'Us' and 'Them'

[Petros]

It seems that the most troubling thing about our world is the persistant view that most of us take - namely that the world is divided between 'us' and 'them'. On our side sits the good guys, the 'believers' and on theirs - the 'unbelievers', bad guys, the godless, the religious, the infidel. Not only 'Christians' do this - but Muslims, Jews, Hindus, atheists, socialists, nationalists, etc.. It is very impowering for us to think we are right - them wrong. This, and not that people do not follow your or my religion or ideology is the cause of violence. It has always been the cause of violence and war and suffering. This is very obvious if one looks at it.
It further seems that when one recognizes ideology in it's many forms which is designed to enhance or empower the 'self', and when one really sees the effects it has had on our history, one drops it like a very bad habit. Your own thoughts on this comment?
Petros

 

[Cr0wley]

To accept every viewpoint is impossible, so taking a stance is the only way. And by defining one's stance, you define yourself. Without a stance, living is pointless.
This question is just as easy to answer as "what is the meaning of life?"...

 

[Pah]

It seems that the most troubling thing about our world is the persistant view that most of us take - namely that the world is divided between 'us' and 'them'. On our side sits the good guys, the 'believers' and on theirs - the 'unbelievers', bad guys, the godless, the religious, the infidel. Not only 'Christians' do this - but Muslims, Jews, Hindus, atheists, socialists, nationalists, etc.. It is very impowering for us to think we are right - them wrong. This, and not that people do not follow your or my religion or ideology is the cause of violence. It has always been the cause of violence and war and suffering. This is very obvious if one looks at it.
It further seems that when one recognizes ideology in it's many forms which is designed to enhance or empower the 'self', and when one really sees the effects it has had on our history, one drops it like a very bad habit. Your own thoughts on this comment?
Petros

Your picture of "us and them" is very broad. It also occurs within "believers" and separately within "non-believers".

The basis for the labels should never be due to differing thoughts but has some justification when a thought becomes action and risk of harm or oppression becomes real.

 

[Halcyon]

This, my friend, is because of a basic aspect of human nature - we're tribal. We've always had an 'us and them' viewpoint and always will, it happens between people of different countries, religions, races, football teams, towns and familys. Its never going to be different i'm afraid.

 

[painted wolf]

humans feel the need to belong to a close knit 'special' group.
Thus there will always be an 'us' and 'them' attitude.

The curse of the social animal.

wa:do

 

[Petros]

Your picture of "us and them" is very broad. It also occurs within "believers" and separately within "non-believers".

The basis for the labels should never be due to differing thoughts but has some justification when a thought becomes action and risk of harm or oppression becomes real.

Pah, yes, this psychological positioning we take - using us and them as the defining basis of our fellow man is broad at times - more specific (within the subgroup - 'believers') at other times. The result is similar - we divide ourselves.
I don't quite understand your second comment. There's a rather thin thread separating thought and action - thoughts quickly turn to action as well - often in a destructive way. When my belief that you (the 'unbeliever') are less worthy (in any respect) than I (the 'believer'), because after all - 'God favors me', I have a justification for taking from you (land, weath, life itself). This is the origin of our violence and of war. That seems to me an obvious cycle.
Petros

 

[Petros]

This, my friend, is because of a basic aspect of human nature - we're tribal. We've always had an 'us and them' viewpoint and always will, it happens between people of different countries, religions, races, football teams, towns and familys. Its never going to be different i'm afraid.

Halcyon, you are too quick to conclude. Yes, this condition of us and them seems to be inevitable at one level but to conclude it will never change - is not correct. It has changed - but not by groups (that's an illogical situation - groups are necessarily separated), but at the individual level. Individuals have, can and do move away from this condition - thankfully. Further, this indivudual process is not one of isolating oneself but rather expanding the circle of us and them so that everyone and everything is in the circle - there becomes only the 'us'. It's not a dream or utopian ideal - there have always been those who live this way.
Petros

 

[Halcyon]

True there are those which move between groups, but often this leads to simply a transference of tribal identity. Of course there are individuals within populations who don't feel that strong connection to their peers which drives the tribal loyalty, i consider myself one of them - i do have a degree of loyalty but not like many of my friends, i am not a die-hard patriot of England i consider myself a patriot of Earth.


Saying that however, the majority of people do feel that tribal loyalty known as patriotism quite strongly, i have my doubts that that will ever be bred out of our species.

 

[Pah]

The basis for the labels should never be due to differing thoughts but has some justification when a thought becomes action and risk of harm or oppression becomes real.

