Re: REPLY: tribal/ethnic/lang. )
Harold Marcus (ethiopia@hs1.hst.msu.edu)
Sat, 17 Jun 1995 13:15:18 -0400
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 1995
From: Fikru N Gebrekidan <gebrekid@student.msu.edu>
Although I find the discussion on ethnicity intriguing, I still think the
persistent use of the term "tribe" regressive. I would like to refer you to a
work by Vail and others, the Creation of Tribalism, in which the
authors argue
convincingly that the categorization of Africans by "tribal identity" was a
purely colonial phenomena. So the fact that many Africans refer to themselves
as "tribe" does not make our use of that term valid. It only shows how
entrenched colonial influence is in the minds of many Africans.
In any case, the term "tribe" has become outdated in mainstream academia both
in Africa and abroad. Even BBC, the mother of all African stereotypes, no
longer uses that word in its broadcasting. Missionaries, explorers and
colonial
officials have been the source of Western miseducation of Africa. The
question
that faces many upcoming American and European Africanists today is that
whether they should perpetuate old stereotypes and misperceptions as
they engage in epistemological discussion or whether they should become
catalysts
of change by challenging Africa's misrepresentation.
Fikru> > ----------
Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Wed, 14 Jun 1995 > From: GuyRille@aol.com
>
> Thank you, Chris Lowe, for your very relevant remarks. I realize I must have
> taken the term "tribe" for granted, or as you pointed it out quite right
> that I was using a shorthand for saying "the indigenous term which often
> gets translatedas "tribe" in English. Given the fact that many Africanists fee
l
> uncomfortable with the term "tribe", its use is not adequate for the
> understanding of the process of self-identification of ethnic groups.
>
> In fact, the term "tribe" evokes less than what people of a certain ethnic
> group perceive themselves to be. I believe the term "tribe" on the one hand,
> and the components of ethnicity, peoplehood, on the other hand, refer to
> different aspects of identification. Only the totalizing tendencies inherent
> in European conceptualizations brought them together. The consequential
> confusion of both concepts has led to some misunderstandings.
>
> The use of the concept "tribe" to identify an ethnic group or a people
> and their "natural-appearing collective identities" (Chris' words) was in
> fact the result of a misleading attempt to bring together various elements
> characterizing a group of people. For instance, administrative, political,
> geographic aspects were associated with linguistic and cultural elements, in
> the sense that a certain language was spoken in a spoken in a particular
> region. Or a specific ethnic group that spoke a particular language,
> different from another one, was located and concentrated in a particular
> geographic region and had its own organization of life. In an attempt to be
> an encompassing concept, the European word "tribe" did nothing else than
> creating reductionist visions which underlied negative attitudes toward
> African languages and ethnic groups. Many in this discussion have pointed out
> that "tribe" was the way Europeans viewed African socio-political and
> geographic, ethnic and linguistic differentiating organizations. It is not
> the way African people perceive themselves.
>
> I agree that the term "ethnic group" could be a better translation than
> tribe, provided that any reduction to a single aspect of identification be
> avoided.Am I speculating ? What do you think ?
>
> Guy-Maurille
>