On October 9th of this year, a non-violent protest by thousands of Coptic Christians in front of a state-run TV building in Maspero, Egypt turned violent when police and local "thugs" intervened, leaving 26 protesters dead. Some news sources refer to the incident as a "battle" with aggressors on all sides, others refer to a "massacre" of unarmed protesters. Different newspapers have chipped in with their theories of the causes for the riot--some theories more believable than others. The building and renovation of churches has been a constant point of
contention, and the demolition of a church that was rumored
not to have proper authorization by Muslims was the direct cause of this most
recent protest.
The Coptic Christians, who make up about 10% of Egypt's population, have been charged with "threatening national unity" since the fall of Mubarak's secular government. Coptic Christians' leaders and intelligentsia are seen as spreading "meaningless propaganda" and encouraging foreign interference in Egypt's affairs (http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/1/64/23491/Egypt/Politics-/AlJamaa-AlIslamiya-condemns-Copts%E2%80%99-protests,-hints.aspx). On the other side, the Coptic Christians accuse the new government of allowing Islamist groups and the military to persecute them. Some even refer to it as genocide.
This instance of sectarian violence reminded me of the cases of Hindu-Muslim violence in the movie Earth and the book the Colors of Violence about the Hindu-Muslim riots in Hyderabad, India. In both cases, sectarian violence intensified in this period of political sensibility when places in society are renegotiated. Each side has their own version of the events, and it seems to me that the "triggers" for most of these riots say a lot about the fears of each group. For example, a large riot between Muslims and Christians in Egypt last May began when rumors circulated that the Christians were holding a woman who had converted to Islam as a captive. It would be interesting to analyze what makes each group think of the other as a threat and how that influences their response to a perceived affront. The situation in Egypt is complicated, and the articles I was able to find on the Maspero riot varied widely in their accounts of how the violence started and who was involved. For me, this only emphasized how differently two groups might view an event and how they could each use the same event to strengthen their view of things.
It seems difficult to analyze the triggers of riots when it isn't clear on either side what started the violence. But perhaps the lack of a focused trigger is remarkable in and of itself. The compounding of rumors and backlash against "the other side" could create the seeds of riot. You would think that the media would be interested in finding out who actually was involved, but maybe even the rioters were unsure what group exactly they were united by.
ReplyDeleteI am wondering if the larger cause behind the riots was the current state of the Egyptian nation. I think the people involved in the Mubarak protests had a lot of hope for the future democracy and efficiency in the country.
ReplyDeleteIt seems that the transition to democracy has somewhat stalled, and the economic situation is not getting any better for the people. When economic situations are dire, people need a release.
But as you said, the accounts of this riot are so mixed it may be hard to find the causes for some time.