Tribes of the word

Описание «Tribes of the Wind»

После глобальной катастрофы племена ветра собираются отстроить мир на отравленных руинах.

Игрокам нужно будет выращивать леса, строить новые деревни и храмы и обезвреживать окрестности.

Вы сможете играть карты из руки. Но будьте осторожны! Эффект и даже сама возможность сыграть карту очень зависят от… рубашки карт соседних игроков. Также игроки могут направить своих всадников ветра изучать окрестности, выращивать леса и строить деревни и храмы, используя собранные ресурсы.

Во время игры вы сможете выполнить некоторые цели, что позволит вам разблокировать специальные способности гида и прокачать силы племени.

Игра заканчивается, когда один из игроков построит свою пятую деревню. Игрок с наибольшим количеством очков, считая загрязнение, деревни, храмы, расположение лесов и других объектов, станет победителем.

Описание предоставлено:

Tribes indicate socio-cultural groups rather than biological groups. Tribes are groupings of people who are tied to one another by social customs and cultural heritage.

Pygmy:
Achna is the name given to the pygmies subgroup. Mabuti, Twa, Viroga, and Gossera are four sub-castes of this tribe. They live in the Congo Basin, Gabon, Uganda, the Philippines’ forests in Southeast Asia, Ameta’s woods, and New Guinea’s forests. Their makeshift shelters resemble a beehive. These peoples are shorter, standing from 1.33 and 1.49 meters tall on average.

Boro:
The western Amazon basin, as well as the border areas of Brazil, Peru, and Colombia, are home to this tribe. This tribe is a hunter-gatherer group. Their skin is brown, and their hair is straight and of medium length.

Sakai:
These primitive tribes, who live in the Malay peninsula’s forested areas, have a clear complexion, a long stature, and a skinny body. Their hairs are black and curly, and their heads are long. Their main activities are agriculture, horticulture, and hunting. For hunting, they utilise a blowpipe.

Semang:
They can be found in the mountainous regions of the Malay peninsula, the Andaman Islands, the Philippines, and Central Africa. They are members of the Negroid race. Yam is their primary source of nutrition. Their survival is dependent on the forest’s produce and hunting.

Papuan:
These Papua New Guinea tribes resemble pygmies and live on the island of Papua New Guinea in the western Pacific Ocean. Agriculture is their main source of income. They’re hazardous and irrational.

Bushmen:
The Bushmen are the Inhabitant of South Africa’s Kalahari desert. Lesotho, Natal, and Zimbabwe are now home to the Habshi tribe. Their skin is black, and their eyes are huge. Bushmen’s rice is the term used for termites.

Bedouin:
The Negrito are a Bedouin tribe who live as tribes in the Hamad and Nafad deserts in northern Arabia. Camels, sheep, and goats are their prey. They live in tents and wrap scarves around their heads.

Masai:
They are nomadic herders who reside on the plateaus of Tanzania, Kenya, and Uganda. These are a cross between the Mediterranean and Negroid races. Cows were regarded sacred by them. Laibon is the name of the priest in the Masai tribe.

Kyrgyz:
They can be found on Kyrgyzstan’s Pamir plateau and Central Asia’s Tianshan Mountains. These individuals are itinerant cattlemen. Kumis is made from milk and sour wine. They live in yurts, which are round tents that are used to house temporary occupants.

Eskimo:
Eskimo people are notorious for eating raw meat. Eskimo people are Mongoloid people who live in the tundra regions of North America, from Alaska to Greenland. Hunting is their main source of income. Their pet is a reindeer.

Samoyeds:
They belong to the Mogoloid race, which originated in western Siberia’s Tundra region. Hunting and livestock husbandry are their primary occupations. They are only staying for a short time.

Kazak:
Kazakhs belong to the Mongolid race. Kyrgyz is another name for them. They are itinerant cattlemen who speak Turkish.

Maya:
Red Indians make up the majority of these people. It is an agrarian tribe that lives in the countries of Mexico, Guatemala, and Honduras.

Afridi:
It is a tribal caste of Pashtuns who live in Pakistan from Safed Koh to Peshawar. This community’s members are great fighters and heroes.

Yupik:
Western Alaska and eastern Russia are home to Yupik tribes.

Tribes and their Homeland:

World Endangered tribes:

Invite your students to investigate the history and hidden meanings of the word «tribe.»

For many people in Western countries, the subject of Africa immediately calls up the word «tribe.» Few readers question a news story describing an African individual as a «tribesman» or «tribeswoman,» or the depiction of an African’s motives as «tribal.» Many Africans themselves use the word «tribe» when speaking or writing in English about community, ethnicity or identity in African states.

