A Modern Crusade (Semester 2 Post 4)

We have all heard of the Crusades: there were a bunch of them, a lot of people died, and they were religiously fueled to reclaim the Holy land. Well, in American Studies this week, I couldn't help but connect those tumultuous events to the Bosnian Civil War. It was similar, the Christians (In this case Serbia and Croatia) against the Muslims (Those from Bosnia). It seemed strange to me that, thousands of years after the Crusades, we have an event that mimics it in some ways. Now, I understand that the connection is not flawless, but again, it cannot be overlooked. For starters, multiple nations that had previous conflicts came together again, this being Croatia and Serbia, just as before, where in the initial Crusades the same thing occurred with France, Britain, and others. The difference is that the goal of the Bosnian war was not necessarily to reclaim a single city, but territory in general. Additionally, the other goal of the Crusades were to eliminate as many of a certain religion as possible, or a persecution, which is prevalent in the Bosnian war as well. Combatants on both sides, although more so on the side of the Christians, participated in purposeful attacks on the civilian population, including rapes and slaughters. The one part of the association that I cannot fit in in the intervention of the United Nations. Now, my knowledge of the Crusades is currently limited, but it does not seem as if an external force intervened all that much. So, a question I would leave with any readers is: Can you fit in the United Nations to this? If so, how? If not, why?
Additionally, I would question the success of this "Crusade." It seems as if the goals of the Christians were to eliminate and conquer, and they certainly eliminated many, but did they really succeed in terms of territory? I mean, they got pushed back by the UN, and they were not allowed to keep the area. Also, the repurcussions seemed pretty taxing, and the world's attention was re-focused on the Balkans in a negative light. So, I would also ask the questions: What did this accomplish? How does it compare to how the original Crusades ended?

-Chavez Rodriguez

Violence and Oppression (Semester 2 Post 3)

Is a militant or violent response to oppression justified?

The definition of oppression according to Google is prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or control. This leads me to believe that oppression in itself is a violent action, and therefore the action of a violent or militant response is comparable to an act of self defense. In the Deceleration of Independence, the founding fathers said that, "whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government." This section refers to the decision of the colonies to rebel against Great Britain, and that they led a revolution because that government had become oppressive. In the Decleration of our nation, it is stated that it is a right to rebel when oppressed, and as we know from our studies, the Revolutionary War was indeed violent and militant. Oppression is an act of open aggression, and if in diplomacy that warrants a deceleration of war, then it does so in this situation as well. It is our nature as humans to remove aspects of our lives that cause pain and suffering, and so it is our nature to attempt to throw off oppressive behavior as well when forced with no alternative. Considering the Revolutionary War again, the colonies were not in a position where diplomacy and words could sway their oppressors, and it is the case for those who are being oppressed. They cannot reason with those who are violent with any response other than violence in return.  Now, this thought process seems pretty closed-minded, and I understand that there will be instances where violence is not the only response, but the question is if it is justified, and I believe that, given the circumstances regarding the oppression of a group, violence can be justified. To end on a few questions: Can you come up with an example where oppression has not been met with violence? Also, although slightly off topic, I noticed that many of the modern world powers have gone through some sort of revolution. Is this connected? Does a nation have to undergo a revolution against oppression to become more powerful?

-Chavez Rodriguez