Colour Blind Kant The Racist Eurocentric Politics Essay

Colour Blind Kant The Racist Eurocentric Politics Essay A contribution the critique of Kants Perpetual Peace Kants writings including Perpetual Peace has justified the White intervention in non-European states because Kant and other philosophers of the West thought that there is only one civilization with capital C is European and the rest of the world are to be civilized and made to be like Europeans. Though, Kant wrote this peace some two centuries ago but the resonance of his writings can be seen even today in the USA intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq where the USA is importing democracy. The imperialism functions not only through economic exploitation and political dominance but also imposition of universalism which is always secretly coded. In the following sections, I will discuss first (1) the summary of Kants Perpetual Peace, (2) then I would also bring to light the works of Kant as an anthropologist through the works E C Eze and Tsenay Sereqeuberhan and Uday Singh Mehta. After that I will take up (3) Sudipta Kavirajs critique of Sequential Theory of Modernity to argue that there is multiple modernities which will be a reply to all those Euro-centric philosophers including Kant who thought there is just one civilization-European and the rest of the world have to imitate it. From this I will move to (4) debate regarding democratic peace theorists who argue that democracies do not fight with each other and I will also try to provide my critique to this formulation. Finally I will (5) conclude that Kants writing was Eurocentric and somehow this moral philosopher could not rise above prejudice against non-Whites by justifying intervention whose direction implication resulted in tragedy after tragedy. Unfortunately, the c ivilizing mission of the West is not over, decades after the period of decolonization. I thank my teacher Professor Jyati Srivastava for her encouragement and guidance to choose this topic. I am indebted to Professor Nivedita Menon with whom I discussed this issue. She gave me such a critical insight that my earlier draft was thoroughly revised. *The author is student of M A Politics (International Relations), Jawaharlal Nehru University. He can be contacted at [emailprotected] Perpetual Peace Kant begins his Perpetual Peace essay by saying that (1) No Treaty of Peace shall be Held Valid in Which There is Tacitly Reserved Matter for a Future. [Kant, 1795]. Here Kant says that peace can not be achieved even though there is a peace agreement. Kant said that lasting peace cannot be achieved when two parties have reached any truce because they were exhausted to fight war any longer. Although they are carrying hostilities for the future. Kant said such kind of agreement can only bring about peace for short duration. In the words of Kant; When one or both parties to a treaty of peace, being too exhausted to continue warring with each other, make a tacit reservation (reservatio mentalis) in regard to old claims to be elaborated only at some more favorable opportunity in the future, the treaty is made in bad faith, and we have an artifice worthy of the casuistry of a Jesuit. [Emphasize mine, Kant, ibid] I thinks here Kant says that there should not a truce because the warring parties have reached the state of exhaustion at the same time they are keeping old claims (old disputes) in the heart which will be taken up when the situation will be favorable. Such kind of attitude by states will fuel hostilities for ever and any kind of peace agreement will be short-lived. In the second article of section one, Kant says, No Independent States, Large or Small Come Under the Dominion of Another State by Inheritance, Exchange, Purchase, or Donation. [Kant, ibid]. Kant says that the states is not like a property which could be inherited or grafted somewhere else. However, it is to be noted that Kant is using adjective Independent before states and only independent states are not to be inherited. Those who are not independent are not protected by Kant. It means many of non-Europe states were allowed to be intervened! Apart from that who has power and authority to decide which country is independent of not? Of course, Kant has given the reasonable, enlightened White to decide which country is independent and which not. In the third article, Kant says, Standing Armies (miles perpetuus) Shall in Time Be Totally Abolished .[Kant, ibid] It is great to say such thing that there should not be army because arms race does not provide security. This has been liberals lip service for centuries but in reality the most deadly armed states are those whose foundation is also based on liberal democracy. How could then it be justified? Here Kant is providing moral commentary which has a very few takers and the process of arms race and militarization has not stopped since the rise of nation-states and days of colonialism. One of the pillars of the colonialism is based on military expansions . In the fourth article, Kant deals with credit systems and debts and how it could create problem for states. National Debts Shall Not Be Contracted with a view to the External Frictions of States. [Kant, ibid]. Here Kant says that to forbid this credit system must be a preliminary article of perpetual peace all the more because it must eventually entangle many innocent states in the inevitable bankruptcy and openly harm them. They are therefore justified in allying themselves against such a state and its measures. [ibid] In the fifth article, Kant talks about interference. No State Shall by Force Interfere with the Constitution or Government of Another State. [Kant, ibid]. Here Kant says that there should not be a forceful intervention at the same time he also provides an exception to his own law. Notice this Kants line: But it would be quite different if a state, by internal rebellion, should fall