Compared to tribalism, is racism progressive?

[Boojatta]

[ZombieHorde]

1. I think they used to be the same exact thing, but the separation occurred

as human societies changed.

[opihimoimoi]

2. Yes...its an evolved form of tribalism...my opinion...

[Blue-Jay]

3. ?

[baldguy]

4. We should be happy that genocidal racists just kill people who are different

rather than eat them.

[Kennah]

5. Were there not ...

... primitive tribes that looked past race? Group X conquers Group Y they killed the men and kept the women.

[Boojatta]

7. I presume that you are joking when you say that they looked past race.

However, it's interesting that more recent manifestations of racism look askance at inter-racial marriage on the grounds of "purity." Your point puts things into perspective.

[elleng]

6. Same thing,, imo: US vs. THEM

[Boojatta]

8. A high level of abstraction is required to arrive at that analysis.

In distinguishing between members and non-members, is a stamp-collecting club practicing something that is "the same as" racism?

[Igel]

9. Same thing.

Depending how you define "race" it's essentially the same thing as ethnic discrimination or racism. Nationalism's the same thing.

It accounts for why Xians are deemed an "ethnicity" in parts of the world. They're a different group.

Then there's the entire oxytocin news-blip recently. Oxytocin, a hormone that was identified as promoting empathy and affection, it seems, crucially involve group boundaries: It only promotes empathy for those of your own group, however that's defined: clan, tribe, ethnicity, race, nation. (Of course, as people shift their views they can expand their definition of group, so that "group" becomes flexible: Now I may defend my clan against others in my tribe, but if my tribe is threatened by others of my ethnicity I'll defend fellows tribesmen I'd have tried to kill last week.)

It's interesting to look at some of the research. Common narratives and shared intepretations of history and events are crucial to forming groups. If you destroy the common narrative, you can destroy group solidarity.

Those in your group get a lot of slack. If two people do precisely the same thing and one is identified as a member of your group and the other as a member of an opposing group, most people will perform the same mental trick: They will adduce culturally appropriate reasons for justifying the person in their group; they'll come up with excuses and justifications as to why he did it and why it's not so bad. If the person was outside the group, then they manage to find the worst possible motivations for the act, there can be no justification. People try to stay "in" their group because new group boundaries can be erected: If a person does something really reprehensible and group solidarity doesn't force members of the group to continue to consider him a member, he's out--and despised.

This explains a lot of ethnic and religious tensions. It solidifies ethnic hatred and racism, tribalisms by other names. I personally think it accounts for a lot of American politics, as well. (In other words, we're primates.)

[Boojatta]

10. In European history, wasn't a tribal group typically smaller than a nationality ...

and a nationality typically smaller than a race?

Consider that even today almost all law enforcement derives from the authority of a nation. Of course, a nation can be multi-ethnic, so nationalism does not necessarily imply racism. However, if a nationality is typically smaller than a race, and racism is primitive, then it's odd that legal authority today continues to be derived from the level of nation.