Wal-Mart Free Essays

It predicts higher performance from a diverse organization and view diversity as a business necessity’. [4] As a result, diversity is a concept celebrated by many organizations [4]. Yet, in spite of the amount of attention diversity receives, the concept is neither clearly defined nor well understood by the general public. We will write a custom essay sample on Wal-Mart or any similar topic only for you Order Now [4] Given diversity ambiguous meaning, people may interpret the concept of diversity in a manner consistent with their desire to preserve inequality along socially important dimensions, such as race. In our report, we will explore whether diversity s, in fact, a changeable concept capable of serving opposing social agendas. Diversity: Definition In simple terms, diversity can be defined as a point of reference. According to Coffey, â€Å"diversity is a term for valuing and promoting differences, similarities, and unique characteristics of groups and individuals in different areas in the world. It is the exploration of these differences in a safe, positive, and nurturing environment. † [1] In today’s world, we can all agree that everybody is unique and different as each has different characteristics and ideas. So, in general, it can be said that â€Å"diversity is no ore than Just tolerating differences†. [1] Diversity: Past Over 25 years ago, what we now dub diversity was often referred to as pluralism. [6] This Journey began when we wanted to recognize that there was more than one culture present in the workplace. We could continue to be different, yet be part of the same firm. We believed that co-existence was better than trying to help people to become culturally assimilated into one larger culture. 6] For some companies, the story of diversity started after the civil rights movement of the ass’s. It was about beginning to appreciate each other for who we are. In the ginning, we appreciated pluralism in an attempt to move beyond anti- discriminating laws. Pluralism encouraged people to be authentic – who they really are rather than who others want them to be. â€Å"Think of the bilingual employee who is challenged to hide his/her accent while at work but speaks on ly Spanish with his/her family. Or the white employee who works in a multi-ethnic work environment but worships in an all-white environment and has no friends or family of color. † [6] Following pluralism, diversity was the first attempt to move away from race and gender by adding other attributes to the equation. In order that society progresses award the ultimate goal of diversity, it was important to have a foundation of balanced race and gender. Diversity’s main purpose is that it â€Å"should help everyone assume that everyone is included and that there is no underestimations of any group in any given situation, team, group, etc. [6] Diversity: Present Discussions on diversity have evolved from consisting of advancement in race-based civil rights employment legislation to including a broad range of demographic dimensions not protected by law [4]. For example, in present-days research on organizational behavior, diversity has been defined as â€Å"the distribution of differences mongo the members of a unit with respect to a common attribute X, such as tenure, ethnicity, conscientiousness, task attitude, or pay’ [4]. It has also been defined more simply as â€Å"heterogeneity in personality attributes, personal values, work attitudes, education, and life-style† [4]. Thus, diversity now seems to encompass heterogeneity in a wide range of dimensions – not Just racial composition, as was originally intended when the term came into common use [4]. Research on laypeople understanding of diversity also suggests the term may be not be clearly understood. For example, Unguent found that people define diversity n broad terms that include a wide range of demographic dimensions (e. . , race, religion, parenting style, age and education). [4] Yet, other research shows that even when diversity is construed in racial terms, people disagree about which particular groups are most associated with diversity. Specifically, Unguent found that members of minority groups (I. E. , Asians, Latino, and African Americans) perceive diversity as primarily entailing the representation of their in-group. [4] Tod ay, many organizations are attempting to move closer to intellectual diversity or diversity of thought. [6] Diversity: In The Future To ensure future success, â€Å"diversity must be authentic and honest†. [6] â€Å"To keep diversity authentic in corporations, it will be vital that we create environments that allow for authentic contributions of all†. [6] It may not mean training that comes at the expense of only one group, but it does mean asking questions and listening and learning from those around us. If we are sincere about our intentions as well as respectful of our differences, â€Å"organizations have the potential for growth and the possibility of reaping the rich benefits that diversity has to offer†. 6] This means an all-inclusive organization with the richest of profits. Diversity: What you Want It To Be Research reported by Unguent suggests that when people are exposed to vague information concerning an organization’s diversity, they interpret diversity in a manner consistent with their social-dominance motives. [4] Specifically, anti- egalitarian individuals broaden their interpretation of diversity to include nonracial (I. E. , occupational) differences when an organization’s racial differences are low. By contrast, egalitarian individuals broaden their understanding of diversity to include nonracial heterogeneity when an organization’s racial differences are high. [4] The inclusion of occupational differences in perceptions of diversity allows people across the spectrum of social-dominance orientation to Justify their support for or opposition to affirmative-action policies. Nausea’s findings suggest that diversity may not have a fixed meaning and that, without a specific sketch of what the concept means in particular contexts, people may interpret diversity in a manner consistent with their social motivations. 4] Factors that Affect Diversity There are several factors that affect diversity among people and in organizations across the world. Such factors include, but are not limited to the following: â€Å"giving errors a chance to be trained, long-term evaluation of training results, awarding successes among people and managerial rewards for increasing diversity, an d believing the power of inclusion in the organization†. [1] Different characteristics are other factors that affect diversity and diversity management. Examples of such characteristics include but are not limited to are: â€Å"age, culture, cognitive style, disability (mental and physical), background (economic, geographic, and psychological), ethnicity, race, education, gender identity, language(s) spoken, partnered status, physical appearance, political affiliation, religious affiliation ND so on†. [1] Advantages and Disadvantages of Diversity Management Workforce diversity can generate both advantages and disadvantages for organizations. The advantages include mainly enabling access too changing marketplace by mirroring increasing diverse markets, better-quality solutions to brainstorming tasks and displaying more cooperative behaviors, among others†. [3] The disadvantages are the existence of segregated ethnic communities within the organization, increased conflict, increased training costs, communication breakdown, low cohesion, and high turnover. [3] According to Jaguars, the key to capitalizing on the advantages and minimizing disadvantages of workforce diversity is to effectively manage diversity [3]. Main business benefits of focusing on diversity management are â€Å"the ability to recruit from a wider selection of people and retain better workers for longer, broader market intelligence and internationalization, greater creativity and innovation, diverse perspectives on business issues, and improved problem solving and decision making, improved marketing, improved community relations and an enhanced company image, increased productivity, reduced costs linked to turnover and absenteeism, and increased resilience and flexibility’. 