upworthy

History (Education)

History (Education)

Dietrich Bonhoeffer argued that stupidity is more dangerous than evil. He was right.

The anti-Nazi theologian explained that stupidity doesn't mean a lack of intellect and why it's harder to battle than malice.

Holocaust memorial in Budapest, Hungary (left), Dietrich Bonhoeffer with religious students in 1932 (right)

When a formerly thriving nation finds itself in the clutches of a totalitarian demagogue, the question of how it happened is always foremost in reasonable people's minds. The "how" question is particularly important to ask when an authoritarian doesn't take the reins of power by force, but rather gathers enough support that people hand those reins over freely.

For instance, the infamous mass-murdering dictator Adolf Hitler was freely elected by the people of Germany, which was arguably an enlightened, artistic, progressive society at the time. To answer the question of how Hitler came to power and how people went along with unspeakable atrocities, anti-Nazi theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer posited a theory: It's not that a wide swath of his fellow countrymen were evil, it's that they were stupid. And stupidity, he argued, was more dangerous and harder to battle than actual evil or malice.

- YouTubewww.youtube.com

"‘Stupidity is a more dangerous enemy of the good than malice," the Lutheran pastor wrote in his letters from prison. "One may protest against evil; it can be exposed and, if need be, prevented by use of force. Evil always carries within itself the germ of its own subversion in that it leaves behind in human beings at least a sense of unease."

"Against stupidity we are defenseless," he went on. "Neither protests nor the use of force accomplish anything here; reasons fall on deaf ears; facts that contradict one’s prejudgment simply need not be believed — in such moments the stupid person even becomes critical — and when facts are irrefutable they are just pushed aside as inconsequential, as incidental. In all this the stupid person, in contrast to the malicious one, is utterly self-satisfied and, being easily irritated, becomes dangerous by going on the attack. For that reason, greater caution is called for than with a malicious one. Never again will we try to persuade the stupid person with reasons, for it is senseless and dangerous."

dietrich bonhoeffer, germany, anti-Nazi dissidentDietrich Bonhoeffer with candidates for confirmation in 1932.Photo credit: Unknown/Wikimedia Commons

But what exactly does it mean to be a stupid person in this context? Bonhoeffer said stupidity wasn't about someone's intellect, but about their social behavior and tendencies.

"There are human beings who are of remarkably agile intellect yet stupid, and others who are intellectually quite dull yet anything but stupid," he wrote. "We discover this to our surprise in particular situations. The impression one gains is not so much that stupidity is a congenital defect, but that, under certain circumstances, people are made stupid or that they allow this to happen to them."

Stupidity is more of a sociological problem than a psychological one, Bonhoeffer said, explaining that people who are independent loner types are less likely to fall to stupidity than highly sociable people. He also posited that a rise in power tends to correlate with a rise in stupidity:

"Upon closer observation, it becomes apparent that every strong upsurge of power in the public sphere, be it of a political or of a religious nature, infects a large part of humankind with stupidity…The power of the one needs the stupidity of the other. The process at work here is not that particular human capacities, for instance, the intellect, suddenly atrophy or fail. Instead, it seems that under the overwhelming impact of rising power, humans are deprived of their inner independence and, more or less consciously, give up establishing an autonomous position toward the emerging circumstances."

germany, WWII, concentration camp, holocaust, auschwitz-birkenauView of the train tracks leading to the Auschwitz-Birkenau death camp in Germany.Photo credit: Canva

In other words, when a leader gathers power, whether by force or coercion or convincing people through propaganda, stupidity follows. And though it tends to be a social phenomenon, there are signs of stupidity in people that are recognizable, Bonhoeffer explains.

"In conversation with him, one virtually feels that one is dealing not at all with a person, but with slogans, catchwords and the like, that have taken possession of him. He is under a spell, blinded, misused, and abused in his very being."

Which leads us to what makes stupidity the most dangerous trait of all:

"Having thus become a mindless tool, the stupid person will also be capable of any evil and at the same time incapable of seeing that it is evil. This is where the danger of diabolical misuse lurks, for it is this that can once and for all destroy human beings."

shoes on the danube, holocaust memorialThe Shoes on the Danube memorial honors the thousands forced to remove their shoes before being shot into the Danube River during the Holocaust in Budapest, Hungary.Photo credit: Canva

Bonhoeffer, a theologian to the end, contended that "the internal liberation of human beings to live the responsible life before God is the only genuine way to overcome stupidity," and he also offered some hope: "…these thoughts about stupidity also offer consolation in that they utterly forbid us to consider the majority of people to be stupid in every circumstance. It really will depend on whether those in power expect more from people’s stupidity than from their inner independence and wisdom."

