This is a graded discussion: 20 points possible
WEEK 7: ETHNIC VIOLENCE
Unfortunately there is a constant state of viciousness throughout our world. I could get into how this oppression can lead to hatred, which can lead to rebellion, which can lead to terrorism and war, however that is a topic all of its own. It is sad to think of how much conflict, killing and hatred there is going on in our world today. I myself do not follow too much of politics because of this. It is extremely tragic and deeply depressing to hear of the constant fighting and killing amongst people just because they have different views and opinions. Maybe someday our world will have some peace and quiet. One can only hope.
Reference:
Roskin, M. G., Cord, R. L., Medeiros, J. A., Jones, W. S. (10/2013). Political Science: An Introduction, 13th Edition [VitalSource Bookshelf version]. Retrieved from https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/books/9781269724821
The New England Colonies. (n.d.). Retrieved December 03, 2017, from http://www.ushistory.org/us/3.asp
Hi Aesha! I couldn’t agree more with you regarding how our children are being influenced by people in power these days. It is shocking and disgraceful some of the ways that people in power are speaking to and about others. I feel that we have lost a sense of respect and honor in our culture lately. There seems to be no reverence towards others these days. I can only hope that we can teach our child how to properly treat others. I have always stood by the saying of “treat others the way you wish to be treated.”
It is amazing how much hatred and violence that is in our communities today. It is unfortunate that we even must talk about it. It seems the leaders of our nation are not even listening to us, the people that voted them in. In not listen to us it makes all of us upset and angry that we have to some way get our statement out there. It is unfortunate that it must come with riots, sit-ins, fights, or some other kind of demonstration. You are correct what is our younger generation going to think, how are they going to act, how are they supposed to know what is fair? Many questions that must be answered. We must keep strong with our influence and educate them on what we believe is right and just. This is also where our education system must play a big role and teach our children how this land was built, “For the People, by the People.”
I think that your statements about children and younger generations being influenced by people in power these days is very true. My opinion is that people put too much stock in these people as well as people such as celebrities who are really just regular individuals who have been put in the spotlight for acting, singing, etc. While this is all well and good for entertainment purposes, I always hate to see young people idolizing them when they’re not the best of influences and wanting to be just like them even though that shouldn’t be important. But on the other hand, I feel that people do not respect the people in their every day lives, such as family and friends, as much as the celebrities we know of today. It is normal as humans that we are fascinated with people above us, but I don’t believe that it is a positive thing for our up and coming generations to worship them the way that some do. There are much more important things in life and this has been forgotten over the years with television and social media taking over.
It is extremely sad to see what hatred can do because of different views or values. I grew up in a household without any politics and until recently did not follow politics. It was not until I decided to take this course that I realized how much politics is in our everyday lives. The fact that there cannot be a compromise amongst factions is disappointing. As children we were taught to share but as adults I have noticed the need to have all or none. Maybe one day our differences will foster growth and bring us together instead of being a means for separation that leads to violence.
Jasmine:
Your response is excellent. I also grew up where we did not talk about politics. I feel that when I grew up we did not have the media or social media to bring it right to our face. We had to wait till the paper came, or watched the 6 pm news. This is the way a lot of people grew up. Now we wake up in the morning and go to “Facebook” and read all the post. We reply and start a discussion there. Yes, some of our differences come out in those discussions, but it might lead to us not liking that person in the future. If we could all be as simple as a child and share the things that we had and not degrade anyone or work together with all issues. The scenario that we had for discussion would possibly not have led to violence because the government would have shared.
Rory
Hi Kandice and Aesha:
I could not agree more. The world my kids are growing up in is drastically different than the world I grew up in. When I was a kid, you respected your elders, you weren’t entitled to anything, and you respected those in authority regardless of your view. I hate that there is so much violence and hatred in this world, but more so in this amazing country we call home. I have to agree with Rory as well, that our leaders are not listening to the wants and needs of citizens; whether that be on a local, state, or national level. But…does violence really resolve anything? I don’t think it does, and I don’t believe our first level of resolution should be violence. Look at all the political riots that recently occurred. What does breaking in to Foot Locker and stealing their merchandise during a political riot prove? Does it solve anything? No! It is just a group of people taking advantage of people and companies in despair. “In the days immediately following President Trump’s election, hate crimes in the United States soared, reaching nearly 900 nationwide” (Kampf-Lassin, 2017). Not only is violence on the rise, the media makes sure to publish and comment on violence while specifically targeting a certain party. The article I reference below gives a great insight on how the left and right are blamed and why the other party is wrong. It was a very interesting read.
I appreciate the way I was raised. I was taught to verbalize, debate, and not hate someone because their view is different than mine. I was taught that violence is not the answer, don’t throw the first punch…but don’t back down from a fight and stand your ground. My kids aren’t entitled to anything, and they know it. They respect their elders, they love law enforcement, they want to help people, and they use ma’am and sir!
Reference:
Kampf-Lassin, M. (2017, June 16). Don’t Blame the Left for Political Violence in America: The Problem Lies with the Right. Retrieved December 08, 2017, from http://inthesetimes.com/article/20240/left_political_violence_Virginia_Hodgkinson_Scalise
YES! There is a complete lack of respect accompanied by some weird sense of entitlement. What ever happened to respecting your elders, and your teachers? My kids said that you are able to put your feet up in class and listen to music????? WHAT, that would never have happened. Everyone i fell is so scared these days to be accused of harassment. It is truly sad.
I appreciate the way I was raised as well. There is that complete lack of respect and the feeling of entitlement with everything the younger generation feels. When did this change like we each have asked? The ability to voice our opinions and to lack discipline throughout our lives. You see children taking their parents to court because they feel they have been abused. I grow up respecting my parents and knew if I did something wrong, they taught me, and it might have been with a slap on the behind. It made me aware that I need to assure that I was correct and understood.
I think this class and our education to become better in our chosen profession can help us to teach our children the meaning of respect and understanding. We can teach them through what we learned in this class and this week, some ways to express themselves in that respect that will not lead to violence that is happening so much today.
Our teachers, police, fellow nurses are scared because of the lack of respect that each receives. If I talk to a person wrong or touch them wrong, we can be held to harassment. We must remember perception is the reality. Even though it might not be true!
Amber:
You were raised well and are raising your children well, this is the same mantra I live by with my family also. Unfortunately I feel in society that this is no longer the norm and one can argue exists well within our political system today.
Michelle
Rory,
I too grew up in a time when the evening news or the daily paper was our way of receiving political information. Or any national information for that matter. Today is so different from those times. Our president tweets! I find that unusual. There are so many news networks now that are all expressing totally different points of view, all biased it seems. There is a Facebook group for everything you can imagine, supporting any topic you could think of. It seems that we are in information overload at times. Information is good, but can too much be bad?
Scott
Rory,
It is absolutely true that back in the day news was on two to three times a day with a newspaper in between. The reality is history repeats itself and the difference is now it is so readily available. It’s disappointing how today’s generation treat riots and violent protests as a trend, the cool thing to do. Over the years and before my time people had nonviolent protests and sit-ins without so much media coverage. I believe if our society was less impulsive and actually took time to think through a situation, there would probably be less violent uproars.
I like you grew up in a home where politics wasn’t talked about and I never took interest or understood any of it until the past several years. I think it is very sad the violence and outbursts people have over politics and I think there are several factors. People feel their voices aren’t being heard but today with social media I feel the younger generation feel it is okay to be extremely disrespectful and rude in what they post and say. This is not productive and fuels the problem.
Great Post. I definitely can your comment about how oppression can lead to hate amongst many other things. Any time a group of individuals feel as though they are being mistreated or overlooked it leads to tempers and emotional engagement which can often times lead to violence because people feel as though their rights are being violated and the only way to get their voice out is through extreme measures like violence or raiding. The problem is with violence it never actually solves anything its just began a conversation to seek a resolution. Another problem is that if you treat individuals like animals some will reciprocate animal like behavior in other words to get respect it must be given.
I couldn’t agree with you more. As I watch the news the conflict, hatred and killing is just unimaginable for the normal person to comprehend. I too am not political at all, but can’t help be pulled in with all that is happening in the world.
I have to say I am an optimist, but don’t feel “World Peace” is a reasonable expectation.
Michelle
You are so correct! The world we are living in today is horrible and I am also one who tries to stay as far away from the news due to all of the disgusting things going on. Truthfully,I am already starting to feel as if we already living with these so called factions. We are already at war with each other, You cannot even have an opinion these days without it turning into a racist, sexist, or political slur. truthfully I think people are turning into whiny crying little babies. Sorry for the rant, its just crazy.
Violence is inevitable with regard to many government disputes in many countries. Roskin cites “change” as a main underlying source for government unrest (Roskin, p.283). As societies modernize and the traditional stability citizens have always known is called in to question, violence becomes the easiest road for civilians to navigate in an attempt to maintain to government stability they are/were used to. An example of violence in government effected by change to the stability are ethnic Albanians and their inhabitance in Kosovo. They had unrest with having a second-class status that led to the development of political parties, protests, underground groups, armed rebellion and general violence in Kosovo in 1999. While there is more permanence and strength in their government now, almost 20 years later, it was not without Albanian citizens taking a furious and intense path to achieve their wishes. (Roskin, p. 283).
