When analysing the gains and losses in conflict, one often needs to establish a standard point. Is there such thing as “the greater good”? Are some people more valuable or more disposable than others? We often see a heirarchy of importance when it comes to wars or battles in history. In medieval times, kings would rule wide areas of land and if a few hundred peasants were to die from a disease (like the plague) or were captured by a neighbouring tribe, there would not be too much fuss. However, the death of a prince, or, heaven forbid, a king, would cause upheaval amongst the civilian population. Times have changed, however, some of the old ways are still echoed in modern society. The assassination of JFK caused chaos in the media and is an event that is still talked about today, and still holds weight, decades after. Althought one might argue that it is injust to position one person above another (aren’t we all humans?), this has always been the case within social communities and nations.

A great philosopher once said “without conflict, there would be no change.” One might argue that change is necessary and has enabled us as humans to reach the position we are in today. Therefore, conflict is necessary. However, the idea of change does not necessarily ring the same bell as the idea of conflict and often we believe that one can occur without the other. This is not the case. The Tiananmen Square Massacre began as a peaceful protest. A group of students, unhappy with the current government regime, trying to bring about a change. Yet, we all know how that turned out. Hundreds of innocent people slaughtered, the government putting a nail in the proverbial coffin of change. In Graham Greene’s ‘The Quiet American’, Pyle is the one wanting to bring about a change. His education in York Harding and stubborn ideals of democray ensure that he meets the same fate as those innocent students in Tiananmen Square. He falls victim to the idea of improving he lives of the Vietnamese, who according to Fowler, just want rice. In the end, it is evident that Pyle paid the highest price, and achieved nothing of what he set out to do.

Althought it is easy to focus solely on the negatives in conflict, positives do exist, even if they are few and far between. Like the Lybian people, the Vietnamese also fought for their political beliefs. The Viet Minh believed in a Communist regime and spent many years in battle with the UN, the French, the Americans, and even their fellow countrymen. After close to a decade of fighting the opposing democratic nations, America finally pulled out of Vietnam, and a few years later, Vietnam became a COmmunist nation. Al the death, destruction and loss had finally resulted in a victory for the people; a victory that has lasted to this day. In this situation, the popular consensus would be that the gains in conflict outweighed the losses. 

As we know, conflict does not only occur on a large scale. Personal conflicts occur frequently and often involves losses such as psychological damage and suffering. The Quiet American illustrated many occasions where this is all too evident. The climax of the novel involves somewhat, a betrayal of Pyle by Fowler, ultimately leading to his death. Although this was arguably in the best interest of Vietnam and may have done a great deal of good on a grand scale, the repurcussions for Fowler and the mental scarring will probably remain with him for the rest of his life. He acknoqledges his fate when he says in the closing line, “I wished there was someone to whom I could say that I was sorry,” summing up the extent of his internal trauma.

Whether the gains outweigh the losses or the other way around is impossible to decide with conviction. One cannot make such a decision considering all the people involved and possible consequences. The only thing that can be said is that in conflict, there is always a gain, and there is always a loss.

Cover of The Quiet American

Communication in a common parlance means the share or exchange of information, Communication is a two way process, the sender and the receiver. And a communication service is the source 0f all conflict why. Because the inability to communicate well leads to crisis. For example, when an Igbo man speaks or great on hand man in igbo language. The Hausa man is likely to start trouble why, because He does not understand what the Igbo man said. This is why the competency of a man is to what extent is able to manage its conflict. that is why it is very important for people to mind every words coming out of their mouth.

Secondly, avoiding statement tarnishing which has over the year brings about distractible crisis:e,g, the Iraq-America war, where George bush made it clear that Sudan Hussein should step down as the president of Iraq. Iraq are very mush aware that they are far from confronting America in a war but had no option but to fight why, Because such statement was a decline on a country’s sovereignty and prestige. This is why there will always be one crisis to another once American president is still felt in Iraq despite the recorded bombing already. That is why the competence of a man is to what extent is able to manage it’s conflict. And this is also why managing conflict concerns how to address issues without tampering with individual or national prestige.

