Lesson Report:
**Title: Grievance vs. Greed – Explaining Political Violence through Indicators**
Today’s class introduced a new analytical framework for understanding *why* political actors turn to violence, focusing on the classic “grievances vs. greed� debate in political science. Students practiced moving from intuitive/moral judgments (“terrorists vs. freedom fighters�) to structured, evidence-based arguments using a fictional rebel group (the Mountain Liberation Front in Oritos) and a set of observable indicators. The session’s objectives were to refine students’ argumentation skills and prepare them to apply this framework to real-world cases in the next class and in their written work.
—
## Attendance
**Students mentioned absent (14 total):**
– Arslanbek
– Dastan
– Aydarbek (pre‑notified absence)
– Aziryat
– Abu Bakr
– Kyle Jared
– Altenay
– Soybegim
– Salim
– Sabiraba Medina
– Sabina
– Medina Muhammadaba
– Muratbek
– Malika
—
## Topics Covered (Chronological, with Detailed Progression)
### 1. Administrative Announcements: Midterm Grades & Final Exam
**Midterm grading policy change**
– You explained that your original plan—to provide extensive written feedback with each midterm grade—has proven unsustainable given class size (58 students) and the time required per paper (25–30 minutes each).
– New policy:
– For students who have **not yet received a midterm grade**, you will **post only the numeric grade** calculated in the same way as previous graded midterms.
– Written feedback will now be *on request*:
– Any student who wants feedback **for any reason** (general improvement, understanding mistakes, curiosity) is instructed to **email you**, and you will provide the written feedback.
– Students interested in doing the **midterm makeup** must email you; you will send them the feedback they need to prepare.
– Timeline:
– You set a goal to finish all remaining midterm grading **by the end of this week (by Friday night)** so that it is no longer hanging over you or the students.
**Final exam logistics**
– You reminded the class that the semester is nearly over and confirmed **final exam details**:
– **Date & Time:** Tuesday, **December 16**, at **12:45**.
– **Location:** Same classroom as usual (same arrangement as for the midterm).
– **Format:** In‑class, written exam, essay-based.
– “Similar formatâ€� to the midterm, though you noted there will be some differences to be discussed in the coming weeks.
– The framing was that students will come, write the essay(s), and that will constitute the final exam.
**Other administrative points raised later (end of class)**
– Several students asked again about:
– When they would receive grades for essays and midterms: you reiterated **“by the end of the weekâ€�**.
– Late submissions: you confirmed to one student that their essay was marked **late**, not missing.
– Extra points / make‑ups: one student arranged to come **tomorrow at 12:00** (noon) for extra credit / follow‑up.
—
### 2. Attendance Check
– You conducted a full, name‑by‑name attendance check, taking several minutes.
– Multiple students were explicitly marked as present or absent (see list above).
– You acknowledged you were starting class “with or without the 40 missing people,â€� indicating significantly lower attendance than enrollment that day.
—
### 3. Introducing the Day’s Learning Objectives
You explicitly framed the purpose of the session:
– **Main goals:**
1. Introduce **one new concept** in the study of political violence.
2. Continue developing students’ **argumentation skills**, especially constructing strong, evidence-backed arguments.
– You linked this to last week’s work:
– Last week’s focus: understanding how to **put together strong arguments**.
– This week: applying argumentation to a **substantive topic**—political violence.
– Core guiding questions for today:
– What is *political violence*?
– **Why** does political violence happen?
– How can we make **strong, structured arguments** about why political violence happens?
—
### 4. Eliciting Definitions and Examples of Political Violence
You opened discussion to the class to surface existing intuitions:
– **Initial working definition:**
– In very simple terms: *political violence is violence motivated by politics*.
– You asked for:
– Examples of political violence.
– Student definitions or what they “think ofâ€� when hearing the term.
**Student examples and elements raised:**
– **Genocide / Holocaust**:
– Example: The genocide of Jews by the Nazis during World War II.
