Talk:Tribe

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 March 2020 and 13 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): SusanFrancisco. Peer reviewers: Sophiegoltl.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Comment
Church considers a "tribe" to be a higher-level grouping of people than "clan" -- the church defines "clan" as a group of related families.

Groups on a higher level than "tribe" could be "race" or "nation" (it depends).

I haven't the slightest idea if the church usage is common or ideosyncratic.

--Ed Poor

The article should just admit it is giving anthropology's technical definition of tribe. It is a minor subset of Merriam-Webster's definition in US English and the OED's definition in proper English.

It is akin to giving electrical engineering's definition of current and purporting that to be the actual definition in English.

2604:3D09:A57B:9870:C550:BE5:2934:91E7 (talk) 10:57, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Definition?
Other than being "smaller" (or bigger) is a clan substantially different from a tribe? Pizza Puzzle

-

After reading this article I have very little idea what a "tribe" actually is. Can we have articles begin with actually telling the reader what the heck they're all about before jumping headlong into some obscure controversy? Graft 20:33 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * Well, you tell me. I tried to add some more specific content in the first paragraph -- but it is hard to tell a reader what a tribe is "about" given that many people argue they don't really exist (I mean, sociologically -- not legally), and there is no real consensus on how to define or describe them. Slrubenstein

-


 * especially corporate descent groups

What? What does this mean? Daelin
 * Clans and lineages. Slrubenstein

I believe this is more or less the standard anthropological meaning of tribe: A tribe is a small society, bound by kin relations, with its own customs, culture, etc. What distinguishes a tribe from a clan is that tribes see themselves as being a totally separate people from other tribes. Clans are large kin groups that are distinct in some way, but are still part of a larger society. Tribes, however, make up an entire society. this of course involves lots of grey area: what is a separate society, what is not a separate society. But that, I believe, is the difference between the terms Clan and Tribe.

Then another concept is "band," as in band society. A band is considered to be a separate society even smaller than a tribe, and with even less formal structure. But a band is still bound by kin relations, like a tribe or a clan.

Fishal 20:58, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This isn't quite true. Anthropologists use the word "tribe" in different ways and I think the article gives a decent summary of these ways. A clan is a unilineal corporate descent group with stipulated descent. Tribes are often but not necessarily divided into descent groups (like clans or lineages). Fried demonstrated conclusively that tribes do not have their "own" culture -- some tribes are heterogeneous, culturally, and some tribes share culture with other tribes. Tribes do not necessarily see themselves as completely separate from other tribes (although they may be politically autonomous). Slrubenstein

List of tribes
Please, can we start one? I'm not all that familiar with them so I'm interested in perusing the various Wiki entries about them.


 * Iriqouis
 * Sioux
 * Aztec
 * African tribes
 * Viking clans/tribes etc.

I suggest the format go: Tribe name, location, timeperiod/notes. Or is there already one there? I'm also going to create a redirect from Tribes > the vid game, to Tribes > this article. As I am sure the definition of "tribes" meaning multiple of the literal term will surely outlast the influence of "Tribes" the game --Duemellon 13:18, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Any motion on this? I am completely unfamiliar with tribes so I have no real idea where to start except for that meager list. --Duemellon 13:58, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I think it is better to have regional lists like List of Australian Aboriginal tribes (see also discussion on the word tribe there). With regional lists, one can also be politically correct by using the terms that are accepted there, eg nations, peoples, clans or languages (which are sometimes used interchangably with tribe). "List of African Tribes" would be rather meaningless for several reasons - eg. there is no concensus to what constitues a tribe, is Acholi a tribe, a people (living in Acholi), an ethnic group, a language, a district or a nation? Which is most appropriate? All or none of the above depending on who you are asking. Considerable effort has been made on Wikipedia to avoid usage of "tribe" because it is ambiguous and sometimes percieved as derogatory. In the case of Africa, using ethnolinguistic and demographic divisions (like Category:Languages of Africa and Category:Demographics by country) is more useful.--Ezeu 14:49, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Pragmatically, I think the only thing to do is to have a list of "tribes designated as such (or legally scheduled) by the state." It would also be reasonable to have "Self-designated tribes" but I bet this list would be identical to the first list. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 14:44, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I like the 1st suggestion of links to regional tribes as that reduces the clutter from this article. The criterion is an interesting point brought up by Slrub as well. Hmmm... well, I'll add the section & see if it flourishes. I'm slow, but I just realized this was in the Native American category... Why? Tribes exist outside of that region. How do you recategorize something?--Duemellon 20:15, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

