The African nation of Kenya, long thought one of the most politically stable countries in the sub-Saharan region, has fallen into choatic violence and instability. And the world is not paying any attention.

Elections were held on December 27, 2007, and incumbent President Mwai Kibaki was re-elected to another five-year term, but the results are widely regarded as having been rigged. The primary opposition candidate, Raila Odinga, took to the streets with his supporters, and the death toll has quickly risen to more than 700 people in a matter of a few weeks. More than 200,000 have been "displaced" (which in the African vernacular is code for "ethnically cleansed" from their homes).

Fundamentally, tribalism is responsible. Kibaki is a Kikuyu, the largest and most successful of the country's 40+ different tribes of people. Odinga is a Luo, but also backed by a number of smaller tribes. The violence stems from underlying tribal hatred and resentment; the election results -- rigged or no, but most international watchdogs would say yes -- were merely the tipping point.

I have two questions about this matter:
Why has there been no outrage, media coverage, or attempts to help in the Kenyan crisis?
Why haven't we seen this kind of violence among the religious or secular groups of predominantly white Europeans/Americans?

The first question is easier. Kenya draws no national attention. It is not a developed nation, engaged in proactive diplomacy internationally, of strategic geographic or geopolitical importance, or in possession of critical resources. Its problems (or tribal violence) do not affect the developed nations of the Western world. In fact, I would venture to say that the average American's only knowledge about Kenya is their fame for marathon runners, and even they aren't safe in the violence.

In short, Kenya and Kenyans don't matter. Americans have so much more to worry about than the hundreds-of-years-old strife and grievances of African tribes who have upgraded over those centuries from sticks and rocks to machetes and machine guns. I mean, geeze: Americans have to pay their gas bills! It's been really cold here lately. We might not be able to afford that new flat screen TV in time for the Superbowl. It's okay, the Patriots are going to win anyway, and everybody outside of New England hates the Patriots.

But I digress...

The second question is more complicated. Every country has violence of some kind, and there are no racial, ethnic, or religious groups who are immune to violent offenders from their ranks. There are countless white Anglo-Saxon Protestants (WASPs) who are the perpetrators of horrific crimes. So don't misunderstand my question. I am speaking very pointedly about large-scale, independently organized and coordinated violence from two parties against each other that does not attempt to stop short of murder to achieve their religious, political or ideological ends.

This sort of violence primarily exists in tribal cultures -- e.g., the tribes of Africa (Kenya, Darfur, Rwanda) as well as political groups (Liberia, South Africa); Muslim nations (Iran, Saudi Arabia) and Muslim tribes (Sunni, Shiite); and the Arabic or Persian nations (Turkey, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan).

Of course, this discussion naturally slides into the conflicts of semi-official or semi-autonomous nation-states against each other or against rebel or militia factions within their own state (all under the guise of "peace" and "stability" mind you -- more blood has been spilled in the name of peace than anything else in history).

Regardless, these political wars would include Milosevic's ethnic cleansing of Kosovo, Chechnyan wars against Russia, and the perpetual governmental instability of Central and South American nations (Nicaragua, Argentina under Peron and the military junta, Columbia, etc), among many others.

But still, we do not see these sort of large-scale, radically violent-by-any-means conflicts among western nations with a majority white Euro/American population. Why?

The argument can be made that instead of small tribal strife, the cacausian nations simply try to take over the world (Hitler's Germany, Mussolini's Italy, Stalin's Russia). Okay, I'll grant you that one. Have we graduated to a more sophisticated type of horrific violence? Will we one day see the ethnic cleansing of Africa and the Middle East done with all the terrible precision and cold calculation of Auschwitz and Dacau?

I don't have an answer. And my argument isn't that white Europeans or American WASPs are inherently "better" than our African or Arabic counterparts. I will say that you don't see too many Methodists walking into the Mall of America with bombs strapped to their chests, nor do Irish-Americans firebomb churches to avenge the grievances of their ancestors.

What you will see is a couple of nice looking young white boys walk into a suburban Denver school with a few automatic weapons and kill 17 of their classmates. You'll find a nice-looking young man, white and clean-cut, in the heartland of meat-and-potatoes America (Oklahoma City, OK) decide to blow up a building with a homemade bomb in a Ryder truck.

What America lacks in random sectarian or religious violence, we make up in violence that's just plain random.

That's worse.

Labels: International Relations, Strife and Violence