The Natural State of Humans Is #Tribalism! (And NOT #Libertarianism!)

[thomhartmann]

[jtuck004]

1. These egalitarians were slaughtered by the tens of millions while our ancestors, non-tribal,

but masters of the latest in weaponry, completely and thoroughly decimated that society. They stole (and we still profit from) nearly every thing they had and threw the survivors into prisoner of war camps. Some still live there today in some of the most grinding poverty that has persisted through generations, perhaps because of the efforts of the occupiers to wipe out their culture, and our continuing disrespect of the world we live in.

They still dance to pray and heal, however.

Maybe there is a flaw in a philosophy of tribalism. You certainly see it all around today.

...
"So I’m a skeptic, but with a small S, not capital S. I don’t belong to skeptical societies. I don’t hang out with people who self-identify as capital-S Skeptics. Or Atheists. Or Rationalists.

When people like this get together, they become tribal. They pat each other on the back and tell each other how smart they are compared to those outside the tribe. But belonging to a tribe often makes you dumber."
...

Here.

[happyslug]

4. First, First Americans were killed off by disease...

It is estimated that 90% of First Americans died of small pox by 1600. Pigs, introduced by the Spanish, destroyed crops, further making the tribes weak. One example of this is the French movement into Quebec. 30 years before the settlement of Quebec in 1608, the area was covered by first American villages, but by 1608, those villages were all gone, Small Pox was that bad. In the case of Jamestown, it appears the First Americans actually encouraged the settlement, for they were looking for allies against Spanish Slave ships taking First Americans as Slaves to the Caribbean during the 1500s. This appears to be the case with New England and Pennsylvania. New York had been settled by the Dutch, but it appears the Dutch "purchased" it from a tribe just passing through, for they had no village in the area. As the white population expanded in the 1600s, you saw increased conflict with Native Americans, but most just moved westward.

The biggest exception were the New England Tribes, for to their west were the Iroquois. This lead to King Phillps war, which in many ways was a draw, the White settles ended up with land they wanted, but also agreed to preserve First American lands (and some of these lands survived till the late 1800s. Thus the land was taken, but most of the First Americans remained in New England after 1678 and survive to this day:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Philip%27s_War

When you do not have a huge disease problem or technology problems, Tribes had a good track records against invaders (Thus we have to exclude most of the New World, Small Pox was that deadly). The Vikings attempt to settle North America kept being driven out by First Americans. In Africa, the tribes kept out Europeans till the 1800s, and even in the 1800s the tribal groups had enough power to stay together and cut deals with the Whites, so that the whites had technical control, but actual control at village level was retained by the tribes (in 1917, when vorBeck was retreating through a hostile tribal area of then German East Africa he suffered his worse losses).

In fact, when the tribal groups were able to obtain modern weapons, the Europeans decided it wast time to grant them independence so at least they could retain some say in how those countries develop. This also occurred in most of India, which till independence was a collection of states, some ruled by locals, other ruled by Britain, others a mix of the two. The division of India and the mass movement of people to Pakistan and India reflected how powerful those tribal groups still were over their members.

South Africa, had its own reasons for surviving. South Africa is to dry for African farming crops, thus the only tribes in South African in the 1600s when the Dutch settle in South Africa, were hunting groups, not herders or farmers (which support much larger populations). The Dutch brought with them Wheat, which can grow in South Africa and when adopted by the Zulu a couple of hundred years later, permitted them to move south (Thus the South African Claim that they were few if any Natives in South African when the Dutch Settle it in the 1600s, but the Zulus were moving south in the 1700s and 1800s when the two groups clashed).

One of the reasons the US lost Vietnam was that, while Vietnam is NOT tribal in the sense that all members of a tribe are blood relative, Vietnam was village based society and such societies are also considered "Tribal" in that the members of the village is all important as oppose to being a Citizen of the Country (or blood relative) and it was one of the reason the US Lost Vietnam.

Just a comment that tribal societies have fought more advance societies to a standstill. Recently we saw that with US forces dealing with the Tribal people of Afghanistan and Iraq. The people rallied around their tribe and their religion to drive out the US. My point is simple, Tribal society have stood up to more "Advanced" societies even in the 21st century. North American is the exception, but that is due to Small Pox, which the First Americans had no real resistance against NOT that such tribal societies were defeated by superior non-tribal people.

