Analysis of The Sunflower - on the Possibilities and Limits of Forgiveness by Wiesenthal Simon - Book Report/Review Example

Forgiveness The sponsored Holocaust genocide killed 6 million Jews and other groups such as the Poles, the disabled, and thehomosexuals within a period of four years. The Nazi created an inhuman and horrific scene that shocked the world. At this point, the world questioned its humanity and vowed to fight the dignity for the human race. Most people find it difficult reliving the Holocaust experience through their memories. It is crucial to highlight that in spite of cultural and religious differences, the world operates through an ideal and invisible moral code. This explains why nations have committed efforts towards fighting dehumanizing practices such as slavery. This occurs as films and books tell the world of the horrible and sometimes shockingly human experiences amidst the Holocaust. In the Sunflower, Simon Wiesenthal narrates the experience of encountering a Nazi soldier who confesses his sins and asks for forgiveness from Simon. Although Simon resorts to silence because of his dilemma, if I were in his position, I would not have forgiven the soldier. It is essential to highlight the two levels of forgiveness that apply to the situation. Either forgiveness could mean excusing Karl from his atrocities or it may suggest letting go of the resentment that Simon might have harbored against Karl. Viewing Wiesenthal and Karl as individuals is simplistic thereby ignoring the complexity and experiences of people other than them. In this sense, it may be effective to view the two people as a case study of the Holocaust experience. Karl symbolizes the Nazi supporters who experienced a clear conscience only when faced with a similar trauma just as the Jews were facing. Although, the story does not indicate a particular time when Karl experienced a new revelation, it seems he refreshed his soul when he became sick. In the hospital, he is still identified as a soldier. It is probable that Karl would have continued with his debauched life had he not gotten ill. ‘ Wiesenthal’s forgiveness of Karl denies entire atrocities committed by the Third Reich regime. Denial of forgiveness, in this case, is an act of conscience that manifests the Holocaust’s magnitude of inhumanity. It is illegitimate for Karl to offer forgiveness on behalf of all the Jews who faced horrid time in concentration camps. Forgiveness, in the act of excusing Karl from his sins, endorses the debauchery that he committed. It is essential to note that rage was instrumental in inviting the rest of the world towards fighting the Nazi regime and halting Holocaust. Wiesenthal deserves anger as a means of understanding the gravity and sin of Holocaust on humanity. In addition, he should be aware of the suffering Jews who could not have a normal life because of Hitler’s ideology. In this sense, forgiving is, in a large way, ignoring and denying the inhumanity of Holocaust. Forgiving Wiesenthal sets the precedence for a world that is blind to injustices in the magnitude of Holocaust. Denial of forgiveness shows the stance the world possesses against crimes targeting human life. In close relation to the latter point, Wiesenthal is inexcusable from his sins. In spite of the fact that Christianity all the sins as the same, crimes against humanity are inexcusable. Karl confesses that he had participated in repeated killing and torture of Jews. It is unbelievable that his conscience had not been stricken during the procedures. Dennis Prager concurs that murder is an unforgivable sin since a person who dies never regains life (Wiesenthal 234). The death of a person is marked by blood and crying in agony that is bound to raise emotions and sympathy. Karl is seemingly a man who stifled his emotions and lacked the sympathy, which is key to human relationships. Dalai Lama argues that even though a person may lose anger against a certain wrongdoing, it is important for the human race not to forget crimes against humanity (Wiesenthal 201). In addition, Karl’s apology is not sacrificial. During the Holocaust, some people who risked their lives to help others from the concentration camps and harsh life imposed by Hitler. It is essential to note that most of these people were in positions of privilege that they would have rather enjoyed than use to assist others. For instance, a German businessman, Oskar Schindler saved the lives of more than one thousand Jews and Poles by employing them in his plants. It is essential to note that Schindler risked his life and business by involving with the Jews at a time of militant autocracy. There are undocumented stories of soldiers who helped the oppressed during the Holocaust in small ways that they could. Karl would have used his consciousness towards helping the oppressed people, during the Holocaust, in the best way he could manage. His confession at his deathbed seems opportunistic and safe since he cannot face the trauma of practicing his new ideals. The current state of the world is made by people who put to practice their ideals and consciousness towards a greater cause than themselves. In Karl’s case, he seems selfish since he is merely interested in clearing his guilty conscience. It is arguable that Karl is haunted by a memory of himself that he deems as unsuitable for his reputation. On the other hand, there are contrasting perspectives that endorse forgiveness. In this sense, it is essential to examine Karl as an individual who is defenseless against an autocratic regime. Karl, as a soldier, was engaged in his own career that was independent of the Nazi ideology. He is a victim just as much as the Jews were victims. He was just a normal person who conducted his duties as outlined by the government. Since the army thrives on orders, Karl found himself in distasteful circumstances, as he had to take nasty orders from his seniors. The brutal Nazi government was so powerful that Karl would not have easily ignored the orders given by his seniors. In the Hitler government, non-conforming soldiers attained brutal punishment and eventual execution. In major cases, the family of a radical soldier would be executed. This is a complex moral dilemma for a normal person who might have feared the consequences of disobeying orders. Karl, therefore, suffers the blemish of other people who might have not participated in the direct acts of torture and killing. In this case, Karl deserves empathy for participating in activities that, otherwise, he would not have done if he were free from the Nazi bondage. It is arguable that there are high chances that Karl might have long known that whatever he was doing was wrong even before he became ill. He, therefore, lacked the platform to show his remorse. However, philosophers, such as Kant, believe that there is universalism in morality that makes everyone realize the dignity of humanity. In addition, Karl might have been a brainwashed individual whose sense arose when he saw the reality of death. The Nazi regime used propaganda in luring the German populace towards a collective malice of exterminating the Jew population. The technique was even used on young people thereby interfering with their impressionable minds. During such ecstasy, an individual may lose one’s sense of insanity. In the end, Karl might have taken long to realize his misdeeds since the Nazi propaganda had highly infiltrated his mind. Unlike many Germans who never saw the evil of the Holocaust, Karl is heroic for reevaluating his life. On the other hand, Karl might have been old enough by the time he was drafted in the army. It is unimaginable that he would not have sensed the ignominy of the Nazi propaganda. In essence, if I were in Wiesenthal’s position, I would not forgive Karl. I analyze forgiveness, in this sense, as an act of excusing a person from one’s sins. Karl participated in sins that despise human life and made the lives of many people miserable. It is unimaginable that he would not comprehend the magnitude of his debauchery. In addition, forgiving Karl sets precedence for further contempt upon human life. It is necessary to project outrage against inhuman tendencies such as the Nazi ideology such that the world becomes a better place for further generations. Although sociologists may argue that Karl was defenseless against the Third Reich militant regime, he possessed the choice of standing up for his morals. Reference Wiesenthal, Simon. The Sunflower: on the possibilities and limits of forgiveness. New York, NY: Schocken Books, 2008. Print. Read More