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

[LSCatilina]

It's not really, but most distinctions between them use scale as the distinguishing factor.

Actually, definitions of tribes I went into are different : social groups tied by kinship and common cultural features (which is different from same culture, the same way than you can have one culture and several different cultural features within).

Distinction isn't a matter of scale, as in a neo-positivist evolution from primitive tribe, passing trough state and nation, but of scope. Not only it's not mutually exclusive with other form of social organisation, but it can get develloped from them.

 

[Dragos Cel Mare]

I'm not saying that's a bad thing but is it also a completely good thing? I've seen reports which indicate that 90% of the world's languages will br extinct by the end of this century. I'm not entirely convinced that the loss of language and with that culture, is a good thing.

So you're actually thinking that 'tribes' are good, then? You should have clarified that earlier.

 

[Booster Gold]

Oh and football

A lot of what could be called tribal loyalties got transferred to association football for some bizarre reason.

 

[Dragos Cel Mare]

A lot of what could be called tribal loyalties got transferred to association football for some bizarre reason.

And American Football.

 

['Ezana]

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.

So basically, by "tribe" you mean ethnic group. Because the Zulu, Kikuyu, and Shona are all ethnic groups, with common languages and identities similar to the French and Spanish "tribes" and with sub-identities similar to those of French and Spanish subidentities such as Breton and Catalan.

 

[Czar Kaizer]

So basically, by "tribe" you mean ethnic group. Because the Zulu, Kikuyu, and Shona are all ethnic groups, with common languages and identities similar to the French and Spanish "tribes" and with sub-identities similar to those of French and Spanish subidentities such as Breton and Catalan.

Bingo. There is actaully no real distinguishing factor between the the European "nation" and non white "tribes", the diffrence is a result of the ways colonialism viewed non whites as being more "primitive".

 

[LSCatilina]

Bingo. There is actaully no real distinguishing factor between the the European "nation" and non white "tribes", the diffrence is a result of the ways colonialism viewed non whites as being more "primitive".

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.

 

[Czar Kaizer]

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.

Was not saying that, what I was saying was that distinction is the direct result of the racist colonial ideology. I do not even assume that the "nation" is a real or natural entity, my point is that the distinction between the two present day has deeply racist roots in the colonial era.

 

[LSCatilina]

what I was saying was that distinction is the direct result of the racist colonial ideology.

I'd nuance it : the current perception on tribe had been largely damaged by racialist prejudice, I agree with that.
That they weren't distinct before, or that the distinction only radicalized with colonialism...I'd disagree.

I do not even assume that the "nation" is a real or natural entity

Isn't it a bit irrelevant? That tribes or nations are social constructs doesn't make them less real (I mean, language is a social construct, and nobody said that it wasn't distinct from other forms of expression)

What I agree is that a nation is no more the natural expression of social groups than a tribe, neither its natural evolution.

 

[Derek Pullem]

Was not saying that, what I was saying was that distinction is the direct result of the racist colonial ideology. I do not even assume that the "nation" is a real or natural entity, my point is that the distinction between the two present day has deeply racist roots in the colonial era.

Aren't you guilty of some bizarre reverse racism by somehow suggesting that a social grouping called a nation is somehow less real or natural than a tribe?

 

[Tripledot]

Was not saying that, what I was saying was that distinction is the direct result of the racist colonial ideology. I do not even assume that the "nation" is a real or natural entity, my point is that the distinction between the two present day has deeply racist roots in the colonial era.

Where do the Tribes of Israel fall into this narrative? Some of them exist to this day, like the Cohens, and they aren't a result of "racist colonial ideology". I suppose you could make the argument that the Cohens are a caste, rather than a tribe, per se, even if they all claim the same lineage. Steppe peoples seemed to be organized along tribal lines, too. The Naiman were Mongols, but they had a tribal identity too, for example.

 

[KarneeKarnay]

I think Tribes still exist in Europe and a lot of the world. It's just that it is no longer particle to maintain the old form of Tribe. These days a person can be a member of multiple tribes of ideology, that isn't too different from about 3000 years ago.

Tribes 3000 years ago:

You want more cows. Go breed/take them. Hey you feel the same way? Let's be friends.