Conflict on its own is a situation of tension in which two or more persons or groups are involved and these two or more persons must to be related or depend on each other. Furthermore for there to be conflict there must be a relationship(why, because, two different people that does not know each other cannot quarrel.) representing different ideology,views,motives,planes e.t.c. and this views are different opinions is very important for them to work together.

For example : This brings in mind, war (between especially, America and soviet union, master mind by Russia) Where ideology was one of contention when soviet union proposed for communalism against America capitalist ideology. Through there was no physical contact between the two super power due to balance of power between the two but the tention was critically high. Sill the ideology was very important for peaceful co-existence which was later resolved. While we will get to know why it was term “cold war” when analyzing hot and cold conflict under strategic conflict

Conflict is an unavoidable situation to line together. When three are gathered, their bond to be conflict that of opinion, interest e.t.c. so conflict can be between two or more persons, between groups as well as within oneself.

VARIOUS TYPES/FORMS OF CONFLICT

Conflict can be differentiate by this; Issues that surrounds the existence of conflict.

1. FRICTION: Friction under forms or types of conflict include the acknowledgement of others position. For example, this is the action/frictions that always occur between and among the unions and the government/man ement. Here people acknowledge others positions and will also have accept it.

2. STRUGGLE FOR POSITION: This form of conflict entails a change in the status quo. i.e. one of the party is not satisfied with the position he or she has and therefore demand for change of position. An epitome of struggle for position was obvious with different coup’d’tat which took place all over the world. Furthermore, under it’s characteristics, the fundamentals of the organization is net questionable.

3. STRATEGIC CONFLICT; under strategic conflict, the entire management, constitution, organization and the fundamental foundation is in question and has to be changed for the need of reforming and rebuilding of the system.

All the conflict, that is, friction, struggle for power, ad strategic conflict is grouped into two group which is hot and cold conflict.

Hot conflict is conflict that is open and active while cold conflict is conflict that is not open and active, i.e ideological war e.g cold war.

THE SIGNS OF CONFLICT. ( CONFLICT SIGNALS)

1. DISTORTED COMMUNICATION

Destructive Remark:- This is making an unusual comment against someone.

Cool and Formal:- This is when someone you are in good terms suddenly change his attitude towards you.

Cynic Remark same as ironic remarks:- this telling someone what you have in mind indirectly.

Avoidance of Contact:- This is keeping away from people as well as not ready to discuss or come in contact with people.

Over-reaction:- This is when someone has deep pains or being annoyed by someone else thereby unleashing the annoyance to any one around or to people whom come in contact with him.

2. RELATIONAL PROBLEMS

Fault Finding:- This is a sign of conflict when someone always finds fault with what other people do unnecessarily.

Strong Insistence ( highly opinionated):- this is when someone cannot be able to deal with other people opinion as well as strongly believe in his or her own view without going back on it and are always right.

Unappreciativeness:- this is non recognizance of the good in others.

Indirect resistance:- this sabotaging the system because one feels it does not directly affected by it.

Frequent Argument:- Always arguing over nothing and Open quarrel, which is always picking up problems with people.

3. WITHDRAWAL INTO ONESELF

Resignation, apathy, Request for replacement and quitting a job.

BRIEF JOB OF A CONFLICT MANAGER

1. EARLY RECOGNITION OF CONFLICT SIGNAL:- A good conflict manager should be able to dictate the uprising of a conflict situation as well as deal with it at the early stage before it escalates why, because conflict might be very difficult to deal with when it start. E.g. war.

2. CORRECT EVALUATION OF THE CONFLICT:- A conflict manager should be able to evaluate the conflict in question in order to ascertain what type of conflict it is, is it normal conflict of our normal life like argument or serious one that is likely to be life threaten. Like war est. why, because one cannot deal with an issue without being fully aware of what is involved in it.

3. ANALYSIS OF THE ISSUES INVOLVED:- that is, what are the issues involved, is it that of one perspective or general perspective. Understanding the position of the people involved as well as know how to settle the problem, that is, getting to the root of the problem and finding solution to it.

Blind Actionismus:- an individual trying to settle a problem without knowig what the problem is all about.

4. TO DIRECT:- It is the duty of the conflict management to ensure that the agreement reached are implemented. That is, after the conflict manager have succeeded in making the parties involved to reach an agreement he should also make sure that the agreement reached are implemented

Under the peace deal, Syrian troops must withdraw from protest centres by Tuesday. But US officials said the situation appeared to have worsened.

