Sometimes, it’s amazing to see how far people will go to downplay the obvious role that religion plays in many parts of the world, for better and for worse.
Consider the recent New York Times story that ran under this headline: “Ethnic Violence in Nigeria Has Killed 500, Officials Say.”
Now, the choice of the word “ethnic” for the headline is crucial. Clearly, tribal issues played a role in this hellish story. But is the ethnic element the pivotal, defining fact in this story? Here’s the top of the report:
Officials and human rights groups in Nigeria said … that about 500 people had died in weekend ethnic violence near the central city of Jos, considerably more than what had initially been reported.
A government spokesman said … that the dead numbered more than 300. The victims were Christians killed by rampaging Muslim herdsmen, officials and human rights workers said, apparently in reprisal for similar attacks on Muslims in January.
This is a complex story and the lines between faith and blood are quite thin in the region. But the question is obvious: What about the attacks on Muslims in January? Any details available?
I know that the story has continued to develop and I will get to that. I am simply challenging the headline and the lede, that ethnicity is the defining element of this story. Later in the story, we read:
The killings took place in Plateau State near the city of Jos, for years a hotbed of ethnic and religious violence near the dividing line between the country’s mainly Christian south and Muslim north. Hundreds on both sides were killed as recently as January, though the victims this time were Christians, according to the information commissioner for Plateau, Gregory Yenlong, and a local human rights organization.
Many appeared to have been cut down with machetes after being driven from homes set ablaze by attackers in the predawn darkness, said Shamaki Gad Peter of the League for Human Rights, a Nigerian group.
Mr. Yenlong said the attackers were “hoodlums, Fulani herdsmen” — Muslims from a neighboring state, Bauchi, who were going after Christian members of Plateau’s leading ethnic group, the Berom, in the villages of Ratt and Dogo Nahawa.
“They attacked those villages and killed well over 300 people, mostly women, children and the aged,” Mr. Yenlong said. “They killed them unprovoked. Innocent people were massacred.”
I understand that it is hard to know all the details in this kind of early report. However, it’s clear that religion is a key part of this “ethnic” story.
An Associated Press follow-up story that ran in USA Today elected to use the word “sectarian” as the defining characteristic of the violence. That’s closer to the mark. The report also, as you would expect, had many more details from the scene. Here is a sample:
The killers showed no mercy: They didn’t spare women and children, or even a 4-day-old baby, from their machetes. On Monday, women wailed in the streets as a dump truck carried dozens of bodies past burned-out homes toward a mass grave.
Rubber-gloved workers pulled ever-smaller bodies from the dump truck and tossed them into the mass grave. A crowd began singing a hymn with the refrain, “Jesus said I am the way to heaven.” As the grave filled, the grieving crowd sang: “Jesus, show me the way.”
At least 200 people, most of them Christians, were slaughtered on Sunday, according to residents, aid groups and journalists. The local government gave a figure more than twice that amount, but offered no casualty list or other information to substantiate it.
The most frustrating element of all of this is that there is no clear way to establish facts in this conflict, a journalistic nightmare in which the integrity of both the regional and national government agencies (and the military) is in question. It is also clear that economic and ethnic factors are crucial. Yet, on the ground, the language and the imagery is primarily religious.
If you doubt me on that, check out this vivid report in the Wall Street Journal. The language is enough to make anyone shudder in a pew:
At a mass burial Monday in Dogo Nahawa, site of the worst violence, angry residents talked of revenge as they gathered around a large pit and scattered dirt on several dozen charred and bloodied bodies, some brought from neighboring villages. When an infant was lowered into the pit, women broke out in wails.
A village chief chastised area youth for not being ready to fight. “This is a lesson,” the chief said. “Now is the time for everyone to wake up. Elders are calling you youths to come out.”
An elderly woman prayed at the edge of the burial pit, chanting. “By God’s grace we will enter their villages and kill their women and children,” she repeated.
Horrors. Clearly it is impossible to write about this story — in a nation that is literally divided in half by religion — without dealing with the religious elements.
It is also crucial, whenever possible, to put names on these “rights groups” when they are quoted providing facts about attacks in the past and present. Some of these groups are neutral and some of them are not. We are, literally, dealing with facts and numbers that are leading to bloodshed.