into two parts, each of which pretended to be a separate state making claim to the whole. To lend assistance to one of these cannot be considered an interference in the constitution of the other state (for it is then in a state of anarchy) . But so long as the internal dissension has not come to this critical point, such interference by foreign powers would infringe on the rights of an independent people struggling with its internal disease; hence it would itself be an offense and would render the autonomy of all states insecure. [Emphasize mine, Kant, ibid] It should be worth noticing that one the one hand Kant has prohibited interference in the internal mater of another state but at the same time he has also exempted colonial masters for their civilizing mission in non-European states, saying that if their internal rebellion, to lend assistance would be justified. Today the USA is doing the same thing in Afghanistan and Iraq and it has justified its action by citing volatile condition in other states. We should not forget that the British colonial masters in India has also created such kind of stereotypes by saying that Indian womens were living in abysmal conditions and Indians were effeminate to rule over. [Mill, 1975] In the six article of section, Kant discusses that even during the war there should not be such violation of laws that peace becomes impossible in the future. No State Shall, during War, Permit Such Acts of Hostility Which Would Make Mutual Confidence in the Subsequent Peace Impossible: Such Are the Employment of Assassins (percussores), Poisoners (venefici), Breach of Capitulation, and Incitement to Treason (perduellio) in the Opposing State. [Kant, ibid]. Here Kant makes a strong case that parties in war should desist from using destructive means and methods. After discussing section I, let me briefly discuss section II of Perpetual Peace in which Kant talks about republican constitution and league of nations. Let me begin with Kants notion of republican constitution. Kant says, The Civil Constitution of Every State Should Be Republican. [Kant, ibid]. Kant here prefers republican constitution and links it to peace. According to Kant, the republican constitution is based on the principles of freedom and in such a constitution there is possibility of peace because the rulers need to get the consent of the citizens before a war is declared. If the consent of the citizens is required in order to decide that war should be declared (and in this constitution it cannot be the case), nothing is more natural than that they would be very cautious in commencing such a poor game, decreeing for themselves all the calamities of war. Here he makes a clear statement that a republican form of government is accountable to citizen and the it cannot take a decision on its own. That is why a republican form of government would not easily go for war because the public opinion of the people would be against the war. This is the very basis of democratic peace theorists w ho argue that democracies have never warred on each other. But I do not think that when Kant is taking about perpetual peace he is in anyway thinking on the line of democratic peace theorists. For me the librals are misreading Kant because Kant does not only make distinction between republican form of government and democratic one. Kant is even critical of the democratic form of government. Kant says: Of the three forms of the state, that of democracy is, properly speaking, necessarily a despotism, because it establishes an executive power in which all decide for or even against one who does not agree: that is, all, who are not quite all, decide, and this is a contradiction of the general will with itself and with freedom. [Kant, ibid] In the second definitive article of Perpetual Peace, Kant says, .The Law of Nations Shall be Founded on a Federation of Free States. [Kant, ibid]. Here Kant is concerned about overcoming war and conflict at international level. He says that states would enter into a league of nations based on rights to secure their security and the states are distinct states and are not amalgamated into one as happened within a state. But see in the following line how Kant is so prejudiced against the non-White. When we see the attachment of savages to their lawless freedom, preferring ceaseless combat to subjection to a lawful constraint which they might establish, and thus preferring senseless freedom to rational freedom, we regard it with deep contempt as barbarity, rudeness, and a brutish degradation of humanity. Accordingly, one would think that civilized people (each united in a state) would hasten all the more to escape, the sooner the better, from such a depraved condition. But, instead, each state places its majesty (for it is absurd to speak of the majesty of the people) in being subject to no external juridical restraint, and the splendor of its sovereign consists in the fact that many thousands stand at his command to sacrifice themselves for something that does not concern them and without his needing to place himself in the least danger. The chief difference between European and American savages lies in the fact that many tribes of the latter have been eaten by their enemies, w hile the former know how to make better use of their conquered enemies than to dine off them; they know better how to use them to increase the number of their subjects and thus the quantity of instruments for even more extensive wars.