Hatred of the other is endemic to the human race. Generally tribal people have a name for themselves which means 'the people.' Inuit which the people we used to call Eskimos now prefer to be called means 'the people' in their language. That implies that those not Inuit are not people. The myth of the chosen people in the Bible means non-Jews are not chosen by God. That puts down non-Jews. Christians then regarded themselves as the new chosen, 'a community of saints'. Marxists regarded the proletariat as a chosen class to lead humanity to a secular millennium.

It would be a movement against race hatred to recognise the 'chosen people' myth for what it is and rid ourselves of it and all its variants. Marxism, Christianity, Islam, nationalism, racism and fascism are all variants. The concept used to serve a purpose which was to unite a particular group in solidarity better to struggle against others. However, in a multicultural society and an international community any sort of exceptionalism promotes conflict.

There is no chosen race, class, religion, nation, political ideology or ethnic group. Exceptionalism has become merely a hate promoting device. Can we transcend tribalism?

David,

I cannot see it ever happening naturally.
You can legislate against tribalism but that is not a solution.
I think its core is as basic as the family group and is driven by a survival instinct.
Maybe some time in the distant future under circumstances we cannot visulise at this early stage of our development.
Despite our clever toys we are as a species a long way from being deemed civilised.

Take it easy.

SD

Ah, if only....

But wait! One of the underlying drivers of fear-of-the-other is low grade religiosity and this bizarre notion of 'Faith'.

If we worked towards teaching children to think and question the reasons behind our world, we might make inroads into reducing blind faith and its coercive influence on the empty head.

why should we
the problem isnt tribalism..but globalism..that creates a tribalistic loyalty..[what is the commonwealth game..or football but tribalistic]

its not about trancending tribalism
but seeing that faulse pride goeth before the fall

we are all children of the one good god of mercy and grace
our 'tribe' is only a matter of accident

you picked a good topic david
its important that we do some serious thinking about it

ban sport before banning tribalism
just cause 'your team' won..dont mean you won

Going beyond the superficial of mere prejudice is the fact that every group of people prefers to organize themselves under a specific system of management that works best for them, and these vary substantially between people to the point that they would become incompatible.

So ultimately no- in the future the world will divide itself (albeit probably peacefully) based on functional compatibility, secularism vs religiousness, accepted social norms, etc.

Be honest! We cannot even get local neighbours to be on pleasant speaking terms over noise, dogs, boundaries etc, how do we expect countries?

Well yes, people can indeed learn to transcend tribalism. But never
forget, the veneer of society is in fact quite thin. Its easy to
do when everyone is doing well.

The question is what happens if survival is at stake. People will
rely on their insticts and of course bodies are simply the way that
dna passes itself on from one generation to the next. Deep within
that dna are genes coded for loving your children, your friends,
your community etc. If the crunch comes, you'll put them first.

Given that ever more people means scarcer resources, land etc,
tribalism will dominate again as soon as the fight over these
surfaces once again.

The Mexican writer Octavio Paz (1985) comments that
the future "has no face and is sheer possibility."

Can we transcend tribalism?

Precise predictions about the long-term future are
rather difficult to make. Change always depends on the
unique events that have gone before, and always has
unique effects on the events that are still to come.
In any case, accurate prediction of the course of
history involves an insuperable logical flaw.
If we knew what was to happen, we would be able to
prevent it from happening - in which case the
prediction would be false.

The future may not be for use to know, but it is
surely ours to make.

cont'd ...

My apologies - another typo.
The sentence should read:

"The future may not be for us to know,
but it is surely ours to make."

Philo, we could 'bomb them all back to the stone age' perhaps?

Then fill their nations with troops to force them to be a 'democracy', and then they could go and bomb others back into the stone age and the whole cycle keeps going.

King Hazza, the problem with your solution is that within these spheres of calm you envision will be hotspots of dissent, ensuring a constant flux between calm and angst continues.

Time to forget 'great overarching narratives' for the world, be they communism, capitalism or one of the despicable 'faiths' always seeking to convert the entire world to their 'one true way', and just chill out and get on with it.

