That massacre sparked the idea for tighter gun laws. These are the types of actions that we would see occur in the world if we chose to forget all the bad memories of society. Do you remember the atrocities of the first and second world war? What if you never learnt about these heinous acts of cruelty? We would continually see more large wars occurring because society would decide that the mistakes made in the past aren’t worth remembering.
Zhang JunYue (32) IH Essay 2 Although conflict is generally present all around the world and exists in all societies at all times, it need not necessarily be negative or destructive. However, in this essay, I will be touching on violent conflict, characterized by a use of physical force between two or more parties to resolve competing claim or interests, usually resulting in more than one confrontation and loss of human life. There are many different causes of violent conflict but in this essay I will focus on different beliefs as a cause of conflict, specifically belief in the form of ethnicity as a cause of conflict. This essay aims to analyze and conclude whether violent conflict can be prevented when the cause of conflict is the difference in beliefs, in the form of ethnicity. The essay will examine two case studies to determine the factors or pre-conditions for the prevention measures to be effective/ not effective in placating rising tension from escalating into violent conflict.
Since the mid-1980s Gujarat became the site of recurring communal violence. The state turned into a nerve center for the Hindu nationalist movement and has come to be seen as the Hindutva laboratory. The rising communalism in Gujarat culminated in a massacre of Muslims in many parts of the state in February 2002. The complicity of state officials in the killings raised doubts about the ability of the state to govern and to uphold the rule of law. It also demonstrated that such carnage in a country with one of the largest Muslim populations in the world had the potential for destabilizing India’s democracy and the secular consensus on which it was
Here, Martin Luther King Jr. is inferring that violence is not necessary to convey a message or fight for what one believes, and that attaining justice isn 't limited to the act of violence. King does not believe in using violence to fight violence and uses ethos to appeal to the audience: "Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly" (King 65). This is similar to the saying that two wrongs don 't make a right. King is acknowledging that being violent to respond to violence is only going to cause more chaos which in terms is not right; he is thinking about consequence. Malcolm X 's speech is fueled with anger and rage.
Any kind of conflicts such as conflicts between different races, different religions or even among siblings must be root out before it is too late. Although we cannot avoid conflicts from happening, but at least we can try our best to minimize them. If we fail to preserve harmony, wars may be declared and bloodshed occurs everywhere. Everyone will live in fear. Sometimes we are too weak to defeat our enemies.
It can also be said that violence may be Bahya or Antargata. Bahya means the external factors or the actual act of killing or causing pain and Antargata means the intentions behind the act of violence. Outer conditions can influence one’s mind but they cannot govern him. As far as feelings are involved, one is his own master and it is mandatory for him to be non-violent in that province. One killing or causing injury or getting it done by someone or approving anyone else doing the same – krita, karita and anumodana karana through mind, body and speech are also Himsa.
One argument against absolute freedom of speech is that it can be used to provoke and inspire violence. Free speech allows an individual to voice out any opinions without interference. Some people however feel free speech means we can freely hurl insults to provoke and offend which is abusing the right. Oliver Wendell Junior, a staunch supporter of free speech recognizes that there should be limits placed upon it through his famous observation that freedom of speech does not give anyone the right to shout “Fire!” in a crowded theatre as it could jeopardize the people’s safety. Abuse of free speech can lead
History is wrought with ingroup and outgroup hostility and violence. Many researchers have examined the behaviors of hostile and violent groups; however, the studies lacked a generalized approach for reducing intergroup conflict. Sherif (1958) was frustrated with the lack of a generalized approach and began a series of experiments to identify an approach that consistently works. His 1958 paper was the culmination of three independent experiments and continued laboratory testing, which identified an approach that worked. 1958 – Theories and Past Research To help guide his research, Sherif (1958) gained an understanding of the social norms and dynamics of existing intergroup relationships.
Social and political injustice: People choose terrorism when they are trying to right what they perceive to be a social or political or historical wrong—when they have been stripped of their land or rights, or denied these. The belief that violence or its threat will be effective, and usher in change. Another way of saying this is: the belief that violent means justify the ends. Many terrorists in history said sincerely that they chose violence after long deliberation, because they felt they had no choice. This explanation of the causes of terrorism may be difficult to swallow.
The belief that I will be focusing on is how one group regards themselves compared to other groups in terms of supremacy. As long as there are different beliefs, it would result in violent conflicts. Take for instance, the civil war in Sri Lanka. The Sri Lankan Civil War was from 1983-2009. It is a conflict led by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam (LTTE) on behalf of the Hindu Tamil minority against the Sri Lankan government and the Buddhist Sinhalese majority, which makes up 9% and 82% of the country’s population respectively.