Moral Cowards!

[inthesomeday]

And we might be on the FANTASTICAL discovery that mankind might be tribal.
What a totally breaking news.
Tomorrow, even more shocking : according to some hushed witnesses, water might be, under some circumstances, wet. I'm not kidding you.

Who said anything about mankind? We were talking about nations and states.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

And as all social creations mankind's economic and cultural evolution as brought to light, they are in the end still absurdly bloated but in their source of power quit natural and primitive attributes of the human condition.
Hence, to think of them as something existing separately to mankind makes no sense, They, among other things, are mankind.

 

[Senethro]

yeah but why tho

"tradition" and "nature" don't really do it for me

Edit: Also, I shall attempt to follow the custom established by others in this thread and inform you all that everyone who does not share my opinion is very very dumb. So incredibly dumb. It is like you are babies and I am a smarty man. So there.

 

[inthesomeday]

Humanity existed in its current physical form for 200,000 years without states

 

[Traitorfish]

And we might be on the FANTASTICAL discovery that mankind might be tribal.

Germany is a nation of over eighty million people. Russia, over one hundred and forty million. China, over one thousand million.

What, in these sprawling bureaucratic constructions, suggests to you a "tribe"?

 

[Katie88]

Humanity existed in its current physical form for 200,000 years without states

Right, but so what?

 

[Berzerker]

Germany is a nation of over eighty million people. Russia, over one hundred and forty million. China, over one thousand million.

What, in these sprawling bureaucratic constructions, suggests to you a "tribe"?

the people in charge

Humanity existed in its current physical form for 200,000 years without states

Homes and villages were a precursor

 

[Arent11]

I had an interesting discussion with a friend today, about refugees and the moral implications of granting them refuge in Germany. The basic for that were the Crime Statistics gathered by the BKA (Bundeskriminalamt - Federal Criminal Police Office), which, in very short summary as it related to the discussion, basically say that refugees are overrepresented in pretty much every field of crime, and that that's to be expected because of the demographics of the refugees (many young men), but that the amount of crimes per capita is still reasonably low.

(1) There are about ~8000 Isis members among them, which means actual, true racists that took part in ethnic cleanings and slave markets
(2) There have been to date several attacks on christmas markets, stabbings, attacks on homosexuals & woman in the last two years, most prominent being Berlin and Cologne
(3) The police president of Cologne was forced to resign because he tried to hush up that the attacks on women were done by foreigners.
(4) A lot of political parties & ideological groups do not want to talk about this prejudice or aggression because its existence runs contrary to their ideology.
(5) In addition, there is also the crime you mention, but in fact I consider stealing or robbery much less serious than actual attacks on people
(6) In addition, the vast majority simply are not refugees. They come from stable countries & are consequently rejected refuge. And then they get angry that they are rejected refuge, although they come from stable countries.
(7) In fact, a lot of them want to go on to Sweden, for the simple reason that you get more money there.

 

[Senethro]

(1) There are about ~8000 Isis members among them, which means actual, true racists that took part in ethnic cleanings and slave markets
(2) There have been to date several attacks on christmas markets, stabbings, attacks on homosexuals & woman in the last two years, most prominent being Berlin and Cologne
(3) The police president of Cologne was forced to resign because he tried to hush up that the attacks on women were done by foreigners.
(4) A lot of political parties & ideological groups do not want to talk about this prejudice or aggression because its existence runs contrary to their ideology.
(5) In addition, there is also the crime you mention, but in fact I consider stealing or robbery much less serious than actual attacks on people
(6) In addition, the vast majority simply are not refugees. They come from stable countries & are consequently rejected refuge. And then they get angry that they are rejected refuge, although they come from stable countries.
(7) In fact, a lot of them want to go on to Sweden, for the simple reason that you get more money there.

I'm sure within some definitions that some of the things you are saying are somewhat true, but where are you getting your numbers?

