Anexo I – sección VI – parte C
C. Servicios bancarios mediante
and genocide.
The fundamental issue is the fact that people of different beliefs, customs or appearances are viewed as “them” and people of similar background are seen as “us”. This “us” and “them” division becomes even more apparent when the different groups come into contact with one another. Diversity without intermingling is perhaps problem-free, but the reality is that globalisation has brought people of all creeds and races together to such an extent that few actions carried out by one party can be carried out without affecting another. In his book ‘The Clash of Civilisations’, Samuel Huntington draws attention to the clash between people of vastly different worlds, especially the Western World and the Islamic World. This is further aggravated by “incursions” into each other’s civilisations, as seen by Western interference in predominantly Muslim countries like Iraq, as well as the migration of Muslims into Western countries.
The presence of diversity also creates hotbeds for individuals and politicians who want to stir up issues or troubles that could have otherwise been held at bay. This is assuming that diversity has not already created problems on its own. In Malaysia, relations between Malay-Muslims and the other racial and religious minorities have always been an issue in national politics, with intermittent periods of relative harmony and outright violence. Tensions have been low for some time, but relations have soured again recently, with churches and mosques attacked over the controversial use of “Allah” in Christian bibles. This time, it is over an alleged plot by Christians to make Christianity the state religion of Malaysia. The allegation by the Utusan newspaper turned out to be false, but it has shown how easily the fl ames of ethnic and religious confl ict can be fanned in a diverse society.
Finally, diversity need not lead to divisiveness based merely on culture, ethnicity and religion. Differences in political alignment and ideology can also drive people to not merely suspicion, but even all-out wars. The Chinese Civil War was fought on both sides by Chinese people – an ethnic group that has a rich culture shared by all. United against the Japanese invasion in World War II, the solidarity of the Chinese collapsed entirely when post-war differences in ideology came under the spotlight. The Kuomintang fought against the forces of the Chinese Communist Party for many years, and today, although the war has stopped de facto, mutual suspicion still exists between Taiwan and China. From here, we can reasonably conclude that even people of the same race can be divided by somewhat “petty” differences in ideology.
In conclusion then, diversity is divisive due to the inherent nature of man to identify himself with people of the same beliefs, culture and ideology. Exceptions to this might exist, but we cannot deny the plethora of empirical evidence that point to the fundamental tendencies of man to view difference with suspicion and perhaps hostility. The solution to encourage unity is not to mitigate diversity by harping on what little commonalities different people share – but rather, an acknowledgement of the varied nature of mankind; and over time, develop the political maturity and understanding that for mutual benefi t and harmony, we have to accept, or at least tolerate, diversity.
Marker’s comments:
Fu-Hua, this is a wide-ranging, very relevant essay that is well-illustrated with numerous examples. Well done! Your stand is clearly argued, with some nice turns of phrase. Perhaps you could have looked at more instances where differences could be overcome.
In today’s gradually more interconnected world, we are growing increasingly aware of the diversity around us. Diversity, in all its manifestations – social, economic, and political – has often been lauded for bringing vibrancy to our world, yet it has also been condemned as having a divisive effect, impeding understanding and being the source of countless confl icts. I agree that though diversity is often divisive, it may also sometimes have a uniting and cohesive effect, and the impact that diversity brings often depends very much on the context and the values of the people between whom differences exist.
It would perhaps be prudent to fi rst underscore some instances where diversity divides. In many of the ongoing confl icts in the world today, it can be seen that ‘too much’ diversity may in fact be their root cause, impeding cooperation and harmony among various factions. For instance, there have been many cases of ethnic and sectarian violence in the world arising out of religious differences and the inability to compromise. In Iraq, the Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish groups never seem to be able to forge a stable political consensus, due to their diverse views of how the country should be run, as well as differing interpretations of Islam. Diversity in religious beliefs can arguably be pinpointed as contributing to such antagonism and power plays. Other areas in the world are not free from such ethnic clashes: throughout the 1990’s and even in 2008, ethnic Albanians, mainly Muslims, have fi ercely contested the region of Kosovo against ethnic Serbs, who are orthodox Christians. One of the main reasons why the Albanians and Serbs found it impossible to co-exist peacefully was due to their racial and religious differences, which led to deep-set prejudices and tension. When diversity prevents people of different nationalities and belief systems from seeing eye-to-eye, or even to agree to disagree, it can be said that diversity divides.
Additionally, diversity can be said to drive a wedge between people from different social classes as well. Within a society, varied socioeconomic statuses often impede people from communicating effectively and empathising with each other. For instance, those who have received higher education, or who belong to upper rungs of the social ladder are generally unable to understand the problems that the underprivileged of the society have to face, giving rise to accusations of elitism. In ‘The Disadvantages of an Elite Education’, a Yale professor pointed out that his students, as well as himself, could often fi nd nothing to say to anyone not as highly educated as they were – plumbers or mechanics, for example. The diversity in the experiences of those belonging to varied social classes thus impedes understanding, as people are unable to empathise with a worldview or perspectives so foreign to their own. This gives rise to a divisive effect, as people would often identify with their own social strata so closely that they cannot bridge the gaps in understanding between themselves and members of other socioeconomic standing. In this, diversity is divisive, causing a sense of alienation between different swathes of society.
Furthermore, on a more international level, it is even more apparent how diversity can be divisive. Nations with diverse interests and factor endowments, for instance, would have various viewpoints on how the world should continue to progress in a way that would complement the nation’s own priorities. The failed Doha round of trade talks, as well as the Copenhagen Summit, merely illustrate how diffi cult it is to come to a consensus when each country has different objectives which, more often than not, are in direct opposition to other countries’. In battling climate change, for instance, the diverse stages of development among nations was a key factor that stalled the formation of a strong consensus – developing countries wanted developed nations to shoulder more responsibility in combating the deteriorating environmental situation, while countries such as the US urged China and India to cut down on carbon emissions, something which these nations were reluctant to do as it was likely to impede their economic development. Thus, diversity in interests and objectives can often engender confl icts on an international level, having a divisive