[Kant, ibid] Notice how great moral philosopher Kant uses the terms for non-white and justifies intervention. Savages in their lawless freedom are thus preferring senseless freedom to rational freedom. This is that the Western philosophers have thought abut the non-White people and they never treated them equals. Edward Said has vividly described creation of Orientalism and treating the non-White what the white are not like savage, emotional, not enlightened etc. [Said, 1971]. In the following section, I will be dealing with this issue once in some detail when I would look at Kant as anthropologist and his works. Let me touch that last article of Perpetual Peace. The Law of World Citizenship Shall Be Limited to Conditions of Universal Hospitality [Kant, ibid]. Kant as Anthropologist/Racist Kant is widely known as a liberal philosopher who treats individual as an end. Apart from that Kant that human are moral beings because they could self-reflect, use power of reason and they may not be perfect but they can strive towards perfectibility. However, Kant also thought anthropology in Germany as a teacher of geography and anthropology for as long as forty years. Nigerian born American philosopher Emmanuel Chukwudi Eze said that how Kant is generally known in mainstream that he was a pure philosopher whose philosophy was colour blind but it is overlooked that he has also given racial theories. This scholarly forgetfulness of Kants racial theories, or his raciology, I is attributable to the overwhelming desire to see Kant only as a pure philosopher, preoccupied pure culture and color-blind philosophical themes in the sanctum sactorum of the traditions of Western philosophy. Otherwise, how does one explain the many surprised expressions I received while researching this work: Kant? Anthropology? Race? The Kant most remembered in North American academic communities is the Kant of the Critiques. It is forgotten that the philosopher developed courses in anthropology and/ or geography and taught them regularly for forty years form 11756 until th year before his retirement in 1792. [Eze, 1997] What is worse, the great moral philosopher did characterize people on the basis on colour. He said hat the Europeans are white, the Asians are yellow, the Africans, black and North Americans, red. [Eze, 1997]. He even says that American Indian , Hindu, African lack talent. Even he said that the non-Europeans lack characters. Taking skin color as evidence of a racial class, Kant classified humans into: white (Europeans), yellow (Asians), black (Africans) and red (American Indians). Moral geography (which might as well be called cultural geography) studies the customs and the mores held collectively by each of these races, classes, or groups. For example, some elements in the the moral geography taught by Kant included expositions on culture, such as the knowledge that is customary to permit theft in Africa, or to desert children in China or to bury them alive in Brazil or for Eskimos to straggle them. [Eze, 1997:115] Apart from that he also believes that only the white-Europeans are capable of profess in arts and science and others are not fit for these. He also calls the white superior and the black inferior. After briefly discussed Kant, the philosopher who advocated federation of states, world citizenship and the anthropologist who gave prejudiced and raciological theory of race that paves the way for intervention in non-European societies by the colonial masters in the garb of spreading enlightenment. I would argue that the Kants writings are full of racists remarks and a sense of superiority over non-White. This is the very ideology behind the colonialism and its root can be traced to Kants writings including Perpetual Peace. The first problem with Kant is his forming an opinion about the non-white world by blindly believing travelers accounts and considering them as a piece of reality. Much of the orientalists notion of Asian histories and culture are distorted because they all drew on travelers accounts. That is why great minds like Hegel, Kant, Weber and even Marx could not distanced themselves from their prejudices about non-White societies. Uday Singh Mehta, in his seminal work, has shown that how the project of empire is concealed in the language of liberalism and enlightenment. Now I will deal with Kavirajs work very breifly which can help us understand the issue of civilization and modernity in order to have better grip over Kants writings. Sudita Kaviraj has critiqued, in his seminal essay An Outline of Revisionist Theory of Modernity the with the transformation of modern Europe there was also growing superiority of the newly emergent European civilization. According to Kaviraj, earlier European Christian civilizations was one of many civilizations like Hindu or Chinese but after the change European self-definition altered this usage crucially and, contrasted the civilised society of Europe with other societies which were rude..[Kaviraj, 1990 503]. And thus European modernity came be be regarded as universal and the rest of the world has to follow them blindly because they are backward and rude. This has been the recurrent theme of Enlightenment philosophy in Europe. And Kaviraj further augues that there is a logic of self-differentiation in modernity. He says the more modernity expands and spreads to different part of the world the more it becomes differentiated and plural. After discussing Kants Perpetual Peace and Eorocenricism, let me briefly touch upon liberal democratic peace theories debate before I conclude this paper. Because, liberal scholars are rooting their philosophy in Kants Perpetual Peace. I would argue that democratic peace theory is nothing but a sham. Democratic Peace Theory In this section, I will give positions of John Owen and and Christopher Layne. While Omen defends democratic peace theory that two liberal democracies do not fight drawing their inspiration from Kants work, Layne criticizes peace theory from realist perspective. But my criticism of Owen should not be misunderstood as being realist. I am also a severe critique of realism which believes in the myth of the threat being external and there is cohesion from internal angle. The biggest failure of realism is that today the most casualties are not done by forces outside but due to issues like poverty, illness, ecological