When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. – 1 Corinthians 13:11
The human race as a whole has developed and grown, just as an individual human develops; this growth is reflected not only in the accumulated wisdom of our species and the level of our collective behavior, but also in the number of individuals capable of mature thought. I’m sure that even in the most ancient times there were isolated individuals who were vastly more morally developed than their fellows, and as they lived and taught or recorded their thoughts they were able to pass their wisdom on to be absorbed and built upon by the wise and perceptive of later generations. But it’s also true that many humans still function at a very childish level, and since the insecure need to control others is one of the most primitive and immature of human traits it is inevitable that the least developed of humans are disproportionately represented in positions of power. Another large fraction function in a sort of moral adolescence: they are able to grasp some mature concepts quite well, yet in other areas are still hopelessly childish.
Take tribalism, for example; far too many people are unable to function as free individuals and so seek identity as a small part of some greater whole. Some accept a ready-made identity as part of whatever race, class, religion or ethnicity they were born into, or in some cases fell into by virtue of genes or chance (the GLBT community, the disabled community, etc); others adopt some other subculture, religion, party or “-ism” later in life. I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with taking pride in one’s heritage, or enthusiastically embracing a cause, group or philosophy; what I’m talking about are those people whose individuality, if they had any to start with, vanishes wholly into the group identity so that they scarcely have a thought or publicly-stated belief which is not included in the group’s scriptures or passed out like cheap adhesive name tags by its leadership. Such people never notice the inconsistencies in their prepackaged doctrines, and if the leaders’ positions change over time you can bet the rank and file will parrot the new catechism with equal enthusiasm. Furthermore, they will attack those they are told are their ideological enemies even in areas where their beliefs approach or even overlap those of the “enemy”; anyone who has ever read any comment threads on Huffington Post will understand what I’m talking about. Philosophical consistency means no more to this sort of person than the fact that he has no real personal stake in “his” team means to the rabid sports fan; what is important is the group identity as a Christian, Democrat, feminist, etc.
Worse and more foolish still is the belief that a nonhuman thing, either material or immaterial, can be “bad”. Like children or primitive people who ascribe magical properties to “lucky” or “taboo” objects, rituals or even cracks in the sidewalk, all too many moderns imagine that plant matter or technological devices can be intrinsically evil; that certain words or images can be literally harmful to children or even to grown men and women; that the mere action of taking a photograph of a naked person (or in some cases, even a clothed child) is intrinsically inimical; that certain forms of human interaction can mystically harm the participants even if they freely choose to engage in the activity and suffer no physical damage; that magical vestments or talismans can grant power over other people or absolve the wearer of moral culpability for his actions; that official pronouncements from anointed leaders can make things vanish; and even that being given a spell-scroll of one variety can make a “dangerous” action into a beneficial one, while being given a different kind of rune-inscribed parchment can make an innocuous action evil. Worst of all, those who reject the taboos of other identity groups never even think to question those of their own group, no matter how much alike they appear to the dispassionate observer.
No matter how much the human race matures, there will always be some individuals who believe in this kind of nonsense, but that’s OK; problems only arise when the children in power hire armed thugs to confine everyone else in the Neighborhood of Make-Believe with them. Once we had a set of rules we all agreed to live by, but somewhere along the line the bullies started to cheat and everyone else was either too scared, too involved in their partisan squabbles or too invested in the system to say anything about it, so here we are. None of us, no matter how dispassionate or logical, is entirely free of irrational beliefs, and because we are all different there will always be a plethora of those beliefs. That’s why we should all insist that laws, public policies and official actions be based on facts rather than faith, and reason rather than emotion; though we will still disagree on the interpretation of those facts (and even, in many cases, what they are), such conflicts are inescapably tethered to the concrete in a way that hogwash about evil weeds, cursed weapons and unholy words could never be. It’s time to set aside childish things, and start dealing with one another like grownups.
Very well said.
the communist party in Greece,although one would expect that would see a rise in the elections,because of its anti austerity measures stance barely got enouph percentage to enter the parlianment,while for many years it came third.why?because of the fact that they have as much touch with reality as an alien would;they want us out of the e.u, because they are against capitalism and globalisation,they want us out of NATO, because they are anti-american.while NATO has been harmful to us in many ways,they tend to base their proposed policies in ideology and not fact.otherwise,they wouldnt pretend as if USSR was a heaven before that ”bastard”Gorbachev ruined everything and feel that Stalin was a hero.same with anarchists,the only good thing ever to be associated with anarchism is punk music,otherwise they havent accompliced anything,exactly because they look at ideology,not reality.
