Several years ago I was at an interdisciplinary retreat. ![]() I would like to comment on this issue from a slightly different perspective. Perhaps we should continue to approach the question/issue from different case studies-to the people themselves. But, I *am* aware that it's not as easy a question/issue to settle as some might think. So, the question is: who do I be true to in my work? Academics who trash the term? Or, the people(s) who themselves embrace the term in translation without the baggage that others load it down with? I'm not saying I have the answer. "We are *not* an 'ethnic group.' We are a 'tribe.' Call us a 'tribe.'" Most of the people I worked with in East Africa cringed when I translated "kabila" into anything other than "tribe." Yet, what (post-)post-modern fieldworker hasn't been challenged by informants/friends/research assistants in Africa to adopt the term "tribe." Yes, it's a post-colonial translation thing. In response to the dialogue on "tribe"-yes, perhaps it is best to "trash" the concept/term/meaning behind "tribe. About 15-20 years ago a couple of us published a piece in Ufahamu at UCLA/African studies on the concept tribe and why it should be trashed. Before colonial subjugation peoples were termed nations, after conquest they became "tribes" and in the modern American context, some native Americans seek tribal status to make some advance in getting special rights, like gambling, but as long, only as long as they accept their own subordination. Tribe refers to a subordinated population.i.e., a tributary.who appears before a tribunal to pay his tribute or contribution (under duress). Yes, Ethnic or cultural group is vastly better. Subject: REPLY: tribal/ethnic/language groupsįrom: Richard Lobban, Rhode Island College ![]() Organization: East Tennessee State University ![]() Reply-To: H-NET List for African History
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |