Considering the fact that it is extremely difficult to separate the concepts of gender, guilt, power and dignity in any given conflict, as they intertwine any inter-state, as well as intrastate outbreaks of violence, in this paper I will analyze the way how these four concepts permeate two, in my opinion, very similar conflicts – the conflict in South Africa and the conflict in Argentina, as well as the way how the four concepts intermix with each other and influence each other.
In South Africa the liberation movement of the oppressed majority was seen by the government as an uprising of groups of people who should not have the same rights as the ruling minority. The rationale for this way of thinking was provided by the racial differences. …show more content…
As classical realism defines it, power is conceptualized as domination or control. In both cases legal power of the government authorities was used, or, better to say, misused in order to control, dominate, and oppress population, and in order to make them and keep them submissive. South African government at the time had the legacy of apartheid and that is what differentiates the South African case from the Argentinian one. For instance, in South Africa the government invoked political privileges on behalf of racial differences which were used for discrimination and oppression of black Africans. In Argentina, however, no ethnic differences were used as a rationale for genocide and massive torture, as the state terrorism was introduced in efforts to control and intimidate entire population. “Distressed systems of power” in both of these countries brought about intrastate conflicts that resulted in a large number of victims and created legacy of grievances that exist up to date. Instead of climbing the stairs of respect for interests and rights of their populations toward reaching the pinnacle of “good power” , the governments of Argentina and South Africa were controlling the rights and interests of the people by using their legal …show more content…
That process is a never-ending one, as long as there is a memory of victims, there will be the memory of the perpetrators. However, the mere preservation of that memory empowers dignity of a nation as a whole, as the memory of the triumph is
In South Africa the liberation movement of the oppressed majority was seen by the government as an uprising of groups of people who should not have the same rights as the ruling minority. The rationale for this way of thinking was provided by the racial differences. …show more content…
As classical realism defines it, power is conceptualized as domination or control. In both cases legal power of the government authorities was used, or, better to say, misused in order to control, dominate, and oppress population, and in order to make them and keep them submissive. South African government at the time had the legacy of apartheid and that is what differentiates the South African case from the Argentinian one. For instance, in South Africa the government invoked political privileges on behalf of racial differences which were used for discrimination and oppression of black Africans. In Argentina, however, no ethnic differences were used as a rationale for genocide and massive torture, as the state terrorism was introduced in efforts to control and intimidate entire population. “Distressed systems of power” in both of these countries brought about intrastate conflicts that resulted in a large number of victims and created legacy of grievances that exist up to date. Instead of climbing the stairs of respect for interests and rights of their populations toward reaching the pinnacle of “good power” , the governments of Argentina and South Africa were controlling the rights and interests of the people by using their legal …show more content…
That process is a never-ending one, as long as there is a memory of victims, there will be the memory of the perpetrators. However, the mere preservation of that memory empowers dignity of a nation as a whole, as the memory of the triumph is