Black Power Movement Essay

Black Power Movement Essay ZAHRAA JAINODIEN INTRODUCTION The failures of the Civil Rights Movement resulted in the Black Power Movement. Members of the party felt that passive resistance was unrealistic and that for real change to occur, violent direct action would need to happen. Leaders like Malcolm X felt that passive resistance was not effective. Not only did Black Power promote black beauty is also unified African Americans. Why did the BPM come into existence? The Civil Rights Movement achieved many great things, their powerful protests created an immense amount of awareness for the oppression of black people in America. Protests like the Montgomery Bus Boycott, The sit-ins in 1960, the March on Lincoln Memorial, the Birmingham Campaign in 1963, Freedom summer of 1964, and the Selma-Montgomery marches, attained: the passing of the Civil Rights Act by the American Congress in 1964. This outlawed discrimination based on racial, ethnic, national, religious and gender identity, and the passing of the Voting Rights Act by the American Congress in 1965. In addition to these acts being passed black people gained a new self-confidence as the result of The CRM. Black people also gained a new sympathy for the things that they had lost during the CRM from their fellow white citizens of America. Despite the achievements of the CRM by 1965 the general economic conditions of African Americans were poor. They lived in ghettos which were crowded and diseases would often arise due to the lack of facilities, the ghettos were often in bad conditions and most of the time unkempt[1]. Apart from the living conditions, most of these people were unemployed or paid very low wages as job opportunities were lacking. This resulted in poverty and crime and to many the achievements of the CRM were in vain, they had lost all hope. Although they had achieved civil rights they were still subject to copious amounts of discrimination often racial abuse and violent attacks with this the police provided little protection and sometimes were guilty of these brutal attacks. The African Americans had no solution to this problem as they were taught by previous leaders like Martin Luther King that passive resistance and civil disobedience were commendable ways of disapproving authority but many felt that this ideology was inadequate and so they turned to more forceful ways of resistance[2]. Black power promoted black interests and this appealed to many frustrated African Americans. Black power grew out of black dissatisfaction of the CRM. Although the achievements of the CRM were praiseworthy it was not good enough. A Ghetto during the 1960s What Influence did Malcolm X have on the development of the BPM? Malcolm X was an African American Muslim minister and a human rights activist. Malcom X joined the Nation of Islam, which believed that blacks were superior to whites. They also believed in black self-reliance and that African Americans should return to where they originated from, Africa, as they believed that they would never be abundantly accepted in American society. Malcolm X became one of their best outspoken speakers. After his time as part of the Nation of Islam his relationship with the leader of the movement Elijah Muhammad grew hostile [3] and he decided to leave the movement. Malcolm X believed that blacks had the right to defend themselves violently in the face of a violent attack if necessary to achieve their freedom and equality. He did not believe in integration between blacks and whites making him an early proponent of Black Nationalism. Thus he didn’t believe in Martin Luther King’s ideology of passive resistance, their lack of power was the foundation of Malcolm X’s duty to encourage that protests be more assertive.[4] Although he was a firm believer of the promotion of black interests, black self-esteem, black self-pride and black self-defence against racial oppression his views began to change after his pilgrimage to mecca. He discovered that Muslims preach equality of the races. After returning to America he remained convinced that racism ruined the spirit of America and that only black people could free themselves. Malcom X What were the main beliefs and aims of the BPM? The Black Power Movement was interpreted in various ways and had many beliefs but ultimately a common objective, Black Nationalism. Black power promoted black interests, self-sufficient black economy, Black self-pride and self-esteem. They believed that black people and white people should not be integrated therefore they fostered a distinctive black culture. [5] These ideas caused friction with leaders of the Civil Rights Movement as the CRM worked towards social equality whereas Black Power believed in black separation. Not all parties were in favour of Black Nationalism, The Black Panther party believed in Self-defence against racial oppression. They also believed that the structure of power in America was imbalanced [6] and that majority of the people in power in America were white thus making it unfair, they believed that people of colour were economically exploited and that it needed to be rectified. Black power believed in black control of their communities, they didn’t believe in nonviolent protests as they believed that direct action was more effective. Supporters of the Black Power