Why do the Germans feel so much pain and embarrassment in dealing with the legacy of Hitler? Can Vietnam heal from the wounds of war and be friends with USA? Can the Palestinians and Israelis forgive each other's misdeeds and work together for a shared future? We know that time heals and generations pass. But is it possible for a nation to atone for atrocities it committed?
In literature and on celluloid, atonement originates from pangs of remorse felt by an individual. When misguided and selfish actions are motivated by the obsession to conquer the object of "love", or when desire for gain and power leads to evil acts, the settings for a great tragedy are laid. This consuming tragedy brings immense suffering to all parties concerned. Yet, some principal agents of tragedy survive though often perpetually haunted by remorse to set about seeking atonement.
In addition to the inner sanctum of the human psyche, atonement or at-one-ment can be seen as happening on the social scene. On the social scene, we have in the last few years seen leaders of nations apologize for the horrors (usually during war) caused by their predecessors. If this apology aims at reconciliation with a large group then an apology represents a symbolic gesture whereby the wrongdoer voluntarily lowers his own status as a person like West German Chancellor Willy Brandt kneeling at the Jewish victim's memorial at Warsaw Ghetto in 1970. Quite often other attempts at such atonement are often mere words like the ubiquitous "sorry," which means nothing.
History is always written by the victors of wars. By winning wars, the victorious groups raise itself above the loser and they thus are in no hurry to humble themselves voluntarily for the sake of atonement even if they have committed horrendous atrocities to gain victory. Winners usually get haughty, and arrogance prevents them from seeking any reconciliation with the vanquished except in rare cases. There is only one case in entire recorded history of a king having a genuine change of heart, after winning a battle. Appalled by the wanton violence and rivers of blood he caused, Ashoka (304-232 BC), the Maurya emperor of India, embraced non-violence and actively advocated atonement.
In various forums on the Internet many individuals are demanding two strong and extremely arrogant Western leaders to be tried as war criminals for two ongoing wars. But, these are individual sentiments not shared by the majority of voters. Political leaders hardly ever take responsibility for the consequences of their actions unless they are forced to by consistent and organized pressure from masses of their own constituents. Do many people in Belgium feel a burning need to atone because their king Leopold II sent about ten million people in Congo to horrible deaths for his personal gain?
In all the religious and spiritual traditions of humanity personal atonement is possible, in fact, a prerequisite for spiritual growth. But, collective atonement is a vision held up by religions originating in the Levant (Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) but not in the Eastern, Native American, South American, African or Aboriginal traditions. The Levant religions, with a personal God, all have this vision that people of that group alone will be redeemed (after atonement) at a certain point in chronological time through the establishment of a supernaturally endowed "perfect" society or through a cataclysmic event of the judgment day. The "others" will of course perish by fire and brimstone during this event. But for the non-Levant traditions redemption takes place inside the psyche of the individual in a dimension transcending time and space. Levant religions also require a division of us -vs- them, "us" being the chosen group. The others, according to these religions are not the chosen people and shall not be redeemed. So why bother even thinking of group atonement, just say "sorry" if you really must?
If we would take snapshots of the world stage at different points of human history and compare it with our moment on the stage of history, we would notice that we are engaged in the same acts of war, deprivation, violence, rape and pillage which people have done throughout. In spite of all the advances in technology, and liberalization in the fields of social, political, and economic systems, our leaders today can still justify these atrocities with the willing support of majorities. The current political scene with constant blows and counter-strikes hardly makes a unilateral disarmament and turning the other cheek, seem a very viable option to belligerent partners across battle lines.
We can of course conclude that our leaders are no better than those of earlier times, but we shouldn't forget that if we didn't want our nations to wage wars to prevent vested interests we would need to make sacrifices e.g., in a lowering of living standards. Many of the powerful nations engaged in bloody wars might not survive in the battle for markets and resources if coercion would be impossible and the rules of the game would be fair play all the way.
If we are asking for atonement on a national scale for the sins of our fathers (or mothers for that matter) or if we are to stop using war as a means to secure ends, are we prepared for atonement in the form of higher prices for fewer goods, the huddled poor of ravaged shores moving in to share our spacious homes and clean cities? Shall we pedal our way on bicycles through wet and snowy streets to longer hours at work? Shall we agree to consume less when the hapless children of the teeming masses in impoverished countries with an abundance of natural resources claim the right to live as wastefully as we or our children?
