The “big lie” that Donald Trump actually won the election has developed a frightening durability that renders it almost impervious to facts, evidence and logic, at least in the minds of most Trump supporters. I can’t think of too many precedents in which so many people clung to a falsehood so ferociously.
But a recent Thomas Edsall/New York Times column led me to some interesting survey research that suggesting that many of those who believe the lie cannot be shaken, not even if you ask them what evidence would make them accept Joe Biden’s victory, and they tell you, and then that evidence is produced. It still doesn’t shake their belief in the lie or, if it briefly does, they find their way back to believing that Democratic cheating stole the election from its rightful winner, Donald Trump.
The surveys to which I alluded were conducted by Kevin Arceneaux of Sciences Po Paris and Rory Truex of Princeton. It involved asking the same panel of respondents questions about the election over time.
The most impressive result, to me was this: For those in the panel who started out believing that Donald Trump had won the election, they were asked what would cause them to believe that they were wrong and that Joe Biden actually won. The questions specified those things that might convince a reasonable, open-minded Trump supporter. And then those things happened. And then the scholars reinterviewed those same respondents. And huge portions of them nonetheless said that no, they still didn’t believe that Trump had lost.
For example, in their writeup of their findings, Arceneaux and Truex wrote:
In some of the survey waves, we showed respondents that denied the Biden victory a series questions of the form, “Would you believe Biden won if…” followed by different hypothetical scenarios.
Of the voters that denied the outcome, only 28.7% said they would believe Biden won if Republican leaders like Mitch McConnell were to say that Biden won more votes. About 31.0% would believe Biden won if the Electoral College were to award him a majority of votes. And 42.9% would believe Biden won if there were a Supreme Court decision to that effect. But as those events actually unfolded, we did not observe equivalent increases in acceptance of the election.
Because they were returning over time to the same panel of respondents, and because many of the what-ifs in the paragraph above did come true, like McConnell acknowledging Biden’s victory, and the Supreme Court refusing to overturn the result, Arceneaux and Truex were able to confirm that, while some who said such developments would cause them to accept the result did so, others refused to change their view that Trump had been the rightful winner. The two scholars phrased it this way: Some of the Republican’s in their panels “de-identif[ied] with Trump as the election outcome unfolded,” but a substantial portion “cut [them]selves off from reality rather than the candidate… [by] accepting the lie and doubling down on their support” for Trump and for the lie.
Based on the significant number who did the latter, they concluded that in future Republican primaries candidates who continue to repeat that the election was stolen from Trump will have a significant advantage. They explored hypothetical future matchups, in Republican primaries, between a candidate who remains loyal to the Trump lie and a candidate who accepts that Biden’s election was legitimate and they concluded:
We find evidence that the lie has the potential to shape the Republican Party and American politics for years to come. … We find that candidates who maintain Donald Trump won the 2020 election have a distinct electoral advantage, about 6 percentage points, versus candidates that do not. … Based on these findings, we expect many Republican candidates to perpetuate the lie in the next election cycle, or at the very least, refuse to refute it.
“reasonable, open-minded” not a strong characteristic of any T**** voter.
Leon Festinger (cognitive dissonance theory) lives!
These people either have to deny a specific reality, or change their whole belief system. The outcome is predictable.
The “half life” of Trump’s big lie with R voters seems Chernobyl like:the poison lasts and lasts as the links in the article showed.
Trump’s legacy to formerly semi-normal legislators is that lying has no consequences. They did not lie before out of some Boy Scout like fidelity to the truth, they did not lie because they viewed the consequences for lying worse than dealing with an uncomfortable truth. No more, Trump spent his entire life perfecting lying and and the remaining Rs in power learned at the feet of their master: Say whatever makes you look best at that moment and if a 180 degree change is needed a month later, no problem. Just ignore your past transgressions and press on.
Answer McCarthy with a big “You’re right, we need a commission to look at the violence post George Floyd: what happened and what caused it, let’s get to the bottom of BLM and ANTIFA and what caused them to grow”
And as long as we are at it, things are cheaper in volume, let’s add a third commission on 2020 election security.
