macrakis@harvard.ARPA (Stavros Macrakis) (05/14/85)
> > Does anyone out there know why people talk about tribes only when > > referring to African peoples? > ... the "national" boundaries of [Africa] may be ... arbitrary > territories ([with] *some* relationship to kinship communities....) > set up within the last 2 or 3 centuries by ... westerners. Of course, it is not only in Africa that the term `tribe' is used. Another netter has pointed out that: ... there are segments of the Arabic and Semitic people that use the term tribe. There are tribes in Australia, New Zealand, New Guinea, and Borneo. ... in South and Central America..... Clearly the term `tribe' can be used in a derogatory way. In general, it refers to groups which do not have their own country (e.g. the Ainu might be considered a tribe, but not the Japanese). And of course in the past there were theories which linked `tribe' and `race' and so on; these theories seem to be behind us in serious circles, at least. Even so, popular theory still speaks of `pure-blooded' x's (and people say it of themselves, usually proudly). There are other terms which are close to the notion of `tribe': nation, ethnic group, people, millet (in the Ottoman Empire). The notion is that there are groups which consider themselves as one group or are treated as one group even if they may live in different places and even if they have different `racial' characteristics. Another use of the word `tribe', was apparently to distinguish areas governed by some sort of central apparatus (Kingdoms, Princely States) from areas with dispersed organizations (tribal areas, i.e. areas with many tribes). But the subjects of Benin or of Rajput may well belong to tribes or ethnic groups. Now, why the word `tribe'? We can probably exclude the word `nation', even though in many ways it is the correct word, because its meaning has been diluted by the concept of the nation-state, that is, the idea that the state should correspond to a nation: thus France, Italy, Japan, Albania, Hungary, Iran, Greece, ... -- of course, in practice, it seldom does: we have the Alsatians, Provencaux, and Basques in France, the Trentines and Sardinians in Italy, the Ainu and Koreans in Japan, the Greeks in Albania, .... and for that matter the Albanians in Yugoslavia, the Hungarians in Romania, .... And what about Czecho- slovakia? There are those who consider that two `peoples' (the Czechs and the Slovaks) have united to form a `nation'. Anyway, `nation' seems to have become (incorrectly) a synonym for `state'. The President of the US addresses the `American nation', which is clearly an absurdity. The Arabs do talk of the Arab nation, though, which is the original meaning and does not necessarily imply a political unity. The Arabs also have some tribes within the nation, and some tribes have clan organizations.... The word `people' is clumsy to use unambiguously. (`The people that inhabits the lower xx valley'?) The word `millet' is specifically Ottoman, and refers to the partially self-governing groups such as the Orthodox Greeks and the Jews -- but the millets were largely organized by religion, and not what we would call ethnic group. `Community' is hopelessly ambiguous. Some netters have confused the notion of `tribe' with that of `clan' (and have considered the latter `more derogatory'). This is a mistake. Clan means specifically an organization within a society -- and an anthropologist can show you dozens of kinds of clan organization. So I think we come down to `tribe' and `ethnic group'. I prefer `ethnic group', although in the US especially it refers sometimes to a much looser and vaguer reality (Irish-Americans, German-Americans) than elsewhere in the world. The bottom line is that notions of ethnic group differ in different societies and that these notions are manipulated in a variety of ways for political reasons. Since I don't want to get into the politics of ethnicity, I end my note here. -s
jack@boring.UUCP (05/15/85)
I think a 'tribe' could be described as: a (relatively small)group of people who think of themselves as a nation, but are not (in the international political sense). Note that with 'nation' in the first sense, I mean a group of people with strong internal ties, and weak external ones. Also, the 'relatively small' clause excludes for instance the Basques. -- Jack Jansen, jack@mcvax.UUCP The shell is my oyster.
ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) (05/16/85)
In a recent article, Stavros Macrakis examines the words: nation, state,
tribe, people, and ethnic group. He suggests that `tribe' and `ethnic
group' may be the most accurate terms for referring to the groups that
characterize many African peoples.
Though Stavros's article was generally thoughtful and accurate,
I believe that the word `tribe' may be perceived as derogatory,
even when it is not intended that way:
"The classification of African political units as `tribes' also
"made a major distinction between Europeans and Africans. Historically,
"the term was used to denote subordinate units, such as the divisions
"of the ancient Romans into Sabines, Latins, and Etruscans. The tribe
"was regarded as a more primitive unit, which in time evolved into a
"civilized one. The tribe was too small and lacked the complex
"organization and functions of a nation. Social Darwinism of the 19th
"century justified this as the order of things for Africa. The Caucasian
"type was represented as possessing superior linguistic, political, and
"cultural capacities. Since, in the European view, African politics had
"not reached the level of complex, centralized systems of government,
"without which the higher attainments of civilization could not be
"achieved, the term `tribe' was employed. One hardly needs to state
"that the term `Negro' is pejorative, stereotypic, and meaningless as a
"descriptive for Africans. In short, as with terms `Hamitic' and
"`native', `tribe' and `negro' as general labels for Africans suggest
"denigratory characterizations and therefore prejudge the African or
"black experience.
-- Joseph E. Harris, `Africans and Their History' (1972)
In this regard, please note that Europeans never refer to themselves
by the term `tribe' except in the earliest historical periods.
(eg. `Teutonic tribes') And their are many examples where the
definition of `tribe' presented in Stavros's article:
> In general, it refers to groups which do not have their own country.
... might seem to fit. For instance, have YOU ever heard anyone
refer to the Serbian/Basque/Breton/Ruthenian tribes? Note, however,
that the word is freely applied to the original peoples of North
and South Americas, Africa, and Australia. These same people also
count among the those least understood by the European mind.
Might there be some connection?
Another point, illustrated by the fragment below:
>> ... the "national" boundaries of [Africa] may be ... arbitrary
>> territories ([with] *some* relationship to kinship communities....)
>> set up within the last 2 or 3 centuries by ... westerners.
There is much truth to this, but what often passes unnoticed is that
Africa's history includes many kingdoms and states with more
cohesiveness and culture than the word `kinship communities' would
imply. Europeans have never failed to ignore this fact.
If you read about Africa's history, you will discover many peoples and
cultures, not only the familiar nations of Egypt and Ethiopia, but also
the Nubians, the Moroe:, the ancient kingdoms of Ghana, Mali, and
Songhai, the Hausa states of Daura, Gobir, Katsina, Kano, and Zaria, the
Ibos and their Yoruba neighbors, the kingdoms and states of the Oyo, the
Futas, Ashanti, and Dahomey, the stateless Nilotic Dinka and Nuer
peoples, and the Ngola, to mention but a few.
Until I know better, I believe it makes the most sense to refer to
the `peoples of Africa'. Comments?
-michael