essay on violence and peace

COMPASS Manual for Human Rights Education with Young people

Peace and violence.

Violence: concepts and examples

What is violence.

Violence is a complex concept. Violence is often understood as the use or threat of force that can result in injury, harm, deprivation or even death. It may be physical, verbal or psychological. The World Health Organisation (WHO) defines violence as "intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment or deprivation". 1 This definition emphasises intentionality, and broadens the concept to include acts resulting from power relationships.

8 million light weapons are produced each year. 2 bullets are produced each year for every person on the planet. 2 out of 3 people killed by armed violence die in countries "at peace". 10 people are injured for every person killed by armed violence. Estimates from www.controlarms.org

An expanded understanding of violence includes not only direct "behavioural" violence, but also structural violence, which is often unconscious. Structural violence results from unjust and inequitable social and economic structures and manifesting itself in for example, poverty and deprivation of all kinds.

Forms of violence can be categorised in many ways. One such classification includes:

• direct violence, e.g. physical or behavioural violence such as war, bullying, domestic violence, exclusion or torture
• structural violence, e.g. poverty and deprivation of basic resources and access to rights; oppressive systems that enslave, intimidate, and abuse dissenters as well as the poor, powerless and marginalised
• cultural violence, e.g. the devaluing and destruction of particular human identities and ways of life, the violence of sexism, ethnocentrism, racism and colonial ideologies, and other forms of moral exclusion that rationalise aggression, domination, inequity, and oppression.

Question: Are direct, structural and/or cultural violence present in your community? How?

Today's human rights violations are the causes of tomorrow's conflicts. Mary Robinson

Violence in the world

Each year, more than 1.6 million people worldwide lose their lives to violence. For every person who dies as a result of violence, many more are injured and suffer from a range of physical, sexual, reproductive and mental health problems. Violence places a massive burden on national economies in health care, law enforcement and lost productivity. World Health Organisation 2

Structural and cultural forms of violence are often deeply impregnated in societies to the point of being perceived as inherent. This type of violence lasts longer, thus eventually having similar consequences as direct violence, or, in some cases, even leading to the oppressed using direct violence as a response. Lower education opportunities in disadvantaged neighbourhoods, limited access to leisure for foreigners, harmful working conditions in certain fields of work, and so on, are acts of structural and cultural violence which have a direct influence on people's access to their rights. Yet these forms of violence are rarely recognised as violations of human rights. What follows are some examples about different forms of violence worldwide. These are not the only ones. More information about the effects of armed conflicts can be found in War and Terrorism and in various other sections of this manual.

Military spending, arms trade and violence 

The production and trade in arms and weapons is undoubtedly one of the greatest threats to peace, not least because of the economic, financial and social dimensions of arms production. The production and export of arms is often encouraged on economic grounds with little con- sideration to the impact on peace and security. World military spending is steadily increasing; in 2014 the world spent an estimated €1776 billion on the military. The database of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute3 shows in 2014 the USA (€610 billion) as the biggest military spender, followed by China (€216 billion) and then three European countries, Russia ($84 billion) the United Kingdom ($60 billion) and France (€62 billion). Europe as a whole spent $386 billion.

Data from the Overseas Development Institute (www.odi.org ) shows that we could deliver free primary and secondary education in all the poor countries around the world for $32 billion per year, this is less than a single week's global military spending.

Question: How much does your country of residence spend on arms production and purchases annually?

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) estimates that at least 740,000 women, men, young people and children are killed each year by armed violence; most of those affected live in poverty. The majority of armed killings occur outside of wars, although armed conflicts continue to generate a high number of deaths. Moreover, a huge number of people are injured by armed violence and face long-term suffering because of it. According to Amnesty International, about 60% of human rights violations documented by the organisation have involved the use of small arms and light weapons. 4

Controlling Arms Trade Control Arms is a global civil society alliance campaigning for an international legally-binding treaty that will stop the transfer of arms and ammunition. The campaign emphasises that domestic regulations have failed to adapt to increasing globalisation of the arms trade since different parts of weapons are produced in different places and transferred to other countries to be assembled. Control Arms is calling for a "bulletproof" Arms Trade Treaty that would hold governments accountable for illegal arms transfers. www.controlarms.org

A form of inter-personal violence, bullying is one of the forms of violence that affects young people and is often not considered as a form of violence. Bullying refers to aggressive behaviour which is repeated and intends to hurt someone. It can take the form of physical, psychological or verbal aggression. It can take place in any situation where human beings interact, be it at school, at the workplace or any other social place.  Bullying can be direct, confronting a person face-to-face, or indirect by spreading rumours or harming someone over the Internet, for example. Although it is difficult to have clear statistics, research shows that bullying is an increasing problem. Victims often do not dare to speak out, and it is therefore extremely difficult to identify and support victims of bullying.

Is corporal punishment legitimate?

Corporal punishment is the most widespread form of violence against children and is a violation of their human rights. In the past, some argued that smacking was a harmless form of punishment which enabled parents to educate their children, whereas others considered it a violent form of physical punishment. The Council of Europe campaign Raise Your Hand Against Smacking provoked strong debates in Member States, and took a human rights stand against this practice.

Gender-based violence

More information about gender and gender-based violence, can be found in the section on Gender, in chapter 5, and in the manual Gender Matters, www.coe.int/compass

While male-dominated societies often justify small arms possession through the alleged need to protect vulnerable women, women actually face greater danger of violence when their families and communities are armed. Barbara Frey 6

Gender-based violence is one of the most frequent forms of structural and cultural violence. It is present in every society and its consequences affect virtually all human beings. According to the UNFPA, gender-based violence "both reflects and reinforces inequities between men and women and compromises the health, dignity, security and autonomy of its victims. It encompasses a wide range of human rights violations, including sexual abuse of children, rape, domestic violence, sexual assault and harassment, trafficking of women and girls and several harmful traditional practices. Any one of these abuses can leave deep psychological scars, damage the health of women and girls in general, including their reproductive and sexual health, and in some instances, results in death" 5 . Gender-based violence does not have to be physical. In fact, young people suffer much verbal violence, especially targeted at LGBT (young) people and girls.

Everyone has the right, individually and in association with others, to promote and to strive for the protection and realization of human rights and fundamental freedoms at the national and international levels. Article 1 of the UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders

In situations of conflict, women become particularly vulnerable and new forms of violence against women emerge. These can range from mass rape to forced sexual assaults, forced pregnancy, or sexual slavery. The polarisation of gender roles during armed conflicts is increased, women thus being seen as objects of war and territories to be conquered.

Violence Against Human Rights Defenders

Useful information for human rights defenders: www.frontlinedefenders.org/ www.amnesty.org/en/human-rights-defenders www.ohchr.org    http://www.civilrightsdefenders.org

Investigating, reporting human rights violations and educating people about human rights and campaigning for justice can be dangerous work. Human rights defenders are people who individually, or with others, promote and protect human rights through peaceful and non-violent means. Because of their work, human rights defenders can be subjected to different types of violence, including beatings, arbitrary arrest or execution, torture, death threats, harassment and defamation, or restrictions on their freedom of expression, and association.  In 2000, the United Nations established a Special Rapporteur whose main mission is to support implementation of the 1998 Declaration on human rights defenders. The "protection" of human rights defenders includes protecting the defenders themselves and the right to defend human rights. The Special Rapporteur seeks, receives, examines and responds to information on the situation of human rights defenders, promotes the effective implementation of the Declaration and recommends strategies to protect human rights defenders. 7

Question: How free and safe is it to report or denounce human rights abuse and violations in your country?

If you look at them [conflicts] and remove the superficial levels of religion and politics, quite often it is a question of trying to access resources, trying to control those resources, and trying to decide how those resources will be shared. Wangari Maathai

The fight for resources

The possession of or control over natural resources such as water, arable land, mineral oil, metals, natural gas, and so on, have often fuelled violent conflicts throughout history. The depletion of certain resources and the shortage of others, such as water or arable land, is expected to become more widespread due to growth of consumption and climate change. This may create more regional or international tensions, potentially leading to violent conflicts.

Question: How is your country part of the competition for scarce resources?

Peace, human security and human rights

War and violence inevitably result in the denial of human rights. Building a culture of human rights is a pre-condition to achieving a state of peace. Sustainable, lasting peace and security can only be attained when all human rights are fulfilled. Building and maintaining a culture of peace is a shared challenge for humankind.

What is peace?

A culture of peace will be achieved when citizens of the world understand global problems, have the skills to resolve conflicts and struggle for justice non-violently, live by international standards of human rights and equity, appreciate cultural diversity, and respect the Earth and each other. Such learning can only be achieved with systematic education for peace. Global Campaign for Peace Education of the Hague Appeal for Peace

FIAN is an international human rights organisation that has advocated for the realisation of the right to food. www.fian.org

The above campaign statement offers a broader understanding of peace: peace means not only the lack of violent conflicts, but also the presence of justice and equity, as well as respect for human rights and for the Earth. Johan Galtung, a recognised Norwegian scholar and researcher, defined two aspects of peace. Negative peace means that there is no war, no violent conflict between states or within states. Positive peace means no war or violent conflict combined with a situation where there is equity, justice and development. The absence of war by itself does not guarantee that people do not suffer psychological violence, repression, injustice and a lack of access to their rights. Therefore, peace cannot be defined only by negative peace.

The concept of peace also has an important cultural dimension. Traditionally, for many people in the "western world", peace is generally understood to be an outside condition., while in other cultures, peace also has to do with inner peace (peace in our minds or hearts). In the Maya tradition, for example, peace refers to the concept of welfare; it is linked to the idea of a perfect balance between the different areas of our lives. Peace, therefore, is to be seen as both internal and external processes which affect us.

Human security

A concept closely related to peace and violence is human security, which recognises the interrelation between violence and deprivation of all kinds. It concerns the protection of individuals and communities from both the direct threat of physical violence and the indirect threats that result from poverty and other forms of social, economic or political inequalities, as well as natural disasters and disease. A country may not be under threat of external attack or internal conflict but still be insecure if, for example, it lacks the capacity to maintain the rule of law, if large populations are displaced by famine or decimated by disease or if its people lack the basic necessities of survival and access to their human rights.

Human security furthers human rights because it addresses situations that gravely threaten human rights and supports the development of systems that give people the building blocks of survival, dignity and essential freedoms: freedom from want, freedom from fear and freedom to take action on one's own behalf. It uses two general strategies to accomplish this: protection and empowerment. Protection shields people from direct dangers, but also seeks to develop norms, processes and institutions that maintain security. Empowerment enables people to develop their potential and become full participants in decision making. Protection and empowerment are mutually reinforcing, and both are required.

Question: How does insecurity affect the young people with whom you work?

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) adopted by the UN in 2015 recognise the important role of security for development. SDG 16, sometimes shortened to “Peace and Justice” is to “promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels”. There are 10 targets, for instance 16.1 to reduce all forms of violence, 16.2 end abuse and all forms of violence against and torture of children. The full list of targets is  in the further information section of the activity, “How much do we need?”.

The linkages between SDG 16 and human rights are:

• Right to life, liberty and security of the person [UDHR art. 3; ICCPR arts. 6(1), 9(1);
• ICPED art. 1] including freedom from torture [UDHR art. 5; ICCPR art. 7; CAT art. 2; CRC art. 37(a)]
• Protection of children from all forms of violence, abuse or exploitation [CRC arts. 19, 37(a)), including trafficking (CRC arts. 34-36; CRC–OP1)]
• Right to access to justice and due process [UDHR arts. 8, 10; ICCPR arts. 2(3), 14-15; CEDAW art. 2(c)]
• Right to legal personality [UDHR art. 6; ICCPR art. 16; CRPD art. 12]
• Right to participate in public affairs [UDHR art. 21; ICCPR art. 25]
• Right to access to information [UDHR art. 19; ICCPR art. 19(1)] (www.ohchr.org)

Peace as a human right

Peace is a way of living together so that all members of society can accomplish their human rights. It is as an essential element to the realisation of all human rights. Peace is a product of human rights: the more a society promotes, protects and fulfils the human rights of its people, the greater its chances for curbing violence and resolving conflicts peacefully. However, peace is also increasingly being recognised as a human right itself, as an emerging human right or part of the so-called solidarity rights.

Non-violence is the supreme law of life. Indian proverb

All peoples shall have the right to national and international peace and security. African Charter on Human and People's Rights, Article 23

The connection between international human rights and the right to peace is very strong, notably because the absence of peace leads to so many violations of human rights. The UDHR recognises, for example, the right to security and freedom (Article 3); prohibits torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (Article 5), and calls for an international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in the declaration can be fully realised (Article 28).  The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights prohibits propaganda for war as well as "advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence" (Article 20). The right to peace is also codified in some regional documents such as the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights and the Asian Human Rights Charter. The creation of the Council of Europe was itself based on the conviction that "the pursuit of peace based upon justice and international co-operation is vital for the preservation of human society and civilisation".

The right to peace in UN Human Rights Council "The Human Rights Council … 1.  Reaffirms that the peoples of our planet have a sacred right to peace; 2.  Also reaffirms that the preservation of the right of peoples to peace and the promotion of its implementation constitute a fundamental obliga- tion of all States; 3.  Stresses the importance of peace for the promotion and protection of all human rights for all; 4.  Also stresses that the deep fault line that divides human society between the rich and the poor and the ever-increasing gap between the de- veloped world and the developing world pose a major threat to global prosperity, peace, human rights, security and stability; 5.  Further stresses that peace and security, development and human rights are the pillars of the United Nations system and the foundations for collective security and well-being; …" 11

The opposite of violence isn't non-violence, it's power. When one has moral power, power of conviction, the power to do good, one doesn't need violence. 9 Nelsa Libertad Curbelo 10

Human security is a child who did not die, a disease that did not spread, a job that was not cut, an ethnic tension that did not explode in violence, a dissident who was not silenced. Human security is not a concern with weapons – it is a concern with human life and dignity. Human Development Report, 1994

The Santiago Declaration on the Human Right to Peace, adopted in 2010 by The International Congress on the Human Right to Peace, is one of the most elaborate documents on peace as a human right.  The declaration recognises individuals, groups, peoples and all humankind as holders of the "inalienable right to a just, sustainable and lasting peace" (Art. 1) and "States, individually, jointly or as part of multilateral organisations", as the principal duty holders of the human right to peace". The declaration also calls for the right to education "on and for peace and all other human rights" as a component of the right to peace because "education and socialization for peace is a condition sine qua non for unlearning war and building identities disentangled from violence". The right to human security and the right to live in a safe and healthy environment, "including freedom from fear and from want" are also put forward as elements of "positive peace". Other dimensions of the right to peace are the right to disobedience and conscientious objection, the right to resist and oppose oppression and the right to disarmament. The declaration also devotes a specific article to the rights of victims, including their right to seek justice and a breakdown of the obligations entailed in the human right to peace.

Question: In practice, what does the human right to peace mean for you?

Legitimate (state) violence

Not all violence is illegal or illegitimate. Violent acts are sometimes necessary in order to protect the human rights of other people. I may have to use violence for self-defence; I expect a policeman to use, in extreme cases, some kind of violence to protect me or my family from violence from other people. My human right to security implies that the state and its agents protect me from violence. A human rights framework implies that violent actions by state or public agents is justified (and sometimes required), provided that it is organised and enacted within a human rights framework, including respect for the rights of the victim.

All persons have a right to peace so that they can fully develop all their capacities, physical, intellectual, moral and spiritual, without being the target of any kind of violence. Asian Human Rights Charter, 1998, paragraph 4.1

This raises questions about the primacy of some human rights over others: the right to life is a clear human right, and still in many cases, human beings are being punished violently or killed, as a consequence of their acts. Examples from throughout history illustrate how civil movements have brought about change and better access to people's human rights. However, peaceful movements are often suppressed by violent police or army action. Repressing people's right to freedom of expression and association. The "Arab Spring" movements initiated in 2011 showed how youth in Tunisia, Egypt and other Arab countries gathered and peacefully reclaimed their human rights, but were violently attacked and put into detention by state armed forces, many losing their lives.

Question: When is armed intervention by policy justified?

Starvation is the characteristic of some people not having enough to eat. It is not the characteristic of there not being enough to eat. Amartya Sen

From a human rights perspective, the deprivation of the liberty of a person as a consequence of a criminal offence does not take away their inherent humanity. This is why the measures taken by the state against people who have acted violently against others must not be arbitrary, must respect their inherent dignity, and must protect these persons against torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. One of the aims of detention is the social rehabilitation of prisoners.

I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent. Ghandi

The rule of law and protection of human rights and freedoms are crucial safeguards for an effective and just criminal justice system. Yet, while protecting the innocent 12 , custody and imprisonment are often also, unfortunately, the places where human rights violations appear. According to human rights standards, in particular the Convention on the Rights of the Child, specific rehabilitation mechanisms must be put in place for young offenders, such as "laws, procedures, authorities and institutions specifically applicable to children alleged as, accused of, or recognized as having infringed the penal law" (Art. 40). This, however, is not always the case. According to Penal Reform International, the way authorities deal with young offenders can often lead to long-term physical and psychological ill-health. For example, exposure to violent behaviour in detention and separation from families and community may undermine the idea of rehabilitation and push them further into criminal activities. Based on the UNICEF estimates, today there are more than one million children in detention worldwide.

Question: Can imprisonment be an effective way to rehabilitate and educate children and young people who have committed a criminal offence?

Death penalty

The death penalty is forbidden by the European Convention on Human Rights as well as in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Protocol 1). Outlawing the death penalty does not justify human rights violations. It is also based on the belief that violence cannot be fought with more violence. The outlawing of the death penalty is also a statement about the infallibility of justice: history shows that judicial mistakes are always possible and that there is the risk that the wrong person may be executed. However, the outlawing of the death penalty is also a testament to the belief of the right to life and dignity - and to a fair trial.

Penal Reform International is an international non-governmental organisation working on penal and criminal justice reform worldwide. www.penalreform.org

In 2011, 1,923 people in 63 countries were known to have been sentenced to death and 676 executions were known to have been carried out in 20 countries. However, the 676 figure does not include the perhaps thousands of people that Amnesty International estimates have been executed in China. 13    Belarus is the only country in Europe that in 2012 still carried out executions. According to Amnesty International, prisoners on death row in Belarus are told that they will be executed only minutes before the sentence is carried out. They are executed by a shot to the back of the head. The family members are informed only after execution, and the place of burial is kept in secret.

Young people and a culture of peace

Conflict transformation, reconciliation, peace education, and remembrance are part of the actions that carry the hope for a life free from violence and for a culture of peace. We have to learn from the past and make efforts to avoid the reoccurrence of terrible events against humanity which previous generations lived through. There are still local wars and armed conflicts in some places of the world. It is comforting to know that we are not defenceless and that we have tools to eliminate violence. Young people play an important role in this change.

