or political status, at times one of these sources may reference the irrationality of the parties, and their inabilities to resolve the conflict without outside help.
These arguments differ from those of anthropologists in a number of ways. This article examines these differences through the scholarly lenses of the social scientists who study ethnic groups. It discusses the concepts of ethnocentricity and ethnic conflict and continues to examine the true sources of ethnic conflicts and the various ways ethnic groups have resolved these conflicts both on their own and without the aid of outside interference.
In this article, “Ethnocentrism and Ethnic Conflict”, the author Marc Howard Ross begins by explaining the difference between ethnicity and ethnocentrism on pages 4-8. The author posits that cultural and social aspects of ethnic groups are at the root of ethnic conflict. Mr. Ross further continues that ethnic conflict is a result of the group’s sense of threat to their identity and existence (p. 8), inequitable distribution of resources (p. 8), and differences in cultural beliefs, behaviors, and styles of communication (p.9).
Anthropologists agree that the ethnic groups being “guided” in these conflicts should be allowed to, and are capable of, resolving the conflicts on their own (p.12). In accordance with this argument, the citizens of Iraq should be left to solve their religious and political differences. The Sunnis, Shiites, and Christians of that nation are persons capable of resolving their conflicts and create an prosperous nation.
Language and cultural identification are often the source of ethnic conflict as well (p.9). The author references the ongoing conflict between the Egyptians and Israelis, and the ongoing Palestinian conflict. An ideal example this type of conflict would be that of Afghanistan. Afghanistan has long been a country divided along linguistic and tribal customs and identifications. In order for this conflict