How many lists do we need? We have lists for just about every nation on earth that has any native population. Just in the U.S., we have: Again, that's just the U.S. You could probably find a few dozen more poorly maintained lists like List of Native American tribes that are just dying to be VfDed too. Please, do not start another list of this sort. -Harmil 21:23, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The officially recognized "tribal entities" (a list maintained by the U.S. Govt.) List of Native American Tribal Entities
 * But wait, there's also a few hundred "tribal villages" in Alaska: List of Alaska Native Tribal Entities
 * Then, we have the list of tribes that the Feds don't recognize, but states do: List of State Recognized American Indian Tribal Entities
 * How about the list of Indian Reservations in the U.S.? List of Indian reservations in the United States
 * Tribal Web sites? List of U.S. Indian Tribal Government Web sites
 * Classification of Native Americans? Classification of indigenous peoples of the Americas

That's the kind've information we should have as links to tribes! The reason why there are so many different entries is poor cross-referencing or whatever. So, we should help them! We don't need to create a new page, just link to those in an appropriate manner. --Duemellon 21:42, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Move from Native American to...?

 * The reason it needs to be moved is it's current categorical listing is UNDER Native Americans. Not under Native Africans, Native Indain, Native Nordic, etc. So it should be moved. Am I barking up the wrong tree here? What do those category things at the bottom mean? The word "tribe" is not so tightly bound to Native Americans that it's exclusive to them. --Duemellon 12:10, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

With all due respect, I do not think you know what these categories mean. They are not hierarchical (in other words, this article is not "under" the Native American category, it is "included" in that category because it is relevant to that category. You rightly point out that it is relevant to other categories.  The solution is simply to add the other germaine categories.  If you think there are categories this article should be included in, but those categories do not exist, create them!  No one expects categories to be exclusive. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:58, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


 * yah, that was the clarification I needed (posed by the "Am I barking up the wrong tree here? What do those categories mean"). I've seen at the bottom where the listing showed meant: "category > subcat > etc." but this meant it was in both. Makes sense now. --Duemellon 14:29, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Have all the tribes in existence been discovered?
After whatching the IMAX movie about the Amazon river called Amazon, and botanist medicines that can be discovered there. They say that not all tribes have been discovered, I would beg to differ, anyone have any thoughts on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.125.100 (talk) 05:12, 23 January 2006


 * If they're not discovered, you wouldn't know about it, would you? :-) Arre 11:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Good question, and I agree with you. After all, what constitutes "discovered", and who discovers who? Are people considered discovered if others in the neighboring jungle know of them, or must they first be photographed by National Geographic, then cataloged and described by anthropologists? But cynicism aside, I doubt there are human societies anywhere who have not "discovered" the existence of other peoples, and/or whose existence has not been "discovered" by (at least) the adjacent community.--Ezeu 12:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

tribes and states
Please do not delete an accurate sentence. The citation is not necessary in the first paragraph, which introduces the article as a whole. The body of the article provides an example and citation for this point. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 13:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Accuracy is not the only metric by which to judge a modification. Your edit related to an assertion made two sentences before it, and was grammatically incorrect (a simple typo, I imagine, in the use of "by"). I've cleaned it up so that it's actually readable and tried to make references to "some people" (which is almost always incorrect for a reference work) more specific. -Harmil 15:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Usage of the term varies, sometimes unfairly?
The varied usage of the term "Tribe" deserves special mention, I think.

Jewish references to the Twelve Tribes of Israel as people belonging to specific lineages differ in concept to the Rastafarian Twelve Tribes of Israel (see Mansions of Rastafari).

Colonial English?

References to the "tribesmen" of "African tribes" (no different to "members" of "ethnic groups", which seems to be the more accepted terminology today) are not complemented by an equal number of references to "tribesmen" of "European tribes". We've all heard the term Maasai tribesman, but who has ever heard of a Spanish tribesman?

Some people take offense to the use of the word "tribe" in that context, and feel uncomforable with the connotations of derived terms such as "tribal warfare" (no different to "ethnic clashes" ) and "tribalism" (often used in place of the more appropriate term, "Sectarianism"). The discomfort comes from claims that such terms are used in certain contexts to implicitly suggest they are purely African phenomena. Clearly, ethnic groups across the entire world experience the same things that are made to sound unique to "African tribes".