Every one of these will make the Rs look unhinged and the half life of lies get a little shortened.
MUCH more sad and disturbing than the “big lie” itself, though the “big lie” is pretty extraordinary. It will be difficult to maintain a government “by the people,” even symbolically, if significant portions of that same public are as resistant to facts and reality as the survey respondents appear to be. If nothing else, it’s a testament to the effectiveness of the multiple liars and frauds at Fox “news” and other right-wing media outlets, such as OAN, as well as the negative consequences of what’s usually called confirmation bias, when the only news sources you’re willing to listen to are the ones that reinforce what you already believe.
The threat to even a semblance of democratic (note the small “D”) government should be obvious, but a good many people who might respond to such a survey aren’t especially interested in democratic government, since, at some level, they know they’re in the minority, so democracy (which is usually based, at least in theory, on something approaching majority rule) has little appeal. They’ll be happy to support a demagogue of the Trumpian variety, and the authoritarian rule that typically accompanies “strongman” government, as long as the strongman’s prejudices fairly closely match their own. Should this come to pass, the political history of Latin America, especially Central America, will take on a whole new dimension with the addition of the United States to the list of countries being run by tin-pot dictators and their supporters.
Thinking about the authoritarian “former guy” and looking at China’s COVID response and ours, they were actually almost 100 times better than our response in terms of deaths and cases.
Trump’s legacy should be:
“All the authoritarianism, none of the benefits”
Trump can add, “Failed Dictator” to his long list of life failures.
Your second paragraph perfectly prophesies the path we are currently treading.
When you see the new documentary State Funeral, and I hope you will, eerie similarities to Trumpers’ present-day national hypnosis jump off the screen. Wanna talk “big lie”? Stalin murdered millions of his own people and was worshipped by their survivors. When he died, you’d have thought the world was ending, so glowing were the terms used for him.
The tyrant could do no wrong. Whatever he said, went. Ring any bells?
Yep, like a set of church bells going off like an alarm clock in my head!
Interesting, but the problem with the Soviet analogy of the 1930s is that independence of thought and an independent media did not exist in Stalin’s Russia. The existence of the Stalin-engineered famine wasn’t publicly known as a factual matter, and even if it was, belief in Stalin’s “Greatness” wasn’t a “voluntary” opinion; it was mandatory as a survival mechanism. Consult Orwell’s “1984” on this point.
In Trump’s America, on the other hand, these MAGA followers all have access to accurate information on the 2020 election and the ability to express conclusions based on reason and evidence, and instead they voluntarily choose to deny reality. This is much, much worse than the Soviet citizenry of the ’30s, and heralds the likely end of American democracy as we have known it. A more apt analogy for the 21st Century US of A, is Hitler’s use of the “Stabbed in the Back” lie about German defeat in WWI to win power in the Weimar Republic in 1933, and then abolish that regime as a liberal democracy.
I don’t know why it would surprise anyone that a group of irrational people don’t or can’t produce rational reasons for their beliefs? Articles of faith aren’t based on evidence, this is the difference between belief and knowledge. We have a group of people in America that have been cultivating faith-based magical thinking for decades… didn’t you know that?
🙂
The word “tribalism” gets tossed around, and this is what tribalism looks like. We take the side we are on no matter what the questions is. Ten years ago, there was no way the governor of Virginia would stay in office, but today there he is, still residing in the Governor’s Mansion in Richmond. Just a few years ago, Al Franken was pushed out of office for reasons no one really can recall now, yet the Governor of New York, everyone’s top choice for the decade’s most awful human being is still in office even after using his positionpublicly bestowed job to secure a multi million dollar book deal. All these folks are leaders of their tribe, and what poll after poll definitively shows is that tribe leaders can do no wrong. Except for Franken for some reason.
I’m sorry to say, but your examples of Dem “tribalism” don’t exactly prove your point. Of course, it was a rather hard point to make when you cite the (almost immediate) denunciation of Franken by senate Dems, hardly an example that “tribe leaders can do no wrong”. (And weakly adding Franken had to resign “for some reason” hardly takes the case out of consideration.)
