Jane Goodall spent years observing chimps, and says they often made war on neighboring chimp herds.
But what did she know.
Why are so many people drawn to conspiracy theories in times of crisis?
Verified by Psychology Today

Racism has been—and unfortunately still is—such a prominent feature of so many human societies that it might be tempting to think of it as somehow "natural" or "innate."
Indeed, this is the conclusion that some evolutionary psychologists have come to. Evolutionary psychology tries to account for present-day human traits in terms of the survival benefit they might have had to our ancestors. If a trait has survived and become prevalent, then the genes associated with it must have been "selected" by evolution.
According to this logic, racism is prevalent because it was beneficial for early human beings to deprive other groups of resources. It would have done our ancestors no good to be altruistic and allow other groups to share their resources; that would have just decreased their own chances of survival. But if they could subjugate and oppress other groups, this would increase their own access to resources. In these terms, according to Pascal Boyer, racism is "a consequence of highly efficient economic strategies," enabling us to "keep members of other groups in a lower-status position, with distinctly worse benefits." (1) Another related idea is that to see one’s own group as special or superior would have helped us to survive by enhancing group cohesion.
However, like so many of the "just so" stories put forward in the name of evolutionary psychology, these ideas are extremely dubious. First of all, anthropologists who have studied contemporary hunter-gatherer tribes (who follow the same lifestyle as prehistoric human beings and can therefore be seen as representative of our species’ ancient past) report that they do not generally behave with this kind of hostility towards other groups. They don’t tend to see other tribes in their vicinity as competitors for the same food sources and try to subjugate them or restrict their access to resources. Contemporary hunter-gatherer groups are fairly fluid, with changing membership. Different groups interact with each other a lot, regularly visiting each other, making marriage alliances, and sometimes switching members. This is not the kind of behavior that we would associate with racism. (2)
Significantly, hunter-gatherer groups don’t tend to be territorial. They don’t have a possessive attitude toward particular pieces of land or food resources. As the anthropologists Burch and Ellanna put it, "both social and spatial boundaries among hunter-gatherers are extremely flexible with regard to membership and geographic extent." (3)
There is archaeological evidence for this lack of concern for territory too. Anthropologist Jonathan Haas writes of prehistoric North America, for instance: "The archaeological record gives no evidence of territorial behavior on the part of any of these first hunters and gatherers. Rather, they seem to have developed a very open network of communication and interaction that spread across the continent." (4) Again, this is not the kind of behavior which would fit with an "innate" racism.
Racism as a Psychological Defense Mechanism
An alternative view is that racism (and xenophobia of all kinds) does not have a genetic or evolutionary basis, but is primarily a psychological trait — more specifically, a psychological defense mechanism generated by feelings of insecurity and anxiety. There is some evidence for this view from the psychological theory of "terror management." Research has shown that when people are given reminders of their own mortality, they feel a sense of anxiety and insecurity, which they respond to by becoming more prone to status-seeking, materialism, greed, prejudice, and aggression. They are more likely to conform to culturally accepted attitudes and to identify with their national or ethnic groups.
According to Terror Management Theory, the motivation of these behaviors is to enhance one’s sense of significance or value in the face of death, or to gain a sense of security or belonging, as a way of protecting oneself against the threat of mortality. In my view, racism is a similar response to a more general sense of insignificance, unease, or inadequacy.
It is possible to identify five different aspects of racism as psychological defense mechanisms. These could also be seen as different stages, moving towards more extreme versions of racism. Firstly, if a person feels insecure or lacking in identity, they may have a desire to affiliate themselves with a group in order to strengthen their sense of identity and find a sense of belonging. Being part of something bigger than themselves and sharing a common cause with the other members of their group makes them feel more complete and significant.
There is nothing wrong with this in and of itself. Why shouldn’t we take pride in our national or religious identity (or even our identity as fans of soccer or baseball clubs), and feel a sense of brotherhood or sisterhood with others who share our identity? However, this group identity may lead to a second stage: enmity towards other groups. In order to further strengthen their sense of identity, members of a group may develop hostile feelings toward other groups. The group may become more defined and cohesive in its otherness to — and in its conflict with — other groups.