Monday proved to be one of the bloodiest days of the uprising, with activists reporting more than 100 dead.

Earlier violence spilled across Syria’s borders with Turkey and Lebanon.

Turkey protested angrily, summoning Syria’s envoy in Ankara after two incidents along their joint border left two dead and many injured, including Turkish citizens.

Separately a Lebanese cameraman was shot dead on Lebanon’s northern border with Syria.

Continue reading the main story Ceasefire timetable

• 10 April: Government must withdraw troops and heavy weapons such as tanks from towns, cities and villages
• Following 48 hours: Ceasefire to be implemented on the ground with the onus on the opposition to follow the government’s lead
• 06:00 local time on 12 April: All forms of violence must be stopped on all sides
• Next step: All parties to hold talks on a political solution

The surge in violence came on the eve of the deadline for troops to withdraw from Syrian towns and cities under the international peace plan brokered by UN and Arab League envoy Kofi Annan.

“We certainly have seen no signs yet of the Assad regime abiding by its commitments, which is obviously quite unfortunate,” White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters.

The US also expressed outrage over the violence along Syria’s border with Turkey.

“We join the Turkish government in calling for the Syrian regime to immediately cease fire,” state department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said.

“Not only has the violence not abated, it has been worse in recent days,” she said.

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon issued a statement deploring the violence on Syria’s borders.

He also made a final plea for the Syrian administration to halt all attacks on civilians, his spokesman is quoted by AFP news agency as saying.

Day of bloodshed

International condemnation poured in amid mounting pessimism over the prospects for Mr Annan’s peace deal. Earlier Turkey’s foreign minister described the April 10 deadline for troop withdrawal as “void”.

After earlier agreeing to Mr Annan’s plan, Damascus on Sunday called for written guarantees from rebel fighters to end attacks and a promise from foreign states not to fund them.

It said it did not want the rebels to exploit any troop withdrawal to reorganise and rearm themselves.

The rebel Free Syrian Army said although it backed the UN-Arab League truce, it refused to meet the government’s new demands.

Meanwhile violence intensified across the country on Monday.

Activists reported more than 100 deaths – among them at least 30 civilians who died in bombardment in the central province of Hama.

Harrowing scenes were reported in the town of al-Latmana, where 17 women and eight children were said to have been crushed under the rubble of their homes in the second attack on the area in days.

In the first of the skirmishes on the Turkish border at least two people died and many were wounded after people crossing from Syria into Turkey at Kilis were shot at by the Syrian army, the governor of Kilis told the BBC.

Violence has intensified in Syria as the ceasefire deadline approaches.

In the second incident at least two Syrian refugees and a Turkish translator were wounded inside a refugee camp after being hit by gunfire, possibly from stray bullets from clashes between Syrian rebels and troops.

Turkey has seen a sharp rise in the number of refugees coming over the border in the past week, and now hosts some 24,000 Syrians, including hundreds of army defectors.

In a separate incident, a Lebanese cameraman for Lebanon’s Al-Jadeed television channel was shot dead when a film crew came under a hail of bullets from troops on the Syrian side of the border.

Annan visit

A Western diplomat has told the BBC that the UN Security Council is expecting a letter from Kofi Annan on Tuesday regarding the Syrian government’s implementation – or lack – of a military pullback by the 10 April deadline.

Mr Annan will also briefly visit Syrian refugees on the Turkish border on Tuesday on his way to Iran, where he is expected to try to convince the Iranians to lean on the Syrian government to stop the bloodshed.

China has also urged both sides in the conflict to honour the peace deal. Correspondents say that Russia, Syria’s main ally, may now have to play a crucial role. Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem is in Moscow for talks.

The UN says more than 9,000 people have been killed in the uprising against Mr Assad’s rule which began more than a year ago.

The Syrian government says 2,000 security personnel have been killed in the uprising and blames the violence on “armed gangs” and “terrorists”.