Side note: We have only one record of anyone advocating the use of Small Pox Blankets to First Americans, that was the British General Amhurst in 1763. His lieutenant, General Bouquet MAY have tried to do it, but there appear to be massive colonial opposition to it. First Americans had NEVER been isolated from White Society and thus while we have reports thanking God for sending Small Pox to a hostile tribe, Small Pox was so deadly Colonial Americans wanted no part of it. That Amhurst had proposed using Small Pox against First Americans is probably why, when Amhurst was Commander in Chief of the British Army in Britain during the American Revolution, that George Washington had the US Army inoculated against Small Pox (Thus the US Army was the first army in the world to be inoculated against Small Pox). Washington also encouraged vaccination of Native Americans against Small Pox (as did Adams, Jefferson and the rest of the Presidents including Jackson, that is how much American feared Small Pox).

[ErikJ]

2. Get out the torches and pitchforks for the billionaires and

Libertarians.

[happyslug]

3. That is why Communism was so successful in its expansion till the 1960s

Communism comes from the same root word as Community, it is a sense of the community and what is good for the community is good for everyone in that community (When Khrushchev was overthrown, the Soviet Union ceased being Communist. The Soviet Union still said it was Communist but had ceased be a tribe of Communists working for a common goal, and had become al a "Chiefdom" in that Brezhnev was in fact the new "Chief" of the Soviet Union. Traces of this goes back to Stalin and the hierarchy he installed after he took over in 1929, with Communist Party members Stalin put in charge of things becoming he new Upper Middle Class of Russia, and this was clearly the case under Brezhnev. When Gorbachev tried to revive the Tribal nature of Communism, the hierarchy revolted against him, not only in the form of the coup that saw the end of the Soviet Union, but in the form of Yeltsin and his supporters).

The Late Soviet Union is a classic example of a Tribal Society embracing Chiefdomism and then collapsing. Tribalism is often confused with "Chiefdom". The difference between a "Tribal Group" and a "Chiefdom" is in a "Chiefdom" the main leaders is the Chief and everyone has to follow the chief. From "Chiefdom" the next step is "Kingdom" (the main difference is often just the size of the area the "Chief" or "king" controls). Under Stalin, The Soviet Union became a dictatorship and thus like a Chiefdom as oppose to being tribal but retain its tribal nature among the people at the bottom of society, while Stalin made a new hierarchy to lead them to "Communism" (and in effect made a new Bourgeois class in the form of the Communist Party hierarchy).

Now, both Orthodoxy and Communism have tribal roots, thus when the Soviet Union dissolved, a lot of people ended up helping each other for that was the Tribal/Christian/Communist thing to do even as their "Chiefs" ran the country into the ground. Thus the Soviet Union was a "Chiefdom" that collapsed into being a "Tribe". While Yeltsin took over the reign of Government, his efforts were terrible, with most people surviving NOT to any act of the Government but by relying on each other (The key to being tribal). During the 1990s, the Orthodox church saw a boom, as people looked for tribal support for themselves and others. Communism, after its initial breakup, became the second largest party in Russia, as people also turn to it for leadership (again tribalism in action). Finally, the "Deep State" in Russia put Putin in charge, for they feared that the Communists would win the next election unless radical changes were made. Putin turned to Nationalism, a tribal characteristic, to win election and to hold onto power. In short, tribalism overcame the various efforts to make Russia something other then Russia. Putin concentrate on this in his elections, relying on tribalism to get people to support him as oppose to the Communists (who tend to come in second in elections in Russia). The Orthodox Church has made peace with both groups, further uniting Russia.

In true Tribalism, high priests are the main leaders (Thus while Stalin and Trotsky ran the Soviet Union under Lenin, it was Lenin who people looked to for leadership). Those priest used "Medicine" to hold the people together (In the case of Lenin and later Stalin, Karl Marx and Marxism was their "Medicine&quot Sitting Bull was also such a "Medicine Man" so was the "Prophet" (Tenskwatawa) the brother of Tecumseh (Who is viewed more as a chief, but used "Medicine" to convince his warriors to support him, Tecumseh's medicine was 1811 New Madrid Earthquake the Tecumseh said was a sign from the Great Spirit for the First Americans to unite and stop while advancement). After the death of Tecumseh, The Prophet was treated as a "Chief" by Washington DC till the day he died. I bring this up for the division between the two, "Chiefs" and "Medicine Men" were not always clear among First Americans (and other groups, such as Marxists under Stalin).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenskwatawa

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tecumseh

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1811%E2%80%9312_New_Madrid_earthquakes

The downside of being a "Medicine Man" is when the "Medicine does not work. In the Case of the Prophet, his inability to destroy General Harrison's army (through it appears he had defeated that army, but just could not crush it) cost the Prophet his support among First Americans. The same with Yeltsin, he was the new "High Priest" of Russia after the Failed Coup against Gorbachev, and what he said was taken as being good "medicine" throughout the 1990s, till it became clear Yeltsin's plans were NOT working. The people abandoned him and opt for Putin, who developed a much more protective form of government for the people of Russia (more do to the people around Yeltsin believing by 1999 the Communists would defeat Yeltsin in the next election). Putin used his control of the media to say he had new "Medicine" to help Russia, and unlike Yeltsin, Putin's "Medicine" put the Russian Economy in its feet (The slow raise in the price of oil helped Putin out a lot). In many way Putin, while the elected "Chief" of the Chiefdom of Russia, he is also the Medicine Man of Tribal Russia. the People of Russia believe Putin will lead them out of the mess they are in and thus support him.

As to First American Societies, White society looked down on Medicine men (another name for them was "Witch Doctor" for most could NOT be bribed, unlike "Chiefs" who gladly took money from Washington DC to give away to followers to keep them loyal). THE US wanted First Americans to be Chiefdoms, but most were only Tribal, i.e. the Medicine man (and woman) were more important then whoever was "Chief". "Chiefs" tended only to have power when the tribe was on the warpath. Unlike Medicine Men, in tribal societies, Chiefs lost their power once peace occurred. In Chiefdoms, Chiefs maintain their power even during peace times (Please remember, while this tends to be the line between Tribalism and Chiefdoms, it is a very undefined line, groups go from one to the other all of the time).

Iraq has several Chiefdoms (often called "Tribes" by the press), when an old chief dies, a new one is elected by the men of the tribe (This is typical of Chiefdoms worldwide). These Chiefdoms have very strict hierarchy as to who has what power. Tribes, on the other hand, only follow chiefs when war is occurring. Chief is NOT a permanent position in Tribes but is the key position in Chiefdoms.

Afghanistan is more Tribal in nature, people think of themselves as one and look to their religious leadership for leadership. In the case of Afghanistan that is the various religious leaders, many of whom have been educated by Radical Religious schools in Pakistan set up and operated by Saudi Arabia. Elected officials are elected only to perform certain functions NOT to provide leadership in tribes, thus in Afghanistan no one pays any attention to the President of Afghanistan, no matter how he cooks the votes to get elected.

That Iraq has several "Chiefdoms" and Afghanistan is made up of True Tribal groups, explain why the fighting in both countries was so difference, must more then the terrain or split in religious between Shiites and Sunni in both Countries.

Thus the main difference between "Tribalism" and "Chiefdom" is that a Chiefdom is a very structural society with a clear hierarchy, but in true Tribes you have no such structure, you have more "Group think" that tends to follow the leadership of whoever is the "Medicine Men" of the tribe. In several First American tribes, after they had embraced various forms of Christianity as their "Religion" the REAL leaders of the Tribe tended to be those Christian Religious Leaders (Mostly Catholics in the Southwest). Washington liked that change worse then the tribal having retain traditional religion, Washington DC preferred to try to determine who was a "Chief" so Washington DC could bribe them, by arranging that any aid to those tribes went through "Chiefs" Washington controlled.

Now, Societies have gone from Tribalism to Chiefdom and then back to Tribalism (and as I mentioned above about Russia, a lot of politics reflect an almost tribal nature of people). To a degree, Tribalism remains part of every society, "What can we do as a group to better society". Tribalism appears in the form of "Natural" Leaders of people as opposed to "elected" or other institutional leaders. Volunteer fireman, Little league coaches and other local leaders tend to rely on Tribalism to gain support among people in their local areas NOT that they are the "Leaders" and that you must follow them. People who get together to do something together for the community is tribalism coming out. People who go to meetings and get people to support their positions are relying on Tribalism as oppose to institutionalism tied in with Chiefdom, Kingdoms and other form of hierarchy.

