S-21 and the Killing Fields
After visiting S-21 and the Killing Fields, I felt a bit sick for the rest of the day. A monument with 9,000 skulls. Tatters of clothing sticking out of the dirt. The tree where infants would be hurled against to kill them.
When I visited Auschwitz earlier this year, it had a different kind of feeling. Overwhelming. But I think S-21 hit me in a different way as some of the photos of the people displayed in the Genocide Museum reminded me of family members.
Today, when we were visiting the RDIC, it was pointed out that culturally, forgiveness is not something that comes easily in Cambodia.
How could you forgive something like this?
January 18th, 2010 at 10:01 am
you ask, how could one forgive something like that, and yet – it’s not the people who perpetrated the act that one really forgives. Because you can’t, and you shouldn’t. Not those who made the initial decisions anyway. But – to forgive individuals who may not have wanted to take said acts, or the generation that came after them, removed from any decisions. Those people should be forgiven.
While this was different than the holocaust, as you stated, if one looks to the holocaust allows one to see that even those who were responsible aren’t as evil as you might think.
It’s easy to imagine nazis as terrible monsters. Then you hang out with on six decades later, and suddently you realize it’s not so cut and dry.
January 18th, 2010 at 10:11 am
I’m not exactly sure what it is you’re trying to say in your comment as there seems to be a few words missing here and there. The question of forgiveness was posed generally. Forgiveness does not necessarily need to take the form of being assigned to individuals.
I said that the experience of S-21 was different from Auschwitz, not the Holocaust.
Your comment about Nazis, I’m not quite sure I follow.
January 19th, 2010 at 8:01 am
you say “how could anyone forgive this?”
And I reply – that we forgive because we must. But whom is it that we are to forgive? Everything can be forgiven, when context and understanding is put forward. There are no deeds – no matter how foul – that can be seen as unforgivable.
The comment about the nazi’s is to show that, while we think of them as the greatest contemporary monsters, they too are but people – and not “bad people” as is so often our thoughts. They are simply people.
You end your post by saying “how could anyone forgive something like this?” The answer is through understanding, grieving, and then moving on. If one doesn’t forgive, one stays trapped – locked – in their terrible past.
January 19th, 2010 at 11:24 am
Interesting perspective. For clarification, I said, “how could you forgive something like this?” – the distinction is subtle, but important. Does “we” refer to you and I? You and native Cambodians? The royal “we” that you use in your response, again, interesting perspective, but on a personal level of Cambodians who have been quite personally affected or have survived the Khmer Rouge, notions of forgiveness and reconciliation are likely more nuanced and complicated and may not fit neatly into simple (or perhaps simplistic) western frameworks.
My original post had a very brief reflection on the feeling of the two memorials. Your point with the Nazis and your royal “we” is presumptuous and also puzzling in its inclusion.
Your answer of understanding, grieving and moving on certainly is something that could work as a fundamental framework at a very, very basic level, but I suspect there are very important cultural elements to take into account.
January 20th, 2010 at 2:17 am
I’m gonna jump back to your original point too then, you said “how could you forgive something like that” the you speaks to your reader, rather than “how could the cambodian people forgive something like that?”
My point about the nazis is to illustrate that even those we see as monsters, are in fact not. The Cambodian people may see those that were part of the regiem as monsters now – but were they to talk to them one on one, they may see otherwise. The movie “The Killing Fields” briefly touches on this – “Mercedes, Number 1!”
Yes there are cultural elements at work, I’m sure – but they’re elements that neither you nor I could guess at.
Many people, or peoples, have been judged unfairly or targeted because of their passport, their appearance, and choices they may have made. And I can definitely speak from experience here, having been physically assaulted, heavy projectiles thrown at my head from moving vehicles, and police accuse me of the most heinous of crimes, all based on how I dressed. But, there were choices, either hold that rage, and keep that anger, or forgive and move on.
It is by forgiving and moving on that one can start anew. Which, unfortunately is required if one wants to step out of the shadows of the past.
If your question was How can the Cambodians forgive this? My answer is the same as before. They can forgive it because they must – for the future of their culture, and their children, and their children’s children.
January 20th, 2010 at 4:32 am
“Mr. Madison, what you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.”
Also, the question posed is A RHETORICAL QUESTION!!!!
January 20th, 2010 at 6:23 am
I clearly disagree with your quote from a fantastic movie. What I’ve said isn’t in any way incoherent or off topic. Specifically it’s exactly on topic. I’ve spent the last week in Cambodia thinking about the same thing. In fact, I’ve been around the world wondering the same thing in regards to the treatment of European Jews, Polish citizens, South African Blacks, and a number of other groups where there seems to be a number of ways to branch forward, but how are those first steps made?
And the question isn’t rhetorical. It’s directed towards an audience. An audience built of anyone who has been pondering the questions which I can only assume from the use of the word you.
I hate to break it down to semantics, as I’m a firm believer in trying to understand the spirit of something, rather than the specifics. But if it were phrased, “How do the Cambodian People forgive something like that?” or even “How can something like that ever be forgiven?” then I might be inclined to agree that it would be rhetorical.
Even still, the nature of a question shouldn’t hold people back from responding. All good questions, rhetorical or not, should invite thought and discussion.
Rather than being so rash and simply using a quote as a pseudo attack on some valid, and well thought points formed and written in the very land where said atrocities were committed, I invite you to read back through them, and respond to them. Agree or disagree, that’s fine. But respond to them; don’t simply cast them aside.
January 20th, 2010 at 2:24 pm
Your continued use of the majestic plural “we” – on whose behalf are you speaking?
I had trouble understanding the initial response because it actually was incoherent in parts, missing words, and it misconstrued my brief rumination on the memorials themselves and went on to raise the topics of the Jewish holocaust and Nazis. Once again, I would reiterate that I was comparing the memorials, not the Jewish holocaust itself. And as odd as it is to have to get into the hermeneutics of my own writing, it actually was intended as a rhetorical question.
Aside from that, there is also a far more relevant example in the Khmer Rouge that could have been drawn. Members of the former regime are part of the government today and as much as sounds good to “step out of the shadows of the past” there is still much that Cambodia must contend with as it moves forward. As far as cultural elements that “neither you nor I could guess at”, I would encourage you to speak for yourself.
While it may certainly be laudable for you to move beyond the anger for people who have aggrieved you, I find it very strange that you would draw parallels between forgiving those who have thrown projectiles at you or being physically assaulted to the process of forgiveness and reconciliation for those who have survived the Cambodian genocide.
The fact that you write these comments “in the very land where said atrocities were committed” is nice to note, but the need to underscore that is even more interesting. I certainly hope that a point’s validity is not necessarily related to the geographical location in which it was written.
If you haven’t already, I would sincerely hope that you have a chance to visit the Killing Fields and/or S-21 in your travels since you are so close to that area and also, if you have a chance, to speak with someone who has survived the Khmer Rouge (many of the guides at S-21 are survivors) and to share your perspectives of forgiveness with them.
January 20th, 2010 at 2:37 pm
“the nature of a question shouldn’t hold people back from responding. All good questions, rhetorical or not, should invite thought and discussion.”
rhetorical questions don’t need answers by their very definition. To give one is to be an idiot.
“Many people, or peoples, have been judged unfairly or targeted because of their passport, their appearance, and choices they may have made.”
While I wouldn’t judge someone on their passport or appearance, I can’ think of any better indicator of a person’s character than the choices they make. If you don’t think we should judge someone on the way they choose to act, then you are a stupid person.
“having …heavy projectiles thrown at my head from moving vehicles… based on how I dressed.”
Jesus, dude, what kind of shit are you wearing? Will you post a picture? Seriously, I’m curious.
Otherwise, maybe just stop posting self-indulgent pseudo-philosophical horseshit on some guy’s travel blog. You’re embarrassing yourself, man.
January 20th, 2010 at 5:09 pm
For my use of we in the second last post, I’m going to say that it represents – well nearly everyone. This includes many German youths, people who consume video game – people who make video games. Nazis fall under the same category as zombies in lines of targets you can slaughter without feeling remorse. In fact, I think it’s quite safe to assume that a majority of the world, eastern, and western, would view Nazis (as a collective, at any rate) as monsters. So in that use of the word we, that is what I mean. Hopefully that clarifies that point? I’ll try to stay away from the word in the future as I understand how it might obscure things unintentionally.