– Used as a clear case of **politically motivated mass violence**.
– **Sectarian violence**:
– Examples in **Iraq** or **Syria**.
– Emphasized that this is violence driven by political and often identity-based conflicts.
– **Terrorism**:
– Students quickly associated political violence with **terrorism**, which you noted would be revisited.
– **Civil wars and wars between states**:
– Students mentioned civil wars as political violence (insurgencies, rebellions).
– You pointed out that wars between countries are usually fought for political reasons as well.
– **Repression and imprisonment**:
– Political imprisonment of opposition.
– Repression mentioned both as:
– A **cause** of political violence (repression provoking resistance), and
– A **response** to political violence (governments cracking down).
– **Illegality and international reaction**:
– A student described political violence as “illegal.â€�
– You connected this to the idea that political violence is often criminalized by states.
– You noted:
– Sometimes political violence triggers **international action/reaction**, sometimes it does not.
This segment established a broad conceptual map and prepared students for more precise frameworks.
—
### 5. Framing: “Criminals/Terrorists� vs. “Freedom Fighters�
You introduced a key tension in how political violence is labeled:
– On one side of the board/conceptual spectrum:
– **“Criminalsâ€� / “Terroristsâ€�**
– Associated with **illegal** acts, **heinous** violence, and moral condemnation.
– On the other side:
– **“Freedom fightersâ€�**
– Actors portrayed as resisting **oppressive governments** or systems.
– Often viewed positively by their supporters, as pursuing a “just cause.â€�
**Discussion prompts and key points:**
– Question: *What is the difference between these two terms?*
– Student response: **Perspective** is central.
– If you support the government, you might call armed opponents **terrorists**.
– If you belong to a marginalized group under an oppressive regime, you may call those same actors **freedom fighters**.
– You synthesized this:
– These labels carry **moral judgment**:
– “Criminals/terroristsâ€� = *bad* political violence.
– “Freedom fightersâ€� = *good* or *justified* political violence.
– Students began to specify other dimensions:
– **Means/Methods (Means)**:
– “Goodâ€� political violence:
– More **targeted**, **selective**, avoids harming innocent civilians where possible.
– “Badâ€� political violence:
– Often **indiscriminate**, high civilian casualties.
– **Motives**:
– Freedom fighters: redressing injustice, defending rights, resisting oppression.
– Terrorists/criminals: driven by power, control, ideology, or personal gain.
– **Scope**:
– Level and spread of violence, type of targets, and whether the violence is constrained or expansive.
This segment introduced moral and perceptual elements but also served as a bridge to a more systematic explanation of *why* groups choose violence.
—
### 6. Case Study Setup: The Mountain Liberation Front (MLF) in Oritos
You returned to the fictional country **Oritos** as a controlled environment for practicing analysis:
– **Context:**
– Time period: **1950s** in Oritos.
– Actor: A rebel group called the **Mountain Liberation Front (MLF)**.
– Reputation:
– They have become **notorious internationally** for acts of violence against the government.
– Many news stories report on them, but the historical record is mixed.
– **Analytical question:**
– Is the MLF closer to:
– The “goodâ€� side (freedom fighters)?
– Or the “badâ€� side (criminals/terrorists)?
– You clarified that we are looking back as scholars, attempting to interpret their motives based on evidence.
**Key facts provided about the MLF:**
1. **Fact A – Manifesto and Goals**
– The MLF has published **manifestos** (you defined “manifesto,â€� referencing the **Communist Manifesto** as a famous example).
– In these documents they claim:
– There are mountain communities in Oritos that have been **poor for centuries**.
– The **government has neglected** them and passed laws that disadvantage them.
– These communities have remained poor and marginalized.
– Stated goals:
– Push the government to **prioritize land reform**.
– Secure **land rights** and better conditions for mountain people.
– Promote **economic equality** and social justice for their constituents.
