Replies

Ethnocentrism only works in societies with strong ethics. Almost exclusively modern western nations.

For example, when a modern western nation has an enclave of a minority group, perhaps a ghetto, the people of the western nation are *able* to judge that minority group.

They do so *not* by the “best and brightest” of that minority, but both by the bad behavior of its “worst and stupidest”, *and*, importantly, how that minority treats its “worst and stupidest” who misbehave.

When the minority has criminal offenders that abuse the majority, yet the minority *rejects* these offenders and condemns them loudly, and offers them up for punishment by the majority, that minority group is seen as being of good character and good members of society.

If, however, the minority excuses and rationalizes the bad behavior of its offenders, expresses no regret to the victims, claims victimization by the majority as an excuse, and seeks to hide and help the offenders, the *entire* minority group is judged by the majority as being of poor character, not a good part of society, and not to be trusted.

This is a reasonable use of ethnocentricity.

However, in less modern, eastern nations, ethnocentricity takes on the bad characteristics of xenophobia, prejudice, bigotry, inequality before the law, and persecution of minorities.

An important distinction needs to be made between equality before the law, equal opportunity, and foolish efforts to force equality and equality of outcomes.

Again in western nations, equality before the law and equal opportunity are not static things, but dynamic ones. There are no minorities that do not have to continually demonstrate their good character to be seen as good. Society as a whole reserves the right to change its judgment of a minority if it changes its behavior for better or for worse.

Equality or equality of outcomes has no real possibility, however, because they are static things that do not last, even if briefly achieved.