Ehrenreich And Conflict

While Pinker does an efficient job substantiating these claims with abstract examples of our “bloody history” drawn from sources like the Old Testament and feudal lifestyles, his argument rests upon a narrow denotation of violence that only looks at human death and no other manifestation of aggression. Though Pinker organizes his argument to prove each development process’s impact on peace, he fails to acknowledge the price society has paid in ways like global warming, diplomatic inadequacy and weak national governments. The data Pinker uses to prove his point obscures the collateral damage social change has generated by creating new forms of violence that are as destructive as wars but disproportionately affected certain communities.

The author is able to portray herself as a credible individual by stating her level of education and her experience working low wage jobs. Her education makes her a reliable source because without it, she wouldn't be able to conduct the experiment. To be able to conduct this experiment, she would have to collect data and analyze the data to form a conclusion. Ehrenreich has a “Ph.D. in biology, and [she] didn’t get it by sitting at a desk and fiddling with numbers (3). She has experience going onto the field, collecting data in the real world, so she was able to plan out her experiment, not just as a women, but as a scientist.

War is easily explained through the lens of social conflict theory, a sociological theory that suggests society tends toward conflict because it is made up of groups with competing interests and unequal resources. The theory proposes that a

War is not a common phenomenon anymore after the post cold war era. According a research conducted on active armed conflict across the world at the Uppsala University in Sweden, of all the 101 active armed conflicted between the late 80s and mid 90s, only six were actually between two different states (Solenberg &Wallensteen, 1997). These statistics clearly indicates that the conflict in today's world is more internal and ethnic based.

During the mid 1960’s and early 1970’s social conflicts became increasingly integrated into society. Individuals were subjected to many civilian anti-war movements and civil rights movements such as the black panther movement and the VVAW. Conflict was consuming the minds of individuals within government as well. With the black bag job during the Nixon presidential campaign; conflict was ideology during this time period. This allowed for the development of conflict theory. Conflict theory is defined by, a society in a state of relative conflict due to competition for limited resources, maintaining social order by domination and power, rather than conformity. The boomers are inclined to agree with William Domhoff, based on the idea, society promotes general differences in wealth, power and prestige. Parts of these social dominance are integrated in society at different levels. Domhoff, a conflict theorists emphasized power, wealth, and inequalities between the three “groups” of people- social upper class, corporate class, and the power elite. He believes dominant power is not created by the military or through history; rather than it is created through economics. He supports this through-out his literary piece by defining class and power with semi-statistical information.

With the great diversity in the world disagreements over race and religion are ubiquitous. Consequently, opinions over these subjects are the biggest contributors to war and bloodshed. Changes made in long standing traditions were greeted with hostility. Religion and Absolutism caused disharmony in European countries as well as strife over religion and government.

In a world that is continuously changing in every aspect of its existences, there has arrived a controversy involving prehistoric societies and modern societies. Some scholars believe that prehistoric societies were more violent than the present modern societies; whereas other scholars on the opposite side of the argument believe that today human beings are living in a far more violent society than those who preceded. The two sides of the ongoing debate have published several books and articles defending their standpoints. They both present very compelling evidence based on historical and recent data and use interdisciplinary fields in order to support their claims.

Throughout much of the history of civilizations, states have declared war for land, valuables, and resources. In the course of the mid-20th century and the 21st century, ascendant super powers have invaded foreign lands for resources such as oil, and weapons companies have profited from the ongoing cycle of war these super powers promote. The populations of these states have been fed lies vis-à-vis the media; propagandizing these “rogue nations” and promoting an ‘Us vs. Them’ mentality, to garner support for these armed conflicts. War is our primordial instinct, as humans are territorial and aggressive. That is our nature, and by looking at events in our history, one may see that war appears to be timeless and inevitable.