In relation to the unfavourable connotations, the word "primitive" is sometimes used to describe "tribes" that are often simply misunderstood by those who label them "primitive" - a subjective term (those "tribesmen" who are labelled "primitive" may also view their labellers as "primitive").

The use of the word "tribe" in Survivor (the TV Series) re-inforces certain mythical ideas about "tribes". For example, the idea that a "tribe" ought to be a "primitive", "rugged" or "backward" people - living in an area generally unknown to Western society, or under conditions that would be considered harsh or unfavourable by most members of Western society - such as the various locations where the different series were screened. Specific, sometimes strict or distinct rules losely governing the group's way of life, disturbing rituals and a "survival of the fittest" culture, identity tokens, meagre existence and the threat of extinction all seem to be infused in the common usage of the term. These things are all subjective, and therefore apply to most societies - if judged by people of a different culture who are prone to superiority complexes.

Questions such as "have all tribes been discovered?" smack of the condescending and disrespectful attitudes sometimes innocently hidden behind the term's usage. Much like the "discoveries" made by Christopher Columbus.

Not all people carry this baggage. Interestingly, the word "tribe" remains in common use in several parts of english-speaking Africa, with questions like "What tribe do you come from?" not being uncommon.

I agree with Ezeu. The word should be avoided... or better yet, replaced with more politically correct terminology. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.158.128.106 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 26 May 2006 UTC.
 * Please avoid excessive spacing between paragraphs. Also, please indent your comments accordingly.  Now, to the business at hand - I think Fried's critique anticipates most of these points - should that section of the article be developed?  Does someone want to go back to the Fried book and see what more belongs in this article?  Second, the specific comments on Survivor - I agree.  I wish we could include this in the article.  We cannot, however, without violating NOR policy.  But does anyone know of any scholarly articles analyzing this pehnomenon?  If so, we can add it, with proper citation. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 11:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I find the term tribe troubling because it groups together a wide range of societies. It has been used to denote anything as diverse as hunter-gatherers on one hand, and early medieval euoropean kingdoms on the other(the germanic tribes).

Generally speaking, academic anthropologists avoid the term "tribe" as though it were anthrax, except for circumstances where the people in question use the term themselves. The term "ethnic group" is much more in favor, because it does not carry colonial baggage and can be used to similar effect when talking about, for example, ethnic violence in Rwanda or ethnic violence in the former Yugoslavia. Malangali 18:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't get it. How can the word "tribe" be politically incorrect when the Europeans themselves (or the people who would later become "Europeans") were all in tribes once? In fact, I was looking at the website article on Early Slavs and of course, the word "tribe" came up. So I clicked on that, and it redirected here, and this article seems to be mostly a discussion about present day tribes which really isn't a discussion about what a tribe IS. This article just seems skewed to a particular understanding of what a present day tribe represents, not what a tribe actually is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.252.183.253 (talk) 00:16, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Move
I propose a move to be able to make clear that a tribe is just a ethnic group with special charisteristics. Also required to make distinction clear between indiginous and tribal group


 * Tribes are noit ethnic groups, anthropologists and historians use these terms differently. The merger is a bad idea.  According to Sahlins a many others, including virtually all archeologists, a tribe is a polity witha flexible social organization.  Ethnic groups take shape within states, often as a result of migration, sometimes because of post-colonial polcy. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 14:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

recent deletion
I just deleted the sections listing tribes for two reasons. First, in almost all cases, the "tribes" listed were not tribes. Second, given the controversial ways the word tribe has been used, I would want to see verifiable and reliable sources that a tribe is a tribe. In some cases this is easy and we might be able to list them; in many cases it is actually quite hard and given the controversy, I do not see the value. If we did not apply this standard and just listed as a tribe anything anyone has aver called a tribe, the list would be thousands - do we realy have space for that? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 21:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The indan were divindel in to one half because they only new one god which they called it chief. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.39.231.62 (talk) 20:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Faulty etymology for the word 'tribe'
Before quoting a "reliable source", Wikipedia would do well to have those who are actually familiar with the subject at hand writing the article. According to Wikipedia:

"The term's ultimate etymology is uncertain, perhaps from the PIE roots *tri- "three" and *bhew- "to be"."