Almost from the outset of Pyle and Fowler’s relationship, we begin to see his true nature seeping through. The conflict between them, resulting from Fowler’s jealousy of Pyle and his insecurities, eventually causes Fowler to break his vow to remain desengaged from the war. It is difficult to say whether Fowler was acting for the betterment of Vietnam in assisting with Pyle’s murder or whether it was for his own selfish purposes – to keep Phuong. As the novel unfolds, Green leans more towards exemplifying the latter, especially at the close ad Fowler wishes “there existed someone to whom [he] could say that [he] was sorry.” Fowler’s guilt and shame of his actions demonstrates his regret for what conflict caused him to do.

It isn’t possible to reveal who we truly are without being that person to begin with, therefore suggesing that Fowler has been engaged in the conflict the entire. This cannot be true as Fowler only really becomes involved after the bicycle bomb incident. So, although conflict can reveal who we truly are, sometimes it brings to light something that wasn’t evident in the beginning. Fowler’s selfish nature only showed itself as he began to realise Pyle’s true purpose in Vietnam – to initiate a third force. Hadn’t he always thought of what was best for Phuong? Hadn’t he always put the lives of the Vietnamese people first? These are characteristics of Fowler that have been there all along, regardless of the conflict that surrounds him.

It is not necessarily conflict that changes who we are. Every person is the amalgamation of all their personal experiences, relationships, childhood memories and countless others. We can see this in people of different cultures, different nationalities or different religions. Pyle, as an American, was brought up under the temple of democracy, and it was this idealistic upbringing that affected his actions in conflict, not the other way around. For Fowler on the other hand, it is his experience as a foreign reporter that shapes how he will come to act when conflict arises with Pyle, and with Vietnam in general. He understands how Vietnam works, what the people want, and most importantly, what Phuong wants. When conflict was at its peak and Fowler had no choice but to take a side, although his choice was largely beneficial, it was made for the benefit of the Vietnamese people. If Pyle had been left to his own devices, his ignorance and lack of understanding would have resulted in death, destruction and loss.

Conflict is not what brings about a change in people; it is more like the turning point that forces people to act in a personal way in an interpersonal situation. THis is evident in the Quiet American because Fowler only became “engagé” as he progressed into the conflict with Pyle. Before Pyle landed in Vietnam, Fowler was almost entirely separated from all aspects of life. His wife was left halfway across the world in England, and the important matters surrounding their situation were simply abandoned. From the outset of the novel, Fowler tells us that he prefers the title of a reporter, rather than a foreign correspondant because he claims not to take a side. He even uses opium as a means of escaping from his thoughts. To say Fowler was detached from the world is an understatement. However, the conflict takes a toll on Fowler and it brings forth the feelings and emotions and secret values that he had kept locked up the entire time.

If you were to ask American soldiers going into Vietnam if they would want to murder innocent civilians, they would have said no. If you were to ask them the same question before the My Lai Massacre, where hundreds of unarmed peasants were slaughtered, they would have said no. If you could ask them no, after years of living with guilt and shame, no would be the only reply. Conflict has no effect on our values or our morals. Most of the soldiers who took part in the My Lai Massacre and other events such as that were simply following orders, deeply ignorant of what was going on around them. Conflict only reveals how we, as human brings, act under pressure. It shows us at our weakest and most vulnerable, but not necessarily our true state.

Such has been the case many a time in history. America has been possessed by the concept of homeland security, using it as a justification for the Vietnam War, and in more recent times, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Yet how can such an ignorant and flawed concept justify the atrocious acts committed in these wars? How is one life worth more than another? It is the curse of conflict to skew the morals of upstanding humans and to degrade us to a level where killing one another is tolerable.

Fowler becomes caught up in a conflict he had fought to remain neutral in. On one side he has a friend who murders unknowingly for his beliefs have rendered him blind. On the other side is Fowler’s home and safe haven with Phuong. Just like the American response to the fear of terrorism, Fowler responds out of fear for his friend, and the fear that he might lose his security. It is this fear that causes Fowler to murder Pyle. The recurring fear of losing safety and security tends to eventuate into conflict, whether it is a personal conflict or a war.

