<p>Not my best effort. I don’t like the examples. </p>
<p>For this one,I tried to use one history/literature example only–</p>
<p>i tried to keep it under 500 words.</p>
<p>Compromise</p>
<p>Compromise isn’t capable of resolving conflicts from occurring. If compromise was the the best solution then the world would devoid of disputes. Yet, this is not the case. Germany started World War 2 after failing to comply with the “Appeasement Policy.” Also, the NHL locked its players out when negotiations failed. Finally, my personal life is a testimony to the ineffectiveness of compromise. </p>
<p>Neville Chamberlain, the British Prime Minster of Britain attempt to prevent war between Germany and Britain failed after Germany singed the Appeasement Policy. For several years the Germans threatened to invade Czechoslavakia, but were persuaded by Chamberlain to stop. After negotiating for several months, Germany agreed. Under the Appeasement Policy Germany was allowed to occupy the Suderlatand of Czechoslavakia. Hitler agreed and war was averted. However, Germany bolstered the Suderlatand with tanks. Britain tried to avert war by presenting an amended policy for the Germans to sign. Hitler disregarded the policy by invading Poland. This caused World War 2 to start. This example shows compromise doesn’t solve disputes when there are ideological differences. </p>
<pre><code>War isn’t the only area where compromise isn’t effective, The National Hockey League locked the players out after they failed to reach an agreement. Initially the NHL proposed that players salaries would be capped. Players would receive a set salary depending on years in the league and performance. The players didn’t think this was reasonable. The players rejected the stringent demands of Garry Bettman, President of the NHL. Talks broke down after the players countered offered its revenue sharing plan. Players would receive a percentage of revenue each team made. The NHL disagreed and locked the players out. Before the season started negotiators were sent by both parties and failed. As a result, the NHL canceling the 2004 season. What use is compromise when parties fail to communicate ?
</code></pre>
<p>Finally, my marriage is a testament to the ineffectiveness of compromise. My marriage to Tula steadily deteriorated after I finished University. We couldn’t work things out so Tula moved out. Each time we met to discuss our marriage it ended with fights. On several occasions we tried to reconcile the marriage. After several discussions we stopped talking. Several months later, she phoned me to talk about seeing a marriage counselor. We met with a marriage counselor as a last ditch effort to save the marriage. We attended counseling for six weeks to no avail. The counseling session showed us that our differences couldn’t be fixed. Eventually, we decided divorce was the best option. Since then we haven’t spoken. Marriages are built on given and take, but when couples are not willing to give then divorce is inevitable. </p>
<p>Can compromise stop conflicts? It doesn’t seem so. A major impediment is pride. Pride obscures and hinders logic.This causes conflicting parties to feel deep resentment, hurt and anger. As a result, conflicts can’t be resolved. Until these feelings are amending society wont be able to live harmoniously.</p>