5 ms·

My great-grandmother and her sister were the last two women who wore the tribal clothing of the tribe I suppose I belong to. That tribe no longer exists; we are

My great-grandmother and her sister were the last two women who wore the tribal clothing of the tribe I suppose I belong to. That tribe no longer exists; we are all Dutchmen in the nation of the Netherlands now. Is that bad? I don't think so: cultures evolve, humanities' future seems to be aimed towards larger groups, and trying to stick to a tribal structure that would have largely rejected the progress made in the outside world, had they had the chance, would have been a miserable existence. Instead of doing silly dances for tourists I'm a software engineer working for a major space agency, and I'm fine with that. Something unique may have been lost (a language, a clothing style, and a harsh way of life), but so much more has been gained (access to all the world has to offer). The tribal structures that still exist in many parts of the world aren't really about preserving culture or identity anymore; to me they seem to be mostly about preserving the power of a handful of tribal elders, and upholding discriminatory practices both inside and outside the tribe. Those structures are a relic that wouldn't have survived anyway, European colonists or not, and casting them aside now, and joining the rest of the world in the 21st century is neither shameful nor bad. Just to be clear: I applaud anyone who wishes to celebrate their culture and their identity, and I think having those preserved enriches our world. But staying within the confines of a preserve, where life is hard and opportunities are few, just because you were born there, makes no sense to me. You can be both proud of your heritage and a citizen of the 21st century. So the question, then, is this: are tribal entitlements necessary for the preservation of something worthwhile, or are they merely tools to further disadvantage a group that is already severely lacking in opportunities? If it's the first, there is a place for them. If it's the second, it's time they were dismantled.

