Well, destruction may be "natural" in the sense that things are destroyed by nature in the process of creation. But that doesn't mean the destruction has to be intentional. The very essence of human intelligence is to observe the processes of nature and re-create them. Why choose to mimic the easy part, the destruction, rather than the more intricate process of putting things together in new configurations?
The argument that creation will occur spontaneously as a consequence of destruction is just a lazy man's way of thinking.
Besides, these processes only apply to the material world. The world of the spirit and the community in which it thrives is potentially never-ending because of the fact that ideas can be passed on from generation to generation.
That communities get into the habit of organizing themselves around their antagonisms is correct. From the organizers' point of view antagonism has the advantage of being cheap, untestable (under ideal conditions of exclusion) and relatively permanent. Also, it's easy because most people would like to believe that their clan is interested in their own welfare and the exclusivity is meant to be protective. That the real reason is control and the ability to exploit the enthusiasm, energy and strength of the progeny tends to be hidden.
Which explanation is likely to be more readily accepted: "I want you to stay home and do the housework and look after your siblings" or "I want you to stay home because that way you'll be safe from the rapists and drug-dealers who are waiting to attack you?" "Oh, and by the way, since you're here anyway, don't forget the dishes and look after your little sister."
The reason public education is mandatory is because many parents want THEIR children at home working for them. If they have to send them to school, then they at least want them to earn some money for their keep after school and on weekends.
Since our society expects parents to provide for the upkeep and care of children, it's only natural that they expect to get something back. Even during slavery days, there were standards, established by contract about the age at which children would be available to work on the plantation. I think for girls the age was about eleven. Until then, they were available to help the family. I expect that one reason the objection to families being broken up was because this was a violation of the contract, explicit or implicit, under which the Africans had been working.
You do know that some of the first court challenges to slavery were initiated by African who were just off the boat, if you will. That's because they had no difficulty recognizing that an implicit contract was being violated and they had no difficulty resorting to a court of law.
One reason I'm rambling on so is because I am struck by the persistent ignorance on the part of Americans (and the hubris) most recently being exhibited by our attitude towards Iraq, based on the assumption that they are ignorant of the principles of self-government. Perhaps it's because of the belief that each human is a tabula rasa and has to invent civilization all over again.
I don't agree with that. I think that humans have evolved certain intellectual capacities, one of which is to make them creative, or at least transformative, naturally. Consequently, from where I sit, giving in to the destructive urge is a perversion of what it means to be human. Which, of course, is what the devil exemplifies.