As for Cuomo, you can’t be serious. He’s been almost universally denounced by elected Dems in DC and Albany, and his career as a NY Dem politician is finished. He’s obstinately hanging on to his current high office just as any scandal-ridden Repub hangs on, without shame. The difference is that Repubs re-elect their moral failures, while Dems tend not to. As I recall, Guv. Northham came within a whisker of having to resign; his blackface past was seen as a major scandal, for which he abjectly apologized. And where’s the comparable Repub call for, say, Matt Gaetz (R-FL) to resign? Have I missed it?
And you are making this “tribalism” point as a way of “explaining” (justifying?) the wilful delusion (not to say insanity) of 70% of Repub voters continuing to have a faith-based belief in Trumpolini’s Big Lie?! What’s the similar example for the nation’s liberals or Dems? Cuomo?? Northham? Talk about strained Both Siderism….
I’m sorry to say, but your examples of Dem “tribalism” don’t exactly prove your point.
Northama hasn’t been forced office, and Cuomo has always been known to be a bad guy yet he has been elected governor three times. for myself, I would have voted for him each time but only because I am a yellow dog Democrat, which how we used to describe tribalism before we became sensitive to the feelings of dogs, and possibly the color yellow.
I like to think our guys are more moral than their guys, but I am reluctant to make that argument publicly because the moment I do, someone will pull a Clinton. The problem too is that because of the way we finance our elections, the baseline for immorality for all candidates starts out regrettably high. In our system of governement, it is impossible to be both morally pure and elected.
There is always an important distinction between explaining something and excusing something.
Here, my point was a narrower won, that is when we respond to polls we do so tribally, and not in response to the particulars of the questions. Pollsters and those who pay attention to them are kidding themselves if they believe otherwise.
OK fair enough. I guess your narrower point eluded me.
But I find it pretty difficult to distinguish what someone says they believe for a poll and what they “really” believe. Those Repubs affirming this Big Lie insanity to pollsters (or whomever) are are doing a big part in perpetuating it, which is quite a bad action.
If/when some (actual) Dem leader(s) pull an equally insane stunt, I doubt we’d see the same result with the Dem base. I surely can’t think of a counter-example to Trumpolini’s Big Lie, but maybe some “conservative” can correct me. The Dems, for example, would have been perfectly happy to officially censure Bill Clinton, as I recall. But the Repub base has now proven just how far they will take this “tribalism”.
Actually, cue “RussiaGate!” (or “UkraineGate!”) in 3, 2, 1….
For me, tribalism offers more challenges than just how to answer polls. As it is, I mostly answere polls at random. I am one of the folks who, when polled, says that aliens are more likely to arrive on Earth than that I will ever get Social Security which is why weird poll results never surprise me.
Actual tribalism in these polarized times poses different and far more serious challenges. In 2016, the Republican Party, the party of Lincoln, the party of Teddy Roosevelt, the party of women’s suffrage and civil rights, the party in which most of it’s history Strom Thurmond wasn’t a member, nominated a bad person for president. There was no question that Donald Trump should never have been president. The electoral college system which was designed for the very eventuality failed us. That said, what if the situation had been reversed? What if my party, the Democratic Party, nominated an unfit person for president? What would I do? The tribal thing, the yellow dog Democrat thing and vote for that individual? Would I do what a lot of Republicans did and waste my vote on the the family dog? Or would I vote for the other party’s candidate? Thankfully, although it has come closer than I would like on occasion, those are questions I have ever had to faith. I do have sympathy for the good and decent people of the other party who have had to face troubling questions like that in recent years.
I’m not trying to be harsh, but when you see religions, political parties, ideologies, and other social and cultural affiliations or behavior that are absolutely NOT “tribes” referred as “tribal” you are looking at basic form of racism, colonialism, and cultural appropriation.
