These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Intergalactic Summit

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
12Next page
 

What Is Tribal Traditionalism and why is it incompatible with Democracy?

Author
Los Muertas
HDYLTA
#1 - 2012-03-14 03:21:58 UTC
Tribal Traditionalism can best be defined as communal living where the group strives to better the community and where the cult of personality is not tolerated. People are held to standards that, in a democratic society, would be less then tolerable. For example if a politician in a democratic society was to take a bribe or act in such a way as to disgrace his or her post it is perfectly acceptable to use and excuse such as "I am only Human". This person would most likely suffer a fine, removal from office and perhaps imprisonment. However in a Tribal community these same acts would be a betrayal to the very community and one would suffer perhaps the ultimate punishment. Discipline is perhaps the most valued asset in a Tribal society, and is instilled children from childhood, where anyone and everyone in that community is not only encouraged to discipline children for their infractions but it is also expected, whats more it is expected that children will submit themselves to the punishment of their community. This of course is perhaps one of the best examples of the differences between a Tribal community and a democratic one where a person within a democratic society asks "who are you to judge my way of life and why should I answer to you?" and in a tribal society we ask "Who am I to renounce the judgement of my people and what can I do to remain in their favor?

Our way of life is the absence of self, replaced with the sense of "for the greater good", we strive to better our people, and while it can be said that there are of course those in democratic societies that want for nothing more then to better humanity those people always seem to have an agenda. They wish to feed , cloth and nurture children in "Gods" name. They wish to change tax codes and reduce the the strain on the lower classes at the expense of the upper classes for reasons that usually seem to stem from those same peoples lack of joining the upper class. They wish to cherish and celebrate the societies of others, usually to either mock that societies "backwardness" or out of fear of a mightier Empire whom they wish to appease. In a Tribal Society if we feed, nurture and cloth a child it is because we do this out of duty not only to that child's own well being but because it is in our own good. If we change economic tactics it is because we have found the ones we have lacking to the overall health of our society and if we celebrate another society it is because they have earned our respect as either beloved allies or dangerous foes

In the Republic, as in the Federation, power blocks are created usually on a census basis where a district which has a larger population has a larger say in the affairs of the much larger community. In theory this is actually an admirable practice yet this same practice only ever actually encourages outsiders to migrate from district to district like a tumble weed on the wind, going where the wind is blowing at any given moment without regard to ever investing in the community. One example of this would be where industrial complexes will put down roots in a district that offers tax incentives to do so but then pull up roots when a better deal comes along. However in the Traditionalist held planets we weather the storms, stay put and come out the stronger because we have stuck by our communities and they have stuck by the company. I ill say that Tibus Heath could not have come into power in a Tribal Society because the treatment he received that inspired him would not have been tolerated by the community itself

In the final analyses the reason these two types of societies cannot co-exist is general vocabulary. In a Democratic society there is only "I" and "Me" where as in a Tribal society there is "We" and "Us". This is not a thing to be feared as so many in New Eden believe. We are not Sansha's Nation, mindless drones to a unified will. We are not enemies of the Federation who want a communal living with a small few doing the work whilst all others live in a welfare state and we are not the heretics the Amarrians believe us to be, set on destroying your churches and burning your holy tomes. We are simply people who live for our community, to serve, protect and to uphold the institutions of our ancestors.
Graelyn
Reikoku
PURPLE HELMETED WARRIORS
#2 - 2012-03-14 06:37:48 UTC
Did you just say that 'cults of personality' are not tolerated in Tribal societies?

In public??

Cardinal Graelyn

Amarr Loyalist of the Year - YC113

Los Muertas
HDYLTA
#3 - 2012-03-14 14:26:28 UTC
Graelyn wrote:
Did you just say that 'cults of personality' are not tolerated in Tribal societies?

In public??


Yes slaver, I did in fact say cults of personality are not tolerated. If you would like to refute that then please give us some facts rather then two very obscure and meaningless sentences in which you prove once more that those of your ilk will rage against anything and everything, even if they cannot formulate an actual argument.
Stitcher
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#4 - 2012-03-14 14:36:18 UTC
On the opposite extreme, Tribalism can be parochial, xenophobic, isolationist and intolerant.

