5 ms·

Nationalism is an extension of tribalism which is inherited in human beings, it's in our DNA [1]. We, as a species, may override our instincts to do what we fee

by redm 7y ago

Nationalism is an extension of tribalism which is inherited in human beings, it's in our DNA [1]. We, as a species, may override our instincts to do what we feel is better for humanity, but then again humanity is just a larger tribe. [1] https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/life-is-trip/201208/you-are-tribal-person https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/life-is-trip/201208/... [2] https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/our-emotional-footprint/201802/belonging-is-our-blessing-tribalism-is-our-burden https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/our-emotional-footpr...

PavlovsCat 7y ago
> As man advances in civilisation, and small tribes are united into larger communities, the simplest reason would tell each individual that he ought to extend his social instincts and sympathies to all the members of the same nation, though personally unknown to him. This point being once reached, there is only an artificial barrier to prevent his sympathies extending to the men of all nations and races. If, indeed, such men are separated from him by great differences in appearance or habits, experience unfortunately shews us how long it is, before we look at them as our fellow-creatures. [...] This virtue, one of the noblest with which man is endowed, seems to arise incidentally from our sympathies becoming more tender and more widely diffused, until they are extended to all sentient beings. As soon as this virtue is honoured and practised by some few men, it spreads through instruction and example to the young, and eventually becomes incorporated in public opinion. -- Charles Darwin, "The Descent of Man" (1871) > A human being is a part of a whole, called by us universe, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest... a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty. -- Albert Einstein
- deogeo 7y ago
  > It has been asserted that the ear of man alone possesses a lobule; but 'a rudiment of it is found in the gorilla' and, as I hear from Prof. Preyer, it is not rarely absent in the negro. > The sense of smell is of the highest importance to the greater number of mammals--to some, as the ruminants, in warning them of danger; to others, as the Carnivora, in finding their prey; to others, again, as the wild boar, for both purposes combined. But the sense of smell is of extremely slight service, if any, even to the dark coloured races of men, in whom it is much more highly developed than in the white and civilised races. -- Charles Darwin, "The Descent of Man" (1871) > It would be a pity if these Chinese supplant all other races. For the likes of us the mere thought is unspeakably dreary. -- Albert Einstein
  - PavlovsCat 7y ago
    Yes, and? Quoting a person doesn't mean blanket agreement to anything else they said, it's usually more about agreeing with the quote. As for Einstein, it would be a pity if any "race" would supplant all others.. do you disagree? How is that some kind of "gotcha" quote in your mind?
    - deogeo 7y ago
      The implied logic is "This person was Great, and said X, therefore X is Good". It is only fair to point out this can be used to support the almost polar opposite of the quote you chose. I mean, people should make up their own minds, instead of being swayed by authority, no? And the Einstein quote wasn't aimed at 'any' race - it was aimed specifically at the Chinese. The implication being that being supplanted by the Chinese is worse than if by some other race.
      - elefanten 7y ago
        The implied logic you name is actually your presumed logic. I certainly don't read that logic into every time someone uses a quote. Quotes can be used to show that past generations have said similar or relevant things Quotes can be used because they were interestingly or eloquently phrased Quotes can evoke someone's connection to a subject without relying on an appeal to authority. Probably the last thing I'd assume is that someone is seriously positing the quality of an argument based on who said it. Such a logic would probably be expressed explicitly if it was key to the message.
        deogeo 7y ago
        > Such a logic would probably be expressed explicitly if it was key to the message. Not if you don't want the audience to critically examine it. Commercials don't say "product X will give you a happy family" - they just happen to show a happy family using product X.
        PavlovsCat 7y ago
netmonk 7y ago
Tribalism is based on blood ties between member of a group. This has nothing to do with nationalism which is the most evoluted social structure where blood ties where replaced by common morales, culture and languages. Tribalism is a very low form of social structure, highly linked to our primal condition of mammal individual. Nationalism and sovereignety are far more advanced social structure in an attempt to extract ourself of our natural condition. Modern society based on compound of different community, and political communautarism are just a major fallback to our primary mammale condition and an systematic attempt to destroy superior form of social structure. And i would not much trust the thinking of a proselyte member of one of the most tribalistic social group on earth, expressing his opinion about universal society, due to the fact that his mind has from birth a tribalistic biais.
- deogeo 7y ago
  > This has nothing to do with nationalism A nation is just a larger tribe - people are more closely related to others in their own nation, than to those in foreign nations.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - netmonk 7y ago
    "people are more closely related to others in their own nation, than to those in foreign nations." Thank you mister Obvious. But the first part of your sentence just serves your desires by an over-simplification and reduction of the topic. No, a nation is not a larger tribe. Just try to explain all the atrocities which happened in Africa since colonialists retired from the continent. Try to keep several tribes inside the same border of a nation, and see the Rwanda result... :)
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - deogeo 7y ago
      Why does treating a nation as an extended tribe require explaining atrocities in Africa? If someone claimed a tribe is an extended family, would you demand he explain family feuds?
eli_gottlieb 7y ago
Don't tell me something is built into people until you can show me the neurocomputational mechanisms by which it is so.
ecocentrik 7y ago
We've seen nations grow beyond the bounds of tribal/regional origins into ethnically diverse multicultural and multilingual economic powerhouses. The US and most European countries are good examples of this. As long as a lingua franca remains mostly dominant and people acclimate to others acting differently around them, it's a perfectly natural state. Ancient Rome and Ancient China both prospered economically under these conditions. Nationalism in all it's incarnations has historically been an attempt to reassert tribal balance in favor of some formerly dominant but now sub-dominant group and it rarely ends well for that group.
- sonnyblarney 7y ago
  "The US and most European countries" More likely European nations are still mostly ethnocentric whereby the clear majority of the populations identify with a group that is historically part of that territory. Which is fundamentally different from US, Canada, Singapore and even Central/South American nations which have yet another aspect. "Ancient Rome and Ancient China both prospered economically under these conditions. " Ancient Rome invaded, plundered, occupied and demanded ongoing massive tributes from it's territories. Even most of the Italian peninsula were technically slaves. The basis of 'prosperity' in Roman territories mostly boils down to physical security, i.e. 'Pax Romana' "Nationalism in all it's incarnations has historically been an attempt to reassert tribal balance in favor of some formerly dominant but now sub-dominant group and it rarely ends well for that group." Maybe you should offer some examples here, because I can't think of a single one. - Quebec nationalism resulted in a 'quiet revolution' and an officially bilingual federal state. - Scottish nationalism resulted in devolution. - Nazi/German nationalism in both World Wars wasn't exactly the reassertion of a 'formerly dominant state' - moreover, now that France is weakened and the UK is 'out' - Germany's dominance of the EU is basically unchallenged. - Russian nationalism has been fairly strong since the modern concept of nationalism. - Nationalist movements throughout the post WW2 era resulted in the ostensible freedom of many powers from former colonial rule: Egypt, Libya, Algeria. (That list is very long.) FYI the modern concept of 'Nationalism' is merely a civic orientation of that which existed before (and still does) i.e. 'ethnicity'. Sweden and Finland do not share totally arbitrary borders. The border between Finland and Sweden is such that the relative ethnic populations of Swedes and Finns are contiguous, i.e. Sweden is where the Swedish people live, Finland is where the Finns live - mostly. The ethnocentric nature of the nation state is still obvious today by the fact that many ethnic Swedes for example live in Finland, and are demarcated as a separate group - not just people who 'speak a different language', bur rather, they are of a different ethnicity than Finns, although technically of the same legal nationality. Though nationalism is very different in a place like the USS or Canada, it's still forms part of people's natural identity. Family, tribe, ethnic group, 'nation' (be it ethnic or idealist) are part of who we are; to ignore this would be to ignore the very nature of who we are. That said, some things, like Scientific knowledge tend to be humanist, i.e. transcending ethnicities, and of course we often need to be reminded of this.

