Cultural Violence And An Individual Civil Self Essay

In his writing, he stated that war is intrinsically vast, communal (or political) and violent. It is an actual, widespread and deliberate armed conflict between political communities, motivated by a sharp disagreement over governance” (p.135)

Throughout history, instances of genocide, mass murder, and extreme acts of violence are widespread and pervade through every culture and society. As demonstrated by Panh, Lifton, and O’Brien, similar examples of excessive violence can occur in widely different situations. In order for such violence to occur, there first must exist certain systematic factors. In this paper, I will argue that conditions of instability within a country allow for changes in belief and perception, and these changed perceptions leads to dehumanization and the loss of human rights. The Holocaust, the Cambodian genocide and the Vietnam War, all follow this pattern to some extent. First, I will compare and contrast the ways in which the Holocaust and Cambodian genocide follow this pattern, as well as explore the separate factors within each and possible solutions to these factors. Next, I will discuss the dramatically different Vietnam War, compare and contrast it to the other two, and explore how the uniqueness of the Vietnam War impacts the possible solutions for the loss of human rights within this situation.

The term ‘war’ as defined by the Oxford Dictionary is explained as “a state of armed conflict between different countries or different groups within a country” (Oxforddictionaries.com, 2016). The concept of war has created contrasting views on the relationship between war and genocide as well as the effect that war has on genocide. The term ‘genocide’ literally means ‘the killing of a race’ and is arguably the most atrocious crime conceivable (Gunter, 2011). It is a specific term that refers to crimes that are committed against groups with intent to destroy their existence (Ushmm.org, 2016). There are various motives and numerous reasons as to why genocides may occur, however this paper will seek to address the extent to how, if at all, the concept of war being a necessary condition for the occurrence of genocide, as well as looking at correlations between war and genocide using specific examples to determine whether war is a necessary condition or not.

During the course of this analytical paper, we will look at the impact of warfare on world societies and people's consciousness, during the period of the 1500s in world history, called the Early Modern Period; also, we will discuss the consequences of the Great War. Additionally, apart from studying the altering methods of warfare and their magnitude, we will look up to different motivations of statesmen and peoples who declare wars or engage in several types of violent actions towards certain societies. Throughout the paper, we will stretch any pertinent evidence at appropriate points of what war leaders, intellectuals and common citizens view war and violence, which they experience during their life. Some of the examples include the Arabs that vastly expanded the world of Islam, yet were traditionally predatory in nature, which benefited more from the taxation of the conquered than from their conversion. There are also examples like the Mongol Empire, which was too, predatory, but differently from the Arab

Historically, there has been consistent disagreement between political philosophers regarding the possibility of a justification of war. Theorists from Grotius to Gandhi have from time immemorial argued about whether violence can ever be sanctioned as a viable recourse for preventing evil. History itself, at various times, seems to offer lessons regarding the complexity of the issue—demonstrating both the human capacity, if unchecked, to cause immense destruction and evil and the inherent destruction that accompanies the common means of using war and violence to rid the world of such evils. However, it is clear that neither

Mandell argues that regardless of class, race, age, sexual orientation, woman are subject to male violence. Nothing can protect women in a patriarchal society. Violence against women ranges from verbal and physical abuse to sexual abuse, rape, pornography, battering and rape. (Mandell, Fifth Edition) Violence against woman is common and persistent. Thirty years ago, most forms of violence against women were hidden under a cloak of silence or acceptance. SOURCE Although, years later, it became apparent that violence against woman occurs on a massive scale; that no woman is immune. She emphasises that women are targets to be victimized. Men are socialised to objectify woman, legitimate aggression, and blame woman for their own victimization. ‘Where woman dominate, men have to resort to greater use of force to remain dominant’. (Mandell, Fifth Edition) They set the glass just high enough, so women cannot reach to break it, keeping the male in the dominate position.