Human nature doesn't allow for a society as idyllic as the one you describe. We're just not wired for there to be such a thing as a "perfect society". Instead, different systems are strong in some areas and weak in others, and the choice of system reflects the morals of the culture adopting it, rather than the impartial merit of the system.

which is fine. When picking from a spectrum of equally imperfect alternatives, the only sensible option is to choose the one that best reflects your ethical perspectives, and the Minmatar have done exactly that. What people like Los Muertas need to do now is familiarize themselves with the downsides of their choice.

There's a reason people find it unauthentic when somebody preaches the merits of their choice of lifestyle in public - it's because those on the outside can recognise that no system is perfect, no culture is flawless, and have the outside perspective to recognise the problems.

The true patriot doesn't unconditionally praise their homeland and blind themselves to its faults rather than acknowledging them. They instead take upon themselves the burden of holding their culture to account. It does a patient no good to be complimented and told that they're amazing and special and can accomplish anything they set their mind to; if their broken leg is mechanically incapable of holding their weight, they're never going to win a hundred-meter sprint race.

What your tribes need, Los Muertas, are not an evangelist to tell a skeptical world how amazing they are. They need patriots who are willing to hold them to the highest standard, to be disappointed in them when they fail, and to be gratified when they live up to high expectations.

AKA Hambone

Author of The Deathworlders

Kikia Truzhari
Teraa Matar
#5 - 2012-03-14 15:15:05 UTC
I can agree with Verin. As a member of tribal culture and an advocate of tribal traditionalism, I know full well how things can and do go wrong. I've seen plenty of people let their hatred of anyone who isn't from the tribes consume them and turn them into monsters.

Its something we have to be constantly aware of. We need to see where our failings could arise from, so they can be dealt with before they become atrocities.
Elsebeth Rhiannon
SoE Roughriders
Electus Matari
#6 - 2012-03-14 15:37:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Elsebeth Rhiannon
People are people. Democracy sometimes fails because some people are selfish. Clan leaders sometimes fail, because some people are selfish. This is a feature of life. To pretend that some kind of a romanticized "communal" tribal system would solve the problem that some people are selfish and will abuse any system for personal gain without respect for neither tradition nor the well-being of other people is extremely naive. If the writer really believes in the claim, that is - if not, it is propaganda.

The Minmatar Republic exists because the seven tribes have chosen, guided by their leaders, to govern themselves that way. This is what true Matari tribalism is about - every clan, every tribe, chooses for themselves the way they live. That they did not choose the kind of system you would have wanted to, or included some elements of democracy (*) in the system, does not make the system is less "tribal".

Quite the opposite, what is not tribal is to demand that things are done your way, instead of what the tribes decide together. I am sorry if your clan does not provide you the sense of "us" that you speak of - mine does. And it does it on Matar, as part of the Sebiestor Tribe, as part of the Minmatar Republic. My tribe is part of the Republic. So is my clan. We are in this all together. And you are quite welcome to join us.

You can call your political ideology what the ever hell you like - just please, do not call it tribal tradionalism. That is an insult to all of us who very much are part of our tribes, very much follow our clan's traditions, and very much believe those mean we will be part of any alliance - including the Republic - that our tribe makes.

(*) The Minmatar system is far from being a full-blown democracy in the Gallentean sense. Which is a good thing, if you ask me.
Seriphyn Inhonores
Elusenian Cooperative
#7 - 2012-03-14 15:40:39 UTC
With respect, I think you're making a lot of assumptions about people's intentions within the Federal democratic system. It seems rather ludicrous that you spin the tribal traditionalism as the superior cultural form when nearly all other societies in New Eden have moved on to other forms of government. Other than the Minmatar, tribalism is seen as society at its most primitive level.

One mistake you make is the intentions of those in democratic societies (of which the Federation has hegemony over). Though there are plenty of those that undertake charitable endeavours for religious purposes, there is perhaps a slight majority that do so for humanistic reasons; ie. for its own sake. You make the scathing assumption that no one out of the trillions in the Federation undertake humanitarian activities do so out of duty and for everyone's good. This is fallacy. In the Federation, we have a unique activist culture that does not exist to the same extent anywhere else. Do you think university students really have much of an agenda, considering their primary activities is academic study?

You also forget that tribal traditionalism exists within the Federation as well, since its constitutional structure allows all forms of government so long as they allow for regular elections under universal suffrage. One third of this nation is Minmatar, after all, and even those who are Gallenteanized still undertake practices such as the Voluval. We are the most diverse empire in existence; you cannot make the assumptions you have made so easily. Billions of citizens in the Federation are motivated to work for the greater good for its own sake.

