Banjo Hangout Logo
Banjo Hangout Logo

Premier Sponsors

371
Banjo Lovers Online


Please send me your thoughts to lift my depression about--

Want to hide these Google ads? Join the Players Union!

Page: 1  2   Last Page (2) 

Sep 15, 2019 - 9:57:36 PM
52296 posts since 12/14/2005

--- the futility of opposing "tribalism".

 

Send them as private messages, since it is the very CORE of politics and religion and ANYTHING which exploits an "Us against Them" feeling.

It's been a long, hard-working day, and I got a NICE message with a link to someone's VERY well-written essay on why we SHOULD ne nice to each other.
But it reminded me that, more than half a century ago, there were very talented lyricists and performers calling our attention to the FOOLISHNESS and dangerous RESULTS of our ancient penchant for dividing the world into us and them

These three came to mind, immediately:

The SONGS poking fun at tribalism, from FIFTY YEARS ago, are STILL applicable.
Remember the Kingston Trio singing
"Italians hate Yugoslavs/South Africans hate the Dutch/

And I don't like ANYBODY very much! ??


And from South Pacific:
"You've got to be taught/From year to year/ You've got to be taught/ To hate, and fear./ It's got to be drummed in your dear little ear..." ??

And Tom Leher
"Oh the Catholics/ Hate the Protestants/And the Protestants/Hate the Catholics/And the Hindus/Hate the Muslims/ And EVERYBODY hates the JEWS!" ???

See what I mean about Religion and Politics????

That's why we can't discuss it HERE, so I'm asking for a  PM from anybody with any

non-depressing suggestions.

(Edited for some spelling errors. Hope I got 'em all.)

Edited by - mike gregory on 09/15/2019 22:03:03

Sep 16, 2019 - 12:28:51 AM
like this

m06

England

7833 posts since 10/5/2006

Mike, it's not futile. It's actually our moral and social responsibility to counter divisiveness in any form. Especially in the current global climate where divisiveness and 'threat' is being widely used as a cynical manipulative strategy. We individually counter that strategy at a local level by forging our own connection and first-hand experience. Because divisiveness relies on prejudice born of disconnection i.e. people's lack of their own informing first-hand experience and consequent ignorance. Ignorance is a vacuum that easily sucks in hate to fill the void.

My take on the subject is that division stems not so much from an active hatred but rather from constructing an entirely false sense of superiority and fake 'threat'.

We are all born equal and no group or faction is better than or more deserving than anyone else. We need to wake up to the fact that overt flag wavers and corrupt people who say different are deliberately exploiting our basest instincts to incite divisiveness to further their agenda.

We cultivate and maintain peace and progress when we respect and co-operate. More often we gain as communities when our neighbours thrive in a culture of respect and co-operation.

Love eradicates hate when we create the opportunity by actively seeking knowledge and connecting with those the manipulators would separate us from.

Edited by - m06 on 09/16/2019 00:44:37

Sep 16, 2019 - 6:07:49 AM

figmo59

USA

29242 posts since 3/5/2008

Come to the Bunker Bus...Mike...
Come to the Bunker Bus...... :0)

Sep 16, 2019 - 6:36:10 AM
likes this

mander

USA

3776 posts since 10/7/2007

I don't know that tribalism equates to politics and religion, unless, of course, you consider playing the banjo a religion. Oops. I suppose you do.

While, like most things, tribalism has a negative side, it also has a positive side. It allows people to feel like they are a part of something greater than themselves. That in itself is not a bad thing, it is how it is used that makes it so.

Sep 16, 2019 - 6:52:27 AM
like this
Players Union Member

DC5

USA

7093 posts since 6/30/2015

quote:
Originally posted by mander

I don't know that tribalism equates to politics and religion, unless, of course, you consider playing the banjo a religion. Oops. I suppose you do.

While, like most things, tribalism has a negative side, it also has a positive side. It allows people to feel like they are a part of something greater than themselves. That in itself is not a bad thing, it is how it is used that makes it so.


But when that "something greater than themselves" means our group (tribe) is greater than all the other tribes, that is where we have problems.  If we all can agree that we are all members of one single tribe, the Homo sapiens, then we all are part of something greater than ourselves and will work toward the common good.  Sadly, I don't think it is in our DNA.  

Wish I could help you Mike, but I'm in about the same frame of mind that you are. Especially in this earlier than ever election season.  All I see is Us vs. Them divisiveness everywhere I look.  

