[TITLE]
CMV:Actually identifying oneself with any other "social group" than "humanity" eventually leads to negative feelings towards other social groups, and even hate.
WMN: t3_2nu3l8_t1_cmh5q31
Dialogue: t3_2nu3l8
[myunfinishedtattoo]
What i mean is, whenever someone says "I am proud to be X" (where X can be a nationality, ethnic group, gender, fanclub, etc) , in my eyes, it implies that those people will be (close to) their best behaviour to the members of their group, but not so bothered about the rest of humanity. (or at least thats what it seems they claim). And the exceptions are the situations when someone is in a frame of mind like : "I am a human X, therefore i have no problems with humans Y" _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*
[WhoreMonger69]
I dont have much to say but, this idea is why I think religion does more harm than good in the long run.
[MkEzzat]
If we study the statistics behind war, nationalism has caused more casualties than religion. Both world wars were caused by proud nations, not religion. The Islamic empire starting the Umayyads was not driven strictly by their religious believes, but the notion that Arabs are better. No matter how strong your faith is, we tend to choose the faith of those around us. If religion was the problem itself then Muslims would have never fought each-others, nor christian states in the middle ages. Religion is just another point of the list, my "tribe/country" is better because of it's religion, my version of the religion is better because I'm in a better tribe/country. Or even the whole we are the most righteous to lead my brothers in faith thing that plagued Christendom and Arabia for ages.
[myunfinishedtattoo]
If you look at it like this, religion is simply an aberation. Instead of "a group of people searching thru spiritual means the meaning of life and deeper thruths" its "lots of smaller groups, each one of them lying to each other about actually knowing the truth"
[DashFerLev]
I'm proud to be a man. I'm just not a dick about it. [My definition of what it means to be a man is very simple.](http://youtu.be/f311XTtqPgc?t=49s) I don't hate women for not being men. Just because they're not men doesn't mean they're bad or anything. I mean, it's not a choice. It's not like I'm a Mets fan and they're Yankees fans.
[myunfinishedtattoo]
Thank you for answering. Your link is not available in my country. :( But then how are you proud ?! It wasn't a choice, and not an achievement. Is that "pride" ? Or "normal" ? And again, i'm not saying we should ignore the obvious. Of course you are a male. But would you wear a "Male Power" tshirt ?
[DashFerLev]
It was a link to the cartoon Shin Chan. It's a weird anime about a little boy being weird. He and his dad say "To be a man you must have honor! Honor and a penis!" and then do a dance. I am as proud of being a man as I am of being a member of my family. I didn't choose to be a **[SURNAME REDACTED]** either, but I am one. My name was given to me by my father who got it from his, going back centuries (my name means smith). Being a man gives me certain traits. I'm bigger than my girlfriend, so I carry heavy things. I've been raised by a society who doesn't give one tiny shit about men, so I am strong enough to carry not only my burdens, but the burdens of my loved ones. Whether it's the courage to be the one to kill that spider, or the empathy to be the one who secretly catches it and moves him to behind the drier because it's too cold for him to survive outside. And I absolutely exude my pride in being a man. It's the last day of Movember and for the month, I grew my beard and for the last week, [I'm rocking this.](http://i.imgur.com/yhdeHuq.jpg) Now the tricky part comes when there's the subtlety of "I am a man, so I do things that are hard, it is my place. Women can do hard things, too, but when nobody is around it falls to me." Kind of a duty vs opportunity thing.
[myunfinishedtattoo]
First of all. Congratulations on the beard. That is a legitimate thing to be proud of. Because it is situational. :) You are proud you can help people. You are proud of what you can do. Of your role in society based on your hard work and merits. But does your hearth feel with joy when you remember about the spider thing, or the times you were able to help, like when you remember that you are part of the "Penis group" ? :) Have you ever wept about it ? EDIT: some spelling.
[DashFerLev]
Well yes on both counts. I'm really proud to be a man. A huge portion of my life has been influenced by just that single fact. But again... "I've been raised by a society who doesn't give one tiny shit about men" so I have to carry that with me. I mean, on Reddit alone there are thousands of people who actively deny there are any drawbacks to being a man. I mean... yes. It's absolutely arbitrary whether I was born a boy or a girl, just like it's arbitrary if you were born black or Chinese or American or Swiss. But these things *are* a huge part of your life, whether you embrace or reject them. And while there are people who will look down on Canadians or Eskimos, most people are just making the best of what they've got.