Only societies based on democracy, the rule of law and human rights can provide sustainable long-term stability and peace. Thorbjørn Jagland, Secretary General of the Council of Europe

The Council of Europe works to promote social justice, and to avoid the escalation of violent conflicts and prevent wars and terrorist activities. The organisation encourages political leaders and civil society to build and nourish a culture of peace instead of a culture of violence and it raises awareness of the cost of violence, the perspectives of a peaceful future, the importance of democracy and democratic skills, as well as promoting humanism, human dignity, freedom and solidarity.

The Council of Europe's youth sector has over 40 years of experience in working on intercultural learning, conflict transformation and human rights education. The adoption by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe of the White Paper on Intercultural Dialogue "Living Together as Equals in Dignity", confirmed the political relevance of these approaches, and emphasised the need for dialogue between cultures for the development and safeguarding of peaceful societies.

Meet your own prejudice! Instead of talking about it, simply meet it. The Living Library Organiser's Guide 14

The 7th Conference of European Ministers responsible for Youth (Budapest, 2005) was devoted to youth policy responses to violence. In the final declaration, the ministers agreed, amongst others, on the importance of taking stock of all forms of violence and of their impact on people, on the need to develop violence-prevention strategies and to recognise young people as actors in violence prevention, "whilst raising their sense of responsibility and actively promoting their participation and co-operation" in this domain. The declaration also recognises human rights education as containing an essential dimension of violence prevention. The ministerial conference was the culmination of a project against violence in daily life which resulted in various educational instruments and initiatives to prevent and address violence, such as the manual for Living Library organisers.

As peace ambassadors we should become the eyes and ears of the Coun-cil of Europe in our countries and in Europe. Zlata Kharitonova, participant in Youth Peace Ambassadors

The youth sector of the Council of Europe has also initiated and supported youth-led projects addressing conflict and promoting peace education. The Youth Peace Camp has been running since 2004, and brings together young people from different conflicting areas to engage in dialogue on the understanding that they share common values and experiences, often very painful ones. The programme helps youth leaders to recognise and address prejudice, combating aggressive and exclusive forms of nationalism, and implementing intercultural learning and human rights education. For some of the participants this is the first time in their lives that they have talked face-to-face with young people from "the other side". The camp is now held annually at the European Youth Centre and occasionally in member states.

Multiplying peace education After the Youth Peace Camp 2011, six Israeli and Palestinian participants decided to keep meeting on the cease fire or so-called "green line". Every month other young people from both sides join the afternoon meeting, which includes discussions, sharing personal stories and having fun. As a joint group they engage in community work on both sides of the line, each time in a different community on a different side, always in a community affected somehow by the ongoing conflict.

The Youth Peace Ambassadors project, initiated in 2011, engages youth leaders in specific grassroots level peace education projects with young people, aiming at transforming conflict situations in their realities. The project is built on a network of specifically trained young people who strengthen the presence and promote the values of the Council of Europe in conflict-affected areas and communities.

Undoing Hate In the last two years, the streets of Prijepolje, a multicultural town in Serbia, became surrounded by "wrong" graffiti, filled with hate speech towards foreigners and people with different religions (Muslim and Orthodox). Most of the graffiti is written by boys from 2 different hooligan groups. My project brings together 10 boys, aged 14 – 18, from both a hooligan group and ethnic/religious minorities, who will redecorate the town by using graffiti to undo the hate graffiti which was put up in various places. While doing so, a peace-building documentary will be filmed. This project should help to create a strong basis for peace building, mutual understanding and tolerance. Edo Sadikovic, JUMP organisation, Serbia (Youth Peace Ambassador's project)

Networks for peace

The following are some examples to consider the variety, seriousness and creativity of peace builders and human rights defenders.

Combatants for Peace – is a movement which was started jointly by Palestinians and Israelis who have taken an active part in the cycle of violence and now fight for peace.

Search for Common Ground implements conflict-transformation programmes.

Responding to Conflict   provides training for conflict transformation. Inspiring examples of and study notes for conducting training can be found on their website.

The Global Partnership for the Prevention of Armed Conflict is a global network seeking a new international consensus on moving from reaction to prevention of violent conflict.

The United Network of Young Peacebuilders is a network of youth-led organisations working towards establishing peaceful societies.

1 World report on violence and health, WHO 2002, Geneva p 5: http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/2002/9241545615.pdf 2 www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/violence/en/ 3 Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI):  www.sipri.se 4 http://controlarms.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/killer_facts_en.pdf   5 www.unfpa.org/gender/violence.htm 6 Progress report of Barbara Frey, UN Special Rapporteur, "Prevention of human rights violations committed with small arms and light weapons", UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/2004/37, 21 June 2004, para 50  7 Source: www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/SRHRDefenders/ 8 Evans, A., Resource scarcity, fair shares and development, WWF / Oxfam, Discussion paper, 2011   9 From the film Barrio De Paz 10 Nelsa Libertad Curbelo is a former nun and street gang mediator in Ecuador 11 UN General Asembly, 15 July 2011, Document A/HRC/RES/1/7/16 of the Human Rights Council 12 Based on the UK criminal Justice systems aims, see: http://ybtj.justice.gov.uk/ 13 Amnesty International death penalty statistics 14 Don't judge a book by its cover – the Living Library Organiser's Guide, Abergel R. et al, Council of Europe Publishing, 2005

Download Compass  

• Violence: Concepts and examples
• 12 February Red Hand Day
• 21 March International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination
• 15 May International Day of Conscientious Objection
• 29 May International Day of United Nations Peacekeepers
• 4 June International Day of Innocent Children Victims of Aggression
• 26 June United Nations International Day in Support of Victims of Torture
• 6 August Hiroshima Day
• 21 September International Day of Peace
• 2 October International Day of Non-Violence
• 10 October World Day Against the Death Penalty
• 24-30 October Disarmament Week
• 9 November International Day Against Fascism and Antisemitism
• 11 November International Day of Science and Peace
• 25 November International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women
• 2 December International Day for the Abolition of Slavery

University of Notre Dame

Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews

• Home ›
• Reviews ›

The Ethics of Nonviolence: Essays by Robert L. Holmes

Robert L. Holmes,  The Ethics of Nonviolence: Essays by Robert L. Holmes , Predrag Cicovacki (ed.), Bloomsbury, 2013, 263pp., $34.95 (pbk), ISBN 9781623568054.

Reviewed by Andrew Fiala, California State University, Fresno

This is a collection of essays by Robert L. Holmes, a philosopher known primarily for his extensive body of work on nonviolence and war, including his influential book, On War and Morality (Princeton University Press, 1989). The essays include some of Holmes' early articles on American pragmatism and ethical theory. But its primary focus is later work, including some important material on the philosophy of nonviolence (some of it published previously in journals and books along with some previously unpublished material). The book concludes with a short essay on Holmes' teaching philosophy and an interview with the editor that provides some biographical material about Holmes' education and life.

While the earlier essays on pragmatism and ethical theory may be of interest to academic philosophers, and the later items would be of interest to those who know Holmes as a teacher or colleague, the primary focus of the volume is on the ethics of nonviolence. The essays on this topic are both readable and important. They would be of interest to a broad audience and not merely to academic philosophers. Indeed, these essays should be read and carefully considered by students of peace studies and peace activists.

One significant contribution is Holmes' is analysis of the difference between nonviolentism and pacifism. Indeed, it appears that he coined the term "nonviolentism" in a 1971 essay that is reprinted in this collection (157). According to Holmes, pacifism is a narrow perspective that is merely opposed to war, while nonviolentism is a broader perspective that is opposed in general to violence.

Holmes' account is a fine piece of analytic philosophy that reminds us that conceptual analysis matters. One concrete outcome of his analysis is the idea that one need not be an absolutist to be a pacifist or a nonviolentist. According Holmes, pacifists and nonviolentists get painted into a conceptual corner when they are thought to be absolutists. Absolute nonviolentism is easily overcome by imagined thought experiments in which a minor amount of violence is necessary in order to save a large number of people. Holmes concedes this point, admitting that absolute pacifism is "clearly untenable" (158).

Holmes' admission that pacifism is not appropriate for all conceivable worlds and in any conceivable circumstance may appear to doom his effort to defend nonviolence. And some may object that once Holmes makes this concession, continued discussion of nonviolentism becomes moot. Why bother to discuss nonviolentism when it won't work for the really hard cases?

But in fact, his admission of the limits of absolute moralizing is interesting as a meta-philosophical thesis, as a comment about absolutism in philosophy. And it links to his understanding of nonviolence as a way of life. Holmes connects the idea of nonviolence as a way of life with the tradition of virtue ethics -- and with non-Western sources such as Taoism. Holmes' goal is to describe a way of life in which nonviolence governs all of life, including both thought and deed.

Nonviolence in this maximalist sense does govern all of our life. Once we satisfy its requirements, we may in other respects act as we choose toward others. Even though I have stated it negatively, it has, for all practical purposes, a positive content. It tells us to be nonviolent . (174)

This is somewhat vague. A critic may worry -- as critics of virtue ethics often do -- that this is not very helpful when considering concrete cases. Such a retreat to virtue may not be readily accepted by absolutists who want clarity about moral principles. But Holmes fends of this sort of critique in his theoretical essays. In an essay with the polemical title "The Limited Relevance of Analytical Ethics to the Problems of Bioethics," Holmes aims to show that analytic ethics fails in important ways. In general Holmes holds that moral philosophy is situated in a broader context in which philosophers come to their work with a set of predispositions that are apparent even in the choice of methodology. And he points to a gap between the way philosophers proceed and the way the vast majority of people proceed, when reflecting on moral issues. What most of us want is a way of life and system of virtue -- not merely a decision procedure based on abstract principles.

This leads Holmes to conclude that academic philosophy is not very good at creating moral wisdom. Moral philosophizing attempts to hover free from value claims -- in attempting to be neutral -- and thus can end up being used to support immoral outcomes. A related point is made in Holmes' broader claim about the way that universities are too cozy with the military-industrial complex -- for example in supporting ROTC programs. While his criticism of ROTC was made in the early 1970's, we might note that ROTC still exists on campuses across the country, often free from criticism. It is worth considering whether the values embodied in academic philosophy and the larger academy are nonviolentist in Holmes' sense.

In the metaphilosophical and metaethical concerns of the earlier essays, Holmes clarifies the source of his thinking in American pragmatism (with special emphasis on Dewey). He also discusses the problem of finding a middle path between consequentialist and nonconsequentialist moral theory. And he criticizes philosophers' tendency to rely on imagined thought experiments.

He explains, for example, that most people are simply not absolutists, who hold to principles in the face of all possible counter-examples. He writes that although some philosophers believe that "far-fetched counterexamples" may crushingly refute absolute principles, "the philosopher's refutation of the philosopher's interpretation of the principle becomes conspicuously irrelevant to the issues in which ordinary people find themselves caught up" (57). Holmes' immediate target here is moral reasoning that occurs in applied ethics -- specifically Judith Thomson's widely read 1971 article "In Defense of Abortion." Holmes aims beyond the postulation of absolutist principles and attempted refutations of these by imagined counter-examples.

The imagined examples that are offered to refute pacifism are, for the most part irrelevant to Holmes' endeavor of describing and defending an ethic of nonviolence. He rejects an exclusive focus on "contrived cases, such as that of a solitary Gandhi assuming the lotus position before an attacking Nazi panzer division" (146). Holmes admits that killing could be justified in some rare situations. But such an admission does not help us make moral judgments in the real world of war and militarism. I think he is right about this. But one might worry that Holmes does not offer enough analysis of the concrete and ugly reality of war. For example, there is no discussion of post-traumatic stress disorder or suicide by soldiers or fragging -- let alone an account of war on children, widows, and the social fabric. Indeed, there is little here in terms of descriptions of the ugly reality of war that is often left out by defenders of militarism. Holmes may imagine that we already know that ugly reality. But his argument could be bolstered by more concrete detail.

One significant point Holmes makes is that much of the evil of the world -- and especially the evil of war -- is not deliberately intended. Holmes rejects the doctrine of double effect by noting that an exclusive focus on intention is insufficient. But he points toward a larger problem, which he names "the Paradox of Evil": "the greatest evils in the world are done by basically good people" (209). Truly evil people are usually only able to harm a few others. But the greatest harms are done by large social organizations that use good people to create massive suffering. Holmes suggests that the worst things happen when basically good people end up sacrificing for and supporting political and military systems. One reason for this is that they have been persuaded that nonviolentism is silly -- by those pernicious and fallacious arguments that consist primarily of contrived imagined cases.

Rather than dwelling on those contrived cases, Holmes emphasizes that we ought to work to develop plausible alternatives to violence and war. He imagines a nonviolent army or peaceforce, consisting of tens of thousands of trained persons, funded and educated at levels equivalent to that of the military. While it may seem that "nonviolent social defense" (as Holmes prefers to call it) is feckless in a world of military power, Holmes points out that there have been successful cases of nonviolent social transformation in recent history: in the Indian campaign for independence from Britain, in the American Civil Rights movement, in the demise of the Soviet Union, and in the end of apartheid in South Africa. This is all useful as a reminder of the fact that nonviolence can work. But one thing missing here is a concrete analysis of how and why nonviolent social revolutions work.

Holmes does argue that in order to complete the work of creating a "nonviolent American revolution" as he puts it, we ought to leave our violentist/realist assumptions about history behind and acknowledge that nonviolence can work to produce positive social change. For example, Holmes points out that national economies are grounded in value judgments and that we could create a nonviolent national economy, rather than our current militarized economy.

This points toward Holmes' basic optimism and idealism. Holmes suggest that our world is based in thought: "much of the world that most of us live in consists of embodied thought" (233). Injustices such as slavery are grounded upon a set of values and concepts that could be otherwise. One of the problems of the ubiquity of militarism in the United States is the feeling that military power is inevitable and normal. But Holmes points out that things could be different -- that we could imagine the social and political world differently and reconstitute it accordingly.

One significant problem is that we are miseducated about the usefulness of violence. Prevailing historical narratives make it appear that progress is usually made by the use of military power. But Holmes is at pains to point out that war and violence have often not worked. "We know that resort to war and violence for all of recorded history has not worked. It has not secured either peace or justice to the world" (197). While we often hear a story touting the usefulness of violence -- as in the Second World War narrative -- it turns out that in reality war merely prepares the way for future conflict -- as the Second World War gave way to the Cold War.

A further problem is that Holmes thinks that we defer too willingly to the narratives told by those in power and that we are too quick to give our loyalty to the state. Holmes espouses loyalty to the truth -- not loyalty to the state -- and a higher patriotism that is directed beyond borders. "It is from love of one's country, and for humankind generally, that a nonviolent transformation of society must proceed" (232). Running throughout his essays is a sort of anarchism, which Holmes sees in the ideas of those authors he admires: Thoreau, Tolstoy, and Gandhi. Holmes concludes, "the consistent and thoroughgoing nonviolentist, as Tolstoy saw, will be an anarchist" (180). To support this idea, Holmes reminds us that there is nothing permanent or sacred about the system of nation-states. "Nation-states are not part of the nature of things. They certainly are not sacrosanct. If they perpetuate ways of thinking that foster division and enmity among peoples, ways should be sought to transcend them" (120).

The just war tradition and political realism appear to go astray when they turn the state into an end in itself, rather than viewing it as a means to be used to create positive social living. Holmes locates one source of this in Augustine, who compromised so much with state power that he ended up closer to Hobbes than to Jesus -- a line of political realism that Holmes claims is picked up by Reinhold Niebuhr.

This train of thought points toward a critique of the logic of militaristic nation-states, which will tend to grow in power and centralized control. This leads to what Holmes calls the "garrison mentality" and "the garrison state" (114). He maintains that under the guise of a realist interpretation of history we end up assimilating military values, thinking that we can solve both international and domestic problems through the use of military tactics. But the development of the garrison state chained to a permanent war economy is an impending disaster, especially in a democracy. Holmes suggests, "This most likely would not happen by design, but gradually, almost imperceptibly, through prolonged breathing of the air of militarism, deceptively scented by the language of democratic values" (114). But in the long run, the growth of militarism comes at the expense of democracy. These prescient ideas were originally published in 1998, prior to 9/11, the war on terrorism, and recent revelations about the growing extent of security agencies and spying. The perceptive insight of Holmes' remarks reminds us that the perspective of nonviolentism is a valuable one, which helps to provide a critical lens on the world.

In general, this book provides a useful collection of essays on the ethics of nonviolence. Some of the earlier essays can be seen as a bit academic and boring. But, as noted above, the metaphilosophical considerations found in these earlier essays are clearly connected to the more concrete considerations on the ethics and philosophy of nonviolence. If one thing is missing, it is a more extensive practical account of how and why nonviolence works. Holmes mentions that some of the evidence for his claims about the effectiveness of nonviolence can be found in the work of authors such as Gene Sharp. However, there are very few details. Nor is there much in terms of a description of what a nonviolent way of life would look like. Would it be vegetarian? Would it include religion? Would a nonviolentist play violent video games or films? How would nonviolence impact gender relations? Would a nonviolentist with anarchist sympathies such as Holmes retreat to a 21 st century version of Walden Pond? Or would nonviolence lead us to a life of activism and social protest? One hopes that Holmes may take up the practical particulars of a life of nonviolence in future work.

Johan Vincent Galtung (1930-2024): A great and controversial personality

By Werner Wintersteiner and Wilfried Graf*

A founding generation steps down: In the space of just a few years, international peace research has lost key figures who were at the forefront of founding the discipline. Herbert C. Kelman, one of its earliest representatives, died in March 2022. The Viennese-born American social psychologist had already founded an association and a journal in 1951 whose task was to conduct scientific research into “Conflict Resolution”. However, calling the endeavor by its real name, “Peace Research”, was unthinkable in the heated climate of the McCarthy era. At the beginning of November 2023, Betty A. Reardon, long-time professor at Columbia University in New York, a founder of feminist peace research (see for instance her book “Sexism and the War System”) and an outstanding figure in peace education (see for instance her book “Comprehensive Peace Education”) passed away. In February 2024, the Norwegian mathematician and sociologist Johan Galtung, probably the best-known, most dazzling and most influential, but also most controversial figure in early peace research, who also made a great contribution to peace education, passed away. In the following, we will attempt to outline Galtung’s significance for peace research without denying his contradictions.

1. On the way to “rauhantutkimus”

Johan Vincent Galtung, born in Oslo in 1930, was to a certain extent born into peace research. At least that is the conclusion one can come to if one goes by his own statements and stories. The Second World War, during which Norway was occupied by Nazi Germany, played a central role in Galtung’s early life. His father, deputy mayor of Oslo, was thrown into prison by the Nazis. After every action of the Norwegian resistance, some prison inmates were executed. So the family lived in constant fear for his father and the young Johan understood the “madness of war”, as he himself put it. He was all the more highly impressed by the pacifist revolutionary Gandhi, whose assassination in 1948 was deeply mourned by the then 17-year-old: “Gandhi’s message was that there is an alternative.”