by redm 7y ago

PavlovsCat 7y ago

> As man advances in civilisation, and small tribes are united into larger communities, the simplest reason would tell each individual that he ought to extend his social instincts and sympathies to all the members of the same nation, though personally unknown to him. This point being once reached, there is only an artificial barrier to prevent his sympathies extending to the men of all nations and races. If, indeed, such men are separated from him by great differences in appearance or habits, experience unfortunately shews us how long it is, before we look at them as our fellow-creatures. [...] This virtue, one of the noblest with which man is endowed, seems to arise incidentally from our sympathies becoming more tender and more widely diffused, until they are extended to all sentient beings. As soon as this virtue is honoured and practised by some few men, it spreads through instruction and example to the young, and eventually becomes incorporated in public opinion. -- Charles Darwin, "The Descent of Man" (1871) > A human being is a part of a whole, called by us universe, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest... a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty. -- Albert Einstein

deogeo 7y ago
> It has been asserted that the ear of man alone possesses a lobule; but 'a rudiment of it is found in the gorilla' and, as I hear from Prof. Preyer, it is not rarely absent in the negro. > The sense of smell is of the highest importance to the greater number of mammals--to some, as the ruminants, in warning them of danger; to others, as the Carnivora, in finding their prey; to others, again, as the wild boar, for both purposes combined. But the sense of smell is of extremely slight service, if any, even to the dark coloured races of men, in whom it is much more highly developed than in the white and civilised races. -- Charles Darwin, "The Descent of Man" (1871) > It would be a pity if these Chinese supplant all other races. For the likes of us the mere thought is unspeakably dreary. -- Albert Einstein
- PavlovsCat 7y ago
  Yes, and? Quoting a person doesn't mean blanket agreement to anything else they said, it's usually more about agreeing with the quote. As for Einstein, it would be a pity if any "race" would supplant all others.. do you disagree? How is that some kind of "gotcha" quote in your mind?
  - deogeo 7y ago
    The implied logic is "This person was Great, and said X, therefore X is Good". It is only fair to point out this can be used to support the almost polar opposite of the quote you chose. I mean, people should make up their own minds, instead of being swayed by authority, no? And the Einstein quote wasn't aimed at 'any' race - it was aimed specifically at the Chinese. The implication being that being supplanted by the Chinese is worse than if by some other race.
    - elefanten 7y ago
      The implied logic you name is actually your presumed logic. I certainly don't read that logic into every time someone uses a quote. Quotes can be used to show that past generations have said similar or relevant things Quotes can be used because they were interestingly or eloquently phrased Quotes can evoke someone's connection to a subject without relying on an appeal to authority. Probably the last thing I'd assume is that someone is seriously positing the quality of an argument based on who said it. Such a logic would probably be expressed explicitly if it was key to the message.
      - deogeo 7y ago
        > Such a logic would probably be expressed explicitly if it was key to the message. Not if you don't want the audience to critically examine it. Commercials don't say "product X will give you a happy family" - they just happen to show a happy family using product X.
        PavlovsCat 7y ago

