There we have it again: Someone trying to explain "tribal" comes up with the ultra-vague explanation that is a "simple organized society". But what are these societies?
I gave you a link, of a university, who explains very well what those are.
No one of the tribal-explainer can ever explain that. And do you know why? Because these "societies" dont exist. There are only two types of primitive, political pre-state societies: Villages ruled by an elder/chief or nomadic clans, ruled by an elde, but there arent "tribal" societies.
They did exist, and again, tribe is not only used to denote a society, but the subdivision of a group.
But here, have the explanation:
"A tribe is a somewhat more complex type of acephalous society than a band. As the population size increases with a shift in subsistence pattern from foraging to horticulture or pastoralism, it eventually reaches a point at which kinship ties and friendship are no longer sufficient to hold society together. This is especially the case when there are hundreds of people and multiple communities. Tribes also are characteristic of some large equestrian and rich aquatic foraging societies. Regardless of the subsistence base, new forms of societal integration become a necessity in tribes to settle disputes and prevent the society from disintegrating.
The new integrative mechanisms of tribes are referred to by anthropologists as pantribal associations or sodalities. These are groups that cross-cut the society by bringing together a limited number of people, typically at least one from each family. Pantribal associations often are in the form of councils, groups of elder men or women who are members of the same age set, warrior societies, religious cults, or secret societies. While these groups have specific purposes, they also serve to create order and a sense of unity for a tribe."
Look, someone, from a university, recognize they exist, and explain they do!
By the way, speaking of "primitive" societies is considered also bad, a prejudice term, for scholars who are adept of the whole "don't use tribe" thing.
And let me guess: It is those who "identify themselves as tribal" who still live in the mountains and are largely untouched by westernization yet, right?
No, not at all. Again, you can't see past the racism you give to the word.
There is one golden rule: Native people only identify themselve as a part of a "tribe" when they speak in English.
They also do in other languages. In French or Spanish, people also speak of tribes. And the people who self identify as part of one too. I don't get what gives you the right to say these people are wrong in saying they belong to X tribe.
Interesting, but what exactly has a political division of the Roman kingdom to do with our discussion? Did you took it just because "tribus" sounds similiar to "tribe"? Or because "tribus" was a political division? Then i dont understand what political divisions have to do with ethnical divisions. Or do you think these ethnical divions of the people are own political entinities? Then i have to dissapoint you, just because of the very same reason i already mentioned concerning on your second qoute.
You seem to have some trouble reading, so let me repeat. Tribe isn't used solely as a way to talk about a form of societal organization. It's also used to denote subdivisions in a large group. That's the point, that's why Chechens still subdivisions like that.
Its the very exact thing people are still doing, they just dont notice the background of the word and dont mean it necessarily evil.
No, it doesn't have the same meaning. It has more than one, and I already gave explained them to you. You are the one clinging to an old meaning because you can't accept the fact words change their meanings.
What if i tell you than even within the most primitive village with lets say 30 inhabitants not everyone is related with each other? After that definition you just gave even they have to get recognized as an ethnicity (Which is correct)
That's why it's called a tribe, not a clan. If they were all related to each other, they would be a clan. That explanation was just for your benefit so you can understand why we call that ethnic group instead of tribes. Has nothing to do with the meaning you give the word. The tribal characteristics that allowed them to link themselves to a group or place are gone. But for some people, that's part of their identity. Chechens are an ethnic group with tribal subdivisions but a non tribal society. In the past there were tribal societies.
Oh surpirse, the "society with simple organizational structures" shows up again. Why dont you just say primitive? Because this is what you are basicaly saying, what i already said dozens of times: "Tribe" is only used for appareantly "primitive" people, a and for a "society" of that very people that dont even exists.
Stop ignoring the fact that several contemporary authors use and recognize the term to try and attack me instead of the argument. I gave you a link, and I even quoted above the definition of tribe.
This is the reason someone called you out on using ad hominems.
I am not entirely sure if i understood what you just said. What are these macro determinations? And who would make use of that macro determinations if the whole ethnic group vanished?
Macro determination - the people, like Basques or Chechens. There's still further subdivisions they themselves used that can and are referred as tribal (like the
Cheberloy for the chechens).
Archaeologists and anthropologists still can make those determinations based on material culture and oral tradition. Though the basques didn't vanish, only their tribal subdivisions, just like a lot of ethnies in europe.
Lol, bands is a nice word for clans. Except of that, this link provided nothing new for the discussion. All i see is the author writing about some native clans and villages and describes them as "tribal".
Yes it did, it gives you a good and detailed description of tribes and recognizes, just like other authors. You always complain about the definition of tribes and he just gave you a good one; It's better "evidence" (like such thing was needed) for the existence of tribes from what you ever gave, the biased, non scholarly article you gave just whining about people using the word.
But as I expected you are in denial of reality. Scholars speak about tribes. Tribes existed as societal organizations and they do exist as a group subdivision. No amtter if you believe in it or not, no matter how much you think it's politically correct to deny it because you think you are living in the 19th century.
Also check out how he wants to put a nomadic Native American community into a whole "tribe" (2nd picture of the "tribes"-part), with the elder deciding the fate of his "tribe". So appareantly tribes are now not the the whole subdivisions of people anymore, but just tiny communities instead. Strange how the deifinion of "tribe" changed so fast suddenly.
Strangely as it may seem to you, and if your understanding of the english language wasn't so tenuous you'd know by now, tribe has more than one meaning! Let me quote myself for you:
"The term is used because it's a valid term which implies (for societies in general) societies with simple organizational structures and for an ethnie (like the Chechens) a subdivision which today still has meaning for the reasons explained above. "
See? Two meanings!
I guess showing this link was pretty contra-productive for you, as it just underlined my opinion about "tribe": A very vague term randomly used for native, non-westernized communities (Or sometimes for whole people, that depends on the mood of the author), putting them somehow into a primitive political entity linked by ethnicity.
Actually, it underlined that you live in a cognitive-dissonance state where you think only your school of thought is right. You don't have any arguments to prove that Dr. Dennis O'Neil, the source I quoted, is completely wrong in his definition of it. Your "opinion" (and is the only thing you are right about his whole thing, it's really
just your opinion) is based around a denial of reality and any arguments that might prove you wrong. You can keep your opinion, I know I won't change it and I don't care enough to do it, but stop going around in the forums throwing your
opinion around like it was a fact.
In fact, if you stated that this is your opinion before you throw around it, none of this discussion would happen. You can say
"It's my opinion that tribes don't exist". Your opinion is still wrong, but if you just recognize that's just your opinion instead of implying everyone in anthropology and ethnology are wrong, then it's simpler.
Ah, and btw. please stop your lame attempts to make me look like a whiney, left and "political correct" pussy. Better come up with properly arguments that proof me wrong instead.
Oh, I gave you tons of arguments, but your reply consist simply of ad hominems and a narrow view of the word meanings and definitions.
