Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Conflict between religions framework
Consequences of genocide
Consequences of genocide
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Conflict between religions framework
What defines a civilization is it by ideologies or religion or even by ethnic divides, whatever the defining factor civilizations have come and gone through out history leaving their marks on the survivors. Some might say that these scars are what now have caused later conflicts since many of the opposing sides use decades long rivalries from these fallen civilization to add more fuel towards their personal goals. Huntington in his article however makes a different argument stating “conflict in this new world will not be primarily ideological or primarily economic [instead they] will be cultural,” making the point that most conflicts will be cultural which defines as religious . Earlier he commented on how this new world will see “the return …show more content…
When outside powers here of cross-cultural conflicts they are damned if they don’t get involved and damned if they do is the popular way of looking at this issue but this also is super one sided like Huntington’s argument, Samantha Power an ambassador to the United Nations from the US would have us rather look at the loss of life rather then political nonsense. In her book A Problem From Hell, Power’s write a quotes from Ambassador Morgenthau with saying that “unless it directly affected America lives or American interests, it was outside the concern of the American government.” as a way to show how outside powers look at these conflicts . She argues that more international aid and presences during these conflicts is need, not aid and presences that would actually be helpful . Power’s writes how “the UN security council pointed finger at the main aggressors, imposed economic sanctions, deployed peacekeepers, and helped deliver humanitarian aid,” and all that well and good but during these types of conflict the type of aid needed in troops on the ground to help prevent further violence . She talks a lot about how international aid …show more content…
In his book gives the examples about how some 50,000 odd Jews were marched out of their homes and into Croatian camps depending on where they’d originally lived, he also mentions how live hoods, such as stores were destroyed in nightly raids both of which were a form of genocide, genocide of the culture not just the people themselves . He also mentions how genocide can quickly escalate from one race to another problem race and in the case gypsies were also forcibly removed to these camps as well . What Glenny tries to make a point of is that forced removal can be at times just as deadly to a race as physical extermination is can be, that this is just of an effective tool of genocide as a guns or poison gas . Though genocide is a tool used to create ethnically pure nation states it is also a tool used by outside forces to choice whether or not to get involved in the violence. Samantha Powers looks at genocide from the point of that all reasons for or against getting involved in cross-cultural conflicts, which involve genocide, whether directly or indirectly, is caused by the political and economical gain . For examples when things got really dicey in Cambodia all American citizens and personnel fled the embassy, the new leader of the nation Matak wrote the US
To start off with, what is genocide? Genocide is the killing of a massive number of people of in a group. Genocide has not only been practices in the present day, but it has been practiced for m...
Intervening in countries facing genocide costs hundreds of millions of dollars. History clearly shows the cost to intervene, take WWII for example or the Rwanda genocide, or the Somali genocide. All of these genocides costs interventionists $400 million or more, “ Each of the more than 220 Tomahawk missiles fired by the U.S. military into Libya, for example, cost around $1.4 million… Spent between $280,000 and $700,000 for each Somali saved” (Valentino). $280,000 is a ton of money to save one person, and given these high costs, it could cost up to $7 million dollars to save ten people. They are not saving that many lives by deciding to intervene either, “Scholars have estimated that the military mission there probably saved between 10,000 and 25,000 lives,”(Valentino). 10,000-25,000 lives and the U.S. spent $7 billion to intervene
The word genocide was derived from the Greek root genos (people) and the Latin root cide (killing), and did not exist in the English language until 1944, which was the end of World War II (Power). According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, genocide is “the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group.” Such violence occurred during the Holocaust and during the separation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The problems of ethnic cleansing and repression have become so prevalent in the last century that they have contributed to two world wars, over fourteen million deaths, and a new word. United Nations Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, said, “Far from being consigned to history, genocide and its ilk remain a serious threat. Not just vigilance but a willingness to act are as important today as ever.”
A state doesn’t wage war for humanitarian reasons; the single purpose of any war is to placate the hysterical appetite for new income and to appease supporters of the state. Though, world powers continue to weep over humanitarian crises They can’t seem to figure out why so many people are dying of hunger, diseases etc. in these war ravaged countries. Actually, its not that they can’t figure it out, its more that in dealing with the root of the problem, they would indirectly be taking responsibility for the deaths involved, the wealth gap and the fact that they are being bought off while simultaneously cutting into their own green filled pockets.
Genocide is a huge problem in today’s society. While there are laws set down to handle cases where genocide occurs, the idea and premise of genocide and all that it entails is still widely debatable. It’s difficult to put a label and definition on a term that, while it has a long history of existence, is very rare and unknown to the common man. When I say rare, genocide only occurs in very extreme cases and situations, but it doesn’t make it any less of a horrible crime.
