Thank you, your answer gave me further thoughts.

I think if you take a very striking example here (you hinted upon), it becomes even clearer: a proverbial captive of someone else can feel inferior, tormented and deprived of his rights. But he can also turn the situation around and realise that the one who imprisons him and tries to force him to obey has learned no other means and who thinks that punishment is the only language a human being understands. To nevertheless not feel small and inferior under the tormentor's rod is something we see in lore, literature and films. But to experience it in one's own flesh and to survive the duration of a captivity without suffering psychological damage is probably the highest form of self-respect.

I remember the stories passed down in my family, two episodes, one from my mother, another from my grandfather. Both of them had the strength to express themselves to their overseers in such a way that they did not reinforce the hostility but meant what they wished to express in terms of integrity in exactly the right manner. They picked the right moment at the right time, as it seems.

I would say that the decision to have those whom the ego identifies as either victims or perpetrators are both unsuitable to help ease the situation.

Reconciliation or pacification with the person with whom one is at odds is often not achievable at all and so the only thing left to do is to work on one's own and neither by contacting nor by wishing for "the other to defuse the situation" can the self be helped (Also, I think the "odds" are directed to the other person, while I think it's more odds with the self in a given situation). To put it onto the other, gives the other person too much power over oneself and one can become hopelessly lost in remaining stuck to the wish that the person of displeasure take wise steps. I wouldn't rule out that it works sometimes but oftentimes it does not.

I would be a bit more subtle here and say that the perpetrators of trauma are to be found in early childhood and, depending on the worldview that has subsequently formed in the child, is determinative of how he or she reacts as an adult when other people remind them of the early oppressor in this matter. This can be anyone, the wife and husband, a work colleague, an employee of a company where you buy something, a ticket inspector, a person in the queue at the supermarket checkout, etc.

This becomes particularly clear with strangers. In the case where someone feels spontaneous unsympathy and this is mutual, both parties probably fall into the trap of feeling reminded of former times and accuse this stranger of unfair intentions. This cannot be intentional and planned malice, because they do not know each other. However, one then spontaneously abuses the other as the surface of a situation previously experienced as urgent and shifts all responsibility onto the other. As long as one's own shadowy grey eminence in the background of one's own existence is not recognised, it cannot be realised that it is projection. The other is not the originator (causer) of the psychological trauma, but merely the reminder of this experience. Unfortunately, this is often confused.

I find it very very difficult to keep that in mind when I move within this world. It's not an easy task to come to self realization. It will keep me probably busy until the end of my days :)