– Dana
Reference:
Roskin, M., Cord, R. L., Medeiros, J. A., & Jones, W. S. (2014). Political science: an introduction (13th ed.). Pearson.
Reference:
Roskin, M. G., Cord, R. L., Medeiros, J. A., Jones, W. S. (10/2013). Political Science: An Introduction, 13th Edition [VitalSource Bookshelf version]. Retrieved from https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/books/9781269724821
After reading Roskin describing violence in history, it does seem like violence is inevitable. When there is unrest in government or among different groups within a country, it is likely there will be some sort of violence. According to Roskin (10/2013), there are groups of people who are willing to fight and break the law in order to bring about a change they desire. I think the religious factions in our scenario will eventually become violent to gain control of the territory they desire. Whether they actually are successful or not is left to be determined. However, if they are passionate enough about their territory, they will fight to the death to achieve their goal.
Leona
Reference:
Roskin, M. G., Cord, R. L., Medeiros, J. A., Jones, W. S. (10/2013). Political Science: An Introduction, 13th Edition [VitalSource Bookshelf version]. Retrieved from https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/books/9781269724821
Understanding and reconciling ethnic differences to avoid violence.
Students, this is a topic of discussion that traces the course of human history. It has been said that the key to peace within a nation or a geographical area is to either completely integrate or completely separate people based on cultural, linguistic, and/or ethnical differences. However, based on the issue presented here (the territory in question which commands the only source of clean water for the nation cannot be politically separated from the rest of the country) are either of these feasible solutions?
Explain your answer.
The statement that says that the key to peace is to either completely integrate or completely separate people based on cultural, linguistic, and/or ethical differences is in question here. This would be an example of separatist violence which aims at independence for the group in question and often stems from an outgrowth of primordial conflict (Roskin, 2014, p. 282). However, based on this situation at hand, I don’t really think that either of these are feasible solutions being that the one faction wants and believes in being separated, and the rest of the population can’t work with this separation because of the issue of the clean water supply. Throwing that issue in the works makes things completely different and allows for greater conflict being that a clean and adequate water supply is of utmost importance to any community’s success. And with the other faction’s possibility of getting in the way of this, I don’t know for sure that violent acts could ultimately be avoided being that there might be no other choice in the end but to fight for what each group wants and settle it that way. That might not be their first choice but it very well has the possibility of being their only choice which we have seen in many other instances of unsolvable disagreement and war.
Roskin, M., Cord, R., Medeiros, J., & Jones, W. (2014). Political Science: An Introduction (13). Hoboken, NJ: Pearson.
No, I believe with the only water supply, people need to work together and share. Its ok to have differences. It’s not ok to completely separate with the only water supply. There will be health problems and enemies if separation occurs.
Thank you.
References
Roskin, M., Cord, R., Medeiros, J., & Jones, W. (2014). Political Science: An Introduction (13). Hoboken, NJ: Pearson.
I believe that it’s those essential basics to life that will bring people to war. Whenever there is a resource needed by one nation that they can’t obtain, they will look to get it no matter what, and clean water will bring about conflict if so dogmatically given to one side or the other.
I remember playing this computer game called Age of Empires, where you had four major resources you could use to build your nation: Food, Gold, Stone, and Wood. Whenever you ran out of one of those major resources, your growth was halted until you expanded to find new resources, but other nations were doing similar things, meaning you had to war with them eventually if you wanted to have access to that resource.
The point I’m making is that just putting unmoving lines down on where people can and can’t go will always lead to some conflict when the resources rest on one side of that line.
Imagine a country where religious factions inside a nation want to have their own separate homeland. The government refuses, claiming that the territory in question, which commands the nation’s only source of clean water, is vital to security. Is violence inevitable?
In this case, I would argue that violence is not inevitable. Unfortunately, history teaches us that religious and cultural fragmentation within a state creates the chronic potential for conflict. I think of the effects of Pan-Slavism leading to WW1 or the current conflicts between Shia and Sunni Muslims within Arab states. However, in this scenario, I see several issues that could be used to help stabilize the situation. Roskin (2014) points out that the upsetting of traditions (cultural or religious) within a society is when violence is most likely to occur. An example of this is the redrawing of national borders after WW1 that did not take into account the various cultures within those artificial boundaries and how this annexation of peoples into new nations would eventually lead to a destabilization of states (WW2). In this scenario, the state would do best to placate the concerns of the religious factions, encouraging respect for and tolerance of religious practices. Isolating these factions simply leads to disenfranchisement and increases the likelihood of violent conflict. Isolating and denigrating factions (Slavs) within the Austro Hungarian Empire was a large part of the ethnic discontent that led to WW1. So, here, a practice of actively engaging these factions and proactively addressing their concerns, is one avenue towards peaceful coexistence. Also, the use of water can be used as leverage for peace. A national plan of access to and profits from the only source of clean water, can be an area of common interest to be emphasized in agreements for peaceful coexistence. Typically, it’s the few radicals that ruin it for the many. Hopefully, in this case, shared power and shared profits will avert violence.
Thank You,
Gordon
Reference:
Roskin, M, Cord, R, Medeiros, J, & Jones, W. (2014). Political Science:
An introduction (13th ed). Hoboken, N.J.: Pearson.
In the scenario given, I would think that the possibility of violence is high. I am not sure that I would characterize it as inevitable. According to our reading, violence of this type “aims at independence for the group in question (Roskin, pg. 282).” If this group already has control of the only clean water source, how is clean water dispersed now? This could lead to a good national economy. I feel if the clean water is already available to those outside of this religious fraction, that it would be after their own homeland is secured. However, if the clean water was not made available, and a secondary clean water source could not be secured, violence is likely. This would take consideration and work on both sides. A treaty may need to be signed ensuring clean water for all. Or a trade system could be organized with the faction producing the water for a price or goods, or even protection by the nation’s military. There are many ways that this could be a peaceful transition. But if the parties involved are not willing to come to an agreement, violence is likely.
Scott
Reference:
Roskin, M., Cord, R. L., Medeiros, J. A., & Jones, W. S. (2014). Political science: an introduction (13th ed.). Pearson
Thank you for your thought provoking and interesting post. I like the fact that you emphasize the need for compromise in order to keep the peace. I believe that compromise has always been the best way to promote non-violent coexistence. Unfortunately, there are always a few radicals who will not accept compromise (they’re usually the violent ones). In this scenario, the government would be well served to work within the separatist region to gain support from the majority of the people. In doing so, this popular support for the government lends legitimacy to any of the government’s suggestions for compromise. In any compromise rational choices lead to common ground. Too often though, we see those so entrenched in their ideology, religious or otherwise, that irrationality is the rule rather than the exception. As, Przeworski (2010) states, ideology is naturally hostile to any kind of political divisions. If this scenario is to remain peaceful, the government must work quickly and diplomatically to garner support from the rational populace in the separatist region.
Thank You,
Gordon
Reference:
Przewski, A. (2010). Consensus, conflict, and compromise in western
thought on representative government. Procedia Social and
Behavioral Sciences. Retrieved from
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.05.058 (Links to an external site.)
How can this be of any good for the economy? My opinion is that water should be free for everyone. Water being sold was started as a use for Spa and water therapy. Today, it is solely viewed as a convenience for those that do not drink carbonated drinks and allows them to carry the water on the go.
I do agree with your post that violence aims at independence for the group in question (Roskin 2014 Ch.17 Pg.282) and further violence will ensue if parties are not willing to compromise. Thank you for your post.
Damaris
Perhaps I should have said that this could be the start of a trade agreement between the two parties. Or at least a starting point on compromise between the two. I also feel that water should be free, but this is a commodity that the faction can use to barter. And as others have mentioned it could always be withheld and used against the country. And this would most definitely lead to violence. Maybe the country could compromise and give them another territory for their homeland with rights to the clean water. I suppose that I was trying to make a way for it to work.
Scott
Professor Terwilliger,
I think that when certain factions have a focused point and another group is not allowing their goal to be achieved, this can ignite a revolutionary movement. Although if that region is the only one with water it is understandable why they would not grant them freedom from the country. It sounds like the first stages of revolution have already started (Roskin, 2014 p 289). The country needs to find a way to negotiate to avoid revolution. The major risk’s in all of this is the instability within the country. The major risk of revolutions is if the extremist takeover and the country ends up under an authoritarian government as they so often do (Roskin,2014 p.288). Anytime people feel like they have no voice in their own outcome, violence is almost certain.
Reference: Roskin, M. G., Cord, R. L., James A. Medeiros, Jones, W. S. (10/2013). Political Science: An Introduction, 13th Edition. [Bookshelf Online]. Retrieved from https://online.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781269724821/ (Links to an external site.)
