Rant: The word "Tribe."
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 4 окт 2024
- Testing new equipment and alienating the audience.
Nobody tell the Icelanders that the Yanks consider them a tribe rather than a nation.
Something marginally better coming soonish. Hopefully...
Link to patreon if you are so inclined.
www.patreon.co...
![KSI - Thick Of It (feat. Trippie Redd) [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/At8v_Yc044Y/mqdefault.jpg)
Yes, it's really confusing even in Europe. For example, I am from Spalding in the UK which was founded by the Spaldingas tribe (in the 6th C AD) they were of the Angles and yet they then became part of the Kingdom of Mercia slightly later! I mean where do you stand!!!
Yet people call the angles a tribe, while they were a conföderation of tribes. just as people call the continental saxons a tribe and the island saxons are called kingdoms. and the continental saxons were made of four tribal confederations who often clashed in war. even in the insede with the different tribes of the federations
In the end, tribe is just a family within a nation, and the size of the family is i think up to 200 or 300 people. @@jarlnils435
And even the attitudes about the word 'tribe' come into that too. Ive seen people say we ahould be greatful about Roman conquests 'uplifting' the 'tribal' Celts and Germanics, and that we should be grateful we turned into the British Empire because we used to be 'primitive' 'tribal' peoples. And then they extend that to the colonisation and say the conquered places should see our process and be grateful we're putting them through it too.
Its amasing the amount of bloodshed and elite greed that gets handwaved by using the word 'tribes'
The word tribe has a connotation of being crude and unsophisticated and also the words tribalist,tribalism which derive from tribe also have certain connotations which aren't so great either.
Yeah... Even as a kid I never understood what "tribe" was supposed to mean. "Nation" always made much more sense to me.
This is in no way any kind of rant. This is simply a logical focus on what makes a "Nation" in French, Spanish and so on, the Nation comes from whom and where you born (naître, nacer etc) and the final identity grouping comes from a common language that is shared. You have proven this point. It was time this point was made. Thank you.
Your videos are awesome man. You’ve got great points. When you said “when people say tribe it’s really hard to know what they are talking about” it’s so spot on.
But I think the takeaway is that the word itself kind of means “we don’t really know what we are talking about” either out of ignorance due to lack of focus, care, or availability of information.
I've seen people on the internet use the word "tribe" for mesoamerican city-states and kingdoms, countries with big cities and roads and armies and all that rap you would associate with civilization. But they still call those "tribe". There is no hope.
Some time ago, I was writing a poem with my best friend about a butoh performance he and I had seen. He wrote prose first, and then I got the idea to take his ideas into poetry. At some point, he wanted to use the word "tribal" to describe an aspects of the performance's esthetic. I though, with my background in anthropology, knew too well the fraught baggage this term brings, and immediately felt a cringe as I read it. However, I as a poet also knew the power latent in the word, and thought I could harness it more wisely. I advised in the end, that we use it in the context of "my tribe," the sense of this primal need of humans to have a group, a belonging. The key difference was that I did not want to place the "tribe" as some exoticized "other" but as ourselves.
In lot's of the butoh I've seen, there is an element of primality, of evoking something that is deeply a part of our nature, our humanity, but that we in who fancy ourselves "civilized" do not care to confront. For my Japanese peers, where butoh was invented, it might be going back to the Jōmon spirit, or the "shamanistic" nature of shintō. For me, rooted in the western tradition, I often find inspiration in the classical world and its mythos, and I hope one day to use butoh to scrape away the polish of austerity we've put upon them. After all, butoh is an danceform concerned with rejecting the lofty nature of the western tradition, and instead digging into the darkness of the earth.
In the end, that part of the poem was written like this:
"Outside - the world
The ritual is etched,
As the sun slowly sets,
We converge
Round our priestess
Like her tribe
Like her flock
Foolish and lost
Awaiting the sacrifice
She’s promised us,"
And the full poem can be read here:
myrran.com/butoh/past/2020Jun21st/#event2020HBFOtaruTour2
In the US, "tribe," especially "federally recognized tribe" has a specific legal designation. There are Native American groups or identities which are not recognized as a "tribe" and fighting to be so, because it entails certain rights and protections. For better or worse, I think the term "tribe" thus has become synonymous with the "American Indian" identity in their struggle for things like "tribal sovereignty."