but while,those political ideologies are relatively harmless now because they constitute a minority,we have the ideology of radical feminism,which is not harmless at all,because many female politicians beleive in it(probably,because like every politician their biggest wish is to control others) and the propaganda is as good as the communist one in the USSR.no matter if objectification is a ridiculous concept and one should wonder why it is used by politicians that embrace capitalism,most women now decry objectification,when it comes to sex work,sexy commercials etc.the most absurd thing is that many of those who decry objectification do not look like a radfem is supposed to look.it strikes me as starge to see a woman with bleach blonde hair and a ton of make up,talking about objectification as it does seeing a rich boy with a mansion and a cayenne talking about communism and decrying the evils of capitalism.
absurdity,of course is not the worst face of ideology;harmful policies,oppression even, hate crimes.radfems want to beleive the trafficking statistics are real,that drug users make a disproportional number of sex workers and they dont care about murdered and abused sex workers,when it comes to promoting their ideology. they make the stigma even bigger,because if you dont ask for help to leave the industry,if you dont decry sex work,if you dont go into the victim of circumstance,pimp whatever mode,you are a piece of shit that causes women not to be taken seriously.as if sex workers dont have enouph enemies among insecure men and wives.and everyone knows how far the stigma can go into excusing discrimination or even a hate crime.
I agree with most of this but … I’m still a “tribalist”.
You’re right in saying that things like technology and knowledge have grown through the ages – but the psychological foundation of humans hasn’t. I was reading “Coriolanus” by Shakespeare – written hundreds of years ago and yet the human emotions and scheming are quite familiar to today. If you read the “Discourses” of Epictetus, written just after the death of Christ – you will see Epictetus struggling with the same human moral shortfalls that we have today.
We haven’t changed. A good number of us went through the Age of Reason – and have advanced from there – but there’s still a good portion of the world that hasn’t.
My “tribe” is anyone who holds liberty dearly – it also encompasses those of us who don’t but live within our “walls”. We must protect them too. It’s not the least bit based on race, or religion, or sexual orientation. They are equal to me.
Tribalism is like a firearm – not always a nice thing to see but it’s necessary. When the “dark” places in this world give up their tribalism – I’ll give up mine. Until then – I’ll work to protect those I respect and fight for the Age of Reason – so that we don’t have relearn those lessons.
Not in the way I’m using it, you aren’t:
Hi Krulac,
I think that this is the kind of “Tribes” that you are referring to. And while I like Bill Whittle’s metaphor and think that he handles it ably, I have to agree with Maggie on this. Tribalism is the annihilation of the individual and is a tool in the hands of the anti-enlightenment who feel that if they can invoke the return of the primitive, they can destroy the modern world of reason, individualism and the rule of law.
But, that said, I still think Whittle is a terrific writer. Here are some excerpts. If you haven’t read the original, you should take a look.
That has nothing to do with me being white. If the blacks and Hispanics and Jews and gays that I work with and associate with were there with me, it would have been that much better. That’s because the people I associate with – my Tribe – consists not of blacks and whites and gays and Hispanics and Asians, but of individuals who do not rape, murder, or steal. My Tribe consists of people who know that sometimes bad things happen, and that these instances are opportunities to show ourselves what we are made of. My people go into burning buildings. My Tribe consists of organizers and self-starters, proud and self-reliant people who do not need to be told what to do in a crisis. My Tribe is not fearless; they are something better. They are courageous. My Tribe is honorable, and decent, and kind, and inventive. My Tribe knows how to give orders, and how to follow them. My Tribe knows enough about how the world works to figure out ways to boil water, ration food, repair structures, build and maintain makeshift latrines, and care for the wounded and the dead with respect and compassion.
…
My Tribe doesn’t give a sweet God Damn about what color the looters are, or what color the rescuers are, because we can plainly see before our very eyes that both those Tribes have colors enough to cover everyone in glory or in shame. My Tribe doesn’t see black and white skins. My Tribe only sees black and white hats, and the hat we choose to wear is the most personal decision we can make.
That’s the other thing, too – the most important thing. My Tribe thinks that while you are born into a Tribe, you do not have to stay there. Good people can join bad Tribes, and bad people can choose good ones. My Tribe thinks you choose your Tribe. That, more than anything, is what makes my Tribe unique.
…
Now this next point is so obvious, so simple and so self-evident that there is no way the deep thinkers of the far left will possibly be able to see it.
Let’s not talk about Black and White tribes. I know too many pathetic, hateful, racists and more decent, capable and kind people of both colors for that to make any sense at all. Do you not? Do you not know corrupt, ignorant, violent people, both black and white, to cure you of this elementary idiocy? Have you not met and talked and laughed with people who were funny, decent, upright, honest and honorable of every shade so that the very idea of racial politics should just seem like a desperate and divisive and just plain evil tactic to hold power?