The third aspect is when members of a group take the step of withdrawing empathy from members of other groups, limiting their concern and compassion to their fellows. They may act benevolently towards members of their own group, but be cruel and heartless to anyone outside it. (This helps explain why some of the most brutal individuals in history, such as Adolf Hitler, sometimes reportedly acted kindly to the people around them.)
This is closely to related to a fourth aspect, which is the homogenization of individuals belonging to other groups. This means that people are no longer perceived in terms of their individual personalities or behavior, but in terms of generalized prejudices and assumptions about the group as a whole.
And finally — moving into the most dangerous and destructive extreme of racism — people may project their own psychological flaws and their own personal failings onto another group, as a strategy of avoiding responsibility and blame. Other groups become scapegoats, and consequently are liable to punished, even attacked or murdered, in revenge for their alleged crimes. Individuals with strong narcissistic and paranoid personality traits are especially prone to this strategy, since they are unable to admit to any personal faults, and are especially likely to demonize others.
A Correlation Between Racism and Psychological Ill Health
In other words, racism is a symptom of psychological ill-health. It is a sign of a lack of psychological integration, a lack of self-esteem and inner security. Psychologically healthy people with a stable sense of self and strong inner security are not racist, because they have no need to strengthen their sense of self through group identity. They have no need to define themselves in distinction to — and in conflict with — others.
Xenophobia is not the only possible response to insecurity or a sense of lacking, of course; taking drugs, drinking heavily, and becoming obsessively materialistic or ambitious may be other responses. Psychologically healthy people don't need to resort to racism in the same way that they don’t need to resort to taking drugs.
It is also helpful to remember that there is no biological basis for dividing the human race into distinct "races." There are just groups of human beings — all of whom came from Africa originally — who developed slightly different physical characteristics over time as they traveled to, and adapted to, different climates and environments. The differences between us are very fuzzy and very superficial. Fundamentally, there are no races — just one human race.
Steve Taylor, Ph.D., is a senior lecturer in psychology at Leeds Beckett University, UK. He is the author of The Leap: The Psychology of Spiritual Awakening.
References
(1) Boyer, P. (2001). Religion Explained. London: Vintage, p. 299.
(2) Another suggestion is that we are neurologically wired to feel uneasy and anxious towards people who look different, because in prehistoric times, we were always in danger of being attacked by raiders from other tribes. But this doesn’t square with the striking lack of evidence for warfare in prehistoric times (see my recent blog "How Natural is War to Human Beings?"). There is widespread agreement amongst anthropologists that warfare is a very late development in human history, and that the idea that early human groups were constantly raiding and fighting with each other is a complete myth.
(3) Burch, E.S. & Ellanna, L.J. (1994). 'Editorial.' In Burch, E.S. & Ellanna, L.J. (Eds.), Key Issues in Hunter-Gatherer Research. Oxford: Berg, p. 61.
(4) Haas, (1999). “The Origins of War and Ethnic Violence.” In Carman, J. & Harding, A. (Eds.), AncientWarfare: Archaeological Perspectives. Trowbridge, Wiltshire: Sutton Publishing, p.14.
Jane Goodall spent years observing chimps, and says they often made war on neighboring chimp herds.
But what did she know.
Later researchers have found that chimps who live in undisturbed environments and undisturbed feeding patterns are not war-like - and that the chimpanzees Goodall observed were groups living in disrupted environments. Humans are also just as closely related to bonobos as we are to chimps - and bonobos have always been found to be extremely unwarlike.
That hypothesis did not withstand closer examination. Wilson et al's comprehensive analysis of 22 chimp/bonobo sites found not link between violence and ""disturbed" environments. Joan Silk commented on this, saying " These results should finally put an end to the idea that lethal aggression in chimpanzees is a non-adaptive by-product of anthropogenic influences"
see nature com/articles/513321a
I don't agree about this study - if you look closely at the data, they aren't nearly as convincing as that quote suggests. In the words of Robert Sussman, “The statistics [of this study] don’t tell me anything. They haven’t established lack of human interference.”
"In other words, racism - and xenophobia of any kind - is a symptom of psychological illness. It is a sign of a lack of psychological integration, a lack of a healthy sense of self. Psychologically healthy people - with a stable sense of self and a strong sense of inner security - are not racist, because they have no need to strengthen their sense of self through group identity." How do you identify a healthy sense of self empirically? Do you just ask people if they have a healthy sense of self or is there more to it?