Movement began adopting distinctive ways of dressing, especially women who then decided that their wardrobe would be more uniformed inspired than European. They coined a term â€Å"Black is Beautiful†[7] and this became their mantra, men and women were asked to stop straightening their hair and bleaching their skin, as in American culture it was believed that certain black characteristics were undesirable, thus men and women donned an afro hairstyle to display their new found confidence in being black. They believed that time was not to be wasted on proving to the white people that they were equal but rather that, that time to be spent on educating the black community of black power , building institutions and providing protection to fellow black citizens. What methods did the BPM employ? There were various methods that were employed by the members of the BPM. During the Civil Rights Movement, an organisation called the Student Non-violent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) was a non-violent committee that would participate in sit-ins and freedom rides, protesting against the inequality between white and black people. It started out non-violently but later on in the 60s it fell under the leadership of a passionate Stokely Carmichael and this organisation became a predecessor of the BPM. The Black Panther Party carried out most of the procedures when it came to educating the black people of black power. The Black Panther Party was initially formed to protect black people from police brutality but under the leadership of Stokely Carmichael the Black Panther Party adopted Black Nationalism. Many of the members of the party carried firearms with them; this was thought to protect the black people from the police but also made them look very intimidating displaying their clear contrary to the Civil Rights Movement. Majority of the black people were illiterate and this created a problem for the party as leaflets could not be made therefore it was pointless if no one could read them, so the leaders made decisions to incorporate awareness in less literal way. â€Å"They could have leafleted the community and they could have written books, but the people would not respond. They had to act and the people could see and hear about it and therefore become educated on how to respond to oppression.†[8] They decided that crime and poverty in the ghettos could be decreased if they employed people who were interested in conveying radical change. Apart from being responsible for various criminal activities the BBP formed armed groups for self-defence against the police, this was their strategy to protect themselves and idea of Black Nationalism. Under this party the main focus was that black people would be free from white people completely, and that they only relied on themselves and other people falling under the black nation. Members of the BBP How successful was the BPM? It is suggested that Black Power made positive, lasting contributions to the African American lifestyle.[9] It created greater racial pride amongst the black people in America. Black people became more accepting of their American heritage, they noted that they would be stronger as country than as segregated races. African Americans were now taken care of, ghettos decreased as well as crime and poverty. Black voters were endowed to support their black candidates[10]. The Black Power Movement also formed a path; black students were now given the opportunity to study at university without any racial oppression or discrimination. Although we like to believe that racial discrimination no longer existed in America, it did and it still does. The Black Power Movement also created a strong black culture for African Americans, this was something that they could relate to, and this culture consisted of soulful music, eccentric fashion and heartfelt literature. The BPM also formed a platform for cultural tolerance in America, as different cultures were now accepted amongst people of the country. What is the legacy of the BPM today? The Black Power Movement set down a fundamental platform for the advancement of African Americans. Black Power was not the only contributing factor, but the Civil Rights Movement also played a big role in achieving equality for African Americans. Under the Civil Rights Movement, Civil Rights Acts were passed, race discrimination became illegal and this gave African Americans a new kind of self-esteem and self-confidence in who they were as Americans. Although the Black Power Movement â€Å"ended† the spirit today still does exist, not only in America but in all parts of the world. If we look at America today, there are many successful African Americans in the country. The dream of many African Americans was achieved in 2008 when Barack Obama was elected as America’s first black president. This could not be made possible if black power did not exist. It was the strength and power of the many activists in the 1960s and 1970s that fashioned an important part in history today. â€Å"Black powers impact thus remains powerfully resonant — however fraught and contentious — as a generation of black politicians, artists, and intellectuals have channelled the new black identity it first articulated in diverse and varied ways†[11] with this said the writer makes a very crucial point, that Black Power was the basis