The farce we all pretend to believe in, with phrases like 'world class' and 'in pursuit of excellence', those phrases that help to legitimise intense greed in pay packets of CEOs (as but one area), are in the same vein.

Our world thrives on conflict, on oppression, on greed and 'otherness', on the foolish believing in the wise, on oafs running our institutions, on pyscho-socio paths leading our nations.

We love it!

It gives us courage and purpose, aims and objectives.

It is the conflict that drives progress, and we would be lost and forlorn without it.

There is a word, praxis, that describes it well, although I think in that process we are supposed to learn from the conflict and 'move on' as the learned amongst us now say.

Great thread Davidf
I have tossed related threads around from my first day here.
My answer is no, but how great would it be, or would it?
Religions /Nations/self interest divides us.
Race creed color.
It came with us, maybe guided us, out of the cave, it is survival instinct.
If we want to be honest, take a harsh but honest look, at our selves and others.
We will see why Shakespeare said all the world is a stage.
We just can not avoid acting in the company of others, some much more than others.
Neighbors got a mention.
The nicest people, act defensively toward the nicest people next door.
It is fence building defensive fences.
I love women all of them, but some, may be more than a few, act every second of their life.
It is nearly impossible to trust just some.
People are tuned by the very DNA to be tribal and separate.
But in extreme danger? we come together as one? so maybe one day?

We now have weapons that can destroy all human life
on earth. Therefore we must transcend the tribal
assumptions and conditionings that automatically
polarize both our perception and action in terms of
"them" and "us." It is time for a radical re-thinking.

Dear Lexi,

It is time for a radical rethinking, but we are unlikely to do it.

One source for conflict is the attitude that Marxism, Christianity and Islam take. "We know what is best for the world. All we have to do is spread our ideas, and there will be a better world. How can we best spread our ideas?"

If they could only change it to: "We know what is best for the world. However, we must face the reality that everybody is not going to see it our way no matter what we do. How can we best live with those who will not accept our ideas?"

Dear David F.,

You're right.

We have a communication problem between tribes
who implicitly and explicitely perceive the
world in different ways.

Unfortunately there is a tendency on so many
people's parts to think that their way is the right
way and that people who disagree with them are bad.
That they are on the right path, and that their
path is the only path.
Yet a healthy, vital society is not one in which
we all agree. It is one in which those who disagree
can do so with honour and respect for other people's
opinions, and an appreciation of our shared humanity.
Without personal commitment to the attributes of
fair play and integrity, we're in grave danger.

If more and more nuclear weapons are built, and if more
sophisticated means of delivering them are devised,
and if more and more nations get control of these vile
devices, then surely we risk our own destruction.

As I've stated in the past, if ways are found to reverse
that process, then we may be able to divert unprecedented
energy and resources to the real problems that face us,
including poverty, disease, overpopulation, and the
devastation of our environment.

We can only hope and trust that our ultimate choice will
be to enhance the life on this planet on which we live.
But I'm not sure how good our prospects are while all over
the world hundreds of thousands of scientists and
engineers devote their skills to planning new and more
efficient ways for humans to kill one another and millions of
workers labour to manufacture instruments of death; and
tens of millions of soldiers train for combat.

From a moral and even an economic point of view, this
vast investment of human ingenuity and energy seems like
such a tragic waste.

Lexi

"Yet a healthy, vital society is not one in which we all agree"... quite so, as I said above, it is the friction between ideas, good bad and downright silly, that causes us to 'progress', the basis of praxis as I understand the phrase.

"It is one in which those who disagree can do so with honour and respect for other people's opinions, and an appreciation of our shared humanity", oh my gawd, 'honour and respect for other people's opinions'.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean there.

If you said, 'understand that others have opinions that may differ to ones own' I could handle that for a replacement for 'honour'.

But 'respect' is a hard one. I most certainly do not 'respect' a lot of the opinions put forward here. Some are total balderdash, and I could never 'respect' them at all.