Tribes are REAL entities, and tribal people exist, and those people and those cultural entities are not simply metaphors for the worst features of Western civilization. When Christians attacks Muslims they’re not being “tribal”, they’re being religious. When Fascists attack the Capital they’re not being “tribal”, they’re being Fascists. When Republicans or Democrats are hostile, irrational, and ignorant… they’re not being “tribal”. You can use “tribalism” as a synonym for “loyalty” if you want, but that’s a racists and colonial mindset. When “loyal” Democrats do good things they’re loyalty is admirable, but whey loyal Democrats to bad things, they’re being tribal? Bushwa! You don’t to collect all your own BS and call it “tribalism”.
When you see “tribalism” tossed around as euphemism for bad behavior among groups that have nothing to do with any tribe anywhere, that’s racist cultural appropriation. Tribes are NOT merely a collection of bad behavior you want to disown, so man up and face the fact that YOUR culture produces this toxic behavior and stop blaming it on someone else’s culture. These are YOUR political parties, religions, ideologies, and economics classes, and they haven’t been hijacked by any tribes, YOU own this.
Tribe | Definition of Tribe by Merriam-Webster
1a : a social group comprising numerous families, clans, or generations together with slaves, dependents, or adopted strangers. b : a political division of the Roman people originally representing one of the three original tribes of ancient Rome.
Looks like our indigenous populations culturally appropriated the legacy of Rome.
This is much ado about nothing: We have lots of other things to argue about…
Edward, you can find a word in your dictionary, but that doesn’t mean that you invented the concept of tribal culture or that you can define it for everyone. Inventing a name for someone else’s culture and substitution your own definition for your own purpose is the very definition of cultural appropriation. If this is so much ado about nothing… why is it so difficult to be less racist?
I talk about ALL of these issues all of the time and not once ever am I tempted to use a reference to tribes or tribalism… it’s not THAT difficult to have these conversations without being a little less racist and culturally insensitive.
Completely agree. The use of “tribal” is unabashedly racist.
We’ve heard this before. The word “tribe” is an English word derived etymologically from Latin and other Indo-European root words. Just because we use the word “tribe” to describe groups of Native Americans doesn’t mean it’s wrong to use the word to describe peoples associated or grouped in other ways. “Tribe” has been properly used to describe the 12 “tribes” of Israel which settled Canaan after the Exodus of the Israelites from Egypt and the barbarian Germanic or Teutonic “tribes” which invaded the Roman Empire and settled central Europe. The word has been applied by anthropologists and others to describe groups or clans of people linked by family, customs, or language. It’s not used to describe “bad behavior” but to describe peoples connecting themselves in ways through symbols or beliefs or ideologies. It might be a misuse of the word “tribal” to describe how we, as citizens of the US, align ourselves reflexively behind certain symbols or leaders but that’s how the English language changes and evolves. It’s not any form of “racism, colonialism or cultural appropriation.”
Lots of words have benign origins, but have evolved into having racist connotations.
Tribalism is one of the cliches that gets batted around. In talking about it, I was trying to attach any moral value to it, just discusing what it might mean in our politics. If that makes me culturally insensitive, so be it.
When I speak of tribalism, I am think of it in terms of loyalty to a group, as distinct from moral, political or other individual consideration. I vote for my congressperson because she is a Democrat, a member of my tribe, or if you prefer a member of my affinity group. It has nothing to do with her personally, or any qualities she may have or lack. As a politician, she is completely fungible as long as she vote as a Democrat to organize the U.S. House of Representatives. I have talked with thousands of voters over the years, and the majority who share their views with me on the subject, tell me they vote for the person not the party. When I hear that I smile and nod approvingly, hoping they will vote my way, but I know what they don’t which is that where legislative politics is considered, what matters is the party, the tribe if you will, not the individual.
Yes Hiram, it’s a racist cliche we can easily live without.
If you want to talk about loyalty and immorality, then talk about loyalty and immorality. To you “tribe” may just be a word you can find in your dictionary, but it’s not just a word to real human beings who live tribal lives in tribal societies. This is not simply a “past tense” historical reference to a word you get to use however you choose. You want to talk about groups and affiliations, you can do that without putting all your garbage into a basket YOU call “tribalism”. Like minded voters are not “tribes”, majorities are not “tribes”… if you want to see a real tribe or look at a real tribal culture, you can go to a Powwow. It might do you some good to learn about the Seven Grandfather Teachings, which have absolutely NOTHING to do with a tendency to believe Trump’s lies… on the contrary.
