cooper ipod mini [url=http://volny.cz/jvckakvo/ipod-mini.html] cooper ipod mini [/url] mana kai maui resort [url=http://volny.cz/ktloswao/maui.html] mana kai maui resort [/url] allison transmission maintenance [url=http://volny.cz/vsdnawyb/allison.html] allison transmission maintenance [/url] janis joplin lord [url=http://volny.cz/ytveghvg/janis-joplin.html] janis joplin lord [/url] chocolate mousse receipe [url=http://volny.cz/miexmdpk/mousse.html] chocolate mousse receipe [/url] black pig sabbath war [url=http://volny.cz/havqgeuy/black-sabbath.html] black pig sabbath war [/url] bowling shoes toddler [url=http://volny.cz/gbscbcbg/bowling-shoes.html] bowling shoes toddler [/url] i said folklore trumpets [url=http://volny.cz/nnhmuzfy/folklore.html] i said folklore trumpets [/url] iomega active disk software [url=http://volny.cz/zhvsgjzn/iomega.html] iomega active disk software [/url] if i could be 3 doors down [url=http://volny.cz/dgcfwwfx/3-doors-down.html] if i could be 3 doors down [/url]
29360 pci speed adaptec [url=http://volny.cz/hjhqjget/adaptec.html] 29360 pci speed adaptec [/url] boston globe robert drinan [url=http://volny.cz/nputpenc/boston-globe.html] boston globe robert drinan [/url] map of michigan state university [url=http://volny.cz/cttkztaz/michigan-state-university.html] map of michigan state university [/url] driving directions + canada [url=http://volny.cz/pfjacaae/driving-direction.html] driving directions + canada [/url] cited example format mla works [url=http://volny.cz/goiimczv/mla.html] cited example format mla works [/url] avalon light tail toyota [url=http://volny.cz/lhcgcojx/avalon.html] avalon light tail toyota [/url] zales credit card payment [url=http://volny.cz/cvwhofmw/credit-cards.html] zales credit card payment [/url] nba phoenix sun [url=http://volny.cz/lwslsxmb/phoenix-suns.html] nba phoenix sun [/url] reese witherspoon's biography [url=http://volny.cz/vnnfzvbt/biographies.html] reese witherspoon's biography [/url] husky oilless air compressor [url=http://volny.cz/yygzczej/air-compressor.html] husky oilless air compressor [/url]
I have found in article which tells about apportunity of earning thousands dollars for a couple of weeks, while laying total 6 dollars. Further you should send a dollar to each 6 E-gold accounts, which are enumerated bellow. Then strike out first mentioned E-g old account at the same time removing the list up line – that is to say that the 6th line is getting and you are supposed to register the numbers of your E-gold account there. In this respect you could spread your message. None of tricks! You’ll be none the worse for this, and the only thing I could lose is 6$. So, I made up my mind to try… and, could you guess what happened!
Only 7 days after that I began touching money! I was astonished! But all at once I thought that everything was over. But nothing of the sort! During the first week I received 25$, the end of the next week it was 1000$. It was the 4th week when the sum made up 42000$ and this sum increasing rapidly till now. And all this cost 6$ only?! I couldn’t believe that it was working until I started touching money from all over the world.
Now I’ll try to explan how and – what is most important – why it is working I do promise you, that if, you accurately follow stated bellow instructions, you’ll receive much more money you thought without making any effects. Follow the each instruction and money will come to your E-gold account. Accept the offer without more ado! It is completely legal. And your confirmation only 6$.
What is of great importance, that it isn’t cheat and unlegal; for all that you don’t take any risk while the system serving you. Follow the exact instruction and you’ll receive nearly 50000$ for 20 – 60 days.
All this well organized due to participants’ honesty.
There are very three steps to access:
1. You should create E-gold account, which address is http://E-Gold.com. Learn thoroughly the system, contribute 6$ to your E-gold account.
2. Send 1$ to the one number of the E-gold accounts enumerated bellow. Put down obligatory phrase in line. NOTE: “Please, enter my name to the list of E-gold accounts.”
At last here it the list of the E-gold accounts:
1) 5160180
2) 5160202
3) 5160221
4) 5160266
5) 5160308
6) 5160333
Now strike out the first mentioned E-gold accounts removing the list up a line (6 grows 5, 5 grows 4…) and put down your E-gold account in the 6th line.
3. Make any changes you like, but maintain the main idea. Place this article on not less then 200 News groups and forums. Keep in mind, the more E-gold accounts you place, the bigger return you have.
This business exist and prospers due to the honesty and seriousness of participants only.
So, by the time you achieve the first position, you’ll have thousands of money only being the creator of the list! It cost you 6$ and little work. Make it now, not delay for tomorrow. Time presses!
Now I’ll tell you why you lose nothing but win.
Let’s see, if I place 200 lists an and receive only 5 answers, that means, that I’ll receive 5$ being on the 6th position of the list. Now these 5 persons make 200 lists each with my E-gold lists in the 5th line. Let’s think that only 5 persons answer to those first five. In this respect you’ll receive 25$. Then these 25 persons make 200 lists with my E-gold account in every one but on the 4th line (because they put down theirs). And in this case (when 5 persons answer) my income is 125$. Now these 125 persons having placed and received only 5 answer give me return of 625$ (I find myself on the 3d position).
I receive 3125$, is it impressive. And it cost only 6$.
Could you imagine, that every day thousands people use INTERNET and read these articles! The same as you read this one now. So what? Will you spend only 6$ to find out weather it works?
And some words for pessimists. What it would be if the business falls and I don’t receive money? Let it be. Every day appear from 20000 to 50000 new user in INTERNET! According to specialists prognosis, the quantity of users will increase to 21 millions (now it consists of 9 mln) till 2006 year it is possible that many of them will be ready to try themselves in something new.
How to spread the information in forums:
1. Open searcher http://google.com
2. Write the phrase: wwwboard forum post start new topic .
3. Searcher will find thousands of sites with references which shows the form for making a new topic of forum.
The method is checked on 100% and has been working already five years.
Tribal (or pressure) influence is an automatic replacement for a power vacuum in a collapsed states (i.e. nations with no prevailing political governing power). Weak states get influenced from the outside and the inside which evolves into a zero state, because such a state is no longer meeting its responsibilities towards its people. The Pakistani government was initially weak and is getting weaker because of it is responding to outside influences so the tribal issues get on the surface faster and influence events more. But Pakistan is far from collapse yet but it is subject to change of power depending on the prevailing influence from the outside or the inside. For al-maliki semi-government is actually has nothing to do with a state from many reasons. The US administration hopes through al-maliki to govern occupied Iraq. In Iraq the state already collapsed by all standards. When al-maliki invited the tribal leaders to support his (and the US) plan to govern Iraq, both (al-maliki and the US) are thinking that the tribal leaders will help to save their broken ship. I am an Iraqi, and one think I am sure of, is that those tribal leaders have no influence in Iraq. This is true for the religious leaders (Sictani and others with a turban on their heads). Those tribal leaders are opportunists and just want to get the handouts from the US occupying force.
Tribal (or pressure) influence is an automatic replacement for power vacuum in a collapsed states (i.e. nations with no prevailing political governing power). Weak states get influenced from the outside and the inside which later evolved into a zero state, because it is no longer meeting its responsibilities towards its people. The Pakistani government was initially weak and is getting weaker because of responding to the outside the influence so the tribal issues get on the surface faster and influence events more. But Pakistan is far from collapse yet but it is subject to change of power depending on the prevailing influence from the outside or the inside. For al-maliki semi-government is actually has nothing to do with a state from many reasons. The US administration hopes through al-maliki to govern occupied Iraq. In Iraq the state already collapsed by all standards. When al-maliki invited the tribal leaders to support his (and the US) plan to govern Iraq, both (al-maliki and the US) are thinking that the tribal leaders will help to save their broken ship. I am an Iraqi, and one think I am sure of, is that those tribal leaders have no influence in Iraq. This is true for the religious leaders (Sictani and others with a turban on their heads). Those tribal leaders are opportunists and just want to get the handouts from the US occupying force.
"The Western governments, which includes Tokyo, should fully support Kurdistan by partitioning Iraq into 3 regions: Kurdistan, Sunni-town, and Shiite-town. The 3 regions shall be part of a weak confederation that shares the oil profits in accordance with the size of the population in each region."
The Kurds are also Sunni.
Anyone, including the New York Times, the Washington Post, etc, who writes "Kurds, Sunni and Shia" simply proves they do not know what they are talking about.
The New York Times once mistook Iranian-Americans for Arab-Americans. It wasn't a mistake (they interviewed few Iranians, not just one) but it really was an indication of rampant mediocre knowledge among their reporters who often write about the Middle East as if it was their own backyard.
This leads to the spread of ignorance as it is evident in this blog.
It looks like most commentators from the underdeveloped countries stress the importance of tribalism as a safety net or a form of protection. Or as something that would hold the fabric of society together when all else falls apart. Many of those from the developed world seem to equate tribalism with mild nationalist feelings one sees in Europe. This is like what happened at the last FIFA World Cup, or the British WWII and Froggy jokes. In fact, tribalism does its worst damage not across national borders, but within these countries. Perhaps they are too polite and sensitive to call a spade a spade: tribalism is the main force that causes the social fabric of many countries to remain undeveloped. It is what makes it so easy in the first place for the national system to collapse.
Tribalism is a scholarly subject for a westerner to study or it produces quaint things for tourists to 'visit'- and it is a good thing for members of the lucky tribe that grabs and keeps economic and political power. Tribalsim helped Cortez to conquer Mexico with a few men, and allowed Europeans to conquer three continents in the last five centuries. African tribalism enabled the British, French, Portuguese and even Belgians to colonize most of that continent. Such divisions as tribalism, the caste system, and sectarian prejudice are products of ancient fears from others and the desire to get and keep a bigger slice of the pie.
Cheers
www.infidelus.blogspot.com/
To Mikella, will do—add the Shield of Achilles to my list. Thanks! I have books in shopping bags all over the floor, on steps, etc. and I always need more. It seems we are in a race to somehow work things out between us before all hell breaks loose and I really wish there was some way to get the best info into our heads as soon and as beneficially as possible. But then again, I suppose that even with the best sources still the limitations of the human animal would come into play (not to mention the limitations of being tied to a particular culture, etc.). I just read the essay by Ralph Peters that people mentioned here on globalization, and the part where he mentions a resurgence of magic is really interesting. Magic, believe it or not might be the answer in that shamans are quite familiar in using certain drugs to expand the mind. I am a firm believer in the usefulness of such drugs and believe they should be tied to education and methods of gaining the best knowledge in the physical sense (books, computers, etc.). I would be interested in hearing others thoughts on the matter.
To Proud from Daniel. Whatever I may have said in my last two posts please separate from my personal failings which were probably all too evident in the posts. I try to be objective and intellectual, but I am also ambitious to the point of sickness and my professional failures often leave me bitter and ruin my better intellectual understanding. I want to think clearly but often life just leaves me bitter I am not recognized for being so damn intelligent and therefore my intellect often is just as much hostile outpourings as interesting insights. I hope to get it under control someday. I wish I could always be as pure as when I was young and just took pleasure in pure speculation. Now the stink of ambition is just as likely to taint my thoughts as not. Hope you understand.
differences between them will create homogeneity through the complex process of _understanding_.
Allowing yourselves to be bulldozed into accepting an aribtrary process as "being correct," is like saying that keeping Native North American Indians from speaking their native languages, in addition to English, is for their own good....
Most of the conquering nations in the olde days, sent in priests with the initial troops to destroy the old belief systems and put a new one in place...
I would suggest, letting the olde belief systems destory themselves with knowledge based systems........
most of Europe thinks that the American pasttime of being infatuated with religion, is backwards.........
I agree with Daniel that for the purposes of abstraction in building models economists sometimes employ amorphous concepts such as "transaction costs" that might be perceived as "subjective". I also agree with him that in this case trying to approach this problem with the classical understanding of "transaction costs" might be problematic. However I disagree that an economic viewpoint is completely useless.
A more basic economic concept such a "constrained maximization" might be a more useful tool. Recognizing, as Daniel has in his last statement, that there are private gains when entities (individuals, clans, tribes, nations etc) get together, as well as costs or sacrifices, is enough to build a powerful economic framework to understand the problem. If the pain from Sally's nagging and the costs of having a job are not at least equally compensated for by the joy John derives from his association with her, then perhaps he should move on — the same would apply to Sally, if the pain she feels from nagging John and enduring his laziness are not compensated for in some way in the relationship, then she should divorce him. At the risk of harping at the point; if artists are not rewarded by "culture creating power" that is at least commensurate with the "suffering and sacrifice" they endure, I doubt if they would be any ? though some might claim the opposite. The point that I am trying to make is that in your recent post Daniel, you are too quick to judge economics harshly when in fact the spirit of your own points are very economic in nature.
