Forums @ Prydwen.net

Firstly, let's be clear - the Northern Ireland peace process has as its primary focus an attempt to end wrong doings TODAY. Things that are still going on. People are or have been part of the bad things happened and hence have feelings of responsibility. This is completely different from someone feeling responsible for the actions of their ancestors. The situation in Northern Ireland owes its roots to things our ancestors did, but beatings, hatred, bigotry, bombings and shootings on all sides have been done by people alive today.

It's beeing done by people today, because of what happend in the past. Childeren grow up with it (might even get taught to think some way), get older, etc, etc. It's not completely different, it has everything todo with it. Why would you be bombing, shooting and hating people anyway, if you would forget the past (how recent it may have bin).

Tuthmes wrote:It's beeing done by people today, because of what happend in the past. Childeren grow up with it (might even get taught to think some way), get older, etc, etc. It's not completely different, it has everything todo with it. Why would you be bombing, shooting and hating people anyway, if you would forget the past (how recent it may have bin)

That's true, but I think most often these events are a continuum until the cycle of violence is broken. The struggle is alive and people fight. People retaliate on recent events and perpetuate the hatred.

This is very different from situations where the cycle of violence has been broken. Closure has been achieved, and people move on. I think it is very significant that the type of shame/resentment relationship I have been saying we should avoid is one of the things that can resurrect the violence.

Also, please bear in mind I am talking about what I believe SHOULD happen, not what does. Yes, it is true that people DO feel ashamed or responsible or resentful or prideful, etc about things that happened in history (and I've already explained some of the things I think are the reasons for that), but that doesn't mean it's right to do so or right to encourage it.

Only way to stop a fight, is to take away the reason for the argument.

This is very different from situations where the cycle of violence has been broken. Closure has been achieved, and people move on. I think it is very significant that the type of shame/resentment relationship I have been saying we should avoid is one of the things that can resurrect the violence.

Funny enough thats exactly what happend in jugoslavia and we all know what happend in 1991. Or what happend between the muslims and christians in Indonesia, just recently.

However i do agree with you. It's like the old indian saying about the waters edge and the fox and the scorpion

It's sad that countries and forum posters alike don't heed the age old story of Beowulf and Grendel and realise that when each side continues tit for tat it'll prolong the dispute and leave even greater losses on both sides

Sharkith wrote:yes people really do need to know English sadly thats unavoidable in todays world - for all the wrong reasons (i.e. Empire and imperalism). This however does not mean we should be intolerant. UK peeps are the ones who couldn't be arsed to go learn German, Dutch or French. We know where the weakness is in this whole thing (in the UK) and its better to be honest about that rather than expecting everyone to become little Englanders.

f....ing Imperalists
People from England-French-Italy-Spain get some open mind and learn a second language8)
Maybe you understand the world better thenmwahaha:

Xest wrote:It's sad that countries and forum posters alike don't heed the age old story of Beowulf and Grendel and realise that when each side continues tit for tat it'll prolong the dispute and leave even greater losses on both sides

Speaking of that one, the movie was awful gotta love the mountains in the background when they are in denmark...I mean, C'mon!!!! MOUNTAINS IN DENMARK?

/Ankh

I noticed the other day in the PlayUSA.com DVD top 10 that there was a film listed about it, I guess that's the same one? I hadn't heard anything of any film about it, was it ever released in the cinema or is it just some cheap movie made for DVD release only?

Think it was just made for dvd release. Tbh it should be released at all!

/Ankh

Xest wrote:It's sad that countries and forum posters alike don't heed the age old story of Beowulf and Grendel and realise that when each side continues tit for tat it'll prolong the dispute and leave even greater losses on both sides

That's just the problem though, some of the feuds between nations go back centuries and have become ingrained in the minds of those people. No matter how much we try to negotiate for peace, people will still harbour ill-feelings and malice towards their "old enemies", because they've been taught by parents/friends/society to be that way.

Sure, we can have cease-fires, but the emotions are still there, like an under-current. The longer the cease-fire the better, but there is always a chance that fighting may break out again and cause an escalation of violence.

Tackling the racial hatred is the most difficult thing to do, but that's ultimately the only way to resolve the problem permanently.

Hi Cryn,

once again a great post! The reason why I brought up where I come from was to illustrate that as someone who is Northern Irish we were taught histories of shame about our ancestor's part in the occupation of Ireland. The national curriculum taught us that 'we' took the land and 'we' essentially didn't really belong there. As the first colony of the British empire 'we' were made to feel ashamed.

Making a group that is a minority feel that it was to blame for the hurts of a whole Island did nothing but make that minority feel insecure and beligerant. It is hard to tell but in some way we are certain that the histories of shame that we were taught and that were associated with our people's actions over a period of 400 years certainly contributed to our insecurity. Since then several alternative histories have only recently been produced with the aim of correcting some sacred cows of Republican history and when reading them you begin to relaise that in fact you have been a victim of shameful history.

The sad thing is that in recent history - in fact one generation back. We replicated the same mistakes on both sides. However that is not to say that for example Gerry Adams did not feel shame when two children were killed in Warrington. Or that the loyalist paramilitaries were eventually to express shame and remorse for killing catholics. In fact it was the peace movement that was to eventually say to the paramilitaries that they should be ashamed for doing what they were doing in the name of the people of Northern Ireland. Once more the code was there in many complex guises.

I brought up where I come from because I am only too aware of the consequences of beating someone over the head with it. As for the code. I think the fact that we are having this vigorous discussion shows that the code is indeniably associated with our history. The biggest problem is what we ought to do with such things knowing they exist?

Is it best to leave it knowing it is there as a repository of past actions where our society was not sure why it was doing what it was doing? Or from time to time would it be worth using it positively in ways that we can learn to avoid replicating old mistakes?

I don't know the answers to this I wasn't promoting that we produce a history of shame to make the English feel bad. The discussion has moved forward in a steady path and one thing I could promise would be that if we were to study the sematic of shame historically we might find be able to trace its origins. Thinking about it now I think shame might be a way that a society incorporates the others of history so that it can confront them and get on with its existence. I am not sure, the fact the Rushdie has wrote about it at length along with Irish scholars shows that it is part of an ongoing dialogue between conquerer and conquered.

Finally it is a complex thing. Meaning is notorious for turning around on opposites (Derrida) but undertanding it contours and its history might well reveal how best to engage with such a powerful term and what pitfalls await anyone who mentions it on an internet forum.

Alexandrinus - I would tend to agree.