Imagine for a moment a world without war and hatred; a peaceful union of people with a large spectrum of beliefs. Pacifism has proved largely successful for millions of individuals as well as several nations. Gandhi was the pre-eminent political and ideological leader during the Indian independence movement. He pioneered satyagraha. This is defined as resistance to tyranny through mass civil disobedience, a philosophy firmly founded upon ahmisa, or total nonviolence. This concept helped India gain independence and inspired movements for civil rights and freedom across the world. Pacifism also proved to be successful for quakers who settled in the New World who later helped with the underground railroad that freed slaves during the American Civil War. Pacifism is defined as opposition to war or violence of any kind, refusal to engage in military activity because of one's principles or beliefs, or the principle or policy that differences among nations should be adjusted without recourse to war (Dictionary.com). Sweden stayed neutral throughout World War II even with its geography. Why couldn't other nations? It is said that some nations joined so close to the end it was considered “just for show.” The worlds nations as a whole are more war loving than peaceful; however, with the successful movement of pacifism in India why is pacifism not more highly exercised? Pacifism opens many doors to peaceful arrangements. Ask yourself: Do we really need war? Although in some instances there is no choice but defend our country, in most cases, such as the Iraq and Afghanistan engagements, there is no dire reason. America remains in these nations largely for economic stimulation. There are massive quantities of money being made by single peopl... ... middle of paper ... ...ment a country on a different hemisphere was implicating. The war now is fought because there is suspicions that a terrorist group that was centralized in a totalitarian governmental society attack the country via the events on 9/11. Suspicions, inaction, murder and intolerance caused this nations wars. Peace and pacifism are safe alternatives. With so much war it is a wonder that there is still a green planet. It is a wonder that every nation hasn't unleashed its nuclear forces upon one another. It is the testosterone filled boys who play with guns that keep the nations at each others throats. Pacifism is the smart alternative for those who have self control and an open mind to unconventional methods and theories. It is not for the weak and requires well rounded educated individuals as followers; revolutionists that look for change without gunpowder and grenades.
A Separate Peace, written by John Knowles is a flashback of the main character, Gene Forrester’s schooling at the Devon School in New England. During this flashback Gene remembers his best friend Finny, who was really athletic and outgoing. Gene and Finny’s friendship was a relationship of jealousy. Gene was jealous of Finny’s talent in athletics, and Finny was envious of Gene’s talent in school. In the end, Gene’s jealousy of Finny takes over and causes him to shake the tree branch that makes Finny fall and break his leg. The break was bad, but it was not until Finny fell down the stairs and broke his leg again, that he had to have surgery. The surgery that Finny would undergo would cause more complications and heartbreaking news for Gene. During the surgery Finny would lose his life due to some bone marrow that escaped into his blood stream and stopped his heart from beating. “As I was moving the bone some of the marrow must have escaped into his blood stream and gone directly to his heart and stopped it” (Knowles 193). Although people do not normally think about bone marrow as being a huge part of the human body, it can cause some major issues if it has to be replaced or escapes into the blood stream.
History is full of people fighting against one another and going to war for all types of different reasons. For the most part countries go to war to either protect their way of life, or for a better way of living. We want to preserve certain aspects of life like our rights, as well as helping others gain or maintain them, we also want to be able to prosper as a country. When one or some of these things are threatened a country will go to war. Some wars that fallow this trend include the Spanish-American War, World War I, World War II and the Vietnam War. Besides protecting or bettering life, war can also make or break a countries economy.
The literary analysis essay for A Separate Peace entitled Chapter 7: After the Fall notes that Gene’s brawl with Cliff Quackenbush occurs for two reasons: the first reason being that Gene was fighting to defend Finny, and the second reason being that Quackenbush is the antithesis of Finny. Cliff Quackenbush calls Gene a “maimed son-of-a-bitch”, since Gene holds a position on the team that is usually reserved for physically disabled students, and Gene reacts by hitting him in the face (Knowles, 79). At first, Gene remarks that he didn’t know why he reacted this way, then he says, “it was almost as though I were maimed. Then the realization that there was someone who was flashed over me”, referring to Finny (Knowles, 79). Quackenbush is “the adult world of punitive authority personified”, his voice mature, his convictions militaristic (Chapter, 76). Quackenbush reminds Gene of the adult world and all of the things that Finny and Devon protected him from, such as war.
“The more sure I am that I 'm right, the more likely I will actually be mistaken. My need to be right makes it more likely that I will be wrong! Likewise, the more sure I am that I am mistreated, the more likely I am to miss ways that I am mistreating others myself. My need for justification obscures the truth." This sentence is one of many quotes from the book I really liked and agreed with. After reading The Anatomy of Peace, I realized that the Arbinger Institute was deeply insightful helping me to understand the reality and myself. I also realized that the moment I start to agree with this statement, I walked out of my box.
