In this post, I will be talking about the Afghanistan war. The reason for this war was clear from the beginning: preventing any further terrorist attacks on the United States. Moreover, the terrorists also threaten Afghanistan civilians, making their removal a positive event for those who experience pain from this group. While this operation does increase pain for both sides in the short term, its long-term impact is intended to make it worthwhile. The overall pleasure from the outcome of this conflict is expected to be significant for the world, which will become a safer place with fewer sources of pain. I think that a utilitarian would support this war directly after the initial terrorist attacks, as the perceived benefit will be increased happiness for the United States from the lack of outside threats. Another source of pleasure that could be derived from this action is the feeling of rightful revenge upon a group that has wronged the country.
Despite the initial perceived benefits of this militaristic operation, the consequences were devastating and were not worth the suffering. Moreover, the expected outcome of this conflict was the removal of the threat from the Taliban. After 20 years, the United States ceased all operations that aimed to remove the Taliban. In a recent news article, Schultz writes, “the Taliban surge occurring in Afghanistan as the U.S. troops are already 90% gone.” The decision to pull the military forces out is linked directly with the failure to achieve the beneficial effect of this action. These results outweigh any potential positive effects that the war could have had, as the amount of pain brought by it overshadows the temporary pleasure from more minor victories. Knowing the full extent of this conflict, a utilitarian would not support this war.
Upon the discovery of the evidence of significant pain that would have been inflicted in the case if the Taliban was not attacked by the U.S. troops, a utilitarian can be convinced to support the war. Additional terrorist attacks, government coups, and other sources of prolonged and highly probable pain causes can change utilitarians’ views.
I do not agree with the utilitarian approach, as militaristic conflicts are often destroying more lives than could be perceived through the number of people killed in action. These losses affect generations and society as a whole, and the pain they bring can not be measured accurately.
Many had an optimistic perspective believing that this year would be the final in the COVID-19 era. People wished for the long-awaited time of relief for the global community and economy would soon come. However, with the Russian government launching a full-scale military invasion of Ukraine, many people’s expectations regarding the future improvement of their financial status and life were undermined and destroyed. As the primary measure to localize and de-escalate the conflict and force the Russian Federation to peace, “the US and other Western nations have imposed unprecedented economic sanctions on Russia and announced support for Ukraine” (Solomon & Ha, 2022, para. 2). One can safely say that the new disastrous conflict in Eastern Europe and the financial isolation of such a big and influential resource and agricultural market player will negatively impact the world economic system.
Russo-Ukrainian War and Accelerating Global Inflation
Rising inflation is one type of financial damage that the Russo-Ukrainian War is already doing to many other countries. According to Liboreiro (2022), “inflation in March reached 7.5% on an annual basis,” which is a record for the European Economic Area (para. 2). Given that the current times outside the conflict zone are not of a crisis nature but somewhat of a stagnation one, its rate in the countries of the European Union is beginning to look significant and even catastrophic. Such negative deviations will inevitably affect the macro level of the world economy.
Future Commodity and Wheat Crises
It is no secret that war is such a civilizational phenomenon whose negative socio-economic consequences always outweigh its positive ones. Many experts predict that in addition to high inflation, there will also be a significant increase in prices for commodities, public utilities, and food, wheat products especially (David, 2022). The latter is because both sides of the conflict are also top exporters of wheat in the Eurozone and globally.
Hurka considers the Falklands war a minor just causes because getting into war to deter future aggressors is not justified (Hashana 1). The motivation for the British to defend this faraway island territory by citing deterrence seemed insufficient to justify the consequences in a war proportionality calculation. However, the war should be viewed as a battle between democracy and tyranny because the British’s historic reclaim of the Island freed the people from oppression. Based on all facts, there were other independent just causes to make deterrence become a relevant benefit of the war. There are circumstances in which resorting to war is morally justified, and there are modest means to finding justice for the oppressed.
Whatever the wrongs and rights of Britain and Argentina fought over the Island, the inhabitants had the right to live freely without fear of suppression. The responsibility for the deaths perpetrated on the Island was more on the perpetrators because the British had a duty to defend the Islanders. According to Hurka’s statement, the types of benefits relevant to war can be pinned on whether war prevents aggression or major rights violations by a government. Both conditions were fulfilled; therefore, the good, achieved count not controversial against the harms caused by the war. The non-combatant status was protected, with only three civilian casualties in the war. In the end, there must be some proportion between war and cost to achieve them, such as human lives and destruction of property. It is possible to claim there was a proportionate just cause since the British successfully liberated the Island from Argentine oppressors with minimum impact on the oppressed.
Fighting war per the jus in bello (justice in war) rules is permissible even if a nation is morally wrong in resorting to war (Hashana 16). The apparent fact that the Falklands War was fought within the limits of just war rule is important. The Falklands War provides a specific counter-example to the jus in bello rule because there was little evidence of unnecessary killings. A total of three civilians out of the 900 casualties indicates only 3% of the deaths were unnecessary. Despite the Island’s sparse population and remoteness to Britain, the war outcome shows the possibility of fighting within the spirit and intentions of humanitarian laws. Nevertheless, it does not disregard the contentious question of whether the total losses of the war were justified.
