Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site gloria.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!rochester!rocksanne!sunybcs!gloria!colonel
From: colonel@gloria.UUCP (Col. G. L. Sicherman)
Newsgroups: net.nlang.africa
Subject: Re: tribes
Message-ID: <755@gloria.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 19-May-85 21:24:19 EDT
Article-I.D.: gloria.755
Posted: Sun May 19 21:24:19 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 24-May-85 07:25:53 EDT
References: <906@hou2h.UUCP> <729@ssc-vax.UUCP> <735@gloria.UUCP> <25960@lanl.ARPA>
Organization: North American Veeblefetzer, Inc.
Lines: 40

> > A tribe is a social unit organized by direct communication--for example,
> > face-to-face speech.  The "nations" of the world have discarded tribalism
> > for central nationalism, which is organized by print communication.
> > Electronics is undoing this, and promises to organize the whole world into
> > one big "tribe."
> 
> American Heritage Dictionary:
> 
> tribe 1. A social organization or division comprising several local
> villages, bands, lineages, or other groups and sharing a common
> ancestry, language, culture, and name.
> 2. A group having a common distinguishing characteristic.  [<L _tribus_,
> division of the Roman people.]

We all seem to have different ideas of what "tribe" means.  The
original question (I think) was whether membership in a "tribe" is
inferior to membership in "civilization."

As for the American Heritage Dictionary, dictionaries deal with usage
rather than understanding.  Definition 2 does not bear on the
discussion.  Definition 1 has some weaknesses; for example, a "common
name" tells us nothing about the nature of tribalism.  Can the world
become a tribe?  It has a common ancestry (Adam and Eve or Java Man,
whichever you like), and is developing a common culture.

Why do some people form tribes and others form countries?  Ethnicity
is not the issue.  In fact, most "ethnic groups" in the U.S. are
actually grouped by national origin.

By the way, my Merriam-Webster Collegiate gives six definitions, of
which the most pertinent is:

	"3. More loosely, any aggregation of people, esp. in a
	primitive or nomadic state, believed to be of a common
	stock and acting under a central authority, as of a chief."

I think this is far more precise than the A.H.'s definition.
-- 
Col. G. L. Sicherman
...{rocksvax|decvax}!sunybcs!colonel