http://rint.rechten.rug.nl/rth/dennen/vanhanen.htm
Vanhanen, Tatu (1999) Ethnic Conflicts Explained by Ethnic Nepotism. Research in Biopolitics, Vol. 7, Stamford CT: JAI Press, 100 Prospect Street, Stamford CT 06901-1640, USA. ISBN: 0-7623-0583-5, pp. xix 370.
Reviewed by Johan M.G. van der Dennen, Center for Peace and Conflict Studies, University of Groningen, the Netherlands. E-mail: [email protected]
Ever since biosociologist Van den Berghe (1981) presented his evolutionary analysis of the 'ethnic phenomenon', the 'primordialists' (who had the nerve to suggest that ethnicity might be more than an arbitrary sociocultural construction) have been drawing heavy flak from the social scientists, especially sociologists and historians, either due to total ignorance or total abhorrence of the evolutionary approach. Primordialism (versus social constructivism or instrumentalism: a 'silly' controversy based on an untenable antinomy, as Van den Berghe never tired of pointing out) was ridiculed, maligned, and rejected, almost as a matter of course, in most textbooks on ethnocentrism and nationalism (although, as Vanhanen rightly observes, cultural and primordial elements are mixed in most definitions of ethnicity). Recently, however, the tide seems to be turning. Vanhanen's macroquantitative research on ethnic conflicts, a life-work spanning several decades, is an important contributing factor in this tide-turning process.
Conflicts are common in all countries of the world where people are divided into separate groups on the basis of racial, ethnic, national, linguistic, tribal, religious, caste, or other differences. The central argument of Vanhanen's study is that a significant part of the universality of ethnic conflicts can be explained by our evolved predisposition to ethnic nepotism, which is regarded as an extended form of kin nepotism. Evolutionary theories of inclusive fitness and kin selection (as first formulated by Hamilton) explain the evolutionary origin and universality of nepotism. The members of an ethnic group tend to favor their group members over nonmembers because they are more closely related to their group members than to outsiders. This disposition to favor kin over nonkin, and close kin over distant kin, becomes important in social life and politics when people and groups of people have to compete for scarce resources. Two basic hypotheses on political consequences of ethnic nepotism are presented: (1) significant ethnic divisions tend to lead to ethnic interest conflicts in all societies and (2) the more a society is ethnically divided, the more political and other interest conflicts tend to become canalized along ethnic lines. These two hypotheses are tested by empirical evidence covering 148 contemporary states during the period 1990-1996. Hypothetical concepts, 'ethnic divisions', and 'ethnic conflicts' are operationalized into empirical variables, and data on variables are analyzed by correlation and regression techniques. According to the results of statistical analyses, the degree of ethnic conflict is indeed strongly related to the degree of ethnic divisions.
An important part of the book (pp. 79-203) is dedicated to country profiles of ethnic cleavages and ethnic conflicts, in which the conflicts in single countries are examined in greater detail together with the institutional and other situational factors that could explain large deviations from the overall pattern.
Vanhanen extensively discusses the various cultural explanations of ethnic conflicts. What the cultural theorists have in common (with a few notable exceptions) is a reluctance of acknowledging the existence of ethnic conflicts, and, if the existence of ethnic conflicts is acknowledged, the denial of any 'primordialism' in ethnicity and insisting that it is a sociocultural construction.
The evolutionary interpretation of ethnicity and ethnic conflicts is based on Hamilton's theory of kin selection and the concept of inclusive fitness.
Van den Berghe (1981) argued that ethnic sentiments have evolved as an extension of kin nepotism. Consequently, ethnic sentiments are extensions of kinship sentiments, and ethnies may be considered to be 'superfamilies', united by common descent (i.e., the 'myth of common descent' - as proposed by many social scientists as a prominent ethnic marker - is often no myth at all). "Ethnicity is defined by common descent and maintained by endogamy" (Van den Berghe, 1999: 23).
The permanent significance of ethnic boundaries in all types of societies is based on the fact that the ethnic group is the primordial social group, the extended kin group, selected through millions of years to maximize the individual inclusive fitness of its members through the operation of nepotism.
Rushton (e.g., 1995) complemented the theories of kin selection and ethnic nepotism by his genetic similarity theory. This theory proposes that "genetically similar people tend to seek one another out and to provide mutually supportive environments such as marriage, friendship, and social groups. This may represent a biological factor underlying ethnocentrism and group selection" (p. 69). It is clear that the existence of innate genetic similarity detectors would facilitate the formation of ethnic groups and strengthen their cohesiveness.
Ethnic groups can thus be perceived as extended kin groups. The members of an ethnic group tend to favor their group members over nonmembers because they are more related to their group members than to the remainder of the population. People belonging to the same ethnic group tend to support each other in conflict situations. Van den Berghe ([1981]1987) noted that "the degree of cooperation between organisms can be expected to be a direct function of the proportion of the genes they share; conversely, the degree of conflict between them is an inverse function of the proportion of shared genes" (p. 7). Our tendency to favor kin over nonkin has extended to include large linguistic, national, racial, religious, and other ethnic groups. The term 'ethnic nepotism' can be used, according to Vanhanen, to cover this kind of nepotism at the level of extended kin groups. It does not matter, from the perspective of ethnic nepotism, what kind of kin groups are in question. The crucial characteristic of an ethnic group is that its members are genetically more closely related to each other than to the members of other groups. Therefore, in this study 'ethnic groups' refers, not only to racial, tribal, and national groups, but also to language groups, castes, and old religious communities. A problem with this definition is that people are related to each other at many levels, from the level of the nucleus family to the level of Homo sapiens. Ethnic groups are therefore never absolutely distinct and exclusive. Any level can provide a basis for ethnic nepotism. It depends on the situation what level of ethnic groups becomes politically relevant. In other words, the boundaries of ethnic groups are always to some extent socially constructed.