of the accomplishments of African Americans today and that it should remain as a token that A frican Americans should remember of the struggle. Conclusion It is suggested that the failures of the Civil Rights Movement subsequently lead to the rise of Black Power. The methods used during the Civil Rights Movement like passive resistance and civil disobedience felt inadequate to the black people therefore it appeared that was a need for alternative methods to achieve equality. Timeline of the BP 1952 Malcolm X joins The Nation of Islam 1955-1956 Montgomery Bus Boycott 1960 The first Sit-in occurred in Greensboro, North Carolina 1963 The March on Washington (Lincoln Memorial) 1963 Birmingham Campaign 1964 Freedom Summer Campaign 1964 Civil Rights Act was signed 1964 Malcolm X breaks with the Nation Of Islam 1965 Voting Rights Act was signed 1966 The Black Panther Party was founded by Huey Newton and Bobby Seale 1966 Stokeley Carmichael becomes ‘Honorary Prime Minister’ of the BBP 1967 Stokeley Carmichael is removed From BBP 1972 National Black Political Convention was held 1980 BBP started to dissipate 1983 Martin Luther King Jr Day was created Illustrations A protest of Asians showing their support of Black Power, they’re protesting for the release of Huey Newton who was imprisoned for murdering a policeman in 1967. A Black panthers poster with their mantra â€Å"Move on over or we’ll move on over you† which basically meant that they were not afraid for fighting for their rights. Bibliography Revolutionaries to Race Leaders: Black Power and the Making of African American Politics written by Cederic Johnson Black theology and black power written by James H. Cone http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080312215601AA8bRSr http://prasadokurian.blogspot.com/2011/10/paradox-of-passive-resistance.html http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/malcolmx/peopleevents/e_noi.html http://marnielangeroodiblog.wordpress.com/2013/05/03/malcom-x-black-power/ http://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/N/bo3633780.html http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/fhamptonspeech.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_is_beautiful http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/fhamptonspeech.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_is_beautiful [1] http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080312215601AA8bRSr [2] http://prasadokurian.blogspot.com/2011/10/paradox-of-passive-resistance.html [3] http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/malcolmx/peopleevents/e_noi.html [4] Adapted from http://marnielangeroodiblog.wordpress.com/2013/05/03/malcom-x-black-power/ [5] http://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/N/bo3633780.html and adapted from New day in Babylon the BPM movement and American culture written by William l. van Deburg, ISBN: 9780226847153 Published November 1993 [6] http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/fhamptonspeech.html [7] Adapted from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_is_beautiful [8] Quote by Black Panther leader, Huey Newton 1968 [9] adapted from New Day in Babylon: The Black Power Movement and American Culture, 1965-1975By William L. Van Deburg [10] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Act_of_1965 [11] Quote from an article http://www.penielejoseph.com/legacy.html

Thomas Hobbes Essay

The philosophy of Thomas Hobbes, especially that of his major work, Leviathan, is designed to understand the motives of human nature and, from these, seek the surest way to civil peace. This is one of the earliest examples of a â€Å"scientific† method of understanding political science in that the commonwealth was to be built on a handful of axioms, all deriving from what Hobbes considered facts of human nature (cf. Matthews, 118). The nature of these axioms leading to civil peace is the purpose of this present essay. The primary understanding of human nature that, if applied properly, would lead to social peace is that human beings desire power. This is nearly identical to Machiavelli’s approach to politics. It seems that in both Hobbes and Machiavelli, human beings desire power, and hence, develop â€Å"moral† systems that justify the present holding or seeking of power (Morgan, 528-530, and 581-582). But the nature of this axiom is that people are naturally programmed to seek power and no matter of moral suasion will stop this. Hobbes wants to begin from a single concept and build upon it rather than attempt to suppress it, since any attempt at suppression itself proves the axiom correct. If human nature is taken seriously rather than covered over with metaphysical theories, then peace might be the consequent: human beings must be taken as they are, not as one might want them to be. If the above axiom is true, that is, people desire power, than many other axioms follow from it. The first axiom that follows from the first is that reason is a slave to the passions (Morgan, 641). Reason, in other words, cannot provide ends, but merely means, and significantly, justifications after the fact. Appealing to reason is hence, not appropriate with such a view of humanity, and only the appeal to passion will work here. Passion is nothing that can be suppressed, but it can be controlled. Passion is the engine