Do you believe that having the Truth and Reconcilliation Commission in South Africa was worthwhile? Would it have been better for the country if all those that had grossly violated human rights were punished in a way that would have shown the world, and reminded South Africans how horrendously cruel apartheid was?
Once you have responded to this question please also respond to at least one comment that has been posted by someone else in the class.
Student responses needs to be posted by 8:00am on Wednesday 1/26.
Jaclyn Hirbawi
ReplyDeleteWebber
Modern World History Period 7
26 January 2010
I believe that having the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa was a worthwhile attempt to heal the country’s wounds of apartheid. The new South African Government was wise to set up the T.R.C in hopes that it would allow the country to move forward. Although most victims of human rights abuse believed that justice was a prerequisite for reconciliation, punishing perpetrators by violating their own human rights would have only fought fire with fire and continued a vicious cycle of brutality in South Africa. I am sincerely sympathetic towards victims of gross human rights violations, but I also consider reconciliation an individual as well as a societal process and cruel reparation would have simply made matters worse. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission put a “giant mirror before this country,” as Michael Lapsley said, and I think it sought not to forget the past but rather to understand the motives behind it. According to a 1998 study, most cases heard were weighted in favor of perpetrators and there could have been a great deal of discrepancy between the emotions of the witnesses and those translating them. Despite this fact, the T.R.C. at least began the deeply enduring and emotional process of forgiveness for all South Africans. True and total reconciliation has yet to come between black and white communities, and South Africa still has to travel far as Cynthia Ngewu explained, “In the white community they are not willing to accept that horrible past and humble themselves before the nation and bring about a [complete] healing.” Even though the indelible marks of apartheid have now become scars, it is for the reason she explained that I support the concept that genuine restoration will come along when poverty is eradicated with a substantial economy.
Works Cited
The Ones That Got Away – South Africa. YouTube. 18 Sept. 2007. Web. 23 Jan. 2011. .
"Survivors' Perceptions of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and Suggestions for the Final Report". Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation. 25 Setp. 2006. Web. 23 Jan. 2011.
Webber, Chris. "T.R.C." Modern World History Class. US, Carlsbad, CA. 20 Jan. 2011. Lecture.
Briana Silva
ReplyDeleteWebber- Period 4
January 24, 2011
The Truth and Reconciliation Commission
The new South African government set up the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, or TRC, shortly after Apartheid was ended. Nelson Mandela, the new president of South Africa asked Archbishop Desmond Tutu to head the committee, and Tutu was unable to refuse this offer. The TRC was set up in order to help South Africa heal from the years of apartheid the country underwent. I believe that the TRC was extraordinarily worthwhile for every South African, of all races and skin colors.
The TRC was set up like a court, and people of all sections of society were able to go up and say their case. These people ranged from wanting clarity of loved ones who died by the hands of police to whites that had murdered many black people, and wanted to clear their consciences. Every single court hearing was broadcast throughout the country, which I believe was to unite the country and to make it so that people empathized with all races, and not just their own race.
The court hearings with perpetrators of gross human rights violations were perhaps the most interesting, for they gave insight of the racist white people that set out to kill black people. Many of them argued that it was the way that they were brought up that shaped the way they viewed the black people. However, when apartheid was abolished, they realized the grave error they had made. Seven thousand and twelve people requested amnesty for the basic human rights violations, and eight hundred and forty nine people were granted amnesty. I do not believe that it would have been better for the government to punish all of the people who had grossly violated human rights, for the main point of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission was to have a new, clean chapter in South Africa, which wouldn’t be so if they had many people jailed for the wrongs they committed during apartheid.
Brian Haist
ReplyDeleteMr. Webber
Honors Modern World History
26 January, 2011
Truth and Reconciliation Commission: Helpful?
In my own opinion, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa was an enormous step toward a very long and extremely painful recovery. Over 20,000 directly effected victims of Apartheid were documented by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. This ferocity of Apartheid's perpetrators will not soon be forgotten and most likely never be forgiven by those who were effected by the murders, beatings, and opression during Apartheid. Though the scars of pain on the sufferers of Apartheid will never truly heal, the Truth and Reconciliation Comission was created so the culprits of Apartheid can ask for redemption and a new start. However, for people such as Cynthia Ngewu, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission gave her and others knowledge, but no comfort for the loss of her son.
One of the brutes from Apartheid, Craig Williamson, came to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission to state why he did what he did during Apartheid in a plead to ask for his own redemption. Craig Williamson stated in an interview that, "...I don't think I ever feel forgiven. I don't think that's what it's about. For some people, that's what it's been about. I think the only forgiveness I want is for people to say that I still have the right to live in this country and to be a citizen and to be accepted. I couldn't ask for more." Just by going to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, Craig Williamson has shown his regrets and has the courage to tell his horrible past. Though this won't erase what any perpetrator has done from history, it shows his own regrets to the sufferers of Apartheid for what he and his partners in crime have done. In all, by the criminals showing their regret for the torture that was inflicted on Apartheid's victims, the healing process begins ever so slightly.
Works Cited
The Ones That Got Away – South Africa. YouTube. 18 Sept. 2007. Web. 23 Jan. 2011.
Webber, Chris. "T.R.C." Modern World History Class. US, Carlsbad, CA. 20 Jan. 2011. Lecture.
The horrors of apartheid left South Africa in a wounded state. The new government, led by Nelson Mandela, needed to find a way to move the country forward, out of its dark period in history. A number of black leaders called for a tribunal to try officials of the apartheid regime for their crimes, similar to the International Military Tribunal set up by the Allies to try Nazi officials for war crimes, or the Nuremburg Trials. Ultimately, Mandela’s government decided that violently punishing those that had done wrong would not be the best way to heal the country. In 1996, with Archbishop Desmond Tutu as the chair, the Truth and Reconciliation Committee was created. The commission set out to identify victims of gross human rights violations and ensure that they received appropriate support and compensation. I believe that this committee was a truly civilized and enlightened commission. For the first time, the TRC enabled the black and white citizens of South Africa to begin a new relationship, without a new period of acrimony and hostility. Also, some 21,000 victims of apartheid were willing to come forward to testify. These testimonies allowed whites to finally see the blacks they had been abusing for decades as humans. They could finally begin to see the loss and devastation they had created. This was all done without violence. The whites in support of apartheid had looked at the blacks as “savages,” but now those “savages” were models of tolerant and admirable behavior. To me, the TRC lead the way with the idea in mind that the truth will set you free. Once the truth of apartheid was broadcast for everyone to see, the country could move forward together as a whole.
ReplyDeleteI respond to Jaclyn’s comment by agreeing that South Africa still has a long way till complete reconciliation. In my opinion, after such a disgusting violation of human rights, total reconciliation may never come. We can only hope for healing and peaceful solutions to right the wrongs of the past.
Works Cited
Fisher, Peter A. Personal interview. 24 Jan. 2011.
Horvitz, Leslie Alan, and Christopher Catherwood. "Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC)." Encyclopedia of War Crimes and Genocide. New York: Facts On File, Inc., 2006. Modern World History Online. Facts On File, Inc. http://www.fofweb.com/activelink2.asp?
ItemID=WE53&iPin=EWCG538&SingleRecord=True (accessed January 25, 2011).
Webber, Christopher. "T.R.C." Pacific Ridge School, Carlsbad. 20 Jan. 2011. Lecture.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteKyla King
ReplyDeleteMr. Webber
Honors World History
Period 7
24 January 2011
The Truth and Reconciliation Commission
The Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) in South Africa was an unorthodox justice system set up in the wake of apartheid to attempt to hear the victims and perpetrators of horrible crimes during that time period. It would only grant amnesty to perpetrators that committed the crimes for political reasons and told the entire truth. The TRC also created various solutions to help the victims of apartheid. I believe that the TRC allowed the truth to be heard in a more whole and intact way than it could have been without it. This, as shown by the success of the TRC, was clearly cleansing for South Africa as a country. Although the TRC had positive outcomes, it was inherently idealistic and theoretical, which created flaws in the overall result. The TRC did not solve every problem that it faced; victims especially were left without a sense of closure. Some felt that no real justice was achieved and that amnesty should not have been granted. Other victims felt that they were forced to reconcile even if they were not ready to forgive the perpetrators. Victims saw another problem as the lack of attendance of perpetrators because they “cannot forgive people who do not come forward” (Survivors’ Perceptions of the TRC). Others saw no tangible results of the TRC. I believe that these flaws arose because the intrinsically human element within reconciliation. Every individual deals with and sees forgiveness and justice in different manners, as seen by the quotation that spoke of reconciliation being “a deeply personal experience” (Survivors’ Perceptions of the TRC). Because of this individual component, I believe that the TRC was not as successful as it was hoped to be. On the other hand, without the TRC I think that South Africa would take more time to heal from apartheid. In general, I believe that the TRC, although somewhat flawed, helped set South Africa on a path that would begin to mend the deep wounds of apartheid.
I respond to Jackie’s post by agreeing that “punishing perpetrators by violating their own human rights would have only fought fire with fire and continued a vicious cycle of brutality in South Africa.” This is a very perceptive statement and I agree that it would have only caused more discord among South African citizens. I also thought that the final statement about eradicating poverty to bring about restoration was an interesting idea and worth discussing.
I respond to Michaela’s post by agreeing that the white perpetrators were able to finally see the black victims as humans. I would also like to add that not all the victims were satisfied with the results of their trials. I believe that this leads to the question: Were the trials weighed in favor of the white perpetrators in order to promote forgiveness and lead the way towards reconciliation?
Works Cited
"Survivors' Perceptions of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and Suggestions for the Final Report - CSVR & Khulumani." Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation - Home. Web. 24 Jan. 2011. .
"Truth and Reconciliation Commission | South African History Online." South African History Online - Homepage. Web. 24 Jan. 2011. .
President Nelson Mandela instructed Desmond Tutu, an accredited priest and doctor of universities, to construct the Truth and Reconciliation Committee under the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act of 1995. The objective of the program was to heal a broken South Africa that was shattered by Apartheid rule. The hopes were that the oppressors would voluntarily repent and be forgiven or punished while the oppressed would seek justice and comfort. This route of communication and forgiveness would theoretically diminish the racial hate and separation and allow the white South Africans and the black South Africans live peacefully together.
ReplyDeleteThe Truth and Reconciliation Committee dissipated the feelings of the need for immediate punishment or payback towards the white South Africans from the oppressed black South African population. It gave the oppressed an outlet to seek justice and comfort, and it gave the iniquitous a place to confess and feel incredible remorse for their actions. I do not believe that any kind of council, committee, or invention, besides a time machine, would ever be able to completely heal South Africa from the bruises of Apartheid. However, I do believe that the Truth and Reconciliation Committee was the best step towards the healing process. The Committee cannot heal everything but it can stand as a symbol of hope and progress while taking action against past racism crimes.
A more unforgiving system, in the manner of prosecuting all who are guilty and forcing all suspects into court, would not be ideal in the long run. While some of the white South Africans have committed despicable crimes and maybe do not deserve to live, killing them would darken the mindset of all South Africans by angering more families and more people and flooding minds with more thoughts of death and violence which is not progressive in terms of healing a country. I do not believe that the value of one’s life can be replaced by taking another’s, although I know many people do, as I might believe if I was a black South African during Apartheid rule. Still, the black South Africans could sentence every white South African to death and still not be satisfied because they cannot turn back history and they cannot erase the presence of Apartheid and the things that it has cost them. You can run away from a problem, but eventually you must confront it face to face. Apartheid is the problem and the Committee is the terms of facing it. It is not pretty and it is not a sole solution, but it is a box of bandages for the wound that Apartheid has left behind.
"Truth and Reconciliation Committee." South African History Online. N.p., - . Web. 25 Jan. 2011.
Webber, Christopher. "TRC" Modern World History, Pacific Ridge School, Carlsbad. 20 Jan. 2011. Lecture.