That said, I do realise that others (wrong though they are, of course) might feel that about my opinions posted here and I certainly would not expect them to 'respect' my views either.

It is this rather silly idea we seem to carry from one age to another, that there is a 'solution' to our woes, real or imagined, and I doubt there is.

It seems to have its roots in the various quite childish notions of paradise and heaven that we inflict on ourselves, and while we can only dream of what they might be after death, there is a determination to create a trial run down here on Earth.

Oh folly! What a wasteful and dangerous idea.

Whilst ever we all talk at cross-purposes, our purposes will remain cross, too much of the time.

The answer is no to transcend. Not while the world has religion in varying aspects. Like the AU indig; never mingled, and still one tribe cannot understand the other. We are stuck with what we have, and that will probably end mankind, all in the name of disunity of association.

The principle that will unite the people of the world is when all respect and love unconditionally.

Is it likely to happen? Probably never!

I don't like our chances of transcending tribalism.

Here's Arthur Koestler on the subject (under a header titled "The Curse of Language"):

"...the enormous range of intra-specific differences between human individuals, races and cultures; a diversity without parallel among other species. In Huxley's list of man's biological "uniquenesses", this wide range of variety in physical appearance and mental attributes actually occupies first place...what matters in our context is that these differences and contrasts were a powerful factor of mutual repellence between groups; with the result that the disruptive forces have always dominated the forces of cohesion in the species as a whole....The people of the neighbouring village were simply not considered con-specifics....one would imagine that the dawn of abstract, consceptualised thought, its communication by language, and its preservation by cumulative records would have counteracted these fratricidal, species-disrupting tendencies. In actual fact, the cliche about the unifying power of verbal communication represents only half the truth...In the first place is the trivial fact, while language facilitates communication within the group, it also crystallises cultural differences, and actually heightens barriers between groups....Among humans, the separative, group-estranging forces of language are active on every level: nations, tribes, regional dialects, the exclusive vocabularies and accents of social class; professional jargon...An emotionally maladjusted species, we have the uncanny power of turning every blessing, including language, into a curse."

Dear TBC,

It may have been a poor choice of phrasing on my part
and not meant the way you perceived it.

What I meant by the word "respect," was:

It means not dissing people because they're different
to you. It means not dumping on anyone. Valuing each
other's point of view and being open to being wrong.
Basically accepting people as they are et cetera.
Google the "Urban Dictionary" - to get an even better
idea.

when we can get a husband or wife to keep a wedding vowel we might be getting somewhere. Just happens David f that there is no chosen race as such today but certainly a fallen race. Only someone totally blinded could ignore the fact that we all have fallen natures including you and me. Before thatfallen nature is dealt with you can only dream that everyone else won't be like you or me.

Dear runner,

To say we are fallen means to accept your mythology that we once were in a non-fallen state. Many people uncluding me don't accept your mythology and believe we have simply developed to be what we are.

I accept that you believe in your mythology, but I think it is nothing but mythology. However, I wish to live in peace with you and others who accept your mythology. I hope you wish to live in peace with us and accept the fact we don't believe what you believe.

Runner mate you remind me constantly that for some Christianity is a shield to hide bigotry.
At an awful fire/flood/ death event/those neighbors become one, London Blitz what ever we change at such times.
I think that change too is in our DNA just as our protectionism self survival instinct is.
Harness that, bottle it and maybe we can be one I have my doubts.

Now runner, while I respect and honour your views, I am intrigued about these wedding vowels you mention.

I do recall my wedding, and did have a bit to jrink afterwards, but do not recall any wedding vowels.

Are they different to the run-of-the-mill vowels, the old AEIOU variety?

Or, perhaps they are part of an old style tribal wedding, when the wedding 'voles' were killed and eaten by the bride?

I can understand how 'vole' can become 'vowel' but was unaware that voles are/were connected to weddings, until now of course.

Dear Blue Cross,

The wedding vowel is not AEIO or U. It is the divine Y.

Why? I have remained consonant in my wedded life, behaving myself at all times, yet have heard no sound reminiscent of a wedding vowel.

