Jump to content
TamaleTosser

Us versus them mentality card

Recommended Posts

Does anyone have a card that is along the lines that hegemony/american exceptionalism creates a mentality of us versus them which either causes racism, increases structural violence or makes violence inevitable. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone have a card that is along the lines that hegemony/american exceptionalism creates a mentality of us versus them which either causes racism, increases structural violence or makes violence inevitable. 

 

I've got a full file up for trade if you want. Here are cards you would want.

 

Exceptionalism in politics creates conflict.  It is impossible for ethnocentric actors to reach meaningful compromise and resolution, which means that these conflicts escalate quickly and rampantly; this is all the  more dangerous considering that our world is full of geopolitical hotspots on the brink of war.

Ken Barger, 2014 (Professor Emeritus of Anthropology at Indiana University Indianapolis, July 31, 2014, “Ethnocentrism”, http://www.iupui.edu/~anthkb/ethnocen.htm)

So what is the problem with ethnocentrism?

Ethnocentrism leads to misunderstanding others. We falsely distort what is meaningful and functional to other peoples through our own tinted glasses. We see their ways in terms of our life experience, not their context. We do not understand that their ways have their own meanings and functions in life, just as our ways have for us.

At the heart of this is that we do not understand that we do not understand! So we aren't aware that we can develop more valid understandings about how they experience life.

At the best, we simply continue in our unawareness. Yet this can have consequences within our own society and in international relations. We may be well meaning in interethnic relations, for example, but can unintentionally offend others, generate ill feelings, and even set up situations that harm others. For example, it is easy not to see the life concerns of others (particularly minorities and the disadvantaged) or conversely to pity them for their inabilities to deal with life situations (like poverty or high crime rates). How do we feel when someone doesn't recognize our concerns, or feels sorry for us because we can't "just let go" of a stressful situation?

A lack of understanding can also inhibit constructive resolutions when we face conflicts between social groups. It is easy to assume that others "should" have certain perspectives or values. How often are we prone to address conflicts when others tell us how we should think and feel?

Ethnocentrism is also evident in international relations, creating conflicts and inhibiting resolution of conflicts. For example, how might our Western binary conflict view of life (A versus B) influence our interpretation of another group's intents when they express a different position on an issue? Is it just “another" viewpoint, or is it "against" our viewpoint? If we don't "win" the conflict, will we "lose"? We may have positive intentions (from our viewpoint) in "helping" other groups deal with certain "problems," but how do they see the problem and what kind of solution do they want? Some peoples around the world see Americans as very competitive and violent people, as evidenced by our business practices, Hollywood movies, and events like the Columbine High School massacre. How much does this describe your personal experience? How do you think this perception might influence their assumptions about our intents in relations with their societies? An ultimate case of such misunderstandings is warfare, where many people are killed, maimed for life, have their families, subsistence, health, and way of life disrupted, sometimes forever.

There are extreme forms of ethnocentrism that pose serious social problems, of course, such as racism, colonialism, and ethnic cleansing. These views are generally condemned by the world community, but we regularly see such cases in the news. One issue that we need to consider is that ethnocentrism is often exploited to foster conflict... and to promote the power of a particular group. History shows us that promoting an "us versus them" perspective, political, religious, and other groups foster discrimination and conflict to benefit themselves at the expense of others. Social conflict and wars usually have ethnocentrism at their core, which over time usually proves to be self-destructive for all concerned.

Can better understandings of others' life experience avoid conflicts that drain the resources and well-being of all parties, and instead promote cooperative relations between peoples to the

mutual advantage of all? So here we have a paradox: we falsely assume because we are not even aware we are assuming... and furthermore it is the normal thing to do. We cannot not be ethnocentric, and we cannot will it away or make ourselves have a completely open attitude. Is it ever possible not to be ethnocentric?

 

Exceptionalism creates enduring conflicts, the consequence of which is armed conflicts.  Armed conflicts are different today than they were pre Cold War because every conflict has the potential to go nuclear.  Proper conflict resolution is essential and is impossible unless we are aware of our ethnocentric international policy.

