I recently took part in a peace exchange program (PAX) with a group of my Korean friends, to visit the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In the previous fall, a group of eight teachers, students, and volunteer staff from Japan visited Korea, the largest group ever in the program. They visited place of current conflict, namely one of the world’s most heavily militarized areas which is locally referred to as the DMZ (de-militarized zone), and they visited places where they learned about the devastation left by Japan’s pre-WWII imperial policies. Their goal was to build peace in small way by learning about the past by hearing people’s stories, and by building friendships with people who may have once been deemed to be enemies. They left with the sense that they had accomplished their stated goals.
This spring, members of their Korean host organizations responded by enlisting eleven people to visit Japan as part of the same exchange program. (We have not heard if they will meet the unspoken challenge and send an even larger group next year.)
I was the sole foreigner on the trip, and for various reasons, I assumed that because of that, I would be less important. Fortunately for me, the common language of the visitors and the hosts was English, but I hadn’t had time to attend the Japanese language classes offered before the trip, my Korean language skills are barely functional, and I can’t read the Chinese characters that appear on both Korean and Japanese signs. I didn’t know the history as intimately as the others, so I felt I wouldn’t be able to appreciate the sites we’d see as much as they could. With regard to this particular conflict, I was, by nationality, neither a victim nor an offender, so I could offer neither an apology nor forgiveness.
They know each other’s sporting successes and failures as well as their recent political situations. Generally, Korean kids grow up watching Japanese cartoons and playing Japanese video games, while Japanese people can’t get enough Korean TV dramas and pop music performers. I exist outside of all of this cultural overlap.
It didn’t take long before the hosts and the guests were talking freely with each other. As they talked, they became more and more aware of these cultural overlaps that I was missing. But every now and then, in these conversations I would see ‘the look,’ the look that says ‘I don’t understand what you just said.’ I know that look because it is one that I often give in my everyday conversations, and it is one that I often see on the faces of my students, my friends, and people I meet at stores, restaurants, and churches.
That look is often followed by another look that is familiar to me, it’s the look that says, ‘I have no idea how to repeat what I just said more clearly.’ These mutual confused looks are often enough to derail a conversation and ruin the momentum of friendship and community building that was taking place.
It was at times like this that I could use skills that I didn’t know I had. Since English is a truly global language and North America is a land of immigrants, I’ve heard the language spoken in a number of different accents at a number of different levels. Also, I’ve discovered that being comfortable with a language not only means that you can speak effectively at a high level, but it also means that you have more ways of saying something clearly and simply.
So I got to be a translator after all. I wasn’t switching from one language to another, the people I was helping were already doing that, but by using simpler words and grammar and speaking more clearly and carefully, I could help people communicate. Suddenly I felt useful.
I think people of peace often feel that they are not useful. I’m sure that people within the conflict often suspect that those attempting to be peacemakers don’t fully understand the conflict. When peace is always on your mind, when it is the thing you’re striving for, can you truly understand the language of those who are prolonging the conflict?
When we are on the outside of a conflict, we often turn to the peacemakers for a balanced account of the dispute, but within the conflict itself, it is not the role of the peacemakers to explain the nature of the conflict to those enwrapped in it. Ultimately everyone wants peace (only the most sadistic individuals and those holding on to positions of ill-gotten power enjoy conflict), people just disagree on how peace should be achieved. People speak about peace, but they speak in the language of war, strife, oppression, suppression, victimhood, victimization, pre-emptive defense and retaliation. It is at these times that people of peace need to intervene. It is their role to ensure that both sides are being heard clearly by the others, and to facilitate a relationship that is built on genuine understanding.
Recent Comments