It’s an interesting catch-22 situation in realizing the region with the clean water resource is the one wanting to secede while the main country does not want to realize their wants/needs and allow it. It would a scary situation to potentially lost the clean water source you were used to each day; however, negotiating between the 2 parties involved to reach an agreement as to when/how the region can have it’s separate homeland while still providing clean water to the other regions of the country is imperative. I agree with your point that a revolution has already begun and being as though there is no negotiating at this point, violence is sure to arise.
-
-
Gordon, great post and you touch on such an important piece of politics in general, compromise and how getting to compromise is handled. One could argue the core component of politics is compromise or we can say lack of compromise, there are often two o more views that each other don’t agree on.
Your statement, “We see in the world today hardened ideologies that leave no room for compromise” designated with me because this is what I feel like we are seeing more and more. And the way that they are being presented ignites feeling of anger, unease and in return promotes violence at times.
To the contrary if the same differing ideologies were communicated and debated with a different tone or approach, the results would be much different.
Michelle
In such situation government has every right to claim stake of the area as it is strategic important to the country whether peacefully or following any sticker measures.
Dear Professor and Classmates,Imagine a country where religious factions inside a nation want to have their own separate homeland. The government refuses, claiming that the territory in question, which commands the nation’s only source of clean water, is vital to security. Is violence inevitable?
Government and religion when charging against each other tend to have negative or violent outcomes. Therefore, I do feel that this particular scenario would result in violence being a symptom of its upbringing. According to Roskin, the violence that arrived in the 1960’s was a negative in the sense that it was violence but ended up creating a positive effect by reminding the United States that there were problems in the inner city (pg. 280). This could be considered Primordial violence, according to Roskin, since it is a conflict within the basic community based around the religion in which this land was likely born into (pg. 282). At the same time this conflict seems like “separatist violence, sometimes an outgrowth of primordial conflict, aims at independence for the group in question” (Roskin, pg. 282). There are many examples of separatist violence in history and in most of the cases thousands were injured or killed in their battles to separate from their nation.
References:
Roskin, M. Cord, R. Medeiros, J. And Jones, W. (2014) Political science an introduction. (Thirteenth edition). PearsonBrandy,
There are many instances in history of religious conflict ending in violence. The specific issues vary, but many are over religious freedom or territory. The American Revolution is an example of violence as a result of the desire for religious freedom and independence. The reason many moved to the American colonies was to break away from the religious oppression in England. According to Roskin (10/2013), this would be considered revolutionary violence as it was overthrowing the existing authority. As you pointed out, the different types of violence results in several thousand injured or killed. If a group of people are passionate enough about a cause, they are willing to sacrifice their own lives so the ultimate goal is achieved.
Leona
Reference:
Roskin, M. G., Cord, R. L., Medeiros, J. A., Jones, W. S. (10/2013). Political Science: An Introduction, 13th Edition [VitalSource Bookshelf version]. Retrieved from https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/books/9781269724821
As the authors of our textbook have stated, political systems can and do breakdown and most countries suffered or are suffering from political breakdown marked by major riots, military coups, civil wars, terrorism and authoritarian governments (Roskin,et. al, 2014, p 279). The imaginary situation aforementioned, as I have learned from this week’s chapter reading is a primordial type of problem since conflict is arising between religious groups As this example was given, I instantly remembered Israel and Palestine. An article in BBC news explains how these two states of different beliefs and religion, Israel being Jewish and Palestinians being Arabs, have been going head to head since 1948 since both parties wanted to control Gaza (BBC, 2015). As seen in this real-life situation, both parties agreed to a peace negotiation however, the conflict escalated into a full war. (BBC, 2015). I personally think violence can be avoided although it is very hard to achieve. it just depends on how the country’s leaders deal with the situation and come up with a compromise leaving both parties happy and content. It is also important for each party to agree and actually follow to terms and negotiations made in order for peace to be achieved and maintained. In order for violence to be prevented and peace to be attained, there needs to be a lot of understanding, and an effort from both parties to uphold treaties or negotiations made.Reference:
BBC. (2015, February 20). Guide: Why Are Israel and the Palestinians Fighting Over Gaza? Retrieved December 4, 2017, from http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/20436092
Roskin, M, Cord, R, Medeiros, J, & Jones, W. (2014). Political Science:
An introduction (13th ed). Hoboken, N.J.: Pearson.
Erika,
Thank you for your thought provoking and interesting post. I like the fact that you mentioned compromise as an important element in establishing peace. I believe that the spirit of compromise has a trickle down effect. When we see political leaders working together in a spirit of compromise for the common good, it then inspires a willingness in society to find compromise. We see in the world today hardened ideologies that leave no room for compromise. These closed societies fear and loathe free societies. Often, to promote their ideology or simply out of jealousy, radicals within that ideology (terrorists) attack. They may attack individuals, but what they are really attacking is a (our) way of life. That way of life, with its freedom to form compromise, poses a threat to the absolutes of ideology. Ideologists are poor leaders. They are even poorer politicians. Free thinkers, on the other hand, promote a spirit of compromise in coming up with creative solutions. Thus, free thinkers make good leaders and even better politicians. So, I say defeat ideology, tyranny and repression – become a free thinker. That should be a bumper sticker. According to Hinich & Munger (1996), ideological messages contain coherent statements of how to choose and what to do. Freedom, free thinking, and compromise is the antithesis of ideology.
Thank You,
Gordon
Reference:
Hinich, M, & Munger, M. (1996). Ideology and the theory of political
Choice. University of Michigan Press : Ann Arbor.
Erika and Gordon,
Michelle,I agree with your point that the government has a right to claim the area as it’s own, without an agreement of secession. Maintaining the clean water source as part of the country is vital to security, but without a dialogue, as you mentioned, to reach a common solution, violence is likely. However, even the dialogue itself can lead to violence when the region in question is not having their wants/needs appreciated. The meetings would be lengthy and time consuming, and lead to many issues during the discussion process, including violence.
Dana
-
Professor,
I feel as if in this situation that violence would be inevitable. Although each side may try their hardest for veer way from it, if the situation gets bad enough then violence will happen. Water is one of the course essential needs for life, therefore if this item is taken away from a person, they will go into fight or flight mode. That being said, it is important to remember that the government may not be responsible for starting the violence. If a large group of people go into fight mode over the water resource, they will band together and from their own army to try and defend themselves. The government may do all in its power to try and speak and reason with leaders of the other side, but this sometimes will not be enough when people want/need something that they feel it is their right to fight for.
I think that if this scenario were to take place, there is more potential for violence. As our authors have stated, “As much as we deplore violence, we have to admit that in some cases it serves a purpose (Roskin, 2014 p.280).” In this scenario, I think that the purpose that violence would serve is towards the nation-state that is being deprived of clean water, since they can’t really do anything if the other nation-state refuses to give them water which is a very important necessity, violence would be their way to gain back dominance and proving a point. However, I see that violence can also be prevented if the government uses their power and steps in to regulate the water source instead of having one nation-state control it.Professor, in the scenario you presented, I think violence would be at the top of the list. Water is a vital part of living. I would give the benefit of doubt and say the state without the water would try to reason with the other state. I don’t think they should have to reason with the other state. There was a treaty made and they should honor it! I think if that fail violence even though it’s a big jump from a conversation to riots and protest is definitely inevitable. The state that holds all the cards are ultimately tampering with the lives of the other state.The answer would be violence. It seems that is what every solution comes to. Treaties are made between nation states when things can be settled with words and works for both parties in the said treaty. The EU is a prime example. When the countries came together with a mindset to make the economy one of its top priorities and ease for all countries involved the agreement works. Once that is no longer the view the countries leave just as the UK is right now. It seems that treaties have an expiration date and then if needed violence is there to claim what they need to survive.The treaty with the nation-states to share water would be feasible at first. Of course it is depending on the terms and the value of the terms for each side.
Hello,The nation without the water would probably try to enforce its rights by starting to remove the religious group for the territory. Violence will still be the result. The religious group will refuse to leave, which will result in the government using force to remove them. There have been conflicts throughout history over water supplies. Right now there is conflict in Africa of the Nile River. The Nile River supplies Ethiopia and Egypt. There are also conflicts over Lake Chad between Nigeria and Cameroon. This is only two examples and all have had some violence related to control of the water supply
Robyn
Yes I think violence would be inevitable. Water is a necessity and people will fight for clean water. “Being an indispensable element of life, water is a limited and strategic natural source” (Mengu et al, 2008). Due to the concerns with global warning, “water will likely be the defining world crisis of the twenty-first century” (Agnew, 2011). The article I read about the water crisis stated “first, that the water problem is predominantly a political one in which democratic politics can in fact work to achieve outcomes other than, as Woody Allen put it, a choice between destruction and despair; and second, that we have trouble recognizing this dilemma because we have views about politics, and not just in relation to water provision, that either subordinate it to various natural or economic forces or trivialize it in a populist vein as corrupt, venal, and compromised” (Agnew, 2011).Global Water Crisis and Water Harvesting Techniques. By: Mengü, Gülay Pamuk; Akkuzu, Erhan. Journal of Adnan Menderes University, Agricultural Faculty. Dec2008, Vol. 5 Issue 2, p75-85. 11p. 5 Diagrams, 2 Charts, 1 Graph. Language: Turkish.
