Waging Peace

Understanding the nature of our Society

2008-10-27T23:31:00.000-07:00

When I give food, shelter and clothes to the poor,
They call me a hero.
When I talk about giving food, shelter and clothes to the poor,
They call me a communist.

What is the foundation of moral life? What makes it possible for human beings to care for one another, and know that they have responsibilities for each other and to their communities? What could possibly make anyone willing to pay the living wages of workers in India when they can get them to work for less? The 18th century philosopher David Hume, is one of many philosophers who believe that no such reason can be given. For Hume, it is part of our nature that we feel sympathy for each other and that this sympathy counters our narrow interest. Josiah Royce, an American philosopher of the last century , shares a similar belief. She argued that you do not really understand another person if you do not understand their aspirations, their fears and their needs. To understand someone’s feelings is in part to share them. And you cannot share an aspiration or a need without wanting to see it fulfilled, nor can you share a fear without hoping it will not come to pass. So the mere recognition of what other human beings are, involves us in wanting to see them live and prosper. Both these philosophers believe that sympathy , love and caring determines all, or even most, human behavior.
However a brief look at our 21st century would prove these philosophers otherwise ,as with 126,218 people dying a day, it seems clear to me that the world is facing some serious issues. What these philosophers do offer, though, is an understanding that human beings have the capacity to want the best for each other. So now we must ask, what forces are at work in our world that blocks and undermines human morality? It’s not guns, it’s not diseases, it’s the way we live, it’s – capitalism. Unknowingly, you are a bolt, a screw ,a gear that keeps this great Machine running, this great machine that destroying what is left of our capacity to care. You are a member of a social system that allows 18million people to die a year, just because they're too poor to afford the basic necessities in life. A social system that breeds oppression, exploitation and cruelty. Worst of all, it is a social system that now exists in most countries of the world.
To understand why capitalism undermines the foundation of moral life, we must first understand the way it works. To begin with Capitalism is social system that is based on a psychological model that is fundamentally flawed. Under capitalism, the ‘resources’ in our society are controlled privately by people not by the government, and the distribution and production of these ‘resources’ are governed by the use of 'capital'. Everything in our society from the social services that we are entitled to, the houses that we may live in, the education that we may receive; everything in nature; such as forests, water, oil; everything that us, human beings, are capable of doing such as our technical skills, our intrapersonal skills- are all viewed as 'resources’, with prices on them. Shelters, food, the environment, and human lives mean nothing in themselves but are valuable only when they can be turned into capital. So to really participate and survive within this society, we must be constantly accumulating capital. With capitalization of all aspects of society, the amount of capital that a person has, determines the sort of life that he will lead. The capitalization of all aspects of society, by itself creates a class division in society as the wealthier people in our society, has access to more resources and is able to lead more privileged life.
We’ve developed a system, whereby theoretically, the hardest working person could possibly reap the most rewards. As supposedly, the person who distributes and contributes the most ‘resources’, earns the most ‘capital’.

