Tribalism:
Syllabification: trib·al·ism
According to the Oxford English Dictionary:
Noun:
1.) The state or fact of being organized in a tribe or tribes.
According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary:
Loyalty to a tribe or other social group especially when combined with strong negative feelings for people outside the group.
Full Definition of TRIBALISM
1: tribal consciousness and loyalty; especially : exaltation of the tribe above other groups
2: strong in-group loyalty
(you can also look "tribalism" up in Wikipedia -- it makes for an interesting read, though I do not agree with all of the article)
So, now that we have a couple of different definitions for "tribalism," we can now play with the idea of tribalism.
Throughout history, stories and sagas and tributes and other remembrances of tribalism have been kept. Throughout history, humans have done the most unspeakable things to other humans in the name of tribalism.
In the Americas, tribalism was used to justify violence against neighboring peoples.
Across Europe and Africa, tribalism was used to justify genocide.
I am less knowledgeable about the history of Asia or the many 'nesian cultures, but do know that tribalism was used to justify violence. China was particularly drawn to using tribalism and superior military power to intimidate it's neighbors throughout it's history.
Back to the Americas, focusing on the peoples of Alaska (because I know a bit about those peoples as compared to other peoples), more specifically, to the peoples of southwestern Alaska (referred to as Alaska Natives or Natives):
There is a sibling rivalry of sorts between the peoples of Southwest Alaska. We tease because we care. We intermarry because we are human and there are not a whole lot of peoples who live out there . . . we knew enough to keep most family trees branching out . . . we didn't have a whole lot of trees, and those that we did have were stunted and windblown . . . but, that's a complete aside.
Back on topic: sibling rivalry between the peoples . . . yes, we had "wars" against neighboring peoples. Did we make sure that we completely annihilated the other peoples? No. That would be silly. After all, those peoples married with us and us with them.
Did we understand the concept of standing armies? No. Our peoples did not keep standing armies or militias. We did not spend years hunting down other peoples because, well, we had to put food up for our own families and things run in seasons. If we had a slow time between seasons and if we felt we "had" to avenge something or another, then we'd make "war," but always ended it when another food gathering/preparing season came around. What's more important? Feeding and providing for one's community. War? It can wait. And, if we still felt like we should do something violent, well, there's always time when we don't have to put up fish or hunt or pick berries or . . . etc.
Did we kill our enemies? Occasionally. Were we content to just sneak up behind them, whack them over the head and run away laughing? Yup. Public humiliation works as a great deterrent for a lot of Natives and First Nations' types.
Did we have blood feuds? Sometimes.
Did we have slavery? Yup. Here's the main difference though: most First Nations' types did have a concept defined as "slavery" as no wages were paid, but ownership was not really a big deal in most traditions. The idea of "slavery" to most First Nations' types was more the idea that here is a strange adult who knows nothing of the language of the People, knows nothing of how the culture works, knows no applicable survival skills. Essentially, they are People in training -- apprentices, if you will. "Slavery" was not a lifetime appointment. One could spend time as an apprentice, learn the ropes and progress to marrying into the People and eventually become a community leader. "Slaves" could become part of the People, no matter what they looked like.
Were we perfect? I believe I stated above, Natives are human -- humans are prone to make mistakes. So, no, we were and are not perfect. Does that mean that White people can help themselves feel better about themselves by diminishing Native cultures or Native histories? No. It merely means that I am acknowledging that no human is perfect, while also trying to tamp down my own bias toward Native cultures being inherently better so's not to appear hypocritical. I am also showing that there are major differences between what Whites did to us and what we did to one another. Apples and oranges.
Some of us are much more tied to tribalism than others. Some of us are less tied to tribalism than others. On one side (the Native side) of my own family, I can name four different peoples who have married into each other over the last five generations. I also fall into the "not terribly oriented" to tribalism category. I have relatives who fall into the "tied tightly to tribalism" category.
I have never had the luxury of being able to believe strongly in tribalism as I straddle two major cultures. I have always been mystified at my relatives who were strongly tied to tribalism. I ask them about their own relationship to tribalism. I ask how they can be so tied to tribalism. I never get a satisfactory answer, but I get a better understanding of how tribalism works. Here's some of my ideas about tribalism:
From the standpoint of evolution, tribalism works as a protective mechanism to protect the tribe, the clan and the family. Humans are social creatures (there are some exceptions, but for the sake of brevity, I am ignoring them) who rely heavily on a society or group for survival. In order to protect hearth and home, it was necessary to be able to strongly identify with one's society or group for support, protection and daily existence. I believe there was even a study done sometime in the last 15 years about how tribalism may be genetically encoded, but only remember a speaker on NPR going on about how his concept of tribalism affected his own way of viewing the world. Or, maybe it was a personality trait? I dunno. But, it got me thinking about tribalism from yet another standpoint.
As I mentioned toward the top of this diary, tribalism has been used throughout human history to justify genocide. Tribalism has been used to justify incredible acts of inhumanity against other humans. Tribalism, as it is used on the wider world stage now, has become a crutch that allows us to do unspeakable things to other humans.
Tribalism can also be used in a positive light. When I go to various reservations down here in the Lower 48, I am greeted as a cousin. When I go back to Alaska and run into Natives, we treat each other as relatives of our extended families. We don't always have to like our extended families, but they are family and that is enough.
I think that we have arrived at a point in human evolution where we do not need to rely so heavily upon tribalism, nor should we use tribalism as justification to carry out horrendously inhumane acts against other humans. Additionally, tribalism should no longer be used as justification to deem one group of humans as "less than" another group of humans.
So, can we shed tribalism?
Can our idea of tribalism evolve to be more inclusive?