degradation etc. Now let me begin with liberal peace theorists main arguments. According to Owen, democracies dont attack each other. In other words, democratic theorists believe in the proposition that democracies dont fight with other. That is why the supporters of this peace theory believe that the best way to ensure security and peace is to support the advancement of democracy elsewhere. This has been the hallmark of USA foreign policy, particularly after the end of the Cold War when it was claimed that there is an end of history and liberal democracy with capitalist market have triumphed over all other systems. Further, the democratic peace theory says while liberal states do not fight with another liberal states on the other hand liberal ideas prod liberal states into war with illiberal states. In the words of Owen [2000: 926] When liberals run the government, relations with fellow democracies are harmonious. Librals believe that democracies seek their citizens true interests and that thus by definition they are pacific and trustworthy. Non-democracies may be dangerous because they seek other ends, such as conquest and plunder. Libras thus hold that the national interests calls for accommodation of fellow democracies, but sometimes calls for war with non-democracies . The philosophical grounding of democratic peace theory is that since there is free speech guaranteed to citizens in a democracy so citizens would not allow war to take place because in war it is the citizens who would have to bear the costs. According to the supporters of democratic peace theory, liberalism is universalistic, tolerant, cosmopolitan philosophy. Liberalisms ends are life and property and toleration and it believes that all nations and people are free. It is also conducive for peace because liberal democracies are believed to be reasonable, predictable and trustworthy because the citizens of the state govern them. Owen on the other hand also characterize illiberal states which are threat to peace and they must be made to be liberal because these states are unreasonable, unpredictable, potentially dangerous, ruled by despots with ends as conquest, intolerance, and impoverishment. Owen in his article also provides some of hypothesis about democratic peace theory. (1) Liberal democracy will only avoid war with state that if believes to be liberal. (2) Liberals will trust states they consider liberal and mistrust those they consider illiberal. (3) When liberals observe a foreign state becoming liberal by their own standards, they will expect pacific relations with it. Liberals will not change their assessments of foreign states during crises with those states unless those states change their institutions. (4) Liberals elites will agitate for their policies during war-threatening crises. After discussing democratic peace theory, let me briefly touch upon what are major criticisms of it from realist perspectives. Realists believe that democratic peace theory is fantasy, permanent peace between liberal democracy is not possible, foreign policy must be based on imperatives of power politics not on morality and ethnics, even the liberal democratic states could not desist themselves from getting involved in power-struggle and balancing each other. Layne Christopher [2000] has said that democratic peace theory is a myth and said realism is superior to democratic peace theory. Conclusion After giving both the arguments in favour and against of democratic peace theory, I would like to day that democratic peace theory is another face of dominance by the West, particularly the USA in non-White world. The problem with democratic peace theory is that if evidence is given that two democratic states fought, they would argue at least one of them was not liberal that time. That is why I would not go into that trap that whether a state was liberal or illiberal at one point of time. My arguments are that most of violence in modern period particularly in 20th century has its root in the West who are also champion of democracy. Is it not that the same Enlightened people from the white world created mess everywhere from the Africa, America to Asia. These are same colonial masters who Kants perpetual peace has inspired them to civilize the rest of the world but in this process their came under economic, political and cultural dominance. Today all the regime change, arms race, bombi ngs, killings are somehow result of policies of these enlightened people who swear by democracy but they dont have any problem if there is friendly authoritarian regime elsewhere. While I am critique the West I should not be misunderstood that I am siding with post-colonial elites. Today, they are not far behind imitating their colonial masters as a result colonialism has gone but colonial policies and apparatus continue to hunt post-colonial society. Let me state my position once again neither Kant nor todays champions of democracy are at concerned with peace and democracy in true sense. They are all using it as pretext to arm-twist elites in post-colonial societies and install favorable governments. This centuries are full of examples which say that hostilities between liberal states are not over and the theorists of democratic peace by harping on exporting democracy are hiding contradiction and crisis in their own society. Hunger, poverty, racial discrimination, concentration of wealth, ecological damages are problems which has also gripped liberal western states but they are more concerned about problem outsides. This should also not be misunderstood that I am implying that non-Western society are better. But all the change should evolve and come through its own struggle and churning. Imposition and export will never do. I reject democratic peace theory because the theorists whom they are banking on (Kant) was himself racist, Eurocentric and anti-democratic because of his prejudices against non-White and women.

