Baltimorei

[Alan]

Now ... I think about the black community, generally speaking. In so many places, this community is still in recovery from the violent rending of families during and directly after the period of slavery. The original slaves were tribal, their entire societal wisdom stretching back, perhaps, to the beginning of people, was based on that sense of innate belonging to a group. Suddenly over a generation or two, no group, no family, no sense of roots other than guessing what it might have been like. Male role models, fathers, elders are in short supply, still. Mothers in the poor communities tend to be young, inexperienced and often alone. I think this makes black children terribly vulnerable to the sense that they have to earn a place in a group; it's a birthright they do not receive. Add to this the ubiquitous western pressure to be part of a group of Owners of Something, and then add in the poverty that makes that ownership nearly impossible.

And I think, if you don't wind up with gangs, you wind up with people who are desperately empty. They don't have a sense of clan, and they can't buy a sense of commercial acceptability. This emptiness is where they begin, the "foundation" on which they attempt to create a sense of worth and belonging.

I think you're absolutely correct in identifying the effect but your cause seems incomplete. From about 1900 to around 1950 the black community had a higher percentage of complete families and higher employment rates than whites. The destruction of the family (or tribe if you will) in the post slavery era began with government mandated efforts to improve their plight, beginning with stricter minimum wage laws and the implementation of social programs ostensibly designed to level playing fields while actually doing just the opposite.

A reading of the collected works of economist Walter E. Williams would give everyone a better understanding of the cause, and the cure, for many of the social problems of the poor and dis-advantaged. Unfortunately, Dr. Williams is a black Libertarian, so most people have never heard of him, which is a pity.

[Gregg]

I think it is human nature to desire simple explanations and solutions to very complex problems. I'm no different. Sheriff Joe is a bully? Get out the vote and kick him out. African Americans are disadvantaged? Bring back a little affirmative action. Etc. Albert Einstein is credited with saying something along the lines of, "we can't solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them". You don't have to be Einstein to realize that's true. It's also said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. If that's true our collective conscious is insane.

I couldn't agree more with kib's notion of belonging to a tribe/clan/group of some kind. DD2, my youngest, is almost 20. She and several of her compatriots have formed a very tight knit group. I don't think they ever stopped to analyze the whats or whys of their actions; it seems to come instinctively. They stay connected through social media and have developed a welcoming and accepting base in locations all over the country. The world, really. I'm hopeful that they are providing a glimpse of the future. Granted they are all young and idealistic, but at one time so was I. I just hope they can do a better job of maintaining that than I did.

[kib]

Thanks Catherine. Guess that was more like, "my two dollars".

LDAHL ... Human beings need a sense of belonging from the moment they're born. When you're born to people who aren't part of a cohesive group, then you're not either, and I think a web of people that's truly functional can take hundreds of years of continuity to create. Maybe longer. I sometimes wonder if the rending of African tribes by slavery and western colonization isn't the primary factor for the state of many African nations today. Rwanda? Sudan? Those aren't families, or tribes. They're political regions and they're as torn-apart, tribally speaking, as any American slum.

To clarify, I'm not saying this sense of acceptance and protection and place-for-life when you're 20 ,50, 90 is a given if you're white, either. I'm not saying it has to be traditional mommy-daddy families. And I'm not saying it's enough. We also need affiliations based on personal interests and our definition of self. I don't think the world was a better place when we were straitjacketed into conforming without choice. But that initial hive acceptance is huge.

Alan, that's interesting. Could you give some examples of Williams' ideas of the cause of the deterioration? Was it Vietnam sucking away an entire demographic, the young black man? Was it that the upheaval of the 60's pushed those successful black communities beyond their ability to participate? Have more, do more, be equal ... it sounds so freeing and so good and so right ... but what good is it in the face of a larger rejection, a rejection of the black "family" in a sea of white ones? Encouraging, even pressuring people to be something they weren't really allowed to be, in a societal sense ... I can see that pressure and the rage that would come with it being incredibly destructive to formerly successful groups. Affirmative action should have been a bridge, not a permanent solution, but it really didn't work, did it.

Gregg, great! Hopefully your daughter's group will grow to include people of all ages, as they age. The continuity and the sense of place for life ... I think that's essential. Role models, also essential.

[LDAHL]

I think perhaps the best part of this country's history has been the process of breaking out of the tribal mindset as various waves of immigrants arrived and learned to think of themselves as Americans rather than Puritans, Irishmen, Southerners or anything else. I think you can feed the sense of belonging and mutual support through family or any number of voluntary associations, rather than some sort of identity you're born with and can't escape. We are a nation of mongrels, and should take pride in that.

While we haven't reached the Hutu and Tutsi stage yet, we're already seeing the destructive nature of identity politics here as we sort ourselves into increasingly granular categories and push various grievances.

[Gregg]

Was the tribal existence static? It seems there are plenty of examples of tribes intermarrying, merging to share resources and skills or fight common enemies, factions splitting off to form new tribes, etc. Is America really so different from that? While its true there are probably more backgrounds represented here than anywhere else in history I don't think the melting pot is a new invention.

DD2's tribe is interesting. Their common threads are ecological (primarily organic farming), technological (social media as the primary means to communicate and disseminate information) and anti-consumerism (they don't want to 'own' much). Music is also a significant part of their lifestyle. They don't seem to be overly conscious of age, race, religion or all the other markers my generation uses. They do try to find people with skills they want to learn or talents that benefit the group. For example, I've been an organic gardener for years so routinely get a few questions a day on Twitter from someone in her group. And like anyone else they seek out individuals with a common sense of purpose.

