Today in class we focused on the idea of forgiveness. We watched a video about a holocaust survivor who chose to forgive her tormentor, the infamous Dr. Mengele. I was reading an article about a survivor of the Rwandan genocide who also decided to forgive the perpetrators. She describes witnessing the murder of her siblings, but states “now we are all Rwandans” referring to the separation between the Hutus and Tutsis. She and many others are now campaigning for forgiveness, so they can attempt to rebuild the country.
Article:
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/03/15/1079199159803.html?from=storyrhs
Questions: Who has the right to forgive in cases of genocide? Victims? Bystanders? Courts?
What role does forgiveness play in terms of judgment and punishment? Why would anyone forgive?
8 comments:
I think that anyone has the right to forgive whether they are a victim or someone very distant from the crime.
After watching the film in class today, I was actually surprised that Eva was able to forgive Dr. Mengele so easily. I agreed with the other survivors who were opposed to her forgiveness. If I had been in her position, I would never be able to forgive anyone for what I went through. I feel like the Holocaust stretches beyond the limits of forgiveness. However, forgiving can be healing for the individual. Once an individual can learn to forgive, they can move past the actual atrocities of what they suffered. Eva underscored this idea of forgiveness vs. healing too. She said that is was "a life changing experience to be free from pain." I suppose the pain she is referring to is not being able to forgive those who were responsible for her sufferings. In this case, forgiveness helped her.
I agree with Aileen that whether an individual was a victim or someone very distant from the crime that they both have the right to forgive, but I am not sure that everyone has the right to forgive. What about a perpetrator of genocide? Does he/she have the right to forgive him/herself?
In terms of the film in class, was it "right" for Eva to invite Dr. Hans Munch to come to the 50 yr. liberation anniversary? I think, that in this specific case inviting Dr. Munch was appropriate because, as Eva mentioned, having him there lent even more credibility to the situation and could have possibly effected some deniers' arguments. If you agree with that - who isn't appropriate to bring? If Dr. Mengele was still alive should he be allowed to forgive himself and be brought to the 50th liberation anniversary?
i think people who are directly associated with the crime can forgive - victims and perpetrators. i personally don't feel that it would be meaningful or helpful to anyone if i forgave the perpetrators... like if i said that i forgive mengele, it probably wouldn't mean anything.
i think that, if mengele "forgave" himself and decided to face his victims, it would be appropriate. i think it's important for the victims and perpetrators to face each other (like in the trials we were discussing in class). perhaps this is one of the only ways for people to forgive - to face their "enemy" directly.
i think that forgiveness is important - it made eva a stronger person and helped her heal. it isn't helpful to hate for the rest of your life - those you hate aren't affected by your hatred at all. in the end, the hatred only comes back to you. i can't say i would have forgiven mengele, but i think that it is better that she did. i can only hope that i would have done the same thing.
-coe
I understand both sides of the forgiveness argument, and think that forgiveness is a very personal decision. I definitely do not think it would ever be appropriate to make a statement such as "On behalf of all survivors of the Holocaust I forgive..." because forgiveness is a personal decision to heal in a very specific way. For some people, not forgiving may also mean not forgetting and not accepting future actions of a similar nature. Thus, I think anyone can forgive, but only as an individual.
I think the concept of a perpetrator forgiving themself is interesting. I remember something that Ms. Finn asked us first quarter, which is, "What is the purpose of guilt?"
If a person is incapable of recommitting an act because they are in prison or facing punishment, does guilt serve any purpose? Why should someone feel guilty? Can it do any good?
I agree with Melanie that forgiveness should be individual. One person can't forgive on behalf of everyone in the Holocaust. I also think that the people who can forgive are the victims, because only they know exactly what happened to them and how they felt about it. I don't know that perpetrators can forgive themselves, because that is like saying that what they did wasn't that bad, and was even somewhat acceptable, which it wasn't. I believe that living with the horrors of their actions for the rest of their lives is a punishment that they should endure for the pain they inflicted upon others. How could you forgive yourself if those you hurt did not forgive you?
I agree with what Melanie suggested, especially in regards to Eva's story. I think that it takes a very strong person to be able to forgive the people who created so much harm, and killed off your entire family. At the same time, I think its really important for Eva and others to understand that forgiveness is a personal decision, and that you cannot inflict or even
"shove in people's faces" your forgiveness. That's why I feel that when Eva brought the Holocaust doctor to the 50th anniversary of Auschwitz, I could understand how others would become angry. In a sense, her individual decision to forgive violated and went beyond the individual, and permeated to other people.
Some could argue that this step could be beneficial and very damaging. Since forgiveness is such a hard thing to do, by seeing one of your peers, who experienced the similar traumatic experience, outwardly forgive, it could prompt you to feel more comfortable forgiving as well. On the flip side, it also can seriously violate someone, and cause them psychological pain.
When I was learning about the Armenian Genocide for my research paper, I read a few cases where survivors attributed their process of reconciliation and forgiveness to their religion and faith in God.
Would this process of forgivenes have been easier if there was an active effort instituted by the Jewish religion?
I think that the question Ting brings up is an interesting one. Instituting forgiveness through a particular religion could lead to a positive experience for many, but would also have the potential to make many people angry. In the case of Eva's story, forgiving on an individual basis was helpful for her because the experiences of all those who suffered in the Holocaust, while they may be similar, are different for every individual. I think that if Eva had attempted to create a mass movement of forgiveness for those who believe in the Jewish religion, the result could have been detrimental to some people because while the religion relates all of the individuals, that does not mean that all are ready to forgive or are willing to forgive. At the same time, forgiving on the basis of a religion could lead some individuals to see how they relate to others and how they do share common experiences, which may bring them closer to forgiving. However I think that forgiveness is ultimately and individual decision that cannot be forced by a greater movement.
I don't agree with Sam's point that perpetrators cannot forgive themselves. Forgiveness implies not apathy, but lots of reflection on the event that ends with accepting that it happened and vowing never to do it again. By not forgiving themselves, the perpetrators are forced to live in constant states of indifference or guilt, both of which are counterproductive feelings. I think that forgiveness, even on the side of the perpetrators, allows everyone to accept the past and move on to the future. I am not saying that they should forget what happened, but instead focus their energies on reconciling with the victims and working towards a better future. Any thoughts?
Post a Comment