Because we form groups, and altruism works within groups. Oxytocin rules.
As soon as you see a group boundary form, you're going to see people helping (or at least protecting) those inside that group. You're also going to see people thinking their group is better--else why belong to that group if you can change sides? And with that and normal life demands you're going to see that group expect to get a bigger piece of the pie.
Collaborative groups tend to think there's more than 100% of the product. So if you're in a research group or most other groups and ask individuals how much they contributed, the total contribution from all members usually averages 135-140% of what was produced. No reason not to expect that to be true of how groups view their contribution to the whole, either.
With denial of credit, "dignity", and stuff--esp. if the status quo changes or if there's perceived injustice there's going to be conflict. In Papua New Guinea the genocide rate per century was something like 30%, as groups extirpated each other. If groups see themselves as members of the same group, a lot of soc research from the '90s shows, you get a lot more cross-(old-)boundary altruism and less resentment and fewer tussles. Iraq and Jugoslavija were fine when all were equally oppressed. Afghanistan had a "jihad" in the '50s and '60s with a Taliban-like mullah and the reason probably resulted from having the social status of two Pakhtun clans change; many of the more reprehensible events--forcing a girl to marry outside her clan, execution, etc.--boils down to this kind of thing. Resources, pride, dignity, power, all reside at the group level, and if you need to swap females to restore power and dignity, or have some people killed, hey--that's altruism. One giving up something for the good of the group. (Might not be a consequence of altruism that we like, but reality and human behavior doesn't cater to our Western educated ideologies and whims. Just ask Lenin why his Revolution, creating all the right conditions, flopped, and he'd have to respond "saboteurs"; same for Stalin and his New Soviet Man, and Mao's cultural revolution. We can't be wrong, our group is good and wise and pure, so some invisible outsiders must be to blame.)
As soon as group boundaries in the US started to be consciously eradicated in the '60s, group boundaries started to be consciously drawn and strengthened by others who suddenly realized they'd be the same sized fish in a much large pond. Why they thought this was a good idea in anything but a self-serving way is a mystery, but after 50 years of it it's where we are.
Its first real contribution to US politics was the Religious Right, as a formerly un-formed group formed up. Formation of one group identity leads to formation of more groups. We've seen complaints here that part of "white privilege" is the feeling that you're not part of a group, but whites have formed various groups with well defined boundaries. As is usual, this most often has bad consequences. Asking for more group boundaries, the net effect of societal balkanization and the loss of social trust that's occurred in the last 40 years, is not a sound or wise policy. Yet that's exactly what we want as long as it helps us ... our group.
Ponder that.
= new reply since forum marked as read
