Talk:Tribe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Zuni girl; photograph by Edward S. Curtis, 1903 This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.
NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritizing and managing its workload.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the Project's importance scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.
WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks:
Tribe is included in the 2007 Wikipedia for Schools, or is a candidate for inclusion in future versions. Please maintain high quality standards, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the CDs.

Church considers a "tribe" to be a higher-level grouping of people than "clan" -- the church defines "clan" as a group of related families.

Groups on a higher level than "tribe" could be "race" or "nation" (it depends).

I haven't the slightest idea if the church usage is common or ideosyncratic.

--Ed Poor

Is the definition of "tribe" defined by statute in some nations? For instance in the United States, one hears of "recognized" and "unrecognized" Indian "tribes". This leads me to believe there is some official criteria in determining whether a people constitute a tribe.

I think, though I'm not sure, that a "recognized" tribe is one that the US government has signed a treaty with. Tokerboy 05:02 Dec 31, 2002 (UTC)

As for the question above, I usually have understood a "clan" to be a smaller subset of a tribe.

Other than being "smaller" (or bigger) is a clan substantially different from a tribe? Pizza Puzzle

After reading this article I have very little idea what a "tribe" actually is. Can we have articles begin with actually telling the reader what the heck they're all about before jumping headlong into some obscure controversy? Graft 20:33 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Well, you tell me. I tried to add some more specific content in the first paragraph -- but it is hard to tell a reader what a tribe is "about" given that many people argue they don't really exist (I mean, sociologically -- not legally), and there is no real consensus on how to define or describe them. Slrubenstein
especially corporate descent groups

What? What does this mean? Daelin

Clans and lineages. Slrubenstein

I believe this is more or less the standard anthropological meaning of tribe: A tribe is a small society, bound by kin relations, with its own customs, culture, etc. What distinguishes a tribe from a clan is that tribes see themselves as being a totally separate people from other tribes. Clans are large kin groups that are distinct in some way, but are still part of a larger society. Tribes, however, make up an entire society. this of course involves lots of grey area: what is a separate society, what is not a separate society. But that, I believe, is the difference between the terms Clan and Tribe.

Then another concept is "band," as in band society. A band is considered to be a separate society even smaller than a tribe, and with even less formal structure. But a band is still bound by kin relations, like a tribe or a clan.

Fishal 20:58, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)


This isn't quite true. Anthropologists use the word "tribe" in different ways and I think the article gives a decent summary of these ways. A clan is a unilineal corporate descent group with stipulated descent. Tribes are often but not necessarily divided into descent groups (like clans or lineages). Fried demonstrated conclusively that tribes do not have their "own" culture -- some tribes are heterogeneous, culturally, and some tribes share culture with other tribes. Tribes do not necessarily see themselves as completely separate from other tribes (although they may be politically autonomous). Slrubenstein

Contents

[edit] List of tribes

Please, can we start one? I'm not all that familiar with them so I'm interested in perusing the various Wiki entries about them.

Iriqouis
Sioux
Aztec
African tribes
Viking clans/tribes etc.

I suggest the format go: Tribe name, location, timeperiod/notes. Or is there already one there? I'm also going to create a redirect from Tribes > the vid game, to Tribes > this article. As I am sure the definition of "tribes" meaning multiple of the literal term will surely outlast the influence of "Tribes" the game --Duemellon 13:18, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Any motion on this? I am completely unfamiliar with tribes so I have no real idea where to start except for that meager list. --Duemellon 13:58, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I think it is better to have regional lists like List of Australian Aboriginal tribes (see also discussion on the word tribe there). With regional lists, one can also be politically correct by using the terms that are accepted there, eg nations, peoples, clans or languages (which are sometimes used interchangably with tribe). "List of African Tribes" would be rather meaningless for several reasons - eg. there is no concensus to what constitues a tribe, is Acholi a tribe, a people (living in Acholi), an ethnic group, a language, a district or a nation? Which is most appropriate? All or none of the above depending on who you are asking. Considerable effort has been made on Wikipedia to avoid usage of "tribe" because it is ambiguous and sometimes percieved as derogatory. In the case of Africa, using ethnolinguistic and demographic divisions (like Category:Languages of Africa and Category:Demographics by country) is more useful.--Ezeu 14:49, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Pragmatically, I think the only thing to do is to have a list of "tribes designated as such (or legally scheduled) by the state." It would also be reasonable to have "Self-designated tribes" but I bet this list would be identical to the first list. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:44, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I like the 1st suggestion of links to regional tribes as that reduces the clutter from this article. The criterion is an interesting point brought up by Slrub as well. Hmmm... well, I'll add the section & see if it flourishes. I'm slow, but I just realized this was in the Native American category... Why? Tribes exist outside of that region. How do you recategorize something?--Duemellon 20:15, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

How many lists do we need? We have lists for just about every nation on earth that has any native population. Just in the U.S., we have:

Again, that's just the U.S. You could probably find a few dozen more poorly maintained lists like List of Native American tribes that are just dying to be VfDed too. Please, do not start another list of this sort. -Harmil 21:23, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

That's the kind've information we should have as links to tribes! The reason why there are so many different entries is poor cross-referencing or whatever. So, we should help them! We don't need to create a new page, just link to those in an appropriate manner. --Duemellon 21:42, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Move from Native American to...?