They've developed road maps for their web of contacts as they move around. We've hosted a few of this group at our house. DD actually knew some of them and others were part of the group, but had not met her live and in person. It reminds me a lot of the 60s, but there are differences as well. For one thing they use social media to keep tabs on each other. At any given time they know where their friends are and constantly pass contact info around. That's how we end up being hosts. Like the hippies of old they recognize injustices, but instead of protesting they are simply choosing not to participate in them. Its pretty innocent and idealistic, but still an interesting idea of how to live. I'll be curious to see how it plays out.

[kib]

I think perhaps the best part of this country's history has been the process of breaking out of the tribal mindset as various waves of immigrants arrived and learned to think of themselves as Americans rather than Puritans, Irishmen, Southerners or anything else. I think you can feed the sense of belonging and mutual support through family or any number of voluntary associations, rather than some sort of identity you're born with and can't escape. We are a nation of mongrels, and should take pride in that.

While we haven't reached the Hutu and Tutsi stage yet, we're already seeing the destructive nature of identity politics here as we sort ourselves into increasingly granular categories and push various grievances.

To some extent I definitely agree with you. As I said, I don't think an "identity straitjacket" is a good thing at all. But I believe that a sense of group acceptance - a small group, maybe 30-100 people at most, a group of familiar faces - is essential to the formation of character of a fresh, defenseless little human. You have to know the faces. Once a group is so big that it's no longer about individual people but about some larger identity, it's not necessarily a good thing ... at any rate, it's not the thing that makes a baby a secure and sane individual. I also think that knowing there is a trodden path ahead of you - an identity, if you will - is stabilizing, even if you should choose a different path entirely.

In my perfect world, there would be tribal understanding that in our evolving world, a baby might grow up to be anyone. Might be a gymnast, might be a lawyer, might be a stay at home Dad, might be gay, might be just another ordinary schmoe. I would vote for acceptance of their chosen identity, their individuality, as well as acceptance and welcoming of their unformed new presence.

[ApatheticNoMore]

What kind of tribe are white people born into? A two parent family? Well ok (although that's not always true for whites, and the rate of divorce is high enough that it might not stay true). But if there are stats saying most white people are born into two parent families ok. Or is that just most middle class or wealthy whites? Are most blacks not? Only poor inner city blacks?

Is the tribe supposed to be an extended family? I don't think most whites have extended families nearby. People don't generally live near extended family in this country and often the poor do live near them much more than the middle class I think.

Is being a member of a tribe just mean noone will look down on you at the supermarket or tease you at school because of your race (only likely the case if the school is mostly not your race) or wonder about hiring you for a job because of your race? Or that more people on television look like you? Ok maybe whites might have this more than minorities. It's difficult to call this a sense of belonging, it's more like an absence than a presence, not being ostracized.

It seems to me if one was looking for people who actually are part of larger community, maybe immigrants, Mexicans, maybe Asians etc.. But whites? That's so weird to even think so. Unless we just mean that many are part of two parent families or that those who run society are more often whites (but it doesn't mean any given white knows any such powerful people).

[LDAHL]

To some extent I definitely agree with you. As I said, I don't think an "identity straitjacket" is a good thing at all. But I believe that a sense of group acceptance - a small group, maybe 30-100 people at most, a group of familiar faces - is essential to the formation of character of a fresh, defenseless little human. You have to know the faces. Once a group is so big that it's no longer about individual people but about some larger identity, it's not necessarily a good thing ... at any rate, it's not the thing that makes a baby a secure and sane individual. I also think that knowing there is a trodden path ahead of you - an identity, if you will - is stabilizing, even if you should choose a different path entirely.

We used to have more of that, but it came at the expense of stigmatizing divorce and illegitimate births. It was also partly enforced by the lack of any material support outside the extended family. When your children were your retirement plan, you had an incentive to protect your investment.

I certainly agree with you that children do better in intact, extended families with a self-imposed sense of duty to the members. But as the traditional values that helped keep family groupings together fade, I don't know how you can legally or culturally impose the sense of obligation necessary. How many experiments in communal living survive the first generation?

[ApatheticNoMore]

I don't think you tend to have extended families where people move for jobs or for other economic opportunities (sometimes it's a matter of necessity - no more jobs in the hometown, sometimes just because the economic grass is greener). Some choose not to (and some cultures, even some poor white culture, might less than white american middle class culture), but the lure is there.

[catherine]

Here is Daniel Quinn's (Ishmael) definition of what he calls "New Tribalism":

New tribalists believe that the tribal model, though not absolutely "perfect," has obviously stood the test of time as the most successful social organization for humans, in alignment with natural selection (just as well as the hive model for bees, the pod model for whales, and the pack model for wolves). According to new tribalists, the tribe fulfills both an emotionally and organizationally stabilizing role in human life, and the dissolution of tribalism with the spread of globalized civilization has come to threaten the very survival of the human species. New tribalists do not necessarily seek to mimic indigenous peoples, but merely to admit the success of indigenous living, and to use some of the basic underlying tenets of that lifestyle for organizing modern tribes, with fundamental principles gleaned from ethnology and anthropological fieldwork.