As a young student of both mathematics and sociology, Galtung received a scholarship to Finland, where he asked a librarian to find him books on rauhantutkimus (the Finnish word for peace research) – in vain at the time. Back in Norway, he refused military service and decided to devote his life to peace research from then on. With his characteristic tenacity, he demanded that he be allowed to use the six months that his civilian service lasted longer than his military service for peace work. When this was not granted, he was prepared to spend this time in prison. There he studied Gandhi’s writings on non-violence – the basis for a book that he wrote together with his mentor, the philosopher Arne Naess, whose assistant he was from 1953 to 1957 (Galtung/Naess 1955). From 1956 to 1957, he was in Sicily at the invitation of Danilo Dolci, the “Italian Gandhi” (Aldo Capitini). Non-violent defense was a field of research for Galtung from the very beginning.

After completing his doctorate in sociology and an interlude as an assistant professor at Columbia University in New York, he succeeded in founding the Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO) in 1959 together with his first wife Ingrid Eide (who later became a minister in a social democratic cabinet). It is the oldest peace research institute in existence. In 1964, as part of PRIO, Galtung established the first specialist journal for peace studies, the Journal of Peace Research , which still exists today. In the same year, 1964, he was involved in the founding of the International Peace Research Association (IPRA), the professional association of peace researchers. In 1969, he gave up the directorship of PRIO to become Professor of Peace and Conflict Research at the University of Oslo, a position he held until 1978.

During this time, Galtung developed many of his most fundamental theories and concepts, which have established his reputation as the most influential peace researcher to this day. He advocated transdisciplinarity across all scientific disciplines. He did this with such verve and zeal that Kenneth Boulding, the highly respected social scientist and economist, felt compelled to make the following statement (Boulding 1977): “There are some people like Picasso whose output is so large and so varied that it is hard to believe that it comes from only one person. Johan Galtung falls into this category.”  

2. A driving force in peace research

The electrifying and inspiring power of his theoretical output is unique and has quickly made Galtung world-famous and influential. His concepts, especially that of structural violence, have often become so popular that many do not even know who their author is.

Negative and positive peace

With his first concepts, Galtung answered the question of whether peace research should adopt a narrow concept of peace (understood as the opposite of war) or a broad concept of peace, which understands peace not (only) as the opposite of war, but also of violence and injustice. Galtung advocated the broad concept of peace and proposed the very catchy, but in our opinion somewhat too dualistic terminology of negative peace versus positive peace (Galtung 1969). With negative peace , he describes the state of peace as the absence of war. He also defines positive peace as the existence of social justice. This provided an analytical tool for criticizing societies that do not wage war. In this way, it was possible to demonstrate how much “hidden” or low-threshold violence also exists in so-called peaceful societies. However, the choice of a broad concept of peace is not without its problems. It runs the risk of using peace as a synonym for “good life” and thus making it conceptually incomprehensible. In the late phase of his work, Galtung therefore specified and expanded the concept of positive peace to include four dimensions: Trauma management, conflict mediation, social justice (or equity), cultural harmony (of unity and difference).

Personal, structural and cultural violence

In close connection with the distinction between negative and positive peace , Galtung also differentiated the concept of violence. In his essay Violence, Peace and Peace Research (Galtung 1969), he postulated a dichotomy between direct or personal and structural violence . Structural violence refers to violence for which there are no clearly defined “perpetrators”, but rather unjust social conditions that cause people to die earlier than they should by nature, or unjust laws that “legally” restrict people’s democratic scope. For the early Galtung saw violence “ as the cause of the difference between the potential and the actual , between what could have been and what is” (Galtung 1969, 168; emphasis in original), while he later defined violence much more concretely as a violation of basic human needs. If, for example, people die of diseases for which there is a cure, but social conditions do not allow treatment for a large part of the population, this also constitutes violence.

Due to this clear distinction, economic exploitation and political oppression also came into the focus of peace research as potential conditions or causes of physical violence and various forms of social protest could be legitimized as just resistance against structural violence, which had previously been criticized exclusively as illegitimate violence.

In 1990, Galtung expanded his binary distinction to include the concept of cultural violence and thus developed a triangle of violence. He regarded as cultural violence those justifications of violence (e.g. racist theories) that legitimize existing acts or relationships of violence or even make them invisible (Galtung 1990).

Conflict management: diagnosis, prognosis, therapy

Galtung’s conflict theory has also become very influential. He sees conflict as an unavoidable social phenomenon that is not only negative, but also positive – as a motor for overcoming unjust conditions. However, the aim is to deal with conflict constructively rather than destructively. He developed the conflict triangle as an analytical tool for this. At the apex of the triangle (and therefore the only visible component) is the behavior of the conflict parties, while the attitudes , i.e. the (often culturally anchored) assumptions, thought patterns and the underlying actual contradiction do not have to be conscious to the actors at first. It is now a matter of identifying and overcoming obstructive attitudes in a thorough dialog process in order to find a creative result for both sides in the actual conflict. However, according to Galtung, we must be aware that conflict cannot be “resolved”, i.e. finally eliminated, but that it is a matter of transforming it, whereby not only the substantive contradiction but also the relationships between the conflict actors are constructively changed. In this conflict transformation, Galtung, who comes from a family of doctors, uses terminology borrowed from medicine: diagnosis, prognosis, therapy.

Development theory

Galtung’s development theory began with the analysis of structural violence in the world system and led to a structural theory of imperialism (Galtung 1973 and 1996, Part III) – it is one of his most cited texts. This is because these considerations fitted in with the anti-colonial zeitgeist of the 1970s and offered tools for criticizing the continued effects of colonial dependency relations. They also made it possible to criticize post-capitalist relations of domination as they emerged in the countries of bureaucratic socialism or in the sphere of influence of Soviet “social imperialism”. As an advisor to various UN organizations, Galtung was able to effectively anchor his understanding of human development beyond economic growth and of social justice and sustainability.

3. Peace mediation, peace education, peace journalism, peace policy

In 1993, Galtung and his second wife, Fumiko Nishimura, founded Transcend International , a global network for peace, development and the environment, which worked towards a more just and less violent world through conflict transformation and mediation. In this context, Galtung also further developed a range of peace practices – peace mediation, peace education, peace journalism, peace policy.

Peace education was an important concern for Galtung throughout his life. Not only did his concepts of negative and positive peace and his theory of violence and conflict provide numerous impulses for peace education, he was also personally very committed to peace education. This is evidenced by his numerous relevant publications and his presence at events, seminars and workshops (e.g. Galtung 1974, 1975, 1983, 2008). His way of presenting and fascinating and involving his audience was itself a visual lesson in peace education.

Galtung was active as a speaker and consultant practically all over the world and held visiting professorships at many universities, including Santiago (Chile), the United Nations University in Geneva, Columbia University, Princeton University and the University of Hawaii. He was Director General of the International University Center in Dubrovnik and helped found and lead the World Future Studies Federation. In 2014, he was appointed the first Tun Mahathir Professor of Global Peace at the International Islamic University in Malaysia. His influence on peace research, peace movements and civil society on a global scale can hardly be overestimated. He has also had an eminent influence on peace science and peace practice in Austria and throughout the German-speaking world, as well as on the two authors of this article. Galtung has received numerous national and international awards and honors, including the alternative Nobel Prize Right Livelihood Award in 1987.

4. The shadow over his life’s work

However, this account of Johan Galtung’s life and work cannot end as a heroic narrative. Regrettably, there were also many negative aspects to his life. He often displayed arrogant and disrespectful behavior towards those around him. The Italian peace researcher Valentina Bartolucci even felt compelled to describe him as follows:

“Over the years, his public interventions became increasingly polemical and earned him a great deal of criticism. In professional circles, he is remembered not only for his fundamental contributions to peace research, but also for his pronounced ego (he often reminded his interlocutors that he was a genius, which he probably was, and he is probably the most quoted author in the world! [1] ) He was gifted with a biting irony. [He] could not take criticism well and was reluctant to admit his mistakes.” (Bartolucci 2024)

But much worse are some of Galtung’s statements that could be perceived as anti-Semitic. This became particularly blatant in connection with his statements on the occasion of the terrorist attacks by Anders Breivik in Oslo and Utøya in 2011. [2] Since the accusations are serious and his opponents are often accused of ideological motives, a source that must be taken seriously is quoted here – the statement by the then director of PRIO, the institute founded by Galtung himself, Kristian Berg Harpviken. The latter wrote in 2012:

“Johan Galtung’s comments regarding the terror attacks by Anders Behring Breivik on 22 July 2011 have stirred strong reactions in many parts of the world. Through his own writing and in media comments, Galtung indicates that Israel, and freemasonry, may have been implicated in the 22 July terror, and he discusses the alleged Jewish domination of world media, American universities, and international finance. His unsubstantiated statements are of a kind that contribute to stereotyping one particular group, the Jews. A quote he attributes to Norman Podhoretz, which can be found on numerous racist and anti-semitic sites on the web, serves to imply that all Jews are under the obligation to defend Israel in public debates. Galtung also lends credibility to dubious publications, including speculative works on freemasonry and The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. I find these statements irreconcilable with the ethos of peace research, a field to which Galtung made substantial contributions.” [3]

Johan Galtung himself has categorically rejected all accusations and dismissed them as slander, recalling his undeniable earlier merits in researching prejudice, racism and anti-Semitism.  For the most part, however, he did not respond very specifically to the accusations. [4] In his perception, what others saw as anti-Semitism was the breaking of taboos.

Galtung’s attitude raises a number of questions. Why did the peace researcher move in this negative direction? Was this a break with his earlier views or is there also a hidden continuity here? Why does the peace research community pay so little attention to this issue and why is it so little discussed?

We (the authors of this paper) had already become aware of the problem of generalized criticism of Galtung’s cultural ideas about Judaism – beyond legitimate criticism of Israeli policy – earlier. In particular, we had publicly distanced ourselves from his culturalist interpretation of the Jewish notion of chosenness as cultural violence (Graf 2009). With his statements from 2011, however, Galtung has clearly gone a step too far. The fact that the peace research community does so little to address this shadowy aspect of Galtung’s work calls for a self-critical reappraisal. It is by no means helpful for our guild.

5. Peace research as a search for peace

Galtung’s aberrations can in no way be excused by his undoubtedly epochal achievements, but his epochal achievements are not devalued by his aberrations either. What remains is a work so great and magnificent that not even the mistakes of its creator are capable of destroying it. It is up to us to continue to be inspired by it and at the same time to receive it with a critical eye. The visionary orientation of peace research remains the guiding principle, as formulated by Galtung in the first editorial of the Journal of Peace Research in 1964: “Peace research should not be limited to an evaluation of existing policies. It should also be peace search, an audacious application of science in order to generate visions of new worlds.”

• Bartolucci, Valentina: Johan Vincent Galtung: A Trailblazer of Peace and Hope. EuPRA, February 27, 2024. https://www.euprapeace.org/news/2024/02/johan-vincent-galtung-trailblazer-peace-and-hope [5. 4. 2024]
• Boulding, Kenneth E. (1977): Twelve Friendly Quarrels with Johan Galtung. Journal of Peace Research. 14(1), 75-86.
• Galtung, Johan (1969): Violence, peace, and peace research. Journal of Peace Research 6(3), 167-191. https://doi.org/10.1177/002234336900600301
• Galtung, Johan (1973): Eine strukturelle Theorie des Imperialismus. In: Dieter Senghaas (Hg.): Imperialismus und strukturelle Gewalt. Analysen über abhängige Reproduktion. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 29-104.
• Galtung, Johan (1974): On Peace Education. In: Christoph Wulf (Ed.): Handbook on Peace Education. Frankfurt/Oslo: IPRA, 153-171.
• Galtung, Johan (1975): Peace: Research, education, action. Essays in peace research, Volume I. Copenhagen: Christian Ejlers, 317-333.
• Galtung, Johan (1983): Peace education: Learning to hate war, love peace, and to do something about it. International Review of Education 29(3), 281-287. DOI: 10.1007/BF00597972.
• Galtung, Johan (1990): Cultural Violence. Journal of Peace Research, 27(3), 291-305.
• Galtung, Johan (1996): Peace by peaceful means. Peace and Conflict, Development and Civilization. Oslo/London: PRIO/Sage.
• Galtung, Johan (2008): Conceptual Perspectives in Peace Education. In: Monisha Bajaj (ed.): Encyclopedia of Peace Education. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.
• Johan Galtung/Dietrich Fischer (2013): Johan Galtung. Pioneer of Peace Research. Heidelberg: Springer.
• Galtung, Johan/Naess, Arne (1955): Gandhis politiske etikk. Oslo: Johan Grundt Tanum Forlag.
• Graf, Wilfried (2009): Kultur, Struktur und das Unbewusste. In: Utta Isop/Viktorija Ratković/Werner Wintersteiner (Hrsg.): Spielregeln der Gewalt. Kulturwissenschaftliche Beiträge zur Friedens- und Geschlechterforschung. Bielefeld: transcript, 27-66.

* The authors

Professor (retired) Werner Wintersteiner, Ph. D ., was the founding director of the “Centre for Peace Research and Peace Education” at Klagenfurt University, Austria. He is a member of the team of the Master’s programme Global Citizenship Education (GCED) at Klagenfurt University, Austria as well as a board member of the Herbert C. Kelman Institute for Interactive Conflict Transformation, Vienna/Jerusalem. His main research fields include peace education; global citizenship education; peace research with a focus on culture and peace and on the Alps-Adriatic region; literature and peace and literature education.

Dr. Wilfried Graf is co-founder and director of the Herbert C. Kelman Institute for Interactive Conflict Transformation, Vienna/Jerusalem. He received his PhD in Sociology from Vienna University. Between 1983 and 2005, he was a researcher at the ASPR–Austrian Study Center for Peace and Conflict Resolution. He was then a senior researcher at the Institute for the Sociology of Law and Criminology until 2009. He has been engaged as a conflict transformation consultant for various initiatives in Central Asia, South Caucasus, South East Europe, Sri Lanka and Israel/Palestine. He lectured at the University of Vienna, University of Graz, University of Klagenfurt and the OSCE Academy in Central Asia.

[1] Obviously, she means “in the world of peace research” (See Galtung/Fischer 2013, p. 4).

Join the Campaign & help us #SpreadPeaceEd!

Check your inbox or spam folder to confirm your subscription.

Related Posts

Remembering a Voice for Peace: Johan Galtung (1930-2024)

New issue of Latin American Journal of Peace and Conflict Studies (open access)

IPRA-PEC at 50: Making the Most of Maturity

Uppsala University (Sweden) seeks Senior Lecturer in Peace and Conflict Research

2 thoughts on “johan vincent galtung (1930-2024): a great and controversial personality”.

Recently an Austrian peace researcher has tried to measure what Galtung called “cultural violence”: Franz Jedlicka developed a “Culture of Violence Scale” containing items like child corporal punishment, violence against women, the death penalty .. (a lack of laws protecting people from violence in different societal sectors) in the countries of the world. Interesting!

Thanks for the interesting post. I am not young enough to know that anyone has good/bad aspects in one’s life, even of famous persons; however I am still feel some parts of this article might be based on misunderstood reputation. I was just watching that discussion on the email mailing list of PJSA at that time, that Galtung is/isn’t anti-semitic, which was started by an enthusiastic scholar. There had been pros and cons, but I thought he was far from ant-semistic, even he criticized PARTIALLY Israel government’s policies, including its deep culture, not ALL of them. Facing that reputation, he and his colleague scholars were hurt very much, and made efforts to straighten the misunderstandings, even he should have known more that it was a very adventurous and dangerous criticism. His theory of deep culture, collective unconsciousness, which is embedded behind the conflict, points out not some thought, religion, ideology etc. itself, of its entire bodies, and any human beings’ deep culture always contains both of peace/unpeace factors. For example, Galtung even admired Jew’s culture of its peaceful aspects, strong sense of thinking, history of creating new ideas, custom of deep discussion, and praised some Jewish persons, who have contributed to enrich human beings’ civilization, on the other hand. He just criticized any PART of deep cultures in the world, of its violent phases, and was much severer to other ones than Jews. I asked one of the top scholars of political thoughts, who has been studying of political thoughts, and he denied Galtung was anti-semitic, while he was just afraid of Galtung’s adventurous criticism against many of sensitive matters, sometimes. His personality, I didn’t know about the incident described above, however, he is basically very humanistic; angry, arrogant, despair, laugh, stubborn, sad, fair, upset, easygoing, pessimistic, etc., as well as other ordinal persons. I have been experienced as scolded, praised, criticized, helped, and so on, have met with many of his emotional phases. At a workshop, he even came to me that he made a mistake, apologized, and thanked for my criticism. It might not be very fair to judge one’s whole character from picking up a single phenomena among one’s total behaviors. However, I believe he is definitely INDIVIDUALISTIC very much, than persons from other cultures, as well as other Norwegian giants like Nansen, Amundsen, Brundtland, and so on. This finding is agreed by a scholar, who is majoring Northern Europe history, and Galtung himself knew it very much, as criticized by academic societies. However, I don’t think peace studies has such developed as of today’s, if he is not individualistic at all, at least in its dawn period, 1960’s. I have learned from Galtung, as well as other many peace scholars’ theries, and I have some different ideas from his ones, from my arrogance; isn’t this more important for us to discuss with peace educators friends in the world?

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

 Yes, add me to your mailing list!

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Violence, peace, and peace research

1969, Journal of Peace research

Related Papers

Sheriff Folarin, PhD

Voice of the publisher

Teeko Tozay Yorlay

Murji, Sarah Neal and John Solomos (eds), An Introduction to Sociology, London: Sage: 360-376.

Christian Olsson

Christian Olsson LEARNING OBJECTIVES • Understand what is at stake in the debates about narrow or broad definitions of violence. • Understand how the social character of humans accounts both for non-violent and violent behaviour irrespective of their aggressiveness or fear of violence. • Understand the link between political power and violence. Framing Questions 1. What is violence and what are its main forms and manifestations? 2. Why and when do people resort to violence? 3. How has war shaped modernity and its institutions?

zahra ahmadipor

Abstract Presenting a comprehensive definition is the starting point of a scientific investigation of any phenomenon. Deficiency in this relation has caused many problems in peace studies and peace building processes. This article will investigate and criticize the definitions presented about peace. Inspired by science of geography, I will try to present a new definition in order to help to fill this gap. The article argues that peace is a legal harmony and can be compartmentalized quantitatively and qualitatively into different types. It also emphasizes on education and law as cardinal tools in peace-building. Keywords: Geography; Peace Definition; Law; Education

Gunter Prüller-Jagenteufel, Ruben C. Mendoza, Gertraud Ladner (Eds.) In Service for a Servant Church Outlines and Challenges for Catholic Theology Today. Documentation of the INSeCT Conferences in Manila 2019 and Vienna 2020

Kochurani Abraham

Peace is a highly desired state for any living being. There is a relentless yearning for peace in human hearts, be it at the personal level, within communities, organizations or at the level of the nations. People function better when they are at peace with themselves and when they experience peace inter-personally in relationships within their families and in other situations. Respectful coexistence valuing uniqueness and differences makes peace attractive and a much sought-after experience in human life. Generally, peace is understood as a state without conflict. This makes the experience of peace elusive as human life is dotted with conflicts. Conflict is frequent in human experiences where interests clash and boundaries are trespassed. It is the obvious outcome where people are taken for granted, used, abused and exploited, or when human beings get treated as mere objects in the human greed after profit and pleasure. Conflict is inevitable as it is woven into the very fabric of life, though the intensity of conflict is perceived differently depending on who is involved, what the issue is, whose interests are at stake, and the like. Any conflict makes it imperative that we ask critical questions that will decode the conflict, questions that will throw light on the who, what and why of the conflict and the how of making a breakthrough.