[looklistencreate]
I won't argue that cultural identities aren't divisive, but they are certainly better than any reasonable alternative. Removing your ability to be French, Muslim, or Asian will invariably lead to a worse situation.
[myunfinishedtattoo]
Can you remove the ability to be French ?! :)
[looklistencreate]
No. That's my point. Any attempt to force French people not to be French anymore will be more trouble than it's worth.
[myunfinishedtattoo]
I got it. Just sounded funny. "Oh no! If he losses his ability to be french, we will all die!" But on the serious note, we don't have to change nothing. Maybe if we actually end up to the conclusion that, yes, cultural identities are so divisive and harmfull that they need to be adressed now, we can start teaching our kids that maybe it doesn't really matter if you're french or muslim or asian, and not to put too much value on it. And the thing is, its already happening. More and more of these "small" groups dissapear and people are getting along better.
[looklistencreate]
Well if it's possible to teach kids that identity can exist separate from identity politics, then doesn't that mean that separate identities can exist negative associations for other groups?
[myunfinishedtattoo]
I'm not sure i'm understanding. Can you rephrase it ?
[looklistencreate]
If it's possible to tell children to avoid factional conflict, as you have described, why is it necessary to remove their various identities?
[myunfinishedtattoo]
Good morning. There is a difference between being aware of ones identity, and "overly identifying". Like the difference between saying "I was born in new york, and i live in new york" and "I am a new yorker". Furthermore, i believe saying "I am a new yorker" has a sort of passive agresiveness by itself. It is not about removing their identities, but my point was, that a kid that is concerned with avoiding factional conflict, will also avoid to identify himself, or make claims of belonging to only one particular group. He can still be aware of his own gender, race, birthplace, height, weight, etc.
[looklistencreate]
Now it's me who doesn't understand you. Are you saying that the values of peaceful cross-cultural cooperation will destroy cultural identity?
[myunfinishedtattoo]
Yes. But i would rather use the word "change" than "destroy".
[ADdV]
Don't you think identifying yourself with "humanity" leads to negative feelings towards other animals? Or rather feelings of superiority?
[myunfinishedtattoo]
Well yes. More spiritual positions would say to identify yourself with the universe or something more including, and then there is more empathy towards animals, insects and such.
[riggorous]
Questions like this one can't be answered in a CMV because they're akin to crying out against the injustice of mortality or something. I mean, people will always identify with subgroups, so what's your point? Do you not identify with your family? With your friends? With yourself?
[myunfinishedtattoo]
I should have edited "Actually" with "overly" in the title of the thread. Sorry about that.
[hatesdefaultfrontpag]
One could say that identifying with humanity would lead to "negative feelings" or actions towards non-human animals and the ecosystems they inhabit. Now this isn't to say that the concept of humanity should be abandoned as an identifying marker or that it does/should not exist. Rather, people should identify being human as a group that necessarily exists and is bound alongside with groups that are not human. That are humaness necessarily makes things that are not human foreign to us, in ways that fascinate and frighten us at the same time. So if you are identifying being human as something necessarily bound to things that are not human, then why can't you identify with sub-groups of humans (i.e. Jews, Canadians, liberals, etc) if you see them as sub-groups that exist alongside other groups that overlap, intersect, interact, and even exclude each other in a myriad of configurations? Why deny the particularity and uniqueness of something just because they can be subsumed in larger categories? Why not find aspects inside those very groups that promote and allow for the interaction with the groups outside of them; in ways that allow for both of those groups to come to a deeper understanding of themselves, while exploring each other in more organic--site specific--ways? If this kind of exploration leads to some kind of new hybridity between these groups (resulting in a new group) or ways in which they can get along with each other at arms length (maintaining the same groups), then so be it.
[myunfinishedtattoo]
Ok, but people do not use a scientific aproach like this. We only identify with stuff that appeals to us emotionally. (when we do it by choice) Sub-saharians don't call themselfs sub-saharians so the person in front of them would understand his geographic birthplace. (and if there is one, i guess that would be the exception). Thank you for answering btw.
