Author Topic: It's the Tribes, Stupid (Read 1179 times)

Toad · « **Reply #30 on:** January 09, 2007, 08:45:26 PM »

Run along, youngster.

You've missed the point of the article and missed the point of the post you quoted.

You add nothing to any thread but self-glorified opinion. You don't support your arguments. You make decrees and expect others to accept them without question.

You offer nothing worth reading in any thread you've ever entered.

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #31 on:** January 09, 2007, 08:47:46 PM »

Here's my support:
http://www.amazon.com/Ancient-Engineers-L-Sprague-Camp/dp/0345482875/sr=8-1/qid=1168397193/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-9588873-2844638?ie=UTF8&s=books

Now, where's the support for the thesis written? Not once was credit even given, much less support or a bibliography.

Embarrassing when you get shown up by a "Youngster," isn't it?

Sixpence · « **Reply #32 on:** January 09, 2007, 11:49:37 PM »

Found this a good read too

http://www.slate.com/id/2157314/?nav=ais

cpxxx · « **Reply #33 on:** January 10, 2007, 01:45:55 AM »

Tribalism is a large part of it. If you read T.E. Lawrence (of Arabia). It was one of his biggest problems. Getting tribal enemies to unite long enough to fight the Turks was a headache for the British. It was also used by Turks as a means of dividing the Arabs who in any case tended not to see themselves as Arab at all.

If you think that's not relevant. Remember this was less than a hundred years ago. A dot in time for many cultures.

Tribalism can be very persistent. In my own country it still exists although mostly in a sporting context. It was the reason we were so easily conquered by the English hundreds of years ago. I can even tell you what tribe I belong to: The Dalcassian. Even the city I live in at the moment is known as the 'City of the Tribes', although those tribes were in fact English families. Even in America, people identify themselves as German, Irish, Hispanic etc. That is a form of tribalism.

I wouldn't underestimate the power of tribalism in the Arab world. I suspect Iraqi is less of a national identity more of a geographical description.

Rolex · « **Reply #34 on:** January 10, 2007, 04:32:22 AM »

I don't think his tribalism reasoning is far fetched. He's using what he knows and has studied to support a conclusion that is not surprising. That's something we all do.

Does western nationalism wrap itself more in inanimate symbols than than non-western cultures? I would say so. Even languages reflect this. The words for "love" in non-western cultures is not usually used for inanimate objects. It's reserved for people, not cars, hamburgers or sweaters. Older cultures don't equate a colored ribbon as a symbol of their culture as much. Emotions are stronger for their own people, their culture, their "tribe."

Even the word "culture" is used more for these older societies. It's getting very difficult to define "culture" for western societies now. How would you describe your "culture" to a visitor?

Toad · « **Reply #35 on:** January 10, 2007, 07:21:06 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lasersailor184
Embarrassing when you get shown up by a "Youngster," isn't it?

I wouldn't know; perhaps someday you'll manage it.

lazs2 · « **Reply #36 on:** January 10, 2007, 08:27:19 AM »

laser.. do you ever think? reason?

You are saying that once a civilization reaches a certain point it can never go tribal no matter how many centuries it lives under a primitive and barbaric religion? That if ever you were civilized you can never go tribal?

Yet... you claim that government (like the civilization you pointed to) is vastly inferior to tribalism (the real result of your half baked anarchy political views).

When civilizations crumble they fall into anarchy and tribalism and bands of criminals led by warlords. We see it in africa.

You act like a sewer system is the end of civilization.. the peak.. Like, once you have developed a sewer system you can just sit an rot because...well.... it don't get any better than that. How many men did they put on the moon?

in other words... yeah, great, but what have they done lately? Oh wait... I know.. they formed tribes.

lazs

lukster · « **Reply #37 on:** January 10, 2007, 08:58:37 AM »

Some tribes are more civilized than others but I still believe we are all "tribal" by nature. Take a collection of tribes working together towards common goals and you get a nation. Take a collection of tribes working against each other and you get war.

Maverick · « **Reply #38 on:** January 10, 2007, 12:44:55 PM »

The phrase: "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" pertains to the tribal situation. The pertinent word is friend. Not brother or some real relation but friend. Family is more important than friends and will trump friend every time. Even in our society we have a phrase for that as well. "Blood is thicker than water". Just another tribal reference.

We saw an attempt by saddumb to use that situation when he sent his aircraft to iran. He was hoping they would hold them for him and if he was successful in holding off the coalition would get them back. He knew darn well leaving them in country would guarantee destruction of the planes so he took the long shot knowing iran was also an enemy of America.

I see the big difference bwetween the "western world" and the one in the middle east is that the west has surpasssed the need for smaller tribes and supplanted them with the tribe of nation. The ME countries have not done so at the individual level of the population.

The western thought is that you have a base obligation to the family "tribe" and that the national tribe does not conflict with that obligation. Indeed, the national tribe tries to work with the family to maintain the national tribe feelings of the individual high enough to maintain that individuals usefulness to the nation. In supporting the national tribe you also support the family tribe.

Charon · « **Reply #39 on:** January 10, 2007, 01:13:13 PM »

Excellent read.

Charon

nirvana · « **Reply #40 on:** January 10, 2007, 02:38:53 PM »

Would splitting up the territory between tribes really do anything? It's my belief that they would still fight over more territory. I'm not sure they want their own little country rather then the whole region but I don't know the background or anything else about the people there and what they want.

I feel the same about Africa but once again, I don't know much about the people.

Choocha · « **Reply #41 on:** January 10, 2007, 04:37:39 PM »

India throws a monkey wrench in this whole "blame it on the tribes ****." India is working and working very well, even though the country is divided into hundreds of tribes (maybe thousands). Hell, they got more muslims than Pakistan does.

But India works - sure its got some issues.....a muslim will get crazy and burn down some temple, then some goofy Hindus will kill a few muslims. However, India works and proves that article flat wrong.

Torque · « **Reply #42 on:** January 10, 2007, 05:13:19 PM »

so...it took a novelist to figure out the quagmire.

all bush had to do was send his daughters over to marry a few tribesmen.

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #43 on:** January 10, 2007, 05:17:41 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by nirvana
Would splitting up the territory between tribes really do anything? It's my belief that they would still fight over more territory. I'm not sure they want their own little country rather then the whole region but I don't know the background or anything else about the people there and what they want.

I feel the same about Africa but once again, I don't know much about the people.

They can't just split Iraq up among the factional regions. Only one of the regions has significant amounts of oil. Can't remember which one off the top of my head.