Journal of Peace Research

Jack D Eller

Paula Lopes

August Hoffman

The nature of human conflict and causal factors that are associated with extreme violence, hate crimes and terrorism (both domestic and global) have remained perplexing problems given their increasing prevalence despite recent international efforts to address these crimes (Al Ramiah & Hewstone, 2013). The current article summarizes recent theories addressing different types of

Concepts in World Politics

Felix Berenskötter , Oliver P Richmond

This paper deals with the theoretical and operational frameworks of peace. Peace has been an ultimate dream of the twentieth century, as it observed two World Wars and more than hundred other wars. The twenty first century is experiencing a war on terror. The result of all ventures proved a wild goose chase. Peace is only possible when we start learning respect to each other's territories, cultures, languages, heroes and religions. For examples the incident of 9/11 destroyed the peace and blowout terrorism all over the world. The cartoon controversy is another example, how the Muslim community got annoyed in the world. Peace is not only a name of a dove. Flying pigeons and holding talks, seminars and conferences, cannot impose peace. It can only be achieved through tolerance, equality, respect and universal brotherhood instead of "quest for power after power that ceaseth only in death." 1 The contentious politics should be replaced with integrated politics. This paper is based on comparative method along with deductive and inductive approaches. Theoretical Framework Peace is a dream of every individual. Individual is a unit of the state and state is also looking for peace. Amidst terror and violence twenty first century is observing discontentment owing to the prevailing war on terror. This war on terror has spoiled the very concept of state. The advent of the twenty first century is full of insecurities, insurgencies, technological development and wary world order. It is a uni-multipolar world that believes in interdependence and free trade. The fact of the matter is that the champions of democracy beat up drums of democracy but the same disrespect the sovereignty of the countries. The global insecurity is enhanced today owing to the intervention of the non-political and non-state actors in the affairs of the state. It is causing insurgencies through the help of technology and world order is being imposed upon the developing states without considering the demands of the local masses. The non-political actors become active when state actors become docile. Thus, predominance of the non-political actors exposes the flaws of the political actors.

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

RELATED PAPERS

Global Society

Oliver P Richmond

Muiru Ngugi

Theophilus A D E N Y I Okechukwu

Ali Askerov

The Bloomsbury Handbook to Studying Christians

Ted Grimsrud

Peace, Security and Post-conflict Reconstruction in the Great Lakes Region of Africa

Tukumbi LUMUMBA-KASONGO

Sara Koopman

PhD Dissertation, University of Virginia, Religious Studies

Luke B Kreider

Journal of Humanities and Social Studies

Bashir Malam

Birgit Brock-Utne

ray perkins

Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare

Daniel Liechty

Caroline Hargreaves

Encyclopedia of violence, peace, and conflict

Lester R Kurtz

Karina Korostelina

Journal of Language, Technology & Entrepreneurship …

macharia munene

God'salvation Oguibe

Anuj Suneja

IGNOU M.A. (Gandhi and Peace Studies) Course, Introduction to Peace and Conflict Resolution, August 2010.

Abdulrahim Vijapur

Christopher Morris

Perspectives on Politics

Richard Caplan

Simon Dalby

Samuel Chayen

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

‘Break the cycle of violence’ through prevention and peacebuilding, Security Council told

Facebook Twitter Print Email

Violence cost the world nearly $20 trillion last year, but investment in peace and conflict prevention has been steadily decreasing, a senior UN official told the Security Council on Wednesday.  

Elizabeth Spehar, Assistant Secretary-General for Peacebuilding Support, addressed the Council’s high-level debate on the UN Secretary-General’s New Agenda for Peace .

Launched in July 2023, the policy brief shows how conflict prevention and peacebuilding can help to reverse the trend towards violence while reducing the human and economic costs of war.

Break the cycle

“Prevention and peacebuilding can break the cycle of violence and lay the foundations to ensure sustainable development is possible for all ,” she said.

The meeting - convened by Sierra Leone, the Council president for August – was held against the backdrop of a rise in conflict globally.

Ms. Spehar outlined how investing in three areas can advance these goals, namely promoting and supporting national voluntary peacebuilding efforts, ensuring coherence, and strengthening partnerships and resources. 

Support national efforts

Addressing the first point, she said A  New Agenda for Peace  underscores national ownership as a guiding principle for effective prevention and peacebuilding efforts. 

“It also emphasizes the need to include diverse voices, needs and participation of all segments of society, which can help make peace more sustainable,” she added.

In this regard, she cited the example of the Central African Republic, where the UN Peacebuilding Fund has supported programmes to strengthen women community mediators, thus helping to prevent conflict and sustain peace at the community level.

Comprehensive approach to prevention

The second area for investment calls for ensuring coherence and a comprehensive approach to prevention and sustaining peace .

She said A New Agenda for Peace  emphasizes the need to address the root causes of violence and conflict, not only the symptoms.

“The best way to prevent societies from descending into crisis is to ensure that they are resilient through investment in inclusive and sustainable development and inclusive governance,” she said.

“This is why A New Agenda for Peace calls for accelerating the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, and for tackling inequality, marginalization and exclusion.”

Partnerships and resources

The final area for investment requires strengthening critical partnerships and ensuring the availability of more resources for prevention and peacebuilding .

Ms. Spehar noted that partnership with regional and sub-regional actors has continued to grow in both importance and scope.  

She described the regular engagements between the UN Security Council and the African Union Peace and Security Council (AUPSC), and a similar partnership between the UN Peacebuilding Commission and the AUPSC, as “promising”.

She insisted, however, that more can be done in terms of concrete follow-up and tracking the results of these meetings.

Military spending on the rise

Regarding resources, she said “it is worrying to see investments in peace and conflict prevention steadily decreasing while military spending is increasing worldwide”, which represent just a fraction of total Official Development Assistance (ODA).

She told the Council that last year, the proportion for the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) countries was 10 per cent - a 15-year record low. 

“At the same time, only last year, research showed that violence cost the world nearly $20 trillion – that is 13.5 per cent of global GDP .”

She stressed the need to further explore the partnership between the UN and international financial institutions (IFI), ranging from the World Bank to regional development banks, to ensure that development investments contribute to lasting peace.

Lessons from Sierra Leone

Meanwhile, Sierra Leone’s trajectory from brutal civil war 22 years ago to peace today “stands as a beacon of hope and a testament to the power of commitment, dialogue, and inclusive peacebuilding,” said Hawa Samai, Executive Secretary of the country’s Independent Commission for Peace and National Cohesion (ICPNC).

The Commission was set up in 2020 as part of broader efforts to prevent, manage and mitigate conflicts. It has established peace coalitions, as well as early warning and response mechanisms, across all 16 districts in Sierra Leone.

“By engaging a wide range of local actors, the ICPNC ensures that peacebuilding efforts are grounded in the realities and needs of communities ,” she said.

Staying pro-active

Ms. Simai noted that one crucial lesson from her country’s experience has been the importance of community-owned and driven conflict prevention, which helps to resolve conflicts before they escalate.

“A proactive, post-conflict, gendered and inclusive lens is vital for effective conflict prevention, and staying apolitical is crucial for accessibility and trust among all key players,” she said.

She added that “networking with national and international partners has proven to be a significant strength,” and urged governments and donors to recognise and support national peace infrastructure. 

Security sector reform

Bankole Adeoye, African Union Commissioner for Political Affairs, Peace and Security, called the New Agenda “ a crucial master plan to recalibrate the global peace and security architecture with greater emphasis on conflict prevention.”

He also highlighted the need to give greater focus to security sector reform and said direct assistance is being provided to AU Member States embarking on the process.

The AU has also developed framework guidelines for the disarmament, demobilization and reintegration (DDR) of former combatant to assist in designing and building institutional capacity for countries transitioning from conflict.

He said that post-conflict reconstruction and development is centered around a newly revised policy which was recently adopted by the AU Assembly, which also covers “youth inclusion, child protection and environmental sustainability as avenues to sustain and advocate for peacebuilding”.

He added that the AU Centre for Post-Conflict Reconstruction, located in Egypt’s capital, Cairo, is now fully operational, describing it as “a game-changer”. 

• security council
• Conflict prevention
• New Agenda for Peace

Advertisement

What Is the West Bank and Who Controls It?

Renewed violence has cast a spotlight on the territory, where more than 600 Palestinians have been killed in clashes with the Israeli military since Oct. 7.

• Share full article

By Aaron Boxerman

Reporting from Jerusalem

• Published Aug. 28, 2024 Updated Aug. 29, 2024, 8:32 a.m. ET

Israeli troops raided two Palestinian cities on Wednesday in what they called an effort to tamp down rising militancy in the northern West Bank. The raids continued on Thursday , with the Israeli military saying it had killed five militants during a gun battle, including a commander.

The renewed violence has cast a spotlight on the Israeli-occupied territory, where over 600 Palestinians have been killed in clashes with Israeli forces, according to the United Nations , in parallel to the devastating war in Gaza.

Here’s what to know:

What is the West Bank?

Roughly three million Palestinians and 500,000 settlers live in the West Bank, a kidney-shaped area between Israel and Jordan that has been a battleground between Israelis and Palestinians for decades.

The modern territory emerged after the 1948 war surrounding Israel’s establishment; during the conflict, hundreds of thousands of Palestinians fled or were expelled from their homes, with many taking refuge in the West Bank. Jordan occupied and then annexed the territory after the war.

In 1967, Israel occupied the West Bank and other territories in a war with neighboring Arab states. For religious Jews, the territory’s rolling hills and ancient sites were the heart of what they deemed a divinely promised homeland. Most Israelis still refer to it by the biblical names of Judea and Samaria.

Israel slowly began permitting its own citizens — propelled by both nationalism and religious fervor — to build and expand settlements in the West Bank. But it never formally annexed the territory, fearing both the diplomatic repercussions abroad and that it might end the country’s coveted Jewish majority at home.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .

• Election 2024
• Entertainment
• Newsletters
• Photography
• AP Buyline Personal Finance
• AP Buyline Shopping
• Press Releases
• Israel-Hamas War
• Russia-Ukraine War
• Global elections
• Asia Pacific
• Latin America
• Middle East
• Delegate Tracker
• AP & Elections
• U.S. Open Tennis
• College football
• Auto Racing
• Movie reviews
• Book reviews
• Financial Markets
• Business Highlights
• Financial wellness
• Artificial Intelligence
• Social Media

A proposed UN resolution on Myanmar condemns military attacks on civilians and urges peace efforts

FILE - Protesters run after police shot warning shots and used water cannon to disperse them during a protest in Mandalay, Myanmar, Feb. 9, 2021. (AP Photo, File)

• Copy Link copied

UNITED NATIONS (AP) — Britain circulated a wide-ranging United Nations resolution on Myanmar urging renewed peace efforts, condemning attacks on civilians — especially by the Myanmar military — and calling for a halt to illicit arms transfers.

The draft resolution obtained Tuesday by The Associated Press expresses “alarm at the increased violence across Myanmar ,” which is engulfed in civil war between the military-led regime and resistance forces.

It calls for “safe, rapid, and unhindered humanitarian access at scale,” expressing “grave concern” at the deteriorating humanitarian situation and restrictions on humanitarian access in the country that led to rising food insecurity and hunger.

The proposed resolution warns that the current situation has the potential to further exacerbate discrimination, ethnically motivated violence, violations of international humanitarian law , human rights abuses, and conflict-related sexual violence.

Myanmar’s military ousted the elected government of Aung San Suu Kyi on Feb. 1, 2021. It was the day Parliament was to reconvene following November 2020 elections, which her National League for Democracy party won overwhelmingly — an outcome the military claims without evidence was based on fraud. Suu Kyi and party members remain under arrest.

The takeover was met with massive public opposition, which has since turned into armed resistance and civil war.

The military regime now faces its greatest challenge from the ethnic minority militias and people’s defense forces who support the main opposition and have captured wide swaths of territory in fierce fighting in recent months.

The draft resolution stresses the central role of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, the 10-country bloc whose 2021 peace plan has so far been rejected by Myanmar’s generals. It calls for an immediate end to the violence and dialogue among contending parties brokered through an ASEAN envoy .

The draft resolution urges renewed efforts by the ASEAN special envoy to Myanmar, Alounkeo Kittikhoun, and new U.N. special envoy, Julie Bishop, “to engage all relevant stakeholders to seek a peaceful, inclusive solution to the crisis in Myanmar.”

Security Council negotiations on the draft resolution are expected to be tough.

The 15-member council approved its first-ever resolution on Myanmar in December 2022 by a vote of 12-0 with three abstentions — Russia, China and India, who all have ties to the Myanmar regime. India’s two-year term on the council ended that month, but Russia and China are veto-wielding permanent members of the council.

The proposed draft demands full implementation of the December 2022 resolution , which demanded an immediate end to violence in the Southeast Asian nation and urged its military rulers to release all “arbitrarily detained” prisoners, including Suu Kyi, and to restore democratic institutions.

It also called for the country’s opposing parties to pursue dialogue and reconciliation and urged all sides “to respect human rights, fundamental freedoms and the rule of law.”

• Child Participation
• End Violence Against Children

Schools of Peace; a New Culture to Eliminate Violence in Latin America and the Caribbean

• Link for sharing
• Share on Facebook
• Share on LinkedIn

Latin America and the Caribbean continue to lead the shameful and painful indicator of being the most violent region on the planet. Without an active war, thousands of children and adolescents die from violent causes in our region every year. In Latin America and the Caribbean, being male—between the ages of 10 and 19— multiplies the likelihood of being a victim of homicide by seven compared to females.

In some countries, in addition to age and gender, ethnicity is also a variable that increases the risk of violence for children and adolescents. This is the case in Brazil, where being an Afro-descendant male multiplies the risk of violence by 2.5 times , according to the UNESCO.

As of 2020, the homicide rate among children and adolescents between 0 and 19 years old in LAC was 12.6 per 100,000, a rate four times higher than the global average. In recent years, there is no evidence of a reduction in this trend. In the face of this reality, which does not include deaths caused by other forms of violence against children, it is essential not only to have a solid framework of public policies but also to strengthen national protection systems.

World Vision Honduras implemented the Schools of Peace project in 2023. This model mobilizes students, teachers, and parents to seek peaceful solutions to conflicts and differences. In Honduras, 50% of school-age children (approximately 1,000,000) are out of the school system, with violence being the main cause.

The Schools of Peace, awarded the Innovation Challenge in 2023, equips children, adolescents, parents, and caregivers with tools to identify conflicts, manage and solve them within a framework of respect and safety, and promote respect and peaceful coexistence.

From educational centers, this model seeks to eliminate violent patterns and behaviors such as imposition, physical punishment, bullying, and unequal relationships in daily interactions. Instead, children are empowered about their rights, learn elements of dialogue and negotiation, and receive training to manage differences peacefully.

In its first year, World Vision's Schools of Peace reached 4,749 children, 208 teachers, and 1,250 parents and caregivers in 60 educational communities. The model, rooted in the community, has successfully mobilized partners from the development sector, local non-governmental organizations, academia, and faith-based grassroots organizations.

In the face of violence that threatens the human capital of our region, World Vision promotes a model that seeks to reduce and eliminate violence, thereby promoting the enrollment and retention of children in the school system.

An educated, empowered population capable of managing conflicts and differences contributes to the aspiration of stronger human capital with soft and relational skills, in addition to their academic training, and ultimately contributes, from the classrooms, to addressing the root causes of poverty and insecurity in our countries.

Mishelle Mitchell Bernard, Regional Director of External Engagement and Advocacy, WVLACR

War and Peace in Modern World Essay

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

Introduction

In our world of ever-increasing number of innovations and informational technologies there is hardly a problem which cannot be solved. The scientists are working out the medicines which can cure even AIDs and cancer, regardless the fact that the diseases which were considered fatal a couple of decades ago can be easily cured now. The world has developed a global network for communication and each day offers new inventions in which our ancestors would never believe in if in their times they heard that something like this would ever be possible to invent. Nevertheless, there remains one big problem the modern society seems to be unable to deal with. Every day we continue to listen to news reports about numerous cases of violence, crimes, natural disasters and wars, which in some parts of the world have lasted over the years and seem to never stop. At this, the reasons of the wars are in fact insignificant and seem to be not serious enough for starting something as terrible as a war. No matter how strange and unfair it may seem, but innocent people give their lives for a miserable strip of land which two governments of the belligerent countries are unable to share or because of the desire of one country to prove that it is more powerful than any other. And here the question arises: When will people all over the world stop wars and finally understand that wars and international conflicts are just a mere waste of money and, what is the most important, of human lives? Is that strip of land worth those losses and sufferings of innocent people involved in wars because of misunderstandings and inability to settle the governmental matters peacefully? Living in peace and prosperity is possible but a lot has to be done in order to achieve peaceful coexistence of different countries and their people in this small world which cannot function properly because of something people missed when forming their society.

First of all, people should admit that it is because of each of them that this world cannot become perfect and agree to introduce some changes into their lives. Everything depends on people and their desire to live peacefully: “Attempting to achieve world peace would mean that the people in this world would have to be willing to make some minor changes in the way we govern ourselves on this earth. Common sense should tell us that the best way to put an end to wars or military conflicts is to create a fully civilized world.” (Jim Des Rocher, 7). It should be admitted that a lot here depends on the government of each country because it is namely governments together with the world leaders who are responsible for wars and international conflict. Constant fighting for power and deciding who is the strongest and who should rule this world leads to what we have now and what will be very difficult to change. It should be realized that not only people of each country should become civilized but the governments as well because welfare of the whole world rather than of separate countries is at stake and with each day the risk of the world to get consumed with uncontrolled violence is increasing. Creating a civilized society will help in achieving world peace and proving to each other that living peacefully in prosperity is not only possible to achieve but is easy to maintain once the desired is already attained: “Civilized countries settle their disputes peacefully. Once you have established a civilized world the chances for military conflicts goes away.” (Jim Des Rocher, 33).