In the years since the early 90’s, Huntington’s premise has not been proven wrong. Along the years, various conflicts occurred around the world which can be identified as the examples of the clash of civilizations. Certainly, other factors such as politics, economics and military also contribute to many conflicts, yet the most catastrophic and chaotic ones inevitably occur in the dispute between civilizations. Between Orthodoxy and Islam there was wars in Bosnia, Kosovo and the Caucuses, between Islam and Africa there was Boko Haram, between Islam and the Hindu civilization there was perpetual terrorism, between Orthodoxy and the West there was wars in Croatia and Slovenia and the current crisis in Ukraine, and of course, between the West and Islam, there was the phenomenon of Charlie Hebdo, not to mention the widely-known 9/11 tragedy.
There are many ideas of what genocide is, but, according to Webster’s Dictionary, the official definition of genocide is “The deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group”. However, the more realistic and practical definition is “The unnecessary and unjustified killings of tens of thousands of innocent people all because of hate”. This was most defiantly the case in the Kurdish Genocide, which took place between 1986 and 1989. The result of this mass murdering left thousands of people without loved ones, and even more wondering why it had to happen.
I share the view of Edward Said who responded to Huntington’s thesis in his 2001 article, “ The Clash of Ignorance”. He argued that Huntington’s categorization of the world’s fixed “civilizations” omits the dynamic interdependency and interaction of culture. Said (2004) also argues that the clash of civilizations thesis is an example of “ the purest individious racism, a sort of parody of Hitlerian science
Various schools of thought exist as to why genocide continues at this deplorable rate and what must be done in order to uphold our promise. There are those who believe it is inaction by the international community which allows for massacres and tragedies to occur - equating apathy or neutrality with complicity to evil. Although other nations may play a part in the solution to genocide, the absolute reliance on others is part of the problem. No one nation or group of nations can be given such a respo...
The United States should have intervened, and without a doubt would have been able to stop the genocide. The United States military had the power to be in country and neutralize the threat of the untrained, and not well armed people who were participating in the genocide. Even if we did not really see it coming, 100 days was an incredible amount of time to realize that something needed to be done (UNMICT, n.d.). The United States could have stopped the genocide and had troops in place for security. Why didn’t we? Is it because there was no economic reason too? It’s hard to believe, especially after all we have done in the Middle East that we did not do something. Not only could we have helped, but by our holding back, it most likely
In 1992 within a lecture Samuel P. Huntington proposed a theory that suggests that people's cultural and religious identities will undoubtedly be the primary source of conflict in the post-Cold War world, this theory is known as the Clash of Civilizations. Therefore this essay provides a criticism of this theory, whether I agree or disagree with it and also the aspects I like or dislike about the theory as a whole.
If you recall my main point in “The Clash of Civilizations?”, I argued that the conflicts of the future will dominantly be due to cultural differences (Huntington, 1993). However, Said argues that instead of cultural differences, conflicts will stem from the ignorance that different cultures have when it comes to the other (Said, 2001). I defend my argument by pointing out that although Said believes the conflicts will stem from ignorance, the conflicts are still between civilizations. For Said’s argument to make sense, he has to admit that there are and always will be differences between these cultures that are of a sufficient scale, in order for one side to be ignorant about the beliefs and values of the other. The result of either civilization not understanding or accepting the practices of the other side’s culture is their eventual conflict (Huntington, 1993). Therefore, the basis of Said’s point supports my hypothesis that future conflicts will firstly, be between civilizations, and secondly, be due to their differences in culture.
Throughout history, Western civilization has been an emerging force behind change in foreign societies. This is the concept that is discussed in the article the West Unique, Not Universal, written by Samuel Huntington. The author makes a very clear thesis sentence and uses a variety of evidence to support it. This article has a strong very convincing point. The thoughts expressed in this article can be related to a lot of events throughout history.
One of most crucial aspects of humanitarian intervention is the lack of proper motives. As noted by Bush, Martiniello, and Mercer, in the case of Libya and Côte d’Ivoire the Western nations were pursuing their own economic imperial interests under the guise of humanitarian intervention (Bush). The lack of pure motives to help decrease crimes against humanity resulted in an increased number of human rights violations in both Libya and Côte d’Ivoire (Bush). In order
Why should the United States continue helping this Middle Eastern conflict? It is because the ambassadors of each country truly do not get along with one another. The following quotes