Talk:New tribalists

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] This reads really well now.

Maybe should make some mention of the idea of the "noble savage" which the new tribalists revived?

However, there's a sociological basis for these tribal models if you look at Daniel Quinn's work. I believe at one point the book "Ishmael" won some major contest or award for alternative social evolution models (alternatives to "eat the rich" that is). I can't find the reference - I'll look for it.

This article does not read well because it does not explain what "leavers" and "takers" are; it does not provide any context for these terms (e.g., who uses the terms and why, who does not use the terms and why).

By the way, although a clever and thoughtful writer, Quinn ignores most anthropology, sociology, geography, and human ecology of the past twenty-five years; it is not by any means authoritative or accurate SR

No one said Quinn was authoritative or accurate - this is just a description of what "new tribalists" are. As to "leavers" they are defined more or less as Quinn's followers, while "takers" are defined as those from "Mother culture" - Quinn's name for the nation-state society of capitalism and representative democracy and etc. I think this is quite clear in the entry.

It's a bit terse, though, and if you think it needs more space, give it more.

I think the terms "leaver" and "taker" are confined more or less to Quinn's followers - and that trying to ascribe them more broadly than that may not be accurate. But if you can find for example instances of Greens or Quakers or Sufis or indigenous peoples using them to self-describe, by all means, quote 'em.

I'd say that if you find more than a couple of these, make a new entry for "leavers" and describe their own idea of what "takers" are there... as I doubt anyone voluntarily describes themself as a "taker"

I've edited this heavily. Much of the information in it was not entirely accurate, and I have expanded each of the criticisms from a single phrase to a full sub-section exploring the nature of the criticism, and new tribalists' response to that criticism. I also worked on some information about the "Noble Savage" The usage of the terms "Taker," "Leaver" and "Mother Culture" were entirely wrong. These terms are, indeed, entirely confined to Quinn's "followers" (for lack of a better word), but then, so is the term "New tribalist," though I've never heard this usage outside of this article. Quinn's "followers" use the term, "New Tribal Revolution," or more commonly, the abbreviation, "NTR." In fact, most of Quinn's "followers" do refer to themselves as "Takers," not out of pride, but to acknowledge the stumbling blocks of their acculturation.

Ishmael won the Turner Tomorrow Fellowship in 1998, recieving the single largest cash prize ever awarded to a work of fiction. That's probably the award you're thinking of.

I also need to disagree with "SR" on Ishmael's accuracy; I've studied anthropology, sociology, geography and human ecology intensely for several years specifically to put these claims to the test, and while I've found several details that were off, the central tenets still seem to be sound. At worst, we can only say that Quinn's accuracy is ... contested.

Jason Godesky

I agree with Jason, I too have studied anthropology, sociology, geography and human ecology -mostly in regards to the ideas directly discussed in Quinns works- and have found his works to be, as Jason said, sound. I have not edited this page, but I feel strongly that someone needs to re-work this sentence "Quinn's willingness to accept wide-spread starvation..." Quinn has made it perfectly clear that he does not have a solution to the food race, and while people love to put words and ideas into his mouth, here is a link to a response he himself has to this accusation here: http://www.ishmael.com/Interaction/QandA/Detail.CFM?Record=23 and here: http://www.ishmael.com/Interaction/QandA/Detail.CFM?Record=449 Because this is such a common misconception among people who read ishmael, as a joke my friends and I once begged Quinn to write, "Let Them Starve" in a copy of The Story of B. Quinn refused to do this even as a joke. That's how serious he is about this issue.

Urban Scout

______________________________________________________________________________________________

People argue? Seems to be some philosophical indecision about this material.... I have read about 4 of Quinn's books. Ishmael, Story of B, The Holy, and My Ishmael. I have been a philosophy buff for quite some time because the ideology of Philosophy is quite like putting a puzzle together except exactly the opposite, in our society the spoils go to those that can find the loop holes in someone else's reason. Here is my point: Quinn is not attempting a philosophic work in any regard. I thought he was which is why I began reading the books in the first place. He's simply expressing his thoughts, which are very well formed, and leaving it up to others to interrpret as they choose. As Ishmael says there is no right way for any group of people to live. It's the simple idea that those who live in a way that benefits nature benefits them, and to do such things will also benefit the survival of a community (give support get support). It is pretty obvious to most of us something went wrong in our world some time ago and I think it's brave of Quinn to point it out in a way that could be a starting point for some. Throwing around buzz words and trying to crticize the thoughts as being without philosophical integrity is part of the blah blah blah or bullshit that Quinn is attemting to avoid. Simply put lets stop destroying things and start nurturing other things and chances are we will be happier and healthier for it... end of story. No need to over intellectulize the whole thing. Thanks for reading this. Steph —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.15.87.226 (talk) 21:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Problem with the lead

Who are these people? Are they academic theorists? Are they off living on communes? Where do they come from? What country(s) or state(s) are they in? Is this a branch of sociology? It is quite disconcerting to read an article and not know what its subject is. Jd2718 02:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree this page suffers from fuzziness. Try neo-Tribalism for what I think is a clearer (and better referenced) article on a similar subject. Mjk2357 19:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is this article about?

I've tagged the article as "confusing." It really deserves worse. At no point does the article explain what a "new tribalist" is. I am assuming the most likely answer is some category of navel-gazing academic. Who else would just assume the rest of the world knows who they are? But it needs to be stated up front. Is it a subset of New World anthropologists? Is it a trend in European sociology? This needs to be addressed. Jd2718 13:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

"New tribalists are radical adherents of Neo-Tribalism. They propose a New Tribal Revolution outlined in the Ishmael series by Daniel Quinn. New tribalists believe that the tribe fulfills an important role in human life, and that the dissolution of tribalism with the spread of civilization has come to threaten the very survival of the species. New tribalists seek to mimic indigenous peoples by organizing their own "tribes" based on underlying principles gleaned from ethnology and anthropological fieldwork."
What's unclear about that? JasonGodesky 15:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
You've just retyped the opening of the article. I've read the article, and I still don't know what a new tribalist is. Are they Americans? Do they actually build these villages and move into them? Do they make fantasy websites about made up villages? Are they amateur anthropologists? Are they a fringe group among academic sociologists? A clue. Can we have a clue? Jd2718 16:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I copied and pasted it. I'm not sure how much more of a clue you could ask for. Some are Americans, some aren't; it's not restricted to any particular nationality. The case is premised on anthropology, and some have a background in anthropology, but others don't. Some are academics, some aren't. Mostly, they're people who read Ishmael, and think the New Tribal Revolution is a good idea. They think tribes are important. Some try to make such tribes, others don't get very far past planning. The first paragraph as it stands gives you a lot more than a clue, it gives you a very solid statement of precisely what they are. I'm not sure how it could be any clearer than that, and I'm really not sure where your confusion is coming from. Are you simply assuming they must be limited to some geographical area or intellectual discipline? If so, the confusion lies in your assumption, not in the article. JasonGodesky 00:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
When, where, who, how many? If they are everywhere (seems doubtful), then the article should say so. If they are primarily in North America (sounds likely) then that should be stated. These tribes, do the New Tribalists move into physical communities? When did this start happening? Where? Are they all white? Are they all atheists?
Look, you fellows might read the article and say "Yup, that's us!" But as it's written, I doubt any outsider knows what it being discussed. Jd2718 12:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
These "specifics" you're asking for simply don't relate. This is the first paragraph for the "Christian" article: "A Christian is a person who adheres to Christianity, a monotheistic[1] religion centered on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth as presented in the New Testament.[2] Christians believe Jesus to be the Son of God and the Messiah prophesied in the Old Testament." This is actually less clear, by your terms, than the first paragraph of this article. When, where, who, how many? Are they all white? North American (sounds likely)? Do they live in physical communities together, or not? Is it some sub-category of navel-gazing academics (seems so, since they're the only people who would think this is clear)?
I'd say it probably is a primarily First World phenomenon, but it's not just North American--it's through Europe and Australia as well. Some physical communities exist; others are just being planned. It's been happening since Ishmael was published, which the article already indicates. They're not all white, and they're not all atheists. There's no one racial or religious identification you could apply that would hold. This is only confusing if you really, really try to make it so. JasonGodesky 15:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Again, someone who doesn't already know what you are talking about will still not after reading the article. The Christian article is specifically about the term "Christian," gives the history of the term, and the modern usage. It is well-linked. The reader leaves knowing something about the term, how it is used differently in different cultures, where it was first used, etc. Your article is about? a term? a group of people? It lacks context. Jd2718 15:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
So you agree that the "Christian" article adequately defines what a "Christian" is. It's a term referring to a group of people, and it tells you the defining criteria for that group (belief in Jesus). So what, specifically, would you like to see in this article? The defining criterion here is adherence to the "New Tribal Revolution" proposed in Ishmael. All other criteria vary, just like among Christians. So, given that, what would you like to see in the article that isn't already there? I don't see what you want that isn't already there. You seem to want to have a superset, like "U.S. citizens" or "sociologists," but no such superset would be accurate; they're not any such subset. They're a group defined by a common belief. So, what do you want to see that isn't already there? JasonGodesky 16:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't approve or disapprove of the Christian article, but it has context; we know what the subject is.
  1. When do they first appear?
  2. Where do they first appear?
  3. Are they called any other names?
  4. When do they first move into their own communities?
  5. How many eventually move into their own communities?
  6. How many are there?
  7. Are their numbers growing? shrinking? stable?
  8. Any wierd practices? (should probably say "unusual")
The ideology doesn't float in the aether. There is historical, social, political context. What we really need is a knowledgeable non-supporter to provide some of this. Jd2718 17:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  1. When do they first appear?
    1991 (the year Ishmael was published)
  2. Where do they first appear?
    There's no one geographical location that you could point to accurately; it appears whenever and wherever someone reads Ishmael
  3. Are they called any other names?
    Frankly, they're not even called "new tribalists." I raised this objection elsewhere; really there should be a "New Tribal Revolution" article and that's it. That's the only term that's actually used outside of Wikipedia.
  4. When do they first move into their own communities?
    When such communities are formed. There's no set pattern to this. They form the communities, and that sequence is unique to each community.
  5. How many eventually move into their own communities?
    Nobody really knows; it's a minority, though, that much seems certain.
  6. How many are there?
    Nobody really knows. Ishmael's been translated into 20 languages, and has sold quite well. Not everyone who reads it becomes a "New Tribalist," of course, but it's also a book that's often shared widely, so each sale probably ultimately represents one "New Tribalist."
  7. Are their numbers growing? shrinking? stable?
    Growing, but nobody knows how much.
  8. Any wierd practices? (should probably say "unusual")
    Not really; at least, none that are systematic. By the nature of their beliefs, they tend to be ecological, have an interest in animism, etc., but none of these are entirely universal.
But note, all of these answers are already implicit in the existing first paragraph. Most are simply irrelevant or unknown. No, it doesn't float in the aether, but the historical influences have already been delineated in Neo-Tribalism (though, I think, poorly), and in Ishmael. So, all the context you're asking for either (a) is already provided, or (b) doesn't exist because you're trying to squeeze this into some pigeon hole it simply doesn't fit. It's just people who think Quinn had a good idea--no more, no less. JasonGodesky 03:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Objectivity and Writing Issues

