Ethnic Conflict

It is often too easy to classify ethnic conflict and genocide on pure hatred. What we must do, instead, to fully comprehend the factors that combine to create that hatred and eventually lead to violence. While the violence may be caused by longstanding tribal or ethnic animosity or a definitive catalyst that knocked down the first domino, the social environment is always a factor. Whether it be the geographical mismanagement of ethnic groups like in the dividing lines between Bosnia-Herzegovina and Serbia that we see in Joe Sacco’s “Safe Area Gorazde” or the economic exploitation by dominant minorities in countries like The Philippines or Rwanda, there is always a greater and more complex foundation for the animosity than simple unfounded hatred.
When the lines were drawn to reshape Yugoslavia into a multitude of smaller states, the issue of ethnic conflict arose as ethnic minorities in certain states were subjected to violence at the hands of other ethnic groups. Joe Sacco’s “Safe Area Gorazde” follows Muslims in the city of Gorazde who are living in fear of Serb groups who attack the city every now and then. In Sacco’s interviews with the Muslim friends he encounters, he finds that some of the violence was even between former neighbors and friends. How could one seek to explain such illogical hatred towards a friend? The answer to this question is that the violence is sparked by a smaller group (the Chetniks and others) and then, once Serbs have murdered Muslims there is no going back. Many of the people who Sacco interviews say that they would be fine with going back to how things were and that they could live with the Serbs again; this is false. Just like any feud, the violence is perpetuated by the effect of its devastation. Even if you got along great with your neighbors, you can never live with them again because they shot the old woman across the street. In the same way, they can never live with you for fear of retribution for these actions. It is the same reason that the Crips and Bloods shoot at each other in the United States. I doubt they even know what their original argument stems from, but all any Blood cares about is the fact that their uncle, brother, cousin, or father was killed by a Crip. For this reason the violence is self-perpetuating, because each new violent act is an excuse for another, and it becomes a vicious cycle. Such is the cause of a great deal of ethnic nationalism: one group of radicals sparks violence which replenishes itself.
Ethnic conflict is also easily ignited by a massive resistance to a minority race that is considered socially and economically superior. Amy Chua chronicles this concept in “A World on the Edge”, which begins with a small-time example of this concept. Chua’s aunt, Leona, is murdered by her chauffeur. Leona is a wealthy Chinese woman in the Philippines. Though Chinese are the minority in the Philippines, they are socially and economically dominant, and so she was resented by her Filipino workers. Ethnic conflicts are often ignited by this idea: the mistreated masses rising up to steal the power that is rightly theirs from an exploitative upper class. Such was the case in Rwanda and many other nations where genocide was caused by masses who gathered together to unite against a group whose power was based not on their population, but by antiquity. This leads to acts of violence against the dominant minority, which then puts the afore-mentioned vicious cycle into practice.
Genocide and other ethnic conflicts are generally sparked by a radical group or leaders who rally others to commit violence. One violence had begun it is very hard to stop because people are not going to be able to reconcile over the damage done. Therefore, ethnic conflict is self-perpetuating, because it is easy to point fingers at a recognizable enemy when they are blatantly different from you. It is easy to hate someone who is different from you because they are easily identifiable and you will associate them with the negative deeds that you believe other members of their ethnicity have committed. That explains why Muslims in Sarajevo and Gorazde cannot live with the Serbs who murdered their friends and family, because their actions will always be tied to their identity as Serbs.

Separation of Classes

John Fitzpatrick's article, The Brazilian Dream: To Live in a Fortress, revolves around the development of housing communities in Sao Paulo and other major Brazilian cities that lie on the outskirts and are isolated from the general public. Specifically, the article chronicles Alphaville, a community so elite and isolated that its inhabitants "may as well (be) in Los Angeles, Singapore, or Moscow." This polar separation between the destitute and lavishly rich contributes to the resentful and angry attitude that the poor harbor towards the rich in Brazil. This separation between the two classes is exacerbated by an inexistent middle class to serve as a buffer. Because the Brazilian dream is to live in a fortress, the poor feel little remorse in stealing from a group of people who are so quick to remove themselves completely from the masses of Brazil. It is a vicious cycle, the more the poor and rich separate, the more violence; and the more violence, the more they separate. This is one of the many causes of violence in Brazil that could prove more influential than funk in the violent gang culture of the favelas.