By: Agnew, John. Annals of the Association of American Geographers. May2011, Vol. 101 Issue 3, p463-476. 14p. DOI: 10.1080/00045608.2011.560053.
Hi professor and class,Yes, in this case violence is inevitable. Especially if there is division in culture and race. There will be languages barriers. “When the balances broke down, there was war.”Roskin, 2013.
Reference:
Roskin, M, Cord, R, Medeiros, J, & Jones, W. (2014). Political Science:
An introduction (13th ed). Hoboken, N.J.: Pearson.
Professor,Of course it would incite violence. The clean water is essential, and if one nation decided not to share it, then if other major powers didn’t step in to help resolve the issue quickly, violence would only continue to mount on both sides.
Professor Terwilliger,
We have this scenario in the treaties with native american’s. Neither side is innocent in the treaties broken as they are interpreted differnt according to point of view. Everybody feels cheated in this scenario. It could be worked out in the courts but eventually violence will insue over the water. I’m not sure how countries or people own rights to items provided by the planet but they seem to feel like they do. There is an article talking about the battle over fishing rights in Washington state between the Native Americans and the Non-Native Americans. It hads escalated to violence as the Non-Native Americans feel like they are being cheated out of fish. People will always try to enforce authority over something, they just better be prepared for the outcome.
Reference: https://www.irehr.org/2016/05/13/bigotry-calls-violence-follow-protest-tribal-treaty-fishing/
Yes, violence is inevitable. But at the same time it is important for government to engage in dialogue with religious factions in order to reach a common solution. Even if there is no common acceptance on the issue, it is important for government to communicate zero tolerance policy on any violent activities followed by the group. -
I enjoyed both of your post and as usual it creates more questions than answers. It is amazing that with all the knowledge we have literally at our finger tips the world does not change very much. According to John Adams” An ideology is a system of ideas which attempts to explain reality. Ideologies are developed because reality is often too complex to be understood. They also, almost always, reflect a bias and serve the interests of a particular group. Some ideologies are well grounded in reality, while others are completely divorced from reality and can only be explained in terms of the emotional and psychological motivations of its adherents. Ideologies tend either to over-simplify reality or to completely distort it. Nevertheless, it is sometimes useful to speak generally in ideological terms in order to make a point. On balance, it is probably true that the use of ideology has created more difficulties than it has solved.” We see this theory even today as the fight over monuments, public lands, constitutional rights.
Reference:http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/westn/Ideology.html
Hi everyone.I’m not sure if I would say violence in inevitable, but it is probable to occur in the scenario provided above. History shows that sometimes violence is necessary and serves a purpose, as with the African American riots in the 1960s, and sometimes it isn’t, as with the calm transition to new leadership of Franklin D. Roosevelt in the 1930s, where change was done without violence (Roskin, Cord, Medeiros, & Jones, 2017, p. 327). At what point does violence come from entitlement? In the scenario used above, clean water is needed for survival and to avoid community diseases and death, which is a right to everyone within the nation. With one group having control over the only source of water, how does the rest of the nation benefit? Is there something that can be done about the water source, so everyone is happy? Roskin et al (2017) states, “Domestic violence is bother deplorable and informative. It tells that not all is going well, that there are certain groups that, out of desperation or conviction are willing to break the law to bring on change” (p. 327). So if the need is identified before violence erupts, then a peaceful change can be made.
Reference:
Roskin, M., Cord, R. L., Medeiros, J. A., & Jones, W. S. (2017). Political Science: An Introduction (14th ed.). Boston: Pearson.
Amber,Great post, I agree in this scenario that violence is most likely inevitable. If these were two major parties discussing the scenario then i feel they may have the man power and backing to be able to resolve the issue by discussing moving their religious group to a different area of land. I also agree that violence or force of some kind is often the only way to get things done to benefit the seeking party. is The “Hutus and Tutsis in Rwanda (which killed some 800.000 in the mid-1900s) are examples of primordial violence” (Roskin, 2014, pg. 282).
Professor Terwilliger and ClassmatesIs this the end of the world we are talking about as it has been said “Water will be worth more precious than Gold”. Water is a resource that should never be a part of sole ownership. Is violence inevitable, water will become increasingly scarce and people will eventually start fighting for it. During Hurricane Maria, Houston, Texas had a scarcity of water supply, they were even charging astronomical prices for a bottle of water. Many went to high levels of assault for a bottle of water. I believe if this violence recently occurred and it was not an imagination of a country wanting to have a separate homeland where the territory has the only available source of clean water, I can imagine a war.
Violence as a symptom-riots, mass strikes, terrorist bombings, and political assassinations- by itself does not indicate revolution is near, but unrest is indeed military takeover. (Roskin Ch.17 Pg. 280).
Reference
Roskin, M.G., Cord, R.L, Medeiros, J.A., & Jones, W.S, Political Science: An Introduction (13th Edition 2014)
Damaris,Great insight! I had considered the fresh water issue, but never thought that it would be the main cause for violence until I read your post. It would definitely become a major issue if the only source of fresh water is in another territory. I can understand why the country would not let the religious faction have their own territory as their “homeland.” If that country would have let the religious faction have the territory, the faction could turn around and not allow the country to have any access to the only fresh water supply. Or, just like you wrote about Houston, Texas, the faction could charge an arm and a leg to have access to the fresh water.
Leona
Hello professor and class,In the above scenario I believe that yes, violence is inevitable. When something is taken away that people feel are a necessity to life like clean water violence will increase. I live in Michigan near Flint that had its own water crisis and the crime and violence in that area increased because public officials knew about the water and still let people drink, cook, and bathe in it. This has made national news and is a travesty. Our text defines violence the best “Violence can be seen as symptomatic of the erosion of the government’s effectiveness and legitimacy” (Roskin, 2014, p. 279). In Flint that is exactly what happened. In many other countries political and military are not in sync, so we see revolutions. The text also points out that many times violence stems from the changes in societies as times change and those in charge don’t promote or handle the change well (Roskin, 2014). People will almost always fight back when basic needs are being taken away or withheld. BY creating these types of issues violent outburst are inevitable.
Thanks, A’lon
Source:
Roskin, M., Cord, R. L., Medeiros, J. A., & Jones, W. S. (2014). Political science: an introduction (13th ed.). Pearson.
I believe that there is always a solution available that will resolve conflict without violence. However, it generally takes some long, hard, and deep conversations that the majority of the world or opposing group is too busy to entertain. Violence is the easy solution, the group that has the biggest and best wins and then they get to have a conversation on their own terms, instead of trying to find a middle ground. So is violence inevitable, yes, if each group is not willing to compromise and make individual scarifies for the greater good.Violence is always thought to be the less desired route for resolution in terms of disagreement or confrontation, but much like every other action in the world it has its place (Roskin et. al., 2017). Violence in the situation presented comes from a place where citizens feel as though there back is against the wall. In these incidences, many groups and individuals believe that their political hierarchies will never respond to their demands. As a result, they believe that violence is not only justified but also necessary in order to bring about change. Many individuals lead platforms for change with peaceful actions such as Martin Luther King Jr., Nelson Mandela, and Mahatma Gandhi.
Reference
Roskin, M., Cord, R. L., Medeiros, J. A., & Jones, W. S. (2017). Political science: an introduction (14th ed.). Pearson.
Great discussion everybody! Let’s talk about political leadership and efforts to avoid violence through peaceful means.
Recall from our earlier weeks’ discussions about political leadership and the “cult of personality” that surrounds some leaders which makes their followers blind to the cause because they follow the personality. An example of a great leader who effectuated change that helped millions was Martin Luther King, Jr. An example of a terrible leader who wreaked havoc and ruined lives was Hugo Chavez, the former president of Venezuela.
This dichotomy between great leaders and terrible leaders brings to mind this question: does the resolution of an issue such as the one we are discussing here depend on the “right” leader being available at the “right” time to resolve these issues? Does political leadership determine whether peaceful solutions or violent outcomes result? Provide examples to support your analysis.
Professor TerwilligerRight Leader available at the right time is difficult to pinpoint. Although peace is what a majority desire and pray for, there are many that believe that an act of violence/terrorism is the way to be heard. I call them ignorant cowards and fanatical. The country has gone in a very different direction over the years. Their voices want to heard and they riot and hurt innocent people. Now the acts of violence are against police officers because they feel “all are racist”, they injure innocent people based on what they look like based off what occurred after the 9/11 attack, “They must be a Muslim”. On September 17th,2001,President Bush remarked “These acts of violence against innocents violate the fundamental tenets of the Islamic faith and it’s important for the American people to understand that”. Fifteen years after the 9/11 attacks, “Islamophobia” is on the rise in America. They riot against what they perceive is “The wrong President”, the list can go on & on. Our text states Violence is always thought to be the less desired route for resolution in terms of disagreement or confrontation, but much like every other action in the world it has its place (Roskin., 2017).
