Month: August 2019

Posted on

Connecting the World

By: Sarah Inskeep

A visual depiction of ‘The Cloud’. The server farms that make it up are far from cloud-like, but the countless connections created by it among people around the world are a rather cloud-like network.

I’m always interested to see how different people in our field think about the role of technology in the world – both in the world today, and in the world that is coming to be. I’ve heard a variety of perspectives. For some, development of new technology is thought to be the answer to most of our present dilemmas. For others, technology is thought to be a part of the problem. Our visitor today, Madhawa, shared a different perspective.

“Technology is neither positive nor negative,” he said. “It’s a tool. It’s how you use it that matters.”

This is the view I’ve come to hold as well, both in regard to technology and in regard to my research in physics and ecology. Over the past few days, I’ve been very excited by the possibilities of positive uses for technology. Ushahidi, for example, is a program that allows crowdsourcing and mapping of information. It has been used for tracking information about violent crimes, for monitoring elections, and for coordinating emergency responses to natural disasters. Frontline SMS, a similar crowdsourcing platform, has been used to collect information for research projects, medical surveys, and community projects.

Another emerging example of the use of mathematics and technology in our field is in conflict early warning systems. They allow us to understand cycles of violence, to learn how to spot indicators so that we can better understand how and when to intervene to prevent mass violence.

As was pointed out in class, no matter how accurately we can predict these things, the human side of conflict remains. We may see signals that indicate a certain country is headed toward genocide, but must then decide how the international community will act. We’ve seen the complexity of this stage numerous times in the past decade alone – in the occupation of Tibet, in the ongoing conflict in Syria, in the case of the Rohingya in Myanmar. It’s frustrating that, even though we know, there is sometimes so little we can do. I make no claims to have any better solutions, but there must be more that can be done. If governments cannot, or will not, act, what other options do we have?

Perhaps technology could play a role to play here, too? I’m hesitant to support the use of social media to spread news of the tragedies taking place because it’s too easy to become jaded to the reality of the traumas people are facing. Nevertheless, as Madhawa shared with us, social media has the potential to allow people from even the most remote areas to connect and share their cause with others around the world. Can we find a way to share their stories as a means of empowerment, to demand change from wherever we are in the world? To organize action that forces governments to step up?

In my sociology class last semester, we studied the abolition of the British slave trade. That, too, once seemed intractable, something beyond the reach of any person or government to destabilize, let alone end. Yet, with time and the persistent work of determined people, things changed. Similarly, boycotts in the United States of South African goods played a major role in the end of Apartheid.

People, I think, have more power now to use their knowledge and their access to the world than they ever have before. Why, then, do we wait for our governments to change their minds? Why, especially in the United States, do we not use the power we have as we could, as we have in the past? What would it take for us to again take a stand?

In the so-called ‘Cloud’, among the pictures of friends and school projects – among the numerous cat videos – there is a treasury of stories about the world. Stories from refugees and minorities, from villagers and marginalized peoples. They have been silenced, but their words transcend walls and borders. Their words are here, in the palms of our hands, waiting to be given a voice.  

Posted on

Mainstream Peace

By Terah Clifford

During one of the sessions centered around building peace education, we were asked to create a curriculum that would incorporate peacebuilding principles into mainstream education curriculums. Earlier in the session, we talked about how the current curriculum is so focused on the various wars and conflicts that plague our history and how devoting time to this mainly focusing on wars takes time away from students’ ability to learn about other historical events. The point was made that focusing on wars creates a feeling of fear as students are told that in order to keep another world war from happening they need to be aware and learn as much as they can so they do not repeat past mistakes. This leads students to an awareness of what armies do and how they protect national interests, which in turn causes students to choose to vote to continue funnelling money towards the military and the defense budget. I can honestly say this is quite a new perspective for me. While I know education shapes our opinions, I never thought about the connection between learning about historical wars and the worldview this gives students. Despite this view, I am hesitant to completely embrace focusing less on wars in our curriculum. So much of human history happened as a result of conflict, so it is honestly hard for me to imagine a history class that does not focus on wars. But I am intrigued by the idea, and by the time we finished discussing our curriculum, I had a new perspective on what it would look like to incorporate peacebuilding into student’s everyday experiences. 

