The Anthropology Of Violence In Politics And Political Politics

2048 Words 9 Pages
There is a dramatic difference between the perspectives of an anthropologist and a politician, both of which I am struggling to balance in a class like Anthropology of Violence. Being a political science major, I understand the positions that governments take, regardless of how morally appalling they may be, however, by taking courses in anthropology, I am open to a whole new interpretation on issues facing our world, particularly violence. Having both of these perspectives is frustrating and enlightening simultaneously because I can understand both sides, but I also know that one is generally more overshadowed by the other. At the same time, the anthropologist point of view is the most morally sensible and speaks to the inherent peacefulness …show more content…
Palden was routinely beaten and tortured in prison by both his Chinese oppressors and his fellow inmates, who were all accused of being “reactionaries,” which was the term dubbed unto those who did not accept Mao Zedong’s strict Communist rules. The actions by the Chinese in Palden’s book were clearly genocidal in his point of view, but depending on the definition people apply to genocide, this may not be so. From the perspective of the Chinese, they believed they were liberating the people of Tibet from the exploitive upper class, which is a admirable idea on paper with no hint of genocidal intentions. Nor could other countries prove inadmissibly that Chinese tortured their Tibetan prisoners or performed other violent acts without proper justification because they framed it in such a way it would not be suspicious. Palden’s accounts of these incidences do not provide sufficient evidence for genocide because this particular event was teetering on the fence between genocide and what could only be concluded as killing without the intent to eliminate a people entirely. Based on the UN definition of genocide alone, the occupation of Tibet and the actions performed by the Chinese do not constitute …show more content…
The film, Hotel Rwanda, portrays both the hideous side and the hopeful side of such atrocities. One Hutu man, Paul Rusesabagina, risked his own life to save his Tutsi family as well as operating the hotel he managed as a refuge for hundreds of other Tutsis who were fleeing for their lives. The Hutu and Tutsi conflict originated in pre-colonial times, but colonialism only exacerbated the situation, giving the minority Tutsis the political and economic advantages over the Hutu. When the tables turned, the conflict became increasingly violent to the point of everyday Hutus killing their Tutsi neighbors in cold blood. This is another instance in which the UN was obligated to take action to try and maintain peace and stability in the region, however, as in the case of the former Yugoslavia, they were rather ineffective. The main problem in Rwanda with the United Nations was that just when their assistance was most needed, they were not permitted to intervene and all of the troops were being transferred and shifted around because the violence had escalated so high. It provides an example of how violent and dangerous a nation at war is, especially when it chooses genocide as the solution and how such deep rooted conflicts cannot be fixed by a peacekeeping force like the UN, but it only leaves one to wonder if anything

Related Documents