June 16, 2006
My Tribe
I've been thinking about tribes, and how we all belong to them, and how sometimes the most important part of membership is that others not be members. Our neighborhood is like that, governed by a clique of sour old women and sprinkled with people who have country club written all over their well-tanned faces, and there sits our family feeling small and out of place. We've decided we don't like our neighborhood one bit, not its self-important association meetings nor its overindulged teenagers nor the instinct of its residents to be so, well, unneighborly.
Which is strange, because I've only recently decided to keep a ridiculous-looking flagpole in our front yard because a friend pointed out that I can fly a "Don't Tread On Me" flag. That's how tribal thinking works: I don't want to be in their mean-spirited little tribe, yet I resent not being welcomed.
I've resigned from some tribes in the past couple of years. First I left the Republicans, which, let's face it, was never going to work out anyway. I had only been a member of their tribe because the alternatives were so laughable, but I realized one evening, as I sat through an excruciatingly insipid speech by a senior member of the Bush Administration, that sometimes being in a tribe carries a moral connotation, in the sense that we lend our sanction to those with whom which we choose to associate. If this was the best my tribe had to offer, I decided, then I shall be finished with them.
Actually, it was more visceral than that -- I simply couldn't stomach the thought of anyone believing that I throw myself in with the likes of that woman whose mouth seemed to spew banalities and half-truths so effortlessly. The falling out had begun years before, and perhaps it's unfair to lay it entirely at her feet; I'd interacted with enough Republicans in Washington, D.C. to realize that they have no advantage over their opponents in character, principle, honor, or even economic common sense.
And now they race headlong into fall elections looking every bit as venal and arrogant as did the Democrats in the early 1990's, and all I can think is what I thought in 1994: good riddance.
Then there is the N.R.A., which I had joined in an ill-considered moment of enthusiasm following a handgun course at their national headquarters, an action I've never quite understood, because the course itself was largely useless and the majority of instructors profoundly taken with their own skill and cleverness. But I joined nonetheless, and thereby became entitled to a bumper sticker, a magazine, and approximately one million shrill mail solicitations.
They called me a couple of months ago, to ask how I would feel if the U.N. took away my guns. This is like asking someone in Michigan if he's worried about the Canadians invading.
I understand why they do this: the fundraising statistics suggest that, as a member, I am likely to get so riled by the thought of blue-helmeted, dark-skinned people parachuting, Red Dawn-like, onto the plains to seize my Smith & Wesson that I will write a check to help cover Wayne LaPierre's considerable salary. Sadly for the young lady on the other end of the line, however, statistics are not always reliable predictors of individual behavior, which in my case entailed laughing and saying, "No really, who is this? Aunt Debbie, is that you?"
Once we established that the poor child was in fact calling on behalf of the National Rifle Association, I explained to her that I've never been troubled by the whole black helicopters coming to take over America thing. She was prepared with a sophisticated rebuttal, but unfortunately we were cut off when I put the phone back in its cradle.
I'm still in the tribe of people who believe a well-armed populace is the only ultimately effective form of congressional term limit. But I am no longer in the N.R.A. tribe. I mean, really. The U.N.? Has anyone, anywhere, ever been disarmed by these people? The U.N. couldn't break up a slap fight at a Josh Groban concert, and yet the leaders of my former tribe decide to sic their summer interns on the rest of us with that canard. Again, to be a member of the tribe is to lend its leaders sanction, and up with this crap a thinking man cannot put.
There are other tribes I've drifted from, mostly cliques, tribes within tribes, circles of friends or acquaintances that I've let myself float away from, which is as easy as letting go. Some of these I regret, others not.
I wonder if something in me is broken, if there is a gene that predisposes us to tribal affiliations but which is bent over backward in my blood, so that I recoil from groups. I suppose there is no point in wondering. In the end there are only the two tribes that matter to me: the scattered tribe of simpatico people, those friends you can travel with in silence and know that it is okay, the ones who understand what funny is and is not, the ones you know in the first moments of meeting, but who are so rare and so rarely in the same place; and most important, my tribe of five, huddled together on our little patch of splendor in the Kansas plains. When I think about my family sprawled about me in our big bed on a Saturday morning, wallowing and giggling and thinking about pancakes for breakfast, I can't understand why anyone would give a fig for the rest of it.
