Conclusion

The focus of this paper on internal Islamic discourse and Islamic-Western dia-logue, with special reference to Sub-Saharan Africa, should be taken as illustrative of similar issues and concerns that can be raised with respect to other parts of the world. Whether it is Hindu-Islamic confrontation in India, Chinese-Islamic relations in Malaysia, the Korean conflict, Chinese, Japanese, and Western competition over Southeast Asia, or another situation, the competing visions of the history paradigm can be useful in understanding and addressing questions of peaceful coexistence and cooperation, economic and legal reform, protection of the environment, and other matters of general concern. In each case, the basic issue is to define the terms and circumstances of historical thinking about self-identity and perceptions of the significant other. Useful questions to raise in this regard include: Which visions of history about communal self-identity in relation to other cultural, religious, ethnic, or political groups are recalled and deployed in daily politics, the media, the educational system, and communal, intercommunal, and international relations? Do exclusivist and hegemonic images of history prevail, and if so, is it possible to present and promote alternative, more accommodating and mutually respectful visions of the history of the community in relation to the other? How are significant events, like the conflict in Bosnia, or the treatment of relevant ethnic or religious groups in other parts of the world, seen and interpreted in local discourse?

I would also emphasize the economic and security context of hegemonic discourse throughout the world. Militant and confrontational visions of history often exaggerate and thrive upon memories of perceived or real events and current realities of economic exploitation, military conquest, and political dom-ination. These images and perceptions must be taken very seriously by all sides in internal discourse and cross-cultural dialogue in the interest of building mu-tual trust and confidence, and not dismissed as groundless or exaggerated. Due regard should be given to the collective psychology of denial and rationalization on both sides of each issue. While self-criticism, and even conceding more than what one may believe to be justified by the "facts" of history, is more likely to assist the other side in reciprocating, denial and rationalization will probably produce a similar counterreaction by the other.

In conclusion, I suggest that even as it is possible, indeed imperative, to reverse the dangerous prevalence of hegemonic and confrontational visions of history, that can only be achieved through a clear and deliberate strategy of promoting alternative visions of history, and perceptions of identity, that are more conducive to mutual understanding and respect as means for peaceful coexis-tence and cooperation. This should include, I maintain, redressing present local, regional, and global gross differentials in power relations, at least at the func-tional level, as well as struggling for the protection and promotion of human rights to create the political and social space for discourse and dialogue. Such strategies must also identify and challenge the forces and trends of hegemony or isolationism within all relevant cultures, whether Islamic, Western, Chinese, Malay, or any other. There is always the potential for good faith and peacemak-ing in every human society, but it is unlikely to materialize on its own, least of all in the face of strong perceptions of ambitions of hegemony. The ultimate and most practical guide for internal discourse and cross-cultural dialogue to promote peace and cooperation should be the Golden Rule, universal to all human cultures and religions and fully supported by common sense and pragmatic experience.