National terrorism has been the focus of attention since September 11 (Haubrich, 2006). Unfortunately, domestic terrorism is now becoming increasingly common with hate groups around our nation. Domestic terrorism can be defined as violent acts that someone has committed in their own country against their fellow citizens and infrastructures. Some examples of violent acts include violent crimes, (murder, assault, and etc.) property crimes, and public order crimes. It can also be a crime against the state or federal government, like for example the attack on the World Trade Centers and the infamous Oklahoma City bombing.
It‘s an issue that is difficult to isolate and its effects have an impact on the whole population at hand. Different analysis hold different views to it and thus we seek to comprehensively analyze it. In the text by Gilbert and Terrell they have tried to define how liberals and conservative have differing views in regard to policy formation.
Violence is a terrible thing, but is also essential in life. Without violence, there would be no such thing as reality, and no such person a real person. We walk in a world of two types of people: real and unreal. The real people have seen and experienced violence. They no longer see the world through eyes that see the wonderful and the paradise, but rather through eyes that “might never see it right again. Or worse did see it right at last. See it as it had always been, would forever be.” The real world is far different from the images one perceives it to be; before one experiences violence. Cormac McCarthy clearly shows this in his book, All The Pretty Horses. John Grady Cole, the main character is on and alleged “adventure” to seek out his cowboy dream. He is brought up short by the violence he had never seen before. The “Cowboy” reality is far
Does violence actually ever accomplish anything? Some people seem to think that it does. Cesar Chavez on the other hand, disagrees. In an article that Chavez wrote for a magazine and made some excellent points and arguments about why nonviolence is so much more effective as opposed to violence. He covers topics such as morality, or lack thereof, shown by violence and nonviolence, as well as honor. Chavez’s rhetorical choices made in favor of his argument seems to have a lasting effect as people today still resort to nonviolent acts of resistance against their government.
In James Scott’s writings about “Everyday Forms of Resistance”, he makes many points about power and where it may lie, even if the points are unintentional they provide a solid argument with great examples to back up those arguments. Scott argues that a vast realm of political action is overlooked for two reasons. The first reason is that it is not openly declared in the usually understood sense of “politics”. Second, the group action displayed is not how we normally understand collective action. From these two reasons, Scott suggested that arguments could be developed, stating that “much of the politics of subordinate groups fall into the category of “everyday forms of resistance”, these activities should most definitely be considered political.”” (Scott,
Politics. What does it do to us and our views of people? In “Divided We Now Stand,” Susan Page, the current Washington Bureau Chief for USA today, explains just that. She spends the article giving readers studies and insights as to how people oppose simply because the party says to oppose, and she shows us how people feel about opposing parties and treat them as a result of partisan views. In this article, Page has many good points and strategies, but her argument could be improved. She begins the article by daringly challenging the views of readers, and she continues to do this throughout the article. She also helps her argument by establishing logos and ethos through examples and outside sources. However, she slowly diminishes this credibility
War is defined as “[a] state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict” (“War”). War existed throughout the history of mankind, and left its footprints deep within our society. Even though, we do not know what war truly is. We may assume that war is a complex matter that derives us to think and analyze its true meanings and values. It raises the question of ‘What causes war?’ In Ehrenreich’s writing “The Ecstasy of War” she answers that war is too complex to say it is based on a single act. Moreover, she claims that instinct is a minor factor and should be disregarded (Ehrenreich 426-431). Although her principles, some may think instinct should be considered as factor that derives war. Therefore this paper will rebut on the oversimplification of such argument and reason the importance of instinct in war.