But in reality it doesn’t quite work this way. With capitalism, people can still make significant amounts of capital without making any significant contribution to society. An example of this is interest, once a person has a certain amount of capital, he can survive off the interest of the capital without providing any constructive contributions to society. In this case, he is capable of becoming a pure consumer, rather than a producer. Such a person does not truly contribute to the advancement of society and is in fact capable of exploiting others. I say this because; only those with large amounts of capital are able to employ other people in our society to produce and ‘contribute’ resources for them. Basically, these workers must sell their ability to work in return for capital. They are paid low wages to produce goods and services which are sold by the wealthy capitalists for profit. The wealthy capitalist becomes wealthier, through the contributions that are really made by the working class. Inequality and exploitation occurs as the capitalists are able to lead a more prosperous life from the profit they obtain from the work and labor of the working class. Besides the exploitation and inequalities , capitalism has also brought about a society of selfish and competitive people who are bound by ‘the profit motive’.
The profit motive is the major incentive that keeps this giant machine running, perhaps it’s the only incentive that other social systems lacks. The profit motive occurs naturally because of the importance of capital that is reinforced by the fundamentals of our social system. Even though this is the motive that drives us to work every day at 7:00 am in the morning, the profit motive is the ultimate flaw in the capitalist system. Through the profit motive, competition and strife is created, forcing people to abandon all principles and save one – maximizing their income. It creates more problems by itself as it runs counter to any altruistic behavior. Altruistic behaviors such as, love, for example is important for human welfare but because it leads to activities such as sharing, caring and giving away, it runs counter to the profit motive, and so these activities which promote love are discouraged. Inadvertently, mathematics replace human morality in the sense that only profitable activity thrives whereas all other altruistic activities are suppressed. This is evident in our world today, as feeding hungry people is not the aim of the food industry, or sheltering the homeless the purpose of the housing industry, or else there would be lower levels of starvation and poverty. Ethics, the overriding commitment to meeting human needs, is left out of deliberation in this system. So if we care about life, and if we see our obligations in each other faces, then we have to want all things that are governed by capital, to be directed by the ethical concern for life.

Both the fundamentals and the incentive of capitalism has brought about a society of people who are bounded by consumerism. As all parts of life becomes a commodity to be bought under the capitalist system, organizations have spent millions of dollars in marketing strategies , to exploit the vulnerable by encouraging them to see themselves as consumers. This is seen as the citizens of many capitalist nations, consume more products, live in bigger houses, use more consumer durables than the rest of the world. By a surface examination, it appears that they lead a higher standard of living. However social indicators such as family structures, suicide and crime rates tell a different story. The high rates of family breakdowns, stress, depression and suicide indicates to us that promoting consumerism has lead to negative social problems. Even though these overconsumption may constitute a downward spiral for the individuals involved, it represents a virtuous cycle for the economy, which benefits from the increased levels of consumption.

Besides interfering with people’s lives, the capitalism has now penetrated today’s schooling system. Today’s compulsory school system has been designed to replace individual education, children are taught not to be loyal to their own values, friends or community, but instead to be unswervingly loyal to a faceless and unaccountable authoritarian bureaucracy. True education, should not be confused with today’s schooling which curbs human altruism in order to fit children easily into the existing social order. The high ideals of many teachers contribute to the popular misconception of forced schooling as an altruistic institution carried out by one generation to benefit the next. The current school systems only serve to promote capitalistic values by focusing on individual achievements and awarding prizes to only a select few. In school, children’s achievements are not valued with reference to their personal relationships, but instead by a larger mathematically based system. These ‘Marks’ that are always given by teachers, just as, ‘capital’ determined by wealthy capitalists, not only undermines the importance of personal relationships in children’s lives, they promote rivalry and also subvert their naturally tendencies to help one another as they compete for better ‘marks’. The emphasis that the schooling system gives to individual results undermines the children’s ability to work together and to self-evaluate. If any attention is paid at all to promoting good human values and altruism, it is usually a personal matter, not due to the school system, but to the altruistic efforts of individual teachers. Even though this may seem like a poor preparation for life itself. It is more accurately to describe it as a preparation for a poor life as discouraging their natural altruistic tendencies, prepares children for life in a society in which most people’s work is devoid of personal interest, most relationship are temporary and self serving.

Capitalism is ultimately a system that breeds a selfish, non-caring, non-contributing society, where dignity is robbed. It formulates a competitive environment, where when you care about others ,you suffer and the only way to succeed and benefit is by exploiting others. As long as we live under this social system, oppression, inequality, starvation and exploitation will always exist and true human altruism and potential will never be seen. Change cannot occur today, because most of us have been positioned all our lives to think ignorantly about the injustices and the systematic violations of our society. As long as we conform in to the unjust ways of our society, where profit is the main motive that drives us, we will always remain a screw, a bolt, a gear that keeps this great killing machine running.

