Humans are a social species, which has both positive and negative consequences for society

 Part 1

Humans are a social species and as such have developed highly advanced capacities to socialize. Humanity has evolved in such a way that it is capable of ensuring that it is able to not only promote its interests, but also those of other species across the planet. Thus, human beings have risen from being prey for other species, to being the apex predator of the planet, and this situation has come about mainly because of their ability to socialize. Socialization has allowed for the establishment of a scenario within which humanity is better able to communicate with one another to such an extent that they have made great achievements. However, while this may be the case, it is essential to note that humanity, because of its ability to socialize, has also shown a capacity for destruction that is unprecedented in the history of the world. Not only have humans developed some of the worst weapons to fight one another, such as nuclear and biological weapons, they have also undertaken courses of action that can only be considered self-destructive, as seen in the manner through which climate change and its resulting effects are not being taken seriously. This paper makes an evaluation of the claim that humans are a social species that have both positive and negative consequences for society.

One of the most fundamental characteristics that mark humanity is their need and ability to socialize. This species seems to have been built to attain socialization, and this can be seen in the manner through which humans will constantly seek out other humans not only for companionship, but also to attain a sense of community (Hardman, 2009). Humans seem to only be able to thrive when they are with other humans, meaning that they cannot attain their full potential without the company of others of their species. It is pertinent to note that because of this characteristic, humans have also been able to establish themselves into societies; a factor that cannot be underestimated. This is because humanity has, through socialization and the establishment of societies, been able to secure for itself a large part of the world. Societies are what makes humans one of the most unique species on the planet because they not only provide these individuals with an environment within which they feel safe, but they also ensure that these individuals are better able to master their environment and establish unique communities. Thus, socialization has allowed humanity to thrive in all environments across the world, from the mildest to the harshest climates. The need and ability to socialize has also allowed for the establishment of an environment within which humans have been able to thrive in a manner that has yet to be achieved by any other species. Socialization can be considered responsible for the establishment of human civilization and the manner through which these civilizations have been able to develop and grow in their uniqueness.

Additionally, the ability of humans to socialize has also established their capacity to help one another. It has allowed members of this species to develop societies that can be considered avenues of mutual assistance. Societies allow individuals within them a place within which they can support one another, as seen through how different talents are brought together for mutual benefit. The specialization in different tasks that is prevalent in society is an aspect of socialization because human beings within such societies are able to make use of their unique talents to advance the course of their communities (Hardman, 2009). Furthermore, in modern society, as the gap between the rich and poor has widened, there has developed attempts by some of those that are wealthier to provide support to the poorer ones through a diversity of philanthropic initiatives. Also, in certain communities, such as those that have Islam as the official religion, individuals that are well off are obligated to support their poorer counterparts as a means of making sure that all individuals have their basic needs fulfilled. Humans, therefore, are a species that because of their ability to socialize, have developed a sense of empathy towards one another. Empathy is a characteristic that is most observed in humans, which shows that despite the considerable differences between the environments in which they live, it remains paramount. It is for this reason that humans are the species that stays with their young for the longest period because the latter are not only helpless at birth, but human parents will often invest considerable time and effort into ensuring that their children grow up in a safe environment. The latter characteristic is one that has allowed humanity to establish strong bonds of community that has ensured the species continues to thrive against all odds.

However, despite the latter being the case, humans, because of their being a social species, also has the capacity to cause great harm to one another. This can be seen through the wars that have taken place throughout human history. Most of the wars or conflicts that have taken place are between human communities as they compete because of pride due to their ethnicity or over resources (Hardman, 2009). Consequently, the human ability to socialize, which has allowed for the establishment of communities, has also led to these communities viewing others as rivals. Conflict is a part of human nature, and this has become prevalent, especially when one considers how this species has established communities with distinct identities. Fighting over resources has been a factor of human existence since the beginning of societies, and it has resulted in the deaths of uncountable individuals. Furthermore, in the process of these conflicts, some human communities have shown a great capacity for violence, as they have undertaken to not only conquer their weaker neighbors, but also exterminate them through genocidal acts. This can be seen in the case of such major events of the modern world as the genocides that took place during the Yugoslav Wars and the Rwanda genocide in the 1990s, among many others throughout human history. The capacity of humanity to cause harm to others is born out of the idea that their community is superior to others, and this was the justification for the European powers colonizing other parts of the world during the age of empires. The colonization process in most cases was undertaken violently, to such an extent that in some parts of the world, the native communities became extinct.

Moreover, the human capacity to cause harm can be seen through the harm it has caused to the environment. The latter can be considered to have also come about because of humans being a social species. The rapid growth of human societies and urban areas created a demand for goods and services that could no longer be sustained through subsistence, hence the development of industrialization and the mass production involved in the provision of these products. Consequently, the continued demand for resources and products has created a situation where considerable harm has been caused to the environment through the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere (Adams, 2020). The urge to increase human economic output is a driving force in today's globe. This is a process that encompasses both the consumption of commodities and their way of production, and it frequently overlooks the need to promote environmental concerns (Adams, 2020). As a result of this condition, without concern for human beings' living environment, it is becoming increasingly impossible to ensure that it is protected from harm. Human activity is putting significant strain on the planet's natural functioning. This is a critical topic because it entails a scenario in which the varied ecosystems present on Earth may be unable to sustain future generations.