In Walter Wink's “Beyond Just War and Pacifism,” Wink interprets . He believes that instead of us taking nonviolence as not fighting back and letting ourselves be attacked. We should instead try to find nonviolent, but is not a cowardly submission, way to fight back against the evil.
...t do not have a utilitarian view and rather seek out the realism approach, then you have no regards for rules of war because you are the global power and can get away with it.
...fists can be uneffective in a war minded society. If an aggressor is attacking with no opposition, one cannot rely on the morality of the aggressors to halt the attack. Intervention of the attacks would be impermissible by the standards of absolute pacifism, as it would contribute to the overall amount of violence. The absolute pacifist would become a martyr for their beliefs, and without opposing the aggressive force societies would be annihilated. I believe while pacifism is morally better than war in terms of the amount of violence projected, and diplomatic negotiation should be the main solution to world issues, it is a commonality of society that war can potentially be the quickest solution to stop an aggressor. Although the notion of a Just War is unattainable, the causes of war as described in the theory set a standard for global leaders to promote justice.
In the modern era we recognize pacifism from its great figures on non-violent resistance. Ghandi, and Martin Luther King, Jr. stand as the most recognizable and prominent figures of the ideology. However, these figures do not provide a complete picture of pacifist thought. Pacifism has a long and distinguished history stretching from the origins of Christianity to the modern day. This review will evaluate and compare the ideological characteristics of early 20th century pacifism from two distinct angles: 1.) pacifism based on Judeo-Christian tradition, using Leo Tolstoy as an example; and 2.) pacifism as a secular belief, with a focus on the writings of intellectuals Bertrand Russel and Albert Einstein. While they share the same basic ideological
guard and says 'all who live by the sword, will die by the sword.' And
...able to showcase the great power that nonviolence could have on the world and how by using methods such as that one would be more successful than if one used violence. As Mahatma Gandhi once said “Non-violence is the greatest force at the disposal of mankind. It is mightier than the mightiest weapon of destruction devised by the ingenuity of man.”
On this planet there is only the one sure way to ensure peace, government. Luckily throughout history there have been big societies that helped countries establish governments of their own. One of the biggest and well shaped government is the democracy of the United States of America. The U.S. had two societies in particular to look to for guidance, and those two were ancient Greece and ancient Rome.
War is a hard thing to describe. It has benefits that can only be reaped through its respective means. Means that, while necessary, are harsh and unforgiving. William James, the author of “The Moral Equivalent of War”, speaks only of the benefits to be had and not of the horrors and sacrifices found in the turbulent times of war. James bears the title of a pacifist, but he heralds war as a necessity for society to exist. In the end of his article, James presents a “war against nature” that would, in his opinion, stand in war’s stead in bringing the proper characteristics to our people. However, my stance is that of opposition to James and his views. I believe that war, while beneficial in various ways, is unnecessary and should be avoided at all costs.
The lives and prosperity of millions of people depend on peace and, in turn, peace depends on treaties - fragile documents that must do more than end wars. Negotiations and peace treaties may lead to decades of cooperation during which disputes between nations are resolved without military action and economic cost, or may prolong or even intensify the grievances which provoked conflict in the first place. In 1996, as Canada and the United States celebrated their mutual boundary as the longest undefended border in the world, Greece and Turkey nearly came to blows over a rocky island so small it scarcely had space for a flagpole.1 Both territorial questions had been raised as issues in peace treaties. The Treaty of Ghent in 1815 set the framework for the resolution of Canadian-American territorial questions. The Treaty of Sevres in 1920, between the Sultan and the victorious Allies of World War I, dismantled the remnants of the Ottoman Empire and distributed its territories. Examination of the terms and consequences of the two treaties clearly establishes that a successful treaty must provide more than the absence of war.
World peace is an idea that is dreamt of by some and belittled by others. This essay breaks down the factors which make world peace unrealistic and impossible and refutes that evidence with ideas that support the possibility of world peace. It is broken down into the fact that world peace is an abstract idea, non-peaceful acts are uncontrollable and the world is already too far divided. By including historical evidence of weaponry advancements, war and failed ideas like communism, world peace is proven to be unrealistic. The essay concludes with the ideas that peace can coexist among other religions, standard living circumstances
Contemporary peace theorists refer to two types of peace: positive and negative peace. Positive peace refers the concept of conflict prevention, while negative peace is the absence of war. Assuming positive peace is desired, the movement towards peace must draw on the best traditions of society and emphasizes gradual change within an established political system. Therefore, within this perspective it is important that states understand the challenges they face, such as reducing their reliance on weapons and armed forces. The most haunting problem of the peace movement is the issue of addressing human rights abuses without using force during armed conflicts.