Violence from the Past

2010 June 3
by Julie Clawson

The day after we here in the U.S. paused to remember the men and women who had died fighting for our country, the fight continued from beyond the grave. On Tuesday in the town of Göttingen, Germany a World War 2 era bomb exploded killing three people and injuring six others. The strangeness of death coming from a conflict long resolved, the destruction of former enemies now become close friends, gave me pause as I read the headline.

My first thought in the “what a tangled web we weave” category, was to wonder if the Allied airmen dropping those bombs some years ago ever thought that their action had the potential to kill their unborn grandchildren. Or that one day we would live in a globalized world where the idea of Germany and America being at war with one another would be utterly preposterous. And still the violence and the hatred of a time gone by had its latest causalities in 2010.

I’m fully aware that if any war could ever be called a “just war” it would be World War 2. I also know that this could simply be seen as a freak accident. But it isn’t just in Germany where the conflicts of the past still reach into the peaceful times of the present – harming generally those with no stake in the fight. The poor farmer in Laos whose legs were blown off when he overturned a bomb leftover from when his country was used as a pawn as the colonial powers of the West fought for control in Vietnam. The three children killed in Columbia when they triggered a landmine while playing a game of soccer. The people in Japan dying from cancers caused by the atomic bombs dropped in their country. The children born with birth defects because their parents were exposed to Agent Orange in the Vietnam War. Wars never end when a treaty is signed or peace declared.

It can be easy to dismiss these as simply the vicissitudes of life, but I wonder if that is just a way to avoid dealing with the issues. Our news channels don’t give us body counts of those we’ve killed in Iraq or Afghanistan because that would make the conflict too real – too human. Thinking about the lingering effects an act of violence might have seems to do the same. In the moment the goal of winning trumps any understanding of the enemy as a real person. Considering that in a decade one might be sitting down for a cup of coffee with the person one is attempting to kill today isn’t conducive to gaining the upper hand today. But the future still comes.

I recall first understanding the strangeness and regret hindsight can elicit when in grad school I sat down for a lunch with a friend from the Ukraine and we joked about the duck and cover drills we practiced in our grade schools. Each of us was conditioned to hate the other, sure that our respective countries would launch an attack at any moment. And now we were in school together, studying missions theology, eating sandwiches at the local deli. It is easy to question why I assumed she was my enemy then, I just wish I had had the courage to do so when I was a child.

I know how simplistic it sounds to suggest that a long-term perspective be applied to the conflicts of the present. Most would answer that the peace of tomorrow can only come through the violence of today. But how many of us would look at our closest friends and tell them that if we could travel back in time we would have no problem killing their grandparents. So why are we interested in killing people today whose children will go to school with our kids in a few years? Are we okay with the bomb we dropped today killing our allies in Afghanistan in 70 years? I hope if anything good comes from this incident in Germany it is that some of these questions start being asked. It’s complicated and messy, but that’s what generally happens when we take the time to think beyond the moment.

7 Responses leave one →
  1. Andy permalink
    June 3, 2010

    I completely agree with this post, and I’m glad you wrote it. But I’m thinking about how someone might spin these types of incidents. They might say that the deaths of civilians are a demonstration of how evil our enemies are, that they force us to go to these lengths to stop them. I’ve heard similar statements about terrorists in Iraq who use human shields. I can think of a response or two, but I’m curious what you would say.

  2. June 4, 2010

    A deeper time perspective does tend to shift things.

  3. June 4, 2010

    For me incident like this only highlight the profound immorality of war. There is never such a thing as a just war. Christ has not called us to be people of violence, but a people who are the antidote to the violence and sin of this world. This is the essence of the kingdom of God. Sometimes this requires sacrifices up to and including our own lives or the lives of those we care about. The alternative is a never-ending cycle of violence that only perpetuates the darkness that too often characterizes this world. Violence is a perverse gift whose effects always reverberate throughout the ages in profound ways. Witness the continuing effects of racism in this country or antisemitism in the Middle East. Only when we break this cycle with the power of the Gospel can the effects of violence truly be eliminated.

  4. June 4, 2010

    See also: The presence of the past, by Rachel Stone.

  5. June 5, 2010

    Julie–Once again your post makes me think and makes me want to teach my children well. I have only one small quibble. News cast body counts seem much more acceptable when the administration is Republican. I don’t think their absence has anything at all to do with a fear that such makes the conflict too real or too human.

  6. June 7, 2010

    Y’all are right. Violence never solves anything and can never be just. That’s why Christians shouldn’t serve on police forces.

    Oh, wait…

Trackbacks and Pingbacks

  1. Wednesday Link List « Thinking Out Loud

Leave a Reply

Note: You can use basic XHTML in your comments. Your email address will never be published.

Subscribe to this comment feed via RSS