Image illustrating the different types of hearing aids. Retrieved from http://www.nidcd.nih.gov/health/hearing/hearingaid.asp on November 25th, 2007. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

It happen to me the other day

Another soft speaker came my way

An attempt to communicate I could not hear

Excuse me could you speak a little louder my dear

I try not to be rude

Because your voice is battling with the environment

Soft speakers often lose

While the listener feel like a fool

I close my eyes to concentration on their request

But in many cases it still does not help

I continue to try and do my best

Soft speakers please speak a little louder is my request

Česky: Naslouchadlo – instalace do ucha English: Hearing aid, photo taken in Sweden (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

As I get older my hearing seem to fade

I continue to work in this world without a hearing aid

Soft speakers sometimes do not understand your blight

It often makes me sad and wants to fight

I am not being mean because I cannot understand

Because your words are blown with the winds

If you are a soft speaker please speak up

I am a gentle person and do not like to fuss

With the ReSound Unite family of wireless hearing aid accessories, you can connect your hearing aid to your TV, mobile phone or remote control through a 2.4 GHz wireless connection. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

This research report is based on the hostile attitudes embedded upon Africans leading to inter-tribal conflicts that occur from time to time, for which the seeds were sown by European colonialism. Since, this is such a broad topic, the discussion will be narrowed down to one brutal and devastating conflict in modern history, which is the Rwandan genocide of 1994.

Unlike other countries, Africa is viewed as a “tribal” country. According to Mafeje (1971, pg 253), when European rulers invaded Africa, they “reconstructed the African reality”, and due to some racial norms, they regarded the Africans as tribal. When Europeans first laid the rudiments of racial discrimination into the African society, it marked the beginning of inter-tribal conflicts in Africa. Countries such as Belgium, France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, Portugal, and Spain infested almost all of Africa, leaving Ethiopia and Liberia independent (Africa 1999). In 1885, Germany was allotted Rwanda, following the World War 1 Belgium took over (Olojede 2004).  One of the smallest countries in Central Africa is Rwanda, which is mainly occupied by two ethnic groups known as Hutu and Tutsi, where Hutu were the majority, and Tutsi were the minority. They spoke the same language, and shared the same cultural beliefs. Their origins are traced to a common group known as the Badyarwanda, (Hutu and Tutsi 1994). The Hutu were mostly agriculturalists and the Tutsi were cattle breeders.

In the year 1994, an outrageous mass murdering took place in Rwanda, which was the outburst of suppressed feelings of hatred. The roots of the genocide lies in the winding events of the Rwandan history since the colonial era, where the formation of two groups known as the ‘Young Turk movement of the Tutsi Rwandans in exile and a clan-based Hutu oligarchy that controlled the Rwandan estate under President Juvenal Habyarimana’ (Jones 2001, pg 15) where the Hutu went to the extent of perishing hundreds and thousands of Tutsi, yet did not stop there but killed many of their own people who sympathized with the other ethnic group. A survivor of the genocide movement, Jean Baptiste Kayigamba narrated his feelings (2006) and he claimed that “we experienced haunted mornings and our fears continued throughout the days and sleepless nights”. The Hutu weeded out every Tutsi they could lay their hands on, sparing only those people who had the sense to flee the country. A Hutu wife had to kill a Tutsi husband, and vice versa, the theory behind this being “kill or be killed” (Melson 2000). A fact noticed to elaborate on the severity of abhorrence is, “[Rwanda had] a population of 7.5 million before the genocide and 6.5 million after it”, (Taylor 1999).

Since Rwanda got their independence from Belgium in 1962, the Hutu majority seized power from the minority group and oppressed them through violent conducts of discrimination. To quote Smith (1998, pg 743), “…Tutsi and Hutu kill each other when they can; their hatred is ancient, violent, equivalent, and incorrigible. And this notion in turn, implies a kind of collective guilt, a tear in the fabric of Rwandan character”. Many Tutsi could not tolerate such acts and fled the country before they became victims of callous treatment.  As mentioned by Lang (2002) the actual conflict started when an airplane carrying the Rwandan president Juvenal Habyarimana, the president of Burundi, ‘and many of their top-advisors [who were] shot down by a surface-to-air missile over Kigali Airport’, although the culprit of this incident remains a mystery, but the Rwandan Patriotic Front which were led by Tutsi became the scapegoat for this bombing. This bombing initiated the Rwandan genocide, in which many puissant nations could not voice their opinion upon. Once the peacekeeping nations’ soldiers were tortured and murdered, they began to retreat their personnel from the places, but did not make any effort to evacuate the Tutsi, abandoning them to a cruel destiny.

