Free Who Wins Who Loses Essay Sample
This essay concerns politics as a winning or losing game. When the players are strong, powerful and well aware of the rules of politics and the modus operandi through which it is paid, they are successful and winning. Alternately, they are losers of the political battles. "Organized domination, which calls for continuous administration, requires that human conduct be conditioned to obedience towards those masters who claim to be the bearers of legitimate power. On the other hand, by virtue of this obedience, organized domination requires the control of those material goods which in a given case are necessary for the use of physical violence. Thus, organized domination requires control of the personal executive staff and the material implements of administration" (Weber, n.d).
The role of informal actors, however, was far from entirely detrimental. This issue came to the forefront when Associate Professor Keith Brown, an anthropologist who had worked extensively in the Balkans, asked, "whether in his research, Andreas sees any grounds for hope or optimism in the story of the siege of turning the work of profiteers, in other words, back into a shared good?" Andreas in his following comments remarked, "The message here is that criminalization is double edged. It helped to perpetuate the siege, but in fact in some cases helped to keep the city alive; it helped perpetuate the war, but in some ways helped to end it" (Book Panel: Blue Helmets and Black Markets: The Business of Survival in the Siege of Sarajevo, 1970). Well, it would most certainly depend upon the kind of war on truth that one kind of women would be fighting for. War does not necessarily mean combat, but could also have other connotations depending upon the kind of people that are involved and also could mean the daily struggles for the existence of humanity. If one considers the power or authority that has driven the weaker sex, this role has changed over time. During the middle ages they were even accused of sorcery and witchcraft, and many were executed.
"By 1660, there was also a lengthy tradition of witchcraft in European history. The practice of witchcraft always lay under heavy suspicion but it was also an integral part of everyday life in Europe. There were basically two kinds of witchcraft. The white variety involved in healing and fortune-telling, while the black variety concerned the conjuring of evil powers by a curse or by manipulating objects. The Church interpreted witchcraft in its own way. Witches entered a bond with Satan in order to work against God. They held secret meetings and had sexual relations with Satan. By the 13th century, bishops and popes prosecuted witches for heresy, which is not really that surprising since the 12th and 13th centuries constituted the great age of heresy. I imagine the point is this -- witchcraft became an issue because the Church made it so. The number and availability of printed books helped the Church's hysteria that witchcraft was part of a diabolical plot to overthrow God" (Montaigne, 2002).
Another aspect during the medieval ages has been of sorcery and witchcraft. Many women (and men) were accused of sorcery and sentenced to death by military courts, It is believed that while this was true to a certain extent it cannot wholly be seen for you, and also require supply from different sources. Coming to politicians, their prerogatives remained in the interest of gaining rent or even profits. And they became active in the service of political associations only when the overlord of their status-equals especially demanded it. It was not different in the case of some of the auxiliary forces which the prince drew into the struggle for the creation of a political organization to be exclusively at his disposal.
This was "the nature of the Rate von Haus abs [councillors] and, still further back, of a considerable part of the ------councillors assembling in the 'Curia' and other deliberating bodies of the princes. But these merely occasional auxiliary forces engaging in politics on the side were naturally not sufficient for progress" (Weber, n.d). "There are two ways of making politics one's vocation: Either one lives 'for' politics or one livesoff' politics. By no means is this contrast an exclusive one. The rule is, rather, that man does both, at least in thought, and certainly he also does both in practice. He who lives 'for' politics makes politics his life, in an internal sense. Either he enjoys the naked possession of the power he exerts, or he nourishes his inner balance and self-feeling by the consciousness that his life has meaning in the service of a cause" (Weber, n.d).
The bloody clashes of civilizations in Bosnia, the Caucasus, Central Asia, or Kashmir could become bigger wars. In the Yugoslav conflicts, Russia provided diplomatic support to the Serbs, and Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Iran, and Libya provided funds and arms to the Bosnians, not for reasons of ideology or power politics or economic interest but because of cultural kinship (Huntington, 1996).