polviolzz-blog

[polviolzz-blog]

Critical Commentary: Afghanistan- The Great Game

Fear-that is what began the great game of the 19th century. Or that is what historians tell us. I prefer calling it greed. Greed is a better term for the race between the UK and Russia for control over the southern territories in the Eurasian mainland. They are becoming greedy for control in terms of strategic, and economic purposes.

First of all, one would even ask: why Afghanistan? It’s a barren dessert that lacks the premium resources as compared to countries in its region. Why spend so much resources, and manpower to a country such as Afghanistan. No doubt that both of the competing empires are powerful in terms of economies, and their military capabilities. The main issue here is whether or not the people of the area they are fighting for wanted them around. The answer is no.

The western countries and their allies call it terrorism and insurgency. The Afghan people call it their fight for liberation. It was repeatedly mentioned in the documentary that the people never wanted to be conquered and the only way that they saw fit was to fight back how they can with what they have. Given that the invader whether red or Brit, has superior training and equipment, the locals fought back with their knowledge of the terrain and with the support of the people. Which now begs the question: is it truly an act of terror to defend one’s home from foreigners? I would argue: no.

Sandler (2014) defined terrorism as a mean of using violent with political intention to pressure a state. With the threat being external or foreign, it cannot be justified as terrorism for it has no internal political intent. So is it a rebellion then? I would also argue no because rebellions according to Russel (2013) are insubordination or an act to go against an established authority. Seeing that a foreign force is not an authority over the local country, it also not a rebellion. I would argue that it’s an act self defense.

The west has always acted this way. They always manipulate the media into help shape the narrative to make it seem that their invasion is always justified. An act of injustice that was and is never condoned by the global community. If this was tolerated in the last century then it was still being tolerated now. It is nothing more than cloaking their true intentions to promote fear and violence and when they are retaliated against, they give more excuses to send in more troops and prolong their occupation. That is the western way!

[polviolzz-blog]

Critical Commentary: ISIS- Behind the Mask

The dominant idea that the documentary was trying to emphasize is the instilled radicalism that ISIS followers have. Kung (2005) explains that religious violence is ultimately a subjective point of view where followers of a certain faith bring matters into their own hands based on how thye were able to interpret their religious texts. This is where the concept of a caliphate is bothersome to me. Following the explanation of Kung, religious violence is more than just a political, and psychological based idea on any matter. It could possibly be just a movement for solely political reasons that use the banner of a religion as a cloak.

“It [the caliphate] is where I felt that I can practice being a Muslim 100% without being judged”

This is perhaps the most shocking line that appealed to me. This quote was not intended to promote ISIS or Islam. This quote was telling the audience that this was also partly our fault. Our islamophobia worsened the situation by exiling our Muslim brothers and sisters out of our hasty generalization not knowing that it would ultimately bite us in our backsides. According to Agbibowa and Maiangwa (2013), the source of religion based conflict all boil down to one religion wanting to dominate the other. On a social perspective, they further argue that secular discrimination occurs when followers of a certain belief or culture do not accept the practices and beliefs of the others. Following the explanation of Agbibowa and Maiangwa, this is the possible reason for why Younnes felt at home in a place that most of us would be avoiding.

Activists groups all rally on the basis of the universal human right of being able to express one’s self along with his or her opinion. This is applicable on both sides as people can show their dismay or discomfort towards a specific person or a specific group of people. On the other hand, the people who are being discriminated have the right to express their own set of beliefs. This further complicates the social problem of “othering” a group. Personally, this is also a confusing standpoint as I share a similar belief. As pessimistic as it sounds, it looks like this cycle is far from broken.

[polviolzz-blog]

Critical Commentary: Struggle for the Soul of Islam

[polviolzz-blog]

Critical Commentary: Septembers of Shiraz

There were a couple of underlying themes in the film. The first is the concept of a cultural revolution, and the second being religious application in society.

The film demonstrated a revolution to overthrow a monarchy. The simple thought that there was a change in the regime made it a revolution (Russel, 2013). What made this a cultural revolution is the concept of a religious order, or faction involved and that a strict following to the religion was instilled. This was evident through the strict implementation of the Sharia law, and the creation and enforcement of the revolutionary guards.

