Would love some feedback/criticism on this.
Conflict brings out the best and worst in people
With conflict, there always seems to be an innate disposition to focus on the wider consequences and effects. Something often neglected and pushed to the side is the way in which conflict reveals a person’s true moral character. It is in these situations that people’s beliefs, or lack thereof, are tested and their hidden attributes, both positive and negative are revealed. It is these times that demonstrate whethere someone is governed by their morals or their survival instincts.
When confronted with clashing interests, people are forced to make significant, often life-altering decisions. The difficult and complex nature of these responses means that the choices are generally formulated by the individual’s most basic values and instincts. These situations remove people from their comfort zone. In some cases, such as the world-changing ‘Doctors Without Border’ program, people follow their natural inclination to help while in tohers they revert to a more savage, primal state with little separating man from animal.
In Kate Grenville’s colonial-era novel ‘The Secret River’ the actions of the settlers, led by Smasher, portray human nature at its most primitive level. In order to resolve the conflict over land, the men resort to massacring the innocent Indigenous community. This systematic killing is not dissimilar to the genocidal actions of warlords in Sudan recently or the persecution of the Jewish community in Nazi Germany. In each case, conflict has brought out the worst in people.
Furthermore this demonstrates how in times of conflict, extremist views can often prevail which cause people to think primarily of their own interests. The novel’s protagonist William Thornhill doesn’t share Smasher’s sentiments. In fact, he is envious of the Aboriginal way of life, seeing it as reminiscent of the English gentry. Despite this, he goes along with Smasher to protect his family and his own interests. Similarly, the atrocities commited against the Jews were carried out by soldiers, many only teenagers, who had no personal hatred of the Jewish community. These examples portray how people will resort to extremely callous actions in order to protect themselves or those they care about.
However, it is also in times of conflict that the positive side of humanity is revealed. These periods give people the opportunity to demonstrate their strong morals and values through courageous acts and even sacrifice. The most potent example in Grenville’s novel is Thomas Blackwood. His decision, to stand up to Smasher and his subsequent refusal to join the massacre, leaves him ostracised. One of the most fundamental desires of humans is companionship. Blackwood however, is prepared to sacrifice this so that he doesn’t compromise his strong core beliefs.
In some ways, his actions are not dissimilar to historical figures such as Martin Luther King and Arthur Miller. These individuals exemplify the importance of sticking to beliefs in times of conflict. Luther Kin’s actions were a key reason for the subsequent equality enjoyed by the African-American population, while Arthur Miller’s play ‘The Crucible’ was critical in showing a contrary view on McCarthyism. Even Blackwood, despite being a fictional character, demonstrates this message. It is because of people like him, who refuse to sacrifice their morals or ignore prejudice, that we now live in a country where the Aboriginal community is treated equally.
When faced with conflict, individuals are compelled to make challenging decisions. These choices show human nature at its best and worst, not in-between. These examples provide a reminder to us in our own daily lives. When we are faced with our own disputes or confrontations, we should endeavour to stay true to our beliefs, like Thomas Blackwood, rather than allow ourselves to be compromised, like William Thornhill.
Any tips would be greatly appreciated thanks
Home
Help
Search
Login