It helps to know the benefits and costs that motivated people to associate in order to come up with a solution when some centripetal forces drive them apart. It seems to me that while many people emphasize similarity; difference — and its associated virtues such as different specialized skills, diversity of thought and ideas etc — also had a role in bringing societies together. Thus I think it is rather absurd that people advocate breaking down multi-ethnic or multi-tribal societies into more "homogeneous" groupings for homogeneity's sake. In addition, from what a lot of readers have been saying and the extremely broad definition of "tribe", encompassing religious, ethnic, language and even economic cleavages, I doubt that it could be possible to create a satisfactorily homogeneous society.
Daniel, the observation you make that "the most successful of these larger entities—the successful democracies—are actually breaking people down into individual units—so you can say we have the double process of uniting various tribes then breaking everything down into individuals" is precisely the problem that Robert Putnam identifies in his book Bowling Alone and associated research on social capital.
It also surprises me that people who approach this problem economically seem remarkably, well, stupid. People talk about economic incentives to get tribes to enter into larger relationships, become part of larger national entities—and if the transaction costs of entering such a relationship are too high, well then the process breaks down and we have tribes opposed to one another again. I find this economic view stupid—even cowardly and degenerate—precisely because the concept of transaction costs is highly subjective and precisely because most people are cowardly and self-indulgent they will protest that virtually the cost of everything is too high. For example you have John married to Sally and then wanting to divorce Sally because the costs are too high to stay married to Sally when really all Sally expects is that John get off his lazy ass and get a job. I suppose what I am trying to say—and from the artistic perspective—is that the costs of sustaining a society are always too high and that precisely is life. Artists have always known to integrate disparate elements is an incredibly difficult task and entails much suffering and sacrifice, but that is the price paid for artistic achievement—for culture creating power. Economists have a different view, I suppose—which is strange because economics is the dismal science and should be allowed to be quite truthful (actually there is much truthful economics and I am only taking a shot here at a particular perspective). To be absolutely clear, economists might want to keep transaction costs down so different parties easily unite and do not complain transaction costs are too high, but they can never really keep such costs down because uniting, developing, creating society always entails suffering and self-sacrifice. Quite simply you can propose all the economic solutions you want, but to get tribal identities to be more amenable, to get people to work together, you have to expect them to be quite self-sacrificing—and just perhaps their children will have better lives (but they too must be prepared to be noble and self-sacrificing in turn for the future).
To Daniel in Arlington. I see what you mean from your last post concerning democracies and leaders in democracies. In a sense I suppose you could say the U.S. is held hostage by a tribe within an ostensibly democratic structure (democracy being the ideal). Just connecting what you say here to the overall theme of tribes, etc. Of course I am speaking of corporate oligarchy as a type of tribe.
To everyone in general: I am surprised no one here has observed that although tribes are being overcome by larger enitities—could even be said to be in natural opposition to larger entities—the most successful of these larger entities—the successful democracies—are actually breaking people down into individual units—so you can say we have the double process of uniting various tribes then breaking everything down into individuals who are supposed to be adaptable to a variety of institutions and a variety of functions (division of labor, yes, but then division of labor to where we mix and match in a variety of ways—call it super tribalism in that like old tribes everyone does a little bit of everything but much more than would be found in an ancient tribe). This pressure is calling forth superior and multi-adaptable human beings—superior intelligence, skills and positioning in space and time. When nation states fail and globalization proceeds we would like to believe individuals will simply become globalized, but the vast majority of people really have no experience being individuals—atomized as in the most successful democracies—so it would be useless for them to be expected to become cosmopolitan. See the Georg Simmel short essay "Bridge and door" for something of the solution?
Since people in non developing countries have no idea of what democracy and capitalism is about, it is natural that tribal and ethnic relationships are stronger than any nationalistic appeal as evidenced by the chaos in iraq today.
These discussions have hammered to death the various theoretical arguments for defining tribes and nations, and in doing so answered the first question. Various contributors have noted that the various regions of the Middle East and Central Asia have seen weakening of central governments and national identities and the increased importance of tribal identities. The first question is answered: tribes are increasing in relative importance, often at the cost of weak states and nationalisms. Yet, few have provided substantive information for dealing with this development.
The second part of the question remains fundamentally unanswered, whether and what governments should do. Some have answered that governments need do little. True, with the increasing economic and social internconnections, smaller states are increasingly economically and socially feasible. Especially tribal states with natural resources, be they oil, gems, or drugs. Other areas bereft of these resources may have little choice but to consolidate as larger entities, especially those without substantive economic and/or aid connections abroad. Jordan proves a case in point. Jordan is made up of dozens of tribes, yet recieves very little foreign aid. It is unlikely that should Jordan break into individual fiefdoms that the various tribal governments would be able to curry equal foreign aid. This monetary deficieny is, in fact, why Abdullah proved able to form a state. The pre-existing Ottoman Mustaffian's of Kerak, Salt, and Irbid were unable to garner the funds necessary to govern their constituent tribes. Without sufficient funds, tribes devolve to raiding and warfare, tactics ill suited to stable state relations. Tribal groups within the Middle East and Central Asia have, for these reasons, historically proven ill suited toward larger scale integration.
Instead, tribes have utilized foreign or domestic resources to dominate other groupings. One need note only the Taliban use of narcotrade, Northern Alliance gem trade, Tikiriti dominance of the oil sector, or Hashemite domiance of foreign aid.
Lebanon uses the integration model. Here various ethnic groups divided power and resources based on 1930's census data. Difficulties arose as Christians have become the minority and Shi'ites the majority ethnicities and the government has failed to adapt. Christian and Druze minorities refused to reliquish power leading to civil war.
The methods for consolidating tribes into larger identity groups are well known. As other contributors have noted, sufficient social and economic incentives must exist to convince parties to promote larger scale identities than tribes. Second, governments must not promote or utilize tribalism as an organizing principle. While Jordanian tribes no longer represent the principle organization unit within Jordan, the regimes reliance upon traditional tribal groups has stratified and rarefied Jordanian politics to the point that Jordanian tribes are the principle political conduit leaving 50% of the population outside national politics and idenities. Third, identity integration requires a consensus of overall ideas and values. Identities dominated by tribe or ethnicity over others have proven ineffectual. Nor have opposition or 'othering' identities proven stable. Certainly these identities help to drive the 'other' from the homeland, but they tend to reduce to component groups once the 'other' recedes. Finally, these ideas must be instituted and enforced over a long period of time.
to: daniel,
RE: "What I find strange is would it not be easier to just locate sensible and effective leaders instead of trying to make some mediocre guy SEEM like an effective leader? Or is that the interests which rule in our society are so greedy and stupid they would rather go with a fool they can make seem to be effective?"
———————
Well, I think the answer is that "the interests that rule in our society" are not stupid at all. We are governed by an oligarchy who operate in the context of democratic political institutions. Democracy is an institutional superstructure - not a guarantee of anything. That's why Iran can come up with a reasonable and intelligent (albeit excessive and probably personally nasty), and the US can come up with an unintelligent corporate puppet, and we can criticize each other for it, despite the fact that we're both utilizing very similar institutional superstructures. BUT- institutions often tell you nothing about who holds power.
One of the challenging things about the American corporate oligarchy is that its not as visible and not as blatantly detrimental as the corporate oligarchies of, say post-Communist Russia. That doesn't mean they're not there, and calling the shots.
What I've always found interesting about the US is its federal structure. We have at least three layers of democratic institutional superstructure governing us, and I would argue that as these institutions get closer to us (ie- first federal, then state, then local), the corporate oligarchy and the imperial ethic has been less successful at penetrating. Perhaps this is a cause for some hope.
Regardless, we have to distinguish between nominal power and actual power. Democracies are designed to assign nominal power. We cannot make assumptions about how they distribute actual power.
Readers might be interested in this recent essay on tribalism vs. globalization by Ralph Peters in the Weekley Standard:
"If globalization represents a liberal worldview, renewed localism is a manifestation of reactionary fears, resurgent faiths, and the iron grip of tradition. Except in the commercial sphere, bet on the localists to prevailÖ
Globalization isn't new, but the power of local beliefs, rooted in native earth, is far older. And those local beliefs may prove to be the more powerful, just as they have so often done in the past. From Islamist terrorists fighting to perpetuate the enslavement of women to the Armenian obsession with the soil of Karabakh—from the French rejection of "Anglo-Saxon" economic models to the resistance of African Muslims to Islamist imperialism—the most complex forces at work in the world today, with the greatest potential for both violence and resistance to violence, may be the antiglobal impulses of local societies. From LiËge to Lagos, the tribes are back."
To unknown writer, first, who recommended books and subjects for me to check out and then to MikeB. Thanks for the recommendations unknown writer, I already wrote your recommendations from the summer reading list you sent (especially the Yoga books to be read in conjunction with Patanjali) and will now add the new ones. I will probably check out the fuzzy math first and then the neural net training as I have never gone there before. Thanks again!
To MikeB. I know what you mean about a lot of the Middle Eastern leaders having been recently elected in democratic processes often more democratic than in the U.S. I find it especially ironic that, for example, the president of Iran can send a letter to Bush which I suspect is a far more honest, open and accurate example of his beliefs, etc. than anything Bush has put out (concerning himself). The U.S. is a democracy, yes, but our political process is...how can I put it? We have these candidates presented to us who really are a complete mystery and really built up by a propoganda/advertising world? What exactly is occuring in our democracy with respect to how leaders are put into office? What I find strange is would it not be easier to just locate sensible and effective leaders instead of trying to make some mediocre guy SEEM like an effective leader? Or is that the interests which rule in our society are so greedy and stupid they would rather go with a fool they can make seem to be effective? Why is it really Bush will not take up the president of Iran's challenge to a debate? Why is it really no real debates occur here in the U.S.? Remember the Kerry/Bush debates? What, three really controlled and televised debates and nothing more? Could it possibly be our system is so artificial now, the interests so greedy and controlling and determined to go with mediocre fools they can build up, that we cannot afford any debates, any honesty, or the whole thing will collapse like a house of cards? Would the president of Iran—the evil president so OBVIOUSLY evil—literally tear Bush a new ***hole should a real debate occur? A terrifying thought. What does that mean about our democracy?
I'm starting to sound like a broken record here, but have all of you really failed to notice that the people you call "fanatics", "nazis", etc. were usually elected in democratic elections. Some of the parties our White House labels as the very worse were actually elected in elections that were more open and honest than our own elections! The Muslem Brotherhood in Egypt, the government of Iran, Hamas in Palestine, Hizbulla in Lebanon, etc. are serve as good examples. Just what do you propose to do about these democrarically elected representatives of those people? Remove them from power because "we know better"? Get a clue people! It isn't just tribalism, it is conflicting national interests, resurgent Arab-Islam philosophy, and sometimes just to stick a thumb in the Wests eye. They don't like us. They want us out. We have no business telling "them" what to do and especially no business enforcing our bankrupt moral standards on them.
Blood demands blood. Whether its the Capulets and Montagues, Hatfields and McCoys, or Sunnis and Shiis. "Good" government intervenes with the necessary force to hold the peace until time, and cooler heads, can intervene and direct the "Tribes" toward a different self-interest. Lack of hope for the future, economic or otherwise, leaves little interest in anything but revenge.
I am against the war in Iraq. I have been since before it started. My reasoning was, and is, unchanged. Iraq is a country of religious tribes, dominated by clerics. They will never abandon their local religious leader's laws for mandates from a central government. NEVER. To think we can waltz into their culture and change the way they think about localized government to the way we think about central government, is ridiculous.
Democracy is an idea that has been used to create the best governments the world has ever know, but it has to be wanted and earned by the people themselves. It can not be mandated by the USA or anyone else. The best way to spread democracy is to be an example, a shinning light for all to see. When people in any oppressed society are ready, they will win their own freedom, by their own efforts, and with their own blood. We did.
The question itself requires some restatement and expansion; focus on tribal affiliations alone obscures the real issue. The nation state is in fact receding as the predominant global governance paradigm (and is giving way to the market state). Thus, state apparatuses are becoming less and less effective where their respective nations are concerned ñ some nation states may even have been relatively impotent at their inception. The result in either case is the same: interest groups, whether based on tribal, ethnic, linguistic, socio-economic, religious or any other affiliation, are rushing in to fill the void left behind by the retreating nation state. Constitutional governance shifts have occurred throughout history and generally create sustained periods of conflict (think back to the long struggle to determine what nation state paradigm would prevail: communism, fascism or democracy). In the very near future, the state apparatus will function on behalf of the markets.
