Pundits who decry 'tribalism' know nothing about real tribes

[stuck in the middle]

Pundits who decry ‘tribalism’ know nothing about real tribes

Their rhetoric has more to do with Western stereotypes than tribal reality

The Washington Post

Perspective by Christine Mungai

Christine Mungai is a writer and journalist in Nairobi, Kenya. She was a 2018 Nieman Fellow at Harvard University.

January 30, 2019 at 10:21 a.m. EST

The U.S. electorate, commentator Andrew Sullivan wrote recently, has devolved into “two tribes whose mutual incomprehension and loathing can drown out their love of country.” In the New Yorker, George Packer argued last fall that politics today “requires a word as primal as ‘tribe’ to get at the blind allegiances and huge passions of partisan affiliation.”

“Tribalism” has become an inescapable concept in American politics, partly because the partisan divide in America’s public sphere is becoming more shrill and polarized (though the hyper-partisanship is asymmetrical: The right leans further right than the left leans left).

But there’s a significant problem with using the words “tribal” and “tribalism” to describe this trend: The usage is historically inaccurate when you consider the actual behavior of indigenous peoples, whether African, Native American or Asian. The current use of “tribal” is based on a racist stereotype about how groups of such peoples have interacted historically, and even today.

I know something about “tribalism,” since I was born and raised in Kenya, a country made up of 44 different ethnic groups. My parents are Kikuyu, but they raised my siblings and me in a cosmopolitan, urban environment. My experience with tribes, and my historical knowledge of them, do not resemble what I read about in the writings of political pundits.

snip--- (much, much more at link)

Gifted article, no subscription necessary: https://wapo.st/3sjf3vy

[John1956PA]

1. Excellent article. Oh, the irony. Colonialism strengthened indigenous tribalism.

I never liked the term, either.

[stuck in the middle]

2. My wife's culture is considered as "tribal", although she's not indigenous.

As such, she and her culture are afforded certain rights, individual and collective, here in America, under International Law (such as it is).

Maroons in the Americas

December 1, 2001.

https://www.culturalsurvival.org/publications/cultural-survival-quarterly/25-4-maroons-americas

The Rights of Maroons In International Human Rights Law

Author: Fergus MacKay

https://www.culturalsurvival.org/publications/cultural-survival-quarterly/rights-maroons-international-human-rights-law

The vast majority of American states have ratified international human rights treaties that obligate them to respect the rights of individuals and certain groups. Some have also ratified International Labor Organization Convention No. 169 (ILO 169), which deals exclusively with the rights of indigenous and tribal peoples. The rights of Maroon individuals and collectivities are also protected under these instruments. This article provides an overview of the nature and content of those rights, with an emphasis on collective rights.

Prior to turning to the substance of Maroon rights, I should point out that states have an obligation to give effect to ratified human rights treaties in their domestic law, as without these measures international guarantees for the most part cannot be enforced or enjoyed by the intended beneficiaries. By virtue of both general principles of international law and specific provisions found in human rights treaties,(1) states are obligated, first, to give effect without discrimination to human rights in their domestic law by constitutional amendment, adopting new legislation and/or modifying existing legislation; and second, to ensure that effective remedies are in place permitting rights to be enforced in domestic courts and other tribunals.

While the underlying rationale for protecting the collective rights of Maroons -- the right to cultural integrity, the right to self-determination, the right to equality before the law and freedom from discrimination -- holds true in all cases, the manner in which Maroons are classified under international law -- as minorities, as tribal peoples, or as some other entity -- is important. Without engaging in a (contentious) discussion of how to classify Maroons, I will simply state that under international definitions, imperfect as they are, Maroons can be described as both "minorities" and as "tribal peoples," the latter being most relevant in terms of collective rights.(2) And while they are not indigenous peoples, Maroons enjoy largely the same rights as indigenous peoples under international law -- the main distinction being that Maroons cannot claim aboriginality and the rights that attach to that status. For this reason, but also due to a lack of international jurisprudence on Maroon rights, I will make frequent reference here to indigenous peoples' rights.

Maroon Rights Under International Instruments

Minority rights are encapsulated in Article 27 of the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which provides that "[in] those States in which ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities exist, persons belonging to such minorities shall not be denied the right, in community with the other members of the group, to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practice their own religion, or to use their own language." These rights are held by individuals but exercised "in community with other members of the group," thereby providing some measure of collectivity. Similar language is found in Article 30 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child; the points made here are therefore also relevant to the rights of Maroon children, and by implication, the larger community, under that instrument.

The UN Human Rights Committee (HRC) has interpreted Article 27 to include the "rights of persons, in community with others, to engage in economic and social activities which are part of the culture of the community to which they belong." In reaching this conclusion, the HRC recognized that indigenous peoples' subsistence and other traditional economic activities are an integral part of their culture, and that interference with those activities can be detrimental to their cultural integrity and survival. By implication, the land, resource base, and the surrounding environment also require protection if subsistence activities are to be safeguarded.

snip--- (more at link)

https://www.culturalsurvival.org/publications/cultural-survival-quarterly/rights-maroons-international-human-rights-law