3] Managing Diversity Managing diversity involves understanding that there are differences among employees and that these differences, if properly managed, are an asset to work being done more efficiently and effectively [3] â€Å"Diversity management initiatives are specific activities, programs, policies, and any other formal processes or efforts designed to promote organizational culture change†. 3] Its objective for organizations is to â€Å"raise awareness of cultural differences; develop the ability to recognize, accept, and value diversity through organizational intervention to minimize patterns of inequality, modify organizational culture and leadership practices so that members of all socio-cultural backgrounds can contribute and achieve their full potential†. [3] Some examples of diversity management initiatives include flexible work arrangements, work-life balance initiatives, education and training programs to raise cultural awareness, and equal opportunity policies and practices. 3] Conclusion As the world becomes global, the managers’ Job is changing. In broad terms, â€Å"diversity is any dimension that can be used to differentiate groups, workers, and people from others†. 1] That means people should respect and appreciate differences in ethnicity, gender, age, national origin, disability, sexual orientation, education, and religion. [1] â€Å"But no one can deny that it’s more than this. Diversity management has an important role for the organizations. It is significant to understand diversity in diversity management to manage people†. [l] Other research may suggest that diversity may be in the eye of the beholder. It is a concept that is widely discussed yet poorly understood. It seems that diversity meaning can shift in accordance with people’s social motivations. Rather than reading a more welcoming environment for underrepresented minorities, attempting to achieve equal racial representation for example, may inadvertently allow people to turn diversity into whatever they want it to be. How to cite Wal-Mart, Papers Wal-Mart Free Essays It will describe Wal-Mart as a non-union employer, paying lower wages to heir employees than other retail and grocery stores. They do not offer benefits to all employees and most are unable to afford them. Between Wal-Mart’s business practices in increasing their profits and the need to recognize their social and ethical responsibilities, Wal-Mart needs to find a comfortable balance of profitability and responsibility in order to improve their reputation. We will write a custom essay sample on Wal-Mart or any similar topic only for you Order Now During the process of writing this report, we found that there was much more Information to be discussed about Wal-Mart’s unethical business practice than what was reported. We also wanted to point out that although all companies do everything ossible to lower their costs and maintain high production rates, Wal-Mart has crossed the line over the years by managing their profits In unethical ways compared to otner large corporatlons wno nave Deen etnlcally ana successTully managlng tnelr business practices. Information that can be found on Wal-Mart is changing everyday and it was sometimes difficult to keep up. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Wal-Mart has been recognized as the leader in its industry and the largest company in the nation. With its powerful profit making abilities, Wal-Mart has grown from a local corner store to the money making â€Å"monster† it is today. The company has amaged its reputation over the years due to unethical choices made by its top executives. As a result, its anti-union stance has been singled out on issues concerning benefits, wages, and overall business practices. When reviewing Wal- Mart’s financial statements, one would be overwhelmed to see such high performances; but when you are a Wal-Mart employee, it is no surprise why that is true. Employees have been denied opportunities of advancement and pay raises. Lawsuits have been pending against the company with employees claiming they have been denied promotion opportunities in the company due to their gender, and some mployees have sued for being over-worked and under paid. Wal-Mart has become so big in its industry, that it has lowered the wages through out the country and has influenced economic change. Since most of Wal-Mart’s employees live below the poverty line, it is difficult for them to afford health insurance when deductions out of their paychecks are sometimes as high as 33%. A Wal-Mart employee who obtains health insurance would have a very difficult time raising a family with this kind of premium. Wal-Mart employees are unable to receive healthcare benefits because the cost is too high and their wages are low. As a result, employees face a difficult time deciding whether to sacrifice such a large portion of their pay to obtain health insurance; in most cases Wal-Mart employees persist without health coverage. Deductions for health insurance are higher for Wal-Mart employees than other national retail employees. A Wal-Mart employee pays about 25% more for health insurance than the average retail worker. Wal-Mart has also been opposed by its female employees, who make up two- thirds of its workforce. Women have been discriminated in wage and have been denied any advancement to upper managerial positions – dominated my men. Men ake approximately more than women and have a higher chance of advancing to a better position. Dukes vs. Wal-Mart, filed in 2001, was the largest lawsuit against a private employer in the nation and represented 1. million female employees who were discriminated based on their sex. From lawsults to employee complalnts, Wal-Mart nas Deen Tacea wltn a great deal 0T difficulties that have developed through their own unethical business practices. Although every company’s goal is to lower costs and produce large numbers, Wal- Mart has made sky-rocketing profits by unethically hurting its employees and cutting down their wages. Many question why Wal-Mart, the rich est retailer in the world, chooses not to provide adequate wages or health benefits for its employees. If Wal-Mart were to reform its health benefits program, raise their product prices by as little as a penny, and create a bias free working environment for women, Wal- Mart would be in better terms with its employees and improve the reputation it sacrificed from the start. NOT ON WAL-MART WAGES INTRODUCTION Background Wal-Mart, the large international discount chain was founded by Sam Walton. On May 5, 1950, Walton purchased a store in Bentonville, Arkansas, and opened Walton’s 10. Little did the small town residents know that they would later become the headquarters for the world’s largest retailer store in the U. S. Through his sa’. n. y, and sometimes unusual, business practices, he and his associates led the company forward for thirty years. As Wal-Mart grew into a global corporation it is today, it has dealt with a great deal of criticism by outsiders. Wal-Mart’s ethical citizenship has been questioned numerous times and researched by many. There have been many doubts about Wal- Mart’s business integrity and questions whether their practices are ethical or not. Wal-Mart has faced, and is still facing, a significant amount of controversy over several different issues. Wal-Mart has been caught bribing its employees, discriminating against women, denying its employees of training or promotions, paying low wages, and providing high deductibles for health insurance. Wal-Mart is now paying the consequences and need to become socially responsible in order to maintain a better reputation with society. Although consumers are reeled in with the low prices Wal-Mart has to offer, others feel their ethical beliefs are more important than saving a quick buck. Purpose Statement of The purpose of this report is to examine Wal-Mart’s unethical business practices with a focus on employee wages and high health care deductibles. The report will question Wal-Mart’s aptitude to sell products