Political Violence
Below is a short sample of the essay Political Violence. If you sign up you could be reading the rest of this essay in under two minutes. Registered users should login to view the essay.
Political Violence
Political violence is like a festering wound, in that, without the aid of
antibiotics the wound has the potential to depress the immune system and
eventually overwhelm the individual, leading to death. In this analogy,
antibiotics could represent forces that are always looking for the rogue virus's
bent on the destruction of the whole body (society). I often wonder why people
resort to violence, of any kind, to solve a particular problem. Questions can be
asked of the individual(s) involved in carrying out the attacks, but the
questions never seem to be answered in a way that will show why violence is
needed to resolve conflict. Rather, excuses are rendered in the hopes that by
the logic used in explaining why conflict must be resolved, this will justify
the actions. This leads, though, to a sort of circular argument. For example, in
the case of Saddam Hussein (put aside the fact that he is the president of a
nation) is an idiot. Why exactly he felt it was justifiable to invade a country,
who at the time had an OK relationship with the United States, and then think
the US and/or other countries would allow him to forcibly occupy that country.
Whatever his logic, his actions were not justifiable. I believe his logic was as
follows: Something happened to his country (economically, socially, politically
etc.) that he did not like or want to happen. Hussein decided to adopt the
"eye-for-an-eye" approach to conflict resolution. Except he changed
the rules and instead of responding in a like manner consistent with
"eye-for-an-eye", he went over board with his reaction. He forcibly
invaded a country. I use the Persian Gulf War as a recent example of reasons for
why people resolve conflict not through peaceful means but through violent
actions. Iraq is not the only country in the system to use this type of logic
when tackling an issue that is perceived to have only one avenue of approach to
resolution: war. It seems that every, or nearly every, state in the world will
resort to brute force to make a point. This then begs the question of, why? I
will explore some of the popular assumptions for why people act as they do and
try to come to some sort of agreement which we may all universally agree upon.
Sederberg explains four of the most popular explanations for violence and
revolution and points out some of the flaws in the arguments. The first
explanation I will talk about is the "Killer Ape Thesis", which
basically states that humans are biolog...
The complete article is about 1474 words and 5.9 pages long.
To continue reading the complete article, subscribe below and get free instant unlimited access.
Once you have registered for an Account, No refunds can be issued.
Please make sure you look over the site before you purchase an account!!!
|