I see that you were commenting on the two memorials, and how you felt there – but it is fair to assume that you compared the two memorials because the two situations were similar. And they were – two mass purges and slaughters. In understanding one it can shed light on the other.
And, as I said – even if it was intended to be rhetorical, would that not be a device used to garner thought, and then in turn discussion? I had no intention in voicing opinions where opinions were not desired, but as a blogger – and a free thinker none the less – I assume that it’s your hope to cause thought, and discussion amongst your readers. And while I can not speak for you, I only thought of how it is my aspiration to have my posts create thought and discussion. In many ways we are similar, and so I would think your feelings would be related.
You say that there are no parallels between the persecution that I faced and that committed on the Cambodian people. And while I in no way am trying to equate them, there are definite similarities. Similar, yet different, would be anyone who has experienced racial prejudice, or hate based on sexual preference. While no, this rarely includes mass slaughter, it is still prejudice, it is still hate, and it is still violent by its very nature. Where does one draw the line?
How many people need to be victims for an experience to count? Robert A. Heinlien wrote just one, just one – because each life is paid for with all it has. This is of course a paraphrase. But by that nature, anyone who has faced such persecution has somewhat of an understanding of the struggles of others.
While I said that you or I have no real insight into the cultural feelings of the people, I still think it’s valid. We may educate ourselves, we may know people that have been there, and we may have experienced similar things – but we were not a part of that pain, nor were we raised or indoctrinated into that living culture, within that society and because of that we can only view through our limited lens, impossible to reshape, no matter how much we may want to.
Luckily there is the blessing that the outside perspective may offer something unseen from within.
To jump now, I mentioned that I wrote these thoughts within the country of Cambodia as explanation to Cliff that my thoughts were not simply unfounded, and without anything that could be considered a rational thought. It’s hard to walk the streets here and not contemplate the history. It was not to give weight to my views, because as I previously stated, the outside perspective can offer much that is impossible to see from within. One sitting at home, reading through wikipedia articles on the past has just as much claim, and just as much right, to form their own opinions. You need not visit a location to understand it, but it’s hard to visit a location and not try.
Unfortunately I did not have a chance to leave Siem Reap this time, but were I to visit the people, and were my opinion asked, or were a form for it presented, I would definitely share my thoughts. Because I truly believe in them. I can see no other way for a people to move forward, without releasing themselves from past hate. Difficult though it may be.
To Graeme:
To answer a rhetorical question is not stupid. Nor are rhetorical questions asked without hope of an answer. They are asked specifically to encourage and invite thought and consideration. While we may often see them used to act as final punctuation, the purpose of the device is still to cause thought within the audience.
They invite a thought out response, rather than an immediate one.
As for judging people on their actions, I whole heartedly agree. You can not easily forgive the person who murdered your child. If you can at all. Few people would ever be able to, I think – I do not think that I could. But you can work to understand them. And you can use that understanding to end your hate with them and their actions, rather than allowing your hate to flow to their children because of an association they had nothing to do with.
Also – how do you judge a person? People are different from one day to the next – certainly one decade to the next. Many times we can see a person who acted in terrible ways work to better the world. In what state do you judge him? Based on his past, or based on his present. It’s a hard choice, to be sure.
As for what I was wearing, it was mostly spawned from wearing a trench coat in the days and years, following the Columbine murders. Unfortunately most people who wore such clothing were targeted – not unlike how many people were unfairly targeted after September 11th. Fitting a visual role, though having nothing to do with the act.
As for commenting on the blog itself, there’s nothing self-indulgent about this. But I admit that there is some philosophy involved. However I, much like the author of this blog, embrace philosophy, and have never found it something to be ashamed or embarrassed of.
January 20th, 2010 at 5:58 pm
I said pseudo-philosophy, numbnuts. Philosophy is what clever people do. Or at least what people with the capacity to actually form a coherent argument do.
If writing something this long-winded and ultimately devoid of substance isn’t self-indulgent, I don’t know what is.
NO, WAIT! I do know what’s more self-indulgent than that! How about comparing yourself to genocide victims, and just about every oppressed minority on the planet based solely on the fact that you wear a fucking trenchcoat? Yeah, you’re a victim all right. Only it’s not of prejudice, it’s of delusion. And probably crabs.
If you want to have some abstract, nonsensical relativist debate on the nature of forgiveness, try standing in front of a mirror and forgiving yourself for being such a colossal douchebag, ’cause no one needs to read any more of this bullshit.
You’re a joke.
January 20th, 2010 at 7:01 pm
Oneyeartrip: I find it interesting that you’ve concluded that Nazis (specifically the individual people involved and not the organization or ideology) can be forgiven for committing heinous acts because they perhaps didn’t believe in the cause or were “forced” into doing what they did. This really removes all individual responsibility from them, doesn’t it? In fact, taken in this context, all acts of hate, evil and malice can be explained away as merely effects of other causes. This is the classic “listening to Slayer made me murder” defense and I find it appalling.
People are responsible for the deeds they commit under all circumstances. To defer to social or cultural pressures is to remove individual accountability for EVERYTHING. Yes, people make decisions for a reason. Poverty “causes” crime in some respect, but criminals still choose to commit those crimes and explaining them as something other than a choice, saying that they have been forced into that choice by social context, is to allow yourself to accept ANY EVIL that may be perpetrated by anyone anywhere as a necessary result of their social context.
Did all of the Nazis really want to kill Jewish people? No. Did they? Yes. If they didn’t, if they disobeyed orders, the result would have been that they would be killed. You seem to believe that this removes the choice from them entirely and confers all responsibility on the organization. I feel differently, and this may be controversial to those used to Western ideology (which is that personal survival is paramount) but I submit that they did have a choice. They could choose to die rather than kill. Is this not a valid option?
If I put a gun to your head would you do ANYTHING asked of you to live, or is there some demand to which you would refuse, and accept a bullet instead of trading away your humanity for a short extension to your already finite existence? People can choose to die, and sometimes this is the right thing to do. The path of submission is one for cowards and they are responsible for the evil acts which their cowardice led them to perpetrate. Some acts are unforgivable. Not everyone deserves forgiveness and we shouldn’t offer forgiveness to the people who were responsible for Auschwitz or S-21. They can die with that on their heads and their families will carry the shame with them for generations. So it should be, so the mistakes of the past are not so easily justified and forgotten.
Good blog Jay.
January 20th, 2010 at 7:09 pm
Just to be clear, about the Nazi video games: I would gladly kill anyone wearing a swastika because it represents an ideology which is, in essence, contrary to my very existence. I would kill a whole country full of them if the opportunity presented itself, and I wouldn’t feel bad about it. I also wouldn’t expect their families and friends to forgive me, and I’m fine with that too. The opinions of the friends of Nazis mean nothing to me. Given the choice between gassing a room full of innocent Jewish people and taking a bullet, I would make every effort to kill the man holding the gun and I would die happily if I failed. Real courage is a willingness to die for what you believe in and take accountability for your actions. It is well understood in MY cultural history that choosing to die is sometimes the better option.
January 21st, 2010 at 2:44 am
Hosaki:
No, my point with the Nazi’s is that people change. While someone may have done monstrous things at one point, they can change into something else later. Who is the true person? Who they were or who they are? And the second point about the nazis was on the basis that they were not all monsters.
Not everyone wearing an arm band, not everyone who came up through the nazi youth, were true believers. And there were many who refused orders, and there were probably many more who took a bullet because of it. Just because they wear the arm band does not make them monsters, does not make them have committed the acts.
Just to make a final point, I never said that we should forgive those who murdered, never said we should forget what the individuals did. In fact, I don’t think one should ever forget. But I do strongly believe that one should work to forgive as a whole. Because I do strongly believe that the only way for a culture to move on to a peaceful existence is to accept what has happened, forgive the sons and daughters of those who have committed the atrocities, end the circle of hate, and attempt to rebuild.
Graeme:
Philosophy can rarely be less than it is, because anyone conteplating their knoweldge, values, morals, exitance of self or others is by nature a philosopher. Be their thoughts fully developed or not, it is philosophy. As for being long winded, most philosophy begins with a simple statement, which is then broken down and made long-winded through dialogues.