I personally think that religious laws are not meant to be used to dictate or run a society. I have personally seen them first hand, and I have read them in the various literatures available. Religious laws should be kept in the context of a personal following and not forcibly instilled to everyone. As a strong believer in the Catholic faith, I follow the teachings and the values that come with it but I have never followed the doctrine to the letter. I always saw it impossible to follow as it was interpreted by men who do not even follow it. Similarly, the instillation of sharia law to govern is and should not be applied to a society of diversity. In fact, it was even seen that they had their own revolutionary guards that were intended to protect, instill, and uphold the Islamic doctrine to everyone. For me, that was beyond the line.

[polviolzz-blog]

Critical Commentary: Worse than War

Genocide, a crime committed not only to a person but also to an entire community, and entire race, and entire culture. According to the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment for the crimes of Gencide (CPPCG), genocide is defined as numerous counts of murder committed to a group of people who belong to a specific race, nation, or religion. This does not only mean that it is only applicable to the living generation being killed but it also includes the prevention of the creation and birth of another generation.

This documentary highlighted the genocide in Rwanda, and in Guatemala, as well as a touch of the ww2 genocide of the Jews. It was explained how the people were killed and by whom. It included testimonies from the people who survived or by the people who knew the people who were killed. The documentary, in retrospect, highlighted genocide as an act of inhumanity with the motive of simply ridding the worlds of a particular group. In relation, this is similar to the concept of ethnic violence as it explains that this kind of violence occurs on the mere reason that they do not like the other group or that they think that the group being murdered are inferior to them. This is the case of the jews and the Guatemalan genocide of the 80s.

[polviolzz-blog]

Critical Commentary: Kinyarwanda

Most theologians define religion as the belief in an absolute power that governs the world and our lives. Religions Buddhism, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc. all believe that one must be good in order to reach favor from those that govern us. The term “good”, however, is a very subjective term. Radicals believe that their version of good is following their religious doctrine to the letter. There are some radicals, on the other hand, that believes in the absolution of their religion and wiping those who says otherwise. The latter is exemplified by the film Kinyarwanda.

Kinyarwanda showcased the Rwandan genocide where members of the Hutu controlled government are killing Tutsis. The government does not necessary order the killing but they turned a blind eye in the genocide committed to the Tutsi people. the film showed exemplary heroism

It is not just religious violence that can be inferred from the film but it also demonstrated ethnic violence. However, the religious conflict that they have demonstrated in the film mirrors present day situations. As a mirror in current situations, there is now a phobia dedicated to the fear of Muslims- islamophobia. Because of the rampant terror strikes done by members of the Islamic faith in the name of Allah, Muslims are now being perceived objects of discrimination. Members of the Islamic community are now associated or branded as a terrorist simply because they share a similar belief in a version of god.

Bleich (2011) has a different take on islamophibia. He says that instead of the usual fear of the followers of the Islamic faith, Muslims are being discriminated because of their practices and culture and not simply because of their faith. The study of Hintjens (1999) stated that the ethnic violence in Rwanda happened partially because of religion. It mostly happened because of the inferiority of the Tutsi population and that the Hutus, whoa re Christian, are even promulgating the execution of the tutsis.

Growing up in Mindanao, I was shoulder to shoulder with Muslims. I even have relatives who intermarried with Muslims. I can personally say that there is no discrimination nor fear of the Christian population to them and vice versa. The reason that I could think of is maybe people fear them simply because they have not been exposed to them frequently. The concept of othering is applied by the population to the Muslims as they are the minority. How very catholic of some of us. Judging people even if we are not in the position to do so in the first place

[polviolzz-blog]

A.D. Kingdoms and Empires

The holy roman catholic church is currently the world’s largest religion with at least a billion followers around the globe. “A.D The Bible Continuous” depicts the ascension of this former Jewish cult into one of the most powerful institutions in history. The underlying theme in this series is grounded on secular violence. although the show did not show much bloodshed, it depicted the great lengths of one religion in order to subject other people who doubt their power and influence. In this case, it was the Jewish following who was trying to control the whole scandal which was Jesus and his small band of apostles.