When it came time to plan our curriculum, it turns out that two of the three groups chose Salinas as their city of focus. Our team initially talked about several overseas countries before deciding on Salinas. We chose this because it is an area that is familiar to everyone in our group as we thought it would be unfair to focus on a city or country that only a few people in our group were familiar with. Even this seemingly small decision reminded me that principles can be applied to many situations, so sometimes the exact location is less important than the act of brainstorming ideas that can then be adapted to other situations. 

Our target audience was high school students, so for our formal curriculum components, we decided to incorporate a foundations of peace class in student’s freshman year to give them vocabulary and concepts relating to peace for their first year. After that, we would start incorporating peace principles into the various subjects, such as English, history, science, etc. We chose to call our curriculum Mainstream Peace because the principles reminded us of what we learned in our session on gender mainstreaming. Our informal components focused on community engagement because we believe that national peace has to have a strong foundation on a local level. You cannot have peaceful nations without peaceful cities. Peace starts at the personal and local level, which is why incorporating peacebuilding into core education for young people is the first step in bringing peace on a larger scale. 

Posted on

Meows and words

By Diana Paz Garcia

This week we had two interpreters come to our class and talk about their experience. It got me thinking about language. Language and speaking are one of the things that we take for granted every day. I am used to switching on a daily basis between English, Spanish and French, yet I found it surprising when I hear a language that I am foreign too. As the presenters related their experience a cat meowed at us. I made me ask myself if the ability of language is exclusive to humans? What then characterizes the human language? Why are the natural codes of signals used by animals not able to claim the status of languages?

            Some philosophers such as Descartes, argue that that the word is suitable only to the man alone; the only man has the property of being an animal capable of inventing signs; man, is a “thinking thing”, he is driven by the need to express his thoughts (Descartes, 1646). It is thought and the reason that radically distinguishes man from animal. If animals do not talk, it’s precisely because they do not think.

            However, if thinking is a prerequisite for being able to speak, it implies that the thought must have happened in a language. Under this perspective, to think is to hold a speech, even if it is not actually uttered, so that thought is inseparable from the language that expresses it. In that case, a thought that is not composed of words is not a thought, since thinking is linked to language (Hegel, 1817). Thus, language is a faculty exclusive to Men. Language begins, in fact, where there is not expression but discourse, which animals seem incapable of doing. But what makes the human language unique?

            The human language is a very complex system of signs both in terms of the nature of the signs that compose it and their rules of combination, as well as the functions it performs. On the one hand, human language, unlike animal communication, is infinitely mobile. On the other hand, the linguistic sign is inherently arbitrary. Finally, human language is a system of signs that is doubly articulated (Bergson, 1907).

             Bergson’s analysis on the mobility of the sign is taken up by linguistics through the notion of double articulation. Linguistic signs are an essential characteristic of what Martinet calls the double articulation: whereas each barking of the dog or each bird song is presented as a kind of melody that must be perceived and memorized globally, the words are on the contrary articulated. From a small number of basic sounds or phonemes (vowels, consonants, diphthongs), all meaningless, one can form by the assembly as many words as one needs.

Therefore, is language man’s exclusive? Yes, if language is understood as a double-articulated system of signs. It is mobility, with its adaptive capacity, that is the essential aspect of the “intelligent sign” of human language, as opposed to the fixed nature of the animal “instinctive sign”. Human codes are characterized by their delicacy, complexity and a high degree of arbitrariness. Man, has the ability to compose linguistic signs according to various arrangements that allow him to deal with any discourse situation.

Posted on

Bridging Conflict and Terrorism: Is it Possible?

By Ariana Falco

This lecture was hard for me to comprehend coming from a family with a military background and trying to understand different perspectives without my bias being present. I have to keep in mind that not all people in the national security spectrum are the same and that is something I am still working on. 

