Middle Eastern and African Conflicts: Comparing Effects of Tribalism

Humankind has been plagued with inter-group hostility throughout all its history. In the beginning of mankind, the reason for this hostility seems pretty logical; groups living in close proximity probably fought over resources. Mandela's biography, Long Walk to Freedom, and Thomas L. Friedman's book, From Beirut to Jerusalem, are both compelling works that depict two scenarios in which there is ethnic division, or tribalism, in the midst of Western influence. However, there are very significant differences between the two situations that have led to very different respective outcomes.

In Mandela's work, the white people in charge of a variety of organizations (predominately the government and mining companies) capitalize on the ethnic divisions. They use it as a way to circumvent any possible upraising on the part of the natives. After moving to Johannesburg, Nelson Mandela observes that the mine workers:

...were normally housed according to tribe. The mining companies preferred such segregation because it prevented different ethnic groups from uniting around a common grievance [...] the separation often resulted in factional fights between ethnic groups and clans, which the companies did not effectively discourage. (64)

Had the different groups united, they would likely unite to end racial oppression. The situation in Friedman's book runs somewhat perpendicular to this. Friedman illustrates the intense clashing of different religious and ethnic groups in the Middle East (Sunnis versus Shiites, Muslims versus Jews, etc.). Despite international peacekeeping efforts, the Middle East is still inundated with rampant violence between the multiple factions. In each situation, the fighting groups or tribes have very strong social identities. So, why were the South Africans able to unite, while those in the Middle East cannot?