My opinion is a sad but true statement. The behaviors involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something is it what people desire or do they just follow the frenzied hysteria. In a frenzy, people feed off of it, get all worked up at the same time and over the same thing. Conflict resolution in a changing world has been noted since the end of the cold war, the world has changed and continues to go through a lot, including the shape of organized violence and the ways the governments and others attempt to set limits. Can we teach peace and conflict resolution? I believe we can attempt to teach anything as long as anyone is willing to learn. Key to learning is a practical approach to developing cognitive development with the tools given. Knowledge about a subject at hand and knowledge about how learning works. We have had great leaders like you mentioned Gandhi & King, yet the world remains in Chaos. Horrible leaders like Hillary Clinton, yet people still want her as President. All based on what the people perceive as right & wrong. Democracy rules so does the right to voice our differences of opinions.
Reference
Roskin, M., Cord, R. L., Medeiros, J. A., & Jones, W. S. (2014). Political Science: An Introduction (14th Edition).
I would say that the resolution of an issue such as the one we are discussing here has some dependence on the ‘right’ leader being available at the ‘right’ time to resolve these issues. I wouldn’t say that this is 100% the case but I definitely think that there is a correlation between leadership styles and whether violent acts are taken or not to get what is wanted.In a source I found it says that the cause of violence and war is, ‘things like religion, racism, poverty, patriarchy and male tendencies, natural resources, etc. After much study, my personal conclusion is that most violence is the result of unscrupulous leaders. Out of greed for power and resources, exploitation of their people into violence on their behalf, or provoking them with the ‘usual suspects’ such as religion, racism, poverty, fear (just to name a few)’ (Website). I think that this statement holds a lot of truth for what history has shown and what certain leaders have caused, good and bad, based on how they do things and what they believe is the right way to handle issues.
Well known leaders such as Hitler and Osama bin Laden are leaders who, although extreme, would have inevitably used violence and exploited their followers in order to get what they want and feel that they have all of the power, etc. It is also said by many that George W. Bush used unnecessary violence in 2001 after the attacks on America by causing mass numbers of deaths on our soldiers as a way to prove a point and make himself look like he could handle such an intense situation in this nation (Website). I don’t necessarily know if I agree with this fully because war and retaliation after such a brutal attack on Americans seems inevitable to me, but maybe there could have been another way of handling it that another leader with a different skill set would have seen and one of the most devastating and longest wars in American history could have been avoided.
I guess we’ll never know but the examples of great vs terrible leaders make you wonder if things would be different in some ways today had our or other countries’s leaders been different at pivotal points in their history as well. Maybe, maybe not, but it gives a lot to ponder on subjects such as this which is one reason why political science is much more in depth than I realized prior to taking this class.
http://www.peace.ca/leadershipandacultureofviolence.htm
Professor TerwilligerPresident Trump, Good Leader or Bad Leader?
I watched the news last night about President Trump Jerusalem decision, to make Israel a capital. This was a decision that was not done in the last 22 years and many are calling President Trump a courageous President. Israel’s PM praised President Trump, Palestine’s President condemned the decision. In announcing the move, Trump stressed that the decision would have no impact on the boundaries of future Israeli and Palestinian states as negotiated under the final status agreement. This decision is seen as a recognition of reality.
Palestine President Mahmoud Abbas, Good or Bad Leader?
“These procedures do also help in the extremist organizations to wage a religious war that would harm the entire region, which is going through critical moments and would lead us into wars that will never end, which we have warned about and always urged to fight against.”
Israeli President Reuven Rivlin, Good Leader or Bad Leader?
Hailed President Trumps recognition as a beautiful gift. Jerusalem is not, and never will be, an obstacle to peace for those that want peace, he said in a statement quoted from psalm 122 “It is written, Pray for peace of Jerusalem, may all that love her prosper, may there be peace in her quarters and palaces.”
Palestine President Mahmoud Abbas, as stated in your post, comments about wars that will never end. I took a look at the picture you posted with the American flag burning. If you look at the background you’ll see young kids standing on top of a structure with flags themselves protesting. What bothers me is these children are growing up in wars and believing what their parents tell them as to why they fight and oppose. After a few generations of fighting, their views will be cemented making it almost impossible to change the culture in which they have grown. These religious wars will continue until the end of time, by then no one will know why they fight.Angelica
I definitely think that political leadership could erupt violence or peaceful outcomes. for example: “Since Donald Trump won the Presidential election, there has been a dramatic uptick in incidents of racist and xenophobic harassment across the country. The Southern Poverty Law Center has reported that there were four hundred and thirty-seven incidents of intimidation between the election, on November 8th, and November 14th, targeting blacks and other people of color, Muslims, immigrants, the L.G.B.T. community, and women. One woman in Colorado told the S.P.L.C. that her twelve-year-old daughter was approached by a boy who said, “Now that Trump is President, I’m going to shoot you and all the blacks I can find.” At a school in Washington State, students chanted “build a wall” in a cafeteria. In Texas, someone saw graffiti at work: “no more illegals 1-20-17,” a reference to Inauguration Day.”Retrieved from https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/hate-on-the-rise-after-trumps-election
MichelleTrump wasn’t the only one to raise the number of incidents related to racism. The 5 most racist Presidents that can compete with your comment were Woodrow Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, Richard Nixon and London. (AlterNet Human Rights.)
Presidents that were xenophobic in the past were, Dwight Eisenhower,George W. Bush, John Calvin Coolidge, James Polk, Thomas Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Thomas Jefferson, James Monroe, Ronald Reagan, Andrew Jackson and Andrew Johnson.
The problem with President Trump now is he is our current President and open to all sorts of opinions and labels.
Retrieved from Huffman Post: The 11 most Racist US Presidents.
Damaris
Michelle and Demaris,Both great view points. Michelle, do we really believe that there has been an uptick in racial or xenophobic harassment across the country since President Trump was elected, or do we think that the media has placed a certain focus on this. It seems in many instances that the media tends to focus only on a certain portion of issues which will receive more ratings. Its less of a subject if it is white on white crime or black on black crime or even if it is black on white crime, but if it is racial as in white on black crime it will definately end up in the news because they know that this will bring ratings and debates. I see this often in my profession as a nurse where very little is said until it is deemed a ‘racial’ issue and then the news and social media are blowing up with posts and discussions. I think we as a people need to realize that social media and even the news is often one sided and is looking for a rise out of people no matter how they can get it. I believe that everyone is intittled to an opinion, but I believe in making an informed decision and not believe that only what we see on the news and social media as the end all be all truth.
Hi Brandy!I really enjoyed your post. I agree that the media is after ratings and will put whatever they can on the news in order to increase their popularity. My opinion is the media is the big issue these days. Ceratin channels focus on the left wing and do everything in their power to make the right wing look horrible, and visa versa. According to Jonathan M. Ladd, Why Americans Hate the Media and How It Matters, “The existence of an independent, powerful, widely respected news media establishment is an historical anomaly. Prior to the twentieth century, such an institution had never existed in American history.” As recently as the 1970s, the media was one of the most respected groups in the US, but by the 1990s, the trust had evaporated. The media needs to sit back and relax and let the US work itself through the mess that has been made. I’m not saying that the media is to blame for everything, but they seem to be the ones stirring the pot, making the racism more know, allowing hate, riots, and violence to be seen by all…and then wonder why one group is upset. In 1798, Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Acts, which banned the publication of false, scandalous, or malicious writing against the government and made it a crime to voice any public opposition to any law or presidential act. Although this act was short lived, maybe something like this needs to occur again. I still feel people should have the freedom of speech, but the media is who needs to be regulated. Could all of you imagine us writing our papers on false information? It wouldn’t fly with our professors or our school, so why should the media be allowed to do so? Isn’t that what Star Magazine if for?
Reference:
Ladd, J. M. (2012). Why Americans hate the media and how it matters. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Hello,The right leader being available at the right time does not necessarily mean that the issue will resolved, but it does usually mean that progress is made in solving the problem. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a great leader and made great strides in civil rights, but the issue has not been resolve. Civil rights and racism are still huge problems and a major issue today. Although things may not be as bad and a lot of rights were won, there is still a lot of racial and civil injustice.
The political leader does not determine whether peaceful solutions or violence results. Dr. King champion nonviolence and turning the other cheek. This did not stop the opposition from using violence. Nonviolent protesters were beaten, lynched, had fire hoses and dogs turned on them, and killed on several occasions. The same happen with Nelson Mandela with his protest to end apartheid in South Africa.
Marvin
I will agree that it is possible to have non violent conflict resolution. All parties must agree or and be respectful. In the long run violence cost a lot more than it is worth. Mass casualties, massive brain drain for countries and the weakened and destroyed economy. These can almost take a country off the map.
Agreed again great leaders and wonderful role models who practiced and preached non-violence.