[hatesdefaultfrontpag]
It's a double-sided coin. We identify with people we feel emotionally connected with, but there is something inside the groups we do not identify with that allows for us to both completely cast aside, dominate or demonize them while also recognizing something entirely other than us. It is this otherness that has the power to allow us to also recognize our own finiteness nature and our responsibility to all the immensely different and varied things that lie outside our particular in groups. So someone who identifies as sub-Saharan can see the humaness in someone from India without denying the uniquenes of both groups; if anything it only adds to the depths and intricacies of the larger over-aching group they both belong to (i.e. humanity). Who wants a humanity where you white wash over our differences, for the sake of preserving some stable and monolithic notion of humanity? [STA-CITE]>Sub-saharians don't call themselfs sub-saharians so the person in front of them would understand his geographic birthplace. (and if there is one, i guess that would be the exception). [END-CITE]This is a very interesting point, if I am understanding you correctly. Who knows why people mark themselves into different groups? I think it undermines the transient/fungible nature of identity to even try and pin them down to finite markers like geographic location, genetic make-up, etc. We should be fine simply respecting that these people continue to mark themselves up into their communities **because it is important to them**. We should respect their autonomy in self-identification, because that same sense of autonomy is what we have to rely on in believing that they will choose the better, more moral, course of action in co-existing with the groups they see as outside of themselves.
[myunfinishedtattoo]
I completely agree with everything you said. And even if my view wasn't exactly changed, i do have a more broad view on the subject now. Yes. "It is important to them". And yes, we should respect their autonomy in self-identification. But i don't see any reason to believe that they will choose the better, more moral, course of action. In my eyes, that identification has a "bit of agresiveness" by itself, that challanges that "moral super-position" required for that nice exemple with the sub-saharian and the person from India. ∆
[DeltaBot]
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/hatesdefaultfrontpag. ^[[History](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/hatesdefaultfrontpag)] ^[[Wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltabot)][[Code](https://github.com/alexames/DeltaBot)][[Subreddit](http://www.reddit.com/r/DeltaBot/)]
[hatesdefaultfrontpag]
That is a very valid point. Who knows if someone will use their autonomy to do the right thing? But it is possible. One has to find the right things within a culture or group that provides the conceptual and emotional space for embracing the otherness of out-groups. And sometimes you just have to have faith in others or even things outside of ourselves that will force our hand into reconciliation. Check out this [review](http://jsr.shanti.virginia.edu/volume-13-number-2-november-2014-navigating-john-howard-yoders-the-jewish-christian-schism-revisited/a-review-essay-on-peter-ochs-another-reformation-2/) of a philosopher and theologian trying to create a space for inter, reparative, dialogue between Christians and Jews, using their own theological frameworks to find some common ground for rapprochement.
[myunfinishedtattoo]
Wow! Thank you! I'm gonna read it now. But after i'm going to bed. Thanks for taking your time!
[Maurice_Levy]
Essentially you're saying that patriotism (and similar sentiments) necessarily lead to discriminatory views. I think, at best, you're overstating your case. Patriotism and universal empathy are not mutually exclusive. A person can, all at the same time, be proud to be, say, an American, be ashamed of American foreign policy, and feel a deep sadness for the plight of Ebola victims in Africa. Your proposition is similar to saying that feeling a special affinity for your immediate family necessarily means you have negative feelings toward everyone else. It may be true that patriotism and similar impulses tend to increase hateful or discriminatory thinking. But you might have your causation reversed here. It might be more the case that people who tend toward discriminatory thinking tend to have exaggerated senses of patriotism, which is otherwise a natural and reasonable impulse.
[myunfinishedtattoo]
Thank you for answering! And yes, i agree. But would that person (in your exemple) actually be "out loud" about being an American ? Yes i do have a special affinity for my immediate family, but i don't introduce myself as "I belong to the Whateveravian family! Proud member since birth!". No one does that. (there are a few exceptions, i know, but they kind of prove my point). And yes, i can agree patriotism and universal empathy are not COMPLETELY mutually exclusive. But empathy was to be lowered down, for patriotism to exist. Ok, i've read your reply like 12 times by now, and i think i might understand patriotism wrong. Well "american patriotism".