The above mentioned tragic incident was the result of the maturation of the seeds sown by European Colonial rule. It is only an example of one incident, but Europeans have contributed for many other devastating inter-tribal conflicts in Africa. For example, the Cold War of Africa in July 1960, where the Premium Patrice Lumumba of the Congo (Africa 1999) claimed that the “Belgians were aiding the rebel [of] Katangans” – who are the natives of the mineral-rich province of Zaire.

The Europeans believed that it is a moral responsibility to establish colonies in that continent, and to promote the benefits of their culture to their “inferior brothers”. They failed to understand that they were supposed to help the people with practical benefits such as providing sufficient food, clothing, and shelter, and not impose their beliefs upon the natives. As Taylor (1999) aptly justified that “anthropological approaches to nationalism, ethnicity, and violence are all important in understanding the Rwandan genocide 1994. Yet these aspects clamour so much for attention that they obscure other dimensions such as regionalism, class, and gender”.

Such interventions from the Europeans disturbed the natural lifestyle of the natives. The Germans marched into Rwanda and started their domination disregarding the aborigines’ baffled frame of mind. “In 1885, the Berlin Conference had “awarded” Rwanda to Germany without consulting or even informing the Rwandans; In 1918 Rwanda and its neighbor Burundi were awarded to Belgium as a mandate under the League of Nations and later the United Nations” (Robinson 2003) and divided the peaceful, united community into three castes: Hutu, Tutsi, and Twa (who make up one percent of the population). The Hutu were the original Rwandans, the Tutsi formed a new kingdom as “mobility and migration were permanent features, as old as settlement itself”, (Scherrer 2002, pg17). The reason for this division is the fact that the Belgians considered that though both groups were African, the Tutsi bore a greater resemblance of the Europeans because at that time they defined “Tutsi as anyone with more than ten cows, or a long nose, while a Hutu meant someone with fewer than ten cows and a blunt nose”, (Wikipedia n.d) and the facial features were considered more European than African, “in fact they couldn’t believe that the Tutsi were part of the African race at all”, (Wikipedia n.d). The Europeans were also in short of human resource to manage their colonies in Africa, (Melson 2000) and since, the Tutsi were immigrants, the Europeans assumed that their outlooks would coincide, hence it was decided that Tutsi should take control since they were the minority, being easier to manage they should possess the superior authority. Unfortunately for the Belgians, their expectations backfired. The Tutsi were dissatisfied with their position because ultimately Belgians had the overall control of the woebegone country, and so in the mid 1900s, “movements of national liberation from colonialism took hold in Africa as they had elsewhere, the Tutsi began to agitate against Belgian authority”, (Robinson 2003). The Hutu were seething as they were ruled by a minor ethnic group, so in order to retain position, the Europeans started supporting towards the Hutu and provoked them to abduct the power from the latter group. This provocation intensified and led to the Rwandan genocide.

Racial distinctions were common in Europe in the 19th century, and they enforced their laws over the countries they colonized. Clearly, they were not aware of the repercussions of their imposed laws and beliefs upon an entirely different community, as such detrimental effects would not have occurred, which complicates the lives of the natives and producing an image of superior and inferior class between people condemning them to a nemesis of living death.

[References]

Africa 1999, CD-ROM, IBM’s World Book Deluxe, Armonk, New York.

‘Hutu and Tutsi’ 1994, The Christian Century, June 15, pg 600. 

Jones, B 2001, Peacemaking in Rwanda: The Dynamics of Failure, Lynne Rienner, Colorado.

Kayigamba, J 2006, Haunted Mornings, Sleepless Nights: Jean Baptiste Kayigamba describes how he survived genocide in Rwanda. Retrieved from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0JQP/is_390/ai_n16619222

Lang, A 2002, ‘Global Governance and Genocide in Rwanda’, Ethics and International Affairs, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 143+. 

Mafeje, A 1971, ‘The Ideology of Tribalism’, The Journal of Modern African Studies, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp 253-261.

