a Jewish boy there who is the grandchild of a man who died in a concentration camp. Loving his grandfather and not breaking off his relationship with him are nothing he did as an affront to the young Jew and nothing for which he could beg him for forgiveness. Correspondingly, the Jewish boy, traumatised by the victimisation of his grandfather in a concentration camp, can neither accuse the young German of it, nor forgive him for it. And yet, the correspondence based on the penumbra of guilt and the fate of the victim makes it understandable that these two young people are able to experience themselves as also being somehow intertwined, as two who have something to talk about and work out.
If entanglement comes to an end by the third or fourth generation, then the relationship between the descendants of the perpetrators and the descendants of the victims becomes more relaxed. But even after generations, it is a common notion that forgiveness must be sought, forgiveness especially for the injustices caused by imperial and colonial oppression, exploitation, enslavement, and murder. Namibia requests that Germany seek its pardon for the brutality with which the Germans suppressed the Herero uprising a hundred years ago. The Herero argue convincingly that the massacre had a permanent and irrevocable impact on their tribe. But such imprints on history are always permanent and irrevocable. The guilt of the Germans who brutally suppressed the revolt died with them long ago, and their children and grandchildren who were bound in guilt with them are also long dead. The request that the Germans of today seek forgiveness from members of the Herero tribe living today calls for an empty ritual that would show little respect for the Herero of that time. Their fight against a brutal German enemy, their heroic defeat, and their pain and suffering are all a part of their identity and dignity. It was their right and theirs alone to define their identity and dignity with clemency or resentment, condemnation or forgiveness. No one else can lay claim to that right, not even his or her descendants.
Forgiveness is something too crucial, too existential to be made into a political ritual or used as an opportunity for politicians to present themselves publicly as deeply moved and with anguished miens. A minister of the interior who seeks forgiveness for the damages the soccer fans of his country have caused in another country, a cardinal who seeks forgiveness for the suffering that the priests under his watch have inflicted on the children entrusted to their care, a chief of police who seeks forgiveness for the brutality employed by his officers on duty – they all ring hollow. Perhaps the police chief did not supervise his officers properly, the cardinal did not pay attention to the complaints lodged by children and parents, and the minister of the interior neglected the problems with rioting football fans. Then they are themselves guilty. If they would seek forgiveness for their own guilt it would have weight; to ask for forgiveness for someone else’s guilt is cheap.
My impression is that German politicians are reluctant to ask for forgiveness from Namibia not so much because it would be an empty ritual but rather because Namibia might take it as a title under which it could then claim restitution. I have heard other German politicians take a different position; asking for forgiveness and having it granted would, while unable to create a legal title, give Germany’s substantial help for Namibia’s development a different aura, an aura of bonding and commitment instead of economic technicality. I don’t know about Namibia’s intentions; maybe to get if not a legal then at least a quasi-legal title is precisely why Namibia requests that Germany seeks its forgiveness. As much as I can understand all these strategic and tactical considerations, I find forgiveness too existential to be asked for or granted as a strategic or tactical move in
If entanglement comes to an end by the third or fourth generation, then the relationship between the descendants of the perpetrators and the descendants of the victims becomes more relaxed. But even after generations, it is a common notion that forgiveness must be sought, forgiveness especially for the injustices caused by imperial and colonial oppression, exploitation, enslavement, and murder. Namibia requests that Germany seek its pardon for the brutality with which the Germans suppressed the Herero uprising a hundred years ago. The Herero argue convincingly that the massacre had a permanent and irrevocable impact on their tribe. But such imprints on history are always permanent and irrevocable. The guilt of the Germans who brutally suppressed the revolt died with them long ago, and their children and grandchildren who were bound in guilt with them are also long dead. The request that the Germans of today seek forgiveness from members of the Herero tribe living today calls for an empty ritual that would show little respect for the Herero of that time. Their fight against a brutal German enemy, their heroic defeat, and their pain and suffering are all a part of their identity and dignity. It was their right and theirs alone to define their identity and dignity with clemency or resentment, condemnation or forgiveness. No one else can lay claim to that right, not even his or her descendants.
Forgiveness is something too crucial, too existential to be made into a political ritual or used as an opportunity for politicians to present themselves publicly as deeply moved and with anguished miens. A minister of the interior who seeks forgiveness for the damages the soccer fans of his country have caused in another country, a cardinal who seeks forgiveness for the suffering that the priests under his watch have inflicted on the children entrusted to their care, a chief of police who seeks forgiveness for the brutality employed by his officers on duty – they all ring hollow. Perhaps the police chief did not supervise his officers properly, the cardinal did not pay attention to the complaints lodged by children and parents, and the minister of the interior neglected the problems with rioting football fans. Then they are themselves guilty. If they would seek forgiveness for their own guilt it would have weight; to ask for forgiveness for someone else’s guilt is cheap.
My impression is that German politicians are reluctant to ask for forgiveness from Namibia not so much because it would be an empty ritual but rather because Namibia might take it as a title under which it could then claim restitution. I have heard other German politicians take a different position; asking for forgiveness and having it granted would, while unable to create a legal title, give Germany’s substantial help for Namibia’s development a different aura, an aura of bonding and commitment instead of economic technicality. I don’t know about Namibia’s intentions; maybe to get if not a legal then at least a quasi-legal title is precisely why Namibia requests that Germany seeks its forgiveness. As much as I can understand all these strategic and tactical considerations, I find forgiveness too existential to be asked for or granted as a strategic or tactical move in
Similar Books
