Ethnicity and Ethnocentrism in The Society

Introduction

Different scholars have given their understanding of the term ethnocentrism. According to anthropologists, the concept combines the belief that one’s own culture is superior to other cultures, with the practice of judging other cultures by the standards of one’s own culture. The Oxford dictionary describes ethnicity as the fact or state of belonging to a social group that has a common natural or cultural tradition. Ethnocentrism on the other hand has been defined as the tendency of individuals to elevate their own culture as the standard against which they judge others, and to see their own as superior to others. Ethnocentrism involves perceptions of cross‐cultural difference, can underlie cultural conflict and negative stereotypes, and is probably universal among humans. In the nineteenth century Charles Darwin (1874) noted that tribes were more sympathetic to their own groups, and W. G. Sumner (1906) first used the term ethnocentrism. Ethnocentrism involves perceptions of cross‐cultural difference, can underlie cultural conflict and negative stereotypes. Ethnocentrism derives from root words that suggest judgments and feelings centered (“centrism”) in an individual's cultural or ethnic (“ethno”) experience.

Ethnocentrism has existed in virtually all societies in human history. To feel superior to other peoples requires that one is aware of others beyond one’s national or cultural boundaries. To feel superior to other peoples also requires that one knows enough about others to judge their civilization or way of life as inferior to one’s own. Therefore, for ethnocentrism to take root and flourish, engagement with the world outside is necessary. A society that lacks the economic, military, or human resources to step outside its borders and do business with other peoples, whether through trade, conquest, or otherwise, cannot easily be labeled “ethnocentric,” even if it is concerned primarily or solely with itself. Ethnocentrism is a human universal phenomenon. It is believed by some scholars to be as old as the human race. This stand is justified thus “right from childhood we learn what is good, moral, civilized and normal according to our culture (Horton and Hunt 1968).” As a human universal reality, ethnocentrism is said to be more pronounced in modern nations than in pre-literate “tribes”.

Negative Ethnicity

The concept of ethnicity has been experimented on intellectually by various approaches, most of which do not explain the positive and negative aspects of the concept. Ethnicity is one concept and reality that is often misunderstood academically and always generally attributed as a negative aspect. Ethnicity well understood proves to be positive. These comes with the diverse cultures, languages, life styles and also organizations that human beings often spend to travel in pursuit to understand and learn them. Publications in newspapers and other forms of media have given more weight on negative ethnicity. Based on the situational approach of ethnicity negative ethnicity can be basically the manner ethnic groups tend to situationally use their identities or superiority or dominance to exploit or interfere with the other ethnic groups’ goals or interests for their own benefit.

Ethnocentrism in the Bible

Ethnocentrism can be one of the greatest obstacles to Christian credibility, even in situations where the classic concept of tribe or 'urban tribes' do not apply. Ethnocentrism, when it is mixed with pride, is one of the most divisive and potentially bellicose of all human traits. But just the awareness of its presence in us gives us a new perspective on what it means to be the people of God. Narrative is the natural literary form by which human beings express and define who they are as a people. Therefore, looking at some biblical narratives seems the most natural and appropriate way to see what kind of world view the Bible wants to form in readers regarding the place of ethnicity for the people of God.

Ethnocentrism in the Old Testament

The Exodus

We begin with the constitutive event of Israel as a people: the exodus. The biblical author finds no problem in telling us that there was a significant number of non-Hebrews who left Egypt along with the Hebrews: 'A mixed crowd also went up with them'. Why is this bit of information there? The way this is expressed in Exodus is theologically suggestive. The Hebrew word used here is defined as 'mixed people or race'. So from the very beginning of Israel's history as a nation, salvation was possible not just for Israel, but for all sorts of people. So if there ever was a 'peasant revolt' it happened in Egypt and it was very inclusive.

The pervasive biblical warning against 'mingling with the nations' is neither in the mingling nor in the nations per se, but in 'doing as they do'. The same Hebrew root used in Ex 12, is also used in Psalm 106 and in Ezra 9,2. The doing is clear in the Psalm, but not as much in Ezra. It may be that in Ezra we see the beginning of a distorted idea of purity. Or maybe something else. We should not forget that one of the big problems after the return of the exiles was Jews oppressing Jews. This shows that it is possible to do as the nations do without mingling with them; which brings us back to the spirit of the Law. What gives identity and permanence to the people of God is faith and obedience to the word of God.