The question itself requires some restatement and expansion; focus on tribal affiliations alone obscures the real issue. The nation state is in fact receding as the predominant global governance paradigm (and is giving way to the market state). Thus, state leadership is becoming less and less effective where their respective nations are concerned ? some nation states may even have been relatively impotent at their inception. The result in either case is the same: interest groups, whether based on tribal, ethnic, linguistic, socio-economic, religious or any other affiliation, are rushing in to fill the void left behind by the retreating nation state. Constitutional governance shifts have occurred throughout history and generally create sustained periods of conflict (think back to the long struggle to determine what nation state paradigm would prevail: communism, fascism or democracy). In the very near future, the state apparatus will function on behalf of the markets.
1. pattern recognition
2. fuzzy math and nueral net training
3. multiple levels of reality acting together
4. classes of answers vs specific answers (as in differential equations)
5. enculturement
6. clarity/clearlight perception/raja yoga/lamp of mahamudra
7. charles tart; works on cognitive psychology
8. time is a process, and it's not homogenous.........for example near a black hole...wormholes exist continuously, the past is now, as is the future.
To Daniel, thanks for the info about the writers—I am definitely interested in hearing about good books of all types.—Getting to data to make correct assessments is still all too frustratingly trial and error. My method of reasoning—how I conceive being a thinker—is something of the Glass Bead game method outlined by Herman Hesse. I just read and improvise leaving others to determine if I have proceeded by correct sources, whether I have plagiarized, etc. In other words I expect others to trace backwards—I do not feel obliged to provide sources, etc. I just want to move as fast as possible and integrate fields because a person's brain has only so much time. Of course I try to be original...But I just want to think!—Let everyone else do everything else! I also feel others should be able to do anything with my ideas they wish to. I feel as long as a person gets three square meals he should not expect anything else—especially since the world seems to be going to crap. Besides are we to have vast computer banks with everyone's names attached to their crappy little ideas bogging down creativity? I just want to think! I just improvise every which way on all knowledge and just toss it to the wind. Furthermore I think schools have the craziest ideas as to what a thinker should be. It seems we either bog a thinker down with all these absurd procedures or have him having to stake out a single position and not budging or...I tire of it. I just go crazy and go off on all directions—I declare I reserve the right to—and I believe it everyone else's task to do the criticizing of the work. But too many people just want to kill thinkers for just thinking. Sorry for wasting everyone's time here, just going off...Getting back to the point at hand here, the questions posted by Ignatius/Zakaria, people here are zeroing in on a good working diagnosis. I especially like the observations that while much is to be hated about tribes, larger organizational forces are in many instances worse than tribes, more standardizing etc. I find it really sad that the problem of WMD will probably result in organizational forces within nations and without (between nations) which will be premature in the sense of not really being organizations that are conducive to being human.—In other words they will be working constructions to deal with the crises we have placed ourselves in and nothing more and not at all provide us with that feeling of cohesiveness and understanding often found in the tribal network. The human race should be gradually working out of the tribal mentality toward larger organizational structures—working out in a naturalistic and patient manner. But our technology it seems is hastening organizational structures to deal with crises that are all too uncomfortable to live in. We should prevent the collapse of the human race back to the tribal level—and not necessarily because ALL tribes are bad—but we should not be just destroying the smaller organizational forces in a crude manner and imposing crude, makeshift structures over the human race as if all of us living in the skeleton of a crappy building which precisely for being so half-ass constructed (in fact only in construction) is rickety as hell. No, that was not exactly what I wanted to say. I just wanted to say that our human stupidity—our poor handling of technology—is hastening the process of overcoming tribes, etc. and instead of being a naturalistic process of getting toward democracy—individuality—seems instead to be forcing the issue, being something of tyranny instead. Actually I wanted to say more, bring quantum mechanics into the first piece I wrote here—explain how human society in fact can be read as the long sought bridge between Quantum mechanics and the theories of Einstein—but that will have to wait some other time. I want to get it right on paper first......Hell! I guess what I really wanted to say was thanks for the advice on the books! I read and write quite a bit...Right now I am reading a book on the concept of revolution in science by a guy named Bernard Cohen (I believe I have the first name right). See? You have to check me on everything!
I was "away", looking at other news sites and ran across a Drudge Report headline - "BUSH BRANDS AHMADINEJAD A 'TYRANT'". Now, I am not particularly fond of Iran's foreign policies, but Mr. Ahmadinejad was democraticly elected by the people of Iran in an election process that was *far* more open and honest than the ones Bush "won" by here. Iran never had a Florida or an Ohio and they have nothing whatsoever like Karl Rove or the Bush Pioneer neo-facists. Their election are run strictly on the European model, so it's pretty difficult to talk of a genuinely democraticly elected government representative as being a "tyrannt". In this regard, "tribalism" is a kind of purposeful ignorance and dishonesty pawned off on us by our President. Given his track record, I expect this barbaric tribal chief to enmesh us in another Middle Eastern war. God help us from fools and con men.
to daniel:
Hey- I read your post on the anti-Americanism blog, but didn't respond to its substance, and now I'm reading the same basic ideas (institutions necessary for maintaining a homogenous state/policies resembling warfare, etc.)
I'm not sure if I've entirely taken in what you're trying to say, but I've grappled with similar ideas before. I think you'd be interested in reading what institutional economists have written- even just the basics, like Ronald Coase and Oliver Williamson. I think by introducing the concept of transaction costs into your model of homogenous states would clarify a lot- basically that when the cost of contracting between the various departments of an institution outweighs the benefits of their union in the same institution, the two departments will split into separate institutions. Its a formalization of Adam Smith's idea of the division of labor. I'm not going to go into detail about how that would apply to a heterogeneous society, but I think you can connect the dots.
Emile Durkheim was a sociologist who also talked about what it took to keep a group of people unified and homogenous. I would look into his concept of mechanical and organic solidarity. Organic solidarity (what Durkheim believed pre-modern societies adopted as they modernized) sounds a lot like your "inventive institutions" that maintain heterogeneous societies.
Also, have you heard of Peter Turchin? He's a population ecologist that's dabbled in these social science questions about the nature of heterogeneous states, etc. He just came out with "War and Peace and War" which talks a lot about the evolution of multinational empires- their rise and fall. He's got a more technical version of the same book... I think its just called "Historical Dynamics", but I'm not sure of that. Anyway, "War and Peace and War" is good, and I suggest reading it, based on the ideas you've brought up. I found it frustrating at times, because I think he re-invented the wheel when he didn't have to. I think because he came from a natural sciences background, he overlooked a TON of social science literature that would have been relevant, but oh well. Its still an interesting read.
I agree with your basic assessment- that centripetal and centrifugal forces are at work in these kinds of heterogenous societies, and all too often the force pushing groups of people apart dominate. I also agree that eventually we're looking at a one world government, but when that will come about will depend on the state of technology (universal access to communication and information processing technology is going to be an important prerequisite), in my opinion. I could see it happening in the next decade- I could see it happening a century from now. I'm just not really sure.
Look up Coase, Williamson, Durkheim, institutional economics, and Peter Turchin. For my thesis, I've also looked briefly into the concept of "resource partitioning" that is used primarily by ecologists, but has also made it into the economic and sociological literature. I think that is relevant as well.
Those are some really impressive thoughts- keep it up.
d
RECAST the question...'What should the US do about emerging tribes whereever?' NOTHING. Do not pass go, do not collect $100. We've interfered ourselvess into extreem danger supposing our input is vital to the world order or even helpful to our own goals. Mistake aver mistake.
By, in large, the US tribe (s) that LEO describes above. A very interesting take!
I'm not certain this question is being framed in a way that can be answered. I lived in Europe and experienced the rivalries, varying degrees of distaste and someimtes outright hatred of neigboring countries. YTou know those "cute" British jokes about the French and the Scottish? Well, many Brit's apparently *believe* them and detest the targets. But look at the U.S. Stretched out, from the Northn tip of Sweden to Sicily. Europe is about 1/3 of the width of the U.S. Yet, in the U.S. we have a very homogonous culture. We speak pretty much the same language, have similar values, and none of the genuine hatred from other regions of the country (except for California, if you're from Oregon and Texas and Texans for everyone else :) ).
"Step by a step a ladder is climbed" that was what I told my friend who insisted that we need "modern parliament" democracy and not "House of Lords" democracy in underdeveloped countries.
For many underdeveloped countries, tribes are parts of the social fabric of the system. They provide the social support system that is lacking in those countries but is provided by the governments in developed western countries for their citizens. In some cases the tribe leaders control pasture and water rights and are local powerbrokers and powerplayers.
The house of Lords in the UK before Blair's reforms of it could be used as an example to incorporate the tribal leaders and civil leaders of the evolving modern states in underdeveloped countries. Contrast the success of Loya Jarga in Afghanistan and the failure of Iraqi parliament.
In the ladder of democracy, the underdeveloped countries should take their time and take one step up at a time and not to try jump 3 or 4 steps up that ends in falling down the ladder. Cf. the Iraqi experience.
The first thing that should be understood is that the ënation statesí that are weakening are those states whose leaders were put into (or gained) power were themselves tribal entities. As Dr. Vali Nasser (sp?) pointed out on ìMeet the Pressî on August 23rd, the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq was in the end a sectarian regime: the Takriti tribe at the apex, the other Sunni tribes following, and the Kurds and the Shia falling under the yoke. The fall of Hussein meant a reshuffling of the political balance among the tribes. Tribal identification among the Iraqis never went away, it was merely suppressed to the point that to Western eyes it no longer existed: one of the pre-invasion failings of US intelligence was to not understand this and its implication in a post-Hussein Iraq.
The model repeats itself across the Middle East ñ Saudi Arabia is run by the House of Saud, the Emir of Kuwait is simply the leader of the tribe that the British gave control of the country to when it pulled out; Abdullah II rules Jordan as the head of the Hashemites. Lebanon is probably the clearest example: it integrated its tribes into specific roles within the government, and it worked reasonably well until the Syrian interference (the major problem they face now is that Hezbollah is in some sense another tribe that is trying to find its place in the political scheme of things).
What ëgoodí governments should do about tribes is, at best, an intellectual exercise from a Western point of view ñ we havenít dealt with tribal-style warfare since the War of the Roses, and even that was more of a family squabble. That having been said, Iíll offer this: concentrate on the commonalities as opposed to trying to resolve the differences. As a most simple-minded example: if Tribe A believes that their women should be honored and respected, and Tribe B believes the same, then a ëgoodí government should work to get both tribes to agree that that the women of both tribes should be honored and respected by the men of both tribes. Once enough common areas have been agreed to, then the tribes can begin to work on the differences from a position of a better understanding of the other ñ the other becomes less ëother.í
As I said: an intellectual exercise. But perhaps a more realistic one than simply assuming removing Hussein would turn Iraq into KansasÖ.
PostGlobal Top Commentator: Proud Dzambukira, Harare, Zimbabwe :
Tribal Identities
The basic problem in statehood is maximizing the benefits of size — understood both physically as well as ideologically — while minimizing the costs of heterogeneity. Various economists, including Alesina and Spolaore use these criteria to determine the optimal size of national jurisdictions. The intuition behind this reasoning is: Individuals and groups will associate until the benefits of scale equal the costs associated with heterogeneity.
Starting from the recognition that no one survives in solitude, societies have evolved by creating concentric layers of associations, varying in size and function. These shape peoplesí identity. When a top-level layer collapses, such as when a nation state fails or inadequately provides public goods, it is inevitable that the inner layers, which could be tribal, become stronger to compensate for the loss. As many readers have argued, as nation states weaken then, tribal identities, among other forms of association, often strengthen.
In looking at the second question, the subject of Harvard professor Robert Putnam's work on social capital provides some useful pointers. Putnam's main thesis is that " the quality of public life and the performance of social institutions are Ö powerfully influenced by norms and networks of civic engagement" (Putnam, R. D. (1995) Bowling Alone: America's Declining Social Capital , The Journal of Democracy, 6:1, pages 65-78). Furthermore, he attempts to prove that in America social capital is in decline. Local level associations and informal community ties are decreasing, he asserts.
There is a striking connection between strong tribal ties and their associated benefits and what Putnam identifies as community connectedness. As a result we find ourselves in an uncomfortable position where people have a lot to say about the evils of "tribes" which are a form of local level organization, while also conceding that the strength of democratic political institutions depends on the extent of civil engagement and community at the local level. The latter is buoyed by the findings of some international development organizations in Africa that local level community organizations, usually along "tribal" lines, can be a powerful complement for sustainable development.
Thus the solution to the apparent contradiction — which is also the answer to those who decry the "arbitrary" borders in African states — is to recognize that the economies of scale that come with size, do not only accrue when the motivation of associating is similarity. In fact, within the binding constraint set by heterogeneity of preferences, different groups or tribes can still come together and reap even greater benefits with increasing scale through greater diversity and improved specialization. The key is to nurture local level groupings, community associations and tribes as necessary partners and complements to the wider social grouping that may be a nation state.