2. **Fact B – Diamond Mines and Leadership Wealth**
– When the MLF controlled the mountain regions, they also took control of **lucrative diamond mines**.
– They did so **illegally**, using force to seize the mines.
– The leaders then:
– Sold diamonds on the **black market**.
– Became **extremely wealthy** personally.
– Clarification:
– The mines themselves are described as “illegalâ€� or being used illegally; the important analytic point is that **MLF leaders extracted massive personal profit** from this control.
– You emphasized that **both facts are true simultaneously** and that this tension is precisely what makes classification difficult.
**Short writing task:**
– Students were asked to:
– Take 2–3 minutes to write in their notebooks:
– Whether they would classify the MLF as closer to **freedom fighters** or **criminals/terrorists**, and **why**, using the limited information provided.
– You acknowledged there was “not enough informationâ€� for a definitive conclusion, but the exercise was about forming an argument with incomplete data.
—
### 7. Class Debate: Is the MLF Criminal or Freedom Fighter?
You organized a quick show of hands:
– Some students leaned toward **freedom fighter**.
– Others leaned toward **criminal**.
– Some remained undecided.
**Arguments for “freedom fighter� framing:**
– **Operational funding rationale:**
– One student argued that the MLF likely needed money to **fund their operations**, and control of the diamond mines provided that.
– Because the sentence about funding stated they financed operations by controlling the mines, the student inferred that:
– The **primary motive** might not be simply personal enrichment, but securing resources to conduct a political struggle.
– **Local alignment argument:**
– Students suggested that the mines are located in the **mountain regions** where the MLF’s constituency lives.
– Workers in the mines might be mountain people; thus:
– MLF control might reflect **collaboration with local communities** rather than exploitation.
– Violence might be targeted at the state, not at the local population.
**Arguments for “criminal� framing:**
– **Leadership wealth and representation gap:**
– A student argued that if the leaders became **far richer** than the impoverished people they claim to represent, this **distance from the base** undermines a purely “freedom fighterâ€� identity.
– They characterized such behavior as **capitalist** and self‑interested, suggesting leaders are **not truly representing** the mountain poor.
– **Legal and sovereignty argument:**
– The government of Oritos (and its laws) would clearly view the MLF as **criminals**:
– They are **using violence** to seize and control territory and resources from the state.
– They violate the law by capturing state resources and undermining the central government’s authority.
You did not resolve the debate but used it to set up the need for a more structured framework beyond labels and laws.
—
### 8. Shifting the Focus: From “What Kind� to “Why Violence?�
You made a key conceptual pivot:
– You clarified what **today’s session is *not* about**:
– You are *not* focusing on the specific **types** of violent acts (bombings, assassinations, etc.), i.e., “how violence is used to get what they want.â€�
– Instead, you framed what **today’s session *is* about**:
– Asking **why** some actors decide to use political violence at all.
– What leads individuals/groups to break the law and choose **violence as a tool** for political goals?
**Introduction of the “Grievance vs. Greed� framework:**
– You introduced a classic explanation from political science (roughly 50 years old):
– Groups choose political violence primarily because of either:
– **Grievances**, or
– **Greed**.
– Definitions:
– **Grievances**:
– Large-scale **complaints** about systemic injustice (political, social, economic).
– People may resort to violence to address perceived **unfairness**, discrimination, marginalization, etc.
– **Greed**:
– The pursuit of **profit**, **power**, or **personal gain**.
– Violence becomes a way to **acquire resources or authority** for the group’s leaders or insiders.
You emphasized that scholars place groups along a **spectrum** between these two poles, not in perfectly separate categories.
—
### 9. Indicators Refresher and Partner Activity
You recalled prior work on **indicators** from a previous class:
– **Indicator**: A **sign** or observable feature that suggests an underlying condition or motive.
– You asked: “An indicator is a sign of what?â€�—reinforcing that indicators point to an underlying concept (e.g., grievance or greed).