Here is a paper, saying that all people started out as Tribal people, then adopted "Institutional" aspects (Chiefs and Kings), then "Market" aspects and now embracing "network" Aspects. Interesting paper, but I have to reject the post Chiefdom parts. Tribes had Chiefs to do what is needed when needed. As societies became larger these "Chiefs" became "Kings" but such "Kings" were never the absolute monarchs we tend to think of Kings of old, their were still responsive to the people, to their tribe. AS to the "market" aspects, that has more to do with society breaking into several tribes. The Upper Middle Class tribes and the Working Class Tribe, if we want to use Marxist terms. As these two tribes became hostile to each other, the Upper Middle Class tribes tried to dominate the Working Class so that community wealth wen to the Upper Middle Class as oppose to the Working class or to the people as a whole. An aspect the author rejects as "Marxist" and thus NOT considered by him. While this paper has that flaw, it is still interesting in historical aspects of tribalism:

http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/working_papers/2007/RAND_WR433.pdf

An article on Judism I found on the net had this paragraph:

What this runaway yeshivah boy ironically demonstrated, and others after him confirmed,, is that a human being without a tribe is like a polar bear without ice—he can survive, but he’ll be awfully confused. It’s through his relationship with the tribe that a human being knows that the earth beneath his feet is solid ground, that tomorrow is a day like today, that he is who he is and it’s okay to be that way. Take the tribe away, and none of that remains necessarily true.

http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/1148059/jewish/Why-Does-Judaism-Make-No-Sense.htm

http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/1148059/jewish/Why-Does-Judaism-Make-No-Sense.htm

An Article on Tribalism and Chiefdoms in Yemen (Tribes can be quite complex, with people NOT being members of that tribe, but under its protection even when it is tribal NOT a chiefdom):

http://www.academia.edu/17862899/The_Chiefdom_Precursor_of_the_Tribe_Some_Trends_of_Political_Evolution_in_North-East_Yemeni_Highlands_

[uhnope]

6. so you're saying Stalin was successful

[happyslug]

7. Stalin was a bloodthirsty tyrant...

But he took a country that was defeated by the German Army of WWI, when the Eastern Front was the MINOR FRONT, to victory over the German Army, when the Eastern Front was the Major front of WWII. Stalin improved the transportation system (his Canals are still being used, and he upgraded the railroads from Iron Rails to Steel Rails PLUS expanded that rail system). Stalin's dam building permitted massive expansion of electrical usage (The T-34 of WWII fame used a welded haul, when Germany ran across it, they tried to copy it but found out that Germany did not have the Electrical power to weld those hauls, thus the Panther had a bolted haul even through it was an attempt to copy the T-34).

Yes, Stalin starved his own people (and that included Russians in addition to the Ukrainians) when Stalin sold wheat on the world market to pay for the industrial goods he needed to upgrade Russia. Stalin would go out of his way to arrest anyone who MIGHT be a dissident, so he could put them to work on his canals and other projects).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Sea%E2%80%93Baltic_Canal

The Great Fergana Canal, that permitted the Soviet Union to be a Cotton exporter instead of a cotton importer, but also lead to the draining of the Aral Sea:

http://soviethistory.msu.edu/1939-2/great-fergana-canal/

The Moscow Canal:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_Canal

https://www.ucis.pitt.edu/nceeer/2009_822-13g_Ruder.pdf

Dnieper Hydroelectric Station

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dnieper_Hydroelectric_Station

More on industrialization of the Soviet Union under Stalin:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Soviet_Union_(1927%E2%80%9353)

Yes, may people died under Stalin, working conditions declined, wages declined, but Stalin ended up with a Country that had enough industrial capacity to defeat Hitler. You may dislike HOW Stalin did it, but viewing from afar, what he did was successful.

[uhnope]

8. ...but he made the trains run on time

the refrain of apologists

[FailureToCommunicate]

5. Interesting premise, Junger has. His NPR interview made me want to read the book.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/29/books/review/sebastian-jungers-tribe.html?_r=0