The Sunflower Paper - Essay Example

The Sunflower Paper Thesis ment: “The Sunflower”, more than any work of literature, is a text explicitly focused on the subject of forgiveness, how and when it applies in the context of the awful events that befell the Jews during Nazi’s reign. In the “Sunflower,” Wiesenthal gives us a harrowing account of how events unfolded during the reign of the Nazi’s regime. As the dying soldier confessed to Wiesenthal, he particularly narrates an event when about 200 Jews were crammed into a very small three-storied house which he never thought would be enough for them. To his surprise, all of them were forced in, and thereafter others who arrived in a track were also forced into the same house. They were then ordered to take a few steps backwards and throw explosives through the windows into the house. Huge fires engulfed the house minutes later, and the atmosphere was filled with screams of helpless Jews. The house was then surrounded by the Nazi soldiers who were ready with their guns to shoot anyone one who tried to escape from the deadly fire. The soldier paints the picture of what had happened openly that Wiesenthal could no longer stand it. He could only imagine how their people had suffered and how helpless they were. Wiesenthal describes how a lot of people squeezed in a small house, with a blazing fire surrounding them, with almost no chance of escaping from the fire. The soldier vividly says that they were also choked by the smokes that were emitted from the blaze, in spite of their distance from the house. What then could have been the experience of those who were submerged by the fire? Wiesenthal never wanted to hear anything more in fact, what he heard already was enough to torment him. Unable to be bear more of the heart rending tales, Wiesenthal tells the soldier that he should leave, but the soldier held his hand and told him that he had more to tell him (Wiesenthal 53). From the soldier’s firsthand accounts, one can clearly say that the he was very resentful of their inhuman acts to their fellow humans. All he had wanted at this particular time was to let it all out so that he could die with a light heart. He was obviously happy to have found someone who he could openly confess to. From his confessions, he emphasizes that he never wanted to be a killer, but was a killer due to what they had been instructed to do and what the regime had instilled in them. They were made to believe that the Jewish race was responsible for their miseries; hence, they needed to wipe them out. The accounts of the sad events as told by the soldier confirm just how far inhuman leaders can get in their attempt to determine the destinies of people even if it involves the sacrifice of innocent children. The dilemma which faces Wiesenthal in this book leaves him powerless and silent. He really does not know what to do as he is torn on whether to forgive someone who had caused his people so much pain or stay the rest of his life without forgiving him, despite his honest repentance. From what we are told by Wiesenthal, the soldier was truly repentant considering his facial expressions. When Wiesenthal reflects on what his people were exposed to, the concept of forgiveness becomes very complex as the author finds it absolutely out of this world to forgive even the soldier who had been directly involved in those dreadful events. The particular reason that pushes Wiesenthal deeper into this dilemma was the instance when the soldier tells how a family that had escaped from the fire was shot back to death (Wiesenthal 54). It is this dilemma that makes Wiesenthal to seek people’s responses on what they would have done in his shoes. Responses to Wiesenthal’s Question In response to Wiesenthal’s dilemma, Sven Alkalaj presented his feelings about the whole episode. According to Alkalaj, forgiveness can be administered only to individuals who realize their mistakes and express remorse for their actions. However, Alkalaj rules out the possibility of forgetting ones wrongful acts even after forgiving them. Some actions are so painful that they leave permanent scars engrossed in the deepest memories of the aggrieved parties. Another dilemma that faces Wiesenthal and which Alkalaj acknowledges is the fact that forgiving what happened to the Jewish people could seem disrespectful to those who died as a result of the Nazi atrocities (Wiesenthal 102). These painful memories, Akalaj agrees, may be retained as a symbol of love and appreciation of the fallen loved ones who lost their lives during these times. Nevertheless, he emphasizes the need for justice, because if those who committed those crimes go unpunished it might trigger more crimes in the future. As a result, states are tasked with the responsibility of protecting their people from inhuman acts. Alkalaj focuses on two main virtues in his arguments: forgiveness and justice. The two are very important and complementary in building a peaceful co-existence in the human race. Forgiveness should be everyone’s doing because we are all human, and we all are bound to wrong others at one time or another. Even God tells us to forgive others, so that we can also be forgiven and that we cannot expect to be forgiven if we do not forgive. However, it can be selfish of us to expect to be forgiven when we do not embrace forgiveness. Justice is a virtue that restores human dignity to those who are wronged. By forgiving, it does not mean wrong doers should go unpunished; rather, they should be forgiven once they serve their punishment. Forgiveness, according to Alkalaj, is meant to take the burdens off ones heart, whereas justice puts sanctions to future crimes (Wiesenthal). I truly agree with Alkalaj since his response seems rational when he addresses both concerns of the living as well as those who died during the killings. Tiffany Whigham agrees that what happened to Wiesenthal after being told the suffering that people had to go through is very normal. Whigham also admits that she, too, could have chosen to keep