(note:this is a rendition of sources from the internet.)

Cold War: The Space Race and its' Significance.

2008-10-27T23:04:00.000-07:00

The Space Race was a result of years of deep mistrust and despite between the U.S and the U.S.S.R, and the deep international conflicts that had occurred. The superpowers had been rivals for decades, and had always been mistrustful and suspicious towards one another. This mistrust was based on political, moral and economic beliefs that were engraved into both systems that could be traced back since the Russian civil war in 1919. Communism and capitalism were mutual enemies. For communism to succeed, it saw the need to eradicate capitalism to liberate the oppressed and rid of the corrupt. Whilst capitalism saw liberty and free market, threatened by communism. Both systems had been constantly seeking ways to gain the upper hand. Such was seen when both competed in developing nuclear arms, and later the competition of excelling in space flight.

With both superpowers having developed nuclear weapons by the end of the 1960's, if both were to utilize these weapons, nuclear exchange would be devastating. The superpowers would not only destroy one another but the entire world, causing Mutually Assured Destruction. As a consequence the Cold War and the competition between the U.S and U.S.S.R had to be played out in other ways. A great example of this, is the sponsorship of third world countries as satellite states, such as North Korea, South Korea, Vietnam and Afghanistan. It was a way of putting those countries in important strategic positions, and establishing spheres of influence. In this sense the space race was similar as it provided another means which the superpowers could compare and compete without direct military conflict. The space race would help prove the superiority and prestige of both system.

On October 4, 1957, the Soviet Union launched Sputnik I, the first man made satellite into orbit. It circled the Earth every hour and a half, circling the United States 7 times a day. Sputnik had a profound effect on citizens and governments all over the world, especially the United States because it indicated a major Soviet advancement in technology. The Soviets capitalized on it's success, insisting that Sputnik was a symbol of communist superiority over the West. The reactions that followed in America include both astonishment and a deep measure of fear because the Americans had thought they were more advanced than the Soviets, in terms of technology and now the Soviets had achieved what no one knew was possible of doing. At that present time, no one knew what Sputnik I was capable of doing, all they knew was there was an enemy satellite streaking across their sky, this fear was fueled when less than a month later, the Soviets launched Sputnik II, this time with the company of a dog.

Initially, Sputnik I was dismissed by President Eisenhower as a~irrelevant' because it wasn't a weapon. On the other hand Khrushchev directly linked the success of Sputnik to their ICBM technology. He harnessed on the fear of ICBMs as a bargaining chip, this was seen earlier on November 1956, when Khrushchev threatened Britain and France to withdraw their forces with ICBMs. Britain and France conformed, Khrushchev would concluded that missiles would become an important strategy for the Soviets. Even though Khrushchev claimed on many occasions that Soviet ICBM missiles were "coming out like sausages" and were capable of any target in America and Europe, it was actually quite the contrary. The Soviets had fewer ICBMs than boasted and the ICBMs were unreliable at delivering warheads. Khrushchev had on many occasions "threatened with missiles [that he] didn't have." (Sergei Khrushchev). The launch of Sputnik was highly significant in Khrushchev's a~rocket-rhetoric'. It provided evidence of Soviet missile strength which the West started to question, in effect it proved that Soviet ICBMs worked. It was clear to the United States political leaders which had earlier doubted Soviet missile strength: that if the Soviet Union had ICBM rockets powerful enough to launch satellites into space , they had ICBM rockets powerful enough to launch atomic warheads on the United States. To the world the Soviets showed they were the equals of the West in high technology, and to it's rivals they had finally demonstrated that they had the world's first ICBM, because that was what it took to orbit the satellite.

