Table of ContentsIntroductionNegative EthnocentrismEthnocentrism in the BibleEthnocentrism in the Old TestamentThe ExodusRahab and AchanAccentRuthEthnocentrism in the New TestamentGenealogy of JesusHistory of Ethnicity in KenyaEffects of Negative Ethnicity and Ethnocentrism on peopleEconomic effectsSocial effectsReferencesIntroductionDifferent researchers have given their understanding of the term ethnocentrism. According to anthropologists, the concept combines the belief that one's own culture is superior to other cultures, with the practice of judging other cultures by the standards of one's own culture. The Oxford Dictionary describes ethnicity as the fact or state of belonging to a social group with a common natural or cultural tradition. Ethnocentrism, on the other hand, has been defined as the tendency of individuals to elevate their own culture as the standard by which they judge others and to view their own as superior to others. Ethnocentrism involves perceptions of cross-cultural differences, can cause cultural conflict and negative stereotypes, and is likely universal among humans. In the 19th century, Charles Darwin (1874) noted that tribes were more supportive of their own groups, and WG Sumner (1906) was the first to use the term ethnocentrism. Ethnocentrism involves perceptions of cross-cultural differences and can cause cultural conflicts and negative stereotypes. Ethnocentrism derives from root words that suggest judgments and feelings centered ("centrism") on an individual's cultural or ethnic experience ("ethno"). Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay Ethnocentrism has existed in virtually every society in human history. To feel superior to other people, one must be aware of others beyond one's national or cultural boundaries. To feel superior to other peoples, one must also know enough about others to judge their civilization or way of life inferior to one's own. Therefore, for ethnocentrism to take root and thrive, engagement with the outside world is necessary. A society that lacks the economic, military, or human resources to move beyond its borders and do business with other peoples, whether through trade, conquest, or otherwise, cannot easily be characterized as " ethnocentric,” even if it is primarily or solely concerned with itself. Ethnocentrism is a universal human phenomenon. Some researchers believe it is as old as the human race. This position is justified as follows: “from childhood, we learn what is good, moral, civilized and normal according to our culture (Horton and Hunt 1968)”. As a universal human reality, ethnocentrism would be more pronounced in modern nations than in pre-literate “tribes.” Negative Ethnicity The concept of ethnicity has been intellectually experimented with through various approaches, most of which do not explain the positive and negative aspects. of the concept. Ethnicity is a concept and reality often misunderstood academically and still generally considered as a negative aspect. Well-understood ethnicity turns out to be positive. These come from the diversity of cultures, languages, lifestyles and organizations that human beings often spend to travel in order to understand and learn them. Publications in newspapers and other media have placed more emphasis on negative ethnicity. Based on the situational approach to ethnicity, negative ethnicitycan basically be the way in which ethnic groups tend to use their identity, superiority, or dominance to exploit or interfere with the goals or interests of other ethnic groups for their own benefit. Ethnocentrism in the Bible Ethnocentrism can be one of the greatest obstacles to Christian credibility, even in situations where the classic concept of tribe or "urban tribes" does not apply. Ethnocentrism, when mixed with pride, is one of the most controversial and potentially belligerent of all human traits. But the simple awareness of His presence within us gives us a new perspective on what it means to be God's people. Storytelling is the natural literary form through which human beings express and define who they are as a people. Therefore, examining certain biblical accounts seems the most natural and appropriate way to see what kind of worldview the Bible wants to form in readers regarding the place of ethnicity for God's people. Ethnocentrism in the Old TestamentThe ExodusWe begin with the constitutive event of Israel as a people: the exodus. The biblical author has no problem telling us that a significant number of non-Hebrews left Egypt with the Hebrews: “A mixed multitude also went up with them.” Why is this information there? The way this is expressed in Exodus is theologically suggestive. The Hebrew word used here is defined as “mixed people or race.” Thus, from the beginning of Israel's history as a nation, salvation was possible not only for Israel, but for all kinds of people. So, if there ever was a “peasant revolt,” it happened in Egypt and it was very inclusive. The ubiquitous biblical warning against “mixing with the nations” is not about mixing or the nations per se, but about “doing what they do.” '. The same Hebrew root used in Ex 12 is also used in Psalm 106 and in Ezra 9:2. What we do is clear in the Psalm, but not so much in Ezra. We may see in Ezra the beginning of a distorted idea of ​​purity. Or maybe something else. We must not forget that one of the great problems after the return of the exiles was the oppression of the Jews by the Jews. This shows that it is possible to do like the nations without mixing with them; which brings us back to the spirit of the Law. What gives identity and permanence to the people of God is faith and obedience to the word of God. Rahab and Achan The book of Joshua is not an easy read today. The solution to this situation is not to correct the text or the theology of those who wrote it. We must consider, however, that the book is neither as nationalistic as some critics have thought, nor as triumphalist as some Christians think. Two personal and elaborate stories in this book address the issue of inclusion and exclusion. Rahab is the Canaanite prostitute who becomes part of Israel, along with her loved ones, because she understood what God was doing at that time in history with Israel. She became Israel. Achan, on the other hand, was an Israelite who did not understand what God was doing with Israel, taking souvenirs from Jericho that he was not supposed to take with him. He was excluded. The Canaanite woman enters the room of faith while Achan joins the room of shame. In both cases the only criterion is a combination of what they believed and what they did. Another example in Joshua is the Gibeonites, where an entire group of people becomes part of Israel, tricks and all. In Acts we find parallels with the stories of Rahab and Achan. Ananias andSapphira (Acts 5) are the Achans, while Cornelius (Acts 10) and many others are the Rahabs of the New Testament. The latter are those who manifest speech directed toward God