I'm sure we could all spin out our own sorry lists of inherent ("essential")
drives/qualities/innate characteristics quite contentedly and with immense
self-satisfaction since by recognizing these in others we are finding an
"objective" basis for our own prejudice and prejudices.

I for example, find (found) the English to be unutterably smug and
self-satisfied and deeply deeply tribal and zenophobic.  The Americans are
open and shallow, women are "the weaker sex"; humankind is inherently
tribal, greedy, pleasure seeking, profit maximizing;  black people are
inherently..., Jewish blood is...., Muslims... blah, blah, blah... Pays your
money and takes your choice (Spengler redux).  The point of the whole
shallow, sad and ultimately dangerous litany is to remove responsibility for
making/remaking the (risky) future and the (out of control) present from
those who could have an effect--ourselves, and place it somewhere else--in
instincts, blood, bio-genetics, the stars... who knows what.

Not a problem, I guess, until it hits home/becomes real (LePen in two
weeks?), the camps...

MG

Keith Hudson wrote:
...

All this shows that many opinion moulders who should know better don't have
much idea about the essentially tribal nature of our species. This in-group
out-group behaviour is one of our strongest genetic traits. We'll never
lose it. If the present cultural differences subside, then we'll invent new
ones.

To try and prevent an onslaught of criticism from those one or two FWers
who might misinterpret me on purpose, I am *not* saying that we should
accept tribalism passively and put up with fierce racial riots in our
northern towns or 20ft steel walls presently existing between Protestant
and Catholics areas in Northern Ireland. All I am saying is that if our
politicians were better educated in our evolutionary origins and
anthropological history, then they could design legislation a great deal
more intelligently than they do now. (Out of 600-odd MPS in our House of
Commons, there are less than six with any sort of scientific degree, and
not a single one as far as I'm aware with any sort of qualification in the
biological sciences.)

Keith Hudson





__________________________________________________________
Writers used to write because they had something to say; now they write in
order to discover if they have something to say. John D. Barrow
_________________________________________________
Keith Hudson, Bath, England;  e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_________________________________________________

Reply via email to