I admit to being very surprised by Randy Jenzen's presentation on October 29, or more specifically, to his conclusion that we are actually living in the least violent time of history. My perception was quite different. I was particularly surprised by the fact that men are 9 times more likely to be victims of war than women and children, that the number of refugees in the world is decreasing, and that current wars affect civilians far less than they used to. The only facts that didn't surprise me was that the world spends approximately 75 times more on war than peace and that the biggest threat to global security is NOT global terrorism. (I did find it interesting that in every year but 1995 and 2001, more Americans are killed by lightening, deer, peanut allergies, bee stings, and "ignition or melting of nightwear" than terrorism!)
Randy presented a number of theories with suggested factors which might explain why violence is decreasing: spread of democracy, increasing economic interdependence, declining economic utility of war, growth in international institutions such as the UN, end of colonialism, increase in state capacity, decrease in ethnic discrimination, spread of human rights, proliferations of NGOs, increased participation of women in politics, dominance of US power, and the end of the cold war.
Which of these do YOU think have had the most impact on the decline in violence in our world? Why do you think we have such a different perception? Do you accept that violence IS, in fact, declining? What does that mean for our world? For you?
I was curious to see if he was shocked by how little we knew about war and how different it is now than it was before
ReplyDeleteInteresting question, Cassidy. I had the feeling that he expected us to answer as we did, that most Canadians (and probably Americans) believe that violence is on the rise.
ReplyDeleteI was thinking the same thing as Cassidy, I wondered if he thought it was ridiculous we didn’t know anything about violence around the world decreasing. I think Mrs. Nelson was right about how he expected us to answer the way that we did, we are so wrongly informed about violence because of the media.
ReplyDeleteThe spread of human rights, democracy and the increasing economic interdependence has had a huge impact on the decline of violence. I think if we continue to support and help spread human rights and do everything we can to keep the violence rate down, we will. I agreed with him about how we are living in the most peaceful time, but we need to keep improving every day so that the violence doesn’t return. We don’t want to a spiral backwards, we need to keep moving forwards.
I think you make a very important point, Denomie!
Delete"we need to keep improving"
Randy Jensen's presentation may have been uplifting and made us more hopeful, but is that entirely good?
Sometimes we have to believe that things are worse than they truly are in order to be internally motivated. People that want to make a change, such as the students in this class, may not need that type of motivation, but others may. If we start telling people how much everything has gotten better, will they continue to make a change?
I think your right how, because we know it is decreasing, it makes us more hopeful. But I feel people will be less motivated to continue to help if they know that it is already being fixed without them. I think that if the facts were reversed, violence was increasing, everyone would be more motivated.
DeleteI was just as surprised as the rest of you...getting 3/10 on that little pop quiz of his really put it into perspective. Whenever he would ask questions, I would say to myself, "Surely he wouldn't ask those questions if [such and such a thing] wasn't on the rise!" only to be suddenly given a reality check into how I suppose un-violent our world is today.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of Randy's theories, I think the most pertinent to the decline of violence is interdependance. We, as countries, can no longer afford—on an economic and social scale—to wage war against one another. What one country does to another directly domino/ripple effects surrounding countries, which then influence protectorates of other countries, mess with treaty lines, and bring about chaos.
Let's take a look at the cold war between the Americans and the Soviets. From a historical standpoint, it was one of the most, dare I say, politically "stressful" times in modern history, in which the entire world, in essence, sided with either the USSR or the United States. We saw wars raged in south-east Asia, a conflict around Turkey, and dare I even speak about the Cuban Missle Crisis.
No one on this planet today—save a few—seem eager to have such effects as this be put into place again.
Even now, one can't—thanks to treaties—wage war against one country of the EU and not risk a backlash from all 17 member states. Everyone has so many treaties and interdependent policies with everyone else that no one even dares to shift the balance.
I think that we were all taken aback by the presentation because we never knew a time when death ran rampant. We are so used to this so-called "peace" that even the slightest level of infringement seems ludicrous to us nowadays. We, as a generation, seem to have a much more sensitive "peace-dar" for this type of conflict as opposed to those who lived before us.
Denomie, I definitely agree with your point that 'if we don't want to spiral backwards, we need to keep moving forwards', because peace or utopia isn't something that is achieved overnight. It's going to be a constant struggle, a battle—forgive the expression—to see a peaceful world. We're trying as best as we can, but more can still be done.
I think another indicator of peace is our technological era. It seems to me that war can now be waged not with manpower, but with computers. Hacking and computer viruses are something we must be ready to combat, just as we have been ready to combat war in the past. I dare say that war will become something, in the future, that is waged behind a desk and not a battlefield!
I was sadly out of town for Randy Jenzen’s presentation, it sounds as if it was very interesting! From Ms. Nelson’s description and all of your descriptive comments I will do the best I can to respond in relation to his theories/conclusions.
ReplyDeleteThroughout history society has experienced political, social and cultural change and development, though the rate of change varies drastically around the world. Canada is currently one of the most advanced countries; however, many events in our history have led us to where we stand today. In our past we experienced many defiant reforms and conflicts that impacted our country and influenced how the government is run today. While it may seem that violence would be unnecessary in Canadian politics, based on the society, rule, and lifestyle of the past, violence was often unavoidable. For this reason I am not surprised that Randy concluded, “we are actually living in the least violent time of history.” Canada, as well as many other countries, have gone through extreme development over time, resulting in less violence because in developed countries violence is much lower. If violence has lowered then to me it seems obvious “that the number of refugees in the world is decreasing, and that current wars affect civilians far less than they used to.”