Therefore, it is essential to make sure that there is the promotion of a scenario where it is possible to bring about the creation of initiatives where humans are able to change for the better. This process requires that humanity learn to work together hand in hand as a means of not only preventing causing harm to one another, but also to the environment. The human ability to socialize can therefore be brought to the fore in order to promote the development of strong initiatives aimed at ensuring the prevention of its harmful effects. For example, the issue of preserving diverse ecosystems for the benefit of future generations cannot be taken for granted, and there is an urgent need to promote an effective way of mitigating this problem (Adams, 2020). The latter is an urgent issue which requires cooperation from all sectors of human society in order to be effective. Additionally, humans have the international institutions necessary to ensure that the effects of conflict and climate change are mitigated effectively in order to bring about lasting solutions to these problems. Also, ecologically sustainable behavior patterns are a pertinent means of making sure that there is the achievement of the goal of making all humans responsible for their actions towards the environment. This change in culture, from one dominated by consumerism to one that is environmentally conscious, has the potential of playing an important role in not only bringing about a greater level of sustainability with a diversity of ecosystems intact, but it also allows for a reduction or even elimination of the social inequality that is prevalent in modern society.

In conclusion, humans as a social species are capable of causing both positive and negative consequences for society. They have the capacity to ensure that not only is it possible to achieve great things through working together, but also establishing frameworks of mutual protection and support. However, while the latter may be the case, it is also necessary to consider that humans as a social species cause significant destruction as seen through the senseless violence towards one another during conflicts, and the undertaking of activities that are harmful to the environment. The latter have become matters of serious concern in the modern world to such an extent that there are calls for action to be taken. There is the need to promote the idea that humans have to take advantage of their ability to socialize in order to undertake actions to bring about behavior patterns that ensure environmental sustainability and an end to conflicts with one another.

Part 2

One of the most significant factors concerning the modern world is that conspiracy theories have become more prevalent. This has developed to such an extent that it has to be taken seriously in order for there to be effective means of preventing it from spreading. For most of the human population, conspiracy theories might be difficult to take seriously to such an extent that when individuals hear them, they are more likely to ignore them than to accept them as fact (Byford, 2011). The belief that there are secret masterminds behind events and that there are major cover ups on a global scale is actually a factor that is only chuckled over when heard. However, with the advent of social media, this has become a serious problem. It can be seen in the manner through which the students have readily accepted the belief that tracking devices have been put in their vehicles to monitor them and that the solution is to use their phones when driving. Such conspiracies and belief in them can be considered detrimental to the welfare of the students involved because it creates an environment of fear and risk taking that is in reality nothing to worry about. The recognition of the fact that this theory and others like it might be endangering the lives of students is enough to promote the need to advance initiatives to understand the reasons behind why students believe them. The latter is a challenge that needs to be established as a means of bringing about the promotion of a scenario where there are effective means of reversing their effects on the beliefs of the students involved and instead promote risk aversion behavior when they are driving.

One of the most significant factors that might lead the students to believe the abovementioned conspiracy theory is that they want to maintain control over their lives. This is especially the case where they feel that they do not have control and this sense requires that they take on actions that help them regain it. In this case, they are essentially becoming influenced by a form of bias that enforces their outlook of the world over those that are factual. The human mind has evolved to value consistency and regularity. As a result, when a great crisis occurs, whether locally or nationally, the unexpected unpredictability scares individuals to such an extent that they will want to get back to control. Consequently, these individuals will seek satisfactory explanations for what is happening, even if they are patently incorrect (Byford, 2011). Conspiracy theories appear to supply the answers that these individuals seek. The latter might prove a challenge because it allows individuals the belief in something that makes them comfortable and in control. It reduces their capacity to think beyond the theories that have been presented to them; instead creating a scenario where they are placed in a position of great vulnerability. It is this vulnerability that leads to the problem mentioned; namely driving while on the phone. Most of the information concerning this theory comes from social media, meaning that the students have to be prevented from viewing such sites. This can be done through the school essentially reporting the site and its contents to government regulators so that further action can be taken.

However, this is only the first step, the next one being to encourage group counseling sessions that will allow for the debunking of the conspiracy theories. This process will require that there is the identification of those individuals that believe in the conspiracy and play an active role in its spread. It is noteworthy that such individuals are attracted to the idea of the presence of a huge villain, which is one of the distinguishing characteristics of any conspiracy. Whatever the plot says, they will almost certainly lay the blame at the feet of an underground group that's pulling the strings of the world right under their noses. They can be real, like the government, or fictional, like the Illuminati, but they all play a vital role in the plot. Such beliefs are fueled because a strong belief that only a few people share such a lonely experience (Byford, 2011). Humans are social creatures by nature, and most people do not want to feel like the recluses and outliers that conspiracy theorists sometimes portray. Certainly the internet has solved this dilemma, for better or for worse, as there are now hundreds of social networks where like-minded conspiracy theorists can communicate, discuss their theories and have their beliefs verified by others.

