During finals week of winter quarter, a close friendship of mine
that had been circling the drain for some time finally made that
fateful plunge.
Simultaneously, another friendship I had deemed dead more than a
year-and-a-half ago was resurrected from the grave. Recently,
anti-Zionist protests have stained our campus with the stench of a
thousand-year-old hatred. All three of these events have set me
pondering about forgiveness, both at an interpersonal level, and on
a larger sociopolitical scale. We need less of it.
Actually, that’s a rather pessimistic oversimplification.
But it is my contention that the prevailing doctrine of “turn
the other cheek” is flawed and ineffectual. Such a system
permits itself to be easily abused. If, as Alexander Pope suggests,
“to err is human, to forgive is divine,” then I have to
believe God is cognizant enough not to get screwed on the deal.
Allow me to address interpersonal forgiveness first.
Cheek-turning behavior invites reconciliation without
responsibility. It is the opiate that numbs pain without healing
the wound. For true forgiveness to be valid, the injured party must
receive a meaningful apology from the injurious party.
A “meaningful apology” in the sense that I use it is
analogous to a feature of our legal system. Before a criminal is
sentenced following either a conviction or guilty plea, he is
allowed to give an allocution. During an allocution, the defendant
admits to the elements of his/her crime in open court, explaining
to the judge exactly what he/she has done, along with all the
relevant details. A defendant would do so to encourage leniency on
the part of the judge.
Similarly, if someone hurts you, you shouldn’t blindly
forgive them until they give a similar allocution as to what they
have done and why it hurt you. I do not mean to suggest that this
should be an act of juggling blame, but that responsibility must be
accepted by the right people. No one in their right mind gives an
allocution for a crime they did not commit. If you turn the other
cheek, or take the blame yourself, you will only sacrifice your
dignity without solving the original problem. The fire might be
out, but something smolders in the cinders.
I will use my own experience as an example. Why did I forgive my
one friend but not the other? The former made an effort to
reconcile with me based on a dialogue establishing exactly who
caused what, and how that made the other feel. No attempt was made
by either this person or myself to weasel out of any
accountability.
The latter, however, completely denied that their actions were
the cause of any injury. By the time the idea of an apology even
entered this person’s head, it was more than a month after
the original incident took place. The belated apology, when it
finally came, was in the form of a two-sentence Internet message,
and still failed to acknowledge any wrongdoing on the
person’s part, nor displayed any comprehension of what it was
that this person had done. Would you take such an olive branch
seriously?
I am, of course, no saint myself, nor do I pretend to be. And
yet, we often seek out those we hurt and betray, not for true
penance, but for mere absolution. None of us are spiritually
equipped to absolve those who wrong us, nor is it wise to try.
Doing so sends the message that what they did was somehow
acceptable, and further encourages the behavior. In psychology,
this is known as “intermittent reinforcement.” Simply
speaking, if you say “No, no, no, no, no, no, no, yes,”
it is far worse than if you had said “yes” in the first
place.
On the small scale of interpersonal relations, it is important
to stand your ground. It is the only way to maintain dignity. In
the larger sociopolitical arena, however, where stakes are high
enough to involve human lives, the exact opposite holds true.
This was evidenced by the recent anti-Zionist rallies sponsored
by the Muslim Students Association (and paid for by our student
registration fees). These protests come out of a strong tradition
of UCLA students raising their magic markers high over causes they
have absolutely no chance of affecting (a la Mumia). If the top
policy makers in the world can’t solve the problems of the
Middle East, which have gone on since antiquity, I strongly doubt
that a couple of ornery college kids on the other side of the world
are going to figure it all out.
While MSA members did little to bring about change in the Middle
East, they did achieve a far worse end ““ blatantly offending
and disparaging their fellow Jewish students. The protesters would
like you to believe that they are not anti-Semitic, but only
against Israel. This is equivalent to saying, “We don’t
hate black people. We just hate Africa.” Do not be fooled by
this thinly-veiled racism.
I am not here to evaluate whether or not the MSA’s point
is valid, nor am I here to make apologies for Israel’s
less-than-enviable record. My contention is that the protests
themselves, by their very existence, illustrate the need to forgive
and move on with issues this large. People are dying every day,
squabbling over a tiny godforsaken scrap of sand, irrigating the
desert with their veins. I can see no benefit in bringing that
ugliness to California.
It is also important not to let past injustice infect future
peace. To my knowledge, the Jewish Student Union has not held any
anti-German rallies recently, nor has the African Student Union
sponsored an abolitionist prayer meeting. This does not signify
that Jewish students have forgotten the Holocaust, nor African
American students the horrors of slavery. There is no sense,
however, in rehashing history to satisfy an overdeveloped thirst
for vengeance. Were we to continue delving into the past for
finger-pointing targets, our campus would be littered with
chalkings like “Never forget Torquemata,”
“Anti-Davy Crockett equals Anti-Racism” and “Boo
Prussia!”
On this campus we possess an odd paradoxical view. We rally for
diversity, and complain that the deans and chancellor are not doing
enough to promote it. But what do we do with the ethnic groups on
campus except tell them what they have done wrong?
“There aren’t enough Turkish students,” we
cry. “There aren’t enough Armenian students,” we
cry. Good, they’re here. Now let them fight it out over what
happened 90 years ago. We take one step forward and two steps
back.
So what is the solution? The most common aphorism batted about
is “time heals all wounds.” This isn’t really
true. Time doesn’t heal the wounds, it just dulls the pain.
On the small scale, this numbness dupes us into forgiving those we
shouldn’t. On the large scale, while it may seem equally
unpleasant, it is the only way to starve the dogs of war.
As comedian Buddy Hackett once said, “Don’t hold a
grudge, because while you’re holding the grudge, the other
guy’s out dancing.” Just because I don’t advocate
unconditional forgiveness does not mean I recommend holding a
grudge. A grudge is anger; when you let anger fade, responsibility
repairs the damage.
Make awareness, not war. Enjoy your summer, Bruins, and find
some love.