cheaper than any of its leading competitors and yet maintain making a substantial amount of profit. The report will analyze the unethical practices that have developed through Wal-Mart’s history as a result of focusing on high productivity and profit making strategies. cope The report will describe Wal-Mart’s unethical business practices that affect its employees. It will examine Wal-Mart’s unethical behavior in conducting business with n overall focus on employee wages. Limitations Time constraints have limited the extent of the research. There is a vast amount of information regarding this issue and we are unable to report it all. In addition, no funds are available to conduct primary research. Methods of Research The meth od of research for this paper was secondary research through databases, internet websites, and books. The research databases of California State University, Los Angeles, will be used to locate articles in current and past publication. The databases used are Lexis/Nexis and Business Source Premiere. Also libraries, uch as the John F. Kennedy Memorial Library at California State University, Los Angeles and Los Angeles Public Library in Porter Ranch, California. The major findings of this study indicate that Wal-Mart being the world’s largest and richest retail chain is setting the standard on wages for retail workers and beyond. Because Wal-Mart has become so big, it has dragged down wages throughout the country. Wal-Mart has become what it is today by selling products at low prices and paying their â€Å"associates† even lower wages. Unhappy Wal-Mart workers complain as much about being over-worked as underpaid. Wal-Mart has its own stated policies at its employees’ expense. Wal-Mart pays it’s â€Å"associates† below basic living wage standards and even below poverty lines. Overworked and Underpaid Employees H. Lee Scott Jr. is the chief executive of the powerful corporation we call Wal-Mart. According to Mr. Scott, by selling vast quantities of goods at its trademark â€Å"Every Day Low Prices,† Wal-Mart has single-handedly raised America’s standard of living, saving consumers about $100 billion a year (Bianco 2). They feel that selling vast quantities of low price merchandise gives them the right to act as if they represent the American people. Scott states, â€Å"Wal-Mart also provides good Jobs for hundreds of thousands of equally deserving employees, offers even part-time workers generous health insurance and other benefits† (Bianco 2). He accuses greedy labor unions, inefficient supermarket chains, and other Wal-Mart opponents of distorting â€Å"the facts† to suit their own purposes. Wal-Mart insists on describing themselves as â€Å"pro-associate, not anti-union,† but is quick to suppress any and all attempts to have unions organize in its stores. In his book The Bully of Bentonville, Anthony Bianco describes how Wal-Mart has ffected wages beyond their own company: Because Wal-Mart Is so Dig, It nas araggea clown wages tnrougnout the country. Economists at the University of California at Berkeley found that Wal-Mart’s expansion during the 1990s cut the income of America’s retail employees by 1. 3 percent-or by $4. 7 billion in 2000 alone. What is more, the depressing effect of Wal-Mart’s expansion on payrolls extended well beyond retailing. According to a 2005 analysis by economists at the Public Policy Institute of California, take-home pay per person fell by 5 percent across the board following Wal-Mart’s entry into a country. The evidence â€Å"strongly suggest(s) that Wal-Mart stores lead to wage declines, shifts to lower-paying Jobs (or less skilled workers), or increased use of part-time workers. (4) Today, Wal-Mart is surrounded by controversy, but the greatest is from within. Unhappy employees are quitting and dozens of class-action lawsuits are pending against the company. Managers have been known to force employees to work extra hours without pay; either by eliminating breaks or by having them clock out and keep working â€Å"off the clock†. This is Wal-Mart’s way of saving on costs at the price of its employees. Store managers earn bonuses based on earnings. Since the corporation dictates the inventory and operating expenses, managers’ only control is labor costs. Joyce Moody, a former manager in Alabama and Mississippi, told the New York Times that Wal-Mart â€Å"threatened to write up managers if they didn’t bring the payroll in low enough†. Depositions in wage and hour lawsuits reveal that company headquarters leaned on management to keep their labor costs at 8 percent of sales or less, and managers in turn leaned on assistant managers to work their employee’s off-the-clock or simply delete time from employee time sheet (ufcw. g). In the late 1990’s Wal-Mart’s annual turnover rate was a remarkably high 70 percent, 40 percent higher than in previous years (Slater 120). Wal-Mart does not see this as being a problem. The constant turnover reduces employees eligible for raises, promotions, benefits, and holds the average wage down. Just another way to keep payroll costs at a minimum. Employee Wages Wal-Mart employs 1. 3 million workers in Just the U. S. and operates more than 3,400 stores throughout the United States. A full time employee working 28- 40 hours a week at Wal-Mart is paid on an average of $250 a week. Besides having low wages, those workers who are interested or eligible in obtaining health insurance for themselves or for their family pay high premiums and frequently don’t get the coverage they expect. The majority of Wal-Mart employees live below the poverty line and after making deductions in taxes and insurance coverage, a Wal-Mart employee’s salary is not enough to provide them a standard way of living. â€Å"The 2003 poverty guideline for a family of four is $18,400, $4,256 more than the $14,144 in earnings a full-time Wal-Mart worker earns at $8 per hour†¦ A household of four with a gross ncome of $23,920 or less could be eligible for food stamps -$9,776 more than a full- time, $8-an-hour Wal-Mart worker would earn in a year. † (www. aflcio. org) These numDers are even worst Tor part time workers. I oaay, one -tnlra 0T Wal-Marts employees are part-time workers. They are limited to less than 34 hours of work per week and are not eligible for benefits and must wait 1 year before they can enroll. Sex Discrimination in the Work Place In addition to Wal-Mart’s low wages, its female workers are more disadvantaged and discriminated against in wage than its male workers. More than two thirds of Wal- Mart’s hourly employees are women and make up most of the lower wage positions which include: working the cash registers, stocking shelves and working the sales floor. Although men take responsibilities in these positions as well, the majority of men who work at Wal-Mart have positions as Management Associates or much higher ranked positions. Seventy-two percent of Wal-Mart employees are female and less than one-third of those women have management positions in the company. With that in mind, the average male employee was paid about $5,000 more in 2001 per year than the average female full-time employee. As Wal-Mart’s own workforce data reveals, women in every major Job category at Wal-Mart have been paid less than men with the same seniority, in every year since 1997 even though the female employees on average have higher performance ratings and less turnover than men. (http://www. walmartclass. com). Dukes vs. Wal-Mart is said to be the largest and most famous gender discrimination lawsuit against a private employer and is the largest class-action suit in U. S. history, representing 1. 