Yet today most scholars — both African and non-African — who study African states and societies agree that «tribe» promotes misleading stereotypes. The term «tribe» has no consistent meaning. It carries misleading historical and cultural assumptions. It blocks accurate views of African realities.

At best, any interpretation of African events that relies on the idea of tribe contributes no understanding of specific issues in specific countries. At worst, it obscures the reality that African identities and conflicts are as diverse, ambiguous, complex, modern and dynamic as those found anywhere else in the world.

What’s wrong with «tribe»?

«Tribe» promotes a myth of primitive African timelessness.

The general sense of tribe as most people understand it is associated with primitiveness. To be in a tribal state is to live in an uncomplicated, traditional condition.

Most African countries are economically poor and often described as less developed or underdeveloped. Westerners often conclude that these societies have not changed much over the centuries and that African poverty mainly reflects cultural and social conservatism. Interpreting present-day Africa through the lens of tribes reinforces the image of timelessness.

The truth is that Africa has as much history as anywhere else in the world. It has undergone momentous changes time and again, especially in the 20th century. While African poverty is partly a product of internal dynamics of African societies, it has also been caused by the histories of external slave trades and colonial rule.

In the West, «tribal» often implies «savage.»

When the general image of tribal timelessness is applied to situations of social conflict between Africans, a particularly destructive myth results. Stereotypes of primitiveness and conservative backwardness are also linked to images of irrationality and superstition. The combination leads to portrayal of violence and conflict in Africa as primordial, savage and unchanging. This image resonates with traditional Western racist ideas and can suggest that irrational violence is inherent and natural to Africans. Just as particular conflicts elsewhere in the world have both rational and irrational components, so do those in Africa.

The vast majority of African ethnic conflicts could not have happened a century ago in the ways that they do now. Pick almost any place where ethnic conflict occurs in modern Africa. Investigate carefully the issues over which it occurs, the forms it takes, and the means by which it is organized and carried out. Recent economic developments and political rivalries will loom much larger than allegedly ancient and traditional hostilities.

Ironically, some African ethnic identities and divisions now portrayed as ancient and unchanging actually were created in the colonial period. In other cases, earlier distinctions took new, more rigid and conflictual forms over the last century. The changes came out of communities’ interactions within a colonial or post-colonial context, as well as movement of people to cities to work and live. The identities thus created resemble modern ethnicities in other countries, which are also shaped by cities, markets and national states.

If «tribe» is so flawed, why is it so common?

«Tribe» reflects widespread but outdated 19th-century social theory.

As Europeans expanded their trade, settlement and military domination around the world, they began trying to understand the different forms of society and culture they encountered. Social scientists in the 19th century viewed societies as «evolving» along a sequence of organizational stages. One widespread theory saw a progression from hunting to herding to agriculture to mechanical industry. By this account, city-building — the root of «civilization» — arose from agriculture, and all forms of social organization and government that «preceded» this stage were considered tribal.

Over the course of the 20th century, scholars learned that such images tried to make messy reality neater than it really is. While markets and technology may be said to develop, they have no simple correspondence with specific forms of politics, social organization or culture. Moreover, human beings have proven remarkably capable of changing older identities to fit new conditions, or inventing new identities (often stoutly insisting that the changed or new identities are eternal). Examples close to home include new hyphenated American identities, new social identities (for example, gay/lesbian), and new religious identities (for example, New Age).

Social theories of tribes resonated with classical and biblical education.

Of course, most ordinary Western people were not social theorists. But theories of social evolution spread through schools, newspapers, sermons and other media. The term «tribe,» which comes from the Latin tribus, was tied to classical and biblical images. The ancient Romans used tribus to denote segments of their own population, as well as the Celtic and Germanic societies with which many 19th- and early-20th-century Europeans and Americans identified. Latin and English Bibles adopted the term for the 12 lineages of Hebrews who settled the Promised Land. This link of tribes to prestigious earlier periods of Western culture contributed to the view that tribe had universal validity in social evolution.

The concept of tribe became a cornerstone for European colonial rule in Africa.

This background of belief, while mistaken in many respects, might have been relatively benign. However, emerging during the age of scientific rationalism, the theories of social evolution became intertwined with racial theories. These were used to justify, first, the latter stages of the Atlantic slave trade (originally justified on religious grounds) and, later, European colonial rule.

Some people who believed that Africans were a primitive, lower order of humanity saw this as a permanent condition that justified Europeans in enslaving and dominating them. Others held that Africans could develop but needed to be civilized by Europeans — which often meant in «exchange» for their freedom, labor, land and resources.