I can understand your distaste for the word, especially its usage in anthropology, but I don't think the ambiguity of the word is a serious matter. Words are ambiguous. "Nation" once meant an ethnic group, something more less like "tribe," but with the rise of nation states in the 19th century, the idea of "nation" came to mean a large sovereign state," sometimes one that isn't even necessarily based on a single ethnic identity. The Haudenosaunee will call themselves "the Six Nations" but they form one confederacy, so are they a single nation? It depends which meaning we are using, but this is true for many, many words, and context and clear communication can solve that problem.
Words are organic, living things, that will grow with the people who use them. Terms like "tribe" and "Indian" were made to deride and other the indigenous peoples of North America, but for some at least, they are the linguistic tools they use to talk about their own identity as history has caste it. Words have a lot of power, but how we wield them also matters.
No worries about bearing with you. I am so grateful for all of this.
In Scotland we have clans. If your second name is one of the clan names you count as one of them through blood.
It's a throwback to the old tribal system here in our distant past. I think nation is appropriate for native Americans tho given the numbers and unique culture. I think we're fine here as clans and tribes in our past.
We have clans here in addition, they used to refer to the extended family.
@@MalcolmPL I meant to ask how does the clan system work? I understand the 6 nations of the Iroquois used it to help in their representation of the 6 nations by having a matriarch at the head of each family?
In Scotland the clan leadership is mostly in the past. (Although there are heads it's considered anachronistic culturally) different clans have different tartans to represent them but the catalogue listing the patterns in the national museum of Scotland has been shown to largely just have been made up rather than a real historical catalogue of colours and patterns.
Each nation is divided into clans, originally nine. The clans are matrilineal, you inherit your mother’s clan.
The clans are like an extended family, you are not supposed to marry within your clan. Back in the day you would share a longhouse with the rest of your clan.
Each clan has one or more clan mothers. These have certain political responsibilities, the primary being they elect chiefs and other leaders, they can also depose said chiefs.
Each clan has one or more chiefs on the grand council, thus everyone has a political spokesman, a relative in power.
The clan mother position usually passed from mother to daughter, but it could be any female relative thought suitable by the previous.
A corrupt or incompetent clan mother could be deposed by the women of the clan who would then elect a replacement.
Certain cultural, religious and ceremonial duties are tied to certain clans, faithkeepers are usually turtle clan, healers are usually bear, war chiefs are usually wolf. But it’s unclear how rigidly this was upheld.
And that’s all I can pull out of my head right now.
@@MalcolmPL Does it mean that those societies are/were also matrilocal? Like upon marriage the man moves to his wives house? As a husband you'd get to the army on your original clan side or on your wife's clan, and like fullfill other obligations?
Yes, the man moves into the wife’s house.
I think the word "Tribe" is only really used to describe people who have been colonized and lost
Rather than meaning something coherent
It's main use is to justify imperialism rather than to accurately describe a people
The Zulu very much where not a tribe. They where many different communities under one banner
They where a kingdom basically with feifs and a king but nobody really thinks of the Zulus as a kingdom. And I think it's just because they didn't have easy access to firearms and lost.
THANK YOU!!
As an anthropologist myself I can't tell you how much I loathe this bias term
Not to mention all the "microstates" in the pacific ocean that have 20, 000 people at best. Even so no one would call these Nations a tribe.
we also have our family units/clan system units/ha'a/sa that get called tribes all the time... 'tribal tattoos' are a good example. they look at us, think were savages, and the idea of 'tribe' pops into their heads
"Tribe" is equally problematic in an African context, and the term has been steadily removed from academic discourse there for the same reasons. I think pretty much the only place I ever see it now is in discussions of the Berber confederations and even there the usage is questionable.
Exactly. "Tribe" in many uses has a placeless character. The "wandering jew" and "the lost tribes of Israel" are both imagined as people without a place in the world ceaselessly searching for "the promised land".
If you want to seize someone's land then a term that displaces them is sure convenient.
Thought provoking as always. It is time I accept the fact that the majority of my 'understanding' of First Nations people was written by those that either did not care for, or were deliberately antagonistic towards the native people they were documenting.
Completely off topic, While watching this video I imagined that these are the kind of things going through an animals mind as it walks along the edge of a field. So many times I have watched a deer, bear or coyote walking along like this and wondered what they might be thinking. Now I am no mind reader but I would think it safe to guess they are thinking about where they are headed. Trying to recall the best way to get to water, food or a nice spot to lay down. But you never really know do you? Love your ramblings Malcolm. Thank you for sharing your thoughts!