and action directed in the name of God, as Vanhoozer defines theology. In all of these cases we find “insiders” caught up in greed and “outsiders” as models of godliness. Accent It is difficult to imagine that accent played a role in the history of Israel as a means of differentiating tribes. Such is the cruel case of Judges 12: the pronunciation of a Hebrew consonant became at some point a question of life and death. When the Israelites seemed to have lost track of who they were as a people,16 the way to establish their identity was, as is unfortunately the case today, through accent. Due to confusing circumstances, the Gileadites went to war against the Ephraimites. Many Ephraimites died at the hands of the Gileadites. Apparently, they were not able to distinguish each other by their height, color or clothing, but only by their accent. Ephraimites pronounced the word for ear of wheat as "Sibolet", while the Gileadites said "Shibolet", apparently the "right way".RuthRuth was from Moab. Moab was one of Israel's enemies for most of Israel's Old Testament history. The feelings of hatred were mutual. Moab oppressed Israel for a time at the hands of Eglon. Mesa was the Moabite king who refused to continue paying tribute to Israel; Israel attacked with a coalition of two other kings (Judah and Edom) but failed to subdue them (2 Kings 3). Later, Mesa celebrates its liberation from Israel by its god Chemosh. The story of these bad relationships is found in Numbers, chapters 22-25 and 31. Moab does two things here that seem to justify Israel's grudges against them: Balak hires a seer (Balaam) to curse Israel; later, some Moabite women led the Israelites into idolatry, an issue in which Balaam appears to have been involved. So Moab is a different ethnic group and it is also the enemy of Israel. But that’s where Moab Ruth comes from! Not only did she become Israel, but also the grandmother of King David. For what? Simply because this woman showed her mother-in-law godly and “biblical” love and adopted her mother-in-law’s faith and destiny. His ethnicity was not an issue. Ethnocentrism in the New Testament Genealogy of Jesus Most people tend to pride themselves on their ethnic and cultural origins. It is something that has value in itself and helps people measure themselves against others. But it is truly shocking to see the individuals Matthew selected for Jesus' genealogy. It's pretty terrible. Those who refer to Jesus as a "pure-bred Jew" when speaking to the Samaritan woman (supposedly a "mixed race") should re-read their Bibles. This genealogy is particularly troubling because Matthew here establishes the legitimacy of Jesus as Messiah, descended from the lineage of David and Abraham. But to do this, the first evangelist includes people that some would consider not very “legitimate”. There are five women in Jesus' genealogy in Matthew 1: Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, Bathsheba, and Mary. All of these women suffered from some sort of “marital irregularity” and the first four were not of Jewish origin. Nevertheless, all deserved a place in the genealogy of the Messiah. Thus, Jesus counted the Moabites, Hittites and Canaanites among his ancestors. One author says that the focus of this genealogy is not on the women themselves but on the stories they embody. Maybe, but these women are their story. No women, no story. These women, their history and theologyThe resulting biblical text tells us that the inclusion of non-Israelites among the people of God is not something new in the New Testament. Ethnicity, as in the past, is not a problem for God nor an obstacle for anyone to occupy a worthy place in God's salvation history. If God's Messiah can come from such a genealogy, he can also be the redeemer of all kinds of people, even if their past is "questionable." This seems to be an important element in the theological agenda of the evangelists. The reason is that ethnocentrism is very difficult to overcome. The Bible consistently affirms that the foundation on which the identity of God's people rests is not ethnic, geographical or linguistic, but theological. This is how Matthew does theology with a genealogy.History of Ethnicity in KenyaKenya is a multi-ethnic society and has about forty-two communities or ethnic groups that have lived together for a long time. The dominant ethnic groups in Kenya are the Kikuyu, Kalenjin, Luo, Luhya, Kamba and Kisii. However, there are many other "smaller" ethnic communities in Kenya. This therefore explains how ethnic issues are so fundamental in the linguistic landscape of Kenya. The history of ethnic conflicts in Kenya dates back a long way to the colonial era. One of the long-term causes of the clashes in Kenya is attributed to colonial heritage. It is a historical fact that the indirect rule administered by the British colonialists who applied the divide and rule strategy polarized the different ethnic groups in Kenya. The strategy led to the creation of administrative structures such as districts and provinces without taking into account the wishes of Kenyan communities. These structures were then inherited by the postcolonial administration. This contributed to the later incompatibility of these ethnic groups in Kenya. It is regrettable that the first independence or nationalist movements in Kenya had, from the beginning, regional and ethnic foundations and leadership. Their names reflected ethnic interests. The first political parties formed ethnic conglomerates: the Kikuyu, for example, formed the Kikuyu Central Association (KCA), the Kamba: Ukambani Members Association (UMA), the Luhya: The Luhya Union (LU), the Luo: Young Kavirondo Association (YKA). ), the Kalenjin formed the Kalenjin Political Alliance (KPA), the coastal tribes formed the Mwambao Union Front (MUF), the Taita formed the Taita Hills Association (THA). At independence, the British administration developed a land transfer formula for Kenya's indigenous ethnic group. They created a special grant aimed at facilitating land redistribution. The obvious expectation during the struggle for independence was that land would be distributed freely to the people since it had been taken from them by force in the first place. But in the independence deal with Britain, the Kenyan government had to buy it from the settlers. This meant that there was no free land to distribute. The price made land rare. This is the critical point at which; land tenure became a factor of ethnicity and thus ethnic animosity intensified. It is recognized that the greatest beneficiaries of this land distribution program were the Kikuyu and their allies the Embu and Meru through the GEMA alliance which was a negotiating body for these communities. GEMA communities formed land purchasing societies and cooperatives with the blessing of Mzee Jomo Kenyatta. Effects of negative ethnicity and ethnocentrism on people Economic effects It is always difficult to quantify the total economic impact of ethnic conflicts in