As for the idea of forgiveness, that is a response to the question you posed.

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.

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?

No implication is needed. Whether or not your points were lacking in substance and informed opinion is self-evident.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.