What is it that makes us horrendous and awful during a battle where we lose all the sense of morality and march forward for the heads and bones of people we don’t even know. People whom we met otherwise, we would feel the social need to not embarrass ourselves in front of. Unfortunately, enough war has been the second leading reason for mass destruction and civilities, while still being endorsed by many countries in the name of resource geo-politics. This adamant nature of humans to wage illegitimate war against each other has never been proven to be biological. Are we viscerally-fighting for mass genocide? Is that how far away we are from reality? It is however deemed as a form of aggression but 

are humans really hardwired to kill each other

Nation-states can explain their reasons to channelise war as resource attainment or even nationalism – if you are Briton you get the premium membership of using the reason “

” – but it can never justify the act of killing millions of people for nothing more than the transient concept of human ego. A gist of what 

 for. Although, the difference here is that the media and the hegemonies call it war; just like they called the annexation of 

 by foreign forces “WARS”. So humans now become not just hardwired to kill but also to intercept. Annexation of a territory is never war, the oppressed never start it, they just defend; more often or not, they just rebel and are martyred. This tyranny impelled upon a group of innocent civilians is never war and 

 is again a result of war. The consequences of 

’s own misjudgment and incapabilities in the light of the two World Wars is what lead to this subjugation of Palestine by Israel. The zionist movement which originally populated a nation where jews could belong later became the power to usurp a nation of Palestinians who were trying to coexist with each other. It becomes imperative to note that the inadequacies caused by Britain’s 

 mandate in establishing an explicit boundary between the Israeli and the Palestinian state is what caused Israel to expand their state and resulted in several hundred thousand Palestinian refugees. This was then War, a nature of humans to decide their fate by aggression. This was how the Israeli forced demanded sovereignty, how they defeated the Arab forces not ready to be conjured. They waged a war, an obvious and illegitimate one but they did for their own upheld sense of nationalism. And the result?

The result was Israel’s occupation of the 

 since 1967, six-day war and many casualties. Palestinians demanded withdrawal from all of the land conquered in 1967 and evacuation of the settlements. Israel continued to expand settlements throughout the peace process that began in 1993 and continues to do so today. The Palestinians here do not belong to a particular religion, they are the natural descendants of people inhabiting the region for over thousands of years. People who belong to 

 themselves, people who are paying the price by losing all sense of hope. About 726,000 Palestinians were expelled or fled their homes in 1948 during the war that followed the creation of Israel, and additional Palestinians fled in 1967. 

There are now about 4 million Palestinian refugees.

 Many of them now live in crowded refugee camps in poor conditions in the West Bank and Gaza, in 

; and so Palestinians demand that these refugees should have the right to return to their homes in Israel. The land that Israel captured illegally and with coercion.

Ironically, of all the nations one would expect a jewish nation to understand and empathise with ethnic cleansing. Warrantably, this is not a popular opinion. The popular opinion is that humans are supposed to go to war for several different reasons, they are supposed to kill people in the name of what matters to them. It is globally supported that war is inevitable, but again, if Israel were a human I’d ask him why is he stabbing Palestine when he was the one who accepted him during his most vulnerable time?

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the author. They do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of The Jamia Review or its members.

The Warring nature of Humans!

Starting with the basic because people need to understand what are alphabets to us them as letters. Feminism and Humanism are both ideologies, to be more precise for our avid learners, ideologies are defined by their action statement. An ideology only passes as an ideology when the set of ideas that produce it not only devise an action plan for a fundamentally oriented system but also a justification as to why should that system be followed.

Feminism is not called Humanism because these are two distinct theories

. (TWO DISTINCT, i.e., with different narratives and notions) When Humanism is a branch of philosophy and ethics that advocates for equality, tolerance, and secularism. It recognizes that human beings do not “require” religion to develop moral systems or behave morally. More simply, Humanism is the theory that humans are allowed to use logic to decide what is ethical instead of using a higher power to define for them. Feminism is a range of social movements, political movements, and ideologies that aim to define and establish the political, economic, personal, and social equality of the sexes. It specifically focuses on the 

 (emphasis on equality) of sexes which boils down to ending gender discrimination and bringing about gender equality.

Now when the issues relating to the obvious meaning of terms have been tackled we are faced with another important question of the decade. “

” again, quite enthralling. The answer to this is the salience of Feminism. This ideology sprung during the 19th century as an upholding context to the 

, a utopian socialist. Yes, it is important not only to show that the term women back in the 1800s used for themselves was deemed unacceptable but to also propagate that it was a man who first understood the essence of feminism. The initial doctrine of feminism started with seeking gender equality in political, economic, and social terms. Women fought for their rights to vote, own property, marry, abort, and to-not-be owned as a commodity. It was focused on one gender, the upliftment of the ‘

‘, some people saw this revival from suppression as an oppressive movement on them which again led to numerous waves of feminism.