 

[Cheetah]

Germany is a nation of over eighty million people. Russia, over one hundred and forty million. China, over one thousand million.

What, in these sprawling bureaucratic constructions, suggests to you a "tribe"?

Surely that the vast majority of those people consider themselves to be, and the others not to be, German, Russian and Chinese?

 

[Ryika]

That question is nonsensical anyway, it just plays around the fact that "tribal" has its origin in the word "tribe", but that's not even how the word is used in general. A "tribal" person is just a person who has a tendency to identify with certain groups - whether that's an actual tribe that you're a part of, a religion, a political party, your favorite sports club, your family members or your country as a whole really doesn't matter. All of those are expressions of tribalism.

As humans we are certainly predisposed to being tribal, some people more, other people less, but we all have our tribal tendencies. Of course that does not mean that it's "right", quite the opposite - it's often an impulse that makes us make bad decisions, and view things from an angle that unfairly disadvantages those who are less close to us.

 

[Traitorfish]

Surely that the vast majority of those people consider themselves to be, and the others not to be, German, Russian and Chinese?

They would, yes. But the question isn't the fact of identification, it's the why and the how of it. Declaring that people are simply "tribal" and leaving it at that implies that this is simply the expression of some great collective instinct, that it just happens- but all of the countries I've referred to have, over the last two hundred years, engaged in very deliberate and self-concious projects of nation-building, which have all been bound with the creation of modern, centralised and bureaucratic states.

That question is nonsensical anyway, it just plays around the fact that "tribal" has its origin in the word "tribe", but that's not even how the word is used in general. A "tribal" person is just a person who has a tendency to identify with certain groups - whether that's an actual tribe that you're a part of, a religion, a political party, your favorite sports club, your family members or your country as a whole really doesn't matter. All of those are expressions of tribalism.

I don't believe that is actually how tribalism works, as a mechanic, that it's simply a subjective identification with an abstract collective. (Peak liberalism!) I think that genuine tribalism, as opposed to just postmodern identity-starvation, is built on personal and usually face-to-face interactions, around shared places and rituals. The most passionate football fans regularly attend matches, or supporter's pubs, they may even be members of organised fan clubs, and that gives their identities a robustness and endurance that, say, people who felt the N64 was better than the PS1 didn't turn out to have, because their identification was much more abstract and flimsy. The word "tribe", here, is important, it's not (well, not just) a relic of Victorian racism.

How far does that apply to the nation-state, and how far can the nation-state be explained in those terms?

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Humanity existed in its current physical form for 200,000 years without states

But only because states were not yet feasible, physically. So while humans may have had the same physical form for 200,000 years and more (which they didn't, exactly, but that is besides the point) their surroundings did not. Naturally, a human growing up in a cave hunting mamuts and a human growing up in an American sub-urb hunting coolness makes a difference. So old instincts are followed on new paths. But the source of the path is the same! That is the point.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

yeah but why tho

"tradition" and "nature" don't really do it for me

Because it protects a ton of privilege. Like - a ton. More than racism in America did after the slaves were "freed". But also because it would be impossible to grant some achievements of those privileged states beyond borders. So they would be threatened in their very existence, not just in their colorfulness or whatever.
You know, if we take the morals to their conclusion. So, if we put that whole idea to the extreme. Naturally not saying that some refugees cause that.

Edit: Also, I shall attempt to follow the custom established by others in this thread and inform you all that everyone who does not share my opinion is very very dumb. So incredibly dumb. It is like you are babies and I am a smarty man. So there.

Nah man. As everything, you will have to argue that

 

[Ryika]

I don't believe that is actually how tribalism works, as a mechanic, that it's simply a subjective identification with an abstract collective. (Peak liberalism!) I think that genuine tribalism, as opposed to just postmodern identity-starvation, is built on personal and usually face-to-face interactions, around shared places and rituals. The most passionate football fans regularly attend matches, or supporter's pubs, they may even be members of organised fan clubs, and that gives their identities a robustness and endurance that, say, people who felt the N64 was better than the PS1 didn't turn out to have, because their identification was much more abstract and flimsy. The word "tribe", here, is important, it's not (well, not just) a relic of Victorian racism.

