Help us spread the news:

           

Recently I met a couple visiting Cambodia who were about to visit Tuol Sleng genocide museum, the site of the notorious prison where tens of thousands of prisoners were kept during the genocidal regime of Pol Pot (1975 to 1979). Cambodia is still waking up from that nightmare in which an estimated 20% of the population were murdered or starved to death.

The question this couple was asking was how could a nation let this happen to itself? And the answer that they had been given is that Cambodians are inherently violent people.

I’ve heard this response before. Certainly there is much violence to be observed besides the historical example from the 1970s. Larger vehicles on the road regularly use bully tactics sometimes risking life and limb of anyone in the way. Domestic violence is high. Land evictions are often carried out with large shows of force and regularly use physical violence. Children are beaten. Vengeance attacks involving battery acid occur. Road rage sometimes escalates in to fatal shootings.

On the positive side, however, violence is not the whole story. I have many relationships with Cambodian people and very few of these people I would describe as more violent than myself.

So we have two stories. The first story develops from simple observation objectively removed from those being observed. This story is developed from news items, recorded history, observed behaviour from a different cultural viewpoint – contributions to this story are whatever is most striking or sensational. It’s the stuff that stands out like crime, genocide, loud music, vicious driving and bullying by the rich and powerful. On the surface violence seems generic and the belief that it is inbred is certainly one possible conclusion.

The second story develops over time through relationships with people. As we get to know them in personal relationships, we find in them laughter, a sense of fun, compassion for their country, love for their families, appreciation and gratitude for the work of others in helping their country, a great sense of community and a willingness to work together. In this story violence can’t be explained as ‘something in the blood’ and so other causes for violence need to be considered.

The different impact of these two stories is huge. From the perspective of the first story I can separate myself, blame them and leave. Or I may still have a desire to help these people but it will be from a place of judging what is right and wrong. I know what is right while they are doing what is wrong. To help these people I must help them to see the error of their ways, accept different values, and therefore, behave less violently. Essentially, I am seeking a cultural shift from their place to mine.

Operating out of the second story means compassionately working with them in seeking to create the environment in which their desires for their community can find expression. It means working with them in identifying the types and causes of violence and seeking ways to deal with them.

For instance I know that poverty breeds violence. Poverty creates hopelessness and despair in which lashing out seems the only valid option. With poverty comes a lack of education and therefore an inability to seek other ways of responding. With poverty comes unemployment, broken families, fatherless households and a lack of positive role models. In Cambodia the loss of good leadership models from the mass slaughter of the 1970s is still an issue affecting the development of society today.

I know also that there may be cultural issues that contribute to violence. However, operating from the second story I am aware that not all Cambodians are violent. That awareness combined with an awareness of the violence that exists in my own culture inhibits me from driving for cultural change. Working with my friends I can help them to identify the beautiful aspects of their own culture and seek ways to encourage that to flourish.

Operating from the second story, a place of relationship with real people enables us to move away from a place of blame. They become my neighbour and my neighbour is just like me – a broken, imperfect, work in progress. They no longer exist as them but are all a part of us. We are all in this together. There are most definitely some Cambodians who carry more blame for the genocide of the 1970s but in pulling out them let’s not generalize to the rest. Also in pulling out them let’s not make scapegoats. They have become us. If they are guilty then we are guilty.

I don’t have a simple answer to the question the couple asked. But I do know that if Cambodians are inherently violent then so are we all. Inversely, if there is good in me, then there is also good in them. He is my friend, my neighbour, my brother and the story that comes out of our friendship gives me hope.

“The line between good and evil runs through every human heart.” Solzhenitsyn