The Individual and Ethnicity Choice

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Contemporary Situation of Ethnic Conflicts
The Effect of Colonialism
Ethnic Diversity and Conflict
Conclusion
Works Cited

Introduction

Recent analysis of international affairs paints the picture that the world is embroiled in age-old ethnic conflicts. Proponents of this notion contend that people from different ethnic groups harbor deep hatred for one another, and are only restrained by modern civilizations.

They predict that, in the future, either the modern states will break up into smaller ethnic groupings or great civilizations will rise against each other (Gurr 43). However, the general agreement is that modern regional conflicts can be attributed to cultural differences and affective ties of tribal groupings.

This notion does not foresee a situation where diverse people can coexist. In fact, most ethnic conflicts do not result from ethnic diversity; rather, these conflicts are often fueled by the struggle for power and scarce resources such as land. This implies that in talking about ethnic conflicts, the assumption that ethnic identities are age-old and unchanging may be misleading.

In other words, contrary to this assumption, ethnicity or race is a creation of contemporary politics that denies some people opportunities and gives others access to resources and power (Gurr 44). Cultural or religious differences have not, by themselves, resulted in ethnic conflict. Moreover, in modern times, culturally different people have learned one another’s cultural behaviors and have even intermarried, hence blurring contrasts between ethnic groupings.

Contemporary Situation of Ethnic Conflicts

In modern times, there is a common notion that ethnicity is age-old and often presents itself as ethnocentricism particularly in governance. In Eastern Europe, the current conflicts portray various ethnic groups as having strong nationalistic tendencies, which can only be suppressed by an autocratic government.

In contrast, in the Western world, the American ‘melting pot’ suggests ethnicities are fast disintegrating while Eastern ethnicities must be suppressed by the autocratic leadership (Gurr 118). In former Yugoslavia, the Bosnians, Croats, and Serbs are different ethnic groupings, which, historically clashed from time to time over resources. However, due to intermarriages, the differences between these currently warring communities are actually so small.

The Bosnians, Croats, and Serbs all speak Italian language and have coexisted in peace for a long time. Although these ethnic groups profess different religions-Serbs being mainly Orthodox, Croats being Roman Catholic and Bosnians being predominantly Muslim-still, each ethnic group comprises of considerable numbers of each religion. This, coupled with high rates of intermarriages, has blurred the differences between these groups.

Therefore, it is clear that the cause of the current Balkan wars is not fueled by ancient religious and ethnic differences, but rather by the contemporary politics, which rally individuals around nationalistic ideologies. In this regard, ‘ethnicity’ is packaged as ‘nationalism’ in the pretext of gaining access to resources, land, and power.

The Serb and Croat leaders advocated for a right to self-rule in nation states. Serbs on their part wanted to expand outwards and include other ethnic groups (Horowitz 77). Croats on the other hand held a different nationalistic ideology, which promised to keep out non-Croats. In this view, different nationalistic ideologies are factors that fuelled the massacre of Serbs during the Second World War and in the 1990s.

The Effect of Colonialism

The origin of ethnic conflict in Eastern Europe is different from that of Africa. African violence is not fueled by conflicting ideologies, but rather by ancient warfare between tribes that was propagated by the colonial powers (Horowitz 51).

Ethnic conflict in Africa can be defined by four factors, namely; membership ties in a group, prejudice towards non-members, fear, and expectations about resource allocation. Ethnicities produce affection for in-group members, where the members prefer their “own” and exclude or discriminate against non-members (Gurr 87). Often, discrimination arises because of these strong in-group ties and loyalty.

Usually, people have a positive social relationship with in-group members. A close relationship exists between the positive feelings between co-ethnics and the prejudice or fear for ethnic strangers. According to Horowitz, “contemporary politics breed fear and prejudice, which ultimately determine political behavior,” (91).

In contemporary politics, politicians often use fear and prejudice against ‘out groups’ when seeking support from members of their race or tribe. In the United States, whites predominantly hold a social aversion to participation of blacks in mainstream politics. This stems from learned racist practices in the south. Past voting trends in the US, white voting behavior reflect an aversion towards blacks.

