It’s the discrimination version of the world’s largest choose your own adventure book.
So, when someone wants to feel better, or even objectively have it better, the easiest way to do it is to make sure there is someone else having it worse nearby.
And doing that all the time based off fuzzy, changeable things like merit is a lot of work. Or even worse, something that someone has to do all the time or maintain, like results or wealth.
Both for the downtrodden trying to improve their station, and the ones ‘on top’ trying to keep them down.
Much more stable to systematize it, and use things like permanent labels on entire family lines, eh? And bonus points if you can do it in a fine grained enough way, that essentially everyone has someone lower than them to shit on.
Then all anyone has to do is exist, and push the buttons provided for them. Easy peasy.
In-group, Out-group Theory at play
So it’s a good sign of long, well established, and ingrained discrimination, eh? With associated infrastructure to make it easier to continue, and ‘fairer’ in that it allows almost everyone to have someone under them to take their own angst out on. (Except those ‘outside the system’ anyway, which historically were the Dalits, but now even they are in the system eh?)
Yes, that's what I am saying. In- and out-groups are made contextually in each unique situation.
> So it’s a good sign of long, well established, and ingrained discrimination, eh? With associated infrastructure to make it easier to continue, and ‘fairer’ in that it allows almost everyone to have someone under them to take their own angst out on. (Except those ‘outside the system’ anyway, which historically were the Dalits, but now even they are in the system eh?)
Can't understand what you're trying to say here.
Why create new groups when you have proven and well trod ones handy to choose from?