Corruptible?

[french frank]

such enthusiasts can be recognised even today wearing a mask in an empty street etc

I think I can see your lip curling from here! If I'm going to the Coop, I put a mask on before leaving the house because if it's going on anyway, why not? I'd probably find I'd dropped it somewhere if I held it in my hand.

As far as I'm concerned, people who know more about the subject than I do say mask-wearing reduces the spread of infection. I don't care whether that's by 1%, 10% or 50%. I don't think that maskwearers are 'making a point' in a way that non maskwearers aren't. But to get back my other point: you can call both sides 'tribalist', though I don't quite understand why a non maskwearer feels aggressive towards a maskwearer (see the photo with the Guardian article, if the caption is trustworthy).

[Serial_Apologist]

A feature that interests me because it seems to become stronger and stronger is 'tribalism': something which predates capitalism. It's about forming groups and adopting methods which ensure the survival of the in-group, if necessary at the expense pf the out-group.

Tribalism, strictly speaking, originates from the point at which forest-dwelling hunter-gatherers began settling down and developing means of secondary propagation to replace foodstuffs once readily there for the taking, and needed to defend their patch of the ecosphere against marauders. Somebody needed to be in charge - originally the person guarding the surplus produce, whose descendants became the ruling classes through every stage of social evolution. In some tribes it was women who were the guardians, being more "on-site" as it were, dealing with offspring rearing and domestic chores while menfolk were out hunting or war making - in others where superiority in physical strength ordained, men took on leadership roles.

Those in charge of deciding who was to do what while overseeing the surpluses to immediate demands would have had the time to do the thinking necessary to keep the rest in line, and that thinking would not only be speculating and forming theories as to the whys and wherefores of success and failure but how to shape them in order to justify their decisions and actions: someone has to take charge, after all, and it might as well be the one or ones who've been granted the time to think things through!

Presumably it would have been difficult back then determining the "otherness" definitions necessary to ascribing outsider threat status - much easier when expeditionary globetrotting to expand one's territorial imperatives led to the discovery of peoples of different skin colours that made them easily distinguishable, along with cultures that in the eras of land seizures had left them at a disadvantage, militarily, and **therefore** ideologically speaking.

[french frank]

Human beings are just part of the animal kingdom, and the wider 'tribes' like lions, wolves, deer all have 'leaders' of their separate packs, but it seems to me that these leaders are 'respected' (pathetic fallacy) in the sense that they are recognised as the strongest and the best able to protect or preserve the herd/pack. But the thesis of Klaas's book seems to be that the people who end up as 'leader of the pack' are often corruptible, corrupt, in fact 'bad leaders'. By what mechanism do they get to be leader and why in democracies (tbq) is their position so often maintained by the led? Why in the human world are they supported? Why are they 'popular'?

[Serial_Apologist]

Human beings are just part of the animal kingdom, and the wider 'tribes' like lions, wolves, deer all have 'leaders' of their separate packs, but it seems to me that these leaders are 'respected' (pathetic fallacy) in the sense that they are recognised as the strongest and the best able to protect or preserve the herd/pack. But the thesis of Klaas's book seems to be that the people who end up as 'leader of the pack' are often corruptible, corrupt, in fact 'bad leaders'. By what mechanism do they get to be leader and why in democracies (tbq) is their position so often maintained by the led? Why in the human world are they supported? Why are they 'popular'?

Because of the glamour which power confers! Glamour is a powerful tool as it encourages envy, which is why the mass media constantly promulgate it: it drives the capitalist imperative to create previously non-existent wants and desires. Power to get things done is concentrated in the hands of those with the most wealth in capitalist society, whether that power is legitimately gained or not. It's instructive that few philanthropists in the business community such as companies run by Quakers end up dominating the global markets let alone exercising influence over the World Bank, IMF etc etc. The positive effects of rich people such as the Carnegies and Bill Gates on ameliorating the worst features of scarcity and inequality are always exaggerated, can never be generalised to the extent of jeopardising their own position, and are in any case chosen at their behest, whatever anybody else thinks. So-called "ordinary" people, once disempowered and uprooted from their sociobiological matrix, are forced to look upwards for what may be their salvation. In managing an inherently unstable unsustainable system, the rich and powerful have to create myths to justify their existence, and either depend on time-honoured structures of state and compliant media, or get to where they are by working their way up greasy poles of company promotion or party structure, or use the attraction of power to win support. Those disappointed and disillusioned by failure to deliver the goods are then told to fall back on supposed failures in their very nature, envy, greed, and the very unrealistic aspirations that have been deliberately implanted in the common consciousness to deflect blame from where it belongs. It really is as simple and as elaborate as that! How one overcomes this is by constantly reminding people that by getting together and campaigning collectively a different less wasteful kind of society is possible. Why this doesn't happen all the time but mostly only in relation to disasters such as the huge collective solidarity in the aftermath of Grenfell is that society has long been prioritised to control based on the nuclear family unit, which in turn is evermore dependent on those aspects of power exercised at street level - rents or mortgages - the ingenious Faustian devising of Thatcher to imprison working people in the consequences of failing to think beyond the garden gate!