…
Now, for the rest of you, let s get past Republican and Democrat, Red and Blue, too. Let s talk about these two Tribes: Pink, the color of bunny ears, and Grey, the color of a mechanical pencil lead.
I live in both worlds. In entertainment, everything is Pink, the color of Angelyne’s Stingray – it’s exciting and dynamic and glamorous. I’m also a pilot, and I know honest-to-God rocket scientists, and combat flight crews and Special Ops guys — stone-cold Grey, all of them — and am proud and deeply honored to call them my friends.
The Pink Tribe is all about feeling good: feeling good about yourself! Sexually, emotionally, artistically nothing is off limits, nothing is forbidden, convention is fossilized insanity and everybody gets to do their own thing without regard to consequences, reality, or natural law. We all have our own reality – one small personal reality is called – science, say – and we Make Our Own Luck and we Visualize Good Things and There Are No Coincidences and Everything Happens for a Reason and You Can Be Whatever You Want to Be and we all have Special Psychic Powers and if something Bad should happen it’s because Someone Bad Made It Happen. A Spell, perhaps.
The Pink Tribe motto, in fact, is the ultimate Zen Koan, the sound of one hand clapping: EVERYBODY IS SPECIAL.
Then, in the other corner, there is the Grey Tribe – the grey of reinforced concrete. This is a Tribe where emotion is repressed because Emotion Clouds Judgment. This is the world of Quadratic Equations and Stress Risers and Loads Torsional, Compressive and Tensile, a place where Reality Can Ruin Your Best Day, the place where Murphy mercilessly picks off the Weak and the Incompetent, where the Speed Limit is 186,282.36 miles per second, where every bridge has a Failure Load and levees come in 50 year, 100 year and 1000 Year Flood Flavors.
The Grey Tribe motto is, near as I can tell, THINGS BREAK SOMETIMES AND PLEASE DON’T LET IT BE MY BRIDGE.
I like the Bill Whittle stuff … well most of it anyways.
Eh … I didn’t try to explain it any further to the skipper above … she was being nice to me, but in fact the reason I use the word “tribalist” in describing myself is to acknowledge the “dark side” that I know is there – some of which she describes in this column.
Best way I can describe it is using a story about “Ollie” – who was a WWII Submarine Vet. What you need to know is that submarines sank more Japanese tonnage in that war than all other allied forces combined (55%). They only made up 2% of the Navy though. About 18% of all submarines in the Pacific were sunk – and about 13% of the total enlisted submarine force was lost – over 3,000 Sailors. Ollie was on several subs – even one or two that were “sunk” while he was on them but he managed to get off. He was never captured by the Japanese but many of his shipmates were and they told him later of their experiences.
Ollie was incapable of seeing the Japanese as human beings – and this wasn’t due to some ignorant upbringing in the backwoods of the Ozarks – this was a result of his war experiences. This also, wasn’t solely the product of his shipmate’s experiences as POW’s at the hands of the Japanese. Though they were treated horrifically by the Japanese and he came to know all the stories – there was a lot more going on here with Ollie.
Eighteen is a young age to go to war and Ollie was trained to kill Japanese – to hunt ’em like dogs and shoot ’em. Sneak up on them – fire when they don’t see. Kill in the most expedient fashion possible. His boats were pretty successful at that – but sometimes the Japanese got a leg up on them and Ollie would find himself fighting for his life. He described to me being depth charged and hunted by a Japanese destroyer squadron for a full three days. He told me of being stuck on the bottom (an experience I’ve actually had and it’s not pleasant) … trying to figure out ways to get the boat to the surface when you’ve already pumped out every bit of reserve ballast you have.
Back when I used to drink … I used to take Ollie to the club and he would tell me his opinions of the Japanese. I used to think … “WTF? Ollie is a goddamn racist!” And he was. But he became that way because he was fighting a war to protect “his tribe” from what he perceived to be a pack of rabid dogs bent on destroying him and his tribe.
Now – I’m not coming at this as a blind imperialist here. I’m still scratching my head over why we got involved in WWI – so I AM capable of questioning the sensibilities of my government. However, I really don’t know how we could have avoided WWII and the conduct of the Japanese Imperial Forces – all around – was HORRIFIC. So I can call Ollie a racist – but I can’t argue with the results he and his shipmates produced and … I’m damn glad they were there at a time when we desperately needed them. So the U.S. and its allies survived – but what happened to Ollie and his brothers isn’t pretty.
I tried not to be like Ollie and for all the years we fought the Cold War against the Soviets – I was not. I never had anything but respect for Soviet Submariners – who were our primary antagonists at the time. Then again, it wasn’t a shooting war.