Now Feminism wasn’t just confined to women but soon it was gathered that in this fight against patriarchy and misogyny, men are at the vile end as well. This lead to the practice of 

 of not only helping women out of the webs of discrimination but also men from the hands of toxic-masculinity. Hence, it is only fair to the suffragettes that we keep on calling this enormous movement Feminism as it instills the values they began their fight with. In the same context, we, unfortunately, can not use other prominent ideologies such as Humanism or 

 to propel the doctrines of Feminism because they are different ideologies with a distinct school of ideas (in a simple sense these names are already taken).

Subsequently, Feminism is needed for the upliftment of all women still suffering in the hands of patriarchy, and even if you come across a woman from a rural background that seems to just be concerned about roti, kapda aur makaan, its a kind request that you ask her if she has ever felt used, undesirable, been discriminated or been assaulted only because she was a woman. If the answer is “

“, you know what to Google. And if you somehow still feel that Feminism is not something to be aligned with here’s a quote by 

Cool, young women who say they are not feminists. If you’re not a feminist, go back into your veil, sit in the kitchen and take instructions. You don’t want to do that? Thank the feminists.

Author's Disclaimer: This article is solely written for educational purposes and has no intention to hurt anyone's practicality.

Why not a “Humanist”?

Set in the epiphanic universe of non-denominational heaven it premiered with the most absurd plot of a wrong human mistakenly being welcomed into heaven as someone they were not, and with this came the question of moral imperativeness and ethical perplexity. Subject to more such ideas, this show dealt with something more than a juxtaposition of moral ideas; it also bought the audience an element of humor and philosophy. As unconventional as it seems, the premise of human existence was its area of focus with some connotations about reality and metaphysics. This extremely vibrant series delivered a complete package of philosophical existentialism that encircled the whole notion of moral quandary. From 

 concept of the categorical imperative to the doctrine of double effect, who could’ve thought that an 

Moreover, it dealt with some major issues like fake positivity by stating that in order to be good one does not have to be omnipotently extraordinary but believe in change. All a person needs is to struggle for change. It said that change isn’t easily achievable, especially in this dynamic world where individualism is worshipped and no matter how hard one tries, they always end up forking ‘things’ somewhere, pointing out the ambiguity involved with decision making in today’s world and our environment that is not always the most nurturing place. If 

 is a dystopian datum; it’s a comedy about being moral even when truths are bent, bullies win, and sadism thrives, and it secured that position with the most real form of a cinematic universe ever seen. The female leads here didn’t follow the usual -enemy-trope, they were smart and rugged, and they had their own personalities which developed throughout the show. There was a representation of communities with not just actors but their accents, names and uniqueness.

One of the most integral themes it covered was the notion of a moral dessert. Something that most of us find ourselves engulfed with, how we think that if we’re a good person, we deserve something in return. But, to quote every parent everywhere, life’s not fair – and, as 

 discovered, the pride of a job well done isn’t really enough to sustain a lifetime of unerring virtue. So, if you can’t count on a moral desert, why even try to be a good person? For a self-centered person, the idea that the answer might be related to our relationships with other people is more than a little mind-blowing. After looking up, ‘

‘, a pointed question that Michael dropped during their conversation, many of us struggled to analyze what it actually means but somehow we knew that the answer is the feeling of togetherness. The Good Place, with its pastel hues and twee, euphemistic cursing became the most whimsically escapist yet.

 – their fundamental inquiry remained the same: 

How can humans help one another be better?

 taught his friends the basics of the trolley problem, the categorical imperative, contractualism. As the series went on, 

 and his writers revealed how its own guiding philosophical principle had changed from 

Sartre’s No Exit (“Hell is other people”)

t after accurately predicting the afterlife points system while high on mushrooms (but having no confirmation of his hypothesis, of course) decades ago, dedicated himself to the type of utilitarian existence so often mentioned throughout the series: ‘act in a way that maximizes the overall good’. In doing so, Doug ate only radishes and lentils to preserve the environment, tested harmful cosmetics on his own face to spare animals from pain all while living so selflessly sounds, though this sounds good in theory, Doug illustrated how such a severe commitment to utilitarianism is actually a terrible idea. He has become what 

 calls a happiness pump; in other words, he’s trying to pump as much happiness into the world as possible at his own expense.

In the end, this show radically reworked itself each season, but its underlying architecture of people striving for goodness and falling short didn’t change, it exhibited that change is the only constant. Instead of having to work around that limitation, The Good Place made it its central theme. With its sarcasm and humor, it became the standing proof that slapstick and banter can coexist alongside tragedy and hardship – a show doesn’t need to be self-serious to be serious-minded. Celestial beings can learn humanity and death is never the end of the journey. No other series can drop such highbrow references then go from 0 to 100 with its visual gags and entertainment, or consistently crack you up while raising your IQ at several points. It’s both perversely, hilariously fantastic and deft at keeping its drama grounded, often doing it all at the same time.

Articles by Amber

The Warring nature of Humans!

Why not a “Humanist”?

This is: THE BAD PLACE!

The Warring nature of Humans!

Why not a “Humanist”?

This is: THE BAD PLACE!