Why did the tribe die out in Europe but continue to thrive in Africa and Asia

No : there's a great distinction between tribe and nation/ethny. Saying both are the same, just geographically different, is actually about projecting a modern western conception over a different concept (which lead to several mishandlement of the political/social situations in Americas or Africa).

For exemple, a tribe is tied by direct and known kinship, if more or less symbolic. A nation, on the contrary is tied by different features, the kinship being hugely narrative, and assumed symbolical.

Not distinguishing both is eventually coming down to refuse tribal structures and groups their own specificity, treating them as only a variant of OUR own. At some point, eurocentrism should be really nuanced.

I think the development of nationalism and nation-state really played a part, then. With the development of nationalism in the 19th and 20th century you saw people's identities moving away from the local to the nation. As such, the local ethnic 'tribal' (for lack of a better term) identity was augmented and then surpassed by the national. OF course, standardized language, education and the like all played a part in this.

Its a bit of a broad argument, and there are many variations, but I think it makes some sense.
 
Its a bit of a broad argument, and there are many variations, but I think it makes some sense.

I'm not that convinced to say the truth. Tribal identity, once defined seriously, is pretty much absent as a clear social group : you have things akin, sometimes more or less tied around nobility (as in Wales) but not really including all of a population.
To quote Michat Timowsky, that written a really interesting article on State and Tribe in the History of Medieval Europe and Black Africa – a Comparative Approach I went into recently (following this conversation, actually), there's a limited social distinction with a sense of common kinship trough ancestry; the change trough state being largely tied to power accumulation on particular hands.

While I'm not agreeing with all his premises (several can be discussed widely), I think that's the key : tribal differenciation trough self-perception of kingship trough ancestry and common worship, may have been stronger in Africa than in Europe, preventing too much widespread fusion of populations.

You can find it there, if you're interested.
 
I'm not that convinced to say the truth. Tribal identity, once defined seriously, is pretty much absent as a clear social group : you have things akin, sometimes more or less tied around nobility (as in Wales) but not really including all of a population.
To quote Michat Timowsky, that written a really interesting article on State and Tribe in the History of Medieval Europe and Black Africa – a Comparative Approach I went into recently (following this conversation, actually), there's a limited social distinction with a sense of common kinship trough ancestry; the change trough state being largely tied to power accumulation on particular hands.

While I'm not agreeing with all his premises (several can be discussed widely), I think that's the key : tribal differenciation trough self-perception of kingship trough ancestry and common worship, may have been stronger in Africa than in Europe, preventing too much widespread fusion of populations.

You can find it there, if you're interested.

Interesting! I will have to take a look; thanks! (always looking for food monographs and articles to read :D )
 
The Basques and the Scots are as much 'tribes' as the Zulus or the Kikuyu are.

Tribes still exist in Europe, they're perhaps not as pronounced and civic nationalism is probably stronger in Europe than most African countries.
 
Top