There are lots of psychological tests that can be used to determine whether someone has a healthy sense of self or not - tests of self-esteem, self-efficacy, well-being, inner security and so on.
So people who express racist attitudes have been found to score lower on those various tests.
Certainly research has shown a link between racist attitudes and low self esteem and also between racism and lower levels of well-being - and also to a lower IQ.
IQ by race
Ashkenazi Jews - 110
Asians - 102 - 108
Caucasians - 100
Blacks - 85 (in USA)
United Arab Emirates - 85
Sub-Saharan Africans - 65
1. IQ tests are known for confounds. Namely language or cultural barriers. IQ tests were designed by urban middle class anglophones for urban middle class anglophones.
2. IQ tests have even despite point 1 shown greater variation within groups rather than between. That is to say that even with the confounds there's more in common between say a Sub Saharan Bushmans IQ and a middle class urban anglophone IQ than between two bushman or two city english speakers.
3. People are prone to making up statistics and putting them on the internet for others to repeat ad nauseum. None so true than those so called stats you just posted. I take it you haven't met any one from those groups.
Based on my very broad and yes extensive experience of meeting people of most ethnicities and many languages....
Humans are stupid and intelligent, loving and hateful in more or less equal measures
And unlike some articles on this site, this one does seem to measure up to my experiences.
That said, the issue of alleged reverse racism comes up.
Let's say you've got someone from a group that has experienced full on genocide. They personally have witnessed first hand the recent or intergenerational impacts.
This person is understandably rather pissed off, hurt, traumatised and possibly drinking or agressive. They might also spout out angry stuff to people walking past that could well have no idea that the genocide even happened (as is common....the perpetrators victim blame...divide and conquer). So this walker by is seeing a reinforced stereotype of a genocide survivor but only sees reinforced stereotype due to lack of education. Now this survivor is screaming racially charged obscenties.
Is the screamer a narcissist with low IQ? Or do they have CPTSD?
This is NOT by the way, what StormBoots McFuckhead and his merry band of neoNazis have perse. They have a classic case of "I am not getting what I want or need from the mainstream but I think I should and the message I am told is to blame XYZ group"
NOTE that XYZ group is almost never the bankers or whatever. Its you guesssd it....the genocide survivor screaming obscenities.
Btw note obviously any group can have narcissism and low IQ so the drunk screamer could be a dumb narc as well but actually i find that
dumb narcs like to join up and bully
whereas drunk screamer has cptsd
so there's that to consider
"1. IQ tests are known for confounds. Namely language or cultural barriers. IQ tests were designed by urban middle class anglophones for urban middle class anglophones." But that isn't true. There are I.Q. tests with no verbal component like the Ravens Progressive matrices test. Psychometricians who live in countries where English isn't the dominant language actually do make their own I.Q. tests in their own native language for the people living in that country. Most importantly, if these tests where actually biased against certain groups, then that would imply that they under-predict the academic achievement of those groups, which is not the case.
The brain only gets good at solving problems that it's exposed to. If your environment is one where you are exposed to a limited number of very reoccurring problems, then the brain has a chance at getting very good at those specific problems. If however you are exposed to lots of varying problems that match those the IQ test was designed to measure then you will do better on the test and thus be considered more intelligent.
Furthermore, many studies have demonstrated that social-economic factors better explain the differences in average IQ scores. When you look at the IQs of people from Subsaharan Africa who have been brought up in societies of higher socio-economic status, their IQs show less deviation from the mean of that socio-economic group than with that of their racial background.
"The brain only gets good at solving problems that it's exposed to. If your environment is one where you are exposed to a limited number of very reoccurring problems, then the brain has a chance at getting very good at those specific problems. If however you are exposed to lots of varying problems that match those the IQ test was designed to measure then you will do better on the test and thus be considered more intelligent."
Sounds reasonable. But is there any particular reason to think that that has anything to do with the differences in I.Q. between racial groups or any other groups?