Sep 16, 2019 - 7:28:34 AM
likes this

8889 posts since 2/22/2007
Online Now

Mike G., tribalism is not at it's core a political issue. Politics is just the arena where it clearly shows it's face, and where it is often used to advance various agendas. Tribalism is just a new name for the old lower human tendencies of prejudice and stereotyping and racism in all of it's aspects. In every case it is the practice of determining the worth of an individual, and how one should interact with them, based upon external factors of race, religion, age, or political affiliation regardless of the individuals' particular abilities, beliefs, or actions. It is the reducing of an individual to being just another member of a currently despised group and the assigning of such membership, accurately or not, based upon superficial factors.

Sep 16, 2019 - 7:34:53 AM
like this

8889 posts since 2/22/2007
Online Now

Mike G posted---"From year to year/ You've got to be taught/ To hate, and fear./ It's got to be drummed in your dear little ear..."

Absolute truth. Watch a highly diverse group of very young children at the playground. They all play lovingly with each other. They don't seem to recognize any tribes. It is up to the parents of each to encourage and sustain that. Too often the opposite is the case.

Sep 16, 2019 - 7:56:31 AM
likes this

2602 posts since 7/28/2015

There has actually been a lot of psychological research on this issue in the last decade. Much of it focused on the "Big five personality traits".

The evolutionary psychology just so story about tribalism is just what you might expect. Prehistoric people were organized into small bands that competed for resources. The ability to recognize members of your own band vs. others was highly deterministic of your ability to have your genes passed on. The tendency to see the world as an "us vs them" kind of model is innate in this view.

On the other hand the ability to cooperate with member of other bands and form larger bands also had a favorable impact on the survival of genetic material. You can measure the tension between these two tendencies in the "openness to experience" personality trait to some extent. Lack of openness to experience makes tribes more organized and disciplined whereas more openness to experience might make a tribe better able to innovate and adapt to new circumstances.

A lot of this is covered in the opening chapters of Francis Fukuyama's "The Origins of Political Order".  (This part of the book is about apes, so it shouldn't be construed as political by the mods.)

My own view is that technology will make it harder and harder to see people as being the "other". It is easy to view people as "other" if you don't have any means of contacting or interacting with them, but it becomes less so as you are exposed to them. It used to be the case that there was no way to communicate with someone across the world. Now, even the language barriers that existed 40 years ago seem trivial if you are willing to work through a little bad google translate.

Edited by - prooftheory on 09/16/2019 08:00:26

Sep 16, 2019 - 8:21:02 AM

52296 posts since 12/14/2005

quote:
Originally posted by figmo59

Come to the Bunker Bus...Mike...
Come to the Bunker Bus...... :0)


As long as it's not the ARCHIE Bunker Bus!

 

********************************

Thanks, everyone.

I'm feeling much better (so far) this morning.

Sep 16, 2019 - 9:14:13 AM
likes this

mander

USA

3776 posts since 10/7/2007

quote:
Originally posted by DC5
quote:
Originally posted by mander

I don't know that tribalism equates to politics and religion, unless, of course, you consider playing the banjo a religion. Oops. I suppose you do.

While, like most things, tribalism has a negative side, it also has a positive side. It allows people to feel like they are a part of something greater than themselves. That in itself is not a bad thing, it is how it is used that makes it so.


But when that "something greater than themselves" means our group (tribe) is greater than all the other tribes, that is where we have problems.  If we all can agree that we are all members of one single tribe, the Homo sapiens, then we all are part of something greater than ourselves and will work toward the common good.  Sadly, I don't think it is in our DNA.  

Wish I could help you Mike, but I'm in about the same frame of mind that you are. Especially in this earlier than ever election season.  All I see is Us vs. Them divisiveness everywhere I look.  


It is rather frustrating to be human, isn't it? On the one hand, pride can be a good thing, or it can be a bad thing. I have a friend who is VERY anti-sports because she feels team pride leads to the "we are better than you" mantra. Given she herself has a "my spirituality is better than your spirituality" attitude, it's really hard not to point out the hypocrisy of her sentiments.

Edited by - Texasbanjo on 09/16/2019 14:03:44

Sep 16, 2019 - 10:13:48 AM

8889 posts since 2/22/2007
Online Now

Well, perhaps we could expand our notion of tribe, or family, or "us" to include all people of every type who will not initiate violence against us, and refer to all of them as "good people" or "family" or even, "us".
And reserve "them" or "the other" for only those who will and do initiate violence against others.

