Us and Them Thinking

[starrwriter]

Ever since I studied anthropology in college, I've had a sneaking suspicion that racism/ethnic intolerance has its roots in very early human behavior. It's a vestige of the first tribal societies where members were free to practice violent forms of xenophobia against people who were different or belonged to other tribes competing for the same natural resources to survive. There is growing evidence that homo sapiens exterminated Neanderthals in the first act of genocide around 40,000 years ago.

This may explain why racism/ethnic intolerance hasn't vanished in spite of laws, religious teachings, political correctness and other forms of social condemnation. Although all behavior is learned, some types of very old behavior become semi-instinctive on a subconscious level.

First and foremost, humans are animals. They are not creatures made in heaven to always act compassionately. All people have a dark side beneath the veneer of civilization. These facts may be unsettling to accept, but denial is potentially far more dangerous.

It isn't rational to hate someone simply because they belong to a different race or ethnic group. But a lot of human behavior is driven by irrational or non-logical factors -- love, art, religion, mythology, etc. Even altruism isn't "logical" when it violates the instinct for self-preservation as occasionally happens.

The primitive part of the human brain is hard-wired for certain behavior: sex for pleasure and procreation, eating, the fight-or-flight response to perceived threats, etc. At the earliest point in our evolution this was the only kind of "intelligence" we possessed -- and it was enough to insure human survival. But we survived as members of bands and tribes, not as a homogenous species. Part of that adaptive strategy involved xenophobia that became hard-wired. The Other was seen instinctively as a threat to tribal survival and treated harshly like any other threat.

Today's humans are descendants of tribes that either out-competed other tribes for natural resources, forcing them into extinction, or killed them off in organized violence (warfare.) This is not simply a remnant buried deeply in our ancient past. It's part of who were are now and it still influences our behavior to some degree. Even the most intelligent modern person is prone to slip into the "us and them" mode of thinking from time to time.

Of course I'm not trying to justify racism or ethnic intolerance. This type of hatred is morally indefensible and imperils the cohesion of modern society. I believe races and ethnic groups will eventually disappear at some point in the future when humans become a genetically homogenous species. I also believe this is a natural and desirable outcome of human evolution. In that future world of one people xenophobia will have no basis for motivating behavior.

In the meantime we have to deal with a vestige of ancient tribal instinct. Which is why I wasn't overly surprised to hear about ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia, genocide in Rwanda, or the Islamic jihad against "infidels."

Thoughts?

[Jay]

Of course I'm not trying to justify racism or ethnic intolerance. This type of hatred is morally indefensible and imperils the cohesion of modern society. I believe races and ethnic groups will eventually disappear at some point in the future when humans become a genetically homogenous species. I also believe this is a natural and desirable outcome of human evolution. In that future world of one people xenophobia will have no basis for motivating behavior.
I believe that if you said earlier that xenophobia was originally a struggle for survival and other reasons (the grass is always greener on the other side kind of thing), the people being of single genetic makeup might not be the reason for the 'death' of xenophobia. Only the reasons might not be as 'obvious' as the colour of one's skin but there, I assume, will always be differences of opinions and beliefs which will always enable the use of 'us and them'.

[Zippy]

I believe there will always be an 'us and them', whether it's because of religious, social, ethnic or race differences. However, it may be hardwired into the human species, but then so are a lot of things which by civilised standards are not acceptable. People have and will continue to exercise control over these potentially harmful remnants of our past. Eventually, if those who learn to tolerate others prosper, and those who cannot are marginalised, these remnants should disappear altogether - thrown on the scrapheap of evolution.

We tend to think of evolution as something which is behind us. But it is still happening and environmental factors will always determine which traits stay and which go. Excluding a major, world shaking event, civilisation is here to stay and people will adapt, become more in tune with the way things are now. Even though there will always be an 'us and them', perhaps some day it will cease to matter.

[starrwriter]

I believe there will always be an 'us and them', whether it's because of religious, social, ethnic or race differences ...
This reminds me of a strange conversation the Soviet ambassador to the U.S. had with an American diplomat when the Cold War was ending. He said:
"We're going to do a terrible thing to your country. Deprive you of an enemy."

That spoke volumes about modern political thinking. It seems there is no "us" with a "them." Of course, we have a new enemy now, so everything is back to "normal" -- or as they say in the military, SNAFU (situation normal, all fouled up.)

[subterranean]

There is always be Us and Them as there is always be Me and You .


By the way, I read a saying By Jacques Chirac on BBC this morning related to what's going on now in French


How many CVs are thrown in the waste paper basket just because of the name or the address of the applicant?

[starrwriter]

There is always be Us and Them as there is always be Me and You .
Old saying: "The whole world is crazy except me and thee and sometimes I wonder about thee."