I want to know how the animals think. Is it like us but without words? Or like the subconscious, where disjointed thoughts drift and collide.
@@MalcolmPL some people say that animals live inside of the last 2 minutes and the next 2 minutes all the time.
@@MalcolmPL Also.. I believe that critical and subjective thinking come into play too. But probably only when the animal is satisfied that all is safe and they can let their guard down to relax. But as soon as something jars them from idle thinking, it's right back to survival based instinctual thinking. Humans too are guilty of this. Idle time for us leads us to rethinking and doubts a lot of time. When we are too busy to think of such things we are content with only thinking about the last two minutes or the next two...
I am German. Let´s look at the word linguistically.
The German word for tribe is 'Stamm', which also means 'treetrunk' and could be translated as 'stem'. The word 'tribe' could be related to 'drive' which is related to German 'Trieb' which means 'shoot' or 'sprout'.
So you can see that the word 'tribe' in the so called indo-european or germanic language group has a floral, plant and biology related background. It descirbes a branch of a tree, an outcrop of the same plant. In this sense, as a German I visualize the Nation as the tree, and the tribe as the branch of the Nation, whenever I hear the word tribe. That is obviously not what the modern, hollywood educated person associates with the word.
Just know, that there were other times, when tribe meant something different, than what you are complaining about now. I can also add, that both tribe and nation are now almost outlawed words in Germany, aswell as race. Mention words like these and you can loose your job, even if this should be illegal. You are only allowed to refer to everybody as "human" now in Germany. Sad times ahead for tribes/nations man.
Kind Regards
Signed: Tribesman whose tribe/nation was colonized and destroyed since 800 ad.
I think I like "people" as it erases all of those linguistic problems with a wave. You have Wampanoag people and Cape Cod people and people who like trucks all defined neatly beforehand without mucking about with defining a subject too tightly. You can have a Wampanoag person who lives on Cape Cod and who likes their truck, but no one thing defines them more precisely than it needs to. Around here, you will hear the use of "tribe," but I think you are correct; it's practically self-demeaning. The thing is, "tribe" is now a political definition with rights and responsibilities. O.K., but it's a poor name, and don't even get me started on the "Pow wow."
I think you are right, most certainly now. There is no denying that non of the indegenous peoples of the americas constitute tribes nowadays. Maybe some of the bands in the amazon? Or the centinelese in the Indian ocean but those are outliers. It might have been a more functional description in the time of the first colonies but it is not an apt description for them nowadays. Nations is a good word. A good series of thoughts Malcolm.
I've always associated the word "tribe" with the lifestyle. It's definitely very imprecise though, and I can see why people may find it belittling. I don't think it should be viewed as such though. Every culture came from a "tribal" lifestyle at some point. Arguably, it is human's most natural state given how long it has been around.
I am 77 and I have always lived in the midwest of the US. My native American education came from television westerns in the 50s. In the last two years I have become fascinated with the people who lived here some 10000-20000 years ago. I gave up on trying to remember tribal names as they emerged and now refer to all as indigenous people. Is that offensive?
No, it’s not offensive, it's sort of necessary. There are a lot of groups. You should learn the names of those close to you, but indigenous is fine.
Great points, I find it interesting how different the views of Anthropology and Indigenous nations here in the US still use tribe, while its akin to saying the n-word to many in Canada. I have a feeling a lot of it comes down to the fact that our natives are just trying to get by and yeah its annoying but could we have some economic help and our land back here? My partner is an archaeologist and used the T-word on a podcast with Canadians and they were quite shocked at her, and she's worked with native groups. It might also come down to the fact that in many states the population of natives were so whittled down by oppression that many in the state, especially ones that recognize no official native nations(tribes) are small enough that they view themselves more as a tribe and less as a nation. Those in Oklahoma, The Dine nation and Lakota nation use the term nation because they are very large. Many in other states are so sparse many refer to themselves as tribes.
What are your thoughts on the terms “Indian” vs “Native American”? Which do you prefer? And if you do prefer “Indian”, are there polite ways to distinguish people from the Americas and people from India?
Indian is highly situational. Being only appropriate in certain contexts, while in others it can be derogatory.
