Category: War

Mississippis War: Slavery and Secession and Nat Turner: A Troublesome Property documentary explore the factors that caused the American Civil Warand the subsequent revolt by slaves. The Civil Waris one of the most debated topics across the US due to its impact on socio-economic and political domains. Scholars continue to examine the actual causes of the conflict to justify or refute existing details. Although politics played a significant role in triggering the civil war, the institution of slavery emerges as the most significant factor that caused it. Mississippis War documentary traces the history of slavery and its contribution to the American Civil War. On the other hand, Nat Turners documentary exemplifies how rebellious slaves intensified the drive for a revolution. Both documentaries discuss socio-economic and political issues that affected Americans before, during, and after the Civil War.

Foremost, slavery is a major issue discussed in Mississippis War and Nat Turner documentaries. The history of slavery in the US dates back to one-hundred years before the birth of the nation. British colonists arrived in America and started purchasing slaves to work on vast colonial plantations. The onset of the Revolutionary War inspired most of the American settlers to oppose the practice in their fight for freedom. Turner and a group of rebelling slaves heightened tension that spurred revolution in America. Mississippis War documentary discloses that some American Colonies outlawed servitude, which motivated the US to ban the importation of slaves after the American Revolution. Reforms enabled the newly formed nation to mitigate slavery, but the issue became rife with the gins invention in the late 18th century. This period witnessed the integration of slavery into economic goals across the Southern states; slave owners moved them from the upper South, Virginia, North and South Carolina, and Maryland downward to work in cotton plantations.

Consequently, the issue of cotton and its contribution to the Civil War takes center stage in Mississippis War documentary. The arrival of slaves in Southern states, mainly Mississippi, accelerated cotton growth as the most productive crop. Plantation owners grew wealthy as the number of black laborers increased in Mississippi. As a result, Mississippis complexion changed and became the blackest state in the South. Although slaves toiled in large cotton plantations, they also worked as domestics, workers in industries and factories, construction of railroads, riverboats, and artisans of all kinds. However, the majority worked in cotton plantations, where they provided free or forced labor. The slaves input in the rise of cotton as the most economic cash crop was largely unnoticed; traders focused on the product rather than its cultivation or production process. Thus, plantation owners cited cotton as the reason for supporting the Civil War, but historians maintain that slavery was the underlying factor.

The interplay between cotton and slavery leads to political fallout between the northern and southern states and subsequent secession. The election of Abraham Lincoln caused fear and anxiety in the South since he was an abolitionist, and the southern states dominated in advancing slave labor. Mississippi became the center of resistance to the eradication of servitude and the election of Lincoln. Therefore, southern states started seceding from the Union after Lincolns election. It is worth noting that splitting states based their argument on freedom, rights, and the power to self-govern. Most of the Mississippians and other Southerners insisted on maintaining their right to self-govern in any way they saw suitable. The issue of state rights became a political theory invented by the southern states to defend their secession claims, but the underlying motive was to preserve slavery. White Southerners feared losing everything they owned, including money, property, and slaves.

Religion and violence are significant issues that emerge from both documentaries. In this regard, Christianity influences slave owners actions and enslaved workers in different industries, including cotton farming. Religious beliefs do not help slaves deal with their situation; it drives some of them into rebellion. Notably, southern states were overwhelmingly Christian, which compelled plantation owners to show some care toward the slaves. Plantation owners believed that the value they gained from the slaves largely depended on the respect accorded to the slaves. Thus, they defended slavery on Christianity grounds drawing from Protestant and Catholic faith as well as the Bible verse, Slave obey your Masters. Despite the acclamations, slaves experienced mistreatment on and off the farm.

Therefore, slaves used Christianity to justify their violence against whites. For instance, Nat Turners documentary explores violence inflicted on whites based on religious beliefs. Turner, the leader of the rebels, primarily responds to slavery by citing the Christian faith alluded to the loosened serpent. He believes that Christ had laid down the yoke, and it was his time to take it and fight against the serpent. Hence, slaves use the same Christian beliefs to attack their masters, which worsens their situation; rebelling captives were hanged and their heads cut off. Violence seems like the only option available for Turner to save other slaves from torment by white masters. However, it is not the only option for someone like Turner because state administrations could be compelled to abolish slavery irrespective of the time it would take.

