Alias wrote: ↑
December 8th, 2017, 2:22 am
Preference isn't racism.
Yes, it is. Those preferences are accompanied and underpinned by what are called "social cognitions,", i.e., a set of expectations, emotions, and reactions elicited by other members of one's community. When those differ with the race or color of the person encountered you have "racism." And they do differ, for virtually all members of multi-racial, multi-cultural societies.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/ne ... -cognition
No other animals have no "isms" at all: that's an intellectual concept.
Other animals do not have the concept, but they certainly display the behaviors embraced by that concept. Animals have no concept of gravitation, either, but they're certainly affected by it. A lion's reactions to a lion from another pride, or to a hyena, will be much different from his reactions to a member of his own pride.
And they did. Most tribes had regular peaceful contact with other tribes: trade, alliances and intermarriage have been commonplace. Mutual tolerance, where they simply ignore one another is even common. So is agreeing to a territorial boundary and a set of rules for maintaining it.
War is expensive; peace is cheap.
We are not speaking of war and peace, but of the differing perceptions members of a given tribe will have of non-members, or "barbarians." Trade, when it occurred, was accompanied by wariness and distrust on both sides; intermarriage was not commonplace; it was rare, and generally frowned upon (often to the extent of banishment or stoning).
You recited that quite glibly. Now, show me the details. How does civilization "rise"? From what? By what agency? Who points out the advantage of larger communities and how are two smaller ones brought together? Where did the prejudices originate and what are they, specifically?
The history of the rise of civilization is pretty well understood and settled. It developed independently in 5-6 places in the world, all following the advent of agriculture. That discovery necessitated permanent settlements near the planted crops, and the abandonment of the nomadic hunter-gatherer lifestyle. It also produced, in some places, a surplus of food, freeing some members of the tribe to hone other skills --- making pottery, weaving, metal working, etc. And, of course, soldiering. Traders began traveling between villages, exchanging innovations introduced in one community with those made in others.
There is no "agency;" the transition was gradual and spontaneous. Nor is there any need for anyone to "point out" the advantages of larger communities, as they are obvious, and the typical mechanism for bringing two or more communities together was conquest.
Why are prejudices so spotty now - that is, intense against people of a certain colour in one group of people over here; absent or faint in another group of same-looking people there; while those other people have an intense prejudice against people who look just like them, but go to a different house of worship or wear different clothing, over yonder? Where are those vital blood ties?
Prejudices are not spotty --- they're universal --- but they manifest differently, depending upon each person's micro-cultural environment and personal experiences. Blood ties, while important, are not vital; what matters (for differences in social cognitions) is the extent of perceived affinities
Love has no relevance to racism. Except in that, however hardened in their mutual hostility any two artificially designated groups may be, some of their children will somehow manage to fall in love and bring the wrath of their authority-figures down upon them.
Yes indeed. But the prejudices remain, even among interracial couples 'in love."
I try not to use the word that springs to mind.