We don't use "Native American" in Canada very much. I assume it's because it contains "American" which means United States in common parlance. "American Indian" is almost never used.
There is a lot of anti-American sentiment in Canada, particularly on Six Nations. One opinion runs like this, "They drove us out of our homes at gunpoint, we don't want to be associated with their name."
It might sound petty, but it is what it is.
"First Nations" is the proper term, but it's cumbersome in certain contexts, it also excludes the Inuit and Metis.
"Indigenous peoples" is another slightly cumbersome proper term.
"Natives" is the casual term, the one most people use most of the time, but it is mostly unfit for professional usage.
Where possible it is good to refer to the specific group or community in question by name. It often isn't possible, but oh well.
Thank you
I understand what one might be trying to say when they make the remark about different "tribes" being in Stadacona, Hochelaga, or Mantle. I know it's not a precise description but it's saying that there were different linguistic groups or cultures at these sites. Which seems to be true. Tribe means cultural group. Right??? Most ppl in America would be surprised or confused by the fact that Algonquins and Iroquois are totally different cultures. Love your vids tho. Great stuff!
Is that what he’s saying though?
It seems odd to suggest that there were twenty linguistically distinct peoples along one river. Most other rivers in the eastern part of the continent only have between one and four linguistically distinct cultures.
I could buy it if he’d said six or eight, maybe even ten, but twenty? I don’t think that’s what he meant.
Have you made any videos about ganienkeh? Id ve very curious to hear your perspective on the place and event.
Kwe skennen, I call bureaucrats and politicians "The paper people" tribe. In Peace and Friendship.
Thanks. This rant is helpful.
Interesting, and thank you for your thoughts on the issue. I used to make "tribal" art (actually neo-tribal) but in no way was it indigenous Canadian... my tribal roots are 75% Euro and that was what I was channeling. I wonder if the problematic use of the word "tribe" is more often a Canadian thing.
We run into all sorts of problems without clear language... then throw in multiple languages and it can go to shi* fast. If we would all consider how others hear our words (as I think you did quite well even on a "rant"), as much as we want our words to be heard, communication would be more productive.
It would be good if when using an ambiguous term, people would present their definition.
Interesting to hear your perspective. I always assumed a nation was a large group of people living on a large parcel of land united under one leader or government that all fought together in times of war. So, at one time, what is now Germany was made up of many smaller Principalities that were often at war with each other. They became a nation under one rule due to conquest and alliance, now Germany. I think rightly descriptive words become disliked because they are used in derogatory terms or as an insult. So, the insulted party seeks to change the word. For example. When I was a child people with a disability were referred to as handicaped. It was used as an insult in school yards etc so the term was changed to disabled, then spastic, then special and now I believe it is person with a disability. Which will probably changed again in the future. All of the words were considered the best description when they were introduced. People have a nack for turning any word into an insult. Who knows, as an old man you may find the description of nation to be an put down. Not saying I'm right about any of this and I understand people wanting to use different words.
Huh. I did not realize that about 'tribe', thanks for setting it straight. Nation is a better sounding, more powerful word.. and it embiggens people :)
So, in an european way of describing tribes, the Mohawks are a culture group with different tribes.
That's how you would divide it in european context. Celtic culture group with closely related languages and dialects, divided into different tribes. Some of these tribes were kingdoms. Or the greeks, they were also a culture group, divided into different tribes such as the achaians, dorians and ionians.
Italy was even worse as there were closely related culture groups such as the italic, sabine and latin tribes. The romans were composed of three tribes that formed from latin and sabine clans. Than there were the etruscans who were their own culture, the apulians.
The Six Nation group of Mohawks would be, under this definition six tribes of a larger culture. Divided into clans.
But I think, the differences between ancient europe, wher the origin of european tribes comes from and the americas, is too big to use european explanations on american cultures. Through, you have to, if you speak in an european language about your culture.
I would say that nations can be made of several tribes, even not related tribes. A culture is made of different tribes with the similar cults and customs and languages. Tribes are made of multible clans. Clans are made of multible families.
You’re getting into the issue of conflicting definitions.
For example the way “clan” is used in Europe is very different from over here.
“Clan” over here just means family. Its not some collection of families, or a group larger than a band but smaller than a tribe, or a feudal alliance, It’s essentially just a last name.
