Over the last six weeks my class and I have been learning about the issue in Myanmar. More than 700,000 Rohingya have been forced to flee their homes. While extending our knowledge on a world crisis we were able to hear a range of perspectives from many different people. Doing this has made my class and I wonder are all perspectives equally important? After much deliberation, I have not been able to decide if this is true or not.
One reason I agree with this statement is if you hear more than one opinion you will get a much bigger picture of what's going on than if you only hear one person's perspective.
For example in Myanmar if we didn't hear from the military then how would we know why they are torturing the Rohingya. Because we have listened to the military we now know that the Rohingyas have lived in Myanmar for hundreds of years but are apparently not seen as citizens.
Knowing this I can conclude that all perspectives are equally important as two perspectives are better than one. If there is an issue going on you need to hear both sides of the story because there might be a reason why the crisis is happening.
Despite everything i just said there are lots of reasons why not all perspectives are equally important. A view could be irrelevant, racist or fake and if someone read that they might think something that could hurt others.
An example of this is Ang Sang Su Kyi is telling people that terrorists are behind the attacks. If you have been keeping up with the news you would know it is clear that the military is behind most of the violence. I don't know about you but I think Ang Sang Su Kyi is trying to hide something.
This shows that not every perspective is as important as another because if someone is saying something misleading you will be hearing fake news. If people are reading something fake people will start to believe false news.
In summary I cannot decide if all perspectives are equally important.