Americans view of the biggest threat to global peace and security could, unfortunately be tainted by the ever present threat of terrorism. However, on a global scale there are many other threats that must be evaluated with just as much credibility. In my opinion, the biggest threat will always be racism. Considering the many different types of racism and how it, as a practice, manages to overpower the ethical systems of people around the world, it has the potential to bring many nations to their knees.
One of the most profound, ongoing examples of racism in today’s global climate is the human rights violations in Darfur. While I feel that Darfur tends to be the whore example of human rights violations, its foundations are based upon racism. The Sudan Liberation Army and Justice Equality Movement are fighting a civil war in Darfur that originates from the claim that the Sudanese government oppressed and killed many black Africans while allowing Arabs to act as equal members of society. The relation to global peace and security should be obvious. Racial divisions between the Sudanese killed hundreds of thousands of civilians and displaced millions. This could cause undoubted unrest, which causes many to lash out and commit physical acts of retaliation against the (Sudanese, in this case) state. Racism tends to exist in large numbers in Africa. The racial conflicts that emerge on the African continent are significant in number. While it may seem to be a hasty generalization, it is most likely safe to assume that 99% of civil wars in Africa in the past century have been the result of racism. This African racism stems all around the world. For example, the lack of an economy due to racial based civil war in Somalia has led many to begin piracy in the coasts off of Eastern Africa.
Racism within our borders also can be attributed to significant conflict around the world. While new age racism can be said to find it’s roots in the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the racism that followed has been created by the media and government organizations to foster a widespread agreement towards the policies that are imposed to make our world safer. Racism towards Muslims who are on board aircraft is simply a creation of the media and government. While a small number of Muslims are classified as extremists, it must be interjected that Islam is a religion of peace and rational thinking. The absence of this truth from the ongoing racism in the United States provides instability among the American people and that instability in itself is a threat to global security. Abraham Lincoln once said, “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” And if the American people continue to be divided against other Americans, it will topple like a house of cards.
Racism is undoubtedly the biggest threat to global peace and security. While it may not represent a strong physical force, the impact that racism has on the world has changed the course of history. The inevitability of change only means that some sort of change can happen again. If racism is not eradicated, somewhere and somehow the peace and security of the world will be at stake.
Andrew,
ReplyDeleteI obviously concur that racism is an abomination. I also completely agree than racism is still prevalent in modern American society - especially when your hear nonsense terms like "Islamo-fascism" bandied about by people who are making s*** up. However, I have to utterly disagree with your assertion that racism is the base cause of most of Africa's conflicts.
First, I would argue that the civil war and genocide in Darfur was and is heavily influenced by the grave disparity between water and oil proceed dispersion between geographic regions in Sudan. However, there are significant arguments to be made on both sides of this debate, and I will go no further here. As I have already opined on the state of things in Africa in class, I will do so again concisely instead.
Yes, the modern African state sees its roots in racism, as Africa did not exist in "states" until the white man entered. However, while the racialization of the state quickly occurred (and as apartheid, in some form, developed in every African country), that is not the problem today. The problem is that newly independent states cannot deracialize efficiently, and they cannot democratize efficiently. SO, when the 50s and 60s came around and brought with it the "independence craze" ("freeing" Angola, Rwanda, Algeria, etc), what happened was not the birthing of nations ready to lead the world. They were nations who had no idea how to be nations, much less democracies. Without support from colonizers - support they needed desperately for at least a few more years - elites and clever leaders used nationalism to rally common people to causes. Shrewdly, leaders-to-be realized the best way to get votes was to be RADICAL and to marginalized others. This marginalization occurred not only on racial grounds, but on geographic, religious, or - yes - straight-up political differences, taken to an extreme by one side. This naturally resulted in extreme actions by both side.
For just one example, examine Angola, which following its independence from Portugal found itself in a civil war from 1975 to 2003. The reason? Political differences, not race. This war lasted thirty years! Examining Algeria - it, too, experienced civil war shortly after independence, from France. The causes? A military coup.
What did these two examples have in common? Independence before the nation in question was ready. Of course, I named two examples which did NOT see race as a warring point; of course, in those cases, the angry nationalism and willingness to unify behind a powerful central figure or party manifested in - yes - RACISM. However, I named Algeria and Angola to show that polarization comes in many forms, and those forms (and the racist ones) come from a common origin: a state that was TOO nascent, needed more years being nourished (as America was). When they were released too early, they struggled - nationalism came into play - lines were drawn in the sand - and conflict began.
What the lines delineated, however, was different in every place. It is unfair to the people of Africa to imply racism was at fault for 99 percent of their wars. Racism certainly has played a part in inflaming the passions of many, but the STATE - and its inability to reconcile its belief it was ready to support itself with the reality that it could not - was the real problem. Fixing the broken African states - correcting their democracy, making it harder for nationalism and symbol/passion manipulating to bring about conflict that draws polarizing figures votes - is the only way to reduce wars in Africa. Needless to say, taking action in this way would help cure ALL ailments assailing Africa - not just racism, but ALL sorts of radicalism. By just focusing on racism, the OTHER spawn of the state continue to sow destruction - and Africa will stay put in the road to true deracialization and democratization.
Of course, I named two examples which did NOT see race as a warring point; of course, in those cases, the angry nationalism...
ReplyDeletein those *other* cases