Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > General History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

General History General History Forum - General history questions and discussions


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old December 5th, 2016, 02:14 PM   #11

Lucius's Avatar
the governed self
 
Joined: Jan 2007
From: Nebraska
Posts: 16,321

See also -Online Etymology Dictionary
Lucius is offline  
Remove Ads
Old December 5th, 2016, 02:30 PM   #12

Tulius's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: May 2016
From: Portugal
Posts: 3,841

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthew Amt View Post
I have never seen the words tribe or chief/chieftain used in any sort of negative sense. For Roman-era history, "tribe" is just a translation of whatever term the Celts, Germans, or Britains used to describe themselves. "Nation" may be a more literal translation, but might also have unintended implications of size or extent. So the Batavii, Averni, Caledones, etc., are often just called "tribes". They are described as tribal people. None of this implies any sort of assumption about their socio-political organization whether simple or complex, and it certainly isn't meant to be insulting or condescending. It's just the current accepted terminology. If the word is being used differently, it isn't necessarily an "abuse".

For what it's worth, Roman citizens were divided into tribes! In fact I think that's a literal translation of the Latin, related to the position of tribune. Athens and other Greek cities had similar arrangements.

I've just never studied Victorian scholars and don't know what was always going on inside their heads, though they were absolutely bigoted and elitist! But I can't live my life trying to atone for *their* sins.

Matthew
Good post!
Tulius is offline  
Old December 5th, 2016, 02:59 PM   #13

Domnall Ballach's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2016
From: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,646
Blog Entries: 2

Quote:
As I understand the Clan system in Scotland, each clan was an extended family group, descended from a common ancestor, thus in your definition, a tribe
They were actually more like family-run franchises that were made into intertwined communities through fosterage and lax marriage standards, then solidified through ancestral pseudo-history. Most members of a 'clan' were not and are not related to the kindred at the heart of it, the siol. They are descended from people who pledged allegiance to the siol so were allowed to invoke its patronym. Quite a fluid construct, actually: apart from the siol itself, all clan membership was voluntary and could last for as long as it took to get through a ceann's land (a ceann being the head or canopy of a siol; the 'chief'). It's possible to characterise authentic clans as oddly-fraternal mercenary pools, or even cults. But not families.

Last edited by Domnall Ballach; December 5th, 2016 at 03:15 PM.
Domnall Ballach is offline  
Old December 5th, 2016, 03:31 PM   #14

Kahu's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: May 2015
From: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 737
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthew Amt View Post
I've just never studied Victorian scholars and don't know what was always going on inside their heads, though they were absolutely bigoted and elitist!
There is a great deal of confusion surrounding the early history of Maori in Aotearoa. Much of it stems from historical accounts written by Pakeha in the late 19th and early 20th century. Many of these early “experts” were poorly educated men who set themselves up as experts and became authoritative sources. All of them set out to situate Maori history and Maori culture within simple fixed frameworks that would make complex migration and settlement history easily understood, and complex relationships between groups simple. It is doubtful that they themselves ever fully understood the reality of Maori before European settlement, and not much more post settlement.
What they did do was collect a great deal of still valuable oral history including whakapapa and stories of the ancestors and they recorded it in writing. They also had access to written accounts by Maori, which they translated and recorded. Most often however they applied their own interpretations to that information and constructed their version of our history and their version of our social, economic and political lives. The big picture they constructed was often wrong, but the detail they collected remains a valuable resource.
...
A glaring example of mythological construct is the Great Fleet of migration waka from the Pacific Islands to Aotearoa New Zealand. This myth says that the seagoing migration vessels or waka, sometimes called canoes, Aotea, Arawa, Kurahaupo, Mataatua, Tainui, Takitimu and Tokomaru, all departed and arrived together. It’s a great story but pure fiction. There were many more waka than those seven and their arrivals were spread over a long period.
Maori Policy: Whanau, Hapu, Iwi Mythology | Te Putatara : Commentary and Opinion for the Kumara Vine
Kahu is offline  
Old December 5th, 2016, 11:34 PM   #15

johnincornwall's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Nov 2010
From: Cornwall
Posts: 6,666

You can also get a tribe of monkeys of course. But that probably confuses an already-confused thread!
johnincornwall is offline  
Old December 6th, 2016, 12:12 AM   #16

AlpinLuke's Avatar
Knight-errant
 
Joined: Oct 2011
From: Lago Maggiore, Italy
Posts: 23,005
Blog Entries: 19

If we go back for a while to the Roman "tribes" ... the "tribus" were social groupings [at the beginning of the history of the city there were only 3 tribes made by about a hundred original "gentes"].

