European colonisation had, obviously, an enormous impact on the world; much of its population wouldn't exist today had it not been for the 'three Gs'. North America would still be a vast, un-known, un-explored and un-advanced territory. Or would it? Who is to say that the Native Americans would not have eventually developed much of the same technology we have today, while still upholding their rituals and beliefs in nature? Maybe everything would have been eco-friendly from the get-go, and we would not have to rush and correct our mistakes, as well as the mistakes of the people who came before us. Also I'm sure that one or two tribes would have realized the importance of foreign trade. I think that Native Americans were unprepared for the arrival of white settlers. Maybe if Europeans had decided to explore a few hundred years later, Native Americans would have been maybe a little less naïve about their expectations.
Other areas of the world would be just as different as North America had colonisation never happened. South America would have also been home-ruled by indigenous people, Aboriginals would encompass the entire country of Australia, and slavery- at least, the enslavement of Africans by Europeans- would obviously never have happened. Everything we know today would have been in some shape or form different.
Monday, December 3, 2007
Is War Necessary?
As a person who likes to make things as uncomplicated as possible, and also, a person who likes to at least pretend that she is for the better good of all people, the obvious answer is a big, resounding, 'NO'. However, I am not a politician, my decisions don't impact millions of people, and its all very easy to figure out what I think is right when I'm sitting in a classroom.
I think that for war to truly be obsolete, every leader of every country would have to believe that it isn't necessary, which we all know is impossible. They would all have to be either master negotiators, or otherwise, very satisfiable compromisers. A politician's dream is to be able to satisfy everybody, which is impossible in almost every issue people face. Regardless of who is right and who is wrong, there will always be a group of people who will rebel, and there is always a group of people who will use force to try and get what they want. On a national scale, for a country to be completely isolated from war, they would have to simply not care about the rest of the world, which is wrong. So do I think that war is necessary? Well, I wish it wasn't, and maybe someday, it won't be, but as long as innocent peoples' lives are threatened for whatever reason (as in, a country is invading a country not for its own benefit, but because people there are dying and they aren't able to protect themselves), sometimes there is no choice but to push back.
I think that for war to truly be obsolete, every leader of every country would have to believe that it isn't necessary, which we all know is impossible. They would all have to be either master negotiators, or otherwise, very satisfiable compromisers. A politician's dream is to be able to satisfy everybody, which is impossible in almost every issue people face. Regardless of who is right and who is wrong, there will always be a group of people who will rebel, and there is always a group of people who will use force to try and get what they want. On a national scale, for a country to be completely isolated from war, they would have to simply not care about the rest of the world, which is wrong. So do I think that war is necessary? Well, I wish it wasn't, and maybe someday, it won't be, but as long as innocent peoples' lives are threatened for whatever reason (as in, a country is invading a country not for its own benefit, but because people there are dying and they aren't able to protect themselves), sometimes there is no choice but to push back.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)