Oliver Twist And Sense And Sensability Comparison Essay -- essays rese

Set in the Victorian era, Sense and Sensibility and Oliver Twist, parallel but also contrast in many key elements. In both movies, mannerisms, class distinction, and the child's role in society were reflected by both writers. Through these analysis, I was able to achieve new insight into the conditions of the Victorian era. In Oliver twist, mannerisms were greatly displayed in Oliver as a character. His mannerism best demonstrated how upper-class children were supposed to behave during this era. They were to be 'seen' and not 'heard'. Oliver when spoken to, was extremely polite and respectful (Very odd for how, and where he was raised). Even when living in the streets, after being kicked out of the orphanage, he still kept his high morale standards. Much like children, women were also supposed to be 'seen' and not 'heard'. As well, it was not proper to show emotion, such exuberance or love in any way. Marianne, in Sense and Sensibility, goes against these "rules" of proper etiquette many times, such as when she shouts at John Willoughby at a ball; this drew much scandalous attention to herself. This was very humorous to me, because it was nothing i expected, or thought would happen. The one very positive element I saw in this era, was how the men displayed chivalrous attitudes, such as how they courted women, as well as their words. Unfortunately this was a double standard, since it sometimes had unpleasant results, like being forced into marriage. However, thei...

American Pie :: Film Movies

American Pie The movie American Pie is about four high schoolers, close to graduating, determined not to carry their virginity's with them to college and so they make a pact to lose their virginity by prom night. The movie is directed by Paul Weitz and stars Jason Biggs, Chris Klein and Tara Reids and takes place around Michigan's East Great Falls High. The movie opens with student Jim (Jason Biggs) being caught by his parents pleasuring himself in a tube sock while trying to watch a scrambled broadcast on an adult channel. By the end of this movie, all four seniors would have lost their virginity somehow or the other, and as a result with it learning more about themselves, their friendships, love, romance and the opposite sex. The movie showed a lot of different aspects of high school life and for the most part, some of the characters in it could remind the audience of some high school buddies. It had everything from diarrhea, vomiting, voyeurism, premature ejaculation, the drinking of beer with a sperm chaser and even a scene about masturbation with an apple pie. As controversial as those seem it didn't stop teenagers from flocking to the theaters to go see it. Summarizing the reviews of three critics will show that each critic had a lot of the same positive and the few negative views, but they all enjoyed it and the message it sent out to the audience. Movie critic Catherine Ranfold said "Finally, a really good teen flick!" She mentioned about all the gross gags used in the movie and still had some more praising to do. The critic noted how the film was "vulgar, raunchy, innocent, rude, funny and incredibly sweet- much like high school" (Ranfold). It reminded viewers of their high school days with the party goers and the so called nerds. She also found the portrayal of girls in the movie refreshing, because they were "more than objects of desire." She described her memories on the sexual dominance of females over the males because it was the females who choose who they would lose their virginity too and "That's something that's bang in the film." Comparing the movie American Pie to others in the past such as "Animal house" and last year's hit "Something about Mary" is something critic Todd McCarthy mostly talked about. As McCarthy put it " Last year's semen in the hair [ Something about Mary] has been replaced by semen in someone's beer.

Freak the Mighty Essay

Freak the Mighty is a story about the power of a true friendship. Freak and Max are two boys who were so different, and yet had much in common with one another. Freak as well as Max both had limitations and this helped them to become friends. They both run into problems, but together they are â€Å"Freak the Mighty, slaying dragons, rescuing fair maidens, and walking high above the world. † There are differences between Freak and Max. Max is big and tall, a slow thinker, and runs away from his problems. Freak is small, smart, and tries very hard to be brave. There are similarities between the two boys, both have a disability, both do not known their dads, and both are in fear of something. In the story it shows how Max is afraid of joining life here on Earth and Freak is afraid of leaving life here on Earth. Max handles this fear by staying quiet and giving in to people when they bother him and Freak deals with his fear by convincing himself that he will be saved by receiving bionic body parts. Main Events: Freak the Mighty finds Loretta’s purse and gives it to her. Max murdering dad kidnaps him and Freak saves him by spraying a liquid at him from his water gun. Freak gets very ill and goes into the hospital. Conclusion: In the story Max was so busy rescuing adventures, treasure hunting, and slaying dragons that he did not even realize that he already had begun living life. Freak realizes that he will die, but knows that he will stay alive through Max’s story of his and Max’s adventures. When Freak dies, Max feels as if he lost a part of himself because they were friends. Loretta gives Max hope after Freak dies by telling him â€Å"nothing is a drag. Think about it! † 1 Fact and 1 Opinion One fact is that this book is for anybody to read because it shares the story about people with disabilities and what they have to go through in their lives. My opinion is that everyone in school should be made to read this book because it might help them know what people that are different from them is going through.