But this is without foundation. First of all, the verb in Latin for "to be" is "esse", and there is no Latin conjugation of that verb that resembles the so-called "Proto-Indo-European root" *bhew. http://www.math.ohio-state.edu/~econrad/lang/lvesse.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.68.95.65 (talk) 18:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC) Second of all, the Latin word for tribe, "tribus", can be easily explained through the rules of Latin grammar. The Latin word for three is "tres". The dative and ablative declensions of this word are both "tribus". http://books.google.com/books?id=A6IAAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA11&lpg=PA11&dq=latin+third+tribus&source=bl&ots=5tYojc2mLg&sig=J5e2WoaAaC9kbAhoHJE2euGCrvg&hl=en&ei=yPKnStOvMZuUtgfjrO2sCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3#v=onepage&q=&f=false If ablative, "tribus" would mean "from the three" and dative, "for the three". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.68.95.65 (talk) 18:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Who are you talking to? Wikipedia is not a person.  Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit at anytime.  So some people add things that are erroneous - and others take them out or correct them.  Wikipedia is you!  I am not sure what etymology of "tribe" you think is correct but if you think you know a better one - go ahead and change the article! Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The etymology rejected by the anonymous user is actually cited and should take precedence to an anonymous user's baseless speculation. The fact that Umbrian has trifu is a fact that the anonymous user has not even bothered to take into account. It may seem absurd to the layman that clan should ultimately be from Latin planta, but that's exactly the accepted etymology. What seems obvious to the layman is often wrong, and the correct solution appears often strange to the layman. That's why we have trained historical linguists and experts on various language groups whose judgment is far more important than that of the credulous, and sometimes incredulous, laymen. Just because you happen to speak a language, or have studied it at school, does not make you an expert on it. The experts are there to weed out spurious etymologies from plausible ones. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:34, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Not faulty etymologie
The Teutic root *bhew becomes Italic root *fu, that of verb "to become", extended to senses of "to beget" and "to produce", an independent verb in Aryan languages, and in Greek (phuein), but merged with ES- root ("to be") in the other West Teutic languages.

So Latin FVI (I have been), FVERAM (I had been), FVERO (I will have been), FVISSEM (subjunctive past tense), FVERIM (subjunctive perfect tense), FVTVRVS (he who will be).

English be, been; Anglo-Saxon beon (to be), beom (am), bist (art); German bin (ancient bim, am), bist (art), ancient birum, birut (modern sind, seid, we, ye/are).

Slavic root BUD- for future tense of verb BYŤ (to be), likewise present tense of Persian budan (to become, albeit the verb "to be" has the same infinitive budan). Lithuanian root BU- for imperfect tenses and modes (only present tense belongs to root ES-) of verb BŪTI (to be), and Celtic roots for different tenses and modes of Irish bí (BI), and Welsh bod (BU, BY), to be.--Manfariel (talk) 17:37, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Tribal society
Tribal society links to Tribe, but is nearly completely unexplained here. It should have an own article instead. -- Tomdo08 (talk) 15:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Elman Service wrote a gret book on tribal social organization (called Primitive Social Organization) and I think Marshall Sahlins wrote a book called Tribesmen for the foundations of modern anthropology series. These two would provide probably all the informaion you would need - I agree it could be its own article if you have enough information.  I think these two books (I do not have them) would give it. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 19:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

