Ethnic And Racial Politics Essay, Research Paper
With democracy comes the idea of multi-ethnic societies
with freedoms such as civil liberties, expression, speech
and equality. This does mean though, that these
multi-ethnic societies are a utopia, existing without
conflicts and war. Ethnic differences are a major factor
for tensions among people of a common land. Kosovo is a
recent reminder to this very point. Kinship to the land is
not as strong as ethnic differences, even in a democracy.
Looking at two points of view from authors Cynthia Enloe,
and Donald Horowitz, one will learn to realize that
democracy is not always what one expects.
While not directly discussing the relationship between
democracy and ethnic conflicts or war, Cynthia Enloe goes
into detail about ethnic differences leading to conflict.
She also goes on to discuss the inferiority of ethnic groups
leading to military servitude in order to advance their
social or class status. One thing that she points out is
that groups have also been stereotyped into being ?prone to
soldiering?. These people have been labeled as ?Martial
races.?
An interesting point that she makes about Martial
races is that they have traditionally been set on the
regional peripheries of a state. This makes it seem as
though the only reason for their being allowed to
remain part of the state is to protect it from outside
invaders. With this kind of covered seclusion breeds
contempt, both from the main stream people of the state
as well as the ?martial races? forced outside the
framework of society for their differences. These
people are looked upon as expendable, not needed for
higher levels of society. The united States,
supposedly the greatest democracy in the world, has had
a long history of using ?expendable? peoples for their
protection. The African Americans during W.W.II, were
used in great numbers to fight the Nazi threat of
Germany, but when it came time to come home, they were
sent back to their segregated communities, not honored
for their great courage in battle. What was seriously
troubling for African Americans is that they served
their country in the hopes to advance their social
standing. This of course did not happen. It took a
battle of sorts called the Civil Rights Movement in
order for blacks to gain the same rights as whites.
This example only strengthens the point that Enloe
makes that democracy leads to ethnic conflicts, in that
when people are given some freedom it is inevitable
that they want more, and when one group gets more then
another turmoil is likely to follow.
Harowits moves away from the soldiering aspect of
ethnic conflicts to a more symbolic conflict. He talks
about the tensions that arise from different ethnic
classes on the bases of symbols, such as names of
towns, anthems, color of flags and the identity of
state officials. He gives some examples of places that
have had major conflicts over these types of issues.
One such example involves the election of the principle
of the University of Nairobi. The position was either
going to go to a Kikuyu or to a Luo. The ethnicity of
the principle seemed, at least to the people of
Nairobi, to signal the superiority of one group over
the other. Horowits calls this ?Symbolic Politics and
Ethnic Status.? What is meant by this is summed up
best by a man studying the temperance movement in the
United States, Joseph R. Gusfield. He states that ?The
origins of such a movement is found in the propensity
of groups to derive prestige and self-respect from the
harmony between their norms and those which achieve
dominance in the society.? It is a constant tug of war
between ethnic classes to gain an equal share of rights
and privileges. The problem is that one group always
wants more then the other to feel superior.
Horowits goes on to discuss the importance of
symbolism in a society. He states that it ?is effective
in ethnic conflict, because it clothes ethnic claims in
ideas and associations that have acknowledged moral
force beyond the particular conflict, thereby masking
something that would otherwise be controversial.? His
claim is that symbolism is a necessity in that it
allows for other groups to shield their views and goals
of superiority.
Even though these two authors do not explicitly
talk about democracy and ethnic conflict, the signs are
all there. People are used as puppets in all societies
and democracies are no exception to this. People are
more likely to take advantage of others for their own
gains when one is given some leeway to begin with. The
freedoms associated with a democracy are many times
taken as inherent rights that can not be taken away
from what is associated as the superior group. In
order for the supposed superior group to hold on to
these ?inherent rights?, the lower ethnos of the state
are manipulated in order to maintain a sense of social
dominance. Enloe used the martial state as an example,
where lower peoples are used only for the protection of
the upper class, because those people are given a sense
of false hope in that they will rise in social status.
Horowitz uses the idea that symbolic politics and
ethnic status are linked by a kind of manipulative
morality. Ideas of equality are masks for a group to
hide their true intentions of domination. When a
democracy is formed, people flood in, all trying to
gain a piece of that democracy. Even though the
intentions may be to split the democracy equally among
all, it rarely happens. One can look at a democracy as
the breeding ground for contempt all stemming from the
fight for equal say and rights.
Soldiering
&
Symbolism
Nick Nonnemacher
Ethnic and Racial Politics
3/30/99