Furthermore, Vanhanen assumes that our behavioral predisposition to ethnic nepotism, because of its evolutionary roots, is shared by all human populations. It is hypothesized to be universal, to be an integral part of human nature.
After the construction of the necessary quantitative indices, Vanhanen tests the following main research hypotheses:
(1) The value of the Index of Ethnic Conflicts (EC) tends to be 10 or less for the countries whose Index of Ethnic Heterogeneity (EH) value is 10 or less and vice versa.
(2) The values of the Index of Ethnic Heterogeneity are positively correlated with the values of the Index of Ethnic Conflicts.
Results: Ethnic divisions seem to have produced ethnic conflicts in practically all countries of the world. Vanhanen notes that cultural theories are hardly able to explain the universality of ethnic conflicts.
Modernization theories predicting the disappearance of ethnic conflicts at higher levels of modernity or socioeconomic development fail to explain the universality of ethnic conflicts for the simple reason that ethnic conflicts have not disappeared at higher levels of modernity and socioeconomic development. The universality of ethnic conflicts cannot be explained by any racial, civilizational, or geographical factors because ethnic conflicts seem to appear within all racial groups and geographical regions. There is no civilization or culture without ethnic conflicts. Wealthy and highly developed countries seem to be nearly as vulnerable to ethnic conflicts as poor and traditional societies. This is so, according to Vanhanen, because all human populations share the same evolved predisposition to ethnic nepotism. We have evolved to favor our relatives in the struggle for existence because it has been an adaptive behavior pattern. Therefore people learn ethnic attitudes and adopt psychological mechanisms associated with prejudice, scapegoating, and discrimination so easily. Ethnic nepotism shared by all human populations is the common factor in all forms of ethnic interest conflicts. It makes ethnic conflicts to some extent regular and predictable.
"The results indicate that, as hypothesized, ethnic conflicts have emerged in practically all ethnically divided societies, which implies that the question is of a universal human phenomenon. Everywhere in ethnically divided societies people belonging to the same ethnic group tended to align with their relatives in social and political interest conflicts. They are following the imperatives of ethnic nepotism, their unconscious impulse to support their relatives in conflicts because it has furthered their own inclusive fitness. Therefore, ethnic conflicts in various forms are very common in ethnically divided societies. I came to the conclusion that ethnic nepotism provides an ultimate evolutionary explanation for the appearance of ethnic conflicts across all cultural boundaries. Furthermore, if the ultimate cause of ethnic conflicts is in human nature, in our evolved behavioral predispositions or epigenetic rules, we have to accept the conclusion that ethnic conflicts are extremely persistent, if not absolutely inevitable, in ethnically divided societies" (p. 231).
Some other findings of this ambitious macroquantitive research project are (1) that external interventions tend to intensify ethnic conflicts (although they do not cause them); (2) that the struggle for territorial rights tends to intensify ethnic conflicts; and (3) conspicuous inequalities between ethnic groups tend to intensify ethnic conflicts.
Ethnic diversity is not only a major predictor of low public investment in such public goods as schooling and infrastructure, and the inability to provide minimum standards of living for its least advantaged members (Easterly and Levine, 1997; Salter, 1999; Schubert & Tweed, 1999) but it is also a major predictor of several measures of (violent) crime (Alesina, Baqir & Easterly, 1997), and all categories of violent and protracted - collective - conflict. Earlier studies by Rummel (in the nineteensixties), and Haas (1974) - who are not mentioned by Vanhanen - found that the heterogeneity in composition of a population is consistently associated with the frequency of wars, military actions and foreign conflict casualties. Countries with many different ethnic groups, language communities, nationality groups and religious and racial groups enter wars more often than homogeneous polities (Van der Dennen, 1981: 158).
Rummel (1997) found recently that two simple measures, the number of ethnic groups and the number of religious groups a state has, are related to its collective (internal and external) violence: the more groups the more violence.
Not mentioned by Vanhanen either is my ongoing research on ethnocentrism-cum-xenophobia in preindustrial societies (and many primate and social carnivore species), where it seems to be universally present too (reported in Van der Dennen [1995]).
Further support for the primordial nature of ethnocentrism and ethnic nepotism is presented in Reynolds, Falger & Vine (1987), Shaw & Wong (1989), Flohr (1994), and the recent volume edited by Thienpont & Cliquet (1999).
Concern for and commitment to the own group ('community concern' and a 'sense of belonging' or group identification based on personal recognition) seems even to be characteristic of chimpanzees according to De Waal (1996), but not surprisingly this is also the only species with extremely violent and lethal intergroup raiding in its behavioral repertoire.
Literature:
Alesina, A.; R. Baqir & W. Easterly (1997) Public goods and ethnic divisions. World Banking Paper No. 6009.
De Waal, F.B.M. (1996) Good Natured: The Origin of Right and Wrong in Humans and Other Animals. Cambridge MA: Harvard Univ. Press.
Easterly, W. & R. Levine (1997) Africa's growth tragedy: Policies and ethnic divisions. Quartely Journal of Economics, 112.
Flohr, A.K. (1994) Fremdenfeindlichkeit: Biosoziale Grundlagen von Ethnozentrismus. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.
Haas, M. (1974) International Conflict. New York: Bobbs-Merrill.