"Desmond Tutu." NobelPrize.Org. The Nobel Foundation, - . Web. 25 Jan. 2011.
Responding to Briana:
ReplyDeleteI also believe that prosecuting every person involved in a human rights crime during Apartheid would be futile compared to the objectives of the TRC. It would not foster the ambiance of peace and new beginnings that Nelson Mandela wanted for South Africa.
Responding to Michaela:
I agree with your statement "without a new period of acrimony and hostility." I believe that prosecuting white South Africans would defeat the efforts for peace and send South Africa back into downward spiral. However, the enlightenment of the TRC allows all affected by Apartheid to move forward and accept the past.
The Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa contributed to the healing from the Apartheid period because rather than encouraging revenge and violence while encouraging both sides to speak up about the abuse and the torture that thousands reluctantly faced during that time and resolve any conflicts between the races. This enabled victims of Apartheid to share their own experiences. Story after story revealed to the commission, South Africa and even the entire world shed light upon the horrors and tragedies that occurred during that dark time. In an interview with one of the commission members, the interviewer questioned how the victims of apartheid moved on by sharing their experiences with strangers. He replied that it's the fact that the victims are being acknowledged by those strangers that helps them cope with the pain and suffering they had to lock away for so long. But victims of Apartheid were not the only one present at the TRC. Many perpetrators who committed terrible crimes during the Apartheid period could come to the TRC and ask for forgiveness and amnesty if those crimes were politically motivated. I find it unfathomable that both perpetrators and victims could stand in the same room together and somehow forgive each other for causing so much pain and misery in their lives. But this method definitely avoided more suffering by not using violence as a way to find forgiveness. If the new South African government had encouraged revenge upon the white South Africans and those who had committed crimes against the black South Africans, this would only create mass chaos among the public and ensue more violence, crimes, and racial hatred. Even though there are numerous people in South Africa that deserve to be punished for the atrocities that they committed, asking for revenge won't bring true peace back to the victims. And it surely won't bring back precious loved ones that lost their lives to Apartheid. Rather, the TRC allows those victims to come to terms with the perpetrators of Apartheid and helps them to forgive and move on.
ReplyDeleteJaclyn:
ReplyDeleteI also agree with you that the TRC achieved peace and forgiveness for both perpetrators and victims rather than creating more violence within the country by "fighting fire with fire" (Hirbawi). Violence would only augment the prejudice in South Africa and worsen relations between white and black South Africans. It would also worsen South Africa's economy because the UN and various other countries would refuse to release their sanctions on South Africa.
The Truth and Reconciliation committee was established in 1995 by the post apartheid South African government to remedy a peace between people on both sides of the conflict. It discussed the events that occurred between 1960 and 1994, attempting to hear both sides of the story. The committee heard 7,112 petitions and granted amnesty to 849 people. This may seem like a small number but many of these people had committed heinous crimes such as murder. Many times, the families of the victim had to sit across from the criminal and watch as he was forgiven. This angered the black community of South Africa and many saw the TRC as a free pass for criminals. These court hearings were broadcast all over South Africa for years and many times it was hard for the perpetrator to come forward on national television. Mandela and the rest of the South African government had decided that to violently punish the perpetrators of apartheid would only be a reversal of roles, and a repeat of the violence that they had fought to end. Mandela named Archbishop Desmond Tutu the head of the committee and the Bishop believe in its cause very much. He felt that they had to teach the country to forgive, or history may be repeated. I believe that for Mandela’s dream of a united South Africa would have been impossible without the TRC. The TRC appeased both sides, the victims of apartheid felt a sense of justice, while many of the perpetrators were still accepted in the country. The TRC listened to the stories of the victims, and for many of them all that they wanted was for their story to be heard, as much of what had happened under apartheid was covered up by the government. While the TRC allowed the country to push forward, it did not attempt to compensate the victims of apartheid. For families who watched their relative’s killer walk, there was no justice. I believe that for the TRC to have been more effective, it would have worked to help the victims of the crimes they addressed, not just judged the culprit. However, the TRC preformed its basic function, and kept South Africa intact.
ReplyDeleteMaddie Sparber
I agree that the TRC helped South Africa move on as a whole, but I do not agree that it allowed the victims to come to terms with the perpetrators. While many were punished, some were punished very lightly, and some not at all. The families of these victims did not feel any sense of justice, and did not receive any compensation at all. What if the family had lost its major provider and was now struggling to survive? These families should have been compensated at the expense of the culprit.
Response to Kyla and Connor:
ReplyDeleteI'm glad that you two also recognized that the victims of gross human rights violations as well as their families were left to mourn without closure due to the T.R.C. When such a great deal of grief, emotion, and ethics is involved in a justice system, the sad truth includes no real sense of closure or reconciliation in some cases. This was especially so when victims' families were made to "forgive" the perpetrators, that sat before them, who had behaved so cruelly. As Michaela said, I agree, "we can only hope for healing and peaceful solutions to right the wrongs of the past." As students analyzing the results of the T.R.C. in hindsight, we can only keep in mind how difficult it must have been to differentiate truth from lies and to determine what constitutes 'proper' punishment.
Responding to Michaela:
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with the light on the TRC being civilized and that they handled everything with great passion and responsibility. I also am intrigued by your statement about the country and its people moving on from apartheid as a whole, although I do not think it is possible for South Africa to be completely be healed from the wounds left from apartheid.
Niraj Madhani
ReplyDeleteApartheid affected society in South Africa in every way. It brought oppression and hatred to the black South Africans which stemmed from the idea that white people are superior to black people. Thus, black people were tortured, punished, beaten, denied of rights and treated like animals. Scratches and cuts can be healed, but the apartheid was similar to a gash that left a horrible scar. The memories cannot be forgotten, but the Truth and Reconciliation Commission provided closure.
Created by Nelson Mandela, led by Desmond Tutu as the Archbishop, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) strived to heal South Africa. I believe that TRC was worthwhile, even though it was a long and painful process. Giving testimonies and forgiving may not have been easy, but it was necessary for the healing process. Though many of the people who gave testimonies of their crimes gained forgiveness from the TRC, they knew that they were not completely forgiven by other South Africans. The crimes they committed were horrible, and there was no true justification for them. Tears were shed, and hearts were broken, but this method was far better than using violence. Many people realized how wrong their crimes were, and they realized that they must change. They realized that they must try to make up for their wrongdoings, even though they might never be forgiven. Meanwhile, the victims gained closure and answers about unjustified deaths and told their stories of discrimination. This was the closure that South Africa needed and gained through the TRC. Though this closure did not have the power to make people forget about the apartheid and offer full forgiveness, it was a huge step towards a better country. Mr. Dullah Omar, the former Minister of Justice said that the TRC was a “necessary exercise to enable South Africans to come to terms with their past on a morally accepted basis and to advance the cause of reconciliation” (Truth). Yet, true reconciliation is yet to be achieved between the white and black communities.
The Truth and Reconciliation Commission strived to heal South Africa’s wounds from the apartheid to enable the country to prosper peacefully. This goal could not have been achieved if the perpetrators were harshly punished for their crimes. This is because this violence would throw South Africa into a state of peril and chaos. Why would South Africa try to cure years and years of segregation, racism and violence with more violence? South Africa wished to overcome the memories of violence, not create more. Thus, harsh punishment would have been a horrible choice, and luckily the Truth and Reconciliation Commission was initiated.
Often, we see that the truth prevails and triumphs over the sword. In this case, we see that South Africa used the truth to heal its wounds rather than to create more with violence. With the truth, people went through a process of realization, even though true reconciliation was not reached. In the end, I feel that that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission was worthwhile and helped South Africa.
Works Cited
"Truth and Reconciliation Commission." Welcome to the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development's Website. DOJ&CD. Web. 25 Jan. 2011. .
Connor,
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that the TRC was incredibly helpful in the healing process for South Africa. Also, for people to step up on television would have been hard, and I agree that many people still might not have been fully satisfied. Also, I agree that full reconciliation was most likely not reached. After many years of oppression, forgiveness is not something that one can easily give. You make really great points, but I believe that keeping South Africa intact was not simply the TRC’s “basic function” (Connor). I feel that this was a great milestone and goal because the TRC managed to withhold the black community from avenging the white community, which would have hurled South Africa into a state of chaos.
Alex Ryan
ReplyDeleteMr. Webber
Modern World History Honors
25 January 2011
Truth and Reconciliation Commission Blog Assignment
The Truth and Reconciliation Commission (or TRC) was a governmental committee established in South Africa by the new ANC government in 1995 to hear testimony by victims of apartheid about the violence and losses that they experienced as a result of it. It was intended to bring closure, both to the victims who testified and to the nation as a whole, allowing black and white to recognize, accept, and forgive past wrongs in order to clear the slate for a new, integrated nation. Many feel that the TRC, despite possibly succeeding in its mission, failed because it showed the perpetrators of apartheid that they would remain unpunished despite the atrocities that they committed and because it failed to bring closure to the victims. I would argue, however, that the TRC, despite in fact failing in the above ways, was a necessary evil, a step in the right direction for the country, and a peaceful alternative to a situation that otherwise could have degenerated into violence.
The TRC likely did, in fact, engender a culture of impunity that still has effects today – South Africa is a world capital for drug trafficking, and has murder rates that rival Russia and Colombia. Despite these disturbing facts, however, I think that had the Truth and Reconciliation Commission never existed the crime rates would be much higher. In fact, before the introduction of the TRC, the tension and threat of all-out civil war was so palpable that many South Africans fled the country. It will never be known which side would have prevailed had that occurred, but it is likely that it would have been long and bloody – the whites’ superior resources and arms would have prolonged the fight against the vastly more populous blacks. Even today, the repercussions of a large-scale conflict would still undoubtedly be worse than the repercussions of a mere 7,000 individuals going unpunished.
The concern for the emotional and mental wellbeing of the victims is also another common argument against the effectiveness of the TRC. However, although the perpetrators of the crimes were in some cases not punished, it is more than likely that the criminals would never have even been identified if justice were left to the normal court system. With many victims of violence having no idea of the identity of their attacker, there would have been no evidence to indict them in court nor would they have come forth to admit it knowing that they would be severely punished. Instead, the Truth and Reconciliation Committee, while still not providing for the punishment of the criminals, at least identified them and in most cases broadcast nationally their remorse – the victims could at least be comforted knowing that somewhere the perpetrator was confessing and publicly showing their remorse rather than trying to evade the normal court system.
Works Cited
"Background and Introduction." TRACES OF TRUTH - The South African TRC. Web. 25 Jan. 2011. .
NationMaster.com. "South African Crime Statistics." NationMaster - World Statistics, Country Comparisons. Web. 25 Jan. 2011. .
"South Africans Reconciled?" Special Report | 1998 | 10/98 | Truth and Reconciliation. BBC News. Web. 25 Jan. 2011. .
"Truth and Reconciliation Commission." South African History Online. Web. 25 Jan. 2011. .
"Truth and Reconciliation Commission." The TRC Official Website. Web. 25 Jan. 2011. .
Alex Ryan
ReplyDeleteMr. Webber
Modern World History Honors
25 January 2011
Responses
Michaela: I agree wholeheartedly with the idea that the Truth and Reconciliation Committee was a superior option for dealing with the aftermath of apartheid than a “Nuremburg-style” resolution. Also, it was a very effective way to simultaneously show the racists that their victims were indeed human and to make them feel remorse for their actions. Lastly, I also agree that it is true that the peaceful and civilized transition from white to black rule, both in the case of the TRC and in general, was a very powerful tool for convincing the racists that the blacks were equally capable human beings.
Jaclyn: You make an interesting point about “fighting fire with fire” and the fact that any punishment for the perpetrators of the violence of apartheid would involve violating the very human rights that it sought to defend. Additionally, I agree that true reconciliation and integration cannot come until blacks and whites are able to stand on equal economic and social footing.
