Is tribalism the most enduring heritage from the past?

I agree with Smith.

"Gold is the reason for the wars we wage"...

And funny, asking smaller "tribes" to give up their identities always assumes that the more powerful economy, language, culture etc. is in the right.

I certainly support, and have fought for internationalism and international solidarity. But that doesn't imply uniformity.

alien you need to define or re-define what "tribal" means in reality!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"Tribe" does have that connotation, intended or not. I hope I made it clear enough in my post that while I don't think alien had that explicit intention, it is going to be read that way. And I think it betrays some subtle biases about development and civilization and culture.

Xenophobia might have been a better word.

I'd say where I disagree with the thesis is the notion that getting rid of some "tribal identity" and coming around to something or other is going to end conflict. While I think our fear of otherness is an important factor, a lot of the conflict and territorialism we see nowadays are far more recent inventions.

I also don't think those factors are anything that we are ever going to put behind us once and for all through the grace of politics, science or religion. I see it as a struggle we are always going to have to deal with to a greater or lesser degree.

I haven't had formal schooling in history, but I'd still say that some of the biggest problems we have in the power department don't spring from our hard-wired xenophobia.

As exhibit A I'd offer the Roman Empire, and it's political descendent, the Roman Catholic church.

While the church has certainly used people's innate xenophobia to its advantage, I'd say both organizations put power and greed above discrimination against others. That is why - for a time, anyway - both institutions grew as much as they did.

Rome set the bar when it came to western imperialism, but it also broke with earlier notions of cultural society when it established the legal concept of citizenship:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_citizenship

And most people forget the "catholic" dimension of the Roman church, without which it probably would have been no further ahead than any of the old orthodox faiths.

The Mongols may have sprung (in part)  from a different tradition, but they had the same catholic approach, keeping numerous cultures and religions intact within their empire.

It is also why the later empires - the British in particular - excelled. Racism and notions of European superiority notwithstanding, they grew by absorbing and using the best of the cultures they occupied.

I could get into other things - from slaughters based not on culture but on power, greed and dogma, which started millennia ago - but I think I have offered enough reasons why I don't think xenophobia is quite the driving force you make it out to be, even if it remains a baser part of our nature that probably always will be exploited.

People make a big deal about the racism of the Nazis as if that is what defined them. The far more important driver which made that tool necessary was power - first overcoming the notion that they had been stabbed in the back, and then the need for Lebensraum, and a slave class to support their empire.

Oh, and as for the notion that the problem is genetic, and we MUST change because there isn't enough time:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1p6fTDGLHGQ

I think the Mayans, the Easter Islanders, the Greenland Vikings, the Anasazi and others are evidence enough that a happy end isn't an absolute requirement.

alien, I have a masters' degree in history. Pop culture stuff like "Quest for Fire" imposes contemporary norms on the past, it has nothing to do with serious prehistory.

Yes, of course xenophobia is a huge problem, but it also conflates with capitalist imperatives. You are also ignoring another biggie - patriarchy and the oppression of women.

Smith, you could also cite the Ottoman Empire, and even the Hapsburg Empire as multicultural power structures.

I read a quote a few years ago, not sure where, what, or from whom, that gave a description of what I think alien is talking about (excuse the sexist slant which I'm leaving in only for reference): "It's me against my brother, my brother and I against our cousins, our extended family against the town, our town against the other towns, our nation against the world."

It just seems there is an us vs them frame that can be put over countless situations, and many of them are in effect at all times--it's not a historical commentary (necessarily).  It is dynamic and the tribes are always changing.

When I was growing up we had two big, non-neutered male dogs.  They would get along well enough when they were inside, or in the backyard, but if taken out to a big field together it wouldn't take long before they were full out fighting very aggressively.  But, if before they started fighting, some other dog showed up, it was a whole other story, and they would team up against any other dogs.

I think there's just something that's hardcoded, and some people are more aware of it and less in its thrall than others.  We see it here on babble with the NDP cheerleaders and haters.

I do think "tribe" is the right word to use.  Seth Godin has written a lot on tribes and I think the word has been pretty well defined in that context.

I think xenophobia is only a subset, and to label this "xenophobia" misses the mark.

I agree with others that war is about greed, even if they are justified by tribalism.

alien wrote:

I mentioned it for the benefit of those who don't have a "masters' degree in history".

Since you have one, it wasn't meant for you.

Funny. I mentioned my lack of a degree more as a joke, not a slight. But it was also serious in that that one doesn't need a degree as a prerequisite to making a serious case, or having a valid opinion. I know plenty of people who have those bits of paper and are still thick as a fucking post, so I take trotting a resume out as a poor substitute for serious argument.

In short, if it was meant as a way to intimidate or weed out those of us who don't have history degrees, think again.

If anything I'd say the the most experienced scholars of history are those who have been its victims, not those who read about it in books.

And @ lagatta.

Absolutely true, thanks.

If there is anything that trumps xenophobia (can we dispense with the "tribalism" reference, please?) it is realpolitik.

As I said above, xenophobia has always, and will likely always be used as a tool of exploitation. But those who hold and exercise power, and who are responsible for most of the violence and misery in the world moved on from that motive long ago. Preachers, racists, and other idealogues might get a lot of play in the news, but the only reason why they have power is because of an environment where there is scarcity of resources that can be exploited.

You only have to look at sworn enemies doing deals with each others - like the Nazis and the Soviets - or those in power selling out or ignoring principles that they claim to uphold when there is no financial benefit - like the U.S. and European support of dictatorships.

In short, when it comes to our modern world, the most important determinants are money, oil, and water.

Fear, hatred and greed only come into play when people feel there isn't enough of those resources.

There are a lot of reasons why someone might want to raise questions of identity with someone. Some are valid, some less so.

Whatever the motivation, I certainly wouldn't equate all of them - and certainly not someone being too nosy on the internet - with some presumed divisive individualism that is keeping us from being one big human family.

After all, war is one thing; knowing when to tell someone to mind their own damned business is quite another.

Canadians aren't the flag-waving sort. Cross the border and it's another story:

Interesting discussion. I guess I see tribalism and xenopobia as pretty much flip sides of the same coin. With tribalism being the sense of identity that binds a group of people together, and xenophobia the expression of that shared identity turned towards "others",- in the form of exclusion, fear and hatred.  

Any of us who have done organizing work in communities (and were schooled in Saul Alinksy's Rules for Radicals) know only too well the potential for raising awareness and building solidarity through actions and messaging that highlight shared differences of our constituents with 'others' and often 'outsiders'. 

I would suggest that the challenge for progressive organizers lies in trying to harness the positive organizational potential of "the tribe" without crossing over the unforgiving line into the more exclusionary and often reactionary domain of tribalism and xenophobia.  A course not always easy to plot or navigate. 

Cute shoes?