So to break it down to the inital points that I made:
1. How can the people of Cambodia forgive the atrocities? The can forgive because they must. They Can forgive because they may see it is in the best interest of their culture to accept the terrible past, but try to mend relations and bring about peace. Difficult though it may be.
2. Not all individuals who we collectively see as monsters actually are.
You will notice that every subsequent post since the initial one has simply been to clarify where it was brought to my attention that there was confusion, or a reply to a new point brought up. This is not self-indulgence, this is dialogue. The point about it being void of substance is an interesting one, however.
In no way are my posts void of substance, however they do work to further explain the initial substance, which may seem similar. But as so much emphasis was placed on word choice, or the lack of words – being better to read specifics than try to form context without being fully aware of the intent – it can often be important to clarify, especially when requested.
The need for this further clarification, however, comes up when points – already explained – seem glossed over. And then for the benefit of those who may have misunderstood them, or have choose to skirt them, the restatement is required.
As already stated, I do not place myself equal to genocide. What I stated was that I understand what it’s like to be under constant threat of violence, to face it often without cause, and to be a target of police unjustly – and repeatedly. Again, this is not to say that I understand genocide, but to simply say that I understand the problem on a much smaller scale. In fact, I would say not even the 1930/40s European Jews could understand the Cambodian issues, nor vice-versa, as every situation is different. But persecution is persecution, and the awareness that you are not fully safe within your own community is one that can help raise awareness for the strife of others.
Again, as I see that this does become lengthy I would just like to sum up the points made, the first two repeated from above:
1. How can the people of Cambodia forgive the atrocities? The can forgive because they must. They Can forgive because they may see it is in the best interest of their culture to accept the terrible past, but try to mend relations and bring about peace. Difficult though it may be.
2. Not all individuals who we collectively see as monsters actually are.
3. I do not see myself as equal to the genocide. But as a target of unjust prejudice from individual citizens and the policing authority there are parallels that can lead to understanding. Each individual matters, as does their treatment (as best demonstrated within Martin Niemoller’s poem First They Came…)
4. My original post was very much to the point, and one made as a simple comment on issues I had been thinking of and saw mirrored here. Every following post has just been to illuminate where requested, or to try and clarify where I feel I’ve been misread.
January 21st, 2010 at 6:00 am
Yes, I was commenting on the two memorials and how I felt, but you misread the post and erroneously claimed that I was talking about the Jewish holocaust, which was not the case. Furthermore, the comparison between the two was straightforward, they are two genocide memorials that I have experienced. I was not comparing holocausts.
It is remarkable to me how you introduced the Nazi thread, which was a very broad leap from my initial comments on two memorials, and proceed in an attempt to establish how Nazis are regarded as monsters, not necessarily to elucidate the discussion, but it would seem primarily to posit yourself as the one who sees otherwise. In addition, it seems strange to me that this was introduced because in the context in which the post was written, the Khmer Rouge would have been an apt example. Even moreso given that you were in Cambodia. Former members of the Khmer Rouge are still present in day-to-day politics. This is not a matter of simply forgiving actions that have happened in the past – there are still people in Cambodia who live in fear of speaking out against the government.
As far as walking the streets and contemplating the history, as far as this thread has gone, I see little evidence indicating that you have taken the time to familiarise yourself with Cambodian history. Or even on a more basic level, I hope that you have at least taken the time to speak with someone in depth about the challenges they face as a Cambodian. Of course, there was your brief mention of the Killing Fields film and the dropping of a choice phrase, but of course, that surely is not a substitute for a well-reasoned or well-informed point pertaining to Cambodian culture.
I didn’t say there were no parallels between your persecution and the Cambodian genocide – I said I found it very strange that you would draw parallels between what I see to be very disparate situations. However, in the future, should you ever find yourself in a discussion with an individual has experienced mass genocide, perhaps you can share your experiences of being persecuted with them and let them know that you understand their “problem” on a smaller scale.
With regards to insight into the cultural feelings of the people, once again, I would ask that you speak for yourself as you know little about my experience. Phnom Penh is just 5-6 hours by bus from Siem Reap, but while you didn’t get a chance to visit it this time, hopefully you can go there in the future as I think you would have found the Killing Fields Memorial at Choeung Ek to be a moving experience.