The reason it needs to be moved is it's current categorical listing is UNDER Native Americans. Not under Native Africans, Native Indain, Native Nordic, etc. So it should be moved. Am I barking up the wrong tree here? What do those category things at the bottom mean? The word "tribe" is not so tightly bound to Native Americans that it's exclusive to them. --Duemellon 12:10, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

With all due respect, I do not think you know what these categories mean. They are not hierarchical (in other words, this article is not "under" the Native American category, it is "included" in that category because it is relevant to that category. You rightly point out that it is relevant to other categories. The solution is simply to add the other germaine categories. If you think there are categories this article should be included in, but those categories do not exist, create them! No one expects categories to be exclusive. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:58, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

yah, that was the clarification I needed (posed by the "Am I barking up the wrong tree here? What do those categories mean"). I've seen at the bottom where the listing showed meant: "category > subcat > etc." but this meant it was in both. Makes sense now. --Duemellon 14:29, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Have all the tribes in existence been discovered?

After whatching the IMAX movie about the Amazon river called Amazon, and botanist medicines that can be discovered there. They say that not all tribes have been discovered, I would beg to differ, anyone have any thoughts on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.125.100 (talk) 05:12, 23 January 2006

  • If they're not discovered, you wouldn't know about it, would you? :-) Arre 11:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Good question, and I agree with you. After all, what constitutes "discovered", and who discovers who? Are people considered discovered if others in the neighboring jungle know of them, or must they first be photographed by National Geographic, then cataloged and described by anthropologists? But cynicism aside, I doubt there are human societies anywhere who have not "discovered" the existence of other peoples, and/or whose existence has not been "discovered" by (at least) the adjacent community.--Ezeu 12:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] tribes and states

Please do not delete an accurate sentence. The citation is not necessary in the first paragraph, which introduces the article as a whole. The body of the article provides an example and citation for this point. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Accuracy is not the only metric by which to judge a modification. Your edit related to an assertion made two sentences before it, and was grammatically incorrect (a simple typo, I imagine, in the use of "by"). I've cleaned it up so that it's actually readable and tried to make references to "some people" (which is almost always incorrect for a reference work) more specific. -Harmil 15:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Usage of the term varies, sometimes unfairly?

The varied usage of the term "Tribe" deserves special mention, I think.

Jewish references to the Twelve Tribes of Israel as people belonging to specific lineages differ in concept to the Rastafarian Twelve Tribes of Israel (see Mansions of Rastafari).

Colonial English?

References to the "tribesmen" of "African tribes" (no different to "members" of "ethnic groups", which seems to be the more accepted terminology today) are not complemented by an equal number of references to "tribesmen" of "European tribes". We've all heard the term Maasai tribesman, but who has ever heard of a Spanish tribesman?

Some people take offense to the use of the word "tribe" in that context, and feel uncomforable with the connotations of derived terms such as "tribal warfare" (no different to "ethnic clashes" ) and "tribalism" (often used in place of the more appropriate term, "Sectarianism"). The discomfort comes from claims that such terms are used in certain contexts to implicitly suggest they are purely African phenomena. Clearly, ethnic groups across the entire world experience the same things that are made to sound unique to "African tribes".

In relation to the unfavourable connotations, the word "primitive" is sometimes used to describe "tribes" that are often simply misunderstood by those who label them "primitive" - a subjective term (those "tribesmen" who are labelled "primitive" may also view their labellers as "primitive").

The use of the word "tribe" in Survivor (the TV Series) re-inforces certain mythical ideas about "tribes". For example, the idea that a "tribe" ought to be a "primitive", "rugged" or "backward" people - living in an area generally unknown to Western society, or under conditions that would be considered harsh or unfavourable by most members of Western society - such as the various locations where the different series were screened. Specific, sometimes strict or distinct rules losely governing the group's way of life, disturbing rituals and a "survival of the fittest" culture, identity tokens, meagre existence and the threat of extinction all seem to be infused in the common usage of the term. These things are all subjective, and therefore apply to most societies - if judged by people of a different culture who are prone to superiority complexes.

Questions such as "have all tribes been discovered?" smack of the condescending and disrespectful attitudes sometimes innocently hidden behind the term's usage. Much like the "discoveries" made by Christopher Columbus.

Not all people carry this baggage. Interestingly, the word "tribe" remains in common use in several parts of english-speaking Africa, with questions like "What tribe do you come from?" not being uncommon.

I agree with Ezeu. The word should be avoided... or better yet, replaced with more politically correct terminology. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.158.128.106 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 26 May 2006 UTC.

Please avoid excessive spacing between paragraphs. Also, please indent your comments accordingly. Now, to the business at hand - I think Fried's critique anticipates most of these points - should that section of the article be developed? Does someone want to go back to the Fried book and see what more belongs in this article? Second, the specific comments on Survivor - I agree. I wish we could include this in the article. We cannot, however, without violating NOR policy. But does anyone know of any scholarly articles analyzing this pehnomenon? If so, we can add it, with proper citation. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I find the term tribe troubling because it groups together a wide range of societies. It has been used to denote anything as diverse as hunter-gatherers on one hand, and early medieval euoropean kingdoms on the other(the germanic tribes).

Generally speaking, academic anthropologists avoid the term "tribe" as though it were anthrax, except for circumstances where the people in question use the term themselves. The term "ethnic group" is much more in favor, because it does not carry colonial baggage and can be used to similar effect when talking about, for example, ethnic violence in Rwanda or ethnic violence in the former Yugoslavia. Malangali 18:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)