Comparing religions

[Sarajevo071]

Generally speaking (we are speaking generally, right?) it will depend who is in question, where, when and why? But I would say not before killings are stooped, invasions are halted, fair reparations are made and respect and trust is gain back... Without that you will have just bunch of people screaming on each others, accusing them for this and that, defending they of guilty sides and spiting on opposites.

This is just my personal opinion from top of my head this night. For something more precise or deeper (!?) I will need to get back to you. Sorry.

[marct]

Generally speaking (we are speaking generally, right?) it will depend who is in question, where, when and why? But I would say not before killings are stooped, invasions are halted, fair reparations are made and respect and trust is gain back... Without that you will have just bunch of people screaming on each others, accusing them for this and that, defending they of guilty sides and spiting on opposites.

Yup - I think we are best off using the general right now. Hmm, okay, I can see why you would say that. I was thinking that it has been used during actual conflicts (I'll try and get the refs, but a couple of places in Africa and Northern Ireland come to mind) as a way to stop the conflict.

This is just my personal opinion from top of my head this night. For something more precise or deeper (!?) I will need to get back to you. Sorry.

No worries - I'm pretty much done for the night myself (too much work, too little sleep), Take care,

Marc

[Sarajevo071]

Yup - I think we are best off using the general right now. Hmm, okay, I can see why you would say that. I was thinking that it has been used during actual conflicts (I'll try and get the refs, but a couple of places in Africa and Northern Ireland come to mind) as a way to stop the conflict.

No need to go far like Africa. Stay closer. Bosnia? Or, since you mention Northern Ireland... Didn't they need for talks to start (and results to shown) new people in charge, different mentalities and let down in fighting (attacks)? IMO, generally speaking something need to really change so people will start thinking about peace and not about revenge for they killed and wrongs they suffer. Do you believe that one can have talks/conversations about peace and mutual understanding while attacks/invasion/war is still going strong?! I am not so sure.

[skiguy]

Do you believe that one can have talks/conversations about peace and mutual understanding while attacks/invasion/war is still going strong?! I am not so sure.

That's probably when it's the most important time to have talks.

[marct]

No need to go far like Africa. Stay closer. Bosnia? Or, since you mention Northern Ireland... Didn't they need for talks to start (and results to shown) new people in charge, different mentalities and let down in fighting (attacks)? IMO, generally speaking something need to really change so people will start thinking about peace and not about revenge for they killed and wrongs they suffer. Do you believe that one can have talks/conversations about peace and mutual understanding while attacks/invasion/war is still going strong?! I am not so sure.

I do agree with Skiguy that that is when they have to start (if not earlier). Over the years, I've done a fair bit of research on how one group stigmatizes another - usually with little or no basis in reality. For example, 2nd century ce Roman authors accused Christian cultists of exactly the same things that later Christian groups accused other groups of - e.g. stealing children to sacrifice hem and drink their blood, casting evil spells (malleficium in Roman Law), seducing youths away from what is "right and proper" (i.e. the official religion), etc.

These types of accusations are really simple to make against almost any group but, when aimed by one religious group against another, they tend to heighten the emotional divide while, at the same time, portraying each other in line with the "demonic" of their own conceptions. BTW, this shows up much more in monotheistic religions than in others - not surprising since their are Manichean elements in all of the major monotheistic religions.

I suspect that Bosnia is, in many ways, a particular type of a special case. Bear with me for a moment, because I know that it is a very personal case for you .

Most mountainous areas tend to hold groups that "lost" in their bids to get better land. In some ways, the areas tend to contain an incredible number of different ethnic groups - think about the Caucuses, the Balkans, the Highlands of Scotland before the Highland clearances. Even when you have only a single ethnic group, it is usually because they "lost" (e.g. Ethiopia, Swaziland). This is one strand that plays out in the creation and maintenance of very strong ethnic identities.

The second strand that tends towards the creation and maintenance of strong ethnic identities is the very nature of most mountainous areas. Think about how food is produced and, also, what other economic activities are followed (e.g. mining, lumber, etc.). All of these activities require both strong teamwork and control over access to scarce resources - a situation that tends to promote strong lineage systems which, in turn, leads to the development of feud cultures with honour systems based around blood vengeance and long memories. Even in the US you can see this in the rather infamous Hatfield-McCoy feud.

This gives us a situation where the social structure and the economic base of the cultures in mountainous areas, such as the Balkans, are predisposed towards conflict and, also, to the use of any symbol system that allows for a) justifications for feuds and b) differentiation between ethnic groups.