Would not prejudice and bigotry still exist if you reduced the planet to one nationality?

No. I would come down to money and/or genitalia size then.

^ Then it digresses to a caste system? Everyone trying to dress to the nines to be better than those wearing off the rack?

Of course it would persist.
Men would still oppress women, straights would still oppress gays, poor people would still be subjugated by the rich, christians would still oppress non christians, and fat people would eat the last remaining thin people.

And non-Christians would still oppress Christians.

And beavers would still oppress ducks.

^^ It need not be reduced to one race for that, but if there were just one race, that is the only thing that would be a dividing element or device? Or that was the only one you could think of in the moment?

The Beavers rest, your Honor.

There will always be something to divide people to those determined to find reasons to oppress.

@Blondesjon Why? Are they tired or something?

There are many that will argue we’re all one race already, we just like to point out each other’s differences.

I don’t know what one nation has to do with it. There is plenty of racism within the existing borders already, make the world borderless you probably have even more racism.

They have stars upon thars.

@janbb . . . pssst! you’re geisel is showing!

Seuss it is!

Never fear – human beings will always come up with a reason to hate one another. If it’s not race/nationality it’s religion, politics, class, etc.

One nationality or RACE?

Do you mean to one ”commonality”? I’d have to say that we’re about 300 years off of an answer to that question.

IF the human race survives (and that’s a BIG “if”), there will always be castes and conditions, IMO.

We are animals, and there’s always an alpha.

People frequently engage in this sort of parlor game fantasy about a world where everybody is looked upon as totally the same.

Except nobody is exactly the same as somebody else, and human sensory abilities and conceptual organization skills are more discriminating than will ever permit making the conclusion.

So there will always be a difference, however slight, and human beings will always be aware of it, and they will act accordingly based on some values “system”, which is always a little fluid since human conceptual consciousness is subject to fallibility. This is because not all human beings accept the same moral responsibility towards a disciplined epistemology as others. So until their is an objective epistemology, the answer is “no”.

There is an old British adage about the Irish. Bear with me. It goes that if the Irish had no one else to fight, they would fight among themselves. And it is true. It is true because it is true of all of us. It is one of those many base urges we must not succumb to in order survive the post-nuclear age.

Predudice is what keeps the human race moving forward. We would LIKE to calm it to only friendly competitions, but that is just impossible. We have the need to be supreme. That is where the drive to achieve is harbored. If we listened only to our drive for survival, there would be so much less accomplished. When we see fault in another, it is the defining of ourselves, and so comes the effort to be greater than that other. In an effort to be greater than another, we better ourselves. So far, we have not perfected an ability to better ourselves without finding faults within another. Casualties occur, certainly, but in all things there are weakness, which usually ends in destruction. The planet has fault lines, so do precious gems. Every species, plant or animal has weak elements which succomb to hazards. We see the situation more sharply only because we ARE superior to other creatures.
It has always been, shall always be, and the best we can hope for is fewer casualties.

@Michael_Huntington No, that is just how Oregonians are..

@Espiritus_Corvus There is also an old British adage that states that the Wheelbarrow is mans greatest invention because with it the British were able to teach the Irish to walk on their hind legs.

Hitler thought he was doing the best thing for his country. Didn’t turn out all that good, did it?

But really, that guy was just an asshole. The problem is human nature I think. Say anarchy takes place, that is, where there is no longer any authority or rule to go by. People will do what they can to survive.
So, this is anarchy. I’m going to kill you, just because I can. But you will defend yourself, and kill me. Because you have to, otherwise you die. So, after I’m dead you go, dude, I better team up with other people so that I can better protect myself against things like what just happened. Then you form a group. Lay down some rules. Then it all goes downhill from there, as your faction grows. I don’t think I need to explain how. Doesn’t matter what race all the people in your faction are, whether all different or the same. Shit’s gonna hit the fan until someone brings the hammer down. And then it’s even worse, no? That is, unless you think totalitarianism is something ideal. If you’re lucky, your group will just disperse. (but then a whole buncha Symbelines are gonna kill you)

Look at every single country, culture and the histories. War is not a stranger anywhere. If it ain’t civil war, it’s all out country VS country war. Sometimes I think to myself, do people even need a reason to kill each other? Patriotism may make people stick together, at least for a while, but that is just a byproduct of people being cunts, and it never really works, anyway. Just a washed up idea that, like a zombie, rears its ugly head every now and then because people always need a fucking reason for everything.

’‘plays trumpet in the middle of the night’’

This answer will probably be modded, but that’s the stupidest fucking thing I’ve ever heard.

I’ll assume you are really asking whether or not prejedices or stereotyping would still exist if everybody shared either racial, ethnic, religious or other forms of similarity in whatever culture. My answer would be yes. Look at Muslims, they read and follow the same Quran but yet continue to kill each other over slight differences, and many Christians dislike denominations different from their own. I could state the same thing if everybody was the same race, because people would still stereotype or prejudge others for ethnic or other differences.

We could take it up another notch where if everybody was the same race, ethnicity and had the same exact religious beliefs or political affiliation. Utopia, right? Not quite in my opinion, because now people would stereotype or discriminate even against their own kind because now we have introverts, extroverts along with other personality characteristics that would continue to divide others. With one obstacle gone, people can now focus on the others, and all of a sudden now the smaller differences stand out now.

When one looks at history we clearly see a pattern where groups of people tend to unite together when the differences between others are the greatest. Most Muslims would unite to fight off infidels. When the dust settles though, then they go back to killing each other. This pattern was obvious during the Soviet/Afganistan war, where when Islamists weren’t fighting along each other to fight off the secular invaders, they would resort back to killing each other over religious, ethnic or political differences.

Groups of people can unite for different reasons, as well as the reasons can vary for opposing others. However, as long as sentient entities exist with each individual having unique personality characteristics there will likely be some type of division, at least until we evolve to a high enough level to overcome this.