Respected sir, I don't think (I wish, I could be wrong), sadly, it (removal of hatred) is not possible in near future. Around the globe, people have internalized these hatred against some particular ethnicities; ....as this hatred has been generated systematically....

Stopping regional imbalance of development and respecting the culture difference among people.

Stopping regional imbalance of development and respecting the culture difference among people.

Promoting unity among people like what late Nyerere did in Tanzania. He introduced a neutral language Swahili. People were forced out of their birthplaces. It takes time to achieve.

Ethnic antipathy and later hatred develop when "strangeness" is at the same time perceived as an attack on one's own identity. Mostly it is about fears that the group of others could be an economic or social threat to one's own freedom or way of life.

It is a virtual certainty we are NOT "going to get rid of hatred on the basis of ethnicity." Indeed, I wonder why the question is just limited to "on the basis of ethnicity?" If it is possible to get rid of any form of hatred, why not ask about getting rid of all forms of it?

What people chose to believe, hate, fear, or even love, is ultimately a matter of individual, personal choice. Further, many technical, political and economic trends which influence social choices probably make it more likely more people will make negative choices rather than positive ones. While it is common to blame partisan rhetoric by populists and nationalists, most of this blame amounts to pouring gasoline onto a pile of smoldering embers. It INCREASES the political divide, and the sense that traditional identity is threatened. At the same time, it downplays very real risks. One reason there is power in racist (or anti-religious, or nationalist) ideology is that there is some legitimacy to some of the concerns voiced by advocates. Total denial only increases division and reduces any prospect for political or social compromises. The saying "when you point a finger at me, there are three other fingers pointing back at you" is partially valid. It isn't entirely that the problem lies with "other" people. Rather, surprisingly often, some of the problem lies in our own attitudes, assumptions, choices and behaviors. To that degree, part of the answer lies in changing ourselves.

If a problem is entirely someone else's fault, then we are helpless victims of their behaviors. To the degree a problem is our fault, we at least have the power to address that part of the problem. IF we are willing to be self-critical and to change our habits. And if WE are not willing to do that, on what basis can we ask (never mind expect) others to do such a thing? Remember, your most effective tool for persuasion is the example you personally set. Also, it is unlikely anyone is going to respect a behavior (for example, being self critical) you yourself are unwilling to put into practice.

Many people are in less than ideal social situations. And those of us who are not are lucky, even if we are also wise. I live in what is probably the most diverse city in the world, where the social norms are we do NOT associate on the basis of ethnicity. No zip code has a majority population. Because we are all mixed up, we know each other, work together, play together, worship together, and actually like each other. We are constantly mystified by the problems other parts of the country and world seem to have. Yet we too have individuals who chose to isolate themselves from our community norm. It isn't just about ethnicity, however. At the moment I know someone who is upset about religion. He believes that all Roman Catholics are personally child-molesters, and certainly bound to go to Hell. It turns out, he has a serious mental illness, but in this era in this country, we do not isolate such people (as once would have happened). So he is free to disrupt public services, and being less than stable, might do something more than just be disruptive. For which reason, I am trying to get him some pro-active treatment. But in my state, there is no intervention law - it is only possible to intervene if one has compelling evidence of immediate tangible danger to someone (or to oneself). But the battle for a more civil polity (or world) is truly an individual fight. What hope there is lies in your personal choices. Both in the sense of what you allow yourself to believe, what assumptions you have (and perhaps do not subject to review), what example you set and what problem you don't do anything about (or even notice).

The silver lining is that you do have the potential to make better choices. So does everyone else. Become more aware, more self-aware, more wise, more encouraging and less divisive. In particular, be more pro-active about people with problem behaviors and attitudes that are potentially divisive. At a minimum, insure individuals with problems are identified and reported to appropriate institutions. To the extent social institutions can function, they need information to have a chance to perform their missions. Be part of the "glue of civilization" which insures they have the information they need.

I will end with the first sentence of the basic US Marine military police training program as taught over half a century ago. Utterly different from what I expected, this program is 99% psychology of the sort taught to nurses, nuns and schoolteachers. The program begins with: "Words are your first, fifth and fifteenth line of defense." They combine teaching a little known axiom "any problem faced tends to diminish, any problem ignored tends to get worse" with principles like modeling (no matter what, speak slowly and rationally - it simply feels 'wrong' not to react in a similar way) and expectation fulfillment. These are powerful tools I have used for decades. If you cannot often influence events far away, you truly can influence events where you live. Insure you are part of the solution rather than part of the problem.

Lawrence Trevethan

All kinds of hatred definitely sir. But I focused on what we in the Middle East are paying dearly for. Millions of people are homeless, states have completely collapsed, the fate of future generations has become in the abyss

Unfortunately, in the last 25 years there has been an increase in hatred of society and its institutions, not least in Europe, which on the one hand strengthens right-wing and left-wing radical positions and on the other tends to violence and murder.

Hein Retter

Yes Sir, Many of the causes of ethnic hatred remain linked to past conflicts, or even illusions and myths. I do not understand how a 21st century man thinks this way

In my view, "the other" and "different" as an idea with negative connotations is an ancient and traditional point of view in almost all languages and cultures. Consider Gentiles (Jewish), Infidels (Arabic), Fraki (Finnish) - the list is long.

The very pace of change is threatening for many. As well, I have heard (among the young in particular) the very idea of borders of any sort, or of a nation, is obsolete. The implications of NOT being willing to have secure borders (an attitude widely promoted outside of government) are threatening, and not just to traditionalists. They ought to be threatening to truly liberated minds. If you have no idea who is crossing the border, you have no control of anything at all: not of smuggling of illegal drugs, of arms, of human trafficking, of nuclear materials, name it. Today there are more displaced people than at any time since 1945. The sheer scale of it overwhelms institutions. The consequences of excessive LEGAL immigration have been so severe that Sweden, for example, needs an order of magnitude more police than it has soldiers (which, unwisely, is only two regiments, both needing 60 days to mobilize, both entirely green). It was a bad mistake to see the problems of the Mideast as "not really our problem" so there was no need to invest in messy, expensive interventions and just the band-aid of accepting refugees would somehow be good enough. We all have a stake in the outcome, and there is no way to escape entirely from the consequences of major disorders, even in other countries. It is rational to feel threatened because we all are threatened, in greater or lesser degree. Some people cope better under pressure than others do. Problems ignored tend to get worse. Problems faced tend to be mitigated. Facts of life.

Some things I think most of us got wrong in the world of policy and statecraft was too much respect for democracy, and too little respect for order. The Arab Spring was not a blessing, never mind the assumptions which greeted it in news media, in academia and in many popular social media platforms. Civilization can survive in a less than democratic state, and sometimes even thrive (see Singapore). It dies in a failed state (see Somolia a generation ago, or the Yemen today). I was too idealistic and had too little respect for the "old hands" in the State Department and in the Defense Department who said I should not be too quick to trade a dictator or oligarchy for a failed state. They were more right than I was.

I have decided it is time to become more visible and to deliberately educate at every opportunity. We can, should and ultimately must do better at getting along. We share a single planet, and we have a stake in good order, and in human conditions, in all parts of it. However, it is also in my view a fools errand to ignore basic conditions on the ground. Afghanistan is tied for last place as suitable for nation building. I was unhappy with the fate of Vietnam, particularly in terms of the fate of its people. I note they are STILL ruled by the same communist dictatorship, one that now rules four former countries as an empire. [North and South Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia]. So I understand the anguish of Colin Powell who forced the US and NATO to stay in Afghanistan "on humanitarian grounds." But war is NOT a humanitarian activity. More than 100,000 died in Kabul in the last year, over 10,000 of them children - the worst on record. This war is NOT being won in spite of a great investment in treasure, and it is wrong to think it could be won in less than generations, or on the cheap without a major army of occupation. We cannot hope to build a civil society where no modern nation state ever has existed, or where too many people are devoted to thousand year old social norms which include slavery, ownership of wives, children and servants, and without any meaningful concept of due process. I belong to the only organization investing in rebuilding infrastructure in Syria as IS is driven out: how can people go home with no water supply, no power, no functional roads and no usable buildings (which is the case in many towns, districts and even cities)? I hate Assad and his regime, but he may well be better than a failed state is. I think the most functional social group around is the Kurds, but THEY want a country with territory in Turkey, Iran, Iraq AND Syria. There is no path to that which is going to be acceptable to any of those nations. Who gets to play God and impose that on all of them, and who is going to pay for the effort? I cannot bring myself to say we ought to be doing that, never mind the Kurds probably would be better off if someone did. Consider Palestine (the old, British territory, or the Ottoman Province - Israel, Jordan and the Palestinian proto-state combined). There is no easy way to sort out that mess with all sorts of historical causes. Nothing short of a foreign army of occupation is likely to succeed. And no such army would be locally acceptable, nor affordable by even the richest of nations. Palestinians (writ large, including Israeli's and Jordanians) MUST learn how to forge a set of political compromises. We can perhaps help. But only when THEY want to do that. There is no use advocating for any single point of view, however valid. We all share one planet. Palestinians (residents of the old Palestine) share a single formerly Ottoman territory. Until and unless there is a general ethic that we need to get along and be civil, we won't do that. I, at least, think it is time to start saying so.

