Everybody knows the idea of peace, but when you ask someone to define their idea of peace, no two answers are the same. To that end, what is peace? Who can honestly say that peace has ever existed? Perhaps the reason peace is unattainable is because of these variations of the meaning, these constant opinion changes to just the word alone seems to make the possibility of peace unfathomable. Though many wars have been fought for the name of peace, where has it been all this time? Why does peace seem to elude human experience? So with that in mind, let’s delve into the primordial meaning of peace.
The meaning is as simple as it is complex. Science still diligently searches for the answers to human nature in order to find the fundamental differences from person to person, culture to culture. Our own need to be right stands at the top of reason for conflict. Every individual, every group, every country wants to be on the winning side of a conflict or situation, regardless of the inherent importance or magnitude. This leads to an individual’s desire to grow, to expand their circle of influence. Whether that circle of influence is the homeless person taking the neighboring homeless persons cardboard box, or one country taking another countries wheat supply. It all boils down to one person wanting to “win”.
Peace, in the end, is a very complex subject, especially when the idea moves from being a self-goal to a political goal. A recently budding branch of Peace Psychology looks into the political ideas of peace and what it should demand. In a definition given by United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, they gave their definition of peace:
There can be no genuine peace when the most elementary human rights are violated, or while situations of injustice continue to exist; conversely, human rights for all cannot take root and achieve full growth while latent or open conflicts are rife. . . Peace is incompatible with malnutrition, extreme poverty and the refusal of the rights of peoples to self-determination. Disregard for the rights of individuals and peoples, the persistence of inequitable international economic structures, interference in the internal affairs of other states, foreign occupation and apartheid are always real or potential sources of armed conflict and international crisis. The only lasting peace is a just peace based on respect for human rights (qtd. in Christie et al 10)
If you ask yourself, what kind of peace can there be is human rights are being violated? Can two people be peaceful if one suffers while the other flourishes? No. Eventually the weaker of the two will lash out and attempt to “win”. If you choose any moment in history, especially in any war, you can find at least one type of violation of human rights. During the Civil War, where were African Americans’ right to live, to have liberty and justice? During World War II, the Jews faced genocide due to their religion. Where were their human rights? Sadly, this world is not ready for peace. For all the political preening of countries and governments working together is all a façade to a power struggle between powerful people. In the end it is the individuals that lose. As Dr. Martin Luther King once said in a speech about the Vietnam War, "I speak now not of the soldiers of each side, not of the junta in Saigon, but simply of the people who have been living under the curse of war for almost three continuous decades now. I think of them too because it is clear to me that there will be no meaningful solution there until some attempt is made to know them and hear their broken cries." (King 4) Until humanity in a whole loses the selfish desire to win, then there will be no true peace.
Unfortunately a change of that magnitude will require an extraordinary situation to occur. It would have to be a fantastic series of revelations. Religious, political, and maybe even financial are some of the more optimistic changes that could lead to true peace. Global war of unimaginable scale, total anarchy or worse would be the yang of the ying. We care too much for ourselves than the person next to us. Humans will one day be able to obtain the peace that we all long for, but we are still very far away from that moment, we, as a species, have a lot to learn about ourselves before we can achieve such a great accomplishment.
Works Cited:
Christie, Daniel J., Barbara S. Tint, Roger V. Wagner, Deborah Winter. “Peace Psychology for a Peaceful World”. American Psychologist. Vol. 63(6), Sep 2008,. pp. 540-552. http://www2.uni-jena.de/svw/igc/seminars/Thematic%20Seminar/Cohrs_WS08-09/TS-Cochrs-WS08-09_Christie-etal-inpress.pdf
King, Martin Luther, Jr. “Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence” Clergy and Laity Concerned. Riverside Church, New York, New York. 4 April 1967. https://blackboard.unf.edu/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab_id=_2_1&url=%2Fwebapps%2Fblackboard%2Fexecute%2Flauncher%3Ftype%3DCourse%26id%3D_41020_1%26url%3D
2 comments:
I agree that no amount of peace can truly be achieved if human rights are being violated. My idea of peace is completely utopic, and I know that it will never be attained because of all the ugliness that exists in this world. But if we didn't hold onto this notion of peace, what other hope could we cling to in such a terrible world?
It is truly unfortunate that we (as humans) tend to be competitive in nature and more concerned for ourselves than others. Perhaps this is the greatest irony--the characteristics that prevent true peace are the same ones that have allowed us to adapt and survive as a human race. Perhaps we will soon be ready to truly mature as a people, putting others before ourselves and caring legitimately for the betterment of humanity.
Post a Comment