The Sabra and Shatila Massacre was a great tragedy that occurred in 1982, when a large number of innocent civilians were brutally murdered by militia troops. The Massacre, a documentary consisting of a number of interviews with people who in this or that way took part in the tragedy, not only exposes the atrocity of the tragedy but also provides some valuable historical data on the topic.

The movie The Massacre is one of the 15 episodes of a documentary series entitled The War of Lebanon. The series were filmed and produced by Al Jazeera Satellite Channel, and distributed around the world by Sabbah Media Corporation. They depict some important episodes which took place during the Lebanese Civil War in 1975-1990. The movies include interviews with key figures that took place in the events, as well as with eyewitnesses, and contain vast visual evidence filmed during the time of war. The Massacre is the tenth episode of the series, dealing with the events which occurred during the Sabra and Shatila Massacre in September 16-18, 1982, when approximately 800 to 3500 civilians were slaughtered by the militia troops close to the Kataeb Party, also known as the Lebanese Phalanxes Party (The Massacre, 2012; The War of Lebanon, n.d.).

The movie consists of a number of interviews with some people who were involved in the massacre or the events connected to it, such as individuals directly related to Elie Hobeika, a Lebanese Phalangist and a militia commander who is known to be largely responsible for The Massacre. Among the interviewees are Robert Hatem, Hobeikas security chief; Michel Samaha, one of Hobeikas closest political allies; Maurice Draper, the delegate of the U.S. President to Lebanon at the time; Ihud Yaari, who was working as an Israeli journalist at that time; and two eyewitnesses who became victims and lost their family in The Massacre. A brief overview of the situation that preceded the events is given, and the comments of some interviewees are provided. After that, a rather long period of time is devoted to eyewitnesses, who tell what they were able to see and how they survived during The Massacre. And, finally, at the end of the film, some opinions and facts are expressed regarding the key figures responsible for the massacre.

Definitely, one of the strengths of the movie is that the comments of individuals who were close to the ones responsible for the tragedy, and also involved in it themselves, provide a valuable insight into the situation that occurred. Also, the story told by the eyewitnesses, as well as numerous photos and videos depicting the scenes from the massacre allow the viewers to understand what The Massacre looked like. On the other hand, a potential weakness is that the episode on its own perhaps does not provide enough context for the viewers.

The movie might be said to mostly conform to the established historical vision of The Massacre. The Lebanese Phalangist Elie Hobeika is shown to bear a large part of the responsibility for the slaughter; his close associates and fellow party members are interviewed. Even they admit that Hobeika and Lebanese forces are to be blamed for The Massacre; it can be seen, for instance, on 38:10, 38:40-40:00, 40:50 of the movie (The Massacre, 2012).

The Israeli officials are also blamed for losing control over the situation. At 06:30-06:50, it is stated that the transfer of the militia troops was commented by Israel in a way that made it appear that the militiamen were a part of Israeli army that was to clean the place of some Palestinian troops and prevent possible slaughters and acts of revenge for the preceding assassination of Bachir Gemayel (The Massacre, 2012). Maurice Draper at 41:40 mentions that he called Ariel Sharon, the Minister of Defense of Israel at the time, and said that since Israel was supposed to have the full control over the area, the tragedy was its responsibility to a large extent (The Massacre, 2012).

The movie itself appears historically credible; even the members of the Lebanese Phalanxes do not deny their partys responsibility for the events, even though they do try to keep their face, e.g. at 39:00-40:00 of the movie by saying that many other forces were guilty as well (The Massacre, 2012). The stories told by the eyewitnesses (especially the man) provide some details on how the slaughter occurred. There is, in fact, no artistic merit or acting in the movie; it only consists of fragments of interviews, pictures and episodes from the times of The Massacre, and the offscreen commentaries. As it was mentioned, the episode on its own perhaps lacks context for those who are not well-versed in the history of the conflict. On the other hand, the movie does capture the viewers attention, in particular by exposing the atrocities that took place during the tragedy.

To sum up, it should be noted that The Massacre is a documentary which provides valuable evidence regarding the Sabra and Shatila slaughter of 1982. Even though the episode on its own does not supply much information about the broader context, it offers important data related to the narrow topic of the slaughter itself.

References

The Massacre (Sabra and Shatila) HD. (2012). Web.