Rahab and Achan

The book of Joshua is not an easy one to read these days. The way out of this is not to fix the text or the theology of those who wrote it. We do need to consider, however, that the book is neither as nationalistic as some critics have thought nor as triumphalist as some Christians think it is. Two personal and elaborate stories in this book deal with the issue of inclusion and exclusion. Rahab is the Canaanite prostitute who becomes part of Israel, along with her relatives, because she understood what God was doing at that point in history with Israel. She became Israel. Achan on the contrary, was an Israelite who did not understand what God was doing with Israel, by taking from Jericho souvenirs he was not supposed to take. He was excluded. The Canaanite woman enters the hall of faith while Achan joins the hall of shame. In both cases the only criterion is a combination of what they believed and what they did. Another example in Joshua is the Gibeonites, where a whole people group becomes part of Israel, tricks and all. In Acts we find parallels to the stories of Rahab and Achan. Ananias and Saphira (Acts 5) are the Achans, while Cornelius (Acts 10) and many others are the Rahabs of the New Testament. The latter are those who manifest ruled speech about God and ruled action in God's name, as Vanhoozer defines theology. In all these cases we find 'insiders' caught up in greed and 'outsiders' as models of piety.

Accent

It is hard to imagine that accent played any role in Israel's history as a way of differentiating between tribes. Such is the cruel case in Judges 12: the pronunciation of one Hebrew consonant became at one point a matter of life and death. When the Israelites seemed to have lost track of who they were as a people16, the way to establish identity was, as it sadly is today, accent. Due to some confusing circumstances, Gileadites went to war against the Ephraimites. Many Ephraimites died at the hands of the Gileadites. Apparently they were not able to distinguish one another by their height, color or clothing but only by their accent. Ephraimites pronounced the word for ear of grain as 'Sibolet', while the Gileadites said 'Shibolet', apparently the 'right way'.

Ruth

Ruth was from Moab. Moab was one of Israel's enemies for most of Israel's OT history. Feelings of hatred were mutual. Moab oppressed Israel for some time at the hands of Eglon. Mesa was the Moabite king who refused to keep paying tribute to Israel; Israel attacked with a coalition of two more kings (Judah and Edom) but were not able to subdue him (2Kgs 3). Later Mesa celebrates his liberation from Israel by his god Chemosh. The history of these bad relationships is found in Numbers, chapters 22-25 and 31. Here Moab does two things that seem to justify Israel's hard feelings towards them: Balak hires a seer (Balaam) to curse Israel; later on some Moabite women lead the Israelites to idolatry, an issue where Balaam seems to have been involved. So Moab is a different ethnic group and it is also Israel's enemy. But this is the Moab Ruth came from! Not only did she become Israel, but also king David's grandmother. Why? Simply because this woman showed her mother-in-law a godly and 'biblical' love and adopted her mother-in-law's faith and fate. Her ethnicity was a nonissue.

Ethnocentrism in the New Testament

Jesus Genealogy

Most people have a tendency to pride themselves on their ethnic and cultural backgrounds. This is something that has value in and of itself and it helps people measure themselves against other people. But it is really shocking to see the individuals Matthew selected for Jesus' genealogy. It is rather appalling. Those who speak of Jesus as a 'full-breed Jew' when he talks to the Samaritan woman (supposedly a 'half-breed') should read their Bibles again. This genealogy is especially disturbing because here Matthew is establishing Jesus' legitimacy as the Messiah, someone from the lineage of David and Abraham. But in order to do that, the first Evangelist includes people that some would consider not so 'legitimate.' There are five women in Jesus' genealogy in Matthew 1: Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, Bathsheba and Mary. All of these women had some kind of 'marital irregularity,' and the first four were not of Israelite origin. Nevertheless, all of them were worthy of a place in the genealogy of the Messiah. So Jesus counted Moabites, Hittites, and Canaanites among his ancestors.

One author says that the emphasis of this genealogy is not in the women themselves but in the stories that they embody. Maybe so, but these women are their story. No women, no story. These women, their story and the biblical theology that comes out of it tell us that the inclusion of non-Israelites within the people of God is not a novelty in the NT. Ethnicity, like ones past, is not a problem for God or an impediment for anyone to have a worthy place within the history of God's salvation. If God's Messiah can come from such a genealogy, he can also be the redeemer of all sorts of people, even if their past is 'questionable.' This seems to be an important element in the theological agenda of the Evangelists. The reason is that ethnocentrism is very hard to overcome. The Bible consistently affirms that the foundation on which the identity of the people of God rests is not ethnic or geographic or linguistic, but theological. This is how Matthew does theology with a genealogy.