The problem is that governments usually perceive tribal identities as rival and competitors to the state and thus seek policies to crush them, which might only ferment tensions and retard growth. An equally mistaken knee jerk reaction by outsiders and some insiders is to pin the blame for strife on differences, be they in language, religion or ancestors, and advocate for secession and smaller more homogeneous political groupings. As any economist would say, correlation is never synonymous with causation. In fact, strong tribal identity in highly heterogeneous states experiencing internal conflict, from all we know, could well play the same role that iron does — both can be conveniently turned into weapons — which hardly implies that they ought to be done away with because they are useful for other purposes too.
The irony of all this is that, in the meantime, richer countries increasingly seek greater benefits of scale through regional integration such as in the EU, regardless of their tribal differences.
Wrong question. Governments are dispensers of power and patronage which only contribute to entrenching tribalism by either patronizing or coopting existing tribal power structures.
The question should be what should societies which want to modernize do about tribes?
The answer is there are no shortcuts in the Muslim world or elsewhere. Societies with traditional heirarchies must have grassroots mobilisations which win people over to the universal values of equal rights regardless of gender, tribal allegiance and ethnicity. These societies must also concentrate on creating enough economic and political opportunities so that people of different tribal origins develop an array of common interests and thereby reduce the tribe to nothing more than a cultural identity.
Civilization started out with clans and tribes. Genealogical research often represents a deep-seated desire to determine one's own ancestral, often "tribal" ancestry. Methinks we all had one, as in Celtic, Norman, Saxon, et cetera. Democracy, moderation, and tolerance does not make those ancient roots, and interest in them, go away or disappear. The delightful film comedy, "The Mouse that Roared" all about the 'Grand Duchy of Fenwick' and the Post's own Joel Garreau, author of "The Nine Nations of North America" also represent a implied version of "tribalism". We've lost 'traditional' America as devised by our Founding Fathers, to the interests of "globalism" and unnecessary meddling. Robert Frost said it best: 'Good fences good neighbors make. That's the view of this 'traditional American' who has been there, done that, on three continents and "Inside the Beltway", beginning with WW2. And look at what we did to this continent's Native American tribes. As Monty Wooley would have said, "Ye gods and little fishes".
Are tribal identities becoming stronger as nation states weaken?
Absolutely stronger or just relatively stronger?
What, if anything, should "good" government do about tribes?
Good grief! What, if anything, should ìbadî government do about tribes? What, if anything, should ìgoodî tribal government do about ìgoodî National government? There are a lot of possibilities here and it doesnít seem all that useful as a structure for discussion or action.
Implicit in this formulation is the presumption that the nation is better than, more enlightened than, the tribes that make it up. Of course this is nonsense. In our own country the tribe of Quakers is surely better than our nation as a whole.
It is one thing if all of your tribes are Muslim as in Iraq and quite another if they follow different religions as in Lebanon. A nation had best derive its identity from what its tribes have in common and eschew where they differ. To do else is to favor one tribe over another thereby creating hostile disenfranchised minorities. The alternative to that is to destroy all tribal culture all together and replace them with a national culture.
In many respects Israel seems like a tribe masquerading as a nation. That is what you have when bloodlines become the basis for tribal membership or citizenship.
I donít think you can usefully generalize about tribes vis a vis governments good or bad. As a generally more local level of government than a nation, I support them, as I am want to support states rights against federal intrusion. With a bow toward Chris Ford who makes the specific point, I am above all else equally unwilling to accept the intrusion of ìinternational lawî, of UN determinations into this arena. Perhaps what we ought to focus on, before asking what governments should do about tribes, is a Tribal Bill of Rights.
there are three discussions going on at once....... :
tribalism _is_ about a loose adhesion of people with common interests that submit to a leadership based upon "what is best for the tribe,"
that presupposes that there is an immmediately verifiable, "what is best for the tribe," usually based upon history, not insight, but sometimes with a visionary leader, insight...........
for example:
In America there were nomadic, and farmer tribes co existent. So, a quick example that tribalism does not predispose one to violence.
Hopi and Navajo were farmer types, the Apache were Nomadic/raiding types..........both tribal, both indigenous populations that with different needs adopted the same _general_ format, tribalism; with different goals/profiles of action.
generically lumping tribalism into one flavor, is a misjudgement....an oversimplification by simpletons, looking to lead to a conclusion........
I'd like to talk to these simpletons first hand and hand them their behinds.....tell them that
Tribalism is a formation. Committees are another formation. Simplistic thinking is not the answer.
Heterogeneity is a necessary component in todays governments, as is a certain degree of freedom.
Governments should include democracy, socialism, and sound engineering and law principles.........
and everyday people should learn about "intent,"
what someone intends to happen versus what they are trying to persuade is happening.......
everything has a trajectory, every action, every speechifying, that if you relax and allow yourself to feel of you can see where the trajectory is trying to carry you.......
speak to that, not the framing
Learn, like a martial artist to identify when someone is moving with a purpose and address the purpose........
not the waving of their arms, not the stomping foot, or the feint....
wait until they commit....and some simple posters, like the atheist,
_never_ waver in their intent, and are better off ignored unless comedic relief is desired........
like a "born again," antichrist "ian" the rant is predictable and all roads lead to you
giving your life to "jesus," "the president" "democracy" "patriotism"
whatever they are using to get you, the citizen to give the the ability to make decisions for you,
because you're not smart enough, don't know enough, aren't patriotic enough, are too liberal, don't love gawd...........
whatever, it has to do with talking you out of examining and or taking action,
that might end up in arresting the Executive Branch and Complicit Congress.......
IF there is a gawd, that _would_ be the result..........
The praemble to the question conatins serious misrepresentations and prejudious implications. Unfortunately lack of real knoweldge about Middle East is a raeson for this. In Pakisatn it was not a tribal murder but a political murder of a national hero and what happened was not riots but acts of resistance and defiance by his poeple. The fact that you describe this event as tribal is in itself a proof of oppressive ideological constructions of peoples or ethnic groups deprived of self-determination because of past colonial history and present alliances of interests in the world. The Baluchi peopel are like Kurdish people, an independent nation who have survived despite deacdes of oppression and despotic asssimilative maesures. On the otehr hand, Prime Minister Nuri al-Malaki held a tribal summit in Iraq beacuse the misguided policies and practices of the US and Britain have left no structures, institutions, and modern alternative initiatives but to retreat to the shaky outdated structrures of tribal system. It was possible that instead of tribal confederations, we would have had three progressive modern states compaarble with the Baltic nations liberated from the ideological shackle of communism and its imposed systen Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania or like Solnevia and Bosnia. Failure to recognise the natural reemergence of the three regioanl identities of Iraq and allowing them natutral self-determination is the resaon for preventing the emergence of functional government institutions and falling abck on the tribal structure in the Arab Iraq supported by religious ideology, as religion is essentially a tribal ideology. The overall failure of the West's understanding about Isalm is evident in its baseless generalisations about the Islamic world, Islamic religion and Islamic community. These collective entities and concepts are imaginary and do not exist. The main question in the Islamic worls is not the issue of religion but of the national liberation of long-oppressed nations such as the Kurds, the Baluchis. the people of Darfur, the people of South Sudan, the Amazeghi people as well as the liberation of religious minorities and women who are generarly an enslaved non-entity. Until the West recognises this fact and adopts peacful solutions to these questions based on the internationally recognised right of self-determination for nations, groups and individuals, comfusion and ignorance will continue to domiante the disourse and politics of the Middle East reflected in more blood, detruction and mayhem.
The "Washington Post" asks, "Are tribal identities becoming stronger as nation states weaken?" In some cases, the tribe strengthens to the point of being a nation.
Consider the case of the Kurds, a large tribe in Northern Iraq. The Kurds are, by strict definition, not Muslims. The Kurds are really deists. Moreover, unlike the Sunnis and the Shiites are, the Kurds are committed to building a prosperous, liberal democracy.
The might of Western military forces and economic aid can work if and only if the recipient of our largesse is committed to building a liberal, Western democracy with a free market. What you are seeing in Kurdistan, Iraq is the same phenomenon that arose in Eastern Europe. Once Moscow stopped oppressing the Eastern Europeans, they prospered. Once NATO protected the Kurds from the stones and spears of the Islamic thugs (also known as Sunnis and Shiites) by pumping hundreds of air-to-surface missiles into Iraq, the Kurds prospered.
Contrast the Kurds and the Eastern Europeans to the Iranians. Within 15 years, the Kurds have effectively built a prosperous democratic nation. Same goes for the Eastern Europeans. Neither the Eastern Europeans nor the Kurds are spending any money on building a nuclear bomb.
By contrast, during the last 27 years, the Iranians built a brutal theocracy that exports terrorism. The Iranians are spending millions of dollars on building a nuclear bomb.
We in the West (which includes Japan) must support, at a minimum, autonomy for Kurdistan. We must aggressively support the Kurds by providing an impregnable shield of NATO troops and Japanese troops.
In particular, if the Turks initiate any hostile military action against the Kurds, then a squadron of the Japanese air force should drop 50 bunker-buster bombs on Ankara. Tokyo shall decapitate the Turkish government. So let it be written. So let it be done.
Interesting that Chris from Canada is the only one who has referred to Ralph Peters' piece. For the rest of you here's the link: http://www.weeklystandard.com
The article is well thought through and comprehensive; I highly recommend reading it carefully.
Dave Ignatus should credit Ralph Peters influential essay about the rise of tribalism as the piece he is following up on with this question.
And perhaps have asked his commentators to factor in Peters main point - which was that nationhood has been under heavy attack by groups seeking to deligitimize national power and replace it with International Law, International NGOs, International Governmental Institutions. It is the miserable failure of those international forms to replace nations, and the post-communist, post colonial collapse of many nations back to ethnicity and religion as determinative of "identity" that has given rise to trbalism as a viable alternative.
It is a struggle between 3 forces: The people in those weal ntions that see no alternative to tribalism given their lack of faith in both national leaders AND foreign jurists to look out for them. The forces that with to make nationalism and patriotism not disappear into history byut be charished and maintained as best for most peoples, who see tribalism as a return to barbarism, and UN and foreign lawyer control over their destiny as unacceptable. Finally - you have the globalists - mainly arrogant transnational liberal Jewish, European, and wealthy N American Gentile elites who have worked assiduously to destroy nationalism and power&legitimacy of nations as obsolete history, and tribalism as primitive and barbaric - except for certain "oppressed peoples" that may not be criticised for any actions they choose.
While transnational ethnics or groups have always feared nations and sought free movement and law outside a particular ruler's control, and properly railed on "poor colonial national constructs" - they miss the fact that the tribalism of Somalia, Afghanistan, or a Canada or America split into openly competing tribes not caring one whit for those "outside our group, la raza, our Faith" is nightmare territory.
But is the answer is not becoming tribal like the worlds worst crapholes, the international institutions run by the likes of Kofi and Kujo Annan are worse than ineffective...they cause chaos and bloodshed by pretending the "World's Highest Authorities" have control, have the ability to prevent genocides, have the ability to craft a
Readers’ Responses to Our Question (81)
My favourite pharma supermarket
world-pharma.pillsfm.com
WBR,
Alex
March 14, 2008 2:19 PM | Report Offensive Comments
http://rxfreeshipping.com/ Free shipping pharmacy
March 12, 2008 7:41 PM | Report Offensive Comments
cooper ipod mini [url=http://volny.cz/jvckakvo/ipod-mini.html] cooper ipod mini [/url] mana kai maui resort [url=http://volny.cz/ktloswao/maui.html] mana kai maui resort [/url] allison transmission maintenance [url=http://volny.cz/vsdnawyb/allison.html] allison transmission maintenance [/url] janis joplin lord [url=http://volny.cz/ytveghvg/janis-joplin.html] janis joplin lord [/url] chocolate mousse receipe [url=http://volny.cz/miexmdpk/mousse.html] chocolate mousse receipe [/url] black pig sabbath war [url=http://volny.cz/havqgeuy/black-sabbath.html] black pig sabbath war [/url] bowling shoes toddler [url=http://volny.cz/gbscbcbg/bowling-shoes.html] bowling shoes toddler [/url] i said folklore trumpets [url=http://volny.cz/nnhmuzfy/folklore.html] i said folklore trumpets [/url] iomega active disk software [url=http://volny.cz/zhvsgjzn/iomega.html] iomega active disk software [/url] if i could be 3 doors down [url=http://volny.cz/dgcfwwfx/3-doors-down.html] if i could be 3 doors down [/url]
February 15, 2008 6:48 AM | Report Offensive Comments
29360 pci speed adaptec [url=http://volny.cz/hjhqjget/adaptec.html] 29360 pci speed adaptec [/url] boston globe robert drinan [url=http://volny.cz/nputpenc/boston-globe.html] boston globe robert drinan [/url] map of michigan state university [url=http://volny.cz/cttkztaz/michigan-state-university.html] map of michigan state university [/url] driving directions + canada [url=http://volny.cz/pfjacaae/driving-direction.html] driving directions + canada [/url] cited example format mla works [url=http://volny.cz/goiimczv/mla.html] cited example format mla works [/url] avalon light tail toyota [url=http://volny.cz/lhcgcojx/avalon.html] avalon light tail toyota [/url] zales credit card payment [url=http://volny.cz/cvwhofmw/credit-cards.html] zales credit card payment [/url] nba phoenix sun [url=http://volny.cz/lwslsxmb/phoenix-suns.html] nba phoenix sun [/url] reese witherspoon's biography [url=http://volny.cz/vnnfzvbt/biographies.html] reese witherspoon's biography [/url] husky oilless air compressor [url=http://volny.cz/yygzczej/air-compressor.html] husky oilless air compressor [/url]
February 15, 2008 2:27 AM | Report Offensive Comments
I have found in article which tells about apportunity of earning thousands dollars for a couple of weeks, while laying total 6 dollars. Further you should send a dollar to each 6 E-gold accounts, which are enumerated bellow. Then strike out first mentioned E-g old account at the same time removing the list up line – that is to say that the 6th line is getting and you are supposed to register the numbers of your E-gold account there. In this respect you could spread your message. None of tricks! You’ll be none the worse for this, and the only thing I could lose is 6$. So, I made up my mind to try… and, could you guess what happened!