The War of Lebanon. Episode 10: The Massacre. (n.d.). Web.

The 2007 movie, featuring award-winning actors Tom Hanks, Julia Roberts, and Philip Seymour Hoffman, portrays the involvement of the US in the Soviet-Afghan conflict. Charlie Wilsons War is based on a true story and presents the impact of the Texas congressman on ending not only the Soviet-Afghan war but also the long-lasting Cold War. Although the film is delivered in a comedy genre, which helps the audience get a more relatable perspective on this issue, there are many other aspects of politics covered. This paper will reflect on Charlie Wilsons War, provide a plot summary and describe several political features such as democracy, party structure, electoral system, and authoritarian and totalitarian regimes.

Charlie Wilson was the US Texas congressman and a member of several foreign affairs committees. Being reelected several times for his position, he received trust and support from the people of Texas and the whole country in general. In his first appearance in the movie, he receives the highest recognition award from the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) for his input into the defeat and the breakup of the Soviet empire (Charlie Wilsons War 00:02:00). As the film progresses, Wilson shows his hedonistic and self-indulgent personality spotted in a questionable company in Las Vegas. However, the congressmans excellent education and professionalism cannot be denied as he begins his journey in resolving the Guerrilla war. He learns that in order to put an end to the ongoing devastating conflict and help defeat the Soviet Union, more sophisticated weaponry in greater amounts is needed by the Afghan forces. Wilsons initial increase of the US assistance fund in the region brought almost no satisfactory results but received backing from one of the wealthiest women in Texas, Joanne Herring.

Joanne Herring played a key role in the movie, helping Charlie Wilson receive support from local and international authorities. Throughout some time, he convinces several governments around Afghanistan to cooperate and reaches agreements on the supply of military machinery. With the help of Joanne Herring, Wilson manages to increase the US funding in the region from only $5 million up to about $500 million as covert support, totaling $1 billion with the Middle East countries financing. Together with Gust Avrakotos from CIA and Joanne Herring, the Texas congressman helped to put an end to the Soviet-Afghan war in the late 1980s. However, their consequent attempt to rebuild Afghanistan and provide the country with a better quality of life was dismissed by the American government.

This work, directed by Mike Nichols, depicts some of the most fundamental aspects of politics from defining different types of governance to showing the way they operate. First is the notion of democracy and a democratic country. Charlie Wisons War did a great job representing both advantages and disadvantages of this governmental system. Inclusiveness, diversity, freedom, and power that is in the hands of people  these are the mottos of a democratic state, which are also shown in the movie. However, the movie hints on difficulties of a democratic government to reach an agreement, when Joanne Herring says: Why is saying one thing and doing nothing? (Charlie Wilsons War 00:25:24). The answer to this issue lies in the bureaucratic structure of decision-making. Having many different representatives, all of whom have distinct worldview points and perspectives, makes it impossible to react to a particular problem quickly and effectively. For instance, many of the laws, regulations, and bills concerning major international and local issues are being created in several months or more. They also require approval from another body to proceed further, which delays the process for up to several years.

Another aspect covered is the existence of various political parties and political views. As Wilson arrived at the Herrings mansion, his assistant noted: this is an ultra-right-wing group of anti-Communist fanatics (Charlie Wilsons War 00:22:22). The democratic system described earlier allows people to form political groups and be affiliated with them. In this case, Joanne Herring is on the right side of the political spectrum, which usually indicates strong traditional values and national security. The arguments between left and right are considered a basis of contemporary politics, ranging on topics from abortion and taxes to military and gun control.

On top of the previously mentioned democracy and political parties, the third aspect is the right to vote and the electoral system. When Congressman Wilson flew on a plane back to the US from Pakistan, he told a youth story to his assistant, mentioning that about 400 ballots were cast in that election & Hazard lost by 16 votes (Charlie Wilsons War 00:43:00). He emphasizes that this is the beauty of democracy and the US. As the democracy is based on transparent and equal-right elections, it is the power of people to appoint authorities they believe are best qualified for a particular position. Besides the electoral structure, this system is also used in the decision-making bodies and usually are based on a simple majority, three-quarter majority, and unanimous vote.