This reasoning was used to support the colonization of the whole continent of Africa after 1880, which otherwise might more accurately have been seen as a naked exercise of power. Thus, all Africans were said to live in tribes, whether their ancestors built large trading empires and Muslim universities on the Niger River, densely settled and cultivated kingdoms around the great lakes in east-central Africa, or lived in much smaller-scale communities between the larger political units of the continent.

Calling nearly all African social groups «tribes» and African identities «tribal» in the era of scientific racism turned the idea of tribe from a social science category into a racial stereotype. By definition Africans were supposed to live in tribes, preferably with chiefs. The colonizers proposed to govern cheaply by adapting tribal and chiefship institutions into European-style bureaucratic states. If they didn’t find tribes and chiefs, they encouraged people to identify as tribes and appointed chiefs.

In some places, like Rwanda or Nigeria, colonial racial theory led to favoring one ethnic group over another because of supposed racial superiority (meaning White ancestry). In other places, emphasis on tribes was simply a tool of divide-and-rule strategies. The idea of tribe we have today cannot escape these roots.

Common Arguments Reconsidered

In the United States no one objects to referring to Native American «tribes.»

Under U.S. law, «tribe» is a bureaucratic term. For a community of Native Americans to gain access to programs, and to enforce rights due to them under treaties and laws, they must be recognized as a tribe. This is comparable to unincorporated areas’ applying for municipal status under state laws. Away from the law, Native Americans often prefer the words «nation» or «people» over «tribe.»

Historically, the U.S. government treats all Native American groups as tribes because of the same outdated cultural evolutionary theories and colonial viewpoints that led European colonialists to treat all African groups as tribes. As in Africa, the term obscures wide historical differences in way of life, political and social organization, and culture among Native Americans. When we see that the same term is applied indiscriminately to Native American groups and African groups, the problem of primitive savagery as the implied common denominator only becomes more pronounced.

Africans themselves talk about tribes.

When Africans learn English, they are often taught that «tribe» is the term that English-speakers will recognize. But what underlying meaning in their own languages are Africans translating when they say «tribe»? In English, writers often refer to the Zulu tribe, whereas in Zulu the word for the Zulu as a group is isizwe. Zulu linguists translate isizwe as «nation» or «people.» Isizwe refers both to the multi-ethnic South African nation and to ethno-national peoples that form a part of the multi-ethnic nation. When Africans use the word «tribe» in general conversation, they do not draw on the negative connotations of primitivism the word has in Western countries.

Avoiding the term «tribe» is just political correctness.

To the contrary, avoiding the term «tribe» is saying that ideas matter. If the term «tribe» accurately conveyed and clarified truths better than other words, even if they were hard and unpleasant truths, we should use it. But «tribe» is vague, contradictory and confusing, not clarifying. For the most part it does not convey truths but myths, stereotypes and prejudices. When it does express truths, there are other words that express the same truths more clearly, without the additional distortions.

Given a choice between words that express truths clearly and precisely, and words that convey partial truths murkily and distortedly, we should choose the former over the latter. That means choosing «ethnic group,» «nation,» «people,» «community,» «chiefdom,» «kin-group,» «village» or another appropriate word over «tribe,» when writing or talking about Africa. The question is not political correctness but empirical accuracy and intellectual honesty.

Most scholars already prefer other terms to «tribe.» So, among the media, does the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). But «tribal» and «African» are still virtually synonyms in most media, among policy-makers and among Western publics. Clearing away this stereotype is an essential step for beginning to understand the diversity and richness of African realities.

This essay was adapted with permission from «Talking About ‘Tribe’: Moving From Stereotypes to Analysis,» originally published by the Africa Policy Information Center in 1997. The principal author was Chris Lowe, a historian of Africa who lives in Portland, Ore. Additional research was provided by Tunde Brimah, Pearl-Alice Marsh, William Minter and Monde Muyangwa.

племя, триба, клан, шатия, множество, масса, компания

существительное ↓

Словосочетания

a tribe of Aborigines known as the Dolphin People — племя аборигенов, известное как Народ Дельфина  
a savage tribe — дикое племя  
complete exodus of the entire tribe — полное переселение всего племени  
the ancient grandeur of their tribe — духовное величие их племени, идущее с древних времен  
native tribe — туземное племя  
nomadic / wandering tribe — кочующее, кочевое племя  
primitive tribe — первобытное племя  
vagabond tribe — кочевое племя  
the tribe of Benjamin — колено Вениаминово  
the tribe of Judah — колено Иудино  
habitat of tribe — территория племени  
the habitat of tribe — территория племени  

Примеры с переводом

Примеры, ожидающие перевода

Возможные однокоренные слова

Формы слова

noun
ед. ч.(singular): tribe
мн. ч.(plural): tribes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

«Tribals» redirects here. For the ancient Thracian tribe, see Triballi.