of human nature in a similar sense that hunks of matter in a vacuum will continue in constant morion unless acted upon by another force. This is an exact parallel to Hobbes here, and the only opposing force to passionate human motion is other human beings, and hence, the problem: humans are constantly, following from this, in a state of war. What makes this state of war particularly harsh is that the abilities of human beings as individuals, or organizing into groups, are roughly equal (Morgan, 591). This means that the war of all against all will continue constantly, with no clear winner. Any â€Å"winner† will be only a temporary winner, and will soon be dethroned by another faction. The fact of equality is not something here taken from observation, but from a deduction from â€Å"atomic† theory (or at least, the theories of matter current at the time), where atoms, in their basic structure, are all the same. Matter is matter, energy is energy, humans are humans. From the above, it follows that human beings are determined. Free will, to an extent, is rejected in Hobbes. For him, liberty is the ability to do what one wills without outside opposition (Morgan, 621). This is consistent with determinism in that the will must have a reason, that is, a cause, for having the desire it has and bringing it to fruition. Hence, man is determined, but since he does what he wants, he is thus free. This just underscores the fact that reason is impotent to being about peace, only the passions can be appealed to in that the constant clashing of wills and the frustration of one’s freedom as Hobbes describes it is constant warfare. From the above, Hobbes deduces that humanity is egocentric, power hungry and willful, and as a result, without some countervailing power, is in a constant state of warfare. The nature of this countervailing power is the real centerpiece of the Leviathan. The general point is that if humanity can be reduced to a few, simple, clear axioms that follow logically from one another, as any good scientific theory should do, then the state, the countervailing power that keeps these human â€Å"atoms† in line relative to one another, should also be simple, unified and follow logically from the axioms about human nature. Hence, Hobbes is seeking to be completely scientific and a â€Å"realist† about both humanity and the state that they will live under in order to reach peace. At this point in the logical progression, it seems impossible to live in a state of peace. Human beings are depicted as lustful, egocentric and equal beings constantly in a state of motion and hence, clashing with all other peoples, essentially hunks of matter in motion, connected to an almost arbitrary engine of passion. But it is the Leviathan that will bring this peace, and it is passion that it will use to justify itself and bring peace to the commonwealth. Hobbes describes humanity prior to all law and custom, that is, the â€Å"law of nature. † The primary motive force of humanity is power, considered generally. But if warfare is a constant feature of the â€Å"state of nature,† then the drive for power for each and all is constantly being frustrated. It seems logical to hold that eventually, these egocentric people will constantly see their designs thwarted and their purposes constantly harmed y others. From this, all those that seek power, that is, everyone, will be forced to come to some agreement, a â€Å"covenant† among themselves that will provide a measure of peace so that the power struggle can continue in more peaceful channels. This is the nature of the covenant (Morgan, 594). This agreement comes not about through reason, but through the constant frustration of passion. Reason is a means to an end, and power is always that end. But power cannot be had in the state of nature given its constantly shifting nature, and therefore, reason then acts as a slave to passion and demands some kind of agreement, a contract that will bring peace. The nature of this covenant must follow from the facts of human nature outlined above. Hence, it cannot really be a parliamentary democracy because that merely leaves the state of nature intact, one faction constantly unseating another, leading to the same chaos as before. The kind of state that is agreed upon is basically a dictatorship of a party that must act equally between individuals and factions within the society. All power is hence transferred to the state, the dictatorship, and in return, this power is used to keep the warring factions from destroying each other. The only real demand laid on the state is that of objectivity in judging among the factions, and hence, the state must ultimately be a monarchy (of sorts), equidistant from all centers of power in society and hence, able to judge among them fairly (Morgan, 613). Putting this differently, if power is the desire of all individuals and factions, then it follows that the state exists solely for security (Morgan, 606). If humanity is described in axiomatic terms all following one from another, and the state is itself part of this logical progression, then it also follows that the nature of the state’s action also must follow from the above. This means that the state is unitary, dedicated to one purpose and based on a rule of law that is simple and dedicated entirely to security and, according to the contract, treats