Therefore, there is need to target those students that feel isolated and are therefore susceptible to such theories. Those who are self-conscious are more inclined than others to believe in conspiracy theories, maybe to deflect blame for their failings. Powerlessness, anxiety, solitude, and alienation have all been connected to conspiracy ideas (Byford, 2011). Those who believe they are unimportant cogs in the political, economic, and social wheel are more likely to believe that malevolent forces are at work. Meanwhile, other techniques of addressing misinformation should not be abandoned because they contribute to its reduction. Debunking is exceedingly tough, yet it has the potential to be successful. Rather than just labeling something wrong or misleading, debunkers must explain why it is untrue, pointing attention to deception methods and presenting evidence. It may be more beneficial to inform students about conspiracy ideas ahead of time. It can operate as a preventative measure against disinformation. This strategy alerts individuals to the possibility of disinformation before they believe it. Addressing the students' psychological needs may amplify these impacts. This may make conspiracy theories and other falsehoods less appealing, as well as increase overall well-being. Education disproves conspiracy theories by developing critical thinking and empowering individuals. Other approaches might foster a sense of shared identity, enhancing emotions of belonging and significance. There should be an emphasis on solidarity within the student body and making sure that there is the advancement of means through which students are encouraged to make use of the institution’s counseling services. This will not only combat the effects of loneliness and anxiety that makes students vulnerable to conspiracy theories, but will further enhance their ability to resist the temptation of believing conspiracy theories.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References

Adams, M. (2020) Anthropocene psychology: Being human in a more-than-human world.   Routledge.

Byford, J. (2011) Conspiracy theories: A critical introduction.   Springer.

Hardman, D. (2009) Judgment and decision making: Psychological perspectives.   John Wiley & Sons.

Reining in Executive War Powers

 Introduction

The last few decades have seen Congress essentially relinquish its powers to declare war to the Executive branch of government. This has led to a situation where it has become difficult to ensure that executive war powers have the necessary checks required to bring about more responsible practices (Goldsmith, 2012, p. 18). The declaration of war is an action that cannot be undertaken lightly because it involves considerable use of national resources, as well as armed personnel. It is also a situation where there has to be careful deliberation and thinking about national interests in order to ensure that there is the careful use of the armed forces. Therefore, this paper argues that it is essential that executive war powers should be significantly reduced and that these powers are returned to Congress. It provides a diverse number of reasons why Congress has to be the custodian of war powers because it is through its oversight that it will be possible for these powers to be used more effectively without abuse.

Potential of Overreach

Reining in executive war powers is critical in preventing overreach. This is especially considering that the United States has, since 2001 been involved in conflicts in the Middle East. The results of these wars have not been what were expected because in the end, the objectives that were set were not achieved. One of the most significant conflicts that the United States initiated using the executive war powers was the war in Iraq. A considerable number of servicemen and women ended up losing their lives while other were physically and mentally scarred during the conflict. These afflictions cannot be underestimated because they show that despite the country having been willing to undertake the achievement of national security, the end result was that it ended up creating more enemies than it had before. Furthermore, the country was forced into a situation where it invaded Iraq under false pretenses (Rabkin, 2004, p. 2); resulting in the destruction of a fairly stable state, and the instigation of a sectarian conflict that still plagues Iraq to this day. If executive war powers are not reined in as soon as possible, it is likely that the United States could find itself in another war, only this time; it will not be able to extract itself easily. One of the most likely conflicts that could take place if executive powers are left as they are is a war with North Korea, which is a country that has greater military capabilities than both Afghanistan and Iraq. If such a conflict were to take place, it would not only be prolonged, but it would also lead to the considerable loss of life for both Americans and its allies Japan and South Korea. The last would especially be negatively affected because of their close proximity to the conflict. Such a conflict, while the United States is still actively involved in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, and Somalia, could lead to a level of overreach from which the country might not recover.

Protecting National Interests

The need to protect national interests should be a motivator towards ensuring that executive war powers are reined in. One of the biggest results of the wars that the United States has conducted in the twenty first century is that it has led to a loss of credibility for the country in some regions of the world. The United States has come to be viewed as an imperialistic power, which has the intention of enforcing its will on those countries that do not wish to follow its lead. A consequence of this perception has been that there are an increasing number of countries, such as Russia and China, which are essentially seeking to break away from the American-led world order and to instead embrace one of their own making (Ikenberry, 2013). It has therefore become essential for the executive war powers to be curtailed and brought under the direct oversight of Congress in order to make sure that the looming threat of war at any time does not shake the confidence of those countries that have followed the American lead for decades. It will be necessary to make sure that checks are placed on the executive’s ability to unilaterally declare war, especially in instances where such declarations could end up making the national interest to suffer rather than being advanced. An example of such a situation is that of Iraq where American intervention essentially created an opening for Iranian influence to become established in the country.

Allowing Other States to find their own Way

One of the most fundamental objectives of reining in executive war powers is the need to allow other states to find their own way. The United States, despite its objective to promote democracy across the world, is not obligated to get involved in all the internal conflicts that take place in the world. Instead, it is important that it gives space to conflicting countries to undertake their own initiatives towards the achievement of stability and democracy. America should look to its past as an inspiration that whatever conflicts take place in the world, they will eventually give way to political establishments where individuals’ human rights are observed. The American Civil War, despite its brutality, eventually ended and both sides of the conflict ended up coming together to form the United States as it is today (Weingast, 1998). The experiences of the Civil War ensured that the country would eventually grow into an industrial, military, and global political power in the twentieth century, with democratic institutions being its foundation. Other countries in the world should be allowed to develop in a similar way because imposed democracy tends to have the negative effect of not working as it should. Instead, because the people on whom it has been imposed, because they do not understand its full value, end up forgetting its importance. In a conflict such as the one taking place in Syria, the United States should have stayed out, and encouraged its allies in the region to do the same. Perhaps if the United States had not chosen to supply the rebels with weapons, the conflict would not have gotten out of hand, and led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Syrians. Instead, both sides of the Syrian conflict would have likely come together for the sake of achieving national unity through ending the civil war.