Only 7 days after that I began touching money! I was astonished! But all at once I thought that everything was over. But nothing of the sort! During the first week I received 25$, the end of the next week it was 1000$. It was the 4th week when the sum made up 42000$ and this sum increasing rapidly till now. And all this cost 6$ only?! I couldn’t believe that it was working until I started touching money from all over the world.
Now I’ll try to explan how and – what is most important – why it is working I do promise you, that if, you accurately follow stated bellow instructions, you’ll receive much more money you thought without making any effects. Follow the each instruction and money will come to your E-gold account. Accept the offer without more ado! It is completely legal. And your confirmation only 6$.
What is of great importance, that it isn’t cheat and unlegal; for all that you don’t take any risk while the system serving you. Follow the exact instruction and you’ll receive nearly 50000$ for 20 – 60 days.
All this well organized due to participants’ honesty.
There are very three steps to access:
1. You should create E-gold account, which address is http://E-Gold.com. Learn thoroughly the system, contribute 6$ to your E-gold account.
2. Send 1$ to the one number of the E-gold accounts enumerated bellow. Put down obligatory phrase in line. NOTE: “Please, enter my name to the list of E-gold accounts.”
At last here it the list of the E-gold accounts:
1) 5160180
2) 5160202
3) 5160221
4) 5160266
5) 5160308
6) 5160333
Now strike out the first mentioned E-gold accounts removing the list up a line (6 grows 5, 5 grows 4…) and put down your E-gold account in the 6th line.
3. Make any changes you like, but maintain the main idea. Place this article on not less then 200 News groups and forums. Keep in mind, the more E-gold accounts you place, the bigger return you have.
This business exist and prospers due to the honesty and seriousness of participants only.
So, by the time you achieve the first position, you’ll have thousands of money only being the creator of the list! It cost you 6$ and little work. Make it now, not delay for tomorrow. Time presses!
Now I’ll tell you why you lose nothing but win.
Let’s see, if I place 200 lists an and receive only 5 answers, that means, that I’ll receive 5$ being on the 6th position of the list. Now these 5 persons make 200 lists each with my E-gold lists in the 5th line. Let’s think that only 5 persons answer to those first five. In this respect you’ll receive 25$. Then these 25 persons make 200 lists with my E-gold account in every one but on the 4th line (because they put down theirs). And in this case (when 5 persons answer) my income is 125$. Now these 125 persons having placed and received only 5 answer give me return of 625$ (I find myself on the 3d position).
I receive 3125$, is it impressive. And it cost only 6$.
Could you imagine, that every day thousands people use INTERNET and read these articles! The same as you read this one now. So what? Will you spend only 6$ to find out weather it works?
And some words for pessimists. What it would be if the business falls and I don’t receive money? Let it be. Every day appear from 20000 to 50000 new user in INTERNET! According to specialists prognosis, the quantity of users will increase to 21 millions (now it consists of 9 mln) till 2006 year it is possible that many of them will be ready to try themselves in something new.
How to spread the information in forums:
1. Open searcher http://google.com
2. Write the phrase: wwwboard forum post start new topic .
3. Searcher will find thousands of sites with references which shows the form for making a new topic of forum.
The method is checked on 100% and has been working already five years.
February 5, 2008 7:42 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Overnight shipping free pills prescription pharmacy, http://myrxpill.com
September 22, 2007 9:01 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Tnx Guys for great site!!!! Visit this links to make better your poor health:
September 24, 2006 10:31 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Tribal (or pressure) influence is an automatic replacement for a power vacuum in a collapsed states (i.e. nations with no prevailing political governing power). Weak states get influenced from the outside and the inside which evolves into a zero state, because such a state is no longer meeting its responsibilities towards its people. The Pakistani government was initially weak and is getting weaker because of it is responding to outside influences so the tribal issues get on the surface faster and influence events more. But Pakistan is far from collapse yet but it is subject to change of power depending on the prevailing influence from the outside or the inside. For al-maliki semi-government is actually has nothing to do with a state from many reasons. The US administration hopes through al-maliki to govern occupied Iraq. In Iraq the state already collapsed by all standards. When al-maliki invited the tribal leaders to support his (and the US) plan to govern Iraq, both (al-maliki and the US) are thinking that the tribal leaders will help to save their broken ship. I am an Iraqi, and one think I am sure of, is that those tribal leaders have no influence in Iraq. This is true for the religious leaders (Sictani and others with a turban on their heads). Those tribal leaders are opportunists and just want to get the handouts from the US occupying force.
September 9, 2006 2:12 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Tribal (or pressure) influence is an automatic replacement for power vacuum in a collapsed states (i.e. nations with no prevailing political governing power). Weak states get influenced from the outside and the inside which later evolved into a zero state, because it is no longer meeting its responsibilities towards its people. The Pakistani government was initially weak and is getting weaker because of responding to the outside the influence so the tribal issues get on the surface faster and influence events more. But Pakistan is far from collapse yet but it is subject to change of power depending on the prevailing influence from the outside or the inside. For al-maliki semi-government is actually has nothing to do with a state from many reasons. The US administration hopes through al-maliki to govern occupied Iraq. In Iraq the state already collapsed by all standards. When al-maliki invited the tribal leaders to support his (and the US) plan to govern Iraq, both (al-maliki and the US) are thinking that the tribal leaders will help to save their broken ship. I am an Iraqi, and one think I am sure of, is that those tribal leaders have no influence in Iraq. This is true for the religious leaders (Sictani and others with a turban on their heads). Those tribal leaders are opportunists and just want to get the handouts from the US occupying force.
September 9, 2006 2:07 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Atheist in Boston wrote:
"The Western governments, which includes Tokyo, should fully support Kurdistan by partitioning Iraq into 3 regions: Kurdistan, Sunni-town, and Shiite-town. The 3 regions shall be part of a weak confederation that shares the oil profits in accordance with the size of the population in each region."
The Kurds are also Sunni.
Anyone, including the New York Times, the Washington Post, etc, who writes "Kurds, Sunni and Shia" simply proves they do not know what they are talking about.
The New York Times once mistook Iranian-Americans for Arab-Americans. It wasn't a mistake (they interviewed few Iranians, not just one) but it really was an indication of rampant mediocre knowledge among their reporters who often write about the Middle East as if it was their own backyard.
This leads to the spread of ignorance as it is evident in this blog.
September 9, 2006 12:54 AM | Report Offensive Comments
It looks like most commentators from the underdeveloped countries stress the importance of tribalism as a safety net or a form of protection. Or as something that would hold the fabric of society together when all else falls apart. Many of those from the developed world seem to equate tribalism with mild nationalist feelings one sees in Europe. This is like what happened at the last FIFA World Cup, or the British WWII and Froggy jokes. In fact, tribalism does its worst damage not across national borders, but within these countries. Perhaps they are too polite and sensitive to call a spade a spade: tribalism is the main force that causes the social fabric of many countries to remain undeveloped. It is what makes it so easy in the first place for the national system to collapse.
Tribalism is a scholarly subject for a westerner to study or it produces quaint things for tourists to 'visit'- and it is a good thing for members of the lucky tribe that grabs and keeps economic and political power. Tribalsim helped Cortez to conquer Mexico with a few men, and allowed Europeans to conquer three continents in the last five centuries. African tribalism enabled the British, French, Portuguese and even Belgians to colonize most of that continent. Such divisions as tribalism, the caste system, and sectarian prejudice are products of ancient fears from others and the desire to get and keep a bigger slice of the pie.
Cheers
www.infidelus.blogspot.com/
September 8, 2006 6:30 PM | Report Offensive Comments
To Mikella, will do—add the Shield of Achilles to my list. Thanks! I have books in shopping bags all over the floor, on steps, etc. and I always need more. It seems we are in a race to somehow work things out between us before all hell breaks loose and I really wish there was some way to get the best info into our heads as soon and as beneficially as possible. But then again, I suppose that even with the best sources still the limitations of the human animal would come into play (not to mention the limitations of being tied to a particular culture, etc.). I just read the essay by Ralph Peters that people mentioned here on globalization, and the part where he mentions a resurgence of magic is really interesting. Magic, believe it or not might be the answer in that shamans are quite familiar in using certain drugs to expand the mind. I am a firm believer in the usefulness of such drugs and believe they should be tied to education and methods of gaining the best knowledge in the physical sense (books, computers, etc.). I would be interested in hearing others thoughts on the matter.
September 8, 2006 2:23 PM | Report Offensive Comments
To Daniel - add Philip Bobbitt's "The Shield of Achilles: War, Peace and the Course of History" to your reading list.
September 8, 2006 7:29 AM | Report Offensive Comments
To Proud from Daniel. Whatever I may have said in my last two posts please separate from my personal failings which were probably all too evident in the posts. I try to be objective and intellectual, but I am also ambitious to the point of sickness and my professional failures often leave me bitter and ruin my better intellectual understanding. I want to think clearly but often life just leaves me bitter I am not recognized for being so damn intelligent and therefore my intellect often is just as much hostile outpourings as interesting insights. I hope to get it under control someday. I wish I could always be as pure as when I was young and just took pleasure in pure speculation. Now the stink of ambition is just as likely to taint my thoughts as not. Hope you understand.
September 8, 2006 6:15 AM | Report Offensive Comments
differences between them will create homogeneity through the complex process of _understanding_.
Allowing yourselves to be bulldozed into accepting an aribtrary process as "being correct," is like saying that keeping Native North American Indians from speaking their native languages, in addition to English, is for their own good....
Most of the conquering nations in the olde days, sent in priests with the initial troops to destroy the old belief systems and put a new one in place...
I would suggest, letting the olde belief systems destory themselves with knowledge based systems........
most of Europe thinks that the American pasttime of being infatuated with religion, is backwards.........
I think I agree with them.
read some rumi.
September 7, 2006 10:56 PM | Report Offensive Comments
I agree with Daniel that for the purposes of abstraction in building models economists sometimes employ amorphous concepts such as "transaction costs" that might be perceived as "subjective". I also agree with him that in this case trying to approach this problem with the classical understanding of "transaction costs" might be problematic. However I disagree that an economic viewpoint is completely useless.
A more basic economic concept such a "constrained maximization" might be a more useful tool. Recognizing, as Daniel has in his last statement, that there are private gains when entities (individuals, clans, tribes, nations etc) get together, as well as costs or sacrifices, is enough to build a powerful economic framework to understand the problem. If the pain from Sally's nagging and the costs of having a job are not at least equally compensated for by the joy John derives from his association with her, then perhaps he should move on — the same would apply to Sally, if the pain she feels from nagging John and enduring his laziness are not compensated for in some way in the relationship, then she should divorce him. At the risk of harping at the point; if artists are not rewarded by "culture creating power" that is at least commensurate with the "suffering and sacrifice" they endure, I doubt if they would be any ? though some might claim the opposite. The point that I am trying to make is that in your recent post Daniel, you are too quick to judge economics harshly when in fact the spirit of your own points are very economic in nature.
It helps to know the benefits and costs that motivated people to associate in order to come up with a solution when some centripetal forces drive them apart. It seems to me that while many people emphasize similarity; difference — and its associated virtues such as different specialized skills, diversity of thought and ideas etc — also had a role in bringing societies together. Thus I think it is rather absurd that people advocate breaking down multi-ethnic or multi-tribal societies into more "homogeneous" groupings for homogeneity's sake. In addition, from what a lot of readers have been saying and the extremely broad definition of "tribe", encompassing religious, ethnic, language and even economic cleavages, I doubt that it could be possible to create a satisfactorily homogeneous society.