...
I don't quite understand your second comment. There's a rather thin thread separating thought and action - thoughts quickly turn to action as well - often in a destructive way. When my belief that you (the 'unbeliever') are less worthy (in any respect) than I (the 'believer'), because after all - 'God favors me', I have a justification for taking from you (land, weath, life itself). This is the origin of our violence and of war. That seems to me an obvious cycle.
Petros

I am relying on the principle of freedom of speech and the innate right to our thoughts. While the line between speech and action is thin, it can be defined quite sharply. The example I like to use is of the speaker at a public park who detests a religion. If he were to say to the crowd in the park, "Let's go get'em" thats freedom of speech. If the crowd, while moving on the street toward a church or temple, bricks and bats not with standing, yells, "Let's go get'em", that is still freedom of speech. When the crowd is knocking at the door of the temple or church,bricks and bats now with standing, "Let's go get'em" becomes a threat and the action of speaking becomes hostile. Up to that point, the speech was protected by consitutional law. This scenario has many variations but freedom of speech is common and protected unless the listener feels, and the court agrees after the listener presents a heavy burden of proof, that the words can be classified as "fighting words".

I am addressing not what should be considered but what is law and with that I agree, in this case, wholeheartedly that the "should" should be for the broadest application of freedom.

Bob

 

[Lintu]

I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with "us" and "them." I think it's important to have an identity, and there's a few ways to do that. One is to think about what makes you similar to other people around you. The other is to think about what makes you different. This is not necessarily bad. I may be Jewish, but I don't think that there's anything wrong with Muslims, per se, even though they're "them" in terms of being a different religious group.

 

[SoliDeoGloria]

This, and not that people do not follow your or my religion or ideology is the cause of violence. It has always been the cause of violence and war and suffering. This is very obvious if one looks at it.

There are civil wars going on right now in Africa between people who have the same idealogy and religious beliefs and are simply over land because of the riches that can be gained from them. I'm sure people will try to draw idealogical differences in these situations but the core of the matter is pure human greed and nothing else. Wars like this have been going on for ages and those waging them have used idealogical and religious reasons to hide their true reasons becuase why should someone die just for someone else to get richer. you need better reasons to talk someone into dieing for you than that.

Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria

 

[Cordoba]

One thing would help to alleviate this problem:

To remember that we are all brothers and sisters in humanity.

Brothers have their disputes, that is normal, but we are all descendents from Adam and Eve.

 

[Engyo]

Buddhism does not look at us and them. All humans are capable of attaining enlightenment; some are practicing towards this and some are not, but this has no bearing on their respectworthiness. No truly practicing Buddhist would consider a non-practicing person differently than one who is practicing (outside of questions dealing with practicing Buddhism itself).

 

[Petros2]

I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with "us" and "them." I think it's important to have an identity, and there's a few ways to do that. One is to think about what makes you similar to other people around you. The other is to think about what makes you different. This is not necessarily bad. I may be Jewish, but I don't think that there's anything wrong with Muslims, per se, even though they're "them" in terms of being a different religious group.

Lintu, the problem is not that we have differences of culture - you eat different food, wear different closes and so forth. The problem has to do with when we identify with a certain ideology that differentiates or divides us in terms of valuation - either stated or implied. In other words, I am a member of a given class, nationality, race, or religion which has taught me from youth that our group is superior, smarter, approved by God, etc.. The other group (in whatever respect - belief system, behavior, genetics, etc) has ignored God, has inferior genetics, is dull, lazy, whatever. I will develop an ideology (nationalistic, religious) which favors or values my own group over yours. Most of us see and accept this as both understandable and even appropriate (as with nationalism).
In most places, this 'us' and 'them' mentality works without more difficulty than a trading of insults, descrimination, etc.. - very hurtful still. However, and taking a natural progression forward, most often when resources become slim (famine, overcrowding, lack of natural resources etc.), history shows that the differences between us and them become more pronounced. If I am more valuable to God or to the state, then I am justified in securing those limited resources however necessary - if at your peril, so be it. Hence, war, extermination, deportation, and so on results. Can you say that having any ideology is not potentially dangerous? It seems to me so. It is a slippery slope as they say.
The world has been at each other's throats for thousands of years with little indication that this will stop. You might say that people cannot live without ideologies. Well, we may not survive with them. When we recognize this problem - we drop ideology like a snake. It is done that way. The issue is how and when will we recognize the problem.
Petros