Reynolds, V.; V.S.E. Falger & I. Vine (Eds.) The Sociobiology of Ethnocentrism: Evolutionary Dimensions of Xenophobia, Discrimination, Racism and Nationalism, 1987, pp. 1-47).
Rummel, R.J. (1997) Is collective violence correlated with social pluralism? Journal of Peace Research, 34, 3, pp. 163-76.
Rushton, J.P. (1995) Race, Evolution, and Behavior. New Brunswick: Transaction.
Salter, F.J. (1998) The symposium target paper in context. Paper prepared for the symposium on 'Welfare, ethnicity and altruism: Bringing in evolutionary theory', Bad Homburg, Germany, 10-13 February.
Schubert J.N. & M. Tweed (1998) Ethnic diversity, polulation size and charitable giving at the local level. Paper prepared for the symposium on 'Welfare, ethnicity and altruism: Bringing in evolutionary theory', Bad Homburg, Germany, 10-13 February.
Shaw, R.P. & Y. Wong (1989) Genetic Seeds of Warfare: Evolution, Nationalism, and Patriotism. London: Unwin Hyman.
Thienpont, K. & R. Cliquet (1999) In-group/Out-group Behaviour in Modern Societies: An Evolutionary Perspective. Brussels: NIDI CBGS Publications.
Van den Berghe, P.L. (1981/1987) The Ethnic Phenomenon. New York: Elsevier.
Van den Berghe, P.L. (1999) Racism, ethnocentrism and xenophobia: in our genes or in our memes? In: Thienpont & Cliquet (Eds.), pp. 21-33.
Van der Dennen, J.M.G. (1981) On war: Concepts, definitions, research data - a short literature review and bibliography. In: UNESCO Yearbook on Peace and Conflict Studies 1980. Westport CT: Greenwood Press, pp. 128-89.
Van der Dennen, J.M.G. (1995) The Origin of War: The Evolution of a Male-Coalitional Reproductive Strategy. Groningen: Origin Press.
This review was published in the Human Ethology Bulletin, 15, 3, 2000, pp. 12-14.
Vanhanen, Tatu (1999) Ethnic Conflicts Explained by Ethnic Nepotism. Research in Biopolitics, Vol. 7, Stamford CT: JAI Press, 100 Prospect Street, Stamford CT 06901-1640, USA. ISBN: 0-7623-0583-5, pp. xix 370.
Reviewed by Johan M.G. van der Dennen, Center for Peace and Conflict Studies, University of Groningen, the Netherlands. E-mail: [email protected]
Ever since biosociologist Van den Berghe (1981) presented his evolutionary analysis of the 'ethnic phenomenon', the 'primordialists' (who had the nerve to suggest that ethnicity might be more than an arbitrary sociocultural construction) have been drawing heavy flak from the social scientists, especially sociologists and historians, either due to total ignorance or total abhorrence of the evolutionary approach. Primordialism (versus social constructivism or instrumentalism: a 'silly' controversy based on an untenable antinomy, as Van den Berghe never tired of pointing out) was ridiculed, maligned, and rejected, almost as a matter of course, in most textbooks on ethnocentrism and nationalism (although, as Vanhanen rightly observes, cultural and primordial elements are mixed in most definitions of ethnicity). Recently, however, the tide seems to be turning. Vanhanen's macroquantitative research on ethnic conflicts, a life-work spanning several decades, is an important contributing factor in this tide-turning process.
Conflicts are common in all countries of the world where people are divided into separate groups on the basis of racial, ethnic, national, linguistic, tribal, religious, caste, or other differences. The central argument of Vanhanen's study is that a significant part of the universality of ethnic conflicts can be explained by our evolved predisposition to ethnic nepotism, which is regarded as an extended form of kin nepotism. Evolutionary theories of inclusive fitness and kin selection (as first formulated by Hamilton) explain the evolutionary origin and universality of nepotism. The members of an ethnic group tend to favor their group members over nonmembers because they are more closely related to their group members than to outsiders. This disposition to favor kin over nonkin, and close kin over distant kin, becomes important in social life and politics when people and groups of people have to compete for scarce resources. Two basic hypotheses on political consequences of ethnic nepotism are presented: (1) significant ethnic divisions tend to lead to ethnic interest conflicts in all societies and (2) the more a society is ethnically divided, the more political and other interest conflicts tend to become canalized along ethnic lines. These two hypotheses are tested by empirical evidence covering 148 contemporary states during the period 1990-1996. Hypothetical concepts, 'ethnic divisions', and 'ethnic conflicts' are operationalized into empirical variables, and data on variables are analyzed by correlation and regression techniques. According to the results of statistical analyses, the degree of ethnic conflict is indeed strongly related to the degree of ethnic divisions.
An important part of the book (pp. 79-203) is dedicated to country profiles of ethnic cleavages and ethnic conflicts, in which the conflicts in single countries are examined in greater detail together with the institutional and other situational factors that could explain large deviations from the overall pattern.
Vanhanen extensively discusses the various cultural explanations of ethnic conflicts. What the cultural theorists have in common (with a few notable exceptions) is a reluctance of acknowledging the existence of ethnic conflicts, and, if the existence of ethnic conflicts is acknowledged, the denial of any 'primordialism' in ethnicity and insisting that it is a sociocultural construction.
The evolutionary interpretation of ethnicity and ethnic conflicts is based on Hamilton's theory of kin selection and the concept of inclusive fitness.