Daniel, the observation you make that "the most successful of these larger entities—the successful democracies—are actually breaking people down into individual units—so you can say we have the double process of uniting various tribes then breaking everything down into individuals" is precisely the problem that Robert Putnam identifies in his book Bowling Alone and associated research on social capital.
September 7, 2006 9:59 PM | Report Offensive Comments
"terrorist alert,"
don't forget your islamic Complicit Congress will be attempting to reinstall the "fear virus,"
in you in order to drum up their approval ratings.........
expect a reappearance of Sammy O been Alladin and his gang of forty theives..........
and perhaps a beheading or two to keep things real?
CSI dummies anyone?
please, how pathetic.
.
September 7, 2006 8:28 PM | Report Offensive Comments
It also surprises me that people who approach this problem economically seem remarkably, well, stupid. People talk about economic incentives to get tribes to enter into larger relationships, become part of larger national entities—and if the transaction costs of entering such a relationship are too high, well then the process breaks down and we have tribes opposed to one another again. I find this economic view stupid—even cowardly and degenerate—precisely because the concept of transaction costs is highly subjective and precisely because most people are cowardly and self-indulgent they will protest that virtually the cost of everything is too high. For example you have John married to Sally and then wanting to divorce Sally because the costs are too high to stay married to Sally when really all Sally expects is that John get off his lazy ass and get a job. I suppose what I am trying to say—and from the artistic perspective—is that the costs of sustaining a society are always too high and that precisely is life. Artists have always known to integrate disparate elements is an incredibly difficult task and entails much suffering and sacrifice, but that is the price paid for artistic achievement—for culture creating power. Economists have a different view, I suppose—which is strange because economics is the dismal science and should be allowed to be quite truthful (actually there is much truthful economics and I am only taking a shot here at a particular perspective). To be absolutely clear, economists might want to keep transaction costs down so different parties easily unite and do not complain transaction costs are too high, but they can never really keep such costs down because uniting, developing, creating society always entails suffering and self-sacrifice. Quite simply you can propose all the economic solutions you want, but to get tribal identities to be more amenable, to get people to work together, you have to expect them to be quite self-sacrificing—and just perhaps their children will have better lives (but they too must be prepared to be noble and self-sacrificing in turn for the future).
September 7, 2006 5:53 PM | Report Offensive Comments
To Daniel in Arlington. I see what you mean from your last post concerning democracies and leaders in democracies. In a sense I suppose you could say the U.S. is held hostage by a tribe within an ostensibly democratic structure (democracy being the ideal). Just connecting what you say here to the overall theme of tribes, etc. Of course I am speaking of corporate oligarchy as a type of tribe.
To everyone in general: I am surprised no one here has observed that although tribes are being overcome by larger enitities—could even be said to be in natural opposition to larger entities—the most successful of these larger entities—the successful democracies—are actually breaking people down into individual units—so you can say we have the double process of uniting various tribes then breaking everything down into individuals who are supposed to be adaptable to a variety of institutions and a variety of functions (division of labor, yes, but then division of labor to where we mix and match in a variety of ways—call it super tribalism in that like old tribes everyone does a little bit of everything but much more than would be found in an ancient tribe). This pressure is calling forth superior and multi-adaptable human beings—superior intelligence, skills and positioning in space and time. When nation states fail and globalization proceeds we would like to believe individuals will simply become globalized, but the vast majority of people really have no experience being individuals—atomized as in the most successful democracies—so it would be useless for them to be expected to become cosmopolitan. See the Georg Simmel short essay "Bridge and door" for something of the solution?
September 7, 2006 4:55 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Since people in non developing countries have no idea of what democracy and capitalism is about, it is natural that tribal and ethnic relationships are stronger than any nationalistic appeal as evidenced by the chaos in iraq today.
September 7, 2006 4:38 PM | Report Offensive Comments
These discussions have hammered to death the various theoretical arguments for defining tribes and nations, and in doing so answered the first question. Various contributors have noted that the various regions of the Middle East and Central Asia have seen weakening of central governments and national identities and the increased importance of tribal identities. The first question is answered: tribes are increasing in relative importance, often at the cost of weak states and nationalisms. Yet, few have provided substantive information for dealing with this development.
The second part of the question remains fundamentally unanswered, whether and what governments should do. Some have answered that governments need do little. True, with the increasing economic and social internconnections, smaller states are increasingly economically and socially feasible. Especially tribal states with natural resources, be they oil, gems, or drugs. Other areas bereft of these resources may have little choice but to consolidate as larger entities, especially those without substantive economic and/or aid connections abroad. Jordan proves a case in point. Jordan is made up of dozens of tribes, yet recieves very little foreign aid. It is unlikely that should Jordan break into individual fiefdoms that the various tribal governments would be able to curry equal foreign aid. This monetary deficieny is, in fact, why Abdullah proved able to form a state. The pre-existing Ottoman Mustaffian's of Kerak, Salt, and Irbid were unable to garner the funds necessary to govern their constituent tribes. Without sufficient funds, tribes devolve to raiding and warfare, tactics ill suited to stable state relations. Tribal groups within the Middle East and Central Asia have, for these reasons, historically proven ill suited toward larger scale integration.
Instead, tribes have utilized foreign or domestic resources to dominate other groupings. One need note only the Taliban use of narcotrade, Northern Alliance gem trade, Tikiriti dominance of the oil sector, or Hashemite domiance of foreign aid.
Lebanon uses the integration model. Here various ethnic groups divided power and resources based on 1930's census data. Difficulties arose as Christians have become the minority and Shi'ites the majority ethnicities and the government has failed to adapt. Christian and Druze minorities refused to reliquish power leading to civil war.
The methods for consolidating tribes into larger identity groups are well known. As other contributors have noted, sufficient social and economic incentives must exist to convince parties to promote larger scale identities than tribes. Second, governments must not promote or utilize tribalism as an organizing principle. While Jordanian tribes no longer represent the principle organization unit within Jordan, the regimes reliance upon traditional tribal groups has stratified and rarefied Jordanian politics to the point that Jordanian tribes are the principle political conduit leaving 50% of the population outside national politics and idenities. Third, identity integration requires a consensus of overall ideas and values. Identities dominated by tribe or ethnicity over others have proven ineffectual. Nor have opposition or 'othering' identities proven stable. Certainly these identities help to drive the 'other' from the homeland, but they tend to reduce to component groups once the 'other' recedes. Finally, these ideas must be instituted and enforced over a long period of time.
September 7, 2006 4:35 PM | Report Offensive Comments
to: daniel,
RE: "What I find strange is would it not be easier to just locate sensible and effective leaders instead of trying to make some mediocre guy SEEM like an effective leader? Or is that the interests which rule in our society are so greedy and stupid they would rather go with a fool they can make seem to be effective?"
———————
Well, I think the answer is that "the interests that rule in our society" are not stupid at all. We are governed by an oligarchy who operate in the context of democratic political institutions. Democracy is an institutional superstructure - not a guarantee of anything. That's why Iran can come up with a reasonable and intelligent (albeit excessive and probably personally nasty), and the US can come up with an unintelligent corporate puppet, and we can criticize each other for it, despite the fact that we're both utilizing very similar institutional superstructures. BUT- institutions often tell you nothing about who holds power.
One of the challenging things about the American corporate oligarchy is that its not as visible and not as blatantly detrimental as the corporate oligarchies of, say post-Communist Russia. That doesn't mean they're not there, and calling the shots.
What I've always found interesting about the US is its federal structure. We have at least three layers of democratic institutional superstructure governing us, and I would argue that as these institutions get closer to us (ie- first federal, then state, then local), the corporate oligarchy and the imperial ethic has been less successful at penetrating. Perhaps this is a cause for some hope.
Regardless, we have to distinguish between nominal power and actual power. Democracies are designed to assign nominal power. We cannot make assumptions about how they distribute actual power.
September 7, 2006 11:37 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Readers might be interested in this recent essay on tribalism vs. globalization by Ralph Peters in the Weekley Standard:
"If globalization represents a liberal worldview, renewed localism is a manifestation of reactionary fears, resurgent faiths, and the iron grip of tradition. Except in the commercial sphere, bet on the localists to prevailÖ
Globalization isn't new, but the power of local beliefs, rooted in native earth, is far older. And those local beliefs may prove to be the more powerful, just as they have so often done in the past. From Islamist terrorists fighting to perpetuate the enslavement of women to the Armenian obsession with the soil of Karabakh—from the French rejection of "Anglo-Saxon" economic models to the resistance of African Muslims to Islamist imperialism—the most complex forces at work in the world today, with the greatest potential for both violence and resistance to violence, may be the antiglobal impulses of local societies. From LiËge to Lagos, the tribes are back."
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=12616&R=ED9A394EF
More here: http://pienso.typepad.com/pienso/2006/09/tribalism_vs_gl.html
September 7, 2006 1:16 AM | Report Offensive Comments
To unknown writer, first, who recommended books and subjects for me to check out and then to MikeB. Thanks for the recommendations unknown writer, I already wrote your recommendations from the summer reading list you sent (especially the Yoga books to be read in conjunction with Patanjali) and will now add the new ones. I will probably check out the fuzzy math first and then the neural net training as I have never gone there before. Thanks again!
To MikeB. I know what you mean about a lot of the Middle Eastern leaders having been recently elected in democratic processes often more democratic than in the U.S. I find it especially ironic that, for example, the president of Iran can send a letter to Bush which I suspect is a far more honest, open and accurate example of his beliefs, etc. than anything Bush has put out (concerning himself). The U.S. is a democracy, yes, but our political process is...how can I put it? We have these candidates presented to us who really are a complete mystery and really built up by a propoganda/advertising world? What exactly is occuring in our democracy with respect to how leaders are put into office? What I find strange is would it not be easier to just locate sensible and effective leaders instead of trying to make some mediocre guy SEEM like an effective leader? Or is that the interests which rule in our society are so greedy and stupid they would rather go with a fool they can make seem to be effective? Why is it really Bush will not take up the president of Iran's challenge to a debate? Why is it really no real debates occur here in the U.S.? Remember the Kerry/Bush debates? What, three really controlled and televised debates and nothing more? Could it possibly be our system is so artificial now, the interests so greedy and controlling and determined to go with mediocre fools they can build up, that we cannot afford any debates, any honesty, or the whole thing will collapse like a house of cards? Would the president of Iran—the evil president so OBVIOUSLY evil—literally tear Bush a new ***hole should a real debate occur? A terrifying thought. What does that mean about our democracy?
September 6, 2006 6:49 PM | Report Offensive Comments
I'm starting to sound like a broken record here, but have all of you really failed to notice that the people you call "fanatics", "nazis", etc. were usually elected in democratic elections. Some of the parties our White House labels as the very worse were actually elected in elections that were more open and honest than our own elections! The Muslem Brotherhood in Egypt, the government of Iran, Hamas in Palestine, Hizbulla in Lebanon, etc. are serve as good examples. Just what do you propose to do about these democrarically elected representatives of those people? Remove them from power because "we know better"? Get a clue people! It isn't just tribalism, it is conflicting national interests, resurgent Arab-Islam philosophy, and sometimes just to stick a thumb in the Wests eye. They don't like us. They want us out. We have no business telling "them" what to do and especially no business enforcing our bankrupt moral standards on them.
September 6, 2006 12:56 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Blood demands blood. Whether its the Capulets and Montagues, Hatfields and McCoys, or Sunnis and Shiis. "Good" government intervenes with the necessary force to hold the peace until time, and cooler heads, can intervene and direct the "Tribes" toward a different self-interest. Lack of hope for the future, economic or otherwise, leaves little interest in anything but revenge.
September 6, 2006 11:40 AM | Report Offensive Comments
I am against the war in Iraq. I have been since before it started. My reasoning was, and is, unchanged. Iraq is a country of religious tribes, dominated by clerics. They will never abandon their local religious leader's laws for mandates from a central government. NEVER. To think we can waltz into their culture and change the way they think about localized government to the way we think about central government, is ridiculous.
Democracy is an idea that has been used to create the best governments the world has ever know, but it has to be wanted and earned by the people themselves. It can not be mandated by the USA or anyone else. The best way to spread democracy is to be an example, a shinning light for all to see. When people in any oppressed society are ready, they will win their own freedom, by their own efforts, and with their own blood. We did.
September 6, 2006 10:43 AM | Report Offensive Comments
The question itself requires some restatement and expansion; focus on tribal affiliations alone obscures the real issue. The nation state is in fact receding as the predominant global governance paradigm (and is giving way to the market state). Thus, state apparatuses are becoming less and less effective where their respective nations are concerned ñ some nation states may even have been relatively impotent at their inception. The result in either case is the same: interest groups, whether based on tribal, ethnic, linguistic, socio-economic, religious or any other affiliation, are rushing in to fill the void left behind by the retreating nation state. Constitutional governance shifts have occurred throughout history and generally create sustained periods of conflict (think back to the long struggle to determine what nation state paradigm would prevail: communism, fascism or democracy). In the very near future, the state apparatus will function on behalf of the markets.
