Day 4 of the Feast of the Victory of Horus ~ Meditations on Compromise
Art by Yoshi Yoshitani
Compromise, it’s the ideal outcome of a disagreement, but at the same time it’s not always possible, or even wise. I try to compromise as a first resort to a disagreement. It is the Ma’at thing to do.
There are as many versions of Egyptian mythology as there were cities and towns in ancient Egypt for over 3,000 years, so I’m not about to claim the one I ascribe to is the one true canon version. There are many truths, you can think of it like multiverse theory. But in one version, during the 80 year battle between Set and Horus, there was a point where they reached a compromise. Set was to rule Upper Egypt (that is, southern Egypt), while Horus would rule Lower Egypt. This corresponds to where most of their followers lived. But one fiesty Netjeret wasn’t at all pleased with this compromise; Isis. Now I get it, it sucks having your husband killed and having to go hide out in the marshes while raising your kid, while searching for your husband’s missing body parts. I argued on the first day of the feast that the story was a lot more nuanced than “Set bad, evil, jealous”, but I recognize that this must have devastated Her. But She didn’t have make everybody else suffer because of it, first and foremost Her own son. Anyway, She thought that Horus deserved all of Egypt, and Set needed to be punished. So, the battle raged on for a few more decades. Had She been willing to compromise, the whole thing could have ended a lot sooner, a lot of suffering could have been avoided. She did get what She wanted in the end, Horus got the whole of Egypt. So what is the moral we’re supposed to get from this part of the story? Don’t ever compromise until you completely defeat your opponent? Violence is the answer, might makes right?
I can think of a lot of instances where compromise was a bad idea. I hate talking about it, but have one look at the state of US politics. It got to where it is, at the brink of fascism, because of Democrats trying to pull that “reach across the aisle” crap with people who want anyone different from them dead, or enslaved (that’s assuming the two main parties weren’t in cahoots all along, since they all answer to the same billionaires). You can’t and you shouldn’t compromise with far-right bigots. It’s like the paradox of tolerance. Tolerate people different from yourself, but don’t tolerate intolerant people. “So much for the tolerant left” they’ll whine. They all deserve a punch in the face. I can look at the history of Armenia too. Uninformed outsiders might say “Why doesn’t Armenia just compromise with Turkey and Azerbaijan, the genocide was over a century ago, why don’t they get over it.” Firstly they refuse to admit the genocide happened, and I’ve realized after watching Azerbaijan commit genocide in Artsakh that the number one reason for someone to deny a genocide is because they’re not done yet. Their leaders often say the quiet part out loud, they want Armenia wiped off the map, and erased from existence. You can’t compromise with people like that.
I can think of at least one historical example where compromise would have been a good idea but wasn’t done; the punishment of Germany after the First World War. Yes, I can see why the allies wanted to punish them, millions died, I don’t think Germany was the good guy in that war (it was a war of light grey vs dark grey morality; other than the Ottoman Empire which of course was purely evil in my opinion). But punishing them so severely and making their money worthless just created the conditions for the Nazis to rise to power. I don’t know what the solution should have been honestly, I’m no expert on that part of history. It made sense to punish them but it seems to me they went too far.
I’ve heard it said that a good compromise leaves neither side completely satisfied. Perhaps that’s how it should be if you want to keep the peace.
πΉ֍֎πΉ
~ Siamanto the Foreigner
π·π πππ―ππππΊπππ ππ
ΥΥ«Υ‘Υ΄Υ‘ΥΆΥ©Φ ΥΥΏΥ‘ΦΥ¨
No comments:
Post a Comment