all individuals and factions as morally equal to one another (Morgan, 641). The logical structure of the Leviathan comes down to working out contradictions in the axiomatic description of human beings. If human beings desire power and cannot get it in the state of nature, then a powerful state must be crated that permits humanity to live and seek after power through peaceful means. But since no faction will permit one group to rule at the expense of all others, the state must be single, focused and based on an agreed upon set of laws (a â€Å"constitution†) that enshrines this concept of political equality. Only then can all factions agree to give up their violent ways to the central authority. Since human beings are egocentric and passionate, the state based on the rule of law agreed to by all factions beforehand follows logically. The terms â€Å"peace† and â€Å"justice† are used here in highly technical and scientific ways that part radically with previous attempts to define and justify these words. Peace, according to Hobbes, is merely the absence of war (Morgan, 592). It simply is a state of affairs that permits power hungry individuals to pursue their designs in a peaceful manner. Any breach of this peace will, ideally, lead to swift and harsh action from the state that they have empowered to keep watch over their actions. Justice is similar in that it is based on knowledge. The early parts of the Leviathan are based on a scientific method, a means of coming to know human nature as generally and simply as possible. Justice just flows from this. Ultimately, justice derives from science, which is the knowledge of good and evil (Morgan, 603). In practice, this merely means that humans are attracted by the same set of things, and recoil from the same set of things. If power and what it implies are seen in the former, then the frustration of their liberty (as defined above) is what repels them. This knowledge alone allows one to see the basis and ultimate justice of the state. Hence, justice is defined accordingly, as the ability of the person, or, at last, the state, to control the passions of the population when they threaten to disrupt the precarious balance of peace in the commonwealth (Morgan, 599-600). But this is understood by all who are punished by the state in that they have agreed to this on the basis that their own liberty is endlessly obstructed by others in the state of nature. But, as a final thought, this is the very nature of one’s civic duty–to eliminate all private desires and to follow the laws as laid down by the sovereign and agreed upon by those who have demanded these laws (Morgan, 610-611). Duty is not something that is arrived at through reason, but through the passionate desire for power. It is frustrated in the state of nature, but permitted to function freely under the rule of law. There is no â€Å"thick† view of civic duty here, but rather, the control over one’s passions in the interest of those same passions, to permit them to develop in peace. The desire for peace derives from the identical desire for power, except that this desire is frustrated in a state of war. This is what makes Hobbes compelling: the approach to politics could not be simpler. The concept of civic duty is summed up by Hobbes as the act of giving up â€Å"governing oneself† (Morgan, 608), and permitting the more violent elements of one’s passion to be governed by the state only. What is left to the person is the peaceful pursuit of his passionate desires. Politically speaking, the commonwealth is that entity that exists for the sake of peace and security by the efficient control of the private desires of the people involved. In its place, the public will as expressed by the laws of the sovereign so far as they do not violate the very simple terms of the contract. In conclusion, the nature of peace and civic duty for Hobbes are two sides of the same coin. The public persona of the person in the commonwealth is as a public entity, a person dedicated to civic peace and dedicated to the elimination of all personal desires relative to other members of the community. The final end, according to Hobbes’ own description is the pursuit of power by peaceful means, engaging in commerce, etc. The sovereign is the public persona and serves to maintain this persona within the personalities of all involved.

Religion as a cause of IntraState War

Disputes and disagreements over religious beliefs have been and continue to be one of the main sources of conflict, civil war, terrorism and even genocide in the modern world. As the noted theologian Hans Kà ¼ng has said: â€Å"There will be no peace among the peoples of the world without peace among the world religions.† (Shaefer,2004)Religious practices and beliefs have often been at the center of conflicts throughout history.   Religious conflict can involve two or more completely different religions or can rip apart one religion from within.   Religious beliefs are so deeply engrained into cultures that conflicts arise with change or when religions come into contact.   Even if the differences are minor, followers of all religions can become fervent when threatened.   In short, religion is something worth fighting for, according to history.   However, possibly one of the greatest ironies is that religious conflict usually goes against the teachings of the religio ns involved.   