The Evolution of Intolerance in Mbanta

In Things Fall Apart by Chinua Achebe, European missionaries visit the village of Mbanta, the motherland of Okonkwo, and they interact with the African villagers in simple, clearly divided stages that ultimately lead to violence between the different groups of people.

When the Europeans first arrive, they utilize an interpreter, address the villagers, and communicate their initial message, which explicitly denounces the villagers' spiritual beliefs and promotes Christianity. After hearing the message of the white men for the first time, the people of Mbanta “[break] into derisive laughter. These men must be mad, they [say] to themselves… And some of them [begin] to go away” (146). The villagers, grounded in decades of tradition and ritual, understandably become confused and scoff at the Europeans. The Europeans’ insensitive presentation of their message and the African villagers’ belittling reaction represent the first stage of intolerance, which is the recognition of differences between two peoples and the initial disrespect of both parties resulting from strongly held convictions.

Next, for a short period of time after the arrival of the Europeans, the Europeans and villagers coexist with a nonaggressive discomfort. In this time, the villagers “[are] worried, but not overmuch. If a gang of efulefu [decide] to live in the Evil Forest it [is] their own affair… Surely the earth goddess would not visit the sins of the missionaries on the innocent villagers” (154)? The villagers make concessions by ignoring the Europeans’ presence in order to avoid inflammatory behaviors. Both groups of people in this short-lived time nonviolently keep to themselves, representing the second stage.

Thirdly, marking the end of the period of contrived tolerance, three Christians publicly criticize the beliefs of the villagers and emphasize the accuracy of their own beliefs, and as a result, they “[are] seized and beaten until they [stream] with blood” (154-155). The hostile feelings of both groups accumulate during the time of uncomfortable peace until one side submits to its adversarial feelings and makes a controversial statement that leads to violence, mutual distrust, and assaults from both sides, representing the final stage of the path to the fighting and bloodshed of two opposed groups.

The stages of the evolution of intolerance between the European missionaries and African villagers are historically, in my opinion, the traditional steps to intolerance between many opposed groups. Much intolerance in the world begins with derision and confusion upon the recognition of differences, leads to a short-lived and contrived coexistence, and ends with a continual cycle of violence initiated by a single inflammatory act.

Simon Sinek: How Great Leaders Inspire Action Review

In Simon Sinek’s TED talk, Sinek claims the existence of an outstanding trend in the strategies of historical and current people and businesses to explain how great leaders inspire action. Sinek believes that those who lead well truly believe in their causes and project their beliefs to audiences before presenting mere facts, and he periodically states his overarching theme by repeating, “People don’t buy what you do; they buy why you do it.”

In order to prove his point, Sinek presents biological data and the work ethic of the Wright brothers. First, Sinek displays a graph with three concentric circles, and he labels the smallest circle why, the middle circle how, and the largest circle what. Then, Sinek proceeds to explain that adequate leaders start from the outside and explain what their products and ideas can do, but they rarely touch upon the inner two circles.

On the contrary, he says that the greatest of leaders start in the middle by explaining why they produce and believe in their products and ideas and then work their way out to the more simplistic facts and details. After explaining his theory, Sinek describes the biology of the human brain, insisting that people better connect to a product or idea when presented with the deeper and more emotional views and images that the how and why circles inspire.

Next, Sinek continues to promote his theory by arguing that the Wright brothers achieved flight before other more qualified people because, “they believed that if they could figure out [a] flying machine, it [would] change the course of the world.” According to Sinek, the Wright brothers achieved success because they strongly cared about a cause and a purpose for the flying machine rather than the potential results of the machine that affect their own lives.

Personally, I believe that Sinek presents a very interesting yet oversimplified theory of what makes a leader successfully influential. Unlike Sinek, I do not believe that the only way to influence is to start from why and work one’s way out to what. Instead, I believe in the great probability of the success of a product or idea with innovative features, high quality, and a thoughtful presentation.

On the other hand, I do agree with Sinek’s view that a leader must be passionate about a cause or something bigger than him or herself in order to successfully create a product or spread an idea. Those who merely care about their products and ideas relative to their public image greatly lesson their chances of success because their work and effort ultimately reflect their lack of character and pure intentions.