Some people say that violence is the last solution. Others say that it is never the answer. And others, such as Mr. Dubois, believe it is the only answer.
Okay, let's be honest. Peacekeeping is a great concept. Working issues our diplomatically, peace talks, the UN, etc. are all really great. However, how effective are these methods in reality? In my World Politics class, we spent a good two class periods discussing all of the faults with the UN. And for my Leadership Gateway class, we had a crisis simulation that was sort of similar to Model UN- there was a problem, and groups represented different countries and tried to work out the problems. And it was so annoying/hard t0 negotiate with the other groups. The teachers even had to abruptly stop the simulation because nothing was working. Although I personally do not believe that violence is always the answer, I have come to realize, especially during my first semester here, that diplomacy sounds great but does not always work.
Looking back into history, how many times have peace agreements just not worked out? Take for example the wonderful peaceful policy of "appeasement." Chamberlain and the other Western rulers whose names are escaping me right now allowed for Hitler to take control of certain areas in Europe- it was a peace treaty to allow him to satisfy (or so they thought) Hitler's desire for territory. And what was the result of this peaceful arrangement? World War II.
I feel like people are too selfish to be able to work things out peacefully. If two areas really hate each other, peace agreements will barely ever work effectively. How long have peace talks been taking place between Israel and Palestine as well as between the Greek and Turkish sections of Cyprus? Let's pretty much face it- if nothing significantly solid has happened yet, I don't see what another ten years of peace talks can do.
It is hard to say that I completely agree with this statement- I mean nobody really enjoys violence unless you are some crazy sadist. And the aftermaths of war normally cause huge tensions. I mean one of the main reasons Hitler rose to power and all that jazz was because Germany was an embarrassment after it lost in World War I. Even though there are tensions after the war, war actually "gets stuff done" much more effectively than talking. You have a much bigger impetus to become friendlier with another country if their army is completely demolishing yours. But then again there is violence that occurs during like colonization and enslaving. The Native Americans were pretty good until the white man came in and basically slaughtered a huge majority of their population. How was violence the answer then? I think I would probably support the stance that diplomacy is mostly useless (sad but true) and violence gets stuff done but ONLY when states are butting heads, a state is being a total jerk, etc. As for the times when greedy men come in and just commit acts of violence on another community, I really could not tell you that violence is that answer or that diplomacy works. It is just greed that causes them to invade and do this, and I wish I could come up with a better explanation/answer for this.
I love your last sentence. I got confused while writing my blog as well.
ReplyDeletebut do you think that the murder or treatment of slaves and American Indians is worse than the fighting between two rivals in a war? Is fighting among countries acceptable?
To answer you question Lucia, I think that both acts of violence are equal. Usually slavery and the poor treatment of American Indians is seen as worse because that violence was a direct impact among those people. Sadly, fighting two rivals in a war is seen as acceptable because one is fighting for THEIR COUNTRY, its a sign of loyalty and honor. It is not as bad as slavery because in a way it is seen as a duty. Like we discussed in class, when an American fights and kills for their country, they are bestowed the honor of being buried in Arlington Cemetery. I think it is equal because each acts involves harming people and when it comes down to it, it does not matter who you are or what you are fighting for, both war and slavery and the treatment of the American Indians are all equally cruel.
ReplyDeleteI would have to say that the events that took place with the American Indians is much much worse, especially because the West were much more developed than the Indian culture. We have learnt through out school as early as like third grade the differences between the West and Indians (different types of weapons, diseases, etc.) and how it was basically a genocide of the native population. So, I would argue that it;s much worse.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I agree with the princess that both are extremely cruel, I would still have to argue that slaughtering a pretty much helpless society is worse than two countries fighting!