Istanbul, 2012
Tolerance: solution or a bomb ready to explode
When two or more minorities live on the territory of some ethnic majority, people tend to build their own micro or sub countries, and they just tend to keep to their own. They are usually afraid of not being accepted from the majority, and of the possibility of their own assimilation and loss of ethnic identity. This is the reason why they seem more sensitive which in turn makes them aggressively protective of their culture. The response of the dominant ethnic group within the country is not any better. Even if they try to accept the minority groups without any stereotyping, they tend to play the role of welcoming host for “the guests”. No one really comes out of their shell. In time, living under such conditions people start being suspicious, prejudice, with low tolerance of the ways of the other ethnic group. And that’s how we are coming to the level: US and THEM. Feeling jeopardy from “them”, in turn the group unites and begins a strong collective spirit which might become as strong for people that they will be willing to die to save and defend their group.
And this actually happens in reality, today in the 21st century, in many countries.
In Macedonia except Macedonians as majority ethnic group, are living Albanians, Turks, Gypsies, Vlachs and a few other ethnic minorities. Albanians are the biggest minority group which made them equal with the Macedonians. Fighting for being more and more equal they’ve got equal rights, places in the parliament, their language became second official, they’ve got their own university and so on. But still, these things are just pulling them away as minority from the majority. After years living together instead of assimilation between both groups, came to distance which led to strengthening the groups that I’ve mentioned: US and THEM. In the past few years there have been many ethnical incidents provoked from the eagerness between these groups. Both sides are furious , but then comes an advice or warning from the West that we have to tolerate each other cause the future of Europe lays in tolerance. But in reality, tolerating each other led to creating country in country, creating closed circles for US and for THEM, going on school in different shifts, leaving in fear from the possible actions of the other group and creating an image of an enemy.
The Image of the Enemy
The images of the enemy are making people pay selective attention and remember only or mostly the negative aspects and actions of their enemy.
When the nations or the ethnic groups who are seen like enemies are taking actions which are marked as hostile actions, people tend to underestimate or ignore the pressure of the situation in which their enemy actually is. This just helps of forming the opinion that those actions are proof that the enemy is Fiend or barbarian.
When the nations or the ethnic groups who are seen like enemies are taking actions which are seen as peaceable, people tend to overestimate the process which their enemy is passing through. As a result of this they reckon that the enemy is taking these actions under pressure of the circumstances and not like proof that the enemy wants peace. Thus, it is obvious that the hostile actions strengthen more the image of the enemy than peaceful actions can remove it.
The images of the enemy are making people pay attention and remember the critics much more than the statements which their enemy supports.
The images of the enemy are making people overemphasizes the level of their enemy’s actions compared with similar actions made by their non-enemies.
The images of the enemies encourage the lack of knowledge about them.
When people are not familiar of their enemy’s peaceful actions in the past or with the history of the present conflict is hard to understand that the hostile actions made by their enemy might be motivated of defensive reasons. It is hard to get over their enemy images and to get open to the peaceful gestures of the “hostile” group. The lack of knowledge can result not only with the prejudges which are inseparable from the enemy images but also it might make them stronger.
When the enemy image is powerful enough, the fiend’s obvious peaceful actions are attributed like hostile motives. Thus, the proposal for peace might be understood like rough propaganda, like try to increase the tension between the groups or the nations or like trick of the enemy to increase his superiority.
Having an image of our enemies makes us understand their hostile actions as part of their spirit and their peaceful actions as product of the circumstances they’ve been in. In the same time, standing against our enemy, we describe our hostile actions as product of the circumstances and our peaceful actions as part of our personality and our spirit.
Before we create enemy images, first we have to see our own image in the mirror. Cause not only we have an image of our enemy but also our enemy has an image of us as an enemy.
US and THEM
We have to learn why we are different and what those differences are. Not in a way that they are going to make us ethnocentric but to get aware of how we are different from the others and the others from us. And also this must not lead to strengthening of US and THEM because of the differences but both groups to get know each other better. Not on the level of tolerance but on the level of understanding. Tolerance leads only to the level of dialogue. Understanding leads to the level of a real relationship. For this relationship to be functional the understanding has to be mutually.
Tijana Radeska
Ss. Cyril and Methodius University
Institute of ethnology and anthropology
Нема коментари:
Објави коментар