There are no cultural pressures to serve the whole in the Federation. If someone does so on their own accord, and with no clear material benefit to themselves (say, a nun or monk), then perhaps it is more sincere than in societies where it is expected of them?
Elsebeth Rhiannon
SoE Roughriders
Electus Matari
#8 - 2012-03-14 15:43:42 UTC
When did the Gallenteans have a proper tribal culture that they moved on from, Inhonores?

Free hint: "tribal" does not mean stone-age hunter-gatherers.
Stitcher
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#9 - 2012-03-14 15:53:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Stitcher
Elsebeth Rhiannon wrote:
Free hint: "tribal" does not mean stone-age hunter-gatherers.


Exactly this. I've seen it argued that the Caldari Megacorporations are just profit-driven(*) tribes and I can see no strong reason to disagree with that assessment. A tribe just means a united group bonded over some commonality, be it a shared philosophy, a banner, a family lineage, whatever. Tribalism isn't a government form, let alone a primitive one; it's how humans work. It's just that different tribes operate under different rules and call those rules things like "Democracy" or "Theocracy". Or "Ishukone", or "The Federal Democrat Party", or "The Church of the Divine guidance", or "The Ida"... you get the picture.

(*)I was going to say "meritocratic, profit-driven" but that's a word I tend to use as a virtue, and I don't want to imply that it's an exclusively Caldari virtue.

AKA Hambone

Author of The Deathworlders

Kikia Truzhari
Teraa Matar
#10 - 2012-03-14 16:42:14 UTC
Yeah, the matari tribes are very definitely meritocratic. I think that might be one of the fundamental commonalities that you've mentioned Verin.
Astrid Stjerna
Sebiestor Tribe
#11 - 2012-03-14 16:48:59 UTC
Elsebeth Rhiannon wrote:


(*) The Minmatar system is far from being a full-blown democracy in the Gallentean sense. Which is a good thing, if you ask me.


I agree, and in some ways, I feel that the situation is the opposite -- that democracy is incompatible with tribal philosophies.

Democracy inevitably ends up being a contest of popularity, where the most charismatic speaker wins the day. Whoever can 'politic' his or her way to the top will get the power. Mudslinging, attack campaigns, and political jousting are the order of the day.

Among my clan, there's a saying: 'Together for the good of all'. Out on the ice, in the near-constant snowstorms, refusing to offer aid to a traveller means leaving them to die. Survival depends on the bonds forged between clans and tribes, so the contest of charisma that a democracy becomes is detrimental to the tribe as a whole.

I can't get rid of my darn signature!  Oh, wait....

Seriphyn Inhonores
Elusenian Cooperative
#12 - 2012-03-14 17:28:57 UTC
Getting wishy-washy with the definition of tribes will careen this thread off a cliff. Tribes are typically defined by ethnicity, or "people". I'm sure you can't be Sebiestor without actually being Sebiestor, for example (I would be very surprised these seven distinct ethnicities would have existed for thousands of years if this was not the case). People band into tribes, tribes eventually band into nations. It's the concept of nationhood, that there are ideals that transcend ethnicity. What are the ideals of the Minmatar nation outside of individual tribal identity and coming for your people?

At any rate, democracy and tribalism isn't that difficult to work together. You just elect senior members of your tribe or clan instead of just anyone. That's how it works in the Federation, and how I presume it works in the Republic too. You still have a Parliament that houses your Tribal Assembly, after all.
Stitcher
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#13 - 2012-03-14 17:47:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Stitcher
Wishy-washy nothing, I'm describing a known social phenomenon here. you can call them "tribes", "groups", "subcultures", "Social networks" or whatever you like. don't let a narrow interpretation of the word I chose to use block your ability to see what I'm trying to say.

Some tribes define themselves by ethnic group, yes. Others define themselves politically, or by what music they listen to, or what clothes they wear. The word "nation" refers only to a specific type of tribe. And it's possible to belong to belong to multiple tribes at once, provided that their membership criteria aren't incompatible.

So, I'm a Caldari, a Civire, a Liberal, an Ishukone citizen, a Gariushite, an Uuskyountoist, a capsuleer, and an industrialist. All "tribes" by the loose definition I'm using, but I'm quite able to be all of those things at once.

It is in the nature of the human species to attach ourselves to groups, which for the purposes of this argument I am calling tribes. The specific terminology really doesn't matter, what matters is that it's what we naturally do, and that any given person belongs to a complex matrix of groups, sub-groups and factions. This is basic human psychology - we're a gregarious, social species so we instinctively attach ourselves to these social structures, and can get really quite fanatically passionate about our membership, and how our tribal identities relate to another tribe.