Dietrich Bonhoeffer was arrested by Hitler's Gestapo in 1943 after helping a group of 14 Jews escape to Switzerland. Allegedly, he played some part in a failed plot to assassinate Hitler and was sentenced to death. At 39 years old, he was executed by hanging at Flossenburg concentration camp on April 9, 1945, just 11 days before it was liberated by U.S. troops.

You can read Dietrich Bonhoeffer's "Theory of Stupidity" here.

History (Education)

A historic plantation went up in flames, but people's reactions to it are the real story

The Nottoway Plantation had been turned into a luxury event space that glossed over its history of enslavement.

Bogdan Oporowski/Wikimedia Commons

The 53,000 square foot Nottoway mansion before it burned down in May of 2025.

For generations, the way Southern plantations have been portrayed and viewed by the American public has been a point of contention. For some, the sprawling grounds and grandiose mansions are viewed romantically, the beauty of them hearkening to wealthy aspirations and a nostalgic allure of Southern charm a la "Gone With the Wind." For others, plantations are a painful reminder of the plight of the Black Americans who worked the grounds and tended the crops of white plantation owners who enriched themselves off the backs of enslaved people trapped in a heinous system enforced by racism.

It's easy to see how those two perspectives can clash. And the tension between them was placed front and center on May 15, 2025, as the Nottoway Resort, the largest remaining antebellum plantation in the U.S., went up in flames. The 64-room mansion was built between 1857 and 1859 for its wealthy owner John Hampden Randolph, who enslaved 150+ people to work his sugar cane farm. As news and images of the blaze went viral, reactions were starkly divided. While some lamented the loss, others cheered with cries of "Good riddance!" and "Burn, baby, burn!"

The fact that Nottaway was marketed as a "resort" and a popular event venue, as opposed to a museum dedicated to sharing the full history of the plantation, is a big impetus behind the celebratory sentiment. Some plantations have been converted into purely educational facilities in which visitors learn how those beautiful places were built and maintained by slaves, but Nottoway wasn't one of them.

Historian and lecturer on the history of slavery Dr. Andrea Livesey visited Nottoway in 2019 and was horrified by how the slavery history was glossed over.

The plantation does have a museum, Livesey shared, which only included one board about slavery. "It tells visitors that 'various records indicate they were treated well for the time," she wrote, adding that those records likely all came from the enslavers.

Even the Nottoway website is thoroughly lacking in historical information. As of the day of the fire, the History section of the website shares details about the 16 historic oak trees on the property. That's it. (There's literally nothing else about the property's history, which is an odd choice.)

But it's the drastically different reactions to the mansion's destruction that mark this moment in time more than anything else. Over 150 years after slavery was officially abolished, we are still grappling with that history, intellectually and viscerally. In some cases, we learned drastically different versions of that part of our history, which of course doesn't help. But even if we're looking at the same exact historical record in its accurate entirety, we see that history through different lenses colored by our individual and familial histories, experiences, and biases.

What shouldn't be hard to see is the pain that enslavement caused generation after generation of Black families and how plantations being relished in for their architectural beauty while ignoring how and why they were built and the atrocities that took place on them could feel like a slap in the face. Even the elementary knowledge of the history of slavery in American ought to make that clear.

But many Americans have been conditioned to downplay the history of slavery, as if it wasn't the long atrocity that it was. Is holding a wedding or a party at a plantation markedly different than throwing a picnic at Auschwitz because the train station makes a beautiful backdrop? Some would argue it's not.

And yet, some people are sad to see the mansion burn, lamenting the loss of its magnificent architectural grandeur. Instead of "Yes, it's beautiful, but the slavery part ruins it," some see it as, "Yes, slavery was terrible, but it's still a beautiful building." Whether those are equally valid perspectives or not, those different lenses is where much of the debate over slavery-era historical places and monuments lies.