Second, to mention but not less important on the way of achieving world peace is bringing up of such qualities as compassion, justice and mutual forgiveness each of which is necessary for proper functioning of a society. It is striking how brutal and hard-hearted the people of our generation became. Everybody is obsessed with money and is ready to hurt and kill the others in order to gain more money, get promoted or achieve something in this life. Most of people do not care about the others and stopped helping each other though mutual readiness has always been the basis of a successful and prospering society. If mutual assistance becomes a part of each person’s life it will be a grain of mustard seed on the way of achieving world peace. It is also necessary for justice to rule the world for everybody to get proper punishment and for all people to live in fair conditions: “Peace seems to conflict with justice; the one deletes the past, the other acts on it” (Martin Ramirez, 65). Justice should be an integral part of each society for its members to feel secured and to know that their misdeeds will be punished. And as for mutual forgiveness, this noble quality will help make the world understanding and sensible. Learning to forgive should be a part of each person’s life as only being able to forgive the others one can earn a chance to be forgiven: “To seek peace through forgiveness is a life’s program, and it is a worthwhile risk even to the extent of heroism. But one cannot forget that forgiveness also has its own demands: truth (recognition of the crime) and justice (reparation), together with the guarantee that it will not be repeated.” (Martin Ramirez, 65).

And the final important factor directly influencing the world peace is religion. There exist three main religions in this world and supporters of each of them believe that only their religion is the only true one whereas the rest do not have any right for existence. Religion matters have always caused conflicts and to fight this problem is senseless that’s why one has just to face the reality. Modern society does not make tries to introduce a single religion or to abolish religion as such because the history proved that it will get back to the society as it is an essential part of it. Religion gives people hope for the best and turning to God for help they believe sincerely that everything possible will be done in order to make their lives better. World peace depends on the peace of society thus on the peace of each person. If chaos rules the world not a single person will find peace in him and vice versa. The task of people is to support faith in each other and never to let troubles weaken their faith because if the religion won’t be practiced world peace will be out of the question. Religion makes people intelligent and understanding, well-disposed, noble and generous. Without religion they will become aggressive, arrogant, self-centered and this will cause conflicts all around the world. This is why religion should be freely and widely practised in order to make all people believe that if they treat each other well, if they support each other and do not forget about morality they make a contribution into a difficult but rewarding process of achieving world peace and prosperity.

To sum it up, the modern world full of violence and brutality, ruled by those who being in constant pursuit of power use innocent people to prove that their country is the strongest badly needs some improvements because now it is in danger of collapse and each day is being destroyed by people who live in it. To achieve world peace and prosperity seems impossible but just as a lot of other great deeds what it requires is time, efforts and strong desire to change the life of every person for better. It is possible to make this world better even if not perfect and keys to this are the building of a civilized society where both people and government will be civilized, the desire of each person to eradicate his/her shortcomings by trying to develop such qualities as compassion, justice and mutual forgiveness. On top of this all stands the religion which irrespective of its kind keeps people united and gives them hope for the best. Provided that all these points are taken into consideration and put into life the necessary result will be achieved and our world spoiled by money and power will turn into what every person dreams about – a world with no sufferings and grief where people care about each other and are not afraid for their future.

Jim Des Rocher. (2004). How to Achieve World Peace: The Second Greatest Book Ever Written. Trafford Publishing.

J. Martin Ramirez. (2007). Peace Through Dialogue. International Journal on World Peace, 24 (1), 65.

• U.S. Prison Gangs: A Threat to Internal Security
• American Dream and Reality for Minorities
• Aztec: Barbaric or Civilized
• Forgiveness and Reconciliation Critique
• Forgiveness in the Christian Texts and the World Today
• Chinese Politics: Winner and Losers
• Humanities. Diversity in "Forrest Gump" Movie
• Sociology: Prejudice and Discrimination in India
• Class-Based Health Inequalities in Australia
• Homophobia in Social Workers: Gay Affirmative Practice Scale
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2021, October 23). War and Peace in Modern World. https://ivypanda.com/essays/war-and-peace-in-modern-world/

"War and Peace in Modern World." IvyPanda , 23 Oct. 2021, ivypanda.com/essays/war-and-peace-in-modern-world/.

IvyPanda . (2021) 'War and Peace in Modern World'. 23 October.

IvyPanda . 2021. "War and Peace in Modern World." October 23, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/war-and-peace-in-modern-world/.

1. IvyPanda . "War and Peace in Modern World." October 23, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/war-and-peace-in-modern-world/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "War and Peace in Modern World." October 23, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/war-and-peace-in-modern-world/.

Essay on War and Peace

Students are often asked to write an essay on War and Peace in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on War and Peace

Understanding war and peace.

War and peace are two sides of the same coin, representing conflict and harmony respectively. War often arises from disagreements, leading to violence and destruction. On the other hand, peace symbolizes tranquility, unity, and cooperation.

The Impact of War

War can cause immense suffering and loss. It destroys homes, breaks families, and causes physical and emotional pain. Moreover, it can lead to economic instability and environmental damage, affecting future generations.

The Importance of Peace

Peace is essential for the well-being of individuals and societies. It fosters growth, prosperity, and happiness. Peace encourages dialogue, understanding, and mutual respect, helping to resolve conflicts peacefully.

250 Words Essay on War and Peace

Introduction.

War and peace, two contrasting states, have shaped human civilization, politics, and cultural identity. The dichotomy between these two conditions is not merely a matter of physical conflict or tranquility but extends to philosophical, psychological, and ethical dimensions.

War: A Double-Edged Sword

War, often perceived as destructive, has paradoxically been a catalyst for some societal advancements. Technological innovations, political shifts, and social change have all been byproducts of war. However, the cost of these “benefits” is immense, leading to loss of life, displacement, and socioeconomic upheavals.

The Necessity of Peace

Peace, on the other hand, is a state of harmony and cooperation, conducive to prosperity, growth, and human development. It fosters an environment where creativity, innovation, and collaboration can thrive. Peace is not merely the absence of war but also the presence of justice and equality, which are fundamental for sustainable development.

Striking a Balance

The challenge lies in striking a balance between the pursuit of peace and the inevitability of war. This balance is not about accepting war as a necessary evil, but about understanding its causes and working towards preventing them. Peacebuilding efforts should focus on addressing root causes of conflict, like inequality and injustice, and promoting dialogue, understanding, and cooperation.

In conclusion, the complex relationship between war and peace is a reflection of the human condition. Striving for peace while understanding the realities of war is a delicate but necessary balance we must achieve. It is through this equilibrium that we can hope to progress as a society, ensuring a better future for generations to come.

500 Words Essay on War and Peace

War and peace are two polar opposites, yet they are inextricably linked in the complex tapestry of human history. They represent the dual nature of humanity: our capacity for both destruction and harmony. This essay explores the intricate relationship between war and peace, the impacts they have on societies, and the philosophical perspectives that underpin both.

The Dualism of War and Peace

War and peace are not merely states of conflict and tranquility, but rather manifestations of human nature and societal structures. War, in its essence, is a reflection of our primal instincts for survival, dominance, and territoriality. It exposes the darker side of humanity, where violence and power struggles prevail. Conversely, peace symbolizes our capacity for cooperation, empathy, and mutual understanding. It showcases the brighter side of humanity, where dialogue and diplomacy reign.

Impacts of War and Peace

The impacts of war and peace are profound and far-reaching. War, while destructive, has often catalyzed technological advancement and societal change. The World Wars, for instance, led to the development of nuclear technology and the establishment of international bodies like the United Nations. However, the cost of war is immense, leading to loss of life, economic devastation, and psychological trauma.

On the other hand, peace allows societies to flourish. It fosters economic growth, social development, and cultural exchange. Yet, peace is not merely the absence of war. It requires active effort to maintain social justice, equality, and mutual respect among diverse groups.

Philosophical Perspectives

War and peace have been subjects of philosophical debate for centuries. Realists argue that war is an inevitable part of human nature and international relations, while idealists contend that peace can be achieved through international cooperation and diplomacy.

In conclusion, war and peace are multifaceted concepts that reveal much about the human condition. Understanding their dynamics is crucial to shaping a world that leans towards peace, even as it acknowledges the realities of war. The challenge lies in mitigating the triggers of war and nurturing the conditions for peace. It is a task that requires not just political and diplomatic effort, but also a deep introspection into our collective values and aspirations.

That’s it! I hope the essay helped you.

Happy studying!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

• Library of Congress
• Research Guides

World of 1898: International Perspectives on the Spanish American War

Introduction.

• Overview Essay
• Cuba in 1898
• Chronology of Cuba in the Spanish-American War
• Philippine Perspective
• The Changing of the Guard: Puerto Rico in 1898
• The Spanish-American War of 1898: a Spanish View
• American Perspective
• Emilio Aguinaldo y Famy
• Russell Alexander Alger
• Thomas McArthur Anderson
• Basilio Augustin y Dávila
• Ramón Auñón y Villalón
• Román Baldorioty de Castro
• José Celso Barbosa
• Clara Barton
• Segismundo Bermejo
• Ramón Emeterio Betances
• Ramón Blanco y Erenas
• Andrés Bonifacio
• John Rutter Brooke
• Jules-Martin Cambon
• Pascual Cervera y Topete
• Grover Cleveland
• Stephen Crane
• George W. Davis
• Federico Degetau y González
• George Dewey
• José de Diego
• Manuel V. Domenech
• Enrique Dupuy de Lôme
• Oswald Herbert Ernst
• Maximo Gómez Baez
• John Milton Hay
• Guy Vernon Henry
• Eugenio María de Hostos y Bonilla
• Tulio Larrinaga
• Fitzhugh Lee
• William Ludlow
• Antonio Maceo
• Manuel Macías
• William McKinley
• Nelson Appleton Miles
• Luis Muñoz Rivera
• Whitelaw Reid
• Lola Rodríguez de Tió
• Manuel Rojas
• Theodore Roosevelt
• Práxedes Mateo Sagasta
• William T. Sampson
• Juan Manuel Sánchez y Gutiérrez de Castro
• Theodore Schwan
• William Shafter
• Martín Travieso
• Joaquín Vara de Rey y Rubio
• James Franklin Wade
• Richard Wainwright
• Valeriano Weyler
• Walt Whitman
• Henry H. Whitney
• James Harrison Wilson
• Coamo and Aibonito
• Mayagüez, Hormigueros, and Arecibo
• Cienfuegos Bay
• Abolition of Slavery in Puerto Rico
• American Ships in the Spanish-American War
• Balzac v. Porto Rico
• Foraker Act (Organic Act of 1900)
• Grito de Balintawak
• Grito de Lares
• Hurricane San Ciriaco
• Anti-Imperialist League
• Military Government in Puerto Rico
• Olmsted Amendment
• Peace Agreement in Puerto Rico
• Reconcentration Policy
• Rough Riders
• Spanish Ships in the Spanish-American War
• Teller and Platt Amendments
• Treaty of Paris of 1898
• U.S.S. Gloucester
• Additional Resources
• Acknowledgements

Guide Editor: María Daniela Thurber, Reference Librarian, Hispanic Reading Room, Latin American, Caribbean, and European Division

Content Authors: Please visit the Acknowledgement page for information on all authors and contributors to the original The World of 1898: The Spanish-American War web project.

Note: This guide is adapted from The World of 1898: The Spanish-American War , the first online collection mounted on the web by the Hispanic Reading Room.

Created: Spring 2022

Last Updated: February 28, 2023

Caribbean, Iberian & Latin American Studies : Ask a Librarian

Have a question? Need assistance? Use our online form to ask a librarian for help.

Haga su pregunta .

Faça a sua pergunta .

The war of the United States with Spain was very brief. Its results were many, startling, and of world-wide meaning. --Henry Cabot Lodge

On April 25, 1898 the United States declared war on Spain following the sinking of the Battleship Maine in Havana harbor on February 15, 1898. The war ended with the signing of the Treaty of Paris on December 10, 1898. As a result, Spain lost its control over the remains of its overseas empire -- Cuba, Puerto Rico, the Philippines Islands, Guam, and other islands.

Beginning in 1492, Spain was the first European nation to sail westward across the Atlantic Ocean, explore, and colonize the Amerindian nations of the Western Hemisphere. At its greatest extent, the empire that resulted from this exploration extended from Virginia on the eastern coast of the United States south to Tierra del Fuego at the tip of South America excluding Brazil and westward to California and Alaska. Across the Pacific, it included the Philippines and other island groups. By 1825 much of this empire had fallen into other hands and in that year, Spain acknowledged the independence of its possessions in the present-day United States (then under Mexican control) and south to the tip of South America. The only remnants that remained in the empire in the Western Hemisphere were Cuba and Puerto Rico and across the Pacific in Philippines Islands, and the Carolina, Marshall, and Mariana Islands (including Guam) in Micronesia.

Kurz & Allison. Destruction of the U.S. battleship Maine in Havana Harbor Feby 15th. Havana, Cuba, ca. 1898. Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division.

A view of our battleship MAINE as she appears today. Havana Harbor, ca. 1900. Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division.

Raising of battleship Maine. Havana, Cuba. 1911. Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division.

Following its declaration of war against Spain issued on April 25, 1898, the United States added the Teller Amendment asserting that it would not attempt to exercise hegemony over Cuba. Two days later Commodore George Dewey sailed from Hong Kong with Emilio Aguinaldo on board. Fighting began in the Phillipines Islands at the Battle of Manila Bay on May 1 where Commodore George Dewey reportedly exclaimed, "You may fire when ready, Gridley," and the Spanish fleet under Rear Admiral Patricio Montojo was destroyed. However, Dewey did not have enough manpower to capture Manila so Aguinaldo's guerrillas maintained their operations until 15,000 U.S. troops arrived at the end of July. On the way, the cruiser Charleston stopped at Guam and accepted its surrender from its Spanish governor who was unaware his nation was at war. Although a peace protocol was signed by the two belligerents on August 12, Commodore Dewey and Maj. Gen. Wesley Merritt, leader of the army troops, assaulted Manila the very next day, unaware that peace had been declared.

In late April, Andrew Summers Rowan made contact with Cuban General Calixto García who supplied him with maps, intelligence, and a core of rebel officers to coordinate U.S. efforts on the island. The U.S. North Atlantic Squadron left Key West for Cuba on April 22 following the frightening news that the Spanish home fleet commanded by Admiral Pascual Cervera had left Cadiz and entered Santiago, having slipped by U.S. ships commanded by William T. Sampson and Winfield Scott Schley. They arrived in Cuba in late May.

War actually began for the U.S. in Cuba in June when the Marines captured Guantánamo Bay and 17,000 troops landed at Siboney and Daiquirí, east of Santiago de Cuba, the second largest city on the island. At that time Spanish troops stationed on the island included 150,000 regulars and 40,000 irregulars and volunteers while rebels inside Cuba numbered as many as 50,000. Total U.S. army strength at the time totalled 26,000, requiring the passage of the Mobilization Act of April 22 that allowed for an army of at first 125,000 volunteers (later increased to 200,000) and a regular army of 65,000. On June 22, U.S. troops landed at Daiquiri where they were joined by Calixto García and about 5,000 revolutionaries.

U.S. troops attacked the San Juan heights on July 1, 1898. Dismounted troopers, including the African-American Ninth and Tenth cavalries and the Rough Riders commanded by Lt. Col. Theodore Roosevelt went up against Kettle Hill while the forces led by Brigadier General Jacob Kent charged up San Juan Hill and pushed Spanish troops further inland while inflicting 1,700 casualties. While U.S. commanders were deciding on a further course of action, Admiral Cervera left port only to be defeated by Schley. On July 16, the Spaniards agreed to the unconditional surrender of the 23,500 troops around the city. A few days later, Major General Nelson Miles sailed from Guantánamo to Puerto Rico. His forces landed near Ponce and marched to San Juan with virtually no opposition.

Representatives of Spain and the United States signed a peace treaty in Paris on December 10, 1898, which established the independence of Cuba, ceded Puerto Rico and Guam to the United States, and allowed the victorious power to purchase the Philippines Islands from Spain for $20 million. The war had cost the United States $250 million and 3,000 lives, of whom 90% had perished from infectious diseases.

What's included in this guide

This presentation provides resources and documents about the Spanish-American War, the period before the war, and some of the fascinating people who participated in the fighting or commented about it. Information about Cuba, Guam, the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Spain, and the United States is provided in chronologies, bibliographies, and a variety of pictorial and textual material from bilingual sources, supplemented by an overview essay about the war and the period. Among the participants and authors featured are such well-known figures as Presidents Grover Cleveland, William McKinley, and Theodore Roosevelt, as well as Admiral George Dewey and author Mark Twain (United States), together with other important figures such as Antonio Maceo and José Martí (Cuba), Román Baldorioty de Castro and Lola Rodríguez de Tió (Puerto Rico), José Rizal and Emilio Aguinaldo (Philippines), and Antonio Cánovas del Castillo and Ramón Blanco (Spain).

Related Research Guides by the Library of Congress

Spanish-American War: A Resource Guide

The Spanish-American War (1898) was a conflict between the U.S. and Spain, ending with the loss of Spain’s overseas empire and the U.S. emerging as a world power. This guide compiles digital material, external websites, and a selected print bibliography.

Spanish American War: Topics in Chronicling America

A guide for researching the topic of the "Spanish American War," which took place from April 25 until December 10,1898, in the Chronicling America digital collection of historic newspapers.

Spain: Hispanic Reading Room Country Guide

This guide provides curated Library of Congress resources for the study of Spain, including digitized primary source materials in a wide variety of formats, books and periodicals, online databases, and tips for searching.

Cuba: Hispanic Reading Room Country Guide

This guide provides curated Library of Congress resources for researching Cuba, including digitized primary source materials in a wide variety of formats, books and periodicals, online databases, and tips for searching.

Philippine-American War: Topics in Chronicling America

After the Treaty of Paris, the Phillippine-American War occurred from February 1899 to July 1902. This guide provides access to materials related to the “Philippine-American War” in the Chronicling America digital collection of historic newspapers.