The Truth and Reconciliation Commission was an informal process of jurisdiction set up by the new ANC government. It was created so as to heal and relieve the country of any tensions that did remain. In fact, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission was instrumental in the healing process of South Africa. During Apartheid, countless and atrocious crimes were committed. Essentially, if your skin was not white then you were banned out of and many privileges. In addition to this, blacks and coloreds were often beaten and even killed. Horrendous crimes like these were, sadly, an almost every day event in South Africa. The only way to ever wipe away or receive forgiveness or acceptance from these crimes is to look it straight in the eye. The T.R.C did just this. The antagonists were given an opportunity to stand up and seek forgiveness for their crimes, and the people on the receiving ends of those crimes were given a chance to forgive or confront those who did them wrong. This was a great strategy to try and mend South Africa. If the T.R.C. had not existed then there may have been everlasting tension. There may have also been large-scale civil unrest. On the other hand, many say that it would have been better to jail all the antagonists rather than give them a “free” pass to amnesty. If South Africa had done this then no progress would have been made. If those who committed crimes were jailed, it would be similar to sweeping the dirt under the rug. Although momentarily things seem to be “clean” or at peace, underneath there is still enormous tension. The only way to turn all the negative tension away is to look it in the eye and face those who you did wrong, and this is primarily what the T.R.C. did.
ReplyDeleteWbber, Christopher. "T.R.C." Pacific Ridge School, Encinitas. 21 Jan. 2011. Lecture.
Niraj,
ReplyDeleteYou have an interesting analogy “apartheid was similar to a gash that left a horrible scar’’. I like this connection because it really shows how even today there are remnants of Apartheid. In addition to this, I like how you said that the T.R.C. was closure for victims and family members. I also agree that punishing the antagonists would have had a negative impact because it would have induced “peril and chaos”.
The Truth and Reconciliation Commission Blog Assignment Katie Nardo
ReplyDeleteI believe that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission was a useful and worthwhile occurrence in South Africa. I admit that there are definitely some negative or perhaps controversial aspects, but over all, it was for the benefit of the country.
The TRC could be seen as a “get out of jail free card” for those perpetrators who perhaps, deserve punishment for things they did. The people who are coming clean to committing brutal murders or other cruel crimes are typically white people who lived luxurious lives and still felt it was the right thing to harm innocent people who were already oppressed as it was. For a morally conscience person, this seems downright wrong. Why would a killer be allowed to simply give an apology and walk free? They cannot give the life back, which is really what the people want, as well as the punishment for the murderer. However, if South Africa never held the trials for those eradicators, there would still be enormous tension between the blacks and whites and poor and wealthy citizens of South Africa.
The Truth and Reconciliation Commission was the perfect solution in this instance. It cannot be placed in any scenario to fix a conflict, but it was time for South Africa to restart and begin a new chapter. The TRC gave the people of South Africa to come face to face with people who had done terrible things, and make them realize the pain they went through because of it. There is still a heavy burden on the perpetrators, knowing and fully realizing that they have destroyed lives. They claim to not expect forgiveness from the families seeking justice or closure. All they ask is for willingness to move forward into a brighter future for everyone. The only way South Africa can move on is if people on both sides of the situation put the apartheid in the past, and view it as a mistake. If the TRC never took place, the tension would have thickened even more and the result could have been far worse than the actual apartheid. Though some may disagree with this choice of having the TRC take place, it made South Africa a far less violent place for the next generations, who are still settling things today.
My response is to Brian Haist. I agree with you about how this was a big step moving forward in South Africa’s history and without it, things would have gotten worse. It certainly did not solve all of South Africa’s issues about forgiveness, racism, etc, but it made connections between blacks and whites a little easier.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe TRC was not a commission that could, by themselves, make people forget apartheid or make them accept it more. The tremendous torture that was done to thousands of people during the Apartheid is not a subject that can be forgotten and should not be forgotten. I think that it may have been worthwhile to the people who had lost a loved one during the Apartheid so that they could talk about their losses. It was also probably very nice for them to find the truth as to what to happened to their loved ones. It is difficult for me to answer this question since I have never experienced what those families have experienced and to stand in a courtroom full of people and share the loss of a loved one would be nearly impossible for me. For this I give the participants full credit for any accomplishments that had come due to the TRC. I think that the TRC was only as “worthwhile” as the participation of the people who had come to “testify.” I believe that without the openness and the willingness of the people the TRC would not have been as accomplished. If the government would have decided to just lock up those who had violated human rights I don’t think that it would have made the situation better. No matter what the government would have done with the savages no justice could be served to the horrendous trauma caused to the people of South Africa. I think that the apartheid is like the holocaust in that it will forever have a lasting impact on the people of South Africa. No commission, or jail sentence will be able to erase the horrible truth of apartheid.
ReplyDeleteThe Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) goal was by obtaining the truth on the horrendous events that occurred during apartheid the Nation could heal and move past these events. It was set up to be voluntary, and that is why it failed. A nation cannot move past its past if the perpetrators of the crimes walk free. If a high ranking Nazi were to go walking publicly in a highly Jewish community in the U.S, it would cause a lot of anguish on the part of the Jews. I see a similar situation existing in South Africa. The fact that P.W Botha refused a subpoena and was unpunished for it goes to show that the TRC failed to get the truth about all cases. Also the fact that a major perpetrator went unpunished makes the people punished by the TRC seem in a way as a joke. If the TRC were to have truly successful it needed a stronger mandate and the ability to force people to attend.
ReplyDeleteHowever, even though the execution of the TRC’s mandate was poor. The mandate at the core was a good idea. But the good it caused was overshadowed by the failure to bring in high ranking Apartheid governors. Also by letting some killers, who knew what they were doing and exploited the TRC, go free, as in the case of BIko’s murderers, it shows a weakness in the South African judicial system that may explain why it has one of the highest murder rates in a non war zone. Nevertheless, the idea to try to heal South Africa through forgiving the murderers and racists of Apartheid probably did allow the nation to move forward quickly and unite to hold the FIFA 2010 world cup.
The South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) was set up to give pardon to all who were willing to go in front of the TRC to ask for amnesty on their sins. Though this was helpful for some, for others this resulted in violence and human right abuses from all sectors. The TRC was mandated into three committees: the Amnesty Committee, Reparation and Rehabilitation (R&R) Committee, and the Human Rights Violations (HRV) committee.
ReplyDeleteI believe that was that what the TRC did was correct and justifiable, but it did bring up hardships and memories for all who were affected during Apartheid. The issue whether it was worthwhile or not can only be answered as opinion based. I would say that is was worthwhile for some, but detrimental for others.
For all who were involved in extreme and horrendous human right violations during Apartheid, nothing can be now done. Though if most high ranking officials and other key white figures during apartheid did come for amnesty, I do not believe that they would be completely honest in their actions, only for them to say that they were presumably “brain washed.”
Over 22,000 people did go to the TRC to ask for amnesty, though only around 900 did receive it. This statistic does show the true horror of what some people did do, and did go through, but it was needed for the road to true reconciliation.
Maddie Sparber:
I agree with what you said about the TRC helping Africa as a whole, but I do not think that it completely enabled the victims of crimes to truly forgive the people who caused the hardships and horrors for them.
Briana Silva:
I do agree with what you said, but I do also believe that without what the TRC had done, South Africa would still been in the same situation. This is because so few people who were involved in the tragedies during Apartheid showed requesting amnesty.
Works Cited
"TRC: Register of Reconciliation." Welcome to the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development's Website. Web. 25 Jan. 2011. .
"Truth and Reconciliation Commission | South African History Online." South African History Online - Homepage. Web. 25 Jan. 2011. .
To Voja:
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that Apartheid will live with all South Africans. To quote the graphic novel Persepolis " one can forgive but can never Forget". This applies to South Africa. They will always remember Apartheid but they will be able to forgive and move on. That was what the TRC was supposed to do, but in the end they only partially succeeded as many South Africans still have not forgiven all of the perpetrators of Apartheid.
Emily Leposky
ReplyDeleteWebber
Modern World History Honors-Period 4
January 26, 2011
Truth and Reconciliation Movement
I believe that The Truth and Reconciliation Commission or T.R.C. was a brilliant idea of the Afrikaner National Congress or A.N.C. led by Nelson Mandela to maintain South Africa as a productive sovereign nation. With the new A.N.C. South African Government in power it had to find a way to deal with the civil rights injustices of the previous apartheid government. It had to do this and still keep the people of the apartheid government, who were still a large part of the productive society in South Africa from revolting and pushing the country into a civil war.
The government set up courts to hear the witnesses who were identified as victims of gross human rights violations. At the courts people were allowed to testify about the abuses they endured during the apartheid government and face their perpetrator(s). The T.R.C. provided the accused with a platform to be able to confess to their wrong doings and ask for forgiveness. The trials were broadcast all over the country on television, which allowed the entire country to see the compassion and sympathy for their fellow South Africana’s. I believe that because the trials that aired on television it brought unity between the factions of South Africa. These judicial proceedings would provide absolution to the perpetrators of the human rights crimes so they could return to society as a productive citizen and bring closure for those who suffered the racially based abuses. It ultimately helped all the different races realize that they were not the only ones loyal to their country and created a common goal to restore South Africa as a great nation.
Without the T.R.C. I think the people of the former apartheid government in South Africa may have revolted or those in the A.N.C. may have lashed out at their abusers and resulted in chaos or a civil war. The T.R.C. combined a public judicial proceeding to help reform and heal South Africa after the apartheid left power while allowing members of the apartheid government to remain productive citizens in the country. As Jackie posted in the previous comment I would also like to agree that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission put a “giant mirror before this country”. It helped the country show empathy for one another, which helped the country bond, ultimately leading to the reconstruction of South Africa.
To Mitchell:
ReplyDeleteI think you pose an extremely interesting argument and use an excellent image of "sweeping the dirt under the rug." I think this is an excellent analogy because it shows how the TRC's work was merely temporary and can never take away the full damage delt to the South Africans. I would however have enjoyed it you would have put a little more opinion just so that I could get a sense of where you stand on the issue.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), established by the new ANC government of South Africa, was in my opinion, a successful attempt to help its citizens move forward from their apartheid experiences and create a better, more unified society. It was established to help the country and its people recover from what had happened in the recent past, and ensured a more peaceful transition into the new society that was being created. It allowed people who had committed human rights abuses during apartheid to confess what they had done and possibly receive amnesty from the Commission. Some would argue that the people who had violated human rights during apartheid deserve to be punished instead of having received amnesty; however, this would have gone against South Africa’s best interests in rebuilding and moving on from its past difficulties by allowing tension between white and black South Africans to continue. This is why I believed the TRC hearings of post-apartheid South Africa successful and worthwhile.
ReplyDeleteI believe the TRC was successful because of the way it eased the tensions that existed between white and colored people in South Africa after the end of apartheid. Tensions between colored and white people stemming from white treatment of colored people during apartheid remained as South Africa’s new ANC government took over, and threatened to prevent the country from being able to emerge as a unified country. I thought the TRC removed much of these tensions, and helped integrate South African society much more efficiently. It would have also helped mainly white South Africans realize that their new government was ready to build a South Africa based on equality and forgiveness, which also helped the country’s society integrate with much less conflict. Also, the TRC gave South Africa more insight on why apartheid had been upheld and followed, and had lessened the tensions between white and black that would have continued to exist otherwise. Confession and forgiveness eases the minds of human beings, and it allowed all South Africans to feel as if they were turning to a new, clean page in their history, something that would have never been possible if links to apartheid existed in the white South Africans who had been imprisoned for their roles as oppressors during apartheid. By doing this, the TRC helped prevent conflict and allowed South Africa to progress in a much more efficient manner toward building a modern society based on democracy and equality.