The point I'm trying to make here is that in fact Tribalism is NOT incompatible with Democracy, because Democracy is just the framework of rules a particular "tribe" has chosen to use to regulate itself.

Whether or not Democracy is incompatible with the way the Minmatar want to do things, however, is a completely different discussion altogether, and if they're going to reject it in favour of a different system, then there needs to be a clear understanding of the upshots and downsides to all the systems they could use, and a definite reason why the system they have chosen instead is better for them than, say, Gallentean democracy, or State capitalist meritocracy.

AKA Hambone

Author of The Deathworlders

Lyn Farel
Societas Imperialis Sceptri Coronaeque
Khimi Harar
#14 - 2012-03-14 18:13:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Lyn Farel
Los Muertas wrote:
Graelyn wrote:
Did you just say that 'cults of personality' are not tolerated in Tribal societies?

In public??


Yes slaver, I did in fact say cults of personality are not tolerated. If you would like to refute that then please give us some facts rather then two very obscure and meaningless sentences in which you prove once more that those of your ilk will rage against anything and everything, even if they cannot formulate an actual argument.


Excuse me, but this would actually be up to you to give us some facts on what you state if you do not want to see people stating the contrary.

On the matter at hand, what about Shakor, Maak, and the likes ? In the eyes of a lot of Matari, they are admired as idols.

Seriphyn Inhonores wrote:
With respect, I think you're making a lot of assumptions about people's intentions within the Federal democratic system. It seems rather ludicrous that you spin the tribal traditionalism as the superior cultural form when nearly all other societies in New Eden have moved on to other forms of government. Other than the Minmatar, tribalism is seen as society at its most primitive level.


As much as I agree with the facts that tribalism is far from being a superior societal system and that it has always been one of the most ancient and primitive form of governing oneselves - coming directly from a very isolated world where the only people one was able to meet was one's own family and clan - I find it highly hasardous that the people you mention continue to think Matari tribalism as such, considering how it has evolved since then.

Kikia Truzhari wrote:
Yeah, the matari tribes are very definitely meritocratic. I think that might be one of the fundamental commonalities that you've mentioned Verin.


It may well be like this in some tribes and your own, but I have difficulties to believe such a fact (especially generalized like this), considering how a lot of conservative and traditionalist Matari tribes think that age prevails on everything else, dating back to a society where people were only able to count on their elders to learn and keep the knowledge of the group. And in these cases, this is not about the rule of merit, but rather about the rule of the seniors. Yes, I have seen how a lot of tribes still cling to primitive societies, much like a lot of Amarrians cling to outdated beliefs.

Astrid Stjerna wrote:


I agree, and in some ways, I feel that the situation is the opposite -- that democracy is incompatible with tribal philosophies.

Democracy inevitably ends up being a contest of popularity, where the most charismatic speaker wins the day. Whoever can 'politic' his or her way to the top will get the power. Mudslinging, attack campaigns, and political jousting are the order of the day.

Among my clan, there's a saying: 'Together for the good of all'. Out on the ice, in the near-constant snowstorms, refusing to offer aid to a traveller means leaving them to die. Survival depends on the bonds forged between clans and tribes, so the contest of charisma that a democracy becomes is detrimental to the tribe as a whole.


I do not see how it makes your case different from democracy. In the case of a clan or a small tribe, it is quite easy for a speaker to be appreciated for his/her true qualities and skills when people get to actually know him/her. But do you personally know higher representatives like Shakor, coming from other tribes than your own ? Do you know them better than any Federation citizen will know about their current senate leaders ? On the level of a city, or a small town, though, I am pretty sure that they know their representatives as well as you do with your own.

