1

Annhien Nguyen
Professor Darren Zook, GSI Vanessa Taylor
PACS10, Section #106
10 March 2015
Achieving Peace: The Role of History
History is not merely sandwiched between the cover of textbooks; it is the framework
from which cultures grow, the spurning ground of tradition. It is history that is utilized in order to
highlights nuances between nations and their relevant ideologies on acquiring peace, maintaining
peace, and on the idea of peace itself.
Through this paper, I seek to pinpoint the differences between these very ideologies
through a historical lens, with the ideologies at hand being that of President Obamas ideology as
indicated through his Nobel speech, Confucianism, and Ubuntu. Employing With Obamas
speech as the main vehicle of analysis, I will show/discuss/make transparent how we see
history used in order to legitimize a violent approach to peace; with Confucianism we see
history utilized in order to create a peaceful stability; and with Ubuntu we see history
viewed as a hindrance to the achievement of peace. And it is through this analysis that I
seek to prove that it is not merely history, but the utilization of history, that defines a
nations journey to peace.
It is clear that Obama is in support of justified violence as he explicitly states: to say
that force may sometimes be necessary is not a call to cynicismit is a recognition of history;
the imperfections of man and the limits of reason. However, what is most notable is not
necessarily his support of justified violence, but the reason as to why he supports this violence
at all. He utilizes history to come to the conclusion that human nature has proven itself to be

2
imperfect time and time again, making it necessary to resolve human conflicts through violent
means rather than peaceful ones, a viewpoint that couldnt differ anymore from that of
Confucianism.
Confucianism, Chinas ancient social theory, is a belief based on the rejuvenation of
ancient traditions, ethical frameworks, and most notably, the importance of relationships. There
are five main relationships in Confucian ideology, and Confucius believed that if society
successfully implemented these relationships, it would result in virtue, morality, humaneness
and harmony all heavenly realities. Here, we see man not defined by imperfection, but rather
by his ability to attain perfection, a perfection that is worthy of the heavens. This idea of
relationships bears a strong tie to the imperial era of Chinese history, a history in which a
Mandate of Heaven would determine the legitimacy of a rulers reign. Chinese history is the base
from which Confucianism thrives, for this history provides not just an ideological framework,
but also a sense of security.
We see this sense of security being employed today. Resorting to Confucianism as a way
to bring about harmony, or peace, is present in the modern day political practices of many
Asian countries. For example, Confucian campaigns were organized in response to mass unrest
over Deng Xiaopings embrace of capitalism or displeasure at strained relations with
international powers; and striking is this pattern of an influx of Confucian ideas in relation to an
influx of domestic unrest.
Not only that, in Obamas speech there are a noticeable amount of references to America
not as a wager of peace through nonviolent means, but as America,theworld'ssolemilitary
superpower.Andhefollowsthatbyremindinghisaudiencethatwhenyouanalyzehistory,you
seethatpeaceisnotmerelyattainedthroughinstitutions,butalsothroughlegitimateviolence.

3
HereweseeadisconnectonObamasemphasisofmilitarypowerinordertoattainpeace,and
Confuciansemphasisofenlightenmentinordertoattainpeace. Confucianism turns to pushing
the idea that harmony through nonviolent means is achievable, and this hope is ignited by
histories of able leaders, such as the enlightened junxi. This trend of nonviolence is shown not
merely in their emphasis of creating an enlightened, educated citizenry, but also in their lack of
emphasis on a strong military, and instead an ethical codetransforming Confucianism into less
of a political ideology and more of a state religion. History in Confucianism is utilized in order to
prove to us not that man is imperfect and therefore must use force in order to get peace, but that
history proves to us the ability for man to be perfect and therefore we must relive that history in
order to attain peace.
Obama utilizes history in order to legitimize violent responses to conflicts; for history to
him is an indicator of human nature, one filled with violence and flaws. Confucians would
disagree with this historical analysis, as they depend on history in order to achieve a sense of
harmony or peaceful stability.
But how would an Ubuntu follower respond to Obamas claim that the violent history of
man legitimizes the use of violence? Ubuntu, a social theory based on the belief of an
inextricable link between the self and society, takes root in Africa, a country with a long,
continuing history of violence. What is most striking is the way in which histories of violence
has shaped both ideologies. Where Obama uses history to legitimize violence, Ubuntu seeks to
look past its violent history, and instead focus on an Ubuntu view of human nature and Western
ideologies in order to achieve peace through peaceful means.
Furthermore, what is most striking in the comparison of these two ideologies is how
separate Ubuntu is from the environment it exists in. There is a great disconnect between the