The Truth and Reconciliation Committee set up in South Africa was ethically wrong, and immoral, but a necessary step for the country’s growth. Much like the line of action taken in Tienamen Square, there was no positive, win-win situation out of such a horrendous situation. On one hand, we have the murderers and torturers, ethical animals, being granted amnesty from a rightful punishment. On the other hand, we have a healing country needed to mend its wounds- and the only way is to forgive those who committed the horrific crimes. But despite this paradoxical situation, the leaders of South Africa did the best they could to move South Africa forward.
ReplyDeleteThe first major effectiveness of the TRC was the fact that the blatant truth, no matter how gruesome, was mentioned. Much like how a child must confess the entire truth of how he got expelled from school in order to have his mother’s forgiveness, the TRC was very similar. Those who wanted to be granted amnesty must have told the whole truth and nothing but the truth, allowing those who had reserved feelings about the past Apartheid to stay in jail. The South African leaders were also wise and fair about who they granted amnesty: not everybody looking to receive a shortened sentence would have received one.
Thomas Gray once wrote, “Ignorance is Bliss.” However, ignorance doesn’t guarantee a forward movement of society, but rather, blockade either race in the Apartheid from moving forward. The emotional exchanges staged in the dramatic courtrooms were vital for the races to communicate. All in all, the TRC was the only way South Africa could have progressed, and the little setbacks it had were necessary as part of a bigger movement toward a better South Africa.
To Radmer:
ReplyDeleteHow would a nation begin to bond the races together to identify under one being if the whole time, they shun and punish (although rightly) one another, a vicious cycle of repression, revenge, and more revenge? In the end, somebody has to be strong enough to take a hit without retaliation in order for society to move forward, and that is exactly what the Native Blacks did.
The pain of apartheid, and the sentiments surrounding its political nature were lurking underneath the facade of Nelson Mandela’s South Africa. In the mid to late 90’s, South Africa was a country who were celebrating their first black president and the abolished apartheid laws. However, any country who had such a terrible policy in effect for forty six years cannot recover from it in one moment. This is quite frankly impossible, a sentiment clearly expressed by Nelson Mandela’s government and archbishop Desmond Tutu. There needed to be a sense of closure, and there needed to be countrywide, even worldwide, recognition of the atrocities committed during that period of almost fifty years.
ReplyDeleteBy having families state what happened to them during apartheid on national television, and having inquiries into the unsolved cases of what happened to their loved ones brought a somewhat peace, or understanding to almost everyone watching the trials; the fact that apartheid was finished, and the time for acceptance had come. One of the more startling moves by the TRC was granting amnesty to those who committed horrible politically related crimes (apartheid related) during apartheid.
The tales from the scarred families touched the nation and the world, and showed from a first person perspective what apartheid really meant for these people. The TRC had a dual purpose, which astonished the world. Amnesty on this kind of level had never been seen before, sparking the question, should the mass-murderers and those who committed unspeakable atrocities be granted amnesty? Some would say that this part of the TRC created a new bond between fellow Africans; that no matter how bad the past, the milk of human kindness will always prevail. Citing history, this can be supported with evidence such as the Treaty of Versailles, an exact opposite to the TRC. This agreement was looking to heap the blame of WWI to the losing side, and this sentimentality caused the bloodiest war known to man, WWII.
Amnesty was granted to those who fully and wholeheartedly confessed to committing appalling deeds during apartheid. Relying on the kindness and righteousness of human beings is a little questionable however. How can a committee determine if a criminal is sincere or not? While the concepts surrounding the “Reconciliation” part of the commission, it should have handled amnesty differently. Similar to ‘penance’ or ‘reconciliation’ in Catholicism, the TRC treated serious crimes against humanity almost trivially. The concept of ‘penance’ relies solely upon the morals and faith of the sinner. People who have committed mass-murder and other severe crimes may want to repent, but realistically, the morals of those who are capable of such atrocities are not on par with the morals of people like Desmond Tutu and others who did good for South Africa.
The TRC was lulled by the infectious optimism that was characteristic of South Africa after Mandela’s release and inauguration, into believing in the goodness within all people. They did not take into consideration the fact that self-preservation trumps all goodness, all love and trust. The human beings that applied for amnesty did not necessarily have the same motive or ideas as archbishop Desmond Tutu did. The thought that probably crossed their minds the most was prison. As being in prison definitely negatively affects one’s existence, instinctively humans look for solutions, to avoid this great negative effect on life.
ReplyDeletePardoning criminals that commit crimes against humanity is not something that happens everyday. The Hague in the Netherlands is not unfamiliar to crimes against humanity trials, and generally the punishment is always severe. As mentioned previously, gruesome and mass murders are not things that can go over a perpetrator’s head. There is always a consequence for any action, including the disturbing events that occurred during apartheid.
The TRC revealed the positives of human nature, trust and love, to the world. While it was hugely successful in the sense that it brought closure to the horror that was apartheid, it did not deal with the whole amnesty portion of the commission well in my opinion. It certainly brought unity to the country, but it also showed a unique aspect of a fledgling government recognizing its bloody past and forgiving those who were responsible.
To Voja:
ReplyDeleteIn no way, (in my personal and very strong [NOTE PERSONAL] opinion), in no way was the TRC sweeping dirt under the rug. That implied cheating/taking shortcuts, and even though the whites did not do the punishment they were rightfully supposed to do, it is forgiveness that allows the country to move forward. In other words, allowing immorally these serial killers to escape was the only way for South Africa to come to how it is today.
To Katie:
ReplyDeleteI agree with you in that the TRC was very successful, and I think it was important for you to add that their were some negative things that came out of it and I liked how you related it to a "Get out of Jail Free Card"
Rochelle Dong
ReplyDeleteThe Truth and Reconciliation Commission was a committee for those who had committed atrocities during apartheid to come forward and apologize for their actions. Perpetrators were judged by a committee that would grant them either animosity that would allow to essentially walk away free or they would be sentenced to imprisonment or worse.
After apartheid ended, there could have been many ways to deal with those who had committed crimes. The TRC was established by Desmond Tutu, an archbishop, and he advocated for this peaceful way to end apartheid. The process was that people who had committed crimes would appear in front of a court and describe what they had done. The judges and the rest of the committee would then decide whether the person was allowed to be acquitting or sentenced.
Personally, I believe that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission was a good idea. It allowed the people who were guilty of heinous crimes to unburden themselves by confessing what they had done. To come before the TRC was also voluntary, so the participants had decided to come before the court themselves, and were not forced to appear in court. The TRC allowed the people of South Africa to come to terms with the horrors of apartheid, by understanding it from a different viewpoint. Although the black people of South Africa may feel that they haven’t received any justice for all the hardships they have gone though, I believe that if any other sort of action was taken, one of the sides would have felt that they didn’t receive the treatment they deserved. This way, both sides could feel that some justice was working.
The whole point of the TRC was to have acceptance, peace, and tolerance between the two races. Because of the TRC, there is less anger towards each other, and they have accepted each other much better than if South Africa did not go through the TRC.
Response to Jackie: I completely agree with you. I do agree that both black and white people haven’t completely accepted each other yet, but don’t you think, it’s just a wound that takes time to heal? This is all recent history, and the current generation hasn’t completely healed from its wounds, so I think that over time, the black and white people will slowly accept each other more. Ah, but only time can tell. Very good response though, I enjoyed reading it.
Response to Isaac:
ReplyDeleteI agree that the TRC was worthwhile because it was in South Africa's best interests to move on from the dark period that had preceded the 90s. However, I do find apartheid's justification an interesting topic that was explored (probably) by the criminals who were confessing their wrongdoings for amnesty, as mentioned in your third paragraph. There is one question that you should ask yourself though, is there real equality in South Africa? The negative effects of apartheid, those who instigated these were largely unpunished, still have a crippling effect upon the black South Africans of today, limiting their economic status. This is mainly a response to your statement which pointed out the equality and unity that South Africa was heading toward. There is certainly a great deal of truth in that, culminating with the World Cup as Radmer mentioned, but the economic inequality remains. Their may be arguments that within a capitalist system economic equality exists. But because of South Africa's history, and the fact that the economic balance of South Africa leans towards white South Africans, there is no avoiding the direct connection between apartheid and today's economic situation in South Africa, which is why the antagonists in apartheid should have been punished instead of pardoned.
Lena Ohlson
ReplyDelete1/25/11
World History Honors
Webber
The TRC: Successful
In South Africa, the era of apartheid is something that will never be forgotten. After years of Africa being split and infiltrated by foreigners and after years of inhumane crimes and unjust laws lead to mass amounts of struggle and tension. South Africa had reached a “boiling point”. The black South Africans were no longer feeling united and the whites felt like they were superior race.
Police brutality is possibly the largest contributing factor in apartheid. The South African Police, cannot deny its participation in clandestine activities. The police needed to be purged of their repulsive past and allow South Africa to move forward as a whole. After looking online on the Truth and Reconciliation Committee’s website, many of the victims have recounted numerous accounts with the police. After the victims recalled their past experiences with the service and after cleansing themselves of sorrow and grief, they have forgiven, but they will never forget. The wound is too deep.
The Truth and Reconciliation Commission was a “court-like restorative justice body” constructed in South Africa after the termination of apartheid. People that were identified as victims of human rights violations were asked to tell about their experiences first-hand. The people who carried out acts of criminal violence could also ask for forgiveness and ask for amnesty. The TRC held public hearings, which was vital to
a full and free democratic South Africa. The TRC was an enormous step in healing South Africa. After years of racial tension and police brutality, the TRC effectively created an environment that allowed people to take responsibility for their actions, and come to terms with their past and allowed the victims to share their stories in a safe environment.
Fighting fire with fire only gives you a bigger fire. The TRC provided closure in a peaceful way and because the TRC was lead by an arch-bishop, I believe that the victims and perpetrators felt a sense of security. This is important because otherwise, not as many people would have come, and the TRC would not have been as successful.
After the abolition of apartheid, the country of South Africa was in a transition phase between a state of turmoil and a state of normality. The African National Congress (ANC) gained control of the new government, placing Nelson Mandela in the presidential position. Nelson Mandela then selected Desmond Tutu, a distinguished reverend, to lead the famous Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC). The Truth and Reconciliation Commission brought a type of peace and understanding to the country that would not have been present without this commission. The ANC aimed to renew forgiveness in South Africa after the horrific incidences of apartheid.
ReplyDeleteThe Truth and Reconciliation Commission brought forth people who were directly and significantly impacted by the apartheid catastrophes. Many provided testimonies of these atrocious accounts and exposed the truth behind the tragedies. Other hearings consisted of confessions of the perpetrators of the crimes in an attempt to be granted amnesty. The perpetrators were required to state the entire truth, regardless of what the truth might contain. In 849 requests out of 7112, these perpetrators or criminals, as many viewed them, were released from their sentences or punishments and granted amnesty. Many perceived these releases as being wrong and offensive. How could mass murderers be released from jail and placed back onto the streets? On a small scale, the TRC seems evil with no consideration for the already suffering people. To make these people face their “enemies” seemed cruel and without empathy.
Contrary to these beliefs, the TRC was beneficial to the country of South Africa as a whole. The TRC forced the South Africans to forgive one another and taught an overarching lesson of solidarity to every kind of person. Furthermore, by implementing the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, the ANC portrayed the message that South Africa needed to move on from the past and continue with the future. It would seem hypocritical to persecute those who were the former persecutors if the ANC was promoting the message of a nation of unity. The TRC also allowed the truth to be fully revealed and for stories to come out of the shadows. If the ANC had decided not to hold TRC hearings, the country may have continued to have significant segregation. The whites may have felt as if they were now the ones being oppressed under the new primarily black government. As many say, South Africa was like an open wound at the end of the apartheid and needed suitable nurturing and care to properly heal. The TRC was like the antibacterial spray that may sting, at the time, but help in the long run. Although, there may still be racism in South Africa today, it is not as significant as it would have been without the TRC. Instead of enduring more wounds and pain, the TRC helped South Africa heal the apartheid wound to only a scar with only remnants of apartheid continuing to linger.