Melson, R 2000, Institute for the Study of Genocide; International Association of Genocide Scholars, Retrieved from http://www.isg-iags.org/oldsite/newsletters/25/melson-html

Olojede, D 2004, History of Rwanda. Retrieved from http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/ny-rwanda-

Robinson, L 2003, The Tragedy of Rwanda – When Victims Become Killers: Colonialism, Nativism, and the Genocide in Rwanda – A People Betrayed: The Role of the West in Rwanda’s Genocide – Book Review. Retrieved from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1132/is_7_55/ai_111503535

Scherrer, P 2002, Genocide and Crisis in Central Africa: Conflict Roots, Mass Violence, and Regional War, Praeger, Connecticut.

Smith, D 1998, ‘The Psychocultural Roots of Genocide: Legitimacy and Crisis in Rwanda’, American Psychologist, vol. 53, no. 7, pg 743.

Taylor, C 1999, Sacrifice as Terror: The Rwandan Genocide of 1994, Berg Publishing, New York.

Wikipedia n.d., Tutsi. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tutsi

How would the soldiers and officers have felt knowing that they were responsible for the deaths of many innocent civilians? The children in the photo are not menacing or threatening. They don’t carry guns or knives yet they paid a heavy price. Conflict cannot distinguish between right and wrong, a mistake often made by humans as well. Conflict can, however, show the true nature of the people in it, exposing their flaws or highlighting their strengths. The soldiers in the picture don’t seem to care at all for the situation at hand, and especially not for the distraught children. It’s almost as if it were a training drill to them.

There is always a reason for conflict, even if it is not entirely clear, or if it is extremely flawed. Such is the case in this situation. It was simply a defence of the homeland, taken place in another country, because of an irrational fear. This is one of the reasons why the image really took hold. Its emotive imagery and down-to-the-point message drastically opposed what the public was being fed by the American government and became a symbol of the anti-war movements. It successfully contributed to the beginning of the end of the Vietnam War, and may have saved countless lives.

This is where many people have a problem. In America, you can choose to fail. You can choose to be unsuccessful. It is NOT the government’s job to take care of us. It is NOT the government’s job to ensure we are successful. The Occupy Movement is focused on creating awareness of social and economic inequality along with shutting down large corporation which, they feel, are reshaping our lives. The current administration is accommodating this concept and presenting legislation which gives the government even more control of our lives.

The Occupy Movement and those who are finding themselves in dire straits financially are in favor of the government intrusion into our freedoms because it is something else they are not paying for. They feel it is another way they are able to “stick it” to the man. It is easy to fight against something just by saying it is bad. Our society is in a constant battle over everything it seems: White and Black, AFC and NFC, East and West, Democrat and Republican, Occupy and Tea Party. This is normal, but there is no defined plan for the future with the Occupy Movement. What are we supposed to do once you close the corporations down? Do you know how to farm? Do you know how to make a pair of jeans? Do you know how to start a fire?

Too often today we are punishing the successful. Instead of praising the man who has what he wants in life, we are pushing people to take from these people without working for their own success. So you have student loans and it’s not fair. It’s nice that you live in a country where you have the opportunity to go to school and are able to borrow money for college from the government. Now when it is time to pay back, you say it’s not fair. If you borrowed that money from a friend, I’m sure they would not be happy that you would not pay them back.

You don’t have enough money to pay your tuition, yet you can afford $5.00 Starbucks coffee every day as you listen to Pandora on a $400.00 cell phone which you are paying $100.00 per month in service charges. Hmm… It sounds like you just need to reprioritize what is important to you.

There is a very simple way to fight ‘big” corporations: Don’t buy their products and/or services. Support local businesses. Fight for the little girl in Portland who was told she needed a $120.00 license to operate her lemonade stand and not the grunge-styled, Starbucks coffee-drinking, Apple iPad, iPod, iMac-toting, Hollister designer jeans-wearing hypocrite who shouts he has been victimized by big business.

Sources

Occupy Together (2012). Retrieved from http://www.occupytogether.org/

Oregon Live (2010). Portland lemonade stands run into health inspector, needs $120.00 license to operate. Retrieved from http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2010/08/portland_lemonade_stand_runs_i.html

Shut Down the Corporations (2012). Retrieved from http://www.shutdownthecorporations.org/