What do you think about uncontacted tribes like the Sentinelese? Is there a moral duty to bring them into the international community? How should we think about ethnic groups wanting to preserve themselves into the future?
Moral duty to leave them the hell alone, they've already likely been poisoned with microplastics but they don't need our loneliness and micrbiome depletion and aspirated particulate and screen time and diabetes, etc...
The Sentinelese islanders have no "resource curse," i.e. the material and area desired by technological society. Also, expeditionary sailing parties didn't land on their shores (or were killed upon disembarking). If they were known to reside atop coltan or bauxite or silver deposits, they would surely be eradicated or assimilated.
That certainly isn't true. They're obviously tool users and can do basic manufacturing. You can certainly claim their resource demands are far, far lower than the rest of human society, but it isn't none. I also don't want to single them out; I could also have pointed to some Amazonian tribes.
I'm also not even saying that I disagree with you. I'm trying to get to a point about what Paul Kingsnorth calls "The Machine" and globalisation. I think there is an argument to be made that, given the choice, some of these tribesman may choose to join the global society.
The question I have is more how do those of us who oppose the global order and resource use get the same status as these tribes to be left alone?
Can humans survive without all the modern technological clutter? If so, and if we are finding so many problems (to individuals and our societies) from the development of all these gadgets, why is Technology continually being advanced contrary to human interests?
Are you familiar with Bruce parry and his show tribe where he fully immersed himself in different tribal cultures? One thing that was very clear is almost all cultures have drug/transcendence rituals, do you think losing these kinds of rituals in the west has a direct link to our loss of cultural cohesion?
Another thing they have are enemies; in civilization, in order to be dedicated to the unimpeded advancement of Technology, we are not allowed to have enemies and must all cooperate and be tolerant of everyone else. But it has been demonstrated to be beneficial to the human psyche to have an enemy.
It would seem that tribalism writ large is what I (but not many others) would call nationalism -- which properly involves a deep sense of belonging and commitment to and pride in your "people," (read "nation"). First world nations are too large for true tribalism, but are none-the-less being undermined by the tribal roots and practices of millions of third-world immigrants. My question is, WHY are the UK, EU, and US suppressing our own "tribalism/nationalism" and promoting those of the third world? Is there an historical precedent for such bizarre behavior?
Why do you think that the West is so negative against its own culture and history, but venerates other cultures, partially less technologically developed cultures such as Native American, Aboriginal and Maori?
With that being said, do you think the trite and overused phrase, "sources familiar with the matter", will ever be sent out to pasture? To me that horse clearly cannot race anymore.
Showing preference for one's ethnic group is frequently portrayed as xenophobic and ignorant. The word "tribalism" is used as a pejorative, but "finding one's own tribe" is all the rage. Please speak to the differences in function and functionality of "genetic" groups and social groups.
Humanity is inherently tribal and will always seek ways to make ingroups and outgroups. Therefore, in the long run, for the majority, it is better to be a member of a strong and dominant ingroup and ensure its continued dominance, rather than a weaker outgroup?
What is the 'moral equivalent to war' that William James talks about? To use your example of a war-movie cinema experience, watching porn is not the same as having sex. What are the best things that military and civilian people can do to stimulate the thirst for war, without entailing the destructive consequences?
Be honest, all this analysis of third world tribes so giving of their 'cultural nouse' is a one way street and comes from a liberal western-centric perceptive that has no purchase in the cultures that you purport we can learn from. Obama said in Egypt that America and the west uniquely and openly admit its faults and change...can they?
What do you think about uncontacted tribes like the Sentinelese? Is there a moral duty to bring them into the international community? How should we think about ethnic groups wanting to preserve themselves into the future?
Moral duty to leave them the hell alone, they've already likely been poisoned with microplastics but they don't need our loneliness and micrbiome depletion and aspirated particulate and screen time and diabetes, etc...
That's what I'm trying to get to. Why do some humans get that dispensation and others don't?
The Sentinelese islanders have no "resource curse," i.e. the material and area desired by technological society. Also, expeditionary sailing parties didn't land on their shores (or were killed upon disembarking). If they were known to reside atop coltan or bauxite or silver deposits, they would surely be eradicated or assimilated.
That certainly isn't true. They're obviously tool users and can do basic manufacturing. You can certainly claim their resource demands are far, far lower than the rest of human society, but it isn't none. I also don't want to single them out; I could also have pointed to some Amazonian tribes.
I'm also not even saying that I disagree with you. I'm trying to get to a point about what Paul Kingsnorth calls "The Machine" and globalisation. I think there is an argument to be made that, given the choice, some of these tribesman may choose to join the global society.
The question I have is more how do those of us who oppose the global order and resource use get the same status as these tribes to be left alone?
Can humans survive without all the modern technological clutter? If so, and if we are finding so many problems (to individuals and our societies) from the development of all these gadgets, why is Technology continually being advanced contrary to human interests?
Are you familiar with Bruce parry and his show tribe where he fully immersed himself in different tribal cultures? One thing that was very clear is almost all cultures have drug/transcendence rituals, do you think losing these kinds of rituals in the west has a direct link to our loss of cultural cohesion?
Another thing they have are enemies; in civilization, in order to be dedicated to the unimpeded advancement of Technology, we are not allowed to have enemies and must all cooperate and be tolerant of everyone else. But it has been demonstrated to be beneficial to the human psyche to have an enemy.
It would seem that tribalism writ large is what I (but not many others) would call nationalism -- which properly involves a deep sense of belonging and commitment to and pride in your "people," (read "nation"). First world nations are too large for true tribalism, but are none-the-less being undermined by the tribal roots and practices of millions of third-world immigrants. My question is, WHY are the UK, EU, and US suppressing our own "tribalism/nationalism" and promoting those of the third world? Is there an historical precedent for such bizarre behavior?
Why do you think that the West is so negative against its own culture and history, but venerates other cultures, partially less technologically developed cultures such as Native American, Aboriginal and Maori?
Did you notice any difference in tribalism or loyalty between nationalities? Which are more loyal or less loyal?
Hello Sebastian,
Thank you for taking our questions.
Does anyone in media use the SPJ Code of Ethics?
With that being said, do you think the trite and overused phrase, "sources familiar with the matter", will ever be sent out to pasture? To me that horse clearly cannot race anymore.
Thank you,
Jen W, a source familiar with the matter
Showing preference for one's ethnic group is frequently portrayed as xenophobic and ignorant. The word "tribalism" is used as a pejorative, but "finding one's own tribe" is all the rage. Please speak to the differences in function and functionality of "genetic" groups and social groups.
Humanity is inherently tribal and will always seek ways to make ingroups and outgroups. Therefore, in the long run, for the majority, it is better to be a member of a strong and dominant ingroup and ensure its continued dominance, rather than a weaker outgroup?
What is the 'moral equivalent to war' that William James talks about? To use your example of a war-movie cinema experience, watching porn is not the same as having sex. What are the best things that military and civilian people can do to stimulate the thirst for war, without entailing the destructive consequences?
Be honest, all this analysis of third world tribes so giving of their 'cultural nouse' is a one way street and comes from a liberal western-centric perceptive that has no purchase in the cultures that you purport we can learn from. Obama said in Egypt that America and the west uniquely and openly admit its faults and change...can they?
What kind of things give us an other group to compete with in a way that doesn't fracture or even bring together society?