Reconciliation

Reconciliation;     Fractured relationships, broken marriages & communities, provincial conflict.
Interacting with a wide range of people who have come from fractured relationships & communities, and communities who quite literally have no access to any food or water.
We need to reconcile villages, communities and families.
Destroy the family – you destroy the community, destroy the community you destroy the nation.
Strengthen families – you strengthen the communities, strengthen the communities – you strengthen the nation.
There is always conflict and strife and resentment and contempt, accusations and retaliation. Attacks and defence, threats and always a cause and effect situation which everyone finds themselves in.
One wants one thing, while the other wants something else. Both sides duke it out and hold their positions firmly and neither get what they want, only to cause more devastation and consequences, often many others suffer because of the stubbornness of others.
Eg, 2 village’s at war with one another, yet it is the children and other relatives who usually suffer the consequences.
In marriages – husbands and wives break up because one or both sides stubbornly refuse to give anything, and only want to hurt and destroy the other, yet they have no consideration for anyone but themselves, this causes heart ache and devastation for others around them, the innocent children, the children’s grandparents, friends and family.
So lets take a step back. This is The Art Of Reconciliation. So lets talk about reconciliation.
Each of us would have a list of what we want from the other person or community.
Each of us would have a list of what we would want to do or have done to the other
Each of us would have a list of what we would want to cause to the other.
Each of us would have a list of what we would want the others to do.
Compassion / forgiveness / empathy / concession / conceding / middle ground / reason, these things are far from the mind of those who care nothing about others, whether it be within the community and village, or within any individual relationship.
Here is an example only of how a conflict arises and what ensues.
Party one complains party 2 leaves the toilet seat up and never takes out the rubbish.
Party 2 complains party 1 is always persistently nagging and nagging as soon as they come home and does not let them have any time to unwind from a hard days work and always yelling at them and the children for not meeting up to their standards.
Party 1 complains about how they always have to pick up after everyone and prepare their meals and has no appreciation from others.
Party 2 complains about how they are working hard to bring home money to pay the bills and put food on the table and help out with the children’s home work and school requirements and there is no appreciation from others.
Party 1 wants party 2 to start carrying their weight around the place and always blasting them for not doing the dish’s and not helping out with the laundry.
Party 2 wants party 1 to acknowledge that they spend time with the children home work and vacuuming the home and would like them to help out with the children’s education.
Party 1 is always voicing faults and throwing accusations against party 2 for all the things that party 1 thinks party 2 should be doing according to the expectation of party 1.
Party 2 is always voicing faults and throwing accusations against party 1 for all the things that party 2 thinks party 1 should be doing according to the expectation of party 2.
 Party 1 is not capable of acknowledging any of the contributions of party 1, nor are they capable of stating anything good of party 2.
Likewise
Party 2 is not capable of acknowledging any of the contributions of party 2, nor are they capable of stating anything good of party 1.
 Neither are able to recognise the rights or contributions of the other.
This only builds resentment and hostility between the 2 groups who are already at odds with one another.
When party 1 makes accusations against party 2, and party 1 continues to point out the shortcomings of party 2.
And
When party 1 makes accusations against party 2, and party 2 continues to point out the shortcomings of party 1.
There will never be any meeting half way, not any reconciliation, nor any empathy or compassion towards each other.
Reconciliation Attributes & Steps.
Each of the partys could take steps of the following.
Party 1, think about making a list of the good things of party 2.
Party 1, make a list of the positives and skills and good qualities of party 2.
Likewise.
Party 2, think about making a list of the good things of party 1.
Party 2, make a list of the positives and skills and good qualities of party 1.
The list should not include such things as, eg, they are good at slacking off, or, they are very capable of only thinking of themselves and dismissing the needs of others.
They should not think about things like, they are good at yelling, or they are good at ignoring the needs of the children.
The 2 different partys needs to look at the other party and see the good abilities of the other.
Eg, party 1 may disagree with everything of party 2 in regards to how they live their life, or what their religious beliefs and practices are, they may detest the foods and drinks they eat and drink.
Party 1 may hate the type of clothes party 2 wears, and the attitude party 2 dish out to party 1.
Yet party 1 needs to look deeper at party 2, party 1 needs to put themselves in the shoes of party 2.
Party 1 needs to look at life as though they are party 2, see the needs and desires of party 2.
Party 1 needs to see why is party 2 behaving that way, why is party 2 saying them things, and why is party 2 doing them things.
Not only look at them things and start bad mouthing them for their shortcomings, but to really take a deeper look at party 2 and see why is it that they are saying and doing them things they are saying and doing, what is it that party 2 is wanting and needing for their point of view, party 1 seeds to look at it from party 2 point of view, what party 2 is wanting and needing, and why they are saying and doing the things they are saying and doing.
Likewise party 2 needs to do the same towards party 1.
Of course there will always be times when neither party can reconcile due to mental illness and hard stubbornness of another party.
It usually comes down to 3 things that each of the party’s hold to..
1) I want this, I need that.
2) you are a this and that.
3) you are wanting what is not right.
Each party is saying this.
Each party are needing that.
Each party are accusing the other of demanding things that are totally unacceptable to the other.
Party 1 and 2 needs to look at how their own reactions are causing to flame the fire and causing a retaliation from the other, which in turns inflames them even more, its a perpetual motion circle, each feeding off the action and reaction of the other.
THERE NEEDS TO BE A PAUSE ! ! !
Instead of inflaming the fire, eg, it is agreed to lets start afresh and put everything in the past behind us, and start again new.
Yet no sooner is that agreed to by both partys, that FORGIVENESS is not there in one of them, and they secretly hold resentment and hostility for the other for some things. Then one of them states something to the effect of, eg, “you are now got going to go to the bread shop now” This can start the inflammation again, here is how the conversation could inflame the supposed starting new agreement agreed to by both ( but one holds resentment and or suspicion of the other ).
Party 1 – your not going to the bread shop now are you ?
Party 2 – I wasn’t even thinking of going to the bread shop
Party 1 – just making sure you not have thought of going to the bread shop