Lord have mercy.
 | Posted at 11:52 am |  Print
| Permalink | Trackback |
Comments (10) |
March 10, 2010, at 1:30 pm
Usually just lurk -happen to have a little third hand knowledge on the point. Had a professor of International Relations who’s expertise was the Saheel region of Africa. His opinion was that the violence was Ethnic. Arabs in the North, Black-Africans in the south, and the violence happened whether the southernors were Animist, Christian, or Muslim. However, the Africans and IGOs know that they get more international response if they can emphasize the religion angle. Which would explain the disconnect between the headline and the quotes -American experts view the violence as ethnic, but locals play up the religion side for international support.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
March 10, 2010, at 2:01 pm
From the coverage I’ve seen it seems to me that the basic fault line is between farmers and herders in a decreasingly fertily territory. Religious and ethnic rivalries may be epiphenomena of that fundamental conflict.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
March 10, 2010, at 2:15 pm
One thing I find chronically absent in Nigeria stories is any indication of what kind of Christians are present and which kind is involved in any given conflict. Are they Anglican holdovers from colonial times, Catholics or Protestants converted in more modern missions, or what? Same with Muslim sects: are there different Muslim groups present in Nigeria, and if so, are all sorts involved? Dividing merely between “Christians” and “Muslims” in a diverse country like Nigeria isn’t very informative.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
March 10, 2010, at 4:26 pm
MatthewH makes an excellent point. What is going on is one thing. The spin that various parties put on it is something else. And differentiating between them takes that endangered species, the excellent reporter, with time to do an excellent job.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
March 10, 2010, at 8:00 pm
For some, ethnicity includes religion. I argued it with a psychology professor onetime. She refused to budge in her idea that religion, diet, ideas of family make up, etc. are what make up an ethnicity. So, for people like that, the story makes sense. I think they are wrong, though.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
March 10, 2010, at 10:53 pm
Even if seeming religious strife is a manifestation of tribal or livelihood conflicts, that marker needs to be explained. Why are farmers predominantly one religion, and the herdsmen another? When/why/how did the tribes convert? All peoples have histories.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
March 11, 2010, at 8:56 am
Kevin J. Jones said:
“Marker” is a great term for conflicts like this that involve religious affiliation.
In North Ireland, religion is a marker for which group was thrown off their farms way back when and which group came over from Scotland to benefit from that.
In Bosnia, Kosovo, etc. religion is a marker for which group are thought to have capitulated and aided the Ottomans and which group sees itself as being patriots way back when.
The fights are not necessarily about religion per se.
It’s a rare news article that gets into any of that.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
March 11, 2010, at 9:32 am
Well, religion often is an ethnic marker. There was a peculiar article in the food section yesterday in the Wash. Post talking about Irish whiskey and the common perception of Jameson as “Catholic” and Bushnell’s as “Protestant”. Historically this is rubbish, as both were, for a time, owned by the same company; Jameson himself was a Scottish immigrant and therefore almost certainly Protestant. What do “Catholic” and “Protestant” mean here? Well, not religious dogma; they are signs of fealty (for surely there is no religious meaning for a Christian to prefer one tipple over the other).
I cannot say this with certainty, but my impression was that the first reports I saw did depict this as a religious battle, and that subsequent reports explicitly backpedalled on that and emphasized the ethnic line.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
March 11, 2010, at 10:12 pm
Good discussion.
One thing I’d add is it is important to analyse not just the language used, ethnic/religious violence, but also the connection between these labels and the cause of the violence.
Is the descriptor used in such a way that attributes the violence to the ethnicity, or to the religious outlook?
Sometimes, perhaps without even being aware of it, you get a secularist journalist touting a subtext of:
‘those ignorant tribal people, don’t they realise they are wiping out any chance they have of developing their society’,
or ‘those ignorant religious peasants, don’t they realise that religion is the cause of wars and the sooner they ditch any commitment to religion the better off they will be, after all look at me’.
It is sad but predictable how ignorant many of our gatekeepers are when it comes to human nature, and how the predilection for violent pursuit of selfish ends permeates every society, through all of history. It’s not just nature that is red in tooth and claw.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
March 12, 2010, at 4:21 pm
Reporting condensed in websites like AllAfrica.com from Nigeria’s MSM emphasizes the interweaving of ethnicity, religion, political party, legal status, and socioeconomic status. I think each of these identifiers may be salient in turn depending on the context.
In short: Mostly Muslim (Maliki Sunni) Hausa-Fulani herders from the north were initially drawn to Plateau State for jobs when tin mining was booming in the early 20th century, though they continue to come due to increasing desertification of the Sahel that requires going farther afield to graze their cattle. Mostly Christian (Roman Catholic, various Protestant) Berom agriculturists were already settled in Plateau State and are therefore legally defined as “indigenes”, meaning they are entitled to special legal and economic protections from the federal and state governments. As in much of the developing world, political affiliation and representation in Nigeria are based on ethnic (and secondarily class) lines. For instance, the governor of Plateau State is Berom, and much criticism by Fulani of double standards for government treatment of them in re: violence hinges on this fact.
It sounds like in the recent attacks cultural/linguistic cues were used by the attackers: e.g., asking “Who are you?” in Fulani to separate out the Berom. And even local religious leaders acknowledge the economic and legal factors in play.
And for those of you keeping your eyes peeled for religion ghosts, check out Gov. Jang’s comments on why the massacres keep happening.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0