**Partner activity instructions:**
– Students were asked to:
– Find a partner (or small groups of three where necessary).
– Discuss and list:
– **Indicators** that a violent political movement is acting mainly due to **grievances**.
– **Indicators** that it is acting mainly due to **greed**.
– Expected output:
– At least **2–3 indicators** on each side, phrased in **general** (not case-specific) terms.
– While students moved desks and formed pairs, you gave them ~5 minutes for discussion and note-taking.
—
### 10. Class Synthesis: Indicators of Grievance-Motivated Violence
You brought the class back together and compiled their ideas, starting with **grievances**.
**1. Articulation of social injustice as the stated cause**
– Examples: **apartheid**, discrimination, repression, long-term poverty.
– Indicators:
– The group **explicitly claims** in protests, speeches, manifestos, or public statements that:
– They are acting to address specific injustices (e.g., racial segregation, land inequality, political exclusion).
– Use of slogans, banners, and written documents describing **injustice as the rationale** for violence.
**2. Targets of violence**
– Key idea: *Target choice reveals motive*.
– Indicators of grievance motivation:
– Attacks focus on **government, military, and industrial targets**, such as:
– Government buildings.
– Military bases and personnel.
– Factories and other strategic infrastructure.
– Effort to avoid or minimize **indiscriminate attacks on civilians**.
– Contrast with “just bombing a bus full of random peopleâ€� — such actions would be hard to square with grievance‑based discipline.
**3. Behavior when in control of territory**
– You asked: If a group motivated by grievance gains control of a region, **what do they do next?**
– Indicators:
– They **create governance structures**, not just extract resources.
– They maintain or improve **social services**:
– Health care.
– Transportation (e.g., buses).
– Banking systems and other basic utilities.
– They might aim to **improve the lives of local residents**, not just enrich leaders.
**4. Willingness to compromise**
– Indicator:
– Such groups often show **willingness to negotiate**:
– Accept partial reforms or incremental gains.
– Suspend violence in the context of meaningful talks.
– This willingness suggests that their goal is to **change specific injustices**, not endless conflict.
**5. Popular legitimacy**
– Indicator:
– **Local populations** in the group’s areas of operation:
– Tend to see them as **legitimate**.
– May support them voluntarily, provide resources, or join.
– While this is a softer indicator, it helps differentiate groups that rely on **support** versus those that rely primarily on **fear or coercion**.
—
### 11. Class Synthesis: Indicators of Greed-Motivated Violence
You then worked through the **greed** side.
**1. Resource capture and elite enrichment**
– Primary indicator:
– **Leaders** of the group become **very wealthy** from resource control (e.g., diamond mines, oil).
– Signs:
– Wealth accumulation is clearly **beyond operational necessities** (not just enough to arm fighters and run basic services).
– Profits are used for personal luxury, patronage networks, or power consolidation.
**2. Target choice and economic logic**
– Targets are chosen based on **economic profitability**:
– Resource-rich zones (diamond mines, oil fields, drug-producing areas).
– Trade routes, smuggling corridors, or other lucrative sites.
– Contrast:
– Poor, economically unproductive regions are less attractive to such groups unless they offer some strategic advantage.
**3. Human rights violations and collateral damage**
– Indicators:
– **Frequent violation of human rights**, including:
– Systematic attacks on **civilians** (not just state/military targets).
– Use of terror tactics to control populations.
– High levels of collateral damage accepted as a cost of doing business.
– Attacks on **rival groups** (including other armed factions), often to control territory and resources rather than to pursue ideals.
**4. Inflexibility / refusal to compromise**
– Indicator:
– Groups motivated by greed show **low willingness to compromise**:
– Peace deals that threaten their control over resources are rejected.
– They resist arrangements that would reduce the leaders’ power or income.
**5. Recruitment practices and composition of fighters**
– Indicators:
– **Forced recruitment**:
– Threats to kill or harm those who refuse to join.