Professor and classmates:The question as to whether violence, I think violence is not inevitable, but it is probable. There seems to be a single issue creating a barrier for the religious faction to get its own homeland. It appears this issue is water. The government does not want to give them the land because it is the only source of clean water and protecting it is a security reason for not giving up the land. There could be a possibility of negotiating water rights if the government and the religious faction are willing to sit down and talk. Roskin states, “Violence oriented to particular issues is a catchall category and generally less deadly than the other kinds of violence.” (2014, pg263). I could see the religious faction protesting the government for the land and this leading to violence on both sides – by the government to stop them from protesting because they want the water and by the protestors in retaliation as the government becomes violent. The categories of issues are arbitrary as it starts with one thing and it possibly would escalate into others. We can look at the armed rebellion in Serbia in 1999 that broke Kosovo away because they were considered second-class citizens. Even if we try to be as politically correct as possible, it can lead to physical violence and death.
In our nation alone, we have seen violence for many different reasons all of which could have possibly been avoided. If people would have just listened to each other and talked about the issues and tried to understand the situation a solution or compromise may have been possible. It is very tragic that most of these issues lead to death or people getting hurt and constantly fighting. I believe that is why some people try to live in their own little worlds and survive and are happy in that situation. They have their own peace and we all should strive to live in a world that is just and therefore peaceful. That is one of the reasons we have voted for the representatives that we have, to voice our opinions and to make it safe.
Rory
Reference:
Roskin, M., Cord, R. L., Medeiros, J. A., & Jones, W. S. (2014). Political science: an introduction (13th ed.). Pearson.
According to Roskin, Cord, Medrios and Jones, citizens of countries are more willing to be law abiding if a government has legitimacy. If the government of the stated country can appoint leaders for the different religious factions the people feel are legitimate, they may be able to come to some agreement. Security is vital for all; they may see that staying together would benefit everyone. If this process cannot be agreed upon, history tells us violence is inevitable.Angelica
Roskin, M., Cord, R., Medeiros, J., & Jones, W. (2014). Political Science: An Introduction (13). Hoboken, NJ: Pearson.
Hello,Yes, violence is inevitable. The two parties may start are talking civil, there my even be peaceful protest. But as seen throughout history, the peaceful protest usually turn to riots, the government will step in to squash the rioting by sending in the military, which usually leads to some form of violence. Violence are the results of a system breakdown. “Violence can be seen as symptomatic of the erosion of the government’s effectiveness and legitimacy” (Roskin 2013.pg 280). There are also extremist on each side. Some extremist feel that violence maybe to only to achieve their goals. They are know to drive a conflict to an high point or a head, which will most often result in violence.
Roskin, M. G., Cord, R. L., Medeiros, J. A., Jones, W. S. (10/2013). Political Science: An Introduction, 13th Edition
Hi Robyn,
I couldn’t agree more with your post. Take the Cold War as an example that resulted from World War II. The United States and the Soviet Union were at a junction of economic and political unrest that caused an over 40-year war. While very little violence happened during this war it was not peaceful either. The civilities were disbursed, and threats of violence always loomed on the horizon (history.com, 2017). When conflict occurs, people will start off peaceful but gradually they will fight for what they believe in I think it’s part of our human nature.
Thanks, A’lon
Source:
Cold War History, (2017). http://www.history.com/topics/cold-war/cold-war-history (Links to an external site.)
Hello Professor and classmates!
In this situation, violence cannot be escaped. This is on the basis that the government can distinguish the main driver for the religious group’s request. On the other hand, if is on the off chance that the administration can recognize the main driver. This can give a win-win situation and the government left with no option but to subdue the religious faction.
For example, in case the group is looking for religious flexibility and equity, and when such a promise is also given, it will assist in shaping new areas. In any chance that you are alluding to the circumstances faced between the Palestine and Israel then it is without a doubt troublesome. I feel that alluding to the Palestinians as a “religious group” likewise overlooks the main issue to some degree. Until the development of the “Condition of Israel” in 1948, this had been a not well characterized country for the Palestinian individuals.
Once the state of Israel has been formed, they had no place to call their own. Israel is a shockingly little nation, but then there are proposals of further segment to empower the Palestinians to have their very own condition. Such a segment should just ever be possible on Israeli terms, and that implies that they will dependably try to keep the deliberately imperative parts (and that incorporates the new water). You can comprehend their suspicion after a few wars, and rehashed refusals of Israel’s entitlement to exist solutions violence can be supplanted with gainful and peaceful transactions.
References
Roskin, M. G., Cord, R. L., Medeiros, J. A., Jones, W. S. (10/2013). Political Science: An Introduction, 13th Edition [VitalSource Bookshelf version]. Retrieved from https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/books/9781269724821
I would have to say absolutely this would be a huge potential for violence. With water being a fundamental human need for survival. According an article from Koshland science museum to Each person on Earth requires at least 20 to 50 liters of clean, safe water a day for drinking, cooking, and simply keeping themselves clean. Lacking sanitary water not only breeds disease, it can rob people of their basic human dignity. I believe a human would do anything in their power to stay alive.References:
https://www.koshland-science-museum.org/water/html/en/Overview/Why-is-Safe-Water-Essential.html (Links to an external site.)
As we are seeing in the Syrian conflict, their civil war is a proxy for Russia, Iran and other countries to influence regional politics and determine leadership outcomes. When a third party nation-state “interferes” in the internal affairs of another country, is it necessary for an international organization to step in and act as the “referee” to try and control or end the situation?If it does, whose side does it take? Whose laws does it enforce? Does it only create more tension and resentment from the populace that some “outsider” country is meddling in their internal affairs?
Violence is inevitable. It seems whenever there are two conflicting views, that violence will always be necessary. Roskins states that “As much as we deplore violence, we have to admit that in some cases it serves a purpose (Roskin, 2014 p.280).” Looking at this situation the religious faction feels they have a claim on the homeland and will feel cheated and resentful of the government for taking the territory. Especially if there is not negotiation to hear the faction and try to relocate or understand their views. The government will feel superior and within its right to claim the territory because it is for the greater good. With two sides and very different opinions there will always be violence. That is how voices are heard and people are reminded the minority is there.Reference:
Roskin, M. G., Cord, R. L., Medeiros, J. A., Jones, W. S. (10/2013). Political Science: An Introduction, 13th Edition [VitalSource Bookshelf version]. Retrieved from https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/books/9781269724821
Professor and class, Violence is defined as behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something (Merriam-Webster, 2017). When people have a disagreeing with a government, it’s almost known that violence will follow the disagreement. With this scenarios, I believe violence is inevitable. I believe people think the only way to get a point across is through violence. Violence can be seen as symptomatic of the erosion of the government’s effectiveness and legitimacy (Roskin, 2014). When people become frustrated and outraged, they become more violent. Many people try to do peaceful protesting, but it is not perceived well. I think that’s when the protest turns into violence. There are many governmental issues that aid in violence. The government is so public telling every move and thought made. Some things shouldn’t be shared. The reason I feel violence is inevitable because the people want the freedom to do and have their own, but are held back because of what the government feel is vital. I think when people freedom is threatened they first try to find peaceful ways to rebel. If that rebellion doesn’t work, they take more drastic measures. This measure is usually some sort of violence.References
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/violence (Links to an external site.)
Roskin, M., Cord, R. L., Medeiros, J. A., & Jones, W. S. (2014). Political science: an introduction (13th ed.). Pearson.
Hi Aesha,
Thanks for your great post. I agree that violence is inevitable especially when clean water is at stake. Violence seems to get the message across faster than less graphic ways. By following the governments leads many people think that to actuate change violence needs to be involved. As a nurse I disagree with violence but understand that when I’m threatened I will resist the more peaceful approach to solving things.
Thanks, A’lon
Aesha,You make a great point. People do tend to turn to violence when their freedoms are threatened. Even when a group of people does a peaceful protest, it can turn into something ugly. The more I think about it, the more I realize that it would be next to impossible for this to end without violence.
Hello Professor and Class,We’ve seen religious wars throughout history because of our differences in beliefs so I can see that violence in this situation is inevitable as well. I understand why they want to separate from the country; however, due to the fact that this territory has the nation’s only source of clean water, it is going to be difficult to separate without violence. In this case it would be primordial violence “violence grows out of conflicts among the basic communities-ethnic, national, or religious” into which people are born” (Roskin, p.282).
Roskin, M., Cord, R. L., Medeiros, J. A., & Jones, W. S. (2014). Political science: an introduction (13th ed.). Pearson.
Imagine a country where religious factions inside a nation want to have their own separate homeland. The government refuses, claiming that the territory in question, which commands the nation’s only source of clean water, is vital to security. Is violence inevitable?
History has shown that even though peace is attainable, when it comes to the matters of secession, violence is unavoidable. For instance, think back to a time when the American colonies wanted to separate from Britain, accomplishing this lead to a revolution. Roskin refers to this as revolutionary violence which “aims at overthrowing or replacing an existing regime” (Roskin, Cord, Medeiros & Jones, 2014, p.282). Throughout time many factions within nations have separated or have attempted in separating from governing nations for reasons spanning from religious to the belief that the government is unreliable. A religious faction wanting to separate from the country may or may not turn to violence if met with resistance. I believe that a diplomatic compromise could be made because clean water is needed for sustainable life. Unfortunately, these factions may feel that there might not be loyalty amongst words and promises which can eventually lead to violence.
