What Is Perspective-Oriented Conflict?

Peace and equality are two words that seem to be synonyms of each other but when looked at closely, are extremely hard to achieve together. A society being peaceful and having completely equal rights amongst people is one that is hard to come by and in this essay, we talk about another one of those societies which fails to achieve this. It is the midst of World War II and because of a plane wreck, a group of young English boys have been left in solitude on an island. After some thought, Ralph, a boy who eventually becomes the leader of the group, and his adversary Jack, another prominent figure throughout the story, decide they need to create a government on this island. They approach the task as if it is simple, however; they soon come the

There is nothing more revolting in the history of humanity, than the social atrocities committed towards one another. Despite this, even in the modern day these social issues continue tainting our lives and consuming our humanity one day at a time. The exile many face over race, religion, and sexuality is prominent all over the world and as a result wars have been fought and blood drawn. Nevertheless, it is imperative that the world gains social knowledge, or enlightenment, to prevent such moral atrocities from frequently occurring. Modern society, like the past has ignored strides towards enlightenment demonstrating there is still much to improve upon in the twenty-first century.

The Mabo decision of 1992 was hailed as a landmark case in the history of indigenous-white relations in Australia. Overturning centuries of injustice, as well as the myth of right by ‘terra nullius’, the case prompted the passing of the Native Title Act of 1993, which affirmed native title and asserted that native Australians possessed their land under common law, and in doing so ushered in a new era of equality in Australian society. However, though correctly lauded as a milestone in recognition of aboriginals as valid legal entities, the act was not without its problems, and in truth has had little impact on Australian society as a whole. As we shall see, the trend of positive reform existent in the act was not supported in practice, and aboriginal Australians remain at the mercy of Western courts when it comes to their land. Though the Mabo decision and the subsequent Native Title Act went some way to correcting past injustices, its actual impact on Australian society has been negligible.

Tom Dystra, an Aboriginal Elder recalling the differentiating the differences of land uses: “We cultivated our land, but in a way different from the white man. We endeavor to live with the land; they seemed to live off it” (Koori, 2012). The entire continent was under the control of the British Monarchy and was declared “Crown Land” being deliberately ignorant towards the Aborigines and their traditional custodianship. Invasions on the Indigenous land started when the colonists started clearing land, sacred sites and fencing properties which cut access to waterholes and hunting grounds without the permission of the elders. The Europeans didn’t obey the rules set by the Aborigines, held no respect for their traditional rituals and sacred places and started killing vast numbers of innocent Aborigines for hunting for food or trespassing on the ‘European’ land. Their anger and emotion can still be felt today as describe by F. Gale: “Sacred place. All over our Aboriginal land was sacred, but we see now they have made a map and cut it up into six states” (Gale,

I have extended this idea into my article through asking a rhetorical question utilised in Rhead's poem. "Why do you think you're better if your culture is not the same?", demonstrating that there are people who consider their culture to be more authoritative of another, as conveyed in the article; Australians believe they uphold controlling supremacy over Muslim Australians. In correlation, the statement, "If one learns to understand and respect all points of view, then peace on Earth must surely come. It's up to you. And you. And you", was employed within the conclusion of the article, to highlight the importance of commencing improvements to behaviour and attitude standards, to impartially treat all religions and become an anti-discrimination

Every person does not welcome outside ideas that differ from their own, seeing their views ideas as superior. By refusing to accept the different views of those different from one’s own, one may think less of a person as a whole, therefore, degrading them. When women, African Americans, and Jews all declared their humanity, they did tolerantly; avoiding a destructive route. These groups refused to declare the views of the one’s that opposed theirs as inferior or unworthy of human treatment. Instead, they chose to revolt against the barriers that were refusing their freedom. Although the people revolting did not agree with the dehumanizing views of their governments, they refused to dehumanize them for their opinions. The difference in views of the government and the victims are what led to the revolutions freeing them from their inhumane treatment. A divide established when other’s opinions and views are no longer

As much as people try to avoid it, fact is that no one in this world is born equal; there is always something unique that sets one different from another. It is those differences that require us, as Barbara Jordon says, “to accept people who are different that ourselves.” Jordan emphasizes the importance of tolerance and how it helps us develop into better societies and people. During the 1930’s, different races in the United States were being discriminated against their skin tone and placed on separate levels. In more modern times, people were still being criticized for having different ideas and while acting upon them. Even all the way in Iraq, discrimination is presented once again towards Jews and their independent country. Anything contrasting oneself will never be the same as he or she would like, creating a necessity to tolerate. Barbara Jordan's quote helps reveal that tolerance is essential to avoid conflict, to unite with others, and to change for the better.