Speaking in the realm of the United States, often times the word terrorism does not overlap with conflict studies. I found this to be shocking news from today’s presentation with Qamar Huda. His focus was on Education in Conflict Studies. When asked to ponder the question of how we know peace based off of our education, I reflected on wars and how they were looked at as a celebration bringing peace after winning. This has been something I have thought about before, but never in my realm of Peacebuilding, more so in general history. This question should be pondered by many. How do we define peace within our education system? Are we taught peacebuilding practices? These questions are something to think about throughout my post. Try to hide the general American pride ideologies and think about what really happened in wars, not just from the U.S. perspective. 

Referring to what I said in former blogs, there are systemic issues that need to be changed. Do we need to reconstruct our entire education system in the US? I would answer yes. There is not enough money being funded into school to provide extra activities for students to teach them real life skills, let alone peacebuilding skills. Being drilled questions regarding math and science is useful to an extent. How are we teaching the future generations to thrive in a society without giving them social skills to subdue violence? The answer is that we aren’t. Why is this not being talked about?

Not only do we need to change our education system, but the systemic issues that cause fear in other areas. An example of this that we discussed is the difference between Freedom Fighters and Terrorists. The difference was the way the media and state markets them. Throughout my whole childhood and even today, we constantly refer to them ‘Terrorists’ without giving a thought to what’s behind that definition. In order to understand Violent Extremists, we must understand conflict. In order to solve conflict, we need conflict resolution. Alongside the resolution we need peacebuilding. These are not the same and should not be confused, both are needed. Everything narrows down to this factor. To me this idea was hard to grapple with and I think it is something that should be thought about far past the classroom. We should discuss and question how the state displays things for us. If we don’t challenge anything, no change will come.

Posted on

Who Tells Your Story?

By Srishti Sharma

Watching Hamilton together was one of the highlights of the program. Hamilton is one of the most celebrated and critically acclaimed plays that tells the story of Alexander Hamilton, one of the founding fathers of the United States. My friends were singing its praises and told me that its tickets get sold out months in advance. I had no idea about all of this and didn’t know what to expect. It was time and we comfortably settled in our seats. The curtains drew and before I knew it, I was completely engrossed and in awe of this theatrical genius. I realised what my friends have been telling me about. The theatre was packed and the audience was charged. Hamilton, from an arts and aesthetics point of view is a masterpiece. Everything was perfectly coordinated and everything performed on stage was a spectacle. The story telling through dance, gestures, costumes and lighting was very impactful and resonated with the emotions, mood, actions and situations that needed to be portrayed. The hip hop Broadway was definitely successful in showing the “immigrant inclusiveness”, Hamilton’s contribution in forming the nation and his life journey. He was definitely the hero of the play. My appreciation for Hamilton would be incomplete if I don’t write about its music. The music, the lyrics et al are one of the most inventive and tasteful ever. The songs still play in my head. So impressed was I after watching the musical, that I read a lot about the play. Upon reading I discovered a lot of things that I didn’t notice or overlooked because I was watching it for the first time and was completely taken in by its larger than life portrayal.

Alexander Hamilton is celebrated as a symbol of unity, equality and merit. But, the show is accused of lacking “historical accuracy” and leaving out critical facts from its narrative and is criticised for following a very hero centric approach to glorify Hamilton. In the play, Alexander is portrayed as an abolitionist whereas critics argue that Hamilton was a slave owner and was pro slavery. Even the Schyuler sisters are accused of capturing runaway slaves. It is argued that the play’s representation strategy is to glorify the history and the historical figures. The image of Hamilton portrayed in the musical makes him more relatable yet an ideal national figure. The people who come for the show get charged up with pulsing emotions when they watch their founding fathers contributing for a united nation. The casting of the play is also largely criticised. Despite the fact that mostly all the parts are played by the people of colour (which is considered racially progressive by many), play’s audience remains “resoundingly white.” “This musical gave black people jobs, which was ingenious because it deflected from the material.” The casting was apparently done with the idea of projecting the musical or the story as the one that includes people of colour and is everyone’s story. But, critics argue why no historical people of colour find a place in Hamilton’s narrative? And even though people of colour are cast in the musical, they are actually being erased from the actual narrative. The musical styles are also hip hop and rap which are often associated with people of colour and not with white people. All of this makes me question the way we see things. The ways the things are framed and named always make a difference to how they are viewed. It is all about How your story is told? And Who tells your story?

Posted on

Empowering the locals

By Kim Chham

Image result for local empowerment
Photo credits from: https://www.lgiuscotland.org.uk/briefing/community-councils-a-force-for-local-empowerment-or-nimby/

Today we were very fortunate to have two sessions with Madhawa and we talked about his experiences from working in the ground in conflict resolution. Something Mads mentioned that really resonated with me was the importance of empowering and utilizing the local knowledge. This was not the first time that this thought comes up during this program. Since the very beginning, we learned about the importance of reaching the ‘local locals’, meaning the people who are in the conflicts or the community of.

Sustainability has been a very important concept for me, and I try to apply it to everything I study and do. Similarly, I’ve always wondered about ways to build sustainable peace. And my conclusion is, in order to build sustainable peace, we need to focus on giving the toolkits and supports to the local people. I believe that there is no other way to do it. If we ignore the local people and knowledge, we will end up like today – trying for a long time to build peace but never reached it.

I want to dig a little deeper into the term of  ‘local knowledge’. Often, the international communities overlook the skills and knowledge of people or stakeholders in conflict resolutions. Like Madhawa said today, these people have lived in conflicts and they have practiced negotiating and mediating all the time. I second that. If not, they wouldn’t be here today. I am not disregarding the value of different perspectives, such as ones looking in from the outside. I think it is still very helpful to look at a conflict situation from many different perspectives. People in the inside might not be able to remove themselves to see the conflict from the outside. However, the knowledge of being in the conflict is nothing to be discarded or underestimated. I don’t think we can build sustainable peace by only taking one perspective into account. I think we need to acknowledge the locals’ stake and opinions better than we have been. I think international communities have great potentials to support and help in conflict situations but strong collaboration and respect from the local and the outside is required for success in this field, to say the least.

It might seem hard to have to always coordinate and weight in everybody’s opinions. However, if we don’t do this, we are not going to reach long-term solution. I see that we tend to put on Band-Aid solutions. We take quick actions to feel good about ourselves and to look good in this society.

But we’ve spent enough time with these Band-Aid solutions. We don’t have any more resources or time to not get to the roots of some of these issues we have been having. And in order to really address those root causes, we need to let the locals take the lead. If they don’t have the resources or skills to lead, we can provide that, but leave the leadership to them. Empower locals to take ownerships of their home communities, and many times they want that ownership. Dictate less and care more.

Posted on

Decolonisation Vs. Cultural Preservation

By Kim Chham

I remember this conversation being brought up since the first week of this program. As a peacebuilder from outside a community, where should we draw the line between respecting local cultures/traditions and enforcing our beliefs/values? A question even more suited for me is, where should I draw the line between respecting my local cultures/traditions and enforcing my beliefs/values – given the fact that I’ve lived outside of my home community for almost half of my life?

On Monday evening this week, Pushpa talked to us about “decolonizing peacebuilding”. We touched on the concepts of ‘center’ and ‘periphery’ groups in our society.  An important lesson I learned there was that, colonizers tend to be in the ‘center’ group and everyone else is in the ‘periphery’ group. The center circle tend to be very small, most people are not in the center right now. And that tells us that we should something about it.

Having a colonized mind, which I think we all do to some extend, we idolize a certain group of people. Those are normally the people who belong in the ‘center’ circle now.

I’ve realized that once I’ve left my hometown, I can never look at it and the world the same way again. This is a typical realization I share with many who have left their first home too. The first few years of that time being away, I started to see so many problems and I spent too much time getting caught up in the new mindsets and cultures. I also idolized those new ones more than my own.