译文:
一个民族能赎其父辈之罪吗？
为何德国人一谈论到希特勒时就会觉得如此痛楚和窘迫呢？越南能从战争的伤痛中走出来，与美国为友吗？巴基斯坦人和以色列人会原谅彼此的罪行并为一个未来而共同奋斗吗？我们明白时间会治愈一切，一切也会随着一代代传下去。但是一个国家可能为它曾经所犯下的暴行而赎罪吗？
在文学作品和电影中，赎罪往往源自一个人深深的后悔自责带来的折磨。当由于想要攻克“爱”这个东西的强烈痴迷而生的错误或自私的行为，或者是源于对利益和权力的强烈渴望而生的邪恶之举，这些都为一个悲剧的发生而做好了铺垫。这个巨大的悲剧将给任何相关的一方带去强烈的痛苦。然而，其中一些引发悲剧人会幸免于难，尽管他们常常被懊悔永久困扰而一直想要寻找赎罪的方法。
除了一窥人类心灵密室，赎罪或者说是人与上帝“合一”，可以看作是在社会层面上发生的现象。从社会这一层面，我们在过去的几十年中曾看到过一些国家的领导人为他们的先辈所制造的恐怖（通常是由于战争）而道歉。若这种道歉旨在同一个民族和解的话，那么，一个道歉就代表了过错方自愿放下个人地位身份而做出的一个象征意义的姿态，正如西德总理维里· 勃兰特华沙犹太人隔离集中营的纪念碑前双膝下跪这一举一样。然而，类似于此的赎罪的其他方式常常仅是含糊不清的一句“对不起”，而这样的道歉，毫无意义。
历史总是由战争的胜利者而写。即使他们为了夺取胜利曾犯下可怕的罪行，而由于取得战争的胜利，胜利的一方会拔高自己，然后慢慢悠悠的为了赎罪而自甘谦卑去做一些事情。胜者常会傲慢不逊，傲慢让他们不会去同战败方寻求和解，只有极少数情况下他们才会这么做。在人类历史记载中只有一个这样的例子：一个国王在赢得一场战斗后真诚的同敌方交换心意，寻求谅解。印度孔雀王朝的王子阿育王（公元前304---232）被自己造成的暴力伤亡和血流成河的景象所惊骇，他欣然采取了非暴力手段并积极地倡导赎罪政策。
在网络上的各式论坛中，很多人都在要求那两位强大而极度傲慢的西方领导人因两场正在进行的战争而接受审判。但是，这些都只是些个人的情绪，并不为大多数选民所接受。政治领导人们几乎不会为他们行为的后果担负责任，除非他们迫于来自于他们自己大量选民那一致而统一的强大压力。利奥波德二世曾为了个人利益而致使刚果上千万人被残忍杀害，那么比利时人会因为这一场杀戮而觉得有赎罪的必需吗？
从所有人性的宗教及精神信仰的传统上来说，个人的赎罪实际上可能是精神上成长蜕变的一个必要条件。但是，集体赎罪是由在地中海东部累范特地区发源的宗教（索罗亚斯德教，犹太教，基督教和伊斯兰教）提出来的一个概念，而不是东方人、美洲印第安人、南美洲人，非洲人或者是土著居民的传统。累范特地区宗教带有个人上帝一说，它们都认为随着时间的推移，建立一个“完美”的超自然的社会或者是世界末日灾难的到来，都会让那个民族（在求赎后）在某种程度上得到拯救。而其他的民族当然都会在那场灾难的飞火硫石中灰飞烟灭。但是对于那些非累范特宗教而言，拯救是来自于个人心灵内部的，它发生在超越时间和空间的第三维次元中。累范特宗教还强调“自我”与“他人”之区分——“自我”就是那优选的民族。根据这些宗教之说，其他的民族就不是被上帝选中的民族，因而不会得到救赎。因此，那还为何为民族赎罪而困扰不堪呢，如果真的必须的话，说句“对不起”不就可以了嘛？
若我们想要从人类历史的不同的点去给世界这个舞台留下快照张张，拿来与现在我们这个时刻的世界相比，那么我们会发现我们身处在一个满是战争、剥削、暴力、掠夺、抢劫的地方，人类为之，无所不在。尽管科技一直在进步，在社会、政治和经济领域里也越来越自由，我们的领导人们今日仍可以以那些“大部分选民的支持”为这些暴行做辩解。当前政治局势中，四处都是打压、反恐，这并不会促成任何单边的裁军行动，而宽容大度，对战线对面好战的伙伴而言，似乎才是个很可行的选择方案。
我们当然能得出这样一个结论——我们现在的领导人和以前的各位一样的糟糕，但是我们不该忘记，如果我们不想国家为既得利益而卷入战争，我们就必需作出牺牲，比如——生活水准的降低。如若不实行高压政治并一路都遵循公平的游戏规则的话，许多为了争夺市场和资源而卷入血雨腥风的战争中的那些强势国家不会取得胜利。
从国家的层面上说，若我们因自己的父辈（某种程度上说也可能是母辈）犯下的罪过而需要为之赎罪，或者我们不再用战争作为保护利益的途径，我们真的为之做好准备了吗？——因为资源减少，物价会上涨；来自被蹂躏的海滨的挤成一团的穷人们会涌入城市，同我们共享本宽敞的房子和干净的城市。面对这些，我们准备好了吗？我们愿意踩着脚踏车穿越潮湿积雪的街道，花更长的时间去上班吗？有许多不幸的孩子们他们生活在拥有大量自然资源却依然贫瘠的国家里，我们和我们的孩子在这过着挥霍的生活，当他们要求拥有同样生活的权利时，我们能做到控制消费满足他们吗？