Bercovitch and Regan, 1999 (Jacob: Professor of International Relations at the University of Canterbury, in Christchurch, New Zealand and Patrick M.: Assistant Professor of Political Science at Binghamton University, New York, The International Journal of Peace Studies Volume 4 Number 1, http://www.gmu.edu/programs/icar/ijps/vol4_1/bercovitch.htm)

In a recent comprehensive review on the scientific study of conflict and war, Bremer  (1993) summarizes what is known about these phenomena and, traces the parameters of the 'mental model' of conflict.  Bremer's catalogue of research findings, surveying hundreds of studies, is quite impressive.  It is also, alas, a reminder of how little we know about conflict termination and conflict management. The causes, characteristics and consequences, as well as the dynamics of conflict, and the various modes of transition from conflict formation to maturation are well represented in a myriad of studies. The final phase of the process, that of  conflict termination, has been all but neglected.  At no time has the study of conflict termination faced such challenges, nor been so relevant to policy-makers, as it has since the end of the Cold War.  The growing number of new forms of conflict (eg. ethnic, religious, etc.), the persistence of some armed conflicts (eg. Korea, India-Pakistan,  Arab-Israeli), and the growing cooperation between the major powers, have all helped to affirm global interest in dealing with, or responding to, conflict.  Responses to conflict are not pre-determined; parties may respond to conflict in a variety of ways ranging from unilateral methods to multilateral measures (Fogg, 1985).  Here we wish to articulate the components of a conceptual framework of multilateral conflict management, and examine the effects of a particular kind of conflict on this strategy.  The class of conflicts we wish to examine is that of intractable or enduring conflict, and the specific conflict management strategy is that of mediation. International conflict can not be viewed as a unitary phenomenon.  They have different dimensions and show different degrees of amenability to conflict management.  Common strategies or approaches that might be applicable in some conflicts, may be quite inapplicable in others.  If we are to bridge the gap between the scholarly community and policy-makers, we should, at the very least, suggest prescriptions regarding the efficacy of different methods and strategies of conflict management, and how they may be used to affect the termination of enduring or intractable conflicts.  Learning how to deal with the most difficult and persistent conflicts can take us a long way toward understanding the dynamics of conflict management in all other conflicts.  Edward Azar (1986) first drew attention to the special features of what he termed protracted conflicts.  One of the defining characteristics of [protracted] conflicts was the difficulty of managing them peacefully.  Kriesberg (1993) talks about intractable conflicts which often sink into self-perpetuating violent antagonisms, and resist any technique of negotiation or mediation, or indeed other methods of peaceful management.  More recently the scholarly literature emphasized the fact that some conflicts are connected over time through high intensity, repeated cycles of violence, and general resistance to conflict management by invoking the concept of enduring conflicts (e.g. Goertz and Diehl, 1993).Some analysts (e.g. Waltz, 1979) conceive of all interstate conflict as being essentially the result of one cause only (i.e. the structure of the system), and as exhibiting similar patterns irrespective of the actors involved or the life cycle of the conflict.  We believe that there are fundamental differences between interstate conflicts; differences that may be expressed in terms of causes, issues, participants, and the history, or life-cycle, of a conflict.  Each of these differences may have prescriptive consequences for international conflict management.  Little work, however, has been done on how these features of a conflict affect its termination.  Here we wish to examine conflict management in the context that poses the greatest intellectual and practical obstacle; that of intractable or enduring conflicts.To talk about enduring or intractable conflict implies a concern with the longitudinal and dynamic aspects of a relationship.  At its simplest the concept is no more than a belated recognition  by scholars  that conflicts do not manifest themselves in a series of  single, unrelated episodes. Conflicts have a past (which may cast a heavy shadow on the parties), a present context, and presumably a future of some sort.   States involved in an intractable conflict learn to use coercive means, and are prepared to do so in a future conflict.  An intractable or enduring conflict is thus a process of competitive relationships that extend over a period of time, and involves hostile perceptions and occasional military actions.  The term itself acts as an integrating concept connoting a competitive social process where states become enmeshed in a web of negative interactions and hostile orientations.  This pattern is repeated, indeed worsened, every so often, with the actors involved unable to curb, or manage, the escalation of their relationships.Gochman and Maoz (1984) first drew attention to the presence of these conflicts.  Their work demonstrated empirically how a relatively small number of states have been involved in a disproportionately large number of militarized disputes.  Furthermore, they showed that this was a pattern that was likely to repeat itself.  Gochman and Maoz define these conflict-prone states as 'enduring rivals', and their conflict as an 'enduring conflict'.These enduring conflicts account for a large percentage of all militarized disputes - about 45% of all militarized disputes between 1816-1986 took place between such rivals (Bremmer, 1992; Goertz & Diehl, 1992).  Half the wars since 1816 occurred between enduring rivals.  The likelihood of a military dispute escalating to a full scale war is twice that of a non-enduring conflict.  Whatever enduring conflicts may be, they appear prima facie to be very different from other conflicts, and should be viewed, wherever possible, within a different theoretical context. What we are in effect suggesting is that it makes sense to move from an episodic approach, and study conflicts, and conflict management, from a historical dimension, where prior interactions affect present behavior.  Shifting the unit of analysis from a single conflict to a long-term relationship, may have serious implications for the way we approach and manage conflicts.  We use the historical relationship of a conflict as one of our independent, contextual variables that may explain their course and outcome.

