What It Means To Be Pro-Peace

Words: 2179
Pages: 9

1). What does it mean to be pro-peace and how does it affect our understandings of violence, war, and militarism?
When we talk about promoting a pro-peace ideology, we often think that peace just includes the absence of war, but that is the negative aspects of peace, peace also has a positive aspect. Positive peace are actions that promote or create more peaceful environments or conditions. To be pro-peace means to not only oppose the purpose of violence in society and the extent to which it is used but to also actively oppose to common narratives about the inherent nature of violence that are promoted in mass media and through our education on war and violence. To be pro-peace means to redefine peace as not just the absence of war but the
…show more content…
One way in which human rights is geographically contextualized is in our idea of space. An example that was used in class was the children in Knoxville that will go to bed hungry because their families do not have enough food. Although we live in Knoxville, maybe even just a few streets over we might as well live on the other side of the world because we have the same or greater awareness of issues going on across the world than we do with those who are in the same geographic location as we are or we just do not care. Another way that human rights are geographically contextualized is by the creation of another. An example that was given in class was President George W. Bush’s statement that, you are either for us or against us. Those who are against us are excluded from justice and have no rights. Another example is Trayvon Martin, based on the community that he lived in and the color of his skin his right to live was taken away because someone ascribed to him the attribute of being threatening of their livelihood, and used a legitimate use of violence to protect them from the …show more content…
From the increasing politicization of war, to new war technologies, to the industrial revolution, and the economic growth that the war causes. In the late 19th century we fought our wars with guns and cannons with our military technology slowly evolving overtime, until we get to the point in history where the atomic bomb is created and the future of war-fare is forever changed. We went from the ability to impact minimal numbers of causalities with the guns of the day to the ability to wipe out the entire human race within the span of a few hundred years. The way that we fight war has changed not only from the weapons we use but also how we fight our wars. We now have technology like drones that can kill a large number of people with no risk of causalities to the individuals using the technology but substantial and lasting damage to those who are on the receiving end of the drone strike. We are increasingly making war less personal and are becoming farther and farther removed from the actual realities of war and the decisions we make while fighting our wars. In the 1800’s in order to wage war you had to send men onto a battlefield and put them in the way of harm and offer them up as a necessary sacrifice in order to promote the narratives of the necessity of war. In contrast to nowadays where we can push a button from half way across the world and destroy the people and environment of an entire country. The implications