– Blackmail and intimidation.
– Use of **paid fighters**:
– Individuals join primarily for wages, loot, or survival, not ideals.
– Use of **child soldiers**:
– Recruiting and arming children as fighters.
– These practices suggest that the group cannot rely on **voluntary ideological support** and is instead sustaining itself through coercion and material incentives.
**6. Legitimacy (or lack thereof)**
– While legitimacy can be complex, you framed a basic indicator:
– Groups whose behavior is mainly greed-driven tend to have **low genuine popular support**:
– Populations comply because of **fear** or **payment**, not shared grievances or political vision.
You acknowledged overlaps: hierarchies exist in both types, and trauma or oppression can be present in both. The key is the **pattern of indicators**, not a single factor.
—
### 12. Normative Clarification: Analysis vs Moral Judgment
You made a critical methodological point:
– This course is **not** about:
– Declaring certain groups “goodâ€� or “bad.â€�
– Passing moral verdicts (e.g., justifying or condemning violence).
– Instead, the aim is:
– To **explain** why some people/groups decide to adopt political violence as their strategy.
– To understand what makes them see violence as the **only or best available option**.
– You underlined that the **greed vs grievance** framework is **analytical**, not moral; both “sidesâ€� can be morally troubling.
This helps students separate their personal values from their analytical tasks.
—
### 13. Reapplying the Framework to the MLF
In the remaining minutes, you returned to the **Mountain Liberation Front**:
**Task:**
– Students were asked to:
– Use the **indicator lists** just developed.
– Reassess the MLF:
– Which indicators (grievance vs greed) can be observed in the two known facts?
– Decide whether, based on those indicators, the MLF appears more **grievance-driven** or **greed-driven**.
– Even though the case is clearly mixed, students were asked to argue for **one side**, with reasons.
**Evidence they considered:**
– **For grievances:**
– MLF has a detailed **manifesto**:
– It explicitly identifies **long-term poverty** and marginalization of mountain people.
– Calls for **land reform** and **land rights** to improve equality.
– This matches the indicator of **clear articulation of injustices and political goals**.
– **For greed:**
– MLF leaders have become **extremely wealthy** by controlling **diamond mines** and selling diamonds illegally.
– They appear to be **hoarding wealth** rather than investing it in services for the people they claim to represent.
– Control is focused on **economically lucrative areas**, not purely symbolic or political targets.
**Class discussion highlights:**
– One student argued that **actions speak louder than words**:
– The manifestos might be rhetorical covers.
– The fact that leaders enriched themselves so dramatically suggests **greed** dominates.
– Another argued:
– If they were primarily grievance‑driven, they would use diamond revenues to:
– Fund **hospitals, schools, election centers**.
– Improve living conditions of mountain communities.
– The absence of such behavior points toward **self-interest**.
– You noted that:
– Some indicators are **interchangeable** or ambiguous in real cases.
– Resource control can be both a **means of funding** a genuine political struggle and a **source of personal enrichment**, complicating simple labels.
You left the classification **open-ended** but illustrated how to build arguments by:
– Identifying relevant indicators.
– Weighing which evidence is **more decisive**.
—
### 14. Closing: Next Session and Required Reading
You wrapped up by previewing Thursday’s class:
– Thursday’s plan:
– Move from the fictional Oritos case to **real-world cases** of political violence.
– Students will be given **actual cases** and asked to:
– Apply the **grievance vs greed** framework.
– Use **indicators** to argue **why** a group became violent.
– Emphasis again on explanation, not moral endorsement.
– **Assigned reading:**
– You will post a **short reading (2–3 pages)** on the course’s online platform (you referenced “eBay,â€� likely meaning your LMS).
– Students are expected to **complete the reading before Thursday**.
– The reading will presumably deepen the discussion on greed vs grievances and indicators.