[baddad]

......Even the most intelligent modern person is prone to slip into the "us and them" mode of thinking from time to time.

Of course I'm not trying to justify racism or ethnic intolerance. This type of hatred is morally indefensible and imperils the cohesion of modern society. I believe races and ethnic groups will eventually disappear at some point in the future when humans become a genetically homogenous species. I also believe this is a natural and desirable outcome of human evolution. In that future world of one people xenophobia will have no basis for motivating behavior.

In the meantime we have to deal with a vestige of ancient tribal instinct. Which is why I wasn't overly surprised to hear about ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia, genocide in Rwanda, or the Islamic jihad against "infidels."

Thoughts?

Psychological theory teaches us that our brains have a primal instinct for detecting those that are of different tribal affillitations.

Recognition instinct is buried within the fight or flight instinct, and is in fact part of the process of fight or flight decision making.

Many experiments show how people, when shown photos of their 'own kind', recognize many features of the subjects face, while the same people can barely tell people of another colour apart. This phenomenon is not limited to Occidentals, but is a Universal trait, shared by all peoples on the planet when confronted with another race.

And, Of course, demonizing a population of people as 'different' becomes as simple as shooting fish in a barrel as the instinct is already within us.........sick and sad and truly horrific consequences of the manipulation of this instinct have shared the planet with us since the first homosapien was a zygote.

[fayefaye]

Of course I'm not trying to justify racism or ethnic intolerance. This type of hatred is morally indefensible and imperils the cohesion of modern society. I believe races and ethnic groups will eventually disappear at some point in the future when humans become a genetically homogenous species. I also believe this is a natural and desirable outcome of human evolution. In that future world of one people xenophobia will have no basis for motivating behavior.
Thoughts?


It seems like something of an oversimplification to say that one day there will be no such think as distinction based on race or culture and that's a good thing... Culture means a lot to some people and eliminating either culture or race will not, in my opinion, eliminate forms of discrimination. Maybe it would be more progressive for people to appreciate differences and cease to fear that which is different.

The us and them dichotomy may always exist, and if no longer applied to race or culture will probably apply to whatever else separates in and out groups.

The primal instinct idea is interesting.... people's brains have been shown to react differently to pictures shown of those from other races too. (But I don't know if this is innate or learned)

[baddad]

..... *blink* ........Fayefaye???? Oh....my....GOD!!!!!

[starrwriter]

It seems like something of an oversimplification to say that one day there will be no such think as distinction based on race or culture ...
Physical anthropologists have found there is already more variation within a race than between races. And geneticists have determined that all races originated from a single group of people in Africa following the near-extinction of humans 200,000 years ago. The evidence points to the conclusion that distinctions based on race will eventually disappear.

As to cultural differences, the world economy and adoption of technological innovations by one country after another will eventually minimize if not eliminate distinctions based on culture at some point in the future. It may take hundreds or even thousands of years, but this change is evident from existing trends today.

[Stanislaw]

..... *blink* ........Fayefaye???? Oh....my....GOD!!!!!

whoa, since when has faye returneth?

the profecy is coming true!!!!! :D

[fayefaye]

Physical anthropologists have found there is already more variation within a race than between races. And geneticists have determined that all races originated from a single group of people in Africa following the near-extinction of humans 200,000 years ago. The evidence points to the conclusion that distinctions based on race will eventually disappear.

As to cultural differences, the world economy and adoption of technological innovations by one country after another will eventually minimize if not eliminate distinctions based on culture at some point in the future. It may take hundreds or even thousands of years, but this change is evident from existing trends today.

I"m not disputing that the world is becoming more homogenous. I"m disputing that this is desirable. Saying that having a genetically homogenous race is desirable seems to imply that, yay, no more xenophobia or discrimination or whatever. Almost as if different races is the problem (altho that's probably not what you meant to imply).

Maybe it's true that if we were all the same then discrimination wouldn't exist. But I think that's a ****ty solution.

We should broaden our minds, not narrow our differences.

And yeah, I know I haven't been here for ages. I'm only here now because I'm procrastinating. But today's my final exam and then I'll disappear again into the beautiful abyss that is the summer holidays.

[baddad]

I"m not disputing that the world is becoming more homogenous. I"m disputing that this is desirable. Saying that having a genetically homogenous race is desirable seems to imply that, yay, no more xenophobia or discrimination or whatever. Almost as if different races is the problem (altho that's probably not what you meant to imply).

Maybe it's true that if we were all the same then discrimination wouldn't exist. But I think that's a ****ty solution.

We should broaden our minds, not narrow our differences.

And yeah, I know I haven't been here for ages. I'm only here now because I'm procrastinating. But today's my final exam and then I'll disappear again into the beautiful abyss that is the summer holidays.

