[nilak (OP)]

Racism is an natural instict that is telling an individual it belongs to a group and he needs that group, to survive. All animals have this instinct. For example wolves choose to collaborate with other wolves with other animals. Even if they do collaborate with other amimals they still form packs with other wolves. An instinct equivalent to nationalism is protecting the own pack against other packs. This way conflicts between packs arise.
We have learned to overcome the instinct of racism which was demonstrated as being a wrong instinct.
The nationalism instinct seems to be a source of conflict. The globalization is a good step in overcoming this instinct. However the problem is it imposes a set of rules for people with different characters and these rules will not be accepted by everyone.
Countries can still preserve their identities. But a man born is a certain country, doesn't need to have a preference for its own country if he feels different. It can go choose whichever country it wants. Doesn't need to feel guilty for that. The place you were born doesn't necessarily create your character. It usually does but it doesn't need to be a rule.
Whichever country we are we share almost the same DNA. Differencies are adaptations to a specific environment (including laws that govern a certain country). These adaptation are a matter of change over a few generations.

[smart]

Racism is an natural instict that is telling an individual it belongs to a group and he needs that group, to survive.

I think racism is a mental disorder sprouted from a delusional ideology. You can be a proud nationalist without having hate or fear for peoples with a different ethnicity/origin.

The globalization is a good step in overcoming this instinct.

Globalization of poverty and tyranny will never overcome the freedom of peoples to have a sovereign nationality and individuality.

[nilak (OP)]

The EU is a good step. It slowly imposes a set of rules and countries share resources. GB got out of this because people felt their country doesn't have to many advantages because they were already a powerful economy. Over time poorer countries within EU should boost their economy so that they will not be a burden anymore. Because of the rules the peoples characters will also change and they will learn to respect each other. Then GB could rejoin EU.

[nilak (OP)]

Racism is an natural instict that is telling an individual it belongs to a group and he needs that group, to survive.

I think racism is a mental disorder sprouted from a delusional ideology. You can be a proud nationalist without having hate or fear for peoples with a different ethnicity/origin.

It is not a mental disorder. It is a nature law. Only humans with rational thinking can overcome it.

There is nothing wrong of being proud of your people's achievements. Nationalism in and of itself shall not imply a belief in the superiority of one country over others.

The globalization is a good step in overcoming this instinct.

Globalization of poverty and tyranny will never overcome the freedom of peoples to have a sovereign nationality and individuality.

Why not ? We are all almost the same. You think we are different.

On the other hand a country's achievements is the result of the work of the people within that country. You need to respect that. That is globalization should be a slow process.

[nilak (OP)]

A personal observation is racism instinct does not manifest toward particular individuals that have been accepted as belonging to the group. For example if I have a friend that is a different race or ethnic, I will not feel the any instinct towards it. At the contrary make me accept the others from his group easier. Racist action must be avoided because we need to respect each other.


"Richard Dawkins seems to propose the theory that racism could be the result of an evolutionary adaptation."
In the future generations this instinct could gradually disappear. Perhaps there are already people that don't have it anymore.

Charles Miller, 1999,  in the Anomalist.

"But my contention that "racism" may also be a human instinct is the one that usually draws a storm of criticism from all corners--probably because we in 20th Century Western Culture prefer to believe that racism is a bad habit or something that we can extinguish with a little social discipline. If we were to accept that racism is a survival instinct--left over, perhaps, from hundreds of thousands of years ago when several different species of human were competing against one another for survival--then we would also have to accept that racism as an instinct may defy the social engineering of one or two generations (thus lending to the angst of many civil rights activists, I can imagine)."

[puppypower]

Nationalism has it roots in the family unit. We are instinctively connected to our own families, since we have known them since we or they were born.  It is possible to have close friends beyond the family, but not all friends will be accepted as closely by the entire family. Some of this has to do with hierarchy and survival stability.

Consider the situation where a new member is slowly brought into the family, via an engagement and then finally via marriage. It is up to the new member; future son or daughter in law, to earn the respect and conform to the needs and traditions of the base family. It is not up to family to conform to the stranger, unless the stranger makes it easier for the family. How many mothers in laws let their possible future daughter in law, run all over them from day one? Or how many father in laws don't give their daughter's boy friend a friendly hazing? It is a test of commitment and loyalty to the family and to the family hierarchy, that allows its base of stability and continuity.