Van den Berghe (1981) argued that ethnic sentiments have evolved as an extension of kin nepotism. Consequently, ethnic sentiments are extensions of kinship sentiments, and ethnies may be considered to be 'superfamilies', united by common descent (i.e., the 'myth of common descent' - as proposed by many social scientists as a prominent ethnic marker - is often no myth at all). "Ethnicity is defined by common descent and maintained by endogamy" (Van den Berghe, 1999: 23).
The permanent significance of ethnic boundaries in all types of societies is based on the fact that the ethnic group is the primordial social group, the extended kin group, selected through millions of years to maximize the individual inclusive fitness of its members through the operation of nepotism.
Rushton (e.g., 1995) complemented the theories of kin selection and ethnic nepotism by his genetic similarity theory. This theory proposes that "genetically similar people tend to seek one another out and to provide mutually supportive environments such as marriage, friendship, and social groups. This may represent a biological factor underlying ethnocentrism and group selection" (p. 69). It is clear that the existence of innate genetic similarity detectors would facilitate the formation of ethnic groups and strengthen their cohesiveness.
Ethnic groups can thus be perceived as extended kin groups. The members of an ethnic group tend to favor their group members over nonmembers because they are more related to their group members than to the remainder of the population. People belonging to the same ethnic group tend to support each other in conflict situations. Van den Berghe ([1981]1987) noted that "the degree of cooperation between organisms can be expected to be a direct function of the proportion of the genes they share; conversely, the degree of conflict between them is an inverse function of the proportion of shared genes" (p. 7). Our tendency to favor kin over nonkin has extended to include large linguistic, national, racial, religious, and other ethnic groups. The term 'ethnic nepotism' can be used, according to Vanhanen, to cover this kind of nepotism at the level of extended kin groups. It does not matter, from the perspective of ethnic nepotism, what kind of kin groups are in question. The crucial characteristic of an ethnic group is that its members are genetically more closely related to each other than to the members of other groups. Therefore, in this study 'ethnic groups' refers, not only to racial, tribal, and national groups, but also to language groups, castes, and old religious communities. A problem with this definition is that people are related to each other at many levels, from the level of the nucleus family to the level of Homo sapiens. Ethnic groups are therefore never absolutely distinct and exclusive. Any level can provide a basis for ethnic nepotism. It depends on the situation what level of ethnic groups becomes politically relevant. In other words, the boundaries of ethnic groups are always to some extent socially constructed.
Furthermore, Vanhanen assumes that our behavioral predisposition to ethnic nepotism, because of its evolutionary roots, is shared by all human populations. It is hypothesized to be universal, to be an integral part of human nature.
After the construction of the necessary quantitative indices, Vanhanen tests the following main research hypotheses:
(1) The value of the Index of Ethnic Conflicts (EC) tends to be 10 or less for the countries whose Index of Ethnic Heterogeneity (EH) value is 10 or less and vice versa.
(2) The values of the Index of Ethnic Heterogeneity are positively correlated with the values of the Index of Ethnic Conflicts.
Results: Ethnic divisions seem to have produced ethnic conflicts in practically all countries of the world. Vanhanen notes that cultural theories are hardly able to explain the universality of ethnic conflicts.
Modernization theories predicting the disappearance of ethnic conflicts at higher levels of modernity or socioeconomic development fail to explain the universality of ethnic conflicts for the simple reason that ethnic conflicts have not disappeared at higher levels of modernity and socioeconomic development. The universality of ethnic conflicts cannot be explained by any racial, civilizational, or geographical factors because ethnic conflicts seem to appear within all racial groups and geographical regions. There is no civilization or culture without ethnic conflicts. Wealthy and highly developed countries seem to be nearly as vulnerable to ethnic conflicts as poor and traditional societies. This is so, according to Vanhanen, because all human populations share the same evolved predisposition to ethnic nepotism. We have evolved to favor our relatives in the struggle for existence because it has been an adaptive behavior pattern. Therefore people learn ethnic attitudes and adopt psychological mechanisms associated with prejudice, scapegoating, and discrimination so easily. Ethnic nepotism shared by all human populations is the common factor in all forms of ethnic interest conflicts. It makes ethnic conflicts to some extent regular and predictable.
"The results indicate that, as hypothesized, ethnic conflicts have emerged in practically all ethnically divided societies, which implies that the question is of a universal human phenomenon. Everywhere in ethnically divided societies people belonging to the same ethnic group tended to align with their relatives in social and political interest conflicts. They are following the imperatives of ethnic nepotism, their unconscious impulse to support their relatives in conflicts because it has furthered their own inclusive fitness. Therefore, ethnic conflicts in various forms are very common in ethnically divided societies. I came to the conclusion that ethnic nepotism provides an ultimate evolutionary explanation for the appearance of ethnic conflicts across all cultural boundaries. Furthermore, if the ultimate cause of ethnic conflicts is in human nature, in our evolved behavioral predispositions or epigenetic rules, we have to accept the conclusion that ethnic conflicts are extremely persistent, if not absolutely inevitable, in ethnically divided societies" (p. 231).
Some other findings of this ambitious macroquantitive research project are (1) that external interventions tend to intensify ethnic conflicts (although they do not cause them); (2) that the struggle for territorial rights tends to intensify ethnic conflicts; and (3) conspicuous inequalities between ethnic groups tend to intensify ethnic conflicts.
Ethnic diversity is not only a major predictor of low public investment in such public goods as schooling and infrastructure, and the inability to provide minimum standards of living for its least advantaged members (Easterly and Levine, 1997; Salter, 1999; Schubert & Tweed, 1999) but it is also a major predictor of several measures of (violent) crime (Alesina, Baqir & Easterly, 1997), and all categories of violent and protracted - collective - conflict. Earlier studies by Rummel (in the nineteensixties), and Haas (1974) - who are not mentioned by Vanhanen - found that the heterogeneity in composition of a population is consistently associated with the frequency of wars, military actions and foreign conflict casualties. Countries with many different ethnic groups, language communities, nationality groups and religious and racial groups enter wars more often than homogeneous polities (Van der Dennen, 1981: 158).