Here!! here!!! Bravo! Well said!! Rational, kind and enlightened, as always Fayefaye. Gonna miss ya' around here....again..........

[starrwriter]

I"m not disputing that the world is becoming more homogenous. I"m disputing that this is desirable. Saying that having a genetically homogenous race is desirable seems to imply that, yay, no more xenophobia or discrimination or whatever...
There will still be individual differences, as there are now within races, and those are the differences that count the most to me.

And while you may not like the idea of a single people rather than separate races/ethnic groups, I consider it a natural outcome of human evolution in the long run. Clinging to past and present cultural differences will not prepare mankind for a very complicated future. It will be a case of adapt to new conditions or perish, as it always is.

[baddad]

...it is differences that will offer the most advantages to evolution......more options are not a 'bad' thing as far as evolution is concerned......homogenity may spell demise........but I could be wrong........I agree with the Faye-meister that enlightenment would be a more desirable outcome............

[starrwriter]

...it is differences that will offer the most advantages to evolution......more options are not a 'bad' thing as far as evolution is concerned......homogenity may spell demise........but I could be wrong........I agree with the Faye-meister that enlightenment would be a more desirable outcome............
As relatively slow as it is, genetic change will happen a lot sooner than the whole human race becoming enlightened. We've already had one age of enlightenment that died.

[Nightshade]

I think that race has little to do with us and them thinking and itll always be around even if we are all from the same race , youd still have all the sub groups ( and I now this is a rather odd example but take football/soccer) you have the reds and the blues be it ManU amdn manCity or liverpool and everton They have always hated each others gus and always will and should you comnbine them to make on team youd still have fights first it would be what should we call the new team and then itwould be what they originally were and then i would be fights over which part /player on the team would be best.
simple fact is -as I see it- people need differances fights and in and out groups to survive competitivness etc they are not only primitive instincts but aspects of modern day socity too.

so yes Xenophobia is awful ( and I can speak from experiance somtimes scary and terrible) but even when I was being targeted there was always that thought well IM better than them I dont go aroundpointing fingers do I? again an examople of us and them thinking.

I think people ned to have enimies or rivals to survive wheather in a friendly way or in a real honest for goodess WE HATE YOU sense its always been there always will people are like that and some types are more ethically "wrong" than others its just the way life is and we cant fight all uis and them thinking but if we do I think enlightenmentis really the only way you are going to beat rasism .
:D

[fayefaye]

There will still be individual differences, as there are now within races, and those are the differences that count the most to me.

And while you may not like the idea of a single people rather than separate races/ethnic groups, I consider it a natural outcome of human evolution in the long run. Clinging to past and present cultural differences will not prepare mankind for a very complicated future. It will be a case of adapt to new conditions or perish, as it always is.

I don't think that having a single people will solve conflict, it will, as Nightshade implied, merely be displaced and manifested in different forms.

And culture contributes to individual differences. By suggesting that culture is somehow distinguishable from forms of individual differences you are merely reinforcing the sort of over-simplifications regarding what constitutes the individual (the idea that you can classify someone according to race, culture) which creates us and them thinking.

As to a phrase such as "clinging to past and present cultural differences will not prepare mankind for a very complicated future. It will be a case of adapt to new conditions or perish, as it always is." I find such thinking almost dangerous. It reminds me of the way that English settlers used the same logic and social darwinism to justify taking Aboriginal children from their homes and putting them in White families. To turn them into white people in Aboriginal skins was seen as beneficial, to breed them out was beneficial. Otherwise people thought that they would perish. Long story short, the scars run deep, and you'd be hard-pressed to find someone who can really justify the "stolen generation".

[The Unnamable]

It reminds me of the way that English settlers used the same logic and social darwinism to justify taking Aboriginal children from their homes and putting them in White families. To turn them into white people in Aboriginal skins was seen as beneficial, to breed them out was beneficial. Otherwise people thought that they would perish.
In a way we are back to the power of constructed systems of meaning. It could be argued that a similar effect is now being accomplished with the willing agreement of those who are being changed. This is what makes ideology so powerful. As I said in the language as power thread about Thailand:

“There are many very prominently advertised products such as skin bleaching creams that are aimed at and appeal to middle class Thais. More and more their lifestyle emulates that of the western consumer. The image of the West is certainly powerful enough to overcome and suppress the culturally accepted norms of many Thais.”

Something similar appears to be occurring in parts of China. So no one will need to remove children forcibly from their parents in order to ‘whiten’ them – it can be done more effectively and willingly through our systems of meaning.