Party 2 -wasn’t even thinking of it, wasn’t even planning to go there

Party 1 -you had better not be thinking of going, that’s all im saying
Party 2 – but I told you I wasn’t even thinking of going there
Party 1 – if I find that you gone to the bread shop then you just cant be trusted because I know you thinking of going

Party 2 – I wasn’t thinking of going to the shop

Party 1 – you thought of going there
Party 2 – I said before I will not be going to that shop, we agreed to it, why you keep saying that, im not going
Party 1- so you expecting me to believe that you are not going to go there even though you always went there which means I can not trust you, you always lie, you say you wont but you will, I know you
As this example were to continue, the relationship breaks down between party 1 and party 2 before it even got a chance to start.
The continual pushing of the ajenda when it was agreed to not talk about that certain thing, when it was agreed to that they will not go to such a place, the continual re-raising that subject by party 1 against party 2, there is no reconciliation, party 1 is causing the faning of the flames of dissention and fraction and separation and friction.
Getting back to the 3 common states of friction of each side as stated before needs to be addressed and compromised, where each side needs to work on meeting the needs of the others.
1) I want this, I need that.
2) you are a this and that.
3) you are wanting what is not right.
Each needs to NOT say or do the things that they know will inflame the situation.
There is some things that each has to give and take for reconciliation.
There are things that each party needs to concede in order to meet the necessary reconciliations.
 Eg, if one of the partys is a cigarette smoker, and the other is unable to breath and becomes very ill and sick when they come into contact with cigarette smoke, then in this case, there is no compromise, for reconciliation, the smoker must, and absolutely must not smoke any more, because that is a absolute need of the other. There is no possibility of reconciliation if one of them continues to smoke, because it is an absolute definite need for the other to not be around cigarette smoke.
Therefore in this example, no matter what argument or reason or excuse is given for continuing to smoke, if they want reconciliation, the smoker 100 % needs to and must stop smoking permanently.
However instead of the issue being smoking, if it was that they liked eating a sandwich and fruit before going to bed. If this was what is irritating and causing divisions. it is not as serious as the smoking which could cause death in a worse case scenario. This sandwich and fruit eating issue is negotiable.
1) why are they eating the sandwich and fruit before going to bed ?
2) what problems is being caused by eating the sandwich and fruit before going to bed ?
 Is it that they are eating because it releases their stress or is it like a hot milk some use to use for their children to relax before they go to bed ?
Or is it that they are leaving bread crumbs in the bed, or fruit residue on the bedside table at night and waking up with it still there rotting away ?
This issue can be negotiated both ways, unlike the cigarettes, this one can be met to appease both sides.
 They maybe still allowed to eat their sandwich and fruit, however the compromise could be that they need to have the sandwich and fruit on a plate, and then all the crumbs and residue then put into a sealed bag which could be put into a container on their side of the bed which is kept neat and clean and out of the way, and emptied every morning or every 2 days, etc.
Some issues there has to be a surrender and give into the demands of the other.
Others there can me a compromise.
Others can be what people say and do.
Eg, child eats with a knife in their left hand instead of the right hand, and they use the fork in their right hand instead of their left.
Instead of them demanding to eat the “Supposed Correct Way”. It is not compulsory necessary that they have to be doing things in the right way. If one keeps demanding “YOU MUST USE THE FORK IN YOUR NLEFT HAND” while the other says “I CAN ONLY USE MY FORK IN MY LEFT HAND”.
In this situation for peace and harmony, it is not necessary to be right in the way things are done Its ok if they use the fork in their left hand, being wrong in the opinion of the other person is better than being supposedly right and forcing others to follow what they think is right. Yet for the forcing others to follow the ways you deem to be right is only causing friction and confrontation and dispute and arguments.
It does not have to be “RIGHT”. Sometimes it is “MORE RIGHT” to be “WRONG” than to be “RIGHT”.
Think of it this way, There eating their food with the fork in their left hand, the task is there eating, the food is being eaten.
Raising an issue which forces them to go against their own natural way to do the job, yet the job is still getting done, yet raising and forcing them to do it a different way which is the way you want it to be done is going to cause an upheaval and confrontation and fight and arguments and dispute, and a massive disruption to the peace.
IS IT WORTH IT ?  the task was already going to get accomplished without the interruption, but the disruption of changing the hand which the fork was in, technically it is not an issue, it does not have to be raised.
For the sake of peace, keep silent and remain calm and not stir up an issue, if they say no they do not want to use a fork in their other hand, but the task is still getting completed.
Swallow your pride, take a step back, have some humble pie of humility, let it go, don’t worry about it, leave it alone, get on with other things, keep the peace, enjoy the fact that the task is getting completed, and they are enjoy using the fork and eating the food. SHALOM.
 For the sake of reconciliation, for the sake of peace.
What are the things you can not compromise on ?
What are the things you can stop doing and saying which aggravate the other ?
What things can be negotiated and altered in such a way which could meet the needs of the other ?
These are things that both party’s need to do for the other, or the other needs to do for you ( compromise on both sides in what they say and do ).
What things can you start doing in order to meet a need of the other ?
Remember its about reconciliation.
Reconciliation of villagers and communities.
Reconciliation of friends.
Reconciliation of family.
IF one of the parts are downright refusing to compromise and they only want to dominate, and fight, sander and attack, then it is most likely they are better for the safety of the forced subordinate that they may need to not have a reconciliation.
But if 2 party’s want the best for their community and family, then they need to know how to surrender their pride.