Rummel (1997) found recently that two simple measures, the number of ethnic groups and the number of religious groups a state has, are related to its collective (internal and external) violence: the more groups the more violence.
Not mentioned by Vanhanen either is my ongoing research on ethnocentrism-cum-xenophobia in preindustrial societies (and many primate and social carnivore species), where it seems to be universally present too (reported in Van der Dennen [1995]).
Further support for the primordial nature of ethnocentrism and ethnic nepotism is presented in Reynolds, Falger & Vine (1987), Shaw & Wong (1989), Flohr (1994), and the recent volume edited by Thienpont & Cliquet (1999).
Concern for and commitment to the own group ('community concern' and a 'sense of belonging' or group identification based on personal recognition) seems even to be characteristic of chimpanzees according to De Waal (1996), but not surprisingly this is also the only species with extremely violent and lethal intergroup raiding in its behavioral repertoire.
Literature:
Alesina, A.; R. Baqir & W. Easterly (1997) Public goods and ethnic divisions. World Banking Paper No. 6009.
De Waal, F.B.M. (1996) Good Natured: The Origin of Right and Wrong in Humans and Other Animals. Cambridge MA: Harvard Univ. Press.
Easterly, W. & R. Levine (1997) Africa's growth tragedy: Policies and ethnic divisions. Quartely Journal of Economics, 112.
Flohr, A.K. (1994) Fremdenfeindlichkeit: Biosoziale Grundlagen von Ethnozentrismus. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.
Haas, M. (1974) International Conflict. New York: Bobbs-Merrill.
Reynolds, V.; V.S.E. Falger & I. Vine (Eds.) The Sociobiology of Ethnocentrism: Evolutionary Dimensions of Xenophobia, Discrimination, Racism and Nationalism, 1987, pp. 1-47).
Rummel, R.J. (1997) Is collective violence correlated with social pluralism? Journal of Peace Research, 34, 3, pp. 163-76.
Rushton, J.P. (1995) Race, Evolution, and Behavior. New Brunswick: Transaction.
Salter, F.J. (1998) The symposium target paper in context. Paper prepared for the symposium on 'Welfare, ethnicity and altruism: Bringing in evolutionary theory', Bad Homburg, Germany, 10-13 February.
Schubert J.N. & M. Tweed (1998) Ethnic diversity, polulation size and charitable giving at the local level. Paper prepared for the symposium on 'Welfare, ethnicity and altruism: Bringing in evolutionary theory', Bad Homburg, Germany, 10-13 February.
Shaw, R.P. & Y. Wong (1989) Genetic Seeds of Warfare: Evolution, Nationalism, and Patriotism. London: Unwin Hyman.
Thienpont, K. & R. Cliquet (1999) In-group/Out-group Behaviour in Modern Societies: An Evolutionary Perspective. Brussels: NIDI CBGS Publications.
Van den Berghe, P.L. (1981/1987) The Ethnic Phenomenon. New York: Elsevier.
Van den Berghe, P.L. (1999) Racism, ethnocentrism and xenophobia: in our genes or in our memes? In: Thienpont & Cliquet (Eds.), pp. 21-33.
Van der Dennen, J.M.G. (1981) On war: Concepts, definitions, research data - a short literature review and bibliography. In: UNESCO Yearbook on Peace and Conflict Studies 1980. Westport CT: Greenwood Press, pp. 128-89.
Van der Dennen, J.M.G. (1995) The Origin of War: The Evolution of a Male-Coalitional Reproductive Strategy. Groningen: Origin Press.
This review was published in the Human Ethology Bulletin, 15, 3, 2000, pp. 12-14.
Vastaukset 7
Vanhimmat
tässä oli tarkoitus?
Kas kummaa, etninen nepotismi on luonnollinen asia.
Siis olkaamme rasisteja?
Vai että Catilina haluaa selittää meille miksi hän on rasisti (koska hän ei voi muuta, se on biologinen ominaisuus)?
Vai että ihmetys ja kummastus, etniset konfliktit johtuvat etnisten ryhmien omien etujensa ajamisesta?
Vai että ihmisen biologinen rakenne ylittää kaiken ns. sivistyksen, Kehityksen plus ns. inhimillisyyden?
......Vähän niinkuin että Meillä on taipumus himota epäterveellistä ruokaa, vetäkäämme siis läskiä naamaan hyvällä omallatunnolla.
Ja meillä on taipumus vihata naapurin meluavia kakaroita(etnistä nepotismia!), karkoitetaan naapurit.
Ja miehillä on taipumus ja kyky himoita useampia naisia ja levittää geenejään,... mitä ne vaimot oikein valittaa kun ukolla on naisia joka sormelle ja varpaalle, sehän vaan toimii luonnollisella tavalla.
Ihmisen luonnollinen elinikä ei ole päälle 60 vee.
Ihmisnaaras ei voi enää tuottaa jälkeläisiä. Vanhusten hoito maksaa paljon. Säästetään terveydenhuoltomenoissa ja siirretään varat tuottaville jälkipolville.
Eläköön biologia.
Samoin voidaan tehdä vammaisten suhteen, ei eläimetkään hyysää epäkelpoja yksilöitä.
Piikkiä persuksiin, säästetään elinkelpoisille yksilöille yhteiskunnan varoja.