It is necessary to show that all alternatives were exhausted to justify that war was a last resort. It should be noted that there was a longstanding dispute over the Island between Argentina and Britain by 1982. Negotiation proceedings pursued for fifteen years also resulted in no resolution. As far as the just war requirement is concerned, the several years of negotiation amount to sufficient exhaustion of non-violent alternatives. This argument implies that just cause for war was only possible before the aggression. The view entails the conclusion that subjects of aggression or injustice have the right to fight back or are eligible to allow others to do it on their behalf (Kamm 219). Therefore, it was only justified for Britain to intervene, given its links to the oppressed people.
The prospect of the British fighting to reclaim Falklands Island seemed inconceivable because of its sparse population and remoteness from Britain. It raises the question of whether it is right to count the prospect of success as a positive value for moral war calculation. It may seem strange to assume that predatory states have the moral right to wage war on their neighbors because of the high prospect of success. If applied in the negative (low prospect), the argument can weaken a just war cause already made on other grounds. From this point of view, one can argue that Argentina’s prospect of success validated its war proposition and justification to oppress the Islanders. In the process, Argentina attacked the British territory, warranting the prima-facie right of violent response by Britain. Based on Kamm’s analogy, it is plausible to argue that the lives and well-being of the Falklands inhabitant were not under immediate threat due to the presence of Argentine troops (219). However, the occupation of the Argentina forces imposed plenty of ground for fear because any disagreement or dissent could result in brutality or death.
Nonetheless, the effect of the war on the army might significantly undermine the British just cause for war claim. For instance, the financial and human costs of the Falklands War appear out of proportion to the territory’s value or political freedom. It seems illogical for Britain to accept greater risks for 1000 troops at the expense of 1800 people who desire to retain their government of choice. Hurka argues that war with a comparatively minor cause, like the Falklands War, needs to use volunteer soldiers to be proportionate (Hashana 14). Although troops are the primary target in a war, and their death has minimal weight, sending 1000 soldiers to death to rescue less than twice the number of people seems disproportionate. It may seem politically desirable, an act of self-defense, but not at the expense of over 300 soldiers claimed by the war.
The cost of the war in terms of military spending also raises questions about what level of expenditure would be appropriate in the case. For instance, one can evaluate the cost of the war based on alternative investments, such as hospitals, that will bring more benefits to the citizens than the war. Nevertheless, international aggression also invades homes and warrants raising the level of defensive forces one may use for self-defense. The general rule here is that some things must be done at any cost.
My proportion is that no grievances justify aggressive war as a last resort to solving conflicts. Despite Argentina’s longstanding territorial dispute on Falklands Island, it did not have a just cause for war using the high prospect of success as a justification. Nevertheless, Britain had a reasonable cause for war in response to aggression by Argentina because the wishes of the local inhabitants should be an overriding consideration for protection. Therefore, Argentina should bear the bulk of responsibility for the war since it abandoned diplomacy and resorted to coercion and violence. The fight against political aggression can be morally permitted, but proportionality and necessity judgment cannot be made with absolute precision. So, the outcomes of the war may always be subjective to several variables that, when taken together, determine the justification and success of the war. In the Falklands war case, going to war seemed the last resort since negations failed to yield a resolution while the lives of British citizens were at risk.
Kamm, Frances. “9 Self-Defense, Resistance, and Suicide: The Taliban Women.” The Moral Target: Aiming at Right Conduct in War and Other Conflicts, Oxford Ethics Series, 2012, pp. 217-227.
From 1337 to 1453, England and France engaged in the “Long War,” sometimes known as “The Hundred Years’ War.” The disagreement between King Edward III (reign: 1327–1377) and King Philip VI (reign: 1328–1350) over feudal rights in Gascony escalated into an all-out war for the crown of France. The French won in the end and occupied all of France apart from Calais. As a result of fighting for so long against a common foe, both sides came to feel more deeply rooted in their respective nations (Runyan 91). The friendly competition between these two close neighbors has been channeled into international sporting competitions. More than a century (from 1337 to 1453) passed, during which England and France were at war, with neither side ever appearing to win. The conflict’s aftermath impacted both countries, as expected from any battle of this duration.
Discussion
For both France and England, the most obvious consequence of the Hundred Years’ War was the realization that they would never again engage in a war of that type, in which so much time, energy, and money were wasted with no observable return. Both countries’ ruling classes and general populations chose to focus on something other than what was happening. Dispossession of all French territory held by the English apart from Calais (Bruso 14). Although a separate period of hostilities between the French and the English ended in 1453, the Hundred Years’ War never ended, and the French remained on guard for the eventual return of the English. The English crown maintained its claim to the French throne. The ongoing invasions by England were not so much an effort to reclaim lost territory due to Henry VI’s insanity, and rival noble factions could not agree on past or future policies.