The term tribe is used in many different contexts to refer to a category of human social group. The predominant worldwide usage of the term in English is in the discipline of anthropology. Its definition is contested, in part due to conflicting theoretical understandings of social and kinship structures, and also reflecting the problematic application of this concept to extremely diverse human societies. The concept is often contrasted by anthropologists with other social and kinship groups, being hierarchically larger than a lineage or clan, but smaller than a chiefdom, nation or state. These terms are equally disputed. In some cases tribes have legal recognition and some degree of political autonomy from national or federal government, but this legalistic usage of the term may conflict with anthropological definitions.

In the United States, Native American tribes are legally considered to have «domestic dependent nation» status within the territorial United States, with a government-to-government relationship with the federal government.^[1]

Etymology[edit]

The modern English word tribe stems from Middle English tribu, which ultimately derives from Latin tribus. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, it remains unclear if this form is the result of a borrowing from a Romance language source (such as Old French tribu) or if the form is a result of borrowing directly from Latin (the Middle English plural tribuz 1250 may be a direct representation of Latin plural tribūs). Modern English tribe may also be a result of a common pattern wherein English borrows nouns directly from Latin and drops suffixes, including -us. Latin tribus is generally held by linguists to be a compound formed from two elements: tri- ‘three’ and bhu, bu, fu, a verbal root meaning ‘to be’.^[2]

Latin tribus is held to derive from the Proto-Indo-European compound *tri-dʰh₁u/o- (‘rendered in three, tripartite division’; compare with Umbrian trifu ‘trinity, district’, Sanskrit trídha ‘threefold’).^[3]

Classification[edit]

Considerable debate has accompanied efforts to define and characterize tribes. In the popular imagination, tribes reflect a primordial social structure from which all subsequent civilizations and states developed. Anthropologist Elman Service presented^[4] a system of classification for societies in all human cultures, based on the evolution of social inequality and the role of the state. This system of classification contains four categories:

• Hunter-gatherer bands that are generally egalitarian
• Tribal societies with some limited instances of social rank and prestige
• Stratified tribal societies led by chieftains (see Chiefdom)
• Civilizations, with complex social hierarchies and organized, institutional governments

Tribes are therefore considered to be a political unit formed from an organisation of families (including clans and lineages) based on social or ideological solidarity. Membership of a tribe may be understood as being based on factors such as kinship («clan»), ethnicity («race»), language, dwelling place, political group, religious beliefs, oral tradition and/or cultural practices.

Archaeologists continue to explore the development of pre-state tribes. Current research suggests that tribal structures constituted one type of adaptation to situations providing plentiful yet unpredictable resources. Such structures proved flexible enough to coordinate production and distribution of food in times of scarcity, without limiting or constraining people during times of surplus. anthropologist Morton Fried argued in 1967 that bands organized into tribes in order to resist the violence and exploitation of early kingdoms and states. He wrote:

In fact, there is no absolute necessity for a tribal stage as defined by Sahlins and Service, no necessity, that is, for such a stage to appear in the transit from a single settlement with embedded political organization, to a complex-state structured polity. Such a developmental process could have gone on within a unit that we may conceptualize as a city-state, such a unit as Jericho might have become in its later stages … tribalism can be viewed as reaction to the formation of complex political structure rather than a necessary preliminary stage in its evolution.^[5]

Controversy and usage deprecation[edit]

The term «tribe» was in common use in the field of anthropology until the late 1950s and 1960s. The continued use of the term has attracted controversy among anthropologists and other academics active in the social sciences, with scholars of anthropological and ethnohistorical research challenging the utility of the concept. In 1970, anthropologist J. Clyde Mitchell wrote:

The tribe, a long respected category of analysis in anthropology, has recently been the object of some scrutiny by anthropologists … Doubts about the utility of the tribe as an analytical category have almost certainly arisen out of the rapid involvement of peoples, even in the remotest parts of the globe, in political, economic and sometimes direct social relationship with industrial nations. The doubts, however, are based ultimately on the definition and meaning which different scholars give to the term ‘tribe’, its adjective ‘tribal’, and its abstract form ‘tribalism’.^[6]

Despite the membership boundaries for a tribe being conceptually simple, in reality they are often vague and subject to change over time. In his 1975 study, The Notion of the Tribe, Fried provided numerous examples of tribes that encompassed members who spoke different languages and practiced different rituals, or who shared languages and rituals with members of other tribes. Similarly, he provided examples of tribes in which people followed different political leaders, or followed the same leaders as members of other tribes. He concluded that tribes in general are characterized by fluid boundaries, heterogeneity and dynamism, and are not parochial.^[7]