"Furthermore, many studies have demonstrated that social-economic factors better explain the differences in average IQ scores. When you look at the IQs of people from Subsaharan Africa who have been brought up in societies of higher socio-economic status, their IQs show less deviation from the mean of that socio-economic group than with that of their racial background." Do you know where I can find those studies?
It becomes weirder when you consider that different cultures have different beliefs about what constitutes Self.
In the year 2006, a study by Harvard professor Robert Putnam was released, based on detailed interviews of nearly 30,000 people across America, showing that the greater the diversity in a community, the less people trusted each other, the less they gave to charity and worked on projects to improve the community, and the less they voted. In those communities supposedly enriched by diversity, neighbors trusted one another about half as much as they did in those communities that remained homogeneously White.
Putnam defined this decline in community or public engagement as a decline in "social capital." By "social capital" Putnam meant all those "social networks" through which people do things for each other, engage in collective-public action, such as "in friendship networks, neighborhoods, churches, schools, bridge clubs, civic associations and even bars." These social networks, according to Putnam don't just promote "warm and cuddly feelings, but encourage a wide variety of specific community benefits that flow from the trust, reciprocity, information, and cooperation" that is intrinsic to these networks.
--------------
No one is born hating other races. Also, no one is born knowing in America, Blacks are 13% of the population but commit HALF of all murders.
--------------
Incidentally, for most of history, slavery was not aligned by race, it occurred where one group could dominate and enslave another. It could be people who looked just like you but lived in the next village over.
Putman's findings are in contrast to the contact hypothesis, which is also backed up by research - it has found that increased interaction between different groups results in less friction, a decline in violence and increased communal well-being.
I don't understand the relevance of the comment that half of all murders are committed by blacks. Why should that have anything to do with race? It's more likely to be due to the fact that black people have fewer opportunities and much less privilege and are therefore more likely to get involved in crime and gang activity.
Despite making up just 13% of the population, Blacks commit around half of homicides in the United States. DOJ statistics show that between 1980 and 2008, blacks committed 52% of homicides, compared to 45% of homicides committed by Whites.
In 2013, Blacks were six times more likely than non-Blacks to commit murder, and 12 times more likely to murder someone of another race than to be murdered by someone of another race.
In 2013, of the approximately 660,000 crimes of interracial violence that involved Blacks and whites, Blacks were the perpetrators 85 percent of the time. This meant a Black person was 27 times more likely to attack a White person than vice versa. A Hispanic was eight times more likely to attack a White person than vice versa.
In 2014 in New York City, Blacks were 31 times more likely than Whites to be arrested for murder and Hispanics 12.4 times more likely. For the crime of “shooting” — defined as firing a bullet that hits someone — Blacks were 98.4 times more likely than Whites to be arrested, Hispanics 23.6 times more likely.
If New York City were all White, the murder rate would drop by 91 percent, the robbery rate by 81 percent, the shootings rate by 97 percent.
In an all-White Chicago, murder would decline 90 percent, rape by 81 percent, and robbery by 90 percent.
-----------
Do academics in Current Year really blame "poverty and White privilege" for Black criminality after Whites spent 22 trillion fighting it?
Most serial murderers that are captured are white and many serial murder cases go unsolved.
Most policing investment goes into surveillance of black communities.
Although the incidence of murders commited by anyone is concerning, its worth considering the full spectrum of social issues that are involved in crime rates.
Here's another example that often goes unnoticed:
3,000 people died at the WTC (Rest In Peace)
500,000 died in Iraq and another 500,000 in Afghanistan (Rest in Peace)
When the WTC perps were Saudis anyway, and neither ordinary Iraqis Afghanis or Saudis would be happy with murder (many are trying to resolve those issues) and the hate crimes against Muslims in Anglophone countries went up 500% in the months after WTC....even as Muslims in New Yorker tried to bury their own dead families and mourned with their neighbours....
What I am trying to say here is murder is bad no matter who is doing it and most people feel deep shame to be associated with a murderer....it impacts whole communities....the murder victim community and the perpetrator community too. Because it is the murderer who is responsible not everyone else
Yet we do not seem to want to talk about how to prevent these things; how do we prevent murder. We do not say the black man or the muslim is murderer when clearly every colour and creed has murderers.
