Protecting people "like us" from people "like them"

Having had a variety of discussions on issues of race, colonisation, immigration and politics on sciforums, one of the things that struck me is the general pattern of treatment of "other people" in various societies around the world. Being familiar with segregated societies myself and the utter debasement of human beings by human beings, I am nevertheless fascinated by the justifications used to create segregation in the name of both conflict resolution and social stability - for example, the forced transfer and relocation of unwanted peoples, be they adivasis in India in the Narmada controversy, the rounding up of Jews by the Nazis, the creation of discrete reservations for native Americans and First Nation peoples, the transfers at whim of aboriginal peoples by Australians, the dumping of Palestinians into Gaza as Israel strives to create "facts on the ground" by replacing Arab homes with Jewish apartments and the establishment of Communication Management Units for devout Muslims by Americans.

In all these cases, the desire seems to be to remove unwanted peoples from the community which may then be repopulated with "people like us" or at least, the "dangers" of being "overwhelmed" by undesirable peoples is minimised.

I'm wondering if there is any literature on what drives such group behaviour. Has anyone carried out a study of what seems to me to be a form of xenophobia or racism? What drives such sentiments? Why are (some) people so afraid of mixed populations?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

There is an obvious evolutionary mechanism. Those that resemble you superficially, and especially those who identify with your particular culture are far more likely to share a larger percentage of your genes. So, it pays, in terms of the gene, to help those like you and reject those unlike you.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'd think that any person who has serious mental problems whereby they threaten others, hurt others or themselves or are a threat as to what they might do because of their mental instability should be helped in a controlled environment for their self protected as well as others in any society. Lets say that a deranged man thought that children were something to kill, for the fun of it, would you want him anywhere in public where he could do damage to others?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Does it? Does genetic evolution support ethnocentrism over diversity? Do people survive better as isolated communities or as a multiracial group?

I'm actually looking for evolutionary or anthropological literature discussing this. Any suggestions?

 

While not addressing your specific concerns, you might find Pierre Clastres' work of interest and Society Against the State, in particular--here's a brief excerpt.

And I'm sure you're familiar with Khaldhun's Muqqadimmah. More proto-anthropological than anthropological, but I think he kinda touches upon these themes in his discussion of the Bedouins.

Of course, both of these works (and authors) also address concerns more particular to my own agenda, which you've likely surmised.

 

If it's a matter of immediate competition, yes. In the long term, genetic diversity is beneficial, but evolutionary traits don't think ahead like that. It's Dawkins' selfish gene theory.

 

I think the most honest opinion on this kind of thing comes from the man:

 

Thanks. I was able to locate Clastres' work at the open library [will probably run it through OCR rather than strain my eyes reading the image files

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

]

 

Really? I wasn't aware of that--I'll go there now.

I just got a Kindle yesterday and am quite busy dumping hundreds of PDF books into it. Admittedly, most are pirated texts (avax.com has an amazing collection of philosophy and critical theory texts), but in my defense I have owned hard copies of most of these books over the years. Just don't feel like scanning them myself.

 

I find the PDF format on the kindle to be almost unreadable. I use Calibre to convert them to MOBI.

 

I would suggest a book that isn't in the category you are looking for, but one that may conceptually very nicely shed light on such tribal separatism ("tribal" to be taken in a broad sense):

Caroline Myss: Why People Don't Heal and How They Can
http://www.amazon.com/Why-People-Dont-Heal-They/dp/0609802240
It is a fairly popular book, any library and bookstore in the US should have it, it was also translated into many languages.

She speaks about the three levels of consciousness, namely, tribal, individual and symbolic.
She goes very much into various cultural and psychological aspects of the three, and how they relate.
A brief intro: http://www.marriageofsexandspirit.com/MMS_1Myss.pdf

I find her approach conceptually useful.

 

All species are programmed to pass on their genes.

We instinctively prefer those who are "like us" because we know them, and that which we don't know is potentially dangerous. That which is potentially dangerous is automatically assumed to be dangerous by default (better to not risk it and get killed).

Biology doesn't plan for millennia ahead, just for today, and the best way to make sure my genes get passed on is through xenophobia. It allowed us to live longer.

Now we're just reprogramming. That we are even able to ponder such things and actually achieve such things (mixing with dissimilar people) is a sign of just how powerful our brains are! We can actually override our genes and biology and do what we want, and not what they do.

~String

 

Yeah, I'm noticing that. Thank you for the tip!

 

Sorry it was just a sample!

I use online converter.

http://www.online-convert.com/

 

Now on the face value "locking a loon up" will seem the best discourse, however there is a potential chance (albeit debatable on how large a chance) that the "loon" is themselves being manipulated by a third-party to commit atrocities. While locking them up stops them being a problem, it doesn't solve the issue of the third-party and their agenda, as they would evidentially just pick up a new "mark" outside of incarceration to continue their nefarious evil deeds.

 

Starting from a confusion like that, you won't get anywhere.

That would be including the reds. They moved around as much as anyone, tribe by tribe.

 

Native Americans last immigrated here via the Bering Strait land bridge 12,000 years ago. All of the non-Native Americans immigrated within the last 350 years, the vast majority within the last 200 years. I would regard that difference as significant.

 

It is not. Native Americans were no less ruthless than any other human tribe in spreading their genes at the expense of other tribes. Their demise happened to occur in the last half millennium during which time we had the ability to document their downfall. That is about the only difference.

~String

 

Problems between different groups of people are frequently culture clash. There is little genetic difference, even between populations of markedly different melanin content, but cultures can be very different indeed.

Cultures can be diabolical. The problems between Israeli and Arab began with the Zionist movement, in which Jewish people wanted to return to Jerusalem. This religious and cultural need inevitably led to a clash, since Jerusalem already had a viable population with a 1500 year old claim to that city, and to the land around it.

Other clashes come from the cultural value of tribalism. This leads to formation of gangs as tribe substitutes. Sadly, one of the cultural values of tribes is to denigrate those of another tribe - sometimes to the point where they are not regarded as properly human, and are therefore OK to treat as victims, or prey, instead of people.

When a minority group migrates to a nation occupied by a cultural group that makes up the majority, that majority group tends to expect the immigrants to adapt to the majority culture. Often, the minority make a very brave attempt to do so. However, when their own culture is made apparent, this can lead to emotional conflict.