Try reading this version, where Fukuyama talks about 3 types/traits of populism, one of which promotes 1 ethnic majority over all the rest. So it's not like this Japanese guy wishes or washes away all ethnic discrimination as you present it. 

https://www.eurozine.com/new-identity-politics/

Try this one - a bit like racism in the 50's, the largely conservative white class is disnissive of "snowflakes" and their causes. But skip forward 20 years, maybe this same class sees "snowflakes" as getting what they want, so they start adopting or better yet *teaching* to the less privileged of their tribe or constituency the techniques and framing that snowflakes used to protest and organize and compete and express their victimhood more effectively, so now you've got essentially white conservative snowflakes protesting, even though their grievances will be significantly different from liberal snowflake grievances. Though some of these grievances will be valid, while others will be contrived or exaggerated. Like that liberal Jewish organizer in the 60's, Saul Alinsky, it's just a *technique*, not a value judgment of right or wrong. He could use that with blacks, with anti-war protesters, with Appalachian poor, with whoever. And Fukuyama's right that part of the white thing is justified, the loss of the American dream the last 20 years both as money and prestige and links to actual power, "old rich white male" or just "white male" as a growing pejorative, making fun of Christianity unless it's black Christianity, education that's more out of reach producing sour grapes reactions, little towns that can't afford a grocery store or a theater, where opioid abuse takes over - that feeds into prior racism and fear - doesn't obliterate it.

So here's some homework - read the Fukuyama article I linked to earlier and find where he tells blacks to go back to class-based politics. Find where he tells blacks they shouldn't be concerned about their own identity.

They are not discussing this like you discuss it all. What they are actually doing is objecting to defining identity politics like you (and admittedly others) do, as tribalism. They think it is faulty to define most activities defined as "identity politics" as tribalism and trying to explain why they think that it is not like tribalism.

 More importantly, I haven't seen any of those three say We are tribal nor have I've seen them tout tribalism as something natural to all humans that either cannot be avoided or, as you sometimes have suggested, is a good thing. Neither have I seen them confusing diversity with its opposite, tribalism.

Rather, they all seem to be globalists and believe in trying to understand and persuade "the other" to defeat tribalism and are interested in getting people to unite under some basic creeds. Some examples:

• Roxanne's writing is the essence of pointing out and expressing shared human experience across supposed tribes, to learn to look beyond the tribalism.
• Coates loves France and French culture, he's an appropriator there, cultural exchange student to the max. Mayor Pete carries this waaay further. He collects languages for a hobby. Jesse Jackson is mentioned. Can you say "Rainbow Coalition" and knowing how to attract disgruntled white rust belt working class vote way back in the 80's ala we are all together?
• Abrams in her campaign for governor wanted more than anything for people to stop the tribal fighting and realize their commonalities in all her speeches and appearances and even in her marketing

A team gathered to work on a goal is not at all the same thing as an ethnic, racial or religious tribalism. Your constant confusion of the two just because people with black skin brought from Africa were forced to artificially tribalize as one tribe by slavery and racism makes a terrible muddle of what you say. It's especially ridiculous because before they were enslaved they were themselves ethnic tribes often at each other's throats, even with instances of selling others into slavery. It is actually enforces racism, racist tribalism, to think that they should  join together to be a one-thinking unit based on the color of their skin simply because you think they need to continue fighting against those who tribalize by white skin rather than persuading to a common set of laws or values or rights.

THIS IS NOT TRIBALISM:.....a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.....

I actually find it rather racist and offensive how you constantly tout tribalism as a good thing.

 But that's totally apart from just pointing out that you are often communicating contradictory nonsense, that there is no intellectual rigor to what you do with this issue and many others, you cherry pick to the max to support your own views rather than having an open mind about how others think on it. It's like you are reading everything with blinders on and a very closed partisan mind looking for fodder for partisan political progaganda, lacking in curiosity about other minds and ideas. When everybody else is trying to do a graduate school seminar on issues and problems and news of the country and the world, you're trying to drag us into a high school pep rally for "our side", whatever that is. The irony is Mayor Pete is specifically showing himself to be someone who refuses to play the game you like to play and has some interesting tools in his kit for avoiding that happening.