The number of genocides committed in the history of the human race is inconceivable. In the Holocaust the minimum estimate of fatalities is five million, in the Holodomor Genocide the minimum was two million, in the Congo Genocide the minimum was three million,and this list could go on. Humanity has killed itself in massive numbers over and over again. Why, but for joy of the violence, of the death, and of the destruction? Humanity justifies these atrocities with religion, racial and ethnic superiority, and patriotism, in other words hatred. In his essay, “On The Pleasure of Hatred”, William Hazlitt claims that, humans inherent enjoy the act of hating, causes them to hate themselves and create toxic societies. To further his claim, Hazlitt showcases the institutionalized belief systems that groups within humanity use to execute their
Considering the tragic history of mass shootings in the United States, specifically the most recent at Stoneman Douglass High School, I find the split in gun control to be absolutely riveting. No matter where one stands on the political spectrum, everyone always appears to have something to contribute to the gun control debate. It is evident that Congress must act when examining the seventeen murders at the hands of former Stoneman Douglass student Nikolas Cruz. Guns are more accessible than ever, and this is putting everyone’s lives at risk. A mass shooter wants to cause chaos, perhaps in a separate way than they had intended: after generations of like debates, it is time to talk about the consequences of allowing
Abrahm describes his strategic model as stating that it “posits that terrorists are rational actors who attack civilians for political ends”. But Abrahm also provides seven puzzles, three of which are coercive ineffectiveness, terrorism as the first resort, and anonymous attacks.
The notion and the meaning of conflict have evolved with time. Before Coser, conflict was seen more as a source of social change and disintegration. However, the conflict theory we are referring to here is not necessarily an infliction of violence or atrocities, but a conflict that arises due to unequal distribution of power and resources. Theorists consider power to be an important element of conflict theory. For instance, who uses power or where is power located are two of the main concerns of conflict theory. In fact, Coser, himself says power is not a bad thing but it is a factor that helps shape relations within a society. In his theory, Coser tries bringing out the meaning of conflict in a society; how a conflict starts in a society; how unequal distribution of power within a society leads to conflict and the consequences that it brings along.
Undoubtedly politics is “the study of influence and the influential”, there is most certainly truth in Harold D.Lasswell’s definition of politics. Throughout the course of this essay the study of politics will be examined in relation to Laswell’s definition. Furthermore the concept of government and how people influence government action will be looked at. In Lasswell’s book “Politics, Who Gets What, When and How” he clearly outlines the “influential are those who get the most of what there is to get”, in his opinion politics was primarily to do with power and influence. Lasswell’s definition of politics has been in the past supported by prominent political scientists such as Abraham Kaplan and Robert A. Dahl, both men believe the study of politics is largely to do with the use of influence by those who find themselves in influential positions. In their book “Power and Society: an introduction to the social sciences” both Thomas Dye and Brigid Harrison define politics as “the study of power”. One of the Oxford dictionary’s definitions of power is “the capacity or ability to direct or influence the behaviour of others or the course of events”, thus proving there is most certainly a very close link between politics and influence.
Unlike structural realism, constructivist social theory argues that “States act differently toward enemies than they do toward friends because enemies are threatening and friends are not. Anarchy and the distribution of power are insufficient to tell us which is which”(Wendt, 79). Based on Wendt’s philosophy, whether the international system is conflictual or peaceful is not due to anarchy and power but due the shared relations and social practices between states. By interacting with other states, Wendt argues that identities will form based on diplomatic gestures, which means states can be able to achieve peaceful relations. Simply put, anarchy does not control conflictual relationships between states. Since,"anarchy is what states make of it,” all states do not need to stress over their relative power and can focus on achieving long term peace.(Wendt, 79-80). While realist classical perspectives point to solely human nature and the anarchical system as the reason for conflict, Wendt provides an example showing that the self identities of states can lead to peace or conflict. He points to defining situations in context history that help determine a state 's interest. He states, “This seems to be happening today in the United States and the former Soviet Union. Without the cold war’s mutual attributions of threat and hostility to define their identities, these states seem unsure of what their ‘interests’
John Galtung recommended that conflict could be observed as a triangle, with contradiction (C), attitude (A) and behaviour. He explained that all three aspects must be there in a full conflict condition. Contradiction is an important factor of a conflict which mentioned through the parties, their intentions and the clash of interests between them. Attitude comprises the parties’ views and misunderstandings of each other and of themselves. Behaviour is the third factor which can involve coercion or cooperation, gestures defining conciliation or hostility. The violent conflict approach is defined through coercion, threats, and destructive assaults. Galtung’s, model suggests that each of these components influence one another, and while each