Hi Cordell et al, I must have not made myself clear. I recall that most people living in the Bosnian cities got along fine. It may have been only a few strong willed 'leaders' that fomented tribal warfare for reasons not related to instinctive behavior.
It is not fair to impose the actions of a few on the whole population. As noted earlier, there is a great variety of behaviors even within narrowly defined groups (tribes). Trying to decide which are inherent and which are learned can be difficult. Simplifying the situation by describing certain behaviors as instinctual and/or those that will forever remain dominant in human interactions is fraught with danger. There is plenty of evidence that disparate peoples can get along, especially if educational and economic issues are excluded. One example is here in Silicon Valley where technologists from around the world work together on demanding projects. There are a few problems, but not nearly as many as one might think given the polyglot society. Dennis Paull At 07:00 PM 4/23/2002 Tuesday , you wrote: >Marshall Tito was a strong leader as was Stalin. Those who wanted >independence or a different path were dealt with. > >One can see just how strong and dictatorial these were. When they were gone >people started killing each other all over again. > >arthur > >-----Original Message----- >From: Dennis Paull [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 3:31 PM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: RE: Le Pen's success > > >Hi Cordell, Keith et al, > >I think I disagree to a certain extent. I seem to recall stories >I heard about Sarajevo, how cosmopolitan it was and how the >population had a large number of ethnically mixed marriages. >This all, of course, before the death of Tito. > >However all this turned disastrous with Bosnian independence. > >The conclusion I draw is that, given a chance to mingle, the >people will get along fine and tribal instincts will be >individually suppressed. But the instincts of most over-testosteroned >leaders seem to be to use those suppressed instincts to rise to >power. > >Dennis Paull > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >At 06:09 AM 4/23/2002 Tuesday , [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >>Agree with Keith. Our ideals seem to run ahead of what our genetic >>endowment allows us to do. >> >>arthur >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Keith Hudson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >>Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 4:06 AM >>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Subject: Le Pen's success >> >> >>Le Pen's success in being voted in as one of the two candidates for next >>month's Presidential election in France is headline news in every single >>one of our newspapers this morning (and, I'm sure, in French newspapers >>too). The headlines proclaim a sense of amazement and shock that this crude >>anti-immigrant right-winger should have had so much success so far. >> >>(The left-wing parties will be telling their flocks to vote for Chirac, >>even though he's a strong wight-winger and faces serious corruption >>allegations. Apparently posters are already appearing in Paris saying: >>"Vote for the Thief, and not the Fascist".) >> >>I'm amazed and shocked that newspapers and politicians are -- apparently -- >>amazed and shocked. >> >>Next month we are going to have elections for local councils in England and >>the British National Party (very similar to Le Pen's) is going to stand in >>several northern towns and cities where there is constant racial unrest >>between the indigenous English and Indian/Pakistani immigrants (and also >>bitter hatreds between Hindus and Moslems among the latter). Without any >>doubt, the BNP candidates will score sizeable votes and some candidates >>might get elected. And then the newspapers and politicians will purport to >>be amazed and shocked again! >> >>Of course, the newspapers are just stirring up controversy for the sake of >>circulation. (I am sure that their experienced journalists are not in any >>way surprised by these events.) It's the apparent naivete of the >>politicians that's so significant. (Though again, I am sure that >>experienced politicians are not really naive -- it's just that their >>comfortable world has been disturbed.) >> >>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] >>_________________________________________________ > >