In addition to the three fundamentals above, the film also touches on topics of other types of governance  authoritarian and totalitarian. The evil in the Charlie Wilsons War is shown in the picture of the Soviet Union, which was a totalitarian state. However, interestingly enough, the US approached several Middle Eastern countries for assistance that are authoritarian themselves or are not transparent democracies. The main difference between authoritarian regimes is the invasion of privacy and the level of public life control. While all the power is handled by one authority in both regimes, totalitarian seeks to cover more areas, including peoples private lives.

Charlie Wilsons War is a well-delivered representation of the fundamentals of democracy and other types of governance. The movie displays many aspects of politics and international relations. Since Congressman Wilson faced and learned from electoral, political group, democratic, and authoritarian systems throughout his life, this biographical comedy serves not only entertaining but also educational functions. The movie describes the difficulties of democratic governments in acting quickly, provides examples of the benefits of voting rights, and gives an overview of different political viewpoints. Despite his hedonistic lifestyle, the US Texas congressman was a significant contributor to ending the Guerilla war. Charlie Wilson showed the importance of negotiations and proper governance in practice and rightfully deserved to be highly recognized by the US CIA and American people.

Work Cited

Charlie Wilsons War. Directed by Mike Nichols, Universal Studios, 2007.

War has always been a controversial issue when discussed from an ethical perspective. Individuals who believe in the ideas of pacifism deny violence in any form. However, there are other theorists who defend the concept of a just war.

This theory can be applied to the case study by David Luban. It describes two neighboring states, one of which (Republic of Geshem) has fertile soil and sells food for cash, and the other (Republic of Midbar) one year has a very poor harvest and no money and plans to wage war against the neighbor (Luban, 1985). The just war theory suggests that military action should be started only for serious reasons and only as a last resort (MacKinnon, 2018). In this case, the Republic of Midbar can be justified in initiating the war since they have already asked for help from the Republic of Geshem and received a refusal. Augustine of Hippo, who contributed to the development of the just war theory, implied that a war should not cause more harm than good (Sorabji & Rodin, 2020). In the case of the Republic of Midbar, the most probable alternative to war would be starvation and death so the war can be seen as necessary. However, it is highly important that it is conducted ethically with no civilian populations targeted and women raped.

However, if the Republic of Geshem starts the war before the other state strikes, their actions can also be justified. The just war theory emphasizes that it is the right and the responsibility of the state to protect its citizens if there is a danger of aggression (MacKinnon, 2018). On the other hand, the problem with that approach lies in the fact that the other country has not yet started the war. Overall, while this theory appears to be a middle ground between pacifism and rationalism, it also does not offer unambiguous guideline everyone can agree on.

References

Luban, D. (1985). Just war and human rights. In C. R. Beitz et al. (Eds.), International Ethics. Princeton University Press.

MacKinnon, B. (2018). Ethics: Theory and contemporary issues. Cengage Learning.

Sorabji, R., & Rodin, D. (2020). The ethic of war: Shared problems in different traditions. Taylor & Francis.

The impact of war on women is both disproportional and drastically different from the commonly portrayed male experience. The fact is, in todays wars the primary victims are women and children (PBS Television, 2012). However, the female position in the modern world expands far beyond the victim role. Some crimes such as rape still receive much less legal attention and acknowledgment in court than they should. Sometimes, it is the womens testimonies in the courtroom that change the historic narrative. The case of Bosnian women testifying shows why this might be true  it is recommended to pay attention to body language and the words of accused men in this video section.

At the same time, the leadership dynamic exhibited by women during wartime is distinctly different from that of men. It seems like women are increasingly ready to sacrifice themselves to establish peace and restore community. Yet, the video talks about how worldwide, only 3% of peace agreements signatories are women. However, there is hope  the story of Afghan women sheds light on some ways in which female-led networks actively contribute to creating and supporting peaceful initiatives. There is an urgent need for dialogue about redefining the societal understanding of female impacts and sacrifices. However, a mere discussion will not suffice at the global level  a comprehensive legislative change is due regarding security and conflict.

In order to frame this discussion more productively, the following questions are suggested for contemplating upon watching this video. How is the common civilian womens experience during wartime different from the male experience? Does it get the same media coverage, and if not, why not? What was the example of womens bravery and determination in this video that stood out the most and why?

References

PBS Television. (2012). Women and girls lead | Women, war & peace | Trailer | ITVS. YouTube. Web.