How Global brands compete Essay

1. Introduction Over the years, global branding has turned out to be a key aspect for effecting management considerations globally.   Indeed, it has turned out to the main defining objective of various companies around the globe. 2. Importance of the global branding Global branding is not important to the global consumers. Global branding of different products has assimilated a marketing notion and do not necessarily indicate a sense of superiority. Indeed, it was not until recently did people stop associating global brands with American values, a notion which was very misleading (Douglas, John, and Earl, 2004).   The most important aspect to consider when shopping for different items is the quality they posses as opposed to the name.   Following the recent anti-Globalization protests against some companies like Coca Cola, McDonald’s, and Nike due to their production processes and products’ negative impacts to the people, the truth has been revealed indicating that bulk of their products are indeed not superior 3. Characteristics that consumers associate global brands with Globally, consumers associate global brands with three main characteristics. To begin with, they belief that global brands are indeed superior in technology used to produce them as well ass the quality of the products. They also see a major consideration of continued improvement to maintain their global positions.   Douglas et al (2004) points out that others view the global brand as a major source of identity and prestige where they are able to get much ‘bigger’, much better, and much idealistic products that derive their overall sense of identity.   Finally, the notion of social responsibility is viewed to be a role of the globally branded companies and products as opposed to the local communities.   Douglas et al (2004) points out that many of the locally ignored notions like pollution demands and excessive water usages become the point of controversy when the globally branded companies progress towards the same direction. 4. How global brand once influenced my decision Since when I was young, my dad had always emphasized on the need to be patriotic.   As a result, he insisted that we should seek to promote locally made products at all times. Indeed, he led us by a good example as we grew up knowing only the local products and praising them always. However, with the onset of the global branding that the hybrid Toyota vehicles were given, I could not resist to get a hybrid Toyota Prius to share the same global taste status and prestige. Though it never invoked conflict at home, my dad expressed his dissatisfaction with my decision. 5. Challenges and transnational companies with reference to international brands Global markets are faced with major competitions from other giants in the same level. Large companies like Motorola face it off with Nokia while others like Toyota compete with Ford and Volkswagen in the global market.   This calls for great innovation in technology and vast resources application to maintain the brand name.   To add to that, the consumers have vast negative views about global brands which are not easily identifiable taking into consideration that they are vastly distributed in time and space. Many of the consumers’ demands like involvement with corporate social responsibilities are in most of the cases counter productive.   Besides, the fast rising numbers of antiglobals and agnostics threat to kill the overall spirit of the global brands hereby posing a major threat to the superiority consideration (Douglas et al, 2004).. 6. Addressing transnational companies’ problems In conclusion, it is clear that a solution should be developed to anchor the transnational companies from possible subsidence. They should seek to create credible myths that add value to the consumers as opposed to less-than-credible myths that are short tern unsustainable on a long term. To add to that, transnational companies should treat the antiglobals as part of the consumers to avoid unfavorable fights with them as they totally taint the global brands.   This should be done through investment in projects that will positively convince even the skeptics.   Social responsibilities should be approached from an entrepreneurship point of view where extra involvements of the companies seek to pro-actively determine and derive positive returns to the company.   Finally, the transnational companies must seek to manage the dark side of the consumers’ perception about the negative side of their perception as opposed to concentration on only the best side of their global produ cts.

Freedom

Freedom. We all dream about it. We all wish we could break free of the rules, laws and constraints we are all chained down by. The uniforms, taxes, laws and harsh, judgemental opinions: All these keep us in order, organized and running smoothly like a well-oiled machine. But sometimes what is best for people is not the strict guidelines and controlling regulations, but the shattering of the barrier to insanity and liberation, the spreading of wings and freedom of flight that we can only ever experience in dreams. Freedom, however, can have many different definitions.To be able to do anything they want without the fear of trouble, fines or cruel, judgemental opinions, or maybe just to be able to walk to the park alone. There are numerous levels of freedom and everybody’s opinion on where they are on those levels can depend on their upbringing, cultural background, age group and environment. Some cultures, for example, are considered to be stricter than others in certain, or all aspects of their children’s lives, even to the extent of an arranged marriage. There are many reasons for why children should be allowed some freedom, however, but still be on a loose leash.We all need to go through the childhood stage, with we need room to explore the world and take risks in a safe environment and manner. Parents just need to find a balance between the two, letting the child make some of their own decisions, but also letting them make small mistakes as to learn from them. Though some teenagers of this generation feel as if they need more freedom, most of them do not. Teenagers do not know the real meaning of freedom and have not learnt to savour it as those in the work force have. They do not know what it is like to have to fend for themselves, and have others depend on them to live as well.To have just