The launch of Sputnik had proved that communism worked not only in theory but practically. For until 1957 the West generally saw the Soviet Union as a country in poverty and distress , the old "Russian Steamroller", fighting to sustain stability. It was the country capable of fielding a mass army with tens of thousands of men but not a country capable of developing sophisticated technology and electronics like that of the United States . This image was shaken when the Russians launched Sputnik. The American attempts to put their own satellites into orbit, failed dramatically as rocket after rocket ended up in spectacular explosions. The Soviet used the failures of the U.S attempts to prove that collective labor in socialist systems was capable of achieving what the selfish and profit-centered capitalist system couldn't. In Europe, the NATO allies began to wonder whether the American military technology on which they were relying to defend themselves was really as superior as they have imagined.

The superiority of Soviet Union was one view the United States refused to accept. Many domestic changes in policy were made in America immediately after the commencement of the space race. The American long range missile research program which was originally in planning stage was speeded up and it's military budgets were dramatically altered. Eisenhower increased the funding for missile development from $4.3 billion in 1958 to $5.3 billion in 1959. He also called for faster production of a stockpile of nuclear weapons for NATO. Further more in 29 July 1958, NASA was established for the sole purpose of winning the space race. The space race also caused long terms changes made to the United States(which still affects the United States today), such as the change of the educational system. Shortly after the launch of Sputnik, politicians and the public began placing greater emphasis on math and science in the nation's schools through the National Defense Education Act of 1958. Billions of dollars were placed into the study of science in universities, and one third of all scientists and engineers in practice were called to direct their researches towards weapons research.

Even with the changes made by the Americans, the cold reality remained. The Soviet was still in lead of the Space race. Their advancement in space technology was demonstrated, when the US's attempts to send more Pioneer probes into space ended in failure, whereas on 12 April 1961, Yuri Gagarin became the first man in space, orbiting the earth for 108 minutes. The Soviets had again achieved what the U.S had found impossible to achieve. These early failures of the U.S space program and the seemingly successful Soviet space program further reinforced the belief that a missile and technological gap existed between the two cold war enemies. The Americans had now sense that they were on the wrong side of a technological revolution. The early space race provided John F. Kennedy support and ratings in his candidacy. He exploited this sense very effectively during the 1960 election , accusing that the outgoing Eisenhower administration had allowed a a~missile gap' to exist between the two superpowers. Even in 1957 the United States had long range missiles but Eisenhower had banned the construction of these militarily ones to launch the first earth satellite. Kennedy promised to wage the Cold War in a stronger manner than Eisenhower's administration. This demonstrated the close link between politics and the space race. Another example of the involvement of politics with the space race is the early return of Voskhod II in October 1962 due to the forced removal of Premier Khrushchev by his party rivals.

23 days after cosmonauts Gagarin's launch into space, Alan Shepherd becomes the first American in Space. This flight was enough to boost the morale of the American public. It demonstrated the potential of national pride and domestic power that could be achieved in the space race. As both the U.S and the U.S.S.R were superpowers of the world which have emerged victorious over the tyrannous regime of Adolf Hitler in World War II. In the process they had also gained new territories, responsibilities and power, this makes it a necessary for the superpowers to prove their worth. The race would position the citizens of the U.S and U.S.S.R to become more proud of their systems, which would provide them with the amount of cooperation they would need to sustain themselves throughout the Cold War. To this extent, on May 25, 1961 President Kennedy declared that the United States will send a man to the moon by the end of the decade.

The magnitude of Kennedy's challenge was enormous, but the importance of the space race towards the outcome of the Cold War was so significant and important that the President had billed 1.8 billion to NASA. The budget stood at $5400 million a year, the years space budget was three times what it was in January 1961.

The lunar mission would be a convincing value to the Cold War contest for international scientific prestige. This was recognized by both the U.S.S.R and especially the U.S which had been trailing behind. The importance of the lunar missions was clearly stated by President John F. Kennedy on 12 September 1962:
"We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too."

During the "challenge to the moon", the impact and the involvement of the Central Intelligence Agency(formed July 26, 1947) in not only domestic but international affairs was clearly shown. The CIA in the Cold War had acted on several important occasions such as: interfering with politics in satellite countries, employing money diplomacy during the Suez Crisis of 1966 and sponsoring and organizing armed assault during the Bay of Pigs in 1961.