But when 9-11 happened, I turned into Ollie. It may have been okay had I stayed the entire time on my ship – and just launched cruise missiles all the time at the horizon. However, the Admiral of the battle group (both that I deployed with) had a different plan for me and I found myself, very often, INSIDE Afghanistan or Iraq getting shot at (and shooting back). Further, I had to – on several occasions, get involved with locals and some disputes they were having. It wasn’t bad in Iraq – really, it wasn’t and I actually have a very favorable opinion of Iraqis. But in Afghanistan I saw the aftermath of several Taliban atrocities that convinced me (in my mind) that these Islamoidiots are nothing more than DOGS. It’s not a racial thing with me – because there are some Afghani’s that I loved to death. The ones that assisted us in moving Marines in and out of theater were awesome. The ones who risked their lives (or GAVE their lives) to give us information on the Tally’s. These people tended to be more “moderate” Muslims though – so I came to equate Islamic Fundamentalism with evil. So it wasn’t racial with me – it was more a prejudice against the religious extremes of Islam. When I heard the rumors of US GI’s flushing Korans down a commode I thought … “Wow, Stellar Idea!”. And then I’d realize how unthinkingly callous that thought was – and then after thinking more about it – I wouldn’t give a shit. It’s a like a whole branch of my ethical and logical tree that’s just been “snipped” away. When it comes to fundamentalist Islam – I suspend all “reasoning” that I would apply to any other topic. I’m not capable of doing anything other. Not something I’m proud of.
So how does the above relate to “tribalism” in my case? In the movie “Gladiator” … Maximus tells Marcus Aurelius – “I’ve seen much of the rest of the world. It is brutal and cruel and dark, Rome is the light.” Rome was never perfect – and neither is Western Civilization – but we ARE the “light”. I’ve seen much of the rest of the world and it’s not culture shock – when I see “dark” it’s because those places are indeed “dark”.
The wind blows – the candle flickers – the light alternates between bright and dark … it’s not a big deal unless the candle is actually extinguished. You must keep the candle lit – that is the number one goal. You can’t ponder great manuscripts without the candlelight. You can’t write a philosophical or political masterpiece without that candlelight. Everything else is secondary to keeping it lit because without that candle – nothing happens, everything stops in the dark.
So for me … the “dark side” of tribalism does fit me – because I’ll do anything to keep the candle lit – which includes compromising principles … taking another man’s property … or even convincing myself he’s not a human being if it’s necessary to get me through an otherwise unpleasant task.
Do I celebrate this? No. It just is. Had I been a poet I wouldn’t be this way – probably. But since I’m not smart enough to be one …
Some will blame this on some weird brainwashing techniques they used on me in boot camp. Nope. The US didn’t put anything into me that wasn’t already there.
Krulac,
Those “dark” tribes are only a threat to those people who actually go over there and stick a gun in their faces. Moral of the story: Either get permission from these tribes to enter their territory, or stay out.
Here’s the problem, Susan – so much of this shit is inherited.
I’m not the one that convinced the Jews that Zionism was a good plan – that plan came about as a result of European anti-Semitism and the anti-Semites of the time backed it because they thought it would get the Jews out of their own nations.
So the Jews moved to Palestine. My grandfather’s generation encouraged them – I didn’t.
So my father’s generation tries to fix the problem in 1947 with the UN Partitioning Plan – which the Jews accepted but the Arabs denounced and went to war.
END of “attempt #1” to fix a problem created by our grandfathers – TEST GRADE = “F”
So the Arabs, unable to beat anyone in this century (or the last) militarily – resort to asymmetrical tactics and the use of oil as a weapon. Oil is our blood – without oil, we’re toast. Actually, we may have our own oil – but no liberal is going to let us drill for it – nor do they favor other options to get us off oil – like nuclear power.
So … we still gotta fix this problem caused by grandpa – but the Islamoidiots over there don’t make it easy. WTF are we to do? Go tell every Jew in Israel to pack his bags and leave? Stand by and watch the Iranians nuke them? Really?
You and I didn’t cause the problem – grandpa caused the problem – but we are stuck with fixing it. It would be nice if the Arabs helped us out in this endeavor a bit. And – it would be nice if liberals would allow us to drill for oil here and use proven alternate technologies so that we have more flexibility in coming up with a solution OVER THERE.
We’re stuck with fixing it only as long as we accept being stuck. The US has enough oil just in the shale of the northern Rockies to last us 50 years. Get the EPA out of the way, and we can abandon the whole Middle East, and Venezuela, as not our problem. (Israel? Invite ’em all to move here. Where they are now, two nukes will wipe them out in 15 minutes, and nobody can do a thing to prevent it. Otherwise all you’re left with is futile revenge, if that.) Let the Europeans, China, and Japan make their own deals (or fight their own wars) with Russia or Arabia if they need the oil.