6 million current and former female employees. Betty Dukes was the leading plaintiff in the case and sued Wal-Mart for ex discrimination; she was a fifty-four year old African-American woman who worked as a greeter for Wal-Mart. Factors such as seniority and performance were Wal-Mart’s main excuses and reasons that women earned from 5% to 15% less than men. It is disappointing to see that even the cashier positions, that are dominated by women, have men earning more than women. Wal-Mart not only overworks, under pays and discriminates against women, but it also provides neither childcare for workers or affordable family health benefits. Unaffordable Healthcare Deductibles Wal-Mart employees are incapable of receiving healthcare benefits available for hem because of its high cost and their low wages. Since most of Wal-Mart’s employees are unable to afford these health benefits, most of these individuals either turn to government aided insurance such as Medicaid, depend on their spouse’s plans, or expect to see a doctor in rare and emergency cases with no insurance. It is argued that uncovered Wal-Mart employees are not signing up for medical insurance and benefits because most of them exceed the income ceiling and are not eligible. Wal-Mart provides insurance for over 900,000 employees that are with and with out dependants. Employee premiums range between $143. 54 to $249. 71 per month for family coverage and $33. 04 to $72. 04 per month for single coverage. The National Average of workers covered by employer health insurance is 67 percent, and only 47 percent of Wal-Mart’s employees are covered by the company’s health care plan. That is a huge gap when considering that each percent represents thousands of people. Most Wal-Mart employees have a difficult time aec101ng wnetner to attaln nealtn Insurance or stay unlnsurea Tor tne sake 0T saving money. ‘Cynthia Murray, who has worked at a Wal-Mart store in Laurel, Md. , or six years, suffers from asthma, but goes to see a doctor only when she suffers a bad attack. Murray is 50 years old, makes $9. 47 an hour, and says that the Wal-Mart plan that costs $23 a month has a $1,000 deductible, which makes it too expensive for her to use. Another plan subtracts $100 from her paycheck every two weeks. l don’t think anybody working at Wal-Mart has that kind of money,† says Murray. â€Å"All I’m asking from Wal-Mart is a fair share† (Gogol). Many Americans question why Wal- Mart, one of the richest companies in the United States, can’t offer affordable health insurance and pay a living wage. Comparing Wal-Mart’s employee heal th benefits and wages to Costco’s employee health benefits and wages, one will notice that Costco not only pays its employees higher than Wal-Mart but their deductions are far less. â€Å"The average wage at Costco is $17 an hour†¦. a full-time worker at Wal-Mart makes $7. 0 an hour on average. Costco workers pay Just 8% of their health premiums, whereas Wal-Mart workers pay 33% of theirs. Ninety-one percent of Costco’s employees are covered by retirement plans, with the company contributing an annual average of $1 ,330 per employee† (Cascio). Based on these facts, it is easy to ay that Wal-Mart employees are giving up a large portion of their paychecks to obtain health care. Wal-Mart employees who do have health insurance and receive coverage are paying more in premiums but receive less for their money; in large corporations this has become a trend. New laws have been passed intended to force large corporations to control employee wages and reduce insurance deductibles. From law suits to employee complaints, Wal-Mart has recently thought of ways to reduce the cost of health benefits. The new plan would charge monthly premiums ranging from $25. 00 for individuals to $65. 0 for a family, making that 45-65% less than what employees contributed in the company’s existing plan. But it is not enough to reform the reputation Wal-Mart has lost or the vulnerable employees they let down. oncluslons High productivity and lowering costs is one of the top and most important objectives in business. Wal-Mart being the World’s largest retailer can afford to pay their â€Å"associates† more than what the minimum wage offers. They are in fact, the richest retailer in the world and yet neglect to provide their employees affordable health care with a livable wage. Even if Wal-Mart was to pass 100 percent of the wage ncrease on t o consumers, the average impact on a Wal-Mart shopper would be quite small. Wal-Mart’s choice of action toward employee wages, health benefits, and bias work environment have not only brought an enormous shadow over its employees’ lives but also over its own big business reputation. The injustice decisions made through out the history of Wal-Mart has changed many lives and has forever changed the American economy. In the business world, there is big, and then there is Wal-Mart. Recommendations Based on the conclusions presented above, the following actions are recommended: 1 . Retaining â€Å"associates† already on staff would be more cost affective then high employee turnover. 2. Train employees. Give the opportunity to advance and have freedom to associate and organize. 12 3. Our analysis reveals that establishing a higher minimum wage for large retailers like Wal-Mart would have a significant impact on workers living in poverty or near- poverty. 4. In order to increase employee satisfaction, reforming the cost of health insurance would help keep Wal-Mart in good terms with their employees. 5. If Wal- Mart was to raise their prices by as little as a penny to the dollar it would afford them o pay the higher wages. Higher wages provide the employees opportunity to afford health coverage. . Implementing fair employment and labor practices. How to cite Wal-Mart, Papers

Vanessa Williams free essay sample

Examines singers videos as commentary on critics of her earlier career as scandalized first black Miss America. Vanessa Williams is a black singer, actress, and model who in 1983 was forced to resign from her position as Miss America the first black Miss America. Her resignation came after Penthouse magazine printed a series of photographs taken of Williams some years before, photos seen as pornographic by pageant officials, who in any case seek to avoid scandal at all costs. In the year since that event, Williams has achieved much as an actress and singer, not becoming a major star, but working steadily and reaching the top of the pop music charts. Recently she released a video called The Comfort Zone Collection, and one of the videos on this tape is a visualization of the single that Williams recorded that reached the number one position, Save the Best for Last. An examination of this video shows that the images used may be intended to refer to the scandal and to poke

Motivation Essays (1169 words) - Ethology, Evolutionary Biology

Motivation Motivation explains why people behave as they do. Some scientists view motivation as the factor that determines behaviour, as expressed in the phrase All behaviour is motivated.(World Book, 1986, p.721). Other scientists focus on two certain aspects of motivated behaviour, excitement or exhilaration of behaviour, that is motivation arouses an organism and causes it to act, and the direction of behaviour, which is lead by habits, skills, abilities and structural features. (World Book, 1986). This essay aims to describe the four theories of motivation, Instinct theory, Sociobiology, Drive-Reduction theory and Incentive theory. I will be relating each theory to George`s behaviour and whether they do or do not apply to George`s behaviour. Instinct is behaviour that is inherited rather than learned. Instinct is an inborn tendency/biological force that dominates behaviour. (Weiten, 1995). William McDougall (1908) viewed instincts as unlearned, universal in expression and universal in a species. (Weiten, 1995). John Bowlby (1969) views instinct with regards to baby`s attachment to their parents or caregivers, as in-built. His reason for this development is that babies stay close to their parents because they are provided with protection. Human instincts are more flexible and more open to learning experiences than those of other species. Just like the imprinting of baby geese, so too do human babies attach to his/her parents after many hours of interaction. [Wortman, C. , Loftus, E. and Weaver, C. (1999)]. An example of instinctual behaviour is that all ants build anthills in the same way, even when they are not raised together, then the anthill building behaviour is instinctual and not a learned response.