How a person responds to conflict can either save a person’s life or end it. Conflict can be very difficult to cope with and there are many ways to respond to conflict. The best way to respond to conflict is to weigh the options in order to find the best solution for that particular scenario. In the story I am Malala (Young Reader’s Edition) by Malala Yousafzai, Malala stood up for what she believed in anonymous protest. This was the best way for Malala to respond to the conflict created by the Taliban. Nothing would have changed if she had gone into hiding, and she would have been in danger if she was too up front about the conflict too soon. Eventually, the government got involved and because of all the battles, Malala and her family had …show more content…
While that may be ideal, it isn’t always for the best nor is it always possible. Take the Nazi’s, for example, it probably would have been difficult to reason with them if it was possible at all. The article states, “The unusual position of peace research between scholarship and peace action is well illustrated by two long-standing causes in the peace community, the commitment to the philosophy of nonviolence and to a fully developed program of peace education.” Again yes while this is a great idea, but having a peaceful solution for every conflict is simply not feasible. In “UNDERSTANDING CONFLICT AND WAR: VOL. 5: THE JUST PEACE Chapter 10 Principles Of Conflict Resolution” This article supports the concept that every conflict is unique and thus the best solution for a particular conflict is also unique. The article states, “We always can end a conflict when we want by surrender. But some ideas are more important than peace: Dignity. Freedom. Security. That is, peace with justice--a just peace. Peacemaking is not necessarily one's highest goal in a conflict, then. But the peacemaking principle and subprinciples ease this process.” In “Sample Topic List: Conflict &Compromise in History” one can see that conflicts are handled in a variety of ways by governments and countries throughout the world. There are many types of conflicts
During this process a lot happened. For example, many wanted to assassinate her for disobeying them and going against their rules. The thing was Malala didn’t care because she knew in her heart that she was doing the right thing when speaking. In the article it states, “ there are hundreds of Human Rights activist and social workers who are not only speaking for human rights, but who are struggling to achieve their goals of Education, peace and equality. Thousands of people have been killed by terrorists and millions have been injured. I am just one of them.” (Paragraph 3) She was a brave little girl for speaking up because not many had the guts to do what she did. Also, malala knew she was putting her life at risk ,but she still did what she did because now it’s not only about her, but others as
Malala and Frederick were both persistent when they fought for what they wanted. In Narrative Life of Frederick Douglass , Frederick got captured the first time he tried to run away. Even though he got captured, that didn't stop him from trying again. In ‘Excerpt from a Speech to the United Nations,’ Malala did not stop speaking out even though the Taliban shot her. It quotes, “The terrorists thought that they would change our aims and stop our ambitions but nothing changed in my life except this: Weakness, fear and hopelessness died.
In I am Malala it shows that she was willing to die for her rights and everyone else’s. When she started to go to school, she knew the dangers but she kept going.Her honor was so big that the Taliban thought it would gather supporters and so they shot her.Her strength was enormous she had to fight her way to the top so she can be heard.“We realize the importance of our voices only when we are silenced.” (malala) She also had to fight the fear of the threats.“The extremists are afraid of books and pens, the power of education frightens them. they are afraid of women.” (malala)
Should wars can be avoided, the peace is always a satisfactory result. Some ancient but enlightening religious pacifism upheld the peace under any circumstance. According to the New Testament, it’s advocated to “love” your “enemies” so that you can be decent “peacemakers”; and
It was in Paris after the World War I that the conference to make peace that will surpass all other ones were done. The mind of man just at the start of the World War I was still much more the same today especially with respect to attitudes like bigotry, narrow-mindedness and idealism to mention a few. The making of peace is not cheap and from the attitude or perspective that the only way out is to win so as not to lose makes the whole system of war ruthless.1 David A. Andelman and Margaret Macmillan agreed that at the peace conference issues at stake were of such that individual nation represented want to know the way out of the war before anarchy was capitulated, but also to gain an upper hand on the victims or less privileged of war. Considering individuals like the prime ministers of Britain and that of France, Clemenceau and David Lloyd George respectively, with their main decisions as when can they make the war to end? But this cannot be materialised without the British ships or men of France.
...xplains that there should be fair equality of opportunities for everyone involved. This principle can be applied to the conflict because in order to achieve peace, both sides have to have the opportunity for equality.
...eaving Malala’s only choice to stand up for her beliefs. Doing so left her in the hospital with greater expectations for herself in the future. The Talibans continue to make their impact as well, dangering many innocent people. But even today, Malala still speaks out against the Talibans and stresses her and every female’s rights and opportunities.
...s toward peace”. Proving that being pacifist does not necessarily mean that war is unacceptable, it can also stand for bringing peace by a different point of view.
Peaceful conflict resolution is best represented through historical figures. In the Nobel Peace Prize Acceptance Speech, Elie Wiesel shares Holocaust concentration camps and Wiesel’s memories of them. He said he was motivated to become a peace and rights activist when he was in the camps, wondered, “How could the world remain silent?”(Wiesel 1). Wiesel then also proposes that he would never remain silent when someone is suffering, “Silence encourages the tormentor, not the tormented. Sometimes we must interfere”
First, war is universal due to its violent nature, violence in its application knows no bounds, and it is the common factor that identifies the war and without it the war is nothing more than a diplomatic effort to reach the end. However, wars blow out only when the diplomacy fails. Violence is the war engine. Although the application of violence evolved through time and its severity varies according to communities, cultures, and the means and methods used. Demonstrating the violence through the application of force to subjugate the enemy is the central idea of war. “War is a clash between major interests,
While they were fighting back for what they believe in, they suffer the consequences. For example, Malala and the girls in her town had a thirst for knowledge and education which inspired big dreams. But as the Taliban spread and terrorism took over, those dreams shattered, schools were destroyed and education became a crime. Although others were disappointed but sat back and accepted reality, Malala chose to stand and fight. She claimed that, “[she] had two options. One was two remain silent and wait to be killed. And the second was to speak up and then be killed. [She] chose the second one” (Yousafzai). By doing so, she put a target on her back, however, that only pushed her to do more. Through her determination, she spoke out to her town and to her country, but eventually her actions caught up to her and she was shot it the head and shoulder. Malala was only fighting against the
Many theorists have tried to explain how any why conflicts end. Some theories have proven to be more successful than others. It is difficult to create a theory that applies to all conflicts because each conflict is different. Conflicts can be ethnic and religious based or they can be about resources and territories. William Zartman advocates a theory of ripeness and mutually hurting stalemates to explain how and why conflict have ended. Throughout this essay his theory will be analyze through the conflicts in Northern Ireland, Cambodia and the Oslo agreement. Through these three conflicts the strengths and weaknesses of ripeness theory can be seen
Based on the three-step Law of Nature, people would generate peace from the conflict desires. By the Law of Nature, everyone should endeavor peace, laying down their Right of Nature when other people do so too, and most importantly, keep the covenants that they made. Firstly, people ought to pursue peace, as far as he or she has hope of obtaining it. It brings out a question that why people should make peace and quiet war. Although reason can make the human law of nature, which is preserve ourselves end up with war, it is also reason that tells people to keep themselves away from war and to make peace.
Malala felt as if she needed to say something and not stay quite. She states that if people are silent nothing would change in the world (34). In my opinion she is right many people want to change the world and do something great but just thinking it won’t do much. We have to speak up and take action if we want a real change in our community, life and world. Nothing is done by people staying silent. Going after something we feel strongly is good but if I stay silent nothing will come out from just my thoughts. I think that taking real action will get us closer to our beliefs.