Tribes at Present:
Family/Fandoms/Sports/Teams

The groups and reasons may have changed but that doesn't stop them for being tribes. We just transitioned more onto ideas than piratical needs.

 

[pa_dutch]

While "tribe" is somewhat problematic in the broad sense in which it is often used outside of anthropology, I suppose one could say that Ireland had tribes well into modern times, and the Travellers continue to exist there. Then you have groups like the Sami, the Cossacks, the Roma, and so on, including many ethnic groups in the European part of Russia.

 

[Shinsu]

Tribes (from what I hold as the definition) are people that adhere to a culture that existed before the "modern" nations that now occupy the land. One's that haven't assimilated directly into another society and still hold-true to their pre-existing customs.

 

[Nialironarm]

It could be argued that tribes still existed in the celtic fringe of Europe up to the 18th century.

The clans of the Highlands and Islands and the reiver families of the Scottish Borders were kin based groups and were not really integrated into the national societies of England and Scotland, or the UK after unification.

James VI of Scotland suppressed the borderers, many of whom were sent to the Ulster Plantations, and the clans of the Highlands were broken up by the Highland Clearances.

 

[Eivind]

I am not an antropologist, but I would think the term "tribe" is a bit evasive, just like terms such as ethnicity and nation. Probably the term ethnic group is wider and more ambiguous than the term tribe, though. I would assume that tribal groups often tend to apply endogamous rules when it comes to marriage, which might tend to strengthen the sense of belonging to the group. There would be a strong sense of "us" against "them". Belonging to a particular tribe would then be contrary to modernity.

 

[Ferreti]

Tribal structures did survive and to a lesser extend still exist in europe.
For example google "Four tribes of Bavaria".

http://www.guide-to-bavaria.com/en/Bavaria-Culture.html

In reality it doesn't realy matter any more, (with a few exceptions as you can see in the German politics thread) but on paper they are still protected by the bavarian constitution.

 

[saoralba]

I'd say Eurooean geography has a lot to do with it. Europe is much smaller than Africa and is very diverse in terms of climate and geography (not to say Africa isn't but Europe is on a far smaller scale). Due to different, small regions being broken up by mountain ranges and rivers, settled states seem appropriate as opposed to nomadic groups. Feudalism arises when these small states compete with other small states and soon enough you see kings and emperors.

 

[Tripledot]

I guess the main difference between a clan and a tribe is that a tribe tends to be self-sufficient? Clans survive all over the world, even in Europe and America. I guess that's why "tribes" are often considered primitive- "modernity" seems to be defined by globalization and interconnectedness.

 

[riggerrob]

Saoralba hit the nail on the head!
Local micro-climates, rain-fall, soil types, drainage, temperatures, etc. define how "agriculturally successful" a clan, tribe, nation, commonwealth can be and that agricultural success defines how large the tribe can grow.
More successful tribes grow in stature (physical height and weight) and eventually absorb neighbouring tribes. As they continue to succeed, the most successful tribes eventually elect kings. After a few centuries of ruling, Royal
Families get all pompous and claim their "god-given right to rule."
But it all started with the choice made by which family settled on the best soil.

Human society evolves from lone hunter, to immediate blood relatives, to extended family, to clans, to tribes, to principalities, to baronies, to fiefdoms, to Royal kingdoms, the empires, to nation states, to commonwealths, to European Economic Communities, etc. based on how much wealth a group can accumulate.

But at the basic level, humans still need smaller, local neighbourhoods, teams, congregations, political tidings, etc. where they can see the face of power.

For example, Somalia is populated by a variety of "clans" because that poor, arid country can only support a low population density. Because Somalia was never a wealthy country, it could never collect enough taxes to fund a centralized nobility or standing army or elected parliament or coast guard or government bureaucrats. In short, Somalia is too dry a nation to pay for a central government.
OTOH up on the Etheopian Plateau they get enough rain-fall to support enough agriculture to feed themselves and generate small surpluses, surpluses large enough to support an idle Emperor who lived in luxury.

Granted, some prejudiced people may use the term "tribe" to put down other groups "less evolved" than them, but those "tribes" may have evolved to the maximum carrying capacity of their land and simply cannot support kings.