September 6, 2006 8:07 AM | Report Offensive Comments
The question itself requires some restatement and expansion; focus on tribal affiliations alone obscures the real issue. The nation state is in fact receding as the predominant global governance paradigm (and is giving way to the market state). Thus, state leadership is becoming less and less effective where their respective nations are concerned ? some nation states may even have been relatively impotent at their inception. The result in either case is the same: interest groups, whether based on tribal, ethnic, linguistic, socio-economic, religious or any other affiliation, are rushing in to fill the void left behind by the retreating nation state. Constitutional governance shifts have occurred throughout history and generally create sustained periods of conflict (think back to the long struggle to determine what nation state paradigm would prevail: communism, fascism or democracy). In the very near future, the state apparatus will function on behalf of the markets.
September 6, 2006 8:04 AM | Report Offensive Comments
1. pattern recognition
2. fuzzy math and nueral net training
3. multiple levels of reality acting together
4. classes of answers vs specific answers (as in differential equations)
5. enculturement
6. clarity/clearlight perception/raja yoga/lamp of mahamudra
7. charles tart; works on cognitive psychology
8. time is a process, and it's not homogenous.........for example near a black hole...wormholes exist continuously, the past is now, as is the future.
September 6, 2006 1:27 AM | Report Offensive Comments
To Daniel, thanks for the info about the writers—I am definitely interested in hearing about good books of all types.—Getting to data to make correct assessments is still all too frustratingly trial and error. My method of reasoning—how I conceive being a thinker—is something of the Glass Bead game method outlined by Herman Hesse. I just read and improvise leaving others to determine if I have proceeded by correct sources, whether I have plagiarized, etc. In other words I expect others to trace backwards—I do not feel obliged to provide sources, etc. I just want to move as fast as possible and integrate fields because a person's brain has only so much time. Of course I try to be original...But I just want to think!—Let everyone else do everything else! I also feel others should be able to do anything with my ideas they wish to. I feel as long as a person gets three square meals he should not expect anything else—especially since the world seems to be going to crap. Besides are we to have vast computer banks with everyone's names attached to their crappy little ideas bogging down creativity? I just want to think! I just improvise every which way on all knowledge and just toss it to the wind. Furthermore I think schools have the craziest ideas as to what a thinker should be. It seems we either bog a thinker down with all these absurd procedures or have him having to stake out a single position and not budging or...I tire of it. I just go crazy and go off on all directions—I declare I reserve the right to—and I believe it everyone else's task to do the criticizing of the work. But too many people just want to kill thinkers for just thinking. Sorry for wasting everyone's time here, just going off...Getting back to the point at hand here, the questions posted by Ignatius/Zakaria, people here are zeroing in on a good working diagnosis. I especially like the observations that while much is to be hated about tribes, larger organizational forces are in many instances worse than tribes, more standardizing etc. I find it really sad that the problem of WMD will probably result in organizational forces within nations and without (between nations) which will be premature in the sense of not really being organizations that are conducive to being human.—In other words they will be working constructions to deal with the crises we have placed ourselves in and nothing more and not at all provide us with that feeling of cohesiveness and understanding often found in the tribal network. The human race should be gradually working out of the tribal mentality toward larger organizational structures—working out in a naturalistic and patient manner. But our technology it seems is hastening organizational structures to deal with crises that are all too uncomfortable to live in. We should prevent the collapse of the human race back to the tribal level—and not necessarily because ALL tribes are bad—but we should not be just destroying the smaller organizational forces in a crude manner and imposing crude, makeshift structures over the human race as if all of us living in the skeleton of a crappy building which precisely for being so half-ass constructed (in fact only in construction) is rickety as hell. No, that was not exactly what I wanted to say. I just wanted to say that our human stupidity—our poor handling of technology—is hastening the process of overcoming tribes, etc. and instead of being a naturalistic process of getting toward democracy—individuality—seems instead to be forcing the issue, being something of tyranny instead. Actually I wanted to say more, bring quantum mechanics into the first piece I wrote here—explain how human society in fact can be read as the long sought bridge between Quantum mechanics and the theories of Einstein—but that will have to wait some other time. I want to get it right on paper first......Hell! I guess what I really wanted to say was thanks for the advice on the books! I read and write quite a bit...Right now I am reading a book on the concept of revolution in science by a guy named Bernard Cohen (I believe I have the first name right). See? You have to check me on everything!
September 5, 2006 6:23 PM | Report Offensive Comments
I was "away", looking at other news sites and ran across a Drudge Report headline - "BUSH BRANDS AHMADINEJAD A 'TYRANT'". Now, I am not particularly fond of Iran's foreign policies, but Mr. Ahmadinejad was democraticly elected by the people of Iran in an election process that was *far* more open and honest than the ones Bush "won" by here. Iran never had a Florida or an Ohio and they have nothing whatsoever like Karl Rove or the Bush Pioneer neo-facists. Their election are run strictly on the European model, so it's pretty difficult to talk of a genuinely democraticly elected government representative as being a "tyrannt". In this regard, "tribalism" is a kind of purposeful ignorance and dishonesty pawned off on us by our President. Given his track record, I expect this barbaric tribal chief to enmesh us in another Middle Eastern war. God help us from fools and con men.
September 5, 2006 6:17 PM | Report Offensive Comments
to daniel:
Hey- I read your post on the anti-Americanism blog, but didn't respond to its substance, and now I'm reading the same basic ideas (institutions necessary for maintaining a homogenous state/policies resembling warfare, etc.)
I'm not sure if I've entirely taken in what you're trying to say, but I've grappled with similar ideas before. I think you'd be interested in reading what institutional economists have written- even just the basics, like Ronald Coase and Oliver Williamson. I think by introducing the concept of transaction costs into your model of homogenous states would clarify a lot- basically that when the cost of contracting between the various departments of an institution outweighs the benefits of their union in the same institution, the two departments will split into separate institutions. Its a formalization of Adam Smith's idea of the division of labor. I'm not going to go into detail about how that would apply to a heterogeneous society, but I think you can connect the dots.
Emile Durkheim was a sociologist who also talked about what it took to keep a group of people unified and homogenous. I would look into his concept of mechanical and organic solidarity. Organic solidarity (what Durkheim believed pre-modern societies adopted as they modernized) sounds a lot like your "inventive institutions" that maintain heterogeneous societies.
Also, have you heard of Peter Turchin? He's a population ecologist that's dabbled in these social science questions about the nature of heterogeneous states, etc. He just came out with "War and Peace and War" which talks a lot about the evolution of multinational empires- their rise and fall. He's got a more technical version of the same book... I think its just called "Historical Dynamics", but I'm not sure of that. Anyway, "War and Peace and War" is good, and I suggest reading it, based on the ideas you've brought up. I found it frustrating at times, because I think he re-invented the wheel when he didn't have to. I think because he came from a natural sciences background, he overlooked a TON of social science literature that would have been relevant, but oh well. Its still an interesting read.
I agree with your basic assessment- that centripetal and centrifugal forces are at work in these kinds of heterogenous societies, and all too often the force pushing groups of people apart dominate. I also agree that eventually we're looking at a one world government, but when that will come about will depend on the state of technology (universal access to communication and information processing technology is going to be an important prerequisite), in my opinion. I could see it happening in the next decade- I could see it happening a century from now. I'm just not really sure.
Look up Coase, Williamson, Durkheim, institutional economics, and Peter Turchin. For my thesis, I've also looked briefly into the concept of "resource partitioning" that is used primarily by ecologists, but has also made it into the economic and sociological literature. I think that is relevant as well.
Those are some really impressive thoughts- keep it up.
d
September 5, 2006 4:39 PM | Report Offensive Comments
RECAST the question...'What should the US do about emerging tribes whereever?' NOTHING. Do not pass go, do not collect $100. We've interfered ourselvess into extreem danger supposing our input is vital to the world order or even helpful to our own goals. Mistake aver mistake.
By, in large, the US tribe (s) that LEO describes above. A very interesting take!
September 5, 2006 4:21 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Mike B:
This country's biggest mistake was letting Texas back into the Union.
September 5, 2006 3:43 PM | Report Offensive Comments
I'm not certain this question is being framed in a way that can be answered. I lived in Europe and experienced the rivalries, varying degrees of distaste and someimtes outright hatred of neigboring countries. YTou know those "cute" British jokes about the French and the Scottish? Well, many Brit's apparently *believe* them and detest the targets. But look at the U.S. Stretched out, from the Northn tip of Sweden to Sicily. Europe is about 1/3 of the width of the U.S. Yet, in the U.S. we have a very homogonous culture. We speak pretty much the same language, have similar values, and none of the genuine hatred from other regions of the country (except for California, if you're from Oregon and Texas and Texans for everyone else :) ).
September 5, 2006 3:33 PM | Report Offensive Comments
"Step by a step a ladder is climbed" that was what I told my friend who insisted that we need "modern parliament" democracy and not "House of Lords" democracy in underdeveloped countries.
For many underdeveloped countries, tribes are parts of the social fabric of the system. They provide the social support system that is lacking in those countries but is provided by the governments in developed western countries for their citizens. In some cases the tribe leaders control pasture and water rights and are local powerbrokers and powerplayers.
The house of Lords in the UK before Blair's reforms of it could be used as an example to incorporate the tribal leaders and civil leaders of the evolving modern states in underdeveloped countries. Contrast the success of Loya Jarga in Afghanistan and the failure of Iraqi parliament.
In the ladder of democracy, the underdeveloped countries should take their time and take one step up at a time and not to try jump 3 or 4 steps up that ends in falling down the ladder. Cf. the Iraqi experience.
September 5, 2006 2:21 PM | Report Offensive Comments
The first thing that should be understood is that the ënation statesí that are weakening are those states whose leaders were put into (or gained) power were themselves tribal entities. As Dr. Vali Nasser (sp?) pointed out on ìMeet the Pressî on August 23rd, the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq was in the end a sectarian regime: the Takriti tribe at the apex, the other Sunni tribes following, and the Kurds and the Shia falling under the yoke. The fall of Hussein meant a reshuffling of the political balance among the tribes. Tribal identification among the Iraqis never went away, it was merely suppressed to the point that to Western eyes it no longer existed: one of the pre-invasion failings of US intelligence was to not understand this and its implication in a post-Hussein Iraq.
The model repeats itself across the Middle East ñ Saudi Arabia is run by the House of Saud, the Emir of Kuwait is simply the leader of the tribe that the British gave control of the country to when it pulled out; Abdullah II rules Jordan as the head of the Hashemites. Lebanon is probably the clearest example: it integrated its tribes into specific roles within the government, and it worked reasonably well until the Syrian interference (the major problem they face now is that Hezbollah is in some sense another tribe that is trying to find its place in the political scheme of things).
What ëgoodí governments should do about tribes is, at best, an intellectual exercise from a Western point of view ñ we havenít dealt with tribal-style warfare since the War of the Roses, and even that was more of a family squabble. That having been said, Iíll offer this: concentrate on the commonalities as opposed to trying to resolve the differences. As a most simple-minded example: if Tribe A believes that their women should be honored and respected, and Tribe B believes the same, then a ëgoodí government should work to get both tribes to agree that that the women of both tribes should be honored and respected by the men of both tribes. Once enough common areas have been agreed to, then the tribes can begin to work on the differences from a position of a better understanding of the other ñ the other becomes less ëother.í
As I said: an intellectual exercise. But perhaps a more realistic one than simply assuming removing Hussein would turn Iraq into KansasÖ.
September 5, 2006 1:59 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Tribal Identities
The basic problem in statehood is maximizing the benefits of size — understood both physically as well as ideologically — while minimizing the costs of heterogeneity. Various economists, including Alesina and Spolaore use these criteria to determine the optimal size of national jurisdictions. The intuition behind this reasoning is: Individuals and groups will associate until the benefits of scale equal the costs associated with heterogeneity.
Starting from the recognition that no one survives in solitude, societies have evolved by creating concentric layers of associations, varying in size and function. These shape peoplesí identity. When a top-level layer collapses, such as when a nation state fails or inadequately provides public goods, it is inevitable that the inner layers, which could be tribal, become stronger to compensate for the loss. As many readers have argued, as nation states weaken then, tribal identities, among other forms of association, often strengthen.
In looking at the second question, the subject of Harvard professor Robert Putnam's work on social capital provides some useful pointers. Putnam's main thesis is that " the quality of public life and the performance of social institutions are Ö powerfully influenced by norms and networks of civic engagement" (Putnam, R. D. (1995) Bowling Alone: America's Declining Social Capital , The Journal of Democracy, 6:1, pages 65-78). Furthermore, he attempts to prove that in America social capital is in decline. Local level associations and informal community ties are decreasing, he asserts.
