I think you had a good starting point and an interesting thoughts, but then things derailed a bit on the end.
I, as much as some other people, likes to involve types even in place where it doesnt belong or where it is unusual, and I couldnt help but thinking about types again.
I dont think its human natures, because of the stats of MBTI I know combined with the fact that I read in some type descriptions that:
- One of the NP types, which I dont remember which, plus another one (and if I searched more perhaps I would find more types), were recommended to do travels to meet distant and different cultures. It says that some research (although it doesnt quote which research) found that these types appreciate travels and meeting new cultures. That could be a little bit reasoned with Ne... So, I dont think for these types, the idea of innate tribalism is valid, thus, humanity are not innate to tribalism because thats incorrect for at least 2 MBTI types (unless these types are not human).
Being open minded, doesn't mean you do not posses your own values and moral compass. A lot of people think that racism, and other things can be expelled with understanding. This is inherently false. Some people perfectly understand, and will still argue about whether or not it is right or wrong. Because ultimately, we are forced to choose sides. For example, abortion. We cannot deny that a fetus is alive, and killing is wrong. But many choose the right of a woman, over an unborn life instead. I view it as ultimately just unfortunate and sad. One could look at culture the same way. For example, at some point people decided having sex with children was bad. They enacted laws to protect them, till they were mature and able to reasonably consent. But in some cultures, that law is at a much lower threshold. Even if you understand, that some cultures don't view certain things the same way. You still can't help but feel that something is wrong with it.
- INTP type is related by Oddly developed types by a type which appreciates studying language. Tribalism discourage people for learning language, if people were sooo much tribal we would not have much people learning new languages. If everybody was indeed tribal, then I would not even be replying to you in the first place.
You are rather oversimplifying it. Learning is completely self-centric. Like I said above, just because you are open minded. Doesn't mean you forget where you came from and your upbringing. These things exist simultaneously. Since communication is important among tribes, and have been for 1000s of years. You are replying because you are open minded, and not reflexing in a social stiuation. Humans are capable of such, but such things go out the door very quickly when things get hairy. You are better off comparing levels of individuality and group thin, and the ideology they posess.
- Your logic does have a paradox. If you believe in judging people individually, then you are not against multiculturalism. Dooming them to stay in the same culture without ever having the possibility of having a chance to change by forcing them to stay in the same culture (remember, you are blocking multiculturalism here), is a non-individual judgment.
- Canada is more multicultural and less xenophobic than the US. If multiculturalism caused xenophobia on its own and without any other factors, then we would expect Canada to be more xenophobic than US.
I judge people individually, but I still have my preconceived notions about them based on general, and sometimes negative expectations. I like to be proven wrong, and many have. But as a pre-requisite for me trying, these preconceived notions are useful. We humans are also hardwired to subconsciously pick up on patterns, not only in things, but people. This minimizes how much energy the brain has to spend calculating threats in a survival, or social scenario. This didn't go away when we created advanced civilization, it only changed how it manifested.
Multiculturalism, in the sense that I know it (mixing everything together) is a bad idea because it increases tension between groups (especially without a uniting factor). I think a picture is more beautiful, when all the colors are not mixed together and form a complete picture of humanity. You do not think of Japan, and think French culture. You do not think of Britain, and think of American culture. Each nation and peoples has its distinct cultures, even within those nations there are distinct groups.
Now if you mean respecting any culture, that is fine too. But unfortunately many people refuse to acknowledge that certain cultures do not get along for obvious reasons. How do people support intentionally forcing two opposing forces together, and expecting them to attract? Like in my analogy, they don't...and it just forms more issues. Now for people who want to adapt, to a new culture or nation? I can support that, but often times when people migrate to a new country, or a new state. They try to impose their way of life on the host nation or state. So is the imposer wrong or right? Do they have the right to just try to dissolve the host nation's culture as a minority? I personally, think it is wrong. That any person migrating should assimilate into their host nation. That is what early settlers did in USA, and that is why you have that phenomena where Americans proudly profess their European heritage. But as far as most non-Americans are concerned. They are not European at all. If the culture of the nation they left, was the reason they were leaving. Why would they bring it with them? Why would you come, if you didn't want to partake in what opportunities that nation had to offer? I do not understand this push to let migrants essentially make ghettos of another country, within another country.
It is true, although, that in some sort of categorization, there is a human group of people who have all these patterns you mention on the first two paragraphs. I would be completely pro to put all these racists in a corner of the country, and I mean countries in general, isolate them and let them having their own race utopia, which I would be surprised if it did have some success. In other part, it would be interesting to see a different corner of higher inclusion, where the inclusion criteria are quite different than race and the premises of racist people. However, these people with a racist mindset also have a forever-expansion (or "growth") mindset, and they want to spread racism and their culture (this includes religion) in all of the country, and then perhaps in all of the world. So, even if isolated, they would try to infiltrate and would send people to sabotage the other regions in order to give traction to their culture to spread. This spread, in the case of race, would eventual lead to some sort of elimination of other races, since you cannot do conversions (you cannot convert people from black to white).
You'd be surprised to find, that is exactly what racists want. Their own little pure Utopia to be left alone in. Though I think the whole "Growth" idea, is unfounded. This isn't the British colonization anymore. I mean, look at what Japan did since WW2 with its practically pure "Racial utopia" and no military on a tiny island. It wouldn't be the best argument to make that it wouldn't work. I think people are more afraid that it would, and what would happen to the world then? The whole infiltration and sabotage thing is kind of baseless? That would require the group to think they were inferior. Racists think they are superior to every other race. They couldn't let go of their pride.
The inclusion thing could work, but you need a monoculture, as well as strong national identity. This doesn't have to include religion, but religion helps in terms of cultural significance. Something has to unite the people, that is stronger than race. We see this in political ideologies all the time, so I don't think its impossible. The problem is that it requires generations of work and effort, and there is no feasible way of doing it without erasing history.
And considering that, did you ever wonder: If black people are repulsive, then why some white people made a big effort to come to Africa and to spread africans all over the globe? Because it is not really about black people being repulsive or bad.
Black people are all over the globe, because slavery brought them there. They have been enslaved by pretty much every other major race (mainly arabs, whites, and their own people). They had no where to go, or get back home after it was abolished. So they had to survive in their native country, barely speaking the language or knowing the culture (people learning the language) all on their own with no help. This created a very strong, social identity and trust within this group whose effects we still see today.
Wow long post, but if you get back to me I will probably reply in the morning. If I left anything out, or didn't address something. Just let me know, and I will try to elaborate more.