The early announcement of America's intention to launch a satellite into space reflected the understanding by the government in the American administration that satellites could form an important technology with considerable reconnaissance value as well as world-propaganda potential and psychological warfare value in the Cold War. This was demonstrated with the early Soviet success of Sputnik I which brought the Soviet incalculable scientific prestige and dealt a very severe psychological blow against the US when they have thought their technology was superior and incapable of being beaten by the Soviets. Therefore the CIA contributed a large sum of funds to the U.S satellite and space program . After Kennedy's a~call for the moon'. Millions of dollars were placed into the Gemini and Apollo programs which significantly helped its progress and development. This was done because the CIA believed the nation that first accomplishes the feat of space exploration will gain prestige and recognition throughout the globe.
As the Americans began their work towards the moon, so did the Soviets. Voskhod I was launched on October 12, 1962,marking the first multi-person flight, because of the cramp confines of the spacecraft the 3 cosmonauts on board did not wear their space suits, which was essential in the safety of space exploration. This factor would've caused certain death if depressurization were to occur, but the Soviets excluded this concern, insisting to beat the Americans by the mile stone. This again demonstrated the harsh determination of the Soviets at winning the space race.

The American's success and progress in the race was further boosted on January 14, 1966 when the Soviet's chief designer Sergei Korolev died during an operation, delivering a tremendous blow to the space effort as Korolev have played a major role in the designs of all Soviet spacecrafts and at the time of his death, they had been working on the Soviet's N-1, moon rocket. His death marked a tremendous set back in the country's race for the moon.

American satellites over the Soviet Union showed that the Soviets were completing the enormous N-1 rocket, one just powerful enough to perform man-lunar missions, for this reason NASA decides to send Apollo 8 to orbit the moon on August 1968. Apollo 8 went into lunar orbit and for many of the Soviet Union, the flight of Apollo 8 came as another severe blow, for the US had now surpassed them in sending the first people to the moon. In responses, the Soviets launched its long-waited N-1 rocket on February 21st, 1969, which exploded while taking off. Apollo 8 had been a tremendous blow to the Soviets but now with the failure of the rocket needed to place the first cosmonaut on the moon, the Soviets were simply running out of time. Another N-1 was launched soon after, but exploded after taking off. The Soviets were now incapable of reaching the moon any time soon, setting the stage for the flight of Apollo 11 which landed on the moon on July 16, 1969.

The Soviets had saw their space exploits as proof that their system was winning. Such pride made it worse when the Soviet moon program collapsed. In the Early stages of the space race, it was proven that the Soviets had the ultimate weapon in the combination of long range-missile and the hydrogen bomb. Until the West's ICBMS missiles were operational, these weapons would serve as a perfect threat during negotiation. They had also in the stages of the space race surpassed American technology but ultimately the flight of Apollo 11 had brought victory to the United States.

In conclusion, the space race played a significant part in the overall timeline of the Cold War, with many domestic changes that affected both the U.S and the U.S.S.R. psychologically, politically, economically and ideologically. It ignited the patriotism ,fervor and cooperation in both camps that would help it last through even the darkest days of the Cold War. Ultimately it was another means of periphery(competition) and demonstrated the aggressive reality of the Cold War with both the capitalist and communist systems trying to succeed one another, proving the superiority of it's own system.

The Power Of Conflict in Shaping a Nation.

2008-10-11T23:31:00.000-07:00

How Australia was Shaped by the Vietnam War.