—
### 15. After-Class Student Consultations (Project & Logistics)
**Political actor project – one-on-one clarification**
– A student asked about choosing a **non-ambassador political actor** to interview for an assignment:
– Proposed subject:
– A former **government minister / city mayor** in Russia who is now a **monk in Nepal**.
– Concerns:
1. He is a **former** political actor—not currently active.
2. He does **not speak English**.
– You responded:
– Former political actors are acceptable as long as the student can conduct an interview.
– Non-English is fine if the student can **translate**, and can use recorded materials/phone videos.
– The assignment minimum of “one questionâ€� can be exceeded; the student may ask multiple questions and use them in the reflection paper.
– This sets a precedent: **former officials** and **non-English interviews with translation** are acceptable.
**Grades and late work**
– Multiple students asked:
– When they would get their scores: you reiterated **end-of-week**.
– About a late essay: you confirmed it was marked **late** rather than missing; you also mentioned you had looked at one student’s essay and it “looks okayâ€� and would receive a decent grade.
**Extra credit / make-up scheduling**
– One student asked about signing up for **extra points**:
– You agreed and scheduled a meeting for **tomorrow at 12:00**, subject to email confirmation.
**Student comfort with disagreement**
– One student mentioned:
– They sometimes disagree with ideas in class but feel uncomfortable expressing that in front of ~50 students.
– They prefer to raise sensitive disagreements in **office hours**.
– You acknowledged this and presented yourself as open to such discussions privately.
—
## Actionable Items for the Instructor
### High Priority – Before Next Class (Thursday)
– **Post reading on LMS**
– Upload the promised **2–3 page reading** on political violence/greed vs grievances.
– Ensure visibility and possibly send a brief announcement reminding students to read it before Thursday.
– **Prepare real-world case materials**
– Select and prepare **real-world political violence cases** (e.g., insurgencies, terrorist groups, civil wars).
– For each case, identify:
– Key facts.
– Potential indicators of grievance vs greed.
– Design prompts for students to apply the framework in class.
– **Confirm extra points appointment**
– Note the appointment for **tomorrow at 12:00** with the student who requested extra points / make-up.
– Ensure time is blocked off or confirm via email as requested.
### Medium Priority – By End of This Week
– **Complete midterm grading**
– Finish grading all remaining midterm essays by **Friday night**.
– Post numeric grades for students who have not yet received them.
– **Respond to feedback requests**
– Monitor email for students requesting:
– Full written feedback on their midterms.
– Feedback needed to attempt the **midterm makeup**.
– Send requested feedback in a timely manner.
– **Finalize essay grades**
– Complete grading of any outstanding essays.
– Ensure late submissions are correctly marked and recorded in your gradebook.
### Lower Priority / Ongoing
– **Monitor political actor project parameters**
– Consider clarifying in writing (on LMS or assignment sheet) that:
– **Former** political actors are acceptable interview subjects.
– **Non-English interviews** are permitted if the student can provide translation.
– Students may ask **more than the minimum number of questions** as long as they meet assignment goals.
– **Support for dissenting views**
– Given the student’s comment about discomfort with public disagreement:
– Consider:
– Reinforcing in class that disagreement is welcome.
– Providing optional, **low-stakes channels** (e.g., anonymous feedback, online discussion posts) for students to express views they don’t want to share aloud.
– **Prepare for final exam**
– Begin sketching:
– Final exam **essay prompts** aligned with course objectives.
– Criteria for assessing students’ ability to use frameworks like grievances vs greed and indicators in their written arguments.
—
This report should give you a detailed reconstruction of the session: the administrative context (grading, final exam), the conceptual work on political violence, and the practical argumentation skills developed via the MLF case and the grievance vs greed framework.
Homework Instructions:
ASSIGNMENT #1: Reading on Causes of Political Violence (Grievances vs. Greed)
You will read a short text (about 2–3 pages) that introduces the “grievances vs. greed� explanation for why groups choose political violence, so that you can apply this framework to real-world cases in our next class.
