Naturally, as this course has focused on “Bloody Conflict”, the theme of reconciliation is something which has arisen numerous times and something I have been intrigued by, so much so that I decided to write my final paper on it. More specifically, I’ve been fascinated by how religious/racial lines have often been used for division in the literature and how much gray area exists in reconciliation.
At the outset of this course, I did not have a good understanding of deeply the conflicts and division of 1968 ran. Particularly in Ireland, the stories of people like Eammon McCann brought up the notion that even after the Good Friday Agreement, Northern Ireland was still loaded with tension. Never before had I seriously considered the idea that even after a conflict was officially or legally deemed to be resolved that so much tension could be lurking in communities. I definitely understood the concept on a personal level, such as how friends could say they forgive each other but still have bad blood, but hadn’t made the leap in my mind to understand how this type of persistent conflict and tension could exist on a societal level. I came to understand that reconciliation at a societal level isn’t always absolute. In my essay I really focused on this, delving into how personal connection is what allows for reconciliation to occur, but how focus on characteristics like religion or race can be used to divide, break down those personal relationships, and bring conflict back. In other words, reconciliation is fragile.
While a lot of the history and literature I’ve learned over the course of the semester have been valuable to me, lessons like this one that teach lessons which transcend the moment of ’68 and are just as applicable to life today and life back then had the most power for me. The past few years have been ones of serious division and as I watch Joe Biden’s victory speech after the election, I felt hope that he really could help bring our country together after a time of so much division. What this class taught me is that even if we succeed as a country in bringing down a lot of the division in our country, the job doesn’t stop there. Maintaining unity and fighting against division is a constant process, but one worth committing to.
I enjoyed reading your post because it reminded me of the phrase we hear so often in politics today. Namely, that we’re a divided country in which people have retreated to political extremes and have a difficult time getting along with people who don’t agree with them. In your last paragraph you mentioned Joe Biden’s acceptance speech, and I think you made a crucial point. There will always be things that divide humans, no matter what. What’s important is whether we have the leadership to unite people who fall on different sides of an argument, because although people don’t have to agree, in order for progress to occur they must be civil and willing to listen.