crazydoggers 3y ago
This is a thoughtful and insightful comment, and brings up issues I wouldn’t have thought about or understood. Even though the parent comment was terse, this comment shows why we shouldn’t be downvoting / flagging opinions into oblivion. Free speech and listening to opposing views can bring about meaningful discussions and help is all understand the world better. Flagging uncomfortable topics because they violate modern wokeism is a disturbingly Orwellian practice.
Brian_K_White 3y ago
"Something unique may have been lost (a language, a clothing style, and a harsh way of life), but so much more has been gained (access to all the world has to offer)." I mostly agree with your overall gist, but I will poke a little hole here just for completeness: What does all the world have to offer? A spectrum of other cultures? Today yes, but only because the process of loss and homogenization you just said was a good thing has not yet completed. Give that same process a few more generations and the whole world will be the same, and any differences won't matter at all. It's already almost like that today. When I go on vacation on the other side of the world, it's hardly any different. If it weren't for the history and the interesting ancient structures, there would hardly be any point in travelling from any place to any other place. The process is not complete, and so today, sure, there is still a lot of point to travel. But that is merely mass and inertia and it's eroding away. Life is getting better in certain material ways, which are undeniably valuable, but it is not getting richer. It WAS getting richer for a while when communication and travel gave more people more access to the wide varied world than was possible before, but now, that wide varied world is becoming less varied, and so the richness is decreasing.
- crazydoggers 3y ago
  What place do entitlements play in preserving such diversity, and would other means perhaps play a better role? There are examples that indicate they might cause the opposite to occur, such as with casinos. What are the examples or arguments for how they help?
  - Brian_K_White 3y ago
    I made no statements or implications about entitlements.
    - crazydoggers 3y ago
      >> are tribal entitlements necessary for the preservation of something worthwhile > I mostly agree with your overall gist, but I will poke a little hole here just for completeness So I guess, your comment was non sequitur? I mean I assumed since the grandparent comment was about entitlements, and the parent comment about entitlements, that your response poking a hole in their argument about entitlements was also about entitlements. I mean if you’re just saying “diversity is good” we can agree with that. But this whole thread stems from the Maine’s constitution entitlement rights for Wabanaki having been removed from print.
pjc50 3y ago
"Entitlements .. tool to disadvantage" feels deep in doublespeak. If it's a disadvantage, it's not an entitlement. Entitlements are things one can take up or leave voluntarily.
- crazydoggers 3y ago
  An example is the entitlement of sovereign land use that promotes disadvantage. Many Native American reserves suffer from chronic poverty, alcoholism, drug use, etc. Entitled to land use, the US government holds final title, resulting in an inability for people living on the land to do things like collect taxes, private land development, mortgage of assets, etc. So in this way, the “entitlement” of land use reserved for native Americans actually results in chronic disadvantage. A more complete assessment: https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/wealth-disparities-in-civil-rights/federal-policies-trap-tribes-in-poverty/ https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_r...
TimTheTinker 3y ago
> The tribal structures that still exist in many parts of the world aren't really about preserving culture or identity anymore That's not strictly true. There are real tribes in the jungles of South America and southeast Asia, for example, who still live in the forests, cook food they raise, and live in thatch/mud/bamboo houses. I would argue that these tribes' rights (especially property ownership of land where they have houses and raise food right now) matters more than arguments about things that happened more than a hundred years ago in developed countries.
clbrmbr 3y ago
Could there be value in cultural diversity analogous to value of biodiversity? I think of Andrian Berry’s warnings about a world state. I fear a world monoculture is one step in that direction. (Just googled him, seems time has been unkind to his books and reputation. Still, his Next 10,000 Years was so inspiring to me, not so much for the specifics but for the vision and the first-principles thinking around how we may get stuck.)
- fluoridation 3y ago
  Biodiversity is important because a diverse population is less likely to get wiped out by an event that kills all individuals matching some criteria. For cultural diversity to have value analogously there would need to be some threat to cultures that is separate from biology (because we're still all human). I can't imagine what that could be.
  - ToValueFunfetti 3y ago
    As a theoretical example, if the internet eroded attention spans in first-world-liberal-democracy type cultures to a degree that eventually lead to their extinction, the Amish would be immune and our species would survive.
    - crazydoggers 3y ago
      As Michael Burnham from Star Trek so wisely put it “It would be unwise to confuse race with culture.” Culture, unlike genetics, is fluid and easily changed (compared to genes) For something like what your suggesting to occur, the loss of attention, or the inability for loss of attention span would have to become heritable. At the moment, assuming the internet does erode attention span, those whose attention spans were most eroded would have to be heavily selected against. That means, their loss of attention span or their propensity to lose attention span with internet use would have to pass through gamete into the next generation. If it’s not heritable, then the Amish are not “immune” because as soon as the Amish moves across cultural lines which is inevitable (many of which do, they routinely leave that culture) they’d be faced with the same issues. On the flip side, many within the non Amish community who choose not to use the internet would flourish without being Amish. (Since internet usage and its loss of attention span would be cultural and easily changed) Natural selection only works on the level of the genes. Unless aspects of culture can be attributed to genetic diversity, then they are simply fluid, and not something that can aid in their reproductive advantage. One could argue that the Amish do hold some genetic differences that make them seek out the culture they hold, and be as fertile as they are, but that’s definitely not clear to be the case. If such cases were true, then perhaps one might argue for cultural diversity as a proxy for genetic diversity. But I don’t know that there has been any support to show cultures are genetically heritable. In fact I believe the opposite has been shown, when taking or moving populations out, they easily assimilate, showing that those cultures are definitely not heritable.

crazydoggers 3y ago

This is a thoughtful and insightful comment, and brings up issues I wouldn’t have thought about or understood. Even though the parent comment was terse, this comment shows why we shouldn’t be downvoting / flagging opinions into oblivion. Free speech and listening to opposing views can bring about meaningful discussions and help is all understand the world better. Flagging uncomfortable topics because they violate modern wokeism is a disturbingly Orwellian practice.

Brian_K_White 3y ago

"Something unique may have been lost (a language, a clothing style, and a harsh way of life), but so much more has been gained (access to all the world has to offer)." I mostly agree with your overall gist, but I will poke a little hole here just for completeness: What does all the world have to offer? A spectrum of other cultures? Today yes, but only because the process of loss and homogenization you just said was a good thing has not yet completed. Give that same process a few more generations and the whole world will be the same, and any differences won't matter at all. It's already almost like that today. When I go on vacation on the other side of the world, it's hardly any different. If it weren't for the history and the interesting ancient structures, there would hardly be any point in travelling from any place to any other place. The process is not complete, and so today, sure, there is still a lot of point to travel. But that is merely mass and inertia and it's eroding away. Life is getting better in certain material ways, which are undeniably valuable, but it is not getting richer. It WAS getting richer for a while when communication and travel gave more people more access to the wide varied world than was possible before, but now, that wide varied world is becoming less varied, and so the richness is decreasing.