Sep 16, 2019 - 10:17:03 AM
likes this

160 posts since 4/11/2019

I try really hard to hate everyone equally.

Mostly I do a pretty good job of it too.

Sep 16, 2019 - 10:18:18 AM

chuckv97

Canada

43315 posts since 10/5/2013

So if we counteract the violent “others” with violence, where does that get us? Violence begets violence,, it breeds on itself. I don’t have an answer....

Sep 16, 2019 - 10:52:04 AM

8889 posts since 2/22/2007
Online Now

Chuck I do see a difference between responding to violence with violence in self defense and in initiating violence in the first place. One seems avoidable and the other, not, unless surrender to violence is a choice one is willing to make.

Sep 16, 2019 - 10:57:12 AM

4077 posts since 8/3/2012

quote:
Originally posted by Knows Picker

I try really hard to hate everyone equally.

Mostly I do a pretty good job of it too.


I commend you on your consistency.

Sep 16, 2019 - 11:12 AM

m06

England

7833 posts since 10/5/2006

quote:
Originally posted by banjo bill-e

Mike G posted---"From year to year/ You've got to be taught/ To hate, and fear./ It's got to be drummed in your dear little ear..."

Absolute truth. Watch a highly diverse group of very young children at the playground. They all play lovingly with each other. They don't seem to recognize any tribes. It is up to the parents of each to encourage and sustain that. Too often the opposite is the case.


Absolutely right. Kids who aren't subject to prejudicial viewpoints in their environment do not think to treat someone differently. 

Prejudice is acquired. Just as a stain requires contact to imprint.

Sep 16, 2019 - 11:22:22 AM

m06

England

7833 posts since 10/5/2006

quote:
Originally posted by banjo bill-e

Well, perhaps we could expand our notion of tribe, or family, or "us" to include all people of every type who will not initiate violence against us, and refer to all of them as "good people" or "family" or even, "us".
And reserve "them" or "the other" for only those who will and do initiate violence against others.


That doesn't work because it relies on an inevitably false sense of collective righteousness. Not meaning that we are bad; but that we need a sense that we are right for life to have meaning. And where there is inevitable doubt we construct the psychological artifice of 'certainty'.

That false sense functions to deny that within a cycle of violence a violent act against us is just as likely to be retaliation not initiation of violence.

To be effective in our endeavour we have to, as Dave described, make the far tougher mental readjustment to accepting that we are all one and work toward upholding that principle. That requires that we accept our own complicity in that cycle of violence, and dually ask for forgiveness of our complicity as we forgive the violence inflicted by others.

I'm a quaker and I admit that of all our quaker testimonies I struggled infinitely harder with a full commitment to peace and non-violence. What about self-defence? But I now, with the help of far wiser friends and elders than me, understand why peace and non-violence is the only way.

Edited by - m06 on 09/16/2019 11:33:10

Sep 16, 2019 - 11:29:23 AM

chuckv97

Canada

43315 posts since 10/5/2013

Well, I like to back track and see that often violence by “others” is a product of them being abused, oppressed, or having violence perpetrated on them in the past.

There are First Nations people in my neighbourhood who sometimes look at me with disdain because I represent their “others”.

Edited by - chuckv97 on 09/16/2019 11:31:41

Sep 16, 2019 - 11:48:23 AM

donc

Canada

6005 posts since 2/9/2010

Americans are proud of their democratic system which includes a personal vote allocated to everyone. This wasn't something they found in the woods. It had to be achieved and defended by blood sweat and tears. Americans do not need to apologize for their sense of national pride and security. Canada is slightly different. It was originally a large country with a minute population for the first 100 years. The last owners were the British who eventually just left on their own. When I was young my parents kept their political affiliation to themselves but they always voted. Canadians will often vote for more than 1 political party. I will vote for a particular party for the upcoming fall federal election. For the next provincial election I will be voting for a different party because I feel they are better on the provincial level. This is a typical Canadian mentality. What I have noticed in the U.S. is that people seem to be more attached to a political party for let's call it 'traditional reasons'.

