- Location
- Retired in Minneapolis
Over the past couple of weeks there have been two threads centered on two very different people. The way that the reactions have tracked and who commented is very interesting.
On another forum that I follow there is a discussion about how some of the Native American tribes have changed the rules about tribal membership. One of the forumites wrote an insightful comment on that topic. What he wrote does apply to any tribe, whether its social, cultural, economic of your bowling team.
Have a read, except SZ, he's in a tribe of his own and sets his own rules :
Tribes are self-defining. Who is, or who isn't, a member of the tribe or clan is up to the tribe or clan. I know the local Mashantucket Pequots view the issue with trepidation and avoid adding to, or subtracting from, their membership realizing the matter is a big can of worms. In Beowulf's day (a European) you could adopted into a clan for valiant deeds. You could also be ostracized for acts contrary to the interests or beliefs of the tribe. I am descended from members of a highland Scottish clan whose great distinction was dying well, but I carry the wrong last name, live overseas, and know the clan lacked a chief for four straight centuries. Could I apply for membership? Yes, but what would the benefit be to me or to them? There's no advantage that I can see in membership. And then you could always go off and start your own clan. Much of this easy come, easy go, at the whim of the majority, applies as easily to social clubs, religious sects, and amateur sports teams. One defining aspect of human beings is their inclination to gather into groups to heighten their prospects of survival, material gain, or entertainment. Policing social groups for "fairness" and regulating against caprice would be unending and society does have an interest in using social groups to address those groups' needs. Ultimately social groups that become too unfair do not survive because members leave, in essence they are self-policing to a point.
On another forum that I follow there is a discussion about how some of the Native American tribes have changed the rules about tribal membership. One of the forumites wrote an insightful comment on that topic. What he wrote does apply to any tribe, whether its social, cultural, economic of your bowling team.
Have a read, except SZ, he's in a tribe of his own and sets his own rules :
Tribes are self-defining. Who is, or who isn't, a member of the tribe or clan is up to the tribe or clan. I know the local Mashantucket Pequots view the issue with trepidation and avoid adding to, or subtracting from, their membership realizing the matter is a big can of worms. In Beowulf's day (a European) you could adopted into a clan for valiant deeds. You could also be ostracized for acts contrary to the interests or beliefs of the tribe. I am descended from members of a highland Scottish clan whose great distinction was dying well, but I carry the wrong last name, live overseas, and know the clan lacked a chief for four straight centuries. Could I apply for membership? Yes, but what would the benefit be to me or to them? There's no advantage that I can see in membership. And then you could always go off and start your own clan. Much of this easy come, easy go, at the whim of the majority, applies as easily to social clubs, religious sects, and amateur sports teams. One defining aspect of human beings is their inclination to gather into groups to heighten their prospects of survival, material gain, or entertainment. Policing social groups for "fairness" and regulating against caprice would be unending and society does have an interest in using social groups to address those groups' needs. Ultimately social groups that become too unfair do not survive because members leave, in essence they are self-policing to a point.