How do you think that your leaders get elected, if not by politic, mudslinging, and hidden agendas ? I have difficulties to believe that any of the four major factions work differently.
Los Muertas
HDYLTA
#15 - 2012-03-15 02:24:54 UTC
I see a lot of talk here about being unpatriotic in my views and thus I would like to say that I am Thukker and thus have never been a socially approved member of the Republic, after all In the the Republic there is no penalty for Minmatar slaves being traded from stations in Barkrik for example, but there are penalties for openly engaging those slavers. The Thukker tribe has long been considered a "pirate" nation as if we had anything in common with the Cartel as was Ursha'Khan when Midular was president all because we would not stand for this political wrangling to placate those who said we should simply accept slavery as a common practice

And as to the argument that the Republic was a choice "we the tribes made" I think this is a very over romantic notion of history that never happened. Four tribes choose that form of society at gun point for all intents and purposes. Nefantar, Starkmanir and Thukker were never a party to this demand by the Federation to be more like them and in return be protected from Amarr. The Nefantar traitors, and yes no matter what the Diplomats tell me they are traitors, choose the Amarrian society, the Starkmanir choose nothing save to forget that they were themselves and the Thukker choose only to fight on for their people even if that meant that sometimes they must fight their own people. Make no mistake that had it not been for the Federations insistence on the current form of society in exchange for economic and military assistance it is not a form we would have chosen

Make no mistake, the Federation is the best friend the Tribes have ever had, and to those I have offended in that Nation I do apologize. If not for your endeavors our people would almost to the last man, woman and child be in bondage now. No one should ever discount that save to say that the Republic was the price we paid for friendship and your goals where less noble then they are now portrayed. In the time when the Federation was bolstering the Minmatar, lets not forget that Amarr was doing the same with the Caldari and we (the Minmatar and Caldari) were to be proxy nations that you used against one another to a avoid direct conflict reigniting that your nations had just ended. Also the reason you gave us the "gift of democracy" was less based on its benefits to our people but more because the one tribe you had in your borders, the Intaki, were bothersome and you didn't want another wild card in your midst

Finally to Elsebeth Rhiannon, I am very sorry to have offended you in anyway. I have the deepest respect for EM, and I proudly fly with them whenever possible. EM and UK are the pinnacle of what Matar should be, the night and day. I would simply say to you and yours , "your views are the Sun of Minmatar, and mine are the Moon."
Ava Starfire
Khushakor Clan
#16 - 2012-03-15 12:31:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Ava Starfire
Meritocracy is good.

Xenophobia, beyond enough to raise awareness that "they" are different from "us" is bad.

What form of government is it that you wish to see, if Shakor's government is not "tribal" enough?

Avlynka Surionen

Edit: Also, good to see that you do not wish to offend EM; however, offending the rest of us, such as Teraa Matar, is quite alright? Hmm.

"There is no strength in numbers; have no such misconception." -Jayka Vofur, "Warfare in the North"

Edaine Numenor
Numenor Benevolent Holdings
#17 - 2012-03-15 13:37:29 UTC
Mm, I have watched this thread with some interest and it isa fascinating discussion. I want to thank the author for posting it.

My reason for commenting is to introduce the issue of the distinction between a Democracy and a Constitutional Republic and why that distinction is vital for the issue of tribal community within a larger society.

Tribalism is incompatible with pure democracy, true. However in a society where there are multiple tribal communities in cooperation for survival, a constitutional republic is probably the very best governmental solution, albeit not perfect.

A Republic and A Democracy are dissimilar forms of government.

Pure Democracy: Majority unlimited! In a democracy, majority rules is a sort of political omnipotence. The single man or woman or child, or groups of Individuals, tribes, communities, etc composing any Minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of The Majority. It is a case of Majority-over-Minority.

Constitutional Republic: Majority limited! Control of the Majority strictly via constitution and separation of powers, primarily to protect The Individual’s unalienable rights and so by extension the rights of The Minority, of all minorities, is what distinguishes the Republic from the Democracy. The liberties of all people and people groups (societies within the broader society) are better protected in a Republic. A Republic is a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, controlled by a written Constitution. This constitution is changeable (from its original meaning) only by the people via representation and only by its amendment. Furthermore, the powers of government are divided between three separate Branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial.

Tribalism is compatible with a well designed Constitutional Republic. The real question is, "is the Minmatar Republic designed in such a way to best protect the liberty of individuals and the tribal societies that compose it?"

Liberating slaves wherever, whenever, and however I can.