As I get older and experienced life a bit more, I have started to value the cultures that I grew up in, more and more.

Where I’m at now: I have a mix of cultures of my own, I picked what I like from home and other places that I’ve been to. What a privilege I have had!

So now, my work is to decentralize my thoughts – decolonize my mind. I need to utilize my critical lens while looking at any belief or culture. For instance, I know that I have a conflict in my mind about gender issues at home. I know I cannot compromise my belief in gender equality with traditional cultures. However, I know and understand why things are the way they are now, at home.  On the other hand, I’ve recognized the value of forgiveness that I learned from home to be a very important part of how I want to live my life. I value the collectivistic culture that I grew up in, where everyone cares and looks out for each other. At the same time, I value the independence of the individualistic culture that I live in now. First step of decolonization is to realize that no culture is better than the other; no culture is the superior or inferior one.

Having this in mind, I hope to find my place in peacebuilding at home. I know that I will face many conflicts with others and myself along the way. However, I believe that some of those conflicts will be productive ones; I will learn and grow from them. There’s a lot more work for me to do to decolonize my mind and the field I’ll enter. The world has a lot of work to do about that too. We all have to work towards a more equitable and equal world in every way, meaning reaching the state that all appreciates everyone at their best.

Posted on

The curriculum of Self Destruction

By Dawood Shah

With tears in her eyes, she said “My brother was quite influenced by one of his friends who was working for a Jihadi organization. He expressed his desire to go for Jihad and when my mother tried to tell him that Qital is not necessarily Jihad, he said I have read about it in my book- in Soora Toba, “Jihad is compulsory for Muslims”. My brother was brainwashed completely and we didn’t have any power to change his mind. He regularly went to Jihadi training and to Tableegh. With time, his tendency for Jihad increased, he regularly went to different places for Jihad with the Jihadi organizations, in 2008 while he was in Muzzarafad with his team he died in the 8th October Earthquake. We lost our brother to the brainwashing of these organizations”

  • FILE PHOTO:Taliban walk as they celebrate ceasefire in Ghanikhel district of Nangarhar province, Afghanistan June 16, 2018. picture taken on June 16, 2018.REUTERS/Parwiz

The girl who shared the story was a practicing Muslim and loved her religion but she was able to differentiate between religion as a personal matter and religion used for manipulating people to achieve other objectives. This girl had clarity in her vision, she knew it very well that you can be a practicing Muslim and against the Jihad Organizations and deployment of youth in these organizations.

It’s just one case, there are many youths out there who have become vulnerable to manipulation by the militant organizations after getting exposed to curriculum and propaganda, which promotes Qital as Jihad. The new changes in curriculum will revert the previous changes made to the curriculum by the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa government in 2010. Khadim Hussain (Managing Director of Bacha Khan Education Foundation and Trust) explains that the changes made in curricula in the 1980s aimed to promote a generalized concept of Qital as Jihad, to marginalize minorities, and to motivate youth for idealizing war heroes, youth were disconnected from their original history as well as the current research. In 2010 previous government made changes in curricula aimed to educate young people about the difference of Jihad and Qital, to create a link of youth with their original history, to include heroes from other walks of life as well, and to educate youth about equality.

Now that the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa government has decided to revert the changes in the school curricula made in 2010, again young people of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province will be manipulated and made vulnerable for recruitment in the militant organizations; a step towards increasing militancy in the province. Youth getting educated with this curricula will either become vulnerable to the direct recruitments of the militant organizations or will become their passive supporters thus not standing against the increasing extremism and militancy in the province making it very easy for them to operate without meeting any civilian resistance. The curriculum of war and Qital will increase intolerance and hostility towards the religious minorities and women, and space for progressive voices will diminish systematically.

suicide blast in pearl continental hotel in Peshawar

We have to answer the question, where the youth motivated for Jihad/Qital will feed in, how they will make Qital/Jihad relevant to their life? They will either go for Jihad to countries which are considered rivals of Pakistan and the Muslims world or to other Muslim majority countries, or they will start Jihad in their own country against their own people. Every city and village of the province will become the Swat of Taliban. Those who will suffer the most will not be the one who is making these changes to the curricula but the most unprivileged. We are moving fast towards “self-destruction complex”.

