Social psychological aspects of the East Timor peace and liberation movement were studied by in-depth interviews of key liberation leaders, using 20 open-ended questions in Tetum, the local language. Activist-leaders shared common beliefs: liberation as a prerequisite to development, unity, and possibility of peace through peaceful means. They told stories of acute self-suffering during imprisonment and torture; of their hopes, and courageous moments in the struggle. Human rights and Catholic faith ranked high in their shared values. Peaceful demonstrations, intergroup diplomacy, rallying international support, political and peace education towards consciousness transformation and housing refugees were liberationist nonviolent activities. Four important lessons were learned: advocacy to conscientise the people, practice of nonviolence, involvement of different sectors of society, and engaging the international community.

In addition to being the bloodiest century in human history, the 20th century was distinguished by many large-scale nonviolent movements that successfully toppled oppressive regimes, often in the face of overwhelming military power. Notable examples include: India, South Africa, Poland, Czechoslovakia, the Philippines, Chile, and Serbia (cf. Ackerman & DuVall, 2000; Ackerman & Kruegler, 1994; Zunes, Kurtz, & Asher, 1999). Montiel and Belo's research is unique, identifying human cognitions, emotions, and values that accompanied East Timor's nonviolent transition to democracy. The current article places their work within the larger framework of peace psychology

Social justice icons, like Rosa Parks, Mahatma Ghandi, Martin Luther King, Jr. and César Chávez, known for their tireless, courageous leadership initiating societal changes that have benefited many, lead the way for contemporary professional psychologists. These leaders opened pathways for inclusive principles and practices in education, employment, and political contexts. At the same time, professional leadership on behalf of multicultural and social justice issues in professional organisations and other contexts is known to be challenging. Biases and assumptions, micro-aggressions, and ignorance of experiences with interpersonal oppression are communicated daily. In multiculturally diverse global societies, social justice leadership is in great demand. Psychologists are encouraged to develop multicultural competencies in educational, research, and organisational practices and emulate the social justice icons.

It is clear that organisational and social efforts are necessary in forming a nonviolent political process that rightly seeks to empower both the Mestizo (mixed) and fully indigenous peoples of Mexico, and western Latino/a America as a part of the Pacific Rim, and affirm our multiple existence and voices (Arredondo & Aros, 2004; Arredondo, this volume).

The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) endorse social capital to solve poverty and inequality. Colombia proposes urban school reform (Escuelas Nuevas) to increase its social capital. Social capital is accepted by ‘indigenous researchers’ without considering its societal and political context. The psychology of Martín Baró and Freire' de-ideologises such social capital concepts. Interviews with individual teachers, community members, and focus groups of elementary school parents and students were analysed for the consequences of Escuelas Nuevas for social capital, and for peace-building and reconciliation of violent conflict. Social capital did not stand in place of social justice programmes. Using social capital to redirect efforts against social inequalities constitutes ‘structural violence’ perpetuating the colonisation of indigenous communities.

Upegui-Hernandez contributes to work on social capital and peace-building by situating Colombian national educational policy discussions within the larger social, political and economic context of globalisation and global politics of today. Questions regarding the roles of schools, particularly the role of schools in maintaining the status quo and thus furthering structural violence are most frequently asked by those who work in school settings (Brown, & Quinn, 2001; Kahne, O'Brien, & Quinn, 2001). Recently, we find this topic addressed by others from a wider range of professions and places (Lipman, 2005; McCarthy, Borgoiakova, Gilmore, Lomawaima, & Romero, 2005; Schwebel, 2003). Through her own background and work as a Columbian peace psychologist, Upegui-Hernandez draws upon a wide range of theoretical traditions and both a specific national as well as international context. Consequently, she raises critical questions about the role that Escuelas Nuevas play in Colombia's national processes of peace-building (Christie, 2006). She underscores her conclusion that although the existence of social capital in a community is important, is should not stand in the place of state and international programs for social justice.

Societal relationships of dominant and minority societal groups show that the marginalised minority societal group are not powerless victims of the dominant societal group. The societal groups are positioned within dynamic power relationships shaping their societal engagements. The dominant societal group silences the indigenous community experiences to advance the dominant societal group, by demeaning the minority societal group's societal and cultural knowledge. Minority societal group marginalisation is heard in the young voices of the indigenous community. The identity of the young is flavoured by local, national and global cultures. They articulate their marginalisation by interweaving dominant and minority discourses. Their voices speak of marginalisation in ways that are transferable to many minority and indigenous societal groups.

Development or transformation can be understood as an active process. The process has confronted and mobilised Maori people since our ancestors departed Hawai'iki to settle Aotearoa-New Zealand. In coming to understand the land the ancestors called ‘Aotearoa’, we changed. And as we changed, our internal and external symbionts and parasites also changed with us. Maori people have endured disease, climatic change, natural disasters, human made disasters, political disasters, economic disasters, educational disasters, and linguistic disasters for nearly two centuries. And as the indigenous people of Aotearoa we continue to be changed by and to change the prevailing assumptions on development (and sustainability) to become healthier and more imaginative people.