Yes, this is not good news for women in the Arab world, but we simply don’t have the ability to free them. Only to get ourselves nuked by continuing to butt into other people’s fights.
“Let the Europeans, China, and Japan make their own deals (or fight their own wars) with Russia or Arabia if they need the oil.”
Or come up with a real solution which doesn’t involve going after ever-more-expensive and ever-more-dirty sources of oil because the easy oil is either already dug up or in places like the Middle East or Venezuela. Then we can have $16 a gallon gas, a dead Gulf of Mexico, a dead Arctic, an ugly (and largely dead) Rocky Mountains, and the Europeans, China, and Japan can have beautiful nations and abundant cheap energy because they don’t live in a shrine to Holy Fossil.
Which would, I guess, be good news for Europe, China, and Japan, but I’m just nationalistic enough to want the USA to have some of the good stuff, too.
Tribalism in N Ireland; sectarianism. Remarkably, both tribes base their ideas on their reading of history, a very selective process; and on willful ignorance. Neither tribe could see just how the local government was oppressing them, how they were being manipulated. And if we’ve had “peace” for more than a decade, it’s still fragile; the old hostilities are just under the surface.
I feel I must disagree with your original premise in this column. I haven’t read or seen any great moral advances in how humans generally behave in the past 6-8000 years of recorded history. There has been a rise in sophistication; in how we justify certain actions or how rulers conceal those actions from the hoi-polloi. And certainly there have been advances in technology; in how those actions are accomplished. But not much advance in what many people choose to do to each other.
All I meant was that our moral philosophy has grown; something like the enlightenment would’ve been impossible in 1000 BCE. Furthermore, the number of people who grasp moral ideas has grown, though they’re still a tiny minority. And in the ruling class, the percentage hasn’t changed at all; approximately 0% of rulers in any age are capable of moral thought, though back when our rulers were selected by birthright we did get an occasional moral individual from time to time by pure chance, much as a stopped clock is accurate more often (twice a day) than one which loses one minute a day (once every two years).
Steven Pinker argues that there have been quantifiable reductions in violence, 4 historically and 1 paleo-historically, and that the historical reductions begin with the consolidations of feudal territories in Europe into nation states and the rise of modern commerce after the Renaissance.
With all its wars, murder and genocide, history might suggest that the taste for blood is human nature. Not so, argues Harvard Prof. Steven Pinker. He talks to WSJ’s Gary Rosen about the decline in violence in recent decades and his new book, “The Better Angels of Our Nature.”
By STEVEN PINKER
On the day this article appears, you will read about a shocking act of violence. Somewhere in the world there will be a terrorist bombing, a senseless murder, a bloody insurrection. It’s impossible to learn about these catastrophes without thinking, “What is the world coming to?”
But a better question may be, “How bad was the world in the past?”
Believe it or not, the world of the past was much worse. Violence has been in decline for thousands of years, and today we may be living in the most peaceable era in the existence of our species.
The decline, to be sure, has not been smooth. It has not brought violence down to zero, and it is not guaranteed to continue. But it is a persistent historical development, visible on scales from millennia to years, from the waging of wars to the spanking of children.
This claim, I know, invites skepticism, incredulity, and sometimes anger. We tend to estimate the probability of an event from the ease with which we can recall examples, and scenes of carnage are more likely to be beamed into our homes and burned into our memories than footage of people dying of old age. There will always be enough violent deaths to fill the evening news, so people’s impressions of violence will be disconnected from its actual likelihood.
His 5 stages are:
1. The consolidation of humanity into agrarian states which, he argues, dropped the death rate from 15% to 3%
2. The above mentioned consolidation of European feudal territories into nation-states and the rise of modern commerce.
3. The Humanitarian revolution beginning with the Enlightenment and coming forward to the 20th century.
4. The respite from major inter-state wars coming after World War II.
5. The drop in civil wars, insurgencies, guerrilla warfare (and their respective body counts dropping as well) after the demise of the Cold War.
I think that this does represent an improvement in moral action, or, at least, a decline in the most egregious of immoral actions – murder, whether state sanctioned or free-lance.
I agree with most of this and with a lot of what B Coulson said.I think the Enlightment began a long process(16th c right? and the 60s in america) theres a whole lot to think and discuss in this. very interesting. thanks
Sadly, I have to agree with #5. There have been many bright spots in history but they have almost always been isolated individuals. Today, people in general are not much advanced beyond our primitive ancestors. All that has happened is that their worst behaviors have been diverted into less socially disruptive channels.
The obvious counter is “We don’t burn witches anymore!” True. We (in the so-called civilized world) no longer engage in the worst *behaviors* of our ancestors. But it is not hard to see the witch-burning mentality in all too many people and, were such people freed from the constraints of this society, more “witches” would burn.
The ultimate problem isn’t human nature, but rather the primitive moralities that almost everyone accepts. Humans will remain essentially primitive until those moralities are rejected.
Well, in fact we don’t burn witches anymore.
We don’t kill as many in our wars.
Major powers haven’t directly gone to war since WWII.
Murder is down in most countries.
Rape is down in most countries.
We even make our rougher sports less violent (i.e., helmets, rule changes, etc).*
We have more protections for animals against the cruelty of human beings.
We don’t even spank our children as much as we used to.
* And yet, almost every fictional sport set in the future differs from modern sports by being excessively violent, and in little else. Cross-country auto races with rocket launchers, The Running Man, football/hockey/basketball hybrids with battle staves, The Hunger Games, etc.
One idea I had problems with for a long time are guns, and whether civilians should be able to have them, and to carry them for self defense. Today carrying is illegal in Finland, so is any kind of self defense use – hunters can have a loaded gun with them when they are hunting, and hobbyists can own them and use them on a range, but they should be unloaded and in some sort of case when being transported, and one has to have all kinds of permits and go through a lot of hassle before one can buy one.
Now while there are a lot of hobbyists and hunters in Finland, the general atmosphere has been rather against guns my whole life. You know, all these ideas that only some sort of immature wannabe cowboys like guns, and all the mature individuals can see that they are BAD, and nobody should really have one, and it’s all to protect us because if just anybody could get and carry one we’d wind up living in something like wild west – or America, where, as you can see from news, kids are gunning each other down on street corners every other day, or if not that then some nut will just shoot the lost stranger who just came to ask for the way to the museum on his doorstep.
So, everybody around me seemed to think that. It was what was on papers, and it was something which seemed to be taken for granted by most of the people I knew. Only there was always this one problem – if I imagined a scenario when somebody attacked me, somebody bigger and stronger, for some reason – and you could find that happening from time to time if you read the papers – well, nobody could ever give me a good answer to what one could do in a case like that. Call the police, sure. Might help if there was some nut pounding on your door, but if he was already inside, well, maybe if there happened to be a police car just outside of your apartment when you called, otherwise the nut would still have the ball and the police would probably only get on the scene for the aftermath. Talk him out of it? Sure, might work, but what if it didn’t? Beg for mercy? Ditto. Try to fight him? Aha… with what?
Okay, so I’d talk about this with somebody. And usually the answer was that it was such an unlikely scenario – practically never happened to anybody. But to me the problem remained – okay, very unlikely, would probably never happen to me or to anybody I knew. But stuff like that does still happen, sometimes, to somebody. Most often the cases one gets to read about here are something like a woman attacked by a disgruntled ex or an angry boyfriend or husband she is perhaps trying to leave.
So, why are those women not allowed to have something to defend themselves with? Because then more disgruntled exes might wind up dead? Or perhaps some innocent bystander, like the mailman, because she of course would not be able to keep cool and react only to the actual threat but would surely end up shooting the first person who startled her.
But even while I had problems with this idea, for the longest time I still did kind of go with what seemed to be the consensus – guns bad, civilians should be very closely watched when it comes to them, and surely nobody else but police should be allowed to actually carry them. Occasionally I would try to look into this thing, but all you could easily find before the internet was the stuff which would support that consensus. I only got over this after internet, when I gained access to American statistics, and to that research which ended with pro-gun conclusions. Sure you could argue that I was kind of hoping to find exactly that, and so was biased with my reading, but I did at least try to do a thorough job, reading both pro and against equally. But it really seems to be that there aren’t any more murders and mayhem in those places where civilians do carry. Possible even the opposite.
Okay, long and verbose comment, for a small point. Which is just that peer pressure can be the damnedest thing, and very hard to fight against even when you really don’t quite buy this idea what everybody else seems to think you should.
pohjalainen,
While this book doesn’t address Finland’s issues it does give some historical backdrop to the question of defensive gun use in the United States. And the contributors are from what was then the liberal side of the political spectrum in the United States.
And an excerpt from one review:
Two things stick out in my mind without me re-reading the book.
One, British firearms researcher Colin Greenwood points out that British gun crime and in particular misuse of handguns was lower before the first major national gun law, the 1920 Firearms Act, and every gun law since then has been accompanied by more gun crime, not less in Britain. When you look at recent British crime stats, the very crime rate that is most likely to be deterred by defensive guns in the home–home invasion robbery or “hot burglary”–is higher in Britain that in the USA.
Two, Kates tells of going to Mississippi as part of the black voter registration campaign in the 1960s. Kates was armed for self-defense; his companion was appalled. Kates had a well-thought-through defensive-only philosophy, but his companion was stridently anti-self-defense and anti-gun. When Kates met the same person later, he had become a radical bomb thrower, but Kates was still a man who prefered non-violence but had a self-defense ethic.
Thanks. Looks interesting.
Hi Maggie,
This is completely off-topic but I was wondering if you’d seen it and what your take might be.
http://www.metro.us/philadelphia/international/article/1148979
My take is that Nate Jones is clearly very gay; he calls women’s bottoms “kind of gross” and then presents a whole bunch of pictures of men’s bottoms and crotches.
I’ll never understand how anyone can think of ladies’ bottoms as “gross,” but then I’m a subscriber to the Score Group magazine “Bootylicious” which has a definite focus.
(To be fair, I used to subscribe to their “Leg Sex” but that sadly went all digital.)
Okay, Libertarianism is often criticized on the very same grounds you brought up. I was wondering what your response to those criticisms.
What are you babbling about? How can a philosophy which is against criminalizing things and non-violent behaviors be criticized on the grounds of criminalizing inanimate objects? I don’t have any response to ignorant statements posing as “criticisms”, which describes about 90% of negative statements about libertarianism from soi-disant “progressives”.
I was trying to politely mention that Libertarianism is often accused as being more childish and driven by tribalism than other ideology.
reason.com’s comment threads aren’t any better than Huffington Post’s.
Being polite is hard.
That’s pure nonsense. Libertarians are more fractious and schismatic than any other political philosophy I know, which is the OPPOSITE of tribalism.
That was actually exactly what I was wondering. Thank you for clearing that up.
You didn’t ask me, but hey, I’ll answer anyway.
My feeling would be that if somebody wraps his entire identity around “I am a libertarian” or to put none too subtle a point on it, “I’m better than you because I’m a libertarian,” then that person is exactly like the tribal perpetual children Maggie was talking about, just the same as somebody saying “I’m better than you because I’m heterosexual” or “I’m better than you because I’m an Abyssinian Reformed Hindu blacksmith” or whatever.*
Libertarians who are not like that may be right or wrong on some particular issue, but I think we can drop the charge of excessive tribalism in those cases.
* No disrespect intended towards Abyssinian Reformed Hindu blacksmiths, of course.
My idea of what tribalism is well, have you ever heard of Star Wars: Incredible Cross Systems? In that book, there’s this one line about how star destroyers have 200 gigaton Turbolaser, which something like 40 times the power of all the nuclear weapons in the world right now.
I have seen people arguing for hundreds of posts whether or not Star Wars ICS should be accepted as “canon” (their term, not mine) in regards to which would win in a fight: the Enterprise or a Star Destroyer. These can get very, very angry, and so my definition of tribalism is more like “How people behave without strong, effective moderation.”
…
By people who put their responsibilities as moderator above their own feelings.
Err, but your definition is also good.
Depending on my mood, I could probably make a decent case for either the Enterprise or the Star Destroyer.
Which franchise is better? Star Trek.
Which is more powerful? Star Wars.
Al of the argument that persists past a few minutes consideration arises from inability to separate these two questions.
I don’t think many people would say that old BSG is better than Hornblower just because they would win in a fight. It’s basically the same question.
Actually, the SDF Yamoto would probably blow them both (Enterprise & Imperial Star Destroyer) away, because it has fighter cover, multiple turreted guns, and the awesome Wave Motion Gun. But does that make Uchuu Senken Yamato a better series?
Nah. There are other things which put it in the same league as the two big Star franchises, but just “they have a bigger gun” doesn’t.
I take issue with your idea that Abyssinian Reformed Hindu Blacksmiths are superior when it is clear to any functioning mind that the Abyssinian Reformed Jainist Blacksmiths are obviously the most top-shelf.
So There!
Ah, yes. My mistake. 😉
I’m not so sure that human moral understanding has really progressed that much. Take the classic ‘Do unto others…’ statement. This basic rule has been promoted at least as far back as 1500 B.C.E.; probably earlier. Other concepts such as ‘equal justice under law’ predate the common era as well. Despite admiration for those who utter such common sense ideas, somehow that admiration never seems to translate into common practice.
If there is a drop in violence, then I suspect there is a cause other than humanity suddenly gaining an increase in moral sense (sadly).
Two examples of tribalism that affect us every day, one deliberate, one an unintended consequence of a good idea.