Dear The Blue Cross,

Consider the divine Y as an anatomical metaphor.

Dear runner,

Christianity, like all religions, has incorporated myths current at the time of its invention.

Carpenter in “Origins of Christians and Pagan Creeds”:

“The Etruscans, the Persians and the Babylonians had also legends of the Fall of man through a serpent tempting him to taste of the fruit of a holy Tree. And De Gubernatis, (2) pointing out the phallic meaning of these stories, says "the legends concerning the tree of golden apples or figs which yields honey or ambrosia, guarded by dragons, in which the life, the fortune, the glory, the strength and the riches of the hero have their beginning, are numerous among every people of Aryan origin: in India, Persia, Russia, Poland, Sweden, Germany, Greece and Italy."

The mythology of the snake is also pre-Christian and from other sources besides the Hebrew scriptures:

From Carpenter:

“The fascination of the Snake--the fascination of its mysteriously gliding movement, of its vivid energy, its glittering eye, its intensity of life, combined with its fatal dart of Death--is a thing felt even more by women than by men--and for a reason (from what we have already said) not far to seek. It was the Woman who in the story of the Fall was the first to listen to its suggestions. No wonder that, as Professor Murray says, (1) the Greeks worshiped a gigantic snake (Meilichios) the lord of Death and Life, with ceremonies of appeasement, and sacrifices, long before they arrived at the worship of Zeus and the Olympian gods.”

Carpenter points out the myth of the Fall is similar to other myths.

“(1) Compare also other myths, like Cupid and Psyche, Lohengrin etc., in which a fatal curiosity leads to tragedy.

(2) German Sunde, sin, and sonder, separated; Dutch zonde, sin; Latin sons, guilty. Not unlikely that the German root Suhn, expiation, is connected; Suhn-bock, a scape-goat.”

Plato also writes of the Fall from an ideal form. Every copy is imperfect.

Christianity incorporates both Jewish and pagan mythology.

david quote..""Christianity incorporates both Jewish and pagan mythology.''

lets just add in..that jewish is essential
to grasp that jesus came to reveal

like the importance of ritual
[where jews refused to 'eat'
with unclean hands]

ie the rite of handwashing
[or more specificly..no hand wash jars on the mount

meaning 4000/5000 'jews' couldnt eat[with unclean hands
thus did 'eat all they wished''..noting a clever seating arrangement
ensures none broke that rite]

or the importance of jesus appearing 3 days after death
[indicating there is no 'reserction 'day'..and no judgment day]

so much more is noted
once we think like a jew

yet those not knowing these things presume a miracle

yet fiorget..that even jews plagerised 'other; beliefs
notably egyptian beliefs via mosus..raised in upper class egyptian mythology

im sick of tribalistic claims
what is isreal to a xtian?

when only jews can enter heaven
so the jew claim

just like only cathjoholics can enter heaven
or only the 'jehova witlessness'..or only the moremons
or other elitist tribes

its time they all wioke up to the fact
god gives all living their life to live

one god...who wants only to serve..
who said via jesus[joshua],..we shall call him emanu-el..;[god with [in]..us]..all

jusu the mess-iah
who said the new commandment
love god by loving neighbour

jesu..the messiah..rejected even by his own tribe

jesu..from the tribe of david?..lol

not the tribe of levi?..
[the priest class]

jesu..born of a virgin..[virgin means simpy unwed
for those who know hew]

not john born of an old high priestes[78?..years of age]
concieved 5 months PRIOR to jesu..to a marriaged pair of high priests

yet john ...lost his head
only then did jesus admit it may 'be his time'
cause his time wernt yet at canna

where he said words to that affect
and sais as much as its not my problem
heck i couldnt care less if you feed them toilet-water

[most vile unclean water]

like..from the toilet water..
ie..the [unclean..handwash jars]

david f

yours and others denial of the fallen state of humanity does not change the clear evidence. I think you are the one creating the mythology.