Henry VI’s mental illness exacerbated the power struggle between the houses of Lancaster and York in England, also known as the Wars of the Roses. Veterans of the Hundred Years’ War participated in the conflict. Many people died during the Wars of the Roses, including members of Britain’s upper class. It was not until 1801 that England gave up its claim to the French throne, and it was until 1558 that Calais was freed from English rule (Bucholz et al. 1584). However, a turning point had been reached, and the southern part of France was no longer in English hands.
In France, the fighting had caused extensive damage, which was exacerbated by official army raids targeting opposition rulers, resulting in civilian deaths, property destruction, looting, and burning crops. Brigands were often to blame; these were often ex-soldiers who had no lord and were plundering for themselves and their families. The economy suffered disruption and damage, people fled or were massacred, and taxes rose as more and more money was funneled into the military. Historical scholar Guy Blois compared the events of the 1430s and 1440s to “Hiroshima in Normandy” (75). Some people, no doubt, benefited from the increased military spending.
However, while taxation in pre-war France had been sporadic, it has become a consistent part of life since the end of hostilities. Increases in royal power and revenue, as well as the size of the armed forces they could field, were made possible by this expansion of government, which allowed for the establishment of a standing army based on the innovative use of gunpowder (Rogers 75). After centuries of limited monarchy, France has begun the transition to an absolute one. Additionally, the battered economy quickly started to recover.
A big surge of taxes to pay for the war was another result of the war, contributing to societal unrest in both countries. Farmers were the ones who paid the most price for the war in both France and Britain. They were subjected to mandatory military service and increased taxation (Rogers 64). However, those who made it through the battle were essential as warriors and laborers. Because of this, the common people gained sway and strength due to the conflict.
Although before the onset of war, England’s tax structure was more streamlined than France’s and was more answerable to parliament, royal income plunged for various reasons, the most significant of which was the loss of Normandy and Aquitaine, two affluent regions in France. However, during a period, some Englishmen became very wealthy due to the pillage taken from France and utilized their newly found fortune to construct homes and religious structures in England (Runyan 84). A monarchy served as the system of government in England.
The greatest legacy of World War II, especially in England, was possibly the development of a strong feeling of national pride and patriotism. This development was because generations of English and French people had grown up with nothing but the war in France and because propaganda had been circulated to generate money for the struggle (Reese 201). The French victory over England and other rebel French nobles enhanced the unity of the French kingdom.
Conclusion
Ultimately, England and France had to rebuild their economies and societies after the devastating effects of so many years of war. From all outward appearances, England’s monarchy had come out on the losing end, with its claim to control France being summarily rejected. Anyone familiar with the vastly diverse versions of what happened in London in 1415 and 1450 will immediately recognize the stark contrast between the illustrious years of Edward III and Henry V.
Works Cited
Bruso, Jordan J. “The Siege of Calais During the Hundred Years War: An English Perspective”, 2022, pp.1344-1347.
Bucholz, Robert, and Newton Key. Early modern England: A narrative history. John Wiley & Sons, 2019, pp. 1485-1714
Regan, Bernard. “Rashid Khalidi, The Hundred Years’ War on Palestine: A History of Settler Colonialism and Resistance, 1917–2017”, 2020 pp.226–228.
Reese, Roger R. “The Legacy of World War II for Putin’s Russia.” South Central Review, vol. 35, no. 1, 2018, pp. 196–212.
Rogers, Clifford J. “The Military Revolutions of the Hundred Years War 1.” The Military Revolution Debate. Routledge, 2018, pp. 55-94
Runyan, Timothy J. “Naval Logistics in the Late Middle Ages: The Example of the Hundred Years’ War.” Feeding Mars. Routledge, 2019, pp. 79–100.
The observation of contemporary geopolitical situations and history via the framework provided by economic theories provides a new perspective on the issues of politics. Game theory allows an easy interpretation of the situation within the borders of Ukraine and Russia. The theory reviews the situation from the perspective of economic incentives and what kind of actions could be taken to achieve the desired outcome. In the case of Russia and Ukraine, using the game theory, it was established that the invasion revolved around Western Reaction. In addition, by establishing the desired outcomes for the two, it is possible to review the likelihood of other decisions. Therefore, Russian incentive to retain Ukraine as a close ally outside of NATO. Simultaneously, NATO wants Ukraine to retain self-determination without guaranteeing its security via admission to NATO. If the West and Russia pursue a zero-sum game, nobody will prevail, and Ukraine’s security will remain ambiguous. The framework provides an insight into the situation and regards the situation as a natural course of action aimed to benefit Russia.
The framework considers incentives as an essential part of the consideration of decisions. However, it does not necessarily provide a logical explanation that allows making an assumption for the specificity of such incentives. In consideration of the Russia-Ukraine review, it is possible that the incentive lies in the unwillingness of Russia to give up its ally. However, some point out that the reason for the Russian invasion is purely related to the aggressive expansion of Slavic ambitions and Putin’s personal agenda toward Ukraine. There is no reason to deny both assumptions, but it is necessary to consider how to choose the most fitting forecast.