The first and deliberate one is the incredible lack of diversity in our two main political parties. Both Republican and Democrats have used modern ideological discipline to ensure the “purity” of each political party. The unfortunate result of this are lawmakers who never have developed the ability to work and compromise with others with differing views even within their own party, much less with the opposing party. The result is an incredible lack of choice come election time, and an inability to solve real world problems after the elections. The tribal leadership has been very effective in ensuring tribal purity, and the results have been a disaster for the country. The following article is interesting, and lays the blame as far back as FDR.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/11/20/the_culprits_behind_todays_polarized_politics_112128.html
The second example is interesting. I got this from the book “The Bell Curve”, which was very controversial when it was published in 1994. For those who don’t remember, the book’s argument was that an individuals intelligence (as measured by IQ tests) was a better predictor of an individuals ultimate financial status, job performance, chance of unwanted pregnancy and involvement with crime than socioeconomic status or education level. The book mainly dealt with statistics regarding white males, but a chapter on racial differences proved highly controversial and overshadowed the rest of the book.
To me the most interesting part of the book was the beginning, in which the authors argued that the modern education system has created a “cognitive elite” who are overwhelming in charge of the decisions that affect most Americans, but have no idea how most Americans live or think. The idea is that our education system systematically, and from a young age, segregates “smart” individuals into their own group (or tribe…). If you are smart, ie, do well on tests, you are placed in classes that your not-so-smart classmates aren’t. In high school, the “geeks” take calculus and the folks on the other end take shop. (I took both, my circles of friends did NOT overlap…) College further stratifies folks. If you are sort of smart: community college. A little smarter: state universities. Really smart: Harvard, Yale and MIT. Scholarships level the financial handicaps and further concentrate the “smart”. Ultimately, the Harvard, Yale and MIT grads take jobs and positions where their decisions have a very disproportionate effect on the rest of us. The problem is, the argument goes, is that by this point, the decision maker’s “tribe” now only includes those others whose path was theirs. They don’t know and can’t relate to the high school graduate working at the local factory or the drop out working construction. They don’t know what the vast majority of Americans want or need, can’t understand where they are coming from, and yet are the ones who make the decisions that affect them.
In my experience, this is true. The problem is, I’m not really sure how to solve it.
This was quite good, and I can only really take exception with one part:
“Once we had a set of rules we all agreed to live by, but somewhere along the line…”
No, we’ve always had different rules for different people. These people can vote but those people can’t; these people go to this school but those people go to that school; these people can serve on a jury… But you get the idea. Same as it ever was, same as it ever was.
Nice piece, well-said. but too abstract. Almost all of the prohibitoinists would agree with all of this, and then not make any connection to their own misguided belief systems. You need to be more explicit, though it dampens the style.
Incidentally, the greatest tribalisms in our societies today tend to be on the left, from what I can see, and among “progressives” (a totally inappropriate term).
The truth is, humans can’t really be trusted. Far too many, as evidenced by the lack of clear and independent thought on the left today, have no ability to move without some sort of clan-identifying ideology, whether merely personal (like a family connection) or one of ideas.
Few people like to think for themselves. Reading any blog or commentary where people on theleft congregate is like reading a mutual maturbation circle: Everyone agrees, and shames others into agreeing or shutting up.
On the other hand, ironically, on the center-right, and especially among libertarians, almost no-one agrees completely with anyone else – except for the “you’re free to think that” meme.
Does this mean that libertarians are doomed to perpetual disorganization?
Yes and no. I think we can agree on enough positions to get candidates elected, and work from there. But contention and disagreement is GOOD in government; it’s “bipartisan” efforts that are the most dangerous to life, liberty and property. So-called “gridlock” is a good thing, because it keeps Congress from making any more idiotic, tyrannical laws. The only “unity” I want to see on Capitol Hill is unity in repealing laws, and that will never happen under our present system.
“Reading any blog or commentary where people on theleft congregate is like reading a mutual maturbation circle: Everyone agrees, and shames others into agreeing or shutting up.”
And of course, this is exactly what I find on right-leaning blogs or groups. But of course, that isn’t the centerright. I’m sure that center-left blogs are contentious, because that’s what happens near the center.
And in fact, that’s what I find in both center-left and center-right.
[…] I find it fascinating (albeit in a sad and terrifying sort of way) to see how oblivious modern Westerners are to the fact that our “leaders” are nothing but tribal chieftains who hide their naked barbarism behind fine talk, fancy titles, ersatz philosophy and elaborate rituals. The “rule of law” is absolutely meaningless when society supports a parasitic class whose only function is to make more laws, to interpret them in such a way as to inexorably increase their own power, and to hire thugs in order to inflict violence upon those whom they can (credibly or otherwise) accuse of having violated any of the tens of thousands of arcane, abstruse, vague, overbroad and complex laws to which they add new (and invariably worse) specimens every week. And despite their modern “scientific” or “democratic” veneer, the vast bulk of those laws are based in superstitious concepts which any primitive would recognize: […]