crazydoggers 3y ago
What place do entitlements play in preserving such diversity, and would other means perhaps play a better role? There are examples that indicate they might cause the opposite to occur, such as with casinos. What are the examples or arguments for how they help?
- Brian_K_White 3y ago
  I made no statements or implications about entitlements.
  - crazydoggers 3y ago
    >> are tribal entitlements necessary for the preservation of something worthwhile > I mostly agree with your overall gist, but I will poke a little hole here just for completeness So I guess, your comment was non sequitur? I mean I assumed since the grandparent comment was about entitlements, and the parent comment about entitlements, that your response poking a hole in their argument about entitlements was also about entitlements. I mean if you’re just saying “diversity is good” we can agree with that. But this whole thread stems from the Maine’s constitution entitlement rights for Wabanaki having been removed from print.

pjc50 3y ago

"Entitlements .. tool to disadvantage" feels deep in doublespeak. If it's a disadvantage, it's not an entitlement. Entitlements are things one can take up or leave voluntarily.

crazydoggers 3y ago
An example is the entitlement of sovereign land use that promotes disadvantage. Many Native American reserves suffer from chronic poverty, alcoholism, drug use, etc. Entitled to land use, the US government holds final title, resulting in an inability for people living on the land to do things like collect taxes, private land development, mortgage of assets, etc. So in this way, the “entitlement” of land use reserved for native Americans actually results in chronic disadvantage. A more complete assessment: https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/wealth-disparities-in-civil-rights/federal-policies-trap-tribes-in-poverty/ https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_r...

TimTheTinker 3y ago

> The tribal structures that still exist in many parts of the world aren't really about preserving culture or identity anymore That's not strictly true. There are real tribes in the jungles of South America and southeast Asia, for example, who still live in the forests, cook food they raise, and live in thatch/mud/bamboo houses. I would argue that these tribes' rights (especially property ownership of land where they have houses and raise food right now) matters more than arguments about things that happened more than a hundred years ago in developed countries.

clbrmbr 3y ago

Could there be value in cultural diversity analogous to value of biodiversity? I think of Andrian Berry’s warnings about a world state. I fear a world monoculture is one step in that direction. (Just googled him, seems time has been unkind to his books and reputation. Still, his Next 10,000 Years was so inspiring to me, not so much for the specifics but for the vision and the first-principles thinking around how we may get stuck.)

fluoridation 3y ago
Biodiversity is important because a diverse population is less likely to get wiped out by an event that kills all individuals matching some criteria. For cultural diversity to have value analogously there would need to be some threat to cultures that is separate from biology (because we're still all human). I can't imagine what that could be.
- ToValueFunfetti 3y ago
  As a theoretical example, if the internet eroded attention spans in first-world-liberal-democracy type cultures to a degree that eventually lead to their extinction, the Amish would be immune and our species would survive.
  - crazydoggers 3y ago
    As Michael Burnham from Star Trek so wisely put it “It would be unwise to confuse race with culture.” Culture, unlike genetics, is fluid and easily changed (compared to genes) For something like what your suggesting to occur, the loss of attention, or the inability for loss of attention span would have to become heritable. At the moment, assuming the internet does erode attention span, those whose attention spans were most eroded would have to be heavily selected against. That means, their loss of attention span or their propensity to lose attention span with internet use would have to pass through gamete into the next generation. If it’s not heritable, then the Amish are not “immune” because as soon as the Amish moves across cultural lines which is inevitable (many of which do, they routinely leave that culture) they’d be faced with the same issues. On the flip side, many within the non Amish community who choose not to use the internet would flourish without being Amish. (Since internet usage and its loss of attention span would be cultural and easily changed) Natural selection only works on the level of the genes. Unless aspects of culture can be attributed to genetic diversity, then they are simply fluid, and not something that can aid in their reproductive advantage. One could argue that the Amish do hold some genetic differences that make them seek out the culture they hold, and be as fertile as they are, but that’s definitely not clear to be the case. If such cases were true, then perhaps one might argue for cultural diversity as a proxy for genetic diversity. But I don’t know that there has been any support to show cultures are genetically heritable. In fact I believe the opposite has been shown, when taking or moving populations out, they easily assimilate, showing that those cultures are definitely not heritable.