Can we be objective about tribalism?

The science of sociobiology, and its more politically correct version of evolutionary psychology, have made valiant inroads in trying to be objective about tribalism, or its newer term racialism, which they have found inherent in human nature, but the media and the academic world have mainly remained very emotional and nonobjective on this subject. This emotion is certainly understandable given the atrocities of WWII. But is it possible to ever be objective about this subject? Some have given up and remain silent on this subject believing it is impossible to be objective about these emotional things. Others soldier on, even when they are smeared by emotional opponents.

Tribalism and racialism have always been a very strong element of human nature, related directly to the group-bonding of altruism which created the basic ethics of all cultures. We have a world of many tribes, many regions, many states, loved by their citizens, and this is not a reversion to evil. All the attempts by various imperialistic and one-race totalitarians throughout history have not stopped it, including the recent, but now fading, “neoconservatism,” which has tried and failed to rid tiny Afghanistan of its tribalism-tied-to-religion.

The religious philosophy reflected upon in this blog attempts to speak to higher religious elements regarding the evolution, and future evolution, of all tribes, which necessarily has a political element, because we are all evolving to Godhood by way of non-abstract sociobiological dynamics, and this necessarily includes politics. We do not need to, and should not, try to break up tribes or make the world all one tribe, this is not good for real evolution which requires separate variety, and is impossible in any case, as human history has shown. We need to look for ways to synthesize and harmonize real human nature with culture. For example, this is the basis for my affirming the original American Constitution, that is, the separation of powers, many small states and regions, which need to have their independence protected, in this case, by a light federalism. 

Can we be objective about these things? I will certainly try to be.