Anti Chinese Violence Theory

THE THEORY OF ECONOMIC COMPETITION AND POLITICAL MANIPULATION
Studies on violence and anti-Chinese had been done by some experts in these was; Jamie Mackie (1976), W. F. Wertheim (1964), The Lars Giap (1966), Mary player Somers Heidhues (1965) and Takashi Shiraishi (1997), Charles Coppel (2002), and of course was also Jumma Purdey (2006).

The experts used the theory of economic competition and political manipulation to understand the incidence of anti-Chinese violence (Purdey, 2013: 34). Coppel argued that economic competition theory into the causes of the emergence of anti-Chinese in Indonesia. Coppel said,

“One can accept the importance competition economy as one of the factors of anti-Chinese sentiment in Indonesia, without the need

According to Purdey (2013: 34) the role of prejudice and ethnicity as a caused of anti-Chinese violence in Indonesia had not presented in the study so far. In his research on anti-Chinese violence in Indonesia between the years 1996-1999, Purdey (2013) explained that the anti-Chinese violence in Medan, Solo and Jakarta in May 1998 on the grounds of their ethnicity and local antipathy associated with jealousy and fear of Christianization. Wealth inequalities caused social jealousy, and ethnic Chinese who dominated modern shopping centers cause antagonism among the natives because it had replaced the traditional markets. According to Purdey economic position was not the only reason behind the anti-Chinese sentiment, but religion had also become the focus of the conflict, because in addition to shops and homes of ethnic Chinese, churches and temple-pagoda with ethnic Chinese as the majority of his people also attacked. (Purdey, 2013:

The ethnic group identity rooted into primordial sentiments, cultural awareness-Angora internalized by members of the community through institutions such as the main base and the family, tribe, faith groups, neighbors and the environment (Trijono, 2004: 27). Primordialist view assumed that cultural differences such as language, religion, cultural traditions, and ethnicity, could automatically lead to conflict because they assumed that culturally defined groups will naturally be dominated by exclusive and narrowed values than by norms universal norm. In the view of this primordialist, the values associated with the insular culture of the group were believed to isolate them and lead to extremism. Then it raised the possibility of violent extremism (Crawford, 1998: 11; Panggabean, 2004: