It can be in pockets, and the problem is when they get organized, they get emboldened enough to make their thoughts known. Especially in rural areas, people will have latent racists tendencies and go their whole lives without acting on it or mentioning it other than with other racist assholes. You can spend your whole life with Uncle Ricky around, and then one day when you’re 30, you find out Uncle Ricky has stored every racist idea ever put online in his head as “facts,” and is 100% in agreement with it all. But he would likely never go the extra step and join a KKK rally or get a swastika tattoo unless a small group of peers really pushed him to do that. White supremacist ideology doesn’t require you to have joined your local KKK chapter or biker gang unless you’re already predisposed to being an active asshole in life already, and that’s the specific way you decide to spend your time. Some people simply do crossfit.
A lot of it is simply tribalism in action, prodded along by fear and polarizing stuff online, and a lack of exposure to external ideas during formative years.
I’ve never met a white supremacist who was tribalist. All the white supremacists I know are civilisationalists. And by that I mean, they uncritically accept the western idea of civilisation as consisting of domination and exploitation of the natural world and one’s fellow human beings. Everyone I know who subscribes to tribal knowledge systems is very anti-racist, so I have a very positive view of tribalism.
Yes, but “civilizationist” is a form of tribalism, isn’t it? It’s about ethnically similar people promoting or only tolerating their narrow definition of culture. Sure, once you add the cultural history of slavery and Jim Crow, then you get historical context they lean on to say “see? it worked, didn’t it?!” My racist family member would fall into this category, and while he thinks he knows what “Western Civilization” means, it’s his delusional imagined version.
Honest question, is this a subjective dividing line between us that is opinion? Or is there research or something that defines the two in a way where it’s a clear differentiation? If there is, I’m happy to be educated on the nuance and not keep being wrong.
I’m being a bit sneaky and defining tribalism differently than you without telling you. See, we live in a very racist society with some very negative views of tribes. Many people think tribes are primitive and warlike, and that’s where the definition of tribalism you’re using comes from. I think using that definition is thoughtlessly callous, because I have a positive view of tribes, so I’m defining tribalism much more positively, as the view that tribes are a better way to organise a society than western civilisation. Hence My above point that white supremacists are very unlikely to be tribalists under My definition. White supremacists are only tribalists when we use white supremacist language.
Many people think tribes are primitive and warlike, and that’s where the definition of tribalism you’re using comes from.
Maybe for you as an individual.
Meanwhile, on Earth:
I’ve spent most of my career in Sub-Saharan Africa, and use of the term “tribe” and related descriptors is commonly used in regular news headlines for things like tribal leaders (also called traditional leaders when they’re less tied to a specific ethnic group) and tribal conflicts - what academics would call “inter-ethnic conflicts” as well. Tribe literally means a distinct ethnic group with distinct cultural components. Example 1, example 2, example 3. It’s in common use today meaning the thing it always meant. It’s not archaic or disused or so loaded with racist baggage that is’ unusable any more than other alt-right abused terms like how “Globalist” actually means “Jews” to them, or “Traditional” meaning anti-LGBTQI+.
Another term, “tribal lands,” is more common term in the US to describe Native American lands (typically reservations, which are jails without walls for individual ethnic groups IMO). Not only perfectly valid, but it’s a term Native Americans use to describe themselves, as they are isolated and organized in their forced apartheid system by ethnic groups.
I had a colleague object to the word “indigenous” for similar reasons as you’re objecting to “tribe.” But for her it was personal. She felt it was pejorative as it was used as such by colonial oppressors, as opposed to “local.” I get that, but that’s also a widely used term. That was personal preference and how she thought everyone should speak more positively about themselves, as she had noticed little use of the term in the UK to describe, for example, locally made cheddar. But she was also conservative AF, so who knows how that will hit for you.
It can be in pockets, and the problem is when they get organized, they get emboldened enough to make their thoughts known. Especially in rural areas, people will have latent racists tendencies and go their whole lives without acting on it or mentioning it other than with other racist assholes. You can spend your whole life with Uncle Ricky around, and then one day when you’re 30, you find out Uncle Ricky has stored every racist idea ever put online in his head as “facts,” and is 100% in agreement with it all. But he would likely never go the extra step and join a KKK rally or get a swastika tattoo unless a small group of peers really pushed him to do that. White supremacist ideology doesn’t require you to have joined your local KKK chapter or biker gang unless you’re already predisposed to being an active asshole in life already, and that’s the specific way you decide to spend your time. Some people simply do crossfit.
A lot of it is simply tribalism in action, prodded along by fear and polarizing stuff online, and a lack of exposure to external ideas during formative years.
I’ve never met a white supremacist who was tribalist. All the white supremacists I know are civilisationalists. And by that I mean, they uncritically accept the western idea of civilisation as consisting of domination and exploitation of the natural world and one’s fellow human beings. Everyone I know who subscribes to tribal knowledge systems is very anti-racist, so I have a very positive view of tribalism.
Yes, but “civilizationist” is a form of tribalism, isn’t it? It’s about ethnically similar people promoting or only tolerating their narrow definition of culture. Sure, once you add the cultural history of slavery and Jim Crow, then you get historical context they lean on to say “see? it worked, didn’t it?!” My racist family member would fall into this category, and while he thinks he knows what “Western Civilization” means, it’s his delusional imagined version.
Honest question, is this a subjective dividing line between us that is opinion? Or is there research or something that defines the two in a way where it’s a clear differentiation? If there is, I’m happy to be educated on the nuance and not keep being wrong.
I’m being a bit sneaky and defining tribalism differently than you without telling you. See, we live in a very racist society with some very negative views of tribes. Many people think tribes are primitive and warlike, and that’s where the definition of tribalism you’re using comes from. I think using that definition is thoughtlessly callous, because I have a positive view of tribes, so I’m defining tribalism much more positively, as the view that tribes are a better way to organise a society than western civilisation. Hence My above point that white supremacists are very unlikely to be tribalists under My definition. White supremacists are only tribalists when we use white supremacist language.
Maybe for you as an individual.
Meanwhile, on Earth:
I’ve spent most of my career in Sub-Saharan Africa, and use of the term “tribe” and related descriptors is commonly used in regular news headlines for things like tribal leaders (also called traditional leaders when they’re less tied to a specific ethnic group) and tribal conflicts - what academics would call “inter-ethnic conflicts” as well. Tribe literally means a distinct ethnic group with distinct cultural components. Example 1, example 2, example 3. It’s in common use today meaning the thing it always meant. It’s not archaic or disused or so loaded with racist baggage that is’ unusable any more than other alt-right abused terms like how “Globalist” actually means “Jews” to them, or “Traditional” meaning anti-LGBTQI+.
Another term, “tribal lands,” is more common term in the US to describe Native American lands (typically reservations, which are jails without walls for individual ethnic groups IMO). Not only perfectly valid, but it’s a term Native Americans use to describe themselves, as they are isolated and organized in their forced apartheid system by ethnic groups.
I had a colleague object to the word “indigenous” for similar reasons as you’re objecting to “tribe.” But for her it was personal. She felt it was pejorative as it was used as such by colonial oppressors, as opposed to “local.” I get that, but that’s also a widely used term. That was personal preference and how she thought everyone should speak more positively about themselves, as she had noticed little use of the term in the UK to describe, for example, locally made cheddar. But she was also conservative AF, so who knows how that will hit for you.
So, I will say sorry that a word you don’t understand or use correctly gives you feels that may have nothing to do with you. But also, the word “tribalism” is a valid, modern word that is perfectly acceptable even in academia. Tribalism isn’t even fully negative, but simply describes a loyalty to ethnic or ethno-cultural ties. Which is exactly how I used it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribalism
I think tribes are good and tribalism is good. I’m a tribalist. We have some great tribes here in Australia and I respect their ancient practices.