(Weiten, 1995). Sex in humans is also instinctual. We are not born with the desire to engage in sexual activities but as we reach puberty, there is a need for sexual stimulation. Even though we might not know what to do, it is instinctual. But, instincts only describe behaviour, they do not explain why a person engages in behaviour. Therefore with regards to the case study, George`s behaviour, (running the marathon), is not instinctual. Not everyone is born to run a marathon, it is a learned response. (Weiten, 1995). Sociobiology is the study of the biological basis for the social behaviour of humans and other animals. (Worldbook, 1986). Sociobiologists try to ascertain the function of various types of behaviour in the life of an animal. Sociobiology is based on the theory that the central process of life is the struggle of genes to reproduce themselves. Theorists believe that natural preference favours behaviour that maximises reproductive attainment - transmitting genes to the next generation. According to this theory, an organism inherits inclinations to develop certain types of behaviour, and these behaviour patterns increase an organism`s chances of transferring its genes to the next generation. It is believed that an organism can transmit its genes on, not only by reproducing but also by helping related organisms survive and reproduce.(Weiten, 1995).An example of this would be a bee stinging an intruder bee, in order to protect the life and genes of the queen bee (an organism sacrificing their life, for others, therefore passing on its genes). A human`s will, for sacrificing their life for a relative or someone they know, is much stronger than that of sacrificing their life for someone they do not know. A lady will not usually sacrifice her life by running across the road to save a child, (that she does not know), in traffic, whereas if it were her own child, she would sacrifice her life in order to save her child`s life and to carry on the genes. (Weiten, 1995). There are ongoing debates about sociobiology and its relevance to human motivation. Some theorists believe that sociobiologists overestimate the influence of biology and underestimate the influence of culture. (Deverell, A., 1999). In the African culture, African men consider African women with large buttocks appealing, but may be viewed as unattractive in other cultures. [Wortman, C. , Loftus, E. and Weaver, C. (1999)]. George is exhibiting perseverance in the face of everything bad. George`s perseverance is a trait that is beneficial to his survival. George did not run to protect his genes, it was his own motivation that made him run the marathon. Most people would not persevere as George did. Drive Theory: Clark Hull (1884-1952) defines a drive as an observation that organism`s seek to maintain homeostasis, a state of physiological equilibrium/stability. (Hull in Weiten, 1995, p.378). A drive assists an organism in alleviating inner tension. For example drinking to alleviate thirst. Drive theory explains why people eat, sleep, seek pleasure, avoid pain and engage in

Emotions Expressed In Music essays

Emotions Expressed In Music essays When I say art, every person reading this paper could potentially think of something different. This is because there are so many different kinds of art that it is hard to come up with an all inclusive definition for the word. Instead of trying to look at all of the different kinds of art, I am going to focus on art as an expression of emotion. Over the course of a day in your life, you experience many different emotions. You can feel happy, confused, sad, angry, or embarrassed. Everyone has their own way of expressing these emotions and some people choose to sing about them. One of the most powerful forms of art is a song that is written to express an emotion, whether it be happiness, sadness, or anger. A great example of a song written to express happiness is A New Day Has Come by Celine Dion. Celine Dion wrote this song shortly after the birth of her new baby. Her husband is quite a bit older than her and over the past few years has experienced some health problems, so she took a break from her music to spend time with him. They were told that the chance that they would be able to have a child was small, so when her new baby was born she was overcome with joy. Shortly after this she returned to her music and one of the first songs she wrote was about her baby boy. The opening stanza of the song is extremely powerful and helps to explain the reason for her happiness. She starts by singing, I was waiting for so long, for a miracle to come. Everyone told me to be strong, hold on and dont shed a tear. Even though people listening to the song who are not familiar with Celine Dions personal life could not possibly understand the level of happiness that the song expresses, the simple fact that Celine Dion wrote it with so much emotion makes it art. She only mentions her new son once throughout the song in the fifth stanza she sings, Where there w ...

Mergers& Acquisitions Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Mergers& Acquisitions - Essay Example The US airline industry had previously been dominated by nine companies that created a stiff competition in the market. However, the move to merge the American airlines and the US airways has altered the situation. The main reason that led to the merger is the desire both companies to gain competitive advantage over their competitors (Thomas, 2013). The size of a company determines their convincing power. Large companies have a likelihood of attracting customers and shareholders, and hence the company will be more competitive. The two companies also came together in order to heighten their sales. With the many numbers of competitors, the companies hoped that coming together would increase their sales. The two companies intended to expand rapidly since more resources, and labor had been brought together (Daily Mail Reporter, 2013). The merger of the two airlines  will ensure that the company will control approximately 20% of the market share since 80% of the market share is controll ed by the four large airlines (Reed, 2014). Merging the two companies reduced the risks and hence the new company is in a position to diversify its operations (Reed, 2014). The airline industry has a lot of risks, and the managers decided to come together in order to spread and cushion the risk. The merger provided a large pool of finances which would allow the two companies increase their economies of scale and thereby maximize their profits (Reed, 2014). The elected overall managing director stated out that their move was not only to fight competition but also to meet the large financial demands in the industry. He also said that the move would increase their networks, and their customers would have a variety of choices in terms of traveling time. The merger brought about both positive and negative results to the two companies. The new company (American Airlines) gained an advantage since its costs

Changing Roles of Worker Research Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Changing Roles of Worker - Research Paper Example Their work is unseen and much of it is mental. The knowledge worker is famous for making judgment calls and decisions and being paid handsomely in some cases to do so. This report will be centered on the managers and leaders who are guiding the knowledge workers and how their roles may be shifting from what that has been like supervising the traditional workers. There has been a shift noted in roles from boss or supervisor to player/coach as argued by Davenport. Davenport proposes that those managers that understand the knowledge workers’ wants and needs can get more from the people, communicate more efficiently, and lead a â€Å"managerial revolution† (p. 3). The shift in roles, from boss to player/coach is coming about. Johnson cites Davenport again stating rather than supervising the work, the manager of a group of knowledge workers will come from the group of workers and be one that is also performing the work. Hierarchies will be shrinking as they become networks a nd communities of knowledge resources. Rather than hiring and firing, the managers’ job will be to develop and train the new staff.