Introduction

It is extremely likely that one has heard at least once in their life that the United States is one big melting pot. As a person gets older, they start to debate whether America is actually a melting pot  or if it is a salad bowl. In order to determine which term is more representative of the country, it is necessary to delve into these concepts first. Only then is it possible to look into Americas different time periods and come to particular conclusions? For once, it is interesting to find out that the aftermath of World War I, in one way or another, was characterized by both these occurrences.

Main body

The first rise of the melting pot theory to prominence is dated more than two hundred years. J. Hector St. John de Crevecoeur  a French immigrant  in 1782, described Americas demographic homogeneity as including individuals of all nations&[who] melted into a new race of men (Berray, 2019, p. 142). The desire to assimilate is described by Berray (2019) as a minority groups adaptation to the lifestyle of the dominant group  the group whose cultural, political, and economic norms are the default. Such adaptation minimizes differences between minorities who hope to integrate into mainstream societies and these societies representatives.

When it comes to the salad bowl theory, its concept arose much later. According to Berray (2019), it happened in the 1960s, and its essence is in retaining peoples unique identities and recognizing differences that are inevitable in a multicultural society. In contrast to the melting pot theory, in which the dominant groups influence prevails, either way, the salad bowl maintains the identity of minorities and allows them to exist as they are alongside dominant cultures. This obviates the need for the creation of homogeneous identities as per the melting pot, especially considering that such identities are not equally proportionated in terms of their corresponding constituents.

In order to determine which theory described the state of America post-World War I better, it is reasonable to turn to the events and policies occurring in the country at the time. As stated by Bitesize, during World War I, Americans were worried about the number of immigrants who came to the United States seeking escape from war and the consequent economic depression. Their primary concern was foreign culture and religion threatening their way of life  that is, the White Anglo-Saxon Protestants way of life (Bitesize, n.d.). Americans fears were not unfounded: since people immigrated due to necessity, not desire, they did not have any ground to attempt to assimilate. Indeed, immigrants are reported to have retained their customs and spoken their languages, alongside not intending to alter their religious beliefs. Additionally, there were a lot of divisions due to people taking different sides concerning war. Consequently, one may come to the conclusion that this state of affairs resembled a salad bowl significantly more than a melting pot.

In that regard, it is interesting that the measures implemented by the American government due to that occasion can be called the measures to turn that salad bowl into a melting pot. According to Gloor n.d., during the war and subsequent years, policies of coercive education and employment were adopted in order to force immigrants to assimilate. The purpose of this process was to produce citizens conforming not only to the countrys democratic ideals but even to local habits, the American version of English, and major political and social ideologies. Such forceful Americanization can be labeled as a case of the melting pot policy, though carefully, since such processes are supposed to occur naturally.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the United States immigration situation after World War I is an example of a salad bowl theory in action. People who came to America did that amid safety concerns, and their lack of desire to assimilate is easily understandable. Measures employed by the government in order to make people adapt to the American way of life are an additional confirmation that initially, the immigrants approach resembled a salad bowl more than anything else.

References

Berray, M. (2019). A critical literary review of the Melting Pot and Salad Bowl Assimilation and integration theories. [PDF file]. Journal of Ethnic and Cultural Studies, 6(1), 142-151. Web.

Bitesize. (n.d.). The Open Door policy and immigration to 1928. BBC. Web.

Gloor, L.B. (n.d.). From the Melting Pot to the Tossed Salad metaphor: Why coercive assimilation lacks the flavors Americans crave. [PDF file]. University of Hawaii at Hilo. Web.

Introduction

It doesnt necessarily take much for your roommate to behave like a jerk: being incredibly messy, borrowing your things (or eating your food) without as much as asking , being offensive towards your friends or simply not willing to compromise on anything are just a few of the most common ways to recognize the fact that you are sharing the room with a jerk. Whether that is a terrible, sad, annoying or downright hilarious situation to find yourself in, is often a matter of how you approach it  and possibly, what options you have.

Quite often, when one roommate is a jerk, the result is a roommate war. However, a room is a small place to fight a war and you might want to try some other things as well before that. After all, if everything else fails, there is always enough time to fight back the jerk with all you got, but you might as well take it one step at a time: try first some reason and see how it goes.

