Identifying with Groups, Judging Those in Others

When I was in my very early years of elementary school, my teacher for whatever reasons of her own decided to play a little sociology game on us...although we were thoroughly clueless as to what was going on.  Her idea was to find out which state in the country we came from, from which she would assign the designation "Yankee" or "Rebel".  Having been born in Georgia, I discovered that I was a Rebel...and quickly became quite proud of that label...without having any idea as to what it meant other than that I was consequently against the Yankees (and better than them).  Those who were Yankees took their assigned name proudly as well, and we all went around for several minutes boasting how much better our side was than the "other" side.  This arbitrary assumption of labels and then assigning virtue or contempt to people by which labels they have assumed is a natural symptom of the human condition...but we like to pretend it isn't.  So in politics we attach ourselves to a particular party label and then make excuses for our side when they are in power while vilifying those in the opposing party in the most personal and hateful manner...just because they have a different perspective on things. Maybe the passion of adhering to a certain system of beliefs and principles figures into it to a degree, and I'm sure that people get very politically passionate when they perceive that a particular special interest of theirs may be at stake...but I'm inclined to believe it has more to do with the feeling of belonging to a designated group and automatically wanting to put down other differing groups...because they are the perceived enemy on the outside. 

It doesn't have to be politics, though...maybe someone looks a little different.  We blindly abide by the artificial categories of "race" to classify folks by looks and then get proud and defensive of whichever "race" we think we belong to.  Religion, economic status...whatever division we make, there will be an assigning of sweeping attributes that have little to do with the usually limited  parameters of the categories in question.  Just look at the last presidential election and how the two sides sized each other up: one side says the other are a bunch of moochers who want more "stuff" from the government, while the "flip" side regards the other as either being bigoted or greedy (or both).  And of course the leaders of each side get lambasted for all sorts of character defects by the other side, accusations that are more often than not gross exaggerations if not outright falsehoods.  Look at President Barack Obama and New Jersey Governor Chris Christie right now.  Both are being accused of being dictators, which is hardly the truth, and the accusers are folks who identify with the opposing party. How convenient for them.

Whether we're talking about politics, racial-ethnic identification, gender, religious affiliation, level of wealth and/or education, age, or other categories, why can't we confine our judgments regarding people who seem to belong to different groupings to those aspects that actually pertain to the grouping and refrain from making sweeping condemnations against their character, intelligence, and motives?  Well, I sadly think I already know the answer: it is our innately human tribal, clannish nature along with a deplorable stubborn unwillingness to put ourselves in the other's shoes and try to see where they're coming from...