Belly

Your insistence in keeping the faith with such a failed Governement displays far more faith and bigotry than that of which you accuse me. Just reread a few of your posts. You were recently caught out lying and refused to acknowledge it ( in accusing me of saying a Christian could never vote Labour). Your rants certainly confirm the adamic nature along with david f's.

Dear David F.,

The Divine Y as an anatomical metaphor?

Brilliant!

Metaphors be with you!

Dear runner,

No matter how strong one's belief is it does not make the belief a fact. Mythology remains mythology. However, I appreciate your correct grammar, the clarity of your expression and the brevity of your posts.

David f

People of different "tribes" seem to have difficulty living together in, among others, Bahrain, Belgium, Cyprus, Egypt, Indonesia, Kenya, Lebanon, Malaysia, Turkey and the USA.

There are still a significant proportion of Scots, among them Sean Connery, who want Scotland to secede from the UK.

Among European electorates there appears to be a solid majority in favour of keeping Muslim Turkey out of the EU.

Peaceful co-existence between tribes definitely did not work in the former Yugoslavia. It split into its component parts as soon as it could. Ditto Sudan.

The Singhalese and Tamils fought a decades long brutal civil war in Sri Lanka. The scars still linger.

When Syria's Assad falls expect a slaughter of Christians and Alawites.

You may want to read this piece in the highly respected journal, Foreign Affairs, put out by the (US) Council on Foreign Relations.

Us and Them
The Enduring Power of Ethnic Nationalism
By Jerry Z. Muller (Professor of History at the Catholic University of America)
From Foreign Affairs , March/April 2008

http://www.tfasinternational.org/iipes/academics/mullercm.pdf

Quotes:

>>Americans generally belittle the role of ethnic nationalism in politics. But in fact, it corresponds to some enduring propensities of the human spirit, it is galvanized by modernization, and in one form or another, it will drive global politics for generations to come. Once ethnic nationalism has captured the imagination of groups in a multiethnic society, ethnic disaggregation or partition is often the least bad answer.

[…]

…a survey would show that whereas in 1900 there were many states in Europe without a single overwhelmingly dominant nationality, by 2007 there were only two, and one of those, Belgium, was close to breaking up. Aside from Switzerland, in other words -- where the domestic ethnic balance of power is protected by strict citizenship laws -- in Europe the "separatist project" has not so much vanished as triumphed.>>

Sorry to rain on everyone's parade but we seem to be incurably tribal. Maybe we need to build political systems that recognise that fact.

I have no easy answers but denying facts will lead to catastrophe.

Dear stevenlmeyer,

The title of the string is “Can we transcend tribalism?” not “We can transcend tribalism.” I don’t know that we can.

Although people of different ethnicities have clashed throughout history the form of tribalism called ethnic nationalism is a fairly new idea. Empires such as the Roman have covered a multitude of various peoples and languages. There was never a common language the people in the eastern part of the empire spoke Greek and the western Latin in addition to the local languages and dialects.

Other forms of state organisation were dynastic entities where royal houses such as the Hapsburgs ruled a number of disparate, non-contiguous peoples.

The American and French Revolutions carried the idea that all men (white) regardless of their ethnic origins were equal citizens. The founders of revolutionary France and the US were men of the Enlightenment.

Ethnic nationalism was a nineteenth century idea in reaction to the Enlightenment. It contended that nations should be formed by people of a similar ethnic, linguistic and religious heritage. If that wasn’t so they would be made so.

After the unification of Italy d'Azeglio wrote L'Italia è fatta. Restano da fare gli italiani (literally: Italy has been made; now it remains to make Italians. All Italy was made to adopt the Tuscan dialect so unity was created.

In the case of the former Yugoslavia most of the population during the Byzantine Empire were Orthodox Christian. They were a fairly united ethnic entity. When the Turks conquered the Balkans the upper classes became Muslims. When the Catholic Austro-Hungarian Empire conquered the northwest part of the Balkans most people in that area became Catholic.

1. Ethnic nationalism is a fairly new ideology. It appeared in the nineteenth century and can disappear.

2. Ethnicities are not fixed entities. They can be created as in Italy to unify a country. They can come into being as in the Balkans and split a previously unified group. They can disappear completely as the Burgundians did in France.