Eläköön biologia.
Hassua sinänsä että tuohan oli varmaan kaikille tuttua. Jokainen tietää että omia suositaan.
Jokainen tietää että sisällissodat johtuvat oman ryhmän etujen ajamisesta. Jokainen tietää mitä tapahtuu maassa jossa ei ole yhtä yhtenäistä hallintoa tai pääkulttuuria.
Se että oman ryhmän suosiminen on "sisäänrakennettu ominaisuus" ei vaan ole kovin mullistava juttu Cati.
Ihmiset muodostavat niitä laajennettuja sukujaan mielessään miten sattuu.
Jos pitäisi valita pelastanko oman lapseni vai naapurin kakaran ensin jäistä niin valitsisin oman lapseni.
Jos pitäisi valita pelastaisinko mustan lapsen vai valkoisen aikuisen miehen niin valitsisin lapsen.
Jos pitäisi valita pelastaisinko kiinalaisen vai somalin, silloin olisikin miettimistä.
Moni valitsisi empimättä kiinalaisen.
On luonnollista elää ihmisten keskellä jotka muistuttavat enemmän omaa itseä ja vielä tarkemmin omaavat saman kulttuurin ja tavat.
On luonnollista suosia tätä ryhmää, se tuo turvallisuutta.
Onko luonnollista sitten vihata tämän määrittämänsä turvaryhmän ulkopuolista, pelätä, eristää, tuhota?
Vai onko se ylireagointia johtuen tästä luonnollisesta ominaisuudesta suosia omaa.
>Onko luonnollista sitten vihata tämän
>määrittämänsä turvaryhmän ulkopuolista, pelätä,
>eristää, tuhota?
On järkevää, että tässä maassa huolehditaan siitä, että ulkopuoliset tahot eivät anna aihetta alkuperäisasukkaiden taholta pelkoon, eristäytymiseen, vihaan ja mahdollisesti myös tuhoamiseen - ennakolta, toimimalla siten että tällaista kehitystä ei pääse tapahtumaan. Ei ole mikään salaisuus, että jotkin maahanmuutajaryhmät ovat maalle ongelmallisempia keskimääräistä suuremman rikollisuutensa ja muun huonon sopeutuvuutensa ja alemman työllistyvyytensä takia, ja koska he ylipäänsä ovat keskimääräistä suurempi rasite sosiaalijärjestelmälle. Pitämällä tämä porukka maan ulkopuolella, vähennetään maassa kielteisiä ilmiöitä.
>Vai onko se ylireagointia johtuen tästä
>luonnollisesta ominaisuudesta suosia omaa.
Voi olla myös sitäkin, mutta sitä tapahtuu kaikkialla. Muistelen, että sinäkään et haluaisi ottaa niitä sopeutettavia kovin hanakasti omaan luksusasuuntoosi ja suostuisi veroprogression jyrkkään kasvattamiseen, että "positiivista syrjintää" voitaisiin paremmin rahoittaa.
"On järkevää, että tässä maassa huolehditaan siitä, että ulkopuoliset tahot eivät anna aihetta alkuperäisasukkaiden taholta pelkoon, eristäytymiseen, vihaan ja mahdollisesti myös tuhoamiseen".
Aika tyypillinen "Ne on ite syypäitä siihen että niitä kohdellaan rasistisesti".
Hmmm.....
Savolaisia ei tungeta vankilaan petoksista ennakolta vaikka kaikkihan tietää että savolaiset on kieroja.
Ei ole salaisuus että jotkin maahanmuuttajaryhmät voidaan laskea olevan keskimäärin ongelmallisempia suuremman rikollisuutensa takia.
Jne. Eri asia on se että suurin osa ihmisistä ei edes tiedä mistä asiassa on kyse ja mitkä luvut ovat oikeasti.
He vetoavat ajattelussaan huhuihin, oletuksiin, mielikuviin joita jotkut auliisti levittävät.
Suurin osa pelosta, vihasta ja tuhoamishalusta johtuu tästä vierasgeeninkarsastusominaisuudesta.
Suomessa oli rasistisesti ajattelevia ennen 90-lukuakin Niin.
Suomessa oli vahvasti rasistisia asenteita kun ensimmäiset somalit saapuivat.
Rasismi EI ole huomattavasti lisääntynyt Suomessa somalien tulon jälkeen.
Probleema onkin siinä että se on järjestäytyneempää ja "muodikasta".
Probleema on siinä että rasismi haittaa asioiden järkevää käsittelyä. Huhuja ja valheita tai vääristelyjä levitetään surutta.
Toisaalta päättäjillä ei tunnu olevan käsitystä "kansan mielipiteestä".
Vaikka se olisikin väärien tietojen ja huhujen värittämää, sitä ei kuitenkaan kannattaisi ruokkia (esim pikakäännytyksen lyhentämistä vastustamalla).
Rajoja ei silti kukaan edelleenkään halua avata sepposen selälleen.
Ei edes työvoimapulasta HUUTAVAT päättäjät.
Ja edeleenkin...miten tämä vihan/pelontorjunta pätisi täällä jo asuviin?
Rasismia vastustava ja sopeuttamista ajava saa kuulla olevansa "vitun hyysärikukkahattutätimoniosaajannuolija"...:D
Parempi olisi vihan ja pelonlietsonta joka -yllätys yllätys - kasvattaisi entisestään somalien ym. väkivaltatilastoja, sopeutumattomuutta, työttömyyttä ja eristäytymistä ja samalla yhteiskunnan rauhattomuutta?