I think Ehrenreich’s purpose is to show the world the unfair treatments that poor people face at their jobs. She went into the experiment thinking that it would be easy, but by the end she realized that to even live under a roof she had to work two jobs. Also, this book could be used to motivate the poor people to demand higher pay at their jobs.

The people of the Trobriand Islands have developed a unique and mysteriously symbolic style of playing the game of cricket. Cricket was first introduced to the Trobriand Islands by Christian missionaries in the early 1900s. They hoped that having a competitive game to occupy their time, they would be less inclined to participate in tribal warfare (Foster, 742). However, even if the game is not promoting warfare among people, cricket could still be putting forth images of battle. I believe Trobriand cricket has become a symbol for tribal war, and incorporates many themes associated with warfare including negotiation, power and resistance.

Huntington that hypothesised a new post-Cold War world order. Prior to the end of the Cold War, societies were divided by ideological differences such as the struggle between democracy and communism. Huntington’s primary thesis argues, “The most important distinctions among peoples are [no longer] ideological, political or economic. They are cultural.” Huntington makes a very persuasive argument as to how new patterns of conflict will occur along the boundaries of different cultures and patterns of cohesion will be found within the cultural boundaries. The book goes into extensive detail of how world systems between civilizations, which he divides by culture into 7 main global civilizations, are impacted on an international relations scale by this changing nature of conflict. He focuses a great deal on the West’s ability to maintain military superiority through the nonproliferation of emerging powers. In particular relation to 9/11 he focuses on the emerging influence of Islamic culture (which he classifies as it’s own civilization) being quintessential in the emerging new global conflict arisen out of hundreds of years of conflict, military and cultural, between Western civilization and Islamic civilization. The clear limitation of this work is that it is based on his own perception of history and is purely a hypothesis, however it clearly has a great degree of validity to it as we have already seen through the last decade in the rise of terrorism as the new global conflict. This book will assist my essay writing particularly in analysing how 9/11 marked the beginning of a new era of global conflict between powers larger than nation states alone, and thus how this has created increasingly complex paradigms of unprecedented effects on international

Human history has demonstrated that conflict is inevitable. As long as there are differences of opinion, there is fuel for anything from a brief argument to a war that lasts for years. This truth prevails through ancient history and modern day issues. Over time, conflicts grow, compound, and set the archetypal stages for new issues to be born: conflicts between the rich and poor, the religious and political, the loyalists and rebels, and particularly, the East and West. Since people acknowledged those living in opposite sides of the world, the assumption that they themselves were opposites followed. Often, each thought the other was barbarian, an enemy, and would

Humans are innately programmed to conquer and expand. From the migration to every continent in the pre-historical period to the era of space travel prevalent today, humans seek new lands. However, problems begin to occur when land is already taken by an existing party. The results of such clashes are evident in almost every war fought by man and even some where violence was not required (see Native Americans). Each group of civilians that feels threatened by an outside force reacts in the manner that best suits its needs. Although the reactions are distinct, the challenges presented by the Persian Wars and various groups of steppe nomads all stem from the need to conquer.

War - a multifaceted mechanism by which power changes hands, territorial boundaries are revised, and generations are lost – has been hypothesized to commence approximately 40,000-60,000 years ago, when Homo neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens met in Africa and in the Middle East. Henceforth, warfare has surrounded human conflict- imparting benefits to the victors and treachery to the defeated. From the initial meeting in the Arabian Peninsula (Levant region) and Eastern Africa up to the First World War, warfare constantly adapted to meet the needs of its participants, each cohort edging to outreach the other in terms of technological advancements. Alongside the increased potency of warfare, militaristic strategy has coevolved to consider the technological character of rival states.

Violence has and always will run rampant in human civilization, from civil war to revolution, violence is only one step away from breaking out. But when the dust settles and the fighting has stopped what is left behind after humanity’s greatest conflicts? Popular belief is that an increase in violence will lead to a decrease of power and control. Despite this history shows that violence can be used to obtain power and control by removing one’s opposition.