Instructions:
1. **Locate the assigned reading.**
1. Log in to the course site.
2. Find the file the professor mentioned in class as “the reading� for this week (a short, 2–3 page text) on the causes of political violence, focusing on *grievances* and *greed*.
3. Download or open the file so you can annotate it (digitally or on paper).
2. **Do an initial skim (5 minutes).**
1. Quickly skim the reading from beginning to end.
2. As you skim, look specifically for:
– Where the author **defines** “grievancesâ€� and “greed.â€�
– Any **examples** of political violence used to illustrate each.
– Any **lists of factors or indicators** that suggest a group is motivated more by grievances or by greed.
3. Note the structure of the piece (e.g., introduction → explanation of grievances → explanation of greed → discussion/critique).
3. **Read carefully with the class framework in mind.**
1. Read the text more slowly and carefully.
2. As you read, keep in mind what we discussed in class about:
– Political violence as either “freedom fightersâ€� or “criminals/terrorists.â€�
– The **Mountain Liberation Front** example.
– The idea that scholars often explain political violence with **two broad motivations**:
– **Grievances**: large complaints about injustice, exclusion, inequality, etc.
– **Greed**: pursuit of power, money, or resources for leaders or a narrow group.
3. Underline or highlight any sentences that:
– Offer a **clear definition** of grievances or greed.
– Describe **why groups might see violence as their “only option.â€�**
– Provide **evidence or indicators** that a movement is grievance-motivated vs. greed-motivated.
4. **Identify and list the indicators mentioned in the reading.**
In your notebook or a separate document, write two short lists:
1. **Indicators of grievance-motivated political violence** (things we might observe if a group mainly fights because of real political or social complaints). For example, look for mentions of:
– Stated **political goals** (in manifestos, statements, etc.).
– Focus on **social injustice** or **exclusion**.
– Targets like **government institutions, military bases, or industrial infrastructure**, rather than random civilians.
– Attempts to **change laws**, provide **social services**, or otherwise address broad community problems when they control territory.
2. **Indicators of greed-motivated political violence** (things we might observe if a group mainly fights for power or profit). For example, look for mentions of:
– Leaders becoming **personally wealthy** (controlling mines, oil, or other lucrative resources).
– Focus on capturing or controlling **profitable areas** rather than poor regions.
– Heavy **attacks on civilians** or rival groups, high collateral damage.
– Forcing or **paying recruits** (including child soldiers) rather than drawing on broad voluntary support.
You do not need to write long paragraphs—bullet points or short phrases are enough—but make sure each indicator is clearly connected either to grievances or to greed.
5. **Connect the reading to the Mountain Liberation Front example.**
1. In 4–6 sentences in your notebook, answer the following for yourself:
– Using the indicators from the reading, which side seems more strongly present in the **Mountain Liberation Front** case as described in class: **grievances** or **greed**?
– Which facts from the story support your choice? (e.g., their manifesto about poor mountain people vs. the leaders becoming rich from diamond mines.)
2. You are not turning this in right now, but you should bring these notes and be ready to refer to them in discussion.
6. **Prepare at least one question or critique for discussion.**
1. After you finish reading, write down **one question or doubt** you have about the grievances vs. greed framework. For example, you might wonder:
– Can a group be motivated by **both** grievances and greed at the same time?
– How do we avoid making **moral judgments** (“goodâ€� vs. “badâ€� violence) when using this framework, as discussed in class?
– Are the indicators for grievances and greed always clear and separate in real cases?
2. Bring this question to class; you may be asked to share or discuss it when we apply the framework to real-world cases.
7. **Complete the reading before Thursday’s class.**
1. Make sure you have fully read and annotated the text, created your indicator lists, and written your short reflection and one discussion question **before** Thursday’s session.
2. Bring your notes (on paper or digital) to class; you will need them to analyze the real-world cases the professor will provide and to answer the question **“Why did this group become violent?�** using the grievances vs. greed framework.