Those are also facts.

However, as to the broader question of tribalism let’s continue the discussion.

David f wrote:

>>The title of the string is “Can we transcend tribalism?” not “We can transcend tribalism.” I don’t know that we can>>

Fair point.

I don't know whether ethnic nationalism is as recent as you say. I seem to recall there was a troublesome mob of "chosen people" at the Eastern end of the Roman Empire. The Romans had to put down a couple of rebellions there quite ruthlessly as did their imperial forebears, the Greeks.

The Greeks themselves fought some vicious wars with the Persians.

Whatever the case may be, ethnic nationalism seems rather firmly established at the moment. Far from fading it seems to be intensifying. Can you imagine a Geert Wilders being a major player in Dutch politics 20 years ago?

And Wilders is not alone. So called "far right" parties have done well in all the Nordic countries.

In Italy, which you cite as an example, the Northern League seems to have gone from strength to strength.

Everyone seems to be picking on the Gypsies.

The Han Chinese are trying to colonise, there is no other word for it, various parts of China such as Tibet and Xinjiang. The Tibetans and the Uighars are resisting.

In our neck of the woods the Javanese are making a land grab in West Papua. Indonesia should more properly be called the Javanese Empire.

Everywhere you look ethnic nationalism of one sort or another seems to be on the rise.

I fear the answer to your question is "no."

I don’t like that answer. I used to think we could all just get along. But it looks as if, perhaps, we can't.

Dear stevenlmeyer,

I read the article. It seemed an accurate account of the past and the present. It stated, "Whether politically correct or not,
ethnonationalism will continue to shape the world in the twenty-first century."

One can note the past and the present. One cannot predict the future in human affairs with any certainty.

As ethnonationalism took the world by surprise in the nineteenth century, its demise may take the world by surprise in the twenty-first century. Or it may not. I can't predict the future either.

The world population is growing day by day and the world's resources are dwindling day by day.
It won't be all that long before fighting starts anew over the resources.

Start learning a foreign language or learn to fight; the options are limited.

Dear stevenlmeyer,

The wars you mentioned have nothing to do with ethnic nationalism. Ethnic nationalism means the establishment of a nation on the basis of a shared ethnicity, religion or other identity.

From my reading of history the revolt against the Romans was an agrarian revolt. The farmers in ancient Israel had excellent practices such as rotating crops and letting land lie fallow periodically. The Romans insisted on the production of grain for the hungry mouths of the Romans. The Hebrew farmers rose in rebellion against the destruction of their land. It was not a unified rebellion. Some such as Josephus went over to the Romans.

The Romans were not a unified entity either. The ancient Greeks, Romans and Persians were all conglomerates of varying languages and ethnicities. One of the classics of ancient literature is Xenophon’s “Anabasis.” It is about a group of Greek mercenaries fighting their way through the Persian Empire. As they went into different locales genrally one of the Greeks was familiar with the local language indicating that what was called Greeks were a conglomerate of different peoples.

I agree. Indonesia should be called the Javanese Empire. It is a conglomerate of peoples dominated by Java rather than an ethnic nationalist state.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_nationalism:

Ethnic nationalism is a form of nationalism wherein the "nation" is defined in terms of ethnicity. Whatever specific ethnicity is involved, ethnic nationalism always includes some element of descent from previous generations and the implied claim of ethnic essentialism, i.e. the understanding of ethnicity as an essence that remains unchanged over time.

Ethnic nationalism is not racial prejudice, wars between people of different ethnicities or empire. It is a concept which arose in the nineteenth century defining a method of nation formation.

David f.,

Can we transcend tribalism?
It seems to be intrinsically built into out psyche. Humans have a need to identify with "their" group. This identity forms part of their idea of self, but it's balanced by the equally engaging reality that they are one part of a greater dimension. Their can be no separation of these two realities.