[Dave2002]

that article says more about a certain smug nature of Grauniad writers - no doubt in past they would have supported burning of witches - the latest (I think) BMJ article http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n2729 actually comments that maybe 10% is the effect, just make sure you read past the 53% in the 1st paragraph.

One problem with statistics - claims about mask wearing - is that often the supposed "research" is not relevant to the UK population. Whether or not the "research" in different communities around the world was done well or not - averaging out to come up with a "magic number" really does not make sense if the pre-conditions in the UK are that effectively almost all the population has received at least one, probably more than one and a booster jab, while in other countries there will still be very many who are living in poor conditions and without having received any vaccinations or medical attention. There is thus no valid comparability of different groups in the studies.

There probably is a slight benefit for mask wearing in the UK, but I tend to agree that it is likely to be slight within the confines of the UK's borders. Elsewhere the situation may be rather different.

On a practical point with masks my glasses often make seeing anything difficult in some situations - for example going in and out of shops and venues - so the risk of other problems increases - falls - crossing the road etc.

[Joseph K]

Because of the glamour which power confers! Glamour is a powerful tool as it encourages envy, which is why the mass media constantly promulgate it: it drives the capitalist imperative to create previously non-existent wants and desires. Power to get things done is concentrated in the hands of those with the most wealth in capitalist society, whether that power is legitimately gained or not. It's instructive that few philanthropists in the business community such as companies run by Quakers end up dominating the global markets let alone exercising influence over the World Bank, IMF etc etc. The positive effects of rich people such as the Carnegies and Bill Gates on ameliorating the worst features of scarcity and inequality are always exaggerated, can never be generalised to the extent of jeopardising their own position, and are in any case chosen at their behest, whatever anybody else thinks. So-called "ordinary" people, once disempowered and uprooted from their sociobiological matrix, are forced to look upwards for what may be their salvation. In managing an inherently unstable unsustainable system, the rich and powerful have to create myths to justify their existence, and either depend on time-honoured structures of state and compliant media, or get to where they are by working their way up greasy poles of company promotion or party structure, or use the attraction of power to win support. Those disappointed and disillusioned by failure to deliver the goods are then told to fall back on supposed failures in their very nature, envy, greed, and the very unrealistic aspirations that have been deliberately implanted in the common consciousness to deflect blame from where it belongs. It really is as simple and as elaborate as that! How one overcomes this is by constantly reminding people that by getting together and campaigning collectively a different less wasteful kind of society is possible. Why this doesn't happen all the time but mostly only in relation to disasters such as the huge collective solidarity in the aftermath of Grenfell is that society has long been prioritised to control based on the nuclear family unit, which in turn is evermore dependent on those aspects of power exercised at street level - rents or mortgages - the ingenious Faustian devising of Thatcher to imprison working people in the consequences of failing to think beyond the garden gate!

[Bryn]

. . . On a practical point with masks my glasses often make seeing anything difficult in some situations - for example going in and out of shops and venues - so the risk of other problems increases - falls - crossing the road etc.

or

https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=how+to+stop+glasses+steaming+up+when+wearing+mask&atb=v1-1&iax=videos&ia=videos&iai=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DDnleYI6qfB0

[jayne lee wilson]

Yes, I agree about tribalism, sadly the downside of that is seen at football matches and in racism.

I'm sorry, but that is a terribly dated association.

Every Premiership Match this season is preceded by all the players taking the knee....
Football, especially UK Football, has in recent years contributed hugely to the fight against racism and prejudice of all kinds.
Rainbows are blossoming everywhere...

Last weekend, many matches were stopped in the 6th minute, for silence and applause, to commemorate Arthur Labinjo-Hughes, whose picture was projected inside the stadia....

[oddoneout]

I'm sorry, but that is a terribly dated association.