one day where all that responsibility, and the responsibility of sticking to laws and restrictions, is lifted off their shoulders, would be the feeling of t rue freedom. Parents restrict their teenagers from doing some things and going to certain places because they want their children to be safe, but to enjoy and savour the freedom they have now before they are released into the â€Å"real world† and never to experience it again. Teenagers of this day and age have quite a bit of freedom in many aspects already compared to their parents and other older generations.Being a teenager myself, I can see why some others would like more, and feel as if they are deprived of, choice and freewill, though I understand that the restrictions placed and reinforced upon by the parents are only for our benefit. As our parents, they would have decidedly more knowledge of the world and its dangers due to experience, as they have been where us teens are today. The world, however, is changing, and with a new generation comes new experiences. There are many choices in life, and if we do not make mistakes, we would not be able to learn and grow as peo ple.Independence is a crucial lesson in life, and can only be achieved through self nourishment and exploration of both ourselves and the world around us. Though parents may think that by restricting their children from going out and contributing to certain events is to protect them, they may be actually shielding their children from the real world, feeding their children lies when the society they live in isn’t as innocent. Totally shielding that child from the events of the world would be unfair to both the parents and the child. Gradually exposing them to the world however, would be a nicer alternative.The shock of finding out how different the real world is compared to their thoughts and filtered knowledge would be extremely unfair as they would discover all the experiences they did not get to participate in, and feel as if their childhood had been wasted. This shielding of children may also have prevented them from having a social life. They may have been kept at home, q uietly reading, or studying for a test coming up in a couple of weeks, while their friends were out having fun and experiencing and contributing to the memories that they will be able to tell their children when they have grown out of their teenage years.Being kept at home, it would make sense that they would have a quieter and less outgoing personality, and that new experiences would not be as happily welcomed as they would by those who had had the chance to understand and gain knowledge about it. On the other hand, quite often teenagers who are kept at home, but who have knowledge of the outside world, become rebellious and disobedient in order to try and experience new things with friends and also to be socially accepted and to fit in.However, this creates tension and mistrust within families, and therefore harsher restrictions on their freedom, causing other, more forceful forms of rebellion. Freedom is classed on so many different levels, that sometimes, even walking home witho ut the threat of death is a dream. With countless different definitions of â€Å"freedom† each and every person would have a varied view on liberation and different levels on where they feel it. Teenagers need time to explore and experience, but on he other hand, they need to be able to do this in a fairly safe and comfortable environment. Lack of freedom hinders the growth and development of personalities and the teenager’s ever going search to find themselves, and who is going to make their mark in the world in the near future. Freedom is a part of life that shapes and moulds the clay of the future of mankind into the people who will one day run the world. And in freedom, we fly. Freedom Freedom. We all dream about it. We all wish we could break free of the rules, laws and constraints we are all chained down by. The uniforms, taxes, laws and harsh, judgemental opinions: All these keep us in order, organized and running smoothly like a well-oiled machine. But sometimes what is best for people is not the strict guidelines and controlling regulations, but the shattering of the barrier to insanity and liberation, the spreading of wings and freedom of flight that we can only ever experience in dreams. Freedom, however, can have many different definitions.To be able to do anything they want without the fear of trouble, fines or cruel, judgemental opinions, or maybe just to be able to walk to the park alone. There are numerous levels of freedom and everybody’s opinion on where they are on those levels can depend on their upbringing, cultural background, age group and environment. Some cultures, for example, are considered to be stricter than others in certain, or all aspects of their children’s lives, even to the extent of an arranged marriage. There are many reasons for why children should be allowed some freedom, however, but still be on a loose leash.We all need to go through the childhood stage, with we need room to explore the world and take risks in a safe environment and manner. Parents just need to find a balance between the two, letting the child make some of their own decisions, but also letting them make small mistakes as to learn from them. Though some teenagers of this generation feel as if they need more freedom, most of them do not. Teenagers do not know the real meaning of freedom and have not learnt to savour it as those in the work force have. They do not know what it is like to have to fend for themselves, and have others depend on them to live as well.To have just one day where all that responsibility, and the responsibility of sticking to laws and restrictions, is lifted off their shoulders, would be the feeling of t rue freedom. Parents restrict their teenagers from doing some things and going to certain places because they want their children to be safe, but to enjoy and savour the freedom they have now before they are released into the â€Å"real world† and never to experience it again. Teenagers of this day and age have quite a bit of freedom in many aspects already compared to their parents and other older generations.Being a teenager myself, I can see why some others would like more, and feel as if they are deprived of, choice and freewill, though I understand that the restrictions placed and reinforced upon by the parents are only for our benefit. As our parents, they would