ReplyDeleteResponse to Katie Dillon’s:
I agree that without the TRC the mindsets of the South African people would “darken” instigating further detrimental events. This would augment the sense of violence engraining a culture of hate into South Africa.
Response to Kyla’s:
I agree with you that the TRC was a necessary measure that helped South Africa move forward. I also agree that the TRC was plagued with flaws, but was the best option for the country’s wellbeing.
David Claxton
ReplyDelete1/25/11
The Truth and Reconciliation Commission, otherwise known as the TRC, was formed in order to grant amnesty towards the white South Africans who had committed human rights violations during the apartheid. This was Desmond Tutu’s idea so that the transition of government and society between blacks and whites would go smoothly. It worked, and the last case presented in 1994. The end of the apartheid was a very delicate situation that could have gone many ways, but it was smooth and peaceful revolution and I believe that part of that outcome was because of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. One of the contributing factors was that it was televised, that played a key role in the TRC’s success. If people just heard that they were granting amnesty for apartheid crimes without seeing context they would be upset. But, because it was televised people could watch the confessions and the apologies and see how these cases were dealt with so that they would know that the new government was not just giving these criminals a clean slate. Another important factor was that the criminals who would confess came in without being forced and told there crimes on television, hoping for amnesty from their past crimes. If it was forced trials like the Nuremburg Trials, then there would be resentment from the criminals and if they were granted amnesty they would not sincerely be sorry. Also a lot of the exploiters turned themselves in and were not granted freedom but were given a sentence to prison when they would not have been given a sentence anyways. These trials were almost based off the Christian tradition of Confession, you would admit your sins, say your apology, be forgiven, then asked to complete a task to help cleanse your soul. This helped both the committers of the crimes and the victims too. This helped them answer questions and gave them a closure. Not a complete closure, but a knowing of the crime and why. Before, many of the crimes did not have perpetrators but only victims, now the families could know and that gave many the information they needed to allow a peaceful transition. If the people were just punished it would have just led to more resentment between the races. The white South Africans at the time were just fulfilling their role in what they thought society was in South Africa, which is true for some who just believe they were fitting into society. Others though were deserving of punishment and though this it was received. It was a great tool in the transition of power in South Africa and I believe that it was completely worth while.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteApartheid forever scared South Africa; it forced turmoil, racial struggle and thousands of deaths of innocent, blacks and whites. The TRC was a plan implemented for the purpose of ridding the country of the devastating apartheid in such a way that forced victims to confront their oppressors, the murderers of their people, and recall the horrors that they had witnessed, as well as just the opposite; the perpetrators voiced their own stories and requested amnesty. The process was one of confrontation. Now, in determining whether the TRC was effective, or rather “worthwhile” or not it is necessary to examine both the viewpoints of the oppressed and the oppressors. For the inferiors, the Blacks, simply granting amnesty, granting total forgiveness to a race who killed their beloved kin was preposterous. A crime committing government official after recalling his story might give an apology to the affected and therefore be relieved of sentence and granted amnesty, whereas in a racially equal society, he might be killed for his crimes. The TRC did not punish those who committed misdeeds (for the most part), but rather focused on the reconciliation process between the blacks and whites; it was important to address the wrong and move on, the crimes did not matter any longer. Of course for the perpetrators and the persons unaffected by apartheid this method seemed fabulous. Moving on would solve everything. But The victims desired punishment for their oppressors. If they had to withstand the torment of the imperialists why should the perpetrators not have to suffer also? In any case South Africa, because of the implemented Apartheid, had been ostracized from the rest of the world. The world despised the idea of apartheid and thus imposed sanctions on South Africa. Therefore, further punishment of wrongdoers, after that caused by Apartheid, would not solve any problem. Apartheid was revoked to discontinue punishment, struggle and hate, while the punishment of perpetrators would only cause more. The outside world would view this punishment similarly to apartheid. In this way apartheid was effective and worthwhile. In instilled peace in South Africa (or at least that was the plan). The TRC was a necessary move into future development and racial equality. It was necessary for South Africa to forget the past events and apartheid rather than dwell on the problem and continue the hate through the punishment of perpetrators. The Africans were hurt by apartheid and sentencing their oppressors would not relieve them of their inner turmoil. But to establish the TRC did relieve some of this hate in that the Africans were being recognized, the White oppressors acknowledged that their crimes were not ok, the white oppressors apologized as well. During Apartheid the Black race might have felt secluded and forgotten and for this reason their hate built up. The TRC gave them a chance to emit their hate and sorrows.
ReplyDeleteNiraj,
ReplyDeleteI like your points about truth healing the wounds of the apartheid. And your point about how it provided closure, but did not fully forgive it just allowed it to heal so that society could continue.
Kevin
ReplyDeleteWhile i agree with you that the TRC was necessary i do not think that it was immoral. I am not saying that setting murderers free is a good thing, but it did manage to save countless lives. Not just those of the criminals who would have been executed, but those who would have been killed in the civil unrest that the TRC helped to avoid. When you take into account the lives that were spared by the TRC it is not as immoral as one might think.
Something needed to happen for any country to rebound from the darkness of apartheid. The Truth and Reconciliation Committee was that answer. In hindsight there were better solutions than to pardon peoples sins. But it worked for South Africa… Right?
ReplyDeleteI have mixed feelings about this topic because there are so many what if questions asked. One stance on this topic is that it was the right choice because the South African government made a choice and for many people that is all that they wanted. I think that it was an outstanding choice by the government because there would most likely still be chaos in the street of South Africa if some disputes were not settled in the T.R.C.
I do not think that the people who committed these horrendous crimes should be tortured or killed necessarily but I also do not think that they should be getting of with no problems. It is difficult to decide someone’s punishment where the South African government during apartheid had such a big influence.
The T.R.C. is such a sensitive subject so it is difficult to have a clear stance on the subject. But I do think that it was right for the government to take action, but maybe not in this specific way.
I agree with Jackie and Michaela when they said the South Africa will never be out completely of apartheid. Although, there are no countries that have completely mixed races. There are clear racial boundaries in the United States in particular. I do not think this is a bad thing though. There are no advantages to having mixed cultures besides the understanding of another culture. We cannot forcibly put races together so I think that there will defiantly always be apartheid, but this is not necessarily a bad thing.
Works Cited
The Ones That Got Away – South Africa. YouTube. 18 Sept. 2007. Web. 23 Jan. 2011.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteTo David
ReplyDeleteDavid, I love your point about the televised trials. You said, “If people just heard that they were granting amnesty for apartheid crimes without seeing context they would be upset.” I hadn’t even realized the importance of the televised trials and confessions. But, you say that because of the televised confessions viewers were informed that the South African government was not simply granting amnesty to criminals and awarding them a “clean slate” without purpose. Is this true though? Criminals were often granted forgiveness and their sentences might be lessened because of only their apology! Anyways, I love the analogy to the Christian confession!
Kyla-
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with your statement that the TRC was a way for the truth of Apartheid to be spread as it encouraged honesty in the people who committed the crimes. I also agree with your statement that Apartheid was not as effective as it was planned to be and that though the TRC was not a cure-all, it helped with recovery. You make good points, and it was enjoyable to read.
Radmer-
I agree that one of the reasons the TRC failed is because it was optional, not mandatory. Because of this, the murderers of Apartheid were able to walk free, and I again agree that this is one reason why it did not work to its full potential. Because the TRC was optional, it gave some of the people who confessed a second chance, while the monsters were able to walk freely. The people who did not confess showed that they did not feel the need to apologise for what they have done. This only slows the healing process because the suspicion has not been lifted off the community of victims and their families.
Dylan Fox
ReplyDeleteWebba
Jan. 24
Period 6
Truth and Reconciliation Commission
I believe that having the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa was beneficial and worthwhile to the people who had lived oppressed under apartheid for so long. If the perpetrators of apartheid had been punished in the same way they punished the black and colored people, it would have created an endless cycle of violence that would never stop. When France was finally ‘freed’ from Napoleon’s rule by the European allies, they left the majority of his empire intact and didn’t enslave or kill all the people in it. The allies knew that if France was punished too hard, its citizens would rise up for their nation and rebel to take back their freedom and take back their country. Following suit, the newly formed South African Government didn’t punish South Africans too hard, knowing it would most likely incite a nationalistic spirit that yearned to take South Africa back to the hatred, racism, and oppression of Apartheid. Instead, Nelson Mandela created the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, designed to slowly reform not only the political roles of black and white South Africans, but the social ideology at its core – replacing the hatred between the blacks and whites with understanding. Without the Truth and Reconciliation Commission acting as a mediating force between South Africans, blacks and whites would never have found the means or the will to talk calmly with each other over the injustices caused by under the old government. Nelson Mandela ensured that his message of peace was heard by all South Africa by having the Commission cases televised live all across the country. The creation of the TRC was a huge step forward in promoting the equality of both races. After having grown up living in a country where black people where actually believed to be genetically inferior, adjusting to the abrupt changes posed by Mandela’s government were shocking to many South Africans. The TRC itself was the bridge that closed the social equality gap between blacks and whites.
The Truth and Reconciliation Commission was beneficial, yet at the same time was unfair. The TRC had good intentions, however was sometimes unjust when dealing with murderers. The government wished to heal the people of South Africa after Apartheid had ended with the TRC, a way of venting. It gave the people of South Africa a chance to express their regrets. I think revenge is never an answer. I believe that the perpetrators of violence should be punished, but I do not think that you should get killed for a crime previously committed. To some extent, I believe the whites involved in killings during Apartheid should be punished no matter what. Why should a murderer win a trial? Some men who have committed serious crimes are released and set free. Why should a White man be let lose for a serious crime committed? On the other hand, the TRC has been an extraordinary healing and emotional process for most people living in South Africa. Depending on each case, I believe that most perpetrators of violence should not be given amnesty. I believe this because they have caused great pain in poor innocent lives, and have caused chaos and hatred during the time of Apartheid. Death may not be the answer, but punishment, in my book, certainly is. There was a lot of violence during Apartheid but it wasn’t the answer. As a result, I believe that in order to completely end Apartheid, the white’s on trial should not be treated with violence back. They should be punished to some extent once again, depending on the case.
ReplyDeleteI want to respond to Jackie’s comment because I completely agree with her. I don’t think that violence is the answer when it wasn’t accepted by the black’s before. If the blacks know how it feels, why do it back? In order for Apartheid to be over, there must be no violence between the blacks and whites because of previous incidents.
David,
ReplyDeleteI agree with your point about not having forced trials, and how this really helped strengthen the idea that the criminals convicted during apartheid were truly sorry for what they had done.
Please send an email to:Tibrahim@pacificridge.org,
ReplyDeleteif you would like to receive a copy of his opinion on the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Mr. Webber has a copy in his inbox. Thank you.
The chance of two human births with the exact same DNA is one in billions. As such, no two humans are exactly the same, meaning that no two humans think or want the same things, which is the reason why not everyone likes every decision. This same idea applies to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa. It proves that the amount of people who disliked the method as compared to the amount of people who embraced it whole-heartedly does nothing to show the brilliance of the idea. Although these two vectors can have effects on the outcomes and the effectiveness of idea proposed, they do nothing to shed light on the genius of the idea.
ReplyDeleteEven though the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (or TRC for short) was strongly disliked by many South Africans, it was a truly brilliant idea. Luckily Desmond Tutu, Commission’s chairman at the time, was smart enough to know that if the whites of South Africa were not forgiven it would leave a long nasty scar in their history. Instead, he invented the TRC, which did well to stich up the gaping cut that had opened in South Africa’s heart.