January 21st, 2010 at 6:01 am
As well, interesting allusion to Heinlein. I’m fairly familiar with Heinlein’s work and as far as I know there is no short story or novel that he has written entitled, Just One, Just One. But perhaps I may not be up to speed on my fictional fiction.
January 21st, 2010 at 9:59 am
The novel is titled “To Sail Beyond the Sunset”. The Paraphrase was “Just One, just one – …” Hope that clears things up.
The allusion to the holocaust was simply to illustrate similar situations. By understanding one, we can understand the other. Memorials aside, you posed the question “how can you forgive…” The holocaust was used to highlight a similar event that one can use to try and understand how forgiveness is possible.
Bringing in the ideas of nazis is not a broad leap when looked at in this context. Nor is it one, as you brought up the holocaust making a connection between the two memorials, linking – at least in the abstract – the two events.
The idea of illustrating the Nazis as monsters connects directly to the view of the Khmer Rouge as monsters. But as much more time has past since World War II we can look back and try to understand the two groups, and perhaps apply lessons learned from one event to the other.
You try to point out that a lack of awareness of a group is a problem, as something that would invalidate my points. But I disagree. Even were I not to have a knowledge of the Khmer Rouge, my understanding that there was an atrocity, and that the only way to break the circle of hate is to forgive and move on, would still be valid.
My development of the fact that I felt there were similarities between my own past, and those felt by others was not for you as much as some of the other posters who did not seem to understand that a connection would exist.
And were I in the situation to discuss these issues I would definitely bring up my personal experiences as a parallel. Such connections have helped quite a lot when relating to a number of the black youths in and around Toronto. The problems they face, being targeted by violence, being randomly stopped and questioned by police, and simply having people walk across the street to avoid them – are things that I had also faced, and so an understanding is born that might not have been otherwise.
And for the final point about cultural experience, I have no doubt that you have a different understanding, and a different view point. But cultural understanding is born out of being raised within that context. Even a Cambodian raised in Thailand during those years would not have the same cultural understanding as the Cambodian that lived in country. We, who lived in Canada after the fact, cannot hope to have the cultural understanding that those who lived through the pain can.
Yes, our lens may be different, and we may understand things differently – but as neither of us were there, all we can hope to do is educate ourselves from without, as within is a moment in time, now past – impossible to retrieve.
And it does upset me that I did not make it to that part of the country, short bus trip or not, there simply was no time. I’m already wondering how long I have to remain out of country before I can obtain a new visa to return. I would return in six months were it possible. Do you have any information about this?
I would like to reiterate once more, that I agree with everything you said in your post. It must, indeed, have been a sickening thing to see. I know how I felt viewing Auschwitz II. And I’m sure that cultural forgiveness does not come easy to a people still living with what has happened / is happening. All I stated was how can they forgive? Because they must. Those who do not forgive (which is not to forget, excuse, or claim that what happened is now smoothed over) – it is to say that they must forgive, and try not to let the shame carry on to future generations.
That cycle of hate creates one that can not be escaped, or not without more violence. Evidence of this is the terrible events transpiring in Palestine and Israel. But examples of where past sins were forgiven is shown throughout modern day Germany, and modern day Japan. Had the west carried old grudges, those two countries would not be what they are today, and – in my opinion – the world would be not nearly as well off as it is.
Another more localized example is the Chinese in Canada. The Chinese I know do not hold a hatred towards modern Canadians for the terrible ways that they were treated in years past. And because of this there is an integration, a coming together, and a new beginning.
What would Canada be like today if those old angers and hates remained?
January 21st, 2010 at 12:42 pm
Punctuation would have been helpful initially to clarify your point about Heinlein. Thanks for clearing that up.
Just to reiterate once again, you had misrepresented what I had written and proceeded to work in tenuous points about Nazis and the Jewish holocaust, “while this was different than the holocaust, as you stated…” – I’ll leave it at that.
Interesting. Your development of the similarities of your own past and those who had experienced mass genocide began prior to the other posters entering the thread.