Reference:
Roskin, M., Cord, R. L., Medeiros, J. A., & Jones, W. S. (2017). Political Science: An Introduction (14th Ed.).
Boston, MA: Pearson.
Good morning Professor and class,
Violence can be prevented depending on the situation, people involved and how people my perceive it. In this case, I believe violence is inevitable, especially with the nations only source of clean water. Another reason why its enviable is because due to history, when a group wants to separate, there is violence involved. “Separatist violence, sometimes an outgrowth of primordial conflict, aims at independence for the group in question. Tamils in northern Sri Lanka fought from 1983 to 2009 to break away; more than 60,000 were killed. The Ibos tried to break away from Nigeria with their new state of Biafra in the late 1960s, but they were defeated in a long and costly war. But the Bengalis did break away from Pakistan with their new state of Bangladesh in 1971. Croatia and Bosnia fought Serbia in order to separate from Yugoslavia in the early 1990s. Iraqi Kurds want their own state, which could fuel parallel efforts among the Kurds of Turkey, Syria, and Iran.”
Lelany
Reference:
Roskin, M. G., Cord, R. L., Medeiros, J. A., Jones, W. S. (10/2013). Political Science: An Introduction, 13th Edition [VitalSource Bookshelf version].
Professor and classmates,
I do believe that violence is inevitable. Our book discusses violence stemming out of system breakdowns when there is political instability. There are different kinds of violence that take place for different reasons. In this case the fight over the source of clean water perhaps an agreement could be put in place for all parties to have access.
Christina
Many feel that access to potable water is a basic human right. Based on this premise, does this give a nation-state the ability to declare war on, say, its neighboring country if that neighboring country somehow appropriated all the water for its own use?Professor,A nation-states ability to declare war would be based off of what type of governing action that nation-state follows. For example, in the United States there are actions that must be followed before war can be declared on another country. I do believe that a nation-state has the right to declare war regarding lack of access to potable water due to anther nation-states control, but the issue would be how they would have to go about declaring that war. That being said, it is also important to remember that citizens could start a war themselves before actions are taken by a governing body. Like stated before, this situation could result in war caused by citizens thriving on their fight or flight instinct.
Marissa,I agree with your post. I believe they do have a right to declare war when a basic necessity is being threatened and removed but there is a process to that. It is also likely as you mentioned that violence could and would break out prior to that by upset and frightened citizens attempting to take matters into their own hands.
Christina
Knowing how serious the need for water is, it is possible that it could cause war, unfortunately. The losses of water reserves are staggering. In seven years, beginning in 2003, parts of Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran along the Tigris and Euphrates rivers lost 144 cubic kilometres of stored freshwater – or about the same amount of water in the Dead Sea, according to data compiled by the Grace mission and released last year.
A small portion of the water loss was due to soil drying up because of a 2007 drought and to a poor snowpack. Another share was lost to evaporation from lakes and reservoirs. But the majority of the water lost, 90km3, or about 60%, was due to reductions in groundwater.
Farmers, facing drought, resorted to pumping out groundwater – at times on a massive scale. The Iraqi government drilled about 1,000 wells to weather the 2007 drought, all drawing from the same stressed supply.
In south Asia, the losses of groundwater over the last decade were even higher. About 600 million people live on the 2,000km swath that extends from eastern Pakistan, across the hot dry plains of northern India and into Bangladesh, and the land is the most intensely irrigated in the world. Up to 75% of farmers rely on pumped groundwater to water their crops, and water use is intensifying.
Over the last decade, groundwater was pumped out 70% faster than in the 1990s. Satellite measurements showed a staggering loss of 54km3 of groundwater a year. Indian farmers were pumping their way into a water crisis.
The US security establishment is already warning of potential conflicts – including terror attacks – over water. In a 2012 report, (Links to an external site.) the US director of national intelligence warned that overuse of water – as in India and other countries – was a source of conflict that could potentially compromise US national security.
The report focused on water basins critical to the US security regime – the Nile, Tigris-Euphrates, Mekong, Jordan, Indus, Brahmaputra and Amu Darya. It concluded: “During the next 10 years, many countries important to the United States will experience water problems – shortages, poor water quality, or floods – that will risk instability and state failure, increase regional tensions, and distract them from working with the United States.”
Water (Links to an external site.), on its own, was unlikely to bring down governments. But the report warned that shortages could threaten food production and energy supply and put additional stress on governments struggling with poverty and social tensions.
Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/feb/09/global-water-shortages-threat-terror-war
I think that if the neighbouring country appropriated all the water for themselves, a war would be inevitable. It is a natural resource and one that is needed to sustain life. The other state would have a right to declare war. If a conflict were not declared, they would be a system breakdown due to the government not being able to meet a basic need. Once a system breakdown occurs, different types of violence may break out. The system breakdown would cause the government to become illegitimate and weaken their ability to hold their nation together.Professor and class,
I think that if both nations were civilized, that there might be a chance for no violence. This would mean that there would have to be some kind of treaty so that both nations were still able to use the clean water. Unfortunately, utopia (an imagined and idealized perfect system) (Roskin 2013, pg 288) can not happen for everyone, but with some work, they can come close to creating utopia for their people.
Reference
Roskin, M., Cord, R. L., Medeiros, J. A., & Jones, W. S. (2014). Political science: an introduction (13th ed.). Pearson.
Angela:The unfortunate item in this scenario is that we do not know if both are civilized. It would be great if they were as it could lead to a more organized approach to this situation. Water is the essential item that each and every one of us needs to survive. We have approximately 75% water in our body. We would have to drink at least 8-8ounce glasses of water a day to maintain the 75%, also depending on our activity. So, if we can get a civilized treaty between the two would it be ideal or would it cause further problems? The groups might not understand each other or some of the rest of the community might go against it, so there is always the chance of violence in any situation.
Rory,
It is unfortunate that we do not know if they are civilized or not. I think that even if they were, it would be a stretch to get a treaty between the two, because as you said, water is essential and I know that I would not want to be the country that is on the outside. There is always a chance of violence in any situation, but there is always a chance of a utopia also.
Professor and Class:I feel in a nation where religious factions are an issue and and disparity between the role of government and vital necessities yes, violence is inevitable. Violence growing out of religious conflicts is called Primordial and Roskin (2013) notes, “Fighting between Sunni and Shia in Iraq, Arabs and Darfuris in Sudan, Tibetans and Chinese in Tibet, and Hutus and Tutsis in Rwanda (which killed some 800,000 in the mid-1990s) are examples of primordial violence (p. 281).
In this situation, the religious faction see the government as not effective and also as noted by Roskin (2013) ” That there are certain groups that, out of desperation or conviction, are willing to break the law in order to bring change” (p. 280).
Michelle
References:
Roskin, M. G., Cord, R. L., James A. Medeiros, Jones, W. S. (10/2013). Political Science: An Introduction, 13th Edition. [Bookshelf Online]. Retrieved from https://online.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781269724821/
Class, let’s summarize this thread by making sure we review a few essential points from our reading materials and lecture.What are the five types of violence, according to political scientist Fred R. von der Mehden? What are the distinguishing features of each type of violence? Are these types of violence mutually exclusive or not? Which type of violence do you think is the hardest to prevent? Why?
The five types of violence are primordial, separatist, revolutionary, coups, and issues. Each are very different. Primordial violence grows out of conflicts of certain groups relating to religious or ethnic backgrounds that people are born into. Separatists violence springs up from primordial when certain religious groups or nationalists want to gain independence and break away from what they feel is holding them back. Revolutionary violence has goals of overthrowing or replacing an already existing regime that is possibly suppressing others. Could are a military force type of violence that aims at controlling revolutions and corruption, or even chaos that has broken out. The violence type of issues is somewhat described as left-over issues that has violence oriented around that certain issue.I think of all of them the hardest to control would be the primordial and separatist violence. This is a faction that you are born into and it is often ingrained into the fabric of their being. Many people are willing to die for the religion and ethnic group. They feel justified in violent outbreaks in the name of their greater good. It is a passion that a lot of times cannot be resolved by negotiation.
The five types of violence are1. Issues- This is the miscellaneous box for types of violence that does not fit in any other categories.
2. Coups- these are usually aimed against revolution and corruption. They are almost always military.
3. Revolutionary-This type of violence is aimed at overthrowing or replacing an existing regime. Tunisia and Egypt experienced this type of violence.
4. Separatist- this type is often an overflow from primordial conflicts-directed at the independence of the group. An example is of this is the Ibos who tried to break away from Nigeria with their new state of Biafra. This was a costly and they were defeated.
5. Primordial- this starts from conflicts in the community- this can be ethnic, national or religious. The Tutsis and the Hutus are an example of primordial violence.