We look at why some demographics seem to have higher actual incidences (that is when all deaths of this kind are accounted for, not just the ones got busted) and trace back causality.
The fervour of understable rage after WTC contributed to Iraq and Afghanistan for example...although if I recall correctly that war has been planned out too quickly to have had proper community support. Did they hold a referendum to ask USA if you want these wars? No. They went and did it.
So the deaths of those Iraqis/Afghanis is not specifically on USA people as a whole just the same as the WTC was not the fault of Iraqi/Afghani peoples.
And furthermore, if two black men shoot each other in a gang fight in new jersey that says nothing about the black grandpa in Mississippi that just got his house stolen in the subprime crisis
And if a white man in Washington state steals women and buries them in the forrest that says nothing about the white man in Louisiana.
Racism is stupid.
While in Sweden to receive a $50,000 academic prize as political science professor of the year, Harvard’s Robert D. Putnam, a former Carter administration official who made his reputation writing about the decline of social trust in America in his bestseller Bowling Alone, confessed to Financial Times columnist John Lloyd that his latest research discovery—that ethnic diversity decreases trust and co-operation in communities—was so explosive that for the last half decade he hadn’t dared announce it “until he could develop proposals to compensate for the negative effects of diversity, saying it ‘would have been irresponsible to publish without that.’”
Actually, what Putnam posits seems more like a synthesis of both contact and conflict hypothesis. I don't remember his exact term, but not only did he find that there was less trust or social capital among the out-groups due to interaction, but this also extends to one's own in-group (so you're less likely to interact or trust your in-group as much as you would have otherwise) as a result of all the out-group conflict.
The problem with contact hypothesis is that it depends on the specific group members you meet. If you have a negative opinion of Muslims because you think they are not culturally compatible, and you are met with group A which has very well-behaved and acculturated Muslims, then you may have a better opinion of them, but if you meet group B, which is the opposite, you will have a worse opinion of them.
However, even if you think group A consists of great individuals, these could be outliers, and that doesn't necessarily mean that all muslims, or even most, will be a good fit for a Western society.
Furthermore, the more distinct populations there are, the more conflict there will be. If a people all look the same and have the same religion, then there will be less conflict. Certainly you will still see subgroups forming or class conflict. But If you add multiple ethnicities to the pot with different cultures and religions, then there will be added conflict beyond what you would have with a homogenous society. They would divide not only through class lines but religious, ethnic and racial lines (and while you could argue this might not happen in certain societies, it certainly will in a democratic republic where you have different parties vying for the votes of particular groups, which will further the conflict and create a greater schism between the people).
As for the comment about blacks, rich blacks commit more crime than poor whites and poor Asians. Rich blacks are more privileged than poor whites or Asians and have more opportunities. So how do you explain the higher amount of crime from rich blacks? Seems like there are some other more salient factors at play.
1. It locates the problem at the level of the people rather than the environment. Its easier to understand and change the environment of other humans than it is to understand and change the inner life of other humans.
2. Its irreducibly idealist. I prefer to look for tangible causes for social problems. The presence or absence of inter-group conflict seems to be pretty much down to the spatial distribution of different ethnic groups. People really only develop hostile attitudes towards other ethnic groups when other ethnic groups are present, yet not so thoroughly integrated that no one group can feel a sense of ownership over shared space. Source: Rutherford A, Harmon D, Werfel J, Gard-Murray AS, Bar-Yam S, Gros A, et al. (2014) Good Fences: The Importance of Setting Boundaries for Peaceful Coexistence. PLoS ONE 9(5): e95660.
This does not concord with my experience.
In my experience, distance and percieved threat or blame is what contributes.
For example, I have known homophobes that suddenly favoured gay marriage after having a gay friend. They forgot about their years of homophobic behaviour when group pressure favoured inclusion.
Just about everyone I have known that hated an Other feared them and blamed them for a percieved threat. But I have always been a challenge to that. They couldn't always accommodate that maybe the generalisation was false so usually....I, or my associate from X otherised group....was the exception to the rule rather than the rule.
The actual rule is "we are all as fucked up and nice as each other anyway" but hey dont listen to someone thats actually dealt with these issues a great deal.first hand....
Its not like I lived it
....
.
.
.