One who believes that the government of Canada, or any country in the middle of development could simply have balanced all problems to avoid violence must understand the underdeveloped of the time. Human society progresses through a series of events; therefore, we must consider the stage of evolutionary development that countries have gone through and will still go through. The values, morals, traits and ideas of a society all depend on human nature, which is determined by the behavioral traits of thinking, feeling and acting of the time. Since individuals acquire almost all their traits from their surroundings, we can determine why human behaviour was different in countries’ pasts.
When distressed lower classes gain knowledge of the democratic concept, and know there is a possibility to change and to revolutionize, they demand reform. With subtle suggestions and petitions of political amend from leading reformers undemocratic governments often turn their backs. Though violence can be hurtful and can fail, it brings notice to the corruption of countries and is sometimes the only way to make government respond- for better or for worse.
Many countries are experiencing a similar pro-democratic rebellion as Canada did many years ago because they are not as politically advanced as Canada and therefore their violence has not yet decreased and rebellions are happening now! Often governments have no intention or reason to balance the social rankings until approached with violence. With rebellions and solutions, as Randy said, there is then “spread of democracy, increasing economic interdependence, declining economic utility of war, growth in international institutions such as the UN, end of colonialism, increase in state capacity, decrease in ethnic discrimination, spread of human rights, proliferations of NGOs, increased participation of women in politics, dominance of US power” and much more.
Human behaviour and influence is key when determining all events in the world because it is what society is built upon: the individual growth and particular stage of human development. In present Canada extreme violence does not happen, but past rebellions could not have been prevented because political change would not have happened from the top down without pressure from the underprivileged lower class. Violence is a part of society development, yet decreases when a society is developed.
(I was having trouble stringing my thoughts together.. hopefully you guys can see my train of thought!)
Hey there Sam
Delete(I seem to be doing a lot of replying to your posts...)
Very interesting historical perspective on the idea of violence, and it was a very powerful conclusion to draw. It's disappointing that you weren't around for Randy's presentation, because it was such a fantastic transition into that video that we watched last Monday about how "evil" the world is.
It's almost confusing, because one week, we have this idealistic, motivational presentation only to then be given a sharp "reality check" the week after as we realize that there is still strife and turmoil wherever we look.
Your idea of violence being the key to peace is the most interesting of them all—you really hit the nail on the head.
I don't think we could find a developed nation today that hasn't had a history of violence in achieving this very relative state of peace.
What do we do then?
Do we sit and patiently wait for the developing countries to have a violent and bloody revolution all in the propagation of peace? Do we try to help and risk a conflict the likes of which we saw in the Middle East basically from the 1950's onwards?
This could almost be another essential question:
How can Canada efficiently help countries whose solution only seems to point to wards revolution?
Thank you, Brogan!
ReplyDeleteI have to say all your questions are very important and I would categorize them under "Those Big Questions" because they truly are extensive and controversial. I wish, just like many people, that I could simply come up with the answers to these issues because that sure would save us a lot of trouble! I don't know how much I can expand on what I have already said, but I do believe countries need to revolutionize, but what is our role in that? Good question!
I was very shocked also, that violence and refugees were decreasing. Denomie and Cassidy, I was also thinking how Randy must have felt at our lack of knowledge towards this topic. I suppose that is why he was there though, to inform people about what really is happening in the world.
ReplyDeleteI think that the spread of human rights and democracy have had the most major impacts on violence decreasing. After seeing his presentation and looking deeper into the topic I can understand now how, in fact, violence truly is decreasing, but it took some thinking to make sense of what he said and everything I thought I knew about what was happening in our world.
As with most people at the presentation I was also surprised to see the the world is actually becoming a safer place. I feel like I was a bit ignorant to the fact. I believe that most of us thought this way because it is the wars and conflict; big and small, that we see in the media, instead of things like Randy told us.
ReplyDeleteI still feel that a big reason that the world is less violent, is that there is more fear about major conflicts, because with the new technology, the weapons that people possess are more deadly. This may not be the nicest way to look at it be it adds to the decline of conflict is the world so it helps all the same. It is good the the world is becoming safer and more peaceful, it is the sign of a brighter future for everyone. I'm not saying that there isn't more to do. There will probably always be more to do no matter how good the world becomes.
Much like everyone else who posted about the presentation, the lack of knowledge that students these days have about peace is just baffling though I don’t think that Randy Jenzen was surprised at all. If we look at the lack of awareness in schools these days, then what about people only slightly older than us who are not in school anymore and are in college and university. We think that we didn't/ don't know anything about it, but when I was talking with my sister about the presentation, she had no idea what I was even talking about. She didn't know that the world was neither violent or peaceful because honestly, she just didn't really care and I think that that is one of the issues of why people don't know what is happening in the world.
ReplyDeleteI do not think that one certain thing has had the most impact on the decrease in violence, I think its just the fact that there are so many factors that have affected and matured over time. If violence truly is declining then I can't help but look forward to a brighter future.
Although I was not present for this speaker, I was "filled in" a bit. I think its incredibly interesting how humans, and society, seem to almost fool themselves into thinking things like "violence is at its largest" when really its not. I find it intriguing in an almost psychological way how war and violence are presented as rising, growing issues when really they are decreasing. It is kind of admirable for our generation and times now to be working on bringing violence down, but it also saddening that the knowledge of these things is lacking in our generation. Perhaps violence would be at an even more ultimate low if we had more knowledge of its standing.
ReplyDelete