Create work environments that bring different religions together. For example the World Institute of Advancement of Science. If this has centers in each country, then there will be unity through a common cause. There is no unifying cause that keeps us together as humans but science.

Hatred of another ethnic group always arises when its "strangeness" is experienced as a threat to one's own identity. Fears for economic reasons, which create prejudices, are added and create a climate of social coldness. Rarely are both groups equally strong, usually one group is dominated by another.

Michael Mark Anthony I completely agree with you

Hein Retter

In many cases, it is not anxiety and fear that increases hatred among ethnic groups. But can be due to obvious exploitation relationships. Not because of an ethnic or ideological position. To the extent that the ethnic variable is one of the independent variables in determining the composition of classes in the Middle East. This is what I found through a study on the middle class in the Arab world that I published in 2013

The history of democracy towards popular sovereignty has produced various traditions and, albeit limited, even learning processes. I believe that even a state whose constitution gives the head of state and government relatively much power in order to minimize unstable conditions must introduce corrections if the state leadership acts undemocratically.

I don't think the primary problem in statecraft is generally the aggressive behaviors of democracies. To ignore the elephant in the room is unwise. Statist regimes and empires are often very aggressive.

To blame much on "controlling" world powers is impossible to prove or even demonstrate convincingly, not least because there's not much there. Really, did anybody profit from terrible events in former Yugoslavia or Rwanda? And even if you could show this, then what?Who knows what you do about it.

I would look more at internal factors among the ethnic gangs. What d you think of this as a possibly more fruitful hypothesis: Murderous ethnic conflict is the product of ambitious people ("leaders"), usually men within the aggressive groups, who see ethnic war as a career choice, offering them an eventual palace (or a califate), or at least the opportunity to exercise sociopathic aggression.

Such an approach facilitates data gathering and the production of insights for the "real world" from the academic research. Best of luck to you.

There is entirely too much focus here on deliberate aggression. While the world does not lack for conspirators, it is very unusual to find effective conspiracies to any purpose. Individuals, organizations, nations and associations of nations do try to influence events for their own ends, good, bad and not particularly important. These attempts all interact in several domains to produce a complex vector sum of events. Where the resultant (the formal name for the point of the vector sum) moves is often impossible to predict, and not mainly the outcome of any given plan, policy or intention.

What has changed is that it is easier for people to find each other, and to find information about many things. But this has changed across the board. If it makes some more effective at plotting nasty things, it has made those who resist them more effective as well. We are not addressing the stated problem in a meaningful way. At least I was skeptical that we could up front. Can we?

My answer, such as it is, is to set a good example, and to advocate for positive things, always in a civil way.

As an aside, this forum is uncommonly civil for this era. Never mind it is extremely diverse. My compliments to all for making it so.

Well hate is a problem related to mutuel perceptions and thus to misperceptions issues. The constructivist/identity approach of International Relations provide some tools to analyse conflicts through this specific angle. The consideration of History is here also highly relevant. For example, you cannot understand the anti-Western feelings of Iranian society and political regime without considering the roots of the history between Iran and the West which are to be found in the Great Game period. A same approach is relevant to analyse the perception of the Muslim world to the West. Hate is rooted in ignorance which will remain a factor of human nature for long but it doesn't mean that the problem must no be struggled.

Hate is irrational. [I want to say the "period" at the end of that sentence out loud. There is no mitigation for hate. If you allow yourself to hate, you are inside an mental trap that must have unfortunate consequences, both for you and for others.] Note, however, hate need not be based on ethnicity.

If you wish to reduce the number of people who fall into this trap, start teaching both formal logic and any sort of coping skills. [First aid, firefighting, infantry combat, literally anything works. A person trained in ANY coping skill does well in a situation EVEN IF NOT related to the type of training they have taken.]

The US Marines, which taught "military" skills to sailors in my day (not the case today), taught us that coping with misbehaviors discovered during military police patrols, rioters or ground combat was best managed "cold." The focus was on discipline to prevent any sort of emotional process to interfere with proper analysis and decision making. Surprisingly, in four different schools (survival school, shore patrol school, brig chaser school and landing party school) there was much focus on psychology as well as on discipline and rational decision making. I have found those skills useful for more than half a century in a wide variety of situations. Teaching coping skills may be effective not only for individuals, but because it has a more general impact on society. The best way to "teach" is to set an example. If you do the rational thing in a situation, people will notice, and perhaps be inspired to follow your example.

Thomas Blau

I think that in the history of the struggle between the great powers of the world, we have such beneficiaries of hatred between ethnic groups.

The ethnic conflict in the Middle East is an example and an application to this.

Lawrence Trevethan

I totally agree with you in this phrase. These attempts all interact in several domains to produce a complex vector sum of events. Where the resultant (the formal name for the point of the vector sum) moves is often impossible to predict, and not primarily the outcome of any given plan, policy or intent. We hope that the communication revolution will overcome this great mystery, so that we can know the culprits and determine responsibility

Vincent Eiffling I agree with you in this phrase: Hate is rooted in ignorance which will remain a factor of human nature for long but it does not mean that the problem must not be struggled. But not only ignorance. We also have false religious beliefs. We have injustice and inequality between those who hate each other, especially if one of the parties was one of the former colonial powers.

The conflicts in the world only really started at the beginning of the new century, that can only get worse. There is no improvement in sight.

• The "Prague Spring", which ended in October 1968 with the invasion of Soviet troops, was a great disappointment for the inhabitants of the GDR, but not an "ideological weapon".

Fateh Boutekkouk

Thanks for your statement. I think that is a good basis for mutual understanding in peaceful intention.

سؤال مثير للجدل. اعتقد ان الكراهية العرقية متجذرة نتيجة لما تم النشوء عليه ولكن مايذكيها أو يشعل نيرانها بين فترة وأخرى هو مخططات القوى العظمى controversial question. I believe that ethnic hatred is rooted in what has been created, but fueled or ignited from time to time by the great powers

There is no need for hatred, many people have no purpose in life.

If each one of us makes the effort, it will happen!

Actual hatred is irrational, regardless of circumstances. It serves no useful purpose for either individuals or nations. Some regimes, driven by extreme nationalism or religious zealots, may from time to time cynically exploit hatred, but I am not aware of "great powers" doing this in this century (or the late 20th century). Professional staff in every great power would argue against it. As well, I don't think world conflicts generally are CAUSED by hatred. Victims of conflicts may (unwisely) go down that road and often make conflicts worse than they otherwise need have been.

I don't think there is a policy which can "get rid of" hatred. It is an individual choice in every instance. But policy could reduce the number of people who are victims of conflicts of various kinds, and it could forbid official communications of kinds that will inflame passions. Great powers and lesser powers also could be more realistic about toleration of conflicts. It is not in their interests to permit the largest number of refugees and economic migrants since the end of WW2 - but they ARE facilitating - or at least not effectively opposing - conflicts which have caused both to happen. Basically all nations have a stake in a more civil world order, and it is actually not cost effective to ignore those conflicts. It is also not human policy. One may not claim to respect human rights and at the same time ignore these conflicts. Expensive as it may be to deal with them, it is more expensive to let them rage with no end in sight. But suffer no illusion that there can be a total end to conflict. It can be mitigated by wise policy, not prevented altogether. Nations and groups not actually nations have conflicts of interests which will naturally result in conflicts of the physical kind from time to time in various places. Policy should strive to minimize such things at reasonable cost. It can't do more than that.