Part of the difficulty with the term is that it seeks to construct and apply a common conceptual framework across diverse cultures and peoples. Different anthropologists studying different peoples therefore draw conflicting conclusions about the nature, structure and practices of tribes. Writing on the Kurdish peoples, anthropologist Martin van Bruinessen argued, «the terms of standard anthropological usage, ‘tribe’, ‘clan’ and ‘lineage’ appear to be a straitjacket that ill fits the social reality of Kurdistan».^[8]

There are further negative connotations of the term «tribe» that have reduced its use. Writing in 2013, scholar Matthew Ortoleva noted that «like the word Indian, [t]ribe is a word that has connotations of colonialism.»^[9] Survival International says «It is important to make the distinction between tribal and indigenous because tribal peoples have a special status acknowledged in international law as well as problems in addition to those faced by the wider category of indigenous peoples.»^[10]

Present-day[edit]

Few tribes today remain isolated from the development of the modern state system. Tribes have lost their legitimacy to conduct traditional functions, such as tithing, delivering justice and defending territory, with these being replaced by states functions and institutions, such as taxation, law courts and the military. Most have suffered decline and loss of cultural identity. Some have adapted to the new political context and transformed their culture and practices in order to survive, whilst others have secured legal rights and protections.

Fried proposed that most surviving tribes do not have their origin in pre-state tribes, but rather in pre-state bands. Such «secondary» tribes, he suggested, developed as modern products of state expansion. Bands comprise small, mobile, and fluid social formations with weak leadership. They do not generate surpluses, pay no taxes, and support no standing army. Fried argued that secondary tribes develop in one of two ways. First, states could set them up as means to extend administrative and economic influence in their hinterland, where direct political control costs too much. States would encourage (or require) people on their frontiers to form more clearly bounded and centralized polities, because such polities could begin producing surpluses and taxes, and would have a leadership responsive to the needs of neighboring states (the so-called tribes of the United States or British India provide good examples of this). The British favored the label «aboriginal tribe» for some communities.

India adopted a republican constitution in 1950, after three years of debate in its Constituent Assembly. During the debate, Jaipal Singh, a member of Munda tribe from Central India advocated for special provisions for the ‘Adibasi’ — a translation into Hindi of ‘aboriginal’. His arguments proved persuasive. These communities were to have seats in the legislatures and positions in government employment ‘reserved’ for them.^[11] Each of the prepared a list of communities that deserved special protections. These names were listed in a «Schedule» (appendix) to the Constitution. So these came to be called the ‘Scheduled Tribes’, often abbreviated to ST.^[12]

Second, bands could form «secondary» tribes as a means to defend against state expansion. Members of bands would form more clearly bounded and centralized polities, because such polities could begin producing surpluses that could support a standing army that could fight against states, and they would have a leadership that could co-ordinate economic production and military activities.

In the Native American tribes of North America, tribes are considered sovereign nations, that have retained their sovereignty or been granted legal recognition by the federal government.^[1][13]

See also[edit]

Notes[edit]

References[edit]

• Benveniste, Émile (1973). Indo-European Language and Society, translated by Elizabeth Palmer. London: Faber and Faber. ISBN 0-87024-250-4.
• Benveniste, Émile (1935). Origines de la formation des noms en indo-européen.
• Fried, Morton H. (1975). The Notion of Tribe. Cummings Publishing Company. ISBN 0-8465-1548-2.
• Helm, June, ed., (1968). Essays on the Problem of Tribe, Proceedings, American Ethnological Society. Seattle: University of Washington Press.^{[ISBN missing]}
• James, Paul (2006). Globalism, Nationalism, Tribalism: Bringing Theory Back In. London: Sage Publications.
• James, Paul (2001). «Relating Global Tensions: Modern Tribalism and Postmodern Nationalism». Communal/Plural. 9 (1): 11–31. doi:10.1080/13207870124780. hdl:1885/41671.
• Nagy, Gregory (1990). Greek Mythology and Poetics, Cornell University Press. Chapter 12, beginning on p. 276, explores the meaning of the word origin and social context of a tribe in ancient Greece and beyond.
• Sutton, Imre (1975). Indian Land Tenure: Bibliographical Essays and a Guide to the Literature. Clearwater, NY: Tribe. pp. 101–02, 180–82, 186–87, 191–93.^{[ISBN missing]}
• Renfrew, Colin & Paul G. Bahn (2008). Archaeology: Theories, Methods and Practice. New York: Thames and Hudson^{[ISBN missing]}

External links[edit]