Although some Africans disliked (and still to this day dislike) the TRC because it freely let white citizens who had committed crimes go free, it was easily better than the alternative. Had Tutu taken a more aggressive path to resolve the conflict between the whites and blacks, he might have had the same result as world war two, where some Jews are still very hateful of Germans even 65 years later.
Desmond Tutu’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission greatly lessened South Africans’ hate towards the Boers and English and averted leaving the messy history of Africa to grow, like a virus of hate in the South African’s hearts.
Joanna Gonda
ReplyDeleteMr. Webber
Period 7/World History H
24 January 2011
Truth and Reconciliation Commission
During the Apartheid in South Africa, segregation created a separation amongst the South African people. To keep order and white power, many colored people were harassed, injured, and murdered. Human rights were abused and many needed justice. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission was established to provide some closure to the families hurt and some punishment to the perpetrators. A court hearing was established for each criminal case and the criminals could be sentenced to jail or granted amnesty. The punishments for the crimes committed made it difficult for citizens of South Africa to understand the positive aspects of TRC because criminals could be allowed to go free. The uncertainty if closure would be granted through the cases made the TRC seem unproductive and unhelpful. Criminal’s guilt and victim’s vindictiveness needed to be “translated into positive commitment to building a better society” which many TRC supporters hoped the court cases would provide. It seemed to have allowed all South African citizens to have a voice and for them to comprehend the truth of the Apartheid together as a nation. Despite the uneasiness of the victims and their disapproving voices, Mr. Dullah Omar, a leader in South Africa, supported the TRC because it was “necessary” for “South Africans to come to terms with their past on a morally accepted basis.” Therefore, the TRC would enable a healing process for post-Apartheid suffering. The TRC was a positive step for the future of South Africa and was a process that “restore[d] victims' dignity,” and heard the real facts. It allowed for citizens to feel the relief of knowing the truth behind a crime. A peaceful court trial benefitted the recovery of the apartheid in South Africa because it was a way to bring together all races in a settlement and start to mend hurt feelings. TRC has allowed for the races to begin to unite and accept one another.
In response to Kyla’s post, I agree with your proposition that the TRC trials were “cleansing for South Africa” because it allowed for citizens and South Africa to have a clean start and try to grow and learn from their past. It allowed for South Africans to “heal from apartheid.”
In response to Niraj’s post, the TRC could not provide a “true justification for [the crimes committed]” and I agree with your statement. While the TRC allowed for people to recover, murder and harassment is difficult to recover from and something that a victim will always remember. A trial cannot heal wounds, but it can begin to relieve uneasy feelings and start again.
Works Cited
DOJ&CD. "Truth and Reconciliation Commission." Welcome to the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development's Website. 2009. Web. 25 Jan. 2011. .
Cara Hoffman
ReplyDelete1/25/11
TRC
The South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) was a program set up after the end of an apartheid by the new ANC government. The idea behind it was that if the perpetrators were able to come and apologize in a sense- they would potentially be granted amnesty and therefore help the nation to move forward. In theory the plan was a good one. It makes sense that if the government were attempting to move forward, become one unified South Africa the last thing they would want to do would be to commit hate crimes similar to those that occurred in the first place. However, it is a lot to ask of someone who has had their family killed to simply just forgive the murderer. At this point in history the black south Africans had suffered so much, it was a lot to ask to just simply forgive. Many black South Africans had everything taken from them- they had nothing left except the minuscule consolation that was; the animals who were the old government who committed these crimes were being punished. But some of the whites now wanted to take that away from them? Although seemingly torture, there were benefits to this act.
The both physical and mental barriers that were set up between the whites and blacks during an Apartheid needed to be broken, and the TRC definitely began that long awful process. The excessive tension that existed between the two races needed to be repaired and that was the theory behind the TRC. Although it was not nearly enough, it was often times beneficial for a wife to find out the truth on how her husband died, or to see that maybe this killer was a changed man- now benefiting society.
The crimes that were perpetrated during apartheid were so heinous that no solution would be perfect to mend the wounds that were at that time still very fresh. The TRC was not flawless, there were many instances where cases were disagreed upon and people felt that simply forgiving the criminals was not the correct thing to do on both a personal level and for society’s sake. However the tensions between blacks and whites were definitely helped with the implementation of the TRC and although South Africa is not perfect on the race score today, it is much better off than it would be, had the TRC not existed.
Response to Katie Nardo:
Katie said, “if South Africa never held the trials for those eradicators, there would still be enormous tension between the blacks and whites and poor and wealthy citizens of South Africa” which I completely agree with. The TRC allowed people of all colors to open up and share, which forced blacks and whites to bond, and simply sympathize with one another on a very basic human level. I agree completely with the idea that although the TRC was not perfect, it definitely helped.
@Sabrina:
ReplyDeleteI like your straight forward argument, but what are you suggesting, that we lock up every white person in Africa who had a black slave? I think the argument was good, but i did not so much like the resolution, it was a bit too radical
Smith 1
ReplyDeleteJake Smith
Mr. Webber
Period 6 World History
January 25, 2011
Truth and Reconciliation
The Truth and Reconciliation commission in South Africa was neither good nor bad, it was simply logical. A country still healing scars from a terrible Apartheid could not turn around and create more wounds; it would be morally wrong and very hypocritical. Creating the TRC was not necessarily to make South Africa better but to change it from how it was before. If one captures and murders a murderer, is that going to help one’s ethical appeal? No, in fact it will almost destroy it. Proving to the people that country has not changed, but simply changed ownership. The TRC proved to Africa and to the whole world that Africa was starting over. A new slate to create a whole new world how the Africans want it, the worst thing Africa could have done would have been to turn around and punish all who were involved in the Apartheid. For that would have created all new troubles and grievances for Africa. So instead they offered the idea of forgiveness and freedom to those who sinned, if they are willing. Showing forgiveness to a sinner proved Africa’s government’s maturity and readiness to start a new country.
Dylan:
ReplyDeleteI thought your tie to the Napoleonic Era was very clever. It also helped to prove your point of the benefit of the TRC. Solid arguement, but I think it is spelled Webber.
The Truth and Reconciliation Committee was when South Africa came together to talk about how apartheid has affected the individual person and South Africa as a whole. The people would come and present to the Committee their story, most of them seeking redemption for what they have done. In order for the Committee to grant amnesty to the speaker the crimes would have to be politically motivated and the person would have to tell the whole truth leaving nothing out. By setting up these courts and hearing the cases South Africa was able to face the true ills of what apartheid did. I do agree that in order for someone to be granted amnesty the crime had to be politically motivated. If someone was granted amnesty that committed the crimes they did out of personal belief then society would not move forward knowing this. The country needed to understand that it was the government that was forcing these people to commit these crimes, and only those people would be accepted back into society. By only granting those that were politically motivated, and indoctrinated by the government to do these things, I believe the country did move forward. The Truth and Reconciliation Committee was a worthwhile part of South Africa’s history. By punishing those who committed crimes that had to do with apartheid out of personal feelings toward race, and helping those, who were politically made to do these things it was worth the process. The people of South Africa should never forget what apartheid did to their own country, the first step in recovering is to accept what has happened and build from there while never forgetting what happened so that the problem will not recur. If the people who committed these crimes were punished in any severe way, the effect on South Africa might have changed. Although, it was a better choice, in my opinion, that those who committed the crimes were not punished so severely solely for the purpose of serving justice and to show the rest of the world they were sorry far what happened. If there were more severe punishments then there may have been more violence. South Africa had to first show her own people what has been going on before trying to prove anything to the rest of the world. The Truth and Reconciliation Committee was a way to make ends meet in a nonviolent manner that helped to move South Africa forward after such a traumatic time in her history. The scar in South Africa has started to heal but will never fade completely.
ReplyDeleteThe TRC
ReplyDeleteThe TRC or Truth Reconciliation Commission was an invaluable program set up by Desmond Tutu in South Africa after Apartheid. It allowed people of any color or race to share their experience of Apartheid and/or inquire about what really happened to a loved one. Not only did the TRC help uncover the heinous crimes committed during Apartheid but it also help divulge the truth.
If the TRC had not come into existence I believe that South Africa would have gone up in flames. There was a tremendous amount of hate and racism in South Africa especially right after the end of Apartheid and the people needed a way to release their anger and sadness. The TRC allowed the whites to share their stories and confess their wrongdoings as well as the black people of Africa.
Through the TRC a majority of the black South Africans were able to find out how and why a loved one was killed. Many had been told that he or she had committed suicide but in fact the police had killed them and they didn’t expose this information until the TRC came around. In this way the TRC allowed the truth to be divulged and the people to gain some sort of closure.
In the case of the white South Africans they mainly asked for forgiveness for the horrible “deeds” that they committed in the name of Apartheid. Many of these people believed that they had been doing the right thing for the country by killing its black inhabitants and protestors of Apartheid; they were protecting their country. They used the TRC to ask for forgiveness and amnesty so that they could clear their conscience. Although many weren’t granted amnesty the TRC at least helped them come face to face with the reality of what they had done.
Amnesty was a very powerful part of the TRC too because if all of the people that had committed crimes (whites) were punished severely and none were granted amnesty, Apartheid would happen all over again just with roles of the whites and blacks switched. In order to move forward there had to be a break in the cycle and the TRC provided this break very effectively. Even though I don’t believe that all who receive amnesty should have, I think that the idea of amnesty helped get South Africa back on its feet and move in the right direction.
Finally, the TRC effectively showed the world how terrible Apartheid was without cruelly punishing the people who had caused it. It showed the world through the testimonies of the people of South Africa. Their stories are as good a reminder of the atrocities of Apartheid as anything. Therefore, I believe that the TRC helped the world understand each South Africa’s plight.
Response
Alex Ryan: I thought it was interesting that you connected crime rates in South Africa to the TRC. Also, I agree that the TRC was a "necessary evil" as you put it to move South Africa along and through the aftermath of Apartheid. The only way to deal with something as terrible as Apartheid is to forgive and not repeat it in retaliation.
Victoria Mansfield
ReplyDeleteMr. Webber
Honors World History, period 6
January 25, 2011
Even after apartheid, there was always very much tension between blacks and whites in South Africa. The blacks were looked upon as inferior and were still mistreated by the whites. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) was initiated by Nelson Mandela who appointed Desmond Tutu , an archbishop, to lead it. The TRC was a successful, sensible, and peaceful way to attempt to heal South Africa from the horrid events which occurred under apartheid. Although the TRC may be seen by many merely as a way for white South Africans to be granted amnesty and a way to get out of jail, I believe the Truth and Reconciliation Commission was a large step to improve South Africa and for the perpetrators of crimes to have a chance for forgiveness. I must admit, at first I was somewhat ambivalent about what to think of the TRC because even though it was a significant advance towards easing tension between the black South Africans and the white South Africans, many murderers were forgiven and let free by only confessing and showing remorse. I then realized soon after if the individuals who committed the awful crimes were punished, it would defeat the purpose of trying to create a peaceful country and conflict between the two would have gone on for an even longer period of time. I also realized that the committee truly sought out to relieve the conflicts. The phrase “forgive, but never forget” goes well with the way most South Africans felt during the TRC because even though forgiveness was the first step towards creating a peaceful country where two groups could live together, South Africans will never forget the horrendous events caused by apartheid. Many of those citizens who committed awful crimes realized and really made an attempt to change their ways. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission helped South Africa move on and prosper into a strong country. I feel as though it was a bit more relieving for the white South Africans because although they were still penitent, once they were granted amnesty they felt clean and as though they had done some good. Whereas many of the black South Africans still had to endure the fact of having many of their people and loved ones killed and no matter how much regret the perpetrators felt, the loss of a life cannot be changed. Although the Truth and Reconciliation Commission did not fully mend all of the problems between black and white South Africans, it's purpose was served and it was one of the key events that led to the discontinuation of much tension between the black and white South Africans.
