Too much to say. Entirely too much. The thirty minutes I have sat in front of the computer screen, in an attempt to organize my thoughts of the last two days, has been a futile attempt to juggle an enormity of experience. So I will simply jot a few ideas from the past 48 hours.
The longest plane ride that I have ever been on lasted four or so hours. So, after a nine hour flight to London, followed by a seven hour layover and the promise of another eleven cramped hours, (I find it a small irony that economy should favor the “little” person in airline travel only) I was slightly peeved. The lights turned out after dinner was served and I was determined to force some sleep when a booming laugh startled me. Of course, I was flying next to the only passenger who decided not to sleep on a trans-continental night flight—awesome. Fortunately, his laugh was maintained to a slight chuckle until about six hours in, when I was again startled. Still, his laugh was infectious. He noticed me looking his way and pointed to the screen. In a thick accent he said, “I love Friends.” I nodded subtly, slightly amused but not trying to engage in conversation. He continued. “I am on my way back from Georgia, in the United States.” I wondered if he knew that I was from the states. Was I that obvious? We were flying out of Heathrow after all. Again he started talking, “Sometimes my work takes me there.” For the third time I just sort of nodded but this time I acknowledged that I was from Colorado. He said he had never been there but that he was from Botswana. With that I turned and tried to get more sleep. Then, a few hours later—at about four in the morning and without any great warning—the man reached across and opened the plane window screen. He seemed disappointed and sat back. I just looked at him, shocked at his daring to just reach across. “You will like the African Sunrise,” he said, “I think it is different than in America.”
I told him I would wait for it. I was awake now. Oddly he next asked me, “Are there good cattle in Colorado?” I said there were and asked why he would ask. “We have very good cattle in Botswana. I have several myself. Cattle are good in my country—stand for family and tradition.” I asked him why he was going to South Africa. His answer was simple, “I cannot get to Botswana from Britain or America without first going through South Africa. Why are you going to South Africa?”
I told him to study reconciliation and diversity. “Aha. Yes that is very interesting in South Africa.” We continued to talk, he with his booming voice and I trying to whisper. At one point he explained why Botswana had not become a colony of Great Britain saying, “Everyone thought we were in a desert. The British were tired of deserts (I assume he was referring to parts of the Middle East). They saw nothing so they left us alone. When they left we found the diamonds and began selling the cattle to Europe. It is lucky, really, that God hid the diamonds of our land. If we seemed plentiful, we would have been colonized. We were saved from Apartheid.” He began to ask if I was studying anthropology, but was not entirely surprised that I was not. “It is important for everyone to know,” he said, “because Apartheid manipulated everybody and now everything must be reconciled.”
I, being ignorant and still trying to keep the conversation simple replied “Yes, it is complicated.” The classic conversation ender failed though.
“No it is not complicated,” he said to my dismay and shock. “If your children are oppressed you must fight for liberation. But, if your children are the ones benefiting from Apartheid, you might not be so quick to stand up. When you think of people, and how they act with their families—and in Africa family is so important-- you see why so few manipulated so many. It is simple.” It was at this point that the flight attendant came and hushed us—I was speechless without her help, though. At five fifteen the man reached across and again opened the window. The sun was rising in Africa. It was blood red. I asked the man’s name. “Peter,” he said. We shook hands, the plane landed, and while Peter crossed the terminal to connect home, I took my first steps into Africa and reconciliation.
That very day, after a moving trip to Constitutional Hill (a political prison in the heart of JoBerg that is famous for holding prisoners such as Ghandi and Winnie Mandela) and the South African Constitutional Court we had a very interesting discussion about the role of forgiveness in Apartheid. Our host professor asked whether or not it was immoral to forgive in reconciliation, acts that are unforgivable. The topic was interesting. Having seen the court and steaming with a glorified desire for justice given my background in South Africa, it is easy to condemn. In the same manner, by the Christian doctrine (one that I generally support more than most “Religious” ideas) if one must forgive, then forgiveness is not a choice, and in my opinion, the meaning of forgiveness is diluted.
I cannot help but make reconciliation not only relevant to the US, but also global in answering this question. Never again. These two words are a promise in the States, in Israel, in South Africa. Denying, in any way, the “unalienable rights” that I—I---I hold to be self evident is unforgivable. It has happened in the past in my country, it is happening in the present in my country. Never again can not be a slogan—rather it must be a mission statement.
At the same, what Peter said resonates with me. I cannot help but to embrace the struggle of Apartheid, and the ideas of reconciliation and diversity without remembering that we are all members of a family. To sin, religious or not, is to be human. Blacks, whites, Indians, and all others are sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, South Africans…Americans. The only way to hope for reconciliation is to hope for a change within people. When Mandela says, “Freedom is a responsibility to assure the liberties of others,” he is referring to the choice that has so rarely been made by those who have the rare opportunity to deny self interest for the greater good. (As a side note this does not mean that what I consider to be Freedom is what all people consider to be freedom. Indoctrination, which I believe is, by nature, subservient to a doctrine, is not a message I am trying to promote). Thus, forgiveness must to be a choice, in its ability to allow the liberty of an individual to change and grow.
Reconciliation and Forgiveness are not one in the same. They are both choices. Events and actions which are condemnable and must never be repeated are not to be forgiven. They are to be understood. Through this understanding people may learn a respect for one another. The creation for respect and understanding of all peoples in all nations creates reconciliation. Forgiveness, after understanding and respect, may follow.
This is why Peter mentioned family. We, all peoples, are family. Shit happens. But a healthy family is grounded in respect and understanding. Families must reconcile problems all the time. Sometimes a member of the family does something that must never happen again, (David forgetting Mom’s birthday—I joke). Though the event is unforgivable, brothers and sisters are forgiven as a choice from love. This is the role of forgiveness in reconciliation. Forgiveness is not to assist in the necessary understanding of past evils, but to allow personal transformations of future members of “the family.”
Forgive my incoherence, verbosity, and grammatical errors. Jetlag mixed with emotion and excitement is an inebriating mix.