Btw, from "tribus" it came the figure of the "tribunus" [the tribune]. The "tribus" became also an electoral district.

[A curiosity is that the plural dative of tres, three, is tribus and the original tribus were just three].
AlpinLuke is offline  
Old December 16th, 2016, 12:09 PM   #17

greendragon's Avatar
Citizen
 
Joined: Nov 2016
From: Corning, NY
Posts: 16

Quote:
Originally Posted by Domnall Ballach View Post
They were actually more like family-run franchises that were made into intertwined communities through fosterage and lax marriage standards, then solidified through ancestral pseudo-history. Most members of a 'clan' were not and are not related to the kindred at the heart of it, the siol. They are descended from people who pledged allegiance to the siol so were allowed to invoke its patronym. Quite a fluid construct, actually: apart from the siol itself, all clan membership was voluntary and could last for as long as it took to get through a ceann's land (a ceann being the head or canopy of a siol; the 'chief'). It's possible to characterise authentic clans as oddly-fraternal mercenary pools, or even cults. But not families.
Fair enough. I know adoptions were common and pretty easy, and of course marriage meant lots of new blood each generation. The word 'clann' does mean family, at least in Irish Gaelic.

I know with the pre-Norman Gaelic communities, the immediate family of the king was known as the derb-fine. By definition, those in the derb-fine shared a common grandfather.
greendragon is offline  
Old December 16th, 2016, 02:09 PM   #18
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2016
From: USA
Posts: 177

Quote:
Originally Posted by Swagganaut View Post
I am fairly often confronted with the term "Tribe" in my fields of interest, especially African history and the Romano-Germanic kingdoms. I see a lot of people, even on this forum, excessively using that very term.
A tribe is a people which traces its origin on a common ancestor, mostly mythological. In the 19th and 20th century the term "tribal" started to be used for appareantly primitive people, mostly African ones, but also native American, Celtic or Germanic ones. People which are thought to have not developed a more complex political organization on their own and in generel live a rather "uncivilied" life. Therefore, the term "tribal" is used to subliminal accuse a people of primitiveness, without beeing of much else use except of that sublinimal message, since the described people aren't even tribes after the correct definition.

Of course I must also point out that there are tribes, especially in Arabia and North Africa, also New Zealand, if I am right. I just would like to advise you guys to think more carefully about what terms you are using to describe what kind of people. For African ones I would suggest the said "people" or "ethnic group". For the Germanics, especially of Late Antiquity, it's a bit more complicated. Basicaly every one of the larger "tribes", like the Gepids, the Ostrogoths and the Franks, were in fact a conglomerate of many different people. Not only Germanics, but also Huns, Alans and even Romans. That's why the recent scholarship starts to make use of the term which was used by the Romans, "gentes". Also a bit vague, but possibly the best we got.

Blah blah......

We already have reached an absurd level of political correctness in my country. Or should I say......our obsession with it has reached absurd proportions.

So....what tribe did you say you're from?


LOL



I would never care a **** if anybody asked me my tribe.


I am a Hun. So what?

Last edited by Yossarian; December 16th, 2016 at 02:11 PM.
Yossarian is offline  
Old December 16th, 2016, 02:16 PM   #19

Swagganaut's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: May 2015
From: Germany
Posts: 1,207

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yossarian View Post
Blah blah......

We already have reached an absurd level of political correctness in my country. Or should I say......our obsession with it has reached absurd proportions.

So....what tribe did you say you're from?


LOL
"Look at what a political incorrect and non-mainstream guy I am by insisting on using outdated and racist terms!"

Last edited by Swagganaut; December 16th, 2016 at 02:20 PM.
Swagganaut is offline  
Old December 16th, 2016, 03:05 PM   #20
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2016
From: USA
Posts: 177

Quote:
Originally Posted by Swagganaut View Post
"Look at what a political incorrect and non-mainstream guy I am by insisting on using outdated and racist terms!"
But that's just the thing that you people don't get.............

"tribe" is NOT an outdated term. Modern day anthropologists and historians still use it. So did many Native Americans I now.

I'ts only the libtards who wear their sensitivities on their sleeves who seem to have a problem. Usually middle class suburbia soccer moms with too much time on their hands and a crappy sex life, but I see now that it not the only demographic.

LOL
Yossarian is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > General History

Tags
abuse, term, tribe



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
the term "black" in Europe before modern racial concepts RemGrade European History 58 July 14th, 2016 07:10 AM
Isn't the term "Middle ages" Euro-Centric? lokariototal Medieval and Byzantine History 51 December 16th, 2015 07:21 AM
"Turkish" term referring to all Ottomans by Europeans koseku European History 16 February 3rd, 2014 07:33 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.