Edited by - donc on 09/16/2019 11:50:25

Sep 16, 2019 - 11:49:04 AM

8889 posts since 2/22/2007
Online Now

m06 posted---"That false sense functions to deny that within a cycle of violence a violent act against us is just as likely to be retaliation not initiation of violence.----"

Mike I am trying to understand you here, and failing so far. If I never initiate violence against anyone then how can there be retaliation? Yes, there could be provocation but that would still require for someone to respond to unwanted words with acts of violence. I see a pretty clear line drawn here and am confused as to why you do not?
I do understand the concept of turning the other cheek, and the value and utility of doing so, but I also understand that violence will rule unless held in check. I am willing to turn the other cheek for an insult or perhaps even a minor injury, depending upon the circumstances. But I will not willingly surrender to the rule of the violent, which will be the only rule if "good men do nothing".

Sep 16, 2019 - 11:51:30 AM

8889 posts since 2/22/2007
Online Now

Chuck, if someone attacks me or anyone who has done them no harm because of harm done to them in the past by others who are superficially like me,  than that is a pure case of racism, or tribalism as was the threat title. You think I should just bear that due to historical reasons? 

Edited by - banjo bill-e on 09/16/2019 11:52:36

Sep 16, 2019 - 12:10:11 PM

chuckv97

Canada

43315 posts since 10/5/2013

Bill, I’m not saying they are right to inflict violence on others because of past grievances,, no, not at all. I’m just pointing out that there are often underlying reasons for their attacks. If folks were treated fairly and well to begin with, these long-held grudges wouldn’t be there. But we know things weren’t always that way in the past. So the proverbial chickens have come home to roost, whether it’s right or not.  I just think there’s enough guilt to go around.  Would I or you have acted any differently if plunked down into 150 years ago?  I’m not sure, given the tenor of the times.

Edited by - chuckv97 on 09/16/2019 12:12:44

Sep 16, 2019 - 12:16:31 PM

794 posts since 11/17/2018

quote:
Originally posted by mike gregory

--- the futility of opposing "tribalism".

Send them as private messages, since it is the very CORE of politics and religion and ANYTHING which exploits an "Us against Them" feeling.

 

Depends on how "tribalism" is defined...

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

Tribalism is the state of being organized by, or advocating for, tribes or tribal lifestyles. Human evolution has primarily occurred in small groups, as opposed to mass societies, and humans naturally maintain a social network. In popular culture, tribalism may also refer to a way of thinking or behaving in which people are loyal to their social group above all else,[1] or, derogatorily, a type of discrimination or animosity based upon group differences

Edited by - OldNavyGuy on 09/16/2019 12:19:05

Sep 16, 2019 - 12:18:22 PM

m06

England

7833 posts since 10/5/2006

quote:
Originally posted by banjo bill-e

m06 posted---"That false sense functions to deny that within a cycle of violence a violent act against us is just as likely to be retaliation not initiation of violence.----"

Mike I am trying to understand you here, and failing so far. If I never initiate violence against anyone then how can there be retaliation? Yes, there could be provocation but that would still require for someone to respond to unwanted words with acts of violence. I see a pretty clear line drawn here and am confused as to why you do not?


My post was referring to violence sanctioned ‘in our name’ or ‘on our behalf’, not so much by an individual. War, invasion of sovereign territory, air strikes, funding for guerilla groups and death squads and other forms of violent political repression, assassination and torture. 

At that scale and level we find it far easier to believe the violence we inflict is a ‘justified response’ and to interpret that inflicted on us as an unprompted initiation of violence.

Sep 16, 2019 - 12:44:34 PM
likes this

8889 posts since 2/22/2007
Online Now

m06 posted---"referring to violence sanctioned ‘in our name’ or ‘on our behalf’--------At that scale and level we find it far easier to believe the violence we inflict is a ‘justified response’ and to interpret that inflicted on us as an unprompted initiation of violence.---"

OK, I understand that, thanks. I am appalled at the violence done in "my" name and my only absolution is that I do not support it and will oppose it when and where I can. In this thread about tribalism I am thinking individually (and not tribally) ; >

Sep 16, 2019 - 1:09:43 PM

m06

England

7833 posts since 10/5/2006

Bill, in everyday reality how likely are you or I to be subject to individual violence? I can only answer for myself, and thankfully here in rural Somerset the likelihood is very low. Unless I get charged by a herd of bullocks and have to vault a gate again.

When something is only a remote possibility doesn’t our concept of how we would react become remote and askew too. Without direct experience we have to rely on supposition and imagination. And we tend to invent ourselves in an unduly rosy or positive light.

Edited by - m06 on 09/16/2019 13:13:52

Page: 1  2   Last Page (2) 

Hangout Network Help

View All Topics  |  View Categories

0.34375