Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
analyzing the theme of war in hemingway novel a farewell to arms
analyzing the theme of war in hemingway novel a farewell to arms
analyzing the theme of war in hemingway novel a farewell to arms
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Ernest Hemingway stated that, “In modern war … you will die like a dog for no good reason”! Even though that is true, experts have gone further by trying to find the “roots” and explain why conflicts emerge in the first place. Two experts, Samuel P. Huntington and John R. Bowen, present two different approaches towards the cause of conflicts in 21st century. Although there is a difference between their approaches, both of them share the common believe that a conflict may occur when one puts pressure on the other; but the reason why this pressure takes place, varies among the two theories.
In his article, “The Clash of Civilizations”, Huntington points out that in the 21st century, conflicts will not occur based on ideology of a state or civilization, neither on economic power; but they will take place because the differences in cultural and religious identity between civilizations. As the first key point that lies under this theory, is the Western civilization approach towards the Eastern civilization. According to him, the Western Civilization promotes their “political and economic values, maintain their predominance and protect their interest” through economic and political pressure via Western Institution such as UN and IMF. This Western approach increases the cultural division between Western and Eastern civilization, but also within Western Civilization; between Western Christianity and Orthodox Christianity. This approach can be easily understandable if we take a look at the historical events where Western and Eastern civilization confronted each other such as in the Gulf War and Bosnian war, where Western used their power to protect countries from a same culture, same civilization. This leads to a reaction from Eastern cou...
... middle of paper ...
...up and swap a part of the region, thus creating Western vs. Eastern conflicts which apparently will lead to war between two complete different ideologies.
To conclude, wars have been and will be part of our lives. In some regions, people yet have lack of knowledge, therefore tend to separate people based on language, culture, religion, region and historical background. Yet we didn’t manage to overpass these obstacles that we create towards the minorities, and live in the same land together. Although some countries try to get rid of those issues and live beyond ethnicity borders, there are countries that point the figure at you and remind you that you are “you”, and because you are who you are “We hate you”! When we overpass the hate, the ethnic borders, there won’t be any conflicts, wars and articles that are trying to find the way how the conflict occurred!
Religion is one of the many factors that define an individual. So, any threat to a person’s beliefs is a threat to his or hers’ very being. The clash between Muslims and Christians is just one of the many groups with distinct differences and beliefs. Therefore, these differences in religion often influence political rivalries as well. Throughout history, someone observing world affairs may note that religion is a contentious issue; however, political tension emerges from this very issue in recent times. Doing so has labeled politics as the core of many conflicts worldwide. These battles between religions also inhibit agitation by one group against another, for gaining reputable land, wealth, and political power. Thus, politics is the primary
...taken the form of universalization of those same structures across the world through reforming measures or through discourses in the Muslim world, thus creating conflicts as noted by Majid. The main weapon of this power relationship is observing and differentiating between good and bad, thus ingraining binary oppositions with the western values at the superior end. Thus, the western hegemony is like a beauty myth which is an unattainable western standard which is not only undesirable but harmful for the non-west. Still, they are coerced to adopt this standard due to a constant gaze and pressure from the West. Therefore, there is a need to revert this gaze and dismantle the western hegemony and power structures through the proliferation of ideas; ideas that take root not merely from the power elite or existing structures but stem from individual and provincial needs.
Conflict is constant. It is everywhere. It exists within one’s own mind, different desires fighting for dominance. It exists outside in nature, different animals fighting for the limited resources available, and it exists in human society, in the courts. It can occur subtly, making small changes that do not register consciously, and it can occur directly and violently, the use of pure strength, whether physical, social, economic, or academic, to assert dominance and achieve one’s goals; this is the use of force. Yet, with the use of force, the user of force is destined to be one day felled by it. “He who lives by the sword will die by the sword.”
On the streets of Jerusalem, in the rubble of Ramallah, in synagogues, in mosques, in the hearts and minds of millions in the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, and the remainder of Israel, Israelis and Palestinians are locked in a clash of civilizations. In his masterful work, The Clash of Civilizations, Samuel L. Huntington outlines a theory which approaches international politics on the scale of civilizations. However, he circumvents discussion about Israel. Huntington cautiously describes Israel as a “non-Western” (Huntington 90) country, but identifies the Palestinian-Israeli conflict as one along a fault line between civilizations (267). Though he chooses to avoid the issue, Huntington’s theory provides a groundwork for analyzing the conflict in Israel in terms of a clash of civilizations between Judaism and Islam. This is a dangerous and provocative idea. But if we dare examine its implications and explore its insights, we risk a more complete understanding of the conflict which has plagued relations between Palestinians and Israelis in particular, Muslim countries and Israel in general, for over fifty years.
