CarmineCatboy2 [he/him]

  • 1 Post
  • 578 Comments
Joined 8 months ago
cake
Cake day: February 8th, 2024

help-circle
  • Now, an anthropologist is likely to dedicate some paragraphs of his work to just talk about the history of the terms and how they are applied and then choose, either arbitrarily or in accordance to what their teachers do, what meaning they want to ascribe to it. Which means it, funnily enough, kinda depends on where you’re from.

    Some traditions/places will claim that both clans (families) and tribes are tied to a common ancestry (which is either real or invented). The difference there being a matter of clans being sub divisions of tribes.

    Other places will claim tribes as a cultural subgroup, somewhat similar to the older european notions of ‘nation’, while clan is what’s driven by common ancestry.

    If this sound arbitrary it is because it is. These words - tribe, clan, ethnicity, nation, etc - are arbitrarily translated between languages and cultures. Tribal belonging for the native tribes in the United States is a concept of their own, which exists for their own needs. Tribal belonging for an arab levantine in a modern nation state is, likewise, different from tribal belonging in the valleys of Afghanistan. Notions of cultural ties, commonalities and ancestry are essentially in a spectrum and they affect which word is used. And then there’s what we used to have in industrial and post industrial societies, ‘cultural tribes’ forming around aesthetics and fandoms.








  • The question is how you see this move.

    One very politically useful spin would be to say that Bernard is a fundamentally humane congressperson who simply could not fight the entirety of the US estabilishment and AIPAC. After all he’s only one guy.

    Or you might say that Sanders is simply the latest liberal who gets the spotlight of powerlessness. American politics the way it is disciplines the center left, liberal and left voters with a series of rotations. A rotating villain to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory (Sinema, Manchin), a rotating hero to protest and take exception at the atrocities of Empire - but who is ultimately unable to change any policy because policies are not up for election.

    Now I don’t believe the latter. At least not entirely. But I can see why someone might. Bernie was as bloodthirsty and pro Israel as anyone in Congress was expected to be. And the reason why I think that was the case was simply because he’s a politician and there’s literally no room for maneuver in the US political sphere when it comes to Israel.

    So there’s no baby to throw out with the bathwater. It’s business as usual. The best case scenario here would be that some very timid factions in the US State are using a jewish congressman to signal that Israel is going too far. That’s the best you can expect from US foreign policy.