A masterful narrative, Andrea. Truly awesome.

For me the thing about warriors is that it is their ethos and how they view the world and their role within it, that inevitably creates the anitpathy towards a second group which then requires their warriors to protect their right to exist. We revere warriors in our books, our poetry, in our dreams and for good reason. They stand before the rest of us defending against the exact same set of principles and actions of another group.

Somewhere back in evolution - the warrior stepped forward to bring down the bull, the bear or the sabre-toothed tiger - to protect himself or his mate or simply to have something to eat. This ability evolved but is adversarial by nature. Is a warrior happy if he/she not engaged in some form of combat?

I think it is possible to redirect the core beliefs of a warrior and remove humans as their "natural enemy or prey." Honestly, look to science fiction for answers.

Otherwise I agree with your hypothesis. The left does need to focus on inclusion. Hell, we did it in schoolyards when we chose the ass-hole for our team because he was the best hitter and let everyone know it. Being the best and accepting his role to help his team somehow got him past that "innate" desire to whip everyone's ass by himself. Which was not possible in a game of stickball.

Cheers. 😊👏