This was an article that appeared in "Reuters," but the hyperlink will take you to the "New York Times" which is where I originally found the article.
The article itself wasn't my favorite due to it's sloppiness, but that doesn't change the significance of what it recounted.
On the 17th, around 100 people were, as Reuters puts it, "shot, hacked, and burned to death." The article gives several eyewitness accounts including a man who watched three people die by machete and one man who claims his brother's entire family was burned alive when their house was set ablaze by attackers. The article then explains that attacks like this are not at all uncommon anymore in Nigeria and estimates that nearly 3000 people have perished in similar raids. The article claims that the violence is a result from ethnic/religious conflicts (which should come as no surprise) and "decades-old land disputes."
One of the things we see in both Africa and the Middle East is the ethnic conflicts that have arisen from colonialism and imperialism. In Africa there was the introduction of Christianity and unequal favor among tribes. In the Middle East there was the egregious division of territory following World War II. Both have resulted in horrific and perpetual violence. There is a theory out there that says the only way the violence will stop is to let it continue and work itself out. Boundaries will realign pragmatically and all will be well. This seems like a reasonable theory as far as the Middle East is concerned, because a lot of the violence there is a direct result from tribal, religious, and ethnic (essentially idealistic) conflicts.
However, from the description that this article recounts, it sounded to me that a lot of the violence in Nigeria comes from marauding land-grabs, pilfering, and looting. Some of the religious boundaries might realign, but the barbaric nature of village-looting and resource grabbing seems like less of an issue of ideals and more of just an anarchic tendency. It will be interesting to see what happens.
As you said, a significant contributor to the violence is the ethnic and religious differences between different peoples within Nigeria. The cause of this originates in the fact that different ethnic groups within Africa, as well as within the rest of the world, tend to travel in horizontal bands rather than country-shaped ellipses.
ReplyDeleteThe religious differences only further exacerbates the potential cultural conflicts because religions were applied asymmetric to the layouts of the cultures. Meaning, some tribes are half Muslim and half Christian; or some tribes are half Sunni and half Shia; or some tribes are half Lutheran and half Anglican; and so on.
In my opinion, there is nothing inherent within cultural differences that necessarily means two distinct cultures must be violent. Furthermore, there is nothing within the doctrines of both Islam and Christianity that creates an imperative necessarily for violence.
Thus, it seems to me that the underlying cause of this violence - the spark that ignites the powder-keg of cultural and religious heterogeneity - would likely have to be the overwhelming poverty rate and the extremely high amounts of economic inequality. In-and-of-themselves, religious and cultural differences do not cause violence for-the-most-part; they only exacerbate violence already present.
What I propose is what I always seem to propose: There needs to be a Marshal plan for Africa. Ending the disparity and destitution within Africa will decapitate the head of the monster that is economically-self-propagating violence.
I think the violence originates more from a lack of education rather than poverty itself. That said, however, I understand that the omission of education is a symptom of poverty 99 out of 100 times. Poverty itself doesn't necessitate violence. Even the implementation of economic egalitarianism doesn't require a violent revolution -- it just turned out that way. Once again, I understand that, although it doesn't require it, poverty does often lead to violence.
DeleteJust to acknowledge something you said (". . . there is nothing within the doctrines of both Islam and Christianity that creates an imperative necessarily for violence"), it is true that most sects of both religions don't advocate or call for violence, but you knowing history as well as anyone else should know that it often results in it. I would argue that religion is similar to poverty in the fact that violence is a direct condition of neither, but both often result in it. I would even go as far as to say that religion has been the primary incendiary factor of more violent conflicts than poverty has, if you are separating the two factors. Ultimately, however, Nigeria is probably more a fusion of the two factors than anything else. The lack of education that has come with the poverty in Nigeria coupled with often hateful feelings naturally sired within humans at the unfamiliar or the foreign is resulting in these pandemics of ethnic violence.
I definitely don't see an end to the violence in Nigeria. Unless the government finds a way to unite all of these tribes in some manner, the fighting will continue. First the government needs to step it up though, and end the corruption.
ReplyDelete