Pundits who decry 'tribalism' know nothing about real tribes

[stuck in the middle]

Pundits who decry ‘tribalism’ know nothing about real tribes

Their rhetoric has more to do with Western stereotypes than tribal reality

The Washington Post

Perspective by Christine Mungai

Christine Mungai is a writer and journalist in Nairobi, Kenya. She was a 2018 Nieman Fellow at Harvard University.

January 30, 2019 at 10:21 a.m. EST

The U.S. electorate, commentator Andrew Sullivan wrote recently, has devolved into “two tribes whose mutual incomprehension and loathing can drown out their love of country.” In the New Yorker, George Packer argued last fall that politics today “requires a word as primal as ‘tribe’ to get at the blind allegiances and huge passions of partisan affiliation.”

“Tribalism” has become an inescapable concept in American politics, partly because the partisan divide in America’s public sphere is becoming more shrill and polarized (though the hyper-partisanship is asymmetrical: The right leans further right than the left leans left).

But there’s a significant problem with using the words “tribal” and “tribalism” to describe this trend: The usage is historically inaccurate when you consider the actual behavior of indigenous peoples, whether African, Native American or Asian. The current use of “tribal” is based on a racist stereotype about how groups of such peoples have interacted historically, and even today.

I know something about “tribalism,” since I was born and raised in Kenya, a country made up of 44 different ethnic groups. My parents are Kikuyu, but they raised my siblings and me in a cosmopolitan, urban environment. My experience with tribes, and my historical knowledge of them, do not resemble what I read about in the writings of political pundits.

snip--- (much, much more at link)

Gifted article, no subscription necessary: https://wapo.st/3sjf3vy

[stopdiggin]

1. I use the term somewhat frequently. Finding it a very real phenomenon.

And in my mouth it has nothing to do with racism at all. It's all about an 'us vs them' or 'we vs the other' construct that seeps in to the fabric and every corner of who we are, and how we view the world around us.

I'd be quite willing to go with different nomenclature - provided some comprehensible substitute. But the 'construct' itself is all too real and pervasive to not be a subject of almost constant discussion. And (in my opinion) far too derivative of the human experience to be cast - and diminished in its depth? - as an outgrowth of racist perception.

Racism might be a qualified adjunct - but 'us vs them' is a far more integral thing. Informing the world from the time we are children

[stuck in the middle]

2. The phenomena is real.

But, to my mind, the terminology is somewhat wanting.

I was happy to stumble across this article, since my wife's culture is described as "tribal", so this is something that has been bothering me for some time, given the historical stereotypes of her and her culture.

[Igel]

6. Often words drift from their etymology.

"Calculus" has cognate in English "chalk." It's a little piece of limestone that was used for keeping count.

Hence it came to mean "reckoning" or "counting."

It was picked up for "differential calculus". But includes, now kidney stones.

At the same time, somebody who did counting was a calculator. Now it's the bit of electronic hardware. Oops, a phone app.

Words change meaning.

Even "tribe" in its current anthropological meaning managed to depart a bit from its original meaning (referring to one of the three parts of the original Latin state--think Etruscans). Or its original meaning in English, first applied to the tribes of Israel.

[sanatanadharma]

5. Self-Other is deeply rooted

Built into all worlds with a number two. All beings with an inside and outside.
Curious illusion.

[sanatanadharma]

3. Annual Super Bowl is a tribal event

Tribe, team, clic, political party, insurrectionist cell,

All are based upon a me and not-me division.
Us and other.

The bricks with which one builds their identity, one's sense of self, put others on the opposite side of a wall.
How defensive one is of their subjective definitions, desires, associations, world-view will reveal how much tribal identity one has.

In the USA, we see a new tribal identity taking place now. Sure tribal identity doesn't have deep roots in American history, if we ignore:

Killing Indians
Massacring non-Mormons
Hanging Africans
Civil War
States
Irish and Italian ghettos in NYC
Republicans

[stuck in the middle]

4. My wife's culture is considered as "tribal".

As such, she and her culture are afforded certain rights, individual and collective, here in America, under International Law (such as it is).

Please note that collective religious rights may include things such as territory.

Maroons in the Americas

December 1, 2001.

https://www.culturalsurvival.org/publications/cultural-survival-quarterly/25-4-maroons-americas

The Rights of Maroons In International Human Rights Law

Author: Fergus MacKay

https://www.culturalsurvival.org/publications/cultural-survival-quarterly/rights-maroons-international-human-rights-law

The vast majority of American states have ratified international human rights treaties that obligate them to respect the rights of individuals and certain groups. Some have also ratified International Labor Organization Convention No. 169 (ILO 169), which deals exclusively with the rights of indigenous and tribal peoples. The rights of Maroon individuals and collectivities are also protected under these instruments. This article provides an overview of the nature and content of those rights, with an emphasis on collective rights.

Prior to turning to the substance of Maroon rights, I should point out that states have an obligation to give effect to ratified human rights treaties in their domestic law, as without these measures international guarantees for the most part cannot be enforced or enjoyed by the intended beneficiaries. By virtue of both general principles of international law and specific provisions found in human rights treaties,(1) states are obligated, first, to give effect without discrimination to human rights in their domestic law by constitutional amendment, adopting new legislation and/or modifying existing legislation; and second, to ensure that effective remedies are in place permitting rights to be enforced in domestic courts and other tribunals.

While the underlying rationale for protecting the collective rights of Maroons -- the right to cultural integrity, the right to self-determination, the right to equality before the law and freedom from discrimination -- holds true in all cases, the manner in which Maroons are classified under international law -- as minorities, as tribal peoples, or as some other entity -- is important. Without engaging in a (contentious) discussion of how to classify Maroons, I will simply state that under international definitions, imperfect as they are, Maroons can be described as both "minorities" and as "tribal peoples," the latter being most relevant in terms of collective rights.(2) And while they are not indigenous peoples, Maroons enjoy largely the same rights as indigenous peoples under international law -- the main distinction being that Maroons cannot claim aboriginality and the rights that attach to that status. For this reason, but also due to a lack of international jurisprudence on Maroon rights, I will make frequent reference here to indigenous peoples' rights.

Maroon Rights Under International Instruments

Minority rights are encapsulated in Article 27 of the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which provides that "[in] those States in which ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities exist, persons belonging to such minorities shall not be denied the right, in community with the other members of the group, to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practice their own religion, or to use their own language." These rights are held by individuals but exercised "in community with other members of the group," thereby providing some measure of collectivity. Similar language is found in Article 30 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child; the points made here are therefore also relevant to the rights of Maroon children, and by implication, the larger community, under that instrument.

The UN Human Rights Committee (HRC) has interpreted Article 27 to include the "rights of persons, in community with others, to engage in economic and social activities which are part of the culture of the community to which they belong." In reaching this conclusion, the HRC recognized that indigenous peoples' subsistence and other traditional economic activities are an integral part of their culture, and that interference with those activities can be detrimental to their cultural integrity and survival. By implication, the land, resource base, and the surrounding environment also require protection if subsistence activities are to be safeguarded.

snip--- (more at link)

https://www.culturalsurvival.org/publications/cultural-survival-quarterly/rights-maroons-international-human-rights-law