netmonk 7y ago

Tribalism is based on blood ties between member of a group. This has nothing to do with nationalism which is the most evoluted social structure where blood ties where replaced by common morales, culture and languages. Tribalism is a very low form of social structure, highly linked to our primal condition of mammal individual. Nationalism and sovereignety are far more advanced social structure in an attempt to extract ourself of our natural condition. Modern society based on compound of different community, and political communautarism are just a major fallback to our primary mammale condition and an systematic attempt to destroy superior form of social structure. And i would not much trust the thinking of a proselyte member of one of the most tribalistic social group on earth, expressing his opinion about universal society, due to the fact that his mind has from birth a tribalistic biais.

deogeo 7y ago
> This has nothing to do with nationalism A nation is just a larger tribe - people are more closely related to others in their own nation, than to those in foreign nations.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- netmonk 7y ago
  "people are more closely related to others in their own nation, than to those in foreign nations." Thank you mister Obvious. But the first part of your sentence just serves your desires by an over-simplification and reduction of the topic. No, a nation is not a larger tribe. Just try to explain all the atrocities which happened in Africa since colonialists retired from the continent. Try to keep several tribes inside the same border of a nation, and see the Rwanda result... :)
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - deogeo 7y ago
    Why does treating a nation as an extended tribe require explaining atrocities in Africa? If someone claimed a tribe is an extended family, would you demand he explain family feuds?

eli_gottlieb 7y ago

Don't tell me something is built into people until you can show me the neurocomputational mechanisms by which it is so.

ecocentrik 7y ago

We've seen nations grow beyond the bounds of tribal/regional origins into ethnically diverse multicultural and multilingual economic powerhouses. The US and most European countries are good examples of this. As long as a lingua franca remains mostly dominant and people acclimate to others acting differently around them, it's a perfectly natural state. Ancient Rome and Ancient China both prospered economically under these conditions. Nationalism in all it's incarnations has historically been an attempt to reassert tribal balance in favor of some formerly dominant but now sub-dominant group and it rarely ends well for that group.

sonnyblarney 7y ago
"The US and most European countries" More likely European nations are still mostly ethnocentric whereby the clear majority of the populations identify with a group that is historically part of that territory. Which is fundamentally different from US, Canada, Singapore and even Central/South American nations which have yet another aspect. "Ancient Rome and Ancient China both prospered economically under these conditions. " Ancient Rome invaded, plundered, occupied and demanded ongoing massive tributes from it's territories. Even most of the Italian peninsula were technically slaves. The basis of 'prosperity' in Roman territories mostly boils down to physical security, i.e. 'Pax Romana' "Nationalism in all it's incarnations has historically been an attempt to reassert tribal balance in favor of some formerly dominant but now sub-dominant group and it rarely ends well for that group." Maybe you should offer some examples here, because I can't think of a single one. - Quebec nationalism resulted in a 'quiet revolution' and an officially bilingual federal state. - Scottish nationalism resulted in devolution. - Nazi/German nationalism in both World Wars wasn't exactly the reassertion of a 'formerly dominant state' - moreover, now that France is weakened and the UK is 'out' - Germany's dominance of the EU is basically unchallenged. - Russian nationalism has been fairly strong since the modern concept of nationalism. - Nationalist movements throughout the post WW2 era resulted in the ostensible freedom of many powers from former colonial rule: Egypt, Libya, Algeria. (That list is very long.) FYI the modern concept of 'Nationalism' is merely a civic orientation of that which existed before (and still does) i.e. 'ethnicity'. Sweden and Finland do not share totally arbitrary borders. The border between Finland and Sweden is such that the relative ethnic populations of Swedes and Finns are contiguous, i.e. Sweden is where the Swedish people live, Finland is where the Finns live - mostly. The ethnocentric nature of the nation state is still obvious today by the fact that many ethnic Swedes for example live in Finland, and are demarcated as a separate group - not just people who 'speak a different language', bur rather, they are of a different ethnicity than Finns, although technically of the same legal nationality. Though nationalism is very different in a place like the USS or Canada, it's still forms part of people's natural identity. Family, tribe, ethnic group, 'nation' (be it ethnic or idealist) are part of who we are; to ignore this would be to ignore the very nature of who we are. That said, some things, like Scientific knowledge tend to be humanist, i.e. transcending ethnicities, and of course we often need to be reminded of this.