Mmmmm...Not sure that this is a DAR topic, X.
Just briefly: I never cared for the expression "hotbed of ethnic/religious rivalries" for several reasons. (I know you didn't invent this expression, so don't take this as a criticism of you.)
In fact, the expression itself illustrates part of the problem: the incomprehension of/condescension towards small beleaguered nationalities routinely displayed by citizens (and often leaders) of large powerful countries. In other words, if some conflict arises in some area we have never heard of, especially if it has a totally bizarre name (e.g., Karachayevo-Cherkessia); and if it involves a bunch of ethnic groups with funny-sounding names (e.g., the "Hoo-toos" and the "Tootsies," as we used to call them), the assumption is that it is due to some irrational "tribal" behavior that we, of course, would be too civilized ever to be guilty of.
In my observation, every "hotbed" is unique, and the conflicts are generally very complex, fed by a wide variety of sources. The thing is, you never hear about them until they hit the headlines, or the TV screen. In other words, there has to be a lot of (filmable) killing going on, preferably a lot of bombs dropping, too, etc. And when you come in in the middle of the story, or actually at the end, you generally aren't going to get an accurate picture of the full story.
Now, don't get me started on the priorities of the news media...grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr....
Anyway, I could go on for hours answering the questions you pose in your post, but again I am not sure this is the proper venue...
Joan |