Kung (2005) wrote about the basis on why secular violence occurs. He emphasized on the failure to accept other beliefs and practices outside what people are used to and using violence in order to eradicate the other. It was also mentioned that there is an occurrence of the followers of a certain religion or culture wanting to instill their own set of ideas and beliefs to the others using violent means. In other words, secular violence is a medium to instill a following’s dominance over the others.

In a personal perspective, the religions, being run by imperfect men. These men are also open to being tempted by greed, power, etc. this is why even of the religion does not necessary call for it, its followers commit crimes in the name of their faith.

[polviolzz-blog]

Critical Commentary: Game of Thrones

A game of thrones- a series famous for its bloodshed, sexuality, and cliff hanging but mysterious episodes. Set in a fantasy middle age full of magic, supernatural creatures, knights, barbarians, and of course- dragons. One would automatically assume that this was just a mere fantasy series for those who admire the realm of princes and princesses. However, it is also a series full of politically motivated actions in the quest to gain the power, and ultimately the iron throne.

Students of political science know that “man is a political animal (Aristotle)” because of our innate nature to socialize with his fellow man. The same students also know that wherever there is social interaction there is a subconscious struggle for power; politics is a power struggle. This is perfectly depicted in this series. For example: a rebellion conducted by Robert Baratheon to remove the king Aerys Targaryen.

Russels (2013) defines a rebellion as an uprising by the people to remove a sitting power regardless of the consequences or the outcomes of the rebellion. It is different form a revolution because Russels defines a revolution as a replacement of a form of government and not its leader. Therefore, the uprising of Robert should be considered as a rebellion. There were however, other factors that can be considered in that rebellion aside from the face-to-face skirmishes on the field.

One such event is the palace coup that were conducted by members of the king’s own advisory council- maester Pycelle, the master of whisper- varys, and the master of coun- Baelish. They have conspired alongside the king’s own right hand- tywin Lannister in order to remove the king from power by constantly manipulating his actions for their own benefit, and for the benefit of the rebels. This ended in the armies of lord lannister sacking the capital city, and the king being literally stabbed in the back by one of his own bodyguards- Jaime, son of tywin. This action of there is considered to be a palace coup. Siani-Davies (1996) defines a pace coup as an attempt to overthrow a ruling power by senior government officials, or by the ruling power’s own inner circle.

Game of thrones is a personal favorite show of mine as for me it perfectly depicts real life politics in the sense that there are constant betrayals and manipulations and compromises. I have seen these in real life both as a political science student, and as a member of a politically active family. I see the show as both a mirror reflecting the classical politics and as a magnifying glass to understand how and why these constant schemes in politics occur. In application, I think that robert’s rebellion in our own history would be the EDSA 2 where there were fighting on the streets as well as Estrada being removed by his own cabinet and appointees. Aside from these academic façade, its also a very entertaining show because of the sex, the deaths, and the suspense that goes on top of these.

Additional References:

Siani-Davies, P. (1996). Romanian revolution or coup d’Etat?: A theoretical view of the events of December 1989. Communist and Post-Communist Studies, 29(4), 453-465.

Russell, D. E. (2013). Rebellion, revolution, and armed force: A comparative study of fifteen countries with special emphasis on Cuba and South Africa. Elsevier.

[polviolzz-blog]

Critical Commentary: Narcos

Gangsters, drug lords, corruption- these are the perfect ingredients for a violent ending. Narcos demonstrates all these things in its two seasons on the air. it is the perfect application of a form of gang violence. According to Jankowski (2003) gang violence is an act of violence that is perpetrated not for political gains but for other interests such as territorial, and economic interests.

Pablo Escobar is a known gangster, and a known leader of a powerful drug cartel. It can be observed from his actions throughout the series that the murders he committed were very well calculated and were directed only towards his enemies or those who stands in the way of his drug business. In a way, the actions of Escobar were political but they were not directed to the general public or to the state or to influence decision making.

Personally, I think that these are actually necessary both economically, and politically. I would personally remove the category of gang violence because these are the types of violence that are necessary for the success. As immoral as it might sound, there will be instances that these violent actions are necessary to get out of a problem. A proof that not every type of violence is politically motivated or directed for a certain following.