History of Ethnicity in Kenya

Kenya is a multi-ethnic society and has approximately forty-two ethnic communities or groups that have lived together for a long time. The dominant ethnic groups in Kenya are the Kikuyu, the Kalenjin, the Luo, the Luhya, the Kamba and the Kisii. However, there are many other ‘smaller’ ethnic communities in Kenya. Therefore, this explains how ethnic issues are so fundamental in the linguistic landscape of Kenya.

The history of ethnic conflicts in Kenya is long traced from the colonial era. One of the long term causes of the clashes in Kenya is attributed to the colonial legacy. It is a historical fact that the indirect rule administered by the British colonialists which applied the divide and rule strategy polarized the various ethnic groups in Kenya. The strategy led to creation of administrative structures such as districts and provinces without regard for the wishes of Kenyan Communities. These structures were later inherited by the post-colonial administration. This contributed to subsequent incompatibility of these ethnic groups in Kenya. It is unfortunate that early independence or nationalist movements in Kenya had regional and ethnic foundations and leadership even from an early stage. Their names depicted ethnic interests. The early political parties had ethnic conglomerations: The Kikuyu for instance, formed the Kikuyu Central Association (KCA), the Kamba: Ukambani Members Association (UMA), the Luhya: The Luhya Union (LU), the Luo: Young Kavirondo Association (YKA), the Kalenjin formed the Kalenjin Political Alliance (KPA), the Coastal tribes formed the Mwambao Union Front (MUF), Taita formed the Taita Hills Association (THA).

At independence, the British administration worked out a formula of handing over land to the indigenous ethnic group in Kenya. They established a special grant that was aimed at facilitating the re-distribution of land. The obvious expectation during the struggle for independence was that the land would be freely distributed to the people since it had in the first place, been forcefully taken away from them. But in the independence agreement with Britain, the Kenyan government was to buy it from the settlers. That in turn meant that there was no free land for distribution. The price made land scarce. This is the critical point at which; land tenure became a factor of ethnicity and hence ethnic animosity intensified. It is on record that the largest beneficiaries of this land distribution programmer were the Kikuyu and their allies the Embu and Meru through the alliance GEMA which was a bargaining organ for these communities. The GEMA communities formed land buying companies and cooperatives with the blessing of Mzee Jomo Kenyatta.

Effects of Negative Ethnicity and Ethnocentrism on People

Economic Effects

It is always difficult to quantify the total economic impact of ethnic conflicts in Kenya. Ethnic conflicts just as all other conflicts lead to gigantic waste of human and economic resources. For instance, during the Post-Election Violence 2007/08 clashes in Kenya land ownership patterns were altered with. Economic production declines for instance, farming activities stale. Ethnic conflicts also lead to the problem of over-valuing or under-valuing of property since individuals seek to run away the conflict hit areas and thus sell their vast properties at prices that are not normal. Other subsequent economic problems related to negative/ ethnic conflicts are such as food insecurity, destruction of property, land grabbing, miss-allocation and unexpected expenditure infrastructural disruption, resource diversion, inflation and fluctuation of prices and environmental destruction among others.

Economic instability may occur at such conflicts. Local and international investors fear to invest due to the conflicts. Tourism a major backbone of the Kenya economy also is derailed by the level of insecurity faced during such conflicts. Conflicts take energy away from important work or other issues. The local currency value also may decline and delays the objective of having a stable, flexible and strong currency. Food insecurity may lead to people contracting diseases such as Kwashiorkor and Marasmus. When investors on the other hand fail to avail themselves then that creates job insecurity which may lead to a high level of unemployment. High levels of unemployment force people to engage in vices. The lack of jobs for people who have families may also cause stress to the people struggling to support their families.

Social Effects

Negative ethnicity has led social effects in Kenya. This is the sense of identity, culture, loss of lives, displacement and traumatization. The society has faced far more disconnection in negative ethnicity. Psycho-social effects were experienced most at personal and family level. Social effects also include victims of the conflict left homeless, injured, destitute, dead, abused, and even lacked trust of each other. Traumatization was felt more among victims. For instance, in the post-election violence 2007/08; Insecurity was a rampant word used everywhere. Loss of life among the Kikuyu, Kalenjin, Luhya, Luo, Iteso, Kisii and others. Loss of lives has always been the main effect to families and the society at large in violent ethnic conflicts due to negative ethnicity. Social effects also generally include; ethnic conflicts damage relationships, causes divisions and polarization, undermines positive attitudes, creates opposition between groups, deepens differences between people and also social amenities and lives of the people are affected at large.

References

1. Kasomo, D. (2012, January 19). An assessment of ethnic conflict and its challenges today. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/bad7/257852ef60aec99b976c9cc57fd23e847f92.pdf