I think that issues are the hardest type of violence to prevent. It could be a combination of two or more other types of violence. This makes it harder to find root cause and prevent.
I do not think that violence is mutually exclusive
Reference
Roskin, M, Cord, R, Medeiros, J, & Jones, W. (2014). Political Science: An Introduction (13th ed). Hoboken, N.J Pearson
I think violence is inevitable because it is the easy solution for some. Is there a way to resolve the issue without violence, of course. But it may take time and patience that most are not willing to have now. The United Nations formally recognized access to clean drinking water as a human right in 2010. For much longer than that, international law has decreed that denying civilians access to the basic necessities of life is a war crime. Unfortunately there is still too little global awareness and action to protect vital water resources in war zones.Roskin, M. G., Cord, R. L., Medeiros, J. A., Jones, W. S. (10/2013). Political Science: An Introduction, 13th Edition [VitalSource Bookshelf version]. Retrieved from https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/books/9781269724821
Kielburger, Marc and Craig, April 15, 2016, Global Voices, Vol.10 Issue 29, Water: One of the first casualties of war. https://www.we.org/we-schools/columns/global-voices/water-one-first-casualties-war/
Hi Jessica,
Thank you for sharing. I did not know about the human right law in 2010 until I read your post. It amazes me how in 2017 things like this are still happening. I do agree with what you said regarding violence, there are other ways to deal with problems but I do not think that violence will go away. We will never have peace on earth, there is just too much division in the world unfortunately. It is not only happening in other countries but in the U.S. as well.
Unfortunately, people feel that violence is the way to “fix” disagreements and we’ve seen rioting, gun violence, police brutality, etc. I haven’t seen any violent acts change anything. We still need some type of gun control. Times have changed and I think new gun laws should take effect. Some people are using guns responsibly but others are taking guns to kill innocent people. “On Jan. 5, 2016, President Obama announced new executive actions on gun control. His measures take effect immediately and include: an update and expansion of background checks (closing the “gun show loophole”); the addition of 200 ATF agents; increased mental health care funding; $4 million and personnel to enhance the National Integrated Ballistics Information Network (used to link crimes in one jurisdiction to ballistics evidence in another); creating an Internet Investigations Center to track illegal online gun trafficking; a new Department of Health and Human Services rule saying that it is not a HIPAA violation to report mental health information to the background check system; a new requirement to report gun thefts; new research funding for gun safety technologies; and more funding to train law enforcement officers on preventing gun casualties in domestic violence cases” (ProCon, 2017).http://search.credoreference.com.chamberlainuniversity.idm.oclc.org/content/entry/procon/gun_control/0 (Links to an external site.)
The Weekly Wrap-Up!Students, great job in this TDA!
To recap from our lesson and as we extensively discussed, many people associate threats to national sovereignty as external, i.e., coming from outside a country. They also come from within. This includes the pressures that diverse groups can put on the political order of a government. One of the promises of a liberal democracy is that it can maintain a variety of cultures and groups within it. What happens if there are groups that are not satisfied with the government? What happens when a group is so dissatisfied that it wants to separate completely from the government?
Some democratic principles say that self-determination requires that anyone who wants to be independent should be allowed to be independent. In the case of the democratic nation or state, however, governments have often decided that unity is preferred over self-determination. This was the case in the U.S. Civil War. In other cases, such as Quebecois sovereignty in Canada, and that of Eritreans in Ethiopia, compromises have been made in favor of independent groups and states. These are always difficult cases because national interest, including economic and security concerns, have to be weighed against the claim of a group’s need to be independent. When a group is successful at dividing territory and claiming its independence from a government, this is known as secession.
Secession is most successful when there is a demonstrated social, cultural, and political difference between a group of people and the rest of a population. Successful secession also requires a distinguishable territory in which this population exclusively resides. These characteristics were met in Quebec and Eritrea. When secession is initiated for purely political or economic reasons, with little cultural or territorial justification, it is usually met with more resistance.
In the case of Iraq, we see a recent example of struggles resulting from cultural differences in a newly formed democracy. After the invasion that replaced Saddam Hussein’s regime, many cultural and ethnic groups acquired a political voice that they previously did not have. The ability to participate politically is certainly an advantage of this new democracy, but what should be done if certain groups want their independence from the larger state?
In Iraq, there are three primary ethnic groups: Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites. Each one has a distinct culture and religion, and each one claims legitimate authority over certain territories. Should these groups be allowed independence? How should democracy deal with these differences?
Part of the answer, in cases like Iraq, is to give each group at least some sovereignty. Self-government among a diverse social population usually requires a “less-is-more” approach to government. What do you think some possible solutions are for this problem? How should democracy be advanced among diverse religious and cultural groups?
Hello Class,In the above scenario, where the territory in question commands the nation’s only source of clean water, yes violence would be inevitable. Although wanting to have your own separate homeland due to religious reasons is topic, picking territory which is vital to the nation is a cause for war. Water, clean water, is something that everyone needs. To be in control of something that is vital to the rest of the nation will cause violence because that can be used against the people of that nation. As much as we deplore violence, we have to admit that in some cases it serves a purpose. (Roskin, 2014, p. 280). In this case it will be so that this particular nation has access to clean water.
-
Roskin, M., Cord, R. L., Medeiros, J. A., & Jones, W. S. (2014). Political science: an introduction (13th ed.). Pearson.
Professor and class,I believe that when there is such a religious divide within a country and they stake their claims on a homeland that they can’t have and the government has to try to keep it all together, there is simply no way to avoid violence.
We’ve seen contentions such as these in the Middle East in particular. Just occurring this week, President Trump declared Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, which has indeed incited a lot of violence as a result. New York Times editor Max Fisher states in his article ‘The Jerusalem Issue, Explained’ that “Protests, which sometimes grow violent, have been a common Palestinian (Links to an external site.) answer to perceived provocations, particularly on issues related to Jerusalem.”
Fisher in this quote also eludes to the fact that there has been violence in the past, not just because of this action by President Trump. Even as peace negotiations have been pushed, there has always been violence related to the issue of who owns the lands in Jerusalem and other locations in Israel. I would say this is just one example, but violence is an inevitable outcome when the situation is so difficult to resolve.
Fisher, M. (2017, December 09). The Jerusalem Issue, Explained. Retrieved December 10, 2017, from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/09/world/middleeast/jerusalem-trump-capital.html
Good post Janet. You raised an interesting observation from the NY Times: “[violence] is a common Palestinian answer to perceived provocations[.]” The question then becomes, at what point does the violence become pointless, counterproductive, and regressive to the aims of a group that constantly engages in such violence?Professor,I think that within the world there are many times in which violence becomes pointless. It reaches a point when it no longer is begin done for the reason in which it was started. It seems that when looking at the water source example, there may be a nation-state that continues to fight even when the goal of obtaining potable water has been reached. People today want more, they aren’t such satisfied by what is given to them when if fulfills their natural rights. Therefore, in that situation, a nation-state may begin trying to fight over control of the water source instead of just being happy and grateful for access to the water source. This is just one example of many in how violence and war can become pointless and out of hand by greedy, power hungry people.
Classmates and ProfessorWater is one of our basic needs as human beings. As I look a few months back with hurricane Irma; i paid for over priced water after waiting in a line for over two hours.
A religious faction inside a nation wants to break away and have their own homeland. The government flat out refuses and is claiming the territory in question, which commands the nation’s only source of clean water. Is violence inevitable.
Separatist violence refers to independence for the group in question (the religious faction that wants to break away). Separatist violence sometimes an outgrowth from primordial. Primordial violence grows from conflicts among the basic communities ex. ethnic, national or religious. Here we have a group that wants their own and met with resistance; there is resentment brewing; if at this point they have not contemplated violence when stipulations are put on that basic need. Violence will become inevitable. An example of separatist violence is Croatia and Bosnia fought Serbia in order to separate from Yugoslavia in the early 1990’s.
It seems that as the level of power and greed increases, so will violence increase as individuals and groups of different socioeconimic backgrounds grow weary with injustice.
I strongly dislike violence however it can sometimes serve its purpose.
Reference
Roskin, M.G, Cord, R.L. Medeiros, J.A. Jones, W.S. (10/2014) Political Sceience: An Introduction to Political Science
Based on the scenario I would imagine violence would be necessary to provide for the rest of the nation. If violence is needed to obtain the only source of clean water, I see the government intruding in order to obtain that water. Political violence is a symptom of system breakdown, something almost every country has experienced. We can distinguish several types of violence: primordial, separatist, revolutionary, and coup. Terrorism uses violence to weaken a hated political authority. Change and rising expectations may fuel violence. Primordial violence grows out of conflicts , Egypt, Syria, and Yemen. Virtually every Muslim country has violent underground Islamist movements.(Roskin, 2013, p. 262) There are times when violence seems necessary to the people to demand a change. I could see where violence would arise over the water supply.
Roskin, M., Cord, R. L., Medeiros, J. A., & Jones, W. S. (2014). Political science: an introduction (13th ed.). Pearson.
-
