Crossing the Rubicon

Tribalism is deeply rooted in the human psyche. For tens of thousands of years, humans evolved and survived only thanks to their participation in a tribe. Very few people can survive without the support of others, finding food, hunting, shelter and protection from attacking tribes requires group effort and coalescence. Even today, though more and more people live solitary lives with work from home and a near persistent attachment to a glowing screen, we still remain part of tribes – be they virtual or real.

In ancient times, one of the most serious punishments for crimes, aside from death or torture, was to be banished from your tribe and cast into the wilderness to near certain death. This happened regularly in traditional societies who sent a strong message that breaking tribal norms was not acceptable. Even antiquity saw people who caused nuisance banished from the city – from Athens to Rome to 19th century France, forced emigration was a common form of punishment and an important tool in maintaining the integrity of society along the lines of what the leaders sought. Despite a changed society, tribalism remains alive and well.

Certain societies claimed and attempted to rid themselves of tribalism. This was most commonly done by communist societies who sought internationalism. Communists believed that only by transcending our tribal divisions could we all be brothers and sisters and move humanity forwards. Even the national anthem of the communist cause was called l’Internationale. Through this dogmatic approach to anti-tribalism a new form of tribalism was created, one centered around the communist party and its leadership apparatus. Oh, the irony!

Liberal societies have also attempted to eliminate or reduce tribalism. Today, it is all too common hear people say they do not see the color of people’s skin, that they are not racist or that they believe in equality for all. More aggressive efforts around this belief that we can break down artificial barriers has taken the institutional form of Diversity, Equality and Inclusion (DEI) programs that seek to create opportunity for those who were historically excluded from wealth and power. This modern form of affirmative action was aimed at creating a more balanced representation in power structures. These efforts have received widespread backlash and the recent election in 2024 of Donald Trump and other right wing people around the world. A large part of the population has clearly repudiated the breaking up of their tribe. The most liberal and individualistic of all societies, the United States of America has taken the lead in many ways. My only reasonable conclusion is quite simple: People want tribes.

One of the guiding lights in this DEI effort was the writer Ibrahim X. Mendi who wrote a book titled How to be an Anti-Racist. Without delving into this interesting book, suffice to say that the philosophical framework that he proposes has a number of problems. He attempts to identify all the layers of racism and bias within society and quickly discovers that there are a lot of intersecting layers of shit. Black people in white society are obviously discriminated against, but black men discriminate against black women, black women discriminate against lesbian black women who discriminate against black men. The circular nature of all societies inevitably leads to circular discrimination and when taken to the individual level, we get lost in a sea of bias and tribes. In many ways, people want to feel superior to others and they will find a way to feel that if at all possible. Whether they acknowledge that they are supercilious is an entirely different story. It is impossible to clearly navigate yourself out of such a swamp of bias.

Ultimately, the only way a rational human seeking a “normal” life can operate is to adhere to a tribe that is broadly theirs and then hang on for dear life. This is how we have survived so far and it seems unlikely to change. How many people change their tribe, their religion, their fundamental believes or their social environment when compared with their parents?

This brings me to my main issue, which is the clear and remarkable cohesion of the communities in the face of overwhelming evidence of the most horrific of all human endeavors: genocide. A rational person might make the ridiculous mistake of thinking that a tribe who was subject to genocide only 80 years ago would have an elevated sense of humanity. This tribe would understand the horrors of another tribe trying to wipe them off the face of the planet. This tribe would understand not only what can lead to genocide, but also how other groups would react and how a genocide could be stopped – or not. If you were to make such a mistake, like me, you are excused. What seems to be the case is that being subject to genocide in fact creates the exact opposite effect. The collective intergenerational trauma from one genocide has enabled a next generation to inflict a genocide on others. Looking at history now, this seems stupidly obvious.

Groups of people who are subject to horrible violence have a shared and common response: coalesce. When your group is being attacked the natural human reaction is not to reflect, discuss, or think about the causes of this violence. The reaction is simple and clear, protect the group and reinforce the leadership so that they can do their best to protect the tribe. The examples of such a reaction are too numerous to count. When the British firebombed cities in Germany, they hoped to cause an uprising against Hitler and the Nazis. It had the exact opposite effect – people dug deeper into the Nazi cause. The same failed tactic was employed in Japan. When countries apply sanctions to countries like Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Iran, North Korea or Russia with the hope of starving the leadership and driving an uprising, the exact opposite happens – people rally around the leadership who claim to protect the interests of the nation. This patten has been repeated over and over again and yet we learn nothing. More than anything else, humans are social animals and we will literally kill other people’s children rather than give up our position within our own tribe.

In the current genocide in Gaza I have been astonished by the Jewish community outside of Israel. It would be one thing for Israelis to whole heartedly support the massacre – which they broadly do (thought it is starting to slow), but the support by the North American Jewish Community for the massacre in Gaza has been rock solid. While there are groups such as Jewish Voices for Peace (JVP) or Independent Jewish Voices (IJV) who advocate against the massacre of children (crazy!), all of the mainstream Jewish groups continue in December 2024 to push against any restriction whatsoever on ripping children to pieces. The Center for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA) just recently lambasted the Amnesty International conclusion that Israel is committing a genocide and insisted the Canadian government continue its policy of sending military equipment to the Israel Defense Forces (IDF).

Within the religious organizations, almost no synagogue or temples have taken any meaningful action against the genocide or against the mainstream Jewish organizations. Even a highly progressive (on most issues) organization such the Mile-End Chavurah, where I live, refuses to take a position on killing tens or thousands of children or creating the largest group of amputees in history. Tribalism is a very deeply rooted part of society and it seems almost nothing can break its cohesion.

Organizations are difficult things to change. Because organizations are themselves a tribe with a leadership and a member body, they tend to have the same conservative and protective impulses as the broader tribe as the organization itself wants to protect the cohesion of the organization. Whether an organization is religious, secular, political or military in nature, they all seek stability before anything else. If we cannot set high expectations for organizations to take a stand on a moral issue, we could perhaps hope that liberal intellectuals who claim to seek enlightenment would shudder and then act when faced with overwhelming evidence of a genocide being conducted in their name. Self proclaimed luminaries who claim to fight tribalism, such as “anti-religion” television pundit Bill Maher, Harvard Professor Steven Pinker or Physicist David Deutsch have all spent decades claiming that tribalism and violence should be fought against. Yet, they all, still, remain firmly behind Israel as the massacres continue. These big men are in fact, quite small. Personally, I prefer to cross the proverbial Rubicon and distance myself from any tribe who finds it acceptable to kill children, even if that means losing some of my friends and family members as people of my tribe.

It seems very little can be done to prevent tribes from killing each other over and over again with no end in sight. Whether it was the Protestant-Catholic wars in Europe, the Tutsi-Hutu massacres in Rwanda, the communist-capitalist cold war battles or some other tribal conflict, humans have scarcely evolved. I wish I could offer some form of optimism amidst the surging increase in tribal conflicts in Sudan, Myanmar, Ethiopia, Syria, Ukraine, Palestine and elsewhere, but it is difficult to see much hope. The only solace I have found is in reading history and the stories of how despite all our past conflict, there was a slow and steady progress of humanism, with the torch of humanity often carried by a very small minority of people and luminaries from one generation to another. Let us hope that we avoid the worst in the years to come and somehow find a way to reduce tribal tensions and find our common humanity again.