Ambon conflicts<\/p>\n
I refer to The Jakarta Post's editorial on Aug. 2, 1999: "...,
\nit would be natural for adherents of those two faiths to be
\ninvolved in conflicts of any kind, religious or otherwise."<\/p>\n
Natural? The idea of naturalness of conflict is essentialist,
\nand to hold an essentialist position in the face of the
\nirrefragable evidences for antiessentialism is intellectually
\nindefensible. (Remember the early 1980s here? Smoking may cause
\ncancer? Indonesians laughed in my face. We've progressed, haven't
\nwe?<\/p>\n
Tragically, though, there is a logic to this "natural"
\nconflict. Doctrines of chauvinism (which are ipso facto
\nphilosophically idealist) are fastened in insularity -- not to
\nput too fine a point on it, in ignorance (consider the recent
\nconcern about an edition of the Bible in a local language. What
\nreason but controlling access to nonsanctified perspectives?)
\nThese doctrines of chauvinism include violent chauvinism such as
\nalmost all religions, certainly including Christianity and Islam.<\/p>\n
Now, I agree with the editorial's proposal that
\nprovocation ... provokes. However, the propensity for violence
\nmust exist -- and it does. In times of relative economic
\nstability, the inherent contradictions will lie dormant -- but
\nwhen such as the present economic crises impacts upon people's
\npsychological well-being, and those people do not have objective
\nmodes of intellectual practice to fall back upon, violence is
\neasily provoked.<\/p>\n
It is not natural, but a consequence of fostered insularity
\nand inequality of resource distribution.<\/p>\n
MARK BLAIR<\/p>\n
Jakarta<\/p>", "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/ambon-conflicts-1447899208", "image": "" }, "sponsor": "Okusi Associates", "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com" }