• Next: Overview Essay >>
• Last Updated: Jan 12, 2024 2:02 AM
• URL: https://guides.loc.gov/world-of-1898

bestessayhelp.com

Peace and Nonviolence – Essay Sample

Most people believe that nonviolence is the method that is used by the cowards to spring back when hit. Coil when torched! This might not be the reason and is not methods for cowards. After this long past time, it has reached the eleventh hour for the human race to decide. Many thousand years have past with the same methods of handling different difficult situations. Violence has been the order of the day. Now time has finally come for the break with the violent and dark past and to embrace the new look. This indicates the time for no revenge to one another. No time to say toe for toe, tooth for tooth and head for head. The bible says when one stricks you in the right cheek then turn the left. And men with understanding and big hearts follow the method. Violence is not the method for solving conflicts. Although nonviolence resistance might not be the only superior choice but without doubt it is as more than twice as effective as violence. It should be accompanied by the willingness to accept suffering without tiring. Even when it entails blood there should not be withdrawal at all. Majority view nonviolence as a burden to them as it becomes very hard to treat people equally in all aspects of life. The time for us to look at the other side of the coin and say hatred for love as the bible put it. This concept should be grasped by most of us if not all. Love does not does not recognize culture, tribe, country and other related. Love can go to immeasurable length and bound the broken, repair the damaged and heal the wounds in people’s hearts and thus bring them together and restore the oneness. “Christian love”. Yeah, let us in joint accord say “ WE LOVE PEACE”, and realize that everything can be settled by peaceful negotiations and discussions. It was the Jesus of Nazareth that though not being a Negro, He Stirred the Negros to pretest with the weapon of love and unity. The philosopher (Mahatma Gandhi a Negro in an attempt to fight for freedom) began the movement. In the first few days of the start of the movement it didn’t seem to yield any fruit. As days went by it began to hold same water and its influence realized. Its principles have been nonviolent resistance, noncooperation and passive resistance. His endless efforts were recognized by white women who wrote a letter to Montgomery Advertiser. During the fight nonviolence became the method of handling cases, and love as regulating idea. We can say that Gandhi( being a believer) prepare the method and Jesus the Spirit and Motivation. Though most of the people didn’t believe in nonviolence, but being expressed as Christians in action, they joined the complain. Gandhi use of nonviolence was effective though accused. He concluded that if cowardice is the only alternative to violence, then it is better to fight. No submission to evil or use violence to make the wrong right. He had a special emphasis that use of violence would not only be impractical but also he would consider it as immoral. To meet hate with hate only intensifies the bad but it must be met with the powerful force on love. His aim was characterized by the urge not to announce a defeat or humiliate the opponent but to win his friendship, unity and common understanding. It is the evil that in the opponent that they aimed to defeat. The attack was directed to the evil not the involved or victimized. The tension was between the just and unjust. Main reason to fight the injustice in a person but not the person. That they are important just like us and their coincidence is as important as ours. This is the perfect way to handle even crime incidents. The way of strong men. We must submit the wrong that we do and be ready to accept the corrections by others. Violence should not be used to fight wrong and only the wrong should be fought but not the people. And there should be no physical aggressiveness towards the wrong dues. It was a misinterpretation by the congregation to say that his acts of nonviolence complain was linked to some religion. Nonviolence still stands out to be the most convenient way to solve conflicts. Let our love not only be said but have to speak through our actions as well.

The road to success is easy with a little help. Let's get your assignment out of the way.

“Peace and Violence among 19th-Century Latter-day Saints,” Gospel Topics Essays (2016)

“Peace and Violence among 19th-Century Latter-day Saints,” Gospel Topics Essays

Peace and Violence among 19th-Century Latter-day Saints

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is founded on the teachings of Jesus Christ. The virtues of peace, love, and forgiveness are at the center of Church doctrine and practice. Latter-day Saints believe the Savior’s declaration, found in the New Testament and the Book of Mormon, that “blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.” 1 In Latter-day Saint scripture, the Lord has commanded His followers to “renounce war and proclaim peace.” 2 Latter-day Saints strive to follow the counsel of the Book of Mormon prophet-king Benjamin, who taught that those who are converted to the gospel of Jesus Christ “will not have a mind to injure one another, but to live peaceably.” 3

Despite these ideals, early Latter-day Saints did not obtain peace easily. They were persecuted, often violently, for their beliefs. And, tragically, at some points in the 19th century, most notably in the Mountain Meadows Massacre, some Church members participated in deplorable violence against people they perceived to be their enemies. This essay explores both violence committed against the Latter-day Saints and violence committed by them. While historical context can help shed light on these acts of violence, it does not excuse them.

Religious Persecution in the 1830s and 1840s

In the first two decades after the Church was organized, Latter-day Saints were often the victims of violence. Soon after Joseph Smith organized the Church in New York in 1830, he and other Church members began settling in areas to the west, in Ohio, Missouri, and Illinois. Time and again, the Saints tried to build their Zion community where they could worship God and live in peace, and repeatedly they saw their hopes dashed through forcible and violent removal. Mobs drove them from Jackson County, Missouri, in 1833; from the state of Missouri in 1839, after the governor of the state issued an order in late October 1838 that the Mormons be expelled from the state or “exterminated” 4 ; and from their city of Nauvoo, Illinois, in 1846. Following their expulsion from Nauvoo, Latter-day Saints made the difficult trek across the Great Plains to Utah. 5

As Latter-day Saints faced these difficulties, they sought to live by revelations to Joseph Smith that counseled them to live their religion in peace with their neighbors. Nevertheless, their adversaries in Ohio, Missouri, and Illinois resented the Saints’ differing religious beliefs and social and economic practices. They also felt threatened by the Saints’ growing numbers, which meant that Mormons could increasingly control local elections. These opponents attacked the Saints, first verbally and then physically. Church leaders, including Joseph Smith, were tarred and feathered, beaten, and unjustly imprisoned. Other members of the Church were also the victims of violent crimes. In the most infamous incident, at least 17 men and boys, ranging in age from 9 to 78, were slaughtered in the Hawn’s Mill Massacre. 6 Some Latter-day Saint women were raped or otherwise sexually assaulted during the Missouri persecutions. 7 Vigilantes and mobs destroyed homes and stole property. 8 Many of the Saints’ opponents enriched themselves with land and property that was not justly theirs. 9

The expulsion from Missouri—involving at least 8,000 Latter-day Saints 10 —occurred during the winter months, heightening the suffering of the thousands of refugees who lacked adequate food and shelter and were sometimes subject to epidemic diseases. 11 In March 1839, when Joseph Smith, imprisoned in Liberty, Missouri, received reports of the suffering of the exiled Latter-day Saints, he exclaimed, “O God, where art thou?” and prayed, “Remember thy suffering saints, O our God.” 12

After being driven from Missouri, the Saints were initially welcomed by the people of the neighboring state of Illinois and found peace for a time in Nauvoo. Ultimately, however, conflict arose again as non-Mormons and dissenters from the Church renewed their attacks. Joseph Smith and his brother Hyrum were brutally martyred by a mob in an Illinois prison despite the promise of the state’s governor that the brothers would be protected while in custody. 13 Eighteen months later, beginning in the cold winter month of February 1846, the main body of the Saints left Nauvoo under tremendous pressure. They settled in temporary camps—what would now be called refugee camps—on the plains of Iowa and Nebraska. An estimated 1 in 12 Saints died in these camps during the first year. 14 Some of the elderly and poor initially remained in Nauvoo and hoped to join the main body of Saints later. But a mob forcibly expelled them from Nauvoo in September 1846 and then desecrated the temple. 15 One non-Mormon who passed through the Saints’ camps shortly thereafter wrote, “Cowed and cramped by cold and sunburn, alternating as each weary day and night dragged on, they were, almost all of them, the crippled victims of disease. … They could not satisfy the feeble cravings of their sick: they had not bread to quiet the fractious hunger cries of their children.” 16 The scope of this violence against a religious group was unprecedented in the history of the United States.

Church leaders and members repeatedly attempted to gain redress from local and state governments; when these petitions failed, they appealed unsuccessfully to the federal government to correct past wrongs and gain future protection. 17 Latter-day Saints long remembered the persecutions they experienced and the unwillingness of government authorities either to protect them or to prosecute their attackers. They often lamented that they experienced religious persecution in a land that promised religious freedom. 18 In the face of this extended persecution, some of the Saints, beginning in 1838, responded on some occasions with defensive—and at times, retaliatory—actions of their own.

Violence and Vigilantism in the 19th-Century United States

In 19th-century American society, community violence was common and often condoned. Much of the violence perpetrated by and against Latter-day Saints fell within the then-existing American tradition of extralegal vigilantism, in which citizens organized to take justice into their own hands when they believed government was either oppressive or lacking. Vigilantes generally targeted minority groups or those perceived to be criminal or socially marginal. Such acts were at times fueled by religious rhetoric. 19

The existence of community-based militias also contributed to this culture of vigilantism. Congress passed a law in 1792 requiring every able-bodied male between 18 and 45 years of age to belong to a community militia. 20 Over time, the militias turned into the National Guard, but in early America, they were often unruly, perpetrating acts of violence against individuals or groups perceived to be opponents of the community.

In the 1830s and 1840s, the Latter-day Saints’ communities in Ohio, Missouri, Illinois, and Utah were all located in the western frontier regions of the United States, where community violence was readily sanctioned.

The Mormon Missouri War and the Danites

The isolated acts of violence committed by some Latter-day Saints can generally be seen as a subset of the broader phenomenon of frontier violence in 19th-century America. 21 In 1838, Joseph Smith and other Church members fled from mobs in Ohio and moved to Missouri, where Latter-day Saints had already established settlements. Joseph Smith believed that opposition from Church dissidents and other antagonists had weakened and ultimately destroyed their community in Kirtland, Ohio, where only two years before they had completed a temple at great sacrifice. By the summer of 1838, Church leaders saw the rise of similar threats to their goal of creating a harmonious community in Missouri.

At the Latter-day Saint settlement of Far West, some leaders and members organized a paramilitary group known as the Danites, whose objective was to defend the community against dissident and excommunicated Latter-day Saints as well as other Missourians. Historians generally concur that Joseph Smith approved of the Danites but that he probably was not briefed on all their plans and likely did not sanction the full range of their activities. Danites intimidated Church dissenters and other Missourians; for instance, they warned some dissenters to leave Caldwell County. During the fall of 1838, as tensions escalated during what is now known as the Mormon Missouri War, the Danites were apparently absorbed into militias largely composed of Latter-day Saints. These militias clashed with their Missouri opponents, leading to a few fatalities on both sides. In addition, Mormon vigilantes, including many Danites, raided two towns believed to be centers of anti-Mormon activity, burning homes and stealing goods. 22 Though the existence of the Danites was short-lived, it resulted in a longstanding and much-embellished myth about a secret society of Mormon vigilantes.

As a result of their experience in Missouri, the Latter-day Saints created a large, state-sanctioned militia, the Nauvoo Legion, to protect themselves after they moved to Illinois. This militia was feared by many who saw the Latter-day Saints as enemies. But the legion avoided offensive or retaliatory action; it did not respond even in the crisis leading up to the mob murders of Joseph Smith and his brother Hyrum in June 1844 or in the aftermath of those murders. When the governor of Illinois ordered that the legion disband, the Saints followed the instruction. 23

Violence in Utah Territory

In Utah, aggression or retaliation by Latter-day Saints against their perceived enemies occurred most frequently during the first decade of settlement (1847–1857). For many, the scars of former persecutions and the trek to the Rocky Mountains were still fresh and personal. As they tried to carve out a living in the Utah desert, the Saints faced continuing conflict. Many factors worked against the success of the Latter-day Saint venture in Utah: tensions with American Indians, who had been displaced by Mormon settlement and expansion; pressure from the U.S. federal government, particularly after the public announcement of plural marriage in 1852; uncertain land claims; and a rapidly expanding population. Community leaders felt an unrelenting burden of responsibility, not only for the spiritual welfare of the Church but also for the physical survival of their people. Many of these leaders, including Church president and territorial governor Brigham Young, simultaneously held ecclesiastical and civil offices.

Latter-day Saints’ Relationship with American Indians

Like other settlers in frontier areas, Latter-day Saints occupied areas already inhabited by American Indians. The tragic history of the annihilation of many Indian tribes and the devastation of others at the hands of European immigrant settlers and the United States military and political apparatus has been well documented by historians. Settlers throughout the 19th century, including some Latter-day Saints, mistreated and killed Indians in numerous conflicts, forcing them off desirable lands and onto reservations.

Unlike most other Americans, Latter-day Saints viewed Indians as a chosen people, fellow Israelites who were descendants of Book of Mormon peoples and thus heirs to God’s promises. As Church president, territorial governor, and territorial superintendent of Indian Affairs, Brigham Young pursued a peace policy to facilitate Mormon settlement in areas where Indians lived. Latter-day Saints learned Indian languages, established trade relations, preached the gospel, and generally sought accommodation with Indians. 24 This policy, however, emerged unevenly and was inconsistently applied. 25

Peaceful accommodation between Latter-day Saints and Indians was both the norm and the ideal. At times, however, Church members clashed violently with Indians. These two cultures—European and American Indian—had vastly different assumptions about the use of land and property and did not understand each other well. Mormons often accused Indians of stealing. Indians, meanwhile, believed the Mormons had a responsibility to share goods and livestock raised on Indian tribal lands. In areas where Mormons settled, Indian experience with Europeans had previously consisted mostly of mutually beneficial interactions with trappers and traders, people who passed through the land or briefly dwelled on it, not staked permanent claim to it as the Mormons did. These misunderstandings led to friction and violence between the peoples. 26

In late 1849, tensions between Ute Indians and Mormons in Utah Valley escalated after a Mormon killed a Ute known as Old Bishop, whom he accused of stealing his shirt. The Mormon and two associates then hid the victim’s body in the Provo River. Details of the murder were likely withheld, at least initially, from Brigham Young and other Church leaders. Settlers at Fort Utah did, however, report other difficulties with the Indians, including the firing of weapons at settlers and the theft of livestock and crops. Brigham Young counseled patience, telling them to “stockade your fort, to attend to your own affairs and let the indiens take care of theirs.” 27 Nevertheless, tensions mounted at Fort Utah, in part because local Mormons refused to turn over those involved in the murder of Old Bishop to the Utes or to pay reparations for his death. In the winter of 1849–1850, a measles epidemic spread from the Mormon settlers to the Ute camps, killing many Indians and heightening tensions. At a council of Church leaders in Salt Lake City on January 31, 1850, the leader of Fort Utah reported that the Utes’ actions and intentions were growing increasingly aggressive: “they say they mean to hunt our Cattle. & go & get the other Indians to kill us.” 28 In response, Governor Young authorized a campaign against the Utes. A series of battles in February 1850 resulted in the deaths of dozens of Utes and one Mormon. 29 In these instances and others, some Latter-day Saints committed excessive violence against native peoples. 30

Nevertheless, for the most part, the Saints had more amicable relations with Indians than did settlers in other areas of the American West. Brigham Young enjoyed friendships with several American Indian leaders and taught his people to live peacefully with their Indian neighbors whenever possible. 31 Some Indians even distinguished between “Mormonees,” whom they considered friendly, and other American settlers, who were known as “Mericats.” 32

The “Reformation” and the Utah War

In the mid-1850s, a “reformation” within the Church and tensions between the Latter-day Saints in Utah and the U.S. federal government contributed to a siege mentality and a renewed sense of persecution that led to several episodes of violence committed by Church members. Concerned about spiritual complacency, Brigham Young and other Church leaders delivered a series of sermons in which they called the Saints to repent and renew their spiritual commitments. 33 Many testified that they became better people because of this reformation. 34

Nineteenth-century Americans were accustomed to violent language, both religious and otherwise. Throughout the century, revivalists had used violent imagery to encourage the unconverted to repent and to urge backsliders to reform. 35 At times during the reformation, President Young, his counselor Jedediah M. Grant, and other leaders preached with fiery rhetoric, warning against the evils of those who dissented from or opposed the Church. Drawing on biblical passages, particularly from the Old Testament, leaders taught that some sins were so serious that the perpetrator’s blood would have to be shed in order to receive forgiveness. 36 Such preaching led to increased strain between the Latter-day Saints and the relatively few non-Mormons in Utah, including federally appointed officials.

In early 1857, U.S. President James Buchanan received reports from some of the federal officials alleging that Governor Young and the Latter-day Saints in Utah were rebelling against the authority of the federal government. A strongly worded memorial from the Utah legislature to the federal government convinced federal officials the reports were true. President Buchanan decided to replace Brigham Young as governor and, in what became known as the Utah War, sent an army to Utah to escort his replacement. Latter-day Saints feared that the oncoming army—some 1,500 troops, with more to follow—would renew the depredations of Missouri and Illinois and again drive the Saints from their homes. In addition, Parley P. Pratt, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, was murdered in Arkansas in May 1857. News of the murder—as well as newspaper reports from the eastern United States that celebrated the crime—reached Utah in late June 1857. 37 As these events unfolded, Brigham Young declared martial law in the territory, directed missionaries and settlers in outlying areas to return to Utah, and guided preparations to resist the army. Defiant sermons given by President Young and other Church leaders, combined with the impending arrival of an army, helped create an environment of fear and suspicion in Utah. 38

The Mountain Meadows Massacre

At the peak of this tension, in early September 1857, a branch of the territorial militia in southern Utah (composed entirely of Mormons), along with some Indians they recruited, laid siege to a wagon train of emigrants traveling from Arkansas to California. As the wagon train traveled south from Salt Lake City, the emigrants had clashed verbally with local Mormons over where they could graze their cattle. Some of the members of the wagon train became frustrated because they had difficulty purchasing much-needed grain and other supplies from local settlers, who had been instructed to save their grain as a wartime policy. Aggrieved, some of the emigrants threatened to join incoming troops in fighting against the Saints. 39

Although some Saints ignored these threats, other local Church leaders and members in Cedar City, Utah, advocated violence. Isaac C. Haight, a stake president and militia leader, sent John D. Lee, a militia major, to lead an attack on the emigrant company. When the president reported the plan to his council, other leaders objected and requested that he call off the attack and instead send an express rider to Brigham Young in Salt Lake City for guidance. But the men Haight had sent to attack the emigrants carried out their plans before they received the order not to attack. The emigrants fought back, and a siege ensued.

Over the next few days, events escalated, and Mormon militiamen planned and carried out a deliberate massacre. They lured the emigrants from their circled wagons with a false flag of truce and, aided by Paiute Indians they had recruited, slaughtered them. Between the first attack and the final slaughter, the massacre destroyed the lives of 120 men, women, and children in a valley known as Mountain Meadows. Only small children—those believed to be too young to be able to tell what had happened—were spared. The express rider returned two days after the massacre. He carried a letter from Brigham Young telling local leaders to “not meddle” with the emigrants and to allow them to pass through southern Utah. 40 The militiamen sought to cover up the crime by placing the entire blame on local Paiutes, some of whom were also members of the Church.

Two Latter-day Saints were eventually excommunicated from the Church for their participation, and a grand jury that included Latter-day Saints indicted nine men. Only one participant, John D. Lee, was convicted and executed for the crime, which fueled false allegations that the massacre had been ordered by Brigham Young.