Imagine the strength of religion when war and violence are justifiable only when defending the faith, a faith that promotes good-will, peace, and the acceptance of others.â€Å"The fact that religion appears in such colorful variety – that there is not one single religion but a plurality – has always been a source of irritation for people,† writes Dr. Schaefer, laying out the problem. â€Å"Religions are in many ways similar, and yet they are so different; there is much which unites them, but also much which divides them. This is indeed irritating. All the world religions teach that there is only one ultimate reality, which we call God. If that is so, there can logically only be one truth: But if there is only one truth, why are there so many religions?†(Shaefer, 2004)â€Å"Once started religious strife has a tendency to go on and on, to become permanent feuds. Today we see such intractable inter-religious wars in Northern Ireland, betwe en Jews and Muslims and Christians in Palestine, Hindus and Muslims in South Asia and in many other places. Attempts to bring about peace have failed again and again. Always the extremist elements invoking past injustices, imagined or real, will succeed in torpedoing the peace efforts and bringing about another bout of hostility.† Datuk Seri Dr Mahathir Mohamad, Prime Minister of Malaysia, addressing the World Evangelical Fellowship on 2001-MAY-4In the Philippines, the migration of Christians settlers   to Mindanao and the transmigration program favoring the Christians causes intrastate conflict.   Furthermore, the under-representation of the Muslim in most categories of public service also brings conflict to Christians and Muslims in the Philippines.States have tended to approach religious opposition tactically rather than strategically. Countries such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have focused on short-term political gains using the most expedient tools available to count er religious opposition – from concessions on social issues to crackdowns on political opposition. The history of changing and shortsighted state policies toward religious opposition suggests these approaches are not sustainable in the long term. Nor have states shown much success in managing the spiritual/ideological dimension of conflict once it has begun – even if they started to stir religious passions in the first place. Increasingly, religion is both an identifiable source of violence around the world and simultaneously so deeply interwoven into other sources of violence — including economic, ideological, territorial, and ethnic sources — that it is difficult to isolate.(Treverton, Gregg, Giblan & Yost, 2005)WARS WITH A RELIGIOUS DIMENSION( Gantzel et al., (1993) 1. Mayanamar/Burma 1948 Buddhists vs. Christians 2. Israel/Palestinian 1968 Jews vs. Arabs )Muslims-Christians) 3. Northern Ireland 1969 Catholic vs. Protestants 4. Philippines (Mindanao) 1 970 Muslims vs. Christians (Catholics) 5. Bangladesh 1973 Buddhists vs. Christians 6. Lebanon 1975 Shiites supported by Syria (Amal) vs. Shiites supported by Iran (Hezbollah) 7. Ethiopia (Oromo) 1976 Muslims vs. Central government 8. India (Punjab) 1982 Sikhs vs. Central government 9. SudanWITH 1983 Muslims vs. Native religions 10. Mali-Tuareg Nomads 1990 Muslims vs. Central government 11. Azerbejdan 1990 Muslims vs. Christian Armenians 12. India (Kasjmir) 1990 Muslims vs. Central government (Hindu) 13. Indonesia (Aceh) 1990 Muslims vs. Central government (Muslim) 14. Iraq 1991 Sunnites vs. Shiites 15. Yugoslavia (Croatia) 1991 Serbian orthodox Christians vs. Roman Catholic Christians 16. Yugoslavia (Bosnia) 1991 Orthodox Christians vs. Catholics vs. Muslims 17. Afghanistan 1992 Fundamentalist Muslims vs. Moderate Muslims 18. Tadzhikistan 1992 Muslims vs. Orthodox Christians 19. Egypt 1977 Muslims vs. Central government (Muslim) Muslims vs. Coptic Christians 20. Tunesia 1978 Muslims vs. Central government (Muslim) 21. Algeria 1988 Muslims vs. Central government 22. Uzbekisgtan 1989 Sunite Uzbeks vs. Shiite Meschetes 23. India (Uthar- Pradesh) 1992 Hindus vs. Muslims 24. Sri Lanka 1983 Hindus vs. MuslimsHunttington (1993) xpects more conflicts along the cultural-religious fault lines because (1) those differences have always generated the most prolonged and the most violent conflicts; (2) because the world is becoming a smaller place, and the increasing interactions will intensify the civilization- consciousness of the people which in turn invigorates differences and animosities stretching or thought to stretch back deep in history; (3) because of the weakening of the nation-state as a source of identity and the desecularisation of the world with the revival of religion as basis of identity and commitment that transcends national boundaries and unites civilizations; (4) because of the dual role of the West. On the one hand, the West is at the peak of its power. At the same time, it is confronted with an increasing desire by elites in other parts of the world to shape the world in non-Western ways; (5) because cultural characteristics and differences are less mutable and hence less easily compromised and resolved than political and economic ones; (6) finally, because increasing economic regionalism will reinforce civilization-consciousness.It is clear that the causes of