The mistake made by the left is they believe in globalization; one happy family, but also believe in diversity. Diversity does not require assimilation to the new family. This is like future daughter in law rearranging her mothers in laws kitchen, without her approval. Or the daughter gets married and her new husband treats the family home like a bachelor's pad. It is designed to fail.

Those on the left, sees marriage and divorce as a modern dating ritual. It does not understand how to make a marriage work. Diversity in marriage, where each spouse goes their own way, is a recipe for divorce.

America allows over a million legal immigrants each year. They now wish to screen future daughter and sons in law to make sure they want to be part of the family. A screening process is like a family courting ritual, where the new member earns the respect of the family. Once the courting is done, the family can accept differences, since they are working on the same team.

[nilak (OP)]

America allows over a million legal immigrants each year. They now wish to screen future daughter and sons in law to make sure they want to be part of the family. A screening process is like a family courting ritual, where the new member earns the respect of the family. Once the courting is done, the family can accept differences, since they are working on the same team.

This is the right thing to do.
If you accept an individual with very different behaviour in a group, It will certainly generate conflicts.
That is why Globalisation should be a slow process.
The EU from my point of view is a good thing so it is a point sustaining globalisation however not everybody agrees. Thus globalisation might not be the right thing.


After all nationalism is not something bad as tkadm30 said. Being proud of your people's achievements and of your country  is perfectly fine. The way you understand to do this  makes the difference. It is like the difference between being a proper supporter or a hooligan.

[exothermic]

Racism is an natural instict

No.

Racism is a psychosocial trait that is adopted - be it by choice or otherwise.

that is telling an individual it belongs to a group and he needs that group, to survive.

I'm not a racist, and I have no "need" whatsoever to belong to any group to survive.

~

[vhfpmr]

Distrust of strangers is a deep rooted instinct that has evolved because it is adaptive.

Imagine a hunter-gathering ancestor meeting a stranger, he has two options: trust or distrust, and two ways of making a mistake, but the two mistakes have asymmetric payoffs though. If he makes the mistake of mistrusting someone who is trustworthy he might stand to lose out on some help hunting, or a morsel of nutritious food, but if he makes the mistake of trusting someone who is untrustworthy he could pay with his life. Since those who mistrust strangers enjoy a better chance of survival, they quickly come to dominate the gene pool.

[evan_au]

There is an old Arab Bedouin saying: "I, against my brothers. I and my brothers against my cousins. I and my brothers and my cousins against the world." That is jungle law. It is the way of the world when the world is thrown into chaos. It is our job to avert that chaos, to fight against it, to resist the urge to become savage. Because the problem with such law is that if you follow it, you are always fighting against someone.

In nature, "The Selfish Gene" often expresses itself as "The Selfish Individual" and "The Selfish Family".
- In nature, we see treatment of others as individuals in smallish family groups (I am thinking of bands of chimpanzees, pods of dolphins or herds of elephants).
- The psychologist Robin Dunbar suggests that treatment of individuals requires larger brain size; for humans, he suggests that this limit is around 150 individuals, Dunbar's Number, the size of a clan.
- In nature, we see larger groups such as large schools of fish, flocks of birds or herds of grazing animals. In these groups, the behavior of an individual is steered by the average of the motions of those in the immediate neighborhood. That does not negate the presence of smaller groupings like mother/child or mating relationships within various species.
- Humans have managed to extend this to "The Selfish Tribe" and "The Selfish Nation". These constructs extend beyond the immediate clan and over the horizon through the means of spoken & written word and song/dance/military culture.

Beyond our immediate friends & relatives, humans probably function by also treating others around us as "averages", governed by laws that we assume apply to human groups. Those groups may be defined by where they live, their income, language, or regional accents - or even their football team. But before we can talk to individuals, the features most visible at a distance are distinctive clothes, followed at a shorter distance by features that we often mentally map into "race" or "nationality" (skin color, hair color, skull shape, eye color, etc).

It has been known for some time that the hormone Oxytocin is involved in bonding between mother and child and sexual bonding. It was thought that by giving increased doses, you could extend that familial affinity to larger groups. But in fact, it had the opposite effect, causing increased aggression to those outside the immediate family.

So it seems  that humanity has a careful balancing act between aggressively supporting our immediate family (at the peril of everyone else), or supporting everyone (possibly to the detriment of our immediate families).