4
peaceful message of Ubuntu and the violent atmosphere of Africa. It is this history of violence
that Ubuntu needs to separate and establish itself from, yet work with at the same time. History
hindering Ubuntus message is vastly different from history defining Obamas ideology. Where
Obama states that progresses in peace, inclusive of violent progresses, must be made but in
regard to history, Ubuntu followers fight for nonviolent progresses in peace against the violent
conditions it exists in.
Noticeable in Ubuntu, as well as Confucianism, is less of a focus on the need to
legitimize violence, and more of a focus on implementing reforms in order to have legitimate
violence not even be too tempting of an option. Confucianism focuses on reigniting history in
order to create harmony, Ubuntu focuses on education reform, and Obama focuses on redefining
the idea of how peace should and could be obtained.
Modernized Ubuntu thinkers seek to create for their people a new history defined by a
more globalized mindset, and they venture to do this through education reform, not necessarily
the legitimization of violence. As stated in Johannes Walts article, education in modern day
Africa would benefit from a more Ubuntu-based education, but because education systems are
already so Westernized and existing in an environment that now demands modernization and
specialization, this would be near impossible and perhaps even foolish. Not only that, Walts
poses a profound question: in what sense do these aspects of Ubuntu education differ from
modern Western-style education? Showing that even Africans themselves are struggling to have
a well-defined history to turn to as their history has become so intertwined with that of
Westerners.
Here we see history in Africa not as a learning point to adapt, but as a history to be
transformed in order to make room for another history: Western history (on the basis that it helps

5
Ubuntu to be more in touch with a seemingly much-needed global mindset). For Ubuntu believes
that in order to achieve peace, there must be an acknowledgement of the relationship between
society and the self, and a pushing for the mitigation of conflict through successful
institutionalization especially with education. However, it struggles to create a legitimacy, and
tries to do so by throwing away parts of its history in order to make progress in a modern world.
It is this mindset of learning how to cope with a modern world that is crucial in Ubuntu not
merely because it is the world in which they live in now but also because it plays a great tenant
in the principles of Ubuntu; tenants that emphasize a need to be hospitable to all regardless of
where they are from, and to emphasize the Ubuntu idea of unity and consensus.
Finally, most striking to me in Obamas speech was his comment that, no Holy War can
ever be a just war. For if you truly believe that you are carrying out divine will, then there is no
need for restraint -- no need to spare the pregnant mother, or the medic, or the Red Cross worker,
or even a person of one's own faith.
If you take out the world Holy and the word divine, this could turn into a rebuttal
against Obamas own argument about the legitimization of war for peace. This would not only be
a rebuttal, but a comment you could make about any war. Wars are fought for not merely
religions, but for core human values that are argumentatively universal. People take violent
actions when trying obtain peace for human rights and to protect their country. Was the Civil War
any less sacred than jihads? I bring up this argument to pinpoint the underlying argument on this
legitimization of just violence. The analysis of these three ideologies is not merely to
understand the nuances in their implementation of history to achieve peace, but to underline the
central question of whether or not there exists a just violence. History has a central role to
play in the way we understand the journey to peace, and its implementation is one of complexity.

6
To merely say that history is what defines us as humans is an understatement of human capacity.
If history was a stoic definition of humanity, Confucianism could not have evolved to be more
inclusive of women, Ubuntu could not have evolved in order to encompass a more global
mindset, and the United States could not have evolved to be in the forefront of social change.
The conversation needs to be changed to focus on how we let history define our journeys to
peace, to recognize how much man has evolved, and to continue this evolution in order to
someday create a world in which conflicts are solved through peaceful means rather than violent
ones.