Yeah, you use the words in your dictionary, it’s a free country. The idea that Western culture is some kind pure and brilliant manifestation of civility until people with “tribal” mentalities show up and contaminate or hijack it is a very very very old racist narrative that you can keep using if you want. Or you could be a little less lazy and find a way to join the discussion without using racist references.
In the end, it really doesn’t matter why Republicans believe the big lie, or even if they really do believe it. What matters is that they are willing to repeat it, and to act on it, and can look forward to some degree of success based on their willingness to repeat it. The Republican Party has ceased to be a legitimate political party and is now a personality cult. “Trump really won the election” is the cult’s shibboleth: if you can say it, you’re in.
Sincerity of belief is entirely irrelevant.
On the bright side I just saw a poll indicating that the percentage of those who still think Trump won the election is down to 14%. We can live with that. I think the more Republicans pursue a defunct narrative the more they’ll discredit themselves and drift into irrelevance. All that remains to be seen is whether or not Democrats will exploit this absurdity for a change rather than try to rehabilitate Republicans with promises and efforts to reach across the isle and bring the bipartisan regime back from the dead.
Pat Terry says:
“Lots of words have benign origins, but have evolved into having racist connotations.”
That’s true, but the origin of the term “tribal” and “tribalism” may not actually be that benign. Kingstead refers to it’s use in Anthropology, but he’s clearly unaware of the role Anthropology has played in oppressing and colonizing tribal societies. Anthropologists have been agents of oppression and genocide.
The concept of “tribes” has primarily been used a description for “primitive” cultures relative to Western civilization, THAT’S how Anthropologists used the term, to describe cultures that had not yet achieved Western levels of sophistication and civility. Anthropology doesn’t actually give us a benign etiology, it gave us a weapon of colonization and genocide. Anthropology created an artificial cultural hierarchy with Western civilization at the top, and tribal civilizations at the bottom. You can’t divorce a word from it’s function even if you claim it has a Latin root that meant something else to the Romans.
When someone like Hiram uses the concept of tribalism to describe Republicans, or families, or voters, he’s not simply deploying a redundant synonym. We already have words for Republicans, and families, and voters: we call them- Republicans, families, and voters. These groups don’t become “tribal” unless they devolve from their ideal state somehow. No one hauls “tribalism” out of their linguistic tool box to compliment, praise, or admire Republicans, or voters. “Tribal” doesn’t become an adjective for Republicans until they become toxic, ignorant, and divisive. Hiram isn’t complimenting anyone when he uses “tribe” to describe them, he isn’t suggesting that their tribalism is a “good” thing, or even neutral.
Of course this would all be simple wordplay were it not for the fact that REAL tribes and tribal people exist in the here and now, and were it not for the history of genocide. Tribal people aren’t merely historical artifacts of primitive Western culture. You can go to tribal casino any hour of the day, and you’ll notice it’s not a “primitive” environment. If you look at real tribal cultures you find that they are no less “civilized” than any other culture. This is why dumping all your garbage into a basket called “tribalism” and using it as a metaphor for failure is actually racist, not merely linguistic incompetence.
Just a quick note to Hiram,
Listen, I’m sure you don’t mean to be racist and I’m positive you didn’t sit down with the intention of disparaging someone else’s culture. I apologize if my comment came across as an personal criticism or attack. My intention is to bring this to your attention. I know you’re a thoughtful person, and I’m just saying we don’t need a new narrative structure organized around “tribes” to discuss issues like this, and the tribal narrative, regardless of intent, can be damaging and toxic in and of itself.
With that… I’ll withdraw.
“No one hauls “tribalism” out of their linguistic tool box to compliment, praise, or admire Republicans, or voters. “Tribal” doesn’t become an adjective for Republicans until they become toxic, ignorant, and divisive. Hiram isn’t complimenting anyone when he uses “tribe” to describe them, he isn’t suggesting that their tribalism is a “good” thing, or even neutral.”
