From: Richard Ridge (richard_ridge@tao-group.com)
Date: Wed Feb 06 2002 - 03:20:30 MST
I'm left wondering about the merits of this discussion (i.e. the Nigeria
component). I cannot think of a single conflict with an identifiable
religious dimension (I think it is fair to say that that is true of modern
Nigeria - much of the recent violence appears to have been prompted by the
introduction of sharia law which would appear to indicate that religion is
playing some role in the present conflict, if only by serving as a marker of
extent tribal differences) that did not also have ethnic, cultural, national
/ tribal and political dimensions (my suspicion is that we could as easily
be debating any number of conflicts - the word 'nigeria' in this discussion
is looking rather interchangeable). As such, it seems to me that this debate
has been incorrectly phrased. The question is not whether religion happens
to be the greatest causal factor is surely not the important issue. The
important issue is whether or not religion is exacerbating UTism or
dissolving it. I would hope that it should be self evident that the presence
of both christianity and islam in nigeria has exacerbated the problem.
Unless there is disagreement over that proposition (and I'm willing to bet
money that there isn't) I would have to contend that this is a straw debate.
"One of the more frightening aspects of human nature is a tendency to
gravitate towards 'Us' and against 'Them'. Worse, Us versus Them disputes
have a natural tendency to reach down the generations, leading to vendettas
of frightening historical tenacity. Where labels are not provided to feed
our natural divisiveness, we manufacture them. Children separate out into
gangs, often with distinguishing labels. In certain districts of Los
Angeles, a young person innocently sporting the wrong brand of trainers is
in danger of being shot. Experiments have been done in which children, with
no particular reason to sort themselves into gangs, are provided with, say,
green or blue labels. In short order, enmities spring up between the greens
and the blues: fierce loyalties to one's own colour, vendettas against the
other. These can become surprisingly vicious. That's what happens when you
don't even try to segregate children. Now, imagine that you deliberately
stamp a green or a blue label on a child at birth. Send this child to a blue
school and that child to a green school. Encourage green boys to assume that
they will grow up to marry green girls, while blue girls will marry blue
boys. Take for granted that, the moment they have a baby of their own, it
too must have the same coloured label tied around its neck. Passed on down
the generations, what is all
that a recipe for? Do I need to spell it out?" (R Dawkins, The Observer)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:42 MDT