What are the causes of ethnic clashes?

Answer 1

Ethnic conflicts in the context of social science theories


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Valery A. Tishkov


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Valery A. Tishkov

Different social science approaches to the phenomenon of ethnicity and the methodologies of the discipline influence a rather wide spectrum of interpretations of ethnic conflicts. The problem is that what is usually categorized as an ethnic conflict quite often has a more complex nature. As an example, the national movements for independence in the Baltic region were considered by Soviet experts as an ethnic conflict developed in the former USSR.' But, in reality, the decisive factor of these events was political rather than ethnic: it was a movement of three Baltic polities comprising ethnically mixed populations for state sovereignty and for a complete secession from the Soviet empire.

The majorities of people in these republics consist of three distinct ethnic groups, and they were the ones who formulated the national idea and the programme of ethno-nationalism. Around this programme an overwhelming majority of the population, including non-natives, was mobilized. Half of the ethnic Russians living in these republics openly supported and participated in the national movements for independence. In this Baltic case, it is not so easy to distinguish inter-ethnic parameters from the predominantly vertical political struggle between the periphery and the centre. In spite of inter-ethnic tensions between titular groups and that part of the Russian-speaking population which showed solidarity with the agonizing all-Union structures, it would be an oversimplification to put these contradictions in a category and analyse the tension as an ethnic conflict per se. The Baltic experience was closer in nature to the political struggle of third world peoples for their national self determination after the Second World War, when the leaders of this struggle were at the same time resolute opponents of ethnic and tribal separatism. It was only later on that Latvian and Estonian nationalist leaders took a resolute position of open discrimination towards the non-titular (or "Russian-speaking") populations of their republics, when the laws on citizenship, official language, and new constitutions were passed and elections to new parliaments were held (in Estonia and Latvia over a third of the population was disfranchised).

Equally, it is not quite correct to consider the political struggles and nationalist movements for sovereignty now taking place in the territory of the Russian Federation as ethnic conflicts. They often repeat the same logic of decentralization of large multi-ethnic state formations, and these movements of Russian autonomies also include strong ethnic and cultural parameters because their initiators and leaders are predominantly represented by titular groups. Meanwhile, there are not sufficient grounds to speak about the Russian-Tatar and Russian-Chechen conflicts as inter-ethnic conflicts in connection with the political strategies of the Tatarstan and Chechen republics. Among those who formulate and support these political strategies there are many individuals and activists of Russian and of mixed ethnic origins, such as the vice-president of Tatarstan, Vasilii Likchachev.

The same kind of reservation could be applied to the interpretation of the movement for the autonomization of the Crimea as a Ukrainian-Russian conflict; although one can easily trace behind this movement a feeling of threat on the part of the Russian majority in the Crimea regarding its status in a new geopolitical situation when the Ukraine became an independent state and kept the territory of the peninsula under its jurisdiction.

Because of the multi-ethnic composition of almost all major areas of the former Soviet Union (the only exception is Armenia after the exodus of the Azeris from this territory), practically all kinds of conflicts and clashes - social or political (from young men's fights in local discotheques to collisions at the highest levels of power) - easily acquire an ethnic manifestation and flavour, making these conflicts and contradictions deeper, more complex, and extremely hard to resolve. Thus, while avoiding the easy temptation to extend the category of ethnic conflict to encompass all conflicting realities in this region, we must state that there are more than enough serious reasons for inter-ethnic tensions and unrest, both on an individual and a group level. The list of crimes and persecutions against ethnic groups and cultures committed by previous regimes is so long, and the existing socio-political and cultural hierarchies of ethnic groups are so obvious, that it would be a naive and irresponsible approach to reduce conflicting ethnicity to any other societal collisions and contradictions.

The ethnic factor in this region of the world often generates in its turn many critical situations which appear in the realm of politics, inter-community contacts, and federal-provincial relations. Precisely for these reasons, the borders between socio-political and ethnic conflicts in the territory of the post-Soviet states, including Russia, are fragile and hard to diagnose. The conflicts have multidimensional characteristics, and one form can easily convert into another or can have external, displaying facades with quite different internal contexts.

Answer 2

Fear is a big part of it. People often fear things they don't understand. They fear the differences in customs and traditions, languages, ideas and attitudes. And for some reason they view these differences as threats to their way of life.

That being said, I also have to say I DON'T agree that differences between human beings has to represent a threat. I think that when people stop focusing on the differences and start focusing on the similarities, we will have lots less ethnic clashes. And we will ALL be richer for it.

Answer 3

Every group has its idiots and its troublemakers. The problems start when, in the inevitable event that these idiots and troublemakers start something, other groups see them as representatives of their group, and the idiot's own group backs him.

In my home town of Rochester, New York, there was some stupid young drug dealer who happened to be Black who got shot by the police as he was trying to run them over with a car. Of course, the most influential local Black clergyman had to come out and preach about what a grave injustice this was, and how the local Black community had to show solidarity and stand up together to demand that the cops be "brought to justice."

This is the kind of blind alliegance to ones "own" that divides people and causes conflict. That punk deserved to die, and I'd have shot him myself if I were in the situation. The color of his skin makes no difference. People need to stand up for what's RIGHT, not just defend the worst representatives of their own groups.

Answer 4

Look at it as two neighbours, both jostling for their own space. SO both people have their own ideas on how to live there own lives the way want heaven forbid someone say anything against that way of life. We are so wrapped up in our own lives and some people (especially those who have been indoctrinated) are fighting a cause not directly towards a race. well thats the way i look at it.

Answer 5

man made barriers drawn in the course of the colonial era even as Europeans colonized Africa run in the time of classic tribal barriers. This has been a significant reason behind the conflicts in spite of the indisputable fact that it is not the only reason.

Answer 6

Differences in looks, backgrounds, attitudes, dating.
People of all races feel most comfortible with their own race in general.

Answer 7

I think people being so close-minded. It could also be how they were raised and of course ignorance.

Answer 8

My race is far better than your race.

Answer 9

ignorance

Answer 10

insensitivity towards each other.