Edited by ConsultVerminSupreme
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've posted a lot of them around this site

lol sorry i havent been on this site in forever so im out of the hip loop 

 

I've got a full file up for trade if you want. Here are cards you would want.

 

Exceptionalism in politics creates conflict.  It is impossible for ethnocentric actors to reach meaningful compromise and resolution, which means that these conflicts escalate quickly and rampantly; this is all the  more dangerous considering that our world is full of geopolitical hotspots on the brink of war.

Ken Barger, 2014 (Professor Emeritus of Anthropology at Indiana University Indianapolis, July 31, 2014, “Ethnocentrism”, http://www.iupui.edu/~anthkb/ethnocen.htm)

So what is the problem with ethnocentrism?

Ethnocentrism leads to misunderstanding others. We falsely distort what is meaningful and functional to other peoples through our own tinted glasses. We see their ways in terms of our life experience, not their context. We do not understand that their ways have their own meanings and functions in life, just as our ways have for us.

At the heart of this is that we do not understand that we do not understand! So we aren't aware that we can develop more valid understandings about how they experience life.

At the best, we simply continue in our unawareness. Yet this can have consequences within our own society and in international relations. We may be well meaning in interethnic relations, for example, but can unintentionally offend others, generate ill feelings, and even set up situations that harm others. For example, it is easy not to see the life concerns of others (particularly minorities and the disadvantaged) or conversely to pity them for their inabilities to deal with life situations (like poverty or high crime rates). How do we feel when someone doesn't recognize our concerns, or feels sorry for us because we can't "just let go" of a stressful situation?

A lack of understanding can also inhibit constructive resolutions when we face conflicts between social groups. It is easy to assume that others "should" have certain perspectives or values. How often are we prone to address conflicts when others tell us how we should think and feel?

Ethnocentrism is also evident in international relations, creating conflicts and inhibiting resolution of conflicts. For example, how might our Western binary conflict view of life (A versus B) influence our interpretation of another group's intents when they express a different position on an issue? Is it just “another" viewpoint, or is it "against" our viewpoint? If we don't "win" the conflict, will we "lose"? We may have positive intentions (from our viewpoint) in "helping" other groups deal with certain "problems," but how do they see the problem and what kind of solution do they want? Some peoples around the world see Americans as very competitive and violent people, as evidenced by our business practices, Hollywood movies, and events like the Columbine High School massacre. How much does this describe your personal experience? How do you think this perception might influence their assumptions about our intents in relations with their societies? An ultimate case of such misunderstandings is warfare, where many people are killed, maimed for life, have their families, subsistence, health, and way of life disrupted, sometimes forever.

There are extreme forms of ethnocentrism that pose serious social problems, of course, such as racism, colonialism, and ethnic cleansing. These views are generally condemned by the world community, but we regularly see such cases in the news. One issue that we need to consider is that ethnocentrism is often exploited to foster conflict... and to promote the power of a particular group. History shows us that promoting an "us versus them" perspective, political, religious, and other groups foster discrimination and conflict to benefit themselves at the expense of others. Social conflict and wars usually have ethnocentrism at their core, which over time usually proves to be self-destructive for all concerned.

Can better understandings of others' life experience avoid conflicts that drain the resources and well-being of all parties, and instead promote cooperative relations between peoples to the

mutual advantage of all? So here we have a paradox: we falsely assume because we are not even aware we are assuming... and furthermore it is the normal thing to do. We cannot not be ethnocentric, and we cannot will it away or make ourselves have a completely open attitude. Is it ever possible not to be ethnocentric?

 

Exceptionalism creates enduring conflicts, the consequence of which is armed conflicts.  Armed conflicts are different today than they were pre Cold War because every conflict has the potential to go nuclear.  Proper conflict resolution is essential and is impossible unless we are aware of our ethnocentric international policy.

Bercovitch and Regan, 1999 (Jacob: Professor of International Relations at the University of Canterbury, in Christchurch, New Zealand and Patrick M.: Assistant Professor of Political Science at Binghamton University, New York, The International Journal of Peace Studies Volume 4 Number 1, http://www.gmu.edu/programs/icar/ijps/vol4_1/bercovitch.htm)