The Sensible, Serious Approach

This might be less fun than other answers to your roommate being a jerk, but it might also be more effective if your goal is simply to make your roommate stop whatever it is that he or she is doing terribly wrong. The most simple (and often overlooked) thing to do is to tell your roommate, plainly and clearly, what bothers you, preferably at the very moment when it happens. For instance: it really bothers me when you keep the lights on after I go to sleep or it really annoys me that you leave your underwear in the living room.

The secret here however is to keep it simple and clear. No beating around the bush, no sulking, no sullen faces instead of clear talking, no passive-aggresive behavior. Simply state what bothers you and the fact that it does indeed bother you and then let your roommate decide what to do. You might be surprised how many times this will work, but if it doesnt, a longer conversation might be in order.

Have a Conversation, Set Some Rules

For a longer conversation to work, you need first to prepare a bit. Its crucial to remember that the main purpose of a conversation is not to simply tell the other that he or she is a jerk, or to list all annoying things over the last weeks, months or even more. The purpose of a conversation is to find with your roommate a set of rules that can work for both of you. So think beforehand of what kind of rules you would like to have and try to imagine how the conversation would go, so that it doesnt take you entirely by surprise. A good rule for instance is to decide on a timetable for cleaning, including who should do it on each day or week, what cleaning has to be done and what happens if the one responsible doesnt do it.

After you have made up your mind on what would be a good set of rules, find some quiet time and comfortable location to talk to your roommate. Be clear, but calm and as tactful as you can manage: remember that the purpose is to reach an agreement, not to complain. It is best to keep it about the rules rather than about the issues, but if you have to explain the need for rules, dont hesitate to do it. Its generally a good idea to talk about issues focusing on how they impact you rather than what your roommate is doing (e.g. it bothers me that& rather than you always&). And when you agree on something, dont let it be just words  write it down, print it neatly and hang it somewhere visible.

Use a Mediator

Despite your best intentions, conversation with your roommate might simply be impossible in fact, or not leading at all to anything useful. If that is the case, you can try to ask for help from a mediator. A mediator is a neutral person who can communicate efficiently and typically has some higher authority over both you and your roommate. Most colleges have such mediators, so dont hesitate to ask for their help.

The Funny Approach

If all of the above fail (or you really dont want to try them), you can always try instead to laugh your way out of it. It might not really work in the sense of transforming your roommate, but there is a chance that they will simply want to leave  which is not that bad, after all. And in any case, at least you have a good laugh and make the most out of it  not to mention that you will probably have some funny stories to tell afterwards!

The fun ideas to try on your jerk of a roommate are endless. Here are just a few: pretend to be sleepwalking and act funny (or simply annoying), talk to inanimate objects as if they were your roommate and then get angry with them, keep a diary in which you write murderous thoughts about your roommate and leave it a few times open on the main table, as if by accident. There are many other ideas that you can easily find online. However, when laughing your roommate out of your room, be careful not to overstep the line by doing something illegal yourself (such as locking your roommate out or intercepting the mail).

When All Else Fails

If everything else fails and you really cant take it anymore, there is, of course, the plain solution of moving out. Even if it costs you more or it means living further away, having a comfortable environment to live in is surely worth it.

Background

The book The war for kindness (TWFK) is written by Jamil Zaki (2019), and the author uses stories, observations, and research findings to show how people turn to hate rather than empathy in their daily lives. Zaki (2019) defines empathy as an umbrella term that describes multiple ways people respond to one another (p. 178). The most interesting information in TWFK is the idea of several types of empathy, such as cognitive, emotional, and empathic concern. This classification shows that individuals can show empathy in many ways. Hence, the author shows that empathy is an essential part of peoples wellbeing, yet not many individuals practice it.

Another important idea in TWFK is peoples automatic response to hatred and aggression that is common in the modern world. Moreover, Zaki (2019) argues that people rarely hate something or someone they know, yet in the contemporary world, individuals do not take time to get to know others. Most importantly, TWFK shows that empathy is not a trait or response to stimuli, which would imply that a person cannot do anything to become more empathic. Instead, through his research, the author has proven that empathy can be learned. The first step would be no notice how one responds t different scenarios and other people and try to approach situations with empathy rather than hate or aggression. The main idea of Zakis (2019) book is that people should change their attitude towards others and approach them with empathy rather than hate because one can learn to become more empathic.

