Artifact Four

Machiavelli, Niccolo. The Prince. New York: Viking Penguin, 1961.

An interesting note from Machiavelli concerning conquest that I believe pertains to this topic: Machiavelli points out that for a prince to maintain control of a newly conquered territory that hitherto had kept its own laws, he must keep the customs and taxation intact. It means that regardless of who is in power, as long as the conquered land still retains its own way of life, the people will be content. Modern-day corollaries exist.

Machiavelli was a master in disguising what he really means. The Prince was written to get himself a job and many say that his true beliefs are encased in a oft-forgotten series of analyses on Livius' annals. Regardless, his statement brings forth the question of whether it is the "ETHNICITY" or the "CUSTOMS" that is/are the focal point of ethnocentrism, that is, if it is what the people are that are important, or if it is what the people do. For example, that some people are whites constitutes their ethnicity. Their customs are that they drive cars and pay taxes (assuming that they do). This is interesting to discover.

So: is it that people discriminate because of a difference with what others do?

Does ethnocentrism exist only between societies? What about smaller social groups? (Yes?) Need evidence to discern if it is different with the former.

Furthermore, principles are fought over constantly. Does accepting that others have customs that differs with one's own eliminate acts caused by ethnocentrism?