quiet at that particular moment probably due to our egocentric human nature. However, she argues that time is a healer, and that she could definitely have felt guilty for not forgiving a truly repentant person with time. Her reaction to the question posed by Wiesenthal at the end of his narration was that of complete forgiveness. According to her, that was the right thing for Wiesenthal to do in order to avoid being disturbed by a guilty conscience in the future. She concurs that one should forgiving and forgetting though easier said than done is the best way to heal. Whigham further asserts that even though we should never dwell so much on what we have already forgiven since doing that might cause an imbalance on our emotions (psychosis). She asserts that just like Jesus was able to die for everyone; even those who rejected him, we should always be ready to forgive. Whigham’s response focuses a lot on forgiveness which is absolutely correct. We should always be ready to forgive since we will also require forgiveness from those we offend. As much as she condemns Wiesenthal’s unwillingness to forgive, she concurs that if she were in his shoes, she could have felt the same way. Like Wiesenthal, Whigham seems to be in a dilemma on whether to make right decision and forgive or be confined to the dictations of the human nature. I partly disagree with her decision when she says that Wiesenthal will be filled with remorse in the later days of his life for not being able to forgive. I believe that the silence that was shown by Wiesenthal does not purely imply un-forgiveness. Silence just implies that Wiesenthal was shocked beyond words. Forgiveness does not lie in the words that we speak out but from the heart. Wiesenthal might have forgiven the soldier, but only lacked the strength to utter a word. My Response to Wiesenthal’s Question We all understand how hard it can be to forgive the very people who hurt our feelings. Saying “Yes, I forgive you” is easy to do but that is not forgiveness since forgiveness comes from the heart. Many seem to think that by uttering those words forgiveness is realized, which is far from the truth. When people forgive, they do it with honesty and understanding in that they can freely mingle with the person who hurt them with no ill feelings towards them. However, since our memories live with us forever, it may be hard to forget what this people did. These memories, though, should be remembered with no feeling of resentment and hate, but should only exist in our memories as an experience that we once underwent. Just like Wiesenthal and others cited above, Rodger addresses his response from a normal perspective and emphasizes on the complexity of forgiveness. He looks at the soldier’s confession from a different perspective and observes that it might not have been honest. According to Kamenetz, the soldier did not even ask Wiesenthal’s history before starting to confess to him but, rather, starts to confess as soon as he is brought to him. From his perspective, he says that the soldier still felt superior, expecting Wiesenthal to comply with his demand and listen to him (Wiesenthal 180). We can take Rodger as a case study of how forgiveness driven by the human heart can be impossible at times. True forgiveness that comes from the heart can only be attained through the Holy Spirit. Having understood forgiveness from that perspective, I could also have done exactly what Wiesenthal did, because if I had told him immediately that I had forgiven him, it could have been a lie. I could have needed time to myself, ask God what to do so that he can guide me through. I could have tried to search for forgiveness from within and that could have definitely needed time. By Wiesenthal listening to the soldier’s unending confession, it meant that he really felt that he was truly repentant. What had happened to a thousand innocent people was too terrible to be forgiven instantly by a noble human heart. That could only have been done through God’s intervention. Through God everything is possible, and he is the only who can successfully guide you through the process forgiveness. The issue of forgiveness in this book draws a lot of responses depending how different individuals viewed the whole issue. Jean Amery, for instance, looks at the issue from two different perspectives. When I look at true forgiveness as an act that is driven by the heart with God’s guidance, Amery says that forgiveness can be given depending on two things. First is the psychological aspect attached to it, and the political scenario surrounding the situation at hand. However, he argues that the political aspect does not matter since it is not likely to torment an individual as the psychological aspect. He advises that Wiesenthal would have held on to his moral values, instead of being weighed down by his political interests (Wiesenthal 121). However, he rejects any form of reconciliation with the criminals who made the lives of many miserable, which clearly show how forgiveness can be a very difficult thing to do. In conclusion, the events that are confessed in this book with the soldier are surely terrifying. Wiesenthal was strong enough since he had offered his listening ear to the dying man, so that he could have a real picture of what had happened. His identification of the dark-eyed child as Eli who he had encountered at one point, made him short of words to tell the dying soldier. His silence served him best, as silence can be interpreted in many ways. If he could have uttered a word, maybe he would have been tempted to say evil things. Sometimes forgiveness cannot be attained in just a twinkling of an eye, but it comes with time. Even though the soldier would have been honest with his repentance, time was needed by Wiesenthal to reflect upon the issue, in order for him to attain true forgiveness. Work Cited Wiesenthal, Simon. The Sunflower: On the Possibilities and Limits of Forgiveness (H. J. Cargas & B. V. Fetterman, Ed.). New York: Schocken Books. 1998. Print. Read More