This article appears to have some serious objectivity issues, specifically in the criticism section. The bold font used for the "all" in "Quinn's understanding of the relationship between food supply and human population is not accepted by all biologists or demographers." seems to suggest the majority of biologists and demographers do in fact support Quinn, while the minority do not. While I believe the majority in fact would not support Quinn, either assertion demands some sort of reference. At the very least, it should not be bolded and perhaps be reworded as to be less ambiguously neutral.

The assertion that people who encounter tribalism either become a Tribalist or "reject it and forget about it" is also colloquial and vaguely dismissive.

The following statement,

Historians and anthropologists who study Nearctic and Neotropic peoples are divided. Almost all are very sympathetic to the situation of indigenous peoples, and admire their cultures to varying degrees. Many of these scholars, in the Rousseauian tradition of the "Noble Savage", prefer these societies to European societies of the same period. Some speculate this may be due to the idiosyncratic convictions of these same historians, which may have a basis in personal cultural doubts.

is in serious needs of references or should be deleted entirely

In short, there appears to be a consistent use of ambiguity and idiosyncratic writing style in this article that affects to have the article support New Tribalism, rather than simply describe it, its critics, and Tribalism's refutations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swonga (talk • contribs) 10:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Taker vs. Leaver section

I'm perfectly aware many editors watching this page may have a hair trigger when it comes to this page. Therefore, to avoid an edit war I'm posting here first. The description of Takers and Leavers is wrong and should be modified to describe the difference as those who Take control from the hands of the gods vs. those who Leave control in the hands of the gods. This will match the actual reference by Quinn in Ishmael. It is also my intention to remove the previously mentioned bias from this section. Chipstata (talk) 12:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

On Second thought perhaps this section should just be removed as this article is NOT about Ishmael or Daniel Quinn and a description of Takers and Leavers is unnecessary to an understanding of "New tribalists" Chipstata (talk) 12:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Something that says, early and clearly, what these people are, would be quite welcome. As you can see above, it is not easy to get a straight answer from a supporter. Jd2718 (talk) 01:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm removing the Taker vs. Leaver and Mother Culture sections as unnecessary to a description of "New Tribalists" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chipstata (talk • contribs) 13:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Merge with Neo-tribalism

It's been suggested that this article be merged with Neo-tribalism with a subsection about "new tribalist" from the Quinn perspective. I agree with merging the articles. Chipstata (talk) 13:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)