Australia, since its establishment has been an orthodox society which showed unquestioning loyalty to Britain. Sharing the values of its colonial master, it was predominantly hinged on the belief of white supremacy and patriarchal dominance. The Vietnam War, which lasted for 16 years, precipitated a great change in Australia. It was a significant event that had not only affected the United States but it also had a profound impact over several aspects of Australian society. It was a turning point for Australia politically, culturally and socially. It began as an escalation of conflicts when France withdrew from Vietnam in early 1956, followed by the American military intervention which sought to prevent the North Vietnamese government from unifying Vietnam under communist rule as part of a wider strategy of containment. Although minor, Australia's involvement in this international conflict , eventually led to drastic changes in their sense of identity and ultimately their place in the world as by the end of the 1970s, Australia would become a more liberal society.

Many historians postulate that Australia became involved in the Vietnam War because they were a member of SEATO and a close ally of the United States. Furthermore, Australia was partly adhering to their defense policy of "forward defence" as stated in a government report, dated 1975:

"The provision of military aid by Australia was decided upon political reasons[...], which was to ensure the long-term defense interests of Australia. These were seen in terms of the theory of forward defense against the victory of communism in South-East Asia."

In a sense, forward defense meant the deployment of forces across Asia to defend Australia by containing and repulsing enemy aggression at the original line of contact. The other reason for Australia's involvement was the "domino theory", which was a primary concern. Australia believed it would threaten national security as the communist victory in Indochina would mean that Thailand would be next, followed by Malaya and subsequently Australia. To counter this, involvement came through the means of providing military advisers and equipment(1962-1964) and later battalions of troops (1965) as well as encouragement to the American military efforts.

Australia's participation in the Vietnam War had a deep repercussion which resonated in the social, cultural and political settings. On the surface level, the Vietnam War confirmed the growing gap between Britain and Australia. On the contrary, it also confirmed Australia's growing bonds with America. For the first time, Australia entered a war without the consent of Britain. Traditionally, Britain had always been the main influence on Australia's foreign and domestic policies. Australia on the other hand had always been proud to celebrate its English heritage and showed unquestioning loyalty towards her colonial master. This loyalty for Britain quickly deteriorated after the events of World War II, as the mantle of leadership slipped from Britain, as did her capacity to defend Australia in the era of nuclear power. The Vietnam War, saw Australia acted independently as well as her attempts to improve its relationship with the United States through encouraging and supporting the American objectives in Indochina. As clearly indicated by Alan Renouf:

"Our objective should be[...] to achieve such a habitual closeness of relations with the United States and sense of mutual alliance that in our time of need after we have shown all reasonable restraint and good sense, the United States would have little option but to respond as we would want.[...]The problem of Vietnam is one, it seems, where we could, without a disproportionate expenditure, pick up a lot of credit with the United States."

The Vietnam War ,hence, provided an opportunity for Australia to draw a closer relationship with the United States. This relationship was not only underlined by the infantries that Australia sent to Vietnam but also by the purchase of American ships, planes, armored personnel carriers, equipment and an agreement signed in 1963 for the establishment of American naval bases at North West Cape, in Western Australia; followed by several agreements in 1966 and 1969 to establish US satellite facilities at Pine Gap and Nurrungar. The hosting of these bases confirmed Australia's new commitment to America. The new commitment that was resulted from the Vietnam War, depicted a greater importance for Australia's position in the world, as it now has a closer affiliation to a world superpower and also marked the severing of its image of being a former colony of Britain.
This new allegiance with the United States and the involvement in Vietnam were not met with entirely positive response from the Australian masses. Even though Australia had developed a close relationship with the United States, as outlined by Holt's remark, "all the way with LBJ", the outcome of the involvement was a deep division within Australian society both culturally and politically. Certain policies laid down by the Liberal government to fuel the Vietnam War efforts generated great discontent in the public. Civilians publicly displayed their opposition most commonly through riots, protests, rallies and demonstrations. The strongest dissidents were against the National Service Act passed by the Holt Government in 1964, which required 20 years old males to serve in the Army for a period of 24-months. A lot of young Australians organized rallies and campaigns against the conscription draft. It turned into an organized anti-war protest which essentially became a part of youth rebellion against the authority and traditional values, the most notable one is the Moratorium Movement which was essentially a mass, peaceful protest. In many of these protests and campaigns, the Australian youth opted for more liberal practices which were blatantly against the predominant Christian values in Australia. Liberal practices such as an alternative lifestyle, individual rights and a less patriarchal dominated society were championed by these youth. This resistance highlighted an emergence of a bolder youth identity, which also saw the emergence of an alternative youth culture such as the 'long hair' trend, the popular usage of drugs like Marijuana and LSD.