Potential of Creating More Enemies

As the most powerful country in the world, the United States has numerous enemies, including those states that are against its dominance. A consequence is that whenever the United States gets involved in a new conflict, these enemies get the fodder with which to argue their case that the country is an aggressive power that seeks to ensure that it controls other countries. Those countries that see the United States as a potential threat then take measures aimed at reducing the risk of a conflict with it through undertaking considerable military modernization and allying themselves with other powerful countries such as China and Russia. An example of a country that has adopted a stance similar to that described has been the Philippines under President Rodrigo Duterte, who has essentially adopted a hostile attitude towards the United States, despite his country having been an ally for decades (Heydarian, 2017). With these circumstances serving as a background, reining in executive war powers can be a critical factor in ensuring that the potential of creating more enemies is significantly reduced. Instead, it will be possible to ensure that there is the advancement of American national interests through non-military means. The interventionist policies of the United States have done it more harm than good, and this is especially considering that most of these interventions have been ordered by the executive (Goldsmith, 2012, p. 51). It is therefore important that executive war power is reined in so that diplomatic means can be used in achieving national interests. Thus, when other countries see the United States leading by example, it is likely that they will be more willing to negotiate.

Reducing Incidents of Disastrous Conflicts

Executive war powers have to be reined in to ensure that there is the prevention of conflicts that end up having disastrous results for the United States. The original decision to invade Iraq in 2003 was justified by the executive as having been a reaction to Iraq’s having weapons of mass destruction as well as collaborating with Al Qaeda. The reality was that the Baathist regime in Iraq had ensured that Al Qaeda was kept at bay from the country and it was only after the American invasion and the fall of this regime that Al Qaeda gained a foothold. Al Qaeda in Iraq, which has in recent years become the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) can be considered one of the biggest threats to the United States today. Its presence came about because of the failure of American military interventionist policies in the Middle East. The failure of military intervention can be laid on the door of the executive branch of government, because it can arbitrarily declare war without necessarily consulting Congress (Rabkin, 2004, p. 47). The powers of this branch of government have to be significantly curtailed because to leave it as it is puts the entire nation in danger. Only Congress should have the power to declare war, and it is essential that this part of the constitution is enforced because the President can end up taking advantage of his war powers to undertake wars that have disastrous results for not only the United States, but its allies as well.

Exploring of other Avenues to Protect National Interests

The biggest reason that is often given by presidents when they use executive war powers is that they are protecting American national interests. A considerable number of wars since Pearl Harbor have been waged by the United States because of this reason, and while for the most part it has been essential in the advancement of national interests, it has also led to considerable damage in some parts of the world. In the contemporary world, it is essential to ensure that avenues other than war are used to protect national interests. However, in order to achieve this objective, it is important that executive war powers are removed from the presidency and the power to declare war be given only to Congress. Congress, because of its deliberative role before making such critical decisions, has the ability to better measure those circumstances that require a military response. However, other avenues, such as the imposition of sanctions, undertaking bilateral relations, and the use of American soft power such as its economic might, could go a long way towards the achievement of its goals. Such initiatives could significantly reduce tensions with other countries while at the same time heading towards a situation where the United States essentially becomes an integral part of a rule-based international system.

Establishing a Strong Rule-Based International System

In the contemporary world, the United States has essentially become one of rather than the only center of power in the international order. A consequence of this situation is that there are a number of emerging powers which have arisen to challenge American power. The emergence of powers such as Russia, China, and India has the potential of changing the face of the world, with each essentially becoming dominant in its own region. The sooner the United States accepts this new reality, the sooner will it be able to take the necessary steps aimed at attaining moral leadership in the new order. Under such circumstances, it will be essential to ensure that there is the establishment of steps aimed at reducing executive war powers because the latter will no longer be needed in solving conflicts. A rules-based system will help to bring about greater global stability because all of the major players will have to adhere to specific guidelines and rules aimed at reducing conflict between them (Taylor, 2016). Being a part of this system would be extremely beneficial for the United States because it will no longer be forced into conflicts that come about because of a president’s whim or because of obligations that end up draining the nation’s resources.

Concentrating on Preventing Direct Threats

Executive war powers are aimed at preventing direct threats to the nation. However, over the years, these powers have been abused by various administrations, but rather than protecting American interests, they have made situations worse than they were before. It is therefore important that Congress takes the step of reducing executive war powers so that when decisions to go to war are made, they are made rationally. Executive war powers should be used for preventing direct or immediate threats, such as the current one that has been instigated by ISIS. The latter organization is one of the biggest threats to the United States and it is critical that it is dealt with effectively. This means that the executive has to be allowed the power to make use of the military to bring about an end to this threat, especially considering that ISIS has shown an uncanny ability to get targets far away from its base of operations in Iraq and Syria. Moreover, the executive must be prevented from being distracted by other conflicts when fighting ISIS. Among these distractions is getting involved in the Syrian Civil War on the side of the rebels because many of the latter groups could easily be absorbed into ISIS (Bakke & Kuypers, 2016). Additionally, it is because of the weakening of the Syrian government through American and allied support of rebels that ISIS has been enabled to survive for so long in the country. Therefore, Congress’s restraining executive war powers will help in the prevention of such instances as the arbitrary use of military force as when President Trump ordered the bombing of a Syrian airbase as a response to the Assad regime’s alleged use of sarin gas on a rebel-held area. As stated above, the United States should concentrate on direct threats to it and should allow the Syrians to find their own path.

