Debate : 16538


Off-Topic / Debate / 16538	16537 \| 16539

Subject:	Re: National nouns (was:Americans, North Americans, Americasians)
Newsgroups:	lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date:	Sat, 1 Jun 2002 06:39:48 GMT
Viewed:	440 times

In lugnet.off-topic.fun, Bruce Schlickbernd writes: > In lugnet.off-topic.fun, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes: > > > n.b.: The term "tribes" is very pejorative. Sorry, it's a pet peeve. > > If you want to know why, I can elaborate over in .debate, complete > > with links. > > Perhaps I'm confusing American Indian practices where I've always understood > it to be okay to use the terms "tribe" or "tribal". Perhaps I'm relying too > much on my Apache co-workers, who don't have a problem with "Indian" either, > (beyond of course that it is a silly term in the first place). It has never > been mentioned as being perjorative. For that matter, this is the first > I've heard that it was perjorative in relationship to Africa (and I'm sure I > would have gotten an earful from my wife if she thought it was perjorative). > > But heck, it ain't like I haven't been wrong before! I'm certainly willing > to listen to your reasons. :-) Yeah, it's part of the problem with the US public's perception of Africa and Africans. "Tribe" tends to imply unchanging, eternal objectness, primitivism, isolation, and unsophistication. "Tribalism" is the term given to the artificial division of African peoples from one another, which some have in fact internalized. But because we use it when dealing with our own indigenes, we feel it OK to use it there as well. But the cases are a bit different--though I would argue that calling Native American nations "tribes" is problematic too. http://polyglot.lss.wisc.edu/afrst/outreach/units/tribe.html That's Professor David Wiley's famous short declaratory piece on tribalism. There's a ton of great scholarship behind how the colonial powers performed this act of severance. With specific relation to the Amerind/N.Am/Indian issue: http://www.africaaction.org/bp/ethnic3.htm And from last November, an interesting "public comment" from the UK regarding public perception of tribalism, which includes some direct comment from Africans and those who emigrated from Africa (look at those names): http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/talking_point/debates/african/newsid_1639000/1639199.stm Most of my African colleagues and friends have a problem with the concept because it doesn't originate in anything they themselves recognized before colonialism; it's all European categorization at heart. That's kind of demeaning, no? best LFB

Message has 2 Replies:

		Tribes (was: National nouns (was:Americans, North Americans, Americasians))
(...) I'm finding this stuff fascinating. I don't associate any of those things with tribalism, but it seems from the reading you provided that there are at least several people who see this as a problem. I think of tribalism (or at least what _I_ (...) (23 years ago, 1-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Re: National nouns (was:Americans, North Americans, Americasians)
(...) Let me interrupt: not to me (or at least not to date). To me it's a grouping of people, possibly linguistic, certainly of shared traditions and values. But I suppose I'm not typical of the American public (Oooooooo, are we back to that United (...) (23 years ago, 1-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Message is in Reply To:

		Re: Americans, North Americans, Americasians (was Liberal Media)
(...) (ka-snip of worthy observations regarding Bush, Enron, the Conservative Media, etc.). (...) United Statesian is so confusing to those of us who live so close to the border of the United States of Mexico. Which United Statesian are they (...) (23 years ago, 29-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

52 Messages in This Thread:

Entire Thread on One Page:: Nested: All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear: All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:: Nested: All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear: All | Brief | Compact

Custom Search