Nevertheless, my horizons were broadened by the approach as it led to the evaluation of the implementation of nuclear weapons in the ongoing conflict. This evaluation followed the principle that considered the implementation of such weapons of mass destruction as a negative consequence for both sides. However, Russia may benefit from the exclusive usage of the weapon. Although alternatively, I would have approached the subject from the perspective of political science and the principle of a deterrent that allows justifying the supposed unwillingness to use nuclear weapons.
The article under review, The war’s price tag for Russia will be high by Ben Aris (2022), touches on the Russia-Ukraine conflict and the costs the former is set to incur for choosing to start it. The author sums up all that Russia has lost and is likely to lose, including comparing pre-war and post-war growth and cost projections, economic stagnation, and lost productivity. The author then concludes with what to expect as the conflict evolves and what the long-term future looks like.
Opportunity cost refers to possible benefits an entity misses out on when they go with a given alternative over another. This concept relates to the topic covered because the article discusses what Russia lost by choosing to start the conflict with Ukraine. The author outlines what the country has lost, including potential economic growth, productivity, quality of life for its citizens, technological advancement, and certainty. All these are promising opportunities Russia lost because of starting the war.
This is an informative article, drawing from the author’s approach. First, the article includes numbers and figures from different studies and reports. Second, it features comments from experts and knowledgeable individuals. The author includes projections, percentages, and estimations to depict what Russia has lost clearly. He also provides input from different stakeholders, talking about what the country stood to gain and what it has lost by initiating the conflict.
The author did well and reasonably covered the topic thoroughly. The context provided is adequate because the article covers Russia’s outlook before the conflict, during, and after. It also includes concrete figures that paint an exact picture of the situation as it evolves. The reader leaves well-informed and equipped with adequate information about what the country has lost by choosing to instigate the conflict. No relevant information is left out in this concise explanation of Russia’s predicament.
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s (NATO) Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear (CBRN) Defence Policy distinguishes between four types of WMD. While all WMD types are capable of causing massive levels of destruction, nuclear weapons pose the most serious threat to the world due to their particularly devastating power. According to NATO (2022), the global security environment has deteriorated significantly over the past decade, which increases the likelihood of a WMD attack. The Russian invasion of Ukraine was a serious factor in the escalation of the situation around potential WMD deployment. The Bulletin Science and Security Board (2022) shares NATO’s concerns, leaving the famous Doomsday Clock at 100 seconds to midnight. In other words, the world is dangerously close to a global nuclear apocalypse.
Much of the Russian problem is related to Vladimir Putin, or to be more precise, his personality issues and perception of global politics. According to Strozier and Terman (2022), Putin has a fundamentalist view of the world, where he and Russia represent decent, traditional values, while the West stands for everything immoral and disgusting. In Putin’s eyes, the war in Ukraine is less a pursuit of territorial or political gains and more of a fight against corrupt world order led by the loathsome Western civilization. While Putin is obviously delusional, he sees only two possible outcomes of the Ukrainian conflict — victory or humiliating defeat (Strozier & Terman, 2022). As such, a perspective of a humiliating defeat may give him the incentive to launch a desperate last-ditch WMD attack.
In the case of nuclear weapons, the global community has limited options for stopping Putin through direct action. The chemical, biological, and radiological WMD are a serious threat, but the impact of their deployment may be localized. However, a global nuclear war would undoubtedly result in billions of deaths and destruction unknown to humankind. No country, military, or political union can realistically prepare for such a scenario. Therefore, the global community should stop Putin from winning without driving him to the line of humiliating defeat. Assistance to Ukraine should remain continuous yet cautious and gradual. At the same time, the military and intelligence agencies should consider Putin a dangerous madman and closely monitor the situation in Kremlin. Otherwise, Putin may suddenly behave like a cornered rat, deploying strategic nuclear weapons and dooming the world to destruction.
On September 11, 2001, devastating terrorist attacks took place on the United States that resulted in the death of about 3,000 people and the injury of about 6,000. The terrorists’ attacks were the start of the battle cry for the search of liberty and freedom as American politicians promised to do everything in their powers to protect the way of life of the Americans.
Consequently, the U.S. went to war in Iraq for the second time as part of the war on terror aimed at preventing the innocent shading of blood in the name of perverted ideology. The U.S. invasion of Iraq was justified.
The Saddam Hussein regime had associations with Al Qaeda terrorist group. Even though the Iraqi government was not directly involved in the planning of the 9/11 attacks, it provided a good operating environment for Ansar al-Islam, a big terrorist group linked to Al Qaeda.
The war in Iraq assisted in weakening the strength of this terrorist organization, which is essential for the security of the American people. The Saddam administration took measures to provide a “safe haven” for the existence of terrorist networks in the country since they were seen as allies against the west.
Whereas the Iraqi’s government associations with terrorist organizations was enough reason to justify the U.S. invasion of the country, human rights abuses that were practiced by the regime facilitated the decision to go to war.
The Saddam regime murdered at least 50,000 Kurds using dangerous weapons; therefore, his history of human rights abuses put him in the same class as the terrorists.
