher,became friends at the workplace at a school with a woman who is awhite teacher. And they were determined to try to model this kindof behavior, so they were going to eat dinner at each other's house. And it was a simple thing and some people made fun of them for doingit. And Maggie said, you know, my family didn't want to go, mymother made us go. We'd never been in a white person's housebefore, we didn't know what to expect. She said it was thebeginning of breaking down a lot of my own stereotypes. So it'snot just what whites feel about blacks. It's what blacks feel aboutwhites; it's what Hispanics from different kinds of backgrounds feelabout each other. We can just go group by group. And so themore we can break that down, so that then you can say to children andyoung people, this doesn't -- being tolerant doesn't mean you have tolike everybody. There are people just in the course of human lifeyou're not going to like, but you will show respect to everyone.You will have a feeling that that person has as much right to his orher beliefs and her or his place in America as you do. And it'sthat kind of education -- not just what goes on in a classroom, butwhat happens in a home, what happens in a religious upbringing --that is really important to how we deal with this in the future.MS. LOVELL: Well, last we'll hear from Father Drew Christianson,Senior Fellow at Woodstock Theological Center at GeorgetownUniversity and Counselor for the U.S. Catholic Conference.
FR. CHRISTIANSON: Mr. President, Mrs. Clinton, thank you for thiswonderful Millennium Evening, and thank you for an extraordinaryseminar. And I hope when you leave the White House you both willteach, because you're wonderful teachers. Mr. Wiesel, thank youfor sharing your wisdom and giving your witness once again thisevening. At the end of your talk, your very last phrase was go intothe new millennium with an extraordinary hope. The question I havefor each of you is that given the carnage and inhumanity we've seenin this century, and even, somewhat unexpectedly, in this decade,whence comes that extraordinary hope? MR. WIESEL: It comes fromhopelessness. Albert Camus, the French philosopher, said, wherethere is no hope, we must invent it. And there was no hope. Intruth -- hope in what? Faith in hope. Culture? Do you know thatover in Auschwitz, "Arbeit Macht Frei," which was their famous --infamous, "Arbeit" -- do you know where it comes from? From Hegel,the great philosopher. One of the greatest philosophers in Germany.Hegel. So why should we believe in them? The Einsatzkommanders-- the leaders, the commanders, all of them, or most of them, atleast, had college degrees, and some of them had Ph.D.'s and M.D.'s. That's culture? That's education? For what? And we say it'sbecause there was no hope, we must invent it. It's all in ourhands. But since this is the last question, I don't like answers,but I like stories. So I'll tell you a story. (Laughter.) The storyis, how to fight indifference, really, is to assume it and to take itas something that belongs to me, and for me to deal with it. Thestory is that once upon a time there was an emperor, and the emperorheard that in his empire there was a man, a wise man with occultpowers. He had all the powers in the world. He knew when the windwas blowing what messages it would carry from one country to another. He read the clouds and he realized that the clouds had a design.He knew the meaning of that design. He heard the birds. Heunderstood the language of the birds, the chirping of the birdscarried messages. And then he heard there was a man who also knewhow to read another person's mind. I want to see him, said theemperor. They found him. They brought him to the emperor. Is ittrue that you know how to read the clouds? Yes, Majesty. Is ittrue you know the language of the birds? Yes, Majesty. What aboutthe wind? Yes, I know. Okay, says the emperor. I have in myhands behind my back a bird. Tell me, is it alive or not? Andthe wise man was so afraid that whatever he would say would be atragedy, that if he were to say that the bird is alive, the emperor,in spite, would kill it. So he looked at the emperor for a longtime, smiled, and said, Majesty, the answer is in your hands.(Laughter.) It's always in our hands. MS. LOVELL: Well, Juanand others, so many stories that won't get told tonight, but thankyou. And Mr. President, your final remarks. THE PRESIDENT: Idon't think there's much to say, except to thank you again for onceagain giving us your witness and for the powerful example of yourlife. We thank your family for joining us. And I thank all of youfor caring about this. I believe there's grounds for hope. Ithink the history of this country is evidence. I think the civilrights movement is evidence. I think the life and triumph of NelsonMandela is evidence. I think evidence abounds. What we all haveto remember is somehow how to strike the proper balance of passionand humility. I think our guest tonight has done it magnificently,and I thank him. Thank you very much. (Applause.)
END 9:25 P.M. EDT
No comments:
Post a Comment