Textbook Information

Since Zakis book focuses on empathy, and the latter relates to interpersonal interactions and social wellbeing, there are many connections with the textbook information. In Chapter 10, McCutcheon et al. (2014) discuss the role of aggression and violence and their characteristics, as well as how these emotional responses manifest in social settings. Social psychology principles that are mentioned in the textbook are the descriptions of reactive and proactive aggression. When examining empathy, most reactive aggression cases can be stopped if the individuals use empathy to understand the motives behind other peoples actions. For example, in a case with an accidental crash on a racing track, reactive aggression was a response that one of the drivers showed towards an accident (McCutcheon et al., 2014). If he were to use cognitive empathy, he would understand that the other driver did not crash on purpose, which would limit his aggressive response. Moreover, the studies on the prefrontal cortex show that people have the inbuilt ability to stop their aggression (McCutcheon et al., 2014). Empathy may be an answer to how to stop aggressive behavior.

Empathy could help prevent many horrible events that happen because people feel misunderstood and excluded. An opening story in Chapter 10 of the textbook describes a mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary (McCultheon et al., 2019). While it is challenging to sympathize with the shooter after he had committed this terrific crime, some details about his past show that lack of empathy within society triggers people. The shooter had Aspergers Syndrome and a strained relationship with his mother, which most likely affected his ability to connect with others. Hence, the textbook explains how aggression emerges, develops, and manifests within society, while TWFK shows how empathy can help prevent aggression from occurring in the first place.

Real-Life Application

The main focus of TWFK is empathy, and there are many real-world applications of this concept that highlight how the use of this sense would make peoples lives better. The recent cases of police brutality in the United States show that society lacks compassion and that many law enforcement officers cannot deal with stressful situations without showing aggression. For example, in 2019, a police officer shot an unarmed man in a hotel (Ortiz, 2019). Notably, the bodycam footage shows that the man was on his knees and was sobbing while the police officer continuously yelled at him. As a result, the man was killed by the officer, even though there was no apparent danger. Arguably, if the police officer used cognitive empathy to evaluate the situation and considered that this man was in a position where he could not attack, and emotional empathy to understand that this individual was in distress, the tragedy could have been avoided.

Critique

From my perspective, the TWFK accurately shows the problems of our society that lead to more significant issues such as hatred, racism, police brutality, and others. Considering the textbook material, I think that empathy is a great way to deal with personal aggression and understand why others may react aggressively to stop the chain reaction. I like that the best part of TWFK is that the author has written this book based on many observations and experiments and not merely based on his reflection about empathy. For example, in one chapter Zaki (2019) describes an experiment where he asked students to walk around campus without their smartphones to observe if they could be more empathic and connect with strangers they meet better. He also used experiments with oxytocin and observations in a different setting to see how empathy manifests in different scenarios. Hence, many practical examples and extensive research are supporting Zakis findings, which is the best part of the book because I enjoy using practices backed by evidence.

I agree that empathy has many applications and can be beneficial for society, for example, in the case of felons sharing their opinions on a book with DA and judges, which resulted in reduced conviction time and lesser crimes after the former served their sentences. I disagree that not all people can learn empathy since there are clinical conditions such as psychopathy that make it impossible for an individual to understand others feelings. One thing I dislike about Zakis (2019) book is the lack of focus on how to train empathy and how to teach others to be more empathic. On the one hand, this results from the book being primarily a summary of the years of research that Zaki (2019) spend. Perhaps an excellent addition to this work would be a workbook or a list of recommendations that readers would use to train themselves to become more empathic.

Before reading TWFK, I thought that empathy was an inborn quality, but not all people use it and allow it to develop into a strong sense of compassion for others. Hence, many adults nowadays lack empathy, and they need to practice it. TWFK convinced me that empathy is something that people need to actively work on because, when linking the books content to that from the textbook, the automatic response to stressful situations is aggression. Notably, Zaki (2019) argues that the Roddenberry hypothesis is not valid, and in fact, empathy is not inborn and has to be trained. In summary, from this study of empathy, I concluded that social scientists and psychologists should pay more attention to this element because it can improve many aspects of our lives.

References

McCutcheon, L. E., Hackney, A., & Hart, J. (2014). Social psychology for todays world. CAT.