Thus, his overthrow was essential for the peace of the world. That being said, the Iraqis were yearning for someone to rescue them from Saddam’s tyrannical leadership. Investigations later revealed that even after the introduction of the oil for food program, Saddam was keeping a large quantity of food that was intended to feed the country’s starving citizens.
Individuals who disagree with the war in Iraq have claimed that weapons of mass destruction, which were the primary justification for the war, were not found in the country. Even though this is true, it does not paint the whole picture since facilities for making and testing the weapons were found.
This implies that the regime was able to assemble quickly large amounts chemical and biological weapons to use them in creating massive destruction in the planet. There is also the possibility, as later reports indicated, that the regime might have smuggled the weapons outside the country.
Even though weapons of mass destruction were not found in the country, there is no doubt that Saddam had the ability of making them due to his strong link to terrorism and his constant threats hinting at the possibility of their use. If not, why then did he limit the movement of the weapons inspectors in the country?
As the world’s superpower, the U.S. has continued to play a crucial role in creating democracies around the world. A major objective of the country’s foreign policy is to promote democracy in different places around the world.
If the U.S. had not intervened in assisting to oust some dictators such as Saddam Hussein, the situation in these countries could be intolerable due to the mistreatment of these dictators. The efforts that the U.S. has put have led to beneficial effects and many countries around the world are enjoying the fruits of democratic governance.
The essay covers the role of prejudice in wars in Iraq. It defines prejudice and explains its role and effects. Other forms or factors of prejudice such as racism and discrimination are explained. The main causes of prejudice are explained and how they can be used to resolve and be used for the benefit of fighting discrimination and stereotyping. Ways in which citizens can assist to promote peace and helping the eradication of prejudice are suggested.
Role of prejudice in wars in Iraq
Prejudice is negative attitude and feelings towards a certain group, which include discrimination of people due to their race, actions, beliefs and/or feelings. Prejudice is commonly used with discrimination and stereotyping since they have the same meaning, and go hand in hand. Prejudice in psychology is the science that affects the social mind.
They are used to disintegrate people instead of bringing them together as one. It breaks relationships which may exists between individuals or groups even if the relationship is negative like in the cases of military patriotism (Plous, 2003). War has been commonly used to dehumanize groups of people with the intention of killing or casualties.
The Iraq war is the most popular in describing prejudice. The U.S invaded Iraq because it is claimed that Muslims from Iraq, who are popularly known to carry out terrorism (jihad) bombed the Twin Towers on the 911 incident. The terrorists retaliated by bombing U.S, thus the cycle of war continues. This creates a gap between the two as the Muslims see themselves different from us and we also see ourselves different from them, thus creating a gap between the humans.
Prejudice has played many roles, the main one being loss of human life, which is generated via war. Those participating in these wars are encouraged by being honored and valued, this being the reason as to why war and prejudice never end. Many lie about what war is and its’ consequences by sugar coating it and in some instances, lie of their involvement.
Those responsible end up being awarded medals or excuses are given, which leave them free without trial or punishment. It clearly portrays racism, sexism, heterosexism and exploitation of indigenous people, animals and the environment at large as some of the major effects that bring about human conflict and enmity.
Racism has led to increased prejudice, which is the main cause of ethnic conflicts and wars in the Middle East and Africa whereas in other states, it has led to debates and controversies on race, racism, nationalism and multiculturalism.
A good example is the genocides which took place in the 1990’s with Rwanda (Africa) being the worst affected leaving millions wounded, homeless and many dead. Other genocides have occurred in Bosnia and Kosovo. These events have led to researches on the issues of prejudice and racism.
Theories have emerged especially on psychological theories which adversely contribute to our knowledge on this disturbing social issue, and offer assistance on how the acquired knowledge maybe put into practice in understanding and resolving intergroup oppression and conflicts. Social researches have been brought forward arguing that prejudice and racism manifest themselves at different levels which include institutional, individual’s, intergroup or even interpersonal (Plous, 2003).
To understand prejudice in relation to psychology, it may be related to discrimination or one having negative attitudes towards someone else basically because he or she belongs to a certain group. With Iraq, U.S discriminated it since it belonged to the Al Qaeda group, which was a terrorist group and was attacking it and killing many innocent Americans.
In the U.S – Iraq war, American soldiers were seen on the media and internet laughing and torturing Iraqi prisoners, while another terrorist group, still in Iraq, showed the video of an Iraqi slaughtering an American civilian. Others had photos showing an Iraq mob killing four American military then hanging them on March 31st.
These murders and tortures clearly show a sign of hatred, enmity and inhumanity among the humans. If mobs and groups of terrorists can carry out the same, one is left to wonder what effect or impact trained military personnel could have like that of the U.S especially on their mortal enemy.
This becomes really hard for the human activists such as the Red Cross, United Nations and Africa Union to promote peace and eliminate prejudice. Reason for this is that many leaders such as the religious, military and political leaders tolerate this kind of behaviors without bring the culprits into justice.
The U.S being the leading in music and film making exercise prejudice by discriminating the Muslim race, in that, they feed civilians with discrimination information in form of movies and music. We expect the military to behave in an extra ordinary manner forgetting that they are also humans who are subject to hatred and discrimination waves against the Iraqis and the Muslim in general as the public is.