Even in modern society this behaviour abounds and is often enforced. We dress the kiddies in school uniforms. They then identify with their school...all the others are dressed in the same colours in the same fashion. I'm often fascinated by the male suit. At once it denotes that the wearer has bought into the capitalist paradigm. Our costumes assign us to our tribe in the same way that a header-hunter's did in traditional societies.

Tribalism is self-transcendency which is vital for communal relations to succeed.

Dear Poirot,

Identifying with a group is a normal tendency. Many times it is valuable for mental well being and survival. However, by transcending tribalism, I do not mean cutting oneself off from those with whom one identiifies. I mean getting rid of the feelings that those who do not belong to one's tribe are somehow less human, not as virtuous or in general not quite as good.

David f.,

Psychologically speaking, I think tribalism precludes recourse to the idea that the "other" [tribe] possess equal merit.
Even if we rationalise that this should be so, if any pressure comes to bear on the otherwise harmonious relationship between tribes, then immediately ideas of egalitarianism contract and loyalty is applied only within psychological tribal boundaries.

Dear Poirot,

You're probably right. My wishing we could get beyond tribalism does mean we can get beyond it. In times of stress and conflict we dehumanise those not members of our tribe. Therefore to transcend tribalism we must work for a more peaceful world. However, tribalism makes it difficult to have a more peaceful world.

rightfully this deserves its own topic
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/bigideas/stories/2011/11/01/3352502.htm

BUT..it matches this topic
to perfection

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/bigideas/browse/video_popup.htm?vidURL=/tv/bigideas/stories/2011/11/01/3352502-mediarss-preview.xml&vidTitle=Slavoj Zizek: A New Kind of Communism&vidLength=Highlight

anyhow im looking for a transcript
this guys words are of great intrest

im saving the audio podcast
http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/tv/bigideas/fodi_slavojzizek_full.mp3

heck i cant think of a better thing to do that watch these too
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/bigideas/tv_show/

now to find the transcript

WTF?
I’ve transcended tribalism.
I was born into a family that was part of two different tribes.
I was initiated into a religious tribe of my parents.
I joined local sporting tribes.
I was educated about my national tribe when I went to school.
I was expected to follow my national and provincial tribe at sporting events.
I am bombarded by accomplishments from these tribe members from news sources.
I am expected to support tribe members who are incarcerated by other tribes.
I am expected to follow all the tribe’s norms and rules.

I now prefer to live on the fringe of all these tribes and I am very happy.

Human beings are tribal but throughout history the tribe can be seen to be widening and more embracing. First it was clans from within the same ethnic groups warring for land and resouces, then it widened to nations, there was colonialism, civil war, slavery and land graps, now there are various global permeations or blocs (eg. EU, Asia/Pacific, US Alliance, free trade agreements).

The world is too big possibly for one big tribe where universal consensus on anything would be impossible not only unwieldy. This is why in some spheres there always seems to be a rush to localism with good reason in most cases.

The fact is the human race is one big tribe and we are all brothers and sisters arising from the same African origins. It is only culture, size and historical distance that prevents greater uniformity or consensus. Even within 'tribes' there is tribalism which is reflected best by the proliferation of religious sects originating from the same core religion such as Islam and Christianity; or variations within ideologies.

Tribalism is certainly a very complex psychology with origins in the quest for survival.

There was an interesting quote which took my fancy while watching the Poet's Guide to Britain- Matthew Arnold's poem 'Dover Beach'.

"Resolve to be thyself: and know that he who finds himself, loses his misery."

Perhaps Arnold offers us the answer in self-awareness, confidence and acceptance.

pell's quote..""there always seems to be a rush
to localism..with good reason in most cases.""

isee idealy...many small fish
with small spheres..of lacal influence
rather than a one world govt..that orders laws/bailouts..from the top down

in the main..cause these few big fish..
will easilly be swayed by big business..to do big busdiness adgendas

whereas locally..a big business..
will only have a small field of affect..[locally..not globally]

we cant trancent tribaliosm
so lets embrace it

have unversal laws..of rergulations over big business
a tax on al transaction..that distributes income locally
[to an elected govt..who spernds it locally]

to expect one world govt to serve its people
not legal incorperated 'person's'..[big business]
is too tempting for those who would be masters of the universe

thus im for tribalism..[or rather localism]
where even the least..is equal to the most
or loose funding..

