Introduction
The fate of indigenous tribes all over the world is a matter of anxiety by those who wish to preserve some ethical and cultural factors, which these tribes donate to the world culture. The issues of assimilation seem to be dangerous for the future of global culture. But it also causes reasonable social troubles. It is suggested, that indigenous people will be living in states which have populations compiled of various ethnic or racial groups who are successors of the earliest populaces which endure in the area, and who do not, as a collection, control the national government of the states within which they live.
Social Matters
David Maybury-Lewis notes, that the difficulty with such a description is that it presumes that should indigenous people take control of the government, they would no longer be indigenous, nevertheless, it is obvious they are native to the states they live in and that they assert they were there first and have the rights of former tenancy to their lands. They also have been defeated by peoples ethnically, culturally, or racially dissimilar from themselves: they normally maintain their own language and, most considerably, “are trivial to or governed by the states that maintain control over them” – that is indigenous peoples are defined largely by their relations to the state.
According to official statistics, Cameroon’s population of about 16.5 million entails 350 ethnic groups. The intermittent outbreak of inter-ethnic difference in Cameroon has accelerated anxiety on the future of this Central African state, in accordance to IPS writer Sylvestre Tetchiada: The first prominent anxieties among ethnic groups, he states, take their root at the beginning of the 1990s, also the time when the single-party government came to an end in Cameroon.
As an alternative, lots of onlookers now note that the initial main concern should be to look at institutional and social matters from the ground up, by concentrating attention on the diverse inhabitants who live in such states and by gaining a greater enjoyment of the profundity and vitality of their societies, as well as their matters, as they subsist in the field. Probably not surprisingly, instantly paramount in such a study are usually two general characteristics – ethnic conflict and the flaw of the state – which, although compound, have to be independently tackled in accordance with the situation in every state. This, for sure, is very simple to state, but as John Ryle, Save the Children Fund advisor for Africa, has in recent times presaged those looking for easy explanations: “Each of these divergences appears from a meticulous background in which the prototype of colonial inheritance, community regulations, and state formation or non-formation is quite separate simplifications are hazardous.”
Most of the so-called ethnic clashes are the results of poorly-examined and poorly determined social matters. The disagreements, before they are called ethnic, are originally – and remain fundamentally – social.
Conclusion
Ethnic conflict is a key source of aggression and unsteadiness in the contemporary global structure. It is too early to tell whether this danger will confirm to be a transitory outcome of the collapse of international countries, such as the Soviet Union and the former Yugoslavia, or will turn to be a defining characteristic of post-Cold War world politics. In any case, recent examples of ethnic strife in Bosnia, Rwanda Kurdish area, and others remind us that ethnic conflicts will pretense constant troubles for the global community.