Lol that one was for the racists not the armchair shrinks bless ya socks
Another White guy concerned with the feelings and preservation of non-White races.
He has no counterpart in any other race, all of which are obsessed with their own race's promotion and survival only.
There is no such thing as the 'white race.' There are no such things as 'races,' period. Maybe by 'races,' you mean ethnic or religious groups. But I don't agree that all groups are obsessed with their own needs and no one else's. There are many people from all groups who transcend the identity of their group.
wrote:There is no such thing as the 'white race.'
Yet there's "White privilege". The federal government seems to think race is real, how many different Racial History Months are there now (plus gay)? When the democrat party avows to not hire straight Huwhite males, whom is it discriminating against?
wrote:There are no such things as 'races,' period.
At it's most basic level there are three: Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negroid. All three vary in intelligence, behavior and finally, cultural norms.
wrote:But I don't agree that all groups are obsessed with their own needs and no one else's.
You're right: whether by guilt or pathological altruism, Whites stupidly put the needs and wants of other races ahead of their own. Wealthy Asians are not interested in helping poor Whites. Wealthy Mexicans couldn't care less about Blacks, who are second-class citizens in their country. Maybe it's a form of "White supremacy" that only Whites think they can bring Universal Equality to the world?
wrote:There are many people from all groups who transcend the identity of their group.
The numbers of the "enlightened" are too small to make a difference. Judging by "content of character" (also considered racism by the left) quickly takes a backseat to whatever racial majority abounds. California is now a poverty satellite of Old Mexico.
Look, Doc, I practice the golden rule, I've helped and been helped by people of all races, but I would have no chance in a Mexifornian gang-infested slum or devastated Detroit. Race is real.
If you walked into a community with assumptions like that then maybe you would have no chance aye
Oh look Mr Black Man you are a different species to me and are stupid thats why you have these problems now listen to me I know everything...
They will smell this attitude a mile away!!!
You go into a community any community with empathy and try to listen this is what happens
1. The majority of nice people will be your friend.
2. The narcs with low IQs wont care what you do they're messed up
3. The people from 1. Will avoid you or be unnice only when the people from 2. are dominant *they get scared too*
I have been to places I got told my skin would get be raped robbed killed because those places had people of a skin that were described as raper robber killers
My actual experience was I did what I just suggested and reported
Now we do acknowledge there are intercultural differences yes and people look after their ingroup first
But you know what I got showb more care by those alleged raper robber killers than my own etjnic group; because I am considered ingroup by them
Not because of my skin but because my attitude is empathy and I walked in with consideration and yes got burnt in the narc idiot fires as well
Peoplw feather their own nest but lets be assured its their individual nest then whoever they are shagging and then their kids followed by extended kin and THEN community. Community need not be ethnically based though it so often is with so many discussions framed around biology for what is actually social
It's really not quite as simple as all of the races being lumped into the human race, and questioning what is 'white' what is 'black'? Sure, much of western science, especially Western Europe, the U.S., etc. has attempted to discard the notion of biological race, but views are different in Eastern Europe to an extent and especially places like China.
It wasn't even until... what, WWII that we started to do away with race in science? Seemingly at the drop of a hat. There are many political reasons to do so, of course, especially in the more multicultural societies.
There are studies, btw, that analyze biology textbooks in recent years that tally the percentage of textbooks that use biological race as a valid term, and there are still biologists (and other scientists) that consider it valid—there's not a 100% consensus by any means. It's generally the harder sciences that acknowledge race more so than the softer sciences. Also the mainstream western publications which people tend to see online have a "race doesn't exist" agenda, while you'll see much more variance among actual scientific journals (which many people don't read because they're more complicated or there are barriers like paywalls if you're unfamiliar with how to acquire them). This paints the impression that there is a consensus when there actually isn't.
Furthermore, there's genetic cluster analysis which has a 95%+ rate of accurately grouping people, and it mirrors conventional racial categories. These people are genetically more similar or dissimilar, thus grouped differently.