have decidedly more knowledge of the world and its dangers due to experience, as they have been where us teens are today. The world, however, is changing, and with a new generation comes new experiences. There are many choices in life, and if we do not make mistakes, we would not be able to learn and grow as peo ple.Independence is a crucial lesson in life, and can only be achieved through self nourishment and exploration of both ourselves and the world around us. Though parents may think that by restricting their children from going out and contributing to certain events is to protect them, they may be actually shielding their children from the real world, feeding their children lies when the society they live in isn’t as innocent. Totally shielding that child from the events of the world would be unfair to both the parents and the child. Gradually exposing them to the world however, would be a nicer alternative.The shock of finding out how different the real world is compared to their thoughts and filtered knowledge would be extremely unfair as they would discover all the experiences they did not get to participate in, and feel as if their childhood had been wasted. This shielding of children may also have prevented them from having a social life. They may have been kept at home, q uietly reading, or studying for a test coming up in a couple of weeks, while their friends were out having fun and experiencing and contributing to the memories that they will be able to tell their children when they have grown out of their teenage years.Being kept at home, it would make sense that they would have a quieter and less outgoing personality, and that new experiences would not be as happily welcomed as they would by those who had had the chance to understand and gain knowledge about it. On the other hand, quite often teenagers who are kept at home, but who have knowledge of the outside world, become rebellious and disobedient in order to try and experience new things with friends and also to be socially accepted and to fit in.However, this creates tension and mistrust within families, and therefore harsher restrictions on their freedom, causing other, more forceful forms of rebellion. Freedom is classed on so many different levels, that sometimes, even walking home witho ut the threat of death is a dream. With countless different definitions of â€Å"freedom† each and every person would have a varied view on liberation and different levels on where they feel it. Teenagers need time to explore and experience, but on he other hand, they need to be able to do this in a fairly safe and comfortable environment. Lack of freedom hinders the growth and development of personalities and the teenager’s ever going search to find themselves, and who is going to make their mark in the world in the near future. Freedom is a part of life that shapes and moulds the clay of the future of mankind into the people who will one day run the world. And in freedom, we fly.

Book Review: War! What Is It Good For?

Putting 100 years in respective and compare the 100, 200 million people died from a population of 10 billion which makes a percentage of 1 to 2 who died violently. Those born in the 20th century are lucky as the average of violent death is 10 times less compare to those born in Stone Age. This text has one of the greatest paradoxes of human history as it states that war has made the world much safer now. War Is considered as a massive murder and claiming that it has a positive consequence In not right, but the author argues to It as the philosopher Thomas Hobbes once concluded the same In the 1640 urine the English Call war.Archeology has shown that people has been killing themselves for about 50000 years and their population Just Increase by twice but during the Ice age 10000 BC where there were less wars, the plant and animal multiplied themselves at a very high rate. Before 10000 BC all humans had been hunters and after 10000 BC human started farming. Later something unusual happe n, the stronger started to include the weaker into larger societies. Slowly from Egypt to Peru many were adopting this method.The stronger understood that to cake lager societies they need to make a stronger government and this was done by suppressing violence among the subjects. Those who govern stop killing the well behaved as they are easier to govern and taxed that those who are violent thus, this has resulted into a 90% decrease in violent death. It Is true that not all government is good at delivering peace. Dictators Like Heelers, Stall's, Mass and Did Malls, tend to shoot, stave and gas a lot of people to make things done. Thus war has made states and states have made peace.War may not be a pleasant way of making larger and useful societies but it was the only way that human have found. The author argues that if conflicts could have been argued and resolved by discussion, human could have greatly benefited from it. The author added that people uses war as a way to make gover nment. The larger and safer the societies the richer the government. Peace can result in economical growth. So in a way war has enriched the world. The author concluded that somehow war has been beneficial as it has brought bigger societies, stronger government and bring peace and prosperity in the societies.Nowadays, people live twice as those in 10000 years before. War has not Just bring peace and wealth but also made us good at fight more efficiently organized and bigger destructive weapons. Book Review: War! What Is It Good For? By perplex The atrocity of war cannot be overstated but, Ian Morris gives a different view about it. In 1945, mostly 100 million people died and the nuclear war begun. Between the First World War and civil war it is said to be the worst but also the best time of states that war has made the world much safer now.War is considered as a massive ruder and claiming that it has a positive consequence in not right, but the author argues to it as the philosopher Thomas Hobbes once concluded the same in the 1640 during the English Civil war. Archeology has shown that people has been killing themselves for about 50000 years and their population Just increase by twice but during the ice age 10000 BC where there were less wars, the plant and animal has resulted into a 90% decrease in violent death. It is true that not all government is good at delivering peace. Dictators like Hitless, Stalin, Mass and Did Mains, tend to