State of Nature in the Modern Society

State of Nature in the Modern Society INTRODUCTION According to John Stuart Mill The state of nature that precedes civilization is where originality resides [1] and the society leaves its individuals to their own devices as long as they do not harm others. [2] But what really is the state of nature? Moreover, why this idea as it was presented by the theorists never played its real role in practice? Was the state of nature that chaotic that people choose to have a superior, rather than being free from any obstacles? Were people afraid of their fellow human beings as Hobbes insinuates? I am working on the topic of the state of nature in the modern society, because I want to find out if there is still a state of nature in the 21st century, for example in the indigenous societies, or that is some kind of social contract or anarchy. I am doing this in order to understand how people today live and if the basic human rights, as are the right of life, the right to liberty and security, the right of freedom etc., respected in those societies. In this paper, I will try to analyze why despite the overall technical and technological progress, the cultural development, the democratic values that we stand for and the globalization of the countries in the world, yet in some parts of Planet Earth we can meet the remnants of what Rousseau, Hobbes and Locke call the state of nature. These societies living in the state of nature are trying to tell us that not always rule of law is needed; not always people need government to live proper and in peace. The world never was, and never will be without number of people living in that state, the state of nature. If we only look at the examples of many Indigenous people round the Globe, we can see that people can live without legally established government, without constitution and without laws, and still respect each other and live in peace. This is contrary to Hobbess claims that people in the state of nature cannot live just because homo homini lupus est. [3] So the need for social cont ract is not really a need. We can observe that sometimes the human nature is egoistic, wolfish and greedy: what is mine is mine, and what is yours I want to be mine. That is a result of population growth, the limitation of the resources, the enrichment of certain class of people and the innovations and development of the world. Contrary to this, that is not the situation in many undeveloped African tribes, as I will show later in the paper. In the first chapter of this paper, I will expose the main ideas of Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau and their picture of the state of nature. Following, in the second and last chapter, I will try to find out if there is a state of nature in the 21st century. As an example, I will be taking the Indigenous peoples and their structure of society and their development. Furthermore, I will discuss the significance of the human rights that these people have and the way they manage to exercise them in the world they live in. There is a lot to say on this topic and there are a lot more examples on this subject, but due to limited time and resources, I will keep my research and my analysis short and within these frames. My research is contained mostly from research of the main theories or Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau, relevant articles concerning the state of nature, articles concerning the life and the society of the indigenous peoples (primary and secondary sources). 1. WHAT IS STATE OF NATURE? There are many definitions on what is state of nature. According to Hobbes: The state of nature is a state of incessant mutual exploitation, all individuals seeking to dominate one another and to acquire honor and profit (fame and fortune). [4] Many encyclopedias consider the state of nature as uncivilized and uncultured condition, [5] a wild primitive state untouched by civilization. [6] State of nature is described also as a condition before the introduction of the rule of law, and as a state where there are no rights but only freedoms. In such a world where there are no laws, government, power, the people are in a natural condition of humankind. Nevertheless, the state of nature in its true form [7] never existed in human society. Perhaps as a state of nature we can take the examples of the emergence of human society when man was savage and lived in hordes. The human at that point of development was not aware of anything, except livelihood and survival. People acted free from all restrictions and pressures. They showed their true existence and the desire to own fulfillment. As creatures of that kind, all people were and are equal by their nature. At that stage, all people without restriction tend to insure and optimize their own fulfillment, then this unlimited competition lead to a state of complete uncertainty and danger. [8] Moreover, they consider themselves indispensable for the elimination of this tendency to establish a state of security and peace by entering in a civil society. [9] Many of the Enlightenment theorists claim that the state of nature existed in the human society, but man came out of that state because h e was afraid of the other humans, [10] considering that in the state of nature dominates social chaos and in order to protect himself the human was obliged to conclude the social contract. With this contract individuals freedom of self-fulfillment was restricted, so that individual freedom of all can exist together. Everyone gives up their unlimited right, accepts limitations and with that accept the security and the peace in coexistence. [11] Everyone has the natural right of personal fulfillment. This right of personal fulfillment cannot be abolished because it would mean the destruction of livelihood. [12] However, it may be restricted and in that way can exist in parallel with the other inalienable rights of all people. The restrictions are codified in legislations. Following, these restrictions were the basis of the doctrines of the Enlightenment thinkers Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Hume. [13] They created the laicism of governing and new political legitimacy of any fair ruling to be extracted from the social relations and based on respect of humans rights. [14] 1.1. State of nature according to Thomas Hobbes Hobbes believed that human beings in the state of nature would behave badly towards one another. [15] He believed that such a condition would lead to a war of every man against every man [16] and make life solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. [17] He was strictly against the state of nature because as he said, there can be nothing worse than a life without the protection of the State, [18] especially since in this state there is no justice because there is no law. Hobbes argued that there are no human rights in the state of nature. [19] People have natural right to do anything to preserve their own liberty or safety, and by this implies they act savagely to each other by trying to preserve their own life. This is very arguable nowadays. Every human simply by just being human is entitled with rights when born, despite on what level of development he is in, or if he is aware of the existence of human rights. For Hobbes, natural right is the human freedom to manage himself in relation to issues of his own self preservation. The man, in this capacity has an inalienable dignity, because he is a goal for himself and a kind of absolute value (man as imago dei). [20] This term has its roots in Genesis 1:27, wherein God created man in his own image. . ., [21] which does not mean that God is in human form, but rather, that humans are in images of God in their moral, spiritual, and intellectual nature. [22] The moral implications of the doctrine of imag o dei are apparent in the fact that if humans are to love God, then humans must love other humans, as each is an expression of God. [23] This means that people are obligated to respect one another, but according to Hobbes at the end the wolfish nature of humans [24] dominates. Hobbes develops the way out of the state of nature into civil government by mutual social contracts. Only by concluding the social contract man can save himself and become just (in this State there is no room for the unjust). He says that only the fear of death can lead to the creation of a State. [25] This saying in the modern world was a reason for many wars. Many rulers, dictators, tyrants, for example as Hitler did with Germany in the Second World War, were guided by Hobbess ideas that the man is obedient of the State and should delegate his rights to the Sovereign because the Sovereign is sinless and just, thus has the unlimited powers of rule and punishment. [26] The rulers will define good and evil for his subjects. The ruler can do no wrong, because lawful and unlawful, good and evil, are expression of the will of the ruler. [27] Hobbes gives authorization to the ruler to kill everyone who disobeys this will. In other words, the ruler is always right, because he has god given rights and is messenger of God, so if someone does any wrong (which will mean opposite to the rulers wishes) he will lose his life. This contradicts with one of the basic human rights [28] the right to life. It is not that there should be no State rules and regulations and that people should live in total anarchy, but rules that are in line with peoples rights, wishes and desires, for example regulations brought due referendum, which is a true expression of peoples will and democracy. Therefore, Hobbes, despite the pretty picture he has in mind of people being safe by concluding the social contract, is neglecting the basic human rights. [29] Moreover, Hobbess social contract was in favor of the ruler, not the people. 