Alternate Berlin Conference: Discussion

There's plenty of evidence.

First beeb result for tribes: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/8185971.stm

To avoid echoing Marius, I should point out that this isn't at all evidence that SS-Africa is uniquely tribal.

The point still stands.
The Volga Germans were quite unique.

Really? What about the Danube Swabians, Transylvanian Saxons, in the Dobruja and the Crimea? And that's just Germans (who admittedly got around a lot).

More apt is towards the Balkans where you have the Romanian Hungarians and the big mess around Serbia and all that.

I think you underestimate how much more of Europe was like that. The old Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and the kingdom of Hungary were as confusing in both the incredible intermixedness of the nations and their national sentiment.

Your point on nationality being not more defined in Europe than Africa; aha. I still think 1800 is a bit late then but yes, at one point people tended to not look much beyond their villages for what 'their' people were.

But the point AHP originally made was that, contrary to what you were saying, many, quit possibly most AFricans looked beyond the village. They may have been lots more village-bound than 1885 Europeans, but not 1800 ones (ever read "Discovery of France"?).

Its not irrelevant. It is the topic. Its me trying to sum up my entire point to try and stop this 'lengthy and icnreasingly pointless debate'. I don't know where you're getting the idea of smoke screens from though, I'm being quite upfront about my point.

Ducking out of statements you made earlier like Africa being defined by tribalism.
 
To avoid echoing Marius, I should point out that this isn't at all evidence that SS-Africa is uniquely tribal.
:rolleyes:
You miss the point. Its the first thing that comes up when searching for tribes on the BBC. I'm not going to go and start digging up every article ever on African tribes (especially given the current mess with the Afghan/Pakistani tribal areas), suffice to say there are more and it is a fine word to use.

Really? What about the Danube Swabians, Transylvanian Saxons, in the Dobruja and the Crimea? And that's just Germans (who admittedly got around a lot).
Still different to the Volga Germans.
I've acknowledged things get messier towards the Balkans though from the start.
I think you underestimate how much more of Europe was like that. The old Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and the kingdom of Hungary were as confusing in both the incredible intermixedness of the nations and their national sentiment.
Hungary largely covered the Balkans which I've acknowledged (my original words being comparing them and Africa). What are you referring to specifically in Poland? The Germans?

But anyway. Yes. Europe did used to be messier. Africa though remains that way to quite an extent.


But the point AHP originally made was that, contrary to what you were saying, many, quit possibly most AFricans looked beyond the village.
He never said that and I never disputed it.
They may have been lots more village-bound than 1885 Europeans, but not 1800 ones (ever read "Discovery of France"?).
And many of them looked towards larger tribes when they did this.

Ducking out of statements you made earlier like Africa being defined by tribalism.
What are you looking for?
'OK, I admit it, not 100% all of Africa has tribalism'?
As there you go. Its never been my point and I freely admit it. From the start I said pretty much and a lot of the continent. And that is only in so far as you can define a place.
Defining the entire place as just one thing is silly.
 
Last edited:
A BBC article! About tribes! :eek:

That is incontrovertible proof then! Sorry for ever doubting you.

:rolleyes:

The article uses the word "tribal" only once, to refer to the origins of dance/music forms. Much like the Waltz originated with the Bavarian tribe of Southern Germany, and the Polka originated with the Czech tribe.
 
:rolleyes:
You miss the point. Its the first thing that comes up when searching for tribes on the BBC. I'm not going to go and start digging up every article ever on African tribes (especially given the current mess with the Afghan/Pakistani tribal areas), suffice to say there are more and it is a fine word to use.

So the point is that the BBC is the leading authority on African ethnology? That western news sites are the only ones qualified to comment on Africa? And as AHP points out the article in question barely concerns tribalism.

Still different to the Volga Germans.
I've acknowledged things get messier towards the Balkans though from the start.

This isn't really relevant, but I'm curious: how were the various German groups so different? They were all invited to settle an area which was sparsely populated by a Germanophilic government.

Hungary largely covered the Balkans which I've acknowledged (my original words being comparing them and Africa). What are you referring to specifically in Poland? The Germans?

"Poland" is not the same as "the old Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth", which was the better part of central Europe and in which nationality was tremendously intermixed and confused. Kosciuszko (sp?) was a Belarussian who was a Lithuanian who was Polish, and none of these three had any clear boundaries, physical or sentimental.

But anyway. Yes. Europe did used to be messier. Africa though remains that way to quite an extent.

Thanks to being held back by imperialism, which you denied...

He never said that and I never disputed it.

Here:

The idea that Europeans carved up tribes and nations willy nilly is largely a myth.
Africa was a land that made the Balkans look neat and tidy. You had bits and pieces of tribes splashed about all over the place. There is no way you could design borders to keep all of one tribe in one country and all of another tribe in the other country.
The best you can do here is to use more 'proper' geographic boundaries than just the straight lines that often were used. The big problem here though is that Africa was still largely unknown. Mapping out where these decent natural borders were would be a overly time consuming and expensive process.