[polviolzz-blog]

Peace Plan

True order is disorder”

-Zaheer (Avatar: the legend of Korra)

This quote is where I have based my peace plan on. For me, there is no such thing as order. By forcing something to be uniformed, we shall create order. The point it, not everyone is willing to be subjected into it. Order and peace are very questionable things, as more often than none there will always be a minority who will subject themselves to the many.

History tells us that every time we people try to unite, there will always be an opposition. There will always be differences in the way we think and with what we believe- this is what psychology tells us. Political science tells us that people try to merge together only rationally based on personal interests. These social sciences can all attest to one thing: people are different from one another regardless of why and how. The only certainty and common conclusion that they all have is that people will always try to divide and unite depending on who these people are, and why they need to unite in the first place. It’s a wheel that never stops. Order will always fall to disorder.

“In all chaos, there is a cosmos; in all disorder, a secret order”

-Carl Jung

This is my peace plan. My peace plan is that we remove all forms of boundaries. We remove all forms of standards. Society in itself is against the very freedom it preaches by creating norms for everyone to at least follow. That should not be! The people will play a part by simply rejecting social norms and must simply embrace themselves and do what they want without fear or repercussion. Let anarchy arise! Remove the chains that bind men and order will always happen. This is human nature. We will then form into our own groups who share a common belief and interest. People will not kill simply because they will fear being killed. Nature takes care of itself.

The natural order of things must take place. The system is a cell we must all break free from. We are men, we were not built to roam with laws to restrict and control. We must be above all these and only then can we truly say that we are at peace. For me peace is nothing more than people doing what they want when they want with natural security and a balance of fear and faith.

[polviolzz-blog]

Critical Commentary 1

Violence can be considered to be one of the main pillars of the political sphere. Even before laws, and fancy terminologies were given to refer to violent acts, humanity had always practiced such actions going back to the formation of the first civilizations. It is also realistic to say that violent tendencies lie innate in each and every one of us. What makes simple acts of violence to be political is the motive to control the agenda, the policies, and the mechanisms of a group of people through violent means. Politics is, thus, considered by some to be a game of winners and losers where the winners are the ones that shape history. Given that, it is then possible that the very presence of political violence can now be said to be paradox in itself. Thus, it begs the question: is violence really necessary to achieve victory?

Literature on violence tells us that political violence can be classified into three categories: State vs. state, state vs. society, society vs. the state, and society vs. society. The first three categories are common and widely broadcasted for when we hear the term political violence we usually think of these; wars between states, or political repression and genocide, or terrorism and rebellions. It is part of the common knowledge that political violence also includes violence between tribes, different religions, different ethnicities, and even between different genders. It is for that reason that this entry will be focusing more on the violence that happens between the different factions of society specifically on the secular violence.

“ On the dogmas of religion as distinguished from moral principles, all mankind, from the beginning of the world to this day, have been quarrelling, fighting, burning and torturing one another, for abstractions unintelligible to themselves and to all others, and absolutely beyond the comprehension of the human mind”

-Thomas Jefferson

The issue on the raging battles between one religion to another is not a modern event. This type of political violence has been going on for centuries. There were holy wars between the Christian crusaders and the Muslim Saracens way back during the middle ages. There are conflicts with the hindus and the Christians in India. Let us also not forget the modern concept of “islamophobia”.

Hans Kung (2005) wrote that the main factors that lead to secular violence would first be the need to expand a group’s belief. This means that one group would fight another in order to dominate and instill their own set of beliefs and cultures to the defeated group. The second factor would be fear. This refers to the fear of the other belief being able to dominate the other. Thus, religious violence happens as a mean to defend their belief. In modern times, Kung explains that religious violence happens because people cannot accept or tolerate the belief that others have if it is different from their own. This is the case of the violence between the Hindus and Christians in India.

It can be said that religion causes conflict because of the embedded differences. As an academic, it is hard to accept that wars between different faiths happen just because. In an age when interaction and global communication is the trend, there should be no such debates, or conflicts that are raised because of mere differences regardless if we fear the other or if we want to instill our beliefs on them. It is the time and generation of tolerance. It is not simply because it is what is right but it should be because it is what we need.

“Religious wars are not caused by the fact that there is more than one religion, but by the spirit of intolerance… the spread of which can only be regarded as the total eclipse of human reason.”

-Charles de Second