There is a striking connection between strong tribal ties and their associated benefits and what Putnam identifies as community connectedness. As a result we find ourselves in an uncomfortable position where people have a lot to say about the evils of "tribes" which are a form of local level organization, while also conceding that the strength of democratic political institutions depends on the extent of civil engagement and community at the local level. The latter is buoyed by the findings of some international development organizations in Africa that local level community organizations, usually along "tribal" lines, can be a powerful complement for sustainable development.
Thus the solution to the apparent contradiction — which is also the answer to those who decry the "arbitrary" borders in African states — is to recognize that the economies of scale that come with size, do not only accrue when the motivation of associating is similarity. In fact, within the binding constraint set by heterogeneity of preferences, different groups or tribes can still come together and reap even greater benefits with increasing scale through greater diversity and improved specialization. The key is to nurture local level groupings, community associations and tribes as necessary partners and complements to the wider social grouping that may be a nation state.
The problem is that governments usually perceive tribal identities as rival and competitors to the state and thus seek policies to crush them, which might only ferment tensions and retard growth. An equally mistaken knee jerk reaction by outsiders and some insiders is to pin the blame for strife on differences, be they in language, religion or ancestors, and advocate for secession and smaller more homogeneous political groupings. As any economist would say, correlation is never synonymous with causation. In fact, strong tribal identity in highly heterogeneous states experiencing internal conflict, from all we know, could well play the same role that iron does — both can be conveniently turned into weapons — which hardly implies that they ought to be done away with because they are useful for other purposes too.
The irony of all this is that, in the meantime, richer countries increasingly seek greater benefits of scale through regional integration such as in the EU, regardless of their tribal differences.
September 5, 2006 1:44 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Test
September 5, 2006 1:32 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Give them gambling franchises.
September 5, 2006 11:54 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Wrong question. Governments are dispensers of power and patronage which only contribute to entrenching tribalism by either patronizing or coopting existing tribal power structures.
The question should be what should societies which want to modernize do about tribes?
The answer is there are no shortcuts in the Muslim world or elsewhere. Societies with traditional heirarchies must have grassroots mobilisations which win people over to the universal values of equal rights regardless of gender, tribal allegiance and ethnicity. These societies must also concentrate on creating enough economic and political opportunities so that people of different tribal origins develop an array of common interests and thereby reduce the tribe to nothing more than a cultural identity.
September 4, 2006 11:30 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Civilization started out with clans and tribes. Genealogical research often represents a deep-seated desire to determine one's own ancestral, often "tribal" ancestry. Methinks we all had one, as in Celtic, Norman, Saxon, et cetera. Democracy, moderation, and tolerance does not make those ancient roots, and interest in them, go away or disappear. The delightful film comedy, "The Mouse that Roared" all about the 'Grand Duchy of Fenwick' and the Post's own Joel Garreau, author of "The Nine Nations of North America" also represent a implied version of "tribalism". We've lost 'traditional' America as devised by our Founding Fathers, to the interests of "globalism" and unnecessary meddling. Robert Frost said it best: 'Good fences good neighbors make. That's the view of this 'traditional American' who has been there, done that, on three continents and "Inside the Beltway", beginning with WW2. And look at what we did to this continent's Native American tribes. As Monty Wooley would have said, "Ye gods and little fishes".
September 4, 2006 10:22 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Are tribal identities becoming stronger as nation states weaken?
Absolutely stronger or just relatively stronger?
What, if anything, should "good" government do about tribes?
Good grief! What, if anything, should ìbadî government do about tribes? What, if anything, should ìgoodî tribal government do about ìgoodî National government? There are a lot of possibilities here and it doesnít seem all that useful as a structure for discussion or action.
Implicit in this formulation is the presumption that the nation is better than, more enlightened than, the tribes that make it up. Of course this is nonsense. In our own country the tribe of Quakers is surely better than our nation as a whole.
It is one thing if all of your tribes are Muslim as in Iraq and quite another if they follow different religions as in Lebanon. A nation had best derive its identity from what its tribes have in common and eschew where they differ. To do else is to favor one tribe over another thereby creating hostile disenfranchised minorities. The alternative to that is to destroy all tribal culture all together and replace them with a national culture.
In many respects Israel seems like a tribe masquerading as a nation. That is what you have when bloodlines become the basis for tribal membership or citizenship.
I donít think you can usefully generalize about tribes vis a vis governments good or bad. As a generally more local level of government than a nation, I support them, as I am want to support states rights against federal intrusion. With a bow toward Chris Ford who makes the specific point, I am above all else equally unwilling to accept the intrusion of ìinternational lawî, of UN determinations into this arena. Perhaps what we ought to focus on, before asking what governments should do about tribes, is a Tribal Bill of Rights.
September 4, 2006 6:24 PM | Report Offensive Comments
faroglobal, idaho, usa
Atheist, Boston, USA
Chris Ford, Pickering, Ontario
deception, misleading, "appeal to emotion," jingoism, demagoguery, "family values," as hate..........
tripe as a meditation.
.
crackerism
.
and what is the "Executive Branch" about?
.
September 4, 2006 3:54 PM | Report Offensive Comments
tribalism _is_ about a loose adhesion of people with common interests that submit to a leadership based upon "what is best for the tribe,"
that presupposes that there is an immmediately verifiable, "what is best for the tribe," usually based upon history, not insight, but sometimes with a visionary leader, insight...........
for example:
In America there were nomadic, and farmer tribes co existent. So, a quick example that tribalism does not predispose one to violence.
Hopi and Navajo were farmer types, the Apache were Nomadic/raiding types..........both tribal, both indigenous populations that with different needs adopted the same _general_ format, tribalism; with different goals/profiles of action.
generically lumping tribalism into one flavor, is a misjudgement....an oversimplification by simpletons, looking to lead to a conclusion........
I'd like to talk to these simpletons first hand and hand them their behinds.....tell them that
Tribalism is a formation. Committees are another formation. Simplistic thinking is not the answer.
Heterogeneity is a necessary component in todays governments, as is a certain degree of freedom.
Governments should include democracy, socialism, and sound engineering and law principles.........
and everyday people should learn about "intent,"
what someone intends to happen versus what they are trying to persuade is happening.......
everything has a trajectory, every action, every speechifying, that if you relax and allow yourself to feel of you can see where the trajectory is trying to carry you.......
speak to that, not the framing
Learn, like a martial artist to identify when someone is moving with a purpose and address the purpose........
not the waving of their arms, not the stomping foot, or the feint....
wait until they commit....and some simple posters, like the atheist,
_never_ waver in their intent, and are better off ignored unless comedic relief is desired........
like a "born again," antichrist "ian" the rant is predictable and all roads lead to you
giving your life to "jesus," "the president" "democracy" "patriotism"
whatever they are using to get you, the citizen to give the the ability to make decisions for you,
because you're not smart enough, don't know enough, aren't patriotic enough, are too liberal, don't love gawd...........
whatever, it has to do with talking you out of examining and or taking action,
that might end up in arresting the Executive Branch and Complicit Congress.......
IF there is a gawd, that _would_ be the result..........
September 4, 2006 3:52 PM | Report Offensive Comments
The praemble to the question conatins serious misrepresentations and prejudious implications. Unfortunately lack of real knoweldge about Middle East is a raeson for this. In Pakisatn it was not a tribal murder but a political murder of a national hero and what happened was not riots but acts of resistance and defiance by his poeple. The fact that you describe this event as tribal is in itself a proof of oppressive ideological constructions of peoples or ethnic groups deprived of self-determination because of past colonial history and present alliances of interests in the world. The Baluchi peopel are like Kurdish people, an independent nation who have survived despite deacdes of oppression and despotic asssimilative maesures. On the otehr hand, Prime Minister Nuri al-Malaki held a tribal summit in Iraq beacuse the misguided policies and practices of the US and Britain have left no structures, institutions, and modern alternative initiatives but to retreat to the shaky outdated structrures of tribal system. It was possible that instead of tribal confederations, we would have had three progressive modern states compaarble with the Baltic nations liberated from the ideological shackle of communism and its imposed systen Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania or like Solnevia and Bosnia. Failure to recognise the natural reemergence of the three regioanl identities of Iraq and allowing them natutral self-determination is the resaon for preventing the emergence of functional government institutions and falling abck on the tribal structure in the Arab Iraq supported by religious ideology, as religion is essentially a tribal ideology. The overall failure of the West's understanding about Isalm is evident in its baseless generalisations about the Islamic world, Islamic religion and Islamic community. These collective entities and concepts are imaginary and do not exist. The main question in the Islamic worls is not the issue of religion but of the national liberation of long-oppressed nations such as the Kurds, the Baluchis. the people of Darfur, the people of South Sudan, the Amazeghi people as well as the liberation of religious minorities and women who are generarly an enslaved non-entity. Until the West recognises this fact and adopts peacful solutions to these questions based on the internationally recognised right of self-determination for nations, groups and individuals, comfusion and ignorance will continue to domiante the disourse and politics of the Middle East reflected in more blood, detruction and mayhem.
September 4, 2006 3:30 PM | Report Offensive Comments
The "Washington Post" asks, "Are tribal identities becoming stronger as nation states weaken?" In some cases, the tribe strengthens to the point of being a nation.
Consider the case of the Kurds, a large tribe in Northern Iraq. The Kurds are, by strict definition, not Muslims. The Kurds are really deists. Moreover, unlike the Sunnis and the Shiites are, the Kurds are committed to building a prosperous, liberal democracy.
Read the story at the following web link.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-haven4sep04,0,4219944.story?coll=la-home-headlines
The might of Western military forces and economic aid can work if and only if the recipient of our largesse is committed to building a liberal, Western democracy with a free market. What you are seeing in Kurdistan, Iraq is the same phenomenon that arose in Eastern Europe. Once Moscow stopped oppressing the Eastern Europeans, they prospered. Once NATO protected the Kurds from the stones and spears of the Islamic thugs (also known as Sunnis and Shiites) by pumping hundreds of air-to-surface missiles into Iraq, the Kurds prospered.
Contrast the Kurds and the Eastern Europeans to the Iranians. Within 15 years, the Kurds have effectively built a prosperous democratic nation. Same goes for the Eastern Europeans. Neither the Eastern Europeans nor the Kurds are spending any money on building a nuclear bomb.
By contrast, during the last 27 years, the Iranians built a brutal theocracy that exports terrorism. The Iranians are spending millions of dollars on building a nuclear bomb.
We in the West (which includes Japan) must support, at a minimum, autonomy for Kurdistan. We must aggressively support the Kurds by providing an impregnable shield of NATO troops and Japanese troops.
In particular, if the Turks initiate any hostile military action against the Kurds, then a squadron of the Japanese air force should drop 50 bunker-buster bombs on Ankara. Tokyo shall decapitate the Turkish government. So let it be written. So let it be done.
September 4, 2006 2:32 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Interesting that Chris from Canada is the only one who has referred to Ralph Peters' piece. For the rest of you here's the link:
http://www.weeklystandard.com
The article is well thought through and comprehensive; I highly recommend reading it carefully.
September 4, 2006 12:47 PM | Report Offensive Comments
What should we all do about "good".
September 4, 2006 10:39 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Dave Ignatus should credit Ralph Peters influential essay about the rise of tribalism as the piece he is following up on with this question.
And perhaps have asked his commentators to factor in Peters main point - which was that nationhood has been under heavy attack by groups seeking to deligitimize national power and replace it with International Law, International NGOs, International Governmental Institutions. It is the miserable failure of those international forms to replace nations, and the post-communist, post colonial collapse of many nations back to ethnicity and religion as determinative of "identity" that has given rise to trbalism as a viable alternative.
It is a struggle between 3 forces: The people in those weal ntions that see no alternative to tribalism given their lack of faith in both national leaders AND foreign jurists to look out for them. The forces that with to make nationalism and patriotism not disappear into history byut be charished and maintained as best for most peoples, who see tribalism as a return to barbarism, and UN and foreign lawyer control over their destiny as unacceptable. Finally - you have the globalists - mainly arrogant transnational liberal Jewish, European, and wealthy N American Gentile elites who have worked assiduously to destroy nationalism and power&legitimacy of nations as obsolete history, and tribalism as primitive and barbaric - except for certain "oppressed peoples" that may not be criticised for any actions they choose.
While transnational ethnics or groups have always feared nations and sought free movement and law outside a particular ruler's control, and properly railed on "poor colonial national constructs" - they miss the fact that the tribalism of Somalia, Afghanistan, or a Canada or America split into openly competing tribes not caring one whit for those "outside our group, la raza, our Faith" is nightmare territory.
But is the answer is not becoming tribal like the worlds worst crapholes, the international institutions run by the likes of Kofi and Kujo Annan are worse than ineffective...they cause chaos and bloodshed by pretending the "World's Highest Authorities" have control, have the ability to prevent genocides, have the ability to craft a