In a recent comprehensive review on the scientific study of conflict and war, Bremer  (1993) summarizes what is known about these phenomena and, traces the parameters of the 'mental model' of conflict.  Bremer's catalogue of research findings, surveying hundreds of studies, is quite impressive.  It is also, alas, a reminder of how little we know about conflict termination and conflict management. The causes, characteristics and consequences, as well as the dynamics of conflict, and the various modes of transition from conflict formation to maturation are well represented in a myriad of studies. The final phase of the process, that of  conflict termination, has been all but neglected.  At no time has the study of conflict termination faced such challenges, nor been so relevant to policy-makers, as it has since the end of the Cold War.  The growing number of new forms of conflict (eg. ethnic, religious, etc.), the persistence of some armed conflicts (eg. Korea, India-Pakistan,  Arab-Israeli), and the growing cooperation between the major powers, have all helped to affirm global interest in dealing with, or responding to, conflict.  Responses to conflict are not pre-determined; parties may respond to conflict in a variety of ways ranging from unilateral methods to multilateral measures (Fogg, 1985).  Here we wish to articulate the components of a conceptual framework of multilateral conflict management, and examine the effects of a particular kind of conflict on this strategy.  The class of conflicts we wish to examine is that of intractable or enduring conflict, and the specific conflict management strategy is that of mediation. International conflict can not be viewed as a unitary phenomenon.  They have different dimensions and show different degrees of amenability to conflict management.  Common strategies or approaches that might be applicable in some conflicts, may be quite inapplicable in others.  If we are to bridge the gap between the scholarly community and policy-makers, we should, at the very least, suggest prescriptions regarding the efficacy of different methods and strategies of conflict management, and how they may be used to affect the termination of enduring or intractable conflicts.  Learning how to deal with the most difficult and persistent conflicts can take us a long way toward understanding the dynamics of conflict management in all other conflicts.  Edward Azar (1986) first drew attention to the special features of what he termed protracted conflicts.  One of the defining characteristics of [protracted] conflicts was the difficulty of managing them peacefully.  Kriesberg (1993) talks about intractable conflicts which often sink into self-perpetuating violent antagonisms, and resist any technique of negotiation or mediation, or indeed other methods of peaceful management.  More recently the scholarly literature emphasized the fact that some conflicts are connected over time through high intensity, repeated cycles of violence, and general resistance to conflict management by invoking the concept of enduring conflicts (e.g. Goertz and Diehl, 1993).Some analysts (e.g. Waltz, 1979) conceive of all interstate conflict as being essentially the result of one cause only (i.e. the structure of the system), and as exhibiting similar patterns irrespective of the actors involved or the life cycle of the conflict.  We believe that there are fundamental differences between interstate conflicts; differences that may be expressed in terms of causes, issues, participants, and the history, or life-cycle, of a conflict.  Each of these differences may have prescriptive consequences for international conflict management.  Little work, however, has been done on how these features of a conflict affect its termination.  Here we wish to examine conflict management in the context that poses the greatest intellectual and practical obstacle; that of intractable or enduring conflicts.To talk about enduring or intractable conflict implies a concern with the longitudinal and dynamic aspects of a relationship.  At its simplest the concept is no more than a belated recognition  by scholars  that conflicts do not manifest themselves in a series of  single, unrelated episodes. Conflicts have a past (which may cast a heavy shadow on the parties), a present context, and presumably a future of some sort.   States involved in an intractable conflict learn to use coercive means, and are prepared to do so in a future conflict.  An intractable or enduring conflict is thus a process of competitive relationships that extend over a period of time, and involves hostile perceptions and occasional military actions.  The term itself acts as an integrating concept connoting a competitive social process where states become enmeshed in a web of negative interactions and hostile orientations.  This pattern is repeated, indeed worsened, every so often, with the actors involved unable to curb, or manage, the escalation of their relationships.Gochman and Maoz (1984) first drew attention to the presence of these conflicts.  Their work demonstrated empirically how a relatively small number of states have been involved in a disproportionately large number of militarized disputes.  Furthermore, they showed that this was a pattern that was likely to repeat itself.  Gochman and Maoz define these conflict-prone states as 'enduring rivals', and their conflict as an 'enduring conflict'.These enduring conflicts account for a large percentage of all militarized disputes - about 45% of all militarized disputes between 1816-1986 took place between such rivals (Bremmer, 1992; Goertz & Diehl, 1992).  Half the wars since 1816 occurred between enduring rivals.  The likelihood of a military dispute escalating to a full scale war is twice that of a non-enduring conflict.  Whatever enduring conflicts may be, they appear prima facie to be very different from other conflicts, and should be viewed, wherever possible, within a different theoretical context. What we are in effect suggesting is that it makes sense to move from an episodic approach, and study conflicts, and conflict management, from a historical dimension, where prior interactions affect present behavior.  Shifting the unit of analysis from a single conflict to a long-term relationship, may have serious implications for the way we approach and manage conflicts.  We use the historical relationship of a conflict as one of our independent, contextual variables that may explain their course and outcome.

Much love thank you so much 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...