It is a key time for the people of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa to wisely analyze the changes to be made in the curriculum, it impacts on their children, to realize that religion is not limited to jihad and Jihad is not limited to Qital. Asking for a better and tolerant education system does not make you anti-Islam, it makes you a more peaceful person who cares for the world. Its time to advocate for an education system which enables their children to be better human beings with higher self-esteem, who have a connection with their real history and who are proud of their cultural legacy. Children of Pashtuns, should no more be used as fodder in wars fought in the name religion, let’s save our children before it’s too late.

Posted on

Transnational terrorism as a manifestation of globalization

In today’s session, our discussion was about terrorism and armed groups. This got me to really think about how world-wide interconnectedness on the ideological, political, technical and economic spheres of globalization has manifested a modern phenomenon of global transnational terrorism. I adopt the definition of terrorism as the unlawful use of violent or intimidation techniques in the pursuit of political aims. Contemporary terrorism began in the 1960s and has spread to nearly all parts of the world. The Middle East and North Africa region is currently the hub of terrorism led by Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State. However, globalization’s shift of the balance of power in the international system has allowed terrorist activities to prevail and expand across seas. 

The end of World War II brought about a dramatic increase of globalization which is comprised of the integration of the world economy, the advancement of communication technology, and the expansion of air travel. In addition, the US’s victory over the Soviet Union in the Cold war shaped the social and cultural dimensions of globalization into a modern form of spreading progressive Western liberal ideologies. The global dimension of technology, ideology, politics and economy has not only led to the outbreak of terrorism, but also bolstered it into a cancerous transnational phenomenon that cultivates within and beyond states’ borders. 

Contemporary terrorism emerged as a response to globalization on a socio-political and economic level. Western powers’ general interventionist approach to international relations that aims to spread liberal Western values of democracy and freedom, and the facility of movement of these ideas across geographical spaces resulted in an unprecedented contact between dissimilar groups. This proximity of different societies has led to a clash of cultures and ideologies. Terrorists perceive themselves as “freedom fighter[s]” against Western hegemony and its colonial aspirations in the region. This is exemplified by the rise of Al-Qaeda and the intensification of Islamic and Arab fundamentalism as a reaction to the US’s intervention in the First Gulf War and the its War on Terror in the early 1990s. Therefore, terrorist groups such as ISIS and Al-Qaeda seek to inspire resistance against the West by example in the pursuit of a socio-political change that rejects the prevalence of Western values.  

            Modern terrorism capitalizes on the vulnerability of groups that are disadvantaged by the economic changes of globalization. Contemporary forms of economic globalization, particularly the intensification in the facility of trade, investment, migration, finance and the increasing reach of multinational corporations has proven to be fundamental for states’ economic growth and nourishment. However, this system has also led to the increase of inequality between and within states and the segmentation of the global. Disadvantaged groups perceive globalization as a Western-orchestrated evil that has to be opposed by violence. Although there are other conditions that breed terrorists such as systematic injustices and marginalization, contemporary terrorism is a weapon of the weak that is utilized in response to the what they perceive as negative effects of globalization. In order to understand the global prevalence of terrorism, it is imperative to discuss globalization’s impact on the balance in the world order. There are some sceptics that believe that the intensity of globalization is highly exaggerated. They argue that the period between 1870 and 1914 was much more globalized economically, politically and culturally and that there has always been trade among different societal groups and immigration to various geographical spaces. They also reject the notion that globalization undermines the role of the state. However, Al Qaeda’s terrorist attacks of September 11 and the expansion of the Islamic State in the Middle East debunk the notion that geopolitics, state power and boundaries remain intact regardless of the interconnectedness. 