Some military leaders have made anti- Muslim speeches to the public and on live broadcasts while in uniform and no form of confrontation or warning was done. He went ahead and authorized for both sexual and physical abuse of the Iraqi prisoners.
Prejudice is mainly promoted by hate speeches from popular leaders, government actions and the media (Clow and Esses, 2007). The three lead to the widespread of prejudice across the world which results into wars and conflicts between countries, groups or even individuals.
Government actions such as interrogations, police detention without trials, profiling at subways and airports, police raids among others are some of the effects causing mainly the Muslims and blackbrown colored people feeling insecure and discriminated as they are the main suspects in crimes and terrorist actions.
The media behaves irresponsible through talks, shows as well as news as the government can control any information that would expose it to the public but any other act related to a black colored or Muslim related story is very quick to publish and expose it.
In the previous years Fight against prejudice took another turn when groups and factions forbid any public expression that would lead or encourage prejudice and discrimination of whatsoever manner.
For example, some editorialists accompanied by protestors confronted the president of Rutgers University asking him to step down for discriminating the blacks and calling them “the disadvantaged and without genetic, hereditary background…” Others like Ralph Reed called for a press conference to urge people to denounce the habit of name calling especially with regards to race and color.
Citizens can assist in promoting peace and fight against prejudice in many ways, although eliminating prejudice totally will not be possible since everyone has their own motives and as long as freedom for expression remains, hate speeches and other kinds of prejudice will prevail.
For example, some people believe and will express it out publicly that homosexuality is a disease and disgrace to the society, which is a form of discrimination. This is a form of promoting peace and fighting prejudice as the school policies do not tolerate such speeches (Brochu, and Esses, 2009).
An effective way of promoting peace is via the media. Using the internet, radio, television, computers and printing can be very effective to make humans understand the need and importance of peace. Media if not controlled and well monitored may lead to war as was the case with the Iraq war in 1993. This is due to the civilians being misinformed due to the unverified information and misrepresentation of statements.
Some withhold or release de-sensationalizing information which does not promote peace especially in times of war or near war, thus, steering up war and conflicts. Education in schools mainly junior, high school and colleges should be used to teach students about peace since they interact mostly with others from different backgrounds and of different races.
Dialogue should be used and allowed as everyone has a right to express themselves as long as it does not promote prejudice in any way. The government and leaders should strictly forbid and contain prejudice by laying out strict and just policies, rules and repercussions and making them known to all (Esses., et al, 2008).
Symposiums and conferences should be encouraged and all races should be encouraged and everyone’s view should be addressed equally without favoring anyone and discriminating the others.
Respect for others’ religion should be addressed and adhered to promptly. Another thing to note is that revenge always accelerates war rather than peace. Dr King advocated for peace and called it “not the absence of violence, but the presence of justice,” (Zucchino, 2004).
On elections day, we should strive to elect leaders who know the meaning of peace and are willing to go an extra mile to achieve it and ensure that justice is served to those who seek it. Others may perceive peace inform of justice as those who do wrong by encouraging war or murder to be taken for trial and prosecuted. Also to understand the roots of evil like war, terrorism, murder and any other form of inhuman act (Berreby, 2005).
The law should be closely followed as it calls on us to follow the procedures laid in order to protect innocent lives, apprehend calmly rather than to use force and destroy property and lives.
Citizens can decide to reject the U.S strategies used by the government and advocate for those that respond to terrorism in a positive and polite way by using the necessary resources to prosecute international criminals. During debates the root causes of prejudice and any other source of conflicts that is likely to stir up war or hatred should be addressed and not only the symptoms and effects.
Together as one, we should recognize and appreciate the other parties are taking. This way United States is able to respond effectively and receive assistance from the international body if we are able to identify our role in promoting peace and fighting terrorism.
Challenge the elected leaders to dialogue with Taliban and Al Qaeda leaders in order to formulate solutions and work together to encourage peace and spread it globally. Ask leaders to change from engaging in wars through bombing Iraq to aiding the starving Muslims who majority are homeless and dying.
Increasing the amount of multilateral organizations which are not based on the fact that one is with us or against us, but those that serve all equally without discrimination. Finally, activists and unions can foster the understanding of various cultures and advocate for reconciliation and peace among the inter cultural community (Reynolds, 2005).
In conclusion, prejudice and discrimination cannot be completely eradicated but can be controlled or used to the advantage of promoting peace and reconciliation among the human race. The main perpetrators of prejudice are the government actions which can decide whether or not the war will stop or will continue.
Media which has the most effect as can be manipulated to steer up war by the government or other popular individuals and hate speeches on live broadcast by prominent leaders such as the military, religious and political leaders.
Peace is inevitable since if war erupts only innocent lives are sacrificed and many become displaced but by promoting peace, love and unity irrespective of color or background, a lot can be achieved with the use of those resources being diverted elsewhere like in invention or assisting catastrophic hit areas or even venturing to the out a space.