[Maurice_Levy]
You're making two separate points then. First, you're saying that patriotism and similar impulses necessarily lead to hatred and discrimination. I think this untrue, and that there are many people that are both patriotic and deeply empathetic toward people from different countries. Second, you're saying that people who tend to be vocal about patriotism tend to also be more discriminatory or hateful. I think this is probably true, but it's because their discrimination or hatred leads them to be loud about their patriotism, and not the other way around. Neither point shows that patriotism necessarily causes discriminatory or hateful views.
[myunfinishedtattoo]
Well what is patriotism then ?!
[Maurice_Levy]
Love of country. Love of one thing doesn't imply or lead to hatred of another. Nor does it require that you be vocal about it.
[myunfinishedtattoo]
Ok. I'm from eastern europe, so my view is clearly biased here, because the concept of "love of country" seems unnatural to me.
[Maurice_Levy]
Fair enough, but that's the [dictionary definition](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/patriotism) of patriotism. Thinking it's weird is different than thinking it leads to negative feelings.
[Nepene]
Surely it depends on the values of the group? Some groups are very inclusive and to be socially popular in those groups you have to be nice to outsiders who aren't in your group. For example "I am proud of being British, because we british people are so nice to people outside of our group." is a statement you could make.
[myunfinishedtattoo]
Well can you ? I cannot think of any group that does this as a thing. Only individuals. But i'm not saying there aren't any! CMV !
[Nepene]
I can, and that is something I have done. I have been welcoming to Zimbabwean and South African and Polish and Indian people because I believe that my British values say that we should be friendly to those of other cultures and inclusive. I was taught to be like that by my family and other patriotic individuals.
[myunfinishedtattoo]
Well now i think you are a nice person, with a nice family. And also i think you are less identified with the group "Britain" than ...what's the equivalent of the racist redneck in Britain ? :)
[Nepene]
I am strongly identified with the group Britain. I often go to festivals, I've done re-enactments of historical battles, I know the national anthem off by heart. Being strongly identified with Britain doesn't exclude me being non racist. I don't believe in using racial epithets to describe poor rural people. There are many different cultures in the UK, some are racist, some not, but I'm not going to mock someone just because they speak differently from me or are poor.
[Aurfore]
The gypsy community perhaps? At least that is what is generally considered in Ireland. There are always countryside sheltered folk who refuse to move on with the times. As someone from the countryside I can tell you that the youth are much more accepting and tolerant of each other than their parents would be. (In general)
[myunfinishedtattoo]
And maybe less patriotic ? More identified with a larger group, such as europe ?
[Aurfore]
I don't think that was meant as a reply to me? *removed because it had nothing to do with the argument at hand*
[myunfinishedtattoo]
What ? I wasn't talking about that. You said "the youth are much more accepting and tolerant". So maybe because you're not defending "mother britain" with that much zeal anymore. Because its not such a big thing anymore.
[Aurfore]
I think tolerance amongst the youth has less to do with a lack of patriotism and more to to with 2nd and 3rd generation integration into society. More and more we are living with the idea that there are different colours and diversities besides us, befriending us, and living their lives exactly like us in the same country as us. We could still be patriotic, and hey even the different people could be patriotic about loving the acceptance of the country even though this is not their "origins". I think patriotism and discrimination are mostly exclusive. Just because the elderly are generally more patriotic and more discriminatory in GENERAL does not mean that they are inexplicably linked. I see people spouting more about the immigrants taking benefits that they don't deserve (They deserve is just as much as any one else in most cases) than it being about the integrity of the country itself. It really depends on which side of the line you fall on. You can be an accepting patriot, or a hateful one. It's about your secondary views that sway the rest of your view that seems to be painted by patriotism, when all in all if you weren't a patriot you might probably try to justify your ignorance in other ways. I hope this makes sense.
[myunfinishedtattoo]
It does. Thank you for replying. I've learned alot tonight. About patriotism mostly. The thing is, if patriotism = love of country , then yes, i can see how, some people in certain countries can be genuinly patriotic. But then "true patriotism" is not "identification with a separate social group than humanity" , because it actually tends towards "humanity as a group" just like a spiritual practice for example. Hm...But what about a north korean officer who tortures kittens ? He may love the way his country is treating him. And he may also call himself a patriot. But you said patriotism and discrimination are mostly exclusive.