In which you refer to Africa generically, allege that it was somehow more mixed up than the Balkans, and seemed to be completely denying that there had been developed states which were destroyed by colonialism.

And many of them looked towards larger tribes when they did this.

"Larger tribes"? sort of like "Germans" or "Frenchmen", then?

What are you looking for?
'OK, I admit it, not 100% all of Africa has tribalism'?
As there you go. Its never been my point and I freely admit it. From the start I said pretty much and a lot of the continent. And that is only in so far as you can define a place.
Defining the entire place as just one thing is silly.

Then why did you do it?

'Tribal' is pretty much the defining characteristic of Africa. Even today much of the continent remains very tribal.
 
Thanks to being held back by imperialism, which you denied...
Thats your opinion.
Without imperialism I think the situation would be a lot worse.

In which you refer to Africa generically, allege that it was somehow more mixed up than the Balkans, and seemed to be completely denying that there had been developed states which were destroyed by colonialism.
/mellow
Because I didn't mention the developed nations doesn't mean I'm denying they existed. Though some ideas of African civilization is controversial others are fully accepted parts of history.
The established urbanised nations of Africa that were taken over by Europeans tended to be exceptions rather than the rule.
Additionally it must be noted that much like nations of elsewhere in the world these African nations didn't entirely conform to natural and tribal boundaries; they would have part of a tribe inside its borders and another part of it outside no problem and they didn't just rule over their 'own' people.
e.g. The Kanem empire. The empire of one particular desert tribe they gradually conquered bits of their neighbours.
"Larger tribes"? sort of like "Germans" or "Frenchmen", then?
Yep.

Then why did you do it?

I don't.
'Tribal' is pretty much the defining characteristic of Africa. Even today much of the continent remains very tribal.
No all of.
 
OK, just to muddy the waters even further:

American Indians generally use tribe and nation interchangably.

Navajo Tribe = Navajo Nation, etc.

But for govts we will generally talk about tribal govt vs national govt ie that of the US or Canada.

Nation I would define as people of a common culture living within generally recognized borders. (Thus the Nation of Islam and Aryan Nation are simply examples of wishful thinking.)

So, yes, tribes do have generally recognized borders, even if they don't have walls, checkpoints, and border guards. They're just as defined in their own time period as many European nations were. Currently we often try to define the tribal borders as much as possible because of land claims, mineral rights, legal jursidction for crimes, etc.

I'd also suggest making a distinction between the nation-state, as state was defined in modern times by Max Weber, and nations.

A nation doesn't have to have a national govt. It can be split across borders (ie the Kurds) or it can have several of them eg the Cherokees are one nation, but they have three separate tribal govts.

But I do share the distaste for the way "tribal" gets thrown around by journalists and analysts as a perjorative word implying "those primitive hateful mindless people."

I'm curious if Africans would define a tribe the way Am Indians do. I've met some Sammi when I traveled to Europe who seemed to agree.
 
There were indeed nations in Africa, some of them substantial in size and which required major efforts by one or more European powers to defeat.

In the case of Ethiopia to NOT defeat until Mussolini.

The idea that such nations weren't being carved up according to lines drawn in European parlors contrary to the wishes of the people who actually lived there is not correct.
 
Bismarck had exactly one about-face when it came to colonial empires, which was all about German domestic politics.

It's important to separate East Africa from the rest of the colonies - the latter he seized, the former developed out of private initiative by Peters and associates.

There were several events that could have led to war other than the Morocco crisis of 1911, including the earlier Morocco crisis, the French/Italian conflict over Tunis, the Jameson Raid and accompanying tensions, the Niger crisis (this one the least of the bunch), and the Fashoda crisis, among others that are just not as known.


Argueably. Nachtigal and Luderitz operated under some of the same imperatives as Peters and Bismarck simply assumed control officially by the German gov't to prevent the regions going to someone else after they had done the initial legwork. Same as Peters.
 
I own a copy of The Washing Of The Spears, perhaps the definitive book on the Zulu nation's rise through the war with the British in 1879.

If you read the book and realize how dramatically that part of Africa changed in barely two generations it becomes much harder to rule out all matter of changes and improvements in Africa had the people living there only been given the time.
 
I own a copy of The Washing Of The Spears, perhaps the definitive book on the Zulu nation's rise through the war with the British in 1879.

If you read the book and realize how dramatically that part of Africa changed in barely two generations it becomes much harder to rule out all matter of changes and improvements in Africa had the people living there only been given the time.

That sounds like a very interesting read, and a very good point: people sometimes think pre-colonial was in mud-hut stasis. It produced splendid and vibrant peoples and civilisations which would certainly have continue dto develop in the absence of European meddling.
 
It is quite interesting. Quite a few people have heard of the Zulus but not many realize that in the early 19th Century the Zulus were effectively a tiny tribe fielding less than 400 warriors.

One man changed all that and in barely a generation a significant nation whose people all saw themselves as Zulu had been formed.
 
Top