Showing posts with label Facts. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Facts. Show all posts

Sunday, November 25, 2012

Child Soldiers: Perpetrators or Victims?


            "I will cut them.” Says Tanzi Bakenzi, 16. He is referring to the Lord’s Resistance Army, a rebel uprising that terrorizes civilians, burning houses and smashing skulls. Tanzi is what is known as a child soldier. Child soldiers are armed servicemen who are under 18, and are a widespread problem across the world. Found on every continent accept for Antarctica, child soldiers are boys and girls, their ages average at just under 13 with the youngest on record being a 5 year old boy. One of the many ethical dilemmas on the issue of child soldiers is: are child soldiers victims or perpetrators (a victim being a person harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action and a perpetrator being someone who willfully carries out a harmful action)? While some people may argue that child soldiers are perpetrators because they kill people and many choose to stay in fighting after a certain war ends, child soldiers are victims because they are manipulated into service and exploited while serving, as well as sustaining trauma that lasts for years.
              Many say that child soldiers are perpetrators of violence, but most of them never would have been involved in armies if not for the deceit and forcefulness of others. A large number of child soldiers were forcibly abducted or tricked into service, not by their own choice. In the article “Children at War” by P.W. Singer, a sixteen-year-old child soldier proves this point by saying, “the rebels came and attacked us. They killed my mother and father in front of my eyes. I was 10 years old and they took me with them.” The soldier did not have good judgment, as he had just seen his parents get murdered, and was not even asked to use it. Instead he was abducted. Ishmael Beah, although not abducted was tricked into joining up, according his video interview. Beah’s parents had died due to the war and he was on the run with a band of boys in the same situation. As he says “Naturally we thought if we went to a military base we would be protected… that was not the case.” Instead the militants told them they had to go into service. If Beah and ­­­­­­­­the anonymous soldier had not been deceived or forced to enlist, they would not have fought in their respective wars, proving they were victims.
                 After child soldiers have been forced into the army, the manipulation does not end. Child soldiers are victims because while in service they are exploited and brainwashed to be killers. Ishmael Beah attests to this in his video interview with Katy Couric when he says, “You have to do it {kill} to survive.” In order to be a perpetrator Beah would have had to kill others of his own free will, instead his life was threatened by his superiors unless he slaughtered others for them. Beah was a soldier in South America, but the manipulation of child soldiers who have nowhere to go and have to comply with their commander’s wishes exists across the world. In the article “Armed and Underage” by Jeffery Gettleman, in Iran “12-16 year old boys {were given} plastic ‘keys to heaven’ to hang around their necks as they cleaned battle fields.” This proves that child soldiers were victims as the army knew the children could and probably would die, and tricked them into thinking they would go to heaven if they fought for the Iranian army. Child soldiers were used in armies around the world, tricked and manipulated by forces above them, showing they were victims.
                   Child soldiers are exploited and deceived during their service, but their suffering does not end after they have left the army. Instead, underage soldiers are traumatized and battered by their deeds and experiences. A fact that supports this is stated in “Children at War” by PW Singer, “For the child soldiers, the impact of being plunged into war creates problems long after the end of actual combat. Many suffer long term trauma….” Singer, who wrote a book of the same title, is an expert on this topic. He states that due to his research, these children have been victimized and they are perhaps permanently scarred by their service.  Also in “Children at War,” Singer states “girl soldiers are often singled out for sexual abuse, even by their commanders and have a harder time integrating back into society.” These female soldiers are definitely victims of sexual abuse, but as soldiers they are also victims because they retain trauma and often have a hard time fitting back into society. Ishmael Beah says that it took him eight months recover from his time in the army and that it may take some soldiers even more time. There is no way these children were perpetrators as they have been so hurt by their service.
                  To conclude, child soldiers are not perpetrators, but victims of a terrible experience. They are deceived and forced into service in the first place, once in the army they are exploited and threatened to do deeds that some say they perpetrate, and they sustain long lasting trauma after the fighting is over. These children did not bring such a life upon themselves; they were victims of their countries’ crimes. And although Ishmael Beah and other soldiers have been rescued from the endless cycle of killing, drugs and madness, many remain. Unawares of the public, these children are still being victimized. So I challenge you to raise awareness and hold the real perpetrators accountable for the exploitation of these kids.
                     

Friday, October 12, 2012

Indians are from India

            What do you think of when you hear the word "indian?" Do you think of intricately beaded moccasins and ponchos? Teepees and campfires and long feathered headdress? Or do you think of saris, swaths of fabric draped and folded around a women's body, bindis (dots of red on foreheads) and spicy curies? Although these descriptions are generalizing, most people's thoughts follow one of these two paths.
            The truth is, "Indians" are from India. They factually fit the second line of thought. So why is it that when I asked my sister, two of my friends and my aunt, most of them said that they first thought of the first description when thinking about the word "indian?"
           To fully develop this train of thought, we need to know a bit of historical information. When Christopher Columbus "discovered" America, he thought he had sailed around the world and was in India. That is why he labeled the Native Americans he saw and enslaved as "Indians." Although the term is factually wrong and even a little racist, people and text books use it to this day.
            Its the text books that I have a problem with. In school we are given The US History text books that take us from colonization to present day. Although they are supposed to teach us what happened before we were alive, these text books gloss over many of the gross and unpleasant pieces of America's history.
             When I read Howard Zinn's amazing and thought-provoking young adult non-fiction book, "A Young Peoples History of the United States" it opened up my eyes. I finally saw how my text book didn't give me all of the information about our world. For example, the text book talks about Christopher Columbus as a brave explorer, who did enslave some natives, but gave them work and paid them. The text book does not speak of the massive numbers of native who were killed, whole tribes driven to extinction as a result of Columbus' endless thirst for gold and other precious metals hidden in North America that Zinn's book does. Another example is slavery. Of course the text book does not justify slavery, but it never mentions some of the gorier details that were involved in it. One example, it was extremely common for female slaves to be raped and sometimes impregnated by their masters, who forced them to engage in sexual activities because they "owned" them. One of these men was none other than one of our "founding fathers," Thomas Jefferson. The textbook speaks of his ingenuity in penning the Constitution and his political role, but not the slave he impregnated.
                I think that it is wrong for text books to gloss over details that might not be deemed "age appropriate." History is supposed to be about facts, not half-truths that don't include all of the details. I would rather know about the bad in people as well as the good things that they contributed to America. Because, as proven with the word "indian," people take generalizations and factually wrong things they read in text books and remember them, and truth is lost.