Ortiz, E. (2019). Police officer who fatally shot sobbing man temporarily rehired to apply for pension. NBC News. Web.

Zaki, J. (2019). The war for kindness: Building empathy in a fractured world. Crown.

The War for Kindness, authored by Jamil Zaki, explores empathy in a fascinating way. Zaki defines the evolutionary role of affinity as increasing collaboration and hence improving the likelihood of survival. He also has shown how it can be taught as a skill and altered in the lab, emphasizing how, in theory, we could boost compassion to minimize conflict. In general, the book is worth reading the most crucial lesson because it demonstrates kindness as a proficiency and skill that can be cultivated, not an inherent character feature that one either possesses or lacks. The book illustrates the significance of increased affinity and rapport. in the world is the next primary reason it is worthwhile to read. As I read Zaki, I realized a fundamental connection between kindness and appreciation. Empathy creates an environment for sympathy, or what Zaki refers to as kindness, to flourish.

The books evidence-based analysis of rapport, which uncovers how it can malfunction, wear down, or otherwise go haywire and afterward addresses empathic shortcomings, makes it worthwhile. However, one of the crucial teachings from the book is that if people are willing to make an effort, they may acquire empathy in as many ways as possible. The challenge is that life and work can frequently interfere. Jamil Zaki deserves a lot of credit for compiling such a broad spectrum of information and research that shows how empathy, like a tissue, can grow or degenerate. One needs bravery, self-reflection, and the determination to step out of seclusion and into the vast unknown of other individuals to acquire empathy. You can find yourself uncovering the diverse and rich personalities of others as you practice empathy.

It is important to note that warfare and the ability to defend oneself are key aspects of rule and governance. There is a reason why the largest and most powerful nations on the planet invest heavily in their militaries, such as the United States, and China, or Russia. The strength and stability of a nation are mostly reliant on its autonomy, which cannot be guaranteed without military might. This is why Russia, having an economy of one US state, can invade its neighbors and impact world affairs. Therefore, Niccolo Machiavellis statements on the art of war are justified and valid, which can be translated into a personal experience as well.

The centerpiece of the Machiavellian principle is that ends justify the means, which is true in a majority of cases, especially when the well-being and security of an entire nation are concerned. The diplomat stated that it is seen that when princes have thought more of ease than of arms they have lost their states (Machiavelli para. 1). In other words, the term prince can be interpreted as a person or government in the modern age. The latter is more applicable when talking about geopolitics at large. There are numerous examples in history when nations had weak militaries and were not able to deter their enemies or even defend themselves effectively. Thus, having a massive defense budget and offensive capabilities is critical to ensuring security and safety. For instance, NATO is a prime example of this Machiavellian principle, which is the only reason why no alliance member was invaded or threatened seriously. The prioritization and criticality of warfare and its rules and disciplines are as relevant today as they were during Machiavellis time of writing on the given subject.

When it comes to personal experiences and individual-level observations, the Machiavellian principle still has plausible application. For example, since adolescence, my father always emphasized that I needed to have how to defend myself both physically and legally. For the former part, he used to send me to a Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu martial arts school in our neighborhood so I could learn some basics of self-defense. The most useful aspect is that its techniques do not heavily rely on being tall or heavy. For the latter part, he encouraged me to know my rights and legal boundaries, and he taught me the basics because he was a lawyer himself. The diplomat stated that the first cause of your losing it is to neglect this art, and what enables you to acquire a state is to be master of the art (Machiavelli para. 1). On the personal level, the term state can be interpreted as ones goal for security, safety, and confidence. Being physically prepared for self-defense and legally literate allowed me to act with greater courage to confront my fears as well as a caution to avoid dangers. Thus, I agree with the underlying message of the passage.

In conclusion, ends justify means to a certain extent because the ability to be victorious in a conflict, such as war or an individual confrontation is vital for safety and security. The latter two are essential pillars of stability and prosperity, and one does need to look far in the history books or personal experiences. Every person should allocate some time and effort to learn about his or her legal rights, and he or she should spend some time learning a form of self-defense.

Work Cited

Machiavelli, Niccolo. Medieval Sourcebook: Niccolo Machiavelli: The Prince [Excerpts], 1513. Fordham University, Web.