re: #294 Justanotherhuman

Well, as I say, I’m studying the subject, but to me, it’s people with generally the same outlook, bound by a number of factors, who tend to congregate, socialize, and work for each other’s benefit, although the group is only cohesive when it’s the most uniform in its makeup, both materially and as thinkers.

Okay. Then this doesn’t really apply to much in US culture or politics, right? There’s very few groups of people that this would describe in the US, since we all tend to have disparate groups that we’re bound to.

Even in this century, there is a tension between tribalism and globalism, but to me, tribalism is basically the more conservative types in a society who want to preserve the past and what has worked for them, with no deviations or allowances for changes in the world.

Wait, how is tribalism being conservative congruent with the definition you gave above? A union would be ‘tribalist’ from the definition you gave above (though the Tea Party, for example, would not be). Where’s the preservation of the past coming from?

Another thing that annoys me about ‘tribalist’ is that it’s got that ol’ “Civilized man vs. the ignorant savage” thing going on.