I didn’t interpret Hiram’s comments as using “tribal ” in the sense you describe at all. I took his comments as using these words in a neutral sense just as I’ve interpreted it when I’ve read it used by many other social scientists and journalists. He wasn’t just referring to Republicans but a phenomenon in our society today which happens to be exemplified by the people who cling to the “big lie” discussed in Eric Black’s post. “Progressives” , “liberals”, “Democrats” are as “tribal” in Hiram’s sense as Republicans.
As I said in my post, the words “tribe” and “tribal” are words of Latin and Indo-European origin. These words in their root forms were used by the ancient Romans and Greeks to describe the groupings of Germanic or Teutonic peoples over 2,000 years ago. See Julius Caesar’s History of Gaul. To the Romans at any rate, these peoples were “barbarians” or “savages.” My Viking and Germanic ancestors were barbarians or savages by their lights and were organized in “tribes” too. On the other hand, the “chosen” people of Israel have often been describes as consisting of 12 “tribes”. As Edwrd Blaise points out the word “tribe” was used to by the Romans to describe the three original peoples of Rome. That suggests to me that the word “tribe” at some point acquired a neutral connotation. At worst, the connotation was of groupings or alien “uncivilized” by people who assume an attitude of cultural arrogance or superiority. So maybe Anthropologists were arrogant or assuming an attitude of cultural superiority when they defined Native American peoples in terms of “tribes”. But maybe “tribe” was just a convenient English word for groupings of people who didn’t fit the Western model of “civilized” monarchies or whatever we had in those days.
But assuming you’re right to suggest that the words “tribes” and “tribal” carry connotations of “racism” then why, in light of your own analysis, wouldn’t the proper objection to object to any use of the word “tribe” and “tribal” altogether? Why then do you insist that “REAL tribes and tribal people exist in the here and now” and “Tribal people aren’t merely historical artifacts of primitive Western culture”? Aren’t these people themselves simply demeaning themselves by your analysis by belonging to something called a “tribe”?
I don’t think they are. Nor do I think anyone else demeans them by using the word “tribe” or “tribal” to mean a different type of association. You write:
“I’m just saying we don’t need a new narrative structure organized around “tribes” to discuss issues like this, and the tribal narrative, regardless of intent, can be damaging and toxic in and of itself.”
Well, if you’re right, then maybe we do need a “new narrative structure” around the word “tribes” and other terms most of us don’t know are taken to be “racist” and “toxic.” The English language is freighted with cultural baggage. If “tribes” is a loaded word, how can we know what other words we use innocently and neutrally are really offensive, “racist” or “toxic”? If you’re right, the very fact we’re communicating in English is a testament to racism, cultural oppression and genocide.
I know I said I’d withdraw but this an impressive and lengthy example of incoherence.
All words have origins and etiologies. The fact that the Romans spoke Latin and had a different word for something else can’t make it impossible for THIS word to be racist or have racist connotations. Dictionaries don’t explain away racism and the Romans didn’t have Anthropologists.
When tribal people, or anyone else uses the word: “tribe” to discuss and an actual tribe, it’s not racists. When you use “tribe” as a collection of garbage behavior some other group is displaying, that is racist. I’m afraid this is obvious Jon and I’ve already explained this at length.
If you think Hiram or others are simply using the word as some kind of synonym, rather than a disparaging adjective, you’re just not processing the comment. Thanks for sharing your interpretation but understand that this isn’t all about “you” and your personal interpretation. Language is a cultural and shared form of communication, what other people think matters.
One way to know when you’re being racist is when someone tells you your being racist.
Yes, the fact that we’re all sitting here speaking English instead of Ojibwe is exactly a testament to oppression, racism, and genocide, you might be getting dangerously close to some insight there.