In response to Tristan:
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with your stance on this. I find it interesting how you mentioned, “But The victims desired punishment for their oppressors. If they had to withstand the torment of the imperialists why should the perpetrators not have to suffer also?” and how you later stated that to punish the perpetrators would only cause more struggle and hate. This is true because instinctively, most people would want to seek revenge on the perpetrators who stole the lives of their loved ones. If this occurred, more hostility would be created and things would develop into a cycle of violence and hate. The purpose of the TRC was to heal South Africa, move on from the horrifying past, and put an end to the tension in a peaceful manner.
Response to Cara,
ReplyDeleteI agree with you when you mention the TRC as being this first event that started the break down of barriers between blacks and whites in South Africa. Although, when you talk about apartheid hurting many black families on a personal level I do not think there was much that South Africa could have done to help every individual family that was hurt because of the segregation. I do agree that simply forgiving someone of such a trivial crime would be hard to do and that many people would have been upset when asked to do so.
When apartheid was over, had the TRC not been founded, and instead every person involved in the inhumane acts of the past was punished, apartheid would have been continuing under a new name. Instead, the TRC was created, and through it, people led by example. Leading by example can often be much more effective than leading through force and punishment. The example that the TRC provided, was that of second chances and of forgiveness. Not unconditional forgiveness, but the chance to plead for amnesty and to relieve the burdens of one’s crimes.
ReplyDeleteAlthough the TRC may not have allowed for the “eye for an eye” sort of revenge many victims of apartheid craved, it did help to build a road to recovery for the nation of South Africa. If the violence of apartheid had been carried on as the violence to avenge apartheid, the perpetrators who initiated the violent cycle would see that the people agreed with the trend of violence, and they would strike back to avenge those who died under the avengers of apartheid. This vicious cycle would continue on, leaving a forever warring and divided South Africa. Thus, despite the lack of the TRC’s instant road to happiness and joy and love, it did bring the people of South Africa closer to coming to terms with and healing themselves of “the festering wound that was apartheid” (Webber).
My response is to Kyla:
I completely agree with your statement: “every individual deals with and sees forgiveness and justice in different manners” and that this affected the effectiveness of the TRC. I see what you mean about the TRC being flawed for the individual but beneficial to the general public.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDillon Lerach
ReplyDeleteMr. Christopher Webber
Honors History 10
25 January 2011
From 1996 to 1998, led by Archbishop Desmond Tutu, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) addressed the atrocities of apartheid via a political body that ran parallel to the justice system and whose purpose was to give a voice to both perpetrators and victims in order to move toward reconciliation. “The TRC firmly believed that the brutal truth of South Africa’s traumatic past had to be revealed and acknowledged, no matter how immensely painful the process, before not only a transition but a whole-scale transformation to democracy could be made.” The TRC believed that “unless a society exposed itself to the truth, it could harbor no possibility of reconciliation, reunification, and trust.” The results of the TRC’s efforts were surprising. Two political scientists undertook an empirical analysis of three differing ethnic groups in post-apartheid South Africa and compared their reactions to the TRC’s effectiveness in truth and reconciliation. Afrikaners, English South Africans and Xhosa, a black native ethnic group had very different reactions to the TRC’s efforts. All three groups believed that TRC met its goal of bringing out the truth. However, the Afrikaners, who conceived of the apartheid system and are considered the perpetrators believed the TRC was less effective in bringing out the truth. The English South Africans were in the middle, while the Xhosa were most enthusiastic. The TRC was not considered by either group to be effective in bringing about reconciliation. The English South Africans believed that reconciliation was not possible due to the atrocities committed. The Xhosa believed that not everyone should be reconciled. The Afrikaners believed that the TRC seemed to be prolonging the reconciliation process rather than contributing to it. The Xhosa, according to the study, perceived the TRC to have significantly more of a positive effect on South Africa’s society. None of the groups believed that the TRC helped South Africa’s economy and only the Xhosa believed the TRC proceedings contributed to a positive of image of South Africa in the world. Interestingly, all participants were critical of the expenditure of monies to fund the TRC. Some Afrikaners thought it was a waste of money and resources. Some Afrikaners and English participants thought money could have been better invested in educating people. An English and Xhosa participant thought money could have been used for compensating victims. As one might expect, the perpetrators, Afrikaners, believed the TRC was used as a smoke screen to mislead the outside world about what was really going on in South Africa and painted a picture in the worst way possible. The English believed the TRC was seen favorably in other countries and the Xhosa thought the TRC was an example for the world and part of a silent war that would help South African democracy get recognition in the world. The authors’ conclusion was that in relation to reconciliation, the TRC was much less successful than in bringing out the truth. Only Xhosa participants strongly agreed that the TRC had a positive effect on South Africa’s society. The Afrikaners and English were worried that opening old wounds would ignite revenge and make it harder for South Africa to heal.
Clearly the TRC’s “effectiveness” depends on the individual’s group and his biased view point in South African society. While reconciliation may not have been achieved through this process, truth was achieved. Truth and acknowledgement allows “justice” to take place and restores human dignity to victims by forcing perpetrators to acknowledge and be accountable for past atrocities. Given the other choices available to the fledgling South African government – Nuremberg-like trials, amnesty or amnesia – truth, while not a panacea for apartheid’s horrors, enables South Africa to slowly heal and achieve a multi-racial shared government in future generations.
ReplyDeleteWhile the TRC helped South Africa move past the horrors of apartheid, one wonders whether justice was fulfilled when the leaders of the nefarious system never appeared in the tribunals and were never punished. The TRC helped the foot-soldiers of apartheid and their victims grapple with what occurred and why. However, the prospect of true justice for the victims disappeared when the creators of the system like President P.W. Botha were not called to account. The TRC rectified the problem of functionaries saying they were “just following orders” like at the Nuremberg trials. There was an open and honest airing of what occurred and why, however, the TRC did not bring about true justice for the victims. Importantly, outsiders who do not have a direct stake in the new government may not be best suited to opine on “justice” for the South African nation.
I agree with Voja that “the TRC was only as ‘worthwhile’ as the participation of the people who had come to testify.’” I also concur with Radmer that part of the TRC’s “good was overshadowed by the failure to bring in high-ranking governors.”
Works Cited
Du Toit, André. "Experiments with Truth and Justice in South Africa: Stockenström, Gandhi and the TRC." Journal of South African Studies 31.2 (2005): 419-48. Web.
Vora, Jay A, and Erika Vora. "The Effectiveness of South Africa's Truth and Reonciliation Commission: Perceptions of Xhosa, Afrikaner, and English South Africans." Journal of Black Studies 34.3 (2004): 301-22. Print.
Webber, Christopher. "TRC" Modern World History, Pacific Ridge School, Carlsbad. 20 Jan. 2011. Lecture.
The Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), the brainchild of President Nelson Mandella, which was led by the Archbishop Desmund Tutu, was perhaps one of the most successful attempts to create peace in South Africa. The idea of the TRC was to help ease the hatred in South Africa by opening the wounds caused by apartheid and cleaning them out so they would not fester and cause hate to continue. At a TRC hearing, both the perpetrators and the victims of some of apartheids greatest crimes were brought face to face in a courtroom. The perpetrators came to the TRC and confessed to all their crimes, on television, in an attempt to get amnesty or at least a reduced prison sentence. The victims came to the courtroom to finally get closure with the atrocities committed on themselves or their loved ones. However, this was nowhere near perfect. For instance, many of the criminals who had committed horrible crimes against humanity were given amnesty, and no matter which way you look at it this was ethically wrong on every level.
ReplyDeleteWhile I do not believe that it was perfect, I believe the TRC was successful at achieving its goals and a very worthwhile endeavor. The mere fact that it allowed both sides of apartheid to have some closure and peace is an astounding accomplishment in and of itself. But more than that, it gave many South Africans a chance for redemption and an opportunity to get on with their lives. However, the most important reason that I believe made the TRC worthwhile, was that it was infinitely superior to the alternative option that South Africa had for dealing with apartheid. This alternative would have been to execute or jail the tens of thousands of white South Africans who committed apartheid. If this had ever happened the animosity and hatred between black and white South Africans would still be present and perhaps be even stronger than it was before apartheid. South Africa would have had an exceedingly difficult time escaping its past.
Madison Catchpole
ReplyDeleteModern World History Honors
Mr. Webber
Period—6
1/25/11
The TRC
I think that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission was worthwhile because Mandela showed the country that he was forgiving and that they should follow his lead in order to create a peaceful and loving country. He asked Desmond Tutu, the Archbishop and large follower of the apartheid, to head the committee. The TRC was meant to help deal with what happened under the apartheid in South Africa. The government set up courtrooms to hear the cases of the victims of the apartheid and these were broadcast around the world. People also tuned in to see government workers ask for forgiveness of their wrongdoings. The idea was that if you confessed to your sins, you could be forgiven. Though many in the government who were in favor of the apartheid where too proud to come to the court room and confess their sins in front of the whole world. I think this was a great idea because the fact that it was broadcasted around the world will definitely separate the truly sorrowful people, from those who don’t think they did anything wrong and don’t feel they need to ask for forgiveness.
"... a commission is a necessary exercise to enable South Africans to come to terms with their past on a morally accepted basis and to advance the cause of reconciliation."
Mr. Dullah Omar, former Minister of Justice
As shows in the quote above, the commission showed that the perpetrators of violent acts can be forgiven and the country could move on into a more peaceful way of living. But in order for the crimes to be granted amnesty, the person who committed the crime had to have been motivated by the government.
Works Cited
Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Web. 25 Jan. 2011. .
Emily:
I agree that the TRC was a great idea and that the fact that it was broadcasted on television does make a difference. It seems you put a lot of thought into it, but I would really like to know more of your opinion on the matter rather than facts on the occasion.
For many years South Africa was in great unrest due the Apartheid. Many horrible crimes were commited during this period such as brutal beatings and murder. When the Apartheid finally came to an end everything did not immediately turn to happiness. People were still frustrated with what had happened in their country. After such horrific memories the people of Africa were in need of a way to heal and be able to move past Apartheid. This is why the Truth and Reconciliation Commission was started by Nelson Mandela and led by the Archbishop Desmond Tutu. The entire purpose of the creation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission was to allow the people to understand what happened, but more importantly to be able to forgive the sins and move on to create a more peaceful South Africa. I believe that the TRC was a very meaning full and needed project for South Africa. With so much built up anger violence was almost certain to happen in which case South Africa could have been worse off than before the Apartheid was ended. The TRC was a major step in helping to release these built up tension between the different cultures. People were able to go before the TRC and ask for forgiveness for all their crimes and sins that occurred during Apartheid. In many cases those who asked for forgiveness were forgiven for their crimes although they knew that they would never truly be forgiven by all the South Africans. Some people say however that granting amnesty to these people simply because they came before the TRC was wrong. They say that by granting these criminals amnesty that it does nothing in return to the families that were deeply affected by their crimes. However I do not believe that this is true because the TRC also gave a way for those who were affected to also move on and forget about what had happened in the past. It gave them a way to receive the answers that they wanted so that they could finally have closure. This is why the Truth and Reconciliation Commission was a much needed organization within South Africa. It gave the people of South Africa a way to receive closure and to move on and forget about all the hardships that had occurred in the past. Had the TRC not been invented I do not believe that South Africa would have been capable of making the progress that it has made since the end of Apartheid.
ReplyDeleteClaire Nassif
ReplyDeleteMr. Webber
History, Period 4
25 January 2011
The Truth and Reconciliation Commission was set up in an attempt to heal the people of South Africa by facing the atrocities of apartheid. The victims of apartheid were able to express their anguish and distrust for the white race based on the horrible oppression they faced under apartheid legislation. They revealed these stories in hopes of finding answers as to why their seemingly innocent loved-ones were killed by common white people or police. As the victims revealed their hardships, the perpetrators of these crimes, white South Africans, confessed their wrong-doing against black humanity. Then, the members of the T.R.C. deliberated over the court cases of these white South Africans and decided whether they were truly deserving of forgiveness for their harmful deeds: 7,112 requested amnesty, or forgiveness, and 849 were granted amnesty.