We’ll have to agree to disagree that lack of awareness is a problem. Generally speaking, if points are valid and well thought (setting aside the fact that declaring them to be so does not make it so, as valid and well-reasoned thoughts are, for the most part, self-evident), but lacking in substance and informed opinion, the contribution to a discussion can be limited and there may be a tendency to rely on tangential themes instead of actually speaking to the issues that are raised. At its best, perhaps there may be some interesting perspectives while focusing on the main point; at its worst, these tangential points are used to obfuscate the discussion or even serve self-indulgent egos.
January 21st, 2010 at 1:03 pm
Again, I do feel that you connected the holocaust with the Khmer Rouge. Just by linking the two memorials you link the events, do you not? I would not expect to see one comparing a monument for the Khmer Rouge, with say a monument representing a nations independence. Perhaps only with the independence of Cambodia, in which case the two would, once again, be linked.
While complete lack of awareness is a problem, awareness of issues that are important to the discussion do matter. And in this case I would say that awareness of the circle of hate created with civil infighting is the main issue that I was commented on.
I don’t know if you’re implying that my points were lacking in substance and informed opinion, but I’ll assume that that was not the intent.
Especially with my last statement which finally managed to, hopefully, clear up my initial point about why it’s important that the cycle is broken, and the question as to how our nation would be if the sins of the father are forever passed down.
January 21st, 2010 at 1:16 pm
Actually no, it was a comment on the two memorials themselves, which you then connected to the Jewish holocaust through a misrepresentation of what I had written.
No implication is needed. Whether or not your points were lacking in substance and informed opinion is self-evident.
January 21st, 2010 at 1:33 pm
I absolutely agree. Let writing stand for itself. My initial points stand well, and were only clarified later. It’s given me a chance to focus my thoughts on issues that have been rolling around in my mind quite a lot these last few months. And I’m glad to have been given the chance to develop them into something substantial drawing upon that which I’ve learned lately – within various cultures, peering through my own lens of course, combined with what I learned through studying and reading from without. I will probably now be able to finally write the blog post I’ve been meaning to on this topic (circle of hate/forgiveness) now that so many disconnected threads have been brought together.
And I hate to go back to this: I understand that you were talking about the memorials. Two memorials. But, by holding the memorials beside one another, is that not in some way making connections between the two events? There must have been some reason that you chose to reference the Holocaust memorial, and the Khmer Rouge memorial. If it was not due to the similarities in the atrocities committed that led to the memorials being constructed, what was it?
January 21st, 2010 at 2:31 pm
If the writing is to stand for itself, it is interesting to see a need to reiterate that your points supposedly stand well. Let them be self-evident.
Let me make the distinction quite clear. I commented on the two memorials themselves, which you then connected to the Jewish holocaust through a misrepresentation of what I had written, which you seem to conveniently gloss over.
January 21st, 2010 at 2:59 pm
I didn’t mean to gloss over anything. I did bring up the holocaust, I brought it up because I see connections between the two events. I do believe that connections exist, and I had assumed that you too saw connections. Is that not why you compared the two memorials?
January 21st, 2010 at 2:59 pm
It’s evident that you have much to say about Nazis, holocausts, and forgiveness, topics that may be appropriate on your own personal blog on a separate post. Though you have misinterpreted my initial post as connecting the two events, that doesn’t render it true. It is certainly within your right to interpret my writing the way you want and every right to believe that I was comparing the two. In fact, I can understand why, because I didn’t explicitly say that I wasn’t comparing the two. But on the other hand, I didn’t explicitly say both are the same or can be linked either. That wasn’t my point or what I was trying to say, and I’m sorry you took it that way.
January 21st, 2010 at 3:09 pm
I don’t believe them to be the same by any means. Not at all. But similar. Which is why I assumed you compared the two memorials? Why did you choose to compare those two specific memorials if not for the similarities?
As for the idea of forgiveness, that is a response to the question you posed.
January 21st, 2010 at 3:28 pm
They were two places I had been. Enjoy your travels!
January 21st, 2010 at 3:41 pm
Thank you kindly, and I’ll look forward to reading more about your own. Truly it is through travel that we educate ourselves.
January 21st, 2010 at 3:42 pm
Yes, I agree!
June 27th, 2010 at 4:52 am
All talk and no action on the supposed blog post on hate/forgiveness. I’m not surprised.