I'm really sorry for being pessimistic, but I do agree with this quote. I don't know when or why, but sometime in my 18 years, I realized that humans are not a inherently nice race. Granted, there are individuals who are good and make huge contributions to society, but when it comes to International relations and cooperation on a systemic level, I lean towards a realist perspective. How can I not when my entire continent's history has been defined by fall of empire after fall of empire and war after war? I can't even name all the wars that Europe has seen since the fall of the Roman Empire...too many. There are several things I want to talk about here, both to support and oppose the quote.
Firstly, violence has been a very big part of the world's culture since the dawn of time. It is man's natural tendency to be aggressive and defend his territory. From this aspect, I agree with the quote: war is a natural part of our world, however unfortunate that may be, but i think it is effective, especially in terms of defense. Focusing on some good wars, like we were talking about in class today, World War II certainly concluded with the majority of the Western World agreeing that "it was worth it". And to think about the consequences had we not fought or won WWII are horrible to think about. Everyone would be horribly oppressed and discriminated against.
To counter this, it is necessary to look at how war has actually made problems too. Even just looking at World War I, poor facilitation after the war ultimately lead to WWII... that certainly shows a case when war is maybe not the most permanent and final acts to secure peace. So it may have settled a specific dispute, but that doesn't mean that new ones haven't arisen and caused even more problems. Definitely, as the world develops more and more, there are actually some influential factors in the world that are not violent in any way. Looking back, there has been Ghandi and the Dalai Lama, neither of whom believe in violence as being the answer. These figures have also been able to get such a huge following internationally, which speaks to the fact that they aren't just two people trying to make a difference: they are making a difference. So violence isn't always the only answer, there are other ways in which problems and disputes can be solved especially in today's society where violence is continually becoming the last option in the minds of the public purely because of the damage it can do.
Which leads into the last part of the quote. Sometimes peoples are forced to violence because of oppressive governments and the likes. The hope for a better tomorrow, without violence, such as preached by Ghandi is not completely unreasonable, especially as I already said that society is moving in a direction of wanting more peace. Furthermore, even in times of war, people lose their freedoms and most definitely their lives. 9/11: the patriot act... complete loss of freedom as the government monitored people's every move. Then soldiers were sent to Iraq to defend the nation, and they lost their lives. During times of violence and war, people are just as likely to pay dearly as they are during times Mr Dubois may think of as blissful ignorance and peace, when nations are potentially vulnerable to threats.
When push comes to shove, sometimes violence is, though the last resort, the best method to keep and gain peace, but that doesn't mean a passive attitude and "wishful thinking" are any less importance or power. I'm on the fence. I understand what Mr Dubois is saying, he just needs to be less condescending and prehaps less pessimistic about society.
No comments:
Post a Comment