> Westerners fail to understand tribalism, or any clannish attitudes.
We do, but that doesn’t mean we don’t have the same behaviours. Watching various western elections over the last few years has been a demonstration of tribalism rather than any particularly logical process.
It still exists in the form of different “street gangs” and “the mob” families. They just don’t happen to run regions outlined by political boundaries. These are people who otherwise are very much alike but will inflict violence upon the other as necessary.
The ability to delegate decisions up and down through layers of the government and mostly ... not involve all the infighting that COULD come from it is pretty amazing IMO.
Once in a while some folks in my area get all worked up about how some regional transportation authority made some decision but man ... we do not need each city and layer of gov making their own call / fighting about it. And that's without any kinda 'serious' tribal factors at play.
This is just completely wrong. Western society also had periods of clans and tribes in its history. It's more that it moved on from it. The British Empire used inter-tribal rivalries as a tool to further its influence and spread. Scots still wear kilts whose colours are clan-specific.
I interpret them as saying “we think that because tribalism is a minor issue in the west and normally doesn’t surface, then we must generalize that it’s also a non-issue elsewhere” it is however, far from being the case.
Even the so called "experts" in charge are pretty much clueless about it.