Incidentally, in the 1900s, there was an outbreak of something similar to bird flu in Hong Kong. It was as deadly as the one promised us soon is supposed to be. British Colonial rulers, armed with a western medicine that knew about pathogens, realised that the virus needed to be contained and so applied quarantines, preventing those infected from returning to their families in Mainland China. It is customary for Chinese people to return to their families at such times. Chinese medicine at the time knew nothing of pathogens. As far as the HK Chinese were concerned, the evil colonialists simply did not understand their needs. The British imposed the quarantines by force and by doing so, saved the lives of no one knows how many Chinese people. Now there’s a dilemma when deciding our attitudes.

[rachel]

To me it is always a one on one situation. You have a problem with one person and you fret over it and work yourself up and then you silently begin to hate that person with a vengence( I am not talking about me, I cannot even conceive of that, it is what I have witnessed time and again)Then you tell someone that cares about you and they often automatically take on that attitude toward the person whether they know what really happened or not. And it happens on the other side as well. Then the hatred becomes full blown because the behaviour of the two sides almost wills there to be a confrontation so that the hatred can be cemented in mind and heart.
Then the next generation comes along and are usually forced to take a side-with the fam that loves and nurtures them or the other side of whom some might be friends.
And I have noticed the more a person loathes another the uglier, stupider and more worthless they seem to be. and so it goes. But it doesn' t h ave to be like that.

[fayefaye]

Something similar appears to be occurring in parts of China. So no one will need to remove children forcibly from their parents in order to ‘whiten’ them – it can be done more effectively and willingly through our systems of meaning.

I think this is true (more what you say about Thailand than China though). People will generally feel a need to assimilate with whatever dominant culture exists in a society. So, as most of the world seems to be modelling itself around the West, the world is becoming more "white" I suppose. At the same time though, if you go to China, they respect people who speak Chinese a lot more than those that don't, so there is also pressure to become more Chinese in some ways. I suppose it goes without saying that it's a complex, dynamic process of change.



Incidentally, in the 1900s, there was an outbreak of something similar to bird flu in Hong Kong. It was as deadly as the one promised us soon is supposed to be. British Colonial rulers, armed with a western medicine that knew about pathogens, realised that the virus needed to be contained and so applied quarantines, preventing those infected from returning to their families in Mainland China. It is customary for Chinese people to return to their families at such times. Chinese medicine at the time knew nothing of pathogens. As far as the HK Chinese were concerned, the evil colonialists simply did not understand their needs. The British imposed the quarantines by force and by doing so, saved the lives of no one knows how many Chinese people. Now there’s a dilemma when deciding our attitudes.

Yeah, I don't think that the sort of protectionist policies instigated by Australia with regard to Aboriginals, or America with regard to Native Americans (I don't know much American history but I think they had some similar ideas) were intended to harm anyone, or maim their culture (like it did to Aboriginals). It's more a product of the way that people think. Race is a construct produced by power relations :D So, when it's convenient to say that one group is inferior and will die out, that becomes the dominant view (with the power of Science to back them up). And, now that we are aware of the harm that racism can produce, people suddenly start saying that race is entirely a construct - that people look different, but we haven't found any genes to define a race so we might be able to say that it doesn't really exist. So race (like sexuality and gender) is an illusion. Personally, I'm not entirely convinced that genetics has nothing to do with race, but I do like the idea that race is a construct, and I do think that 'inherent' traits in personality or ability going with certain races is highly dubious.

Ah well. I'm innately cheap and a God-awful driver. That makes me Asian. :lol: :lol:

[Xamonas Chegwe]

Faye,

Do you think that age might be a construct too? Perhaps if I act really jejune and naive, I'll only be 20!

Perhaps I'll ask (I'd love to insert a name here, I really would ;)) for advice....

[fayefaye]

Faye,

Do you think that age might be a construct too? Perhaps if I act really jejune and naive, I'll only be 20!

Perhaps I'll ask (I'd love to insert a name here, I really would ;)) for advice....

lol, I'm eighteen. Twenty is OLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD :lol: :p

Seriously though, to some extent, I think that it is. One of my friends came here when she was thirteen as a refugee from Afghanistan and I don't think she really had much of a childhood. I mean, she did, but she's a helluva lot more 'mature' or mentally older and more responsible than most of the other people I know. People with more life experience tend to get wiser faster. The concept of age is a construct. You can hear about a nineteen year old getting married and having kids and it seems right for them because that's where they're at in their lives. But for another nineteen year old, you sit there thinking that they can barely even take care of themselves. It's very subjective.

[A Hard Rain]

To the original poster: Starrwriter (i think)

It is not clear to me where the generally agreed upon in anthropology studies ends and your theory starts, or is it all mixed in with eachother?

If you could post what your conjecturing past your basic knowledge of anthropology, and what is actually generally considered as true in your post, i would be interested.

[Wirhe]

Heh, modern tribalism is about nuking "the axis of evil" and the acting like a saviour to the poor, misguided oil-countries. :D