Here's a disturbing thought. If human nature produced the atrocities of the last century, is it any less likely to produce atrocities in this one?
Is there any truth to the adage that those who don't learn from history are destined to repeat it? I certainly think so. History is there for the teaching, but sometimes it seems we're just too damn stupid to learn from it.
Human evolution has provided us with a series of survival emotions. We needed to be aggressive hunters so as to eat, and fearfully defensive so as not to be eaten. In the natural world the strongest and most aggressive alpha male got to eat first and choose the woman he wanted whether she liked it or not.
But the world is very different today and we are not always well-served by the same instincts that helped in the past. The fear of getting trapped in a cave protected cavemen and women from being attacked by predators. But today it makes a lot less sense to be afraid of modern-day equivalents of caves such as elevators, MRI machines and subways, yet many people feel claustrophobic in them.
Another form of evolution exists as well. It involves culture and education and it can often overcome basic human instincts.
Tribal thinking is a basic instinct that must be recognized as dangerous.
When there is plenty of food to go around all we have to do is wait in line at the grocery store. No need to club someone on the head and steal their wildebeest. Mating rituals have changed, too. We now attract mates by treating them with respect -- hopefully. Sure, we still use the old standbys of flexing muscles and displaying cleavage, but exerting physical force is no longer culturally accepted.
These changes do not come easily. They require constant vigilance. By seeing how natural instincts clash with our current reality we replace survival behaviours with a more orderly conduct. We educate each other. We create rules and laws. We develop societal habits. In short, we evolve a culture that benefits the greatest number of people and does the greatest good. Or at least that's what one would hope.
Uniting against a common enemy
Humans not only need to eat and not be eaten, they must also protect themselves from other humans. When food supplies are scarce we can be pretty sure others will try to attack us and steal ours. The tendency to unite and fight against a common enemy thus becomes as necessary an instinct as fearing a cave.
The sharpening of spears and the painting of faces makes sense in such a context. But does this is us-and-them thinking make any sense today? It may be funny when zealous fans paint their faces with team colours at a tailgate party, but it isn't so funny when defence departments spend billions on high-tech equivalents of modern-day spears.
Why do wars happen? The simple answer is that if human nature leads to conflicts between tribes in a primitive world, then human nature will continue to lead to conflicts between tribes in the modern world. Modern-day tribal equivalents include races, linguistic groups, countries and their subdivided regions, religions and their subdivided sects, political ideologies and all their subdivided iterations. There is no shortage of tribes to pick from. Just add water and you can produce a person who feels superior to, or slighted by, a member of the other tribe.
We travelled that road many times in the last century and always to a horrific destination.
We get so blinded by this tribal zeal that we support anything our side says or does. In sports your guys are always fair and the other guys are always either cheating, playing dirty or whining. We saw this in the last American election. Even avowed feminists supported and defended Donald Trump -- a man who sponsored beauty contests for years -- even after he bragged about groping women. There is no shortage of blinded loyalty to your side and that's the danger of identity politics. There is no more dangerous adage than, "My country. Right or wrong!"
Cogent arguments and a reasoned analysis of policies and facts take a backseat to dogma. What you say becomes irrelevant as long as you are wearing the right uniform, or speaking the right language, or wearing the right religious symbol. That's why the rise of identity politics is so disturbing. We travelled that road many times in the last century and always to a horrific destination.
Tribal thinking is a basic instinct that must be recognized as dangerous. Through an understanding of where we have come from and where we went wrong in the past, our culture can promote values to overcome basic instincts. Just like we fight against our innate aggressive instincts through our cultural values and laws, we can do the same to fight against this fundamental human tendency to tribalism.
It isn't so hard to promote the idea of respect for the individual, or the importance of judging people on their individual merits as opposed to the group symbol they represent.
So, are we destined to repeat history? Not necessarily. But if we keep playing in the minefield of identity politics, I fear the answer is yes.
Follow HuffPost Canada Blogs on Facebook
Also on HuffPost:
France's far-right National Front, Marine Le Pen, and candidate for the 2012 French legislative elections speaks as she campaigns for the party during a press conference in Henin Beaumont, northern France, Monday May 14, 2012. (AP Photo/Michel Spingler) France's anti-immigrant National Front was in parliament until 1986, when new rules made it harder for small parties to make it in. Its leaders, first Jean-Marie Le Pen and now his daughter Marine, have featured prominently in presidential elections and maintained a national following. Marine Le Pen came in a strong third place in presidential elections this month, earning more than 6 million votes, and is angling to get National Front candidates back in parliament in legislative elections next month. While Jean-Marie Le Pen has been convicted and fined a few times for racism and anti-Semitism, Marine Le Pen has sought to soften the party's message, and turned its anger toward what she calls the "Islamization" of France. Those ideas have entered the mainstream discourse, notably in former President Nicolas Sarkozy's push to ban face-covering Islamic veils and keep halal meat out of public cafeterias. He also made reducing immigration a pillar of his presidency.
