Talk:New Tribal Revolution

message: Maybe should make some mention of the idea of the "noble savage" which the new tribalists revived?
However, there's a sociological basis for these tribal models if you look at Daniel Quinn's work.  I believe at one point the book "Ishmael" won some major contest or award for alternative social evolution models (alternatives to "eat the rich" that is).  I can't find the reference - I'll look for it.
----
This article does not read well because it does not explain what "leavers" and "takers" are; it does not provide any context for these terms (e.g., who uses the terms and why, who does not use the terms and why).
By the way, although a clever and thoughtful writer, Quinn ignores most anthropology, sociology, geography, and human ecology of the past twenty-five years; it is not by any means authoritative or accurate  SR
-----
No one said Quinn was authoritative or accurate - this is just a description of what "new tribalists" are.  As to "leavers" they are defined more or less as Quinn's followers, while "takers" are defined as those from "Mother culture" - Quinn's name for the nation-state society of capitalism and representative democracy and etc.  I think this is quite clear in the entry.
It's a bit terse, though, and if you think it needs more space, give it more.
I think the terms "leaver" and "taker" are confined more or less to Quinn's followers - and that trying to ascribe them more broadly than that may not be accurate.  But if you can find for example instances of Greens or Quakers or Sufis or indigenous peoples using them to self-describe, by all means, quote 'em.
I'd say that if you find more than a couple of these, make a new entry for "leavers" and describe their own idea of what "takers" are there... as I doubt anyone voluntarily describes themself as a "taker"
----
I've edited this heavily.  Much of the information in it was not entirely accurate, and I have expanded each of the criticisms from a single phrase to a full sub-section exploring the nature of the criticism, and new tribalists' response to that criticism.  I also worked on some information about the "Noble Savage"  The usage of the terms "Taker," "Leaver" and "Mother Culture" were entirely wrong.  These terms are, indeed, entirely confined to Quinn's "followers" (for lack of a better word), but then, so is the term "New tribalist," though I've never heard this usage outside of this article.  Quinn's "followers" use the term, "New Tribal Revolution," or more commonly, the abbreviation, "NTR."  In fact, most of Quinn's "followers" do refer to themselves as "Takers," not out of pride, but to acknowledge the stumbling blocks of their acculturation.
Ishmael won the Turner Tomorrow Fellowship in 1998, recieving the single largest cash prize ever awarded to a work of fiction.  That's probably the award you're thinking of.
I also need to disagree with "SR" on Ishmael's accuracy; I've studied anthropology, sociology, geography and human ecology intensely for several years specifically to put these claims to the test, and while I've found several details that were off, the central tenets still seem to be sound.  At worst, we can only say that Quinn's accuracy is ... contested.
Jason Godesky
----
I agree with Jason, I too have studied anthropology, sociology, geography and human ecology -mostly in regards to the ideas directly discussed in Quinns works- and have found his works to be, as Jason said, sound. I have not edited this page, but I feel strongly that someone needs to re-work this sentence "Quinn's willingness to accept wide-spread starvation..." Quinn has made it perfectly clear that he does not have a solution to the food race, and while people love to put words and ideas into his mouth, here is a link to a response he himself has to this accusation here:
http://www.ishmael.com/Interaction/QandA/Detail.CFM?Record=23
and here:
http://www.ishmael.com/Interaction/QandA/Detail.CFM?Record=449
Because this is such a common misconception among people who read ishmael, as a joke my friends and I once begged Quinn to write, "Let Them Starve" in a copy of The Story of B. Quinn refused to do this even as a joke. That's how serious he is about this issue.
Urban Scout
______________________________________________________________________________________________
People argue? Seems to be some philosophical indecision about this material.... I have read about 4 of Quinn's books. Ishmael, Story of B, The Holy, and My Ishmael. I have been a philosophy buff for quite some time because the ideology of Philosophy is quite like putting a puzzle together except exactly the opposite, in our society the spoils go to those that can find the loop holes in someone else's reason. Here is my point: Quinn is not attempting a philosophic work in any regard. I thought he was which is why I began reading the books in the first place. He's simply expressing his thoughts, which are very well formed, and leaving it up to others to interrpret as they choose. As Ishmael says there is no right way for any group of people to live. It's the simple idea that those who live in a way that benefits nature benefits them, and to do such things will also benefit the survival of a community (give support get support). It is pretty obvious to most of us something went wrong in our world some time ago and I think it's brave of Quinn to point it out in a way that could be a starting point for some.
Throwing around buzz words and trying to crticize the thoughts as being without philosophical integrity is part of the blah blah blah or bullshit that Quinn is attemting to avoid. Simply put lets stop destroying things and start nurturing other things and chances are we will be happier and healthier for it... end of story. No need to over intellectulize the whole thing.
Thanks for reading this.
Steph  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.15.87.226 (talk) 21:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  This reads really well now. 