War is commonly defined as an armed conflict between two entities, one that dates back to the beginning of mankind’s very existence. During this time many have attempted to explain the complex nature of war, its actors, and its origins. There are two authors in particular who have made critical analysis on the topic of war within the international system, more specifically the nature of balanced power and hegemonic war and the role that perception plays in conflict. Glipin asserts that disequilibrium will result in a hegemonic war due to inferior civilizations striking falling civilizations. Whereas Jervis asserts that misperception is the driving cause of war. I argue that it is not an inferior civilization, but rather different economies
The Clash of Civilizations by Samuel P. Huntington interprets contemporary and projected conflicts, implying that the clash of civilizations will create the sustenance for all conflict to follow. He advocates that prior warfare and conflict advance from the work of monarchies, to the stuff of nation states, to the result of ideological differences. In conclusion, Huntington predicts that civilization divisions and misunderstandings will encourage all debates to come.
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,
There have been sustained attempts to understand the nature of war. Carl von Clausewitz in his posthumously published book ‘’On War’’ (1832) concludes with the sentence- “War is thus an act of force to compel our enemy to do our will”. In basic terms reciprocity and use of force, according to him, are the central elements of any war. However, I strongly feel that every war is deep rooted into many layers of complexities rather than any two identifiable central elements. Whether one wages a war for instinctive rather than deliberative reasons (choice vs. survival) or as a means to an end, it involves a fight not just between armies, ammunitions, states or geographies but also between sentiments, emotions, lives and homes. Any war is never between two armies or states alone, it is the struggle of millions who may not be out there on the battlefield but are nevertheless
In the years since the early 90’s, Huntington’s premise have not been proven wrong. Along the years, various conflict occurred around the world in which can be identified as the examples of the clash of civilizations. Certainly, other factors such as politics, economics and military also contribute in many conflicts, yet the most catastrophic and chaotic ones are inevitably occurred in the dispute between civilizations. Between Orthodoxy and Islam there was wars in Bosnia, Kosovo and the Caucuses, between Islam and Africa there is Boko Haram, between Islam and the Hindu civilization happened a perpetual terrorism, between Orthodoxy and the West occurred 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 about the widely-known 9/11 tragedy. The clashes
War is the means to many ends. The ends of ruthless dictators, of land disputes, and lives – each play its part in the reasoning for war. War is controllable. It can be avoided; however, once it begins, the bat...
There is an average of twenty ongoing wars in the world at any given time. Some are internal civil wars, others are between nations. But the purpose of this thesis is not to report warfare, but the act of it. This includes the evolution of conventional and nuclear warfare, the potential effect of a nuclear war and why it is necessary for nations to fight war. This analysis will be based on a study of Gwyn dwyer's seven-part series, "War". The only other references used to compound this thesis will be statements from former heads of state, as corresponding to the subject of war.
The essence of humanity is laid out in the words of Thomas Hobbes, “The state of humanity is war” (94). Although it is not a perfect theory, it is, by far, the strongest theory proposed. After all, from the beginning of humanity, we have been in a state of war. It is not necessarily a war where conflicting parties bear arms, but it is a war where conflicting parties struggle for survival.
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.
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.
All living things need the resources provided by our natural world to live, leading to them adapting to specific environments. Animals in particular are mobile creatures that move from place to place searching for the best environments for their survival. The most intelligent creatures in our animal world are human beings and like other animals, they moved from place to place while organized into races in search of the elusive desirable environments. However, there is always the likelihood of finding fellow humanity already thriving in that environment. This resulted to conflict as competition for the inadequate resources arose. Consequently, human beings formed nations, allegiance to the national system meant loyalty to the governance, and regions and they formed military groups to defend their resources. However, the military warfare has changed with international understanding, though the idea still rests heavily on fight for resources. Further, international politics illustrates the causes and effects of modern military war have changed due to chan...