White nationalism and conservatism in a nutshell...
Do you think people in Africa think otherwise?
I know the political climate is charged right now, but cmon people.
I think the general sentiment in my country is driven by goal-seeking behavior dominated by individualistic fear, and I see less of that elsewhere. "Political charged"-ness is both a contributor and an outcome.
Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect
For a majority of HN readers (and I assume the commenter you're replying to) that in-group is their country's white majority but in other circles it's other groups. They may be groups who don't call themselves conservatives but that doesn't mean they aren't.
In other words, I agree with their claim that said quote is conservatism in a nutshell. Anti-conservatism isn't rooting for some other group, it's being against this kind of tribalism wholesale.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_M._Wilhoit#Misattribut...
Americans have no trouble seeing tribalism or clannish behavior when its in the Middle East, or in Africa, but seem to think America is differentnt (a phenomenon that also has a name: American Exceptionalism).
In my view, the Yankee/Dixie tribal cold war combined with American Exceptionalism is some pretty stiff stuff indeed.
I’m not American by live in the US, and I agree. This inability of Americans, on average ofc, (regardless of the degree, social status, race, etc) to accept that people in other countries may view A THING differently than what Americans think these said people think is mind boggling.
And the primary division these days is urban vs rural, with the secondary PMC vs working class. Woke vs MAGA maps onto that divide more cleanly than anything else.
Even in the west, the civil institutions that underpin democracy were mostly created under “enlightened despots” (or so I learned in AP Euro). You probably need a dictator to break the familial and clan ties and organizer the country around individuals interacting with the civil organs of the state.
"The rise of marketing speak: Why everyone on the internet sounds like a used car salesman" :)
That part!
Seems I'm pretty much alone with this, but that's OK.
I agree with other comments that it should have more links to prior philosophical and anthropological studies.
This is not academic writing or an essay arguing for a point. At least, the point at rhetorical end seems a bit tacked-on.
To me this is a stream-of-consciousness like text.
Sometimes, being reductive helps in bringing a point across.
I think that the article does this well.
The close similarity of cronyism and tribalism is pointed out especially well, too.
My critique would be that the text is a bit engagement-baity. And it uses the simplistic rhetoric so well that for the most part it feels as if the author is arguing for an abandonment of law and a return to "tribalism".
The claim that people have "forgotten" the ideas of this essay seems unneeded.
A more humble tone would maybe make this post more interesting to many readers.
For what it's worth, modern foragers that we can study are almost to a group stiflingly egalitarian. Being powerful and egoistic gets you quickly cut down to size in the social order. A few people (myself included, but more notably graeber) argue that other social structures were historically common and didn't survive to be recorded ethnographically. Neither of these suggest what the post is talking about.
What they're calling tribalism is actually a characteristic of warfare, usually modern. That's not a normal social environment by any means and there's probably an interesting discussion to be had on it, but the author seemingly isn't even aware.
I agree that the "law of the jungle" trope seems like an oversimplification.
But the fact that cooperation was also present in pre-modern societies does not completely refute the point.
That's why they are talking about tribes, not just families or individuals.
I an not a professional historian or anthropoligist, but the scope and phenomenology of cooperation in ancient societies is not a question with a global, settled answer, as far as I'm concerned.
I'm currently reading this book:
https://www.amazon.de/R%C3%BCckblick-auf-die-Natur-Geschicht...
It deals with many of these topics, especially the transition from hunter-gatherer societies to agriculture.
It is more academically rigorous than the submission post, and it quotes other research.
Unfortunately, there are two flaws:
a) the author has transitioned to what we'd call a far-right activist prior to his suicide. He became known outside the scientific community due to his book "Finis Germania" (which I haven't read). But the book that I am reading was published much earlier, and well-received by the scientific community. The same goes for other works by him. He focused on the living conditions that allowed for a humanitarian mindset to even emerge, basically what humans do to provide the resources for living.
b) there seems to be no English translation
For example, in many tribal societies, if a man from tribe A harms a man from tribe B, his own tribe might offer restitution to tribe B (or punishment for the criminal). In fact, disputes would often escalate to tribal leaders, who of course might be biased and only look out for their own, but not always. This was how peace was generally maintained. Otherwise, anytime someone from a tribe harmed someone from another tribe, there would be war.
Interesting framing. Tribalism, or 'rule-of-the-strong' is inherently not fair. "Fair" is not the driving consideration. "Rule of law" does have 'just' as a driving consideration.
> For example, in many tribal societies, if a man from tribe A harms a man from tribe B, his own tribe might offer restitution to tribe B (or punishment for the criminal).
I'd suggest the restitution is offered because either tribe A & B are of equal strength, or tribe A is weaker. In both cases, tribe A is "offering tribute" to show subservience, to show they are weaker. If they do not, tribe B is forced to show they are stronger; lest other tribes think that they can take similar advantage of them.
Hence, it is a lot more of a "I'm sorry - please don't hurt me!" rather than a "well, it is only fair that we compensate you". In tribalism, if you are strong, then you don't offer the compensation.
> In fact, disputes would often escalate to tribal leaders, who of course might be biased and only look out for their own, but not always.
Is it not always? The reason to offer restitution to a stronger tribe is so that the stronger tribe does not retaliate.
> Otherwise, anytime someone from a tribe harmed someone from another tribe, there would be war.
I think this is overlooking the case where tribe A is actually stronger. In tribalism, if tribe A is stronger then there would be no recourse for tribe B. By showing dominance over tribe B, tribe A is sending a message to all other tribes that they are not to be messed with.
I'm not sure this is what tribalism is. It's more loyalty to a group rather than to a nation, laws, etc. In fact, a tribal person might consider modern capitalism "rule of the strong", in that, you can do a lot with money.
And the pessimist in me doesn't see how the tribes won't get smaller and more egoistic in this world: population is growing, the melting/burning planet provides less and less resources, and social media is building up the jealousy...
Tribalism is essentially a belief that the only reason others won't bully you is because they can't. Bully or be bullied. Rule of law instead says that it is the civic code who is the arbiter of right. 'Tribalism' vs 'rule of law' are both essentially frameworks of society and government.
It's hard to find a political post on HN that doesn't invoke it in the comments.
Nobody cares about it, its right there in public, in the population statistics of the middle east- provided by the UN who never made a single resolution against it.
China is a pure ethno-state where every minority dwindles and vannishes - and some are kept around for a happy Disney dance around the reservation.
Turkey has thrown its proxxies ISIL/HTS into syria to continue the genocide on the kurds, driving them out of the towns towards the mediterranean, after its ally to the east has driven the armenians into retreat in mount kharabach.
Russia is deeply tribalist, the moscowian throwing the other minorities into battle to capture new minorities to throw into battle.
Its a grim world out there, once you rip the western centric googles from your eyes. Nobody cares about the law, about the west and about morals or history books.