I've heard all kinds of estimates about how similar we are to chimps—96-98.7%, sometimes even the high number of 99%! So which is it? In Venter's original study humans share 99.9% of their DNA, but that was later retracted, and its around 99% (99.5% at the highest). It also seems that we have had enough group separation for a long enough time and there are enough differences for some kind of distinction beyond simply ethnicity. Especially when you consider there are groups that don't have neanderthal or denisovan DNA (for example, if I recall correctly, sub-Saharan Africans don't have any DNA from either of these groups)
I think race seems perfectly reasonable as a biological distinction. But even if you don't, race is obviously a very useful category to lump together groups of ethnicities or populations that are more similar than others. The white race is a means of lumping together people of European descent rather than talking about specific ethnicities.
Every civilization in human history has regarded itself as superior to all others. The ancient Chinese regarded all other races as barbarians. The Egyptians, Persians and Greeks regarded other nations with similar scorn.
Amazing what the invention of the fence did to psychology aye
Somehow that fence is civilised
Oh wow
Yet OP said that old skool cultures had much less war than expected....also much less fences
So maybe its the Fences that seperate us not the width of our noses or the colour of our skin
I'd like to see more discussion on the non-existence of racism. For a whole host of reasons mainly linked to survival, people stay within their group. This by no means equates to hatred of the other, although it can be twisted that way. Preference for one thing can always be interpreted as dislike of another. I always think of the young child who says things like, You hate strawberry ice cream, don't you? You then try to explain that preference for chocolate is not hatred of strawberry. Or the woman you love decides to marry another and, in your disbelief, you blurt out, Why do you hate me? The idea that she prefers another is abhorrent.
Western women seem to be less defensive than Western men on the issue of immigration (in the past, with many hungry mouths to feed, they'd have been very hostile.)
I think the reason is that borders exist for men. Men traditionally cross borders, kill the men and fertilise the women, a disaster for the men but a biological success for the women, not least because the conqueror must be stronger than the native men. When conquerors conquer, be they Nazis, Communists, Mongols or Romans, an orderly queue forms of young women seeking to be serviced by the new arrivals.
A big development I do see is that Western women are losing their favoured status. The women of other races have always been treated by their men as a commodity, whereas European women have lived on a pedestal, to idolised, serenaded, immortalised in stone and on canvas. I see this all coming to an end.
There is so much intellectual dishonesty on this subject by people who believe in Darwinian evolution, natural selection, group preferences and so on. Sad and dangerous times. Freedom of association is the first human right from which all others come. Only your own kind will preserve your human rights - if you're lucky.
If the author is interested in empathy he should really delve into this subject. I think sympathy and shame are universal, but empathy and guilt are race-based and very limited.
"First of all, anthropologists who have studied contemporary hunter-gatherer tribes (who follow the same lifestyle as prehistoric human beings and can therefore be seen as representative of our species’ ancient past) report that they do not generally behave with this kind of hostility towards other groups. They don’t tend to see other tribes in their vicinity as competitors for the same food sources and try to subjugate them, or restrict their access to resources."
This is a far more contestable claim than Steve Taylor is willling to admit. There was plenty of violence among hunter gatherers in ancient times. And as density of populations tended to increase, intergroup conflict also tended to increase. The "fluid borders" among tribal groups is not borne out by the historical evidence.
That hunter gatherers did not seem to have strong feelings of territorial claims, is not evidence for racism not being innate.
This has more to do with lifestyle than lack of ingroup preference.
" An alternative view is that racism (and xenophobia of all kinds) does not have a genetic or evolutionary basis, but is primarily a psychological trait — more specifically, a psychological defense mechanism generated by feelings of insecurity and anxiety."
This is a very shallow theory, that explains very little. As racism and ethnic nepotism are phenomena observed across all populations on earth, it suggests that it is innate.
Strong feelings of hostility towards outgroups might be caused by insecurity. But as with many things, it might actually be caused by something that is a REAL threat.
If an ethnic group is facing war, invasion or demographic swamping due to immigration, it is an actual threat towards the groups integrity and survival. Multiethnic and multiracial societies tend to have higher degrees of distrust and lack of community cohesion(As other commenters have noted, Putnam is a good empirical source).
Ethnic hostility is poorly explained by lack of individual psychological coping mechanisms. Rather it is explained better as a hostile reaction to ethnic interests being threatened. As explained by sociobiologist Pierre van den Berghe, it is best described as the dark side of ethnic nepotism, or ingroup favoritism. Where ethnic groups are viewed as extended kin.