In this article on different Tribes, the main focus was on the Native American Tribes such as the Sioux Indian Tribe, the Mohawk ans the Iroquois. The topic on this section is on tribal societies, there are so many more other tribal societies such as ones i Africa. I will begin with mentioning some of the tribal societies in Africa( which are more than 100) and further discuss some of their customs. As a half native individual fromm South Africa I have some background knowledge on some of the tribes that are still standing there. A few of the tribes include the Zulu, Ndebele and the Xhosa tribe. Focusing primarily on the Zulu Tribe, which is the biggest tribe in South Africa. In the early 19th century a hug population of black South Africans were under the leadership of a great empire leader named Shaka Zulu. Their society tends to primarily Christian and they believe in the ancestral powers. The Zulu community is known to be warm heartened, they create pottery with designs on them. Relating to the textbook on "What does it mean to be human" by R. Lavenda and E. Schultz, a tribe is considered as a "society that is generally larger than a band" (Lavenda, Schultz 181). They also mention chiefdom, bands, status and states. How this relates to the Zulu culture is that the men in the Zulu tribes/societies are usually the bread winners and the leaders if the house, they take control and posses most of the items and responsibilities in the household. There are still some families that practice chiefdom in the Zulu societies but not as many. There is a bit of sodalities, which is according to Lavenda and Schultz "special purpose groupings that may be organized on the basis of age, sex, economic status"( Lavenda, 181). In this case younger adults are required to go to school, women and girls are to do house chores or duties. Moving on to a Native American Tribal society,in todays modern world. A section from the textbook on "What does it mean to be Human" by Lavenda and Schultz, on Native American DNA testing with the influence of the NAGPRA (Native American Grave Protection and Repatriation Act). There had been issues with the excavation of Native American skeletal artifacts, some have even ended up in labs and museums. This has interfered the current and still living Native Americans, in their rightful way, they want to use those artifacts to find out information and relation to their fallen relatives. Therefore NAGPRA has made it necessary for archaeologists to confide with these indigenous individuals(p 184) if they find any remains. This is beneficial because it helps Native Americans find out what society they belonged to, whether it be Sioux, Mohawk or any other tribe. It allows them to have some history on their past and practice what they need to with regards to their tribe. 6:38, 03 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SusanFrancisco (talk • contribs)

Incomplete
This article does say not much about the genesis of tribes, there forms etc. What it says is rather fragmentary. See also section Tribal society. -- Tomdo08 (talk) 17:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point .... I think Earle and Johnson have a book from an archaeologists' perspective that might address this. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 19:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

GOCEreviewed
The "Evolution" section was tagged copyedit with "for = transforming a dispute to an encyclopaedic description". That's not a legitimate ask on a copy edit. You have to decide what the article should say; copy editors help with how to say it. Also, as the article is currently marked as "incomplete", it would be better to complete it first and then get it copy edited. There's little point fiddling with the grammar and wording of something that is going to change anyway. You'd be very welcome to seek a copy edit after these issues are dealt with, if you like. --Stfg (talk) 22:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

City-states City-tribes
City-states existed at the time of the tribes. Why tribes may not be the state? Why tribes can not be a form of government?

Please provide source to articles on:

1. Some theorists hold that tribes represent a stage in social evolution intermediate between bands and states

2. Other theorists argue that tribes developed after, and must be understood in terms of their relationship to, states.

thank. --Alfashturm (talk) 01:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

lost word?
 In that way, the latter part is senseless; I deem there lacks the Hebrew word for "sceptre", שַׁרבִּיט (sharvit).--Manfariel (talk) 17:37, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Factual issue
Is Survival International really the only organisation fighting for indigenous rights? Sounds like BS to me. Indigenous is a very broad terms and Survival International are not the oly people fighting for Indigenous rights primae facie. Anyone have any issues with editing that claim?

good source
http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/tribe --Espoo (talk) 11:21, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Naturism?
On 4th of February 2018, 76.70.49.168 added the line “naturism is rarely practiced as much as believed.” directly attached to the last paragraph of the article, giving as an explanation “just added a bit about the lack of nudity”.

I think this line should be removed, but I’m not sure if it would be right to remove it myself without first consulting other people (I’m not very used to Wikipedia).

This line is odd:
 * naturism is a modern political and social movement;
 * I’m not even sure if people believe that nudity among tribal people is more prevalent than really is or rather that it’s not as prevalent as it really is;
 * seems more likely to me that nudity is correlative with climate and ease of making clothes rather than state organization anyway.

It would make more sense if the claim was supported by the work of an anthropologist on conceptions of nudity among tribal people or something.

EDIT: Not getting replies, I removed the line.

Danquebec (talk) 22:50, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Historical reduction
I wonder if any of you can deduce the layers of a tribe Go back in time, way back, before metal, before wheel, before stone Naked and vulnerable, we need each other, hey lets go tribe! Do you see? Evolution is genetic We live in tribe How would that organize? A tribe, an animal, a plant, must have offspring A plant has root, trunk, leaves and seeds

So must tribe Do you see? A tribe forms circles Outside layer fence Inside layer nursery 146.199.68.34 (talk) 00:01, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

About tribal life style
Please 223.196.169.5 (talk) 14:25, 26 November 2022 (UTC)