And it seems  that humanity has a careful balancing act between aggressively supporting our own species (at the peril of all other species), or supporting all species (possibly to the detriment of our species).

Perhaps that's why action on climate change and the environment is so hard - what is best for me conflicts with what is best for everyone?

[vhfpmr]

what is best for me conflicts with what is best for everyone?

That's the Prisoners' Dilemma:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Prisoners-Dilemma-Neumann-Theory-Puzzle/dp/038541580X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1480777598&sr=8-1&keywords=poundstone+Prisoner%27s+dilemma
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma

[mrsmith2211]

Racism is nothing better than exemplified by the blue eye brown eye experiment. Culturally induced bias. Could be the shape of your fingernails or any physical, relgious, philosophical aspect you wish.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Elliott

check out Hitler upside down triangle, color could mean.
Unionists and socialists had their own colors.

Slight info after a quick search
"Criminals were marked with green inverted triangles, political prisoners with red, "asocials" (including Roma, nonconformists, vagrants, and other groups) with black or—in the case of Roma in some camps—brown triangles. Homosexuals were identified with pink triangles and Jehovah's Witnesses with purple ones. Non-German prisoners were identified by the first letter of the German name for their home country, which was sewn onto their badge. The two triangles forming the Jewish star badge would both be yellow unless the Jewish prisoner was included in one of the other prisoner categories. A Jewish political prisoner, for example, would be identified with a yellow triangle beneath a red triangle."
https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005378

[nilak (OP)]

http://www.aol.com/article/news/2016/12/02/stephen-hawking-says-only-cooperation-can-save-the-planet/21618878/?utm_source=zergnet.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=zergnet_1329850&ncid=txtlnkusaolp00001361

[puppypower]

Racism is a psychological mechanism, where the ego of an individual, subjectively tries to elevate itself, through group identity. This can be done in two ways; group love and/or other group hate.

For example, Albert Einstein invented Relativity. Albert Einstein was white. If I self identify with being white, then it follows, via subjective logic, I am smart like Albert Einstein, because we are both white. Nationalism and racism will cherry pick its favorite attributes of a culture or race, allowing the egos of the followers to accept some credit via group identity.

This is an extrapolation of a genetic connection. Our genes are conserved and passed forward, so there is a genetic connection based on chemistry, sometimes for an entire nation. Nationalism and racism is a type of psychological extrapolation of chemistry, but connected to the ego. If one's ego is self sufficient this is not needed. If the ego is not self sufficient, this serves as a prosthesis for the ego.

The other side of racism involves hate or fear of anyone from a different race or nationality. In this case, the ego can try too enhance itself by create the illusion of rising above, by subjectively placing the other race or nationality in a hole of negative factors. This is the most common form of racism and nationalism, since most people have enough sense not to claim they as good as Albert Einstein by virtue of color, religion, or hair style.

In early Christianity, their soliton to all this, was connected to the philosophy that we were all God's children, rich and poor, black and white, Jew and Gentile. This made everyone part of the same herd, with no "other" herd to place in the hole. The ego had to stand on its own; inner voice and the spirit of truth.

In a sense, this is the ideal goal of globalism; one herd. The problem with the globalism solution, is it does not address the source of the problem, which is the human ego. Unlike the Christian solution; children of God, which tries to elevates everyone, subjectively, modern globalism this will prevent the world culture from logistically elevating. Modern globalism will be accompanied by global warming taboos, which will not allow the standard of living to rise. Liberated egos will end in the hole, to be used as scapegoats. 

The place in a hole special affect is already is happening, and is why there is push to reverse globalism. For example, if you complain, in a targeted way about Muslim extremists or crime being brought into your country, which is a rational concerned, one is scapegoated as racist against all Muslims. This stereotype comes from leadership propaganda. What this tells me, psychologically, is the egos of the globalism leadership is trying to place rational people, in hole so they can appear rise above. It may be better to abort this experiment, at this time, and try again later, when leadership has elevated it own ego.

If you look in America, the Democratic party culture, is extremely negative against President Trump. it is so one sided and therefore lacks all objectively. They use the place Trump in the hole trick, so their egos can appear to rise above in the eyes of the masses. Their fragile egos are a problem. These are the same people who wish to lead the globe. The writing is on the wall, if they lead, since their true color is showing. The push away from globalism and toward nationalism is really about a pause to address the fragile ego centric leadership, that needs to run hole games and scams for its self esteem.