Thanks for your comment. While I fail to understand how “cultural appropriation” can apply to an English word with ancient roots in Latin, you’ve given me something to think about how “tribe” or “tribal” might come across as racist. I’m sorry you think Hiram and I are racists and culturally insensitive because we disagree with you about the usage of “tribe” and “tribal”. I think you assume incorrectly that “tribal” is used in a pejorative or disparaging way when used to describe polarization in politics. But I’ll try to avoid using the term in the future to respect your feelings.
Anyway, Google search the word “tribalism” I think you’ll find you have you’ll have a hard time convincing others that they’re racist or that only Native American tribes can use the term and only you (or they) get to decide who gets to use words like this. These words have already acquired a widespread usage in academia and journalism. And it’s being defended as a proper usage. So it’s not just about “me and my interpretation.” Out of curiosity I searched for other examples of indigenous people objecting to the use of “tribalism” in political contexts. I found one article from 2017 by James Fallows in “The Atlantic”:
https://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2017/11/a-nation-of-tribes-and-members-of-the-tribe/544907/
The examples of disagreements on the appropriateness of using “tribalism” or “tribe” cited by Fallows tells me that I’m not alone in my interpretation. But I also see you are not alone in your objections to this usage. It seems the “jury is still out” at least in political polarization contexts. It also seems some, maybe many, Native Americans have no problem with “tribe” or “tribalism” being used to describe political polarization. Who gets to decide?
“I think you assume incorrectly that “tribal” is used in a pejorative or disparaging way when used to describe polarization in politics. But I’ll try to avoid using the term in the future to respect your feelings.”
Jon, please, are you telling us that polarization is a “good” thing, a positive contribution drawn from tribal experience or example? Is this celebrating the positive contribution of tribal mentalities? Are you telling us that “tribalism” is an improvement, and asset to political parties? Enough of that silliness, of course it’s disparaging.
I appreciate you future efforts to avoid using the term this way, and I appreciate your respect, thank you.
I should point that it’s the use of the term “tribe” in this context that can be racist, simply disagreeing with me cannot be racist. I would never describe someone as racist simply because they disagree with me.
Let me take a moment explain how cultural appropriation can work in this example. First let’s begin with fact that Roman lineage not withstanding, Europeans didn’t invent tribal cultures and introduce them to indigenous peoples when they explored the world and found other people living there. Indigenous people weren’t just sitting around without cultures, societies, or civilizations until Europeans showed up with their fancy dictionaries. The idea that “tribes” only exist because you created a word for them and put it in your dictionary is an expression of colonization.
This is how a word in an English dictionary become an instrument of colonization and oppression, English dictionaries are filled with many examples. You’re using the “word” to capture the culture. When you ask how a European word can be appropriation, you’re working the problem backwards from a Eurocentric origin.
Tribal cultures existed long before they encountered Europeans, those cultures still exist and they have real characteristics. When you displace the reality of a tribal culture (i.e. when you pretend your dictionary word is more legitimate than the actual culture your word is supposed to describe), with your stereotype of tribal culture, You’re appropriating tribal cultures. When you take someone else’s culture, and deploy it as rhetorical device or metaphor for your own purposes, you’re taking something that doesn’t belong to you. The word may be yours, but that doesn’t give you ownership of the culture you use the word to describe.
We can also discuss the fact that tribal culture isn’t a monolithic reality, there are many different tribal cultures so when you reduce them ALL to a single stereotype your doubling down the appropriation. This is why it makes no sense to claim that Republicans resemble a tribe of some kind… which tribe do they resemble? If they don’t resemble any tribe, why use that term to describe them?
And at the front end of this:
“If this is so much ado about nothing… why is it so difficult to be less racist?”
Hmm? “Less racist”
I am apparently so overflowing with racism that a slight reduction should be easily accommodated.
Did not know I had such a significant racist streak in me. But, the next comment added:
“One way to know when you’re being racist is when someone tells you your being racist.”
I guess that makes the identification of racists a lot simpler than identifying the multitude of other human characteristics we all can exhibit, where some amount of consideration and analysis takes place before we plop a label on someone.
Edward, no matter how racist we may or may not be, we can always be less racist. Or… we can be more racist.
Based on the headline I thought this article would be about the Wuhan virus escaping from a lab. I should’ve known better.