In recent years, the Church has made diligent efforts to learn everything possible about the massacre. In the early 2000s, historians in the Church History Department of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints scoured archives throughout the United States for historical records; every Church record on the massacre was also opened to scrutiny. In the resulting book, published by Oxford University Press in 2008, authors Ronald W. Walker, Richard E. Turley Jr., and Glen M. Leonard concluded that while intemperate preaching about outsiders by Brigham Young, George A. Smith, and other leaders contributed to a climate of hostility, President Young did not order the massacre. Rather, verbal confrontations between individuals in the wagon train and southern Utah settlers created great alarm, particularly within the context of the Utah War and other adversarial events. A series of tragic decisions by local Church leaders—who also held key civic and militia leadership roles in southern Utah—led to the massacre. 41

Aside from the Mountain Meadows Massacre, a few Latter-day Saints committed other violent acts against a small number of dissenters and outsiders. Some Latter-day Saints perpetrated acts of extralegal violence, especially in the 1850s, when fear and tensions were prevalent in Utah Territory. The heated rhetoric of Church leaders directed toward dissenters may have led these Mormons to believe that such actions were justified. 42 The perpetrators of these crimes were generally not punished. Even so, many allegations of such violence are unfounded, and anti-Mormon writers have blamed Church leaders for many unsolved crimes or suspicious deaths in early Utah. 43

Many people in the 19th century unjustly characterized the Latter-day Saints as a violent people. Yet the vast majority of Latter-day Saints, in the 19th century as today, lived in peace with their neighbors and families, and sought peace in their communities. Travelers in the 19th century often noted the peace and order that prevailed in Mormon communities in Utah and elsewhere. 44 Nevertheless, the actions of relatively few Latter-day Saints caused death and injury, frayed community relationships, and damaged the perception of Mormons as a peaceful people. 45

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints condemns violent words and actions and affirms its commitment to furthering peace throughout the world. Speaking of the Mountain Meadows Massacre, Elder Henry B. Eyring, then a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, stated, “The gospel of Jesus Christ that we espouse abhors the cold-blooded killing of men, women, and children. Indeed, it advocates peace and forgiveness. What was done here long ago by members of our Church represents a terrible and inexcusable departure from Christian teaching and conduct.” 46

Throughout the Church’s history, Church leaders have taught that the way of Christian discipleship is a path of peace. Elder Russell M. Nelson of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles connected the Latter-day Saints’ faith in Jesus Christ to their active pursuit of love of neighbor and peace with all people: “The hope of the world is the Prince of Peace. … Now, as members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, what does the Lord expect of us? As a Church, we must ‘renounce war and proclaim peace.’ As individuals, we should ‘follow after the things which make for peace.’ We should be personal peacemakers.” 47

• USA TODAY Sports

After Trump shooting, it's not enough for GOP, Democrats to speak against violence

Before the country can come together in peace our politicians need to come together in peace. for real..

They’ve all said the right things, because they all know what they’re supposed to say.

But in order to make it mean something, in order for it to have a chance to resonate in a way that people will believe it, even act on it, they need to say it together. Political rivals, side by side.

It could start with President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump , of course.

Or it could start anywhere else. Even here in Arizona.

The message is meaningless unless you back it up

After the assassination attempt on Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania, on Saturday, just about every politician and political commentator in America came forward with the same sentiment .

"Look, there's no place in America for this kind of violence . It’s sick. It’s sick," Biden said.

Democratic Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., the former House speaker, wrote on X: "I know firsthand that political violence of any kind has no place in our society ."

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, also on X, said that "all Americans are grateful that President Trump appears to be fine after a despicable attack on a peaceful rally." Adding, “ Violence has no place in our politics .”

It’s the same message over and over . It’s something we’d like to believe.

Trump shooting lead to chaos: Trump rally shooting breeds social media lies and sick conspiracies. What's wrong with us?

Can elected officials show actual civility, actual tolerance, actual respect?

But it needs to be said more openly, more forcefully and together for that to happen. And it needs to be followed up with action. Money talks, the old saying goes, and BS walks.

In our little desert paradise it could begin with all 11 members of Arizona's congressional delegation ‒ the six Republicans representatives, the three House Democrats, our Democratic senator and our independent senator ‒ in a room, condemning violence and the violent rhetoric that might lead to it.

And meaning what they say.

After Trump rally shooting, Americans need to pull together. This is our wake-up call.

I’m not talking about kumbaya for kumbaya’s sake. I’m talking about a demonstration of actual civility, actual tolerance, actual respect.

Put members of the Arizona delegation in a room, in front of cameras

The New York Times wrote an editorial Saturday with a headline saying, “The Attack on Donald Trump Is Antithetical to America ,” while admitting in the same editorial that according to a recent survey by the Chicago Project on Security and Threats that “10 percent of respondents agreed that the use of force was justified to prevent Mr. Trump from becoming president, and 7 percent said the use of force was justified to return Mr. Trump to the presidency.”

That doesn’t sound very “antithetical” to me.

Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store .

Politicians need to show us that it is. They need to prove it. If Trump and Biden are reluctant to do so just now, politicians in places like Arizona, who support Trump and who support Biden, can do so.

Get in the same room, in front of cameras, and talk about it, demonstrate it – Sens. Mark Kelly and Kyrsten Sinema, Reps. David Schweikert, Eli Crane, Ruben Gallego, Greg Stanton, Andy Biggs, Juan Ciscomani, Raul Grijalva, Debbie Lesko and Paul Gosar.

Before the country can come together in peace our politicians need to come together in peace. For real . They don’t have to hold hands. They don’t have to sing kumbaya.

They have to do something much more important than that. They have to convince us they mean it.

Then – and this is the really hard part – they’ll have to live it.

EJ Montini is a columnist at The Arizona Republic,  where this column first appeared . Reach Montini at  [email protected]

You can read diverse opinions from our USA TODAY columnists and other writers on the Opinion front page , on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and in our Opinion newsletter .

Article Categories

Partner with us.

Gospel Topics Essay: Peace and Violence among 19th-Century Latter-day Saints

By  Eric Johnson

To see an introduction to the Gospel Topics essays, click  here.

The entire essay is printed below, underlined, with my commentary included throughout. Because I will try to be short and to the point as much as possible,  a number of sites (many from MRM) to support my disagreement are included. I encourage interested readers to consider these sources. 

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is founded on the teachings of Jesus Christ. The virtues of peace, love, and forgiveness are at the center of Church doctrine and practice. Latter-day Saints believe the Savior’s declaration, found in the New Testament and the Book of Mormon, that “blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.” In Latter-day Saint scripture, the Lord has commanded His followers to “renounce war and proclaim peace.” Latter-day Saints strive to follow the counsel of the Book of Mormon prophet-king Benjamin, who taught that those who are converted to the gospel of Jesus Christ “will not have a mind to injure one another, but to live peaceably.”

Despite these ideals, early Latter-day Saints did not obtain peace easily. They were persecuted, often violently, for their beliefs. And, tragically, at some points in the 19th century, most notably in the Mountain Meadows Massacre, some Church members participated in deplorable violence against people they perceived to be their enemies. This essay explores both violence committed against the Latter-day Saints and violence committed by them. While historical context can help shed light on these acts of violence, it does not excuse them.

Originally written in 2014, the author of this essay states that “deplorable violence” took place in 19 th century Mormonism. Let me be honest from the start. Every religion has embarrassing moments, the proverbial skeleton in the closet. For example, Christianity has its Crusades. Muslims have their terrorist groups like Bin Laden and IS. And so on. I understand. It just seems that there is a historical precedent for the LDS Church to refrain from saying “mea culpa.” The word “apologize” or “apology” is not typical to come from the mouths of General Authorities. So often the church’s leaders seem to want to sweep problems under the carpet. A case in point is the Mountain Meadows Massacre, which is talked about in the second half of this essay. Let me give a “for instance” to further explain what I’m talking about.

In 2007, the 150 th anniversary of the Mountain Meadows Massacre took place. The church sponsored a gathering at the massacre site where dignitaries gave speeches. Admitting that Latter-day Saints participated in the atrocity, listen to what Henry B. Eyring, a member of the First Presidency, said in his talk:

What was done here long ago by members of our Church represents a terrible and inexcusable departure from Christian teaching and conduct. We cannot change what happened, but we can remember and honor those who were killed here. We express profound regret for the massacre carried out in this valley 150 years ago today and for the undue and untold suffering experienced by the victims then and by their relatives to the present time. A separate expression of regret is owed to the Paiute people who have unjustly borne for too long the principal blame for what occurred during the massacre. Although the extent of their involvement is disputed, it is believed they would not have participated without the direction and stimulus provided by local Church leaders and members (“ 150th Anniversary of Mountain Meadows Massacre ,” September 11, 2007, Newsroom).

Notice the words “profound regret.” Someone might say, “There you go, that’s an apology.” This is how the Deseret News reported it in the next day’s newspaper. It was the wrong word, as later reports explained that the “Church leaders were adamant that the statement should not be construed as an apology.” Said LDS Church spokesman Mark Tuttle, “We don’t use the word ‘apology.’ We used ‘profound regret.’” To read more on this situation, check out Bill McKeever’s blog here .

Religious Persecution in the 1830s and 1840s

In the first two decades after the Church was organized, Latter-day Saints were often the victims of violence. Soon after Joseph Smith organized the Church in New York in 1830, he and other Church members began settling in areas to the west, in Ohio, Missouri, and Illinois. Time and again, the Saints tried to build their Zion community where they could worship God and live in peace, and repeatedly they saw their hopes dashed through forcible and violent removal. Mobs drove them from Jackson County, Missouri, in 1833; from the state of Missouri in 1839, after the governor of the state issued an order in late October 1838 that the Mormons be expelled from the state or “exterminated”; and from their city of Nauvoo, Illinois, in 1846. Following their expulsion from Nauvoo, Latter-day Saints made the difficult trek across the Great Plains to Utah.

To see another perspective, consider going here .

As Latter-day Saints faced these difficulties, they sought to live by revelations to Joseph Smith that counseled them to live their religion in peace with their neighbors. Nevertheless, their adversaries in Ohio, Missouri, and Illinois resented the Saints’ differing religious beliefs and social and economic practices. They also felt threatened by the Saints’ growing numbers, which meant that Mormons could increasingly control local elections. These opponents attacked the Saints, first verbally and then physically. Church leaders, including Joseph Smith, were tarred and feathered, beaten, and unjustly imprisoned. Other members of the Church were also the victims of violent crimes. In the most infamous incident, at least 17 men and boys, ranging in age from 9 to 78, were slaughtered in the Hawn’s Mill Massacre.

Most accounts call it “Haun’s” Mill, but apparently the name for which the mill was named after was “ Hawn .” Regardless, may I suggest you get a fuller picture of what took place at “Haun’s” Mill by clicking here   as well as this podcast Haun Mill Anniversary that originally aired on October 30, 2013. Also consider this Blog .

Some Latter-day Saint women were raped or otherwise sexually assaulted during the Missouri persecutions.Vigilantes and mobs destroyed homes and stole property.Many of the Saints’ opponents enriched themselves with land and property that was not justly theirs.

The expulsion from Missouri—involving at least 8,000 Latter-day Saints—occurred during the winter months, heightening the suffering of the thousands of refugees who lacked adequate food and shelter and were sometimes subject to epidemic diseases.In March 1839, when Joseph Smith, imprisoned in Liberty, Missouri, received reports of the suffering of the exiled Latter-day Saints, he exclaimed, “O God, where art thou?” and prayed, “Remember thy suffering saints, O our God.”

After being driven from Missouri, the Saints were initially welcomed by the people of the neighboring state of Illinois and found peace for a time in Nauvoo. Ultimately, however, conflict arose again as non-Mormons and dissenters from the Church renewed their attacks. Joseph Smith and his brother Hyrum were brutally martyred by a mob in an Illinois prison despite the promise of the state’s governor that the brothers would be protected while in custody. Eighteen months later, beginning in the cold winter month of February 1846, the main body of the Saints left Nauvoo under tremendous pressure.

For more on the “martyrdom” of Joseph Smith, click here .

They settled in temporary camps—what would now be called refugee camps—on the plains of Iowa and Nebraska. An estimated 1 in 12 Saints died in these camps during the first year. Some of the elderly and poor initially remained in Nauvoo and hoped to join the main body of Saints later. But a mob forcibly expelled them from Nauvoo in September 1846 and then desecrated the temple. One non-Mormon who passed through the Saints’ camps shortly thereafter wrote, “Cowed and cramped by cold and sunburn, alternating as each weary day and night dragged on, they were, almost all of them, the crippled victims of disease. … They could not satisfy the feeble cravings of their sick: they had not bread to quiet the fractious hunger cries of their children.” The scope of this violence against a religious group was unprecedented in the history of the United States.

There was injustice done to the Mormon people. I won’t argue that. At the same time, we must realize wrongs were committed on both sides, especially in Missouri. I suppose the reason that the information is given here to setting the stage for the Mountain Meadows Massacre.

Church leaders and members repeatedly attempted to gain redress from local and state governments; when these petitions failed, they appealed unsuccessfully to the federal government to correct past wrongs and gain future protection. Latter-day Saints long remembered the persecutions they experienced and the unwillingness of government authorities either to protect them or to prosecute their attackers. They often lamented that they experienced religious persecution in a land that promised religious freedom. In the face of this extended persecution, some of the Saints, beginning in 1838, responded on some occasions with defensive—and at times, retaliatory—actions of their own.

Violence and Vigilantism in the 19th-Century United States

In 19th-century American society, community violence was common and often condoned. Much of the violence perpetrated by and against Latter-day Saints fell within the then-existing American tradition of extralegal vigilantism, in which citizens organized to take justice into their own hands when they believed government was either oppressive or lacking. Vigilantes generally targeted minority groups or those perceived to be criminal or socially marginal. Such acts were at times fueled by religious rhetoric.

The existence of community-based militias also contributed to this culture of vigilantism. Congress passed a law in 1792 requiring every able-bodied male between 18 and 45 years of age to belong to a community militia. Over time, the militias turned into the National Guard, but in early America, they were often unruly, perpetrating acts of violence against individuals or groups perceived to be opponents of the community.

In the 1830s and 1840s, the Latter-day Saints’ communities in Ohio, Missouri, Illinois, and Utah were all located in the western frontier regions of the United States, where community violence was readily sanctioned.

The Mormon Missouri War and the Danites

The isolated acts of violence committed by some Latter-day Saints can generally be seen as a subset of the broader phenomenon of frontier violence in 19th-century America.21 In 1838, Joseph Smith and other Church members fled from mobs in Ohio and moved to Missouri, where Latter-day Saints had already established settlements. Joseph Smith believed that opposition from Church dissidents and other antagonists had weakened and ultimately destroyed their community in Kirtland, Ohio, where only two years before they had completed a temple at great sacrifice. By the summer of 1838, Church leaders saw the rise of similar threats to their goal of creating a harmonious community in Missouri.

At the Latter-day Saint settlement of Far West, some leaders and members organized a paramilitary group known as the Danites, whose objective was to defend the community against dissident and excommunicated Latter-day Saints as well as other Missourians. Historians generally concur that Joseph Smith approved of the Danites but that he probably was not briefed on all their plans and likely did not sanction the full range of their activities. Danites intimidated Church dissenters and other Missourians; for instance, they warned some dissenters to leave Caldwell County. During the fall of 1838, as tensions escalated during what is now known as the Mormon Missouri War, the Danites were apparently absorbed into militias largely composed of Latter-day Saints. These militias clashed with their Missouri opponents, leading to a few fatalities on both sides. In addition, Mormon vigilantes, including many Danites, raided two towns believed to be centers of anti-Mormon activity, burning homes and stealing goods.22 Though the existence of the Danites was short-lived, it resulted in a longstanding and much-embellished myth about a secret society of Mormon vigilantes.

“Danites” was a given title by Sampson Avard, a Mormon, who described the Danites as a band of armed men formed into companies of tens and fifties who were bound by secret oaths never to discuss their activities which they carried out against those unfriendly to the Mormon cause. Mormon historians and leaders have since tried to distance themselves from this objectionable organization, which was also known as the Destroying Angels. In October 1838, Joseph Smith claimed that this illegal group had nothing to do with a Church-ordained Council of Fifty, which was set up as a defense mechanism against mob attack ( Documentary History of the Church  3:178-182). Joseph Smith later denied that the Danites ever existed ( Documentary History of the Church  6:165). However, it appears the scholars (writing in the paragraph above) disagree with Smith and thus side with history.

As a result of their experience in Missouri, the Latter-day Saints created a large, state-sanctioned militia, the Nauvoo Legion, to protect themselves after they moved to Illinois. This militia was feared by many who saw the Latter-day Saints as enemies. But the legion avoided offensive or retaliatory action; it did not respond even in the crisis leading up to the mob murders of Joseph Smith and his brother Hyrum in June 1844 or in the aftermath of those murders. When the governor of Illinois ordered that the legion disband, the Saints followed the instruction.

Violence in Utah Territory

In Utah, aggression or retaliation by Latter-day Saints against their perceived enemies occurred most frequently during the first decade of settlement (1847–1857). For many, the scars of former persecutions and the trek to the Rocky Mountains were still fresh and personal. As they tried to carve out a living in the Utah desert, the Saints faced continuing conflict. Many factors worked against the success of the Latter-day Saint venture in Utah: tensions with American Indians, who had been displaced by Mormon settlement and expansion; pressure from the U.S. federal government, particularly after the public announcement of plural marriage in 1852; uncertain land claims; and a rapidly expanding population. Community leaders felt an unrelenting burden of responsibility, not only for the spiritual welfare of the Church but also for the physical survival of their people. Many of these leaders, including Church president and territorial governor Brigham Young, simultaneously held ecclesiastical and civil offices.

Latter-day Saints’ Relationship with American Indians

Like other settlers in frontier areas, Latter-day Saints occupied areas already inhabited by American Indians. The tragic history of the annihilation of many Indian tribes and the devastation of others at the hands of European immigrant settlers and the United States military and political apparatus has been well documented by historians. Settlers throughout the 19th century, including some Latter-day Saints, mistreated and killed Indians in numerous conflicts, forcing them off desirable lands and onto reservations.

Unlike most other Americans, Latter-day Saints viewed Indians as a chosen people, fellow Israelites who were descendants of Book of Mormon peoples and thus heirs to God’s promises.

This is an admission that early Mormon leaders considered the Native Americans to be direct descendants of Israel. Today, scholars have backed away on that idea because DNA has shown this is not the case. For an excellent DVD report on this topic, go here .

As Church president, territorial governor, and territorial superintendent of Indian Affairs, Brigham Young pursued a peace policy to facilitate Mormon settlement in areas where Indians lived. Latter-day Saints learned Indian languages, established trade relations, preached the gospel, and generally sought accommodation with Indians. This policy, however, emerged unevenly and was inconsistently applied.

Peaceful accommodation between Latter-day Saints and Indians was both the norm and the ideal. At times, however, Church members clashed violently with Indians. These two cultures—European and American Indian—had vastly different assumptions about the use of land and property and did not understand each other well. Mormons often accused Indians of stealing. Indians, meanwhile, believed the Mormons had a responsibility to share goods and livestock raised on Indian tribal lands. In areas where Mormons settled, Indian experience with Europeans had previously consisted mostly of mutually beneficial interactions with trappers and traders, people who passed through the land or briefly dwelled on it, not staked permanent claim to it as the Mormons did. These misunderstandings led to friction and violence between the peoples.