Conclusion

Reining in executive war powers has the potential of helping in ensuring that all military activities carried out by the United States are responsible and only in the national interest. In those circumstances where there has been the arbitrary use of the military, without any solid evidence as well as under false pretenses, the end result has been failed states and civil wars that have left a path of destruction. Afghanistan, Iraq, and Yemen are areas where American or allied involvement have led to more harm being done than the original objectives that were intended. It is pertinent that the use of military power by the executive is placed under the oversight of Congress because the latter has a greater ability to curtail the excesses that the executive might indulge in when it declares war. The achievement of this goal would go a long way towards making sure that administrations make more responsible decisions when it comes to matters concerning engaging in conflicts in the name of protecting national interests.

 

 

 

 

 

 

References

Bakke, P. C., & Kuypers, J. A. (2016). The Syrian Civil War, International Outreach, and a Clash of Worldviews. KB Journal, 11(2).

Goldsmith, J. (2012). Power and constraint: the accountable presidency after 9/11: WW Norton & Company.

Heydarian, R. J. (2017). Tragedy of Small Power Politics: Duterte and the Shifting Sands of Philippine Foreign Policy. Asian Security, 1-17.

Ikenberry, G. J. (2013). The liberal international order and its discontents After Liberalism? (pp. 91-102): Springer.

Rabkin, J. A. (2004). The case for sovereignty: why the world should welcome American independence: American Enterprise Institute.

Taylor, J. B. (2016). An International Monetary System Built on Sound Policy Rules. Paper presented at the Keynote Address International Conference on Macroeconomic Analysis and International Finance, University of Crete, Greece. Crete: University of Crete.

Weingast, B. R. (1998). Political stability and civil war: Institutions, commitment, and American democracy. Analytic narratives, 148, 153-155. 

Zimbabwe: its history and fight for independence

The land of Zimbabwe was settled by the British in 1890 and named Rhodesia after its founder, Cecil John Rhodes, who believed that the British had the right of imperial rule in Africa because they were the “first race in the world and therefore the more of the world they inhabited, the better it would be for the human race”. It is this ideology which served as the basis of the discriminatory colonial policies that were set up to serve the interests of the white minority which had settled most of the best land in the country, and excluded the African majority who had virtually no rights in their own land. These policies led to the demand for change by the Africans within the limitations of the colonial constitution and when this did not work, the African nationalists became more radical when they realised that violence and bloodshed were inevitable if there was to be any change in the country. It was the stress of this oppression that forced the people of Zimbabwe to take up arms as the only solution to their problems. The armed struggle was led by two political parties namely the Zimbabwe African People’s Union (ZAPU) and the Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU) which had splintered from ZAPU. These two nationalist organisations got a lot of support from external forces which contributed to the success of the liberation movement in Zimbabwe.

These external forces consisted mainly of neighbouring independent African states – known as the frontline states, other armed liberation movements in neighbouring countries, and the Communist bloc led by China and the Soviet Union. The Communist bloc through the Organisation of African Unity (O.A.U.) gave aid to the Zimbabwean liberation movements in the form of arms and money. Some also provided training for the liberation combatants within their territories such as the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, Algeria, and Tanzania. These countries further provided instructors who trained the recruits in the camps who had come from Zimbabwe to join the struggle for majority rule. Furthermore, organisations such as the United Nations, the World Council of Churches and certain left-wing organisations in the west and in Scandinavia gave moral and financial support.

The Zimbabwe People’s Revolutionary Army (ZIPRA) was the armed wing of ZAPU which was formed in the 1960s and had camps in Angola and in Lusaka, Zambia which were provided by the Zambian government to help in the liberation of their fellow Africans in Zimbabwe. ZIPRA’s crossing points to and from Zimbabwe were at Feira in Zambia opposite Mashonaland East. It was more influenced by the Soviet Union than by China as it adhered to Marxist-Leninist principles of mobilising the urban workers rather than the Maoist principles of mobilising the rural peasantry pursued by the Zimbabwe African National Liberation Army, the military wing of ZANU. ZIPRA was also in a formal alliance with Umkhonto we Sizwe (MK), the military wing of the African National Congress in South Africa. In the mid-1960s, these two allied organisations mounted a celebrated mission into Southern Rhodesia, although this mission was not militarily successful. This mission, known as the Wankie fiasco, saw several hundred ZIPRA and MK freedom fighters enter Rhodesia through the uninhabited areas of Wankie and these were either killed or captured by a joint Rhodesian-South African force. Other countries, such as North Korea, had its military officials train the Zimbabwean freedom fighters how to use explosives and arms at a camp near Pyongyang.

ZANLA, on the other hand, was formed in 1965 in Tanzania and was heavily influenced by the Maoist guerrilla tactics that had been used very successfully by FRELIMO in Mozambique, that is, by infiltrating combatants into Zimbabwe, politicising the peasantry, and participating in ‘hit-and-run’ ambush operations. Even before Mozambique’s independence from Portugal, FRELIMO had supported ZANLA by allowing it to use the territory it controlled in Tete district along the Rhodesian border as a base of operations against the Rhodesian government. Because of its close ties with Mozambique’s FRELIMO, ZANLA gained a lot of support after Mozambique’s independence when its government permitted ZANLA to open training and supply camps along the Mozambican-Zimbabwean border which greatly assisted in the recruitment and training of troops.