Los Muertas
HDYLTA
#18 - 2012-03-15 16:25:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Los Muertas
Ava Starfire
What form of government is it that you wish to see, if Shakor's government is not "tribal" enough[/quote wrote:


Shakor had long been a hero of mine and while I will say that I still have the highest respect for the man himself, in his policies I have lost all faith and respect. Do not forget that prior to Shakor's rise Midular had dissolved the Republic's political institution as a whole. From that moment onward Shakor, or anyone who could have taken power for that matter, could have implemented whatever policies they wished. If that isnt in of itself a disgusting reflection of where the Republic is I dont know what other argument could be made. In this moment Shakor had two options, align Minmatar with its roots or give a suffering race more of the same that has made our people dead last in any comparison to the other Nations of New Eden

Edaine Numenor wrote:

Constitutional Republic: Majority limited! Control of the Majority strictly via constitution and separation of powers, primarily to protect The Individual’s unalienable rights and so by extension the rights of The Minority, of all minorities, is what distinguishes the Republic from the Democracy. The liberties of all people and people groups (societies within the broader society) are better protected in a Republic. A Republic is a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, controlled by a written Constitution. This constitution is changeable (from its original meaning) only by the people via representation and only by its amendment. Furthermore, the powers of government are divided between three separate Branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial.


As to your question of what form of government I would prefer A Tribal Constitutional government would be very acceptable, but then I suppose I would be saying "what we had before Amarr". Simply put the power blocks that are in place in the Republic cripple us every moment of every day. They castrate a once proud Brutor Warrior such as Shakor and turn him from perhaps "the last best hope of the Republic" to another failed politician in an un-winnable political quagmire.

[quote=Ava Starfire]
Edit: Also, good to see that you do not wish to offend EM; however, offending the rest of us, such as Teraa Matar, is quite alright? Hmm.


I have no issue offending anyone who would further weaken my people and if you are a person who would see more of the same from the Republic and the further weakening of our Tribal selves in order to fit in with the other three Great Nations then no I do not have an issue insulting you. That being said I do find that your involvement in this discussion means that you are atleast open to a discussion
Elsebeth Rhiannon
SoE Roughriders
Electus Matari
#19 - 2012-03-15 17:55:52 UTC
Los Muertas wrote:
I have no issue offending anyone who would further weaken my people and if you are a person who would see more of the same from the Republic and the further weakening of our Tribal selves

Did you actually understand what my issue with your words was, or did you apologize simply because you saw the "Electus Matari" after my name?

Not that the latter would be unappreciated. Murientor's contributions to the defense of (yes) the Republic are somethinghas always made us value you as allies. But still wondering.
Los Muertas
HDYLTA
#20 - 2012-03-15 18:21:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Los Muertas
Elsebeth Rhiannon wrote:

Not that the latter would be unappreciated. Murientor's contributions to the defense of (yes) the Republic are somethinghas always made us value you as allies. But still wondering.


Honesty is the first part of communication so I will say yes, My apology was directed more towards you being a member of Electus Matari which, by its very nature means that all Minmatar, Tribalist or Republican, owe you a measure of respect. Had you been from an alliance or corp that is very rarely seen on my overview then in all honesty there would have been no concern over offending, however my upbringing within the Tribe says that a greater leeway needs to be given to those who have earned it, and you, either by personal actions or by proxy, are due that respect.

I will always follow my tribal beliefs and one of my beliefs is that Electus Matari, whilst different in political beliefs then mine, will always put Minmatar first and that right now (possibly forevert) you see the Republic as the best means to that end, I do not.

Finally I will repeat this as this is where we differ, atleast where I differ from what you had to say

And as to the argument that the Republic was a choice "we the tribes made" I think this is a very over romantic notion of history that never happened. Four tribes choose that form of society at gun point for all intents and purposes. Nefantar, Starkmanir and Thukker were never a party to this demand by the Federation to be more like them and in return be protected from Amarr. The Nefantar traitors, and yes no matter what the Diplomats tell me they are traitors, choose the Amarrian society, the Starkmanir choose nothing save to forget that they were themselves and the Thukker choose only to fight on for their people even if that meant that sometimes they must fight their own people. Make no mistake that had it not been for the Federations insistence on the current form of society in exchange for economic and military assistance it is not a form we would have chosen

Make no mistake, the Federation is the best friend the Tribes have ever had, and to those I have offended in that Nation I do apologize. If not for your endeavors our people would almost to the last man, woman and child be in bondage now. No one should ever discount that save to say that the Republic was the price we paid for friendship and your goals where less noble then they are now portrayed. In the time when the Federation was bolstering the Minmatar, lets not forget that Amarr was doing the same with the Caldari and we (the Minmatar and Caldari) were to be proxy nations that you used against one another to a avoid direct conflict reigniting that your nations had just ended. Also the reason you gave us the "gift of democracy" was less based on its benefits to our people but more because the one tribe you had in your borders, the Intaki, were bothersome and you didn't want another wild card in your midst
12Next page