On Tribalism, Regionalism and Nationalism - Languages - http://maxpages.com/defender/regionalism

In a message dated 9/22/2004 4:24:18 AM Pacific Standard Time, k_corazo@yahoo.com writes:

Just read something from Nobel Prize winner Henri Bergson:

Our civilized societies, different though they are from the kind
of society for which we were originally intended, none the less
resemble it in one essential respect. Both alike are closed
societies. Vast though the civilizations may be in comparison with
the petty groups for which we are adapted instinctively, they yet
have the same characteristics of including some people and excluding
others. Between the nation, however great it may be, and Humanity
there is all the difference between the finite and the infinite, the
closed and the open.
> Between the closed society and the open, the city and
Humanity, there is a difference not just of degree, but of kind. The
solidarity of a state is due primarily to its need to defend itself
against other states; one loves one¡¯s fellow countrymen because one
hates foreigners. That is primitive instinct, and it is still there
beneath a superficial covering of civilization. We still feel a
natural love for our relations and our neighbours, whereas love of
Humanity is a cultivated taste. We reach the former direct, the
latter only at second hand, for it is through God alone that
Religion leads Man to love the Human Race; as also through Reason
that philosophers teach us the dignity of the human personality, and
the right of all men to be respected. Neither in the one case nor in
the other do we reach the conception of Humanity by stages, by way
of the family and the nation¡¯ (Bergson, H.: Les Deux Sources de la
Morale et de la Religion)

Well, that's how it is with religion. But we're not talking about religion here.
We're not talking about humanity in general. We're talking about ethno-linguistic
groups that happened to be different from one another.

>Could we say that Tribalism, Regionalism and Nationalism are really
just different degrees of the same thing?

Yes, I think, we can. In the future there may even be "Planetalism". It all depends
upon the scope or size of the baseball field. One thing for sure is that people tend to be more solid in their loyalty when as a small group. And everything starts with one's self. "Loving oneself" - it is the greatest love of all according to a Whitney Houston song. This is perhaps because one knows himself more than anyone else, and he knows his neighborhood more than any other vicinity on earth, etc. The wider the field is, and the bigger the group one belongs to, the less sense of loyalty there is. There may be more pride in being in a large organization, but each member still keeps in his heart (with more fervor) the smaller group to which he belongs and whom he represents. So, loving the country, usually comes only after loving first your own little town and its indigenous "tribe" of which you are a part. You may be living in a far away land, but your heart still beats for the land of your birth.

>Could we say that
Regionalism is just Tribalism with a wider scope and Nationalism is
nothing but a more extensive version of Regionalism?

Well, we have to begin with one's self. Loving onself - that is the greatest love of all
according to that Whitney Houston song.
Between you and others in the family you tend to care for yourself more, that is.
Between your own family and the rest of your purok, you tend to care for your family more. (Blood runs thicker than water.) (Many are even "consentidor".)
Between your purok and other puroks in the barrio, you're prouder of your own purok.
And why not? Between your barrio and the other barrios of your hometown, you're prouder of your barrio. But of course. Between your hometown and the other towns of your province, you're prouder of your own town. And so on.

Sign Guestbook

View Guestbook

Visitors: 00167

Page Updated Sat Oct 9, 2004 12:06am EDT