Bushmen tribe

In connection with current events, in particular this business about "vitriolic" speech, let's take a look at one of the practices of the Bushmen tribe of Africa.  I mention this tribe because something about one of their practices struck me and has remained with me for over 30 years now since I first read about it in an Anthropology textbook.  It was the Bushmen's attitude toward arrogance and how dangerous it can be to the safety of the group.

Briefly, the story went like this: an anthropologist studying the Bushmen decided to buy an animal which was to be slaughtered for a feast for this small group.  Instead of being grateful and praising the quality of the animal he bought for them, they kept saying how rotten it was.  The man didn't get upset, but he did get curious and finally asked why they kept downgrading his gift even when they had to know it was of the best quality available.  The answer was "arrogance".  To the Bushmen, someone who is arrogant is dangerous.  He can endanger others in the group, and so this problem has to be dealt with aggressively.  So they tear down a person's sense of superiority, as the Bushmen are very egalitarian.  In the words that I remember, the man explaining says it cools his heart and makes him more gentle.  The Bushmen are relentless in cutting you down to size.  They won't put up with swelled heads.

Now let's look at this complaint about "vitriolic" speech.  What's so bad about criticism even if it is unjust.  The Bushmen didn't seem to worry about it so much.  Actually, they seemed to profit from it.  Our politicians can be even more dangerous than a wayward Bushman is to his tribe.  The effects of arrogance can be much more serious in a nation which is among many other nations who possess nuclear weapons.  A little vitriol from time to time can go a long way to cooling some swelled heads in Washington who get a little too sure of themselves.

Therefore any complaint about "vitriolic" speech should be looked upon with suspicion.  If politicians only want to be praised and told how wonderful they are, that should be a red flag.  This is why I don't watch State of the Union speeches.  It seems that it is just one long self serving promotion of a politician and his supporters in Washington.  It wasn't even the custom of the President to address Congress in person.  Thomas Jefferson started the tradition of sending written messages to Congress rather than address the body publicly.  He considered it too imperial in its implications.  This complaint about vitriol in the public discourse is a troubling thing if it was intended to squelch dissent just before an imperial address before Congress.

It should be noted that the practice of the President addressing Congress in person ended with Woodrow Wilson.  This was during the so called Progressive Era in American politics.  It was also the same time that the income tax was adopted and the Federal Reserve was created.  It was the time before two great wars and the beginning of the modern system of big government.  Was this a good thing, this growth of government and the tendency toward an imperial Presidency?