Carl said
"There is the idea that the only way to attain civilization is through violence, so one could say it was inevetable for all the deaths in the Reign of Terror, but you could also compare it to the American Revolution which didn't have nearly as many brutal acts occur."
What do you guys think? Do you think violence is necessary in order for a society to progress?
check out Carl's blog at www.carlyorysh.blogspot.com
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
That darfur blog is amazing, im usually annoyed with people talking about darfur because they dont really offer solutions or real data and facts about darfur. That blog is Very interesting because sofar from what I've read in it it talks about solutions and the real problems with the west, mainly that were all bark. Very interesting.
i am in the process of firming up your genocide awareness project. are you interested in studying darfur in more detail? i can assign you darfur... think about it...the other options most likely will be...
Armenia
Bosnia
Cambodia
Burma
Iraq (Kurds)
Ukranian Famine
Rwanda
Darfur, Sudan
Chad
South Africa (Boers)
Nanking Massacre
As for what Caryl said I don't think that violence is necessary in this situation. There are other, less violent ways of attaining a civilization. But it all depends on how the government is set up and what they believe the rights of the people are. I personally don't think that it is okay, but others would obviously oppose to my thinking.
I think that violence is used as a scare tactic at first, but in some cases the people don't react the way that was anticipated; then things begin to get out of hand and genocides occur.
Thats just my thoughts. I may be wrong.
History makes it apparent that violence gets a response. However, as cortney said in class, there are other powers like the power of a boycott. India won its independence from Enlgand without a fight.
Post a Comment