Kummallista. Epäisänmaallista ajattelua ihmisiltä jotka usein kovaan ääneen vakuuttavat olevansa NIIIIN Isänmaalisia.
PS. Mites minun kämppäni tähän asiaan liittyy?
Enhän minä majoita omaan kotiini myöskään asunnottomia, alkoholisteja, vanhuksia, sairaita, huoria, narkkareita, laiskoja paskoja, mulkkuja, pummeja, mielenterveysongelmaisia, mielisairaita, orpoja, vaimonhakkaajien vaimoja, vaimonhakkaajia, työttömiä, alipalkattuja, vammaisia, tyhmiä, urheilijoita, kulttuuri-ihmisiä, sotilaita, palomiehiä, lääkäreitä, hoitsuja......jne jne jne. joiden elämää minäkin tuen veromarkoillani.
Ja mikä hitto on Positiivinen Syrjintä?
En nyt näihin kaikkiin jaksa keksiä vastalauseita, mutta...
"Ja miehillä on taipumus ja kyky himoita useampia naisia ja levittää geenejään,... mitä ne vaimot oikein valittaa kun ukolla on naisia joka sormelle ja varpaalle, sehän vaan toimii luonnollisella tavalla."
Oletko koskaan kuullut jälkeläisistä huolehtimisesta? Jotenkin kummassa monet miehet haluavat elää vain yhdessä suhteessa. Tässäkin on muuten roduilla eroa.
"Samoin voidaan tehdä vammaisten suhteen, ei eläimetkään hyysää epäkelpoja yksilöitä.
Piikkiä persuksiin, säästetään elinkelpoisille yksilöille yhteiskunnan varoja.
Eläköön biologia."
Kyllä eläimetkin hyysäävät epäkelpoja yksilöitä. Es. ihmiset ja apinat. Lisäksi vammaiset eivät välttämättä ole epäkelpoja yksilöitä.
"Hassua sinänsä että tuohan oli varmaan kaikille tuttua. Jokainen tietää että omia suositaan.
Jokainen tietää että sisällissodat johtuvat oman ryhmän etujen ajamisesta. Jokainen tietää mitä tapahtuu maassa jossa ei ole yhtä yhtenäistä hallintoa tai pääkulttuuria."
Tuo ei ole kaikille tuttua ja jos se oli sinulle niin tuttua, niin miksi kannatat sitä, että tänne tuodaan laivalasteittain eri etnisiä ryhmiä ja sitä kautta konflikteja (vai kannatatko sinä).
"The results indicate that, as hypothesized, ethnic conflicts have emerged in practically all ethnically divided societies, which implies that the question is of a universal human phenomenon. Everywhere in ethnically divided societies people belonging to the same ethnic group tended to align with their relatives in social and political interest conflicts. They are following the imperatives of ethnic nepotism, their unconscious impulse to support their relatives in conflicts because it has furthered their own inclusive fitness. Therefore, ethnic conflicts in various forms are very common in ethnically divided societies. I came to the conclusion that ethnic nepotism provides an ultimate evolutionary explanation for the appearance of ethnic conflicts across all cultural boundaries. Furthermore, if the ultimate cause of ethnic conflicts is in human nature, in our evolved behavioral predispositions or epigenetic rules, we have to accept the conclusion that ethnic conflicts are extremely persistent, if not absolutely inevitable, in ethnically divided societies"
Niitä lukuja:
http://www.om.fi/optula/uploads/elc2zz.pdf
http://statfin.stat.fi/StatWeb/Table.asp?STB=G1,G2&LA=fi&DM=SLFI&PA=Kanmk01&D1=0&D2=0&D3=1,16-17,24,41,45-47,74,117,144&HDR=Thttp://statfin.stat.fi/StatWeb/Table.asp?STB=G1,G2&LA=fi&DM=SLFI&PA=Kanmk01&D1=0&D2=0&D3=1,16-17,24,41,45-47,74,117,144&HDR=T
http://statfin.stat.fi/StatWeb/Table.asp?STB=G1,G2,G3&LA=fi&DM=SLFI&PA=Aika8000&D1=27-37&D2=0&D3=a&D4=l&HDR=T
http://www.sunpoint.net/~ppxx/ulkom/pieni.html
Poliisi ei enää ole pariin vuoteen julkaissut tilastoja ulkomaalaisten rikollisuudesta, en tiedä syytä, mutta olihan tuossa edellä jo muutama virallinen lähde ja yksi niistä tehty yhteenveto.
Ihmiset ovat kertoneet kyllä kokemuksistaan, ja nimenomaan kontaktien perusteella käsitykset ovat muodostuneet (tätä on tutkittu jo koulujen osalta, kuten aiemmin sanoin). En usko että ihmiset olisivat olleet yhtä rasistisia ennen, tulee vain mieleen ne aiemmat 1950-luvun hömppäjutut näistä ulkomaisista prinssivävypojista, jotka olivat kyllä silloin eksoottisen myötämielisesti tehtyjä. Aiemmin silloin ne harvat täällä käyneet mustat miehet olivat lähinnä ällistelyn ja tuijottelun kohde, eikä näkeminen nostattanut juuri kielteisiä tunteita. Oliko muka Helsingin Olympialaisissa 1952 rasistisia purkauksia heitä kohtaan? Ei, aivan päinvastoin.
En jaksa kinata tästä nyt enempää. Lue se linkkien sisältämä tieto itse. Jos haluat selittää ne jotenkin pois, niin aivan vapaasti.