Marketing a plantation as a luxury event space while ignoring its oppressive history feels wrong. But does watching it burn to the ground feel right? For some, it definitely does, which begs some questions: What role do visceral feelings have in the debate over what to do with places and things that were created via and for the perpetuation of slavery? What role does white supremacy still play in who gets to make those decisions? Is it possible to turn a plantation into a place where everyone feels like their ancestral history is being honored? These and other questions need serious consideration and discussion as America continues to reckon with its own history.

One plantation that has been turned into an educational monument seems to have struck a reasonable balance. Less than an hour's drive from Nottoway, the Whitney Plantation is a non-profit museum "dedicated to truth-telling about America's past." It does not shy away from its history, but rather invites visitors to dive in. Like Nottoway, Whitney was primarily a sugar plantation, which made it all the more tragic for the enslaved people forced to work there. Sugar was a particularly brutal crop. The life expectancy for slaves on sugar cane farms was dramatically lower than those on cotton plantations—around 7 years—and being sold to Louisiana for sugar production was often considered a death sentence.

Knowing that full history, it's hard to see a plantation used as a resort and event venue and it's understandable that people might revel in its demise. Would there be the same kind of sentiment if Whitney burned? Probably not, or at least not to the degree that Nottoway's destruction has seen. Perhaps now's a prime time to discuss the respectful, appropriate ways to handle historic places with problematic histories, to let the ashes of the past fertilize our collective future.


French YouTuber Lucile.

One reason people fall in love with Paris when they see it for the first time is that it looks exactly as it does in the movies or photographs. It is romantic, charming, and effortlessly beautiful, with its elegant boulevards, old stone buildings, cozy cafés, and iconic landmarks like the Eiffel Tower and the Arc de Triomphe.

A significant reason why Paris is so absorbing is that it is architecturally consistent, and the city and its citizens put a great deal of effort into maintaining that consistency. In a new video by Lucile, a French woman who creates cultural commentary videos about Paris and French culture, the city even goes so far as to create “fake” buildings to maintain its consistently beautiful appearance. "A lot of the fake buildings in Paris really blend in nicely with their surroundings and are so hard to spot. Just by looking at them, it would be impossible to notice,” Lucile explains.

- YouTubeyoutu.be

In the video, Lucile reveals that one building in her neighborhood appears to be a quaint French apartment building that was once social housing. Still, a little investigation shows that it's actually a massive data center complete with air conditioners on the roof—a rarity in Paris. The A/C units are there because the servers generate an incredible amount of heat.

Another building, 145, rue La Fayette, which has been called the "entrance to the underworld," is holding a secret. The doors are fake, allowing it to blend in with the neighborhood, and the roof is entirely flat. However, in reality, the entire building is actually an air vent for a French Metro.


Why do a lot of buildings in France have a similar design style? It’s because they underwent a massive redesign in the mid-19th century by an architect named Georges-Eugène Haussmann, a French official who served as prefect of Seine and demolished many of the old, cramped buildings from the Middle Ages. “In 1853, Haussmann came in, and he was basically given full powers to redesign Paris in a better way,” Lucile explains. “So, he went ahead, and he tore down entire neighborhoods and thousands of buildings. And instead, he built the elegant buildings and wide avenues we still have today in Paris. Haussmann really wanted to achieve a uniform look, so he put some really strict rules in place. And this is why a lot of the buildings in Paris look the same—they have the same height, the same façades, and the same balconies. Haussmann's influence on Paris was huge because today, around 60% of all of Paris' buildings are Haussmann-type buildings.”

 france, paris architecture, seine, georges-eug\u00e8ne haussmann, paris buildings, historic paris2 Boulevard Haussmann, Parisvia Neoclassicism Enthusiast/Wikimedia Commons


Lucile also notes that 1972 is an important year for the city because, at a time when it was losing many classic buildings, a proposal for a brutalist block building was made to replace L'Amandier d'Or, a beautiful Haussmann design. "Luckily, people pushed back, and it became a pretty big thing. The French government had to step in, and they blocked the project, requiring the bank to preserve the façade,” Lucile explains. The amusing thing is that if you walk to the back of the preserved façade, it's actually a 1970s office building.


“This was one of the first times that Paris did the fake buildings,” Lucile says. “A lot of people wish they had kept the original building and renovated everything, not just the front. But, some other people think it's a great way to keep Paris’s charm while making room for more modern buildings. And wherever you stand, either way, this building set the trend.”