These actions will not be effective in a year or two or even five years time but will be a gradual process which the following generations will benefit from and the world will be a conducive environment to live in without fear.
References
Berreby, D. (2005). Us and Them: Understanding your Tribal Mind. New York: Little Brown and Company
Brochu, P. & Esses, V. (2009). Weight prejudice and medical policy: Support for an ambiguously discriminatory policy is influenced by prejudice-coloured glasses. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 9, 117-133.
Clow, K. & Esses, V. (2007). Expectancy effects in social stereotyping: Automatic and controlled processing in the Neely paradigm. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 39, 161-173.
Esses, V. Veenvliet, S., Hodson, G., & Mihic, L. (2008). Justice, morality, and the dehumanization of refugees. Social Justice Research, 21, 4-25.
Plous, S. (2003). Understanding Prejudice and Discrimination. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Reynolds, N. (2005). Basrah, Baghdad, and Beyond: U.S. Marine Corps in the Second Iraq War. Naval Institute Press, Maryland.
Zucchino, D. (2004). Thunder Run: The Armored Strike to Capture Baghdad. New York: Atlantic Monthly Press.
The World War II began in the late summer of 1940 and ended in 1945 in what has since been referred to as the historic Battle of Britain. The war was characterized by bombings over England and Scotland, thousands of human deaths and injuries and massive destruction of cities and towns across Britain.
Melyndra 1999 narrates a story as given by May Brockway in which the latter survived the Claydebank bombing where in 1941 more than 2000 people were killed and uncountable number of buildings smashed in Scotland (Brokeway 1).
Claydebank was a large burgh with a river port nine kilometres northwest of Glasgow but is now not only known as a destination for the Singer Sewing Machine factory but also one of the renown places for ship building. The luxury liners for Queens Mary and Elizabeth were built here in the 1930s. Claydebank was hence a major target by German bombers in early 1941.
As one Ann Johnston further narrates, the war began like a boom with everything changing, lights switched off everywhere and bombings too close that almost all house windows were blown out. German spies were everywhere (Johnston 1). As a part time ambulance driver at port Greenock, she witnessed deliveries of serious casualties with broken or no limbs, arms, some confused and angry as they were brought to hospital at the port. As a war bride, she met her husband at the hospital as one of the injured patients.
William Adelman recalls that when the war broke out the shooting and the bombing were so powerful, with the Germans on top of the mountain where no one could get them off. He remembers the moments they wrapped their dead colleagues and personal friends in blankets and staked them like corn (Adelman 5). Most of the cities in Italy except Rome were bombed out and destroyed.
According to statistics from the Department of National Defence of Canada (34), majority of war brides married to Canadian soldiers were of British origin with an estimated 44,886 British wives having been married with 21,358 children born out of these marriages by end of December 1946. About 1,886 war brides were from Holland while an estimated 649 were Belgian. A big proportion of the wives about 80% and children at 85.5% were married and born by the army servicemen compared to those from the navy men at 2% and 1.4% respectively.
Who are War brides?
War brides were young women who got married to the Canadian soldiers during the World War II. They hailed from almost every country in Europe but most of them were British reason being that Canadians were the first ones to come to the defence of Britain after the war was declared.
The story of the war brides is an interesting one bearing in mind that these women left behind everything that they were used to, their country, their families, education, good infrastructure, and their culture to start a new life with the servicemen they loved (Borner and Borner 92).
Canadian Servicemen and the War Brides
The Canadians lived in the United Kingdom for quite a long time and this gave them ample time to meet local women whom they fell in love with and later got married. The British women met their men in different situations and in different places. They could meet them when they were walking down the streets, in dance places, pubs, blind date introductions, meeting through relatives or just accidental meetings and so on (Jarrat 18).
Beety Thompson says that she met her husband when they were going for a dance. He asked her what time the dance was to be opened and that caught her attention because the huge clock tower could easily be seen and that made her amused (Thompson 2).
The first marriage happened in 1940 and 48,000 other marriages followed thereafter in a span of six years. After these war brides arrived in Canada, certain organizations like women bodies and the Red Cross organised them in clubs based on the districts they settled in.
The clubs offered them language classes in French and English, culture and cookery but the main aim was to provide them with a common place to socialize and know each other. Friendships grew and as time lapsed, children were born in numbers and created further networks until there was less of a need for organized clubs by the war brides.
They intermingled with the Canadian women and those from other origins. But the need for reuniting and reestablishment of earlier links was profound again in the 1970s as children of the war brides grew up and left homes as their dads and mums got older, resulting into what we now know as the war Brides Clubs and Provincial War Brides Associations (Jarrat, 1).
British feelings towards the Canadians
As Britain is the mother country of Canada, the Canadians were welcome in Britain and as many of them had been born in Britain and later migrated to Canada, coming back to Britain were like going back home. During the First World War, the Canadians had shown their commitment towards Britain and it was more or less likely that during the Second World War they would do the same.
However, the Canadians who had arrived in Britain earlier on had given the Britons enough reasons to dislike them. With the presence of many pubs, the Canadians developed poor drinking habits which caused havoc in the villages and this was not so appealing to Britons.
