War and Peace

1310 10/17/12 state of war War is inevitable when disasters exist, just stub some prison terms be avoidable when contradictory over cultural matters. Primarily, it is in mans best concern to provide for himself and his family. Those argon his two biggest priorities. When any kind of disaster occurs, he must first look after himself and his family before ensuring the safety of others. A subtlety works in the same way. Its goal is to carry come forth the way of life of the pile and ensure that it survives. It will fail to touch that goal if the people in the culture arent willing to contend for themselves and what they believe in.If some kind of natural calamity strikes or an out of doors power that is willing to kill moves in and violently forces its confess laws, traditions, and customs, the people must take appropriate actions or face the downfall of their own kind. They must struggle to preserve their customs and traditions, or move to some other place to live. Now if the intruding invader has any concern for the people, but still desires to enforce their laws upon them, non-violence can be used. Non-violence can wholly be an alternative to war if the force they are fleck against is non-violent.Otherwise, it will only suck trampled upon by a violent, oppressive force. In order for a civilization to survive, it must deport an adequate supply of resources for its people. A civilizations supply of resources can easily be depleted by drought, famine, floods, disease and many other natural disasters. When this happens, the civilization must give away a way to solve this problem. If a solution cant be found while staying in the area, they must find other place to live, but that comes with risks. Going out and searching for a refreshing place is very dangerous and many people may die.Another choice the impoverished radical of people might take would be to prove help to a nearby but separate establishment. This puts the struggling sort in the h ands of the healthy one. It is then up to the healthy group to decide if they are going to share their resources or deny it to them. The abnegation of aide will displease the struggling group and they might have to turn to violence to protect their people. This is because no compromise can be made and both groups are looking out for themselves. Humanitys natural instinct o survive is the primary reason why violent wars are inevitable. As I have mentioned before, a civilizations goal is to do anything they can to ensure the prominence and survival of their culture. The Crusades of the middle-ages are a perfect example of acting out on this cultural pride. In 1071, the Catholic Church had previously lost rise to power of the Holy Lands to the Turks. They make a comeback in 1095, at the main(prenominal) series of the Crusades. A lot of conflict and fighting occurred at this time and lasted until 1291.Due to the reason they were fighting, war could have easily been avoidable. The Chr istians and the Muslims werent necessarily fighting for resources, but for the right to own the Holy Lands. The reason both religions cute it was because both had ties to it. Since they werent fighting for resources, they should have been able to share the estate of the realm without bloodshed. Both should have been able to exist with each other without conflict. Non-violence can be an alternative to war, but only if the peoples lives are a factor in the opposing forces power.When the British were controlling their colonies in India, they were imposing taxes and trade. The British were using India for its own stinting benefits. If the British started killing off the Indians, then there wouldnt be anybody to pay them their taxes, not to mention it could start a war uncomplete party could afford or want. Even if the British decided to get violent against the resistance, non-violence would have still been effective. This is because the British would use violence to arrive fear, but at a cost.Since the British economy is dependent on the population of the people, they would actually damage themselves if they were to kill. When people are faced with the options to both fight or die because of competition over resources, they will chose to fight and war will occur. Some wars and conflicts in the past could have been avoided because both parties were intolerant of each other but wanted the same land. In this case, conflict should never have happened, and compromise should have been the solution.