Somaliland 10-Year Independence War (1981-1991):

Before 1967, what we now know as Somaliland and Somalia were under British and Italian rule respectively. In 1967, the territories gained their independence and formed the republic of Somalia. Many ethnic tribes were unhappy with Somali rule, and, led by the SNM, successfully broke off to form “Somaliland”. However, today, Somaliland is not recognized by any country as an official state according to the Italian Institution for International Political Studies. 

Somaliland’s quest for statehood reveals the question of truly defining a nation. Countries such as Somalia, Ethiopia and Turkey reject Somaliland's search for statehood. While nations like Egypt and Israel support it. It is essential in human science to understand how nations are officially decided.

Afrocentricity also manifests in the issue of Somaliland. Assistant researcher Joshua Meservey says that “Somalilanders’ Quest for Independence Isn’t “Neocolonial” It’s Self-Determination.” The excerpt exemplifies how the quest to maintain colonial borders of Somaliland is rooted in cultural pride. Sovereignty and ethnic independence underlies the Somaliland search for independence and is a key facet of Human Science, something rooted in culture. 

Additionally, it is important to understand the context of ethnic liberation in a neocolonial framework. Somaliland’s search for independence reveals how power shapes our world. Somaliland currently faces many challenges for legitimization; many of these challenges can be attributed to a lack of European recognition for African independence. The lack of acknowledgement from the western world reveals  an ignorance, and demonstrates how western powers (UN, US, Britain, etc) dissociate with African issues. Furthermore, because of the colonial framework Somaliland and Somalia haved operated in, both nations face various existential threats (hunger, healthcare, and interregional war). Understanding cultural power dynamics is essential to understanding the human sciences as a whole. Colonialism provides insight into the anthropological human sciences.

Serial Killer Jeffery Dahmer:

According to Dr. Hannah E. Booth, serial killer analysis are essential in human science. She states that “case studies for killers explain how their childhoods, behavior patterns, and whether they had certain disorders or traumas advance the general knowledge on serial killers from a criminological perspective.”

 In a similar sense to other serial killers in the past (Aileen Woods, Ted Bundy, etc), Jeffrey Dahmer adds to the sociological literature of how one’s adolescence influences adulthood. Criminology Professor Tamara Higgs at Regis University explains how through “social learning theory, Dahmer demonstrates how his neglect and abuse tie into his later life as a sexual serial killer.”  Higgs describes how Dahmer’s combined emotional and physical abuse led to his actions. Physically, Dahmer underwent double hernia surgery at a young age, (Freudian psychology later explains how this motivated him to cut off the penises of his victims). Emotionally, Dahmer was often isolated and neglected by his family. Through Dahmer, criminologists are able to describe abuse in both physical and mental capacities, understanding a key facet of the psychological human science. 

Different from other serial killers, Dahmer's case study also reveals the interworking of racism and homophobia, and how they create a platform for violence. Every victim of Dahmer was a gay man of color. Dr. Ian Barnad at Chapman University writes how, “Dahmer's homosexualization in a particular representation determines Dahmer' s thinking and actions in the sphere of race.” Specifically, Dr. Barnad argues how an intersectional lens is necessary to fully understand sociology. Understanding social dynamics in various racial, sexual, and gendered minority communities is essential to understanding the human sciences as a whole (specifically from the sociogicial point of view). 

The Atomic Bomb in Hiroshima:

During World War two, on August 6th 1945, Hiroshima became the first city in the world to be struck by an atomic bomb.

American History specialist at the University of Wisconsin Jeff Nilsoon explains how Hiroshima completely changed how civilians viewed war. People then began enacting “emergencies strategies” such as electing emergency governments and assigning doomsday duties. Clearly, the risk of atomic war created an hysteria similar to the Cuba Nuclear Crisis.

Crises like Hiroshima also change game theory, specifically war theory. The use of atomic weapons, and today, nuclear weapons, added the idea of mutually assured destruction (MAD) for warring nations. The development of these weapons has cautioned warring actors with the fear that both nations would die in the event of a war. Thus, compared to a century ago, military strategy today has completely changed. One can observe high tension conflicts like the Taiwan-China conflict and understand that war is prevented through MAD. This demostrates how technology, like weaponary, can foster new knowledge in the Human Sciences.

Hiroshima also affected how we evaluate and see modern day politics. Currently politicians are worried about a fourth year Trump presidency because of his withdraw from nuclear peace treaties, creating a similar sense of worry shown in the 1940’s. Political scientist Hirsh Michael warns that “Trump has dismantled the nonproliferation architecture erected over decades. Building on President George W. Bush’s withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2001.” Through observing American reactions to certain policies, one can understand the longstanding effects of Hiroshima, and its influence on the facet of Political Science within the Human Sciences.