The OAU member states’ meetings and resolutions concerning the white minority regime in Rhodesia induced Britain to push the United Nations to invoke mandatory sanctions against Rhodesia in 1968. However, these sanctions had many failings which included: the long period of time which had elapsed since Rhodesia’s Unilateral Declaration of Independence from Britain in 1961 which had enabled the white regime to make adjustments and arrangements for the evasion of sanctions; the refusal of South Africa and Portugal to apply sanctions by continuing normal trade with Rhodesia and acting as go-betweens to market its goods and import on its behalf; and the general lack of political will on the part of most members of the United Nations to make sanctions work effectively. These sanctions against Rhodesia, although they did not work, helped to give a moral boost to the liberation movements in Zimbabwe, because despite the internal divisions within it, the OAU supported their fellow Africans in their struggle for freedom. Through its Liberation Committee, the OAU co-ordinated the material and financial support sent to the liberation movements in Zimbabwe from independent African states and from abroad. It also sought to reconcile the differences between ZANU and ZAPU, the main revolutionary groups in Zimbabwe so as to unify their forces against the common enemy. Both ZANU and ZAPU had gotten embroiled in the struggle within the Communist bloc between China and the Soviet Union about the latter’s leadership of the bloc. Each of these nationalist movements had adopted the communist doctrines of its main sponsor, such that ZAPU had adopted those of the Soviet Union while ZANU had adopted those of China. This resulted in the difficulty that kept these movements apart as well as various battles between their military wings.

The coup against the Salazar regime in Portugal in 1974 and its subsequent decolonisation policy helped the liberation movement in Zimbabwe a great deal because the white minority government lost one of its most important outlets for its exports namely, the ports of Mozambique. This coup also shocked the white regime and its main ally, South Africa, into the realisation that the African liberation movements could, through long and sustained armed struggle, force a colonial power to decolonise. This led the government of South Africa to adopt a more conciliatory approach to its relations with the newly independent black African states as well as its commitment to a political solution to the crisis in Rhodesia. South Africa was in a key position to influence Rhodesia because its roads and railways were the lifeline of the Rhodesian economy and as such was the only government in the region that was capable of putting pressure on it. The moderation of the policies of its chief ally towards its enemies led the embattled Rhodesian government to start negotiations with the African nationalists in Zimbabwe and finally to the beginning of majority rule in the country.

Mfecane: The wars that shaped Southern and Eastern Africa

Mfecane refers to the numerous wars that were started by the Ndwandwe king Zwide and spread to the rest of the African societies in Southern Africa at the beginning of the nineteenth century. Therefore, the statement that the mfecane was largely a Zulu affair is not true considering that their activities were mainly concentrated in the Natal area while the Mfecane itself occurred in a far wider range than that. Furthermore, most evidence points to the fact that the Zulu only got involved in the mfecane when it was at its climax. The mfecane began in the later part of the eighteenth century when the process of nation building among the Nguni of the northern Natal region began. The larger political units that came from this development were partly due to the competition for the control over the lucrative trade in ivory with the Portuguese based in the Delagoa Bay. 

Moreover, the population pressure among the Northern Nguni people led to the increased competition for resources because the effect of white pressure on the frontier of the Cape colony had, by the end of the eighteenth century, made expansion in a westerly direction impossible. In the years around 1803, there was a long and severe drought which sparked the unprecedented competition between the emerging states for control over good pastureland and other essential resources. The conflict between three main groups of the northern Nguni namely the Ndwandwe, the Ngwane, and the Mthethwa brought about the mfecane, the first of which was between the Ndwandwe of Zwide and the Ngwane of Sobhuza , the latter who after being defeated, moved further north where the Swazi nation was to be eventually established. Contrary to the popular opinion among the proponents of the old paradigm concerning the mfecane, it was the Ndwandwe rather than the Zulu who initiated the climax of the mfecane by attacking the Ngwane of Matiwane. When the Matiwane and his Ngwane were driven from their home by the Ndwandwe, they began a career of conquest and terror against the communities they encountered. They surprised and defeated the Hlubi, killing their chief Mpangazitha, defeated the Tlokwa, and forced Moshoeshoe of the Sotho to pay tribute to them.

It should be noted that the first known recorded history of the mfecane was written, not by the Africans themselves, but by Afrikaans and English speaking writers. Most of these histories were written with the idea of European superiority in mind hence the portrayal of Africans as savages. The Zulu serve as an example of this mindset with their portrayal as the originators of the mfecane despite overwhelming evidence on the contrary. One would agree with Julian Cobbing’s argument that the role played by the Zulu in the events known as the mfecane were minimal at best and that the emergence of the Zulu kingdom was a result rather than a cause of this period of upheavals. The Zulu kingdom was one of the defensive states such as the Sotho, the Swazi, and the Pedi kingdoms that emerged due to the mfecane. The so called acts of aggression by the Zulu against other groups were merely measures of defence; attacks to defend themselves against future aggression. If the states surrounding the Zulu had been allowed to become too powerful, then the nation would have been destroyed.

