Black culture developed for way more reasons than just simple in group/out group theory. And it's not an internet thing either. As much as it would be easy to label all this stuff as just 'humans being humans', you're missing a whole lot of social and cultural historical context for the trees my man.
Nothing develops
just due to in/out group theory. It's simply an explanation of human behaviour that can often be observable, and it's observable in the animal kingdom. That might be a problem for some if they do not believe in evolution, but that's another argument for elsewhere, evolution is fact. It's also behaviour which is observable across all walks of life, not even explicitly race (which you've focussed on). The theory is to do with anywhere grouping can form, and how people within those groups may feel or behave. I illustrated feelings and wanting to be a part of groups is entirely healthy and normal, where it can go wrong is when people oppress/get violent/discriminate. My post isn't negative at all, it is simply aiming to be explanatory for anyone with incredibly primitive understandings of socialisation and any sorts of grouping. Some genuinely believe any sort of in-group behaviour is by nature hostile/negative/abusive/derogatory/discriminatory, when it's not that simple. Ironically
for the reason you've just said to me!
The remark about the internet was just because we're on the internet, and even if you live on an island with a population of 100 people you can observe behaviour online with not too many clicks of your mouse. There are topics on this board I wouldn't contribute to as I don't feel like I'm part of the group they are catering for. That doesn't make me personally feel excluded, hostile, angry or resentful. Why should it? Anyone with a decent understanding of why their identifiable traits/personality/hobbies are
excluded at times in life should be absolutely fine sitting out
some things. It's not that you actually have a restriction to posting/contributing/taking part, it's just many people in life understand and accept some things aren't aimed at them as they are some times part of the out-group.
You can offer up some daft examples like people who don't like football aren't part of the in-group for a football discussion. People who don't own an Xbox aren't part of the in-group for Xbox discussions. People who don't ride horses aren't part of the in-group for horse riding discussions. Most people can accept those realities and never say a word, it's all about hobbies or what electronic goods are under your TV. Fanboyism and tribalism around brands/companies are more a joke than anything to take seriously. When you move onto more heartfelt identifiers, like someone's sex, race, ethnicity and even religion, it gets more people paying attention/alarmed. Understandably. There haven't really been any massacres throughout history to do with horse riding. Some of the worst death tolls since our planet has been a thing have been to do with racial, ethnic or religious bloodshed. When it gets to points where an in-group as a large enough collective decide violence/bloodshed and worse is the acceptable outcome to wipe out any other groups who do not identify as they do. I get all of that, accept it, and understand. What my original post was trying to do however was show nearly everyone still feels and thinks about in-group preferences around sex, race, religion and so on, and it doesn't instantly mean "shit, we've got fundamentalists/supremacists/evil people here". To be relevant to this topic, "all these people with x identifier are y". That is just scientifically ludicrous.
In part, it's about how you handle such socialisation you get hit with from birth, and how you try to integrate and co-exist with any out-groups to your identifiers such as other races/ethnicities/sex. Treat people as human beings, treat them as individuals and learn to deal with socialisation that may encourage you to stick solely to your group/tribe. People do not get to choose their sex, race, ethnicity and so on like a Fallout 4 creator prompt at birth. Religion is the only one of the big traits you do get to choose, but even then religion often is formed because of your parents raising you from birth into whatever religion they are part of. Even with being an upstanding citizen yourself, you may
still have in-group preferences with some things in life, where you understandably take part in friendships/groups/hobbies/interests or whatever it is with people you identify with that have similar traits to yourself. Due to all these complexities around socialisation/in&out groups, simply blaming
everyone with an identifier they had no control over at birth is taking a hacksaw to issues that require a scalpel. EviLore saying "everyone is racist" to me was more attempting to lead into discussions around socialisation and possible in/out group theories. It could maybe be changed to "everyone is discriminatory"
if we want to talk about the scientific understanding of what they word discriminatory can mean (the ability to distinguish between different stimuli, such as your in and out group differentiating themselves on different stimuli). That to me is probably the scalpel knife approach to trying to scientifically explain some of what this model may have been hitting out at, except she has used the hack saw method. Hence why I quoted him. He can, of course, come back and say I'm off the mark and misunderstood him.
The last quick note I want to say is I'm not stating biological essentialism either. The fact humans have the level of intelligence we do is precisely what helps the vast majority of people challenge socialisation, grouping, tribalism and other biological/evolutionary groundings. I sometimes side eye people too keen to launch into the "everything is a social construct" realm because no, that's intellectually dishonest. We need to have serious and grounded talks about biology, evolution and psychology first. I do however as any respectable person in the fields of science accept humans SHOULD be expected to try and overcome some of our more primitive legacies when it comes to only catering for our "own group" and being hostile/aggressive to societal change/inclusion/progression. It's in our own interests and desires as a species not to be as dumb and vicious as some of the animal kingdom, and to try and live in harmony and get on with our fellow humans no matter what identifies them.