Could part of racism be evolutionary? I know that race doesn’t really have any biological meaning, but those from the different social constructs of race classifications would almost certainly be people who evolved apart from each other. Most instances where two groups of people came together for the first time seem to have had bad results for one or both sides at first. Could individuals who were more likely to distrust outsiders (who look different) have been selected through these situations to be more likely to pass on their genes? Is there an evolutionary reason that so many people seem to be racist and/or distruct outsiders?
Could be onto something here, Kel. Rampant distrust of outsiders has evolved on SDMB.
When I was in business a hog farmer contacted us wanting to know if we made a product that could easily from a distance identify one group of hogs from another. Nothing came from this since we didn’t have anything that would fit the bill. The killer requirement was that the hogs wouldn’t be able to recognize the identification. Hogs are among the most intelligent animals and any markings that were easily recognized by humans could also be recognized by the hogs. The strongest group would then make attacks on the weaker group. I have no idea if anyone came up with a solution.
I’ve also heard of this happening among other animals. We humans think we are or should be above such behavior, thus the OP’s question Are we?… or are we just animals? :smack:
How many people do you think meet those criteria?
He probably doesn’t know, because his mom told him never to talk to strangers. Distrust of outsiders is the norm.
I don’t know for a fact that it’s the result of evolution, although I suspect that may have a lot to do with it, but I do believe that racism is the natural result of the perfectly human tendency to shun the unfamiliar and different.
Well…couple of things. I don’t think that biologically ‘racism’ is natural. Probably a certain level of xenophobia is, but thats not exactly racism. Since our cultural and mores are influenced by our biology, which is influenced by evolution, I suppose a case could be made that people are naturally xenophobic and mistrustful of folks outside their own small ethnic group…or even outside their own small village, hunter gatherer group, cave, or even family. But xenophobia doesn’t necessarily always equate to racism.
Culturally though…thats another kettle of fish. And certainly there have been several ‘racist’ cultures, groups, and nations, throughout history.
-XT
I think that for a million years or more we were tribal. A lack of trust in other groups and clinging to your own helped the tribe survive. So yes, I think a lot of racism may be evolutionary. I think we are still tribal.
I think that culturally, racism has certainly evolved as a protective measure- ensuring to resources, etc. stay within one’s ‘family’ group. However, biologically, would not the opposite be true, as we’d want to mate with as genetically divergent a partner as possible to ensure the most ‘fit’ offspring?
I think that a study has been done on this…I’ll see if i can dig it up.
However one chooses to define race, the physical differences among various peoples seems to mainly involve climatic adaptation or random chance. AFAIK there has ever been any serious argument put forth that various physical attributes evolved for the purpose of separating one group from another. I think one would have to make that argument before one could say that racism, per se, somehow results from natural selection.
The tribal nature of human society is another thing altogether. Separation into groups is a feature of social animals. Color coding is a way of achieving that separation, but it would seem to be fortuitous. I don’t think racism is a stronger basis for separation than many other things that are clearly not evolutionary, e.g., religious intolerance. Also, separation based on individual physical attributes occurs within groups which would be classified as the same race. For that matter, separation can fail to occur if the individual can pass as a member a group of which he would not ordinarily be considered a member.
So I feel that humans will simply grab whatever they can, ad hoc, and separate on whatever bases are decided upon. Physical attributes, be they of an individual (e.g., persons with disabilities or deformities) or of a larger group are just another handle and, again, are fortuitously so.
one school of evolutionary theory puts all selection on a gene level. Thus in a group of strangers you would not risk your life to save them. However, in a kinship environment, it is worth saving two brothers, or four cousins etc at the risk to your own life as the genes in question will still be saved on average.
So, in a fight for natural resources, it is best to stick with your family so your genes are passed on. It is easy to see how racism then develops from this
Of course it is good to mix genes, but as long as you are not sleeping with your sister then you should be reasonably Ok in teh short term. In the long term there is usually enough mixing.
Well, if you assume that racism is based on heuristic errors when forming mental categories (e.g. erroneously attributing characteristics to people based on skin colour/distinct features), it would have to be shown that this behaviour increases survival and propagation of genetic material.
It’s not necessarily a good idea to exclude groups that look different, because they may possess knowledge or skills that could increase your chances of survival. This works on a social level as well as a genetic level (e.g. disease resistance).
Of course, above a certain population, you’d want to kill off your competition and colour is a simple way to distinguish Us from Them. So two groups arguing over resources could use race as an arbitrary cognitive classification to distinguish themselves from eachother. In groups where people appeared similar, they might come up with other ways to be distinct (shared language, religion, kinship, nationalism, etc.)
So maybe it’s something broader, that humans tend to create/strengthen collective identities whenever there is competition for resources and that sometimes these identities are based on cognitive errors in categorization.
Racism is taught. People don’t usually react to differences with suspicion and distrust. Do redheads have a fear of blonds? Do short people hate tall people? Do men naturally hate women? Differences are interesting, but not frightening.
Children of different races play together without a second thought. They haven’t learned not to yet.