Although the Zulu were not responsible for the mfecane, their military innovations like the use of the short broad bladed stabbing spear which allowed them to close in on their enemies instead of standing off from them, as well as their discarding of their ox hide sandals in battle, gave them superior speed making the mfecane wars even more devastating. The rise of the Zulu came at a time when large states were necessary to protect people from enemy attack. An example of these is the Mthethwa who, after their defeat by the Ndwandwe, turned to the only person in the region who had the ability to defend them against their enemies, and this was Shaka. It was this choice which brought about the ascendancy of the once insignificant Zulu. The Zulu, therefore, did not contribute to the chaos surrounding them but instead brought order in the Natal region with the creation of their state, the forceful absorption of weaker groups, as well as the destruction of the more aggressive ones like the Ndwandwe state.

Gran Torino (2008)

Gran Torino is a film that depicts the relationship between Walt Kowalski, a Korean War veteran who has been recently widowed, and Thao Vang Lor, a young neighbor of Hmong origins. The anger and bitterness that Walt feels towards the world and his family dives him towards living a lonely life alienated from almost everyone else. Thao is a young man who seeks to join a gang led by his cousin with the latter encouraging him to steal Walt’s Ford Gran Torino as an initiation ritual into the gang. When Walt foils his attempt, he and Thao end up developing a wary friendship with the former acting as a mentor for the young man. This is a story that shows the life that ethnic minorities in the United States have to live because they have very few opportunities to ensure that they improve the circumstances in their lives. Gran Torino is a film that seeks to ensure that there is recognition of the cultural diversity that exists in the United States and the need for there to be cultural understanding in order for social cohesion to take place. The multicultural relationship between Walt and Thao can be considered to be an illustration of what can be achieved through cultural understanding while Walt’s family’s seeming disapproval of the Hmong’s community attending Walt’s funeral can be considered to be a sign of the cultural alienation that Hmong in the United States have experienced since their arrival. Gran Torinoallows for a unique view of the Hmong community in the United States as well as advocates for a need for the development of cultural cohesion in the nation.

One of the most important cultural relationships that are depicted in Grand Torino is that between Walt, Thao and Thao’s Hmong family. Walt, a recently widowed white American, ends up striking a friendship with Thao’s family and becomes a mentor for Thao and his sister Sue. Sue also helps Walt learn Hmong culture and this cultural understanding brings him even closer to the Vang Lor family as well as to the rest of the Hmong community in the neighborhood. Furthermore, it should be noted that Sue goes against cultural isolation through her choosing to date Trey; a young white man. Walt becomes so involved with the Vang Lor family to such an extent that they become closer to him than his own family: the latter who he considers to be emotionally detached from him with their only interest being on his estate. Walt’s involvement with the Hmong community also opens his eyes to the cultural diversity that is present in his neighborhood and this allows him to ensure that he not only feels like a part of this community, but also seeks to protect them from Spider’s gang.

The process of acculturation is one where communities, mainly migrant, adapt to the culture of their new countries in order to fit in with the rest of society. This is normally done in a diverse number of ways from matters concerning diet to such aspects as language and names. In Gran Torino, it should be noted that a significant number of individuals in the Hmong community have come to adopt diverse aspects of American culture. Among these, as seen in this film, is that of dating, where both Thao and his sister Sue date; a situation which is not common in Hmong culture. Another aspect of culture that is seen in this film is enculturation, which is a situation where individuals learn the requirements of a new culture and adapt to aspects of its language and rituals to ensure social acceptance. This is the case with Walt who, with Sue’s help, seeks to ensure that he learns aspects of Hmong culture in order to better interact with the community.

Cultural relativism is the judging of an alien culture through its own understanding of its practices rather than one’s own. This is opposed to ethnocentrism which is the judgment of a different culture based on one’s own cultural perspective. Subcultures are the practices conducted by a small group of individuals in a bid to ensure that they differentiate themselves from the larger cultural grouping. In Gran Torino, all these aspects of culture are dealt with, as seen through cultural relativism where Sue encourages Walt to develop and understanding of Hmong culture. This is in contrast with Walt’s previous opinion of his Hmong neighbors where he often judged them based on his own culture and cared nothing for them. A sub-cultural perspective is where Spider’s gang conducts its own rites of initiation into the group and acts to punish those it believes are turning away from its culture. This is especially the case with the gang’s attempt to punish Thao for failing in stealing the Ford Gran Torino that would have allowed him to join the gang.

In conclusion, the discussion above has sought to show that Gran Torino is a film that portrays the diverse aspects of culture in the United States. Most of the instances that take place within this film are based on culture and its aspects such as ethnocentrism, acculturation, enculturation, as well as subculture. All of the latter are shown in the film through the interactions that take place between Walt, the Vang Lor family, and Spider’s gang and this ensures that there is greater cultural understanding; especially in relation to Hmong American culture. The film shows that cultural isolation is detrimental to individual development, as seen in the hostile attitude that Walt has towards his neighbors before the beginning of his interaction with the Vang Lor family and Hmong culture. Therefore, one would suggest that Gran Torino is a film that seeks to show how greater cultural interaction between the mainstream and minority cultures in the United States would allow for greater social development. Not only would it bring out the best of these cultures, but it would also lead to a situation where there is an advancement of social cohesion which is a desirable trait in any nation.

Game of Thrones: The Beginning of the End

Winter is here. It's actually here!

After six years of mild weather, the snowstorm is on our beloved and hated characters. Facing the challenges from within and beyond the Wall, there is no doubt not everyone will survive.

