Lets have a look at some of the reasons folks hate ( or love ) other folks by reviewing the main 'isms that divide us and review a few more that may help us understand our fractured world. Listed in approximate order of impact.
Racism
Categorising folks based on physical appearance such as skin colour or face shape but also includes language or slang, dress or uniform, food and music preferences, where one chooses or is forced to live etc. It's healthy to have pride in one's racial characteristics but when people hold "the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races", racism rears its ugly head. This is the most widely known 'ism having caused much pain and suffering over the years in many societies.Sexism
Categorising folks based on physically expressed or perceived emotional preferences. This used to be seen as binary area but now has many more sub divisions. The drivers behind personal choices in this area is sometimes determined by physical characteristics but best expressed as "Who you love is not always a choice." This is largely true but environmental and societal factors have an influence on outcomes causing internal conflict between feelings and doings. Many LGBT issues fall in this area.Religism
Categorising folks based on professed religious practices. This new 'ism can separated from racism because religious beliefs are not inevitably tied to genetic or geographic background. It should be noted that most of the major religions have both factions and extremists that do not represent the religion as a whole. (see Bubbleism).Stateism
Categorising folks based on their geographic country of origin. This new 'ism can separated from racism and religism because folks from various counties of origin are often incorrectly perceived to have certain stereotypes and characteristics. Usually this characterisation is based on the like or dislike of the political establishment of the country projected on to the individual people. Some nation states are controlled by unrepresentative minorities of the citizens and yet exert disproportionate control claiming supremacy of a religious or political ideologue. Criticism of such nation states should not be confused with religism.Tribeism
Categorising folks based on their active social or working groups. Outlaw bike gangs, specific professions such as doctor, farmer and keen sporting participants (but not just sporting club affiliation) are examples of tribes. Close family groups can also be seen as examples of a tribe group. A tribe is bound together by positive involvement in the activity which is more than just an idea.
Bubbleism
Categorising folks based on their affiliation for or against an idea. This new 'ism can separated from racism and religism because beliefs in an idea is voluntary, not pre-determined and can change over time. Examples of bubble ideas would be for or against Brexit, for and against being a vegan, belief or not in UFOs. Bubble idea groups are often seen as sub-divisions or choices within a bigger group such as "I practice religion X but only in this way". Some of the interwebs greatest flame wars have been driven by bubbliest ideas, more guns V less guns, Mac V PC, red dress V blue dress. Nation states that impose bubbliest ideas on citizens are generally seen as dictatorships.Intolerance for folks with similar ideas
People have a basic human need ; that of a sense of belonging to something bigger than themselves (Karl Rogers) Everybody uses "boundary markers" to signify to themselves the demarkation is between the different groups they belong to. Dislike and intolerance can often be worse between different groups within same 'ism. Different sects of the same religion have often been the basis of conflicts both presently and in history. When viewed from outside, those unfamiliar with the details of the sects, would struggle to see the differences classing both sides under the same overarching banner. Violence between supporters of different sporting teams is disgraceful, but on examination, is often based on some other 'ism.Crossover areas
The world is a complex and diverse place, some countries are occupied by multiple races and different religions all mingling with little resulting conflict. Other intolerant states have hunted and persecuted minorities demonstrating combinations of both racism and religism or institutionalised policies of sexism. Some country politicians choose to divide and antagonise their audiences based on the 'isms above. The really negative side where those attributes are weaponized and "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior". Such views are not amenable to reason because they become part of a person's identity and an attack on the ideas is perceived as a very personal attack.However for all the 'isms mentioned, there is a positive side that allows humans to feel part of something bigger that themselves, to feel pride and self-confidence, give themselves a feeling of belonging to guide their choices of behaviour . Every person constructs their own identity and their membership in a group is a matter of "self-ascription and ascription by others in interaction". That's an open avenue for change - and allows people to move across social boundaries and allows immigrants to become assimilated.
When examined many 'isms look like one thing but are in fact better understood under a different heading. For example to say "I hate folks from India" ( an example of stateism ) is meaningless when the country has multiple religions, multiple languages and multiple genetic heritages.
Some groups have been seen to claim legitimacy using the strength of religious bonds but in fact are just an idea bubble. This is very noticeable amongst religious fringe elements.
Some nation states use the very flawed logic such as "Most of the people in our country have the same race and therefor to criticise us is racism." or "Most of the people in our country have the same religion and therefor to criticise us is religism." When really the concern is about actions of the state like building/throwing bombs or persecuting minorities using the "they are not the same as us" intolerance.
Range of feelings
Any of the 'isms above can provoke the full range of feelings from passionate love to blind hatred from folks within and without each category of 'ism. The intensity of feeling is often what drives the expression of the 'isms. Convincing arguments rarely overcome passionately held beliefs.Changing the scale and point of view can help in reducing the internal conflicts generated by different factions of religions. Within many of the major religions there are factions and sects of belief with fierce conflict between opposing groups. From outside, each religion is classed as a single entity whereas inside there are usually a whole rainbow of beliefs and often conflicting ideas.
One way of de-escalating religious conflict is to think of religions as football teams. Each has many supporters who fervently believe they are the "one true team" but in the wider context of the world they have to compete to show the best performance and outcomes to their followers. However the biggest problem with just about all religions is how they appear over the years to have suffered man-in-the-middle compromises.
Representation
Democratic representation is struggling to find consensus in the world of 'isms. Political parties often want to appeal to the strong bonds of religion and race when really they are just promoting a specific set of bubble ideas. Many organisations and groups would frame the world in for or against terms when really most folks either don't have strong feelings either way or like some bits but not others or just don't care enough about that thing.
Where there is a win/lose referendum on a complex political issue ( country direction or choosing a president) the don't cares or see parts of both sides are poorly under represented in the results. If really important decisions are made on the basis of the win/loose then any outcome should be convincing enough +/- 10% to carry the day. The best way to progress in the event of a close outcome is to reframe the choice into a win-win situation.
Call to action
The world's description was famously upgraded from "Harmless" to "Mostly harmless." (HHGTTG Douglas Adams) In global terms this reflects the modern spread of increasingly cheap and effective weaponry and the political swing towards single party dictatorships. Leadership examples of uncouth behaviour and language, with a open disregard for the rule of law, a typical demagogue uses differences to give a political group something to identify with and a THEM to turn their hostilities and anger against.Recognise and resist such divisive behaviour at both the macro level of national politics and the micro level of group and club behaviours.
And finally this quote just about sums how to combat the dessrtuctive effects of 'isms in daily life.
"Respect your fellow human being, treat them fairly, disagree with them honestly, enjoy their friendship, explore your thoughts about one another candidly, work together for a common goal and help one another achieve it. No destructive lies. No ridiculous fears. No debilitating anger." - Bill Bradley
** Many thanks to DrMauri for review and contributions to the text above.
