I believe that speaking in a broader sense, all wars occur due to a change. ... ... middle of paper ... ...on or change. There are wars that are economically driven, wars that are about patriotism and national pride, there are also wars that are simply intent on wiping out ethnicities, religions or races. Yet it is key to understand all of the theories and potential causes to war as one must be able to identify these factors. A change in the balance of powers, individuals want for power, or opposing interests and capabilities can all be seen as causes of war and the reason as to why they occur.
The unfair privilege that minorities get through affirmative action cases racial tensions in the community. Racial tension is the key factor towards racism, the only why for our society to deal with this tension are to get rid of the source of the problem. But to do this is a huge problem based on the way this country has dealt with the problem previously, and the already huge amount of racial tension globally.
The policy of ethnic cleansing can occur and have terrible consequences in all territories with mixed populations, especially in attempts to redefine frontiers and rights over given territories. There is a new logic of conflict that relies on violent actions against the 'enemy's' civilian population on a large scale rather than on war in the traditional sense. Wherever intolerance, discrimination, and ethnic and religious exclusivity exist, the world is in danger of imitating Hitler's actions. Even where historical conflict does not exist between racial or ethnic groups, strategic political interests can often lead the governments of nations to commit genocide. Examples of this logic and policy aboun... ... middle of paper ... ...s can occur again, is occurring again, and will occur again.
The ideologies of racism and nativism affect people by racially driven hate crimes and the overall human treatment of immigrants and foreigners today, and must be changed by first changing the anti-immigrant attitudes in America. The social structures of politics and laws affect both immigrants and U.S. citizens alike and can only be changed by reforming America’s immigration system. Racial prejudice and nativism are still social issues that define our present reality and affect us all. Everyday, immigrants in America find themselves victims of hate crimes like genocide because of their race and ethnicity (Wong 2). Genocide, “the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group,” shows itself in racial crimes of all degrees in America (Merriam-Webster 1).
Reflecting on these differences, I realized that culture and national interests shape newspapers’ presentations of war. As an informed reader, it is important to know that I am often given a biased presentation of the facts surrounding a conflict and with this in mind I have changed the way I view reports on war presented by the media. In order to be culturally relativistic when reading about the history of the conflict in the Middle East, one must understand that while anger and a desire for land play a role in the fighting these are not the main causes of this conflict. It is necessary to look beyond these common myths of war in order to look for the true causes of the bloodshed. A deep underlying truth that could explain some reason for this turmoil is that neither side, Israel nor Palestine, has come to terms with living with each other.
One period of severe violence took place right after the Klan’s revival in 1915, which is the period this paper will focus on. During this time, the Klan had many targets for their hate, including African Americans and their supporters, Jews, Catholics, homosexuals, and the many different groups of immigrants that colored the United States. It was during this time of extreme hate that the Ku Klux Klan worked to implement their goals of spreading white supremacy, anti-Semitism and anti-Catholicism as well as restricting immigrants and developing control in the government. Hatred towards African Americans has characterized every period of the Ku Klux Klan’s history, especially after the 1915 revival of the Klan. The KKK was obsessed with the idea of maintaining “racial purity” during this time, and that concept further reinforced their ideals of white supremacy.
The genocide in Rwanda, the wars in Northern Ireland, Bosnia, and Syria all have something in common: civil war and ethnic conflicts. We know that fights, battles and wars can start because of power crazy leaders, territory hungry countries and the fear of threats such as potential nuclear war. Looking at the past and now, many wars are actually caused by differences in ethnicity or religion. There are many factors that go with all of reasons above including race, language, and shared history. Ethnic Conflicts and many other articles written by various authors have contributed to bringing many views on the idea of civil war and ethnic conflict and this allows the common person to be able to weigh in with current issues and be more aware of
Now that the basics of war have been covered, we need to dive deeper into how and why war starts. War is started by a difference in opinion. When you get to the very core of... ... middle of paper ... ...ur government and the governments of other countries, I can admit that war isn’t inevitable if someone takes it too far. However, I do believe that if our relations with other countries become stronger, we can avoid war and settle our differences in a non-violent way. For everyone who is pro-war, please consider this scenario: what if it was you on that battlefield?
Fundamentally, some believe war is linked to a conflict of political and economic interests rooted in power struggles ranging from territorial and humanitarian to ideological and ethnic while others argue that war has become ingrained in our societies and economies resulting in this tenacious cycle of confrontation. Territories are the bases of states. Accordingly, Joshua Goldstein and Jon Pevehouse explain that “Most of today’s borders are the result of past wars (in which winners took territory from losers) or were imposed arbitrarily by colonizers” (Goldstein and Pevehouse, 2009, 25). Territory is precious to states and is rarely yielded voluntarily for any incentive and lost territory is not quickly forgotten (Goldstein and Pevehouse, 2009, 133). For example, disputes were the consequences of the collapse of the Ottoman Empire after World War I and the Middle Eastern region being colonized by England and France through the Sykes Picot agreement (Singh, 2003).
Each definition has its strengths and weaknesses, but often is the culmination of the writer's broader philosophical positions. For example, the notion that wars only involve states-as Clausewitz implies-belies a strong political theory that assumes politics can only involve states and that war is in some manner or form a reflection of political activity. 'War' defined by Webster's Dictionary is a state of open and declared, hostile armed conflict between states or nations, or a period of such conflict. This captures a particularly political-rationalistic account of war and warfare, i.e., that war needs to be explicitly declared and to be between states to be a war. We find Rousseau arguing this position: "War is constituted by a relation between things, and not between persons…War then is a relation, not between man and man, but between State and State…" (The Social Contract).