Ja se Positiivinen Syrjintä (tm) on lyhyesti sanottuna sitä, kun Siad Barren nomenklatuuran Moskovan puoluekoulussa ollut osa tulee (turvallisesta maasta, NL/IVY) Suomeen (paremman sosiaaliturvan piiriin) pakolaisiksi ja tuottaa myöhemmin sukulaisensa mukanaan ja heille järjetetään täällä asunnot, kodinkoneet ja sosiaaliturva. Tämä siis samanaikaisesti, kun pääkaupunkiseudulla on jo ennestään n. 3500-5000 asunnotonta, pääasiassa maan alkuperäiskansalaisia, joille ei suoda samoja sosiaalietuuksia. Näitä maahantunkelijoita siis syrjitään positiivisesti (eli asetetaan alkuperäisasukkaiden edelle). Termi on eräiden viranomaisten käytössä jo. Kumma kun et jo tiennyt.
http://www.ihmisoikeudet.net/Meillajamuualla/mejamuut_3.html
Tuossa oli nyt eturistiriita. Samoin kuin siinä, että maassa on ennestään 300000 työtöntä ja näiden maahantunkeilijoiden työttömyys on keskimäärin 3x alkuperäisasukkaiden tasoa, joillain ongelmaryhmillä se on ollut 50-80 %. Ja niitä rasisteja alkaa löytyä näiden tahojen asioita hoitaneista ihmisistä, heistä harvemmat vain kertovat näistä kielteisistä asioista julkisesti, vaikka se porukka tuottaa toistuvasti ongelmia. Itse olen kuullut myös jotain, mutta en voi asioita tässä paljastaa, eivätkä ne virkailijatkaan. Olisin liittänyt vielä muutaman muun lähteen, mutta tarvittava sivusto ei ole tätä kirjoitettaessa toiminnassa. Ehkä joskus myöhemmin.
Minä en tee näihin asioihin liittyviä päätöksiä enkä voi asioihin vaikuttaa, mutta toivon vain, ettei tämä maa kehity samanlaiseksi monikulttuurihelvetiksi, kuin useassa muussa maassa tilanne jo on.
Sinunlaisesi luxuskämpässä asuvat ovat tällä hetkellä kuorossa vonkaamassa veroalea, entisen lisäksi, veroista, joiden avullä näiden pakolaisten oleminen maassa tällä kustannetaan, monen muun asian lisäksi. Tämä on jotenkin ristiriitaista.
Usko pois, statfinin palveluja olen kolunnut läpi ja monessa suhteessa, samoin kuin poliisin tutkimuksia, työministeriön taulukoita, tiedotteita, sosiaalialaa, verotulojen käyttöä, Suomen Lakia, ennakkopäätöksiä, ihmisten kokemuksia...myös livenä, jne.
Miten niin poliisi ei ole julkaissut tilastoja ulkomaalaisten rikollisuudesta?
Siinä tutkimuksessasi muuten tutkittiin opettajien kasityksiä koululaisten rasistisista asenteista. Tutkimus ei ollut kontaktien perusteella muodostuneista käsityksistä.
Kummallista, puhuin ennen 90 lukua olleesta rasismista. Sinä väität että se oli vain eksoottisen myötämielistä...hmmm.
Eivät olleet kovin myötämielisiä kun Suomeen saapui ensimmäinen suuri mustien joukko.
Aivan ilman ensimmäistäkään kontaktia ihmisillä oli jo selvä reipas rasistinen ote. Seurasin sitä henk koht aivan läheltä :D.
Muistan myös hyvin miten mediassa käsiteltiin asioita. Uskomatonta suorastaan väittää että rasismi olisi syntynyt 90-luvulla Suomessa.
Tai ehkä somaleiden olisi pitänyt olla niitä ylväitä prinssejä jotka tosin tietävät oman paikkansa valkoista alempana. Ou jee.
Pääkaupunkiseudun asunnottomista suurin osa on alkoholisteja. Ei pidä olettaa että Yhteiskunnan
normi-ihminen on köyhä ja asunnoton.
He ovat marginaalitapaus.
Yhteiskunnan normaali minimitoimeentulo on se minkä pitkäaikaistyötön saa.
Miten niin suomalainen ei saa samoja sosiaalietuuksia?
"positiivista erityiskohtelua, joka tähtää oikeuksien yhtäläisyyteen?"
Niin. minä olen käynyt nuo kaikki läpi, mitään mullistavaa uutta et voisikaan esittää.
Ja suosittelen koluamaan hiukan foorumihistoriaa jos todella kiinnostaa.
Itse termi Positiivinen Syrjintä muuten on vieras, asia kuitenkin ikivanha.
Siitä voisi vaikka pistää alotuksen.
Onko se niin paha asia todellakin?
Positiivista syrjintää on mielenterveyspotilaan pääsy juttelemaan söpön psykiatritädin kanssa maailman menosta yhteiskunnan piikkiin. Ei sinne tervejärkisiä päästetä. Mitä kauheaa syrjintää meitä terveitä kohtaan!
Eläkeläisliput myös. Epäreilua!
Samoin kuin opiskelijoiden puolitetut lipunhinnat.
No juu. Ihan kauheaa syrjintää.
Mutta mikäs tässä on ollessa, siemaillen hyvää konjakkia ja tuprutellen sikaria kotiinpäästyäni kruisailemasta pikku Porschellani. Ja mallityttöystäväni odottaa hetken päästä isossa sängyssämme. Elämä hymyilee.
Ei tässä paljoa verot paina, tuloja kun on riittävästi muutenkin. Kyllä minä muutenkin enempi somaleita ja kaljankittaajia elätän kuin te maanmatoset. Jees. :)
Voe elämä sentään...:/
???