The leader of Austria's far-right Freedom Party (FPOe), Heinz-Christian Strache (C) celebrates with his supporters on October 10, 2010 after municipal elections in Vienna. (DIETER NAGL/AFP/Getty Images) The right-wing Freedom Party consistently polls a close second in popularity to the leading Social Democrats, reflecting the resonance of its anti-immigrant, Euro-skeptic message. It counts the neo-Nazi fringe among its supporters and its leaders' occasional anti-Semitic comments are widely condemned by other parties. Its main draw with voters is Islamophobia. It holds 34, or 1.5 percent of the seats in parliament compared to the nearly 27 percent won in 1999. That result catapulted it into a government coalition - and led to EU sanctions against Austria. In response to their gains, the federal government has toughened asylum rules and introduced compulsory German courses for immigrants.
The leader of the Dutch Party for Freedom (PVV), Geert Wilders, casts his vote for the country's 12 provincial councils on March 2, 2011 in a school in The Hague as the PVV Senate leader Machiel de Graaf (L) smiles. (ROBIN UTRECHT/AFP/Getty Images) The Freedom Party of anti-Islam lawmaker Geert Wilders became the third largest bloc in the Dutch Parliament in 2010 elections with 24 seats. The result turned Wilders into a kingmaker who agreed to support the minority coalition of Prime Minister Mark Rutte on crucial votes in return for concessions such as a crackdown in immigration and a ban on the Islamic veil, the burqa. Wilders, a Euro-skeptic, brought down Rutte's government last month when he refused to support an austerity package aimed at cutting the country's budget deficit to within the EU norm of 3 percent of GDP.
Former Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi (R) flanked by former Alleanza Nazionale (National Alliance) Gianfranco Fini (L) gestures during their first party meeting at the Palalido on March 08, 2008 in Milan. (GIUSEPPE CACACE/AFP/Getty Images) The Italian Social Movement, which saw itself as the heir of Benito Mussolini's Fascist party, was Italy's fourth largest party in the decades after the war, gaining up to 6 percent in some cases. But mainstream parties refused any alliance with it so it was kept out of the postwar governing coalitions. It campaigned against immigration and sought tough law enforcement, and some fringe members were linked to right-wing violence. In the early 1990s it morphed into the National Alliance and under party leader Gianfranco Fini moved into the mainstream: It shed its hardline roots, decried anti-Semitism and Mussolini's racial laws, and became a major ally of ex-Premier Silvio Berlusconi. Fini had to pull back from a statement in a newspaper interview that Mussolini was one of the greatest statesmen of the 20th century.
Hungarian citizens wave flags during a demonsstration called by far-right parliamental party 'Jobbik' against European Union at European Union Parliament and Commitee headquarters in downtown Budapest on January 14, 2012. (FERENC ISZA/AFP/Getty Images) Hungary's Jobbik party - The Movement for a Better Hungary - won nearly 17 percent of the national vote in the 2010 parliamentary elections and is currently the second-largest opposition party in the legislature, behind the Socialists. Jobbik's popularity is highest in Hungary's northeast region, the country's poorest, and some of its support came from its pledge to fight what it calls "Gypsy crime." From 2009, uniformed groups closely tied to Jobbik, such as The Hungarian Guard, set up patrols in countryside villages to "protect" residents from Gypsies, but such activities have been banned under the current, center-right government of Prime Minister Viktor Orban. The Guard and several other such groups use some colors, slogans and symbols of the far-right nationalist parties of the 1930s, and its rhetoric is sometimes anti-Semitic, racist and anti-gay. Racist comments by Jobbik deputies have drawn condemnation from the rest of the parties and Orban's governing Fidesz party's two-thirds majority has allowed it to not make any concessions to Jobbik in the legislature. At the same time, some of the themes Jobbik promotes can also be found to a smaller or larger degree in Orban's policies.
Danish police clash with demonstrators supporting of a group of rejected Iraqi asylum seekers outside Brorsons Church in Copenhagen early on August 13, 2009. (Andreas Hagemann Bro/AFP/Getty Images) The anti-immigrant Danish People's Party is Denmark's third largest party and has pushed the country to adopt some of Europe's strictest immigration laws, leading to a drastic cut in the number of refugees seeking shelter there to just over 5,000 in 2011, from 13,000 in 2001. Last year, it also pushed through a plan to reinstate custom checks at Denmark's borders with Germany and Sweden. Both the European Union and Germany sharply criticized the move, with the EU accusing Denmark of violating the spirit of EU rules on free movement for goods and people.
Follow Camillo Zacchia, PhD on Twitter: www.twitter.com/CamilloZacchia