How far does that apply to the nation-state, and how far can the nation-state be explained in those terms?

I don't think I understand the distinction you're drawing there. Obviously a Nation is never an actual "tribe", it's too big for that, but I don't see how you could deny, or have even attempted to deny, that the reason why nations, or football clubs, or whatever else work, is that humans are tribal, and that it is easy to tap into that tribalism, whether it is done intentionally or not. And that's all that Akka has said there, that it is obvious that people are tribal in nature, and have a tendency to identify with groups or entities.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

^Exactly. That is just part of how we scan to the world. Imagine it like a pre-defined tool you are given by your genetic heritage. A hammer finds a nail.
Those are the paths I mentioned.

 

[inthesomeday]

But only because states were not yet feasible, physically. So while humans may have had the same physical form for 200,000 years and more (which they didn't, exactly, but that is besides the point) their surroundings did not. Naturally, a human growing up in a cave hunting mamuts and a human growing up in an American sub-urb hunting coolness makes a difference. So old instincts are followed on new paths. But the source of the path is the same! That is the point.

Ah! So what you're saying is that it was the material conditions of agriculture that enabled the development of states? Perhaps... Some sort of... Historical materialism?

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Yes I would not call myself a materialist but I do think that the materialist point of view is a great gift. That Marx applied this view on political economics, and by this showed its power, albeit a bit clumsily in some regards, is really what I view as his philosophical achievement.
The mode of reproduction is crucial. But in my view, ideas matter as well. Just less. Just a lot less. But some idealist seem to have lost sight of that, IMO.

 

[Akka]

Who said anything about mankind? We were talking about nations and states.

And who makes up these nations and states ? Mongooses ?

Germany is a nation of over eighty million people. Russia, over one hundred and forty million. China, over one thousand million.

What, in these sprawling bureaucratic constructions, suggests to you a "tribe"?

A tribe is the structure which built up our psyches. We are able to project it a bit further than a 100-people group, but the underlying structure is still here. The "in-group" vs "out-group" still works. And even more shocking : we are able to feel part of MULTIPLE groups, some included in others, some overlapping, some completely different (close family, company, country, city, species, hobby, sport team, game group...).

It's so friggin' obvious I'm always wondering when people act as if we're revealing some brand new unproved hypothesis, are being purposely blind or just in denial based on "reality clashes with my political desires of how the world should be so I'll pretend to not notice it".
I mean, for some of our most militant members, I don't have a doubt considering their entire personality seems to be constructed around denial, but for some others the jury is still in the air.

 

[inthesomeday]

And who makes up these nations and states ? Mongooses ?

Oof I wish

A tribe is the structure which built up our psyches. We are able to project it a bit further than a 100-people group, but the underlying structure is still here. The "in-group" vs "out-group" still works.

The critiques by @Traitorfish of shared national and racial identity sometimes escape me. Despite the truth that they're built on illusions, which may be the extent of his point, I think that people do nonetheless identify closely with them often.

That doesn't prove anything about the equally imaginary "human nature" though.

And even more shocking : we are able to feel part of MULTIPLE groups, some included in others, some overlapping, some completely different (close family, company, country, city, species, hobby, sport team, game group...).

Multiple identities, eh? And where the individual stands among them is called... A crossroads? An inter... thingy? What do you call those, geez

It's so friggin' obvious I'm always wondering when people act as if we're revealing some brand new unproved hypothesis, are being purposely blind or just in denial based on "reality clashes with my political desires of how the world should be so I'll pretend to not notice it".

"Human nature" = reality is some comedy gold man

I mean, for some of our most militant members, I don't have a doubt considering their entire personality seems to be constructed around denial, but for some others the jury is still in the air.

entire personality seems to be constructed around denial

Is not!