1.2. State of nature according to John Locke Locke holds different position compared to Hobbes. He believes that people could live in a state of nature, and life would be possible even without the legally established government. The state of nature for him is pre political, but not pre moral. [30] Furthermore, this state of nature for him is a state of complete freedom where all people are equal and only bond by the law of nature. [31] He worries that an absolute sovereign, with absolute power, would be even more of a danger to us than life in the state of nature. This is positive in Lockes thought because is better to live in a state of nature where you live in complete freedom without limitations of the personal rights and liberties. On the other hand, giving the absolute power to a sovereign means that people have to obey the wishes and the demands of the ruler, rather than following their own needs and desires, and disobeying those demands leads to penalization. Why would someone want to have limited human rights? Why wou ld someone want someone else to pressure him in doing something that is against his opinion and his beliefs? It is not the case of not having rules at all but rather that the rules should be made from the people and for the people. The people should not feel oppressed if they do something that is against ones will and feel scared of punishment if they do not meet those requirements. This is against the commonly accepted notion of democracy in which the individual is free in expressing his own will and making statements. Locke argued that although we do need a sovereign to settle disputes and administer justice, we must also set constitutional limits to the sovereigns rule. [32] We have a right to rebel if the sovereign abuses our trust. [33] Assuming that we were all honorable in all our dealings with each other, then the need for sovereign would not existed and we could have remain forever in the state of nature. [34] Is this asking for too much? On one hand it might be, because with no rules at all, people might have tendency to become more violent and even greedier towards others who have more than them (wealthier people). On the other hand, it might not be too much asking for. People behave decent when there is not big gap in equality and people do cooperate with each other in order to survive. Later in this paper, I will show examples of people living in a state of nature with no government, no legislative, and still managing to live in peace with each other and with the rest of the world. Another thing with which Locke differs from Hobbes is his view of the human rights. For Locke, human rights are rights that every human holds and they belong to all humans, and are inalienable, that is they are not transferable to anyone else. [35] If someone tries to restrict one mans human rights for Locke that is equal to slavery. [36] He set forth the view that the State exists to preserve the natural rights of its citizens. [37] Moreover, if the State (government) fails to retain the natural rights of its citizens, than they are allowed to stand up to it and protest against. The same is today in most of the democratic countries, where people if not satisfied with the measures and regulations that the government lays down raise their voice and oppose them. Following this further, Locke does not see the state of nature as something bad as Hobbes does, and therefore, he claims that is better for the people to reject the particular government and to return to the state of nature, [3 8] than to live in an oppressed regimes. Nevertheless, despite the free man that Locke stands for, he still points out that people should engage in a social contract. He says that we should partially give up some of our rights, but not the right of life, liberty and property, [39] for impartial justice. Furthermore, the social contract cannot be concluded without the explicit consent of the people. Property is the linchpin of Lockes argument for the social contract and civil government because it is the protection of peoples property, including their property in their own bodies, that men seek when they decide to abandon the State of Nature. [40] Lockes property is pre- state institute determined by natural law and the property is a result of individuals labor. [41] For him the right of property is a right to life, freedom and estate. [42] He connects the humans/one persons rights with having property; the one who does not own property does not have rights. [43] 1.3. State of nature according to Jean Jacques Rousseau What distinguishes Rousseau from the other two theorists is his statement that in the state of nature man would act like savage, [44] whose actions are primarily determined by immediate needs food, sexual satisfaction, sleep and fears only hunger and pain. [45] However, the thing that distinguishes the savage from the animal is the free will and capacity of self-improvement. [46] For Rousseau is an exaggeration to say that the state of nature leads to war of all against all, as Hobbes said. According to him, the state of nature is peaceful and free of vice. On the other hand, he agrees with Hobbes and Locke that in the state of nature mans main drive is towards self preservation. [47] Rousseau gives a general picture how would the life be in the state of nature, which resembles in a good way with the life that some African tribes have today. He says that the human in the state of nature acts similar to animal satisfying his basic needs. Furthermore, Rousseau gives a critique of the modern man vs. the natural man. He says that the situation of the natural man is better than the one of the modern man because the natural man is free of social norms, morals, obligations, and duties. [48] Having no moral relationship or duties to other men and no subjugated inequality, natural man is better for himself and society. [49] His actions are neither good nor evil [50] because he is not bounded by social rules, which dictate how people should act and think towards each other and the world as a whole. [51] According to that, man should not care much about others opinion of him or his actions. [52] Certainly, according to Rousseau, people are neither good nor bad. [53] People are restrained in harming others by the compassion they have for their fellow humans and have aversion to pain and suffering. [54] In addition, Rousseau claims that men knew neither vice nor virtue since they had almost no dealings with each other. [55] Moreover, in his view their bad habits are the products of civilization, the conditions of nature forced people to establish the civil society. [56] According to this, if man leaves the state of nature than he becomes corrupted and unjust. The modern world and the development of it are responsible for peoples depravation because the wish for self improvement brought misfortune to people. Then why at all should human beings leave this state? On this, Rousseau says that despite the corruptive potential, the life in the society can bring the possibility of a higher form of human existence, [57] like cultural or technological development of the human itself a nd the society he lives in. When talking about the peoples/humans rights, Rousseau points out that that the people have rights in the civil state that are sacred. Therefore, people agree to live in a civil society because that society will protect their rights. But is this a real reflection on what the reality looks like? If taken for example the dictatorship regimes, lets say in Sudan, or as it was in Romania when Ceausescu was on power, the people were in a fictional social contract with the country, and the state did not meet its main duty: the protection of the individual that is not able to protect himself! Different from Locke, who stands on the position that the human has rights even without the existence of the state, [58] Rousseau does not says that the human can exist and just be in that kind of state. For Rousseau, the people only have human rights when engaged in a contract with the state. Here he contradicts himself. First, he says that the civil society corrupts the people, and then notes that hum an rights exist only when people engage in social contract with the state. Rousseaus second point about the requirement of the people to conclude the contract in order to be safe and in a possession of human rights is questionable. The second chapter of my paper will show that people that are not part of a civil society still have human rights and are free. 1.4. Analysis Do we get any general picture of what the state of nature is from the perceptions of these theorists? Hobbes is the opponent of the state of nature. His opinion is that man could not survive in the state of nature therefore there is the need of creating a State, by people engaging in social contract and the necessity of people giving up their rights to the Sovereign. On the other hand, Locke is more liberal when talking about the state of nature. For him people can indeed, live in this state in peace with each other. He does not support the State that limits the rights of humans and the absolute power of the Sovereign (as Hobbes does). Rousseau is in between with his approach. According to him, the state is the only one that can protect the human and his rights. Contrary, he says that the civil society corrupts the person; the development of the society makes man more greedy and unjust. How is this possible? We should enter the social contract for the main purpose of protecting ourselves from others and be able to exercise human rights, but not to become corrupted by the same society. Is not this statement too contradictory and illogical? !!!Finally, summing up all the ideas from these theorists, we can define the state of nature as freedom. A freedom of man to do whatever is his own will, but not damaging and delimiting other peoples rights and personality; freedom from restraints, restrictions and oppressions. In the following chapter, we can see that it is possible for people to live in this kind of state and not being threat to one another. 