In the African case, ethnic conflict, in the political perspective, is a product of the struggle over power and resources. True, in earlier decades, Africans identified themselves with their ethnic identity, or lineage. However, as people migrate to far places seeking for employment and trade opportunities; ethnic or racial identity has become less important (American Anthropological Association Par. 8).

Now, the conflict is rarely caused by ethnic differences but a struggle for scarce resources such as land, water and pastoral land. The colonial system determined that each person belonged to a particular ethnic identity within the colony. This meant that each had to belong or show loyalty to a particular African group.

This was not restricted to Africa: in India, the British Empire promoted the Hindu nationalism where people identified themselves as either Hindu or Sikh. This later transformed to distinct ‘ethnic groups’ after independence. Other cases include the Maronites in Lebanon, Moluccans in Dutch and Karens in Burma where colonial states created groupings, which they christened as either ethnic or religious groups.

Nevertheless, in modern times, the need for political autonomy, resources, jobs, and better livelihoods has become the new frontier for ethnic conflicts. Thus, age-old tribal loyalties have become less significant as people strive to attain better socioeconomic status.

Ethnic Diversity and Conflict

It is often assumed that ethnic diversity is the cause of ethnic conflict and political instability. To the contrary, ethnic diversity has less to do with tribal or racial conflicts. In ethnically diverse countries such as Indonesia and Pakistan, less inter-ethnic conflicts have been experienced compared to countries such as Somalia, Yugoslavia, and Rwanda that are relatively less ethnically diverse (Glenny 78).

This indicates that ethnic diversity does not breed ethnic conflicts, but rather relationships of people relative to power that cause local conflicts. A good example is Indonesia. Indonesia is known for its suppression of political activism in East Timor (Glenny 85). This cannot be classified as an ethnic conflict, as the country has over three hundred ethnic groupings with distinct language and religion. In fact, the recent ethnic conflict has much to do with the struggle for control of local resources, specifically oil and gas resources.

Ethnic diversity can sometimes affect national integration in most nation states. However, some countries often succeed in fostering national integration while others fail. It all depends on the social cohesion policies implemented.

In countries such as Rwanda and Burundi, where one ethnic group has been dominating over the others, avoiding ethnic conflicts requires concerted efforts to enhance national healing and reconciliation (Horowitz 86). Often systems where one or two major groups polarize regional politics are less stable compared to systems where smaller groups have an equal chance to participate in national politics.

An example is Malaysia where politicians established an all-inclusive political coalition that strengthened ties between diverse ethnic groupings, i.e. the Chinese communities and Malay people. In contrast, in Sri Lanka, the Sinhalese people formed a government, which, however, split into two ethnic factions, Tamils and Sinhalese, resulted in ethnic conflict.

Political systems can also be modified to accommodate diverse ethnic groups and prevent ethnic tensions. In Nigeria, for instance, after the Biafra war in 1965 a new political system that curved the country into 19 states comprising of the major ethnic groups, Hausa, Igbo, and Yoruba, was implemented (Horowitz 119).

The states comprised of multiethnic coalitions, which helped to foster cohesion and avoid ethnic tensions. However, competing political interests resulted to excessive fragmentations, and subsequently the recurrence of ethnic tensions. It is apparent that negative stereotypes, prejudice, and fear of members of other groups are effects of contemporary political choices made by leaders.

Conclusion

Contemporary ethnic conflicts are not based on ancient cultural or religious differences. In fact, studies have established that ethnic diversity does not necessarily lead to ethnic conflict. The competition for resources causes ethnic tension and violence. In addition, political choices made by the leaders often cause intergroup tensions. Hence, leaders who develop perverse nationalistic ideologies cultivate hatred, which eventually breeds ethnic violence.

Works Cited

American Anthropological Association (AAA). “Statement on ‘Race’”. 1998. Web.

Glenny, Misha. The Fall of Yugoslavia. New York: Penguin, 1992. Print.

Gurr, Ted. Ethnic Conflict in World Politics. Boulder, Colo: Westview, 1994. Print.

Horowitz, Donald. Ethnic Groups in conflict. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999. Print.

Click Here To Order Now!