Parallel to this, there was also dissent inherent at the political level. The Liberal government which was in power during this period was heavily opposed by the Australian Labor Party(ALP). The ALP was totally against Australia's military commitment and the use of conscripts drafted from the National Service Act to fight in Vietnam. They argued that the war was basically a continuation of the nationalist war of liberation which had begun under the French colonial rule, and that therefore the conflict could not be resolved by military means. In short, they led the Anti-war movement which began to spread quickly across Australia. These anti-war sentiments both from the public and political parties, taught Australians to question the authority and the actions of government. Ultimately it spurred them on to challenge the mainstream ideologies.

One of the mainstream orthodox ideologies that was internalized deeply in Australian psyche was patriarchal dominance in all aspects of society. Since time immemorial, Australian men had always been more superior, privileged and respected than women. The role of men was usually that of breadwinners, laborers and parliamentary leaders whereas the women were voiceless, domesticated and subservient. In this light, the Vietnam War was very significant as during the decade, it can be seen that there was a shift in the role of women. In the past Australian women did not achieve their voting rights until 1921 and played an inferior role in the workforce. Their wages were distinctively unequal in comparison to that of men, as statistic pointed out that it was only 54% during the prewar era and 75% by the 1950s. The full equality of wages was not achieved until 1972, this was the direct implication of the Vietnam War, where women were given the opportunity to voice out their resistance and opinions in society. The Vietnam War ,therefore, was a channel for the feminist movement because before the war women were conformed to the housewife and mother ideals and so there was no real outlet for Australian women to express themselves. The war offered women participation in groups like "Save our sons" where they were allowed to come together to openly defy the male hierarchy of the government. Women began to involve themselves in the political arena through the formation of electoral lobby groups, where they advocated to an end to all forms of discrimination against women. They also started to demand for full equal pay, the provision of child-care facilities and maternity leave. The power dynamics between male and female ultimately changed as a result, as women would later achieve the full rights they have been advocating for.(full equal pay [1970s],and maternity leave[1973]). By the end of the 1970s, women would eventually participate in professional occupations and some even appointed into positions of government, an example of this is the career of Roma Mitchell, who becomes the first Australian woman to become a judge, a Queen's Counsel and the first woman to become Governor of an Australian State.

The Vietnam War did not only see the phenomenal change in traditional Australian values, but it also saw the acceptance of different cultures into what was once a very closed and conservative society. More specifically it saw the transformation of the cultural profile of Australia, where the ethnic composition became diverse. Australia was a country built on migrants, since its colonial times it would only exclusively let in White Europeans, pursuing a monolithic policy known as the "White Australia Policy" which restricted immigrants of certain ethnic backgrounds. The direct consequence of selective immigration gave rise to the 'Yellow Peril' , as Australians became fearful of the infiltration of Asians into Australian society. Many Australians believed if Asians were allowed to come to Australia, then Australian culture would be diluted. Such fears were seen when Australia deported Asian refugees during World War II and disallowed veteran war brides from migrating to Australia. However under the circumstances of the Vietnam War, Australia began accept refugees and the 'boat people' as the Liberal Government led by Malcolm Fraser realized that Australia had obligations to the Indo-Chinese refugees because Australia had participated directly in the war. This is as reflected by Fraser in an interview:

"circumstances (have) led to a northern victory, then you have to live with that northern victory and forget the divisions of that time and Australia needs to promote the best and most cooperative relationships that it can with Vietnam as a whole[...]because we've been stationed in Hanoi for many years now."