message: Who are these people?  Are they academic theorists?  Are they off living on communes?  Where do they come from? What country(s) or state(s) are they in?  Is this a branch of sociology? It is quite disconcerting to read an article and not know what its subject is.  Jd2718 02:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree this page suffers from fuzziness. Try neo-Tribalism for what I think is a clearer (and better referenced) article on a similar subject. Mjk2357 19:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with the lead 

message: This article appears to have some serious objectivity issues, specifically in the criticism section. The bold font used for the "all" in "Quinn's understanding of the relationship between food supply and human population is not accepted by all biologists or demographers." seems to suggest the majority of biologists and demographers do in fact support Quinn, while the minority do not. While I believe the majority in fact would not support Quinn, either assertion demands some sort of reference. At the very least, it should not be bolded and perhaps be reworded as to be less ambiguously neutral.
The assertion that people who encounter tribalism either become a Tribalist or "reject it and forget about it" is also colloquial and vaguely dismissive. 
The following statement, 
Historians and anthropologists who study Nearctic and Neotropic peoples are divided. Almost all are very sympathetic to the situation of indigenous peoples, and admire their cultures to varying degrees. Many of these scholars, in the Rousseauian tradition of the "Noble Savage", prefer these societies to European societies of the same period. Some speculate this may be due to the idiosyncratic convictions of these same historians, which may have a basis in personal cultural doubts.
 
is in serious needs of references or should be deleted entirely
In short, there appears to be a consistent use of ambiguity and idiosyncratic writing style in this article that affects to have the article support New Tribalism, rather than simply describe it, its critics, and Tribalism's refutations.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swonga (talk • contribs) 10:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Objectivity and Writing Issues 

message: I'm perfectly aware many editors watching this page may have a hair trigger when it comes to this page.  Therefore, to avoid an edit war I'm posting here first.  The description of Takers and Leavers is wrong and should be modified to describe the difference as those who Take control from the hands of the gods vs. those who Leave control in the hands of the gods.  This will match the actual reference by Quinn in Ishmael.  It is also my intention to remove the previously mentioned bias from this section. Chipstata (talk) 12:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: On Second thought perhaps this section should just be removed as this article is NOT about Ishmael or Daniel Quinn and a description of Takers and Leavers is unnecessary to an understanding of "New tribalists" Chipstata (talk) 12:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Something that says, early and clearly, what these people are, would be quite welcome. As you can see above, it is not easy to get a straight answer from a supporter. Jd2718 (talk) 01:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm removing the Taker vs. Leaver and Mother Culture sections as unnecessary to a description of "New Tribalists"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chipstata (talk • contribs) 13:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taker vs. Leaver section 

message: It's been suggested that this article be merged with Neo-tribalism with a subsection about "new tribalist" from the Quinn perspective.  I agree with merging  the articles. Chipstata (talk) 13:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge with Neo-tribalism

message: why is Criticism the first section... this seems quite not-NPOV 86.127.186.205 (talk) 19:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  debate no, criticism yes Weaponbb7 (talk) 16:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can find no reference to support any of this information.  Until someone can show reference this section does not belong here.  This material would be better used as reference in explaining "weasel words" Chipstata (talk) 13:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  the whole thing is unreferenced, dont delete legit critiicsm becuase it is unreferenced, especially when the whole thing is unreferenced. Weaponbb7 (talk) 14:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you are truly NPOV then i advise adding in a fall summary of the therory proposed by quinn. The statements by several editors seem to indicate some sort of cult following as well as some webistes out there. Weaponbb7 (talk) 03:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

text: If you can find even one reference in writing, other then this article, which applies these criticisms to people who identify as New Tribalist, then it belongs here.  Until then, it does not apply, and YOU have to PROVE that it does or it is simply your Point Of View.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chipstata (talk • contribs) 13:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: :New tribalists → New Tribal Revolution — This page seems much more about the thery of a New Tribal Revolution than the adherents. Weaponbb7 (talk) 02:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Move To New Tribal Revolution