Subject:
|
Re: National nouns (was:Americans, North Americans, Americasians)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 1 Jun 2002 20:03:15 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
451 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes:
> 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.
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 Stater/American thing?).
> "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.
I dunno. "...with our own indigenes" sounds far more perjorative to me than
"native trbes". The former implies possesion, and a condescending one at
that (I'm sure you don't mean it that way, of course). "Nation" and "Tribe"
are often preference and tradition. Cherokee is usually nation, Apache
subdivions usually use tribe, though there are exceptions (and let me add
that this is all in my own experience, I do not claim to be a great
authority on the matter). If nation is preferred, I don't have a problem
with it, but it is most certainly not universally preferred. All this
doesn't mean squat with Africa, I realize, and for all I know "tribe" or
"nation" might be mandated by the U.S. government.
>
> 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
I'll peruse these as opportunity presents itself. Thanks for the links.
>
> 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?
Not to say it isn't, but at the same time not that it is necessarily so by
definition.
Bruce
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
52 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