2. IS THERE A STATE OF NATURE IN THE 21st CENTURY? Looking further than our own surroundings, we will find examples of people that live in a condition that is completely different from the democratic, modern and technologically developed world. Those people live in harmony with nature. Although, the number of those people is very small due to the colonization period and the constant force of assimilation, the ones that succeed in keeping their culture and traditional way of life, help us understand that people can indeed live without rule of law and without engaging into social contract(s). Today, many of the Indigenous people in the world are under the law of the ones that colonized their land, for example the Aborigines in Australia, when colonized by the British were put under the British legal system, [59] but as Australia gained independence from the Crown, the Aborigines are under the Australian law. [60] Other examples where people still managed to keep their natural state are some African tribes that are not subject to the la w of the State, like the Bushmen in South Africa who live in bands. [61] Following in this paper, I will elaborate more on these people and their way of life. 2.1. Indigenous peoples 2.1.1. Definitions on Indigenous Defining Indigenous peoples can be very difficult. Whom do we put under the term Indigenous? There are many definitions. According to the special reporter on discrimination against Indigenous population from the United Nations Working Group on Indigenous Population, Mr. Jose Martinez Cobo Indigenous populations are composed of the existing descendants of the peoples who inhabited the present territory of a country wholly or partially at the time when persons of a different culture or ethnic origin arrived there from other parts of the world, overcame them, by conquest, settlement or other means, reduced them to a non-dominant or colonial condition; who today live more in conformity with their particular social, economic and cultural customs and traditions than with the institutions of the country of which they now form part, under a state structure which incorporates mainly national, social and cultural characteristics of other segments of the population which are predominant. [62] This definition was considered to be with flaws. Therefore, the UN Working Group on Indigenous Population decided to enlarge the definition by adding more criteria in defining the term Indigenous. In the first place, they added that as Indigenous people would be considered the ones who are the descendants of groups, which were in the territory at the time when other groups of different cultures or ethnic origin arrived there. [63] In addition, Indigenous are the ones who because of their isolation from other segments of the countrys population have almost preserved intact the customs and traditions of their ancestors which are similar to those characterized as indigenous. [64] Finally, in this group belong people who are, even if only formally, placed under a state structure which incorporates national, social and cultural characteristics alien to their own. [65] In 1986 one more criteria was added, and that was any individual who identified himself or herself as indigenous and was a ccepted by the group or the community as one of its members was to be regarded as an indigenous person. [66] Another definition is provided by the International Labor Organization in the 1989 Convention on Indigenous and Tribal peoples, defines Indigenous peoples as those who are regarded as such on account of their descent from the populations which inhabited the country, or a geographical region to which the country belongs, at the time of conquest or colonization or the establishment of present state boundaries and who, irrespective of their legal status, retain some or all of their own social, economic, cultural and political institutions. [67] We can give lots more definitions on who and what Indigenous people are, but in the end, summarizing all this definitions, we reach a single conclusion that the Indigenous people are people that only differ by their origin and culture. In other words, Indigenous people enjoy human rights as all the other people do. Furthermore, this people, despite the stage of their development, and by development I mean mostly technical and technological development, generally stand for the common values of freedom and peace. Moreover, Indigenous people, although often distinguishable by virtue of their race, language or religion, are a discrete group. [68] To explain this in more precise way, I will be taking as an example two groups of Indigenous people, one is the Australian Aborigines and the other one is the Bushmen from South Africa. Although, both of these groups of people are considered as Indigenous, they are different in a way of their social structure, the way of life, their customs, law s etc. Later, I will point out that one of these groups is living in a kind of state of nature, with total equality among its members, while the other one was assimilated by the State that overruled them and obligated by the States legal system, notwithstanding that Indigenous peoples are constantly exempt from laws, which may interfere with their tradition. [69] 2.1.2 Examples of Indigenous peoples: Australian Aborigines and the Bushmen of South Africa I decided to take these two groups of Indigenous peoples as an example because there is diversity between them in many ways, but still both belong to what goes under the term indigenous. Since the European invasion of Australia in 1788, the Aboriginal people have been oppressed into a world unnatural to their existence for thousands of years. [70] The British Monarchy invaded the Australian Aborigines during the colonization period; hence, they were put under the British legal system. After Australias independence changes were imposed, the Aboriginal people started the request for self-determination, because the government at the time tried to assimilate these people, and destroyed their land, with that their way of life and culture. Prior to the arrival of the colonists and the destruction of the homeland of the natives, the Aborigines lived in a state of nature. The Aboriginal lifestyle was based on total kinship with the natural environment, everything they needed for normal and h ealthy life was already provided. [71] They lived in tribes or clans and were obligated by their own customs and inter clan contract. [72] No one had authority over anyone else in the sense of ruling them, but this is not to say that there were not leaders. [73] The leaders were people who had personal qualities that others admire, and were considered as smart men, but there were no elected leaders in Aboriginal society. [74] Today, the Aboriginal still live under their customs, but are also obligated to respect the States legal system, which limits some of their human rights, for example like the right to education and using of their mother tongue. [75] Therefore, the colonization brought disturbance of the peace of this people. Armed conflicts and lack of understanding from the modern men resulted in killing of dozens of Aboriginal people and forcing them on different way of life. [76] The Aboriginal people lost most of their tradition and culture, and today most of them are living in the developed and modern world. Only few of the Aboriginal tribes can be found living in a state similar to the state of nature, though obliged by rule of law by the State in one way or another. On the other hand, we have the Bushmen of South Africa that still live in conditions mostly similar to those before the white men invade their land. Along with the arrival of the European settlers great disadvantages started. [77] In this period number of Bushmen was reduced, because they fought to death trying to survive due to limited resources (limited and abused by the settlers), or were captured and forced to slavery and eventually die of extortion. [78] Today, as it was in the past, the Bushmen population lives into groups that are called bands. [79] No leader or superior exists as a figure in the Bushmen band. That makes all of the members of the band equal, both male and female. [80] Thus, they are all equal in the making decisions, [81] and govern themselves by group consensus. [82] If a dispute arises and there is some kind of misunderstanding between the band members, they are resolved through discussions where all involved take part with argumentations until some agreemen t is reached. [83] However, the governments of many African states are trying to exile the Bushmen from their homelands and to assimilate them. For example, In Botswana the government has intensified its campaign to drive the Gana and Gwi Bushmen off their ancestral homeland in the Central Kalahari Game Reserve by cutting off all water supplies. [84] Clearly, we can see that the modern nations and the modern men forced this Indigenous people in leaving the state of nature they used to live in. The colonialism destroyed this peoples way of life. It was not that people abandoned the state of nature because they started to feel intimidated by the others. On the contrary, these Indigenous peoples lived together in peace and in equality, with little resources available that were enough for them to survive. Today, the Indigenous people living in a state of nature are a slowly dying race [85] because of all of this; nevertheless, the fact that they are still trying to maintain their existence is a proof of how perfectly their way of life is adopted to their natural surroundings. [86] 2.2. Do indigenous peoples today enjoy the human rights like most people do? According to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous peoples in Article 1: Indigenous peoples have the right to the full enjoyment, as a collective or as individuals, of all human rights and fundamental fr