Your DNA has a lot more in common with some people of another “race” than it does with some people of your own race. I’m not sure how evolution fits in to the discussion of “race.”
Yes, but why do people teach racism? Aggression or avoidance when faced with the unfamiliar/unpredictable, is that kind of behaviour selected for? In blunt terms, if a grizzly bear shows up in town and no one’s ever seen one before, the guy who runs up to hug it probably won’t propagate his genetic material afterwards.
Sure they do. The more different something appears, the less predictable it seems. Consider some of the more extreme responses to 9/11.
Perhaps racism (and negative reactions to “different” people - religious, cultural, etc.) is a highly evolved fight or flight (stress) response.
I don’t think it’s all learned, children also tend to ostracize or be wary of things they haven’t been exposed to before, such as disabled children and likely other ethnicities (if they’re from a racially homogenous environment).
I don’t entirely agree with you here. In a certain sense it’s true to say that “racism is taught”, since there’s no biological phenomenon that directly corresponds to our social construce of “race”. A person has to be taught what “race” is. In fact you could even say that a person has to be taught how to tell the difference between his own race and that of others.
But I don’t think the fact that we see children of different races playing together is really evidence of anything. We also see children isolating the one who’s different and hounding him to death Lord of the Flies-style.
It’s a natural human tendency is to experience stress in unfamiliar situations. We can approach the unfamiliar and make friends with it, or we can avoid it and cling to what’s familiar. I think a person who feels unsafe is more likely to retreat from the unfamiliar out of a desire for survival.
This is neither good nor bad. Feeling unsafe is a normal and natural part of human experience, and retreating from it was probably a major factor in our species’ development and survival. But in our society, when it comes to dealing with people, it’s important to understand the context of the unsafe feelings that may come up.
That’s why I believe that children have to be taught not to be racist. At birth, a child begins a process of becoming comfortable with the things and people that surround her. How she reacts to someone who doesn’t look or act like those people depends on her learning early that they’re not necessarily unsafe, that people come in many different sizes and colors, and that they have feelings just like everyone else. If she knows this, her curiosity will win out over her anxiety and she’ll open up to the experience. If not, she may retreat and close down to it.
You are looking at things from a modern perspective Zoe. If you want to really look into our behavior though you have to look back at our very distant ancestors.
Think of it this way. You are a small tribe of hunter gatherers inhabiting a cave system that has good access to water, hunting and materials. Another tribe wanders into your territory…and its a tribe that you have no associations with, unlike some of the tribes in your area where you perhaps have kinship ties to. You know this because you don’t recognize any of the familiar attributes you are used too. Instead of blonde hair and blue eyes that you are used too, this tribe has dark hair and dark eyes and darker skin.
So, what do you do? Are you openly friendly, inviting them in to your camp, showing them the best watering places, best hunting areas, best flint mines? What if these guys are there to raid or even take your hunting areas? Kill the males and take the females…and perhaps more importantly take a good home?
Distrust and xenophobia are the basis for racism…and such distrust and xenophobia were hammered into our ancestors repeatedly until it became pretty much universal among humans. It became a survival mechanism, and was re-inforced culturally.
Whats truely remarkable is that we have been able to throw it off to the extent we have in todays society (well, in some countries anyway)…and to quote you “Children of different races play together without a second thought.” Of course, this is because the ground work has been done in generations before to make it so.
See…trusting other ‘races’ is something an entire culture must learn, and then teach to their kids. It takes a real effort by the adults in any culture to set aside their inborn prejudices and mistrust of the different…and thats an effort that a lot of cultures just don’t bother with unless they are force to it. And it take a long time. Look how long its taken here in the US…or in Europe…two relatively progressive places as far a race relations goes. And we still have a long way to go to may the sentence I quoted from you be true universally.
-XT
You’re the one thinking from a modern perspective. Why would they be darker? If you walked across the globe today, you wouldn’t notice that people changed color, as the change is gradual. There was most likely less diversity in the early age of man, than there is now.
It’s not like our ancestors transported from African to Sweden in one shot. They walked and as they walked, they changed. They didn’t turn around once they changed and met their darker cousins in any real numbers. There’s a reason why Swedes, don’t look like Africans…they didn’t come into contact. If they had, knowing humanity’s love for banging each other; the world would be a much different place.
If you want to continue this train of thought, you need to go further back, when there were actually different species of hominids and look at how they interacted with one another…not how humans of different pigmentation, but the same species may have.
and that’s not racism, but darwinism
As someone that moved from Dayton, Ohio to Atlanta, GA in 1947, I flat disagree with this. I couldn’t begin to tell you how many times I’ve been asked “Where you from?” based strictly on a difference in accent. Recently it is not meant with malice, but prior to 1960 most times that question was asked it was in a tone of suspicion and distrust.
Did the Irish ever fear the Vikings?*
Have you never known a short man with an attitude?*
Some do. However, the biggest problem is the belief of too many men, that women are inferior, which is a characteristic of racism
Nice thought, but not always a good practice.
*[sub]You ask a ______ question, you receive a ______ answer.[/sub]