Lately I've been interested in the idea of "the tribe". Europe used to be populated by Germanic tribes, Gallic tribes, Iberian tribes, British tribes and so on. Today however, no one identifies as Iceni or Brigantes for example. Yet in places like Africa and India, tribal affiliations continue to this very day. Why the difference? Why did Europeans lose their tribal identities?
Why did the tribe die out in Europe but continue to thrive in Africa and Asia
- Thread starter Emperor Palpatine
- Start date
include eastenr europe cause tribes are alive and well in greece, serbia, Bosnia, albaania, and so on.
I think it's innacurate to state that the British created "artificial" tribes in Africa and Asia. Yes there was a lot of divide and rule but the British did not create tribes in their empire.
I gave two examples in the OP. Iceni and Brigantes. In Iberia you had the Edetanis, Lusitanis etc, Celtic tribes scattered across Europe etc. Meanwhile today in Africa there still exist the Zulu, Kikuyu, Shona and literallly tens of thousands of other tribes.
Czar Kaizer
Banned
What do you define as "tribe"? During the racist colonial era "tribe" was a designation given to non whites by Europeans because of Social Darwinism. Because non white "races" were considered to be biologically inferior to whites, Europeans divided them up into "tribes" as opposed to nations and "ethnic" groups because it implied that they were lower on the evolutionary ladder. Don't forget that the idea the Nation is a comparatively recent phenomenon but the classification of non whites into "tribes" and whites into nations was done consciously.
it's complicated. the European race obsession and British misunderstandings of Indian civilization are a root of the modern Indian caste system. they didn't create the so-called tribes and ethnic groups, but they did make the lines quite a bit worse.
oh, and the origins of the Hutu and Tutsi as separate groups are also most likely rooted in the European race thing.
*shrugs*
Japhy
Banned
Practically all of them, considering most weren't even coherent groups until Mighty Whitey decided who was more evolved and who was going to just get worked to death. Transforming vague regional or linguistic groups into a solid bloc is, in fact, practical creation. No matter where the names came from.
I guess the answer to this is simply that the Roman empire came in and killed them all/assimilated them. And when the Germanic tribes came in, many got assimilated into the mess because Latin and Christianity. The Visigoths became Spain, the Lombards became Italy, the Franks became France, the Saxons became Germany and England.
I'm sure it's vastly more complicated than that.
And I'm not really sure where the lines between tribe and nation are.
Do you have any academic peer reviewed sources for any of your claims?
Last edited:
Czar Kaizer
Banned
Then you actually know nothing about the history of the British colonial empire. Before colonial rule most things that became known as tribes were very fluid, you could pass onto one group to another without much of a problem.
The imposition of clearly defined ethnic tribes was used as an administrative tool during indirect rule. Basically there were not enough whites to administer certain colonies while at the same time the colonies lacked funds. So in order to compensate for this the British essentially ruled through chiefs who ran the day to day administration of the colonies.
Before colonialism many chiefs had nothing more than symbolic power and actually had very little power while in other societies chiefs simply did not exist. So the British ended up designating districts to be ruled by chiefs who were given absolute power, something which had not existed before in many societies while at the same time new chiefs were created for societies which previously had non before.
When it comes to the creation of "tribes" the British found a continent which was not homogenous and with many groups actually being mixed or not affiliated with anyone. In order to facilitate effective rule they deliberately used a policy of divide and rule, people were designated chiefs based on very narrowly defined "ethnic groups". Whereas before African societies had been extremely fluid what the British brought was a system whereby you defined to be part of a certain tribe, which was really important as it defined where you could live, who you paid taxes to, who you could marry, where you could own land,etc,etc.
In other societies certain "tribal" groups came about in different ways. For example in South Africa the creation of Zulu and Xhosa came about as a direct result of mining. Both Xhosa and Zulu are a part of a single Nguni language and "ethnic" group with many local dialects. The truth is that there is no one Xhosa group with many being Thembu, Fingo, etc the same being for Zulu who also have many distinct groups with their own local dialects and groups many of which were never unified and actually fought on opposite sides during colonial wars. However with the growth of the mining industry and the need for black labour it became increasingly useful for Whites to designate their labour pool based on where their workers came from. Thus all Nguni language speakers from the Natal Colony were designated as Zulu while all those who came from the Cape of Good Hope were Xhosa, those from Basotholand were Sotho and they were segregated in the compound system according to these very loosely defined "tribes" even though at the time there was no such thing as a Zulu or Xhosa "nation".
In other places like Rwanda the distinction between Tutsi and Hutu was purely based on whether you practiced pastoralism or were an agriculturalist.
So the real reason Africans and non whites are defined as belonging to tribes is a direct result of colonial rule.
Dragos Cel Mare
Banned
Emperor Palpatine is asking for 'Academic Peer Reviewed' proof of all progressives' claims here, while not asking for such proof from ultramontane conservatives such as Urbanus VII.
He is clearly biased.
He is clearly biased.