Throughout human history, war has stood as a universal reaction to various conflicts between diverse peoples. War can embed itself into a culture over generations of fighting. It can generate cultures that base themselves around the concept of war, creating hostile and bellicose peoples. At times, war may not even have grounds, but the aggressive nature of the people often cause it to proceed without justification. These wars often proceed due to perceptions conceived within the depths of peoples’ imaginations. Irrational assumptions, fears of the unknown, and the development of nonexistent threats allow the justification of these wars within the individuals. In A Separate Peace, wars such as these are seen between the characters and

Galtung, (1990) taxonomic view of violence and pragmatic solutions address cultural violence as “any aspect of a culture that can be used to legitimize violence in its direct, or

Barbara Perry’s article “Doing Gender and Doing Gender Inappropriately” addresses violence and gender, and how gender is influenced through the way it is perceived in society. The construction of gender comes in polar extremes, with masculine dominant men and feminine subordinate women. Gendered violence is used to control women as a class. It is a systematic tool used by men to reinforce gender norms and patriarchal ideas of masculine superiority and feminine inferiority. It “terrorizes the collective by victimizing the individual”. Like any dichotomy, it has scripts, and to deviate from these scripts will leave you labeled as ‘unnatural’ and ‘immoral’. These scripts “constrain everything from modes of dress and social roles to ways of expressing emotion and sexual desire”. In Judith Lorber’s “A World Without Gender” we are introduced to the possibility of eliminating gender and how “degendering [would] undercut the patriarchal and oppressive structure of Western Societies”.

Throughout history, violent women and women with violent intent have starkly emerged from many countries, carving their niches in myths and legends. The creation of these stories suggests that men began to notice lethality in feminine charm centuries back.

Political Violence has been affiliated with governments and nations since the beginning of political history and plays a huge role in the causes of Wars around the world. What causes leaders to declare war? Many philosophers have based their studies and theories on this question; many have different perspectives. One philosopher, John Stoessinger, has expressed his theories on the causes of war through what he calls his “misperception framework.” Stoessinger shows great interests in the personalities of world leaders; he is less impressed with the roles of abstract forces such as nationalism, militarism, economic factors, or alliance systems as the causes of

As reported by, feminist criminologists, their perspective of rape and sexual assault differ between liberal and radical feminists. Liberal feminists’ viewpoint in regards of rape as a gender-neutral assault on a persons’ autonomy and mainly focusing on the harm that rape can do to an individual. In contrast, radical feminists describe rape as a subject to be recognised and understood as a major pillar of patriarchy; a social system in which men claim the positions of dominance and control of the central norms and values that are linked with masculinity (Johnson, 2005: p. 4-15). The radical feminists believe that rape is a patriarchal structure within male power, thus displaying the harms that rape can do to an individual and as a group of women. Furthermore, the radical feminists approach view rape as male have the control and authority over the use of women’s bodies, which involves the sexual and reproductive. Hence, this is the core element of patriarchy, Radical feminist believe that rape is one of many forms that connects men’s sexual exploitation and violence, as well as, reinforcing women’s oppression (Whisnant, 2013).

Feminist analysis has argued that the patriarchal system of gender inequalities which empowers men and oppresses women underpins sexual violence and that stratification and social control are fundamental elements in the sexual domination of women Brownmiller (1975:4).

Is there a difference between genocide and war? The idea and concepts of conflict are often misunderstood. To many, any form of conflict is war. War can be defined as a direct violent encounter between two or more opposing parties with a view to gaining access to an object of their mutual interests. It is usually accompanied by the use of weapons such as guns, bows and arrows, machetes, sticks, biological weapons, and weapons of mass destruction. (Insert bibliography #1). Genocide has been described as a specific term, referring to violent crimes committed against particular groups, with the intent to destroy the existence of such groups (insert bibliography #1). Having said that, one common factor often exhibited by genocide perpetrators is to destroy a group perceived to be a threat to the ruling power. The purpose of this paper is to take a look at both the historic and political causes for the Rwanda Genocide, and to distinguish whether ethnicity was the cause or was it the aspect of the conflict.

Violence appeared to be a gendered act usually resulting in male over female dominance during the nineteenth century (D'Cruse 21). Within