Violent Accounts, written by Robert Kraft, is partially focused on the inner workings of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, a committee created after the apartheid-induced violence in various parts of Africa. The goal of the commission was to bring reconciliation and healing to the parts of Africa that suffered great acts of violence. It aimed to bring the country back together as one rather than keep it separated and founded on vengeance and violence. An essential step of Truth and Reconciliation Commission was that it needed to devote time to define what reconciliation is and how it differs from forgiveness. Following this, the commission was able to move forward to bring reconciliation and the ideals of healing to the ravaged lands
…show more content…
According to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, forgiveness is, “a sincere acceptance of flawed human nature” (Kraft 114). Furthermore, forgiveness is referred to as a private act where the, “victims devote themselves to renouncing anger, resentment, and revenge” (114). Forgiveness is a separate process from reconciliation and seems to oftentimes come before reconciliation. As a separate process, it can be observed, on page 116, that a person could possibly experience forgiveness and not reconciliation. This shows that while connected, these definitions of forgiveness and reconciliation do remain parted. Due to this dichotomy, a separate definition for reconciliation has to be introduced. Page 115 emphasizes that the term ‘reconciliation’ is synonymous to the phrase ‘negotiated forgiveness.’ Negotiated forgiveness is the act of actual, “dialogue between the perpetrator and the victim, with the perpetrator disclosing the crimes and taking responsibility, and the victim …trying to understand the perpetrator’s world” (115). It is a clash of two minds where the end goal is a homogenous solution and an understanding of one another. It is for the victim to see as the perpetrator saw and for the wrongdoer to grasp the effect they …show more content…
However, for the discovery of my own beliefs to occur, it was necessary to explore the meaning of justice and the justice system in any society or body of individuals. Therefore, I will explain my thoughts beginning from this point. Justice, from what I have observed and reasoned, is a way to correct those who have fallen away from the path that is commonly accepted as good. There is no malicious intent in justice, rather, there is only the aim to steer the splintering faction back to what is good. Anything beyond what is necessary to bring the tangent party into an understanding that where they were going was wrong is known as vengeance. This is the act of declaring justice as insufficient and additional actions to be taken against what is evil. It is the belief that the tangential party has not truly corrected it course and therefore deserves and requires additional punishment. Vengeance, in itself, is unjust and therefore falls from the correct path, so those who partake in vengeance also require correction, or justice. Forgiveness, is the rejection of vengeance. Forgiveness is the acceptance that the offending party cannot be determined completely evil by themselves and that the ruling source of justice is sufficient to bring that person back to what is good. If a person forgives an offending party, they are stating that once justice has
According to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, forgiveness is, “a sincere acceptance of flawed human nature” (Kraft 114). Furthermore, forgiveness is referred to as a private act where the, “victims devote themselves to renouncing anger, resentment, and revenge” (114). Forgiveness is a separate process from reconciliation and seems to oftentimes come before reconciliation. As a separate process, it can be observed, on page 116, that a person could possibly experience forgiveness and not reconciliation. This shows that while connected, these definitions of forgiveness and reconciliation do remain parted. Due to this dichotomy, a separate definition for reconciliation has to be introduced. Page 115 emphasizes that the term ‘reconciliation’ is synonymous to the phrase ‘negotiated forgiveness.’ Negotiated forgiveness is the act of actual, “dialogue between the perpetrator and the victim, with the perpetrator disclosing the crimes and taking responsibility, and the victim …trying to understand the perpetrator’s world” (115). It is a clash of two minds where the end goal is a homogenous solution and an understanding of one another. It is for the victim to see as the perpetrator saw and for the wrongdoer to grasp the effect they …show more content…
However, for the discovery of my own beliefs to occur, it was necessary to explore the meaning of justice and the justice system in any society or body of individuals. Therefore, I will explain my thoughts beginning from this point. Justice, from what I have observed and reasoned, is a way to correct those who have fallen away from the path that is commonly accepted as good. There is no malicious intent in justice, rather, there is only the aim to steer the splintering faction back to what is good. Anything beyond what is necessary to bring the tangent party into an understanding that where they were going was wrong is known as vengeance. This is the act of declaring justice as insufficient and additional actions to be taken against what is evil. It is the belief that the tangential party has not truly corrected it course and therefore deserves and requires additional punishment. Vengeance, in itself, is unjust and therefore falls from the correct path, so those who partake in vengeance also require correction, or justice. Forgiveness, is the rejection of vengeance. Forgiveness is the acceptance that the offending party cannot be determined completely evil by themselves and that the ruling source of justice is sufficient to bring that person back to what is good. If a person forgives an offending party, they are stating that once justice has