Which is more proof, as if any of us needed it, that I'm not cut out to be a member in the other tribes. And that's okay by me.
Posted by Woodlief on June 16, 2006 at 08:52 AM
Love it. Feel sorry for the sour women, but think about moving to a house where 'Love Thy Neighbor' can be a bit easier to do. This will give you the foundation to eventually find the Walter Wink-redeemable in those old broads.
Posted by: Shawn at June 16, 2006 9:37 AM
Tony, As you so eloquently stated it, “there are many sub-levels of tribes”. In addition to the ones that you mentioned or eluded to, there are some even more dangerous. These are the “Christian” tribes. Many of these started innocently enough – They saw a need that others were not meeting (gifts, missions, teaching, etc..). However, as the tribe grew more powerful, it also became more exclusive. Eventually this exclusivity became their most important focus (i.e. Why can’t everyone be like us). Eventually they write off everyone else to the point of absurdity. “If you are not with us, you are against us” “You will go to hell”, etc… This is the point that I now find myself regarding religion and I find myself drawing the similar conclusions that you mentioned. I also have my five ready for pancakes and the few friends that have not been sucked in due to fear.
Posted by: Jim R at June 16, 2006 12:10 PM
Boy do I know what you mean. I avoid tribes like the plague.
Posted by: Susan M at June 16, 2006 1:27 PM
It's great to have you writing again, man.
Posted by: Evan Erwin at June 16, 2006 1:48 PM
This post was just what a needed to hear! Isn't it strange when you look around at the tribe your in and think "how did I get here?" Was I just blindly walking along and herded in this direction? I could not have possibly chosen this, could I? Did I change, or did they? Great post. Read it twice. Thank you.
Posted by: Danielle at June 16, 2006 10:06 PM
"I mean, really. The U.N.? Has anyone, anywhere, ever been disarmed by these people?"
That doesn't stop them from trying, Tony.
Read Dave Kopel's recent paper (a bit overblown, but I don't think it's that far out there), "Human Rights Atrocities: The Consequences of United Nations Gun Confiscation in East Africa."
http://www.davekopel.org/2a/foreign/kenya-uganda.pdf
See also Rebecca Peters' (head of IANSA) comments regarding the UN Small Arms Review Conference held this week in New York:
"I think American citizens should not be exempt from the rules that apply to the rest of the world. At the moment there are no rules applying to the rest of the world. That's what we're working for. American citizens should have guns that are suitable for the legitimate purposes that they can prove. I think that eventually Americans will realize that their obsession with arming themselves in fear, in a paranoid belief that they're going to be able to stave off the ills of the world through owning guns, through turning every house into an arsenal, eventually Americans will go away from that. I think Americans who hunt—and who prove that they can hunt—should have single-shot rifles suitable for hunting whatever they’re hunting. I mean American citizens should be like any other citizens of the world."
Ms. Peters would like to disarm the whole world - except for, of course, the people in charge. Who do you think was agitating so heavily for the recent vote over the banning of gun ownership in Brazil?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4628813.stm
I don't mind that you've dropped your membership in the NRA (I'm sick and tired of the "give us money!" mailers myself) - but remember that just because some people are paranoid, it doesn't mean that others aren't out to get them, and aren't acting with true-believer tirelessness to achieve their goals.
Somebody has to stand in their way.
Posted by: Kevin Baker at July 6, 2006 9:13 PM
Good post.
The danger of the UN isn't that somebody at the UN (or anybody in blue helmets) will ever come and forcibly disarm Americans.
The danger is that somebody will be elected who LIKES the UN, who wants to be "in" with them (think middle-school girls - I apologize to immature middl-school girls everywhere for comparing them to politicians, but it's the least bad analogy I can find).
It won't be UN blue helmets... it will be your local police force, of possibly federal agents. The "assault weapons" ban, for instance... only worse.
All that said, I'm not a member of the NRA, either, but I certainly don't fault those who are, even (or perhaps especially) for the UN reason.
Posted by: Deoxy at July 17, 2006 9:53 AM