Your attempt at describing racism as a reaction towards an individual persons enhanced selfawareness of own mortality, seems rather weak and lacking.
"Psychologically healthy people with a stable sense of self and strong inner security are not racist, because they have no need to strengthen their sense of self through group identity. They have no need to define themselves in distinction to — and in conflict with — others."
People who become aware of potential group conflict as caused by massimmigration and the changing face of society, are not sick individuals, as you seem to suggest. Being distressed and worried by massive demographic shifts in society is rather a sign of societal health. The social "idiots" who only see random individuals around them, are rather acting selfishly and shortsighted. Being aware of racial/ethnic issues can easily cause distress, but this is a healthy reaction, not a pathology, as you seem to suggest.
This is article reeks of ideologicallly motivated science, verging on pure liberal/multicultural propaganda.
Approach with caution.
Your response should also be treated with caution. It sounds like ideologically-motivated right wing propaganda.
'There was plenty of violence among hunter gatherers in ancient times.' This is not true at all. You might be thinking of Steven Pinker's book The Better Angels of our Nature, but his claims for prehistoric violence have been completely dismantled. Basically, he just cherry picks a few more recent groups who are not representative at all of prehistoric hunter gatherer groups. See the new book 'Human Kind' by Rutger Bregman. Most anthropologists now agree that there was a long period of prehistoric peace.
'As racism and ethnic nepotism are phenomena observed across all populations on earth' - again, this is not true in the case of hunter-gatherer groups, as I indicate in the article.
'Your attempt at describing racism as a reaction towards an individual persons enhanced selfawareness of own mortality, seems rather weak and lacking.' I didn't suggest this - I was just drawing an analogy with the theory of terror management.
'Multiethnic and multiracial societies tend to have higher degrees of distrust and lack of community cohesion.' It depends how integrated they are. If integration is encouraged, distrust decreases and cohesion increases. As the contact hypothesis shows, increased contact decreases hostility and mistrust. There is absolutely no reason why multi-ethnic societies cannot live harmoniously.
Great article. Thank you!
People need to be sensibilized about this issue in which only the racist is pathologic. He deserve specialized medical attention as he needs to discriminate others ( race, age, sex,,,) in order to feel safe and confident enough to have an identity.
I agree with the author that racism is a pathological condition, but I disagree with him that people who have a stable sense of self cannot be racists. This idea is elementary and flawed, and it is a statement based in privilege and superiority. Everyone born in this country who is white is steeped in racist ideology and benefits from it. This article is based on a dangerous supposition that racism is escapable if white people reach a psychological ideal; and this idea unto itself is a racist proposition.
Hi Alison - I find your comment strange. Do you think that all white American people are racist? (I'm in the UK by the way, which may be slightly different.) I agree that American society is steeped in racist ideology but don't you think it's possible to move beyond it? We're not all just pawns in social systems which determine all our thoughts and behaviour. It's quite an offensive assumption to say that the article is based on a racist proposition.
all best, Steve
Despite the trolls, i think you draw some worth conclusions. I’m aligned with the anthropological fact that there is only one race, the human race.
Despite many being unwilling to accept that as fact and instead accept the superficial societal definition based on opinion as race as fact. For me, there should be no other use for “race” outside of purposes of identification when filling out government forms, IDing a criminal etc.
Otherwise anthropologically speaking, we are just the human race.
I’m an African American woman living in France. A terrible incident happened this week involving the brutal beating of a black man and his associates in his music studio just for not wearing a mask. To see the video will give any sane person a stomach ache. His name is Michel Zecler.
Racism is an attribute of psychological illness. It may have roots in a psychological defense against foreign threats. But it really has no place in modern society. Police such as thoughts who attacked Zecler, those who killed George Floyd, the Islamist extremist who beheaded Samuel Paty. They need psychological help. Point.
Beyond this, the mentality needs to be shifted and policies need to change to accommodate for these modern and diverse times we live in.
A stop has to be put to systematic racism that keep black people, brown people, women, disabled people, and LGBTQ people from having the same privileges as anyone else. Policies need to reflect that.
Point.
Get the help you need from a therapist near you–a FREE service from Psychology Today.