[all complaint must be heard]
and remied locally

what was that buzz word of the 70's
DECENTRALISATION..!

the true decentralisation of powers

OUG
Tribalism is not as you suggest, necessarily a dirty word. In Australia I am glad to see a consumer push for localism in purchasing decisions around buying aussie goods, the rise of farmgate businesses and local markets. Food security and biosecurity is enhanced by these activities.

Tribalism is after all about communities with shared values. However, at it's worst manifestation, tribalism can also skew one's perceptions about others and then how one goes on to treat those who may not fit with the tribal values or order.

This sometimes goes beyond simple aspects of defence from invasion, but to unsupportable interference in the wellbeing of others whether it be through unfair trade arrangements or military intervention. That is the only global governance that interests me - freedom from wars and the ability of nations make decisions in the interests of their constituents; as opposed to an omnipotent world government which is an entirely different matter.

Great a very clear and concise analysis of our greatest challenge i hope you won't mind if i include your article in my next email to the Australian human rights commission as they don't know .That junkies suffer any discrimination.Well being banned from political office would seem the worst abuse of human rights i can imagine .But we are only junkies we would only vote for compassionate people if we got a vote .People who would free us from spreading the drug problem by having to deal drugs, and we would vote to rid D.o.C.S.of the 85 % of single [homosexual] people who make hateful decisions about giving away our children ,like we are animals but the middle class are preprepared to pay top dollar for our kids .So we get them stolen from us by a corrupt system that profits from our misery .WELL WHEN YOU ARE PUNISHED FOR JUST EXISTING.and continually traumatized is it any wonder no one wants to get off drugs the pain of our reality is unbearable and this is all by design of the D.E.A. THE FOREIGN POWER THAT DICTATES TO OUR SPINELESS POLITICIANS AND POLICE just what atrocities they will inflict on those with the illness of addiction next election vote for Jesus and Christian living foundation and we might try bout honest government for a change

hi motercycle messiah
i used to be in your tribe..[bikie]
the 1%...i also am a life member of the other tribe[hemp]

what you have to say on behalf of your tribe..is true
so i fought the laws in the courts...[you know 20 out of 21 plead guilty..the first time the go to court]...thus cops have it only too easy

they search on suspition
treat a plant..[only god can make grow]..as a legal fungable
[fungable is a tradable 'commodity''..instead of the rightfull lawfull 'fixture'..a plant in the ground is]

search out the meaning of fixture/fungable
lawyers know that..yet NEVER say that in court

there is many reasons for this
the lawyer tribe..becomes judges
lawyers become polititions[over half were or still are of the lawyer tribe]

other lawyers become public servants[another tribe]
anyhow..the lawyers make the laws sign the treaties
and even claim god given right..[yet read that hioly law book

genesis 1;29

A political analyst says that the Zionist regime is pushing a new law which would classify Jews as a separate race with links to the Palestine land - justifying their 'expulsion' of Palestinians.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3Un1iQJPjM
An exclusive interview with Bruce Katz, co-president of the Palestinian & Jewish Unity (PAJU)

A political analyst says that the Zionist regime is pushing a new law which would classify Jews as a separate race with links to the Palestine land - justifying their 'expulsion' of Palestinians.
http://chimpplanet.blogspot.com/2011/11/racist-white-european-jews-in-israel.html

The irony is that Israel-born Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu came from a Jewish Polish family with the last name of Mileikowsky, which his grandfather changed to Netanyahu.

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/11/08/warmongers-eager-for-more-blood-letting/
http://disquietreservations.blogspot.com/2011/11/from-911-to-world-war-iiitowards_08.html

heck why bother
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sD8ZaxAHmS0&feature=channel_video_title

tribalism...when one tribe wants to make their way global
we all go global..or get picked off one by one

heck read the news
http://whatreallyhappened.com/
israel beating the drums of armogeddon again