The term racism has nowadays two main definitions, due to the onset of newspeak:
Why does hatred among races exist? Or to ask more precisely: why did xenophobia evolve, what purpose did it serve? Shouldn't people "as a species" stick together against other species? Well, we do and we don't, the question as it stands assumes the "group selection" theory, a simplified view of evolution which states that species compete against each other, but in this case such simplification lets the question unanswered. We might as well ask the same question for groups of organisms on various different scales, for example: why don't people in the same family always stick together? In the same village, country, empire, on the same continent or even planet? Why doesn't all life as a whole stick together against non-living matter? What even is a "species"? All these issues are solved by gene centric view of evolution: it is not groups of organisms that compete in evolution, but genes to whom organisms are just carriers and tools. Each gene seeks to benefit itself and make itself more abundant and so it embeds itself (along with other genes) in living bodies that carry it around, protect it and spread it, and so a single gene may be present in multiple bodies at the same time. Now from this point of view (with sexual reproduction in place) the degree of relatedness suddenly becomes hugely important: to a body carrying a gene someone else closely related (e.g. a brother or cousin) is statistically more likely to carry the same gene than someone more distantly related (a complete stranger, different race or even species), which now explains why family relations have always played such a vital part in any culture throughout all of history, why fathers are so concerned about their sons REALLY being their own etc. A man has evolved by natural selection to be more likely to "stick with" someone who is GENETICALLY closer to him because that maximizes the gene's CHANCE of being spread further. I.e. the case is that in the end every individual naturally puts himself first (being the closest relative to himself) and then shows different proportions of altruism and selfishness towards others, with more selfishness towards less genetically related individuals. And so indeed, close family sticks together and help each other the most, and then the same village, nation etc. A different race now presents a significant genetic distance, which is EASILY VISIBLE, and hence it's no surprise people tend to be less altruistic towards different races. Still even different races are closer than different species, so in a situation where, let's say, a white man can choose to save either a black child or baby octopus, he will likely choose the child, but it may yet not be so simple because if the choice is about picking a future competitor for resources, he may choose to eliminate a genetically closer individual because that will likely demand (compete for) similar resources as him -- an octopus doesn't compete with human as much as another man because an octopus requires different kind of food, living space and so on. Nevertheless the point is now clear: it's all about genetic relatedness and the natural selection of genes logically had to end up in programming us to put more closely related humans before the more distant relatives. To any human a man of a different race presents the critical mix of being close enough to pose the threat of competing for the same kind of resources and yet being VISIBLY distant enough to be considered less worthy of those resources than all the men of one's own race. Realizing this genetic reason for racism may be one of the first steps towards resisting it.
Powered by nothing. All content available under CC0 1.0 (public domain). Send comments and corrections to drummyfish at disroot dot org.