Is xenophobia and hatred of "those other people" ever going to end?

[DanTex]

I don't mean entirely, there will always be some. But I would have hoped that by now these things were no longer prevalent enough to force the UK out of the EU, and to make Trump a presidential contender.

It's heartening that on both sides of the Atlantic, young people are rejecting it. But overall, it seems to be getting worse, not better. Ugh.

[DemFromPittsburgh]

1. Some British white people don't want dark skinned people to live near them.

That's what I heard yesterday from many interviews with British white people.

[Buzz cook]

2. They hate white skinned foreigners as well.

Remember Archie Bunker was British before he came to the states.

[tonyt53]

3. It will only end when fear is eliminated. Fear drives everything today.

[Press Virginia]

4. Not as long as humans are the dominant species

Where it's not skin color it's religion or ethnic regions.

As long as the indigenous poor have to compete with low skilled immigrants for jobs, they will continue to resent immigrants, regardless of skin color.

[treestar]

5. It could end

each generation gets less and less attached to the idea of being part of a people that is self contained and every one else is "other."

[Igel]

13. Really?

What I see almost daily is a reduction in the attempt to be one nation in order to be part of a "community" that's often defined in opposition to or at least in contrast to another, often dominant group, but which is part of a person's core identity.

"I'm not like you, I'm like them, and they're my group, my community, my identity, and I'm going to even help alter my culture to be less like you." This started off with one or two groups, but it's even spreading to subsets of the dominant group in the US. Sometimes the core identity is race or ethnicity, sometimes religion, sometimes class, but it's most toxic when they're bundled--race + religion or race + class.

We often act or talk like this is a good thing, but the only example that has had this work over a fairly long span is Switzerland. In all other cases there are limited outcomes, not all acceptable:
--centuries of antagonism over any perceived advantage or beneficial distinction, with ways to reduce the advantages (think pogroms)
--assimilation, mostly to one culture but often mutual assimilation, sometimes voluntary but sometimes compelled
--war and often genocide or ethnic cleansing (the norm where small tribal groups are found)
--dictatorship, so that all the little groups are equally hard-up
--further subdivision of territory so that one group won't rule over another (but war and antagonism can still happen)

[lunatica]

6. Not as long as politicians keep stoking the hatred issues

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

7. Not as long as politicians can gain office by selling it.

[alc]

8. not while there are limited resources

I'm sure there's racial bias. But even if we can eliminate all racism, if "those other people" are getting housing, medical care, and other benefits while "we" feel we aren't getting what we should then "we" won't want more of "them".

I'm not using "we" as myself or you or DU. But in countries with LOTs of people depending on limited government services there will be a lot of "we" vs "them" hard feelings over how the services are spread around.

[Igel]

15. There's another bit of psychology involved, too.

If you are told "Try to do X, and if you do I'll give you $10" and you don't succeed, meh. Not a big deal, but it's a let down. Esp. if you think about it for a while, because then it starts to bleed into the next possibility.

If you are told, "Here's $10, take it--now try to do X and if you succeed you can keep the money" it's a different matter. If you fail, you'll object, find excuses and try to blame others. First, you're having money taken away; second, its your own failure that triggered this, and people don't like blaming themselves for anything, not seriously, but I digress. But in real terms these are the same thing, right? In terms of what's going on outside, sure. But in terms of what's happening in the subject's brain, not the same.

Giving up what you feel you already possess or believe you are owed is harder than not getting something you never felt you had in the first place.

So politicians always say about things that aren't possessed, owed, or even promised that "they're trying to take this away from you." They know that'll rile up their people, make them fight for what's theirs. Things like possible increases to benefits, possible projects or programs, some right or opportunity. If they make you feel like you already own it and then don't get it it's a completely different sensation from being told it was possible but didn't happen.

The young in Britain have been told that the Brexit will take things away from them. The working poor have been told that they'd have jobs and prosperity if not for some other group that they then resent. Even if it's unclear and they can't actually explain how their naturally prosperous state (said nobody ever) has been taken away, how the young had taken away opportunities some might have enjoyed 10 years from now after they've finished school, the politicians and demagogues have produced resentment.

It's clever manipulation, but it's still manipulation.

[Binkie The Clown]

9. It's burned into our genes.

In the distant past of man's prehistory, suspicion of, fear of, and hatred toward people "not of our clan" had a positive survival value. It kept the "other" off our hunting grounds, and simplified the job of identifying "stranger danger."

In those days someone from a different clan or tribe was a very real, and very significant danger to the survival of ourselves and our children. (Look at what happened to the tribes that "displeased god" in the Bible. They worshiped the wrong god, had the wrong culture, sang the wrong songs, or worst of all, had different color skin.)

It is human nature to flock together with those who are like us and fear those who are unlike us. (It should be safe for a black man to walk down a street in a white neighborhood. It should also be safe for a white man to walk down the street in a black neighborhood. In truth, neither is safe. Who bears the blame? Whites or blacks? Neither and both. It's just human nature.) It's a fatal flaw in human nature, and just another reason why the human race is a failed species headed for extinction.

[The2ndWheel]

10. If everyone can have everything they want/need, sure.

If we live on a finite planet, then no.

Access to energy makes people a little more quiet. It doesn't have much to do with young people, or Americans, Europeans, etc. If everyone can have everything they want and need, people will shut up. It may take a while, but people will slowly shut up. If they can't get it all, people get nitpicky and pissed.

When people have more, they care less about what other people are doing. Of course there's the wealthy people that want more for themselves, but people will listen less to them if they have what they need and want.

If 7+ billion people can all have what they need and want, we'll be golden. If 7+ billion people can't have all they want and need, we'll have problems.

[romanic]

11. Tribalism.

As the person before me said, humans are ingrained to stick to those who are like them. Whites with whites, blacks with blacks, Chinatown, Spainsh Harlem, etc.

At the end of the day, people will stick to thier groups based on color, nation or religion no matter how diverse you make thier surroundings. It is what it is.

[uponit7771]

12. no, but it can be made unnormal

[cherokeeprogressive]

14. Nnnnnnnnnnope.

[Beacool]

16. The irony is that the immigration that truly irked them was the free flow of other Europeans,

particularly from Eastern Europe. It wasn't so much about "brown" people. Although the Syrian refugee crisis was a tipping point.