Instead, I believe in a transformationalist approach which argues that globalization has indeed had led to the transformation in power on the national and international levels. Globalization has transformed power in a sense that allows for the continuation of politics by new means. It has orchestrated the re-organization of economic, political, military and cultural power. This is due to the fact that advancement in communication technology and transportation has deprived states of the monopoly of collective action. The state was the only structured institution that could mobilize a large number of people, and it would often be held accountable for its actions whether by revolts in the case of authoritarian regimes, elections in democratic regimes or sanctions by the international community. However, globalization has empowered individuals to mobilize themselves into groups. When other forms of resistance fail, the non-state actors resort to violent techniques and terrorism which are found appealing by disadvantaged communities. 

On the international level, globalization challenges the hierarchical organization of the international system by providing processes that facilitate global transnational terrorism.  Terrorist groups can use modern communications technology and transportation linkages to strike across greater distances which fulfills their goals of being recognized globally. They can learn new techniques and information about any potential targets online, communicate across seas, recruit any sympathizers and incite others. Indeed, all of these techniques are used by ISIL which as allowed to expand and instill fear in communities across seas. 

The international community has yet to find a productive mean to stop atrocious terrorist groups that have terrorized civilians within their territories and abroad. These groups have been capitalizing on the negative aspects of socio-economic world-wide interconnectedness, and using modern communication technologies to mobilize support and plan their attacks. However, the international community should use the same assets to combat their actions and strengthen surveillance mechanisms to curtail spaces of dissent. 

Posted on

Violence as an Epidemic and Voter Suppression in the Age of Liberation Technology

Illustration by João Fazenda. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/10/29/voter-suppression-tactics-in-the-age-of-trump

By: Cassandra Cronin

Joseph Bock’s session on “Violence as a Public Health Challenge” provided a new lens through which to view violent conflict and possible ways to alleviate it. Looking at conflict through the “Cure Violence” model created by Epidemiologist Gary Slutkin (interrupt transmission, reduce highest risk, change community norms) serves as a great opportunity to look at mind-boggling issues in a different light. Also, Slutkin’s article “Violence as a Disease” takes it a step further and looks as violent conflict as a public health issue to argue that the “-issue of violent behavior is much broader and deeper than current law enforcement, firearm control, and mental health debates may suggest. If we want to reduce violence in our local and global communities, we must acknowledge that it is predictable and preventable.” Take gun violence for instance. If gun violence is broader and deeper than current law enforcement, firearm control, and mental health issues, then what is really the root cause of the violence? What structures are responsible? And what can we do to change those structures?

Our discussion of liberation technology, a term coined by Larry Diamond to include “any form of information and communication technology (ICT) that can expand political, social, and economic freedom,” also provided a new method through which to enact change. I was on the side of the room that researched the Ushahidi technology, which was a website first utilized to monitor the 2017 Kenya election. Eyewitness reports of violence surrounding the elections were collected and put on google maps to determine when and how people’s votes were being suppressed. I was so intrigued to find out that the technology had already been used in the U.S.—specifically in partnership with Obama’s 2012 campaign technical team. The technical team used Ushahidi to compile data when someone had an issue voting. This included instances of voter suppression, voting locations running out of paper ballots, and voter machines glitching or not working. The technology detected spikes in certain areas, and the technical team was able to use the data to persuade a judge to rule to keep certain polling locations open longer in four different states. This allowed thousands of additional people to exercise their right to vote.

We talk about using these technologies to monitor elections in Kenya, Mozambique, and Nigeria, but campaigns in the U.S. need to continue using these technologies to detect and counter voter suppression that occurred in the 2016 presidential elections and the 2018 midterm elections. I come from a state that’s had the most contested elections including congress and gubernatorial races. I’ve seen and experienced, first-hand, how this is a real issue effecting real people. I was one of the 107,000 people removed from the voter rolls in Georgia without notification in 2018, and I’m also the daughter of a voter of color in a swing county who couldn’t vote in Georgia’s 2016 presidential primaries because her polling location (one that had been the same for many years) changed without notification. These technologies should be widely used at the local and federal level to ensure people’s right to vote is protected.