Now the question remains whether the T.R.C. was a worthwhile venture. I believe that without the T.R.C. the gap between whites and blacks would be even wider. Because of the T.R.C., the victims of apartheid were able to see the supposed guilt that many of the apartheid supporters felt. While some feel as though the people requesting amnesty simply wanted to stay out of jail, they still had to run the risk that they would not be granted amnesty and would have to face the consequences for their actions. If South Africa had moved on without having the victims and villains of apartheid face each other and the past, I believe that the country would have been left with an even greater amount of animosity and unanswered questions. Even though some argue that by allowing people to get away with crimes, such as murder, the T.R.C. set a standard of crime for the rest of South Africa. However, I believe the T.R.C. was more than just a means of amnesty for people, it was a way for the country to face the situation and move on without only bringing down retribution. Once apartheid ended, black South Africans gained greater control of South African with Nelson Mandela and this gave them the opportunity to spitefully avenge the whites, yet by doing that the blacks and whites would have been simply set at odds once again. The T.R.C. provided a worthwhile path for South Africa in the aftermath of apartheid.
Response to Bobby:
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with your argument how black and white South Africans would have had even more animosity without the T.R.C. because the black South Africans would be forced to jail and execute the whites who committed brutal crimes through apartheid. Also, I agree that while the T.R.C. was not ideal, it was still a very important path for South Africa to take.
Response to Victoria:
I enjoyed reading your thought process on how you began to view the T.R.C. and how you were skeptical at first, but then developed a stronger opinion. I agree that although the blacks and whites were still somewhat against each other, the conditions were improved by the initiation of the T.R.C.
In Response to Akash:
ReplyDeleteI like your connections to World War II and the Treaty of Versailles in France. It is an interesting comparison to see the relations between the events, and agree with you that the TRC had partial success.
South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission was a worthy attempt at healing the rift between the black and white communities, though in that regard it did not succeed. What it did succeed in however, was bringing the issues associated with Apartheid era South Africa to the forefront of the collective consciousness. While the world was aware that Apartheid was a major problem in South Africa, for several decades few gave it much regard. Here was a chance to expose before the international community the heinous crimes committed during this dark period in African history.
ReplyDeleteBut the question remains: was it effective? Under what parameters should we measure its success? Also, did too many people get off too easily?
Its effectiveness is still widely debated. While it did expose much evidence and reveal the truths behind many crimes committed during Apartheid, many men and women widely considered criminals were granted amnesty and allowed to leave. Many clamored for justice; many claimed these monsters did not get the punishments they deserved. However, it is not called the “Truth and Justice Commission” Yet, even reconciliation may be a long way off. According to the BBC, those claiming that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission did not bring criminals to justice were wrongfully branding the project a failure, as the commission’s purpose was to bring forth the truth and to begin the process of reconciliation. In this regard, it succeeded. Many stories and pieces of evidence were put on record to create the larger, bloody picture that Apartheid was. It began the path to reconciliation, some criminals convicted, yet others seemingly repentant and let off with a full pardon. In my opinion, it was a larger success than most branded it as, but less than what was promised. I see it as bridging the generations old rift between the white South Africans and the black South Africans, albeit with a rickety, dangerous rope bridge. It served the purpose of beginning the process, which we will hopefully see progress in the future.
I agree with Dillon’s standpoint that presenting the truth before the public achieved the purpose of beginning a long and arduous healing process. He also brings up the topic of accountability: by having criminals tell their stories and testify in regards to their actions, you return a semblance of so-called “justice” to the victims of these crimes. Of course, in many eyes, that is not enough.
Works Cited:
"BBC NEWS | Special Report | 1998 | 10/98 | Truth and Reconciliation | South Africans Reconciled?" BBC News - Home. Web. 25 Jan. 2011. .
"BBC News | TRUTH AND RECONCILIATION." BBC News - Home. Web. 25 Jan. 2011. .
South Africa. Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Web. 25 Jan. 2011. .
Webber, Chris. "Apartheid/Truth and Reconciliation Commission." Pacific Ridge School, Carlsbad. 6 Jan. 2011. Lecture.
Ian Torbett
ReplyDelete01/24/11
World History
Truth and Reconciliation Committee:
The Truth and Reconciliation Commission, better known as the TRC, tried to heal South Africa by showing the world community that the government was willing to cooperate with the populace. The TRC granted amnesty to black people who suffered or white people who caused the violence and segregation during the apartheid. They told their story to the TRC and the truth of their deeds. These were semi-effective methods, as few of the higher-ranking government officials went to the TRC for reconciliation. Because only a limited populace responded, the TRC’s plans were flawed. Without trying many of these individuals, the TRC was unable to account for the gross human rights violations during the apartheid. The TRC needed to force the high-ranking leaders of the apartheid to attend the courts and vie for reconciliation. These actions by the government would have shown the world that South Africa had not forgotten the apartheid and had the strength to bring its perpetrators to justice. The human rights violations in the apartheid would have been known, so South Africa could have looked the “beast” in the eye to see the full destruction of the apartheid.
The necessity for the high-ranking officials to appeal would have demonstrated that South Africa is fully capable of handling the government and was not only able to cope with the apartheid, but overcome it. A sign of progress from the development away from the apartheid, and the positive affects of the TRC, was demonstrated by South Africa hosting of the Fifa World Cup in 2010. This one example is a sign progress showing the improved South Africa and its development as a country.
In response to Dillon Lerach:
ReplyDeleteI really appreciate all the time and effort you put into this paper! It clearly shows, seeing as though I was astounded after the first sentence. The incorporations of quotations were throughout the paper as well as I liked how you took the view point of every ethnic group in South Africa and shared there beliefs. All I ask is, what do you propose instead of the TRC, or how could you have improved upon the TRC to make it more affective?
In response to Victoria Mansfield:
ReplyDeleteOutstanding job! What intrigued me most about your paper was the quotation you inserted about halfway through your story. You wrote, “forgive, but never forget.” And I believe that this quotation goes hand and hand with the apartheid as well as the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. I really couldn't have said it better myself. But, I do ask you to possibly think about if there were any other viable solutions instead of the TRC, or if not, how could you still incorporate forgiving and never forgetting the apartheid to the South African people arousing violence.
Casey Tirshfield
ReplyDeleteMr. Webber
Honors Modern World History
January 25, 2011
It is my conviction that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) was a necessary evil. The TRC was the sole program implemented in post Apartheid South Africa that enabled South Africa to elude the presumably inevitable outcome of civil war. The outcome of civil war could prove detrimental much to the affect of Zimbabwe’s civil war from 1971 through 1979. How did this one commission introduced by President Nelson Mandela and headed by Arch Bishop Desmond Tutu create so much controversy and lead to such a great outcome? It is through this paper I will explicate this based on both fact and opinion.
The transition of power from a hegemonic white government to the post Apartheid government of all races and ethnicities was by no means a smooth one. Being that it was led by the African National Congress (ANC) and resulted in the inauguration of Nelson Mandela as the first black president of an integrated free nation, there was great unrest amongst the white minority citizens of South Africa. For the years preceding the end of apartheid the whites were viewed as the primary perpetrators of oppression to their black majority. Because of this there was great fear that giving the newly elected ANC government full military and economic control over all facets of government and business would result in a wish for vendetta. It was for this reason the whites maintained the operation of the police forces and military despite them being part of the black controlled government. Another reason for the continued influence of the white minority was for economic purposes. Not only were the whites wealthier because of their education and privileges from apartheid, they also had the skills needing to maintain banking alliances with other nations and keep South Africa afloat in these times of great change.
What the Truth and Reconciliation Commission provided for this long and tedious transition was the public acceptance of South Africa’s need for the progression of their society. It also embodied the need for forgiveness of a group of individuals that act in accordance with their upbringing, morals, and perceived superiority.
Some argue that the TRC was a failed operation because it deemed acts of horrid violence in a political setting appropriate. This conclusion is showcased to this day because South Africa has the most violent and heinous crimes of the vast majority of countries. These crimes include murder, rape and assault. Is that a direct repercussion of the public amnesty granted to murderers, assaulters, and rapists during the reign of Apartheid? I say not. These crimes are so prevalent in the 21st century not because of an event which enabled perpetrators of politically predicated crimes to walk free under the condition they give a full account of their acts but rather because of South Africa’s wilting economy, and misogynistic social structure, all still remnants` of the once horrific Apartheid.
In conclusion it is my conviction that the TRC had a profoundly positive impact on South America by keeping it from succumbing to civil war. It was a system that should be recognized for its success in a situation where the odds were in every way pointed against South Africa’s government and people.
The Truth and Reconciliation committee aimed at healing the divide between the white and black populations within South Africa. It utilized a full accounting of the crimes of the previous administration to understand the magnitude and scope of the various apartheid crimes committed so the current administration and those who lived under the previous were fully aware of the previous administrations actions, and it also provided a mirror for which the previous administration could look into. In the process, whites who had committed crimes under apartheid could come forward and stand trial, hoping to be granted amnesty. Amnesty was granted to very few, less than 10%, and was only given to those who showed real remorse towards the actions they had committed.
ReplyDeleteI believe the TRC proved an effective tool in the abolishment of apartheid. Though I think that the TRC failed to help heal all the broken hearts of the family and friends of those killed and did nothing to better the living conditions of the blacks, it did allow whites to see exactly what they had become. Many of those within the highest level of the government were born in South Africa under the white rule of Apartheid, and had known nothing different than hatred and separation. By showing the white population the cruelty they had displayed, the current administration helped heal a divide between the populations and help the whites see the wrongs committed under their rule. As whites see these crimes, they would be more willing to help an administration that is no longer an enemy mocking their government but as a friend helping them to improve themselves.
David, I feel I must disagree with your definition of the TRC. In my opinion, the TRC goals was NOT to provide amnesty, and that amnesty was merely provided as a carrot for ex-apartheid government officials to come stand trial.
Mr. Tony Ibrahim your paper is beautifully crafte,d and I agree with you that the TRC was a necessary event that bridged the gap between blacks and whites in the South African society.
ReplyDeleteI believe the Truth and Reconciliation Commission was worthwhile. When apartheid ended South Africa needed a clean slate to start again and the TRC gave just that. It allowed people to forgive and then forget the racism. Although the people should be punished for the horrible crimes they committed, when the acts were done, it was allowed. Someone cannot be punished for breaking a law before that law was written. I’m not saying that the people who participated in apartheid crimes shouldn’t burn in hell but, from a legal standpoint, it is not fair. People who committed those crimes would probably feel the same because when they were doing it, it was not looked on as wrong, which would help further the period of racism and hate. If the people who committed those apartheid crimes were sent to jail, it would bring more resentment of a black government, than the change in power alone. During all the years those people would be in jail, the prisoners and their families would be affected by, and therefore focusing on apartheid, hatred, and how their lives were made worse when the blacks took over. The most effective way to end a period of hate and conflict is to create a situation where that hatred cannot continue.
ReplyDeleteAlso, to help end the stereotype that whites created about blacks being barbaric, the TRC was trying to show the white population that black people were peaceful, humane, and forgiving. The TRC was “being the better man” by not continuing the violence the white men started. Two wrongs don’t make a right. This kindness helped the racist white South Africans accept the black South Africans as equal.
Apartheid means separateness, and South Africa wanted to end it. If the black south Africans rose above the white south Africans and “gave the white people what they deserved” instead of forgiving, there would still be two groups of south Africans, there would still be separateness. The TRC helped to give South Africa a clean slate were everyone is equil.
To Claire:
ReplyDeleteYour response was really good. I liked how you included a little counter argument in your post. I totally agree with you how the TRC helped to lessen the gap between the different races. Also I agree that it helped South African leave the past behind them.