In late 1849, tensions between Ute Indians and Mormons in Utah Valley escalated after a Mormon killed a Ute known as Old Bishop, whom he accused of stealing his shirt. The Mormon and two associates then hid the victim’s body in the Provo River. Details of the murder were likely withheld, at least initially, from Brigham Young and other Church leaders. Settlers at Fort Utah did, however, report other difficulties with the Indians, including the firing of weapons at settlers and the theft of livestock and crops. Brigham Young counseled patience, telling them to “stockade your fort, to attend to your own affairs and let the indiens take care of theirs.” Nevertheless, tensions mounted at Fort Utah, in part because local Mormons refused to turn over those involved in the murder of Old Bishop to the Utes or to pay reparations for his death. In the winter of 1849–1850, a measles epidemic spread from the Mormon settlers to the Ute camps, killing many Indians and heightening tensions. At a council of Church leaders in Salt Lake City on January 31, 1850, the leader of Fort Utah reported that the Utes’ actions and intentions were growing increasingly aggressive: “they say they mean to hunt our Cattle. & go & get the other Indians to kill us.” In response, Governor Young authorized a campaign against the Utes. A series of battles in February 1850 resulted in the deaths of dozens of Utes and one Mormon. In these instances and others, some Latter-day Saints committed excessive violence against native peoples.

Nevertheless, for the most part, the Saints had more amicable relations with Indians than did settlers in other areas of the American West. Brigham Young enjoyed friendships with several American Indian leaders and taught his people to live peacefully with their Indian neighbors whenever possible. Some Indians even distinguished between “Mormonees,” whom they considered friendly, and other American settlers, who were known as “Mericats.”

The “Reformation” and the Utah War

In the mid-1850s, a “reformation” within the Church and tensions between the Latter-day Saints in Utah and the U.S. federal government contributed to a siege mentality and a renewed sense of persecution that led to several episodes of violence committed by Church members. Concerned about spiritual complacency, Brigham Young and other Church leaders delivered a series of sermons in which they called the Saints to repent and renew their spiritual commitments. Many testified that they became better people because of this reformation.

Nineteenth-century Americans were accustomed to violent language, both religious and otherwise. Throughout the century, revivalists had used violent imagery to encourage the unconverted to repent and to urge backsliders to reform. At times during the reformation, President Young, his counselor Jedediah M. Grant, and other leaders preached with fiery rhetoric, warning against the evils of those who dissented from or opposed the Church. Drawing on biblical passages, particularly from the Old Testament, leaders taught that some sins were so serious that the perpetrator’s blood would have to be shed in order to receive forgiveness. Such preaching led to increased strain between the Latter-day Saints and the relatively few non-Mormons in Utah, including federally appointed officials.

In early 1857, U.S. President James Buchanan received reports from some of the federal officials alleging that Governor Young and the Latter-day Saints in Utah were rebelling against the authority of the federal government. A strongly worded memorial from the Utah legislature to the federal government convinced federal officials the reports were true. President Buchanan decided to replace Brigham Young as governor and, in what became known as the Utah War, sent an army to Utah to escort his replacement. Latter-day Saints feared that the oncoming army—some 1,500 troops, with more to follow—would renew the depredations of Missouri and Illinois and again drive the Saints from their homes. In addition, Parley P. Pratt, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, was murdered in Arkansas in May 1857. News of the murder—as well as newspaper reports from the eastern United States that celebrated the crime—reached Utah in late June 1857. As these events unfolded, Brigham Young declared martial law in the territory, directed missionaries and settlers in outlying areas to return to Utah, and guided preparations to resist the army. Defiant sermons given by President Young and other Church leaders, combined with the impending arrival of an army, helped create an environment of fear and suspicion in Utah.

These paragraphs are historically true. There is no doubt that this was a very sensitive time.

The Mountain Meadows Massacre

At the peak of this tension, in early September 1857, a branch of the territorial militia in southern Utah (composed entirely of Mormons), along with some Indians they recruited, laid siege to a wagon train of emigrants traveling from Arkansas to California. As the wagon train traveled south from Salt Lake City, the emigrants had clashed verbally with local Mormons over where they could graze their cattle. Some of the members of the wagon train became frustrated because they had difficulty purchasing much-needed grain and other supplies from local settlers, who had been instructed to save their grain as a wartime policy. Aggrieved, some of the emigrants threatened to join incoming troops in fighting against the Saints.

Although some Saints ignored these threats, other local Church leaders and members in Cedar City, Utah, advocated violence. Isaac C. Haight, a stake president and militia leader, sent John D. Lee, a militia major, to lead an attack on the emigrant company. When the president reported the plan to his council, other leaders objected and requested that he call off the attack and instead send an express rider to Brigham Young in Salt Lake City for guidance. But the men Haight had sent to attack the emigrants carried out their plans before they received the order not to attack. The emigrants fought back, and a siege ensued.

Over the next few days, events escalated, and Mormon militiamen planned and carried out a deliberate massacre. They lured the emigrants from their circled wagons with a false flag of truce and, aided by Paiute Indians they had recruited, slaughtered them. Between the first attack and the final slaughter, the massacre destroyed the lives of 120 men, women, and children in a valley known as Mountain Meadows. Only small children—those believed to be too young to be able to tell what had happened—were spared. The express rider returned two days after the massacre. He carried a letter from Brigham Young telling local leaders to “not meddle” with the emigrants and to allow them to pass through southern Utah. The militiamen sought to cover up the crime by placing the entire blame on local Paiutes, some of whom were also members of the Church.

Two Latter-day Saints were eventually excommunicated from the Church for their participation, and a grand jury that included Latter-day Saints indicted nine men. Only one participant, John D. Lee, was convicted and executed for the crime, which fueled false allegations that the massacre had been ordered by Brigham Young.

“Nothing that the emigrants purportedly did comes close to justifying their murder”–Ronald W. Walker, Richard B. Turley, Jr., Glen E. Leonard, Massacre at the Mountain Meadows, p. xiii

There are different scholarly opinions from Mormons as to the culpability of Brigham Young. Some, such as Richard Turley, Ronald Walker, and Glen Leonard—all of whom are on the LDS Church payroll—could have written the paragraphs above. (For a review of their book, go here . ) They place the blame more at the feet of the local Mormon leaders rather than the church’s general authorities:

We believe errors were made by U.S. President James Buchanan, Brigham Young and other Mormon leaders, some of the Arkansas emigrants, some Paiutes, and most of all by settlers in southern Utah who set aside principles of their faith to commit this atrocity” ( Massacre at the Mountain Meadows , p. xiv).

They also wrote,

Brigham Young’s new Indian policy, announced August 16, may have confused some local leaders. Young had said that “if the United States send their army here and war commences” then emigrant “trains must not cross this continent.” If a war began, Young said, “I will say no more to the Indians, let them alone, but do as you please.” Word of the policy traveled by mouth, with each hearer interpreting it individually (Ibid., p. 137).

Another Mormon scholar (though not on the LDS Church payroll) is Will Bagley, who disagrees with this assessment. He feels that Young should own at least some responsibility:

The Paiutes admitted participating but claimed they were not there when the attack commenced. After the initial assault, Chief Jackson said, a white man came to his camp with a piece of paper from Brigham Young directing him “to go and help to whip the emigrants.” Jackson claimed an Indian interpreter named “Huntingdon had brought Young Orders “authorizing, if not commanding, that the train should be destroyed ( Blood of the Prophets: Brigham Young and the Massacre at Mountain Meadows , p. 227).

Records controlled by the LDS Church were tampered with and therefore the history has been lost, he claims:

Manipulation of the historical record will forever obscure many of the detail of what really happened during that long ago September in 1857, yet the destruction of key documents and manufacturing of evidence to manipulate history stand as an indictment rather than a vindication of the guilty. All this evidence did not vanish because it exonerated Mormon leaders. “Virtually every letter sent from the regional presidents to Brigham Young is archived in Utah,” journalist Timothy Egan noted recently. But Isaac Haight’s critical September 7, 1857, letter to Young, alerting him to events “that could lead to a war that could crush the church, has disappeared.” The destruction of “so much evidence, including relevant pages from journals of the many settlers,” the Paiute history notes, “testifies to many Native Americans and their sympathizers that much of the official history cannot be considered complete or truthful” (Ibid., p. 381).

Based on the evidence he found, Bagley stated quite bluntly,

Claiming that Brigham Young had nothing to do with Mountain Meadows is akin to arguing that Abraham Lincoln had nothing to do with the Civil War (Ibid., p. 379).

The individual will have to read both sides and make up his or her own opinion.

For more on the topic of the Mountain Meadows Massacre:

• You can read John D. Lee’s account of the events here. 
• Read an article on the event here .
• To hear a 2-part podcast on the topic that originally aired September 10-11, 2012, go here:  Part 1    Part 2

In recent years, the Church has made diligent efforts to learn everything possible about the massacre. In the early 2000s, historians in the Church History Department of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints scoured archives throughout the United States for historical records; every Church record on the massacre was also opened to scrutiny. In the resulting book, published by Oxford University Press in 2008, authors Ronald W. Walker, Richard E. Turley Jr., and Glen M. Leonard concluded that while intemperate preaching about outsiders by Brigham Young, George A. Smith, and other leaders contributed to a climate of hostility, President Young did not order the massacre. Rather, verbal confrontations between individuals in the wagon train and southern Utah settlers created great alarm, particularly within the context of the Utah War and other adversarial events. A series of tragic decisions by local Church leaders—who also held key civic and militia leadership roles in southern Utah—led to the massacre.

The LDS Church can lay out the history however it wants. For an article that supposedly is meant to fess up to the truth, though, I think there were both positives and negatives. One positive: I’m glad the church scholars are talking about it. On the other hand, I wish the leaders along with the scholars would take more responsibility rather than lay most (if not all) of the blame on some “local leaders” for what took place. While we will never know the full story because of the destruction of important records, I would lean toward there being more culpability with Young and the church’s General Authorities than what the scholars want to acknowledge.

Aside from the Mountain Meadows Massacre, a few Latter-day Saints committed other violent acts against a small number of dissenters and outsiders. Some Latter-day Saints perpetrated acts of extralegal violence, especially in the 1850s, when fear and tensions were prevalent in Utah Territory. The heated rhetoric of Church leaders directed toward dissenters may have led these Mormons to believe that such actions were justified.The perpetrators of these crimes were generally not punished. Even so, many allegations of such violence are unfounded, and anti-Mormon writers have blamed Church leaders for many unsolved crimes or suspicious deaths in early Utah.

Many people in the 19th century unjustly characterized the Latter-day Saints as a violent people. Yet the vast majority of Latter-day Saints, in the 19th century as today, lived in peace with their neighbors and families, and sought peace in their communities. Travelers in the 19th century often noted the peace and order that prevailed in Mormon communities in Utah and elsewhere. Nevertheless, the actions of relatively few Latter-day Saints caused death and injury, frayed community relationships, and damaged the perception of Mormons as a peaceful people.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints condemns violent words and actions and affirms its commitment to furthering peace throughout the world. Speaking of the Mountain Meadows Massacre, Elder Henry B. Eyring, then a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, stated, “The gospel of Jesus Christ that we espouse abhors the cold-blooded killing of men, women, and children. Indeed, it advocates peace and forgiveness. What was done here long ago by members of our Church represents a terrible and inexcusable departure from Christian teaching and conduct.”

Throughout the Church’s history, Church leaders have taught that the way of Christian discipleship is a path of peace. Elder Russell M. Nelson of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles connected the Latter-day Saints’ faith in Jesus Christ to their active pursuit of love of neighbor and peace with all people: “The hope of the world is the Prince of Peace. … Now, as members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, what does the Lord expect of us? As a Church, we must ‘renounce war and proclaim peace.’ As individuals, we should ‘follow after the things which make for peace.’ We should be personal peacemakers.”

The Mountain Meadows Massacre will always be an enigma in Mormonism. I’m happy that the leadership is willing to say that the whole affair was wrong. What was the cause? Even if Brigham Young did not command the killings, certainly the situation that these early Mormons were put into created the scene. No matter how it is viewed, some blame is directly at the feet of the leadership of the Mormon Church in that day.

Check out these related articles...

Mormonism’s gospel tree, aging leadership sets the stage for changes in the lds church, the lds church’s groundless celebration of moroni’s visitation.

• Struggling with your Mormonism?
• Mormonism Crash Course
• Mormonism Glossary

Connect With Us

• Support MRM

Our Resources

• Free Downloadable Tracts

More Resources

• LDS Sources
• Christian Churches in Utah
• Archived Blog

We use cookies to enhance our website for you. Proceed if you agree to this policy or learn more about it.

• Essay Database >
• Essay Examples >
• Essays Topics >
• Essay on History

Argumentative Essay On Debate: We Could Earn Peace Through The Violence

Type of paper: Argumentative Essay

Topic: History , Peace , Time , Freedom , Democracy , Evidence , Life , Violence

Published: 02/07/2020

ORDER PAPER LIKE THIS

Let me take this chance to define two important terms here. The terms are violence and peace. Violence refers to the aforethought application of physical might either actual or life threatening towards a group of people, an individual or a community. Such an action has a big probability of causing harm that may be psychological, loss of life, injury and impaired development. Peace on the other hand refers to the state of dwelling in a state or environment that is surrounded by tranquility and harmonized personal relations. Peace can also be derived from a state of security that can be achieved either customarily or via law enforcement. As for my team, I totally agree and ascertain that it is through violence that we get peace. Word has it that people get to understand themselves and others better after a series of misunderstandings. This has been observed for years since time immemorial and it has been proved to be true. Considering American history, many events have taken place for a long time. This has been observed among various activists and leaders. There are several reasons as to why I maintain that violence is a catalyst for peace. John Darby asserts that “It is easier to start a war than to stop it” (8). Wars can be launched on schedule, with a telephone call or a flick of a switch.” With violence the following results; - Upon relative termination, one side is labeled as loser. This brings the end to violence leaving people no option other than peace. The United States of America has been reluctant in ceasing the misunderstandings witnessed from the air attacks by Iraq. However, it is generally a fact that when nation-states make peace, their treaties tend to maintain for an appreciable amount of time. - The deep division that arises from history, antipathy and interests that seem to be discordant can be brought to an end since the involved individuals come to value peace hence aspire to secure a peace agreement amongst them-an action that enables them to cooperate with their former enemies. If this is maintained for a longer time, it can lead to ultimate stabilization. - It quite interesting that an emergence of violence triggers peace. According to John Darby, “it enables the middle ground to find its voice at a time when the voice of moderation could make a difference.” ( 8). - The Negroes earned their freedom though violence. This was observed during their time of oppression as exhibited in the articles that made appearances on “Must Negroes fight back?” and “The Plot to Get Whitey”. Formerly, the nonviolent approach to get peace had proved futile. - In the Northern ghettos, the use of violence has been perceived as the sole way to freedom. There has been a series of mob demonstrations rioting in Chicago so that their grievances are heard. - A ceasefire is capable of bringing to an end stubborn conflict. The differing sides opt to refrain from violence for a certain period of time. However, it is rare for such people to go back to arms again. It is harder to bring violence, so it is easier to annihilate peace than to nutriment it. Therefore, we should try as much possible to nurture our hard earned peace.

Works Cited

John Darby.The Effects of Violence on Peace Processes. United States Institute of Peace Press Washington D.C. 2001. Web May 2013. "Mortality and Burden of Disease Estimates for WHO Member States in 2002". World Health Organization. 2004. Keith Krause, Robert Muggah, and Achim Wennmann, "Global Burden of Armed Violence," Geneva Declaration Secretariat, 2008. "Violence Prevention: the evidence", World Health Organization/Liverpool John Moores University, 2009. Rosengart M. et al. An evaluation of state firearm regulations and homicide and suicide death rates. Injury Prevention, 2005. Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence "Blueprints for violence prevention/ Flannery, D.J., Vazsonyi, A.T. & Waldman, I.D. (Eds.) (2007). The Cambridge handbook of violent behavior and aggression. Cambridge University Press. Nazaretyan, A.P. (2007). Violence and Non-Violence at Different Stages of World History: A view from the hypothesis of techno-humanitarian balance. In: History & Mathematics Krug et al., "World report on violence and health", World Health Organization, 2002. Walker, Phillip L. 2001. A Bioarchaeological Perspective on the History of Violence. Annual Review of Anthropology. The Culture of Violence in the American West: Myth versus Reality. Retrieved from <http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?a=803 > on May 2013. Martin Luther King, Jr.May 04, 1966.Nonviolence: The Only Road to Freedom. Retrieved from http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/nonviolence-the-only-road-to-freedom/ On May 2013.

Cite this page

Share with friends using:

Removal Request

Finished papers: 2600

This paper is created by writer with

If you want your paper to be:

Well-researched, fact-checked, and accurate

Original, fresh, based on current data

Eloquently written and immaculately formatted

275 words = 1 page double-spaced

Get your papers done by pros!

Other Pages

Do my excel homework, claydon essays, university of alabama essays, older sister essays, oath of allegiance essays, absurdism essays, kristallnacht essays, jones industrial average essays, government of singapore essays, gain control essays, central hub essays, alternative therapy essays, spanish language essays, african slave trade essays, hunker essays, stengel essays, bienek essays, kcal essays, computer program essays, suicide and depression in the fire service research paper sample, gender differences in language use argumentative essay samples, example of civil political social activism and religion in the chicana o community essay, free capital structure and dividends essay sample, galileo galilei essay samples, sample report on standardization adaptation of the marketing mix of lv, morgan stanley article review, good essay about micro economics, good essay on kristina caroll, science and technology article review, good essay on john updikes a p, sociology of race term paper example, pearl harbor agent cicero in istanbul turkey during world war ii research paper examples, cholecystitis essay, therefore bitcoin is a double edged sword as a choice for the venezuelan government article review you might want to emulate, septic tank crisis essay example, free research paper about e logistics in supply chain management, free argumentative essay on universal health care, expertly written thesis on the business of interior design to follow, relevance of communication type to use as a writing model, free menglong fifteen strings of cash a jest that leads to disaster research paper top quality sample to follow, clever clogs international cross cultural training report a top quality report for your inspiration, free self analysis paper essay sample.

Password recovery email has been sent to [email protected]

Use your new password to log in

You are not register!

By clicking Register, you agree to our Terms of Service and that you have read our Privacy Policy .

Now you can download documents directly to your device!

Check your email! An email with your password has already been sent to you! Now you can download documents directly to your device.

or Use the QR code to Save this Paper to Your Phone

The sample is NOT original!

Short on a deadline?

Don't waste time. Get help with 11% off using code - GETWOWED

No, thanks! I'm fine with missing my deadline