There’s something very satisfying about learning that there is a small amount of artifice in keeping Paris’s magical charm, like the false-front buildings you see at Disneyland or on a film set. But there’s something even more wonderful to know that the people of Paris, and its leaders, put so much effort into preserving its incredible ambiance.

"The Wave" demonstrates how easy it is to pull people into fascism.

"What are you watching?" my 13-year-old son asked.

"An old Afterschool Special," I responded.

"What's an 'Afterschool Special'?" he asked.

Hoo boy. Kids these days have no idea how different television was for those of us who grew up in the '80s or how many core memories we have wrapped up in the ABC Afterschool Special.

I briefly explained and then he sat down to watch with me. It was 2022. A discussion about fascism on X had led me to look up "The Wave," a 1981 ABC Afterschool Special based on a real-life high school experiment in Palo Alto, California, in 1967.

In the real experiment, first-year history teacher Ron Jones had students at Cubberley High School engage in a simulation of how fascism spreads as part of a lesson on World War II, with him playing the role of the dictator. His intent was to show skeptical students how the Nazis came to power by creating a social movement he dubbed the Third Wave.

afterschool special, family, kids, specials, afterschool programmingFamily watching television. Image via Canva.

"It started out as a fun game with the most popular teacher at school," Mark Hancock, one of the students in Jones' history homeroom class, told Palo Alto Online in 2017. "He told us, 'If you're an active participant, I'll give you an A; if you just go along with it, I'll give you a C; if you try a revolution, I'll give you an F, but if your revolution succeeds, I'll give you an A.'"

Hancock said he started off planning to get that revolution A, but it quickly grew beyond grades and turned into something real. "At the end, I was scared to death," he shared.

It began with Jones rallying the students around the idea of "strength through discipline" and "strength through community." He had them engage in regimented behaviors and handed out membership cards. At first, it was just fun, but students began to enjoy feeling like part of a special community. Jones pushed the importance of following the rules. The students even formed a "secret police" to monitor other students, and if someone broke a Third Wave rule, they'd be reported and publicly "tried" by the class.

The students got wrapped up in it to a frightening degree and even Jones found himself enjoying the way the students responded to him. "It was pretty intoxicating," he told Palo Alto Online.

But according to Verde Magazine, Jones felt like he'd lost control of it by the fourth day.

The experiment ended at the end of the week with a rally. Jones told the students they were actually part of a real national Third Wave movement and that the national leader was going to speak to them at the rally. Jones turned on the televisions to white static and watched the students eagerly wait for their leader to speak. That's when he broke the news to them that they'd fallen for a totalitarian regime. Instead of a Third Wave leader speech, he played them a video of a Nazi rally.

Nazi rally, history, fascism, nazi germany, nazism Nazi Party Congress in Nuremberg, September 8, 1938.Image via Canva.

According to a school newspaper at the time, most students were disillusioned. But one student said, "It was probably the most interesting unit I've had. It was successful in its goal to achieve the emotions of the Germans under the Nazi regime."

"The Wave" follows the true story quite closely and still holds valuable lessons. One chilling scene shows a kid who had been sort of an outcast prior to the "movement" saying, "For the first time, I feel like I'm a part of something great." He was particularly crushed to find out it was all a fascist facade.

As is the cyclical nature of history, "The Wave" and what it can teach us is especially relevant today. According to NPR, "a survey of more than 500 political scientists finds that the vast majority think the United States is moving swiftly from liberal democracy toward some form of authoritarianism." The benchmark survey, known as Bright Line Watch, had "U.S.-based professors rate the performance of American democracy from zero (dictatorship) to 100 (perfect democracy)," noted NPR. "After President Trump's election in November, scholars gave American democracy a rating of 67. Several weeks into Trump's second term, that figure plummeted to 55."

John Carey, co-director of Bright Line Watch and a professor of government at Dartmouth, summed up the matter by saying, "We're moving in the wrong direction."

Since President Trump's election in November, various publications worldwide have suggested that much of Trump's rhetoric echoes that of Nazi Germany, with some pointing out parallels between each administration's first 100 days in office. Other publications have criticized the comparison.

At any rate, this afterschool special is incredibly timely. If you can get past the '80s aesthetic, it's worth watching. Even my teen kids got into it, once they stopped making fun of the hair and film quality.

- YouTubewww.youtube.com

This article originally appeared three years ago. It has been updated.