One of my learnings from the last year, coinciding with the practice of peace, is about the contrast of justice and reconciliation. Justice contains that grasping energy of conflict, a divisive feel to it. Reconciliation is about opening space and moving forward.
As regards apologies, my personal experience is that they are very powerful, but they represent a very serious commitment that only individuals can carry through. In 1998, the federal government issued an apology to Aboriginal people in Canada who had been affected by the residential school policies that tore apart families in our communities for many generations. The residential school system was perhaps the single most successful vehicle of colonization in this country's history, in some cases almost completely destroying languages, cultural practices, traditional life, families and individuals. It was responsible for multi-generational violence and abuse which has carried through even to those of us that never set eyes on a residential school. The federal government apology hit me very personally, and it affected many people I know the same way. It felt like something unlocked inside me. The federal government took some responsibility especially for the physical and sexual abuse that happened in the residential schools, saying to the victims "it was not your fault." There was a visceral feeling of something dropping away, perhaps something I didn't even know was clinging to me. It was a very deep experience. The problem was that it didn't last because there was no one actually doing the reconciliation. The federal government promised a new relationship based on reconciliation, but within two years they were engaged in a national initiative to remake First Nations governments which was carried out in such a top heavy and non-consultative way that it was routinely described by non-Aboriginal people as an alarming assimilationist policy. This governance initiative, despite the fact that we actually need to have this conversation, was carried out in such a way that it increased calls for justice. It helped to create a situation of confrontational conflict, and the heady days of reconciliation talk all but disappeared. The problem of course, as Michael has pointed out, is that the whole exercise was been removed from the personal. There was no one person who could actually take on the mantle of reconciliation. It was a systemic apology for personal pain, and while the apology represented a profound shift for many of us, the reconciliation process evaporated into thin air. The strength of the South African experience was that it was individuals apologizing for individual acts to other individuals. That helped that country to move through the apartheid transition because it allowed for a peaceful way for people to deal with some of the personal hurt they had experienced both as victims and perpetrators. So I don't know that the "US" can apologize for anything. As much as I can respectfully take issue with Paul's list of the results of the war, I actually agree with his point. To whom to we apologize for and to what? To which I will add, and what else will we do? The fact remains that apologies are personal, they need "I" language to work, and they need to heal direct person to person hurts. Soldiers apologizing for killing civilians would be very powerful, but having politicians apologize to whole countries and groups of people is just too diffuse to be sincere or useful for healing. Chris -- CHRIS CORRIGAN Bowen Island, BC, Canada (604) 947-9236 Consultation - Facilitation Open Space Technology Weblog: http://www.chriscorrigan.com/parkinglot Homepage: http://www.chriscorrigan.com ch...@chriscorrigan.com * * ========================================================== osl...@listserv.boisestate.edu ------------------------------ To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options, view the archives of osl...@listserv.boisestate.edu: http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html To learn about OpenSpaceEmailLists and OSLIST FAQs: http://www.openspaceworld.org/oslist