Every Premiership Match this season is preceded by all the players taking the knee....
Football, especially UK Football, has in recent years contributed hugely to the fight against racism and prejudice of all kinds.
Rainbows are blossoming everywhere...

Last weekend, many matches were stopped in the 6th minute, for silence and applause, to commemorate Arthur Labinjo-Hughes, whose picture was projected inside the stadia....

Things are moving forward in football circles as you say but the way Mike's post is phrased doesn't to me suggest a reference to racism in football. Perhaps he could clarify?

[mikealdren]

I intended the 2 items, football and racism, to be separate, and unrelated, examples of tribalism in our society and FF added several more. Sorry for the confusion.

[mikealdren]

Tribalism, strictly speaking, originates from the point at which forest-dwelling hunter-gatherers began settling down and developing means of secondary propagation to replace foodstuffs once readily there for the taking, and needed to defend their patch of the ecosphere against marauders.

Having seen film of tribalism in forest dwelling Chimpanzees, I suspect that it may predate that.

As you say, it probably originally arose when groups of individuals found themselves under some form of threat and formed like minded tribes to protect themselves or, perhaps, it was the marauders who formed the original tribes.

[Serial_Apologist]

Having seen film of tribalism in forest dwelling Chimpanzees, I suspect that it may predate that.

As you say, it probably originally arose when groups of individuals found themselves under some form of threat and formed like minded tribes to protect themselves or, perhaps, it was the marauders who formed the original tribes.

I remember being blown away by a TV documentary sometime back in the 1980s or 90s, in which a group of westerners - they may have been German - lived with forest dwellers in Borneo. Any remaining vestiges of racism implanted in me in childhood were entirely dispelled by this programme, which showed what I would once have thought of as "primitive" people, who had never encountered white people, living sustainably in the jungle in stable family groupings, in which parenting roles were fluid, with fathers relating and interacting comfortably with the women and the young children, joking with them and and imparting stories to them that spoke of living in harmony with nature. I seem to remember that we were given insight into how such peoples came to understand the medicinal properties of given plants, which must have come about through a process of trial and error. Also from memory, I don't recall any illustrations of inter-tribal hostilities or rivalries, and would assume from that that these were people whose numbers had not outgrown the carrying capacity of their immediate natural environment.

Since then the many programmes I have seen on indigenous peoples have tended to confirm the image such peoples have been forced to defend and fight to save against modern day encroachments in the form of water course diversions, mining and de-forestation. Contrary narratives have been exposed as resulting from material inducements from film companies favouring one group at the expense of another to foment division, seemingly to "prove" a point. Whilst modern science has caught up with them in terms of concrete evidence for the inter-dependence of life forms on which we are all dependent, and the technology is nearly in place to once again enable sustainable living without the imperatives of survival, the economic drivers and their political consequences under capitalism continue to undermine prospects of positive outcomes favourable to human survival as a species on this planet.

[jayne lee wilson]

I intended the 2 items, football and racism, to be separate, and unrelated, examples of tribalism in our society and FF added several more. Sorry for the confusion.

Thanks Mike - but "tribalism" in football is a largely joyful (or sorrowful in defeat!) rivalry between teams and supporters, especially in the UK. Admitting the technical superiority of your greatest rivals after a defeat is a good thing - a wise human impulse. Of course it can get a bit fierce sometimes, and there are unpleasant exceptions as in all areas of society.

The Political promotion of large sporting events by regimes with terrible human rights laws and attitudes, and the financial "sportswashing" that associates with it, is a far worse problem now. USA spoke out only yesterday against China, host of the forthcoming Winter Olympics......they won't pull their athletes from it, anymore than we will withdraw England from the Qatar World Cup. But (like Lewis Hamilton at the middle-east F1 races with his rainbow helmet) many elite players and sportspeople are already speaking out about it, more explicitly than ever.

If that is a tribalist battle between liberalism and tyrannical suppression (or worse), lets have more of it.

[french frank]

Thanks Mike - but "tribalism" in football is a largely joyful (or sorrowful in defeat!) rivalry between teams and supporters, especially in the UK.

I intended 'tribalism' to be a general term for which the starting point is a loyalty to the group, initially for defensive or cooperative purposes. How that displays itself in any given circumstance is far more important: when you read of a vote in Congress being 'largely along party lines', regardless of the ethics of the matter you can actually name the two Republicans or the two Democrats who stepped out of line. That's tribalism. Supply your own examples!