The cooperation which Fraser had spoke of came in the form of accepting refugees from resettlement camps in South-East Asia and making immigration agreements with the Vietnamese government. The refugees arrived to Australia ,and by passed the formal immigration procedures as they were soon accepted as immigrants on humanitarian grounds. Although initially, many had been fearful of the migrants' arrival, the change in government policy came with a gradual change in the public perception of the migrants. Australians had started to realize that there were benefits to having people of different races to live alongside one another. They see this as a phase of cultural enrichment. The aftermath of these immigration procedures which took place during and after the Vietnam War resulted in the acceptance of people of different ethnic background and ultimately a multicultural society. The 1978 'Report of the Review of Post-arrival Programs and Services for Migrants' illustrated this idea of tolerance and acceptance in Australian society:

"We are convinced that migrants have the right to maintain their cultural and racial identity and that it is clearly in the best interests of our nation that they should be encouraged and assisted to do so if they wish. Provided that ethnic identity is not stressed at the expense of society at large, but is interwoven into the fabric of our nationhood by the process of multicultural interaction, then the community as a whole will benefit substantially and its democratic nature will be reinforced. [...]
We reject the argument that cultural diversity necessarily creates divisiveness. Rather we believe that hostility and bitterness between groups are often the result of cultural repression."

Multiculturalism became a firm government policy which was officially laid down in 1977 , ensuing the rights of all Australian migrants to equality, opportunity and most importantly cultural identity. In 1978, this propelled Australia into the 'Orderly Departure Program' and by the end of the decade, Australia had accepted over 90,000 Vietnamese refugees.

Indeed the Vietnam War was a catalyst to the many changes as seen in today's Australia. Their involvement had a profound impact on their sense of identity and situated them a place in the world. It has taught them to open up to many contemporary ideas such as accepting the voice of the youth, brought them equality for women in much fairer society, and led to immigration policies which created a multicultural society. Flora Whittemore had said: "The doors we open and close each day decide the lives we live." Just as the actions of Australia during and after the Vietnam War has opened up the door of dynamic change and eventually led to the Australia we know of today.

Bibliography

Websites:
www.anu.edu.au
www.defence.gov.au
www.ausaid.gov.au
www.curriculum.edu.au
www4.gu.edu.au
www.skwirk.com/.../nsw/australian-culture/australia-in-the-vietnam-war-era/the-impact-of-the-war
www.wikipedia.com/vietnam_war
Books Used:
Australia Since 1890 by Lionel Dennis

Beyond Morality

2008-10-10T21:58:00.000-07:00

In my belief morality itself is not firmly set and in itself is self contradictory and paradoxical. In the minds of millions of people; morality is inexplicably tied up with religion: this or that is right or wrong for the simple reason that God has ordained it. Basically good is good and bad is bad because god says so. In this case the question arises: Do we really commit good(moral) acts because it is good and moral by the act's very nature. Or do we commit good(moral) acts because God says it is good? Believing that we commit good and moral acts merely because of God's judgement, proves one thing and that is, that morality is shallow as it is based on the stance/judgement of an individual entity. Yet believing that we commit ourselv es to these acts because of their nature proves that we are independent of God, and that God has no importance to us(morally) except that he is merely a messenger of morals.

Ultimately, I believe the actions cannot be judged nor cateorgized as moral or immoral until the consequences are revealed, but also consequences can overpower what we would normally consider moral or immoral. To further illustrate this point imagine if one were a doctor, a woman has given birth to a Siamese twins. The infants , due to some odd anomaly are going to die, as a specialist and a doctor, you have the choice to separate the twins. This would save one infant but in the process kill the other. Either way an infant is bound to die. What would you do?

Instinctively, any doctor, in fact any human being would sacrifice the life of one to save the other. So we honestly say, under this scenario, killing and taking one's life is all of a sudden moral and justified dued to its consequences. But killing being classified as an immoral act demonstrates that our current views of morality are sometimes paradoxical.