religious wars and other religion related violence have not disappeared from the face of the earth. Some expect an increase of it. Efforts to make the world safe from religious conflicts should then also be high on the agenda. Religious actors should abstain from any cultural and structural violence within their respective organizations and handle inter-religious or denominational conflict in a non-violent and constructive way. This would imply several practical steps, such as a verifiable agreement not to use or threaten with violence to settle religious disputes. It must be possible to evaluate religious organizations objectively with respect to their use of physical, structural or cultural violence. A yearly overall report could be published. Another step would be furthering the ‘depolitisation' of religion. Power also corrupts religious organizations. In addition, depolitisation of religion is a major precondition for the political integration of communities with different religions.Religious organizations can also influence the conflict dynamics by abstaining from intervention. As most conflicts are ‘asymmetrical', this attitude is partial in its consequences. It is implicitly reinforcing the ‘might is right' principle. During the Second World War, the Vatican adopted a neutral stand. It didn't publicly disapprove of the German atrocities in Poland or in the concentration camps. To secure its diplomatic interests, Rome opted for this prudence and not for an evangelical disapproval. The role of bystanders, those members of the so ciety who are neither perpetrators nor victims, is very important. Their support, opposition, or indifference based on moral or other grounds, shapes the course of events.An expression of sympathy or antipathy of the head of the Citta del Vaticano, Pius XII, representing approximately 500 million Catholics, could have prevented a great deal of the violence. The mobilization of the internal and external bystanders, in the face of the mistreatment of individuals or communities, is a major challenge to religious organizations. To realize this, children and adults, in the long run, must develop certain personal characteristics such as a pro-social value orientation and empathy. Religious organizations have a major responsibility in creating a worldview in which individual needs would not be met at the expense of others and genuine conflicts would not be resolved through aggression (Fein, 1992).ReferencesFein, Helen, ed. 1992. Genocide watch. New Haven: Yale University Press.Gantzel, Kla us, Jà ¼rgenTorsten Schwinghammer, Jens Siegelberg. 1993. Kriege der Welt. Ein systematischer Register kriegerischen Konflikte 1985 bis 1992. Bonn: Stiftung Entwicklung und frieden.Huntington, Samuel. 1993. The clash of Civilizations? New York: Foreign Affairs.Shaefer, Udo 2004 Beyond the Clash of Religions:The Emergence of a New Paradigm.   Zero Palm Press. Prague. Treverton, G. et al.   2005.   Exploring Religious Conflicts.   Rand Coporation: CA, http://www.rand.org/pubs/conf_proceedings/2005/RAND_CF211.pdf Varennes, F. Recurrent Challenges to the Implementation of Intrastate Peace Agreements: The Resistance of State Authorities.   New Balkan Politics Issue 7/8. http://www.newbalkanpolitics.org.mk/napis.asp?id=21&lang=English â€Å"Prime minister of Malaysia calls for end to inter-religious strife,† 2001-MAY-5, at: http://www.worldevangelical.org/default.htm.

Andrew Carnegie - Steel Tycoon and Philanthropis - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 1 Words: 246 Downloads: 9 Date added: 2019/08/05 Category People Essay Level High school Tags: Andrew Carnegie Essay Did you like this example? Andrew Carnegies innovative approach to steel production helped him amass an unprecedented personal fortune from which he could pursue many philanthropic endeavors. In addition to bad working conditions, Carnegie has been criticized for paying his workers low wages, therefore making labor relations between Carnegie and the people who worked very hard, enabled Carnegie sold his steel company he retired from business and devoted himself full-time to philanthropy. In 1889, he had penned an essay, The Gospel of Wealth, in which he stated that the rich have a moral obligation to distribute their money in ways that promote the welfare and happiness of the common man. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "Andrew Carnegie Steel Tycoon and Philanthropis" essay for you Create order Always an avid reader and a self-learner, Mr. Carnegie began building public libraries throughout the United States, Canada and Europe. The first library opened in his birth town of Dunfermline, Scotland in 1883. A shrewd businessman, Andrew Carnegie would fund the building and the books of a library only on the condition that the local governing board matched that by providing the land and operating capital. It is estimated that he funded 3,000 libraries in eight countries. He would subsequently provide endowments for any library that struggled to keep its doors open to the public. His philanthropy continued on to education and science by funding the construction of several colleges and establishing grants that are still awarded today. The most famous of his philanthropic expressions is the Carnegie Hall in New York City, which is still considered one of the most prestigious venues today.