This kind of behaviour made it difficult for the Canadians to be welcomed by the parents of the brides. However, as the war progressed, the tension reduced and the Canadians, through their training became more disciplined and were able to adopt the Britons way of life. They became more united and the only way they could show their improved relationship was through marriage.
Marriage
Wedding ceremonies were very difficult because of the war. As expected then, consent had to be sought from the parents by both the bride and the groom particularly if they were under the age of twenty one. The paper work and arrangements had to be done thereafter only if the permission was granted.
The Canadian soldiers had to seek permission from their seniors before they could decide on the wedding date though these rules changed later on. The bride-to-be also had to be recommended by her employer indicating her traits and behaviour and later they had to acquire a license to be allowed to carry on with their wedding though the license would expire if they did not get married within the stipulated time and hence they had to acquire a new one.
The groom and the bride-to-be had to make arrangement with the priest whose main role was to counsel them and show them how they could live together peacefully by being open to one another. This procedure was meant to slow down the rushed marriages and it could only work for those people who were firm enough to go through it (Jarrat 24).
Shipping Of the War Brides
After the war was over, Canada wanted to get back their service men as fast as they could and so a better part of their resources were put aside for this. The department of national defence worked hand in hand with the Canadian Red Cross and the immigration branch and was responsible for the movement of the war brides and their children to Canada.
To ensure success, they first set up a Canadian wives bureau which was responsible for availing information, ensuring the well being of the dependants, putting up stations where the brides met to listen to the discussions on life in Canada and picking them and ensuring their safety to their ships.
Before they boarded the ships, they had to fill out forms, avail documents, and attend to medical arrangements. They were all gathered in London and would sail on the next ship that would be available to Canada. After boarding the ship, safety measures were taken to protect the children from sicknesses though this was a major threat to them.
The ships were overcrowded and as expected, there was minimal privacy. They had to wait until they arrived at Pier 21 in Halifax so that those who were sick would be attended to (Bumsted 204). Eswyn Lyster says that her son got sick when they were still on board which worried her a lot.
There was nothing that could be done and all they had to do was to wait. Luckily, when they arrived at Halifax, his son was taken care of by the Canadian sisters as she fell asleep on the waiting train. She could not wait to arrive at their destination to meet up with her husband (Lyster 6).
Arrival in Canada
The war brides were not prepared well enough for the life they were bound to face in Canada but they had to hold on to their marriages since going back to their parents was not an option because they could not afford to pay for their expenses and those of their children. Even more, going back home would reflect that they had not succeeded in their marriages. The Red Cross had prepared rest places for them and they had also set up small shops where they could buy anything they wanted.
The local council for women also put in their efforts to ensure that the war brides would be at peace and put forward their contributions to Canada. Nevertheless, they did not receive a warm enough welcome from the relatives and communities of their husbands because they were regarded as foreigners (Keshen and Blake186).
Fahrni (73) captures the story of a woman and her two children who lived with the married sister- in-law because her husband worked over the night. She wanted to know how she could go back home since they were living in one room and she had been told to look for another place to live which was so hard to find. Some of the war brides had been born in cities and settling down on farms was a bit unusual for them.
Absence of electricity, good education, health facilities, and poor infrastructure made life unfavourable. What kept them going were the love, care, and support they received from their husbands although some of their husbands passed on after they arrived in Canada and life proved very unbearable for them. However, some received a good reception in Canada.
As Betty Thompson narrates, her husband had prepared her on what to expect and how life was like in Canada. The relatives of the husband had maintained contact with her through writing when she was in Britain and on her arrival to Britain, she felt like she had known them for a long time (Thompson 6). Other war brides adapted easily and have celebrated many years of their marriages and contributed immensely to development in Canada.
Life in Canada
After all the challenges they went through, many of them evidently had happy marriages accompanied by happy memories shared with their loved ones. Majority of these women managed to live a comfortable lifestyle both emotionally and materially and offered their children and grandchildren the best they could. Their families have grown bigger and they were able to purchase larger farms to accommodate them.
Betty speaks of the blessings she enjoys of a good family and would never regret coming to Canada to be with her husband who sorry to say passed on in 1975 (Thompson 8). Many of them made valuable contribution to their communities, acting as volunteers in schools and companies, political affairs, religious convictions, and culture among others.
Socialization was made possible by wives taking up tasks outside their homes, which made it easier for them to know the community better and create more friends. Through this, they were able to supplement their incomes for a comfortable life. Though many war brides are old now, there exist war bride associations that provide platform for contacts and connections amongst them and acts as a channel of communication to share in their memories. Canada still observes the anniversary of the War brides arrival (Jarrat 32).
Works Cited
Adelman, William. “The Memory Project: Veteran Stories”. Web.
Börner, Tessa and Börner Martin. English Girl, German Boy: World War II from Both Sides. Canada: Hilary Borner, 2005. Print.
Keshen jeff and Blake Raymond Benjamin. Social Fabric Or Patchwork Quilt: The Development Of Social Policy In Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2006. Print.