In 1824 the British tried to colonize the Tiwi islands in the Australian Northern Territory. They had many confrontations with the Tiwi islanders, particularly the men. Some deaths occurred in both groups as a result. For a short amount of time a sense of peace came to the Tiwi Island. The Tiwi and British would swap tools until the Tiwi started taking the British tools without swapping or asking. The British saw this as theft. They did not understand the Aboriginal culture revolved around sharing everything, and the aboriginals had no understanding of the value of material possessions. The British soon realized this and used it against the Tiwi by swapping tools for land. The Tiwi were then confronted by the British quarrying stone on Melville Island, cutting down the trees, killing animals for food such as wallabies and marine life, relocating water from creaks, and the clearing of land to build European structures. The Tiwi were not happy with this at all. The trees, water, and land are very sacred to the aboriginal people, they see these things as a part of themselves. The Tiwi realized that the British were not going to leave but instead were

In diagnosing the state of peace between the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people of Australia and the Māori people of New Zealand and their colonisers, one must first define peace. The accepted English definition of peace; the absence of conflict, has been met. Today, there are no massacres or violent persecution of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people or Māori people, no frontier conflict. However, it cannot be stated that true peace has been achieved in Australia, for the peace of the colonisers is greater than that of the colonised. Non-Indigenous Australians enjoy a peacetime in which their identity is inherently respected, there is a sanctity and reverence reserved for their culture, Government policies will never destroy their child’s connection

In Australia, ‘Closing the Gap’ has become a key focus in the way governments have decided to address indigenous inequality. The term ‘closing the gap’ can be traced back to policy introduced in New Zealand in the 1990s aimed at addressing inequality in Māori communities. Governments in both Australia and New Zealand have tried to bridge perceived gaps between these Indigenous groups and “the rest of society” particularly in relation to gaps in socioeconomic status. However such policies may be problematic as they tend to ignore issues of self-determination and sovereignty sought by Indigenous groups (Cornell 2006:9-10; Muldoon & Schaap 2012:535). Ignoring claims of self-determination and sovereignty may be indicative of ongoing divisions in settler states working to accommodate the needs and outcomes of Indigenous groups given the undercurrent of conflictual and often violent histories that mar the relations between the two groups. As such, this essay seeks to compare these policies regarding inequalities between Indigenous societies and their settler states, as well as the relevant contexts of these policies, in order to highlight issues that emerge in relation to indigenous claims for sovereignty and concepts of nationalism.

The treatment of native peoples all around the world has been a major issue for generations. This essay will show you how both the Indigenous Australians and Native Americans were treated from the first ‘settlement’ of white peoples in their land up until now. It will assess how the system worked, the rights of the native peoples, why the system was the way it was, and how it impacted the world as a whole.

A Key conflict that endures as one of the most noteworthy events in New Zealand’s early history is the Waikato war of 1863-1864. The significance of the battles lies in the definition of the status of Maori and Pakeha in New Zealand. Particular historic debate surrounds whether the Waikato war was caused more primarily over the dispute of land or sovereignty. Maori were rising against British control and domination over them exhibited by establishment of the Kingitanga movement and the resistance to land sales. Responding in a way they saw that they had the right British invaded the Waikato. The outcomes of these events still hold debate and controversy in the regions of occurrence even today. With large loss of lives on both sides directly from the clashes, as Maori retained their pride refused to surrender to the British’s superior technology. New laws were passed as a result of the resistance involving shameless policy’s which marginalised Maori and there rights further. The consequences of this war were drawn out until the late 20th, when finally reparations were made in full.

The Maori, “Children of Heaven”, are the indigenous people of New Zealand. It has been thought that Polynesian navigator Kupe, discovered New Zealand in 950 AD, and named the island Aotearoa, “Land of the long white cloud”.1 The Maori migrated to New Zealand from the tropical islands of

Throughout New Zealand history, historical roots have played a significant role in the development of modern Aotearoa New Zealand. The historical past has shaped various forms of present social dimensions within the nation today. This essay intends to discuss the controversial racial inequality in regards to the relationship between Maori and Pakeha within contemporary New Zealand society. This essay will explore two readings; “Plunder in the Promised Land: Māori Land Alienation and the Genesis of Capitalism in Aotearoa New Zealand” by Wynyard, Matthew and “Stereotypical Construction of the Maori ‘Race’ in the Media” by Wall, Melanie. This essay will also further discuss a brief summary on my personal reflection

In the beginning of the 19th century, almost all New Zealanders were considered to be Maoris. The Maoris made up nearly the whole country, with a population between 100-120,000, while the European population was down in the hundreds. In 1818, the Musket Wars resulted in the loss of over a fifth of the Maori population, at least 20,000 dead and thousands more captured (“Overview of NZ”). The Musket War was a war that began when the Europeans introduced their advanced technology and muskets into New Zealand. The Musket Wars were a series of inter-tribal wars caused by tribes all trading to obtain muskets. At the end of the wars, in 1830, a new conflict for the Maori population took rise when “warfare gave way to economic rivalry” (“The Musket Wars”). From 1830 on, Europeans would come to New Zealand in waves of hundreds and thousands of people, threatening the Maoris’ once complete control over the land. This brewing economic rivalry was what paved the way for the Treaty of Waitangi, New Zealand’s founding document. This treaty was interpreted differently by the English and Maoris, something the British had purposely done. The British plan to deceive the natives resulted in both land and governmental conflicts. Land disputes caused by the treaty’s misinterpretations between the Maori people and the settlers sparked the New Zealand Wars in 1861-1870. At the end of these wars, new laws were passed that nearly abolished Maori rights. In 1896, New Zealand was no longer a Maori