We have been waiting for more than a year since last season. Again, this pesky winter setting was dictated when production could film these bubble scenes - there is only so much a snowmaker can simulate.

But now is the time for season 7 on us. No word yet when George RR Martin will publish his next book. Our bet is never, or the week after never.

Here is what you need to know about Game of Thrones Season Seven.

WHO

The DBs - David Benioff and DB Weiss - remain showrunner of the show, which they created after reading the secrets of George RR Martin, which he so stubbornly refuses to share with his fans by completing the next book. The DBs have known the end game for a while, and we expect a faster dynamic as there are only 13 episodes left over two seasons.

Frequent game of throne director Jeremy Podeswa will play the season opener and the final, while Alan Taylor (who has not led an episode since second season) will be back for the penultimate chapter.

New actors this season are Jim Broadbent and Tom Hopper, while the regular guests and recurring guests who have made it through the bloodbaths of the last two episodes of season six should be back.

Especially the core pieces - Peter Dinklage, Kit Harrington, Lena Headey, Emilia Clarke and Nikolaj Coster-Waldeau - whose salaries have pushed up to a reported $ 3 million per episode (thanks to the sweet, sweet syndicate shops).

OK, now we dare in the seasons one to six spoiler territory. And some discussions about what could be in store for season seven - the trailers were very generous to provide clues.So, if you'd rather be as blind as Maester Aemon, we suggest you return now.

WHERE WE ARE EVERYONE

Since it was so long since we saw the Westeros team last, let's take a stock where we've all left:

Starks: Arya walks away from the Riverlands after beating Walder Frey out of her list. Sansa is not in Winterfell Queen of the North, while Littlefinger whispers sweet things into her ear (what could he possibly?). Jon is King of the North, though he is only a strong through the Matriline line, after the series has confirmed the prevailing fan theory in this vision. Bran and Meera slowly enter the wall after the vivid adventures.

Lannisters: Lastly, we saw Cersei ascending the Iron Throne and looking at Jaime with horror as he recognizes his sister / mistress is now the wild queen. What is a King Slayer to do? Tyrion, who wore the insignia of the hand, stood next to Daenerys, when their fleet made way for Westeros.

Targaryens: After six years of meandering from one side of Essos to the other and then back again and back and back again - you get the point - Dany is finally sailing for Westeros, ready to conquer her ancestral land and take the power back from her crazy Papa abducted. Meanwhile Jon Snow is waiting ... is it too early to include Jon?

Greyjoys: Theon and Yara have joined Dany. The mother of the dragons liked to take the breakaway Greyjoy siblings "wood horses". Her murderous Uncle Euron, also known as Grizzly Pacey, tries to marry for an alliance and has vowed to chase his treacherous kinship.

Tyrells / Sandpipes: Well, almost the entire Tyrell line has been killed thanks to Cerseis fireworks, but Olenna is still there and she is plotting, this time with Ellaria Sand and Varys at a Confab in thorns with speech of revenge, fire and blood. Delicious.

Cleganes: The Hound has become under the brotherhood without banners in the riverlands and the mountain, or the reanimierte corpse of the mountain, Frankenstein-ing is around the Red Keep with Cersei.

Tarly: Sam and Gilly certainly made it to the Citadel, where he foams over the bound tones that form the walls. So many books.

WHAT WE CAN DO

Jon / Sansa: Both Sophie Turner and Kit Harrington in interviews have depended on a showdown or at least the tension between the half-siblings as the jostle for the power in Winterfell remains unstable. Sansa is the one who is really responsible for Jons triumph in the Battle of the Bastards, and she is the legitimate heir of the Winterfell throne, but Jon has proclaimed the King of the North. Expect this rivalry to play in the coming season, especially with Littlefinger seeds seeds of suspicion.

Cersei / Jaime: The injuries of the Inkestuous pair could come in this season with a Cersei-Morphing in the Mad Queen, which does not really coincide with the joyful character of Jaime. We also know what Jaime has done in the past with insane monarchs. Can he really be the one who stops Cersei? Could be. But not before he defends the Lannister House, as we've seen in the trailer with him and Bronn, who led the defense in the fight against Dany's Dothraki warriors.

Daenerys: She is on the charge, she and her dragons and the uninvited and the Dothraki and the Grayyys, Tyrells, the Sand Snakes and Tyrion and Varys. OK, she has almost all on her side. The trailers show Daenerys, who touch their hand on Westerosi ground, what Dragonstone looks like, the home of the Targaryens. There are also insights into another landing party at Dragonstone with suggestions that it might be Jon or Davos to make a deal for the real war - the one against the white hikers.

White Walkers: The supernatural threat is only escalating and the trailers have shown us a battle in which Jon and the brotherhood without a banner looks, are largely under the whitewalkers and their zombie minions. We're pretty sure it's the Brotherhood because you can clearly see Beric Dondarrion and his flaming sword. The human group is secured into a circle as they are surrounded, not unlike the movement of Ramsey's forces drawn on Jon at the Battle of the Bastards - how do they get out of this?

Gendry: No clear view of the Baratheon bastard, last seen, row, row, rowing away in this little boat at the end of the third season. He has a strong claim to the Iron Throne and the fans have expected him to recharge. But really, the story has been moving so far since the Baratheon era, and there is a matter of urgency in dealing with the White Walker threat, any Gendry return seems like an unnecessary complication right now. Especially if there are only 13 episodes to finish the series. Leave him out there.