@@MalcolmPL It is really a difficult topic, as it is so different to europe. But even in europe it is not so clear. In germany, a clan was called, and is still called by my own family, a Sippe. The Sippe is every family member of many related families. I'm part of such a group over my great grandmother, who had many children who than had families on their own. That's the Sippe. It can't be translated one to one to english, as a clan can mean something different there. Ireland has strict rules on who belongs to which clan and how. Scottish clans are more like germanic tribes from my understanding, but again, they are different to the germanic tribes. So even here we have difficulties to discribe the systems of other cultures.
Shat do you call it in your language?
I’m afraid I don’t know. I only speak a few dozen words, and that isn’t one of them.
@@MalcolmPL Well, yeah, it's a last name, but it's a patronym that denotes descent. All men of my clan are descendants of Fergus Mor MacEirc. We at the least shared an ancestor 1500 years ago, and likely a lot more recently. Sure, we aren't forming feudal alliances because that's not considered necessary in the modern age - people can get by well enough on their own, and post people prefer that or else it wouldn't be that way.
I was always told that nation is the proper term. Nation as in the people grpup. The Cherokee nation, the Ojibwe nation, the Dakota nation, Navajo nation, the Cree nation, the Seminole nation, exc.
I would welcome an opportunity to sit with you. Anytime.
Wouldn’t tribe be the same as family or family name? Like the Arabian tribes
Clan is the same as family name. Tribe is used for any unit of any size.
Point taken.
I love the words nation, clan, house, family.
I'm European.
+
Agreed. Although I don't use the term 'problematic' because it was invented and is mostly use by communists. Still, I find 'tribe' to be too ill-defined of a term so I started describing the indigenous peoples of the Americas in terms of nations and clans years ago. That then begs the question of what a 'nation' is, and what the difference is between that and an ethnicity.
I would define an ethnicity as a complex of markers ranging from language and culture to race and a hundred other things that groups of people use to distinguish themselves from other groups of people. In other words, ethnicity is a highly subjective self-identification. I don't know how best to define a nation, but it seems to me to be more political than cultural or racial.
On the first, I use “problematic” literally, in that the criticized word has problems, this definition was not invented by communists, and even if it had been, that is no reason to disregard something useful. Tetris is a great game regardless of the political regime it was built under.
As to your actual point, while you’re correct in that one has more political connotations and the other more racial, in general the two are almost synonymous, I generally don’t think terms like that are worth being overly pedantic about. Different people have different definitions, and communication is difficult when everyone is too rigid.
For example I would describe an Ohsweken Mohawk and an Ohsweken Seneca, and maybe even a Credit Ojibwe as being of the same ethnicity. Whereas someone from Europe might describe the same situation in reverse.
T.L.D.R. It don't matter, it don't make a Pig take a dirt road. Tribe is fine. C.M.M.🤷🏻♂️
1:53 But, there's still an Ontario and an Alberta, even in a Canada. Very legitimate designations. There's a nation/country, but there are still streets; blocks; neighbourhoods; towns; cities; counties; continents; hemispheres; the entire sphere; a solar system; a galaxy... ...
Trifling over "tribe" is trifling, no matter how much an irritant one makes of it. It's still all just a quibbling trifle; a small whistle in a great wind. Or, as you yourself say it, a "rant".
I been of a nation, but also subsetted to the military; then still further subsetted into Army; then M.O.S.; division... ... then aallll the way down to team and finally member.
To the logical conclusion, why not just claim all North and South American Indians be one nation, then propose to subset them in whichever way which best suits you?
If the Irish, if the Scotch, the Welsh, the Britons, the Picts et cetera can be subsetted into clans and families, why ... what entitles ... what exempts Canadian Indians from being further categorized into anything other than nations?
There are, besides, plenty contemporary references to collectives of Indians as nations. So, really, what the fukk?🤷🏻♂️
I think you missed my point, I am not criticizing the concept of distinctions. I am criticizing words which do not function as intended. Words with drastically different definitions which are applied arbitrarily.
Let me put it this way, “tribe” can refer to three levels of structure. Communities, territories or nationalities. Let’s apply this to the United States, where you have cities, states and the country as a whole. Is it reasonable or useful to refer to all three layers as “villages”?
In albania and kosova we hsve tribes or clans who much rather fit the description we are all of the slbanian nation but have minor clans and tribes we all speak albanian and tribes have some minor and i do mean minor cultural differences even then honestly its more regional theb tribal culture
So it makes no sense for native american first nations